Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Snow Savant 06-30-03, 09:19 PM	So much moaning and kvetching about how high level, straight Fighters are weak in comparison to similar levelled Wizards, Clerics, etc. And so true it is ... in the standard iconic party make-up. But at the same token, I have always marvelled at the way a well-constructed Fighter *consistently* and independently dishes out a decent chunk of damage even while the Mage & Cleric are winging high DC spells hoping for the "save-or-die" spell payoff. The more high-level combat I'm in, the more I notice too, the SR's of the really gnarly monsters are pretty much keeping up with the super-duper spellcasters (well, except for the Red Wizards) ... and the resistances/immunities are actually becoming more powerful and more difficult to ascertain. Yet, the damage dealing continues to stay consistent and fairly impressive with the Fighters. Sometimes even without protection or buffing from the spellcasters. The typical paradigm for an adventuring party is place the tanks up front, to protect the flimsy spellcasters and the rangy rogues. My inquiry to all of you to is to see if a more optimal party strategy has merit. Take for example, an average ... to above-average Min/Maxed 16th level party: 1. Straight Fighter 2. Straight Barbarian 3. Arcane Trickster 4. Straight Cleric - Archer Variety The objective here, is to have the AT and the Cleric be the "base anchors". The 2 Beefs become the "power projectors". The role of the AT & Cleric is solely to buff, protect, counterspell, & delay/channel/weaken the enemy (Walls, Figments, Slow, etc.), not "blast" or kill. By causing the enemy to waste their actions to deal with hazards or spells that do not impede the party, the 2 Beefs get even more attacks than usual and often with opportunity bonuses to boot. Enemy SR becomes irrelevant. As Walls, Grease, Clouds, and Figments are not affected by SR (since they are not targeted by the spells). Suddenly, all the pain is now being caused by the uber-Fighters. And the party is actually staying more well defended due to the counterspells and the area-effect "inconveniencing" spells that are blanketing the playing field. *** So I throw out to you, the Min/Max Intelligentsia ... what do you think of pursuing a primary operating style as such? How would it fit in your game? Do you think normally power-frenzied Mages & Clerics would not sit well with becoming "support" platforms instead of artillery platforms? Or am I just not seeing that people all over are doing this anyway? Thanks for your time. Snow :cloud9:
Salla 06-30-03, 10:01 PM	Every time you post, Snow, I'm more impressed. I think a 'support staff' of spellcasters could work ... if you had the right players. I've got a fun support caster right now (Wiz/Cleric/Mystic Theurge, Transmuter with no Evocation) who does pretty much all setups and enhancements/impairments. However, most other people I know like having the spotlight from time to time (one or two, ALL the time). Unfortunately, to them, having the spotlight means being combat spuds. In another game, I get the spotlight whenever a diplomatic situation comes up, because I'm the only character with Diplomacy ranks! As a random side note, the look on people's faces when you tell the 'Addicted To Fireball' crowd that you have Evocation as your off-limit school for specializing, is priceless.
grey muse 06-30-03, 10:03 PM	I can't speak for 16th level, but at lower levels, it's remarkably effective. A party focusing on using those magical effects to enhance the party's combat abilities in the 5-9 level range is very strong. Which is in fact exactly the role I think mages and clerics should play. One problem is that Persistent Spell changes short term cleric buffs into all day abilities. I'm holding judgement on 3.5 to see how cleric buffs have changed; making them non-personal effects would help. I do see spellcasters, particularly mages, used more for artillery roles than for buffs. I know they can be used effectively in the latter role as well as the former, though I don't really know how to encourage players to do that. grey muse
JosephKell 06-30-03, 10:04 PM	Barbarians are as easy as 1, 2, 3, 4. 1. BIG AXE!! (maybe even take Monkey Grip for a Huge Great Axe) Oil of Greater Magic Weapon? 2. Strength enhancements and Constitution if they can be swung (more Con, is more Rage). Potions too! 3. Speed/Movement enhancers. Boot of Springing and Striding, Light Armor, and Barbarian is 160 ft Charge radius! (that Mage thought he was safe... but now he has an axe lodged in his shoulder). Ring of Jump! Hop over things! you could possibly Jump-Charge 80+ feet... the point wouldn't be to really jump anything, but you might also avoid some hefty AoO's, but to just impress the DM and scare the bejesus out of anything! Potion of Haste 4. Save and AC bonuses. Cloak of Resistance can do this. Rage also adds +2 Fort and +2 Will saves. Potions of Displacement. That Potion of Haste also adds to Reflex saves. Axe Idiot indeed... -------------------------------- Fighter's have it harder... see, while a barbarian has Rage, which adds +2 or +3 to Attack and Damage with any melee weapon, a Fighter doesn't. So go tank! anything else may "look good on paper, but I would never take it into Indian Country." Fighter's don't need as much speed as Barbarians... infact, if one of the mages has Dimensional Door spell, they can cast it on the fighter to send them right at the enemy. 1. Big, bad weapon. Bastard Sword or Dwarven Waraxe. Axe is key, and a shield is a must. 2. Great Cleave! Also consider Improved Trip and Knockdown! 3. Big, strong armor! Magic Dwarven Full-Plate (Mithral, so it counts as Medium Armor). Big Strong Shield... maybe even a Tower Shield! 4. Saves! Boost those saves! Reducing weakness to Fire is always a good thing... because Fireball and Flame Strike are the benchmark reflex death dealers! Also your Will Save is potentially more important, Hold Person and you make more Will Saves to regain motion (in 3.5 Hold will allow a will save each round to end the spell)! Fighters and Barbarians can be a liability to a party, one Dominate Person spell and now there is one less warrior, a hole in the defensive line, and an enemy among the players! Mages and Clerics are uber... at Range! If a fighter or barbarian gets too close, and they can't spell cast or they risk getting Clobbered! -Joseph and Kell http://www.geocities.com/aielmanspear/dkingdubt.txt
KAVU2002 06-30-03, 10:18 PM	I absolutely agree with you. Fighter-types should fight. Spellcasters should play supporting roles. There are several reasons for this. You stated the most important reason: there are fewer defenses against physical weapons. The fighter is like "spell turn this, baby!" as he pounds you with a greatclub. That greatclub may have spikes on it, and the fighter may have ten buff spells on him, but saves/SR/spell turning are still irrelevant. I recently posted on a thread that debated the fighter question. Everyone thought that spellcasters were too powerful. I basically got shouted down, so I left the thread. I think the biggest problem with fighter-types is who plays them. Oftentimes, beginners are told "...just play a fighter, it will be easy..." Consequently, the fighter-type is the least minmaxed, and the least-competently played character. Then people say, "gee, why are the fighters so weak?" It is not that fighter-types are weak. It is that weak players are encouraged to play fighter-types. I know that I sound like a broken record, but one of the strongest builds out there is half-ogre/monk. No spell list, but he almost has as much SR as a Balor (Balor is CR 18 with SR 28, 17th level monk has SR of 27), he has REACH, and he is a heck of a grappler. Now, lets say that the party puts 18 spell levels of buffs on that 17th level monk. Now he's a mage-armoured, hasted, displaced, double greater-magic-fanged, flying monstrosity. Plus, he beats the bad guys into submission with his bare hands, and that's just cool!
