Is it me or do casters overpower melee classes past about lvl 5?


General Discussion (Prerelease)

201 to 250 of 326 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Dark Archive

After reading through the thread, I'm feeling a little demoralized. The problem has never come up in my game (my players aren't really into that sort of thing) but I enjoy rules discussions and character building, and the problems are obviously there. That said, the hardest part of any "casters are broken" argument is how to fix the problem. Pathfinder is in a way rendered toothless here by it's need to stay backwards compatible (though my definition of that seems different to others). IMHO, the best solution besides taking time out with good designers and rewriting the magic system (ala Arcana Unearthed/Evolved) is what was already suggested earlier in the thread - noncasters with better saves and versatile standard-action attack options. I'm in the middle of a Fighter revision along these lines right now, and I hope that in playtesting it will solve at least some of the problems here. The other solutions I've tried are classes from Tome of Battle/Magic or builds like the full-UMD rogue that effectively turn noncasters into caster-types, nerfing casters so that they have less spells per day, or nerfing the spells and giving the wizard more options. The first fix is 4E: the noncasters are self-healing and have powerful spell-type effects themed to their classes flavor, putting their usefulness right up their with casters. The beef with this approach is the people wanting to play fighters don't necessarily want to play anything called a "fighter", they want to play a character based on attack rolls and Power/Sneak attack or similar, rather than just being a caster with martial-themed flavor. This is hard to balance. The other fix, nerfing casters, whilst making it less fun for the players, also does not work in my experience. The "less spells, more power" option results in the "taking turns at uselessness" situation where the casters dominate the first few encounters, and then either rest or sit back and feel useless, and the "less power more spells" route, while a more viable option, is so labour and time intensive that you may as well rewrite the whole spell system (as that's effectively what you would have to do anyway). Does anyone have or has anyone seen any other fixes proposed that do better than these? I'm hoping superior experience will provide some help here.

Also, The Authority = Troll (Forum Subtype). It actually regenerates from flame attacks. Ignore it instead for double damage.

TWB


Rob Godfrey wrote:
The point being,

The point indeed being that while the buzzword "strawman" still rings in the air, you've got people claiming that the wizard class is overpowered, and citing examples that consist of "the best possible wizard build with a non-core race, far, far above average stats and access to all the splatbooks" and "monsters with low will saves running towards us down a bowling alley with no chance to come up behind us".

The point of this board is to discuss the pfrpg base classes as played. If I were to set my adventures like an instanced dungeon and go send someone to pull monsters that happened to have low hit points but did nothing to mitigate that disadvantage and mindlessly rushed into my cleave every round, I might come off thinking that my melee character was "broken" no matter how well or poorly it was built.

It's really easy to have an opinion and then write off other people as "trolls" when they point out that the situation you've brought up isn't typical and that similar advantages taken by the enemies might totally change the situation.

That isn't to say that I haven't enjoyed making light of your whining. I'm just taking the time to mention that the "broken wizard" argument is a favorite of people who apply the wizard mechanics to a flat, lifeless board game land and complain that the other classes don't function as well as their example when faced with actual odds.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
The Authority wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
The point being,

The point indeed being that while the buzzword "strawman" still rings in the air, you've got people claiming that the wizard class is overpowered, and citing examples that consist of "the best possible wizard build with a non-core race, far, far above average stats and access to all the splatbooks" and "monsters with low will saves running towards us down a bowling alley with no chance to come up behind us".

The point of this board is to discuss the base classes as played. If I were to set my adventures like an instanced dungeon and go send someone to pull monsters that happened to have low hit points but did nothing to mitigate that disadvantage and mindlessly rushed into my cleave every round, I might come off thinking that my character was "broken" no matter how well or poorly it was built.

It's really easy to have an opinion and then write off other people as "trolls" when they point out that the situation you've brought up isn't typical and that similar advantages taken by the enemies might totally change the situation.

That isn't to say that I haven't enjoyed making light of your whining. I'm just taking the time to mention that the "broken wizard" argument is a favorite of people who apply the wizard mechanics to a flat, lifeless board game land and complain that the other classes don't function as well as their example when faced with actual odds.

Ok I'll bite, casters can when played well, and for this core casters without splat book access work, completly dominate, in fact in confined spaces the situation can be worse, because the 'targets' are closer together, allowing for better 'spell efficency'. A core fighter functions well only when the opponents play to his strengths, a caster functions well when HE plays to his, do you see the difference? That is the pointI am trying to make.


If the enemies zerg rush auto attack, the non casters can actually keep up. If the enemies use actual tactics... casters thrive on tactics. Non casters just don't have the options available.

The smarter enemies become, the less effective anyone who cannot cast spells becomes.

By the way, a plain PHB straight classed caster with core spells is almost as good as an anything under the sun caster. There is a much larger difference between a core beatstick, and an every book beatstick (the former is useless, the latter is still behind but not by nearly as much).


LogicNinja wrote:
Steven Hume wrote:
god i am so tired of people crying about spellcasters vs fighter types, its a fact of the game that spellcasters are better then fighter types and there is not much PF can do with this system if it still wants it to be 3.5 useable

That's ignorance talking. Look at Arcana Evolved--it managed to balance spellcasters and non-spellcasters just fine, and it's a variant 3E PHB, basically.

Werecorpse wrote:
We found that fighter types (well barb and pal in our game) regained some supremacy after about 13th level. So in the arcane caster vs fighter comparison it was fighter better for levels 1-4, then fairly even for 5-8, then arcane for 9-13, then even again depending on the situation (lots of stuff starting getting SR etc but the DR was normally able to be penetrated)

Pathfinder gives everyone more feats. Considering the scarcity of good core feats, any spellcaster who wants to can and will have Spell Penetration and Greater Spell Penetration. On top of that, you've got +2 from the Robe of the Archmagi, boosted caster level from an Orange Ioun Stone, and other miscellaneous bonuses.

Spell Resistance isn't much of an issue, certainly not as big of one as you're making it out to be.

I think the magic system in arcana unearthed (I dont have arcana evolved but I assume it was similar/ the same?) was so significantly different from 3.5 as to step beyond the backwardly compatible point. The spells were quite different in style. I presume it was balanced because it didnt have a lot of the powerful battlefield controlling spells you have referred to?

As for spell resistance I agree it is something that tends to be fairly common to overcome but even if it only succeeds in making the spell victim immune to a spell 25% of the time it makes a difference, just pulls back the spellcasters effectiveness a touch.

I think nerfing some of these spells may be one solution. another may be to create fighter useful feats that do the same or similar things
ie
- battlefield control: an attack of opportunity strike (to be most often used when someone tries to move past the fighter) that stops the person from moving for that turn,
- feat to protect against touch attacks gives the person their shield bonus against touch attacks
- feat to protect against mind influencing effects like a slippery mind ability, perhaps linked to iron will feat, or perhaps just the ability to shrug off a ceratin number of mental effects per day as a full round action

Do you believe this is the way to go?


