Magic: The Actual Problems


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 714 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

9 people marked this as a favorite.

This is a spin off from the why don't fighters and rogues get epic thread. Some of what I say my not be to popular as such as people can get reactionary around things especially with the lingering effects of the 3.5/4E edition war still lingering.

I am no expert as such but I have played D&D for 20 odd years most of which I have DMed. Most of the classes etc are still new to me as I barely got to play D&D as a player. Note by D&D I mean Pathfinder as well although recently I have been playing in the Reign of Winter AP as I found another group.

In regards to the 3.x rule set I have spent 14 of those 20 years playing 3.x and by that I mean 3.0, 3.5 and Pathfinder. I got the 3.0 books in 2000, 3.5 when it came out in 2003 and the PFRPG PDF in 2009 and dead tree format books in 2011. I have not run PF since 2012 as I was using APs and they tended to crash and burn at level 10 or so or around the 4th book of the AP.

Since 2012 I have gone backward to AD&D and retroclones such as ACKs and Castles and Crusades while buying the occasional PDF off Paizo (Ultimate Campaigns) or dead tree book (Bestiary) to fill in gaps. Also bought additional copies of the core books for one of my players so Paizo has still been seeing some of my money.

After playing AD&D again though I have come to the following conclusions about why magic is so broken in 3rd ed.

1. 3.0 had all the classes advance at the same rate. In AD&D/BECMI martial types were often 1-4 levels ahead of the wizard. In effect spell casters had a level adjustment (LA. The xp tables were wonky at some levels for the wizard however.

2. The way saving throws worked made things like save or dies/suck unreliable at higher levels. There was a 1-3 point difference between good and bad saves for the most part, not 6+ levels of gaps.

3. The way magic resistance worked was changed. High level AD&D fighters were useful to have around if you came across things like mind flayers that were a flat 90% resistant to magic.

4. Changes to the way where magic items were acquired. It is cheap and easy to get them in 3.x games compared to AD&D and spell casters can make them at half price.

5. Changes to the way multiple attacks worked. A fighter with 4 or 5 attacks a round suffered no penalty on his attacks. None of this +11/+6/+1 malarky.

6. Changes to the way skills worked in comparison to NWP. The difference between classes now is 2 vs 8 skill points per level. In AD&D it was 3 NWP vs 4 NWP.

7. Making it harder to interrupt spell casters. In AD&D your spell failed if you took a single point of damage with no concentration roll allowed.

8. Clerics and Druids and Druids again were massively buffed over AD&D.They actually levelled up faster than fighters in AD&D but were kind of weak in 2nd ed.

9. Scaling buff spells were introduced which obsolete things like weapon focus feats.

10. Cheap wands that can have spells duplicating class abilities (knock, CLW, fly etc). Partly related to number 4.

There are probably other reasons and spell casters will usually be more powerful at higher levels it just depends on how big you like that gap. In 1st ed spellcasters did not have so many options but they added UA spells to the 2nd ed PHB and added more spells from 2nd ed to 3.0.

Now in terms of balance AD&D was not perfect either but it did not have the gaping problems 3rd ed had and most of the problems it did have was in terms of ass backwards mechanics and silly restrictions like level limits. In 2000 I was quite excited to see ascending ACs and unified d20 mechanics. We more or less played early 3.0 like 2nd ed. There was no major disconnect for us between 2nd ed and 3.0, unlike say 3.5 and 4E.

A lot of the spells for example were all but the same, and the ones that were changed it took time to figure out how powerful they were and splat books did not help with 3.0 actually being a lot more broken thn 3.5 and Pathfinder. We are talking about spell DCs in the 40's, infinite ability score loops, and being able to stack divine favor, divine power, and greater magic weapon on bows and arrows. Those spells scaled faster than they did in 3.5. A few of those spells did not exist in AD&D and the ones that did often gave a static bonus of +1 or +2. Pun Pun was weaker than a 3.0 Spelldancer prestige class.

At a rough guess 4E was not to popular around here, I do not like it myself but they did actually try and fix this type of stuff by rewriting the game. To me this caused a disconnect in the game. For example if you put a 1st ed PHB, 2nd ed PHB, 3.0, 3.5 and PFRPG books side by side you can see the evolution of D&D even with 2nd ed and 3.0 being different. The difference in warrior THAC0 and BAB is a single point, the spells are the same, the Paladins abilities are not that different from a 1st eds Paladins. 4E evolved from late 3.5 splat books however and in my case I did not even own those splat books even though I had 80+ 3rd ed books. So basically 4E came out of left field for me.

5E has taken a different approach. The formatting makes it look like 3rd ed but they have rewrote all the spells and classes. It has a bit to much 4E in it for my taste and there is a bit of a disconnect as I did more or less sat 4E out and I kind of like my classic fireballs (1d6/level) as boom spells are not usually the ones that break D&D/PF.

As much as it is easy to blame 3.0 it is not entirely 3rd eds fault either. Even if you changed the math behind 3.x games you still have spells like simulacrum and 3.5/PF haste is very good. 2nd ed can share some of the blame here as it added UA spells to the PHB increasing spell caster options and making the illusionist a subclass of wizard actually gave a normal wizard access to illusionist spells such as simulacrum and improved/greater invisibility. The trade off in picking an illusionist in 1st ed was you could not cast a lot of normal wizard spells and AD&D spells often had draw backs as any spell that could age you could also kill you via system shock. These draw backs were eliminated in the 2nd to 3rd ed change over.

TLDR: They buffed spell casters and nerfed fighters in the 2nd to 3rd ed change over.

One could buff the other classes and Pathfinder did do this and nerfed the spell casters a little as well but this creates various problems as well IMHO. Adventure paths do not work so well with the sheer amount of damage archers and two handed weapon users can put out. If anyone here actually has a copy/PDF of the 1st ed PHB or Rules Cyclopedia for BECMI go and compare the list of spells to the PFRPG core book. you are looking at around 13 spells available as options vs all of the ones in PF which increases complexity and the the odds of the right spell for whatever situation you need. In 1st ed you did not even get the choice as to what spells you would start your career with and you did not get to chose them as you levelled up either.

This may seem overly harsh and restrictive in modern terms but it kept the spell casters in check relative to 3.x game. Of course some of this is inherently subjective and players like their options and power but there is a price that comes with that in 3.x based games. If you are a DM and do not like running PF at higher level (post level 10) or are a player who can't find DMs who run high level games there may be a reason for that. Some of you may not actually even have a problem or even enjoy the power levels of higher level games and that is fine as well. Preference are purely subjective.

