PDA

View Full Version : Why the hate for the Fighter?



Kompera
2007-10-09, 05:46 AM
This is kind of a two part question.

In almost every post I see referring to the Fighter class, the Fighter is disparaged. Why is this?

-and-

At what level range do the campaigns of most of the participants in this forum run?

What I'm trying to get at in a round-about way is this:

I'm running in a "mostly core" (core, no psionics, and maybe 4 splatbooks such as CW, ToB, PH2, if memory serves) campaign where I've got a 2nd Barbarian/1st Fighter. The other players (also 3rd except where noted) are:
Bard
Druid
Cleric
Wizard
Fighter
Monk (2nd)

All of us are veteran D&D/AD&D players. Almost all of us are capable of at least a modest amount of character optimizing/min-maxing/finding a logical focus for our Feats and skills, but this is limited by the limited spread of books the group as a whole owns between them.

I expect this campaign to ramp up to about 5th level, and to run until somewhere between 6th and 8th before ending due to the inevitable pressures of work demands/work schedule change/family/etc/etc.

With this in mind, after 2 levels in Barbarian I took a level in Fighter for the 2 Feats this 'dip' would give me (one for 3rd, and one for FTR 1). At this level of play, an extra Feat seems like a very good thing. I plan to take another level in Fighter when I reach 4th, again for the Feat. Even at 3rd, with 4 Feats I feel like I've got a nice assortments of combat options, and I in no way feel overpowered by the casters. Yes, the Mage could Sleep me if he had that spell, but he doesn't. :smallcool: And in any event, the game isn't played versus the other players, so even if he had Sleep that would be a non-issue for me. The casters have enough spells to last them through the 0-3 fights in any given evening of play, and I can of course swing my flail through those same encounters.

Were I to avoid the Fighter class as if it were the leper it seems to be on these boards, I'm sure I'd have fun playing a single-classed Barbarian. But I'd miss out on a few Feats which seem to allow me to add a lot of flavor to my combat now rather than having to wait until later levels and the slow Feats-for-levels progression that every non-Fighter gets.

This is at least how it seems to me. What am I missing? If the Fighter is a pariah due to it's performance at level 20th and into Epic play, I can live with that. My group will never play at those levels, and so it's a non-issue for us. Or is it the breadth of splat books which we do not have access to which would make the Fighter pale in comparison to the variety of alternative classes and PrCs available to those who own them all and can cherry pick for the most synergistic combinations?

Matthew
2007-10-09, 05:53 AM
Fighters are fine until around Level 5 or 6, when they begin to lose ground against Spell Casters in terms of what they can potentially contribute to party success. By the time Fifth Level Spells come into play, character balance is looking dubious. It's not so much hate for the Fighter as love and sadness that they are no longer the relatively good Class of previous editions.

That said, the actual experience will vary from game to game. There are a ton of polls around the Forum as to what are people's preferred levels of play. A lot of people like 'high level' play.

Miraqariftsky
2007-10-09, 05:55 AM
With this in mind, after 2 levels in Barbarian I took a level in Fighter for the 2 Feats this 'dip' would give me (one for 3rd, and one for FTR 1). At this level of play, an extra Feat seems like a very good thing. I plan to take another level in Fighter when I reach 4th, again for the Feat. Even at 3rd, with 4 Feats I feel like I've got a nice assortments of combat options, and I in no way feel overpowered by the casters. Yes, the Mage could Sleep me if he had that spell, but he doesn't. :smallcool: And in any event, the game isn't played versus the other players, so even if he had Sleep that would be a non-issue for me. The casters have enough spells to last them through the 0-3 fights in any given evening of play, and I can of course swing my flail through those same encounters.

Were I to avoid the Fighter class as if it were the leper it seems to be on these boards, I'm sure I'd have fun playing a single-classed Barbarian. But I'd miss out on a few Feats which seem to allow me to add a lot of flavor to my combat now rather than having to wait until later levels and the slow Feats-for-levels progression that every non-Fighter gets.


Hey! That's... that's also how I plan to build my character's feat-level progression! Two levels in Barbarian, then two in Fighter for the bonus feats--- really handy, those are!

I much agree, Kompera, ol' chap. Even if ye take the long view and theoretically have enough time for a level 0-epic level campaign, the only things ye'll miss from the barbarian are the DR and Tireless Rage.

Oh, and just curious--- are ye using a light flail or a heavy flail?

Mr. Friendly
2007-10-09, 06:13 AM
Well, your own post answers why fighters are hated. Yes, they are really cool --- for almost exactly 2 to 4 levels. After that there are many, many, many, many, many, many^99 better options for a character. So, it's not that fighters "suck" it's just that it should be a 4 level prestige class with no prereqs. There is no reason, zero, to play a fighter over any other melee class. That pretty much sums it up. If the fighter got a feat like... every level? Maybe. Even still there is only so much distance feats can carry you.

Zincorium
2007-10-09, 06:15 AM
Don't assume that the fighter is disliked by the majority of the boards, that's very much incorrect and you'd be doing us all a favor if you take a bit of time to pierce the filter behind what's going on.

Fighter is a class which is supposed to be balanced against other classes for the entire length of the game and should always be the best at what it can do. I'll dig up the math if I must, but the simple fact is the game design has not favored the fighter, the vast majority of power in the game exists in the form of spells, which the fighter, among several other classes, does not have access to. In fact, with certain spells or abilities a cleric or druid can beat the fighter at his own game, in melee combat, as well as retain their own areas of expertise.

As a dip, or as something to take en route to a PrC, the fighter can still hold a useful and competitive place, but a fighter 20 is, by sheer mathematics and variety of tactics available, massively disadvantaged against a 20th level character of one of the full-spellcasting classes. This is by poor forethought and hazy thinking by the designers, not any bias held by the forumites.

Kompera
2007-10-09, 06:41 AM
Oh, and just curious--- are ye using a light flail or a heavy flail?At present, a Masterwork light flail. Idealy, a heavy flail or possibly a spiked chain. I love the trip/disarm options offered by all three of these weapons, and the heavy flail and spiked chain do the disarming better.


Don't assume that the fighter is disliked by the majority of the boards, that's very much incorrect and you'd be doing us all a favor if you take a bit of time to pierce the filter behind what's going on.

Fighter is a class which is supposed to be balanced against other classes for the entire length of the game and should always be the best at what it can do.Isn't this supposed to be true of all classes? And yet there are numerous example situations a person could give for why class A could beat class B, depending on opening range, spells available, etc. I'd say that a goal of "balanced against other classes for the entire length of the game" is a hopeless one from the start, no matter which two classes you choose to compare. But if all the Fighter disparaging remarks I've read on this board are due to the ability of some classes to enjoy potant spell casting as well as out-fighting the Fighter, then I'll take the apparent Fighter hate to be poor game design hate, and thanks for pointing that out ot me.


There is no reason, zero, to play a fighter over any other melee class.I would have sworn that I gave my own reasons for playing a Fighter over another melee class: More Feats, sooner. And at least Nexus-R.C._Mina seems to see that same reason.

martyboy74
2007-10-09, 06:47 AM
Sadly, fighter, through reasons outlined by others in this thread, has become nothing more than a 3-level dip class to get extra feats.

SoD
2007-10-09, 06:49 AM
Maybe, but personally, I don't have any bias towards the fighter, nor any other class. I'm happy playing any role, and any race (except humans). But my favorite weapon has to be the halberd. It's not reach, you can ready against a charge, two types of damage, and, from memory, make disarm attempts. Or was it trip attempts? Anyway, that's my favorite weapon.

banjo1985
2007-10-09, 06:59 AM
The figures unfortuantely show that a Fighter is a poor choice as a character runs up to Level 9 and above, maybe earlier for some. However, by the sound of it you play a similar level of game to myself, fairly short term and low level, with no real prospects of going above ,say, Level 12 or so?

If that's correct then go for a Fighter and to hell with the high level weakness. At low levels the Fighter can hold its own, and with some Barbarian levels thrown in there it'll be pretty solid as a meat shield and damage dealer. As for higher levels, say 7th level and above, where the fighter starts to fall behind, just take a prestuge class!

Jarlax
2007-10-09, 07:05 AM
fighters just aren't as robust as other classes are. they are a class which gives you Full BAB, full armour, most weapons and a heap of feats, but no unique class abilities or special options, they are boring and underpowered at mid to high levels.

they are the beginner class, the easy one to learn at the start because its so simple in its design. they are perhaps not supposed to be the best class out there but in 3E wizards felt its was necessary to have a beginner class for new players.

while you do gain more feats and sooner from a fighter, these are only combat options which can never compete with a barbarians rage, a ToB maneuver or the many other class features out there, especially since they take take those same feats, lets say at third level fighter you take power attack, you can now deal +3 damage on your attacks at a -3 penalty. meanwhile my 3rd level warblade takes mountain hammer and deals +2D6 damage and ignores any DR or hardiness on the target.

the fighter certainly has its use for dipping into for quick feats but at full progression it quickly falls behind all the other classes in terms of performance. which is the source of most peoples avoidance of the class and why wizards have made efforts to make fighters vastly improved for 4E.

Xefas
2007-10-09, 07:12 AM
While I dunno why you'd pick Fighter over Warblade (as you noted that you're allowed ToB), it doesn't make all that much difference in most games.

People say the Fighter is weak, and it is, but unless you're playing D&D: The Serious Tactical Exercise Campaign, where every random encounter is a bloody, angry, flop-sweat inducing, crotch-stomping, hellish battle of wits and grit simply for your continued survival, wherein every feat, skill point, and move action weighs against your overall victory- and you truly do want to win, then it isn't a big deal.

If you have fun with a Fighter, then you've accomplished what you set out to do.

Everybody is just disappointed that it's seriously unbalanced.

Saph
2007-10-09, 07:21 AM
At what level range do the campaigns of most of the participants in this forum run?

I did a poll on this a while back, as did a few others. The rough breakdown was:

85% - Levels 1 to 10.
10-15% - Levels 11 to 15.
1-2% - Level 16 or over.

In general, melee classes hold up fine balance-wise at levels 1-10, so the imbalance at higher levels really isn't that big a problem for most games.

However, for various reasons, many people judge classes based primarily on their strength at higher levels. I've never really thought this is a good idea - who cares if your character will be uber at level 10 if the campaign's going to end at level 9? But I guess there's something fun about looking ahead to what you're aiming for.

The issue with the Fighter class specifically is that there's little reason to take more than two levels of it. Fighter 3 is a dead level, as is Fighter 5. This pushes you to go Fighter 2 and then switch over into Barbarian or Ranger or Warblade or Crusader or Paladin and then a prestige class or something, penalising you if you stick with the Fighter class instead - which is annoying.

But yes, as a two level dip class at low to mid levels, Fighter is fine, and quite strong.

- Saph

Dausuul
2007-10-09, 07:22 AM
I'm not fond of the fighter partly because it's a weak class past level 4, but mainly because I find it boring as hell in combat. A fighter has at best a small handful of tricks that quickly get old. And since fighters get jack for social skills and out-of-combat utility... yeah. Not that I can't make a fighter who's fun to play, but the rules give me no help in doing so.

That's a personal preference, though. I like having lots of game-mechanical options at my fingertips. Other people don't like having to sift through a zillion possible tactics each round.

raygungothic
2007-10-09, 07:30 AM
Why the hate for the fighter? Lazy DMs not taking care to write adventures (and campaigns) which give them a distinctive role and a fair share of the limelight - while ignoring a lot of the caster classes' implicit disadvantages which are the true price of the power they wield. The DM has a right to reject character concepts that won't fit (and a no-holds-barred all-caster campaign might be entertaining... once), but any he accepts deserve an equal share of his time and attention and the story.

Inflict marathon days when the wizards run out of spells or have to nurture them carefully. Interrupt rest, so the fighter is the only one who can save the party. Travel to martial cultures that respect the fighter better than the book-learning types, so he'll have to lead interactions with them. Give the fighter a knighthood with its own fief, while the wizards sit in their lonely towers. Journey to areas of the universe where magic works differently or is less reliable, just sometimes. Vet spellcasters' character advancement choices more carefully to make sure they stay fair, perhaps allowing selected splatbook powers for fighters but not splatbook excess for casters. Make sure the magic items you dish out favour the fighter. Get scrupulous about spell components sometimes, such as when the party get soaked to the skin by a rainstorm (NOW the wizard wishes he wasn't carrying half a ton of bat guano!). Put physical tests in adventures, so the fighter can excel. Remember that it's easier to detect a sneaking magic user than a sneaking non-magic user, and that many spells are terribly conspicuous - not very helpful if adventure success depends on no-one knowing the party were there, in a thievery or espionage scenario.

And that's just off the top of my head. I'm sure none of those suggestions would work taken to excess, but there must be plenty more.

(edited to add - allowing them a few more skill points wouldn't go amiss, though. They could be medium-skill rather than low-skill quite happily without messing anything up)

Morty
2007-10-09, 07:35 AM
*snip

Yeah, DM can do this to intentionally screw caster's player over just because s/he chose the wrong class to play. But it's a thread about fighter class specifically, and fighter doesn't look too good even among his fellow melee classes. Fighter doesn't really have any class features that'd make taking more than 6 levels of Fighter as viable as taking those levels in, let's say, Barbarian.

Dausuul
2007-10-09, 07:40 AM
Why the hate for the fighter? Lazy DMs not taking care to write adventures (and campaigns) which give them a distinctive role and a fair share of the limelight - while ignoring a lot of the caster classes' implicit disadvantages which are the true price of the power they wield. The DM has a right to reject character concepts that won't fit (and a no-holds-barred all-caster campaign might be entertaining... once), but any he accepts deserve an equal share of his time and attention and the story.

The problem is, at mid- to high levels, if you give fighters an equal share of time and attention, they lose out. You have to give them more time and attention in order to keep them in the picture. You can throw all kinds of scenarios at the party and be confident that the casters will have something to contribute in every one; you can get the rogue involved with a little effort; but you really have to work at it to create scenarios where the fighter won't be bored and/or dead. That's the sign of a poorly designed class.

