Post/Author/DateTime	Post
fnord 10-07-05, 06:31 PM	It seems (to me) that, at any given level, the "iconic" Fighter(or Barbarian or Paladin)/ Rogue/ Arcane spellcaster/ Divine divine is suboptimal. At high levels, Clerics and Druids are better tanks than any of the melee classes. Even a Wizard does better once Shapechange is reached. At low levels, on the other hand, spellcasters have trouble keeping up with the fighters. Effective as Sleep and Silent Image are when used wisely, I honestly think a decent Spiked Chain Fighter 1/Barbarian 1 is battlefield control than any 1st level spell. The reason the "iconic" party exists is so that the party can survive at all levels. So I say, why fight it? Go in with your eyes open and aware that, at 15th level, even a Frenzied Berzerker takes back seat to Divine Metamagic: Persistant and Incantatrix. And be aware that those orcs would cut your future Incantatrix to little pieces if you weren't hiding behind the Barbarian. I'm not saying that every fighter should forget being useful past 10th level, or that the Wizard is useless until he gets Polymorph. However, each role should be optimized to its strengths. This board tends to focus on high level performance; this is great for spellcasters, because high levels are where they're strongest. However, for the party as a whole, it's important to have low level strength as well, and tanks should be optimized with this in mind. Take, for example, the feat Cleave. It is often treated on this board as a "junk" feat, because at high levels, it is. However, at low levels, when most monsters are slain in 3 or less hits, it's much more useful. Therefore, if you're party is starting from 1st level, it's something it consider. What are your thoughts?
UMiskatonic 10-07-05, 06:49 PM	The game is designed so that the character classes are balanced over time. Low-level wizards are only useful because with proper care and grooming, they will become high-level wizards. It's not a great system, but it's what there is. I find that at my medium level of optimization, the fighter is still REALLY good to have around at high levels. Unlike spellcasters, the fighter is ready -this round-, while the spellcasters aften need time to warm up. And there are times when combats start with "everyone take 75 points of damage, roll initiative and a fort save" It's nice to have a fighter around then too. Personally, I think cleave is an okay feat. Great cleave is almost always worthless, but getting an additional attack sometimes is a serious extension of your low-level combat power.
Amphetryon 10-07-05, 08:38 PM	I agree, fnord, that a party of, for example, Dwarf Barb 20, Elf Druid 20, Human Rogue 20, + Gnome Sorc 20 is suboptimal at most levels. I disagree that it's suboptimal at any given level. Before 6th level, for example, no decent PrCs are really available without all sorts of shenanigans and lawyering. To address the second point, about how higher level Druids & Clerics are better Tanks than Fighter-types, this is why many party builds I see (and work on) have roles shift as the party progresses. The Rogue moves toward AT, for example, and takes on the utility man role, while the Barb might multi into Rogue to be the primary trapmonkey (better HP and saves are good). The Druid aims at MoMF to really relish the tank role, and the Sorc heads into Incantrix with all the power it brings as a blaster and battlefield controller.
fnord 10-07-05, 09:42 PM	I agree, fnord, that a party of, for example, Dwarf Barb 20, Elf Druid 20, Human Rogue 20, + Gnome Sorc 20 is suboptimal at most levels. I disagree that it's suboptimal at any given level. Before 6th level, for example, no decent PrCs are really available without all sorts of shenanigans and lawyering. That's not what I meant. By "iconic" I didn't mean pure base class 1-20, I meant a party with a non-magical tank, a rogue (possibly with PRCs, but with Search, Disable Device, Spot, etc. maxed), a cleric or druid (possibly with full casting PRCs), and a wizard or sorcerer (again possisibly with full casting PRCs). I was saying that at high levels the non-magical tank will be worse at everything(including tanking) than the spellcasters, and at low levels the party would be better off with 3 tanks, as long as one of them's a paladin. To address the second point, about how higher level Druids & Clerics are better Tanks than Fighter-types, this is why many party builds I see (and work on) have roles shift as the party progresses. The Rogue moves toward AT, for example, and takes on the utility man role, while the Barb might multi into Rogue to be the primary trapmonkey (better HP and saves are good). The problem with this, as I see it, is that if the Barbarian is planning to shift roles later, his choices NOW affect his ability to be a Barbarian. A tank shouldn't trade low level power for high level power, because low levels are when tanks are NEEDED in a party, but at high levels they're eclipsed by the spellcasters anyway. I find that at my medium level of optimization, the fighter is still REALLY good to have around at high levels. Unlike spellcasters, the fighter is ready -this round-, while the spellcasters aften need time to warm up. And there are times when combats start with "everyone take 75 points of damage, roll initiative and a fort save" It's nice to have a fighter around then too. I find that, while casters do need time to prepare (leaving aside DM: Peristant), the are also good at buying time to prepare. Time Stop is the classic example, but the strategy works at middle levels, too. A quick Wall of Force can stop a lot of ambushes, as can Teleporting a few rooms (or miles) away.
