Legends & Labyrinths

[Username17]

(looks at the Tome series, filled with abilities that require checks to use them)

You'll need post some examples. I just checked the fighter, and it has all of one ability that requires a roll at all. That being said,if you do find examples of what's being discussed, it might result in changes to the Tomes; the contributors to the Tomes don't consider it perfect.

Pretty much this. Also, when we're talking about something that is a level appropriate ability, recall that most abilities that are level appropriate actually have a (possibly opposed) skill check, a save, or an attack roll. Meaning that they already have a failure chance. If you add another one, they would be worse, pretty much by definition.

Charm Monster is a very powerful spell. It's one of the best spells in the game, but if you made the player make an attack roll before the target made a save, players would switch to preparing flashburst or solid fog, or one of the numerous other spells that are level appropriate and don't have additional failure points grafted on for no reason.

So really what we have here is a system where the design intent of these combat maneuvers is that they will generate effects that are less impressive than level appropriate spells and work less often and have shorter range. And in exchange for that, they will be available an unlimited number of times to all characters. So this represents a minor boost to Wizards (who now have at-will access to substandard spell equivalents when none of their spells would apply), and a huge kick in the nuts to Warriors of all stripes (because they don't have access to worthwhile abilities to use instead of these at-will cantrips).

If you were introducing this system to a system where the primary protagonists were already War Blades and Wizards, I wouldn't really care. Giving out substandard at-wills to everyone for them to fall back on when their awesome and level appropriate maneuvers ran out or didn't apply would be reasonable. It wouldn't come up very often, but would be a neat piece of system mastery that people could have. But doing that when half the characters don't have something level appropriate to do on any round is insulting.

-Username17

[Maxus]

Well, the Thief-Acrobat has several abilities keyed to making a skill check (shadow tumble, anyone?).

A few of the scaling feats have some abilities like that (the Sharp-Eyed one, which a spot check against someone's AC to ignore the AC).

Can't think of much else off the top of my head.

[DSMatticus]

About stunts themselves: what is the point of the extra roll? Saving throws are essentially a check from another direction; you could have, for instance:

Those were all tied to BAB instead of skills, which takes stunts out of the hands of rogue-likes and casters. Though, those classes probably won't use stunts anyway, since they have better options every round.

However, this just feels like a copped "at-will ability" from 4E.

Improved trip is an "at-will ability," as are all the other 3.5 special attacks. This system emulates all those abilities (though, most of them sucked), and just ties them to something other than BAB (a skill).

Charm Monster is a very powerful spell. It's one of the best spells in the game, but if you made the player make an attack roll before the target made a save, players would switch to preparing flashburst or solid fog, or one of the numerous other spells that are level appropriate and don't have additional failure points grafted on for no reason.

What if charm monster got a DC bonus at the same time? If you know what you're doing, you can balance a two-roll ability and not have it suck. Now, in this case you're right. We can't predict the failure chance of a skill check at any given level, because 3.5's skill checks are broken, so we can't decide a reasonable amount to change the save DC by. Stunts pretty much have to be auto-successes (DC 5).

If you're only seeing 16 rounds of combat in a day and the wizard is free to dedicate all of their spells to combat utility, 3rd Edition is going to break open like a ripe melon by mid-to-high levels.

That's seriously pretty normal. The game is 'balanced' around 4/encounters a day and each one is lucky to last 5 rounds. 20 rounds of combat on average per day is on the generous side of average.

And when you say things like 'free to dedicate,' that doesn't make any sense. We're operating from the goal: "I want to win combats," because combat is really the only thing the fighter can theoretically contribute to besides climb and jump or whatever. So operating from there, would you choose a fighter who can do 20 trips (then the combat day stops), or a wizard who can do 16 save-or-be-screwed's?

Now you hint at the fact that the wizard has utility spells taking up those slots, but that's kind of a moot issue. Because let's just rephrase: would you rather have 2 wizards, or 1 wizard and 1 fighter? 1 wizard in each case can cover the exact same amount of utility, and then the second wizard goes all combat and is a strictly superior choice to the fighter unless you run ultramarathon days where the players fight for 30-40 rounds.

Honest question: Do you really feel that wizards in your 3E campaign would not have their power increased if they had no daily limit on the number of spells they could cast?

This is also completely pointless. We are talking about a specific balance point: 4/encounters per day, and the average encounter lasts a few rounds. Giving casters infinite spells means two things: 1) they can always use their best spell, never eventually running down to weakest. But keep in mind even their weakest is better than a combat stunt, so their best blows the fighter out of the water, and 2) they have as many encounters per day as they want, because the casters never run out of spells.

