Using Beta in RotRL (Stop buffing the fighter class)!!!


Playtest Reports

1 to 50 of 544 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber

We are just finishing Thistletop with only three players. I didn't change anything. PCs are:

1. Rogue 1 / Sorcerer 2
2. Cleric 3
3. Fighter 3

They reached third level after

Spoiler:
fighting the two Yeth-Hounds in the Temple area under Thistletop.

After the first 5 sessions I just can't understand why one would like to further buff the fighter class. The fighter (specialized in Greatsword, with STR 19) was mowing thru the first Goblin encounters with ease and is dishing out huge amounts of damage. Only the Critical Fumble Deck made things a bit harder for him.
They had a hard time fighting

Spoiler:
Erylium (moslty because of its invisibility and flying)
, but the rest is almost easy, and they are only three players while the adventure is written for four.
Anyway, the other classes are doing great, especiall the Channel Energy stuff is very usefull during low levels and I presently don't think it's overpowered!
My players have a great time, thouhg, as they love that at every level something new is added to their pc!
But please, stop buffing the fighter more - he's strong enough as a base class already.


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.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber

Well, I think I was a bit unclear. You're right about what you say, and I am totally fine and satisfied with the Fighter as he presently is. I just think it shouldn't be buffed any further.

Of course, I would like to have a class balanced throughout all levels of play, but I understand that this might be almost impossible with D&D 3.x!

Its just things like "give a fighter even more AoO" and stuff like this, which I think will make him too good.


Dryder wrote:

Well, I think I was a bit unclear. You're right about what you say, and I am totally fine and satisfied with the Fighter as he presently is. I just think it shouldn't be buffed any further.

Of course, I would like to have a class balanced throughout all levels of play, but I understand that this might be almost impossible with D&D 3.x!

Its just things like "give a fighter even more AoO" and stuff like this, which I think will make him too good.

Whatever benefits the fighter gets should only really start to kick in at 4th level or so then get slowly better from there. The fighter needs help at higher levels, at low levels he's fine.

Grand Lodge

The biggest criticism of the fighter is indeed his relative weakness at higher levels. However, I think that what really happens is that the fighter's ROLE in the party changes at higher levels, but the player and the character do not.

At low levels, the fighter is the primary DPS, that is, he is the damage dealer. He wades into a fight against goblins and mows them down. But at higher levels he just can't do that anymore, and the role shifts to the wizard and rogue.

I would suggest that at levels 5, 10, and 15 the fighter gets an ability to relearn some of his feats, perhaps only one feat at level 5, two more feats at level 10 and three more feats at level 15. This allows the fighter to "respec" his character from damage to defense.

At higher levels the role of the fighter is to "tank" or keep the wizard alive long enough for those wiz-bang spells to do their jobs and kill the enemy.

I think the fighter is the only class that has a definitive shift in its role in the party. However, it is unable to adapt to that shift. This leads to a weak high level fighter.

If it were notated in the class description that there can be a shift in role, then players and characters would find playing a high level fighter to be more enjoyable.

The Exchange

this shift is a game bug, not a feature. a 20th level Fighter should be mowing down Iron Golems. if we keep the roles the same you wont have characters feeling more and more useless.

also note that at high levels the wizard does not NEED the Fighter, barrier spells, summons, invisibility, Flying, teleports etc. they only risk there life if they are dumb with spell memorization. Fighters on the other hand cannot go toe to toe with equal or lesser CR's. (its a horrible joke that a 15th level Fighter and a 15 level Wizard are equal CR.)

maybe you all play with less optimized wizards


"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."

False. Fighters have absolutely no ability to protect the casters, or anyone other than themselves aside from killing the enemies before they can attack. They cannot kill the enemies before they attack, as they lack the ability and power to do so. The only way Fighters could do a half decent job of protecting anyone is via being a Spiked Chain Tripper. That doesn't work anymore, because Improved Trip was nerfed, therefore all melees worth considering were nerfed.

Along the same lines, they have absolutely no ability to 'tank' as there is absolutely nothing stopping the enemy from just ignoring the guy lightly scratching them to beat the crap out of the people who are really posing a threat to them. Which means either the casters are well protected, and drawing fire well thereby serving as effective tank and offensive ability, or they are not and die, but the Fighter is just a loot and XP sink since he can't actually do anything to help.

Edit: Looking at those party members... Let's see... Sorcerers are simply inferior to Wizards. Only having a few 1st level spells when 2nd level spells are available explains his uselessness. If he thinks Magic Missile for a whopping 1d4+1 is actually worth casting, that explains even more. The Cleric however should be quite solid at level 3, as long as he isn't falling into the Healbot trap. The Fighter... eh, all you need to deal with hordes of 3 HP enemies is the ability to hit them. Give it a level or 2, and he'll start crying.

Scarab Sages

Sneaksy Dragon wrote:

this shift is a game bug, not a feature. a 20th level Fighter should be mowing down Iron Golems. if we keep the roles the same you wont have characters feeling more and more useless.

also note that at high levels the wizard does not NEED the Fighter, barrier spells, summons, invisibility, Flying, teleports etc. they only risk there life if they are dumb with spell memorization. Fighters on the other hand cannot go toe to toe with equal or lesser CR's. (its a horrible joke that a 15th level Fighter and a 15 level Wizard are equal CR.)

maybe you all play with less optimized wizards

Perhaps there was something to the old school system where Wizards had to earn more XP than a fighter...


