Martial vs Magic?

[AllisterH]

Whoops. Me and my big mouth...

It's why we have the blaster wizard archtype. Damage was KING in pre 3.x since fighters would laugh off any save or die/suck spell especially at higher levels (in 3.x, a fighter becomes worse at resisting spells as he levels, it was REVERSED pre 3.x)

Although this had its own problems in that most of the high level spells that had a save or die/suck were worthless for a mage to memorize ....so I can see WHY WOTC wanted to make those spells more useful/attractive...

[Frozen_Feet]

Yet the caster must buff the fighter? If you are playing a fighter, it is your responsibility to make sure you can work in the game. Talk to the DM or the other players/design a character to overcome this, but don't expect the caster to automatically make up got your shortfalls. Why do you think mirror image is so popular amougst casters? Its because they know the fighter won't always be able to stand between them and the monster.

You obviously failed to notice the out-of-game vs. in-game dichtomy I made. Let's try one more time:

Character creation is driven mostly by out-of-game reasons and motives. Party balance might be one of these, but it's not the only one or the most important one. In a roleplaying game, the actual role of the character might take precedence over mechanical power. Someone might want to play the pathetic weakling, or the valiant knight, or whatever else instead of the omnipotent paranoid wizard. Because they want to tell the story of that kind of a character.

And that's cool. It's a task for the DM and sometimes the other players to create a situation where the character can get involved in the game.

But once we get to events within the game, things change. In-game logic takes precedence over out-of-game concerns. If and when the characters are working as a team, it's reasonable for them to do as much as they can to help each other out. Failure or unwillingness to do so can and will count as jerkishness or outright stupidity - and if the intention isn't to play a stupid jerk, someone has to compromise. Team work can, and often does require some members to do things they like less.

But once you accept this dichtomy, accusing a player for shortcomings of their characters gets ridiculous, especially if they are hypothetical concerns emerging from metagame knowledge instead of actual game events. The classic case is of course using so-called Schrödinger's Wizard, who always has the right spells prepared or at least can escape if not, to show how inept a fighter is. Such character can't even in the lower two-thirds of the system, so complaining to your fellow about picking a barbarian instead at level 1 (for example) is pretty asinine. The potential difference in power might not be such a big deal (or a deal at all) in the actual game, and it surely won't be if the barbarian ends up taking that one hit that'd ended your Sorcerer's career at level 2.

You're extrapolating an in-game issue - efficiency of teamwork - one level higher than it needs to be an issue. Like I said before - out-of-game, you can bitch to your friend about not playing a third caster, but within the game, there might have never been a third caster. Characters within the game are assumed to operate with the tools they have in hand, and those tools might not always be absolutely ideal. Even if the ideal elements are described somewhere, doesn't mean they are required to make an appearance in a game.

And again, whoever has the tools has the responsibility to use them for a job that needs them, or at least hand them over to someone else who can use them. With great in-game power comes great in-game responsibility.


With sufficient optimisation a commoner could do the same, that doesn't make it a good class.

But it means they're able to contribute. Whatever the means, the warrior is able to bring something to the table. That's enough of a reason within the game for his friends to look after him.

[Philistine]

That's enough of a reason within the game for his friends to look after him.

But it's not a very good reason for his so-called friends to keep dragging him out into the middle of gunfights when all he's got (all he'll ever have) is a knife. Seriously, what kind of friends are these guys supposed to be? Yes, certainly teams IRL do work together to cover their weak links. But if said team is involved in a high-risk occupation, and one particular member of the team keeps being the weakest link, over and over again - so much so that he even gets blown away in what's supposed to be his own field of specialization - then it won't be long before he finds his friends gently encouraging* him to reevaluate his career path before he gets someone (most likely himself) killed.


* Gentle encouragement could be anything from a quiet one-on-one conversation, to a full-on intervention by the whole crew, to a Full Metal Jacket-style after-hours beatdown.

[Frozen_Feet]

You're right, of course - but you're once again downplaying the contribution of the fighter, and even the commoner, much more than is necessary (or even reasonable.)

When talking about a remotely optimized fighter or a commoner, they are not chumps. They might only be able to kill one enemy while the wizard kills ten, but they can still do things.

As such, they might be the weakest link, and they might always be the weakest link, but they're still useful! There's a benefit in bringing them with the group as opposed to leaving them back home. Sure, leaving them back home might nullify risks for them, but having them around lowers the risks for everyone.

And once again, there might be no replacement. In a world where most people are level 6 or below commoners, a level 12 Fighter is still more qualified than just about anyone else even if his friends are Druids and Clerics. A full chain reaches further than one with a missing link, so bringing that weakest link still achieves more than removing it.

[Talya]

The simple fact is D&D is more than a game. It's based on a series of tropes that did not start with, but certainly hit their stride with Tolkien's Lord of the Rings.

Let's compare the power levels of adventuring party known as the "Fellowship of the Ring." What, really, did Frodo, Samwise, Meriadoc, or Pippin bring to the party, in terms of expertise or combat skill? Meanwhile, Legolas, Gimli, Boromir and Aragorn were all top-notch combatants, and yet not a one of them held a candle to Gandalf. Gandalf was every bit as effective a physical combatant, but held magics that put him as far beyond Aragorn and friends as they were above the hobbits (although Gandalf's magics were far more subtle than those of the D&D arcanist.)

Do you think any of them wondered if this was fair?

But D&D is a game, and nobody wants to feel useless. (For those that do, we have the 3.5 monk.) However, if you worry about balance too much, you end up with something like 4e, where all the classes feel like cookie cutter images of each other, and nobody can do anything spectacularly different from anybody else. What is the purpose of magic in a world where a guy with a bow or a guy with a sword can do the same stuff you can?

The trick, then, in mimicking the trope in a way that is acceptable in a game is finding a way to make magic truly spectacular and godlike in comparison to mere mundane mortals, while at the same time making the mundane mortals absolutely essential and needed by the spellcasters. I don't think anybody has successfully managed that yet. I can't choose to play a regular nonmagical swordsman in any game where magic is as good as it should be while at the same time being truly necessary. Every attempt to balance it has either made magic mundane, or made the mundane magical. I don't consider either acceptable.

[MeeposFire]

The simple fact is D&D is more than a game. It's based on a series of tropes that did not start with, but certainly hit their stride with Tolkien's Lord of the Rings.

Let's compare the power levels of adventuring party known as the "Fellowship of the Ring." What, really, did Frodo, Samwise, Meriadoc, or Pippin bring to the party, in terms of expertise or combat skill? Meanwhile, Legolas, Gimli, Boromir and Aragorn were all top-notch combatants, and yet not a one of them held a candle to Gandalf. Gandalf was every bit as effective a physical combatant, but held magics that put him as far beyond Aragorn and friends as they were above the hobbits (although Gandalf's magics were far more subtle than those of the D&D arcanist.)

Do you think any of them wondered if this was fair?

But D&D is a game, and nobody wants to feel useless. (For those that do, we have the 3.5 monk.) However, if you worry about balance too much, you end up with something like 4e, where all the classes feel like cookie cutter images of each other, and nobody can do anything spectacularly different from anybody else. What is the purpose of magic in a world where a guy with a bow or a guy with a sword can do the same stuff you can?

The trick, then, in mimicking the trope in a way that is acceptable in a game is finding a way to make magic truly spectacular and godlike in comparison to mere mundane mortals, while at the same time making the mundane mortals absolutely essential and needed by the spellcasters. I don't think anybody has successfully managed that yet. I can't choose to play a regular nonmagical swordsman in any game where magic is as good as it should be while at the same time being truly necessary. Every attempt to balance it has either made magic mundane, or made the mundane magical. I don't consider either acceptable.

You can't really compare literature and a game like that. In literature you can be 100% useless in the party (in fact you can be a drain) but if you do one important thing you are validated in the story and that can be seen as a good story. In a game with people actually playing that is a situation that would likely not hold very well. In a game players are active participants not observers and that makes a big difference in how things should be.

[Talya]

You can't really compare literature and a game like that. In literature you can be 100% useless in the party (in fact you can be a drain) but if you do one important thing you are validated in the story and that can be seen as a good story. In a game with people actually playing that is a situation that would likely not hold very well. In a game players are active participants not observers and that makes a big difference in how things should be.

I rather agreed with this in my last two paragraphs.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

The trick, then, in mimicking the trope in a way that is acceptable in a game is finding a way to make magic truly spectacular and godlike in comparison to mere mundane mortals, while at the same time making the mundane mortals absolutely essential and needed by the spellcasters. I don't think anybody has successfully managed that yet. I can't choose to play a regular nonmagical swordsman in any game where magic is as good as it should be while at the same time being truly necessary. Every attempt to balance it has either made magic mundane, or made the mundane magical. I don't consider either acceptable.

As mentioned before in this thread, AD&D actually did a fairly good job of, if not "balancing" martial and magic classes, at least ensuring that martial classes were useful and casters were less godlike. Fighters had the best saves and highest AC and HP, so they could defend against magic well; they had the most attacks and could both attack and move in a round, so they could do good damage; they had several other advantages, depending on the class (thieves could use magic items, rangers could cast arcane and divine spells, fighters could specialize in weapons, etc.); and more. Casters were very vulnerable and relatively immobile while casting and any damage taken disrupted the spell, so they weren't nearly as invulnerable as they are in 3e; they took initiative penalties when casting and couldn't toss out more than 1 spell per round, so they couldn't out-action-economy anyone; spells had drawbacks such as aging and fewer safeguards, so magic wasn't as safe or reliable; and so on.

AD&D and 3e both have it set up so casters are weaker than average at the lowest levels and much stronger at the highest levels; however, (A) the difference wasn't nearly as vast at the higher levels in AD&D and (B) while fighters definitely became weaker there was never a point where they were no longer necessary or at least valuable. Instituting drawbacks for magic and taking some of the stuff that everyone got in 3e and giving it back to the martial types exclusively would go a long way to narrowing the martial/magic divide.

[bloodtide]

So is the problem the 15 minute day? The idea that all characters must be at full power, or near full power 24/7. So that the average group will only get into 2 or 3 fights that then immediately sleep. Even worse is the video game inspired 'safe sleep point'.


But in a game where the characters must stay awake and active 12-16 hours a day, then spellcasters can't dominate. A spellcaster can't use half a dozen spells or spell slots or items to do every task. The martial characters can do this however. A wizard can only cast knock five times, but the barbarian can bash open doors all day long.

Even at 20th level, a spellcaster only gets a set number of spells. They can't do everything. But if the group has less then five encounters a day, they can get away with doing everything....though they will have no spells left after that(but it's ok as the day will conveniently end).

[Feriority]

When talking about a remotely optimized fighter or a commoner, they are not chumps. They might only be able to kill one enemy while the wizard kills ten, but they can still do things.


The argument isn't that the fighter doesn't kill that one thing, it's that if the wizard is spending resources on protecting the fighter, it isn't killing 10 things. If the wizard is only killing five things, not ten things, the party has gone from 10 kills total to 6 kills total by adding the fighter.

I've never played a game with a lot of optimization, and I've also never played a game at very high levels, so combat types have always pulled their own weight just fine and nobody's had a problem with it. I don't think that the 1 kill vs 10 kills problem is that big a deal in games I've played. However, from how people talk about optimization at high levels, it certainly does seem to break down that way - the cleric keeping the fighter alive means the cleric isn't obliterating enemies, and the fighter doesn't make up for that loss.

[Talya]

But in a game where the characters must stay awake and active 12-16 hours a day, then spellcasters can't dominate. A spellcaster can't use half a dozen spells or spell slots or items to do every task. The martial characters can do this however. A wizard can only cast knock five times, but the barbarian can bash open doors all day long.


Meh. Honestly, it's quite hard to run out of spells when you've got 6/10/10/10/9/9/9/9/8/8 in a day and cast spontaneously, with a spell DC ranging from 25 (a regular cantrip) to 37 (a level 9 enchantment). But then, my sorceress couldn't break the game quite as badly as a wizard could have.

[MeeposFire]

Meh. Honestly, it's quite hard to run out of spells when you've got 6/10/10/10/9/9/9/9/8/8 in a day and cast spontaneously, with a spell DC ranging from 25 (a regular cantrip) to 37 (a level 9 enchantment). But then, my sorceress couldn't break the game quite as badly as a wizard could have.

In addition it does not take a lot of spells to end an encounter. With just the use of a couple of spells you can effectively end an encounter so you are unlikely to run out unless you want to, you are purposely playing a style that requires a lot of spell expenditure (blasting) or you are actively trying to make everybody look dumb.

[Frozen_Feet]

So is the problem the 15 minute day? The idea that all characters must be at full power, or near full power 24/7. So that the average group will only get into 2 or 3 fights that then immediately sleep. Even worse is the video game inspired 'safe sleep point'.

No. The 15 minute work day is a poor strategy in any situation that isn't relatively safe and static already. Also, engaging in just few fight before resting is a realistic battle strategy that has been employed in real life - this because of the fact that fighting to exhaustion is darn risky, and people don't like risks.

Safe sleep points have never been much of an issue either. It's been ages since I last played an adventure where retreating to safety wasn't an option, it's just that each time doing so would've halted progression and wasted time. Much of the rage towards the idea is unwarranted - for example, in D&D many of the "safe sleep points" aren't as safe as they're made to be, or only become available at the highest level of play where the point is moot due to Rocket Tag phenomenom.


But in a game where the characters must stay awake and active 12-16 hours a day, then spellcasters can't dominate. A spellcaster can't use half a dozen spells or spell slots or items to do every task. The martial characters can do this however. A wizard can only cast knock five times, but the barbarian can bash open doors all day long.

Even at 20th level, a spellcaster only gets a set number of spells. They can't do everything. But if the group has less then five encounters a day, they can get away with doing everything....though they will have no spells left after that(but it's ok as the day will conveniently end).[

Wrong. Non-magical characters are often limited by their HP, uses er day of their abilities, or limitations on their skill retries. More to the point, most of the "unlimited" non-magical solutions are perfectly accessible to casters as well.

More to the point, at higher levels, a caster can very well use half dozen slots for the most important tasks - they really do have that many slots. However, they rarely have to, since many spells are powerful enough to solve many problems with a single casting.

At low levels of D&D 3.5, casters are limited, that's true - but their non-magical compatriots are almost as limited due to meager extent of their own durability. At higher levels, the longevity of casters was long underestimated - the truth is, they often have more, not less stamina than so-called mundanes. A high level wizard has to go out of his way to use his spell slots down to the lowest level ones.


The argument isn't that the fighter doesn't kill that one thing, it's that if the wizard is spending resources on protecting the fighter, it isn't killing 10 things. If the wizard is only killing five things, not ten things, the party has gone from 10 kills total to 6 kills total by adding the fighter.
...

The cleric keeping the fighter alive means the cleric isn't obliterating enemies, and the fighter doesn't make up for that loss.

The bolded part is what I'm disputing. Short term, it might be true, but for the net value of the fighter's long term presence to be consistenly negative to the group requires situations to conspire against him in a truly ridiculous manner. (Another possibility is that bad tactics make the fighter's presence go to wast, such as when casters arbitrarily deny him of buffs when buffing the fighter would be tactically optimal.)

[Snails]

Implying that Wizards protecting Fighters or Clerics keeping Fighters alive is a sub-optimal tactic or a distraction from their true potential power as magic wielders is completely counter to my experience.

Buffing tactics can be an extremely efficient use of spells, especially because there are many fine choices with even lower level spells.

The practical limit of the potential power of spellcasters is the number of Actions they have. Buffing up the Fighters is supremely Action-efficient, especially as you often have the opportunity to do some of this work before the combat with your little spells, saving the big slots for big problems.

Dangerous Meatshields are a wonderful distraction for the enemy, indirectly protecting the spellcasters by their mere presence on the battlefield. Nothing says ignore those guys in the robes like a Hasted Fighter in your face.

Thick Meatshields buy time, which translates directly into more Actions for the spellcasters.

Can the Cleric just buff himself instead? Maybe. But most buff spells thrown on a Fighter give a bigger net boost. Powerful stacks are better than linear. Even the mighty Righteous Might + Divine Power stack is still probably less effective than a well-built Fighter with no buffs. But this is very Action inefficient.*

Why spend two Actions to emulate a decent Fighter, when you could be boosting a decent Fighter into SuperFighter instead, and let the Fighter cheerfully risk his neck by purposely running up to the most dangerous enemies?

The Fighter does not have to "make up for the loss" of a spellcaster. In the hands of a tactically skilled spellcaster, a Fighter is a means of making good spells even more powerful.

* Anyone who has such amazing buff timing as to pull this one off regularly, could be getting even better results buffing the Fighter.

