3e and Pathfinder, faulty assumptions by developers.


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

551 to 600 of 806 << first < prev | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:
1. It isn't punishment, it game design. It forces strategy, which is a good thing.

It's not punishment in the sense that it was not the intention to punish martials. It does hurt them nonetheless. Really hurts them. Because if they move 10ft or more, they lose a huge part of their effectiveness. That does not force "strategy", it limits martial characters' strategies to "stand still or suck".

ciretose wrote:
2. We discussed solutions to this, but you still haven't demonstrated this is an actual problem. The goal isn't to be able to do everything in one build.

Because scaling feats would allow characters to do everything in the same build, right? After all... Melee + archery + 1~2 maneuvers is everything.

ciretose wrote:
3. You have not set any goals for skills for us to test, other than "I want more."

I do want more. That's my point.

3 skills are not enough to be a versatile mundane character. So I want more skill points!

ciretose wrote:
4. When did wizards become weak?

When did I say they were weak? Please, feel free to search all my posts in this forum and find any one that says "Wizards are weak" without sarcasm. All I said is that their CMD is usually low.

ciretose wrote:
5. Your primary points all are saying Martials lack what casters have. When I show you something martials can do casters can that specifically exploits a weakness of the caster, you dismiss it as "fighting squirrels"

If "I can beat a Wizard's CMD, therefore, maneuvers are powerful" is a valid argument, then so is "I can defeat squirrels, therefore, Wizards are awesome frontliners".

I dunno about you, but I don't consider "I can succeed at very easy challenges" a good standard for effectiveness.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16, 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Okay, here's a goalpost specifically related to the full-attack complaint in the original post:

If two identically-built, high-level melee combatants who want to kill each other start combat flat-footed on opposite sides of a small room, the melee combatant who moves first should have the advantage in the first round of combat.

Note that the opposite is almost always true in 3.x/Pathfinder. The high-level combatant who acts second has the advantage in the first round of melee combat, because the character who moves first loses his iterative attacks while the character who stands around flat-footed doesn't.

If moving up and hitting an identically-built opponent while he is still flat-footed puts you at a distinct disadvantage against that opponent, that's a bug, not a feature.

Liberty's Edge

I look at it this way.

A lot of people complain about how hard it is to assemble IKEA furniture.

I personally have never had any problem with it, they sell an incredible amount of product all over the world...so is it the furniture or the person who doesn't follow the instructions.

It's like a guy saying your favorite restaurant is awful. You are surprised, because you love the place. So you ask him to go with you one time to see what he is ordering and you realize he orders the food to be cooked differently than the menu just covers everything with salt.

And you realize that the restaurant isn't the problem.

I have quite often found the same experience on here. A bunch of people start complaining about "X" problem, but when you get to the root of it "X" problem is something they have created with how they are interpreting some spells, or handwaving house rules, etc...

If you listened to them, you would be absolutely shocked that Pathfinder is the most popular RPG out there.

Much like I am surprised people have trouble putting IKEA furniture together.


Epic Meepo wrote:

Okay, here's a goalpost specifically related to the full-attack complaint in the original post:

If two identically-built, high-level melee combatants who want to kill each other start combat flat-footed on opposite sides of a small room, the melee combatant who moves first should have the advantage in the first round of combat.

Note that the opposite is almost always true in 3.x/Pathfinder. The high-level combatant who acts second has the advantage in the first round of melee combat, because the character who moves first loses his iterative attacks while the character who stands around flat-footed doesn't.

If moving up and hitting an identically-built opponent while he is still flat-footed puts you at a distinct disadvantage against that opponent, that's a bug, not a feature.

Lots of contingencies here. If that first moving character scores a crit with his axe, does the other one still have advantage? I would suggest not.

That said, there has often been some advantage in allowing someone to come to you rather than rushing in on them. Do you really think acting first should always grant advantage? Wouldn't that put even more of a premium on getting a good initiative? Why should that always be a tactical 'I win' button?

Or is your suggestion just to drop damage in general? Do we need another combat grind game like 4e? I hope not.

Now, I do thing 1e/2e had some success with alternating iterative attacks. But that does somewhat complicate combat management. Would people aven accept moving back to that style of mechanic? I'm not sure they would.

Liberty's Edge

Bill Dunn wrote:
Epic Meepo wrote:

Okay, here's a goalpost specifically related to the full-attack complaint in the original post:

If two identically-built, high-level melee combatants who want to kill each other start combat flat-footed on opposite sides of a small room, the melee combatant who moves first should have the advantage in the first round of combat.

Note that the opposite is almost always true in 3.x/Pathfinder. The high-level combatant who acts second has the advantage in the first round of melee combat, because the character who moves first loses his iterative attacks while the character who stands around flat-footed doesn't.

If moving up and hitting an identically-built opponent while he is still flat-footed puts you at a distinct disadvantage against that opponent, that's a bug, not a feature.

Lots of contingencies here. If that first moving character scores a crit with his axe, does the other one still have advantage? I would suggest not.

That said, there has often been some advantage in allowing someone to come to you rather than rushing in on them. Do you really think acting first should always grant advantage? Wouldn't that put even more of a premium on getting a good initiative? Why should that always be a tactical 'I win' button?

Or is your suggestion just to drop damage in general? Do we need another combat grind game like 4e? I hope not.

Now, I do thing 1e/2e had some success with alternating iterative attacks. But that does somewhat complicate combat management. Would people aven accept moving back to that style of mechanic? I'm not sure they would.

