|
So damage = fun.
Yeah, that's why we play fighters. Kick @$$ and Take Names.
So fighters are only good if a foe "just stands there"?
Pretty much, yeah.
Here's some options/tip-offs:
1) As Matthew Hooper pointed out. - Mounted combat
Works great, except in, oh, 99% of all published adventures. Mounts + Underdark? Puh-leez...
2) As Abraham spalding pointed out. Archery. (it's really awsome with deadly aim and all the archer feats)
Archery doesn't help create a "shield wall" effect, you know, the thing that used to be a BIG part of the fighter's toolbox...
3) Teamwork
We already have Bards for cheering the Wizard on.
4) tactics / plan ahead
I see you read the adventure beforehand ;)
5) check out the new feats
Did, helps a little bit, still follows the 3x "Fighters are redheaded stepchildren" paradigm.
Sometimes the stuff in threads like this sounds a bit like:
"I don't like options cause I don't want to hurt my brain, I just want to hack away with my big axe".
If you can quote ME saying that, fine. If not, don't add this to a post quoting ME. Thank you.
Same thing: Well fighter suck when monsters fly (ever heard of fly?)
etc. etc.
Yes, they do. So maybe fighters should get boots of fly as a standard item at 8th level?
Well, This is not solo play like Diablo is it? It's a team thing. I don't want this game to turn out to be a computergame like Diablo
Again, puh-leez. And, no, you don't want to turn D&D into a "computer game". From what I can tell, you want to turn it into a Lee Strasberg bad acting clinic. I just want playing a fighter to be fun past 12th level without having to carry the Wizard's luggage.
And again: so fun = damage. Is that all there is?
That's the fighter's schtik. It's what they do. It's what they've done better than anyone else until 3x. And, as they get only 2 skill points, and a bunch of feats that (if they can even get to the opponent before being [charmed/dominated/polymorphed into a butterfly]) help them, I dunno, DO MORE DAMAGE. A fighter that isn't the best character at dishing out DAMAGE is a character with an identity crisis...
Zark makes a good point here: (as do others) I think alot of the spellcasters rock and fighters suck has to do abit with meta gaming.
Comments like "smart opponents can run right by a figher and take that AoO to get to the squishies behind him because they are more dangerous"
What "smart" creature is going to allow a free run by shot from a sharp pointy thing? Last time I checked, SWORDs Hurt!
How about a smart creature who knows it's going to eat Blazing Electric Death at the hands of that squishy if it doesn't get to him right now! Leaving aside creatures with Damage Reduction, Regeneration, Fast-Healing, and unusually high armor classes, it's not necessarily a matter of meta-gaming, so much as... understanding how the physics of the world it lives in works. The line of thought is like this, "If I run past the guy with a sword, I may get stabbed once. It will injure me, perhaps badly. If I engage the crunchy and ignore the squishy, I will get engulfed in a pyre of blazing flame that may reduce me to a gelatinous pile of bubbling fat and crumbling bones."
Grant you, this depends on the creature knowing the squishy can do that, but you have to ask on a case by case basis, how reasonable this is. If the creature's buddy Bill was just reduced to a pile of ash when that guy waved a wand at him, there you go.
Sufficiently smart creatures might be able to get by on even subtler clues.
But if i get fast and furious, will get a whale tail and a cool green led glow to my armor to make me look more rad, too?
I might have to shave my head and rename my fighter Diesel, too.
Sorry, what do you mean?
Works great [Mounts], except in, oh, 99% of all published adventures. Mounts + Underdark? Puh-leez...
Yes, but this was one of many options.
Archery doesn't help create a "shield wall" effect, you know, the thing that used to be a BIG part of the fighter's toolbox...
Shield wall is not the only toolbox
[on tactics / plan ahead]I see you read the adventure beforehand ;)
No. And don't quote me om reading adventures beforehand.
If you can quote ME saying that, fine. If not, don't add this to a post quoting ME. Thank you.
I didn't quote you.
So maybe fighters should get boots of fly as a standard item at 8th level?
Or maybe the should grow wings..or they can buy boots of fly.
[on Teamwork] We already have Bards for cheering the Wizard on.
I rest my case.
And, all this "No mobility" stuff. It's not a fighter problem it's a melee problem....read monsters, Barbarians, Paladins, Rogues, etc.
[...]
If you're going to refuse to use your creativity to find an answer to these things, there's not a lot I can do for you. [...]If you aren't going to, I can't help you. Sorry.
Agree.
[...]A fighter that isn't the best character at dishing out DAMAGE is a character with an identity crisis...
So we should ban all area damage spells?