[Snails]

In addition it does not take a lot of spells to end an encounter. With just the use of a couple of spells you can effectively end an encounter so you are unlikely to run out unless you want to, you are purposely playing a style that requires a lot of spell expenditure (blasting) or you are actively trying to make everybody look dumb.

That is rarely going to happen unless you have buffed Fighters helping you clean up what is left over.

A party of four 7th level spellcasters might well finish off a CR Hill Giant in two rounds -- we are talking about something like 6-7 Lightning Bolts or the equivalent. But that Hill Giant could kill a 7th level caster with a single lucky hit. You will need to spend more resources to have some cushion, and then probably spend some healing.

Most people believe that blaster spellcasters are less effective, as do I. But they are only less effective when either the opponent is not one that needs to be killed or...you have some Fighters to help you out.

[Frozen_Feet]

Indeed, in an all-caster party, one of the casters pretty much has to take on the role of blaster / damage dealer, at least from time to time, or the effectiveness of the party suffers.

Let's take classic low-level "save or lose", Grease. If there's a number of other characters to help the caster and strike the fallen enemies down, it easily ends encounters. If there aren't, it's a few round delay for the opposition and doesn't achieve much anything.

At least in low levels, characters with high BAB, weapon proficiencies, precision damage and so on are much better at the "clean-up", and these things are generally more available to non-casters in the early game. At higher levels, casters can usually obviate or mitigate the need for them, such as by summoning monsters, but these things tend to cost extra spell slots, which could've been spared for something else.

(Also, I can already hear the complaint in my head: "I wanted to play an arcane overlord, not a crossbow archer shooting unmoving targets from the sidelines! Let me play what I want, dammit!")

[NNescio]

Indeed, in an all-caster party, one of the casters pretty much has to take on the role of blaster / damage dealer, at least from time to time, or the effectiveness of the party suffers.

Let's take classic low-level "save or lose", Grease. If there's a number of other characters to help the caster and strike the fallen enemies down, it easily ends encounters. If there aren't, it's a few round delay for the opposition and doesn't achieve much anything.

At least in low levels, characters with high BAB, weapon proficiencies, precision damage and so on are much better at the "clean-up", and these things are generally more available to non-casters in the early game. At higher levels, casters can usually obviate or mitigate the need for them, such as by summoning monsters, but these things tend to cost extra spell slots, which could've been spared for something else.

(Also, I can already hear the complaint in my head: "I wanted to play an arcane overlord, not a crossbow archer shooting unmoving targets from the sidelines! Let me play what I want, dammit!")

I recall one low-level session involving several absolutely atrocious die rolls on both sides of the board. The two wizards crossbow archers contributed the most damage, with both of them still having decent chunks of spells left since none of them were willing to waste further control spells.

The fighter was, understandably, furious.

[Frozen_Feet]

http://i.imgur.com/EpLoW.jpg

[The Big Dice]

Meh. Honestly, it's quite hard to run out of spells when you've got 6/10/10/10/9/9/9/9/8/8 in a day and cast spontaneously, with a spell DC ranging from 25 (a regular cantrip) to 37 (a level 9 enchantment). But then, my sorceress couldn't break the game quite as badly as a wizard could have.
So how are you getting an Intelligence of 46? That's literally off the chart in the PHB. And why are you assuming that a level of ability that I've never seen anyone come close to in play is normal?

[PairO'Dice Lost]

So how are you getting an Intelligence of 46? That's literally off the chart in the PHB. And why are you assuming that a level of ability that I've never seen anyone come close to in play is normal?

That's actually a Cha of 40--note that it's a sorceress with those spells/day, so she has higher base spells/day--and it's not too hard to get a score that high. 18 base + 2 race + 5 level + 5 inherent + 6 cloak comes out to 36 base, and the other 4 can come from buffs, age, non-enhancement items, and so on.

[Talya]

That's actually a Cha of 40--note that it's a sorceress with those spells/day, so she has higher base spells/day--and it's not too hard to get a score that high. 18 base + 2 race + 5 level + 5 inherent + 6 cloak comes out to 36 base, and the other 4 can come from buffs, age, non-enhancement items, and so on.

and acquired templates...

[PairO'Dice Lost]

and acquired templates...

Hence the "and so on." :smallwink: Another +4 to +6 shouldn't be at all hard to get with minimal LA.

[Snails]

If we bring high-level upper reaches of spells into the discussion, we have to bring hyper-optimized meleeists into the discussion as well. That becomes tedious, especially because how often a meleeist gets a full iterative attack can make a tremendous difference in average damage per round.

Realistically, most campaigns live in the realm of levels 1-12, with core and some number of splatbooks, and thus most DMs do not really care if anything or everything falls apart at level 19 or 35.

[MeeposFire]

If we bring high-level upper reaches of spells into the discussion, we have to bring hyper-optimized meleeists into the discussion as well. That becomes tedious, especially because how often a meleeist gets a full iterative attack can make a tremendous difference in average damage per round.

Realistically, most campaigns live in the realm of levels 1-12, with core and some number of splatbooks, and thus most DMs do not really care if anything or everything falls apart at level 19 or 35.

If we have a high OP spellcaster you could have your high OP melee person doing lots of damage. The spellcaster players won't care at that point since they can still make you superfluous. I have seen builds that can do thousands of points of damage in a round and still a straight wiz 20 would be objectively more powerful with less chance of being screwed. Now I would prfefer that was not the case but 3e is what it is.

[Frozen_Feet]

That super-optimized fighter doing thousands of points of damage still makes an excellent tool for the Wizard. Just because they can make you superfluous doesn't mean doing so is the best option for them.

[MeeposFire]

That super-optimized fighter doing thousands of points of damage still makes an excellent tool for the Wizard. Just because they can make you superfluous doesn't mean doing so is the best option for them.

Only if you have one and I still would rather have the wizard in most every situation if I had to choose between the two.

[The Glyphstone]

If you're a high-optimized caster, and you're picking between a high-optimized meleeist and another high-op caster for your travelling buddy, why would you choose the option who would actually have a decent shot at killing you?

[Frozen_Feet]

Only if you have one and I still would rather have the wizard in most every situation if I had to choose between the two.

This again assumes there's something to choose from. Remember, all possible out-of-game combinations don't exist in every game. It's stupid to consider another wizard, if within the context of the game, there are none available. Again, I don't think it's reasonable to turn the metagame observation of class tiers into an imperative for players to pick mechanically powerful options in-game.

[Curious]

This again assumes there's something to choose from. Remember, all possible out-of-game combinations don't exist in every game. It's stupid to consider another wizard, if within the context of the game, there are none available. Again, I don't think it's reasonable to turn the metagame observation of class tiers into an imperative for players to pick mechanically powerful options in-game.

So wait a second. Your argument is that it is preferable to take the fighter over another class when no other class is available? A glowing recommendation, truly. :smallamused:

[Frozen_Feet]

No, my argument is that just because something exists n the system, doesn't mean it exists in a game. It'd, frankly, be impossible to hold a game of 3,5 containing every element at once. Because of this, one should not take using metagame knowledge to dictate what characters should be played and how too far.

But yes, in practice it means that you make do with what you have. In-game, complaining about how our comrade is not another wizard is pretty childish if he's still the most qualified person outside of yourself. (Akin to whining about how you don't have a sports car.) I refer to the earlier example of level 10 Fighter in a land of level 6 Commoners.

[Snails]

'Superfluous" is a very strong word.

I am not buying the implied hypothesis that a Wiz+Wiz+Clr+Rog (or Wiz+Wiz+Clr+Wiz) party is hands down more effective than the classic Ftr+Wiz+Clr+Rog.

Battlefield control measures are often quite weak if you lack a party member tough enough to stand his ground somewhere dangerous, and strong enough to punish an enemy for being in a bad tactical position. It is teamwork that makes the Wizard reliably dangerous.

Take the Fighter out of the equation, and the odds that a little bad luck kills a PC go way, way up.

[Talya]

'Superfluous" is a very strong word.

I am not buying the implied hypothesis that a Wiz+Wiz+Clr+Rog (or Wiz+Wiz+Clr+Wiz) party is hands down more effective than the classic Ftr+Wiz+Clr+Rog.

Battlefield control measures are often quite weak if you lack a party member tough enough to stand his ground somewhere dangerous, and strong enough to punish an enemy for being in a bad tactical position. It is teamwork that makes the Wizard reliably dangerous.

Take the Fighter out of the equation, and the odds that a little bad luck kills a PC go way, way up.

Oh, you're definitely right. That's why you go Wiz-Dru-Clr-Beg instead.

[MeeposFire]

'Superfluous" is a very strong word.

I am not buying the implied hypothesis that a Wiz+Wiz+Clr+Rog (or Wiz+Wiz+Clr+Wiz) party is hands down more effective than the classic Ftr+Wiz+Clr+Rog.

Battlefield control measures are often quite weak if you lack a party member tough enough to stand his ground somewhere dangerous, and strong enough to punish an enemy for being in a bad tactical position. It is teamwork that makes the Wizard reliably dangerous.

Take the Fighter out of the equation, and the odds that a little bad luck kills a PC go way, way up.

I chose it very carefully. There are so many ways to mess up the deadly standard melee guys and casters have just way too many ways to win encounters. What is the melee guy bringing? Toughness? I can get that. Damage? I can do that. Standard melee classes don't bring anything to the table that a spellcaster cannot bring while bringing something else in addition. I am not even a spellcaster kind of guy, I want to use melee guys and as a rule I do since having that much power gets boring and I like the visual of taking people on with a sword in hand, but I have no delusions that standard melee classes are better or that they can compete against a spellcaster that wants to make them obsolete.

Taking the fighter out is net gain. A druid that wants to do a fighter job will be around as tough (possibly tougher less mad) and be more than nasty enough in melee, brings a second melee creature in, and has spells that are very useful. A fighter just brings I hit it with my sword and has a slew of weaknesses that need to be addressed like its low will save which can cause it to be a party liability.

[Frozen_Feet]

Taking the fighter out is net gain and replacing him with something more capable in fighting is a net gain. Just removing the fighter is demonstrably a net loss. Yes, fighters might be a liability in relation to some other class, but they can be pretty amazing on their own right. Having an extra party member is an advantage more often than it's not.

[Snails]

The Fighter brings both toughness and damage without any buffing or preparation of any kind. That is not something any spellcaster can accomplish. Heck, a reach specialist could be killing while surprised.

The Fighter is also the best overall vehicle for exploiting buffs. A spellcaster gets huge bang for the buck by putting at least some bennies in the Fighter's basket.

I suppose the Animal Companion could suffix as a punching bag in a pinch if the Druid is the kind of quality player who does not mind them dying regularly.

It is not that replacing a Fighter with a Druid is a terrible choice, but a core Druid has some notable weaknesses when compared with a core Fighter.

IME a Druid can be fabulous when well prepared for the fight. But the Druid has some spell flexibility issues with spells, and may have to fall back on summoned critters. But a Druid's AC is so awful that it is difficult to successfully cast a summon without any summoned critters or a Fighter to hide behind. Catch-22.

4e has the explicit concept of roles. To be a Defender one must have skills for enforcing Stickiness. Stickiness is weak in 3e. But it is possible to achieve some degree of Stickiness with feats like Combat Reflexes, Improved Trip, reach, and raw physical damage. An AC Dire Wolf is a poor blocker compared to a Fighter. A Cleric or Druid is a mediocre blocker when buffed (and incompetent when not) -- they do not have the feats to really punish the enemy for running on by and eating the Wizard.

[Jude_H]

Honestly, even considering prep time, the Fighter isn't a great melee character compared to casters who want that role. Just a Battle Sorcerer (I pick this example only because I've been plying one recently and because it's not a particularly stellar warrior/caster) without prep time has all sorts of options the fighter can't approach, both offensively and defensively. Swift and Immediate actions like Wraithstrike, Greater Mirror Image or Minor Shapeshift are beyond the Fighter's reach. Things like Celerity, quickened spells or take it further. Spells like Stinking Cloud, Web, Entangle, Wall of X or Hold Person buy a caster effective preparatory time, if it's needed. The fighter is a less exceptional platform for buffs than other classes - it has feats to support the role, but a Psychic Warrior will have its self-buffs and feats, a Druid will have its Wild Shape, a Warblade will have its maneuvers, etc. The fighter doesn't really have an advantage there.

That said, arguments that Fighters are worthless to a party because another class would do the job better" are rubbish. In-game, the metagame reality that a fighter kicked out of the group will be replaced by another similarly-leveled character shouldn't exist. The group loses a character, a whole round of actions per round and a few skill points or tricks that might not be redundant and all the wealth that character is carrying around. If the party is concerned with its overall effectiveness and can just go out and recruit more similarly-leveled characters, it should do that without giving up a member. At worst, the Fighter relieves the spellcasters of a few hundred HP's worth of damage output per day.

Slightly tangentially, I like to play spellcasters. I played a War Weaver with one group with a Paladin, Monk and Ranger. I completely tore up every encounter with group buffs, tactical spells and debuffs. After a few sessions, one of the players tried to get the others to ease back a bit, so I could "get a chance to take the spotlight." They saw me as the caddy, a support character to their in-game achievements. I think a lot of the balance problems people accuse WotC of not playtesting or recognizing rely heavily on the player's perspective.

[Talakeal]

If we are throwing out meta game assumptions about how a fighter is better than nothing and you aren't garunteed a same level replacement then I say we should also throw out the metagame assumption of WBL being balanced for the party. And three casters with an extra share of treasure are far more effective than three casters and a melee with normal wealth.

[Talya]

The Fighter brings both toughness and damage without any buffing or preparation of any kind. That is not something any spellcaster can accomplish. Heck, a reach specialist could be killing while surprised.

The Fighter is also the best overall vehicle for exploiting buffs. A spellcaster gets huge bang for the buck by putting at least some bennies in the Fighter's basket.
-
IME a Druid can be fabulous when well prepared for the fight. But the Druid has some spell flexibility issues with spells, and may have to fall back on summoned critters. But a Druid's AC is so awful that it is difficult to successfully cast a summon without any summoned critters or a Fighter to hide behind. Catch-22.

At levels 1-4, before they get wildshape, the druid's Animal Companion > the fighter for durability, damage, and general combat fun.

At levels 5-20, the druid is likely a better than the fighter, without ever casting a single spell. More durable, too, since he dumped every stat except con and wisdom, and is going to have a higher AC unless they decide to come out of wildshape (which, after level 7, they'll possibly never do again.) And, they still have spells and their animal companion!

I won't say "druids should have wilding clasps for all their gear," because that's expensive, and ridiculous. I will say, though, that VOP on a druid isn't actually a negative thing...if a druid takes it, they are forever the high-damage dealer and most durable "tank" in any party, and they're the only class that doesn't really suffer for it.

[Jude_H]

If we are throwing out meta game assumptions about how a fighter is better than nothing and you aren't garunteed a same level replacement then I say we should also throw out the metagame assumption of WBL being balanced for the party. And three casters with an extra share of treasure are far more effective than three casters and a melee with normal wealth.
This only makes sense under the assumptions that (A) The casters are going to rob the fighter blind when they kick him from their special club and (B) the fighter is packing gear that would benefit the casters.

Otherwise, the comparison is 3 casters with X wealth v. 3 casters with X wealth, plus a fighter with Y wealth.

[Talakeal]

This only makes sense under the assumptions that (A) The casters are going to rob the fighter blind when they kick him from their special club and (B) the fighter is packing gear that would benefit the casters.

Otherwise, the comparison is 3 casters with X wealth v. 3 casters with X wealth, plus a fighter with Y wealth.

No, that's not what I meant at all. I mean all treasure they find in their adventures is split 3 ways instead of 4 if they simply don't bring that useless fighter along to claim a share.

[Doug Lampert]

That is rarely going to happen unless you have buffed Fighters helping you clean up what is left over.

A party of four 7th level spellcasters might well finish off a CR Hill Giant in two rounds -- we are talking about something like 6-7 Lightning Bolts or the equivalent. But that Hill Giant could kill a 7th level caster with a single lucky hit. You will need to spend more resources to have some cushion, and then probably spend some healing.

Most people believe that blaster spellcasters are less effective, as do I. But they are only less effective when either the opponent is not one that needs to be killed or...you have some Fighters to help you out.

Eh? ONE area control from the wizard, and then the Melee Cleric, the Archer Cleric, the Druid, and the Druid's animal companion clean up the mess.

Seriously, why does an all caster party need a fighter? And if it does need a fighter why doesn't someone take leadership, get another caster as a cohort, and use the low level NPC class followers for litter patrol.


