not to mention there are anohter ways to negate teleporting wizards.Like having allies camp out at his known spot of retreat.
Sure, so to kill a fighter, you need to have one group of enemies attack him. To kill a wizard, you need to have one group of enemies attack him, and another group of enemies figure out where he'll go, get there, and still be ready to attack him. And no one sees a disparity there?
You know what -- never mind. Everyone but Kolokotroni and I is correct. There is no disparity here. Everything is fine. Go on with your games. I'll continue to work on fixes for myself without burdening anyone else with the discussion, which never leads anywhere.
Yup. Everyone else is wrong because of one bad example. See ya.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wasn't trying to say that a Fighter equipped only with a chair leg will take on any level appropriate encounter. I was trying to get across that atleast a fighter with a chair leg is doing something whereas a Wizard without his book and no time to prepare is doing absolutely nothing close to what the fighter is doing.I don't think we disagree really. The situation that's being attempted to pass off as a problem is just so ludicrous that my mind tends to wander. There's absolutely no reason a Fighter needs to handle a situation by himself. Even if he had to, there's equipment that allows him to do so. Once he slips on his little boots of Flight he's off in a flying monsters face doing his combat style things and mad attacks like its nobodies business.
The problem is a fabricated one. It doesn't exist.
(Come at me! =D)
Is this fighter vs wizard or fighter vs casters? Because at this stage of pathfinder I dont see wizard as the pinacle of casters anymore. I personally see the druid, witch and even oracle and sorceror as more flexible in most ways.
And yea the OP's post is kind of rediculous, but there IS an actual problem, it just isnt represent by the OP's opinion. The problem is that the magical characters short of being deliberately hosed by circumstance are far more capable then non-magical characters. And if applied the same, those circumstances would hose the martial characters alot more.
An enemy takes away the fighter's boots and casts fly. Fighter hosed. How much more would you have to a druid of the same level to keep him from being able to contribute to the encounter?
The fighter NEEDS help in some situations, and that is the problem for the most part. The caster has a choice, the mundane fighter doesnt.Druids and clerics can be very versatile but I doubt any caster class have ALWAYS the right spells, feat selection, class abilities to always shine in combat without any help.
(Summoner is abroken class, my opion is about the other caster classes in the game)
Of course not, the wont always have the right tools for the job. But they will have them ALOT more then a fighter. A fighter might use half his feats to be useful in a particular situation (lets say ranged combat with terrain making it hard to close with the enemy). Sorceror can be useful with one or more spells with a descent range.
A fighter might spend half his wealth on winged boots so he can fly and fight. The druid uses one of his daily wildshapes, or just summons a flying animal to go kick butt for him.
An enemy takes away the fighter's boots and casts fly. Fighter hosed. How much more would you have to a druid of the same level to keep him from being able to contribute to the encounter?
Shoot arrows. Problem solved.
Shoot arrows. Problem solved.An enemy takes away the fighter's boots and casts fly. Fighter hosed. How much more would you have to a druid of the same level to keep him from being able to contribute to the encounter?
Ok disarm or sunder the fighter's bow, take away his boots, fly away.
How many things would you have to do to the druid to keep him down the same way
Shoot arrows. Problem solved.An enemy takes away the fighter's boots and casts fly. Fighter hosed. How much more would you have to a druid of the same level to keep him from being able to contribute to the encounter?
Ok disarm or sunder the fighter's bow, take away his boots, fly away.
How many things would you have to do to the druid to keep him down the same way
Okay, what on Earth is the Fighter doing while someone stands there sundering his equipment and taking his boots?
And how is his bow going to get sundered if the enemy already stole his boots and cast Fly? Wouldn't provoke an attack anyway?
He wouldn't have his Bow out before the enemy was already flying, unless it was a dedicated archer, which defeats this whole scenario. The bow comes out after the enemy has taken to the air.
Multiple edits due to my head being full of f*** by the above post.
If all combats happened inside tornadoes then "some things can fly" would not be a problem.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This thread hurts my soul.
Shoot arrows. Problem solved.An enemy takes away the fighter's boots and casts fly. Fighter hosed. How much more would you have to a druid of the same level to keep him from being able to contribute to the encounter?
Ok disarm or sunder the fighter's bow, take away his boots, fly away.
How many things would you have to do to the druid to keep him down the same wayOkay, what on Earth is the Fighter doing while someone stands there sundering his equipment and taking his boots?
