|
It does not. The armor and weapon training keep fighters exactly the same as they are now in relation to each other. 2 hander(falchion, specifically) and full plate is still strictly better.
So, what you're saying is: "having more options is bad because everybody will choose the same option"?
I have read too many times "D&D is broken because weapon X is strictly better than any other one". But the "X" is always different. Now you say it's the falchion. 2 weeks ago it was the spiked chain, and last Christmas it was the rapier.
Except now you have to pull stupid shenanigans with the armor training thing so the Celestial mithril full plate you get later benefits from your armor bonus. The math changes are bad enough (flat bonuses tilt the fighter off the d20 roll), but don't punish the fighter for wearing different armor later.
You know you're calling "stupid shenanigans" to "read the rulebook", don't you?
(from d20srd.org)
Mithral
Mithral is a very rare silvery, glistening metal that is lighter than iron but just as hard. When worked like steel, it becomes a wonderful material from which to create armor and is occasionally used for other items as well. Most mithral armors are one category lighter than normal for purposes of movement and other limitations. Heavy armors are treated as medium, and medium armors are treated as light, but light armors are still treated as light. Spell failure chances for armors and shields made from mithral are decreased by 10%, maximum Dexterity bonus is increased by 2, and armor check penalties are lessened by 3 (to a minimum of 0).
Except now you have to pull stupid shenanigans with the armor training thing so the Celestial mithril full plate you get later benefits from your armor bonus. The math changes are bad enough (flat bonuses tilt the fighter off the d20 roll), but don't punish the fighter for wearing different armor later.You know you're calling "stupid shenanigans" to "read the rulebook", don't you?
(from d20srd.org)
MithralMithral is a very rare silvery, glistening metal that is lighter than iron but just as hard. When worked like steel, it becomes a wonderful material from which to create armor and is occasionally used for other items as well. Most mithral armors are one category lighter than normal for purposes of movement and other limitations. Heavy armors are treated as medium, and medium armors are treated as light, but light armors are still treated as light. Spell failure chances for armors and shields made from mithral are decreased by 10%, maximum Dexterity bonus is increased by 2, and armor check penalties are lessened by 3 (to a minimum of 0).
Yeah, every one knows if you like heavy amour that Adamantine is the way to go (Though some rules text letting the DR stack would be nice)
I'M gonna say I like the alpha fighter and its really close to my house ruled one really,
Fighters need more skills. Fighters shouldn't be just the guy that just fights, that's a member of the Warrior NPC class. The fighter is an adventurer and adventurers involve things out side of combat. Not to mention that a lot of classic archetypes for the fighter require a lot of skills. Lets say you want to make a noble (maybe a knight) or even a king. You'll want Profession (Statecraft), Diplomacy, Knowledge (nobility) and Deception at least. A guard will need Perception and maybe Deception. A general will need Knowledge (geography), Diplomacy (if they're prone to negotiation), Perception and probably a Knowledge (tactics) skill which is absent. I could continue.
I agree that Weapon Training needs some work. In my opinion it should work like a Ranger's Favored Enemy, an idea I've seen others point out as well. For that matter, maybe it should give a +2 to damage rolls like Favored Enemy.
Since so much of a Fighter's power comes from they're feats they need really good feat choices. I think the Weapon Focus feat tree aught to be taken out. Instead there should be feats that require Weapon Focus in specific weapons which will give you a bonus to attacks and/or damage with that weapon and also give you extra benefits depending on the weapon. Fighters aught to get feats that give them multiple combat maneuvers at once. At high levels Fighter feats should be just as impressive as high level spells, though not necessarily doing the same kind of things. A Fighter's feats pretty much are his spells. What I've seen so far with feats impresses me, but sense the Fighter's class features are his feats they aught to be just as impressive as other classes class features. One idea I've had is to allow the Fighter to pick talents like the Rogue in addition to bonus feats.
What I've seen so far for the Fighter makes me pretty happy, but I still think it needs more.
I had put forth a whole bunch of stuff for fighters I had been testing in my campaign, but it was removed for some reason (can anyone tell me why? It was named "Fighter - not far enough?"). Several of the ideas being thrown around here had been written up as abilities for the fighter. I was hoping Paizo might take a look at it and maybe incorporate some of it, either as combat maneuvers or class abilities.
I guess it was just too different to stay put.
|
|
The "trick" with the fighter is, and has always been, giving him good feat options. That's what 3.5 PHB lacks (although IMO it's addressed in PHB2), and what I wouldn't like PF to lack. Armor and weapon training are good additions, but feats are where the meat is.
So, what I'd say Jason is: put a truckload of good feats, specially good high-level feats, in PF and the fighter will be "fixed". This is even truer given the higher overall amount of feats characters will have with the new progression.
So, what you're saying is: "having more options is bad because everybody will choose the same option"?
It does not. The armor and weapon training keep fighters exactly the same as they are now in relation to each other. 2 hander(falchion, specifically) and full plate is still strictly better.
No. I'm saying if you have two values, and you add 5 to both, they are exactly the same, relative to each other.
