Fuck memes. Irrelevant Fighters, unstoppable Wizards.

[Neurosis]

Why does nobody cast Globe of Invulnerability? It's a fairly good spell. Nothing amazing, but it has its uses. I mean, I don't ordinarily prepare it, but it's certainly in my spellbook (and has been for most wizards I've played of significantly high level), and I would prepare it if I divined that I was about to get assaulted by a twenty man squad of low level arcane casters.

Which is the main point here: a Wiz 15 not made of fail has sufficient divination not to be surprised. Once you can accept that assumption, Globe of Invulnerability really is the optimal spell for dealing with this situation smoothly.

[Username17]

A 15th level character with level appropriate SR is essentially immune to 5th level wizards in virtually any numbers. Wizards do amazing things to challenges of their level, but badass spells like sleep don't even work on high level characters and if an enemy has SR 26 their stuff simply doesn't work.

-Username17

[John Magnum]

So tussock's argument is that a level 15 wizard who deliberately handicaps himself, quite extensively, can probably be beaten by a swarm of lower-level wizards. Even if this were true, why would anyone care?

[Kaelik]

Why does nobody cast Globe of Invulnerability? It's a fairly good spell. Nothing amazing, but it has its uses. I mean, I don't ordinarily prepare it, but it's certainly in my spellbook (and has been for most wizards I've played of significantly high level), and I would prepare it if I divined that I was about to get assaulted by a twenty man squad of low level arcane casters.

Because it's a spell that mostly negates your own buffs, and rarely negates enemy spells that you are actually worried about.

Which is the main point here: a Wiz 15 not made of fail has sufficient divination not to be surprised. Once you can accept that assumption, Globe of Invulnerability really is the optimal spell for dealing with this situation smoothly.

No, that's stupid. No Wizards actually know what their encounters are going to be a day in advance unless they are specifically hunting down something, or something is specifically hunting them down, since there is no fucking reason for them to be hunting down level 5 Wizards, that is not the case here.

Please explain what spells you cast, and what questions you ask that result in you being aware that you are going to be attacked by 20 level 5 Wizards when you X. Because you fucking can't actually do that, and I hate it when people pretend that Wizards know exactly what encounters they are going to face in what order a day in advance, especially when it's not even necessary, because they are off the RNG.

[hyzmarca]

No, that's stupid. No Wizards actually know what their encounters are going to be a day in advance unless they are specifically hunting down something, or something is specifically hunting them down, since there is no fucking reason for them to be hunting down level 5 Wizards, that is not the case here.

Please explain what spells you cast, and what questions you ask that result in you being aware that you are going to be attacked by 20 level 5 Wizards when you X. Because you fucking can't actually do that, and I hate it when people pretend that Wizards know exactly what encounters they are going to face in what order a day in advance, especially when it's not even necessary, because they are off the RNG.

Foresight.

This spell grants you a powerful sixth sense in relation to yourself or another. Once foresight is cast, you receive instantaneous warnings of impending danger or harm to the subject of the spell. You are never surprised or flat-footed. In addition, the spell gives you a general idea of what action you might take to best protect yourself and gives you a +2 insight bonus to AC and Reflex saves. This insight bonus is lost whenever you would lose a Dexterity bonus to AC.

Of course, it's a 9th level spell, but a Wiz 15 should be able to get scrolls of foresight pretty easily and a Wiz 17 should have it in his spell list. Just cast it before you go to bed and you'll know exactly what spells you should prep for the encounter.

There's also the cheese of Contingency Planeshift (anyone attacks me) + accelerated-time (demi)plane + scrying, which lets you get a full night's rest and while less than a single turn has passed on the Prime.

[Kaelik]

Please stop being an idiot hyzmarca. Foresight does not grant you knowledge of the encounters you will face before you prepare spells. It grants you knowledge that an encounter is occurring right now.

[John Magnum]

Foresight cast from a scroll only has a duration of about three hours, though. Is there a way to metamagic scrolls?

[hyzmarca]

Please stop being an idiot hyzmarca. Foresight does not grant you knowledge of the encounters you will face before you prepare spells. It grants you knowledge that an encounter is occurring right now.

It grants you knowledge of all impending danger. It does not specify how far in the future that danger can be. If there are people plotting to kill you, it'll tell you so. If there are unusual monsters in the dungeon you're planning to raid, it'll tell you so.

It's basically a spell that lets you look at the DM's notes, which is why it's ninth level.

[Kaelik]

Please stop being an idiot hyzmarca. Foresight does not grant you knowledge of the encounters you will face before you prepare spells. It grants you knowledge that an encounter is occurring right now.

It grants you knowledge of all impending danger. It does not specify how far in the future that danger can be. If there are people plotting to kill you, it'll tell you so. If there are unusual monsters in the dungeon you're planning to raid, it'll tell you so.

It's basically a spell that lets you look at the DM's notes, which is why it's ninth level.

Nope, that's completely and totally wrong. The existence of unusual monsters is not impending danger. The nature of those monsters is doubly not so. If the Wizards were specifically hunting you down, Foresight still wouldn't tell you, though general Contact Other Planes inquiries might, because the danger would not be impending.

