@Viletta Vadim
I must be playing wrong, because your post simply doesn't describe my experience with the game.
It sure describes mine. Did you have spellcasters in your party? If so, what were they doing?
I'm not sure it will be satisfying, so I will put it under cut:
I don't understand adversarial analysis of classes.
It may be that my players don't optimize their characters just so, but at mid levels right now the game just isn't playing like that. The fighter dominates the party, quite easily eliminating real threats faster than the wizard can hobble them.
I've played D&D for a long time, so I know to expect that the wizard will come into his own soon. I guess I just can't fathom reducing each class to only its 'best' options in an abstract scenario, imagined by a person trying to prove their own point.
I'm not meaning to disparage anyone, I just poked my head in to this thread because I have my own opinion on balance, and found it had become another "melee vs. caster" conversation.
My experience does not align with the "melee vs.caster" quagmire. I know there's some named "fallacy" relating to that, but I don't really care. I have my own definition of balance, and the game is balanced. I think many folks have a definition that's unattainable.
Hm. I'm not sure any of this is meaningful. The message I wanted to convey with my first post is: "I am not having these problems between classes, and it is not willful ignorance on my part that makes it work." Please don't take that to mean others are playing "the wrong way."
Viletta Vadim, I don't agree with you either, and I think that all this borderline prejudice towards fighting classes is riduiculous. If casters were superior in everyway, then why would people elect to play a martial class? If you can roleplay your character, then you shouldn't feel limited, in fact when you are playing your more simple fighter, and not having to prepare spells forever, or thinking how to apply some vague effects, you have all that extra time to think of your next roleplay.
I think the balance is nice through and through, it's not all about mathmatical balance, it's also about roleplay balance, and usually, if you play with good people then there won't be much of a balance issue, in this respect. A single selfish player will shift the balance.
More effect then it was before, and if played well, effective enough.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
(In a discussion of the Big Five, by the way, I admit to being at a loss as to why Archivist gets mentioned. I've played an Archivist, and she didn't feel overpowered at all. Indeed, finding divine scrolls was a real pain-in-the-butt.)
He doesn't need to find them, or buy them. He simply needs the Scribe Scroll feat (or a friend with that feat), and a friendly divine caster, to have automatic access to all spells on that list.
Craft Scroll. Learn spell from scroll. Add spell to book. Use book to prepare spell/create items for rest of career.
Snorter, I don't see how that works. Scribe Scroll doesn't allow one character to make scrolls of a spell another character knows. The cleric / druid / ranger / paladin would need the Scribe Scroll feat, and would need to pay the XP cost. (From the SRD: "The creator must have prepared the spell to be scribed (or must know the spell, in the case of a sorcerer or bard) and must provide any material component or focus the spell requires.")
Even if the DM decides that the magic item market doesn't exist, he has a far harder time justifying why the High Priest who's sending the PCs on a life-threatening mission won't let one of them learn a few (or a lot) of spells, when those spells could ensure the success of this mission that apparently threatens the town/city/all life as we know it.
No high priests were sending us anywhere. We were, for the most part, racing around Mabar and Thelanis, far from established religious chapterhouses.
Wizards can scribe spells, but they're not dependent on that ability for their powers or versatility; defeated wizards have spell books, and there are rules allowing affable wizards in cities to loan PCs access to their spell books . Unless archivists are as popular as wizards --and that wasn't the case, I'm afraid-- then archivists don't have those advantages.
Lincoln: Is Fireball a good spell?
Viletta Vadim, I don't agree with you either, and I think that all this borderline prejudice towards fighting classes is riduiculous. If casters were superior in everyway, then why would people elect to play a martial class? If you can roleplay your character, then you shouldn't feel limited, in fact when you are playing your more simple fighter, and not having to prepare spells forever, or thinking how to apply some vague effects, you have all that extra time to think of your next roleplay.
Prejudice. Noun. An unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.
I assure you, my unfavorable opinion of core's treatment of melee classes is based on extensive knowledge, thought, and reason. Much analysis went into it, and the conclusion is that melee is simply incapable of performing its job in a level-appropriate manner past early levels.
People play options that bite all the time; there are folks who play old halfling Paladins who dual-wield because they want to play an old halfling Paladin who dual-wields. That doesn't mean old halfling Paladins who dual-wield are any good. What's more, when you want to play a warrior, you take the warrior mechanics that are offered because they're the mechanics for a warrior; that doesn't mean they're any good.
Simplicity is not a virtue when you can't do your job. No, Fighters don't have to prepare spells, but they also can't contribute in fights that actually matter past the earliest levels.
I can roleplay my character without any system whatsoever. I can roleplay my character in an absolutely crappy system. Being able to roleplay has absolutely no bearing on the quality or fairness of a system.
I think the balance is nice through and through, it's not all about mathmatical balance, it's also about roleplay balance, and usually, if you play with good people then there won't be much of a balance issue, in this respect. A single selfish player will shift the balance.
"Roleplaying balance" is an aspect of the group, not the system. It has absolutely no bearing on the status of the system. What's more, if you have a group that's tip-toeing to avoid breaking the system, or that actively avoids using their best available tactics to avoid making someone else feel useless, then there is a problem with the system.
Snorter, I don't see how that works. Scribe Scroll doesn't allow one character to make scrolls of a spell another character knows. The cleric / druid / ranger / paladin would need the Scribe Scroll feat, and would need to pay the XP cost. (From the SRD: "The creator must have prepared the spell to be scribed (or must know the spell, in the case of a sorcerer or bard) and must provide any material component or focus the spell requires.")
The creator is not necessarily one individual. Multiple individuals can collaborate on the creation of a magic item; you can have one person bring the feat, another bring the spell, a third bring the XP, and a fourth bring the material components.
Another quote, from the SRD: "Note that all items have prerequisites in their descriptions. These prerequisites must be met for the item to be created. Most of the time, they take the form of spells that must be known by the item’s creator (although access through another magic item or spellcaster is allowed)."
|
Aren't we sort rehashing what is well known? Spellcasters at high levels under 3.x are disproportionately powerful. They got way too much of a leg up from the mechanics in 3e and got made bland by the mechanics in 4e. By bland I mean their "magic"is no more or less than a melée classes "magical" abilities. Perhaps I see 3e like chess pieces and 4e like draughts.
S.
I believe that this was addressed effectively in PF, by nerfing some spells, and boosting the melee classes alot the gap was closed a little, without a major overhaul.
