There is one thing you missed. There are no more XP costs to casting a spell. If there was an XP cost, you now multiply that number of XP's by 5 gp to get the new material cost for casting the spell.
Also, take a look at the Identify spell. It used to require a 100 GP pearl, but now it just requires stirring some wine with an owl feather. I agree with you that a spellcaster should have the components in hand as he begins casting the spell.
I don't have much else to add. As I am not an expert on any aspect of the game. I just have my own opinions and sometimes they are good and sometimes they aren't.
1. Do away with "save or die" effects and their virtual cousins "sleep spells" etc.
2. Double the cost of all spells
1. Paizo has addressed this to some extent, and nerfing casters a bit is indeed a step in the right direction (although it robs the game of some of its flavor), but in any case an invisible flying wizard is still hard for the poor fighter to hit.
2. Clerics and sorcerers have no such costs.Problems of mobility, inability to block, and poorly-scaling damage (as compared with monster HD) are still present as well. And, as much as it would be easier to bring casters down to the fighter's level, that would maybe destroy most of the backwards-compatibility that Paizo is shooting for: their motto seems to be to add features, not remove them.
I mentioned Identify as an example, but if you want more. Then take a look at Limited Wish. The material component is a diamond worth 1500 gp. In Resurrection the component is a diamond worth 10,000 gp. In True Resurrection it is a diamond worth 25,000 gp. A 25,000 gp diamond is also required for Wish. My point is that most if not all requiring an XP cost in 3.x now have a material cost equal to the XP x 5 gp.
On the one hand it is better for the arcane users because it does not cause them to lose levels, but it will require them to manage a budget. That is not necessarily a bad thing.
Also notice that at 1st level the Sorcerer gains Eschew Materials as a bonus feat. There are still plenty of spells with components that cost between 1 gp and 1500 gp. It still requires the use of material components.
1. Do away with "save or die" effects and their virtual cousins "sleep spells" etc.
2. Double the cost of all spells1. Paizo has addressed this to some extent, and nerfing casters a bit is indeed a step in the right direction (although it robs the game of some of its flavor), but in any case an invisible flying wizard is still hard for the poor fighter to hit.
2. Clerics and sorcerers have no such costs.Problems of mobility, inability to block, and poorly-scaling damage (as compared with monster HD) are still present as well. And, as much as it would be easier to bring casters down to the fighter's level, that would maybe destroy most of the backwards-compatibility that Paizo is shooting for: their motto seems to be to add features, not remove them.
As Kirth said, they're all about adding features. The only issue I've run into while playing high-level fighters is mobility when the mage is flying, as then he's helpless.
Sleep isn't as much of a problem, as any damage wakes them (if it doesn't then we have house-ruled that for a looong time). Save-or-Die's have been revamped, (save for the rogues, they just gained one), check out the spells listing in the PF Beta.
Other than that, the fighters have actually stayed with their power level in my games.
|
The only issue I've run into while playing high-level fighters is mobility when the mage is flying, as then he's helpless.
I'm not picking on you, hobo, it's just that your post happens to be there;
I see this issue brought up a lot, and it does make me wonder; does no-one ever give their melee-PCs appropriate items to do their jobs anymore? Or even just cast buff/utility spells on them?
While I believe the non-casters and semi-casters need some love (see the Paladin threads for evidence of that), I think some posters try to over-egg their point by comparing a fully-equipped caster to a Fighter armed only with a few thousand gp of basic gear. Of course they're not going to pull their weight. And if you make them fight in their underpants, with a pointy stick, they'll be even worse. What does that prove?
Boots of Flying, or even just Potions of Fly, should be on the must-have list for everyone who has no innate ability to do so. And when the party get to level 5, they can make this sort of thing themselves.
Such an investment will pay off many times what it cost, and should be far more of a priority than raising Str by 2 more points or another plus on their sword.
If you're playing high-level games (by which I assume level 10+?), and the melee PCs are constantly finding themselves left out of the action due to being grounded, or unable to see invisible, then this is a matter for the players to solve between themselves.
|
|
Also notice that at 1st level the Sorcerer gains Eschew Materials as a bonus feat. There are still plenty of spells with components that cost between 1 gp and 1500 gp. It still requires the use of material components.