I have read too many times "D&D is broken because weapon X is strictly better than any other one". But the "X" is always different. Now you say it's the falchion. 2 weeks ago it was the spiked chain, and last Christmas it was the rapier.
Uh. Thats fine, but not the point. My point was a two handed weapon does more damage in the hands of someone with a high strength score than a one handed weapon. And the falchion has the exact same crit range as a rapier, so it rapier/falchion made more sense than rapier/greatsword.
Similarly the combined AC you can get out of Dex + full plate is higher than the combined AC you can get out of Dex + light armor. Adding 5 to both doesn't change that. So the new rules aren't actually providing you any options that weren't there before. You could, and still can, choose to be numerically optimized, or not. Now you just get +5 on top of that decision, whatever it is, but there aren't anymore options that appear because of this.
Except now you have to pull stupid shenanigans with the armor training thing so the Celestial mithril full plate you get later benefits from your armor bonus. The math changes are bad enough (flat bonuses tilt the fighter off the d20 roll), but don't punish the fighter for wearing different armor later.You know you're calling "stupid shenanigans" to "read the rulebook", don't you?
No, because I'm not. I'm talking about the new armor training rules. Numerically, the best armor is full plate. This isn't up for discussion. 9 > 8. But not having movement penalties is better than having movement penalties, so as you level, you'll want to upgrade the full plate to celestial mithril full plate. That changes the armor categories. So, to optimize your AC you either have to take armor training in light armor, and not get the bonus as you level up, (until you can afford the shiny shiny armor), or you choke down the movement penalty and specialize in heavy armor from the get go.
Thats the stupid shenanigans. Armor training, as written, requires you to make a suboptimal choice for at least part of your career. Thats pointless and poor design.
|
|
Uh. Thats fine, but not the point. My point was a two handed weapon does more damage in the hands of someone with a high strength score than a one handed weapon. And the falchion has the exact same crit range as a rapier, so it rapier/falchion made more sense than rapier/greatsword.
A two handed weapon does more damage, but it also uses up both hands. So a one-handed weapon would be more fitting if you want to use a shield, an off-hand weapon, a torch (those dungeons out there tend to be dark ;)) or a free hand to cast spells.
The falchion has the exact crit range as a rapier, but a scythe has an even greater crit range, and a greataxe does triple damage on a crit.
Similarly the combined AC you can get out of Dex + full plate is higher than the combined AC you can get out of Dex + light armor. Adding 5 to both doesn't change that. So the new rules aren't actually providing you any options that weren't there before. You could, and still can, choose to be numerically optimized, or not. Now you just get +5 on top of that decision, whatever it is, but there aren't anymore options that appear because of this.
You also seem to forget that heavy armor has a big check penalty. That's quite a thing to consider when you're trying to, let's say, use a skill that hardly ever gets used in 3.x, as Tumble.
Here's an idea: instead of the DR at 18th level, maybe allow the fighter to use two combat feats in the same round.
"What's that? I'm not able to Spring Attack 'til round three? Sorry, you must have me confused with the rogue, over there."
However, I LOVE the new version of the Fighter. Someone scary, skilled, tougher, and better at using any weapon and armour.
Fighters are hopefully now going to come into their own in being a useful part of the group, especially at higher levels. I am going to enjoy playtesting this.
Uh. Thats fine, but not the point. My point was a two handed weapon does more damage in the hands of someone with a high strength score than a one handed weapon. And the falchion has the exact same crit range as a rapier, so it rapier/falchion made more sense than rapier/greatsword.A two handed weapon does more damage, but it also uses up both hands. So a one-handed weapon would be more fitting if you want to use a shield, an off-hand weapon, a torch (those dungeons out there tend to be dark ;)) or a free hand to cast spells.
The falchion has the exact crit range as a rapier, but a scythe has an even greater crit range, and a greataxe does triple damage on a crit.
Animated shields are easily available in the 3e rules, as are everburning items that don't burn you, and the fighter doesn't cast spells. If he multi-classes, a two handed weapon is actually easier for that- you only wield it with both hands- you can hang on to it with one. Weapon and shield is actually harder to juggle for spellcasting, unless you're using a weaker shield.
Mathematically, by the way, 18-20/x2 and x4 wash out over time, in terms of damage.
Similarly the combined AC you can get out of Dex + full plate is higher than the combined AC you can get out of Dex + light armor. Adding 5 to both doesn't change that. So the new rules aren't actually providing you any options that weren't there before. You could, and still can, choose to be numerically optimized, or not. Now you just get +5 on top of that decision, whatever it is, but there aren't anymore options that appear because of this.You also seem to forget that heavy armor has a big check penalty. That's quite a thing to consider when you're trying to, let's say, use a skill that hardly ever gets used in 3.x, as Tumble.
I'm not. Again, this isn't something a fighter does often or needs to worry about. Mithril takes a chunk out of that penalty, and the remainder isn't particularly large, or relevant for a lot of skills. But then again, its one of the useful things the armor training feat does- it decreases the armor check penalty.
