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


Playtest Reports

501 to 544 of 544 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>

ID beg to differ that a core 10th level wizzard with core spells can wipe the floor with even four fighters his own level, if the fighters are played intelligently.

Now with that being said, I keep reading all these posts about "builds" and hundreds of damage per round.

I am the first one to say that the fighter of old (1e) has been nerfed by new rules.

However, he was never capabe of dishing out hundreds of damage per round! in 1e that would have made him capable of killing any god in the dieties and demi gods book, in one round.

The major problem here, is this kind of damage makes the longsowrd irrelevant (1-8). Monsters and creatures with unholy hitpoints ang bos and gobs of ability to deal out massive damage, how did this all happen?

in 1e (back when you could kill gods)top level fighters were limited to about 90 or so hit poiints, with most of the classes in the 60-70 range.
That made a "god" or"arch devil" with 200 well...a "god!"

Min/maxers and splat bookers have ruined this game by creating things that throw all the basics out of proportion.
a 20th level fighter in current rules with an 18 con (and some other things along the way) can have over 300 hit points. But then some people say they can "build" a character that can do that kind ofdamage in a single round.
I personally have never seen this, but Ihavent been part of a game in years that has gone over 14-15th level.

the oodles of hit points and damage dont make anything any better. In 1e if you only had 90 hit points, dont worry the dragon could only wip out 45. How is it HPs have gotten crazy but the ability to heal all this damage has stayed the same (cure light wounds 1-8) so basically, the heal spell is the only relevant one at highe rlevels?

Sovereign Court

Pendagast wrote:

ID beg to differ that a core 10th level wizzard with core spells can wipe the floor with even four fighters his own level, if the fighters are played intelligently.

Now with that being said, I keep reading all these posts about "builds" and hundreds of damage per round.

I am the first one to say that the fighter of old (1e) has been nerfed by new rules.

However, he was never capabe of dishing out hundreds of damage per round! in 1e that would have made him capable of killing any god in the dieties and demi gods book, in one round.

Sure, which is why nowadays the damage amounts, which look big to we 1e veterans, actually aren't as big as they look. As you go on to say...

Pendagast wrote:

The major problem here, is this kind of damage makes the longsowrd irrelevant (1-8). Monsters and creatures with unholy hitpoints ang bos and gobs of ability to deal out massive damage, how did this all happen?

in 1e (back when you could kill gods)top level fighters were limited to about 90 or so hit poiints, with most of the classes in the 60-70 range.
That made a "god" or"arch devil" with 200 well...a "god!"

Min/maxers and splat bookers have ruined this game by creating things that throw all the basics out of proportion.
a 20th level fighter in current rules with an 18 con (and some other things along the way) can have over 300 hit points. But then some people say they can "build" a character that can do that kind ofdamage in a single round.
I personally have never seen this, but Ihavent been part of a game in years that has gone over 14-15th level.

the oodles of hit points and damage dont make anything any better. In 1e if you only had 90 hit points, dont worry the dragon could only wip out 45. How is it HPs have gotten crazy but the ability to heal all this damage has stayed the same (cure light wounds 1-8) so basically, the heal spell is the only relevant one at highe rlevels?

I guess that the oodles of hit points do mean you could have more variety, but the damage doesn't scale well enough for core meleers accordingly, so meleers are ignorable. Meanwhile, damage-dealing spells are also no good anymore as a result; unlike fighters, though, who have limited options, wizards have plenty of combat-ending spells that don't do direct damage.

I don't think that min/maxers have ruined the game at all, though; what they've done is exposed where the game has design flaws. 3.x was designed to have more prescriptive rules, but when you go that route you limit the DMs abilities to manage things; that's fine if the rules work, but as has been shown, at higher level they just don't work very well. Now we can all avoid these problems with play style and DMing style -- players can play casters so they aren't so powerful, meleers can optimise and meanwhile the DM can play opponents stupid so that the meleers can have some fun and be relevant (this is basically what my group does, and we have a lot of fun) -- so I don't think that min/maxers have ruined anything for the rest of us. They have, however, shown where 3.x fails in its design goals (and PFRPG will necessarily inherit some of those, otherwise it wouldn't look much like 3.x).


well yea true, I dont play the game that way and no one ive ever played with plays that way, so when I was hearing about being able to dish out 200-300 damage per round I was like "who da what?"

also with all these "builds" like : ftr/bard/sorc/druid/mt/at/crazy splatbook class.... I mean what the heck, dont you need to time to mentor, train and learn to do these things? Or do DMs just throw out those rules and say if the class is printed you can take a level in it?

I mean if someone was a fighter and wanted to be a monk, and there were no monk NPCs currently, Id make the character quest to go find a monastery, which means if they were in the middle of a dungeon, or camapaign they would either have to level in something available, or go off on their own, missing exp and treasure and being behind the rest of the group, no?

Leveling in all these dipped in classes at 'just the right time' to maximize their character, simply means no one is actually role playing.