Of course, as Saph says, 85% of campaigns run by people on these boards are in the 1-10 range, where fighters are still highly relevant; and the people on these boards are probably better equipped to handle high-level play than the average D&D gamer, so I'd expect to see the proportion be skewed even further toward the low levels in the general gaming population.

And, as M0rt says, fighters don't compete well even against other non-casters.

Zincorium
2007-10-09, 07:48 AM
Why the hate for the fighter? Lazy DMs not taking care to write adventures (and campaigns) which give them a distinctive role and a fair share of the limelight - while ignoring a lot of the caster classes' implicit disadvantages which are the true price of the power they wield. The DM has a right to reject character concepts that won't fit (and a no-holds-barred all-caster campaign might be entertaining... once), but any he accepts deserve an equal share of his time and attention and the story.

Why is it whenever people talk about class balance there always has to be that one person to pop up and say "Everything would be fine if your DM knew what they were doing!". The fact that it can be fixed just proves that it's broken enough to need fixing.

Taking time to give them a distinctive role and a fair share of the limelight is taking away from time to write up adventures and create interesting plots for all the PCs. Fortunately it isn't hard at low levels, because otherwise I don't think many DMs would do it. And wotc has made the caster's disadvantage 'you can ruin my character with a single blow', and you can't use that every combat, heck, you can't ever use it without looking like a jerk.


Inflict marathon days when the wizards run out of spells or have to nurture them carefully.

Yay for bad ideas.

What happens when the cleric runs out of healing spells, eh? Are the fighters just going to keep on charging into combat when they barely have enough hit points to stay conscious? Everybody has resources that go away. If the fighter isn't losing hit points, you as the DM are doing something wierd.



Interrupt rest, so the fighter is the only one who can save the party.

How? Hope that his few remaining HP last long enough so everyone can run away?



Travel to martial cultures that respect the fighter better than the book-learning types, so he'll have to lead interactions with them.

Cutting the steps out from under classes that have spent skill points on diplomacy and such.


Give the fighter a knighthood with its own fief, while the wizards sit in their lonely towers.

I'm not sure where to start with this. It didn't work well in 2nd edition, it isn't going to work now. Characters do not have fun sitting at home, so making home interesting does jack all for improving the game.


Journey to areas of the universe where magic works differently or is less reliable, just sometimes. Vet spellcasters' character advancement choices more carefully to make sure they stay fair, perhaps allowing selected splatbook powers for fighters but not splatbook excess for casters. Make sure the magic items you dish out favour the fighter. Get scrupulous about spell components sometimes, such as when the party get soaked to the skin by a rainstorm (NOW the wizard wishes he wasn't carrying half a ton of bat guano!). Put physical tests in adventures, so the fighter can excel. Remember that it's easier to detect a sneaking magic user than a sneaking non-magic user, and that many spells are terribly conspicuous - not very helpful if adventure success depends on no-one knowing the party were there, in a thievery or espionage scenario.

And that's just off the top of my head. I'm sure none of those suggestions would work taken to excess, but there must be plenty more.

(edited to add - allowing them a few more skill points wouldn't go amiss, though. They could be medium-skill rather than low-skill quite happily without messing anything up)

How about an idea that doesn't suck for everyone but the fighter?

Morty
2007-10-09, 07:54 AM
How about an idea that doesn't suck for everyone but the fighter?

Proposed "fixes" would be just as benefical for knight, barbarian or paladin, who are already stronger than fighter anyway.

raygungothic
2007-10-09, 08:24 AM
Zincorium, and others - I almost always DM, and have had reasonable success with all of the above, in moderation. The moderation was the important part everybody seemed to miss. I've also been in some reasonably high level D&D (12-15) in which good DMs managed to keep things fair and fighters useful. On the other hand, I've also been in campaigns of all sorts in which the DM's style, and lack of attention to limelight balance, implicitly favours one class or archetype - and fallen into that trap myself, on occasion, though I believe I'm doing better these days.

Limelight control is about *time, and proportion of contribution, during play*. I'll agree that it is very easy to allow wizards to dominate this - but a fair distribution of my attention is just that, a fair distribution. That's during the game. Before play, working out how to involve everyone is a vital task of session design, and it doesn't seem to take a disproportionate amount of time for the fighter - if anything, it takes more time working out what magical defences are needed to prevent high-level mages from circumventing the plot.

- "How about an idea that doesn't suck for everyone but the fighter": Occasionally reminding people that magic is not all-powerful or always consistent is not "nerfing casters". Not ever allowing circumstances and the suggestions already present in the rules to hinder casters is "nerfing" everybody else.

- "If the fighter isn't losing hit points, you as the DM are doing something weird." Oh, they are. But they're losing HP more slowly in equal situations, and they have more to lose. The AC/HP mechanic is one of the things I like least about D&D, because it's inherently unheroic in a supposedly heroic system, but it's not irredeemably broken.

- "And wotc has made the caster's disadvantage 'you can ruin my character with a single blow', and you can't use that every combat": I'd say the caster's disadvantage was more like 'you need to be really careful what situations you get into, while the fighter is tough and armoured enough to take greater risks so is more likely to be in the thick of it, or get there first and steal the limelight'. It's not that difficult to engineer. If the $genericMonsters will hit the fighter less often and do a smaller proportion of his total damage, he's going to have to expend a lot less effort trying to avoid them.

- "Characters do not have fun sitting at home, so making home interesting does jack all for improving the game". It's not home being interesting. It's home tying the character into the world more, home giving opportunities for adventure hooks or interwoven side quests, home status changing how society interacts with you, and responsibilities to react to. I wasn't thinking of 2nd edition at all there, I was thinking of Pendragon. Only works for some players, of course, but it's not a sole answer - it's one weapon in a large arsenal.

Miles Invictus
2007-10-09, 08:27 AM
In the game I run, the Fighter gets six skill points per level and has an expanded skill set -- Appraise, Diplomacy, Gather Information, Heal, a heap of Knowledge skills, Profession, Spot, and Use Magic Device.

It's probably still a bit underpowered, but it gives them something to do besides attack.

Saph
2007-10-09, 08:27 AM
How about an idea that doesn't suck for everyone but the fighter?

Well, an easy fix is to give fighters a bonus feat every level, instead of every other level.

It would make them even more super-feat-oriented, but it would definitely be a power boost (you can use feats for almost anything) and would fix the 'dead level' problem.

- Saph

Morty
2007-10-09, 08:28 AM
Well, an easy fix is to give fighters a bonus feat every level, instead of every other level.

It would make them even more super-feat-oriented, but it would definitely be a power boost (you can use feats for almost anything) and would fix the 'dead level' problem.

- Saph

And fighters would run out of feats to take even faster.

Valairn
2007-10-09, 08:31 AM
To answer your first question, I believe you have a mistaken impression of why people bash the fighter. Its not because they dislike the class, in fact most of us would love to play a fighter, if it wasn't so freaking terrible at high levels compared to the other core classes.

I love the idea of a fighter, I hate its implementation. Bonus feats and high BaB do not a class make.

Saph
2007-10-09, 08:33 AM
And fighters would run out of feats to take even faster.

Nah. As long as you're playing non-core, a melee character can never have enough feats. There are some outrageously powerful combos out there that are really hard to get because you need so many feats to do them. (Super-charger, super-tripper, AoO monster.)

- Saph

Galathir
2007-10-09, 08:44 AM
The main trouble with giving more feats is that they provide diminishing returns. The fighter still only has so many actions per round so he has a few more options, but can't really do all the much more.

However, I enjoy playing fighters at lower levels. One of my favorite characters was an fighter specializing in archery. He certainly wasn't one of the best contributers in the party, but he was a lot of fun to play. However, we were around level 3-8. Any higher and I would have been completely useless.

Serenity
2007-10-09, 09:06 AM
Ah, yes, the eternal strawman that you can always nerf casters by stealing their spellbook, sticking them in an antimagic field, constantly stopping them from preparing spells, etc. Taking away a mage's spells is not the equivalent of taking away the fighter's weapons; it's the equivalent of takingaway the fighter's weapons and armor and breaking his legs. Even CoDzilla relies on spells and special abilities to surpass the fighter's combat prowess. This is the ridiculous DC approach to weaknesses: a character who is nigh-all powerful unless exposed to Kryptonite/Magic/The Color Yellow/Being tied up by a man/etc., at which point they become completely powerless. This may work in comics, but it certainly isn't good game balance. To bring such weaknesses into play, the DM has to specifically target a character in a way that seriously if not totally cripples his ability to contribute to the rest of the encounter. Vastly preferable is the Marvel approach: the character has a number of special abilities, but there are still a vast number of situations that challenge and threaten them without resorting to Applied Phlebotinum to take away their powers.

Rex Blunder
2007-10-09, 09:28 AM
And fighters would run out of feats to take even faster.

Heck, if you're strapped for ideas, you can just take Toughness every other level. That would essentially be like giving a fighter a d12 hit die, but a shade better.

As Saph says, though, there's plenty of reasonably good feats to take, much better than Toughness. So while you won't double your effectiveness with about twice as many feats, you won't do yourself any harm either.

raygungothic
2007-10-09, 09:39 AM
Serenity - completely stripping casters of their power would be going far, far too far the other way. There is so much that can be done in between. Your argument is far more of a straw man than the idea that, sometimes, casters don't have it all their own way. Anti-magic fields are, frankly, boring - but sending the players on a mission to a plane where (magic is unpredictable and might turn you into a frog/scary demons can "smell" spellcasting/their most overused spell has a serious side effect), so wizards need to think carefully about whether a given situation is important enough to dare risk a casting, can be made interesting.

No-one would object if one category of monster was less vulnerable to the weapon the fighter had invested most of their abilities in, forcing them to find an alternate tactic. In fact, it's a D&D commonplace and a known limitation of the fighter class. What I was originally arguing is that few DMs do much like this for wizards.

In addition, you wouldn't automatically allow every super-mega-bonus feat ever without thinking through the ramifications. Why allow every super-mega-bonus spell ever without thinking through the ramifications? If a player asks me if they can have a spell that renders another party member's chosen class redundant, my answer is NOT likely to be in the affirmative.

Yuki Akuma
2007-10-09, 09:58 AM
They don't need to ask if they can have a spell that renders all the other classes redundent. They're right there in the PHB for them to take.

Matthew
2007-10-09, 10:04 AM
A sad change from previous editions, where all Spells were explicitly at the say so of the DM.

Eldritch_Ent
2007-10-09, 10:05 AM
No offense meant, but I think you're missing the point, Raygon. The sticky problem here is the fact that the fighter needs additional DM support to be on par with most other classes. Sure, you can fix the fighter- but you can also Fix the monk, or "fix" the full spellcaster.

In fact, at my table Monks get full BAB, And may use their WIS score/bonus in place of their STR score/bonus at any point, and fighters get extra feats. But while I can, I don't want to do that- In fact, all I wish is that I didn't have to "fix" any class at all. This is the essence of game balance complaints. Sure we can fix them, but it boils down to DM Fiat rather than RAW, and is really something we shouldn't have to be doing.

What people are mostly concerned about is the impact class balance will have on new players. If you have one brand new player, and give them each the same resources and encounters, they'll generally fall into those "tiers". Thing is, Monks and Fighters are also the class newbies are most likely to play, and unless you run a nice low-leveled game... Well... They're not likely to have much fun.

As for the OP, I'd also like to add- People like the fighter. People want the fighter to succeed. But him and his pal, The Monk, are like the dim witted but sweet-hearted children trying to win the spelling bee, but they're up against the Wizard, who's one of those genius kids who graduated high-school at the age of 8. We just want things to be fair for them. =/

raygungothic
2007-10-09, 10:23 AM
Yuki - ahhh, there's the difference then. I was assuming that everything in all published rulebooks is *at DM's discretion*. I see it as a set of guidelines for powers that might be possible and how they might work, not a legal right.

EDIT: Matthew - I thought it still worked that way? And wizards still have to learn the spells from somewhere (they even suggest doing something analogous for sorcerers) so the GM has a ready-made way of controlling that sort of thing in the rules as they're written.

There are probably no spells in the PHB that I would outright ban - I wouldn't use D&D at all if I thought too much needed to be forbidden! - but there are certainly a fair few spells that I would evaluate in the context of the caster's other abilities and the entire party before permitting as written. I don't have a problem doing so. I'm not going to use that habit as a way to nerf casters - but I might put limits on combinations of abilities that add up to "better stealth than the thief" or "better close combat than the fighter". D&D classes are a fantastic invention *for distributing players' time in the spotlight*, and rejecting that aspect of classes is up there with rejecting hit points or Vancian magic in the core mechanics stakes, so why permit one class powers that trample all over the class distinctions? It's not as though there's a shortage of other games if I don't want a D&D flavour.

I think my attitude may have been heavily shaped by GURPS, where the entire system's core assumption is that it will be heavily subsetted by the GM, but I'm sure even D&D states this somewhere.

Yuki Akuma
2007-10-09, 10:30 AM
Yuki - ahhh, there's the difference then. I was assuming that everything in all published rulebooks is *at DM's discretion*. I see it as a set of guidelines for powers that might be possible and how they might work, not a legal right.

What? No. The books says "this is what you can do, unless the DM says you can't", not "your DM has to okay every single thing in this book".

The entire game is, eheh, 'balanced' on the notion that everything in the three core rulebooks that aren't explicitely stated to be variants are fair game.

So, you might ban divine power, Mordenkainen's disjunction or Natural Spell, but the default assumption is that the player can take them (unlike, as you say, GURPS, where the default assumption is the exact opposite).

