I made a copy of the email I sent to the Malformed, and I put it Here.
I will not clutter this particular thread with the ongoing argument.
-Frank
|
I made a copy of the email I sent to the Malformed, and I put it Here.
I will not clutter this particular thread with the ongoing argument.
-Frank
Great. Then I would suggest not using the argument (a CR8 fighter should be able to defeat a CR8 monster 50% of the time or the fighter is broken), which has its flaws as I have pointed out, as a basis for anything you post here.
Hey Kirth, I know what you mean and I am praying this for a long time now.
In AD&D the rogue (thief) was build around his special thief skills, backstabbing was just a cool add.
3rd Ed. changed this dramaticly (in my POV). Now the new sneak attack not only works MUCH more often (backstabbing couldn't be used in combat usually!) and deals A LOT more damage.
I am reworking D&D myself too, and I surely won't sneak attack as it is, and will give the rogue much more other (skill related) abilities.
Some ideas for sneak attack:
- making one(!) sneak attack is a full-round action (thus you first have to get into position before sneak attacking!)
- The target must be unaware of your presence (flat-footed is not sufficiant)
- You get +X to your to-hit and damage rolls (level dependent)
- If you hit, you score an automatic critical hit. If you ALSO roll a critical hit, you instead do a coup-de-grace.
Great. Then I would suggest not using the argument (a CR8 fighter should be able to defeat a CR8 monster 50% of the time or the fighter is broken), which has its flaws as I have pointed out, as a basis for anything you post here.I made a copy of the email I sent to the Malformed, and I put it Here.
I will not clutter this particular thread with the ongoing argument.
-Frank
No.
-Frank
I agree with your math, but I wouldn't overlook the fact that this kind of test is heavily biased towards certain classes:* Offensive specialists. Merely withstanding attacks or increasing the power of your allies will never win a one-on-one fight, so the test rates pure "tanks" and "buffers" very low (even if they could arguably pull their weight in a 4-5 person party).
This is actually the *exact opposite* of what is true. Defensive abilities are *more* valuable solo, because when solo, they defend your entire party instead of one character who may or may not be attacked.
This is actually the *exact opposite* of what is true. Defensive abilities are *more* valuable solo, because when solo, they defend your entire party instead of one character who may or may not be attacked.
In D&D, the best defense is usually an overwhelming offense. A wizard only needs to survive one or two rounds before he kills his opponent. :)
Fortunately, wizards can easily have the best defense and the best offense. Problem solved! :)
|
|
Great. Then I would suggest not using the argument (a CR8 fighter should be able to defeat a CR8 monster 50% of the time or the fighter is broken), which has its flaws as I have pointed out, as a basis for anything you post here.I made a copy of the email I sent to the Malformed, and I put it Here.
I will not clutter this particular thread with the ongoing argument.
-Frank
No.
-Frank
I don't think anyone thinks less of you for being wrong, Frank. I certainly don't. It's ok if you don't want to talk about it.
I don't think anyone thinks less of you for being wrong, Frank. I certainly don't. It's ok if you don't want to talk about it.
Hey Lich-loved, I'd like to point out that you are coming across as a jerk.
Baiting people is not cool.
|
|
I don't think anyone thinks less of you for being wrong, Frank. I certainly don't. It's ok if you don't want to talk about it.Hey Lich-loved, I'd like to point out that you are coming off as a jerk.
Baiting people is not cool, in case you were wondering.
I wasn't bating him in the least. Frank doesn't want to debate it (but insists he is right). I am ok with that. It doesn't make him less wrong, it makes him unwillng to debate it. I concede he won't debate his point because of the inevitable conclusion and want him to know that I don't respect him less just because he has his facts wrong this time.
And since you have chimed in...
You and Frank have long teamed up to reiterate this point about Fighter 8 vs CR 8 and it is based on faulty assumptions. I know you two collaborate on books, share (or shared) an identity on WotC's board and in general both have the same belief and approach to the game. Together you browbeat those that disagree with you and come across with the words "stupid", "wrong" and "unable to comprehend..." too often. At times I suspected you were both Frank, trying the WotC-approach here, but I have since moved away from that point of view and believe you are really your own poster, at least on these boards. But I digress...
In short, Frank is wrong about the DMG table because he doesn't take the variability of CR into account, though neither does the DMG (and it commits the further grievous sin of allowing count of creatures present - a CR-based variable - to appear again as an independent variable in the CR/EL table). He won't debate it, but he will berate others for calling him out on it, even if they lack the mathematical training to put their finger on the problem. Well, I don't lack the training and have heard the "you don't understand logarithms argument" one too many times lately.
