|
many other low will save classes have very nice stuff to make up for it.
The Fighter is the "im the guy with a sword and some skill, and thats all i need" why dont we give him the tools to be an awesome, totally not mystical, hero?
and why does the Paladin get will saves in class and not the Fighter? they already get CHA to it.
|
Yes, I see where you are coming from. But have you thought about the impact on the game in terms of spells requiring Will saves? Would that make them redundant (or nearly so)? It might seem simple but as we have seen with other add-ons to the game is that it can have ramifications which haven't been foreseens and which become potentially game-breaking. Do you want to totally nerf enchanters and illusionists? When a simple, discrete fix already exists, why say that you need something with much broader ramifications? And, as someone points out above, why stop at Will saves for fighters? I appreciate that the rules of the game are up for grabs to some extent with the PFRPG Beta, but on the other hand, I don't see the need to change something which works (though that has also happened to some extent in the PFRPG rules too).
Yes, I have considered the effect on the game requiring Will saves. One of the big problems with d20 at higher levels is, of course, that varying rates of progression in saves and BAB, etc, mean that level-appropriate threats can easily become close to auto-succeed or auto-fail. In those cases, the figure in question (BAB or saves) are already headed toward 'pretty much irrelevant'. In 3.5, BAB has Power Attack and Combat Expertise, which allow for AB to be traded for something else, but saves don't tend to have that. All I'm asking for, in any case, is a better chance for fighters, not that they auto-succeed. The different between those is just a matter of the numbers and how much you have to give up to make it happen. It's going to be some sort of sliding scale.
Also, in general, I agree with Studpuffin about Protection from Evil.
|
|
Yes, I see where you are coming from. But have you thought about the impact on the game in terms of spells requiring Will saves? Would that make them redundant (or nearly so)? It might seem simple but as we have seen with other add-ons to the game is that it can have ramifications which haven't been foreseens and which become potentially game-breaking. Do you want to totally nerf enchanters and illusionists? When a simple, discrete fix already exists, why say that you need something with much broader ramifications? And, as someone points out above, why stop at Will saves for fighters? I appreciate that the rules of the game are up for grabs to some extent with the PFRPG Beta, but on the other hand, I don't see the need to change something which works (though that has also happened to some extent in the PFRPG rules too).Yes, I have considered the effect on the game requiring Will saves. One of the big problems with d20 at higher levels is, of course, that varying rates of progression in saves and BAB, etc, mean that level-appropriate threats can easily become close to auto-succeed or auto-fail. In those cases, the figure in question (BAB or saves) are already headed toward 'pretty much irrelevant'. In 3.5, BAB has Power Attack and Combat Expertise, which allow for AB to be traded for something else, but saves don't tend to have that. All I'm asking for, in any case, is a better chance for fighters, not that they auto-succeed. The different between those is just a matter of the numbers and how much you have to give up to make it happen. It's going to be some sort of sliding scale.
Also, in general, I agree with Studpuffin about Protection from Evil.
True, of course, but it is the same for other spells requiring other saves so Fort save or die is quite deadly at high levels for the PCs with poor Fort saves. Of course, many of those are Death spells and a Dathward spell (I think it's that one - can't remember the name off-hand) works on those too.
In the end, it seems to me that the basic problem is that you want a low magic game. There is nothing wrong with that but 3e is simply not predicated on that basis, and PFRPG is the same. Various spells and items exist to deal with the problem people are putting up about fighters. The problem is not that fighters don't have a chance - with well-thought-out play and teamwork they have a perfectly good niche they occupy with no problem. The problem is that people want the fighter to do it withou the well-thought-out play and teamwork. That isn't how 3e works, and wanting to change that aspect is a whole new game. In fact (I haven't played it, mind) it's called Iron heroes.
My point of this thread was to get people out of the MMORPG ruts for characters that we tend to fall into. "Fighters are tanks, clerics heal, wizards nuke, blah, blah, blah." The game provides plenty of options, all we need to do is open our minds to the possibilities.
Yes I very much agree!
I've been looking at the Fighter for PF and found that many of its abilites and quick feat gaining has been more than wonderful.
I was running a game where a party of three 3rd level characters were ambushed by a bunch of goblins. The elf fighter had Dazziling Display and more than half the goblins became shakened for 2 or so rounds. Then the fighter just killed everything it hit. It was awesome!
|
|
True, of course, but it is the same for other spells requiring other saves so Fort save or die is quite deadly at high levels for the PCs with poor Fort saves. Of course, many of those are Death spells and a Dathward spell (I think it's that one - can't remember the name off-hand) works on those too.
In the end, it seems to me that the basic problem is that you want a low magic game. There is nothing wrong with that but 3e is simply not predicated on that basis, and PFRPG is the same. Various spells and items exist to deal with the problem people are putting up about fighters. The problem is not that fighters don't have a chance - with well-thought-out play and teamwork they have a perfectly good niche they occupy with no problem. The problem is that people want the fighter to do it withou the well-thought-out play and teamwork. That isn't how 3e works, and wanting to change that aspect is a whole new game. In fact (I haven't played it, mind) it's called Iron heroes.
I don't want a low-magic game so much as I want characters with poor saves to be able to improve them to some acceptable level without an extraordinary concentration on it. It seems to me that it's part of the bigger swinginess of d20 at higher levels, which is already a wider problem than this. I also don't want a party to have to have the canonical mix of classes; sure, there's a clear advantage to it, but I don't want my players to have to pick classes they don't really want to play because otherwise the party is going to suck. Well-thought-out play and teamwork are clear advantages however we'd set up the game, pretty much, but I'm not suggesting anything at odds with that. It's not a whole new game; it's like lower-level 3.5, before the game for many of us becomes less fun. Making higher-level play more fun, like lower-level play, is one of the things many of us would like to see from PFRPG (and high-level play has been recognised by the Paizo team as a problem with 3.x, for that matter).
Also, of course, Protection from Evil is only really a great defense when you know what's coming. Additionally, I am not sure how in the d20 SRD it has a casting time of one standard action when you need to trace a 3' circle around the target...
|
|
But back to Fort saves... yes, you do need to prepare ahead of time. That's half the fun, in my opinion. If you're going up against critters who bend your will, memorize Protection from Evil. If you're going into the desert, get Create Water. It's not a bug, it's a feature.