Indeed, in an all-caster party, one of the casters pretty much has to take on the role of blaster / damage dealer, at least from time to time, or the effectiveness of the party suffers.

Let's take classic low-level "save or lose", Grease. If there's a number of other characters to help the caster and strike the fallen enemies down, it easily ends encounters. If there aren't, it's a few round delay for the opposition and doesn't achieve much anything.

At least in low levels, characters with high BAB, weapon proficiencies, precision damage and so on are much better at the "clean-up", and these things are generally more available to non-casters in the early game. At higher levels, casters can usually obviate or mitigate the need for them, such as by summoning monsters, but these things tend to cost extra spell slots, which could've been spared for something else.

So? The Druid's animal companion is perfectly good at mopping up from level 1. At level 1-4 the fighter's BAB is one point higher than the Melee cleric, and he has MAYBE one point better Str Mod (the melee cleric gets weapon focus in a martial weapon from his domain, he's not actually behind significantly on feats, and he has some nice self-buffs even at level 1).

Why do I need a fighter to cleanup when a cleric and druid do it just as well or better, and even the lowly bard is actually pretty decent at it.

DougL

[MeeposFire]

No, that's not what I meant at all. I mean all treasure they find in their adventures is split 3 ways instead of 4 if they simply don't bring that useless fighter along to claim a share.

You also effectively get more XP that way too, assuming you would be fighting the same encounters.

[Frozen_Feet]

Seriously, why does an all caster party need a fighter? And if it does need a fighter why doesn't someone take leadership, get another caster as a cohort, and use the low level NPC class followers for litter patrol.

Such a party doesn't absolutely need a fighter. The argument is that fighter is better than no fighter. Many people here assert that fighters somehow have negative value to the party. That's not true at all. They might have less value than a caster of same level, but they still have value.


So? The Druid's animal companion is perfectly good at mopping up from level 1. At level 1-4 the fighter's BAB is one point higher than the Melee cleric, and he has MAYBE one point better Str Mod (the melee cleric gets weapon focus in a martial weapon from his domain, he's not actually behind significantly on feats, and he has some nice self-buffs even at level 1).

Why do I need a fighter to cleanup when a cleric and druid do it just as well or better, and even the lowly bard is actually pretty decent at it.

DougL
I see you missed the point. The point was: you might not need an actual fighter for it, but the fighter's job is essential. Someone has to hit things with hard implements for a party to be effective.

How's this relevant? Well, much of this argument revolved around how it's "wrong" to tell casters how to play their character because a fighter might need a buff. For contrast, I refer back to the comment about glorified crossbow archers.

[Snails]

At levels 1-4, before they get wildshape, the druid's Animal Companion > the fighter for durability, damage, and general combat fun.

Well, I have played a number of Wizards. And I have played a few Fighter types -- the other similar style classes. And I have friends who have played both lousy and amazing melee builds of various kinds. And I have even played a Druid through low levels who was really able to use every ability to the hilt.

But I find the points you put forth simply flabbergasting.

Apparently the games you play in is so completely different from the games I have played that really there is no reason to believe my experience can inform a useful opinion for you. And your experience has zero to do with anything I am likely to see at the gaming table.

My experience playing a control Wizard is that the meatshields really help keep me alive. With some kinds of very violent encounters, not having a Fighter to stand in front and having another spellcaster standing next to me instead, probably means one random spellcaster is going to die -- possible me! Yeah, a Druid and AC, played very skillfully and with a very indulging DM, could be a plausible substitute. (But that is not the DM I am going to be playing with.)

[MeeposFire]

Well, I have played a number of Wizards. And I have played a few Fighter types -- the other similar style classes. And I have friends who have played both lousy and amazing melee builds of various kinds. And I have even played a Druid through low levels who was really able to use every ability to the hilt.

But I find the points you put forth simply flabbergasting.

Apparently the games you play in is so completely different from the games I have played that really there is no reason to believe my experience can inform a useful opinion for you. And your experience has zero to do with anything I am likely to see at the gaming table.

My experience playing a control Wizard is that the meatshields really help keep me alive. With some kinds of very violent encounters, not having a Fighter to stand in front and having another spellcaster standing next to me instead, probably means one random spellcaster is going to die -- possible me! Yeah, a Druid and AC, played very skillfully and with a very indulging DM, could be a plausible substitute. (But that is not the DM I am going to be playing with.)

The problem is that 3e is so open that even though the game can be played where the fighter is superfluous you may not see it since you are playing people who have not really tried. I have not had things go this far but I can see how mechanically the game allows it to happen. Despite the fact that a druid is far better I still like playing classes like a barbarian or the like since I enjoy that style far more and playing on easy mode (all casters) gets old fast.

[SuperPanda]

Well if we're going on the "it can be done and there-fore is the right way to be done" path...

Wealth by level represents the amount of wealth a PC should have access to more or less, at the start of a given level. So, relying on consumable resources like wands and scrolls can be assumed to be just as efficient by RAW as having magical swords and what-not.

So, why then don't Rogues (Use Magic Device) dominate over casters as they have more skills, better health, the ability to make devastating attacks with damaging spells (Spells can crit, therefore spells can sneak attack), excellent social skills.

Couldn't an all rogue party with sufficient resources (money wise) easily do without those "fragile" casters or "useless" fighters?


Its a valid argument on the basis that it can be done.

On the efficiency of casters replacing Melee. I mentioned my low level Pathfinder game recently.

In our group we have 2 potential "fighter" role characters. At the time of last night's boss battle one was a Fighter1/Cleric2 with most of his spells available, a +1 Breast plate, heavy steel shield, and +1 magic sword. he was also close to full Hp at the start of the battle.

On the other side there was me: Fighter1/Monk1 who just drank a potion of Mage Armor and had a masterworked longspear (and my elbows, knees, head, and feet).

The thing we were fighting had DR 5/magic.

It takes no great thinking to guess who should be the more effective member of the team (other's include 2 rogues, 1 druid, 1 ranger and 1 NPC who didn't want to help us).

The NPC and ranger whittled it away while staying just engaged enough not to die. The druid's animal companion got eaten. The rogues got injured and ran away. The cleric smacked the beast a few times early on before retreating and beginning to buff himself up into super-fighter leaving me to keep it at bay.

In the four rounds he spent casting spells (one of those on a healing burst that healed everyone - including the boss - a little) my monk scored 2 crits and several more hits which essentially beat it into submission. The turn before he was ready to finally enter the fray I killed it.

What's more, if I had retreated it would have attacked (and therefore killed) the ranger or rogues and likely the druid (whose animal companion got eaten in a single full attack action). A lot of this was rolls, it rolled badly against me, I rolled well against it. It doesn't change the fact that the most theoretically usless member of the team (A monk) was a better fighter than the cleric (better fighter than a fighter?) and kept the group alive.

Should a caster be forced to cast spells on a fighter just so they are effective? No. Should a fighter be forced to take hits so that the caster is unmolested? No. Does everything go smoother when the group, whatever its make up is, work together? Hells yes.

[olentu]

Well if we're going on the "it can be done and there-fore is the right way to be done" path...

Wealth by level represents the amount of wealth a PC should have access to more or less, at the start of a given level. So, relying on consumable resources like wands and scrolls can be assumed to be just as efficient by RAW as having magical swords and what-not.

So, why then don't Rogues (Use Magic Device) dominate over casters as they have more skills, better health, the ability to make devastating attacks with damaging spells (Spells can crit, therefore spells can sneak attack), excellent social skills.

Couldn't an all rogue party with sufficient resources (money wise) easily do without those "fragile" casters or "useless" fighters?


Its a valid argument on the basis that it can be done.

On the efficiency of casters replacing Melee. I mentioned my low level Pathfinder game recently.

In our group we have 2 potential "fighter" role characters. At the time of last night's boss battle one was a Fighter1/Cleric2 with most of his spells available, a +1 Breast plate, heavy steel shield, and +1 magic sword. he was also close to full Hp at the start of the battle.

On the other side there was me: Fighter1/Monk1 who just drank a potion of Mage Armor and had a masterworked longspear (and my elbows, knees, head, and feet).

The thing we were fighting had DR 5/magic.

It takes no great thinking to guess who should be the more effective member of the team (other's include 2 rogues, 1 druid, 1 ranger and 1 NPC who didn't want to help us).

The NPC and ranger whittled it away while staying just engaged enough not to die. The druid's animal companion got eaten. The rogues got injured and ran away. The cleric smacked the beast a few times early on before retreating and beginning to buff himself up into super-fighter leaving me to keep it at bay.

In the four rounds he spent casting spells (one of those on a healing burst that healed everyone - including the boss - a little) my monk scored 2 crits and several more hits which essentially beat it into submission. The turn before he was ready to finally enter the fray I killed it.

What's more, if I had retreated it would have attacked (and therefore killed) the ranger or rogues and likely the druid (whose animal companion got eaten in a single full attack action). A lot of this was rolls, it rolled badly against me, I rolled well against it. It doesn't change the fact that the most theoretically usless member of the team (A monk) was a better fighter than the cleric (better fighter than a fighter?) and kept the group alive.

Should a caster be forced to cast spells on a fighter just so they are effective? No. Should a fighter be forced to take hits so that the caster is unmolested? No. Does everything go smoother when the group, whatever its make up is, work together? Hells yes.

You do bring up a good point lucky players can easily out preform unlucky players especially those that are not good at tactics. But that is a player attribute and not a class attribute. More to the point presenting an argument based on self proclaimed statistical outliers in the dice is probably at best neutral and at worst weakens your position.

Also if you are going to argue on the basis of it can be done one needs to consider that all classes gain unlimited power so all classes are equal in the end. It makes for sort of a boring game but hey class balance.

[SuperPanda]

As far as the statistical outlIers and the fact that a good player is more important than which class they are playing goes, my point was that an optimization discussion often ignores these two factors and essentially voids the discussion.

The fact that a character who is obviously (no statistics needed) the least useful person in the room for a given encounter (lowest level, "worst" class, no access to the items/powers needed for this encounter) can perform at or above the level of any other character in the group is a valid point to make. Having an example of it on hand was just a boon.

Personally I don't think what can be done is all that important. What is important is what is being done. Its the job of the players and DM to make it fun (not powerful, not optimized, fun). If that's not happening then something needs to change.

:smallbiggrin:

[olentu]

As far as the statistical outlIers and the fact that a good player is more important than which class they are playing goes, my point was that an optimization discussion often ignores these two factors and essentially voids the discussion.

The fact that a character who is obviously (no statistics needed) the least useful person in the room for a given encounter (lowest level, "worst" class, no access to the items/powers needed for this encounter) can perform at or above the level of any other character in the group is a valid point to make. Having an example of it on hand was just a boon.

Personally I don't think what can be done is all that important. What is important is what is being done. Its the job of the players and DM to make it fun (not powerful, not optimized, fun). If that's not happening then something needs to change.

:smallbiggrin:

Oh come now optimization discussions deal with statistical outliers. It is just that generally they deal with how to survive runs of bad luck. Since outliers can not be counted upon one should prepare for the worst but it is a bad idea to routinely assume the best.

As to players that are less proficient at tactics and will not change well since the player is set and unchanging optimization is of no consequence since they are already as optimized as they can get. I mean why bother talking about which to choose among all of one option, it seems too obvious to bother.


Sure one should make sure that the group is having fun but you bring up other points so those should be addressed as well.

[SuperPanda]

Fair enough. Glad to contribute if nothing else. :smalltongue:

[Jude_H]

No, that's not what I meant at all. I mean all treasure they find in their adventures is split 3 ways instead of 4 if they simply don't bring that useless fighter along to claim a share.
Leaving aside the in-game fiction,
1. You're cheating on the "useless" point, begging questions, etc. The fighter would, at worst, extend the other party members' endurance by sparing them the resources they'd otherwise expend finishing fights/cleaning up. It's cheaper for the fighter to power attack an incapacitated or isolated enemy than it is for a spellcaster to blow rounds and spell slots doing the same thing.
2. You're looking at wealth acquisition backward. The treasure tables, monster wealth blocks and model adventures indicate that D&D's default reward model involves killing things and taking their stuff, not being paid upfront for their adventures. That means the casters don't have the resources you talk about reallocating. Adding a fighter - especially if the fighter isn't given the benefit of the doubt in terms of survival - is a straight gain for the caster group. At best, he'll come through and allow the spellcasters to win where they otherwise wouldn't. At worst, he'll eat a hit or two, die, and leave the casters the larger shares of the loot that they'd receive anyway.

[Talakeal]

Leaving aside the in-game fiction,
1. You're cheating on the "useless" point, begging questions, etc. The fighter would, at worst, extend the other party members' endurance by sparing them the resources they'd otherwise expend finishing fights/cleaning up. It's cheaper for the fighter to power attack an incapacitated or isolated enemy than it is for a spellcaster to blow rounds and spell slots doing the same thing.
2. You're looking at wealth acquisition backward. The treasure tables, monster wealth blocks and model adventures indicate that D&D's default reward model involves killing things and taking their stuff, not being paid upfront for their adventures. That means the casters don't have the resources you talk about reallocating. Adding a fighter - especially if the fighter isn't given the benefit of the doubt in terms of survival - is a straight gain for the caster group. At best, he'll come through and allow the spellcasters to win where they otherwise wouldn't. At worst, he'll eat a hit or two, die, and leave the casters the larger shares of the loot that they'd receive anyway.

I don't quite get what you are saying here. If there is a dragon who has a million gold pieces in his horde then yes, the fighter will be a slight advantage to defeating the dragon, but the odds of him meaningfully contributing are slim to none.
The million gold won't change based on how many people slay the dragon, however the shares will. That's an extra 65k per caster with which they can craft magic items, and in all future fights that extra 130,000 GP worth of items will help said casters a lot more than the fighter will.

Yes, in your best case scenario the fighter will save the day or die and not care about being raised, but that is very unlikely to happen.
In the normal scenario the fighter either does a few points of damage and takes a few hits, saving the party a summoned monster, or they buff and heal the fighter to ridiculous levels so that he can actually contribute at the cost of most of their spell slots. In either case the three casters are going to be at a significant disadvantage in all future fights missing out on all that extra wealth in the future.

[Frozen_Feet]

You do bring up a good point lucky players can easily out preform unlucky players especially those that are not good at tactics. But that is a player attribute and not a class attribute.

Actually, it's not so much a factor of player skill, it's statistics and an attribute of tactics.

Namely, more people means you have more people who could "luck out", increasing the chance of beneficial outliers. Having more people is the most basic force multiplier in existence. That's discounting th e fact that the system actually gives all sorts of benefits for having a number of characters - flanking is the simplest example.

[ImperatorK]

Wait... When you play with four PCs you get treasure for four PCs, but when you play with three PCs you get treasure for four PCs? :smallconfused: Is that the logic behind "not bringing a fighter with us will mean more treasure for the 3 wizards"?

:smallannoyed:

[MeeposFire]

Wait... When you play with four PCs you get treasure for four PCs, but when you play with three PCs you get treasure for four PCs? :smallconfused: Is that the logic behind "not bringing a fighter with us will mean more treasure for the 3 wizards"?

:smallannoyed:

He is assuming that the DM has created a world where the dragon always has say 1,000,000 GP of stuff in his horde and that stays the same regardless of whether you decide to have a party of 1,2,3, or 4 players. Therefor having more players can result in an easier fight but you will be losing out on money.

[ImperatorK]

Lol, that's so silly.

[MeeposFire]

Lol, that's so silly.

I think you are going to get a lot of flak for saying that. To many people out there the world is there and the players are playing characters in it. To these very common people the idea of changing what is in the world due to how many players are in a party would not make sense since just because you add another party member does not mean that the dragons horde increases in size. Of course that is just one play style of many.

[Talakeal]

Wait... When you play with four PCs you get treasure for four PCs, but when you play with three PCs you get treasure for four PCs? :smallconfused: Is that the logic behind "not bringing a fighter with us will mean more treasure for the 3 wizards"?

:smallannoyed:

It was in response to saying if you throw out metagame logic there is no reason not to bring a fighter as you aren't garunteed another high level caster to replace him. I was saying if you throw out metagame logic you also throw out wealth balanced to the party and therefore the extra share of treasure is the incentive.

I was not saying this is how it is or how it should be, just saying that there are non metagame reasons why you wouldn't want an extra party member if he or she couldn't meaningfully contribute.

Some others include it is harder to stay stealthy the more people you bring, especially if one of them is in clanking full plate, and if you bring extra guys with bad will saves against an enemy caster they might get dominated and turned against you.

[olentu]

Actually, it's not so much a factor of player skill, it's statistics and an attribute of tactics.

