Well-Executed Martial Classes

[PaintByBlood]

Despite eagerness to learn, play, and do a bit of homebrewing, I'm still fairly new to some respects of D&D, especially in regards to what ultimately makes a class powerful. As I'm exploring this more and more I've noticed what I'm sure many have noticed, namely that the classes that are considered the most powerful from core are those with a strong spell selection (Wizard, Druid), while the least impressive ones are those that focus purely on martial ability (Monk, Fighter).
So, I have a question for those more veteran than I: is this just the inherent nature of martial classes? Are they always to be less impressive, and often less enjoyable, due to their melee focus?
Many of the fixes or better options for Monk or Fighter that I have seen appear to amount to giving them something akin to a spell selection, like martial art manuevers, or simply providing a spellsword. Should I draw the conclusion that if one wants to pick or make a good class that can stand on par with a Wizard or Druid that it needs something similar to spellcasting?

[Cespenar]

The key word is versatility. More options are available to a character, more power it has. Now, this would be somewhat fair if it was the only facet - sacrificing strength for versatility or vice versa seem reasonable enough.

But versatility brings an extra angle of strength - combinations and loopholes. So, more options a class has, more chance for one of those options to be poorly balanced. Since optimization can focus on the best options of a given class - versatility becomes directly proportional to strength.

[Psyren]

That depends on what you mean by "similar to spellcasting." If you mean "using magic" or "studying" then no - there are very good martial classes that don't do these. If you simply mean "having other options besides hitting it with a pointy stick, and hitting it harder with a pointy stick" then yes, being a good martial class means the latter - and there's nothing wrong with that.

I advise you check out the tier system for classes (can't link it) and look at the kinds of martial classes that make it to Tier 3. That should give you an idea of what martial classes should be able to do in order to keep up with casters. (T2 and T1 always involve magic, because casting is how you break the game.)

[Darrin]

So, I have a question for those more veteran than I: is this just the inherent nature of martial classes? Are they always to be less impressive, and often less enjoyable, due to their melee focus?


Short answer: yes.

Long answer: Linear Warriors, Quadratic Wizards. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LinearWarriorsQuadraticWizards)

Fighters are defined mostly by BAB and damage output. These scale up on a mostly linear curve.

Wizards have an exponential damage curve that "pretends" to put caps on damage, but many of those can be circumvented. They can also teleport, polymorph, and disintegrate. While the fighter is still just "hitting things harder".

The solution from a game design standpoint is probably some variation on Everyone Is A Super (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EveryoneIsASuper). Everybody gets special powers, and hopefully the various class "flavors" are somewhat balanced against each other. The wizard wiggles his fingers and incinerates the orphanage with his Flaming Axe spell, the Warrior yells "Flaming Axe!" really loud and does the same thing, but refluffed to make each class feal like their own unique special snowflake. Some games do this well (http://www.amazon.com/Feng-Shui-Action-Movie-Roleplaying/dp/1887801766). Some, not so much (http://www.amazon.com/World-Synnibarr-Raven-c-s-McCracken/dp/1881171000/ref=la_B004K6PWKS_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1343743422&sr=1-1).

[Beowulf DW]

The only classes that can stand on even ground with a wizard or druid (that I know of) are artificers and clerics.

Unfortunately, you are correct. The quickest way to power in D&D and Pathfinder is to have a spell list. In Tome of Battle, which is considered by some (including myself) to be a "patch" for martial characters, a maneuver system was introduced. This system does have some similarities to spell casting, but it works more on an encounter to encounter schedule rather than a day to day one.

The idea at the core that both of these systems is utility. If something isn't working, you can do something else. Instead of constantly hitting the dragon with your axe, you can switch to a spell or maneuver that you think might work better.

I'm no expert, but from what I've read and seen in this game, utility/options=power.

[PaintByBlood]

The answers are basically what I expect, and meant. Actively having options, versatility, and choice all seem to be synonymous with power.
I wonder, then, if there is a way to fix it that isn't simply spreading the wealth of versatility. If someone really wants to play a class that is simply "I hit things hard with my axe" or similar, might it be justified that power doesn't scale linearly? Giving those dedicated to martial prowess levels of damage output before unseen?
Though I imagine that might be very subject to further exploitation by optimizers.

[sonofzeal]

So, I have a question for those more veteran than I: is this just the inherent nature of martial classes? Are they always to be less impressive, and often less enjoyable, due to their melee focus?
There are various games and movies and books where martial and magical characters interact fairly well.

One approach has powerful magics but they tend to take a long time to perform, or carry serious risks/drawbacks. The biggest fights often follow the pattern of trying to defend the mage long enough for them to complete the ritual and win the fight. In that sort of universe, a powerful mage by themself has no more chance of winning in those situations than a powerful warrior would, and often rather less.

A second approach is having magic be small. Mages can perform minor tricks, maybe zap a couple guys, give advantages in certain contexts, but don't particularly overshadow what a martial character might be able to do. In these sorts of setting, magic is primarily offensive - a magic bolt might kill someone, but so can an arrow or a sword, so there's clearly a level of balance there.

The third approach is to have everything being big. Warriors are less like Captain America and more like Thor, able to survive blasts that could destroy a brick wall and deal out equal punishment. They can jump twenty feet or more in the air, never get tired, can bust out of enchantments by pure force of will, and are almost supernaturally aware of everything around them.



Earlier editions had a bit of that first one going on, while 3.5 offers the second one with Warlocks and the third one with Martial Adepts but this comes as too-little-too-late for many. Fourth edition opted for a combination of the latter two that many feel incorporates the worst of both - magic feels highly limited, while martial characters feel superhuman, and the difference between the two is vague at best. It's better, imo, to solidly opt for one of the three and stick with it.

