PDA

View Full Version : Broken (Fighter) Feats



fnwc
2007-04-12, 08:34 PM
Hello everyone,

I should give some background about my D&D Gaming for reference. I've played D&D for a bit now, and I have a tendency to min/max things since D&D is more a wargame than anything else. I like to have fun and make combat effective characters, but I don't want to break the game's fun for everyone.

I've only played to about 10-11th level, simply because the DM I was used to playing with got bored at around that time and the campaign would disappear until a new one started. So my experiences are only based on up to that level of play.

I'm in a campaign (with a new DM) and there are certain things banned such as polymorph (which I agree with) and druids (which I don't). There are also some things like Robilar's Gambit banned (I agree) simply because they feel 'broken' (although I've never played using Gambit, it *reads* as broken).

So, the DM I'm playing with now has a fairly large restrictive list of fighter feats, and I'm trying to figure what his reasoning is. Especially considering that I'm playing a mage and he's agreed to allow my planned path of conjurer->master specialist->IoTSV build, which seems pretty powerful.

He argues that high level fighters with certain feat abilities are simply too powerful, but what I've read on these boards and on the Wizard optimization boards is that fighters are pretty much weaker than most other core classes.

For example, a friend of mine wanted to take leap attack but this was disallowed because of the multiplier change (x2 to x3 for 2h power attack). Other things like headlong rush are also banned, along with any ability that emulates pounce (full attack with move). He is extremely intolerant of any feat that increases a multiplier.

Since he's played characters in campaigns at higher (20+) levels he argues that fighters simply do too much damage when allowed these feats, making the game boring.

Can anyone else with experience chime in here? Of course, he's the DM and I choose to play in the game, so I agree with what he wants, I'm just to find justification considering most of what I read is that casters dominate fighters at higher levels. Also, I don't want to be one of those people who argues a point when I have no direct play experience involved. Will our fighters run into trouble at higher levels?

Thanks!

Bears With Lasers
2007-04-12, 08:38 PM
Yes, a Leap Attacking Shock Trooper has a pretty scary damage output.
On the other hand, it's one of the few ways for a fighter to stay sort of useful, since wizards can disable enemies as fast or faster.

Yes, fighters typically run into problems at higher levels
.

Kel_Arath
2007-04-12, 08:39 PM
Fighters... fighters are supposed to do alot of damage. And if it's a campaign where the only thing is combat and things that don't require bashing don't exist, seriously talk to your DM. Yeah fighters ROCK... in combat.

fnwc
2007-04-12, 08:39 PM
Yes, fighters typically run into problems at higher levels


With or without the feat restrictions I outlined above?

Bears With Lasers
2007-04-12, 08:42 PM
Kel, fighters are supposed to rock in combat. They don't.

FNWC: either, but sooner and more so without them, unless they take another particularily strong build (i.e. Expertise/Imp. Trip, Stand Still, Dodge/Karmic Strike, Mobility, Elusive Target, Power Attack, Deft Opportunist, something to cover their Will save, etc). Regardless, they will run into prolems when you start fighting mobile things like dragons on demons, or simply particularily tough melee monsters. Or spellcasters.

Flawless
2007-04-12, 08:43 PM
I guess this comes from your style of playing. Your DM doesn't appear to ever have seen a powerful wizard in game, probably only ever those blaster-caster types. Compared to blaster-casters good fighter builds with leap attack, shock tropper and so on do indeed seem pretty powerful, especially since they can use their attacks all day long, whereas blasters tend to run out of their most powerful spells rather quickly.

Innis Cabal
2007-04-12, 08:44 PM
the fighter is powerful if you choose the right feats..once those are banned its like playing suck at high levels....its silly to ban fighter feats IMO, bad move on the DM's part, give him this for me

http://i167.photobucket.com/albums/u131/Tebryn_Cabal/badform1.jpg

Da Beast
2007-04-12, 08:50 PM
Fighter's are one of DnDs weaker classes. Did he ban the feats out right or just remove them form the fighter's bonus list?

