Or that you're not adventuring on another plane, as high-level adventurers are wont to do, and access to the Astral isn't constrained. (Queen of the Demonweb Pits, anyone?) Or that you haven't been shipwrecked or the victim of some other hazard that deprives you of all the resources you might need. (Who's got the rope?)
Those are McGuffins, though -- situations deliberately created by the DM specifically to debilitate one class or character. They're exactly akin to saying, "this whole dungeon is an anti-magic zone," but on a less obnoxious scale. A DM could just as easily say "you're on the Plane of Rust, where all metal instantly rusts to uselessness, so the fighters and clerics are now unarmed and unarmored!"
That they can make it safe is, I believe, his point.
Exactly. Well if a wizard is not sociopathic he still can be forced to fight on opponent's terms even at high level by threatening something dear to him, but this trick has limited utility. Overuse it and your players will, in fact, start to play sociopaths that do not care about anything they cannot stuff into a Bag of Holding.
In general, yes, wizards (and other spellcasters, to a lesser extent) usually are about playing safe and denying opponents a fair fight. Scry & Fry is the most infamous example of such tactics (because you have almost no chance of countering it, unless you are a better caster, preferably with non-core spells, and it is accessible mid-game), but, really, the battlefield control as a whole is usually about this.
...assuming nobody with access to a dispel magic scroll's looking for you. A goblin adept with a bag of holding can TPK a party resting in the rope trick space...
A very specific counter to just one single spell and you also need to find where this space is first.
Or that you're at least 8th level - the rope trick spell only lasts 1 hour/level, so it's not an adequate Motel 6 until then.
Extend Spell.
Or that you haven't been shipwrecked or the victim of some other hazard that deprives you of all the resources you might need. (Who's got the rope?)
In which case the whole party is completely screwed, unless it is the fearsome hazard DMfiatquake, which takes out wizard's stuff, but not everyone else's.
The problem is somewhat lessened in PBeta, as Rope Trick is nerfed there. So, no truly safe rest until you have Plane Shift, Teleport Without Error and/or Mordenkainen's Mansion. I consider this a good thing, by the way. But at high levels there is still a ton of ways to negate nighttime ambushes.
A very specific counter to just one single spell and you also need to find where this space is first.Spells cannot be cast across the extradimensional interface, nor can area effects cross it. Those in the extradimensional space can see out of it as if a 3-foot by 5-foot window were centered on the rope. The window is present on the Material Plane, but it’s invisible...Darn it! Invisible! Now if only that goblin adept had a spell that could detect invisibility!
Hmm. Wonder if it's magic, too...
Yeah. Those are real specific counterspells, I know. It's not like just anyone has them.
You fail to understand. First, even before casting see invisibility you need to find where the rope trick space is. It can be hundreds of meters in the air, for example. You have a limited number of detection spells and cannot just check every area for several miles around. Oh, and having a bag of holding (it is quite expensive, by NPCs standards, and, by the way, their treasure is supposed to be random) just to negate rope trick is a highly specific counter.
Also, in an attempt to stop derailment of the thread into "fighter vs wizard" argument, I repeat the fighter does not suck because he loses duels or is worse at adventuring solo, or even because a druid or a cleric can beat him at his own game. The fighter sucks because he pretty much automatically loses to every monster that is not a pure melee combatant, and after a certain level he loses to level-appropriate melee combatants as well. And if he uses his WBL to patch the former problem, he suffers even more from the latter.
Curses! If only we had some sort of skill we could use to track the party until they leave the plane!
You fail to understand. First, even before casting see invisibility you need to find where the rope trick space is.
Exactly. You cannot track flying creatures
When this spell is cast upon a piece of rope from 5 to 30 feet long, one end of the rope rises into the air until the whole rope hangs perpendicular to the ground, as if affixed at the upper end. The upper end is, in fact, fastened to an extradimensional space that is outside the multiverse of extradimensional spaces (“planes”).
The extradimensional end is no more than 30'up in the air.
Nowhere the text does state that the rope must actually touch the ground.
Follow the PC's track until they vanish; scan upwards. Not hard.
How, again, do you propose to follow their tracks through the air?
Oh, and having a bag of holding (it is quite expensive, by NPCs standards).The cheapest one is 2,500 gold. Less than a 3rd level fighter's starting gold.
Your lack of rules knowledge is disturbing. NPCs have 1/2 of PCs wealth, monsters even less, and you cannot choose items that cost more than half or your WBL.
|
When this spell is cast upon a piece of rope from 5 to 30 feet long, one end of the rope rises into the air until the whole rope hangs perpendicular to the ground, as if affixed at the upper end. The upper end is, in fact, fastened to an extradimensional space that is outside the multiverse of extradimensional spaces (“planes”).
Err, no. It is at the end of a 30ft rope, which can be flown or levitated to any arbitrary height.
|
As to the cost of actions, you get what you pay for. And for the arbitrary point, Levitate could manage it passably.
We could go on like this, but I believe we have made our points, and any convincing would have occured by now. We've also strayed from the original topic, so I propose we let things lie before moderation steps in to lock it down.
You see, this is funny. The fighters in my games consistently overshadow the wizards in combat. They do more damage and are frequently the target of buff after buff from the wizards.
I don't see the problem you're having and suspect it has more to do with game theory then game practice.
To put in perspective at 6th level the groups fighter was doing something like 2d6+25 damage on a swing, and swinging three times a round thanks to the haste the wizard dropped at the start of any major combat - a haste he got only a +1 bonus to AC, to hit, and on reflex saves out of.
This basic damage is not possible for a 3.X core fighter. Period. Even counting typical bonuses from inspire courage, prayer, etc., you need, like, Str 30 and +5 weapon (+4 weapon in PBeta) for that (neither is available at 6th level) and you can't achieve that even if casters put a serious effort into buffing you. No, you can't usually power attack even bog-standard MM I monsters before significantly impacting your chances to hit, particularly with second attack (by your desrciption, I guess that this wasn't an ubercharger), unless your stats are still as unreasonable as described. Even in non-core, you need to be best of the best (dragonborn water orc, likely with feral template) to get these stats at 6th level as a straight fighter. Similarly optimized wizard can easily disable the vast majority of encounters the party meets and you have exactly one level of being useful before he starts abusing polymorph/planar binding and makes you an XP sink (any one of these spells suffices, so no luck for PBeta fighters).
In summary, do not bring up your houserules or mega-bonuses given to someone's character by DM or cases of extremely optimized fighters vs. non-optimized spellcasters. They only hinder the proper mechanical analysis.
Pathfinder.
6th level fighter. Two handed using a +1 greatsword. 22 strength (including magic items). Power attack.
2d6 + 9 (standard strength bonus for two handed) +1 (Weapon enchantment) +2 (specialization), +12 (power attacking), +1 (weapons training) = 2d6 + 25. He's on average every time he hits twice as much damage as my mage can with his most powerful spells.
He hits at +9 when power attacking like this and gets three swings when I haste him (which I usually do, because its more effective then me casting any other spell I know). With my haste he hits at +10. This is before any other buffs, before any cleric buffs, before any bard bonuses. This is simply the fighter hacking apart everything we face.
