|
Yep, true, but something the "fighters are peachy keen" camp forgets: Scrolls are cheap. Wands are cheap. Staves and metamagic rods can get pricy, but, overall, the fighter has to have a LOT more VERY expensive gear to keep up with the wizard.
Especially now that XP costs have been removed from the magic item creation equation...
|
Supposing my high-level, heavily armed & armored, well-built fighter moves up on an enemy spellcaster. It's reasonable to expect that I can unload some whupass even on a standard action -- at least more than 2d6 + 2 x Str Mod + weapon bonus damage (one greatsword hit with Overhand Chop).
I could take a -5 to hit (wth, I've got BAB to burn) and deliver a Devastating Blow for an automatic critical (assuming I hit successfully) dealing 4d6 + 4x Str Mod + 2x weapon bonus...mmm, say about 45 points of damage. (That's hopefully about half his total HP) That's a standard action, so I can do that at the end of a move.
If I won the initiative, so he's FF, I could use Deadly Stroke instead of Devastating Blow. Or if I wanted to split my attacks I could have positioned myself threatening two enemies and unleash the Great Cleave on both of them (still a standard action).
Now the spellcaster has two unpleasant choices. He can try to move away, but I'll get an AOO on him (unless he crawls away^H^H^H^H^Hwithdraws as a full-round action) and unleash another Overhand Chop/Devastating Blow/whatever. Or he can take a 5' step (no AOO) and cast a spell on me (or my party mates)...but if he takes that choice, then he'd better hold person or hideous laughter me, otherwise I'm really gonna mess him up with my full-attack action next round.
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.
That depens a lot of how Jason reworks the Concentration check. As for the failed rolls, yes I have. You add enough damage to the 15 + spell level roll and success is not guaranteed.
In my Age of Worms game, the party's sorcerer readied an orb of force to disrupt lich's spellcasting (the party was on the verg of a TPK). Forcing a concentration check with a +28 to the DC from damage cost the lich his spell and action. It also turned the battle in the favor of the PCs.
My players have been using a variant that goes like this for several adventures now. They're currently 11th level.
Anyone making a full attack may sacrifice an attack to gain a number of feet of movement equal to their speed divided by the number of attacks they have available. Attacks gained from speed effects (haste, speed weapons, etc) must be sacrificed first.
So a player with a move of 60 and 4 attacks (2 iterative, haste, and twf) gains 15 feet of movement for sacrificing the haste attack or 30 feet of movement for sacrificing haste and their lowest iterative. This movement may be may be taken before, after or between attacks, but must be used all at once. So they could attack, drop a foe, sacrifice an attack for move, move to a new foe, and use their remaining attacks.
The only clunky part of it is tracking the amount of movement they have relative to changing speeds and attacks, but basically I've had them come up with a short list of what happens at their various speeds and numbers of attacks.
This has brought our primary fighter much closer to the effectiveness of the sorceror in the party since it gives her the opportunity to affect more targets (something the sorceror almost never has a problem with).
delabarre -- I'm with you there. Say you're 15th level, you've got a 24 Str and a +5 sword (to penetrate stoneskin) and deal 4d6+38 damage. A 15th level NPC wizard with a 12 Con will have 6+14*3.5+15+15=85 hp; he can take only one such blow and keep fighting (this assumes he didn't know you were coming (via scrying), and has no magical defenses, no bodyuguards, and no means of escape -- in short, that he's a major idiot and that his 20 Int is on paper only, not played). So there's two possibilities:
Scenario 1: You chase him around and kill him in 2 rounds while your cleric buddy keeps him dimensional anchored and silenced so he can't casually eliminate you with a hold monster and a coup de grace.
Scenario 2: Your wizard buddy baleful polymorphs him on round 1.
Scenario 1 represents what Matt is talking about, where PC spellcasters play a support role, allowing the melee guys a chance to strut their stuff. It's nice to play that way, but it's not mandated.
Scenario 2 represents what Derek and I are talking about, and what we'd like to see reduced or eliminated. Simple changes -- like increasing casting time to a full attack action, and/or making defensive casting harder, and/or allowing more than one attack with a full move -- can lead to scenario 3: NPC wizard ignores PC fighter to focus on spellcasters. PC fighter runs up and full-attacks him, forcing him to lose his spell and probably killing him.
In that third scenario, fighters are very serious threats, which they should be, rather than annoyances. I would like to see that become a reality.
Anyone making a full attack may sacrifice an attack to gain a number of feet of movement equal to their speed divided by the number of attacks they have available. Attacks gained from speed effects (haste, speed weapons, etc) must be sacrificed first.
Yes! I've proposed feats that do this as well. A rule to this effect will certainly be houseruled at my table.
|
|
Supposing my high-level, heavily armed & armored, well-built fighter moves up on an enemy spellcaster. It's reasonable to expect that I can unload some whupass even on a standard action -- at least more than 2d6 + 2 x Str Mod + weapon bonus damage (one greatsword hit with Overhand Chop).