Material components have been hand-waved to a great extent, by the inclusion of a catch-all Spell Component Pouch in the equipment lists, which assume the caster has all the non-costly ingredients he'll ever need. How they do this, I don't know, but I imagine the alchemists grind up all the components for every common spell, into some kind of 'magic fairy-dust', so the caster just sticks his hand in, and is guaranteed to have a pinch of what he needs. I.e. there's always some bat guano in there, even if the caster never casts a Fireball.
Unfortunately, this has led to many players assuming that material components have been totally hand-waved away, but this is not the case.
You no longer need to have an anal-retentive equipment list that fills a folder, but you do still need to be able to draw these materials as a move action, with a free hand.
At level 1, this means a wizard would be standing still to do this, as it's only by level 2 that he gets the requisite BAB+1, to allow him to draw equipment on the move (or possibly level 3, for multi-classing casters). And even then, he can't draw the materials, and draw that metamagic rod and have his weapon ready and hold his staff...
Also consider being grappled or paralysed. It's no good the spell being still and silent, if you still need materials you can't reach.
In short, material components are a balancing hindrance, but only if the group play them as written, and don't handwave them out of existence, which is what effectively happens at a lot of tables.
|
All in all, I would say the Beta Fighter, the only one for PathFinder I have seen, is a bit over powered, at least for A.C. at the upper levels. I would really suggest that instead of getting the +1 A.C., Max. Dex., and Armor Check Penulty removal, they must choose one of those, and maybe there is a capp. Like you can only reduce a penulty to -1, or up to double the original Max. Dex.
Secondly, this reminds me to much of the Knight's class abilities, and I don't know what I think about this.
No fighter need more not less.
This ability is one step from taking the fighter away from magic item dependency that i soooooooo hate in 3.x. If they would fix the buff times back they would see a bit less buffing items as well
The fighter needs, damage, AC, and movement. Thats his things. It's nice they are not just 2-3 level dips any longer
Not at all. Unless we are looking at two different classes. Fighters and Rogues have gotten huge bumps. They hardly need anything more, and can both stand to be toned back a little. But definetly not added to.
No offance man but aren't you the one who wants to add more to the cleric? te fighter still could use some movement ability...or allow multi attacks as a standard action as the wizard and cleric gets.
|
|
Not at all. Unless we are looking at two different classes. Fighters and Rogues have gotten huge bumps. They hardly need anything more, and can both stand to be toned back a little. But definitely not added to.
Fighters got a bonus to attack rolls and AC, neither of which were a problem.
These benefits were then cancelled out, by the changes to Power Attack, which preventred them using their excess attack bonus for anything (capping it at their Str bonus),and Combat Expertise, which prevented them raising their AC by more than their Int Bonus.
The High Str/Average Int Fighter can no longer fight defensively as well.
The High Dex/Average Str Fighter can no longer deal as much damage.
Both feats were also changed to be fixed-value swaps, rather than allowing a range of choices, removing an element of tactics from the class.
Net result=nerf.
|
|
Not at all. Unless we are looking at two different classes. Fighters and Rogues have gotten huge bumps. They hardly need anything more, and can both stand to be toned back a little. But definetly not added to.No offance man but aren't you the one who wants to add more to the cleric? te fighter still could use some movement ability...or allow multi attacks as a standard action as the wizard and cleric gets.
I am. I think any heavily armored person could use some movement ability really. I saw somewhere an idea for Medium armor only -5ft movement. How do Casters get multiple attacks as a Standard Action. I know a few rare cases, but are you talking about area attacks?
I can see now what You mean about the Combat Feats. I had misread them, thinking that you could combine the ones with the same action types. I still think Fighters are just fine, but some of the feats need to change. What If Power Attack worked like it used to, but had to be taken multiple times, each time add 5 to the max you could subtract, up to your Base Attack. Same with Combat Expertise. So a Fighter with Power attack 3 times, could Subtract up to 15 from the attack roll, (or their B.A.), and add that to damage, but one that only had it twice could only do up to 10?
|
|
How do Casters get multiple attacks as a Standard Action. I know a few rare cases, but are you talking about area attacks?
