How to deal with people who demand "teamwork"?

[sorcererlover]

To me teamwork is covering each other's weaknesses. So if a PC is strong against everything except undead, you have other PCs that carry you through undead, and you carry them against whatever they're weak against.

What's not teamwork is a mundane spending all of his money on his weapon and armor and telling the spellcaster of the group to act as a buff bot for him. He doesn't buy items that give him flying, he tells the wizard to cast fly on him. When i tell him I have my own shtick I want to do he tells me don't be a selfish T1 munchkin and start being a team player instead of hogging the spotlight by being his buff bitch 24/7.

Against these types of people I just want to completely trivialize them. I want make a gish that outshines him in every way possible or planar bind a glabrezu or something and buff him instead of the player and give him the finger when he cries how broken T1s are. Instead I just leave the table especially if the DM takes his side that I should cast buff spells on him instead of doing my shtick.

I've had my share of these people, a few recent threads brought up these memories, so I was wondering how you guys deal with these types of people? Currently my thought is to tell such a player to stop being a whiny crybaby and learn to be self sufficient instead of begging me like a hobo.

While I don't have this problem right now at my table, I would like to be prepared in case I do in the future at a different table, because just from a sample size of people who frequent this forum, I noticed there are quite a few people who demand "teamwork" from T1s and call them munchkins for not being buff heal bots 24/7, even from necromancer clerics.

[Vyanie]

To me teamwork is covering each other's weaknesses. So if a PC is strong against everything except undead, you have other PCs that carry you through undead, and you carry them against whatever they're weak against.

What's not teamwork is a mundane spending all of his money on his weapon and armor and telling the spellcaster of the group to act as a buff bot for him. He doesn't buy items that give him flying, he tells the wizard to cast fly on him. When i tell him I have my own shtick I want to do he tells me don't be a selfish T1 munchkin and start being a team player instead of hogging the spotlight by being his buff bitch 24/7.

Against these types of people I just want to completely trivialize them. I want make a gish that outshines him in every way possible or planar bind a glabrezu or something and buff him instead of the player and give him the finger when he cries how broken T1s are. Instead I just leave the table especially if the DM takes his side that I should cast buff spells on him instead of doing my shtick.

I've had my share of these people, a few recent threads brought up these memories, so I was wondering how you guys deal with these types of people? Currently my thought is to tell such a player to stop being a whiny crybaby bitch and learn to be self sufficient instead of begging me like a hobo.

While I don't have this problem right now at my table, I would like to be prepared in case I do in the future at a different table, because just from a sample size of people who frequent this forum, I noticed there are quite a few people who demand "teamwork" from T1s and call them munchkins for not being buff heal bots 24/7, even from necromancer clerics.

The bigger problem is the fact that mundane has to spend all his money to even be crappy at what he is supposed to be good at, while you dont need to act as a buff bot you can thrown them a bone and cast fly on them. Many people don't realize or refuse to acknowledge is that there is a MASSIVE difference in a T1 class and a T4-5 class. while you get to spend your money on cool stuff they have to spend all theirs to be even somewhat functional, and without help or a DM that throws loot or cash at them then they cant even do that. Simply put, you will ALWAYS outshine them unless you are specifically trying not to. Its stupid, its sad, but it is reality. For a toolbox they get a piece of string, you get an entire workshop, yet both of you are expected to fix a car. Feel sorry for the gimp and throw them something every once in a while.

[sorcererlover]

The bigger problem is the fact that mundane has to spend all his money to even be crappy at what he is supposed to be good at, while you dont need to act as a buff bot you can thrown them a bone and cast fly on them. Many people don't realize or refuse to acknowledge is that there is a MASSIVE difference in a T1 class and a T4-5 class. while you get to spend your money on cool stuff they have to spend all theirs to be even somewhat functional, and without help or a DM that throws loot or cash at them then they cant even do that. Simply put, you will ALWAYS outshine them unless you are specifically trying not to. Its stupid, its sad, but it is reality. For a toolbox they get a piece of string, you get an entire workshop, yet both of you are expected to fix a car. Feel sorry for the gimp and throw them something every once in a while.

I'm not talking about people who ask me to prepare a fly spell while we face dragons until he can save up for a flying magic item. I'm talking about people who don't even think about spending money on a flying item and expects you to cast fly on him whenever he wants throughout the entire game along with other buffs like freedom of movement and protection from evil.

[MeimuHakurei]

I'm not talking about people who ask me to prepare a fly spell while we face dragons until he can save up for a flying magic item. I'm talking about people who don't even think about spending money on a flying item and expects you to cast fly on him whenever he wants throughout the entire game along with other buffs like freedom of movement and protection from evil.

Summon a flying beatstick that's big and strong enough to bludgeon enemies with the Fighter. He's contributing that way and you helped him fly up to the monster!

[Geddy2112]

As ttRPG's are generally team games played as a group of people working together, some teamwork is inherent. If you never help out your fellow players/characters, you are generally going to come off as a jerk. Regardless of class, alignment, etc, nobody likes a lone wolf who refuses to play nice with the team.

That said, you are not under obligation to be a buffbot for the fighter. You can prepare and cast whatever spells you want, and should not fill your entire daily preparation with buff spells unless you want to. The fighter does not have to charge and frontline things or constantly tank for you either.

In your example with the dragon, it is a great idea to cast fly on the fighter if a dragon appears, because you want the dragon to attack the fighter and the fighter to attack the dragon. If your fighter is left on the ground with little to contribute, but you start throwing save or suck/dies at the dragon, you get target priority and that dragon is going to roflstomp your squishy wizard. Even if the fighter is being a petulant child demanding buffs, it is just good sense.

I agree that if they constantly want fly every combat, haste every combat, constant freedom of movement etc, that you are not there for that either. Their WBL can still cover some of these items, and if they really want that they can spot you some for wands, scrolls, and items to help out too. At higher levels, you can and certainly should spare some of your lower level buff spells with your friends and at least yourself. Teamwork is a two way street-you both have to play nice and make the relationship equal. If you are already squabbling like that, then you all lose.

[Troacctid]

I'm not talking about people who ask me to prepare a fly spell while we face dragons until he can save up for a flying magic item. I'm talking about people who don't even think about spending money on a flying item and expects you to cast fly on him whenever he wants throughout the entire game along with other buffs like freedom of movement and protection from evil.
It sounds like you're talking about a specific person. I don't think this is a common occurrence. Personally, I'd wonder why you know/prepare all those buff spells in the first place if you never want to cast them. Also, how does that not fit your definition of teamwork? "Mage casts flying spell on warrior" is a classic example of covering an ally's weakness.

[MeimuHakurei]

It sounds like you're talking about a specific person. I don't think this is a common occurrence. Personally, I'd wonder why you know/prepare all those buff spells in the first place if you never want to cast them. Also, how does that not fit your definition of teamwork? "Mage casts flying spell on warrior" is a classic example of covering an ally's weakness.

What weakness does the mage have the warrior can cover? That's the main problem where "teamwork" becomes "babysitting". The classic reply is "The warrior keeps the mage safe from enemies", which usually doesn't hold up because 1. The mage generally has like half a dozen ways to provide adequate protection for themselves (being a Druid/Cleric who isn't squishy is one of them btw) and 2. The warrior generally lacks features to prevent opponents from running past and hitting the caster (Crusaders and to an extent Knights being the notable exception).

[Troacctid]

What weakness does the mage have the warrior can cover? That's the main problem where "teamwork" becomes "babysitting". The classic reply is "The warrior keeps the mage safe from enemies", which usually doesn't hold up because 1. The mage generally has like half a dozen ways to provide adequate protection for themselves (being a Druid/Cleric who isn't squishy is one of them btw) and 2. The warrior generally lacks features to prevent opponents from running past and hitting the caster (Crusaders and to an extent Knights being the notable exception).
Wizards are traditionally good at area blasting, crowd control, disruption, and utility, but have limited resources and weak defenses, making them vulnerable to attrition or high DPR. Bards are traditionally good at buffing, support, disruption, and social interaction, but are physically weak, with poor defenses and very limited damage output. Clerics are traditionally good at healing, buffing, and tanking, but have a poor damage output and may struggle to actually finish the enemies off. Druids are good at everything without really trying and have no obvious weaknesses, so I got nothin'.

[Stelio Kontos]

What weakness does the mage have the warrior can cover? That's the main problem where "teamwork" becomes "babysitting". The classic reply is "The warrior keeps the mage safe from enemies", which usually doesn't hold up because 1. The mage generally has like half a dozen ways to provide adequate protection for themselves (being a Druid/Cleric who isn't squishy is one of them btw) and 2. The warrior generally lacks features to prevent opponents from running past and hitting the caster (Crusaders and to an extent Knights being the notable exception).

Then the obvious behavior would be for the warrior to just stand aside and let the wizard have at it then. Why should he risk his neck when it's totally unnecessary?

The answer, of course, is that that's no fun for anybody. Sometimes maybe we should make sacrifices from what's "optimal" for the sake of making the game fun for other PLAYERS.

[JNAProductions]

To the OP-about where is your character relative to the others, in terms of power?

You're a reasonably high-OP Wizard, and the other player you mentioned is a moderate (at best) OP Fighter.

What's everyone else playing? Who's closer to the group average?

[MaxiDuRaritry]

You could always play a high-tier class that's terrible at buffing others. Like any psionic manifesting class. They're great at buffing themselves, but terrible at buffing others. "Sorry, but psionic fly is self-only."

Or you could only learn spells that are good for self buffs. Maybe play a sorcerer and take alter self instead of polymorph. Or specialize in spells that debuff enemies, so you get to do stuff to the opposition, and he gets to take advantage of that as a happy side-effect.

Or you could be a necromancer that specializes in undead-only buffing spells. If he wants your buffs, he should let you raise him as a dread warrior or necropolitan, complete with the undead creation feats to further buff him. Of course, then he'll be your minion, so...

You could also point out the hypocrisy of the other player demanding "teamwork" without giving anything in return. That he's being a leech and not actually giving you anything that you couldn't get for yourself. If he wants to play the teamwork game, he should bring more to the table as a higher-tiered class, or multiclass in a way that makes him useful instead of a liability. Bring up the fact that you can bind better beatsticks than him, and if he wants buffs, he should either step up his game or he should get a cohort to do it. You're not a slave to his whims, and teamwork is a two-way street. Of course, that's fairly antagonistic, but sometimes it needs to be said.

[Particle_Man]

As dm I might make the world a magic free zone until the player of the t1 caster learns to play nice with others.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

As dm I might make the world a magic free zone until the player of the t1 caster learns to play nice with others.The problem the OP has is that the others refuse to play nice with him. "Cast me this! Cast me that! I need you to make me relevant at the expense of your fun and character concept!" And they don't give anything back.

Also, you're nerfing the mundanes at least as hard, since they need magic to remain relevant and functional.

[sorcererlover]

It sounds like you're talking about a specific person. I don't think this is a common occurrence. Personally, I'd wonder why you know/prepare all those buff spells in the first place if you never want to cast them. Also, how does that not fit your definition of teamwork? "Mage casts flying spell on warrior" is a classic example of covering an ally's weakness.

If you look at this


As dm I might make the world a magic free zone until the player of the t1 caster learns to play nice with others.

You realize it is a very common occurrence. I've encountered three people like this in real life. Two were players, one was a DM. They think the wizard's purpose of existence is to support the mundanes.

It is teamwork if it's for a fight or two. It's not teamwork if that's all i'm doing every fight.


You could also point out the hypocrisy of the other player demanding "teamwork" without giving anything in return. That he's being a leech and not actually giving you anything that you couldn't get for yourself. If he wants to play the teamwork game, he should bring more to the table as a higher-tiered class, or multiclass in a way that makes him useful instead of a liability. Bring up the fact that you can bind better beatsticks than him, and if he wants buffs, he should either step up his game or he should get a cohort to do it. You're not a slave to his whims, and teamwork is a two-way street. Of course, that's fairly antagonistic, but sometimes it needs to be said.

This does give me an idea or two but yeah it's antagonistic.


To the OP-about where is your character relative to the others, in terms of power?

You're a reasonably high-OP Wizard, and the other player you mentioned is a moderate (at best) OP Fighter.

What's everyone else playing? Who's closer to the group average?

This was some time ago. I was a summon monster wizard going into malconvoker. He was a greatsword fighter. We had a rogue and a bard. I bought a heal belt because our party didn't have a healer and then suddenly i was forced into being a heal bot with it. Everytime I summoned a creature he'd yell at me for wasting spells and forced me to prepare magic weapon. Later when the DM told me i was being selfish not preparing haste or fly but summon monster III instead I just left after yelling at them.

How would you have dealt with the situation?

[Seto]

Well, on the other hand... When I think about my gear, I tend to take other PCs' abilities into account. If a Wizard in my party is capable of casting Flight on me, and it's not too big a drain on their resources, I'm gonna think "don't need a Flight item, the Wizard's got that covered, I'll buy a ring of Freedom of Movement instead". But if the Wizard has FoM instead of Fly, I'll do the opposite.
Of course demanding buffs is rude, you need to be polite and say "pretty please". And you shouldn't expect the Wizard to dedicate his entire spell selection to carrying others: if you want to be flying 24/7 you'd need your own item. But when planning for the occasional need, buffing IS part of teamwork and party synergy: it's not like every character should be autonomous. And in my experience the day when you get separated from the others and can't benefit from their abilities, is the day you realize how badly you need your party.

[ExLibrisMortis]

I'm going to assume it's more the tone and manner of the request than the inherent repulsiveness of the act of buffing the fighter with fly that is the problem here.


As a basic question, ask the fighter why they did not buy a magic item that grants flight, or play a different class that can provide flight, when their plan was apparently to be able to fly. If you wanted to be impolite, you could tell them that they're a selfish tier five noobkin if they think they can build a competent flying character based on the fighter class. More constructively, tell them that you'll cast whatever at the start of each day, as long as they provide the pearl of power to cover the loss of a spell slot.

[Erloas]

Part of the problem is the OP is posting from a clearly biased and one sided telling of events and not even trying to be impartial. So it is really hard to say what really needs to be done.

The short answer is that the whole group should be team players and work together to be the strongest whole. Don't make character concepts for a team game that doesn't work well in a team. Don't min\max your character in a way that in some cases they are useless without a lot of help.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Figure out what buffs the party needs regularly. Planar bind some minions to cast the buffs so you don't have to spend daily resources to do so. Otherwise, find ways to throw templates on 'em. If flying is the issue, the dragonborn of Bahamut template is cheap and can grant wings. If a 1-up mushroom would be useful (and when is it not?), try planar binding a nightmare to cast astral projection on the party (preferably after forcing it to fail the save on a helm of opposite alignment). Etc. If they want buffs, they can demand them from their own personal spellcasting minions. Then you can get on with your life.

[Cosi]

It is completely unreasonable for the Fighter to demand buffs when he doesn't have anything to offer in return. He build a character that is not effective, he gets to live with the consequences. Lots of people seem to have a notion that it is somehow more legitimate to build and play mundane characters, and that any imbalance must be therefore addressed by changing the behavior of casters, but that's nonsense. He build the character he wants -- one who doesn't have flight. If he wanted flight, he could have used any of the dozens of available options for getting flight. If you wanted to play a buffbot, you'd have built a buffbot. Unless he wants to allow you to tell him where to move and what enemies to attack, he should stop telling you how to play your character.


It sounds like you're talking about a specific person. I don't think this is a common occurrence. Personally, I'd wonder why you know/prepare all those buff spells in the first place if you never want to cast them. Also, how does that not fit your definition of teamwork? "Mage casts flying spell on warrior" is a classic example of covering an ally's weakness.

Judging by this forum, this is a pretty common occurrence. I've seen several threads expounding this basic idea from one end or the other. You can claim that this forum is not representative, but since the person asking is on this forum, it doesn't seem super relevant.


Wizards are traditionally good at area blasting, crowd control, disruption, and utility, but have limited resources and weak defenses, making them vulnerable to attrition or high DPR.[

Fighters experience faster attrition than casters, and have sub par damage output. The question was "what weakness could the Fighter cover", not "what weaknesses exist".

[Particle_Man]

From the t1 wizard POV, just make transmutation and abjuration your banned schools of magic and give the heal belt to the fighter. If you have no buff spells or items others can’t expect you to buff them. Or do you mean you like having those spells for yourself but not for others?

Warlocks also work for this and even fit thematically with the “screw you, I got mine” vibe.

This also works for sorcerer. Not so well with cleric or Druid since their default is the entire spell list.

Similarly, the fighter can take the leadership feat to get their own personal buffbot.

[ezekielraiden]

You could also point out the hypocrisy of the other player demanding "teamwork" without giving anything in return. That he's being a leech and not actually giving you anything that you couldn't get for yourself. If he wants to play the teamwork game, he should bring more to the table as a higher-tiered class, or multiclass in a way that makes him useful instead of a liability. Bring up the fact that you can bind better beatsticks than him, and if he wants buffs, he should either step up his game or he should get a cohort to do it. You're not a slave to his whims, and teamwork is a two-way street. Of course, that's fairly antagonistic, but sometimes it needs to be said.

By that same token, responding to someone's jerk behavior with, "FINE, I'll just make a character that's BETTER THAN YOURS IN EVERY WAY. Then you'll see the error of your ways and treat everyone with respect and kindness!"? Kinda hypocritical itself.

IME, casters are at least as likely (if not moreso) to be the selfish ones--in part because the rules incentivize it. Buffing others is often less powerful than buffing yourself. Summoning beatsticks, or ending fights with just one or two spells, is more powerful than healing or buffing. When combined with the inherent power differences between casters and non-casters? Yeah, the game pretty well discourages teamwork, as in force-multiplication. Hell, even the "reasonable" expectations of the OP fall into this; note how the 'price' of teamwork is that each person needs to sufficiently optimize themselves first, before getting any outside help.

If someone is demanding buff spells and other services, but doesn't seem to be giving much back, I would strongly suggest talking to the DM about it, then talking to the player. You sound like this has really gotten under your skin, to the point of angering you even when you aren't actively at the table--that's a very bad sign. Trying to deal with it by passive-aggressive one-upmanship or showboating is very unlikely to actually help the situation, and may even lead to you being viewed as the aggressor and bad agent in the group.

Instead, compose your thoughts as graciously as you can, and let the other player know. You don't like feeling like you're just someone else's buff-bot. It severely harms your experience at the table, and is even leading to resentment and desire to strike back in some way. You want everyone at the table to have fun, and that's not happening when you feel your character's resources are inherently beholden to the needs of others. That does not, at all, mean that you don't want to contribute to the group's efforts. You just don't want to feel like a menial servant, pushed around and...for lack of a better term, used.

At the same time, though, definitely be thinking about how the other player might feel about your response: you're expecting them to invest in, on the long run, a lot of magic items just to keep up with the game. That's a permanent resource cost to them, in order to spare you a "temporary" cost. (Quotes because, if you're consigning several spell slots every day to always buff your allies, well, that kinda becomes a permanent cost too, just one that you have to pay each day, like buying a bus ticket.) And, while they may be excessive or demanding, it's not wrong to expect that, if you have some good buff spells memorized, you'll throw some at your party members now and then, right? Sure, they're your spells, but spells are only useful if they're cast, and buff spells are only useful if they're cast on an ally. The whole point of them is to make somebody, and presumably not always the Wizard or her summons, stronger for a time to deal with a threat.

So. Try to be understanding, even if it's deeply frustrating and you're already starting into resentment, but also stand firm about your own position. And if the other player continues to conflate "teamwork" with "being my personal spell-b*tch," well, as I said, tell your DM how you feel and that this person is being disruptive under the hollow pretense of wanting "teamwork."

3.5e is not, despite its multiplayer and (generally) non-competitive nature, a team game IMO. It's a game for multiple individuals, who happen to always be in the same places and fighting the same things. A party will always do better by each member optimizing their own contributions first, before any other considerations. It took me a long time to figure out that that was something I *really* didn't like about 3e/3.5e/PF. It took me even longer to realize that, if the whole group is okay with that, you can still have fun. You can even sort of back-import teamwork out the other side by doing more or less as others have mentioned above: coordinated individual optimization (each making an individually strong thing, but with weaknesses that are covered by some other character's focus) as opposed to team-level optimization (stuff like "since Alice brings benefit 1, I'll bring action 2 that capitalizes on that benefit, and sets up Charlie to easily get action 3 as a result"). Negative versus positive synergy, if you will--negative compensates for a lack, while positive improves on a presence.

I don't consider negative synergy "teamwork" in the usual sense, though as noted it's sort of like it. I guess I see "teamwork" as being about building each other up, which may involve some "you guard my back, I guard yours" stuff, but is more centrally about actually making each other better. Negative synergy feels like each person is just as awesome as they were before, they're just unlikely to fall/break/mess up, whereas positive synergy feels like the team has risen to new heights strictly because of the team. Negative synergy prevents expectable failure, whereas positive synergy enables previously-impossible success, or so it seems in my head. A floor-vs-ceiling kind of thing. Raising the group's ability floor feels less like "teamwork" than raising its ceiling.

[TalonOfAnathrax]

Damn, this situation sounds like it sucks. I don't really see any solution other than trying to talk it through with them. Politely air your grievances, tell them what you wanted to play your character as, and ask them to tone it down a little. Don't entirely abandon teamwork and overshadow him of course (although that's their fault for playing a fighter at a table with a wizard!), but do assert some boundaries.

What is "your thing"? Are you a summoner again? A blaster? AoE control?

And what is the fighter spending his WBL on?

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Damn, this situation sounds like it sucks. I don't really see any solution other than trying to talk it through with them. Politely air your grievances, tell them what you wanted to play your character as, and ask them to tone it down a little. Don't entirely abandon teamwork and overshadow him of course (although that's their fault for playing a fighter at a table with a wizard!), but do assert some boundaries.

What is "your thing"? Are you a summoner again? A blaster? AoE control?

And what is the fighter spending his WBL on?This is a thing that happened to the OP in the past, numerous times, and it REALLY annoyed him. To the point where it still bothers him. He's asking about what to do about it if it happens in the future (again). Currently, it's just a hypothetical.

[Particle_Man]

Most fighters will think of boosting their weapons armour shields stat boosters saves natural ac. The big six.

[ColorBlindNinja]

My first inclination (other than looking for a new group) would be to play a DMM Cleric with Chain and Persist spell.

Buff everyone in the party, so none of them can complain.

[zlefin]

To me teamwork is covering each other's weaknesses. So if a PC is strong against everything except undead, you have other PCs that carry you through undead, and you carry them against whatever they're weak against.

What's not teamwork is a mundane spending all of his money on his weapon and armor and telling the spellcaster of the group to act as a buff bot for him. He doesn't buy items that give him flying, he tells the wizard to cast fly on him. When i tell him I have my own shtick I want to do he tells me don't be a selfish T1 munchkin and start being a team player instead of hogging the spotlight by being his buff bitch 24/7.

Against these types of people I just want to completely trivialize them. I want make a gish that outshines him in every way possible or planar bind a glabrezu or something and buff him instead of the player and give him the finger when he cries how broken T1s are. Instead I just leave the table especially if the DM takes his side that I should cast buff spells on him instead of doing my shtick.

I've had my share of these people, a few recent threads brought up these memories, so I was wondering how you guys deal with these types of people? Currently my thought is to tell such a player to stop being a whiny crybaby and learn to be self sufficient instead of begging me like a hobo.

While I don't have this problem right now at my table, I would like to be prepared in case I do in the future at a different table, because just from a sample size of people who frequent this forum, I noticed there are quite a few people who demand "teamwork" from T1s and call them munchkins for not being buff heal bots 24/7, even from necromancer clerics.

just stick to leaving the table (while calling them out for being rude people who aren't actually interested in teamwork and just want people to cover for them; much like in many group projects in school there's 1-2 who do all the work and the rest are just useless)

[Efrate]

My go to has been you play your character, I'll play mine. I am not your cohort caster. You need to do your job just as I need to do mine. Helping is ok, dependency is not. If you can't contribute without me, that is not my problem. Cover your bases.

Buying pearls of power is a fine compromise that most are happy with. You can take it as a long term loan. They pay 16k for a pearl of power so you can always cast FoM on them, then when they buy their ring of FoM you pay 8k to 16k of the price. You can still use it but they need their investment back at least equal to the sell back value. Since their upgrade costs quickly outpace yours, working with them can help a lot, and in the end you both get a benefit.

Now if the person is adamantly refusing to do such and spending all their loot on more or less useless stuff, even if you try to work with them, then leave the table, or talk to the dm and get them to remove that player. If a person is a whiney baby it is no good for any game. I make an effort to work with people, and not try to trivialize them, but meet me partway or it's not worth it for anyone involved.

Some people just don't get that they need at xy and z to contribute, explain that to them and they may work with you, and most dms will allow rebuilds or somesuch.

[Troacctid]

Judging by this forum, this is a pretty common occurrence. I've seen several threads expounding this basic idea from one end or the other. You can claim that this forum is not representative, but since the person asking is on this forum, it doesn't seem super relevant.
In that case, OP is generally in the wrong. An effective party requires collaboration, communication, and coordination. Dismissing your teammates' ideas as selfish whining rather than considering them on their merits is counterproductive. Deliberately attempting to undermine their enjoyment of the game in retaliation is petty and toxic.


Fighters experience faster attrition than casters, and have sub par damage output. The question was "what weakness could the Fighter cover", not "what weaknesses exist".
I'm sorry, I didn't realize we were dunking on Exactly Fighter 20. There are a lot of different classes in this game that rely primarily on weapon attacks.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

In that case, OP is generally in the wrong. An effective party requires collaboration, communication, and coordination. Dismissing your teammates' ideas as selfish whining rather than considering them on their merits is counterproductive.But it sounds like it WAS selfish whining, which it might very well have been.


Deliberately attempting to undermine their enjoyment of the game in retaliation is petty and toxic.This goes both ways. Just because you're playing a T1 character doesn't mean your need to enjoy what you're doing is any less than anyone else's, and being forced to completely sublimate your own enjoyment for that of someone else is just as bad as the same thing from the opposite end.

If I can't build my character competently without sublimating your enjoyment of the game, I should consider asking for help in building that character so your enjoyment ISN'T compromised in such a fashion. That way, everyone wins.

[Florian]

As GM, I would kick the offending player from the game. Which in this case is Sorcererlover.

Teamwork is cooperation, collaboration and communication to achieve a shared common goal and not just avoiding standing in each others way.

[RoboEmperor]

In that case, OP is generally in the wrong. An effective party requires collaboration, communication, and coordination. Dismissing your teammates' ideas as selfish whining rather than considering them on their merits is counterproductive. Deliberately attempting to undermine their enjoyment of the game in retaliation is petty and toxic.

Except she didn't do that. She left the table. I think you misunderstood the OP because there's no way you can say a fighter who spends all his WBL on weapons and armor because he fully expects and demands the wizard to provide him all the utility his character needs is in the right.


