Much correctness.
Very true, but you're going to get straw manned a lot with that approach. You forgot to mention that there is no need to actually replace the Fighter. You could go without him and not be any worse off. Cleric/Druid/Rogue is not significantly weaker than same group + Fighter and most of the differences come from a lack of a fifth body (the animal companion is the fourth). Put anyone else there (say... a Bard perhaps) and you're still better off.
Also, Fighters got nerfed in PF. They lost their two tricks for a few plain numbers.
So... all your casters get through High Saves and SR 100% of the time?...
Fighters at high levels should be hitting on everything but 1s.
SR isn't really an issue. Saves sometimes are, but that's why you lower them first or bypass them. I take reliable spells such as the core Enervation, Power Words to mess up enemies, Fog spells to divide and conquer, and so forth. There's also some reliable non core disabling effects that do things like slow, sicken, etc.
Fighters hit on a 2 yes, but they just do a little bit of damage that doesn't even impede enemy ability to fight until said HP hit 0 or below. In other words, their tricks matter a lot less because they mean a lot less.
[
Outsiders are tough for anyone, but casters can deal with them because they have the right tools. In fact they'll be the ones pulling everyone through the encounter.
Melees can do little to help casters, barring very...
You must play with some really dumb fighters then to have this point of view *By the way...yes that is the same as you saying I have dumb players that play wizards.*
Ok. What can melees actually do to help their buddies? Trip no longer exists as a viable tactic so he certainly cannot defend them with a Lockdown spiked chain. What's he doing?
Making up random stuff is not valid. It needs to be actual abilities they have or you have been Oberonied.
|
So... all your casters get through High Saves and SR 100% of the time?...
Fighters at high levels should be hitting on everything but 1s.
SR isn't really an issue. Saves sometimes are, but that's why you lower them first or bypass them. I take reliable spells such as the core Enervation, Power Words to mess up enemies, Fog spells to divide and conquer, and so forth. There's also some reliable non core disabling effects that do things like slow, sicken, etc.
Fighters hit on a 2 yes, but they just do a little bit of damage that doesn't even impede enemy ability to fight until said HP hit 0 or below. In other words, their tricks matter a lot less because they mean a lot less.
You just helped my argument a bit..
all those are Debuffs that help the Melee classes....
And if your fighters are doing just a little bit of damage... something is wrong with them..
Yeah they can't do the 100's of points a wizard can do.. but Wizards most of the time can't do the 100's of points they think they can do..
and has is SR not an issue?.....
|
|
Ok. What can melees actually do to help their buddies? Trip no longer exists as a viable tactic so he certainly cannot defend them with a Lockdown spiked chain. What's he doing?
Making up random stuff is not valid. It needs to be actual abilities they have or you have been Oberonied.
Beat the crap out of them after there actual spells that actually kill them can canceled out by the High Saves and High SR...
After of course they have been weakened by the Wizard with the Debuffs.
We are talking High Level here right?....
All of those make the encounters utter pansies.
Barring chargers, Fighters do a little bit of damage. Compare damage to enemy HP, you'll see. Except... oh wait, PA got nerfed. Oops. Guess they do less damage now.
Stop ninjaing me while I'm replying point by point. Now I have to use multiple posts.
SR is not an issue because... do I really need to go over the long list of ways to bypass or otherwise not care about it? This should be really be common knowledge by now.
The purpose of those spells is a reliable effect turning what would be a problem into... not. Guess what, now its saves are lower.
...
Now I know someone's going to try to argue that's a point for the Fighter. Um, no. Once the debuffs are in effect, it's easy bait for anything. Spell. Summon. In some cases, a commoner 1 with a Scythe (and no proficency). It's just clean up duty. The encounter is already dealt with.
And if he doesn't do this? Well anything who tries to melee it dies in 2 rounds.
'Guy who runs around stabbing effectively dead things' is not an important role.
On an amusing side note, I have a Favored Soul in my game who has 10 Strength and a one handed weapon and still does better than the melee brutes. That's just how casters roll.
|
Ok. What can melees actually do to help their buddies? Trip no longer exists as a viable tactic so he certainly cannot defend them with a Lockdown spiked chain. What's he doing?
Making up random stuff is not valid. It needs to be actual abilities they have or you have been Oberonied.
Beat the crap out of them after there actual spells that actually kill them can canceled out by the High Saves and High SR...