Possibly, although generally, when posters refer to casters getting their 'full attack', or 'multi-attack' even when moving, it's a reference to the fact they can move and still get off their spells, i.e their 'best action'.
Whereas, the fighter only gets to perform his optimum action (full-attack) if he stands rooted to the spot (except for a 5' step). Moving further than 5' causes him to lose a large chunk of his effectiveness.
It's possibly a confusing way of putting it, but it's a turn of phrase that got thrashed around the boards several months back, so the people who live here 24-7 tend to assume everyone knows what they mean.
Well yeah thats what i ment they could move and attack with spells or just attack then cast a spell...melees folks should be able to move and get at lest 2 attacks . I do not want the casters nerfed at all.
I want to melee classes to be able to attack and move like the casters can.
|
|
Secondly, saying something like "I still think Fighters are just fine, but some of the feats need to change." is inappropriate. Fighters are built out of feats. They are equipment and feat dependent to absurd extremes.
And Who (besides Monks) isn't. Fighters are in no way special for gear or feat dependency.
Thirdly, proposing half-formed and untested ideas does not help.
The problem of Fighter's nerf is not to be solved by adding further complicated rules (like new feat chains and subsystems) since Fighter is supposed to remain a clean entry class for the uninitiated.
And this is suppossed to make people want to help you? So, besides making other classes weaker so your Fighter can shine, what is interesting?
However, it is also the class most easily subjugated... from Charm Person to Wall of Stone, there are hundred ways to remove Fighter from play because Fighters lack means to fight back.
Except for every other class that has to make saves.
|
|
01 Fighter Feat
02 Fighter Feat
03
04 Fighter Feat
05 Armor Specialization
06 Fighter Feat
07
08 Fighter Feat
09 Armor Specialization
10 Fighter Feat
11 Weapon Mastery
12 Fighter Feat
13
14 Fighter Feat
15 Armor Specialization
16 Fighter Feat
17
18 Fighter Feat
19 Armor Specialization
20 Fighter Feat, superior Weapon Master
Weapon Mastery
At 11th Level, Fighters get the ability to make up to 2 Attacks as a Standard Action, so long as they are weilding a melee weapon the have Weapon Focus with. They may also, substitute both Attacks for similar abilities, (such as Cleave, Grapple, Trip) and instead make two of those attacks in place of a normal melee swing.
Armor Specialization
At 5th, 9th, 15th, and 19th Levels, A Fighter learns to become more at home wearing armor than being without. At 5th Level, they may sleep in Light and Medium Armor without penulty, and may also choose to increase the base Aromor Bonus or Dex. Bonus of the armor by +1, reduce the penulty by -1, or increase the movement speeds penulty by 5ft.
At 9th 15th, and 19th Level, they may again increase the AC, or Dex, or decrese the Armor Check by an additional 1, each.
At 15th,they also suffer no movement penulty to Heavy armor, and can sleep in any armor without penulty.
Superior Weapon Mastery
As Weapon Mastery, but can make up to three Attacks as a Standard Action.
Man that is gold, pure gold
this i would change
Armor Specialization
At 5th, 9th, 15th, and 19th Levels, A Fighter learns to become more at home wearing armor than being without. At 5th Level, they may sleep in Light and Medium Armor without penulty, and also get an to increase the base Armor Bonus and Dex. Bonus of the armor by +1, reduce the penalty by -1,
|
|
Fighters are in no way special for gear or feat dependency.
I don't understand how you can say that.
Apart from some plusses to attack rolls, AC and fear saves, feats are all they have.
Therefore, they need to compete in usefulness against typical class abilities and spells. Which they don't.
For most classes, this doesn't matter so much; if feats are sub-par, well, they have their other abilities to fall back on.
|
|
Sorry to say this, but this is actually worse than what is written in the class description. And adding in a portion of the Endurance feat doesn't make up for the loss. Here is what the class description is for Armor Training and Armor Mastery:
Personally, I believe they need toI realize this may seem like taking a step backwards, but these things were what made the fighter types crunchy before 3.X came out and nerfed them. These changes should have minimal...