Crusader of Logic wrote:
the former is useless

This statement really, really makes me wonder if you've actually played a PFRPG fighter or barbarian. The melee classes are not, and have never been useless, and are doubly not so using the PFRPG rules. After the beta came out, there were a lot of cries of "ITS THE SAME!!!!" from people who haven't actually sat down and made a "boring fighter" (as they're so fond of saying) and seen the numbers add up or tried playing one and experiencing the actual stereotypical "adventure" situations that make them so absolutely necessary.

I've seen it in action many times, and I'm pleased with how paizo has worked up the melee classes. Fighter can and does truly become the "master of fighting" in PFRPG and it's great fun to watch. Fighter gets to the point where it's a pleasure to take a nice weapon from an enemy and use it a little bit, instead of selling everything that isn't his s$@!ty favored weapon, and gets the chance to really be prepared for situational happenstance without feeling like he "wasted" any of his feats.

Of course, if this thread were about how Ranger could use a little love ala Barbarian, I'd be singing a little bit of a different tune. But Fighter.. He's the master of fighting and PFRPG has definitely nailed that down for him.

Disarmed: No problem
Blind: No problem
Underwater: No problem
Weapon Broken: No problem
Armor Broken: No problem
Caster's Dead: No problem

"I'm here with half HP, my backpack, my bedroll and an improvised weapon made out of an oversized switch that I used to lower a door, then tore from the floor. I'm the PFRPG fighter, and when I get back to town, I'll buy you a @#$%ing drink."


In 3.5, those types of characters are useless because in order to be able to do anything relevant at all they have to be one trick ponies. So Mr. Melee can't deal with the guy on a 30' wall unless he has a flying item, which is certainly possible, but takes away from the other staples he must have, and the other utility stuff which means instead, he gets screwed by the guy behind the 30' wall (in a room with a 30' ceiling).

Everything I have seen regarding the Pathfinder take on it indicates the designers are trying to fix it by making the numbers bigger. That doesn't do a damn thing about their one trick pony status. It just makes their one trick more binary. Despite popular belief, Rogues are not the most balanced class because they swing too heavily between encounters where their trick works (not immune to precision) and encounters where it doesn't (immune to precision). Alternately, compare stealth vs most stuff (which doesn't have perception skills as class skills, and is therefore quickly pushed off the RNG) vs stealth against things that have blindsense, blindsight, tremorsense, scent, lifesense, etc. Either it always works or it never does. See the issue? See why making the PF melees even more swingy is a bad thing?

Also, it seems the PF take on it screwed up the few tricks they had. For example, two handed weapon users with PA were decent, provided they could still hit. PA isn't based on BAB anymore if I recall correctly. It's based on Strength. Strength mods are almost always lower than BAB. Ergo, their ability to do meaningful damage is reduced.

This is without even touching the things that very strongly suggest whoever made them does not know what they are talking about such as 8 rage points for 1d6 elemental damage, 1 round duration.

Now, you're welcome to counterpoint with examples of how PF non casters can now deal with a variety of different situations effectively using math. 1d6 damage isn't relevant, and at 8 RPs it is overpriced.


The Authority wrote:
This statement really, really makes me wonder if you've actually played a PFRPG fighter or barbarian. The melee classes are not, and have never been useless, and are doubly not so using the PFRPG rules. After the beta came out, there were a lot of cries of "ITS THE SAME!!!!" from people who haven't actually sat down and made a "boring fighter" (as they're so fond of saying) and seen the numbers add up or tried playing one and experiencing the actual stereotypical "adventure" situations that make them so absolutely necessary.

And yet, you're magically made incapable of relating these situations to us.

The Authority wrote:
I've seen it in action many times, and I'm pleased with how paizo has worked up the melee classes. Fighter can and does truly become the "master of fighting" in PFRPG and it's great fun to watch. Fighter gets to the point where it's a pleasure to take a nice weapon from an enemy and use it a little bit, instead of selling everything that isn't his s~~#ty favored weapon, and gets the chance to really be prepared for situational happenstance without feeling like he "wasted" any of his feats.

Why don't you show us one of these fighters, since you know them so well? Then tell us about how he was totally awesome in his campaign because every fight, he'd lose his weapon, grab an improvised weapon, and keep hitting people.

Of course, if this thread were about how Ranger could use a little love ala Barbarian, I'd be singing a little bit of a different tune. But Fighter.. He's the master of fighting and PFRPG has definitely nailed that down for him.

The Authority wrote:

Disarmed: No problem

Blind: No problem
Underwater: No problem
Weapon Broken: No problem
Armor Broken: No problem
Caster's Dead: No problem

"I'm here with half HP, my backpack, my bedroll and an improvised weapon made out of an oversized switch that I used to lower a door, then tore from the floor. I'm the PFRPG fighter, and when I get back to town, I'll buy you a @#$%ing drink."

I must've missed the feat that lets you do all of that. Taking a feat to use improvised weapons lets you fight blind, underwater, with no armor, and without caster support? That's new.


Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
LogicNinja wrote:
I'll get into the rest later.

I thought you were going to critic my comments?

Still waiting on it.

Or should I take your silence as a capitulation? :)


Mistwalker wrote:


Or should I take your silence as a capitulation?

Or should I take your silence as a capitulation?

No, you should take it as indication that I'm working, taking classes, and have other time constraints and priorities. I'll get to your post.

"Silence = capitulation" is a very juvenile attitude.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Just my two coppers,
From my limited understanding of things, D&D can arguably be called a cooperative game. Each player has a character that has a specific skill set so to speak. No one character can do everything. So with everybody using their different skills together, the party is better able to deal with a variety of threats the Dm throws at them. These threats vary, and hopefully each party member has a moment to shine.
I seem to remember one of the reasons for using the “vancian” spell casting system was to give a spell caster a limited number of shots to use, to keep them “balanced” with the rest of the party.
Now the rest of the party; While yes there are lots of things spell casters can do, both rogues and fighters are needed. The fighters are needed to engage the melee combatants, and the rouges, for traps and sneaking and peeking etc.
I don’t worry about classes being balanced “against” each other, because, the classes are designed to work together as a larger cohesive whole. What I worry about is when one class becomes a Swiss army knife; able to handle everything the Dm throws at him. The cleric often capably steps into other classes’ rolls and does them well.
But back to the question about spell casters becoming more powerful then melee characters after 5rh level, Perhaps that is so, but all the various class have something important to contribute.
I suppose one way to test this out is to make mono-class parties say, a party full of wizards, or druids or fighters or rogues, and see how they do. How will the party of 4 5th level wizards do against a Troll? A Troll is a cr 5 encounter. They would probably break out the marshmallows. Then what if the troll’s mother shows up say five minutes later? While said wizards are just finishing their marshmallows? I am sure they could take care of this one as well. I am sure the wizards would get in trouble when another troll shows up 5 and ten minutes after that.
We are putting the party of 4 5th level wizards against 4 cr 5 encounters in the space of 20 minutes, but in one day. I seem to remember a party should be able to deal with 4 encounters per day of their CR.
If we put in 4 fighters I am sure they would fare better being more durable. They would probably find some high ground break out their long bows, and turn the trolls into pincushions with flaming arrows. The 4 rouges would probably forgo the marshmallows, hide and SA the hapless troll mother that shows up to investigate the fate of her son.
I am sure the clerics would fare the best, being able to stand up to the fight in armor, being able to tilt the odds in their favor with bane bless and prayer spells, and they would be able to heal themselves between each battle.
Anyways if I swapped out the Troll for another CR 5 monster say a Dijinn Pixie or wraith would all pose different challenges to the parties
And I am pretty sure a party of 1 fighter 1 rogue 1 wizard, and 1 cleric would fare the best because they can effectively deal with a variety of situations.


Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
LogicNinja wrote:
"Silence = capitulation" is a very juvenile attitude.

Well, LogicNinja, apparently your time constraints allow you to post on several other threads, but not this one? Well, everyone has their priorities.

Perhaps I allowed my suspicion that yourself and Crusader of Logic are the same person to influence my estimation of your time constraints.

Please note that after my comment, there was a ":)", to indicate that that comment was humor. This was an attempt to keep the thread in a lighter, friendly tone, so that it did not degenerate into name calling. Seems that it was a less than successful attempt.

As I was considerate enough to list the equipment that the 10th level fighter/crossbowman was carrying, perhaps you would return the favor and list the equipment that the the 10th level wizard would be carrying.


Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
ElyasRavenwood wrote:
D&D can arguably be called a cooperative game.

I do not disagree with you.

The discussion is centered around the argument that some are bringing forward that a mage is vastly more competent to handle anything. That the mage does not need any of the other classes. That the other classes need the mage. That the other classes are redundant. Or at least, that is what I am carrying away from reading and posting on this thread.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Mistwalker wrote:
ElyasRavenwood wrote:
D&D can arguably be called a cooperative game.

I do not disagree with you.

The discussion is centered around the argument that some are bringing forward that a mage is vastly more competent to handle anything. That the mage does not need any of the other classes. That the other classes need the mage. That the other classes are redundant. Or at least, that is what I am carrying away from reading and posting on this thread.

My arguement is that casters, rather than the mage specifically make non-casters obsolete. For instance a 4 man party of say cleric, druid, mage, mage. Could deal with pretty much any situation that was thrown at it, because if all else fails, the Druid and Cleric can default to 'hulk smash' mode. The situation where that many casters had run out of applicable spells/disposale summoned beasties, to deal with a situation would have probably killed any noncaster before it came to that anyway.


Mistwalker wrote:

Well, LogicNinja, apparently your time constraints allow you to post on several other threads, but not this one? Well, everyone has their priorities.

Perhaps I allowed my suspicion that yourself and Crusader of Logic are the same person to influence my estimation of your time constraints.

Please note that after my comment, there was a ":)", to indicate that that comment was humor. This was an attempt to keep the thread in a lighter, friendly tone, so that it did not degenerate into name calling. Seems that it was a less than successful attempt.

As I was considerate enough to list the equipment that the 10th level fighter/crossbowman was carrying, perhaps you would return the favor and list the equipment that the the 10th level wizard would be carrying.

There's a geared-up level 11 wizard here, hastily-ish built.

I'm not CoL (you can check who a poster is by clicking on their name).I responded to some posts because they're the ones I saw when I logged on (I'd forgotten all about yours). I'll get to yours, but maybe not until Friday--I've got classes and work scheduled Tues-Thurs this week.


Mistwalker wrote:
LogicNinja wrote:
"Silence = capitulation" is a very juvenile attitude.

Well, LogicNinja, apparently your time constraints allow you to post on several other threads, but not this one? Well, everyone has their priorities.

Perhaps I allowed my suspicion that yourself and Crusader of Logic are the same person to influence my estimation of your time constraints.

Please note that after my comment, there was a ":)", to indicate that that comment was humor. This was an attempt to keep the thread in a lighter, friendly tone, so that it did not degenerate into name calling. Seems that it was a less than successful attempt.

As I was considerate enough to list the equipment that the 10th level fighter/crossbowman was carrying, perhaps you would return the favor and list the equipment that the the 10th level wizard would be carrying.

I was using the title 'Crusader of Logic' long before I knew of LogicNinja. We are not the same person, and are not affiliated with each other. I don't think we've even directly talked to each other.


Crusader of Logic wrote:
I don't think we've even directly talked to each other.

Not to haul the bones out of s&$*ninja's closet again, but he's a real post to agree with himself typa guy. I'm sure that you not being affiliated with him in any way can see where people might associate two smarmy-gleemax-"strawman"-overusing-logic-in-the-name-posting-at-the-same-t ime-at-the-same-rate-with-the-same-verbosity d-bags with each other.

s!~@ninja wrote:
I made a 3.5+splatbooks "wizard" exactly as suggested as the "best build" from the character optimization boards with ludicrous stats and that proves that pathfinder rpg's wizard is super broken. But can YOU prove that fighter is worth playing because people on the forum I got my "wizard" from say it's NOT and they, not you are The Authority!

In our weekly PFRPG game, the Fighter 12 and the Barbarian 12 ripped people in half like they were tearing into tuna salad with a chainsaw. Like usual. The Barbarian single handedly splattered an adult green dragon without being able to critically hit it. And he didn't even have to blatantly @#$%ing misuse suggestion to make a creature you were already fighting allow itself to be killed. I've clearly been trolled, because I violated my refusal to justify your mediocre cheating at dungeons and dragons makes me The Authority knobbery by posting examples. Well done sir, you got me. Then I fell through the railing into the horse trough.

Scarab Sages

Here's an example of "The General", a level 10 human fighter from my Greyhawk playtest. He was pretty much the equal of the party fighter, minus the adamantine greatsword and a sorcerer to cast stoneskin on him. The 3 person party was level 10 when they fought him and a CR 8 Fiendish Blue Dragon.