Matthew
2007-04-12, 09:27 PM
It depends what kind of game he is running. If he doesn't want Fighters doing a whole lot of damage, because he found it boring to be part of, then there's not much you can do to convince him otherwise, except play without those Feats and demonstrate how sucky it can be.

It may well be that these aren't the only changes he is incorporating into the game. You might want to see if he is banning more Spells than just Polymorph. If he has played High Level games and witnessed a lot of D&D's brokeness, he may simply be seeking ways to address the problem, and this is part of the experiment.

Importantly, a party does not need any of the stuff outside of core to compete with Level appropriate Encounters. By granting access to a number of powerful Feats he will be increasing the overall power of the party, which is a separate issue from the balance between party members. He may not be going for balance between party members, but balance between a Party and appropriate Encounters.

OzymandiasVolt
2007-04-12, 09:34 PM
Your DM is not thinking past the end of his nose.

Raum
2007-04-12, 09:45 PM
If he's banning the feats for balance reasons I hope he's already banned about half the published spells. On the other hand, some DM changes are simply for world or campaign flavor. Hopefully he communicated his house rules up front.

As for the effect, yes fighters will definitely be even weaker than they already are. And, even without the nerf fighters would run into trouble at higher levels if their opponents are anything but other melee types.

ken-do-nim
2007-04-12, 09:45 PM
You know, as much time as I spend fixing the spells in 3E, I have to admit, they've done a pretty good job with the feats. I have only felt the need to ban two feats [Natural Spell, Arcane Mastery*], and when you consider all the books I own, that's pretty remarkable. I may at some point nerf Elusive Target, but since I'm currently playing a character with that feat, I'll see how it goes.

*Actually I made it epic

fnwc
2007-04-12, 09:57 PM
Fighter's are one of DnDs weaker classes. Did he ban the feats out right or just remove them form the fighter's bonus list?

They're banned. From everyone, not just fighters. But since Fighters depend on feats, I imagine it will hurt them more.


If he's banning the feats for balance reasons I hope he's already banned about half the published spells. On the other hand, some DM changes are simply for world or campaign flavor. Hopefully he communicated his house rules up front.

As for the effect, yes fighters will definitely be even weaker than they already are. And, even without the nerf fighters would run into trouble at higher levels if their opponents are anything but other melee types.

I should say that he is banning them not for flavor but for balance reasons. I can only imagine that a fighter who is properly built to pounce/power attack/full attack etc can do some seriously excessive damage every round.

I think his reasoning is that fighters do too much damage, thereby making encounters only last 3-4 rounds at high level, ruining the fun of the game.

My thoughts are that since casters are already considered more powerful, that this just makes things worse for the (pure) fighters. Note that I am *not* playing a fighter, I'm playing a (planned) Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil build, which I'm told is on par with the Radiant Servant in terms of PrC effectiveness (or cheese, as you see fit).

To his credit, everything is on a case by case basis, but I can guarantee that anything fighter related that causes a damage increase is generally not allowed (such as increasing power attack multipliers and the such). Also, generally only spells from the SRD are allowed, so no 1st SR-ignoring orbs are allowed, for example.

I'm not going to try and argue with him; it's his campaign and I'll respect his decisions. I'm just wondering if we're going to run into some serious problems later due to these limitations; by your posts it seems we might.

Matthew
2007-04-12, 10:03 PM
You are going to run into some Party Balance issues, for sure, but remember that increasing the power of any member of the party decreases the difficulty of Encounter X.

Raum
2007-04-12, 10:13 PM
I should say that he is banning them not for flavor but for balance reasons. I can only imagine that a fighter who is properly built to pounce/power attack/full attack etc can do some seriously excessive damage every round.Did he also ban Finger of Death? Disintegrate? Force Cage? Irresistible Dance? All the other save or lose spells?


I think his reasoning is that fighters do too much damage, thereby making encounters only last 3-4 rounds at high level, ruining the fun of the game.If he's also banned all the spells which shorten (End!) combat then he's going for balance. If not, he either doesn't understand the game mechanics or he's simply prejudiced against melee combat types.