Can one fix this? IDK I have been trying since 2008 via house rules and have even wrote a 100 page proto 2.75 D&D which is a hybrid of AD&D and 3rd ed. I would like a D&D that reflects the taste of AD&D and 3rd ed but without some of the problems those games have. Not to much interested in a rewrite of the game a'la 4E and 5E to a lesser extent. Still playing 3.x after 14 years though so the game must have done something right. It is not my preferred D&D fix any more though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There were so many people trying to fix 3.5/d20 systems that it has an entire subgenre of it's own, called fantasy heartbreakers.

Just thought I'd mention that.

Kirthfinder is a pretty good collection of houserules, and can be found on these forums. Trailblazer also has some nice rules to poach. If we go farther removed, FantasyCraft, Legend (by Rule of Cool), 13th Age are all pretty good DnD clones. You could also go into retroclones (castles and crusades is one off the top of my head) for ideas. I think making an entirely original one is kind of a waste.

The thing 3rd did best is that it remained familiar enough to keep being popular as a next step (for grogs), and had brand recognition and the free SRD (for newbs). It's really a mechanically disasterous system (however, with a simple core mechanic) that had many, many mechanically better alternatives over the years, and possibly even when it came out that had been lost to time.

PF followed suit when 3.5 was discontinued in riding out the popularity wave, but in exchange simply could not change much (but still changed enough so that people ignore the entire catalog of 3.5 content, which is both ironic and sad, as the later books were noticably better designed).

EDIT: I also have no idea how anyone can consider 5e "having too much of 4e". Like, I respect your opinion and you are entitled to it but it really made me go "what?".


5E has reskinned encounter and at will powers, all the classes have a unified attack number, dex to hit and damge and very rapid healing for example.

Already playing C&C:).


Rather than cheap wands of class/skill obsoleting spells being the issue, I am inclined to think that spells that can obsolete a class or skill completely are the problem with that particular subset of your list.

Knock wouldn't be so bad if it allowed the caster to make a Disable Device check without a need for tools (or training), and granting a bonus equal to caster level (possibly + mod).


To me all of those had been in 3rd in some version. Dex to hit and damage was in as feat tax, so was rapid healing rapid healing in the form of CLW wands, at will is just standard actions (in PF cantrips as well), barbarian rage, bardic performance were /encounter.

Although, same attack numbers is a good point, but that, and all of the above can be considered just streamlining and removing baggage from 3.5 (which coincidentally 4e also did).

Like, there's no reason to go with a 3.5 like system and not make dex to attack/damage the basic assumption unless you also go back on every STR bonus point added to damage.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zardnaar wrote:
5E has reskinned encounter and at will powers, all the classes have a unified attack number, dex to hit and damge and very rapid healing for example.

That sounds . . . very bland for someone who appreciates mechanics rather than seeing them as a distraction or an obstacle to overcome.


Considering that feats didn't even exist before 3.0 they made a HUGE change to the game!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Blindmage wrote:
Considering that feats didn't even exist before 3.0 they made a HUGE change to the game!

Weapon proficiencies did exist and several 3.0 feats were direct translations of 2nd eds WPs. The ambidexterity tree for example was ported directly from 2nd ed. The difference was though fighters got 4 WP in 2nd ed and 1 feat in 3.0. Fighters as an optional rule got extra WP for high intelligence as well so you could have around 11 WPs at level one and you could do some feat like things with them such as weapon styles, bonus to hit, extra attacks, damage. Hell you could even qualify for kits which were the prestige class prototypes.

They were not called feats of course but you could have builds of for example.


16 people marked this as a favorite.

Actually the problem is that people can't accept nonmagical people doing extraordinary things. They limit bar is set much lower in people's minds.

See how much people "love" Tome of Battle. -_-

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zardnaar wrote:


1. 3.0 had all the classes advance at the same rate. In AD&D/BECMI martial types were often 1-4 levels ahead of the wizard. In effect spell casters had a level adjustment (LA. The xp tables were wonky at some levels for the wizard however.

I definitely wouldn't want people progressing at different rates; it sounds like a needless complication to me. Makes it harder to compare characters, harder to multiclass etc.

It would be much better if the amount of power classes have at each level was more in line with each other, so that you don't need to fiddle around with different levels.

So for example: instead of having wizards lagging two levels behind a fighter, have some of the offending power of the wizard class start two levels later.

Zardnaar wrote:


2. The way saving throws worked made things like save or dies/suck unreliable at higher levels. There was a 1-3 point difference between good and bad saves for the most part, not 6+ levels of gaps.

Save or Die mechanics are the problem; they're just fine for nameless mooks intended to be slaughtered with ease (just like one hit from the fighter will kill them). But they're not at all okay against BBEGs that haven't yet finished their monologue explaining why they did it all.

One idea I've heard about in another game (forgot which one) is that all attack powers of all combatants grow stronger the longer combat lasts; so that a spell that's SoD in round 5 isn't SoD in round 1. Likewise, warriors start hitting harder as combat goes on.

So since those faceless mooks were pretty weak anyway, they'll still get one-shot in round one. But you might wanna wait a bit with your Slumber hex because it likely won't work on the BBEG before round 4.

Another benefit would be that fights have an upper limit on how long they take, because people start doing more and more damage.

Zardnaar wrote:


3. The way magic resistance worked was changed. High level AD&D fighters were useful to have around if you came across things like mind flayers that were a flat 90% resistant to magic.

SR is a bit annoying but you can certainly work around it as a spellcaster nowadays.

Zardnaar wrote:


4. Changes to the way where magic items were acquired. It is cheap and easy to get them in 3.x games compared to AD&D and spell casters can make them at half price.

I don't know how this works in your group; in my neighbourhood spellcasters share the benefits of cheaper access to items with the rest of the party. Basically the wizard pays a feat that everyone benefits from.

Zardnaar wrote:


5. Changes to the way multiple attacks worked. A fighter with 4 or 5 attacks a round suffered no penalty on his attacks. None of this +11/+6/+1 malarky.

On the one hand, I do think it's good to have a "reward" for devoting ALL your energy to fighting, rather than doing anything else as well (like movement).

On the other hand, I do think full attacks are way too important now for martials to keep up with everyone else. It's not even a spellcaster/martial thing; it's melee vs. archers as well.

It might be nice to allow the whole iterative attack sequence as a Standard, while spending a Full attack just gives a slight bonus (+1 or +2) to hit on all those attacks. It's still nice to stand still, but not nearly as necessary. It'll make monsters with many natural attacks really scary though.

Zardnaar wrote:


6. Changes to the way skills worked in comparison to NWP. The difference between classes now is 2 vs 8 skill points per level. In AD&D it was 3 NWP vs 4 NWP.

I think the skill system works pretty well actually, as long as people aren't using spells to get around it. I do think any class that's not an Int-caster should get 4+ skill points at minimum; Fighters and Sorcerers for example feel pretty handicapped. You can work around it a bit with Human, Favored Class and Int 12 though.

