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


Playtest Reports

101 to 150 of 544 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

The reason why a "non-magical" Fighter has no place in High level D&D.

Wizard 20 can single-handedly take over the Earth in XXI century. Fighter 20 is a man in a tin can with a big knife. In XXI century he can fight with a motorcycle gang, unless they got a granate launcher - and some do.

Think about the power level of a wizard and a non-magical fighter. If you think about what game rules are supposed to represent, a non-magical figher is a medieval knight, perhaps better trained, but on the same level. A wizard is equivalent of something from XXX century. Guess what, medieval knights don't exactly inspire terror in modern armies. On the other hand, an egg-head from XXX century isn't very good at swinging swords - but he doesn't need to be.

You can play that game, and you will always get Twain's "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court ", with the knights blown up left and right. It is good for a bit of laugh at the idiots who agreed to play the knights, but nothing more.

If you want non-magical fighter to be able to fight wizards, you must pull wizards down to the level of actual medieval spell-casters, as described in romances, sagas etc.

That means no more Walls of Force, Gates or Wishes. On the other hand, you get to run around with a sack over your head to cause a blizzard.

And here is a short quotation from "Yankee"

http://bulfinch.englishatheist.org/yank/p9.htm#c43

"The sun rose presently and sent its unobstructed splendors over the land, and we saw a prodigious host moving slowly toward us, with the steady drift and aligned front of a wave of the sea. Nearer and nearer it came, and more and more sublimely imposing became its aspect; yes, all England was there, apparently. Soon we could see the innumerable banners fluttering, and then the sun struck the sea of armor and set it all aflash. Yes, it was a fine sight; I hadn't ever seen anything to beat it.

At last we could make out details. All the front ranks, no telling how many acres deep, were horsemen—plumed knights in armor. Suddenly we heard the blare of trumpets; the slow walk burst into a gallop, and then—well, it was wonderful to see! Down swept that vast horse-shoe wave—it approached the sand-belt—my breath stood still; nearer, nearer—the strip of green turf beyond the yellow belt grew narrow—narrower still—became a mere ribbon in front of the horses—then disappeared under their hoofs. Great Scott! Why, the whole front of that host shot into the sky with a thunder-crash, and became a whirling tempest of rags and fragments; and along the ground lay a thick wall of smoke that hid what was left of the multitude from our sight.

...

Now ensued one of the dullest quarter-hours I had ever endured. We waited in a silent solitude enclosed by our circles of wire, and by a circle of heavy smoke outside of these. We couldn't see over the wall of smoke, and we couldn't see through it. But at last it began to shred away lazily, and by the end of another quarter-hour the land was clear and our curiosity was enabled to satisfy itself. No living creature was in sight! We now perceived that additions had been made to our defenses. The dynamite had dug a ditch more than a hundred feet wide, all around us, and cast up an embankment some twenty-five feet high on both borders of it. As to destruction of life, it was amazing. Moreover, it was beyond estimate. Of course, we could not count the dead, because they did not exist as individuals, but merely as homogeneous protoplasm, with alloys of iron and buttons."

On the other hand, some people want non-magical Fighter in the game-world (so eg that the wizards are rare and unique, or they want looking mostly like Middle Ages). The solution?

To replace the Warrior NPC class with the Fighter, exactly as described in SRD. This is no loss: even if in some adventure there is a statblock of a Warrior, it can be used as is, since it has no special abilities. If an adventure suggest using a Warrior of eg 2 level, a fighter can be used instead - he certainly won't prove too dangerous!

For those who like the Pathfinder Fighter, the solution is equally simple. It can be seen that the fighter class features are roughly equivalent to feats. It would be therefore easy to change Bravery, Armor Training, Weapon Training etc into feat trees, and add the following note to the Fighter NPC class:

"The Fighter NPC class can be used also for player characters. In that case, the Fighter receives a bonus feat each level, instead of each even level. Before a player takes the Fighter class, he or she should consider the fact that the Fighter is weaker than other classes at high levels."

And for those who want a high-level melee combatant who can compete with mages, there are a few archetypes available:

-Legendary Fighter - such as Cuchullain or those from Mahabharatha. He is clearly "magical", but his magic is "inborn", not "wizardry". Many, but not all of the Legendary Fighter would be Barbarians.

-Similar to the legendary fighters are various Demigods, immortal eiherjar etc.

-Magic-using Fighter - a figher who uses magic and magic items to supplement his fighting ability. He uses the "wizardry" magic and magic items. An example of such Fighter can be found eg in the Irish Story of the sons of Turenn.

http://www.luminarium.org/mythology/ireland/sonsoftuirenn.htm

Such a Fighter could be exceptionally proficient in using the magical items and technology produced by wizards. The wizards can cast spells with more proficiency, but such a character is much better in using magical items than the wizards themselves. I think this is entirely reasonable - modern pilots or soldiers are much better at flying or fighting than the engineers who create their planes or guns, and nobody thinks it strange.

-Divine or Mystic Knight - something like a Paladin, eg Galahad from the Round Table Stories.

-Fighter with Artifact Sword (or some other artifact) - A fighter who for some reason gained access to a powerful artifact or special magic, which allows him to "punch above his weight". An example would be of course the Eternal Warrior of Moorcock with his sword, or Dilvish the Damned of Zelazny with his iron horse and the city-destroying infernal spell. Of course, that sword or whatever would be a class feature, because this is what makes this character useful at high levels. This also has its origin in the Medieval Sagas. The original Black Sword was Tyrfing, the cursed sword which could kill even gods, and which was once the god of Tervingi.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrfing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hervarar_saga
http://www.northvegr.org/lore/oldheathen/018.php
http://meadhall.homestead.com/Angantyr.html

- And of course, the universally hated Wuxia Warrior.

Each of those archetypes (with the exception of Wuxia warrior) fits in the "pseudo-medieval" world, since each is based on the Medieval or earlier myths and legends. Each could also be a basis for a class which could be useful up to 20 level.


Funny thing is that half of those describe casters better. As in magic using fighter = someone specialized in UMD. Divine fighter = CoDzilla. Then there's Tome of Battle which doesn't immediately sound like a caster.

The Exchange

Crusader of Logic wrote:

It is not hard to understand. The Fighter is not contributing at an equal level. He cannot do so, barring perfection on his part. Since he cannot perform at par, he cannot do enough to matter, he cannot take part in any teamwork at teamwork is by definition a mutual and equal effort, not a one sided resource sink.

Further, by guard animals I clearly meant dire beasts, magical beasts, and other stuff that was CR appropriate. You of course strawmanned that to some CR 1 dogs. Neutral mercs aren't any weaker than the evil ones ya know. Granted, humanoid anythings that isn't a caster isn't much of a threat, but there's also nothing saying mercenaries have to be humanoid. Seriously. What kind of DM can't work out that just because the primary foes are demons doesn't mean there will not be associated non demonic creatures along with them? That is a pure lack of creativity. No opinion about it.

The way I see it, it strikes me as casters making non-casters waste resources. The superiority of your approach is in your mind, I'm afraid - pure opinion. If you assume fighters will not be buffed, it is hardly surprising they don't look so good, especially if they have to waste gp buying items to replicate effects the caster can cast. If the wizards are busy just stroking their staves, refusing to cast simple buff spells and harping on about their superiority, it is hardly surprising that fighters have a tough time, especially when the game is predicated on buffs being cast. A refusal to provide a character with the spell he needs to be effective strikes me not as a source of superiority, but an actual refusal for that caster to pull their weight - a show of inferiority. And if it is also a core assumption in your analysis of the classes, it is simply another demonstration of how bogus it is as it doesn't represent real play.

And on a more social level, the sort of attitude you are displaying is not one to really win friends at the gaming table. D&D is a cooperative effort. Refusing to cast buffs is hostile game-breaking in my view. There is an attitude at work here which I find, frankly, a bit weird.

By the way, is it a rule that mercenaries are always neutral? And dire animal top out at about CR 10, I think, or even earlier.


Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
Crusader of Logic wrote:

It is not hard to understand. The Fighter is not contributing at an equal level. He cannot do so, barring perfection on his part. Since he cannot perform at par, he cannot do enough to matter, he cannot take part in any teamwork at teamwork is by definition a mutual and equal effort, not a one sided resource sink.

Further, by guard animals I clearly meant dire beasts, magical beasts, and other stuff that was CR appropriate. You of course strawmanned that to some CR 1 dogs. Neutral mercs aren't any weaker than the evil ones ya know. Granted, humanoid anythings that isn't a caster isn't much of a threat, but there's also nothing saying mercenaries have to be humanoid. Seriously. What kind of DM can't work out that just because the primary foes are demons doesn't mean there will not be associated non demonic creatures along with them? That is a pure lack of creativity. No opinion about it.

The way I see it, it strikes me as casters making non-casters waste resources. The superiority of your approach is in your mind, I'm afraid - pure opinion. If you assume fighters will not be buffed, it is hardly surprising they don't look so good, especially if they have to waste gp buying items to replicate effects the caster can cast. If the wizards are busy just stroking their staves, refusing to cast simple buff spells and harping on about their superiority, it is hardly surprising that fighters have a tough time, especially when the game is predicated on buffs being cast. A refusal to provide a character with the spell he needs to be effective strikes me not as a source of superiority, but an actual refusal for that caster to pull their weight - a show of inferiority. And if it is also a core assumption in your analysis of the classes, it is simply another demonstration of how bogus it is as it doesn't represent real play.

And on a more social level, the sort of attitude you are displaying is not one to really win friends at the gaming table. D&D is a cooperative effort....

Wrong. My approach assumes resources will be used in the most efficient manner, or at least not uselessly pissed away. Devoting resources to the guy who cannot do anything but mildly annoy the enemy and fill a 5' square with difficult terrain is an example of doing exactly that. Now if he's instead using a Spiked Chain and built for Lockdown (which by the way, Pathfinder nerfed out of existence due to the Improved Trip nerf) then he is not a waste of resources because he can actually do something with the stuff you give him. If you have an extra 20 in your wallet and are feeling charitable, which homeless guy gets it? The one who is just down on his luck because his house burned down and needs a bit of gas money so he can keep working, or the guy who is clearly just going to get another 40 of booze with it? Exactly.