The General wrote:


hp 102
AC 32, touch 19, flat-footed 29
Attack: blade of chaos +21/+21/+16 (1d8+13/17-20)
CMB: +17 (Defense 36), +22 to sunder (Defense 41)
Saves: Fort +10, Ref +9, Will +5; (+3 vs fear, resist cold 20 fire 10)
Special Attacks: Combat Reflexes, Improved Sunder, Power Attack, Spring Attack
Feats: Defensive Training, Dodge, Improved Critical (longsword), Mobility, Improved Toughness, Weapon Focus (longsword), Weapon Specialization (longsword).
Gear: 1 potion of cure serious wounds, +2 breastplate, +2 heavy adamantine shield, ring of minor energy resistance (cold), ring of counterspells (hold person), cloak of resistance +1, belt of giant strength +2

Notes: General has 3 rounds of haste as well as shield of faith +3 and resist fire 10 active at start of battle. He has 100 gp more gear than his 3.5 equivalent. Also note than my group is assuming weapon/armor enhancement can add to CMB (sunder or trip), as well as Weapon Focus and Weapon Training.

The General sundered the holy symbol of the cleric, broke the cleric and fighter armor to reduce their armor AC by half, and brought both the fighter and cleric down 1/4 hit points. He ignored the sorcerer because he was resisting everything thrown at him. If I had changed his stats more from 3.5, I also would have given him CE/Improved Disarm instead of Combat Reflexes and Dodge.


Jal Dorak wrote:


The General sundered the holy symbol of the cleric, broke the cleric and fighter armor to reduce their armor AC by half, and brought both the fighter and cleric down 1/4 hit points. He ignored the sorcerer because he was resisting everything thrown at him. If I had changed his stats more from 3.5, I also would have given him CE/Improved Disarm instead of Combat Reflexes and Dodge.

[OT] How hard is it to sunder a holy symbol or a pouch of spell components anyway? And if it's easy, why doesn't every combatant do it? [/OT]


roguerouge wrote:
[OT] How hard is it to sunder a holy symbol or a pouch of spell components anyway? And if it's easy, why doesn't every combatant do it? [/OT]

It was a fairly popular tactic on the Core Coliseum message board. But holy symbols and spell component pouches are cheap; you quickly learned to buy a few backups.

EDIT: There was one guy who worshipped a god whose holy symbol was a sundered holy symbol. That way, if you sundered it, it got EVEN MORE HOLY!

The Exchange

roguerouge wrote:
Jal Dorak wrote:


The General sundered the holy symbol of the cleric, broke the cleric and fighter armor to reduce their armor AC by half, and brought both the fighter and cleric down 1/4 hit points. He ignored the sorcerer because he was resisting everything thrown at him. If I had changed his stats more from 3.5, I also would have given him CE/Improved Disarm instead of Combat Reflexes and Dodge.
[OT] How hard is it to sunder a holy symbol or a pouch of spell components anyway? And if it's easy, why doesn't every combatant do it? [/OT]

I try not to smash up the gear my players have. It lowers the enjoyability of the game for my players. Nothing worse than having the lovely weapon you've just spent a third of your wealth aquiring get smashed to pieces. Especially since it unbalances a player compared to most like level CR encounters at high levels .On the rare occasion I do however, they really hate that bad guy. I usually save it for someone who I want as a recurring villain. That's why not everyone in my campaign world does it at least.

Threadjack over. Sorry


The Authority wrote:
Not to haul the bones out of s@~#ninja's closet again, but he's a real post to agree with himself typa guy. I'm sure that you not being affiliated with him in any way can see where people might associate two smarmy-gleemax-"strawman"-overusing-logic-in-the-name-posting-at-the-same-t ime-at-the-same-rate-with-the-same-verbosity d-bags with each other.

A strawman is a type of logical fallacy. It comes up when the other person in the debate is not properly using logic. Further, we have not been posting at the same time, so that is *drum roll please* a straw man argument. I also find it amusing how things like 'using facts to justify arguments, instead of random BS and insults without contributing anything useful whatsoever' qualifies me as a 'douchebag'. Or maybe it's because my contingent response to trolls is to smite them with the clue bat of great justice? Shoo little fly. Go back under your bridge. Adults are speaking.

Quote:
In our weekly PFRPG game, the Fighter 12 and the Barbarian 12 ripped people in half like they were tearing into tuna salad with a chainsaw. Like usual. The Barbarian single handedly splattered an adult green dragon without being able to critically hit it. And he didn't even have to blatantly @#$%ing misuse suggestion to make a creature you were already fighting allow itself to be killed. I've clearly been trolled, because I violated my refusal to justify your mediocre cheating at dungeons and dragons makes me The Authority knobbery by posting examples. Well done sir, you got me. Then I fell through the railing into the horse trough.

Congratulations. Your party Barbarian killed a very poorly played dragon. Or maybe you forgot to mention it failed its save vs Feeblemind first? Because other than having its Int reduced to 1, there is no excuse why the thing even let the barb melee it. Best part? You're trying to use this as an argument against cheating at dungeons and dragons.

The Authority: Lolz noob my leet barb pwnt ur dragon! It just bent over fer mah awesumness!11111111111 STFU it just let me kill it! *insert more unfounded gibberish here*

I'm guessing this is the part where we are supposed to have a leet speak picture war, now with 100% more felines in silly poses. Too bad for you I prefer speaking higher languages. English is a good example. Logic is a better one.

Sovereign Court

Well, the example of the dragon being taken out by suggestion does seem to suggest the DM was not ruling properly in that case. Laying down and closing your eyes next to heavily armed combat machines that you recently tried to kill is tantamount to suicide and beyond the reasonable use of suggestion. That seems to be friendly DMing or "cheating" to help the players whereas the barbarian meleeing the dragon just seems to be a less than intelligently played dragon. I think the intent seems to be there in the first case, but not in the second.


WotC's Nightmare wrote:
Well, the example of the dragon being taken out by suggestion does seem to suggest the DM was not ruling properly in that case. Laying down and closing your eyes next to heavily armed combat machines that you recently tried to kill is tantamount to suicide and beyond the reasonable use of suggestion. That seems to be friendly DMing or "cheating" to help the players whereas the barbarian meleeing the dragon just seems to be a less than intelligently played dragon. I think the intent seems to be there in the first case, but not in the second.

Its certainly plausible to interpret 'obviously harmful' as 'will directly cause hp damage or death'. As such 'that grass looks rather soft and you're feeling tired, why don't you take a nap' passes the obviously harmful test without difficulty.


Jal Dorak wrote:

Here's an example of "The General", a level 10 human fighter from my Greyhawk playtest. He was pretty much the equal of the party fighter, minus the adamantine greatsword and a sorcerer to cast stoneskin on him. The 3 person party was level 10 when they fought him and a CR 8 Fiendish Blue Dragon.