I don't think it is a problem that holding action to counter attack can be a benefit if you survive the initial attack. And you also have the option of readying an attack if he moves towards you, charges, etc...Which is something you can only do if you win initiative.

Plus, why aren't they pulling out a ranged weapon and getting that full attack? Part of what is nice about fighters is they get advantages to multiple weapon groups. Even if you are melee primary, at high levels at least one of your groups is going to be some kind of ranged weapon.

Good question though. Nice to have some actual testable goalposts. What do you define as high level?


Another thing that bothers me, is the expectation of certain +1's from magic items at a certain point. Really kills the fun of getting a magic item if its actually an expectation. I like toys. Things that are fun. Magic item treadmill isn't that fun or exciting.


ciretose wrote:
Plus, why aren't they pulling out a ranged weapon and getting that full attack?

Fighters certainly have enough feats for this, putting arrows into the giant and letting it close the gap before quick drawing your greatsword is a perfectly fine way to fight, but is not how people generally want to play melee characters. The mobile fighter (at level 11+) works much better for how people want to play melee characters.

PS. not all people want to be forced into mostly attacking for lots of damage most of the time, but that's an orthogonal issue much harder to solve ... especially if you want to keep the fighter "realistic".

Liberty's Edge

Pinky's Brain wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Plus, why aren't they pulling out a ranged weapon and getting that full attack?

Fighters certainly have enough feats for this, putting arrows into the giant and letting it close the gap before quick drawing your greatsword is a perfectly fine way to fight, but is not how people generally want to play melee characters. The mobile fighter (at level 11+) works much better for how people want to play melee characters.

PS. not all people want to be forced into mostly attacking for lots of damage most of the time, but that's an orthogonal issue much harder to solve ... especially if you want to keep the fighter "realistic".

It is a trade off.

I tbink people tend to forget that as awesome as pounce is for the AM Barbarian, it can't happen before 10th level, requires three rage powers , cuts off access to all of the other totems, and can be stopped by...well...mud.

Getting a full attack is a pretty big deal, and what the mobile fighter gets is pretty good when combined with the bonuses to attack and damage when moving, particularly considering it appears allow both vital strike and haste.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16, 2012 Top 32

Bill Dunn wrote:
Do you really think acting first should always grant advantage? Wouldn't that put even more of a premium on getting a good initiative? Why should that always be a tactical 'I win' button?

Well, initiative already works that way for spellcasters. If the game can handle spellcasters doing it, why can't it handle melee characters doing it?

And, all arguments about game balance aside, it should always be advantageous for a trained melee combatant holding a melee weapon to close on a flat-footed opponent within single-move distance. In the real world, there's a reason a trained martial artist who is also carrying a holstered gun is supposed to charge a flat-footed opponent within 20 feet instead of drawing his gun; unless you're talking about someone specifically trained in pistol duels, at a range of 20 feet or less, a hand-to-hand attack actually is faster than drawing and firing a gun.

I don't need the game to be a perfect simulation of real life, but I'd prefer it if in-game tactics weren't the exact opposite of real-world tactics, as they are in the case of a melee fighter within a few paces of a flat-footed opponent. Ranged combat should be the superior option at range, but melee combat should be the superior option when a trained melee combatant can close the distance within 3 seconds or less or less.

Quote:
Or is your suggestion just to drop damage in general?

Actually, my suggestion would be to increase the amount of damage dealt by a single attack, not to decrease the amount damage dealt by a full attack, perhaps by granting all or part of the Vital Strike feat chain as bonus feats. That would eliminate the strange situation where an opponent who is caught flat-footed deals significantly more average damage in the first round of combat than an identical opponent who acts first, and would open up more character builds by making dedicated skirmishers more viable.

ciretose wrote:
I don't think it is a problem that holding action to counter attack can be a benefit if you survive the initial attack. And you also have the option of readying an attack if he moves towards you, charges, etc...Which is something you can only do if you win initiative.

Note that I'm not talking about a character who readies their action. A character who readies has acted first, and should have the advantage over the slower opponent. I'm specifically talking about a case where a fighter runs 10 feet and stabs a flat-footed guy. In that case, I consider the game to have let me down if the flat-footed guy then gets to deal significantly more damage that round than the guy who just caught him flat-footed.

Quote:
Plus, why aren't they pulling out a ranged weapon and getting that full attack? Part of what is nice about fighters is they get advantages to multiple weapon groups. Even if you are melee primary, at high levels at least one of your groups is going to be some kind of ranged weapon.

Your statement just proves the OP's point. There is never any reason to move up and make a melee attack if you also trained with ranged weapons. Even if the opponent is only 10 feet away, you are better off standing in place making ranged attack than you are moving 10 feet and making melee attacks. The game simply does not reward a fighter whose go-to tactic when 10 feet away from an unprepared opponent is to quickly run up and stab the guy.

Quote:
Nice to have some actual testable goalposts. What do you define as high level?

For the purpose of my previous statement, BAB +6 is sufficiently high level.

I consider the following skeleton of a build to be a fairly reasonable benchmark when talking about a melee specialist: human fighter with a falchion; starting Strength 20; +1 Strength increase per four levels; +1 weapon enhancement bonus per four levels; +2 enhancement bonus to Strength at 7th level, +4 at 10th level, +6 at 13th level; +5 inherent bonus to Strength from miracle spells at 17th level; Furious Focus, Power Attack, Improved Critical, and the Weapon Specialization feat tree taken at the earliest available opportunity; weapon training in heavy blades taken at 5th level.

