... but the trade of is tha
A 16 level cleric can cast mass harm. What do you want? The fighter to match that? Shall we give the fighter colorspray at level 1 and mass megadeadth at level 16?
This is not a PVP game. All classes have their function. Fighter, cleric, Wizards and Rogues."then the wizards has a REALLY GOOD chance of lasting a single hit"
1d10 + 4 damage (str) + 2 (PA) = 11 HP. = wizard lasting a single hit?
2d6 + 6 + (Str) + 2 (PA) = 15 HP = wizard lasting a single hit?
Wizard vs. Fighter. This is getting old.
I find "let's make the fighter mor fun" more interesting.
I've looked over Pathfinder's Fighters and still find them titanically boring. I applaud Pathfinder for giving more combat Feats, but the Feats presented are available to all classes, not just Fighters. Fighters get nothing unique to call their own. Barbarians get Rage points (awesome), Rogues get Rogue Tricks (awesome), Rangers and Paladins get their own host of abilities (from before). I cannot fathom why Fighters would not have exclusive and cool options like the Barbarians and Rogues. Yes, they get more Feats but everybody likes things that are exclusive to that class. That's why people play prestige classes. Fighters should have a unique set of abilities, just like the other classes (heh...that sounds ironic but you know what I mean).
Fighters are all about feats, more or less, so if you don’t like it then perhaps should not play fighter or perhaps try fighter and multiclass. It’s like “I want to play the Barbarian but I’d rather have feats than rage powers”. The concept “I want it all” is not very cool.
“Fighters get nothing unique to call their own.”
Well I’d say fighters only feats are unique. I’d say Armor training, Weapon training and Bravery are unique.
I don't care if you call it a feat or an Ability/Talent. Would you be more happy if Paizo removed all the bonus feats and gave the fighter a talent tree forcing the player to pick one of three paths:
1) melee
2) archery
3) Armor / shiled expert (defence)
Me, I like the freedom of making my own choices and I don’t care If you call it a feat or a talent. The options are still cool.
As for the Barbarian. Well the Beta version was cool, perhaps a bit too good. But now she’s nerfed.
A 13 level Barbarian has greater rage + 6 to str. +3 to hit and + 3 (or +5 twohanded) and Weapon Focus and some powers. And due to the new PA she will have problems hitting the monsters cause PA is based on str vs. BAB.
A 13 level Fighter has: Weapon training +3 to attack and damage, Weapon Specialization , Greater Weapon Specialization, Weapon Focus, greater Weapon Focus.
This adds up to + 5 to attack and +7 to damage. And all these are always on. The fighter don’t need to waste a swift action on rage powers so he can use dodge or anything else. Speaking of Dodge. Let’s take a look at the AC.
The Barbarian can’t use a full plate and she has a -2 to AC when ranging, So it's breastplate and an animated shiled. Mithral full plate will not be an option since they are chaning the rules on Mithral armor. The fighter on the other hand has a full plate and an animated towershield and Armor training. Since he don’t need to spend all his money on AC he can spend more money on his weapon (According to Jason this was actually one of the ideas behind giving the fighter Armor training). And the fighter don’t need Rage Powers so he can use dodge.
Saves: The Barbarian + 3 to will saves don’t stack with other moral bonus but the fighter’s Bravery stack with everyting.
So the barbarian can choose between using rage powers to boost attack, damage or AC. The fighter doesn’t have to choose. He can have it all. Also the fighter can switch between melee and archery. The Barbarian is all about melee.
Furthermore, all martial classes need some capacity to move and use more than 1 attack. The best thing about 4th edition was that they dropped the 'Full Attack' option. Full Attack only promotes your character from rooting yourself to the ground and makes for a boring tactical challenge.
The whole idea with The Paizo project is to give those players who don’t like 4E a way to continue to play 3.5 but doning it with a fresh and updated version.