[hyzmarca]

Please stop being an idiot hyzmarca. Foresight does not grant you knowledge of the encounters you will face before you prepare spells. It grants you knowledge that an encounter is occurring right now.

It grants you knowledge of all impending danger. It does not specify how far in the future that danger can be. If there are people plotting to kill you, it'll tell you so. If there are unusual monsters in the dungeon you're planning to raid, it'll tell you so.

It's basically a spell that lets you look at the DM's notes, which is why it's ninth level.

Nope, that's completely and totally wrong. The existence of unusual monsters is not impending danger. The nature of those monsters is doubly not so. If the Wizards were specifically hunting you down, Foresight still wouldn't tell you, though general Contact Other Planes inquiries might, because the danger would not be impending.

being soon to appear or take place an impending celebration of the 100th anniversary of the college's founding

A planned ambush by fifth level wizards scheduled to occur tomorrow is impending enough.

[Kaelik]

A planned ambush by fifth level wizards scheduled to occur tomorrow is impending enough.

Great, relative to a celebration that requires lots of planning and occurs once every 100 years, tomorrow is impending.

Good thing that sample sentences from Webster's dictionary are the only existing source of authority.

Well, I mean, except that impending danger is a specific term that refers to, amongst other things, the immediacy of the danger for you to have be in to be justified in self defense. Do you think that telling a judge a guy was going to come back and shoot you tomorrow is enough?

Or is it possible that impending danger means something different than impending celebration of a day.

[Whatever]

Wow, if your DM plays Foresight as warning you about anything more than 1 round in the future, he's being inexplicably generous. The spell gives you spider-sense, not precognition. I don't know how you'd even play a cooperative TTRPG where one (or more!!) of the characters can see the future, that's a narrative catastrofuck.

[tussock]

A planned ambush by fifth level wizards scheduled to occur tomorrow is impending enough.

Shouting a warning, yanking a person back, and even telepathically communicating (via an appropriate spell) can all be accomplished before some danger befalls the subject, provided you act on the warning without delay. The subject, however, does not gain the insight bonus to AC and Reflex saves.

It's pretty fucking obvious what the spell does if you RTFM. It tells you what you might do this action, right now to avoid whatever is hitting you right now, with a few bonuses attached like never being surprised. Which would totally help if you burned that many scrolls every single day forever like a little munchkin.

So tussock's argument is that a level 15 wizard who deliberately handicaps himself, quite extensively, can probably be beaten by a swarm of lower-level wizards. Even if this were true, why would anyone care?

My argument is that conversations like this are always stupid, because of the infinite flexibility of theoretical Wizards vs Wizards as they are in the game. People are totally suggesting spell use that they never really prepare, and weird house rules to make playing Wizards infinitely easier.

Anyhoo, it was an off-hand remark about how Fighters numbers do in fact grow faster than a Wizard's, but that it doesn't matter because Wizards are basically off the chart right from level 1. I'm hunting away at the underlying problems, not these specific corner cases.

[Username17]

Anyhoo, it was an off-hand remark about how Fighters numbers do in fact grow faster than a Wizard's, but that it doesn't matter because Wizards are basically off the chart right from level 1. I'm hunting away at the underlying problems, not these specific corner cases.

That's just not true though. Let's say you decided to be conjurer and make monsters. At level 1 you have 3 castings of one celestial badger that each last one round. At level 5, you have 3 castings of 1d4+1 celestial badgers, 4 castins of 1d3 celestial badgers, and 6 castings of one celestial badger and they all last 5 rounds. At level 9, you have fucking Lesser Planar Binding, and you get as many fucking badgers as you want for as long as you want.

Or let's say you want to do something dumb like shoot fire at people. At level 1, you get burning hands, which does 2.5 damage (save for half) to enemies in a 15' cone. At level 5, you get fireball, which does
17.5 damage to enemies in a 40' diameter circle that can be up to 600 feet away. At 9th level, you cast firebrand, which does 9 separate 10' diameter bursts of 31.5 damage, with an additional rider of 14 damage per round until they put out the fires.

And that's with no equipment. Obviously, if they get empowerment rods and crap, the numbers are even starker. Yes, a 1st level Fighter hits with a longsword for 8.5 damage, and the 9th level Fighter attacks twice under power attack with a magical frost longsword for 25 damage per hit, and that's a lot of scaling. But 8.5 -> 50 is still less scaling than 2.5 -> 45.5 damage and the Wizard is getting bigger and better areas of effects at the same time.

Yes, Wizards really really do numerically scale faster than Fighters on top of having generally better stuff and having their special abilities keep relevance against the expected opposition. The thing that's really interesting about Wizards is actually how fast they go obsolete against higher level opponents. An enchanter who does Sleep spells with fucking own enemies of his level, but it has an absolute level cap, against higher level opponents it literally just says "Lol, No". When Wizards go up against enemies with spell resistance, they are literally told that their spells aren't powerful enough and have no effect. Not like the Fighter, who simply doesn't do enough damage to care about, they can't do anything at all.

-Username17

[RobG]

It's how a Ftr 15 and a Wiz 15 fare comparably against, say, a truly horrid umber hulk (CR 14).

Just had this exact situation in my current game.

