D&D is a cooperative RPG

[Novembermike]

Sadly many people don't understand D&D as you have shown, and sadly still for them...they just shouldnt be playing it. I know you want to be part of the in-crowd and say you are playing D&D, but find something you understand how to do instead. D&D is just a bit too complex for people like yourself.

DnD's actually pretty simple. It's pretty much just addition, subtraction and probabilities moving in 5% increments. Playing a caster is often even easier than playing melee because you don't have to care about movement as much and you generally have more good options, and you only have to select a good option to be successful, not the best option.

[Almaz]

they were balancing screen time over the course of a _campaign_

Finally someone gets it! The riddle of steel has been solved!

I always knew it. But the riddle itself is wrong.

The problem is that this is a bad design for any game that isn't "the thing that happened in Gary Gygax's place at Lake Geneva." I am not saying that the magic of the original game cannot be reproduced, but not everyone who plays D&D either can or is interested in doing so, and D&D hasn't been marketed just to the guys at Gary Gygax's table for over 20 years. Nowadays we have gamers who do not even comprehend the mode of play you are advocating because it has not existed in theory or practice since before their birth. Like Latin, people speak it, but it's still a dead language. Neither should everyone stop what they're doing and suddenly speak Latin, which is what advocating cooperation over the course of a campaign all else essentially is - it's no longer relevant to the times, and maybe it was never relevant to anyone who wasn't Rome. You cannot guarantee that the mage will have their day to shine. You cannot guarantee that the fighter will be played at the levels that he still matters.

In the real world, your campaign time is unpredictable. For our purposes, we might as well assume that the players are doing so right before a meteor hits their town on the next day, in full awareness that there is nothing they can do to escape its impact radius and they have for some bizarre reason chosen to play RPGs rather than anything else (hey, maybe they really love gaming). Because honestly there is nothing guaranteeing that any of the players survive to the next session. And while participating in an ongoing campaign is not something we should ignore entirely, most gamer groups face a very real scenario that for at least one person, the game may end forever the moment you stop playing.

People move. People get hired. People get fired. People graduate. People just don't show up. New people show up. Groups agree to stop on the happy ending, or simply because they're bored. The players cannot be assumed to remain static, and not all circumstances that would sideline or end an RPG are predictable. Indeed, there must be a reason for a character to be played every session that is potentially rewarded within that session, and it must be roughly as compelling as the reason for the rest of the characters, or there is no reason for that character to appear that session.

Because there simply may not be a season 2 of Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit.

Anyways, I have posted enough on this subject and will stop sidetracking the discussion. I yield the stage to you, Echo. *tips hat* Tally ho and good luck.

[echoVanguard]

I really don't think there is any more to be said on the subject, to be honest.

echo

[shadzar]

For the purpose of clarity, I'd like to set the ground condition that we are discussing high-level play for the duration of this discussion, as that's where class balance issues are known to be the most severe.

For this sidetrek sure...

YOU dont know things about your opponent, but with D&D someone does. Tactics are not bound by a short list given in one place or another. Situations for one combat during the game are not the same for all, even if in similar or the same location. You never know what tactic will work, until you try it and let the dice decide (or whatever your random number method is) the results.

D&D is NOT defined by just 3.5, nor it is all contained within. We can discus it, but I know very little about a system I despise. Also note than many "claims" in 3.x is so that more people feel welcome to play it, rather than actually being made to work that way. Likewise claims in 2nd were made that didnt hold much water, as did 1st. Those claims being made, dont prove that they are correct, just marketing hidden in the "rules". Juggle around the numbers all you want, but juggling the numbers doesnt mean the game was made for 3 or fewer players. The very fact a special set of rules exists for 3 or fewer players, strengthens the fact that the game was made for minimum 4 in mind. If it were intended for less, then it would not require special conditions when using less.

"an equal-CR monster"...You are firmly in 3rd with that section, and I cannot speak for or about it much as I played it little, nor cared to read the mountain of wasted trees about it. Saying 3rd was messed up is not something I would argue with on ANY level. Nor is saying 3rd is messed up any indication that D&D is messed up, because it is not all that D&D is.