Because he was assumed to automatically be better, so the Fighter had a few levels on him. Ok. Boot the Fighter. Wizard gets more XP, since it's divided fewer ways.

The Exchange

Xaaon of Xen'Drik wrote:
Sneaksy Dragon wrote:

this shift is a game bug, not a feature. a 20th level Fighter should be mowing down Iron Golems. if we keep the roles the same you wont have characters feeling more and more useless.

also note that at high levels the wizard does not NEED the Fighter, barrier spells, summons, invisibility, Flying, teleports etc. they only risk there life if they are dumb with spell memorization. Fighters on the other hand cannot go toe to toe with equal or lesser CR's. (its a horrible joke that a 15th level Fighter and a 15 level Wizard are equal CR.)

maybe you all play with less optimized wizards

Perhaps there was something to the old school system where Wizards had to earn more XP than a fighter...

Ah HA! xp bump at higher levels for Fighters (my 20th level Fighter MIGHT be able to take your 11 level wizard, what we have the same gold? BLAST, I though I had him)

The Exchange

Crusader of Logic wrote:
Because he was assumed to automatically be better, so the Fighter had a few levels on him. Ok. Boot the Fighter. Wizard gets more XP, since it's divided fewer ways.

Good Idea, or you could pick up another spellcaster. only problem is going through doors and forming walking order. Druid companion at point!

Grand Lodge

The only way a fighter can tank in 3.x is by blocking the way to the wizard, harrassing the enemy and if possible tripping, grappling, disarming and such. If the idea is for a static fight where combatants just stand still and whack each other then it doesn't work. If there is a flow of movement, interception, and such then tanking works quite well.

My 22nd level fighter is very well geared to bypass most armor (making Power Attack easier to use for damage), he trips (nerfed in PRPG), disarms, and can generally prevent easy forward movement. I never considered him underpowered either. In an average round he could dish out 100 plus damage. With a couple of feats he was able to usually soak up and ignore a physical blow for 30 points or less.

For the wizard it wasn't a matter of not having defensive spells prepared, it was having time to cast them. Most fights did not allow the wizard the luxury of getting off 3 or 4 defensive spells. We needed all the firepower he could muster and I just kept the critters off of him.

If the cleric got some buff spells off on me, I could manage 150+ in damage a round, soak up tremendous damage and prevent any 2-3 opponents from moving where I didn't want them to go.

The rogue would do sneak attacks like crazy when we got a critter flanked. Between us two melee folks we could drop a nasty critter in a round or two. The wizard dealt with the nastier stuff at range and the cleric kept us alive and buffed.

But to be honest it all depended upon the build. This is exactly the role I wanted for him. We worked hard to gear him just right. If any feat were different or I lacked my brilliant energy war axe or my variable shield, it just would not have worked the same way.


Sneaksy Dragon wrote:
maybe you all play with less optimized wizards

Perhaps you all play with less optimized Fighters?

My experience, at least with SRD rules, has been as Krome's - Fighters can be just as brutal as they like to be.


My claim isnt false, its just that you are making the assumption of tanking, Crusader of Logic. A good few wizard spells can be slapped onto a fighter assistant to make them handy to have around. Likewise, if you can make magic swords and armour, then putting them to good use means having a fighter as a bodyguard or henchman.

In general terms, the wizard also needs a flag carrier to go do stuff. He simply doesnt have the time, due to crafting, learning etc, to go and do a great many things. Having a "fighter buddy" isnt about cowering behind someone, its about having an intelligent, well armed and buffed killer to help you out.

It's also worth noting that some prestige classes, like "devoted defender", do exist for the "tanking" option, however, its just that they are very seldom taken.


Crusader of Logic wrote:
False. Fighters have absolutely no ability to protect the casters, or anyone other than themselves aside from killing the enemies before they can attack. They cannot kill the enemies before they attack, as they lack the ability and power to do so. The only way Fighters could do a half decent job of protecting anyone is via being a Spiked Chain Tripper.

This is simply untrue. Our fighter trips, disarms, grapples, overruns to get to important targets, sunders important or powerful weapons, heck he even killed an important enemy spellcaster with an improvised thrown weapon.

Yet again, the fighter is useless camp starts shouting "absolutely no ability to do this, cannot that, lack the ability this, only way possible to do anything is to play a broken build". It's the same crap over and over again from people who seem to think twisting the wording of ring gate is the proper way to play DnD.


Tripping was nerfed in PF. Disarm also was (and last I checked, there's still a very cheap item that grants high resistance or immunity). Sundering means breaking your own important gear. Yeah, that's really helpful.

Also last I checked, as a melee brute you had around a 30% chance of getting a maneuver to work against another melee brute since it's 15 + CMB. Which means even more of your only option is to stab it in the face, since you only have 30% accuracy. Instant kill moves have been called weak to average solely because of 30% accuracy before. Combat maneuvers are nowhere near as good as instant kills. PF has nerfed all melee stuff except stab it in the face, making them even more of a one trick pony only good for turning a 5 foot square into difficult terrain. Oh and I've never even heard of the Ring Gate trick prior to that thread about it, so don't straw man me with something Squirreloid did.