[Psyren]

The answers are basically what I expect, and meant. Actively having options, versatility, and choice all seem to be synonymous with power.
I wonder, then, if there is a way to fix it that isn't simply spreading the wealth of versatility. If someone really wants to play a class that is simply "I hit things hard with my axe" or similar, might it be justified that power doesn't scale linearly? Giving those dedicated to martial prowess levels of damage output before unseen?
Though I imagine that might be very subject to further exploitation by optimizers.

T4 and T5 classes can already get massive amounts of damage; that isn't their problem. The problem is that they become one-trick ponies to do so.

Now, this might be fun for them, and might even be fun for the group. But it's hard for the DM to challenge such a player without shutting off their one trick and invalidating the whole build. A DM can shake a Warblade or Totemist out of his comfort zone and force him to improvise (because they have other tricks to fall back on), but doing the same to a Dungeoncrasher Fighter typically involves taking away the one toy he has.

Also, munchkins exploit, not optimizers.

[Answerer]

The primary problem is that the overwhelming majority of mundane classes depend only on the Core foundation mechanics – attack, full attack, combat maneuvers. The things anyone can do. They expand on this only through feats and static class features – which are usually very limited in number, and impossible to change.

Spellcasters, and other higher-tier, more-versatile classes, introduce "subsystems" – mechanics for doing things above and beyond that basic foundation. They involve choices and frequently allow things to be changed around as necessary. Even when they don't, they almost always get far more options, and they're almost always things that one cannot do with the basic foundation.

They range from the simple (Dragonfire Adepts and Warlocks choose a new Invocation every few levels, and can use all Invocations they know at will) to the incredibly complex (Artificer Infusions often have long casting times, requiring forethought – or an Action Point – to use them well, plus Artificers rely heavily on crafting, making it very difficult to keep track of one's gear and abilities), but they all give extra options that cannot be trivially replicated without taking the class (or a similar one).

There is nothing about melee combat that prevents such classes from having options. Consider the Psychic Warrior: he spends most of his time in melee combat. But he's got the entire Psionic subsystem working for him, so he's got plenty of options. Or the Totemist: most of his Soulmelds are "You gain yet another natural weapon," but plenty of them have more utility than that, and they too have a lot of options.

It was not until Tome of Battle that Wizards finally realized that this could be more broadly applied. They developed a subsystem for melee – special strikes, counters, and stances. Some of these are somewhat mystical, since the Swordsage is similar in style to the Monk and is explicitly mystical, and the Crusader is very similar to the Paladin, fluff-wise, and thus gains some divine powers. But most of it is perfectly mundane – they're simply techniques honed by practice by the most skilled of warriors.

They allow initiators to choose a large number of powers, to choose how to use them, and to change them as they level. In essence, they finally give melee characters access to the same game that everyone else had always been playing.


The only classes that can stand on even ground with a wizard or druid (that I know of) are artificers and clerics.
Archivist, for one.

[Eldan]

The answers are basically what I expect, and meant. Actively having options, versatility, and choice all seem to be synonymous with power.
I wonder, then, if there is a way to fix it that isn't simply spreading the wealth of versatility. If someone really wants to play a class that is simply "I hit things hard with my axe" or similar, might it be justified that power doesn't scale linearly? Giving those dedicated to martial prowess levels of damage output before unseen?
Though I imagine that might be very subject to further exploitation by optimizers.

Quite simply? No, never.

Google the Tier System. It's a very hotly debated topic, but at its basis it's a system for classifying classes based on versatility and power.

The problem fighters and their ilk have is not that they can not deal enough damage. It's that there are many situations where they can not contribute with their class features. If they want to do anything on high levels, they either need items (crafted by a spellcaster) or buffs (cast by a spellcaster).

Even if you had a sheet that said "+Infinite to hit" and "1d100+arbitrary damage", the fighter would still not compare to a wizard. Because the wizard can do many, many things other than fighting, and he can do dozens of things in a fight other than deal damage.

[vrigar]

Funny, we just had a similar discussion in another thread and for some reasons it got heated up.
There are quite a few settings in which the martial characters carry the party such as certain planes (Planescape is still the best setting by far IMHO), difficult magic conditions (forgotten realms death of Mystra campaign) and more but they are far than the general case.
I am now playing a fighter in a 6th level group and he is one of the most active characters. True, he can't cast "fly" and chase the harpy but the wizard would rather cast the "fly" on the fighter than face harpy alone.
If there is a conclusion I drew from the previous thread its that if the success of the group doesn't rely on cooperation between all the characters, whether melee, arcane, divine or other, then the DM is not doing his job.

[Eldan]

I think pretty much everyone agrees that playing your wizard as the Batman-god is a **** move. The wizard should not solve every problem alone He should help his party face them and maximize everyone's chances of victory.

However, the underlying problem is still this: it's not the fighter solving a problem. It's the wizard. It happened in my group when we were noobies. We had a wizard (me), a monk and a barbarian. They would absolutely rock combat (it was low level) while I was looking stupid throwing magic missiles at high-HP monstrosities. But whenever we faced a non-combat problem, everyone's heads would turn to me.

The fighter alone can't do much. The wizard can. In the end, it doesn't even really matter who the wizard is buffing, he could do it with himself or a summoned monster. Doing it with the fighter is more a form of charity for the sake of party peace.

Of course, that's a bit exaggerated. most wizards won't think like that.

[jaybird]

I think pretty much everyone agrees that playing your wizard as the Batman-god is a **** move. The wizard should not solve every problem alone He should help his party face them and maximize everyone's chances of victory.


I interpret Batman and God as two different Wizard concepts - the Batman faces every problem alone, God faces every problem with his party and makes sure they win. In fact, I believe most 'God' handbooks actively discourage SoD spells for this very reason, advocating battlefield control and buffing instead.