The beatstick did fine (Monk 13 actually). Killed it and took about half damage. The Ftr 15 would have just killed it faster.

Maybe you're wrong.
~

To the linear/quadratic point. I understand the original point about the method being quadratic (# of attacks AND damage going up) but the resulting damage itself is pretty linear.

Vs level +15 AC:

A Ftr 1 hits about .5 times for @10 damage (7-13).. so about 5
A Ftr 20 hits about 3 times for 30something damage.. so about 100

The actual numbers are almost flat from 1-4 but really jump around 6th level, not just from the 2nd attack but from the occasional Haste. The first damage enchant kicks in a level or 2 after and then Boots of Haste with occasional morale buffs (Heroism, Bardic Music) and better enchants. 11th is the 3rd (actually 4th) attack. 12th is GMW for a +3. After 13th it really flattens out again, except for the GMW +4 and 5th attack at 16th. If you're curious.

Now that I look at it, almost the entire jump is from 4 to 16 and most of it is from 6 to 12. It might be "quadratic" at that point.

[tussock]

Anyhoo, it was an off-hand remark about how Fighters numbers do in fact grow faster than a Wizard's, but that it doesn't matter because Wizards are basically off the chart right from level 1. I'm hunting away at the underlying problems, not these specific corner cases.

That's just not true though. Let's say you decided to be conjurer and make monsters.

I don't want to be picky Frank, but you're strawmanning a bit, eh. That summoning doesn't work: each round of spellcasting does a little damage (less each as the monsters get tougher) until it's blocked behind a wall of useless badgers. Infinite Badgers? They starve.

Or let's say you want to do something dumb like shoot fire at people. At level 1, you get burning hands, which does 2.5 damage (save for half) to enemies in a 15' cone. At level 5, you get fireball, which does 17.5 damage to enemies in a 40' diameter circle that can be up to 600 feet away. At 9th level, you cast firebrand, which does 9 separate 10' diameter bursts of 31.5 damage, with an additional rider of 14 damage per round until they put out the fires.

One extra round on Firebrand only in Spell Compendium, but you're picking crap core damage spells vs high level MoF ones there. You could also go from casting Sleep at 1st to casting Cloudkill at 9th and it would seem much less useful.

As you noted, some really good Wizard tricks just go out of fashion, but so does using a sword when the fliers, fast casters, 'porters, and DR ohshit/notme turns up.

And that's with no equipment. Obviously, if they get empowerment rods and crap, the numbers are even starker.

Yes, there are some spectacularly poor choices in game design involving making meta-magic free to use. I suggest banning all that shit.


vs AC level+15

Greatsword+Cleave Ftr 1 = ~.75 hits for ~10 damage.
Hasted, enlarged ... Ftr 6 = ~2 hits for ~40 damage.
Ftr 11 = ~3 hits for ~110 damage. ~140 polymorphed.
Ftr 16 = ~4 hits for ~280 damage. ~310 polymorphed.

Str 34+ and a greatsword, with all the cheesy damage adds. Not to mention any extra attacks that feats and poor monster tactics throw your way. Bow damage is a bit lower. Plus some with buffing, maybe 500 totally cheesed out with all the splats.

[shadzar]

fighter v wizrd.. everytime i se a thread like this i ask.. who is playing D&D 1-on-1 with a single DM and single player with a single character?

where is the rest of the party?

BBEG is a wizard ...but doesnt follow the rules of the players because he ha plot protection until the right time so doesnt matter.

yeah Gary liked magic and wizards...and oddly many people still player fighter classes.

[Libertad]

fighter v wizrd.. everytime i se a thread like this i ask.. who is playing D&D 1-on-1 with a single DM and single player with a single character?

where is the rest of the party?

BBEG is a wizard ...but doesnt follow the rules of the players because he ha plot protection until the right time so doesnt matter.

yeah Gary liked magic and wizards...and oddly many people still player fighter classes.

Fighter vs. wizard threads are not always 1-on-1 battles in an arena. They're also good comparisons of how the Wizard can easily make the fighter obsolete at high levels by taking over his role. Battlefield control, area of effects, save or die, and mobility spells (overland flight) are much more versatile than "I hit it with my sword," or "I shoot at it with my arrow." Fighters by RAW don't get any of this stuff unless they dumpster-dive through splatbooks for the right PrCs/feats/etc. Everything a Wizard has to be effective is right in the Core Books.

To the bolded: That's because not everyone wants to be a wizard, even if they're much more powerful and useful than fighters. Linear Warriors, Quadratic Wizards is still a problem, especially when noncaster players start to feel useless. Many gamers feel more comfortable as Conan instead of Merlin; the 3rd Edition rules need to reinforce Conan as a valid concept at high levels.

[Stubbazubba]

Don't feed him Lib, he went away for a while and we were all so happy.