This is basically saying, "maybe there's a problem between fighters and wizards in the 4/encounter workday, but hey, it could be worse."

Edit: Though I'm not really interested in continuing the fighter v wizard debate. That's been done to death, and 3.5 and pathfinder have shown that you can have that particular balance problem and people will still play.

[liquid150]

While trip and other special attacks are, indeed, at-wills, they at least make sense within the context of combat.

Using a Jump check to perform something equal to a special attack makes no sense. Hell, using diplomacy or bluff checks to convince them to do something in combat also makes no sense. I don't give a fuck how good you are at bluffing or being diplomatic, telling an opponent to do something when they are engaged in combat shouldn't work, period, simply since it is counter-intuitive to the fact that your enemy has already made their decision that they would rather kill you than talk to you.

Yes, I know about diplomancer builds that can do shit like this as a standard action, or whatever action. I don't really give a shit about that. As a DM, I'd just simply tell the player "Fuck you, that doesn't work. Try something else." If a person makes a character centered entirely around the broken diplomacy skill, they need to reconsider their priorities.

Whether these mechanics mimic mechanics already in place is not relevant. Characters' abilities need to make sense within the context of the game world, and knocking somebody down by jumping, talking really fast, or tying a knot doesn't satisfy that requirement. Not even by strong ability to suspend belief would allow for this to happen in even a fantasy world.

[DSMatticus]

or tying a knot doesn't satisfy that requirement

What, you have trouble with the use rope skill providing a trip effect via lassoing their foot?

Or a sorcerer bluffing a fireball (supposing the enemy has already seen them cast one) that makes the opponent run for cover (20ft forced movement)?

Or a jump check to tackle someone and knock them prone and start a grapple?

You can be surprisingly creative with fluff. Even more creative than this, but these are just some examples of stunts I think you would say, "well, yeah, those make complete sense in the context of the game world."

[liquid150]

or tying a knot doesn't satisfy that requirement

What, you have trouble with the use rope skill providing a trip effect via lassoing their foot?

No, I have trouble with this only being a use rope check, and not something that already exists. Mechanics exist for this, and while they aren't all that great, we don't need more bad mechanics to make up for it. Especially when these types of actions are so weak in the first place.

Or a sorcerer bluffing a fireball (supposing the enemy has already seen them cast one) that makes the opponent run for cover (20ft forced movement)?

I find it more likely that the opponent would laugh and stab the sorcerer in the face for using something useless like fireball.

Or a jump check to tackle someone and knock them prone and start a grapple?

The mechanics already exist for this, we don't need more.

You can be surprisingly creative with fluff. Even more creative than this, but these are just some examples of stunts I think you would say, "well, yeah, those make complete sense in the context of the game world."

Fluff is fine, but being you shouldn't have to fluff, especially when mechanics already exist that accomplish the same, albeit weak, goal.

[Chamomile]

I don't give a fuck how good you are at bluffing or being diplomatic, telling an opponent to do something when they are engaged in combat shouldn't work, period, simply since it is counter-intuitive to the fact that your enemy has already made their decision that they would rather kill you than talk to you.

And climbing an oil-slicked wall in gale-force winds is just impossible. And giants have skin like steel, so don't even think you could possibly hurt one. Also, magic isn't real.

[liquid150]

I don't give a fuck how good you are at bluffing or being diplomatic, telling an opponent to do something when they are engaged in combat shouldn't work, period, simply since it is counter-intuitive to the fact that your enemy has already made their decision that they would rather kill you than talk to you.

And climbing an oil-slicked wall in gale-force winds is just impossible. And giants have skin like steel, so don't even think you could possibly hurt one. Also, magic isn't real.

Sorry that what I said was so confusing, I'll try to say it in "stupid" so that you get it.

It's fucking retarded and stupid. There are varying levels of retarded and stupid, and using diplomacy as a lolwutiwin button eclipses the level of retarded and stupid of everything that you have said. Not only is it retarded and stupid in the context of the fantasy world, but it is also retarded and stupid in the context of the metagame.

I didn't really think it was that complicated.

This is, of course, off topic, but it doesn't change the fact that the "stunts" rules basically substitute skill checks for other things that are already possible and make more sense than the stunt check rules themselves.

[DSMatticus]

use rope check, and not something that already exists...

Mechanics exist for this...