People are often whining about how skills aren't important; I disagree. I've found that skills matter a great deal, giving you lots of options. Just a few points in Climb means you have much more mobility options for example. Doesn't take a maxed out skill if you have a grappling hook and knotted rope. PF's class skill system rewards spreading your skill points broadly, becoming baseline competent in many things.

Zardnaar wrote:


7. Making it harder to interrupt spell casters. In AD&D your spell failed if you took a single point of damage with no concentration roll allowed.

I think this has a lot to do with just really wanting it. If you're an archer, do you full attack or do you ready an attack to interrupt the caster? Because a decent archer's damage makes it very hard to complete a spell. But he's not full attacking; he has to choose what's more important.

Zardnaar wrote:


8. Clerics and Druids and Druids again were massively buffed over AD&D.They actually levelled up faster than fighters in AD&D but were kind of weak in 2nd ed.

Druids became a lot saner in PF than they were in 3.5, but compared to 2.x that's still a lot more powerful, true. I think on the whole both druids and clerics are strong but in balance with most classes; just not with fighters and rogues.

That's the real issue: rogues and fighters aren't a good basis for comparison, because they're also weaker than rangers, paladins, barbarians, alchemists, (ninjas; the rogue at least), inquisitors and cavaliers.

Zardnaar wrote:


9. Scaling buff spells were introduced which obsolete things like weapon focus feats.

Well, they stack with one another. I do think there are somewhat fewer self-only buff spells, which I think is good. As a cleric you can buff yourself or really push the fighter over the top. That's a choice between having two attackers or one really tough one; the best answer will be different depending on what you're fighting. If the enemy has really high AC, it might be better to buff the fighter. If there's many weaker enemies, probably better to go into combat yourself.

Zardnaar wrote:


10. Cheap wands that can have spells duplicating class abilities (knock, CLW, fly etc). Partly related to number 4.

Wand of CLW isn't really stealing the niche of anyone other than the healbot cleric, and I'm betting they make up 90% of total wand sales.

---

As you mentioned, there are a few stratagems to bring the power of classes more in line.

I'm not a big fan of nerfing things in general; as a player it's nicer if the fighter gets more toys than if the wizard's toys get smashed. If the end result is the same balance, then please buff the fighter.

However, there are some things that may need nerfing. I think one problem is that D&D never really codified a set of principles of what magic can and can't do. Ars Magica did this for example, with the greater and lesser limits of magic. And some of your principles can be dedicated to niche preservation.

For example, you can insist that spells that boost skills are never self-only. If the wizard can boost his spells to rogue levels, then he can boost the rogue even higher.

Likewise, you can insist that spells that somewhat mimic iconic class abilities can't be available before that class ability becomes available.

My biggest personal dislike is scry-'n-fry. Actually it's long-distance magic in general; easy teleportation and telecommunication pushes a game world more towards a modern global society, and I don't want that. I like it when adventures stay somewhat local. Stuff that happens in faraway countries has little local impact, and if you send for help, it'll take a while for the message to get through. To that end I've decided to place a distance limit of 12 miles on most spells.

---

Boosting the martials: I think if you turn the major feat chains into scaling feats (basically, you get Improved and Greater feats as soon as you meet the prerequisites), scrap some needless prerequisites (Combat Expertise) and make Weapon Expertise and Power Attack something everyone can do (with appropriate weapons), martials become a lot less linear.

A rogue who doesn't need Weapon Focus anymore has a viable to-hit at level 1; and if he doesn't need Combat Expertise to pick up Gang Up, he can have a fairly impressive offensive at level 1.


Another part of the problem IMO is the idea that fighters of any level have to be the best at DPR. So instead of having lots and lots of viable options, the focus is on ways to increase the Full Attack damage. Fighters would be better based on a Captain America model. He can't hope to match the straight DPR of many of the people he hangs out with, but there are so many other things he can do that he still contributes significantly in just about any situation.

I thought it was a bad idea to have all classes use the same xp progression when it was first introduced, and I still do. Not only is it less balanced, but having the characters level up at different times made for a more dynamic party. To do it now, however, I'd make every level of a given class require the same xp - ranging from about 6 for a Rogue to about 12 for a Druid. Awarding xp for monsters killed would be replaced with story awards of 1-3 xp per adventure. PCs can "buy" a level in any class they want once they've earned enough xp for it.


Zardnaar wrote:

5E has reskinned encounter and at will powers, all the classes have a unified attack number, dex to hit and damge and very rapid healing for example.

Already playing C&C:).

Um, what? I must have gotten a different PDF and Beginner's Box than you did. I've gone through both and haven't found any traces of 4e. Maybe you can explain what I'm missing?

Contributor

10 people marked this as a favorite.

With respect to the other thread about "why can't fighters be epic?," I mentioned an earlier post on my blog about design bias involving Ex abilities vs. Su abilities.

Regarding your point #10 about 3e wands being a major game-changer, I wrote a blog earlier this week about that very topic.


Nice blog post.

I agree that making wands into implements is probably for the best. Handling them sorta like weapons that add their enhancement bonuses to spells (amongst other things) seems the easiest way to achieve that.

But not having easy healing between battles is kinda bad, and needing a dedicated healer is downright terrible.

Maybe if there was some kind of HP reservoir, a sort of second wind characters could use between battles to recover. As long as it was a limited resource it'd also mean they can't actually recover to full from everything in a few minutes, so there'd be at least some resource management aspect.


To fix wands, I would actually rather see them all made like the eternal wands introduced late in 3.5. They still hold a spell, but only have so many charges per day, with the ones with a lot of charges being rare and expensive. This still allows for them to provide some out of combat support, making it so the cleric doesn't have to save every spell for healing, but it doesn't completely replace the use of spell slots for healing at the same time, and requires a bit of resource management to use effectively.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:

Actually the problem is that people can't accept nonmagical people doing extraordinary things. They limit bar is set much lower in people's minds.

See how much people "love" Tome of Battle. -_-

This. I find it interesting that the Alexandrian mentioned in this article that the peak of realistic human perfection is level 5. In other words, the greatest of people in our real world equate to the skill and power level of a 5th level character. You see this effect in martials. For nearly all martial classes, 5th level is usually when the class gets their last interesting class feature.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Garrick Williams wrote:
In other words, the greatest of people in our real world equate to the skill and power level of a 5th level character. You see this effect in martials. For nearly all martial classes, 5th level is usually when the class gets their last interesting class feature.

Or, they may gain new abilities after level 5, but the power level of those abilities is rarely any greater than what they had access to before.

I find myself looking at the level pre-requisites (explicitly stated, or implied via context), and wondering why that ability is restricted till that late?

"That is, literally, identical to gaining a cantrip. The rest of the party have been doing that since level 1. Why would I pick this?"

"Ooh, look, a once per day ability, to perform an effect similar to a level 1 spell. You know, I could actually multiclass, and get that spell multiple times per day, and access to the umpteen other spells on that class list, and unlock the ability to use any spelltrigger/completion items from that spell list. Why would I pick this?"