After of course they have been weakened by the Wizard with the Debuffs.
We are talking High Level here right?....
I'm afraid you are missing a crucial part of the argument here. The argument isn't that a fighter does nothing. The argument is that a fighter does nothing that someone with another class can't do equally well or better at that point.
Clerics get spells that allow them to quickly outstrip a fighter at fighting. Druids get spells and wildshape and an animal companion to quickly outstrip a fighter at fighting. Wizards get spells that with very little work let them avoid melee altogether. If they have to melee, there are buffs that allow it on a limited basis - but if the wizard has to melee...he's doing it wrong. Sorcerors have less versatility, and thus are more likely to get stuck in melee if they choose spells poorly. Bards are almost as good at fighting as fighters - and they buff others and themselves, and heal themselves and sling some spells as well. Rogues, Rangers, Monks and Paladins, lacking all but maybe some rudimentary spells, all have schticks the fighter can't match.
The fact that a fighter can only get to an enemy spellcaster because allied spellcasters protect him, debuff or attack the enemy and craft magical items for him to use explains exactly how underpowered the fighter is.
Jess, are you a single female by any chance? Just kidding. That's my way of saying kudos.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
So... all your casters get through High Saves and SR 100% of the time?...
Fighters at high levels should be hitting on everything but 1s.
SR isn't really an issue. Saves sometimes are, but that's why you lower them first or bypass them. I take reliable spells such as the core Enervation, Power Words to mess up enemies, Fog spells to divide and conquer, and so forth. There's also some reliable non core disabling effects that do things like slow, sicken, etc.
Fighters hit on a 2 yes, but they just do a little bit of damage that doesn't even impede enemy ability to fight until said HP hit 0 or below. In other words, their tricks matter a lot less because they mean a lot less.
Power words are tricky to use at high levels. I had great effect with a PWB in my STAP game vs. a greater-invisible uber-rogue/assassin/demon, but while they can work great vs. other casters they are much harder to use on HL combat monsters/characters that are Made Of Hit Points. Unless, of course, you carpet-bomb them with damaging spells first (that was the trick of the 1st Ed. death knight - 20-die fireball, back when that meant something, followed by PW Kill).
I'm curious, though, how the whole rocket launcher tag strategy works when you have to preload the SoS effects with multiple debuffs (either multiple stacked on one target, or multiple single-target ones like enervation on a group of enemies).
|
|
I'm afraid you are missing a crucial part of the argument here. The argument isn't that a fighter does nothing. The argument is that a fighter does nothing that someone with another class can't do equally well or better at that point.
Yes then..I was missing the point..
I agree a Fighter is not the only one that can melee, and some can do it just as well. A fighter will always need help, they will need the buffs and debuffs.
What I am trying to say as addition to that though, melee will be needed no matter which class it is coming from.. and a Wizard is poor ass at that. No way in hell a Wizard can do a high level encounter all to himself with out someone doing melee.
But yeah... A fighter will always need that help also. No way in hell they can do a highe level encounter all by there selfs..
That is where I get back to what I said before..
It is a Group game.. a Balance of melee and caster is needed. and a Fighter can do the melee just fine at high levels.
Aside from Outsiders, and enemy mages there isn't anything with decent saves. Therefore, RLT works fine. RLT works fine on the above too, you just have to soften them up with that first to save ammo. Nothing stopping multiple casters from being in the same party.
PW Stun is for dealing with problem humanoids aka casters. For the beatstick enemies... they have bad saves. I wonder though, why did precision damage concern you?
...Why is melee needed? No, don't say 'to tank the enemies'. This is not an MMO. They're smarter than that.
What I am trying to say as addition to that though, melee will be needed no matter which class it is coming from.. and a Wizard is poor ass at that. No way in hell a Wizard can do a high level encounter all to himself with out someone doing melee.Actually, yes, he can. I've been playtesting a solo wizard through a series of published and freely available adventures designed for a *party* of his level. The first one is rather entertaining, I just need to type it up. Not only does he utterly destroy it, but he does so trivially.
What do you use as your primary source of HP damage? (Please don't say undead.)
Why would you assume he is doing HP damage? *stare*
Why would you assume he is doing HP damage? *stare*
Because, like it or not, most published adventures involve killing enemies in some way and there are no (core) save-or-die spells less than level 4. (Hint: Even spells like Sleep and Color Spray require hit point damage in order to kill an enemy.)