Haste is a bad example anyways. 1 round a level. That means either you're casting it right before combat (and the enemy is also aware of you, and charging their lasers) or casting it in combat, which means that giving the Fighter an extra attack on a full attack needs to be better than whatever else you would do with your action. Since as we all know that is just flat out impossible both due to the fact the Fighter is not going to do anything near as good with one swing as the Wizard will with one spell and due to the fact the inherent suckitude of the Fighter becomes grossly magnified if at any time he moves faster than 0.568 miles per hour, or 5 feet per round (and the enemies will rarely if ever start within this attack range, thereby making a full attack on round 1 impossible anyways). The boots last 10 rounds, divided as he sees fit. That will get him through the day, likely with at least a round to spare. It's a free action to turn it on and off, so this is better for everyone involved. Had you gave an example that lasts at least 10 minutes a level, you might have a point.

I'm not even going to try to puzzle out what sort of Logical Fallacy it is to claim that a caster refusing to use their resources to pull some dead weight up to par makes them the non contributor, and not the dead weight for being dead weight and therefore a non contributor. I'm going to go with C: All of them, because C is always the correct answer. Learn to take responsibility for your own failures instead of saddling others with your incompetence, and don't pull a Sword of Truth and claim that accomplishing something or otherwise failing to be a failure is a bad thing.

On a more social level... the guy who is being utterly useless, and expecting us to cart his sorry ass around dangerous areas is the disruptive one. If he were doing something useful then it is called teamwork. I have stated this several times, but you continue with the serial strawman attacks. Teamwork = you mutually help each other towards a desired end, not one guy does all the ****ing work while the other sits on his ass. Course, I'm at the gaming table to take care of business (my amusement) which means I won't do anything counterproductive to that goal (ruining the game) but could care less if I never see these people anywhere else. Point being I'm not there to 'make friends' so if I'm not liked, I don't care. Being 'liked' is so damn fickle as to be meaningless anyways. It's respect that counts. I am specifically adding this part to test your reading abilities and see if you will strawman me about it without reading this far. Prove me wrong.

Your post ends with yet another strawman as mercs refers to anyone paid to fight, there are no alignment requirements except that they probably aren't good so neutral is certainly possible and evil not assured. I also mentioned more creatures besides dire animals, which again you have deliberately missed the point on (these non demon creatures can and will feasibly be involved even if the point is fighting demons) and strawmanned yet again. If you're just going to keep that up, the only purpose in continuing this discussion is so that people can point and laugh at you. Are you going to continue the serial strawman attacks, or will you begin addressing the actual points?

Scarab Sages

Crusader: You constantly refer to slightly unbalanced classes or a perceived difference in effectiveness as "useless". In any situation where someone is contributing to the group effort, that is not useless.

Ever been in a game where the enemy has 1 hit point left and makes its save against the casters spell? That's when you wish you had a fighter around dealing an extra dozen or so points of damage per attack.

Quite frankly, you structure your arguments in terms of black and white, right and wrong. For all your griping about trolls, strawmen, attacks, and "stupidity", you yourself leap to foregone conclusions on a frequent basis. For example, you present evidence that the fighter does not deal as much damage as it should. Your conclusion? The fighter is "useless". You should really take a second look at the language you use to present your ideas - because that is what they are, ideas and opinions. Like it or not, most things in this world are not factual. It doesn't contribute anything to claim you are always right except a perceived unwillingness to listen to other people.

The world is gray.

The Exchange

Crusader of Logic wrote:
My approach assumes resources will be used in the most efficient manner, or at least not uselessly pissed away. Devoting resources to the guy who cannot do anything but mildly annoy the enemy and fill a 5' square with difficult terrain is an example of doing exactly that. Now if he's instead using a Spiked Chain and built for Lockdown (which by the way, Pathfinder nerfed out of existence due to the Improved Trip nerf) then he is not a waste of resources because he can actually do something with the stuff you give him. If you have an extra 20 in your wallet and are feeling charitable, which homeless guy gets it? The one who is just down on his luck because his house burned down and needs a bit of gas money so he can keep working, or the guy who is clearly just going to get another 40 of booze with it? Exactly.

Well, I think you are failing frame the issue correctly. Obviously, any spell a caster casts is a drain on his resources. The point is, to what extent is the spell a drain on his resources and to what extent is he achieving something useful with it? This will vary - a 1st level spell slot, to take an extreme example, won't matter much to an 18th level caster. So then it becomes a balance between what he could achieve with his repertoire of spells, and to what extent it would disrupt his ability in providing his own offence. You are basically stating that any drain of resources from a caster, not matter how trivial, is bad and should not be allowed. I think the answer is much more nuanced than that. There will be a trade-off, but it is not necessarily the case that the balanace will be negative in the case of a buff.

Crusader of Logic wrote:
Haste is a bad example anyways. 1 round a level. That means either you're casting it right before combat (and the enemy is also aware of you, and charging their lasers) or casting it in combat, which means that giving the Fighter an extra attack on a full attack needs to be better than whatever else you would do with your action. Since as we all know that is just flat out impossible both due to the fact the Fighter is not going to do anything near as good with one swing as the Wizard will with one spell and due to the fact the inherent suckitude of the Fighter becomes grossly magnified if at any time he moves faster than 0.568 miles per hour, or 5 feet per round (and the enemies will rarely if ever start within this attack range, thereby making a full attack on round 1 impossible anyways). The boots last 10 rounds, divided as he sees fit. That will get him through the day, likely with at least a round to spare. It's a free action to turn it on and off, so this is better for everyone involved. Had you gave an example that lasts at least 10 minutes a level, you might have a point.

Perhaps, but they cost 12,000gp, which is money the guy doesn't have to spend and could spend on something the caster has more trouble emulating. You have a bit of a fetish about not getting full attacks in round 1, too. It's part of the game, you live with it and move on. Most combats will last long enough that the casting of Haste will last long enough for the combat.

Crusader of Logic wrote:
I'm not even going to try to puzzle out what sort of Logical Fallacy it is to claim that a caster refusing to use their resources to pull some dead weight up to par makes them the non contributor, and not the dead weight for being dead weight and therefore a non contributor. I'm going to go with C: All of them, because C is always the correct answer. Learn to take responsibility for your own failures instead of saddling others with your incompetence, and don't pull a Sword of Truth and claim that accomplishing something or otherwise failing to be a failure is a bad thing.

If you refuse to buff a player, that is up to you. Logic is interesting but, of course, depends on the axioms you are using. Your syllogism is "A fighter is dead weight. Dead weight should not be buffed. Therefore the fighter should not be buffed." Makes sense if the tenets are true. Unfortunately, they are at best, debatable. Therefore, logic is not necessarily truth.

Crusader of Logic wrote:
On a more social level... the guy who is being utterly useless, and expecting us to cart his sorry ass around dangerous areas is the disruptive one. If he were doing something useful then it is called teamwork. I have stated this several times, but you continue with the serial strawman attacks. Teamwork = you mutually help each other towards a desired end, not one guy does all the ****ing work while the other sits on his ass. Course, I'm at the gaming table to take care of business (my amusement) which means I won't do anything counterproductive to that goal (ruining the game) but could care less if I never see these people anywhere else. Point being I'm not there to 'make friends' so if I'm not liked, I don't care. Being 'liked' is so damn fickle as to be meaningless anyways. It's respect that counts. I am specifically adding this part to test your reading abilities and see if you will strawman me about it without reading this far. Prove me wrong.

You really don't have many friends, do you? Or get much respect. And D&D is such a narrow arena. Obviously I can't prove you wrong, what choices you make are up to you. They are not choices I would chose to make.

Crusader of Logic wrote:
Your post ends with yet another strawman as mercs refers to anyone paid to fight, there are no alignment requirements except that they probably aren't good so neutral is certainly possible and evil not assured. I also mentioned more creatures besides dire animals, which again you have deliberately missed the point on (these non demon creatures can and will feasibly be involved even if the point is fighting demons) and strawmanned yet again. If you're just going to keep that up, the only purpose in continuing this discussion is so that people can point and laugh at you. Are you going to continue the serial strawman attacks, or will you begin addressing the actual points?

Well, I guess we share straw men. Sure, I know that you can, and will, get plenty of stuff other that what you have prepared for on any day - I should know, I DM'ed the campaign in question and made sure they did. But that didn't stop the strategy from being useful.

As for pointing and laughing? Well, you really seem to be in this to win - wanting more respect, I guess. I respect your trenchant ability to ignore the other side of the argument, and to also ignore anything that might undermine your theories. But I'm inclined to agree that the discussion has probably gone about as far as it will go.

The Exchange

I laugh heartily at the notion of buffing being a waste of resources. The cleric is a buffing class, always has been always will be. Sometimes people want to play offensive clerics and get all bent out of shape becasue they have to buff the party. That's what the basic design of the class is though, so if you want to play another way I guess you and the group should work out a way to get the essential buffs in place without your cleric spending all their slots. Clerics etc, and the priesthood in general, are based of the concept of serving their god and their comunity. They serve others.

Of course Wizards can also buff, the same applies but to a much lesser extent. Wizards ten to be more self serving. Crusader of Logic's stance is an example of such self serving. This in and of itself isn't such a problem as it fits an arcehtype, but trying to push that as the norm and basing all your arguments off it is narrow minded and trying to impose a whole group of limitations onto people that really arent true for the majority of gamers.

At higher levels every class needs buffs to survive. What is improved invis, fly etc to a wizard except a buff. What does the wizard do when he gets hurt (and it is going to happen), why he's going to ask his friendly cleric for some healing love. However, according to the theory of resource wasting, healing anyone is a resource sink and therefore a waste of time.

With this type of mentality you might as well play a choose your own adventure as you really aren't interested in group gaming at all.