I'm serious now. What du you want? I tried to help. I suggested a new feat. Not innovative perhaps, but i tried but...No feedback.So what is your solution? What do you want?
|
|
Works great, except in, oh, 99% of all published adventures. Mounts + Underdark? Puh-leez...Giant spider? Giant lizard? Natural climb skills? Vertical charges? A guaranteed +1 bonus to hit for always having the high ground? Negate all cover and concealment for the enemy because you're on the ceiling? Works for me. Works for the drow, too, come to think of it.
Come to think of it, figurines of wondrous power work pretty well for drow, too - or at least, for the really famous one. Ebony fly, anyone?
If you're going to refuse to use your creativity to find an answer to these things, there's not a lot I can do for you. The rules are there; you can get that mobility you crave if you make the effort. If you aren't going to, I can't help you. Sorry.
Please insult my creativity and my intelligence some more, so I can truly go nova and get banned for a while, please.
Every suggestion you make requires the fighter to be even more gear dependant. Nice move. If you had ANY understanding of WHY people complain about the fighter in 3x, instead of just coming up with another "solution" that, with WBL constrains, eats away at something else a fighter NEEDS (i.e. better weapons, armor, save boosters), you'd understand that it isn't any feats or class abilities (or lack thereof) that screwed the poor fighter, it was the very structure of the round dynamic. Wizards used to have to take a LONG time to get off powerful magic, and it was relatively easy to disrupt said magic. In 3x, without a LOT of DM coddling (which, I think, is where a lot of your "creativity" comes into play), a high level NPC wizard (and in my game, based on pulp fantasy, there are more than a few evil wizards there for the party to butt heads with) can "cast defensively" (with a pitifully easy DC) to avoid attacks of opportunity, and cast a spell targeting the fighter's will save (which is usually pathetic), and take him out in one round. Pre-3x: Fighters were mobile (relatively, full attack for half move, no penalty to additional attacks), wizards were static (can't move without disrupting those pesky somantic components, a cat looks at them funny, lose the spell). 3x? Exact opposite. Spell disruption is a joke (unless the DM is hand holding), fighters are static. Oh, and even if they do have a mount, they still only get one attack if the mount moves more than 5', so, no, you're not getting mobility (as I see it), you're getting a little extra distance...
Whoop-de-doo.
Same goes for quite a few of your extraplanar foes.
|
|
Agree.[...]
If you're going to refuse to use your creativity to find an answer to these things, there's not a lot I can do for you. [...]If you aren't going to, I can't help you. Sorry.
Yep, read the first line of the previous post. Goes for you as well.
Edit: and, yeah, you did quote me. In the post I was responding to. But, whatever.
Sorry, what do you mean?But if i get fast and furious, will get a whale tail and a cool green led glow to my armor to make me look more rad, too?
I might have to shave my head and rename my fighter Diesel, too.
fast and the furious it was a movie with vin diesel about hot rod cars, kinda fan boy lamish.
never mind.
|
|
[...]A fighter that isn't the best character at dishing out DAMAGE is a character with an identity crisis...So we should ban all area damage spells?
I'm serious now. What du you want? I tried to help. I suggested a new feat. Not innovative perhaps, but i tried but...No feedback.
So what is your solution? What do you want?
What I'm going to do is houserule the hell out of Pf so mechanically it plays like 1e, with all the class innovations of 3x. You know, since everyone wants to tell me their FIFTH level fighter doesn't suck (whick, you know WE ALREADY KNOW), but no one wants to discuss a 17th level fighter because, frankly, their only response to that problem is: OMG!!! The Wizards are TOO Powerful!!!! Let's NERF THEM!!!!
(see: just about the entire spells and magic playtest thread...)
Oh, and more to the point, just because YOUR DM doesn't play foes intelligently, and lets a surface dwelling fighter of human extraction ride subterranean lizards like he was born to be upside down in caverns, doesn't mean the rest of us, who like a little verisimilitude in our game, are not "creative".
Zark makes a good point here: (as do others) I think alot of the spellcasters rock and fighters suck has to do abit with meta gaming.
Comments like "smart opponents can run right by a figher and take that AoO to get to the squishies behind him because they are more dangerous"
What "smart" creature is going to allow a free run by shot from a sharp pointy thing? Last time I checked, SWORDs Hurt!
How about a smart creature who knows it's going to eat Blazing Electric Death at the hands of that squishy if it doesn't get to him right now! Leaving aside creatures with Damage Reduction, Regeneration, Fast-Healing, and unusually high armor classes, it's not necessarily a matter of meta-gaming, so much as... understanding how the physics of the world it lives in works. The line of thought is like this, "If I run past the guy with a sword, I may get stabbed once. It will injure me, perhaps badly. If I engage the crunchy and ignore the squishy, I will get engulfed in a pyre of blazing flame that may reduce me to a gelatinous pile of bubbling fat and crumbling bones."