I suppose you could try to avoid most encounters instead, but I wouldn't call that "destroying" an adventure.
Why would you assume he is doing HP damage? *stare*Because, like it or not, most published adventures involve killing enemies in some way and there are no (core) save-or-die spells less than level 4. (Hint: Even spells like Sleep and Color Spray require hit point damage in order to kill an enemy.)
I suppose you could try to avoid most encounters instead, but I wouldn't call that "destroying" an adventure.
Actually, I already know what spells he used. He only needed 3, and defeated everything easily. I'll let him tell you though.
What do you use as your primary source of HP damage? (Please don't say undead.)The adventure happened to feature humanoids and undead, which standard divination practice revealed. Spells of note included Undeath to Death and Mass Charm Person,
Minor spells included a couple of Phantasmal Killer and a Flesh to Stone when they were more efficient. Also, some clever use of cloudkill. No hp damage was inflicted the entire adventure.
(Its more than 3, sorry, but the major two were mass charm and unD->D)
See, I wouldn't really call avoiding conflict (e.g. Mass Charm Monster) "destroying" an adventure; otherwise a really fast guy with a good Stealth check is a "destroyer", too. YMMV, naturally.
|
|
See, I wouldn't really call avoiding conflict (e.g. Mass Charm Monster) "destroying" an adventure; otherwise a really fast guy with a good Stealth check is a "destroyer", too. YMMV, naturally.
I just won every adventure on my bookshelf, because the character in my mind decided not to go on the adventure.
Overcome the encounter = win. Doesn't have to be via stab to the face.
Overcome the encounter = win. Doesn't have to be via stab to the face.
"YMMV" = "Your Mileage May Vary" = "My opinion may not agree with yours, and that's O.K."
The humans were mercenaries who could generally be dissuaded from fighting for the BBEG with a diplomacy check, so mass charm seems like a perfectly reasonable way to handle them. They left the manor and thus were defeated.
Oh. Fair enough, then.
I certainly agree that a 15th level spellcaster has a ridiculous number of resources at their disposal -- more than enough to ignore 90% of obstacles (if need be).
|
|
The adventure is Matters of Vengeance, if you're curious. Ultimately, the only creature you need to kill in the entire adventure is the BBEG (though I destroyed quite a few more), because the undead will disperse without him there and the mercenaries will withdraw (as they are no longer being payed).
Congrats..
But you got to admit..that is a week 15th level quest..
Lower levels can take that quest on.
|
|
The adventure is Matters of Vengeance, if you're curious. Ultimately, the only creature you need to kill in the entire adventure is the BBEG (though I destroyed quite a few more), because the undead will disperse without him there and the mercenaries will withdraw (as they are no longer being payed).
Congrats..
But you got to admit..that is a week 15th level quest..
Lower levels can take that quest on.
I want to see that caster solo Expedition to the Demonweb Pits.
|
|
Jess, are you a single female by any chance? Just kidding. That's my way of saying kudos.
Yes. :) And thanks!
Yes then..I was missing the point..
I agree a Fighter is not the only one that can melee, and some can do it just as well. A fighter will always need help, they will need the buffs and debuffs.
What I am trying to say as addition to that though, melee will be needed no matter which class it is coming from.. and a Wizard is poor ass at that. No way in hell a Wizard can do a high level encounter all to himself with out someone doing melee.
But yeah... A fighter will always need that help also. No way in hell they can do a highe level encounter all by there selfs..
That is where I get back to what I said before..
It is a Group game.. a Balance of melee and caster is needed. and a Fighter can do the melee just fine at high levels.
This is a group game, true. The problem is...making a fighter feel relevent because of his class skills involves a lot of coddling. It's doable. But it requires some serious amounts of effort. This means...it's a problem to be fixed.
We need to think of ways that a fighter can be made relevant to the game at higher levels. I think the fixes required to make them equal to a wizard require changes outside the scope of the design parameters - especially backwards compatibility - but I think the gap can be narrowed. There are multiple avenues available to us.
- Modify spells to be less powerful: This could include changing level of spells, effects of spells, etc. This is being done in Pathfinder already - in general, it's being done well.