My thoughts are that since casters are already considered more powerful, that this just makes things worse for the (pure) fighters. Note that I am *not* playing a fighter, I'm playing a (planned) Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil build, which I'm told is on par with the Radiant Servant in terms of PrC effectiveness (or cheese, as you see fit).It will make the power discrepancy even more evident.


To his credit, everything is on a case by case basis, but I can guarantee that anything fighter related that causes a damage increase is generally not allowed (such as increasing power attack multipliers and the such). Also, generally only spells from the SRD are allowed, so no 1st SR-ignoring orbs are allowed, for example. Actually, thats to his discredit in my opinion. It means the players don't know what to expect up front. It also means he's making decisions on the spur of the moment rather than thinking them through. There are plenty of broken spells in core so limiting things to them isn't much consolation to the nerfed wimp who used to be a fighter.


I'm not going to try and argue with him; it's his campaign and I'll respect his decisions. I'm just wondering if we're going to run into some serious problems later due to these limitations; by your posts it seems we might.Define problems? The fighter's player will likely find himself irrelevant, but that can happen in any game the DM doesn't pay close attention to.

Zagreen
2007-04-12, 10:32 PM
Sounds like he's a bit overzealous with the nerf bat. Has he touched Clerics much? You're going to need a strong tank; with no druids, no polymorph, and no competent fighters allowed, your party is really going to need Clericzilla around. I suspect the DM is too smart to allow Divine Metamagic (Persistent); if someone asks for it and he allows them to take it, even after banning every decent fighter feat, then you know right then that he is a psychopath and he is planning on killing you all and eating you. Very calmly excuse yourself from the room and then run very far away.

Otherwise, though, even a core cleric should be fine assuming he missed them in his nerfing spree. You probably will need a good melee cleric for the party, though, because I have a hunch the DM is going to be very aggressively tailoring encounters to negate your magical abilities, at least once he realizes you can shut down combats faster than any Leap Attacker can. Even with core only spells and no polymorphing you should have enough wiggle room that you're not going to be helpless when he starts deciding that all the bad guys have golem bodyguards, but it will make things ever so much easier for you all if you have someone who can lay the smack down in melee.

Variable Arcana
2007-04-12, 11:01 PM
Wierd. The big limitation on the Leap-Attacking Shock-Trooper is that he only does damage to *ONE* target in a round. Give the party an encounter with a dozen enemies, and the leap-attacker will kill one per round, while the wizard will grease/web/stinking-cloud/or solid-fog the others to keep them on ice while the fighter kills them one-by-one.

And some people will watch that battle unfold and think the fighter was the powerful one.

Da Beast
2007-04-12, 11:53 PM
If he's banning feats completely it'll be pretty hard for fighter's to stay relevent at high levels. You could build some uber-casters to show him the error's of his ways, but that would probably just get more stuff banned.

fnwc
2007-04-13, 01:15 AM
Sounds like he's a bit overzealous with the nerf bat. Has he touched Clerics much? You're going to need a strong tank; with no druids, no polymorph, and no competent fighters allowed, your party is really going to need Clericzilla around.

What makes it worse is that instead of a cleric we're running a bard (... don't ask ... ) that runs around using wands of cure mod, etc. I don't see this really working well at mid levels and not really acceptable at higher levels. Already it's taking a large chunk of our extra cash to keep our wands charged. On top of that, we're going through the Shackled City, which seems to me to be a little more dangerous and a little more stingy on magic items than a lot of standard modules.


Did he also ban Finger of Death? Disintegrate? Force Cage? Irresistible Dance? All the other save or lose spells?


To my knowledge, all polymorph school spells are banned (which I agree are unbalanced) which includes poly, poly other, shapechange, etc.

Enervation is banned, as is Mord's disjunction. I think that's it, though...



Define problems? The fighter's player will likely find himself irrelevant, but that can happen in any game the DM doesn't pay close attention to.

By problems I mean: will the ineffectiveness of our fighters be a serious liability for the party enough that we won't be able to defeat BBEG X or Y? In other words, do modules like the Shackled City take into account these optimized shock trooper fighter builds and expect a party to have them, thus rendering a party helpless when they lack this role?

