I'll repost from the "alternative method" thread.
Another idea I've been kicking around is coming up with a way to remove full-attacks from the game. They take a really long time to complete, they make combat less interesting by converting damage into massive spikes, and as time goes on, they make full-attacking the objective for a martial character, removing viability of bull-rushing, disarming, etc.
It seems, at least to me, that the reason full-attacks exist in the first place is to balance martial damage output with higher-level spells. A single attack does not scale nearly as quickly as a caster's highest-level spells do. So, in a roundabout way, full-attacks represent a spellcaster taking longer amounts of time to complete higher-level spellcasting. At 11th level, when a full-BAB PC is at +11/+6/+1, a spellcaster takes three times as long to cast his 6th-level spells than he did with his 1st-level spells. Not chronologically, but with regards to action capacity. One attack per spell at 1st, two attacks per spell at 6th, three attacks per spell at 11th, and four attacks per spell at 16th.
So, looking at the situation from this direction, one logical conclusion comes to mind:
Instead of granting multiple attacks to compensate for higher-level spells, why not make higher-level spells take longer to cast?
As mentioned a moment ago, one attack per spell at 1st, two attacks per spell at 6th, three attacks per spell at 11th, and four attacks per spell at 16th. Why not slow down casting time instead of speeding up attack time to follow this progression?
-4th and 5th-level spells require two standard ("attack") actions to complete.
-6th and 7th-level spells require three standard actions to complete.
-8th and 9th-level spells require four standard actions to complete.
So if a spellcaster wants to cast, say, Disintegrate, he'll be able to cast it, but then he loses his next two standard actions. Or full turns; the idea will have to be revised of course.
This way, we can then accomplish what iterative attacks were designed to accomplish, and then we'd be able to phase out the convoluted "it's all about getting your full-attack, because full-attack > everything else" system that currently stands. Play would be sped up, as all the full-attack math would not have to be done, and combat would be more interesting, since damage would no longer come in massive spikes as it does now, allowing PCs and monsters to defend themselves instead of sitting back and dying to a full-attack. Also, other non-full-attack actions, like bull-rushes, would be viable again, since they only have to compete with the effectiveness of a single attack, not a full-attack as well as the actions which grant one.
-Matt
I think making it the CASTER'S "top" Spell Levels scales more elegantly (rather than fixed Spell Levels), particularly keeping Casting/Melee balanced at LOW levels where Melee doesn't HAVE Iterative Full Attack to distinguish from Standard Attack. Having such a "Level Appropriate" regime also seems more easily applied to situations like Swift Spells, as my last post detailed.
If we're allowing a "Weak" Iterative Standard Attack (Full Attack -1 attack),
Vital Strike would definitely apply, as well as 2WF being compatible.
I should say that at low levels (before 6th level when Fighters gain 1st Iterative Full Attack),
you should NOT be able to make 2WF Secondary attacks as a Standard Action, since [Full Attack: 1 -1= 0],
so a Secondary Attack on top of that is still just 1 attack.
At 6th level/ when first Iterative attack is gained, THEN Secondary 2WF Attack starts working w/ Standard Attack,
though 1H/ 2H wielders still have single Standard Attacks, since [2 -1 = 1].
There was two perspectives on how the "Weak" Iterative Standard Attack would work,
one saying you lose the LAST (weakest) attack, one saying you lose the FIRST (strongest) one.
I originally felt the first was "too good" since you rarely hit with the last one,
but given the existence of Vital Strike (which is practically Feat Tax once it's available),
losing the LAST (weakest) Iterative Attack DOES seem balanced.
(since you now have to give up an Attack that COULD hit in order to gain the Vital Strike bonus damage.)
However, if it's still felt that losing the LAST (weakest) Iterative Attack is "too good",
I thought we could follow the example of Improved 2WF's trade-off for IT'S extra attack:
Still take off the LAST (weakest) Iterative attack, but all attacks suffer -2 to-hit.
I'm OK with or without this nuance though, and it would be "simpler" without, obviously.
Director of Game Design
|
Interesting discussion everyone.
I am currently considering a few simple options here that I would like to get some playtest feedback on them.
1. Use the following two attack options:
- Standard Attack: standard action, make one attack at your full BAB. If you BAB is 11+, you may take a second attack at your BAB -5. (alternatively, this might be at a –10, but that seems counterintuitive to me)
- Full Attack: Full round action, make all of your attacks, as normal.
2. Make the following change to Vital Strike and Improved Vital Strike
- Vital Strike is now a standard action, you only get one attack at your highest BAB, and you deal triple the weapon's base dice (only, no other bonuses are doubled). (this could be double base dice instead)
- Improved Vital Strike, works as Vital Strike, but the hit deals quadruples the weapon's base dice. (this could be triple base dice instead)
3. Change spellcasting as follows
- Whenever a spellcaster casts a spell with a casting time of 1 standard action and that spell is of the highest level the spellcaster is capable of casting, the spell instead takes 1 full round action to cast (not 1 round, 1 full round action). All other spells are unaffected.
- Possibly expand this to include the two highest levels the spellcaster can cast.
I would love to hear some in game feedback on these options, even if it is from play solely for the purpose of testing out these options.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
For what it matters I love options 1 and 2.