EDIT: The reason is because he has an overwhelming disposition towards derailing every thread into "new versions of D&D don't understand what D&D is supposed to be," then come to the conclusion that 2e was perfect (without using NWPs, mind you), and anything said to him after that will be replied to with "That's your player entitlement showing, you're just not mature enough for TTRPGs, the DM needs to be God, you obviously didn't play 2e right," or some variation thereof, in a long-winded, ungrammatical almost to the point of unintelligible diatribe, and when pressed on actual rules citations, will hide behind one of several excuses including "my hard drive which held them crashed," or "I don't have my books atm," or "I have this reading disorder which makes actually reading rules too onerous a task for me, just trust my memory, k?" It regularly crashes otherwise productive threads. If he's consciously trolling, he does so very subtly, but my estimation is that he's simply a grognard on a crusade and feels fulfilled when he starts a fight with someone; so he's trolling with sincerity, you might say.

[shadzar]

To the bolded: That's because not everyone wants to be a wizard, even if they're much more powerful and useful than fighters. Linear Warriors, Quadratic Wizards is still a problem, especially when noncaster players start to feel useless. Many gamers feel more comfortable as Conan instead of Merlin; the 3rd Edition rules need to reinforce Conan as a valid concept at high levels.

you contradict yourself.. it ISNT a problem for those that dont want to be a wizard and like the fighter.

so how do you "fix" it without giving those that choose fighter a wizard spell list like 4th did?

feeling useless is often like someone said on ENWorld, the player, not the game itself.

take the wizard replacing the thief by choosing spells to replicate his functions. it CAN be done, but as everyone should know.. just because we CAN do a thing, doesnt mean we SHOULD.

swinging a sword will NEVER give anyone the ability to fly.. these utilities are beyond normal physic..so either you go DBZ fighters that dont fit in the world of medieval fantay, or you make magic more useles to say it cant do something.

fighters arent useless, unless the wizard character player makes them feel that way.

Mearls said something intelligent ONCE... about how rules cannot make bad DMs into good DM, nor bad players into good players.

so no matter what you do with the rules, and abusive player setting out to use the wizard for something other than playing the game, but being a "spotlight thief" or what have you will, NOT be stopped by any rules. it only really hurts other players by giving even MROE time and effort to that abusive wizard player.. which is exactly what they are wanting as the attention whores they are.

wizards have SOOOOO many spells..pre-4th, that they can do many other things than just replicate the other classes functions.

and the wizards NEVER prevents the fighter from swinging their sword. the wizard spells are sometimes too powerful, but thats because like in the other thread.. people worry too much about high level and going places the game just doesnt work. like a mortal human fighter fighting a god.

also wizards spells are and should be used as they are... OH shit we're in trouble...save our asses with something big.

Morale used to play a big part in this because a fireball would possibly make the enemy run away in fear of the spell, letting the fighter give chase to those that survived and cut them down one at a time rather than having 6 to fight at once.

crowd control if you will.

as for battlefield control.. the fighter can also instill fear with a DM using morale better as him punching this guy in the face so the back of his head explodes as the fist goes through.. would freak out the other opponents. otherwise swinging a sword wont do it.

it isnt the mechanics where this comes into play really.. especially with the removal of morale, but in the playing. should ALL orcs fear someone that punches a hole in someones head? no, because each group is different.

part of the game is making it work within your group. this is one of the reason there can NEVER be a everyman's D&D because everyone doesnt agree because they dont want the same things.

"player agency" and the DM not being able to tell the wizard "no you dont get this spell" is making the FvW into a real problem, where it shouldnt exist.

how many people think that because it exists in the book it should be allowed at all times because it is part of "the game"? how many of the designers do you think allowed everything to be used all the time from 3rd and back?

the books, including spells, are compilations of things that people want or have asked for, but doesnt make it that all things should be included all the time.

1st edition, took spells people asked for and from Dragon/T.S.R. articles and put them into the game with some changes...

2nd edition took more from Dragon that people liked and put them in.

3rd edition put even MORE of those spells and functions in form Dragon.

none of these said, "all things must be used at all times", but sadly people dont understand that.

the "next" edition, just takes things liked from past publications and compiles them into one book you can buy NOW, rather than have to find these often used things in older publications.

this is why the DM needs to tailor spell lists and such to the world THEY create. there is NO default D&D world where everything from the books work, no matter what 4th edition implies.

1st was based on Greyhawk played by Gary and had what he thought MOST people would like form it, left some of his own stuff out, and added some thing he didnt use, but heard many people wanted.

2nd based on Greyhawk still loosely but more genericized for the mountain of world and settings in 2nd.

3rd still some Greyhawk, with who knows what.. but tried to be a generic world..and forgot the game NEVER worked like that.

None of this would ever have come into being without interested and involved players. The people who really decided what needed to be done for the AD&D 2nd Edition game are the players who mailed in questions, everyone who wrote an article for DRAGON® Magazine, and everyone who button-holed me (or other designers) at conventions. These were the people who decided what needed to be done, what needed fixing, what was unclear, and what they just didn't like. I didn't sit in a vacuum and make these decisions. As the designer and developer, I had to make the final choice, but those choices were based on your input.

In the past two years, I've talked to interested players many times, hearing their concerns and sharing my ideas. It was at the end of one of these talks (at a convention in Missoula, Montana), just as I described some rules change, that one of the listeners smiled and said, "You know, we've been doing that for years." And that is what AD&D 2nd Edition is all about--collecting and organizing all those things that we, as players, have been doing for years.