Grant you, this depends on the creature knowing the squishy can do that, but you have to ask on a case by case basis, how reasonable this is. If the creature's buddy Bill was just reduced to a pile of ash when that guy waved a wand at him, there you go.
Sufficiently smart creatures might be able to get by on even subtler clues.
Ok so the rules are borken to allow that, the creature should know he can get away with it?
In real combat, we often have similar situations to consider, they involve three eschelons, infantry, armor, artillery.
The artillery does the most damage, and is the "electric death" we all fear.
Except in the army we call it "Steel rain"
We cannot simply run "drive by the tanks" in our humvees, we have to outmanuver them, which means it will likely take a long time to do so, and we risk being spotted by forward observers (infantry) who will call the atrillery and drop steel rain on us anyway.
This where where helicopters and parachutes come in, in which case we infiltrate artillery bases and clean up the squishes with a mop.
Other than that the best way to alleviate artillery is with your own artillery. (mages trying to wipe out mages)
In small unit combat (more like the actual PC adventure combat) there really isnt a real world version of soldiers in front blocking electric death in the rear.
However let me give you an example of small unit:
1993 somalia. WE (as in i was there) were trapped in a building with no less than 6 "crunchies" between us and a jeep with a recoiless rifle (the squishy) which was threating to bring the whole builing down on us if we just let him pop rounds at us all night.
If I could have gotten angle on him I could have shot him (but thats what defilade cover does for you) and in order to get a better shot I would have had to walk out into the road and be gunned down by the crunchies.
I could not just "Run through them" and hope I only got shot once.
What do we Do? used the radio and called a gunship.
Problem solved.
Used a wizard to take out the wizard.
I seriously dont think there really IS a way to just RUN by a guy with a flaming sword.
IF that guy is hounded by four other combatants, yea.
Obi wan busy duelling Darth Vader? Hes got his hands full, so jar jar could wander by him and slap padme about the face and neck without worrying about getting stuck by a light saber.
However, Its hard to use area of effect death if you are mixing it up in melee range with the wizards fighter buddy, sure he could use straight up target spells, but your archer buddy or your witch doctor or whomever is with you, should be targeting the wizard, if you are a meleeist.
Either way, that part of the combat rules are broken If a fighter has to stand there, and allow someone to run by him and take a single strike at him, while he tries to assassinate his spell caster buddy.
I'd like to take the chance to hold a broom stick and protect my wife throwing tomatoes at anyone here, and challenge that person, to just run by me and push my wife down and stop her from throwing tomatoes.
Not only would you not make it to her, butyoud be blakcand blue with dozens of broom stick stirkes trying to do it.
[...]A fighter that isn't the best character at dishing out DAMAGE is a character with an identity crisis...So we should ban all area damage spells?
I'm serious now. What du you want? I tried to help. I suggested a new feat. Not innovative perhaps, but i tried but...No feedback.
So what is your solution? What do you want?
What I'm going to do is houserule the hell out of Pf so mechanically it plays like 1e, with all the class innovations of 3x. You know, since everyone wants to tell me their FIFTH level fighter doesn't suck (whick, you know WE ALREADY KNOW), but no one wants to discuss a 17th level fighter because, frankly, their only response to that problem is: OMG!!! The Wizards are TOO Powerful!!!! Let's NERF THEM!!!!
(see: just about the entire spells and magic playtest thread...)
Oh, and more to the point, just because YOUR DM doesn't play foes intelligently, and lets a surface dwelling fighter of human extraction ride subterranean lizards like he was born to be upside down in caverns, doesn't mean the rest of us, who like a little verisimilitude in our game, are not "creative".
A) You don't know my DM and he do play foes intelligently
B) The "ride subterranean lizards like he was born to be upside down in caverns" post was not my post. - get things right if you want to insult me.C) If you want to houserule - fine, but can you give me some concreat examples so I can learn something? Cause I do agree to some extent: Melee at high levels is a problem. And if you got some suggestions on how to fix the problem, well that's great.
D)Don't shout
|
Zark makes a good point here: (as do others) I think alot of the spellcasters rock and fighters suck has to do abit with meta gaming.
Comments like "smart opponents can run right by a figher and take that AoO to get to the squishies behind him because they are more dangerous"
What "smart" creature is going to allow a free run by shot from a sharp pointy thing? Last time I checked, SWORDs Hurt!
In D&D 3.5 and for high-level, high-hp opponents, sword hits taken in passing really don't hurt all that much and are not as bad as what the caster may do. So rather than this being 'meta-gaming' you appear to want 'meta-DMing', where the DM runs things despite the rules. That's fine -- we all manage what we see as rules defects in that way, I think -- but this is a design forum and I don't think that "the DM will avoid the rules as if the game had rules that made the sort of game we'd like it to be" is very germane. Of course, we'll get around things like that, but at the design level, that's not a satisfactory solution.