We will have to backtrack here on NPCs to 1st edition. The thing is that even though they could have PC classes etc, something was missing from 3rd that 1st and second had. Henchmen and hirelings. Those things helped balance out the player group from the opposition posed to them. Where they went or why, I cannot answer, but 3rd pretty much removed them. I can only assume the reason was that a PC should be able to do everything needed as part of the group, and you shouldnt need extra bodies that didnt have a real butt in a real seat. Failing to accept that with 3rd, could have been one of its problems with attempting its whole ECL/CR/whatever. While a hireling might not have done much damage, it provided something a lack of it does not...another target, a distraction, etc. While combatants may be important, the pack mule with all your gear and loot will be a prime target for an enemy to distract you with when it runs off. The party will have to consider it. Likewise all those hirelings of the PC group would pose as distractions for the BBEG as he may be unsure who the real party is. This is why the game being viewed in a vacuum doesnt really help, and 3rd was created from that perspective of viewing it in a vacuum and missed everything else that would be interacting with things. When so many dynamics of the game were changed, the ability to gloos over them and forget they had an impact on the game in 1st and 2nd was very easy for the designers of 3rd, which leads to MANY problems with the function of the game, as its SoD for many.

If the game is continuing the same way from combat to combat, then there is a problem the game cannot solve. That is the field of cooperation amongst the players to solve, as they are not really getting along. So when the same things happens from one combat to the enxt and so on...then it doesnt prove the game has a problem, but there is a misunderstanding somewhere. Is that misunderstanding a simple mistake form converting to one type of game to another with different objectives? Is it form one person knowingly trying to do something tor uin the fun of others or extend they fun at the expense of others? That is what you have to looka t. You cant jsut blame the game, but have to look at all possibilities, and most often people want to blame the game because they dont wish to admit they have a personal fault...or even personality flaw...or just flat out dont want to admit they dont understand D&D.

I like bolded sections...lets see what you got there....
"you agree that there are problems with third edition,"

Yes i agree there are problems with 3rd edition.

"but you think they are irrelevant to enjoyment of the game - or, to put it another way, you can have fun anyway."

OH HELL NO! I would rather have my teeth pulled out through my ass with rusty pliers than play 3rd edition. There isnt a snowballs chance I could have fun with 3rd, and balance is the least of the reasons...they are much more than this thread topic could cover.

The basic fighter v wizard argument came about in the mid-late 80's. People were playing 1st edition, Gary was still at TSR telling people thespianism didnt belong in D&D, and making egomaniac wizards for his own characters vis-a-vis a DMPC, basically playing the dungeon master character in games. People first looked at the game form the point of Gary making a game that served his purpose, but he didnt care to make anything that worked for others besides wizards. That was an old discussion form the time that didnt make it from BBS over tot he internet. Whether it was the first, it was one of many on the topic. ORiginally the focus of the argument was on the combat damage dealt by a wizard over a fighter...then as that was proven to be incorrect the argument was switched to be one of screen time, then as each facet of fighter v wizard was disproven that the wizard wasnt the bad guy and the game wasnt to blame...something new and never before deemed a problem would be thrown in.

I am not saying the game doesnt have problems, but for the most part they are irrelevant when played, in all editions, as intended as a cooperative group...including the 21st century editions of D&D that i despise. The biggest flaw in 3rd is not the removal of the costs of wizards to use spells, but the removal of DM power to say NO as the gaming philosophy was, and continues to be with 4th that a DM should "say YES". The system of checks and balances were removed when the balance in power was shifted from DM to player because the players dont feel the DM is cooperating with them, nor do they have to cooperate with the DM. The fight that is going on in recent editions that is causing the disparity is not one of the rules, but of who gets to make the rules for the table. That player agency stuff, that is proving to be a failure, rather than the games systems. Sadly I have little experience with 3rd and cannot go into the super high ECL.

But in general the wizard in each edition, prior to the abomination of 4th, does get gradually more powerful in what he can do, but that isnt something that is game breaking when the cooperation is still in tact. When the competition enters into it, all the cooperative efforts are lost and forgotten. Working together rather than viewing someone holding back to allow someone else spotlight, etc. If the character was made right to cooperate with the exact group of characters it was with in some fashion, there would be no holding back, but this optimal build thing is expected in some form so that the wizard or other character is not being built for the group to be a part of it, but inside a vacuum for just the one player. To borrow from comics... "With great power comes great responsibility."