The General wrote:


hp 102
AC 32, touch 19, flat-footed 29
Attack: blade of chaos +21/+21/+16 (1d8+13/17-20)
CMB: +17 (Defense 36), +22 to sunder (Defense 41)
Saves: Fort +10, Ref +9, Will +5; (+3 vs fear, resist cold 20 fire 10)
Special Attacks: Combat Reflexes, Improved Sunder, Power Attack, Spring Attack
Feats: Defensive Training, Dodge, Improved Critical (longsword), Mobility, Improved Toughness, Weapon Focus (longsword), Weapon Specialization (longsword).
Gear: 1 potion of cure serious wounds, +2 breastplate, +2 heavy adamantine shield, ring of minor energy resistance (cold), ring of counterspells (hold person), cloak of resistance +1, belt of giant strength +2

Notes: General has 3 rounds of haste as well as shield of faith +3 and resist fire 10 active at start of battle. He has 100 gp more gear than his 3.5 equivalent. Also note than my group is assuming weapon/armor enhancement can add to CMB (sunder or trip), as well as Weapon Focus and Weapon Training.

The General sundered the holy symbol of the cleric, broke the cleric and fighter armor to reduce their armor AC by half, and brought both the fighter and cleric down 1/4 hit points. He ignored the sorcerer because he was resisting everything thrown at him. If I had changed his stats more from 3.5, I also would have given him CE/Improved Disarm instead of Combat Reflexes and Dodge.

I'm sorry, what was the sorceror casting? He's got a Will Save of +5. The Sorceror's 5th level spells should have a minimum save DC of 20 at this point. *Something* should get through.

Please tell me the sorceror knows a 4th or 5th level will targetting spell.


Suggestion: The suggestion must be worded in such a manner as to make the activity sound reasonable.

which means with anyone good at word play, Suggestion can do much nastier things than kill a dragon. Know what sort of characters are good with words? The same ones who use Enchantment magics such as Suggestion. Alternately you could go with something like suggesting the dragon focus on using its breath weapon instead of spells and melee despite the party being well protected against it.

Sundering just makes the game devolve into silliness. You start targeting cheap items like component pouches and it won't be long before they're all using multiples so as to further make it a waste of the sunder guy's actions. Divine Focuses are required for fewer spells, but are even cheaper. Start targeting expensive items and you are actively shooting yourself in the foot unless it is an arena game where you get prizes for winning, not by looting your opponent's corpse. This is true even if you are an NPC. They have desires and motivations too after all. And since they're much poorer than the PCs...

Paizo Employee Senior Software Developer

The Authority wrote:
s~~@ninja

Hey, that's unacceptable. Knock it off. If you can't make a case for what you're advocating without this kind of stuff, take it off the paizo.com messageboards.


LogicNinja wrote:
Wrath wrote:

Hey listen, don't feel you have to hold back on the personal attacks or anything. Go the whole hog and attack my inteligence, ability to game and DM. Ignore the the number of years I've been playing and keeping the players at my table happy while bringing new members into the fold. Obviously my personal experiences are completely wrong and should be ignored. Allow me to start the group that needs to bow down before your obviously superior intellect and gaming prowess.

Sheesh

You're awfully butthurt considering that the onloy thing that remotely RESEMBLED a personal attack was "if you thought the Druid was weak you have no sense of what's weak and what's strong"... because it's true. The Druid is ridiculously, notoriously overpowered. If you thought it was *weak*, you made an enormous mistake and are probably bad at analyzing game balance.

You said something. I said that you're wrong. Why does this necessitate passive-agressive sarcastic whinging?

Wow. You sure think you have an awfully large ePeen ? In addition you are some kind of RPG-snob, discrediting and attacking somebody who simply stated when he 'first started' that he didn't think the Druid was that strong. How about something like:

"I feel the druid is by far the strongest core class. <insert reasons>. Maybe your PCs never really optimized him ?"

Enjoy DeVry.

Sovereign Court

Squirrelloid wrote:
WotC's Nightmare wrote:
Well, the example of the dragon being taken out by suggestion does seem to suggest the DM was not ruling properly in that case. Laying down and closing your eyes next to heavily armed combat machines that you recently tried to kill is tantamount to suicide and beyond the reasonable use of suggestion. That seems to be friendly DMing or "cheating" to help the players whereas the barbarian meleeing the dragon just seems to be a less than intelligently played dragon. I think the intent seems to be there in the first case, but not in the second.
Its certainly plausible to interpret 'obviously harmful' as 'will directly cause hp damage or death'. As such 'that grass looks rather soft and you're feeling tired, why don't you take a nap' passes the obviously harmful test without difficulty.

Yeah, if the DM just wants to hand you the experience without you earning it. A DM with some common sense that wants you to work to earn a victory would not fall for this. I can buy telling him to just use his breath weapon, but laying down and letting enemies coup de grace you is definitely obviously harmful especially to an intellgent creature like a dragon.

Liberty's Edge

nedleeds wrote:
Wow. You sure think you have an awfully large ePeen ? In addition you are some kind of RPG-snob, discrediting and attacking somebody who simply stated when he 'first started' that he didn't think the Druid was that strong.

That goes both ways. How about people on both sides of the fence knock off the insults and the vitriol and actually let their arguments speak for themselves. That would be much more productive.

Paizo Employee Senior Software Developer

nedleeds wrote:
Wow. You sure think you have an awfully large ePeen ? In addition you are some kind of RPG-snob, ... Enjoy DeVry.

Welcome to the paizo.com messageboards, and thanks for your first post. Please keep in mind that this kind of insulting has no place here. (The portion of your post which I elided is fine.)

Scarab Sages

Squirrelloid wrote:

I'm sorry, what was the sorceror casting? He's got a Will Save of +5. The Sorceror's 5th level spells should have a minimum save DC of 20 at this point. *Something* should get through.

Please tell me the sorceror knows a 4th or 5th level will targetting spell.

Well, consider the sorcerer knows all of 2 4th level spells and 1 5th level spell, there isn't much room for leeway. Sure, she could have blown a spell slot on hold monster, but that doesn't exactly help when you are fighting 14 dwarves at once. The sorcerer's 5th level spell was cone of cold, which incidentally, worked to good effect in the 2 previous encounters. Please note the decent Reflex save and ring of cold resistance.

If I wanted to be a real jerk, I could have had the General bull rush the fighter and cleric into the arena pit (20 foot fall, if I recall, with no escape) and then team up on the sorcerer with the dragon. But since it was a playtest, I was a bit more lenient on my players.

Also, the "minimum" save DC for a 5th level spell is 17. Anything more than that and you are assuming the character has spent more resources. You are correct, it was in fact DC 21, but that isn't the "minimum" by any stretch of the imagination.

Scarab Sages

Addressing another comment made about fighters being good in all situations:

One NPC fighter lost his weapon, courtesy of a sunder from the party fighter (but it could have been any reason). The NPC simply walked up to the nearest character, accepted an attack of opportunity, and used an unarmed attack to disarm the opponent, gaining their weapon.


