|
Following the discussion I came to the following conclusion:
The core of the problem, the "broken" thing so to say, is "cast defensively", at least in my opinion.
As some previous post noted, "cast defensively" negates a threat to the caster, no matter how proficient the enemy causing the threat is; this just isn't right.
Remove it completely from the rules, and the problem is almost solved.
Or just rule the DC is equal to the potential attacker's attack roll with bonuses, with each potential attacker having a separate attack roll/DC for the caster to oppose.
20th level wizard, INT 25, Item INT+6 (total int mod = +10), class skill bonus of +3, some kind of feat makes the Spellcraft skill a 35.
20th level fighter, STR25, Item STR+6 (total STR mod = +10), weapon +5, BAB+20, Feats +2, weapon training +3, giving a DC of 40.
It comes down to the die roll versus die roll with up to 75% of it relying not on the skill of the opponents at that point but on the randomness of the dice. And the wizard is at a 25% disadvantage right out of the gate.
|
|
Casters and melee fighters aren't equal, so why should the rules governing their actions be.
Because when those actions are similar, or analogous, the rules governing them should be consistent. This is one of the greatest strengths of 3e - consistency (even though it falls apart at several points, for the most part it is very internally consistent).
I wish there was different casting times for different spells, if only to mix it up. The few spells that have a 1 round casting time aren't really enough to do it for me, actually.
Or maybe get a full/standard version of the spells. I don't know if it should come as a buff or a nerf though, I'm not a game designer.
Melee characters have to take a full round action to get the most out of their attacks, and in certain cases, use some of their better feats. Now, you can see that as punishing them when taking a standard action or rewarding them when taking a full round, I don't really care. I'd just like to extend the same courtesy to spellcasters.
Assume that lightning bolt is worth a standard action spell. 1d6 per caster level, DC 13 + ability mod. Casting it as a full round action could allow it more damage (perhaps 1d6+1 per caster level) or a higher DC (perhaps +2) Just tossing this on without any modifications though seems to empower casters, probably more than they need.
If you feel that lightning bolt is totally more valuable than a fighter's standard action, make the normal version the full round. If casting as a standard action, they suffer -2 DC, or -2 caster level, or some such. Under this version, eventually your lower level spells would be normal as standard actions, while your high level spells would require the full round to get the normal effect. So if you could cast 5th level spells, you might be able to use 2nd level spells normally as standard actions, while 3-5th would be stunted if standard actioned.
Or metamagic could be changed from boosting spell level to requiring a full round action to cast, with a cool down period of rounds. Empower Spell adds 50% random damage, requires a full round casting action and 2 rounds before metamagic can be used again. Put a caster level prereq on metamagic, as the caster increases in power (presumably at caster level 6, 11 and 16), they can apply more metamagic to a single casting.
I don't really know, I'm just tossing out ideas here. I do agree that mages get more maneuverability than melee characters, plus given the range of their spells, more opportunity to actually employ them in combat. It wouldn't be a bad thing to have a trade off, but I disagree that forcing them all to be 1 round actions would be the ideal here.
|
My preferred system would be varying initiative speeds. Knowing that it is not backwards compatible I realize that it cannot be considered for PFRPG (at least in the core rules, maybe as a variant).
The problem with all of this is twofold.
First off: D&D in all its incarnations took very little consideration of how fantastic abilities (spells, magic items, etc) all play into a quasi medieval fantasy world. We have a select few in society who can work magic to fly, but little or no rules about how castles would deal with this problem. No matter how rare wizardry is in any given campaign world, mundane people who know about it would have an arcane or mundane solution to deal with the problem which is a foundation of the second point
Second Point: The changes and boons given to 3.5 casters are inherent to system. There needs to be more balanced mechanics to deal with theses changes and the devs of 3.0/3.5 just didn't make them. In other words casting spells got easier, but countering didn't -or doesn't really exist.
Approaching it from nerfing the casters is wrong way. In a magic rich (or even poor) world, there should be training for dealing with these potential problems. So a possible solution-
Either a feat or class ability system for various classes (fighters being the best) for dealing with and possible countering magic:
Maybe at lower levels option for feats or class abilities that make the opposing casters concentration checks much harder. Maybe a disrupting shot or disrupting strike. Re- if you hit a caster he needs to make a DC check to cast a spell the next round, or the current concentration DC goes up by +X amount, etc. Casters would quickly hang back from melee and would play a bit more cautiously.
Maybe at mid to higher levels giving fighters (or other martial classes) the ability to ignore or disrupt ongoing magical effects. Wouldn't it be nice if a ranger could pop a flying wizard in the sky with his bow (and using a feat) and watch him lose control or see the cancellation of his spell? All mundane training in dealing with the rangers real world threats with none of the 4th ed puffery/semi-magic.
That or radically rework concentration, i.e making it much harder to make your caster check to get a spell off. That is cool, but it doesn't help the other classes much if the wizard puts on so many defensive buffs that he can't take damage. Again, we have a multitude of classes with little or no recourse for the very realistic magic and threats they may have to face on a day-to-day basis.