But this is all fairly irrelevant to my original point- the flat bonuses don't expand the fighter's options at all. He just has +5 to everything he originally did.
|
|
But this is all fairly irrelevant to my original point- the flat bonuses don't expand the fighter's options at all. He just has +5 to everything he originally did.
Instead of a flat bonus, what sort of options would best 'fix' this?
For Armor, I could get behind an 'Armor Optimization' option that allowed a Fighter to have a +1 bonus to AC if he's wearing Light Armor, +2 for Medium Armor and +3 for Heavy Armor, giving some scaling increase in armor utility, as the Fighter has 'more to work with' when he wears the heavier armor.
Shield Optimization might be another option, to significantly increase the popularity of the Sword & Board option. +1 extra AC for a Lt Shield, +2 extra AC for a Hvy Shield, and suddenly the Fighter is considering whether or not the *five AC* he'll gain from a +1 Hvy Steel Shield is worth the loss of a secondary attack or some extra damage for a two-handed weapon.
And these particular bonuses could be sacrificed as well, in a trade-off as with Expertise (-atk, +AC) or the Fighting Defensively option. In this case, the Fighter could swap out some of those Armor/Shield Optimization bonuses to do a Reckless Attack (-AC, +atk), sort of the reverse of Expertise, and similar to the Charge maneuver, just as Expertise is an advanced version of the Fighting Defensively option.
|
While I don't think this fighter is yet balanced with spellcasters, they are an improvement (and definitely better than an anime-style uber-fighter with supernatural powers).
Fighters should be grounded in reality, just really really amazing.
I think fighters should get to do more awesome types of maneuvers based on their weapon specialities, just a like a specialist wizard. These would just be special attacks that have a secondary effect.
For example, a Level 1 blades specialist might do a single slash that can also disarm, and by level 20 can attempt to slice his opponents throat so they die in 3 rounds!
You seem to have a good handle on the EL/CR system generally, but I have to disagree with you. You're mixing apples and oranges. The CR/EL system is designed with a party of 4 in mind. Although you can put that party of 4 up...While I actually agree with your concerns Frank (and like the way that Pathfinder has tried to make fighters tougher) you keep comparing monsters of a particular CR with characters of the same level. That is not how CR works. A dire bear is a CR 7 monster and so is a EL 7 threat. That's an even challenge for four 7th-level PCs, not a single character of the same level.This is a personal pet peeve of mine, so I will explain the CR system exactly once on this particular thread so that I don't start insulting people.
- A party of Level X is supposed to go down fighting half the time against an encounter of EL X + 4. Another way to say this is that a party of Level X is approximately as powerful as an encounter of EL X + 4.
- A group of monsters that is twice the size is an encounter of EL + 2. A party that is twice the size faces Encounters which are EL + 2 vs. those who are not.
- Doubling a Double is a quadruple. So if you go from a party of four to a party of one, you face challenges of X - 4.
So a Party of one character is supposed to be an even match for a Monster with a CR equal to his level. He is supposed to fight "standard" encounters of his level - 4, and a monster with a CR of his level is an EL of Level - 4 + 4. And this should surprise you in no way because a character of Level X actually is a Monster of CR X.
Note: some characters are at an advantage or disadvantage in a number of situations. This means that your character may well be properly "Level X" despite failing consistently or winning consistently against a specific CR X challenge, so long as in aggregate your wins and losses are roughly equal against a variety of EL X encounters.
You really didn't need to explain this to me Frank. I know what you're talking about and that's not what I meant at all. The CR/EL system is inherently flawed, particularly at high-levels and on most occasions a 7th-level character is not the equal of any monster of similar CR. A fire giant will almost always kill a 10th-level fighter in a fight, and a CR 6 will-o-wisp will almost certainly slay a 6th-level rogue or 6th-level wizard (and you are clearly aware of that fact). It's a given that there are no certainties in combat, but most of the time characters of a certain level (regardless of class) and monsters of a certain CR are miles apart in terms of actual power, and this discrepancy continues to increase as levels advance (you would also know this).
Things in the CR/EL system are not equal nor are they supposed to be (many have pointed this out, particularly at high levels). Think about when CR is used for. It is used to determine the level of an encounter and the XP PCs receive for taking care of a particular threat. A 7th-level character (not necessarily fighter) should be the equal of a CR 7 hill giant, but he isn't. The reason for this is that while the games rules say that they should be evenly matched the hill giant is clearly the superior combatant. This is because the 7th-level fighter is never meant to fight a hill giant by himself. If he wants a good chance of surviving he needs to fight it in a party situation where he can get backing from his allies (rogue sneak attacking, wizard casting lightning bolt, etc). So I go back to my original point. While characters of the same level (fighter or otherwise) should be able to handle monsters of the same CR, they usually can't because D&D is a group game and the whole CR system is based on a party dynamic.
See, I actually thought you might not have understood what the EL system was all about. I thought everyone knew that PCs and monsters weren't evenly balanced one-on-one and just had to live with it. If you want monsters and fighters to be evenly balanced fixing the fighter isn't going to solve things. You need to completely rewrite the CR/EL system from scratch.