Edit: Only a 100 damage in Epic Levels? That's pretty damn weak. It's a small wonder some random Epic creature didn't just one shot the whole party, because that's just how Epic is.

Edit again: If the guy can't tank, all he's good for is dealing minor to moderate damage. Except dealing minor to moderate damage is practically useless. Then he becomes a huge resource sink when he loses over half his HP in 1 round. If the guy can tank, he can actually help his buddies.

Liberty's Edge

While I agree that the fighter needs pretty much no further buff. I will add the new fighter adjustments have fired me into recreating(I lost the original sheets) my two favorite Fighters. They were good before and with these changes they will remain steady throughout the adventures and this makes me very happy. I look forward to running them along with the mages they once ran with as the rest my group feels the same about that particular group. Good times were had then and good times shall be had again as we destroy everything that comes across our path once more.


Crusader of Logic wrote:
Tripping was nerfed in PF. Disarm also was (and last I checked, there's still a very cheap item that grants high resistance or immunity). Sundering means breaking your own important gear. Yeah, that's really helpful.

You used "nerfed" when what you mean is "I don't use it" which is a fallacy to begin with. Since you don't use it, you clearly have little idea how it plays out. Disarm is the same way. You clearly thrust your metagame knowledge of an item that helps against disarm into the thought process of NPCs and then complain about a legitimate and very useful ability. Also, sundering doesn't break your own equipment nearly as much as you might assume, and speaking of metagame knowledge of items and spells, make whole sure works really, really well in pathfinder. How about playtesting all three of these things before you post again regarding uselessness? Unless that was supposed to be an object lesson of some kind...

The Exchange

Fighters are far from useless at high levels. The final battle that we ran in our game last night would've been a TPK if not for the fighter types in our party.

Level 15 hangman golem (unique critter for age of worms), level 17 spellweaver sorceror. When they were both dropped, one round respite then a level 17 overgod appeared (high spell resistance, high saves, high hit points, low AC, hit hard and often).

Cleric got Mazed in the first round and was trapped there (According to the description you must make a DC20 intelligence roll to escape, he needed a 19 or 20 do it, took him 17 rounds to roll it. I'm sure there were other things he could've tried but he didn't).

The wizard had little to use against the spell weaver as it was using a spell eating Ioun Stone so he summoned but they were less effective than the fighters.

The golem of course was immune to most of the magic of the wizard also (wasted round finding out the spellweaver had the magic eating ioun stone didn't help him getting useful stuff done).

The Barbarian had a confusion go off on him as did the ranger/blackguard and fighter. The barbarian used the clear mind feat to shrug it off. He and the swashbuckler set up a nice set of attacks agains the spell weaver (readied action for casting makes for unhappy casters). The spell weaver still managed to maze the swashbuckler but since he's playing an intelligent fighter he was out in one round (lucky roll).

Wizard did provide a wall to prevent the spellweaver escaping the fighters, and he did some polymorping of hismelft to help out, but everyone at the table last night agreed that the fighter types owned that battle. And he dispelled the confusion eventually.

Admittedly they had been extensively buffed by the cleric and wizard before hand so their AC's were high, they could see invis (blindsight I think they had) and were hitting harder and more often (haste is nice that way). There saves were also boosted by the clerics lovely mass conviction (non pathfinder I know, but we're running a long term campaign and aren't about to drop spell compendium for a playtest)

13 rounds without a healer against 2 CR 17 critters and a CR 15 golem (golem was underpowered in my opinion). Fighters can hold their own at high level.

Of course the usual discalimer must be made - This was our experience on the night, others may vary.


It is true that in standard 3.x DnD, common sense actually does kind of invalidate the fighter when any semi-sentient foe is involved.

Hmmm, stand here and fight the hard to hit guy who isn't hurting me that bad, or go smash the squishy looking guy who's actually hurting me with magic. Common sense is pretty straightfoward here, and barring the fighter doing something attention holding, the monster is going to get around him, or try to, and especially at higher levels when monsters are bigger, stronger, and faster, the monster will get past him.

World of Warcraft uses the Aggro System to model common sense. In it the "tank" classes get ways to hold aggro, with abilities such as taunt, sunder armor, distracting shot, etc. Unfortunately, DnD does not have a built in common sense model, and there are only a small select number of classes/feats that have these abilities.

Goad from Complete Adventurer (which I feel should be a built in part of the fighter package, personally). And the knight class from PHB2.

Regarding the OP, I think the fighter is almost there, barring something along the "Taunt" lines. Perhaps a free action or move action use of intimidate that follows the Goad paradigm? Granted, skill points are precious, but I think most fighters should have high intimidate scores.


Alphonse Joly wrote:
Crusader of Logic wrote:
Tripping was nerfed in PF. Disarm also was (and last I checked, there's still a very cheap item that grants high resistance or immunity). Sundering means breaking your own important gear. Yeah, that's really helpful.

You used "nerfed" when what you mean is "I don't use it" which is a fallacy to begin with. Since you don't use it, you clearly have little idea how it plays out. Disarm is the same way. You clearly thrust your metagame knowledge of an item that helps against disarm into the thought process of NPCs and then complain about a legitimate and very useful ability. Also, sundering doesn't break your own equipment nearly as much as you might assume, and speaking of metagame knowledge of items and spells, make whole sure works really, really well in pathfinder. How about playtesting all three of these things before you post again regarding uselessness? Unless that was supposed to be an object lesson of some kind...