This is WHY the core classes GOT buffed, so people would play a fighter for 20 levels (or a rogue) and not have these insane builds you cant even write in the place for the character sheet.

I mean fine, if you play a chaotic neutral schitzo character and you have 8 characer classes, that might make sense for a character (and it be kinda cool under those pretenses!), but i also dont think they'd all line up perfectly with only the right amount of levels in each class for the uber build either.

Also, if you're a fighter, there is one in every village, so you can always train, sorc, rogue, wizard, same deal, mentors a plenty, schools and guilds every where.
Bard colleges? a little more rare, Barbarians fairly easy to get mentorship.
Rangers, harder still
Druids would have to locate the nearest circle of elders for further training as there are not "cities" to go to find one.
Clerics fairly simple unessl yu have a weird diety.

But how does one become an arcane trickster, if you've never even met one in game?

Thats the main thing that made the fighter good back in the day too, so simple, you just had to pay the gold cost at the local fighter guild, or to the catain of the city watch and train yourself up!

(but they still need a buff to keep them from running off and making a "build" with five other character classes)


Pathfinder Card Game, Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Pendagast wrote:
ID beg to differ that a core 10th level wizzard with core spells can wipe the floor with even four fighters his own level, if the fighters are played intelligently.

Perhaps, and perhaps not. I still believe a prepared wizard – and all wizards of high level should be somewhat prepared – is deadly. But I will admit that the case that came closest to proving my point was with a 10th level wizard that did have a non core prestige class and non core spells, but that is actually my point. The power spiral will always be there and part of the fun of playing d20 and 3.X and PF and all the other derivatives is being able to pick and choose stuff from other books and material. Heck, Paizo themselves need to release such material if they intend to stay in business and part of their aim is to make PF backwards compatible so you can still use your hundreds or thousands of dollars worth of other d20 and 3.5 material. (I have two ceiling high bookshelves full of the stuff and have every intention of making it three if Paizo can pull this off.)

But the point really is as long as there are splat books there will continue to be power spirals with better classes, spells, feats, magic items and so forth. Which means that same core class wizard now has access to spells never thought of before, and he can chop and change as he needs, where the fighter still has his same feats he did when you first created him, with maybe only a few that are new and uber cool, compared to the twenty new uber cool spells the wizard has in his spell book. So suddenly this 10th level wizard has a 4th level spell that has an area affect and medium range that reduces strength and dexterity to 0 and requires a Will save (the fighter’s weak save) to negate. (Yes this spell does exist – my player used it well). Suddenly those 4 fighters don’t seem so threatening… and that’s just one of his non core spells.

Of course as GMs we could ban such spells and similar powers from the game, but where is the fun in that. More so, I don’t really enjoy spending thousands of dollars on books only to ban my players from using what’s in them, (even more so when those new spells, magic items and what nots are from the campaign setting). So in short, if a spell caster’s spells are what tips them towards the sides of gods in the balance war, then do the same for the fighter (and inadvertently for the other fighter types). Give them stacks more cool and new and powerful combat feats and manoeuvres to choose from, (and then possibly allow them to pick and choose some of these anew each day as part of their “one hour training session each morning”, just like a wizard or cleric picks and chooses their spells for the day.)


so 4 15th level fighters are all going to be within the same area of effect at the same time?

Doubt they got to that level by doing that. Just like army rangers huddling together so a hand grenade can get them all.....


Pathfinder Card Game, Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Pendagast wrote:

so 4 15th level fighters are all going to be within the same area of effect at the same time?

Doubt they got to that level by doing that. Just like army rangers huddling together so a hand grenade can get them all.....

Yes that’s right, these warriors were having high tea, all huddled together swapping recipes while discussing the latest Barbie DVD when the mean evil wizard jumped them all and with a wave of his magic wand made the poor little soldiers loose all their strength and dex... how silly of me to make that mistake.


As has been stated before, uber cool feats are fine but in all honesty all you need to do is allow movement and full attacks, 1 feat like pounce would do wonders, or give up attack for additional movement and actually make wizards have a hard time making concentration, oh my bad, spellcraft checks. As is any wizard worth his salt should have spellcraft maxed and a great intel, sorry sorcerer and cleric, likely to always make his save.
Along the lines of the last couple of posts. The wizard has to be prepared, but to be a high level fighter you don't, either the fighter is better than the wizard on a day to day basis or give those 4 fighter credit for being prepared. Arrows of silence, or Mage bane arrows, or poison, lord knows a wizard should fail a fort save and numbers say one of them will beat the wizards initiative then game on even playing field.


I think the primary problem here is that the "sweet spot" - the point where the respective classes fire on all cylinders and do what you want the to - for the fighter and wizard are very different. Fighters excel at low levels; wizards excel at high levels.

How this translates out to "wizards roe, fighters suck" is beyond me; from my experience, there are a lot more low-level than high-level campaigns I tend to play my games starting at 1st level, like you're supposed to, and work your way up. Go figure.