Option 3 I'm still not liking. Spellcasting classes are some of the hardest to play and this just makes them harder, as everyone has to remember if this spell has and increased time or that one. Also there will be confusion over spells like feather fall, and at first level wizards and sorcerer's would be hosed on their spells. Everything would be full round casting when the fighters and what not are charging and not even worrying about full round attacks becuase they have nothing to lose by taking a move & standard action (with the sole exception of two weapon fighter types). At which point the spell-chuckers become supernatural archery units, as they will just continually use their special class abilities (like acidic ray) becuase they are standard actions.
|
2. Make the following change to Vital Strike and Improved Vital Strike
- Vital Strike is now a standard action, you only get one attack at your highest BAB, and you deal triple the weapon's base dice (only, no other bonuses are doubled). (this could be double base dice instead)
- Improved Vital Strike, works as Vital Strike, but the hit deals quadruples the weapon's base dice. (this could be triple base dice instead)
During the Feats section of playtest, I posted this thread, which died a quick death. The thread contains some playtest feedback on Vital Strike. I also had some ideas similar to yours above.
I think this is the best option. I'd like to see some modification of this however. I'd like to see Vital Strike change to a feat that a character can take a +6 BAB instead of +11. This would allow the character to take it immediately upon getting a second iterative attack, then condense that attack into a standard attack a 2x damage dice. Improved Vital Strike would then take the current Vital Strike's place as a +11 feat allowing a standard attack at 3x damage dice. Finally, add a Greater Vital Strike feat at BAB +16 that allows 4x the damage dice.
This would make the standard attack option available at all levels instead of just after level 11 (for full BABers). It also brings the high level iterative attacks and Vital Strike feats into harmony.
Love this option.
-Skeld
|
Director of Brand Strategy
|
- Possibly expand this to include the two highest levels the spellcaster can cast.
Top two levels seriously nerfs low level casters who only have a few levels to work with anyway. I think that the highest level is the way to go. And spell descriptions of exceptions, like feather fall, could be altered to indicate that these spells are not effected by the casting-time increase.
Additionally, I see no reason that both the changes to vital strike feats and casting times can't be put into effect.
I'll try it out with my lvl 5 RotR party after the holidays and report back.
Excuse me if this has been suggested already, but wouldn't the simplest and most effective solution to simply allow full attacks with a standard action? As an added bonus, it would fix the anomaly where it is more advantageous for high level combatants to wait for their enemies to make the first move. If we really have to justify this fancy new "ability", it can be a feat with +6 BAB prereq.
TS
|
Why lose attacks for extra movement. Just create a feat (or make it a standard for all characters) that allows you to move extra 5 feet for each iterative attack you can do. So BAB +1 - +5 characters can move 5 foot and full attack (if wielding two weapons or rapid shooting), BAB +6 - +10 characters can move 10 feet and do full attack, BAB +11 - +15 can move 15 feet and do full attack and BAB 16+ can move 20 feet and do full attack.
I like this idea alot. I'd make it a standard feature of all characters, not a feat.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
I've previously voiced my support for full attacks as a standard action. HOWEVER, to reply to the folks who counter with the "but what if the super-dragon can do it to you..." argument, let me suggest one of the following.
#1. Standard attack
So yes, giants and NPCs and weapon-wielding demons and such can use this option, but most of your combat-killa mega-monsters cannot.
#2. Full attack
To answer why would you ever do a traditional full attack action (the old reliable one we know and love)
So there is an incentive to standing still and fighting, but it's not an automatic win/lose choice as in 3.5.
#3. Fighting defensively
Just a notion to throw out. Just thought of it; see what you think:
#4. Opportunistic defense
And a version of one other notion that was talked about back in the fighter playtest period.
Finally...
#5. Don't mess with dragons!
Back to the dragon example... is it a bad thing for dragons to be super-ultra-mega deadly? Yeah, I didn't think so... :)
|
1. Use the following two attack options:
- Standard Attack: standard action, make one attack at your full BAB. If you BAB is 11+, you may take a second attack at your BAB -5. (alternatively, this might be at a –10, but that seems counterintuitive to me)
- Full Attack: Full round action, make all of your attacks, as normal.
I like this, but to level the field a little for the TWF-ers, how about adding the line: "If you are wielding two weapons, the second attack is made at your full BAB as long as you make the attack with your off-hand."
2. Make the following change to Vital Strike and Improved Vital Strike
- Vital Strike is now a standard action, you only get one attack at your highest BAB, and you deal triple the weapon's base dice (only, no other bonuses are doubled). (this could be double base dice instead)
- Improved Vital Strike, works as Vital Strike, but the hit deals quadruples the weapon's base dice. (this could be triple base dice instead)
I like the idea of making VS/IVS a standard action, but I think it should be a flat +xd6 bonus damage rather than x3/x4 base dice, which heavily favors larger weapons (or high-level, enlarged monks).
3. Change spellcasting as follows
- Whenever a spellcaster casts a spell with a casting time of 1 standard action and that spell is of the highest level the spellcaster is capable of casting, the spell instead takes 1 full round action to cast (not 1 round, 1 full round action). All other spells are unaffected.
- Possibly expand this to include the two highest levels the spellcaster can cast.