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16, 2012 Top 32

Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Regarding your point #10 about 3e wands being a major game-changer, I wrote a blog earlier this week about that very topic.

I believe 4e implemented your proposed fix for wands.

Scarab Sages

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

With respect to the other thread about "why can't fighters be epic?," I mentioned an earlier post on my blog about design bias involving Ex abilities vs. Su abilities.

Regarding your point #10 about 3e wands being a major game-changer, I wrote a blog earlier this week about that very topic.

Two interesting blogs, there, both of which deserve a longer reply than I have time for now, so I'll limit myself to the following:

Yes, the type of spells the PCs have access to via wands makes a huge difference. When castings are limited, the PCs may still have the ability, but are forced to use it wisely.
It's the ability to to spam a spell, as a no-brainer tactic, which affects the game in a negative way.
And this problem can also be seen in the consequences of relaxing cantrips to unlimited uses/day.

Unlimited ray of frost? Whoop-de-doo.
Unlimited detect magic? Hmmm.
I have no idea how illusionists (or creatures with illusory or deceptive SLAs) are supposed to function, in PF, without GM fiat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
sunshadow21 wrote:
To fix wands, I would actually rather see them all made like the eternal wands introduced late in 3.5. They still hold a spell, but only have so many charges per day, with the ones with a lot of charges being rare and expensive. This still allows for them to provide some out of combat support, making it so the cleric doesn't have to save every spell for healing, but it doesn't completely replace the use of spell slots for healing at the same time, and requires a bit of resource management to use effectively.

Forcing a player to waste slots on hp healing isn't fun.


Zardnaar wrote:

Snipped

TLDR: They buffed spell casters and nerfed fighters in the 2nd to 3rd ed change over.

Snipped again

Whilst I agree with many of your individual points, I don't agree with your summary.

A lot of the perceived or experienced differences are very subjective, and this one in particular is greatly affected by which levels you regularly play/played in.

In my experience, Wizards in 1st & 2nd ed were overwhelmingly powerful above about 14th level; fighters didn't really get any better over about 11th level.

The change to 3rd & 3.5 greatly enhanced clerics and druids, and made melee martials much stronger when they could get full attacks off. Wizards were actually weaker at high level. Partly because their direct damage spells were capped, whereas hit points of martial types and monsters increased a lot. A 1st ed wizard, say at 15th level, could cast fireball doing 15d6 damage; a 15th level fighter would often only have about 130 hit points in total. Power Word: Stun could take out almost any enemy (some only after they had received eg a magic missile to the face) without any save. Compare that to 3rd ed and then try to tell me that 'spellcasters were buffed and fighters nerfed'.

What the change to 3rd ed did, in my opinion, was change the balance point so martials were relatively effective for a couple of levels longer than before.

PF has further enhanced martial types who do damage. What is the best way for a wizard to win a fight? Cast haste on his fighting friends(or do something similar to improve the fighting ability of the party, eg summon some meat shields, etc).

Yes, wizards and other full casters are still more 'powerful' in terms of theorycrafting (when they have the ideal set of spells memorised/known for the encounter) and for out of combat problem-solving and breaking things for many GMs, but in terms of who is actually acting to kill the enemies, it's the martials who do all the work.

Everyone having more hit points and every martial type being able to do lots and lots of damage is an arms race that leaves the spellcasters behind. Some of that has been a good thing, but it isn't how I'd have done it.

This is getting too long and boring, so I'll stop here. If anyone cares, I'm happy to add more about how I'd like to see re-balancing done.


Gilarius wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:

Snipped

TLDR: They buffed spell casters and nerfed fighters in the 2nd to 3rd ed change over.

Snipped again

Whilst I agree with many of your individual points, I don't agree with your summary.

A lot of the perceived or experienced differences are very subjective, and this one in particular is greatly affected by which levels you regularly play/played in.

In my experience, Wizards in 1st & 2nd ed were overwhelmingly powerful above about 14th level; fighters didn't really get any better over about 11th level.

The change to 3rd & 3.5 greatly enhanced clerics and druids, and made melee martials much stronger when they could get full attacks off. Wizards were actually weaker at high level. Partly because their direct damage spells were capped, whereas hit points of martial types and monsters increased a lot. A 1st ed wizard, say at 15th level, could cast fireball doing 15d6 damage; a 15th level fighter would often only have about 130 hit points in total. Power Word: Stun could take out almost any enemy (some only after they had received eg a magic missile to the face) without any save. Compare that to 3rd ed and then try to tell me that 'spellcasters were buffed and fighters nerfed'.

What the change to 3rd ed did, in my opinion, was change the balance point so martials were relatively effective for a couple of levels longer than before.

PF has further enhanced martial types who do damage. What is the best way for a wizard to win a fight? Cast haste on his fighting friends(or do something similar to improve the fighting ability of the party, eg summon some meat shields, etc).

Yes, wizards and other full casters are still more 'powerful' in terms of theorycrafting (when they have the ideal set of spells memorised/known for the encounter) and for out of combat problem-solving and breaking things for many GMs, but in terms of who is actually acting to kill the enemies, it's the martials who do all the work.

Everyone having more hit points and every martial type...

OTOH, casters don't bother with direct damage anymore so that comparison is pretty moot. The other reason blasting was the standard in AD&D, in addition to less hps overall is that most blast spells did half damage if the target saved and the target was far more likely to save at high levels. Unlike in 3.x, saves actually got better. A 14th level fighter was far more likely to save against a 7th level spell cast by a 14th level magic user than a 1st level fighter was to save against a 1st level spell cast by a 1st level magic user. That's not true in 3rd, if anything it's the other way around. That makes all the SoS & SoD spells far more useful in 3.x. In AD&D they were often a waster of time.


thejeff wrote:
OTOH, casters don't bother with direct damage anymore so that comparison is pretty moot. The other reason blasting was the standard in AD&D, in addition to less hps overall is that most blast spells did half damage if the target saved and the target was far more likely to save at high levels. Unlike in 3.x, saves actually got better. A 14th level fighter was far more likely to save against a 7th level spell cast by a 14th level magic user than a 1st level fighter was to save against a 1st level spell cast by a 1st level magic user. That's not true in 3rd, if anything it's the other way around. That makes all the SoS & SoD spells far more useful in 3.x. In AD&D they were often a waster of time.

Direct damage is now only really worthwhile if you can add eg dazing to the spell. Which underlines my point, really. And, while saving throws improved in 1st ed, a fighter's save vs spells was very poor and only reached 50% at about level 11 (from memory - it's been 20+ years, so I might be mistaken here), so SoS/SoD spells were still very effective - about the same as now, probably. A low level fighter, as you say, was unlikely to save against anything.