Namely, more people means you have more people who could "luck out", increasing the chance of beneficial outliers. Having more people is the most basic force multiplier in existence. That's discounting th e fact that the system actually gives all sorts of benefits for having a number of characters - flanking is the simplest example.

Yeah because ability to formulate and implement good tactical decisions is certainly not a player skill at all. But then again if we are talking about the melee classes that have basically one decision I can see where you are coming from.

And as to the having more people sure it could help in some situations but then again someone has made the argument that another warm body is worth less then the treasure they waste so not necessarily. Or alternatively is the treasure is scaled presumably the encounters are as well meaning more party members gives more enemies or more dangerous enemies and that means more likelihood of instant death effects and the like that makes the enemy getting lucky much much worse then the players getting lucky. So adding an extra person can make things worse on the party instead of better.

[Partysan]

I think you are going to get a lot of flak for saying that. To many people out there the world is there and the players are playing characters in it. To these very common people the idea of changing what is in the world due to how many players are in a party would not make sense since just because you add another party member does not mean that the dragons horde increases in size. Of course that is just one play style of many.

Exactly. Assuming that treasure is always calculated after this specific party's WBL is like assuming everything you encounter is always your CR. If your lvl 3 party hears of a great red dragon's lair and goes there then they will be eaten. And if the dragon has stolen the legendary sword of legend then it will be there, even if there's no sword user in the party. If they aren't interested, then they don't need to kill the dragon. Dragons want to live too.

[ImperatorK]

There is the "Status Quo" aproach and there is the "Encounters are tailored to PC level" aproach. Both are perfectly okay.
Now, which is more common?

[Frozen_Feet]

Yeah because ability to formulate and implement good tactical decisions is certainly not a player skill at all. But then again if we are talking about the melee classes that have basically one decision I can see where you are coming from.

That is slightly beside the point. The given example case was not really about the power of good tactics, but of the influence of random chance. The powerful characters rolled badly, but the poorest character rolled well.

In general, bringing more people to a fight is a tactically sound choice. Having more people opens up more tactical options and sways random chance in your favor, lessening risks for everyone involved. Usually when it's less people you want, you are trying to avoid a fight, not pick one.


And as to the having more people sure it could help in some situations but then again someone has made the argument that another warm body is worth less then the treasure they waste so not necessarily. Or alternatively is the treasure is scaled presumably the encounters are as well meaning more party members gives more enemies or more dangerous enemies and that means more likelihood of instant death effects and the like that makes the enemy getting lucky much much worse then the players getting lucky. So adding an extra person can make things worse on the party instead of better.

Quite a few CR apropriate encounters are against solitary monsters or groups that are larger than the party already, so action advantage given by extra party members still holds even when encounters scale. (In the former case because extra actions against a single foe are solid gold, in the latter because it lessens action advantage of the opposition.)

If encounters don't scale, it becomes that much more important. Having less people might mean higher rewards, but it also means higher risks. D&D doesn't do fatigue and lasting injury very well, but short term gains achieved by a smaller group could easily be offset due to their ability to gather long term gains being compromised. Alternatively, much of the wealth that would've been "wasted" by an extra party member could be sunk into contingencies and resupplies that would've been wholly unnecessary with another member, meaning the net gain over larger party is nill, with risks still being higher.

There's no absolute truth to be foud here, of course. Tactics are situational. But I still feel many arguments thrown around hinge too much onf fighters or other non-casters being even less effective than they would reasonably be. Being able to contribute meaningfully doesn't mean being able to do something unique, or even contributing as much as the other party members. A commoner doing a single hit point of damage to drop an already damaged foe is contributing - and if that kill means the end of an encounter or prevents a dangerous foe from taking a tur, it's meanignful.


Lol, that's so silly.

Hardly. I know I don't adjust loot I place for characters. I don't even demand them to distribiute it evenly, or at all. After some trial and error, my players have learned that it solves quite a few problems to work as a team and to share the loot, though. They still fight each other and make tactically unsound options (such as getting divided or leaving each other behind) due to their greed from time to time.

[olentu]

That is slightly beside the point. The given example case was not really about the power of good tactics, but of the influence of random chance. The powerful characters rolled badly, but the poorest character rolled well.

In general, bringing more people to a fight is a tactically sound choice. Having more people opens up more tactical options and sways random chance in your favor, lessening risks for everyone involved. Usually when it's less people you want, you are trying to avoid a fight, not pick one.



Quite a few CR apropriate encounters are against solitary monsters or groups that are larger than the party already, so action advantage given by extra party members still holds even when encounters scale. (In the former case because extra actions against a single foe are solid gold, in the latter because it lessens action advantage of the opposition.)

If encounters don't scale, it becomes that much more important. Having less people might mean higher rewards, but it also means higher risks. D&D doesn't do fatigue and lasting injury very well, but short term gains achieved by a smaller group could easily be offset due to their ability to gather long term gains being compromised. Alternatively, much of the wealth that would've been "wasted" by an extra party member could be sunk into contingencies and resupplies that would've been wholly unnecessary with another member, meaning the net gain over larger party is nill, with risks still being higher.

There's no absolute truth to be foud here, of course. Tactics are situational. But I still feel many arguments thrown around hinge too much onf fighters or other non-casters being even less effective than they would reasonably be. Being able to contribute meaningfully doesn't mean being able to do something unique, or even contributing as much as the other party members. A commoner doing a single hit point of damage to drop an already damaged foe is contributing - and if that kill means the end of an encounter or prevents a dangerous foe from taking a tur, it's meanignful.



Hardly. I know I don't adjust loot I place for characters. I don't even demand them to distribiute it evenly, or at all. After some trial and error, my players have learned that it solves quite a few problems to work as a team and to share the loot, though. They still fight each other and make tactically unsound options (such as getting divided or leaving each other behind) due to their greed from time to time.

Why then did you mention tactics. Tactics did seem to have a heavy influence since the powerful character did not roll badly the powerful character decided not to roll at all. But if you want to talk about the influence of random chance then why not.

Like I said when encounters scale either you end up with more monsters or you end up with a more powerful monster. The more powerful monster generally means that action advantage is countered with more devastating powers. So while the monster may still be defeated the chance of instant death abilities killing someone is more likely as they will be more likely to occur and likely have a higher DC should they be there. Or alternately the damage output may be boosted so that the monster is much more likely to kill someone from that.

Of course if encounters don't scale then it becomes much more important that every party member be able to hold their own in combat. Since encounters will be more risky every additional person brought aboard that forces the others to use resources to bring them up to snuff makes the risk of death just that much more likely. Any way if contingencies are so necessary that they are using up all this extra wealth then adding a character that without their own contingencies (immediate actions, contingencies, minions, etc.) means that they would likely need to spend even more wealth keeping themselves alive then then the casters who have all that stuff for little to no cost already. Plus if we are talking about contingencies for surprise assaults then the casters will probably have to spend the same amount since they are the ones most likely to be targeted. Fighters don't really have a lot of get out of dodge moves so they will need to invest these as well for the cases where the party needs to book it but not everyone is together so that is another expense. Then comes the question of durability the fighter not having all these defenses, contingencies, and escape moves is more likely to need to expend resources on recovering from battle especially if they die not to mention that if the casters are burning resources on the fighter to keep him alive that is even another cost.

Now sure in some cases having a non-magical melee can help more than it hurts but those cases generally are the kind of things where it does not really matter what people have picked and what they are doing.

[Frozen_Feet]

Since encounters will be more risky every additional person brought aboard that forces the others to use resources to bring them up to snuff makes the risk of death just that much more likely.

First of all, non-scaling encounters aren't more risky by definition. Indeed, they can be significantly less so, as they aren't magically adjusted to compete with your party. This is why bringing in more people is beneficial in the first place - you can expect the opposition to not become arbitrarily more powerful or capable of matchign your numbers-

Second, the risk of death doesn't really rise. Indeed, it's lowered for the group overall, because loss of a single member means increasingly less the larger the group becomes. You could say the risk of someone dying stays the same or might rise, but the risk of the whole group being destroyed is lesser. This is basis of pack tactics, and it holds true in D&D as well due to the way action economy works.

Thirdly, you make it sound like a bad thing that a group has to use resources to help each other. It's not so. It's necessary to be effective for group of whatever size. And the more you outnumber the enemy, the less important invidual skill actually becomes, as team members are able to cover for each other's weakness. Note: able to, not forced. It's a strenght, not a weakness.

Finally, it seems to me you didn't grasp the concept of contingencies I was using. I'm not using it to denote the in-game spell, I'm using to denote type of tactics. To put it simply: with less members, a party has to invest more to cover for areas they don't have people for. So the party of three casters will end up using their "spared" resources to fill in for the missing fighter.

Sooner or later, it raises the question: does this really have an advantage over three caster and one fighter? That's your argument, but I remain unconvinced.

Do note that this is just an example. The missing link could be anything else instead. Full casters have extraordinary ability to cover for themselves, but is it worth the effort f you can share the burden? Even if you can do everything by yourself, it usually helps to have someone else do something as well. So if there's a non-caster in the group, I'm still not seeing good reasons to kick him out. No, not even them being a "liability", as I'm still not seeing the claimed negative net worth you're assigning to them.

[profitofrage]

as I'm still not seeing the claimed negative net worth you're assigning to them.

I believe the argument goes something like this.
If you have 4 party members. that means you could have 4 potential casters in the party. When someone goes fighter...thats one less potential caster in the party. I.e the party just got weaker then it could be because casters are "better"

Another argument is that.
the resources expended on the fighter come really close if not surpass the amount of effort that it takes for the caster to just do it. why didnt the party just hire another wizard or cleric?


In the end the answer is...ITS A GAME. Only if the game you are playing is so hardcore and optimised that the "waste" of resources cannot be spared will this ever be a problem. Untill then..the wizard can spend a few slots on the fighter, its not like there seriously limited in the later levels when martials really fall behind.

[Frozen_Feet]

I believe the argument goes something like this.
If you have 4 party members. that means you could have 4 potential casters in the party. When someone goes fighter...thats one less potential caster in the party. I.e the party just got weaker then it could be because casters are "better"

I've seen that argument, understand it and think it's an inaccurate way of gauging a non-caster's worth. The proper way is to compare a party of x casters and y non-casters to party with just x casters, not x+y casters. I know full well non-casters are weaker in relation to casters, but that's never been the question.

And I think I already foamed quite a lot about how the "potential caster" shouldn't be the primary deciding factor.


Another argument is that.
the resources expended on the fighter come really close if not surpass the amount of effort that it takes for the caster to just do it. why didnt the party just hire another wizard or cleric?

Again, might not be another Wizard or Cleric, in which case the only way to get more power from characters is to hire other people. And I still don't buy the idea that short-term expenditures to help non-casters are great enough to nullify their long term benefit. And not just nullifies, but actively reduces. In my experience presence of an extra character reduces amount of effort from the casters' part.

It's not because I don't know or understand the argument. It's because I've seen many demonstration for the opposite, but not many for the argument.

[profitofrage]

good stuff

Yea im no expert on DnD infact i dont even know how to play a game aside from DH. I mostly pick up bits from the board.
Logically though the deciding factor here is.

Is a wizard better then a wizard + fighter. as you say this hasnt really been experimented with.
Mathamatically...the only way the whole "no martial" debate could hold is if the fighters net worth was <0.
Is the fighters only REAL contribution to the party a thing to sink a spell slot on?
Thats something for some DnD scientists to decide me thinks.

[olentu]

First of all, non-scaling encounters aren't more risky by definition. Indeed, they can be significantly less so, as they aren't magically adjusted to compete with your party. This is why bringing in more people is beneficial in the first place - you can expect the opposition to not become arbitrarily more powerful or capable of matchign your numbers-

Second, the risk of death doesn't really rise. Indeed, it's lowered for the group overall, because loss of a single member means increasingly less the larger the group becomes. You could say the risk of someone dying stays the same or might rise, but the risk of the whole group being destroyed is lesser. This is basis of pack tactics, and it holds true in D&D as well due to the way action economy works.

Thirdly, you make it sound like a bad thing that a group has to use resources to help each other. It's not so. It's necessary to be effective for group of whatever size. And the more you outnumber the enemy, the less important invidual skill actually becomes, as team members are able to cover for each other's weakness. Note: able to, not forced. It's a strenght, not a weakness.

Finally, it seems to me you didn't grasp the concept of contingencies I was using. I'm not using it to denote the in-game spell, I'm using to denote type of tactics. To put it simply: with less members, a party has to invest more to cover for areas they don't have people for. So the party of three casters will end up using their "spared" resources to fill in for the missing fighter.

Sooner or later, it raises the question: does this really have an advantage over three caster and one fighter? That's your argument, but I remain unconvinced.

Do note that this is just an example. The missing link could be anything else instead. Full casters have extraordinary ability to cover for themselves, but is it worth the effort f you can share the burden? Even if you can do everything by yourself, it usually helps to have someone else do something as well. So if there's a non-caster in the group, I'm still not seeing good reasons to kick him out. No, not even them being a "liability", as I'm still not seeing the claimed negative net worth you're assigning to them.

If they are not more risky then why bring up that they are so much more risky that every character will likely need to spend one third of their wealth by level on emergency defenses.

Sure it might lessen the risk of a tpk but then again so does having one member immediately run at the beginning of every combat. However the risk of a death increases and death costs money or actions to fix causing a drain on the resources of the party.

Oh it is not a bad thing so long as people are contributing equally. As to the outnumbering it depends. First it depends on what people bring to help out the others and if they don't bring enough then the cost of covering them can be more than the gain.

Perhaps you missed my parenthetical statement. Immediate actions that do things like make walls, grant addition actions, teleport are not the spell contingency. Disposable minions that can cover retreats without needing recovery are not the spell contingency. Teleportation and plane shifting to escape are not the spell contingency. And then of course there is the spell contingency. As for filling in for the fighter just have one of the casters fight or dominate a NPC or be a summoner problem solved if it even was a problem in the first place.

Look if the missing link is something other then a fighter the discussion becomes it depends on the link. Another spellcaster sure probably, a commoner probably not. So back to the matter at hand the limited on options fighter.

It comes down to is the extra resources used on the fighter worth more than the fighter. Does the casters needing to cover for the fighter cost more than the fighter brings. And while it does help to have someone else do things it does not help to have that same person spend resources. So it depends on whether the balance of the whole thing lies more on the fighter mooching more treasure and other resources then are gained by having a fighter but I can see that no amount of arguing will resolve this disagreement. Please feel free to continue and I will continue to respond but I doubt this will go anywhere.

[Frozen_Feet]

If they are not more risky then why bring up that they are so much more risky that every character will likely need to spend one third of their wealth by level on emergency defenses.

The point was that those contingencies are only necessary because they cover for lesser numbers or missing abilities. Having an extra party member achieves either the same thing, or more. It's not solely about emergency defences, indeed, more often than not it's about something completely else, such as making certain to fight on terrain where a numerically superior foe can only engage you one-on-one.

Just like having more numbers has several beneficial qualities, having less does the opposite. In a smaller party, every member has to be more careful, more competent and luckier to achieve the same results as a larger one. When the opposition is set and known (ie. non-scaling), increasing or decreasing numbers is a major tactical decision.


Sure it might lessen the risk of a tpk but then again so does having one member immediately run at the beginning of every combat. However the risk of a death increases and death costs money or actions to fix causing a drain on the resources of the party.

But a larger party typically has more resources to do just that. Just because it "drains resources" is not an argument at all. The important thing is that the resources gained off-set resources lost, and generally a larger group can achieve more, so even if they lose more resources than a smaller one, they are more likely to make up for it.


Oh it is not a bad thing so long as people are contributing equally. As to the outnumbering it depends. First it depends on what people bring to help out the others and if they don't bring enough then the cost of covering them can be more than the gain.

Equal contribution still isn't necessary. Meaningful contribution is, and even small advantages are worth it more often than not.

I understand that a character might bring less to the table that he takes - my major gripe with the argument, as I priorly pointed out, is that I've not seen it demonstrated satisfyingly. I've seen the opposite demonstrated multiple times, with fighters especially, so pardon me if I find it hard to agree.


Perhaps you missed my parenthetical statement. Immediate actions that do things like make walls, grant addition actions, teleport are not the spell contingency. Disposable minions that can cover retreats without needing recovery are not the spell contingency. Teleportation and plane shifting to escape are not the spell contingency. And then of course there is the spell contingency.

Maybe it was the fact that you talked almost solely about spells that led me astray, because my own mind was on much more mundane and general principles. And while you're right that the means you list are contingencies, they're not the extent of different tactics or what I was talking about.


As for filling in for the fighter just have one of the casters fight or dominate a NPC or be a summoner problem solved if it even was a problem in the first place.