The mechanics already exist for this, we don't need more...

especially when mechanics already exist that accomplish the same...

Do you just fucking hate change for hating change's sake? Do you adhere to mechanics on a first-come, first-serve basis? We don't give a fuck if a mechanic already exists for X, we care which mechanic is better, either in terms of balance, playability, or use in creating interesting play experiences. Because we aren't grumpy old men whose world view is threatened by change.

A lot of the shit you said is of similar irrelevance. If you want to point out that X is mechanically inferior to Y, you're welcome to do so and it's easy in this particular instance because 3.5 skills are a joke. If you want to complain that it leads to a ridiculous case of Mother May I? with skills, that's completely true. If you want to point out that, in the worst case scenario, people use one skill to do all their combat moves and that's mechanically weird, you can make that argument but BAB and save DC's are a direct counter-example to this position. If you want to point out that, in the worst case scenario, people use one skill to do all their combat moves and that makes for weird play experiences, you can very easily do so by pointing out the climb skill and asking "how the hell do you explain all this shit?"

But what you can't do is say, "I don't like it because it's different. Fuck that," which you just did like four times. That's retarded.

There are varying levels of retarded and stupid, and using diplomacy as a lolwutiwin button eclipses the level of retarded and stupid of everything that you have said.

Yes. Abilities where you talk at people and then defeat them by making them do things you want are totally out of place in D&D.

If your response is going to be "it's okay that magic does it, but being supernaturally talented at something has no place in D&D," I refer you back to Chamomile's fucking post, where climbing oil-slicked walls in gale-force winds is something that would require supernatural talents and can be done without magic in D&D, so supernaturally talented people already exist in D&D.

I also have no fucking idea how you take 3.5 combat stunts and think they are an "I win" button. You appear to be bitching about 3.5 diplomacy rules, and we are talking about L&L combat stunts. I can't understand how you might confuse the two.

[liquid150]

It has literally nothing to do with resistance to change. It has everything to do with the fact that the mechanics are stupid, sloppy, and result in (exactly as you said) a game of Mother May I.

I use multiple pages of house rules, but said house rules are made for a reason and address important errors in design. This system doesn't add anything of value. It only changes the medium through which weak effects are accomplished. It pointlessly brings in a ton of rules that add nothing and never end up getting used.

Most of this shit was already stated in the thread, and I didn't really think it needed to be revisited. I only expressed my opinion that the system sucks.

Yes, I was bitching about diplomacy, and yes I realize that was somewhat of a tangential issue and derailment. I did point that out, though, but whatever.

[CCarter]

Some random bitching.

As regards balancing the stunt system vs. spells: looking just at the preview I can't tell what action type a stunt is, so I don't know even how to compare balance - are these attack equivalent or standard action?
(e.g. if the stunt system is meant to replace 3.5s Trip/Disarm/etc system then it represents a substantial powerdown to some moves - the 6th level ranger dual-wielding sickles can only make 1 trip attack a round, instead of 4.

In other things:

*Favoured weapon as a fighter class feature meshes with fantasy literature, but typically works badly in D&D when you use it to make your Drizzit-clone dual scimitar fighter and then the best weapon you find is a flaming bastard sword. Unless magic weapons are reworked, or there's a magic item store nearby, a fighter needs the ability to use more than one weapon at peak efficiency.

*The level-balanced monster progression is 4th-editiony. If ability scores don't do anything for the monster, they're wasted space. Either do a 2nd ed. and have monsters that don't have stats at all, or they should have a meaningful effect, beyond just skill mods.

[Desdan_Mervolam]

Or a sorcerer bluffing a fireball (supposing the enemy has already seen them cast one) that makes the opponent run for cover (20ft forced movement)?

I find it more likely that the opponent would laugh and stab the sorcerer in the face for using something useless like fireball.

That's cute, what you did there. I mean, really. It's adorable, how you ignored his point entirely and decided instead to make a dig on fireball. Really.

[tussock]

It pointlessly brings in a ton of rules that add nothing and never end up getting used.

This is an eternal problem in game design. The official playtest group uses them, and the rules work for them, that's pretty clear from the blog.

But if most other groups find not using them makes the monsters die faster, it's not going to matter how cool your stunt rules are. That's how lots of mistakes slip past designers, they assume the game will be used a certain way and try to improve that, rather than testing aimed at destruction (4e skill challenges come to mind).

[hogarth]

Using a Jump check to perform something equal to a special attack makes no sense.