They didn't work as well against clerics, paladins, or other wizards - but (most of) those types lacked the hit points to survive against direct damage.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Sean K Reynolds wrote:

With respect to the other thread about "why can't fighters be epic?," I mentioned an earlier post on my blog about design bias involving Ex abilities vs. Su abilities.

Regarding your point #10 about 3e wands being a major game-changer, I wrote a blog earlier this week about that very topic.

I think your analysis about the Ex/Su divide is interesting, but I don't fully agree with it. I do think it's good to preserve the flavor of categorizing some abilities as magical, and some as nonmagical. In fact, I think there's more design space there: for example traps that activate if magic is used nearby, or encounters where enemies use Detect Magic to spot the PCs. The theme of "magic is outlawed in this country; you need to tread carefully here" is something many GMs want to use now and then.

I think the bias problem lies in people somehow equating Exceptional abilities with Mundane abilities - because Ex isn't magical, and Mundane is the opposite of magical.

Exceptional = Mundane. This is obviously silly but it needs to be pointed out all the same.

I think we need much more benchmarks for exceptional nonmagical power. We should probably be using movies for this. Take some movies where people do stuff that we consider not-mundane, like the jumping around in Crouching Tiger, and decisively state that that is NOT due to magic, but due to skill levels beyond normal humanity (somewhere anywhere past level 5). That jumping around like that is an exceptional ability; it's clearly not mundane, but you've also told us that it isn't magical.


Ascalaphus wrote:
Sean K Reynolds wrote:

With respect to the other thread about "why can't fighters be epic?," I mentioned an earlier post on my blog about design bias involving Ex abilities vs. Su abilities.

Regarding your point #10 about 3e wands being a major game-changer, I wrote a blog earlier this week about that very topic.

I think your analysis about the Ex/Su divide is interesting, but I don't fully agree with it. I do think it's good to preserve the flavor of categorizing some abilities as magical, and some as nonmagical. In fact, I think there's more design space there: for example traps that activate if magic is used nearby, or encounters where enemies use Detect Magic to spot the PCs. The theme of "magic is outlawed in this country; you need to tread carefully here" is something many GMs want to use now and then.

I think the bias problem lies in people somehow equating Exceptional abilities with Mundane abilities - because Ex isn't magical, and Mundane is the opposite of magical.

Exceptional = Mundane. This is obviously silly but it needs to be pointed out all the same.

I think we need much more benchmarks for exceptional nonmagical power. We should probably be using movies for this. Take some movies where people do stuff that we consider not-mundane, like the jumping around in Crouching Tiger, and decisively state that that is NOT due to magic, but due to skill levels beyond normal humanity (somewhere anywhere past level 5). That jumping around like that is an exceptional ability; it's clearly not mundane, but you've also told us that it isn't magical.

Isn't the hero in Crouching Tiger using chi to do those jumps? That pretty much is a type of magic.

But there are some pretty epic characters in some genres that are completely non-magical. Batman, Green Arrow, and Hawkeye all lack any kind of superhuman power (including magic), and Captain America is explicitly said to be at the maximum limit of natural human potential. None of those characters should have any trouble feeling useful standing next to a high level wizard.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Uh... all of those characters are chumps compared to even say a 13th level caster. Batman is like level 6 (with.... a lot of WBL), Green Arrow and Hawkeye are the same, and Captain America may beat them out as a level 8ish character with a sweet template. But a 20th level caster would laugh in Thanos' face. And then murder him. As a Swift action. And that's the problem. Those heroes aren't high level, but people consider them many levels higher then they are, which drags down martial types as a whole. Now Cu Cuchulain... thats a decently high level martial. And he'd wipe the floor with all those superheros. (Though lets be honest, in a fight between say Captain America and Ruby from RWBY, the safe money is on Ruby, not Cap. And she's like mid level martial, or rather what they should be.)


Yeah, one of the eternal problems plaguing mundane characters is arbitrary restrictions of "realism" slapped into a fantasy universe. One of my big pet peeves in the "realism" debate is whenever someone says "I personally can't do that, so a level X mundane hero shouldn't be able to either."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Anzyr wrote:
Now Cu Cuchulain... thats a decently high level martial. And he'd wipe the floor with all those superheros.

But do note - he still doesn't fly. Or Teleport. Or climb like a spider. Or cast Wish Spells. Or creates Demiplanes. What does he do? Kill dudes. REALLY well. Now yes- he made some mighty leaps and stuff.

I am perfectly OK with martials doing stuff like they can in Mythic (and without being mythic). For example, I think the Aerial Assault (Su) should be something anyone with 10 ranks in Acrobatics can get with a feat. Sounds like something Cú Chulainn could do, but no doubt he was Mythic. There's quite a few more Mythic abilities that I think high level non-mythic martials should be able to get/do.

But great Heroes in myth and legend didn't Fly. Not even Demi-gods like Heracles. Not Roland, not Lancelot, not Odysseus, not Jason, not Beowulf, not Samson. And those guys are Mythic.

Two or the Argonauts could, being demi-gods (or could just run really, really fast, legends differ). Perseus had Pegasus. But that's about it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Anzyr wrote:
Uh... all of those characters are chumps compared to even say a 13th level caster. Batman is like level 6 (with.... a lot of WBL), Green Arrow and Hawkeye are the same, and Captain America may beat them out as a level 8ish character with a sweet template. But a 20th level caster would laugh in Thanos' face. And then murder him. As a Swift action. And that's the problem. Those heroes aren't high level, but people consider them many levels higher then they are, which drags down martial types as a whole. Now Cu Cuchulain... thats a decently high level martial. And he'd wipe the floor with all those superheros. (Though lets be honest, in a fight between say Captain America and Ruby from RWBY, the safe money is on Ruby, not Cap. And she's like mid level martial, or rather what they should be.)

But Batman, whom you say is level 6, is in the same club as a guy with racial bonuses high enough to push planets around and shrug off nuclear explosions. And the kid who can buff up to that same level by speaking a single word. And the woman who beats the god of war in melee combat. And the guy with the magic Ring-of-Whatever-I-Want. Yet whenever I've seen these characters together in a game, Batman contributes at least as much to the adventure as any of the others, and frequently more.

It's not just raw power that makes a character fun to play.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
JoeJ wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
Uh... all of those characters are chumps compared to even say a 13th level caster. Batman is like level 6 (with.... a lot of WBL), Green Arrow and Hawkeye are the same, and Captain America may beat them out as a level 8ish character with a sweet template. But a 20th level caster would laugh in Thanos' face. And then murder him. As a Swift action. And that's the problem. Those heroes aren't high level, but people consider them many levels higher then they are, which drags down martial types as a whole. Now Cu Cuchulain... thats a decently high level martial. And he'd wipe the floor with all those superheros. (Though lets be honest, in a fight between say Captain America and Ruby from RWBY, the safe money is on Ruby, not Cap. And she's like mid level martial, or rather what they should be.)