I could take a -5 to hit (wth, I've got BAB to burn) and deliver a Devastating Blow for an automatic critical (assuming I hit successfully) dealing 4d6 + 4x Str Mod + 2x weapon bonus...mmm, say about 45 points of damage. (That's hopefully about half his total HP) That's a standard action, so I can do that at the end of a move.
If I won the initiative, so he's FF, I could use Deadly Stroke instead of Devastating Blow. Or if I wanted to split my attacks I could have positioned myself threatening two enemies and unleash the Great Cleave on both of them (still a standard action).
Now the spellcaster has two unpleasant choices. He can try to move away, but I'll get an AOO on him (unless he crawls away^H^H^H^H^Hwithdraws as a full-round action) and unleash another Overhand Chop/Devastating Blow/whatever. Or he can take a 5' step (no AOO) and cast a spell on me (or my party mates)...but if he takes that choice, then he'd better hold person or hideous laughter me, otherwise I'm really gonna mess him up with my full-attack action next round.
How'd you get within 30' (or 70') of him before he knew it again?
How'd you get within 30' (or 70') of him before he knew it again?
Int is just a stat, it's not a measure of intelligence. NPC wizards never use scrying or roomsful of mooks to make sure they're prepared for an attack. And they never max out Spellcraft, Acrobatics, and Perception when they could be spending 2 + Int bonus skill points on Knowledge (migratory patterns of birds) and Craft (lace doilies).
Fighter wearing heavy armorThis 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.
Please note: Armor "Max Dex Bonux" has effect on Initiative, Ranged attack bonus, or skill checks. It ONLY applies to the Dexterity bonus to Armor Class.
As for everything else - it's been my experience that *Fighters* dominate the high level game quite well, dishing out extreme levels of damage.
Also on Spellcraft (Concentration) checks:
1) Yes, checks to cast on the defensive are usually made - they should be.
2) Yes, I *have* seen casters fail checks to maintain concentration after being hit - the DC's on this are usually much higher.
3) No, you don't get attacked if you fail to cast on the defensive, you just lose the spell.
4) No, disrupting a spell is not that much harder than 1st edition - people just don't do it. Example:
1st edition:
Caster starts casting.
Fighter runs in and hits to disrupt.
3rd edition:
Fighter readies attack.
Caster starts casting.
Fighter runs in and hits to disrupt.
The Fighter just has to win initiative, or begin disrupting the next round. As a readied action, the Fighter will continue to go *before* the spellcaster, possibly standing right next to them.
Who does this? Almost no one, from lack of patience/planning (including me). In 1st edition it wasn't a choice or a strategy - you either got there in time or you didn't.
|
|
Scenario 2: Your wizard buddy baleful polymorphs him on round 1.
He should be casting on my target's allies, not kill-stealing from me. ;-)
My larger point, which I probably should have stated explicitly, is that martial combatants with only standard actions can already kick some serious hinder. Just running from enemy to enemy delivering one Devastating Blow per round is pretty good, considering that it burns no daily resources, is resisted only by high AC & DR, and has the added benefit of possibly messing up spellcasting.
|
|
I'm not following your point. The wizard isn't there? Then I win!Seriously? And encountered nothing to that point? Just waltzed into a high level wizard's abode and kicked in the door?
There is a tale for the telling here, me thinks!
the poin tis, how did you a) get past his or her defenses without b) alerting him or her to your presence. I don't know wizard one who has had time to prepare that would fall to a fighter kicking in a door.
the poin tis, how did you a) get past his or her defenses without b) alerting him or her to your presence. I don't know wizard one who has had time to prepare that would fall to a fighter kicking in a door.
I think you're playing the wrong game. If you want perfectly balanced character abilities you should be playing 4th edition.
The D&D game I play is about the group's abilities to overcome obstacles in the way of traps, monsters, and NPCs. The fighter plays one of those key roles in the group and if he happens to be adventuring by himself, then yes there will be some situations he isn't prepared to overcome.
Also, if I'm a high level fighter and my obsession (like yours seems to be) is worrying about how to defeat the high level wizard by myself then I'm going to invest in use magic device heavily and buy myself some of those cheap scrolls you talked about. Fly, true seeing, and spell resistance scrolls would probably be a good place to start.
Derek, we've stumbled into the Fighters and Monks Don't Get Nice Things thread. You and I will just have to houserule things back into some semblance of parity for our table. Start thinking for the game WE want to play -- maybe "Advanced Pathfinder & Dragons." If I hear back from Jess Door, sooner or later I'll get a point-buy version up as well.
|
Derek, we've stumbled into the Fighters Don't Get Nice Things thread. You and I will just have to housrule things back into some semblance of parity for our table. Start thinking for the game WE want to play -- maybe "Advanced Pathfinder & Dragons." If I hear back from Jess Door, sooner or later I'll get a point-buy version up as well.
