|
Yeah, you *can* succeed at hitting AC 100+ or saving against DC 50+ with a natural 20, but consider this: is the system in balance, if your 18th level heroic PC constantly faces "challenges" in which he cannot survive unless he rolls 15+?My understanding of "game balance" in an RPG context is that it is not adversarial. The designers strive for balance between party members so that each player has equal time in the spotlight and nobody totally dominates every encounter. It's actually something D&D has done right 90% of the time, compared to most other systems.
Some people construe the word "balance" as meaning that the numbers balance out between PCs and Monsters. Challenge ratings and such are actually a /very/ new concept in RPGs, and their execution leaves much to be desired. Even so, this isn't a balance issue, IMO.
To address your comment directly, yes, 18th level PCs should constantly face challenges that succeed only a fraction of the time, that drain his copious resources. He should also face challenges that fail only a fraction of the time, those that can seriously harm or kill him. Without this, the game will grow very boring.
Yet the fact remains that only the spellcasters virtually have access to those protections and "buffs" that help maintain the balance -- and yet, they can pretty much survive against hordes of monsters on their own. Fighters, Rogues, Rangers or Barbarians have to regularly rely on their spellcasting fellows to survive those same odds, and frankly, they become sort of a "burden", because usually they cannot overcome high-level encounters or challenges on their own (often they die or become charmed, dominated, petrified, etc.). It's sad, but I honestly think that at higher levels any sort of balance between the classes goes out of the window, even in Beta.
Yet the fact remains that only the spellcasters virtually have access to those protections and "buffs" that help maintain the balance -- and yet, they can pretty much survive against hordes of monsters on their own. Fighters, Rogues, Rangers or Barbarians have to regularly rely on their spellcasting fellows to survive those same odds, and frankly, they become sort of a "burden", because usually they cannot overcome high-level encounters or challenges on their own (often they die or become charmed, dominated, petrified, etc.). It's sad, but I honestly think that at higher levels any sort of balance between the classes goes out of the window, even in Beta.
That's a very real concern in this playtest.
To bring it back around to On-Topic, at least sort of, Enchantment spells tend to preclude the need for many skills as time wears on. This is just one manifestation of the Magical superiority of which we're speaking.
We can argue till we're blue in the face about whether or not the classes are balanced. There stands the question of whether enchantment as a school is overpowered; I for one do not think so. They're powerful effects, but they've been the benchmarks of the game for quite some time. If anything, this school seems to suffer a lack of really good higher-level spells.
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16
|
Long live the meta-gaming, right? So it's a game of tactics, in which your primary goal is to bolster your strengths to the extreme, and strive to eliminate any potential weaknesses you have -- even though your character (such as a barbarian or a low-INT fighter) would have *no* information about such spells/potions/items? I thought one of the design goals was to lessen the effects of "min-maxing", not encourage or embrace it?Why do you constantly think that PC's HAVE to have a defense against something? If you players fall victim to enchantment spells early in their career and fail to take steps to protect themselves from such spells and abilities in the future then it falls squarely on them and not the game.
You can either use the Protection with X spells to suppress the effects, you can boost your will saves through resistance bonuses or other spells, or even use things like silence to stop the language dependant spells from working. There are lots of ways to counter a given school of magic and not all of them are required to adventure. Sometimes you just rely on luck.
--The King of Vrock!
Last I checked Adventuring is a team sport. You can bolster your weaknesses as a player but in a lot of cases you have to lean on the other members of your party to shore them up. A War Cleric is still a cleric. A couple of scrolls or potions of things like lesser Restoration or break enchantment come in really handy. There are all manner of things you could run into on an adventure. That's why the game has skills like knowledge and gather information or divination magic so smart players might have a clue as to what's coming up.
And yes there is some metagaming involved in the game, it's unavoidable. Hell a DM or adventure should be foreshadowing some of the dangers to come. Why did those brigands have alchemical silver arrows? Anyone have some knowledge of what's vulnerable to silver? Yes: make your check; No (or failed check): let's consult the town sage or wise elders. There is some thinking involved even if there are no overt or blatant puzzles.
--I wanna Vrock! VROCK!
|
And to be clear that's exactly what I'm getting at many people really Don't have the time to make up there own things hence the point of published modules in the first place.