But Batman, whom you say is level 6, is in the same club as a guy with racial bonuses high enough to push planets around and shrug off nuclear explosions. And the kid who can buff up to that same level by speaking a single word. And the woman who beats the god of war in melee combat. And the guy with the magic Ring-of-Whatever-I-Want. Yet whenever I've seen these characters together in a game, Batman contributes at least as much to the adventure as any of the others, and frequently more.

It's not just raw power that makes a character fun to play.

Only in stories with fiat. Realistically speaking, with Superman's abilities in an actual fight his loss rate to Batman would be 0%. Having a Kryponite Ring is no good if your very human body was crushed (by literally even a single finger) faster then then human body can react. In a game with a mechanics, being the Hawkeye is no fun. You spend a whole movie mind controlled, while the actual contributors do all the work. At least Cap got to use his prowess to direct traffic and Black Widow got to kill mooks. But ya, if you want to be mind controlled, direct traffic, and kill mooks sure any of that could work.

@ DrDeth - He can fly though via Thrown Spear, has some kind blessing the heals, can demolish a house, and can generate enough body heat to boil water, among other various things. A 20th Level Fighter can't do any of that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Anzyr wrote:
JoeJ wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
Uh... all of those characters are chumps compared to even say a 13th level caster. Batman is like level 6 (with.... a lot of WBL), Green Arrow and Hawkeye are the same, and Captain America may beat them out as a level 8ish character with a sweet template. But a 20th level caster would laugh in Thanos' face. And then murder him. As a Swift action. And that's the problem. Those heroes aren't high level, but people consider them many levels higher then they are, which drags down martial types as a whole. Now Cu Cuchulain... thats a decently high level martial. And he'd wipe the floor with all those superheros. (Though lets be honest, in a fight between say Captain America and Ruby from RWBY, the safe money is on Ruby, not Cap. And she's like mid level martial, or rather what they should be.)

But Batman, whom you say is level 6, is in the same club as a guy with racial bonuses high enough to push planets around and shrug off nuclear explosions. And the kid who can buff up to that same level by speaking a single word. And the woman who beats the god of war in melee combat. And the guy with the magic Ring-of-Whatever-I-Want. Yet whenever I've seen these characters together in a game, Batman contributes at least as much to the adventure as any of the others, and frequently more.

It's not just raw power that makes a character fun to play.

Only in stories with fiat. Realistically speaking, with Superman's abilities in an actual fight his loss rate to Batman would be 0%. Having a Kryponite Ring is no good if your very human body was crushed (by literally even a single finger) faster then then human body can react.

Correction. Zod's loss rate to Batman would probably be 0%. Superman can't crush Batman without killing him, which he's not willing to do.

My post wasn't about who'd win in a fight, however, but how much of a contribution Batman can make to the team. The game systems I've seen that feature those characters have mechanics in which Batman is at least as useful as Superman or Green Lantern. It doesn't require any GM hand holding, it's just the way those games work.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
JoeJ wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
JoeJ wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
Uh... all of those characters are chumps compared to even say a 13th level caster. Batman is like level 6 (with.... a lot of WBL), Green Arrow and Hawkeye are the same, and Captain America may beat them out as a level 8ish character with a sweet template. But a 20th level caster would laugh in Thanos' face. And then murder him. As a Swift action. And that's the problem. Those heroes aren't high level, but people consider them many levels higher then they are, which drags down martial types as a whole. Now Cu Cuchulain... thats a decently high level martial. And he'd wipe the floor with all those superheros. (Though lets be honest, in a fight between say Captain America and Ruby from RWBY, the safe money is on Ruby, not Cap. And she's like mid level martial, or rather what they should be.)

But Batman, whom you say is level 6, is in the same club as a guy with racial bonuses high enough to push planets around and shrug off nuclear explosions. And the kid who can buff up to that same level by speaking a single word. And the woman who beats the god of war in melee combat. And the guy with the magic Ring-of-Whatever-I-Want. Yet whenever I've seen these characters together in a game, Batman contributes at least as much to the adventure as any of the others, and frequently more.

It's not just raw power that makes a character fun to play.

Only in stories with fiat. Realistically speaking, with Superman's abilities in an actual fight his loss rate to Batman would be 0%. Having a Kryponite Ring is no good if your very human body was crushed (by literally even a single finger) faster then then human body can react.

Correction. Zod's loss rate to Batman would probably be 0%. Superman can't crush Batman without killing him, which he's not willing to do.

My post wasn't about who'd win in a fight, however, but how much of a contribution Batman can make to the team. The game systems I've seen that feature those characters have mechanics...

I think the point being made is that the writer(GM) is creating situations for Batman to be useful in. He is also keeping the CR low enough so that Batman can be a part of certain fights.

I like Batman, but the writer(GM) has the option to make sure he only comes along on certain adventures. There are not too many of Batman's adventures that Superman could not safely tag along on.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
JoeJ wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
JoeJ wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
Uh... all of those characters are chumps compared to even say a 13th level caster. Batman is like level 6 (with.... a lot of WBL), Green Arrow and Hawkeye are the same, and Captain America may beat them out as a level 8ish character with a sweet template. But a 20th level caster would laugh in Thanos' face. And then murder him. As a Swift action. And that's the problem. Those heroes aren't high level, but people consider them many levels higher then they are, which drags down martial types as a whole. Now Cu Cuchulain... thats a decently high level martial. And he'd wipe the floor with all those superheros. (Though lets be honest, in a fight between say Captain America and Ruby from RWBY, the safe money is on Ruby, not Cap. And she's like mid level martial, or rather what they should be.)

But Batman, whom you say is level 6, is in the same club as a guy with racial bonuses high enough to push planets around and shrug off nuclear explosions. And the kid who can buff up to that same level by speaking a single word. And the woman who beats the god of war in melee combat. And the guy with the magic Ring-of-Whatever-I-Want. Yet whenever I've seen these characters together in a game, Batman contributes at least as much to the adventure as any of the others, and frequently more.

It's not just raw power that makes a character fun to play.

Only in stories with fiat. Realistically speaking, with Superman's abilities in an actual fight his loss rate to Batman would be 0%. Having a Kryponite Ring is no good if your very human body was crushed (by literally even a single finger) faster then then human body can react.

Correction. Zod's loss rate to Batman would probably be 0%. Superman can't crush Batman without killing him, which he's not willing to do.

My post wasn't about who'd win in a fight, however, but how much of a contribution Batman can make to the team. The game systems I've seen that feature those characters have mechanics...

