Fuck memes. Irrelevant Fighters, unstoppable Wizards.

[shadzar]

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.

i guess then that the group i played with at a D&D Game Day (around DDM Dragon Queen release), and the stores group of "everyone must play even if the PC party is 15 people"...then didnt factor in that any single class would be a problem, because in both cases with 3rd everyone had to be allowed to play. which with a group that big i STILL wonder why i was needed to fill a seat.

the attempt at 4th was just short lived but the "i dont are who does what i am just ready to use my new POWUH".

also that "high-level" play i dont like that much and somewhere Gary even said the game wasnt meant for because it breaks form its foundation and normal conventions. yet like that one thread here or maybe it was ENWorld i was reading it.. people jsut cant stop playing the same character and want to go beyond the bounds of the game. Like a recent L&L i think said or something that there are break points int he levels where the game severely changes and becomes a new game. that IS true.. and its those new games i often dont want to play,a nd cant see why others would.

but you get the levels in the books in case you want to play them, but still people forget that you have to design your own game from a certain level so that it still works for YOUR group.

so if you are going to play a Glantri Kingdom of Magic game.. the just go ahead and play the wizards/casters game and deny a fighter in the group. its fun and works.

[Neurosis]

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.

I completely disagree with you about 4E. 4E is a lot of bad things, but the one good thing it is is balanced. Every class feels dreadfully samey, and has very equivalent capabilities.

Disclaimer: of course, I'm talking about the only way I've played 4E, which is casual play: core only, no optimization, final destination. It's not like I as a GM was denying anything, we just didn't own any sourcebooks or feel like buying anything, and none of us knew the game well enough to optimize any of the material in core. At different levels of optimization/more sourcebooks the game might break down.

But in the BASIC game of 4E D&D as opposed to the BASIC game of 3E D&D, Fighters and Wizards are on shockingly even footing. They're both guys that do some stuff, like some damage and minor status effects and stuff. Meh. I don't care about the stuff they do because it's the same as the stuff everyone else does ([1W] + STR, pushed one square, whatever) but I GM'd for like every class while I was running 4E and I didn't notice any of them outperforming any of the others.

[JonSetanta]

I didn't notice any of them outperforming any of the others.

For better or for worse, all 4e classes suck. I think that was the design goal of 4e and they took it to the extreme.

[tussock]

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.

I completely disagree with you about 4E. 4E is a lot of bad things, but the one good thing it is is balanced. Every class feels dreadfully samey, and has very equivalent capabilities.

Leave the Defender at home. Your buffs, pushes, and heals end up focused on helping the Striker, where they do far more good. You're all more mobile without the big fat anchor, and the party takes less damage with basically the same output. Then replace your controllers with more Strikers and Leaders. Team Cleric or Team Ranger clean up very nicely compared to a balanced party. It's not as balanced as it seems when you're all carrying the Defender.

But in the BASIC game of 4E D&D as opposed to the BASIC game of 3E D&D, Fighters and Wizards are on shockingly even footing.

Core 3e, there's not a lot between the classes up to mid levels in terms of killing monsters, and further depending on how much you waste keeping the Fighter in the game. A 16th level sword Fighter looks awesome covered in high level buffs with all the monsters tied to a tree for him.

[Neurosis]

I'm no expert about 4E so I'll cede the point for now.

3E wise, in the game I'm playing in the Fighter (currently ECL 9) is still consistently as useful overall as the Wizard (currently ECL 10) and still can do something the Wizard cannot or at least do something better than the wizard can (massive damage output, reliable threat neutralization--there's no save against getting axed for 70-odd damage from power attacks in one round). We'll see how they keep up as we continue to go up in levels.

For better or for worse, all 4e classes suck. I think that was the design goal of 4e and they took it to the extreme.

I think I pretty much agree.

[Username17]

3E wise, in the game I'm playing in the Fighter (currently ECL 9) is still consistently as useful overall as the Wizard (currently ECL 10) and still can do something the Wizard cannot or at least do something better than the wizard can (massive damage output, reliable threat neutralization--there's no save against getting axed for 70-odd damage from power attacks in one round). We'll see how they keep up as we continue to go up in levels.

What does the level 9 Fighter do that the Wizard couldn't accomplish by charming a giant or binding an angel?

-Username17

[nockermensch]

3E wise, in the game I'm playing in the Fighter (currently ECL 9) is still consistently as useful overall as the Wizard (currently ECL 10) and still can do something the Wizard cannot or at least do something better than the wizard can (massive damage output, reliable threat neutralization--there's no save against getting axed for 70-odd damage from power attacks in one round). We'll see how they keep up as we continue to go up in levels.

What does the level 9 Fighter do that the Wizard couldn't accomplish by charming a giant or binding an angel?

-Username17

Charming or Binding servants will always be a worse option than the True Friendship that only comes from a nakama. I know this, because I watched One Piece.

[RadiantPhoenix]

Charming or Binding servants will always be a worse option than the True Friendship that only comes from a nakama. I know this, because I watched One Piece.

Charm + Diplomacy

[hogarth]

What does the level 9 Fighter do that the Wizard couldn't accomplish by charming a giant or binding an angel?

Charm, as we all know, is extremely GM-dependent. Still a nice option, of course.

There aren't any 6 HD angels in the Monster Manual -- which angel were you thinking of?

[virgil]

There aren't any 6 HD angels in the Monster Manual -- which angel were you thinking of?

Lantern archons? Most of the 6HD creatures with the celestial template (can't remember if valid or not)? And did he say core MM only? If you go outside it, we've got Justice Archons.

[hogarth]

There aren't any 6 HD angels in the Monster Manual -- which angel were you thinking of?

Lantern archons?

A lantern archon would make a terrible replacement for a 9th level fighter, under most circumstances. It's technically not an angel, either.

And did he say core MM only?

No, of course not. But those are the only angels I'm familiar with off the top of my head.

[virgil]

Completely forgot about the hound archon, 6HD.

[JonSetanta]

Charm, as we all know, is extremely GM-dependent. Still a nice option, of course.

CharOp theory assumes the DM is a passive lump of flesh inserted behind the DM screen that says "I'll allow it" to anything the player can think up, as long as the rules support it.