I understand the motivation behind this change, but it seems unnecessarily complicated (since the spells to which the penalty applies change every two levels). Wouldn't it be easier to make spells easier to disrupt - such as by increasing the Spellcraft DC by 2x the spell's level (rather than 1x) or by +5 for spells with full round action casting times, or by +5 if the caster moves?
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Interesting discussion everyone.
I am currently considering a few simple options here that I would like to get some playtest feedback on them.
1. Use the following two attack options:
- Standard Attack: standard action, make one attack at your full BAB. If you BAB is 11+, you may take a second attack at your BAB -5. (alternatively, this might be at a –10, but that seems counterintuitive to me)
- Full Attack: Full round action, make all of your attacks, as normal.
My preference is to go even further, but this is still a change I would favor.
2. Make the following change to Vital Strike and Improved Vital Strike
- Vital Strike is now a standard action, you only get one attack at your highest BAB, and you deal triple the weapon's base dice (only, no other bonuses are doubled). (this could be double base dice instead)
- Improved Vital Strike, works as Vital Strike, but the hit deals quadruples the weapon's base dice. (this could be triple base dice instead)
Another generally good idea, though like others I'm wary of multipliers (which favor big weapons/big monsters) vs. flat extra dice. Every giant and dragon in the book will take VS/IVS.
3. Change spellcasting as follows
- Whenever a spellcaster casts a spell with a casting time of 1 standard action and that spell is of the highest level the spellcaster is capable of casting, the spell instead takes 1 full round action to cast (not 1 round, 1 full round action). All other spells are unaffected.
- Possibly expand this to include the two highest levels the spellcaster can cast.
Not a bad idea. I'd favor top two levels. You could exempt 1st level spells from this restriction if people think it is too harsh on the low-level casters, but then again they have SLAs, domain powers, cantrips, etc. to fall back on, so I wouldn't push too hard for that.
Also, for the folks who worry about feather fall, it's not a relevant because FF doesn't have a casting time of 1 standard action.
You might consider an exemption also for power word/holy word spells, which by their very nature would seem to be intended as fast spells.
I would love to hear some in game feedback on these options, even if it is from play solely for the purpose of testing out these options.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
I'll see what I can do...
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Why lose attacks for extra movement. Just create a feat (or make it a standard for all characters) that allows you to move extra 5 feet for each iterative attack you can do. So BAB +1 - +5 characters can move 5 foot and full attack (if wielding two weapons or rapid shooting), BAB +6 - +10 characters can move 10 feet and do full attack, BAB +11 - +15 can move 15 feet and do full attack and BAB 16+ can move 20 feet and do full attack.I like this idea alot. I'd make it a standard feature of all characters, not a feat.
I like this one too. It's simple and to the point. And it also has the needed caveat of referring to iterative attacks, which is the relevant point to make it a useful rule for PCs without them getting sliced and diced by giant reach monsters with a bucket of natural weapons.
1. Use the following two attack options:
- Standard Attack: standard action, make one attack at your full BAB. If you BAB is 11+, you may take a second attack at your BAB -5. (alternatively, this might be at a –10, but that seems counterintuitive to me)
- Full Attack: Full round action, make all of your attacks, as normal.2. Make the following change to Vital Strike and Improved Vital Strike
- Vital Strike is now a standard action, you only get one attack at your highest BAB, and you deal triple the weapon's base dice (only, no other bonuses are doubled). (this could be double base dice instead)
- Improved Vital Strike, works as Vital Strike, but the hit deals quadruples the weapon's base dice. (this could be triple base dice instead)3. Change spellcasting as follows
- Whenever a spellcaster casts a spell with a casting time of 1 standard action and that spell is of the highest level the spellcaster is capable of casting, the spell instead takes 1 full round action to cast (not 1 round, 1 full round action). All other spells are unaffected.
- Possibly expand this to include the two highest levels the spellcaster can cast.I would love to hear some in game feedback on these options, even if it is from play solely for the purpose of testing out these options.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
1. Second attack at -5 works well for +11 or higher BAB. I like this.
2. I don't like the changes to Vital Strike(or even the original version in the Beta). Multiplying the damage dice just encourage min/maxing for playing to try and get larger size and bigger weapons just to improve this feat. I'd much rather that Vital Strike be a standard action which adds the BAB to damage than having the extra damage be based on base weapon damage (the extra damage would be based on skill instead). Improved Vital Strike could add double BAB to damage.3. I don't like the idea of making spellcasting full round actions regardless of spell level. Also, if the melee improvements in 1. and 2. are made I don't think it's necessary.
While I agree that there is a difference in the amount of actions a melee character has to a spellcaster I dont believe the answer is increasing the amount of actions a melee character has in a round. Count me towards the group that thinks spellcasting times should be increased. This will close the gap between spellcasters and martial characters without increasing the total output of high level characters. They can do enough in a round already.
My simple fix, from a thread recently locked due to duplication of ideas in this one:
Let me preface by saying I grew up with 1e: fighters could move and full attack, but wizards could not move while casting, if I remember correctly. If a wizard started casting, you threw initiative, and if the fighter won, he ran up to the wizard and whaled on him. In short, the mechanics specified that a wizard without bodyguards was a dead wizard.