One approach has powerful magics but they tend to take a long time to perform, or carry serious risks/drawbacks. The biggest fights often follow the pattern of trying to defend the mage long enough for them to complete the ritual and win the fight. In that sort of universe, a powerful mage by themself has no more chance of winning in those situations than a powerful warrior would, and often rather less.

http://media.spiralknights.com/wiki-images/3/37/GuildLogo-Dragon_Army.png

Please tell me people get this :smallbiggrin:

Back on topic, a few of my friends and I have been discussing the problem for a while now, just from a spellcaster's perspective. The general conclusion we came to was a system where you could prepare a selection of Reserve Feat-like spells in a short period of time and use them at-will. Actual spells required longer and longer periods of preparation time, to the point where a high level Wizard couldn't blow all his slots and fill himself back up the next morning. Of course, they COULD try to 'force through' a spell without having prepared it, but that carries some very severe consequences on a bad roll (take a look at Perils of the Warp from 40kRP, for example).

Casters keep their earth-shaking power, but can't use it nearly as often and need to think through exactly how they're going to use it. I suppose this combines sonofzeal's first and second approaches :smalltongue:

[PaintByBlood]

This thread has been rather enlightening for me. Thank you all!

I guess the conclusion I see is that, while the one-trick-pony sort of martial class may be fun at times, it's really most likely to work a fight well, or feel completely useless (without the help of others at least), with little inbetween. Probably to be avoided, with the ability to actually react to problems effectively (or learn better how to prepare so you can react, at least) preferable to having to just give up in some fights. I may be exaggerating it a little, but still.

I suppose it only ties you over until the spellcasters get to start making wishes and miracles, though.

[Menteith]

Gestalt can help out to an extent. Monk//Barbarian (ignoring alignment restrictions) or Fighter//Rogue both can create reasonably skilled characters if ACFs are in play.

[Eldan]

This thread has been rather enlightening for me. Thank you all!

I guess the conclusion I see is that, while the one-trick-pony sort of martial class may be fun at times, it's really most likely to work a fight well, or feel completely useless (without the help of others at least), with little inbetween. Probably to be avoided, with the ability to actually react to problems effectively (or learn better how to prepare so you can react, at least) preferable to having to just give up in some fights. I may be exaggerating it a little, but still.

I suppose it only ties you over until the spellcasters get to start making wishes and miracles, though.

I am currently working on hosting a kind of contest/homebrew test system over on the homebrew boards. It will involve 12 challenges, eight in combat and four out of it.

I think this is a good example of the problem. Think of the following challenges, which will probably come up in some way.
Convincing someone to help you. Gathering information in a large city. Preparing for a siege. Overcoming an environmental obstacle like an ocean or chasm. Navigating a complex multi-stage trap. Fighting against a monster that is almost impossible to kill but has one specific weakness. Fight against a strong boss monster. Fight against a horde of enemies.

OUt of these? The fighter player can, of course, work on all of them. But he will solve most through roleplay and equipment, not because his class has any features that help with any of them. The wizard, on the other hand, just needs to find the right spell.

[Person_Man]

There is nothing inherently weak or inflexible about melee. It is a role like many others. It's just that most writers are lazy or bound by discredited tropes.


When reading a class, ask yourself these four questions:


Does it have respectably long list of different abilities (spells, powers, vestiges, soulmelds, maneuvers, or some custom ability set)?
Can I choose from that list of abilities?
Can I change my choices at least once per day?
Can those abilities do a variety of useful things effectively?


If you answered yes to those questions, then you probably wrote your class well, and it will be Tier 3 or higher. If you answered no, then it probably won't.

[Raoul Duke]

I agree with the prior poster. Melee characters are very powerful in 3.5 at any character level, and the idea of their being obsoleted by spellcasters is a mistaken perception that is common among the online community, but rarely ever bears out in actual play.

There are more complex and interesting melee classes like Psychic Warrior and Warblade for those craving options. Even a very straight forward Fighter build will never be obsolete, however - it will be very, very effective at dealing damage. But that is all. In terms of troubleshooting and non combat activities, the player may grow bored.

In terms of (combat) effectiveness, however, there is not a point where spellcasters obsolete martial classes in actual play. The Fighter player may just grow bored with every scene that doesn't involve combat.

[Kuulvheysoon]

I agree with the prior poster. Melee characters are very powerful in 3.5 at any character level, and the idea of their being obsoleted by spellcasters is a mistaken perception that is common among the online community, but rarely ever bears out in actual play.

There are more complex and interesting melee classes like Psychic Warrior and Warblade for those craving options. Even a very straight forward Fighter build will never be obsolete, however - it will be very, very effective at dealing damage. But that is all. In terms of troubleshooting and non combat activities, the player may grow bored.

In terms of (combat) effectiveness, however, there is not a point where spellcasters obsolete martial classes in actual play. The Fighter player may just grow bored with every scene that doesn't involve combat.

:smallconfused:

Respectfully? I don't believe that you and Person Man are quite on the same page.

Far as I can see, PM's saying that melee in and of itself is not bad. But that fact that the writers for 3.0/3.5 were either lazy or inexperienced means that we get classes where a dozen feats and 4 attacks are equivalent to dozens of spells per day. and then they kept making the same mistakes with classes like the CW Samurai.

Have you ever played with a well designed caster? More than once, I've had my spellcasters (usually divine, admittedly) being the meat shield. Hells, my last Cloistered Cleric was better at melee than our Fighter. IF melee classes were designed better, this would not have happened. Thank the gods for the Tome of Battle.