Fact: Improved Trip went from +4 to trip enemies and get a free attack against them while they are prone and therefore have -4 AC to just being +2 to trip enemies and no getting in your attack anyways. This is a nerf.

Fact: 15 + CMB = you only have a 30% chance of affecting another melee brute if you are specialized, less if you aren't. Therefore, your only option is to stab it in the face instead of wasting a bunch of actions doing nothing. Combine this with the fact anything other than a melee brute is going to give you few chances to hit it due to the Common Sense Rule alluded to by others, and you're just a big dumb auto attacker in a game where big dumb auto attackers are utterly and completely useless.

Fact: How the hell is a certain type of nonmagical gauntlet 'metagame knowledge'? You mean to tell me the enemies can't work out how basic, cheap nonmagical equipment helps them? That means you are either coddling your players by making your enemies immensely stupid, or you are singling out your PC Fighters as well with such innane statements as 'No, you cannot work out weapon a is better than weapon b, even though your entire life has been devoted to the sole purpose of learning to fight'.

Fact: Make whole specifically does not work if the CL of the item is more than half of your CL. Which means it only works on weak stuff, and you're still breaking your own important items.

Fact: Breaking your own treasure or wasting actions accomplishing nothing useful are both extremely poor tactics. This is all sundering is ever capable of, making the entire option a newbie trap.

Fact: Because of all of the above, your only option is to stab it in the face. Except that doesn't work well, therefore fighters and other non casters have been nerfed heavily despite the illusion to the contrary with minor small numbers.

Edit: Goad is 10 + half level + Cha. You aren't going to have a great Charisma, and even if you do it's an action that will fail at least 80% of the time due to the fact Cha still isn't your primary stat, therefore the DC is very low and easily passed by anything. If it didn't take an action to use it might be worth it, but as it stands it's a trap as it will almost never actually work.


Wrath wrote:

Fighters are far from useless at high levels. The final battle that we ran in our game last night would've been a TPK if not for the fighter types in our party.

Cleric got Mazed in the first round ...

The wizard had little to use against the spell weaver ...

The golem of course was immune to most of the magic ...

Wizard did provide a wall to prevent the spellweaver escaping the fighters, and he did some polymorping of hismelft to help out... And he dispelled the confusion eventually.

Admittedly they had been extensively buffed by the cleric and wizard before hand ...

...but everyone at the table last night agreed that the fighter types owned that battle.

Okay, it doesn't read like that though. It reads like the DM set up an encounter to specifically highlight the under-powered melee types. Consider: his first tactical action was to get rid of the cleric. The monsters are some of the few that are nigh immune to the wizard. And the wizard still had things to do to help out the party. And it was almost a TPK because the casters were mostly out of the equation.

Your DM is a very nice person to craft an encounter that puts the spot light on the fighters. But wouldn't it feel weird if 1 of every 4 encounters had creatures that were immune to magic in this manner? Wouldn't that kind of thing being that common wreak some havoc on the feel of consistency and authenticity of the game world?


Someone brought up golems as a valid caster counter. I knew I was forgetting something.

Ladies and Gentlemen, meet Lennie O. Longfingers. You can just call him LOL.

LOL is a dedicated golem slayer wizard. He is very good at turning this supposed weakness on its head and neatly dealing with his supposed foes.

To make LOL, you must have the ability to cast at least 2 first level spells. This means you must have at least one level of Wizard, and at least 12 Intelligence. Your other stats do not matter, so you can make this in any game where the DM allows 4 point buy or higher. If he thinks that generous method of stat allocation is for dirty powergamers, you can settle for as low as 11 Int to make it on 3 PB as long as you specialize in Conjuration or Illusion.

That's it.

Here is LOL's statblock:

Level 1 [Any race] Wizard.

Str: 8.
Dex: 8.
Con: 8.
Int: 12.
Wis: 8.
Cha: 8.

LOL has 3 HP, and a save array of -1/-1/+1. But that's ok. LOL is so badass, he can do his job anyways.

Let's see him in action.

LOL encounters an Iron Golem. His buddies aren't with him, because they got beat up and flown off via the Richardson O. Freeman Lifesupport Helicopter, or ROFLcopter for short.

LOL is ready for this. He casts Obscuring Mist upon himself to hide. The golem moves closer. He then pops out a Silent Image. Since the golem has no reasoning skills, it will never make its save to disbelieve the image. Since neither of these spells allow spell resistance, they bypass so called magic immunity. This leaves LOL free to bypass the encounter, which gives him full XP for overcoming the challenge by RAW.

Potential problems:

If the golem gets into melee range before the trap is set, LOL dies.

Solution: Don't deliberately use the minimum possible example to humorously make a point.

If more than one CR +10 or more golem appears in a day, LOL is out of power and dies.

Solution: Don't deliberately use the minimum possible example to humorously make a point. Or use your Scribe Scroll class ability. Either way.

If LOL encounters anything other than a golem that is far above his CR, he dies.

Solution: Don't deliberately use the minimum possible example to humorously make a point.

There you have it folks. A highly specialized golem slaying Wizard. Yes, I am still being sarcastic. Are you laughing and conceding the point yet?