If you crunch the numbers for that build against a range of level-appropriate ACs, starting at 6th level, most such fighters deal roughly 25% less damage per round every time they move more than 5 feet, or 35% less damage if they are hasted. (A mobile fighter who's hasted, and any fighter who's taking the Vital Strike feat chain, each deal only about 10% less damage when they move. To me, 10% less is an acceptable default; 25% less is not.)


Bill Dunn wrote:
Epic Meepo wrote:

Okay, here's a goalpost specifically related to the full-attack complaint in the original post:

If two identically-built, high-level melee combatants who want to kill each other start combat flat-footed on opposite sides of a small room, the melee combatant who moves first should have the advantage in the first round of combat.

Note that the opposite is almost always true in 3.x/Pathfinder. The high-level combatant who acts second has the advantage in the first round of melee combat, because the character who moves first loses his iterative attacks while the character who stands around flat-footed doesn't.

If moving up and hitting an identically-built opponent while he is still flat-footed puts you at a distinct disadvantage against that opponent, that's a bug, not a feature.

Lots of contingencies here. If that first moving character scores a crit with his axe, does the other one still have advantage? I would suggest not.

That said, there has often been some advantage in allowing someone to come to you rather than rushing in on them. Do you really think acting first should always grant advantage? Wouldn't that put even more of a premium on getting a good initiative? Why should that always be a tactical 'I win' button?

Or is your suggestion just to drop damage in general? Do we need another combat grind game like 4e? I hope not.

Now, I do thing 1e/2e had some success with alternating iterative attacks. But that does somewhat complicate combat management. Would people aven accept moving back to that style of mechanic? I'm not sure they would.

Going first is an advantage in a 1-on-1 melee duel.

I win init; I ready an action to strike the other guy then 5 ft step back triggered by him about to attack me in melee. He moves in and starts his attack. My ready disrupts him and I pre-emptively counter slash him all iaijutsu duel-like, then step back out of his reach, ruining his attack. Readying puts your init count just before whoever triggered it, so next round, I go first, step back in, and full attack his ass.

Going first is awesome. Being too aggressive and walking into a trap...is not.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

I think Ciretose is asking darn good questions.

Look, I admit that a few tweaks would be nice for a couple of class, esp Rogue & fighter. Who doesn't want to see FTR with 4 SkP? Mind you, if half the fighters wouldn't DUMP int down to 7.....

But so far I have not see one solid answer to the OP :
"... PATHFINDER, FAULTY ASSUMPTIONS BY DEVELOPERS." (I am cutting out the 3E part),

Sure, PF isn't perfect, heck even the Devs admit this. They also have no problem trying to fix class imbalance where it can be done by a very minor rule change (like the price of the Amulet) or a FAQ or two.

But they are not in a hurry to do 2nd ED PF, and I am happy for this.

Of course the Devs did design the game to be played by reasonable gamers, not those who think that finding a mis-placed comma makes something 10X more powerful. And they specifically didn;t write the rules for those who will insist upon a page of legalese for every paragraph.

I mean they wrote "Vestigial Arm (Ex): The alchemist gains a new arm (left or right) on his torso. The arm is fully under his control and cannot be concealed except with magic or bulky clothing. The arm does not give the alchemist any extra attacks or actions per round,..." but there has been thread after thread with folks insisting that combined with multi-attack or this feat or the other their 4 armed vivisectionist gets two extra attacks. True, I guess that's the Devs fault for not adding : No extra attacks, we mean it. Really, we're not fooling. Not with Multi-attack. Not in a box, not with a fox. Oh, and you over there- Bob Johnson? We ESPECIALLY mean *YOU* can't get extra attacks. The following is the page of boilerplate our lawyers drew up for this one power. "

And then every single power/skill/feat/etc would come with a page or two of legal boilerplate.

So, hey, why not try answering Ciretose?

Sczarni

Epic Meepo wrote:

Okay, here's a goalpost specifically related to the full-attack complaint in the original post:

If two identically-built, high-level melee combatants who want to kill each other start combat flat-footed on opposite sides of a small room, the melee combatant who moves first should have the advantage in the first round of combat.

Note that the opposite is almost always true in 3.x/Pathfinder. The high-level combatant who acts second has the advantage in the first round of melee combat, because the character who moves first loses his iterative attacks while the character who stands around flat-footed doesn't.

If moving up and hitting an identically-built opponent while he is still flat-footed puts you at a distinct disadvantage against that opponent, that's a bug, not a feature.

Actually the rules have it exactly right. The first fighter to move is at a disadvantge. Always. Rule of thumb when going into actual real warfare combat situation is you need 3:1 (attacker to defender) combat advantage, to guarantee victory. 2:1 can go either way, and 1:1 is suicide for the attacker.

In a one-on-one combat encounter, if you want to start the fight and win it, you need an advantage. You win most fights by being bigger and tougher and more skilled with weapons. These factors increase your odds, so you could say "I'm worth 3 of you!", and then trounce the poor little Anhkeg. If your facing an equal opponent, you both circle warily, waiting for the other guy to strike, because it is more advantageous to strike last (and possibly twice). You taunt, you feint, you do anything to get your opponent to move and commit to the first attack.