David "Zeb" Cook
January, 1989

Copyright 1999 TSR Inc.

each new edition is just a collection of ideas used by various groups, not a formal here is D&D that everyone should be playing...but various groups combined ideas, that dont always work for EVERY other group.

Choice is what the AD&D game is all about. We've tried to offer you what we think are the best choices for your AD&D campaign, but each of us has different likes and dislikes. The game that I enjoy may be quite different from your own campaign. But it is not for me to say what is right or wrong for your game. True, I and everyone working on the AD&D game have had to make fundamental decisions, but we've tried to avoid being dogmatic and inflexible. The AD&D game is yours, it's mine, it's every player's game.

So is there an "official" AD&D game? Yes, but only when there needs to be. Although I don't have a crystal ball, it's likely that tournaments and other official events will use all of the core rules in these books. Optional rules may or may not be used, but it's fair to say that all players need to know about them even if they don't have the memorized.
The Player's Handbook and the Dungeon Master Guide give you what you're expected to know, but that doesn't mean the game begins and ends there. Your game will go in directions not yet explored and your players will try things others think strange. Sometimes these strange things will work; sometimes they won't. Just accept this, be ready for it, and enjoy it.

Take the time to have fun with the AD&D rules. Add, create, expand, and extrapolate. Don't just let the game sit there, and don't become a rules lawyer worrying about each piddly little detail. If you can't figure out the answer, MAKE IT UP! And whatever you do, don't fall into the trap of believing these rules are complete. They are not. You cannot sit back and let the rule book do everything for you. Take the time and effort to become not just a good DM, but a brilliant one.

At conventions, in letters, and over the phone I'm often asked for the instant answer to a fine point of the game rules. More often than not, I come back with a question--what do you feel is right? And the people asking the questions discover that not only can they create an answer, but that their answer is as good as anyone else's. The rules are only guidelines.
At the beginning of the first Dungeon Master Guide, Gary Gygax stressed that each of us, working from a common base, would make the AD&D game grow in a variety of different directions. That is more true today than ever. Don't be afraid of experimentation, but do be careful. As a Dungeon Master, you have great power, and "with great power comes great responsibility." Use it wisely.

David "Zeb" Cook
2/9/89

Copyright 1999 TSR Inc.

everything p[resented in the books, NEVER is meant to be used all at once...it is ALL just options..again no matter what 4th edition and those idiots tried to create the ONETRUEWAY to play D&D.

so what cant the fighter do, other than create things form thin air, and make them move around, that a fighter player would want to do, while understand magic is NOT mundane and MANY people want magic to be magic?

[Neurosis]

swinging a sword will NEVER give anyone the ability to fly.. these utilities are beyond normal physic..so either you go DBZ fighters that dont fit in the world of medieval fantay, or you make magic more useles to say it cant do something.

Hey Shadzar, I'm curious what you think of the alternate fighter I posted recently in the homebrew forum.

Also, Fighters need to be GENRE-REALISTIC, not actually realistic. That means that anything Hercules, Conan, and Kratos can do should be on the table.

[shadzar]

swinging a sword will NEVER give anyone the ability to fly.. these utilities are beyond normal physic..so either you go DBZ fighters that dont fit in the world of medieval fantay, or you make magic more useles to say it cant do something.

Hey Shadzar, I'm curious what you think of the alternate fighter I posted recently in the homebrew forum.

Also, Fighters need to be GENRE-REALISTIC, not actually realistic. That means that anything Hercules, Conan, and Kratos can do should be on the table.

if, [3.5E] A Fighter With Some Nice Things, is it then i found it and will reply there about it...

except there is a problem there that is infecting 4tgh edition as well...

Hercules and Kratos are NOT mortals, and Conan was chosen by gods for special destiny... again the plot directs them to greatness, while i think that fighters and wizards and everything else in D&D is a "dirt farmer done good" as opposed to 4th edition where "everyone is a hero to start with".

if you have a fighter that begins as a demigod, then sure he can DBZ style fly and stuff, or perform the feats that Hercules did, otherwise.. he should be grounded in the worlds reality, UNTIL bestowed with some gift from a higher plane that allows them these special feats.

the adventurers in D&D starts as a nobody and EARNS his greatness and recognition form the peoples of the lands as well the gods of the world. this gives a foundation for the game, and if someone dies at level 3 then they weren't yet Conan and gained the favor of the gods..otherwise they wouldnt have died.

so if some fighter starts the game favored by the gods, and no wizard or their does.. then you automatically begin to see potential DM favoritism which should be avoided.

it is like the section talking about backgrounds where you cant claim your level-1 character is a noble with great wealth that you wil later be able to use in your travels as this defeats the purpose of overcoming obstacles, and just becomes throwing money at it.. and if one player can do it, then why can't all to balance the game and make it fair.. then if that is the case, how fun is lower levels at all when they can just sit home and hire out the work to someone else?

you can't have a group of Conan's, Merlin, Fahrd, etc.. because they arent destined for greatness by being a PC.. they already are MORE than the others because it is the PCs story that is being told, and ALL the rest of the world is extras. the PC must achieve greatness now that they have divinely been given the spotlight above ALL other inhabitants of the world.