I have not singled out an edition in general in the whole course, and have not hidden on these forums my disdain and disgust for 3rd. I even allow 4th to be grouped in with D&D, by name only, for the sake of the discussion. All have that one thing in common, and I think still it is being overlooked. Within D&D (all editions) the game is cooperative, and it is undeniable that many people play outside of the space of cooperative play and closer to competitive play. This happens in ALL editions. That is a problem that needs to be solved, before any others can be viewed. Alos people have to understand D&D in general, unlike Almaz, before you can even consider their arguments having any value.

Almaz basically stated, D&D is a silly idea. How can anyone take an argument about it seriously when the person doesnt like it to begin with?

Pleb as well has not shown actual cooperation was going on, when a problem occurred.

So basically what I am saying is, If the fighter v wizard problem in an edition is real, then show me how it does not work when used in the proper space. Dont take the fish out of the water and claim fish cant swim. Leave the fish in the water and show me how this fish cant swim. Leave D&D in the cooperative group playing over time space, and show me how things fail as they cooperate over an extended period of time.

So most of the problems I have ever seen have not shown that an actual problem exists in the game, not even char-ops, because the game is being taken out of its environment, or an element out of the game and examined, when the game isnt made to work perfectly for just one part, but as used over the whole of the parts. Basically the problems with screen time, or combat effectiveness, or narrative control come down to how the players are behaving (cooperating or not) as opposed to how the game provides options for them to use. You cant then blame the problem with a player on the game.

Can a 1st level fighter kick the 1st level wizards ass? Yes
Can the 30th level wizard kick the 30th level fighters ass? Yes
Are they meant to be fighting each other one on one? No

What were they doing over the rest of the levels? What were they doing when not in combat? Why are the players wanting their character to fight?

What is being done is saying football (american) is broken and doesnt work because the linebacker can sack the QB when they are the only ones in the field and beat him every time. The problem is, that isnt all the game is, so placing them in a vacuum doesnt prove anything other than this is what happens in that vacuum. The QB is never alone on the field, so an example placing him alone proves nothing of the game as a whole. Likewise the wizard an fighter in a vacuum, doesnt prove the game ha a flaw in it as they too are being placed in a vacuum as opposed to looking at how they are meant to work as a group over a period of time greater than the example of a single fight.

[shadzar]

Sadly many people don't understand D&D as you have shown, and sadly still for them...they just shouldnt be playing it. I know you want to be part of the in-crowd and say you are playing D&D, but find something you understand how to do instead. D&D is just a bit too complex for people like yourself.

DnD's actually pretty simple. It's pretty much just addition, subtraction and probabilities moving in 5% increments. Playing a caster is often even easier than playing melee because you don't have to care about movement as much and you generally have more good options, and you only have to select a good option to be successful, not the best option.

sure, what 5% increment do you apply to deciding who is playing the wizard?

Where do you place the increment to decide if you take this quest or another one?

What do you increment to tell when the game is over.

You are talkign about a tactical miniature wargame. You have explained DDM pretty good after a fashion, but with the exception of 4th edition, D&D is not a tactical miniature wargame.

You are missing a LOT of what D&D is on the basis of what is being published now.

[Plebian]

mouth-breathing Internet gladiators sissy-fighting to the DEATH.

but he's not arguing with you?

You are missing a LOT of what D&D is on the basis of what is being published now.

hey do me a favor and see how much of every edition's PHB is devoted to combat rules

oh shit you mean more than any other section? man, I guess D&D has always been primarily a game about tactical combat and only secondarily about RP

[shadzar]

they were balancing screen time over the course of a _campaign_

Finally someone gets it! The riddle of steel has been solved!

I always knew it. But the riddle itself is wrong.

The problem is that this is a bad design for any game that isn't "the thing that happened in Gary Gygax's place at Lake Geneva."

No, it is just a different type of game that some cannot comprehend. The lack of having a win condition confuses many. It is a major factor in MMOs that can elude the win condition long enough to keep people spending money on monthly fees. Once people find their win condition...the point at which they have done all they want to, then the game ends...they either start over and try something new, or the stagnant story being a singular MMO world ends the want to play it. Look at WoW and Rift. The "Realms shattering" incident was to provide new things to attract money.