And how is his bow going to get sundered if the enemy already stole his boots and cast Fly? Wouldn't provoke an attack anyway?
He wouldn't have his Bow out before the enemy was already flying, unless it was a dedicated archer, which defeats this whole scenario. The bow comes out after the enemy has taken to the air.
Multiple edits due to my head being full of f*** by the above post.
I think we are getting a little off topic but i'll bite.
Taking away the boots doesnt actually mean physically taking them from the fighter. A single spell could surpress them, or they could have not been available in the first place.
And obviously I dont mean this is all done at once, obviously there were several things going on here. Obviously the fighter wont stand there and do nothing. But his options are far more limited, and less permanent then the druid's. In order to stop the fighter he must not have in the first place, or have taken away, 2 pieces of equipment.
To stop the druid you more or less have to kill him.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
WAIT. AM THIS SUDDENLY CASTY-MARTIAL THRED?
BARBARIAN WANT READY ACTION FOR RAGELANCEPOUNCE.
I think we are getting a little off topic but i'll bite.Taking away the boots doesnt actually mean physically taking them from the fighter. A single spell could surpress them, or they could have not been available in the first place.
And obviously I dont mean this is all done at once, obviously there were several things going on here. Obviously the fighter wont stand there and do nothing. But his options are far more limited, and less permanent then the druid's. In order to stop the fighter he must not have in the first place, or have taken away, 2 pieces of equipment.
To stop the druid you more or less have to kill him.
Pretty much same goes for the Fighter. Unless the Fighter is somehow bound and unable to react(good luck getting around their CMD), you are talking about walking up to a Fighter, of all classes, and spending a good 3 or 4 rounds doing everything except deal damage. A decent level Fighter, in melee range of something, will likely have it splattered with full-round attacks in that amount of time.
Then it flies away? Arrows.
And where is the rest of the party while this is going on?
Bad example is bad. If you're trying to make a case for the Druid having more options than a Fighter, well, duh. But if this mysterious enemy puts itself within arms reach of a Fighter, then the Fighter has all the options it needs(stab, bash, slash, etc).
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If AM BARBARIAN had a higher wisdom he would have seen this thread for what it was by reading the title.
The arguments have taken a turn toward one-upmanship. Of course both casters and martials will lose if you keep poking their respective achilles heels. It means nothing.
Here's a new twist: role-playing.
A fighter, played all the way up to the high levels (where the OP's side seems to make most of their case) should have an entire arsenal of solutions to these problems.
No player gets through Book 1 of an adventure path without a good ranged option. They either survive and buy one, or their new PC comes into the party with one.
These mid-level characters who somehow reached 10th without investing in any long-range options... they should all be dead. They shouldn't exist.
Is this somehow a problem? In a roleplaying game, you'd imagine the characters who make the stupidest decisions ought to pay the price. The game was called Dungeons and Dragons. If your valiant fighter hasn't considered for a moment how he would engage the eponymous monster, he deserves to become lunch.
If you don't pack a countermeasure for a flying monster, you are not roleplaying.
It isn't a bug, it is a feature.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The best thing to come out of this thread was Bomanz's first post. All other posts are unneeded. Especially this one.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hm, this is becoming another caster vs martial thread...
Still, I want to say something about that "have a scroll ready" and "teleporting out" thing that is always brought up: It does not work. Really. Looks great on paper and may work in some instances, it has maybe once or twice in my last 12 years of RPG. Why? Well...
- wizard example: gets teleport at level 9, can bring three additional creatures with him. Many times I have
a) been in a party with more than 3 other party members so he would have had to leave someone behind. And if he only saves himself or part of the party, he would have had a big problem with the rest of the party afterwards (if they survive).
b) Do you never have horses or hirelings or allies or such travelling with you? Because you won't be able to take those with you and lose your gear - or are you carrying your gear on your back even when on horseback or when you have others who can carry it?
c) Can you really touch all of them in time? Are they all close enough? Not separated by horseback, obstacles, marching order?
d) Can you always assess a fight whether you should flee right away or maybe in the third round? Because after round 1 the enemy archers (or wizard, or cleric, or goons of the BBEG) will ready on your casting and make sure you will not have time to cast your great save spell.
e) You always have that spell prepared, right? Oh no, I forgot, you have scrolls ready. How many exactly? They cost a lot of money, you know. Do you really have more than one? Say you have used it once, then it's gone. Do you have time to create another one? Will the party wait, or can they wait in the scenario, for you to write them? Or are you on a mission with a time limit, or in a dangerous area and have to keep moving? And you brought enough parchment, ink etc. with you, right?