[Libertad]

you contradict yourself.. it ISNT a problem for those that dont want to be a wizard and like the fighter.

It's not a problem to gamers who are perfectly fine with it. It is a problem to many 3rd Edition players who don't want high levels to turn into a game of "Spellcaster Cold War." With the wide array of monsters who can fly, cast spells, and turn incorporeal, noncasters need abilities to help counter these abilities on the off chance the party wizard dies and the cleric got slapped with a wisdom-draining poison.

so how do you "fix" it without giving those that choose fighter a wizard spell list like 4th did?

Several ways: you could take the route of the Tome Series and make scaling feats and class features meant to circumvent/counter high-level monsters and spells. You can give noncasters more area of effect attacks and status-inflicting conditions (examples: rogue spins around and throws daggers in a 360 degree arc, barbarian punches monster in the gut and makes him nauseated).

feeling useless is often like someone said on ENWorld, the player, not the game itself.

Sometimes this is true. Sometimes poor decisions can result in a gimped character, for any RPG. But some rules contribute to this. The Decker/Rigger problem of Shadowrun made non-hacking PCs feel useless while the hacker went on a solo adventure in cyberspace.

take the wizard replacing the thief by choosing spells to replicate his functions. it CAN be done, but as everyone should know.. just because we CAN do a thing, doesnt mean we SHOULD.

Agreed. But we can make noncasters on par with casters, and we should do this because they currently don't get enough stuff to make them non-dependent on Clerics and Wizards for buffs, surviving, etc.

swinging a sword will NEVER give anyone the ability to fly.. these utilities are beyond normal physic..so either you go DBZ fighters that dont fit in the world of medieval fantay, or you make magic more useles to say it cant do something.

That's why fighting shouldn't be the end-all be-all of a class, especially a specific style of fighting. There's nothing wrong with making a Fighter an educated warrior-poet with Intelligence and Charisma-based class skills; or an elven ranger who can "hear the air" and locate invisible opponents with Blind-sight; or a guy who can stomp the earth so hard that it trips the opponents around him and damages the earth. All of these abilities are still well below the "DBZ" level of power where guys can destroy entire planets on a whim or fly thousands of feet per round.

Additionally, if the laws of physics applied realistically to D&D, it would result in a game where Dragons can't fly and giants are all paralyzed cripples.

fighters arent useless, unless the wizard character player makes them feel that way.

The rules of the game can gimp a character. An Intelligence 8 Wizard will feel useless as he cannot cast spells (an extreme example, I know). A party of a Fighter, Ranger, Rogue, and Monk at 15th level will be unable to detect invisible opponents, Scry upon distant areas, have a reliable means of mass travel (teleport, plane shift, etc.), or area of effect attacks for large groups of enemies. The Rogue can do some of this with Use Magic Device, but that cuts into the party's resources and wealth. Such a party should be viable, as a disproportionate amount of players I've gamed with (especially in high school) find the idea of melee classes appealing. Spellcasting classes shouldn't be a required necessity.

Mearls said something intelligent ONCE... about how rules cannot make bad DMs into good DM, nor bad players into good players.

so no matter what you do with the rules, and abusive player setting out to use the wizard for something other than playing the game, but being a "spotlight thief" or what have you will, NOT be stopped by any rules. it only really hurts other players by giving even MROE time and effort to that abusive wizard player.. which is exactly what they are wanting as the attention whores they are.

Not always the case; some players accidentally figure out CoDzilla, like a Druid wildshaping into a bear and dealing more damage than the Fighter. Or summoning a monster to act as a protective meat shield. Or finding out that the Knock spell is an automatic Open Lock success on non-magical locks. Or that the party Sorcerer can enhance the Rogue into a non-detectable sneak with Nystal's Magic Aura, Silence, Nondetection, and Greater Invisibility. Or that Overland Flight gives range-based Fighters a huge advantage, or that Wind Wall can automatically repel conventional ranged weaponry. In such cases, noncasters become dependent upon the spellcasters to do their job better. No so bad in a team-based game, but the reverse should be true: there should be things that a party can't accomplish without a Rogue or Barbarian that the Wizard or Cleric can't easily mimic with spells.

and the wizards NEVER prevents the fighter from swinging their sword. the wizard spells are sometimes too powerful, but thats because like in the other thread.. people worry too much about high level and going places the game just doesnt work. like a mortal human fighter fighting a god.

There's a flying dragon with over 100 hit points. The fighter can get a fly spell cast on himself and try to go into the dragon's reach to whittle at his hit points. Or a wizard can cast ranged save-or-dies on the dragon to bypass hit points and closing in to melee entirely; or use Rays of Enfeeblement to drop the dragon until it's paralyzed; or cast blindness and reduce it's combat capabilities dramatically; or use forcecage to bind it in place; or summon monsters that can fly and do melee and fight the dragon. The fighter who specializes in melee-based feats has no reliable way to damage the dragon, as he's not good with ranged weaponry and doesn't have status-affecting abilities or ways to grant himself flight.

1: part of the game is making it work within your group. this is one of the reason there can NEVER be a everyman's D&D because everyone doesnt agree because they dont want the same things.

2: "player agency" and the DM not being able to tell the wizard "no you dont get this spell" is making the FvW into a real problem, where it shouldnt exist.