- Modify feats to be more powerful: Feats are to fighters what spells are to casters - except they can't be changed from day to day, and they can be used at will...and when preconditions are met. These have, for some crazy reason, generally beed downgraded in their usefullness and effectiveness. I do not understand the design parameters these changes satisfy, personally (Power Attack, Combat Expertise, I'm lookin' at you!).
- Modify availability of Spells There're two issues here - number of spell slots, and spells to choose from to fill those slots. One issue with Clerics and Druids is their infinite spell list. Addressing this could really fix a lot. Wizards and sorcerors already have limits here that restrain things somewhat. The other issue is spell slots. I personally would like to see considered a change to the number of spell slots available each day. As a wizard goes up in level, maybe a lessening of lower level slots is required to lower the number of total spells available to a managable number. This may be too big a change for backwards compatibility.
- Modify availability of Feats This has been done, fighters get more. I believe this to be positive.
- Modify spellcasting classes to lower their power level / versatility:I believe the changes to domains, wild shape, and wizard specialization were meant to do just that. The channelling changes were a big boost for clerics, though, as they're able to do even more spells slinging than before because their healing issues are taken care of to some extent. I believe the broadening of important attributes to spellcasting classes is also valuable - making charisma or constitution necessary for important secondary functions. This in conjunction with some "flattening" of the spell slots available curve might even things up amazingly.
- Modify martial classes to rais their power level / versatility: Honestly, I believe versatility is the key here, not so much power. The number improvements added to fighters are nice, but they don't add pizzazz to gameplay, they don't give the figther more in combat options, and they don't give the fighter versatility. Some areas to be examined are listed below
- Skill Points - this has little power effect for most skills, but really ups the roleplay and out of combat versatility of the character. I think this is pretty much a no brainer. Give them 4 skill points - won't outshine the bard or rogue, but will have something to do other than sulk and avoid diplomatic snafus as roleplay commences.
- Battlefield Control - let's make the figher more than a speedbump, if he works at it. Give feats/class abilities that allow them to control enemy movement in their immediate area, through intimidation, battle prowess, movement options, immediate action counters to enemy actions, etc. I suggest giving fighters something interesting to do with those immediate / swift actions they're always ignoring.
- Movement Options - Nothing makes a fighter feel more useless than being stuck on a battlefield where the terrain prevents him from moving as the druid turns into an eagle and slings spells and wizard turns invisible, flies up, and dispatches the army of archers with a muttered phrase and flick of his fingers. Extra move options, fast running, the ability to leap or climb with supernatural speed seems a small bone to throw to fighters as wizards warp the laws of the universe.
- Action options - Actions are the most valuable D&D character resource. How about, instead of getting iterative attacks, fighters get iterative actions? Think of it - four standard actions a round...does that really seem overpowered when you compare what a fighter can do with a standard action, and what a wizard can do? Maybe it is. But I think it's an option worth exploring. Of course, multiclassing considerations would be very important here, or gishes could become crazily strong.
I think PRPG is taking the right steps in most regards with spellcasters - but I think they've also, for some reason, decided fighters and other martial characters don't deserve nice things. I hope they reconsider a lot of these changes. I think feats, especially, are an area where things can be improved greatly.
I want to see that caster solo Expedition to the Demonweb Pits.
The adventure is Matters of Vengeance, if you're curious. Ultimately, the only creature you need to kill in the entire adventure is the BBEG (though I destroyed quite a few more), because the undead will disperse without him there and the mercenaries will withdraw (as they are no longer being payed).
Congrats..
But you got to admit..that is a week 15th level quest..
Lower levels can take that quest on.
3.0 adventure path. Also heavy on anti melee enemies, not so much anti mage enemies. Well they try to, just mages are much harder to counter. Low Fort saves, anyone? Very badly multiclassed opposition? (I distinctly remember a Cleric 14/Fighter 7 Drow being marketed as if it were actually CR 22). Sounds like a free experience fest.
