Melee sucks, I guess...

[The Oakenshield]

Hello all,

For my first post I will be asking a fairly simple question: As I was wandering the Playground, I found numerous phrases like: "but melee is melee..." or "that's melee for yah...".

It seems the majority of you think magic and casters are vastly more powerful than melee and fighters, barbarians, etc...

I am asking why you think this, and would also love to read some examples, if you can think of any.

Thanks.

[Flickerdart]

Hello all,

For my first post I will be asking a fairly simple question: As I was wandering the Playground, I found numerous phrases like: "but melee is melee..." or "that's melee for yah...".

It seems the majority of you think magic and casters are vastly more powerful than melee and fighters, barbarians, etc...

I am asking why you think this, and would also love to read some examples, if you can think of any.

Thanks.

Melee only has one kind of problem solving: sword + face = victory. If sword + face doesn't work, they're out of luck. Spellcasters, on the other hand, have incredible options in their spells, which quickly outpace melee in effectiveness.

[randomhero00]

Melee can actually do more damage, easier than casters. So if you consider that power, then they're powerful I suppose. It can depend a lot on the setting (item wise, high magic, low magic) and which splatbooks the DM allows.

The reason most people agree that casters are more powerful than melee is because they have a swiss army knife of tools at their disposal for different problems. DnD isn't only about doing damage. A caster can cast a single crowd control spell and make an entire encounter trivial. They can also be much more useful outside of combat, like scrying and teleporting.

[Knaight]

Most everything is covered already, but I'll point out that this really only applies to 3.x D&D, 4e is reasonably balanced, and pre 3.x is better balanced. Then, if you move out of D&D, most major games are fairly well balanced within their chosen focus.

[imperialspectre]

Obscuring Mist. Charm Person. Glitterdust. Web. Slow. Fly. Solid Fog. Dimension Door. Wall of Stone. Teleport.

If you don't recognize the common thread, this list is 2 core spells per level, from levels 1 through 5, found on the sorcerer/wizard spell list that core non-casting melee characters have no worthwhile answers for. Past level 10 (after which point wizards start getting 6th-level spells) the scenario goes from "options that you can't really counter well" to "bad joke at the non-casters' expense." Rogues, barbarians with out-of-core resources, and Tome of Battle classes have counters to at least some of these options, which is why those characters can still contribute usefully in many encounters side-by-side with full casters.

Of course, referring to "melee" classes is something of a misnomer, because there are two core classes that make phenomenal melee classes. Clerics get many save-or-lose options, good armor, and a strong array of defensive spells that let them close to Touch range...or, if you really want, you can cast Divine Favor/Divine Power/whatever and start dominating with melee attacks. Druids, of course, simply send their animal companion or charge in while wildshaped. Or both.

Edit: Someone will probably repeat the tired mantra that "D&D isn't PvP combat." This would be meaningful, except for many of the spells above are necessary to deal with a lot of the critters in the Monster Manual, many of which stomp non-casters even worse than PC-class casters do.

Also, AD&D had gaping balance problems, it just existed in a different metagame environment in which individual gaming groups were expected to tweak rules to suit their desired game experience, while 3.x was written with more of a one-size-fits-all approach. 4e isn't well-balanced at all; it's balanced differently but there are still lots of thoroughly exploitative options and some classes aren't very much worth playing (or weren't back when I read the original 4e core rules; I haven't been involved with that system since).

[Saph]

It's more complicated than 'melee sucks'.

Melee isn't inherently weaker than magic. Melee is less versatile than magic. On average, melee is the most efficient way to deal damage, but a martial character will generally have less options than a spellcaster. At low levels and with basic builds, melee characters usually contribute the most to a party, but at higher levels and with more tweaked characters, the spellcasters should have more resources to draw upon.