Precisely - what is wrong with gathering intelligence and planning ahead? And anyway, Protection From Evil also gives you +2 to AC v evil creatures too, so it is hardly a one trick pony.
|
|
.... I got four words for you if you want to get a game that doesn't need a specific class breakdown for your party:
"We need a healer".
I know that nobody on this board like to hear it, but 4e does a great deal to eliminiate the class-dependency issues. Everyone's got healing surges. You don't "need" a healer. It makes life a lot easier, but you can get by. In 3.5/3.75, you need a healer - specifically, you need someone who can provide a lot of healing outside of combat, to keep the adventure rolling.
But back to Fort saves... yes, you do need to prepare ahead of time. That's half the fun, in my opinion. If you're going up against critters who bend your will, memorize Protection from Evil. If you're going into the desert, get Create Water. It's not a bug, it's a feature.
I've been playing a healerless game for a while. We do indeed spend a bunch of money on potions, wands, etc, but it's been working without too much DM finagling. It's a city campaign, so easier to do without a cleric than a wilderness campaign.
I think that the casting time for Protection from Evil needs increasing, myself, given its level and what it does and the materials text for how it's cast in the SRD (to be fair, that's been ommitted from the PFRPG version, but that could just have been for brevity).
|
|
My point of this thread was to get people out of the MMORPG ruts for characters that we tend to fall into. "Fighters are tanks, clerics heal, wizards nuke, blah, blah, blah." The game provides plenty of options, all we need to do is open our minds to the possibilities.Yes I very much agree!
I've been looking at the Fighter for PF and found that many of its abilites and quick feat gaining has been more than wonderful.
I was running a game where a party of three 3rd level characters were ambushed by a bunch of goblins. The elf fighter had Dazziling Display and more than half the goblins became shakened for 2 or so rounds. Then the fighter just killed everything it hit. It was awesome!
goblins getting killed with one hit? really? ^^ I find Fighters decent from 1st to 2nd level, past that, it looses its power. I would rather have a Paladin, Barbarian or ( if the healer is able to be stealthy) a Ranger at third level on (you seem to reach the end of a feat progression and have to pick up useless feats , like the pathfinder combat expertise, to start up your new progression, if only you could bypass the mobilities and endurances of the world...)
|
I just had something interesting pop up last night that I wouldn't have even noticed had I not been in the area of the Unholy Blight spell cast as well. I am playing a Cleric-Warpriest in a Shackled City campaign for 3.5, and another member of our party is playing a multi-class Barbarian-Fighter.
We each had to, of course, roll a will save. I have a cloak of resistance +4 (not expensive), a ring equivalent of a luck stone, and a pretty good base save (not as good as it could be but pretty good). While enraged the Barbarian-Fighter managed to roll a higher will save than I can even roll... by 1, but still.
I was like, WTF? But then it suddenly dawned on me that he has the same items and the feat Iron Will. That means that he's within ONE of my will save and I'm a high wisdom character.
How is it possible that fighters can't save?
|
|
he must be a Dwarf who is raging with Iron will, and rolled better stats than you (why else did he put such a good stat into Wisdom and yours is so low) yes, an unoptimized cleric can have similar will saves to a maximized melee class.
none of this (besided the iron will) has anything to do with fighters (dwarf, Barbarian, better stats, same items as the cleric) the spellcasters seem to have better save items because the Fighter types need 4 different materials for their magical weapons(Ive got my +2 adamantine Greatsword, my +1 Cold iron Warhammer, my +1 Silver Shortsword and my +1 longbow), and the Clerics have one trusty magical weapon.
I would like to see a full class Fighter sometime, what it is to dream....
Yes I very much agree! I've been looking at the Fighter for PF and found that many of its abilites and quick feat gaining has been more than wonderful. I was running a game where a party of three 3rd level characters were ambushed by a bunch of goblins. The elf fighter had Dazziling Display and more than half the goblins became shakened for 2 or so rounds. Then the fighter just killed everything it hit. It was awesome!
<Grinds teeth in frustration> For (at least) the 5,227th time, it's at HIGH LEVELS that the fighter lags in effectiveness. We all know he's great at 3rd level.
I've made a Pathfinder-compatible classless "point-buy" system that mitigates d20 "swinginess" at high levels with a built-in diminishing returns mechanism, and allows melee characters some options (like blocking and immediate actions) that they lack in 3.5. I'm off to playtest that.
|
|
he must be a Dwarf who is raging with Iron will, and rolled better stats than you (why else did he put such a good stat into Wisdom and yours is so low) yes, an unoptimized cleric can have similar will saves to a maximized melee class.
none of this (besided the iron will) has anything to do with fighters (dwarf, Barbarian, better stats, same items as the cleric) the spellcasters seem to have better save items because the Fighter types need 4 different materials for their magical weapons(Ive got my +2 adamantine Greatsword, my +1 Cold iron Warhammer, my +1 Silver Shortsword and my +1 longbow), and the Clerics have one trusty magical weapon.
I would like to see a full class Fighter sometime, what it is to dream....
He's a Half-Orc! Not a dwarf. We are working off of a 32 point buy, so he didn't roll any stats at all. My base save and wisdom are higher than his. And please SD, don't put words into my mouth. Its not cool!
I build full class fighters much of the time. There are no prestige classes that I like to take, and when I play a fighter there is very little else that other classes could possibly give me to make me much better. You don't have to have all of those special materials. Damage reduction doesn't mean you can't damage someone. It just means that so much damage is taken away. A good hit blasts right through it!
As I said above I play fighters a lot, and usually don't multiclass them. A strait fighter can be absolutely devastating to an opponent. It seems that we're playing two different games, because clearly I don't see the same kinds of problems you're having. Perhaps try playing a strait up fighter sometime?
|
|
<Grinds teeth in frustration> For (at least) the 5,227th time, it's at HIGH LEVELS that the fighter lags in effectiveness. We all know he's great at 3rd level....so why do we keep having these "fighters are terrible" threads? They kick butt. It's just at the highest levels that they seem to suffer in comparison.