I don't think that's true. It's easy enough to imagine some enemy happens to be standing on the end of a loose board and Jumpy jumps on the other end and sends him flying into a fireplace, for instance. And that would be sort of cool.

But if that happens with every single attack in every single fight, that's just ridiculous, especially if everyone else in the party has some far-fetched ability that they're spamming every round. So the mechanics of the game shouldn't encourage that.

Outrageous stunts are like salt: A little bit in a dish is wonderful, but way too much is worse than none at all.

[fectin]

But the flipside is that Jumpy is boring to play. It's fairly trivial to break the RNG in more than one skill, so you probably end up with JumpRope McBluffDevicerson. And then you're coming up with crazy things that are entertaining all around, but mechanically all reduce to "save vs. being pushed".
That's neither boring nor broken, so I'm not sure what your issue is.

In fact, it seems like it helps solve Lago's complaint about DnD always being lethal.

[DSMatticus]

Jumpy is boring to play because his theme sucks. If we replace Jumpy with Bluffy, the guy who rolls his bluff skill every round of every combat (whereas the fighter rolls his BAB every round of every combat, or wizards who apply the same save mechanic every round), we have a pretty cool character theme; a sly-tongued devil who is so supernaturally talented at bluff that he can achieve unrealistic, supernatural effects of mid-combat confusion with sheer words. It's mechanically precedented, and not very different thematically from being a beguiler, except perhaps they can have a different source of their power instead of arcane learning. The same goes for the bard somebody mentioned earlier who musics at things and then stuff happens. That sounded kind of cool.

But yeah, the mechanic of being a one-roll character is something that's been validated time and time again. People will play that, and if there are sufficient options for things to do with that one roll, they'll never complain. If they're dumb enough (I wanna be a 3.5 fighter!) they won't even complain about having one thing to do with one roll.

[JustinA]

That's seriously pretty normal. The game is 'balanced' around 4/encounters a day and each one is lucky to last 5 rounds. 20 rounds of combat on average per day is on the generous side of average.

Ultimately, I think this is the key point of contention.

If you, unlike the original designers of D&D or even the original designers of 3E (based on what they actually wrote in the DMG and the evidence of the adventures they run and publish), believe that the game is balanced around 4 EL = APL encounters per day*, then it is likely that (a) you will be dismissive of non-combat play as an important aspect of play balance and (b) also believe that the game should be focused almost entirely on per-encounter balance. (It also seems to have a high correlation to people who think of the game as four solo adventures happening in close proximity to each other.)

Nothing wrong with that, of course. But it is a very narrow design ethos under which 3E will break down around mid-level play and collapse at high-level play.

(* The EL mechanic is ostensibly balanced around the concept of "you can survive 4 EL = APL encounters per day". It's a mistake, however, to believe that the D&D game = the EL mechanic.)

There may be ways to address these issues without tossing the baby out with the bathwater. (The baby, in this case, being pre-4E gameplay.) But, realistically, a game focused on providing a 100% compatible 3E experience isn't going to be the game to do that. It's beyond the scope of my portfolio. And while I think there's a legitimate niche for a game that presents the stripped-down, core gameplay of 3E while remaining 100% compatible with the full 3E ruleset -- a truly compatible BECMI to 3E's Advanced -- I don't really think there's any niche for yet another utopia-vision fantasy heartbreaker version of the game. There already exist lots of options for that in a lot of different flavors.

That may mean that L&L isn't the game for you. That's totally cool. I've tried to be pretty up-front about what L&L is going to be and what it isn't.

[Ikeren]

If you, unlike the original designers of D&D or even the original designers of 3E (based on what they actually wrote in the DMG and the evidence of the adventures they run and publish), believe that the game is balanced around 4 EL = APL encounters per day*, then it is likely that (a) you will be dismissive of non-combat play as an important aspect of play balance and (b) also believe that the game should be focused almost entirely on per-encounter balance. (It also seems to have a high correlation to people who think of the game as four solo adventures happening in close proximity to each other.)

Wait, what? This makes it really unclear to me whether you're trying to argue that there are supposed to be more than 4 encounters per day, or less. The line regarding non-combat play is important in game balance makes me think you're trying to emphasize roleplaying...but then you reference the modules that are published, which are almost entirely 10 encounter a day hackfests (Temple of Elemental Evil, World's Largest Dungeon, Rappan Athuk, etcetera).

So which game are you shooting towards? Dungeon crawls, or high RP with fewer than 4 combat encounters per day?