Thinker
2007-10-09, 10:42 AM
No-one would object if one category of monster was less vulnerable to the weapon the fighter had invested most of their abilities in, forcing them to find an alternate tactic. In fact, it's a D&D commonplace and a known limitation of the fighter class. What I was originally arguing is that few DMs do much like this for wizards.
This already exists in the form of Spell Resistance and Energy Resistance. It can be overcome or circumvented, but that is using these alternate tactics. Most of what you initially suggested is to fix casters by not letting them play casters, albeit for isolated encounters. At higher levels of play it is true that the only way for melee types to contribute is if no one else gets to, but then its less fun for those people as well.

In addition, you wouldn't automatically allow every super-mega-bonus feat ever without thinking through the ramifications. Why allow every super-mega-bonus spell ever without thinking through the ramifications? If a player asks me if they can have a spell that renders another party member's chosen class redundant, my answer is NOT likely to be in the affirmative.
What super-mega-bonus feats are there? There are some that make characters more effective, but nothing that nears the power of spells. These spells you talk of exist in core and are available at low levels.

Yuki Akuma
2007-10-09, 10:47 AM
What super-mega-bonus feats are there? There are some that make characters more effective, but nothing that nears the power of spells. These spells you talk of exist in core and are available at low levels.

Martial Study! Oh, wait... that just gives you a spell. Shape Soulmeld! ... Wait, same problem...

Matthew
2007-10-09, 10:48 AM
EDIT: Matthew - I thought it still worked that way? And wizards still have to learn the spells from somewhere (they even suggest doing something analogous for sorcerers) so the GM has a ready-made way of controlling that sort of thing in the rules as they're written.

Nope, the old qualification is now gone. All Spells are now expected to be available unless the DM House Rules them away. The default mode of play assumes that they are all available in any settlement capable of supporting the Gold Coin value, rather than at the discretion of the DM. The change in emphasis has created a slight change in perception with far reaching qualifications when discussing the RAW. More to the point, the game suggests that their inclusion creates balance and removing or adding to the list might be unbalancing.

Dausuul
2007-10-09, 11:07 AM
A sad change from previous editions, where all Spells were explicitly at the say so of the DM.

Not entirely. As I recall, when you gained access to a new spell level as a wizard, you learned one spell of that level. Obviously the DM could always veto any given spell choice (as remains the case now), but unless the DM intervened you were free to pick whatever you wanted from the PHB.


This already exists in the form of Spell Resistance and Energy Resistance. It can be overcome or circumvented, but that is using these alternate tactics. Most of what you initially suggested is to fix casters by not letting them play casters, albeit for isolated encounters. At higher levels of play it is true that the only way for melee types to contribute is if no one else gets to, but then its less fun for those people as well.

What super-mega-bonus feats are there? There are some that make characters more effective, but nothing that nears the power of spells. These spells you talk of exist in core and are available at low levels.

The standard example is Leap Attack/Shock Trooper, which I believe is available at level 6. Trade -6 to your AC for +18 to damage on a charge with a two-handed weapon.

Crazy_Uncle_Doug
2007-10-09, 11:12 AM
A sad change from previous editions, where all Spells were explicitly at the say so of the DM.

Weeell ... there was still something of an imbalance. Granted, there were more balancing factors in earlier editions, but a Magic-User who can cast 9th level spells still outshines the level 20 Fighter. The Cleric a little less so, stuck at just 7th level spells. It was a bit more difficult for a Magic-User to get those 9th level spells, sure. He had to have a high enough intelligence to use them, in the first place, then had to roll a percentage to see if he could even learn the spell at all. Since in earlier editions, intelligence never rose with experience, you were stuck at that brain-level without magical enhancements.

Of course, a mage who couldn't cast spells higher than say, 7th level spells was still a formidable mage. So the imbalance was there, but not as pronounced as in 3.xe where any level 1 mage with a standard point-buy build is guaranteed to be able to cast level 9 spells by the time they are available thanks to stat-gains with experience, and where pretty much all spells are available.

Sure, there are beasties the fighter might be better against, but only marginally, and thanks to 3.5e rules, only with special metal weapons.

Fighter: Aha! Iron Golem. He's immune to all your spells! In your face, Wizard! It's Fighterin' Time!
Wizard: I hope you remembered your Adamantine Weapon ...
Fighter: *glances in askance* Um ... uh ... er ... shut up!
Wizard: Snappy comeback there.
Fighter: Hey! I got my Scarab of Universal Golembane. He's toast.
Wizard: *nabs the scarab* I'll make better use of that. Stand back ... METEOR SWARM!
Fighter: ... ... I hate you so much.

Matthew
2007-10-09, 11:18 AM
Not entirely. As I recall, when you gained access to a new spell level as a wizard, you learned one spell of that level. Obviously the DM could always veto any given spell choice (as remains the case now), but unless the DM intervened you were free to pick whatever you wanted from the PHB.

Unless you're talking about 3.0, you're remembering wrong (though the DMG allows for such an approach). Also, the 2e DMG explicitly says that if a Spell turns out to be unbalancing the game, the fault is the DM's for allowing it. Harsh, but there it is.


Weeell ... there was still something of an imbalance.

Sure, and I wouldn't claim otherwise. The gap, however, was significantly smaller. The sheer Saving Throw capability of a Fighter 20 (probably around 95%) made a huge difference.

raygungothic
2007-10-09, 11:19 AM
Mojotech - no offence taken. I do see that people's complaint is that they feel the fighter needs "special treatment" to be balanced. I'm arguing that the problem is actually that spellcasters are implicitly receiving "special treatment" in many campaigns, because situations that the fighter struggles with are commonplace while situations that the casters struggle with are frequently omitted. If I ran a campaign where anti-magic fields were commonplace I'd be way off "system default situation" in a direction that hurt casters; I'm suggesting that many people's interpretation of the default situation does the opposite.

To pick a crude example: the system assumes that spell components will occasionally present a problem. Otherwise why are they mentioned? Ignoring components completely is frequently the default situation, but it's not surprising that it changes the balance of power - it's a divergence from the assumptions implicit in the published rules. The change might be a desirable one for some campaigns, but it's always going to leave non-casters weaker by comparison; it might be appropriate to balance it out by imposing a different restriction.

I think that "all spells are easily available to caster characters" and "situations that make life more difficult for casters never occur" are just as much divergences from the system's basic assumptions. DMs are perfectly free to choose those divergences, but should not be surprised when some other divergence (more feats, for example, or some bizarre situation that artificially boosts fighter classes) are needed to leave fighters with a fair slice of the pie.

Not sure what I think about high-level newbies. I've only ever tried starting people off at low power levels where they have relatively little crunchy stuff to keep track of, so that issue goes outside my experience.

Thinker
2007-10-09, 11:25 AM
The standard example is Leap Attack/Shock Trooper, which I believe is available at level 6. Trade -6 to your AC for +18 to damage on a charge with a two-handed weapon.

That's really not a super-mega-bonus feat. That's a tree of 3 feats and a tree of 2 feats. Power Attack --> Improved Bull Rush --> Shock Trooper and Power Attack --> Leap attack. Even then its not a super-mega feat. The meleer will likely take out the appropriately CR'd creature standing in front of him, but there are still lots of scenarios that this is harder to accomplish. First, it can only be done on a charge. Second, flying creatures means the combo is pretty much boned. Third, if the creature has friends the meleer won't be having a good day. Its still a good feat, but nothing gamebreaking.

Kompera
2007-10-09, 11:29 AM
Well, an easy fix is to give fighters a bonus feat every level, instead of every other level.
Well, to play a bit of devil's advocate here, wouldn't a Feat at each level perhaps just encourage a 3rd or 5th level of Fighter as a dip, if all other classes have such advantages over the Fighter as it stands? Currently these are the earliest "dead levels". I'd think that this would be the case, although I think I've seen two people say that 3 levels in Fighter is a decent dip, even though 3rd Ftr comes with no Feat.



They don't need to ask if they can have a spell that renders all the other classes redundent. They're right there in the PHB for them to take.Interesting. My GM makes the casters roll against social skills in order to convince NPC Mages to teach them / loan them a page from their spell book. I haven't paid strict attention since I'm a Barbarian and this is finger wiggler business, but I think he calls for whatever skill roll they have that they can justify. And if they succeed then he rolls randomly for which spells are available. Perhaps this is his means of imposing a little caster/melee balance, although the Priest and Druid of course still have free choice of spells and and I said I haven't been feeling useless as a melee type.

My one melee gripe after a few play sessions would be that the only skills which allow me to be a better meat shield seem to all (is there an 'all'? I'm thinking of Goad but I seem to recall at least one other) be CHA based, and perhaps do not scale well. My solution to that is Combat Reflexes and either the Spiked Chain or Hold the Line. That should allow me to at least protect the squishies from direct attack (via AoO and Trip/Disarm/damage) if I'm between them and the foes.


While I dunno why you'd pick Fighter over Warblade (as you noted that you're allowed ToB), it doesn't make all that much difference in most games.It's allowed, but I didn't own it at character creation. :smallmad: Since then I've read it and like it, but unlike the majority of character builds I've seen on these boards I'll be sticking to two classes unless I can manage to not suffer the EXP penalty for having 5+ different classes. I've got to assume, given that it's easy to find character builds with this many classes, that either most GMs don't observe the EXP penalty or most players just don't care about their speed of level progression.

Thinker
2007-10-09, 11:34 AM
Mojotech - no offence taken. I do see that people's complaint is that they feel the fighter needs "special treatment" to be balanced. I'm arguing that the problem is actually that spellcasters are implicitly receiving "special treatment" in many campaigns, because situations that the fighter struggles with are commonplace while situations that the casters struggle with are frequently omitted. If I ran a campaign where anti-magic fields were commonplace I'd be way off "system default situation" in a direction that hurt casters; I'm suggesting that many people's interpretation of the default situation does the opposite.
And I'm suggesting that the default situation is implicitly in favor of the casters.

To pick a crude example: the system assumes that spell components will occasionally present a problem. Otherwise why are they mentioned? Ignoring components completely is frequently the default situation, but it's not surprising that it changes the balance of power - it's a divergence from the assumptions implicit in the published rules. The change might be a desirable one for some campaigns, but it's always going to leave non-casters weaker by comparison; it might be appropriate to balance it out by imposing a different restriction.
They mostly did away with spell components by putting in the spell component pouch. Its much harsher to take away a spell component pouch than to put in flying enemies. Even if you take away specific components on a regular basis its as ridiculous as disarming the fighter on a regular basis.

Spell Component Pouch: A spellcaster with a spell component pouch is assumed to have all the material components and focuses needed for spellcasting, except for those components that have a specific cost, divine focuses, and focuses that wouldn’t fit in a pouch.


I think that "all spells are easily available to caster characters" and "situations that make life more difficult for casters never occur" are just as much divergences from the system's basic assumptions. DMs are perfectly free to choose those divergences, but should not be surprised when some other divergence (more feats, for example, or some bizarre situation that artificially boosts fighter classes) are needed to leave fighters with a fair slice of the pie.
All spells are, by default, available to caster characters. You can houserule however you want, but this is how the system is. There is nothing suggesting that at level up every character needs to go up to the DM and say "Mother may I?" about every selection. Many of the problems aren't just that casters can do things to outshine noncasters, it even goes so far that in order for noncasters to shine the casters need to help them.

How annoying would it be if every time you wanted to show off something to one of your friends you had to ask one of them for help? There is nothing wrong with making things team-based, but when one half the team can't do things effectively without the other half and the second half can do it with first, there seems to be a problem.

Chris_Chandler
2007-10-09, 11:40 AM
One of my issues with the 3.5 fighter, and was just lighted upon by Matthew above, is the change of the fighter (in 2e) to be able to shrug off most effects, magical or otherwise, through higher hit points and, overall, the best saves of any class, to having the worst PC class saves. Paladins and Barbarians both have class abilities that work to mitigate poor will saves, and rangers at least get a good reflex save.

The fighter should have gotten the same saving throw progression as the monk, or at the very least, a good will save. It makes no sense to me, in terms of mechanical design, balance, or flavor, that the fighter did not have all good saves.

Watching the evolution of the new Core classes, specifically the Swashbuckler, the Knight, and a few of the ToB classes (Crusader, Warblade), it seems pretty clear that the designers realized that they made some poor decisions about perceived balance versus actual, meaningful power. The Knight, in many respects, is what the fighter should have been, and the Swashbuckler is, really and truly, an illustration of just why the fighter is mechanically landlocked when trying to build specific archetypical combatants. The Dex/Int/Cha based fighter who wins by tactics and derring-do can't be adequately represented by the fighter, so a new core class had to be created (?!). That's really unacceptable.

Now, keep in mind that I've played more fighters than anything else, and I think that they can contribute, especially when you are thoughtful in your character creation. Fighters can fill a few roles nicely, but these roles, unfortunately, become less important as the game progresses into higher levels. My favorite fighter archetype, the "smart" control fighter really loses his punch after level 12 (when creatures start becoming effectively impossible to trip, for instance). The fighter has enough feats to fill at least three archetypal roles, but that is very little incentive to stick with the class for more than just the "dip".

Crazy_Uncle_Doug
2007-10-09, 11:41 AM
Sure, and I wouldn't claim otherwise. The gap, however, was significantly smaller. The sheer Saving Throw capability of a Fighter 20 (around 95%) made a huge difference.

Agreed. The survivability of a level 20 Fighter was an awesome thing to behold in earlier games. Add to their saves the full Constitution benefit. The Fighter with an 18 Con had a higher hit point bonus than most other classes with the same Con. Also, multiple attacks at Full THAC0. Sadly, 3.xe gave us weak Reflex and Will saves, universal hit point bonuses, and diminishing returns on multiple attacks. Sure, a level 20 Fighter in 3.xe gets four attacks, but that last attack is almost a throw-away at +5 Base.

Rex Blunder
2007-10-09, 11:53 AM
As I recall, when you gained access to a new spell level as a wizard, you learned one spell of that level.


Unless you're talking about 3.0, you're remembering wrong (though the DMG allows for such an approach).

Matthew, I assume you're talking about 2? The 1e DMG explicitly let the magic-user select one new spell per level, and not as an optional rule.


