Why it doesn't matter...

[Ephraim]

I have decided that it doesn't matter that high-level fighters may be less effective than high-level wizards. Sure, everybody has some method in mind that they'd use to fix the fighter. I know I've houseruled in a few class features that make fighters a little bit more powerful and a lot more interesting. Ultimately, though, I think that appreciation of the fighter as-is (or mostly so) is justified and that the real solution requires a perspective change on the part of the players and the DM.

1. The fighter is offensively effective at lower levels. Early on, casters are support for fighters. It is okay that there is a role reversal at higher levels. Fighters are still a relevant part of the team. They provide coverage so that the casters have time to fire off their key spells. They also mop up monsters that the casters have weakened so that key spells can be conserved. Making a habit of utilizing the strengths of all of the party's members gives villains fewer linchpins to exploit.

2. There is a widespread perception that high-level Wizards should be extremely powerful, but by no means is a DM bound to obey this convention. If the villain knows how dangerous the party's casters are, then a fortress designed to hamper those casters is both appropriate and an interesting challenge for the party. Along the same lines, DM's should discourage complacent casters. If a player hasn't opted to take Spell Mastery or Eschew Components because she believes that the DM would never be lame enough to do something to her component pouch or spell book then the DM should target the component pouch and spell book sometimes. DM's should not get suckered in by the "That's no fun!" argument. It may not be fun for the people playing fighters that the wizard gets concessions that lead to overpowering.

3. There is nothing wrong with the players of the wizard characters letting the fighter characters do their thing. Unless your game is purely tactical combat, try to avoid traditional, overpowered builds in favour of something novel that lets everybody in the party participate. Players frequently condone metagaming to make a character more powerful, so there shouldn't be anything wrong with metagaming to make combat more fun for everybody. Just because the wizard can be a one-man show-stopper doesn't mean that he has to be.

[Turcano]

Well, yeah. Character classes were never supposed to be balanced against each other, since it's a team game and all. The only thing that enters into it is how balance relates to NPCs; as many people have pointed out, BBEGs are very disproportionately spellcasters, at least at high levels. And even then, the DM can compensate for that deficiency.

[Ephraim]

That should be the case, Turcano, but the arguments I've seen about this topic always seem to have an element of "Spellcasters don't need fighters!" to them.

As far as villains go, I don't think it's because spellcasters are stronger. One, I think that spellcasters are perceived as being smarter than fighters, so fighters get stuck in the role of henchmen. Two, spellcasters have access to a range of villainy that fighters just can't achieve. When fighters are villains, they are typically generals or murderers. They can be despicably evil, but they're still mundane. When spellcasters are villains, they can raise the dead and consort with demons. That sort of supernatural villainy is more exciting to players, I think.

On a completely different note, watching Picard, Riker, and Data headbanging is unnaturally addictive.

[Jades]

Just here to state my agreement with the OP.

[Bears With Lasers]

Uh, one fo the major problems is that the fighter CAN'T effectively contribute at high levels--against a Balor or a Wyrm or whatever, the fighter a) can't do much and b) gets minced easily. Against NPCs who aren't fighters, same. At low levels, the fighter is not "ofensively effective". At low levels, it's balanced--Sleep is a "win button" at level 1, after all, and has a very good chance of success. By level 5, the wizard can be contributing more, but the fighter is still necessary. By level 20, the fighter is essentially completely superfluous--the party would not be much weaker without him, he can't do much, and so on.

As for spellbooks, spell-trapped spellbooks (and a single Spell Mastery, preferably including Teleport) are the way to go.

[Turcano]

The thing about the "spellcasters don't need fighters" argument is that it almost always degenerates into "Oh yeah? Well my wizard can beat up your fighter!" (Some of them begin with that.) Which, again, assumes that classes are supposed to be balanced against each other.