I believe that this was addressed effectively in PF, by nerfing some spells, and boosting the melee classes alot the gap was closed a little, without a major overhaul.
Ultimately, they failed to address the fundamental issues, as well as nerfing quite a few melee feats at the same time while leaving casting feats untouched and making mental stat boosts more prolific to the point where it's hard to really make the case that the gap's narrowed at all.
I think we're heading off subject, but anyway, you would think that the more prevalent magic is in the world, the more defenses would have evolved to compensate.
In a high magic campaign, wouldn't things like anti-magic fields be the norm? A tower protected from scrying, cities with various wards against different schools of magic, or even different planes with differant physics.
If you challenge, or in someway hinder the spellcaster (but not annoyingly so)then, the melee characters have time to shine. A clever GM should (theoretically) be able to balance the playing field by offering things to challenge players of all classes and levels, which becomes more important at higher levels as the complexity rises, but also more difficult.
|
|
I think we're heading off subject, but anyway, you would think that the more prevalent magic is in the world, the more defenses would have evolved to compensate.
You make an excellent point, one hadn't really considered. If as suggested magic is wielded by every man and his blink dog then it is a natural extension that "magic" start to become "mundane". Fighters with anti-magic shell rings? Swords of spell absorption? Helms of spell-reflection? Magic I think was protraited previous as rare and thus could be powerful. Now magic is easy and in 3.x perhaps the power was not balanced with the ease of use. 4e levels the playing field by having similar class powers (given a role) and everyone able to do rituals (i.e. what we would really call spells).
There is a very good book called "History of Arms and Armour" (sorry can't remember the author - will find if someone wants). It describes the parallel development of weapons and defenses against them.
Interesting point,
S.
Yeah, I do know, but we're discussing 3E and Pathfinder here, not Kirth and Kyrt's independent PF redesigns lol.
Eh, you know you made a lot of the same design decisions we did with fighters. Fighters are far from useless in our homebrew, and Kirth and Jess managed to use ToB stuff in a way that doesn't annoy me at all. :)
Filter the ToB stuff through a 1e prism and amazing stuff happens...
Not sure were you get specifically 3E and Pathfinder. The OP starts off by contrasting and comparing several editions and would seem to imply that all editions that people define as D&D are legitimately in the mix and up for discussion, especially since his point would seem to be that 1st Ed. really worked well in a lot of ways and all later edition attempts to address balance may not have been for the better or even a particularly worth while goal.
|
Snorter, I don't see how that works. Scribe Scroll doesn't allow one character to make scrolls of a spell another character knows. The cleric / druid / ranger / paladin would need the Scribe Scroll feat, and would need to pay the XP cost. (From the SRD: "The creator must have prepared the spell to be scribed (or must know the spell, in the case of a sorcerer or bard) and must provide any material component or focus the spell requires.")
The creator is not necessarily one individual. Multiple individuals can collaborate on the creation of a magic item; you can have one person bring the feat, another bring the spell, a third bring the XP, and a fourth bring the material components.
Another quote, from the SRD: "Note that all items have prerequisites in their descriptions. These prerequisites must be met for the item to be created. Most of the time, they take the form of spells that must be known by the item’s creator (although access through another magic item or spellcaster is allowed)."
Ah, that saves me trawling through the SRD.
It's always been the case that the prerequisites can be split between multiple individuals.But, even if you wish to houserule that out (which is your right), the core situation still remains. I was showing the best-case scenario where the archivist has the Scribe Scroll feat, and wanders into the temple, asking for volunteers.
"I'll provide the feat, I'll provide the materials, I'll pay the xp cost. You don't have to invest anything except some time to sit with me and talk me through it. I'll even pay you for your time."
If you rule that all the prereqs must be met by one individual, it simply means that he has to find a divine caster with Scribe Scroll.
They obviously exist, since divine scrolls exist, maybe not in as high numbers, but they do exist.
So if the PCs never meet one, it starts to look rather fishy.
And it doesn't prevent two players putting their heads together.
I'm not sure it will be satisfying, so I will put it under cut:
** spoiler omitted **
Actually, I'd be interested to have you opinion on the importance of balance, and how it has (or has not) changed your perception of D&D flavour. I've red some of your posts, and while I don't always agree, them seemed rather insightful...
You make an excellent point, one hadn't really considered. If as suggested magic is wielded by every man and his blink dog then it is a natural extension that "magic" start to become "mundane". Fighters with anti-magic shell rings?
If only the rules supported it...
In a world with common magic that wins battles, warriors would HAVE to learn to cope with it. They'd train extensively to deal with it. They'd have incredible saves, and would be adept at charging in and disrupting spells (or simply lopping the casters' heads off) before the casters could get them off. And guess what? In 1e they could. Taking away those abilities was the worst thing 3e ever did.
I think we're heading off subject, but anyway, you would think that the more prevalent magic is in the world, the more defenses would have evolved to compensate.You make an excellent point, one hadn't really considered. If as suggested magic is wielded by every man and his blink dog then it is a natural extension that "magic" start to become "mundane". Fighters with anti-magic shell rings? Swords of spell absorption? Helms of spell-reflection? Magic I think was protraited previous as rare and thus could be powerful. Now magic is easy and in 3.x perhaps the power was not balanced with the ease of use. 4e levels the playing field by having similar class powers (given a role) and everyone able to do rituals (i.e. what we would really call spells).
There is a very good book called "History of Arms and Armour" (sorry can't remember the author - will find if someone wants). It describes the parallel development of weapons and defenses against them.
Interesting point,
S.
Sounds kind of Monty Haulish to me.
You make an excellent point, one hadn't really considered. If as suggested magic is wielded by every man and his blink dog then it is a natural extension that "magic" start to become "mundane". Fighters with anti-magic shell rings?If only the rules supported it...
In a world with common magic that wins battles, warriors would HAVE to learn to cope with it. They'd train extensively to deal with it. They'd have incredible saves, and would be adept at charging in and disrupting spells (or simply lopping the casters' heads off) before the casters could get them off. And guess what? In 1e they could. Taking away those abilities was the worst thing 3e ever did.
I have not played 1e, so I'd like to know more about the aforementioned abilities...If we were looking for a way to balance high level play between arcane/melee characters, it would have to be through simple little tweaks to the melee, I am not in favor of changing what is written too much personally, and at this time my players are a rogue, a ranger, a monk, and a cleric, so I need not worry too much at the moment. I am also curious to see how Paizo handled higher CR monsters, and how it all plays out now...