::hangs head in shame::
I'll have time over my vacation to look things over, I swear! stupid work....
I'll have time over my vacation to look things over, I swear! stupid work....
Take your time; the final Pathfinder rules don't come out for another 8 months or so.
Derek, we've stumbled into the Fighters and Monks Don't Get Nice Things thread. You and I will just have to houserule things back into some semblance of parity for our table. Start thinking for the game WE want to play -- maybe "Advanced Pathfinder & Dragons." If I hear back from Jess Door, sooner or later I'll get a point-buy version up as well.
I'm still confused at your and Derek's obsession with class balance in AD&D. In AD&D, wizards were much more powerful and fighters didn't stand a chance in a fight with them. As soon as the wizards got the first spell off (which didn't allow a save by the way), the battle was over.
I've been advocating more effective standard action attacks and/or allowing more movement during a full round attack, so I don't know how that's not a nice thing for fighters. But I'm also against making spellcaster spend a full round action to cast a spell (which has nothing to do with fighters - nice or not).
|
|
the poin tis, how did you a) get past his or her defenses without b) alerting him or her to your presence. I don't know wizard one who has had time to prepare that would fall to a fighter kicking in a door.
It's not really relevant to the larger point, which is -- going back to the original topic of this thread -- that martial combatants aren't totally hosed because they have to use a full-round action to deliver their highest damage combos, particularly with the Devastating Blow type feats that PFRPG introduces.
|
|
the poin tis, how did you a) get past his or her defenses without b) alerting him or her to your presence. I don't know wizard one who has had time to prepare that would fall to a fighter kicking in a door.It's not really relevant to the larger point, which is -- going back to the original topic of this thread -- that martial combatants aren't totally hosed because they have to use a full-round action to deliver their highest damage combos, particularly with the Devastating Blow type feats that PFRPG introduces.
I"m sorry, but it's directly relevent to the point. Fighters have few options. Options they used to have are even removed (combat maneuvers with AOOs, useful Power Attack and Combat Expertise feats), and the gains other classes have made with regards to versatility have not been given to the fighter class (no skills consolidation for fighter class skills).
A reasonably well thought out wizard has options available that the fighter can only gain through expensive magical items - their cost limits the number he can have quite sharply, and most are weaker than the equivalent spells the caster character can cast. Add to this the difference in economy of actions, and once you're past one or two blow quick kills against low hit point enemies, fighter viability as anything except an annoyance requires at least on of the following:
- A stupid enemy
- Tailored Encounters
- Friendly DM rulings
- Incredible system mastery by the player
Assuming casters are mindless robots waiting for an enemy to jump through the door before they can react necessarily is an advantage to the high level fighter. This does not (and I would argue should not) typify how all (nor most, I pray) D&D / PRPG games should be.
|
|
I'm going to attempt to find the time this week while lazing around at my parents' to develop a reasonable high level scenario with an archtypical party. I'll then try a couple of the strategies here out. That might help find possible problems with increasing the complexity of gameplay, overcorrecting the melee weakness issue, or not correcting enough, or even simply increasing the lethality of high level scenarios without solving any issues. :)
I hope this design thread is open longer than equipment!
Assuming casters are mindless robots waiting for an enemy to jump through the door before they can react necessarily is an advantage to the high level fighter. This does not (and I would argue should not) typify how all (nor most, I pray) D&D / PRPG games should be.
Yes, and assuming the fighter is storming the wizard's tower solo is also does not typify how all D&D games should be. Many people fought for better options for fighters during the 'feat review' portion of the design discussions and I hope some of it got through. Also, here many people are fighting for more flexible tactics in regards to movement and melee effectiveness.
However, I'm not sure how limiting spellcasters options by making higher level spells full round actions makes melee characters more exciting.
|
|
the poin tis, how did you a) get past his or her defenses without b) alerting him or her to your presence. I don't know wizard one who has had time to prepare that would fall to a fighter kicking in a door.I think you're playing the wrong game. If you want perfectly balanced character abilities you should be playing 4th edition.
The D&D game I play is about the group's abilities to overcome obstacles in the way of traps, monsters, and NPCs. The fighter plays one of those key roles in the group and if he happens to be adventuring by himself, then yes there will be some situations he isn't prepared to overcome.
Also, if I'm a high level fighter and my obsession (like yours seems to be) is worrying about how to defeat the high level wizard by myself then I'm going to invest in use magic device heavily and buy myself some of those cheap scrolls you talked about. Fly, true seeing, and spell resistance scrolls would probably be a good place to start.
Actually, I think "balance" is one of those "fair" things. I don't care for "fair". I don't care much for 4e D&D as a D&D system (but I could see it as a pretty awesome counterpoint to Mutants and Masterminds, or a Psiworld type game, it is a nice set of rules...)
What I AM saying is, a HIGH level wizard isn't going to leave his "six" uncovered.