X-Codes 10-07-05, 10:08 PM	Theres a flaw to this reasoning: not only to spellcasters have spells, but they also have means to get rid of spells. Spells like Spell Immunity, Dispel Magic, Spell Turning, Spell Resistance, and all the greater versions of these spells detract from the power of the spellcasters moreso than the power of the tanks. There are also specific tactics that make spellcasting difficult such as Counterspelling and Grappling. Fighters still have Trip, Disarm, Sunder, and all other such things, however their ability as fighters protect them from such hazards while a Wizard's Caster Level isn't going to mean jack unless the opposing spellcaster is using Dispel Magic to counterspell.
Lilt 10-07-05, 10:27 PM	It has been noted several times previously, although I'l have to disagree with UMiskatonic's line that low-level wizards are merely eggs waiting to hatch. The wizard does need the fighter, but the fighter does need the wizard's assistance too. Sure, against the orc with the axe the fighter needs to stand infront of the wizard to stop the wizard from being squished. A fighter would have a hard time dealing with a CR2 bat swarm though. It'd take the level 2 fighter on-average 13 (or more) attacks (with a lit torch) to destroy the swarm. A 1st level wizard can probably take it out with one 1st level spell (Color Spray, Sleep, ETC).
jstorrie 10-07-05, 10:51 PM	If a tank progesses and plays the way it does across its entire career, it's going to be in trouble at some point. Similarly a caster would be. Wiz18 with his wealth of magical solutions does not sit on the back lines with a crossbow, saving his one good spell for the day's tough encounter like he did when he was Wiz2. Why should Ftr18 play like Ftr2? There are a wealth of high level options for martial characters, especially when prestige classes are thrown into the mix. High level front-liners should find a way to make themselves useful, rather than allowing themselves to fade into obsolesence.
Kuroi Kenshi 10-07-05, 11:29 PM	I think part of the reason gish are a popular concept is that they try to address the "tank starts out great but lags later" problem. Though really, a druid can do most of what a gish does and do it better, and do many things it cannot. Same with artificer and cleric, of course.
fnord 10-08-05, 01:51 AM	X-Codes: There are tactics that work against high level spell casters. However, all of the countermeasure you listed except grappling require another spellcaster. It would be nice if grappling were an effective countermeasure to spellcasting, but between Freedom of Movement and Dimension Door, it's really not. Lilt: True, swarms give fighters trouble even at low levels. But they are sort of a special case. Even then, a fighter can use alchemist's fire against a swarm, if no spellcasters are available. Similarly, spellcasters have trouble dealing with monsters in AMFs, even at high levels. But both swarms and AMFs are unusual circumstances. jstorrie: Fighter certainly aren't useless at high levels, they just can't compete with a spellcaster. Let's compare a Frenzied Berzerker, arguablely the biggest non-magical damage dealer in the game, to a blastificer, the biggest magical damage dealer in the game. Here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=180529) is a nice Frenzied Berzerker build going crazy with sadism: 490 damage/round; pretty impressive. A blastificer is competive: Wand of Acid Orb(Duel Wand Wielder) (15th level), Twinned, Maximised, admixtured with Sonic, cast again with quicken, Shapechanged into a Chocker for a third casting: average damage again 490. The artificer is burning 3 charges (or a few xp on power surge), but the artificer can do it from 60 ft away, and it the target must same (3 times) or be sickened. And the artificer can still do all the other fun things artificers do.
jstorrie 10-08-05, 03:40 AM	fnord: that is perhaps a good argument why martial types should not simply aim to 'blast' with Power Attacks or whatnot in the high-end game. The martial type should aim to do what the caster can't; at the low levels, that's dishing out consistent high damage while tanking the hits, sure. At the high levels the casters likely dish and tank better in almost all AMF-less circumstances, so martial types should do something else.
