D&D 3E/3.5 [3.5E] Will Warriors be on equal footing with casters?

[LuYangShih]

Fighters deal good damage, if min-maxed properly. Big whoop. Outside of that, they do nothing useful. Outside of combat, Fighter types are worthless compared to casters. Casters can investigate, do diplomacy, stealth, travel faster and easier than any class has a right to, AND are extremely effective in combat. People talk about SR like it's so unfair, but it's nothing compared to what happens to Fighters when they go up against creatures like Oozes and Nightshades.

Fighters without their equipment are pathetic. Casters without their equipment still rock. Go up against a DM who makes use of Sunder, Disarm and things like Rust Monsters or Oozes. Or how about stealing the Fighters weapons, or Stunning them, causing their weapons to drop, grabbing them and then teleporting away? Looks like the Fighter can't do anything much now. Casters can do it all, including combat, and they can do it without magic items. Fighters can do well in combat, but against monsters they require magic items to be effective.

And it's not just magic weapons, or magic armor, a Fighter has to have Teleportation items available if he hopes to get out of Walls of Force, grapples and close quickly with bombard mages, he has to have flying to deal with monsters and enemies equipped with flight, etc. A Fighter is completely reliant on their magic items. Take them away, and they are easily destroyed by most high level monsters. And it is shockingly easy TO take them away. And even with magic items, Fighters do nothing of note outside of combat, while casters do everything. But that's D&D. Casters rule, and I doubt that will ever change without a total revamping of the system. And if they do that, why even call it D&D anymore?

 

[Fenes 2]

If your fighters do nothing outside combat, that is a problem of your campaign. IMC, fighters do diplomacy, lead households, plot and deal, train students, search (or let search) in libraries for clues for quests, court a significant other, gamble, carouse, get into trouble with the law, hunt down thieves, start businesses etc.
In short, everything the sorcerer may be able to do the fighter can do as well.

 

[LostSoul]

If your fighters do nothing outside combat, that is a problem of your campaign. IMC, fighters do diplomacy, lead households, plot and deal, train students, search (or let search) in libraries for clues for quests, court a significant other, gamble, carouse, get into trouble with the law, hunt down thieves, start businesses etc.

That doesn't sound like a Fighter to me. He could do all of that, but none of it well. If you want to have a character who can operate out of combat, take a level of Ranger or Rogue or something.

 

[John Smallberries]

If your fighters do nothing outside combat, that is a problem of your campaign. IMC, fighters do diplomacy, lead households, plot and deal, train students, search (or let search) in libraries for clues for quests, court a significant other, gamble, carouse, get into trouble with the law, hunt down thieves, start businesses etc.

Assuming a 25-28 point buy standard, in order for a fighter to be *so* effective in all of those Int, Wis & Cha -based skills, we can assume that Str, Dex & Con are in the 8-12 range.

So he can do everything but fight.

 

[Fenes 2]

We are not talking about "effective" - all the things I mentioned you can do without having many if any ranks in those skills - provided the DM does not require you to roll checks against DCs for every single thing outside combat, and does not set the DCs too high for the things you roll for, and does not completely disregard circumstance boni (f.e. if the fighter just got home from a dragon slaying expedition, and the party bard is weaving the tale through all the taverns and courts of the city then he will, at least imc, get a hefty bonus for diplomacy checks, or intimidate.).

 

[Psion]

Fighters deal good damage, if min-maxed properly. Big whoop. Outside of that, they do nothing useful. Outside of combat, Fighter types are worthless compared to casters.

Is anyone else NOT seeing the problem here? This may have escaped your attention, but combat is the primary balancing point in 3e. Other areas factor in, true, but if a fighter is tuned to dish it out in combat, then that is sufficient. A fighter isn't supposed to be good outside of combat, and heaping on abilities that make it so would muddy the role of the fighter.

If you want a game that de-emphasizes combat as a balancing point, feel free to shift it. But such is not the norm for D&D, and you are basically trying to imposed your preferred campaign style on everyone.

 

[jgbrowning]

well

if you want a fighter to do more than fight, pick up a level or two in rogue. you'll lose a bit of fighting capability, but you'll become a more realistic character.

personally, i think multi-classing should be heavily encouraged to make more well-rounded characters.

joe b.

 

[LuYangShih]

Is anyone else NOT seeing the problem here? This may have escaped your attention, but combat is the primary balancing point in 3e. Other areas factor in, true, but if a fighter is tuned to dish it out in combat, then that is sufficient. A fighter isn't supposed to be good outside of combat, and heaping on abilities that make it so would muddy the role of the fighter.

If you want a game that de-emphasizes combat as a balancing point, feel free to shift it. But such is not the norm for D&D, and you are basically trying to imposed your preferred campaign style on everyone.

Did you read the rest of my post, or did you just look at the first sentence? Fighters are less effective in combat as well, and in addition they suck outside of combat. And that does make a difference in a game that isn't pure hack'n'slash, but your point is valid. Game balance is based on combat, but like I said earlier, Fighters aren't as good as casters even there. Fighters are too reliant on magic items that are too easily destroyed, stolen or removed, and once those are gone they can't really do anything. And it's very easy to do all of those things.