Viletta Vadim, I don't agree with you either, and I think that all this borderline prejudice towards fighting classes is riduiculous. If casters were superior in everyway, then why would people elect to play a martial class?
THEY DON'T. I can't even count the number of people I know personally who simply wouldn't play the 3.5 fighter because of exactly what we're discussing. Discussions on the topic online have led me to conclude that this isn't isolated to my own experiences, either.
If you can roleplay your character, then you shouldn't feel limited, in fact when you are playing your more simple fighter, and not having to prepare spells forever, or thinking how to apply some vague effects, you have all that extra time to think of your next roleplay.
All the roleplaying in the world isn't going to make the fighter comparable to a spellcaster.
I think the balance is nice through and through, it's not all about mathmatical balance, it's also about roleplay balance, and usually, if you play with good people then there won't be much of a balance issue, in this respect. A single selfish player will shift the balance.
The social construct of balanced interaction has nothing to do with what we're talking about, which is the game itself. What you're talking about is edition neutral.
If you challenge, or in someway hinder the spellcaster (but not annoyingly so)then, the melee characters have time to shine.
You need to understand that an antimagic field isn't a challenge to the wizard. A scrying blocker isn't a challege to the wizard. They don't make the wizard's life harder while providing a way for the wizard to struggle and overcome the challenge. They negate the wizard. Antimagic fields everywhere is not an appropriate way to deal with spellcasters that are too powerful, for the same reasons that a world without weapons isn't an appropriate way to deal with Monkeygripping fighters. Both of these scenarios negate the class completely.
THEY DON'T. I can't even count the number of people I know personally who simply wouldn't play the 3.5 fighter because of exactly what we're discussing. Discussions on the topic online have led me to conclude that this isn't isolated to my own experiences, either.
Maybe you're hanging out with the wrong crowd.
I am sorry that you have such a self loathing for your fighters because they don't have the "flashy, sparkly powers" of spellcasters. I never treat my martial companions like hired help. They are invaluable allies. That would be like the QB dissing his offensive line in football. Who cares how great you are if no on blocks for you.Fighters in 3.5 were given no way to "block" anyone. In that respect they are worth little more than a peasant with a sword and shield. Furthermore, no spellcaster worth his salt needs blocking. Past 7th level, the spellcaster is flying, is invisible most of the time, and has any number of magical protections that completely obviate the need for a meatshield to stand in front of him.
Monsters don't care about fighters. Why should the spellcasters rely on them when not even the monsters view them as a real threat?
They do block monsters because moving past a fighter porvokes AOO'S. I don't think most monsters appreciate 2D6+6 damage at low levels and I don't think they appreciate it at high levels. Plus monsters that just run by fighters tend to set them up for flansk and sneak attacks from other party memebr.
In addition to that most dungeons do not have ridiculously large rooms that allow for mobility every single time. Even when they do that monster is spending it's time moving around the fighter, thus the fighter is a problem for it.
Or AoO with a trip attack (Improved Trip). Remember an AoO can be used to make any single attack: disarm, initiate a grapple, sunder, or trip.
In Pathfinder, a fighter has the feats Stand Still and Shield Slam (a free bull rush with a shield bash). With Combat Reflexes, a fighter can even block more than one opponent.
In a high magic campaign, wouldn't things like anti-magic fields be the norm? A tower protected from scrying, cities with various wards against different schools of magic, or even different planes with differant physics.
If you challenge, or in someway hinder the spellcaster (but not annoyingly so)then, the melee characters have time to shine. A clever GM should (theoretically) be able to balance the playing field by offering things to challenge players of all classes and levels, which becomes more important at higher levels as the complexity rises, but also more difficult.
Antimagic fields are extremely rare and expensive magical effects. What's more, throwing in prolific AMFs or stealing the Wizard's spellbook amounts to telling the Wizard's player, "Screw you, you're not allowed to play." And even then, there are defenses against the AMF (such as the Shrink Object'd steel dome on your head).
If the only way to "balance" the game is to single out one player and pull out a rare magic effect to slap them in the face and tell them they can't play, there is something very wrong.
Maybe you're hanging out with the wrong crowd.
The crowd that actually looks at, understands, and plays the game?
Or AoO with a trip attack (Improved Trip). Remember an AoO can be used to make any single attack: disarm, initiate a grapple, sunder, or trip.
Mind that disarm and sunder are useless; they don't work on natural attacks, which are the most dangerous, sunder destroys your loot, and disarm simply doesn't work (locked gauntlets are cheap).
You're also getting into the problem that there are about three melee builds that actually work; the spiked chain tripper, the ubercharger, and the counter whore, which is simultaneously getting into the realm where the only way to make melee functional is through very large amounts of optimization, walking along one of a handful of functional paths.
The Shrink Object'd oversize thing on your head is definitely not a defense. One Dispel Magic and you're out of a fight. And it won't stop someone from running up to you and slamming a packer of Dust of Negation or whatever it was from the Aberration book and having YOU be the center of the A-M shell.
And that stuff is cheap, easy to get,and should be used by Fighters all over the place, being effectively the cost of ammunition.
Let the spellcasters whine. Maybe then they'll realize there's a reason people play melee...so they aren't dependent on magic to be effective.
In the real world, you would do EXACTLY that tactic. Nobody with half a brain is going to sit there and let the wizard/priest do whatever they want to with magic. They will SHUT HIM DOWN. If they don't, they die. It's that simple. The whole whining about 'negating the class' is also known as Using Common Sense. Said wizard goes from being master of the universe to whiny paper-pusher looking for a cloven skull with his d4 hp/level.
I'll also note that another rule they took out of 1E was the Dispel/Summon rule. Used to be, if an opposing caster made a successful Dispel, he could take over any summoned critter you brought up. This made summons quite the perilous thing to do, as you were potentially providing ammunition to the enemy. Remember the big fight between Raistlin and Fistandantilus? This is exactly what they were doing. Summoning in 1E was EXTREMELY risky.
Melee nerfage was thorough in 3E. Best saves to worst. Unable to execute multiple attacks on a move. Everyone could be as strong. Everyone could have just as many hit points. Spellcasters can get the same TH bonus. Spellcasters got better AC because of Dex limits on armor. Ability caps going away and 'easy' ways to raise Str, Con and Dexrendered combat bonuses moot. Increases in Melee damage for non-melee classes. Able to cast spells in melee and not be interrupted.