I am sorry if my restatement of Frank's unwillingness to debate his erroneous position upsets you and god forbid that Keith (K) and/or Frank should find another poster's view's upsetting to them, but one would think after all of the ridiculous posturing the two of you have put forth on this forum that you could at least develop as thick a skin as you expect everyone else that must wade through your posts to have.
Lichloved, you do realize that you've just poisoned this whole thread with your personal problem, right? People are not going to read it anymore because they have to wade through this argument.
Disagreement is one thing (in fact, its encouraged). You've taken it to the level of a personal attack.
Again, not cool.
This thread was derailed a while ago. Frank, to his credit, tried to get it back on-track by posting a link about CR instead of reposting; K, I might point out that your baiting LL about whether he was baiting Frank didn't help that effort.
If anyone has further input on rogue vs. fighter, please continue, by all means. Otherwise, I would respectfully suggest that a separate thread, possibly entitled "Is Frank Ever Wrong?" or something, might be more appropriate.
|
|
Lichloved, you do realize that you've just poisoned this whole thread with your personal problem, right? People are not going to read it anymore because they have to wade through this argument.
Disagreement is one thing (in fact, its encouraged). You've taken it to the level of a personal attack.
Again, not cool.
It is not a personal attack. Frank is wrong and has beat people over the head with his wrongness a number of times here. I just shook my head at the whole thing and let it slide. But it happened again in this thread (and this is a good thread with good points) so I finally dedicated some time to showing why this point of view was wrong. Frank won't debate it here and he won't back away from his position either. I can understand not wanting to debate the point, but not wanting to stop bashing people with a flawed point? C'mon already. In effect, he wants to continue to pound people with a flawed argument, hoping to win by dint of force what cannot be done with reason.
I do not believe I have attacked you or Frank personally or made any assumption a reasonable person wouldn't have made. If I have done something you feel is personal, please let me know where and I will correct that mistake.
|
|
If anyone has further input on rogue vs. fighter, please continue, by all means. Otherwise, I would respectfully suggest that a separate thread, possibly entitled "Is Frank Ever Wrong?" or something, might be more appropriate.
Ha! Fair enough Kirth. I am sorry I picked this thread to challenge Frank's point. I could have done a better job of that.
Your points have real merit and I strongly support changes of the type you mention. For my part I will stay on topic in this thread.
I posted a link. If you want to yell at me, do so in the thread supplied for exactly that argument. Do not stalk me from thread to thread demanding long arguments that require a fair amount of algebra and quote mining. This is not the first thread that you have derailed, stop doing it.
-Frank
|
|
I posted a link. If you want to yell at me, do so in the thread supplied for exactly that argument. Do not stalk me from thread to thread demanding long arguments that require a fair amount of algebra and quote mining. This is not the first thread that you have derailed, stop doing it.
-Frank
A reply of 'No' here would be be most fitting.
However, I agree. I will be posting a thread for this purpose. Come prepared, there will be a test.
THERE IS ALREADY A G%* D%@NED THREAD! WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU?
-Frank
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I have a point on rogue versus fighter, that extends evenly to any class versus class argument.
Which is a better feat for a human fighter: blind-fighting or power attack?
Well, that depends on the encounter. Stuck in the dark, against an enemy the fighter should usually miss, blind-fighting is much more useful. Against a gelatinous cube in a well-lit hallway; power attack.
Since the DM controls the encounter, it's the DM's call. That is, it's up to the Dungeon Master to determine which feat is mre useful.
The DM can decide to introduce a lot of noncombat encounters with surly guards, or combat encounters in cramped spaces against opponents with combat reflexes. It's up to the Dungeon Master to determine whether Diplomacy is more useful than Tumble.
(And, for what it's worth, Kae-yoss, I don't think that D&D is primarily a combat game. I think it's primarily an exploration game. Combat plays a part, as do Trapfinding, Appraisal, and social interaction encounters.)
The DM can throw giants against the party, or vampires. The Dungeon Master determines whether the dwarf ranger --with favored enemy: giants, and with a +2 giant-bane longbow-- is more effective than the aasimar paladin with a holy mace of disruption.
And likewise, the DM can arrange the campaign so that encounter after encounter favors the rogue in combat, or the fighter.
Of course, you say. I haven't said anything particularly clever or novel.