Many people hear "game", and think there is a way to "win". D&D is the highest form of the concept, "it isnt if you win or lose, but how you play the game." So many people see no game if you cant win, and only kids play things to play.

So it is a bad design for a game that should have a win condition, but D&D doesnt have one and is something different that just cant be grasped by many...so they strive to add the win condition back in whatever method they can find to do so. They need a time limit, number of rounds, number of extra lives, something that resembles games as they know them. But D&D doesnt have those things as it is open-ended.

[Archmage]

I'm still waiting to hear how "you're just playing the game the wrong way" isn't the Oberoni fallacy reworded.

[echoVanguard]

Yes, I definitely stand by my assertion - there is literally nothing to be said further on the matter.

It's quite clear at this point that Shadzar is trying to prove that http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/M ... ticWizards is irrelevant to Dungeons and Dragons despite it being the core antecedent of the trope, and bases his arguments on norms, standards, and guidelines which have no basis in either statistics or philosophy. He also declares about 9/10ths of the way through the debate that his arguments only apply to editions that went out of print nearly a generation ago, and that all counterarguments are irrelevant because the DM can use his position to resolve any social problems that arise from class imbalance issues. It's not that he's wrong, per se, and he certainly shows a willingness to explore various aspects of the problem, but in the end the conversation is going to devolve to "you're wrong" "no, you are" because he keeps making the assertion that your argument is irrelevant regardless of what your argument is.

Incidentally, shadzar, I would strongly recommend that you put a line in your signature to the effect of "My posts refer only to AD&D 2E and prior editions". If you're not familiar with other editions of D&D, I respectfully submit that you should not comment upon them, for much the same reason a person only educated about the physics of the lumineferous ether should not post in threads about the theory of relativity.

echo

[echoVanguard]

As an aside, I do think the primary idea of this thread is worth investigating - the value of cooperation as an intangible in tabletop gaming - but shadzar's primary argument is that the opinions of other posters in this thread don't matter, which seems a little counterintuitive considering that he's essentially advocating cooperation by telling other people to shut up. I'd suggest that he start over with a new thread, lay out his premise a little more clearly, and take a little bit more cooperative stance.

echo

[Archmage]

Actually, I'm pretty sure shadzar isn't trying to "prove" anything. He's either constantly trolling or hopelessly stupid. I only really pay any attention to threads like these because sometimes kicking a hornet's nest and running away is occasionally funny.

[Novembermike]

sure, what 5% increment do you apply to deciding who is playing the wizard?

Where do you place the increment to decide if you take this quest or another one?

What do you increment to tell when the game is over.

You are talkign about a tactical miniature wargame. You have explained DDM pretty good after a fashion, but with the exception of 4th edition, D&D is not a tactical miniature wargame.

You are missing a LOT of what D&D is on the basis of what is being published now.

That stuff isn't DnD, that's the tea party. DnD is a set of rules for fantasy combat. There's a bunch of rules for other stuff like making speeches or playing a flute, but that stuff is bad enough that it's a trap.

[echoVanguard]

That stuff isn't DnD, that's the tea party. DnD is a set of rules for fantasy combat. There's a bunch of rules for other stuff like making speeches or playing a flute, but that stuff is bad enough that it's a trap.

Novembermike, on the other hand, is definitely trolling.

echo

[Archmage]

That stuff isn't DnD, that's the tea party. DnD is a set of rules for fantasy combat. There's a bunch of rules for other stuff like making speeches or playing a flute, but that stuff is bad enough that it's a trap.

Pre-3e, there are no rules for any of those things, either.

[hyzmarca]

What you are missing is that to be "working together" everyone needs to be able to contribute equally.

As long as you understand with that last bit that everyone is the players, NOT the characters. So they do NOT have to find a reason to be a team, as they already have it...to play the game. You are mixing the player and the character up.

You're missing the point by a wide mile. It isn't that wizards hog the spotlight. It's that any party that includes a fighter instead of an extra wizard is sub-optimal.

You seem to be assuming that the group must use the classic party of fighter-cleric-wizard-rouge. But doing so is sub-optimal. Replacing the fighter with a spellcaster is objectively better.