Pathfinder Card Game, Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Texicutioner wrote:


Along the lines of the last couple of posts. The wizard has to be prepared, but to be a high level fighter you don't, either the fighter is better than the wizard on a day to day basis or give those 4 fighter credit for being prepared. Arrows of silence, or Mage bane arrows, or poison, lord knows a wizard should fail a fort save and numbers say one of them will beat the wizards initiative then game on even playing field.

Agreed, but in this particular case arrows were not really a threat to this wizard. However my key concern with this that technically those fighters that have the magebane arrows or arrows of silence still need a wizard or spell caster of some sort to make those weapons for them somewhere along the line. I would like to see some fighter abilities that don’t rely on the fighter to have shares in the local mageware shop.


Pathfinder Card Game, Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Matthew Hooper wrote:
I think the primary problem here is that the "sweet spot" - the point where the respective classes fire on all cylinders and do what you want the to - for the fighter and wizard are very different. Fighters excel at low levels; wizards excel at high levels.

Too true.

Matthew Hooper wrote:
How this translates out to "wizards roe, fighters suck" is beyond me; from my experience, there are a lot more low-level than high-level campaigns I tend to play my games starting at 1st level, like you're supposed to, and work your way up. Go figure.

Personally I much prefer low level campaigns to high level ones. But in truth my campaigns actually take years in of real time to complete and tend to be quite epic, meaning my players grow from level 1 to 20+ over several 5 or 6 years. In my current game the average character is 10th level and we have been playing the same campaign since 2003. But I also prefer low magic campaigns, so I suppose PF and 3.5 is not really the best RPG for that as being able to pop into your local 7-11 and stock up potions, +5 flaming swords and bags of holding is par for the course in these systems.

So my players that don't have all the “normal” magical gear do tend to be hard pressed against a spell caster or two, and killing a dragon isn’t really something that happens before breakfast, which is the way we like it. Things tend to have a more epic feel. Most of the characters have estates and keeps of their own, with followers and cohorts and business and such, affiliations to guilds and princes and dukes and so forth. So when when Mr. dragon moves in, its not a quick lets swing by and slay him on our way to lunch, its more a matter of evacuate the peasents, rally the armies, call in any favors from any neighboring baron and count, appeal to your lord Duke and liege for further assitance and then carefully contemplate your plan of attack... Ok, maybe its not as bad as that, but you get my meaning.


wizards like money, they need it to build their magic items. Warriors go dungeon delving to get it and then have no use for it but to buy magic goodies. So it's safe to say that wizards (other than the wizard the fighter is trying to kill) would be more than happy to make the fighter whatever he needs to fend off the "over powering" of the wizard.
Which brings back the arguement"fighters are over dependant on gear"

I say: SO?

What I think is strange, is why would a wizard make a wizard killing sword? That'd be like me selling a wand of pendagast slaying....doesn't actually seem like anyone would DO this without a really really really good reason, and then if I was the wizard, Id make it have a limited duration, charges or something so it was pretty much useless when the OTHER wizard was defeated.

But you always see mage slaying swords etc, (caramon in dragon lance had one)

just a thought.

cant a fighter have a circlet of will save boost made?
How would you rule that one up? just permanent owls wisdom?

Sovereign Court

Matthew Hooper (and Tarinor):

The 3.x progression means that you get to the higher levels much quicker. Adventure Paths, which are some of the coolest products, take you right through those levels, too...

Ironically, in 1e, which was more balanced in any case, high-level play wasn't much of an issue; it took years to get there. In 3.x, advancement is much quicker at the same time as the game becoming more tilted to casters at high levels. In 1e, being a caster at low levels sucked (worse; you couldn't even use a crossbow and that was before skills became important) and got better; now it sucks less and gets waaaaaaaaaay better. So it's not hard to see why this is seen as unwelcome by some people that have been playing a fair amount of time (I pick 1e because I started on it and never really played 2e, but the situation is broadly similar there in any case; the more I played 3.x, the more some things bugged me and meleer lameness at higher levels was one of them).

I also think that there's something of a difference between how bad casters suck compared to the meleers at lower levels (not too bad) and how bad meleers suck compared to casters at higher levels (pretty bad). So it's not a fair trade even if one thinks that such a trade should actually be in the design at all. Now that in PFRPG low-level casters have more to do (especially for wizards and sorcerers, but orisons are also welcome) -- which is a good idea, absolutely -- the problem for high-level meleers remains. Even if you think that the 3.5 trade was fair and Good For Fun -- which I don't, it needed fixing, in my opinion -- the current trade looks even worse.

Sovereign Court

Pendagast wrote:

wizards like money, they need it to build their magic items. Warriors go dungeon delving to get it and then have no use for it but to buy magic goodies. So it's safe to say that wizards (other than the wizard the fighter is trying to kill) would be more than happy to make the fighter whatever he needs to fend off the "over powering" of the wizard.

Which brings back the arguement"fighters are over dependant on gear"

And overdependent on wizards. The argument is pretty much that wizards need meleers, particularly fighters, less than the fighters need them (because without the wizards, the fighters are dead).