A good DM will look at an evening's sequence of encounters and try to let everyone shine. If the rogues have had a lot of stealthy espionage encounters already, and the evening's going to end with some fun opportunity for the character's Forgery and Bluff abilities, then there should be more combat encounters against undead, and oozes, and people backed against walls, or with high AC, or with low hit points (so they'll be dispatched before the rogue can line up a sneak attack).
I don't the 3.5 Rogue is always better than the Fighter.
And, the same issue bears upon the tangential argument:
I've spent some time teaching chess to beginners. One of my first lessons is: "Which would be better, having four knights, four bishops, or two of each?" Students typically don't guess "two of each", but that's the right answer. An opponent can play a closed game, locking up four bishops behind walls of pawns. An opponent can play an open game, leaving four knights scattered and slow across a clear middle. A player with various pieces is ready for various challenges.
Likewise, a well-balanced party is almost always victorious against a much tougher single opponent, because they can play a game against the opponent's strengths. The party should have tactics that work against a powerful spell-caster, and different tactics to bring out against a big, tough bruiser.
i agree with Lich-loved: the CR system breaks down with very small parties. throwing a single paladin, say, up against an appropriate CR encounter would be like throwing four paladins up against four of the creatures.
But a well-balanced party of 4 is different from --stronger, more versatile than-- a party of four paladins (or four monks, or what have you). A well-rounded party of 4 is more than four times as strong as a single character.
As always, Chris, your (on-topic) post is timely and insightful. I'd take it a step further, though, and really get to the heart of this pre-Springer thread:
Given that mixed parties fare better in 3.5, does that mean that all classes need to be altered so that each class can do everything by itself?
Unless you only have 2 players (which I've done, and it can be a lot of fun, but it's not your "standard model" D&D), I'd answer a resounding NO. To me, the game is more fun if each character has his or her "niche," or area of strength, forcing the players to cooperate with and accommodate one another. The rogue can disable traps, but often needs the cleric to heal him, who often needs the wizard to perform battlefield control so he has the opportunity, who in turn needs the fighter to slaughter the mooks so they don't disrupt his spells. The fighter needs the rogue to find the traps, and do all the other underhanded stuff that no one else in the group can accomplish. The synergistic effect is a large part of the fun, I'd argue.
So I'm against a rogue who out-fights a Fighter. I'm against a wizard who out-skills the rogue. Etc.
But a well-balanced party of 4 is different from --stronger, more versatile than-- a party of four paladins (or four monks, or what have you). A well-rounded party of 4 is more than four times as strong as a single character.
I'd argue that four Druids, or four Rogues, or four Clerics, or Four Wizards, can take on anything in the MM as well or better than a balanced party assuming they walk in knowing that they need to cover their weaknesses (by buying healing potions, armoring up, or having non-overlapping tactical options, for example).
Rogues can still sneak attack people in full plate, Wizards can easily have higher HPs and AC and even soak more damage than a fighter kitted out for defense, and clerics just rock in whatever they do. Druids heal, blast, fight better than fighters and can do it in armor, and generally have no weaknesses.
Basically, the strong classes can pair up in any way that they like while the weak class are in serious trouble if they don't pair up with the strong classes.
Is there anything wrong with turning it on its head, and instead state "Making fighters not rogues anymore"? A rogue is envisioned as easier to hurt when actually attacked (which is also the time his offense is reduced, coincidentally), and thus has a glass cannon outlook.
The rogue's role, in combat, is to give a short-but-potent assault of damage. There is going to be all sorts of reproductive organ measuring going on if we have these two classes compete for the same offensive role while they have different defensive roles.
Therefore, make the fighter not someone who makes giant numbers of damage (which is also the barbarian's role, and is a much easier class for a player to roll up at that). Focus on their resilience. Focus on their advanced combat actions. Give them hindering roles, but different from yet another slow spell. Make their mere attention distracting, and occupying them eases the pain for the opponent, so they aren't turtles that Team Monster walks around so it can smash the wizard with leisure.
Is there anything wrong with turning it on its head, and instead state "Making fighters not rogues anymore"? A rogue is envisioned as easier to hurt when actually attacked (which is also the time his offense is reduced, coincidentally), and thus has a glass cannon outlook.
The rogue's role, in combat, is to give a short-but-potent assault of damage. There is going to be all sorts of reproductive organ measuring going on if we have these two classes compete for the same offensive role while they have different defensive roles.