Dominate is a powerful spells that's not necessarily available. It allows a save. It has a duration, meaning a spell slot has to be used to renew it from time to time. There might not be a suitable NPC available or the party has to go out of their way to acquire one. Directing a dominated creature takes actions that would be free with an actual ally.

All of these are points of failure that would not exist if the party just had an extra member. Summoning has its own points of failure as well - it needs someone to spend their spells known and spells prepared to have it ready, yadda yadda.

You can still say: so what? The caster can do them. But if the caster could also achieve the same by buffing up the fighter, why the outrage towards the latter?

This incidentally ties in with the prior discussion how it's wrong to "force" the caster to help a non-caster. But without the non-caster casters are "forced" just as much to choose certain abilities over others to cover for missing aspects of their team. What if no-one wants to play and enchanter? Or a summoner?


Look if the missing link is something other then a fighter the discussion becomes it depends on the link. Another spellcaster sure probably, a commoner probably not. So back to the matter at hand the limited on options fighter.

Same general principles apply regardless of what the missing link is. Note: my point was that I'm not using the missing link to denote any specific classes. I'm using them to denote specific abilities. When a party needs to get through trapped corridors, the party needs a trapmonkey. When they meet a tough monster, they need someone to kick its ass.

It doesn't really matter what class is used, as long as it's equipped for the required job. Now, as noted, full casters have extraordinary abilities to cover for themselves. They can equip themselves for almost any job.

But even they can't be everything at once. The Wizard, pretty much hailed as king of 3.5 D&D, is a prime example of this. They can potentially approach any problem. But to actually realize this potential needs very high player skill and arduous planning. Many of the tricks lauded here are seen on actual play much more rarely because they take much more thinking and time than lot of people are willing to use - they just want to get on with the adventure.

Having other characters, whatever they may be, to do some things reduces wizard's need to think of those things. Buffing a fighter or healing a wounded comrade are no-brainers - you can think of those as they come up. Memorizing half a monster manual so you'll have perfect summon or form to polymorph to, or creating a list of all suitable NPCs to hoist into your service when required, is much more tiring.


... I can see that no amount of arguing will resolve this disagreement. Please feel free to continue and I will continue to respond but I doubt this will go anywhere.

It'd easily solve the argument if you could demonstrate to me what classes consistently have negative net value. Example test would be to have a group of three Tier 1 characters with wealth for four compared to a group with three Tier 1 characters and one of lower Tier, repeated with all classes below Tier 4 at levels 1, 5, 10, 15 and 20.

Note: cutting off Tier 4 and above classes because they're considered at least "reasonably competent"; it'd need increasingly unfavorable circumstances for them to become dead weight.

The test might sound like a lot of work, but a lot of it has actually been done already in extended play of the system. Just based on the tier system (a similar metagame construct based on player experiences), we can make several pretty good hypotheses.

For example, I surmise that at low levels (1 - 5), it's really damn hard for even a commoner to have consistently negative impact. Due to small numbers and prevalence of random chance, even the meager contribution of the weakest class can sway the tide of battle significantly due to action advantage.

[olentu]

The point was that those contingencies are only necessary because they cover for lesser numbers or missing abilities. Having an extra party member achieves either the same thing, or more. It's not solely about emergency defences, indeed, more often than not it's about something completely else, such as making certain to fight on terrain where a numerically superior foe can only engage you one-on-one.

Just like having more numbers has several beneficial qualities, having less does the opposite. In a smaller party, every member has to be more careful, more competent and luckier to achieve the same results as a larger one. When the opposition is set and known (ie. non-scaling), increasing or decreasing numbers is a major tactical decision.



But a larger party typically has more resources to do just that. Just because it "drains resources" is not an argument at all. The important thing is that the resources gained off-set resources lost, and generally a larger group can achieve more, so even if they lose more resources than a smaller one, they are more likely to make up for it.



Equal contribution still isn't necessary. Meaningful contribution is, and even small advantages are worth it more often than not.

I understand that a character might bring less to the table that he takes - my major gripe with the argument, as I priorly pointed out, is that I've not seen it demonstrated satisfyingly. I've seen the opposite demonstrated multiple times, with fighters especially, so pardon me if I find it hard to agree.



Maybe it was the fact that you talked almost solely about spells that led me astray, because my own mind was on much more mundane and general principles. And while you're right that the means you list are contingencies, they're not the extent of different tactics or what I was talking about.



Dominate is a powerful spells that's not necessarily available. It allows a save. It has a duration, meaning a spell slot has to be used to renew it from time to time. There might not be a suitable NPC available or the party has to go out of their way to acquire one. Directing a dominated creature takes actions that would be free with an actual ally.

All of these are points of failure that would not exist if the party just had an extra member. Summoning has its own points of failure as well - it needs someone to spend their spells known and spells prepared to have it ready, yadda yadda.

You can still say: so what? The caster can do them. But if the caster could also achieve the same by buffing up the fighter, why the outrage towards the latter?

This incidentally ties in with the prior discussion how it's wrong to "force" the caster to help a non-caster. But without the non-caster casters are "forced" just as much to choose certain abilities over others to cover for missing aspects of their team. What if no-one wants to play and enchanter? Or a summoner?



Same general principles apply regardless of what the missing link is. Note: my point was that I'm not using the missing link to denote any specific classes. I'm using them to denote specific abilities. When a party needs to get through trapped corridors, the party needs a trapmonkey. When they meet a tough monster, they need someone to kick its ass.

It doesn't really matter what class is used, as long as it's equipped for the required job. Now, as noted, full casters have extraordinary abilities to cover for themselves. They can equip themselves for almost any job.

But even they can't be everything at once. The Wizard, pretty much hailed as king of 3.5 D&D, is a prime example of this. They can potentially approach any problem. But to actually realize this potential needs very high player skill and arduous planning. Many of the tricks lauded here are seen on actual play much more rarely because they take much more thinking and time than lot of people are willing to use - they just want to get on with the adventure.

Having other characters, whatever they may be, to do some things reduces wizard's need to think of those things. Buffing a fighter or healing a wounded comrade are no-brainers - you can think of those as they come up. Memorizing half a monster manual so you'll have perfect summon or form to polymorph to, or creating a list of all suitable NPCs to hoist into your service when required, is much more tiring.



It'd easily solve the argument if you could demonstrate to me what classes consistently have negative net value. Example test would be to have a group of three Tier 1 characters with wealth for four compared to a group with three Tier 1 characters and one of lower Tier, repeated with all classes below Tier 4 at levels 1, 5, 10, 15 and 20.

Note: cutting off Tier 4 and above classes because they're considered at least "reasonably competent"; it'd need increasingly unfavorable circumstances for them to become dead weight.

The test might sound like a lot of work, but a lot of it has actually been done already in extended play of the system. Just based on the tier system (a similar metagame construct based on player experiences), we can make several pretty good hypotheses.

For example, I surmise that at low levels (1 - 5), it's really damn hard for even a commoner to have consistently negative impact. Due to small numbers and prevalence of random chance, even the meager contribution of the weakest class can sway the tide of battle significantly due to action advantage.

So if we use contingencies to mean all forms of defense well that does not really change anything. The casters can easily pull layers of defense from their class abilities and are probably going to have as much up as they would any way since having a guy standing there does not avoid any of the numerous ways for some guy to be avoided. And if you can maneuver a foe into a situation where they can only engage you one on one why not put a completely free summon there, a dominated minion, or a wall.

True in a smaller party they may need to be more able but they do have more resources and gain experience faster. So increasing numbers makes each individual party member gain power slower and all this loss of power must be made up for by the fighter in a way that the casters can not easily replicate with class abilities for it to be worthwhile. Does a fighter instead of any of the numerous minions available make up for having 1/3 less wealth and leveling more slowly.

Why would a larger party have more resources of this sort just by adding a fighter if we assume no scaling. The resources remain the same except for what each member brings to the table in class abilities. The fighter has no class abilities that reduce costs of healing, give free resurrections, remove status effects, etc.

Oh if the fighter does not contribute roughly equally then you have the following situation caster spends X fighter contributes less than X net loss. But perhaps this is a difference in the use of terms.

Well you are talking about spending 1/3 of normal wealth on contingencies. To me spending the worth of several towns usually means magic.

Oh having another member would still mean minions because the addition of another member fighter or caster does not make you safe. If the encounters are not scaled you need every advantage you can get and minions are something you can get.

Casters can by the way change their abilities get minions one day cast whatever you want the next. I mean they are not forced to do that but then again they are not forced to prepare any spells and assuming I am running one of the casters I can easily be the guy.

But if you want to assume that no one is running the caster and assuming that a boring melee blocker is even needed then consider the following. Case one the casters are forced to in every battle and every day spend resources on helping one guy who then also takes a large cut of the treasure. Case two the casters every once in a while spend some resources on fodder then go back to doing whatever they want or perhaps they choose to spend resources in every battle but in either case they are not forced to part with their valuable treasure. So while both require the casters to play in a certain way the second places less obligation on the casters and so is more preferable if one wishes to place as few obligations on characters as possible. And this is all assuming they even need to bother with this in the first place.

Ok so if we are talking specific abilities the fighter brings what deals damage or some battlefield control. I think that can be covered easily by a caster. They can probably even do both.


Oh a commoner can help at low levels where everything is rocket tag but then you are stuck with him forever. So look I am not going to run two level 1 through 20 campaigns thousands of times to account for statistical error. I mean just the number of people I would need to find to rerun the campaign would be huge since I can not change the world and the players can not have foreknowledge. And we would need to agree on how the world is structured as the method of building would change the results. Perhaps even requiring several worlds with different configurations to see how it goes. Anything less is just another anecdote and not sufficient.


Like I said this is not going anywhere since the amount of work that would be needed to truly demonstrate this either way is monstrous.

[profitofrage]

Actually all that work isnt really needed if we look at things a bit more mechanically.

simply gather all the martial characters and compare the resources they bring to the table.
e.g
fighter - increases the HP damage output of the party
Brings his WBL

Then also list the resources they drain in order to accomplish this effectivly
e.g
fighter - requires spell slots of the casters or large sums of gold in magic items in order to keep up.


Simply compare the resource drains to those they bring and you have your net answer.

[dsmiles]

Honestly, it makes not a bit of difference what they bring to the table. Not everyone wants to play a caster. It's not a mandatory thing to be a caster (or half-caster, or whatever), and it shouldn't be a mandatory thing. Some people simply prefer to play non-casters.
"Caster-elitists" should really get over themselves and learn to cooperate with the rest of the party. :smallannoyed:

[profitofrage]

Honestly, it makes not a bit of difference what they bring to the table. Not everyone wants to play a caster. It's not a mandatory thing to be a caster (or half-caster, or whatever), and it shouldn't be a mandatory thing. Some people simply prefer to play non-casters.
"Caster-elitists" should really get over themselves and learn to cooperate with the rest of the party. :smallannoyed:

If a Caster required to use the blood of Fighters to cast his spells would you expect the fighter to have to give them his blood? if he refused would you claim him "not cooperating with the party"?

Why do casters have to babysit martial characters so that there useful?
I think there wouldnt be an issue if it was "caster is here playing with the fighter" but it seems to be more
"Caster is here playing with the fighter...and the fighter demands buffs...or a flying spell..or a Ressurection..or XP during the fight he stood still cause he couldnt fly."

[dsmiles]

That's not what I'm getting at, at all.

There are people who like to play casters, but play well with others.

There are people who don't like to play casters.

Then there are people who think casters are the only characters that everyone should play, just because they're "better," and refuse to cooperate with any player who doesn't play a caster.

That third group? They're the "caster-elitists" I'm referring to. Gaming is a social, group-oriented event. Not everyone in the world wants to play a caster all the time. People need to learn to cooperate within their group. If everyone in their group wants to only play casters, fine. But they shouldn't expect that same attitude in every group. If they find themselves in a group where not everyone wants to play a caster, they should cooperate, or if their attitude towards non-casters sucks, they may find themselves without a group.

[profitofrage]

That's not what I'm getting at, at all.

There are people who like to play casters, but play well with others.

There are people who don't like to play casters.

Then there are people who think casters are the only characters that everyone should play, just because they're "better," and refuse to cooperate with any player who doesn't play a caster.

That third group? They're the "caster-elitists" I'm referring to. Gaming is a social, group-oriented event. Not everyone in the world wants to play a caster all the time. People need to learn to cooperate within their group. If everyone in their group wants to only play casters, fine. But they shouldn't expect that same attitude in every group. If they find themselves in a group where not everyone wants to play a caster, they should cooperate, or if their attitude towards non-casters sucks, they may find themselves without a group.

Yes I understand your point, but why is it the Casters who are the ones not cooperating?
One person is saying "No dont play that, Its not an effective class" The other is saying "No you cant be a melee cleric because IM the fighter and I need you to heal me."
Both are asking the other to play something they dont want to play, the difference is the casters at least have the "Were very effective" side to there argument.

[Frozen_Feet]

So if we use contingencies to mean all forms of defense well that does not really change anything. The casters can easily pull layers of defense from their class abilities and are probably going to have as much up as they would any way since having a guy standing there does not avoid any of the numerous ways for some guy to be avoided.

... let's go back to the example about grease. Grease is nigh-useless when there aren't extra characters to do the mop up - it is given power by someone doing the dirty job and killing those affected. Fighter is perfectly capable of that, often as good as a wizard would be with less effort, and killing people is a very effective way of ensuring they won't attack the casters. (A properly built tripmonkey fighter would also be perfectly capable of holding a chokepoint, freeing up spells slots the casters just used to safeguard themselves to, say, blowing the opposition up.)

How easily casters could do something is not the point here. It's whether or not it's necessary. If it isn't, the casters could as easily use those resources for something even better.


And if you can maneuver a foe into a situation where they can only engage you one on one why not put a completely free summon there, a dominated minion, or a wall.

Because the summoned monster won't be nearly as long-lasting as a Fighter ally would be? Because your domination attempt failed and the guy is now stabbing you in the face? Because there wasn't anyone suitable to dominate? Because putting up a wall severs your line of effect, meaning you'll give the enemy a chance to regroup? Because you're trying to kill the enemy, not give them leeway to ignore you? Because you'd rather have the spell slot you'd need for the summon/dominate/wall to be something to escape with if the plan goes south?

Or because having a summoned monster, a dominated lackey and an allied fighter means there's more people keeping the line up, making the whole strategy that much more effective?


True in a smaller party they may need to be more able but they do have more resources and gain experience faster. So increasing numbers makes each individual party member gain power slower and all this loss of power must be made up for by the fighter in a way that the casters can not easily replicate with class abilities for it to be worthwhile. Does a fighter instead of any of the numerous minions available make up for having 1/3 less wealth and leveling more slowly.

Hypothetical XP gains don't really warm you when the hole party is dead, wouldn't you agree? Again, if the smaller party regularly picks fights with superior enemies, their risk of losing horribly increases. If they don't want those risks to increase, they need to fight equal foes - which suddenly means they're advancing at exactly same rate as the larger party. (At which point we're back to scaling encounters, this time it's just players instead of DMs doing the scaling.)

So the smaller party might have a chance to jump higher with one leap, but it's offset by the likewise higher chance of falling down, after which any further greater potential is rendered moot. The larger group might be advancing slower, but they're also advancing safer, which in the long term is better. I tried to point this out earlier. The fighter doesn't need to make up for the short-term loss if he makes it up with his longer term benefit.


Why would a larger party have more resources of this sort just by adding a fighter if we assume no scaling. The resources remain the same except for what each member brings to the table in class abilities. The fighter has no class abilities that reduce costs of healing, give free resurrections, remove status effects, etc.

The underlined part is where you get it wrong. It's not just class abilities, they also bring actions and situational benefits associated with teamwork, such as flanking. If you can emulate the first, you won't be getting the second and third. Or more accurately, even if you emulate them your strategy is still improved by those extras, even if their relative signifigance might be lesser.

And while the fighter doesn't indeed reduce costs of healing etc., the extra actions he can take to remove opponents before they can cause need for any of those things, conserving that way. Again, death is pretty strong action denial.


Oh if the fighter does not contribute roughly equally then you have the following situation caster spends X fighter contributes less than X net loss. But perhaps this is a difference in the use of terms.

Not a difference in terms, I think you're just phrasing your argument poorly. What you're saying here is that when party member uses up X resources, they must produce X+1 resources (or more). It's a valid argument.

However, many resources in question are renewable, or never really go anywhere. Spells slots are a good example. The caster will get his X back anyhow, so it doesn't matter if the fighter contributes only X-1 - that's still on top of it all.


Well you are talking about spending 1/3 of normal wealth on contingencies. To me spending the worth of several towns usually means magic.