JosephKell 06-30-03, 10:36 PM	Originally posted by KAVU2002 I absolutely agree with you. Fighter-types should fight. Spellcasters should play supporting roles. There are several reasons for this. You stated the most important reason: there are fewer defenses against physical weapons. The fighter is like "spell turn this, baby!" as he pounds you with a greatclub. That greatclub may have spikes on it, and the fighter may have ten buff spells on him, but saves/SR/spell turning are still irrelevant. Wall of Stone also has no save... and with the Transmute Rock to Mud and Transmute Mud to Rock cheese combo... you can drown like 12 PC's at once! Spellbook blasts Axe... Axe shakes it off (didn't even dent the hit points! ha ha ha)... Axe Cleaves Spellbook in two. (Axe is obviously a Fighter or Barbarian, and Spellbook is a Mage) [quote]I think the biggest problem with fighter-types is who plays them. Oftentimes, beginners are told "...just play a fighter, it will be easy..." Consequently, the fighter-type is the least minmaxed, and the least-competently played character. Then people say, "gee, why are the fighters so weak?" It is not that fighter-types are weak. It is that weak players are encouraged to play fighter-types. Very true... but I often play the fighter... more because my friend is always like, "I am a sorcerer!" as soon as the DM asks what class people want... then my incompetant friend... is like, "I want to be the combat cleric!" So I am left shaking my head thinking... "Maybe I should've signed up for a separate game them these two..." At this 3 day convention, I got bagged as... A Dwarven Fighter (Ftr 8), a Human Paladin (Pal 3), an Evil Half-Orc Barbarian (Bar 8), and an Elf Wizard (Wiz 1). And the Wizard was in a Diceless game where combat was more of a Joke: "Do something funny and descriptive and it will probably work... but if you just say, 'Attack Orc,' you miss and get attacked back." So Diceless and Ruleless about sums up that game... I know that I sound like a broken record, but one of the strongest builds out there is half-ogre/monk. No spell list, but he almost has as much SR as a Balor (Balor is CR 18 with SR 28, 17th level monk has SR of 27), he has REACH, and he is a heck of a grappler. Now, lets say that the party puts 18 spell levels of buffs on that 17th level monk. Now he's a mage-armoured, hasted, displaced, double greater-magic-fanged, flying monstrosity. Plus, he beats the bad guys into submission with his bare hands, and that's just cool! Savage Species is pretty broken... so I would have to frown upon an "ultimate monk" that is Half-Ogre. But yes, a Fighter or Barbarian (un-multiclassed) can wipe the floor if made right...
LordShade 06-30-03, 11:21 PM	I agree wholeheartedly - the role of spellcasters is primarily to enable the main warriors. I have little experience with 3e but I do know a lot about 2e. One of our campaigns went all the way from 1st to 20th level, and here were the main characters: elf archer gnome illusionist mage/psionicist (me) cleric of moradin cleric of marthammor duin paladin stalker ranger thief ranger/druid fighter/cleric (custom) Perhaps due to the nature of clerical spells in 2nd edition, all of our main damage dealers were warriors. Me and the other mage had a lot of direct damage, summoning, and illusions for crowd control, but we took different strategies: My character was LG, and I tend to play with a lawful mentality. That means I look for actions that amplify the overall power of the group - and directly doing damage rarely meets that criteria. While I could do a boatload of damage in a short time with time dilation, split personality, time duplicate, minor sequencer, sequencer, spell trigger, contingency, chain contingency, and timestop by unleashing dozens of Mordenkainen's Force Missiles or 20d6 flame arrows, I'd quickly run out of juice at that rate. I generally hoarded my strength for the big battles. In smaller encounters, I'd focus on shielding weak characters, summoning monsters to distract enemies from our fighters, using teleport other, dimension door, and fly to get our fighters to where they needed to go, increasing damage with Improved Strength or a power manipulated accelerate on an ally to triple their number of attacks. The reason here for taking the enhancement strat was because our fighters, with +4 and +5 weapons, specialization or mastery, and high strength scores, could dish out 60+ points of damage EASILY in a round. That's a lot more than a 10d6 fireball is going to do (remember this is 2e). Since I had so many spells and psionic powers, I could do almost anything as a facilitator. The gnome illusionist was CN and controlled by a chaotic-minded player. He'd go off on his own, turn invisible and fly, casting massive illusions and throwing weird spells all over the battlefield. Was he effective? Sure. Could he have been played better? Of course. I remember several battles in which we would have fared better if my gnomish compatriot had focused on prolonging the lifespan of offensively potent but vulnerable allies, including a fierce battle with a dracolich and its retinue that cost many of us our lives (but not me or the gnome - we were pretty much the only major characters that survived). As for clerics, they were a lot weaker at melee combat in 2nd edition. Some of the specialty priests were pretty strong, but not the core cleric. Our cleric of marthammor duin played the role of an F/M/C - with his haste spell (no aging penalty, so he used it every day!) he was a hardcore attacker, and he had enough lightning magic to do some direct damage. On the other hand, our cleric of Moradin played the role of enabler. He'd attack occasionally with wall of fire or stonefire, but usually he focused on buffs like prayer, righteous wrath of the faithful, etc, or summoned some powerful celestials. Both of the clerics were played well and I was glad to have them around, but ask yourself this - would you rather have 3 extra attacks from the cleric doing 1d8+6, or would you rather have 3 extra attacks (because the cleric used a buff or mage used haste) from the paladin, doing 1d8+18+5 more vs CE opponents, all at a higher THACO?