Therefore, make the fighter not someone who makes giant numbers of damage (which is also the barbarian's role, and is a much easier class for a player to roll up at that). Focus on their resilience. Focus on their advanced combat actions. Give them hindering roles, but different from yet another slow spell. Make their mere attention distracting, and occupying them eases the pain for the opponent, so they aren't turtles that Team Monster walks around so it can smash the wizard with leisure.
A focus on shifting the fighter's role, as you suggest, is most welcome. I've got nothing at all against modestly improving the fighter; he needs it, if the rogue is that good. But I'm also very much against needless "power creep." Everyone already gets more feats, more class features, and more efficient skill purchasing power. Most get more HD as well. Too much more powering up and we're in a "5th level Pathfinder character = 8th level 3.5e character" situation, and I personally don't want to have to recalculate the CRs of every single monster in every book accordingly. So if we can nerf the rogue just a little bit, and make the fighter more viable by shifting his focus, rather than blatantly powering him up, I'm all in favor.
A genuine possibility is to provide encounter guidelines whereby people fight more stuff, especially before going up in level. The rubric where one 11th level PC is supposed to be roughly equal to one CR 11 monster is certainly an understandable and workable design goal. But you could just as plausibly have a setup in which a CR 11 Monster was defined as a "challenge" for an 11th level character (that is: 4 CR 11 Monsters would be equal to a single 11th level character). You wouldn't have to recalculate anything except the CRs of NPCs made off the new rules (and it would be a trivial calculation at that).
Power creep doesn't have to be annoying to calculate or difficult to implement, so long as it keeps a known and fixed ratio with the power level ideals of the original system. A new Experience Awards system has to be written in any case, and I would just assume that the default assumption involved a lot more accomplishment between level gains. It's kind of frustrating for 1st level characters to achieve Epic standing in between major holidays.
To say that we have to power things up or power things down is facetious. If we want to keep the D&D power assumptions we have to cut a few broken spell effects off the top of the tree, power the crap out of most of the non-casters, and call ourselves good boys. But if we also adjust our expectations of what constitutes a "standard" encounter we could jolly well weaken everything to the power of a Monk or power up every class to the level of Druid and beyond and still stay closer on mark than the original 3e printing ever was.
-Frank
A genuine possibility is to provide encounter guidelines whereby people fight more stuff, especially before going up in level. It's kind of frustrating for 1st level characters to achieve Epic standing in between major holidays.
To say that we have to power things up or power things down is facetious. If we want to keep the D&D power assumptions we have to cut a few broken spell effects off the top of the tree, power the crap out of most of the non-casters, and call ourselves good boys.
Both of your points are well-taken. The inclusion of a "slow XP" chart means we can play Pathfinder characters in 3.5 adventures, use the slow chart, and figure they're more or less advancing as they would have being higher-level in 3.5e. The relative challenge is a lot lower, but so are the XP awards. I intentionally pick on the "slow" chart because I, too, get seriously annoyed when I level up again before I have a change to use any of my new class features or spells from the last level-up.
One other side-effect of power creep, though -- and it may not matter to most people, but it really kind of irks me -- is that the gap between 1st level characters (or goblins, commoners, or whatever) on the one hand, and even mid-level PCs on the other, is increasing more and more as well. In 1e, the stated goal was that a 10th level fighter was equal to 10 first-level fighters. Now he's equivalent to maybe a couple of dozen of them, or more. Class features every level? Fine, cool. But I'm not sure they have to always be more and more powerful class features.
Just some things to think about.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
In 1st Edition, the stated goal was that a 10th level fighter was equal to 10 first-level fighters.
(squinch)
That may very well have been a stated design goal. I don't think it works.
Way back in the early 80's Steve Jackson Games published a nice manual on designing war games. It noted that uneven fights are a lot more uneven than you think. Because a more powerful force can both dish out more damage, and withstand damage longer, the military strategists figured that a force twice as large as a standard unit was four times as powerful.
(So, dividing your enemy line into two halves dropped its combat abilities down to 0.707 times its original abilities, even before inflicting any casualties. Chess players already had an inkling.)
A tenth-level fighter lord with 10 times as many hit points, with better armor class, able to attack twice as often (this is 1st Edition), with a much better "to hit" roll and probably a magic weapon, was far and away able to defeat a force of 10 "veterans" (1st-level fighters).
but you're right: with combat feats, skill points, attribute enhancement items, and associated follderoll, the disparity is much worse in current editions.