On higher levels it might be worth several towns, but I aren't talking just about higher levels. At low levels (1 - 5), the value of a whole new character is easily greater than most affordable pieces of equipment.

And so what if it means magic (items, most likely)? Action economy, item slots and the way some pieces of equipment increase exponentially in prize put contraints on how much that extra WBL helps. Another person brings in whole another set of body slots, and another turn's worth of actions to use those items.

No doubt the member of the smaller party are noticeably more powerful invidually than their versions in the larger party. But I'm still fairly certain the larger group is stronger as a team.


Oh having another member would still mean minions because the addition of another member fighter or caster does not make you safe. If the encounters are not scaled you need every advantage you can get and minions are something you can get.

But the figter is something you can get too, and like you said, every advantage counts. (Still disagree about it "not making you safe", because it can make you safe, or at least safer, pretty easily. Again, tripmonkeys; if we're involving casters, it might be Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil keeping the tide at bay!)

Anyways, we agree here. I said the same thing just a whle ago, just coming from the other direction.

It still stands that if you have a fighter, buffing him up can be tactically more optimal than summoning / dominating more minions, or reduces priority thereof. You don't need to spend a turn summoning your tripmonkey in case of an ambush, for example, 'cause he's already there, freeing up that action for something else.


Casters can by the way change their abilities get minions one day cast whatever you want the next. I mean they are not forced to do that but then again they are not forced to prepare any spells and assuming I am running one of the casters I can easily be the guy.

Correction: Tier 1 generally can. The lower tier caster is in question, the less certain that becomes. A Wizard can jump on that bandwagon pretty early; a Sorcerer might not have Spells Known for it until much later. Warmage and Healer, I don't think they get the option at all. Meanwhile, Dread Necromancers are quite good at the minion department, but have a bit trouble at other things.

But again, having a permanent minion eases pressure on that. The wizard can prepare just grease and replace summon monster with Haste. A sorcerer can spare a spell known for wings of flurry (etc.).


But if you want to assume that no one is running the caster and assuming that a boring melee blocker is even needed then consider the following. Case one the casters are forced to in every battle and every day spend resources on helping one guy who then also takes a large cut of the treasure. Case two the casters every once in a while spend some resources on fodder then go back to doing whatever they want or perhaps they choose to spend resources in every battle but in either case they are not forced to part with their valuable treasure. So while both require the casters to play in a certain way the second places less obligation on the casters and so is more preferable if one wishes to place as few obligations on characters as possible. And this is all assuming they even need to bother with this in the first place.

"Need" is a strong word. A properly-built Wizard 20 (let's call him Wily) can probably take any similar-level encounter meant for four by his lonesome - but doing so means preparing for days, using lot of time to divine the future and holing up so he won't be found in turn, scavenging and crafting scrolls to have just the right tools before the actual strike.

As long as he isn't working against a running clock, Wily doesn't absolutely need his friends Cynthia the Cleric, Ron the Rogue or Fred the Fighter. (Or Alma the Archivist, Beth the beguiler, Waldo the Warblade, or...)

But with their help, he has much more bases covered in much less time. Cynthia can help him with the divinations, halving the investigation time. Beth can help make the scrolls or use them in the fight, freeing Wily's hands for other things. And Fred means Wily doesn't have to craft a golem/summon a solar/whatever, he has a weapon platform ready to field already. It makes the whole job much easier.

Of course, Wily could conscprit the whole populace of Haplessville to be his manservants. So what if they're weak and will get annihilated, WIly is Chaotic Evil, he doesn't care. But what if the word spreads? Eh, better kill everyone just to be sure. But then where is he going to get those expendable minions? Hmmm. Well, I guess he could raise them as zombies. But it's a darn lot of obsidian. Maybe it's better not to create too many problems, that'll take even more time to clean up.

The tactic you present, hiring expendable minions, is valid. But going with it, you find pretty fast that the obligations of the casters towards the hired mook aren't that much lesser than those they'd have towards a fighter. You have to equip them somewhat, you have to pay them wages, and you can't treat them like dirt or you'll create a needless timesink from picking up your own trash sooner or later.


Ok so if we are talking specific abilities the fighter brings what deals damage or some battlefield control. I think that can be covered easily by a caster. They can probably even do both.
Sure, not disputing that. (Never have.) But when you add the fighter, the caster doesn't need to cover for it, and is freed up for other things. And even if the caster is doing it, at least damage is additive, meaning their efforts can be combined, and the whole deal becomes that much more effective.


Like I said this is not going anywhere since the amount of work that would be needed to truly demonstrate this either way is monstrous.
Much of it's still been done, though. If you wanted to, you could do a single demonstration where a low-tier non-caster has negative net value. It wouldn't actually be that hard to get hint of how ubiquitous such scenario is based on accumulated player experiences.

[dsmiles]

Yes I understand your point, but why is it the Casters who are the ones not cooperating?
One person is saying "No dont play that, Its not an effective class" The other is saying "No you cant be a melee cleric because IM the fighter and I need you to heal me."
Both are asking the other to play something they dont want to play, the difference is the casters at least have the "Were very effective" side to there argument.There shouldn't be an argument, that's what I'm saying. Both of them are impinging on the other's fun. They need to be in different types of gaming groups. Fun is what matters, not effectiveness.
That first guy? He needs to be in an optimized group, if that's the attitude he's taking. Not everyone wants to play that way.
That second guy? He needs to be in a "traditional" group. One with a melee guy, a skillmonkey, a healbot and a blaster. Honestly, I prefer this type of group.

The two types of gamers in that example are not compatible with each others playstyles, and shouldn't be in the same group, if it can be at all avoided.

[profitofrage]

There shouldn't be an argument, that's what I'm saying. Both of them are impinging on the other's fun. They need to be in different types of gaming groups. Fun is what matters, not effectiveness.
That first guy? He needs to be in an optimized group, if that's the attitude he's taking. Not everyone wants to play that way.
That second guy? He needs to be in a "traditional" group. One with a melee guy, a skillmonkey, a healbot and a blaster. Honestly, I prefer this type of group.

The two types of gamers in that example are not compatible with each others playstyles, and shouldn't be in the same group, if it can be at all avoided.

Ah well that makes more sense, it wasnt really what I was getting from your posts but I have a habit of misunderstanding things like that sometimes.
Seems like the whole situation could be avoided if only fighters were better though. I guess thats why ToB was made?
Eh thats why I play Dark Heresy :P we dont have these sorts of balance issues. Only the psyker is a different tier :P and even then there severly balanced by the setting itself.

[dsmiles]

Seems like the whole situation could be avoided if only fighters were better though. I guess thats why ToB was made?
I already asked that question in here, and got no answer. I can't figure out why people are using fighters as the example, when there is more than one "martial class."

[profitofrage]

I already asked that question in here, and got no answer. I can't figure out why people are using fighters as the example, when there is more than one "martial class."

Well im not familiar with DnD only really knowing what I pick up from the boards. It appears that ToB bumps martial characters up a notch..the problem is that they do this "anime style"
As in Naruto...hes a ninja...but really look at him? there teleporting...throwing fireballs and cloning themselves...thats not really martial is it? its magic with a "its totally our physical skills pulling it off" spin.
Is it a martial skill if the swordsmen can have his blade explode into fire? or just a magician who knows swordplay?
I think thats why fighters being used as the example. Hes largely just your average joe..but with ludicrous strength e.t.c for some reason impossible feats of strength seem more "mundane" then outright magic.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Well im not familiar with DnD only really knowing what I pick up from the boards. It appears that ToB bumps martial characters up a notch..the problem is that they do this "anime style"
As in Naruto...hes a ninja...but really look at him? there teleporting...throwing fireballs and cloning themselves...thats not really martial is it? its magic with a "its totally our physical skills pulling it off" spin.
Is it a martial skill if the swordsmen can have his blade explode into fire? or just a magician who knows swordplay?
I think thats why fighters being used as the example. Hes largely just your average joe..but with ludicrous strength e.t.c for some reason impossible feats of strength seem more "mundane" then outright magic.

:smallsigh:

They don't do it "anime style." This argument has been rehashed again and again and again and again and again...long story short, only the monk replacement gets anything vaguely resembling overtly magical abilities, the fighter and paladin replacements are 99% mundane, creative/flashy names are just as Western as they are Eastern, etc.

That aside, the reason people use "fighter" in their example is that the prototypical martial vs. magic matchup is "fighter vs. wizard"--"fighter" and "melee" and "martial" and the like are all basically interchangeable, just like "wizard" and "caster" and the like are basically interchangeable. When people say fighters can't fly or fighters have little versatility and so on they're also talking about barbarians/paladins/rangers/monks/etc. just as much, because they all have the same fundamental problems; yes, different classes are better in different areas (paladins can get flying mounts, monks can get great saves and touch AC, etc.) but it's not enough.

[RPGuru1331]

teleporting...throwing fireballs and cloning themselves...thats not really martial is it? its magic with a "its totally our physical skills pulling it off" spin.
It's both. It's a holistic system. You can't generally seperate them in that setting. You can't really work even the more exotic things that are magic in DnD if you can't punch someone six different ways from sundown. A lot of the techniques are still ultimately punches, kicks, and weapon strikes. (Last I saw, it's been a lot of years since I looked at Naruto) They compete on even grounds with the stuff you're terming 'magic'.

Just because there's stuff that's physically impossible in the real world doesn't mean it's DnD-like magic. It means there's stuff that's physically impossible in the real world, and that's it.


Is it a martial skill if the swordsmen can have his blade explode into fire? or just a magician who knows swordplay?
It depends on the setting. The answer in DnD is generally that it's a magician who knows swordplay. The answer in Weapons of the Gods is that it's martial skill. The answer in Exalted and Mutants and Masterminds depends on who's setting the sword on fire.

[Frozen_Feet]

I already asked that question in here, and got no answer. I can't figure out why people are using fighters as the example, when there is more than one "martial class."

Cause they're the iconic martial class that's been in the game since it was born. Yes, it does make the situation weirdly specific for no good reason from time to time. It'd be better to talk in broader terms, maybe the tier system.

[profitofrage]

@RPGuru1331
I dont think I explained my point very well.
My last few sentances? the part about why its considered mundane for a fighter to be so strong he can survive orbital falls yet magical a magician can spark fires? Yea that was me basically agreeing with you.

@PairO'Dice Lost
Ill defer to your opinion because as ive said I dont know much about DnD let alone ToB. All I can say is that claim its "anime style" seems to come up ALOT.
and wether "super flaming strike attack!" is western or eastern doesnt really detract from the point that "its not really a guy being a good swordsmen and more...well a guy setting his sword on fire like a caster would"

[MeeposFire]

Cause they're the iconic martial class that's been in the game since it was born. Yes, it does make the situation weirdly specific for no good reason from time to time. It'd be better to talk in broader terms, maybe the tier system.

FULL CIRCLE!!!

[PairO'Dice Lost]

@PairO'Dice Lost
Ill defer to your opinion because as ive said I dont know much about DnD let alone ToB. All I can say is that claim its "anime style" seems to come up ALOT.
and wether "super flaming strike attack!" is western or eastern doesnt really detract from the point that "its not really a guy being a good swordsmen and more...well a guy setting his sword on fire like a caster would"

Again, the only class that gets the ability to "set their sword on fire," which is the example that everyone always uses, is the swordsage, which is the monk-replacement class. Anyone who is fine with the monk healing their own wounds or leaping really high or killing someone with Quivering Palm should have no problem with Desert Wind maneuvers.

[profitofrage]

FULL CIRCLE!!!

Does that mean the thread is over? can we go home now?

edit:
@PairO'Dice Lost
thats the thing, jumping super high e.t.c for some reason...is considered mundane by most...god knows why...
But setting swords on fire e.t.c well that makes you a martially minded caster, like the melee cleric. hence my point that "apparently" they dont count towards the "martial vs caster" debate...because there casters.

[MeeposFire]

Does that mean the thread is over? can we go home now?

edit:
@PairO'Dice Lost
thats the thing, jumping super high e.t.c for some reason...is considered mundane by most...god knows why...
But setting swords on fire e.t.c well that makes you a martially minded caster, like the melee cleric. hence my point that "apparently" they dont count towards the "martial vs caster" debate...because there casters.

I am sure you can if you want to.

[profitofrage]

I am sure you can if you want to.

nah I think ill stay...
@.@ the Internet is my home now

[MeeposFire]

nah I think ill stay...
@.@ the Internet is my home now

Good, good, the assimilation has begun...:smallamused:

[Caphi]

I already asked that question in here, and got no answer. I can't figure out why people are using fighters as the example, when there is more than one "martial class."

As far as 3.5 is concerned, it doesn't really matter. Taking "the rules" to mean "sensible physics and the simple core rules of combat", fighters are completely bound by them. But the fact is that psywars, warblades, duskblades, and to some extent even paladins and rangers can break The Rules to a very limited extent and only with respect to themselves (enhancing their own attacks, performing great feats of athletics, healing themselves, etc.).

Full casters can break all the rules, on nearly anything in the world, at a distance, including every rule that a lesser martial character can break, and they don't trade anything for that versatility advantage. It's not an accident, either. To some extent, it was even deliberate The difference is a matter of a huge paradigm difference between anything you can get from class features and what's hidden in the deceptive word "Spellcasting".

The distinction between martial and magic, as the OP puts it, is baked into the very essence of spellcasting in D&D3. It only shrinks a little bit if you look up from classes like fighter and samurai. Being able to throw fireballs is the very least thing you can do to become competitive with the power of magic.

[Philistine]

I've seen that argument, understand it and think it's an inaccurate way of gauging a non-caster's worth. The proper way is to compare a party of x casters and y non-casters to party with just x casters, not x+y casters.


The critical failure here is your unstated assumption that party size is determined after party composition, when in fact it's virtually always the other way around. That is, you will have x number of characters in the party, composed of y magicals and z=x-y muggles. Thus the fact that the power and versatility of the party uniformly increases as y approaches x (and z approaches 0) is non-trivial and cannot be neglected.

[Feriority]

I already asked that question in here, and got no answer. I can't figure out why people are using fighters as the example, when there is more than one "martial class."

Earlier in the thread, that argument was made - you don't have to play a full caster, but play some variant like warblade instead of fighter, so you can actually contribute more; even refluff the abilities if you need to keep your concept 'pure martial' or whatever.

The response was along the lines of "if someone wants to play that, fine, but if my character concept fits Fighter better than a ToB variant, I should still be able to play Fighter, and the party should support me just as fully."

[olentu]

... let's go back to the example about grease. Grease is nigh-useless when there aren't extra characters to do the mop up - it is given power by someone doing the dirty job and killing those affected. Fighter is perfectly capable of that, often as good as a wizard would be with less effort, and killing people is a very effective way of ensuring they won't attack the casters. (A properly built tripmonkey fighter would also be perfectly capable of holding a chokepoint, freeing up spells slots the casters just used to safeguard themselves to, say, blowing the opposition up.)

How easily casters could do something is not the point here. It's whether or not it's necessary. If it isn't, the casters could as easily use those resources for something even better.



Because the summoned monster won't be nearly as long-lasting as a Fighter ally would be? Because your domination attempt failed and the guy is now stabbing you in the face? Because there wasn't anyone suitable to dominate? Because putting up a wall severs your line of effect, meaning you'll give the enemy a chance to regroup? Because you're trying to kill the enemy, not give them leeway to ignore you? Because you'd rather have the spell slot you'd need for the summon/dominate/wall to be something to escape with if the plan goes south?

Or because having a summoned monster, a dominated lackey and an allied fighter means there's more people keeping the line up, making the whole strategy that much more effective?



Hypothetical XP gains don't really warm you when the hole party is dead, wouldn't you agree? Again, if the smaller party regularly picks fights with superior enemies, their risk of losing horribly increases. If they don't want those risks to increase, they need to fight equal foes - which suddenly means they're advancing at exactly same rate as the larger party. (At which point we're back to scaling encounters, this time it's just players instead of DMs doing the scaling.)

So the smaller party might have a chance to jump higher with one leap, but it's offset by the likewise higher chance of falling down, after which any further greater potential is rendered moot. The larger group might be advancing slower, but they're also advancing safer, which in the long term is better. I tried to point this out earlier. The fighter doesn't need to make up for the short-term loss if he makes it up with his longer term benefit.



The underlined part is where you get it wrong. It's not just class abilities, they also bring actions and situational benefits associated with teamwork, such as flanking. If you can emulate the first, you won't be getting the second and third. Or more accurately, even if you emulate them your strategy is still improved by those extras, even if their relative signifigance might be lesser.