JTalbain 07-01-03, 04:50 AM	I totally agree with spellcasters being support. I RP with a group of players that pretty much all try to do their own thing rather than act as a team. When I play a spellcaster, however, I notice a drastic upswing in the effectiveness of the group as a whole. Probably my favorite school of magic is Transmutation, and if I ever play a specialty wizard, I would give up Evocation in a heartbeat. Between Conjuration and spells like Disintegrate, my combat prowess is far from lacking. Also, by being stocked to the gills with support spells, I can often insure that these heavy hitters don't need to see play except in major battles. Seeing good arguments for spellcasters fulfilling a supporting role reminds me of a campaign I played for about a year. The campaign setting was in Ravenloft, and a particularly cruel GM decided to create the feeling of despair and fear in the players by denying us much in the way of magic items. Our major spellcasters were a wizard/fatespinner who thought it best to become the most versatile blaster mage possible (he took Energy Substitution FOUR TIMES!!), and a dwarven cleric who doubled as a rather effective frontline fighter. As a fighter/ranger/holy liberator looking to eventually add Hunter of the Dead, I was the party's blender. The irony is that I was the best support character out of the group, because I saw fit to take Craft Magic Arms and Armor even with my piddling spellcasting abilities. By adding to the offensive and defensive capabilities of the party, I made sure that we were BARELY able to keep up with the increasingly powerful challenges we were presented with. One of the reasons I mention this game is that it was a wakeup call to the other players about the item creation feats being an awesome force in spellcaster support of the front lines. I loved the looks on the other players faces as they puzzled out how I had a 28 AC and had gained the ability to fly. (I confess to helping myself first.:angel: ) If the wizard or cleric had chosen to be a bit more support-oriented for the sake of the rest of the party, they could have fulfilled the position MUCH more efficiently than I did, and we could have gotten along that much easier.
snail shell 07-01-03, 05:05 AM	It's funny, but this describes the group I'm playing in exactly, save the addition of a druid. We're still pretty low level, so it will be some time before I can hand over a definite verdict on the effectiveness of the formation. At least now I can show the rest of them this thread when they get on my back for choosing Evocation as my banned school (I'm playing the AT to-be). And for the rest of you that were arguing that the fighter really is the powerhouse I thought it was: thanks. I was beginning to think I was the one playing the fighter wrong.
Eagle Prince 07-01-03, 05:23 AM	IMO, 1--barbarian 2--ranger 3--druid 4--cleric would work better for this. I'm more interested to know if a part of 4 PCs + DM or party of 6 PCs + DM is better for game play all-around. How about this for 6 PCs.. 1--fighter, sword and board with some archery 2--barbarian, two-handed weapon 3--ranger, archery path but uses feats on spear-fighting stuff 4--cleric, combat casting and item creation stuff 5--druid, for extra healing and buffs w/ feat to cast while wildshaped 6--sorcerer, counterspelling and ranged attacks Sorcerer would probably want to get into a PrC, barbarian could maybe multiclass into bard a bit for some roguish skills. Dunno... I don't think its a good idea to throw all your spellcasting on buffs. I don't think that will win you every fight.
Funny Slaughter 07-01-03, 05:32 AM	i have something to throw in: while a cleric or a wizard may be the most effective for the party when boosting the fighter its also the most less fun. if i play a cleric i dont want to spend all my time buffing the fighter just to see him chop the monsters away, thats the way many many people think. i think its perfect to have a cohort for this as a fighter, but sometimes it was even a hard time to get some spontan healing from the cleric. (bah, i need all my spells for myself) more the point with a wizard, even if monsters have a high SR most wizards just like it better to get the 3rd or 4th high level insta-kill spell through instead of playing with wise ressource-management and buffing the fighter. so while all the stuff stated by you is correct it is something not many people can do since it does not fit into the imagination of fun many players have. there may be quite some groups with the we-against-them feeling quite strong, but otherwise you wont get your buffing through a PC caster. gs Funny
Eagle Prince 07-01-03, 05:54 AM	One of my first 3e characters was a dwarven cleric, and I spent most of my time supporting the group and still had fun. And I didn't even particularily like this group I was playing with. You'd be surprised at the responses you get doing it... I'd heal anyone low on HP, and after awhile people just started telling me to save my spells unless someone was really beat up. In fact, the only thing they really cared about me supporting with after awhile was raising dead, since its kind of a hard thing to get done in the Underdark. Honestly, I would say its the other way around. Its harder to get the fighters and rogues to let you buff them, they seem to want to get the job done without any help.
Pauper 07-01-03, 10:57 AM	I think Funny makes an excellent point - the higher level straight spellcasters are going to want to use their spells, especially since they are still generally more effective than the fighters at dealing damage to multiple opponents. Case in point - our 9th level party engaged a gaggle of giants, ogres, and drow the other night; the fighters started at one end and finished off half the opposition, while the mage started at the other end and finished off the other half all by himself (3.0 haste combined with a wand of fireballs has a tendency to thin out the enemy ranks pretty quickly). On the other hand, except for the counterspelling, the role you describe is ideal for Strutinan's 'board-control' Spellsword build; putting up problems for the enemy to deal with while still having the ability to defend himself if rushed by opponents eager to 'take out the spellcaster'. My feeling is that it takes a pretty special player to excel at the 'support' role, since there's so often very little glory in it. Everybody remembers the 63 point crit that takes down the red dragon, but few remember the wall of stone that kept the dragon's fire giant allies away from the party long enough for the fighter to get his crit in. -- Pauper
Thizual 07-01-03, 11:19 AM	The last party I was in had a really odd composition to it: Sorceror 1/Rogue 5/Fighter 4 Cleric 10 (negative energy) Fighter 10 Rogue 3/Fighter 7 and me, Sorceror 10 I didn't have a single spell which listed both the word damage and any number of dice of any size or variety. Of course, I also had three important metamagic feats: Still Spell, Silent Spell, Eschew Materials. The fighters in the party dished out the vast majority of our damage by fighting tactically with each other while our cleric kept them buffed. My forte was casting 0th to 3rd level spells (and a couple 4th) without actually doing anything (and one time when we ambushed some guards my PC was actually tied up in a wagon), for no reason other than to distract or otherwise impede the mobility and effectiveness of our opponents. Though they are not the exemplary pure fighters of your suggestion, the concept was just as powerful and definitely had no save. We were actually less effective than the pure fighter counterparts when it came to undead (because I couldn't damage them, sneak-attack doesn't help, and the cleric could either expend healing on the undead during battle OR the party afterward).