A fully buffed fighter is useful at all levels. The milage you get varies depending on the encounter but generally they can always do something. Sure he can only do one thing (apparently) but his one thing is useful all the time. Sometimes he relies on a buddy to get him there, but once he's there then pow, the standard tactic of hitting the creature really hard is usually good. DR is more easily over come now. Introduce magic item compendium and metalline weapons and DR is a joke.

Fighters in the games I run are always the least frustrated players. Because their general tactic of hitting usually works. Casters get frustrated as often as not as their spells fail to effect their targets occasionally. Yes I've had fighters locked down due to spells, but then the same works for casters. That's part of the game but not every encounter is going to have this locking down mechanism.

Flying creatures - boots or capes fix that. Potions fix that.

Invisible - feat selection helps. Blindsight or truesight from a budy is better, glitterdust from a buddy is the best option. I'll be advocating for a glitterdust like item in magic gear when it gets to that part of the design. Like a little grenade of dust you can throw at your invisible foes. I'm sure that'll upset some casters.

Force cage or other trapping items - Teleport items are readily available at higher levels. Freedom of movement is also great for some effects (though magic item is really expensive so only available at high levels, but high levels are what we're talking about here)

Charm and compulsion effects - Potions of protection from whatever are great and cheap. Items help saves.

Everyone uses items to boost their character at higher levels.

If you want to play this way, go into a fight with absolutely no buffs and see what happens (no invis, no illusions, no false life etc).

Seriously, what a ridiculous concept that buffs are a wasted resource. If they were considered such a waste they wouldn't be in the game.


Jal Dorak wrote:

Crusader: You constantly refer to slightly unbalanced classes or a perceived difference in effectiveness as "useless". In any situation where someone is contributing to the group effort, that is not useless.

Ever been in a game where the enemy has 1 hit point left and makes its save against the casters spell? That's when you wish you had a fighter around dealing an extra dozen or so points of damage per attack.

Quite frankly, you structure your arguments in terms of black and white, right and wrong. For all your griping about trolls, strawmen, attacks, and "stupidity", you yourself leap to foregone conclusions on a frequent basis. For example, you present evidence that the fighter does not deal as much damage as it should. Your conclusion? The fighter is "useless". You should really take a second look at the language you use to present your ideas - because that is what they are, ideas and opinions. Like it or not, most things in this world are not factual. It doesn't contribute anything to claim you are always right except a perceived unwillingness to listen to other people.

The world is gray.

As long as the Fighter is supposed to be an equal member of the party getting an equal share of the spoils he will be held to those standards. When he cannot even kill a single enemy before either the fight is over, he is killed by said enemy due to being out full attacked, or both he is not doing this. And when he does nothing else such as the Lockdown tripper who can at least try to protect his allies even if he can't get kills (though there's a fair chance he will do both) you are better off with anyone else in his place, or with no one at all there so that everyone levels faster and gets more treasure. When an empty slot can be argued to be better than you, and have any credibility whatsoever (much less a damn good bit of credibility) you fail at life.

This is an argument of math. Math is about as factual as it gets. Ain't no opinion about it buddy. 2 + 2 = 4 unless you house rule the system to be otherwise. The only one claiming I am claiming I am always right is you. Instead what happens is I... wait for it... do my research so as to maximize my accuracy before opening my mouth. And then I *drumrolls* specify when something is an opinion by using less certain language. I've been over this with someone around here before. I think it was you. Who is lacking listening skills again? It sure isn't me, because I do listen to others. I just disregard false beliefs as such, but take heed of the true ones. In other words I learn from my intellectual betters and teach my lessers. That's how it works you see. That is how you improve yourself. Greaters and lessers are simply a measure of relative knowledge, nothing insulting about it.

The world may be gray, but no one cares because we're talking about D&D here.

Scarab Sages

What is a "2"?


Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
Well, I think you are failing frame the issue correctly. Obviously, any spell a caster casts is a drain on his resources. The point is, to what extent is the spell a drain on his resources and to what extent is he achieving something useful with it? This will vary - a 1st level spell slot, to take an extreme example, won't matter much to an 18th level caster. So then it becomes a balance between what he could achieve with his repertoire of spells, and to what extent it would disrupt his ability in providing his own offence. You are basically stating that any drain of resources from a caster, not matter how trivial, is bad and should not be allowed. I think the answer is much more nuanced than that. There will be a trade-off, but it is not necessarily the case that the balanace will be negative in the case of a buff.

Are you even pretending to read anymore? I'm going to steal a page from Aelryinth's book in a (likely futile) attempt to get through to you.

If the character getting the buff is useful, and it can be cast at some point before combat, there is no loss. If the buff has to be cast in combat, whatever benefit it grants needs to be better than whatever else you could do instead with your action. The first is not that hard to get, provided you reverse Pathfinder's melee nerfs as a house rule so you came make your chain tripper. The second... forget about it.

Aubrey wrote:
Perhaps, but they cost 12,000gp, which is money the guy doesn't have to spend and could spend on something the caster has more trouble emulating. You have a bit of a fetish about not getting full attacks in round 1, too. It's part of the game, you live with it and move on. Most combats will last long enough that the casting of Haste will last long enough for the combat.

Again, missing the point. Spend round 1 ending the encounter, or casting haste (then letting the enemies get a full round to retort)? That's mild sarcasm. It might take 2 rounds to end the encounter but regardless negating the enemy is far superior to pulling out a minor buff that doesn't inhibit said enemies' ability to fight back.

Aubrey wrote:
If you refuse to buff a player, that is up to you. Logic is interesting but, of course, depends on the axioms you are using. Your syllogism is "A fighter is dead weight. Dead weight should not be buffed. Therefore the fighter should not be buffed." Makes sense if the tenets are true. Unfortunately, they are at best, debatable. Therefore, logic is not necessarily truth.

Anyone who knows what they are talking about knows that my tenets are in fact correct. Anything can be debated, but since any attempt to disrupt something that is right is wrong by default you are accomplishing nothing save obfuscating the issue and deceiving the gullible.

Aubrey wrote:
You really don't have many friends, do you? Or get much respect. And D&D is such a narrow arena. Obviously I can't prove you wrong, what choices you make are up to you. They are not choices I would chose to make.

And you jumped on it anyways, despite me telling you outright I put it there to see if you would jump on it. Wow. Just. Wow.

Oh and you're only half right. I get quite a bit of respect, except of course from those who get on my bad side and are subsequently smited. Friends however would require all of the following. 1: Said person is reliable. This alone is expecting too much from most people. 2: Said person is someone I can meet and talk to on an equal level. This too is rare, as most can't seem to do anything except spew up a stream of illogical bull**** as if they were a Decanter of Endless Water set on 'Geyser'. 3: I give a rat's ass what they think of me. Largely ties into the other two, but is just distinct enough to warrant a separate mention. Otherwise, I focus on efficiency which tends to set silly little emotional people off the deep end in synchronized diving.

In case you haven't guessed it, I again put that bit there specifically to see if you will jump on it yet again.

Lastly, I'm not so concerned with respect here. It's a means to an end, but that's about it. If you're wrong, you will be corrected. If you stay wrong, you will be 'corrected'.


Jal Dorak wrote:
Crusader: You constantly refer to slightly unbalanced classes or a perceived difference in effectiveness as "useless". In any situation where someone is contributing to the group effort, that is not useless.

He's not refering to slightly unbalanced classes. He's refering to an unbalanced system period. 3.5 is unbalanced, and needs to be fixed. Pathfinder isn't getting the job done (if anything, they are making the most broken parts worse, and the weakest parts weaker).

Contribution means you are doing something to affect the enemy negatively, or to affect your allies positively. While this is extremly loose, doing some number-crunching can determine if you are helping your friends or hurting your enemies. If the numbers show that you could be doing something better than the current action you are planning on (such as casting Grease on the enemy's weapon to make them Save or lose a turn and give everyone a free attack on the enemy when they pick up their weapon, rather than casting Haste which only gives half of that), then you are being less useful than you can be. If you are not being as useful as possible, then you will likely end up dead in DnD. Due to this logic, anyone not opperating at their fullest capacity (or doing their best when forced into a reduced capacity, such as the Wizard who's spellbook is stolen) is deemed useless.

Jal Dorak wrote:
Ever been in a game where the enemy has 1 hit point left and makes its save against the casters spell? That's when you wish you had a fighter around dealing an extra dozen or so points of damage per attack.

It isn't about the Save or Dies, you know. From personal experience and from number crunching, Wizards will cast maybe two to four spells in one combat. For the rest of the encounter, they will sit back and smoke a blunt or use Wands of MM to contribute. Why? Because they've all ready shut down the enemy with those few spells. They don't need to go all-out and unload two spells a round in order to contribute to the combat (they likly all ready have).

And I have been in the above situation, sort of. We didn't have a spellcaster, but we did have a Meldshaper, two Martial Adepts, a Ranger, and a Binder. It turned out that the Meldshaper was the MVP of that party (guess why).

Jal Dorak wrote:

You structure your arguments in terms of black and white, right and wrong. For all your griping about trolls, strawmen, attacks, and "stupidity", you yourself leap to foregone conclusions on a frequent basis. For example, you present evidence that the fighter does not deal as much damage as it should. Your conclusion? The fighter is "useless". You should really take a second look at the language you use to present your ideas - because that is what they are, ideas and opinions. Like it or not, most things in this world are not factual. It doesn't contribute anything to claim you are always right except a perceived unwillingness to listen to other people.

The world is gray.

DnD is not grey when it comes to things like power levels. It looks more like a bag of Warheads. Everything that is blue is magically delicious, and everything that is Yellow is made of fail.

He isn't leaping to conclusions. His arguments are based on actual numbers that mean something rather than personal opinion. He's even shown several examples of those numbers to try and prove his points (and every time, those numbers are ignored unless they are Damage=1000+).

The Fighter is underpowered, and Pathfinder is just making them worse. We can put numbers up to prove this, if you would like.