I think the concept of returning to 1E/2E is most definitely NOT the point, and I think that's a point that a lot of people are missing in these discussions.
If there is a system in place that ends up making the game not fun for a subset of people that would like to run fighters after a certain level, shouldn't that be addressed or at least looked at?
Returning to 2e is not the point. In my games I have unhappy players that do not play fighters because of some of these issues in 3e. I am running a fighter in a game, and watching my 7th level sorcerer friend roll 8d6 every round against large creatures with reach, when I'm lucky to get in my full attack. It's even more difficult for me to hit then him, because his attack is a touch attack! So not only do I often not do my damage, when I hit a higher target number I do *less*. It's Ok for right now, but as we move forward I'm going to become more and more useless in combat.
The only reason 1e/2e/hackmaster was mentioned is because this specific issue is not an issue in those games - not because of some overriding desire to return to those games (after all, people still play them, myself included)
If the core assumption is "It shouldn't be fun to play a melee warrior in combat because you will be outclassed by the wizard", then you are correct, we should change nothing in pathfinder.
My core assumption is that we are looking at ways of making sure every player has his spotlight time so each feels valuable and has fun playing any of the available archetypes across the entire level range in a variety of situations. There is some quantity of agreement that this is an issue.
As for consistency and the claim that it "Nerfs" spell-casters to have a failure chance, last time I checked, you didn't have to roll to hit with a fireball. The fighter can miss *every* *time* he does damage.
I like your acrobatics suggestions hmarcbower.
Another way these issues (make the fighter more valuable without nerfing the wizard) is some sort of feat or class feature that prevents monsters from disengaging with them once they are engaged. Being able to pin down a monster so that it can't bounce around (with high speed/acrobatics/teleportation) is a very fighter-like thing to do and can go a long way towards making them feel effective in high level combat.
The only reason 1e/2e/hackmaster was mentioned is because this specific issue is not an issue in those games - not because of some overriding desire to return to those games (after all, people still play them, myself included)
Couldn't have said it better myself. Excellently put nexus.
My core assumption is that we are looking at ways of making sure every player has his spotlight time so each feels valuable and has fun playing any of the available archetypes across the entire level range in a variety of situations.
Amen brother. I have a wide range of player experience level in my current campaign, from advanced min-max players who just decimate enemies due to their elaborate selection of prestige classes and racial combinations, to the player with far less experience who sits back with his fighter and watches as everything gets killed by the mage. He sits and wonders why he is even playing.. that this isn't really fun for him. Its not that he wants to be able to beat up the wizard, he just wants to be able to do amazing things too. I don't think trying to fix it so that he gets a sense of amazement and wonder while playing his character is wrong and any steps we can take to help him enjoy his character more are a good thing, not a bad thing.
As for consistency and the claim that it "Nerfs" spell-casters to have a failure chance, last time I checked, you didn't have to roll to hit with a fireball. The fighter can miss *every* *time* he does damage.
Yep.
Another way these issues (make the fighter more valuable without nerfing the wizard) is some sort of feat or class feature that prevents monsters from disengaging with them once they are engaged. Being able to pin down a monster so that it can't bounce around (with high speed/acrobatics/teleportation) is a very fighter-like thing to do and can go a long way towards making them feel effective in high level combat.
Hey I know... lets come up with a mechanic... what should we call it... hmmm Oh, how about Marking? Ugh. Sorry, not to sound sarcastic, because I kind of agree, but as someone else posted in another thread, some of these issues are already resolved in 4E and maybe we should be willing to look at some of those solutions to see if they seem reasonable here instead of completely reinventing the wheel so to speak.
|
Because when those actions are similar, or analogous, the rules governing them should be consistent. This is one of the greatest strengths of 3e - consistency (even though it falls apart at several points, for the most part it is very internally consistent).
Casters and melee fighters aren't equal, so why should the rules governing their actions be.
I fail to see how casting a spell while threatened by someone and rushing forward suddenly to trip some fool are similar actions. The fact is that the rules governing spellcasting in combat should be very different from grabbing a guy in a headlock, pushing some dude off a bridge, or knocking the legs out from under someone. You aren't engaged in melee with a swordsman, you are standing in front of him waggling your arms, hands and possibly making precise steps while chanting special words of power that must be said with precise inflection and tone. Big difference from plowing your shoulder into some guy's midsection to push him back a few feet.
The mechanics need to be different because the actions and effects are different, and because there is a problem with spellcasters having too much power in their present incarnation. The fact that they were lumped together in the first place was a mistake.|
|
I think the concept of returning to 1E/2E is most definitely NOT the point, and I think that's a point that a lot of people are missing in these discussions.If there is a system in place that ends up making the game not fun for a subset of people that would like to run fighters after a certain level, shouldn't that be addressed or at least looked at?
Returning to 2e is not the point. In my games I have unhappy players that do not play fighters because of some of these issues in 3e. I am running a fighter in a game, and watching my 7th level sorcerer friend roll 8d6 every round against large creatures with reach, when I'm lucky to get in my full attack. It's even more difficult for me to hit then him, because his attack is a touch attack! So not only do I often not do my damage, when I hit a higher target number I do *less*. It's Ok for right now, but as we move forward I'm going to become more and more useless in combat.