scorpion1666 07-01-03, 12:21 PM	Snow, I think your idea is good, and I know this for I play it with my group. That is the normal style we play. Yes sometimes it falls apart (due to an EVIL DM and making even the smallest CR challenge a life and death situation), but usually we keep together and make it out alive. Even with a DM that doesn't really know how to run monsters or how to correctly throw CR levels at us (he's thrown a CR 30+ battle at us for a average 13th lvl group of 7 players with most of the characters not really min/maxxed and continues to try to kill us off by raising up the CR and not using stuff properly.) This tactic is viable. I'm usually the tank and or a hybrid tank. Just an example of your idea working fairly well. =)
JosephKell 07-01-03, 12:39 PM	I think Snow wanted Specific ways to make Fighters and Barbarians more effective (like Gear, Feats, and Tactics). Like I said before: Barbarians have 1 thing to worry about (which chains into a few more things): 1. Lopping off the Head of enemies! Which in turn requires... +1 Keen Adamantite Great Axe sounds good. 2. Getting to the enemy rather quickly!
WyvernSlayer 07-01-03, 12:50 PM	Yeah, we've been there and done that a few times already. It depends on who we're playing with. One of my current groups consists Ftr4/Barb1-heading towards templar and holy liberator for some quick dips-Wielding a corrosive Fullsword (18 dmg on average) Rogue5 Sorceror5 Cleric5 The sorceror (blaster mage) and Cleric (melee style) always provide a few buffs for me and the rogue, which let's us take on just about whatever gets in our way (she sneak attacks if possible), and I maul away at anything that moves. We've encountered a few things with SR already, and neither of my spellcasters could touch it, so we got the buffs up while I was busy hacking away, and that settled that. I think it's cool if the spellcasters want to bask in the limelight, I think most of us would like to from time to time, but I agree it is also important to help out the team. We're all just one part of the whole. It doesn't matter if you're the hand of the team if the elbow is gone. No one single class could ever fill in the vacuum of the standard roles, although they cand do so pretty well. One game I play in we don't receive many buffs from the spellcasters, but I chose to play a Psychic Warrior (wipes brow), and my friend Xorn-King can attest that although I buff myself thankfully, our party could use more buffing help. If I wasn't a PW I think we'd already be dead. Another testament to something along the lines of what Snow wrote above, just the opposite end. What Snow wrote I consider to be more effective, because anytime I've managed to play games where we got co-op like that, it was always so much more smoother.
xorn king 07-01-03, 02:30 PM	yeah, your PW kicks ass. If it wasn't fro the fuggin 15ft reach with 5+ attacks of opportunity I don’t think you could of taken on the 10 headed lernaean pyro-hydra.....o never mind you could of still taken it alone.....:turkey:
mean_liar 07-01-03, 04:03 PM	I see how a Fighting type (Barb, Fighter, etc) is important to a group for its no-frills approach, but more than a 1:4 ratio is probably too much. Enabling the Fighters to fight is good, but so is enabling yourself: a well-placed Wall or Solid Fog can really hamper the enemy, but all you really need to do is isolate temporarily. Having your spellcasters drop a spell or two on splitting the enemy into managable packets is well and good, but its only a spell or two. Its not a combat-long commitment, but rather the initial volley. Fighters main strength is not in causing damage, as a Cleric or some polymorphing Arcanists can outstrip them. Where a Fighter shines is in tactics: using Reach weapons, Hold the Line, Knockdown, Combat Reflexes, Disarms, etc. A buffed Fighter and non-buffed Cleric is one stellar combatant and one mediocre combatant, but a non/minimally buffed Fighter and a buffed Cleric are a pair of good combatants, able to cause more mayhem. Giving magic support is important (especially with area-effect non-targeted spells), but as an entire role its too limiting. All it takes is a well-applied spell or two and the results are accomplished; it doesn't take a dedicated effort.
Funny Slaughter 07-01-03, 04:31 PM	mean_liar, wise words spoken. i think i share this experience, two frontliners are always better :) gs Funny
Pauper 07-01-03, 04:44 PM	Originally posted by JosephKell I think Snow wanted Specific ways to make Fighters and Barbarians more effective (like Gear, Feats, and Tactics). One way to make a party more effective is to make the fighter-types more threatening, whether via tactics or in some other way. One of the things that fighters do better than spellcasters is take damage, but if the opponents are focusing all their attention on the spellcasters while the fighters are ignored, the party doesn't get to use one of their primary assets. Sometimes this can be done with feat selection (a fighter who wanders into a group of 5 ogres and Whirlwind/Great Cleaves them all down in one round tends to attract attention). Sometimes equipment helps (a fighter with boots of striding and springing can close range and more quickly threaten opponents who could otherwise cast or fire missiles at the party spellcasters). Combining these can also be effective (Mounted Combat, Ride-By Attack, Spirited Charge, a lance, and a heavy warhorse can be a lethal, impossible-to-ignore combination). The party spellcasters can also help by providing the appropriate spells - usually this will be buffs, but sometimes other spells can be effective as well (improved invisibility on the fighter/rogue being the classic example). I think it's probably this last case that Snow was referring to - while it's fun to nuke your opponents until they glow, don't forget that the grunts have a role to play as well, and that role does make you as a spellcaster more effective. -- Pauper
grimjim 07-01-03, 05:57 PM	Just some random thoughts from a long time lurker, first time poster. It seems there is a consensus here on the utility of buff spells and casters being used as support just thought i'd throw in an alternate view. Like LordShade most of my experience has been in playing 2nd Edition but i think some points are still relevant. -Warrior types can, for the most part, do their thing all day so long as their HP's hold out. -Casters on the other hand are more limited but usually have a LOT more options in any given combat. -In combat casters on both sides are usually targeted first. From this i have found in most combat it is the casters calling the shots, telling the tanks generally who or what area they are targetting with their spells. It is usually up to the tanks to either stop enemies from closing with their casters or engaging enemies who threaten their casters from range. As such i have mostly considered the warrior types to be the support for the casters. As for the issue of buff spells i agree that obviously a buffed party would whack a non-buffed one. However, the problem with using buffs all the time is that: 1. Casters are losing some/alot of their versatility. (It really sucks to not have the right spell(s) available when needed) 2. Expiration of buffs and decreased magical resources seems to indicate that the party will spend more time resting and less adventuring. (Although most encounters will be easier and faster) 3. Casters will tend to feel like glorified intelligent magical items. 4. I think most importantly if the party is always walking at peak efficacy, most encounters will be very easy and when you finally face the BBEG you won't have anything much more to throw at him. I think this makes the DM's job more difficult. Generally in my experience most major encounters the party faces usually come with a bit of forewarning and so the party doesn't usually face major enemies w/o the opportunity to buff first. And so most of the times ive ever concentrated on buffing tanks was before the main battles. As a caster ive found it quite enjoyable to make a tank more powerful than they could ever hope to be, even if they were a few levels higher, but i don't want to be doing it every day. Ultimately i think the usefulness of buffs to a party comes down to: -duration of said buffs(were mostly shorter in 2E than in 3E) -the amount of magical resources the party has access to(not sure what difference there is between editions here) -intelligence available on what the party expects to face(and when, and where) -how your DM feels about you casting the same spells every morning and the dependence on buffs that usually ensues. Anyhoo just thought i'd be able to offer a different perspective to those posted above, TYFYT. grimjim. Born and raised by those who praise control of immigration.