The only monster he have had any trouble with him hitting at all is the Will O Wisp with it's absurd 29 AC.
Don't run your mouth about how damage like that is impossible or how we've super house ruling. Do some damn math. He isn't super optimized, he isn't getting bonuses from the DM. He's doing as much damage as every two handed fighter should be doing at this level.
As a further note - on how Power attack makes hitting super hard for fighters at 6th level. It doesn't. The average AC for a 6th level foe is something like 18. Even power attacking a fighter should have little trouble hitting consistently. Check out the touch attacks chart here http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=12991290&postcount=7
You like to talk about how wizards can use craft feats to cast items at half cost... true... and they can do so for the entire party - and should not that they don't take experience penalties. My wizard (same level as the fighter) has Craft Wondrous Item. He's used it to craft items for others on demand when we have downtime because he realizes, as every wizard should, that when your big stupid fighter hits the enemy harder you have a better chance of surviving. Likewise when your trap triggering rogue has more hit points and a better chance of disabling traps you have a better chance of surviving.
Some general notes. Talking about how the fighter is screwed alone is kind of crap. The wizard is usually similarly screwed. Is it possible for them to burn absurd amounts of resources in the form of spells - assuming they have the right ones prepared - to beat their foes? Sure. But it isn't likely. It isn't likely that the wizard is going to have all spells prepared that allow him to single-handedly take on encounters. The entire system is built upon the party dynamic.
Most powerful wizards I see in games are powerful because they are able to use their abilities to play to the parties strengths. They can use battlefield control to cut off foes and allow the fighters to slaughter then at close range. They use their magic to counter tactics that would otherwise screw over the fighters, thus allowing them to kill off the foes.
We had an encounter last night that could have easily killed any single fighter. A flying opponents with a breath weapon and flyby attack that was staffing the party. It had DR high enough that ranged weapons weren't hurting it. The wizard and sorcerer were the only party members who could reach it. Guess what they did? They cast fly on the fighter and let him deal as much damage in one hit as they would with three spells.
You have to remember when you say a wizard or sorcerer or cleric can do this and this and this and this and win, that it involves burning spell after spell - that they hope they have (or have prepared). Spell casters are fundamentally limited by their lack of spells available, vulnerability without extensive buffs active, and their foes ability to basically shrug off any attack with a decent roll.
Stop thinking about the fighter vs. the wizard vs. the cleric in who can survive alone and in terms of who is most effective with a party to support them. In most cases it's the fighter, because with a couple small buffs from the cleric and wizard he can shred almost any foe of the appropriate level in 1-3 rounds of full attacks - regardless of what level it is. You cannot say the same of the wizard without extraordinary bad luck on the part of the DM. Not consistently in encounter after encounter. Certainly not in 4 encounters a day.
A wizard without a fighter is like a fighter without a wizard. Screwed.
Regarding Rope Trick. It's not viable until at least 5th level (in which case you're extending it and using one of your 2-3 5th level slots on it), and more likely until 9th level. At neither level is it truly viable - mostly because of the extradimensional spaces clause. Bag of holding in the party? No rope trick. Handy Haversack? No rope trick. Portable hole? No rope trick. Don't try and tell me about how the party should just sell any of them they find so they can make use of a single spell. What happens then with any bags of gold? You don't think those 10,000 gold coins are light do you? What about all that magic armor and weapons you pulled off your dead foes? Now it is nearly unrecoverable.
Now am I saying rope trick sucks? No. It can be very useful, especially if you consistently run into night attacks that screw up spellcasters resting. But it is hardly without cost - nor is it guaranteed safety if you run into a foe with dispel magic as noted by others.
Some of you all have mentioned the wizards ability to teleport away and come back if he doesn't have the right spells at higher levels. True, he can. But how many parties are willing to scratch an entire days adventuring so the wizard can shine all the time? What about when you're under a time limit? I know in two recent adventures I've played (Published in Dungeon!) the party can't withdraw and avoid combat or they fail (Bullywug Gambit & the Ruins in the Sea Wyverns' Wake).
We can play what if games all day, but the truth is the core classes all have their role.
Regarding the people who talked about how they had a melee party and how they many foes wiped the floor with them because they didn't have casters. The same is true of an all caster party.
Peter,
Hopefully, we all agree that arcanists need melee support at low levels; that point has been well made. The strong feelings here, though, center around higher levels (11th+, and especially 15th+). I, too, was amazed at how cool melee characters were at the beginning of Savage Tide. But that shifts over the course of the AP; by the time you get to Enemies of My Enemy, an all-arcanist party (with maybe one rogue or bard) is a LOT better than a party with a heavier proportion of melee guys. Running that AP from start to finish -- and running the intelligent bad guys intelligently -- was all it took to convince me beyond any lingering doubt that melee guys don't really contribute much at high levels. Wait 'til the end of the AP, and see if you don't agree.
See, if you play a guy who starts off weak and needing protection, but then he comes into his own and rocks, that's fun. But if you play a guy who starts off being the protector, but as time goes on you become less and less relevant... well, that really sucks. In the first maybe 4 adventures of Savage Tide, everyone was afraid of the barbarian -- he could kill the rest of the party by himself. But by the time we reached the end of Into the Maw, the barbarian player was asking why the rest of the group bothered to keep him along -- the druid was out-meleeing him, the wizard was knocking out more enemies than everyone else put together, and even the rogue was starting to show him up. I felt really, really bad for the guy, and more than once played an intelligent foe like a chump, just to give him something to do -- made demons stand there and let him full-attack them, instead of teleporting away and killing him, for example.
Edit. Dammit! I just lost my entire fraking post for some reason!
Peter,
Hopefully, we all agree that arcanists need melee support at low levels; that point has been well made.
I think it's more extreme then that but agree generally.
The strong feelings here, though, center around higher levels (11th+, and especially 15th+).
Ok then.
I, too, was amazed at how cool melee characters were at the beginning of Savage Tide.
With you here.
But that shifts over the course of the AP; by the time you get to Enemies of My Enemy, an all-arcanist party (with maybe one rogue or bard) is a LOT better than a party with a heavier proportion of melee guys.
I completely disagree with the idea that an all-arcanist party is ever a good idea. The loss of frontline damage capability, the ability to deal with any of the monsters that pack such fundamentally flawed abilities as "magic immunity", and of general toughness is crippling. While spells can makeup for some of these loses, particularly with large numbers of summoned creatures, they cannot do so all day long or when the party is ambushed.
Naturally however a party without dedicated spellcasters is in similarly bad shape as they become more and more necessary to defeat specific forms of attack.
Running that AP from start to finish -- and running the intelligent bad guys intelligently -- was all it took to convince me beyond any lingering doubt that melee guys don't really contribute much at high levels. Wait 'til the end of the AP, and see if you don't agree.
We'll see. I'll touch on one thing you say here though that irks me: "Played intelligently". This goes both ways. Monsters played intelligently teleport next to spellcasters and grapple + teleport away with them. Or full attack them before they can respond after teleporting in on the surprise round.