==
I'd also like to point out to the original poster, Forgotten Realms is crawling with Archmages in 1E. It's like they are mass-produced. All other classes are hideously under-represented at high levels. I believe in their books there are 3-4 Fighter-types at level 20 or higher (and exactly 1 level 30...see the Bloodstone lands), maybe 2 or 3 Archpriests, and possibly 1 or 2 theives/rogues. High level fighters are just never written about.
Spellfire is all about a level 29 Wizard showing off against a level 17 wizard and a couple dracolichs, surrounded by some level 7-10 characters who are beating up on level 4-6 Zhents. Come on, that's not a game. That's a love affair with the guy who can make reality bend around his little finger.
The fact is, in 1E, spellcasters were meat. If any archer, other mage, or melee character wanted to stop them from casting a spell, doing 1 pt of dmg to them did the job. Spellcasters didn't rule the roost because spellcasters could be shut down in myriad ways. Taking those means and methods away, as well as nerfing melees in the extreme, is one of the core problems with 'balance' in 3.5, and it extends up into high levels of play.
I've played high level melees and high level mages in 1E and 2E, and they never dominated the melee classes. Fights ran longer, and I'd run out of key spells...enemies at high levels always made their saves, so many 'uber' spells were next to useless, and elemental and spell resistance was so prevalent that even if you did manage to get off blasting spells, it was often ineffective.
Incidentally, that's one of the reasons we all loved magic missile. No to hit roll, no elemental resistance. As long as you could beat spell resistance, guaranteed damage! Yay! Broachs of Missile Protection were #1 appreciated by all our spellcasters for just this reason.
The Fighters, meanwhile, loved scarabs of protection. Spell doesn't allow a save? It does now, nyuck, nyuck. Fire Resistance shut down fireballs and meteor swarms to the point of indifference (with a Ring of Fire Resistance, your average Meteor Swarms did, um, 10 pts dmg on a save).
I'll happily posit that 1E was in many, many ways more balanced then 3E. 3E did some good things, but its understanding of the metagame does, at times, seem to be sorely lacking.
==Aelryinth
God, let's nto get into that Stupid Sunder argument again. Sunder is a perfectly valid tactic. The loot you are entitled to per level is entirely different then the loot your enemies wield. If I Sunder that unholy sword with my Good character, I should be rewarded for it, not penalized, and that's within the rules of the game. It's not your loot until it's divided up and claimed...it's the enemy's stuff, and you smashing it so he can't use it is totally valid and a very accepted tactic in life, literature, and the game.
==Aelryinth
The crowd that actually looks at, understands, and plays the game?
I was going to say the crowd that plays by friendly cooperation rather than jealously competing with each other like a bunch of maladjusted teenage boys. But then po-TAY-to, po-TAH-to.
The Shrink Object'd oversize thing on your head is definitely not a defense. One Dispel Magic and you're out of a fight. And it won't stop someone from running up to you and slamming a packer of Dust of Negation or whatever it was from the Aberration book and having YOU be the center of the A-M shell.
And that stuff is cheap, easy to get,and should be used by Fighters all over the place, being effectively the cost of ammunition.
First, the dome is a defense, just one that backfires. In fact, it is purely a defense, not a measure meant to attain victory. The basic idea behind it is that if an AMF snares you, the dome pops up, blocks off the field, and leaves you free to teleport away.
As for the dust of negation? That's a 3300g expendable. That's expensive, and way beyond the expendables budget to use consistently up until levels where even getting close to the casters is pretty much not gonna happen if they're canny. Also, there's nothing saying the area of effect can move; the mage has two working legs and can just walk right out.
However, the AMF is not a balancer, in any way. The dichotomy where either you're a god, or you're flat not allowed to play means that things are pretty much always hideously unbalanced. You may call it whining, but it's plain bad design.
Let the spellcasters whine. Maybe then they'll realize there's a reason people play melee...so they aren't dependent on magic to be effective.
Except throwing around AMFs like candy and telling the mage players they're not allowed to play doesn't change the fact that melee can't do its job under normal circumstances, and amounts to the world actively seeking to screw over the magic-using half of the party just to make the worthless folks feel less worthless. If the DM sets out to kill you, you die. That doesn't have any bearing on your character's abilities.
God, let's nto get into that Stupid Sunder argument again. Sunder is a perfectly valid tactic. The loot you are entitled to per level is entirely different then the loot your enemies wield. If I Sunder that unholy sword with my Good character, I should be rewarded for it, not penalized, and that's within the rules of the game. It's not your loot until it's divided up and claimed...it's the enemy's stuff, and you smashing it so he can't use it is totally valid and a very accepted tactic in life, literature, and the game.
A fire giant's still better at it than you are. If you're bringing sundering into the equation, then you're pretty much screwed, as even if you're not destroying your loot, that fire giant can and will.
And there's still the fact that sundering only works against humanoids (by the expanded definition) and hydras anyways, which are often not particularly dangerous, and most monsters use natural attacks that cannot be sundered by any means.
I was going to say the crowd that plays by friendly cooperation rather than jealously competing with each other like a bunch of maladjusted teenage boys. But then po-TAY-to, po-TAH-to.
This is all about cooperation. If you are cooperating, the Fighter cannot contribute meaningfully. The Fighter's pain stems from the fact that if she is cooperating and looking out for her teammates, she isn't doing much. She is often sitting on the sidelines, because she would be a liability in the fray.
In the game, you are presented with problems to solve. You are supposed to work together to solve them in whatever way is most efficient. If the most efficient way to solve a problem is for the Wizard to solve it by herself, then that is what cooperation demands. If the most efficient way to solve the problem is to cast Fly on the Ranger, then that is what teamwork demands. If the most efficient way to solve the problem were to buff up the Fighter and let him kick butt in the fray, that would be what teamwork demands, but the problem is, it isn't what's most efficient, and the Fighter cannot contribute in that way.
If you're spending a third of the Wizard's spells and a third of the Cleric's spells to buff up the Fighter every day, and giving him a double cut of the loot (which is what it takes to get a standard Fighter up to snuff), you are reducing party effectiveness. That's not cooperation. That's not teamwork. That's the Fighter being selfish and robbing the team. Those aren't good players; those are non-players. And to expect your party to make sacrifices like that as a matter of course is telling them, "Don't play the game we all agreed to come together to play because I don't want Mikey to feel like his useless Commoner is useless."
It's only teamwork when it benefits the team. Cooperation is not about personal glory. The problem exists in groups that are cooperating and considering the good of the team as a whole, and who actually play the game. If you cannot actually play the game without it breaking, then the game is broken.