- Antimagic zones
- Wizard is unconscious, blind or such due to trap, surprise attack, harsh environment conditions etc.
- dimensional anchor and other spells are cast on you
- Pride. This is a big one. Rarely a group of mine has retreated. It took a while for me as a GM to hammer it into them that there are some fights they just can't win.
- Responsibility. One party member is down, cannot get to you in time. Might still be alive though - do you escape with the rest or do you switch to fighting mode?
- You always have the scrolls ready so you can pull them out and cast them in time, right?
- Ever had your spell components pouch sundered? Your arcane bond item or your familiar attacked?
- The enemy never does recon on you, even when you are level 12 and already becoming famous?
- One of my favourite often brought up scenarios: You are in a dangerous dungeon, the wizard is not prepared adequately. "You just teleport out, swap your spells the next day and come back". Well, then in most cases I know you have probably
a) encountered enemies and fought them, maybe killed them. That will be discovered and you will then meet an alerted dungeon/castle/etc.
b) not had time to familiarize yourself with the last/current location, so you can't return there directly, or have a miss chance that is not so great. So you will have to redo challenges.
These are just a few of my experiences. In theory it is all great and such. In practice I had it isn't. The more encounters you have, the more the martials shine. I even had a sorcerer of mine fight a lot with weapons (light crossbow, dagger, longspear etc.) to avoid burning my spell slots. Of cause, the martials were better at that, while I was better at magic...
;-)
Oh and btw: I do not think summoners are broken. They are as easily countered and have many - particularly social - problems as other casters :-)
If AM BARBARIAN had a higher wisdom he would have seen this thread for what it was by reading the title.
The arguments have taken a turn toward one-upmanship. Of course both casters and martials will lose if you keep poking their respective achilles heels. It means nothing.
Here's a new twist: role-playing.
A fighter, played all the way up to the high levels (where the OP's side seems to make most of their case) should have an entire arsenal of solutions to these problems.
No player gets through Book 1 of an adventure path without a good ranged option. They either survive and buy one, or their new PC comes into the party with one.
These mid-level characters who somehow reached 10th without investing in any long-range options... they should all be dead. They shouldn't exist.
Is this somehow a problem? In a roleplaying game, you'd imagine the characters who make the stupidest decisions ought to pay the price. The game was called Dungeons and Dragons. If your valiant fighter hasn't considered for a moment how he would engage the eponymous monster, he deserves to become lunch.
If you don't pack a countermeasure for a flying monster, you are not roleplaying.
It isn't a bug, it is a feature.
Agreed and seconded.
I'm just tired of the lopsided biased anti-Fighter arguments with goalposts constantly pushed back. Fighters "fight" and not much else. It's in the class name. Wanna fight? Pick a Fighter. Wanna cast spells and assume animal forms? Don't pick a Fighter.
@Sangalor
I applaud your approach but you clearly don't understand.
See...Fighters...can't fly.
But casters...they can fly.
This will not be resolved by appealing to sensibility.
Fighters "fight" and not much else. It's in the class name. Wanna fight? Pick a Fighter.
"I'm going to talk to you today about being the party leader. Your party's gotta have a leader, and it might as well be you.
So... why does a Fighter make you a good party leader.. well.. the main thing is: Who's going to fight you for it?"| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If AM BARBARIAN had a higher wisdom he would have seen this thread for what it was by reading the title.
BARBARIAN NOT TAKE SENSE MOTIVE, GENERALLY JUST SMASH AFTER 50 SECONDS OF TALKING.
BARBARIAN MAYBE GET IOUN STONE +2 INT FOR SKILL BEFORE READING THREAD NEXT TIME.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If AM BARBARIAN had a higher wisdom he would have seen this thread for what it was by reading the title.
The arguments have taken a turn toward one-upmanship. Of course both casters and martials will lose if you keep poking their respective achilles heels. It means nothing.
Here's a new twist: role-playing.
A fighter, played all the way up to the high levels (where the OP's side seems to make most of their case) should have an entire arsenal of solutions to these problems.
No player gets through Book 1 of an adventure path without a good ranged option. They either survive and buy one, or their new PC comes into the party with one.