If you really have to start the fight, then charge, or trip, or play a dirty trick to reduce or remove the standstill opponent's full round attack. Expect to die, unless you have back-up (other party members). Actually you need at least two back-ups, or one of your group is going to die, and it probably won't be the guy who isn't in melee.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

On the whole "should fighters be able to do everything"-note, the thing is, martials must focus on a single type of martial combat (okay sometimes they can do two). Scaling feats would allow them to focus on maybe 3-4, maaybe 5 different martial styles.

Meanwhile, a core wizard CAN do "everything" wizardy. All wizard spells are at the wizard's disposal.

So one solution would be to allow fighters etc to be similar, able to do most martial styles within one build.

Another solution would be to reduce caster spell access.

It's like... In D&D, each martial character represent a single martial trope or style from a movie/book/whatever. But when it comes to the casters, each character represents ALL the tropes!
A single high-level wizard can do everything Merlin did, everything Gandalf did, everything Dumbledore did, and everything Prospero did. And be effective at all these things and more!

(yes I know there are differences between a wizard and a cleric, of course, but you see the problem).

Liberty's Edge

@Ilja - See I kind of disagree with both parts of that statement. I don't think a martial "Must" focus on a single type of martial combat. I think that is just DPR olympics talk. The switch hitter build isn't seen much on the boards, but in my experience in play it is a completely viable option, often with feats to spare.

And while the wizard "could" do "everything" they can't do it at the same time.

Which is the problem in these discussions. We speak as if all sides have all options when the entire game is built around choices.

My experience is that the casters often don't have the perfect spell for every occasion, and often find themselves perilously close to death when they don't have time to pre-buff.

YMMV.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arni Carni wrote:
Epic Meepo wrote:

Okay, here's a goalpost specifically related to the full-attack complaint in the original post:

If two identically-built, high-level melee combatants who want to kill each other start combat flat-footed on opposite sides of a small room, the melee combatant who moves first should have the advantage in the first round of combat.

Note that the opposite is almost always true in 3.x/Pathfinder. The high-level combatant who acts second has the advantage in the first round of melee combat, because the character who moves first loses his iterative attacks while the character who stands around flat-footed doesn't.

If moving up and hitting an identically-built opponent while he is still flat-footed puts you at a distinct disadvantage against that opponent, that's a bug, not a feature.

Actually the rules have it exactly right. The first fighter to move is at a disadvantge. Always. Rule of thumb when going into actual real warfare combat situation is you need 3:1 (attacker to defender) combat advantage, to guarantee victory. 2:1 can go either way, and 1:1 is suicide for the attacker.

In a one-on-one combat encounter, if you want to start the fight and win it, you need an advantage. You win most fights by being bigger and tougher and more skilled with weapons. These factors increase your odds, so you could say "I'm worth 3 of you!", and then trounce the poor little Anhkeg. If your facing an equal opponent, you both circle warily, waiting for the other guy to strike, because it is more advantageous to strike last (and possibly twice). You taunt, you feint, you do anything to get your opponent to move and commit to the first attack.

If you really have to start the fight, then charge, or trip, or play a dirty trick to reduce or remove the standstill opponent's full round attack. Expect to die, unless you have back-up (other party members). Actually you need at least two back-ups, or one of your group is going to die, and it probably won't be the guy who isn't in melee.

There is a story I was told in my military history class as a metaphor for this. Basically an asian proverb.

Spoiler:

Once there was a poor shopkeeper, living in a small village. A cruel but mighty Samurai came to him one day and bought an item from him that broke due to the Samurai misusing it. The Samurai was insulted that the shoppkeeper would blame the Samaruai and demanded a duel to defend his honor.

The poor shopkeeper went to an old and wise former Samurai for advice on how to defend himself before the duel. The old samurai realized the man has no skills and no chance and he taught him a simple stance "Hold the sword directly over your head, and do not swing until you can not miss him."

The Shoppkeeper said "But I will be completely exposed. I will be unable to defend myself from him"

The old man nodded and said "It is your only hope"

The shopkeeper appeared for the duel and before the fight stood as he was told, sword over his head ready to strike, body fully exposed to attack.

The Cruel Samurai, seeing this, withdrew from the duel, knowing that the man would seriously wound him regardless of where he hit him during the counter attack.

The moral being your enemy exposes themselves when they attack as much as you are exposed by the attack.


ciretose wrote:
@Ilja - See I kind of disagree with both parts of that statement. I don't think a martial "Must" focus on a single type of martial combat. I think that is just DPR olympics talk. The switch hitter build isn't seen much on the boards, but in my experience in play it is a completely viable option, often with feats to spare.

Yeah, two is probably more correct than one. Melee+Ranged, or melee+maneuver is pretty doable for most primary combatants like fighters, rangers and barbarians.

You CAN of course do more than two, but the drop in efficiency is pretty harsh.

ciretose wrote:
And while the wizard "could" do "everything" they can't do it at the same time.

Neither can the martial - both are still limited to the action economy. However, a wizard can act Merlin one round, Gandalf the next round, Dumbledore after that - once you get into mid levels they can switch freely between basically all types arcane casting from one round to the next; at the very most, one day to the next.

The martial, on the other hand, can only switch between around two different things round to round and nothing extra day to day.

Quote:


My experience is that the casters often don't have the perfect spell for every occasion, and often find themselves perilously close to death when they don't have time to pre-buff.

YMMV.

Agreed to a degree, and I think the whole shroedinger's wizard is annoying as hell, but the thing is that flavorwise and conceptwise, and when it comes to class design, a wizard character can on a day to day basis choose between basically all wizards in mythology and fiction and pick which they want to be. Often they can do many different the same day.