The Exchange

Crusader of Logic wrote:


This is an argument of math. Math is about as factual as it gets. Ain't no opinion about it buddy. 2 + 2 = 4 unless you house...

The problem is with the math you're using. Yoiu're playing around with probability. Theoretical probability at that. Probability is of course dependent on the fact of indipendence between all said events.

While every individual dice roll is completely independent of course, the modifiers to said rolls, the factors in which they are applied, are very rarely if ever independent of all other events.

As such, your theoretical probabilities are really quite useless for anything but subjective analysis of what could happen in a perfect world of your choosing.

This is the reason why modeling of spots teams performance can never get the game out come right.

It's why weather forecasting isn't 100% accurate.

The variables are too many to accurately account for.

Now, while weather forecasters and many professional sport analysers have high end physics crunching machines to do most of the math to factor in many of the variables, most of your arguments fail to take into account any where near the number of variables in a game.

This is why there are so many arguments to your "maths" as many people are experienceing far differnt things in the "real world" of game application as opposed to your theoretical world based upon the assumption of independent events.

Maths is only black and white in a perfect world.
Your maths isn't perfectly applied.. sorry to have to point that out to you. It probably means I'm one of those guys you won't respect.

Oh well.


Crusader of Logic wrote:
In which case you're going to be trying to emulate the Warblade as closely as possible without toeing the line into ripoff. Which is a whole lot of extra effort to do the same thing.

The problem is that the Warblade isn't OGL. The best that we can hope for at this point is that the Fighter will be revised enough to meaningfully contribute to high-level encounters and become a Tier 3 class. And no matter how you feel about the matter, arguing about whether or not the Fighter is overpowered or underpowered or whatever doesn't actually do anything to make the class better. Ultimately, we need more suggestions and less arguing.


Sinfire Titan wrote:
made of fail.

Wow... another 1-post wonder spouting the favorite code phrase. Do you suppose they're self-replicating?

Seriously, the fighter needs a boost. We get it. But to echo the wise Suezo, can someone other than me PLEASE make some mechanical recommendations other than "use Bo9S or you suck"?

As a start (not including a bookful of excellent fighter-only feats), I nominate:

1. Increase each +1 damage from weapon training to +1d6;
2. Add BAB to wizards' Spellcraft checks to cast defensively/keep spells when hit;
3. Give SR or some means of resisting auto-disable magic;
4. Allow fighters to make up to their full move, and all their iterative attacks, in one round, in whatever order or increments they choose;
5. Allow fighters to "hold" movement and/or attacks as immediate actions for later (to interrupt spellcasting, etc.);
6. Allow fighters a CMB roll to physically block enemy movement when using an immediate move to intercept them.

See where this is going? A fighter who can actually intercept enemies effectively, who can disrupt spellcasting effectively, and who can deal enough damage to matter. A guy who, if he gets within melee range of the wizard, will almost certainly kill him. In other words, the 1e fighter, 'ported into 3.X.

The Exchange

Sueki Suezo wrote:


And no matter how you feel about the matter, arguing about whether or not the Fighter is overpowered or underpowered or whatever doesn't actually do anything to make the class better. Ultimately, we need more suggestions and less arguing.

True. Sorry I got caught up in the the argument side of things. CoL, I also appologise for the somewhat caustic nature of my previous post. It really wasn't called for from me, since it wasn't my argument.

Tweaks I'd still like a fighter to get to become more useful at higher level.

- Ability to full attack with more than a five foot move (be it through feats or built in).

- Feats that allow them to shrug off charm and compulsions etc.

- The ability to spend iterative attacks to perform other actions better (perhaps tied into CMB maneuvres or rerolling saves. The fighter focuses more on the technique or the internal struggle at the expense of combat effectiveness)

- A taunt mechanism of some type (preferably tied to intimidate)

- Failing this, feats or basic mechanics for fighters that makes intimidate more effective. Shaken doesn't count for much at higher levels. Fear or terror are more useful (though still some things that will ignore this of course). I don't want to see this as a cumulative effect (1st round shaken then repeat for fear) as taking two rounds to complete this is not good enough.

- I'd also like to see this intimidate skill as a more useful roleplay skill in making it about giving orders/commands as much as about scaring people. Could be useful in getting past guards etc. Commanding presence so to speak.

Most of these are going to come up in other parts of the play test and I guess I'll try my hand there.

I already house rule a movement one that lets fighters spend attacks to gain an extra five foot movement. It works well at our table, especially for intercept actions. I also allow intimidate to be based of strnegth rather than charisma for fighting types without the need for spending a feat. Really big angry looking people are actually quite intimidating without even having to open their mouths if they choose to be.

Hope that's more useful, and is actually a summary of things I've suggested previously in other threads.

Cheers


Thanks, Wrath.

Interestingly, I notice quite a number of parallels in our suggestions, esp. re: movement and battlefield control (though I prefer a physical intercept-and-attack action for the latter, rather than a "taunt" mechanism, the basic idea is that he can stop enemies).


I don't want to derail the thread again, but I'd also like to point out that the relative disparity in power and damage between melee classes and caster classes may also have less to do with their class abilities and more to do with the current levels of spell damage output and the way that the metamagic system is structured. I can't help but think that once we hit a certain point, we're going to have to stop asking the question of how to make Fighters a Tier 3 class and start asking how to reduce the overall power level of the Tier 1 classes.

The Exchange

Crusader of Logic wrote:
Are you even pretending to read anymore? I'm going to steal a page from Aelryinth's book in a (likely futile) attempt to get through to you.

I'm reading. But since everything you are saying runs counter to my experience as a DM and a player, I'm just not taking your word for it, I'm afraid. I know you guys are used to uttering phases in a confident manner and just hoping someone will believe you, but it's funny how fractious you get when challenged. When someone is going on about statistical analysis, they are basically saying "I don't play a lot of D&D". So I'll read but I wil be sceptical.

I audit mathematical models for a living - assumption bias is often the main reason they fail, since the maths itself is handled by the spreadsheet. The other is data integrity - garbage in, garbage out. You attitude and blind faith in these models, and a refusal to realise that you are making some very major simplifying assumptions (one-on-one, no buffs) and trying to then apply that back to a D&D session where you have a DM (who may not agree with your rules interpretation, like on golems and illusions) and other players doing stuff and making decisions independently. And there are so many potential variables in that that it undermines your analysis. Not totally, but the fact that you cannot see the potential flaws also makes me sceptical of your claims since it is clear your don't really understand your own model and its limitations.

Crusader of Logic wrote:
If the character getting the buff is useful, and it can be cast at some point before combat, there is no loss. If the buff has to be cast in combat, whatever benefit it grants needs to be better than whatever else you could do instead with your action. The first is not that hard to get, provided you reverse Pathfinder's melee nerfs as a house rule so you came make your chain tripper. The second... forget about it.

Again, it ain't logic, it's play style. Define "useful" in logical terms. Define "fun" in logical terms. Your style of play seems to be about being the best in the party, and how the party can support you, not playing as a team. That's up to you, but that then feed through into your assumptions. It may be logical to take your attitude based upon that view, but the actual basis you are are using to make those judgements are based on subjective feelings. Your axioms are not empirically based, in other words.

Crusader of Logic wrote:
Spend round 1 ending the encounter, or casting haste (then letting the enemies get a full round to retort)? That's mild sarcasm. It might take 2 rounds to end the encounter but regardless negating the enemy is far superior to pulling out a minor buff that doesn't inhibit said enemies' ability to fight back.

Perhaps - if you have that spell available. This is the "I have an infinite spellbook with everything I need in it, and I've memorised the whole thing" argument again.

Crusader of Logic wrote:

And you jumped on it anyways, despite me telling you outright I put it there to see if you would jump on it. Wow. Just. Wow.

Oh and you're only half right. I get quite a bit of respect, except of course from those who get on my bad side and are subsequently smited. Friends however would require all of the following. 1: Said person is reliable. This alone is expecting too much from most people. 2: Said person is someone I can meet and talk to on an equal level. This too is rare, as most can't seem to do anything except spew up a stream of illogical bull**** as if they were a Decanter of Endless Water set on 'Geyser'. 3: I give a rat's ass what they think of me. Largely ties into the other two, but is just distinct enough to warrant a separate mention. Otherwise, I focus on efficiency which tends to set silly little emotional people off the deep end in synchronized diving.

In case you haven't guessed it, I again put that bit there specifically to see if you will jump on it yet again.

Well, it would be churlish of me not to jump again, wouldn't it? You didn't tell me anything I didn't already know, I'm afraid. And coming from the guy who, a while back, made the "Aubrey = Authority" crack, you'll forgive me if I don't get choked up with regret at being nasty to you. While I'm not that keen on being patronised by someone who probably isn't old enough to drink yet, I'll leave you with this. Eventually you might look back on this, with a bit more life experience, and feel somewhat embarrassed at the silliness of your comments in this exchange.

Crusader of Logic wrote:
Lastly, I'm not so concerned with respect here. It's a means to an end, but that's about it. If you're wrong, you will be corrected. If you stay wrong, you will be 'corrected'.

Is that seriously a threat? Thanks, that's been the biggest laugh in this whole exchange.

Look, I know you want to win. You can't. I'm sorry, but you blew it a while back. The logical thing to do at this point is to accept that we don't agree, we will never game together so it doesn't matter, and draw a veil over the whole thing. Especially as it is quite clear that what you want (a whole new fighter class with powerful class abilities) is not going to happen in PF for backwards-compatibility issues, if nothing else. So this then just becomes pointless flaming, which serves no purpose for you or me.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Sinfire Titan wrote:
made of fail.

Wow... another 1-post wonder spouting the favorite code phrase. Do you suppose they're self-replicating?

Seriously, the fighter needs a boost. We get it. But to echo the wise Suezo, can someone other than me PLEASE make some mechanical recommendations other than "use Bo9S or you suck"?

I already made my recommendation back during alpha 3 on the new rules board. Its still there. Its probably in the ballpark of tier 3. It has been totally ignored by anyone on the Paizo design staff as best I can determine. In fact, Jason has explicitly stated that he doesn't want to give the fighter class features beyond those already present.

