I'll agree some more could be done to make melee better, but I'll let everyone in on a little secret... melee stinks. It should stink. It stinks in the real world, it stinks in fantasy, and it stinks in D&D.That's what it comes down to, then. Some of us want a fantasy game in which Conan or Beowulf or Siegfried can hack through enemies and remain viable up into legendary levels, along with their caster friends. Others (including, I think, the 3e and Pathfinder designers) see this as an affront to "realism," and want melee combat obsolete by 11th level. The two views are incompatible; indeed, they're diametrically opposed.
And it's pretty clear that the anti-melee crowd has won this debate: at least, unless some strong, robust, viable higher-level melee options are introduced. Whether 1e was a better game (I don't think it was, in most ways) is moot; the point is, it very specifically catered to a high-level-melee should be viable mind-set. 3e and Pathfinder do not. So I'll stop trying to make the point, and go make houserules instead. Anti-melee guys, you can gloat to your hearts' content.
I call bull. Prove it. Prove that a level 11+ fighter isn't capable of hacking through enemies. I see them doing it all the time at tables, and I don't have a problem with it.
I want the fighter to be viable. You don't want the magic users to be. There is a difference.
I am willing to add to the fighter, I was willing to go with up to three attacks with a move action (heck even the move full attack doesn't bother me). I'm all for the fighter doing combat manuevers on AoO's. I've shouted out that fighters shouldn't have to meet stat prerequisites on combat feats. Heck it wouldn't even hurt my feelings if the fighter (and only the fighter) got his extra attacks at his full BAB.
All of those things make the fighter BETTER. What you are asking for is making everyone else WORSE. The problem with the fighter is not the wizard. It might be some of the monsters... but at this point I'm thinking it amounts to the type of envy freud was talking about, or a "I'm not king so I'm taking my ball and going home."
Better fighter =/= worse everyone else.
|
stuff
You know, it's more of an "either/or" thing. 3x really did screw the fighter with the "move/standard" action round set up, and it really did empower the wizard with the same deal. I really don't see how anyone could argue that point to the contrairy. They completely flipped the paradigm that existed in earlier editions, to the fighter's detriment.
So, it is EITHER punch up the mobility of the fighter with more multiple attack options OR increase casting times to make wizards have to think more about what they're doing (and change the insanely low DCs for saving against disruption, they're almost pointless...).
Doing BOTH would swing the balance too far to the fighter's side, doing one or the other would help fighters stay viable until level 20...
stuffYou know, it's more of an "either/or" thing. 3x really did screw the fighter with the "move/standard" action round set up, and it really did empower the wizard with the same deal. I really don't see how anyone could argue that point to the contrairy. They completely flipped the paradigm that existed in earlier editions, to the fighter's detriment.
So, it is EITHER punch up the mobility of the fighter with more multiple attack options OR increase casting times to make wizards have to think more about what they're doing (and change the insanely low DCs for saving against disruption, they're almost pointless...).
Doing BOTH would swing the balance too far to the fighter's side, doing one or the other would help fighters stay viable until level 20...
I don't disagree with these statements. Fighters NEED improvement.
With that statement I tell you which I think it should be.
1. Give the everyone bonus attacks on a standard action based on BAB (only attacks not extra spells or what not)
2. Let Combat manuevers be used as AoO's.
3. Let Fighters ignore stat requirements on combat feats (only combat feats)
4. Let them use their full BAB each attack of a full attack action (class feature -- fighter only).
I'm cool with all of these things. Generally I say add to instead of take from.
I want the fighter to be viable. You don't want the magic users to be. There is a difference.
As I've said before, everyone's perspective is different.
My 17th-level arcanist goes melee. "HOLY CRAP! Mattastrophic, you must be insane!"
Well, I do it because, well, it's the most effective method of slaying monsters in my campaign. Quickened Tasha's Hideous Laughter, as Derek espoused, doesn't work when everything makes their save on a 2.