I think the ultimate point I'm trying to make is that I mistook you for someone of lesser ability when it came to the rules, so was rather direct and simple in my approach. I have never in my time as an author been criticized for my lack of understanding of CR or EL (and have never had to have any of my work fixed, either). I also understand that the fighter is underpowered, and congratulate you on trying to fix the class. I myself have tried to help make the fighter a bit better in an article I wrote for Kobold Quartely#4, though the changes I suggested were not monumental or ground-breaking.
|
|
I think fighters should get to do more awesome types of maneuvers based on their weapon specialities, just a like a specialist wizard. These would just be special attacks that have a secondary effect.
For example, a Level 1 blades specialist might do a single slash that can also disarm, and by level 20 can attempt to slice his opponents throat so they die in 3 rounds!
Slashing leg wounds that can lame a foe like a Caltrop, smashing blows to sensitive regions that can Sicken or Nauseate, bonks to the noggin that can Daze or Stun, bleeding wounds over the eyes that can Dazzle or Blind for a round or two, all of these things seem like appropriately cool cinematic (but not supernatural!) combat stunts that a Fighter should be able to inflict upon his targets.
Other Conditions such as Deafened (you punched me in the ear!) or Flat-Footed (I knock him off-balance with my sweeping strike, setting him up for the Rogue to Stabinate him!) are also options that fit the concept just fine.
Ability Damage would be a more dubious one, IMO, but bleeding wounds that cause the target to lose 1 hp / round for a minute afterwards (or until staunched by any amount of magical healing or a DC 10 Heal check) would be very cool.
Fighters, to date, have been pretty unsexy, but the option, IMO, is not to give them super-powers, especially not when the SRD is chock-full of fun Conditions that a mace to the noggin or dagger in the kidney could impose with no magic at all!
No need to invent new stuff. The SRD has all sorts of cool Conditions just waiting to be applied by the skilled Fighter.
I really like a lot of these suggestions. It's funny, I guess I'm not one to say that the fighter is really underpowered. At least when min-maxed, which pretty much everyone I know tends to do. A 9th level fighter is likely to have at least a 16 strength. Usually with some strength enhancement like a belt or a bull's strength spell, which, say, brings his strength up to 20.
Often he or she is using a 2-handed weapon. Probably with at least a +2 enhancement bonus. With weapon focus, that gives him a +17 to hit withouth the benefit of any spells such as bless, prayer, haste, recitation, or righteous wrath of the faithful. It would not be uncommon to get an extra +2 out of some combination of those. So, say he's +19 to hit now.
He, of course, has the power attack feat, and he can usually spare at least +2 to +4 of those points. Say +3 for arguments sake. He's still +16/11 to hit. Not bad at all.
So, damage-wise, he's going to do 2d6+15 points of damage per attack with a greatsword. Maybe he has weapon specialization and does another +2. Prayer and some of the other spells increase that, too. He may even get something like flaming or bane on his sword from the party artificer (if there is one), which jacks up the damage even more. Or, maybe he's got a few levels of barbarian and he can rage, getting another +2 to hit and +3 to damage, and the possibility that he does power attack 5 instead of 3. Take all of that and you have him possibly doing 2d6+18 per attack. Pretty good, especially if he's hasted (more attacks) and hits with that second attack. If he has to maximize his attack bonus, that drops to 2d6+8, but that's still not bad considering he gets 3 attacks per round.
I guess what I'm getting at is... I like the weapon training and armor training with the changes addressed in the comments posted above. I would like to see more skills (broader and maybe advancing faster). I don't think any class should be limited to 2 skills+Int bonus. I think the minimum should be 4. Fighters should have a broader class skill list... all physical skills, including acrobatics and perception. Maybe not stealth, though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I thought everyone knew that PCs and monsters weren't evenly balanced one-on-one and just had to live with it.
No. After extensively playtesting this particular facet of the game I have concluded that a number of classes actually can live up to that ideal if well constructed and played. The Wizard, the Rogue, the Cleric, and even the Sorcerer can all pull their weight about half the time against the presented opposition. The martial classes can only do it for a few levels at the beginning of the game (though the Ranger does much the best, and the Monk does the worst).
But no, we don't "just have to live with it." The Wizard works.
-Frank
I thought everyone knew that PCs and monsters weren't evenly balanced one-on-one and just had to live with it.No. After extensively playtesting this particular facet of the game I have concluded that a number of classes actually can live up to that ideal if well constructed and played. The Wizard, the Rogue, the Cleric, and even the Sorcerer can all pull their weight about half the time against the presented opposition. The martial classes can only do it for a few levels at the beginning of the game (though the Ranger does much the best, and the Monk does the worst).
But no, we don't "just have to live with it." The Wizard works.
-Frank
That depends on the player and the level of the wizard we are talking about. This is another facet that CR doesn't cover for and that's the power curve that players experience as they go up in levels. A 3rd-level wizard (which should be CR 3) versus an ogre (also CR 3) should be an even fight, but unless the wizard is lucky, a single blow from an ogre has a good chance of killing him. The wizard on the other hand (and even more so - the 3rd-level sorcerer) has to be extremely lucky to kill off the ogre.