The only reason 1e/2e/hackmaster was mentioned is because this specific issue is not an issue in those games - not because of some overriding desire to return to those games (after all, people still play them, myself included)
If the core assumption is "It shouldn't be fun to play a melee warrior in combat because you will be outclassed by the wizard", then you are correct, we should change nothing in pathfinder.
My core assumption is that we are looking at ways of making sure every player has his spotlight time so each feels valuable and has fun playing any of the available archetypes across the entire level range in a variety of situations. There is some quantity of agreement that this is an issue.
As for consistency and the claim that it "Nerfs" spell-casters to have a failure chance, last time I checked, you didn't have to roll to hit with a fireball. The fighter can miss *every* *time* he does damage.
I like your acrobatics suggestions hmarcbower.
Another way these issues (make the fighter more valuable without nerfing the wizard) is...
Ding, ding, friggin' ding! This post is the single best post of the thread, and I wholeheartedly agree on all counts.
|
Cleave of the Familiar they just massacred into the Wizard, Sunder the Spellbook.Are we playing the same game? No 15th level PC wizard know of keeps a spellbook in hand (secret chest), nor uses a spell component pouch (Eschew Materials). And in the Pathfinder rules, who wants a familiar when you can have a bonded item (like a ring, so it can't be sundered)?
Why can't you sunder a Ring? I honestly was going to put the sundering the bonded item in, but figured I'd get more this response to it that to a familir.readying an action every round to basically move out of the area/range of oncomming spells
What I meant was, not out run the spell. Rather, lets say its a fireball. Fighter does not know it's a fireball comming, unless Fighter has a lot in spellcraft, but he does probably know that if it is a fireball, it's probably going to be thrown at him. So he readies the action to move.
The Fighter should have at least a 30ft movement, if not, thats the players fault not the classes, (or just a stingy DM). So the Wizard throws his Fireball at where the Fighter is standing. Midway, and remember the Fighter Readied to move after the spell is already thrown, the Fighter moves 30ft to the right. Fireball either keeps on going past where he was, or hits something else and explodes, not touching the Fighter at all.
I like the idea of spells of a certain level taking a full action. If we can have a power word: Kill take up 9 pages in a spell book, then it can take a full round action to say. Highest level -2 works for me, but let first level spells remain the 3.x speed.
While that would certainly be an improvement to the current rules, I think I like something someone else posted in another thread, where the casting time equaled the spell level in segments. So if your wizard character rolled a 14 on initiative, and he casts a 3rd level spell, it takes effect on 11. Oh, and he has to remain motionless while casting, but can move before or after casting. Meaning, if he rolled 14 he could move 30' to get a better line of sight, stand motionless for 3 segments while he waggles his hands, and then everything goes boom, OR, starting at 14 he frantically waves his hands, on 11 things go boom, then he moves on 11 to somewhere else.
Seems cool to me and it even locks the spell caster down for a measurable amount of time so that enemies could run up and thwack him while he's frantically trying to fetch the sulfur and bat guano out of his belt pouch.
there's a couple of issues here that havent been addressed.
1)the fighter was always better than the wizard for the first ten levels(1e/2e)
2) the wizard came into his own around 11-12th level (6th level spells and more of the 4th and 5th level spells he could chuck)
3) the wizard was always better than the fighter at the higher levels
4) the wizard always took alot longer to get to the higher levels than anyone else (due to the progression of different exp tables for different character classes)
now a days (in 3.x) #1 is true but, it wears out earlier (due to changed rules in combat)
#2 is true but happens a bit earlier as well due to the fact he can huck spells more frequently/
#3 true, but earlier again.... and here's the issue. The wizard always was better, it just took longer for his come uppance, his spells were still interuptable, he still needed fighter support to prevent the interuptions and this incredible power came at the cost of extreme patience on the part of the player.
#4 was done away with to create the ability to multiclass much easier so every class was the same from the leveling standpoint. so this game mechanic caused some problems as well. Leveling faster was a fighter "feature", the purpose for the different expereince progression, was calculated to offset the variable power levels at certain class levels, ie the more the character got, the more the level cost in expereince.
This usually resulted in a party with 11th level fighters and 9th level mages.
by the time the fighter reached 20th level, the mage was likely 15th or 16th.
Then there is the monster issue, they never had those kinds of hit points before. The fighters abilities to do damage did not increase with the monsters ability to take it.
The monsters hit points did not cause the same "nerf" to the wizards spells which often do not affect hit points directly, but the did make the damage type spells much less effective much earlier.
these were all passive problems caused by the 3.0 re-write.
here in lies the uber issue... more hitpoints for monsters, not more damage for fighters, more effectiveness earlier for mages. Out pace the fighter.
Without a complete rewrite, there is very little that can be done about all this.
The movement and full attack issue is the only way to mitigate the difference.