These mid-level characters who somehow reached 10th without investing in any long-range options... they should all be dead. They shouldn't exist.
Is this somehow a problem? In a roleplaying game, you'd imagine the characters who make the stupidest decisions ought to pay the price. The game was called Dungeons and Dragons. If your valiant fighter hasn't considered for a moment how he would engage the eponymous monster, he deserves to become lunch.
If you don't pack a countermeasure for a flying monster, you are not roleplaying.
It isn't a bug, it is a feature.
Just to be clear, i am not arguing that this is an insurmountable problem. I am simply trying to discuss a disparity, specifically in the case of the fighter whose in class abilities are explicately tied to the real. The Druids wild shape is a class feature, the sorcerors spells are a class feature, the summoner's everything is a class feature. The fighter must make due with equipment.
Can the problem be solved with equipment? Ofcourse. Will a reasonable player take the pains to be prepared and a good gm give them the means to do it? Ofcourse. For me this isnt about what will happen as long as no one is stupid or a jerk. This is about conceptual design of the game.
The question for me is, if a fighter needs these things to be a part of a mid to high level campaign, why dont they get them straight from the class? And if they dont need them, why is this sort of thing something that comes up in discussion so often? Should a fighter get some sort of built in abilities that are as flexible and capable as their magical counterparts? Because there is a real discussion to be had there that people paste over WAY to easily.
The question for me is, if a fighter needs these things to be a part of a mid to high level campaign, why dont they get them straight from the class? And if they dont need them, why is this sort of thing something that comes up in discussion so often? Should a fighter get some sort of built in abilities that are as flexible and capable as their magical counterparts? Because there is a real discussion to be had there that people paste over WAY to easily.
I think there are several reasons there are no such class features:
- What I stated about preference for a non-magical fighter
- You can get equipment for anything - even if it's a headband of int +2 with UMD as skill, take skill focus, get some scrolls, and you will be fine.
- The biggest of all reasons: Because there may actually not be the need for flight, underwater breathing or such. Because you do not encounter such foes, but humanoids with class levels or creatures that can't fly at all or under the circumstances (like surprising the dragon in its lair).
- Because "people paste ... WAY to easily" over the weaknesses of other classes, i.e. casters like wizards. I brought up some examples above, others are actually getting the spells, the time, being protected by other classes etc. As was mentioned by someone else before, a lot of the "weaknesses" of the fighter are only considered to be so big due to poor encounter designs, the "15 minute / 1 encounter" adventuring day where casters can go nova and blow all their ressources etc.
- The fighter already has a built-in flexible ressource: feats. Always awailable, can do stuff others can - at most - do only a few times a day or only a few rounds if at all.
Want to see invisible guys? Just get a good perception, maybe spend a feat (you got enough of them!) on skill focus or alertness.
Want to heal yourself or send a fireball to that dragon? Get a wand and up your UMD. Traits are your friends.
Want to fly? Get a mount that can, there are items that allow you that or even become creatures if you want to. Catch them, train them yourself if necessary, you got handle animal as a class skill.
- Lacking system understanding by some of those who argue against the fighter. Often skills are greatly underestimated, for example you can identify a potion with perception or see invisible guys, you can use acrobatics in full-plate as a standard warrior whereas otherwise only dwarves can do that... But those restrictions are easily handwaved away, considered to be too difficult. Also I have seen the fighter-only feats been made available to any kind of martial, which again takes away some of the specialty of the fighter, e.g. the barbarian or ranger can also take the weapon specialization.
For example, in one of my groups we play without strict encumberance rules (as long as it is not taken to the extreme) and the wizard can always scribe a scroll anywhere just with the gold, he does not have to have bought ink or parchment or diamond dust for that. This greatly favors the typically physically weak (I think our wizard has a strength of 5!) casters and reduces the typical advantages of a martial (high strength, bonuses for movement or carrying or fighting etc.).
- Social issues are easily handwaved. That summoner with the incredibly powerful 4-armed eidolon walking into a village does not make the inhabitants distrustful, neither does the synthesists suit make him look strange, nor the wizards magical creature familiar (improved familiar feat)... I have seen GMs just ignore that a wizard had dumped his CHA and his STR to 7 to get that 20 int - he was as intimidating in roleplay as all the others.