Here's the problem. When someone writes an adventure that will be published, he or she needs to consider the baseline party composition, which, in many games, is melee/arcane/stealthy guy/divine. They really cannot consider every possible party configuration, lest they write "B1 - In Search of the Unknown", original version, with blanks for the dm to fill in with critters and treasure, basically, a semi-storyline with no crunch.
Unfortunately, this means that groups that prefer to play unconventional party makeups either have to a) make adjustments to the published adventure, b) write their own material (not ideal for a person busy with real life stuff), or c) grin and bear it. I leave out option d) just play a more conventional party because, well, that would suck.
Ultimately, the game has to have a baseline to function. It cannot be all things to all groups, at least in the realm of published adventures, and groups that do not want to play the typical party will have to adapt to that baseline, or adapt the game to suit their needs.
That said, I would prefer that Pathfinder didn't flush 35 years of D&D history (spell wise) to satisfy a contingent that prefers not to play under a paradigm that has existed since day one. I think what the other gaming company has done to the IP is horrifying enough for this grognard.
|
|
And to be clear that's exactly what I'm getting at many people really Don't have the time to make up there own things hence the point of published modules in the first place.Here's the problem. When someone writes an adventure that will be published, he or she needs to consider the baseline party composition, which, in many games, is melee/arcane/stealthy guy/divine. They really cannot consider every possible party configuration, lest they write "B1 - In Search of the Unknown", original version, with blanks for the dm to fill in with critters and treasure, basically, a semi-storyline with no crunch.
Unfortunately, this means that groups that prefer to play unconventional party makeups either have to a) make adjustments to the published adventure, b) write their own material (not ideal for a person busy with real life stuff), or c) grin and bear it. I leave out option d) just play a more conventional party because, well, that would suck.
Ultimately, the game has to have a baseline to function. It cannot be all things to all groups, at least in the realm of published adventures, and groups that do not want to play the typical party will have to adapt to that baseline, or adapt the game to suit their needs.
That said, I would prefer that Pathfinder didn't flush 35 years of D&D history (spell wise) to satisfy a contingent that prefers not to play under a paradigm that has existed since day one. I think what the other gaming company has done to the IP is horrifying enough for this grognard.
Leaving aside such things as individual DMing styles (e.g. combat vs. less combat) and campaign themes (e.g. 'Thieves' Guild', 'All-Wizards', 'War', etc.) the baseline for PF RPG, should, in my opinion, be such that all sorts of parties -- even the ones without spellcasters -- could overcome all sorts of challenges, i.e. there would be no "impossible" situations in the game. More re-rolls (e.g. Action Points), serious tweaks to certain spells (namely, Enchantment school and 'save-or-die'-effects) and revised saving throw progression would already go a long way *without* breaking the traditional conventions.
Anyway, that's how I feel after playing and DMing the game for 20+ years. You don't need to shake things up with 'Powers' and stiff-necked "roles" to achieve that -- many High Fantasy RPGs function on the premise that arcane or divine spellcasters are not *required* for the party to function.|
|
Leaving aside such things as individual DMing styles (e.g. combat vs. less combat) and campaign themes (e.g. 'Thieves' Guild', 'All-Wizards', 'War', etc.) the baseline for PF RPG, should, in my opinion, be such that all sorts of parties -- even the ones without spellcasters -- could overcome all sorts of challenges, i.e. there would be no "impossible" situations in the game. More re-rolls (e.g. Action Points), serious tweaks to certain spells (namely,...
Sorry, the post monster would only allow a partial quote.
To the first point you make, they have that system. It's called GURPS. All things to all people, or so I understand. D&D has never been that system in its 35 year history, without work by people who wished to make it in their own preference. The baseline has ALWAYS assumed the classic four class makeup.
To the last point you made, sure, there are plenty of High Fantasy RPGs that make those assumptions. D&D, for 35 years, has not been one of them. We're discussing the worthy successor to that venerable system, NOT the other RPGs.
I want to play D&D (or Pathfinder's version thereof, if it suits my tastes), not the other systems. This is WHY we have other systems. So people have a choice. If we move more towards those other systems, there are LESS choices.
So, I do apologize, but I must respectfully resist efforts to move this Fantasy RPG in that direction. I want the successor to the game I've played since '79, not an emulation of some other system.
Here's the problem. When someone writes an adventure that will be published, he or she needs to consider the baseline party composition, which, in many games, is melee/arcane/stealthy guy/divine. They really cannot consider every possible party configuration, lest they write "B1 - In Search of the Unknown", original version, with blanks for the dm to fill in with critters and treasure, basically, a semi-storyline with no crunch.
