|
But I still don't see a fat heavy Ogre or Hill Giant fighter with 3 or 4 attacks moving around the battlefield and wielding several times in a single round. Not my idea of a "hulking brute".
Maybe if you visualise it as one 'sweep', through several squares, rather than 'bop-bop-bop-bop-Whack-a-Mole'?
|
|
That elemental? It has two slam attacks. Is it really that hard to envision it bringing both arms down on you hard? The slow, plodding enemies tend to have few attacks.
It's also not that slow seeing as it moves as fast as a human, and is only slightly less nimble despite being about 5 times taller and exponentially heavier.
It's actually more agile than most humans, considering it ignores difficult terrain via Earthglide...ask it to mould spikes into the floor, ground the flyers, and they can't make free 5' steps. SPLAT!
So we simply make the extra mobility a feat; fighters will take it, because they have plenty of feats and will get a lot of use out of that one; other martial characters will think twice, but many will invest in it, and monsters (especially the stereotypically slow ones) won't get it.
This is an especially attractive solution because Jason Bulmahn seems opposed to too much tinkering with the core combat rules (CMB aside), but he also seems amenable to new combat feats.
Dang, I had a nice post and it seems to have gone into the void.
I like some of the posts above that suggest a feat which allows a fighter to turn a full melee attack into a Standard Action. That step alone would add a lot of versatility. I also think that if it were a feat then it could be available to other melee combatants.
More like... you may move a distance equal to secondary attacks sacrificed/total attacks available as a move action (so if you have two attacks, and only take your primary, you can move half your speed as an Immediate action) or better yet and more clearly written just make it 10 feet per secondary attack you choose not to take which doubles with haste. You can also save attacks, which is what someone else here said.
So if you have 3 attacks you can swing once, save two. Then as an Immediate action move 10 feet and attack again. Something like that.
Did I miss something here? I'm pretty sure this is already possible within the rules. It requires a feat, but surely nobody is suggesting that a fighter is short on those?
Spring Attack allows you to move before and after an attack. The restriction is only that you must move more than 10 ft. before the attack and the total movement cannot exceed your normal move. This would allow you, even if you only have one attack in a round (unlikely if you are a fighter with Spring Attack, but...), to move ten feet, make your attack, and then retreat another 10-20 feet depending on your race and the armor you are wearing.
Granted, the feat in question has some prerequisites, but Dodge and Mobility can come in handy for a fighter, especially when your Wizard or Sorcerer is about to lob an AoE, so it's not a huge sacrifice. I really think this whole thread under-estimates the innovation of the player within the current rules.
|
More like... you may move a distance equal to secondary attacks sacrificed/total attacks available as a move action (so if you have two attacks, and only take your primary, you can move half your speed as an Immediate action) or better yet and more clearly written just make it 10 feet per secondary attack you choose not to take which doubles with haste. You can also save attacks, which is what someone else here said.
So if you have 3 attacks you can swing once, save two. Then as an Immediate action move 10 feet and attack again. Something like that.
Did I miss something here? I'm pretty sure this is already possible within the rules. It requires a feat, but surely nobody is suggesting that a fighter is short on those?
Spring Attack allows you to move before and after an attack. The restriction is only that you must move more than 10 ft. before the attack and the total movement cannot exceed your normal move. This would allow you, even if you only have one attack in a round (unlikely if you are a fighter with Spring Attack, but...), to move ten feet, make your attack, and then retreat another 10-20 feet depending on your race and the armor you are wearing.
Granted, the feat in question has some prerequisites, but Dodge and Mobility can come in handy for a fighter, especially when your Wizard or Sorcerer is about to lob an AoE, so it's not a huge sacrifice. I really think this whole thread under-estimates the innovation of the player within the current rules.
part of the point of the line of discussion in questionis this: no matter what feats a fighter takes in 3x (core, that is, i don't know about every splatbook published), there is nothing that makes a fighter a) better at protecting his party (i.e. being the best darned meatshield he can be) in anything other than terrain that funnels enemies within his AoO range, and b) seriously effective in mobile combat with anything with reach. a five foot step from any critter with a 10' reach and a reach weapon makes spring attack pointless. and at higher levels (which is where fighters lose a lot of luster) quite a few opponents have 10' reaches. and, as you stated, you must make a move of MORE than 10' for spring attack, so, unless the fighter finds or buys some magic to give him extra movement...