There is no logical reason for any player to create a fighter, ever. You can have a perfectly nice fighter-free game.More importantly, you'll complete high-level challenges more easily if your game is fighter-free. This isn't about the players, this is about the characters.

If chess had freeform party generation every sane player would stack his board with queens and knights.

In D&D, the Wizards are Queens, Fighters an Pawns. Any player who intentionally chooses to play a Fighter is hurting his party. He's the uncooperative attention whore, (or the incompetent noob) not the Wizard. Permitting a player to play a Fighter is harmful to a high level party.

The issue isn't that the wizard is some how uncooperative, it is that melee characters are not capable of keeping up and thus cannot cooperate as equals.


Cooperation begins at chargen, but there is little point in having a sub-optimal class that just traps the players who choose it.

[Novembermike]

That stuff isn't DnD, that's the tea party. DnD is a set of rules for fantasy combat. There's a bunch of rules for other stuff like making speeches or playing a flute, but that stuff is bad enough that it's a trap.

Novembermike, on the other hand, is definitely trolling.

echo

All that stuff he's talking about can be done in rules light. DnD has decent rules for combat and anything else is something I could make up in about an hour (roll d20, add a number and check that against some arbitrary value).

[shadzar]

What you are missing is that to be "working together" everyone needs to be able to contribute equally.

As long as you understand with that last bit that everyone is the players, NOT the characters. So they do NOT have to find a reason to be a team, as they already have it...to play the game. You are mixing the player and the character up.

You're missing the point by a wide mile. It isn't that wizards hog the spotlight. It's that any party that includes a fighter instead of an extra wizard is sub-optimal.

No you are missing the point by several light years. See what I bolded? That is your problem. You do NOT understand D&D because you are trying to confine it to combat, and then a singular combat. You are trying to make some optimized something, but you have no clue what you are optimizing for.

If the game you play is all about and only about combat, then you are optimizing for combat, but your entire group has failed, because D&D isnt made JUST for/about combat. Combat is but a part of it.

Maj made her presence and I never saw anyone answer her question from the bottom of around page 5. I would have loved her post form "Women in Gaming" to be here so some of you people could get the idea of what the part of D&D you are missing is...or was it her post in "what is good role-play"?

Tell me how you optimize your character to tell the story? I have said how the balance isnt broken for combat, because each combat isnt the same, not should it be. The attempt to optimize for something you have no idea what you are doing is the problem with that. But there is still more to the game. If you are creating a character just for the combat, you have already failed at making the character, because it should have been made for D&D which is more than combat.

Is the wizard "optimized" for D&D? Or is it optimized for a small part of D&D, and horribly deficient for the rest of the game?

Post like yours only further prove that people really don't know what D&D is, and why the designers have to keep changing it. Seriously, people like you are making me pity Mike Mearls.

Again this is a major reason I have a problem with the concept of min-maxing and such, because it greatly missed a large portion of the game, for people that try to do it, but fail to understand that the game wasnt made for that and is more than that. Thankfully fbmf seems to know what D&D is about, and can still play and have fun with min-maxed characters. Sadly many other people do not see the rest of D&D and think that min-maxing works outside of the game.

I wish I could find the post someone told me was on another forum by him that showed how Char-Ops was fun thought experiment, but not every character, even though being made legally, would work in a game...I think it was fbmf...it was someone from the Den.

Yes you can optimize a character for a function, but it doesnt mean that character will be of use to the group for the entire game. Like 4th edition, and its major problem, it is the focus solely on combat that people have no idea what D&D is. Yes it is in part about fighting stuiff, but that isnt all it is, and the game should NOT be made solely for that. Warhammer and MANY other games exist for that. D&D was made to get away from the armchair general. If you want to play armchair general then play a game made for it rather than trying to convert D&D back into it, either by rules changes via vocal presence on forums where the designers are, or just general misgivings about what D&D is to people that dont understand it. Might as well be saying that D&D is devil worshipping, when you describe it as something other than what it is...

Part game, part story-telling tool. D&D does not exist without both. Without one you jsut have a wargame, without the other you just have a campfire pass the story activity. You cant take it back to its separate parts, or it no longer is what it was. The thing that somehow found its way out of Gary and Dave arguments and got into the public's hands.