SO going 4E is not the way to go is it? You want Paizo to drift into 4E. Well I suggest you play 4E and let us other play 3.5 updated by Paizo,“Full Attack only promotes your character from rooting yourself to the ground and makes for a boring tactical challenge. “
Or one could say: “Full Attack promotes for a tactical challenge”. Team work and Devastating Blow is a nice combination. But yes, at higher levels this might be a problem at times. But I don’t want to change the mechanics and go 4E. Adding a feat or two to smothen things out a bit might be nice (and nerfing spellcasters) but a full attack as a standard action – no way.
If we are do debate fighters it would be fair not to use examples based on exceptions.
Are fights vs. monsters who teleport at will the rule?
Are fights were all monsters constatly run arond the battlefield the rule?
In most encounter there are opponent who usually don’t run around. "hit them with a stick" types (great phrase houstonderek) and clerics and druids tend be stationary, otherwise they to lose their multiple attacks, that is if the move more than 5 feet.
So it's the same problem for the bad "hit them with a stick" guys: The Full Attack action is a part of the mechanics, hence it’s not a fighter specific issue. It’s a "hit them with a stick" class/type issue/problem.
There should be a way for the Fighter, if not other martial classes to circumvent this limitation. Doing this would allow higher level fighters to at least be a bit more on par with higher level rogues and wizards.
On par with rogues? Last time i checked the Rogue had the same problem as the fighter. Even more so I’d say. The Fighter can switch to archery. Archery does not go well with rogues cause they need their sneak attack damage. So Rogues can use greater invisibility (OK agree Abraham), but at higher levels the Big Bad Guy usually have means to deal with invisibility. So again: Movemnet/full attack is not a fighter specific issue. It’s a "hit them with a stick" issue.
And when I'm at it. Here are some other stuff that's been annoying me.
Give the fighter more class skills, more skill point and give the fighter good wills saves. To me this is “I want it all”. I’ve seen similar arguments in the Paladin theard were some Paladin lovers wanted to turn the Paladin into a God.
Inflation?
Saves: God will saves: Bard, Cleric, Druid , Monk, Paladin, Wizard, Sorcerer
No good will saves: Fighter, Ranger, Rogues.
So why not not give all classes good will saves and then just boost the DC? Would we all be happy then?
Skills per level: 2 skills per level: Cleric, Wizard, Fighter, Paladin, Why not give all these clases 4 skills / level. Well wizards don’t need more. But the rest? Cleric, Fighter, Paladin. Well I’d say if there is any class out of these three who usually boost the int it’s the fighter.
I love my human fighter. 14 int, Skilled, Favored class (+1 skill point per level). That’s 5 skill points per level.
Oh I forgott. Perhaps people want to powergame.
Dwarf: no bonus skill, 13 int. Favored class (1 HP per level instead of one skill point per level). = 3 skill point per level.
If there is any class suffering from 2 skill points per level it's the cleric and the Paladin. The fighter can afford the int. The cleric and the Paladin can't. They need to boost their charisma.
class skills:. I love survival. Now I can track. I love Knowledge dungeoneering and Engineering. Now I can tell the rogue: Hey, that bridge isn’t safe - the construction is all wrong (or it’s worn-out).
And I love that there are no cross class skills anymore. At lvl 10 my skills focus acrobatics kicks in giving me +6 to acrobatics. And my Armor training let’s me to tumble in my master work breastplate with no armor check penalty (and thanx to the new rules I now can tuble in a fullplate even if my move is 20 ft). In fact at level 11 I can tumble in my Mitharl fullplate with no armor check penalty and with a maximum Dexterity bonus of +6. And with an AC bonus that is Divine (our rogue is still weeping). No cross class skills anymore. I love it.
But no. Those who who want more class skills they don’t want Bluff, Diplomacy or more Knowledge skills. And they don’t want Appraise, Heal or Linguistics. They want just powergaming skills:
Acrobatics – No AoO and no need to pick skill focus.
