The Gaming Den

At what point do PHB Fighters become inconsequential due to the limits of their martial limits?

At that point, I would suggest making a PrCs, ones which only prerequisite is being a Fighter of that level and go do... something. Go swim in the river styx to get Achilles like invulnerability. Get friendly with some Outsiders to get some kind of thematic weaponry as a class feature. Slay a dragon, bathe in its blood, come out bad ass. Slay a demon, bathe in its blood, come out bad asser.

How to implement it:
1. Just lay those PrCs and hope people figure it out.
2. Make them class features for the Fighter.
3. When the Fighter starts to get inconsequential, end it. Level 20, what's that?

The thing is it's not only a "fighter" problem it also goes for most of the martial classes (Ranger, paladin, barbarian, monk). Hell the monk get superpowers and still mostly sucks. So making only fighter PRCs isn't really solving the problem.

Well then make PrCs for them too, coinciding for when they become inconsequential.

Edit: Or use Tome.

Tome martial classes are kind of boring, though. They don't really go through any transformative plot-changing advancement unlike spellcasters, though. I mean, it's cool and all that Fighters can stand toe-to-toe with almost anything now but their basic schtick at level 16 is about the same as they had at level 1 unless they're loaded to the gills with magical items.

Oh, then PrCs all the way then?

Lago PARANOIA wrote:Fighters...basic schtick at level 16 is about the same as they had at level 1

That's more of a selling point than a complaint to me. I've always been a fan of playing characters with the mentality "see badguy, hit badguy". That's why 4e rubbed me raw-it tried to turn the beaters into casters. I think that my group has moved past our little foray there and I'm ready to try out Frank and K's Tomes-I have a friend who has a total nerdcrush on their work so he'll be thrilled.

That's more of a selling point than a complaint to me.

Why? Do you enjoy having to have your fighter carried around in a handbag to the site of the battle while the wizards are doing all of the cool shit like forging artifact swords and opening portals to demon realms and creating cities from scratch and turning invisible while you stealth-raid the Storm Giant castle and resurrecting long-dead princesses for a happy ending?

I sure don't.

Killometer wrote:That's why 4e rubbed me raw-it tried to turn the beaters into casters.

I think you have that backwards. I hate 4E because it turns casters into beaters. Fighters still do the same shit they used to do--swing around a sword non-stop and let the DM lead them by the nose to the plot-winning MacGuffin. They just call their sword swings different names now. But their overall effect on the plot is the same as its always been.

It's just that now casters can't do anything but blast, either.

Lago PARANOIA wrote:

That's more of a selling point than a complaint to me.

Why? Do you enjoy having to have your fighter carried around in a handbag to the site of the battle while the wizards are doing all of the cool shit like forging artifact swords and opening portals to demon realms and creating cities from scratch and turning invisible while you stealth-raid the Storm Giant castle and resurrecting long-dead princesses for a happy ending?

I sure don't.

Actually, yeah, I do. I play for the fighting (and for the being rude to NPCs). You can add all the colorful descriptions you want when you're forging that sword or opening that portal, but you're still just a blacksmith or a taxi to me.

Killometer wrote:That's why 4e rubbed me raw-it tried to turn the beaters into casters.

I think you have that backwards. I hate 4E because it turns casters into beaters. Fighters still do the same shit they used to do--swing around a sword non-stop and let the DM lead them by the nose to the plot-winning MacGuffin. They just call their sword swings different names now. But their overall effect on the plot is the same as its always been.

It's just that now casters can't do anything but blast, either.

Except now everytime I swing my sword it's like casting a spell. I don't want to pick a target, then pick a power, then calculate effects. That's playing a caster, in my eyes. I just want to walk up to my opponent and whonk them as hard as I can.

So, we had this discussion ad nauseam. I don't mean to sound self-centered, but how'z-a-bout the merits of my sugestion? And your own suggestions to it too.

Killometer wrote:Actually, yeah, I do. I play for the fighting...Except now everytime I swing my sword it's like casting a spell. I don't want to pick a target, then pick a power, then calculate effects. That's playing a caster, in my eyes. I just want to walk up to my opponent and whonk them as hard as I can.

I was actually waiting for someone to make an argument along these lines, not because I agree with it, but because it was inevitable that it would come up again. It's essentially the shadzar argument (or so I'm calling it, since he made it, in some form), which amounts to:

1) Some classes are "simple" to play. Others are "complicated."
2) Fighters are simple. Casters are complicated.
3) Some people don't want to play complicated characters, just simple ones.