So please, by all means, what are you trying to optimize for D&D? Is it optimized for all parts of D&D, or have you failed creating hte character that becomes useless in other areas, and in the way of the other players?
(3rd maybe not so much since the amount of spells was tripled or not even a limit to uses in some fashion, and 4th has weird rituals.)

[Plebian]

No you are missing the point by several light years. See what I bolded? That is your problem. You do NOT understand D&D because you are trying to confine it to combat, and then a singular combat. You are trying to make some optimized something, but you have no clue what you are optimizing for.

the point of a good charop build is to be as awesome as possible in as broad as a way as possible. limiting yourself to only be good in a very narrow niche is about as un-charop as you can possibly get.

If the game you play is all about and only about combat, then you are optimizing for combat, but your entire group has failed, because D&D isnt made JUST for/about combat. Combat is but a part of it.

seriously, look at your AD&D PHB. just look at it. count how many pages are devoted to things that are only relevant in combat.

D&D has, and will always be, a very combat-focused tabletop. that's it's gig. some people roleplay more than others. this doesn't make the system itself about RP.

Tell me how you optimize your character to tell the story?

make a wizard

I have said how the balance isnt broken for combat, because each combat isnt the same, not should it be. The attempt to optimize for something you have no idea what you are doing is the problem with that. But there is still more to the game. If you are creating a character just for the combat, you have already failed at making the character, because it should have been made for D&D which is more than combat.

"every combat is different because you're killing slightly different things! how do you know what to do when you're killing yuan-ti instead of orcs, huh?!?"

Is the wizard "optimized" for D&D? Or is it optimized for a small part of D&D, and horribly deficient for the rest of the game?

nope it's pretty much optimized for the whole game

Post like yours only further prove that people really don't know what D&D is, and why the designers have to keep changing it. Seriously, people like you are making me pity Mike Mearls.

yeah I bet Mike really needs your pity, what with being lead designer of the biggest tabletop producer. man, sucks to be him.

Again this is a major reason I have a problem with the concept of min-maxing and such, because it greatly missed a large portion of the game, for people that try to do it, but fail to understand that the game wasnt made for that and is more than that. Thankfully fbmf seems to know what D&D is about, and can still play and have fun with min-maxed characters. Sadly many other people do not see the rest of D&D and think that min-maxing works outside of the game.

D&D has always been about murdering things and taking their stuff first and everything else second. claiming otherwise is just stupid, because RP isn't anything that any edition of D&D has done anything but say "hey the game can be more fun if you do this" for.

Yes you can optimize a character for a function, but it doesnt mean that character will be of use to the group for the entire game.

actually, like I said above, a good charop build is as good as possible in as broad of a range of areas as possible.

Like 4th edition, and its major problem, it is the focus solely on combat that people have no idea what D&D is.

claiming that your way of playing D&D is the ONE TRUE WAY is basically as stupid as it is possible to be.

Yes it is in part about fighting stuiff, but that isnt all it is, and the game should NOT be made solely for that. Warhammer and MANY other games exist for that. D&D was made to get away from the armchair general.

you're right, D&D was made for the armchair commando. because it's about small-unit tactics instead of strategic combat.

If you want to play armchair general then play a game made for it rather than trying to convert D&D back into it, either by rules changes via vocal presence on forums where the designers are, or just general misgivings about what D&D is to people that dont understand it. Might as well be saying that D&D is devil worshipping, when you describe it as something other than what it is...

jesus christ tapdancing on a pogo stick stop trying to say D&D is only what you enjoy about D&D. it's a goddamn rule system. it doesn't encourage RP any more than my cat encourages world peace.

Part game, part story-telling tool. D&D does not exist without both. Without one you jsut have a wargame, without the other you just have a campfire pass the story activity. You cant take it back to its separate parts, or it no longer is what it was. The thing that somehow found its way out of Gary and Dave arguments and got into the public's hands.

there is absolutely nothing about D&D that requires a story. it's purely optional; the system works just fine without it.

So please, by all means, what are you trying to optimize for D&D? Is it optimized for all parts of D&D, or have you failed creating hte character that becomes useless in other areas, and in the way of the other players?
(3rd maybe not so much since the amount of spells was tripled or not even a limit to uses in some fashion, and 4th has weird rituals.)

casters are perfectly capable of optimizing for every facet of any possible D&D game where magic exists, short of the DM fiat "herp derp antimagic field" plot device designed to throw martials a bone.

martials, however, have to bend the rules till they scream in agony to approach the level of utility, in and out of combat, as a caster. this is why the system is broken.