Could and will are very different words. And the system where Batman and Superman can be on the same team is not 3.5/PF. It's something more like HERO where Batman and Superman have the number of points, just invested in different things. But in 3.5/PF, level 6 guy isn't something that can play with actual level 20s, or even 15s. And really what exactly *does* Batman contribute? Superman is damn smart (even though he rarely acts like it, its an informed ability) so really you could write Superman inventing gadgets and using a utility belt. The only reason the writers don't is that it would really highlight how useless the mundanes are. In a game though, Superman's Player will absolutely be using a belt of awesome alien tech gadgets, which leaves Batman's player as marginalized as he should be.

Scarab Sages

Ascalaphus wrote:
harder to multiclass etc.

Multiclassing was a very different beast, with no relationship to how it is done today.

As a side note, a level 1 bard in AD&D was a very fearsome character. Not something encountered until much higher level and almost never achieved by players.

Scarab Sages

Anzyr wrote:


Correction. Zod's loss rate to Batman would probably be 0%. Superman can't crush Batman without killing him, which he's not willing to do.

My post wasn't about who'd win in a fight, however, but how much of a contribution Batman can make to the team. The game systems I've seen that feature those

...

And yet, somehow, every single time Batman and Superman have fought, Batman has won.

Spoiler:

Not only does he bring kryptonite, he usually brings a suite of armor that would give Iron Man an inferiority complex.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

That's called author fiat. In a game, where mechanics tell you whether something works or not, rather then just having what the author wants to happen, Batman could *never* beat Superman.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Artanthos wrote:
Anzyr wrote:


Correction. Zod's loss rate to Batman would probably be 0%. Superman can't crush Batman without killing him, which he's not willing to do.

My post wasn't about who'd win in a fight, however, but how much of a contribution Batman can make to the team. The game systems I've seen that feature those...

And yet, somehow, every single time Batman and Superman have fought, Batman has won.

I believe that is false


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Anzyr wrote:
That's called author fiat. In a game, where mechanics tell you whether something works or not, rather then just having what the author wants to happen, Batman could *never* beat Superman.

kryptonite.

With prep Batman beats superman. But that is because Batman has SO much money he acts like a wizard and superman only acts like a native outsider.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Even with Kryponite Batman couldn't win. Superman has all kinds of alien technology (and again as part of his informed abilities is smart) and he could just put on a damn hazmat style suit to block out the Kryptonite (he's done it before). Or failing that just rods from god Batman's general location. Or Hurrican Breath his way. Or Lasers from across the city (seriously he *could* this, why he doesn't... author fiat!) Kryponite won't do jack when Batman is going once to every 10+ moves that Superman gets. Really it is simply put not a winnable fight for Batman, by the mechanics.

Keep in mind I'm a bigger fan of Batman, but that has more to do with the fact that writing Superman well is all about moral issues, since without those solving *any* problem would be as simple as "Roll on this 1d100 chart to consult which super power you will use to completely faceroll the encounter."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Anzyr wrote:
Even with Kryponite Batman couldn't win. Superman has all kinds of alien technology (and again as part of his informed abilities is smart) and he could just put on a damn hazmat style suit to block out the Kryptonite (he's done it before). Or failing that just rods from god Batman's general location. Or Hurrican Breath his way. Or Lasers from across the city (seriously he *could* this, why he doesn't... author fiat!) Kryponite won't do jack when Batman is going once to every 10+ moves that Superman gets. Really it is simply put not a winnable fight for Batman, by the mechanics.

Can't is too strong a word.

Kryptonite space laser ends superman.


Anzyr wrote:
JoeJ wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
Only in stories with fiat. Realistically speaking, with Superman's abilities in an actual fight his loss rate to Batman would be 0%. Having a Kryponite Ring is no good if your very human body was crushed (by literally even a single finger) faster then then human body can react.

Correction. Zod's loss rate to Batman would probably be 0%. Superman can't crush Batman without killing him, which he's not willing to do.

My post wasn't about who'd win in a fight, however, but how much of a contribution Batman can make to the team. The game systems I've seen that feature those characters have mechanics in which Batman is at least as useful as Superman or Green Lantern. It doesn't require any GM hand holding, it's just the way those games work.

Could and will are very different words. And the system where Batman and Superman can be on the same team is not 3.5/PF. It's something more like HERO where Batman and Superman have the number of points, just invested in different things. But in 3.5/PF, level 6 guy isn't something that can play with actual level 20s, or even 15s. And really what exactly *does* Batman contribute? Superman is damn smart (even though he rarely acts like it, its an informed ability) so really you could write Superman inventing gadgets and using a utility belt. The only reason the writers don't is that it would really highlight how useless the mundanes are. In a game though, Superman's Player will absolutely be using a belt of awesome alien tech gadgets, which leaves Batman's player as marginalized as he should be.

The systems I was specifically thinking about were DC Adventures (aka Mutants and Masterminds 3) and the old DC Heroes RPG. In both cases the games were put out with the cooperation of DC Comics, so the character stats were about as official as you're going to get (considering that characters in the comics are never stable for very long). In both those games, Batman and Superman were roughly similar in number of points.

What can Batman bring to a partnership? By their game stats, Batman is stealthy enough to have a good chance of sneaking up on Superman. His investigative, sleight of hand, and technological expertise are phenomenal. He's far more perceptive then Superman - no super senses, but much more likely to notice important clues. He has a higher intelligence and is vastly more skilled as a fighter, and has contacts everywhere. Plus his intimidation skill is higher than nearly anybody else in the DC Universe.

The point of all this is not that Batman is incredibly cool (although he is), but that in the game he gets to be the epic ninja skill monkey that can't do very much DPR but makes up for it with the incredible range of other things he does.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
Even with Kryponite Batman couldn't win. Superman has all kinds of alien technology (and again as part of his informed abilities is smart) and he could just put on a damn hazmat style suit to block out the Kryptonite (he's done it before). Or failing that just rods from god Batman's general location. Or Hurrican Breath his way. Or Lasers from across the city (seriously he *could* this, why he doesn't... author fiat!) Kryponite won't do jack when Batman is going once to every 10+ moves that Superman gets. Really it is simply put not a winnable fight for Batman, by the mechanics.

Can't is too strong a word.

Kryptonite space laser ends superman.

That has... nothing to do with a Kryponite Space Lase, and I don't see how that would even work. A Batman laced with Kryptonite who is tossed into the sun, is just dead. The rest of that sounds like some grade-A fiat.

@ JoeJ - A lot of that is fiat. It's nice to think that Batman could sneak up on Superman, but mechanically speaking, he couldn't. His "I just didn't make a sound." is absolute nonsense powered by fiat. It's cool mind you, its just not mechanically sound. And he isn't really more perceptive then Superman. Superman is extremely perceptive unless the author fiats him not to be so Batman can have a chance to play detective.