...and spring attack still doesn't let you make a full attack, which means the poor fighter is doing little damage to the nasties with a ton of hit points at higher levels, and is generally receiving far more than he gives when the baddie makes his 5' step and full attack...
...and spring attack doesn't allow you to "save" an attack and move for the opponent who moves 15' away (i.e. out of any conceivable threatened area for a fighter) to get to the soft skinned party members...
fighters are supposed to be the end all/be all of the melee field, and in 1e, they were, but in 3x, at high levels, they often wind up being less than effective bodyguards for wizards.
Not to mention Spring Attack is torching three feats to be ineffective offensively and still get full attacked defensively.
Not to mention Spring Attack is torching three feats to be ineffective offensively and still get full attacked defensively.I'm trying to see your balance point here: what feat would you take instead of Spring Attack?
Since it's 3 feats, and Spring Attack is practically useless at its intended purpose and useless overall...
*picks three at random from the list of feats worth a damn* Power Attack, Leap Attack, Shock Trooper.
If stuck in core, rendering the latter two unavailable I've already exhausted every valid feat option by the level Spring Attack can remotely be a factor, so I start power dipping around in the hopes that the front loaded nature of all core melee classes and real class features are enough to keep me relevant beyond the first five levels (and likely fail, but that's another topic).
Though really, picking anything that actually works would be better, even if it doesn't work that well. That makes lesser traps like the Weapon Focus line preferable. Not desirable, just better than Spring Attack.
I'm trying to see your balance point here: what feat would you take instead of Spring Attack?
If I had 3 feats to spend, I'd take Mobile Combatant, Intercepting Step, and Opportune Strike... oh, wait, those don't officially exist yet. But they should!
I don't see the point of boosting the DC for damage saves. Casting defensively could be argued, but damage? Unless you totally suck you're forcing DC impossible checks. Even characters with only half decent damage (say, in the 30s at high levels) are forcing DC 40ish + spell level checks. Anyone who doesn't have skill boosters has no chance. It's just a redundant feature.
That, and with the interrupt thing it doesn't even matter if they cast on the defensive, as long as they're close.
|
|
Not to mention Spring Attack is torching three feats to be ineffective offensively and still get full attacked defensively.I'm trying to see your balance point here: what feat would you take instead of Spring Attack?Since it's 3 feats, and Spring Attack is practically useless at its intended purpose and useless overall...
*picks three at random from the list of feats worth a damn* Power Attack, Leap Attack, Shock Trooper.
If stuck in core, rendering the latter two unavailable I've already exhausted every valid feat option by the level Spring Attack can remotely be a factor, so I start power dipping around in the hopes that the front loaded nature of all core melee classes and real class features are enough to keep me relevant beyond the first five levels (and likely fail, but that's another topic).
Though really, picking anything that actually works would be better, even if it doesn't work that well. That makes lesser traps like the Weapon Focus line preferable. Not desirable, just better than Spring Attack.
This isn't a criticism, but you seem to want more out of feats than 3rd Edition offered. In terms of internal balance in the feat system, most play well against each-other (except for spellcasting-related feats). There are some groups of effectiveness, but generally there isn't much difference between most. So it isn't that Spring Attack itself is underpowered, it's that feats in general are underpowered. Even skills can outshine them (Tumble and Use Magic Device are good examples) in usefulness.
I think this is because feats were a relatively new system, and the designers might have had some trepidation in making them have too much of an impact on the game, which is bad for the fighter.
There are good melee feats in 3rd. You just have to cherry pick around all the traps, which means lots of source books. Also, see edit.
I don't see the point of boosting the DC for damage saves. Casting defensively could be argued, but damage? Unless you totally suck you're forcing DC impossible checks. Even characters with only half decent damage (say, in the 30s at high levels) are forcing DC 40ish + spell level checks. Anyone who doesn't have skill boosters has no chance. It's just a redundant feature. That, and with the interrupt thing it doesn't even matter if they cast on the defensive, as long as they're close.
Yes, I've been thinking about that, and (especially if fighters get a damage boost) it becomes a double-fix, which is to be avoided, so I certainly agree with your assessment on that count. Casting defensively should still be more difficult, however, in my opinion.
If you're already in their threat range, you can interrupt them. Doesn't matter if it's defensive or not. If you're close, and can move there see above. Beyond that it doesn't matter what the freakin' DC is, they aren't threatened, they don't need to cast defensively.
This of course assumes that Immediate action thing.