Therefore, the game needs to contain "simple" character classes, like a basic fighter class that does nothing but hit stuff with a sword.

Honestly, if someone thinks it's somehow too complicated to say "I use twin strike" over "I hit it with my sword again," this forum is not likely to be their cup of tea, because designing games for those people is boring. Interesting games, RPGs included, ought to involve strategic and creative thought.

If you want to play a simple, casual game that doesn't require any intellectual effort, D&D probably isn't the right fit.

God_of_Awesome wrote:So, we had this discussion ad nauseam. I don't mean to sound self-centered, but how'z-a-bout the merits of my sugestion? And your own suggestions to it too.

I personally like option #1-just lay it out there and give the player the choice. I don't think that PrCs should be required, and how would you justify limiting a core class to less than the full 20 levels, and what would be the threshold for cutting it off? I do like the idea of tying PrCs into a significant side-quest; that can help keep a character unique and memorable.

Archmage wrote: Honestly, if someone thinks it's somehow too complicated to say "I use twin strike" over "I hit it with my sword again," this forum is not likely to be their cup of tea, because designing games for those people is boring. Interesting games, RPGs included, ought to involve strategic and creative thought.

If you want to play a simple, casual game that doesn't require any intellectual effort, D&D probably isn't the right fit.

I'm okay with at-wills (inasmuch as I'm okay with 4e); what I have a problem with is the 45 years of discussion it takes to coordinate dailies, and stacking bonuses and on-going effects to make sure they hit and blahdeblahdeblah. I like hitting things HARD and REPEATEDLY and 3.x was a great system for that. And as far as designing things to suite the "boring" tastes of players like me go check out most of Frank and K's melee classes. They're a lot more creative than "gain this many spell slots at this level" and I'd love to play almost any of them.

Archmage wrote: Honestly, if someone thinks it's somehow too complicated to say "I use twin strike" over "I hit it with my sword again," this forum is not likely to be their cup of tea, because designing games for those people is boring. Interesting games, RPGs included, ought to involve strategic and creative thought.

If you want to play a simple, casual game that doesn't require any intellectual effort, D&D probably isn't the right fit.

Yeah, most people here believe that adding more tactical elements and choices to D&D is a good thing.

I mean, the 2nd edition "I attack" every round was boring as hell to me. I also found the 3rd edition trip or charge engine fighter rather boring. It wasn't until ToB came out that I ever considered making a warrior for 3E.

Archmage wrote:Honestly, if someone thinks it's somehow too complicated to say "I use twin strike" over "I hit it with my sword again," this forum is not likely to be their cup of tea, because designing games for those people is boring. Interesting games, RPGs included, ought to involve strategic and creative thought.

If you want to play a simple, casual game that doesn't require any intellectual effort, D&D probably isn't the right fit.

RPGs are social games, though, and sometimes you're going to want to bring someone who is not interested in a strategic game because they are fun to play with / related to you / you want to sleep with them / they own the venue / you are too chickenshit to tell them to get lost.

If you can make a boring, straightforward option that does not advertise itself as anything else and still manages to participate in the game meaningfully, why would you not?

RandomCasualty2 wrote:Yeah, most people here believe that adding more tactical elements and choices to D&D is a good thing.

I enjoy having lots of options in my games, I just prefer to make most of them a) slowly out of combat (i.e. character building) or b) fluidly as part of combat.

Back OT, I've been mulling over the idea of having a side-quest and major reward as a fighter class feature and I think that I really like the idea, except implementation could be tricky. What level do you enact it is a problem, as well as (potentially) DM invlovement. Hopefully whoever is DMing is doing it because they enjoy running games and would be thrilled to do some more, but I've known some asshat DMs who would either balk at the extra work or would use it as an opportunity to pit the player in an unwinnnable one-on-one fight.

As people have pointed out, just adding magical abilities to a class doesn't make it good.

If it did monks would be world beaters.

So there must be something else that makes having magic better than not having it.

in every edition before 4e it not that hard to really figure out. The thing that makes the magic better in 3e and below is that spells above 3rd level start being really OPEN in what they allow you to do.