3.5e is not, despite its multiplayer and (generally) non-competitive nature, a team game IMO. It's a game for multiple individuals, who happen to always be in the same places and fighting the same things. A party will always do better by each member optimizing their own contributions first, before any other considerations. It took me a long time to figure out that that was something I *really* didn't like about 3e/3.5e/PF. It took me even longer to realize that, if the whole group is okay with that, you can still have fun. You can even sort of back-import teamwork out the other side by doing more or less as others have mentioned above: coordinated individual optimization (each making an individually strong thing, but with weaknesses that are covered by some other character's focus) as opposed to team-level optimization (stuff like "since Alice brings benefit 1, I'll bring action 2 that capitalizes on that benefit, and sets up Charlie to easily get action 3 as a result"). Negative versus positive synergy, if you will--negative compensates for a lack, while positive improves on a presence.

I don't consider negative synergy "teamwork" in the usual sense, though as noted it's sort of like it. I guess I see "teamwork" as being about building each other up, which may involve some "you guard my back, I guard yours" stuff, but is more centrally about actually making each other better. Negative synergy feels like each person is just as awesome as they were before, they're just unlikely to fall/break/mess up, whereas positive synergy feels like the team has risen to new heights strictly because of the team. Negative synergy prevents expectable failure, whereas positive synergy enables previously-impossible success, or so it seems in my head. A floor-vs-ceiling kind of thing. Raising the group's ability floor feels less like "teamwork" than raising its ceiling.

I generally find it more cool, edgy, and fun to be in a party of loner badasses who can take care of themselves than in party of interdependents who flop around like a fish out of water when caught separated.

For example, a surprise bear pops out and grapples a party member. The victimized party member escaping the grapple on his own and fighting the bear is much more cooler than the party member screaming for help and the party wizard bailing him out. Sure it's teamwork, but it's less cool.


As GM, I would kick the offending player from the game. Which in this case is Sorcererlover.

Teamwork is cooperation, collaboration and communication to achieve a shared common goal and not just avoiding standing in each others way.

Why am i not surprised you are a T1 hater who kicks people for preparing summon monster III instead of haste.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

As GM, I would kick the offending player from the game. Which in this case is Sorcererlover.

Teamwork is cooperation, collaboration and communication to achieve a shared common goal and not just avoiding standing in each others way.See my above post. From the sounds of things, it was the other player impinging on his ability to play his character the way he wants to, because said player couldn't build his character competently.

Of course, we're just getting the OP's slant on things, but with the info we've got, that seems to be the case.

Just because you're playing a T1 doesn't mean your enjoyment of the game is less important than someone who's playing a T5 who is useless without being constantly propped up by your T1.

[Florian]

fighter who spends all his WBL on weapons and armor because he fully expects and demands the wizard to provide him all the utility his character needs is in the right.

But he is actually right. The Fighter is an all-day-long class and a specialist in his own niche. He got that covered and acts and equips himself in a fitting way. The Wizard is a support specialist and should act and equip himself in that way, too.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

But he is actually right. The Fighter is an all-day-long class and a specialist in his own niche. He got that covered and acts and equips himself in a fitting way. The Wizard is a support specialist and should act and equip himself in that way, too.How does it equate to "all day" if its hp take a beating every round? An equal-CR monster has a decent shot at taking out a fighter in a couple of rounds with some good hits, and fighters have no way to heal themselves, relying on party members or magic items (many of which they can't activate themselves) to do it.

Fighters have significantly less stamina than primary spellcasters do, even at early levels.

[Seto]

When I read some of those comments, I'm reminded of the (IMO flawed) assumption that characters need to be able to cover all the bases by themselves. Good stats, good defenses, saves, damage, some utility, flight and other movement, invisibility, different modes of perception... That's what we take into account when we try to make a character by ourselves. It makes sense because in 3.5/PF, character building and customization is its own minigame, so players tend to put a lot of thought into it and do it away from the table. And then they all bring characters that have been built independently, have given no thought to synergy, and therefore are expected to be able to function individually. That mode of thinking is exacerbated here with regular exercises in Char-OP or character-building contests, where each character is supposed to stand on its own.

Sure, it's one way of doing things. A well-built character must be able to do the things they're built to do, independently. And the more occasional needs you can cover, the better. But the thing is, it's hard for a mundane to cover all the aforementioned bases, even with gear. A given character will probably be able to cover some of them - not all. And if it's an occasional need in a low/mid-op campaign, I really see nothing wrong with depending on other PCs for it. You should try to be useful in return, of course, if you can - but interdependency is kind of the whole point of a party.
In my current game, most of us can fly - but when everyone really needs to, I cast Fly on those that can't. Because I can do that, and it's better for the group. In return, I don't invest much in healing resources because I know that we have a healbot that'll take care of it, and a meatshield to take damage in my place. Looking at the typical four-man party, that's just how a functional party works and is supposed to work.

Once again, of course you shouldn't "demand things", and you should only ask for things when you actually need them. And not all the time. So I understand OP's concern. I just take issue with the idea that characters should be self-sufficient, and that mundane damage-dealers should pack as much utility as casters.

[RoboEmperor]

But he is actually right. The Fighter is an all-day-long class and a specialist in his own niche. He got that covered and acts and equips himself in a fitting way. The Wizard is a support specialist and should act and equip himself in that way, too.

How is a fighter dealing physical damage with his swords any different than a wizard dealing physical damage with summoned monsters? It doesn't matter what class you are, if a person wants to play a physical damage dealer then he should play a physical damage dealer.

sorcererlover clearly wanted to play a summon monster specialist and the fighter here forced her to abandon summon monster for buff spells. For all intents and purposes sorcererlover is a fighter not a wizard. At least not at that level where all SM can do is web targets, grapple, flank, and deal physical damage.

Look at the opposite side. What if the wizard told the fighter to use a one handed weapon to free up a hand for a torch, or forget his weapon altogether and instead spend all his actions throwing nets? Is that acceptable? Because that's what the fighter is telling the wizard to do, giving up his physical damage for buffs.

I'm gonna quote Cosi here.


No, it's the job of people who want to beat people with sticks. Building a character that can do something does not -- absent an agreement to the contrary -- empower you to complain when other people do that thing. If the Cleric is outperforming the Fighter at the Fighter's job, that's (again, absent an agreement about power level or party roles) as much the Fighter's problem as the Cleric's. Suppose that instead of a Cleric that overshadowed the Fighter, he'd shown up with a Warblade that overshadowed the Fighter, or a Fighter that overshadowed the Fighter.

This is not to say I endorse Robo's behavior or view of the game, but the idea that the Fighter is entitled to be the only guy who hits people because he made a character who can only hit people is deeply toxic. The game can, should, and (when played right) does support multiple people having similar roles. If you can't stand someone else wanting to have the same kind of fun as you, you may want to pick a hobby less social than TTRPGs.

[zlefin]

But he is actually right. The Fighter is an all-day-long class and a specialist in his own niche. He got that covered and acts and equips himself in a fitting way. The Wizard is a support specialist and should act and equip himself in that way, too.

whether your wizard is a support specialist depends on your build. some are most clearly NOT support specialists, which would make you straightforwardly wrong. (unless you're using a very bizarre definition of support, which you would then need to provide, and which would probably be so overly broad that it would include the fighter as well)

there's also no reason to assume the fighter is competent in their own niche without additional info, sometimes they aren't, anyone can be incompetent in their niche.

and they're not all day if they're not built for it.

[Doug Lampert]

This is a thing that happened to the OP in the past, numerous times, and it REALLY annoyed him. To the point where it still bothers him. He's asking about what to do about it if it happens in the future (again). Currently, it's just a hypothetical.

For those who don't think this is common. Anyone remember "someone has to play the cleric" or "the cleric's job is to heal people".

Those were so common that 3.x added spontaneous conversion to cure spells so clerics could even prepare anything else. The same attitude can exist for buffs: Don't use your spells doing what you want, use them to let the other players do stuff, and you're not doing your job if you use any of your spells for anything but whatever the rest of the party has declared to be your job.

Yeah, let people take leadership if you're the GM and think the mundane needs a buff-bot. And if you're a player and want a buff-bot. Play a wolf, you get a free druid as a full level cohort just to be your buff bot and you get some nice additional bennies (what do you mean the druid is supposed to be the PC and the wolf is just an animal companion, give it PC quality gear and have the druid concentrate on his "job" and the wolf is more powerful than most martial classes).

[Cosi]

In that case, OP is generally in the wrong. An effective party requires collaboration, communication, and coordination. Dismissing your teammates' ideas as selfish whining rather than considering them on their merits is counterproductive. Deliberately attempting to undermine their enjoyment of the game in retaliation is petty and toxic.

I agree. It was wrong for the Fighter to dismiss OP's ideas (namely: playing a self-sufficient character). He should not have deliberately undermined their enjoyment of the game by trying to force them to use abilities in ways they didn't want.

It's a two-way street. The exact same principle that empowers you to play a Fighter that can't support the party empowers me to play a Wizard who doesn't support the party. If you want some help, you'd be better bring anything at all to the table for me, and a Fighter doesn't.

The only context in which the arguments against OP make any sense is one that presupposes that wanting to play a Wizard is illegitimate anti-fun, and you must warp your character to enable the rest of the party to get whatever Wizard-based support abilities they imagined their character receiving but did nothing to supply. The idea that it is not selfish to come to the table with nothing and demand resources from other people is simply absurd.


But he is actually right. The Fighter is an all-day-long class and a specialist in his own niche. He got that covered and acts and equips himself in a fitting way. The Wizard is a support specialist and should act and equip himself in that way, too.

Yes (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/sleep.htm), the (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/colorSpray.htm) Wizard (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/acidArrow.htm) definitely (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/glitterdust.htm) has (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/web.htm) no (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/scorchingRay.htm) direct (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/stinkingCloud.htm) offensive (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/fireball.htm) tools (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/lightningBolt.htm) that (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/iceStorm.htm) he (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/blackTentacles.htm) can (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/phantasmalKiller.htm) use (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/animateDead.htm) to (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/cloudkill.htm) win (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/planarBindingLesser.htm) a (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/dominatePerson.htm) fight (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/coneOfCold.htm) on (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/magicJar.htm) his (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/balefulPolymorph.htm) own (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/acidFog.htm). It's (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/chainLightning.htm) a (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/disintegrate.htm) 100% (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/fleshToStone.htm) support (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/forcecage.htm) class (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/fingerOfDeath.htm).

[Troacctid]

But it sounds like it WAS selfish whining, which it might very well have been.
Why would that matter if we're speaking generally? OP said this thread isn't about any one particular incident.

[Jack_McSnatch]

It's never right to demand buffs/heals from anybody. But at the same time, it's not fair to come down on somebody for wanting to play a fighter. And it's downright toxic to yell at them to "just play a t1 class!" Some people just want to hit folks with a sword. If you act all haughty, and berate them for playing a mundane, YOU are the one with the problem. Sure it's not right to demand, but if you have buff spells that make the fighter better, cast one or two. If you're the only cleric in the party, prepare heal spells, even if it's not your character concept, because you are the only one with access to those abilities. You wanna talk about covering eachother's weaknesses? Well guess what. Covering the fighter's weaknesses means buffing him, even just a little. Going "Wah wah the fighter's so unoptimized!" Doesn't help anybody, and just brings tension to the table. Accept that some people don't want to be a mage.

[ColorBlindNinja]

It's never right to demand buffs/heals from anybody. But at the same time, it's not fair to come down on somebody for wanting to play a fighter. And it's downright toxic to yell at them to "just play a t1 class!" Some people just want to hit folks with a sword. If you act all haughty, and berate them for playing a mundane, YOU are the one with the problem. Sure it's not right to demand, but if you have buff spells that make the fighter better, cast one or two. If you're the only cleric in the party, prepare heal spells, even if it's not your character concept, because you are the only one with access to those abilities. You wanna talk about covering eachother's weaknesses? Well guess what. Covering the fighter's weaknesses means buffing him, even just a little. Going "Wah wah the fighter's so unoptimized!" Doesn't help anybody, and just brings tension to the table. Accept that some people don't want to be a mage.

If the Fighter wants to fly so badly, what's to stop him from buying an item or picking a race that allows him to do so?

[Unavenger]

If the fighter wants you to buff him, ask him to buff you. When he doesn't, accuse him of not being a team player.

Or, don't do that, but try to get the idea across that you don't have to be his slave.

[Jack_McSnatch]

If the Fighter wants to fly so badly, what's to stop him from buying an item or picking a race that allows him to do so?

Maybe he didn't want his mundane mercenary fighter to be able to fly out of nowhere. Maybe he grabbed a freedom of movement ring, but lacked the dosh for a ring of flight. You're basically complaining about the other guy's character concept, while trying to justify your own. Why not let everyone play their concepts?

[ColorBlindNinja]

Maybe he didn't want his mundane mercenary fighter to be able to fly out of nowhere. Maybe he grabbed a freedom of movement ring, but lacked the dosh for a ring of flight. You're basically complaining about the other guy's character concept, while trying to justify your own. Why not let everyone play their concepts?

If the Fighter can't be bothered to pick one of the several options that allow him to fly, he can hardly complain to the party caster that he can't do so and hit him up for buffs.

[Unavenger]

Yeah, if you want to fly, be able to fly: if you don't want to be able to fly, don't go begging your caster for flying ability. Or if you do, be a class that has something to trade for it - it doesn't have to be a T1 class (even truenamers can throw a few buffs on the wizard, for example! Then again, truenamers can fly!). It doesn't even have to be a magical class ("Hey, if you give my knight fly, I'll float between you and that thing and repeatedly stop it from moving anywhere or attacking"). But don't nag your caster for help if you're not prepared to pony up anything else in return.

[Jack_McSnatch]

If the Fighter can't be bothered to pick one of the several options that allow him to fly, he can hardly complain to the party caster that he can't do so and hit him up for buffs.

Well then nobody is working together, are they? And in my experience, a party of lone wolves who refuse to cover eachother's asses always ALWAYS ends up dead.

And if the wizard wants to play a summoner or a blaster, they can hardly complain about others character concepts not supporting their own. You wanna play a solo game, there's plenty on whatever your gaming console of choice is. If you wanna get together with your friends, and be badass together, that's what d&d is for.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Well then nobody is working together, are they?

That does not follow. The Wizard can easily be disabling enemies with her spells so that the Fighter can kill them.

EDIT: Just because the Wizard isn't buffing the fighter, doesn't mean they aren't working as a team.


And in my experience, a party of lone wolves who refuse to cover eachother's asses always ALWAYS ends up dead.

And in my experience, the people who never bother to pick up a method of flying end up plinking away with a bow for crap damage.


And if the wizard wants to play a summoner or a blaster, they can hardly complain about others character concepts not supporting their own. You wanna play a solo game, there's plenty on whatever your gaming console of choice is. If you wanna get together with your friends, and be badass together, that's what d&d is for.

:smallconfused:

How is that relevant to this discussion at all? The premise here was that the Wizard wanted to be a summoner and the Fighter was complaining that he wasn't getting buffed enough.

[Unavenger]

Well then nobody is working together, are they?

There are ways of working together other than buffing people's butts off. In the obvious instance, the fighter could flank with a summoned creature. Are you equally going to say that the fighter's refusing to work with the wizard by not buffing them? Well, no: if the fighter stands in the way of something that would otherwise have a clear charge line to the wizard, that's also working together.

[ezekielraiden]

I generally find it more cool, edgy, and fun to be in a party of loner badasses who can take care of themselves than in party of interdependents who flop around like a fish out of water when caught separated.

This is a false dichotomy. Teamwork doesn't require crippling codependence.


For example, a surprise bear pops out and grapples a party member. The victimized party member escaping the grapple on his own and fighting the bear is much more cooler than the party member screaming for help and the party wizard bailing him out. Sure it's teamwork, but it's less cool.

Your example situation sounds like something I'd very much rather see? Like, you're not arguing with me, you're arguing with someone else whom I also disagree with.

I don't think the party should be loner badasses. But I do think each and every character should, barring intentional self-sabotage, be pretty badass. And then also, it should actually be worthwhile--more worthwhile, in fact, than hyperfocusing solely on personal capability to the exclusion of all else, as 3.x strongly encourages--to focus on "hey, I can do <badass thing 1>, OR I can do <badass thing 2> that happens to be really useful for Alice's character if he does <badass thing 3>!"

I don't want codependence. I also don't want, as you put it, "loners" who might as well play at entirely separate tables 'cause there's no need for them to be playing the same game together. I want characters who are strong--"badass"--on their own and awesome together.


Why am i not surprised you are a T1 hater who kicks people for preparing summon monster III instead of haste.

While I think more benefit-of-doubt should be given....first, maybe let's not instantly resort to name-calling. And second, it really doesn't matter what Sorcererlover's motives are, they expressed a desire to do a ****ty, vindictive thing. As a friend says, "cool motive, still murder," though in this case it's "cool motive, still dickish." It's okay to be deeply frustrated, it's okay to feel resentment but acting out that resentment is not okay. Hence why I said what I said; taking vindictive action in response to something like this is very liable to get Sorcererlover labeled as the 'problem player' rather than the person whose bad behavior kicked this thing off. If you actually want to improve the situation, rather than just getting revenge or one-upping a jerk at jerkishness, you need to work: "Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good." (Romans 12:21)

[Jack_McSnatch]

That does not follow. The Wizard can easily be disabling enemies with her spells so that the Fighter can kill them.

EDIT: Just because the Wizard isn't buffing the fighter, doesn't mean they aren't working as a team.



And in my experience, the people who never bother to pick up a method of flying end up plinking away with a bow for crap damage.



:smallconfused:

How is that relevant to this discussion at all? The premise here was that the Wizard wanted to be a summoner and the Fighter was complaining that he wasn't getting buffed enough.
You're right, she could be. But that isn't what OP was doing, is it? She was summoning, and probably buffing those summons.

The relevance is that every supporter of the op has been supporting solo play, or for the berating of the low tier trash. I already said it's not right of the martial to act entitled to buffs, but it's also a **** move to not give them out of petty spite.

[Troacctid]

:smallconfused:

How is that relevant to this discussion at all? The premise here was that the Wizard wanted to be a summoner and the Fighter was complaining that he wasn't getting buffed enough.
No, the premise was:

I've had my share of these people, a few recent threads brought up these memories, so I was wondering how you guys deal with these types of people?
This doesn't pertain predominantly to a particular problem player. It concerns a cooperation conundrum common to countless cohorts.

[ColorBlindNinja]

You're right, she could be. But that isn't what OP was doing, is it? She was summoning, and probably buffing those summons.

And?


The relevance is that every supporter of the op has been supporting solo play, or for the berating of the low tier trash. I already said it's not right of the martial to act entitled to buffs, but it's also a **** move to not give them out of petty spite.

I think you're reading way too much into their actions.

[Jack_McSnatch]

There are ways of working together other than buffing people's butts off. In the obvious instance, the fighter could flank with a summoned creature. Are you equally going to say that the fighter's refusing to work with the wizard by not buffing them? Well, no: if the fighter stands in the way of something that would otherwise have a clear charge line to the wizard, that's also working together.
Hey, you're right! Now imagine how much MORE helpful that'd be if the fighter had some temp hit points, a high Str and Con, and an extra attack for ****s and giggles? Why not give your summon and your fighter the same set of buffs, and watch them dominate the battlefield together?

Or you can sit there crying about your spell slots. I'm sure that'll be so much more helpful to the party.

[RoboEmperor]

I don't think the party should be loner badasses. But I do think each and every character should, barring intentional self-sabotage, be pretty badass. And then also, it should actually be worthwhile--more worthwhile, in fact, than hyperfocusing solely on personal capability to the exclusion of all else, as 3.x strongly encourages--to focus on "hey, I can do <badass thing 1>, OR I can do <badass thing 2> that happens to be really useful for Alice's character if he does <badass thing 3>!"

I don't want codependence. I also don't want, as you put it, "loners" who might as well play at entirely separate tables 'cause there's no need for them to be playing the same game together. I want characters who are strong--"badass"--on their own and awesome together.

Perhaps we need to define some things here.

For example, myself, I have one creature wailing on the enemy, and my cleric has a bunch of heals and short duration buffs prepared. Freedom of movement v.s. stuns and such, protection from evil for mind control spells, and Death Ward against negative level stuff.

I WON'T cast Bull's strength or other damage increasing buffs on the party fighter, those are reserved for future encounters for my creature. Unless this is a really, really, really hard encounter.
I WILL cast Freedom of movement, protection from evil, Death Ward, and other situational spells if my creature doesn't need them while he does, and I will cast healing spells on him.

So does this qualify me as a badass supporting other badasses, or am I doing too little to the point I'm labeled a loner?

[Jack_McSnatch]

And?



I think you're reading way too much into their actions.

AND if she had the buff spells anyway, why not drop one or two on the fighter? I'm not saying blow your entire spell list on the guy, but a single flight spell isn't gonna kill your wizard.

[ColorBlindNinja]

AND if she had the buff spells anyway, why not drop one or two on the fighter?

Does it matter why she didn't? Maybe she just didn't want to.


I'm not saying blow your entire spell list on the guy, but a single flight spell isn't gonna kill your wizard.

If it means the Wizard can't fly? It easily could.

[Jack_McSnatch]

Does it matter why she didn't? Maybe she just didn't want to.



If it means the Wizard can't fly? It easily could.

If the wizard didn't take one of the several options there are for flying, than that's her fault, isn't it?

By that same arguement maybe the cleric didn't WANT to heal your dying wizard. Maybe they wanted to buff themselves into the exosphere and take the encounter by themselves. They COULD'VE healed you to full, where you can cast fly next round, but they didn't want to, and you have to roll a new character. Not very nice, is it?

[ColorBlindNinja]

If the wizard didn't take one of the several options there are for flying, than that's her fault, isn't it?

The Wizard took the flying spell that she prepared. The only flying spell she prepared. That was my point, she can't cast it on the Fighter if she already cast it on herself.


By that same arguement maybe the cleric didn't WANT to heal your dying wizard. Maybe they wanted to buff themselves into the exosphere and take the encounter by themselves. They COULD'VE healed you to full, where you can cast fly next round, but they didn't want to, and you have to roll a new character. Not very nice, is it?

I love how you just compared not casting a buff spell on the Fighter to letting a character die.

That's nothing more than a strawman.

[Unavenger]

Look, as much as Jack's trying to miss the point, teamwork has to be either that A helps B and vice versa, or A and B both do their things which augment each other towards a desired end, not that A helps B and B makes incessant demands of A. It's not teamwork if you're playing as someone's cohort.

[Particle_Man]

To be fair to the op they didn’t put any of their revenge ideas into effect but instead left the table. Although doing so after yelling doesn’t put them in the best light.

That said, buffing one’s own temporarily summoned monsters and not buffing one’s party members seems non-teamworky to me. You can summon monsters and use them without needing to buff them too. If it is the same buff spell and the same action to cast the spell, why not let your fellow pc benefit so your fellow player can be part of the combat?

[Jack_McSnatch]

The Wizard took the flying spell that she prepared. The only flying spell she prepared. That was my point, she can't cast it on the Fighter if she already cast it on herself.



I love how you just compared not casting a buff spell on the Fighter to letting a character die.

That's nothing more than a strawman.
The fighter needs to fly to fight the dragon. You refused to cast fly because "he should've bought an item." Fighter dies because you didn't want to buff him. Player has to roll a new character, and feels like ****, cause you berated him for not flying. That wasn't a strawman, that was a similie about how a single **** player can ruin the game. But, sure. I'm strawmanning.

[Unavenger]

The fighter needs to fly to fight the dragon. You refused to cast fly because "he should've bought an item." Fighter dies because you didn't want to buff him. Player has to roll a new character, and feels like ****, cause you berated him for not flying. That wasn't a strawman, that was a similie about how a single **** player can ruin the game. But, sure. I'm strawmanning.

I mean, yes the character should have built in a way that he can contribute without the wizard having to cast fly on him every combat?

Who will he blame once the wizard runs out of fly spells, I wonder? "Oh, you should have prepared more of them so that you can buff me and get nothing in return!" Teamwork, my butt!

[ColorBlindNinja]

The fighter needs to fly to fight the dragon. You refused to cast fly because "he should've bought an item." Fighter dies because you didn't want to buff him. Player has to roll a new character, and feels like ****, cause you berated him for not flying. That wasn't a strawman, that was a similie about how a single **** player can ruin the game. But, sure. I'm strawmanning.

Yes, you're strawmanning.

That scenario is in no way equivalent to "I won't heal a dying party member".

And in this case, the Wizard didn't refuse to cast Fly on the Fighter so much as she already cast it on herself.


What if the Wizard did cast her only flight spell on the Fighter and she died as a result? Would that be an example of a selfish player demanding buffs at the determent of his party, leading to disaster?

EDIT: And no blame for the Fighter who couldn't fly because he couldn't be bothered to buy a magic item?

[Jack_McSnatch]

I mean, yes the character should have built in a way that he can contribute without the wizard having to cast fly on him every combat?

Who will he blame once the wizard runs out of fly spells, I wonder? "Oh, you should have prepared more of them so that you can buff me and get nothing in return!" Teamwork, my butt!


Yes, you're strawmanning.

That scenario is in no way equivalent to "I won't heal a dying party member".

And in this case, the Wizard didn't refuse to cast Fly on the Fighter so much as she already cast it on herself.


What if the Wizard did cast her only flight spell on the Fighter and she died as a result? Would that be an example of a selfish player demanding buffs at the determent of his party, leading to disaster?

EDIT: And no blame for the Fighter who couldn't fly because he couldn't be bothered to buy a magic item?
I've already said it isn't fair for the fighter to make demands or lay the blame on anybody. I like how that goes over both your heads.

Yes, that would be a **** move. But you know what? Nothing stopping the wizard from having a wand or something. Why not use their wbl to get one, and oh look, now you've got several spell slots freed up. All I've been trying to say this whole time is you can bitch about how unoptimized the fighter is, or you can put on your big boy(or girl) pants, and throw them a ****ing bone.

[RoboEmperor]

That said, buffing one’s own temporarily summoned monsters and not buffing one’s party members seems non-teamworky to me. You can summon monsters and use them without needing to buff them too. If it is the same buff spell and the same action to cast the spell, why not let your fellow pc benefit so your fellow player can be part of the combat?

It seems just because a T1 can fill a full-time support role people are calling them out for refusing that role.

A summoned creature killing something is fun for the summoner. A fighter killing something is fun for the fighter. A summoner buffing a fighter as the fighter kills something, well, some people find that fun and some people don't, and people who don't are gonna buff their summoned creature so that their summoned creature kills stuff instead of letting their summon act as a no damage meat bag.

If the summoner was a fighter, the result is the same. No one "supporting" anyone, so why is everyone calling out the summoner for not doing what the fighter is not doing? If a barbarian uses rage to out damage a fighter, are people gonna blame the barbarian for not picking a class that can also give the fighter a rage-like effect? So why are T1s scrutinized for acting like a barbarian?

[Particle_Man]

OP was not blamed by the dm for casting fly on their own wizard character but rather for not preparing a fly or haste and casting sm iii instead.

[ColorBlindNinja]

I've already said it isn't fair for the fighter to make demands or lay the blame on anybody. I like how that goes over both your heads.

