[...]
Invisibility can work at upper levels, my wife is using it regularly, it's just not a garantuee.
Glitterdust
School conjuration (creation); Level bard 2, sorcerer/wizard 2See Invisibility
School divination; Level bard 3, sorcerer/wizard 2
Invisibility Purge
School evocation; Level cleric 3
And these can be Quickened (Quicken Spell - four levels higher than the spell’s actual level).
Permanency
School universal; Level sorcerer/wizard 5
See invisibility 10th 5,000 gp
True Seeing
School divination; Level cleric 5, druid 7, sorcerer/wizard 6
Range touch
Invisibility or Greater Invisibility - no problem. Won't work, no sneak attack at range.
And speaking of sneak attack. At higher levels Druids have no problems: Wild Shape - Elemental Body III (The abilities you gain depend upon the type of elemental you change
into. You are also immune to critical hits and sneak attacks while in elemental form.).
|
Well I'm repeating myself, but I think fighters shouldn't have to mean stat prerequisites for combat feats.
The problem is not just that there are stat prerequisites for some feats, but that they specify the wrong or irrelevant stat.
Example; Improved Trip requires Combat Expertise, which requires INT 13+.
Since when did being good at tripping depend on intelligence?
Anyone out there, who does martial arts, must know people who excel at the sweeps and throws, without being the sharpest tool in the shed.
If tripping does require sharp intellect, then why are so many animals good at it? Last time I looked, animal intelligence was defined as 2 or less.
If the designers are constantly having to handwave the issue, and give these attack modes out as bonus feats, or 'special abilities' to dumb animals, then should that not be a clue that the feat prerequisites are quite clearly wrong?
|
Since when did being good at tripping depend on intelligence?
Anyone out there, who does martial arts, must know people who excel at the sweeps and throws, without being the sharpest tool in the shed.
We had a bouncer at a place I bartended who was freaking Jet Li, won state championships in Karate, kicked serious fratboy a$$, dude couldn't spell "cat" if you spotted him the "c" and the "a"...
[...]
Invisibility can work at upper levels, my wife is using it regularly, it's just not a garantuee.
Glitterdust
School conjuration (creation); Level bard 2, sorcerer/wizard 2See Invisibility
School divination; Level bard 3, sorcerer/wizard 2Invisibility Purge
School evocation; Level cleric 3And these can be Quickened (Quicken Spell - four levels higher than the spell’s actual level).
Permanency
School universal; Level sorcerer/wizard 5
See invisibility 10th 5,000 gpTrue Seeing
School divination; Level cleric 5, druid 7, sorcerer/wizard 6
Range touchInvisibility or Greater Invisibility - no problem. Won't work, no sneak attack at range.
And speaking of sneak attack. At higher levels Druids have no problems: Wild Shape - Elemental Body III (The abilities you gain depend upon the type of elemental you change
into. You are also immune to critical hits and sneak attacks while in elemental form.).
Yes, like I said not every time, but on a regular basis she gets it off and it works.
They have to have those spells up or cast them, if they don't then she is invisible, and that's what happens. Not every encounter has the means to see invisible, even in the level 12~16 range.
Even when they do me or the other wizard are usually pretty quick with a greater dispel magic just on general principle anyways.
Yes, like I said not every time, but on a regular basis she gets it off and it works.
They have to have those spells up or cast them, if they don't then she is invisible, and that's what happens. Not every encounter has the means to see invisible, even in the level 12~16 range.
Even when they do me or the other wizard are usually pretty quick with a greater dispel magic just on general principle anyways.
"Not every encounterhas the means to see invisible, even in the level 12~16 range."
No, but every high level: bard, sorcerer/wizard and cleric/druid do. and high level druids have Elemental Body III.Point is range sneak attack is a problem so sneak = melee.
But this is a fighter thread so let's leave this.
The problem is not just that there are stat prerequisites for some feats, but that they specify the wrong or irrelevant stat.
Example; Improved Trip requires Combat Expertise, which requires INT 13+.
Since when did being good at tripping depend on intelligence?