Then there is the monster issue, they never had those kinds of hit points before. The fighters abilities to do damage did not increase with the monsters ability to take it.
The monsters hit points did not cause the same "nerf" to the wizards spells which often do not affect hit points directly, but the did make the damage type spells much less effective much earlier.
I agree completely and I believe that this has been the BIGGEST source of problems with balancing in 3.x. It went from the fighter doing respectable damage to "it's going to take him 6 rounds to half me, and the wizard may SoD me by then... wizard first, he's squishier."
With the fighter unable to run interference for the wizard ("tank") in these cases he's sidelined even more.
However I believe the fighter doesn't require that much to change things to a "balanced" point.
1. A means to attack and move effectively (as has been discussed elsewhere).
2. The ability deal damage effectively (this has been getting addressed and probably will continue to get looked at).
3. A way to run interference for a wizard in a world were everything above CR 10 has a means to move around other than walking (flight, teleport, earthslide, burrowing, et. al.).
One thing I would not like to see is an approach like is in a lot of old RPG's (final fantasy 2~6, chrono trigger, et. al.) where there is no difference between the various weapon types, you can always just stand in line and swing for damage, and accept your hit regardless of wether you are using a bow or sword.
Meleeist might deal good damage but it is unrealistic (from both mechanical and realism standpoints) to expect them to be as flexible as archery builds.
Hey I know... lets come up with a mechanic... what should we call it... hmmm Oh, how about Marking? Ugh. Sorry, not to sound sarcastic, because I kind of agree, but as someone else posted in another thread, some of these issues are already resolved in 4E and maybe we should be willing to look at some of those solutions to see if they seem reasonable here instead of completely reinventing the wheel so to speak.
First, thank everyone who had such nice things to say. It was very nice to hear. I just want to make the game more fun for everyone. I've gotten house rule ideas from this thread no matter the final decision. :-)
In response to the above, even though I don't want to play DND the boardgame like 4e, it doesn't mean we can't steal a good idea from later editions to solve a problem any less than we can steal an idea from earlier editions. There are some things 4e improved (DM's running monsters, inter-class spotlight time) and some things it made worse. We should just steal from everywhere to make PF the best game possible, and, uh, hide our sources. :-)
First, thank everyone who had such nice things to say. It was very nice to hear. I just want to make the game more fun for everyone. I've gotten house rule ideas from this thread no matter the final decision. :-)
Not a problem. I'm just glad to have found a kindred spirit who understands that this is not about whacking wizards for the sport of it, but in fact this is bigger than that, this is about ensuring that all players get a chance to feel important and impressive, across all levels. There are even things I think can and should be done to help wizards be more impressive such as increasing direct damage spell damage to compensate for the hit point increases in current editions.
In response to the above, even though I don't want to play DND the boardgame like 4e, it doesn't mean we can't steal a good idea from later editions to solve a problem any less than we can steal an idea from earlier editions. There are some things 4e improved (DM's running monsters, inter-class spotlight time) and some things it made worse. We should just steal from everywhere to make PF the best game possible, and, uh, hide our sources. :-)
No problemo bud! I am 1000% on the same page. Personally I like the 4E death and dying rules so I nabbed those. I do like the concept of making enemies "stick" to fighters, but I dislike how 4E accomplished that, so I'd argue against a direct rip-off of those mechanics. Otherwise yes, I am all for stealing from whatever edition had the best mechanic and make the overall best edition there is. We have a vast pool of resources to choose from and a large pool of testers, I think we can get some really nice things accomplished if we are bold AND careful enough.
However I believe the fighter doesn't require that much to change things to a "balanced" point.
1. A means to attack and move effectively (as has been discussed elsewhere).
2. The ability deal damage effectively (this has been getting addressed and probably will continue to get looked at).
3. A way to run interference for a wizard in a world were everything above CR 10 has a means to move around other than walking (flight, teleport, earthslide, burrowing, et. al.).
I agree, this is pretty accurate.
My suggestions:
1. Core Rules: Psychic Warrior has an power called Psionic Lion's Charge. This can be gained by fourth level, allowing a full attack on a charge.
By later levels, he can do this like 50 times per day if he chose to.
If this is considered balanced enough for the Psychic Warrior, then why can this not be a standard option for the Fighter (if not automatically, then as a feat chain).
2. If a Fighter is allowed to get a full attack, he can surpass spell damage and can do it all day long. Especially now with the Weapon Training ability (increasing attack to allow more damage against higher ACs).
The new Crit feats, twohander feats, etc, all make the Fighter a damage monster. A change to point #1 will solve this problem.
3. I don't see this as too much of a problem on it's own, as this is where teamplay comes into effect. If the Fighter is getting into a situation where he needs to fight things that aren't easily reached, he should be asking his Wizard ally to cast fly/etc on him. Or, if this is a common occurance, ask for a magic item to be created to the effect.
If the Fighter is getting hurt in combat, he asks the cleric or druid to cast cure or regenerate or restoration... he doesn't whine that his class has no ability to heal himself effectively.
We don't need the Fighter to be utterly self sufficient.