3.0 turned this on its head: now the wizard can retreat 30 ft. and still cast a spell (and also cast a quickened spell), whereas the fighter gets only one attack if he moves at all. In short, the mechnics now specify that an intelligent wizard can never be attacked. Melee characters lost all economy of action, and the casters gained, not proportionately, but double!
I'd like to re-establish some semblance of parity. The proposed change is full backwards-compatible, because it affects the basic combat rules, and not anything in a stat block:
Spells with a casting time of "1 standard action" should require a full attack action instead, preventing the caster from taking more than a 5-ft. step that round.
Then, the introduction of feats allowing movement coupled with multiple attacks would gradually shift the balance at high levels back to the warriors' court, without nerfing spells, and without overpowering warriors.
Interesting discussion everyone.
3. Change spellcasting as follows
- Whenever a spellcaster casts a spell with a casting time of 1 standard action and that spell is of the highest level the spellcaster is capable of casting, the spell instead takes 1 full round action to cast (not 1 round, 1 full round action). All other spells are unaffected.
- Possibly expand this to include the two highest levels the spellcaster can cast.
I like this option for the reasons Kirth specifies above. This would make magic feel thematically more complex and impressive.
I also like it because of how it would affect multiclassed spellcasters. Next to a single class spellcaster they would almost always look like the amateurs that they should be.
I am not sure if it has been mentioned, and if it has, I applogize.
Under the 3.5 rules, if a spellcaster (or any character) takes more than a 5-foot step away out threatened square (unless Withdrawing - which is a full-round action), he provokes an attack of opportuinty.
Now, this does not prevent a caster from taking the AoO and still casting at the end of the move, but he will get swung at.
A simple fix would be to be to require a Concentration check if the caster took damage as part of the AoO.
Edit: My suggestion does not address the firepower issues of the move an attack, which I aggree needs to be addresed.
|
|
I am not sure if it has been mentioned, and if it has, I applogize.
Under the 3.5 rules, if a spellcaster (or any character) takes more than a 5-foot step away out threatened square (unless Withdrawing - which is a full-round action), he provokes an attack of opportuinty.
Now, this does not prevent a caster from taking the AoO and still casting at the end of the move, but he will get swung at.
A simple fix would be to be to require a Concentration check if the caster took damage as part of the AoO.
Edit: My suggestion does not address the firepower issues of the move an attack, which I aggree needs to be addresed.
It's a nice idea, theoretically, but have you ever seen a Wizard of mid level or higher miss a concentration check? Another thing Kirth only touched on is that in 1e, you could actually disrupt a spell. 3x makes it nearly impossible.
It's a nice idea, theoretically, but have you ever seen a Wizard of mid level or higher miss a concentration check? Another thing Kirth only touched on is that in 1e, you could actually disrupt a spell. 3x makes it nearly impossible.
I agree, 3.x makes it extremely hard to disrupt spells.
Before, spells took a number of segments to cast, allowing the fighter to run up and interrupt the casting. Now, the spell is almost always cast immediately on the casters action and unless the opponent has a readied action, or threatens the caster, there's no chance of disrupting the spell. Then... add in that virtually every arcane caster always maxes out Concentration so he virtually never fails to cast his spell.
There really isn't much danger. I really want this to change.
|
A small addition to the high level fighter full attack situation that requires a strict minimum of tinkering.
Two Feats
COMBAT MOVEMENT
[GENERAL]
You are good at tactically moving whilst raining attacks upon the enemy.
Prerequisites: Dex 13, Base Attack Bonus +6
Benefit: You can move a total of half your movement as a swift action as part of a full attack. This movement may be taken at any stage of the full attack action broken up as the player wishes.
Normal: Without this feat, a character performing a full attack action is restricted to a 5 foot step.
Special: A fighter may select Combat Movement as one of his fighter bonus feats.
SUPREME COMBAT MOVEMENT
[GENERAL]
You are extremely good at tactically moving whilst raining attacks upon the enemy.
Prerequisites: Dex 13, Combat Movement, Base Attack Bonus +11
Benefit: You can move your normal movement as a swift action as part of a full attack. This movement may be taken at any stage of the full attack action broken up as the player wishes.
Normal: Without this feat, a character performing a full attack action is restricted to a 5 foot step.
Special: A fighter may select Supreme Combat Movement as one of his fighter bonus feats.
Alternatively, you can write these in as class abilities at 6th and 11th level for the Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger and Rogue.
Just a thought.
Best Regards
Herremann the Wise
|
There are a lot of very interesting viewpoints floating around in this thread.
My take is that people are looking for a kind of artificial symmetry between martial and spellcasting classes by comparing iterative full attacks to standard action attack spells.
There are other factors bearing on balance between the two archetypes, such as the superior hit points and armor of the melee classes (for soaking aggro), and the fact that spellcasters have to spend resources (spell slots) while a martial character can effectively swing away forever. IOW...aren't spellcasters supposed to produce superior damage per round at high levels?
IMHO, it is generally not good design to try to balance classes by nerfing the more powerful class. So, if there really is a balance problem here, I would lean towards those suggestions that try to improve the martial damage-per-round-per-movement (DPRPM?), rather than increasing casting times.
|
|
There are a lot of very interesting viewpoints floating around in this thread.