D&D combat has never been the most realistic, but it at least used to be that ignoring the fighter not only didn't make sense from the simulationist viewpoint, it didn't make sense in the rules; if you ignored the fighter, who had all his attacks even if he moved, who could disrupt a caster just by hitting them, you could get mashed. In 3.5, it's often enough the smart strategy given how the game works. I don't think that it's unreasonable, in a forum discussing rules and given our feedback on how they play and what we think of them, to ask that the rules reflect the game reality we'd like. Absolutely, we can ignore the rules to that end, but then, why would be we be discussing it here? We could just make one post to the effect of "ignore the rules you don't like and run the game to reflect the reality you want" and shut the whole forum. It's not bad advice, of course, but it seems to me that this is just not the best place for it.
|
|
C) If you want to houserule - fine, but can you give me some concreat examples so I can learn something? Cause I do agree to some extent: Melee at high levels is a problem. And if you got some suggestions on how to fix the problem, well that's great.
Ok, I will say this. You can come on here, Mr. 77 posts, and ask me to reiterate the HUNDREDS of posts I've made (along with HUNDREDS of posts by like-minded people) detailing to excruciating degrees what EXACTLY, MECHANICALLY is wrong with melee in 3x, or, you can do what I did when I started posting here and READ THE BOARDS. Everything is out there. Black and white, explained, exampled and expounded upon time and time again. And every two weeks or so, some NEW johnny-come-lately says exactly what you just said. Sorry, dude, you can go back and read it all. It's there. I am not typing it all out again for what would now be the SEVENTH or EIGHTH time in the last two months.
Sorry, but I've pretty much had this exact convo more times than I care to any more. The posts are there, read. Have fun.
|
|
Please insult my creativity and my intelligence some more, so I can truly go nova and get banned for a while, please.
Well, if it makes you happy...
One of the fundamental definitions of creativity is the refusal to take "no" for an answer. Old joke: "How many artists does it take to change a lightbulb?" "Why does it have to be a lightbulb?"
When you say "no" to options ingrained into the rules because of weak arguments like "verisimilitude" (In a D&D game? Really? Becuase wizards and beholders are more realistic?)... then all you're doing is saying "no", instead of finding ways to say "yes".
Yes, fighters have mobility options in the rules from mounts. The rules are even written to facilitate that choice. Fighters have both the Handle Animal and Ride skill on their meager skill list, and all the feats needed to excel at it - or just do well at it - are available as bonus feats.
Certainly, it does depend on equipment. All classes are equipment dependent - how's that wizard doing without his spellbook? That equipment is astoundingly cheap when you compare it to the things wizards demand to be competitive, however. An ebony fly or bronze griffon costs 10,000 gp, cheaper than every single staff in 3.5.
So yes, there are answers already in the rules. All you have to do is use your creativity and find reasons to use said rules, instead of saying "no" because the rules fail to meet your preconceptions.
But then again, I'm sure you're smart enough to figure that out. Surely.
Again, um, is your campaign completely in the wild, outdoors? How, exactly, does a subterranean lizard, a hippogriff, an ebony fly, etc, work in a tavern again? In a city where they may have laws (and the means to enforce them) against just anyone flying critters around? In dungeons? Yeah, the suggestions are there. That's nice. They also only work in about 10% of the situations found in published adventures. And they STILL don't address the issue that if anything moves more than 5', you only get one attack, but wizards can, unlike earlier editions, tumble 30' and still, somehow, get off a spell with a somatic component. That would be the verisimilitude I'm referring to. Funny, when I was in the army, I could beat the crap out of someone in six seconds, with multiple blows, with them defending themselves, but my pulp fantasy based fighter can barely swing a sword ONCE ion the same action a wizard can get of a powerful spell that required him to gesticulate in a specific way while retrieving a specific piece of material (before eschew materials comes into play) and concentrating on harnessing that mystic power, all while tumbling around or moving 30' or whatever. Doesn't do it for me. Sorry.
|
|
And they STILL don't address the issue that if anything moves more than 5', you only get one attack, but wizards can, unlike earlier editions, tumble 30' and still, somehow, get off a spell with a somatic component.Are you actually familiar with the rules for mounted combat? That's simply untrue.
You can make a full attack with a ranged weapon while your mount is moving. Likewise, you can take move actions normally.Perhaps you'd like to take a breather and refresh your rules knowledge about all of this? You seem a bit overwrought.
Ranged weapon. Great. So now, in order to compete past 12th level, I can play one type of character. Yawn.
Sorry if I didn't specify melee, not ranged...
|
|
And I thought the issue was with high level campaigns? You've got 17th level characters involved in barfights? And you're worried about laws against flying mounts when the archmage can sneeze and burn the town down? (Why would they outlaw a flying mount, anyways? Poo bombs? How do you think they empty the chamberpots on the top floor of the inn? Horse-eating mounts? What do you think was on the menu at the inn? I'm confused.)