Unfortunately, this means that groups that prefer to play unconventional party makeups either have to a) make adjustments to the published adventure, b) write their own material (not ideal for a person busy with real life stuff), or c) grin and bear it. I leave out option d) just play a more conventional party because, well, that would suck.
But in that party composition I don't see melee/divine/stealth/person with protection from evil or melee/arcane/stealth/person with death ward. Not having those spells that at ready access is different, to me, than having an unconventional party.
That said, I would prefer that Pathfinder didn't flush 35 years of D&D history (spell wise) to satisfy a contingent that prefers not to play under a paradigm that has existed since day one. I think what the other gaming company has done to the IP is horrifying enough for this grognard.
And I would prefer Pathfinder not to refuse to change anything to satisfy yet another contingent. I have to believe that we still can grow, change, and evolve without throwing away the history we have.
To be clear, I have not accused anyone in particular of being lazy.
So your answer to an honest problem is to accuse someone of being lazy? So if someone works a 40+ week and honestly don't have the energy to do something like this they are lazy?
No. You just imply that anyone that doesn't agree with your arguments or your point of view of being lazy.
Here's the problem. When someone writes an adventure that will be published, he or she needs to consider the baseline party composition, which, in many games, is melee/arcane/stealthy guy/divine.
The real problem is that PRPG/D&D 3.5 is actually less balanced then its precursor, 2nd Edition D&D. 2nd Edition was plagued by some really arbitrary rules that we've thankfully discarded, but in general, it was better in terms of game balance. Almost all of the classes could meaningfully contribute to a party in some way, and it actually meant something you didn't have a "balanced party" because there was a very real chance that you might be killed for want of that balance.
But where do things stand now? We have three Tiers of spellcasters that can do everything in the game and a bunch of guys with swords and knives that are superfluous. They are slower then they used to be, they have less mobility then they used to, and they do less damage then they used to. They are more dependent on magical items then they used to be, and they have to rely on spellcasters to manufacture the items that they need to contribute meaningfully past 10th level. At higher levels, they can be taken out easily with Enchantment/Charm spells because of the enormous gulf between their good saving throws and their bad saving throws. At the end of the day, they are just dead weight that manages to get by on the good graces of the GM and party members that are willing to craft items for them to use.
Has Jason made an attempt to rectify this? Certainly. I think all of the classes got some great abilities from Pathfinder. But just getting extra class abilities isn't enough. Almost all of the melee classes got a few extra tricks, bonuses to damage, or bonuses to hit to help them compensate for not having +5 Vorpal Greatswords on them at all times, but there are still a lot of sections in the rules that need to be tweaked before everyone can be standing (more or less) on the same Tier. Allowing characters to make saves every round to resist status effects is a big step in that direction. And guess what? Fighters may benefit more from this rule change from Wizards, but it's not like Wizards are left out in the cold either. This isn't the final solution to the "Fighter Problem", but it's a good start.
Unfortunately, this means that groups that prefer to play unconventional party makeups either have to a) make adjustments to the published adventure, b) write their own material (not ideal for a person busy with real life stuff), or c) grin and bear it. I leave out option d) just play a more conventional party because, well, that would suck.
I'd also prefer to see more conventional parties! But the way the rules are written right now, that's not really working out so well. The best party to have right now is a Cleric, a Bard, a Generalist Wizard, and a Summoner. And neither of the Wizards will take Enchantment as one of their restricted schools, I can guarantee you that right now.
Ultimately, the game has to have a baseline to function. It cannot be all things to all groups, at least in the realm of published adventures, and groups that do not want to play the typical party will have to adapt to that baseline, or adapt the game to suit their needs.
That said, I would prefer that Pathfinder didn't flush 35 years of D&D history (spell wise) to satisfy a contingent that prefers not to play under a paradigm that has existed since day one. I think what the other gaming company has done to the IP is horrifying enough for this grognard.
But here's the rub - by standing against this rule for the sake of tradition, you serve to undermine the very ideals that you wish to represent. The baseline party that you cherish so dearly was shattered as soon as D&D 3.0 came off the printing presses. Once saving throws started going all over the place, spellcasters could create their own items and summon monsters, melee characters could no longer charge and make full attacks, and spells weren't properly tweaked to adjust to the realities of the new system, the old 2nd Edition baseline went right out the window. GMs can create the illusion that it exists in their games, but it's an illusion that doesn't reflect the way that the rules are written.