And while the fighter doesn't indeed reduce costs of healing etc., the extra actions he can take to remove opponents before they can cause need for any of those things, conserving that way. Again, death is pretty strong action denial.



Not a difference in terms, I think you're just phrasing your argument poorly. What you're saying here is that when party member uses up X resources, they must produce X+1 resources (or more). It's a valid argument.

However, many resources in question are renewable, or never really go anywhere. Spells slots are a good example. The caster will get his X back anyhow, so it doesn't matter if the fighter contributes only X-1 - that's still on top of it all.



On higher levels it might be worth several towns, but I aren't talking just about higher levels. At low levels (1 - 5), the value of a whole new character is easily greater than most affordable pieces of equipment.

And so what if it means magic (items, most likely)? Action economy, item slots and the way some pieces of equipment increase exponentially in prize put contraints on how much that extra WBL helps. Another person brings in whole another set of body slots, and another turn's worth of actions to use those items.

No doubt the member of the smaller party are noticeably more powerful invidually than their versions in the larger party. But I'm still fairly certain the larger group is stronger as a team.



But the figter is something you can get too, and like you said, every advantage counts. (Still disagree about it "not making you safe", because it can make you safe, or at least safer, pretty easily. Again, tripmonkeys; if we're involving casters, it might be Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil keeping the tide at bay!)

Anyways, we agree here. I said the same thing just a whle ago, just coming from the other direction.

It still stands that if you have a fighter, buffing him up can be tactically more optimal than summoning / dominating more minions, or reduces priority thereof. You don't need to spend a turn summoning your tripmonkey in case of an ambush, for example, 'cause he's already there, freeing up that action for something else.



Correction: Tier 1 generally can. The lower tier caster is in question, the less certain that becomes. A Wizard can jump on that bandwagon pretty early; a Sorcerer might not have Spells Known for it until much later. Warmage and Healer, I don't think they get the option at all. Meanwhile, Dread Necromancers are quite good at the minion department, but have a bit trouble at other things.

But again, having a permanent minion eases pressure on that. The wizard can prepare just grease and replace summon monster with Haste. A sorcerer can spare a spell known for wings of flurry (etc.).



"Need" is a strong word. A properly-built Wizard 20 (let's call him Wily) can probably take any similar-level encounter meant for four by his lonesome - but doing so means preparing for days, using lot of time to divine the future and holing up so he won't be found in turn, scavenging and crafting scrolls to have just the right tools before the actual strike.

As long as he isn't working against a running clock, Wily doesn't absolutely need his friends Cynthia the Cleric, Ron the Rogue or Fred the Fighter. (Or Alma the Archivist, Beth the beguiler, Waldo the Warblade, or...)

But with their help, he has much more bases covered in much less time. Cynthia can help him with the divinations, halving the investigation time. Beth can help make the scrolls or use them in the fight, freeing Wily's hands for other things. And Fred means Wily doesn't have to craft a golem/summon a solar/whatever, he has a weapon platform ready to field already. It makes the whole job much easier.

Of course, Wily could conscprit the whole populace of Haplessville to be his manservants. So what if they're weak and will get annihilated, WIly is Chaotic Evil, he doesn't care. But what if the word spreads? Eh, better kill everyone just to be sure. But then where is he going to get those expendable minions? Hmmm. Well, I guess he could raise them as zombies. But it's a darn lot of obsidian. Maybe it's better not to create too many problems, that'll take even more time to clean up.

The tactic you present, hiring expendable minions, is valid. But going with it, you find pretty fast that the obligations of the casters towards the hired mook aren't that much lesser than those they'd have towards a fighter. You have to equip them somewhat, you have to pay them wages, and you can't treat them like dirt or you'll create a needless timesink from picking up your own trash sooner or later.


Sure, not disputing that. (Never have.) But when you add the fighter, the caster doesn't need to cover for it, and is freed up for other things. And even if the caster is doing it, at least damage is additive, meaning their efforts can be combined, and the whole deal becomes that much more effective.

Much of it's still been done, though. If you wanted to, you could do a single demonstration where a low-tier non-caster has negative net value. It wouldn't actually be that hard to get hint of how ubiquitous such scenario is based on accumulated player experiences.

At the low level of low levels a little bow action is quite deadly. I mean you were pushing the commoner if they can do it other casters can as well and that is of course not considering a druid or something.

Oh how easy it is is very important. Say it was so easy it took a standard action once a month and in exchange you get a substantial increase in treasure and XP. Sounds like a good deal. On the other hand say it took one round ever other round for the same rewards. This looks less like a good deal. So how easy it is is absolutely the crux of the matter.

Oh are we talking about killing the enemy I mean killing the enemy is a different thing then standing around. See here I thought we were talking about the fighter doing what the wizard can't being standing where the wizard is not standing hence all the stuff that you can have stand around in his place. If you are talking about killing the enemy well you can actually do that as a caster.

Oh sure there is an extra guy but if you have a sufficient line already why pay so much treasure and XP for another body when you could just get another minion far more cheaply.

Sure it is hard to enjoy when you are dead and that is why going into a battle with that extra level of spells is so important. Life or death important even. Not to mention that since the encounters are not scaled every party is going to run across all manner of threats from the easy to the impossible and the caster party can more easily flee from the impossible ones. but in the end I suppose you are arguing that a party with a fighter pushes the encounters that a party can handle up by say a quarter. That is rather overstating the fighter worth I would say given that the many ways they could be replaced.

It is just class abilities since the fighter can be replaced with a minion. The difference between the fighter and the minion is the fighters class abilities versus whatever the minion brings to the table. Actions and flanking cancel out.

Oh the fighter may reduce costs of healing or it may increase costs of healing since fighters generally don't come with all the defenses available to spellcasters since fighters can not cast spells.

To some degree yes but as I said if you take a commoner you have a commoner forever. You need to balance the cost later versus say buying riding dogs right now. Yes I know no one is going to sell their spellbook for dogs but now that I have explained the reference it looses any humorous value.

True they do bring in another set of slots bus so does a minion and the minion can be equipped for less than the fighter if so desired. But any way like I said what sort of contingencies are so necessary that they cost a third of normal wealth at all levels.

Ok I concede that if the two groups are are equal level and have the same treasure then the group with the fighter would be more powerful taking that the fighter can give all his share to the casters and then act as a disposable minion. Depending on the level this may be a negligible difference but still a minor difference. However that assume that they are at equal level and have fought all the same monsters which is not necessarally true if one team level faster than the other.

Oh I suppose if we are talking about all caster then yes but if you thought I was talking about a team of 3 healers with all eights then perhaps we are not having the same discussion.

And do remember that minions of the disposable type or those that bring their own recovery methods unavailable to the fighter gain worth from not needing support as if they die they die. Fighters need resources spent on them. This loss of slots and the like could be used for minions.

A properly built level 20 wizard taking out an encounter that requires that much preparation generally means anyone with less preparation is dead. However the fighter does not bring class features that divine the future, scry on enemies, etc. They do bring a need to protect the fighter from getting divined or scried upon though. So the fighter does not really lessen the information gathering time the other caster do but I don't advocate dropping a caster unless they are being an idiot.


You can get around the cost of animate dead in a number of ways or killing some guy with a minion creator undead would also work I suppose though generally that comes up when chaining. Also it is onyx I think not obsidian.

And when I say resources I mean spell slots not treasure. You can't really hire good minions with treasure most of the time though I suppose if you went with an construct maker route you could probably get something but in that case you were going to be making constructs anyway. And even then those constructs are probably going to cost less than a characters wealth.

Sure the fighter does not need to cover for it as much but they still need to cover so the question becomes is the benefit they gain worth more than the cost producing an extra minion with class abilities and then gaining all the XP and treasure that would have otherwise been missed.

Single demonstrations are just anecdotes. Even if they favored me they would just be anecdotal. And anyway you need to run it 1 to 20 to get a proper accounting of the effects of the party makeup.

[Frozen_Feet]

The critical failure here is your unstated assumption that party size is determined after party composition, when in fact it's virtually always the other way around. That is, you will have x number of characters in the party, composed of y magicals and z=x-y muggles.

Not unstated at all. I went to great lengths few posts back to state my opinion on how the metagame idea that since it exists in the system, you can have it in the game shouldn't be the driving force within in-game tactics and strategy.

And I can easily provide a scenario where your statement is false: player Y wants to play a fighter, or some other non-complicated class, for whatever reason. If you tell him "no, play a caster instead", he will go "not my cup of tea, then", and not play.

Alternatively, the other players start to whine about how Y's character is useless after the game has begun. Instead of opting to roll a different char, Y retires his character and leaves the game. Not because of pettiness, either; just because it's a justified in-game choice (Y's Fighter: "Guys, I realize I'm just dead weight to you and you don't want me. So I'll just stay behind in the next town so I won't hold you back anymore, okay?"), and he just doesn't feel like playing another character. (Y: "I don't really have ideas for new characters, so I'll just stay out for now. Thanks guys, it was fun while it lasted.")


Thus the fact that the power and versatility of the party uniformly increases as y approaches x (and z approaches 0) is non-trivial and cannot be neglected.

As I've repeatedly stated, I know this. It still doesn't measure a non-caster's actual worth, as opposed to their theoretical relative worth.

[Frozen_Feet]

but in the end I suppose you are arguing that a party with a fighter pushes the encounters that a party can handle up by say a quarter. That is rather overstating the fighter worth I would say given that the many ways they could be replaced.

Not a quarter - by some amount. His contribution might wary from +1% to +666% based on all sorts of factors. My point is that some of that extra push exists because the casters don't need to replace the fighter and can use those resources for somethin else, and if they still use "replacements", their efforts are additive, meaning that you'd be justified comparing the worth of a summoned monter to that of a summoned monster plus fighter.

(Note about resources: I specifically talked about spell slots as such earlier. We're on the same ball there. But the term includes every other nugget of player power, including wealth and treasure.)


Oh I suppose if we are talking about all caster then yes but if you thought I was talking about a team of 3 healers with all eights then perhaps we are not having the same discussion.

We're having the same discussion allright, mine was just a semantic correction. That some casters can theoreticaly redo all their abilities doesn't mean all casters can practically do the same. I felt it was proper to address the fact that we've unspokenly used "caster" to denote Tier 1 casters, as pointed out by one of the other posters.


A properly built level 20 wizard taking out an encounter that requires that much preparation generally means anyone with less preparation is dead.

If taking on the encounter alone, maybe. But in a team they won't since they have a level 20 Wizard there.

And again, it seems you missed the main point. It was that the extended preparation only happens or is even necessary because Wily doesn't have friends. That level of preparation isn't absolutely required at all - and even if it is, it's easier to achieve with friends.


Single demonstrations are just anecdotes. Even if they favored me they would just be anecdotal. And anyway you need to run it 1 to 20 to get a proper accounting of the effects of the party makeup.

Single demonstration in a void is an anecdote. Single demonstration compared to the experiences of hundreds of players, which was my proposal, is statistics. Many of the games have been run already, since the system has been in use for years. It's the same body of data much of theoretical optimization, or the tier listing for that matter, draws from.

So yes, it'd be hard. But it'd not be quite as tantalizing as it looks on the surface. I undertand if you don't want to do it, though. So we can stop going around in circles.

[dsmiles]

Single demonstration in a void is an anecdote. Single demonstration compared to the experiences of hundreds of players, which was my proposal, is statistics. Many of the games have been run already, since the system has been in use for years. It's the same body of data much of theoretical optimization, or the tier listing for that matter, draws from.

So yes, it'd be hard. But it'd not be quite as tantalizing as it looks on the surface. I undertand if you don't want to do it, though. So we can stop going around in circles.I'd volunteer my experiences. I've got experience in BD&D, AD&D (1e and 2e), 3.0, 3.5, and 4e. I've honestly never seen an all-caster party. Even with the advent of the pre-made gish classes. In the circles I game in, "traditional" parties are the norm. I still don't see the appeal of an all caster-party. It seems like they would be...lacking.
Every character in a party contributes in some way, even if it only pushes the party's effectiveness up by a fraction of a percent, it's still a contribution to the overall party effectiveness. Boots on the ground are boots on the ground.

[profitofrage]

= Boots on the ground are boots on the ground.

This is actually being argued. a fighter is actually a drain on resources rather then a benefit.
Taking him along means dedicating some of your slots to him in order for him not to die e.t.c
Taking him along means less loot, less exp e.t.c
why should the casters have to dedicate there x y z slots to the fighter when they could take another class and be self suffiecient / actually contribute meaningfully?

Overall its an interesting issue..but again solved by the fact that ITS A GAME.
If your actually making the connections that "oh man ill have to give up xy z slots for this guy" your obviously to optimised to be working with this player.

[Snails]

Obviously an all caster party would cut through some adventures like a hot lightsaber through butter.

But the Fighter and Rogue bring certain kinds of resilience to the party.

What do you do when you have no time for Divination or Contingency? What do you do when you have many doors to kick and do not have enough summoned critters to walk in the room first? What do you do when you have zero time to buff? What do you do when you need scouting and Invis is not sufficient? What happens if you find yourself in Anti-Magic, or fighting a big golem? Or strong SR? Or simple protection spells hedge out your summoned critters? What do you do when the mooks just keep coming?

[Snails]

This is actually being argued. a fighter is actually a drain on resources rather then a benefit.


Of course, it is equally possible to argue the reverse for the Wizard: That standing in the back being protected while the Fighters do the real work is a drag on the party.

[Terazul]

Obviously an all caster party would cut through some adventures like a hot lightsaber through butter.

But the Fighter and Rogue bring certain kinds of resilience to the party.

Pretty sure the druid and is AC is more resilient than both of them put together. And then there's the Cleric.


What do you do when you have no time for Divination or Contingency?
Doubtful. There's Alarm for that.


What do you do when you have many doors to kick and do not have enough summoned critters to walk in the room first?
Reserve Feat.


What do you do when you have zero time to buff?

Doubtful, for reasons stated above.


What do you do when you need scouting and Invis is not sufficient?
Alter Self to something better at hiding. Have the Druid Wildshape. Have the AC or summons scout and use speak with animals afterwards. Though if there's an instance where invis is not sufficient, I'm wondering what exactly the mundanes would do.


What happens if you find yourself in Anti-Magic, or fighting a big golem?
SR: No spells for the latter. You could use the hat trick. AMFs are only 10ft, probably not too difficult to step back and launch some orbs. In the former the fighter is screwed too because now his items don't work. Rogue is screwed in the latter because now he can't sneak attack.


Or strong SR?

SR: No Spells.


Or simple protection spells hedge out your summoned critters?

Use all those other spells I have. Also, the Druid punches them. As a bear.


What do you do when the mooks just keep coming?
Break out the wands.

The point being is, what do you do in all these situations with the rogue and fighter? Because I'll tell you something, their HP is bound to run out far before the rest of the caster party's options do.

[KingofMadCows]

If you don't like fighters and rogues, just allow more multiclass/prestige classes. Plus you can always use variant or homebrewed stuff to make them better. Just alter the fighter feats to scale with level and let rogues sacrifice sneak attack for special abilities/effects.

[Snails]

Alter Self to something better at hiding. Have the Druid Wildshape. Have the AC or summons scout and use speak with animals afterwards. Though if there's an instance where invis is not sufficient, I'm wondering what exactly the mundanes would do.
As the scenario implicitly involves scouting against a difficult target, it is a good guess the Druid and AC and summoned critters will likely fail because their Hide skills are merely okay at best. A skilled enough Rogue can Hide where Invis will fail, and can even defeat True Seeing.


The point being is, what do you do in all these situations with the rogue and fighter? Because I'll tell you something, their HP is bound to run out far before the rest of the caster party's options do.
A Fighter or Rogue can potentially be 100% effective as long as the CLW wand charges last. A spellcaster can bring CLW wands, of course, but their effectiveness will drop and drop and drop if the day lasts long enough.

[Folytopo]

This thread is focused on DnD 4.5. The entire problem is that each level you invest has an opportunity cost. Wizard is a much better buy than most levels of martial classes. I think that has been established. Older editions have a different advancement rate. Less despairity. In systems like gurps it takes a large investment for mages to be useful. The have good utility outside of combat but melee is way more effective for the most part at lower levels of points. The problem is not Magic> than melee its that 3.5 stacks the deck like crazy.

[Yukitsu]

I'd volunteer my experiences. I've got experience in BD&D, AD&D (1e and 2e), 3.0, 3.5, and 4e. I've honestly never seen an all-caster party. Even with the advent of the pre-made gish classes. In the circles I game in, "traditional" parties are the norm. I still don't see the appeal of an all caster-party. It seems like they would be...lacking.
Every character in a party contributes in some way, even if it only pushes the party's effectiveness up by a fraction of a percent, it's still a contribution to the overall party effectiveness. Boots on the ground are boots on the ground.