See, if you play a guy who starts off weak and needing protection, but then he comes into his own and rocks, that's fun.
Agreed.
But if you play a guy who starts off being the protector, but as time goes on you become less and less relevant... well, that really sucks.
Except they start out as the guys that rock and gradually become more dependent on spellcasters to help them rock - which in my experience they do all the way through high levels. Though I haven't seen the later adventures of the Savage Tide I've seen high level melee characters - without prestige classes and even without buffs churn out hundreds of damage a round.
In the first maybe 4 adventures of Savage Tide, everyone was afraid of the barbarian -- he could kill the rest of the party by himself.
This is how my game has gone. Mostly we all just wait for the fighter to kill everyone we face in one round. Last night we had the DM cursing to the effect of "CR ___ MY A$$" when the fighter killed things in one round.
But by the time we reached the end of Into the Maw, the barbarian player was asking why the rest of the group bothered to keep him along -- the druid was out-meleeing him, the wizard was knocking out more enemies than everyone else put together, and even the rogue was starting to show him up.
Druids were gods in 3.5. The pathfinder changes to Wildshape and polymoprh will hopefully help with this problem. Clerics were a close second but with only Core they aren't as problematic as druids were (though they were still the second best class in the game by a wide margin).
I'd love to know how the wizard was knocking out more enemies then everyone else put together - unless they were low level foes he could kill with a single AoE. Maybe you'd care to share the wizards stats or common spells?
Most of my experience with the adventure path is Core only. Honestly I'm worried about staying competitive at all with my wizard.
Regarding rogues - with sneak attacks and particularly with two weapon fighting they can do a lot of damage a round. They can do more damage even then the fighter if the fighter isn't getting to full attack (because the fighter is more likely to land his later attacks then the rogue I still think the fighter is more likely to do more damage with full attacks). They are however much more vulnerable.
I felt really, really bad for the guy, and more than once played an intelligent foe like a chump, just to give him something to do -- made demons stand there and let him full-attack them, instead of teleporting away and killing him, for example.
You see, this tells me we have different views of played intelligently. Never giving the fighter a chance to full attack is like never letting wizards cast a spell over 3rd level. They get extra attacks so they can keep up. Denying them such attacks is crippling to how they should be played and how they interact with the game.
You see, this tells me we have different views of played intelligently. Never giving the fighter a chance to full attack is like never letting wizards cast a spell over 3rd level. They get extra attacks so they can keep up. Denying them such attacks is crippling to how they should be played and how they interact with the game.
I know exactly where you're coming from, and that's why I threw the guy a bone. See, pretend I'm a demon with a 22 intelligence, and I've been a captor of mortals for centuries. A bunch of mortals appear. I know from experience that standing around within reach of the metal-encased guys is dumb. So, I use my 22 Int and do exactly what you recommended earlier -- I grab the squishy spellcaster and teleport away. Now the fight is one demon vs. one wizard -- worse than the fighter getting killed -- he doesn't even get to play!
Typical spells for the wizard? Disintegrate (coupled with Improved Initiative, it's hell on liches and wizards and assorted undead; useless on everything else). Hold monster (for big melee brutes). Lower resistance was obviously a favorite later on, when the demons were all over. Mordenkainen's mansion (to rest). Lemme go back through and see if I can recall some of the high points for you.
You see, this tells me we have different views of played intelligently. Never giving the fighter a chance to full attack is like never letting wizards cast a spell over 3rd level. They get extra attacks so they can keep up. Denying them such attacks is crippling to how they should be played and how they interact with the game.I know exactly where you're coming from, and that's why I threw the guy a bone. See, pretend I'm a demon with a 22 intelligence, and I've been a captor of mortals for centuries. A bunch of mortals appear. I know from experience that standing around within reach of the metal-encased guys is dumb. So, I use my 22 Int and do exactly what you recommended earlier -- I grab the squishy spellcaster and teleport away. Now the fight is one demon vs. one wizard -- worse than the fighter getting killed -- he doesn't even get to play!
And in that case the wizard is probably in deep crap. Really this tactic is hard to counter for everyone and is a big part of the reason most demons and devils can only teleport themselves.
Really though this is DM play that is screwing over the fighters, not the rules. I could just as easily have all my enemies try and sunder every wizards spellbook or component pouch. I could have them all be greater invisibility and hurling dispel magics like crazy or counterspelling the wizards spells.
Using specific tactics that screw over the fighters by not allowing them to even act is hardly a good way of displaying how the fighter is overpowered. You could do the same to any class or against any party.
Typical spells for the wizard? Disintegrate (coupled with Improved Initiative, it's hell on liches and wizards and assorted undead; useless on everything else). Hold monster (for big melee brutes). Lower resistance was obviously a favorite later on, when the demons were all over. Mordenkainen's mansion (to rest). Lemme go back through and see if I can recall some of the high points for you.
Disintigrate is lovely against undead... assuming they don't save. It only affects one per casting though. It doesn't explain how your wizard was clearing out more then everyone.
Hold Monster/Person again, can work really well if they don't save. If they do it's useless. Again though this is 1 foe per 2 castings.
Lower resistance isn't a spell that was killing enemies by the bucket load. It's not core and wasn't even reprinted in the Spell Compendium. The fact that it was so popular and that wizards were willing to spend spells and actions to cast it tells me that SR is a serious limitation. Lets keep in mind it's the same as -10 enemy AC.
Really though this is DM play that is screwing over the fighters, not the rules. I could just as easily have all my enemies try and sunder every wizards spellbook or component pouch. I could have them all be greater invisibility and hurling dispel magics like crazy or counterspelling the wizards spells.
Well, intelligence on both sides, again. The 23-Int wizard kept her spellbooks off-plane. Spell component pouch? Eschew Materials -- good for all spells under 5 gp or whatever the cap is. And counterspelling is less effective than killing.
But the wizard can kill at a distance, and can pursue; the fighter cannot. So the fighter gets ignored... except that I often made the demons attack the barbarian, just so he'd have a chance to do something, and the cleric could buff him, and he could chop some demons up. Made him feel good, but after a few encounters, he figured out what I was doing and the gig was up. Because although the character was of only average intelligence, the player was saying things like, "it's great that all the demons attack me, and don't move around too much, but if they wanted to, couldn't they just go around me and attack the others?" And how many excuses for them not doing so can you come up with, if the rules are structured so they can do exactly that? So I want melee characters to get immediate action intercepts, and I'm told that makes them "too powerful." Even though spellcasters can full move and cast a spell and also cast a quickened spell, in the same time that a fighter can swing a sword couple of times.In 1st ed. (a badly flawed game, but one in which fighters truly rocked), a fighter could move and full attack, and he could guard his friends. In 3e, he can't, unless the DM houserules or fudges things. I'd like some of those houserules to become reality, but that won't happen until the designers realize how the 3.0 rules as written have hamstrung melee combatants in favor of spellcasters (Move and cast? No problem. Move and full attack? Impossible. Disrupt spellcasting? Not anymore; roll can't hardly be failed. Guard friends? Can't, and even if you could, they don't need you to).