Jal Dorak wrote:

Well, consider the sorcerer knows all of 2 4th level spells and 1 5th level spell, there isn't much room for leeway. Sure, she could have blown a spell slot on hold monster, but that doesn't exactly help when you are fighting 14 dwarves at once. The sorcerer's 5th level spell was cone of cold, which incidentally, worked to good effect in the 2 previous encounters. Please note the decent Reflex save and ring of cold resistance.

If I wanted to be a real jerk, I could have had the General bull rush the fighter and cleric into the arena pit (20 foot fall, if I recall, with no escape) and then team up on the sorcerer with the dragon. But since it was a playtest, I was a bit more lenient on my players.

Also, the "minimum" save DC for a 5th level spell is 17. Anything more than that and you are assuming the character has spent more resources. You are correct, it was in fact DC 21, but that isn't the "minimum" by any stretch of the imagination.

I was assuming the sorceror player actually started with a good charisma score. I think that's a safe assumption.

Ok, at the least he should have glitterdust, which would be a DC 18 (given his DC 21 for a level 5). Enough to make irrelevant the fighter 60% of the time. (Blinded is nasty).

I personally disagree with the choice of CoC. But its sounding like the character's offensive options are all or mostly damage spells, so no wonder the enemy was difficult. Admittedly, for a first 5th level spell I probably take Cloudkill or Wall of Force, but my 4th level spells would include Charm Monster, and at DC 20 that's likely to earn you a new friend in this situation.


WotC's Nightmare wrote:
Squirrelloid wrote:
WotC's Nightmare wrote:
Well, the example of the dragon being taken out by suggestion does seem to suggest the DM was not ruling properly in that case. Laying down and closing your eyes next to heavily armed combat machines that you recently tried to kill is tantamount to suicide and beyond the reasonable use of suggestion. That seems to be friendly DMing or "cheating" to help the players whereas the barbarian meleeing the dragon just seems to be a less than intelligently played dragon. I think the intent seems to be there in the first case, but not in the second.
Its certainly plausible to interpret 'obviously harmful' as 'will directly cause hp damage or death'. As such 'that grass looks rather soft and you're feeling tired, why don't you take a nap' passes the obviously harmful test without difficulty.
Yeah, if the DM just wants to hand you the experience without you earning it. A DM with some common sense that wants you to work to earn a victory would not fall for this. I can buy telling him to just use his breath weapon, but laying down and letting enemies coup de grace you is definitely obviously harmful especially to an intellgent creature like a dragon.

Would "See that guy with the holy symbol? He looks awful tough. Trying to fight him will probably kill you. You should just head home and forget about fighting him." be ok for you?

Because you get experience for defeating the dragon this way, it does no harm to the dragon (who just stops fighting), and the PCs have removed it from the encounter. Who really cares if there's a dragon corpse at the end?

Scarab Sages

This was a small issue with the sorcerer build the player was using - it was built using the Aberrant bloodline. This gave her reach 10ft, which meant a draw to touch spells. At 10th level she had over 100 hit points. Further reflecting this, and to assist in a 3-PC party, the sorcerer took mostly buff spells. Here is her spell-list:

0th - ray of frost, disrupt undead, detect magic, read magic, detect poison, ghost sound, prestidigitation, dancing lights, mage hand
1st - enlarge person*, identify, mage armor, shield, shocking grasp, chill touch
2nd - see invisibility*, resist energy, false life, mirror image, scorching ray
3rd - tongues*, dispel magic, haste, vampiric touch
4th - black tentacles*, fire shield, stoneskin
5th - cone of cold

* indicates a bonus bloodline spell.

Scorching ray was the most effective option against the General, but his decent touch AC meant the occasional miss, and with a hit he reduced each ray by 10 damage thanks to his resist fire potion. Admittedly, fire shield was probably the worst spell choice in her list, but it was meant as a last-ditch defensive spell. Bestow curse would have been better (remember 10ft melee touch).

By the way, she was disintegrated by a beholder later on, so those hit points meant very little. :)

Scarab Sages

Squirrelloid wrote:


Would "See that guy with the holy symbol? He looks awful tough. Trying to fight him will probably kill you. You should just head home and forget about fighting him." be ok for you?

Because you get experience for defeating the dragon this way, it does no harm to the dragon (who just stops fighting), and the PCs have removed it from the encounter. Who really cares if there's a dragon corpse at the end?

Well, considering the dragon in question has orders to defend the bridge, and its home IS the bridge, then no it doesn't really work. Your example is 4 sentences, and the spell is limited to 1 or 2. So for attempting a wordsmithing work-around, it doesn't work. If you wrote that exact wording and handed it to me as the DM, I would politely tell you your spell fails.

Sure you get XP now, but you have to fight Ozyrrandian again later if he escapes. So you can use this tactic early on, and then end up fighting a bunch of dragons at once in the climactic encounter.


Jal Dorak wrote:

This was a small issue with the sorcerer build the player was using - it was built using the Aberrant bloodline. This gave her reach 10ft, which meant a draw to touch spells. At 10th level she had over 100 hit points. Further reflecting this, and to assist in a 3-PC party, the sorcerer took mostly buff spells. Here is her spell-list:

0th - ray of frost, disrupt undead, detect magic, read magic, detect poison, ghost sound, prestidigitation, dancing lights, mage hand
1st - enlarge person*, identify, mage armor, shield, shocking grasp, chill touch
2nd - see invisibility*, resist energy, false life, mirror image, scorching ray
3rd - tongues*, dispel magic, haste, vampiric touch
4th - black tentacles*, fire shield, stoneskin
5th - cone of cold

* indicates a bonus bloodline spell.

Scorching ray was the most effective option against the General, but his decent touch AC meant the occasional miss, and with a hit he reduced each ray by 10 damage thanks to his resist fire potion. Admittedly, fire shield was probably the worst spell choice in her list, but it was meant as a last-ditch defensive spell. Bestow curse would have been better (remember 10ft melee touch).

By the way, she was disintegrated by a beholder later on, so those hit points meant very little. :)

Its an interesting schtick that becomes greatly improved with some liberal splatbook application. What he actually wants to do is become a grapple-monster and use a variety of tentacle spells to utterly hose creatures in a grapple. There was a proof of concept build by Frank Trollman in /tgd/ a couple years ago which was cool, and by 10th level grappling a humanoid should be trivial. But it does require some specific spells from splatbooks to make it especially functional.

Things he's doing right: Chill Touch, Enlarge Person, Mage Armor, False Life, Mirror Image, Haste, Black Tentacles (yum theme)

Things he's doing wrong: Shocking Grasp, Identify, Stoneskin, and I'd argue Scorching Ray and CoC.

Stoneskin is too expensive to use on a regular basis. Fire Shield isn't as bad as it looks at first, but its also not a great choice.