My take is that people are looking for a kind of artificial symmetry between martial and spellcasting classes by comparing iterative full attacks to standard action attack spells.
There are other factors bearing on balance between the two archetypes, such as the superior hit points and armor of the melee classes (for soaking aggro), and the fact that spellcasters have to spend resources (spell slots) while a martial character can effectively swing away forever. IOW...aren't spellcasters supposed to produce superior damage per round at high levels?
IMHO, it is generally not good design to try to balance classes by nerfing the more powerful class. So, if there really is a balance problem here, I would lean towards those suggestions that try to improve the martial damage-per-round-per-movement (DPRPM?), rather than increasing casting times.
Here's the deal for some of us. Flavor-wise, 3x is cool. There are a lot of character options, you can really get that concept you visualized in a skill/feat/class way you couldn't do in 1e.
One problem.
Mechanically, AD&D kicks 3x's a**. You didn't have to balance the classes skill/power wise, the way the combat round progressed was the great equalizer. AD&D spells make 3x spells look like birthday party magician tricks. They could ruin your day.
If the magic user could get them off, that is...
The biggest flaw in the 3x system is the "full action/standard/move/immediate/swift/free" action resolution. It puts ALL of the advantages in the wizard's court. Period.
(the second is "balanced" class progression, but that's an impossible fix backwards compatibility wise...)
The trick is to redefine actions using the 3x system, but placing the balance back where it was in AD&D. (Oh, and making a concentration check DC that actually has a chance of ending in failure would be nice, too). Of course, this would be seen as "nerfing" the wizard, but, if done correctly, it could result in the UNnerfing of spells. Seriously, ever been hit with an AD&D disintegrate? They actually disintegrated things. Amazing concept, eh? ;)
Just wanted to define the perspective some of this is coming from...
The trick is to redefine actions using the 3x system, but placing the balance back where it was in AD&D. (Oh, and making a concentration check DC that actually has a chance of ending in failure would be nice, too). Of course, this would be seen as "nerfing" the...
Part of the balancing has already occured with the Pathfinder rules nerfing the save or die spells. Don't forget in AD&D many of the high level spells didn't allow a save - so you may have been able to interrupt that caster easier, but if he got off even one spell you were autokilled.
Now you have a small chance to disrupt a spellcaster, but you also get a save and if you miss that save you more than likely live another round to try again. With casters limited hit points and the damage increases melee characters are looking at with feat improvements using a standard action (such as Jason's Vital Strike proposal in this thread) I'm not so sure you need to limit casters.
Let's just concentrate on improving the melee effectiveness when moving by allowing movement and more than 1 attack or by increasing the effectiveness of the standard action and I think MORE people will be happy with Pathfinders final rules than Paizo would get by making spell casters a pain in the rear end to play.
|
|
Part of the balancing has already occured with the Pathfinder rules nerfing the save or die spells.
This is a matter of taste, imo. Personally, I cannot stand the taking of the nerf bat to spells.
Don't forget in AD&D many of the high level spells didn't allow a save - so you may have been able to interrupt that caster easier, but if he got off even one spell you were autokilled.
Yeah, I know, it's so unfair!
Now you have a small chance to disrupt a spellcaster, but you also get a save and if you miss that save you more than likely live another round to try again.
The wizard rolling anything lower than a "2" qualifies as a "small chance", I suppose.
With casters limited hit points and the damage increases melee characters are looking at with feat improvements using a standard action (such as Jason's Vital Strike proposal in this thread) I'm not so sure you need to limit casters.
Have fun getting close enough to that caster to use your nifty new feats :)
Let's just concentrate on improving the melee effectiveness when moving by allowing movement and more than 1 attack or by increasing the effectiveness of the standard action and I think MORE people will be happy with Pathfinders final rules than Paizo would get by making spell casters a pain in the rear end to play.
Exactly how would making concentration checks a bit harder, and increasing casting times make "spell casters a pain in the rear to play?"
|
#1. Standard attack
All your attacks AND you full move seems too much to me. I favor the trade-an-attack-for-5' model.
#3. Fighting defensively...
#4. Opportunistic defense...
These, on the other hand, I think are cool. I like the idea of folks having a small menu of things they can trade their iterative attacks for - a 5' step, a little extra damage a la Vital Strike, an increased threat range, a little AC bump, etc. More attacks represent greater fighting prowess, but greater fighting prowess doesn't have to be express solely by more attacks.
IOW...aren't spellcasters supposed to produce superior damage per round at high levels?
And they do, but only once you add the damage they to all the targets being affected by their spell.
And they can be even more effective when just using spells that control the battlefield. Throw the Force Wall at the right spot and you can halve or reduce the opposition to 1.|
|
Have fun getting close enough to that caster to use your nifty new feats :)
Long Composite Bow: When you really really want to reach out and touch someone. With iterative lethal impaling precision damage. :-D
Unless the spellcaster is running protection from arrows or stoneskin, he's pretty easy to hose down with ranged fire. Force him to make that Spellcraft check often enough, and eventually he'll roll a 1 (or run out of HP -- as we like to say in my City of Heroes Supergroup, a defeated opponent is fully debuffed).