"Even a straightforward Fighter will never be obsolete" Yeah... no. Doing only one thing (no matter how well it does it) means that you will be obsolete whenever you are not doing the one thing that you're good at. If it's dealing damage, what are you going to do to an enemy that you can't hurt (because of terrain, special ability, regardless)?

Consider the following. 7th level Fighter and a 7th level Warblade versus a 7th level Wizard. If everything was fair and balanced, the Wizard would have no chance. Instead, the Wizard casts, say, confusion. Assuming no overt optimization, it'll be a save DC of somewhere in the neighbourhood of 17. A fighter would have a +2 to their save (assuming a Wisdom score of 10/11) against having a 90% chance of being shut down. The warblade, however, has Moment of Perfect Mind readied (a reasonable assumption), and probably has a +12 bonus on their save (assuming a Constitution bonus of +2). So they only have a ~25% chance of failure. Hells, even if they fail, they might have the hilariously silly IHS readied (probably not in conjuction with MoPM, though), and this is exactly what it's intended to counter (RAI).

So with a single spell (of his admittedly highest level), he has effectively taken the fighter out of the fight, preventing him from doing the one thing he's good at, rendering him obsolete. Even if the Fighter can act, The Wizard has at least another dozen spells.

As for the last point? Four words: Divine Power and Wildshape.

[Raoul Duke]

Rounds wasted buffing are rounds wasted. Most combats are over before the buffs are laid down, in my experience, or at least largely decided. Wildshape also never matches the power of any well built martial character.

Again, speaking solely from my experience, the fighter would kill the Wizard in the LV 7 scenario mentioned. Typically I've seen the fighters kill the wizards with a single power attack critical before they can get off the spell. With Cloaks of Resistance, even a poor base will save fighter will generally have better odds than cited on the Will Save. The wizards odds of surviving the melee attack remain poor, however. Your experience may vary.

[Novawurmson]

Rounds wasted buffing are rounds wasted. Most combats are over before the buffs are laid down, in my experience, or at least largely decided. Wildshape also never matches the power of any well built martial character.

Except...at level 8, the druid can Wildshape 3/day, each lasting 8 hours. 8x3=24, meaning the Druid can have 100% uptime on Wild Shape and never need to switch out.

[Menteith]

Rounds wasted buffing are rounds wasted. Most combats are over before the buffs are laid down, in my experience, or at least largely decided. Wildshape also never matches the power of any well built martial character.

Again, speaking solely from my experience, the fighter would kill the Wizard in the LV 7 scenario mentioned. Typically I've seen the fighters kill the wizards with a single power attack critical before they can get off the spell. With Cloaks of Resistance, even a poor base will save fighter will generally have better odds than cited on the Will Save. The wizards odds of surviving the melee attack remain poor, however. Your experience may vary.

At high power play, you don't really need to spend time in combat actively buffing. Divine Metamagic: Persist, combined with multiple turn pools/high # of Turn attempts, can give 24 hour long durations for a depressingly large number of buffs (meaning that Clerics can often run every buff they want all the time). Most level 7 Fighters honestly don't have an answer to a Sculpted Grease, let alone Solid Fog, and there's no way they're keeping up with a 140ft/round Phantom Steed. If a Fighter gets the drop on the Wizard, while the Wizard has no buffs/items/feats that would passively stop the Fighter, while the Wizard is within range of a Charge, then the Fighter has a decent shot at killing them. But getting to that point is pretty darned hard.

[DeusMortuusEst]

Again, speaking solely from my experience, the fighter would kill the Wizard in the LV 7 scenario mentioned. Typically I've seen the fighters kill the wizards with a single power attack critical before they can get off the spell. With Cloaks of Resistance, even a poor base will save fighter will generally have better odds than cited on the Will Save. The wizards odds of surviving the melee attack remain poor, however. Your experience may vary.

I've never seen a decently played and built wizard loose to a similarly build and played fighter after level 6. So yea, experiences do vary quite a bit on this subject.

Many, many (I won't say the majority, because I don't know, but it often looks like that) of the people on the forum who has a good knowledge of the 3.5 system agrees on that wizards are generally better than fighters. both in and out of combat.

[Mnemnosyne]

Rounds wasted buffing are rounds wasted. Most combats are over before the buffs are laid down, in my experience, or at least largely decided. Wildshape also never matches the power of any well built martial character.

Again, speaking solely from my experience, the fighter would kill the Wizard in the LV 7 scenario mentioned. Typically I've seen the fighters kill the wizards with a single power attack critical before they can get off the spell. With Cloaks of Resistance, even a poor base will save fighter will generally have better odds than cited on the Will Save. The wizards odds of surviving the melee attack remain poor, however. Your experience may vary.
Level 7 pure class fighter cannot beat a similarly leveled wizard without contrived circumstances of some sort.

First off, the fighter is unlikely to win initiative. He's probably wearing heavy armor, giving him a max dex bonus of 1-3. Wizard probably has at least a 14 in dexterity, but he also carries a wand of nerveskitter in his weapon, so he gets a +5 to initiative. Even if he loses initiative, when the fighter declares a charge, the wizard simply uses his celerity spell to interrupt with an immediate action, then casts something that will stop the fighter in his tracks with no save or resistance allowed. For instance, invisible solid fog. Alternately, if the terrain is amenable, he can cast web. Either way, the fighter cannot reach him this turn, or the next. He could then cast deep slumber, putting the fighter to sleep for seven minutes, during which he can walk up, pull a heavy pick out of his pack, and strike the fighter with an auto hit x4 crit that forces a fort save or instantly die.