Some theory here: (1) Sorcerors can't afford to take bad spells. Eg, Shocking grasp. Seriously, your unarmed attack is almost as good as this. (2) Sorcerors can't afford to take spells they won't cast frequently. Identify just isn't that good of a spell for a Sorceror. And Stoneskin is far too expensive. (3) Sorcerors should make sure to cover all the saves with at least one good spell. Grease is the only good reflex targetter in core (Web used to be good, but Web is now trivially easy to escape from). By 10th level I'd expect something like Suggestion or Charm Monster and Colorspray at level 1. Fort targeter is the least important at low levels (most adversaries will have good fort saves) - you'll pick up flesh to stone at 12th level.

Yes, I know he's playing to a theme, but his non-theme spells need to be that much better because of that. Direct damage just doesn't cut it.


Jal Dorak wrote:
Squirrelloid wrote:


Would "See that guy with the holy symbol? He looks awful tough. Trying to fight him will probably kill you. You should just head home and forget about fighting him." be ok for you?

Because you get experience for defeating the dragon this way, it does no harm to the dragon (who just stops fighting), and the PCs have removed it from the encounter. Who really cares if there's a dragon corpse at the end?

Well, considering the dragon in question has orders to defend the bridge, and its home IS the bridge, then no it doesn't really work. Your example is 4 sentences, and the spell is limited to 1 or 2. So for attempting a wordsmithing work-around, it doesn't work. If you wrote that exact wording and handed it to me as the DM, I would politely tell you your spell fails.

Sure you get XP now, but you have to fight Ozyrrandian again later if he escapes. So you can use this tactic early on, and then end up fighting a bunch of dragons at once in the climactic encounter.

I can make the punctuation more creative. It was the line of thinking that matters.

And a bunch of dragons = xp for the same dragon 2 or more times, yay! =p

But seriously, the party follows and kills said dragon after driving it off. They aren't *that* stupid.

Scarab Sages

Squirrelloid wrote:

Things he's doing right: Chill Touch, Enlarge Person, Mage Armor, False Life, Mirror Image, Haste, Black Tentacles (yum theme)

Things he's doing wrong: Shocking Grasp, Identify, Stoneskin, and I'd argue Scorching Ray and CoC.

Stoneskin is too expensive to use on a regular basis. Fire Shield isn't as bad as it looks at first, but its also not a great choice.

I don't think he did anything "wrong" or "right" just "optimized" and "unoptimized".

Shocking grasp was effective at earlier levels, but probably could have been replaced. Identify was a necessity, even in Pathfinder. Some of the magic items that were found were just too poweful to use detect magic and Appraise. Stoneskin saved the party too many times to count. With 3 PCs, the extra treasure went to a party pool to pay for things like restoration and such. "Too expensive" is subjective. It was her number one spell. I don't want a debate about DD spells, but sometimes the sorcerer needs to contribute more than status effects. Range, area, types of targets, and hundreds of other factors will combine in real play to influence the optimum spell in a situation.

In the fight with 14 dwarves (and 10 humans on the party side), the NPC gnome with the dwarven team was the biggest issue to the party, solely thanks to fireball and ice storm.

Sovereign Court

Squirrelloid wrote:
WotC's Nightmare wrote:
Squirrelloid wrote:
WotC's Nightmare wrote:
Well, the example of the dragon being taken out by suggestion does seem to suggest the DM was not ruling properly in that case. Laying down and closing your eyes next to heavily armed combat machines that you recently tried to kill is tantamount to suicide and beyond the reasonable use of suggestion. That seems to be friendly DMing or "cheating" to help the players whereas the barbarian meleeing the dragon just seems to be a less than intelligently played dragon. I think the intent seems to be there in the first case, but not in the second.
Its certainly plausible to interpret 'obviously harmful' as 'will directly cause hp damage or death'. As such 'that grass looks rather soft and you're feeling tired, why don't you take a nap' passes the obviously harmful test without difficulty.
Yeah, if the DM just wants to hand you the experience without you earning it. A DM with some common sense that wants you to work to earn a victory would not fall for this. I can buy telling him to just use his breath weapon, but laying down and letting enemies coup de grace you is definitely obviously harmful especially to an intellgent creature like a dragon.

Would "See that guy with the holy symbol? He looks awful tough. Trying to fight him will probably kill you. You should just head home and forget about fighting him." be ok for you?

Because you get experience for defeating the dragon this way, it does no harm to the dragon (who just stops fighting), and the PCs have removed it from the encounter. Who really cares if there's a dragon corpse at the end?

Yeah, that seems a lot more reasonable, than "Why don't you lay down next to the guy with the menacing look and really big sword?"


The Authority wrote:
trolling

Are you STILL at it? Seriously? This isn't 4chan, and posting things like

The S$!@hority wrote:
herp derp if I say that barbarians in my game tear through enemies people I don't need to prove anything I say, I'm the only one who plays D&D properly

won't really get you anywhere.

---

People who dislike how Suggestion got used wrote:
your DM ruled Suggestion wrong!

Suggestion has to be *worded* reasonably, not *be* reasonable. The course of action also can't be DIRECTLY harmful. Having someone kill you because you're doing what was Suggested is indirectly harmful. "Directly harmful" would be, say, throwing yourself into lava.

As I and the DMs I've played with interpret it, Suggestion is balanced against Deep Slumber (multiple targets, no language/phrasing restrictions), Slow (even more targets, not mind-affecting, cripples instead of being indirectly fatal).

Liberty's Edge

LogicNinja wrote:
The Authority wrote:
trolling

Are you STILL at it? Seriously? This isn't 4chan, and posting things like

The s~*&hority wrote:
herp derp if I say that barbarians in my game tear through enemies people I don't need to prove anything I say, I'm the only one who plays D&D properly
won't really get you anywhere.

Neither will doing the same thing in response. If you see behavior you don't like in others, rise above it yourself.

Sovereign Court

LogicNinja wrote:
The Authority wrote:
trolling

Are you STILL at it? Seriously? This isn't 4chan, and posting things like

The s&&*hority wrote:
herp derp if I say that barbarians in my game tear through enemies people I don't need to prove anything I say, I'm the only one who plays D&D properly

won't really get you anywhere.

---

People who dislike how Suggestion got used wrote:
your DM ruled Suggestion wrong!

Suggestion has to be *worded* reasonably, not *be* reasonable. The course of action also can't be DIRECTLY harmful. Having someone kill you because you're doing what was Suggested is indirectly harmful. "Directly harmful" would be, say, throwing yourself into lava.

As I and the DMs I've played with interpret it, Suggestion is balanced against Deep Slumber (multiple targets, no language/phrasing restrictions), Slow (even more targets, not mind-affecting, cripples instead of being indirectly fatal).

Well, maybe your DM didn't technically rule suggestion "wrong", but I don't see myself or any other DM I've played with allowing it to do what he allowed. Anyway, we've gone way off topic, so I'll stop now.