Perception – No assasin, monk or rogue sneaking up me anymore no need to pick skills focus.
Sense Motive – You can’t feint me now
I don’t think the fighters or the other melee classes are the problem at higher levels. The problem are the spellcasters. I don’t like high level games, why. Houstonderek put it well: “wizards warp reality at high levels”...Yes they do and so does most other spellcasters and and they never fail their spellcraft check.
I’d say: nerf/fix cast defensively, toss in some new feats. Let Epic start at level 15 and then add some really cool abilities to, but don’t go E4.
|
Interestingly enough, the DC for that color spray spell from a 1st level caster is anywhere from 11-15, so it's not a "one-shot kill"; there's roughly a 75% chance of success at best.
By the same token, the fighter's chance of hitting an AC 10 caster is roughly the same. And one greatsword swing will take out that caster.
So in all honestly, it's down to initiative. And if the caster fails, he's done. The fighter can swing again on round 2 with no opportunity cost. When the 1st level caster is done, he's done.
I would say that less than DC 15 is pretty rare, with (say) a 20-point (PFRPG) wizard. AC 12 is also, in my experience, more typical for a 1st-level wizard (and that tends higher with Mage Armour, which they're preparing by 3rd level at latest). So if I was a fighter, and with the extra hp variants in PFRPG, I'd be looking at a caster with a hp total of as high as 12 and I know I'm not normally one-hitting that. On the other hand, a DC 15 Will save to avoid dying (and winning iniative won't win me this one because of the hp)? I'd be better off running away, optionally screaming like a little girl. As levels advance, as Sneaksy Dragon points out, the situation becomes rather worse.
Of course, why wouldn't a wizard beat a beatstick most of the time? The problem, I guess, is that the gap widens to the point of "wizard beats fighter nearly all of the time" and arguably with a smaller fraction of their total resources.
|
|
The whole idea with The Paizo project is to give those players who don’t like 4E a way to continue to play 3.5 but doning it with a fresh and updated version.
SO going 4E is not the way to go is it? You want Paizo to drift into 4E. Well I suggest you play 4E and let us other play 3.5 updated by Paizo,
“Full Attack only promotes your character from rooting yourself to the ground and makes for a boring tactical challenge. “
Or one could say: “Full Attack promotes for a tactical challenge”. Team work and Devastating Blow is a nice combination. But yes, at higher levels this might be a problem at times. But I don’t want to change the mechanics and go 4E. Adding a feat or two to smothen things out a bit might be nice (and nerfing spellcasters) but a full attack as a standard action – no way.
He's not saying he wants Paizo to make PFRPG into some 4e version. He, and many others on the boards since at least the playtest started, is I think expressing the opinion that the lack of ability to move and multiattack is a serious flaw in 3.x that wasn't there in 1 and 2e. I don't think that there's necessarily a feeling that 3.x was perfect, after all, in order to not like 4e and to hope that PFRPG is the game for them.
He's not saying he wants Paizo to make PFRPG into some 4e version. He, and many others on the boards since at least the playtest started, is I think expressing the opinion that the lack of ability to move and multiattack is a serious flaw in 3.x that wasn't there in 1 and 2e. I don't think that there's necessarily a feeling that 3.x was perfect, after all, in order to not like 4e and to hope that PFRPG is the game for them.
Fair enogue. But a full attack as a standard action - no way.
and this 1:ed argument that keeps poppin up. PFRPG is baesed on 3.x, the whole mechanics is based on 3.x. So the sollution is to take the mechanics from 1:ed that benefits the melee clases without balence things?Let med quote Bad news on Tour: "how come you think you can interfere with the way we talk and not interfere when the van's broken down"
Well in 1:ed clerics and rogues sucked. And wizard did to until the hit level 6 or so. Is that what we want?
|
|
Fair enogue. But a full attack as a standard action - no way.
and this 1:ed argument that keeps poppin up. PFRPG is baesed on 3.x, the whole mechanics is based on 3.x. So the sollution is to take the mechanics from 1:ed that benefits the melee clases without balence things?