Edit: To elaborate on this final point... the issue with the Third point is not that the Fighter must have a way to do his job in (and here's the kicker) *all situations*.
Rather, it's that the Wizard's usefulness is in his ability to have a tool to counter the enemy's special abilities.
If you have a Wizard in the group, giving the Fighter the ability to Fly, to counter the enemy's defense of flying, provides more to the group than tossing a spell for 20 damage. If point #1 is resolved, the Fighter getting fly means rounds and rounds of ongoing damage, likely in excess of 20 damage each time.
Or cast web to force them to fall and unable to fly... or Power Word Stun for a similar, if temporary effect.
That's the value of having the Wizard in the group... countering the abilities of the enemy, whether directly or by buffing his allies.
..
Now, the only issue with the Wizard is how do we preserve this niche, without making him the ultimate class?
However I believe the fighter doesn't require that much to change things to a "balanced" point.
1. A means to attack and move effectively (as has been discussed elsewhere).
2. The ability deal damage effectively (this has been getting addressed and probably will continue to get looked at).
3. A way to run interference for a wizard in a world were everything above CR 10 has a means to move around other than walking (flight, teleport, earthslide, burrowing, et. al.).
I agree, this is pretty accurate.
My suggestions:
1. Core Rules: Psychic Warrior has an power called Psionic Lion's Charge. This can be gained by fourth level, allowing a full attack on a charge.
By later levels, he can do this like 50 times per day if he chose to.
If this is considered balanced enough for the Psychic Warrior, then why can this not be a standard option for the Fighter (if not automatically, then as a feat chain).2. If a Fighter is allowed to get a full attack, he can surpass spell damage and can do it all day long. Especially now with the Weapon Training ability (increasing attack to allow more damage against higher ACs).
The new Crit feats, twohander feats, etc, all make the Fighter a damage monster. A change to point #1 will solve this problem.3. I don't see this as too much of a problem on it's own, as this is where teamplay comes into effect. If the Fighter is getting into a situation where he needs to fight things that aren't easily reached, he should be asking his Wizard ally to cast fly/etc on him. Or, if this is a common occurance, ask for a magic item to be created to the effect.
If the Fighter is getting hurt in combat, he asks the cleric or druid to cast cure or regenerate or restoration... he doesn't whine that his class has no ability to heal himself effectively.We don't need the Fighter to be utterly self sufficient.
Edit: To...
Its never been then intention to have the fighter be self sufficient,
But every gaming group is supposed to have at leaast the iconic four (fighter, cleric, rogue, mage)It's always been "ohh you want to play? We need a cleric!" or "we are getting trounsed with a fighter"
3.x made high level parties a druid, a sorceror and a wizard.
thats the problem.
4) the wizard always took alot longer to get to the higher levels than anyone else (due to the progression of different exp tables for different character classes)
#4 was done away with to create the ability to multiclass much easier so every class was the same from the leveling standpoint. so this game mechanic caused some problems as well. Leveling faster was a fighter "feature", the purpose for the different expereince progression, was calculated to offset the variable power levels at certain class levels, ie the more the character got, the more the level cost in expereince.
This usually resulted in a party with 11th level fighters and 9th level mages.
by the time the fighter reached 20th level, the mage was likely 15th or 16th.
This is one of the big points I keep trying to make. Thanks for bringing it up, Pendagast. The 3.X system did work a way to control this into the rules, but everytime I bring it up, people get all outraged. XP cost for spells, MI creation, loss of familiars, et al. were designed to reduce the power level of the mage (and other casters) in relation to the other party members. Regardless of whether you like the logic of the system, it was designed as a control for ubercasters.
Now, I know Paizo designers are adamant about removing that rule with no hopes of changing their minds, but the reasons this was in the 3.X rules in the first place needs to be looked at.
Also, for those of you who pound fists against XP costs, are you also people who complain about the Uberness of high level casters? Think about it.
This is one of the big points I keep trying to make. Thanks for bringing it up, Pendagast. The 3.X system did work a way to control this into the rules, but everytime I bring it up, people get all outraged. XP cost for spells, MI creation, loss of familiars, et al. were designed to reduce the power level of the mage (and other casters) in relation to the other party members. Regardless of whether you like the logic of the system, it was designed as a control for ubercasters.Now, I know Paizo designers are adamant about removing that rule with no hopes of changing their minds, but the reasons this was in the 3.X rules in the first place needs to be looked at.
Also, for those of you who pound fists against XP costs, are you also people who complain about the Uberness of high level casters? Think about it.
I don't believe the XP cost of spells was meant to keep the wizard at a lower level than his companions. I believe the intent was just to provide a cost to spells that PCs might be wary of spending willy-nilly and that didn't favor long-lived races. As long as a high-level wizard eschews those spells (and there aren't that many), there will be no level difference and yet his spell casting will still be very powerful.
The XP costs primarily replaced things like 1e's aging costs. Certain spells aged the caster which, for some long-lived races like elves and dwarves, was no cost at all.
Also, for those of you who pound fists against XP costs, are you also people who complain about the Uberness of high level casters? Think about it.