I realize that not having a cleric is a more serious matter, but my hope is that somehow we can kill the Bard the Bard dies and get him to play a cleric.

So far we're ok; we don't have any real Leroy Jenkins in the party and most are fairly capable. I don't know what play is like past 11th or so, so I'm not sure how the encounters will scale and if we'll just be fux0red.

Vik
2007-04-13, 04:51 AM
Did he also ban Finger of Death? Disintegrate? Force Cage? Irresistible Dance? All the other save or lose spells?

If he's also banned all the spells which shorten (End!) combat then he's going for balance. If not, he either doesn't understand the game mechanics or he's simply prejudiced against melee combat types. I suspect that even though he doesn't remove them, he will symply cheat on the saving throw rolls. So that the Wizard will soon enough find that casting a Finger of death on the BBEG is always ineffective until round 4 or 5. That's sadly quite common among DM. As a player, when I start playing with a new DM, I try to start with one spell that is really save-or-lose, and I quickly find if the DM is cheating (and then, no more save spells), or else (and then, go on).

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-04-13, 07:46 AM
I should say that he is banning them not for flavor but for balance reasons. I can only imagine that a fighter who is properly built to pounce/power attack/full attack etc can do some seriously excessive damage every round.
Every round? Doesn't this combo require a charge? Isn't it almost trivially easy to deny charging tactics by paying attention to your battlefield? I can think of very few situations where a fella can pull off a charge every round.


By problems I mean: will the ineffectiveness of our fighters be a serious liability for the party enough that we won't be able to defeat BBEG X or Y? In other words, do modules like the Shackled City take into account these optimized shock trooper fighter builds and expect a party to have them, thus rendering a party helpless when they lack this role?
No. No generic officially published adventure will be written assuming access to a very speicific feat from a very specific supplement—at least without some notice in the actual adventure text. Even then, such build assumptions are generally along the lines of, "A character with the Track feat and a good Survival score will be helpful but not required." The build is neither overly explicit nor outright required.

Folks got along just fine before Leap Attack and Shock Trooper were published. They'll get along just fine without them afterwards.

Ranis
2007-04-13, 08:01 AM
It sounds to me that your DM has some major perception issues. Fighters actually become more useless as time progresses, relying more on the spellcasters to help them get to more mobile enemies and to augment them in ways they could never do alone.

Like BWL said, fighters are supposed to do a lot of damage. With this, they will have an extremely difficult time doing so. My suggestion to you is to play a caster and prove to him why he should have spent more time on casting and not silly fighter feats.

Bears With Lasers
2007-04-13, 08:12 AM
I wouldn't go with "extremely hard". Fighter types can do a whole lot of damage even without Shock Trooper (and a properly built Shock Trooper type character can be over the top in terms of damage output). Not Enough Damage isn't the melee guys' problem.

Ranis
2007-04-13, 08:16 AM
Well, I wasn't implying that the removal of Shock Trooper hurts the fighter as a class, but I was assuming that his DM banned a few more than the ones mentioned; at least, his wording made it seem that way.

Dausuul
2007-04-13, 08:32 AM
I suspect that even though he doesn't remove them, he will symply cheat on the saving throw rolls. So that the Wizard will soon enough find that casting a Finger of death on the BBEG is always ineffective until round 4 or 5. That's sadly quite common among DM. As a player, when I start playing with a new DM, I try to start with one spell that is really save-or-lose, and I quickly find if the DM is cheating (and then, no more save spells), or else (and then, go on).

I despise the save-or-lose mechanic. A game that lays such emphasis on combat should not include mechanics that result in combat being cut short arbitrarily. I try to make it clear up front to my players that while lesser foes are vulnerable to such things, BBEGs have protection from save-or-lose as an extraordinary ability, active continuously.

Dhavaer
2007-04-13, 08:34 AM
I despise the save-or-lose mechanic. A game that lays such emphasis on combat should not include mechanics that result in combat being cut short arbitrarily. I try to make it clear up front to my players that while lesser foes are vulnerable to such things, BBEGs have protection from save-or-lose as an extraordinary ability, active continuously.