A question for Crusader of Logic: How do you suggest that the Tier 4, 5, and 6 classes get bumped up to Tier 2 or 3 level (if at all possible)? You already pointed out that although Fighters may get some better class abilities, they are really getting worked over on both their Feats (limited selection and effectiveness) and the fact that they can't pull off as many tricks as they used to (no more Spiked Chain trip festivals). What else can be done to drag the core Tier 4, 5, and 6 classes upwards so that they contribute to most encounters in a meaningful way?
|
|
A question for Crusader of Logic: How do you suggest that the Tier 4, 5, and 6 classes get bumped up to Tier 2 or 3 level (if at all possible)? You already pointed out that although Fighters may get some better class abilities, they are really getting worked over on both their Feats (limited selection and effectiveness) and the fact that they can't pull off as many tricks as they used to (no more Spiked Chain trip festivals). What else can be done to drag the core Tier 4, 5, and 6 classes upwards so that they contribute to most encounters in a meaningful way?
:( My suggestions are that worthless?
:( My suggestions are that worthless?
Not at all! I just happened to hit "add new post" before I got to read your latest post! LOL
I think your suggestions make for a very concise, solid foundation for continued constructive discussion in this thread. I'm very interested to see what suggestions people have for "closing the gap" between Fighters and the Tier 1, 2, and 3 classes.
But the Tier system also highlights the fact that there are other classes out that have similar but perhaps less severe gaps. I realize that there is probably always going to be an "options gap" between someone that can tear reality apart with a few words and someone that spends most of their time slicing people up, but surely there must be a way to minimize this disparity somewhat?
|
|
I realize that there is probably always going to be an "options gap" between someone that can tear reality apart with a few words and someone that spends most of their time slicing people up, but surely there must be a way to minimize this disparity somewhat?
I think the number of spell slots is a crucial consideration.
Let us consider the wizard.
I would propose consideration of something along the line of:
Level 1: 2
Level 2: 4
Level 3: 3 2
Level 4: 3 4
Level 5: 3 3 2
Level 6: 3 3 4
Level 7: 2 3 3 2
Level 8: 2 3 3 4
Level 9: 2 2 3 3 2
Level 10: 2 2 3 3 4
Level 11: 2 2 2 3 3 2
Level 12: 2 2 2 3 3 4
Level 13: 1 2 2 2 3 3 2
Level 14: 1 2 2 2 3 3 4
Level 15: 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 2
Level 16: 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 4
Level 17: 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 1
Level 18: 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 2
Level 19: 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3
Level 20: 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 4
Something like this would keep wizards somewhat less exponential in their power growth - making resource management important for them throughout their career, and allowing non spellcasters to shine.
This is a pretty big change - maybe too much to consider for the current version of Pathfinder. But something like this would let wizards advance in power, while keeping management of their resources a consideration throughout their career.
|
I second the lack of DM responsibility that has been touched on in quite a few of these posts.
If wizards have access to all the spells in the splatbooks + core and have easy ways to procure them, then things get out of hand. But if they have to quest for obscure bits of knowledge and can't just buy any spell in any big city then things get a bit more challenging. Or just because the spells are available, it should take one hell of a diplomacy check to have an 18th level wizard allow someone to look at their spell book, and so on and so forth. Wasn't all of Faerun nearly destroyed the first time Mystra died. What did she do directly afterwards. Put limits on what kind of spells could be cast. You're the DM, just make it more difficult for the wizard to power up (and by difficult I don't me less fun).
Also, along the same vein, all the wizards I've ever played have been absolutely broke up until around 10th level. Scrolls cost money, material components cost money, and rare material components should be damn hard to find in my opinion. Really, who has 25,000gp worth of diamonds just laying around for a resurection spell, come on now.
|
|
Do a google search for Oberoni Fallacy. Read. Learn. Stop suggesting DM intervention as a solution.
Why exactly should he learn to play D&D in a different style from the one he enjoys? Especially considering that his way works for him while your way causes you problems. Are you sure you're placing this fallacy in the right place?
Sam
|
|
I second the lack of DM responsibility that has been touched on in quite a few of these posts.
If wizards have access to all the spells in the splatbooks + core and have easy ways to procure them, then things get out of hand. But if they have to quest for obscure bits of knowledge and can't just buy any spell in any big city then things get a bit more challenging. Or just because the spells are available, it should take one hell of a diplomacy check to have an 18th level wizard allow someone to look at their spell book, and so on and so forth. Wasn't all of Faerun nearly destroyed the first time Mystra died. What did she do directly afterwards. Put limits on what kind of spells could be cast. You're the DM, just make it more difficult for the wizard to power up (and by difficult I don't me less fun).
3.P beta (and the SRD before it) says a wizard will let you copy a spell from his spellbook for 50gp/level. Any limitation on access to spells is not expressed in the rules.