Anyone out there, who does martial arts, must know people who excel at the sweeps and throws, without being the sharpest tool in the shed.If tripping does require sharp intellect, then why are so many animals good at it? Last time I looked, animal intelligence was defined as 2 or less.
If the designers are constantly having to handwave the issue, and give these attack modes out as bonus feats, or 'special abilities' to dumb animals, then should that not be a clue that the feat prerequisites are quite clearly wrong?
it's called game balance. But I can see that powergamers don't want to waste any points on int or char. That's why all fighter players get upset when they now have to boost their int to 14 so the can get the +2 on AC.
My rogue has 14 int. He don't really need it since:1) search now is wisdom based
2) disiable devise is dex based
3) skill consolidation lets him have most of the skills he wants without boosting int to get more skills.
But he has int 14 because of CE (CE works just fine) and role playing reasons. I could have just settled for int 10 dumped charisma and boosted my dex, but I didn't.
|
|
it's called game balance. But I can see that powergamers don't want to waste any points on int or char. That's why all fighter players get upset when they now have to boost their int to 14 so the can get the +2 on AC.
My rogue has 14 int. He don't really need it.
But he has int 14 because of CE (CE works just fine) and role playing reasons. I could have just settled for int 10 dumped charisma and boosted my dex, but I didn't.
I have no problem playing an intelligent fighter, or any class, regardless of whether it's a prime stat.
I like having skill points too much.We tend to use rolled stats rather than point-buy, so you often get several above average, rather than the temptation to make the cookie-cutter PC with 20 in one stat and rubbish in the rest.
I can see the justification for Int, to pull off flashy feints and disarm stunts, I just don't see it as relevant to tripping. Wolves are great at tripping, and they're low Hit Dice (thus few feats) and Int 2.
Derek's bouncer colleague doesn't sound like Mastermind, either.
The fact that monster manual writers have to bend and twist the prerequisites to allow animals to do what comes naturally, should show that tripping has no relation to Int. By all means, cut off access to Combat Expertise to dumb beasts and dumb people. A wolf isn't going to use Disarm, since it doesn't dance around on its hind legs waving a rapier. If it does, then you're probably playing 'Redwall-The RPG'.
|
|
Zark, here's kind of a "best of" on this topic to get you started. This list is by no means exhaustive, but it highlights a lot of the basic arguments we have on the topic:
This is a good one: here
and here
and a few feat ideas
and here, more feat discussion
and short but sweet
There are more, but this should get you started. There are lots of links in some of these threads to other cool stuff. Happy reading :)
Zark, here's kind of a "best of" on this topic to get you started.
There are more, but this should get you started. There are lots of links in some of these threads to other cool stuff. Happy reading :)
Great, many, many thanx :-)
styff and
"Derek's bouncer colleague doesn't sound like Mastermind, either." and more stuff
This isn't real life. It's all about game balanxe
Why wouldn't someone with 10 str be able to Power Attack?And why couldn't someone with dex 10 dodge?
Hey it's D&D, there are wizards cast fly, fireball etc. and "wizards WARP REALITY at high levels" as houstonderek so well put it.
CE and int 13, it's game balance
PA and str 13, it's game balance
|
|
"Balance" is a funny word.
There isn't much of it vis a vis melee v. magic in 3x (at low levels, fighters rock the house, mid levels things even out, high levels, wizards and CoDzilla reign supreme), the "balancing" factor in earlier editions was staggered class advancement. Rogues and fighters advanced quickly, magic users, slowly, so you'd see parties that looked like this: Fighter 9, Thief 10, Magic User 7, Cleric 8 (to use the "base four").
Things were further "balanced" by the way the rounds played out, casting times, ease of spell disruption and whatnot. Even higher level wizards *needed* someone to run interference and be a roadblock to be effective, at least until they hit the very high (20+) levels (and it was rare for a lot of AD&D games to get that high, as it was well outside of the "sweet spot" for that version of the game...).
Also, fighters had, with one exception I think, the best saves in the game at mid to high levels. So, more "balance".
So, when discussing combat feats and whatnot, "balance" may be the wrong angle to consider when discussing them, as fighters and other melee types lose out against the serious spellcasters past mid levels.