This is all about cooperation. If you are cooperating, the Fighter cannot contribute meaningfully. The Fighter's pain stems from the fact that if she is cooperating and looking out for her teammates, she isn't doing much. She is often sitting on the sidelines, because she would be a liability in the fray.
In the game, you are presented with problems to solve. You are supposed to work together to solve them in whatever way is most efficient. If the most efficient way to solve a problem is for the Wizard to solve it by herself, then that is what cooperation demands. If the most efficient way to solve the problem is to cast Fly on the Ranger, then that is what teamwork demands. If the most efficient way to solve the problem were to buff up the Fighter and let him kick butt in the fray, that would be what teamwork demands, but the problem is, it isn't what's most efficient, and the Fighter cannot contribute in that way.
If you're spending a third of the Wizard's spells and a third of the Cleric's spells to buff up the Fighter every day, and giving him a double cut of the loot (which is what it takes to get a standard Fighter up to snuff), you are reducing party effectiveness. That's not cooperation. That's not teamwork. That's the Fighter being selfish and robbing the team. Those aren't good players; those are non-players. And to expect your party to make sacrifices like that as a matter of course is telling them, "Don't play the game we all agreed to come together to play because I don't want Mikey to feel like his useless Commoner is useless."
It's only teamwork when it benefits the team. Cooperation is not about personal glory. The problem exists in groups that are cooperating and considering the good of the team as a whole, and who actually play the game. If you cannot actually play the game without it breaking, then the game is broken.
I simply don't understand where you're coming from with this.
The way I understand your perspective, is that if applied to the real world, it could be the basis to say that co-ed soccer is not cooperative, because the girls aren't as effective as the boys (assuming equal experience - professional boys vs. professional girls, college boys vs college girls, etc). So the more efficient way to ensure a victory is to let the boys do all the work, while the girls stand by and watch. Are the girls on a co-ed team being selfish by wanting to play? Are they robbing the team? (I think 'no' to both)
The goal of RPGs is to have fun, not to win. The greatest benefit is enjoyment of the game - getting and keeping everyone involved is the goal of cooperative play.
If you want to make a team that can compete with the Brazilian men's team, go for it - as long as everyone's on the same page. If you want to make a team more like a co-ed soccer team, why not do that too?
In either case the DM and players can work together to make sure everyone has fun - that's what cooperation is all about.
It is not cooperative to say 'you're not pulling your weight, stop being so selfishly weak and ineffective."
I think I disagree most with your characterization: "you are supposed to work together to solve problems in whatever way is most efficient."
So long as the problem gets solved, even if in the least efficient manner, and everyone has fun, then the game was a success.
Amen Seabyrn, to me, rules were always there to support role-play, rules, to me, always come second, but they are important nonetheless.......
a bunch of commentary on Villeta's postWhat she's saying, Seabyrn, is that the adventuring party IS a professional crew. There are some women soccer players who can compete with men on an equal level, but they are few and far between. If a female soccer player were to somehow twist her way into the men's league, she would still have to put out the same quality of play and capacity as the men.
In parties where more loot and a ton of spellslots are being burned on the Fighter, it's like a non-equally competent woman worked her way into the men's pro soccer league, and is expected to be allowed to play just through force of lawyers alone.
In that scenario, the team is sufferring because they are being forced to play someone who can't cut it, just like if the coach forced his Highschool-skill level son onto the team. The board members of the team (and the competetive players who naturally want to win, look good, get endorsements etc) are all going to be very very unhappy with somebody being artificially put on the team if they can't hold up their weight and the rest of the team needs to try to pick up the slack.
Oh, no, I understand her point, and your clarification is also perfectly clear.
Maybe this just boils down to different mindsets, and I don't share the one VV espoused. (and to be honest, it felt like we were using the same words to speak different languages - to me, 'cooperation' does not mean 'pull your weight or GTFO' - it means working together to overcome individual limitations.
To continue with the soccer metaphor, if you're playing in a world cup qualifying league, then yes, I totally understand why a player would be frustrated with someone not pulling their weight. The goal is to work together to win (or at least compete at the highest level).
If you're playing in a co-ed intramural league, such a player has no business being frustrated with someone who is not a superstar athlete. The goal is to work together and have fun.
To me, RPGs are more like the latter - the goal is to have fun. I understand that people want to play at the extremes of character performance (for lack of a better term), and that's fine if everyone is on the same page.
Again, maybe it's just the absoluteness of the language that I object to. It sounds like you're both saying that D&D *IS* this way (i.e., a professional soccer team in a pro league). Maybe you think there's nothing wrong with playing D&D like a co-ed soccer league (even if that's not your preferred style of play)? As the default, I tend towards thinking of it like a co-ed soccer league, though allow that some might want to play professionally.
The way I understand your perspective, is that if applied to the real world, it could be the basis to say that co-ed soccer is not cooperative, because the girls aren't as effective as the boys (assuming equal experience - professional boys vs. professional girls, college boys vs college girls, etc). So the more efficient way to ensure a victory is to let the boys do all the work, while the girls stand by and watch. Are the girls on a co-ed team being selfish by wanting to play? Are they robbing the team? (I think 'no' to both)
Ignoring the fact that there are plenty of girls who can more than keep up with the guys and completely lay 'em out if it comes to a scrap, that ain't what you get when you apply it to real life.
Let's look at your model, and assume all girls are designed to be these dainty little flowers that cannot keep up with the boys, and the parameters of the game is soccer. The system is poorly designed because the girls cannot do their job in the context of the system. That system is bad. The Girl character class is borked. There is a problem that needs to be acknowledged.
Shifting to the left, we look at the actual co-ed leagues. Boys play with girls, girls play with boys, everyone keeps up, no one has to hold back all the time to avoid any hurt feelings, and everyone can actually play the game to their fullest. Spectacular.
The goal of RPGs is to have fun, not to win. The greatest benefit is enjoyment of the game - getting and keeping everyone involved is the goal of cooperative play.
Part of the fun of playing soccer is actually playing soccer. If you have to constantly sandbag when playing against someone to keep from hurting your feelings, you are no longer playing soccer.
Likewise, if you have to ignore all thought of tactics and pretend you don't have your class abilities half the time just to make someone else feel useful, that means you're not allowed to actually play the game.
A significant part of the game lies in the challenge, being able to exert yourself mentally to overcome the challenges within the game is a part of the fun. That you have one set of character types that cannot overcome challenges within the game, and another that actively has to ignore their ability to overcome challenges within the game is a massive issue within the game itself. This ain't about winning. This is about playing. And playing the game is not a crime.