Further, when a wizard gains a level he can learn *any 2 spells* immediately and for free, requiring no in-game 'source' (he derives the principles of the spells through study). If a spell is allowed in the game, the wizard can have it if he wants it.
Do a google search for Oberoni Fallacy. Read. Learn. Stop suggesting DM intervention as a solution.
Do a Google search for "common courtesy" or "politeness". Read. Learn. Stop being a dick.
A question for Crusader of Logic: How do you suggest that the Tier 4, 5, and 6 classes get bumped up to Tier 2 or 3 level (if at all possible)? You already pointed out that although Fighters may get some better class abilities, they are really getting worked over on both their Feats (limited selection and effectiveness) and the fact that they can't pull off as many tricks as they used to (no more Spiked Chain trip festivals). What else can be done to drag the core Tier 4, 5, and 6 classes upwards so that they contribute to most encounters in a meaningful way?
Fixing Tier 6 is hopeless unless of course you delete the NPC classes from the game. When several classes do the same thing, it is inevitable one will do it better than the other. Otherwise, they're about the same so it's pointless.
Most of the stuff in Tier 5 is there both because it lacks effectiveness itself, and because it has already been 'patched' by a Tier 3. For example, any Fighter fix is going to be 90% Warblade like minimum, assuming it's workable. Well, Warblades are Tier 3 and pretty much identical concept wise. So you can waste time making the Fighter Warblade like... or just put in the Warblade. The latter is simpler. This is also true of Monks, Experts (they're here because Rogues do skill monkeying better + other stuff) and so on down the line.
Tier 4 is about the only ones that can hope to be fixed since their issue compared to Tier 3s is they don't quite have enough versatility and/or broad power. Still, some are here because a Tier 3 does everything they do better (see: Bard vs Rogue).
Tier 1 and 2 is defined by ability to break the game easily in one or more ways via such things as Chain Binding for infinite cash and therefore infinite power. They aren't getting up there, nor is it likely you want them to be.
In 3.5, there's enough stuff out to have a worthwhile selection to choose from, so I just go with whatever fits my concept and is Tier 3, or as close as possible. Which means if I want to play an Artificer (favorite class) I have to hold back considerably.
PF just has core rules right now. And just like the core 3.5, it is incredibly unbalanced and unrefined. Can they even base stuff on the Tier 3s? I don't think they can.
Edit: Paul, the only one being rude there is you. Also, Squirreloid is contributing to the discussion meaningfully. You are not.
|
|
A question for Crusader of Logic: How do you suggest that the Tier 4, 5, and 6 classes get bumped up to Tier 2 or 3 level (if at all possible)? You already pointed out that although Fighters may get some better class abilities, they are really getting worked over on both their Feats (limited selection and effectiveness) and the fact that they can't pull off as many tricks as they used to (no more Spiked Chain trip festivals). What else can be done to drag the core Tier 4, 5, and 6 classes upwards so that they contribute to most encounters in a meaningful way?Fixing Tier 6 is hopeless unless of course you delete the NPC classes from the game. When several classes do the same thing, it is inevitable one will do it better than the other. Otherwise, they're about the same so it's pointless.
Most of the stuff in Tier 5 is there both because it lacks effectiveness itself, and because it has already been 'patched' by a Tier 3. For example, any Fighter fix is going to be 90% Warblade like minimum, assuming it's workable. Well, Warblades are Tier 3 and pretty much identical concept wise. So you can waste time making the Fighter Warblade like... or just put in the Warblade. The latter is simpler. This is also true of Monks, Experts (they're here because Rogues do skill monkeying better + other stuff) and so on down the line.
Tier 4 is about the only ones that can hope to be fixed since their issue compared to Tier 3s is they don't quite have enough versatility and/or broad power. Still, some are here because a Tier 3 does everything they do better (see: Bard vs Rogue).
Tier 1 and 2 is defined by ability to break the game easily in one or more ways via such things as Chain Binding for infinite cash and therefore infinite power. They aren't getting up there, nor is it likely you want them to be.
In 3.5, there's enough stuff out to have a worthwhile selection to choose from, so I just go with whatever fits my concept and is Tier 3, or as close as possible. Which means if I want...