Then why are you still arguing?


Yes, that would be a **** move. But you know what? Nothing stopping the wizard from having a wand or something. Why not use their wbl to get one, and oh look, now you've got several spell slots freed up.

So the onus is on the Wizard to cover for her teammates?

Why?

EDIT: Why couldn't the Fighter buy Pearls of Power for the Wizard to use for buffing him, for example?


All I've been trying to say this whole time is you can bitch about how unoptimized the fighter is, or you can put on your big boy(or girl) pants, and throw them a ****ing bone.

Or maybe the Fighter should pull himself up by his bootstraps and cover his own weaknesses?

[RoboEmperor]

I've already said it isn't fair for the fighter to make demands or lay the blame on anybody. I like how that goes over both your heads.

Yes, that would be a **** move. But you know what? Nothing stopping the wizard from having a wand or something. Why not use their wbl to get one, and oh look, now you've got several spell slots freed up. All I've been trying to say this whole time is you can bitch about how unoptimized the fighter is, or you can put on your big boy(or girl) pants, and throw them a ****ing bone.

Alright, I really need to address this.

1. The fighter wants the fly so he should buy the wand for the wizard. Why the **** should the wizard buy the fighter flight when the fighter won't use any of his money on flight?
2. In this scenario the fighter is more optimized than the spellcaster because a summon monster wizard is absolutely atrocious at the level the OP was talking about.

[Crake]

They think the wizard's purpose of existence is to support the mundanes.

To be fair, one of the biggest, if not the biggest wizard fantasy trope is exactly that. Merlin and gandalf, while doing some pretty amazing stuff in their own right, were mostly just support characters for the real hero of the story.

On another note, let's be honest. An item of flight is pretty damn expensive. Looking at the list of necessary magical items, the cheapest, readily-usable-by-anyone-at-any-time flight item is the cloak of the dragon for 10 minutes of flight (speed equal to land speed, so in most cases it will be worse than the flyspell), 1/day for 6000gp, in the shoulders slot. You're looking at 8th level where that's below 1/4 of a character's wbl, or 9th where it drops below 1/6th. At that point and beyond, a 3rd level spell for you shouldn't be a huge deal that you're making such a fuss about it, but before that point, it's hardly fair to expect the fighter to fork out 1/3rd of his wbl at 7th, or 1/2 at 6th for a magical flight item. Honestly, he'd probably be better off just buying a pearl of power for you to get you to cast fly on him, since your fly spell is just flat out better in every way, for a marginal increase in cost, but then, an extra 3rd level slot probably isn't worth much to you, and that 9000gp can go a long way for him. Hell, 9000gp can buy you a +3 heavy shield for +5 AC, or a +3 cloak of resistance to not fail that save vs dominate and turn around to full leap attack power attack charge you and instagib you.

Honestly, in this case, I'd just have to straight up disagree with you, if you're at the point where you think he can afford to buy an flight item, then you're also at the point where a 3rd level spell slot doesn't mean much to you, unless you're multiclassing or something, and his money could be spent better elsewhere.

[RoboEmperor]

On another note, let's be honest. An item of flight is pretty damn expensive. Looking at the list of necessary magical items, the cheapest, readily-usable-by-anyone-at-any-time flight item is the cloak of the dragon for 10 minutes of flight (speed equal to land speed, so in most cases it will be worse than the flyspell), 1/day for 6000gp, in the shoulders slot. You're looking at 8th level where that's below 1/4 of a character's wbl, or 9th where it drops below 1/6th. At that point and beyond, a 3rd level spell for you shouldn't be a huge deal that you're making such a fuss about it, but before that point, it's hardly fair to expect the fighter to fork out 1/3rd of his wbl at 7th, or 1/2 at 6th for a magical flight item. Honestly, he'd probably be better off just buying a pearl of power for you to get you to cast fly on him, since your fly spell is just flat out better in every way, for a marginal increase in cost, but then, an extra 3rd level slot probably isn't worth much to you, and that 9000gp can go a long way for him. Hell, 9000gp can buy you a +3 heavy shield for +5 AC, or a +3 cloak of resistance to not fail that save vs dominate and turn around to full leap attack power attack charge you and instagib you.

Honestly, in this case, I'd just have to straight up disagree with you, if you're at the point where you think he can afford to buy an flight item, then you're also at the point where a 3rd level spell slot doesn't mean much to you, unless you're multiclassing or something, and his money could be spent elsewhere better.

Potion of fly is 750gp.

If we're at a level where 3rd level spell slots matter than longbows should simply be enough to take out whatever flying threat there is. Not wanting to invest in ranged weaponry and forcing the wizard to toss SMIII for fly is unacceptable.

[Crake]

Potion of fly is 750gp.

If we're at a level where 3rd level spell slots matter than longbows should simply be enough to take out whatever flying threat there is. Not wanting to invest in ranged weaponry and forcing the wizard to toss SMIII for fly is unacceptable.

As I said, if we're at the level where 3rd level spells matter, then an encounter should rarely, if ever expect you to be able to fly. I agree with you there, that a longbow should more than suffice. I'll concede the point about the potion of fly, I'll be honest, I kinda forgot they even existed, but at the same time, at low levels 750gp is a lot, and at high levels, i'd rather pay the party wizard 30gp*level for spellcasting services (which comes out cheaper until level 25) for a scaling flight spell, than for a CL5 flight spell that will be dispelled without any effort by a minion's minion at higher levels.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

(Ex) perma-flight only costs 100 gp and some of your racial features. (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/iw/20060105b)

[Crake]

(Ex) perma-flight only costs 100 gp and some of your racial features. (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/iw/20060105b)

You forgot to include the cost of your entire character concept, because now you're playing a blessed creature of goodness following the call to arms of a holy platinum dragon god.

[ColorBlindNinja]

You forgot to include the cost of your entire character concept, because now you're playing a blessed creature of goodness following the call to arms of a holy platinum dragon god.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I think that's an awesome character concept. :smallsmile:

[Crake]

I can't speak for anyone else, but I think that's an awesome character concept. :smallsmile:

Yeah, but it might not necessarily be the character concept you want to play, and shoehorning yourself into that concept "because it gets super cheap flight" gets boring after the first few times I imagine.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Yeah, but it might not necessarily be the character concept you want to play, and shoehorning yourself into that concept "because it gets super cheap flight" gets boring after the first few times I imagine.

Isn't there a graft that gives you EX flight?

People usually take Moment of the Perfect Mind to stop it from turning you evil, IIRC.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

You forgot to include the cost of your entire character concept, because now you're playing a blessed creature of goodness following the call to arms of a holy platinum dragon god.Well, the people the OP are talking about seem to think it's okay to suborn the OP's character concept so they can fly. They should think it's perfectly fine to do the same thing for themselves. [/sarcasm] [/cynicism]

[Crake]

Isn't there a graft that gives you EX flight?

People usually take Moment of the Perfect Mind to stop it from turning you evil, IIRC.

It's also pretty expensive at 10k, plus not everyone wants to burn a feat and, for a fighter, probably half their skill points on getting moment of perfect mind and maxing concentration. Also, not everyone wants to be sporting a pair of demon wings :smalltongue:

Honestly, for flight, I think the opportunity cost for having an item of flight compared to the wizard just preparing a flight spell pretty squarely leans in favour of the wizard just preparing a flight spell. I mean, let's be honest, you all have spontaneous divination to convert that fly spell into something useful like clairaudience/clairvoyance to peek behind that door, or tongues to talk to interrogate that enemy you just captured, right? Or hell, if you're a conjuration expert, get the ACF that lets you spontaneously convert spells into summons.


Well, the people the OP are talking about seem to think it's okay to suborn the OP's character concept so they can fly. They should think it's perfectly fine to do the same thing for themselves. [/cynicism]

If the loss of a single 3rd level spell slot results in the destruction of your concept.... Either you're at 5th level where the fighter can hardly be expected to afford an item of fly and you're fighting something pretty tough that you presumably learned about beforehand, or you're not fighting things that require flight to beat, so the fighter isn't asking you to cast fly. Besides, at that level, dragonborn wouldn't even be giving you flight anyway.

[Cosi]

even if it's not your character concept, because you are the only one with access to those abilities.

So should we also ask the Fighter to bend his character concept some to support our characters? Or does only the Fighter get to play exactly the character he wants, and everyone else has to bend around him?


Maybe he didn't want his mundane mercenary fighter to be able to fly out of nowhere.

He clearly does want his character to fly, otherwise he wouldn't be asking the Wizard to cast fly on him. What he doesn't want is to have to spend his own resources on flying, because he's selfish.


To be fair, one of the biggest, if not the biggest wizard fantasy trope is exactly that. Merlin and gandalf, while doing some pretty amazing stuff in their own right, were mostly just support characters for the real hero of the story.

But there are also a bunch of stories where the Wizard is the hero of the story, and the Wizard doesn't do any buffing. Like Harry Potter. Telling people they have to play their character in a particular way because the characters you associate with their class behave in that way is nonsense.

[Crake]

So should we also ask the Fighter to bend his character concept some to support our characters? Or does only the Fighter get to play exactly the character he wants, and everyone else has to bend around him?

Characters don't exist in a vacuum. The fighter is making sacrifices in other areas, like holding back to defend the wizard when he'd instead rather dive in and cleave that juicy cluster of enemies. At least, I presume he would be in a co-operative game. But that said, the fighter lacks character resources that he can re-allocate or use on other characters, simply due to it's nature. The wizard on the other hand has no lasting issue with preparing flight for that one fight where you'll need it, or hell, with some method of spontaneous conversion, preparing it might not even be an issue.


He clearly does want his character to fly, otherwise he wouldn't be asking the Wizard to cast fly on him. What he doesn't want is to have to spend his own resources on flying, because he's selfish.

The main difference here is the opportunity cost in question. It's much more expensive for a fighter to obtain flight than it is to just have the wizard cast fly on him using a small portion of his daily resources, this becomes even more so apparent for fights where flight will have little to no effect. For those fights, the wizard has other spells he can cast, while the fighter may as well be running around with thousands of gp less in gear.


But there are also a bunch of stories where the Wizard is the hero of the story, and the Wizard doesn't do any buffing. Like Harry Potter. Telling people they have to play their character in a particular way because the characters you associate with their class behave in that way is nonsense.

Yes, but what do you notice about stories like Harry Potter? Literally everyone is a wizard. Is there even a single muggle character of significance in those stories?

[Kesnit]

If we're at a level where 3rd level spell slots matter than longbows should simply be enough to take out whatever flying threat there is. Not wanting to invest in ranged weaponry and forcing the wizard to toss SMIII for fly is unacceptable.

What use is a bow to a DEX 12 Fighter? A bow that, once bought, can only be sold for half-price. A bow that is taking funds away from other items, like improving armor or weapon.

In contrast, your Wizard can cast Fly today, and SMIII tomorrow for no loss.

[Cosi]

Characters don't exist in a vacuum. The fighter is making sacrifices in other areas, like holding back to defend the wizard when he'd instead rather dive in and cleave that juicy cluster of enemies. At least, I presume he would be in a co-operative game. But that said, the fighter lacks character resources that he can re-allocate or use on other characters, simply due to it's nature. The wizard on the other hand has no lasting issue with preparing flight for that one fight where you'll need it, or hell, with some method of spontaneous conversion, preparing it might not even be an issue.

But again, every option available to the Wizard was also available to the Fighter. The Fighter could have played a DMM:Persistent Cleric and had enough buffs to contribute in melee on his own while still having utility and support spells for the rest of the party. He chose not to do that because it didn't fit his character concept (or even some less extreme version like a Barblade with white raven tactics). If he's allowed to do that without the Wizard complaining, he damn well better not complain when the Wizard says that their character concept doesn't include casting buff spells on him. If you make it about effectiveness, it is no longer justifiable to play a Fighter in a game where you could play any of a dozen more effective melee builds.


Yes, but what do you notice about stories like Harry Potter? Literally everyone is a wizard. Is there even a single muggle character of significance in those stories?

Well, yes, I would imagine that in the story set in a magic school where people learn to do magic there wouldn't be anyone who doesn't do magic. But the principle applies to other stories as well. Obviously any story where there are both mundane (or, more accurately, martial) characters and mages, there are going to be some scenes where the mundane character gets support from the mage, but there are plenty of series where mages are unambiguously main characters rather than buffbots. For example, the other modern fantasy series about a wizard named Harry.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

If the loss of a single 3rd level spell slot results in the destruction of your concept.... Either you're at 5th level where the fighter can hardly be expected to afford an item of fly and you're fighting something pretty tough that you presumably learned about beforehand, or you're not fighting things that require flight to beat, so the fighter isn't asking you to cast fly. Besides, at that level, dragonborn wouldn't even be giving you flight anyway.Fly was only one spell out of many the fighter will demand, else the OP wouldn't be nearly as irate. The point is, if he can demand that the OP has to spend all of his resources buffing him, the fighter should be fine with completely changing his character to get those things, instead. Right? That's what he's demanding that someone else do, after all -- be a buff-bot with most of his spell-slots, instead of whatever else said caster wanted to be.

[ColorBlindNinja]

The main difference here is the opportunity cost in question. It's much more expensive for a fighter to obtain flight than it is to just have the wizard cast fly on him using a small portion of his daily resources

More expensive in terms of gold perhaps, but action economy?

By level 10, every class should be capable of flying independently.

[Stryyke]

I don't think either player is wrong (or both are depending on your Point of View). Let me add something that may be useful to the OP for future gaming.

One or both player in this scenario are guilty of not considering the team composition when doing character creation. A character that creates a fighter in a high optimization group is out of place. A wizard who optimizes in a low optimization group is out of place. If players are making characters without considering things like "How optimized is this game going to be," and "What does the group need to succeed," will inevitably make the game less fun for everyone.

When I sit down at a table, I have a series of expectations. I have characters I'd like to play in mind. When I meet the group, my first questions is "What does the group need." Once I know what the team needs, I figure out how to play what I want, while being a team player. If there are a bunch of Tier 1 and 2 characters, I don't plan on building a bugbasic fighter. If everyone is building a bunch of Tier 3-4 characters, I don't build a a lone Wolf Tier 1 character.

So my advice for the OP is to vet the games you join better.

[Troacctid]

Well, yes, I would imagine that in the story set in a magic school where people learn to do magic there wouldn't be anyone who doesn't do magic. But the principle applies to other stories as well. Obviously any story where there are both mundane (or, more accurately, martial) characters and mages, there are going to be some scenes where the mundane character gets support from the mage, but there are plenty of series where mages are unambiguously main characters rather than buffbots. For example, the other modern fantasy series about a wizard named Harry.
Hmm. Looking at some of the books on my shelf, let's see. Animorphs, they all have powers, but they do work together and support each other. The Seventh Tower, two protagonists, one is a mage, one is a warrior; they take turns carrying each other through different parts of the series. Sabriel, protagonist is a necromancer, doesn't have much in the way of buffs, although she does have some friendly fire effects that she avoids using if they would hurt her allies. The Dresden Files, protagonist is a wizard with muggle friends, sucks at buff spells, but he and his friends do work together and watch each other's backs. Time Spiral trilogy, protagonist is a planeswalker, spends most of the book using his planeswalker magic to support and protect his non-planeswalker allies. The Dreaming Dark trilogy, only one of the protagonists is an artificer, but she often uses her infusions to support the rest of the party, including healing her warforged friend. October Daye, pretty much all the main characters are fey, but they all have different power suites and they do support each other.

Seems like at least in the kind of fiction I've been reading, buffing magic is not a prevalent trope, but teamwork in general definitely is.


What use is a bow to a DEX 12 Fighter? A bow that, once bought, can only be sold for half-price. A bow that is taking funds away from other items, like improving armor or weapon.
I agree. That's what slings are for. No gp cost, one-handed, and you always add your Strength to the damage.


More expensive in terms of gold perhaps, but action economy?

By level 10, every class should be capable of flying independently.
Flight items are expensive! Even the cheapest action-efficient sources of flight are still likely to represent more than 20% of your total WBL at 10th level.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Flight items are expensive!

I'd rather spend gold than actions.


Even the cheapest action-efficient sources of flight are still likely to represent more than 20% of your total WBL at 10th level.

The cheapest I could find at the moment is the Amber Amulet of Vermin: Giant Wasp (MIC) and it cost 800 GP.

EDIT: It summons a giant wasp for you to ride on, from the sound of it.

[nighteyes95]

Being somebody that plays spellcasters often in regards to the fly spell I normally just ask the fighter what they're carrying capacity is and ask the DM if I can ride on their shoulders as long as we're the appropriate size to do it so and I succeed a ride check

[ColorBlindNinja]

Being somebody that plays spellcasters often in regards to the fly spell I normally just ask the fighter what they're carrying capacity is and ask the DM if I can ride on their shoulders as long as we're the appropriate size to do it so and I succeed a ride check

The Fighter as a mount...

I find this funnier than I should, in all honestly. :smallbiggrin:

[Erloas]

You have to take into account what people want and expect out of the game.

For instance, Cosi's ideal game is a cleric, druid, and wizard. And if someone doesn't want to play a full caster they should play a bard, but they need to be a highly optimized bard so they don't bring the team down, and anyone that can't cast spells just shouldn't exist. Fine for his game, but not a good way to design a game for most people.

The OP acted like the fighter was being super selfish by buying magic weapons and armor over things like flight and freedom of movement. Without those magic weapons and armor the fighter can't do much of anything, even if they had flight and freedom of movement. Now if they're putting 95% of their WBL into just AC and damage that would be a different issue. But a fighter can only buy so many items at once. Just because you're playing a class that doesn't need much from items doesn't mean you can simply discount that other classes do need items to be effective.

The implied level seems like these buff spells would be mid to low slots for the caster, rather than their top spell slots. If you're complaining about using what are essentially "utility spell slots" for the utility of the party, then it sounds like you're the problem. Granted asking for buffs *can* get out of hand, but given that it is "happening all the time from different players and GMs" it seems the real problem is the common denominate, the OP, not everyone else.

The fighter's role in a party is not the same as the wizards, even if they're both built to be "blasters/attackers." While the fighter can't cast a buff, that doesn't mean he isn't helping the team when he's keeping ranged attackers from targeting weaker party members, or distracting melee fighters to give his own ranged teammates space to work. The game is asymmetrical in design, and expecting each class's "teamwork" to look exactly the same is being willfully dense.

[Crake]

So I was writing a bunch of replies only to come to a realization. The issue here isn't the wizard and the fighter, it's the lack of a session 0 and setting player expectations. Let's face it, a fighter and a wizard can really only coexist where the wizard is the support role in combat. This is because the fighter's literal only use is combat, so if the wizard takes the leading role in combat, the fighter's only ability is invalidated, and then the wizard just takes over in all aspects.

So the issue here is that a summoning wizard and a fighter should never have existed in the same party to begin with. However, once this reality had become a fact, the fighter lacked the ability to change while the wizard had total capability to change, simply by virtue of being able to prepare whatever spells they want. This is likely why the DM was siding with the fighter, as to make best of the circumstance, either the fighter has to sacrifice his concept of being a valliant hero to being the wizard's towelboy, or the wizard has to sacrifice his concept of all powerful mage who summons things to being the all powerful mage who empowers the valiant hero. Lets face it, at most, half of the wizard's spells were summoning spells, the other half were likely utility or BFC spells, so at most 50% of the mage's "build" is summoning, so for the mage to change, they're only really sacrificing half of their concept, meanwhile the fighter going from hero to towelboy is 100% of their concept. The compromise is the wizard sacrificing some of his summoning spells to buff the fighter, so he becomes 75% of what he was gonna be anyway, while the fighter goes from hero to wizard's sidekick, at maybe 50% of what he was gonna be.

Ideally though, the players would have come together in a session 0, and discussed between the two of them their character ideas, and settled on something that wasn't so conflicting, and something that innately worked well together as a team.

Alternatively, they could have done what my players do, and that's make their characters in a vacuum, and endlessly complain at each other for the bad decisions they make, all in good fun.

[Troacctid]

The cheapest I could find at the moment is the Amber Amulet of Vermin: Giant Wasp (MIC) and it cost 800 GP.

EDIT: It summons a giant wasp for you to ride on, from the sound of it.
And it's not at all action-efficient. Standard action to summon, move action to mount.

[Cosi]

Seems like at least in the kind of fiction I've been reading, buffing magic is not a prevalent trope, but teamwork in general definitely is.

Demanding someone else spend time and effort helping you and offering nothing in return isn't teamwork, it's parasitism.


For instance, Cosi's ideal game is a cleric, druid, and wizard. And if someone doesn't want to play a full caster they should play a bard, but they need to be a highly optimized bard so they don't bring the team down, and anyone that can't cast spells just shouldn't exist. Fine for his game, but not a good way to design a game for most people.

You know if you're going to lie about what I believe, you could just say "some people" instead of calling me out by name to lie about the things I want from the game.

I have never said I want everyone to be casters, or cast spells, or anything like that.

I have repeatedly said that I want everyone -- including martial characters -- to have abilities that are as broadly relevant as casters.

In conclusion, Erloas's ideal game is one in which no one has any abilities at all, and anyone who suggests that characters might do anything is cast out into the outer darkness.

[Jack_McSnatch]

I'm still arguing because in this scenario, BOTH players are being selfish jerks. The fighter isn't entitled to all the wizard's spells, but asking for one or two measly buffs isn't unreasonable, and certainly not the grave offense people are taking it as.

Asking the fighter to spend his wbl on the wizard is extremwly selfish. We all know fighters need magic weapons and armor to stay relevant. By telling him to spend his wbl on pearls of power, or wands, is asking him to deliberately gimp himself before you'll deign him worthy of your pitiful level 2-3 buff spells.

Asking the fighter what he can do in return for your buffs is just being deliberately obtuse. The wizard can fulfill just about any role, simply by preparibg the right spells. A fighter can only ever fight.

[Crake]

Demanding someone else spend time and effort helping you and offering nothing in return isn't teamwork, it's parasitism.

At the same time, demanding you play a character that completely overshadows another without any intention of doing anything to support them, in fact literally stating that you want to completely invalidate them for having the gall to ask you to cast some spells to support them from your ivory tower isn't teamwork either, it's egoism.

As I said earlier, this is neither the fighter's fault, nor the wizard's fault, it's both of their faults for coming to the table with conflicting characters. In this case though, the fighter lacks any capability to change and adjust to the situation, while the wizard has all the power in the world to change and adapt, so once the disfunction was made apparent, there's only one character that has any agency to do anything about it, and refusing to do so sounds like poor teamwork to me.

[Cosi]

Asking the fighter what he can do in return for your buffs is just being deliberately obtuse. The wizard can fulfill just about any role, simply by preparibg the right spells. A fighter can only ever fight.

And there we have it: the Fighter is entitled to his concept, you aren't. Because he sucks you have to play a way you don't want to play. If he had been minimally competent, you would be allowed to play the way you want. But because he sucks you have to change the way you play your character, and if you don't you're selfish.

That's nonsense. There is exactly one selfish player here: the one who built a character that couldn't do everything they wanted their character to do, then insisted the rest of the party cover for them.

[Mechalich]

With regards to buffs, this is part of a general problem with 3.X D&D. Beyond a fairly low level threshold, around 8th if not earlier, it becomes expected that a character will have magical effects - stat buffs, defenses, perceptive effects, and others - active at all times. At the same time, several classes have exactly zero natural means to acquire these effects. Nor is spending money on items to have an external effect a good option when these same classes are intended to expend their entire WBL on flat bonus generators and the array of effects is suitably variable that it is impossible to properly prepare for everything one needs.

A Tier I caster can swap out entire buff suites at functionally no cost between rests. They can switch spec from 'underwater explorer' to 'demon slayer' to 'fey negotiator' with the equivalent of a snap of the fingers. Very few lower tier classes can do this or if they can it is through use of spells like planar binding that generate alternative ways to cast spells, which is bypassing the issue. For a fighter to make a similar switch requires tens of thousands of GP if it can be done at all.

So to some degree these 'teamwork' issues are being produced by a game-design problem, and the solutions requiring tweaking the design. I notice that these sort of complaints tend to hinge very heavily on fighters or barbarians and much less on rogues, which seems to be because Rogues have UMD and can acquire their own essential buffs that way. Do anyone have experience just freely giving Fighters, Barbarians, and similar classes free level-maxed UMD as a possible fix?

[zlefin]

I'm still arguing because in this scenario, BOTH players are being selfish jerks. The fighter isn't entitled to all the wizard's spells, but asking for one or two measly buffs isn't unreasonable, and certainly not the grave offense people are taking it as.

Asking the fighter to spend his wbl on the wizard is extremwly selfish. We all know fighters need magic weapons and armor to stay relevant. By telling him to spend his wbl on pearls of power, or wands, is asking him to deliberately gimp himself before you'll deign him worthy of your pitiful level 2-3 buff spells.

Asking the fighter what he can do in return for your buffs is just being deliberately obtuse. The wizard can fulfill just about any role, simply by preparibg the right spells. A fighter can only ever fight.

you're still largely arguing against a strawman then, rather than the actual situation presented.

it's also not obtuse to ask what the fighter is bringing to help. part of forming a team is that everyone should provide some useful contribution.

[Jack_McSnatch]

And there we have it: the Fighter is entitled to his concept, you aren't. Because he sucks you have to play a way you don't want to play. If he had been minimally competent, you would be allowed to play the way you want. But because he sucks you have to change the way you play your character, and if you don't you're selfish.

That's nonsense. There is exactly one selfish player here: the one who built a character that couldn't do everything they wanted their character to do, then insisted the rest of the party cover for them.

I never said the wizard had to give up their concept, but that is EXACTLY what you're asking the fighter to do. I said prepare ONE OR TWO buff spells out of the literal DOZENS of spells you have available to you.

[ColorBlindNinja]

And it's not at all action-efficient. Standard action to summon, move action to mount.

No, that's the cheap option. It also doesn't require the Wizard to spend an action buffing the Fighter when there's something more useful she could be doing.

[Cosi]

@Mechalich: I don't think it's so much UMD as any skills at all. Diplomacy and Appraise aren't an equal trade for teleport and scrying, but they are anything at all, and that's more than the Fighter brings to the table. I don't think the Rogue is actually in a great spot, but it's in a much better spot than the Fighter, because it can offer anything in return for getting buffs. The Fighter needs to bring something to the table. It doesn't even have to be something major. I would consider a Bardblade with white raven tactics, DFI, and maybe a utility spell like charm person or alter self to be offering enough to the rest of the party that I would no longer consider asking for buffs unreasonable.


I never said the wizard had to give up their concept, but that is EXACTLY what you're asking the fighter to do. I said prepare ONE OR TWO buff spells out of the literal DOZENS of spells you have available to you.

And the Fighter could take one or two levels of Warblade and have white raven tactics at his disposal, which would give him anything at all to offer the Wizard. Or he could (for the vast majority of concepts) have built a character that had some casting, and thus some actual useful abilities. Unless your concept is specifically "doesn't have supernatural abilities" -- and I that case your concept is "is low level" -- there's some way it could be built that brings something to the table for the rest of the party. Frankly, I would accept a pretty lopsided rate of exchange. But a zero rate of exchange is a joke, and anyone who proposes it should not be taken seriously.