Regarding spellcasting vs. warrior BBEGs: The versatility of the spellcasting villian's evilness is directly tied to said villian's versatility in general. As I said, you can compensate for this in a warrior BBEG, either through templates, spell-like abilities (is this considered "cheating"?), equipment, or even fluff. For instance, a warrior can raise/animate dead through the use of an evil artifact or have fiendish ancestry (or other relationships, like Nale/Sabine). It's a bit more work for the DM, but it can be done.

[Bears With Lasers]

Versatility isn't the problem--power is. A fighter BBEG would have to be enormously higher-level than a spellcasting one to be any kind of threat to a high-level party.

[Yuki Akuma]

I think a lot of people have a difficulty seeing the difference between "thought experiments" and "mental exercises", and "what I'd do in real life".

[Behold_the_Void]

Actually the major reason they don't need to be balanced is that this is a game that a lot of people play together to have fun. And if the group is working well together, each character will have their own time to shine. If I ever played in a campaign where the wizard player just started doing everything and wouldn't give the rest of us a chance to play, I would just walk. A 20th level uberwizard means absolutely nothing if nobody's around to play with them. Then it's all just scribbling on a piece of scrap paper.

[Turcano]

That's true, provided that both of the BBEGs are engaging the party all by their lonesomes. However, both of them are likely to have minions, and there's no rule that forbids a warrior from having minions who are spellcasters.

[Renegade Paladin]

Uh, one fo the major problems is that the fighter CAN'T effectively contribute at high levels--against a Balor or a Wyrm or whatever, the fighter a) can't do much and b) gets minced easily. Against NPCs who aren't fighters, same. At low levels, the fighter is not "ofensively effective". At low levels, it's balanced--Sleep is a "win button" at level 1, after all, and has a very good chance of success. By level 5, the wizard can be contributing more, but the fighter is still necessary. By level 20, the fighter is essentially completely superfluous--the party would not be much weaker without him, he can't do much, and so on.

As for spellbooks, spell-trapped spellbooks (and a single Spell Mastery, preferably including Teleport) are the way to go.

Bull. If the fighter can't do much, it's because the wizard's already blown everything up, not because he couldn't hurt the monsters. There are all kinds of fun ways to dish out hurting to monsters using a martial build. I see some of them in action every time I DM these days; hell, I had a level 12 paladin one-hit a cornugon last week. My eyes fairly shot out of my head at that one.

[Bears With Lasers]

Er, no. It's because monsters fly faster, hit as hard, and are tougher than the fighter. I mean, what's a non-archer going to do against a Pit Fiend? And dragon full attacks not only kill the hell out of fighters, dragons are powerful spellcasters in their own right, plus they've got 150' fly speed and Flyby Attack. It's not that the fighter can't hurt monsters on a full-attack, it's that getting that full attack in can be pretty hard, and when it isn't, the response full-attack will hurt you more than you hurt the monster.

At level 12, sure, Fighters contribute. By level 20, very little.

[Renegade Paladin]

Who said anything about melee? I said a martial build.

[Bears With Lasers]

Archery has its own problems (you're not tanking anymore, and Wind Wall totally shuts you down, to name a couple), and if it's the only viable high-level option for fighter types, that's not a good thing and showcases the problem.

[Renegade Paladin]

Melee still isn't helpless. That one hit kill on the cornugon I mentioned? That was 217 damage in one go. It would have damned near killed a pit fiend as well, and he'd have had less trouble with it because he wouldn't have to deal with the damned spiked chain with stunning ability. And that was at 12th level; let them buff him some more with some higher level buffs, and he's ready to own pretty much anything that he can get to.

[Bears With Lasers]

The occasional smiting crit on a lance-charge doesn't consistent output make.

Getting to things is at least half the problem.

[Renegade Paladin]

No crit and no lance. I'll post the build later if you want; I need to go to bed.

[Marius]

You guys just don't get it. A fighter without spellcasters is meaningless at high levels, how do you "melee" with a flying dragon? A flying dragon that can actually fly way more faster than fighter (assuming he has some item that let's him fly).
It does matter that casters are much more powerful than non-casters. It shouldn't happen, d&d is a tactical wargame and a 15th level fighter should be as powerful as a 15th level wizard. Right now, a wizard-killing fighter build couldn't even touch any regular wizard build.
Classes don't have to be balanced for intra party fights but they should be balanced to make sure that every character in the party could be useful and have fun.
You shouldn't have to keep trying to find ways to nerf spellcasters or force their players to tone them down.