Scarab Sages

And for a sci-fi treatment of that same concept, read Life Hutch, by Harlan Ellison.

Go on; it'll cost you $0.69.

Scarab Sages

Wrath wrote:

Fighters are far from useless at high levels. The final battle that we ran in our game last night would've been a TPK if not for the fighter types in our party.

Admittedly they had been extensively buffed by the cleric and wizard before hand so their AC's were high, they could see invis (blindsight I think they had) and were hitting harder and more often (haste is nice that way). There saves were also boosted by the clerics lovely mass conviction (non pathfinder I know, but we're running a long term campaign and aren't about to drop spell compendium for a playtest).

(emphasis mine)

So, what you're saying is, the fighter types needed the help of the spellcasters, who still managed to contribute to the fight, despite being taken out of action.

Can the reverse ever be seen to be true?

Scarab Sages

Crusader of Logic wrote:
Tripping was nerfed in PF. Disarm also was (and last I checked, there's still a very cheap item that grants high resistance or immunity).
Alphonse Joly wrote:
You used "nerfed" when what you mean is "I don't use it" which is a fallacy to begin with. Since you don't use it, you clearly have little idea how it plays out. Disarm is the same way. You clearly thrust your metagame knowledge of an item that helps against disarm into the thought process of NPCs and then complain about a legitimate and very useful ability.

I guess 34 years ago, my mother was using metagame knowledge (of a game that had barely been invented, and not yet reached our shores), when she tied my mittens to my coat-sleeves, to make them impossible to lose.

The Exchange

Crusader of Logic wrote:
LOL is ready for this. He casts Obscuring Mist upon himself to hide. The golem moves closer. He then pops out a Silent Image. Since the golem has no reasoning skills, it will never make its save to disbelieve the image. Since neither of these spells allow spell resistance, they bypass so called magic immunity. This leaves LOL free to bypass the encounter, which gives him full XP for overcoming the challenge by RAW.

My emphasis. Is this official rules, or a house rule? I'm curious, because an iron golem still gets a Will save, albeit one he won't be very good at.


Figments require reasoning skills to see through. Golems are mindless. A more effective method is to Silent Image a pit blocking the golem's way. It will not attempt to cross it, because it seems real.

The Exchange

threadjack

Well, it doesn't actually say that in the rules. It says that you get a save if you interact with a figment or study it. I can see that a golem would not "study" anything but it can still interact - i.e. punching an illusion - so simply casting a figment and forgetting about it wold not necessarily mean it does not get a save. Also, a golem is programmed to some extent - the sophistication of that programming is down to the DM to determine, but it is not impossible to conceive that once it interacted with a figment it could "recognise" it as such and then ignore it. What you describe as an easy way to deal with the golem sounds like generous DM'ing to me.

/threadjack


Along the lines of CoL's golem-killer is the 1st level rogue who uses Stealth to bypass it, or climbs the wall and spelunks his way over it, or whatever. But the poor fighter and cleric just get mashed.

However... the cleric shines in other areas, at all levels. The fighter shines only from 1st to 3rd, then he becomes almost obsolete.


Kirth Gersen wrote:

Along the lines of CoL's golem-killer is the 1st level rogue who uses Stealth to bypass it, or climbs the wall and spelunks his way over it, or whatever. But the poor fighter and cleric just get mashed.

However... the cleric shines in other areas, at all levels. The fighter shines only from 1st to 3rd, then he becomes almost obsolete.

The Cleric Dimension Hops through a door to bypass it, as per the Travel Domain ability. That just leaves the poor Fighter behind.

Regardless, I think the snark got my point across. The so called counters, in addition to being contrived if done too often don't really work anyways, as you can only counter a caster if you block everything they can do. This means blocking everything, ergo no one can beat your encounter. Aubrey, your suggestion sounds like overly adversial DMing. Mindless means mindless. If you don't want the golem to be mindless, have someone cast Awaken Construct on it. Or have whoever needs the golem buddy up with a Warforged instead. Make it work via non contrived means.

The Exchange

Crusader of Logic wrote:
Aubrey, your suggestion sounds like overly adversial DMing. Mindless means mindless. If you don't want the golem to be mindless, have someone cast Awaken Construct on it. Or have whoever needs the golem buddy up with a Warforged instead. Make it work via non contrived means.

Dude, I can read as well as the next guy - the rules do not explicitly say a mindless creature cannot disbelieve an illusion. Does it "believe" anything if it is mindless? A golem has a Will saving throw in the rules - check the MM. Mindless does indeed mean mindless - mindless does not mean "incapable is disbelieving an illusion", which, strictly, is something else.

I don't really consider it overly adversarial for a wizard character to think a bit harder than casting a single lvl 1 spell to defeat a CR 13 monster. Your solution actually strikes me as a bit lazy-minded, and not backed up by the rules (and given you seem to lean on the side of interpreting rules strictly as written, that surprises me). Would a mindless automaton, given strict instructions, stop at a pit? Or would it simply attempt to get over the pit by jumping, discover there was no pit, and them move on and pound the smug-looking wizard on the other side? Who says the golem would preserve itself instead of carrying out its instructions? Not much point having a mindless guardian if it is too busy looking after itself instead of you. You make big assumptions about what an iron golem would do.