Of course you're confused. In your game, apparently your characters are the only high level people in the campaign, and poor city guards and peasants tremble at your feet, as their rulers and protectors apparently have nothing to keep you in check. Must be nice playing in candyland...
|
|
Just explain to me why there's something inherently more illegal about owning a hippogriff than a fireball spell - they cost about the same, and Lord knows you can do more damage with the spell. Is there something particularly illicit about them? Why are you imposing this rather arbitrary rule on the game? Can you point to me a rule somewhere that says griffons are black-market material?
Of course you're confused. In your game, apparently your characters are the only high level people in the campaign, and poor city guards and peasants tremble at your feet, as their rulers and protectors apparently have nothing to keep you in check. Must be nice playing in candyland...
For one, there is nothing inherently "illegal" about a hippogriff (well, except in a few published CSs that have specific cities that frown upon civilians flying them (Waterdeep comes to mind), but some communities may see them as...never mind.
Look, you can play in a game completely informed by 3.5 rules, I prefer to play a game informed by the fantasy lit that inspired Gygax to do what he did. Conan, Fahfrd and Grey Mouser, Three Hearts and Three Lions, LotR, Ringworld, et al. (there's a list in the back of the 1e DMG if you're interested). Fighters didn't need to have a ton of crap to do what they did, they just could.
In 3x, they're practically "gimmicks" (Myth series reference) who are completely gimped if they don't have a laundry list of specific items. Wizards, sorcerers, clerics, druids, they really don't have this problem, their powers are inherent to the class. Rogue and Bards at least get some nifty class features, so they aren't AS dependent on gear. Feats do not equal any of this. Skills? Int is the second most common dump stat for fighters behind charisma, of 2 per is about all they get. Weapon and Armor Training help some, but Fighters are still way too gear dependent. And even then, they are easily ignored to little detriment past a certain point. Intelligent foes kill what can hurt them most first, fighters aren't it past 12th level. And if the fighter does happen to make himself a nuisance, a nice will targeted takeout spell will neutralize them most of the time.
|
|
Actually, this is a design forum, so I figure this would be exactly the place for it. I'm still stuck on the 1e D&DG descriptions of Fafhrd, Elric, et al. I guess, they were mostly combined 20+ level characters IIRC. (Looking at the stat blocks now, they resemble more 3x multiclass characters than 1e PCs - minus skills and feats, that is, don't you think?)
I don't see how changing the paradigm in the way a round plays out would affect BC (the big bugaboo in all of this), as none of the published adventures reference the underlying mechanic, and just provide stat blocks. Even the splats would be little affected, except perhaps casting times on some of the spells, but even that shouldn't be too daunting a task.
I think I may need to clear up what I mean by mobility, though. In 1e, you could move half your move (generally 9" (90') for a moderately armored character, 12" (120') for an unarmored or lightly armored character (think rogue) or 6" (60') for a tank, halved) and still get the 1e version of a full attack, and, depending on how you interpreted it, you could hold off and do it when you needed (i.e. intercept). And those attacks were made at full value, not -5 (cumulative) per increment.
If melee characters (anyone using a hand held weapon, in this case, not just fighters - paladins and rangers need some love too) could move half their move and still full attack, and could, if necessary, reserve an attack (above and beyond AoO) and some movement to intercept critters trying to get past them to the soft skinned party members, how would this do anything but restore some of the shine fighters lost in the edition change?
Just asking...
And they STILL don't address the issue that if anything moves more than 5', you only get one attack, but wizards can, unlike earlier editions, tumble 30' and still, somehow, get off a spell with a somatic component.Are you actually familiar with the rules for mounted combat? That's simply untrue.
You can make a full attack with a ranged weapon while your mount is moving. Likewise, you can take move actions normally.Perhaps you'd like to take a breather and refresh your rules knowledge about all of this? You seem a bit overwrought.Ranged weapon. Great. So now, in order to compete past 12th level, I can play one type of character. Yawn.
Sorry if I didn't specify melee, not ranged...
PF Beta pg. 151-152, under Mounted Combat:
"Warhorses and warponies can serve readily as combat steeds. [Mounts that untrained for Combat Riding (see Handle Animal skill pg. 64)], however, are frightened in combat... you must make a DC 20 Ride check each round as a move action..."
"Your mount acts on your initiative count as you direct it. You move at its speed, but the mount uses its action to move.'
"With a DC 5 Ride check you can guide your mount with your knees so as to use both hands to attack and defend yourself. This is a free action."
Here is where the "problem" lies:
"If your mount moves more than 5 feet, you can only make a single melee attack. Essentially, you have to wait until the mount gets to your enemy, so you can't make a full attack."