As to tripping and whatnot, perhaps realism (quasi-realism, anyway) should weigh in to whether someone "qualifies" to take a feat. It is passing strange that you have to have an equivalent to a 140 IQ (to use the old assumptions of INT interpretation) to effectively trip someone or to better defend yourself. Fighters generally aren't the sharpest tools in the shed, yet they should be able to effectively pull off maneuvers that make up the tools of their trade (physical confrontation).
I think sometimes too much concern with "balance" can mess with common sense approaches to an issue, and can lead to something like 4e. Nice enough game system, but too cookie cutter for my interpretation of fantasy gaming (better suited to a superheros game, imo, and it would make an AWESOME counterpoint to M&M, but that's a discussion for elsewhere...).
"stuff
the prereq. int 13 make these feats fighter (and rogue) feats.
No other melee class would or could boost their inte to 13.That's why Barbarians have 4 skills / level.
if you just want str, dex con, try the Barbarian.
|
|
Balance is a funny term; it seems to be used mainly to limit the non-casters to mundane, real-world effects, while casters regularly breaking the universe gets a shrug, a smile, and "It's MAGIC!".
If we need prerequisites, then shouldn't the whole enchantment school be limited to casters with Cha 13+?
Suggestion? That's next in the 'feat chain'. That needs Cha 15+.
Dominate? Whoah, now you're getting powerful, can't let that into just anyone's hands, that needs Cha 17+, right?
A character is only as boring or fun as you make it. The player determines whether something has flavor, whether something is fun to play. A good roleplaying could play a Commoner and still have a great time doing it.
Those folks complaining about how Fighters are boring need to look past the numbers and character sheet.
Also, House-Rules exist for a reason, guys. Use them.
|
|
A character is only as boring or fun as you make it. The player determines whether something has flavor, whether something is fun to play. A good roleplaying could play a Commoner and still have a great time doing it.
Those folks complaining about how Fighters are boring need to look past the numbers and character sheet.
Also, House-Rules exist for a reason, guys. Use them.
I'll fall back on one of "our side's" maxims: You can't roleplay if you're DEAD.
All I get from the "look beyond the numbers" camp is this: "OUR DM focuses on roleplaying, so whether the numbers work mechanically or not is irrelevant. If you have a problem with the fighter, OBVIOUSLY you are an unimaginative cretin who can't roleplay."
Also, the presumption that only YOUR way of playing is fun, and everyone else is "doing it wrong" is pretty condescending, don't you think?
Sorry, but this gets old. Roleplaying is fine, it's a "roleplaying" game, after all, but there are numbers and probabilities that govern actions, and the numbers don't work at high levels (for fighters and other "non-magic" types), so, unless you're blessed with a fudging, hand holding GM who tailors every encounter to give the fighter something to do, and refuses to play spellcasters like they have a 20 Int, being a fighter past level 12 SUCKS.
You can roleplay Monopoly if that is something you want to do, but that has NOTHING to do with a mechanical discussion about how the numbers work in the game.
|
Actually, I was thinking Shall Not Pass for the adjacent squares, Stand Still for the reach ones. Still, it gets nuts pretty quick. Honestly, though, isn't this sort of an iteration of the infamous spiked chain tripper? (I hate spiked chains - they just annoy my sense of aesthetics. Kind of like the double weapons - I still refer to the dire flail as "the autogelding machine".
It is indeed like the Spiked Chain Tripper, but in my opinion the Spike Chain Tripper shows us what meleers should be able to do, mechanically; become an unignorable combatant with reach. I'd just like to see some feats that allow it with less cheese than Spiked Chain Tripping. We are, I think, part of the way there with the extra feats Jason announced.
A character is only as boring or fun as you make it. The player determines whether something has flavor, whether something is fun to play. A good roleplaying could play a Commoner and still have a great time doing it.
Those folks complaining about how Fighters are boring need to look past the numbers and character sheet.
Also, House-Rules exist for a reason, guys. Use them.
I'll fall back on one of "our side's" maxims: You can't roleplay if you're DEAD.