No, I pound my fists against XP costs because I don't want to have to track XP's. Its a lazy thing really. Currently I don't even think about XP's, I just tell the players when their characters level and having to worry about XP's throws a big wrench into my lazy plans. I agree though that earlier editions managed balance by allowing characters to be different levels.
|
And it's been suggest Phil. Problem is, EVERYthing has been suggested, and likely none of it is going to be acted on. So we're just entertaining ourselves.
Quite simpoly I have to agree with this more than anything else in this thread. When I played a Fighter it was great until higher levels. Once we got up over lvl 15 my Fighter was just a road bump most of the time. Either that or I had to wait for the Cleric to buff me up so much that I could seriously contribute. That usually required 4-5 rounds of the waiting game. But it was mostly due to the Cleric that I could do massive amounts of damage, not due to the Fighter.
I have long wanted to go back to:
1) round by round initiative. Far more dynamic and unpredictable. Also gets rid of "who's turn is it again?" as you have a new order every round.
2) Weapon speeds and Spell Cating times. Gives having a Short Sword a reason to even exist. Causes spells to match the literature and cinema that inspires the game.
3) Have it possible for spells to be interrupted. With the ability to cause massive damage, there should be a risk.
Will these make their way into PFRPG? Absolutely not. Backwards compatability severely limits anyone's ability to actually improve the game, causing it to be gimped and screwy with easily fixed but still broken rules.
It is entertaining to read this thread, but honestly we can expect PFRPG casters to be even more dominant than they were before, and probably at lower levels than before.
I have long wanted to go back to:
1) round by round initiative. Far more dynamic and unpredictable. Also gets rid of "who's turn is it again?" as you have a new order every round.2) Weapon speeds and Spell Casting times. Gives having a Short Sword a reason to even exist. Causes spells to match the literature and cinema that inspires the game.
3) Have it possible for spells to be interrupted. With the ability to cause massive damage, there should be a risk.
I'm with you brother!
Will these make their way into PFRPG? Absolutely not.
I sincerely hope some of it will. I actually really want to go back to speed factors and casting times. I have already made that decision in my campaign regardless of what the official rules become though.
It is entertaining to read this thread, but honestly we can expect PFRPG casters to be even more dominant than they were before, and probably at lower levels than before.
Well that's pretty pessimistic. I truly hope you are incorrect.
Will these make their way into PFRPG? Absolutely not. Backwards compatability severely limits anyone's ability to actually improve the game, causing it to be gimped and screwy with easily fixed but still broken rules. It is entertaining to read this thread, but honestly we can expect PFRPG casters to be even more dominant than they were before, and probably at lower levels than before.
Sadly, I've come to believe this to be true as well. And as for lower levels... yesterday we played the first half of "Chimera Cove," converted to Pathfinder rules, with four 7th level characters. 1st encounter was with 4 super hobgoblin fighters with like 80 hp apiece. The rogue took one; houstonderek's fighter stood there and inflicted a bunch of damage but was otherwise not important except as a minor distraction; my monk never landed a single blow, and was safely ignored by all the monsters; and the wizard calmly took out 3 of the hobgoblins by himself. So, already we can send in the wizard and rogue, and the other two of us can go to the tavern instead.
Sadly, I've come to believe this to be true as well. And as for lower levels... yesterday we played the first half of "Chimera Cove," converted to Pathfinder rules, with four 7th level characters. 1st encounter was with 4 super hobgoblin fighters with like 80 hp apiece. The rogue took one; houstonderek's fighter stood there and inflicted a bunch of damage but was otherwise not important except as a minor distraction; my monk never landed a single blow, and was safely ignored by all the monsters; and the wizard calmly took out 3 of the hobgoblins by himself. So, already we can send in the wizard and rogue, and the other two of us can go to the tavern instead. ** spoiler omitted **
I hope you're exaggerating about the 80 hp hobgoblins and the monk not landing a blow. Because if not, you should probably call shenanigans on the DM. I've got the mod and the hobgoblins aren't that tough and none of them have an AC out of the monk's reach without persistently crappy dice rolls.
|
|
Thanks for the support Krome.
I actually really want to go back to speed factors and casting times.
Here is a very good article on just this subject. I'm not really for the idea, although going to round by round initiative might make it work smoother. But personally, all that gets in the way.
As for being pessimistic, it is hard to be otherwise. Plenty of ideas have been tossed around on the forums. None of them are going to be used. The designers have told us.
The changes that are being made are minor things here and there. Fresh coats of paint, if you will. Nothing is being done to the engine. So it's hard for me to be excited over much of it.
I have long wanted to go back to:
1) round by round initiative. Far more dynamic and unpredictable. Also gets rid of "who's turn is it again?" as you have a new order every round.
2) Weapon speeds and Spell Cating times. Gives having a Short Sword a reason to even exist. Causes spells to match the literature and cinema that inspires the game.
3) Have it possible for spells to be interrupted. With the ability to cause massive damage, there should be a risk.Will these make their way into PFRPG? Absolutely not. Backwards compatability severely limits anyone's ability to actually improve the game, causing it to be gimped and screwy with easily fixed but still broken rules.