I agree about the math. But whether it's 10:1 becoming 50:1, or 100:1 becoming 1,000:1, it still sticks in my craw. But like I said, it's unlikely that anyone is with me on this point. The popular mind-set seems to be that a 10th level character SHOULD be able to easily kill an entire army between sips of champagne -- even if that seems completely stupid to me.
I agree about the math. But whether it's 10:1 becoming 50:1, or 100:1 becoming 1,000:1, it still sticks in my craw. But like I said, it's unlikely that anyone is with me on this point. The popular mind-set seems to be that a 10th level character SHOULD be able to easily kill an entire army between sips of champagne -- even if that seems completely stupid to me.
I agree that a 10th level character should not be slaughtering a company of soldiers. Or even a 15th or 20th level character. Unfortunately, as long as this is the game it is (with ever increasing hit points, damage, armor class, etc) this will always be a problem with the game. As it is a 5th level wizard can kill a squad of average (1st level warrior) soldiers in one round without any help. With his buddies he can wipe out entire tribes of goblins in a minute.
-Weylin Stormcrowe
I can understand not wanting characters to be able to fight armies, but it's not a personal preference kind of thing here. The very nature of the game, from just about every facet and in the foundation itself, supports this paradigm. To make it otherwise is to change the entire game from the ground up, which is WAY too much change for this playtest.
It is easy to handle in your personal game, if you so desire. Slow down the leveling rate and don't let the game go above level 6.
At 10d6 at 19th level, one sneak attack per round is 35 HPs of damage. That's not going to get it done. That's over-compensating by moving the rogue straight to useless. (And I've yet to be convinced by any evidence that the rogue is broken next to the core classes, let alone the other classes. If this argument goes anywhere it's towards the disincentives of playing a fighter.) It'd be a huge incentive to go PrC as soon as possible.
And lets not pretend that Paizo is going to adding facing into their 3.5. That would be a massive pain and require the DMs reworking the combat tactics of every encounter with a rogue in their library.
Ah. It comes out on page two: You want to play grim n gritty. DnD is a high fantasy game. You have to heavily house rule it to make it work.
Fortunately, it's been done. Take a look at this thread on E6 at enworld: http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=206323
Basically, you level up until level 6, then you don't go up in level any more. Other things happen when you get XP, but the idea is that 6th level is when the core classes are most balanced and the game changing magic isn't there yet.
I recommend you try that out rather than get frustrated at an inability to subtract power from core classes. That's just not going to happen from Paizo. They seem to intend to balance the core through addition, not subtraction.
I agree about the math. But whether it's 10:1 becoming 50:1, or 100:1 becoming 1,000:1, it still sticks in my craw. But like I said, it's unlikely that anyone is with me on this point. The popular mind-set seems to be that a 10th level character SHOULD be able to easily kill an entire army between sips of champagne -- even if that seems completely stupid to me.
One man against many is a fairly standard trope of myth, though. It shows up in real world history too, with Cortes against the Aztecs and the Spartans at Thermopylae.
I say give the rogue d4 hit points per level like in basic D&D...
One man against many is a fairly standard trope of myth, though. It shows up in real world history too, with Cortes against the Aztecs and the Spartans at Thermopylae.Pardon the off-topic - Gersen's comment was alredy replied to to my satisfaction; just saying Cortés' conquistadores were massively outnumbered by native allies (enemies of the Aztec) in the important battles, and the Spartans, while they did make a difference in the war's course (AFAIK), fought mostly slaves (big adavantage - the enemy's low morale) in a terrain amply favorable, and still ended up losing - because numbers matter much more than in D&D ... (the important part for me was to dispel the "small elite army" myth about the conquistadores - they weren't even an army).
This is why i like games such as Savage Worlds that include sigificant bonuses for dogpiling opponents. Sure the average halfling is not much compared to a hill giant, but when there are 40 of them the giant is going to die. It may just cost the halfling 50% of their numbers to do it. Numbers should be more of a factor than they are in D&D to me. Elite troops, technological advantage and favorable terrain doesnt count for much when you are outnumbered 30 to 1.
-Weylin Stormcrowe
This is why i like games such as Savage Worlds that include sigificant bonuses for dogpiling opponents. Sure the average halfling is not much compared to a hill giant, but when there are 40 of them the giant is going to die. It may just cost the halfling 50% of their numbers to do it. Numbers should be more of a factor than they are in D&D to me. Elite troops, technological advantage and favorable terrain doesnt count for much when you are outnumbered 30 to 1.
-Weylin Stormcrowe
What the hell man? Seriously, what the hell?