I don't mind something clever to defeat an enemy - I've had an iron golem dropped through the floor of a stone bridge to fall a couple of hundred feet to its doom though spell use, and was cool about that. But taking a specific, and debatable, rules interpretation and using it as an example of how rubbish golems are is not especially convincing. Contrived, even. It might work sometimes, but if the golem actually got to interact with the illusion then I see no reason why it should be incapable of disbelieving.

Anyway, this thread is about fighters.

Scarab Sages

Hmmm, yes. My take on the Silent Image vs Golem scenario, was to use it as a diversion. Send it tromping off down the corridor, while the party sneak in behind it.

I've no problem with the golem thinking 'That pit doesn't match my programming', and tapping it with its toe. Still a clever use of a spell, to prevent a charge and buy yourself an extra round, but not a foolproof method to imprison it.

And yes, let's get back to the Fighter.

The Exchange

roguerouge wrote:
Wrath wrote:

Fighters are far from useless at high levels. The final battle that we ran in our game last night would've been a TPK if not for the fighter types in our party.

Cleric got Mazed in the first round ...

The wizard had little to use against the spell weaver ...

The golem of course was immune to most of the magic ...

Wizard did provide a wall to prevent the spellweaver escaping the fighters, and he did some polymorping of hismelft to help out... And he dispelled the confusion eventually.

Admittedly they had been extensively buffed by the cleric and wizard before hand ...

...but everyone at the table last night agreed that the fighter types owned that battle.

Okay, it doesn't read like that though. It reads like the DM set up an encounter to specifically highlight the under-powered melee types. Consider: his first tactical action was to get rid of the cleric. The monsters are some of the few that are nigh immune to the wizard. And the wizard still had things to do to help out the party. And it was almost a TPK because the casters were mostly out of the equation.

Your DM is a very nice person to craft an encounter that puts the spot light on the fighters. But wouldn't it feel weird if 1 of every 4 encounters had creatures that were immune to magic in this manner? Wouldn't that kind of thing being that common wreak some havoc on the feel of consistency and authenticity of the game world?

Actually the encounter was pretty much from the AP, all I did was swap out the Spellweaver from Spire of long shadows to replace the girl who was meant to be the high level leader of Ebon Triad as she wasn't statted. The attack occured in the temple of the Ebon triad, which they were defending to the last.

This temple hadn't been found by the likes of Manzorian (an epic level caster in the AP) because it was protected from divination etc and certain other effects. This of course was powerful magic written into the AP and wasn't neceassarily explained by core rules, it did however make sense that a temple trying to resurrect a god would be protected from such things, especially at very high level play. I, as the DM, didn't craft anything, I played as the monsters were written in the AP.

I'm DMing age of Worms, and I'm playing in Savage Tide, this kind of situation pops up ALL THE TIME. High level play means many of the little tricks people want to try or keep pointing out just aren't always viable. Yes they work for some encounters, then of course there's the one situation you're not prepared for.

Golems are only mindless if the guy controlling it isn't with them. IT's free to talk. Since there's no rule that says it takes you actions to command your golem, you can tell it do whatever the hell you want and still act. Why would a guy with a golem defending the very last area of their temple leave it to be fooled by an image? Quarters were tight, as written in the AP. While you cast your minor image, the controller beats on you with magic then tells the golem to ignore it. Cast fog, it gets dispelled then the golem beats on you for being so foolish. Sounds to me like some people have very bad encounters written for them. A golem as as single defender is never a threat, not even to fighters played cleverly as they are easily tricked. People who build them probably know this, so in a world where this is common knowledge, why leave golems as sole defenders? Here's an idea, create the golem then leave your imp familiar to control it. Works a treat for mid level play.

Why take out the cleric first ....hmmm four fighter types and a cleric supporting them. The first thing is take out the cleric so he can't heal fighters or break enchantment etc. She would've taken out the wizard next but by then people were in her face trying very hard to kill her with big weapons, so she started doing more big group stuff like confusion and prismatic spray. She even Mazed the biggest threat to her at the time (swashbuckler who could beat her DR) but he escaped very quickly.

People keep throwing in about encounters designed to keep your spell casters crap as being dodgy game design. The same needs to be said for fighters. If every encounter makes your fighter feel useless then that's poor design and wouldn't make sense in the world.

However, the point of my original post was to point out that the fighters did OK without their healer and big spell ending stuff. They need the casters for buffs etc. But then, my casters need the fighters to live past the first few encounters. Run the AP's that Paizo designs at higher levels, these are good adventures with some very well designed encounters. Everyone has a chance to shine, everyone needs good teamwork to survive.

People who keep telling me fighter types are a waste of time appear to have a skewed view of how encounters run. They seem to think in a very constrained and limited fashion. (Big areas, unlimited time, acting freely while the enemy does nothing, single opponents, stupid opponents, easy prior planning through divination etc.). Maybe its just a DM style difference.

However this is a thread jack, sorry to the OP.

Fighters are good in Pathfinder, but some tweaks at high levels are probably still needed. I'm thinking mostly about mobility and as mentioned above some sort of taunting mechanic. But then, I think all of the classes still need some work, thus the point of the beta.


@Wrath:
I'm curious, what level were the characters, specifically the wizard?