Look at polymorph, they had to split the spell because within a single spell you could change yourself, yourfoe, yourally, or innocents into fodder or super killers. For most of D&D you got all that for 1 spell slot!

Lower level D&D spells generally are very one effect, very clear, and without a lot of give in how they can be used. That doesn't mean they are not powerful, but Sleep just doesn't leave a whole lot of room for interupration.


The straightforward fix to this was not well acceptabled at least on this board. 4e makes every wizard spell as straightforward as a 1st level wizard spell. It also cleans up a lot of loopholes like summoning things that can summon.

It turned ALL magic into vending machine magic, pratically literally. You put in money and you get EXACTLY 1 effect that does thing Y.

Another good example is D&D computer games. Wizards are hardly the badasses they are in table top play because most computer games

a) drastically reduce the spell list
b) have much more predetermined effects for spells
c) focus spells on inflicnting damage or the effects of failed saves

Look at

Baldur's Gate II
Return to Myth Drannor
Temple of Elemental Evil
Neverwinter Nights

All of them have high level play (16 plus) and a couple of them even let you do item crafting (neverwinter/TOEE)

In these games High level fighters are at least as good as the high level casters.

If the magic stays under control then its not hard to make the "fighting men" relevant.

Killometer wrote:
Back OT, I've been mulling over the idea of having a side-quest and major reward as a fighter class feature and I think that I really like the idea, except implementation could be tricky. What level do you enact it is a problem, as well as (potentially) DM invlovement. Hopefully whoever is DMing is doing it because they enjoy running games and would be thrilled to do some more, but I've known some asshat DMs who would either balk at the extra work or would use it as an opportunity to pit the player in an unwinnnable one-on-one fight.

Here is the thing, the only way this works is if it is NOT a sidequest. If its a sidequest anybody can do it.

If its a class feature we can say "the fighter did that" and the wizard cannot do it without taking X levels of fighter. Basically it has to just happen, you get relevant superpowers. It cannot be something that is a a dm handout, it must be handed out by an authority in print. otherwise everybody will want it.

souran wrote:Baldur's Gate II
Return to Myth Drannor
Temple of Elemental Evil
Neverwinter Nights

All of them have high level play (16 plus) and a couple of them even let you do item crafting (neverwinter/TOEE)

In these games High level fighters are at least as good as the high level casters.

Tell you what. Why don't you try playing Baldur's Gate II (the one game in the list above I've played) with an all-fighter party and then try it again with an all-caster party and see which is easier?

Here is the thing, the only way this works is if it is NOT a sidequest. If its a sidequest anybody can do it.

Well, my idea was to give an arbitrary 'You need to be this tall to ride' limit. That is, you need to be a Fighter (Or some other martial class) of a certain level. Flavor as, for the Fighter, you require a certain level of mental and physical fortitude which only a Fighter of your level posseses. For Barbarian, you need RAEG. Monk, mental purity and all that jazz.

If the magic stays under control then its not hard to make the "fighting men" relevant.

Well, that's one of the things I, personally, want to avoid.

souran wrote:The straightforward fix to this was not well acceptabled at least on this board. 4e makes every wizard spell as straightforward as a 1st level wizard spell. It also cleans up a lot of loopholes like summoning things that can summon.

1) You couldn't summon things that can summon in 3e either, because it specifically says that summons can't summon.

2) Yes, we reject the straightforward fix of removing the good parts of the game from the only people who have it.

Just like the straightforward fix to "humans are dicks" is "exterminate the human race" and everyone but Koumei rejects that too.

You should read federalist 10. Note the part about "solution being worse than problem" The problem that Wizards are awesome and fighters are balls is not solved by making everyone balls.

souran wrote:Another good example is D&D computer games. Wizards are hardly the badasses they are in table top play because most computer games

a) drastically reduce the spell list
b) have much more predetermined effects for spells
c) focus spells on inflicnting damage or the effects of failed saves

Look at

Baldur's Gate II
Return to Myth Drannor
Temple of Elemental Evil
Neverwinter Nights

Actually, the Reason Wizards have problems (though in fact, they are still better than fighters by about a billion times in TOEE and Baldur's Gate II)

is because, with the exception of TOEE, where Casters are just better, those are real time games, and so literally every single AoE effect from Sleep to Acid Fog is subject to the "you must aim the spell, then let all your opponents move out of the AoE, then the spell comes into existence, and you look like a chump." feature of all real time attempts at D&D.