3: how many people think that because it exists in the book it should be allowed at all times because it is part of "the game"? how many of the designers do you think allowed everything to be used all the time from 3rd and back?

1: That's what many of us are trying to do, and not just on the Gaming Den. We want a game where noncasters aren't bound by "realistic physics" or dependency upon spellcasters; we want a game where Fighters and Rogues aren't made invalid by spells; we want a game where a party of a Fighter, Ranger, Rogue, and Monk can work. Granted, the Tome series granted a lot of the Den's wishes, and that's what perplexes me about the common "Fighter versus Wizard" threads on the site. Perhaps many posters don't have groups willing to incorporate Tome elements or that don't see the problems in the game. It may be a case of the fact that the problem still exists in official supplements and that Wizards of the Coast hasn't made a game to their liking yet. If the former is true, I can feel their pain: here's a fan supplement that addresses many of their worries and is something they enjoy, but will not get the opportunity to experience due to the group. If the latter is true, then I'll I can say is "tough luck." Short of the Gaming Den buying the D&D brand itself and the company, I don't think Wizards is going to make a satisfactory game that pleases them.

2: Options in the PHB are assumed to be available; non-core is understandable, but there should be a good reason why options are banned. I can see your point, in that Linear Warriors, Quadratic Wizards was magnified in 3rd Edition in comparison to the others. But leaving it all up to DM Fiat just puts more work on individual DMs who may not have enough time on their hands to analyze the game system's options in the middle of an adventure.

3: If it's a readily available option that doesn't have a "warning! may break the game!" sidebar in a core book, then it's safe to assume that many groups will allow it until it becomes a problem in the game. Many players don't like restrictive bans unless there's a good reason for them: too many arbitrary restrictions can make the DM seem like a control freak.

so what cant the fighter do, other than create things form thin air, and make them move around, that a fighter player would want to do, while understand magic is NOT mundane and MANY people want magic to be magic?

I'm not saying that there needs to be a "one size fits all" situation to D&D, or a "best for everyone" solution. What I'm discussing are the concerns and desires of gamers who want noncasters to be able to contribute meaningfully to the party at higher levels, both in combat and out of combat. Many people don't think it's a problem, don't mind the problem at all, or enjoy the game despite its flaws. I fall into the latter category, and I enjoy 3rd Edition more when there are options to give fighters nice things. I really like the Tome of Battle, but I don't think that it goes far enough. Conversely, I think that some of the options in the Frank and K Tomes are suffused with power creep, and that power disparities can still arise if people choose class/feat/PRC combinations with bad synergy (half my group is comprised of guys who character optimize regularly, the other half not as much). I'm not saying that all problems in an RPG can be solved to please everyone, or work for every group; I'm just confronting the problems that impact the enjoyment of my group, and the enjoyment of many other gamers.

The guys who want "higher-powered" fighters aren't all rules-lawyers, power-gamers, or guys who declare the entire game to be a failure; they see a problem, and want to fix it.

That's my take on things, at least.

[shadzar]

Sometimes this is true. Sometimes poor decisions can result in a gimped character, for any RPG. But some rules contribute to this.


Agreed. But we can make noncasters on par with casters, and we should do this because they currently don't get enough stuff to make them non-dependent on Clerics and Wizards for buffs, surviving, etc.


That's why fighting shouldn't be the end-all be-all of a class, especially a specific style of fighting.


Additionally, if the laws of physics applied realistically to D&D, it would result in a game where Dragons can't fly and giants are all paralyzed cripples.


The rules of the game can gimp a character.


Not always the case; some players accidentally figure out CoDzilla,


There's a flying dragon with over 100 hit points. The fighter can get a fly spell cast on himself and try to go into the dragon's reach to whittle at his hit points. Or


1: That's what many of us are trying to do, and not just on the Gaming Den. We want a game where noncasters aren't bound by "realistic physics" or dependency upon spellcasters

2: Options in the PHB are assumed to be available; non-core is understandable, but there should be a good reason why options are banned.

3: If it's a readily available option that doesn't have a "warning! may break the game!" sidebar in a core book, then it's safe to assume that many groups will allow it until it becomes a problem in the game.


I'm not saying that there needs to be a "one size fits all" situation to D&D, or a "best for everyone" solution. What I'm proposing are the concerns and desires of gamers who want noncasters to be able to contribute meaningfully to the party at higher levels, both in combat and out of combat.


The guys who want "higher-powered" fighters aren't all rules-lawyers, power-gamers, or guys who declare the entire game to be a failure; they see a problem, and want to fix it.