I'll even go further: Fighters probably rock in the majority of *all* D&D games, because more of them are low or mid level rather than high level.
So what's the problem?
The problem is, the rule book allows for characters from level one to twenty. The rule book isn't finalized yet. This is a playtest. Levels 12 - 20 should not be ignored in said playtest just because...
Fighters probably rock in the majority of *all* D&D games, because more of them are low or mid level rather than high level.
.
Maybe it would be easier to just outline classes to 12th level, to just avoid the high level headache all together, but, alas, the rule book will still accommodate characters up to level 20. Therefore, some of us will keep pointing out what we perceive to be deficiencies in the Fighter class at higher levels (and deficiencies in the hand to hand combat rules vis a vis spellcasting - most notably the shift in the move/action dynamic from 2e to 3x, which switched which class type was more mobile during their turn).
Seriously, dude, this is a playtest. We're playtesting. We're relaying our findings. I apologize if it bothers you overmuch, but "because most people don't play past mid-level" isn't a reason not to examine high level play.
/sigh
Protection from Evil. It's a first level spell. Or a 50gp potion if you are one of those "no buffing, non-casters have to provide all their own spells" types.
Which brings up the main problem with this spell - either it is 1) completely worthless or 2) totally awesome. The way the current spell mechanics work, there is no happy medium. That's not very good design IMHO.
That sounds like the fighter anyway. Perhaps you could've asked your party's fighter to do that instead of wasting a valuable spell slot on him. Is the guy you're playing with such a dick that he won't help you out? :p
And Fighters really DO make the best slaves. They can carry all of your stuff for you, and they are great at murdering any non-spellcasters that might otherwise bother you and cause you to have to spend some spells. Frankly, I have better things to do then send rabble on their way with a Fireball or two.
Actually, this has happened to me before.
So I'm playing a Bard in a low-magic, old-school 3.6 Greyhawk game, and it's gotten to the end of the campaign where we have to face off against the BBEG and all of his friends. The problem is that the party's Barbarian never wants to actually get into melee and do anything - he's spent the entire campaign throwing hand-axes at monsters while everyone else dirties their hands in combat. There were even a few times over the course of the campaign where he ran behind the party's spellcasters for cover and left them to get chewed up by the bad guys on the front lines. This also resulted in the first time I ever saw a character die in combat, immediately come back as a ghost, and then use Limited Wish to resurrect himself, but that's a different story.
So anyways - we get to the part where we have to face off against a big, nasty Dragon, and the Barbarian in the party doesn't want to get close to it AT ALL. He just wanted to sit back and throw hand-axes while the Mages and Rogues tanked it, I suppose. No one else has a chance in hell of getting close to this thing without being massacred, and frankly, we need to be able to DPS it down - we can't waste our resources on tanking the damned thing with Summoned Monsters.
The answer to this quandary? I cast Dominate Person on the Barbarian before he rages and MAKE him fight the Dragon. That's right - my Bard actually had to mentally enslave the Barbarian and send him off to fight properly for once.
The Barbarian died in the process, but if I hadn't made him fight, we would have all died, and I doubt all of us would have had the chance to come back as self-raising ghosts. :)
|
|
Which brings up the main problem with this spell - either it is 1) completely worthless or 2) totally awesome. The way the current spell mechanics work, there is no happy medium. That's not very good design IMHO./sigh
Protection from Evil. It's a first level spell. Or a 50gp potion if you are one of those "no buffing, non-casters have to provide all their own spells" types.
It provides a +2 AC v evil attacks too, which is handy (as most enemies tend to be of evil alignment). It is a perfectly good spell, and scales appropriately with similar spells (like Mage Armour +4 AC all the time, but no control from potential Domination attacks).
The game works as it is, this discussion is much more about the aesthetics of the mechanics, not the efficacy of the mechanics themselves. Those are different issues, and conflating them makes the discussions difficult and a bit pointless.
|
|
Actually, this has happened to me before.
So I'm playing a Bard in a low-magic, old-school 3.6 Greyhawk game, and it's gotten to the end of the campaign where we have to face off against the BBEG and all of his friends. The problem is that the party's Barbarian never wants to actually get into melee and do anything - he's spent the entire campaign throwing hand-axes at monsters while everyone else dirties their hands in combat. There were even a few times over the course of the campaign where he ran behind the party's spellcasters for cover and left them to get chewed up by the bad guys on the front lines. This also resulted in the first time I ever saw a character die in combat, immediately come back as a ghost, and then use Limited Wish to resurrect himself, but that's a different story.
So anyways - we get to the part where we have to face off against a big, nasty Dragon, and the Barbarian in the party doesn't want to get close to it AT ALL. He just wanted to sit back and throw hand-axes while the Mages and Rogues tanked it, I suppose. No one else has a chance in hell of getting close to this thing without being massacred, and frankly, we need to be able to DPS it down - we can't waste our resources on tanking the damned thing with Summoned Monsters.
The answer to this quandary? I cast Dominate Person on the Barbarian before he rages and MAKE him fight the Dragon. That's right - my Bard actually had to...
Wow, that really sucks. I've never seen that kind of problem erupt in a game unless the party was suffering from a serious case of the "turtle syndrome" that plagues a lot of games. We had a similar case in the early part of our shackled city game where the same barbarian I refered to earlier didn't want to engage in melee and wanted to fire his bow while the bard and cleric (played by me) had to hold off the monster (I think it was a non-MM monster, so I don't want to spoiler it).
While we didn't use dominate or charm, we did ask him "Hey, can the guy with the greataxe come help?!" He eventually got up there and wailed on the critter, and <sarcasm> THANKFULLY </sarcasm> didn't need healing. :p
|
|
@ SneaksyDragon
I just saw your thread about Backstabs, and I saw some of the comments in there about fighters getting Uncanny Dodge. While I don't think they're unbalanced now I could very well see the fighter with this ability flavor wise. If a feat or two was replaced I could easily see a fighter having these abilities without unbalancing.