The 'wizards need money for their magic items' thing actually shows that wizards, already powerful, can get magic items cheap, which means more power because as the game is written, money is power (and that's embedded in the rules, see below). Fighters, who get the same money, have to pay full-price for their items unless the wizard throws them a bone. So, it really is a matter of meleers being dependent on wizards.

Also, the equipment-dependence thing is a matter of flavour; a lot of people really don't like it, or the magic-item christmas tree (which is obviously an inevitable outcome of the rules on magic item creation). However, it's 3.5 and it'll be Pathfinder (because the 3.5 game is balanced, insomuch as it is, on those assumptions), so whilst DMs can get around it in their own campaigns, if they want to run published adventures they'll either have to suck it up or else put more powerful parties through the adventures than they were designed for. But that's a DM/play-style issue.

You suggest permanent will-save boost item (which if it were just owl's wisdom would be worth all of a +2...), but again, that costs money. AC is already expensive, plus other goodies the low-will meleer might want... how can the solution be more magic items, given that they only get the same share of the money as the wizard does? Any move in that direction opens up the gap between meleer and wizard wider.


Pathfinder Card Game, Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Pendagast wrote:


What I think is strange, is why would a wizard make a wizard killing sword? That'd be like me selling a wand of pendagast slaying....doesn't actually seem like anyone would DO this without a really really really good reason, and then if I was the wizard, Id make it have a limited duration, charges or something so it was pretty much useless when the OTHER wizard was defeated.

But you always see mage slaying swords etc, (caramon in dragon lance had one)

just a thought.

One could always argue that a cleric or other spell caster made the mage slaying swords... eitherway a spellcaster had to make the weapon for the non spellcaster...


Bagpuss wrote:
Pendagast wrote:

wizards like money, they need it to build their magic items. Warriors go dungeon delving to get it and then have no use for it but to buy magic goodies. So it's safe to say that wizards (other than the wizard the fighter is trying to kill) would be more than happy to make the fighter whatever he needs to fend off the "over powering" of the wizard.

Which brings back the arguement"fighters are over dependant on gear"

And overdependent on wizards. The argument is pretty much that wizards need meleers, particularly fighters, less than the fighters need them (because without the wizards, the fighters are dead).

The 'wizards need money for their magic items' thing actually shows that wizards, already powerful, can get magic items cheap, which means more power because as the game is written, money is power (and that's embedded in the rules, see below). Fighters, who get the same money, have to pay full-price for their items unless the wizard throws them a bone. So, it really is a matter of meleers being dependent on wizards.

Also, the equipment-dependence thing is a matter of flavour; a lot of people really don't like it, or the magic-item christmas tree (which is obviously an inevitable outcome of the rules on magic item creation). However, it's 3.5 and it'll be Pathfinder (because the 3.5 game is balanced, insomuch as it is, on those assumptions), so whilst DMs can get around it in their own campaigns, if they want to run published adventures they'll either have to suck it up or else put more powerful parties through the adventures than they were designed for. But that's a DM/play-style issue.

You suggest permanent will-save boost item (which if it were just owl's wisdom would be worth all of a +2...), but again, that costs money. AC is already expensive, plus other goodies the low-will meleer might want... how can the solution be more magic items, given that they only get the same share of the money as the wizard does? Any move in that direction opens up...

Im playing a fighter right now. I bought points (20 points for fanasty)

the stats are S14 D12 C12 I12 W15 Ch11 then I applied the humans +2 to str so its 16....But I was thinking If I had made a half-orc with these base stats Id have a wis of 17 and a str of 16.

Throw in some owl wisdom circlet later on and the will save would be as good as its going to get for a fighter....

But I guess the real issue is that they only get +6 at 20th level,soits mostly asave progression issue. Which is amjorly nerfed from 1e

Sovereign Court

The fact that bad save progressions produce terrible bonuses at high level is, indeed, a major issue with high-level play.


hmmm well, non the less ill see how this character will do (ive never put a high wis score in a fighter and certainly never higher than the str score)


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Regarding saves:

Great Fortitude, Iron Will, and Lightning Reflexes feats give you a +2 bonus on Fort, Will, and Ref saves. With all of the feats that a PF fighter gets, using one on Iron Will is hardly a great sacrifice. With a 12 Wis and Iron Will, a fighter 10 has a Will save bonus of +6 without any other modifiers; at 20th level, that's a Will Save of +9 before anything else.

Regarding attributes:

Wis is generally the most important mental stat for a fighter-type; even with a paladin or ranger, however, 14 is probably as high as you want to go. You are usually better off with higher physical stats (Str, Dex, Con) as they have such a large effect on combat (AC, attacks, hit points). Int (unless needed for Combat Expertise and/or duelist PrC) and Cha (unless a paladin) can usually remain low with minimal effect.

Sovereign Court

Just in terms of combat, yeah, Int is limited to those examples. However, if you're playing a game where skills are also important, the fighter's existing low skill points get hurt even more.