Keldar 10-08-05, 03:46 AM	Sadly this imbalance comes mostly from the old "Sacred Cow." Spellcasters are more powerful at high levels simply because thats the way its always been. Further exagerating this issue are the power of Personal range buffs compared to buffs that can target anyone. It wouldn't be to hard to change the system to improve casters a bit at low levels and balance non casters at high levels. For Non-casters the simplest way to keep thier usefulness at high levels is to add spellcasting ability. After 2nd to 4th or so adding Cleric levels to a Fighter gives said warrior the broad usefulness of spells (and raw power) while it sacrifices little HP and BAB. Even without adding spellcasting the right PrC can help keep a character useful. The simplest method to keep Fighter and Rogue types useful at higher levels is to get those dang spellcasters to stop being so selfish and buff em the heck up.
Lilt 10-08-05, 07:30 AM	Lilt: True, swarms give fighters trouble even at low levels. But they are sort of a special case. Even then, a fighter can use alchemist's fire against a swarm, if no spellcasters are available. Similarly, spellcasters have trouble dealing with monsters in AMFs, even at high levels. But both swarms and AMFs are unusual circumstances. I suppose that fighters can vaguely combat them using alchemist's fire or acid, but the rules are fuzzy about exactly what effect the attack would have. I think the correct reading is that the fighter must make a ranged touch attack and hit AC 16. If he succeeds he deals 1d6 points of damage (no increase for area effect damage as the initial splash is not AoE), but at-least the attack is an energy attack, dealing full damage (like a flaming sword) rather than the swarm being immune (like it is to most single target effects). If he misses, the swarm takes 1 point of damage assuming the flask lands in an adjacent square. This 1 point of damage is increased by 50%, to... 1 point of damage due to the swarm's vulnerability to AoE damage. Some may argue that the swarm should take one point of damage for each square splashed, and 1d6+4 if a hit is scored (1d6+6 including +50% from area damage), but note that technically the swarm is a single 10ft/10ft creature so it won't take any more damage than, say, an ogre would given the same attack. That's still not remarkably effective, on-average taking 7 flasks of fire or acid. The swarm has a high touch AC, meaning that the fighter has a 50% or lower chance to hit and thus misses on-average. Even with 50% hitting, 6 flasks only do 3d6+3 which is not enough damage to kill the swarm (12.5 damage versus 13hp)
fnord 10-08-05, 12:41 PM	For Non-casters the simplest way to keep thier usefulness at high levels is to add spellcasting ability. After 2nd to 4th or so adding Cleric levels to a Fighter gives said warrior the broad usefulness of spells (and raw power) while it sacrifices little HP and BAB. Not a bad idea, but they still won't be a good as a straight caster. Also, if they make choices that are suboptimal at low levels to improve high level ability, then they lower their power at the only time when they can really shine. Gish are a classic example: a gish at low levels can't fight as well as a fighter, because he's using feats and levels for spellcasting, and at high levels he's worse than a caster, because he used feats and levels for combat. The simplest method to keep Fighter and Rogue types useful at higher levels is to get those dang spellcasters to stop being so selfish and buff em the heck up. That's certainly a good point; a Polymorphed fighter is more effective in melee than a Polymorphed wizard. However, many of the best buffs are personal range (Alter Self, Divine Favor, Divine Power, Shapechange, etc.). DM: Persistant further swings the balance towards personal buffs. At the high levels the casters likely dish and tank better in almost all AMF-less circumstances, so martial types should do something else. Like what? Caster's advantage in battlefield control is even more pronounced.