It is not cooperative to say 'you're not pulling your weight, stop being so selfishly weak and ineffective."
Now you're accusing me of pinning problems with the system on the players, which I flat ain't doing.
A player wants to make a warrior. They choose Fighter, the warrior class, which should be a sensible decision. They take things like Weapon Focus: Greatsword and Power Attack, because they want to stab things until they're dead, which should be a viable path. However, as levels go up, he stops being effective. That is not the fault of the player. That is the fault of the system.
If the player then expects or demands that the rest of the party sacrifice a third of their money each and a third of their spell slots, that is when it becomes selfish.
For the player with teamwork in mind, the question becomes, "What did I do wrong? What can I do to make my character work?" Rather than demanding that the rest of the group shoot themselves in the foot, she will try to find out how to actually fulfill the role she agreed to fulfill within the party. Which leads to further analysis of the system and the simple revelation that core screws muggle melee.
I think I disagree most with your characterization: "you are supposed to work together to solve problems in whatever way is most efficient."
So long as the problem gets solved, even if in the least efficient manner, and everyone has fun, then the game was a success.
If you have to stop playing the game in order to get everyone involved and have fun, then there is something severely wrong with the game itself. The game has become the enemy of the fun, and that is a Bad Thing. A problem that sorely needs to be analyzed and resolved.
Maybe this just boils down to different mindsets, and I don't share the one VV espoused. (and to be honest, it felt like we were using the same words to speak different languages - to me, 'cooperation' does not mean 'pull your weight or GTFO' - it means working together to overcome individual limitations.
The "GTFO" is not a part of my statement in any capacity.
Cooperation means getting the job done. If the best way to do that is always the Wizard working alone and the Fighter sitting on the bench (an exaggeration, yes), then cooperation demands that the Wizard work alone and the Fighter sit on the bench. When you have the Wizard piling spells on the Fighter in a costly gambit to make the Fighter look useful, that is not cooperation anymore. That is disregarding the good of the team to pad the individual ego.
When the only way to get everyone involved and to let everyone have fun is to ignore the game, there is a problem with the game. When the only way to put someone to use in a consistent and meaningful way is to ignore all sense of tactics, there is a problem with the game.
The game should allow everyone to contribute meaningfully out of the box, without forcing the Fighter to dumpster dive through half a dozen books to piece together one of three more-or-less functional paths, or forcing the rest of the party to ignore their own ability to resolve problems, or forcing the group to throw the rules out the window to make the Fighter feel useful, or forcing the DM to actively start a crusade to screw the mage over.
And again, this is a system issue we're talking about here.
|
|
I'll happily posit that 1E was in many, many ways more balanced then 3E. 3E did some good things, but its understanding of the metagame does, at times, seem to be sorely lacking.
That's what I am thinking, and given the nature of some of the posts that perhaps this view isn't just specific disaffected aging gamers. We are accused of "living in the past", but I would like to think that we can view present (3.xe) and past (1e) and see what was changed that really doesn't work. Perhaps if you simply insert a few of the casting rules from 1e into 3.xe you help balance the books?
Enjoyed your post,
S.
Let the spellcasters whine. Maybe then they'll realize there's a reason people play melee...so they aren't dependent on magic to be effective.
Melee characters are just as dependent upon magic as spellcasters are. The difference is, they rely on magic items (that they can't create themselves, lol) in order to survive. A fighter without the enhancement bonuses provided by his weapon, armor, belt and amulet is as good as dead - he'll find it almost impossible to hit, he'll get hit all the time, and he'll be much more susceptible to non-physical attacks.
"Anti-magic fields are perfectly legitimate! Let the spellcasters whine! Maybe then they'll appreciate melee!" is really awful thinking, not just because it demonstrates a lack of understanding of how the game works, but because it assumes that telling an entire group of players "Sorry, you can't play," is somehow acceptable.
I'll happily posit that 1E was in many, many ways more balanced then 3E. 3E did some good things, but its understanding of the metagame does, at times, seem to be sorely lacking.That's what I am thinking, and given the nature of some of the posts that perhaps this view isn't just specific disaffected aging gamers. We are accused of "living in the past", but I would like to think that we can view present (3.xe) and past (1e) and see what was changed that really doesn't work. Perhaps if you simply insert a few of the casting rules from 1e into 3.xe you help balance the books?
Enjoyed your post,
S.
I think this is true if we are dealing with comparing fighters versus mages in combat with each other but I never found it to be so during actual adventures. The fighter player - when faced with a mage knew to disrupt the spells but mostly the monsters are not presumed to know this sort of thing. This meant that, despite their significant weaknesses, mages still came to rule the roost in most cases. Though, traditionally, the fighter player eventually got some pretty heavy compensation often in the form of a big ass intelligent sword and since there was no such thing as wealth by level mages tended to get the least amount of loot directed at them as they already had inherent magic.
Beyond this even if the the fighter and the magic user seemed to be OK in terms of ability to go through the ubiquitous dungeons clerics and thieves were not nearly as fun to play in that environment.
I think it says something that the vast majority of the games designers and industry insiders of the time chose to play mages - a few choose to play fighters and almost none of them choose clerics or thieves.
Hmm, I started typing a long response, but rather than going point by point, I'll just cut to the chase.
The "GTFO" is not a part of my statement in any capacity.Cooperation means getting the job done. If the best way to do that is always the Wizard working alone and the Fighter sitting on the bench (an exaggeration, yes), then cooperation demands that the Wizard work alone and the Fighter sit on the bench.
this is all I meant by "GTFO", rudeness of my acronym notwithstanding - but this is not cooperation so much as a parent saying to a child - "Let's build a bookcase together, you go sit over there and watch." Really not fun for the child.
In the game, it is the role of the GM to make sure that both the wizard and fighter have moments to shine. If the GM sets up every encounter such that the fighter can never be effective, then there is a problem, but not only with the system. Either the player needs to learn better/smarter use of their feats/tactics, or the GM needs to make adjustments to keep the player involved, or both.
When you have the Wizard piling spells on the Fighter in a costly gambit to make the Fighter look useful, that is not cooperation anymore. That is disregarding the good of the team to pad the individual ego.
Yes, this would be silly and counterproductive.