This of course assumes that Immediate action thing.
Yeah, that's really the key element in a lot of ways. That and the move + attack more than once thing are findamentally the biggest two pieces that have to be in place to make the fighter worth his salt.
Not to mention Spring Attack is torching three feats to be ineffective offensively and still get full attacked defensively.
So your stance is that the ability to move, attack, and move again would fix the problem, yet you state that taking a feat that does exactly that is "torching."
I've been playing and running fighters for a very long time, and have yet to feel useless at higher levels. Yes, the role changes, but they still have value. And most fighters in my games wind up with Spring Attack at higher levels. It allows them to get in, do some insane damage, and get out before the Wizard tosses fire or meteors in to the mix. And Dodge and Mobility certainly aren't wasted at low to medium levels.
I think you guys are doing it wrong... Let the Wizards fend for themselves at higher levels. They can. Fighters don't have to be the party's buffer anymore at higher levels, which gives you the freedom to play with some other concepts for them. I agree with you on a lot of the mechanics you are discussing. Fighters are lousy meat-shields at higher levels. I just don't think that should be the goal. It's the playing style you suggest that I question.
Don't forget the "R" in RPG. I know MMOs and console "RPGs" may have confused some younger gamers, but that "R" is the most important thing, and it doesn't involve min-maxing your fighter in to a mathematical and statistical icon or assigning every player a specific task in combat based on his choice of class.
Okay, now I'm just rambling... please continue with your previous conversation.
|
|
Not to mention Spring Attack is torching three feats to be ineffective offensively and still get full attacked defensively.So your stance is that the ability to move, attack, and move again would fix the problem, yet you state that taking a feat that does exactly that is "torching."
I've been playing and running fighters for a very long time, and have yet to feel useless at higher levels. Yes, the role changes, but they still have value. And most fighters in my games wind up with Spring Attack at higher levels. It allows them to get in, do some insane damage, and get out before the Wizard tosses fire or meteors in to the mix. And Dodge and Mobility certainly aren't wasted at low to medium levels.
I think you guys are doing it wrong... Let the Wizards fend for themselves at higher levels. They can. Fighters don't have to be the party's buffer anymore at higher levels, which gives you the freedom to play with some other concepts for them. I agree with you on a lot of the mechanics you are discussing. Fighters are lousy meat-shields at higher levels. I just don't think that should be the goal. It's the playing style you suggest that I question.
how do you do "insane damage" with one swing again? unless i'm mistaken, spring attack doesn't allow a full attack...(looking it up...)...nope, just one swing.
much of what we're proposing will allow high level fighters mobility AND access to at least some of his/her iterative attacks.
"younger gamers"?. actually, we're trying to get back to 1e sensibilites here, you know, 1e, when fighters were FEARED on he battlefield, not 3x style baggage carriers for wizards...
Don't forget the "R" in RPG. I know MMOs and console "RPGs" may have confused some younger gamers, but that "R" is the most important thing.
As an old-timer who can't even operate a video game and has no idea what "MMO" stands for, I still have to sadly say that the fighter has lacked any role since the advent of 3.0. He can't fight effectively ("roll") anymore after 5th level or so (although he still shines up to that point). He can't disrupt spellcasting anymore. He no longer has the mobility or blocking abilities he used to enjoy. He has no skill points, and no non-combat class features. In short, he has become a wash.
Now, don't get me wrong. Creating an interesting personality and backstory is still the paramount virtue, but you could just as easily apply that same personality and story to a character who has some function -- any function -- that he can actually perform with any skill. The poor fighter is obsolete. This isn't about "min-maxing" with me as much as it's an attempt to salvage my favorite 1st edition class from the dustbin. I just want to give him back what he lost.
|
|
And this is the biggest point to remember, also coming from a strong Simulationist (Kirth and I have had some good discussions about this): you can't roleplay a character if they are always dead. I'm exaggerating of course, but it becomes frustrating if your awesome backstory takes a back seat to frequently trucking over to the church to pay for your latest resurrection.
What Ruemere said.