In terms of sheer damage, against reasonable AC monsters... staff of maximized orb of fire, as inefficient as it is = 80 hp/round against monsters with resistance to fire AND SR. Melee combatant? Their AC is usually too high to Power Attack, and later iterative attacks miss... if you can get them off at all. And again, you can't chase people while full attacking, but you can still shoot 'em with those orbs.
Anyway, my point is, the DM shouldn't have to artificially force intelligent opponents to not ignore the fighter; I'd like it a lot better if the rules allowed the fighter to tromp all over them if they did so. But those rules don't. So I propose feats that let melee guys trade iterative attacks for movement, and to stop moving enemies in their tracks, and to make immediate actions in response to what the enemy does, and to disrupt spellcasting reliably... all the things they should really be able to do all along... and I'm told "No! Feat effects should be on a par with 0 or 1st levels spells at the best. Fighters are fine if the DM sets things up so they get to do their thing!" Never mind that casters get 9th level spells, and that some players see through those DM ruses.
So I get a bit frustrated.
Because at low levels, fighters are the kings of the battlefield. I want them to continue to be so at high levels by the very nature of the rules, not just by DM sufferage.
Pathfinder.6th level fighter. Two handed using a +1 greatsword. 22 strength (including magic items). Power attack.
2d6 + 9 (standard strength bonus for two handed) +1 (Weapon enchantment) +2 (specialization), +12 (power attacking), +1 (weapons training) = 2d6 + 25. He's on average every time he hits twice as much damage as my mage can with his most powerful spells.
He hits at +9 when power attacking like this
+9 to hit is not enough for 6th level (the iterative attack is likely to miss, even the first hit is not guaranteed). The fighter has no reach and still can only deal enough damage to MM I CR6 melee stuff, like 7-headed hydras and girallons, thanks to Haste (they have better reach and can destroy him in 2 full attacks at most, quite probably in one, oh, and thanks to reach they likely get to full attack first). If you think that your most powerful spells deal damage, you have no idea, how wizards work.
and gets three swings when I haste him (which I usually do, because its more effective then me casting any other spell I know). With my haste he hits at +10. This is before any other buffs, before any cleric buffs, before any bard bonuses. This is simply the fighter hacking apart everything we face.
Or, more accurately, mooks he face. Equal-CR melee-oriented monsters still have more than 50% chance of wasting him, unless casters are kind enough to buff him. Yeah, at 6th level casters still can make a fighter great (if enemies too are kind enough to melee him), big news.
+9 to hit is not enough for 6th level (the iterative attack is likely to miss, even the first hit is not guaranteed). The fighter has no reach and still can only deal enough damage to MM I CR6 melee stuff, like 7-headed hydras and girallons, thanks to Haste (they have better reach and can destroy him in 2 full attacks at most, quite probably in one, oh, and thanks to reach they likely get to full attack first). If you think that your most powerful spells deal damage, you have no idea, how wizards work.
I'm faintly amused that your argument has gone from "You're lying and making things up, fighters aren't that good, stop talking about uber min/max and houserules" to "Well, that's not good enough". Faintly because I don't appreciate the level of venom, hypocrisy, misinformation, and general accusation in your posts.
+9 to it isn't bad at all, considering the average armor class at this level is 18. Given even minor buffs (bless, enlarge person, haste) the fighter has very good odds of connecting, and with only a couple connections can kill his foe.
No Girallon on the planet is going to kill the average two handed fighter in a single full attack. Not even with every attack hitting and max damage. They might drop a fighter in two full attacks - assuming every attack hits (a statistical improbability). Far more likely is the fighter killing in with two or three quick blows. The fighter above kills it in two hits assuming average rolls when power attacking.
The hydra is more problematic, but is probably the most beasty CR 6. I'm not convinced the CR 4, 5, or 6 hydras are properly CR'ed given their large number of attacks, high potential damage, and fast healing. I suppose part of the balancing act is their slow speed. Either way, if forced into a room to fight the hydra I'd put better odds on the fighter then any other character in my party at the moment - though in part that is due to the incredibly poorly built cleric.
In any case, regarding your argument - your right, the hydra could kill the fighter with a full attack - assuming every attack hits (another statistical improbability) and does max damage (at this point a statistical anomaly akin to winning the lottery).
As to your spellcaster comment. I've never denied that under the proper circumstances spellcasters are powerful. Assuming failed saves the caster can dominate combats. The thing is... the fighter isn't designed to do battlefield control or debuffing. The entire purpose of the fighter is to deal damage and soak up damage - and it fulfills that purpose very well. Trust me, I know how to play spellcasters. I probably know more about wizard game theory then you can imagine, based on your completely flawed understanding of the fighter and his purpose as demonstrated to date.
If I brought up spellcaster damage at all - and I don't recall if I did - it was only to point out that it wasn't as if the fighter was going to take over the fighters role. Even with enemies largely incapacitated (blinded, crippled, ect) they still have to be killed. This is most easily done with damage - which is what the fighter does.
Or, more accurately, mooks he face. Equal-CR melee-oriented monsters still have more than 50% chance of wasting him, unless casters are kind enough to buff him. Yeah, at 6th level casters still can make a fighter great (if enemies too are kind enough to melee him), big news.
No... see we call that balanced design. The CR system is setup to be a fight in which you have a 50/50 chance of victory alone against a foe of the same CR as your level. If a 6th level fighter dies half the time to a CR 6 then there isn't anything wrong with either.
That said, I hope you're joking about "kind enough to buff him". The game is built on the idea that 4 characters will work together to take on foes. That doesn't mean try to show each other up all the time. Buffing each other is an accepted and expected part of the game.
What do you want? The fighter to be able to do everything? It's not going to happen. No class (with the possible exception of the cleric given access to non core material) is going to be able to do everything alone. The game promotes specialization into 1 of 4 required roles in a party framework. The fighter fulfills his role very well - better then the others when limited to the Beta alone in many ways. The only weakness of the fighter is the inability to move and full attack - one that was largely fixed with the later pieces of the spring attack chain - though why they've never created a feat allowing two attacks as a standard action I'll never understand.
That isn't to say that the fighter couldn't use some improvements, most notably an improvement to 4+ skill points and some new feats that allow more movement while retaining more then a single attack. No class is perfect though. The wizard has similar holes in his abilities that need to be fixed.
I'm faintly amused that your argument has gone from "You're lying and making things up, fighters aren't that good, stop talking about uber min/max and houserules"
That's because I assumed basic damage (i.e., before Power Attack) and 3.X game. Fighters having any use in PBeta is, in fact, houserules/stealth nerfs, as in PBeta casters, by RAW, can craft magical items without any real limits, except time/spell availability, and, therefore, don't need fighters to even finish off disabled foes from about level 3 onwards. Anything that a fighter can touch, wizard or druid can kill by just staying out of reach/disabling it and throwing direct damage from their trusty wands or allowing the archer cleric to shoot it to death, or whatever. So, yes, you're talking about houserules or a DM that jumps through the hoops to stealth nerf casters by not allowing any downtime whatsoever/not giving proper wealth/not providing any NPCs to buy magical stuff.