But yeah, dumping Int is pretty likely for fighters. Even so, they're going to be vulnerable to level-appropriate Will Save attacks at higher levels.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Bagpuss wrote:
But yeah, dumping Int is pretty likely for fighters. Even so, they're going to be vulnerable to level-appropriate Will Save attacks at higher levels.

It depends on how you use the term "vulnerable." If they invest in a Wis boosting headband (16,000gp for a +4; cheap by the time it becomes needed) as well as taking Iron Will, their Will save will probably only be 4-6 points worse than their Fort save. They are no more "vulnerable" to Will saves than clerics are to Ref saves or rogues and wizards are to Fort saves.


Dragonchess Player wrote:
They are no more "vulnerable" to Will saves than clerics are to Ref saves or rogues and wizards are to Fort saves.

Except that Ref saves, for example, typically are an issue of half vs. no damage -- rather than of save or be instantly taken out of commission. Death effects vs. wizards of course remain an issue. In this sense, clerics have the best saves by far -- their good saves protect them against all of the "instant-kill/instant-helplessness" effects.

Sovereign Court

Kirth Gersen wrote:
Dragonchess Player wrote:
They are no more "vulnerable" to Will saves than clerics are to Ref saves or rogues and wizards are to Fort saves.
Except that Ref saves, for example, typically are an issue of half vs. no damage -- rather than of save or be instantly taken out of commission. Death effects vs. wizards of course remain an issue. In this sense, clerics have the best saves by far -- their good saves protect them against all of the "instant-kill/instant-helplessness" effects.

And that, indeed, is the point.

Also, wizards get their save-boosters cheap.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Dragonchess Player wrote:
They are no more "vulnerable" to Will saves than clerics are to Ref saves or rogues and wizards are to Fort saves.
Except that Ref saves, for example, typically are an issue of half vs. no damage -- rather than of save or be instantly taken out of commission. Death effects vs. wizards of course remain an issue. In this sense, clerics have the best saves by far -- their good saves protect them against all of the "instant-kill/instant-helplessness" effects.

If the cleric doesn't have freedom of action up constantly, then they are vulnerable to spells like web. Even with it, spells like grease can be seriously annoying for a cleric.


Dragonchess Player wrote:
If the cleric doesn't have freedom of action up constantly, then they are vulnerable to spells like web. Even with it, spells like grease can be seriously annoying for a cleric.

And if either of those spells prevented the cleric from acting, he'd be back on equal footing with the others... but a cleric can still cast spells while prone, or while entangled, and in the Beta he can still heal, too (because of the ranged channel energy). Neither of those spells fits the "instant-kill/instant helplessness" category, so all they are is "annoying," rather than "fatal."


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Dragonchess Player wrote:
If the cleric doesn't have freedom of action up constantly, then they are vulnerable to spells like web. Even with it, spells like grease can be seriously annoying for a cleric.
And if either of those spells prevented the cleric from acting, he'd be back on equal footing with the others... but a cleric can still cast spells while prone, or while entangled, and in the Beta he can still heal, too (because of the ranged channel energy). Neither of those spells fits the "instant-kill/instant helplessness" category, so all they are is "annoying," rather than "fatal."

So CODzilla is alive and well.

Wizards are still as vulnerable to instant death/helpless Fort saves (in some cases more so, with "Fort partial" death/damage attacks, considering their lower hit points) as fighters are to Will saves. In both cases, a little foresight and minor investments in specific feats, magic items, spells, etc. already in the rules can keep the character's success rate with a poor save to within 20-30% of their good save against the same DC. If a person fails to use the options available and ends up with a hammer-wielding eggshell, don't blame the system instead of learning how to use the system.


Dragonchess Player wrote:
If a person fails to use the options available and ends up with a hammer-wielding eggshell, don't blame the system instead of learning how to use the system.

So, by this logic we should break everyone's knees, then yell at them if they fail to get reconstructive surgery? Why not change the system so that poor saves and good saves and DCs are all within a reasonable spread? Pathfinder is a golden chance to do just that (as indeed Jason has already started doing with prestige class saves), instead of sticking with, "the system in place sucks for saves, but it can be overcome with a heavy enough feat and wealth and buff spell tax, so it's good enough!" See, if the cleric has an inordinate advantage over the fighter and the wizard right out of the gate, maybe that can be addressed? I'd like to repair major issues, rather than leave duct tape on them. That seems to be the big difference in philosophy.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Dragonchess Player wrote:
If a person fails to use the options available and ends up with a hammer-wielding eggshell, don't blame the system instead of learning how to use the system.
So, by this logic we should break everyone's knees, then yell at them if they fail to get reconstructive surgery? Why not change the system so that poor saves and good saves and DCs are all within a reasonable spread? Pathfinder is a golden chance to do just that, instead of sticking with, "the system in place sucks for saves, but it can be overcome with a heavy enough feat and wealth and buff spell tax, so it's good enough!"