Do PCs get this too?

Bears With Lasers
2007-04-13, 08:35 AM
I despise the save-or-lose mechanic. A game that lays such emphasis on combat should not include mechanics that result in combat being cut short arbitrarily. I try to make it clear up front to my players that while lesser foes are vulnerable to such things, BBEGs have protection from save-or-lose as an extraordinary ability, active continuously.

How is hitting an enemy with a Greater Dispel magic in one round, an Arcane Reached Irresisitible Dance the next round, and then a lot of damage different from just pouring on a ton of damage in those first two rounds?

EvilDave
2007-04-13, 08:45 AM
Fighter: I deal damage! But that is all I do...
DM: We don't like people who deal damage, go play with those toys.
Fighter: But those are baby toys...
IotSFV: Save against Purple! *everyone falls down*

This scenario brought to you by No Fun for Anyone.

Bears With Lasers
2007-04-13, 08:46 AM
But Fighters have the best save vs. Rods, Wands, Petrification, and Purple!

(Oh, 2nd Ed. You so cray-zee.)

Pocket lint
2007-04-13, 08:48 AM
You're running Shackled City, and you're short on tanks?
*shakes*
8-ball says: TPK

And what's the problem with Enervation? We have it in play, and it's nice for weakening the foes, but doesn't kill them. Most of the really bad guys have enough SR and HD to avoid dying from it outright, so it's just a softening-up spell, at least at our level.

Wierd. The big limitation on the Leap-Attacking Shock-Trooper is that he only does damage to *ONE* target in a round. Give the party an encounter with a dozen enemies, and the leap-attacker will kill one per round, while the wizard will grease/web/stinking-cloud/or solid-fog the others to keep them on ice while the fighter kills them one-by-one.

And some people will watch that battle unfold and think the fighter was the powerful one.
Hey, I have *no* problem with those tactics - that's part of playing a non-blaster caster :smallcool: You're relevant, he's relevant, everyone happy. That you probably contribute more than he does, who cares? As a mostly fighter-playing type, let me say that as long as I can keep dishing out those HPs, it's a shiny-happy place. :smallbiggrin:

Zincorium
2007-04-13, 08:59 AM
But Fighters have the best save vs. Rods, Wands, Petrification, and Purple!

(Oh, 2nd Ed. You so cray-zee.)

I'll take extremely generalized over stupefying-ly incomprehensible any day of the week.

As far as save or lose spells, as well as Disjunction, I just tell my players up front: I don't like them. If you pull one out, then you have declared that the entire party is okay with getting those same spells cast on them. And there are a lot more bad guys in the world than PCs.

This tends to prevent most people from causing problems.

Indon
2007-04-13, 09:15 AM
I'd say he's probably aiming for no one-shot encounters. If a caster in your group decides to start _using_ spells that do that, I'd expect things to change.

Annarrkkii
2007-04-13, 09:29 AM
This is the first thread I've seen in a long time that includes any references to a Fighter being broken. A very long time.

Fighters are supposed to dish out huge damage, as has been said. If you're DM is banning Fighter feats, it's because he's too lazy to come up with a counter for them. You got a charge-monkey Shock Trooper? Meet Ogre with Glaive and Stand Still. Or just meet Mr. Deep Pit. Or meet Mr. Uneven Terrain. Same way you have to introduce casters to AMFs, Beholders, and the like. Its all about challenging the characters—allowing them to exercise what their build was made for without dominating.

Let the fighter have his damage, but confront him with some situations where he'll need to be more creative. If you're DM is lining up combats that can be won simply by the fighter jumping about and slashing, he's not taking your ECL into account properly, and the challenges you're facing are seriously sub-par.

That said, there are some ludicrous fighter builds out there. The Stormguard Warrior/Robilar's Gambit/Raging Mongoose tree comes to mind after the introduction of ToB, and the Shock Trooper is also a huge damage dealer. But both have easy trump cards. A few spaced out ranging enemies with solid damage and poisoned arrows can pincushion a Gambit-build, and a spot of uneven ground and some reach soldiers can frustrate a fighter to no end.