Of course, that's actually specifically contradictory to the actual rules, and the fluff of the D&D verse.

Firstly let me ring in with how i absolutely hate PrCs and that I think that we'd all be better off if we just took the one or two things that make any PrC interesting just be added as a class option or a feat with or without prereqs depending on your tastes.

That being said I don't think there is much you can add to the PHB classes that isn't already done in the tomes either in the form of a feat or a class that's already been made. The only way you could make it any more customizable would be to throw out the classes as a whole and just allow people in your game to take abilities here and there.

hogarth wrote: Tell you what. Why don't you try playing Baldur's Gate II (the one game in the list above I've played) with an all-fighter party and then try it again with an all-caster party and see which is easier?

Assuming I can have paladins/rangers/rogues and at least 1 cleric or druid to just heal and otherwise fight then I have done that before and the game is easy with that combination as well.

Casters don't do much in BG that cannot be done by surrounding the bag guy with your beatsticks and then letting them all hit him at once.

Kaelik wrote:
2) Yes, we reject the straightforward fix of removing the good parts of the game from the only people who have it.

Then yeah your game is going to remain broken and wizard centric. Unless you do something hard ass about magic the fact that most of the upper end magic is/was/continues to be written a little flakey without hard constraints and some open ended intrupration to adjudicate means magic is gonna be better.

That is not the good part of the game. In part because it also can be turned around and made to screw you. See the discussion of the 2e phb. All the good spells come with a caveat that usually amounts to "if the dm doesn't like you he can use this to backfire and hose you" element.

Just like the straightforward fix to "humans are dicks" is "exterminate the human race" and everyone but Koumei rejects that too.

Wow, how could I not have seen the moral and value equivalency between a game, that no matter how much effort you put into is going to remain a game and therefore can have arbitrary restraints in the name of fairness and remain fun, and the human condition, your totally correct. I don't see how anybody could take a stance that a game with more clear less loose rules is any different than calling for the extermination of the human race. I even bet there is a slippery slope from one to the other. BY deciding that dnd is better with rules we are BEGGING the proccess of exterminating humans.

You should read federalist 10. Note the part about "solution being worse than problem" The problem that Wizards are awesome and fighters are balls is not solved by making everyone balls.

If magic was HALF as good in D&D as it is now there would still be incentive to play a wizard. Taking the slack out of the SPELLS THEMSELVES is not a bad idea at all. You might think that the solution is worse than the problem but I certainly don't. You want balanced D&D then don't the spells get out of hand. The spells themselves are the problem. Its that god damn simple. The idea that each individual spell can do only a single particular thing is not bad for D&D, or for games in general, or for story telling.

Actually, the Reason Wizards have problems (though in fact, they are still better than fighters by about a billion times in TOEE and Baldur's Gate II)

is because, with the exception of TOEE, where Casters are just better, those are real time games, and so literally every single AoE effect from Sleep to Acid Fog is subject to the "you must aim the spell, then let all your opponents move out of the AoE, then the spell comes into existence, and you look like a chump." feature of all real time attempts at D&D.

Of course, that's actually specifically contradictory to the actual rules, and the fluff of the D&D verse.

Casters are not bad in either game, but fighters are easly as good espcially if you know what your doing with the loot. In both games you can over come the big advantages of table top dnd casters. Its EASY to get your melee brusiers in next to the enemy casters in these computer games. Heck, half the time they WANT to talk to you while you surround them with your brute squad.

Without being able to fly out of range, or teleport away from attacks or quickenspell insta kill spells and what not, without the bag of tricks a million gags deep, then wizards are just good dpsers. If you make 3e wizards just play blasters they are good but hardly better than a well placed raging barbarian.

souran wrote:Then yeah your game is going to remain broken and wizard centric. Unless you do something hard ass about magic the fact that most of the upper end magic is/was/continues to be written a little flakey without hard constraints and some open ended intrupration to adjudicate means magic is gonna be better.

1) interpretation.
2) No, the game doesn't have to be, and isn't, broken and Wizard centric. The fact that wall of Stone can be used for a whole bunch of awesome things, or that Contact Other Plane can find the answer to anything, instead of just looking over one guy's shoulder, these are not problems at all. They do not make the game in any way broken or Wizard centric.