It provides a +2 AC v evil attacks too, which is handy (as most enemies tend to be of evil alignment). It is a perfectly good spell, and scales appropriately with similar spells (like Mage Armour +4 AC all the time, but no control from potential Domination attacks).
The whole "no protection from potential Domination attacks" is what's busted! I could theoretically go down to the Nine Hells and face off against Asmodeus himself and he couldn't Dominate me, so long as I had Protection From Evil cast on me before I went into battle against him! Can you imagine that? :lol:
The game works as it is, this discussion is much more about the aesthetics of the mechanics, not the efficacy of the mechanics themselves. Those are different issues, and conflating them makes the discussions difficult and a bit pointless.
1) The game DOESN'T work as it is. If it DID, we would all still be playing 3.5. Pathfinder and 4E both came into existence because, well, 3.X doesn't work quite right. The problems are that Pathfinder is still just as busted because the spells haven't been fixed, and 4E is busted because they fixed their base spell mechanics and went nuts when they designed everything else.
2) The aesthetics and the efficacy of the game mechanics cannot be separated from each other - you must talk about the mechanics as a whole if you would wish to talk about designing them to bring about a desired outcome. Fighters are awesome in PRPG right now... so long as they aren't Dominated. Then they stink like corpses in a river.
|
|
I see where you guys are coming from. I hate the idea of save or die style mechanics ruining any of my games as well. I know both arguments: They're bad because they're black and white and random; they're good because they can affect anyone.
I still don't think the fighter is the problem, but perhaps the save or die type spells are. They're the ones that keep getting brought back up over and over in the circumstance style arguments against the fighter. Of course, those same kinds of spells can absolutely devastate just about any class.
I still don't like 4e spells mechanics either, but there is something to creating a system of fairness. Ultimately, any system should place fun ahead of fairness. Save or Die type spells just aren't fun (I guess they are for those casting them :p), but nobody wants to be on the recieving end and have nothing to save themselves except a d20. Spells like Dominate Person are overpowered because they don't allow multiple saving throws, spells like Slay Living are overpowered because its literally save or die! (For Clarification, I don't mean literal save or die when I say save or die. I mean save or your screwed spells)
They nerfed Disintigrate from earlier editions because it was too hard to resurrect afterward, but most of the other save or die remained intact. Why?
Other than myself (and I know enchantment and illusion are powerful in the right conditions) most of my group (my younger-aged group) tends to avoid save or die type spells because it always seems like someone is saving against their spells. They're loathe to try them on anyone for fear of someone rolling high. They're more likely to take evocation save for half spells and rays as a result.
Alternatively, they complain about villains using the save or die spells against them because they hate to see all the work they've put into a character suddenly go flying out of the window if everyone else in the party cannot resurrect them. They're a major annoyance, both in game and meta.
Perhaps the focus of dislike for fighters should be redirected at single save or suck spells.
All kinds of things that I completely agree with.
My friends and I have come to the conclusion that the Fighter is actually awesome, but that SoS and SoD spells need to be fixed. I think it's time that we collectively shifted our focus in that direction, or else the Fighter is going to end up being a 2nd class citizen in yet another D20 RPG.
|
|
My friends and I have come to the conclusion that the Fighter is actually awesome, but that SoS and SoD spells need to be fixed. I think it's time that we collectively shifted our focus in that direction, or else the Fighter is going to end up being a 2nd class citizen in yet another D20 RPG.
True enough. I have houseruled most of the save or actually die spells from my games at different times through out my GM career (is sleep save-or-die or save-or-suck?). I even try to go so far as to not use them when I'm a player because I know it ruins a GM's best laid plans.
I'm having a blast just playtesting this character in Sleepy's horned Devil test.
Not Sword & Board....Axe & Board!
|
|
1) The game DOESN'T work as it is. If it DID, we would all still be playing 3.5. Pathfinder and 4E both came into existence because, well, 3.X doesn't work quite right. The problems are that Pathfinder is still just as busted because the spells haven't been fixed, and 4E is busted because they fixed their base spell mechanics and went nuts when they designed everything else.
2) The aesthetics and the efficacy of the game mechanics cannot be separated from each other - you must talk about the mechanics as a whole if you would wish to talk about designing them to bring about a desired outcome. Fighters are awesome in PRPG right now... so long as they aren't Dominated. Then they stink like corpses in a river.
1) Um, no - those were commercial pressures, and nothing much to do with the mechanics. Not to say they are perfect, of course, but don't imagine for a moment that the new version have their genesis in pure aesthetics.
2) Well, what we've been getting seems like a lot of "I want XXX, because it would feel nicer". Fighters don't have to be dominated - I've told you how to avoid it. You don't like it. OK, up to you, but that isn't a mechanical problem, it is an aesthetic problem. Aesthetics are much harder to grapple with than statistics and patches, because they are individual.
|
|
@ SneaksyDragon
I just saw your thread about Backstabs, and I saw some of the comments in there about fighters getting Uncanny Dodge. While I don't think they're unbalanced now I could very well see the fighter with this ability flavor wise. If a feat or two was replaced I could easily see a fighter having these abilities without unbalancing.
thank you Studpuffin, you have always seemed the level headed chap^^ (even if we disagree about the spellcaster, nonspellcaster balance issue)
|
|
1) Um, no - those were commercial pressures, and nothing much to do with the mechanics. Not to say they are perfect, of course, but don't imagine for a moment that the new version have their genesis in pure aesthetics.
nothing much to do with mechanics? well f*&K spending good money on just alternate and not better rules, its a waste of capital! The game was far from perfect with unwieldy higher level gameplay, certain base classes being more like NPC classes compared to other classes, horrible grapple mechanics, item creation was ugly, bothersome multiclassing rules, unbalanced core races (half elf anyone?), MAD all over the place, clunky skill list( use rope and decipher script anyone?) There were many glaring flaws in 3.5, and the game was out so long that many of us knew them all.
no the new version was not pure aesthetics, many were fed up with the flaws of the system and wanted better. Many ended up here to try to give our input to make a more clean system. if the system did work fine for your gaming group, why waste money on just the new thing?
|
|
1) Um, no - those were commercial pressures, and nothing much to do with the mechanics. Not to say they are perfect, of course, but don't imagine for a moment that the new version have their genesis in pure aesthetics.
nothing much to do with mechanics? well f*&K spending good money on just alternate and not better rules, its a waste of capital! The game was far from perfect with unwieldy higher level gameplay, certain base classes being more like NPC classes compared to other classes, horrible grapple mechanics, item creation was ugly, bothersome multiclassing rules, unbalanced core races (half elf anyone?), MAD all over the place, clunky skill list( use rope and decipher script anyone?) There were many glaring flaws in 3.5, and the game was out so long that many of us knew them all.
no the new version was not pure aesthetics, many were fed up with the flaws of the system and wanted better. Many ended up here to try to give our input to make a more clean system. if the system did work fine for your gaming group, why waste money on just the new thing?