I consider something approximating that (total capability/power, not necessarily exact abilities) to be the minimum necessary to make the fighter viable and not a mook class.

Liberty's Edge

Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
Is that seriously a threat? Thanks, that's been the biggest laugh in this whole exchange.

No, I think he's just saying he's going to goad you some more and be even more snarky about it. My suggestion would be to just ignore this and not respond to to it anymore. There's no harm in just walking away from something that doesn't help anyone.

Really these tgdmb guys are not a threat to anything. The Paizo crew have already flat out stated that they're not going to incorporate any of the kind of things they're suggesting. Looking up at your handle I see that you're a subscriber. Looking over at the tgdmb handles... Funny how that works out isn't it? ;) You don't have to feel sorry for them. They've got Frank & K's Tome and that's better for their style of game than Pathfinder will ever be.

Sam

The Exchange

Squirrelloid wrote:

I already made my recommendation back during alpha 3 on the new rules board. Its still there. Its probably in the ballpark of tier 3. It has been totally ignored by anyone on the Paizo design staff as best I can determine. In fact, Jason has explicitly stated that he doesn't want to give the fighter class features beyond those already present.

I consider something approximating that (total capability/power, not necessarily exact abilities) to be the minimum necessary to make the fighter viable and not a mook class.

I don't think that anyone violently disagrees with your general thrust, I think the degree of change you are looking for is excessive. A whole new set of class abilities, rather than incremental change, is probably out (I'm at work, so please forgive me as I don't have time to review the specifics of your comments but the tenor of them to date indicates that is the line you are taking) because of backwards-compatibility. It is also unfortunate that the discussion on feats, which are effectively the fighter's class abilities under the current model, is being locked down right now so a proper discussion cannot really be held about what might be possible within the parameters of the PF project. And also bear in mind that not everyone agrees with boosting the fighter as not everyone has the same play style or views on the power levels appropriate for a fighter (or a caster, come to that).

Scarab Sages

Well, let me be the first to apologize to Dryder.

I just realized that this is a Playtest thread and it has degenerated into a debate only vaguely related to the OP.

Crusader and squirrelloid: I've made suggestions as well (less hit points, harder to cast spells, change full attacks), not all of them have been taken into account or responded to and I knew that most wouldn't. Many other people have the same experience. But we don't get bothered by it. It isn't about taking all of one person's ideas, as good as they think they may be, it is about taking what Paizo thinks are the best ideas from all suggestions and fitting them into their design goals.

Scarab Sages

Matt Devney wrote:

You remember Vyl don't you Snorter? Two longsword wielding instrument of blurry death. A character prepared to take the 8d6 damage falling off a cliff to reclaim his lost sword, and then fight his way back through 80 orcs to get back to the party.

He was hard.

I remember he had his own set of dice, for use by him, and only him.

And a little bag for said dice.
And presumably, a special pencil for noting his special character sheet.
And, I suspect he had a special shrine at the side of your bed.

And...I'm worried, now.
You're very special, Matt.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Sinfire Titan wrote:
made of fail.

Wow... another 1-post wonder spouting the favorite code phrase. Do you suppose they're self-replicating?

Seriously, the fighter needs a boost. We get it. But to echo the wise Suezo, can someone other than me PLEASE make some mechanical recommendations other than "use Bo9S or you suck"?

As a start (not including a bookful of excellent fighter-only feats), I nominate:

1. Increase each +1 damage from weapon training to +1d6;
2. Add BAB to wizards' Spellcraft checks to cast defensively/keep spells when hit;
3. Give SR or some means of resisting auto-disable magic;
4. Allow fighters to make up to their full move, and all their iterative attacks, in one round, in whatever order or increments they choose;
5. Allow fighters to "hold" movement and/or attacks as immediate actions for later (to interrupt spellcasting, etc.);
6. Allow fighters a CMB roll to physically block enemy movement when using an immediate move to intercept them.

See where this is going? A fighter who can actually intercept enemies effectively, who can disrupt spellcasting effectively, and who can deal enough damage to matter. A guy who, if he gets within melee range of the wizard, will almost certainly kill him. In other words, the 1e fighter, 'ported into 3.X.

1: See the many failed Fighter fixes on the WotC boards (which the PF Fighter is a carbon copy of) for reasons why straight small damage boosts do nothing. See any thread about charging for the reasons why damage dice are inferior to straight bonuses even if the straight bonuses are lower. See any thread about melees where the speakers actually know what they are talking about to learn why charging is relevant, regardless of whether you want it to be or not.

2: Ok, but better pack a spiked chain or they'll just 5' step out of it and not care. Want to use any other weapon? Too bad.

3: SR is a liability. Enemy mages don't care. Having to waste a round lowering it so you can be buffed or healed is a problem.

The others I'd have to see to comment on.

Wrath wrote:
Wrongness.

Except that a 0% chance is still a 0% chance. If someone is a dozen yards away, and pointing a gun at you, and they are a crackshot with it there is a 0% chance you will be able to do anything to stop them before you are shot if you do not have a gun yourself. And even if you do have one, you still have to pull it out, aim, and shoot whereas the other guy skips to step 3. You'd need to be just as accurate, and far faster to have any chance at all. Likewise, there is only a tiny handful of situations where the Fighter can even hope to influence the probability via having the ability to do so, and even then he cannot do it that well. That means he is either a Lockdown tripper, or is charging at Save or Die levels. That's it. Otherwise, he doesn't even get to kill one enemy before the battle is over, he loses the full attack contest (which he will always do, even against monsters several levels lower), or everyone dies (him first).

Sueki Suezo wrote:
I don't want to derail the thread again, but I'd also like to point out that the relative disparity in power and damage between melee classes and caster classes may also have less to do with their class abilities and more to do with the current levels of spell damage output and the way that the metamagic system is structured. I can't help but think that once we hit a certain point, we're going to have to stop asking the question of how to make Fighters a Tier 3 class and start asking how to reduce the overall power level of the Tier 1 classes.

Spell damage no. If anything spell damage could use improvement so that the evoker isn't an utter joke compared to anyone who casts anything else but evocation.

Aubrey wrote:

I'm reading. But since everything you are saying runs counter to my experience as a DM and a player, I'm just not taking your word for it, I'm afraid. I know you guys are used to uttering phases in a confident manner and just hoping someone will believe you, but it's funny how fractious you get when challenged. When someone is going on about statistical analysis, they are basically saying "I don't play a lot of D&D". So I'll read but I wil be sceptical.

I audit mathematical models for a living - assumption bias is often the main reason they fail, since the maths itself is handled by the spreadsheet. The other is data integrity - garbage in, garbage out. You attitude and blind faith in these models, and a refusal to realise that you are making some very major simplifying assumptions (one-on-one, no buffs) and trying to then apply that back to a D&D session where you have a DM (who may not agree with your rules interpretation, like on golems and illusions) and other players doing stuff and making decisions independently. And there are so many potential variables in that that it undermines your analysis. Not totally, but the fact that you cannot see the potential flaws also makes me sceptical of your claims since it is clear your don't really understand your own model and its limitations.

When someone gets all mathematical and analytical it means they understand the system and how it works, and understand when something is just flat out not happening. There's a lot more to it than that, but this post is going to get long enough as it is. Once again you are putting words in my mouth, because if it was 'one on one' I would not be mentioning how he's a drag on others now would I? Of course he is expected to have a 50% chance of beating anything of his CR by himself using no resources he cannot get himself and without going nova (so no burning 10k of consumables to have a level 20 fighter reliably beat a Balor). He won't even come close, not in that example and not in any other unless he picks one of the two builds that kind of works. Then he has a chance.

Aubrey wrote:
Again, it ain't logic, it's play style. Define "useful" in logical terms. Define "fun" in logical terms. Your style of play seems to be about being the best in the party, and how the party can support you, not playing as a team. That's up to you, but that then feed through into your assumptions. It may be logical to take your attitude based upon that view, but the actual basis you are are using to make those judgements are based on subjective feelings. Your axioms are not empirically based, in other words.

My style is about pulling my weight, the others pull their weight, and we collectively help each other. Not get saddled down with dead weight, not have to constantly cover for someone else's deliberate or accidental incompetence, but work together as equals. That is what teamwork is. Fighter boy isn't a team player, again barring one of the two viable builds he ever gets. He's that high school kid who somehow got himself on an NBA team despite lacking professional level skills.

Aubrey wrote:
Perhaps - if you have that spell available. This is the "I have an infinite spellbook with everything I need in it, and I've memorised the whole thing" argument again.

You presume it is a singular spell. There are many that have that effect and there is no reason not to prepare many of them as Sinfire, myself, and other intelligent people have made clear many times. If you are out of all such spells you might have a point, but then you're running on fumes anyways and should be resting, not pressing on with your precious Fighter in OHKO territory.

Aubrey wrote:
Well, it would be churlish of me not to jump again, wouldn't it? You didn't tell me anything I didn't already know, I'm afraid. And coming from the guy who, a while back, made the "Aubrey = Authority" crack, you'll forgive me if I don't get choked up with regret at being nasty to you. While I'm not that keen on being patronised by someone who probably isn't old enough to drink yet, I'll leave you with this. Eventually you might look back on this, with a bit more life experience, and feel somewhat embarrassed at the silliness of your comments in this exchange.

Since you still are not intelligent enough to get it I will spell it out for you very clearly. The first comment was a trap, which I specifically declared to be a trap so that if you were actually reading my words, and had any sense at all you would simply ignore it and perhaps start actually reading what I write to throw off suspicion. Instead you jumped on it, despite my specifically saying again that it was a trap. As if that weren't enough, the same blatantly obvious thing gets you a second time, thereby proving beyond any reasonable doubt that you are not actually reading what I write and are instead trolling me. Between that and all the other times you've shown a failure of reading comprehension... Thank you for empirically proving that for me. By the way, I've been old enough to drink for quite some time. I choose not to, because booze kills brain cells, and killing brain cells tends to result in things like what you just did. This one is not bait, as that experiment has been concluded to my satisfaction. It does amuse me greatly though that someone that freaking oblivious is harping on about Wisdom. Hint: Obliviousness is a sign of very low Wisdom.