Basically, the way it seems to work is that you ready an attack to occur once your mount takes you into range. It might be worthwhile to allow a mounted combatant to make a full attack while the mount moves, but limit it to only one attack per enemy as you ride past; maybe add it to the Mounted Combat feat. Ride-by-Attack could be correspondingly upgraded, as well, to allow attacks to multiple targets.
I think that the best solution is one you might not necessarily like - fighters should have the power not to keep up with a moving enemy, but to negate that movement and lock him down. It lets the rogues and the wizards be more effective, lets the PCs set up combos and work together, and lets everyone do their own thing.
A readied bull rush, initiating a grapple, and using a trip as an attack of opportunity are all options already in the rules. They may not be perfect solutions, but they do let a melee character control the movement of enemies and act as a roadblock.
Shall Not Pass stops them dead (new feat Jason suggested) and Stand Still is SRD and would stack with Lunge (proposed by Jason at same time as SNP)...
Thanx for the info :-)
C) If you want to houserule - fine, but can you give me some concreat examples so I can learn something? Cause I do agree to some extent: Melee at high levels is a problem. And if you got some suggestions on how to fix the problem, well that's great.Ok, I will say this. You can come on here, Mr. 77 posts, and ask me to reiterate the HUNDREDS of posts I've made (along with HUNDREDS of posts by like-minded people) detailing to excruciating degrees what EXACTLY, MECHANICALLY is wrong with melee in 3x, or, you can do what I did when I started posting here and READ THE BOARDS. Everything is out there. Black and white, explained, exampled and expounded upon time and time again. And every two weeks or so, some NEW johnny-come-lately says exactly what you just said. Sorry, dude, you can go back and read it all. It's there. I am not typing it all out again for what would now be the SEVENTH or EIGHTH time in the last two months.
Sorry, but I've pretty much had this exact convo more times than I care to any more. The posts are there, read. Have fun.
And ...this is just rude.
I wasn't using irony, I wanted to know.|
|
And ...this is just rude.
I wasn't using irony, I wanted to know.
Sorry, but it does get frustrating rehashing the same points over and over again every time someone new pops in. We really have discussed this, broken down the math, used real game examples, compared and contrasted the paradigms that existed in different editions, buffed it, waxed it and...
It always comes down to people bringing up 5th level fighters when we're discussing high level, people saying "but in MY game.." when they're not playing RAW, people bringing up magic items and corner case examples where fighters might work (and, sorry, lockdown builds are BORING. doing the same crap over and over is button mashing, table top style - I don't play button mashers in street fighter or tekken, I don't want them at my table, so you can keep the spiked chain tripper - who doesn't even work as well in Beta with the CMB...).
Seriously, when you get to the point where you're dealing with lower planar beings with teleport as an "at will", and who cast will targeted take-out powers, or mortal wizards who can neutralize an archer with a first level spell, or (insert anything that doesn't sit there and let you wail on it), fighters are spectators and valets for the wizard/CoDzilla...
Even Maure Castle was a tad disingenuous. When Tenser originally went and got fighter help to save Mordenkainen and take out the golem, they were OD&D fighters, not their paper tiger 3x counterparts...
Sorry, but it does get frustrating rehashing the same points over and over again every time someone new pops in.
Yes, I do understand, but I just wanted to know. There are like 300 threads and some of them have 300 posts. But, I understand you.
It always comes down to people bringing up 5th level fighters when we're discussing high level
Yes I agree, and that is not really helpful or honest.
The Problem with any melee charecter with 3 or more attacks is what do you do all the time you can't attack a full round action. So 5th level fighters are not the problem (1 attack per round).Yes so I get it and yes I agree.
But as I said before. What do you think? Any tip on houserules?
Seriously, when you get to the point where you're dealing with lower planar beings with teleport as an "at will"...Are you aware that those teleport effects are spell-like abilities? That means that they provoke attacks of opportunity. In between the debuffing critical feats in the playtest, tripping, and other hijinks, you've got lots of options when it comes to dealing with that teleporter - or at least, ensuring that the teleporter ends up in a postion he didn't want to be in. (Tripping a flyer leads to some interesting situations...)
Spell-like abilities provoke attacks of opportunity? We all know...at higher levels Cast defensively is a joke. Casters never fail.
Skillfocus spellcraft: at level 10 it's +6. + 10 ranks. + int + heroism etc.at lvl 17 it',: 17 + 6 + int + any boost you get hold of. Heriosm etc.
I don't agree with houstonderek on all he/she says but at higher levels Cast defensively ......spellcasters always succeed.
High level melee characters have a problem, even rogues, but they still have options. But high level melee characters do have a problem:
Standard action equals one attack. Same thing at level 1 and at level 6, 11, 17 and 20.
stuff and...But high level melee characters do have a problem: Standard action equals one attack. Same thing at level 1 and at level 6, 11, 17 and 20.
that said, thera are options.