Aubrey the Malformed wrote:


I don't really consider it overly adversarial for a wizard character to think a bit harder than casting a single lvl 1 spell to defeat a CR 13 monster. Your solution actually strikes me as a bit lazy-minded, and not backed up by the rules (and given you seem to lean on the side of interpreting rules strictly as written, that surprises me). Would a mindless automaton, given strict instructions, stop at a pit? Or would it simply attempt to get over the pit by jumping, discover there was no pit, and them move on and pound the smug-looking wizard on the other side? Who says the golem would preserve itself instead of carrying out its instructions? Not much point having a mindless guardian if it is too busy looking after itself instead of you. You make big assumptions about what an iron golem would do.

And then it falls down a pit and can't do anything, because it has no skills to get out. No, it would regard an illusionary pit as an actual barrier that would prevent it from following directions. Mindless creatures are easy bait for anyone precisely because they are stupid.

By the way, tounge in cheek means exactly that. It is meant to show precisely how Wizards still can utterly destroy their so called nemesises. You're going on about how some high level caster can own a level 1. Do I even need to say it?

Swashbuckler as biggest threat... how badly did this group suck? Because that's about the worst archetype in the entire game, so if one is scaring her more than everyone else I have to wonder what the rest of the party is doing.

If every encounter is making the fighter feel useless at high levels that just means you aren't fighting any big dumb melee brutes as everything else shuts him down by virtue of the fact they have options besides auto attack and he does not.

Those 1-20 adventure paths utterly tear apart anyone who is weak and lacks options. Guess who goes down first as a direct result? Hint: Not the casters. Course you yourself admit the casters are the greatest threat there, so everyone ganged up on them first. It's also worth mentioning the other guys couldn't do anything to stop this, so they would have been universally better off with more casters in the party.

The Exchange

Squirrelloid wrote:

@Wrath:

I'm curious, what level were the characters, specifically the wizard?

15th. All of them. They actually levelled mid game.

I've actually asked him to get on here and read a couple of your threads. (and some of the other wizard optimizers). He's relatively new to the job of spell caster and could use some pointers.

As a side note though, he's going down the path of becoming a Lich. Some of his spell choice may be different as a consequence. It doesn't mean he doesn't have some good stuff, particuluary since we're using spell compendium. However, he isn't the most optimised spell caster.

He would've been better acting as a counter speller last night, but as DM I wasn't about to tell him that.

Of course, this didn't stop the fact my fighters were very good for what happened :)

Once again, thread jacking here. If we want to continue this I have a playtest thread for my Age of Worms game. Feel free to ask questions/debate stuff about it there I guess. Trying to avoid derailing the OP's thread.

Cheers
Toddo


Becoming a Lich is definitely an example of suboptimal tactics.

Hint: Paying out the ass for something that cripples you (LA) especially since you are a caster is what is known as a self double whammy.

Also, counterspelling is a waste of actions unless you can get it as an Immediate action. You waste your action for a chance enemy wastes theirs. Um, no. If you must 'counterspell' in that way ready an action to give them an Orb of Force to the face if they try to cast anything. At least then you can force a DC Impossible Concentration check and make them lose their spell, while also scratching them a bit.

The Exchange

Crusader of Logic wrote:

Becoming a Lich is definitely an example of suboptimal tactics.

Hint: Paying out the ass for something that cripples you (LA) especially since you are a caster is what is known as a self double whammy.

Also, counterspelling is a waste of actions unless you can get it as an Immediate action. You waste your action for a chance enemy wastes theirs. Um, no. If you must 'counterspell' in that way ready an action to give them an Orb of Force to the face if they try to cast anything. At least then you can force a DC Impossible Concentration check and make them lose their spell, while also scratching them a bit.

Agreed on both points. I've told him the Lichdom thing can happen after the AP has played out, then if we go epic he's still got his pathway. But I felt it would gimp his character too much for this level of play.

My fighters did just that to the caster in the end to prevent her from being too effective. Unfortunately Orb of Force would've been eaten by the Ioun Stone so that wasn't an option last night, but is certainly an option usually.

Once again, I invite anyone who wants to debate this to my AoW thread in the playtest area so we don't keep threadjacking the OP's posts.

Cheers


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

/me disbelieves that Crusader of Logic is anyone other than LogicNinja

The Exchange

Crusader of Logic wrote:
And then it falls down a pit and can't do anything, because it has no skills to get out. No, it would regard an illusionary pit as an actual barrier that would prevent it from following directions. Mindless creatures are easy bait for anyone precisely because they are stupid.

Golems are stupid, the people who make them are not. Assuming that a high level caster, presumably one as clever as your high level casters, would fail to include the possibility of the "obvious" way of disabling a golem is silly. So some programming where they compare different sensory inputs and maybe compute that an illusion is what it is seems reasonable to me. Casters will always own if the DM allows easy, one-dimensional cop-outs that don't force that PCs to try. Illusions are a good way of fooling a golem, but I fail to see why they should be foolproof.

Crusader of Logic wrote:
By the way, tounge in cheek means exactly that. It is meant to show precisely how Wizards still can utterly destroy their so called nemesises. You're going on about how some high level caster can own a level 1. Do I even need to say it?

Well, yeah, maybe you do, since you haven't actually demonstrated it in this context.

The Exchange

Crusader of Logic wrote:


And then it falls down a pit and can't do anything, because it has no skills to get out. No, it would regard an illusionary pit as an actual barrier that would prevent it from following directions. Mindless creatures are easy bait for anyone precisely because they are stupid.