That's my take on things, at least.

i hope i didnt cut an important key sentence in your overall to address them, and too much cut/quotes can confuse me so hope you can still follow as i address each part below rather than inserting into quote portions like you did.

gimped characters arent even what i am talking about.. but how a wizard can opt to do things that are there to help when another class isnt readily available. be it taking Knock to always prevent a rogue from doing his job, or something that will undermine the presence of a fighter. the wizard player should actively support the rest of the party.. or the player is doing it intentionally most times, and when the accident DOES occur, they should exercise self-control over what they are doing to prevent from making another class useless.

the base party make-up is 2 melee, 2 casters as assumed.. you have one each of the 4 class groups as they once were called. you are supposed to depend on casters then. now you CAN go with all melee, but the game/adventure needs to be tailored to a low magic/low caster game.. then you can have Conan games without worry because the casters are few and far between, and when you meet one you have a REAL challenge on your hands.

many people do like being able to sit down to play, and pick up a nearby object and bash something with it. either stress form work, family, etc they want something simple, and that shouldnt be taken away form them like 4th giving fighters a spell list. wizards arent defined by casting, that is just there specialty, there are more parts of the game than combat, and maybe those parts need to be explored by people that feel a fighter isnt doing well enough in combat, as well see fi the casters are purposefully trying to take over the role of the melee player.

dragons dont rely solely on physics as they are magical creatures...also the bumble bee shouldnt be able to fly due to physics, but it does. and giants and dwarfs arent reflected as the diseases in reality within the game. halflings also dont have the smaller range of motion or motor control that children do.. to expect that would be crossing the reality and fantasy too much. these "creatures" arent human nor bound by human limitations, otherwise we wouldnt even have dragons in the game, nor anything by some mammals, reptiles, and humans to fight.. let alone magic.

gimping again isnt a fault of rules, so much unless you do 3d6 straight down for stats. the players should be playing together and have a general idea of what the others playstyle is and can work together so that a character can be made to support each other.

CoDzilla could be done in 2nd as well if you were smart enough and stretched the limits of the rules enough.. just like the loopholes in 3rd. Pun-pun not so much.. but you get the idea. at that time is when the player should try to work something out, or the DM should go back to approving characters and tell someone the character wont work with the game and explain as i will for a later point.

the fighter can do with the dragon what people have done for years when trying to catch or otherwise "attack" a flying creature. we dont always wait for it to land in a birdseed trap like Wile E.

1. many people DO want sensible physics to be in D&D for fighters, and do NOT want DBZ fighters. DBZ is a good show in ITS universe, but not for D&D. again some of those are ones who sometimes like a simpler way to play or entry level class, and the fighter is the best and easiest choice. action hero movie moves, leave then for action hero movies. if you need some strange move, then allow ANY character to be able to make it, not just a fighter, and let each attempt be figured out for its circumstances.

2. "Options".. the keyword. its an option not a given, and each edition prior to 4th stated that everything in the book wasnt intended to be used all the time, and check with your DM as they have final say. with help i posted the related context from EACH edition on this somewhere on this forum in the past. the books just supply what the designers think will fit and the msot people will be able to work with from the start, BEFORE, you start adding homebrew things or non-core material from splats, settings, etc.

3. that is a BIG problem that came about with newcomers to 3rd, and they still havent learned. the reason there is no metal weapons/armor is because you are on Athas. the books provide LOTS of metal armor and weapons..and Athas is NO different than a world created by the DM. its someone's homebrew world and rules. it just happens to be someone that worked for the company that made D&D, and they are willing to sell it to you. the problem is that Athas is as-is and the DM will have to fix it, the original creator wont help you if you call him on the phone. So a DMs own homebrew world is better, because they know YOU as a player better, can tailor the world better to your needs and wants, and already understands the world to be able to fix something on the fly rhater than stop the game and look up between the Athas Atlas, and the DMG/PHB. a large influx of players thinking.. I can use everything in here...is a major problem that has NEVER been corrected and even made WORSE with 4th's "everything is core".

im saying there are people that still do NOT see a real problem because they never experience it and only offered Fighter v Wizard, with the rest of the party left out, a specific case where it happens never detailed, and all is hypothetical poking at the edges and corner cases of the game, or just looking at the math, rather than game in-play.how it works that way. or the few rare instances cases are given.. the wizard player is just being an ass and purposefully undermining the fighter player rather than working towards a group goal.. the quest, or just FUN itself. i would like to see a detailed concern about this that doesnt include a wizard player purposefully trying to undermine another clas, or cleric...and a detailed situation where it happens to know that it IS the games fault.. rather than player error causing the game to not be fun, or other players to NOT be useful. this includes DM response to actions by the wizard or fighter player and maybe reason his response was thus as it occurred?

im still trying to see the problem itself detailed outside of the vacuum of just the numbers, and without a player just setting out to make a fighter feel useless.

[tussock]

im still trying to see the problem itself detailed outside of the vacuum of just the numbers, and without a player just setting out to make a fighter feel useless.

In 3e, if you have a high level party with a Cleric, a Druid, and a couple of Wizards, and you add a Fighter to that group, the group gets weaker. Four casters and a Fighter is worse than just four casters.

It's not that a Fighter is strictly weaker than the casters, or that he does nothing useful, both of which are true to a limited extent, it's that carrying his carcass around the multiverse and keeping him alive is a serious drain on party resources that in turn weakens the spellcasters. When the party heads off to Hell, they're better off leaving the Fighter behind.

It's the same in 4e with Defenders. They're just a drain compared to a mobile, ranged-attack, action-denial party with one less PC.

At least in AD&D they could kill the monsters, make their saves, be generally impervious to attacks, and have good damage output at range if monsters refused to stand still; and the casters needed a reliable meat shield rather more.