Anyways, there is a very big difference between moving around half your speed, swinging once (no full attack = automatic suck), and moving half your speed away and moving your full speed then full attacking. One is Spring Attack, one is the discussed changes that are generally being agreed upon. That difference is the first involves torching 3 feats, doing crap for damage (it is possible to get one hit doing big damage, but the dedicated core melees are not the ones that can do it), then getting 5' stepped and full attacked in return by the enemy. The second gives actual mobility without wasting resources (it's also possible to ready a full attack if a full attack is a standard action). The latter was possible in early editions, which combined with the tactical simplicity allowed hit the thing with the other thing to be a valid tactic. Now, it is no longer possible and Spring Attack is like putting sharp pieces of paper between your fingers and slapping the Fighter with your open hand. After pouring salt on it.
Those big damage single hits are either martial adept strikes (see move and attack), or a bored caster playing at melee (one of his hits = several of the melee guy's hits). Neither are valid to spring attack. One doesn't even work with spring attack, the other can just ya know... kill the freakin' enemy with some help from the three feats he did not waste.
Arguing that a feat isn't wasted at the lower levels is automatically invalid as feats are a permanent resource. You need to get better over time or you cannot keep up. If your permanent resources are giving you less for your investment, when you need them to give you more you automatically fail. If they could be changed every day, or even a few times throughout the game there might be a point. But while say... the Sorcerer can take Color Spray, then replace it once stuff is beating the HD cap if the Fighter takes Dodge he is forever screwed. Especially when you consider over a quarter of the feats he will ever get are within the first four levels, therefore if you are not already on the right track by then you won't be.
|
I have been giving this issue a good deal of thought now that the discussion climate has improved and a regular discussion is being held (thanks to CoL, Kirth, ruemere, houstonderek, and Jal especially for great comments that make great reading).
While I too feel the fighter is underpowered at mid to high levels, I have always been concerned that the changes the more "extreme-playstyle" people wanted would push the fighter into wuxia territory for no other reason than to try and balance the fighter against wizards "played in the extreme". However, the ideas being kicked around in the latter part of this thread are awesome ideas for making the fighter better without turning him into some mystically-powered, tree-leaping force-field eating beast. Allowing "martial" characters to make a full attack (and maybe only the martial characters, to keep crossovers like the cleric and rogue in line) as a standard action, allowing some sort of immediate action or held action to disrupt casters or intercept foes, and allowing a fighter to be more free-form with his feats (as a wizard is with his spells) really seem to be the kind of things that can boost the fighter without giving him the Dragonball Z makeover I feared he may get under other circumstance.
I am not the best guy to suggest play balance solutions so I am afraid I don't have anything terribly constructive to add at the moment, but I am very happy to see such great ideas percolating out of what has historically been a difficult discussion. I know I can't be the only one that is pleased to see everyone working together and developing solutions that have broad appeal.
Thanks for the effort!
|
I was wondering in the new feats thread about a feat to make fighters/melees less ignorable, whilst the bad guys just rush to fight the spellcasting threats and shrug off the fighters, by increasing AoO damage (Tarren Dei's idea of extra damage dice seems right to me, maybe with extra dice dependent on BAB, say an extra dice at +6/+11/+16). Not sure if it would work, but in any case one of the other problems other than picking between damage and mobility (solved by, as suggested in this thread, allowing full or at least partial iterative attacks combined with some movement) is that breezing past a fighter isn't too painful if you only risk a standard single attack. Whatever else they are, the presence of a competent fighter just shouldn't be ignorable (whether you're a gamist, a narrativist or a simulationist).
This thread is still great (my own ideas aside). I hope that the Paizo guys are still reading...
Well, they could go around without provoking an AoO. Unless it's a narrow hallway or something.
Anyways, like it or not Fighter boy has to be super human to keep up with higher level spells, SLAs, obviously magical creatures... Super human fighting = wuxia. Now you can give him the other stuff and he'll start getting somewhere but he still has to take one of two builds, or he can't do much damage and likely can't even find the invisible flying mage to try and interrupt.
Wuxia doesn't balance them to 'wizards played in the extreme'. It might partially balance them compared to 'wizards who are not completely brain dead'. Wizards played to the extreme auto win every fight. Except against a better caster. It doesn't even go into initiative order.
|
|
Well, they could go around without provoking an AoO. Unless it's a narrow hallway or something.
Yeah, it's only a limited fix even if it's tuned right, damage-wise. I guess I like it because brushing past a fighter should hurt rather more than it currently does, or else at least they have to make the effort to take a more circuitous path (assuming that the fighter is well-situated).
On the general subject of melee mobility, I also wonder if there should be a feat to increase the squares threatened by a character (or maybe there already is... me being ignorant is not news). I guess it would have to be at the end of a feat chain starting with combat reflexes, but it would also presumably end up actually moving the character on someone else's turn (and the question of whether they stayed moved or returned to their original position would still be open).