Also, for the fun fact, the melee cleric than took just Power Attack and Strength as primary is only about 5 points of damage and +2 to hit benind this fighter, before buffs, which he can provide himself. This is not a particulalry good way to build clerics, but the fighter still would have just one level to go, before this cleric blows him out of the water.
to "Well, that's not good enough".
See above. And yes, you still are only good enough with spellcaster help.
+9 to it isn't bad at all, considering the average armor class at this level is 18.
Except that you need to hit stuff, like, 80-95% of the time to keep your HP bleed within reasonable limits. Because if you miss at the inappropriate moment, you're in the world of pain, as, unlike you, the monsters mostly aren't crippled by iterative nature of their full attacks and can hit you quite often. Hitting on 9+ means that you miss 40% of the time when you often have just one chance to take out your opponent (because he can get away/maul you with full attack/grapple you after that).
Given even minor buffs (bless, enlarge person, haste) the fighter has very good odds of connecting, and with only a couple connections can kill his foe.
Again, why 6th-level PBeta casters should waste their spell slots on making the fighter strong, instead of simply blasting all opponents that he's good against from a safe distance?
No Girallon on the planet is going to kill the average two handed fighter in a single full attack. Not even with every attack hitting and max damage.
That's 73 damage by the way. No, you're not going to live through that even with 18 Con, because, on average, you have 62 HP.
They might drop a fighter in two full attacks - assuming every attack hits (a statistical improbability). Far more likely is the fighter killing in with two or three quick blows. The fighter above kills it in two hits assuming average rolls when power attacking.
You seem to forget, that under PBeta rules the girallon has 72 HP (Toughness isn't such crap, anymore). Unless you somehow start in full attack range and go first, he's statistically likely to live long enough to unload at least 2 full attacks.
The hydra is more problematic, but is probably the most beasty CR 6. I'm not convinced the CR 4, 5, or 6 hydras are properly CR'ed given their large number of attacks, high potential damage, and fast healing.
Should I bring up stuff from latter MMs? I use MM I stuff only because it is generally weakest there is, and still can kill fighters.
As to your spellcaster comment. I've never denied that under the proper circumstances spellcasters are powerful.
From 7-9th level onwards these circumtances can be "every situation" and from 13th level they very likely are. Or, in other words, you're either ready for practically every reasonable setup
or always choose your battlefield.Assuming failed saves the caster can dominate combats.
And enemies fail about 80% of the time, if they're lucky, because you usually can target weak saves.
The thing is... the fighter isn't designed to do battlefield control or debuffing. The entire purpose of the fighter is to deal damage and soak up damage - and it fulfills that purpose very well.
No, he doesn't. Well, he can deal good damage if he can reach stuff. His ability to soak it, however, is weak to irrelevant. Particularly because he's piss-poor at noticing ambushes by pouncing/sneak attacking enemies; or at getting to full attack large enemies with reach (which is almost every melee brute at CR 6 and above) before they full attack him; or at getting full atacks against monsters that do bad things to you as a standard action, even if said monsters also are meleers (see chain devils for CR 6 example). Also, soaking up damage from stuff that the rest of the party can completely avoid/shut down in the first round is not a valid party role.
If I brought up spellcaster damage at all - and I don't recall if I did
You did. By the way, the moment you connect PBeta to 3.5, spellcasters can start slinging around ridiculous amounts of damage, thanks to extra feat and other stuff.
Even with enemies largely incapacitated (blinded, crippled, ect) they still have to be killed. This is most easily done with damage - which is what the fighter does.
Animal companion does the same thing, is way easier to replace and does't syphon your XP and loot. Also, if that is PBeta, you can just shoot disabled enemies to death. Also, at levels 9+ you don't cripple, you SoD/SoL stuff.
No... see we call that balanced design. The CR system is setup to be a fight in which you have a 50/50 chance of victory alone against a foe of the same CR as your level. If a 6th level fighter dies half the time to a CR 6 then there isn't anything wrong with either.
Exept that there is also a ton of CR 6s to which he dies about 100% of the time (belkers, bralani, etc), and those CR 6s against which he can reliably win usually die just as easy to everyone else, thanks to their overall weakness/inability to counter stuff that denies them full attack routine. Melees that are good at meleeing actually have better than 50% chance against a fighter.
That said, I hope you're joking about "kind enough to buff him".
I'm not joking.
The game is built on the idea that 4 characters will work together to take on foes.
Exactly. And why others must work together with a character, that loses ability to contribute to the team somewhere between level 5-11?
What do you want? The fighter to be able to do everything? It's not going to happen. No class (with the possible exception of the cleric given access to non core material) is going to be able to do everything alone.
Any character from Big Five (archivist, artificer, cleric, druid, wizard) can, in fact, do everything alone, even if they are more effective as a team - for sure at two-digit levels, possibly at levels 7+. That's why they are the Big Five. They can do even the things that don't really need to be done, such as providing convenient targets to melee brute enemies. Also every character from Big Five can outmelee fighter, if he feels like to. Most can provide free melee brutes that are better than fighter before very high levels.
In summary, you seem to have totally no idea what 3.X casters actually do or what PBeta casters likely will be doing and operate under mistaken assumptions that a)fighter is any good at tanking b)tanking is a valid party role past low levels. You also think that relying on other party members in fulfilling your single fuction, without contributing anything they cannot do without you, is a good way to play a team game. The same, old fail.
A very specific counter to just one single spell and you also need to find where this space is first.Spells cannot be cast across the extradimensional interface, nor can area effects cross it. Those in the extradimensional space can see out of it as if a 3-foot by 5-foot window were centered on the rope. The window is present on the Material Plane, but it’s invisible...Darn it! Invisible! Now if only that goblin adept had a spell that could detect invisibility!
Hmm. Wonder if it's magic, too...
Yeah. Those are real specific counterspells, I know. It's not like just anyone has them.
The feat Transdimensionial Spell allows a spell to cross minor planar boundaries, and is specifically called out that it can harm things inside a bag of holding or a Rope Trick.
If you don't want to take the feat, easy enough to make a spell or a Metamagic Rod that does the same thing for you. Be fun to wake up the party in their sleeping space with a maximized Fireball or Wall of Fire going off, yes?
==Aelryinth
Anyway, my point is, the DM shouldn't have to artificially force intelligent opponents to not ignore the fighter; I'd like it a lot better if the rules allowed the fighter to tromp all over them if they did so. But those rules don't. So I propose feats that let melee guys trade iterative attacks for movement, and to stop moving enemies in their tracks, and to make immediate actions in response to what the enemy does, and to disrupt spellcasting reliably... all the things they should really be able to do all along... and I'm told "No! Feat effects should be on a par with 0 or 1st levels spells at the best. Fighters are fine if the DM sets things up so they get to do their thing!" Never mind that casters get 9th level spells, and that some players see through those DM ruses.
So I get a bit frustrated.
Because at low levels, fighters are the kings of the battlefield. I want them to continue to be so at high levels by the very nature of the rules, not just by DM sufferage.
Any foe just bypassing a well-built fighter should be a death sentence. A decent Uber Charger build will kill any creature of equal CR on a charge. Casters suddenly look terribly weak when they get meleed and can't get their spells off. But turning your back on a well-built melee should be a death sentence. Pounce is available with 1 level of multi-classing to Barb, and requires 10' of room. Uber Charge builds mature at level 6 and need absolutely no outside buffing to do what they do.
Too many caster examples presume that the casters can always get their spells off. The key thing is, they SHOULDN'T get all their spells off...enemies aren't stupid. Archers SHOULDN'T get off full attack archer volleys, for exactly the same reason...both are death sentences. Either you do something about ranged attacks coming in with complete impunity, or you die.
Thus, the enemy SHOULD be able to get around the Melees. Your Melees, likewise, should be able to get around the blockers of the enemy in the same way. they should be taking pains to gain the movement ability to do so. Otherwise, they should be taking ready actions to move and intercept, and distract attackers from the spellcasters.
The Girallon example above kills the spellcaster in one full attack. So do the hydras. Unless the environment is specifically set up to favor casters, playing a spellcaster in a real fight against any foe with ranged capability should be quite a challenge in getting spells off. The Melee has the choice of intercepting these creatures before they get to the casters, or going after the ranged attackers of the enemy and leaving them exposed. If he lets them get attacked and goes on a charge and snuffs the enemy, too bad, so sad, his casters didn't do anything.
The casters can whine either way. Either the melee intercept the attackers with ready actions and let them get their spells off and dominate, or the melees let the enemy harass the spellcasters and not get off their spells as they go for the enemy ranged attackers, letting the casters whine that the melee can't do their job.
I'd most certainly have attackers trying to bypass the melee and go after the casters. Casters are squishy. But I'd have the melees fully ready to take advantage of a creature that ignores their prescence, or be ready to ubercharge something dead, or lock them in place. It would never go as smoothly as the casters seem to think...rote defenses would be overcome by rote tactics employed just as automatically.
Casters seem to think NPC's are stupid. NPC casters aren't really affected by wealth limits, and are generally free to nova all their best spells as rapidly as possible to the benefit of their party. they can and should take all the PrC combos that the party uses, and use the same uber spells to the same effect.
Play them smart on both sides. Things get interesting. Certainly not as routine as the casters seem to think.
==Aelryinth
I'm faintly amused that your argument has gone from "You're lying and making things up, fighters aren't that good, stop talking about uber min/max and houserules"That's because I assumed basic damage (i.e., before Power Attack) and 3.X game.
You know what they say about assume... See, we're on the Pathfinder boards, therefor I'm talking about Pathfinder.
Fighters having any use in PBeta is, in fact, houserules/stealth nerfs, as in PBeta casters, by RAW, can craft magical items without any real limits, except time/spell availability, and, therefore, don't need fighters to even finish off disabled foes from about level 3 onwards.
So... because casters can craft magic items without paying experience obviously fighters are overpowered? You see this is funny, my wizard has a bunch of crafting feats. He uses them to craft permanent magic items for the entire party – effectively doubling how far everyones wealth goes.
I assume what your talking about is “freely” crafting wands, staves, and scrolls. I'd start by pointing out that Staves only have 10 charges now. They can be recharged however at the cost of spell slots... which further limits your spells for the day. Still, I'd expect the wizard to have a couple spells at the appropriate level.
Wands & Scrolls however are another matter entirely. You'll excuse me if I quote Treantmonk20 here to respond on them.
First Reality: Every time your wizard uses a Scroll, Wand or Staff - he's made himself less powerful forever.No kidding. Now in perspective - casting a spell off a 1st level wand or scroll is almost non-existant in terms of cost - the higher the spell level - the greater the cost to you.
Look at it this way. Lets say you get pretty much average loot. According to the DMG you can expect your 9th level wizard to have somewhere near 36,000 gp.
So lets say your Generalist wizard decides to pick up a few scrolls to make up the difference in castings/day against a focused specialist:
He goes on a 4 day adventure - the cost of the scrolls: 19,000 gp. So you just blew over half your loot.
Now obviously he's talking about the focused specialist option specifically here, but the point is valid regardless. Every time you use a wand or scroll you are permanently lowering your wealth. Most Dms, including my own, aren't going to go out of their way to give you extra wealth so you can blow it on wands & scrolls so you can overshadow fighters. This isn't some “Stealth nerf”. This is just how the game is played. Everyone gets an equal share of treasure. If you happen to keep burning your share on expendable magic items you are going to rapidly fall behind in terms of “real” magic items.
Anything that a fighter can touch, wizard or druid can kill by just staying out of reach/disabling it and throwing direct damage from their trusty wands or allowing the archer cleric to shoot it to death, or whatever.
In which case you're burning your wealth at an extraordinary rate to show up the fighter and render him useless. Guess what? A rogue can do the same thing to the wizard & sorcerer using scrolls + use magic device. It doesn't make it a good idea.
So, yes, you're talking about houserules or a DM that jumps through the hoops to stealth nerf casters by not allowing any downtime whatsoever/not giving proper wealth/not providing any NPCs to buy magical stuff.
I love how every time a situation isn't specifically set up to favor the spellcaster it's obviously a stealth nerf, but if it's set up to screw over the fighter then obviously that's just the game.
Also, for the fun fact, the melee cleric than took just Power Attack and Strength as primary is only about 5 points of damage and +2 to hit benind this fighter, before buffs, which he can provide himself. This is not a particularly good way to build clerics, but the fighter still would have just one level to go, before this cleric blows him out of the water.
Stop trying to act like your educating me. You've made your painful lack of knowledge clear. Sure, clerics can play in melee, they're supposed to. They have to back up the fighter. Sure if they burn large numbers of buffs on themselves they can begin to keep up with the fighter in terms of pure damage, but they can't do so in every fight and they can't do so if surprised. If your party is happy with the two encounter adventuring day that's great, have fun. Personally mine isn't. This isn't the DM shafting people, it's the PC's wanting to get something done.
Lets also note that the Cleric is likely to have lower physical scores and few magic items boosting his physical scores because he needs to pump his wisdom score.
to "Well, that's not good enough".See above. And yes, you still are only good enough with spellcaster help.
Who are only alive with fighter support. You ran your mouth earlier about how so many foes could kill the fighter with one full attack... they could do the same to the spellcasters who have lower hit points & AC's.
As much as you'd like to pretend otherwise not every party gets the drop on every single encounter. A full attack on a wizard will kill him flat out. Heaven forbid the wizard fight a rogue who gets the jump on him in a surprise round, winds initiative, and then sneak attacks him again.
+9 to it isn't bad at all, considering the average armor class at this level is 18.Except that you need to hit stuff, like, 80-95% of the time to keep your HP bleed within reasonable limits. Because if you miss at the inappropriate moment, you're in the world of pain, as, unlike you, the monsters mostly aren't crippled by iterative nature of their full attacks and can hit you quite often. Hitting on 9+ means that you miss 40% of the time when you often have just one chance to take out your opponent...