Kirth, Derek, you're taking your own experiences and overgeneralizing them for everyone.
-Matt
|
|
stuffYou know, it's more of an "either/or" thing. 3x really did screw the fighter with the "move/standard" action round set up, and it really did empower the wizard with the same deal. I really don't see how anyone could argue that point to the contrairy. They completely flipped the paradigm that existed in earlier editions, to the fighter's detriment.
So, it is EITHER punch up the mobility of the fighter with more multiple attack options OR increase casting times to make wizards have to think more about what they're doing (and change the insanely low DCs for saving against disruption, they're almost pointless...).
Doing BOTH would swing the balance too far to the fighter's side, doing one or the other would help fighters stay viable until level 20...
I don't disagree with these statements. Fighters NEED improvement.
With that statement I tell you which I think it should be.
1. Give the everyone bonus attacks on a standard action based on BAB (only attacks not extra spells or what not)
2. Let Combat manuevers be used as AoO's.
3. Let Fighters ignore stat requirements on combat feats (only combat feats)
4. Let them use their full BAB each attack of a full attack action (class feature -- fighter only).
I'm cool with all of these things. Generally I say add to instead of take from.
That would be more than enough in the core to satisfy me, frankly. I'm just saying that, status quo, it ain't working for me...
|
|
Well, I do it because, well, it's the most effective method of slaying monsters in my campaign. Quickened Tasha's Hideous Laughter, as Derek espoused, doesn't work when everything makes their save on a 2.
It works just fine on a PC fighter at high levels, is what i'm saying. +5 cloaks of resistance really hurt the fighter (wealth-wise) with all the other gear he needs at those levels...
It works just fine on a PC fighter at high levels, is what i'm saying. +5 cloaks of resistance really hurt the fighter (wealth-wise) with all the other gear he needs at those levels...
Except last time I checked, D&D is not about PC builds vs. other PC builds. The Monster Manual does exist. You rarely have Human wizards versus Human fighters. And when you do, the badguys fall over because they have so little wealth.
Your case is built on a Player Vs. Player environment. Which is not what the game is about.
Also, if a Cloak/Vest of Resistance +5 is not a worthy purchase for a fighter... what else is he purchasing? Is another +1d6 to damage really that much better than +5 to all saves? A melee buddy of mine had no need for anything beyond a +1 Holy Keen Adamantine Bastard Sword, +1 Heavy Plate, and a +1 Animated Shield.
Is there something I'm missing?
You're really undervaluing the ability of a fighter-type to make Will saves at high levels, (the melee types I run with have over +20 if they're not sporting Mind Blank) as well as building a case on a PVP envrionment. Both are just... well, unrealistic.
-Matt
|
|
I want the fighter to be viable. You don't want the magic users to be. There is a difference.
I get to call "bull" on this one! (Yay!)(At least as it concerns what I've said on the boards).
Point 1: I LOVE powerful wizards. I think what 3x (and Pathfinder) have done to wizard spells (especially Evocation spells) is a sin. A SIN, dammit!!!!
Point 2: I just think powerful magic should just take a little longer than it does to say "pew". And, as a reward, the wizards get a Power Word: Kill that, I dunno, KILLS things. (Oh, and a disintegrate that disintegrates things, and a fireball that actually - wait for it - catches stuff on fire!)
Point 3: I've actually said as much in most of my posts. Seriously, I think I've said "I hate how they took the nerf bat to spells" at least 200 out of my 1500 posts...
So, no, I do not want "less powerful" wizards, I just want viable, effective fighters. :)
|
|
Is there something I'm missing?
Yep. That a Human Wizard, played correctly (as an NPC) is more dangerous (at the same CR) than just about anything in the Monster Manual.
I mostly enjoy urban type adventures to dungeon crawls, frankly, so most of the opponents my PCs face are PC races and classes. I understand most games aren't like this, but fighters in my game are at a disadvantage, at least above, say, 10th level, as even most of the "monsters" they fight tend to be summoned demons and devils with spellcasting "at will" abilities, many with "will save" components.