Stand Still and Spiked Chains help as long as you don't mind changing the Pathfinder rules so Fighters don't suck even more as per the changes to Improved Trip, and the fact Stand Still isn't in the PF rulebook.
They get hit, and need to make a Reflex save of 10 + damage you would have dealt or be forced to halt. Given that even low damage can make this a DC impossible save...
On the general subject of melee mobility, I also wonder if there should be a feat to increase the squares threatened by a character. I guess it would have to be at the end of a feat chain starting with combat reflexes, but it would also presumably end up actually moving the character on someone else's turn (and the question of whether they stayed moved or returned to their original position would still be open).
That's where I was angling the the "hold attack and movement as immediate actions later in the round" thing. If he's got 3 attacks, and he can convert one of them into a 10-ft. step and use them all in response to enemy actions, then his "reach" with the remaining 2 attacks is essentially 15 feet.
|
|
Maybe instead of buffing the fighter to superman levels it would be easier to limit the other classes.
I know that would not go over well.
now that's just crazy talk! ;)
(honestly, i think they've done enough by nerfing SoD spells, frankly. what can i say? i'm old school. i like my wizards being kings of the hill at high levels...)
Maybe instead of buffing the fighter to superman levels it would be easier to limit the other classes.
That would suit me fine, as long as we nerf all the monsters to go with them. But then we couldn't use 3.5e adventures without heavy conversion work... not so good. By buffing the melee classes, the older adventures might get a bit easier, but it's easier to add mooks (or a level or two) than it is to totally replace the more dangerous monsters.
|
|
Maybe instead of buffing the fighter to superman levels it would be easier to limit the other classes.
I know that would not go over well.
As Kirth Gerson says, you'd break backwards compatibility if you did that. 3.5 has super-powerful wizards and although we can fix some of that, raising the weak is going to have to make up for the rest of it. And even then, spellslingers will rule.
how do you do "insane damage" with one swing again? unless i'm mistaken, spring attack doesn't allow a full attack...(looking it up...)...nope, just one swing. \...
Fighter, level 20- Let's assume the fighter specializes in close combat with a fairly heavy weapon, say a Greatsword which does 2d6 damage, for an average roll of 7. He's level 20 and has increased his strength a few times, up to a modest 18 for a damage bonus of +6 when wielding with both hands. He also gains a +4 from Weapon Training and a +2 from Weapon Specialization. Now let's say he's spent his money wisely and his greatsword is a +5 flaming weapon. So add another 1d6 fire for an average of 8 additional points. We are now up to 27 points. Also, the fighter's crit range, thanks to Weapon Mastery, is now 18-20 and does not have to be confirmed. The multiplier is now at x3, for a potential damage, with average rolls on the damage dice and a lucky attack roll, is 81 points.
This compared to...
Wizard, level 20- Meteor Swarm does 6d6, so with average rolls, that's 21 damage. Fireball by now does 10d6, for average damage of 35 points. In both cases, the target can save for 1/2 damage and spell resistance is an issue.
There are a whole host of other variables (the maximized, empowered fireball, for example), of course, but...
Wizards are more powerful at this level, but the fighter isn't any less competitive than any other class when compared to the wizard.
|
|
how do you do "insane damage" with one swing again? unless i'm mistaken, spring attack doesn't allow a full attack...(looking it up...)...nope, just one swing. \...Fighter, level 20- Let's assume the fighter specializes in close combat with a fairly heavy weapon, say a Greatsword which does 2d6 damage, for an average roll of 7. He's level 20 and has increased his strength a few times, up to a modest 18 for a damage bonus of +6 when wielding with both hands. He also gains a +4 from Weapon Training and a +2 from Weapon Specialization. Now let's say he's spent his money wisely and his greatsword is a +5 flaming weapon. So add another 1d6 fire for an average of 8 additional points. We are now up to 27 points. Also, the fighter's crit range, thanks to Weapon Mastery, is now 18-20 and does not have to be confirmed. The multiplier is now at x3, for a potential damage, with average rolls on the damage dice and a lucky attack roll, is 81 points.
This compared to...
Wizard, level 20- Meteor Swarm does 6d6, so with average rolls, that's 21 damage. Fireball by now does 10d6, for average damage of 35 points. In both cases, the target can save for 1/2 damage and spell resistance is an issue.