On the other hand, short of an AMF, there is no way to simply trump a wizard. It isn't possible. You DM is quite firmly in the wrong.

Dausuul
2007-04-13, 09:58 AM
Do PCs get this too?

PCs generally get protection from monsters having save-or-lose abilities to begin with. With the caveat that many abilities which are save-or-lose when the PCs use them against the BBEG are minor annoyances when the BBEG uses them on the PCs, because the party cleric can fix them with a quick restoration, dispel magic, et cetera; or the PCs' companions can protect them for a few rounds until the effect wears off, and then they can jump back in the fight.

Yeah, this means I make a lot of changes to monsters on the fly.


How is hitting an enemy with a Greater Dispel magic in one round, an Arcane Reached Irresisitible Dance the next round, and then a lot of damage different from just pouring on a ton of damage in those first two rounds?

It's different because I don't generally run games at levels where people get arcane reached irresistible dance. :)

BBEGs can usually survive several rounds of having a ton of damage poured on. My objection is to the whole fight being decided by a single die roll in the first round or two.

Nimrud
2007-04-13, 10:13 AM
Don't know about some of you, but, if my players manage to kill the BBEG in one round with a save or die, I let them win. I can always make up more BBEGs. They're free.

Pocket lint
2007-04-13, 10:15 AM
Well, it's trickier when you've built up the guy's reputation for 20 sessions, they fight their way through his henchmen, guards, traps, over covered bridges and down staircases. Finally they meet him in his seat of power, dramarific sense pouring out everyone's ears.

Wizard: Whoa, I got initiative! Finger of Death!
BBEG: *urgh*

elliott20
2007-04-13, 10:19 AM
wait, wait, wait, now we're saying fighters are broken? Am I taking crazy pills or something?

Inyssius Tor
2007-04-13, 10:29 AM
The fighter needs to be more powerful, not less, if he wants to participate alongside your wizard, your cleric, or your giant spellcasting bear. Your party won't suffer... but neither would it suffer if the wizard's familiar was nerfed.

Oh, wait, druids are banned. Just the wizard and the cleric then.

Telok
2007-04-13, 10:36 AM
It sounds to me like there are two things going on here. First, I think the GM is being selective and/or restrictive about the non-core stuff he is allowing into this game. Secondly, he may not be aware or experienced with abusive power-game wizards/clerics. He may also be a little bit of the old school type GM/player, second edition D&D played very differently from the current version and he may be trying to capture some of that style. AD&D had grey areas where the GM was expected to make up things up or rely on role playing as opposed to written rules.

Player skill may have alot to do with this. An able player with a strong character can have a rather adverse effect on the game if they aren't willing to lay off and take a back seat role sometimes. This is sometimes less of a concern with casters because they often have to conserve spell resources. A good GM will make them have to consider whether or not they can cast all the big spells for that first fight every day. Fighter characters have fewer built-in restraints aginst this. As long as a well built fighter can reach his target he can dish out heavy damage every round as long as he has a single hit point left.

GM skill may be a deciding factor here. The GM may simply be more able to construct encounters that challenge casters than fighters. If the play style normally includes three to six encounters per rest then the casters won't be having as large of an effect during each combat. Likewise encounters with very spread out opponents or no preparation time are detrimental to most casters. If these account for more than half of the normal encounters then casters can have a hard time.

Something else to consider is the level of the game. A seventh level party fighting CR +1 or +2 encounters can find it's casters being nearly useless after the first or second encounter in a day. At the same level many fighter types are not only still effective, but may be a dominant force in every encounter. It isn't truely untill the 13+ range that casters really start to dominate most games after the first or second encounter of a day.

Re-reading the original poster I think that what the GM may be attempting is a sort of parity between caster and melee effectiveness. This may be a problem if the GM forever bans most non-core fighter feats but allows most of the spells and caster feats and then runs encounters where the casters can lay waste to the enemies. The GM could also be willing to allow more powerful fighter feats as the party level increases, he may also start disallowing more spells too.