To [spells] acquired, the magic-user will add 1 (and ONLY 1) spell when her or she actually gains an experience level

I won't dispute your argument that earlier editions generally made more of the fact that the DM was the boss. 3e has Rule 0, but 1e definitely prints variations of Rule 0 in more places.

Indon
2007-10-09, 11:57 AM
Well, to play a bit of devil's advocate here, wouldn't a Feat at each level perhaps just encourage a 3rd or 5th level of Fighter as a dip, if all other classes have such advantages over the Fighter as it stands? Currently these are the earliest "dead levels". I'd think that this would be the case, although I think I've seen two people say that 3 levels in Fighter is a decent dip, even though 3rd Ftr comes with no Feat.


There'd always be that temptation to go just one more level into Fighter for another feat, though.

Saph
2007-10-09, 11:59 AM
Well, to play a bit of devil's advocate here, wouldn't a Feat at each level perhaps just encourage a 3rd or 5th level of Fighter as a dip, if all other classes have such advantages over the Fighter as it stands? Currently these are the earliest "dead levels". I'd think that this would be the case, although I think I've seen two people say that 3 levels in Fighter is a decent dip, even though 3rd Ftr comes with no Feat.

They're making a mistake - a typo, probably. Fighter 3rd gives you nothing but +1 to BAB, Ref, and Will. There's no reason to take the third level unless you want the fourth. It's Fighter 2 that's the standard dip.

The feat-at-every-level solution is a clumsy fix, but at least it means that every level of Fighter does, actually, make you a better fighter (rather than every other level).

- Saph

Matthew
2007-10-09, 12:06 PM
Matthew, I assume you're talking about 2? The 1e DMG explicitly let the magic-user select one new spell per level, and not as an optional rule.

If you take a look at what Dausuul is saying; he is referring to 1 additional Spell per New Spell Level (i.e. at odd numbered Levels, more or less), which refers to one of the methods suggested in the 2e DMG for acquiring Spells (I also misread it at first, which has led to some confusion in my own edited response). The 1e DMG allowed for one additional Spell per experience level (though my understanding is that they had to dice for it and if they failed could not try again). Of course, like a lot of the 1e DMG, this contradicted what was stated in the previous section (though, since Training was mandatory below name level in 1e, this might be explicable).

Starbuck_II
2007-10-09, 12:19 PM
Inflict marathon days when the wizards run out of spells or have to nurture them carefully.

Probably already stated but everyone runs out of hps.


Interrupt rest, so the fighter is the only one who can save the party.

Nah, I'd rely on the Druid and Cleric: neither needs to rest. Plus, the Druid has a mini fighter (Riding Dog) with him.
Riding Dogs statistically have better AC than Fighters (if both bought armor).


Travel to martial cultures that respect the fighter better than the book-learning types, so he'll have to lead interactions with them.

That only means Wizard looked down upon...Does'nt make Fighter better when CoDzilla still around.


Make sure the magic items you dish out favour the fighter.

Fine, the sprellcasters make their own after selling their loot that is not favour them. Crafting feats rule!


Put physical tests in adventures, so the fighter can excel. Remember that it's easier to detect a sneaking magic user than a sneaking non-magic user, and that many spells are terribly conspicuous - not very helpful if adventure success depends on no-one knowing the party were there, in a thievery or espionage scenario.

Easier? Wha?! No, Magic is not easier to detect.
I need to not be heard "Silence!" +infinity move silently. Yes, magic does that.
Magic might run out while non-magic users abilities are constant, but while active magic pwns them.

Mr. Friendly
2007-10-09, 12:23 PM
Honestly if the Fighter were balanced as it should be against everything else in the field, he should in all likelyhood get d12 Hit Points, add Tumble to his list of Class skills, have at least 2 good saves (maybe Fort and choose the second good save?) and every 4 or 5 levels get to pick a "combat style" special ability or a Tactical Feat.

The fighter class should most likely be done away with entirely, or else turn it into a grab bag class not unlike the Psion. You pick a "flavor" of fighter which gets a different set of good saves, a different set of skills and different special abilities by stat, so you might have "the smart fighter" with INT as his go to stat who gets a set of feats and abilities based on outsmarting his enemies or the "tank" with CON as his critical stat with feats and abilities based on taking a pounding and asking for seconds.

Kaelik
2007-10-09, 12:45 PM
It's allowed, but I didn't own it at character creation. :smallmad: Since then I've read it and like it, but unlike the majority of character builds I've seen on these boards I'll be sticking to two classes unless I can manage to not suffer the EXP penalty for having 5+ different classes. I've got to assume, given that it's easy to find character builds with this many classes, that either most GMs don't observe the EXP penalty or most players just don't care about their speed of level progression.

The Dirty Secret of XP penalties is that none ever apply if you only take two levels. And PrCs never penalize.

A Rogue 2/Barbarian 2/Fighter 2/Warblade 2/Crusader 2/Swordsage 2/PrC 8 never gets a single penalty.

Mr. Friendly
2007-10-09, 01:00 PM
The Dirty Secret of XP penalties is that none ever apply if you only take two levels. And PrCs never penalize.

A Rogue 2/Barbarian 2/Fighter 2/Warblade 2/Crusader 2/Swordsage 2/PrC 8 never gets a single penalty.

Exactly. And that's why you see so many builds with crazy stuff. Also you can ignore most penalties that might come up via Favored Class. For Human that is your highest class, which is usally the one that is messing things up. Let's say you have a human who goes fighter2, then into warblade for 4 levels. He should get an xp penalty, but his favored class is always his highest so... no penalty. He then picks up 3 levels of Ranger and still no penalty. If that were a Dwarf he could still do it, he just needs to change the order he aquires the levels, since Dwarf favored class is fighter.

Brawls
2007-10-09, 01:37 PM
Originally Posted by Kompera
Well, to play a bit of devil's advocate here, wouldn't a Feat at each level perhaps just encourage a 3rd or 5th level of Fighter as a dip, if all other classes have such advantages over the Fighter as it stands? Currently these are the earliest "dead levels". I'd think that this would be the case, although I think I've seen two people say that 3 levels in Fighter is a decent dip, even though 3rd Ftr comes with no Feat.



They're making a mistake - a typo, probably. Fighter 3rd gives you nothing but +1 to BAB, Ref, and Will. There's no reason to take the third level unless you want the fourth. It's Fighter 2 that's the standard dip.

The feat-at-every-level solution is a clumsy fix, but at least it means that every level of Fighter does, actually, make you a better fighter (rather than every other level).

- Saph

I agree. It might make more sense to start the feat gain at every level begining at 5th level. Maybe also give the fighter the ability to re-train feats at a certain point. But you are also correct, in that these are clumsy fixes for a larger issue of balance.

We have similar issues to the OP with jobs, kids, etc. Our campaigns start at 1st and go to about 10th - 14th level over the course of a couple years or more. As such, some of the issues raised with level 20 fighters don't apply to me. However, in all our past games, the fighter has changed classes or multi-classed to address some of his limitations when getting above about level 8.

I will say, that fighters and other full BAB melee types rock until about level 8ish, at which time the spell casters just begin to really outpace them for control and damage. Granted, until this point, the fighter has really shined comparatively. I think the Weapons of Legacy is also an attempt by WoTC to scale a melle combatants ability with level more effectively.

I am currently playing a Level 6 fighter and am going to multiclass to Warblade next level, because of many of the reasons stated already. The manuevers and stances make for a bit more color and variety, but they also allow my character to compete damage-wise and defense-wise with the casters, albeit in a much more limited framework. I'm split on the direction ToB is going, as it is making manuevers into spell-like abilities for teh melle combatant. It would be nice if you could just have a fighter class that could be an effective tank, meatshield, battlefield controller, etc. without the need for stances and manuevers. Unfortunately, the mechanics just breakdown after a certain point and the fighter must rely on buffs from spellcasters or magic items to effectively contribute. For example, last session we faced two half-golemns (flesh). As I don't have a magic weapon (yes, our DM is fairly stingy with the magic items) there was little I could do to fight these beasts because of their DR. We wound up having to flee, because we didn't have the ability to damage them sufficiently. Of course, it would help if our Sorcerer was a bit more tactical in his use of spells.:smallfrown:


The fighter class should most likely be done away with entirely, or else turn it into a grab bag class not unlike the Psion. You pick a "flavor" of fighter which gets a different set of good saves, a different set of skills and different special abilities by stat, so you might have "the smart fighter" with INT as his go to stat who gets a set of feats and abilities based on outsmarting his enemies or the "tank" with CON as his critical stat with feats and abilities based on taking a pounding and asking for seconds.

The idea of having a variety of templates for the fighter is an interesting one. In part, this is what the PrC have attempted to accomplish. However, it would be nice to pick the "cunning fighter" template and make your character where Int and Dex are the key stats (or something similar).

Brawls

Tormsskull
2007-10-09, 02:27 PM
What? No. The books says "this is what you can do, unless the DM says you can't", not "your DM has to okay every single thing in this book".


Where did you read that? See, the PHB is full of possibilities. Weapons, armor, spells, feats, skills, etc. But all of that falls under the umbrella of DM descretion.

If the campaign takes place in the desert, then it is likely that heavy armor won't be easily found. So if the DM doesn't allow a PC to start with heavy armor, does that mean that the "DM said you can't"?

Personally I don't think so, I think it means that the DM is making the world make sense. When someone says "The DM said you can't" it immediately makes me think of a DM who is being unfair to his players and restricting things without any reason. Or to be more apt, it makes me think that a player is looking at his DM in that way.

I think one of the biggest differences between my group and apparently most every other group out there, is that we view the books as full of options, and the DM determines which options are available. Most other groups seem to think like your above statement of "The books says 'this is what you can do, unless the DM says you can't'".

But when viewed in that way, it is very easy to then view the DM as the bad guy when he takes away some of the options that should be yours (because those are options in the book, and as such should be available to you). Which in turn leads to the Player versus DM mentality.


But OT, I think the Fighter is good at low levels, and if built up from level 1 to to high levels with a group of other characters that are also built up from level 1 to high levels, will end up being a valuable party member. This is partly because spellcasters (particularly Wizards and Sorcerors) tend to be pretty fragile at low levels, and also because by viewing the group dynamic sessions after session, a DM can easily introduce balancing factors (magic items, NPC allies, special powers, what have you) that will assist every character in remaining useful.

Yuki Akuma
2007-10-09, 02:31 PM
...Uh... if the DM says you can't start with heavy armour... that is, in fact, the DM saying you can't start with heavy armour.

:smallconfused:

Kaelik
2007-10-09, 02:48 PM
Tormskull, no one disputes that the DM can say no. Rule 0 exists. What we question is if the DM absolutely needs to limit the options for the wizard, and never limits the options for the fighter, is that bad? I think the answer is yes. I think that since almost anything a melee character asks for is less useful then a highly limited Wizard after a certain point (and isn't more useful before that point) it is an example of poor balance.

Tormsskull
2007-10-09, 02:49 PM
...Uh... if the DM says you can't start with heavy armour... that is, in fact, the DM saying you can't start with heavy armour.

:smallconfused:

I know that, but why do you assume that your character automatically has the right to start with heavy armor?

Edit:


Tormskull, no one disputes that the DM can say no. Rule 0 exists. What we question is if the DM absolutely needs to limit the options for the wizard, and never limits the options for the fighter, is that bad? I think the answer is yes. I think that since almost anything a melee character asks for is less useful then a highly limited Wizard after a certain point (and isn't more useful before that point) it is an example of poor balance.


I completely understand what you are saying. What I am saying is that all of the rules fall under DM discretion. If the DM flat out says "Wizard's can't get past level 5 spells" that is an obvious use of Rule 0. If the DM reads the rules on training, learning new spells, etc, and interprets those to mean that a Wizard's 2 new spells learned upon gaining a level are learned by studying in-between his adventures, and furthermore has determined that in the region the PCs currently are no one knows the spell "Glitterdust", then it is only a logical conclusion that the Wizard could not learn that spell by research.

Using that logic the DM then says "Sorry, you cannot select Glitterdust because no one in this region knows that spell", I wouldn't consider that a use of Rule 0. Which stems from the fact that I don't think the PHB implies that everything inside its pages are available to PCs regardless of campaign, timeline, etc, etc.

As another example, if you're playing in a campaign setting like Forgotten Realms or Eberron, those worlds each have their own rules. If one of the rules in either of those campaign settings prevents a player from selecting an option that is available in the PHB, would that be a case where the "DM said you can't"?

If you say yes, then I guess we look at the game completely different. If you say no, then if playing in a homebrew world that has its own rules, wouldn't the same apply?

tainsouvra
2007-10-09, 02:51 PM
I know that, but why do you assume that your character automatically has the right to start with heavy armor? Because it is a convention for online discussion of D&D that the contents of the core books are always assumed to be allowed unless specifically and preemptively stated otherwise.

Yuki Akuma
2007-10-09, 02:52 PM
I know that, but why do you assume that your character automatically has the right to start with heavy armor?

B...because that's what the PHB says?

It doesn't say "with DM permission". It says "if you have enough gold, you can buy heavy armour at character creation".

If you're going to house rule differently, fine. But don't assume your house rule is the default. The default is what the books say. House rules should never be brought into an online discussion, ideally, unless it's about house rules to start with.

We do not play the same game as you do, so our house rules are different. Don't assume we all have the same ones.

Thinker
2007-10-09, 02:54 PM
I know that, but why do you assume that your character automatically has the right to start with heavy armor?

The assumed setting within the rules is the one in which all things in the MM and PHB are present. Its a fine houserule to say that you are using a separate setting as compared to the basic one, but that is all it is.

Indon
2007-10-09, 03:00 PM
The assumed setting within the rules is the one in which all things in the MM and PHB are present. Its a fine houserule to say that you are using a separate setting as compared to the basic one, but that is all it is.

That's not really a houserule; there isn't really a 'basic setting' to change.