Bear in mind several things, however:

• Spellcasters are relatively strongest at high levels, meleers relatively strongest at low levels. Since 1st-level games are much more common than 20th-level ones, this means melee characters are more useful in practice than high-level comparisons will indicate.
• The weakness of melee characters gets massively exaggerated on these forums. It's quite possible to build a melee warrior who can solo about 90% of CR-appropriate monsters in one round. If that's your idea of 'weak' you need to recalibrate your standards.
• Player skill trumps class choice every time. If you focus too much on which classes are better, you'll miss the fact that far and away the most important thing about any character is who's playing it.

[Cespenar]

On a similar note, in most of the games, casters are not built nor played as they are being theorized here or in other char-op forums. Things somehow work out. Tier 3 play is more common, for example.

[Dr.Epic]

Spells (at high enough level) can do more damage to more foes from a farther range. Melee has the one advantage you can do it an infinite amount of times where as spells use up spell slots.

[Greenish]

Tier 3 play is more common, for example.

What tiers are you talking about?

[The Oakenshield]

Thanks for all the replies!

I now understand that versatility is the advantage magic has.

[Togo]

Hello all,

For my first post I will be asking a fairly simple question: As I was wandering the Playground, I found numerous phrases like: "but melee is melee..." or "that's melee for yah...".

It seems the majority of you think magic and casters are vastly more powerful than melee and fighters, barbarians, etc...

I am asking why you think this, and would also love to read some examples, if you can think of any.

Thanks.

People aren't fond of narrow optimisation here. Some people really do think that more damage/per round for longer is optimisation, and these people will and do prefer damage dealing builds. Hang around some of the tournament circuits and you'll see a lot of these builds in use, because the rules are applied very narrowly and getting creative is usually punished in one way or another. For getting through a set of encounters that you're supposed to be able to get through quickly and efficiently and with a minimum of rules arguement, and it's the barbarian with adamantine greatsword that's going to shine.

Move up a notch, and you start getting creative applications of spells, and higher level games. Here you're looking for things that change the rules and change the situation, and spells are the most obvious choice. Each one comes with it's own rules set, so they're easy to apply ways to change the game in your favour. Noone cares if you don't do a lot of damage each round if you're using magic to make sure the party can't get hit at all.

Move up another notch and things start to broaden out even more. Any character can be played imaginatively, and while wizards are still a favourite with their pocket full of game changing powers, almost any class can do something similar with a bit of imagination, and a decent amount of opportunity or wealth per level. This is where imagination really starts to count. If you don't have much imagination, then really it's still only the spellcasters who can do anything useful, since they're the only ones who come with pre-written rules for their spells, while most other characters have to improvise.

Move things up again and class becomes almost irrelevent. That was the original point of Pun-Pun - it was a demonstration that it isn't your class or build that determines how poweful you are. Most char-opt boards freely admit that at high levels, Imaginative use of wealth per level allows even a commoner 20 to compete. There are some settings predicated on the idea that power is ultimately irrelevent, since there will always be someone more powerful than you (Planescape being the obvious example, but arguably Birthright too.)

<saph probably nailed it better than I did though>

[Greenish]

For getting through a set of encounters fights that you're supposed to be able to get through quickly and efficiently and with a minimum of rules arguement, and it's the barbarian with adamantine greatsword that's going to shine.

Fixed that for you.

[Salbazier]

This a bit straying from topic, but ...

... pre 3.x is better balanced.

is it? I know they are comparably stronger in 2ed but do previous editions really have balance?

[Arbane]

This a bit straying from topic, but ...



is it? I know they are comparably stronger in 2ed but do previous editions really have balance?

Well, in older D&D, characters generally _didn't_ have the option of buying (or finding, making, etc) whatever magic items they needed to round out their build - they just had whatever Weird Stuff the DM felt like inflicting on them.

[Kallisti]

Well, in older D&D, characters generally _didn't_ have the option of buying (or finding, making, etc) whatever magic items they needed to round out their build - they just had whatever Weird Stuff the DM felt like inflicting on them.

Which was not a function of the ruleset itself--there's no clause anywhere in 3.X that dictates every town must come with a fully-stocked Adventurer's Mart.To the best of my knowledge, anyway...it would explain a lot.