Legolas and Gimli seriously *could* kill like 30 people each -- they counted.
Modern fantasy, especialy with caster protagonists, have body counts way higher. Not to mention legends like the Iliad or the Romance of the Three Kingdoms.
If you don't want PCs to be indiviudal worth entire legions, go play some other game. There are lots out there, even gritty-low magic fantasy RPGs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In 1e, the stated goal was that a 10th level fighter was equal to 10 first-level fighters.
Your memory is wrong. A 9th level AD&D Fighter got "an army" as a class feature. Not only was a 10th level Fighter supposed to be able to hack his way through dozens of men by himself, he actually had dozens of men under his command who were themselves the equal of a man each by definition.
10th level adventures like Expedition to the Demon Web Pits had you fight humanoid warriors in the literal hundreds and then fight an actual god in hand to hand combat.
-Frank
All this talk about powering down classes... see; I don't get it. There isn't so much a power creep in DnD, as there is just a ceiling for what people envision is believability in the game. Past level 10, in fact, past level 5, DnD stops being nitty gritty of any sort, and in fact stops being a low fantasy game, and becomes a high fantasy game. All classes do it, even the lowly fighter. Have any of you actually thought about what skills do in game analogous to real world stuff? Or what that 18 actually means in any one stat? Rogues are seriously one balanced class, a quintessential glass canon; and comparing them to fighters is silly. You really have to look at the point of the fighter; what does he do? Does he do it well? And it's always better to add something, than to take away; especially for the sake of compatibility.
The popular mind-set seems to be that a 10th level character SHOULD be able to easily kill an entire army between sips of champagne -- even if that seems completely stupid to me.
I definitely agree. But, also a lot of epic tales and movies are quite stupid too if you think at it twice. So we can quickly jump on something like: AD&D is a stupid game for stupid nerds in a stupid world which is certainly something very close to THE truth.
But, I prefer to think that D&D is the epic side of the Fantasy Roleplaying Games. When I want to be more in touch with a life feeling, I’m playing Runequest. I have always been amazed by how Runequest rules were more solid / simple and robust than D&D ones during the last 30 years. The backside is that combats are very long and very deadly – in Runequest you can localize your hit and the head of an human has 4 to 6 pts, at 0 you are dead ! – Almost all creatures can kill you, especially when you are outnumbered.But, despite its very flavour, Runequest has never been, from far away, so popular that D&D and it is not more published. Why ? Certainly a question for gamers and professionals.
I’m definitely not sure that the never ending empowering of the classes and, as a consequence, of the game since the end of the 70’s was a 100% win move. Generally speaking, the players are more and more spending time in character sheet flipping and self combo’s preparation than in role playing and epic scenes of group battle. And I don’t talk about the time spent in character building + levelling and the players’ awe in front of their countless feats, special abilities, spells, HP and so on. These are, at the end of the day only very complex mechanisms but not fun at all !
Ok I have to come (late) on topic now. The rogue seems to me very powerful with its sneak attack as it stands. I have house played it for a while without all the sneak attack abilities as they stand, and surprisingly, I always got players who want to impersonate one in my games. If a rogue wants to use a “sneak attack” action, he has to be unnoticed and also to be able to score a special success (with a skill based DD). If he misses or is noticed, I allow the victim to have a free attack on the rogue if legible. That way, I keep the sneak attack a risky but rewarded manoeuvre. And I forbid the generalisation of it like a boring combat trick the thief repeats again and again almost whatever the situation.
Be creative
Pardon the off-topic - Gersen's comment was alredy replied to to my satisfaction; just saying Cortés' conquistadores were massively outnumbered by native allies (enemies of the Aztec) in the important battles, and the Spartans, while they did make a difference in the war's course (AFAIK), fought mostly slaves (big adavantage - the enemy's low morale) in a terrain amply favorable, and still ended up losing - because numbers matter much more than in D&D ... (the important part for me was to dispel the "small elite army" myth about the conquistadores - they weren't even an army).
Of course, but that's exactly the scenario that we're talking about here. The up-poster was arguing that fighters shouldn't be able to cleave their way through lots of inferior foes, which is fine for his table. But it does happen when you have force multipliers like guns, horses, armor, foes with poor training and morale, terrain, and surprise. Winning when outnumbered 6 to 1 while suffering few casualties at Cholula would fit the bill.
I don't agree with this. Why wouldn't an adventurer not be able to fight? He's going down into dungeons filled with horrible monsters, or trekking across wilderness filled with monsters or whatever. In most campaign you're going to have to fight some time. Of course, conversely one will also want to be able to contribute out side of combat.