But it is DM dependent, like everything about a campaign that isn't spelled out directly in a book, and thus discussing it on a forum is a difficult proposition at best.

At most, the existence of a DM reduces the validity of, well, pretty much all mechanics discussions about D&D.

tainsouvra
2007-10-09, 03:01 PM
At most, the existence of a DM reduces the validity of, well, pretty much all mechanics discussions about D&D. Which is why there is a convention that, for online discussions about D&D, the DM is assumed to be following the core rules at a minimum unless specifically noted otherwise.

Yuki Akuma
2007-10-09, 03:02 PM
That's not really a houserule; there isn't really a 'basic setting' to change.

No basic setting? Yes there is. It just doesn't describe much about it, because it wants you to buy the books.

Hint: It's Greyhawk.

Indon
2007-10-09, 03:04 PM
No basic setting? Yes there is. It just doesn't describe much about it, because it wants you to buy the books.

Hint: It's Greyhawk.

Then they'd tell you. They use the Greyhawk deities, and that's about it. Vecna isn't even _from_ Greyhawk originally, he got imported last I checked.

Lord Tataraus
2007-10-09, 03:08 PM
The setting is highly generic and open-ended, assuming you are a group of random people exploring some random, generic dungeon. You are not assumed to inter act with the world that much. If you want more world interaction, you need a premade setting or homebrew one. So, yes a setting is a form of house rules.

Matthew
2007-10-09, 03:13 PM
Then they'd tell you. They use the Greyhawk deities, and that's about it. Vecna isn't even _from_ Greyhawk originally, he got imported last I checked.

They do tell you. Check out the Dungeons & Dragons Gazetteer, it just all got downplayed later on. All the same, Wizards have indicated many times that Greyhawk is the default setting for D&D. Probably the most recent indication was 'Greyhawk will not be the default setting for D&D 4e'.

Kurald Galain
2007-10-09, 03:22 PM
The assumed setting within the rules is the one in which all things in the MM and PHB are present. Its a fine houserule to say that you are using a separate setting as compared to the basic one, but that is all it is.

Yes, and the "assumed setting" states that a first-level fighter gets significantly less starting money than the price of a full plate armor (1500 gp). It follows that in the "default setting", first-level fighters do not wear full plate armor.

Indon
2007-10-09, 03:23 PM
They do tell you. Check out the Dungeons & Dragons Gazetteer, it just all got downplayed later on. All the same, Wizards have indicated many times that Greyhawk is the default setting for D&D. Probably the most recent indication was 'Greyhawk will not be the default setting for D&D 4e'.

All right, perhaps I should term that differently.

Greyhawk is, in practice, no more reasonable an assumption for a D&D campaign setting than any other, and probably less so than a few. Thus it makes little sense to assume it's the standard in an online conversation when fewer people play it than, say, Forgotten Realms or Eberron.

Tor the Fallen
2007-10-09, 03:24 PM
This is kind of a two part question.

In almost every post I see referring to the Fighter class, the Fighter is disparaged. Why is this?

-and-

At what level range do the campaigns of most of the participants in this forum run?

What I'm trying to get at in a round-about way is this:

I'm running in a "mostly core" (core, no psionics, and maybe 4 splatbooks such as CW, ToB, PH2, if memory serves) campaign where I've got a 2nd Barbarian/1st Fighter. The other players (also 3rd except where noted) are:
Bard
Druid
Cleric
Wizard
Fighter
Monk (2nd)

All of us are veteran D&D/AD&D players. Almost all of us are capable of at least a modest amount of character optimizing/min-maxing/finding a logical focus for our Feats and skills, but this is limited by the limited spread of books the group as a whole owns between them.

I expect this campaign to ramp up to about 5th level, and to run until somewhere between 6th and 8th before ending due to the inevitable pressures of work demands/work schedule change/family/etc/etc.

With this in mind, after 2 levels in Barbarian I took a level in Fighter for the 2 Feats this 'dip' would give me (one for 3rd, and one for FTR 1). At this level of play, an extra Feat seems like a very good thing. I plan to take another level in Fighter when I reach 4th, again for the Feat. Even at 3rd, with 4 Feats I feel like I've got a nice assortments of combat options, and I in no way feel overpowered by the casters. Yes, the Mage could Sleep me if he had that spell, but he doesn't. :smallcool: And in any event, the game isn't played versus the other players, so even if he had Sleep that would be a non-issue for me. The casters have enough spells to last them through the 0-3 fights in any given evening of play, and I can of course swing my flail through those same encounters.

Were I to avoid the Fighter class as if it were the leper it seems to be on these boards, I'm sure I'd have fun playing a single-classed Barbarian. But I'd miss out on a few Feats which seem to allow me to add a lot of flavor to my combat now rather than having to wait until later levels and the slow Feats-for-levels progression that every non-Fighter gets.

This is at least how it seems to me. What am I missing? If the Fighter is a pariah due to it's performance at level 20th and into Epic play, I can live with that. My group will never play at those levels, and so it's a non-issue for us. Or is it the breadth of splat books which we do not have access to which would make the Fighter pale in comparison to the variety of alternative classes and PrCs available to those who own them all and can cherry pick for the most synergistic combinations?

Fighters are nothing more than 1, 2, or *maybe* 4 level dip classes.

Yuki Akuma
2007-10-09, 03:25 PM
Yes, and the "assumed setting" states that a first-level fighter gets significantly less starting money than the price of a full plate armor (1500 gp). It follows that in the "default setting", first-level fighters do not wear full plate armor.

Who said anything about full plate armour? He just mentioned 'heavy armour'. Full plate isn't the only type of heavy armour. It's only one quarter of the types of heavy armour, actually, and all of the others are cheaper and affordable at first level.

Thinker
2007-10-09, 03:37 PM
All right, perhaps I should term that differently.

Greyhawk is, in practice, no more reasonable an assumption for a D&D campaign setting than any other, and probably less so than a few. Thus it makes little sense to assume it's the standard in an online conversation when fewer people play it than, say, Forgotten Realms or Eberron.

FR and Eberron specific information isn't OGL so we can't talk about those :smallfrown:

Kaelik
2007-10-09, 03:39 PM
If the DM reads the rules on training, learning new spells, etc, and interprets those to mean that a Wizard's 2 new spells learned upon gaining a level are learned by studying in-between his adventures, and furthermore has determined that in the region the PCs currently are no one knows the spell "Glitterdust", then it is only a logical conclusion that the Wizard could not learn that spell by research.

Actually, that's a highly illogical conclusion. Research means to find out something new. There is already a mechanic for copying spells from the spellbook of other Wizards you meet. It's called copying spells from other peoples spellbooks. When a Wizard researches spells they are using the talents they already posses to develop new methods of using magic more powerfully. Since they lack chains of spells (with some minor exceptions) it is pretty clear that research allows a wizard to learn anything that would make since for their character to discover.

Since your characters should not be trying to learn things their character wouldn't learn anyway, they pretty much get to pick whatever they want from any spells that magic could accomplish in your world. As such, saying they can not learn Glitterdust is like saying that Glitterdust does not exist in your world. That is pretty clearly a use of Rule zero.


As another example, if you're playing in a campaign setting like Forgotten Realms or Eberron, those worlds each have their own rules. If one of the rules in either of those campaign settings prevents a player from selecting an option that is available in the PHB, would that be a case where the "DM said you can't"?

If you say yes, then I guess we look at the game completely different. If you say no, then if playing in a homebrew world that has its own rules, wouldn't the same apply?

Actually, Forgotten Realms and Eberron never prevent you from using something from the PHB. Do you know why? Because it's Core. That's what Core means. All worlds are assumed to have the PHB unless Rule 0 is applied.

Matthew
2007-10-09, 03:41 PM
All right, perhaps I should term that differently.

Greyhawk is, in practice, no more reasonable an assumption for a D&D campaign setting than any other, and probably less so than a few. Thus it makes little sense to assume it's the standard in an online conversation when fewer people play it than, say, Forgotten Realms or Eberron.

The thing is, much like House Rules and Home Brew, we're in the dark as to what people actually do and in what proportions. I don't think many people use the drowning rules as written, but I might be surprised. When it comes to 'generic', 'default' and 'RAW' discussions, we're obliged to take Wizards at their word, and the word is that Default D&D is assumed to take place in Greyhawk. All of the generic product rules assume that campaign setting as the default, so it actually does make sense to assume Greyhawk unless told otherwise.

MeklorIlavator
2007-10-09, 03:43 PM
Who said anything about full plate armour? He just mentioned 'heavy armour'. Full plate isn't the only type of heavy armour. It's only one quarter of the types of heavy armour, actually, and all of the others are cheaper and affordable at first level.

Actually, only Splint mail at 200 is affordable at 1st level, and it costs 200gp as opposed to the 240 max gold a fighter can get at first level. Banded mail isn't too much more at 250, but half-plate comes with a 600gp price tag. Not exaclty affordable at 1st level.

Tormsskull
2007-10-09, 03:51 PM
The assumed setting within the rules is the one in which all things in the MM and PHB are present. Its a fine houserule to say that you are using a separate setting as compared to the basic one, but that is all it is.

See, I disagree with that. I don't think that the books assume you play in a world with everything available from every book. I think they assume that you are going to pick and choose which of the contents of the book(s) you want to use. I definitely wouldn't consider it a houserule for a DM to say no to heavy armor in a desert campaign or no to +5 holy longswords in a low-magic campaign.



Because it is a convention for online discussion of D&D that the contents of the core books are always assumed to be allowed unless specifically and preemptively stated otherwise.


That seems like it would be more towards the purpose of comparing and contrasting things. If we're going to talk about class power we can't take house rules into effect because not everyone plays with the same houserules.

But I was arguing more against the assumption that everything in the PHB is fair game for the PCs which was a comment that Yuki made towards raygungothic. raygungothic said:



Yuki - ahhh, there's the difference then. I was assuming that everything in all published rulebooks is *at DM's discretion*. I see it as a set of guidelines for powers that might be possible and how they might work, not a legal right.


To which Yuki said:


What? No. The books says "this is what you can do, unless the DM says you can't", not "your DM has to okay every single thing in this book".


So I don't think the argument of "What is assumed to be true in an Online debate" holds here. A poster said "this is how I view it" and another poster said "No, you're wrong."

Which to me is wrong.



Actually, that's a highly illogical conclusion. Research means to find out something new. *snip*


Which is your interpretation. And many people follow that interpretation, but not all do. And I don't think that if someone uses a different interpretation of the RAW that they are "making a houserule". They are just interpreting it different.

Its the same thing with say alignments. If a DM reads the books and interprets the spells with the "Evil" descriptor to mean that they character using them is channeling on Evil powers, is that a house rule, or an interpretation? I would call it an interpretation.

Kurald Galain
2007-10-09, 03:53 PM
Full plate isn't the only type of heavy armour. It's only one quarter of the types of heavy armour, actually, and all of the others are cheaper and affordable at first level.

Cheaper, yes. Affordable, certainly not.

Kaelik
2007-10-09, 03:58 PM
Which is your interpretation. And many people follow that interpretation, but not all do. And I don't think that if someone uses a different interpretation of the RAW that they are "making a houserule". They are just interpreting it different.

Its the same thing with say alignments. If a DM reads the books and interprets the spells with the "Evil" descriptor to mean that they character using them is channeling on Evil powers, is that a house rule, or an interpretation? I would call it an interpretation.

Except that the game has rules for copying things from others and it has rules for research. Assuming that it has multiple rules for the same things is silly. Furthermore, when WotC says research they have to either mean the actual definition of the word or define it themselves. Since they did not, it means what it means in this world, which is that they are working to find out something, not copying something from a spellbook.

Matthew
2007-10-09, 03:58 PM
Which is your interpretation. And many people follow that interpretation, but not all do. And I don't think that if someone uses a different interpretation of the RAW that they are "making a houserule". They are just interpreting it different.

Its the same thing with say alignments. If a DM reads the books and interprets the spells with the "Evil" descriptor to mean that they character using them is channeling on Evil powers, is that a house rule, or an interpretation? I would call it an interpretation.

I would say that whenever you have to interpret a rule, you're ruling on its meaning and are making a House Rule. I think that you raise some good points about what should be considered default, but I think it is a layered process. That is to say, you start with the assumption that all the none Variant Rules from the Core Rulebooks are in play and the DM (or Poster) indicates which additional material is being included and what House Rules are in play.

Indon
2007-10-09, 04:07 PM
The thing is, much like House Rules and Home Brew, we're in the dark as to what people actually do and in what proportions. I don't think many people use the drowning rules as written, but I might be surprised. When it comes to 'generic', 'default' and 'RAW' discussions, we're obliged to take Wizards at their word, and the word is that Default D&D is assumed to take place in Greyhawk. All of the generic product rules assume that campaign setting as the default, so it actually does make sense to assume Greyhawk unless told otherwise.

A lack of people using Greyhawk seems to me not so much "Drowning rules" level of relevance as it does "Monk unarmed proficiency" level of relevance.

Matthew
2007-10-09, 04:16 PM
A lack of people using Greyhawk seems to me not so much "Drowning rules" level of relevance as it does "Monk unarmed proficiency" level of relevance.

Maybe, maybe not. The fact is, we just don't know, so we're obliged to take the most conservative approach. Unless somebody says they're playing in a Home Brew or Published Campaign Setting other than Greyhawk, the assumption is that the Campaign Setting is Greyhawk.

Now, interestingly, just before the 4e announcement, Wizards started differentiating between Greyhawk and Generic D&D in their 'Steal this Hook' series of Articles, but in the product listings Expedition to Greyhawk is categorised as 'Dungeons & Dragons', rather than as Greyhawk (unlike Expedition to Undermountain). The only product exceptions are the 'Greyhawk Novels' and the Living Greyhawk Gazetteer, which bears the Greyhawk Brand.