Let med quote Bad news on Tour: "how come you think you can interfere with the way we talk and not interfere when the van's broken down"Well in 1:ed clerics and rogues sucked. And wizard did to until the hit level 6 or so. Is that what we want?
I wouldn't speak for anyone else, but for me, looking at things that work elsewhere is generally a good thing, particularly when it's telling us what people enjoyed about previous versions. No one has to want to return to unpopular parts of previous editions to talk about the bits they liked, though.
For myself, rather than putting a Full Attack into a Standard Action, I'd allow Full Attacks to include some movement, with penalties to the attacks (say -2 per 10', or something, although that would perhaps put monks further into the swamp of suck, as their increased movement wouldn't gain them anything in this scenario), or else having to trade attacks for movement (but effectively trading iterations, so a TWF would lose/trade two attacks for each attack a single weapon fighter was losing/trading).
I agree that full attack should have a means of moving, as opposed to full attacking as a standard action.
I’m getting tired of this rethoric, talking about the exception as if it was a rule. It’s not honourable. Also I find it frustrating when people use the ignor button every time they find an argument that don't fit them. Comming down on aruments that gives you an opportunity to make a person look like a fool and leaving all other argumenst cause it fits your agenda is just...dishonest.
What is the concept of the game: PC vs. PC? The Concept is PC:s vs. NPC:s. Heroes vs. the monsters. Heroes vs. the Big Bad Evil Wizard or Demon or Whatever.
How does an averege encounter look like? Demons teleporting at will. Wizards, hill giants and ork Barbarians all running in circles at the same time? Is this representative of the averedge encounter? No, I would say not.
So saying just anything just to "win" is OK?: "Rogues suck because they can't sneak attack elementals, most oozes and some undead."
Yes, as a rogue your gonna come up agains oozes, elementals and incorporeals sometimes. Does that make the rogue class a suck class? Do these encounters present an example of the every day life of the rogue? Answer: No and....No.
I'm not really in for the "I wanna win the debate" so I'm leaving this thread.
And yes. High level game is a problem, but winning a discussion by using cheap tricks is ....still boring.
What is the name of this thread again? "Fighters - Still boring..."
- Is the move vs. full attack a specific fighter problem? Anser: no
- Have I've seen any discussion about the boring part except boring = "the move and no full attack problem"? Anser: no (with the exception of the first post)
- Is move vs. full attack a specific fighter problem? Anser: no
Hence: I can't see anyting in this thread making it a fighter thread.
And once again, thanx for the links Houstonderek.
Not to mention that sometimes it is PvP.
Let's be honest, "sometimes" is the exception. Check out the DMG.
D&D is not PVP.Except we use the same PC classes for the bad guys.
Same class does not equal PVP. Wealth by level: NPC page 127 DMG and PC page 135 DMG.
10 level NPC Fighter or Wizard (or whatever): 16 000 gp
10 level PC Fighter or Wizard (or whatever): 49 000 gp
15 level NPC Fighter or Wizard (or whatever): 59 000 gp
15 level PC Fighter or Wizard (or whatever) 200 000 gp
So let's see. 15 level NPC fighter vs. 15 level PC fighter = PVP? I'd say no.
Then there are all the other guys in the group:
15 lvl PC Wizard, 15 lvl PC Cleric, 15 lvl PC Rogue and perhaps a lvl 15 PC Paladin (or druid or whatever). Wealth:
5 lvl 15 PC = 1000 000 gp
and the bad guys:
7 lvl 15 NPC = 413 000 gp
Is this PvP - No.
And the NPC probably won’t have the same stats. Just the elite array and adjustmnets (race, kind etc).
|
|
No, we don't want it to be contingent on the success (or complete success) of an attack, we want it to be an option for characters with multiple attacks, to move and make more than a single attack, simple as that.Sigh. I know we've been around and around on this, but... I'm just not getting it.