At higher levels wizards and sorcerers do come into their own a bit more, and this is why I rate them as higher CR challenges than their hit points, AC and normal attacks would indicate. Still, your typical 8th-level wizard has to be lucky to kill a stone giant, dark naga or mind flayer in equal combat and that's why (in my books) the wizard is about CR 5 or CR 6.
There is a difference between NPC characters and PCs as well. The CR of PCs should be closer to their level than NPCs simply because of their normally superior attributes and magic items (not to mention all the stuff from various sourcebooks). This changes CR like everything else.
After all has been said and done, I still maintain (and as I've said, I know the CR/EL system well enough and been published enough to have a point of view) that D&D players are not meant to fight monsters by themselves, but as part of larger unit, and that's why the CR/EL system has been set up as it has.
These sorts of arguments are cyclical, particularly if you have two people who are intelligent enough to present strong counter-arguments. I'd prefer to drop the subject and concentrate our energies on what we both think needs to be done, and that's to make the fighter a better class than it currently is.
|
I thought everyone knew that PCs and monsters weren't evenly balanced one-on-one and just had to live with it.No. After extensively playtesting this particular facet of the game I have concluded that a number of classes actually can live up to that ideal if well constructed and played. The Wizard, the Rogue, the Cleric, and even the Sorcerer can all pull their weight about half the time against the presented opposition. The martial classes can only do it for a few levels at the beginning of the game (though the Ranger does much the best, and the Monk does the worst).
But no, we don't "just have to live with it." The Wizard works.
-Frank
Well, you are right that most PC classes cannot stand toe to toe with creatures of the same CR. The fighter shouldn't exactly be singled out as "the" weak link here. It seems that rogues would be far worse off than the fighter. Without a flanking partner, a rogue is severly gimped in his damage output, even if he can reliably feint for sneak attack damage, and his foe is vulnerable to the damage. Casters may fair better, but if the creature beats them in iniative, or starts the encounter within charging range, the caster is most likely history. The CR/EL system is definitely designed for whole parties, not solo encounters.
|
|
Short answer: yes and yes.
Or, at least, they have a reasonable chance a doing so using their class abilities and the default assumptions of the game.
Like many on this thread have said, this question largely rests on the type of playtesting that occurs in a group. In my personal experience, a single PC has little chance to overcome a creature of its own challenge rating, but fighters are usually the best options in such a matchup. A level 7 wizard against a remorrhaz gets a round before getting gobbled up, and has even less chance of cutting his/her way out once eaten. A level 10 wizard has a slightly better chance against a fire giant, but even still, unless the spells are completely optimized for single combat against a large foe, the wizard gets trounced as soon as the giant gets within reach.
I really think that it's a mistake to judge balance in character classes by comparing them directly to creatures of the same CR; CRs represent the challenge to a party, not an individual. My own personal views are that with the use of the incredible number of feats out there in the various splat books available for this version of the game, a fighter can be constructed to do just about anything, and that they are one of the most capable, adaptable classes available. The Pathfinder version of the figher gains the same number of bonus feats, plus the weapon and armor training, all of which makes him/her a force to be reckoned with.
And, to the original poster, a +1 bonus to AC is actually significantly more impacting than nothing, at least in my book. But, like I note above, each of us has his/her own viewpoint on this game and its parts.
A 3rd-level wizard (which should be CR 3) versus an ogre (also CR 3) should be an even fight, but unless the wizard is lucky, a single blow from an ogre has a good chance of killing him. The wizard on the other hand (and even more so - the 3rd-level sorcerer) has to be extremely lucky to kill off the ogre.
This is pure myth, nothing more. If a 3rd level Wizard gets "a turn" they can slap the Ogre into a web, and then sit back dumping sleep onto the area from total cover while the Ogre slowly tries to pull itself out. It mostly comes down to an initiative test, which the Wizard is more than likely to win.
Yes, low level combats are extremely deadly, but low level Wizards are equipped with area of effect save-or-die spells. Color spray and sleep are no less powerful at their level than wail of the banshee is at its. An Ogre is an example of a fight which a Wizard is more than likely to win. A Shadow is an example of a fight that a Wizard doesn't usually win because none of their Level 3 spells have much of an effect on a Shadow, and even if they packed magic missile they are more than likely to run out before the Shadow is actually destroyed.
But that all fits into the over all fifty percent win rate against CR 3 opposition. An Ogre represents a win most of the time for the Wizard. Other monsters go 50/50 or beat the Wizard most of he time. But it roughly works out over all. The idea that Wizards are weak at low levels is complete hogwash. They win or lose quickly, yes, but tell that to the Fighter with the 2d6+5 Greatsword. Low level combat is like playing rocket launcher tag in Quake.
-Frank
That's if the wizard has those spells prepared. You're talking about a hypothetical situation there, which doesn't always play out in reality. The last time I saw an ogre attack a wizard (who happened to be 4th-level at the time) the ogre killed him with ease.