How is one feat in the first 10 levels (+7 good vs. +5 poor before any other modifiers) and one 16,000gp item in the second 10 levels (+12 good vs. +10 poor before any other modifiers) so horribly unreasonable? If anything, rogues have it worse than either fighters or wizards, since both Fort and Will saves are poor for them. For some reason, however, all of the angst over "save or die/suck" is expended on the fighter.


Dragonchess Player wrote:
For some reason, however, all of the angst over "save or die/suck" is expended on the fighter.

Probably just 1e angst, from when the fighter had better saves than any other class, across the board -- that was his main class feature. With everything he lost in the transition to 3.0, it seems unfair to take that from him as well, especially since those rules have made it vastly more difficult to interrupt spells being cast against him. The rogue can do the whole "stealth/sneak attack for 18 million damage" thing, whereas the fighter is now a big nothing. (And the monk sucks, too, but at least HE gets good saves!)

But I return to what I said in the last post. The saving throw rules are held together by duct tape, leaving the cleric and druid sitting pretty at everone else's expense. The fighter is important in that equation because he's one of "everyone else."


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Dragonchess Player wrote:
For some reason, however, all of the angst over "save or die/suck" is expended on the fighter.
Probably just 1e angst, from when the fighter had better saves than any other class, across the board -- that was his main class feature.

Okay, let's clarify one thing - Fighters in 1st edition (and 2nd) had the *worst* saving throws. At 1st level. They simply *progressed* faster, and longer, than any other class. They also did well (though not the best) against poisons and death effects.

Edit: Here's a Chart. This doesn't address the utility of each saving throw, as that could vary by campaign - though I'd save "Spells" - Fighter's worst, is among the most important. If you wanted Fighters to be like 1st edition they would start with +0 to saves, but get the good save progression after that.

Sovereign Court

Kirth Gersen wrote:


But I return to what I said in the last post. The saving throw rules are held together by duct tape, leaving the cleric and druid sitting pretty at everone else's expense. The fighter is important in that equation because he's one of "everyone else."

And, as you also said, it's just another weakness of the fighter, on top of all the others. Meleers/non-casters are in general trouble in 3.x and the fighter's the worst of them other than the monk (which is like taking second place in an ugly contest in a leper colony). Crap will saves is just a part of it.


Majuba wrote:
Okay, let's clarify one thing - Fighters in 1st edition (and 2nd) had the *worst* saving throws. At 1st level. They simply *progressed* faster, and longer, than any other class.

Which would be proper in 3e as well, considering that at low levels they dominate the game, only to be easily replaced by another cleric later on...


Dragonchess Player wrote:

Regarding saves:

Great Fortitude, Iron Will, and Lightning Reflexes feats give you a +2 bonus on Fort, Will, and Ref saves. With all of the feats that a PF fighter gets, using one on Iron Will is hardly a great sacrifice. With a 12 Wis and Iron Will, a fighter 10 has a Will save bonus of +6 without any other modifiers; at 20th level, that's a Will Save of +9 before anything else.

And my current wizard 5 has Will DC 18-20 save-or-suck-so-bad-that-you-almost-certainly-lose multiple-target spells as his main guns. Will +9 is all good when you fight him at level 5. But at level 20 his theoretical self surely will be able to force something like DC 31, without new feats or using PRCs abilities. So, even if he stays pure wizard (unlikely) and the fighter boosted his save to +17 with items, the figher still has about 65% chance of becoming his slave/being incapacitated after the first spell. By the way, this is rather unfocused build.


Dragonchess Player wrote:


How is one feat in the first 10 levels (+7 good vs. +5 poor before any other modifiers) and one 16,000gp item in the second 10 levels (+12 good vs. +10 poor before any other modifiers) so horribly unreasonable? If anything, rogues have it worse than either fighters or wizards, since both Fort and Will saves are poor for them. For some reason, however, all of the angst over "save or die/suck" is expended on the fighter.

Rogues are expected to be stealthy and sneakinate enemies for over nine thousands of damage, before the enemies notice them. They also have UMD to patch their worst weaknesses. Fighters, on the other hand, are the easiest targets of them all.


Here's the big problem in a nutshell: How do you balance characters whose abilities are all at-will vs. characters whose abilities are all once-per-day?


Matthew Hooper wrote:
Here's the big problem in a nutshell: How do you balance characters whose abilities are all at-will vs. characters whose abilities are all once-per-day?

Make higher-tier feats for combat specialists that are per-day. Casters get at-will cantrips; fighters get at-will feats, OK. But then, on top of that, the casters get all kinds of higher-order powers; melee guys don't. Instead of giving fighters the equivalent of 11 "normal" bonus feats (equivalent to at-will cantrips/low-level spells), give them access to higher-order feats that scale with their level as well.

But that's not backwards-compatible, so it's out the window. It also might remind people of Bo9S or 4e or something, so it's doubly out. It just can't happen, not in this game. Too many bad feelings, right or wrong.