How is moving and attacking more fun, objectively? What does it permit you to achieve via board position that you can't get with the current scenario? Where are you going to go with that extra movement? What do you want to achieve?
Are we convinced that a full attack is the most successful use of a fighter's capabilities at high levels? Especially since there is a school of thought that "hit points don't matter"? There are several ways that a fighter can debuff an opponent in straight 3.5 - you can do it at least three different ways without a feat at all, four with Improved Overrun. The consequences of the failure of these options - a drawn attack of opportunity - is meaningless in the example commonly cited (an enemy mage). The playtest feats increase that debuffing power dramatically.
The example of enemies ignoring the fighter and moving past him at high levels is cited. Why aren't you bull rushing on the attack of opportunity?
How much does board positioning, cover, concealment, and terrain figure into this decision making? I keep seeing "save vs. suck" spells brought up as fighter killers; where do these examples take place? In forested terrain? How about in the rain, where your visibility's cut in half? Mages demand line of sight and line of effect for most of these spells; fighters generally do not.
I'm very much convinced that the conclusion that "fighters suck" ignores large swathes of the rules involving alternate attack modes, terrain, and movement. In other words, "fighters suck" seems to be a hypothetical, when fighters demand placement on the tabletop and a thorough understanding of all your options to be fully effective.
The point is that at higher levels, we are saying the damage from a single attack is insufficient for the meleers to be making significant contributions given typical length of combat. Full attacks only happen once you get there and then if they move, the best you get is a single AoO attack, the damage from which tends not to be terrible enough to be unignorable (this is a different problem and one where, of course, Stand Still, which isn't in PFRPG but is in the SRD, and Shall Not Pass, a new feat Jason proposed, are useful) and then you're chasing and doing single attacks.
I can't speak for a lot of the other people who want to see some movement and multiple attacks, but one of the things I liked about 1e was that additional attacks didn't screw your movement; you were still a mobile damage-dealing combatant. In 3.x, you're not anything like so much of that, and although damage from a single attack can be increased more easily than in 1/2e, it doesn't scale as fast as do opponent hit points (and this before the Power Attack nerf in PFRPG!).
|
|
A first level wizard with an AC 12 flat footed?
And mage armor? If flat footed he would not have cast it yet.
Hence AC 10.
Normal HP for an NPC Wizard would be 8 or 9.
Fighter PC vs. wizard NPC and at 3 or 4:th level?
Well there we go againg. Fighter vs. Wizard. Boring.
It's true that D&D combat can be a race for initiative (which is why Improved Iniative is a must-take feat for so many characters, including wizards).
My significant NPCs are as powerful as characters of the same level, pretty much. However, in the general discussion of wizard v fighter, to compare like-with-like it makes sense to consider both as PC-quality even if your game tends not to have NPCs of that sort, so, normal PFRPG hp for a 1st level wizard is 6 + Con (if any) plus whichever extra hp option you use (I have been using the flat six).
In 3.5, hp were lower, so you can expect happier results for the fighter if he goes first or else if he saves. But still, that save really is a save-or-die, so if initiative is a 50/50 split he's got about a 37.5% chance of dying before he does anything or makes a single decision. The fighter will shade the remaining 62.5% of outcome probability, but will he do it by enough to take him over 50% overall?
Bagpuss, FYI Zark and TomJohn are the same person.
Zark's page
126 posts. No reviews. Alias of TomJohn.
Just thought you might like to know in case you decided to stop responding to Zark but continued to respond to TomJohn.
|
seems DISHONORABLE to have an alias ^^. he just feels lonely arguing that at level 1 Fighters are better than wizards, if only the game didnt have that pesky leveling system...(still think paizo wizards are equal at first level, if not better. using 3.5 material, i might lean the other way. at will abilities really matters)