I do think that your kernel of an idea for the "magehunter" melee type is cool. I wouldn't mind seeing a PrC that had UMD as a class skill, improved spell disruption (or that as a feat? make the base DC higher?) and good will saves (for starters), or, barring that, just take a dip in the rogue pool and Iron Will.
But, ultimately, I just want my fighter to be the most feared part of the battlefield, like he pretty much was in 1e AD&D (Paladin excepted, of course). Just opening up tactical movement, making iterative attacks worthy of the high level fighting man, and making it a touch harder for wizards to get off spells with hostile, heavily armed and deadly opponents in their face.
Just sayin'
|
|
I'm still confused at your and Derek's obsession with class balance in AD&D. In AD&D, wizards were much more powerful and fighters didn't stand a chance in a fight with them. As soon as the wizards got the first spell off (which didn't allow a save by the way), the battle was over.
Actually, in AD&D, it came down to casting time. You STARTED a spell on your action, it didn't GO OFF until a segment (or round) down the road. Plenty of time for all kinds of mayhem on the part of the fighter, thief, monk, ranger, whoever.
AD&D magic WAS powerful. If the magic user could get the spell off. Which wasn't nearly as sure a thing as it is in 3x...
I've been advocating more effective standard action attacks and/or allowing more movement during a full round attack, so I don't know how that's not a nice thing for fighters. But I'm also against making spellcaster spend a full round action to cast a spell (which has nothing to do with fighters - nice or not).
Yeah, because somantic components, digging for material components, walking all while incanting a spell and dodging sword swings should take less time than a fighter swinging his sword three times...
Yeah, I seem to remember a completely different AD&D than you. Did your group use casting times?
I'm still confused at your and Derek's obsession with class balance in AD&D. In AD&D, wizards were much more powerful and fighters didn't stand a chance in a fight with them. As soon as the wizards got the first spell off (which didn't allow a save by the way), the battle was over.
Yes, AD&D was a game of "rocket launcher tag," but at least fighters got that; if they won initiative, that enemy caster was dead meat. If the enemy caster won, the fighter was dead (well, except that ALL his saves were WAY better than they are now, so the wizard had to use "no save allowed" spells against him). In 3.5, the rules have shifted in favor of the wizard: keep spells even if interrupted, move and cast, fighter saves much worse, no full attacks by fighter after moving, etc. The nerfs to some of the wizard's spells have changed his repertoire (max 10d6 fireball vs. 20d6, for example, so evocation is a lost cause), but that's really all he's lost. Intelligently-played wizards are vastly better off now than they have ever been.
Also, remember those variable advancement tables? A 25th level fighter back then might be considered equivalent in experience to a 17th level wizard. Now equal xp = equal level.
But, ultimately, I just want my fighter to be the most feared part of the battlefield, like he pretty much was in 1e AD&D (Paladin excepted, of course). Just opening up tactical movement, making iterative attacks worthy of the high level fighting man, and making it a touch harder for wizards to get off spells with hostile, heavily...
I can understand that and in my home games I've improved feats across the board and added new feats to give fighters the tools they need to perform better at high levels.
However, making spellcasters less interesting (and I feel they're already boring classes to play) by limiting their mobility is not my idea of how to make the game better.
|
|
But, ultimately, I just want my fighter to be the most feared part of the battlefield, like he pretty much was in 1e AD&D (Paladin excepted, of course). Just opening up tactical movement, making iterative attacks worthy of the high level fighting man, and making it a touch harder for wizards to get off spells with hostile, heavily...I can understand that and in my home games I've improved feats across the board and added new feats to give fighters the tools they need to perform better at high levels.
However, making spellcasters less interesting (and I feel they're already boring classes to play) by limiting their mobility is not my idea of how to make the game better.
Well, if you look at my posts in other threads, the flip side is, if fighters have a better chance, and wizards can't be "run and gun" (without an appropriate feat tax or spell tax), theoretically, you could unnerf a lot of the spells that have been turned into crap in 3x (evocation, i'm especially looking your way...).
I can understand that and in my home games I've improved feats across the board and added new feats to give fighters the tools they need to perform better at high levels.
Can you post some of those ideas? I'll look at anything offered, if it does what you say.
Well, if you look at my posts in other threads, the flip side is, if fighters have a better chance, and wizards can't be "run and gun" (without an appropriate feat tax or spell tax), theoretically, you could unnerf a lot of the spells that have been turned into crap in 3x (evocation, i'm especially looking your way...).
Ok, what you're saying makes sense...but do you really think Paizo is willing to make what I consider fairly drastic changes to the 3.5 ruleset in order to accomplish what you're asking for? I'm shooting for some basic improvments that will make fighters better, but having participated in the alpha rule discussions and the beta rule discussions and seeing how little of the 'really good ideas' were implemented I'm just trying to be realistic.
|
|
Well, if you look at my posts in other threads, the flip side is, if fighters have a better chance, and wizards can't be "run and gun" (without an appropriate feat tax or spell tax), theoretically, you could unnerf a lot of the spells that have been turned into crap in 3x (evocation, i'm especially looking your way...).Ok, what you're saying makes sense...but do you really think Paizo is willing to make what I consider fairly drastic changes to the 3.5 ruleset in order to accomplish what you're asking for? I'm shooting for some basic improvments that will make fighters better, but having participated in the alpha rule discussions and the beta rule discussions and seeing how little of the 'really good ideas' were implemented I'm just trying to be realistic.
I don't expect Paizo to do anything but give me a nice chassis to work with. I've houseruled every edition i've played in so far (in fact, I honestly think Shadowrun 4e is the only game I've played that I haven't houseruled to death). All I'm trying to do is explain the "why" of 3x and the problems it has at high levels.
(and, to be honest, point out where AD&D did do some things better)
I like a lot about 3x, and I like even more about PfRPG (excepting spells - i'll always use the AD&D descriptions (fireball is a volume spell, dammit!!!)), but I don't like the way the round to round action dynamic works. The "standard/move" action breakdown favors the wizard over the fighter too much for my tastes.
I know that little will change in that respect, so be it, that's what houserules are for, but, still, I do wish to express my opinion and engage in some fun debates while waiting for August to roll around ;)
Can you post some of those ideas? I'll look at anything offered, if it does what you say.
I wouldn't mind doing it, but I'd rather not derail this thread with a huge list of feats. You can send me a message at etillemans at aol.com and I'll get my homebrew feat list to you.
Yeah, I seem to remember a completely different AD&D than you. Did your group use casting times?
Yes, we did. But we also played smart bad guy wizards who were prepared for the party and used spells like mirror images, invisibility, and project image to gain the upper hand and fire off those spells - resulting in much mayhem and murder.
This thread seems to have digressed from being useful to the designers. It seems to have turned into: well if this... the wizard wins, if that... the fighter wins. I've seen wizards take out fighters. I've seen fighters take out wizards. In fact, I did so with my fighter the other day. I took out a high level cleric by grappling him into unconsciousness. I don't even have improved grapple. A sorcerer pops up a few rounds later, and I save against whatever spell he cast at me. Because it is boring to do the same thing over and over, I decided to mix it up a bit. I charged and whacked him for 42. He took a 5' step back, and next thing I know, I'm a squirrel. (Actually, I didn't even know that as I failed that save too.)
I don't want this to go away. I had just as much a chance at killing them as they did me. All the arguments presented here, including my examples, again are circumstantial.
We could argue till the cows come home, over these issues that have been gone over so many times. Nowhere will we get, because everyone plays the game differently, even if we all used the rules exactly as written.
I think we're missing the overall point, that was originally presented.
What occurs as the rules are written, is that martial characters must spend a full-round action to use their most potent ability which is most often, a full-attack. A spell caster can use his most potent abilities as a standard action. That is where the rub is.
Now back on topic...
I don't really want parity of power between classes. I just want parity of actions between classes. A spell caster should have to spend a full-round action, at least, to use his most potent abilities, just like the martial character does. And a martial character's standard action should get better with level, as a spell caster's does. End of story.
Good solutions have been presented. There are probably more out there. We've been asked to playtest them and give feedback. Let's get back to that.
Having run through some small scenarios regarding option 3 (extending casting time), I remain unenthused. Honestly, the change for casters isn't (in most cases) huge--they're ranged. Top-level touch spells, however, are significantly hurt (since you can't cast a top-level touch spell after moving to engage the target, or move very far after engaging them)--expect to see Inflict * Wounds become a little less common, and a strong Cure * Wounds becomes significantly harder to cast in a timely manner.
Magic items are also an issue--would a wand containing a spell of the highest level its user could cast be slowed to a full-round , or could a wizard use a wand to cast his own spell better than he can? If it IS slowed, could a rogue with Use Magic Device then cast that spell better than the wizard that made it?
The bigger issue is the player impression.
Because DCs (when used) are heavily based on spell level, a caster's effective arsenal is frequently more limited than his spell slot count would suggest--lower level spell slots quickly drop in utility. Even though many, many casters frequently remain stationary anyways, telling them that the shiny new spell slot they worked so hard for doesn't LET them move leaves them with a sour taste in their mouths. In essence, it takes some of the excitement of leveling away from casters. Then again, I'm of the opinion that a proper DM will force casters to conserve spells or pay the price, whereas a melee character can go all night long.
A few other points...
Regarding cost: While fighter equipment costs are substantial, wizards in my games are always significantly poorer than any other party member--low-level scrolls are cheap, but they rise pretty drastically, and are consumed. Spellbooks inscription can drain virtually every dime from a wizard (Scroll cost + ink cost) and anything higher than a low level wand is rough. Sorcerers and druids do better, I confess--but overall, I haven't seen any wealth problems.
If the casting time penalties for high-level spells are implemented, care will have to be taken to differentiate between the full-round cast and a casting time of 1 full round. Clearly everyone's aware of the distinguishing line, but I can only imagine how easily the two will get mixed up with a new player.
Hope this was helpful, and I apologize for any errors. Furthermore, this is in the combat section, and probably more appropriate for the magic playtest...but the Honorable Jason B. mentioned it as an option here, so here I'll post it. Feel free to correct me!
I have been thinking about how fighters are too weak and the bonuses in Pathfinder are good but not spectacular. This thread also piqued my interest because I agree that the lack of mobility for fighting characters diminishes strategy. however, i do not know how much i want my barbarian to be using strategy anyway. I suggest that a fighter gains an ability to make a full attack in addition to a move action. This way, a fighter, who should be a character that uses strategy, can and it powers them up drastically without making them too powerful. Also, the fighter can only gain as many attacks in his full attack and move action combinations he would have with ONLY his fighter levels. This way, dipping will be weakened.
|
|
Yeah, I seem to remember a completely different AD&D than you. Did your group use casting times?Yes, we did. But we also played smart bad guy wizards who were prepared for the party and used spells like mirror images, invisibility, and project image to gain the upper hand and fire off those spells - resulting in much mayhem and murder.
Man, my old gaming group HATED the "project image/fly/improved invisibility" wizard I threw at them in a wilderness encounter...
Good times...
So the problem is wizards are omnipotent, omniprescent and ominprepared? So ah, what am I doing wrong with my wizard, cause I appreciate my BSF alot.
Yes magic items are cheap... so is sundering, and the DC's on those items is pitiful with the only exception of staves, even there you only have 10 charges on any given day.
Considering spell length and timing I can't believe that every wizard is always going to be completely prepared when someone is climbing his tower so to speak.
I don't think this is "Fighters can't have nice stuff" I think it's "People have unrealistic thoughts on how good wizards are", please note we aren't talking about Clerics here either, who are much better than wizards are (better HP, Saves, BAB, Armor, Healing, Good SoD's, etc.).
Increasing Top 2 Spell Level Casting Time/Action Type
I think it's better for clarity/ immediate comprehensibility
to say that it increases ALL Spells it effects to the next longest Action.
(Swift->Standard, Standard->Full Round Action, 1 Round->1 Round + Full Round Action)
Multi-round spells COULD increase 50%, but since they don't really factor into Melee/Caster Action Economy, I'm ambivalent.
I noticed Swift/ Immediate Spells weren't mentioned by Jason, but I think for consistency sake, they SHOULD apply.
Swift spells don't really seem to show up in "Core" so much, but Immediate (like Feather Fall) DO.
Immediate Actions are really Immediate SWIFT Actions, "borrowing" your next Swift Action.
So if Immediate (Swift) Actions get increased to use a Standard Action, I think they could still work IMMEDIATELY (off your Turn), but consume your next STANDARD action.
The rules nomenclature could be clarified to reflect this, with Immediate Action amended to Immediate SWIFT Action, alongside possibilities like Immediate Standard Action or Immediate Move Action/ Immediate 5' Step (as I suggested was appropriate to the "Step Up" Feat)
...It's been suggested that Casting Defensively could be removed completely.
It's current state is certainly absurd - Easy 15 DC (=BASE CMB DC!?) to bypass HARDER DC AND Damage...!?!?
But I thought of another alternative, that besides harmonizing with the Casting Action Time changes, seemed more flavorful than the current implementation.
"Casting Defensively" should be something that DOES have a "cost" to the caster, something that has a trade-off they'd PREFER not to take in a perfect world... (and the chance to roll a 1 on their Spellcraft just isn't enough)
What if Casting Defensively ALSO increased the Casting Action Type one category?
(stacking with the 2 Highest Level increase if applicable)
In exchange, we could either give a Bonus to the Spellcraft Check to resist Disruption (Level Based?), or say that any damage done is reduced by half for purposes of the Spellcraft DC...? I'd even suggest allowing the Caster (on top of the previous aspect) to be considered "Fighting Defensively", increasing their AC a bit vs. any Attacks. (This also makes Fighting Def. & Casting Def. more obviously related)
This obviously means that the top 2 Spell Levels are NOT advisable to cast in Melee Threat Range, though lower ones ARE feasable... This feels more like a flavor of a Caster being able to make sure they can pull of a "quickie", but that shouldn't quite apply to their "big guns". If someone is casting IN MELEE range, I doubt they even needed a 5' Step in the first place, since if that would have taken them out of Threat Range, they would have done so (and could do so even with Max Level Spells with the proposed changes).