In short, if the GM cuts fighter feats but allows all spells it may become a problem in the long run. If the GM wants a game that is mostly core and is going to run caster-whacker encounters on a regular basis, then limiting some of the fighter stuff probably won't become a problem. It's really going to depend on the goals and skills of the GM.

elliott20
2007-04-13, 10:46 AM
at the risk of turning this into another "fix the fighter" thread, I have to say that the problem with fighters is not their damage output, it's that they have like, 13744869483 weaknesses and 2 strengths. While yeah, with some proper building they can do an obscene amount of damage with a 2h build, a competent played caster will never give them the chance to touch them, let alone do the damage.

Nimrud
2007-04-13, 10:52 AM
Well, it's trickier when you've built up the guy's reputation for 20 sessions, they fight their way through his henchmen, guards, traps, over covered bridges and down staircases. Finally they meet him in his seat of power, dramarific sense pouring out everyone's ears.

Wizard: Whoa, I got initiative! Finger of Death!
BBEG: *urgh*

DM: Turns out he's actually a mind-thrall of an even bigger BBEG. etc.

Improvise.

Anyway, so long as the players have fun, I count that as a win.

Bears With Lasers
2007-04-13, 10:55 AM
EBBEG--Even Bigger Bad Evil Guy!

The_Werebear
2007-04-13, 10:58 AM
The reason people think fighter is overpowered and the reason people want to play blastercasters is simple- Everyone wants to land the death blow. Everyone wants credit for the kill. Dealing 2d6+152 x 4 looks far more impressive than casting haste on the fighter so he can do even more damage, or blinding the enemy so the fighter can hit him, or fearing all the weaklings around the BBEG so the fighter can have a clear path for the whackingness.

However, no one seems to get it. In one of my games, I play the Barbarian, and everyone thinks I am the most overpowered player. Not the wizard, who kneecaps the opposition I finish (who I personally credit with most of the wins), nor the druid, who does as much damage as I do, if more spread out, and heals, nor the beguiler, who managed to achieve x3 her WBL due to Diplomacy, Bluff, and Nystul's Magic Aura.

Nimrud
2007-04-13, 11:10 AM
When I first started to DM, I felt I needed to control everything and plan everything. I got upset when players bypassed encounters or killed important NPCs or villains too easily.

Then I realised that so long as you are telling an interesting and engaging story and give players the illusion of affecting the outcome, players usually have a good time. The secret to "balance" is not to worry about it. Give each player something his or her character can do especially well, and make a big deal of it when they do. Balance isn't a deal-breaker.

If they get through something too easily because of some bad dice rolls, improvise. Give them something else to worry about, something else to achieve. After they spend some effort at it, let them win, again. Or not. Whatever seems more fun. And there is no need to fudge dice rolls for this. Let the dice fall as they may. The DM is in charge of the universe. If you use your imagination, you'll find a way to fix anything.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-04-13, 01:54 PM
Well, it's trickier when you've built up the guy's reputation for 20 sessions, they fight their way through his henchmen, guards, traps, over covered bridges and down staircases. Finally they meet him in his seat of power, dramarific sense pouring out everyone's ears.

Wizard: Whoa, I got initiative! Finger of Death!
BBEG: *urgh*
Wouldn't be the first antagonist with an overblown reputation. Can you say, "Paper Tiger?" Even in fantasy fiction where everything is under the author's control, you've got the whole gamut from the Balrog (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balrog) and Ganon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganon) to Blackwolf (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackwolf) and Jareth Goblin King (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labyrinth_%28film%29).

And, let's face it: Although it's fun to have a great climactic battle at the end of a story, it's not really required. In D&D, as in all things, the magic is really in the journey rather than the destination.

ravenkith
2007-04-13, 02:25 PM
My advice to you, sir, is, don't sweat the small stuff.

When it comes to fighters, it's all small stuff.

Frankly, by the time fighters can pull off their devastating combos, the wizards, druids and clerics can mop the floor with them.

Add in the occasional dominate or other will save, and laugh with glee as the fighter's toys become your own.