Actually, you're right in one sense. A 3rd-level wizard is more of a threat CR-wise than a 3rd-level fighter, but some would disagree with you that wizards are more powerful than fighters, including one of my gaming friends. To tell you the truth, I think both classes need a boost in power.
|
1-1 comparsions of who is stronger are not approprate.
The idea is a team than fullfills different needs and the team as a whole wins.
Agreed. In Living Greyhawk my PC is the tank for our group. I know that the Wizard is going to lay the biggest smack down on the bad guys. I can't (and should not) match his ability to deal massive damage, but he cannot soak up the damage that I can - that is if I even get hit.
Whether we like them or not the notion of roles in 4E simply acknowledges that each class works in a very different way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's if the wizard has those spells prepared. You're talking about a hypothetical situation there, which doesn't always play out in reality. The last time I saw an ogre attack a wizard (who happened to be 4th-level at the time) the ogre killed him with ease.
Actually, you're right in one sense. A 3rd-level wizard is more of a threat CR-wise than a 3rd-level fighter, but some would disagree with you that wizards are more powerful than fighters, including one of my gaming friends. To tell you the truth, I think both classes need a boost in power.
Thats true, some people do in fact make useless Wizards. They run around thinking that casting Shocking Grasp and Bull's Strength are actual combat actions.
By the same token some people play Fighters.
The CR system doesn't account for people who pick bad classes and make bad choices. Its does work for reasonably good choices with good classes. The fact that the non-spellcasting classes are vastly less able to fight at the point that the CR system says they should is not a flaw of the Cr system, but of the classes.
----------------------------
To the proud meatshields:
Be happy that your Wizard hasn't chosen to use summons or illusions or walls or mind-control magic or necromancy or tactical control spells. Any one of these remove the need for a meatshield.
You job of "soaking damage and attacks" is just something they let you do so that you feel useful and pay for a share of the pizza.
Remember that raw numeric bonuses require coming in extremely large numbers before they make much of a difference. A 15th level Cleric can wander around with divine power, divine favor, righteous might, spikes, greater magic weapon, weapon of the deity, and bless all on 24/7. That's not even a large pile of her spell slots.
Giving Fighters bonus to-hit, damage, and AC is not an over-all solution to anything. For a Fighter to get he kind of bonuses that would actually let him compete one on one against Clerics he'd leave the monsters distantly in the dust. But he still wouldn't be doing anything interesting or fun.
-Frank
Thats the stupid shenanigans. Armor training, as written, requires you to make a suboptimal choice for at least part of your career. Thats pointless and poor design.
So...
Characters should only be given optimal choices?
What defines an optimal choice? Whose play style should the optimal choices be based on?
|
|
Unless you are willing to give the fighter maneuvers or some other ability that is on par with spells a caster of the same level can cast, the fighter is still going to be left behind by the casters. That's something you either have to live with or convert to 4th edition, where everyone does the same damage per level with class powers that are different from each other in name only. I personally think it's more heroic standing toe to toe with monsters knowing full well that you aren't going to hurt them as much as the gutless spellcaster that is nuking them from the back row. At least you have the guts to put yourself in harm's way and rely on skill, determination, and trusty armor and weapons instead of mystical forces of the universe. It all depends on what playstyle you prefer.
I thought everyone knew that PCs and monsters weren't evenly balanced one-on-one and just had to live with it.No. After extensively playtesting this particular facet of the game I have concluded that a number of classes actually can live up to that ideal if well constructed and played...
There is some basis for this, but I don't believe its the whole truth. Just as different classes have different strengths and weaknesses, so do different monsters.
Ogres and most other giants, for instance, were specifically designed so that a 4-party of appropriate level would be unlikely to be able to overcome using standard melee combat alone; the trick is to nail their weak will save or use "killing jars" or sneak attacks and guerilla tactics to wear them down. Most fighter builds going one-on-one will find these opponents outshine them at their own game, while wizards can take them out with mind effects.
But thats not true of all monsters. Golems are generally meant to be wizard-killers, and fighters will fare much better against most of them than wizards will. The same goes for Nerra and a number of other critters.
Fighters are strong against creatures with high AC, SR, or damage-dealing but weak against those with lots of hp or DR.
Wizards are strong against creatures with low Will or Reflex saves and high DR, but weak against creatures with high SR, damage dealing, good saves, high touch AC.
On another note, while I do agree that 3.5 fighter lags behind other characters a bit, I think the disparity is exaggerated by players' tendency to over-rate offensive power.
From a game balance perspective, fighters are supposed to deal less damage than most other classes. If a fighter dealt 100% of the damage dealt by a wizard of the same level, while retaining 150% of the wizard's AC and 200-300% of his hp, people would be griping about how gimped the wizard is instead of the fighter.
Now, do we really want classes to have equal scores across the board? Suppose we make every class have equal hp, AC and damage output and just made cosmetic changes; fighters get a 10AC from armor and do damage of 5hp/level/round with a sword while the wizard gets 10AC from abjuration spells and does 5hp/level/round with fireballs or whatnot. I don't really find that preferable, do you?