Aubrey wrote:

Is that seriously a threat? Thanks, that's been the biggest laugh in this whole exchange.

Look, I know you want to win. You can't. I'm sorry, but you blew it a while back. The logical thing to do at this point is to accept that we don't agree, we will never game together so it doesn't matter, and draw a veil over the whole thing. Especially as it is quite clear that what you want (a whole new fighter class with powerful class abilities) is not going to happen in PF for backwards-compatibility issues, if nothing else. So this then just becomes pointless flaming, which serves no purpose for you or me.

Hardly. I have no need to threaten. My actions do that for me. One side has me and my stuff, other has you and your stuff. Hell, I could be not there at all and my side (now empty) would still be the winning side. It's pointless to even mention, that's how much of a given it is. This so called backwards compatibility, if you are correct simply means PF cannot actually do anything to fix the issues they claim to be fixing and are therefore trying to market a set of house rules any singular DM could come up with on their own. Except somehow I doubt that, after all 3.0 was backwards compatible with 2.0 and they actually managed to make non cosmetic and relevant changes there, therefore PF could do exactly the same thing if they so chose.

Sam I am! wrote:

No, I think he's just saying he's going to goad you some more and be even more snarky about it. My suggestion would be to just ignore this and not respond to to it anymore. There's no harm in just walking away from something that doesn't help anyone.

Really these tgdmb guys are not a threat to anything. The Paizo crew have already flat out stated that they're not going to incorporate any of the kind of things they're suggesting. Looking up at your handle I see that you're a subscriber. Looking over at the tgdmb handles... Funny how that works out isn't it? ;) You don't have to feel sorry for them. They've got Frank & K's Tome and that's better for their style of game than Pathfinder will ever be.

Sam

At least one guy has figured out that 'This is a trap!' means that 'This is a trap!' and not 'Let's go swimming in the Gelatinous Cube!'

With that said I do find it amusing you are so quick to drag the gamer's den into this, presumably because everyone around here is still scared of one poster who hasn't even been here in months and is jumping around like rabbits on chocolate at every little shadow.

I don't agree with the Tomes for cosmetic reasons, that is to say they make the game even more about Rocket Launcher Tag so that only your initiative stat matters than it already is. But seeing as most of the stuff here is stuff that gets shot down on a daily basis for not even being good enough for amateurs, and Frank and Company can actually teach me quite a bit I don't know I'd say they have a far greater chance of being successful on the basis of knowing what they're doing far better.


Crusader of Logic wrote:
See the many failed Fighter fixes on the WotC boards for reasons why straight small damage boosts do nothing. See any thread about charging for the reasons why damage dice are inferior to straight bonuses even if the straight bonuses are lower.

I thought you were a math guy? Keep charging in the picture, by all means, and improved crits, and see if +1 (multiplies on crit) is better than +1d6 (doesn't). Actually run the numbers, then get back to me.

Then again, I never said the +1d6 shouldn't multiply.

Also, the spiked chain is no longer essential if you can wait for the wizard to start casting, then walk up from 20 ft. away and hit him, and know that you're going to disrupt his spell and be able to keep hitting him. 20 ft. reach > 10 ft., which in turn was > 5 ft. More math.

BTW, which part of "or some means of resisting auto-disable magic" didn't make sense?


Charging is about damage multipliers. Lots of them. Damage dice do not get multiplied. That help any?


Crusader of Logic wrote:
Charging is about damage multipliers. Lots of them. Damage dice do not get multiplied. That help any?

Not much help there... show me the numbers, math guy.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Crusader of Logic wrote:
Charging is about damage multipliers. Lots of them. Damage dice do not get multiplied. That help any?
Not much help there... show me the numbers, math guy.

*smack* *wall*

Since apparently you are incapable of 1st grade mathematics and incapable of doing the slightest bit of research yourself...

Charging is about multiplying your total damage by 4, 5, or even higher so that you do enough damage to actually threaten things. 1d6 is 3.5. 1 * 4, 5, whatever is more than 3.5. Therefore, making it bonus dice would be a further nerf to the Fighter. Remind me again why PF keeps nerfing them?


Crusader of Logic wrote:
Since apparently you are incapable of 1st grade mathematics and incapable of doing the slightest bit of research yourself... Charging is about multiplying your total damage by 4, 5, or even higher so that you do enough damage to actually threaten things.

Math is fine; research... depends what splatbooks we're talking -- if I don't own them, I'm not going to go to various stores and/or pirate sites looking for them. I see nothing core that does 5x damage on a charge; the best I can find is a Spirited Charge with a lance, which we'll both admit is way too situational to be of much help.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Crusader of Logic wrote:
Since apparently you are incapable of 1st grade mathematics and incapable of doing the slightest bit of research yourself... Charging is about multiplying your total damage by 4, 5, or even higher so that you do enough damage to actually threaten things.
Math is fine; research... depends what splatbooks we're talking -- if I don't own them, I'm not going to go to various stores and/or pirate sites looking for them. I see nothing core that does 5x damage on a charge; the best I can find is a Spirited Charge with a lance, which we'll both admit is way too situational to be of much help.

Druids and Paladins can use Mounted Combat (sometimes). Otherwise yes. Let's put it this way. A charger going all out just to pull out a big number is doing around 50k or so. That's 50,000. More realistically, as in a charger designed to work in a game instead of just show off theoretical optimization you're running more like several hundred a round, which is where the ability to do enough damage to matter comes from since after all enemies have hundreds of HP, and toe the 4 digit line before epic which means it is simply a requirement to keep doing HP damage relevant. Take a guess as to how many multipliers that requires, since I don't have a charge thread in front of me.


Crusader of Logic wrote:
A charger going all out just to pull out a big number is doing around 50k or so. That's 50,000. More realistically, as in a charger designed to work in a game instead of just show off theoretical optimization you're running more like several hundred a round

I can't begin to guess; I have no idea where these numbers or multipliers are coming from. Is that 50,000 points of damage? There might well be 56 stacking feats in Joe Schlepp's Splatbook from Hell that exponentially multiply charge damage, but I don't know of them, won't go hunting for them, and wouldn't allow them anyway. In the core Beta rules, I see nothing that comes close to that.

I'm sticking to the Beta (and specific proposed alterations) because, if I allow any random 3rd party sources whatsoever into the discussion, I can reference some feat from an unpublished pamphlet that says a fighter can automatically kill every wizard on the planet as a free action every round... but that doesn't "mathematically prove" that the Beta fighter is better than the Beta wizard.


Samuel Leming wrote:

Really these tgdmb guys are not a threat to anything. The Paizo crew have already flat out stated that they're not going to incorporate any of the kind of things they're suggesting. Looking up at your handle I see that you're a subscriber. Looking over at the tgdmb handles... Funny how that works out isn't it? ;) You don't have to feel sorry for them. They've got Frank & K's Tome and that's better for their style of game than Pathfinder will ever be.

Sam

Forgive my ignorance, but who is the "tgdmb" crew of which you speak and where would one procure this "Frank & K's Tome"?


Crusader of Logic wrote:
Sueki Suezo wrote:

I don't want to derail the thread again, but I'd also like to point out that the relative disparity in power and damage between melee classes and caster classes may also have less to do with their class abilities and more to do with the current levels of spell damage output and the way that the metamagic system is structured. I can't help but think that once we hit a certain point, we're going to have to stop asking the question of how to make Fighters a Tier 3 class and start asking how to reduce the overall power level of the Tier 1 classes.

Spell damage no. If anything spell damage could use improvement so that the evoker isn't an utter joke compared to anyone who casts anything else but evocation.

If spell damage is not the issue, what do you feel that would need to be done to drop the Tier 1 classes down to Tier 2 or 3?

The Exchange

Crusader of Logic wrote:
lots of poor statistics and misused probability completely out of context of a "play" test

Once again Crusader of Logic wades in with some statistical analyisis of little relevence as it is not applied to any real situation arising in a game nor does it factor in any of the myriad variables that can occur within a game, including the setup of the encounter which you always appear to think of as 300feet of open space and clear line of site/line of effect.

I believe it was Vic Wertz in his thread about what a play test is that stated the company wasn't interested in mathematical formulas or poorly applied probabilty and statistics. The company has already done the maths. However, you seem to be of insufficient intelligence to have gleaned this fact, despite it being openly stated and not hidden. I think you need to look at one of the criteria in your list of what makes a friend for you. One of them states they have to be your intellectual peer, but from everything I can tell so far, that leaves the benchmark fairly low and opens the field up to almost everyone. Not really good for someone who claims to be discerning in their friends.

Squirreloid got it and has since been running a number of playtests to prove his points (and has some very valid points as a consequence).

You havn't done any such thing. You look at peoples ideas, apply your "mathematical model" based in your faulty logic and poorly designed perfect world and then flame anyone who doesn't write your exact ideas.

I understand you work on the squeeky wheel process in trying to get your ideas across, however until such time as you actually playtest some of the ideas people propose, present anectdotal evidence of the ideas from real game play and stop promoting splat books as the fix to a system being written by a company not allowed to use them, your squeeky wheel concpet won't work as people just stop listening to you.

I'll say it clearly for you so you don't get confused with your apparent lack of understanding even simple english. Start playing some games with the new rules and some of the suggested fixes others are trying. Then report back.

Playing games with yourself in your head isn't a playtest, nor very fun from what I can tell. I suspect it's the reason your so snarky all the time.

No appologies from me for this one. I've written it to you in the same tone you seem to write to others, as it appears to be the only style of writing your capapble of listening to.


"It's a trap!"