All Product Releases (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/dndlist&brand=All&year=All&author=)

Fax Celestis
2007-10-09, 04:21 PM
Maybe, maybe not. The fact is, we just don't know, so we're obliged to take the most conservative approach. Unless somebody says they're playing in a Home Brew or Published Campaign Setting other than Greyhawk, the assumption is that the Campaign Setting is Greyhawk.

Now, interestingly, just before the 4e announcement, Wizards started differentiating between Greyhawk and Generic D&D in their 'Steal this Hook' series of Articles, but in the product listings Expedition to Greyhawk is categorised as 'Dungeons & Dragons', rather than as Greyhawk (unlike Expedition to Undermountain). The only product exceptions are the 'Greyhawk Novels' and the Living Greyhawk Gazetteer, which bears the Greyhawk Brand.

All Product Releases (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/dndlist&brand=All&year=All&author=)

That'd be because the Digital Initiative started before 4e, and it's the DI that is not going to be featuring Greyhawk as default.

Matthew
2007-10-09, 04:25 PM
That'd be because the Digital Initiative started before 4e, and it's the DI that is not going to be featuring Greyhawk as default.

That was also my supposition, though there doesn't seem to have been much point.

Fax Celestis
2007-10-09, 04:27 PM
That was also my supposition, though there doesn't seem to have been much point.

Perhaps it's to deal with internet-centric Fair Use laws.

Kaelik
2007-10-09, 04:33 PM
I would say that whenever you have to interpret a rule, you're ruling on its meaning and are making a House Rule. I think that you raise some good points about what should be considered default, but I think it is a layered process. That is to say, you start with the assumption that all the none Variant Rules from the Core Rulebooks are in play and the DM (or Poster) indicates which additional material is being included and what House Rules are in play.

Indeed, I think that's a fair assessment.

I think much of the problem is that people don't want to be perceived as houseruleing anything. So we have arguments that come down to:

Me:I wish I didn't have to interpret the rules and make up convoluted reasons to limit casters more then I do non-casters just to have some semblance of class balance.
Tormskull:If you do interpret X differently and limit casters more then non-casters things are balanced.
Me:Thanks for not understanding.

tainsouvra
2007-10-09, 04:58 PM
That seems like it would be more towards the purpose of comparing and contrasting things. If we're going to talk about class power we can't take house rules into effect because not everyone plays with the same houserules. For the record, the thread's topic makes that rather relevant, don't you think? We're doing exactly that. It's worth bearing in mind what our overall context is :smallsmile:

OneWinged4ngel
2007-10-09, 05:38 PM
This is kind of a two part question.

In almost every post I see referring to the Fighter class, the Fighter is disparaged. Why is this? The Fighter is a poorly designed class. Poorly designed classes are less fun to play. Not having fun sucks.

Why isn't the Fighter fun?

1) You're weak, unless you've actually taken almost every supplement *in 3.5* and masterfully crafted together a fantastic build (only really one fighter build I think anyone recognized as particularly good... which was Aerlynith's Lockdown Build. I don't really follow such things much though). Heck, ((IIRC)) to quote Skip Williams "The Fighter is there to carry the Wizard's books."

2) You might think you're versatile (from all those feats), but you're not. You're actually versatile in build, but not in play. In play, Fighters tend to be one-trick ponies, and oftentimes they can actually get outclassed at their own trick. You generally are only going to contribute during combat, and you're not going to contribute as much as a good class.

3) You have to plan ahead, *really* carefully. More than any other class. That's actually why they're a *bad* class for beginners (contrary to what some people will tell you. On a slight tangent, I tend to agree with Frank/K on the idea that the Rogue is one of the best classes for newbies, since it incrementally introduces the player to the entire system (combat, skills, feats, special abilities, and finally spells as you dabble in UMD) at a comfortable pace, and yet no matter how much they screw up their build they'll generally remain pretty useful to the party. And all they really need to know to contribute to a fight is how to flank, which takes 30 seconds to explain). I mean, spellcasters actually get to *choose what class features they get every day.* You, though? You get to pick an ability every couple of levels, and you're stuck with it forever. Worse still, you have to worry about TREES. You can't just decide you want to get Cool Feat X at level 9 like the Wizard can just decide he wants Stinking Cloud all of a sudden. You have to actually spend *9 levels building up to it.* And, really, that class feature probably isn't going to be as good as Stinking Cloud anyways.

At least, those are the main points. Lack of versatility, need for planning your whole build ahead of time, and comparative weakness.

Kurald Galain
2007-10-09, 05:46 PM
2) You might think you're versatile (from all thsoe feats), but you're not.

While you are absolutely correct, it is ironic that this was less of a problem in 2E, despite the 2E fighter having less customization options. Bunch of weapon profs, that's it.

Mojo_Rat
2007-10-09, 07:49 PM
Ive personally never found any problems playing a fighter. I always have fun with them built on a theme and never felt that I was not holding up my end of the deal or that the Dm was 'giving me extra time'

One impression i have gotten is that when these 'fighters suck' threads come up Is that Dm's at some point put alot of effort into creating Oponents which completely remove the fighter as a potential htreat (Flying improved invisiblilty opnents or such) But dont put the same amount of effort into it for for doing the same to mages.

theres nothing wrong with the fighters Damage it is at least on par with the Barbarians.

The Big mistake though is that people seem to think that fighters are a class for new players that are easy to play. This is really far fromt he Truth. They are an extremely complicated class That you have to make the /correct/ decisions with your feats. The wrong decision at X level can either prevent you fromd oing something for several levels or cause you to go into multiple directions with your feats which is Something you want to avoid Doing without a plan.

On the matter of Mage spells and rule 0 there are frankly a number of spells that never should have been made, They come up frequently when people talk about character optimization threads because the spells are broken.

Its not that the Dm necessarily has to ban them but the player can use comon sense and says 'hey this spell is broken, i'll just skip it' If the spell later shows up in a scroll or such introduced by the DM then he's made the decision to include it.

Off the top of my head though The only spell on this line i could think of was power word pain. Although theres that shiver something one from frostburn(sp?) that comes up frequently and probly a number of others I dont even know about.

Skjaldbakka
2007-10-10, 12:51 AM
Not quite caught up on reading this, but wanted to get this out there:

The way you make fighters shine (from the DM's chair), is to throw the 4 encounters/day model out the window. Fighters need HP to keep going, and healing is really efficient via low-level wands.

You could also take a page from Iron Heroes, and give fighters wildcard feats, like the Man-at-Arms class from aforementioned tome.

the_tick_rules
2007-10-10, 01:00 AM
if it helps boost love for the fighter in all historical settings fighters types outnumbered wizard types 1000's to 1. a high level wizard could handle a few fighters, but not an army.

Artemician
2007-10-10, 01:03 AM
if it helps boost love for the fighter in all historical settings fighters types outnumbered wizard types 1000's to 1. a high level wizard could handle a few fighters, but not an army.

But not in a party... It would be a far stretch of imagination to say that you would let the party fighter control a thousand characters.

horseboy
2007-10-10, 01:33 AM
I think one of the biggest differences between my group and apparently most every other group out there, is that we view the books as full of options, and the DM determines which options are available. Most other groups seem to think like your above statement of "The books says 'this is what you can do, unless the DM says you can't'".


Not to further derail this thread, but that's a very common problem in game development. 40k 3rd edition, the rules were written with the idea that "this is what is permissible" as the mindset, but wasn't spelled out to be so. There were A LOT of loopholes as a result. I wouldn't be surprised if that was true again.

But for the OP, I don't hate the fighter, just what the system does to it.

Kaelik
2007-10-10, 01:41 AM
On the matter of Mage spells and rule 0 there are frankly a number of spells that never should have been made, They come up frequently when people talk about character optimization threads because the spells are broken.

Its not that the Dm necessarily has to ban them but the player can use comon sense and says 'hey this spell is broken, i'll just skip it' If the spell later shows up in a scroll or such introduced by the DM then he's made the decision to include it.

Off the top of my head though The only spell on this line i could think of was power word pain. Although theres that shiver something one from frostburn(sp?) that comes up frequently and probly a number of others I dont even know about.

The only problem is that you just missed all the important ones. Forcecage/Timestop/Celerity and so forth.

Armads
2007-10-10, 02:23 AM
I like fighters myself. I usually play in an arena where there aren't any full casters, ECL 11, and where there are some limits on how cheesy the characters can get (AC is capped at 30, as well as no ridiculously high stats). My group uses this fighter variant (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=728493), and it's quite nicely balanced.

However, fighters just can't compete in normal dnd. You need to nerf full casters.

Dr. Weasel
2007-10-10, 02:38 AM
The fighter isn't as good as other melee classes since he generally gets fewer abilities/skillpoints/hitpoints than them.

At higher levels, he isn't as good as other classes because what abilities he does get don't scale especially well (actually, they don't scale at all beyond sixth level).

At lower levels he doesn't do anything incredible since his Base Attack hasn't noticably come ahead of the Cleric/Rogue. Anyone who just acts as a body with a sword/club will fare similarly in combat, but the Fighter still has nothing useful to do outside of combat.

On top of this, the Fighter has no distinct abilities or flavor. The class is designed to be generic, to cover the generic Soldier. Usually another class or a quick multiclass from Fighter will cover the archetype a player wants with more efficiency.

Also, what OneWinged said. Fighters get two or three tricks from their class abilities. Yes [preemptively because it always comes up], a fighter can still do nifty things that aren't based on class abilities, but that is not a measure of the class itself, but its player. They would be able to do the same with a Rogue, Psychic Warrior or Warblade.

Kompera
2007-10-10, 02:41 AM
One impression i have gotten is that when these 'fighters suck' threads come up Is that Dm's at some point put alot of effort into creating Oponents which completely remove the fighter as a potential htreat (Flying improved invisiblilty opnents or such) But dont put the same amount of effort into it for for doing the same to mages.

This is something I have seen in a few (AD&D) games. I'm wondering if it's the "cool" factor that causes this. You know, the GM has this idea and just has to implement it in game, 'cause it's cool, with no real thought to how their players will be able to handle it. Or perhaps it's that they have to design encounters which are challenging to the casters, and fail to realize that many of those encounters are not simply challenging for the casters, but are nigh-impossible for the non-casters.

Thanks to many who have provided thoughtful responses to this thread. It has opened my eyes to a good many things I had not seen before. A good many of those things won't apply to my gaming group, due to the level we play at, and the limitations of the setting (also called house rules by some, and that's fair enough).

OneWinged4ngel, special thanks for your detailed post. I've definitely encountered the "You have to plan ahead, *really* carefully." issue you speak of. It's very annoying to see how many prerequisites need to be met to bring together two chains of Feats (perhaps also requiring skills and particular weapons) to allow for some maneuvers which will let me, as the group's tank, have a shot at actually tanking.
Mojo_Rat also touched on the issue of difficult pre-planning for Fighters.

I'm hoping that my own groups lack of breadth in splat books will keep me relevant as a Fighter, especially since I purchased several of the combat oriented books and so those are some of the most heavily represented for our use. :smallsmile: Even so, the GM will be making his own judgments on which
Feats/classes/etc are allowed (as he did with his "no Psionics" ruling), and so I may have to do some fast talking to convince him that, for example, Leap Attack is not a horribly broken ability used by munchkins. I think that pointing out the typical number of fighting encounters the group faces, coupled with the potency of spell casters who effectively never run out of spells will help me there. If a Wizard can dish a Fireball in two out of three fights, a Leap Attack when the encounter allows it becomes very reasonable looking.

Kaelik
2007-10-10, 02:43 AM
I like fighters myself. I usually play in an arena where there aren't any full casters, ECL 11, and where there are some limits on how cheesy the characters can get (AC is capped at 30, as well as no ridiculously high stats). My group uses this fighter variant (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=728493), and it's quite nicely balanced.

However, fighters just can't compete in normal dnd. You need to nerf full casters.

Why is AC capped at 30? And what is a "ridiculously high stat?" Apparently you don't know what cheese is. High AC isn't even that useful, and there's not many (non caster) ways to get without paying for it. The same for stats. Cheesy is exploiting a loophole in the rules to do something so amazing that it's clear the designers didn't see it coming (Shocktrooper/Leap Attack, Divine Metamagic Persist, that sort of thing) not working hard to be good at something only to have the DM arbitrarily take it away because you are better at it then someone who didn't put any work into being good at that thing.

Armads
2007-10-10, 03:01 AM
Why is AC capped at 30? And what is a "ridiculously high stat?"

So that the other people in the group had a chance. I used to play a feral werebear with Str 50 (we had some houserules that reduced the penalty of LA) and crushed everything to death with rend, rake and pounce. Most people's AC reach the cap anyway, and it isn't a 'work hard to get' sort of thing, it's the benchmark for the old type of PvP i used to play.

Mr. Friendly
2007-10-10, 06:42 AM
One impression i have gotten is that when these 'fighters suck' threads come up Is that Dm's at some point put alot of effort into creating Oponents which completely remove the fighter as a potential htreat (Flying improved invisiblilty opnents or such) But dont put the same amount of effort into it for for doing the same to mages.

I would disagree, massively. As you get higher and higher level, more things fly and are invisible all on their own without the DM "trying" to remove the fighter from the combat. I suppose you would say that sending a party up against a Dragon is just the DM being mean to the fighter because the dragon is invisble, flying and doing strafing runs on the party? *I* as a DM put much more effort into shutting down casters, well not shutting them down so much as slowing them down enough to give the fighters a chance to go swing their weapons at the monster. So if anything, as a DM I (and all the other DMs I know) try to make combats more readily available for the fighter to go and, well, fight.


theres nothing wrong with the fighters Damage it is at least on par with the Barbarians.

Uh, no. The Barbarian is *always* going to outdamage the fighter, pretty much every day of the week and twice on Sunday. Rage is always going to give the damage output edge to the Barbarian.

A friend and fellow DM and I were having this conversation a few months ago, he was defending the fighter and how he felt it was a good class and could remain competative at 20th level. So we did a little experiment, using identical characters (statwise) with slightly different gear. The Barbarian with the Rage and the 2-handed weapon crushes the fighter wielding either a 2 hand weapon himself or a one hand and shield. Two weapon fighting the barbarian *still* beats the fighter.