[Crake]

And there we have it: the Fighter is entitled to his concept, you aren't. Because he sucks you have to play a way you don't want to play. If he had been minimally competent, you would be allowed to play the way you want. But because he sucks you have to change the way you play your character, and if you don't you're selfish.

That's nonsense. There is exactly one selfish player here: the one who built a character that couldn't do everything they wanted their character to do, then insisted the rest of the party cover for them.

Or maybe there was poor communication before the start of the game and the wizard literally just said "i'm playing a wizard" and the fighter made his character under the assumption that the wizard would be a generic wizard who would be able to cast a few buffs here and there.

The reality is, sacrificing a handful of spell slots doesn't invalidate the wizard's concept, but that's not what the real issue is here, is it? The issue is that the two concepts conflict with one another. One wants to play a summoner who summons minions to combat the enemy's forces toe to toe, while the other wants to play a valiant warrior who fights the enemy's forces toe to toe. There's only enough toe-room for so much toe to toe fighting, and naturally the wizard is capable of much more than just toe to toe fighting via summons, so we end up in a situation where the wizard is infringing on the fighter's only capability, while the fighter is infringing on only part of the wizard's capability.

I feel like I'm just on repeat here, but the wizard's concept isn't lost simply by the use of a few spell slots to buff others, but ultimately, these characters just don't work together, and the issue was lack of communication and expectation setting.


And the Fighter could take one or two levels of Warblade and have white raven tactics at his disposal, which would give him anything at all to offer the Wizard. Or he could (for the vast majority of concepts) have built a character that had some casting, and thus some actual useful abilities. Unless your concept is specifically "doesn't have supernatural abilities" -- and I that case your concept is "is low level" -- there's some way it could be built that brings something to the table for the rest of the party. Frankly, I would accept a pretty lopsided rate of exchange. But a zero rate of exchange is a joke, and anyone who proposes it should not be taken seriously.

How about "takes the HP damage instead of you" as something to offer?

[Jack_McSnatch]

@Mechalich: I don't think it's so much UMD as any skills at all. Diplomacy and Appraise aren't an equal trade for teleport and scrying, but they are anything at all, and that's more than the Fighter brings to the table. I don't think the Rogue is actually in a great spot, but it's in a much better spot than the Fighter, because it can offer anything in return for getting buffs. The Fighter needs to bring something to the table. It doesn't even have to be something major. I would consider a Bardblade with white raven tactics, DFI, and maybe a utility spell like charm person or alter self to be offering enough to the rest of the party that I would no longer consider asking for buffs unreasonable.



And the Fighter could take one or two levels of Warblade and have white raven tactics at his disposal, which would give him anything at all to offer the Wizard. Or he could (for the vast majority of concepts) have built a character that had some casting, and thus some actual useful abilities. Unless your concept is specifically "doesn't have supernatural abilities" -- and I that case your concept is "is low level" -- there's some way it could be built that brings something to the table for the rest of the party. Frankly, I would accept a pretty lopsided rate of exchange. But a zero rate of exchange is a joke, and anyone who proposes it should not be taken seriously.

So it's a-ok to infringe on his character concept because it's sub-optimal, but god forbid we infringe on a concept that doesn't even need to be changed to cast two whole buff spells a day?

Edit: what crake said. Basically everything crake has said.

[Cosi]

Or maybe there was poor communication before the start of the game and the wizard literally just said "i'm playing a wizard" and the fighter made his character under the assumption that the wizard would be a generic wizard who would be able to cast a few buffs here and there.

That's an issue. But it still isn't reasonable to build a character that expects to get buffs in exchange for nothing. Even if I knew the Wizard was going to be a War Weaver specced to buff everyone, I would still build a character who could provide some capability for the rest of the party. The Fighter is in the wrong here, even if there are mitigating circumstances.


The issue is that the two concepts conflict with one another. One wants to play a summoner who summons minions to combat the enemy's forces toe to toe, while the other wants to play a valiant warrior who fights the enemy's forces toe to toe.

I don't see any conflict at the conceptual level. Unless you think there's an implicit "does all the toe to toe fighting" in either of those concepts, it's totally possible to have both a summoner and a frontliner in the same party. The problem is that the Fighter is a bad frontliner.


the wizard is infringing on the fighter's only capability, while the fighter is infringing on only part of the wizard's capability.

And again, this is a Fighter problem. He built a character that isn't adaptable. What if instead of a Wizard, the other character was a Warblade, who was also narrowly specced to frontline combat, and also able to overshadow the Fighter in that niche?


I feel like I'm just on repeat here, but the wizard's concept isn't lost simply by the use of a few spell slots to buff others, but ultimately, these characters just don't work together, and the issue was lack of communication and expectation setting.

And neither would the Fighter concept be lost by investing enough levels (read: one) in Warblade to get white raven tactics. If he didn't do that, he has no right to expect anything more from the rest of the party. I'm not saying it has to be an equal exchange, just that "you give me something, I give you zero" is not reasonable.


So it's a-ok to infringe on his character concept because it's sub-optimal, but god forbid we infringe on a concept that doesn't even need to be changed to cast two whole buff spells a day?

What you do with your characters's resources doesn't infringe on other people's concepts. Their concept does not have any access to your resources, so nothing you do with them can infringe on it.

[DdarkED]

does he actually have a way to force that to happen? force monsters to not target the caster? i believe most martial's dont actually do what you want/think they can.

[Jack_McSnatch]

What you do with your characters's resources doesn't infringe on other people's concepts. Their concept does not have any access to your resources, so nothing you do with them can infringe on it.

But that isn't the point. The point is you're demanding the fighter change his character concept because it isn't very good. You're asking him to become the buffer, when he just wanted to be the beatstick.

[nighteyes95]

The Fighter as a mount...

I find this funnier than I should, in all honestly. :smallbiggrin:

It makes us both personally invested in their safety and 9 times out of 10 I'm the shape of a fuzzy animal so I pretend to be a familiar and outside of suicidal choices I don't care where they go

[Jack_McSnatch]

It makes us both personally invested in their safety and 9 times out of 10 I'm the shape of a fuzzy animal so I pretend to be a familiar and outside of suicidal choices I don't care where they go

I love this idea, and am absolutely gonna make this my next character

[ColorBlindNinja]

does he actually have a way to force that to happen? force monsters to not target the caster? i believe most martial's dont actually do what you want/think they can.

This is sadly correct.

A trip/lockdown build helps with this sort of thing. And the Crusader and Knight can force people to target them instead of their friends, to a degree.

Otherwise, there's no reason for intelligent monsters to attack him rather than his allies.

[nighteyes95]

I love this idea, and am absolutely gonna make this my next character
It's best to make sure at least one other player is on board with the idea otherwise you just shape-shifted and look tasty

[Cosi]

But that isn't the point. The point is you're demanding the fighter change his character concept because it isn't very good. You're asking him to become the buffer, when he just wanted to be the beatstick.

Yeah: beatstick. Not: buff receiver. He can beat all he wants. What he can't do is demand something for nothing. If it's vital to his character concept to not buff people, why can't it be vital to mine?

[ExLibrisMortis]

But that isn't the point. The point is you're demanding the fighter change his character concept because it isn't very good.
The problem is not that the beatstick concept isn't good. The problem is that the fighter didn't take the abilities that let them be a competent beatstick. Plain fighter levels just don't do that. Initiators, totemists, bards, paladins, druids, psychic warriors, and other such classes do have the abilities to be a beatstick, but a plain fighter does not. Yes, it's a confusing and arguably stupid part of 3.5, but that's the way it is (at a sufficiently high level of optimization, i.e. anything past vanilla WotC charop past level five).

[Galacktic]

Yeah: beatstick. Not: buff receiver. He can beat all he wants. What he can't do is demand something for nothing. If it's vital to his character concept to not buff people, why can't it be vital to mine?

I think that you could stand to come across as much less of a **** in the way you post.

On topic: I think that Fighters and Summoner Wizards -can- exist in the same party, and it's not unreasonable at all to ask for occasional buffs as a mundane sort. I've happily provided such as a caster -and- asked for things - Freedom of Movement for instance when we knew we were going up against something with a paralyzing gaze, Fly for a dragon before I could afford it myself, etc. It's literally one, maybe two spell slots out of your dozens.

If you're a prepared caster with no forewarning? Sure, that's fair, I understand. But if we have warning, and ostensibly our characters are friends, they have reasons to help each other. And hell, I'm friends with every person at my table and we all have a single golden rule: Don't be *****. That's it. I think a good 98% of this thread could stand to read that rule at this point, because god forbid people playing a social game are asked to play together more nicely - and this goes for both the mundane and the caster in the OP.

[Jack_McSnatch]

Yeah: beatstick. Not: buff receiver. He can beat all he wants. What he can't do is demand something for nothing. If it's vital to his character concept to not buff people, why can't it be vital to mine?

To my knowledge the terms are synonymous but alright. We're talking about a summoner here, so what summoner in their right mind doesn't have buff spells anyway? It comes with the territory. Persist spell, summon creature, buff creature. Now what's stopping you from giving the fighter some love too?

[Crake]

That's an issue. But it still isn't reasonable to build a character that expects to get buffs in exchange for nothing. Even if I knew the Wizard was going to be a War Weaver specced to buff everyone, I would still build a character who could provide some capability for the rest of the party. The Fighter is in the wrong here, even if there are mitigating circumstances.

The fighter provides capability in the form of sustained melee damage as well as body blocking potential. Capability for the party is not necessarily capability to an individual. The fighter doesn't need to buff the wizard to bring value to the party, and likewise the wizard doesn't need to buff the fighter to bring value to the party, but he can, while the fighter cannot. Asking what value the fighter can bring to the wizard specifically rather than the party as a whole is intentionally missing the point of teamwork.


I don't see any conflict at the conceptual level. Unless you think there's an implicit "does all the toe to toe fighting" in either of those concepts, it's totally possible to have both a summoner and a frontliner in the same party. The problem is that the Fighter is a bad frontliner.

The fact that they are both frontliners inherently means there is a conflict. There's only so much toe to toe fighting to go around, and one person generally is more than enough to cover the role.


And again, this is a Fighter problem. He built a character that isn't adaptable. What if instead of a Wizard, the other character was a Warblade, who was also narrowly specced to frontline combat, and also able to overshadow the Fighter in that niche?

In this case the issue would be the same. The warblade and fighter didn't communicate, one character built a flat out better version than the other. The issue here is that warblades lack the capability to flat out change their entire loadout like the wizard can, so there's no room to compromise. Also: Implying that tome of battle is necessarily an option at the table, or that the players are even aware it exists. Not everyone has the same system knowledge as the average playgrounder, and not every game is played with the same limitations as the ones you might have.


And neither would the Fighter concept be lost by investing enough levels (read: one) in Warblade to get white raven tactics. If he didn't do that, he has no right to expect anything more from the rest of the party. I'm not saying it has to be an equal exchange, just that "you give me something, I give you zero" is not reasonable.

See above regarding tome of battle. How does "taking damage instead of you" rank in terms of exchange? And the exchange shouldn't be between party members, it should be what the individuals have to offer to the team.


What you do with your characters's resources doesn't infringe on other people's concepts. Their concept does not have any access to your resources, so nothing you do with them can infringe on it.

That's a very individualist view on the game, not everyone plays the game in such a manner, has that occured to you? Has it ever occured to you that perhaps the fighter has played in previous games with other players where they pooled their character resources and used them together as a team? The notion of the whole being greater than the sum of it's parts might be a philosophy that the fighter has grown accustomed to, and has built his character with the notion of teamwork in mind? Has it occured to you that maybe the fighter considers his character's reliance on the wizard's magic as much a flaw to his character as the wizard having to spend spell slots considers it a flaw to their character, but thinks that teamwork and specialization is better than everyone being a jack of all trades? Maybe he would rather spend his money on fun things like being able to fly, but he knows that that would make his character less effective and thus he takes it on the chin and relies on the wizard to cast it on him when he can?

I mean, taking this notion to it's logical conclusion: Nobody should rely on the cleric to cast heals, everyone should invest in UMD and buy their own wands of lesser vigor, hope you don't roll a 1 while healing! Nobody should rely on the rogue or the fighter to deal damage, everyone should be able to deal with their individual opponents equally, hope you prepared combat spells for the day! Nobody should rely on the wizard to cast utility spells, everyone should spend their money on utility items to shore up their weaknesses, hope you brought the right peg for the hole! Oh, I know! Why doesn't everyone go off into their own dungeon and take care of everything themselves? That way we can get quadruple the loot, I mean, nobody's using anyone elses resources, we're all operating independantly of each other, why are we even working together?

Now obviously that's all a bit hyperbolic, but to imply that nobody should rely on one another in a team game is just flat out wrong, and your insistence that the fighter brings nothing to the table because he doesn't do something for the wizard specifically, even though he's clearly bringing skills to the party as a whole, is a very selfish view to have. "I won't cast spells on you if you don't do something for me" well, I guess "I won't stop the monsters from getting to you unless you do something for me" would be the natural response. Sure, the wizard could probably summon some monsters to perform the job, but for significantly fewer encouters per day, because that's not something sustainable, unlike a fighter who can be very cheaply healed between encounters.


does he actually have a way to force that to happen? force monsters to not target the caster? i believe most martial's dont actually do what you want/think they can.

You'd be surprised with what some decent positioning will get out of your frontliner.

[Stryyke]

I see a lot of people here arguing that a single person's character concept is the be-all-end-all in D&D. This couldn't be further from the truth! Party survival is the #1 consideration. In a standard game, if anything else precedes that, you are thinking of single player video games, not TTRPGs.

When you are part of a group, if you aren't thinking about what's best for the group, you are holding the group back . . . even if you are the most op character ever made.

It sounds like there isn't a lot of pre-campaign coordination in games the OP takes part in, and that all these issues could have been resolved if the group had a good Session 0. In campaigns where you start a game blind, people fall into certain roles based on need. If that's not what you want, have a good Session 0.

[Crake]

I see a lot of people here arguing that a single person's character concept is the be-all-end-all in D&D. This couldn't be further from the truth! Party survival is the #1 consideration. In a standard game, if anything else precedes that, you are thinking of single player video games, not TTRPGs.

When you are part of a group, if you aren't thinking about what's best for the group, you are holding the group back . . . even if you are the most op character ever made.

It sounds like there isn't a lot of pre-campaign coordination in games the OP takes part in, and that all these issues could have been resolved if the group had a good Session 0. In campaigns where you start a game blind, people fall into certain roles based on need. If that's not what you want, have a good Session 0.

This is perhaps the most succinct way of saying what I've been trying to say for the last page or so of this thread.

[Cosi]

To my knowledge the terms are synonymous but alright. We're talking about a summoner here, so what summoner in their right mind doesn't have buff spells anyway? It comes with the territory. Persist spell, summon creature, buff creature. Now what's stopping you from giving the fighter some love too?

Presumably the same thing that's stopping the Fighter from dipping Warblade for white raven tactics. The situation is symmetric. Either both players are obligated to bend their concepts to support the other, or neither is. There is no coherent framework where only the Wizard has to spend resources supporting other characters.


The fighter doesn't need to buff the wizard to bring value to the party, and likewise the wizard doesn't need to buff the fighter to bring value to the party, but he can, while the fighter cannot.

Okay, so why is it selfish to play your character in a way that doesn't provide buffs for others, but not selfish to build your character in a way that doesn't provide buffs for others? Why is it a problem that the Wizard opts to spend his 3rd level spell slots on summon monster III, but not a problem that the Fighter opts to not even have any maneuvers to spend on white raven tactics?


tome of battle is necessarily an option at the table

Cleric is always an option at the table. And, no, you don't have to play a Cleric. Maybe that conflicts with your character concept. That's fine. But if you want to use that excuse, you have to accept it from the Wizard. It cannot be okay to refuse to have resources, but not okay to refuse to use them. That position is not coherent.


How does "taking damage instead of you" rank in terms of exchange? And the exchange shouldn't be between party members, it should be what the individuals have to offer to the team.

The Wizard is a summoner. If he does, as you suggest, have frontlining covered, the Fighter is not "taking damage instead of him", he's "turning damage we don't need to heal into damage we need to heal". Or, yet another drain on resources he does nothing to replenish.


Now obviously that's all a bit hyperbolic,

It's not "a bit hyperbolic", it's "a total strawman". You've conflated "it's not okay to demand the party give you buffs and offer nothing in return" with "every character must be entirely self-sufficient". I've said that if the Fighter had white raven tactics -- a maneuver that uses an action type he currently does not, and would cost him all of "one bonus feat" to obtain -- I would consider that sufficient to no longer be unreasonable in asking for support. I'm not saying he has to make a DMM Cleric instead of a Fighter, I'm asking that he do anything at all to provide support for the rest of the party. Not an equal amount to the Wizard. Not a lot. Just more than zero.


fighter brings nothing to the table because he doesn't do something for the wizard specifically

The Fighter is demanding that the Wizard specifically do something for him specifically. It is entirely reasonable to expect that he reciprocate. Again, this is a completely symmetric solution. If you have the right to give nothing, I have the right to give nothing. If I don't have that right, neither do you.


"I won't stop the monsters from getting to you unless you do something for me"

Not symmetric. The Fighter doesn't meaningfully "stop monsters". He does damage. Refusing to do damage would be like refusing to cast spells at all, which the Wizard is not doing. He's just saying that he should be able to choose which spells his character casts. Which seems entirely reasonable, seeing as it's his character.

[Crake]

I'm not saying he has to make a DMM Cleric instead of a Fighter, I'm asking that he do anything at all to provide support for the rest of the party. Not an equal amount to the Wizard. Not a lot. Just more than zero.

You keep circling back around to this, so I want to make it clear: Literally everything each party member does is providing support for the rest of the party. Unless the fighter is literally doing nothing at all, he is providing support, be it in damage, in soaking damage, or straight up mitigating damage with AC that's superior to the wizard's summons.

The point I was making about yes the wizard can get by without the fighter to protect him, but to a lesser degree, because he has to spend more spells in encounters to hold the front line, this is likewise juxtaposed by the fighter being able to get by without the wizard by just buying an item of fly, but to a lesser degree because his relevant combat gear is weaker. Alternatively, the wizard can spare one spell in his massive arsenal, while the fighter can give up a level of his independance, a penalty for the both of them, and they can both be stronger together, a larger benefit for the both of them.

[Troacctid]

Also, it seems completely unreasonable to automatically assume that every wizard is a summoner and every fighter is a Fighter 20. Any argument based on that assumption is just ridiculous.

[Quertus]

The Playground has disappointed me once again. It took until page 3 before anyone really talked about Action Economy, and even then didn't get the whole of it. The Fighter isn't just taking the Wizard's resources, they're also sucking up their actions, and their enjoyment of the game.

By all means, anyone have suggestions on how to fix that?

-----

If (hypothetical) me wanted to play a "Summoner", because that's what (hypothetical) me enjoyed, then I would want my actions to involve summoning. If this hypothetical me wanted to do something else, they'd have built something else.

If, instead, most of my actions were spent buffing the party, I would not enjoy this character.

Fortunately, real me has a broad range of characters and roles that I enjoy, but, sadly, not everyone is me.

-----

OP, should you be in the unfortunate scenario where this occurs again, I suggest that you explain how teamwork, competent Fighter builds, reciprocation, cohorts, action economy, and your enjoyment of the game work.

If that doesn't get a satisfactory result, then try something like this: "Obviously, none of us here have the teamwork or social skills for a group game.". Then leave, go home, and play a solo videogame.


Look, as much as Jack's trying to miss the point, teamwork has to be either that A helps B and vice versa, or A and B both do their things which augment each other towards a desired end, not that A helps B and B makes incessant demands of A. It's not teamwork if you're playing as someone's cohort.

I have sadly known too many people like this IRL, who believed that "teamwork" meant "helping them, while they never contributed anything". :smallfurious:


And it's not at all action-efficient. Standard action to summon, move action to mount.

So it takes the Fighter's turn, as opposed to the Wizards turn.

Which do you think should be spending their turn to make the Fighter fly?


And hell, I'm friends with every person at my table and we all have a single golden rule: Don't be *****. That's it. I think a good 98% of this thread could stand to read that rule at this point, because god forbid people playing a social game are asked to play together more nicely - and this goes for both the mundane and the caster in the OP.

Do you by chance play at one of my tables? Our rules are pretty much "balance to the table" and "don't be a ****". (I may have a hard time with that last one :smalltongue:)

[Troacctid]

So it takes the Fighter's turn, as opposed to the Wizards turn.

Which do you think should be spending their turn to make the Fighter fly?
Whichever is more appropriate to the situation. That's what teamwork is about.

[Particle_Man]

The action economy arg is interesting. I would see a difference between a summoner that also has a buff prepared and uses it on their summoned critter rather than on the fighter vs a summoner that didn’t prep buff spells in the first place; the latter of which was what the op said that the fighter and dm complained about. The latter can be “solved “ by the wizard summoner having abjuration and transmutation as banned schools. The summoner gets to summon and there is no call to be a buffer because it is no more an option for that wizard than it would be for a second fighter.

[Quertus]

Whichever is more appropriate to the situation. That's what teamwork is about.

Kudos - that is the correct answer!

Of course, if the Fighter doesn't have the item, he doesn't have the option to use his actions to give himself flight...

Also, if the "correct" Determinator answer is always for the Wizard to not have any fun, something probably needs to change.

[Erloas]

No one is saying the wizard shouldn't have fun or spend half the fight buffing people. But there are quite a lot of fights or situation where you've got a minute to prepare so the wizard takes a most a few seconds of table time to cast his spells.

I also find it interesting that so many people seem to have the idea that helping your teammates is contrary to fun. That any time spent not doing exactly whatever your "thing" is considered wasted. If I didn't want to play a team based game there are dozens of better options than TTRPGs.

[RoboEmperor]

Asking the fighter what he can do in return for your buffs is just being deliberately obtuse. The wizard can fulfill just about any role, simply by preparibg the right spells. A fighter can only ever fight.


I never said the wizard had to give up their concept, but that is EXACTLY what you're asking the fighter to do. I said prepare ONE OR TWO buff spells out of the literal DOZENS of spells you have available to you.


So it's a-ok to infringe on his character concept because it's sub-optimal, but god forbid we infringe on a concept that doesn't even need to be changed to cast two whole buff spells a day?

Edit: what crake said. Basically everything crake has said.


But that isn't the point. The point is you're demanding the fighter change his character concept because it isn't very good. You're asking him to become the buffer, when he just wanted to be the beatstick.

1. If you read OP's post, by your definition, she is not being a jerk. She doesn't mind casting a fly or two every now and then. She has a problem with people telling her to prepare haste instead of SMIII because it's more optimal and with people who have no intention of letting her play summoner to the point they just don't buy freedom of movement or flying items because they fully expect her to buff them 24/7.
2. The game's difficulty is demanding the fighter change his concept not the wizard. I've seen fighters and summoners coexist in lots of games. But if the game is too hard to the point where a fighter cannot function without buff spells and there is no one who wants to play a buffer, then the fighter should seek an easier table to play at, optimize his character to match the table's difficulty, or hire a hireling to be his buffbot.
3. Your argument that the wizard is ruining the fighter's character concept by not doing anything is ludicrous. Again replace the wizard with Barbarian. If the OP played a Barbarian, would you be hounding at her for not preparing buff spells? Why is she singled out and scrutinized for playing her wizard like a Barbarian? If someone wants to play a barbarian as a wizard then they should, and nothing should stop them. You need to realize class doesn't matter at all. Not one bit. A beatstick wizard should be treated the same as a beatstick fighter. No exceptions. Same with a beatstick cleric or a beatstick sorcerer.
4. If the party lacks a buffer, hire a hireling. Honestly. Hire a wizard hireling and have it be a dedicated buff bot instead of telling a barbarian to be a buff bot.

So while I completely disagree on your notion that wizards MUST SHARE (communism was founded on similar sentiments) I will agree that a person who doesn't share one or two spells with the fighter is a jackass better off playing video games. But he's still not at fault for not sharing just like how you can't convict a rich person for not donating to your charity despite it being much easier for the rich guy to donate a million dollars than you.

[Troacctid]

1. If you read OP's post, by your definition, she is not being a jerk. She doesn't mind casting a fly or two every now and then. She has a problem with people telling her to prepare haste instead of SMIII because it's more optimal and with people who have no intention of letting her play summoner to the point they just don't buy freedom of movement or flying items because they fully expect her to buff them 24/7.
Okay, first off, the post wasn't about any one game, it was a general question, so the specifics of who was a jerk and who wasn't don't actually matter. They're completely irrelevant and really only serve to poison the well of legitimate discussion. Second, we've only heard OP's side of the story. Maybe OP was a jerk. Maybe the fighter was actually being totally reasonable and the account we heard was just slanted.

[PhantasyPen]

Okay, so, I've read this whole thread, and I just want to present one counterpoint. Seeing as this is a "general advice" thread, and not a thread about "Summoners vs. Fighters" my scenario is slightly different from the OP:

In this situation, one person is playing a Big Dumb Barbarian, you know the type: Int score of 8, biceps the size of a small child, wields a big meaty axe and a shield. The other person is a Cleric, with a Strength of a whopping 12 and who for some reason is carrying around a greatsword that they probably should never be able to lift, let alone wield effectively in combat.

Now, in this scenario, the Cleric claims he's a gish, and spends his spells tossing some basic strength buffs on himself that leave him miles weaker than the Barbarian even without Rage! This Cleric this proceeds to waste the rest of his spell slots healing himself when he wades into melee and outright ignores the rogue who is actively dying less than 15 feet away, forcing the Barbarian to wade through a horde of enemies to go to the rescue of both of them.

Now, clearly the OP isn't as selfish as this Cleric is (I hope) and I doubt the Fighter in the OP's scenario is anywhere near the competence that Abbadon had, but I hope this shows that when the mundane characters ask you to toss some buffs/heals their way, they're not always just being selfish jerks who want a monopoly on your oh-so-precious spell slots, and maybe you should actually be a team player and put some proper multiplication of force into work.

[DdarkED]

Okay, so, I've read this whole thread, and I just want to present one counterpoint. Seeing as this is a "general advice" thread, and not a thread about "Summoners vs. Fighters" my scenario is slightly different from the OP:

In this situation, one person is playing a Big Dumb Barbarian, you know the type: Int score of 8, biceps the size of a small child, wields a big meaty axe and a shield. The other person is a Cleric, with a Strength of a whopping 12 and who for some reason is carrying around a greatsword that they probably should never be able to lift, let alone wield effectively in combat.

Now, in this scenario, the Cleric claims he's a gish, and spends his spells tossing some basic strength buffs on himself that leave him miles weaker than the Barbarian even without Rage! This Cleric this proceeds to waste the rest of his spell slots healing himself when he wades into melee and outright ignores the rogue who is actively dying less than 15 feet away, forcing the Barbarian to wade through a horde of enemies to go to the rescue of both of them.