So, fighters, in my game at least, could use all the help they can get...
As far as the wealth issue goes, yeah,I cheat. I think the "npc wealth by level" chart is a joke, so I use the PC one. It seems quite silly to me that player characters are the only people in the world who adventure...
But then, that's my old school non-player coddling self coming out again...
All of those things make the fighter BETTER. What you are asking for is making everyone else WORSE.
Not at all; I'm fine with letting the casters keep ALL their shiny new toys, and even giving them back some of the bang they lost in the 1e to 2e transition (e.g., useful evocations). I just want melee guys to be on a par with them again, which is REALLY hard to do with the basic 3.0 combat and saving throw framework. I was specifically replying to people like Matt, who claim the fighter is just as viable as the cleric or wizard through 20th level (which admittedly he is, if coddled by a nice DM or helpful teammates... but not otherwise (aka "my experince")). But mostly I'm talking to the many other people who have posted elsewhere things like, "wizards SHOULD totally dominate the game! That's the point!"
Is there something I'm missing?Yep. That a Human Wizard, played correctly (as an NPC) is more dangerous (at the same CR) than just about anything in the Monster Manual. ...
So, fighters, in my game at least, could use all the help they can get...
As you said, in your game.
You're wrong about the Human Wizard. Why? NPC Equipment value. He doesn't have the Int (and thus DCs), the hit points, the saves, the AC, or the init modifier to deal with an entire party by himself. If your DM follows the rules, then humanoid NPC encounters fall over, barring very favorable circumstances on their side.
Keep in mind that he's going to have bodyguards, his CR is going to have to go down. Which means his abysmal equipment value goes down, too.
And as you mentioned, you use the PC wealth chart rather than the NPC wealth chart, as the rules say. So you really are overgeneralizing, applying your own experiences as an absolute measure of how the system works, because you've been using a modified system! NPC Wizards by the book are less powerful than you've been running them, and they're less broken than you've been saying they are!
But anyways, my point stands. You're talking about your game, Kirth and Derek. Your experiences are not the absolute measure of how the game works.
-Matt
The issue isnt making any class better, the fighter doesnt need to ADD anything. The issue is 3e broke alot of things, these rule changes nerfed the figher and simultaneously added to casters (which im sure was an unintentional flaw)
I see no reason to add better hit dice to casters (you can use some of the generation rules to beef up 1st level characters so a stray angry yellow jacket doesnt drop the spellcaster before he gets to the adventure)
Again coming from a person like myself who has been in actual combat, simulated(boffer weapon combat) and has studied kung fu for over 14 years; the statement that melee combat is obsolete and weak is not true.
FBI statistics proove that in a confrontation within 20 feet a knife fighter will kill a gun fighter, just about every time.
What this is saying is the kinfe fighter can close the distaance and stab the gun fighter before the gun fighter can draw, aim and fire.
We are not talking jessie james here, or Israeli commandos, were are talking typical criminals.
In the LA bank robbing massacre two highly armored criminal took shot after shot from LAPD without going down. If these guys had ninja swords instead of AK-47s they could have killed just as many cops, the hand guns were ineffective.
If a group of knights got within melee range of a group of longbow men, the archers we toast (and they greatly feared this happening) and thus ran for it if the knights even went in their diretion.
Most Dnd encounters happen within range (dungeons, forests, caves, lairs) where the Meleer is viable.
Travellig across the plains and a band of archers happen upon you? Yup you are at a disadvantage from extreme range.
But not in a typical room of a dungeon adventure.
If you start with in 20 feet of me, in an enclosed room an you have a bow and I have a sword, you can run just as far as I can in 6 seconds.
The difference is you are at a disadvanatge trying to aim and fire and move at the sametime where as I can run up on you like a wild man and swing my sword several many times in a 6 second period of time.