So I think it is not a problem with the class. It is always the setting, the adventure, the task, the selection of opponents etc. who decide about what is useful and required and what not. For example, a scenario with lots of mindless undead will make an enchantment specialist look quite useless, the fighter will just do his job. Those antimagic zones will make the wizard fall down when he is flying above the chasm, the fighter is till hanging to his rope. The rogue, to bring another example, found the trap automatically in that ordinary looking hallway via his trapspotter feature, the fighter has enough hit points to survive it and the fortitude saves, the wizard however is just dead...
I bring this example a lot, thus just in short form: I played an epic level fighter (21-25) once. Just pure fighter, TWF, no magic abilities but some good gear like swords and armor. My GM told me repeatedly to play some caster or take tome of battle classes because I would have no chance otherwise. Well, I was the one in the end who was able to take >300hp damage per round (cleric healed me) and just trash his super-spell-resistent and DR monster with my 7 attacks that just ignored his fire resistances etc. In the end he told me the character was too powerful and he did not know what to do - because he had thought the fighter was insignificant if it could not cast or had magical abilities. Well, I proved him wrong ;-)
So to come to an end, the discussion always comes up because people play different games, have different levels of system understanding, have different GMs, different preferences, different experiences etc. Some are teamplayers, some are not, some play in groups with 10 people, some just in groups of 3, and the classes just show their strengths and weaknesses differently.
That is at least what I think :-)
It seems to be more Castys-fighty threadWAIT. AM THIS SUDDENLY CASTY-MARTIAL THRED?
Yeah, I should maybe stop putting fuel into it ;-)
In my defense, the original topic was about the same thing, just in a more narrow case ;-)
@AM BARBARIAN: HOW FEEL AFTER DISCOVER CAN FLY WHILE FIGHTY NOT CAN? AM GREATEST, TOTEM GREATEST, LAUGH AT CASTY AND FIGHTY NOW TOO? :-P
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The question for me is, if a fighter needs these things to be a part of a mid to high level campaign, why dont they get them straight from the class? And if they dont need them, why is this sort of thing something that comes up in discussion so often? Should a fighter get some sort of built in abilities that are as flexible and capable as their magical counterparts? Because there is a real discussion to be had there that people paste over WAY to easily.
One might as well argue that the wizard should get the whole spell list as a class feature just because the cleric does!
Some classes have their stuff locked away behind the counter. But the game gives them the money, in varying amounts, to buy that stuff.
It comes up so often because if it didn't, something else would. Probably monks.
Actually, the real reason it comes up so often is because many, many people on the forums do not play much, they look at the character creation rules and mistake it for the game. They think in class abilities instead of roleplaying, not thinking out what so-called "weaker" characters would do to surmount obstacles. Not everyone does this; Kirth says his opinion comes from actual play, and I believe him. Kirth's issue is that the game seems to favor certain classes in terms of abilities (this is, before gold) and he's right. It does.
The majority of people who post here (myself included) because they like thinking about the game, but they aren't currently playing it. They probably think about it much more than they play. Class abilities are way more salient in that kind of analysis, so people tend not to think of things like "What if my archer shoots your scroll as you're trying to teleport away?" because it isn't a class ability like spells are.
There's a whole game after character creation. I'm NOT saying that the fighter and wizard are on equal terms. I'm saying that a combination of intimate knowledge of the classes plus free time plus an overemphasis on class features leads to a skewed analysis of the game as a whole.
A lot of this stuff is subjective and there's no point in getting in a huff about it.
Called shot [Throat], end of most problems.
Can you cite a page number in the core rulebook for that maneuver? I must have missed it.
EDIT: Oh, wait, there's an option in Ultimate Combat for that sort of thing. You get -10 to your attack roll, and even if successful, spell failure is only 20%.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oberoni called. He wants to let you all know the devs won't be fixing anything.
Called shot [Throat], end of most problems.Can you cite a page number in the core rulebook for that maneuver? I must have missed it.
EDIT: Oh, wait, there's an option in Ultimate Combat for that sort of thing. You get -10 to your attack roll, and even if successful, spell failure is only 20%.
that is still a 20% chance that said wizard will lose a slot. if you do it with a readied action, you can potentially interrupt his current spell too. it's the same as losing 1/5th of your spell slots in theory.
you can also do a called shot to the eyes and inflict a 50% spell failure at the same penalty.
that is still a 20% chance that said wizard will lose a slot.