Now, clearly the OP isn't as selfish as this Cleric is (I hope) and I doubt the Fighter in the OP's scenario is anywhere near the competence that Abbadon had, but I hope this shows that when the mundane characters ask you to toss some buffs/heals their way, they're not always just being selfish jerks who want a monopoly on your oh-so-precious spell slots, and maybe you should actually be a team player and put some proper multiplication of force into work.


so this scenario the cleric is built poorly AND made bad choices? what does this scenario prove other then a poorly built gish sucks? i can apply that logic to a almost any poorly built char who is also piloted by someone who makes bad choices.

[Peat]

The point of the game is for everyone to have fun.

And the way the game has been written demands certain types of teamwork for each player to have fun, depending on circs. Namely in this case, if people are bringing along non high-OP martial mundanes like Fighters to a standard high magic adventure, they're going to need some extra magic to help them. And usually the most sensible source for that is the party spellcaster.

If that is the scenario then yes, there's an onus on the party spellcaster to be helpful, because only they can do it. If they're not interested in doing that, if that kills their buzz, then they probably shouldn't be party spellcaster in that group. They need to let someone else do it, or persuade the group to go more high power all round, or find another group.

Is this the most wholly fair thing in the universe? No. Does it give the fighter player the right to be a jerk? No.

But its fairer and less jerklike than being the party spellcaster and then going "Sorry, no buffs for you, next time pick different".

[Cosi]

So, hypothetical question. Suppose there was a class that was exactly the Wizard, except that all their buff spells were Personal range. Would playing this class instead of a Wizard be okay?


You keep circling back around to this, so I want to make it clear: Literally everything each party member does is providing support for the rest of the party. Unless the fighter is literally doing nothing at all, he is providing support, be it in damage, in soaking damage, or straight up mitigating damage with AC that's superior to the wizard's summons.

Again, symmetry. If all the Fighter has to do is "fight at all", all the Wizard has to do is "cast at all". The Fighter is demanding that the Wizard spend their resources in a particular way to help them with a particular problem. It is entirely reasonable to expect the Fighter be willing to do the same.

Every single person on the Fighter's side is making the implicit assumption that the Fighter has less obligation to help the Wizard than the reverse. Because that's the only way you get a conclusion other than "the Fighter is the problem".


Also, it seems completely unreasonable to automatically assume that every wizard is a summoner and every fighter is a Fighter 20. Any argument based on that assumption is just ridiculous.

It seems entirely reasonable to evaluate particular situations based on the particulars of that situation. The notion that you can just handwave away the ineptitude of particular Fighters because Fighters in general are useful is, again, absurd. Surprisingly, it's possible for a behavior to be reasonable in some circumstances and unreasonable in others, and caring about the particulars of circumstances allows us to make that distinction.


And the way the game has been written demands certain types of teamwork for each player to have fun, depending on circs. Namely in this case, if people are bringing along non high-OP martial mundanes like Fighters to a standard high magic adventure, they're going to need some extra magic to help them. And usually the most sensible source for that is the party spellcaster.

If that is the scenario then yes, there's an onus on the party spellcaster to be helpful, because only they can do it. If they're not interested in doing that, if that kills their buzz, then they probably shouldn't be party spellcaster in that group. They need to let someone else do it, or persuade the group to go more high power all round, or find another group.

No, this is terrible logic. If I want to play a caster that doesn't buff, I can play a caster that doesn't buff. If you build a character that needs buffs, the onus is on you to figure out how to get those buffs.

[MeimuHakurei]

In the specific example of getting the Fighter to fly, a summoner wouldn't even have to switch spells - a Celestial Hippogriff is a perfectly fine aerial summon the Fighter can use as a mount (did you know that mounted combat feats are a staple of uberchargers?).

So yeah, Cosi is right in that a Wizard is not required to support the Fighter by casting buffs on them. Heck, even a standard BFC caster wouldn't have to cast Fly on the Fighter if they can cast Earthbind on the monster instead.

[noob]

The fighter does not needs flight if you cast battlefield control: the fighter can just grab a bow and start firing.
If the monster is high level enough for that to not work then the fighter would probably have barely participated.

[zlefin]

Okay, first off, the post wasn't about any one game, it was a general question, so the specifics of who was a jerk and who wasn't don't actually matter. They're completely irrelevant and really only serve to poison the well of legitimate discussion. Second, we've only heard OP's side of the story. Maybe OP was a jerk. Maybe the fighter was actually being totally reasonable and the account we heard was just slanted.

which side was a jerk does matter, because it affects the justification of various actions/responses.
also, if it doesn't matter why do you bring up the point that maybe OP was a jerk?

furthermore, while it referred to a general matter, it was a recurrent general matter wherein the other side is defined as the jerk by the terms of the question, and the issue is how to handle that. regardless of the actual facts of any specific case, it clearly is a thing that happens in general, and for which one must decide how to respond.

[Peat]

No, this is terrible logic. If I want to play a caster that doesn't buff, I can play a caster that doesn't buff. If you build a character that needs buffs, the onus is on you to figure out how to get those buffs.

No. The onus is on the individual to fit in with the group.

And sometimes that means buffing if you're a spellcaster. If the spellcaster player doesn't like it, the onus is on them to either persuade the group to change, or to pick a different playstyle they do like, or to accept its not for them and walk.

Of course in some groups its the opposite and the onus is on the beatstick player not to need buffs.

And neither style is more valid than the other.

[Albions_Angel]

Can I just jump in with something a little off topic?

In most of the TO builds I see here, and then in discussions like this, all I can really think is "Damn, I would HATE to play in a game with some of these people."

I get that a beatstick asking for buffs takes up spell slots and actions of the caster. And thats not fun generally. If you want to play a pure buff caster, you do you, but its nice to blast. That said...

Some people on here seem to be suggesting they would never buff a mundane as the mundane should look after themselves.

Some are saying they WOULD cast buffs on the mundane, but ONLY if their summon didnt need it.

Fine, first one, whatever. Sure. You do you I guess, not my cup of tea, but I cant argue. But the second. What. The. Actual. Hell. Its the same deal with "healing in combat isnt optimal". No, its not. But it stops one of the players sitting around for 10 minutes checking their phone because they rolled badly or messed up or went sub-optimal and DIED. Forget team game. Forget winning. For the sake of 30 seconds of "ok, I heal the figher" over "I heal my pet troll" (the pet troll gets to smack things anyway, mind you), that "fighter" is now browsing reddit thinking "welp, this is fun. Will I bleed out before combat ends and my oh-so-powerful teammates do the 'optimal' thing?"

God damn this should never have made it to 5 pages.

If there is someone at the table stopping you from having fun, TALK TO THEM. End of. And that swings true both for people who demand clerics only heal, and ALSO for people that flood the field with buffed minions, sideline the other players, and take 4 hours per turn. God this makes my blood boil. Work together, have a laugh, get to know the PLAYERS, go grab a beer afterwards, stop treating it like a video game where you are the sole protagonist and the other players are, at best, useful companions, and at worst, obstacles to the high score, or the speed run. If you want the thrill from that, go play Fallout 76.

Also, stop saying that mundanes have no place. There place is, initially, between the level 1, 3 hp wizard, and the CR 1 goblin barbarian, or the 3 CR 1/3 wolves. And a wizard who outstrips a mundane (at what, level 3? level 5? level 10?) can probably afford some scrolls or wands and occasionally go "Hey, its dangerous to go alone, take this" and slap on mage armor or something.

Just... just try and help along weaker players. Because its nice to be nice.

[Crake]

Can I just jump in with something a little off topic?

In most of the TO builds I see here, and then in discussions like this, all I can really think is "Damn, I would HATE to play in a game with some of these people."

I get that a beatstick asking for buffs takes up spell slots and actions of the caster. And thats not fun generally. If you want to play a pure buff caster, you do you, but its nice to blast. That said...

Some people on here seem to be suggesting they would never buff a mundane as the mundane should look after themselves.

Some are saying they WOULD cast buffs on the mundane, but ONLY if their summon didnt need it.

Fine, first one, whatever. Sure. You do you I guess, not my cup of tea, but I cant argue. But the second. What. The. Actual. Hell. Its the same deal with "healing in combat isnt optimal". No, its not. But it stops one of the players sitting around for 10 minutes checking their phone because they rolled badly or messed up or went sub-optimal and DIED. Forget team game. Forget winning. For the sake of 30 seconds of "ok, I heal the figher" over "I heal my pet troll" (the pet troll gets to smack things anyway, mind you), that "fighter" is now browsing reddit thinking "welp, this is fun. Will I bleed out before combat ends and my oh-so-powerful teammates do the 'optimal' thing?"

God damn this should never have made it to 5 pages.

If there is someone at the table stopping you from having fun, TALK TO THEM. End of. And that swings true both for people who demand clerics only heal, and ALSO for people that flood the field with buffed minions, sideline the other players, and take 4 hours per turn. God this makes my blood boil. Work together, have a laugh, get to know the PLAYERS, go grab a beer afterwards, stop treating it like a video game where you are the sole protagonist and the other players are, at best, useful companions, and at worst, obstacles to the high score, or the speed run. If you want the thrill from that, go play Fallout 76.

Also, stop saying that mundanes have no place. There place is, initially, between the level 1, 3 hp wizard, and the CR 1 goblin barbarian, or the 3 CR 1/3 wolves. And a wizard who outstrips a mundane (at what, level 3? level 5? level 10?) can probably afford some scrolls or wands and occasionally go "Hey, its dangerous to go alone, take this" and slap on mage armor or something.

Just... just try and help along weaker players. Because its nice to be nice.

I've been thinking, and I realise that some people, the kinds of people who don't have a dedicated group, and wander from group to group, have a strange habit of focusing too much on their character rather than building a relationship with the people around the table and having fun together with friends. They join a new group, and have to play exactly this character with no exceptions because otherwise I'm not having fun, and seem to ignore the social aspect of the game. Some of the issues that arise, like a player literally not wanting to cast a buff on a party "because it's not part of my character concept" is quite unfathomable to me and my players, because generally speaking our character concepts come secondary to playing as a team and having fun as a group of friends. If someone has to sacrifice a turn of summoning to cast a buff on a friend so THEY can have fun for the rest of the encounter, literally nobody at my table would bat an eye, yet some people seem to have this strange disconnect between their characters and the party. They aren't a part of a group, they're an individual operating alongside other individuals, they aren't working together as a team, they're working alongside each other independantly. It's honestly such a strange thing to see.

Also, wolves are CR1, not CR1/3 :smalltongue:

[RoboEmperor]

Fine, first one, whatever. Sure. You do you I guess, not my cup of tea, but I cant argue. But the second. What. The. Actual. Hell. Its the same deal with "healing in combat isnt optimal". No, its not. But it stops one of the players sitting around for 10 minutes checking their phone because they rolled badly or messed up or went sub-optimal and DIED. Forget team game. Forget winning. For the sake of 30 seconds of "ok, I heal the figher" over "I heal my pet troll" (the pet troll gets to smack things anyway, mind you), that "fighter" is now browsing reddit thinking "welp, this is fun. Will I bleed out before combat ends and my oh-so-powerful teammates do the 'optimal' thing?"

If you're referring to me I said I will heal the mundane. I will further elaborate that the life of the mundane takes priority over the summon since the summon is expendable. That's one of the main points of playing a "summoner", you can sacrifice your summons with no downside.

But if both the mundane and the creature get hit by something like mass hold monster with an impossibly high save dc, one of us is going to be sitting around for 10 minutes checking their phone, so why should it be me, the guy who built his charater to be able to resist that, instead of the guy who didn't? Am I that saint-like that I will sacrifice my fun for the entire session for the sake of my party mate who didn't buy freedom of movement? The answer is no. He will get the freedom of movement from me if and only if my beatstick doesn't immediately need it. Now if you think i'm a terrible player for prioritizing my beatstick build over yours then so be it.

I will say if the mundane is in danger of being Coup de Grace'd he will get priority over my summon for freedom of movement.

[Crake]

If you're referring to me I said I will heal the mundane. I will further elaborate that the life of the mundane takes priority over the summon since the summon is expendable. That's one of the main points of playing a "summoner", you can sacrifice your summons with no downside.

But if both the mundane and the creature get hit by something like mass hold monster with an impossibly high save dc, one of us is going to be sitting around for 10 minutes checking their phone, so why should it be me, the guy who built his charater to be able to resist that, instead of the guy who didn't? Am I that saint-like that I will sacrifice my fun for the entire session for the sake of my party mate who didn't buy freedom of movement? The answer is no. He will get the freedom of movement from me if and only if my beatstick doesn't immediately need it. Now if you think i'm a terrible player for prioritizing my beatstick build over yours then so be it.

Didn't you literally say your summons are expendable? You could cast freedom of movement on the fighter and then summon something else next turn, could you not?

[RoboEmperor]

Didn't you literally say your summons are expendable? You could cast freedom of movement on the fighter and then summon something else next turn, could you not?

My "summon" is actually a planar bound minion. Just the one. So if he dies i'm done for the day, possibly next, to bind a new one.

But yes if the summon is a monster from an actual summon spell I will buff the mundane over the summon 100% of the time.

I will also add that I will prepare extra freedom of movements if I can, but if I didn't and I have just the one, refer to the above post.

Priority List:
1. My PC's life
2. Party member's life
3. My shtick
4. Party members

[Albions_Angel]

Also, wolves are CR1, not CR1/3 :smalltongue:

Yeah, I meant dog. Sorry.



If you're referring to me I said I will heal the mundane. I will further elaborate that the life of the mundane takes priority over the summon since the summon is expendable. That's one of the main points of playing a "summoner", you can sacrifice your summons with no downside.

But if both the mundane and the creature get hit by something like mass hold monster with an impossibly high save dc, one of us is going to be sitting around for 10 minutes checking their phone, so why should it be me, the guy who built his charater to be able to resist that, instead of the guy who didn't? Am I that saint-like that I will sacrifice my fun for the entire session for the sake of my party mate who didn't buy freedom of movement? The answer is no. He will get the freedom of movement from me if and only if my beatstick doesn't immediately need it. Now if you think i'm a terrible player for prioritizing my beatstick build over yours then so be it.


Ok, thanks for clarifying. I apologise. From when you first posted it, I read it as "I will heal the mundane IFF my beatstick is already at 100% hp". I admit, I didnt go looking too hard for another interpretation. I dont often agree with what you post on this forum, and apparently have allowed that to colour my opinion of you. I am sorry.

That said, in the scenario you presented (and I appreciate it was just one example, I am merely playing devils advocate now), my argument would be this. Free the mundane. Why? Because you still DO have actions. The fact you can free him proves that. I would expect, from the level of op you generally present, that you have contingencies for if you cant summon something (I have no idea what sort of situation this would be?). A wand of magic missile, or fireball, or some vials of alchemists fire, or what have you. You can still take actions, while your minion is trapped. Thats WHY summoning is so powerful. It does what very few abilities do. It increases your actions, by at minimum 2 fold. losing the summon simply means you are back to the same number as everyone else. That said, perhaps your character is more dedicated to overcoming every obstacle to summoning, and you DONT have a non-summoning contingency. In which case, by all means free your summon.

[Crake]

My "summon" is actually a planar bound minion. Just the one. So if he dies i'm done for the day, possibly next, to bind a new one.

But yes if the summon is a monster from an actual summon spell I will buff the mundane over the summon 100% of the time.

I will also add that I will prepare extra freedom of movements if I can, but if I didn't and I have just the one, refer to the above post.

Priority List:
1. My PC's life
2. Party member's life
3. My shtick
4. Party members

So.... You realise leaving your party member paralyzed opens them up to coup de grace attempts right? Leaving them paralyzed is directly threatening their life?

[16bearswutIdo]

"My party members are asking me to prep a spell that benefits literally the entire team and has no replacement whatsoever in the game instead of Version 3 of a spell that I can prep in any slot, wtf is wrong with them"

I exaggerate, but basically unless you're at the level where you get 1 3rd level a day, you should basically always use at least 1 slot to prep Haste/Fly, ESPECIALLY if the team needs it. You can Summon Monster at any spell level. Having a "concept" in mind for your class shouldn't mean you hyper-specialize into ONLY doing that one thing and getting angry when the party asks you to do something else. If you wanted your character to exclusively focus on summoning, you're kind of playing the wrong game

You should definitely encourage the mundanes to buy something that gives them flight though.

[RoboEmperor]

So.... You realise leaving your party member paralyzed opens them up to coup de grace attempts right? Leaving them paralyzed is directly threatening their life?

I edited in this line to that post: "I will say if the mundane is in danger of being Coup de Grace'd he will get priority over my summon for freedom of movement. "

I really need to pause for a minute before posting to stop editing immediately after I post. In any case, i couldn't think of an example on the top of my head where a spell incapacitate both mundane and creature and I had a buff spell that could rescue one of them so I just mass hold monster. Now that I think about it perhaps Mass Charm Monster with protection of evil was a better example.


That said, in the scenario you presented (and I appreciate it was just one example, I am merely playing devils advocate now), my argument would be this. Free the mundane. Why? Because you still DO have actions. The fact you can free him proves that. I would expect, from the level of op you generally present, that you have contingencies for if you cant summon something (I have no idea what sort of situation this would be?). A wand of magic missile, or fireball, or some vials of alchemists fire, or what have you. You can still take actions, while your minion is trapped. Thats WHY summoning is so powerful. It does what very few abilities do. It increases your actions, by at minimum 2 fold. losing the summon simply means you are back to the same number as everyone else. That said, perhaps your character is more dedicated to overcoming every obstacle to summoning, and you DONT have a non-summoning contingency. In which case, by all means free your summon.

I generally make my spellcasters to be able to do one thing and one thing only, nothing else. They are intentionally made to be one trick ponies because I have no intention of hogging the game or the spotlight or the like. So yeah, I never have a backup strategy other than GTFO immediately. That's why I like to view my cleric as a T3 rather than a T1, because I play like a T3 instead of a T1.

[Crake]

I edited in this line to that post: "I will say if the mundane is in danger of being Coup de Grace'd he will get priority over my summon for freedom of movement. "

I really need to pause for a minute before posting to stop editing immediately after I post. In any case, i couldn't think of an example on the top of my head where a spell incapacitate both mundane and creature and I had a buff spell that could rescue one of them so I just mass hold monster. Now that I think about it perhaps Mass Charm Monster with protection of evil was a better example.

Well, the question is: does your creature being incapacitated 100% remove you from the game? I don't think so. You're still capable of casting other spells, hell you're casting the spell to remove the debuff in the first place, meanwhile the fighter is literally doing nothing. From an overall perspective, you losing 70% character efficiency vs the fighter losing 100% character efficiency (and presumably the two of you losing a proportionate amount of fun), the way to maintain the highest level of enjoyment at the table is for you to help the fighter, not yourself. Presumably when the situation is reversed, the fighter's player would do the same, when he'd rather be wading through enemies cleaving them left and right, but instead he pulls back to defend you.

[Peat]

I generally make my spellcasters to be able to do one thing and one thing only, nothing else. They are intentionally made to be one trick ponies because I have no intention of hogging the game or the spotlight or the like. So yeah, I never have a backup strategy other than GTFO immediately. That's why I like to view my cleric as a T3 rather than a T1, because I play like a T3 instead of a T1.

T3 is multiple strategies, just none of them break the game. One trick ponies are T4 or below.

[Asmotherion]

You people react too much to trivial things.

in any way this seems to be more of a social dynamics problem than a D&D problem.

in what's D&D related:

As a dedicated caster i do enjoy being the buffer of the group. Together with debuffing and control spells it gives me a "minimal effort-maximum outcome" feeling of accomplishment. i however always decide what buff spells to cast as i have a chess-like structure in my mind of what the best plan is. Unless some plan was discussed before the encounter and someone made a point of convincing me over a better plan i go with my plan.

in what's not D&D related:

You are tier 1 and proud of it. They are jelly. Give others an occasional bone or you'll end up playing D&D alone. Treat them as your personal summons except you don't need to summon them since they're already there so all you need to do is buff them up to do all the dirty work for you. A smart Wizard uses every Resource he has avalable.

And be mature about it. D&D is a fun game not worth an arguement over who should buy a broom/carpet of flying for crying out loud.

[Crake]

T3 is multiple strategies, just none of them break the game. One trick ponies are T4 or below.


Tier 3: Capable of doing one thing quite well, while still being useful when that one thing is inappropriate, or capable of doing all things, but not as well as classes that specialize in that area.

T4 is indeed 1 trick pony, but simply by nature of being a caster class, it's hard to be t4, because even if you heavily invest into one thing, you can always just cast regular spells to do other things and be at least decently useful.

[RoboEmperor]

Well, the question is: does your creature being incapacitated 100% remove you from the game? I don't think so. You're still capable of casting other spells, hell you're casting the spell to remove the debuff in the first place, meanwhile the fighter is literally doing nothing. From an overall perspective, you losing 70% character efficiency vs the fighter losing 100% character efficiency (and presumably the two of you losing a proportionate amount of fun), the way to maintain the highest level of enjoyment at the table is for you to help the fighter, not yourself. Presumably when the situation is reversed, the fighter's player would do the same, when he'd rather be wading through enemies cleaving them left and right, but instead he pulls back to defend you.

That's a bad example because a fighter pulling out to stabilize you is still at 100% capacity. it's hard to give an example for a fighter because he's binary.

Anyways, I guess I'm just not that selfless. The idea of sitting around twiddling my thumbs until a party member needs a different buff to rescue them is too appalling to me. I get my jollies when my creation tears things to shreds. Not from being a spellcaster. It's who I am so... I guess I won't be a good fit at your table.

[King of Nowhere]

If there is someone at the table stopping you from having fun, TALK TO THEM. End of. And that swings true both for people who demand clerics only heal, and ALSO for people that flood the field with buffed minions, sideline the other players, and take 4 hours per turn. God this makes my blood boil. Work together, have a laugh, get to know the PLAYERS, go grab a beer afterwards, stop treating it like a video game where you are the sole protagonist

Yep, that is basically the answer to the original question. You have a problem with someone at the table, talk to them. Figure out compromises. Because the original question was generic and vague, so it could refer to both "munddane asking wizard to be his cohort" or to "wizard marginalizing the mundanes and rubbing it in their faces" or every shade in between. You can't give a univocal answer to that.

also, we should differentiate long term and short term buffs. short term buffs are cast in combat and they take an action; long term buffs are cast at the beginning of the day, or when you enter the dungeon. So by asking a short term buff you want your companion to lose his action to buff you (which could be the practical thing to do anyway in some situations, but it's generally bad action economy). By asking a long term buff at the beginning of the day, you ask the caster to save a low level slot, of which he get dozens anyway; it's a negligible cost.

Another factor is how much gold is available. Getting flight is cheap, or does it require half the fighter's money? In the second case askking it to the wizard is much more reasonable. Also, what wass agreed upon in session 0?

Really, the question is just too generic to answer anything but talk it out.


I've been thinking, and I realise that some people, the kinds of people who don't have a dedicated group, and wander from group to group, have a strange habit of focusing too much on their character rather than building a relationship with the people around the table and having fun together with friends.

Possibly this attitude is the very reason they don't have a dedicated group :smalltongue:

[ColorBlindNinja]

T3 is multiple strategies, just none of them break the game.

I disagree with that, the classes traditionally associated with tier 3 can easily break the game.

[Quertus]

Note: One of my regrets about playing Quertus, my signature academia mage, for whom this account is named, is that his party is too competent, too self-sufficient, and he almost never needs to provide them with any buffs. :smallannoyed: Because his party is so good, Quertus really is nearly useless. Mind you, that's the way that Quertus likes it, but it is less fun for me when the muggles are so skilled at being adventurers, that he really isn't needed, like, ever. (Seriously, I think that the party has actually needed his help in combat maybe once in the past 10 levels - and, then, he could have easily been replaced with a bag of flour.)


I also find it interesting that so many people seem to have the idea that helping your teammates is contrary to fun. That any time spent not doing exactly whatever your "thing" is considered wasted. If I didn't want to play a team based game there are dozens of better options than TTRPGs.

Imagine playing a Fighter class where the optimal action is for you to spend all your turns buffing (shouting words of encouragement, setting opponents up) and healing (CPR, stab the bad enchantment), and you never actually get to do what you picked the Fighter to do - hit things.

Can you see how this might not be fun for the Fighter player?

(I really want to make this game, where the Fighter spends all their actions buffing the party, and all their XP training the party.)


Okay, first off, the post wasn't about any one game, it was a general question, so the specifics of who was a jerk and who wasn't don't actually matter. They're completely irrelevant and really only serve to poison the well of legitimate discussion. Second, we've only heard OP's side of the story. Maybe OP was a jerk. Maybe the fighter was actually being totally reasonable and the account we heard was just slanted.

Oh, sure, maybe the Fighter, the Wizard, and the GM were all jerks. It's possible. But I disagree that providing examples is a bad thing. It's the same reason that one-shots are a good thing.

I say that I want to play a "political" game, we run a 1-shot, you complain that there was no matchmaking, no arranged marriages, because that's what "political game" means to you, whereas that phrase meant, say, "non-combat dealing with nobles" to me, and "PCs backstab each other" to someone else. Providing examples helps to shape exactly what the speaker means by the words.

In this case, the OP has given examples to explain that they aren't against buffing the muggles as a general principle, only a) when the muggles refuse to spend any of their resources providing buffs that they know that they need for themselves (really? is 800 gp too much to ask?); b) when the muggles just assume that it is their right, and demand the buffs.

So, the OP isn't asking, "How do I handle playing an RPG when I'm all like, '**** teamwork'?"; rather, they are asking, "This utterly perverted, parasitic definition of 'teamwork' is prevalent (more than a 1-off) in my gaming circles, and therefore I may encounter it again. How should I deal with it if I encounter it again?".

Where, mind you, the answer, "Um, that's not parasitic, that's teamwork" is a completely valid response.

But, point is, the OP has defined the narrow sub-set of situations that they are opposed to but unable to determine a more productive course of action / response to than simply leaving the table.

So, do you still contend that defining the parameters of their help request does nothing but "poison the well"?


Okay, so, I've read this whole thread, and I just want to present one counterpoint. Seeing as this is a "general advice" thread, and not a thread about "Summoners vs. Fighters" my scenario is slightly different from the OP:

In this situation, one person is playing a Big Dumb Barbarian, you know the type: Int score of 8, biceps the size of a small child, wields a big meaty axe and a shield. The other person is a Cleric, with a Strength of a whopping 12 and who for some reason is carrying around a greatsword that they probably should never be able to lift, let alone wield effectively in combat.

Now, in this scenario, the Cleric claims he's a gish, and spends his spells tossing some basic strength buffs on himself that leave him miles weaker than the Barbarian even without Rage! This Cleric this proceeds to waste the rest of his spell slots healing himself when he wades into melee and outright ignores the rogue who is actively dying less than 15 feet away, forcing the Barbarian to wade through a horde of enemies to go to the rescue of both of them.

Now, clearly the OP isn't as selfish as this Cleric is (I hope) and I doubt the Fighter in the OP's scenario is anywhere near the competence that Abbadon had, but I hope this shows that when the mundane characters ask you to toss some buffs/heals their way, they're not always just being selfish jerks who want a monopoly on your oh-so-precious spell slots, and maybe you should actually be a team player and put some proper multiplication of force into work.