All I get from the "look beyond the numbers" camp is this: "OUR DM focuses on roleplaying, so whether the numbers work mechanically or not is irrelevant. If you have a problem with the fighter, OBVIOUSLY you are an unimaginative cretin who can't roleplay."
Also, the presumption that only YOUR way of playing is fun, and everyone else is "doing it wrong" is pretty condescending, don't you think?
Sorry, but this gets old. Roleplaying is fine, it's a "roleplaying" game, after all, but there are numbers and probabilities that govern actions, and the numbers don't work at high levels (for fighters and other "non-magic" types), so, unless you're blessed with a fudging, hand holding GM who tailors every encounter to give the fighter something to do, and refuses to play spellcasters like they have a 20 Int, being a fighter past level 12 SUCKS.
You can roleplay Monopoly if that is something you want to do, but that has NOTHING to do with a mechanical discussion about how the numbers work in the game.
You can't make me "dead" if you're not even at the table. I certainly would not care to show up at any game where a player with your attitudes was playing. It has never been worth it, in my experience.
I think your attitude was condescending to begin with. If you feel that I am being condescending, you have no room to point fingers. If this "gets old", feel free to not respond to this thread anymore. Furthermroe, This is not a purely mechanical discussion, and even if it were, attacking the premise behind a discussion has always been considere a valid discussion tactic.
You seem to be under the mistaken impression, also, that you can somehow threaten me, or any roleplayer, with your blustering about how superior your spellcaster is. What you accomplish is, instead, to outline just how immature of a gamer you are. If you want to brag about how much you own, you should go play WoW, not waste your time around a gaming table.
Dr. Swordopolis,
I think you should take some time and read some of the other threads that HoustonDerek and Kirth Gersen have responded to and in before you make a judgment like you just did. I did not get the idea that he was "slamming" anyone. FWTW I play and DM in his game group and there are several other players that have more experience than I that have fun whether he is playing or DMing. BTW he plays Fighters' and Fighter/Rogue's exclusively. He doesn't play spellcasters, so when he speaks of Fighters being underpowered he knows from what he speaks.
Just my 2 cp.
I don't get this fighter issue.
Fighters are key at low levels but change roles at high level. At low level your fighters are your main damage instrument. The Wizard and Cleric support the fighter in doing his job. At high level those roles reverse. The fighter is still good at dishing it out but they now support the casters because the casters are the main damage instrument. I don't see how this diminishes the fighter at all. If that is your problem then aren't all spell casters boring till they get to high level?
I guess I don't get this style of play where people must play a character that has to be better than all the others for the entire length of the game. The fighter will be better than the wizard off the start the wizard will be better than the fighter at the end. That's just how it works. If that's a blow to your ego then don't play levels where that happens. Limit levels to 6 and you will never see this change happen. Wizards will always be weak and fighters will always be strong. The other martial classes won't get enough feats to be better than the fighter either.
Or HP, or feats, or many other things. About the only spot they could be comparable is AC.
|
Fighters are not key at low levels, they are comparable. you go from comparable to obsolete, and that my friend is poor class design.In no way is a 1st level fighter comparable to a 1st level wizard in damage output. The wizard is totally outclassed.
wizards have them in skills, will saves and single-hit-kill spells, 1st level wizards that try to do DAMAGE are a bit slow. colorspray the Fighter types and watch them hit the ground. (then coup de grace)
(as long as you dont memorize damage spell you golden), sure i cant swing my quarterstaff as well as the Fighter swings his sword, but thats not what makes my class strong.
|
|
You can't make me "dead" if you're not even at the table. I certainly would not care to show up at any game where a player with your attitudes was playing. It has never been worth it, in my experience.
In general, when someone appears to be so awful that you'd feel compelled to say something like this, one might wish, perhaps, to consider that it's perceptions that may be awry rather than fact (of course, it may not be the case -- some people are, after all, completely awful -- but the word flies, as Horace said, and cannot be recalled). In particular and with regard to the next post, derek's DM points that out from experience of having Derek at the table. Furthermore, Kirth Gerson, who posts here quite a bit and who's pretty well-liked and well-respected, rps with Derek.