As for Fenes argument, that's ridiculous. So basically, if your DM gives you severe circumstance modifiers to do all of those things, sets low DCs, and has the other members of the party help out, the Fighter can be effective outside of combat? Well, I guess Commoners don't suck in combat, since the DM can set low ACs, give them high circumstance modifiers on their to hit rolls, and have everyone else use Aid Another, huh?

 

[jasamcarl]

Did you read the rest of my post, or did you just look at the first sentence? Fighters are less effective in combat as well, and in addition they suck outside of combat. And that does make a difference in a game that isn't pure hack'n'slash, but your point is valid. Game balance is based on combat, but like I said earlier, Fighters aren't as good as casters even there. Fighters are too reliant on magic items that are too easily destroyed, stolen or removed, and once those are gone they can't really do anything. And it's very easy to do all of those things.

As for Fenes argument, that's ridiculous. So basically, if your DM gives you severe circumstance modifiers to do all of those things, sets low DCs, and has the other members of the party help out, the Fighter can be effective outside of combat? Well, I guess Commoners don't suck in combat, since the DM can set low ACs, give them high circumstance modifiers on their to hit rolls, and have everyone else use Aid Another, huh?

No, you are ridiculous. If a character's items are entirely destroyed, it behooves the DM to stay in tune with the treasure by level table listed in the DMG. Yes, you can neuter the fighters in your party by throughing a Mord Dis wholesale, but how the hell often does that come up. If such a thing occurs every encounter than you are not using the ascribed balance of monsters neccessary, much as if every monster you toss at the party has sky-high SR/magic immunity/ or an anti-magic field. Fighters deal out CONSISTENT damage over all levels, while spellcasters are largly limited through either the limitation of their spell lists (bards/sorc) or spell prep (everything else). You obviously have no concept of what constitutes a balanced, diverse game...

 

[Lord Zardoz]

These comparisons mean nothing.

And for the most part, I mean that literally. Each campaign is as individual as the DM running it. And the creatures and tactics favored by the DM are what determines most of what is effective and what is not. The second part of it is directly related to how much magic items are handed out by the DM.

First, lets look at the magic item end of things.

I have seen people post about warrior types doing damage per round within all sorts of ranges, from 20-50 to 75-100. I beleive that those numbers arent as dependent on what level the fighter is as they are on other factors:

1) What kind of Point buy created the character?
2) What kind of magical gear and / or assistance does he have?

To better illustrate my point, lets ask a quick question here:

For an 8th level Fighter, what kind of magical equipment do you expect him to have?

Warrior types seem to benefit much more from a campaign with high magical items and point buy then Spell casters, especially Wizards and Sorcerers, who have no real business being in melee. A fighter with 15 Str and 13 Con, with a + 2 weapon that he is not specialized in is one thing. A fither with 18 Str and 16 Con, with a +3 weapon, operating under Bulls Strength and Endurance and a Prayer spell is quite another.

And other then Haste, what sort of buffs are there that make the Wizard a more powerful spell caster in the PHB? The majority of buff spells either enhance melee ability, enhance defensive ability, or protect against magical attacks. There is no spell that I can think of which makes a spell generally more effective.

And now lets look at the DM styles. Another consideration is the sort of campaign your playing in.

When I DM, I tend to err on the side of Stingy with the magical items, especially those that are directly useful in combat. It takes a long time for the +1 weapons and armor to show up. I am more likely to hand out a Ring of Jumping or Spider Climbing then a Ring of Protection. I either use 28 Point buy or the 4d6 drop lowest, depending on what the players prefer. If they choose Dice, I dont typically allow any attempts at re-rolling unless the character is grossly low in the stats.

I also tend to use Orcs, Goblins, and the like longer then most other DM's. I use them numbers, arm them reasonably, and support them with "Leutenant" types (often a low level caster or Ogre like Tank). In such a campaign, Rogues do nicely because of Sneak Attack. Fireball is a very effective spell over a longer period. Player AC tends to be low, but the opponents they typically face have a low attack bonus. The campaign runs well because when considered in and of its self, its balanced.

I have a friend who runs a much higher powered game. He uses a point buy in the High 30's / Low 40's. A high plus bonus is typically available on the weapons available. He allows the players to choose non PHB races (one of his characters is a Minotaur Paladin). His re-worked spell casting system is based on spell points, so high damage spells can be cast much more frequently when needed. Every fighter type had a Girdle of Strength, and the corresponding item for Constitution. He likes to use very high powered monsters, often of custom design. There are big numbers all over the place, for both the warriors and the wizard types. Amazingly enough (at least to me), the game runs smoothly enough, because within considered in and of its self, the game is balanced.

But if you were to compare one of my typical characters to one of his typical characters, the ones from my game would seem pathetic.

And even if you list every available buff and magic item for every character you use in these comparisons, someone is going to take issue with it. And they will do so because to them the character is either too strong or too weak.

END COMMUNICATION