If you stop running to turn and aim, you slow down enough for meto close an attack too.
If you run back wards you might be able to hit me once, but I will still catch up and then be able to hit you too.
(this happens all the time in live action RPG boffer combat where spell casters highly fear two weapon wielding fighters, because they will get over run)
In the real world, you can shoot all the missles and have all the artillery you want. But if you want to take towns, hills, or specific buildings (read lairs and castles) you still have to send in foot troops to claim it, hold it and defend it.
Do the oot troops have ranged weapons? yes, but they are extremely limited in range in comparison to everything else. Andthose foot troops do engage in and are very good at hand to hand (melee) combat.
I specifically remember an incident where running out of ammo,a soldier flanked a machine gun post and over took the operator using, of all things a shovel as a weapon.
Yip man, the chineese grandfather of Wing Chng kungfu (the style bruce lee studied in china before comming to america) is legendary and reknown for in 1928, defeating a gunman with nothing but his bare hands when the pistoleer had both range and distance on him.
The finger striking manuever, taught only to students of this style of kung fu (Bil gee) translates from chineese into "Fingers that stopped the chamber of a pistol"
Melee is by far, dead, weak, limited or useless.
WOW, this is obviously straying into Class Feature territory instead of Combat Rules, but I have to say this is a GREAT way to differentiate the Fighter ("Feat Master") vs. Barb/Pal/Ranger.
(It should apply only to Fighter Bonus Feats, otherwise everyone who dips Fighter 1 level gets it. Even getting 1 Feat w/o Stat Pre-Req is great, really)
I have to disagree with this one.
This would just make too much disparity between Fighters and other Warrior Classes.
If anything, ALL Iterative Attacks could revert to using full BAB
(which is closer to Multi-Attack: Secondaries @ -2)
which would probably mean the # of Attacks could be reduced...
Honestly, this is something that should definitely be CONSIDERED,
as it just seems WAY simpler and easier to comprehend/ keep track of.
WOW, this is obviously straying into Class Feature territory instead of Combat Rules, but I have to say this is a GREAT way to differentiate the Fighter ("Feat Master") vs. Barb/Pal/Ranger.
(It should apply only to Fighter Bonus Feats, otherwise everyone who dips Fighter 1 level gets it. Even getting 1 Feat w/o Stat Pre-Req is great, really)
I have to disagree with this one.
This would just make too much disparity between Fighters and other Warrior Classes.If anything, ALL Iterative Attacks could revert to using full BAB
(which is closer to Multi-Attack: Secondaries @ -2)
which would probably mean the # of Attacks could be reduced...
Honestly, this is something that should definitely be CONSIDERED,
as it just seems WAY simpler and easier to comprehend/ keep track of.
I hate to be nostalgic, but bak in early 2e, weapon specialization was only avalaible to fighters, and everyone cried "my ranger cant specialize in bow and the fighter is better than me" and "my paladin should be able to specialize in sword, after all he is a knight"
etc etc until we gave away specialization to everyone else.Now wep specialization is so nerfed some FIGHTERS dont even take it.
My point is anything that as ever GOOD about a fighter was taken away or given to other characters too. The Fighter does ONE thing, he FIGHTS, and he should be the best at it.
But in a world where he cant walk and fight, where others can run away and cast, and more easily take control of his mind and besat him down with those spells than ever before, and anything that is good about him other can do as well.....
Guess everyone who says its a casters universe is right.
|
...
The more of the Wizard versus Fighter stuff I read in this thread, the more I'm convinced that the VS/IVS/GVS feat chain is the way to go. Only characters who envision themselves participating heavily in melee are likely to invest in the feats, and only full-babbers will get the most out of it.
-Skeld
Director of Game Design
|
Hello Everyone,
This thread has wandered all over the place and has reverted to a class vs class fight. As such, I am going to close it down. There are some good ideas in here that I am going to consider and I want to thank that folks that contributed.
This thread is locked.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing