|
I won't bother arguing the nomenclature of math, but I think the function being referred to is that it is not just that HD go up, it is that CON *and* HD go up.
At this point, you're talking hp instead of HD, which is a different kettle. It's not just the hp increase, it's the hp increase relative to the CR. Starting with the orc / ogre / hill giant example:
Orc: 5hp at CR 1/2 = 10hp / CR = ~3d6 damage / CR = 1.5 damage diceOgre: 29hp at CR 3 = ~10hp / CR = ~3d6 damage / CR = 9 damage dice
Hill Giant: 102hp at CR 7 = ~14hp / CR = ~4d6 damage / CR = 28 damage dice
So for this grouping, the increase in CR from orc to ogre is 6x for CR and 6x for damage dice, exactly the same. The increase for the hill giant is 14x CR and about 19x for damage dice, for a total damage dice increase of less than 25%. It's an increase, but not by much.
As for the dragons:
Wyrmling: 45hp at CR 3 = 15hp / CR = ~4d6 damage / CR = ~13 damage dice
Wyrm: 522hp at CR 23 = ~22.5hp / CR = ~6.5d6 damage / CR = ~150 damage dice
The increase in CR is almost 8 times, while the increase in damage dice is about 11.5 times. That's about a 50% increase. Definitely a faster increase, but dragons are always the extreme example.
I won't argue that hp go up faster than damage, but to say that it goes up by a quadratic rate is misleading (intentionally or not), it gives people the impression there's a vast increase in the difference, when there isn't. If it were true, the increase from CR to damage dice would in the hundreds, or even the thousands, of percents.
Note: The really important numbers above are the hp / CR. And as you can see, it doesn't increase that much even between a 3 CR wyrmling and a 23 CR wyrm.
|
Alright. Put yourself in the character's shoes a moment, which is the definition of roleplay (imagine your fictional character as if they were a real person and play them accordingly).
You're faced with some monsters. Most likely they are bigger and stronger than you. They also think you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.
Do you:
A: Try to hurt them a bit, (blast) knowing that no matter how much they get burned they don't ever seem to be any worse at fighting. Until they die of course. But that takes a lot more than one shot.
B: Weaken them, (debuff) thereby limiting their combat effectiveness so that they can't hurt you and your buddies as badly and giving you some more breathing room.
C: Try to kill them instantly, (SoD) essentially skipping to the point of A.
Clearly, B and C are the intelligent choices here. A is... well pretty stupid. If you had enough power to just blow them away quickly it would not be, but in the world physics your character lives in he would have to be stupid to choose A unless he had a nuclear cannon for a boomstick (heavily optimized blasting).
When I say blasting is stupid, it is a stupid choice for the character to make especially given their high Intelligence and/or Wisdom considering the way their world works. Declaring that blasting is 'fun' is a metagame concept because you enjoy rolling lots of D6s. Funny thing is I can actually argue at this point the blaster wizard is being a dirty munchkin for putting metagame before observable in character traits. I will not, because I refuse to misuse the English in that way.
The problem with your line of thought is you are assuming that because statistically nothing changes when you lose hp that you are equally good at fighting. The fact is you are not. If a creature is reduced to 1/2 hit points from an area effect, they are much more likely to change tactics and devote resources to defend against such attacks, than if a single creature from their group is killed by a single effect.
Let's look at it from a military perspective:
A. 5 creatures each take half hp in damage. Suddenly charging into combat doesn't seem like a sure thing, they retreat and spend a round getting healed by their cleric.
C. 1 creature out of the 5 dies. The other 4 change tactics to reflect this, but since they are all fine they push on with the battle.
If your talking about roleplaying, it is the DMs responsibility to roleplay the NPCs as well as the players their PCs. In fact, most adventures give suggestions to when a creature gives up on fighting.
Maybe this is something Jason should look at putting in the game - a morale system that can be affected by damage as well as death.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Khalarak: Incorrect. My stance is casters are best because they are. This is fact. Though to be more specific it's that the Big 5 (Artificer, Archivist, Cleric, Druid, Wizard) are in fact the Big 5. Go down a bit lower and you get classes like Beguilers, Dread Necromancers, etc that are still good enough to be usable. They just won't break the game in half (which is a good thing).
If you don't have spells, and aren't from the ToB you are not going to be able to keep up with enemies. You are past your expiration date. This too is fact. Why? Lack of adaptability. Power is irrelevant if you cannot apply it..
Archivist? Really? I played an Archivist in a Play-by-Post game. She seemed underpowered, but fun.
Just out of curiosity, what kind of Character levels are your PC's at? Because at 3rd to 6th Level, I don't see spellcasters as overpowering at all. I think your claim that a good 5th-Level Ranger can't "keep up with enemies" is just plain wrong.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
I won't bother arguing the nomenclature of math, but I think the function being referred to is that it is not just that HD go up, it is that CON *and* HD go up.At this point, you're talking hp instead of HD, which is a different kettle. It's not just the hp increase, it's the hp increase relative to the CR. Starting with the orc / ogre / hill giant example:
Orc: 5hp at CR 1/2 = 10hp / CR = ~3d6 damage / CR = 1.5 damage dice
Ogre: 29hp at CR 3 = ~10hp / CR = ~3d6 damage / CR = 9 damage dice
Hill Giant: 102hp at CR 7 = ~14hp / CR = ~4d6 damage / CR = 28 damage diceSo for this grouping, the increase in CR from orc to ogre is 6x for CR and 6x for damage dice, exactly the same. The increase for the hill giant is 14x CR and about 19x for damage dice, for a total damage dice increase of less than 25%. It's an increase, but not by much.
As for the dragons:
Wyrmling: 45hp at CR 3 = 15hp / CR = ~4d6 damage / CR = ~13 damage dice
Wyrm: 522hp at CR 23 = ~22.5hp / CR = ~6.5d6 damage / CR = ~150 damage diceThe increase in CR is almost 8 times, while the increase in damage dice is about 11.5 times. That's about a 50% increase. Definitely a faster increase, but dragons are always the extreme example.
I won't argue that hp go up faster than damage, but to say that it goes up by a quadratic rate is misleading (intentionally or not), it gives people the impression there's a vast increase in the difference, when there isn't. If it were true, the increase from CR to damage dice would in the hundreds, or even the thousands, of percents.
Note: The really important numbers above are the hp / CR. And as you can see, it doesn't increase that much even between a 3 CR wyrmling and a 23 CR wyrm.
I think maybe the most important number for the point of comparison is in CR/damage dice.
At 1st level (vs. CR 1/2 orc), factoring in the chance to miss, your average fighter-type is probably dishing out 1-2 damage dice/round, so an orc is a one-round foe. An orc is basically a fighter in a funny hat, no special abilities, so this is about as good a matchup as a fighter will get.
Straight-up, he will probably one-round it, maybe 2 if he rolls badly.
At 5th level (vs. CR 3 ogre), in order for a fighter to one-round an ogre he'd need to do on average 9 dice/round, which he doesn't. Sufficiently optimized and with a minor magic weapon and maybe a strength booster, he's probably doing around 4-5 dice (counting in chance to miss, which is nonzero at this point, and the tactical advantage the ogre's reach gives him).
So now a level-appropriate melee threat is going to take him at best 2 rounds (unless he gets a lucky crit in round 1), maybe 3.
If the fighter has gone the missile route, he's less apt to take damage but will do less damage as well.
At 9th level (vs. CR 7 hill giant), the fighter would need to do 28 dice of damage to one-round the hill giant. He will miss only rarely, probably has a nice magic weapon and a strength booster. He's probably doing around 8-10 dice of damage a round.
So now a level-appropriate threat is going to take him at best 3 rounds even if he gets a crit (unless it's a big x3/4 crit) and probably.
Are the above massive, gross, non-statistical approximations? Yes.
But, they are only intended to show a trend - even against foes that are basically the same as he is (only bigger), a fighter gets less and less efficient as he goes up in levels. Sure, he has better AC and more hp to he can suck up the punishment in a bash-em-up fight, but:
1. His raw damage-dealing capability doesn't keep pace with the hp escalation of the things he fights. This is even more true if he's a ranged fighter rather than a melee masher (Master Thrower/PowerThrowing builds nothwithstanding).
2. The variety of things he can do in a combat increases only slightly as he goes up in levels. The tricks he can attempt at 9th level are pretty much the same as the tricks he used at 1st level; he's just better at them. The assumption is they'll work better at higher levels because he's better at them, but really the reverse is mostly true - because foes are better able to resist them (both flat-out massive strength and size of higher-level monsters, besides abilities that simply avoid them), the fighter's improvement at most of his tricks is meaningless.
This isn't true for everything - against equipment-using foes you can disarm and sunder to your heart's content (and PF Beta makes sundering mean something even if you don't actually break an object), but every attack used for that is an attack you can't use for damage. It's like a "debuff" for fighters.
In terms of class abilities alone, the fighter is considered by many a one-trick pony, not because he has only one trick, but because all of his tricks are pretty much variations on the same trick (hit with stick, or shoot/throw stick). They don't impose conditions, cause permanent effects, force other creatures to do certain things on the battlefield, or affect large numbers of foes.
A caster has the choice of options A (hit points), B (debuffs), or C (SoS/D), plus D (call in reinforcements-undead, summons, charms), plus E (buff allies), plus F (non-combat utilities).
The fighter pretty much is stuck with option A, and in general their A will do less than a caster's A.
True, the fighter can keep going all day long, and such has always been the mantra of fighter fanciers. The problem is, in a lot of campaigns that advantage is irrelevant because the adventurers don't keep going all day long. They go until the casters run low on spells. The theoretical advantage of the fighter is that when the caster's run out of spells they can still keep on hacking, but in a lot of campaigns what happens is the casters blow the hell out of everything for as many combats as their spells last, and then the party camps out and waits til tomorrow. Rinse, repeat. Thus, the legendary 15-minute adventuring day.
Now, not all campaigns are like this. Some casters judiciously spend their spells over time, either because the DM doesn't afford them in actual campaign play the opportunity to just rest whenever they like, or because the campaign is dynamic and keeps moving when PCs are snoozing (okay, you rested a day, now the princess is dead and the dragon wiped out the army cuz you wanted to rest after fighting through half the dungeon), and they need to be able to keep pressing on. In play like this, the fighter types aren't nearly so overshadowed because the casters aren't "going nova" all the time. In the heroic fantasy mode like that, the caster better keep something in reserve so he doesn't get caught with his six-shooter empty when the mission keeps on going after he's fired all the big guns.
It depends on whether your campaign play is dictated by casters adventuring on their terms - when rested, spelled up, and ready to rock, in which case their spells per day are almost irrelevant, because they don't have to make their "spells last all day," because the day only lasts as long as their spells do - or whether they have to accommodate their limitations of resources to a time span they can't control.
Still, even given all of the above, the fact remains that non-casters' options are limited compared to casters, especially their ability to adapt to new situations, environments, and challenges that can't be solved with a stick.
|
|
2. The variety of things he can do in a combat increases only slightly as he goes up in levels. The tricks he can attempt at 9th level are pretty much the same as the tricks he used at 1st level; he's just better at them. The assumption is they'll work better at higher levels because he's better at them, but really the reverse is mostly true - because foes are better able to resist them (both flat-out massive strength and size of higher-level monsters, besides abilities that simply avoid them), the fighter's improvement at most of his tricks is meaningless.
I do think that PRPG is making good strides in this area, namely by making the DC to perform a maneuver static per creature, and by decreasing the importance of size in performing the maneuver. Also, several maneuvers may also include Weapon Focus and Weapon Training in performing them.
Let's try to get all these.
B: This is a setup strategy. Even the standard party assumes two casters. One casts say... Enervation, other casts a SoD. Suddenly that high saves guy isn't so great. Then he's dead.
Linear vs Quadratic: HP scale via getting more HD, and getting more Con which adds more to each HD. Blasting spells scale by a flat 1d6/level. And there are dice caps so even if you could get your CL really high, it wouldn't do much. Hint: Enemy HP scales a lot faster than 3.5 a level.
Now, how do the characters in the world know damage doesn't inhibit fighting ability? Well, they fight things all the time. They still fight just as well at 1 HP as max HP. So do the enemies. So do other creatures. Between all the fights, wars, whatever where this happens... When something is observable, repeatable, and occurs on such a large scale it becomes common knowledge, just as it is well known in this world what a gun can do, or what have you.
Reducing someone to a pile of ashes would either be something like doing twice their total HP with one fire spell, or more likely using a death magic. Notice Raise Dead won't bring you back if you die from such a spell. Raise Dead also won't bring you back if your body isn't intact. Resurrection will bring you back if your body isn't intact, even if you're a pile of ash. Death magic destroying the body (leaving a pile of ash) isn't that big a stretch and goes right along with what happens in other systems. Barring Fireballing random Commoners... there you go.
Also, the game is designed deliberately for system mastery. There are many 'Timmy options' deliberately included and made suboptimal so as to make players feel good when they pick the right thing. This naturally means picking the wrong thing isn't smart as some archetypes are deliberately unsupported. Another name for these is newbie traps. Falling into a trap is stupid.
Lastly, Fighters don't have infinite HP. Guess who will die first if you press on too long?
So you have a tactical feat that has, say, 6 other prerequisites (carefully selected as to focus on a particular fighting style), BAB requirements, etc, that lets the fighter do a single attack as a full-round, maybe standard action that also forces a save-or-die/save-or-suck? Make it usable 1/day per mod in appropriate ability score or somesuch. Or have a high-end intimidation feat in the vein of Dazzling Display that gives him several options for debuffing/neutralizing large numbers of foes.
I agree. Indeed, as a very easy start, we could change the [Epic] descriptor on the SRD feats Burst of Speed, Devastating Critical, Dire Charge, Epic Weapon Specialization, Overwhelming Critical, et al. to [Epic or Fighter]. Most of them have enough prereqs that not even a fighter could get them before a moderately high level anyway.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Let's try to get all these.
B: This is a setup strategy. Even the standard party assumes two casters. One casts say... Enervation, other casts a SoD. Suddenly that high saves guy isn't so great. Then he's dead.
Unless, of course, one of the following is true:
1. The target has a common spell like death ward going, in which case he ignores both the enervation and the SoD, or at higher levels has a spell turning effect and reflects single-target spell(s) back at the caster(s).
2. Either the debuff or the SoS fails due to SR. Yes, there are a number of attack effects that ignore SR, though enervation, bestow curse, unluck, mind fog, energy drain, doom, eyebite, crushing despair, and most debuffs don't. There are exceptions (aura of despair comes to mind, but that's only within 10'), but they are few in number. Some are more in the realm of battlefield control spells rather than true debuffs (say, entangle, solid fog, acid fog).
3. The opposition includes more than one credible threat to the party, forcing the party to choose which threat to attack and to ignore the other. (This is still a worthwhile option, taking out one foe entirely is better than incrementally whittling several foes, as long as, y'know, the take-out actually succeeds.)
4. The target's saves are good enough that the reduction of 1d4 to his saves from negative levels from enervation doesn't materially affect his saving throw.
5. The target is of a creature type that is immune to negative energy or SoD (or whichever flavor of SoS you happen to lay on him), which might or might not be obvious at the point of encounter.
There's also the potential argument of whether the character with the best debuffs and the character with the best SoD/S will be the same person, which is a more expensive proposition (i.e., quickened spells) than the tag-team approach, but this issue can be somewhat ameliorated by planning your one-two punches. Then again, it does count on coordinating initiative as well, and if the SoDer has to wait until after the debuffer, he may have to decide to proceed without the debuff if waiting would put him behind the bad guys on initiative.
Linear vs Quadratic: HP scale via getting more HD, and getting more Con which adds more to each HD. Blasting spells scale by a flat 1d6/level. And there are dice caps so even if you could get your CL really high, it wouldn't do much. Hint: Enemy HP scales a lot faster than 3.5 a level.
Absolutely agree with you here.
The dice caps came in with 2nd Ed, when everyone pretty much still had 1st Ed hit points, which meant monsters didn't get a CON bonus, and neither did anyone else past around 9th-11th level (druids to 15th), and only fighter-types got more than +2/die in any case. In that world, a 20-die fireball was almost an auto-TPK.
In 3rd Ed... not so much.
Now, how do the characters in the world know damage doesn't inhibit fighting ability? Well, they fight things all the time. They still fight just as well at 1 HP as max HP. So do the enemies. So do other creatures. Between all the fights, wars, whatever where this happens... When something is observable, repeatable, and occurs on such a large scale it becomes common knowledge, just as it is well known in this world what a gun can do, or what have you.
Sure. In a way, the measure of combat is "how long does it take to put this guy down"?
Method A (direct damage) is the direct approach - attack the hp til they're gone. I smash you and you smash me and we'll see who smashes best and smashes last. In [X] rounds the hp will be gone.
Method B (buff/debuff) is indirect - I'll do more to you and you'll do less to me, and eventually the numbers will add up. In [Y] rounds the hit points will be gone. The damage is more spread out because the assists are bumping everyone on your team and the bad guys. Y is probably longer than X, but you probably suffer fewer bumps along the way.
Method C (SoS/D) is more binary - I take shots that circumvent the attrition process. If I win, then I win. In a single-boss fight, head shots are usually a good bet. In a multi-boss fight, the odds get longer. The efficiency of C also depends on information. If you guess wrong or the bad guys have a defense you didn't anticipate, you waste a lot of shots. If all goes according to plan, you end the battle immediately. If things don't, you get a big fizzle and the battle may take longer than X or Y.
Also, the game is designed deliberately for system mastery. There are many 'Timmy options' deliberately included and made suboptimal so as to make players feel good when they pick the right thing. This naturally means picking the wrong thing isn't smart as some archetypes are deliberately unsupported. Another name for these is newbie traps. Falling into a trap is stupid.
You mean Endurance and Diehard aren't good feats? But, but, but... waaaahhhh :(
Lastly, Fighters don't have infinite HP. Guess who will die first if you press on too long?
This is kind of a non-sequitur. It depends entirely on whether the party presses on after the casters' buffs have worn off, been recast, and worn off again. Then again, those casters' buffs are often cast ON the fighter-types, so it's often to the fighter's own advantage, if he relies on the casters for awesomeness, to keep them fresh and happy.
As you have often pointed out, fighters are not monster magnets. The fact that the fighter's hp are maxed or infinite is immaterial if the caster's spells are running low and something attacks HIM.
But, the first sentence is still relevant - fighters' true claim to fame should be their ludicrous toughness. I would have no problem with fighters getting more hp. Lots more hp! Auto-healing a la "Second Wind" should certainly be a class feature for fighters. So should the ability to throw off effects on them and even break the unbreakable; why not have fighters and barbarians have a super-smash ability that could even shatter a wall of force? There is ample precedent in comicdom for force fields being smashed by the Strong Guy. Why shouldn't the fighter with his magic sword be able to super-smash an object, wall, or barrier with the Burning Fury of a Thousand Exploding Suns.
Sorry for the tangent, but perhaps consider a pair of feats for the fighter types that might be fun:
Shattering Strike (Combat)
Prereq: +4 BAB, Improved Sunder, Power Attack, Str 13+
Effect: As a full-round action, you can attack an object and attempt to destroy it. This is an extraordinary effect but works identically to a shatter spell, targeted against a single object of up to 10 lbs times your BAB. The save DC is 10 + 1/2 character level + STR bonus.
If the object succeeds at its saving throw, your weapon must make a Fortitude save or acquire the broken condition. If you use an unarmed strike or natural weapon and the attack fails, you suffer damage equal to your BAB and are sickened for 1 round.
You must use an attack that inflicts lethal damage with this feat. If your weapon or attack has an enhancement bonus, add this to the save DC of the object being struck, and apply it as a saving throw bonus if the object survives to avoid your weapon becoming broken.
Devastating Smash (Combat)
Prereq: +12 BAB, Improved Sunder, Power Attack, Shattering Strike, Str 17+
Effect: As a full-round action, you can attack an object up to a 10-foot cube in size and attempt to destroy it. This is an extraordinary effect but works identically to a disintegrate spell, targeted against a single object (including objects constructed of force). The save DC is 10 + 1/2 character level + STR bonus. When you use this feat, you become fatigued. If already fatigued, you become exhausted; if already exhausted, you become unconscious.
If the object succeeds at its saving throw, your weapon must make a Fortitude save or acquire the broken condition. If you use an unarmed strike or natural weapon and the attack fails, you suffer damage equal to your BAB and are sickened for 1 round.
You must use an attack that inflicts lethal damage with this feat. If your weapon or attack has an enhancement bonus, add this to the save DC of the object being struck, and apply it as a saving throw bonus if the object survives to avoid your weapon becoming broken.
|
So you have a tactical feat that has, say, 6 other prerequisites (carefully selected as to focus on a particular fighting style), BAB requirements, etc, that lets the fighter do a single attack as a full-round, maybe standard action that also forces a save-or-die/save-or-suck? Make it usable 1/day per mod in appropriate ability score or somesuch. Or have a high-end intimidation feat in the vein of Dazzling Display that gives him several options for debuffing/neutralizing large numbers of foes.I agree. Indeed, as a very easy start, we could change the [Epic] descriptor on the SRD feats Burst of Speed, Devastating Critical, Dire Charge, Epic Weapon Specialization, Overwhelming Critical, et al. to [Epic or Fighter]. Most of them have enough prereqs that not even a fighter could get them before a moderately high level anyway.
Someone should also ask Monte Cook if they can steal his BoXM2 feats.
|
Arcane Strike (Combat)
You draw upon your arcane power to enhance your
weapons.
Prerequisite: Ability to cast arcane spells.
Benefit: As a swift action, you can imbue your weapons
with a fraction of your power. For 1 round, your weapons
deal +1 damage and are treated as magic for the purpose of
overcoming damage reduction. For every five caster levels
you possess, this bonus increases by +1, to a maximum of
+5 at 20th level.
This fixes the +7 to hit, +7d4 damage as a free action and turns it into +3 damage as a swift action with no bonus to hit.
This virtually makes the feat unelectable.Here is the old version
ARCANE STRIKE [GENERAL]
You can channel arcane energy into your melee attacks.
Prerequisites: Ability to cast 3rd-level arcane spells,
base attack bonus +4.
Benefit: When you activate this feat (a free action that does
not provoke an attack of opportunity), you can channel arcane
energy into a melee weapon, your unarmed strike, or natural
weapons. You must sacrifice one of your spells for the day (of
1st level or higher) to do this, but you gain a bonus on all your
attack rolls for 1 round equal to the level of the spell sacrificed,
as well as extra damage equal to 1d4 points × the level of the
spell sacrificed. The bonus you add to your attack rolls from
this feat cannot be greater than your base attack bonus.
For example, Yarren the bladesinger has a base attack
bonus of +11 and the ability to cast 4th-level arcane spells.
On his turn, he chooses to sacrifice one of his 4th-level
spells for the day, marking it off as if he had cast it. Until
his next turn, Yarren gains an extra +4 bonus on his attack
rolls and an extra 4d4 points of damage with a single melee
weapon of his choice (his rapier).
|
|
You know, people keep mentioning the "Timmy" traps. Monte never said there were Timmy traps, exactly (namely, deliberately cool looking abilities that are actually useless). What he said was that they were designing with the idea in mind - to provide some options that were better so players who took them felt better.
It isn't a matter of smart player/stupid player. The inferior options all have a place - they help build the game as a world engine, and provide options for players or DMs who want them. They aren't great options, but they are there. If Endurance was improved to make it more useful, then the previously "cool" feats would immediately lose their luster for some players. If tenser's floating disk was improved to make it able to attack people, then suddenly colour spray doesn't look nearly as useful. At the same time, we suddenly have a tremendous case of power creep. If every wizard spell is equally useful, then suddenly they are never unprepared.
Point being, if everything in the game is useful, then really nothing is useful because nobody is specialized. Everybody has the same, equally powered abilities. Sound familiar?
I'm not saying some areas don't need some work. Feats were a new system with 3.0 and they are still maturing as part of the game. The fighter does need some love in this area, something to make them dominant in combat. Do not edit the old feats, they have their place. We need new core feats.
Seriously, I really wish people would stop calling other players stupid.
Tenser's Floating Disk isn't a good example. Try Burning Hands. That's a Timmy. Floating Disk has valid utility function which means when you don't depend on your 1st level spells to win battles anymore, why not?
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Arcane Strike (Combat)
You draw upon your arcane power to enhance your
weapons.
Prerequisite: Ability to cast arcane spells.
Benefit: As a swift action, you can imbue your weapons
with a fraction of your power. For 1 round, your weapons
deal +1 damage and are treated as magic for the purpose of
overcoming damage reduction. For every five caster levels
you possess, this bonus increases by +1, to a maximum of
+5 at 20th level.This fixes the +7 to hit, +7d4 damage as a free action and turns it into +3 damage as a swift action with no bonus to hit.
This virtually makes the feat unelectable.
The difference, of course, is that this version of the feat costs you nothing to use. You can still use your spell slots for, yknow, spells. This would be no biggie for a sorcerer with lots of spell slots, but the feat really seems to exist with the bard in mind - not a ton of slots, but often mixing it up in combat.
Advantages of the PF version:
1. Doesn't cost spells to use
2. Works with TWF (old version only affected one weapon)
3. Works with ranged weapons (old version was melee-only)
Advantage of the old version:
Obviously, it was way more powerful.
I'm just sayin', if you're a TWF bard, this spell is not a bad one to take. It's as good as Weapon Spec for a fighter at 5th level and better from 10th on up - and is more versatile anyway because it's a bonus with whatever weapon you use, not just a chosen one.
Say, that does bring up a good point, though:
Why don't Weapon Focus and Weapon Spec scale with level? Seems like a simple enough fix.
Weapon Focus: +1 to hit, +1/5 levels
Weapon Spec, since it depends on being a 4th level fighter, perhaps its damage bonus is 1/2 your fighter level. A 20th level fighter gets +10 damage per hit.
The Greater versions of each could double the bonus.
Thoughts?
Both.
To make fighters the undisputed best fighters, and put them on equal footing with clerics and wizards, would take class features and/or feats to do all of the following:
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Not so sure that would really be useful in terms of providing fighters some variety, Jason. I agree it has some use, and I wouldn't object to the change. I really would rather have some fighter feats that let them move about the battlefield freely. Or both.
Oh sure, it's no variety; it's ensuring that an effect that has SOME utility at lower levels doesn't become entirely irrelevant at higher levels. Rather like PF did with the skill-booster feats, which scale up when you get 10 ranks in a skill.
The current setup requires the Fighter to spend later feats in order to make his original feats keep working at par for his level. Which = lame.
I do agree with feats that help the fighter not get bogged down. Now, I don't know if that means we have fighters suddenly jumping all over the field like the Incredible Hulk (though I could TOTALLY see that as a completely appropriate barbarian rage ability), but we could enable fighter feats that did things like:
1. Charge unimpeded over difficult terrain or through allies.
2. Turn while charging (there was a feat for this back in Sword & Fist, "Crooked Charge")
3. Escape from entangling/slowing/paralyzing effects.
4. Reduce miss chance for attacks (yes, I know, BF already exists, but what about reducing it still further, and also reducing chance from non-visual effects like entropic shield and blink).
5. Bust through things that would trap the fighter (like the above-mentioned smashie-smashie feats to blast through walls of force, forcecages, and resilient spheres that otherwise trap fighters like hamsters). He is such a super-fighter that he crashes through 'em like Kool-Aid Man! OH YEAHHHHH!!!
And please, please, please...
6-infinity. Some extra juice to make mounted combat (so your mount doesn't die/get impeded ALL the frickin' time), ranged combat (so you can do some kind of real damage at higher levels outside of Greater Invis/sneak attack and the like), and sword and board (nuff said) get the same kind of love that TWF and two-handed weapons get.
|
|
I completely agree with all of your points. Even if we look at spells that provide the equivalent and bump the feat up so fighters get the ability later (for example, freedom of movement is acquired at 7th level, so make a similar Fighter ability available at 9th level or later.
Additionally, Fighters should get something like the Rogue's defensive roll or slippery mind feature, and if not that then they should at least get an ability similar to the Hexblade's Mettle.
Maybe even a feat that allows them to add their Con or Str bonus to all or some saves.
I want to know what sort of properly built fighter can't keep up with damage spells. Much less lower level blasting spells. If anything, they're doing better than blasting spells. Just no one cares, due to a combo of the damage still being nowhere near good enough (see: linear vs quadratic) and the fact they often can't even apply their damage (see: one trick pony as a obligation).
Moral of the story: Blasting spells are a horrid baseline for anything. Except perhaps ineffectiveness.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Both.
To make fighters the undisputed best fighters, and put them on equal footing with clerics and wizards, would take class features and/or feats to do all of the following:
Deal damage comparable to spells of 2-3 levels lower than the max at that level (Jason's suggestion re: weapon focus/specialization addresses this nicely);
Hit with later iterative attacks, or at least get some use out of them (Pathfinder's Vital Strike tree is a step in the right direction);
Disrupt enemy spellcasting with a good chance of success. This one is non-negotiable; if they can't do it, they can't compete with wizards, and as things are, there's no way to do this.
Control/block movement of enemy fighters. Again, there's no way for them to really do this right now.
Thanks. I agree that Vital Strike is a nice option. If your group is highly buffed or fighting enemies with lots of hp but relatively low AC (giants are the classic example, but also oozes, elementals, dire animals, etc.), your iterative attacks work fine as is. For higher-defense targets, VS is totally the way to go.
As for disrupting spellcasting, we have two issues:
1. There was a feat in the Miniatures Handbook called "Spellcasting Harrier" that automatically caused casting defensively to fail within your reach. I used it as a DM and my players called shenanigans on me, but tough noogies. The way the feat was written was a little hardcore; if you tried to cast on the def, your spell auto-fizzled. Not just that you couldn't do it, but that if you tried it was auto-fizzle.
I think the spell reappeared in a later 3.5 supplement, and in that one it prevented the use - casters knew they couldn't cast defensively, rather than it being a kind of surprise auto-disrupt.
Either one works just fine, but...
2. Unless you are in a tight space (where the caster never wants to be), the caster can always 5' shift or Tumble away from danger and then cast.
So, for spell disruption to REALLY work, what the fighter needs is an ability to AoO someone close by but not adjacent. Perhaps a variant on Quick Draw, wherein if you have a hand free you can throw a weapon at someone as an immediate action to disrupt spellcasting. Or, if you already have your shooter out, the ability to take ranged AoOs vs. spellcasters.
Related to that, you really have the same problem with fighters as movement blockers. I could see stealing some stuff from the Knight in the PH2 that help block squares around the fighter, but you still need some ability to intercept people as they try to move around you.
Maybe what is really needed is a class ability that lets a fighter move as part of an AoO. At least a 5' step. Maybe more. You could limit this off-turn movement to the same as the character's normal move.
It's an idea...
|
|
The difference, of course, is that this version of the feat costs you nothing to use. You can still use your spell slots for, yknow, spells. This would be no biggie for a sorcerer with lots of spell slots, but the feat really seems to exist with the bard in mind - not a ton of slots, but often mixing it up in combat.Advantages of the PF version:
1. Doesn't cost spells to use
2. Works with TWF (old version only affected one weapon)
3. Works with ranged weapons (old version was melee-only)Advantage of the old version:
Obviously, it was way more powerful.
I'm just sayin', if you're a TWF bard, this spell is not a bad one to take. It's as good as Weapon Spec for a fighter at 5th level and better from 10th on up - and is more versatile anyway because it's a bonus with whatever weapon you use, not just a chosen one.
I think the new version is just about right. It obviously nerfs the feat big time but it needed to be nerfed big time. A neat wrinkle, that would help low level arcane types, instead of saying "treated as magic for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction" just give the weapons a +1 Enhancement bonus for that round. It only effects low level in any substantial way before they get a +1 weapon, which should be pretty fast (<4th).
Say, that does bring up a good point, though:Why don't Weapon Focus and Weapon Spec scale with level? Seems like a simple enough fix.
Weapon Focus: +1 to hit, +1/5 levels
Weapon Spec, since it depends on being a 4th level fighter, perhaps its damage bonus is 1/2 your fighter level. A 20th level fighter gets +10 damage per hit.
The Greater versions of each could double the bonus.
I have always liked giving the Weapon Focus and Specialization to non-fighters. But I like the idea that fighters can get special features from the feats, similar to the Monk and stunning fist.
So for all characters who take weapon focus it is just +1 but for the fighter he +1 and +1 more every 5 fighter levels. Specialization gives +2 and +1 more every 5 fighter levels ending up with +5/+6
These would go a long way into making fighters more effective by not forcing them to waste a significant portion of their feats on what essential are +x hit/damage feats.
This last thing goes beyond the scope of PF but combining them into 1 feat is fine by me +1 to attack and damage. and then the fighters special is that it improves every 5 fighter levels by +1. Why: this is for a specific weapon and selecting multiple feats for a single weapon is crazy wasteful. What if they want to be good at both a sword and a bow? That would be 2 WF, and 2 WS 4 feats! Please. Combine them into a singe feat and give a special advantage to fighters who select the feat.
If weapon focus were to work like that then weapon specialization could still be a fighter only feat and increase crit range of the weapon by +1 after all multipliers. This would be good. A warrior with a great axe becomes even more dangerous.
You know this leads into the whole Keen/improved crit feat thing...
|
|
I completely agree with all of your points. Even if we look at spells that provide the equivalent and bump the feat up so fighters get the ability later (for example, freedom of movement is acquired at 7th level, so make a similar Fighter ability available at 9th level or later.
Additionally, Fighters should get something like the Rogue's defensive roll or slippery mind feature, and if not that then they should at least get an ability similar to the Hexblade's Mettle.
Maybe even a feat that allows them to add their Con or Str bonus to all or some saves.
I agree giving those abilities as feats that are available to the fighter is a good thing. Heck I might even suggest take them away from the rogue and give them some bonus feats. Uncanny dodge class feature is a very useful ability for a fighter and one that I can totally see.
A lesser Freedom of Movement type countering ability, "Slice Through" standard action and remove entangled or grappled or whatever other conditions you want to add to the list. Something like this would be really cool give it a +11 BAB requirement and you would really have something. Following this same guideline you could have other feats that remove certain conditions.
Maybe what is really needed is a class ability that lets a fighter move as part of an AoO. At least a 5' step. Maybe more. You could limit this off-turn movement to the same as the character's normal move.
Some discussion appeared earlier (Alpha 1, maybe?) regarding class features allowing the fighter to (a) trade attacks for movement, and (b) "hold" attacks for use later in the round as immediate actions. For example, an 11th level fighter might win initiative and take his first iterative attack, and hold his remaining two attacks. An anemy tries to move past him 10 ft. away; he can choose to take his 5-ft. step and make an attack of opportunity, then use his last two iterative attacks on someone adjacent (or lose them), or he could choose to use his 2nd iterative attack to move into the enemy's path, blocking the way and stopping the enemy's movement, and then use his 3rd iterative attack to strike that enemy.
This would simulate the fighter's ability to pierce the "fog of war" and assess rapidly-shifting combat situations, and make them real masters of the battlefield.
Man I don't know if the fervor around optimizing a character is impressive or scary as hell. I guess this is an optimization thread but, woah-- do people have different styles of fun...
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Lastly, Fighters don't have infinite HP. Guess who will die first if you press on too long?
I was thinking about this some more and I noticed something:
In PF Beta, Toughness is a once-only feat. There are SRD monsters that will need to be adjusted to compensate for this who have Toughness more than once (silly, but true).
Perhaps it should be a class ability of fighters (or all martial classes, really) to be able to take Toughness repeatedly and have the effects stack. This wouldn't exactly get us to infinite hp, but it wouldn't hurt either.
Say every 4 or 5 levels your martial classes get the "Improved Toughness" class feature - working just like the Toughness feat, but its effects stack. At 20th level, your fighter-dude would have 100+ extra hp, which would come in pretty handy.
As it stands, the lowest-hp characters currently gain the most (proportionately speaking) from Toughness, even though they are usually the ones who actually use hp the least. It's the meatbags that really need the extra hp!
|
|
Note: The really important numbers above are the hp / CR. And as you can see, it doesn't increase that much even between a 3 CR wyrmling and a 23 CR wyrm.I think maybe the most important number for the point of comparison is in CR/damage dice.
At 1st level (vs. CR 1/2 orc), factoring in the chance to miss, your average fighter-type is probably dishing out 1-2 damage dice/round, so an orc is a one-round foe. An...
I say the hp/CR is the most important because the # dice/CR can vary depending on what dice you're using. I used d6 above because it's the most common damage die for AoE spells. But hp/CR remains flat regardless of who's attack or what they're attacking with. Based on the hp/CR, you can determine how many dice/CR it'll take for any particular attack, then extrapolate that out to determine how many attacks/CR it'll take depending on how many (and in some cases what types of) dice are used per attack, and from that how many rounds/CR it'll require to take down the creature.
I won't argue that hp go up faster than damage, but to say that it goes up by a quadratic rate is misleading (intentionally or not), it gives people the impression there's a vast increase in the difference, when there isn't. If it were true, the increase from CR to damage dice would in the hundreds, or even the thousands, of percents.
Linear vs Quadratic: HP scale via getting more HD, and getting more Con which adds more to each HD. Blasting spells scale by a flat 1d6/level. And there are dice caps so even if you could get your CL really high, it wouldn't do much. Hint: Enemy HP scales a lot faster than 3.5 a level.
As you can see above, I never disputed that mob hp goes up faster than attack damage. But, as you say, hp scale by HD (a linear scaling) and Con bonus (another linear scaling). Linear scaling plus linear scaling is still linear scaling. You need a multiplier in there somewhere to get quadratic scaling.
For quadratic scaling, you'd need the following to be true:
For each doubling of the CR, the hp would need to increase by a factor of 4. For instance, if Y = Z, then 2Y = 4Z, and 4Y = 16Z. Each doubling of Y leads to a 4x increase in Z. Or, more generally, each time Y is multiplied by X, then Z is multiplied by X-squared.
Going back to the blue dragon (since it has the broadest range of CRs to work with), the hp of a CR 4 (very young) blue dragon is 76, the hp of a CR 8 (juvenile) one is 142, and the hp of a CR 16 (mature adult) one is 276. Each doubling of the CR leads to a nearly a doubling of the hp. For linear scaling, each change in one value leads to a proportional change in the other value. So if Y = Z, then 2Y = 2Z and 4Y = 4Z. This is almost exactly what is happening with the hp/CR. Therefore, hps scale linearly, not quadratically.
The reason this becomse important is that in order to correct the widening gap (if it needs to be corrected at all), something needs to be done to the amount of damage that can be dished out. If it truly were a quadratic increase in hp for the mob, then the amount of damage being done would need to quadruple ever time the PC level doubles, which is a significant power increase. But since it's only a linear increase, a simple bonus that scales directly with level (maybe a +X damage/Y levels or +dX damage/Y levels) would narrow the gap significantly.
But I'm not a game designer so I don't know what that bonus should be, or if it even should be done. I'll leave that in Jason's capable hands.
[Edit: removed a snarky comment, apologies to anyone that had to read it.]
Multiplier = Con increases. That was easy.
|
|
Multiplier = Con increases. That was easy.
Ah, OK, I see what you're getting at now: because the con increases with CR *and* the con bonus increases with CR, it's a quadratic scale. Unfortunately, that's still wrong. It's no longer quite a linear scale, but nowhere near a quadratic scale. Quadratic is a squared scaling, in order to get it every doubling of your x value would lead a quadrupling of your y value. This is a powered growth (not sure of the correct term), but the exponent is so small above one as to be nearly linear, particularly over a small area. Saying it's a quadratic growth is both incorrect and misleading, please stop.
Again, it's a matter of scale. A quadratic growth requires a quadrupling of the hp for a doubling of the CR, which just isn't happening. If it *is* necessary to correct for this gap, then a small bonus to damage, either as +X or or +XdY, that scales linearly with the level would (mostly) correct it.
Multiplier = Con increases. That was easy.Ah, OK, I see what you're getting at now: because the con increases with CR *and* the con bonus increases with CR, it's a quadratic scale. Unfortunately, that's still wrong. It's no longer quite a linear scale, but nowhere near a quadratic scale. Quadratic is a squared scaling, in order to get it every doubling of your x value would lead a quadrupling of your y value. This is a powered growth (not sure of the correct term), but the exponent is so small above one as to be nearly linear, particularly over a small area. Saying it's a quadratic growth is both incorrect and misleading, please stop.
Again, it's a matter of scale. A quadratic growth requires a quadrupling of the hp for a doubling of the CR, which just isn't happening. If it *is* necessary to correct for this gap, then a small bonus to damage, either as +X or or +XdY, that scales linearly with the level would (mostly) correct it.
Maybe something like +1 damage with all weapons per 2 character levels?
Like what Star Wars Saga Edition has.
ranged combat (so you can do some kind of real damage at higher levels outside of Greater Invis/sneak attack and the like), and sword and board (nuff said) get the same kind of love that TWF and two-handed weapons get.
I have solved ranged combat damage by giving ranged users Dexterity modifier on both attack and DAMAGE. Might bows are now used only by character that have Str bigger then Dex. I have also done this for light weapons. Weapon finess is not out the door. Light weapons can be used for attack and damage either with Dexterity or Strength (user's choice).
As for sword and board, you do not need to change it, there is already that feat that lets you attack with the shield and keep the AC bonus from it. So just go Two-Weapon attacking route with your sword and board.
1 damage per 2 levels is too low, but boosting it a bit combined with giving them their tricks back is the right idea.
Edit: Then you have TWF sans bonus damage. In other words, an ineffective approach anyways.
1 damage per 2 levels is too low, but boosting it a bit combined with giving them their tricks back is the right idea.
Edit: Then you have TWF sans bonus damage. In other words, an ineffective approach anyways.
Well, in SWSE, characters do not do half Str damage with off hand weapons and do not suffer the -2 to all attacks when using two-weapons.
Actually Jedi can use two medium size lightsabers without any penalty. And it works great in that system that is about moving a lot in combat.
T, I'm confused. Looking at the character, the problem seems to come from two points.
1. The Arcane Strike feat
2. Wraithstrike
Isn't this the Pathfinder RPG board? So why discuss the old, pre-update 3.5e Arcane Strike in combination with a non-Pathfinder, non-OGL spell?
People keep saying 'old' and 'new' but there's really no comparison. The 3.5 version burns spell slots to do extra damage at a higher degree of accuracy. This one burns actions to give you a much smaller damage boost that essentially translates into a heavily nerfed Greater Magic Weapon spell. There are multiple differences but that's what it ends up as. These are two drastically different effects that just happen to have the same name.
People keep saying 'old' and 'new' but there's really no comparison. These are two drastically different effects that just happen to have the same name.
I suspect the names are no coincidence; more likely, they "happen" to have the same name because Paizo intended the nerf to limit abusive builds like those under discussion. If the name "wraithstrike" were Open Game Content, I'm pretty sure they'd have nerfed that as well. Which would be a relief.
Do you know how many feats named Augment Summoning there are? It's more likely they just picked the name because it was generic enough to fit.
Do you know how many feats named Augment Summoning there are? It's more likely they just picked the name because it was generic enough to fit.
There's only one that I know of (+4 Str, Con; Spell Focus: Conj prereq.). If the others come out of 3rd party sources like Joe Schlepp's Game-Breaking Feats from Hell, your DM gets what he deserves for allowing them without careful review. Shoot, some of the WotC splatbooks were rapidly getting to that point.
Only 3. I expected more. Play around on that feat index and check out the other duplicates.
Only 3. I expected more. Play around on that feat index and check out the other duplicates.
Er...I'm pretty sure that's the same feat, just reprinted in different places.
|
|
Er...I'm pretty sure that's the same feat, just reprinted in different places.Only 3. I expected more. Play around on that feat index and check out the other duplicates.
It is. I made my own "Feat Compendium" for personal use and looked at all of the feat entries directly in the sourcebooks. I've only ever seen one version of Augment Summoning.
Most repeat feats are direct reprints or revisions of 3.0 feats like Quicken Spell-Like Ability.
Well I'd put Clerics and Druids as a bit better or worse, but around the same bar. Outside core there's also the Artificer (craft anything, cast anything) and the Archivist (cast any divine spell if you have it in your spellbook). That's the uppermost level. It just doesn't get better than that.
There is no need to optimize said wizard. All you need to do is focus on the spells that either are save or die, or save or suck. These are available from level 1 on up. No specific builds are required, no non core material is required. You can give this to a completely new player and it will work just fine, provided said completely new player understands that save or be screwed is far superior to dealing out minor damage with a save for half. If however you do optimize for max DCs, it works even better. Still, even the casual Wizard with a starting Intelligence of 15-16 with no spell focus feats etc who simply puts his stat points into Intelligence and eventually gets a Headband for further boosts is quite usable with this approach.
For example. At level 1 you could try casting Magic Missile which is probably just going to annoy one kobold of several, and is roughly as effective as your crossbow except that you get far fewer MMs than crossbow bolts. Alternately you could cast Color Spray. They fail their save, and they're helpless. They technically are not dead, but they will be down so long that anyone, even a Commoner with a Scythe he isn't proficient in can easily finish the job before they wake up. Therefore, it is effectively a SoD.
Beyond level 1, HP scales far faster than damage spells gain the ability to punch through it. In other words, direct damage has exactly the same issues as melee for exactly the same reasons. It doesn't scale fast enough, and it is too limited in scope to be useful. Save or dies do keep up. Save or sucks do keep up.
The only way you are making a blasting caster that is remotely useful is via maximum optimization. Every book under the sun, lots of metamagic cost reducers so that you're effectively casting a Level 20 Spell at character level 13 (when max spell level = 7). All this, to equal an unoptimized Wizard who simply makes use of his natural intellect to work out which of his spells are worth a damn, and which exist for the sole purpose of being pretty but ineffective.
If you've been out of it for 8 years you probably remember 1st and 2nd edition where direct damage was about the same as it is now, but enemy HP were many times lower. 10d6 means a lot more when the upper end of enemy HP is 88, and not 880. Save or dies existed, but everyone had saves so good they'd only work about 20% of the time or less. Then, blasting was worth a damn. 3.0 on, not anymore.
Ogres have bad Will saves. Say you blind 3. Ok. Only one is still capable of posing a threat to your party. The other three are easily hit, have a hard time hitting back... they're practically as good as dead. So have everyone beat up on the one fine one, then you still have 4-5 rounds to kill off the others.
Alternately you Fireball, do your minor to moderate damage, do not reduce their ability to fight but do piss them off. Guess what they're going to do next.
Me: 12th level wizard...
Now going after his will save seems better ... but then I'm not going to really kill him with those spells am I?
Him: Storm giant
You cast hold monster and then have the fighter administer the coup de grace, using a full power attack. Save or be unable to respond = save or die, pretty much.
What I want to know is why these honey-trap-esque abilities are known as Timmys/Timmies?