Sueki Suezo wrote:
Crusader of Logic wrote:
Sueki Suezo wrote:

I don't want to derail the thread again, but I'd also like to point out that the relative disparity in power and damage between melee classes and caster classes may also have less to do with their class abilities and more to do with the current levels of spell damage output and the way that the metamagic system is structured. I can't help but think that once we hit a certain point, we're going to have to stop asking the question of how to make Fighters a Tier 3 class and start asking how to reduce the overall power level of the Tier 1 classes.

Spell damage no. If anything spell damage could use improvement so that the evoker isn't an utter joke compared to anyone who casts anything else but evocation.

If spell damage is not the issue, what do you feel that would need to be done to drop the Tier 1 classes down to Tier 2 or 3?

Tgdmb = The Gamer's Den. It's a place where people extremely knowledgeable about the game hang out. A lot of people here don't like it because they don't dance around with political correctness, they get to the point. And when someone tries to insinuate they are wrong when they clearly are right it's open season with the firestorms time. If they actually are wrong though they can deal with that, because they're actually quite cool as long as you don't set them off.

Most people around here are scared ****less of Frank Trollman, because he's the expert among experts and doesn't tolerate any crap, therefore he very frequently smites in a manner that makes my efforts look amateurish. Even though the man hasn't touched these forums in months, they're still scared of him and see him in every shadow.

With that out of the way, the issue has never been spell damage because the damage dealing spells are just laughable. Now, just about every other offensive spell... Instant win encounters, anyone? Then there's the various infinite loops with core spells alone... Most of the difference between Tier 1 and Tier 3 is the former has infinite cash and a harem of Pit Fiends/Solars/whatever else he wants and the latter does not. Beguilers for example get most of the good Wizard spells spontaneously along with some skill monkey and trapfinding goodness. This is before you expand their spell list by any number of means.

It is necessary to discuss being the sub tier 3 stuff up before discussing bring the higher tier stuff down, as otherwise nothing can fill the gap, the guys that were dragging the whole party through now can't, and everyone dies. But you bring the lesser options up first, then bring the greater options down and you have something a lot closer to teamwork.

Oh and I'm ignoring that big pile of straw man arguments, falsification of my position, and useless insults that is Wrath's post. At least learn how to use insults to get a point across. Instead it's just blah blah ****ing blah.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Crusader of Logic wrote:
Sueki Suezo wrote:
Crusader of Logic wrote:
Sueki Suezo wrote:

I don't want to derail the thread again, but I'd also like to point out that the relative disparity in power and damage between melee classes and caster classes may also have less to do with their class abilities and more to do with the current levels of spell damage output and the way that the metamagic system is structured. I can't help but think that once we hit a certain point, we're going to have to stop asking the question of how to make Fighters a Tier 3 class and start asking how to reduce the overall power level of the Tier 1 classes.

Spell damage no. If anything spell damage could use improvement so that the evoker isn't an utter joke compared to anyone who casts anything else but evocation.

If spell damage is not the issue, what do you feel that would need to be done to drop the Tier 1 classes down to Tier 2 or 3?

Tgdmb = The Gamer's Den. It's a place where people extremely knowledgeable about the game hang out. A lot of people here don't like it because they don't dance around with political correctness, they get to the point. And when someone tries to insinuate they are wrong when they clearly are right it's open season with the firestorms time. If they actually are wrong though they can deal with that, because they're actually quite cool as long as you don't set them off.

Most people around here are scared ****less of Frank Trollman, because he's the expert among experts and doesn't tolerate any crap, therefore he very frequently smites in a manner that makes my efforts look amateurish. Even though the man hasn't touched these forums in months, they're still scared of him and see him in every shadow.

With that out of the way, the issue has never been spell damage because the damage dealing spells are just laughable. Now, just about every other offensive spell... Instant win encounters, anyone? Then there's the various infinite loops with core spells alone... Most of the difference between...

CoL,

What is your goal here? If it's to get your ideas adopted, you've comprehensively failed because of your, let's be charitable, abrasive posting style and seeming incomprehension that Paizo wants actual playtest results and not theoretical exercises based on assumptions about what's good.

If your goal is to prove you're an arrogant, aggressive prick who dump-statted charisma to an degree illegal in the Beta, you're doing quite a good job. Keep up the good work.

Oh, and politeness is not political correctness. Just thought I'd point it out again as you seem incapable of actually learning the difference.

EDIT: Scared of Trollman? Why on Earth would we be scared of him? What's he going to do? Post something nasty about us? Oh, noes, my fragile self-esteem could not tolerate that. However would I cope knowing Frank Trollman disagreed with me? Get serious.


"Scared" might indeed be OK for some people, but for many others, "not willing to put up with his 'Comic Book Guy' attitude" would be a lot closer to the mark.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8

Crusader of Logic wrote:

Tgdmb = The Gamer's Den. It's a place where people extremely knowledgeable about the game hang out. A lot of people here don't like it because they don't dance around with political correctness, they get to the point. And when someone tries to insinuate they are wrong when they clearly are right it's open season with the firestorms time. If they actually are wrong though they can deal with that, because they're actually quite cool as long as you don't set them off.

Most people around here are scared ****less of Frank Trollman, because he's the expert among experts and doesn't tolerate any crap, therefore he very frequently smites in a manner that makes my efforts look amateurish. Even though the man hasn't touched these forums in months, they're still scared of him and see him in every shadow.

No.


What was the topic again? "Stop buffing the fighter class", right?

Can we get past being so personal and return to discussing stuff which matters? I believe that people who think that Fighter class is strong enough are OK with Fighters needing to use crutches and support from spellcasters, while those who like everyone to be able to stand on their own, would like to see Fighter brought up so they can become finally an emancipated class.

Hopefully, that about sums up the opinions presented in this thread.

Now, the question is:
1. Do we keep the Fighter where it is now?
2. Should we bring the Fighter to be closer to become an emancipated class?
3. Should there be opportunity (and, if there is a chance) to somehow allow both ways (i.e. allow optimal and suboptimal develoment of fighter characters)?

Personally, I definitely want to see 2. I run campaign where supply of magic items is scarce, and already fighters feel underpowered (and we're only a few levels above 10th).

regards,
Ruemere


I love how people go on and on and on about how mean I'm being when my smites are reactive, ergo something triggered them. And there's a whole lot of people around here taking shots at me claiming facts are opinions, or just wrong and that I'm this and I'm that. Then they whine, and whine, and whine when I turn around and Smite Imbecile for Great Justice. It's so pathetic it has has rolled over into awesome, then back into pathetic.

Well here's a tip for you. If you don't want to know what Metamagic abuse feels like, don't piss off the Archmage. Likewise, if you do not want to be attacked then stop attacking me (and if that means not replying to me at all, you're doing us both a favor).

By the way Charisma isn't 'likability' unless you think Mind Flayers and Dragons are like porn stars (and if you do, I question your sanity). In fact both of those creatures would just see you as lunch if they saw you at all because you are their clear lesser and beneath their presence. Charisma is your ability to get others to do what you want them to do. Seeing as I possess both the ability to reduce grown people to sniveling heaps in seconds and the ability to near effortlessly get people to do things, even if those things are against their nature I'd say my Charisma is a lot closer to 26 than 6. I just do not abide stupidity in my presence.

The Exchange

Crusader of Logic wrote:
I just do not abide stupidity in my presence.

You must have trouble with mirrors then :)

The Exchange

ruemere wrote:

What was the topic again? "Stop buffing the fighter class", right?

Can we get past being so personal and return to discussing stuff which matters? I believe that people who think that Fighter class is strong enough are OK with Fighters needing to use crutches and support from spellcasters, while those who like everyone to be able to stand on their own, would like to see Fighter brought up so they can become finally an emancipated class.

Hopefully, that about sums up the opinions presented in this thread.

Now, the question is:
1. Do we keep the Fighter where it is now?
2. Should we bring the Fighter to be closer to become an emancipated class?
3. Should there be opportunity (and, if there is a chance) to somehow allow both ways (i.e. allow optimal and suboptimal develoment of fighter characters)?

Personally, I definitely want to see 2. I run campaign where supply of magic items is scarce, and already fighters feel underpowered (and we're only a few levels above 10th).

regards,
Ruemere

Reumere, the reason I waded into the argument side of things was because posters were saying fighters were completely useless and should be dumped at high level.

I certainly don't think they're perfect but I do feel they serve a purpose and do it ok.

I did propose some tweaks above that I think will improve fighters at high level. Mostly its about allowing them to maximise their potential to do what they do. Lots of attacks.

Also some ability to prevent opponents moving past them.

- Another idea might be to provide fighters with the abilty to prevent movement in the immediate threatend squares. Any movement. However this would make chain fighters a little crazy.

- Eventually the threads will open on other areas of the rules, things such as skills and feats. This is where many of the proposed fixes for fighter will come in (with luck).

Skills like spellcraft checks to make you immune to attacks while casting in threatend squares probably need looking at. Increasing the DC with the attack bonus of your opponenet would be more challenging indeed and would probably prevent the instant pass I get in my games at the moment. I would have to playtest the rule though to see how it played out.

I also see a problem with the mechanic of a spellcaster not worrying about damage unless its actually during the action phase of their turn. I think if a caster takes damage in any part of their turn it needs to be considered for interrupting spell casting. This rule cange will also affect the usefulness of fighters, at all levels.

I can't really comment on damage output increases, because the fighter types in my group seem pretty good at putting the hurt on opponents. BBEG opponents are toughies, but then they challenge all the players in my games. With this experience I don't fully see the probelm with fighter damage output. However this is because I do house rule one of my rule suggestions above that allows fighters to more frequently use the majority of their attacks.

I'd like to see the readied action and held action rolled into one thing. Hold your action until a trigger is released then do your full action. I have a DM who house rules this one and it changed the whole face of tactics in our games. Suddenly fighter types were very good interceptors. It also made spell casters (both enemies and PC's) think long and hard about the postions from where they were casting.

However most of these are rule tweaks outside the realm of the fighter alone, so I'm hoping to get some of these across when those relevent threads are opoened.