As for the "Weak" Iterative Standard Attack (perhaps now called Partial Attack vs. Full Attack vs. Single Attack)
I think what Jason's last post mentioned sounds good, and woud seem to harmonize well with the "Highest 2 Spell Level" action economy penalty. I do wonder how 2 Weapon Fighting should work with it (or other Bonus Attacks like Haste, Whirling Frenzy, etc)
As I see it, while a single-weapon Fighter should gain a 2nd Attack at 11th level as Jason posted (1 less than Full Attack), by the same base logic (1 less than Full Attack), a 2-Weapon-Fighter should be able to take 2 Attacks as a Standard Action at 6th level, since they have 3 Attacks with a Full Attack Action at that point (these would be with the -2 or whatever 2WF Penalties, of course).
How to consisely represent this, say on the Class/BAB Chart is important, obviously.
Perhaps one way is to say that the Partial Attack Action has one less Attack than the Full Attack Action, but with a proviso that you may always make a Single Attack. So on a numeric BAB Chart (+A/+B/+C), the lower levels of Partial Attack could be represented similarly to how the "Secondary Casters" (Paladins, Rangers) work: The lower levels could list "0" for Partial Iterative Attacks, rising to "1" at 6th level. At 1st level, you would just take the Single Attack option. At 2nd Level there's no difference, but 2WF or other Bonus Attacks would raise it to two. And if some random 1st level Fighter happens to be using 2WF with Whirling Frenzy and Haste (somehow), it would still follow the rational formula of "1 less than Full Attack".
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.
If someone is playing a Caster, I think they should be trusted to know what Spell Level their Spells are.
When you gain a new Spell Level, THOSE NEW SPELLS YOU JUST LEARNED use a Full-Round Action to cast.And all your Spells 2 Spell Levels lower now get to be cast as Standard.
The thing is, I don't think this is as big of a detriment to Casters as you think.
Why is it so necessary for them to also have a Move Action to be effective with their Spells? (compared to Melee)
The only thing I've seen here relavent to that is Cure X Touch Spells, but perhaps that's an opportunity to add a Divine Feat allowing Touch Spells-at-Limited Range to (CHA bonus) # of Allies, or a Feat allowing you to burn a Channel Energy usage to affect one target, but at higher effectiveness (or just max amount on one target).
|
|
Apart from all the off topic discussions, some interesting stuff in here.
I'd like to warn that changing both the melle options AND the casting options is not good. That's a double hit to a problem that really only needs one end looked at. I think you run the risk of swinging the pendulum too far the other way if casters get a hit and meleers get a boost.
Some feedback for Jason
I asked my group about trying some of the modifcations. Everyone was happy enough to try out the fighter tweaks (plus one of the defensive ones another person posted about spendng attacks to increase AC when full defensive). Even the casters where happy about this.
None of my casters wanted to have their abilites nerfed any more than is already the case. They really wouldn't entertain the thought of playing their casters with those rules. One player even suggested he wouldn't bother playing a caster if that were the case. The problem was that they felt it was already complex enough playing a caster, particularly at high level, without adding in mechanisms where you have to track which spells are longer casting times than others. We all wondered about magic items (wands and spell storing etc) and metamagic. While some solutions were presented, the general consensus was this made a very complicated change to the rules.
I'd like to note that the biggest change that increasing casting time has is preventing casters being able to move for line of site. I know a number of posters present scenarios where this doesn't seem to be an issue, but it pops up pretty regularly in our Age of Worms game. Preventing a caster from getting LoS for their best spells actually hurts their efffectiveness too much and doesn't really adress the issue many of us worry about, which is making fighters a greater threat on the high level battlefield.
Disrupting spells also isn't adressed by this change as it doesn't prevent the 5' step and cast (a number of the feats suggested by the developers in the feat threads do address this though). Jason has also suggested he's going to change the mechanism for casting in combat toa will save (or similar). With all these changes proposed, our group feels that the modifaction needs to come from the Meleers perspective rather than the casters end.
Cheers
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
I read the rest of this thread but it seems to have degenerated a bit into the "fighters are lame" stuff (not entirely off point but a bit argumentative). I agree with a lot of what the people in this camp says about fighters not being good at beating mobile spellcaster types. But in an adventure you meet lots of other stuff which fighters do just fine against. Back to the three options.
I really like 1 and 3 (would make it 1 spell level until say access to 5th level spells. ie graded)
I really dislike vital strike- I would like it if it added 1d6 damage rather than have it based on the weapon. It just encourages enlarged bastard sword wielders or other big weapon guys. Please change vital strike, it's a good idea but a bit broken.
However, making spellcasters less interesting (and I feel they're already boring classes to play) by limiting their mobility is not my idea of how to make the game better.
Personally, I don't find delayed casting times particularly harmful to spellcasters, or at least I don't find them any more harmful than a spell list of stale, videogamey, pew-pew spells.
I do agree with Kirth in that warriors need more panache and a 3D feeling. While I don't believe in downgrading magic to one-dimensional pew-pew for warriors to be able to just hack it out with demigods, I do believe in a warrior's right to have tools and tricks of his own to make it through most situations, if Conan can, your warrior should at least be able to try.