[Morty]

You shouldn't have to keep trying to find ways to nerf spellcasters or force their players to tone them down.

Why? I think it's better to slow down most uber-powerful classes than to overpower others. Especially when there are tons of ways to slow wizards, clerics etc. down, and I can't think of many reasonable ways to significantly pump up nonspellcasters.

[Ephraim]

You guys just don't get it. A fighter without spellcasters is meaningless at high levels, how do you "melee" with a flying dragon? A flying dragon that can actually fly way more faster than fighter (assuming he has some item that let's him fly).

The fighter is offensively effective at lower levels. Early on, casters are support for fighters. It is okay that there is a role reversal at higher levels.

I wasn't suggesting that fighters can get by without casters. In fact, quite the opposite. I was acknowledging that casters may be the stars of the show at high levels but that they may still have a use for their fighters.

It does matter that casters are much more powerful than non-casters. It shouldn't happen, d&d is a tactical wargame and a 15th level fighter should be as powerful as a 15th level wizard.

There is nothing wrong with the players of the wizard characters letting the fighter characters do their thing. Unless your game is purely tactical combat, try to avoid traditional, overpowered builds in favour of something novel that lets everybody in the party participate.

(emphasis added)

Like I said, if you want to think of it as nothing more than a tactical combat game, that's fine. Although that is not the way that I want to play D&D, I agree that you could have fun playing that way. In that case, yes, it does matter that high-level fighters don't compare favourably to high-level casters. The fighter still doesn't need to be fixed, though. In tactical combat simulation, you just don't bother with the fighter class past a certain level (4 or 6, I think, says popular wisdom. I forget.)

Right now, a wizard-killing fighter build couldn't even touch any regular wizard build.
Classes don't have to be balanced for intra party fights but they should be balanced to make sure that every character in the party could be useful and have fun.
You shouldn't have to keep trying to find ways to nerf spellcasters or force their players to tone them down.

There is nothing wrong with the players of the wizard characters letting the fighter characters do their thing. [...] Players frequently condone metagaming to make a character more powerful, so there shouldn't be anything wrong with metagaming to make combat more fun for everybody. Just because the wizard can be a one-man show-stopper doesn't mean that he has to be.

We outright disagree about this point. I'd only agree that you shouldn't have to force the people playing casters to tone it down if they're already doing so conscientiously without you saying anything. Truly, "Bob, the other players aren't having fun anymore." is a perfectly legitimate argument. Furthermore, this doesn't have to be a painful experience for the player with the caster. They can look at it as an opportunity to play with all of the spells in their spellbook rather than just the five they know will win every battle.

[Khantalas]

Now, why my favorite villains are almost always martial or sneaky characters?

[Pegasos989]

1. The fighter is offensively effective at lower levels. Early on, casters are support for fighters. It is okay that there is a role reversal at higher levels. Fighters are still a relevant part of the team. They provide coverage so that the casters have time to fire off their key spells. They also mop up monsters that the casters have weakened so that key spells can be conserved. Making a habit of utilizing the strengths of all of the party's members gives villains fewer linchpins to exploit.

Actually, spellcasters aren't just support on low levels. Spellcasters have sleep, color spray, hold person, deep slumber... A sorcerer or wizard with a scyhte for coup de gracing would not be a support, the fighter next to him in case enemy gets near or he runs out of spells is support. However, I admit that in a normal party with nice player of wizard, the warrior types are atleast as important as spellcasters. I am simply agains saying that spellcasters are just the support...

And as a common player of warrior types... I don't like to be just someone to mop up monsters casters just defeated at high levels, I would like to be defeating them myself too. This is why it matters.