Potion of enlagre person - reachreadied action
Trip or Grapple
Dimensional anchor - no teleport
archery
etc.
Granted. But an attack's an attack, and you can do all sorts of things on that attack - with the new playtest feats, you might well get that disrupt (becoming stunnned tends to disrupt spellcasting). You can also get the trip in, or the sunder on the balor's whip... in general, make the monster pay in hp or opportunity costs to make that teleport.
Spell-like abilities provoke attacks of opportunity? We all know...at higher levels Cast defensively is a joke. Casters never fail.
"Casting on the Defensive: Casting a spell while on the defensive does not provoke an attack of opportunity."
Yes an attack is an attack if you get one. If the spellcaster cast defensively you won't get an attack, even if the wizard fail. If they fail they only lose the spell. And at higher levels they never fail. So you won't get an attack unless you readied an action. In that case you got to reach him/her.
[...] You're meant to work with at least three other guys to take the badguy down - that's part of the definition of CR. [...] You're going to have to think about how to crack the nut.
Good points. But I still say melee charcters got a problem. I'm not sure though that fighters has the biggest problems. Fore one thing they got archery. Barbarians, Paladins, Monk and rogues are not good at archery.
Low on dex (not rogues or possibly monks) and not that many feats. And not Weapon Specialization and not Weapon Training.Weapon Specialization: "You can gain this feat multiple times. [...]Each time you take the feat, it applies to a new type of weapon."
Weapon Training: "Every four levels thereafter (9th, 13th, and 17th), a fighter becomes further trained in another group of weapons."
Might this be a clue to what fighters might do? More weapons than one.
Melee is not the only toolbox. But still, melee at higher levels is a problem ...sometimes.
|
|
Sorry, but it does get frustrating rehashing the same points over and over again every time someone new pops in.Yes, I do understand, but I just wanted to know. There are like 300 threads and some of them have 300 posts. But, I understand you.
I'll try to find all the pertinent posts and provide links this weekend :)
It always comes down to people bringing up 5th level fighters when we're discussing high levelYes I agree, and that is not really helpful or honest.
The Problem with any melee charecter with 3 or more attacks is what do you do all the time you can't attack a full round action. So 5th level fighters are not the problem (1 attack per round).
Yes so I get it and yes I agree.
But as I said before. What do you think? Any tip on houserules?
Kirth rebuilt the fighter in our game, giving him "talents" analogous to what rogues get ("lesser" below 10th, "greater" above).*
Also, we are playing with restructuring the way actions work within the round, making wizards a bit less mobile when casting a) higher level spells (i.e. more complicated to cast) and b) spells with somatic components (i.e. most of them ;)), and fighters more mobile (half move full iterative attack, full action (no move), all attacks at full AB, trade attacks for additional movement past half) (of course, that's base, all characters will have access to those rules). Full move would still only get one attack (plus the cleave feats, if appropriate).
Disruption DCs and Defensive Casting DCs are getting a hard look as well. Seriously, unless the wizard rolls a one, when's the last time a mid to high level wiz missed either check? I honestly cannot remember in my game...
Kirth developed some feats that address some of the higher level problems (i'll link them when I get home, i'm at work right now...), so we have been tinkering a bit with what we perceive to be the problem.*
I would like to point out that we do NOT have a problem with fighters at low to mid levels, it is at high levels, when wizards power up exponentially and fighters progress geometrically, that we feel the power gap is too untenable, without forcing the fighter into a very specific role (lockdown trip specialist). There are several flavors wizards, clerics, druids and sorcerers can pursue and still thrive at high levels; the options for fighters that allow them to keep up get narrower as they get higher level. As variety is the spice of life, we want to allow more concepts for the melee classes to work at higher levels, lest the classes bore the players to death...
*Some concepts are Kirth originals, some based on our conversations/brainstorming on the subject. He's a better compiler (and probably a better writer) than I am, so he gets to put it all together) ;)
|
|
Shall Not Pass stops them dead (new feat Jason suggested) and Stand Still is SRD and would stack with Lunge (proposed by Jason at same time as SNP)...And if you use a reach weapon, you can use the lunge to add 5 and get 15 feet of movement control out of the enemy. That's a huge footprint.
It's a four-feat chain: Combat Reflexes, Lunge, Stand Still, Shall Not Pass. A dedicated build. But it does what it does damned well.
Add a guisarme, and add improved trip? Or even the infamous spiked chain? Oh, if only the whip did jack squat for damage. Ow. What a painful build.
Shall Not Pass doesn't stack with lunge or standard reach weapons because it only affects adjacent squares. However, a half-haft feat would add more options so that the build would have something to do, in terms of stopping opponents, at 5, 10 and 15 feet of range. Even better if enlarged...