Last I checked Adventuring is a team sport. You can bolster your weaknesses as a player but in a lot of cases you have to lean on the other members of your party to shore them up.
The problem is that the spellcasting classes don't really have very many weaknesses, and the non-spellcasting classes do. JasonK summed this up very well in his post about the informal "Tier System" that dominates game play in D&D 3.5, which I shall post here for your reading pleasure. Alas, for the most part, it's just as true now as it was when it was originally posted.
Tier 1: Capable of doing absolutely everything, often better than classes that specialize in that thing. Often capable of solving encounters with a single mechanical ability and little thought from the player. Has world changing powers at high levels. These guys, if played well, can break a campaign and can be very hard to challenge without extreme DM fiat, especially if Tier 3s and below are in the party.
Examples: Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Archivist, Artificer.
Tier 2: Has as much raw power as the Tier 1 classes, but can't pull off nearly as many tricks, and while the class itself is capable of anything, no one build can actually do nearly as much as the Tier 1 classes. Still potencially campaign smashers by using the right abilities, but at the same time are more predictable and can't always have the right tool for the job. If the Tier 1 classes are countries with 10,000 nuclear weapons in their arsenal, these guys are countries with 10 nukes. Still dangerous and world shattering, but not in quite so many ways. Note that the Tier 2 classes are often less flexible than Tier 3 classes... it's just that their incredible potential power overwhelms their lack in flexibility.
Examples: Sorcerer, Favored Soul, Psion, Binder (with access to online vestiges)
Tier 3: Capable of doing one thing quite well, while still being useful when that one thing is inappropriate, or capable of doing all things, but not as well as classes that specialize in that area. Occasionally has a mechanical ability that can solve an encounter, but this is relatively rare and easy to deal with. Challenging such a character takes some thought from the DM, but isn't too difficult. Will outshine any Tier 5s in the party much of the time.
Examples: Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, Crusader, Bard, Swordsage, Binder (without access to the summon monster vestige), Wildshape Varient Ranger, Duskblade, Factotum, Warblade, Psionic Warrior
Tier 4: Capable of doing one thing quite well, but often useless when encounters require other areas of expertise, or capable of doing many things to a reasonable degree of competance without truly shining. Rarely has any abilities that can outright handle an encounter unless that encounter plays directly to the class's main strength. DMs may sometimes need to work to make sure Tier 4s can contribue to an encounter, as their abilities may sometimes leave them useless. Won't outshine anyone except Tier 6s except in specific circumstances that play to their strengths. Cannot compete effectively with Tier 1s that are played well.
Examples: Rogue, Barbarian, Warlock, Warmage, Scout, Ranger, Hexblade, Adept, Spellthief, Marshal, Fighter (Dungeoncrasher Varient)
Tier 5: Capable of doing only one thing, and not necessarily all that well, or so unfocused that they have trouble mastering anything, and in many types of encounters the character cannot contribute. In some cases, can do one thing very well, but that one thing is very often not needed. Has trouble shining in any encounter unless the rest of the party is weak in that situation and the encounter matches their strengths. DMs may have to work to avoid the player feeling that their character is worthless unless the entire party is Tier 4 and below. Characters in this tier will often feel like one trick ponies if they do well, or just feel like they have no tricks at all if they build the class poorly.
Examples: Fighter, Monk, CA Ninja, Healer, Swashbuckler, Rokugan Ninja, Soulknife, Expert, Paladin
Tier 6: Not even capable of shining in their own area of expertise. DMs will need to work hard to make encounters that this sort of character can contribute in with their mechanical abilities. Will often feel worthless unless the character is seriously powergamed beyond belief, and even then won't be terribly impressive. Needs to fight enemies of lower than normal CR. Class is often completely unsynergized or with almost no abilities of merit. Avoid allowing PCs to play these characters.
Examples: CW Samurai, Aristocrat, Warrior, Commoner
And then there's the Truenamer, which is just broken (as in, the class was improperly made and doesn't function appropriately).
Yeah, that's why I was pounding the fighter threads to get melee back in line with their 1e/2e counterparts. I would like to see Pathfinder buff melee, so that magic could avoid the nerf bat.