Just sayin'.

fnwc
2007-04-13, 03:17 PM
Player skill may have alot to do with this. An able player with a strong character can have a rather adverse effect on the game if they aren't willing to lay off and take a back seat role sometimes.

I think this might be one of the problems. The DM used to play with a serious min/maxer who made some ridiculous Vow of Poverty Druid/Warshaper/etc in dire tiger form who raped people and made the other characters irrelevant. This might also be the reasoning behind his protest to druids.

Matthew
2007-04-13, 03:19 PM
Er, that sounds like a terrible game. I would say that nerfing Fighters is the least of your problems if your game begins to resemble that one (just my personal opinion, though).

fnwc
2007-04-13, 03:25 PM
And what's the problem with Enervation? We have it in play, and it's nice for weakening the foes, but doesn't kill them. Most of the really bad guys have enough SR and HD to avoid dying from it outright, so it's just a softening-up spell, at least at our level.

I think the issue is that he doesn't like Enervation due to its effect on BBEG casters, but I could be wrong. I didn't actually ask his opinion on it because I don't think it's that much of an issue.

fnwc
2007-04-13, 03:30 PM
With the caveat that many abilities which are save-or-lose when the PCs use them against the BBEG are minor annoyances when the BBEG uses them on the PCs, because the party cleric can fix them with a quick restoration, dispel magic, et cetera; or the PCs' companions can protect them for a few rounds until the effect wears off, and then they can jump back in the fight.

I disagree here. It's very easy for a party to get hit by one of these spells and be put in a dire situation. If a few key party members fail their rolls, it can be very bad. And it's not like the players can cheat on their die rolls...

And dispel magic is hardly a guaranteed fix from the party getting hit by a confusion spell or something else.

martyboy74
2007-04-13, 03:44 PM
I think this might be one of the problems. The DM used to play with a serious min/maxer who made some ridiculous Vow of Poverty Druid/Warshaper/etc in dire tiger form who raped people and made the other characters irrelevant. This might also be the reasoning behind his protest to druids.
Isn't raping people against the rules of exaltedness?

kamikasei
2007-04-13, 03:49 PM
Isn't raping people against the rules of exaltedness?

If you make it so it's only against evil people, and give it a different name, then probably not. </BoEDrant>

Olethros
2007-04-13, 04:09 PM
Do PCs get this too?


I think i see your point here and on one hand completly agree. On the other hand, if the DM is putting together a gritty game where fights are long and tough, I could see putting some checks in place to prevent the dramatic, story culminating point being reduced to the result of a single d20. That the DM is up front about this is both good and neccessary. The alternative is the rather scary prospect of the DM setting what he wants the saves of his BBEG to be (so that they are high enough only to fail on a 1 or something) and then building a BBEG that is RAW legal with those saves. Very well could result in fighting a boss 10+party level. Completly Legal by the RAW, but Id perfer the former solution.

That said I once played in a game where there was a continuous and undefetable hold-person effect in place whenever the Boss was delivering dramatic dialogue. It was very annoying.

To the OP. I think arbitrarily banning anything untill you have actually seen it break, and I mean per-campaign, is bad policy. And does this also mean he is banning the use of a mounted lance? Or just charging while using a lance?

kellandros
2007-04-13, 04:11 PM
Shrug.

With many powerful fighter feats banned, just don't take 15+ levels of fighter.

What effects this will have on play style could be interesting. Ignoring for now wizards becoming relatively more powerful, what will take the place of those high level fighters and their wonderful feats? Probably have to be mroe careful in combat. With Power Attack multipliers being limited, defensive feats might suddenly become somewhat useful.

I could also see those mid-level fighters multi-classing more. Also, perhaps a Paladin would be actually useful in this party(especially without a cleric).

Now, this will alter game balance heavily, but if the DM can adjust to new problems, it could still be interesting. If you look at it as war gaming, what do you do when something you would normally rely on is unavailable?

Munchkin 1: "Ha ha ha! With my +4 Spiked Chain of Awesomeness, I can defeat anything!"
(Rolls Nat 1, drops weapon)
(picks up a fallen sword from last defeated opponent)
Munchkin 1: "Which end of this do you swing again?"