The reason why 4e was released was not to clear up the problems with 3e. It was a commercial decision to get a load more money. PFRPG has arisen because Paizo don't consider it commercially viable to go with 4e. That is not to say that this isn't an opportunity to improve the rules, but they did 4e in the way I actually consider most appropriate - by doing a total drains up and massively overhauling the magic system, which is the cause of most problems within 3e because the spells run riot over the other aspects of the game and interface in weird ways. It is possible that 3e can be improved, but I suspect that the tinkering with the system will not overcome the inherent problem with the way the system is designed.
That's not to say that I don't like 3e - I do. I'm frequently surprised by all the people posting here saying how crap 3e is - why do you play it, then? I am wary of fiddling with a system where the inherent checks and balances are very easily upset, which is the case with 3e (and not 4e) because the spells are individual rule-sets which can totally overturn other existing rules - THAT is the problem with 3e, and there is nothing you can do about it as it stands.
I'm also quite tired of the whiney way some of these supposed "problems" as presented. "I don't like that I have to cast Protection From Evil, even though it solves my problem". There are lots of things I don't like, but which I have learnt to live with. It's called growing up. The Will save/Domination thing is not a mechanical flaw. It is dealt with. It unbalances no one's game, unless you want it to. If you don't like it, house rule it or play something else. Try coming up with a real issue, I know they exist, not wasting time with this.
I have houseruled that Save-or-Dies reduce you to effectively -9 HP and stabilizes you, and that you can't be brought back to consciousness for the next 3 rounds. This effectively makes SoDs into Save-or-be-removed-from-fight-but-less-random-deaths-happen.
I just had something interesting pop up last night that I wouldn't have even noticed had I not been in the area of the Unholy Blight spell cast as well. I am playing a Cleric-Warpriest in a Shackled City campaign for 3.5, and another member of our party is playing a multi-class Barbarian-Fighter.
We each had to, of course, roll a will save. I have a cloak of resistance +4 (not expensive), a ring equivalent of a luck stone, and a pretty good base save (not as good as it could be but pretty good). While enraged the Barbarian-Fighter managed to roll a higher will save than I can even roll... by 1, but still.
I was like, WTF? But then it suddenly dawned on me that he has the same items and the feat Iron Will. That means that he's within ONE of my will save and I'm a high wisdom character.
How is it possible that fighters can't save?
The key is the fact that he's a Barbarian-Fighter. Barbarians and Rogues have class abilities that help mitigate their low Will saves - Barbarians get straight bonuses to their Will saves while raging, and Rogues get to re-roll their failed Will saves if they have Slippery Mind. Turn on the Rage, and Barbarians are very difficult to stick with Enchantment spells. But regular Fighters? Not so much.
1) Um, no - those were commercial pressures, and nothing much to do with the mechanics. Not to say they are perfect, of course, but don't imagine for a moment that the new version have their genesis in pure aesthetics.1) The game DOESN'T work as it is. If it DID, we would all still be playing 3.5. Pathfinder and 4E both came into existence because, well, 3.X doesn't work quite right. The problems are that Pathfinder is still just as busted because the spells haven't been fixed, and 4E is busted because they fixed their base spell mechanics and went nuts when they designed everything else.
2) The aesthetics and the efficacy of the game mechanics cannot be separated from each other - you must talk about the mechanics as a whole if you would wish to talk about designing them to bring about a desired outcome. Fighters are awesome in PRPG right now... so long as they aren't Dominated. Then they stink like corpses in a river.
Really now? Bill Slaviseck and Richard Baker have been writing about this problem since at least 2006. They have a very good section in "Dungeon Master For Dummies" that spells out why these spells suck fairly succinctly. And I think that I've laid out my objections to these spells in more then a few threads by now.
I don't think they changed the way these spells work "for the money" - the mad, crazy rock star money that they must have made when they put out 4E. I think they just realized that these spells were just busted and needed to either be fixed or removed.
2) Well, what we've been getting seems like a lot of "I want XXX, because it would feel nicer". Fighters don't have to be dominated - I've told you how to avoid it. You don't like it. OK, up to you, but that isn't a mechanical problem, it is an aesthetic problem. Aesthetics are much harder to grapple with than statistics and patches, because they are individual.
It is in fact a mechanical problem. This isn't an issue of "feeling" or "aesthetics". We're talking about a 1st level spell that makes certain 5th through 8th level spells completely useless, and sets up a broken mechanic where no one short of a god can Dominate characters that are warded by it. And the only reason that it's that powerful in the first place is because there's an equally broken spell later on down the line that lets you enslave anyone with a low Will save for 1 day per level.
I don't care if there's a fountain of Protection From Evil in every town and players are walking around with bandoleers of PfE potions - it's still a broken spell.
The reason why 4e was released was not to clear up the problems with 3e. It was a commercial decision to get a load more money. PFRPG has arisen because Paizo don't consider it commercially viable to go with 4e.
Pathfinder has arisen because it's not commercially viable to go with 4E and the current 3.5 rules look like a flaming train wreck. Do you really think they would have released a new edition of the game if they didn't think the game system needed to be overhauled? 3.5 is a mess and everyone knows it except for the players that will die a gruesome death before you pry their Tier 1 character sheets from their hands.