So we're left with (a) feat chains (inelegant, but workable), or (b) skewing the basic rules so that more iterative attacks = vastly more options (as I'd prefer), or (c) just giving up and accepting the fact that a large collection of at-will 1st level spells (aka combat feats) just doesn't cut the mustard when you're 17th level, and that warrior classes will always have built-in obsolescence at higher levels as their primary class feature.


I believe I have read most if not all of this thread, which slipped from a plea to buuf no more to a discussion about fighters not being able to withstand the magical onslaught of your favorite wizard.

IMO, some feats from the Beta answer, perhaps not completely, some of the complaints. For example, Devastating stroke allows someone to dish out a lot more damage as a standard action.

So yeah, they don't always have a full round, but they might use some feat to make better use of that partial, no? Perhaps, instead of trying to change the iterative, which will be hard because of compatibility, it would be better to go in the direction of feats for standard actions, like an improved Overhand chop or improved Devastating blow, no?

As for mobility, it's the players choice of equipment that affects it. Choosing different material for armor, different enhancements or getting some fancy boots goes a long way.

Finally, as some of you talk about the weakness of fighters regarding saves, some other are pleading for a free maxed enhancement for all spells (DC would be according to caster level). This would give the wizard a lot (!) more dangerous spells per day, and especially for fighters if I read you correctly.

So which is it? DCs are too low and need to be revised, or saves are too low and need to be revised.

Also, isn't it also true that for all high level spell that can take out a fighter quick, because he has a bad Will save, one can find a high level spell that can take out a wizard, because he has a bad Fortitude save?

Sometimes, when two sides argue for opposite solutions, it's a good sign that nothing is wrong. It just depends on how you play.

DW


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
FatR wrote:
Dragonchess Player wrote:

Regarding saves:

Great Fortitude, Iron Will, and Lightning Reflexes feats give you a +2 bonus on Fort, Will, and Ref saves. With all of the feats that a PF fighter gets, using one on Iron Will is hardly a great sacrifice. With a 12 Wis and Iron Will, a fighter 10 has a Will save bonus of +6 without any other modifiers; at 20th level, that's a Will Save of +9 before anything else.

And my current wizard 5 has Will DC 18-20 save-or-suck-so-bad-that-you-almost-certainly-lose multiple-target spells as his main guns. Will +9 is all good when you fight him at level 5. But at level 20 his theoretical self surely will be able to force something like DC 31, without new feats or using PRCs abilities. So, even if he stays pure wizard (unlikely) and the fighter boosted his save to +17 with items, the figher still has about 65% chance of becoming his slave/being incapacitated after the first spell. By the way, this is rather unfocused build.

Wizard 5 with a spell save DC of 18-20; 10 + spell level (1-3) + 7? So, +5 Int mod (21 Int, maximum attainable at 5th level) and +2 from some other source (fox's cunning, Spell Focus and Greater Spell Focus, etc.)? That sort of optimization would make it tough for 5th level fighter to resist a Fort save against the same DC (16 Con gives a Fort save of +7, or a 50-60% chance of failing the saving throw).

A 20th level fighter (assuming a 16 Con, 12 Wis, Iron Will, a belt of physical might +6, cloak of resistance +5, a headband of inspired wisdom +4, and a stone of good luck) would have a Fort save of +12+3+3+5+1=+23 and a Will save of 6+2+1+2+5+1=+17, a difference of +6 (30%). So, that DC 31 would have a 35% chance of affecting the Fort save (about 1-in-3), instead of a 65% chance of affecting the Will save (about 2-in-3). The same DC affecting a strong save about 1-in-3 and a weak save about 2-in-3 is hardly something to call "broken," since it's how the strong/weak save system is designed to work. "Broken" is when the strong save almost always succeeds and the weak save almost always fails against the same DC.


Unfortunately, Will saves tend to have more severe penalties for failure, by my recollection.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Matthew Hooper wrote:
Unfortunately, Will saves tend to have more severe penalties for failure, by my recollection.

Ghoul touch (Fort) vs. hold person (Will) and glitterdust (Will) vs. stinking cloud (Fort), compare and contrast. At higher level, look at cloudkill, baleful polymorph, circle of death, disintegrate, flesh to stone, finger of death, etc.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Matthew Hooper wrote:
Here's the big problem in a nutshell: How do you balance characters whose abilities are all at-will vs. characters whose abilities are all once-per-day?

Make higher-tier feats for combat specialists that are per-day. Casters get at-will cantrips; fighters get at-will feats, OK. But then, on top of that, the casters get all kinds of higher-order powers; melee guys don't. Instead of giving fighters the equivalent of 11 "normal" bonus feats (equivalent to at-will cantrips/low-level spells), give them access to higher-order feats that scale with their level as well.

I always liked the idea of those feats from Unearthed Arcana that allowed spell effects for fighters, but had requirements of being hit with a spell to learn it.

They weren't powerful enough though, which is a failing of feats for fighters in general.

I like the idea of getting a "Flaming" effect for your weapon granted through your feat X times per day, or something. And the requirements are based on having been hit with a fire spell (burning hands, scorching ray, fireball, etc) and survived (clearly).