I'd like to see casting defensively get removed outright. If all casting provokes an AoO, then you roll your Spellcraft against the damage inflicted to keep the spell -- you still have a good chance to keep it that way (unlike in 1e, when you auto-failed). If you think about it, this actually decreases the number of times you have to roll: instead of rolling to cast, then maybe rolling vs. damage if you fail to cast defensively, now you just straight roll if you get hit with that AoO -- which you probably won't, because fighters still have no means of penetrating a simple mirror image spell -- but if you DO get hit, you MIGHT actually fail your check (whereas, as Derek pointed out, it is currently impossible to fail a cast defensively check).
That, and changing standard action casting times to full attack actions, so the caster can't just tumble 30 ft. away while casting.
3.5 adventures would still be playable with Pathfinder characters, and vice-versa, because all these changes take place "behind the scenes," as it were.
P.S. Re: fighters "attacking all day" -- In my experience in high-level play, it's very rare for a fighter to ever get in a full attack. Monsters are either very mobile (demons teleport at will) or have reach; casters are more mobile and have impenetrable defenses; etc. The only reason an anemy will stand still and let a fighter full attack, once you're past 13th level or so, is if the DM is intentionally throwing the fighter a bone. Likewise, given at-will cantrips, Craft Wand, arcane bonded items, and the rope trick spell, wizards very rarely run out of spells anymore.
Unless the spellcaster is running protection from arrows or stoneskin, he's pretty easy to hose down with ranged fire.
Or displacement, mirror images, project image , etc. And even then, he still kills you just as efficiently if he has 10 hp left, as if he had 100 hp left. One hideous laughter spell later, your archer is no longer an annoyance, because fighters' save progression also got nerfed in 3e. And a quickened hideous laughter (aka insta-fighter-kill) is only a 6th level spell, so starting at 11th level, dealing with melee types doesn't even require a standard action.
These, on the other hand, I think are cool. I like the idea of folks having a small menu of things they can trade their iterative attacks for - a 5' step, a little extra damage a la Vital Strike, an increased threat range, a little AC bump, etc. More attacks represent greater fighting prowess, but greater fighting prowess doesn't have to be express solely by more attacks.#3. Fighting defensively...
#4. Opportunistic defense...
Mosaic, I'd like to highlight this particular quote of yours. I agree that it would be a great addition to add this "menu" to the combat rules section, to diversify the kinds of actions you can do in martial combat, beyond the typical, "I move up and swing," or the common tendency of limiting all of your combat options on what particular feats you have. You'd probably still be doing that for the most part, but at least this menu would add some spice to the combat norm.
Probably, would warrant a new thread to discuss though.
Any takers?
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
3. Change spellcasting as follows
- Whenever a spellcaster casts a spell with a casting time of 1 standard action and that spell is of the highest level the spellcaster is capable of casting, the spell instead takes 1 full round action to cast (not 1 round, 1 full round action). All other spells are unaffected.
- Possibly expand this to include the two highest levels the spellcaster can cast.
Tried a short playtest of this last night. The question immediately came up: "What about magic items?"
My answer: Control words would still take no time. Wands would still be a standard action. Scroll-reading would take a full round.
It didn't appear to have much of an effect, because even full-round actions go off on a spellcaster's initiative, same as they do otherwise. It more or less kept the wizard standing in one place as she flung spells, which is what she normally does.
Other questions that came up:
- What are the effects of Haste?
- Does Slow shut down spellcasting entirely?
- Does counterspelling also take a full-round action?
- What does quicken metamagic do?
|
|
Unless the spellcaster is running protection from arrows or stoneskin, he's pretty easy to hose down with ranged fire.Or displacement, mirror images, project image , etc. And even then, he still kills you just as efficiently if he has 10 hp left, as if he had 100 hp left. One hideous laughter spell later, your archer is no longer an annoyance, because fighters' save progression also got nerfed in 3e. And a quickened hideous laughter (aka insta-fighter-kill) is only a 6th level spell, so starting at 11th level, dealing with melee types doesn't even require a standard action.
Don't forget the Golden Rule of 3x: "Fighters Do Not Get Nice Things".
Or displacement, mirror images, project image , etc. And even then, he still kills you just as efficiently if he has 10 hp left, as if he had 100 hp left. One hideous laughter spell later, your archer is no longer an annoyance, because fighters' save progression also got nerfed in 3e. And a quickened hideous laughter (aka insta-fighter-kill) is only a 6th level spell, so starting at 11th level, dealing with melee types doesn't even require a standard action.
This really isn't a fair assessment unless you limit it to a one-on-one confrontation between a martial character and a spellcaster.
Nearly all confrontations however, are between a group of PCs vs. 1 or more opponents. In this situation, a wizard would need these spells just to last (on either side).
Back on topic, it's the economy of actions as you have pointed out so many times, that needs to be addressed.
That is what really needs to be addressed, not so much "can a fighter beat a wizard one-on-one?" Answers to that question are always circumstantial. Even in 3.x disparity of power.
|
|
Don't forget the Golden Rule of 3x: "Fighters Do Not Get Nice Things".Hah! You should hear my monk player kvetch about this. He nearly came to blows with the rogue the other night over the single pair of Gloves of Dexterity in the treasure.