That is not to say that this isn't an opportunity to improve the rules, but they did 4e in the way I actually consider most appropriate - by doing a total drains up and massively overhauling the magic system, which is the cause of most problems within 3e because the spells run riot over the other aspects of the game and interface in weird ways. It is possible that 3e can be improved, but I suspect that the tinkering with the system will not overcome the inherent problem with the way the system is designed.
I completely disagree. The PRPG spell system can be improved in such a way that the magic system is not overpowered in relation to other classes and the spells are balanced. And unless these two things are done, then all of this effort will be for naught, as these are the primary elements that have caused 3.5 to be such an unbalanced game system.
That's not to say that I don't like 3e - I do. I'm frequently surprised by all the people posting here saying how crap 3e is - why do you play it, then? I am wary of fiddling with a system where the inherent checks and balances are very easily upset, which is the case with 3e (and not 4e) because the spells are individual rule-sets which can totally overturn other existing rules - THAT is the problem with 3e, and there is nothing you can do about it as it stands.
Guess what? My gaming group DOESN'T really play 3.X anymore. Hell, they aren't even really that keen on Pathfinder right now. They consider 3.5 to be a broken game system, and they don't see a whole hell of a lot in Pathfinder that has remedied that issue thus far.
And frankly, given the overpowered nature of magic in 3.X, there's not a great deal of risk in tinkering with the "checks and balances" of the game because, well, those checks and balances aren't really there. If they were there, we'd still be playing 3.5. But they aren't, and most experienced players know that there's no point to playing anything but a spellcaster if you want to contribute to your party, and that gets a little old after a while.
But you know what? This can be fixed if we put our minds to it. But if we just throw our hands up and go "it's impossible", then yes, nothing will be done.
I'm also quite tired of the whiney way some of these supposed "problems" as presented. "I don't like that I have to cast Protection From Evil, even though it solves my problem".
Sorry to offend your delicate sensibilities with my blathering about "game balance" and "making sure everyone has fun", Aubrey! :lol:
But seriously. Protection From Evil isn't the real problem. It's just not very well designed. It's a 1st level spell that serves as a hard counter against a variety of 5th through 8th levels spells and prevents characters from being Dominated by any force any less then that of a god. Mechanically, it's a very silly spell. But that's only because it's a hotfix for a much more broken spell.
The real issue is Dominate Person - a spell that has no real mechanics for mitigating its effect besides Protection From Evil. Which means that if you have a party with a Wizard and a Cleric, you never have to worry about it, because Team Monster knows better then to waste a 5th through 8th level spell slot on a spell that they know you can just nerf-spam with a cheapo 1st level wand.
But if you DON'T have a Wizard and a Cleric, you're pretty much boned. Dispel Magic is an inferior counter to Protection From Evil and costs a much higher spell slot, and although potions of Protection from Evil may be cheap and plentiful, they really aren't up to the task of applying a band-aid to the existing broken spell mechanics. Who cares if they are cheap and plentiful - how lame is it that the mightiest warrior in all of the land is gonna get taken out like a punk because he forgot to drink a damned potion before he charged into combat one day? Fighters are wholly dependent on Wizards and Clerics to be able to participate in higher level games without being Dominated or being driven insane, and that is indeed a Bad Thing.
There are lots of things I don't like, but which I have learnt to live with. It's called growing up.
You know, ad hominem attacks don't really support your position, and they surely don't prove that you're more "adult" then the people on this board that have some genuine issues with the game system and are trying to do what they can to try and help the developers fix it.
The Will save/Domination thing is not a mechanical flaw. It is dealt with. It unbalances no one's game, unless you want it to. If you don't like it, house rule it or play something else. Try coming up with a real issue, I know they exist, not wasting time with this.
Look a few paragraphs back for more information as to why it is in fact mechanically flawed and unbalanced. And the broken 3.X spell system - that's about as real as it gets. If it were any more real, it would be like an episode of When Keeping It Real Goes Wrong.
That is an interesting idea. I don't think I'd like the stabilization part. I'd rather there be a risk of dying if left unattended. How has it worked in your games? Your group enjoys it?
Well my houserules are rather extensive. What I said up there is sort of a paraphrase. Here's how dying works in my games, and my group for the most part have not complained except about the removal of the Diehard feat. The wizard especially thanks me for it.
In my games, you do not die at -10. You die at at -X, where X is 1/3 of your normal max HP, unless X < 10, in which case you die at -10 as normal (this is to help low level characters). Failing a SoD save puts you at -X+1, and you are stabilized. You're still in danger because now a single goblin can poke you and you'd still die. You're still unconscious. And in order to be back in the fight not only does the cleric need to heal you back above 0, but you have to wait at least 3 rounds as your body tries to recovery from the strain.
This houserule allows me to throw out Save or Dies a lot more often than normal without having the worry of making my PCs lose levels left and right from ressurections. SoDs now mean more Save or Disable rather than Save or Die.
As a side effect, these rules also allow me to throw Frost Giant Barbarians at my players and I'll be confident that they'll not die from one accidental crit.
|
|
The key is the fact that he's a Barbarian-Fighter. Barbarians and Rogues have class abilities that help mitigate their low Will saves - Barbarians get straight bonuses to their Will saves while raging, and Rogues get to re-roll their failed Will saves if they have Slippery Mind. Turn on the Rage, and Barbarians are very difficult to stick with Enchantment spells. But regular Fighters? Not so much.
In his case the difference is 2 when he rages. He's only 1 behind me normally (and I checked, I have the highest will save in the party. Even the sorceress is behind him).
That difference is negligible, though I geuss close rolls could change that. However he's rolling an average 24 versus my average 25 and the sorceress average 23. That puts us higher than our full will-save character.
Note: If our sorceress had our luckstone-type ring she'd be tied with him.
The key is the fact that he's a Barbarian-Fighter. Barbarians and Rogues have class abilities that help mitigate their low Will saves - Barbarians get straight bonuses to their Will saves while raging, and Rogues get to re-roll their failed Will saves if they have Slippery Mind. Turn on the Rage, and Barbarians are very difficult to stick with Enchantment spells. But regular Fighters? Not so much.I was like, WTF? But then it suddenly dawned on me that he has the same items and the feat Iron Will. That means that he's within ONE of my will save and I'm a high wisdom character.
How is it possible that fighters can't save?