We have to do both. You can't do one or the other. The only other solution is to change the rate at which people gain bonuses to their Saving Throws, and this will likely not be considered by most people because it would wreck backwards compatibility with existing published D&D 3.0 and 3.5 adventures.
|
|
Yeah, that's why I was pounding the fighter threads to get melee back in line with their 1e/2e counterparts. I would like to see Pathfinder buff melee, so that magic could avoid the nerf bat.We have to do both. You can't do one or the other. The only other solution is to change the rate at which people gain bonuses to their Saving Throws, and this will likely not be considered by most people because it would wreck backwards compatibility with existing published D&D 3.0 and 3.5 adventures.
Well, we can always hope PfRPGv2.0 can fix a lot of that stuff ;)
Well, we can always hope PfRPGv2.0 can fix a lot of that stuff ;)
I'd like to try and get it done before the Beta hits the streets if at all possible. LOL
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16
|
Last I checked Adventuring is a team sport. You can bolster your weaknesses as a player but in a lot of cases you have to lean on the other members of your party to shore them up.The problem is that the spellcasting classes don't really have very many weaknesses, and the non-spellcasting classes do. JasonK summed this up very well in his post about the informal "Tier System" that dominates game play in D&D 3.5, which I shall post here for your reading pleasure. Alas, for the most part, it's just as true now as it was when it was originally posted.
You know this tier system is full of crap. I've seen players take your so called low tier classes and make them shine in almost any type of encounter. I for one am sick of the notion that many make that there's really only one way to play this game and that anyone who plays it differently is wrong. Terms like trap, economy of action, tier... A good player can do wonders with any PC class in a campaign environment.
--Vrock and Load!
A good player can do wonders with any PC class in a campaign environment.
Agreed wholeheartedly... but with a catch. Good players and good DMs are great to have, because they can work around all kinds of problems. But if the game only works for those people, the hobby fails to grow, and eventually ends up dying off. I'd personally prefer the system to be a bit friendlier to newbies, so that they'd be more likely to stick with it and ultimately become good players, instead of abandoning gaming in favor of some hobby that's a bit more transparent in terms of what is required in order to keep it enjoyable for eveyone. A bad, or even mediocre DM can ruin it for new players, of course, so there's no need for the rules structure to actively help that DM do so.
Let me clarify that I don't mean I want to "dumb it down" or anything like that; there's a difference between intelligence and experience. What I'd like is to make the game more accessible to inexperienced players at all levels. In the old days, you started at level 1 and it might take 5 years of playing to get to 10th level, so everyone was experienced by the time they hit higher levels. In 3.X, it seems like you can go from 1st to 10th in a few weeks--not enough time for the new players' abilities to keep pace with their characters'.
Sorry if that seemed to be rambling a bit; I'm just trying to express why some people feel the need to fix things that can already potentially be worked around with sufficient experience and care (and judicious application of houserules).
You know this tier system is full of crap. I've seen players take your so called low tier classes and make them shine in almost any type of encounter. I for one am sick of the notion that many make that there's really only one way to play this game and that anyone who plays it differently is wrong. Terms like trap, economy of action, tier...
... are all terms that are all very useful to explain and define why certain classes are better then others in D&D 3.5. And the Tier system is not "full of crap" - it does a very good job of elucidating which classes are better then others and gives us a fairly good idea of why this is the case. More often then not, lower-tier classes only become "competitive" because either 1) the GM gives them an over-abundance of magical items to try and level the playing field or 3) the people playing Tier 1 or 2 classes in their games aren't playing them to their full potential, and they end up in Tier 3 or 4 along with everyone else.
I think you're giving the charm spells more power than they really have. A charm spell makes the target treat you (the caster) as a friend. It doesn't make them stop being friends or allies with their existing friends, nor does it make them friends with the rest of the party.
I must concede that in and of itself, Charm Person isn't too powerful when cast in combat. You move the target's reaction from Hostile to Friendly, and it can then be moved from Friendly to Helpful with a successful Diplomacy check, but the whole shebang collapses like a house of cards as soon as you do something threatening.
But spells like Suggestion and Dominate Person ARE extremely powerful Save-Or-Die spells that take the PCs out of the fight and either turn them against their comrades or force them to do something that is counter-productive. And the way the Saving Throw system is set up right now, Fighters and other characters with low Will saves have a very slim chance of resisting these kinds of spells, and once they get hit with them, they are pretty much out of the rest of the fight.
These spells need to be balanced, and the only way that I believe that this can be done is by allowing round-by-round saves with accruing cumulative bonuses (+1 per round) to end the effect. Otherwise you end up with a Fighter that is either hacking up his friends or running away from the field of battle and a player that can't do anything - one that ends up bored at best, and angry and frustrated at worst.