Meanwhile, a martial character is locked to just a precious few styles, or basically a single historical character.

Like, you can make a character that represents conan quite well, and a character that represents jack sparrow quite well, but the same character cannot switch between these on a round by round or day to day basis. But a wizard character CAN switch between many different archetypal casters.

Compare this to if the wizards where more locked in style - say you choose two schools of magic and that is all you get, period (not saying this is necessarily good design, but just to compare). Then a single wizard character can only represent a certain type of iconic spellcaster, rather than switching freely.

Or compare this to if fighters could reselect all their feats with a one-hour preparation time each morning.

A wizard can quite easily have nearly all supernatural powers mentioned in mythology and literature available to them no further away than a preparation.

Sorcerers are also much closer to fighters than wizards are in that sense.

Liberty's Edge

I understand it is annoying, but it is factual. Because you "can" do something doesn't mean you actually did it on a given day in a given encounter during that day.

There is way to much assumption about optimal conditions, IMHO.


ciretose wrote:

I understand it is annoying, but it is factual. Because you "can" do something doesn't mean you actually did it on a given day in a given encounter during that day.

There is way to much assumption about optimal conditions, IMHO.

I don't see how this in any way changes my point. My point isn't about M/C disparity as much as the design choices ending up giving wizards a much more fluid role than for example barbarians.

I don't think this is an issue of _balance_ in itself, as much as an issue of limiting interesting design options when it comes to both fighters and wizards.

And I mean, feat chains are the same way. If you would merge say vital strike into one feat, and do the same with the precise shot line, and with cleave/great cleave, and the maneuver feats... The same thing would be true as is with wizards right now. A high-level fighter would be able to do many different things, but that doesn't mean they actually get a useful opportunity to do that thing.

If "not all fighters have to be able to do everything" is an argument to restrict fighters to be useful with at most three styles of combat, why isn't "not all wizards have to be able to cast everything" an argument to restrict wizards to be useful with at most three schools of spell?


Arni Carni wrote:
Actually the rules have it exactly right. The first fighter to move is at a disadvantge. Always. Rule of thumb when going into actual real warfare combat situation is you need 3:1 (attacker to defender) combat advantage, to guarantee victory. 2:1 can go either way, and 1:1 is suicide for the attacker.

Realism is not fun, basically every fighter becomes predominantly ranged and if something is stupid enough to close you quickdraw and wack it.

Mobile fighter is how people want to play melee fighters.

Liberty's Edge

Having a more fluid role at the trade off of being really, really, squishy most of the time.

"Interesting" design is in the eyes of the beholder. Many "Interesting" ideas, aren't all that interesting or appealing to many people.

I enjoy playing pretty much all of the classes. But each of them is a completely different experience.

It is only "limiting" if there aren't other options. If you feel "limited" by a class...don't play it. Others who don't feel "limited" should be able to play the class they want to play without having it cluttered with "Interesting" options.

Creep is not the solution, again assuming there is a problem.

The question is what is the goal post for viability, and do these classes meet that goal post. If they do, there is no real problem. If you don't like the "limits" you have options.

If you like the structure of the "limits" you have options too.

We don't need an arms race, particularly if we can't even define the problem beyond "I want"


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pinky's Brain wrote:


Mobile fighter is how people want to play melee fighters.

Is it? Are you sure? How widespread is that sentiment? Or are you guessing?

Digital Products Assistant

Removed some back and forth posts.


ciretose wrote:
"Interesting" design is in the eyes of the beholder.

Of course. But characters in general are awarded by the game for specializing, since there aren't much diminishing returns, while at the same time allowing wizards to be jack of all trades while still being efficient.

By forcing wizards to specialize to become very powerful, or by allowing fighters to be generalists while still comparable to a wizard generalist, you allow MORE different concepts without preventing other concepts.

Quote:


It is only "limiting" if there aren't other options.

So tell me, what are the mundane means to be as versatile as a wizard? Even if we restrict it to in-combat scenarios, that option doesn't exist.

Quote:

If you feel "limited" by a class...don't play it. Others who don't feel "limited" should be able to play the class they want to play without having it cluttered with "Interesting" options.

Creep is not the solution, again assuming there is a problem.

This feels kind of like a pointless argument that could be used to defend exactly all rules in the game, no matter how bad they would be.

And first you say that we shouldn't limit classes because that limits what people can play, and then you say we shouldn't give classes more different options since that would be creep.

If the RAW had been that wizards could only ever access a single school of magic, and that fighters could swap their feats every day, you could have made the exact same argument and it would be exactly as true. It doesn't really mean anything.

Quote:


The question is what is the goal post for viability, and do these classes meet that goal post. If they do, there is no real problem. If you don't like the "limits" you have options.

The cannot be hard goalposts for viability, since viability is linked to enjoyability and that is subjective. Or are you saying that how well-designed a game is can be measured by simply looking at how large percentage chance characters have against an arbitrarily defined challenge?

Quote:
We don't need an arms race, particularly if we can't even define the problem beyond "I want"

I'm primarily a DM, I have no interest in an arms race. I still think this is a fundamental flaw in game design:

- Casters have loads of options and can switch them basically at will.
- Martials have less options and once chosen they're stuck with them and can only rarely make changes.

- Casters can have great versatility while still being among their top choices for their chosen niche
- Martials can either have decent versatility but being bad at their niche or be among the top choices for their niche but be bad at everything else.