No, the key fact is the player used options available in the system to minimize a weakness. For a comparison, look at a human fighter vs. a human sorcerer, PFRPG 15 point purchase, as they advance:
Human Fighter 1
16 Str, 12 Dex, 14 Con, 13 Int, 12 Wis, 8 Cha; Fort +4, Ref +1, Will +1
vs.
Human Sorcerer 1
8 Str, 14 Dex, 14 Con, 12 Int, 10 Wis, 16 Cha; Fort +2, Ref +2, Will +2
Human Fighter 4
17 Str, 12 Dex, 14 Con, 13 Int, 12 Wis, 8 Cha; Fort +6, Ref +2, Will +2
vs.
Human Sorcerer 4
8 Str, 14 Dex, 14 Con, 12 Int, 10 Wis, 17 Cha; Fort +3, Ref +3, Will +4
Human Fighter 8
18 Str, 12 Dex, 14 Con, 13 Int, 12 Wis, 8 Cha; Iron Will; Fort +8, Ref +3, Will +5
vs.
Human Sorcerer 8
8 Str, 14 Dex, 14 Con, 12 Int, 10 Wis, 18 Cha; Belt of +2 Dex/+2 Con; Fort +5, Ref +5, Will +6
Human Fighter 12
19 Str, 12 Dex, 14 Con, 13 Int, 12 Wis, 8 Cha; Belt of +4 Str/+4 Dex, Iron Will; Fort +10, Ref +7, Will +7
vs.
Human Sorcerer 12
8 Str, 14 Dex, 14 Con, 12 Int, 10 Wis, 19 Cha; Belt of +4 Dex/+4 Con; Fort +8, Ref +8, Will +8
Human Fighter 16
20 Str, 12 Dex, 14 Con, 13 Int, 12 Wis, 8 Cha; Belt of +4 Str/+4 Dex/+4 Con, Headband of +4 Wis, Iron Will; Fort +14, Ref +8, Will +10
vs.
Human Sorcerer 16
8 Str, 14 Dex, 14 Con, 12 Int, 10 Wis, 20 Cha; Belt of +6 Dex/+6 Con; Fort +10, Ref +10, Will +10
Human Fighter 20
21 Str, 12 Dex, 14 Con, 13 Int, 12 Wis, 8 Cha; Belt of +6 Str/+6 Dex/+6 Con, Headband of +4 Wis, Iron Will; Fort +17, Ref +10, Will +11
vs.
Human Sorcerer 20
8 Str, 14 Dex, 14 Con, 12 Int, 10 Wis, 21 Cha; Belt of +6 Dex/+6 Con; Fort +11, Ref +11, Will +12
For their entire careers, 1st-20th level, a fighter who makes some smart choices has a chance of succeeding on a Will save (assuming equal resistance bonus items/effects) about 0-15% less than the sorcerer at any given level. Creating the fighter with 12 Wis, taking Iron Will at 7th level, and acquiring a +4 Wis booster (a 16,000 gp item) around 15th level is hardly an extreme level of optimizing, either.
Don't blame the system for a player problem.
No, the key fact is the player used options available in the system to minimize a weakness. Don't blame the system for a player problem.
Interesting analysis; the only part I really disagree with is the term "option." If something is necessary to remain viable, it's not an option; it's a requirement: "You can choose to take Iron Will. If you fail to do so, after 11th level you don't really get to play anymore." That's seemingly less of an option than it is a trap. Just getting rid of the fighter's 1st level bonus combat feat and replacing it with Iron Will would vastly better game design, in my opinion.
As a side note, the sorcerer in your example is keeping up in the Will save department effortlessly; the fighter is continuing to sink more and more of his limited resources on it: high Wisdom (and thus neglecting a critical attribute like Str or Con), belt of wisdom (he could have a badly-needed suit of +4 full plate instead), etc. In other words, we're looking at a situation in which one class has to spend a disproportionately large share of its resources just to lag behind by a smaller margin. The sorcerer can buy crafting feats as soon as he hits the appropriate level, so his stuff (e.g., belt of +4 constitution) is essentially half price; the fighter has to max out a craft skill and also take another feat as a prerequisite before he gets to that same point.
In all cases, the deck is stacked against him. But it's "fair" as long as he can theoretically almost compensate (but not actually catch up) by spending a large proportion of his resources on it? (And that still doesn't address his crippling 2e -> 3e mobility, interception, bodyguarding, and spell disruption nerfs).
|
Interesting analysis; the only part I really disagree with is the term "option." If something is necessary to remain viable, it's not an option; it's a requirement: "You can choose to take Iron Will. If you fail to do so, after 11th level you don't really get to play anymore." That's seemingly less of an option than it is a trap. Just getting rid of the fighter's 1st level bonus combat feat and replacing it with Iron Will would vastly better game design, in my opinion.
If then the fighter, why not the rogue, barbarian, paladin and ranger?
And yes, I am aware of the barbarian and rogue's special abilities that deal with will/enchantment. Should these options be converted to class features as well? So that players using these classes who forget to choose these "required" abilities, "don't really get to play anymore."
Why stop there. Why don't we make every class have good will saves and be done with it? <sarcasm>
As a side note, the sorcerer in your example is keeping up in the Will save department effortlessly; the fighter is continuing to sink more and more of his limited resources on it: high Wisdom (and thus neglecting a critical attribute like Str or Con), belt of wisdom (he could have a badly-needed suit of +4 full plate instead), etc. In other words, we're looking at a situation in which one class has to spend a disproportionately large share of its resources just to lag behind by a smaller margin. The sorcerer can buy crafting feats as soon as he hits the appropriate level, so his stuff (e.g., belt of +4 constitution) is essentially half price; the fighter has to max out a craft skill and also take another feat as a prerequisite before he gets to that same point.
Um. The fighter doesn't raise his wisdom score once. He spends a feat at 8th level, something the fighter does have in abundance. The sorcerer spends wealth to raise scores before the fighter does (8th level). Both classes add equally for the most part from then on to compensate for their save weaknesses, save for the headband of wisdom for the fighter at 16th level. I just don't see, " a disproportionately large share of its resources just to lag behind by a smaller margin." as accurate analysis here.