What makes the game broken and Wizard Centric is that Fighters are ass and defeated by a single Wall of Stone, that fighters are incapable of finding out the answer to anything without anyones help. That's the problem.

You can have an unbroken non Wizard centric game by making the fighters have the ability to deal with a wall in front of them, to be able to carve a fortress out of a mountain, and the ability to stab a hole in the planes and go intimidate a planar being into telling them what they want to know.

souran wrote:That is not the good part of the game. In part because it also can be turned around and made to screw you. See the discussion of the 2e phb. All the good spells come with a caveat that usually amounts to "if the dm doesn't like you he can use this to backfire and hose you" element.

It can also not be turned around to screw you, since the 3e books don't say "and then the DM should arbitrarily kill you" except for Wish, and only if you wish for something more than 20 people to be teleported to any specific place, or the creation of a +400 bonus item.

That is the good part of the game. What's good is when the Wizard walls off some enemies, and then uses stone bitching to deal with them, while the Druid shoots lazer beams while eating people. That is much better than the part where you say "I hit it. It takes a -2 penalty."

souran wrote:Wow, how could I not have seen the moral and value equivalency between a game, that no matter how much effort you put into is going to remain a game and therefore can have arbitrary restraints in the name of fairness and remain fun, and the human condition, your totally correct. I don't see how anybody could take a stance that a game with more clear less loose rules is any different than calling for the extermination of the human race. I even bet there is a slippery slope from one to the other. BY deciding that dnd is better with rules we are BEGGING the proccess of exterminating humans.

Look, I know you play 4e and like it, so I already think you are too retarded to live, don't go proving me right.

No one said anything about moral or value equivalency. You are using the exact same method to solve the problem. Some people have good stuff, some people have bad stuff. There are different ways to solve that problem. The one you choose is to take everything away from everyone.

That's bad. Just because Wall of Stone is cool, and level appropriate, and the fighter has nothing, your solution is to remove wall of stone from the game, and make him cast fireball instead.

That's terrible, and it's exactly the same method as extermination to solve the problem of global inequality.

souran wrote:If magic was HALF as good in D&D as it is now there would still be incentive to play a wizard. Taking the slack out of the SPELLS THEMSELVES is not a bad idea at all. You might think that the solution is worse than the problem but I certainly don't. You want balanced D&D then don't the spells get out of hand. The spells themselves are the problem. Its that god damn simple. The idea that each individual spell can do only a single particular thing is not bad for D&D, or for games in general, or for story telling.

Yes, telling people that because the Fighter feels poor, you are going to take half their money and burn it, they will choose that over all their money. That's true. But just because Fighters have no money doesn't mean that giving Wizards one cent is all it takes to make them awesome, or have a good game. The solution is to give Fighters more money, not take it away from Wizards.

souran wrote:Casters are not bad in either game, but fighters are easly as good espcially if you know what your doing with the loot. In both games you can over come the big advantages of table top dnd casters. Its EASY to get your melee brusiers in next to the enemy casters in these computer games. Heck, half the time they WANT to talk to you while you surround them with your brute squad.

No, Fighters aren't "easily as good" in TOEE, they would be in Baldur's Gate, what with random Magic immune enemies, if it weren't for the part where you can seriously summon more and better fighters than fighters all the time.

Yes, you can compensate for how Fighters are not as good, and still beat the game, that doesn't mean that mass stunning a crap ton of enemies is ever going to be less useful than random fighter DPS number 4.

souran wrote:Without being able to fly out of range, or teleport away from attacks or quickenspell insta kill spells and what not, without the bag of tricks a million gags deep, then wizards are just good dpsers. If you make 3e wizards just play blasters they are good but hardly better than a well placed raging barbarian.

Stoneskin in Baldur's gate, not to mention mirror image/various invis/contingencies/ect all serve that purpose.

In TOEE it doesn't even matter, because it's turn based, so you just automatically get paralyzed and sit down to die.

It doesn't matter if the instakills are quickened. They are still there.

Magic is beyond awesome. It is over powered. No one is saying that Fighters shouldn't be better, just that mages could stand to be a lot worse and still be fun.

Lago PARANOIA wrote:Tome martial classes are kind of boring, though. They don't really go through any transformative plot-changing advancement unlike spellcasters, though. I mean, it's cool and all that Fighters can stand toe-to-toe with almost anything now but their basic schtick at level 16 is about the same as they had at level 1 unless they're loaded to the gills with magical items.