- increase casting times for higher level spells (due to changes in timing between 2nd Ed and 3.X),
- eliminate reducing BAB for iterative attacks for the fighter types (another change that was made between 2nd Ed and 3.X),
- and to allow more movement for fighter types who use a full attack action (i.e. full speed plus full attack in a round).
I understand, I tried balancing it out with more damage potential and also threw in the movement change. Also, this way it makes the Fighter work for what they really want, and helps different tyoes of fighters in different ways. A Fighter Rogue gets more out of increasing the movement, Armor Check, and Dex, while a full plate tank probably wants just the AC and Movement.
I don't understand how you can say that.
Apart from some plusses to attack rolls, AC and fear saves, feats are all they have.
Therefore, they need to compete in usefulness against typical class abilities and spells. Which they don't.
For most classes, this doesn't matter so much; if feats are sub-par, well, they have their other abilities to fall back on.
Not really true. In fact it is probably least true with a fighter, simply because fighters get the most feats of the game. At the same time, about half of their feats are specific combat feats. Unless you are complaining about all those fighters taking weapon focus repeatedly, a "sub optimal" feat is a minor hinderence because they should have other combat options. When I say "should", read it as saying "if they don't, that is no one but the incompetent players fault, and has nothing to do with the class or the rules".
|
|
this i would changePersonally, I believe they need to
I realize this may seem like taking a step backwards, but these things were what made the fighter types crunchy before 3.X came out and nerfed them. These changes should have minimal...
- increase casting times for higher level spells (due to changes in timing between 2nd Ed and 3.X),
- eliminate reducing BAB for iterative attacks for the fighter types (another change that was made between 2nd Ed and 3.X),
- and to allow more movement for fighter types who use a full attack action (i.e. full speed plus full attack in a round).
Wait, wait, wait, are you really saying that you want the fighter to be the only one to be in any Fights. This is what you are saying.
Party= 1 Fighter, 1 Rogue, 1 Wizard, and 1 Cleric.
Round one, the rogue sneaks back out of the cave with an "oh SH*t" look. Its a dragon!
So they get ready, enter the cave, Rogue rolls high, followed by the Fighter, Cleric, and Wizrds in initiative. They sneak up for the surprize round. Cleric and Wizard just stat concentrating. Rogue goes for a flanking position, and the Fighter puts down the torch, grabs his weapon and shild. Fighter Full Attacks, waking the beast, followed by the Rogue backstabbing as much as possible. Wizard and Rogue are just there concentrating so he can get back to the real action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Round Two.
Dragon gets a good roll between the Rogue and Fighter. Fighter Full Attacks agin, then gets knocked down and thrached a bit as the Dragon comes right back. Rogue goes for the Backstabyness again and does ok. Wizard and Cleric Finally get that spell off and well, the Flamestrike hurt a little, but Wizards fizzles from a cr*tastic S.R. roll. Back to the Fighter, who shouts to the Cleric for some help, just before charging for his Full Attack. Each of coarse hits with easy, thanks to that no more -5 per additional attck nonsense., and the Dragon is not happy. He Crits twice on the Rogue who goes to -5 instantly, (just a bad roll). But turns back to the fighter for a little tail thrash. Still more than a little hurt, but not ready to give up the ghost just yet, he patiently waits for the Casters to start concentrating again. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Fighter keeps up with the dragons repositioning, and again Swinds a lot, but the dice just don't go his way on hald of them, and the Dragons still there in his face. The Clerics continues concentrating as he steps a little bit closer to the Fighter. Just six or seven more rounds till I can get close enough to touch him . . .
Wizards finishes his concentration on this, thinking "bugger this", and dim. doors out. "I get more action in my dorm". After 5 more rounds of swing swing, bite, claw, Cleric 5ft stepping over, The Fighter dies. The Cleric, no longer needing to concentrate on keeping that heal ready, drops it. Will he risk another full round to maybe kill the dragon, roll super godly and res the Fighter and Rogue? Un, no. Rogue stabalizes, and wakes back up at 1hp to a sleeping dragon a week later.
obviously you never played 1e, because it never went like that.
And heal spells to segments to cast, not rounds.
but big fight ending spells? yes, they took rounds.
basically you could count on 7th-9th level spells taking more than 1 round to get off.
|
|
I have, and what I see is "the rules have changed since 2nd ed, and now I don't know how to play a Fighter", not "there really are some fundimental problems with the class, so lets completely change other things for the Fighters to be fixed."