What of the fact that the fighter sacrifices a little of his "strength" to shore up a weakness of his. The extra points of damage he misses over the course of a combat are made up by the fact he has a much better chance of remaining in the combat. Seems like an intelligent choice to me. Versatility over specialization. If you play the fighter as an all or nothing kind of build (strictly emphasizing DOT), then consequently, you shouldn't be surprised that you have a flaw.
Besides, the sorcerer is likewise redirecting resources (1/2 price or not) to compensate for weak fort/ref saves in this example. Is this also "wrong"?
In all cases, the deck is stacked against him. But it's "fair" as long as he can theoretically almost compensate (but not actually catch up) by spending a large proportion of his resources on it? (And that still doesn't address his crippling 2e -> 3e mobility, interception, bodyguarding, and spell disruption nerfs).
The fighter is down one feat and the cost of a headband (at 16th level), with the result being +30% / -5% / -5% for saves in comparison to the sorcerer at the end. I don't know what your definition of "almost compensate" is, but seems fair to me.
Don't get me wrong, I do agree with your last line. I do think that these areas need to be looked at. No doubt about it.
Cheers
Thanks for the excellent and cordial reply -- you've demonstrated again why I post on Paizo and not elsewhere! A few follow-ups occur to me off the top of my head, which I'll include here, but overall, I think people who disagree that fighters have a problem will in the end be getting the game they want, because Pathfinder, up through the Beta, has shown little to fix what some of us perceive as near-fatal flaws. People like me will just have to houserule like mad, or play something else (for example, I've written a classless system -- one that's compatible with Pathfinder adventures -- that I intend to use).
If then the fighter, why not the rogue, barbarian, paladin and ranger?
Barbarian: rage confers auto-bonus that scales with level (+2 to +6). Paladin: now has strong Will save (and also gets Divine Grace). Ranger: has Wis as a primary attribute, already giving him spells and better use of most of his class skills (and, yes, he gets shafted by MAD, too, but at least he's got 2 good saves going for him).
Why stop there. Why don't we make every class have good will saves and be done with it? <sarcasm>
Sarcasm aside, saves at high levels were quite a bit better across the board in 1e. Honestly, I wouldn't be against bumping all "poor" saves to something closer to an "intermediate" level.
Um. The fighter doesn't raise his wisdom score once.
At 1st level in the example given, he puts a 12 in it. If he expects to ever get any benefit out of the Leadership feat (which was free in 1e), he needs a high Cha; Str, Dex, Con are ALREADY prime stats; Int is needed because the fighter only gets 2 skill points and (unlike the ranger, rogue, bard, wizard, and sorcerer) receives no benefit whatsoever from Paizo's partial skills consolidation. In short, the fighter has MAD just as badly as anyone else, and much worse than the wizard, for example (who can assign Str and Cha and maybe Wis as "dump stats" with little loss of effectiveness).
Anyway, the point-by-point discussion can go on forever and not resolve anything, as this and myriad other threads have convinced me beyond any doubt. For people enticed by feats and "all day" attacks (which aren't really all day; the fighter's hp and available healing are directly analogous to the wizard's spell slots), no amount of discussion will ever convince them that the fighter becomes, in essence, an NPC class once it gets past 11th level or so (until it hits 20th level in Pathfinder and gains the ability to 1-hit kill anything not immune to crits).
|
|
The Stuff that Kirth Gersen said.
I remember the intermediate saves from RCR Star Wars, they were always kind of wonky and hard to calculate but they did make more sense in some cases than to give a poor or good save instead. I wouldn't be averse to that.
Of course with my often-touted SAGA edition (and :pukingly: 4e :gag:) you get a base class modifier to your "defenses" then add your level.
A more appropriate save system may be a small class bonus to saves, half level, and a d20 roll. This would essentially make all saves nearly flat rates across the board, however. That said, I think this could be a good way for pathfinder but I don't see it being implemented.
eh, whatevs...
Um. The fighter doesn't raise his wisdom score once.At 1st level in the example given, he puts a 12 in it. If he expects to ever get any benefit out of the Leadership feat (which was free in 1e), he needs a high Cha
If you want a high-Cha fighter, then the example I used would not be the best for that. It was designed for large amounts of melee damage (probably with a two-handed weapon).
Even with the 2 points elsewhere (and probably different scores altogether), Iron Will at 7th and a +4 Wis booster at 15th keeps the fighter's Will save chance at only 5-15% less than a sorcerer or wizard of the same level. Again, hardly the "fatal flaw" that some make it out to be.
The multiple attacks after a move is somewhat addressed with PFBeta: IIRC, there's a feat (Cleave?) that's a standard action to make two attacks at adjacent targets. The (in)ability to play roadblock may still remain an issue with some, however.
|
|
If the Sorc puts comparable resources into raising Will saves -- and why wouldn't they, they don't like getting enchanted either? -- and wizards obviously get their magic items cheaper once they can make their own, then it's going to be further apart, right? So I guess it depends on what you think a balance for saves actually is.
I guess the Sorc could aim to start with a 12 Wis, too, and take a hit in something else (although that's clearly a sacrifice made to get the higher Will save).
The multiple attacks after a move is somewhat addressed with PFBeta: IIRC, there's a feat (Cleave?) that's a standard action to make two attacks at adjacent targets. The (in)ability to play roadblock may still remain an issue with some, however.
After looking through the feats, it seems I was mistaken that there was a existing feat that allows more than one melee attack as a standard action. However, it has been proposed; it's also simple to house-rule one based on either Cleave or Rapid Shot. With a prerequisite of +6 or +11 BAB (depending on how restrictive you want to be), it wouldn't be a factor at low level play; my preference would be for a melee version of Rapid Shot having a +6 BAB prerequisite and a Standard Action version of Cleave having a +11 BAB prerequisite (and scaling to up to three attacks on adjacent targets at +16 BAB).
Regarding the cost of the +4 Wis booster at 15th level, if the character can't "afford" a 16,000 gp item with a Wealth by Level total of 240,000 gp (per the Running Pathfinder chapter), then there may be something wrong with their priorities.