Kirth is playing a Monk in one incarnation of our Sunday game (We have three going right now, to give the Dms a break). I have a feeling houseruling full AB for the Monk and changing the DCs for CMB maneuvers are on order...
Ok, maybe I should change that to "Fighters and Monks"...
[ooc]The greater issue, in my experience, is that spellcasters on the same side as the martial characters, in many cases, tend to take care of everything before the martial characters even have a chance to really do anything.
I do agree that this might be the bigger issue.
Round 1:
Fighter wearing heavy armor> Charge up to enemy but can't quite reach him because his armor slowed him down too much.
Wizard> Cast sweet spell that disables enemy (dominate, confusion, etc)
Round 2:
Fighter wearing heavy armor> Sits down and sulks.
Wizard> Dominates enemy into attacking the fighter just to prove how stupid he is.
|
|
The greater issue, in my experience, is that spellcasters on the same side as the martial characters, in many cases, tend to take care of everything before the martial characters even have a chance to really do anything.
If the enemy doesn't have strong saves, spell resistance, or energy resistance/immunity.
If the spellcasters haven't expended their spell slots already.
If the spellcasters aren't otherwise prevented from casting (such as by distraction, silence, etc.)
I accept that people think there is a balance issue here -- and if wizards can get too tankmagey, that's a problem -- but I'm not convinced that the proposed solutions are necessarily better.
As I said before, I'm perfectly comfortable with the spellcasters being artillery, and the martial classes providing the tanking.
|
|
Fighter wearing heavy armor
This is definitely a problem. Most fighter builds I see avoid heavy armor like the plague (other than Dwarves, as they have a 20 move already) just for the reasons you stated. Getting a stat boost item and lighter armor (which has the nice side benefits of better initiative and ranged attack bonuses) seems to be the norm for higher levels.
We're in the realm of too many variables now.
If your DM uses high-save monsters, like advanced monsters, then save-based spells aren't nearly as effective as if your DM used basic monsters. In fact, my own 17th-level arcanist goes melee these days, because in the game he's in, it's more effective than using save-based spells.
So we can't say that arcanists always disable the combat before the fighter can take a turn.
Higher-level melee-based characters often have a method of going airborne. It's necessary to deal with flying foes. Add on Boots of Speed, which are also essential, and even a heavily-armored character is sporting a 70' movement rate, more than enough, especially when lightly-armored characters have 90'.
So we can't say that Fighters avoid heavy armor like the plague, or that getting lighter armor is the norm.
Everyone's D&D game, and everyone's D&D perspective, is different.
And to clarify the "Fighter vs. Wizard" issue: How often does a single PC Fighter taking on a single PC Wizard actually occur, outside of forum posts?
...exactly.
-Matt
(1) If the enemy doesn't have strong saves, spell resistance, or energy resistance/immunity.
(2) If the spellcasters haven't expended their spell slots already.
(3) If the spellcasters aren't otherwise prevented from casting (such as by distraction, silence, etc.)I accept that people think there is a balance issue here -- and if wizards can get too tankmagey, that's a problem -- but I'm not convinced that the proposed solutions are necessarily better.
As I said before, I'm perfectly comfortable with the spellcasters being artillery, and the martial classes providing the tanking.
Those really aren't big "ifs," however. The following apply for wizard vs. monsters just as well:
(1) Energy resistance is meaningless, because any wizard with an Int higher than 10 will understand that energy blasting is inefficient and wasteful of spell slots . Different spells target different weak saves, so a smart wizard will keep a hold monster handy against weak Will saves, and a baleful polymorph for use on people with weak Fort saves (like other casters). (Both of those are 5th level insta-take-out spells.) SR is a minor issue, given that Pathfinder has rigged the racial ability mods and favored class benefits so that all wizards are now elves, and elves also get a +2 bonus to defeat SR, on top of Spell Penetration (if any)(2) Between at-will cantrips, half-price arcane bonded staves, wands, scrolls, and arcane bond insta-spell-recall, wizards will never run out of spells once they get past median level.
(3) Distraction? Remember, the Spellcraft DCs are so low as to be a joke. Silence is only 20'r., and wizards can move 30 ft. and still cast . Silence cast directly on the wizard allows a Will save -- the wizard's strong save.
As Anthony and Matt point out, the issue is that the things listed above apply to wizard vs. monsters, not just in the artificial area of wizard vs. fighter.
In short, at high levels, there's nothing a melee character can do that a wizard can't do more efficiently; tanks are obsolete by 15th level, due to the very nature of the combat rules. Yes, the fighter can still contribute. But he contrubtes LESS, and that's what galls me.
(3) Distraction? ... Silence is only 20'r.
Just to clarify...
A readied-action 3.5 Silence to target a point in space with its radius encompassing the spellcaster is perhaps the most effective method of disrupting a spellcaster. Spellcaster starts casting, spellcaster suddenly can't speak, spell fails.
In Pathfinder, since Silence was bumped up to be a 1-round spell (instead of fixing Silence itself, as it is one of the very few illusions that acts like a transmutation, but that's for a future design board), it would require Rapid Spell and a 3rd-level slot or Quicken Spell and a 6th-level slot to do the same thing.
In short, Silence was, and still is, a very effective spellcaster disruption tool.