I will not even read the five pages of probably hat here, but just state something:

The problem that makes the spellcasters seem that way is that they are versatile. This is actually one of the few points of the 4e: No one is indispensable.

Now I will flee this topic before someone smite me.

Liberty's Edge RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

Feat: ”Snicker-snack” motherf*%&6er!
Pre-Requisite: You wish to keep up with the wizard in the party.
Benefit: Twice per day when you hit with any weapon (melee or ranged) you may inflict one of these effects (given you meet the level minimum).
1st: Target rendered unconscious for 1 min/level (<4HD)
3rd: Target blinded for 1 round /level
5th: Targets within 20’ are nauseated 1 round / level
7th: Target gains 1d4 negative levels
9th: Target becomes your enslaved ally for 1 day/level
11th: Target is slain
13th: Target is blind (no attack roll required)
15th: All Targets within 30’ become your allies
17th: 1 creature / level dies within 30’
Special: You may take this as a fighter bonus feat. You may take this feat multiple times, with each instance increasing the number of times you may use these effects.

What? Why are you looking at me like that...?


New Ninja wrote:
No self respecting dragon in HISTORY, (knowing FULL WELL their challenge rating and being able to identify the challenge rating of would be opponents ON SIGHT of course) has EVER attempted to kill and eat an Adventurer. NEVER. THAT'S ABSOLUTELY FEEBLEMINDED. Despite it's home court advantage, despite it's preparation, any dragon with higher than 1 intelligence plane shifts via scroll the INSTANT a person walks through the door of his lair.

Well done sir. When you get done pulling the straw out of that burning man scale scarecrow you've built us, I'd be happy to talk to you a bit more about dungeons and dragons.

Old Ninja wrote:
When people disagree with me, or dare question the rampantly inaccurate gleemax presiding opinion drek I shovel all over the internet, I start rattling off forum buzzwords as an ink cloud. You're a trolling troller troll and you probably love 4chan don't you. Whisper gnome PROVES how broken PFRPG wizard is!

You bore me. Besides your decidedly abusive gaming practices that you attempt to cite as examples (The saddest part being that you've not even set them down between here and picking them up elsewhere on the internet) you'd much rather gargle the opinionated leavings of the WoTC pit crew than discuss the real point here, which is how the PFRPG casters compare to the PFRPG melee squad. You've clearly never used any PFRPG class, and cite garbage from 3.5 splatbooks as pathfinder playtest experience on the pathfinder playtest board.

I know for a fact that PFRPG fighter and wizard can and do compete in actual play. I've seen it happen for weeks on end. Since you're not actually playtesting Pathfinder, I have no further need to discuss it with you and I suggest that you close your eyes and lay down in combat because you and every IRC DM you've ever played with agree that laying down in front of someONE that is clearly going to kill you is not the same as laying down in front of someTHING that's clearly going to kill you such as say.. lava.

Scarab Sages

Dementrius wrote:

Feat: ”Snicker-snack” motherf*%&6er!

Pre-Requisite: You wish to keep up with the wizard in the party.
Benefit: Twice per day when you hit with any weapon (melee or ranged) you may inflict one of these effects (given you meet the level minimum).
1st: Target rendered unconscious for 1 min/level (<4HD)
3rd: Target blinded for 1 round /level
5th: Targets within 20’ are nauseated 1 round / level
7th: Target gains 1d4 negative levels
9th: Target becomes your enslaved ally for 1 day/level
11th: Target is slain
13th: Target is blind (no attack roll required)
15th: All Targets within 30’ become your allies
17th: 1 creature / level dies within 30’
Special: You may take this as a fighter bonus feat. You may take this feat multiple times, with each instance increasing the number of times you may use these effects.

What? Why are you looking at me like that...?

Alright, as a Fighter Booster, I'll respond with some humour of my own:

Feat: 24-hour Adventuring Day
Prerequisite: You wish to not be a commoner when you run out of spells.
Benefit: You can use any of the following spells at will.
1st: Ray of Flame
2nd: Acid Arrow
3rd: Fireball
4th: Stoneskin
5th: Cone of Cold
6th: Forceful Hand
7th: Grasping Hand
8th: Clenched Fist
9th: Crushing Hand


The Authority wrote:
I know for a fact that PFRPG fighter and wizard can and do compete in actual play. I've seen it happen for weeks on end.

And yet, you STILL can't give us any concrete examples. "A FIGHTER TOTALLY KILLED SOME STUFF I SWEAR!" Oh, a fighter KILLED some stuff, you say--clearly everything is balancd.

Maybe your DM is sending waves of 1-HD goblins against a level 12 fighter, while the wizard prepared nothing but Detect Undead and Hold Portal.
Or maybe this "playtesting" you're doing exists only in your imagination. I'll wait for you to make up some examples, if you like.

The Authority wrote:
Since you're not actually playtesting Pathfinder, I have no further need to discuss it with you and I suggest that you close your eyes and lay down in combat because you and every IRC DM you've ever played with agree that laying down in front of someONE that is clearly going to kill you is not the same as laying down in front of someTHING that's clearly going to kill you such as say.....

Maybe you don't understand what DIRECT means.

Suggestion is supposed to be able to make you easy to kill or take you out of the fight (leaving you defending yourself but not attacking, for example). Deep Slumber can effectively kill you and your buddy. Slow can neuter a whole group of enemies and works against everything except golems.
Hell, Hideous Laughter can take a single target out of the fight and let the party beat on them. It's more restricted, but then, it's lower level.

PROTIP: my Red Hand of Doom experience post is not for your benefit, or about Pathfinder changes. It's for the poster who wanted to hear about it, and about 3.5 wizards.

But I'm sure you'll be happy to know my group should be running some Pathfinder tests this weekend. Since, you know, the Pathfinder Fighter isn't at all just the 3.5 core Fighter with a couple of new feats and a couple of points of AB/AC/damage, and the Pathfinder wizard is DEFINITELY not the 3.5 core wizard with extra abilities and a few spells nerfed. It'll give you another chance to sneer about how ONLY YOU are playing D&D right and everybody else's experience doesn't count because you say so.


Epic Fail is Epic.

Ya know, if I didn't know better I'd say things like 'Math' and 'Logical thought' had the same effect as Positoxins on an undead creature. It might explain why he comes up with such wonderfully creative euphoniums as '**** ninja', believes everyone who disagrees with him is the same person, and spams nonsense over and over and over again in response to constructive posts while serving no purpose himself.

Let me guess. Next you'll start breaking my quote tags, spamming bold text everywhere, and running in verbal circles? Am I right Fael... Sorry, TA?

201 to 250 of 326 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Roleplaying Game / General Discussion (Prerelease) / Is it me or do casters overpower melee classes past about lvl 5? All Messageboards