Cheers

PS. on a side note, if you limit magic items in the game are you also limiting magic in terms of spells available and creatures encountered? That's a genuinely curious question btw, I like to see how others design their worlds for ideas I can pilfer. I could definitely see fighters struggling in that game world but it's your world so go for it.
I play a world where magic is readily available and widely used and the problem is far less obvious in our game. Maybe the settings we're using is also part of the clouding issue.

Scarab Sages

Crusader, referring to your side of a debate as "Smiting Imbeciles for Great Justice" isn't helping your case. It isn't funny, it isn't clever - wait, I take that back, it IS funny because it is laughably juvenile.

Second, you keep referring to "attacks" and you having to "respond". You've made it quite clear that you do not tolerate people who you disagree with, think are stupid, enjoy other games, somehow offend you, etc. You set yourself up to be offended, because you inherently and admittedly deal with people in a divisive and antagonistic manner and for some reason consider your personal views to make you superior to the other people on these boards.

Now, as to the issue of the fighter, I've brought this up before. One of the reasons I feel fighters fall behind is that the warrior classes are forced to use a high percentage of their WBL on combat gear just to keep up with the enemy. The spellcasters are not subject to this limitation, and can freely spend their wealth on other powerful items.

How can we deal with this? We could: (A) reduce WBL for spellcasters, which is too complicated, or (B) force spellcasters to pay to upgrade their spells, the way it used to be. The fact that wizards, for example, get 2 free spells per level means they do not have to pay to upkeep their primary resource. Clerics get an even better deal. Finally, we could (C) give fighters titles, meaning they receive income from their lands in terms of extra wealth at certain levels. Monks can receive bonuses from their pseudo-magical ki without disrupting the game too much. Rangers have other areas in which Jason can increase their abilities.


I understand the point you are trying to make and I appreciate the humor. However, we both know, a first level wizard would very rarely choose spells for such remote situation (as you mentioned). More importantly, this wizard is not a slayer of anything. It just bypassed the golem momentarily. Also, if the golem were starring at the wizard and them a cloud obscures the wizard, the golem would go into the cloud looking for said wizard (as you said). But, wouldn't he continue to look for the wizard regardless of other non-threatening affects? A silent image cannot get his attention if the golem is not looking at it, which it is not, as it is focusing on the obscuring mist.

anyway, this is moot. points have been made in this post about the strengths and weaknesses or caster/non-caster. There will never be one superior to the other in all situations. I think it should come down to a good DM to A: prevent munchkin or broken characters to start with B: provide adequate challenge with a fair chance of success. Also, a true role-player will in my humble opinion strive to put their player knowledge on hold and attempt to get through the trials of their campaign which, due to near infinite variation, far outstrip mere mechanics.

i.e. can't we all just get along :)

Sovereign Court

I'm not sure it's possible to have a constructive conversation with someone who likens themself to an archmage.


Crusader of Logic wrote:
Tgdmb = The Gamer's Den. It's a place where people extremely knowledgeable about the game hang out. A lot of people here don't like it because they don't dance around with political correctness, they get to the point. And when someone tries to insinuate they are wrong when they clearly are right it's open season with the firestorms time. If they actually are wrong though they can deal with that, because they're actually quite cool as long as you don't set them off.

It's very unfortunate that what amounts to a culture clash and a failure of diplomacy is effectively eliminating good ideas before they can even be seriously considered. Based on what I've seen from your posters so far, you seem to have a laundry list of suggestions on how to improve the game. I'm especially interested in your specific ideas regarding how to balance Tier 1s downwards and balance Tier 3s upwards - this seems to be the core controversy that causes the most arguments on the Paizo Forums right now.


Sueki Suezo wrote:
Crusader of Logic wrote:
Tgdmb = The Gamer's Den. It's a place where people extremely knowledgeable about the game hang out. A lot of people here don't like it because they don't dance around with political correctness, they get to the point. And when someone tries to insinuate they are wrong when they clearly are right it's open season with the firestorms time. If they actually are wrong though they can deal with that, because they're actually quite cool as long as you don't set them off.
It's very unfortunate that what amounts to a culture clash and a failure of diplomacy is effectively eliminating good ideas before they can even be seriously considered. Based on what I've seen from your posters so far, you seem to have a laundry list of suggestions on how to improve the game. I'm especially interested in your specific ideas regarding how to balance Tier 1s downwards and balance Tier 3s upwards - this seems to be the core controversy that causes the most arguments on the Paizo Forums right now.

You know, I was going to stop threadjacking this thread... but as long as this discussion is happening here it might as well happen.

The first problem with communicating what needs to be done with the game is convincing people of what the actual problems are.

Problem 1: Not everybody is comfortable with optimization. However, as that's where the cutting edge of balance needs to be, that's where the discussion has to occur. Example: Assuming non-optimized things like Wizards casting direct damage on a regular basis is a poor starting point, because that's the weakest possible option and as soon as you have a wizard who does *anything else*, the game breaks down, especially at mid-high levels.

Problem 2: Not everyone is familiar with the totality of the game (levels 1-20). That's fine, I rarely play levels 1-3 at all, preferences are different. However, its important to realize that the nature of the game changes drastically from level 5 to level 10, and again from level 10 to level 15. Example: Many people who think the martial classes are fine spend most of their time playing 1-5 or so, and rarely (if ever) get higher than 10th level. To all those people who want the fighter to be the guy with a sword and no supernatural powers, I say to you 'fine, enjoy playing levels 1-8, and let the rest of us have a mid-high level game where people can actually play something other than a full caster'. Unfortunately, most people with that opinion want it to be true 1-20 even if they've never played a game above 10th level in their life. (I'm sure some have, but I know there are others who haven't).

Problem 3: Not everyone understands why casters outclass non-casters. Its not the ability to get bigger numbers (although sometimes they can *also* do that), its the range of options (often powerful options) that allow casters to shine. Until people understand and accept that just adding bigger numbers doesn't fix anything, then we'll continue to have stupid discussions about classes like the fighter where someone thinks the answer is adding more damage/AC/etc.... I'm holding judgement for the moment on the 3.P fighter until I see Jason's new and improved feats.

Problem 4: Not everyone understands economy of actions. Its the basic tenant of the game - you have limited actions in a combat scenario, you shouldn't be expected to waste actions on abilities that aren't worth your time.

Problem 5: Not everyone understands that spending resources should reward you. Whenever you spend a resource to gain access to an ability, that ability should frequently be better than abilities which required no resources to be able to perform. (Ie, any feat-enabled ability needs to be better than a comparable 'free' action like an attack (if the ability uses an attack action)).

Problem 6: More paizo specific, but if the desired balance point is below the power level of some current classes, those classes need to be *reduced in power*, which means removing abilities from the classes, and backwards compatibility be damned. You can't have a class keep all its abilities and reduce its power significantly at the same time. Example: Druid - something has to go. Choose one of AC, Wildshape, full spellcasting. I vote for not wildshape, as that ability is at least unique and a valid fantasy archetype, but I'd be fine making druids into non-casters, half-casters, or without an AC. *Something* has to go.

Problem 7: No problem can be fixed by houserules for all games - if there's a problem in the rules it needs to be fixed in the rules. IMHO, new DMs shouldn't be penalized because they didn't realize that certain abilities were far too powerful when used *exactly as written*. A RAW standard needs to be held to the entire ruleset.

Problem 8: DMs often coddle players. Example - creatures attacking the martial characters when they could easily get to and attack the dangerous casters. Sure, it lets the fighter/barbarian/monk/whatever do something for a couple rounds, but there's really no reason for team monster to waste actions on those characters most of the time. This behavior is basically pretending there is a 'draw aggro' ability built into frontline classes which they don't actually possess, and that monsters with sometimes incredible intelligence can't figure out that the guy throwing dangerous spells around should be its first priority.

Basically, those of us whom I'm sure are getting grouped into the /tgd/ crowd are familiar with optimization, and have been discussing D+D online in places like the old CO boards at WotC and the like for quite a while. We've seen all the crazy that is possible in the rules, and we've seen what the various classes are capable of. And now we've got to convince people with very different impressions of the game that there is a world beyond what they're used to, stripped of all their houserules and run strictly as written. We have to convince people who've never seen level 10 that the game changes remarkably at a certain point and can't be played in the same way anymore. And so forth. Many of the changes we advocate only matter and/or become significant at relatively high levels of play, but that doesn't stop the 1-10 crowd from screaming bloody murder when we give the fighter something which might smell a little of magic at level 11.

Honestly, if you don't make a deliberate effort to break the game you are not playtesting the system. That's what playtesting does, pushes the edges and sees where something fails. The last thing you do during a playtest is do exactly what they expect you to do - they've already done that. They know it works there.

So how do you balance Tier 1 down and Tier 5 up to try to hit a tier 3 median? First you convince people that yes, those tiers actually exist, and that the classes really are that badly imbalanced. Which requires surmounting all 8 problems above. If you can't convince people the problem exists, they don't believe you and it never gets fixed. Of course, the moment you provide proof you hear a never-ending wave of 'no sane DM would allow that' and other nonsense. Meet me at 12 years old - had played once, started DMing in early 2nd edition. Like I had a clue how to run a game in a way that was 'sane' and 'reasonable'. I only knew what the rulebook told me. (Fortunately, 2nd edition was a lot more forgiving of mistakes than 3.x, because the benefits of system mastery were smaller - especially pre-kits and other class-enhancement products).

Liberty's Edge

Sueki Suezo wrote:
Forgive my ignorance, but who is the "tgdmb" crew of which you speak and where would one procure this "Frank & K's Tome"?

People who post at http://www.tgdmb.com and/or subscribe to their philosophy.

You can find Frank & K's Tome at:
http://turing.bard.edu/~mk561/frank_k_0.5.1.pdf

If you prefer an ultra-gamist style of D&D you'll find it useful. It's good to read anyway just to have a better idea where some people are coming from.

Sam

Sczarni

150 posts and no real solution, just a lot of stupid back and forth on the nature of playtesting and whos gamer cred is better than the others.

man i feel sad right now

-t

101 to 150 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