The real lag the fighter has is not in damage output but in versatility; spellcasters, even limited "spells known" spontaneous casters like the sorceror have a wider variety of options to target different weaknesses than fighters do. I don't think this is necessarily inherent in the bonus feat system; the problem could be adressed with more versatile and scalable combbat bonus feats.
|
I agree that many of the deficiencies in the fighter as far as 'interesting' actions to perform in combat can be fixed with upper-level feats.
These would be feats that have 8 or 9 prerequisites, and many of those prerequisites wouldn't suck. When I play fighters, I usually have all my 'core' feats by 8th level. After that point, I'm picking up the same feats again (like two weapon fighting) or I'm picking up odd feats to make me just a little better (iron will, quick draw, etc).
I think Whirlwind Attack is the 'highest' feat, in terms of number of prerequisite feats. Needing Dodge, Mobility, Spring Attack, and Combat Expertise.
Under the 3.5 rules Whirlwind attack can be gained by a non-human fighter at 4th level.
This indicates that fighters, at least, need some kind of feat tree that has higher level abilities. One of my friends was over at my house working on one, and it shows some promise. I'm not saying that feats have to offer the same benefit as 9th level spells - but they should offer some benefit that has the player thinking 'cool, now I can do this'.
I think the fact that I really like mid-level play is tied to the fact that levelling up with the fighter stops being fun before 10th level. At that point the remaining feats aren't too attractive, and I'm specifically looking for classes that improve my will save.
I think the Pathfinder Fighter class was a huge step in the right direction. I agree with a lot of other posters that I think the Fighter could still benefit from Class abilities. I would like to see them get Special Abilities, like a Rogue starting at 9th level and going until 19th level. Some of those abilities could be things like:
-Damage Reduction
-Critical Modifier improves by one step (x3 instead of x2)
-Flurry (like the monk ability)
-Tactical Strike: With a successful attack, Fighter can initiate a Trip/Disarm/Bullrush/Sunder
-Able to fire Ranged Weapon in melee
These are just some options, I liked other ones like being able to nauseate, or blind, or silence a foe for one round. I think this option keeps the fighter as a simple class that can be picked up by new players, but also provides a lot of fun options for old salts.
One option for upping the damage output to make it comparable with higher damage classes would also be to make Weapon Specialization add +1d6 of damage rather than +2. There's nothing saying that it needs to be a standard boost, and this could make the Rapier Fighter dish out 2d6 (4d6 on a crit). I think this could make it a bit more fun, in that Fighters get to roll lots of dice as well, and also make them a bit more comparable with other classes.
Good discussion on the Fighter. I have three simple suggestions:
1) A fighter bonus feat every level.
2) More fighter bonus feats, like the PHB II.
3) 4 + Int bonus trained skills.
Thats the stupid shenanigans. Armor training, as written, requires you to make a suboptimal choice for at least part of your career. Thats pointless and poor design.So...
Characters should only be given optimal choices?
What defines an optimal choice? Whose play style should the optimal choices be based on?
In this particular case, optimal is pretty clearly defined by numbers. If your armor's AC + your Dex > another armor's AC + your Dex. then it is better. Higher numbers are optimal, lower numbers are suboptimal. Armor check penalties are largely irrelevant except for some pretty specific corner cases, and the speed issue can be worked around with some frankly low level magic items. Thus, they aren't balancing factors to the part of the equation that says High AC = always better.
But on the more general subject, optimal (or meaninful choices) come into play, particularly when balancing the fighter.
Cleric, Druid, Wizard up top.
Sorcerer, Rogue are upper middle
Ranger, Barbarian, Bard are lower middle.
Fighter, Monk, Paladin on the bottom.
And yes, some people would tweak those locations a bit. But there is nothing a fighter can choose so that he is operating at the same level as the first two tiers, unless those players are going out of their way to make suboptimal decisions. Or the DM is gimping the monsters or players of the top tier classes so the fighter can feel good about himself.
And handing out some extra pluses, regardless of the math (and the math is important since everything but damage is off a d20, so every + is changing the odds by 5%), doesn't give the fighter any meaningful choices. A top-tier class can win an encounter with a single action. A fighter is going to have to take many actions, as well as a sizeable chunk of HP, to win that same encounter. Thats an imbalance that can't be addressed with a few pluses, and it really needs to. At the moment, the best the fighter can hope for is delaying the monsters for a few rounds while the casters win it. Or the DM going easy on the party so the fighter can shine (which also requires that the real PCs take the encounter off so the fighter can play).
|
|
And handing out some extra pluses, regardless of the math (and the math is important since everything but damage is off a d20, so every + is changing the odds by 5%), doesn't give the fighter any meaningful choices. A top-tier class can win an encounter with a single action. A fighter is going to have to take many actions, as well as a sizeable chunk of HP, to win that same encounter. Thats an imbalance that can't be addressed with a few pluses, and it really needs to.
IMO it really doesn't need to be addressed.
The Fighter isn't supposed to be the crazy blower-up-of-stuff that a Wizard is, nor is he supposed to do the 'I sneak behind him and pick pocket his liver right out of his back with my bucket of Sneak Attack dice.'