2. There is a widespread perception that high-level Wizards should be extremely powerful, but by no means is a DM bound to obey this convention. If the villain knows how dangerous the party's casters are, then a fortress designed to hamper those casters is both appropriate and an interesting challenge for the party. Along the same lines, DM's should discourage complacent casters. If a player hasn't opted to take Spell Mastery or Eschew Components because she believes that the DM would never be lame enough to do something to her component pouch or spell book then the DM should target the component pouch and spell book sometimes. DM's should not get suckered in by the "That's no fun!" argument. It may not be fun for the people playing fighters that the wizard gets concessions that lead to overpowering.

Yes but the wizards protect those weaknesses. Do you know how easy it is to sunder fighter's weapon compared to destroying all wizard's three hidden spell component pouches. If DM has to spend a lot of extra trouble and target specifically some classes all the time to keep them from outshining the other members, it certainly matters that they are overpowered.

3. There is nothing wrong with the players of the wizard characters letting the fighter characters do their thing. Unless your game is purely tactical combat, try to avoid traditional, overpowered builds in favour of something novel that lets everybody in the party participate. Players frequently condone metagaming to make a character more powerful, so there shouldn't be anything wrong with metagaming to make combat more fun for everybody. Just because the wizard can be a one-man show-stopper doesn't mean that he has to be.

But I also like playing spellcasters. I enjoy the mechanical side. I don't truly feel joy of advancement unless I am allowed to try to make mechanically as good character as I can (naturally even I stay away from polymorph cheese and the like, I am not munchkin). If I as a spellcaster need to design my character by taking poor choices by purpose to not outshine others, it matters.

[Ephraim]

And as a common player of warrior types... I don't like to be just someone to mop up monsters casters just defeated at high levels, I would like to be defeating them myself too. This is why it matters.

I suppose that my answer will probably be kind of unsatisfying but I suspect that it is unavoidably true. At any given time, some characters will have advantages over others but it's more glaringly obvious when you're looking at wizards and fighters. Like I was trying to say, my solution requires a change in the way one looks at the game. In this case, it requires fighter players to understand that they may not be the star hero most of the time when the party gets to higher levels.

Yes but the wizards protect those weaknesses. Do you know how easy it is to sunder fighter's weapon compared to destroying all wizard's three hidden spell component pouches. If DM has to spend a lot of extra trouble and target specifically some classes all the time to keep them from outshining the other members, it certainly matters that they are overpowered.

I'm afraid I don't actually know how hard it is to sunder a wizard's three hidden spell component pouches. On the other hand, if they're hidden, the DM should be ruling on how easily the wizard can pull components out of them. I think that the argument that Bears With Lasers presented earlier was compelling, though. If a wizard has Spell Mastery (teleport) and has spare spellbooks back home, he's probably safe from losing his spellbook. That really isn't even abusive, so as a DM, I couldn't justify nerfing it either. Of course, it's a step in the right direction, at least. That one feat devoted to Spell Mastery is not another metamagic feat.

But I also like playing spellcasters. I enjoy the mechanical side. I don't truly feel joy of advancement unless I am allowed to try to make mechanically as good character as I can (naturally even I stay away from polymorph cheese and the like, I am not munchkin). If I as a spellcaster need to design my character by taking poor choices by purpose to not outshine others, it matters.

In my opinion, players have to make concessions about stuff like this. So that the rest of the party can enjoy themselves, the Haleys of the world shouldn't run ahead and loot the dungeon and the Belkars of the world shouldn't be devising plans to slay the party while they sleep. Likewise, the Vaarsuviuses (Vaarsuvii?) of the world shouldn't horde power when it impedes playing as a team.

[Nifty_Knickers]

Like I said, if you want to think of it as nothing more than a tactical combat game, that's fine. Although that is not the way that I want to play D&D, I agree that you could have fun playing that way. In that case, yes, it does matter that high-level fighters don't compare favourably to high-level casters. The fighter still doesn't need to be fixed, though. In tactical combat simulation, you just don't bother with the fighter class past a certain level (4 or 6, I think, says popular wisdom. I forget.)