If I hit you 1 out of every two times for 50 damage isn't that better then hitting you 4 out of 5 for 20? Your argument falls flat when confronted with the power of logic and math.
The only way the wizard completely overshadows the fighter is if the DM goes out of his way to let the PC's see every threat coming, gives them extra wealth to make up for the enormous number of consumable magic items they are using, and never puts the PC's on a deadline.
Any foe just bypassing a well-built fighter should be a death sentence. A decent Uber Charger build will kill any creature of equal CR on a charge. Pounce is available with 1 level of multi-classing to Barb, and requires 10' of room.
I agree that they SHOULD, but simply using the Beta rules -- not the array of 3.5e splatbooks (so, no Leap Attack, etc.) -- using the Beta, they don't. Charger builds are a lot less viable with the nerfed Power Attacks and lack of auxiliary feats. Lockdown builds are less viable, because tripping is a lot harder to begin with, and because tripping feats are a lot weaker than they were in 3.5. Barbarians don't get any rage powers that resemble Pounce, nor are there any Beta feats that give them anything even remotely analagous. Pathfinder rules hate melee characters.
|
I agree that they SHOULD, but simply using the Beta rules -- not the array of 3.5e splatbooks (so, no Leap Attack, etc.) -- using the Beta, they don't.
And this is the point. We can play opponents either as morons or as subject to the sorts of rules we'd like, that levy a serious penalty for ignoring meleers, but the ruleset we have -- the core 3.5 ruleset plus PFRPG changes, some of which (such as the changes to tripping and the Power Attack nerf) make the problem worse -- aren't that ruleset.
My wishlist is somewhat evolved, but not that much:
Wishlist
- A stopper feat that stacks with the new Lunge feat (such as Stand Still, which is OGL)
- Rules for moving and making multiple attacks (I'd probably trade movement for penalties, because trading movement for attacks would favour TWF builds too much over 2H and the already-lame sword-and-board)
- Feats to beef up AoO harm
- Combat Expertise de-nerfed and uncapped
- Power Attack de-nerfed
- Some sort of Power Attack and Combat Expertise available to all as a combat option, with the feats to give the full versions (PA and CE, as Mattastrophic and Jess Door pointed out in this page, make armour class work properly, which is why combat option is where the basic version belongs)
- Easier to interrupt spellcasters/harder for casters to resist interruption
- Some fix for the lamentable willsave problem that makes fighters puppets for whomever wins initative
- As monster attacks won't change much, make AC easier to get (CoL's suggestion about making enchanted armour cheaper and allowing armour and shield bonuses go up to +9 was pretty good, I think).
|
I agree that they SHOULD, but simply using the Beta rules -- not the array of 3.5e splatbooks (so, no Leap Attack, etc.) -- using the Beta, they don't.And this is the point. We can play opponents either as morons or as subject to the sorts of rules we'd like, that levy a serious penalty for ignoring meleers, but the ruleset we have -- the core 3.5 ruleset plus PFRPG changes, some of which (such as the changes to tripping and the Power Attack nerf) make the problem worse -- aren't that ruleset.
My wishlist is somewhat evolved, but not that much:
Wishlist
- A stopper feat that stacks with the new Lunge feat (such as Stand Still, which is OGL)
- Rules for moving and making multiple attacks (I'd probably trade movement for penalties, because trading movement for attacks would favour TWF builds too much over 2H and the already-lame sword-and-board)
- Feats to beef up AoO harm
- Combat Expertise de-nerfed and uncapped
- Power Attack de-nerfed
- Some sort of Power Attack and Combat Expertise available to all as a combat option, with the feats to give the full versions (PA and CE, as Mattastrophic and Jess Door pointed out in this page, make armour class work properly, which is why combat option is where the basic version belongs)
- Easier to interrupt spellcasters/harder for casters to resist interruption
- Some fix for the lamentable willsave problem that makes fighters puppets for whomever wins initative
- As monster attacks won't change much, make AC easier to get (CoL's suggestion about making enchanted armour cheaper and allowing armour and shield bonuses go up to +9 was pretty good, I think).
If Power Attack and Combat Expertise were folded into a generic measure (which could be used to shift damage, AC and BAB around between each other), would you still need the PA and CE feats to be denerfed? Or were you thinking that the basic combat option would be up to 5 traded and the feats would increase this?
As for trading movement, how about you can move at half speed and get off two attacks, but only when you've got a Bab of 11+?
A feat that prevents movement would be a good solution, especially if it's allowed for AoO. And other AoO possibilities are good. I'd even suggest a feat that allows you to have your full attacks as AoO to start with. Or even make that standard.
I'd also be in favour that casting defensively increases the AC rather than removing the AoO. If you're dumb enough to stand there casting a spell when someone can stick a sword in you, you deserve to get hit, even if you can make it harder.
Not sure about the others.
|
|
If Power Attack and Combat Expertise were folded into a generic measure (which could be used to shift damage, AC and BAB around between each other), would you still need the PA and CE feats to be denerfed? Or were you thinking that the basic combat option would be up to 5 traded and the feats would increase this?
That would suit me, too. I guess I'd like there to be feats to improve the ability to do the trading, but I'd be open to negotiating what the base was, and what the feats would allow.
As for trading movement, how about you can move at half speed and get off two attacks, but only when you've got a Bab of 11+?
My concern about this was that it favours TWF a lot, as those people can have twice as many attacks. On the other hand, yes, they have sunk several feats into getting them. I'm concerned that sword and board is bad enough as it is, though. I am thinking maybe a -2 to all attacks per 5' or 10' moved.
A feat that prevents movement would be a good solution, especially if it's allowed for AoO. And other AoO possibilities are good. I'd even suggest a feat that allows you to have your full attacks as AoO to start with. Or even make that standard.
The new (not in Beta, but in one of Jason's announcement posts) 'Shall Not Pass' feat does stop opponents -- in fact, it's rather brutal, as you only have to do damage and they don't get a save -- but it doesn't stack with the new Lunge feat that increases threatened area. A Pathfinderised Stand Still that stacked with Lunge would be sweet. Feats to get iteratives with AoO might also be cool.
I'd also be in favour that casting defensively increases the AC rather than removing the AoO. If you're dumb enough to stand there casting a spell when someone can stick a sword in you, you deserve to get hit, even if you can make it harder.
Not sure about the others.
I like that idea about casting defensively. I'd like caster disruption to be somewhere between 1e (any damage disrupts spell) and 3e (caster will often shrug it off). The Lunge feat will also negate the "5' step then cast" tactic.
Any foe just bypassing a well-built fighter should be a death sentence. A decent Uber Charger build will kill any creature of equal CR on a charge. Casters suddenly look terribly weak when they get meleed and can't get their spells off. But turning your back on a well-built melee should be a death sentence. Pounce is available with 1 level of multi-classing to Barb, and requires 10' of room. Uber Charge builds mature at level 6 and need absolutely no outside buffing to do what they do.