Of course I believe everyone should have some time to shine, be it Rogues with traps, Clerics with Undead, or whatever, since as Kirth said if every one is the same, why have classes at all? A class's spotlight time should not be relegated to just in or out of combat though, nor should there be large periods of time were some classes do nothing or are completely ineffectual. That being said, yes a Fighter's schtick is taking on the monsters and nobody should be able to do that better than them. But I don't think a Rogue does that. Sure the Rogue can hit hard, but he can't go head to head with the monsters. If he tried he'd get crushed! The Fighter on the other hand, is better at surviving melee and can do damage a lot more consistently. And don't forget whose helping the Rogue flank those monsters.
OK, the number of comments received makes it clear that I was correct in assuming that most people did not share my distaste of man vs. army. That's fine. I'm also getting a clear picture that the consensus is that many people love the 200 damage/round "sneak attack." Good, we're getting somewhere -- my opinion obviously doesn't drive the design, which is why I'm soliciting discussion. So I'm on board with fighting armies (and possibly with expanded sneak attacks, although I'm not totally sold on them yet) for Pathfinder.
The next obvious step would be to make the fighter able to fight as well as the rogue (I still maintain he can't, and I think Frank would agree with me, if he isn't still locked in his eternal struggle with LichLoved over CR). A few points in BAB doesn't cut it, in my opinion, and a higher-level rogue can now pick up combat feats every other level, just like the fighter, so the fighter has no advantage in that area. AC helps, but that only gets you so far if your enemies can attack you for 6 rounds, whereas the rogue's are all dead after two.
1. As we've mentioned, one idea would be to power up the fighter still more to match the rogue, and then power up the sorcerer again to match the fighter. As Frank points out, as long as they're all balanced against each other, that's OK. But then the monsters all need to be redone (CR no longer applies), or else we need an equation to determine effective 3.5e level, vis-a-vis Pathfinder level. For example, if P = 4/5 D (a 4th level Pathfinder character is equivalent to a 5th level 3.5 character, and a 12th level Pathfinder character is equivalent to a 15th level 3.5 character), then we can send a party of 4 Pathfinder characters into 3.5e adventures intended for a level 5/4 theirs, and everything works out beautifully. Using 3.5 characters in advantures that Paizo eventually writes using the Pathfinder rules will mean that the party needs to be 5/4 the level listed on the back of the module.
But finding that equation will take time and playtesting, and I'm not sure that Paizo has the time or resources to fully nail that down. Rigorous playtesting from the community would help.
2. Another option, that some people scorn as "powering down," is rather to try as much as possible to keep a party of four Pathfinder characters approximately equal in capabilities to a party of four 3.5e characters. That way, characters can use adventures written for either rules set freely, without too much concern. The Pathfinder cleric, for example, has already been nerfed somewhat. If that means nerfing the sneak attack slightly as well, it would annoy sneak attack afficionados, but would save an awful lot of the playtesting required for option (1).
3.A final option, and to my mind the least useful, is to not worry about the power creep at all. I dislike this because then all of my 3.5 adventures become almost useless without a lot of conversion work. I'm still anxious to play "red Hand of Doom," "Curse of the Crimson Throne," and about a zillion Dungeon adventures that looked particularly cool. I'd hate to be in a situation where the group has to decide each weekend if we're playing 3.5 or Pathfinder; I could see the rules and character building quickly becoming entangled, and the whole situation being a headache for everyone.
Thoughts/preferences?
I don't see how CR wouldn't apply. There are many classes which are currently capable of going 1:1 vs. monsters of their level as predicted by the original authors. These characters have a tendency to be near the top of the list power-wise, so a global bid to power creep everyone else up to the high end (excluding Druids and Beguilers) wouldn't require trashing CR at all - quite the opposite.
Now you can pick any balance point you want. But if you choose one other than the Blink Rogue, the Pounce Rogue, the Conjurer (excluding Chain Binding), the Illusionist (Excluding Shadowmist's Fire), and the Cleric (excluding the Shadow Over the Sun), then you'll have to reformat CRs.
-Frank
Now you can pick any balance point you want. But if you choose one other than the Blink Rogue, the Pounce Rogue, the Conjurer (excluding Chain Binding), the Illusionist (Excluding Shadowmist's Fire), and the Cleric (excluding the Shadow Over the Sun), then you'll have to reformat CRs.