CoL,
Oh, I know I'm not contributing at this point. However, Grain was. I've just got thoroughly &%*£ed off with people, including you, who think that talking to people like they're morons and dismissing them out of hand is a good way to get your arguments across. I was no ruder than Squireloid, ergo if I was rude and dismissive, which I certainly was, so was he.
The only people I talk to as if they are morons are those that prove that they are in fact morons. Launching attacks against me = AoO cluebat smack back in line. Continuing to spread patently false information after being corrected multiple times = down troll down.
So, you are either saying that you have done something stupid to warrant being treated as such, or you are wrong and making things up to attack me, Squirreloid, and probably others I am unaware of. Attacking an idea is not a personal attack. Liking something does not excuse its flaws. In fact, bringing up the flaws is how it gets fixed.
|
|
The only people I talk to as if they are morons are those that prove that they are in fact morons. Launching attacks against me = AoO cluebat smack back in line. Continuing to spread patently false information after being corrected multiple times = down troll down.
So, you are either saying that you have done something stupid to warrant being treated as such, or you are wrong and making things up to attack me, Squirreloid, and probably others I am unaware of. Attacking an idea is not a personal attack. Liking something does not excuse its flaws. In fact, bringing up the flaws is how it gets fixed.
Yes. Bringing up a flaw, with a solution, is how it gets fixed. I hear very little by way of solutions, just whining about how the fighter is underpowered (which is true, now what do you propose to fix the problem?).
Also, as a point of interest and fact, you have never attacked me personally, you just post abrasively and are needlessly rude and that irritates me. I should have ignored it but I was in a bad mood anyway. When did pointing out to people that their manners leave something to be desired, in an admittedly confrontational manner, become a personal attack, btw? If so, then Squirrelloid's posting was also a personal attack as it did not attack the idea, but insulted Grain directly.
Maybe the problem lies in the availability of spells and such?
The rules as they currently exist assume and allow PC's of any given level to purchase any item (scroll, sword, whatever) that they can afford. The rules assume this -as a matter of fact-.
Different Dm's handle it differently in their campaign and that, to a large part, accounts for the various opinions and accounts of "fighters are fine" vs "fighters suck".
Is the actual problem- and through that the possible solution- some rules concerning just how available spells and spell-reproducing magical items are?
I remember in 2nd edition we had spell rarity (common, uncommon, rare, unique).. Maybe we should bring those guides back- both as a matter for wizards finding spells and clerics casting them.
As a not-well thought out, off the cuff example:
Suppose a wizard couldn't memorize more than 1/4 of their daily spells of any given level from the Unique or Rare spells? or if there are 4 categories, you are limited to not memorizing more than 1/4 of your daily slots of any given level from any given rarity level?
(such that if you had 8 slots, you would have to memorize 2 from each rarity category rather than 8 "rare" or 8 "unique").. with the exception that you can memorize as many common or uncommon as you want?
Sounds arbitrary- but it could be an actual ingame power problem. Spells on the "lower end"- spells that are barely powerful enough to actually Be their level are easier to memorize than those that are more powerful- and closer to the next level of difficulty?
And from there you have the availability of those spells for the PC to learn at all. Maybe you can only learn 1 unique and 1 rare of each spell level from your free 2/level spells- such that the PC HAS to try and find the rest in more conventional manners?
Just thoughts.
-S
|
Oberoni FallacyThe Oberoni Fallacy is an invalid argument because it affirms the consequent.
No one who quotes it (or the 'Stormwind Fallacy') cares that their logic is specious. It has the word 'fallacy' which is related to 'fail,' and therefore it is perfect and incontrovertible, and allows someone who wasn't clever enough to write such an epic put-down of other people's playstyle himself to reference it and bask in reflected cleverness, as if linking to something makes you worthy of respect for it's authorship. It's also pretentious and dismissive, the pseudo-intellectual snobbery version of, 'Talk to the hand, girlfriend.'
On the other hand, the argument, 'Well any *sane* DM wouldn't allow that, so there isn't a problem' (with the often-unspoken-but-obvious caveat that if there's a problem, it isn't with the game or the rules, it's with the poster who pointed out the problem for being a twinky munchkin), isn't terribly helpful either, being primarily a passive-aggressive dig at anyone who thinks that the rules should be worded in such a way as to not create these divisions in the first place.
But I don't need to link to someone elses 'Fallacy' argument to state my own position, because I'm quite capable of expressing myself.