[DSMatticus]

dismissive of non-combat play

If we're going to discuss non-combat play, this is the fighter's class skills: Climb (Str), Craft (Int), Handle Animal (Cha), Intimidate (Cha), Jump (Str), Ride (Dex), and Swim (Str). This is the fighter's class features: bonus feat. The statistics that synergize with the things he does are str, dex, and con, all of which have much smaller play in non-combat than int, wis, or cha (with dex being a slight exception).

Introducing non-combat encounters as a consideration is just introducing encounters in which the fighter cannot contribute meaningfully at all past level 4-5, as an additional kick to the nuts of being continually less and less useful in combat.

unlike the original designers of D&D or even the original designers of 3E

Here's the DMG and some math.

Recommended encounter difficulty table (pg 49):
10%, easy, EL lower than party (let's assume EL-4)
20%, easy if handled properly, (let's assume net of EL-2)
50%, challenging, EL of party
15%, very difficult, EL 1-4 higher than party (assume EL+2)
5%, overwhelming EL5+ higher than party (assume +5)

(Pg 49 still) As stated in the actual DMG, an equal EL encounter consumes 20% resources. Additionally, it says if the EL is 2 less, you should be able to handle twice as many, so it consumes 10% resources. The halving repeats. Going upwards, it doesn't follow the same pattern, it says "even one or two levels higher than the party might tax the PCs to their limit," and "with luck, they might be able to take on two such encounters before needing to recover," so let's say 50% resources.

10% consume 5% resources
20% consume 10% resources
50% consume 20% resources
15% consume 50% resources (lowest possible number that really coincides with what they said, so this is the most generous interpretation)
5% consume 50% resources (again, most generous interpretation)
(.1)(.05)+(.2)(.1)+(.5)(.2)+(.15)(.5)+(.05)(.5) is the average resources consumed per encounter, and it comes out to 22.5%, as per the recommended DMG guidelines on how many encounters of each type to throw at the players AND the DMG predictions on how many resources each of those encounters will consume. Note that when they say resources, they are including hitpoints, healing spells, potions, and other restorative effects.

At 22.5% average resources consumed per encounter, that means after 4 encounters the party is pretty much completely depleted. According to the DMG. Exactly like I said.

[tussock]

Justin's got a big spiel somewhere about how encounters should be balanced.

Basically saying, IIRC, everything is more fun if you're two levels higher than the module suggests. Which makes for

30% consume 5% resources
50% consume 10% resources
15% consume 20% resources
5% consume 50% resources

and an average 12% resource use, 8 encounters per day, and around 25 per level. That fits within d20 rules, it just makes the assumed encounter level closer to AD&D's than 3e's. You can use any number of encounters per day and still be playing 3e, it's just fewer and harder encounters help casters more than grunts.

Something I add personally is that the highest level NPC you fight against should be the same level as the highest level PC.

[hogarth]

Justin's got a big spiel somewhere about how encounters should be balanced.

Basically saying, IIRC, everything is more fun if you're two levels higher than the module suggests. Which makes for

30% consume 5% resources
50% consume 10% resources
15% consume 20% resources
5% consume 50% resources

and an average 12% resource use, 8 encounters per day, and around 25 per level.

I'm looking forward to Justin explaining how, in his new game, a level 1 party will be tough enough to survive 8 encounters per day and yet the system will still be compatible with 3E where level 1 characters have to rest to recover HP early and often.

[Seerow]

Justin's got a big spiel somewhere about how encounters should be balanced.

Basically saying, IIRC, everything is more fun if you're two levels higher than the module suggests. Which makes for

30% consume 5% resources
50% consume 10% resources
15% consume 20% resources
5% consume 50% resources

and an average 12% resource use, 8 encounters per day, and around 25 per level. That fits within d20 rules, it just makes the assumed encounter level closer to AD&D's than 3e's. You can use any number of encounters per day and still be playing 3e, it's just fewer and harder encounters help casters more than grunts.

Something I add personally is that the highest level NPC you fight against should be the same level as the highest level PC.

Doesn't that also create 8 piss easy encounters per day? I mean, even at CR=EL even most weak PCs can handle an on level encounter solo. At EL-2, you could just let the melee guys beat the monster in and end up with almost no resources expended. That's fine if it comes up occasionally, but 10% of encounters being EL-6 and 20% at EL-4 is going to create a pretty big snooze fest. Does anyone actually enjoy taking out a pair of orcs at level 7? Because that's basically what this is saying should happen 1 out of every 10 encounters. And then a brown bear would be your equivalent of an EL-4 at that level, and things along that power level is expected to come up 20% of the time.