There's no circumstance in which the fighter can win, even if he wins initiative. And this isn't a specially built wizard or anything. It's just a wizard with two fourth level spells prepared - celerity and solid fog. Generally, he won't have to use both of them, but I'm assuming a worst case scenario here. A warblade, swordsage, or crusader have a chance of winning. Not a great one, but they might be able to pull it off. But the fighter, with his bab and his pile o feats? Nope.

[Raoul Duke]

Again, this has never been my experience in actual play. Martial characters, and fighters in particular, dominate combat vs spell casters. It is only at very high level that spellcasters have an edge, and that role is largely buffing the fighters and providing mitigation of damage and conditions (Freedom of Movement, Resist Energy, etc.) Your experience may vary, but I've never seen casters outpace fighters in actual play.

As for Wildshape, my argument isn't that the duration is insufficient, it's that the actual effectiveness of a wild shape druid is poor compared to any well built fighter.

[jaybird]

Again, this has never been my experience in actual play. Martial characters, and fighters in particular, dominate combat vs spell casters. It is only at very high level that spellcasters have an edge, and that role is largely buffing the fighters and providing mitigation of damage and conditions (Freedom of Movement, Resist Energy, etc.) Your experience may vary, but I've never seen casters outpace fighters in actual play.

Would you mind providing a sample caster build you've seen in play, please?

[eggs]

Both sides of this are speaking in crazy absolutes. Wild Shape can outclass a Fighter. A Fighter can be useful in a mid-level group. The Fighter can also be rendered obsolete. There's a non-zero chance for a well-played Fighter to beat a well-played Wizard in PVP, even if most of its power comes from WBL (though I'm not sure why that's a relevant question).

But what most beatsticks bring to the party are inexpensive combat cleanup with a fairly reliable damage source, possibly a limited degree of battlefield control or intimidation and maybe one or two decent out-of-combat skills. Those can be useful, but for most builds, it's one or two tricks that often rely on wealth or other characters to be applicable (eg. in-class, the Monk doesn't have a lot of tools to deal with Flying/Invisible/Incorporeal/Big targets).

What casters bring to the party span from tactical-victories-in-a-can (one Glitterdust/Black Tentacles/Silence/Sleet Storm/etc. and the outcome of most fights is determined) to instantaneous problem-solving (Chasm? Fly. Perilous Journey? Teleport. Mystery? Divinations. Trap? Disintegrate. etc.) to minion-making (enchanting/conjuring/creating Fighters and miscellaneous other characters of its own) to the blasting, all more reliably than the mundanes (nonmagical characters can usually only target AC+DR+HP and maybe modified BA/Strength checks or fear defenses; magical characters can target the same things OR any save/touch AC if the mundane defenses look too high), and all with a deeper control over game events (it's much easier for a caster to use Immediate actions to just say "no" to other characters' actions than it is for most mundanes).

I've rarely seen Fighters, Monks, etc. play as dead weight, and I've never seen it with decent optimization. But those classes just bring fewer tools to the table than eg. Bards or Maguses, and far fewer than Clerics, Wizards, Artificers, etc.

[Psyren]

Again, this has never been my experience in actual play. Martial characters, and fighters in particular, dominate combat vs spell casters. It is only at very high level that spellcasters have an edge, and that role is largely buffing the fighters and providing mitigation of damage and conditions (Freedom of Movement, Resist Energy, etc.) Your experience may vary, but I've never seen casters outpace fighters in actual play.

You keep saying "in actual play" as though you're the only one who does it :smalltongue:

We've had "actual play" too, and we've seen this. I certainly have. Most of my encounters have been won or lost, not by the Barbarian's thunderous swings or the Rogue's acrobatic ginsu knives, but by the Solid Fog/Sleet Storm that kept them from being overwhelmed by their much more brutal opponents. I remember a pack of werewolves at level 3 that would have overwhelmed our Barbarian if it weren't for my Witch's Web. I remember a later encounter at level 9 vs. some Ropers, that would have been a TPK were it not for her Glitterdust.

Without the melee these fights would have taken forever; but without the casters the consequences would have been far more severe. That is not "dominating" at all.



As for Wildshape, my argument isn't that the duration is insufficient, it's that the actual effectiveness of a wild shape druid is poor compared to any well built fighter.

In Pathfinder you may have a case for this. At the very least, Druids need more stats to be good at melee than they did in 3.5, and they generally have to sacrifice some casting to do it. But in 3.5? Not so much.

[Aegis013]

Again, this has never been my experience in actual play. Martial characters, and fighters in particular, dominate combat vs spell casters. It is only at very high level that spellcasters have an edge, and that role is largely buffing the fighters and providing mitigation of damage and conditions (Freedom of Movement, Resist Energy, etc.) Your experience may vary, but I've never seen casters outpace fighters in actual play.

As for Wildshape, my argument isn't that the duration is insufficient, it's that the actual effectiveness of a wild shape druid is poor compared to any well built fighter.

Something tells me you haven't played against casters with the Playgrounders behind the wheel. They get... horrifically monstrous. I shut down a combat against 8 ethereal marauders at level 4 with a single cast of Color Spray.

As far as wild shape, Fleshraker form + Fleshraker companion + venomfire spell. You now are two fighters that are stronger and faster than the party fighter. Though, I haven't run into many DM's that allow/use dinosaurs.

[ima donkey]

There are so many variables that it is impossible to say who would win. But d&d is intended to be a team game, I can't really think of a time when two PC's would fight one on one.

But I do not really agree with alot of what people say about martial characters. If you build them correctly they can be perfectly versatile in combat, outside of combat not so much. But role playing isn't really the fighters place hence the name. If you like role playing don't play a fighter. But they can retain versatility in combat with simple items like nets and tanglefoot bags and if you take the right feats you can do some serious damage. If you don't like having to try to make your class powerful than wizard is great.