Finally, a simple 1st level spell (protection from evil or other alignments) blocks this.
That's a very slippery slope there. In fact, I think it may be a logical fallacy of some sort. Just because a status effect caused by a spell can be removed or negated by another spell doesn't mean that the presence of the counterspell is enough to balance the effect. Examples:
Death Ward protects you from taking negative energy damage. Does that mean that this spell is the only balancing mechanic we should consider for negative energy damage and that it would be acceptable for the rules to say that characters to drop dead as soon as they take negative energy damage? I don't think so.
Feather Fall protects you from taking damage from a fall. Does that mean that you should instantly die if you fall into a pit trap? Nope.
Protection From Arrows and Wind Wall prevent characters from taking damage from arrows. Do the presence of these spells in the game mean that it is acceptable for characters to run around with arrows that do 5D10 damage? Certainly not!
These are all sources of damage that have spell counters, but they also have some mechanics in place to balance them in the absence of these hard counters. That's why we have Negative Levels, you take 1D6 damage per 10 feet of distance that you fall (maximum 10D6), and arrows don't do 5D10 worth of damage. We need to bring these kinds of sensibilities into balancing our Enchantment/Charm spells, or else Pathfinder will end up coming out of Beta with rules that are *almost* fixed... but don't quite make the mark.
The main problem I see in nerfing the Enchantments spells, is that it would really degrade the PCs who rely on enchantment spells. In my opinion the school isn't at all overpowered, and should instead gain some higher level spells, which are as good as the other schools.
One class that would really suffer from the nerfing, is the bard. Enchantment is the one magic, which they get to do almost as good as wizards/sorcerers. Nerf this, and the haven't really got any spells that are useful.
You also has to consider the out of combat utilities of these spells. If charmed persons gain an extra save the following round, it would seriously degrade the spell.
The argument for nerfing enchantment spells has primarily been to avoid PCs being killed or removed from the game. To this I can only repeat the arguments which have been stated from myself and others.
- The charm specificly, I think the wording can easily be read, so that the caster (maybe) and his/her party (definately) can be seen as threat, which breaks the spell. This way you can easily interpret the spell to be inapplicable to making PCs or NPCs kill their own friends instead of just jumping the casters allies.
- If a party is not build for a specific challange, such as a charm/dominate spell, then the GM can, without any mentionable work, choose not to use these against the players, or grant them additional chances to avoid them.
This however may not be a option for unexperienced GMs how does not expect the outcome of a given action (though IMO the outcome of ordering the party's fighter to pound on the wizard might be expectable).
This is an valid point. However I do not think this calls in any way for nerfing the enchantment school. It is a more generel problem in the system, which would require so much rewriting that there wouldn't be anything left of the original. I've experienced TPK due to a single black bears three attacks per round. I've tried only surviving TPK because of a dog, we had with us, against a ghoul who stunned the PCs.
The are so many of these problems, which really can't be avoided be nerfing a few spells. It sometimes require GM intervention of some sort. Nerfing some spells will only result in degrading the PCs who rely on them
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16
|
The saving throw mechanic is not broken. It's been stated before that core only you can only get a 9th level spell save DC into the mid 30's.
Starting Ability (max) 20
Stat Boost item +6
ability points +5
Spell Focus (Gr) +2
Tome +5
Total ability score 36 (+13)
Total DC 10+9+13+2 = 34
Fighter w/10 wisdom, weak save @ 20th +6
Cloak of resist +5
Iron Will +2
Wis boost item/spell +4 (assume Owl's Wis potion)
addidition misc. boosts:
Luck Stone +1 (luck)
Heroism potion +2 (morale)
Pale green prism +1 (competance)
So against a 9th level spell (wish/miracle or heightened perhaps) a weak will save and no Wisdom bonus has to roll 19 to save, though som of the additional magic equipment can drop that to as low as 15. So that's a 30% chance to save against the highest level spells. The number only goes up as the spell level drops.
Suggestion is 3rd level, Dominate person is only 5th. And even if your fighter succumbs to the Charm he's got the rest of his party to help him out. Again adventuring is a team sport.
You step outside of core and there are many more items (armor abilities, armor crystals) and feats (Steadfast Determination, Force of Personality) that help will saves considerably or even let you ignore an effect for a round (Mad Foam Rager).