-Matt
In Pathfinder, since Silence was bumped up to be a 1-round spell (instead of fixing Silence itself, as it is one of the very few illusions that acts like a transmutation, but that's for a future design board), it would require Rapid Spell and a 3rd-level slot or Quicken Spell and a 6th-level slot to do the same thing.
Which means you need a spellcaster to deal with a spellcaster, unfortunately. Round 1: NPC wizard starts casting spell; PC caster uses readied spell to silence; PC fighter charges and gets in one (1) attack, damaging NPC wizard. Round 2: NPC wizard moves back 30 ft. and casts spell against PC caster. PC fighter moves up and doesn't reach NPC wizard, or reaches him and gets only 1 attack. PC acster casts spell against NPC wizard. Conclusion: the duel here is between the PC caster and the NPC wizard. The PC fighter is a distraction. Problem: as stated, the fighter doesn't really influence things.
|
|
I think the recognition that the fix has to be on both sides of the inequality is key.
For melee combatants, I have had a great time in our PFRPG playtest campaign adding in DR/magic for armor. (= to Armor Bonus for Heavy, = to 1/2 Armor Bonus for Medium, with an additional increase for each enhancement bonus, altering the DR for special materials to DR/good, evil, cold iron, silver or even - for stuff like adamantium) Similarly, adding in the Helm item for AC bonus has helped. Finally, putting in a Reflex Save kicker for Shield bonus (= to 1/3 the shield's AC bonus) has proven salutary.
The second fix for melee combatants has to be some sort of ability for them to hurt a spellcaster when they cast before the spell goes off.
To this end, adjusting the casting time to a Full Round Action for all spells with a Standard Action casting time is a move in the right direction. To keep it from crippling casters, I have been working with the rule that all Standard Action casting time spells become that way once the caster has access to a higher level of spells. Swift or Immediate casting spells are unaffected, as are command-word activated items.
Removing Casting Defensively has also proven amazingly helpful. I wanted Concentration left in the game but without it (and since I reject the notion that spellcraft can fill in fully for concentration), I was left with the realization that Casting Defenseively no longer made any sense. Now, the challenge is handled either with a spellcraft check or a will save (whichver is higher) v. the damage done to the caster while casting. This adds a great thrill of drama to the caster who provokes an attack of opportunity and it makes the whole game seem like a contest between the slow arriving spell and the fast arriving blade (or arrow).
These are helping my playtest group of 12th level PCs enjoy the mid-high level game more than we ever did in 3.5.
(oh, and the base class improvements have resulted in not a single player seeking a prestige class. Truly amazing results and a testament to the empowerment the new rules give base class characters. All that and I keep the 3.5 feat progression too!)
|
|
In Pathfinder, since Silence was bumped up to be a 1-round spell (instead of fixing Silence itself, as it is one of the very few illusions that acts like a transmutation, but that's for a future design board), it would require Rapid Spell and a 3rd-level slot or Quicken Spell and a 6th-level slot to do the same thing.Which means you need a spellcaster to deal with a spellcaster, unfortunately. Round 1: NPC wizard starts casting spell; PC caster uses readied spell to silence; PC fighter charges and gets in one (1) attack, damaging NPC wizard. Round 2: NPC wizard moves back 30 ft. and casts spell against PC caster. PC fighter moves up and doesn't reach NPC wizard, or reaches him and gets only 1 attack. PC acster casts spell against NPC wizard. Conclusion: the duel here is between the PC caster and the NPC wizard. The PC fighter is a distraction. Problem: as stated, the fighter doesn't really influence things.
Don't forget the quickened will save based "take out" spell to remove the distraction...
Conclusion: the duel here is between the PC caster and the NPC wizard. The PC fighter is a distraction. Problem: as stated, the fighter doesn't really influence things.
Untrue.
The PC caster is spending his standard action (ready) just to nullify the NPC caster's standard action. In this sort of situation, be it Silencing, counterspelling, etc, the Fighter is what's necessary to kill the NPC caster.
Like I said, different players have different perspectives. I had to go melee with my arcanist to kill stuff, because, as mentioned in my previous post, my campaign's monster saves are too high (which also prevents things like Quickened Tasha's, which, by the way, is a terrible move against non-humanoids. Plus, I'm at the level where not only are Will saves over +20, but Mind Blank does exist.)
Some of you may not share the same experience.
-Matt
Something Matt hasn't mentioned yet:
Just how many spells of what levels have you got for the day?
Yeah yeah, quicken this cast that, have this up and running etc... but lets look at the durations and how much magic you just threw at ONE problem, eh?
It's easy to say on a forum, "Hey quicken X is just a level Y slot" but that's a level Y slot you can't use for something of that spell level, AND you have the lesser save throw being used on that higher level slot now.
Granted it could take a while to burn through all your magic, but at this rate that caster has eaten up a lot of spells...
Speaking of which, what did this supposed wizard have prepped for the day? If you didn't think to have it ready you could be in a world of hurt. I usually leave about half my slots empty at the start of the day, but that still means I don't always have what I want when I want it, nor does it garantuee that what I memorize is going to be useful when I get to the next problem (note I said problem, not encounter, it could be anything from a landslide, to the need to fly, to enivornmental problems like high altitude, or being underwater).