When the only way to get everyone involved and to let everyone have fun is to ignore the game, there is a problem with the game. When the only way to put someone to use in a consistent and meaningful way is to ignore all sense of tactics, there is a problem with the game.The game should allow everyone to contribute meaningfully out of the box, without forcing the Fighter to dumpster dive through half a dozen books to piece together one of three more-or-less functional paths, or forcing the rest of the party to ignore their own ability to resolve problems, or forcing the group to throw the rules out the window to make the Fighter feel useful, or forcing the DM to actively start a crusade to screw the mage over.
And again, this is a system issue we're talking about here.
"The game" includes the players and the GM. The system issue that you've described here is a caricature that bears so little resemblance to any reality or game that I am familiar with that I really can't comment on it. You're right though, those situations would not be at all cooperative.
A response to my post concerning the soccer metaphorNah, I wasn't trying to say that's the only way to play. People are more than welcome to play any way they like.
My point was, typically D&D assumes professional adventurers, ergo people who's lives and livelihoods depend on their companions pulling their weight.
I don't know about you my friend, but if I were in a mercenary squad and somebody was hampering the teams effectiveness and putting our lives at stake, I'd kick him out, one way or another. (I know that sounds heartless, and perhaps it is, but that buisness isn't about warm and fuzzies, and I don't see adventuring as being about them either.)
I don't know if D&D typically assumes that. For some people sure, for others, maybe not. In a mercenary squad, sure, I'd agree with you, and maybe it would even be a kindness to cut the weak link loose.
But in a band of the unlikeliest heroes, who succeed against the odds and by the seat of their pants, who could predict how the weight might be pulled?
I think you'd acknowledge that this is an accepted fantasy trope - and I think it's just as typical for people to play this way - that is, without well thought out tactics or a professional attitude about adventuring.
this is all I meant by "GTFO", rudeness of my acronym notwithstanding - but this is not cooperation so much as a parent saying to a child - "Let's build a bookcase together, you go sit over there and watch." Really not fun for the child.
Except this isn't a parent/child or student/teacher relationship. If this is Mikey's first time playing, of course you show him some serious consideration and maybe lay off, let him take the spotlight, fudge things a bit while he learns. But here's the thing. That's not a permanent state. Eventually, the kid's supposed to learn enough to actually be useful. Eventually, Mikey's supposed to get what's going on in the game to the point where he can look after himself. If, as a part of the very structure of the game, you have to permanently coddle Mikey, there is something wrong with the game.
In the game, it is the role of the GM to make sure that both the wizard and fighter have moments to shine. If the GM sets up every encounter such that the fighter can never be effective, then there is a problem, but not only with the system. Either the player needs to learn better/smarter use of their feats/tactics, or the GM needs to make adjustments to keep the player involved, or both.
You're making excuses for the system.
What's more, this isn't about setting up encounters such that the Fighter can never be effective; the problem is that in normal level-appropriate encounters against normal, level appropriate monsters, up through encounters that are actually supposed to threaten the party, the Fighter cannot contribute beyond early levels. In order to give the Fighter that "chance to shine" you keep talking about, either the mage has to stop playing or the DM has to actively seek to screw over the mage, which is not fair to the mage.
And the tactics are not the issue; it's that only a handful of builds using extremely specific and odd tactics actually work. A traditional stab stuff swordsman does not work in core past the early levels. It doesn't matter what tactics you employ with your stab stuff swordsman, it won't work. When you take feats that work, you end up putting a lot of work into a spiked chain tripper, an ubercharger, or a counter whore, which are extremely twinked out just to keep pace, and easily shut down.
Yes, this would be silly and counterproductive.
When you have the Wizard piling spells on the Fighter in a costly gambit to make the Fighter look useful, that is not cooperation anymore. That is disregarding the good of the team to pad the individual ego.
Except that's what it takes to make the Fighter useful. Right here, you're saying it's silly to put the Fighter to use, which is precisely the problem. To make the Fighter feel useful, you have to sacrifice the team.
Except this isn't a parent/child or student/teacher relationship. If this is Mikey's first time playing, of course you show him some serious consideration and maybe lay off, let him take the spotlight, fudge things a bit while he learns. But here's the thing. That's not a permanent state. Eventually, the kid's supposed to learn enough to actually be useful. Eventually, Mikey's supposed to get what's going on in the game to the point where he can look after himself. If, as a part of the very structure of the game, you have to permanently coddle Mikey, there is something wrong with the game.
Let me try to say it this way, though this is partly in reference to your earlier post - of course I expect that a player will play their character as effectively as possible, and will learn to play their character to the best of that character's potential.
What I disagree with is that a character must be designed to be capable of achieving the maximum under the rules in order for the game to be fun or for characters to be effective. Maybe you haven't said this?
If characters can't contribute unless they are designed to the max, this is a problem with the game. Not necessarily with the rules alone, but with the GM, the way the situations are set up, and maybe the way the other characters in that game are designed.
Personally, I haven't seen the need for this "design to the max". In games where this does appear necessary (for example, Turin the Mad's entertaining campaign journals), the fighters don't seem to need to jump through the hoops you indicate (spiked chain tripper, etc.), nor do the wizards appear to stop playing nor be actively nerfed by the GM.
I simply don't see that the Fighter is forced to sit by the sidelines to make cooperation more efficient.
At low levels that's pretty much a given. But what about higher levels where the Fighter actually starts to fall behind?
Don't you think by the time your hitting level 9ish that the party is starting to turn professional?
I don't think it has to be that way. I understand where you're coming from, but I'm not sure.
If your character is essentially a green beret or special ops or something, then the professionalism as you mean it is there from the start. They simply get better and more effective as they gain levels.
If your character is an army grunt, then they may gain levels, get better at things, but never develop that same kind of ruthlessly efficient professional attitude.
I think the professionalism and desire for efficiency is a mental state, not something that develops as a consequence of gaining levels and developing skill.
As for when the fighter actually starts to fall behind... That's trickier. Fall behind what? Level appropriate challenges? If the fighter can't contribute, then the challenge isn't appropriately designed. I don't believe that there are no challenges for a high level fighter to contribute meaningfully to.
Fall behind other characters? I don't expect the fighter to be more effective across the board than a wizard. More effective when the wizard is out of spells? Yes. Better at combat than a rogue? Yes. Capable of mopping the floor with a large number of mooks while the wizard neutralizes the BBEG? Sure. Capable of keeping the BBEG occupied while the wizard knocks off the mooks? Yes.