--Vrocknrolla!
The saving throw mechanic is not broken.
That depends on your point of view, of course. If you feel that certain classes should be more or less guaranteed to fail certain saves at high levels (30% or less even when optimized = pretty certain failure), then it's exactly where we want it to be. If, on the other hand, you feel that a meaningful saving throw system would allow a reasonable (ca. 50%) chance in most situations, then it's decidedly not providing that. Add to that the 1e grognards' gripe (one that I personally share) that good saves at high levels were the 1e fighter's primary class feature, and it's easy to see why some people might be unhappy with it.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16
|
Well that's assuming the Spellcaster is completely optimized as well. Not every wizard takes Spell Focus and Spell Focus Greater. Some take metamagic, some take spell penetration, or craft feats.
And we can't look at classes in a vacuum. You have to look at a character in the campaign they're playing in. PC's don't take the best case scenario into account when they're being built organically. It's all tied to the campaign worl they're in. If you know you're facing an Enchanter or a Succubus then some precautions might be necessary. Only if the Fighter or other weak will save Class stumbles randomly into the Dean of the local wizard colleges school of enchantment should they be so totally unprepared.
This is why this is a Playtest. Have your players found Enchantment to be unbeatable with just the Core Rules in the Beta? If so describe the encounter and what if anything they knew of their foe before they set out to confront them.
--Vrocknrolla!
|
|
As far as primover003's statement being an opinion masquerading as a factual statement, it is not any worse than many others made in this thread, not the least of which is the thread title itself.
Anyways, in the spirit of play testing and mathematical comparisons to advance or refute certain premises, where are the statistics to show the percentage chance that a wizard survives a full attack from said fighter?
What is the max AC a wizard can hope to achieve. What is his max HP total? How does this compare to the fighter achievable damage and to hit chances against said wizard?
Of course the entire exercise is based on a infinite number of situational modifiers. Who won INIT? Who was aware first? did they have time to buff/prepare? etc etc etc. that can't possibly be accounted for but...
I haven't done the math but experience tells me that if a wizard is "caught" in this unfortunate situation his chances of "being removed from combat" or out right dead probably exceed the comparable 30% stat people are throwing around.
Anyone care to do the comparison?
The real problem is that PRPG/D&D 3.5 is actually less balanced then its precursor, 2nd Edition D&D. 2nd Edition was plagued by some really arbitrary rules that we've thankfully discarded, but in general, it was better in terms of game balance. Almost all of the classes could meaningfully contribute to a party in some way, and it actually meant something you didn't have a "balanced party" because there was a very real chance that you might be killed for want of that balance.
But where do things stand now? We have three Tiers of spellcasters that can do everything in the game and a bunch of guys with swords and knives that are superfluous. They are slower then they used to be, they have less mobility then they used to, and they do less damage then they used to. They are more dependent on magical items then they used to be, and they have to rely on spellcasters to manufacture the items that they need to contribute meaningfully past 10th level. At higher levels, they can be taken out easily with Enchantment/Charm spells because of the enormous gulf between their good saving throws and their bad saving throws. At the end of the day, they are just dead weight that manages to get by on the good graces of the GM and party members that are willing to craft items for them to use.
There's so much hyperbole in this post, I have a hard time taking it seriously.
Melee classes are not doing less damage than they used to in 2e. I had never seen melee classes in 19 years of 1e/2e dish out the monstrous damage they get in 8 years of 3e. The powers that enable it just aren't there in 1e/2e like they are in 3e.
They are not more reliant on magic items than they used to be since they were absolutely dependent on magic weapons past a certain point and now no longer are. Magic armor of some sort was always an imperative, so that hasn't changed. What has changed is the availability of custom magic enabling players to pursue the strategy as if they couldn't do without it, not the addition of the necessity.
And the "enormous gulf" between good saves and bad is 6 and that's only at 20th level. It's 4 if you take a feat to shore up the weakness. Taking a look at 2nd edition, the gap between the best and weakest saves for a cleric was 5, rogue 7(!), wizard 5 (not so far from that 6 mark, are they?). Though it's true the fighter had it best off having a gap of 3.
I agree that there are more fixes needed for the fighter than for the wizard/druid/cleric because of their lack of mobility while unlimbering their strongest offense. But decrying the difference in balance between 2e and 3e because of these other factors is focusing on issues that are not new nor were new with 3e.