I don't think backward compatibility severely limits that much. None of the 3 things you would like to see significantly affect backward compatibility as far as I can tell. I supposed #2 would suggest some build changes to characters, mainly in selecting more fast-cast interruption spells and fast weapons to have on hand, but I don't think the changes would extend much farther than that.
|
|
While I would vastly prefer a really simple fix such as making all Standard Action casting times increase to Full Round Actions (giving melees a much greater chance of interrupting casters), there was an interesting Weapon Speed optional rule in one of the Scarred Lands Players Guides.
Weapons were divided into Fast Weapons (daggers and short swords), Average Weapons (longswords, maces and axes) and Slow Weapons (polearms and crossbows).
Average weapons functioned normally.
Fast weapons increased their iterative value to units of four, instead of five.
Slow weapons decreased their iterative value to units of six, instead of five.
So a 9th Fighter would have a BAB of +9 and iterative attacks of +9/+4 with a Longsword, +9/+5/+1 with a Shortsword and +9/+3 with a Halberd.
The 'Fast' weapon user would end up with more attacks at a faster progression than the 'Slow' weapon user, which was an interesting way of adopting the concept of Weapon Speed into 3rd edition.
Sigh... after reading:
Here is a very good article on just this subject.
I find I am now second guessing my decision to return to the days of speed factors.
Double sigh.
While I would vastly prefer a really simple fix such as making all Standard Action casting times increase to Full Round Actions (giving melees a much greater chance of interrupting casters), there was an interesting Weapon Speed optional rule in one of the Scarred Lands Players Guides.
Weapons were divided into Fast Weapons (daggers and short swords), Average Weapons (longswords, maces and axes) and Slow Weapons (polearms and crossbows).
Average weapons functioned normally.
Fast weapons increased their iterative value to units of four, instead of five.
Slow weapons decreased their iterative value to units of six, instead of five.
So a 9th Fighter would have a BAB of +9 and iterative attacks of +9/+4 with a Longsword, +9/+5/+1 with a Shortsword and +9/+3 with a Halberd.
The 'Fast' weapon user would end up with more attacks at a faster progression than the 'Slow' weapon user, which was an interesting way of adopting the concept of Weapon Speed into 3rd edition.
An interesting idea, but I'm not sure it would be one I'd like to implement. It means I'd have a separate iterative bonus listed for each weapon class and plenty of players will "forget" the correct one to consult. Plus, I'd be worried about rogues and their natural proficiencies in the lighter and faster weapons would benefit too much.
I hope you're exaggerating about the 80 hp hobgoblins and the monk not landing a blow. Because if not, you should probably call shenanigans on the DM. I've got the mod and the hobgoblins aren't that tough and none of them have an AC out of the monk's reach without persistently crappy dice rolls.
No exaggeration, and absolutely no shenanigans, either; we were told in advance that all of the monsters would be "souped up" so that they'd provide some semblance of a challenge (we ran through "Last Baron" like stepping on a bunch of ants). The thing is, that made them a challenge for the wizard, and pointless for the fighter and monk (fight over in 4 rounds; I spent 2 rounds moving, one round executing a flurry of misses in melee, and one round wasting a couple of arrows). None of this is the DM's fault -- indeed, he took active steps to improve things -- but that's the way the game is built. Paralyzing/immobilizing enemies and then killing them at leisure will always be more effective than chasing them around making single attacks. Now, if melee guys could move AND full attack... right there, that would have changed the entire picture.
we were told in advance that all of the monsters would be "souped up" so that they'd provide some semblance of a challenge
If the monsters were not core, and were "souped up" then maybe therein lies the problem?
That the wizard still handled over half the encounter and the melees could have sat on the sideline in cheerleader outfits?
Perhaps the DM increased AC and HP but not saving throws, leaving the monsters vulnerable to magic but virtually immune to melee?
Perhaps the DM increased AC and HP but not saving throws, leaving the monsters vulnerable to magic but virtually immune to melee?
But that's exactly what the core rules do; it's inherent in the structure of the game. The entire game is set up so that hp scale between 6 and 60 times more rapidly than do saving throws. That's one of the main reasons why warriors suck so much at higher levels.
|
|
Sigh... after reading:
Here is a very good article on just this subject.I find I am now second guessing my decision to return to the days of speed factors.
Double sigh.
Sorry but that article is too simplistic to be useful.
The point is to have weapon speed affect initiative AND have new initiative every round. And please don't say that it is way too difficult to do that, as we did it for years with no problems. In fact I seriously think it would speed up play.
The examples the writer uses are desighned simply to negate any effect of weapon speed.
Let's assume a fight looks like this.
Declare your action
All roll inititave.
Knife rolls 10 modified to 14
Longsword rolls 10 modified to 10
Battle axe rolls 10 modified to 8
Hammer rolls 10 modified to 11
and villian rolls 10 modified by spell to 7
Next round
Declare your action
All roll inititave.