Wait, assuming I can get my DM to allow this "optional" extra mechanic, I can give up my turn in order to have a (chance of hitting) x (0.2) chance of making him lose his turn? That doesn't seem like a very good deal to me.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
@AM BARBARIAN: HOW FEEL AFTER DISCOVER CAN FLY WHILE FIGHTY NOT CAN? AM GREATEST, TOTEM GREATEST, LAUGH AT CASTY AND FIGHTY NOW TOO? :-P
BARBARIAN FLYING TOTEM POWER AM ONLY USED ON CRAPPY BARBARIAN, BECAUSE NON-CRAPPY BARBARIAN RAGE CYCLE. FLYING DRAGON TOTEM POWER CAUSE WINGS TO DISAPPEAR ON RAGE CYCLE, SUDDENLY FALLING THROUGH AIR INSTEAD OF FLYING. CRAPPY DRAGON BARBARIAN GO SPLAT, ROLL LESS CRAPPY BARBARIAN NEXT TIME.
BARBARIAN JUST USE GOOD OPTION FOR FLYING INSTEAD, LIKE ARMOR. OR BOOTS. OR DIRE BAT. DIRE BAT AM PROBABLY BEST OPTION.
BESIDES, NOT LIKE AM SURPRISE THAT FIGHTY AM NOT ABLE TO BEAT BARBARIAN. AM CLEAR BARBARIAN NOT-BARBARIAN DESTRUCITY IN GAME, ANYONE NOT ABLE SEE THAT AM GETTING 50% MISS CHANCE VS ALL OPPONENTS AND AM EFFECTIVELY ALWAYS FLAT-FOOTED, IF CATCH BARBARIAN MEANING.
ALSO, BARBARIAN AM ABLE READ NORMAL FONT JUST FINE. BARBARIAN JUST TALK LIKE BARBARIAN DUE TO INABILITY TO GRASP DELICATE INTRICACIES OF SOCIAL INTERACTION DUE TO ALWAYS SMASHING AFTER TALKING 50 SECONDS. ALSO BARBARIAN AM LOUD.
The question for me is, if a fighter needs these things to be a part of a mid to high level campaign, why dont they get them straight from the class? And if they dont need them, why is this sort of thing something that comes up in discussion so often? Should a fighter get some sort of built in abilities that are as flexible and capable as their magical counterparts? Because there is a real discussion to be had there that people paste over WAY too easily.
The problem isn't actually one of game balance: As has been pointed out by other posters, there are "work-arounds" built into the rules and setting that can negate the weaknesses of any class. Some of these approaches are more efficent than others, but any of them can be made to work.
The issue is one of "feel" or perceived versimilitude. It "feels" appropriate in a fantasy setting for a wizard to magically imbue his allies with flight or for a barbarian to call upon the power of his totem spirits. For many people, it doesn't feel as "right" for a fighter to soar through the air through his masterful fighting prowess. They see wuxia-style leaps as the province of Oriental characters and anime warriors rather than fighters. Accordingly, they don't want that to be the chosen or preferred solution for the fighter's ground-bound state. They'd rather that he mounted his pegasus steed or he donned a pair of magic flying boots or a cloak that gave him wings.
Why allow a wizard and barbarian supernatural abilities while the fighter gets the excuse of 'too much wuxia' if he does something superduper?
Making the fighter restrained by reality while everyone around them is not so restrained causes the perceived problems.
The issue is one of "feel" or perceived versimilitude. It "feels" appropriate in a fantasy setting for a wizard to magically imbue his allies with flight or for a barbarian to call upon the power of his totem spirits. For many people, it doesn't feel as "right" for a fighter to soar through the air through his masterful fighting prowess. They see wuxia-style leaps as the province of Oriental characters and anime warriors rather than fighters. Accordingly, they don't want that to be the chosen or preferred solution for the fighter's ground-bound state. They'd rather that he mounted his pegasus steed or he donned a pair of magic flying boots or a cloak that gave him wings.
I can understand that. To continue your example, I'd feel better if the fighter got one free rank per class level in Ride, and got a pegasus as a special steed as a class feature at 9th level, when the wizard starts using overland flight every day (gaining it as one of his spells gained that level); the druid has already been flying everywhere for the last several levels (using the wild shape ability he got as a class feature).