Wyrmthang 07-01-03, 06:18 PM	I cannot agree more with Snow's comments on using both Divine and Arcane casters as support troops for your warrior types taking the beating. I have a group that I run games for and the current party they have running is as follows: 1) Fighter 9 / Sorcerer 1 / Dragon Disciple 10 2) Ranger 10 / DW Sniper 10 3) Psion 18 / SoulBlade 2 4) Bard 9 / Fighter 1 / Assassin 10 5) Cleric of Tymora 10 / Auspician(s.p.?) 10 The cleric in this case acts as a support for both himself and the fighter giving them both the ability to tank for the group very effectively. No arcane caster means we all take a hit for not having all the buffs a wizard/sorcerer can cast. The Psion in the group is going for Psychoknisis to burn everything in his path. So the only buffing we have going on is from the cleric. Right away if it were not for the cleric in this case the group would've been MUCH harder pressed to do as well as they've done. Buffing for a group is as essential as any other aspect. A group lacking buffs is a pasty splat on the wall. You can have a ripped to the gills Tank who can smash through any monster one on one, but surrounded by multiple mobs who can do decent damage and no matter what he dishes out, he's down for the count. Having a mage back him up with damage dealing spells still might not get the job done in time (not to mention limiting the casting of certain spells that would be harmful to the fighter in the middle of those mobs). Yet at the same time give the fighter Haste, Stoneskin, and Blur and damn, major difference. I only wish everyone in my group would think with such foresight. I enjoy letting players make their own parties without me telling them what to do. Sadly, many people who play D&D (at least those who I play with) don't think of things along a "whats good for the group, is good for me" sort of byline. Personally I think that higher level encounters would be impossible for a group that has no synergy between their classes. Has anyone played in a group that didn't work together and gone far in that adventure?
The One and Only... 07-01-03, 06:25 PM	The problems that many people really see with the fighter are: 1) He is the weakest class outside of combat. 2) The barbarian can outstrip him in combat. I think we all know #1 is true. #2... well... let's just say that I more or less agree with that. The fact that a barbarian can pretty much whoop a fighter inside or outside the arena is pretty sad. As for tactics... I think that dropping the straight Cleric in SS's post and replacing him with a Mystic Theurge might be a better option at high levels. Let's face it, the MT makes a great support caster. A good fifth choice would be the Psychic Warrior, if not an early choice to replace the Fighter or Barbarian. He can buff himself which saves spells that would otherwise be slapped on him. Heck, a Psion with the power that allows him to cast personal range powers as touch powers can make a good support character... the possibilities are endless.
JosephKell 07-01-03, 07:08 PM	You don't have to have the party spellcasters just buff. Potions (and Oils). Wands. A Barbarian and Fighter should always take Potions of Bull's Strength and maybe even Haste and Displacement... Shield is another good idea for Barbarians at least! Also Expertise is a useful feat! Many Fighters have an Attack Bonus that far outstrips their AC when they are in an Anti-Magic Field (like a level 8 Barbarian I had: +19/+14 to attack -- when raging -- with his Adamantite Great Axe in the Anti-Magic Cone of a Beholder, but an AC of like 15!! Normally his AC is like 25 when raging!) The guy he was fighting too was a CARBON COPY of the base Barbarian (feats, primary weapon, skills, stats... just our gear was different, and he wasted like a fifth of his gold on a necklace of fireballs). So his main foe had the same poor AC in the anti-magic cone! 15 verses 1d20+19! I was not worried about missing! I could've taken a -5 to hit and still have clobbered him! (I was rolling 17's and up! I just wish I had critted him... 3d12+33 damage has a nice ring to it...) Also, Mages should consider taking a scroll of Dimensional Door! (Port that Savage Barbarian into their midst... his Uncanny Dodge will protect him from Flanking, and thus any Sneak Attacks!) But, I was interrupted before when I was posting the Barbarian Chain: 1. Cleaving off the head of a "evil" spellcaster. Leads to travel issues. 2. Traveling can be solved by Boots of Springing and Striding, paired with a Barbarian's Fast Movement, and a whoping Charge! ( (30 + 10) * 2 *2 = 160 ft!!) Or a Dimensional Door spell can really give them something to worry about! Sometimes it takes time to get from point A to Mage B! Soaking damage in transit sucks! Spring Attack is awesome! Here is why: ---You decide whether or not to do a full-round attack AFTER your first hit! If you make one attack and down the guy, you can move again up to your max! so if that 80 speed Barbarian were to move 10 ft, cut down a fighter, he could move another 70 ft towards more foes! Dodge and Mobility aren't that bad for the under-armored Barbarian either! 3. Defense. Sure magic items can make a huge difference, but a lot of spells are either automatic hits, or require a touch attack! So concentrate just as much on avoiding Touch spells as avoiding sword/axe attacks. Also consider packing a Javelin or two of Lightning, Greater Lightning or Chain Lightning! Such items make casters think twice about peeking out of cover! Which leads to... 4. Resistance! Just because Barbarians are HP tanks, doesn't mean they have them to waste! They need them for when they get up close and personal on a mage! Limit exposure! A Potion of Shield can go a long way for that! Expeditious Retreat also helps (but I am not sure if it stacks with Boots of Springing and Striding). 5. Potions! Bull's Strength and Constitution potions are GOOD. I am pretty sure you can stack them too! ("I want to drink all 5 of these Bull Strength potions right now!!" says the party barbarian with a grin. "Oh god...." moans the DM, "Combat over... you win.") Potions of Constitution are good! Prolong that rage! But if you take one thing from this post... let it be this: ---POTIONS, SCROLLS, WANDS, AND STAFFS!! And actually Barbarians don't out strip Fighters that much. Fighters are specialists, they take a weapon and stick to it, a Barbarian's Rage is like the Fighter's Weapon Specialization, but it has a limited duration! 3 + newly improved Con Modifier (like 7 to 9 rounds without Extended Rage feats...) In a Long fight, my money is on the Fighter!