There are a whole host of other variables (the maximized, empowered fireball, for example), of course, but...
Wizards are more powerful at this level, but the fighter isn't any less competitive than any other class when compared to the wizard.
but, realistically, he's only doing 27 points 80% of the time (assuming he only needs a two to hit), and zero points 5% of the time. and, frankly, if a 20th level wizard is casting fireballs and meteor swarms, he'd be fired from the (probably) TPK'd group.
and, since he can only get 15' away from the now mostly large (10' reach) or bigger opponents (assuming melee brutes) who then get a full attack after a 5' step, well, he's going to be taking three to four times the damage he'll dish on average using spring attack. not a recipe for survival, imo.
and, considering that at 20th level, he'll be fighting quite a few extraplanar beings and powerful abberations, rather than "mundane" brute types, his effectiveness drops even further.
you cannot rely on getting crits, probabilities are funny that way, so there needs to be something in place for the 85% of the time you don't crit to make the fighter effective at mid-high to high levels.
Also bear in mind that, unless your campaigns start at 20th level, your hypothetical fighter has to survive from 6th to 19th level without the weapon mastery that formed the centerpiece of the example. The wizard gets 10d6 fireballs (the worst of his possible choices -- even hold person would be better) at 10th level. The fighter gets... +2 to hit and damage, on attacks that he often can't use, because a wizard with a 30 ft. speed can walk circles around him while casting spells the whole time, and the fighter can never catch up, even though he limits himself to one attack/round by trying to do so.
|
|
Inflated spellcaster hit points don't help the situation either. Even with the limited warrior actions and improved spellcasting capability the ability would have been there to survive damage-based spells while at the same time killing a wizard with one or two cuts of the sword. But no longer is the spellcaster a frail combatant.
Sort of a big deal when you go from 0 hit points per level to 1d6+Con.
|
|
So your stance is that the ability to move, attack, and move again would fix the problem, yet you state that taking a feat that does exactly that is "torching."
I think it is really dependent on which edition of the game a player started with.
Kirth and I have posted before (maybe in this thread, but I've lost track!) about the increased mobility, lack of penalties on off-hand/secondary attacks, and ease of disrupting casting, for any combatant in 1st/2nd Edition (not just the Fighter).
It leaves a bitter taste in the mouth, to have to spend a feat on something that (to us old folk) should be standard rules. It now takes even the Fighter, with all his 'powerful' feats, even with the faster feat progression in PF Beta, till 5th/6th level to fight the way he did as a 1st-level nobody.
And if you want to use a lance, then you're SOL, because that's a further 4 levels down the pan (Mounted Combat, Ride-by Attack, Trample, and Spirited Charge), before you can use it properly, instead of, once again, being effective straight out of the gate, for the price of one non-weapon proficiency slot.
how do you do "insane damage" with one swing again? unless i'm mistaken, spring attack doesn't allow a full attack...(looking it up...)...nope, just one swing. \...Fighter, level 20- Let's assume the fighter specializes in close combat with a fairly heavy weapon, say a Greatsword which does 2d6 damage, for an average roll of 7. He's level 20 and has increased his strength a few times, up to a modest 18 for a damage bonus of +6 when wielding with both hands. He also gains a +4 from Weapon Training and a +2 from Weapon Specialization. Now let's say he's spent his money wisely and his greatsword is a +5 flaming weapon. So add another 1d6 fire for an average of 8 additional points. We are now up to 27 points. Also, the fighter's crit range, thanks to Weapon Mastery, is now 18-20 and does not have to be confirmed. The multiplier is now at x3, for a potential damage, with average rolls on the damage dice and a lucky attack roll, is 81 points.
This compared to...
Wizard, level 20- Meteor Swarm does 6d6, so with average rolls, that's 21 damage. Fireball by now does 10d6, for average damage of 35 points. In both cases, the target can save for 1/2 damage and spell resistance is an issue.
There are a whole host of other variables (the maximized, empowered fireball, for example), of course, but...
Wizards are more powerful at this level, but the fighter isn't any less competitive than any other class when compared to the wizard.
This is a joke post, right?
Let's see...
+5 flaming is a joke weapon.
How the hell are you getting 8 out of 1d6?