Vilain rolls 16 modified by major spell to 13
Knife rolls 12 modified to 16
Longsword rolls 8 modified to 8
Battle axe rolls 15 modified to 13
Hammer rolls 9 modified to 10
Next round
Declare your action
All roll inititave.
Vilain rolls 15 modified by minor spell to 15
Knife rolls 9 modified to 13
Longsword rolls 15 modified to 15
Battle axe rolls 7 modified to 5
Hammer rolls 14 modified to 15
That combat looks VERY different from the one used in the article.
It was very well written based upon a very flawed understanding of weapon speeds, by someone who obviously never played using them and failed to understand how they work.
Now what this does is a couple of things
1) casters don't spend 15 minutes every round deciding what spell to use.
2) combat becomes even more dynamic as the flow of combat is constantly changing.
3) gives more reasons to use different weapons during some situations (CON it means more weapons carried which I see as no big deal- casters carry lots of components-fighters carry several weapons).
4) gives casters a reason to cast lower level spells instead of blasting with the heavy hitters every round and wasting everything on low level stuff forcing frequent rests resulting in the 15 minute adventuring day.
But coinsidering the article is based upon a flawed concept to begin with it is a good one :)
It was very well written based upon a very flawed understanding of weapon speeds, by someone who obviously never played using them and failed to understand how they work.
umm... did you see the name at the top of the page? I'll give you a hint, its in the URL too. I'm gonna just have to go ahead and assume he might have a clue what he's talking about. Do you know who he is?
|
|
Flawed because it is based on the 3.x rule for initiative? Hardly. I admitted as much that round-by-round init would solve some of the problems. But it doesn't solve all of them.
How would you handle someone wielding a dagger at the start of the round, dropping it on his turn and then drawing a greataxe? Does his initiative change? If it drops lower than someone else, does that person go before he can finish his turn?
Round-by-round initiative isn't something for everyone. I much prefer the lesser hassle of static init.
|
You know, I've been giving serious thought to creating general guidelines to increase the general casting times but the more I think about it the more I dislike an across the board increase. I.E. all standards become full round, all swift become standard etc.
I also don't want weapon speed factors.
to simplify terminology any refrence of round refers to a standard, move, swift single characters action. Refrence of turns refers to all characters acting on their initiative sequence in a turn. If something has a casting time of 1 turn then the spell is cast as a full round action and doesn't take effect until the start of your next round. Which means that everyone who moves in between you has a chance to disrupt your spell
I was thinking things along the line of if it affects multiple targets, it becomes a full round to cast (in essence this mimics a fighter with Itteratives) this includes spells that will eventually have multiple attacks even if they only start with one such as scorching ray.
If its an encounter ender it takes one turn to cast examples of encounter enders are sleep, hold person, otto's irresistable dance. Basically anything that will take a creature out of the encounter often refered to as save or suck.
I would actually bring save or die back, but the casting time would become 2 turns.
What this would create would be a lot more tactical play on both the wizards part and other players. the wizard has the choice of memorizing weaker spells that target single creature and still move and cast, or they can memorize more powerful spells that leave them vulnerable.
For other players it becomes a thing where they don't have to ignore the melee guys for the spellcaster until that spellcaster starts casting something that takes a while because then even without spellcraft to identify you know that it's going to f&@* the party up.
As for turn by turn initiative, that's just the way I've played in 3.5 since I learned to DM. You don't need weapon speeds to affect that.
cool stuff
I like where you are headed knight.
|
|
Perhaps the DM increased AC and HP but not saving throws, leaving the monsters vulnerable to magic but virtually immune to melee?But that's exactly what the core rules do; it's inherent in the structure of the game. The entire game is set up so that hp scale between 6 and 60 times more rapidly than do saving throws. That's one of the main reasons why warriors suck so much at higher levels.
Ran Burnt Offering with Pathfinder.
PCs ROLLED over the goblins. By second level they were doing 4-6 times the goblin's HP in damage. The one decent caster was doing damage every single round, and if not destorying them then setting them up to be nothing but cleave magnets.
The inept casters were trying to use crossbows instead of spells... but that was plaer issues just being dumb and not having a clue.
Quite simply Monsters need to have thier HPs increased significantly, their AC remain the same or close, and their saves against magic doubled or tripled and many many many more need Spell Resistence to even have a chance.
The reason why I belive the favor will shift to casters at an earlier level is that casters can now Tumble trhough the field of combat without suffering AoO, effectively having free movement across the board AND still get off their entire spell attack. By fifth level you will see wizards ducking between combatants, tossing fireballs, and then rolling around to the next victim.
Yes a Fighter can do that too, sort of. At 6th level the fighter can tumble around and avoid the AoO but looses half his attack power. Then at level 11 he looses 2/3 his attacking power, at lvl 16 he looses 3/4 of his attacking power.
All the while the wizard's power actually is increasing.
We saw the demise of the melee fighter at level 11 or so because he looses his iterative attacks- his power- if he moves. The disparity will appear sooner now.
Somewhere between lvl 5 and lvl 7 will see the sidelining of the fighter.