I'm sure you could do your own experiment and prove the fighter is some sort of elite godless killing machine, but I doubt it. Rage will always trump whatever little extra damage the fighter will deal with Specialization and Greater Spec.


Then they'd tell you. They use the Greyhawk deities, and that's about it. Vecna isn't even _from_ Greyhawk originally, he got imported last I checked.

Are you sure (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vecna#Publishing_history) about that?

I'm pretty sure Vecna is older than conventional D&D, but he as old as Greyhawk itself.

I think you should recheck your sources on the origin of Vecna.

Kaelik
2007-10-10, 07:54 AM
So that the other people in the group had a chance. I used to play a feral werebear with Str 50 (we had some houserules that reduced the penalty of LA) and crushed everything to death with rend, rake and pounce. Most people's AC reach the cap anyway, and it isn't a 'work hard to get' sort of thing, it's the benchmark for the old type of PvP i used to play.

Maybe the issue was LA reduction and not your Str? And how can the "Benchmark" be the cap. If that were true everyone would have the same stat.

Maybe you should try controlling yourself instead of exploited LA reduction and building your characters to be better then everyone else. Besides, a Wizard is still better.

Columbine
2007-10-10, 07:58 AM
Well this topic was so juicy I had to sign up so I could post !

As has already been mentioned, at higher levels fighters struggle to take part in the game - I don't mean they are useless but in a mixed party it is difficult to find anything the fighter is best or even 2nd best at other than standing their taking damage to stop the spellcasters getting hit. This can get a bit tedious to say the least.

However at lower levels they are pretty much useless too. OK they can hit something, generally a little bit harder than some of the others in a group but that's about it, they can hit things. It always annoyed me how most other classes can actually build a decent background into their character using their starting skill points but the poor fighter is pretty much relegated to a basic set of skills with little or no "flavour". Paladins suffer from this as well and to some extent clerics but they can at least justify puting one of their higher stats into Int to get the skill points - as the parties main damage absorber the fighter has a few more stats to consider before puting points into Int. I am currently playing a fighter type (OK I prestiged into something more interesting) in a high level game where we started out at 1st level and it was annoying to find the supposedly bookbound mage better than the outdoors type physical person at almost everything simply because they had the skill points to spare. It is one of my pet hates of Dnd - you get penalised twice, once by not getting a lot of skill points and again by having a tiny pool of class skills to choose from. As an experienced role player I like to add character to my characters and while a lot of this is in how you play them having the skills to back you up is essential. I know I could take 1st level ranger to get these skill points but why should I have to ? As levels progress fighters fall further and further behind and it becomes even harder to put on paper the character you want to play, that's why I wouldn't play one again in DnD (presuming no int bonuses, which is more likely to be true for the fighter than the rogue, a rogue has 32 skill points compared to 8. 32 skill points is equivalent to a 13th level fighter)

Artemician
2007-10-10, 08:15 AM
Maybe the issue was LA reduction and not your Str? And how can the "Benchmark" be the cap. If that were true everyone would have the same stat.

Maybe you should try controlling yourself instead of exploited LA reduction and building your characters to be better then everyone else. Besides, a Wizard is still better.

Narp. I was in his group, so I should know. This is how combat went, usually.

<Deleted to prevent further going-off track.

Our duels were thought exercises.

To our surprise, we found that Fighters are actually balanced in this sort of thing. It's kind of sad.. but only in such controlled conditions can they be rated at the same power level as wizards. Maybe it's because it resembles a dungeon most of all...

Yuki Akuma
2007-10-10, 08:29 AM
Finger of death? On a Fighter?!

That was not a very well-played Wizard.

Artemician
2007-10-10, 08:33 AM
Finger of death? On a Fighter?!

That was not a very well-played Wizard.

May not have been. But given the circumstances, I believe that it was the best alternative. The Fighter had Protection against mind-affecting effects, ad well as more than enough hit points to soak reflex-half nuking spells.

But that's getting out of hand.. I'll link it back to the discussion.

It is true that Fighters are only balanced with Wizards in a constrained, dungeon-type environment?

Serenity
2007-10-10, 08:37 AM
The problem is not whether or not the wizard can beat the fighter in a one on one. (And he could. The reason yours lost in the example was due to poor tactics. Even at Level 11, he's got a dozen ways to delay the fighter--Walls, Summoning monsters to occupy him, etc.) D&D isn't built on Player vs. Player. The problem is that the mage can do so much more in a combat situation; with a little preparation, he can easily finish an encounter before the Fighter has the chance to do anything. Meanwhile, Clerics and Druids cn fight better than him and still tell the laws of physics to shut up, and Barbarians deal better damage. The Fighter is eclipsed by other classes in his specialty, and doesn't have the skills to contribute outside of combat.

Yuki Akuma
2007-10-10, 08:38 AM
An 11th level Wizard who does not cast fly as soon as he can when facing a melee combatant in one-on-one mortal combat is not well played. :smalltongue:

And no, it isn't true that Fighters are only balanced with Wizards in a dungeon environment. Wizards still win in a dungeon environment. The only way for a Fighter to outshine a Wizard is in hugely long combats with lots of healing potions, or in a dead magic zone (and even then, none of his magical equipment works anymore, so he sucks even harder than usual).

Artemician
2007-10-10, 08:50 AM
The problem is not whether or not the wizard can beat the fighter in a one on one. (And he could. The reason yours lost in the example was due to poor tactics. Even at Level 11, he's got a dozen ways to delay the fighter--Walls, Summoning monsters to occupy him, etc.) D&D isn't built on Player vs. Player. The problem is that the mage can do so much more in a combat situation; with a little preparation, he can easily finish an encounter before the Fighter has the chance to do anything. Meanwhile, Clerics and Druids cn fight better than him and still tell the laws of physics to shut up, and Barbarians deal better damage. The Fighter is eclipsed by other classes in his specialty, and doesn't have the skills to contribute outside of combat.

I'm not trying to argue that the fighter is balanced.. :smallconfused: I was simply wondering if setting all fights in a dungeon might be the way the designers intended it, as it is the only situation that is balanced.

I know D&D isn't PVP. Hence why I said that it was sad that only in such a ridiculous situation could a Fighter be on par with a Wizard.

As for the other classes, we found them relatively well-balanced as well. It was very surprising. At first, we were all Batman Wizards. That is, until one time when the resident newbie built a Barbarian and actually stood a fighting chance. You know all those arguments that people who say all classes are balanced bring up? "Wizards have low hit points", "Clerics need one round to cast Divine Power", "Barbarians can't trip".. et all. They all rang strangely true.

Thoughts?

EDIT: Gah, can we stop discussing my optimizo-fu (or lack of it) already? I don't like playing wizards, am not good at playing wizards, and am also bad at accurately reporting what a wizard did in combat, since I don't like them and thus don't pay attention to them. Replace Finger of Death with whatever super-optimal spell you feel appropriate, such as a Maximized Symbol of Flame, or a Wall of Fire, or a Cloudkill, or whatever. It's not important!

Kompera
2007-10-10, 08:55 AM
Narp. I was in his group, so I should know. This is how combat went, usually.

Round 1:
Wizard casts some random buff
Fighter positions himself

Round 2:
Wizard casts Finger of Death. Fighter saves.
Fighter charges. Wizard dies.
That seems to me like a poor choice of spells and actions for the Wizard.

How about this:

Round 1:
Wizard casts Greater Invisibility (one of his 3 spells of this level as an 11th Wizard, without considering INT) as a Standard Action, and takes a Move Action
Fighter positions himself based on last known position of Wizard, or guesses, or whatever

Round 2:
Wizard waits for Fighter to move, or casts a spell, whatever
Fighter does something useless, unless he happens to have Blind Fighting

From here it becomes very rough for the Fighter.

A leading Mislead would make things even more interesting for the Fighter.

Kaelik
2007-10-10, 08:59 AM
Narp. I was in his group, so I should know. This is how combat went, usually.

Round 1:
Wizard casts some random buff
Fighter positions himself

Round 2:
Wizard casts Finger of Death. Fighter saves.
Fighter charges. Wizard dies.

It was an arena. Wizards had no buffing time, the boundaries were Walls of Force, and it was mostly at level 11. Aka, most of the Wizards' advantages taken away. We also had an ever-growing list of banned items/spells/feats. It was pretty pointless, but it was entertaining.

The thing was pretty much a thought exercise, for us to throw around ideas and see if they would work. The Quicktrigger Gun Mage, the Wall of Pointy Death, the Bull Rush Arrows of Doom.. etc etc. Hence the LA reduction rules. We wanted to have the ability to play stuff we wouldn't be able to otherwise.

In the course of our thought excersises, we came up with some really sick stuff, like the aformentioned Feral Wearbear Bear Warrior, the 50-Vorpal-Scimitars-Blender, the Telekineboom, etc, etc. Those builds are soon added to the big list of banned stuff. We don't want the same things to keep happening over and over again.

Fighters are actually balanced in this sort of thing. It's kind of sad.. but only in such controlled conditions can they be rated at the same power level as wizards. Maybe it's because it resembles a dungeon most of all...

A) Fly.
B) We used to have no buffs up for our duels too, until I pointed out that the duration of the buffs I wanted ranged from 8 hours to 48 hours.

Kaelik
2007-10-10, 09:01 AM
EDIT: Gah, can we stop discussing my optimizo-fu (or lack of it) already? I don't like playing wizards, am not good at playing wizards, and am also bad at accurately reporting what a wizard did in combat, since I don't like them and thus don't pay attention to them. Replace Finger of Death with whatever super-optimal spell you feel appropriate, such as a Maximized Symbol of Flame, or a Wall of Fire, or a Cloudkill, or whatever. It's not important!

Real Optimize-fu would be something that makes you invulnerable at round 1. IE: Fly/Forcecage/Greater Invisibility, whatever.

Artemician
2007-10-10, 09:11 AM
I'm going to address this post to all the people who are talking about my group's PVP duels.

Yes, I know that there were better options available to the wizard. Do I care? No! I do not like playing Wizards, and according do not pay attention to Wizard tactics. Do other people in my group know what to do with Wizards? Yes! Does it matter? No!

Is the duel real D&D? No! Do we know this? Yes! Why? Because we feel like it.

Fun? Yes. Balanced? Somehow. Why? That's what I'm trying to find out.

Are we trying to find out if the Wizard could have done better? NO!! Is Artemician trying to tell everyone to play his way? No! Does Artemician care if you play differently? No! Not in this situation!

The reason I described the setup behind my group's PVP duel, was that it very similiarly resembled "Ideal Conditions" always laid down by those who claim that all Classes are Balanced. And somehow, we found that in these conditions, the classes indeed were balanced. I'm interested in finding out more about this.

And just in case I'm sounding like a person not skilled in optimization-fu.. I am not a newbie who only thinks Fighters are balanced because noone was playing the casters right. People were. But I don't care for it, because it's not important. I give simplified reporting. It may or may not have misrepresented the situation.

I swear, if someone else talks about my group's PVP instead of getting back to the topic instead, I shall scream.

Yuki Akuma
2007-10-10, 09:17 AM
The classes were not balanced. If one character is optimised perfectly and the other is completely gimped, obviously the optimised character will win regardless of class.

If both are optimised at exactly the same level, the Wizard is better, which is the problem.

Nobody cares if in certain circumstances a well-optimised Fighter can kill a gimped Wizard in two rounds.

Artemician
2007-10-10, 09:22 AM
The classes were not balanced. If one character is optimised perfectly and the other is completely gimped, obviously the optimised character will win regardless of class.

If both are optimised at exactly the same level, the Wizard is better, which is the problem.

Nobody cares if in certain circumstances a well-optimised Fighter can kill a gimped Wizard in two rounds.

<Moved to below, so you read an important part that I forgot to say first (silly me).>

Yuki Akuma
2007-10-10, 09:25 AM
Yes, but saying that, under specific situations, the classes are well-balanced is ignoring the problem.

The problem is that you have to work to balance classes, and even then even with a tiny bit of optimisation the balance goes out the window.

Classes should be balanced right out of the box. But they aren't. The fact that you're trying so hard to make them seem balanced is a symptom of bad game design.

Situations aren't the solution. You want to fix the Fighter? Change the game mechanics, don't force everyone to subscribe to a tiny subset of encounters.

Artemician
2007-10-10, 09:33 AM
Yes, but saying that, under specific situations, the classes are well-balanced is ignoring the problem.

The problem is that you have to work to balance classes, and even then even with a tiny bit of optimisation the balance goes out the window.

Classes should be balanced right out of the box. But they aren't. The fact that you're trying so hard to make them seem balanced is a symptom of bad game design.

Oh, I know that the classes are unbalanced under most conditions, my friend. Yes, I know that a lot of people would consider D&D a badly designed game. I know that it's a lot of hard work.

I'm not trying to argue that the classes are balanced. Control experiments (aka RAW campaign, which we did try to run once) proved otherwise. But given one set of experimental conditions where class balance more or less appears to be there, we could use the experimental result as a springboard to bring class balance to the greater campaign.

From these experiments, we've already found ways to improve game balance. Removal/rewording of spells. Situations in which the Batman theories do not apply. So on, so forth. I'm not telling people to play in these situations all the time (definitely not), but I was just saying that it was interesting that in this situation, classes were balanced.

Yes, we're houseruling. I'm not ashamed to admit it.
<
On the contrary, I find it extremely important. Why is it that in this one sort of situation, without nothing going much further, we find that all classes are more or less balanced with each other?

Does it tell us something about the way WotC playtested the game? How they expect things to be run? What ways can we remedy the problem that casters dominate non-casters at higher levels? Whether by intentionally omitting spells, or by having certain conditions in place during campaigns, or by conscious effort on the player's part, how?

Before anyone gives me something about how it's only RAW that matters, I point out that that argument justifies Pun-Pun. RAW is the common ground for discussion, but when trying to discuss solutions, you have to move beyond it.

Kaelik
2007-10-10, 09:37 AM
On the contrary, I find it extremely important. Why is it that in this one sort of situation, without nothing going much further, we find that all classes are more or less balanced with each other?

Because they weren't and you didn't find that out. What you found out was that a Wizard who casts fly wins every time. You just didn't realize it.

Artemician
2007-10-10, 09:43 AM
Because they weren't and you didn't find that out. What you found out was that a Wizard who casts fly wins every time. You just didn't realize it.

*Sigh*.

Would it make it easier for everyone if I said that the rest of my group (which is much more skilled in optimizo-fu than I am) has a bumper list of banned stuff which we deemed game-breaking? And that certain obvious problems, such as Forcecage, Greater Celerity and Shock Trooper were already on the list? And that they were hence, banned?

And that we run this list in our campaigns as well? And that we know we're gimping wizards? And that we're unashamedly houseruling? That we prod each other to get stuff that counters the remaining problems? (Wings of Flying, Crystals of Mind Cloaking, Mind-Blank Scrolls, Freedom of Movement, et all)

Thanks.

Maybe I should have made this clear at the start.

Yuki Akuma
2007-10-10, 09:47 AM
That's not addressing the problem at all.

The problem: the Fighter cannot do anything outside of combat, and is easily outshined while in combat.

Kaelik
2007-10-10, 09:54 AM
*Sigh*.

Would it make it easier for everyone if I said that the rest of my group (which is much more skilled in optimizo-fu than I am) has a bumper list of banned stuff which we deemed game-breaking? And that certain obvious problems, such as Forcecage, Greater Celerity and Shock Trooper were already on the list? And that they were hence, banned?

And that we run this list in our campaigns as well? And that we know we're gimping wizards? And that we're unashamedly houseruling? That we prod each other to get stuff that counters the remaining problems? (Wings of Flying, Crystals of Mind Cloaking, Mind-Blank Scrolls, Freedom of Movement, et all)

Thanks.

Maybe I should have made this clear at the start.

It would make it easier to discuss, yes. And now to answer your question (though I note fly was not on that list, and it totally trumps fighter bob.)

Q: Why are things balanced under certain situations?
A: Because you completely removed 90% of the game (IE banned anything that worked well, then banned the next tier, then the next one, and no one ever used anything from the lower tiers.) And as such, you had so few options, all of which were selected to be a certain level.

I can create a perfectly balanced game too.

There is one stat, Everyone has the same stat. In order to accomplish something (for example, I want to beat my opponent in this duel.) You roll a 1d6 and add your stat.

Before you tal about how that doesn't matter, keep in mind that what you did to "balance the classes" was to create a new game that is not D&D at all.

Artemician
2007-10-10, 10:00 AM
That's not addressing the problem at all.

The problem: the Fighter cannot do anything outside of combat, and is easily outshined while in combat.

I give up. I really do.

There is a problem. People know there is a problem. People experiment find that in a certain set of conditions, the problem is not there. Therefore people use the experiment to help work on making the problem go away. That is all I ever said I was doing, but people seem to want to put words into my mouth.


It would make it easier to discuss, yes. And now to answer your question (though I note fly was not on that list, and it totally trumps fighter bob.)

Q: Why are things balanced under certain situations?
A: Because you completely removed 90% of the game (IE banned anything that worked well, then banned the next tier, then the next one, and no one ever used anything from the lower tiers.) And as such, you had so few options, all of which were selected to be a certain level.

I can create a perfectly balanced game too.

There is one stat, Everyone has the same stat. In order to accomplish something (for example, I want to beat my opponent in this duel.) You roll a 1d6 and add your stat.

Before you tal about how that doesn't matter, keep in mind that what you did to "balance the classes" was to create a new game that is not D&D at all.

On the contrary, our aim was to make as little changes as possible, while maintaining a respectable modicum of game balance. Your argument about making it a different game doesn't work, because I have never asked anyone to run a game in arena conditions. I have simply stated that we can use the results of the arena to aid us in how we run games. No more.

Kaelik
2007-10-10, 10:03 AM
On the contrary, our aim was to make as little changes as possible, while maintaining a respectable modicum of game balance. Your argument about making it a different game doesn't work, because I have never asked anyone to run a game in arena conditions. I have simply stated that we can use the results of the arena to aid us in how we run games. No more.

By banning half the spells and always making sure that we never use flying creatures/incorporeal creatures or anything else that makes a fighter useless? How does that help?

Indon
2007-10-10, 10:04 AM
Are you sure (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vecna#Publishing_history) about that?

I'm pretty sure Vecna is older than conventional D&D, but he as old as Greyhawk itself.

I think you should recheck your sources on the origin of Vecna.

Actually, it was Greyhawk which I needed to read up on; I knew how old Vecna was, and figured he was simply older than the setting was.

Nonetheless, only the Greyhawk deities are core, and in fact since Greyhawk isn't OGL, we can't technically talk about any part of the setting which isn't directly mentioned in core.

Serenity
2007-10-10, 10:13 AM
On the contrary, I find it extremely important. Why is it that in this one sort of situation, without nothing going much further, we find that all classes are more or less balanced with each other?

Uh...they aren't. All your example shows is that a Wizard in forced circumstances who doesn't use remotely intelligent tactics lost one fight to a Fighter with a good Save. The fact that the wizard has over a dozen avenues available that would let him handily win that fight--a fact you dismiss so cavalierly--is intensely important to the discussion, because it means that the wizard only lost because he acted stupidly.

raygungothic
2007-10-10, 10:42 AM
This thread's length has leaped quite a bit since I last looked, and I'm not sure I can reply to everything I want to, but here goes.

The "all permitted by default"/"dm approval default" division seems to be quite a basic divide between gamers. I'm relieved that I'm not the only one who takes "subject to dm approval" as the usual condition! The books don't seem to state particularly heavily in either direction.

I tend to agree with Tormsskull that there exists a category of "rules interpretation" between house rules and obedience to the rules as they are unambiguously written, because the rules text is not usually exactingly specific. Quite a lot of the "permitted/DM approval" split seems to fall into this category, and maybe most of the "balance problems are serious"/"balance problems are manageable" split too.

(Hmm. While I've been leaving this unfinished in a spare browser tab, this subject seems to have spawned a separate thread...)

I was interested in the several posts that mention that higher level foes too frequently come with powers that lock out fighters. This is like a system-embedded version of my original claim that I think many DMs habitually run scenarios, so it really *is* a published balance problem.

Crazy_Uncle_Doug
2007-10-10, 10:47 AM
To me, the one-on-one battle is less important than the overall party contribution. Even in early editions, the level 20 Fighter would be at a disadvantage to the level 20 Wizard, and there was less imbalance then. However, the player of the 1 or 2e level 20 Fighter could feel he's contributing much more than his later edition Fighter. I recently ran a game where we had 5 characters, one wanted a straight Fighter because she was tired of Paladining or casting spells. The problem for her we found was that when she was out of combat, she had nothing to do, and in combat, her contributions paled when compared to the spellcasters and even the rogue.

Here's some ideas I've had to beef up the Fighter a tad:

1) Weapon Specialization: If, of all the PHB Core Classes, only the Fighter can take this feat, why is it a Feat and not a Class Ability, and why does it not scale up with level? Moreover, why is its effects less than breathtaking, even at fourth level? I'd like to see it do the following:

At every fourth level, Fighters get Weapon Specialization. Each time, it adds +1 to attack, +2 to damage. The damage bonus is subject to critical multipliers. These stack if selected for the same weapon, or the Fighter can elect to choose different specializations.
The first time it is taken, Weapon Specialization adds an extra attack at full attack bonus. (Thus, two attacks at level 4).

2) Survivability: As a class, the Fighter should be able to take the brunt of attacks and come out swinging. Though his hit points are decent, he has the worst saves and none of the "Get out of Damage Free" cards like the Barbarian, Rogue or Ranger. I'd love to see something like:

Good Saves All Around. The Fighter should be able to save well. They have some of the worst saves. Alternatively, a rule could be made that a Fighter can substitute his Fortitude save for any save that causes him to take Damage.
Bandaged Up and Ready to Go! The Fighter adds his level in hit points to any healing he receives. Thus, a 11th level Fighter receiving a Cure Moderate Wounds spell receives 2d8+21 hit points back, rather than the usual 2d8+10.
Best Hit Points. Like the Barbarian, the Fighter should get a d12 to roll hit points.
I Can Take It. The Fighter continues to fight even after hitting 0 or lower hit points. If less than zero, he still needs to make stabilization rolls, and will die at -10. However, he's conscious and still swinging.

3) Skillset: Add more Class skills, and increase the Fighter's skill points. Spot and Listen should definitely be on their list (why they aren't is beyond me). Considering they can be used to determine surprise, the Fighter needs them. After all, the Fighter should be the least surprised by impending Combat.

That's a real rough list. Obviously it needs refinement.

Columbine
2007-10-10, 10:53 AM
In an atempt to try and put out some of these flames, I can kind of see what Artemician et all are getting at. Does the fact that their extreme circumstances appear to produce balanced classes give some indication as to how wotc play tested them in the first place and if so does it give us some idea about how they have play tested them for 4th ed ?
OK so we can all think of ways the wizard could have won - but maybe that says something to. Maybe it says that wotc playtested with someone that wasn't very good with wizards as well. Come to think of it that might explain a few things - if all their playtesting was done by people who couldn't get the best out of their wizard maybe that is why wizard is overpowered when someone who CAN do this plays them.
There's a lot of maybe's in there but it's worth discussing (possibly on another thread). The number of options for a fighter are pretty small so the difference between being played by someone good and played by someone bad aren't as big.

Let's hope 4th ed fixes all of this :smallsmile:

Dausuul
2007-10-10, 11:24 AM
In an atempt to try and put out some of these flames, I can kind of see what Artemician et all are getting at. Does the fact that their extreme circumstances appear to produce balanced classes give some indication as to how wotc play tested them in the first place and if so does it give us some idea about how they have play tested them for 4th ed ?
OK so we can all think of ways the wizard could have won - but maybe that says something to. Maybe it says that wotc playtested with someone that wasn't very good with wizards as well. Come to think of it that might explain a few things - if all their playtesting was done by people who couldn't get the best out of their wizard maybe that is why wizard is overpowered when someone who CAN do this plays them.
There's a lot of maybe's in there but it's worth discussing (possibly on another thread). The number of options for a fighter are pretty small so the difference between being played by someone good and played by someone bad aren't as big.

Let's hope 4th ed fixes all of this :smallsmile:

It's my understanding that the original 3E playtesters played blasting wizards.

That's not actually as idiotic as it sounds. These were, after all, people who were used to 1E and 2E, in which blasting was much more effective due to lower hit points of both monsters and PCs, and save-or-die was much less effective due to fixed saving throws. (In 1/2E, there was no such thing as a save DC or a save modifier; instead, you had a single number for each saving throw type. Whenever you rolled a save, you had to beat that number, and the higher level you were, the lower the number was. As a result, high-level characters and monsters almost always made their saves.)

I'm pretty sure they're addressing the issue in 4E.

Matthew
2007-10-10, 11:44 AM
(In 1/2E, there was no such thing as a save DC or a save modifier; instead, you had a single number for each saving throw type. Whenever you rolled a save, you had to beat that number, and the higher level you were, the lower the number was. As a result, high-level characters and monsters almost always made their saves.)

Actually... some rare spells did impose save modifiers... and Wisdom, Dexterity and Magical Armour/Rings/etc... could all influence Saving Throws; otherwise, yeah.

Rex Blunder
2007-10-10, 11:54 AM
I believe True20 might have a rule somewhat like this, but I've considered giving fighters an ability something like:


Versatility (Ex): Once per feat per day, a fighter may act as if he had a feat from the bonus fighter feats list, for which he otherwise qualifies. He gets the benefits of this feat until the beginning of his next turn.

So if it really came down to it, a fighter could pull out a really nice Improved Disarm once, assuming he had int 13 and combat expertise. And if you have Power Attack, once a day you could pull off an Improved Bull Rush or Cleave.

I doubt it would seriously change the balance of the class, but it might be fun if the fighter had a couple of extra decisions to make during combat.

Mr. Friendly
2007-10-10, 12:51 PM
I believe True20 might have a rule somewhat like this, but I've considered giving fighters an ability something like:


Versatility (Ex): Once per feat per day, a fighter may act as if he had a feat from the bonus fighter feats list, for which he otherwise qualifies. He gets the benefits of this feat until the beginning of his next turn.

So if it really came down to it, a fighter could pull out a really nice Improved Disarm once, assuming he had int 13 and combat expertise. And if you have Power Attack, once a day you could pull off an Improved Bull Rush or Cleave.

I doubt it would seriously change the balance of the class, but it might be fun if the fighter had a couple of extra decisions to make during combat.

I really like the sound of that idea. I think I would even take it farther, perhaps giving the fighter a flexible feat every few levels (perhaps every 4?) which would be a wildcard fighter feat that he could change on the fly with a full round action.

horseboy
2007-10-10, 01:15 PM
In an atempt to try and put out some of these flames, I can kind of see what Artemician et all are getting at. Does the fact that their extreme circumstances appear to produce balanced classes give some indication as to how wotc play tested them in the first place and if so does it give us some idea about how they have play tested them for 4th ed ?
OK so we can all think of ways the wizard could have won - but maybe that says something to. Maybe it says that wotc playtested with someone that wasn't very good with wizards as well. Come to think of it that might explain a few things - if all their playtesting was done by people who couldn't get the best out of their wizard maybe that is why wizard is overpowered when someone who CAN do this plays them.
There's a lot of maybe's in there but it's worth discussing (possibly on another thread). The number of options for a fighter are pretty small so the difference between being played by someone good and played by someone bad aren't as big.

Let's hope 4th ed fixes all of this :smallsmile:
Because I've got it on speed dial:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=49378