[Noodles2375]

What tiers are you talking about?

Obligatory Links:

http://brilliantgameologists.com/boa...p?topic=1002.0

http://brilliantgameologists.com/boa...p?topic=5070.0

[Eldariel]

is it? I know they are comparably stronger in 2ed but do previous editions really have balance?

Oh, there was a balance alright. It's the same people try to see in 3.X but that just isn't there. Basically, the deal was:
- Casters (mostly Arcane Casters; divinists capped out at 7th level spells and overall, were much less overwhelming than in 3.X) start off really slow. In 3.5 a level 1 Wizard can have ~4 slots thanks to (Focused) Specialization and ability score-based bonus slots. In AD&D you had one. So where a 3.X level 1 Wizard can last all day, an AD&D one will have that one encounter nuke (Sleep was the boss back then). This meant that casters actually were weak on low levels.
- Casters leveled much slower than other classes. This meant that a level 20 Fighter wasn't supposed to match a level 20 Mage; a level 1 Fighter partied with a level 1 Mage but the Fighter, as the levels grew, got a significant level lead that evened the ability gap somewhat.
- Casters actually were squishy back then. Unlike in 3.X, only Warrior-types got full Con benefits. Mages could at best get +2 HP/level and that's with 16 Con. As such, non-Warriors mostly got their HP from HD and thus Wizards, behind in levels (and as such HD) and with the smallest dice, had very, very little HP. Also, after level 10 characters only got small static bonuses to HP.
- As a corollary, casters actually were easily disrupted. If they got hit at all when trying to cast, the spell failed; no Concentration, no anything. This meant that you aren't casting spells if someone is at your throat with a sword (unless you have infinite protections up leading to you not being hit after all, which was certainly efficient back then too). Also, stupid crap like 5' steps, Tumble and company didn't exist; when someone got to you swinging a sword, you didn't just say "Oh" and step away.
- Warrior-types actually were better at fighting than other people (at least to a degree). Different weapons gave different options (Daggers were great for penetrating Stoneskin for example [back then Stoneskin only cared about the amount of times it was hit and Daggers got a lot of attacks per turn]), Weapon Mastery-line (through Proficiency-slots) actually granted extra attack towards the end, HP was much lower throughout the board (Ancient Red had 88 hp, for example) so the damage from attacks was comparatively much greater and the great akuryo that is "full attack" was not discovered yet; you moved and attacked without problems. Also, high Str granted more bonuses to damage than it does now, and Warriors with 18 Str got a percentile on it that granted further bonuses compared to non-Warriors with 18 Str (though they were all even if they ever somehow got to 19 Str; with no natural stat accumulation though, that was hard - needed a Tome or Belt of Giant Strength, both of which were too rare for words). Oh, and due to tactical movement being a bit different back then, "I block that guy's movement" was a perfectly valid action allowing warrior-types to give casters the protection they needed. As you can see, back then the party roles worked. Casters needed protection (unlike now) and Fighters were able to provide it.
- Warrior-types used to have just about the best save progression. This made them actually durable as opposed to in name only, like in 3.X. He is the last guy to get dominated, FoDd or anything else; he was the bastion of defense that was the last to fall. Also, back then saves didn't scale. Every save was a flat roll against how good that save was. This meant save-or-X effects were just as good as they are now on low levels, but on higher levels you weren't afraid of Dominate or some such, and breath weapons routinely did half damage. Higher level spells did grant penalty to the save, yes, but as Cloaks of Protection granted bonus to it (in addition to bonus to AC) that still wasn't terribly scary and it's nothing compared to 3.5 where save DC grows with spell and ability score. There it only grew with spell and not always even then.
- Spells were more costly in all ways. Seriously, stuff that dominates 3.5 (think Shapechange, Polymorph, Gate, etc.) was expensive (Shapechange's focus was a material component back then; 1.5k each time), hazardous to your health (the Demon won't like you; Polymorph has a change of causing disorientation; Haste can rapidly age the subjects, being so dangerous that it was actually useful offensively sometimes), and just plain weaker (1d3 turns from Time Stop, 1 round/level of Shapechange and so on). Also, spell slots took hour/level to prepare so no blowing your entire load and having a new one up next day. Mind, casters were still a horror to behold especially on higher levels (Fireball earned its reputation of destroying entire monster armies alone, though requiring some geometry lesson [less so than Lightning Bolt which bounced off walls tho] as it went where it fit like an explosion should, back then when the damage was heavy and hard to come by), and easily the most powerful class in terms of offense (which is why parties bothered to drag that bony, feeble ass around for all the low levels), even though nothing compared to what they are now (just draw your own conclusions as to what their abilities are in somewhat capable hands in 3.X), but they definitely had their weaknesses and needed other party members, especially early on.