27 damage at level 20 is not 'insane damage'. It is an utter joke, barely capable of doing more than tickling even the lowest HP enemies at this level. Especially since this is a two handed weapon. Doing 27 with a two handed weapon is like doing 12 with a one handed weapon. Except even one handed users can manage better than 12 or 27 without even trying (and it still isn't anywhere near enough). Also, said one hander doesn't have to waste multiple feats on the trap tree that is Weapon Focus to get those results.
You then go on to compare them to blasting wizards which is about the same as saying you're a good runner because you are faster than a paraplegic without his wheelchair. What's more, you compare to Meteor Swarm which is the second worst blasting spell proportionally speaking (the worst is Burning Hands) and Fireball which is like comparing a level 20 to a level 5 as if it were a bonus for the former to work better. Sad thing is you don't even work better. That piddly little 10d6 Fireball is still better than you. And if even direct damage is better than you, you are utterly and completely pathetic. Your 'insane damage' Fighter is a 5' square of difficult terrain who cannot threaten or bother anyone and might as well not exist.
This Dispel Misconception has been brought to you by the Crusader of Logic.
Spring Attack essentially lets you move before and after an attack action, that means you are still able to use "As a standard action, make a melee attack" feats.
At lower levels a fighter can use Overhand Chop to boost his Spring Attack damage and at BAB 11 Devastating Blow. With a high crit weapon like a Greataxe or Scythe I don't think monsters will be laughting anymore.Edit: To get around the movement in difficult terrain issue I recommend you take a look at the movement skill tricks from complete scoundrel.
Great. So that sample guy gets about... 2 more damage. He also doesn't get to crit the things that matter, because everything you care about is immune. If he could however it just means he goes from tickling, to dealing minor to moderate damage. Seeing as the alternative is being instantly killed, you're still just mobile difficult terrain.
Why are you bringing up skill tricks?
Let's put this another way. A character in a level 15 party can be doing around oh... 20-55 damage a hit with four swings, and still only be relevant because each hit is also inflicting two negative levels. Naturally, that means the level 20 guy doing 22-32 is utterly and completely useless. He can do 66-96, and even if it works he's not much better off.
|
Maybe instead of buffing the fighter to superman levels it would be easier to limit the other classes.
I know that would not go over well.now that's just crazy talk! ;)
(honestly, i think they've done enough by nerfing SoD spells, frankly. what can i say? i'm old school. i like my wizards being kings of the hill at high levels...)
well im REALLY old school (2nd ed style) were at the highest levels Fighters once agian trumped the Wizard (your saves were so low you could not fail to make the save) I would like to see that back again.
|
|
well im REALLY old school (2nd ed style) were at the highest levels Fighters once agian trumped the Wizard (your saves were so low you could not fail to make the save) I would like to see that back again.Maybe instead of buffing the fighter to superman levels it would be easier to limit the other classes.
I know that would not go over well.now that's just crazy talk! ;)
(honestly, i think they've done enough by nerfing SoD spells, frankly. what can i say? i'm old school. i like my wizards being kings of the hill at high levels...)
not to get too much into this, but i'd already been playing d&d for ten years before 2nd ed, so i guess you're middle school :)
but, yeah, AD&D fighters were much, MUCH better than 3x fighters, frankly. the biggest mistake WotC made with 3x was putting all the classes on the same XP/level track (fighters and thieves, in particular, used to level up MUCH faster than clerics, druids and magic users), then making melee combat pretty much worthless at high levels with their take on the fighter multi-attack option (as us old school guys and gals know, multiple fighter attacks were made at full bonus, not "-5/-10/-15...".
other goofs in 3x that screwed melee types: nerfing the fighter's ability to disrupt spellcasting, making true mobility impossible (the whole "dodge" feat tree is worthless at higher levels), making "S&B" fighters too vulnerable to the new "touch" attack, making heavy armor a poor choice for fighters (another side effect of the "standard/move action" dynamic introduced in 3x), and i now i'm missing a couple here, but, yeah, 3x hasn't been good to the lowly fighter, once the master of the field...
(and don't get me started on how badly 3x screwed the poor paladin, i guess other threads have covered that issue well enough...)
|
|
Great. So that sample guy gets about... 2 more damage. He also doesn't get to crit the things that matter, because everything you care about is immune. If he could however it just means he goes from tickling, to dealing minor to moderate damage. Seeing as the alternative is being instantly killed, you're still just mobile difficult terrain.
As you say, it doesn't fix this character's problem, but it looks like crits might soon apply more-or-less across-the-board for the same reason that sneak attack does (at least according to a comment James Jacobs made here, assuming he's privy to what Jason and the others are thinking. Which seems a fair assumption...).