Hanniball 07-01-03, 07:11 PM	2) The barbarian can outstrip him in combat. WHAT! A barbarian can't kill what he can't hit... Anyway, i feel that there are far too many players out there that have an insatiable need for their character to take place in melee combat to "allow" their character to "sit on the sidelines." it's horribly annoying to me when i hear my friend playing the wizard say "i triple empower a Tenser's transformation with my partial, quicken a teleport right next to the BBEG and full attack." that's really cool that he can do that and perform (sometimes) as well as my character (the tank)...it's just that's what i hear every battle...and i don't even think the wiz has any of the utility spells like dispel magic or wall of anything. that's fine, though, that's his character. i will say this: having the four classes that snow listed in a group would be highly effective if you could pull it off. i am the type of player that would LOVE to play in such a group. it's just that all of the people i know would never let anything like that ever happen. sad, but true. either way...just my 0.02 cp
Snow Savant 07-01-03, 08:02 PM	All interesting viewpoints. The "Fighter First" paradigm does work. And it does so at all levels. And it's *not* popular. Because as one poster said earlier, the Fighters in many groups are usually where the lesser experienced or less tactically-sound players are encouraged (forced?) to play. Think of all the times you see people on our board ask for assistance or feedback on Red Wizard, Shadow Adept, Cleric Archer, or Artillery Soceror builds. A common undercurrent running through many of these build requests is the sense that the poster *is* the power projector of the group, and the front-liners are the glorified bodyguards. Now I understand it is the nature of the CO forum to attract those wishing to make their character the be-all / end-all, but it's a little disheartening to think that there are a lot of frustrated people out there that have to play with these uber-casters. I rarely see someone ask for advice on how to power-up their Wizard to make it the most effective party-enabler or support spellcaster. To illustrate the efficacy of the Fighter First exemplar, my one gaming group has used this method to efficiently and emphatically destroy 2 high level Dragons, in both cases no party members were killed. Which, in post-combat shock, had us all looking at each other with looks of "Wow ... we're good!". By bypassing magical DC-based attacks on the Dragons, we effectively lowered the Dragon's CR-rating since their uber-SR never even factored into the equation. While OTOH, all 4 members of our party were fully contributing the brunt of their character power to the party's comparative CR. Quantitatively, we had the numbers in our advantage ... and with smart synergetic actions to project power through 2 tanks, the Dragons never had a chance. BTW, figments played a huge part in helping the Fighters by buying them time. Yes, the DM played Blindsight with savage cunning. But the players used the figments to circumvent Blindsight's "suredness". This tactical style of course is not one to be used in 100% of all occasions. Like a prior person said, when faced against massed hordes of foes, tactics require changing. But that's when a support spellcaster can can create and funnel killzones *to* the Fighters, making the battlefield too hazardous or restrictive for the enemy to *not* enter the killing zones. Fighter First is flexible in its usage. And yes, Meteor Swarms and Cone of Cold have application in such circumstances. But for those of you who are brave and bold by having Evocation as your restricted school, you can still survive with wonderful mass-kill spells in the Conjuration and Necromancy schools. XO, Snow:cloud9: P.S. Joseph said, "...I think Snow wanted Specific ways to make Fighters and Barbarians more effective (like Gear, Feats, and Tactics)..." That wasn't what I was looking for in this thread, Joseph. But your posts were nonetheless welcome and informative. :)
MikeN 07-01-03, 10:10 PM	One thing I've noticed is that "enabling the fighters" is something which will always be effective, and certain other traditional mage things such as "softening up the opposition" will also be effective but only until your party is engaged in melee (you don't want to roast your meat shields...I mean allies). Certain parties (and DM's too) depend upon a mage to weaken the opponents enough so they're easier to kill and if there are quite a lot of little critters or some big ones in range, this is a valid tactic. I'm not sure how to describe what I feel the best battlefield tactic for a mage is -- to tactically cordon off the battlefield and weaken enemies using such spells as glitterdust, slow, etc., but I know an effective mage when I see one (and when I am one, hopefully). I still remember what could have been a nasty encounter turn into roasted enemies thanks to a nice little spell called Prying Eyes though, which leads one to believe that a mage's effectiveness outside combat is often superior to inside it...
mean_liar 07-02-03, 12:14 AM	I still say that the Fighter is there as a solid second-string melee warrior. He'll be in every combat, but I don't think that he can compare to a full-on Persistently buffed Cleric for melee damage. The Fighter's role is to be the ultimate tactician, not the ultimate damage output. This isn't to detract from his usefulness, but playing a Fighter and expecting to be able to match a buffed cleric in damage is a losing proposition. This isn't to detract from battlefield control as a vital tactic for spellcasters, because it is. But this is a separate issue from the role of the Fighter. I feel that it is much better that the Fighters not get confused about their role: they are there to execute Knockdowns (which is as good as a Slow spell), reap Attacks of Opportunity, grapple mages, and other combat-clever things. In Anti-Magic fields, he's also the main melee damage producer, but thats situation-specific. Otherwise, a Persistently buffed cleric is the one with the most capability to create melee-generated HP loss in a foe. And mages casting Hold Monster, Disintegrate, Polymorph Other, Prismatic Spray, etc., are probably going to generate better results than hacking HPs off anyway. ... Originally posted by MikeN I'm not sure how to describe what I feel the best battlefield tactic for a mage is -- to tactically cordon off the battlefield and weaken enemies using such spells as glitterdust, slow, etc., but I know an effective mage when I see one. Direct spells are for damaging the opposition. Indirect spells are for hampering. Consider: Slow has a Will save and SR. It makes an enemy take 1 attack a round. Solid Fog has no save, and reduces movement through it to 1/10 speed. One will make an enemy less capable, and the other effectively removes his melee capabilities from the fight entirely.