Or maybe the Fighter should be a team player, and buy the 800 gp flight option.

Just a thought.

Because, now that they've been a jerk, and driven the Wizard away, that's what they'll need to do anyway.

Wouldn't it be better to have Flight and a Wizard, than neither Flight nor a Wizard?


The point of the game is for everyone to have fun.

And the way the game has been written demands certain types of teamwork for each player to have fun, depending on circs. Namely in this case, if people are bringing along non high-OP martial mundanes like Fighters to a standard high magic adventure, they're going to need some extra magic to help them. And usually the most sensible source for that is the party spellcaster.

If that is the scenario then yes, there's an onus on the party spellcaster to be helpful, because only they can do it. If they're not interested in doing that, if that kills their buzz, then they probably shouldn't be party spellcaster in that group. They need to let someone else do it, or persuade the group to go more high power all round, or find another group.

Is this the most wholly fair thing in the universe? No. Does it give the fighter player the right to be a jerk? No.

But its fairer and less jerklike than being the party spellcaster and then going "Sorry, no buffs for you, next time pick different".

So, again, if the Fighter can choose how to spend all their resources, and not spend the 800 gp to give themselves Flight, why are they any less of a jerk than the Wizard saying "gee, I'd like to actually get to have fun and play the game, give yourself flight" and actually getting to have fun using their resources to do their shtick?


No. The onus is on the individual to fit in with the group.

And sometimes that means buffing if you're a spellcaster. If the spellcaster player doesn't like it, the onus is on them to either persuade the group to change, or to pick a different playstyle they do like, or to accept its not for them and walk.

Of course in some groups its the opposite and the onus is on the beatstick player not to need buffs.

And neither style is more valid than the other.

Agreed. It's nice to see someone reasonable in this thread.


If there is someone at the table stopping you from having fun, TALK TO THEM. End of. And that swings true both for people who demand clerics only heal, and ALSO for people that flood the field with buffed minions, sideline the other players, and take 4 hours per turn.

Just... just try and help along weaker players. Because its nice to be nice.

Agreed. Should they encounter this scenario again, the OP should explain "fun" and "teamwork" to the weak player, and convince them to purchase sufficient gear that they are not so reliant on the Wizard as to detract from the Wizard's ability to enjoy playing the game & getting to do their shtick.

Note that having this conversation can be very difficult for "you do you" players. And many idiots hate "nosy busybodies" telling them how to run their character (while often being even worse about it themselves, like the Fighter and DM telling the Wizard how to play their character).

So, it's entirely possible to be difficult for the OP (or for numerous readers of this thread), and entirely possible to cause ruffled feathers and cause the idiots being taught to label the person trying to teach them about teamwork as a "problem player".

But I agree that communication is the best answer.

The OP probably should have communicated with the Fighter back before said Fighter spent all their gold on ale and hookers their sword. I think that, perhaps, the biggest thing that the OP could learn from this thread is that the timing of their communication can matter as much as the content.

[Doug Lampert]

As a dedicated caster i do enjoy being the buffer of the group. Together with debuffing and control spells it gives me a "minimal effort-maximum outcome" feeling of accomplishment. i however always decide what buff spells to cast as i have a chess-like structure in my mind of what the best plan is. Unless some plan was discussed before the encounter and someone made a point of convincing me over a better plan i go with my plan.

This (except for the chess like structure). I've played dedicated buffers in several systems going back to well before WotC owed D&D. You don't get to tell my caster what to do. If I am playing a cleric, you don't get to tell me that I "have to" heal someone else, or that I "must" prepare more cure spells, or who I have to heal, or what spell I have to use to heal them, and this remains true even if I am playing a pure healbot (which I have voluntarily done).

It does not matter what my character's class is, I get to decide how he uses his abilities. If you think someone else should have first call on a spell because "it's only a third level slot", that's fine, if it's so trivial that you should have call on one, then it's so trivial that you should use your own. D&D 3.x has plenty of ways for a non-caster to spend money to get access to a trivial level spell. Except this is Schrodinger's spell slot, so trivial that the caster can throw it away for nothing, so vital that the mundane can't function without it, and yet so high level that an item is out of reach of what the mundane can afford.

The fact that I chose to make a caster does not put any obligation on me that doesn't apply to every party member.

[Stelio Kontos]

The fact that I chose to make a caster does not put any obligation on me that doesn't apply to every party member.

So for those occasions where magic will fail, the fighter should demand that you get your scrawny ass up there and hit it with your stick because you should have spent your resources on hitting things with a stick better instead of all that book-learnin, right?

[Doug Lampert]

So for those occasions where magic will fail, the fighter should demand that you get your scrawny ass up there and hit it with your stick because you should have spent your resources on hitting things with a stick better instead of all that book-learnin, right?

Nope, he never gets to tell me what my character should do, beyond "do something to contribute to the party".

As I said, I've played plenty of pure buffers, I'm perfectly willing to cooperate with a party, I'm not willing to define cooperation as someone else gets to tell me what to do.

That some people are INCAPABLE of understanding that this elementary facet of roleplaying, that the players roleplay their OWN character's, not other people's character's, is why the original poster had a problem. Note that your reply is to a post that made it crystal clear that you don't get to control my actions, and your response was that "then the fighter gets to control your actions, right?", NOPE, still not true, still nonsense.

Edited to add: At least some of the people who think that the fighter is "cooperating" when he wants to tell the caster what to do and when to do it are nicely revealed in the post I'm replying to, to be total jerks who will take their ball and go home, if ALL they get is a dedicated buffer who insists on deciding how to buff rather than being a second character played by the fighter's player. Thanks for so graphically demonstrating the problem with the fighter's attitude and that it isn't some delusion of the OP that such things exist in game.

And since we are talking 3.5, congratulations, my caster is better at dealing and taking damage than your fighter if I want him to be so. I mean, the caster is perfectly capable of completely overshadowing the fighter, but having the caster instead dedicate himself to buffing and supporting IS NOT ENOUGH for Stelio Kontos and the like.

[Stelio Kontos]

Yeah, that's quite the ridiculous strawman you've constructed there.

My argument is with the wizard who "wants to play THEIR character THEIR way" and not even throw the fighter a bone once in a while (this IS a thing that multiple people have said in this thread).

You've suggested that the wizard shouldn't buff the fighter, and they should use their own resources if they want to have magical stuff. Well, if magic isn't working, why should the fighter do all the work and not expect the wizard to use their own resources (in this case, their ability to hit things with a stick)? Shouldn't the wizard be expected, in your own words, "do something to contribute to the party", even if it's suboptimal and generally not very effective? That's what you want the fighter to do!

Of course, this just highlights the basic difference between the classes as a whole. If your argument is "don't ever bother playing a fighter, they suck, and if you play a fighter you deserve to suck while I the mighty wizard do all the cool stuff"... fine, I guess?

[Unavenger]

See, there's nothing wrong with the wizard buffing the fighter. No-one's saying there is. But there's nothing wrong with choosing to be a carry rather than a support either.

If your fighter wants flight, it's on them either to have flight, or have something to trade with the wizard for flight. If the onus is put on the wizard to help the fighter, but never vice versa, then that's not teamwork. If I'm spending my actions and my spell slots giving you stuff that you could have got for yourself, then you can at least ask nicely.

Alternatively, charge him 30 gp/caster level for your spell slot that you're casting fly out of (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/goodsAndServices.htm#spell).

EDIT: Also, if I do get stuck in an AMF, what buffs is the fighter going to put on me? Because you damn well bet I'm going to give that crossbow proficiency of mine a workout. None, that's what. He'll do his thing; I'll be in the back with a crossbow doing mine.

[noob]

See, there's nothing wrong with the wizard buffing the fighter. No-one's saying there is. But there's nothing wrong with choosing to be a carry rather than a support either.

If your fighter wants flight, it's on them either to have flight, or have something to trade with the wizard for flight. If the onus is put on the wizard to help the fighter, but never vice versa, then that's not teamwork. If I'm spending my actions and my spell slots giving you stuff that you could have got for yourself, then you can at least ask nicely.

Alternatively, charge him 30 gp/caster level for your spell slot that you're casting fly out of (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/goodsAndServices.htm#spell).

EDIT: Also, if I do get stuck in an AMF, what buffs is the fighter going to put on me? Because you damn well bet I'm going to give that crossbow proficiency of mine a workout. None, that's what. He'll do his thing; I'll be in the back with a crossbow doing mine.

Charge him that amount and he will realize he should buy an item of flight because in fact spell slots have a value.

[16bearswutIdo]

EDIT: Also, if I do get stuck in an AMF, what buffs is the fighter going to put on me? Because you damn well bet I'm going to give that crossbow proficiency of mine a workout. None, that's what. He'll do his thing; I'll be in the back with a crossbow doing mine.

The fighter is going to buff you by keeping you alive because he's the only one who can do anything beyond poorly fire a crossbow with his wimpy wizard arms.

[Peat]

So, again, if the Fighter can choose how to spend all their resources, and not spend the 800 gp to give themselves Flight, why are they any less of a jerk than the Wizard saying "gee, I'd like to actually get to have fun and play the game, give yourself flight" and actually getting to have fun using their resources to do their shtick?


The fighter is possibly a jerk too, yeah.

[Unavenger]

The fighter is going to buff you by keeping you alive because he's the only one who can do anything beyond poorly fire a crossbow with his wimpy wizard arms.

So you do acknowledge that killing the things that we're both fighting counts as teamwork!

My wizard will keep on doing that rather than giving the pointless dude with a pointed stick one of my third-level spell slots and an action.

[Calthropstu]

I am going to jump in with this response to the OP:

It sounds like you are the jerk. Your attitude, your manner of speech, your comments... they all come across as aggressive and unsportsmanlike. Maybe I'm wrong, I am just interpreting your rant here which may be skewed due to your indignation but:

There is no reason to get upset about a martial character turning to his mage ally and saying "Hey, do you think you could cast a fly spell on me? It'd be a great tactical advantage in this situation." Sure, if it's "Hey, can you cast a fly spell on me to help as we fight these goblins that have almost no chance of bringing us down?" I could see you getting upset. But fly is a great spell to be buffed with. As is haste.

Likewise, there is nothing wrong with proposing an alternative plan (such as your general schtick) by saying something along the lines of "I could, but I want to keep my fly spell for when we really need it. There are known to be (dragons, wyverns, Rocs, Giant wasps etc) in this area, and I feel we may need fly at a later time. How about we try (schtick) instead." Unless schtick is "animate dead" or some stupid such nonsense most should be willing to accept that.

If the enemy is particularly dangerous (such as aforementioned dragon, wyvern, et al) refusing to cast fly is like saying "I am a jerk. I want to publicly announce this."

Demanding that your allies get items to give them spells at great cost to their character in order to duplicate what you get for just about zero cost is selfish in the extreme.

[16bearswutIdo]

So you do acknowledge that killing the things that we're both fighting counts as teamwork!

My wizard will keep on doing that rather than giving the pointless dude with a pointed stick one of my third-level spell slots and an action.

I've never argued that it isn't teamwork. It's objectively teamwork, by killing the mob. However, it's hyper-specialized teamwork and judging by the bitchfest OP made by coming to this forum to complain about his martials asking him to prepare highly specialized and unique spells that buff the entire party.

It's like if the fighter refused to do anything but hit people. Yes, he's technically doing his job; but it's a team game, and you don't need to over hyper-specialize. Is OP gonna lose anything serious in his life by prepping a fly or haste spell?

[Stelio Kontos]

So you do acknowledge that killing the things that we're both fighting counts as teamwork!

My wizard will keep on doing that rather than giving the pointless dude with a pointed stick one of my third-level spell slots and an action.

It could be teamwork if you were acting like a team and enhancing each other's abilities instead of, you know, calling your teammate a "pointless dude with a pointed stick".

It sounds like you, the wizard, don't actually need the fighter at all, except maybe to replace your divots and rake the bunkers once in a while. Why not just ditch him and do everything yourself and get all the treasure for yourself instead of letting him waste it on things like "weapons" and "healing potions"? That seems vastly more efficient.

[Unavenger]

Demanding that your allies get items to give them spells at great cost to their character in order to duplicate what you get for just about zero cost is selfish in the extreme.

In what world is having to be a buffbot for someone who couldn't be bothered to get abilities that they want for themselves selfish? Selfish is insisting that the wizard buff you because you couldn't be bothered to get any of the numerous methods of getting cheap flight for yourself.

[King of Nowhere]

So you do acknowledge that killing the things that we're both fighting counts as teamwork!

My wizard will keep on doing that rather than giving the pointless dude with a pointed stick one of my third-level spell slots and an action.

and what are you doing, exactly, that is more cost-effective? Oh, I have no doubt that you can kill the monster just fine with high level spells. Or, you could invest a single low level spell and let the beatstick kill it. it's cheaper.
As a rule of thumb, it's more cost-effective to disable the monsters and let the beatsticks wipe them, than to kill the monsters yourself.
In that regard, the teamplay between casters and martials can be described as "you hold them down while i beat them up"

[Doug Lampert]

Yeah, that's quite the ridiculous strawman you've constructed there.

My argument is with the wizard who "wants to play THEIR character THEIR way" and not even throw the fighter a bone once in a while (this IS a thing that multiple people have said in this thread).

You've suggested that the wizard shouldn't buff the fighter, and they should use their own resources if they want to have magical stuff. Well, if magic isn't working, why should the fighter do all the work and not expect the wizard to use their own resources (in this case, their ability to hit things with a stick)? Shouldn't the wizard be expected, in your own words, "do something to contribute to the party", even if it's suboptimal and generally not very effective? That's what you want the fighter to do!

Of course, this just highlights the basic difference between the classes as a whole. If your argument is "don't ever bother playing a fighter, they suck, and if you play a fighter you deserve to suck while I the mighty wizard do all the cool stuff"... fine, I guess?

Nope, my post specifically said I'm fine with playing a pure buffer. I never said I would not buff under any circumstance. You're the one making up a strawman.

I said, "The fact that I chose to make a caster does not put any obligation on me that doesn't apply to every party member." You objected to THAT specific statement with a claim that it was then fine for you to take your ball and go home. But helping to defeat the enemy IS an obligation that applies to every character, and you want your fighter to NOT DO THAT, because the caster isn't doing exactly what you want when you want it every time.

There's one basic obligation to the team game that is D&D in combat, which is to help defeat the opposition, and your fighter isn't going to do it because he doesn't get to tell the wizard what specific spell to cast when.

Because, I was 100% clear that I'm willing to buff, and everyone is willing to help defeat the enemy EXCEPT your special snowflake of a fighter if he doesn't get exactly what he wants. You're the one with the strawman. You're the one that thinks it is not teamwork unless the caster NOT ONLY does nothing but buff, but does so with the specific spell the fighter wants when he wants it.

[RoboEmperor]

Is OP gonna lose anything serious in his life by prepping a fly or haste spell?

Yes he will. He doesn't get to use summon monster iii.

[Stelio Kontos]

Nope, my post specifically said I'm fine with playing a pure buffer. I never said I would not buff under any circumstance. You're the one making up a strawman.

I said, "The fact that I chose to make a caster does not put any obligation on me that doesn't apply to every party member." You objected to THAT specific statement with a claim that it was then fine for you to take your ball and go home. But helping to defeat the enemy IS an obligation that applies to every character, and you want your fighter to NOT DO THAT, because the caster isn't doing exactly what you want when you want it every time.

There's one basic obligation to the team game that is D&D in combat, which is to help defeat the opposition, and your fighter isn't going to do it because he doesn't get to tell the wizard what specific spell to cast when.

Because, I was 100% clear that I'm willing to buff, and everyone is willing to help defeat the enemy EXCEPT your special snowflake of a fighter if he doesn't get exactly what he wants. You're the one with the strawman. You're the one that thinks it is not teamwork unless the caster NOT ONLY does nothing but buff, but does so with the specific spell the fighter wants when he wants it.


Nothing you have said is responsive to anything I’ve said, or even thought.

[King of Nowhere]

Oh, and by the way, what are all those "cheap" items that are mentioned?

I don't know any item that offers flight reasonably for less than 10k gp. my character keeps a couple potions for an emergency, but a single potion of flight costs 750 gp, and it's single use. i'd rather save them if possible.
freedom of movements is 40k gp. i don't know anything cheaper.
protection from mind control has a large variety of options, but all of them are either partial, or horribly expensive.
seeing invisibility also has relatively cheap single use items, or expensive continuous ones.

getting all that stuff is unreasonable before the very high levels, unless your campaign has significantly above wbl. unless you want to spend half your loot in consumables at every single fight, not to mention all the actions wasted from digging the potion out of your inventory and drinking it.

this is actually part of the game design flaw that mundanes can't get anything nice. If it was reasonably easier to fight invisible creatures just using good spot and listen checks, for example, it would be help.

[Unavenger]

and what are you doing, exactly, that is more cost-effective? Oh, I have no doubt that you can kill the monster just fine with high level spells. Or, you could invest a single low level spell and let the beatstick kill it. it's cheaper.

Fly and shivering touch are both third-level spells. One gets an ape with a piece of metal into the face of a giant fire-breathing flying death lizard whom the ape can't actually hit properly. One knocks the giant fire-breathing flying death lizard into a coma.

It's immeasurably easier to kill a dragon with your own spell slots than help someone to get into its face and trust that 2d6+Strmod*1.5 damage will be enough to make a dent in its hit point total.

[Stelio Kontos]

Fly and shivering touch are both third-level spells. One gets an ape with a piece of metal into the face of a giant fire-breathing flying death lizard whom the ape can't actually hit properly. One knocks the giant fire-breathing flying death lizard into a coma.

It's immeasurably easier to kill a dragon with your own spell slots than help someone to get into its face and trust that 2d6+Strmod*1.5 damage will be enough to make a dent in its hit point total.

So, again: why should the fighter be there at all?

[RoboEmperor]

So, again: why should the fighter be there at all?

A properly built and geared fighter is a juggernaut of destruction. In fact with all of my optimization my cleric struggles to keep up with his damage. Its not only until level 11 are my cleric and the fighter on equal footing and at level 15 i switch to blasting.

Shivering touch needs to bypass spell resistance so it can fail. And without maximize it can fail by rolling poorly.

[Unavenger]

So, again: why should the fighter be there at all?

I mean, good question. If he'd taken a real class (like, I dunno, knight or truenamer, those notoriously powerful classes) then he'd actually have had a claim to be doing something useful (knight can be built for battlefield control/lockdown, truenamer can heal the wizard in return for getting flight, but then truenamer can also fly).

Or the fighter could have ponied up 4k, bought a fully-trained hippogriff, grabbed a lance in both hands, taken the spirited charge feat, charged, and done (1d8+strmod*1.5)*3 points of damage without having to beg the wizard for buffs (could even have been a knight and done that, no less!). But y'know, the wizard has to be the fighter's bitch because the fighter couldn't be bothered to do anything at all useful without having to be babied.

[Stelio Kontos]

I mean, good question. If he'd taken a real class (like, I dunno, knight or truenamer, those notoriously powerful classes) then he'd actually have had a claim to be doing something useful (knight can be built for battlefield control/lockdown, truenamer can heal the wizard in return for getting flight, but then truenamer can also fly).

Or the fighter could have ponied up 4k, bought a fully-trained hippogriff, grabbed a lance in both hands, taken the spirited charge feat, charged, and done (1d8+strmod*1.5)*3 points of damage without having to beg the wizard for buffs (could even have been a knight and done that, no less!). But y'know, the wizard has to be the fighter's bitch because the fighter couldn't be bothered to do anything at all useful without having to be babied.

I assume you messed up colors and the entire post was supposed to be blue?

Again, “don’t be a fighter” and “spend a bunch of cash on a flying hippogriff” are dumb solutions. Clearly the fighter should also buy a trained octopus for underwater fighting as well as something that lets him water breathe, and a trained landshark for underground combat, and obviously a giant haversack in which to store these animals. As well as a giant duffel bag with a +1 flaming sword, a +1 shocking one, etcetera. And obviously bludgeoning versions of the same. Because heaven forfend he not prepare himself for every eventuality.)

[ColorBlindNinja]

Again, “don’t be a fighter” and “spend a bunch of cash on a flying hippogriff” are dumb solutions. Clearly the fighter should also buy a trained octopus for underwater fighting as well as something that lets him water breathe, and a trained landshark for underground combat, and obviously a giant haversack in which to store these animals. As well as a giant duffel bag with a +1 flaming sword, a +1 shocking one, etcetera. And obviously bludgeoning versions of the same. Because heaven forfend he not prepare himself for every eventuality.)

Why shouldn't the Fighter buy a bunch of magic items to cover his weaknesses?

Having to always rely on another party member for a vital buff isn't a sound strategy.

[Stelio Kontos]

Why shouldn't the Fighter buy a bunch of magic items to cover his weaknesses?

Having to always rely on another party member for a vital buff isn't a sound strategy.

But never having to rely on another party member for a vital buff is practically impossible. Agreed?

Alternate answer: because he doesn't have the combined wealth of Warren Buffett and Bruce Wayne.

[Unavenger]

I assume you messed up colors and the entire post was supposed to be blue?
Being passive-aggressive and obnoxious doesn't count as a real argument.


Again, “don’t be a fighter” and “spend a bunch of cash on a flying hippogriff” are dumb solutions. Clearly the fighter should also buy a trained octopus for underwater fighting as well as something that lets him water breathe, and a trained landshark for underground combat, and obviously a giant haversack in which to store these animals. As well as a giant duffel bag with a +1 flaming sword, a +1 shocking one, etcetera. And obviously bludgeoning versions of the same. Because heaven forfend he not prepare himself for every eventuality.)

I personally recommend Shax's Indispensable Haversack (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?148101-3-x-Shax-s-Indispensible-Haversack-(Equipment-Handbook)) for all your not-being-a-parasitic-drain-on-your-party's-resources needs!


But never having to rely on another party member for a vital buff is practically impossible. Agreed?

I mean, sure. The wizard gives the cleric buffs, the cleric gives the wizard buffs, and the fighter... uhm... teamwork you guise!

[ColorBlindNinja]

But never having to rely on another party member for a vital buff is practically impossible. Agreed?

It is indeed possible. Tier 1s can manage it, but Fighters generally cannot.

But even in the latter case, the Fighter should buy magic items to cover as many weaknesses as humanly possible.

[Calthropstu]

In what world is having to be a buffbot for someone who couldn't be bothered to get abilities that they want for themselves selfish? Selfish is insisting that the wizard buff you because you couldn't be bothered to get any of the numerous methods of getting cheap flight for yourself.

All of them.

Your interpretation is literally the definition of selfishness. Let us take, for example, a group of 4 giant wasps that have been buffed with stoneskin somehow.

Here are some viable tactics:
Plink away with an endless wave of arrows.
Hope they group together and hit them with area effects.
Engage them in the air.

Let's say the wizard has 1 3rd level spell slot left. What should it be?

We have summon monster 3. A good all around spell,it can summon a decent attacker. It can also summon a ranged attacker. Or it could summon something with an ability. Right now, looks like a lantern archon or d3 small air elementals (d3+1 with superior summons). Obviously, they can't do the job on their own, but they can hold off the wasps for a little while.
We have Dispel magic. Get rid of the stoneskin buffs and the rest of the party can easily beat them to hell.
We have fireball. Kill all the wasps in one shot possibly, but unlikely unless you can trick them into gathering in a 20 food radius.
We have Fly. Fly on the fighter will easily take them down since he has an adamantine weapon.

All of these will work.

But which of these is most effective and useful? Say you don't run into any enemies. What's most useful then?

Dispel is extremely situational. And the duration of summons makes their uses highly restricted. Fireball is combat only, unless you want to blast through icewalls. Then we have fly.

Fly has innumerable uses. Fly mixed with levitate will get your entire party across a chasm. It can help to trivialize land based encounters. It can work to scout ahead in moments. It can function to escape. Fly is an all around safe bet that it will be useful on any given day. And, best of all, it's not self only.

So who is best to cast it on? Yourself? Only for escape. Unless you're built for scouting, in which case all power to ya. The rogue or the fighter will usually be the best go tos for flight magic. Your other players seem to understand this.

But the response is: "But my schtick!" which is pretty much code for "I don't wanna." ie: selfishness. Fly is a good all around tactic for the mage to employ. Not preparing/casting it is often silly if you have it.

[RoboEmperor]

All of them.

Your interpretation is literally the definition of selfishness. Let us take, for example, a group of 4 giant wasps that have been buffed with stoneskin somehow.

Here are some viable tactics:
Plink away with an endless wave of arrows.
Hope they group together and hit them with area effects.
Engage them in the air.

Let's say the wizard has 1 3rd level spell slot left. What should it be?

We have summon monster 3. A good all around spell,it can summon a decent attacker. It can also summon a ranged attacker. Or it could summon something with an ability. Right now, looks like a lantern archon or d3 small air elementals (d3+1 with superior summons). Obviously, they can't do the job on their own, but they can hold off the wasps for a little while.
We have Dispel magic. Get rid of the stoneskin buffs and the rest of the party can easily beat them to hell.
We have fireball. Kill all the wasps in one shot possibly, but unlikely unless you can trick them into gathering in a 20 food radius.
We have Fly. Fly on the fighter will easily take them down since he has an adamantine weapon.

All of these will work.

But which of these is most effective and useful? Say you don't run into any enemies. What's most useful then?

Dispel is extremely situational. And the duration of summons makes their uses highly restricted. Fireball is combat only, unless you want to blast through icewalls. Then we have fly.

Fly has innumerable uses. Fly mixed with levitate will get your entire party across a chasm. It can help to trivialize land based encounters. It can work to scout ahead in moments. It can function to escape. Fly is an all around safe bet that it will be useful on any given day. And, best of all, it's not self only.

So who is best to cast it on? Yourself? Only for escape. Unless you're built for scouting, in which case all power to ya. The rogue or the fighter will usually be the best go tos for flight magic. Your other players seem to understand this.

But the response is: "But my schtick!" which is pretty much code for "I don't wanna." ie: selfishness. Fly is a good all around tactic for the mage to employ. Not preparing/casting it is often silly if you have it.

If you're saying people should choose the optimal option rather than the fun option then why are there even mundanes in the party?

[Unavenger]

[Snip]

Yes, there are some extremely limited circumstances where casting fly on the ape with the piece of metal is the best use of your action. There are far, far more where it isn't, and he shouldn't feel entitled to flight. If he wants to be entitled to flight, he should do something that entitles him to flight. It's not hard.

[Calthropstu]

Yes, there are some extremely limited circumstances where casting fly on the ape with the piece of metal is the best use of your action. There are far, far more where it isn't, and he shouldn't feel entitled to flight. If he wants to be entitled to flight, he should do something that entitles him to flight. It's not hard.

entitled, no. But I don't think that's what is happening here. The op seemed to be exaggerating due to frustration. It is not unreasonable to expect the caster to use it when it's appropriate.