Not every skill requires training to use. Jump and climb (or acrobatics now) are not dependent on having ranks. I see no problem with a golem trying to jump across a pit, or even trying to climb down one and then up the other side.

Iron golem, strength 33 means a climb bonus of +11. So it could climb out of your pit on a 9 or more. Wow, how easily you beat the construct.

Or if an illusion, tries to clib down, finds it is in fact a solid surface and walks across, delay one round.

Jump + 11. I guess this one depends on how wide you make your pit or illusion of one, but I'm still backing the Golem. I'm less convinced of this one as to me it doens't fit the concept of an Iron golem jumping, but I wouldn't put up a huge argument about it if a GM ruled it.

People will probably argue about armour penalties etc, but last I checked, natural armour didn't impede skills.

There are ways to bypass golems, your method is a particualrly bad one to use.


Spell casters have always been the biggest threat. A simple spell can change the battle in ways the enemy has not planned for. No amount of tweaking is going to change this. Changing the fighter to make him more like the wizard is doomed to failure and, as far as I'm concerned, will ruin the suspension of disbelief.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber

I also think, that not all classes should be balanced. Wizards are more bad-ass since the very beginning of fantasy.
No need to be able to fight a balanced fight between a high-level wizard and a high-level fighter. the fighter will loose and that's fine.

D&D is not about one balanced class vs. another one, it's one team vs. different threads, where the role of every class helps to overcome a given thread, how minor that help will be though.

What I meant while starting this thread is, that I think the Beta-Fighter is fine, I just don't want him to be buffed further. Maybe a single class feat to add, but that'll be enough in my eyes.

The Exchange

Certainly a fighter and a wizard are not there to do the same thing. Even in 4e, where the classes are fairly explicitly "balanced" in the way the system sets out the powers and abilities as characters level, they differ in their roles. I don't believe a fighter should necessarily have the DPS abilities of a wizard, nor do I believe he should be superhuman. The issues are with higher level feats (or the lack thereof) and (maybe) a taunt or tanking mechanic.

The Exchange

Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
Certainly a fighter and a wizard are not there to do the same thing. Even in 4e, where the classes are fairly explicitly "balanced" in the way the system sets out the powers and abilities as characters level, they differ in their roles. I don't believe a fighter should necessarily have the DPS abilities of a wizard, nor do I believe he should be superhuman. The issues are with higher level feats (or the lack thereof) and (maybe) a taunt or tanking mechanic.

Agreed. Fighters do their job fairly well, but I still think some tweaks along this line are needed. I'm very much looking forward to the feat section of this playtest.

The improve in their attack and AC bonuses means they can actually spend some loot elsewhere to make them more versatile at higher levels btw, but it would be nice to have some of that ability without needing the gear to do it.

Scarab Sages

Re: The Golem and the Illusion (good nursery story potential).

The golem has no reasoning, but it does have perception - an average Wisdom score equal to a human. I agree with Aubrey - if it interacts with an illusion, it gets a Will save.

As for the pit, I would think the golem would attempt to jump to explicitly follow its instructions to attack intruders. If it fails to jump (+11 Str), it lands on the pit and doesn't fall, since it is an illusion. At best the spell causes the golem to waste a move action standing up from the fall.

Scarab Sages

Dryder wrote:
I also think, that not all classes should be balanced. Wizards are more bad-ass since the very beginning of fantasy.

Is this part of the problem?

That everyone is approaching the game from a different genre of fantasy?

It seems, in the older Sword & Sorcery tradition of the pulps, that most wizards and sorcerors were almost invariably villainous cowards, who had sold their souls to Dark Powers, through perverted rituals, and whose purpose in the story, was to make bold threats, before dying, screaming, under the blade of the hero.


Ioun stones require a readied action to absorb spells. That'd mean the caster is doing nothing else except eating one of the Wizard's spells, therefore the group should have torn said caster apart in 2 rounds to make a point.

Laithoron wrote:
/me disbelieves that Crusader of Logic is anyone other than LogicNinja

Another troll alt I see. No. Wrong again.

The Exchange

Snorter wrote:

Is this part of the problem? That everyone is approaching the game from a different genre of fantasy?

It seems, in the older Sword & Sorcery tradition of the pulps, that most wizards and sorcerors were almost invariably villainous cowards, who had sold their souls to Dark Powers, through perverted rituals, and whose purpose in the story, was to make bold threats, before dying, screaming, under the blade of the hero.

I think there are issues with style of play that are related. Squirreloid made a comment about how fighters should be able to trip giant scorpions and so on. That is uber-heroic, almost comic-book style. Nothing wrong with that, but it strikes me that it colours a lot of the issues with the fighter that he has. For me, and others, the fighter is a guy with a sword, not a superhero. A lot of stuff about "balance" seems to me to be more about aesthetics and expectations. These are valid criticisms but it is debatable to what extent D&D can accommodate all of these styles of play - Golarion, for example, seems to be a fairly downbeat sort of place and PF would likely reflect that more than maybe a pulpy sort of setting.

1 to 50 of 544 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Roleplaying Game / Playtest Reports / Using Beta in RotRL (Stop buffing the fighter class)!!! All Messageboards