Basically, the issue is that each single martial character is supposed to represent a single martial trope from fantasy.
Meanwhile, each single caster character can easily represent nearly all caster tropes from fantasy.


Viability isn't a problem, even balance isn't problem, even balance between martials and casters isn't generally an issue ... what is a problem is when there is an imbalance within a single party, within a single niche or when enemies are blown away too fast.

As it stands the former can easily happen (archer and walk and single attack fighter within the damage niche) and the second is becoming easier due to power creep (paladin archers were on the edge as it is ... Litany of Righteousness just makes them LOL OP, Inquisitors too if they have a little time to buff).


Gorbacz wrote:
Tome of Battle? We don't that anime wuxia crap round these parts, gentlemen!

+1


Arni Carni wrote:
Actually the rules have it exactly right. The first fighter to move is at a disadvantge. Always. Rule of thumb when going into actual real warfare combat situation is you need 3:1 (attacker to defender) combat advantage, to guarantee victory. 2:1 can go either way, and 1:1 is suicide for the attacker.

First, this rule of thumb applies to breakthrough battles, not all combat. The rule of thumb is that an attacker needs 3-1 ish local superiority of forces to have a reasonable chance of breaking through well-prepared defensive positions in a head on assault, not to simply win any given battle (which need not involve frontal assaults against prepared defenders at all).

Second, it is a rule of thumb for mass combat, not for duels.

Third, it is relevant to rifle age warfare and subsequent, not universal to previous iterations of warfare. It was first commonly accepted (I believe) in analyzing late US Civil War battles and their differences from Napoleonic warfare (in which frontal attacks had met with greater success) which differences in turn arose largely from soldiers with more, more accurate and longer-range firepower.

Battle with swords and bows as primary weapons as in Pathfinder is another thing again and this rule of thumb was not formulated for such weapons either.

Since it is such a stretch to apply it, I would suggest not trying to use this rule of thumb to think about a Pathfinder ambush encounter.

Quote:
If your facing an equal opponent, you both circle warily, waiting for the other guy to strike, because it is more advantageous to strike last (and possibly twice). You taunt, you feint, you do anything to get your opponent to move and commit to the first attack.

Pathfinder is not a one on one game though. If you play a fighter and spend your time in combat circling around the foe waiting for him to step into your reach of his own accord, then the battle between the foe and the rest of your team will frequently proceed without you.

ciretose wrote:
Having a more fluid role at the trade off of being really, really, squishy most of the time.

What is "really, really squishy," in a practical gameplay sense? More vulnerable? More frequently hurt? Easier to take out?

At the risk of inserting myself into the sustained Schrodinger's shouting match, I have rarely seen these to be the case in a practical sense and I suspect that it is one of those facets of the game susceptible to being overemphasized by theorycrafting and build comparisons (in which 200 vs 150 hp may seem to be a decisive advantage) without the tempering of play.

In play I have always found melee fighters to draw more healing resources (both of hit points and statuses) from the group than casters and to be much more frequently disabled or neutralized in combat. I think that this is because if, in this example, a scrawny caster has 150 hp while a beefy greatsword fighter has 200, this is an advantage that is frequently outweighed by non-numerical advantages such as that the caster's class does not push him towards putting those 150 hp in the firing line in order to fill his role in combat.

So it would be hard for me to describe a fighter as less vulnerable than a wizard.

Do the wizard pcs typically take more damage and such than the fighters in your games?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Wizards get a d6 HD, can make Con their 2nd best stat (and usually do) for a 14 or even 16 at creation, and have Int out the wazoo so favored class going to hp is an easy choice. Then there's the flying, mirror image, miss %, and other defensive spells that keep foes from harming them entirely. They are hardly squishy at all.

No noncaster should be even close in "squishiness" to a wizard.

Sczarni

Pinky's Brain wrote:
Arni Carni wrote:
Actually the rules have it exactly right. The first fighter to move is at a disadvantge. Always. Rule of thumb when going into actual real warfare combat situation is you need 3:1 (attacker to defender) combat advantage, to guarantee victory. 2:1 can go either way, and 1:1 is suicide for the attacker.

Realism is not fun, basically every fighter becomes predominantly ranged and if something is stupid enough to close you quickdraw and wack it.

Mobile fighter is how people want to play melee fighters.

I don't think so. Although there are a lot of players who do like to rush into combat, instead of waiting for a properly peppered foe to come to them.

Ask the French how well their maneuver melee troops fared at Agincourt.

Ask Harold how breaking his defensive battle line to charge William the Conqueror's knights lost him the Battle of Hastings.

Ask Hitler and Tojo how well manuever strategies work against a foe that you can't attack directly.

You have 3 basic keys to combat: effective range, mobility or manuever, and attrition or armor.

Effective range - How many shots can you get off before the melee troops hit you?

Mobility - Can you reach the ranged troops before they turn you into a pin-cushion?

Attrition - How many shots (not hits, since your armor will turn some hits into misses) can you take before you die?

If you can move faster or last longer than the ranged fighter can, then you get to melee against him with superior ATK and DAM in your favor. Since he specialized in ranged weapons, he must have sacrificed STR for DEX, and the archers melee weapon is probably not as good as the melee fighters is.

If you have speed on your side (mobile melee fighter), then you must have sacrificed armor. Speed means you can get to the archer and take him down before he gets off enough shots to kill you, but also means that you won't be able to last as long against the not so mobile armored fighter. You may live to run away, but so will he, and you won't complete your mission.