If you're newish, you wouldn't have known that, but isn't it more likely to be you that looks silly anyhow, as a result or saying the sweeping, condemnatory thing when there are people around that know the guy you're condemning?
stuff
Very good points
stuff
lot of words..and ....As much as I appreciate houstonderek and some of his/her advice I must say.
A) he/she tend to be rude at times (he/she shouts etc.).B) most of this thread so far is not at all about the fighter. It's about high level play and melee charecters.
C) Playing this game is a team effort and not a solo thing. If a party does not work as a team it's not the games fault (e.g. a party where the cleric or/and the wizard does not boost or help the fighter the right way - fly, stoneskin, heal, mass heal, fredoom of movment etc.). That is. If your play mates suck - don't blame the mechanics.
D) If the fighter really suck all would agree. Lot of us don't. We think the fighter kick *ss.
E) Agree: High level game and melee is a problem
Solution: Start Epic at level 15 (or something): and add Epic feats that fix the problem.
All people have their saying here and all have their own agenda.
Some shout: wizards suck - no one fail their saves (vs. evocation etc.) or the all have Resist Energy 30 or no fireball get the job done, or all monsters got spell resistance, or all have freedoom of movment etc.
Or some shout: monks suck or rogues suck or Sorcerer suck (and are boring). Those who shout the loudesy are not always right.
The only classes that really suck as far as I'm concerned are the bard and possibly the monk.
Even if fighters suck, well does that necessarily make them boring?
- well I think not.
stuff
Colorspray? what lvlv 1 wizard would want to get close to a fighter at level 1. Get real. Matthew Hooper is right. At level 1 (and at level 2 etc.) the The wizard is totaly outclassed by the fighter. Fighters rule from lvl 1 - 12 (or 13).
Dr. Swordopolis,
I think you should take some time and read some of the other threads that HoustonDerek and Kirth Gersen have responded to and in before you make a judgment like you just did. I did not get the idea that he was "slamming" anyone. FWTW I play and DM in his game group and there are several other players that have more experience than I that have fun whether he is playing or DMing. BTW he plays Fighters' and Fighter/Rogue's exclusively. He doesn't play spellcasters, so when he speaks of Fighters being underpowered he knows from what he speaks.
Just my 2 cp.
A) He/she might been posting a lot of good stuff (and he/she has) and you mighjt know him/her. That does not mean he/she may add any post and still get a freecard. Bad maners are still bad manners.
B) "He doesn't play spellcasters, so when he speaks of Fighters being underpowered he knows from what he speaks."Well that would actuallay indicate that he/she might be biased.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion on the game, but no one, and I repeat no one, is entitled to bad mouth another poster. You can disagree with the expressed opinion and express your views, but leave the disrespect and bad attitudes at home.
You might consider the reposts that HoustonDerek sent you to attempt to bring you up to speed on several issues you and HE were discussing. As was suggested in an earlier post of mine you might also go back and read some of the other posts to various threads where he puts forth that Wizards and casters in general need to have the spells unnerfed that 3.x nerfed, and also that nerfing the caster classes would not solve the problem of meleers being underpowered.
I just wish some people would take some time to reseach the boards before making broad statements that show how their own prejudices influence their attitudes.
Just my 2 cp.
While I don't generally play fighters I will defer to the ones who actually do and they might be interested in your suggestions. There seems to be a general idea that not all of what WotC put out in the complete books were OGL content. Basically that means that Paizo cannot use it as is, but it can be used in House Ruled games. What the several posts that deal with this subject are trying to bring about is an increased viability of the Fighter/Melee classes is PfRPG in the core rules.
I apologize for the agitated tone of my earlier posts. It irritates me when people make spot judgments without sufficient research into what is actually being said.
We are at the end of the Beta rules playtest and the push to try to get "your favorite rules" into the final edition has some people very tense and closed minded. I do believe that some have lost sight of the fact that the Beta rules were a grouping of "right-field" ideas that were put in play just to see how they worked and that the final edition might be loser to what might be considered "center-field" rules.