[Ramshack]

I've been playing 3.0 and 3.5 for some time now. Easily 10 years and I've always been a martial enthusiast. When I first started reading these forums I let things like the tier system and and others ranting about how bad monks were or fighters were really jade me towards Melee characters. It started to ruin my fun at the table too as I realized our wizard had the tools to get us through several problems.

But in all honesty I had a second epiphany a little later. It didn't matter. Sure our wizard brought a giant tool box but that was his role. Put him in an AMF and he was useless. Steal his material bag or silence him, bind his hands and he was crippled.

The point was he needed us to kill the baddies while he casted spells, or to watch his back and create distance. In return he gave us defensive walls or let us sneak past sentries. We still as a group discussed tactics and strategy and worked up solutions. He never made anyone feel like we weren't needed. Sure he could thrash us in a 1v1 fight but he never would have survived that far without us.

The point being if you're playing with good friends play the character you want. Have fun. Have laughs. Don't let the people on this board discourage you from playing the type of character you want.

As a side note. Alchemy became my fighters best friend. He carries blasting pellets, vials of acid, smoke sticks, vials of grease, car stink etc and a host of mundane items, rope, crow bar, bolt cutters, chalk, rubber ball, mirrors, ink, flour. And when played creatively he can solve many many problems on his own. Even if he can't summon a monster he can purchase a trained animal ;)

[DeusMortuusEst]

But role playing isn't really the fighters place hence the name. If you like role playing don't play a fighter.

There's nothing preventing the fighter-player from role-playing as well, or better than his friend playing a wizard.

The fighter doesn't have the same social skills or abilities, true, but that has nothing to do with role-playing.

[ima donkey]

There's nothing preventing the fighter-player from role-playing as well, or better than his friend playing a wizard.

The fighter doesn't have the same social skills or abilities, true, but that has nothing to do with role-playing.

I guess I worded it badly, I was referring to skills and things like that which are traditionally more for the rouge or the bard.

[Novawurmson]

I guess I worded it badly, I was referring to skills and things like that which are traditionally more for the rouge or the bard.

The Fighter is still going to have a hard time disarming a magical trap with anything but his face.

As someone who consistently heard a sad Monk or Fighter player asking if they could change characters because they didn't feel like they could contribute to the party enough, I believe hype that there are poorly designed classes. Good roleplaying and item optimization are something you can do with any character - it doesn't mean the class is good.

There's just no comparison when you're looking at a Fighter and a Wizard. A Fighter can hit things. A Wizard can create new planes of existence, stop time, raise the dead, turn into a dragon, and summon demons/angels to do his bidding. No amount of good roleplaying will let you talk a corpse into becoming a zombie.

[Psyren]

But in all honesty I had a second epiphany a little later. It didn't matter. Sure our wizard brought a giant tool box but that was his role. Put him in an AMF and he was useless. Steal his material bag or silence him, bind his hands and he was crippled.

To be fair, take away the Fighter's toys and he's pretty useless too, so that's not a unique quality of Wizards or anything. I get what you're driving at, just wanted to point out that's a failing of any class.

(Except Psions. God I love Psions.)



The point was he needed us to kill the baddies while he casted spells, or to watch his back and create distance. In return he gave us defensive walls or let us sneak past sentries. We still as a group discussed tactics and strategy and worked up solutions. He never made anyone feel like we weren't needed. Sure he could thrash us in a 1v1 fight but he never would have survived that far without us.

The point being if you're playing with good friends play the character you want. Have fun. Have laughs. Don't let the people on this board discourage you from playing the type of character you want.

Honestly I don't think anybody's trying to discourage anyone. The only folks that really get reprimanded are the ones that think melee are stronger than casters. They aren't, but a caster who is wasting time and hogging the spotlight by doing the melee's job is indeed a rarity in practice. Unless the situation calls for it, it's inconsiderate and inefficient.

But the tier system is there to help players/DMs who aren't aware of the disparity, and who just want to be a monk and a wildshape druid in the same party because it seems cool. Which is fine, but the risk of the latter stepping on the former's toes grows exponentially as they gain levels, so the table should be cognizant of that before it becomes a problem.

[ima donkey]

Just don't allow gestalt wizard/monk, it's probably one of the more overpowered gestalt combos.

[lsfreak]

First off, the fighter is unlikely to win initiative. He's probably wearing heavy armor, giving him a max dex bonus of 1-3.
Max dex bonus doesn't effect initiative. It's only for Dex contribution to AC, they get full Dex for everything else.


Sure our wizard brought a giant tool box but that was his role. Put him in an AMF and he was useless. Steal his material bag or silence him, bind his hands and he was crippled.
Having the DM fiat a character out of a fight because lulz doesn't make other classes balanced. They can fiat other characters out of a fight as well - a weaponless warrior (or worse, one with broken hands) is going to be just as useless. Less so, even, with all the various ways of getting around anti-caster stuff.

[Urpriest]

Honestly, while I understand the desire of some players for a "simple" class that "just hits things", I don't think it's actually necessary. What such a player wants isn't specifically to hit things, it's to not have to think about what to do. Even if a class has a huge list of abilities and choices, as long as those choices can be made intuitively and quickly without much system mastery the class will be just as appealing to a "straightforward-minded" player. Versatile classes are fun for everyone.

[Dusk Eclipse]

Max dex bonus doesn't effect initiative. It's only for Dex contribution to AC, they get full Dex for everything else.

Unless it is a Dex based fighter, I don't think he will have a dex score higher than 16 unless he had awesome rolls or a very generous point buy.

[lsfreak]

Unless it is a Dex based fighter, I don't think he will have a dex score higher than 16 unless he had awesome rolls or a very generous point buy.

True, but I always point out Max Dex =/= there's max Dex bonus for everything. It seems to be a small but fairly common misconception.