I've had to read this again several times...

because making the game less about tactical combat and more about diplomatic interactions, or maybe an investigation plot Really brings out all the strengths of a fighter char... right...



I've stayed out of these "casters vs warriors" thusfar... but the more threads I read on it, the more I get the feeling that quite some people don't know what they are talking about.


So, let me enter the fray and make a statement:

Warrior classes are underpowered compared to Caster classes.
They are considered underpowered, not because they are so much weaker, but because they are unneccesary. A four caster party is more powerfull then a traditional mixed party is more powerful then a four warrior party. Sure a fighter can support a wizard. A second wizard with the right spell coices however, is better support. A cleric (or druid) with the right spell and domain choices, is even Better support.


A fighter is underpowered because there are better choices out there, and in my opinion, this shouldn't be the case for a core class.

[Ephraim]

I've had to read this again several times...

because making the game less about tactical combat and more about diplomatic interactions, or maybe an investigation plot Really brings out all the strengths of a fighter char... right...

I was not entirely clear on this point. Yes, the fighters are going to be best in combat. That doesn't mean that it has to be purely tactical combat. The other possible extreme is cinematic combat. In any case, the players don't have to approach combat with the notion that they must win as efficiently as possible. It is possible to enjoy the game with suboptimal builds. That's the kind of mindset I'm advocating. I think the game is more fun when the players get over the mechanical aspects and try to have fun in different ways.

So even if fighters are unnecessary, who cares? Are you trying to play D&D or are you trying to beat it? (If you're trying to beat it, then this thread was not started for your benefit.)

[Bears With Lasers]

Um. If your fighter keeps failing at things and being generally unhelpful, that's not very cinematic, is it?

"It's possible to enjoy the game with suboptimal builds" is true, but it is NOT a viable excuse for a lack of balance--and we're not talking suboptimal, we're talking "ineffectual". A whole lot of people have a hard time enjoying a game where their character can't really contribute anything.

[Morty]

Um. If your fighter keeps failing at things and being generally unhelpful, that's not very cinematic, is it?

"It's possible to enjoy the game with suboptimal builds" is true, but it is NOT a viable excuse for a lack of balance--and we're not talking suboptimal, we're talking "ineffectual". A whole lot of people have a hard time enjoying a game where their character can't really contribute anything.

QFT. It's not much fun if wizard is more powerful on higher levels simply because he's a wizard and you are not. Especially if you put much effort into making effective martial/skillmonkey etc. build, and wizard is more powerful just because of his class.
In fact, spellcasters should be actually weaker in straight fight than meleers. But that'd require rebuilding whole magic system.

[Bears With Lasers]

Check out Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved for such a rebuild.

[Ephraim]

The casters can play suboptimal characters, though, and the DM can account for this when crafting encounters for the party. And cinematic combat doesn't care so much about the numbers. The DM moderates events based on how interesting, exciting, creative, etc. they are.

[Nifty_Knickers]

So even if fighters are unnecessary, who cares? Are you trying to play D&D or are you trying to beat it? (If you're trying to beat it, then this thread was not started for your benefit.)

Ah, I catch what you mean. I think you're still missing the main problem however:

It's less apparent with wizard because wizards do require some thinking and planning, but It's more easily demonstratable with clerics and druids. Clerics and druid can make themselves equal to, or even outshine fighters. But this is not the core of the problem. The core of the problem, is that they can do it easily. So easily infact, that it can even happen on accident. A caster in a party may be all goodwill and holding back to let the fighter shine, only to find out that if he accidentally moves a finger, the fighter has just been outshone and the fighter player feels like Robin again standing next to Batman. And no-one likes to play Robin all the time.

I remember the first time I played, I took a druid, and I figured that natural spell was probably one of those must-have feats to make a druid able to keep up with the rest of the party. It took a little while to realise that the party fighter had become practically obsolete. And that was entirely not on purpose, and not for that sake of being strong. I did what most new people would do - take what I think I'll need to keep up with the rest.