It should be noted that a high level fighter can seriously spank most of the other character classes if given a broad enough base; and dipped into an other class.

Most of my fighter builds are actually pretty broken. I take a level of rogue, a level of bard, a level of monk; then max int and dex; and get weapon finesse, max tons of skills compared to most other characters, and good skills. Stuff like UMD; Hide/Move Silently; Knowledge skills; Spellcraft; Spot/Listen; Tumble/Jump/Balance.

Once you've got melee DPS approaching a barbarian; skill checks approaching or matching a rogue and wizard (scouting, detrapping, knowledges, spellcraft); and the ability to UMD any scroll, even a scroll with an 11th level spell (at well below lvl 20); you're 'broken'.

Note: I have never seen any game where the Fighter was allowed to craft their own items. Ever. For those games, I've ended up achieving more powerful results by taking a dip into Rogue, and maxing UMD and being a Scout and Trapfinder.

The RoW fighter is basically... how you'd build someone like Duncan Idaho, or Feyd Reuth. They're very multi-talented individuals, they can fight face to face, they can be assassins, they can use special items, or use even supernatural type abilities. Idaho and Reuth are maybe... level 6 at the most; so once you can listen to the heart of your enemy, or you can identify epic level spells or monsters you're no longer on the same scale as the other characters from Dune.

Of course, this is if heavily optimized, and if you dip into other classes that give you options or abilities that help you leverage both your full BaB, large skill points per level, and plethora of feats.

A cracked out RoW fighter build looks more like a super-rogue in heavier armour. Honestly, I don't see how that's borked, but apparently having 18-ish Combat feats (as many as 72 'abilities' at lvl 16+; not from classes or items, or spells) seems like "too much"; compared to a spell caster who has whole spell lists to pick from; or can just cast spontaneously from a list of spells.

An 'average' RoW fighter built with no real goal for how the feats will synergize and combine, and the build is sort of 'all over the place'; is actually pretty boring to watch, but won't probably suck.

The trouble is finding a sweet spot.

One character is the Wizard that prepares SoDs and mass crowd control spells; has an army of zombies and skeletons created with Animate Dead as fodder/transport; uses scrolls like mad, and has either wands or staffs, or made Wonderous Items that acheive special effects b/c they used the custom magic item rules.

The other character, is like a wizard that uses a lot of fireballs, and evocations; with a mix of other things.



Some people like when their wizard casts a spell and gets +6 to all of their saving throws. Plus, you know, is a wizard.

But get upset when the 'fighter' does the same, from a scroll; wears heavy armour; uses weapons to deal non-trivial damage in melee range; and has more skill points than any other character in the group.

Honestly, that's fine, but unless there is a way to build a non spell caster who has enough power to murder an actual spell caster; then there's no point in attempting to pretend that the two types of characters are going to ever be balanced.

Which is the real basics of the issue.

If the system doesn't allow for a non-spell caster to wtfpwn a spellcaster; then the system isn't balanced. When a non-caster meets an enemy caster; they'll lose, and that's stupid.

Spell casters in D&D can already wtfpwn non casters. That's not up for discussion. That's been the basis of every wizard vs fighter thread, or why fighter's suck thread since the start.

If spell casters are supposed to be role-protected from having non-casters in the game do similar things, at a similar power level; then there will always be a caster/non-caster split.

Galahad and other Knights of the round table regularly killed evil wizards and sorcerers. They'd charge up, then chop down, the wizard.

There are no real stories of 'wizards' being the main character of a story until the last 60 or so years.

Merlin didn't go on adventures; Arthur and his Knights did. Merlin was a cryptic advisor, or counselor more than anything else, or he did things to change the plot; like 'move Stonehenge'.



Also, Kaelik. That 'broken' and 'overpowered' fighter we talk so much about.... he could "deal" with wall of stone. He had adamantine weapons; and could burrow through solid stone at a rate of 5' per round (dealing the 900-ish damage needed to clear a 5' cube of solid, unworked stone).

Meaning, it was probably a lot less overpowered than everyone made it out to be. -_-;;


MGuy; lowering the level of awesome in the manner you suggest is something that I'd warrant deserving a kick in the teeth. Seriously, bringing fighters up to that level is commendable. Lowering wizards, and thus the whole game, is appalling.