I'm showing this point out just how easy those encounters actually are. You can have an unoptimized Fighter tear through each of those in one round at level 7. You're not actually draining any resources of the party because the challenge isn't enough to get the caster's attention and make them waste their effort. Basically all it does is force the party go slog through a bunch of useless weak encounters. At most they're costing you a charge from your wand of lesser vigor, but even that isn't particularly likely.

[violence in the media]

Doesn't that also create 8 piss easy encounters per day? I mean, even at CR=EL even most weak PCs can handle an on level encounter solo. At EL-2, you could just let the melee guys beat the monster in and end up with almost no resources expended. That's fine if it comes up occasionally, but 10% of encounters being EL-6 and 20% at EL-4 is going to create a pretty big snooze fest. Does anyone actually enjoy taking out a pair of orcs at level 7? Because that's basically what this is saying should happen 1 out of every 10 encounters. And then a brown bear would be your equivalent of an EL-4 at that level, and things along that power level is expected to come up 20% of the time.

I'm showing this point out just how easy those encounters actually are. You can have an unoptimized Fighter tear through each of those in one round at level 7. You're not actually draining any resources of the party because the challenge isn't enough to get the caster's attention and make them waste their effort. Basically all it does is force the party go slog through a bunch of useless weak encounters. At most they're costing you a charge from your wand of lesser vigor, but even that isn't particularly likely.

This.

Personally, I still include encounters with weak creatures in games I run, but most of the time I just say "you win" if the party decides to engage them and there's no other mitigating difficulties.

[JustinA]

Wait, what? This makes it really unclear to me whether you're trying to argue that there are supposed to be more than 4 encounters per day, or less. The line regarding non-combat play is important in game balance makes me think you're trying to emphasize roleplaying...but then you reference the modules that are published, which are almost entirely 10 encounter a day hackfests (Temple of Elemental Evil, World's Largest Dungeon, Rappan Athuk, etcetera).

So which game are you shooting towards? Dungeon crawls, or high RP with fewer than 4 combat encounters per day?

I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here. The factual errors (like claiming that Rappan Athuk was created by either Jonathan Tweet, Monte Cook, or Skip Williams) are pretty plentiful. The points where you're apparently trying to disagree with me by vehemently agreeing with me are confusing (when the game's creators keep designing modules featuring more than 4 expected encounters per day, that's exactly what I'm talking about when I say that the published adventures don't support the 4 EL = APL encounters per day model). And the loaded question predicated on a strawman at the end just leaves me shrugging my shoulders.

Justin's got a big spiel somewhere about how encounters should be balanced.

Basically saying, IIRC, everything is more fun if you're two levels higher than the module suggests.

Linky. Which refers back to "Revisiting Encounter Design".

It was the response to these pieces that made me realize just how thoroughly encounter-based design had replaced scenario-based design in some segments of the D&D player base. (Actually, the implied dichotomy here is over-stated: Optimized, intense encounters are an important part of scenario-based design. They just aren't the only part of it.)

Introducing non-combat encounters as a consideration is just introducing encounters in which the fighter cannot contribute meaningfully at all past level 4-5, as an additional kick to the nuts of being continually less and less useful in combat.

This is based on the assumption that every PC is a special snowflake that needs a spotlight shone on them at all times. That's not an assumption I really buy into.

Fighters don't need to be the most effective contributors to non-combat encounters in order for the non-combat encounters to draw sufficient attention from the wizard that the wizard can't dedicate all their spells to combat.

With that being said, the fighter's biggest problem is that his high-level toys got taken away in 2nd Edition.

See, in OD&D a high-level wizard got some pretty awesome spells. But a high-level fighter got a barony, a castle, and followers. In 2nd Edition the fighter lost his barony, but the wizard got to keep his spells.

So, IME, the fighter tends to work pretty well up to mid-level play (assuming that their DM hasn't completely fetishized the "all encounters must be epic encounters" meme). Their success in mid-level play becomes very situational-dependent. And they tend to fall on their faces once you hit high-level play.

[Ikeren]

Re: Rappan Athuk: Sorry, I wasn't paying enough attention to distinguish between "Original Designers" and "Typical Publishers." The critique I was trying to raise regarding numbers of encounters per day was better raised in the 5 posts following it, so I'll leave it to that.