When you have the Wizard piling spells on the Fighter in a costly gambit to make the Fighter look useful, that is not cooperation anymore. That is disregarding the good of the team to pad the individual ego....that's what it takes to make the Fighter useful. Right here, you're saying it's silly to put the Fighter to use, which is precisely the problem. To make the Fighter feel useful, you have to sacrifice the team.
No. This is what I have trouble arguing with, because you appear to be so wrapped up in your view that you can't see any other perspective, unless I am totally missing something. I meant is was silly and unproductive to adopt a strategy whose sole goal was to pad the individual ego.
That's not the only way for the Fighter to be useful. So I am *NOT* saying that it is silly to put the fighter to use, nor does this does not involve sacrificing the team for the sake of cooperation.
Can you imagine no other situation in which a fighter would be useful past ninth level? If the world is so challenging that the fighter is useless, why not have a party of all and only wizards, druids and clerics?
Again, maybe I'm way off base here, but it seems that in a well run game, the design imbalance between fighters and other classes won't destroy the game, and the fighter's player may still even make valuable contributions and have a good time.
What I disagree with is that a character must be designed to be capable of achieving the maximum under the rules in order for the game to be fun or for characters to be effective. Maybe you haven't said this?
I haven't. Not remotely. "Legitimately capable of contributing" is different from "Pun Pun." Power isn't a yes-or-no question.
Imagine a grand spectrum of power, going from Useless to Theoretical. From left to right-
Completely Useless: Few things technically fall here, unless you're talking the psionic sandwich, but even then, rations.
Nominally Useful/Incompetent: These are things like a mule, or a 1HD kobold in a group of humans. Sure, they have their uses, but they're nowhere near equally contributing members.
Underpowered and Suboptimal: These may not be as powerful as they could be, but can more or less pull their weight.
Legitimately Powerful: Characters who can hold their own, who bring something useful to the table and do it well.
Optimal: Simply characters who are very good at doing something useful.
Overpowered: Characters hitting the realm of being too good at something useful.
Theoretical: These are the crazy-powerful godlike builds that aren't intended for actual play.
The problem with Fighters is not that they fail to be optimal. The problem is that, while they actually can be optimal at level 1, as levels go up, they slide down the totem pole not to powerful or underpowered, but to incompetent, and there are only a handful of highly optimized builds that might manage to get the class to suboptimal or better but are still easily shut down. The problem isn't that they're not the best, but that they flat suck past the early levels, that they don't grow, they don't gain options or abilities that matter.
If characters can't contribute unless they are designed to the max, this is a problem with the game. Not necessarily with the rules alone, but with the GM, the way the situations are set up, and maybe the way the other characters in that game are designed.
In the Fighter case, we're talking normal encounters run by a fair DM with sensible party builds acting tactically. If that's all it takes to break the game, that's a problem that lies in its entirety with the system. You can claim all you want that the DM is supposed to compensate for problems with the system, but that doesn't change the fact that there are severe problems with the system that need compensating for.
Can you imagine no other situation in which a fighter would be useful past ninth level? If the world is so challenging that the fighter is useless, why not have a party of all and only wizards, druids and clerics?
I can imagine a situation in which a mule, or a 1HD kobold is useful past level 9. That doesn't mean their contributions are appropriate for a party member.
And party balance is a myth. You should be able to have a party of only Wizards, Clerics, and Druids, or of only Rangers, Rogues, and Bards (which is actually pretty fun), or of only Paladins, Barbarians, and Fighters, and all of them should have the strength and tools to get by in the world comparably well.
However, not all classes are created equal. You have to realize that the game on the whole absolutely is not balanced, or even close. There are very powerful classes. There are very weak classes. There are classes in the middle. Paladin? Very weak class in core. Cleric? Very powerful. Put 'em side-by-side and have 'em played tactically, and the game won't be balanced.
Again, maybe I'm way off base here, but it seems that in a well run game, the design imbalance between fighters and other classes won't destroy the game, and the fighter's player may still even make valuable contributions and have a good time.
You can show up an roleplay in the world's worst system and still have a good time. You can play F.A.T.A.L. and have a good time. That doesn't make them good systems. That doesn't remove the severe problems with the systems. What's more, if what you want is to actually play the game, and a fair and challenging one at that, the game must first be fair, and the problems with the game must be taken into account.
If you're only there for roleplay, the system doesn't matter. It doesn't even matter what system's being used; that's not why you're there. But if you're actually there to play the game, then the glaring problems with the system become a huge deal.
You can show up an roleplay in the world's worst system and still have a good time. You can play F.A.T.A.L. and have a good time.
I'm pretty sure you can't. As you'd have to read the book first. Or your DM would. Either way, that's emotional damage that I doubt anyone would like inflicted upon them prior to role-playing.
Interesting posts by the way, everyone.
Some extremely long posts. Some rather 'blind them with verbiage' posts. Some a bit condescending posts. Some extremist posts. Some 'banging head against a wall' posts. Some 'missing the point' posts.
But all interesting.
Commented for above game primarily, but also to keep this in my threads to watch.
I don't browse much.
EDIT: The choice of poster I've replied to should not be automatically taken as the basis of my comments about the comments, by the way. And I'm annoyed I felt that I had to put that edit in, but there you go.
I'm pretty sure you can't. As you'd have to read the book first. Or your DM would. Either way, that's emotional damage that I doubt anyone would like inflicted upon them prior to role-playing.
Believe it or not, I've heard rumors of it actually happening, though it was actually satire. Making fun of the game in the best way possible; actually playing it.
We don't have the problems others seem to, however I have a question for those who think the casters can fulfill the role of the melee types.
Don't the casters have an extremely limited duration compared to the melee guys (who perhaps can't do as much but can basically do it all day)? We've had our mages burn their best spells on something which turned out to be an illusion. We've retired to rest, only to find ourselves harried, ambushed, interrupted and thus not have regained our spells. It seems to me (from an admittedly ignorant point of view) that discussions like this tend to focus on a mage or cleric being able to supplant all other roles in a one-off situation (presuming they've prepared the spells appropriate to the situation), without paying attention to how long they can do that for. In a twenty four hour day I would expect a better strategy to be preserving your resources - sure the fighter may take longer fulfilling the role you could do with a click of your fingers. However, he can do it for three, four, five battles in a row - providing you keep him alive (which seems much easier to me, in the sense of using less resources, than taking his place).
Again - rules are pretty unimportant to our group, but I dont quite understand the problem. In the groups where mages rule are they able to fulfill the role of the fighter, the rogue and the wizard for protracted periods of time? Or is there lots of "We clear the room...We rest for eight hours...We clear the next room..."?