Being weak against magic that effects the mind is the Fighters weak spot. It is also the weak spot of Rogues. All classes have weak spots. If you want to have your character strong against thoe things, and be a Fighter, there are options to do so.
Like being an Elf, taking Iron Will, Multiclassing for a Save boost, looking into Feats that help with conditions, (there are plenty in 3.5, not yet much in core pathfinder).
Magic Items work wonders, if you don't only go for stat bumps and magic sword and armor.
The presence of a weak spot with saves is a significant change from 1e/2e. High level fighters had no weak spot for saves (though rogues always sucked at saves vs breath weapon) at all. The addition of the achilles heels was, I think, a good thing.
The question I have these days is: "is the achilles heel too big?"
For my money, the main fix I see the fighter needing is unleashing a fuller offense without being limited to a 5' step and thus reaching some kind of economy of actions parity with the wizard. The question is how to balance it between characters using just iterative attacks and characters using other means of gaining multiple attacks AND iterative attacks (like the ranger/rogue armed with 2 weapons and a truckload of sneak attack) and between characters with 1 attack, 2 iteratives, and more iteratives. None of that seems particularly straight-forward.
To bring it to the front here, a Fighter must have magic items to allow it to have any standing with the other classes who have the innate ability to replicate these effects on themselves and others in the party. So the Fighter is dependent on good stuff, be it magic or not, to stay close to the curve of the other classes as pointed out previously.
I think it bears pointing out that dependence on magic items (and good equipment), for fighters, is not a new concept with 3e. In fact, 3.5 has gone farther than any other edition to remove magic item dependence for fighters by removing complete invulnerability to non-magical weaponry. All this discussion about viability of the fighters in 3e compared to previous editions should keep that in mind. Fighters could be just as thoroughly nullified in previous editions, and fairly easily as well.
I have, and what I see is "the rules have changed since 2nd ed, and now I don't know how to play a Fighter", not "there really are some fundimental problems with the class, so lets completely change other things for the Fighters to be fixed."
Being weak against magic that effects the mind is the Fighters weak spot. It is also the weak spot of Rogues. All classes have weak spots. If you want to have your character strong against thoe things, and be a Fighter, there are options to do so.
Like being an Elf, taking Iron Will, Multiclassing for a Save boost, looking into Feats that help with conditions, (there are plenty in 3.5, not yet much in core pathfinder).
Magic Items work wonders, if you don't only go for stat bumps and magic sword and armor.
your missing the point beckett, the issue is the fighter was such a basic class, its strong points laid inside two things 1) the basic rules of how the universe worked and 2) it had THE BEST saves in the game.
when 3.x "changed the unvierse" they gave nothing TO the fighter to balance things AND stole the feature of best saves in the game and replaced them with worst saves in the game.
This line of arguement began with all the people whining about nerfing spellcasters, the first class to ever get "nerfed" was the fighter and it happened when 3.x was published.
so you cant argue "i dont want the spellcasters nerfed, but the fighter is ok where it is" thats not an equal arguement.
Like being an Elf, taking Iron Will, Multiclassing for a Save boost, looking into Feats that help with conditions, (there are plenty in 3.5, not yet much in core pathfinder).Being an elf is only good for enchantments which are not the only spells that require a Will save that can effect the 'Achilles Heel,'...
The issue of fighters needing magic items to be any good was always true. (even in 1e) they are, essentially no magical characters, so why wouldnt this be true,they should show up to battle in their jam-jams and a stocking cap and kick tail? No.
the issue of fighters being worse than magic-users at high levels was also always true (pay off for the mages sucking wind at 1st-8th or 10th)
The only thing that really needs fixing, is fighters being able to have an affect on high level combat at all.
In 1e fighters could take down arch devils and gods at high levels, now the fighter has an issue if he comes up a against a mean looking gorgon with a vorpal toothbrush.