The only thing warriors got in 3.X was more magic item availability (in AD&D, they were decidedly a bonus thing and you did not expect any magic items, though of course you went on a quest for that legendary sword eventually), and that's just not how so many of us want to see them being awesome. Besides, they still don't nearly make up for all the losses Warriors experienced in the transition.

[Greenish]

Obligatory Links:

http://brilliantgameologists.com/boa...p?topic=1002.0

http://brilliantgameologists.com/boa...p?topic=5070.0

I know of the tier system, but that doesn't seem to be what he was referring to. Well, I don't know about "most groups", but I doubt he meant they most commonly play tier 3 classes.

I got the vibe he was talking about optimization tiers or something.

[Swordguy]

Oh, there was a balance alright. It's the same people try to see in 3.X but that just isn't there. Basically, the deal was:

...

The only thing warriors got in 3.X was more magic item availability (in AD&D, they were decidedly a bonus thing and you did not expect any magic items, though of course you went on a quest for that legendary sword eventually), and that's just not how so many of us want to see them being awesome. Besides, they still don't nearly make up for all the losses Warriors experienced in the transition.

Excellent summation. Short version: Casters effectively lost every weakness they had, and everyone else suffered for it. Since this was done as a direct result of player requests ("make magic better!"), I consider it one of the all-time best reasons NOT to listen to player requests.

Most people wouldn't know what makes a good game is it stripped naked, painted itself purple, and jumped up on a table singing "look what a good game I am!". They just tend to ask for more "stuff" for their chosen archetype.

[Grynning]

Eldariel, you have said many a brilliant thing, but that was one of the best rants/essays/theories on D&D I've read in a while. I really wanted to go crack open the old editions again after that, and I haven't played anything but 3rd and 4th in 10 years.

[Starbuck_II]

Oh, there was a balance alright. It's the same people try to see in 3.X but that just isn't there. Basically, the deal was:
needed a Tome or Belt of Giant Strength, both of which were too rare for words).
Haste can rapidly age the subjects, being so dangerous that it was actually useful offensively sometimes),

The only thing warriors got in 3.X was more magic item availability (in AD&D, they were decidedly a bonus thing and you did not expect any magic items, though of course you went on a quest for that legendary sword eventually), and that's just not how so many of us want to see them being awesome. Besides, they still don't nearly make up for all the losses Warriors experienced in the transition.

Up to these comments spot on:
But first, Haste was a save or die for enemies. Age rapidly meant system Shock.

Creating magic items was actually pretty easier in 2E unless DM decided to nerf it by requiring components (which was a suggestion not a rule).
Even than components only were added to making permanent magifc items.

Scrolls/Potions just had a caster level limit to make (Scrolls required 1st level, potons I'm not sure I think 6).
Permanent magic items had like a 10% chance for con loss.

Either way, any magic ityems created gave you exp. Yes, you were rewarded for having more Wealth.

In fact, that was the reason Monty Haul campagns were bad: treasure = extra XP back than.

The fact that everyone could Scribe scroll and brew potion for free was cool.