Uberchargers are not core (and PBeta nerfs them). Uberchargers are completely screwed by anything that denies them charge, which is a lot of opponents. Ubercharges appear on the level of optimized play, when losing initiative or not being able to get the enemy on the first action is generally catastrophic (get affected by anything enemy does and be screwed), and they are inferior to casters in initiative, reach, and ability to notice the enemy.
Too many caster examples presume that the casters can always get their spells off.
Because they can. They have superior mobility, detection and defense, therefore they can choose their battlefields and escape if things do not go their way. Monsters like above-mentioned hydras and girallons are little more than moving natural hazards to them, because they cannot neither reach not catch them. If a full caster is ever unprepared after 13th level, his player is either very stupid, or consciously gimps his character to not overshadow others. Or maybe a better caster just outsmarted him. And if you really wish, you can achieve the similar state at about level 7, without even investing serious resources specifically in that.
has anyone house ruled full attacks as a standard action?
So... because casters can craft magic items without paying experience obviously fighters are overpowered? You see this is funny, my wizard has a bunch of crafting feats. He uses them to craft permanent magic items for the entire party – effectively doubling how far everyones wealth goes.
Except, what anyone, who cannot craft items, thus directly converting time to power, does in the party? An extra person who can craft stuff=more free/semi-free power for the same periond of downtime. This is not exactly rocket science. You shoot the party in the both feet by sinking XP in the anyone who doesn't have one of the best and the most easily accessible abilities in the game.
This also reflects your general failure to comprehend, that casters should not be expected to nurse magic-impaired party members, because the casters actually can be perfectly fine without melees (but not vice versa). And that the system that does not allow some classes to stand on their own is not truly balanced. You operate on a fallacious assumptions, that the party's tactics and general modus operandi should be built around the lowest common denominator, i.e., the melee "tank". This is nor the sole neither the most effective way to play at medium levels, and it is downright ineffectual at high levels, as people in this thread have already illustrated. (Worse than that, you assume that the whole party should play dumb and consciously put themselfves in the greater danger, by pressing on despite running out of resources; and, consequently, enemies also should play dumb, conveniently dividing themselves into bunches of weak encounters and refusing to mount counterattacks, to avoid TPKing the party.) Even if the fighter is optmized with non-core feats and actually can reliably kill things, his single good trick is much, much easier to foil than stuff that the optimized casters do, therefore basing your whole party's survival strategy on it is not smart. (Also, uberchargers are rather boring to play. Also, ubercharger clerics >>> ubercharger fighters, because they too kill anything they charge, while keeping their spellcasting.) By the way, I love, how fighter proponents invent incredibly complicated ways to counter casters' tricks, while forgetting, that the fighter shuts down near-completely the moment he encounters a more complicated situation, than flat floor and enemies that enter his melee range.
Now obviously he's talking about the focused specialist option specifically here, but the point is valid regardless. Every time you use a wand or scroll you are permanently lowering your wealth.
Except that PBeta also allows you to convert wealth into greater wealth, if you have time. Making two items and selling one = an item for free. And don't even try to tell me about setting-based stealth nerfs - if the rules produce results that immediately must be nerfed, what they're doing in the book?
As much as you'd like to pretend otherwise not every party gets the drop on every single encounter.
[sarcasm]Well, that's because some parties drag around dead weight, like fighters, at medium-high levels[/sarcasm]. Otherwise, you can pretty much automatically get the drop on almost every encounter that the fighter can deal with and can kill it from the safe distance or bypass completely.
The only way the wizard completely overshadows the fighter is if the DM goes out of his way to let the PC's see every threat coming, gives them extra wealth to make up for the enormous number of consumable magic items they are using, and never puts the PC's on a deadline.
Or if the DM does not go out of his way to stealth-nerf, say, Planar Binding, or Scry & Fry, or 3.X Polymorph, etc. etc.. Consumable magic was ever mentioned only for PBeta, where by RAW you can convert time into it, at rapid rate. Also, casters can see every threat, that is not a comparable caster/dragon/outsider, coming, that's what the whole school of Divination is for. As about deadline, the casters are more effective at actually dispatching encounterstherefore they can progress faster, and the fighters' endurance is completely limited by available amount of healing spells anyway. Also, see my comment about actually using things PCs care about against them, above.
And even if a primary-melee character in the party is genuinely useful (it might be, depending on playstyle, level and DM's actual preferences), you still are better off with almost anything BUT the pure fighter, because not only it is one of the weakest melee characters in the game, it is also one of the most inflexible. The fighter has few real options (even less in PBeta) and cannot do anything outside of combat.
Uberchargers are not core (and PBeta nerfs them).And yet, when you talk about the "big five" of spellcasting classes, two of them are non-core (artificers and archivists).
So are we talking about Pathfinder, core 3.5, or all the supplements? Make up your mind, please.
Thanks Matthew. I'll be addressing his points in more detail when I get home tonight or after I get some sleep (in which case it'll be around midnight).
Suffice it to say I think that FatR and I are playing completely different games. One of us is playing an adventuring game, the other is playing an exercise in market control, making a profit, and risk management.
QUOTE]that allow them a full move as an immediate action, and another one that allows any hit to cause a dimensional anchor effect, THEN they can prevent that sort of thing. But without those types of abilities, they can't cope at high levels.
IF you allowed that, mage slayers would be in every potted plant, and the mage would never be able to get away. That would definately be unbalanced (against the mage)
QUOTE]that allow them a full move as an immediate action, and another one that allows any hit to cause a dimensional anchor effect, THEN they can prevent that sort of thing. But without those types of abilities, they can't cope at high levels.
IF you allowed that, mage slayers would be in every potted plant, and the mage would never be able to get away. That would definately be unbalanced (against the mage)
But a cleric can do the same thing at range (negating the need for immediate movement), with a TOUCH attack rather than a regular attack, and without spending ANY feats -- instead, it costs him a single daily 4th level spell slot. Or he can craft a wand, and do it basically at will. By your argument, the entire world is ALREADY unbalanced against the wizard... and yet he seems to do just fine.
THIS is the key issue, for me: why are basic options that cost a spellcaster next to nothing considered perfectly OK... whereas the same option, slightly nerfed, and requiring a whole chain of feats, is suddenly "unbalanced" if a fighter gets it? This is the mind-set I can't understand.
He's not talking about time. He's talking about XP. Pay attention, please.
Except PBeta removed XP costs the last time I checked. Therefore time = power.
And yet, when you talk about the "big five" of spellcasting classes, two of them are non-core (artificers and archivists).So are we talking about Pathfinder, core 3.5, or all the supplements? Make up your mind, please.
No matter what you choose, fighters still cannot hold a candle to any of these classes (all-included 3.X makes them suck somewhat less, though). So, who cares?
Thanks Matthew. I'll be addressing his points in more detail when I get home tonight or after I get some sleep (in which case it'll be around midnight).Suffice it to say I think that FatR and I are playing completely different games. One of us is playing an adventuring game, the other is playing an exercise in market control, making a profit, and risk management.
If you're playing an exercise in making a profit and risk management, why you fail so much at these?