It is a given in the group that I play with at least that once the final edition comes out there might be significant house ruling going on. That is our and everyone elses' prerogative. We will institute what rules work for us after we see what comes out in August 2009. Wait that is this year!!!! Yippee!!!!
With that being said, I hope all will take a deep breath and back down from the aggravation and animosity that has developed over the past few months.
Just my 2 cp.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion on the game, but no one, and I repeat no one, is entitled to bad mouth another poster. You can disagree with the expressed opinion and express your views, but leave the disrespect and bad attitudes at home.
You might consider the reposts that HoustonDerek sent you to attempt to bring you up to speed on several issues you and HE were discussing. As was suggested in an earlier post of mine you might also go back and read some of the other posts to various threads where he puts forth that Wizards and casters in general need to have the spells unnerfed that 3.x nerfed, and also that nerfing the caster classes would not solve the problem of meleers being underpowered.
I just wish some people would take some time to reseach the boards before making broad statements that show how their own prejudices influence their attitudes.
Just my 2 cp.
what part of "I appreciate houstonderek and some of his/her advice" didn't you understand?
And yes, I do consider the reposts that HoustonDerek sent me.Good points don't always equal good manners.
And writing in capital letters is considered shouting. Shouting is not nice. And that is not "to bad mouth another poster".
Finally: Why do you think there is a flag button?
Zark's comment was to me I believe. When I emphasized that HoustonDerek was a male of the Human species.
One example of this is in a Barbarian class feature in Complete Champion which basically gives Barbarians access to Pounce (i.e. full attack on a charge) at 1st level. Overpowered? I don't think so. Pathfinder could pinch this idea, make a fighter only feat, call it, oh I don't know, "Devastating Charge" or some such. To throw the other warrior classes a bone, maybe allow them to pick it up at X BAB. (I'd be of the mindset to make it the same as the fighter, but that's me). I do think that a warrior's charge should be actually frightening to a baddie, instead of "oh, I'll get a single hit at +2, whooptie do."
Overpowered at low levels, no. Overpowered at medium and high levels when added to Backswing, Power Attack, and Vital Strike? Very much so. I'm copying this from one of my posts on a different thread:
PFBeta Fighter 20 (20 Str at creation, all advancements in Str, +5 Str increase from manual/wishes, and a +6 Str item for an effective 36 Str) with Weapon Training (+4 Heavy Blades), Weapon Mastery (auto-confirm critical hits, increase critical multiplier)*, Backswing, Greater Weapon Focus*, Greater Weapon Specialization*, Overhand Chop, Power Attack, Vital Strike, Weapon Focus*, Weapon Specialization*, and a +5 keen speed thundering falchion. Attack bonus when using Power Attack is +20 (base) +4 (training) +2 (focus) +5 (enhancement) = +31 for attacks of +31/+31/+26/+21 with Vital Strike and a speed weapon vs. AC 39 (MM balor with unholy aura). Hit chance is 60% (half will be criticals)/60% (half will be criticals)/35% (6-in-7 will be criticals)/10% (automatic critical). Weapon damage will be 5 (falchion) +4 (training) +4 (specialization) +19 (Str) +5 (enhancement) = 37; Backswing adds +39 instead of +19 for Str on the first attack of a full attack (57), Power Attack adds +26 to all attacks (63 or 83), and Vital Strike adds +5 to all attacks (not multiplied on a critical), keen improves the threat range to 15-20, thundering adds +9 sonic damage (+2d8 because of Weapon Mastery; I'm ignoring the DC 14 Fort save vs. deafness) on a critical.