My reference point is a party of one rogue, one cleric, one wizard, and one fighter. Of these, the cleric has been nerfed slightly, and the others improved. All of them get more feats, and more efficient skill use. Half of them get higher HD. If a 10th level 3.5 adventure was a challenge for 4 tenth-level 3.5 characters of the listed classes, it'll be a lot easier for the same four characters built using Pathfinder rules.
That's a bad reference point, because the default assumptions are that such a group should win just about all the time with minimal expenditures of resources against CR 10 opposition. Your reference point should be at a point where the players are supposed to be substantially taxed, or you won't be able to tell the difference between "somewhat weak," "just right," and "crazy overoverpowered." Those will all look the same to you.
-Frank
That's a bad reference point, because the default assumptions are that such a group should win just about all the time with minimal expenditures of resources against CR 10 opposition. Your reference point should be at a point where the players are supposed to be substantially taxed, or you won't be able to tell the difference between "somewhat weak," "just right," and "crazy overoverpowered." Those will all look the same to you.
I was talking a level 10 adventure, not a CR 10 encounter, but still, I see what you're saying. If we have to run an entire adventure instead of a number of single-encounter tests, then a lot of the rigor bleeds off as more variables are introduced.
But adventures are designed around parties, not individuals. If we take the party I mentioned, remove 3/5 of their expendibles (to simulate previous encounters), and then playtest against a (3.5e) EL 12 threat, I think we'll be able to determine if the Pathfinder guys do, in fact, have a marked advantage over their 3.5e brethren.
Is there any chance to return to the initial thread question?
|
I agree with Kirth mostly.
I LOVE the idea of making rogues only able to use sneak attack once per round. That one thing would go along way to making them more in line with all the other classes.
As far as the fighter/rogue balance is concerned (i'm not going to talk about paladins, cause i think they need a major overhaul) i think its more an issue of twinkablility. Rogues lend themselves quite easily to being broken by creative rules-lawyering. In fact, it is so easy even a novice can break a rogue fairly easily. Fighters/Rangers on the other hand are not as easy to break (some would say you cant). They are characters that tend towards simplicity/straightforward play. They can however make fantastic characters for simply playing for fun. I think alot of it is why you set out to play, for fun or for "leetness"
I do think the rogue should be brought in line with other classes one way or another. And where ever possible, we need to avoid an "arms race" scenario.
*Edit: My attempt to bring the thread back to the original question*
|
I agree with upping the fighter. He should be able to use more combat maneuvers in a round. He should probably get some sort of "precise strike" feat allowing him to give up iterative attacks for maybe +2d6 damage per iterative attack given up (so a 16th level fighter could attack once for +6d6 damage). He should probably get 4 skill points/level.
The thing is, it's easy to add stuff. It's harder to take it away. And the more stuff that gets added, the less backward compatibility we have.
We've already substantially increased the number of feats and class features that everyone gets. We could easily declare that all classes get 8 skill points/level, that wizards get 3/4 BAB, that paladins get full spellcasting. But the more stuff we add, the harder it is to use all those previous Paizo APs I've been anxiously waiting to play.
But if we buff the fighter a bit, and then tone down the sneak attack a bit, etc. -- in short, keep the overall power level more or less in line with 3.5 -- then we end up with characters that can play in all the 3.0/3.5 adventures as written and still have an interesting challenge. With unchecked power creep, I'd hate to see a system where, at the end of the day, everyone needs two separate sets of characters: one for "Pathfinder" adventures and one for "Pre-Alpha" adventures.
I agree with this, for the most part.
It isn't that the Rogue is 'a better Fighter' than the Fighter, since all he really is is 'a better *damage-dealer*' which is not the same thing as a better Fighter. A nice Meteor Swarm can dish out more damage in a round than any Fighter would ever dream of, and still not make the Wizard who cast it 'a better Fighter.'
And so the Rogue has a role in combat. Damage-dealer. DPS. 'Striker.' Whatever you want to call it.
The issue isn't that the Rogue is potentially quite good at his role, it's that the Fighter, as designed, *doesn't have a role in combat.*
Worse, the Rogue has a role out-of-combat, and the Fighter doesn't have anything to offer there either!
I do think that Sneak Attack could stand to be toned down a bit (especially if it can now apply to constructs and undead, and becomes a reliable source of extra damage). Either limiting the Rogue to a single attack with Sneak Attack damage / round, or changing Sneak Attack to work like the Ninja's 'Sudden Strike,' would greatly reduce over-use of the feature.