On the other hand, if your armor keeps you from moving fast enough, the archer may get enough hits to seriously weaken you before you close to melee range.

These are not hard and fast rules, and are not true in every case, expecially when you have to factor the terrain in, but in general, that's the way the world works.

Like it or not that's the way the game works too, because ALL of these RPGs started life as wargames, designed to mimic real world battle tactics and their actual historical outcomes.

I'm going to go a little grognard on this, but I was already arguing about these things with my brother before Mr. Gygax wrote his first set of books. The game designer's wouldn't have their jobs, or even any interest in having these kind of jobs, if they hadn't cut their teeth on these same kind of arguments.

Regardless of how maxed out you make your character, I guarantee that someone can find a weakness in it that can be exploited, and build a counter-character that can kill you "perfect warrior".

As far as wizards go, they do best if they specialize in one school, just like fighters tend to do best if they specialize in one weapon, or type of weapon. The universalist wizard (just one of several schools) gets fewer spells per level thah a wizard who specializes in Abjuration or Conjuration.

The toughest Pathfinder wizard I have ever heard of specializes in ONE spell.


Arnwolf wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Tome of Battle? We don't that anime wuxia crap round these parts, gentlemen!
+1

Exactly! Muscles are meaningless, and only wizards get to warp reality! Fighters cannot and shall not have nice things!! /sarcasm


Arni Carni wrote:
Pinky's Brain wrote:
Arni Carni wrote:
Actually the rules have it exactly right. The first fighter to move is at a disadvantge. Always. Rule of thumb when going into actual real warfare combat situation is you need 3:1 (attacker to defender) combat advantage, to guarantee victory. 2:1 can go either way, and 1:1 is suicide for the attacker.

Realism is not fun, basically every fighter becomes predominantly ranged and if something is stupid enough to close you quickdraw and wack it.

Mobile fighter is how people want to play melee fighters.

I don't think so. Although there are a lot of players who do like to rush into combat, instead of waiting for a properly peppered foe to come to them.

Ask the French how well their maneuver melee troops fared at Agincourt.

Ask Harold how breaking his defensive battle line to charge William the Conqueror's knights lost him the Battle of Hastings.

Ask Hitler and Tojo how well manuever strategies work against a foe that you can't attack directly.

You have 3 basic keys to combat: effective range, mobility or manuever, and attrition or armor.

Effective range - How many shots can you get off before the melee troops hit you?

Mobility - Can you reach the ranged troops before they turn you into a pin-cushion?

Attrition - How many shots (not hits, since your armor will turn some hits into misses) can you take before you die?

If you can move faster or last longer than the ranged fighter can, then you get to melee against him with superior ATK and DAM in your favor. Since he specialized in ranged weapons, he must have sacrificed STR for DEX, and the archers melee weapon is probably not as good as the melee fighters is.

If you have speed on your side (mobile melee fighter), then you must have sacrificed armor. Speed means you can get to the archer and take him down before he gets off enough shots to kill you, but also means that you won't be able to last as long against the not so mobile armored fighter. You may live to run away,...

All of your examples are true strategically for ARMIES not small unit tactics. Like a number of people above you're using modern warfare principles on something that essentially doesn't have a real analog on our world(people over 5th level before we even get into magic). Fencing masters, Martial artists, and the Mongols would all disagree in your assessment as well. The Mobile fighter/skirmisher shouldn't be so nerfed as to be useless and a LOT of game designers dont take the entirety of their game base into consideration when they design games. I know I've met some of them. The PLAYERS push the system a hell of a lot further than the developers because they don't have deadlines, they don't have a balanced idea screwed up because someone above them changed the wording without a real understanding of what they were trying to do, and finally(Paizo isn't as guilty of this one as some others) they don't hire freelancers who don't really understand the game.

Liberty's Edge

StreamOfTheSky wrote:

Wizards get a d6 HD, can make Con their 2nd best stat (and usually do) for a 14 or even 16 at creation, and have Int out the wazoo so favored class going to hp is an easy choice. Then there's the flying, mirror image, miss %, and other defensive spells that keep foes from harming them entirely. They are hardly squishy at all.

No noncaster should be even close in "squishiness" to a wizard.

And if they make con the 2nd best stat, they have crap dex and wisdom, so poor saves.

And if you have all your defensive spells up at all times, your GM is probably doing it wrong.

Most people need to cast them.

Perhaps you could post this mystical non-squishy wizard?

Liberty's Edge

Evil Finnish Chaos Beast wrote:
Arnwolf wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Tome of Battle? We don't that anime wuxia crap round these parts, gentlemen!
+1
Exactly! Muscles are meaningless, and only wizards get to warp reality! Fighters cannot and shall not have nice things!! /sarcasm

And only magical things are nice things!!! /Sarcasm


Considering the way magic works, it is the only nice thing you'd really want.

Liberty's Edge

Epic Meepo wrote:

If you crunch the numbers for that build against a range of level-appropriate ACs, starting at 6th level, most such fighters deal roughly 25% less damage per round every time they move more than 5 feet, or 35% less damage if they are hasted. (A mobile fighter who's hasted, and any fighter who's taking the Vital Strike feat chain, each deal only about 10% less damage when they move. To me, 10% less is an acceptable default; 25% less is not.)

I think can live with those numbers for melee, although if you think about it, that is actually saying a party of 4 should be able to kill an equal CR foe in 1 round (25% X 4) and that might be a bit high.