[Dusk Eclipse]

I know; but even if he had higher dex mod than his armour allows, the fighter will most likely loose the initiave roll. Both wizard have Dex as Tertiary score; but the most used races for wizards have a Dex bonus ( Grey Elf, Strongheart halfling for example) and have load more ways to boost initiative (Nerveskitter) or ways to make rolling unnesesary (Celerity).

[Ramshack]

Max dex bonus doesn't effect initiative. It's only for Dex contribution to AC, they get full Dex for everything else.


Having the DM fiat a character out of a fight because lulz doesn't make other classes balanced. They can fiat other characters out of a fight as well - a weaponless warrior (or worse, one with broken hands) is going to be just as useless. Less so, even, with all the various ways of getting around anti-caster stuff.

Not trying to start any arguments over the effectiveness of magic users
Vs martial users. Melee characters can be disarmed in just as many ways if not more. My point was of the group is working as a team to patch any weakness then it's a good group no matter who has the biggest tool box. I was trying to say dont let things like a tier rank discourage you from playing the character you want to play.

[Urpriest]

I know; but even if he had higher dex mod than his armour allows, the fighter will most likely loose the initiave roll. Both wizard have Dex as Tertiary score; but the most used races for wizards have a Dex bonus ( Grey Elf, Strongheart halfling for example) and have load more ways to boost initiative (Nerveskitter) or ways to make rolling unnesesary (Celerity).

Minor correction: Celerity can't be used when flat-footed, so if you lose Initiative it won't help.

[Dusk Eclipse]

Oh right, you can't use Imediate actions while flatfooted... Damn I always forget Nerveskitter is the exception not the rule :smallredface:

[Person_Man]

Regarding PvP or "My Fighter kills Druids all the time so I don't know what people are complaining about" arguments, I would say that it's besides the point. D&D is not designed a PvP game, so it doesn't matter if your Fighter can defeat your friend's Druid. And a good DM can always adjust the difficulty of encounters or contrive them to particularly suited to the abilities of a specific builds or to challenge any specific build, no matter how weak or powerful.

The issue is that poorly designed classes have few options. Every round of every combat, a Fighter will generally try to make a full attack action, modified by a small number of Feats, which cannot be changed (only added to). A Druid can do many, many different things, and can change what they do every day.

So if you enjoy doing the same small set of things over and over again and don't like complex rules, then you can play a low Tier class that does those things well.

But regardless of whether you are "strong" or "weak" I would still consider it poor class design, because higher Tier classes can do those exact same things equally well (or better) in most circumstances, PLUS lots of other things.

This is one of the reasons why so many people got pissed about 4E and 5E. 4E went overboard in dragging cool stuff DOWN to the level of poorly designed lower Tier classes. And 5E just gave up on good class design and made classes a jumble of different Tiers again. But good class design isn't difficult - everyone can be Tier 3 or higher regardless of role. (See Wildshape Ranger, Psychic Warrior, Psychic Rogue, Totemist, Binder, Warblade, Crusader, and Swordsage). You just have to know what you're doing, and take the time to do it well.

[Averis Vol]

Honestly, while I understand the desire of some players for a "simple" class that "just hits things", I don't think it's actually necessary. What such a player wants isn't specifically to hit things, it's to not have to think about what to do. Even if a class has a huge list of abilities and choices, as long as those choices can be made intuitively and quickly without much system mastery the class will be just as appealing to a "straightforward-minded" player. Versatile classes are fun for everyone.

Don't you think thats a little insulting to people who enjoy the more mundane classes? honestly, if someone wants to hit someone with a big stick they either need to work up to a useful level in the group or everyone needs to understand they don't need to all cast spells to be useful.

It boils down to you need to not make assumptions about people who play warrior classes instead of rattling off baseless comments about them not liking to think.

[Ramshack]

Personally my favorite campaign's were always low or no magic campaigns. Keep's the sometime ridiculous shennanigans down to a minimum. Though my Sorcerer, Malconvoker, Fiendblooded was one of my favorite characters lol.

[Urpriest]

Don't you think thats a little insulting to people who enjoy the more mundane classes? honestly, if someone wants to hit someone with a big stick they either need to work up to a useful level in the group or everyone needs to understand they don't need to all cast spells to be useful.

It boils down to you need to not make assumptions about people who play warrior classes instead of rattling off baseless comments about them not liking to think.

...


The answers are basically what I expect, and meant. Actively having options, versatility, and choice all seem to be synonymous with power.
I wonder, then, if there is a way to fix it that isn't simply spreading the wealth of versatility. If someone really wants to play a class that is simply "I hit things hard with my axe" or similar, might it be justified that power doesn't scale linearly? Giving those dedicated to martial prowess levels of damage output before unseen?
Though I imagine that might be very subject to further exploitation by optimizers.

I'm not assuming that people who play warrior classes don't want to think. It's the entire premise of this thread. The whole argument being made is that, if indeed there are people who would rather have an effective class that doesn't require thinking, then some mundane classes cannot be balanced with casters. I'm arguing against that by pointing out that you can have a versatile class that still doesn't require thinking.

If indeed there is nobody out there who plays martial characters because they want something simple to play, then great: the fighter can be replaced by the warblade et al without anyone complaining. That's not the world this thread is discussing.

[zlefin]

to my eye; a big part of the problem is ease of balance.
It's very easy to assess the balance of someone who just attacks, and has no fancy abiltiies.
Assessing the balance of spells is much harder; as is assessing the effect of having a variety of spells available.