I've foten found that it's often possible to describe special abilities in mundane terms, too. For example, imagine that a fighter, through expert tactical knowledge, could deduce which of a set of mirror images was the real caster? And could estimate the locations of invisible enemies so closely that he could essentially see them. And his physical prowess enabled him to spot things that didn't move correctly, and thereby deduce they were illusions? That would be equivalent to true seeing, but it needn't be described as any kind of magic power; doing it the way I did, describing it as the consequence of training and tactical judgment, allows you to get a relevant ability without breaking that "non-magic" feel you're looking for.
Just do good damage
For the debilitating blow effect, you need to do half his hp in one shot, or 50 hp, whichever is higher. If you're a 10th level fighter and you're shooting at a 10th level evil wizard NPC, that means you need to do [(2.5 base + 1 favored class + 1 Con (median)) x 10]/2 = 22.5 points of damage with a single arrow (superseded by the 50 minimum). Say you've got 22 Str and a +3 bow and weapon training +2; you can deal a max of 19 damage unless you somehow roll a 20 and confirm a crit -- and even then your mean total damage is 46.5 hp, and you still fall short!
The called shot mechanics could be definitely tweaked into something that would allow fighters to actually do the types of heroic things we imagine them doing (like rendering wizards mute by shots to the throat), but it would require a lot of overhauling work to make it even worthwhile to try.
If AM BARBARIAN had a higher wisdom he would have seen this thread for what it was by reading the title.
The arguments have taken a turn toward one-upmanship. Of course both casters and martials will lose if you keep poking their respective achilles heels. It means nothing.
Here's a new twist: role-playing.
A fighter, played all the way up to the high levels (where the OP's side seems to make most of their case) should have an entire arsenal of solutions to these problems.
No player gets through Book 1 of an adventure path without a good ranged option. They either survive and buy one, or their new PC comes into the party with one.
These mid-level characters who somehow reached 10th without investing in any long-range options... they should all be dead. They shouldn't exist.
Is this somehow a problem? In a roleplaying game, you'd imagine the characters who make the stupidest decisions ought to pay the price. The game was called Dungeons and Dragons. If your valiant fighter hasn't considered for a moment how he would engage the eponymous monster, he deserves to become lunch.
If you don't pack a countermeasure for a flying monster, you are not roleplaying.
It isn't a bug, it is a feature.
I have never tried to say that the Fighter has 0 options whatsoever when it comes to dealing with flying creatures. My argument is that the system has artificial restrictions put in place that limit my options, which in turn affect my roleplaying.
To give a concrete example of what I am talking about, I am going to give an absurd hypothetical situation. Assume just for a moment that Pathfinder didn't have any rules whatsoever archery. Ridiculous, right? But even so, the Fighter would still have some options.
Now in that situation, if I make the claim: "There are really limited options for a Fighter to deal with fliers. I mean, where the heck is archery?"
Would you reply: "This is a feature. Fighters need to learn to deal with these problems with roleplay as they level up. If they play a stupid Fighter and don't get magic items or slings to deal with fliers by level 10 ...they should all be dead. They shouldn't exist."
That is how your argument is coming off to me. Yes, some options are available. And the problem certainly isn't as extreme as not having rules for archery. But the fact that Fighters are missing a lot of flavorful, fun, and useful options that I see commonly in fantasy tropes is not a feature.
In all fairness, slings are free.
How do you not have a sling by level 10?
Damn, I didn't take a sling. Only these harpoons.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Now in that situation, if I make the claim: "There are really limited options for a Fighter to deal with fliers. I mean, where the heck is archery?"
Would you reply: "This is a feature. Fighters need to learn to deal with these problems with roleplay as they level up. If they play a stupid Fighter and don't get magic items or slings to deal with fliers by level 10 ...they should all be dead. They shouldn't exist."
That is how your argument is coming off to me. Yes, some options are available. And the problem certainly isn't as extreme as not having rules for archery. But the fact that Fighters are missing a lot of flavorful, fun, and useful options that I see commonly in fantasy tropes is not a feature.
Yes, just as I would claim a wizard who blew all his money on a top-of-the-line melee weapon deserved to die, and shouldn't exist at 10th level because he has no spellbook. Mind you, this same wizard has also refused to simply pick up the spellbooks off of his (somehow) slain opponents. He is a bad wizard, who willfully wishes to lose at the game to prove a point, that wizards should be able to fight in melee.