But it is a great starting point

@Coriat - Very fair question about defining "Squishy"

I would say you look to the bestiary for equal level expectations for AC, Hit Points and Saves as a baseline. Some things will be higher and some things will be lower, but overall it is a good expectations.

For casters you also have to look into what is all day active and what is this encounter active. If it takes me three rounds (and three spells) to buff up, the combat could be over before I use it if I don't have a GM who lets me pre-buff all the time.

Looking at that, I've yet to see a caster build that can avoid being squishy without sacrificing a lot of casting capability.

If it exists, I'd like to see it so the Devs can address it.

EDIT: Realized I didn't address the 2nd part. In my games, at least at lower levels, the fighters try to take the attacks because they have higher AC and more hit points. Does that mean they use more healing? Yes. But only because if the caster took the same shot they would lose more hit points (lower AC) and possibly need a Resurrection.

At higher levels, it changes a lot, and varies from party to party. Some fighters focus on getting items that aid mobility, some groups focus on shielding the caster. It really depends on the group dynamic, and I find that really develops over the course of a campaign as everyone finds a role.

My experience has been getting the fighter into position aids everyone in the battle, as it effects enemy positioning, targeting, mobility, etc...

But keeping the BBEG off the caster is generally the go to move with most builds I've seen.


Ilja wrote:

Basically, the issue is that each single martial character is supposed to represent a single martial trope from fantasy.

Meanwhile, each single caster character can easily represent nearly all caster tropes from fantasy.

What?

Dumbledore vs. Merlin vs. Gandalf is silly compared to Conan vs. Lancelot vs. Robin Hood.

Dumbledore and Gandalf are the same archetype. It's like complaining Lancelot and Galahad can both be easily emulated by a fighter.

Merlin is a whole other bag of cats, because he's either a druid, a bard, a cleric, a warlock or a wizard, depending on the version you pick. And I've not seen a wizard who can do all those classes in one combat.

Can a wizard be Baba Yaga, Zataana, Gandalf and Thusla Doom in one combat? Or even in one week? Maybe at level 20, but a fighter can be Lancelot, Robin Hood, Conan and Jack Sparrow all at once at level 20 as well.

Level 10, not so much.


ciretose wrote:
StreamOfTheSky wrote:
No noncaster should be even close in "squishiness" to a wizard.

And if they make con the 2nd best stat, they have crap dex and wisdom, so poor saves.

And if you have all your defensive spells up at all times, your GM is probably doing it wrong.

Most people need to cast them.

Perhaps you could post this mystical non-squishy wizard?

20 point buy: Str 8, 14 dex, 15 con, 17 int, 11 wis, 7 cha. His wisdom is not tanked, and will is his strong save. Probably could've done a better job, but whatever. You then have mage armor up all the time, and if you want you can wear armor (Mithral light shield, silken gown) and even put armor qualities on them such as deathless for extra defense. I guess it depends on what you consider bad saves, its by no means tanked.

There are hour/level spells. Extend magic, blahblahblah. I mostly know them from 3.5, haven't played a wizard at a high enough level in pathfinder to know pathfinder's high level wizard spell selection. Regardless, with cast time they're not very squishy, if only because mirror image is great for ruining crits. BBEG's usually have cast time in my experience. In 3.5 I loved the "heart of" line of spells that gave you crit and sneak attack immunity.

If your in a dungeon and extended spell could possibly last the whole thing depending on your GM and the dungeon.

Liberty's Edge

@MrSin - Now we have a discussion. Thank you.

At first level Mage Armor lasts for an hour a day. With a 17 Int you have one bonus spell a day, for a total of 2 first level spells.

One of which is Mage Armor apparently.

So for an hour a day he has an AC of 16, with 8 hit points, Saves are all +2, you have one 1st level spell available other than mage armor, and cantrips.

The CR 1 in the bestiary has 15 hitpoints (almost double) a 12 AC (what you have 23 hours a day) bad save of 1 (you are better) good save of 4 (you are much worse)

Even worse, the average damage is only 1 hitpoint less than you have.

I would call that squishy AND ineffective.

Now if you make that Int a 20, you have 3 first level spells that could be more useful than Mage Armor. Color Spray is down right encounter ending when it works at that level.

But you will need help keeping baddies off you, because you will be even squishier.

At what level does he become awesome and not squishy, and what is included in what he has at that level?


3 with your school, and its intellect likely to go up to 19 with racial, and 20 at 4. Wizards at low levels don't have many spells, but grease and color spray are both lots of fun. Its at the higher levels when wizards have so many they can afford blowing them on whatever. When that is, is an opinion and varies with campaign. Your trying to give static numbers to a variable.

I'm not interested in arguing builds. It takes forever. You speak like wizards never have spells or prep. In one action, swift or standard, a wizard could just cast mirror image. At higher levels where monsters hit on all but a one, mirror image is very nice. The added mobility by abilities like teleportation school's shift, allow you to avoid being full attacked. Mirror image is more effective AC than anyone who isn't dedicated to AC. From the start its possibly to get a 80% chance to be missed(though it does go down over time).

So we can talk about something other than wizards? The conversation wasn't about wizards until Ciretose claimed grappling wizards is easy because they don't have a painful AoO, which I guess makes feat chains okay and maneuvers okay in all situations or something.

551 to 600 of 806 << first < prev | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / 3e and Pathfinder, faulty assumptions by developers. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.