|
Lately, the term "meta-gaming" has been bandied about a lot. I don't think people are using it correctly.
Meta-gaming is, quite simply, to use "out of game" knowledge that your character wouldn't know, to your advantage in-game.
Clearly, people's characters must be monumentally stupid if the things they've done are being called "meta-gaming".
Oh, I don't think I've ever mentioned *characters* "meta-gaming", or have I? You're correct on your definition for "meta-gaming", but I think it's nowadays used in a broader meaning: "In-game actions influenced by out-of-game knowledge and knowledge of the rules". Have I used it out of the proper context? If I know that the BBEG has a better Initiative than I do, it's another matter if my PC has already fought him a couple of time -- if my action is based on, say, knowing that the DM usually gives all NPCs a +5 automatical bonus to their Init, am I not "meta-gaming"?
.The Fighter vs Vampire example. If the Fighter knows that the vampire can drink their blood, and he hasn't been given any protection against that, then it's a normal character response to not rush in and let the thing wail on him.
Now, if the Fighter didn't know it was a Vampire, or didn't know vampires drank blood and could kill you that way.. then yeah, you used out-of-game knowledge. But if you are fighting an Epic Level boss... I'm assuming your Fighter has been around a while and should know these things by now. Vampires are fairly low CR (not Epic only), so the Fighter has likely heard or even experienced them for quite a while now.
________________
With regards to the "uselessness" of Fighters at higher levels, or "Initiative is everything".
Stop playing in a vaccuum.
If every situation the party faces allows the Wizard a week and a half to study his opponent, spend all sorts of cash and experience (pre-Pathfinder) and devise any tailor-made spell he wants, then yeah... he's going to jump into combat casting the same spell sequence, hoping to get the initiative.
That, to me, is some pretty boring campaign though (IMO... YMMV).
My experience with high level play is that the Wizard doesn't always have the right tool on hand: he has to fight more than one encounter in a row, reinforcements come, unknown forces or abilities appearing mid-encounter, etc.
He relies on his teammates because he can't do everything himself, and has only so many actions per round. He also has a limited supply of power.
In my experience, the non-spellcasters have been needed for the simple fact that casters can't do everything, at every...
I think we have discussed the 'fighter vs. wizard' to ad nauseam, and I think I handled some of the issues in your post above, but let me say this: have you taken a look at high-level playtests on these forums? The wizard can still solve adventures a solo character, and often it's even easier without the other PCs (of course, if the adventure features several 'Dead-Magic Areas' or creatures with inpenetrable SR or Magic Immunity, *then* it's different). There are a lot of situations in which the "melee types" are helpless without a spellcaster, but I can't recall a single time any campaign I've played would have had situations in which the spellcasters would have absolutely needed, say, a fighter or a ranger. Yeah, it's boring, but that's how many people play the game -- I know players who refuse to play "suboptimal" (i.e. non-spellcasting) classes. Note that this is not how I run the game, but try to play in another group, and the chances are you'll eventually run into "powergamers" who really know how to abuse the rules, and only care about "winning" the game (i.e. proving their superiority).
Yes, D&D is a game about adventurers, but as far as dynamic team-work goes, I honestly think 4E does it far, *far* better than 3E or PF (it practically force-feeds it down your throat -- whether you want it or not). I like dysfunctional parties with interesting PCs, and I don't "play in the vacuum" -- most often I try to point out "worst case scenarios", because there are players and DMs out there who actually play the game that way (e.g. DMs who intentionally always use the "best" tactics for spellcasting BBEGs).
I think at this point, there's nothing more to discuss. We are basically talking in circles.
Clearly, we disagree on how we enjoy playing the game (not just replying to the last posts). What is being proposed doesn't appeal to me. Hence, I object to altering the core rules in that fashion.
I'm done discussing this subject, it's gone on far too long as it is.