Granted, my DM houseruled that way away (even Weapon specialization) so that sucked that I never got to actually use the rules as written.

[Knaight]

Which was not a function of the ruleset itself--there's no clause anywhere in 3.X that dictates every town must come with a fully-stocked Adventurer's Mart.To the best of my knowledge, anyway...it would explain a lot.

3.X has the city size guides to how expensive stuff you can have in a city. DMG, chapter 5, though I'm operating off memory.

[The Oakenshield]

Off topic on the first page...

It doesn't really matter though, my question was answered, I guess.

[Yuki Akuma]

Off topic on the first page...

It doesn't really matter though, my question was answered, I guess.

You must understand, this conversation has been done to death around here. They need to find something to entertain themselves after answering the question.

[Knaight]

Its not even derailment in these threads.

[herrhauptmann]

Off topic on the first page...

It doesn't really matter though, my question was answered, I guess.

Not sure what more you want as proof. Perhaps specific examples of how a caster is better than a fighter?
1)All the utility type spells that casters get which make noncombat encounters so much easier
2)A monster is equally deadly whether it has 1 HP, or 1000. So a fighters ability to deal damage in a fight isn't really able to end an encounter unless they're a charger type which can deal 100s of damage in a hit. A wizard could do that with damage spells like fireball or orbs, or he can dish out a variety of spells which end the fight even if the enemy isn't dead: Save or die (obvious), save or suck/lose (if you fail your save, you're so ineffective you might as well lay down and die), save AND suck (spells so awesome that even if you make your save, you've still lost)
3)Generic example: Cleric takes extend spell, persist spell, divine metamagic: persist (he can now burn turn undead attempts to fuel metamagic). Now he buys a half dozen nightsticks. Now he's just one spell away from being a better fighter than the fighter. Divine Power.
Now he's got a BAB equal to that of the party fighter, a +6 to strength, far sooner than the fighter could a belt of giant str +6. His weapon choices are almost as good as the fighter, his choice of armor is just as good (no tower shields). And he can still cast more spells: If he's hurt, he can heal himself. If he needs further buffs, he's got them. If the enemy needs debuffs, he's got them too.

Check out this thread. One of my builds is an arcane warrior (gish). Compare that character at pretty much any level to what I'd have as just a plain warrior (almost any PrC). Unless I were seeking straight damage as a frenzied berserker, or a mounted charger, the gish quickly pulls ahead.
And that's not even a highly optimized gish. Eldariel lists two more 'basic' gish builds in the 4th post.

[Starbuck_II]

If not using Divine Metamagic, Savage Species Ghaele is pretty awesome Cleric.

You use Class level = Cleric level. You are an outsider so full BAB. And you get spell-like abilities (like alter Self).

Sure you only get 10HD by 20th level, but you get 14th level Cleric casting (plus special abilities/high level spell-likes).

[Lhurgyof]

This a bit straying from topic, but ...



is it? I know they are comparably stronger in 2ed but do previous editions really have balance?

Plus, wizards didn't choose what spells they could have... I remembered we played Hackmaster (which is just the AD&D rules), and my monk was the only to survive past first level...

[Jarawara]

Excellent summation. Short version: Casters effectively lost every weakness they had, and everyone else suffered for it. Since this was done as a direct result of player requests ("make magic better!"), I consider it one of the all-time best reasons NOT to listen to player requests.

Most people wouldn't know what makes a good game is it stripped naked, painted itself purple, and jumped up on a table singing "look what a good game I am!". They just tend to ask for more "stuff" for their chosen archetype.

Damn, that's a good summation! Also, it's sig-worthy. Being the first time I was inspired to quote someone for my sig, let's see if I can avoid screwing it up....

Edit: Hey, it worked!

[Swordguy]

Damn, that's a good summation! Also, it's sig-worthy. Being the first time I was inspired to quote someone for my sig, let's see if I can avoid screwing it up....

Edit: Hey, it worked!

I'm flattered...but you could always fix the typo I made. "If" instead of "is".