I find something odd with the statement "Melee Classes"
I can't find them in the beta. In fact from what I remember from 1st and 2nd edition these classes where "fighting" classes that used whatever means of combat was appropriate to the encounter.
I would like to see more of that. I agree that fighters tend to lack flexibility but I'm beginning to think that might be a player problem and not a class problem.
It is probably related to the "dimnishing returns" thought. People keep taking more and more feats to "specialize" in a certain fighting style and do the most damage possible in that one style. Well the same thing happens to a wizard that only takes enchantment spells and comes up against golems or undead.
I'm not certian if this problem would or wouldn't be a design, player, or both problem. On the one hand it feels like you "must" do this in order to play in melee "effectively" but on the other it's not actually built into the game -- it's just what people look at and see.
I feel like people look at the fighter and say "I must spend all this on melee to be effective" instead of "I have a lot of choices and choose to be effective in all combat situations"
Maybe the fighter only feats are possibly to blame for this: They focus in on one weapon with weapon focus but don't do enough for that one weapon to make it feel like it is worth taking without doing other stuff to make that choice worthwhile.
Another issue I think plays into this is the fighters MAD problems. Currently a fighter that wants "to do it all" needs good DEX, STR, CON, and 13 INT. That can be a high order to fill for inexperience (indeed experienced) players to cope with.
|
|
Another issue I think plays into this is the fighters MAD problems. Currently a fighter that wants "to do it all" needs good DEX, STR, CON, and 13 INT. That can be a high order to fill for inexperience (indeed experienced) players to cope with.
The MAD problem isn't so bad with a 20+ point buy, or really decent rolls using 4d6 - the lowest, but anything under a 20 point buy and, yeah, it is problematic. Couple that with the problems with heavy armor and bad will saves (even more MADness)...
22 feats (23 for humans) seems like a lot, until you realize that a quarter of the ones you take don't scale, a quarter are generally used to brace up a MAD deficiency (Iron Will, Lightning Reflexes, depending on build) and you can't "swap" them at higher levels when other feats would be more useful. Wizards really don't have this problem, for every spell that isn't useful at higher levels, there are a dozen that ARE useful, even with the lower level spells.
And none of this addresses the poor ranger or paladin...
(rogues can at least dish a ton of damage regularly, and benefitted from the opening up of more opponents to sneak attack...)
And none of this addresses the poor ranger or paladin...
or the poor Barbarian. With the Paizo Power attack and the new rage system (and no full plate) they suck. The Beta Barbarian was OK, but the new one...poor poor Barbarian.
As for rogues. They too are a melee class and they need to flank to sneak (they only got light armor and no armor training).....and no: invisibility does not work at higher levels so no archery for the rogue. And as for rogues as for all other melee charecters:
Melee = 1 attack as a standard action.
I'll try to find all the pertinent posts and provide links this weekend :)
Thanx and thanx for the house rules
:-)
Well I'm repeating myself, but I think fighters shouldn't have to mean stat prerequisites for combat feats.
Scaling the feats for fighters would be good too, I mentioned in a thread I started about an idea for that.
The only simpathy I have for rogues are those that want to do ranged sneak attacks, and even there I think there are some feats that can help with that.
But my point was I would like to see the fighter not say "I'm not in melee and that's not fair!" but instead "I pick up my bow with quick draw and take a full attack action."
I feel paladins are going to be in the good enough with the changes that Jason proposed in the Design Focus for them (after all they will be able to smite at range now). In fact I'm fairly certain that an Archery Paladin could mop up against evil really well.
Invisibility can work at upper levels, my wife is using it regularly, it's just not a garantuee.
|
|
I would like to say this as well: I'm not trying to make fighters "as good" as wizards. Sorry, but wizards WARP REALITY at high levels! Fighters can't match that without going all "matrix/wuxia/dragonball z", and I really don't care for that style (that's what they have BESM for, right?).
I just do not like that fighters have to lock in to one tactic to be viable past a certain point. that isn't "creative", it isn't "imaginative", it's following a recipe laid out in a charop thread someplace a long time ago.
One thing to keep in mind, there is a certain appeal to having at least one relatively un-complicated class that newbies in the group can feel comfortable playing without having to worry about excessive choices and decisions. Fighters have always been the class we give the younger, new, or temporary player to the group. If we make it just as complicated as every other class then the newb will just feel intimidated. I'm in favor of making the class more interesting, and at higher levels more powerful, but I'd like to see that done in as simple a way as possible, ie, avoid point systems like ki or rage, as well as avoid powers where the player has to make a dozen choices each round.
Interesting - since 3.5 i thought fighters became more complicated. I started my 6 year old as a fighter but that got too hard and we the character died went for sorcerer next. He just sits at the back and casts scorching ray...