*- all with falchion
1st attack (((83 x 3) + 5 + 9) x 0.3) + ((83 + 5) x 0.3) = ((249 + 14) + 88) x 0.3 = 351 x 0.3 = 105.3
2nd attack (((63 x 3) +5 + 9) x 0.3) + ((63 + 5) x 0.3) = ((189 + 14) + 68) x 0.3 = 271 x 0.3 = 81.3
3rd attack (((63 x 3) + 5 + 9) x 0.3) + ((63 + 5) x 0.05) = (203 x 0.3) + (68 x 0.05) = 60.9 + 3.4 = 64.3
4th attack ((63 x 3) + 5 + 9) x 0.1 = 203 x 0.1 = 20.3
Total average damage = 105.3 + 81.3 + 64.3 + 20.3 = 271.2
Note that attacking without Vital Strike results in 102.3 + 78.3 + 62.55 + 19.8 + 9.9 = 272.85 (only 1.65 more) and Improved Vital Strike results in 108.3 + 84.3 + 66.05 = 258.65, but a fighter using a weapon with a smaller critical threat range and different abilities may have different results.
Allowing a full attack on a charge would result in a 20th level fighter able to charge a balor and kill it in a single round, on average. Even without it, there's a good chance if the fighter can full attack.
Instead, a feat that's similar to Backswing might be better: a charging character can add 1.5 times their Str modifier (x2 if using a two-handed weapon) instead of Str mod (or x1.5), with the bonus improving to x2 (x3) when your BAB is +11 or better. Or maybe a variant of Spirited Charge, except you don't need to be mounted.
|
|
stuffColorspray? what lvlv 1 wizard would want to get close to a fighter at level 1. Get real. Matthew Hooper is right. At level 1 (and at level 2 etc.) the The wizard is totaly outclassed by the fighter. Fighters rule from lvl 1 - 12 (or 13).
1d6 hitpoints now (with the possibility of bonus racial/or first level hitpoints?) my DC is probably 16 and his will save is probably +1 at first level, meaning i have around a 75% chance to one-hit kill him? ill take those odds any day.
Ok, I used caps for emphasis, not volume[..]In the future, I'll endeavor to use BBC codes instead of the shift key to emphasize points. Sorry.
OK :-)
The He/she stuff. Well most players and posters are male, but there are women to. Since I don't know you I didn't want to call you "he" and just assume you are male. Hard to explain, but take it as respect.|
|
stuffD) If the fighter really suck all would agree. Lot of us don't. We think the fighter kick *ss.
...that line of logic doesnt hold water, there are still people who think that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11, not saying your side is THAT wrong ^^.
That is the great thing, we all have our opinions. maybe our spellcasters are too stupidly built, maybe your DM may give your Fighters extra cool gear or "scenes" every game is different, but if you say its balance, and i say Fighters are weak and Wizards are strong, then we need a guy to be saying that Fighters are strong and Wizards are weak. as is right now it looks like there are more in the middle and to the "weak Fighter" side, which lends me to think there may be a problem (probably not as big as i make it, but more than you make it)
in my games its a problem, and we are just running the rules by the book
(if your mages are memorizing, magic missile and shocking grasp at first level then mages sure seem weak)
I hope all will take a deep breath and back down from the aggravation and animosity that has developed over the past few months.
Good point :-)
1d6 hitpoints now (with the possibility of bonus racial/or first level hitpoints?) my DC is probably 16 and his will save is probably +1 at first level, meaning i have around a 75% chance to one-hit kill him? ill take those odds any day.
A) Agree: Colorspray is unbalanced.
B) At level one the wizard got two level 1 spells. Then what?C) Iron Will is nice.
D) Well my dwarven fighter only got 16 str but he has 12 wis, and the cleric cast restistance (or better Prot. from eveil) and I have the Iron will feat. MY will save is + 6 (or) 7 and I made the save. I now charge the Wizard with my greatsword: 2d6 + 4 to damage: and the wizard didn't cast mage armor cause he only got 2 Colorspray and now he's dead, dead , dead.
My english is not that good but ""75% chance to one-hit kill him" Kill him? Sorry I don't get it. Colorspray doesn't cause hit point damage does it?
I'm getting very tired of this A (fighter) vs. B (wizard). This is not a Diablo. It's not me vs. the game. It's a game where you play with others.
And If your DM is going to use colorspray every time you will learn won't you.
Let me quote Mattastrophic: "Except last time I checked, D&D is not about PC builds vs. other PC builds. The Monster Manual does exist. You rarely have Human wizards versus Human fighters."