It would allow for some nicer high level options.. and the requirement of interaction with magic makes it thematically consistant.


Dragonchess Player wrote:
Wizard 5 with a spell save DC of 18-20; 10 + spell level (1-3) + 7? So, +5 Int mod (21 Int, maximum attainable at 5th level) and +2 from some other source (fox's cunning, Spell Focus and Greater Spell Focus, etc.)?

Starting attribute 17, grey elf, Headband of Intellect +2, spell focus in Transmutation (mostly for the future, but Slow kicks ass already). Human can partially compensate for lack of race modifier by taking GSF for his extra feat.

Dragonchess Player wrote:
That sort of optimization would make it tough for 5th level fighter to resist a Fort save against the same DC (16 Con gives a Fort save of +7, or a 50-60% chance of failing the saving throw).

This is not "optimization". This is "not gimping yourself in this area too hard". This character is mainly optimized for great flexibility, not killpower, if for anything. As about the Fort save, pick a cloak of resistance or PFE/MCofPFE from a party buffer, and you can have +9 to Fort, which is good enough.

Dragonchess Player wrote:
A 20th level fighter (assuming a 16 Con, 12 Wis, Iron Will, a belt of physical might +6, cloak of resistance +5, a headband of inspired wisdom +4, and a stone of good luck) would have a Fort save of +12+3+3+5+1=+23 and a Will save of 6+2+1+2+5+1=+17, a difference of +6 (30%). So, that DC 31 would have a 35% chance of affecting the Fort save (about 1-in-3), instead of a 65% chance of affecting the Will save (about 2-in-3). The same DC affecting a strong save about 1-in-3 and a weak save about 2-in-3 is hardly something to call "broken"

No, it is not broken, considering other fun stuff wizards do at level 20. It is just another breach in defense of a class that is often assumed to be capable of tanking, that you cannot fully mitigate even by investing in that. Also, said investments become trivial only when they cease to matter (because you just got hit by no-save-you-lose spell or enervated for a lot of levels).


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
FatR wrote:
Dragonchess Player wrote:
That sort of optimization would make it tough for 5th level fighter to resist a Fort save against the same DC (16 Con gives a Fort save of +7, or a 50-60% chance of failing the saving throw).
This is not "optimization". This is "not gimping yourself in this area too hard". This character is mainly optimized for great flexibility, not killpower, if for anything. As about the Fort save, pick a cloak of resistance or PFE/MCofPFE from a party buffer, and you can have +9 to Fort, which is good enough.

A 40-50% chance of failure is "good enough?" When you can affect the strong save of an equal level character about 50% of the time, then you're optimizing. In this case, you're optimizing for Int, which significantly affects save DCs as a casting attribute. Your spell selection may be geared toward "flexibility" instead of "kill power," but that is a different argument.

FatR wrote:
Dragonchess Player wrote:
A 20th level fighter (assuming a 16 Con, 12 Wis, Iron Will, a belt of physical might +6, cloak of resistance +5, a headband of inspired wisdom +4, and a stone of good luck) would have a Fort save of +12+3+3+5+1=+23 and a Will save of 6+2+1+2+5+1=+17, a difference of +6 (30%). So, that DC 31 would have a 35% chance of affecting the Fort save (about 1-in-3), instead of a 65% chance of affecting the Will save (about 2-in-3). The same DC affecting a strong save about 1-in-3 and a weak save about 2-in-3 is hardly something to call "broken"
No, it is not broken, considering other fun stuff wizards do at level 20. It is just another breach in defense of a class that is often assumed to be capable of tanking, that you cannot fully mitigate even by investing in that.

The 20th level fighter given above shows that with minimal planning and investment (saves can be raised even higher with more effort), Will saves are not an unmanageable weakness that completely gimps the fighter class at high level play. In addition to saves, outright immunities from many spells are easy to get. A magic item with an effect based on protection from chaos/evil/good/law (a mere 2,000gp; 4,000gp if it doesn't use a body slot) completely blocks possession and the exercise of mental control due to Enchantment [charm] and Enchantment [compulsion] effects (not including the AC and save bonuses; they would need to be counted separately in the magic item creation rules). Freedom of movement prevents paralysis (hold person, etc.), entanglement (web, etc.), grapple attacks, slow, solid fog, etc.

Besides, the point is not to "fully mitigate" a weak Will save, but to bring it to the point where it's not a "roll a 20 to succeed" against a level-appropriate threat that would be a high probability of success if targeting Fort. If a difference between a strong save and a weak save of 20-30% (+4-+6) is "gimped," then your gaming philosophy is different from that underlying PFRPG (based as it is on 3.5).

Shadow Lodge

Wow . . .

That was . . .

amazing.

I completely agree.

Shadow Lodge

Could you repost this under some thread like "Fix my fighter(Maybe this will Change something)" or "Why I'm banning Fighters".

501 to 544 of 544 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 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
Recent threads in Playtest Reports
Rangers