[Stelio Kontos]

I personally recommend Shax's Indispensable Haversack (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?148101-3-x-Shax-s-Indispensible-Haversack-(Equipment-Handbook)) for all your not-being-a-parasitic-drain-on-your-party's-resources needs!

Great, let's look at that, because it really puts into perspective what an utterly ridiculous idea this "the fighter should just buy stuff to cover for these things and let the wizard do his own thing" is.

For the low low cost of 27,327 GP and 117 pounds of carrying capacity, he can be covered for such contingencies as being able to fly for up to 1 minute per day, once, on a giant wasp. Need more than that? Too bad. If he wants to be able to breathe underwater and stuff, you need to upgrade to the 69,187 GP version.

In other words, assuming that Shax's Indispensable Haversack is what we consider "normal" coverage (and note: it doesn't cover for many scenarios that have been brought up in this thread), a 10th level fighter need only go into a very modest few thousand gold pieces worth of debt to cover for the possibility of underwater combat and very short bursts of flight, so he can let the wizard do his own thing.

Of course, he's now naked and has no weapon or armor or save bonuses or anything like that at all, so there's that. But hey, that's his problem, right?

[Unavenger]

entitled, no. But I don't think that's what is happening here. The op seemed to be exaggerating due to frustration. It is not unreasonable to expect the caster to use it when it's appropriate.

I mean, the OP may or not be exaggerating; I take them at face value because that's a polite way to treat people when they ask your advice. Taken at face value, this situation is squarely the fighter's fault.


Great, let's look at that, because it really puts into perspective what an utterly ridiculous idea this "the fighter should just buy stuff to cover for these things and let the wizard do his own thing" is.

For the low low cost of 27,327 GP and 117 pounds of carrying capacity, he can be covered for such contingencies as being able to fly for up to 1 minute per day, once, on a giant wasp. Need more than that? Too bad. If he wants to be able to breathe underwater and stuff, you need to upgrade to the 69,187 GP version.

In other words, assuming that Shax's Indispensable Haversack is what we consider "normal" coverage (and note: it doesn't cover for many scenarios that have been brought up in this thread), a 10th level fighter need only go into a very modest few thousand gold pieces worth of debt to cover for the possibility of underwater combat and very short bursts of flight, so he can let the wizard do his own thing.

Of course, he's now naked and has no weapon or armor or save bonuses or anything like that at all, so there's that. But hey, that's his problem, right?

SIH covers all sorts of things, like a variety of different damage types (just in case one of your enemies has immunity to a physical damage type, which doesn't exist), dealing with poison with no cleric, owning any tool you can think of, and a variety of things a fighter can safely cut like an item that inflicts a -4 to all those fort saves the fighter's going to be inflicting. Full plate and a greatsword costs you 1550 GP, so you have no reason to assume the fighter is in the nude with no weapon, but sure, continue strawmanning.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Let's say the wizard has 1 3rd level spell slot left. What should it be?

We have summon monster 3. A good all around spell,it can summon a decent attacker. It can also summon a ranged attacker. Or it could summon something with an ability. Right now, looks like a lantern archon or d3 small air elementals (d3+1 with superior summons). Obviously, they can't do the job on their own, but they can hold off the wasps for a little while.
We have Dispel magic. Get rid of the stoneskin buffs and the rest of the party can easily beat them to hell.
We have fireball. Kill all the wasps in one shot possibly, but unlikely unless you can trick them into gathering in a 20 food radius.
We have Fly. Fly on the fighter will easily take them down since he has an adamantine weapon.

I will also point out Wizard made that decision at the beginning of the day.


Dispel is extremely situational.

And I always prep it if I so much as suspect I'm going to be fighting spellcasters.


And the duration of summons makes their uses highly restricted.

It's also the most versatile spell of the lot.


Fireball is combat only, unless you want to blast through icewalls.

Fireball sucks. :smallyuk:


Fly has innumerable uses. Fly mixed with levitate will get your entire party across a chasm. It can help to trivialize land based encounters. It can work to scout ahead in moments. It can function to escape. Fly is an all around safe bet that it will be useful on any given day. And, best of all, it's not self only.

Fly also only lasts minutes per level. Alter Self would be a better choice if you wanted flight.


So who is best to cast it on? Yourself? Only for escape.

Or for defense, to enable tactical movement, ect.


The rogue or the fighter will usually be the best go tos for flight magic. Your other players seem to understand this.

Citation needed.


But the response is: "But my schtick!" which is pretty much code for "I don't wanna." ie: selfishness. Fly is a good all around tactic for the mage to employ. Not preparing/casting it is often silly if you have it.

It's selfish for a summoner to prepare summoning spells? Interesting logic, that.

[Stelio Kontos]

One more area in which the "but my actions are better than the fighter's actions, so I shouldn't buff him" are totally missing the point:

Imagine, say, a chasm across which lies a big nasty monster with the treasure behind it. Fairly common scenario!

Method 1:
Round 1: Wizard casts effective spell on monster, fighter twiddles thumbs (or does very suboptimal plink with arrows or something).
Round 2: Wizard does another effective thing, fighter twiddles thumbs.
Round 3: Wizard does another effective thing, fighter twiddles thumbs.
Round 4: Wizard does another effective thing, fighter twiddles thumbs.
etc.

Method 2:
Round 1: Wizard casts fly on fighter, fighter goes up next to monster
Round 2: Wizard casts effective spell on monster, fighter uses actions effectively to beat up monster
Round 3: Wizard casts effective spell on monster, fighter uses actions effectively to beat up monster
Round 4: Wizard casts effective spell on monster, fighter uses actions effectively to beat up monster


In the long run, unless you're one-shotting everything as the wizard (in which case your DM sucks), Method 2 is clearly superior.

Never mind that in Method 1, the PLAYER will quickly get bored, and stop showing up with the pizza.

[Galacktic]

Why do all of you seem to hate the very idea of teamwork so much? Like, holy crap, you're ostensibly friends with the people you're playing with. Why don't you just offer a buddy a buff and then let it lie? Sometimes your character is dramatically unsuited to the situation, and for that, you need some help from your teammates. D&D is a social game at its core, and every single one of you is spewing nothing but bile and vitriol that proves every negative stereotype about the game right. Like holy god damn, I guarantee that most of us are adults here (I'm pushing 30!) and every single one of us has had the "play nice with your friends or you won't have friends" talk.

Most of you seem to believe that because someone chose to play a mundane character who -can't- do magical things without spending his entire WBL - which he needs to perform as a beatstick of any sort - then they don't deserve to play. And to this I say every single one of you can go **** yourselves.

Sometimes I wanna play a caster. Right now I'm playing a god damn muscle wizard. Sometimes I wanna play a purely mundane character who gets by on wit, guile, or raw strength. But in the end, I -always- have a party backing me up and they have me backing them up.

[Unavenger]

It's selfish for a summoner to prepare summoning spells?

Of course! It's not selfish to build a character who can't buff allies, only to prep spells that can't buff allies, silly!

[AvatarVecna]

If this person is so interested in teamwork, maybe they should've chosen to play a class that doesn't have to be babied by the party and the DM alike in order to be competent, and instead played a class that isn't almost universally gonna end up being an albatross around the neck of its party members.

In my career playing, I've only seen a few Fighters (or just generally fighter-types) that were actually team players, and in general the way they contributed that was significant was 1) using their wealth to increase party spell resources or defenses, and 2) using their giant pile of feats to become surprisingly effective as melee battlefield control. But most fighter-types I see in games tend to just be bruisers who are ****ed the second the enemy has a way of not being in melee range, or a way of being smart enough to target the real threat.

[Calthropstu]

I will also point out Wizard made that decision at the beginning of the day.



And I always prep it if I so much as suspect I'm going to be fighting spellcasters.



It's also the most versatile spell of the lot.



Fireball sucks. :smallyuk:



Fly also only lasts minutes per level. Alter Self would be a better choice if you wanted flight.



Or for defense, to enable tactical movement, ect.



Citation needed.



It's selfish for a summoner to prepare summoning spells? Interesting logic, that.

A summoner only has a very short spell list. Less than a sorcerer if I recall. "I'm a summoner and don't have the fly spell" is a perfectly reasonable argument for not casting fly.

[noob]

Third approach the thread creator was thinking about:
Each member of the party gets a 800 gp item that gives flight and thus have extra level 3 spell slots AND the fighter does not have to wait one turn before the wizard casts a spell on it in order to do useful stuff.
I mean yes you might have a +3 sword instead of a +4 sword but you will get flight which is way more useful.

[Unavenger]

A summoner only has a very short spell list. Less than a sorcerer if I recall. "I'm a summoner and don't have the fly spell" is a perfectly reasonable argument for not casting fly.

We're talking about people who do summoning and therefore are summoners, not a class that doesn't exist in 3.5, I assume.

[ColorBlindNinja]

A summoner only has a very short spell list. Less than a sorcerer if I recall. "I'm a summoner and don't have the fly spell" is a perfectly reasonable argument for not casting fly.

Not the Summoner class, the character archetype.

EDIT: Swordsaged.

[RoboEmperor]

Why do all of you seem to hate the very idea of teamwork so much? Like, holy crap, you're ostensibly friends with the people you're playing with. Why don't you just offer a buddy a buff and then let it lie? Sometimes your character is dramatically unsuited to the situation, and for that, you need some help from your teammates. D&D is a social game at its core, and every single one of you is spewing nothing but bile and vitriol that proves every negative stereotype about the game right. Like holy god damn, I guarantee that most of us are adults here (I'm pushing 30!) and every single one of us has had the "play nice with your friends or you won't have friends" talk.

Most of you seem to believe that because someone chose to play a mundane character who -can't- do magical things without spending his entire WBL - which he needs to perform as a beatstick of any sort - then they don't deserve to play. And to this I say every single one of you can go **** yourselves.

Sometimes I wanna play a caster. Right now I'm playing a god damn muscle wizard. Sometimes I wanna play a purely mundane character who gets by on wit, guile, or raw strength. But in the end, I -always- have a party backing me up and they have me backing them up.

Party imbalance

Two fighters. Both want to beat stuff up. They need fly.

One says the other should switch to a wizard and cast fly. That way he can beat stuff up.
The other says the other should switch to a wizard and cast fly because he wants to beat stuff up.

Question: Which one of these people should abandon being a beatstick and play the support when both of them want to play the beatstick?

It seems because one "fighter" actually has levels in wizard, people seem to single him out. Their reasoning is: because it's easier for the player with the wizard levels to abandon being the beatstick and transform into a dedicated support.

[Unavenger]

I do think it's a little odd that people think that "The summoner should have been a buffbot" is a more reasonable line of argument than "The fighter should have been literally anything in the entire game which was at all effective, including a fighter that's actually good at their job, or should stop making out that it's the summoner's fault that the fighter sucks".

[Calthropstu]

If this person is so interested in teamwork, maybe they should've chosen to play a class that doesn't have to be babied by the party and the DM alike in order to be competent, and instead played a class that isn't almost universally gonna end up being an albatross around the neck of its party members.

In my career playing, I've only seen a few Fighters (or just generally fighter-types) that were actually team players, and in general the way they contributed that was significant was 1) using their wealth to increase party spell resources or defenses, and 2) using their giant pile of feats to become surprisingly effective as melee battlefield control. But most fighter-types I see in games tend to just be bruisers who are ****ed the second the enemy has a way of not being in melee range, or a way of being smart enough to target the real threat.

Mine has been pretty much reversed, with spell casters needing pampering til around 10th level. They need near constant standing between of enemies by the party's tougher combatants. And their "save or sucks" tend to be absolutely useless. "I prepare color spray... oh we're fighting zombies." "I prepare charm person... oh we're fighting scorpions and earth elementals." Eventually, reality sets in and the so called "overpowered" spell casters say "I prepared fireball and cast it."

[noob]

Party imbalance

Two fighters. Both want to beat stuff up. They need fly.

One says the other should switch to a wizard and cast fly. That way he can beat stuff up.
The other says the other should switch to a wizard and cast fly because he wants to beat stuff up.

Question: Which one of these people should abandon being a beatstick and play the support when both of them want to play the beatstick?

It seems because one "fighter" actually has levels in wizard, people seem to single him out. Their reasoning is: because it's easier for the player with the wizard levels to abandon being the beatstick and transform into a dedicated support.

I never told the fighter should play a wizard.
I told the fighter should get an item of flight and there is one worth 800 gp.
If we consider spells to have as value their market value that item is worth it after 6 uses


Mine has been pretty much reversed, with spell casters needing pampering til around 10th level. They need near constant standing between of enemies by the party's tougher combatants. And their "save or sucks" tend to be absolutely useless. "I prepare color spray... oh we're fighting zombies." "I prepare charm person... oh we're fighting scorpions and earth elementals." Eventually, reality sets in and the so called "overpowered" spell casters say "I prepared fireball and cast it."
The overpowered wizard is not the one preparing enchantment spells.
The overpowered wizards are either the ones that can cast any known spell as a full round action(batman wizard) or the ones that cast spells that invalidate entire adventures(like the one who scry and kill the final boss by teleporting together with an army of planar bound creatures)

And also a wizard have many slots so it can probably have one of its spells appropriate for the situation(command undead for example is level 2 and would take out the biggest zombie and make it an ally without save and nobody ever prepare charm person because it is too rare to find a non immune target(needs both the humanoid type and to not be immune to mind controlling and you need to beat a save))
So let us imagine a wizard who prepare spells to have a rather broad offense with his level 2 spells: glitterdust(against invisible threats or stuff you can blind) command undead(if you meet no opponent undead you renew the control on one of your old zombies) and fog cloud(really convenient for fleeing)

[ColorBlindNinja]

Why do all of you seem to hate the very idea of teamwork so much? Like, holy crap, you're ostensibly friends with the people you're playing with. Why don't you just offer a buddy a buff and then let it lie? Sometimes your character is dramatically unsuited to the situation, and for that, you need some help from your teammates. D&D is a social game at its core, and every single one of you is spewing nothing but bile and vitriol that proves every negative stereotype about the game right. Like holy god damn, I guarantee that most of us are adults here (I'm pushing 30!) and every single one of us has had the "play nice with your friends or you won't have friends" talk.

Most of you seem to believe that because someone chose to play a mundane character who -can't- do magical things without spending his entire WBL - which he needs to perform as a beatstick of any sort - then they don't deserve to play. And to this I say every single one of you can go **** yourselves.

Sometimes I wanna play a caster. Right now I'm playing a god damn muscle wizard. Sometimes I wanna play a purely mundane character who gets by on wit, guile, or raw strength. But in the end, I -always- have a party backing me up and they have me backing them up.

Why is it so wrong to ask the Fighter to buy a magic item so that he can fly under his own power and he doesn't waste spell slots the Wizard can be putting to better use?

[Stelio Kontos]

I mean, the OP may or not be exaggerating; I take them at face value because that's a polite way to treat people when they ask your advice. Taken at face value, this situation is squarely the fighter's fault.

SIH covers all sorts of things, like a variety of different damage types (just in case one of your enemies has immunity to a physical damage type, which doesn't exist), dealing with poison with no cleric, owning any tool you can think of, and a variety of things a fighter can safely cut like an item that inflicts a -4 to all those fort saves the fighter's going to be inflicting. Full plate and a greatsword costs you 1550 GP, so you have no reason to assume the fighter is in the nude with no weapon, but sure, continue strawmanning.

Of course SIH covers all those things. Are you not the one suggesting he should cover for every contingency on his own? It’s literally the “buy this to cover for every contingency” pack. By definition, if you leave things out, you are not covering for every contingency. (And DMs have this unique way of finding the problem you haven’t covered for, of course.)

[Calthropstu]

I do think it's a little odd that people think that "The summoner should have been a buffbot" is a more reasonable line of argument than "The fighter should have been literally anything in the entire game which was at all effective, including a fighter that's actually good at their job, or should stop making out that it's the summoner's fault that the fighter sucks".

That is pretty much the jerkiest reply of yours yet. What the hell do you have against fighters?

[AvatarVecna]

I do think it's a little odd that people think that "The summoner should have been a buffbot" is a more reasonable line of argument than "The fighter should have been literally anything in the entire game which was at all effective, including a fighter that's actually good at their job, or should stop making out that it's the summoner's fault that the fighter sucks".

I know, right? If the fighter was a reach monster, not only would they have BFC, but they'd actually not necessarily get immediately rekt by flyers. Or hey, spend a couple feats on decent archery and maybe a little less on your main weapon for a good backup bow? If you could buy a +4 greatsword, you could've spent a little bit more for a +3 greatsword and a +3 longbow.

[thelastorphan]

This thread is the kind of thing that gives Giant a bad rep among lots of roleplayers. It's a great example of the kind of attitudes more casual players deride.

On the teamwork note in particular. It's a matter of scale. If your supposed to be a team and friends esspecially with a good alignment, helping your friends without reciprocation is part of being a good friend not just a good teammate.

In the fighter versus wizard scenario, the game was designed with the thought that the casters should buff the non casters. Their versatility is intended be used for the group instead of making themselves into gods.

[RoboEmperor]

I do think it's a little odd that people think that "The summoner should have been a buffbot" is a more reasonable line of argument than "The fighter should have been literally anything in the entire game which was at all effective, including a fighter that's actually good at their job, or should stop making out that it's the summoner's fault that the fighter sucks".

These people never played spellcasters before so they have no idea why people play spellcasters.

For example, lets say a pyromaniac wants to burn everything alive. So he picks wizard and picks Burning Hands and Fireball.

Then people like ___ comes in and says "It's more optimal to cast fly than fireball so the wizard should've picked up fly instead of fireball and the wizard is a selfish **** for not picking fly over fireball."

[ColorBlindNinja]

Mine has been pretty much reversed, with spell casters needing pampering til around 10th level. They need near constant standing between of enemies by the party's tougher combatants. And their "save or sucks" tend to be absolutely useless. "I prepare color spray... oh we're fighting zombies." "I prepare charm person... oh we're fighting scorpions and earth elementals." Eventually, reality sets in and the so called "overpowered" spell casters say "I prepared fireball and cast it."

Really? My own experience was the exact opposite, with spellcasters being able to disable entire groups of enemies, leaving them basically harmless while the rest of the party mops them up.

[Galacktic]

Why is it so wrong to ask the Fighter to buy a magic item so that he can fly under his own power and he doesn't waste spell slots the Wizard can be putting to better use?

Alright, point out to me the item that a fighter can buy that can let him fly for a reasonable cost more than once per day at level 5 when a third level spell slot actually matters.

[Stelio Kontos]

Why is it so wrong to ask the Fighter to buy a magic item so that he can fly under his own power and he doesn't waste spell slots the Wizard can be putting to better use?

Easy!

Because today the problem is flight and tomorrow the problem is seeing in the dark and the day after that the problem is the hot lava and the next day the problem is breathing underwater and the next day the problem is the negative energy rays, and buying items for all those things is not practical or reasonable.

If the problem were “we need to fly for the 937th time and have no other obstacles again” you’d be right, but no campaign ever runs that way.

[Gnaeus]

My "summon" is actually a planar bound minion. Just the one. So if he dies i'm done for the day, possibly next, to bind a new one.

But yes if the summon is a monster from an actual summon spell I will buff the mundane over the summon 100% of the time.

I will also add that I will prepare extra freedom of movements if I can, but if I didn't and I have just the one, refer to the above post.

Priority List:
1. My PC's life
2. Party member's life
3. My shtick
4. Party members


Oh, and by the way, what are all those "cheap" items that are mentioned?

I don't know any item that offers flight reasonably for less than 10k gp. my character keeps a couple potions for an emergency, but a single potion of flight costs 750 gp, and it's single use. i'd rather save them if possible.
freedom of movements is 40k gp. i don't know anything cheaper.
protection from mind control has a large variety of options, but all of them are either partial, or horribly expensive.
seeing invisibility also has relatively cheap single use items, or expensive continuous ones..

Freedom of movement is 16k.

If emperor is preparing fly and FOM anyway, the solution is for the fighter to buy a pearl of power level 4, hand it to Emperor. He then has every right to ask Emperor to cast a third or fourth level spell on his behalf.

If the problem is Emperor’s actions, the fighter has every right to spend a level or 2 feats getting White Raven Tactics. Then the fighter is entirely within his rights to give the caster an extra turn and require that he spend it using the buff spell the fighter paid for.

[Seerow]

Never mind that in Method 1, the PLAYER will quickly get bored, and stop showing up with the pizza.

Woah woah woah. Hold the phone! The fighters player is providing the pizza? This is objectively providing something to the group in exchange for the buffs. This should have been brought up 5 pages of argument ago!

[RoboEmperor]

Alright, point out to me the item that a fighter can buy that can let him fly for a reasonable cost more than once per day at level 5 when a third level spell slot actually matters.

Why would a fighter need fly more than once per day at level 5? He either needs to invest in a ranged weapon, invest in potions of fly, invest in amber amulet of vermin, or just accept that he's worthless against flying enemies because of the decisions he made and let the party carry him until he fights things that don't fly.

A wizard casting fly on him would be nice but if he doesn't want to then he's not at fault.

[Unavenger]

That is pretty much the jerkiest reply of yours yet. What the hell do you have against fighters?

Nothing! I literally acknowledged that the fighter in question would have been okay if they'd been a fighter who was actually good at being a fighter! But no, they have to be awful at being a fighter, make zero contingencies for fighting flying enemies - one of the most common problems that a fighter could possibly run into - and then go cry because the wizard won't spend their resources making the fighter mediocre instead of terrible.

The fighter could have got an item of flight. The fighter could have taken out a tanglefoot bag and stuck it - literally - to the monster in question; could have whipped out some bolas, bitten the nonproficiency penalty (or dear god, there's one thing that fighters have literally eleven more of than anyone else!), and knocked the flying creature prone. The fighter could even have goddamn thrown his greatsword at the dragon. The fighter could have climbed a wall and tried to get the drop on the dragon, could have done innumerable other things than get mad that the spellcaster wanted to spend their resources doing their own stuff because they're their resources and they have better things to do than buff someone with no imagination and no abilities!

[noob]

Easy!

Because today the problem is flight and tomorrow the problem is seeing in the dark and the day after that the problem is the hot lava and the next day the problem is breathing underwater and the next day the problem is the negative energy rays, and buying items for all those things is not practical or reasonable.

If the problem were “we need to fly for the 937th time and have no other obstacles again” you’d be right, but no campaign ever runs that way.

There is a guide about buying items for all those things and it turns out to have a rather manageable total cost.
And if you do not follow that guide then the day there is negative energy rays thrown by flying monsters the fighter will be messed up(and it exists)

[ColorBlindNinja]

Alright, point out to me the item that a fighter can buy that can let him fly for a reasonable cost more than once per day at level 5 when a third level spell slot actually matters.

More than once per day? This hypothetical Fighter is asking for multiple spell slots from the Wizard, daily?

Why is the Wizard the selfish one again?

I already mentioned the Amber Amulet of Vermin: Giant Wasp, which costs 800 gold.

The Fighter could also buy the Reins of Ascension for 3300 gold.

[Stelio Kontos]

There is a guide about buying items for all those things and it turns out to have a rather manageable total cost.

If you read the last twenty posts or so you will see that I’ve addressed this (and that “reasonable cost” is very wrong, at least by normal WBL guidelines).

[Unavenger]

Easy!

Because today the problem is flight and tomorrow the problem is seeing in the dark and the day after that the problem is the hot lava and the next day the problem is breathing underwater and the next day the problem is the negative energy rays, and buying items for all those things is not practical or reasonable.

Honestly, if your campaign sees a need for flight, fire immunity, water breathing and negative energy immunity within four days, I don't know how the wizard's meant to have all the buffs ready to give that all out to an entire party.


More than once per day? This hypothetical Fighter is asking for multiple spell slots from the Wizard, daily?

Why is the Wizard the selfish one again?

The idea that "Fair" is the wizard buffing the fighter but not the fighter helping the wizard, but when neither buffs the other only the wizard is being selfish, is one that also continues to baffle me.

[noob]

Honestly, if your campaign sees a need for flight, fire immunity, water breathing and negative energy immunity within four days, I don't know how the wizard's meant to have all the buffs ready to give that all out to an entire party.



The idea that "Fair" is the wizard buffing the fighter but not the fighter helping the wizard, but when neither buffs the other only the wizard is being selfish, is one that also continues to baffle me.

Any amount of fire resistance gives immunity to mundane lava damage(magical lava is another question).


If you read the last twenty posts or so you will see that I’ve addressed this (and that “reasonable cost” is very wrong, at least by normal WBL guidelines).

800 gp for flight.
I forgot the cost for becoming a necropolitan but I know it is a way to manage tons of stuff (like breathing in water or resisting negative energy)and afterwards you just need some way to get immunity to turning and rebuking which already were an issue if you had a god(because there is a class that allows to rebuke the worshipers of the gods you want).

Unless you were playing only atheist fighters necropolitan is not a bad deal provided the job is done by a specialist(with the right ritualist you can get 1d12+4 hp per level)

Necropolitan shenanigans aside you can take a soulfire targe which costs like 25000 for being immune to negative energy related stuff and it is mandatory because else you Will get randomly killed by negative energy because there is tons of ways to inflict a few dozens of negative levels at once

[Unavenger]

Any amount of fire resistance gives immunity to mundane lava damage(magical lava is another question).

I am aware that this is the case by RAW, and therefore that you can throw a bucket of water over your head and get resist fire 2 and then go lava swimming, but really, that's not an answer that's going to be particularly helpful because most tables don't play by strict RAW.

[Stelio Kontos]

Honestly, if your campaign sees a need for flight, fire immunity, water breathing and negative energy immunity within four days, I don't know how the wizard's meant to have all the buffs ready to give that all out to an entire party.

Wait, what? This is wrong on so many levels I can't count them all.

[Stelio Kontos]

And yes, of course the fighter provides help to the wizard, simply by his presence drawing attention to the enemies so they don't all swarm the wizard requiring him to make concentration checks. (And if the wizard gets hit, obviously the cleric should not heal him, because he should have spent money on an item that gives him infinite hit points or will instantly raise him from the dead.)

[Calthropstu]

Really? My own experience was the exact opposite, with spellcasters being able to disable entire groups of enemies, leaving them basically harmless while the rest of the party mops them up.

Yeah, that's when you know exactly what you will be facing the next day. Hooray 15 minute adventuring day.

Instead, I prefer something like this:
"So you're in the major city returned from a successful mission. You've spent three days in town and have been given a quest to investigate some disturbing reports of odd occurrences at sea. You go to the dock to make an inquiry with one of the witnesses. As you approach you notice the wind has picked up. The sky darkens with clouds. Make a perception check."

*A pc*: 32.

"You notice the clouds don't look right. They seem to be moving all wrong."

"We continue towards the dock, but keep an eye on the sky."

"Suddenly, the sea issues forth a gigantic vortex sinking all of the vessels in the harbor. The city's defense golems come to life and raid signals issue forth. The clouds split apart and begin darting towards the city and lightning bolts blast towards the city, stopped by the barrier protecting the city. A war has begun, and you are right in the middle of it. Roll initiative as air and water elementals swarm the city."