E) So my fighter failed his save and now he's down and the wizard is only left with one more lvl 1 spell and no mage aromor. And our cleric and rogue and wizard will kick his behind.
If the fighter wins the Initiative and charge the wizard. PA, str 18 and a dwarven waraxe and weapon focus. Bye, bye, wizard.
G) Let me quote Selgard: "Low level classes are just that- low level. None of them are particularly whiz-bang."
|
|
Let me ask, the folks who take the "fighter is lame" argument... would Pounce (i.e. full attack on a charge) as class ability or Fighter feat make the fighter more playable for you? Paizo could certainly do that if they like.
I also am not a fan of only being able to rain down destruction unless I full attack. But I also think being able to full attack and move my full movement all the time is a bit much. Now full attacking on a charge, which requires a few things going to work properly, seems to work okay for me. Makes the fighter's charge a scary thing to face, and properly dramatic as well. Although Dragonchess player's suggestion of adding damage to the charge may work as well.
What say you all?
The pounce mechanic would be cool. I don't want fighters to dwarf other characters, not by any means, but they do need something. Most of the RAW fixes I've seen argued turn fighters into one-trick pony snooze buttons (spiked chain tripper, anyone? Mash that X button some more, you almost have him!).
Just give the fighters some love so they can shine a little more often. And (I can't say this enough), for the love of whatever holy creator/great void of nothingness appeals to you, give the fighter four skill points per level!!!!
|
|
My english is not that good but ""75% chance to one-hit kill him" Kill him? Sorry I don't get it. Colorspray doesn't cause hit point damage does it?
Colorspray is a "takeout" spell. If you're second level or below, and you fail your save, you're stunned, blind and unconscious, i.e. coup de gras bait.
Third or fourth level? Stunned and blinded. Again, sitting duck.
Over fifth? Stunned one round. Hope the wizard doesn't have a rogue friend...
The phrase "one hit kill" in this context refers to spells that remove someone from combat in a way that makes it easy for you or your allies to take them out quickly. It isn't usually used to reference direct damage spells (evocation is generally only dangerous to mooks, for the most part...).
|
|
Let me quote Mattastrophic: "Except last time I checked, D&D is not about PC builds vs. other PC builds. The Monster Manual does exist. You rarely have Human wizards versus Human fighters."
Quite a few published adventures disprove this. Wizards (PC race or otherwise) pop up frequently as opponents, usually with some cannon fodder around to soak up charges and keep front line characters occupied while he or she rains down magical havoc.
So, fighters do often find themselves in situations where they are faced with an opponent who can take them out rather quickly, if the opponent is so inclined. This, of course, can be mitigated if the fighter has a spellcaster friend or two with his or her group, but, as some posts in other threads have pointed out, some groups do not play with the standard array of PCs.
Now, one of two things can "fix" this. Either the GM of the "non-standard" group can adjust published adventures to fit his or her group (not an attractive option if the GM has a limited time to spend on the game) or the fighter (and other mundane, "hit them with a stick", classes) can get some tools to combat spell slingers more effectively.
|
|
...and its pretty balanced at first level, wizards have 13 armor classes
Fighters are +5(or +6) to hit. (seroiusly? ac 10? 12 at the lowest, or is your wizards pumping strength?) both are one hit kills ( unless your DM is using the bonus 1st level hp variant that Paizo developed, then the wizards has a REALLY GOOD chance of lasting a single hit, taking a five foot step, and casting again) after 1st level, however, when the mages hitpoints DOUBLE and the Fighters damage stays pretty similar (or totally identical) the balance starts to shift. the Fighter can swing all day (as long as the cleric can still cast cure) and the Wizard has only a couple once-per-day one hit kills, but the trade of is that the wizard can one hit kill more than one foe at a time (area affects)
however you put it, ive seen WAY more Fighter types die at early levels than wizard types. (Rogues die the most however, just enough damage dealing to attract enemies, not enough abilites to survive said aggro)
normally early on enemies ignore spellcasters (prolly because they are being pinged by their smaller damage at wills, early in the combat) and when the spellcaster does bring out the big guns, it wins the fight and no more aggro.