He's got, in some cases, more than twice the hit points of the heavy damage dealers, and may well be significantly harder to hit. His job isn't to match them point for point for damage, and if he can, then every single other class has to then be boosted that much higher than his new numbers, to make up for their crappy hit points and (sometimes) armor class.
IMO, the Fighter should be getting a plus to damage based on level (1 pt / odd level sounds nice) and a plus to armor class based on some factor or another (perhaps some sort of armor optimization that grants +1 if he's wearing Lt armor, +2 if he's wearing Med armor and +3 if he's wearing Hvy armor, and *maybe* another +1 if he's using a Shield).
His armor class will then be that much better than anyone else wearing the same sort of armor (Cleric, for instance), and his weapon damage will also always be a little better than the base damage of another class using the same weapon. He doesn't need to do anything magical, just be better at what he already does.
For those who want the lighter armored options, the Fighter can have an option to trade in Hvy and Med Armor profs for Dodge bonuses to AC when he's not encumbered. The Dodge bonuses will never equal the Armor bonuses he's giving up, but at least he'll have some proficiency at the more mobile combat style he's going for. [I'd go with a +1 Dodge bonus for giving up Hvy, and an additional +2 Dodge bonus for giving up Med Armor prof as well, for a total of +3 Dodge bonus for someone who has dedicated himself to only wearing Light armor.]
And handing out some extra pluses, regardless of the math (and the math is important since everything but damage is off a d20, so every + is changing the odds by 5%), doesn't give the fighter any meaningful choices. A top-tier class can win an encounter with a single action. A fighter is going to have to take many actions, as well as a sizeable chunk of HP, to win that same encounter. Thats an imbalance that can't be addressed with a few pluses, and it really needs to.IMO it really doesn't need to be addressed.
The Fighter isn't supposed to be the crazy blower-up-of-stuff that a Wizard is, nor is he supposed to do the 'I sneak behind him and pick pocket his liver right out of his back with my bucket of Sneak Attack dice.'
He's got, in some cases, more than twice the hit points of the heavy damage dealers, and may well be significantly harder to hit. His job isn't to match them point for point for damage, and if he can, then every single other class has to then be boosted that much higher than his new numbers, to make up for their crappy hit points and (sometimes) armor class.
I hate to break it to you, but Wizards can easily be better meatshields.
Lets take a 10th level Wizard. He is wearing Full Plate +2 and a Tower Shield +2 without proficiency. He hides behind his shield when he walks around, and so has complete cover. He has a Ring of protection +2 and a Ring of Natural Armor +2. He has a 14 Dex. Total AC: 30, but remember he's got full cover from the Tower Shield. (This is a conservative estimate without taking into account things like the fact that he could Expertise for full with a whip that activates Expertise from AoOs, take Dodge, or just get bigger bonuses from Feats or magic items.)
Monsters attack! He's not hurt because of the Total Cover.
He then casts a Stilled Blink and now half of all hits and spells can't hit him, in all ways effectivly doubling his HPs.
He casts a Stilled Mirror Image, and now several attacks will miss him. Or he casts a Stilled polymorph and becomes a Green Hag for the +11 natural armor and no monster near his level can hit him (A CR 11 Hezrou could get a +5 and still only hit him on a 20).
Did I also mention he has a magic circle against evil on and he can't be mind-controlled? And that he casts false life before every battle for a pile of extra HPs?
Or that he can still cast spells with no somatic components like Blind, or just cast Stilled spells?
--------------------
This doesn't even take into account that he could just walk around with the latest monster you've killed as a zombie with animate dead, or he could use charm monster to have a gang of stuff to act as meatshields, or could use planar binding to have a dozen demons/angels backing you up on the adventure.
And this is just an example limited to SRD material. With a few supplements, it gets even crazier.
|
|
I think the Pathfinder Fighter class was a huge step in the right direction. I agree with a lot of other posters that I think the Fighter could still benefit from Class abilities. I would like to see them get Special Abilities, like a Rogue starting at 9th level and going until 19th level. Some of those abilities could be things like:
-Damage Reduction
-Critical Modifier improves by one step (x3 instead of x2)
-Flurry (like the monk ability)
-Tactical Strike: With a successful attack, Fighter can initiate a Trip/Disarm/Bullrush/Sunder
-Able to fire Ranged Weapon in meleeThese are just some options, I liked other ones like being able to nauseate, or blind, or silence a foe for one round. I think this option keeps the fighter as a simple class that can be picked up by new players, but also provides a lot of fun options for old salts.
One option for upping the damage output to make it comparable with higher damage classes would also be to make Weapon Specialization add +1d6 of damage rather than +2. There's nothing saying that it needs to be a standard boost, and this could make the Rapier Fighter dish out 2d6 (4d6 on a crit). I think this could make it a bit more fun, in that Fighters get to roll lots of dice as well, and also make them a bit more comparable with other classes.
I agree, I would like to see some similar abilities, perhaps work them in with the armor and weapon mastery, call them combat mastery.
I do love the new fighter build, previously fighters were used specifically to get a few feats really fast to multi-class or qualify for a PrC.