Yeah, doubt you're ready with a counter for that. Especially not in a city where it's supposedly safe. (This was actually similar to an event that played out in my current campaign. My players pretty much got wrecked.) The spellcaster (who had the most experience) tried to use all his spells but the only one with any effect was the paladin.

[RoboEmperor]

And yes, of course the fighter provides help to the wizard, simply by his presence drawing attention to the enemies so they don't all swarm the wizard requiring him to make concentration checks. (And if the wizard gets hit, obviously the cleric should not heal him, because he should have spent money on an item that gives him infinite hit points or will instantly raise him from the dead.)

If the cleric doesn't want to play a healbot then this is correct. The wizard should've bought healing belts if the cleric said he won't play a healbot.

[Unavenger]

Wait, what? This is wrong on so many levels I can't count them all.

Well, you're relying on the wizard to provide all the buffs, right? So that means that the wizard needs to be able to guess, perfectly in advance, what spell she needs to prep one copy of for everybody in the party (which could easily be more than literally every slot the wizard has of that level). In order to protect the party from lava, you're asking the wizard to blow a seventh-level slot on every single party member (protection from energy's 120 points of protection will be absorbed in about a round and a half; resist energy won't even halve the lava's damage). The wizard has to blow a feat and a spell slot on death ward - it's not on the wizard list - to protect against those negative energy beams.

This, mind you, is the bare minimum for the wizard not to be "Selfish", apparently.

EDIT: Also, there's a difference between blowing a Cure Minor Wounds to stabilise a party member and blowing a Fly because the fighter couldn't be bothered to spend 5gp on a set of bolas, obviously.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Yeah, that's when you know exactly what you will be facing the next day. Hooray 15 minute adventuring day.

Not really, it's pretty easy to prepare spells that are nigh universally useful.


SNIP

Yeah, doubt you're ready with a counter for that. Especially not in a city where it's supposedly safe. (This was actually similar to an event that played out in my current campaign. My players pretty much got wrecked.) The spellcaster (who had the most experience) tried to use all his spells but the only one with any effect was the paladin.

I always prepare spells for combat, even during downtime.

[noob]

And yes, of course the fighter provides help to the wizard, simply by his presence drawing attention to the enemies so they don't all swarm the wizard requiring him to make concentration checks. (And if the wizard gets hit, obviously the cleric should not heal him, because he should have spent money on an item that gives him infinite hit points or will instantly raise him from the dead.)

that is false: monsters knows who the wizard is even if the wizard use a proper disguise and the monsters will always target the wizard first.
which is why fighters can only participate if they are good enough for killing entire armies in a single turn but any competent fighter can do that.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Am I the only one who's noticed that this thread is 6 8* pages of the usual suspects saying one of


If you play a dedicated beater, you're a useless sponge.


If you won't give the beater in your party a few buffs, you're a selfish b****.

when neither is strictly true.

First off, being a beater doesn't make you a useless sponge. You become a useless sponge by being bad at the role you've chosen, regardless of that roll. If you're a beater that's not good at both getting to and hitting things, you're failing in your role just like you are if you're a caster loaded down with spells for very specific circumstances that aren't coming up or a skill type built for dungeons in a political campaign.

Only prepared full-casters have any ability to fix this in short order, on the cheap. Even sorcerers and and favored souls have to pay a pretty penny or undergo a rebuild quest to make up for poor charbuild choices, if not both.

A warrior (build, not the npc class) -needs- to come up with some means of dealing with flying foes because they -will- come up at some point unless the DM is a kid-gloves type (:smallyuk:). There are a variety of options for both taking on flight yourself and bringing flyers to ground. Pick one. If it stops working, pick another. It's not unreasonable to ask an ally to cover the gap if something knocks your anti-flying tactic out unexpectedly but you shouldn't expect to be carried. The same goes for any of the common problems a warrior might expect to encounter; DR, incorporeality, swarms, etc.

On the other end, while it's not strictly necessary to give out buffs, -something- should be done to facilitate the party defeating the enemies in combat. If there's a flyer that can't be reached (faster than the fighter, too strong for a tanglefoot bag, etc) then hitting it with some sort of BFC to put it where your allies -can- hit it is something you can do. Conjuring a flyer of your own that can grapple it is another. Debuffing the enemy's speed, strength, etc is yet a third. Buffing the warrior with a speed boost (or flight if he typically tries to ground the enemy) -is- still an option and not typically a bad one. Same goes for a host of other types of issues such pointing out illusionary foes and obstacles, pinning down teleporters, dividing up large groups, etc.

You're not being selfish until you choose to send out your own conjured beaters and buff them or yourself instead of the warrior when he has better base values and is a valid target for most of the buffs you're using; deliberately stepping on his toes and wasting resources to do it. Asking him to facilitate your ability to buff him (pearls of power, bracers of spellsharing, the odd wand, etc) isn't unreasonable but telling him to get stuff'd when you're casting buffs regularly anyway is a jerk move.

I don't know why people have so much trouble with this.

*it was 6 when I started this post, anyway.

[Stelio Kontos]

800 gp for flight.

Doesn't cover any of the billion other things that might come up, and again that's a maximum of 1 minute flight per day; you're SOL if you need more. As I already addressed.


I forgot the cost for becoming a necropolitan but I know it is a way to manage tons of stuff (like breathing in water or resisting negative energy)and afterwards you just need some way to get immunity to turning and rebuking which already were an issue if you had a god(because there is a class that allows to rebuke the worshipers of the gods you want).

Unless you were playing only atheist fighters necropolitan is not a bad deal provided the job is done by a specialist(with the right ritualist you can get 1d12+4 hp per level)

"How dare you make my wizard carry a few buff spells when all I wanted to do is kill things all by myself, that's changing my character concept and asking someone to do that is TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE. You should just go become an undead instead."

Seems like a perfectly logical line of reasoning.


that is false: monsters knows who the wizard is even if the wizard use a proper disguise and the monsters will always target the wizard first.
which is why fighters can only participate if they are good enough for killing entire armies in a single turn but any competent fighter can do that.

I was unaware that all creatures above ECL 3 or so were intelligent enough to use perfect combat tactics and recognize instantly that the person five feet from them trying to smash their face in was to be summarily ignored in favor of the strange man in robes waving his arms a hundred feet away. Thank you for enlightening me.

[Stelio Kontos]

that is false: monsters knows who the wizard is even if the wizard use a proper disguise and the monsters will always target the wizard first.
which is why fighters can only participate if they are good enough for killing entire armies in a single turn but any competent fighter can do that.

I was unaware that all creatures above ECL 3 or so were intelligent enough to use perfect combat tactics and recognize instantly that the person five feet from them trying to smash their face in was to be summarily ignored in favor of the strange man in robes waving his arms a hundred feet away. Thank you for enlightening me.

[Unavenger]

First off, being a beater doesn't make you a useless sponge. You become a useless sponge by being bad at the role you've chosen, regardless of that roll. If you're a beater that's not good at both getting to and hitting things, you're failing in your role just like you are if you're a caster loaded down with spells for very specific circumstances that aren't coming up or a skill type built for dungeons in a political campaign.

I mean, yes, this is the crux of the matter. I've pointed out that the fighter could have been a variety of other things, including a fighter who could actually goddamn fight, rather than begging the wizard for spell slots. And of course I'll give out flight to my party if they end up fighting flying snakes with Protection from Arrows (who can't be tripped and are basically immune to longbows). But they need to have the basic 5gp two-balls-and-a-bit-of-string as their first go-to, rather than begging me for help all the time.

EDIT: And when I play a fighter, I don't spend my existence begging the party wizard for buffs either, mind. At worst, I ask them if they could buff me so that I can do [thing that also helps them], if I've truly run out of other options. Which I usually haven't.

[noob]

I was unaware that all creatures above ECL 3 or so were intelligent enough to use perfect combat tactics and recognize instantly that the person five feet from them trying to smash their face in was to be summarily ignored in favor of the strange man in robes waving his arms a hundred feet away. Thank you for enlightening me.

You are underestimating their tactics: even if the wizard have a body identical to the one of the fighter and wears the same items and conceals perfectly their spellcasting and outside of their spellcasting does round per round the same thing as the fighter(which it can because it use celerity for having extra actions in order to imitate the fighter and cast its spells as silent still invisible spells) the monsters will still with 100% reliability know which one is the wizard instantly and try to attack it.

[Stelio Kontos]

You are underestimating their tactics: even if the wizard have a body identical to the one of the fighter and wears the same items and conceals perfectly their spellcasting and outside of their spellcasting does round per round the same thing as the fighters the monsters will still with 100% reliability know which one is the wizard and try to attack it.

Uh, since it's apparently needing to be serious and not blue:

I'd suggest that intelligent monsters who have seen spellcasters before would (probably) do that. Unintelligent monsters would not. Intelligent monsters who have not seen spellcasters before would probably take some time to figure it out. If you or your DM thinks that all monsters know who the spellcasters are instantly and instantly recognize them as the main threat, you and they are doing it wrong, full stop.

[gogogome]

So while I completely disagree on your notion that wizards MUST SHARE (communism was founded on similar sentiments) I will agree that a person who doesn't share one or two spells with the fighter is a jackass better off playing video games. But he's still not at fault for not sharing just like how you can't convict a rich person for not donating to your charity despite it being much easier for the rich guy to donate a million dollars than you.

I think this is an apt analogy.

It seems all the mundane players on this thread want buffs without giving anything in return such as buying a pearl of power or a wand for the wizard and is calling the wizard a selfish while at the same time calling themselves not selfish because they're contributing to the party with damage, something the wizard can also do.

Simply put if the wizard player doesn't want to share then there's nothing wrong with that. He is selfish for sure, but you can't blame him for not sharing. It's his character, his resources, and if you want buffs you need put in your resources instead of saying the wizard is a problem player, which he is not.

Going with the analogy, if you want money earn it yourself instead of begging a rich person for a donation, and if you call the rich person an evil person because he wouldn't give you a donation, you're the problem person here.

[Calthropstu]

Am I the only one who's noticed that this thread is 6 pages of the usual suspects saying one of





when neither is strictly true.

First off, being a beater doesn't make you a useless sponge. You become a useless sponge by being bad at the role you've chosen, regardless of that roll. If you're a beater that's not good at both getting to and hitting things, you're failing in your role just like you are if you're a caster loaded down with spells for very specific circumstances that aren't coming up or a skill type built for dungeons in a political campaign.

Only prepared full-casters have any ability to fix this in short order, on the cheap. Even sorcerers and and favored souls have to pay a pretty penny or undergo a rebuild quest to make up for poor charbuild choices, if not both.

A warrior (build, not the npc class) -needs- to come up with some means of dealing with flying foes because they -will- come up at some point unless the DM is a kid-gloves type (:smallyuk:). There are a variety of options for both taking on flight yourself and bringing flyers to ground. Pick one. If it stops working, pick another. It's not unreasonable to ask an ally to cover the gap if something knocks your anti-flying tactic out unexpectedly but you shouldn't expect to be carried. The same goes for any of the common problems a warrior might expect to encounter; DR, incorporeality, swarms, etc.

On the other end, while it's not strictly necessary to give out buffs, -something- should be done to facilitate the party defeating the enemies in combat. If there's a flyer that can't be reached (faster than the fighter, too strong for a tanglefoot bag, etc) then hitting it with some sort of BFC to put it where your allies -can- hit it is something you can do. Conjuring a flyer of your own that can grapple it is another. Debuffing the enemy's speed, strength, etc is yet a third. Buffing the warrior with a speed boost (or flight if he typically tries to ground the enemy) -is- still an option and not typically a bad one. Same goes for a host of other types of issues such pointing out illusionary foes and obstacles, pinning down teleporters, dividing up large groups, etc.

You're not being selfish until you choose to send out your own conjured beaters and buff them or yourself instead of the warrior when he has better base values and is a valid target for most of the buffs you're using; deliberately stepping on his toes and wasting resources to do it. Asking him to facilitate your ability to buff him (pearls of power, bracers of spellsharing, the odd wand, etc) isn't unreasonable but telling him to get stuff'd when you're casting buffs regularly anyway is a jerk move.

I don't know why people have so much trouble with this.

To be fair, I have been saying "When it's appropriate." Usually, plinking away at flyers with bows with the summoner distracting with summons would be a good tactic. A flying beat stick is also a good tactic. If the wizard in question prepared fly and refuses to cast it in a circumstance where it's clearly the better move, the wizard is being a ****. Dragons can pretty much ignore any level appropriate summon. And, given the sheer usefulness of fly, is generally a good bet to prepare.

If you know you're fighting a dragon, the fighter saying "Prepare fly so I can engage it" is a good sound strategy. Saying "But I want to summon a group of low level air elementals it can safely ignore" is not sound strategy.

[Calthropstu]

I think this is an apt analogy.

It seems all the mundane players on this thread want buffs without giving anything in return such as buying a pearl of power or a wand for the wizard and is calling the wizard a selfish while at the same time calling themselves not selfish because they're contributing to the party with damage, something the wizard can also do.

Simply put if the wizard player doesn't want to share then there's nothing wrong with that. He is selfish for sure, but you can't blame him for not sharing. It's his character, his resources, and if you want buffs you need put in your resources instead of saying the wizard is a problem player, which he is not.

Going with the analogy, if you want money earn it yourself instead of begging a rich person for a donation, and if you call the rich person an evil person because he wouldn't give you a donation, you're the problem person here.

Ummm... no.

The melee characters contribute with their vitality. They put their very lives on the line to prevent the enemy reaching the spellcasters so that those spellcasters can get their spells off. Most GMs I have played with, when running unintelligent monsters, have had the monsters engage the larger PCs first, generally the tanks because they look the most threatening. That is how fighters contribute. They take the damage, deal the damage and protect the casters. The casters cast the spells to aid the front line and eliminate the enemy.

If that is not the dynamic you have, then someone is being selfish. Given the comments on this thread, my guess is it's the casters.

[Galacktic]

I had this big scenario typed here about how teamwork can help save the day, but it's all pointless bullcrap for this thread, so here's the long and short of it:

If you act like you do in games, on this forum, you're not going to have any games after a while. We all play this for fun, and whether or not you're mundane, a caster, or something entirely weird that doesn't fit under either? Imagine the game from the other perspective. Imagine being bored in a combat because you, as a person, wouldn't waste 1(!) turn to let them contribute. Especially when it's entirely unreasonable to expect every character to be able to handle -every- eventuality, because the game doesn't give you enough gold for that.

[noob]

Ummm... no.

The melee characters contribute with their vitality. They put their very lives on the line to prevent the enemy reaching the spellcasters so that those spellcasters can get their spells off. Most GMs I have played with, when running unintelligent monsters, have had the monsters engage the larger PCs first, generally the tanks because they look the most threatening. That is how fighters contribute. They take the damage, deal the damage and protect the casters. The casters cast the spells to aid the front line and eliminate the enemy.

If that is not the dynamic you have, then someone is being selfish. Given the comments on this thread, my guess is it's the casters.

Unless you are at one of the tables where 99% of the monsters are intelligent and prefers to hit casters first and the one percent that is not intelligent is programmed to recognize casters and hit them first.
In this case unless the fighter is really good at getting rid of the threats it will not participate much.
The campaign parts where the barbarian participated the most if I remember well were at low level(at low level most monsters are frail and have low mobility so mundanes are an efficient threat against them) and in antimagic zones.(because in antimagic zones the mundanes becomes better than the casters at fighting unless 1: one of the casters can cast stuff into an antimagic zone or 2: the caster can somehow bombard the entire antimagic area with enough voidstone to break everything)

[Stelio Kontos]

I had this big scenario typed here about how teamwork can help save the day, but it's all pointless bullcrap for this thread, so here's the long and short of it:

If you act like you do in games, on this forum, you're not going to have any games after a while. We all play this for fun, and whether or not you're mundane, a caster, or something entirely weird that doesn't fit under either? Imagine the game from the other perspective. Imagine being bored in a combat because you, as a person, wouldn't waste 1(!) turn to let them contribute. Especially when it's entirely unreasonable to expect every character to be able to handle -every- eventuality, because the game doesn't give you enough gold for that.

That seems totally obviously correct, and yet here we are on page 8 or whatever.

[RoboEmperor]

Ummm... no.

The melee characters contribute with their vitality. They put their very lives on the line to prevent the enemy reaching the spellcasters so that those spellcasters can get their spells off. Most GMs I have played with, when running unintelligent monsters, have had the monsters engage the larger PCs first, generally the tanks because they look the most threatening. That is how fighters contribute. They take the damage, deal the damage and protect the casters. The casters cast the spells to aid the front line and eliminate the enemy.

If that is not the dynamic you have, then someone is being selfish. Given the comments on this thread, my guess is it's the casters.

Is there a reason the wizard can't contribute with their summons' vitality? Why does the fighter get to contribute with his vitality and not the wizard with his summons' vitality? Why must the wizard abandon his way of playing? He wants to contribute with his summons' vitality. Why does the fighter get priority over the wizard?


I had this big scenario typed here about how teamwork can help save the day, but it's all pointless bullcrap for this thread, so here's the long and short of it:

If you act like you do in games, on this forum, you're not going to have any games after a while. We all play this for fun, and whether or not you're mundane, a caster, or something entirely weird that doesn't fit under either? Imagine the game from the other perspective. Imagine being bored in a combat because you, as a person, wouldn't waste 1(!) turn to let them contribute. Especially when it's entirely unreasonable to expect every character to be able to handle -every- eventuality, because the game doesn't give you enough gold for that.

We've established that if the wizard doesn't have to abandon his fun to help the other player then he should help the other player.

We're arguing in the scenario where the wizard has to abandon his fun to help the other player, should he abandon his fun? The answer is no.


That seems totally obviously correct, and yet here we are on page 8 or whatever.

Because you people keep arguing the wizard should switch to be a full time buff bot because the wizard should derive joy solely from casting spells, not from doing the shtick they wanted to do.

[Calthropstu]

Unless you are at one of the tables where 99% of the monsters are intelligent and prefers to hit casters first and the one percent that is not intelligent is programmed to recognize casters and hit them first.
In this case unless the fighter is really good at getting rid of the threats it will not participate much.
The campaign parts where the barbarian participated the most if I remember well were at low level(at low level most monsters are frail and have low mobility so mundanes are an efficient threat against them) and in antimagic zones.

Then that's on the gm. Yeah, intelligent enemies can go for the mages. I do that with my kill squads. Fortunately, most of my players have understood that kind of danger and have taken precautions. I also take precautions against that sort of thing. "Awww, how cute you decided to fly past my melee allies and attack my sorcerer because I littered the battlefield with summons. *dimension door next to my allies* Good luck with that."

[noob]

Then that's on the gm. Yeah, intelligent enemies can go for the mages. I do that with my kill squads. Fortunately, most of my players have understood that kind of danger and have taken precautions. I also take precautions against that sort of thing. "Awww, how cute you decided to fly past my melee allies and attack my sorcerer because I littered the battlefield with summons. *dimension door next to my allies* Good luck with that."
benign transposition is quite good and you can have it on a runestaff for cheap.(just have your allies wear unconscious frogs?)

[Gnaeus]

Especially when it's entirely unreasonable to expect every character to be able to handle -every- eventuality, because the game doesn't give you enough gold for that.

16kgp still covers any eventuality that can be resolved by any spell of 4th level or below any caster in the party prepped that day. Assuming a wizard with Polymorph and a cleric with death ward and FOM that’s pretty much every eventuality that has been mentioned so far.

[Stelio Kontos]

Is there a reason the wizard can't contribute with their summons' vitality? Why does the fighter get to contribute with his vitality and not the wizard with his summons' vitality? Why must the wizard abandon his way of playing? He wants to contribute with his summons' vitality. Why does the fighter get priority over the wizard?

Because, if we're talking optimal, the fighter ALREADY EXISTS and doesn't require an action to exist. You're saying it's better to summon a creature and tell the fighter and the fighter's player to go stand in the corner, than to cast flight and let the fighter do what the summon can do. That's just ... I don't even, but I know you'd be a miserable person to play with with that attitude.




We've established that if the wizard doesn't have to abandon his fun to help the other player then he should help the other player.

We're arguing in the scenario where the wizard has to abandon his fun to help the other player, should he abandon his fun? The answer is no.

If you honestly believe that "casting flight on the fighter" is forcing the wizard to "abandon his fun", what the hell are we even talking to you for? If that's the only way you can have fun, go play some solo campaign somewhere and no you can't have any pizza and beer on your way out my door. Good riddance.




Because you people keep arguing the wizard should switch to be a full time buff bot because the wizard should derive joy solely from casting spells, not from doing the shtick they wanted to do.

We've already comprehensively burnt that strawman to the ground, please don't play in the ashes.

[gogogome]

Is there a reason the wizard can't contribute with their summons' vitality? Why does the fighter get to contribute with his vitality and not the wizard with his summons' vitality? Why must the wizard abandon his way of playing? He wants to contribute with his summons' vitality. Why does the fighter get priority over the wizard?

Because racism. Or... classism? People of this forum are behaving as if mundanes are an oppressed minority and deserves special treatment, which is not true. We're all people here and we all have access to the same tools. No one here is privileged. So if a spellcaster wants to contribute in the same way as a fighter, he has an equal right as the fighter to do so.

[noob]

you can still cover a lot of possible stuff with your money and at high level(basically higher than 12) you start having enough gold for managing all the list given here(25000 for soulfire, 800 for flight, 12000 for immunity to lava, 9000 gp for the necklace of adaptation that gives immunity to some stuff against which there is no core spells and which allows to breath under water and we still have money left for other stuff).
At level 15 you can even have freedom of movement.
Well freedom of movement is truly an useful spell it is so sad that the main item for permanent freedom of movement is that expensive: it costs roughly as much as the rest of the stuff.

[RoboEmperor]

Because, if we're talking optimal, the fighter ALREADY EXISTS and doesn't require an action to exist. You're saying it's better to summon a creature and tell the fighter and the fighter's player to go stand in the corner, than to cast flight and let the fighter do what the summon can do. That's just ... I don't even, but I know you'd be a miserable person to play with with that attitude.

If you honestly believe that "casting flight on the fighter" is forcing the wizard to "abandon his fun", what the hell are we even talking to you for? If that's the only way you can have fun, go play some solo campaign somewhere and no you can't have any pizza and beer on your way out my door. Good riddance..

Let me share my experience with you as a former summon monster wizard. This was literally my first d&d character.

I wanted to summon powerful monsters that tear stuff up.

At first I summoned dogs that lasted 1 round. Horrible. They never hit with their pathetic +2 to attack, and the damage they deal was subpar. Magic missile was better. In the end I had to summon spiders and just throw webs all day to entangle the opponent and then position them to provide flanking to contribute to combat. This was NOT what I wanted.

Then i got SMII. Again, virtually no different than SMI. I found myself summoning multiple spiders again and just playing the entangling flanker because wolves and riding dogs are pathetic damage dealers especially considering I don't have that many spell slots.

From reading online, it seems SMIII is the spell that starts letting me do melee damage with my summoned monsters. It was all I was looking forward to. For the entire 2 months it took my character to hit level 5, all I could think of was getting my hands on that SMIII.

So now imagine me being denied my SMIII after 2 whole months of waiting because everyone wants me to cast haste or fly instead. So when can I use SMIII? After we've outleveled its usefulness? Perhaps I need to wait another 2 whole months and use SMIV instead because 3rd level spell slots are so precious.

If I was in this scenario I would've said **** no. I waited 2 whole ****ing months to finally start tearing stuff up with monsters and if you tell me its more optimal to haste the fighter than summon a fiendish ape and I was being selfish for not casting haste I will leave.

So yes, preparing fly instead of SMIII at level 5 or 6 is ruining my fun.

At level 8 or 9 when I'm using mostly 4th and 5th level slots? Nope, preparing fly is not an issue because only the highest 2 levels of SM are relevant in combat so it's no trouble then. But not at level 5-6, and it's a painful investment at 7.

[Gnaeus]

you can still cover a lot of possible stuff with your money and at high level(basically higher than 12) you start having enough gold for managing all the list given here(25000 for soulfire, 800 for flight, 12000 for immunity to lava, 9000 gp for the necklace of adaptation that gives immunity to some stuff against which there is no core spells and which allows to breath under water and we still have money left for other stuff).
At level 15 you can even have freedom of movement.
Well freedom of movement is truly an useful spell it is so sad that the main item for permanent freedom of movement is that expensive: it costs roughly as much as the rest of the stuff.

It still doesn’t. For 27k you could buy a pearl of power and a rod of extend spell, have FOM from your caster 12 4 hours per day with no expense to him and he still has 2 rod uses left for other stuff.

[Calthropstu]

Is there a reason the wizard can't contribute with their summons' vitality? Why does the fighter get to contribute with his vitality and not the wizard with his summons' vitality? Why must the wizard abandon his way of playing? He wants to contribute with his summons' vitality. Why does the fighter get priority over the wizard?



We've established that if the wizard doesn't have to abandon his fun to help the other player then he should help the other player.

We're arguing in the scenario where the wizard has to abandon his fun to help the other player, should he abandon his fun? The answer is no.



Because you people keep arguing the wizard should switch to be a full time buff bot because the wizard should derive joy solely from casting spells, not from doing the shtick they wanted to do.

Often, the summon schtick will work great.

Not so against giant beat sticks like dragons. Take a look at a dragon, their cr, what level summon you should have at 1-2 levels less than that cr and compare the flying options to the dragon's stats. In all cases, your summon comes up vastly lacking. In many cases, the only thing that can damage them at all is lantern archons on a nat 20. So your answer is "I wanna do something useless instead of helping our beat stick beat it." Yeah, no. This is role playing. Role play your character growing up and realizing that working together works and soloing things while your party looks on isn't going to work.

[ColorBlindNinja]

So your answer is "I wanna do something useless instead of helping our beat stick beat it."

It's not like the unoptimized Fighter is going to put much more of struggle than the summons will.

[zlefin]

Because, if we're talking optimal, the fighter ALREADY EXISTS and doesn't require an action to exist. You're saying it's better to summon a creature and tell the fighter and the fighter's player to go stand in the corner, than to cast flight and let the fighter do what the summon can do. That's just ... I don't even, but I know you'd be a miserable person to play with with that attitude.





If you honestly believe that "casting flight on the fighter" is forcing the wizard to "abandon his fun", what the hell are we even talking to you for? If that's the only way you can have fun, go play some solo campaign somewhere and no you can't have any pizza and beer on your way out my door. Good riddance.





We've already comprehensively burnt that strawman to the ground, please don't play in the ashes.

do you understand the OP's actual objection?
because the wya you're arguing it often seems like you don't.


re: calth, a note to everyone: the games calth has played in have patterns that run very different from the average.

[noob]

It still doesn’t. For 27k you could buy a pearl of power and a rod of extend spell, have FOM from your caster 12 4 hours per day with no expense to him and he still has 2 rod uses left for other stuff.

Yes if the party fighter buys those of course he will get his freedom of movement.
So that + the previously mentioned items allows to have most of the stuff from the list for not so much money(still a lot but the fighter with that equipment does not finds itself instantly helpless when out of arm reach of the caster).