Executor_5 07-02-03, 03:10 AM	Originally posted by Snow Savant ...since their uber-SR never even factored into the equation.I think you need to read over the MM more carefully. The ratio of a dragon's SR-to-CR is among the lowest of any creature. Regular monsters receive an SR of CR + 10 or CR + 12, while the average dragon's SR is only 7 points above its CR. Unless you're fighting a dragon well above your party level, like a great red wyrm (CR 25-26) at 20th-level, you're not likely to have to worry about SR too much. Doubly so in your case, since you were fighting two dragons which means that each one is individually weaker. In 3.5E, dragon SRs are being weakened further, dropping by a point even as their CRs are increased. If the dragons' Will saves were low enough for them to believe an illusion, you would have been better served casting hold monster and eliminating them as threats completely.
Snow Savant 07-02-03, 07:55 AM	We fought each dragon separately. And I'm quite familiar with the game mechanics of the Dragon, SR-to-CR ratios, and the MM. The point was that SR factors into CR into a mathematical percentage. Neither dragon got to use the benefit of their SR, so a portion of the Dragon's CR never came into play. Eliminating advantages and channeling strengths, that's where the brunt of our strategy was focused. Snow
pjackson 07-02-03, 10:27 AM	I've played in several games where the PCs did not cooperate well, yet succeeded. It seems fairly normal to me. Partly this was due to good DMing - facing the party with challenges they could (just) beat given the way they worked together. Sometimes though the DM had to struggle to find ways to avoid TPK (a different DM). I can see that some people might be happy playing support characters. I know I would not. I don't like playing fighters whose main role is to guard the spellcasters. Generally PCs should be heroes, not support characters. If the game is combat focussed that means each PC must have a chance to shine in combat. If if it is a more mixed game then those characters who do not aim to shine in combat should be able to commit most of their resources to those situations they aim to do well in. Fighters are effective in combat, except when facing opponents who can make them make high DC will saves, i.e. typically most mages, and even bards.
Snow Savant 07-02-03, 12:27 PM	I sense some concern & confusion over the connotation of "support". I fully understand how everybody wants to shine. But I guess to some people there is little satisfaction in being a field general and support tactician ... compared to being the Big Gun and wielding the Killing Blows. My experience has shown that spellcasters who specialize in field generalship/support tend to be more popular with their gaming groups. You see a more teamwork-oriented approach, higher morale, and satisfaction with collaborative resolution of problems & conundrums. You also see amongst veteran/mature gamers, a higher appreciation for the strategic value of such spellcasters. Often vocally stating that such a character is the group MVP, even though the swaths of death are coming from the tanks. And quite frankly, a min/maxed Tank, with a good selection of magic items to bolster their weaknesses, buffed to the gills by spellcasters, and supported with counterspelling and enemy channelling magic ... is a force that cannot be countered. 20th level Red Wizards with DC's up the ying-yang, can still meet massive frustration with critters who have high SR's and/or a myriad of unknown resistances/immunities. It's really much fundamentally easier to deal with a high AC, and just crash through it via massive buffing. Snow
pjackson 07-02-03, 01:03 PM	I first played D&D over 25 years ago so I guess I count as a mature player :) There is satisfaction in being the field general, but it can annoy players who find their characters in subordinate positions. The strategic value of a support caster is of course great, but strategic considerations are less important to me than being able to play a satisfying character. It is silly to say that any chracter can not be stopped. The most obvious counter to the buffed tank with a load of magic items is a tough beastie and anti-magic. Then there are all the encounters where smashing the opposition is wrong. E.g. when chasing the BBEG of our campaign we met successively - a village that had been warned to look out for a criminal gang matching our descriptions - a village where a group looking like us had been seen murdering a child - a village convinced there was plague in the direction we were coming from - and a village on the look out for spies matching our description.
JosephKell 07-02-03, 08:14 PM	I can't help but think that all these Mage and Cleric only players have never run into a beholder... if they did they wouldn't say thinks like "A Persistantly Buffed Cleric is better than a Fighter" A Beholder can bring a Tenser's Transformed Wizard or Sorcerer to his knees! Invisibility doesn't protect against an Anti-Magic Cone!
Snow Savant 07-02-03, 08:27 PM	It is silly to say that any chracter can not be stopped. The most obvious counter to the buffed tank with a load of magic items is a tough beastie and anti-magic. And how will the Mage deal with such an encounter? Tough beastie and anti-magic that is ... Snow
pjackson 07-03-03, 11:45 AM	>And how will the Mage deal with such an >encounter? Tough beastie and anti-magic >that is ... Use the fighter as a bodyguard to get time to step back and: Gate in something even tougher Or temporarily suppress the anti-magic using a limited wish. Or if the antimagic suddenly appeared around the party - run away whilst it catches the slower members of the party :)
Previn 07-03-03, 12:24 PM	Originally posted by Snow Savant And how will the Mage deal with such an encounter? Tough beastie and anti-magic that is ... Snow Wall of Force to contain it for a later date. Dimenson Door/Teleport objects above them, let it fall. Telekinesis and shurikens. Passwalls used successivelly and dispelled in the right order. Transmute Rock to Mud, Transmute Mud to Rock. All of which can remove most things from combat in one round, if not kill them, with no SR and no save.
Snow Savant 07-03-03, 12:42 PM	Not in an anti-magic field, Previn. I believe that's what the poster is talking about. Snow
Previn 07-03-03, 01:32 PM	Originally posted by Snow Savant Not in an anti-magic field, Previn. I believe that's what the poster is talking about. Snow Yes in an anti-magic field. Wall of force would be larger than the radius of the field (from the spell), and has squatting rights as it were (so do the prismatic wall and sphere). One can also debate about casting Wall of Force into an anti-magic field, but that's not for this forum. While the Dimensional Door might be magical, the object is not, and since the Door isn't in the antimagic field, the rock is unaffected by it, continuing it's fall right through the field and onto the target. Telekinesis is not a constant effect, it does not carry the things through the antimagic field, in this case the difference between a violent thrust and a sustained force. As well sort of one or two cases, DR is not an EX ability, thus negating the need for magical weapons. Passwall is open to interpretation in this case. Transmutation is quite effective. Rock to mud on ceilings for falling objects. As well as Anti-magic field is a emanation, it stops at a solid surface. Given that the area for transmuted rock to mud is 2 10' cubes per level, at 12th level that is 24 10' cubes. far more than the radius of the anti-magic field. Should one try and cross, they would sink into the mud surrounded by a layer of rock where the field made contact (which would then stop the field from effecting the rest of the mud). Quick and effective way of removing a combatant. If you mean an anti-magic fieild as in a magic dead zone, there would be no point for the mage to be there in the first place. They cannot use spells for attack or defense purposes, cannot buff, and are (in a mage's case) the worst physical combatants in the game. As well the mage would simply have to retreat to the edge of such a dead zone and work from there.
getyourspotusa 08-31-03, 08:52 PM	Can you be more specific about your dragon fight? My partymay be going up on a dragon soon, and I'd appreciate some ideas... I thought green slime might be a good start. Info we have: It's a green dragon, at least Adult age. Definitely has Domination spell (used it on 2 partyt members before). We know where it lives.
JosephKell 08-31-03, 09:01 PM	Stop metagaming... you may know a dragon's weakness, but your character might not. Also, stop resurrecting dead threads! I am tired of seeing threads left alone for 2 months then brought back to half-life of one person consistantly bumping it while everyone else pretends to not see it in hopes the person will stop...
getyourspotusa 09-01-03, 12:10 AM	All due respect, JosephKell, but DO NOT READ IT IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT. Your Judgement is unsolicited, unnecessary, and unsociable. If you have something useful to contribute, do so. As for metagaming, our group has encountered the problem of knowing less about playing 13th level characters than the characters should. Strategy interests me, and I have enough experience to know the difference between IC and OOC knowledge. Thanks again for your help.[edit - added the following] Anyone helping, I'd like to stick to core, splat, FR books if possible - it's mostly that most of the players (particularly the player of the cleric) are not so knowledgeable of the spells and the combinations available, and we could use some help, as a dragon is a little over the PLAYER's heads (me included). Thanks for any help.
Boondoggle 09-01-03, 01:48 AM	The most common misconception about dragons: their magic is what makes them deadly. Their magic is always at least 5 levels behind their CR, and a nucience at most. Their full attack, on the otherhand, is their strongest weapon. Their combination of HP, SR, saves & AC (in that order) is what makes them nigh impossible to kill. Personally, I think enervation is the most potent weapon against dragons. Rack up the spell penetration, and lay on the negative levels. Then, and only then, do you consider full melee attacks. The other biggest problem is preventing the dragon from fleeing. This problem is too situational to address. You should, however, re-ask your question in its own thread as it isn't related to the original
JosephKell 09-01-03, 02:38 AM	Not to mention that it should be on the "What's a Player to do" Board rather than this board.
Kwyn 09-01-03, 03:37 AM	Thank you for bumping the thread. I wouldn't have seen it otherwise. There is absolutely nothing wrong with resurrecting old threads, especially really good ones like this. What? Do we need yet another "plz make me a badass barbarian" post and we're afraid something that really makes people think might push it off the front page? ;) My group is about to start a brand new campaign. We're all dwarves, starting at first, eventually working our way to the point where we can do City of the Spider Queen. This post has convinced me to try to swap classes with a guy in the group playing the arcane caster. I typically play melee but I'm thinking playing a support role, non-nuking caster might be a really nice change of pace for me. Thanks Snow!
Taliesin52 09-01-03, 04:33 AM	Not to mention that it should be on the "What's a Player to do" Board rather than this board. Not really. I had the impression that she wanted builds for the fighter and barbarian to illustrate her point. However we've been side tracked into a discussion on what a support caster is and the dragon ordeal. That said, as someone who primarily plays an arcane caster I do not enjoy being a buff mage. Its not fun, the spells have short durations. However, in the other description of support caster, I find something I do often. Board control rocks. The aforementioned slow, rock-mud, various illusions, summoned creatures soley to provide flanking, etc.... work better than most damage spells. The tactic I enjoy using as a caster (for some reason I'm a blast mage in the current game, but its needed) is to cast fly, prot arrows and maybe another defensive buff. From above I may soften a group with an AoE damage spell. After this, I like walls and illusions to shunt enemies properly for the rest of the party. If necessary rays and othe single target damage spells can be used to help anyone having difficulties with their opponent(s). For a 16th level fighter, you can get the whirlwind tree, improved trip, EWP spiked chain, power attack, and 5 or so bow related feats. This gives you area control with trips, an area attack with the whirlwind (you're a walking fireball), and enough ranged feats that you'll be far from useless against a flying opponent.
getyourspotusa 09-01-03, 12:09 PM	Thanks, all, for your suggestions. Frankly, I was just looking for Snow's particular solution, a quick response. I didn't expect other responses, but thanks the same - some good insights, esp boondoggle. I will, as suggested, post to a different board.
Kwyn 09-01-03, 12:54 PM	I think the post is, aside from the dragon derailment, pretty much what she asked for. A discussion on tactics and strategy focusing on the typically offensive casters taking a different approach and shifting the emphasis from "every man for himself" to a focus on enabling the heavy melee to pile on their sustained damage while the casters provide buffing and tactical support. I actually think that if it had devolved into a "post your fighter build" thread, it wouldn't have had anything to differentiate it from the scads of other similar threads posted here every day. Anyway... In my mind, far too many casters box themselves in and try to force a square peg in a round hole. SR at high levels requires a different casting philosophy in order to maximize a parties effectiveness. Sure, you can take feats out the wazoo to make your offensive spells have a better chance at landing, but in my opnion, a caster who shifts his entire perspective to one who, for the most part, doesn't concern themselves with SR, has a great opportunity to contribute much more effectively than he otherwise might.
helicopter 10-30-03, 10:47 AM	one of the better thread debates in C.O. Board history. Worth a read - in regards to how to best optimize a wizard/sorceror who is party-friendly than your typical blaster mage.