Sadly, improvement of warriors isn't something likely to happen, as Path of Less Resistance tells me it's easier and more backwards-compatible to make magic more plain and one-dimensional than to come up with ways to make warriors more interesting and 3D.
The ideas for granting extended movement to warriors during full attack are great, people asking to use Combat Maneuvers during AoO is even better, and giving skills as many active, in-game uses is simply superb... sadly, quoting a green friend: Not gonna happen, I'm not saying it shouldn't, it's just not gonna happen.
Here's some things I've been wondering about, to bring the thread back on track:
Let's say a system of being able to trade iterative attacks for movement were implemented. How would that work for monsters using natural weapons, who don't get iterative attacks?
-Would the monster not be able to sacrifice any attacks for extra movement? This method is silly, because a monster who picks up a weapon, even a rock, would suddenly be able to zip around the battlefield. A good specific example is the Glabrezu. Five attacks normally, but when it picks up a two-handed weapon, it suddenly has three natural and three based on BAB.
-Would the monster be able to sacrifice its natural weapon attacks for an extra 5' of movement each? Sounds fair, until you realize that a Carrion Crawler is suddenly able to sacrifice eight attacks for an extra 40' of movement.
Either way, when you think it through using monsters instead of PCs, the implications become rather silly.
-Matt
Here's some things I've been wondering about, to bring the thread back on track:
Let's say a system of being able to trade iterative attacks for movement were implemented. How would that work for monsters using natural weapons, who don't get iterative attacks?
-Would the monster not be able to sacrifice any attacks for extra movement? This method is silly, because a monster who picks up a weapon, even a rock, would suddenly be able to zip around the battlefield. A good specific example is the Glabrezu. Five attacks normally, but when it picks up a two-handed weapon, it suddenly has three natural and three based on BAB.
-Would the monster be able to sacrifice its natural weapon attacks for an extra 5' of movement each? Sounds fair, until you realize that a Carrion Crawler is suddenly able to sacrifice eight attacks for an extra 40' of movement.
Either way, when you think it through using monsters instead of PCs, the implications become rather silly.
-Matt
I use the extra 5' move per iterative in my game, but I limit it to giving up a maximum of 2 iteratives in a round. I think both of your examples, the glabrezu and the carrior crawler, make more sense with the limit in place when allowing natural attacks to given up also.
Here's some things I've been wondering about, to bring the thread back on track:
Let's say a system of being able to trade iterative attacks for movement were implemented. How would that work for monsters using natural weapons, who don't get iterative attacks?
-Would the monster not be able to sacrifice any attacks for extra movement? This method is silly, because a monster who picks up a weapon, even a rock, would suddenly be able to zip around the battlefield. A good specific example is the Glabrezu. Five attacks normally, but when it picks up a two-handed weapon, it suddenly has three natural and three based on BAB.
-Would the monster be able to sacrifice its natural weapon attacks for an extra 5' of movement each? Sounds fair, until you realize that a Carrion Crawler is suddenly able to sacrifice eight attacks for an extra 40' of movement.
Either way, when you think it through using monsters instead of PCs, the implications become rather silly.
-Matt
I'm glad you brought this up, as I have been wondering about this from the monster side as well.
But I don't think your analysis is quite right.
In the mentioned proposals of giving up iteratives to gain movement on a full attack, you are only able to give up iterative attacks.
True, many creatures have multiple attacks, but their extra attacks aren't the same as iteratives. They are secondary attacks, much in the same vein as two-weapon fighting.
Examples:
1) Let's take the Marilith. It has a full-attack scheme of:
Primary Longsword: +25/+20/+15/+10
Secondary Longswords: 5 @ +25.
It could give up from 1 to 3 of it's iteratives to gain movement.
2) Let's take the Kraken. It has a full-attack scheme of:
Primary attack: 2 tentacles: +28
Secondary attack: 1 bite: +23
It has no iterative attacks, and so could not gain extra movement in this fashion.
As much as I like this idea, and am an advocate for it, it does have it's problems, mainly because of how monster attacks are handled, differently than character attacks. Plus it can be complex.
I do like Jason's suggestion of: at BAB +11, you gain a second attack on a standard action, but it's at -5. This is much easier to work out with monsters. It still has some issues, but it is definitely more workable. I have not been able to playtest anything yet, (my newborn takes up a lot of my time :), but I can see martial characters definitely get a boost... with that second attack, it's sort of like a quickened spell... now a martial character can move in, disarm his opponent, and whack him at the same time. Plus, it's simple.
|
I rather prefer the idea that at +10/11 BAB you can make a full attack as a standard, and at +15/16 you can take an action that requires a full attack action (coup de grace) as a standard action. Gives the melees their mobility back in high levels, and is easily inserted as part of the combat rules instead of a feat required to stay up to speed.