I am saying: the fighter is not "balanced" in character creation with the same "tier" or problem solving capabilities. Everything you guys are saying about the class balance is true, and it doesn't matter nearly as much as you pretend it does.
I've thought pretty hard about this today, and I think I hit on a new thought:
All RPGs are arbitrary and subjective, because they require GMs to generate the scenarios and process the consequences. No GM has perfect rule mastery, and even perfect rule mastery doesn't allow you to deterministically say what each GM will interpret subjectively, from the RAW, and completely within their rights.
The Oberoni principle (and I won't call it a fallacy) is something like "just because the GM can fix it in play doesn't mean the game doesn't contain a flaw". But all games must contain flaws, because they are so complex we would at least need a few geniuses and a quantum computer to arrive at true game balance. I know a tiny tidbit about game theory, and let me tell you, chess has got nothing on RPGs in terms of "solvability".
In order for Oberoni to hold, we would need a computer that would run this game for us, and we could expect to get the exact same results (given the same player choices and results of die rolls) every time. Those are the only conditions that would satisfy that "fallacy's" notion of game balance. And so long as one GM wakes up in the morning and thinks "the BBEG has a plan to steal the wizard PC's spellbook", and another doesn't then class balance will never be objective.
So absolutely every statement of class balance is a subjective one. Now, I turn Oberoni on its head: The GM's mandate is to provide the situations, the grist for the simulation mill. When a given GM exhibits bias toward something (let's say multiple humanoid opponents instead of monsters, or spellbook entitlement, or smart casters and straight-forward martials) that heavily distorts the subjective experience of that GM and their players.
So when I say "this isn't a problem the way I run it" I'm not saying that I intervened. I'm saying I must be doing something differently than you, or my players are. And it isn't a case of system mastery, as I am fairly certain I have at least as much as Kirth and his people do.
So, hen you start a thread, that says "the game is busted because of x", you need to count every person who shows up to tell you (sometimes boorishly) why you are wrong. It is your subjective reality versus theirs. And when it comes to the game rules as a whole, the poor, poor, flawed RAW, which is really no worse than any other potential RAW because it isn't deterministic and can't be, we all need to take a moment and wonder how often are these problems really cropping up. Just because it happened to you doesn't mean it happened to most.
In summary, the fighter is a little behind in the class feature game, depending entirely on how on how you weigh class features. Your GM shapes your worldview with his habits and emphasis, and this is NOT avoidable. A different GM may not have the same problems, and this is the Oberoni principle inverted (the game is not deterministic, it is highly subjective, the GM isn't "fixing" he is "playing it right").
And. You. Should. Carry. A. Bow.
That is how your argument is coming off to me. Yes, some options are available. And the problem certainly isn't as extreme as not having rules for archery. But the fact that Fighters are missing a lot of flavorful, fun, and useful options that I see commonly in fantasy tropes is not a feature.NAME THEM. there's been a lot of complaining about the fighters not having it and people refusing to define what "it" is. What is it that you feel needs to be added to the fighter class?
What are the missing tropes from fantasy fighters you're asking about? And which fighters are you thinking of? I can think of a bunch of fighters who are fully served by the fighter class or an archetype, Hercules, Conan, Corum, Hawkmoon, they don't have powers that can't be described by the fighter or in some cases, rogue class.
A few that I have mentioned before (here and other places):
-Additional maneuver options. For instance, I love the idea of jumping on a larger creature's back, while hanging on for dear life and desperately stabbing at it.
-Trap rules that actually work well for PC use. While we are at it, craft rules in general.
-Rules that make flying dangerous, which Fighters can exploit (as it stand now, flying is pretty safe unless magic happens).
-The ability for Fighters to give tactical advice that actually has mechanical benefits.
-Using one creature as a weapon or shield against another creature.
There are plenty more out there.
Not for nothing, but there ARE games that suit the "fighters get to fly" playstyle. Exalted being the shiny example.
And I've played them and enjoyed them. I don't particularly care for them in this genre, though, and it's good that the games are different. Variety is the spice of life.
I actually like that if my fighter wants to fly he's got his good buddy, Bobby McSpellslinger there to help him out. Besides, what good is it for the Wizard to fly in a fight anyway? What's he going to do, rush the dragon and bop him on the nose with his staff?
I think that some people are forgetting that you have a group of adventurers for a reason - teamwork.
op has found success, he doesn't even need to post anymore to keep this argument going.