I've been in one. The reason all caster parties work, is that all casters vary so highly in what they can do. We each played focused specialists in necromancy, each focused on a different aspect of necromancy, and each took different secondary schools. Thematically, it was a lot of fun playing "the necromancers three" and we didn't particularly lack anything. The fighter was replaced by our three skeletal cohort alternate class features. The rogue was replaced by various sneaky ghosts, or just streams of waste undead. False life and vampiric touch kept us preemptively healed, so we didn't need a healbot. And of course, we had 3 wizards. It was a bit like playing magica, except without the team killing.

This doesn't work as well with 3 fighters mind you. Or 3 rogues. Part of the problem with wizards as written, is that it's far too easy for them to overstep their bounds into another classes territory.

[dsmiles]

I've been in one. The reason all caster parties work, is that all casters vary so highly in what they can do. We each played focused specialists in necromancy, each focused on a different aspect of necromancy, and each took different secondary schools. Thematically, it was a lot of fun playing "the necromancers three" and we didn't particularly lack anything. The fighter was replaced by our three skeletal cohort alternate class features. The rogue was replaced by various sneaky ghosts, or just streams of waste undead. False life and vampiric touch kept us preemptively healed, so we didn't need a healbot. And of course, we had 3 wizards. It was a bit like playing magica, except without the team killing.

This doesn't work as well with 3 fighters mind you. Or 3 rogues. Part of the problem with wizards as written, is that it's far too easy for them to overstep their bounds into another classes territory.Me, I'm more of a "traditionalist" when it comes to class roles, and that's not likely to change any time soon. I just don't see myself enjoying a game like that.

[NNescio]

Me, I'm more of a "traditionalist" when it comes to class roles, and that's not likely to change any time soon. I just don't see myself enjoying a game like that.

Druid, Beguiler, Cleric, Wizard. Four full casters that can also fill the traditional roles perfectly.

[Eldan]

Or for really classic and lower tier: Duskblade, Beguiler, Warmage, Spirit Shaman.

[Snails]

This doesn't work as well with 3 fighters mind you. Or 3 rogues. Part of the problem with wizards as written, is that it's far too easy for them to overstep their bounds into another classes territory.

The question is not whether it works as well, but whether it works well enough to have fun and succeed adequately often against level appropriate challenges to keep the adventure rolling.

Certainly The Fighters Three could get caster cohorts and do well enough.

[Yukitsu]

The question is not whether it works as well, but whether it works well enough to have fun and succeed adequately often against level appropriate challenges to keep the adventure rolling.

Certainly The Fighters Three could get caster cohorts and do well enough.

Saying your three fighters worked because they can take 3 of another class doesn't seem to prove anything about fighters to me. That's like me saying we were all wizards that took fighters instead of relying on our wizardlyness. Or that all commoner parties work, if those commoners are back by cats.

[dsmiles]

Druid, Beguiler, Cleric, Wizard. Four full casters that can also fill the traditional roles perfectly.


Or for really classic and lower tier: Duskblade, Beguiler, Warmage, Spirit Shaman.
Sorry guys. There are (a lot of) times when I don't want to play a caster. Plain and simple. I have no overwhelming desire to play casters. I do have an overwhelming desire to game in groups that understand that not everybody wants to play a caster. And the group I'm in is a low-op group that usually has two casters out of five players and a DM/GM. Sometimes one caster. Sometimes no casters. It's awesome.

I love my friends! :smallbiggrin:

[tonberrian]

Certainly The Fighters Three could get caster cohorts and do well enough.

The Fighting Fighters! (http://www.nuklearpower.com/2008/11/06/episode-1056-mix-n-match/) (also Bikke)

[Yukitsu]

Sorry guys. There are (a lot of) times when I don't want to play a caster. Plain and simple. I have no overwhelming desire to play casters. I do have an overwhelming desire to game in groups that understand that not everybody wants to play a caster. And the group I'm in is a low-op group that usually has two casters out of five players and a DM/GM. Sometimes one caster. Sometimes no casters. It's awesome.

I love my friends! :smallbiggrin:

Well, if ever you feel the need to play a wizard, try to convince your DM to run a magica campaign, where you are all wizards of questionable quality. Full parties of wizards tends to have the most surreal conversations.

[dsmiles]

Well, if ever you feel the need to play a wizard, try to convince your DM to run a magica campaign, where you are all wizards of questionable quality. Full parties of wizards tends to have the most surreal conversations.When I do play a caster (or half-caster, or whatever with magic), it's usually a gun mage (Iron Kingdoms, pistol-based, casting progression similar to a bard) or a telepath psion. I really dislike wizards and sorcerers for some reason. Always have; honestly have no idea why. :smallconfused:

[Frozen_Feet]

When I play wizards, I use Prestidigitation to turn my hair golden, overland flight to stay afloat, and then throw around Fireballs shouting "Kamehameha!"

On other days, I prepare loads of Charm spells and get myself a harem of unwitting girls to act clueless around. Explains how the socially inept nerd suddenly has an army of attractive ladies freeloading in his house.

Wizard: the most anime class in D&D. :smallbiggrin:

[dsmiles]

When I play wizards, I use Prestidigitation to turn my hair golden, overland flight to stay afloat, and then throw around Fireballs shouting "Kamehameha!"

Wizard: the most anime class in D&D. :smallbiggrin:
I almost shot root beer out of my nose, FF. It's not a pleasant feeling. :smallannoyed:

[profitofrage]

When I play wizards, I use Prestidigitation to turn my hair golden, overland flight to stay afloat, and then throw around Fireballs shouting "Kamehameha!"

On other days, I prepare loads of Charm spells and get myself a harem of unwitting girls to act clueless around. Explains how the socially inept nerd suddenly has an army of attractive ladies freeloading in his house.

Wizard: the most anime class in D&D. :smallbiggrin:


Ooooo Ooooo now do Evengellion!

[Snails]

Saying your three fighters worked because they can take 3 of another class doesn't seem to prove anything about fighters to me. That's like me saying we were all wizards that took fighters instead of relying on our wizardlyness. Or that all commoner parties work, if those commoners are back by cats.

Huh? Doesn't that tell us that your example of The Wizards Three is irrelevant? Am I misunderstanding your point?

[dsmiles]

Huh? Doesn't that tell us that your example of The Wizards Three is irrelevant? Am I misunderstanding your point?
The Wizards Three. I used to LOVE that article in Dragon. Mordenkainen, Elminster, and Dalamar chatting at the writer's house by the fireplace. Man, I miss when TSR ran Dragon...:smallfrown:

[Yukitsu]

Ooooo Ooooo now do Evengellion!

Whenever I cast mind rape, I make sure the party bard is singing the Hallelujah chorus.


Huh? Doesn't that tell us that your example of The Wizards Three is irrelevant? Am I misunderstanding your point?

I'm saying that "3 of X covers all the party roles if you also have 3 of Y" doesn't tell me anything about what 3 of X can do. In my example, it's 3 wizards, without any tag alongs.

[olentu]

Not a quarter - by some amount. His contribution might wary from +1% to +666% based on all sorts of factors. My point is that some of that extra push exists because the casters don't need to replace the fighter and can use those resources for somethin else, and if they still use "replacements", their efforts are additive, meaning that you'd be justified comparing the worth of a summoned monter to that of a summoned monster plus fighter.

(Note about resources: I specifically talked about spell slots as such earlier. We're on the same ball there. But the term includes every other nugget of player power, including wealth and treasure.)



We're having the same discussion allright, mine was just a semantic correction. That some casters can theoreticaly redo all their abilities doesn't mean all casters can practically do the same. I felt it was proper to address the fact that we've unspokenly used "caster" to denote Tier 1 casters, as pointed out by one of the other posters.



If taking on the encounter alone, maybe. But in a team they won't since they have a level 20 Wizard there.

And again, it seems you missed the main point. It was that the extended preparation only happens or is even necessary because Wily doesn't have friends. That level of preparation isn't absolutely required at all - and even if it is, it's easier to achieve with friends.



Single demonstration in a void is an anecdote. Single demonstration compared to the experiences of hundreds of players, which was my proposal, is statistics. Many of the games have been run already, since the system has been in use for years. It's the same body of data much of theoretical optimization, or the tier listing for that matter, draws from.

So yes, it'd be hard. But it'd not be quite as tantalizing as it looks on the surface. I undertand if you don't want to do it, though. So we can stop going around in circles.

Let us say for the sake of discussion that it is some amount but if that amount is less than the cost then overall there is no point. And as for replacements replacements don't take a share of treasure and cut XP.

Yeah I suppose I was unclear but I did clarify that I means spell slots or other regenerating resources such as rebuking.

Yes terms have been used loosely but now that that has been clarified I think we are all right on terminology.

Well the other casters would help but still if it involves that much necessary preparation then not doing so really generally means death. That is of course assuming the preparation is necessary as in without the proper preparation death is assured in all cases but that where the wizard accidentally acts exactly as he would have when prepared. If the line is that fine clearly there are some defenses that will kill without the exact perfect counter. So while more characters increases the chance of the group having the necessary 20 or so perfect counters for which nothing else will do it is still unlikely.

However since you just mean makes it easier well sure it will be easier but if the preparation is necessary then one can always wing it and given the variable uses of spells be fine in most cases.

But in any case as I said I do not advocate dropping casters (unless they act detrimentally to the party) as they generally bring more than they cost so bringing this up is not really important.

Why is demonstration even necessary if we are just going to give weight to the collected experiences of hundreds of players. We already have those and one more anecdote will not change things unless the hundreds of players are basically exactly evenly split.

Look even if the anecdote was assured to go in my favor I would not give it weight because it is still just an anecdote and so I don't want to run two 1 through 20 campaigns with strictly separated groups for something that is basically meaningless to me. And that is not even considering how to avoid DM or player bias.

[Frozen_Feet]

Ooooo Ooooo now do Evengellion!

Needs Clone, Trap the Soul, and lots of Construct crafting. Or maybe Necromancy.

Hmmm... Outsiders can leave bodies, right? So maybe a Flesh Golem or some form of Animated Undead made from a deceased, Colossal Angel? (Are there any?)

Unlike you may think, Mindrape is hardly essential. The mental screw ups largely stemmed from the extended course of events, not actions of a single person. Well, expect for the case of Arael. Armisael is more a mix of various Psionic Powers.

[dsmiles]

Hmmm... Outsiders can leave bodies, right? Depends on your point of view. I use the old "banished for x# of years" shtick. No bodies left behind, just a puddle of ectoplasm-type goo that quickly evaporates.

[ScrambledBrains]

The problem with assuming that a party of three wizards and a fighter is better than a party of just four wizards is the issue of the fighter needing buffs in quite a few occasions to be compentent. And even if the three wizard and one fighter team has a wizard who agreed to be the fighter's buffer(for whatever reason), this is still an overall net drain on party resources(namely spells.)

[Puts on nerd hat.]

Let's assume we have a wizard and a fighter, Bob and Jay respectively, who agree to travel together from level one to level twenty. At levels one-five, Jay might need no or only one buff to aid in handling their enemies, which is either a minor and early gain for the fighter or a clear one to one ratio of effectiveness. However, as the levels go on, Jay might need two, three, four, or more buffs to be as effective, leading to a slowly increasing disparity between the spells expended by Bob(which is increasing) compared to the effectiveness of Jay(which is remaining constant hopefully).

Let's further assume we have two more wizards who agreed to travel together for the same length of time, Garth and Wayne. In the early stages, if they require a melee frontliner, they can summon one, which is only one spell expended(equal to the above scenario). However, as the levels rise, Garth and Wayne still only need one spell to summon a frontliner, a frontliner more powerful than their early one I'll add, and therefore, the ratio of effort expended compared to results remains one to one in this scenario.

Garth and Wayne retain more spells, because they're not required to blow more of them on enhancing another character, and are thus better off in the long term.

[Takes off nerd hat]

This being said, I have no problem being in a campaign with someone who wants to play a fighter. To each their own, as they say. I myself prefer warblades and swordsages, but that's a personal preference and not a mandate for others. :)

[navar100]

Or, instead of one casting of Summon Monster, one casting of ...

Level 1 spells

Protection From Evil on Fighter - Yay, Fighter has boosted AC and saves, protected against enemy summoned monsters, and protected against many spells that target his will. Fighter goes to town on bad guys.

Bad guys aren't spellcastery? Enlarge Person on Fighter. Fighter has reach Summon Monster I can't provide and deals out even more damage. Fighter goes to town on bad guys.

Level 2 spells

Eh, Blur on Fighter if facing claw/claw/bite monster maybe, but at this time Protection From Evil or Enlarge Person still rule. Bull's Strength or Bear Endurance are nice, but Fighter doesn't absolutely need them. Let cleric do it if cleric reeally, really likes to such things. No need to cast Summon Monster II. Fighter goes to town on bad guys.

Level 3 spells

Displacement on Fighter. Fighter is hit 50% less often than any monster from Summon Monster III. Fighter goes to town on bad guys.

Uh oh, flying creatures! Fly on Fighter. Buckbeat from Summon Monster III would be nice, but Fighter attacks better. Fighter goes to town on bad guys.

Spellcastery opponenents? Protection From Evil still works! Flying spellcastery opponents? Ok, 2 spells, but would Buckbeat really be any better? Bad guy could have Protection From Good on himself. Fighter goes to town on bad guys.

More than one Fighter in group? Haste them! Now they all move faster and attack more than one monster from Summon Monster III. Fighters go to town on bad guys.

Level 4 spells

Stoneskin you may want this more on yourself, but if Fighter is willing to pay for the spell component, a present. Otherwise, Displacement is still a better choice. A 3rd level spell instead of a 4th level spell Summon Monster IV.

Aslan can pounce. If that's really important, just Haste the Fighter, another 3rd level spell instead of 4th level Summon Monster IV.

Fly is still there if needed, another 3rd level spell instead of 4th level Summon Monster IV. Fighter better than Hedwig or Sam.

Protection From Evil is still good! You have 1st level spells to spare. Heck, the Fighter might be willing to buy you the wand if he really, really wants it.

If you really, really want to cast a 4th level spell - Polymorph on Fighter! Make the Fighter your dream monster with all its abilities plus all of the Fighter's feats, hit points, and attack bonus. Superior choice than Summon Monster IV. Fighter goes to town on bad guys.

Level 5 spells

Cast Summon Monster V if you absolutely must, but Displacement, Fly, or Polymorph on Fighter are still the better choices. Use your 5th level spell for Teleport or Wall of Force or Hold Monster or Telekinesis. You're a wizard! Be one!

Level 6 spells

At this level maybe the Fighter could use 2 buff spells. He'll have his own feats and magic items, but the Coke Drinker and Angry Aslan are worthy considerations for Summon Monster VI. Even the Elemental is worth considering. Summon Monster VI it is.

Level 7 spells

You're way bast buffing spells now. Summon the Republican or Hawk from Buck Rogers if you want. Robin Williams is nice too. You have oodles of low levels spell slots now. Save your high level spells for when you really, really need them. 3rd level spells are luxuries now. A Displacement, Fly, or Haste on Fighter is not going to cripple you. You have great more options for Polymorph. The Fighter will appreciate it more than a 10d6 Fireball, but he won't say no to Slow on the bad guys to ease his punishment going toe-to-toe.

Level 8 spells

Should you really be thinking about buffing the Fighter now? No. Fly, Displacement, or Haste are throw aways. Use rod of quickening for them, maybe. Fighter is happy. Summon Smokey or an Elemental if you must.

Level 9 spells

Your Fighter really doesn't want you to spend a 9th level spell on him, unless it's Wish. He definitely doesn't want you to waste it summoning Puff or Big Bird. You're casting a 9th level spell. I really don't think the Fighter will have a problem with you going all Voldemort against the bad guys.

[Eric Tolle]

T
Taking him along means less loot, less exp e.t.c

Well technically, if you're dealing with a 3-person group as opposed to a 4-person group, that's going to lower the CR of the group. Which means less loot. Instead of a CR 17 dragon, the average should be a CR 15 dragon.

Of course the party could insist on seeking out challenges appropriate for a 4-person party, but that means that you're looking at the strong possibility one or more characters will die, and if they die to soon, that could result in a TPK.

On the other hand, if a member of a three-party group dies in the encounter, that leaves even more treasure for the survivors- a 50% bonus! And if there's only one survivor, then hey, that's triple the amount of loot! Of course that only works if your character is the one to survive. Which is why three-person caster parties tend not to survive; the players begin to arrange events so that their character is the last to survive.