[Archmage]

shadzar is right. D&D is about storycraft and adventure. Combat is just a part of the game. We aren't seeing the whole picture.

Spellcasters contribute to the story by raising the dead, scrying, petitioning the gods for clues, flying over chasms, teleporting the team to the City of Brass, crafting magic items, animating sunken shipwrecks, binding demons, infiltrating the king's court with alter self, conjuring force fields, and building castles overnight.

Fighters contribute...what, again?

[shadzar]

Fighters contribute...what, again?

This come to where people say D&D is flawed and has no direction, but others see it as a boon that you can take it any direction.

D&D fits in sword and sorcery, low-fantasy, high-fantasy....it isnt just one. So when you decide to go high fantasy or high magic, then you take it in a direction you must make it fit into. Populating the world with thousands of wizards goes in the same direction that leads to elves taking over the world.

Why don't elves rule every D&D world with their high ability for magic? Because the old edition level limits.

How many long living elves were there that gained levels all the time? Not many when following the system of checks and balances of the game and a world that makes sense. Now some say that doesnt make sense as some elves probably didnt stop...but that is part of the hard game to make it work. Many do accept it.

Yes magic can do a lot of things, but again the restrictions magic used to have gave them balance. A single wizard with that kind of power of spell list isnt seen often, and when they are, someone fears them enough to keep them down.

In a game of lower magic...well wizards arent around every corner. You dont have ot play a fighter, you can play a wizard. But I havent seen a game where the fighter had no use in the game.

Does interrupting spells not happen in 3rd? In previous editions the fighter allowed the wizard to cast in the first place.

Again I dont know 3rd that well. Maybe someone wanting to say, as few have done, that 3rd is so screwed up...lay out the changes in wizards between 2nd and 3rd to see what the problem came from?

[Plebian]

oh, sure, you can possibly interrupt a caster by smacking him. you'd just better hope he doesn't have Stoneskin, Mirror Image, or any number of other defensive spells cast that negate your ability to actually get that hit in.

and Fighters will contribute something, sure. they just won't contribute on anything approaching the same level of a Wizard in any facet of the game that's not a DM fiat antimagic zone that's specifically targetted on making martials feel warm and fuzzy about themselves because, inside a specific set of circumstances, they're actually needed!

that's the flaw. any party-based cooperative game should not have choices where the players contribute such wildly different amounts to the game just because of their initial choices before they even start actually playing.

does this mean it's impossible to have fun in those systems? hell no. I had tons of fun in AD&D and 3e, but at the same time I don't try and ignore those flaws just because I had fun despite them.

[Archmage]

Casters did not significantly change. They have most of the same spells as in prior editions. If anything, utility and battlefield control has improved and evocation is much weaker due to increased HPs.

No matter what edition you are playing, the fighter's only "ability" is swording, so there is nothing he can contribute to the story that someone else couldn't have done instead.

[shadzar]

Casters did not significantly change. They have most of the same spells as in prior editions. If anything, utility and battlefield control has improved and evocation is much weaker due to increased HPs.

No matter what edition you are playing, the fighter's only "ability" is swording, so there is nothing he can contribute to the story that someone else couldn't have done instead.

Substantiate your claims about casters. Really? "swording" is all a fighter does?

Well that places your entire argument into the trash because you are just focusing on the game as combat, so further discussion cannot be taken serious until you understand the game is more than that.

Stop looking at the things in the bell jar, and notice the rest of the game, then come back with a full argument for your assumed problem.

[icyshadowlord]

Just out of curiosity, Shaz...what kind of argument are youu expecting here then? Fighters, in terms of RP, are usually just mercenaries or thugs. If you wanted to play a Knight in Shining Armor, the DM would probably tell you to pick a Paladin instead. Not because of combat abilities, but because of RP/Non-combat skills. Anyway, I am not going to pick sides here or anything. I'm just having the feeling that you want to hear about the RP aspects of D&D instead of the combat aspects with the way you talk right now.

[Archmage]

How about you explain what unique abilities you think fighters have to contribute to the story?