I think it bears pointing out that dependence on magic items (and good equipment), for fighters, is not a new concept with 3e. In fact, 3.5 has gone farther than any other edition to remove magic item dependence for fighters by removing complete invulnerability to non-magical weaponry. All this discussion about viability of the fighters in 3e compared to previous editions should keep that in mind. Fighters could be just as thoroughly nullified in previous editions, and fairly easily as well.Very true. Especially true when you look at older editions where there were item restrictions; not everyone could use any old magic item. I brought this up in reference to a previous post here mentioning magic items.
And you are completely correct.
yes true, undead, demons, devils etc used to require a certain grade of magic weapon to affect them, as did werewolves with silver or magic.
But also bear in mind, that by the time those monsters came into play, the magic weapons required to affect them were common enough to be available.Damage resistance has become if anything, more prevalent.
However, complaining a fighter needing gear to be any good is like complaining iron man needs armor to have powers. It's like that by character design. A warrior needs a sword to slay a dragon, and to be honest a cleric isnt all that awesome in the nude either.
I'm jumping in late, but a comment about potions of fly made me notice something: consumables.
My group hardly ever uses them. Oh, they keep curative magic around like its made of gold, but every other consumable gets sold. Potions of bull strength go in the loot bag, not on the belt. Scrolls of inflict serious wounds are the new paper dollar, instead of folded into the cleric's prayer book for easy access. Is this just my group? Or is it more common?
One fighter mobility fix I've been considering is allowing a fighter to "trade" any or all of his iteritive attacks for extra 5' steps. I was also debating allowing this whenever the fighter attacks on his turn, which would give a 16th level fighter the ability to take a move action, attack as a standard, and make three 5' steps in the round. Which would give a pat on the back to the mobility based fighter. And still lets the not so mobility fighter Full attack, swign at full and -5, and then take his normal 5' step, and 2 more, to get in a better flanking position. At these same levels any rogue worth his salt will easily tumble at full speed, so its not like he's stealing any thunder.
Any thoughts/comments on this idea?
I'm jumping in late, but a comment about potions of fly made me notice something: consumables.
My group hardly ever uses them. Oh, they keep curative magic around like its made of gold, but every other consumable gets sold. Potions of bull strength go in the loot bag, not on the belt. Scrolls of inflict serious wounds are the new paper dollar, instead of folded into the cleric's prayer book for easy access. Is this just my group? Or is it more common?
One fighter mobility fix I've been considering is allowing a fighter to "trade" any or all of his iteritive attacks for extra 5' steps. I was also debating allowing this whenever the fighter attacks on his turn, which would give a 16th level fighter the ability to take a move action, attack as a standard, and make three 5' steps in the round. Which would give a pat on the back to the mobility based fighter. And still lets the not so mobility fighter Full attack, swign at full and -5, and then take his normal 5' step, and 2 more, to get in a better flanking position. At these same levels any rogue worth his salt will easily tumble at full speed, so its not like he's stealing any thunder.
Any thoughts/comments on this idea?
I think thats been thouroghly discussed in multiple threads and it is my assumption Jason will come out with something very close to what you are talking about.
|
So I have been looking at all the, "fighters are not powerful enough at high level" threads. And I think I have found some ways to remedy allot of the problem.
1.) Do away with "save or die" effects and their virtual cousins "sleep spells" etc.
I think This can be achieved by doing the following...
- Spells or Abilities with save or die effects would simply be removed.
(Yes even for the Rouge)
- Sleep would only work against "Animals" or creatures with a 3 or less intelligence.
I think there would a pretty simple fix to this, if the "save or die"-effects were modeled a bit after the 4E mechanics (namely, how 4E handles diseases). I wouldn't mind if the Ongoing Damage was also added into PF RPG rules.
Some quick examples:
DISINTEGRATE
As in PF Beta, but instead of being an "instantaneous" spell:
Ongoing damage 6D6 + 1 point per Caster Level (Fort save against DC 10 + half Caster Level + CHA or INT ends the effect). If the victim dies, he/she disintegrates into a pile of ash.
PETRIFICATION
1st failed save: 3D6 + 1 point per Caster Level/Hit Dice damage and Dazed
2nd failed save: 6D6 + 1 point per Caster Level/Hit Dice damage and Staggered
3rd failed save: Disintegrated (Dead)
SLEEP
1st failed save: Dazed
2nd failed save: Staggered
3rd failed save: Sleeping (Helpless)
|
|
Let me see if I got this right. Save or die spells (and the like) are a "Big" problem for the Fighter, right?