It's possible, in my opinion, to make a tier 1 martial character; maybe even a straight fighter-esque tier 1 martial character. Tiers are about how different classes compare in overall capability, which includes both power level and versatility.
It's just that if you design a tier 1 or tier 0 martial character, the imbalanced nature of it is OBVIOUS. Whereas with the wizard or cleric, it's far less obvious how powerful they are. Long ability lists, especially things like spells; just make it much harder to see what a class is fully capable of.
Versatility improves a characters overall power level; but the power of versatility is far less blatant than the power of a huge bonus in a single area.

They were able to make full casters who are tier 3 (and worse even); with carefully restricted spell lists; it's just a lot harder to assess the balance of them.

[Answerer]

Though, I haven't run into many DM's that allow/use dinosaurs.
Sounds like you need more Eberron in your life.

Everyone needs more Eberron in their lives.

...though I still wouldn't allow a Fleshraker or Venomfire in my Eberron games.

[Kuulvheysoon]

Sounds like you need more Eberron in your life.

Everyone needs more Eberron in their lives.

...though I still wouldn't allow a Fleshraker or Venomfire in my Eberron games.

Why would you? You'd be getting Forgotten Realms into your Eberron. :smalltongue:

(Venomfire is from Serpent Kingdoms, a Forgottem Realms sourcebook, for those who don't get it).

[Hiro Protagonest]

Personally my favorite campaign's were always low or no magic campaigns. Keep's the sometime ridiculous shennanigans down to a minimum. Though my Sorcerer, Malconvoker, Fiendblooded was one of my favorite characters lol.

Unfortunately, the typical low-magic game is "because there's so few casters, magic items are rare. But because PCs are exceptional, they can play regular old spellcasters, no penalties". And that just makes the magic shenanigans worse.

[MrBanana]

I think the problem with the balance stems from two things:

1. The community will find abuse and loopholes always.

2. It's easier to make new material for spellcasters.

In barebones 3.5, the spell caster is still powerful, yes. But the Fighter is still needed at early levels, as the Wizard will die quite easily. With the supplements, then you get this crazy stuff.

One potential remedy is to simply ban or nerf the spells and abilities that punch above their weight. The way magic classes are designed, they'll still be useful, just not so OP.

[ima donkey]

I think the problem with the balance stems from two things:

1. The community will find abuse and loopholes always.

2. It's easier to make new material for spellcasters.

In barebones 3.5, the spell caster is still powerful, yes. But the Fighter is still needed at early levels, as the Wizard will die quite easily. With the supplements, then you get this crazy stuff.

One potential remedy is to simply ban or nerf the spells and abilities that punch above their weight. The way magic classes are designed, they'll still be useful, just not so OP.

I agree with this, I am not a fan of the spell compendium or the magic item compendium simply because it seems like you get so much for so little.

[Hiro Protagonest]

I think the problem with the balance stems from two things:

1. The community will find abuse and loopholes always.

2. It's easier to make new material for spellcasters.

In barebones 3.5, the spell caster is still powerful, yes. But the Fighter is still needed at early levels, as the Wizard will die quite easily. With the supplements, then you get this crazy stuff.

In core, a druid can solo, easy.

It is ridiculously easy, no matter how many sources are used, to make a party, strong at all levels, with full spellcasters only. A party comprised of one of each of core's full casters, or one of each of core's tier 1s and a double-up of one class, is just as strong as a basic party. Traps? Summon Monster I, or bring a small round boulder with you and roll it down the hallway. Oh, and 10-foot poles/ladders. Hell, one idea would to wrap a net around a fifty-pound stone, attach the net to at least twenty feet of rope, and cast it out and reel it in like you're fishing. None of these are reliant on a rogue, and are something that I can come up with on the spot when presented with a hypothetical challenge while sitting in a tavern before we go out to the dungeon. The 18 int wizards shouldn't have a problem.

Also, ima donkey... how does MIC help spellcasters way too much? And why don't you think it benefits martials just as much? Hell, even SpC boosts the paladin and ranger greatly while only providing casters with a few more tricks on top of their considerable power.

[Hunter Noventa]

Also, ima donkey... how does MIC help spellcasters way too much? And why don't you think it benefits martials just as much? Hell, even SpC boosts the paladin and ranger greatly while only providing casters with a few more tricks on top of their considerable power.

Runestaffs are insanely useful, that was the first thing off the top of my head.

[Water_Bear]

In barebones 3.5, the spell caster is still powerful, yes. But the Fighter is still needed at early levels, as the Wizard will die quite easily. With the supplements, then you get this crazy stuff.

The problem with saying that imbalance is due to splat-books is that it isn't entirely true.

A disproportionate number of the spells which hit the tops of 'broken' lists (Glitterdust, Miracle/Wish, Polymorph/PAO/Shapechange, etc) are from Core. Many of the best Tier One AND some of the worst Tier 5 classes are from Core. The best martial class in the SRD is the Barbarian, and it is kind of weak without the wealth of ACFs introduced later.

On the other hand, Splats gave us a huge number of ACFs Feats PrCs and even entire base classes to help mundanes inch closer and closer to Tier 3. Plus books like the Magic Item Compendium gave mundanes access to more and more tricks that had been 'spellcaster only' before, as items. It's not anywhere close to balanced, but it is a lot less stark.

[eggs]

Without MIC, it's much harder for Fighters/Monks/etc. to play the Teleporting/Flying/Seeing Invisibility game. And if they do, it's often at the cost of a [+Numbers] item slot.

[Answerer]

The problem with saying that imbalance is due to splat-books is that it isn't entirely true.
It's not even slightly true.

A Core-only spellcaster has everything he needs to destroy everything, while mundanes have almost nothing. With splats, a spellcaster has more stuff with which to destroy everything, but he could already do that and most of the new stuff isn't as good as the old stuff. The mundanes, meanwhile, finally start getting some useful and powerful options.