Anzyr wrote:
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
Even with Kryponite Batman couldn't win. Superman has all kinds of alien technology (and again as part of his informed abilities is smart) and he could just put on a damn hazmat style suit to block out the Kryptonite (he's done it before). Or failing that just rods from god Batman's general location. Or Hurrican Breath his way. Or Lasers from across the city (seriously he *could* this, why he doesn't... author fiat!) Kryponite won't do jack when Batman is going once to every 10+ moves that Superman gets. Really it is simply put not a winnable fight for Batman, by the mechanics.

Can't is too strong a word.

Kryptonite space laser ends superman.

That has... nothing to do with a Kryponite Space Lase, and I don't see how that would even work. A Batman laced with Kryptonite who is tossed into the sun, is just dead. The rest of that sounds like some grade-A fiat.

You are trying to spin this as pit-fiend vs fighter when it's more like Solar vs lvl 15 wizard. Yeah the wizard shouldn't win, but it still could.


No, no. This is a Solar v. Level 6 Rogue with 20th level WBL. The Rogue is still not going to win. Batman is a vanilla mortal. He *wishes* he had the kind of HP of a level 15 Wizard. Not to mention the reality warping power he sorely sorely lacks. And I'm not really trying to "spin" it. In D&D terms, that's pretty much what the fight *is*.

Scarab Sages

Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
Artanthos wrote:
Anzyr wrote:


Correction. Zod's loss rate to Batman would probably be 0%. Superman can't crush Batman without killing him, which he's not willing to do.

My post wasn't about who'd win in a fight, however, but how much of a contribution Batman can make to the team. The game systems I've seen that feature those...

And yet, somehow, every single time Batman and Superman have fought, Batman has won.
I believe that is false

Go back to The Dark Knight Returns


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Anzyr wrote:
No, no. This is a Solar v. Level 6 Rogue with 20th level WBL. The Rogue is still not going to win. Batman is a vanilla mortal. He *wishes* he had the kind of HP of a level 15 Wizard. Not to mention the reality warping power he sorely sorely lacks. And I'm not really trying to "spin" it. In D&D terms, that's pretty much what the fight *is*.

OK Batman has FAR more than level 20 WBL. He was most of the funding in Justice League Unlimited and that barely put a dent into his finances.

Forbes calculated the Dark Knight's wealth at around 11.6 billion, making him richer than Iron Man. And the Dark Knight is one of the poorest and least powerful versions of Batman.


Artanthos wrote:
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
Artanthos wrote:
Anzyr wrote:


Correction. Zod's loss rate to Batman would probably be 0%. Superman can't crush Batman without killing him, which he's not willing to do.

My post wasn't about who'd win in a fight, however, but how much of a contribution Batman can make to the team. The game systems I've seen that feature those...

And yet, somehow, every single time Batman and Superman have fought, Batman has won.
I believe that is false
Go back to The Dark Knight Returns

You said every time, which is not true.


Anzyr wrote:
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
Even with Kryponite Batman couldn't win. Superman has all kinds of alien technology (and again as part of his informed abilities is smart) and he could just put on a damn hazmat style suit to block out the Kryptonite (he's done it before). Or failing that just rods from god Batman's general location. Or Hurrican Breath his way. Or Lasers from across the city (seriously he *could* this, why he doesn't... author fiat!) Kryponite won't do jack when Batman is going once to every 10+ moves that Superman gets. Really it is simply put not a winnable fight for Batman, by the mechanics.

Can't is too strong a word.

Kryptonite space laser ends superman.

That has... nothing to do with a Kryponite Space Lase, and I don't see how that would even work. A Batman laced with Kryptonite who is tossed into the sun, is just dead. The rest of that sounds like some grade-A fiat.

@ JoeJ - A lot of that is fiat. It's nice to think that Batman could sneak up on Superman, but mechanically speaking, he couldn't. His "I just didn't make a sound." is absolute nonsense powered by fiat. It's cool mind you, its just not mechanically sound. And he isn't really more perceptive then Superman. Superman is extremely perceptive unless the author fiats him not to be so Batman can have a chance to play detective.

Fiat has nothing to do with it. I'm talking strictly mechanics. Batman's Perception and Stealth bonus are both +20. Superman's Perception is +10. Even if Superman's player rolls a 20, Batman still beats him on a 10 or better.


Sean K Reynolds wrote:

With respect to the other thread about "why can't fighters be epic?," I mentioned an earlier post on my blog about design bias involving Ex abilities vs. Su abilities.

Regarding your point #10 about 3e wands being a major game-changer, I wrote a blog earlier this week about that very topic.

Thanks for the link I went and read it.

To others even if clerics had o use there spells for healing (or Druids) the Cleric gets the channel energy which the AD&D cleric lacked. I depends on how much healing you like in your games I suppose. If healing is a bit more rare the CR system may actually start to work better.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
JoeJ wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
Even with Kryponite Batman couldn't win. Superman has all kinds of alien technology (and again as part of his informed abilities is smart) and he could just put on a damn hazmat style suit to block out the Kryptonite (he's done it before). Or failing that just rods from god Batman's general location. Or Hurrican Breath his way. Or Lasers from across the city (seriously he *could* this, why he doesn't... author fiat!) Kryponite won't do jack when Batman is going once to every 10+ moves that Superman gets. Really it is simply put not a winnable fight for Batman, by the mechanics.

Can't is too strong a word.

Kryptonite space laser ends superman.

That has... nothing to do with a Kryponite Space Lase, and I don't see how that would even work. A Batman laced with Kryptonite who is tossed into the sun, is just dead. The rest of that sounds like some grade-A fiat.

@ JoeJ - A lot of that is fiat. It's nice to think that Batman could sneak up on Superman, but mechanically speaking, he couldn't. His "I just didn't make a sound." is absolute nonsense powered by fiat. It's cool mind you, its just not mechanically sound. And he isn't really more perceptive then Superman. Superman is extremely perceptive unless the author fiats him not to be so Batman can have a chance to play detective.

Fiat has nothing to do with it. I'm talking strictly mechanics. Batman's Perception and Stealth bonus are both +20. Superman's Perception is +10. Even if Superman's player rolls a 20, Batman still beats him on a 10 or better.

I can assure that based on what his capabilities are described as in terms of super hearing and vision, Superman's Perception is not +10... it's closer to +100 (seriously). Batman's Stealth could believably be around 50ish if he invest money into (and presumably he would). But no, Batman is not sneaking up on Superman. Translating comics into actual hard rules is difficult of course, but given how effective Superman's senses are described as it is physically impossible for Batman to sneak up on him. Thus any instance of him doing so is author fiat. Really the fact that Batman can survive (with no serious injury) getting hit by half the people he gets hit by is fiat for that matter. I mean if Bane can break him over a knee, half the Justice Leagues enemies should be able to do that casually. I mean really Bane is a serious enemy for him. Bane is chump for Superman, not even worthy of being a mook.

1 to 50 of 714 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Magic: The Actual Problems All Messageboards