There are a lot of options a fighter can do to help counter/completely ignore those problems, but they are not big enough of a problem to utilize any of those option, (three items comming to mind are in the DMG, Ring of Counterspelling, Helm of Telepathy, and Scarrab of Protection).
Of coarse there are other non-DMG items that help too. MageBane weapons, all the feats that let you ignor conditions, (fear, paralyzation, domination, charm, etc. . .), a billion little items that cost like 2,000 gp (ish) in the Item Compendium, or you could just buy yourself a few scrolls so that the Rogue, Cleric, or Wizard in your party can use them on you if needed. Potions you can use yourself.
|
|
Some quick examples:
DISINTEGRATE
As in PF Beta, but instead of being an "instantaneous" spell:
Ongoing damage 6D6 + 1 point per Caster Level (Fort save against DC 10 + half Caster Level + CHA or INT ends the effect). If the victim dies, he/she disintegrates into a pile of ash.
PETRIFICATION
1st failed save: 3D6 + 1 point per Caster Level/Hit Dice damage and Dazed
2nd failed save: 6D6 + 1 point per Caster Level/Hit Dice damage and Staggered
3rd failed save: Disintegrated (Dead)
As is, these are even better than the original spells . . .
Any change to sleep besides the target falls asleep makes the spell useless. Two things I can see being done are 1.) it works similar to invisibility, if attacked, you wake up before the attack, and are prone and take a minor penulty, but not helpless and can not just be instakilled, or 2.)left as is.
|
|
Let me see if I got this right. Save or die spells (and the like) are a "Big" problem for the Fighter, right?
There are a lot of options a fighter can do to help counter/completely ignore those problems, but they are not big enough of a problem to utilize any of those option, (three items comming to mind are in the DMG, Ring of Counterspelling, Helm of Telepathy, and Scarrab of Protection).
Of coarse there are other non-DMG items that help too. MageBane weapons, all the feats that let you ignor conditions, (fear, paralyzation, domination, charm, etc. . .), a billion little items that cost like 2,000 gp (ish) in the Item Compendium, or you could just buy yourself a few scrolls so that the Rogue, Cleric, or Wizard in your party can use them on you if needed. Potions you can use yourself.
Well, the 'save-or-die'-effects are big problems for *everyone* at 11+ levels -- the paladin, having usually the best saves in the group, probably saves most of the time, but I wouldn't bet my money on a high-level fighter trying to save (even if it's a Fort Save) against DC 30+ spell (and it's easily 36+, if the spellcaster has maxed out his spell DCs).
Secondly, I don't own or use Magic Item Compendium, and whatever items it offers is not, in my opinion, relevant to the playtest -- Paizo is trying to make the game as "balanced" as possible without any items/spells needed from extra supplements ("Caveat: By the time your PF RPG characters hit level 10, you should buy 3E Magic Item Compendium and Spell Compendium or the PCs are *toast*"). I use some items from FR supplements, but I try to stick to the Beta rules as much as possible, because that's how I get more accurate "data".
In PF RPG, there are items and spells that help the PCs with these, but you *only* get access to those items at your DM's approval. I've played under DMs who explicitly disallow any "shopping" *and* creating magical items. Some DMs also like to "spring" the encounters (no matter what precautions the PCs take) at you without any "buffing" time, so the PCs have to begin combat with no spells on. Half the group starts "buffing" themselves (or, occasionally, their friends, too) for four or five rounds, and the combat may already be lost (or, at least one of the frontline guys is dead -- either from damage or some 'save-or-die'-effect).
Therefore, I think I prefer PF RPG not making any "automatic" assumptions of every PC flauting a Cloak of Resistance or Ring of Protection and protections against Mind-Affecting spells or Death Magic.
Such as I don't think "buffs" should be considered "everyone uses them" when calculating the baselines for balanced encounters at each level -- in my experience it's a rare group that has *always* them on, in every combat.
So, yes, I consider the 'save-or-die'-effects to be a real problem in the game, and it sorely needs "tweaking".