But yeah, even with that, the damage is highly sub-awesome.
(How the fighter lost out big-time by the very nature of the 3e combat system)
Yes. I went from Basic to AD&D 1st edition, through 2nd, to a host of other games, and finally to 3rd. I liked how 3e had consistent rules, how monsters were characters, too, and a host of other things. I bought it, converted all my characters, started playing. And gradually came to realize that the new combat system (and xp advancement and hp system) had taken away everything the fighter ever had going for him. I'd very much like to give some of it back, is all.
|
|
hummm this is just a thought but would a good strategy against a spell caster be remove all armor (So that you can move faster)go ahead and take your damage (cause you know you are going to) And grapple the crap out of the wizard so that they cant cast spells (using pin I would assume)
armorless AC is definitely a step in the right direction (and has the bonus of being effective against touch and ranged touch attacks), and may work...
...assuming you grapple the right one (mirror image), aren't doing what he wants you to (dominate, suggestion, poor will save...), you're not blind (power word), he isn't flying, (man, wizards are a PITA...)
that tactic would help, maybe, at mid levels, but by the time high levels roll around, the fighter would need a serious bag of tricks to somewhat level the playing field (and may need a rogue type to work in concert with to have a chance to take down the wizard).
...and that is also assuming the wiz doesn't have bodyguards to interpose themselves.
basically, the fighter doesn't need to be a wizard killer, he just needs to be able to handle the other things on the battlefield to allow the party's wizard take care of the opponent's spell slingers. unfortunately, in RAW, the fighter doesn't really do that well right now...
Great. So that sample guy gets about... 2 more damage. He also doesn't get to crit the things that matter, because everything you care about is immune. If he could however it just means he goes from tickling, to dealing minor to moderate damage. Seeing as the alternative is being instantly killed, you're still just mobile difficult terrain.
As you say, it doesn't fix this character's problem, but it looks like crits might soon apply more-or-less across-the-board for the same reason that sneak attack does (at least according to a comment James Jacobs made here, assuming he's privy to what Jason and the others are thinking. Which seems a fair assumption...).
But yeah, even with that, the damage is highly sub-awesome.
Not to mention even if they do go removing all the blanket immunities, there's still individual immunities, and the fact you only have a 9.5% chance at the maximum to get that triple damage crit in the first place. Oh, and you're attacking once a round. If you were doing 80 something a hit with multiple hits consistently you'd be decent.
Also, grappling is not going to work well. Either you'd be better off with a silenced tanglefoot bag (in other words, it's your caster beating theirs), or it just won't work regardless. This is without considering the possibility of turning into something huge and eating you.
Fighters traditionally start quite powerful, in comparison to other classes. However, they settle down once the spellcasters get access to higher level spells and once barbarians get their rage pool full and with powers to use.
One of the common criticisms levelled against 3.5 is that melee classes tend to lack options. This isn't as black and white as many people make out, but it is certainly true that, at the higher levels, a spellcaster is the better animal. I personally like this, as it makes magic into something worth studying and matches a great deal of fantasy literature.
Spellcasters are also quite reliant on having a fighter around for protection. You will find that many casters take on a "chosen melee" partner or a bodyguard of some sort. It is a powerful combination, especially where the caster is a crafter of magic items, which he can hand out to his melee chum.
Fighters take a lot of incoming damage and, if the fighter wasn't there, you would probably notice the other players getting a real battering, or being dead. One also needs to recognise that anyone with a strength as high as you describe probably hasn't got anything else worth talking about on their character sheet. That player has dedicated his life to doing one thing well. Put him against a decent caster or a trap, or a social encounter and there will be precious little for him to do.
I would suggest that you try some higher level campaign testing with the fighter and observe how the other characters compare once they have access to their spells. Then things will seem a lot less scary.
I wholeheartedly agree. This man speaks the truth. In all of my games, the fighters are always prominent at lower levels (but some mages can manage to keep pace under the PF rules), but are less powerful at high levels. However, no matter how much people around these forums groan and complain about fighters lacking power at high levels, they stay right on par with Wizards in my experience, only tapering off a little at the end. They're perfectly viable, though, at low and high levels.
Back to the point (train of thought derailed), what Thed says about them is true. They'll truly shine at low levels, but once you hit mid-level and from then on they'll be perfectly fine.