Add to that the 1e grognards' gripe (one that I personally share) that good saves at high levels were the 1e fighter's primary class feature, and it's easy to see why some people might be unhappy with it.
I find it odd that a lot of 1e grognards would consider high level saves to be the fighter's primary class feature. It comes into play starting around 9th level.
I just don't find it likely that a lot of people wanted to play fighters because they'd get really good at resisting things at a point when lots, possibly even most, campaigns are petering out. I'll buy that some people find the change disappointing. But primary class feature?
Leaving aside such things as individual DMing styles (e.g. combat vs. less combat) and campaign themes (e.g. 'Thieves' Guild', 'All-Wizards', 'War', etc.) the baseline for PF RPG, should, in my opinion, be such that all sorts of parties -- even the ones without spellcasters -- could overcome all sorts of challenges, i.e. there would be no "impossible" situations in the game. More re-rolls (e.g. Action Points), serious tweaks to certain spells (namely,...The baseline has ALWAYS assumed the classic four class makeup.
I want to play D&D (or Pathfinder's version thereof, if it suits my tastes), not the other systems. This is WHY we have other systems. So people have a choice. If we move more towards those other systems, there are LESS choices.
First to the above quote re: classic four. I think it should be called "minimum four" that is to say IF you ONLY have FOUR characters, they need to be THESE or you DIE.
Now you could play the same module WITHOUT one of the minimum four, but replace him with a few others lets say, instead of cleric, fighter, theif, mage you had: Fighter/magic user, Fighter/MU/Theif, a cleric, A fighter and a Ranger. That would be fine.
Or if you had two fighter, a theif and a cleric.
In the old days there were TWO classes that you could NOT adventure without, Fighter and clerics.
IF you didnt have fighters to deal out, suck up and deflect damage,they other players got killed. If you didnt have a cleric the DM had to fudge in lots of cure potions.
MOST of the time you could get away without a m/u or a thief, but youd miss out on something, like a door or a chest, or finding a magic item.
But the game could be played with a cleric and five fighters just fine.
The theif and magic user were minimums. If you only played with four. And thats if you wanted to maximize and clean out the entire dungeon of every morsel. But unless it was a trap covered dungeon,you didnt need a theif to survive. The magic user well....Certainly not until much high levels was he needed for survival and could be replaced by more fighter characters.
But certainly if you were playing with only four, merely adding one fighter at higher levels (fortwo fighter a theif an a cleric)wouldnt suffice, but it was more than enough at lower levels.
As to the second part of the quote, I love the pathfinder beta,and I will certainly be playing it from here on out no matter what the final changes are, because I know they wont be THAT far off what they are right now.
The saving throw mechanic is not broken.That depends on your point of view, of course. If you feel that certain classes should be more or less guaranteed to fail certain saves at high levels (30% or less even when optimized = pretty certain failure), then it's exactly where we want it to be. If, on the other hand, you feel that a meaningful saving throw system would allow a reasonable (ca. 50%) chance in most situations, then it's decidedly not providing that.
Now, I can understand and appreciate an argument that the saves are too much harder in 3e than they ended up getting to be in 2e. I'm not absolutely certain I agree, but that might just be because we have a different idea of how difficult saves should be.
Making the DCs effectively open-ended thanks to the addition of stat modifiers and, some cases, creature hit dice does make for a different playing field compared to 1e/2e where the targets were largely fixed (with some oddball modifiers thrown in from time to time like the -6 on poison saves for Drow sleep poison). If I were to tackle the saving throw issue, I'd consider putting a cap on the amount of modifer that could be added to raise a DC. But that's probably a discussion for another thread and not this one on enchantments.
The arguement that fighters can wear cloaks of resistance to help satve off weak saves is a bad one because characters can only wear one cloak. Which cuts them of from wearing other cloaks, Which basically states "fighters must wear these items or die"
I think allowing saves every round makes sense during combat (my friends need me, what have mission, etc) but outside of combat (lets say a wizard gets the drop on someone before a combat happens) then i would say no.
With the fighters freinds right in front of him, getting hurt and even in peril of death he should get subsquent savings throws, if told to attack them himself,he should get a saving throw every round with a bonus)
But things like circe ensorcelling odysseus and his sailors should still be possible without them trying to break free every 6 seconds. It would make the spell useless and you would have dummies trying to take 20 on their saving throws.
IF a wizard wants to charm a fighter during combat, the most likely way to be successful with that might be to have him walk down that halway to "get me a cup of water, please" rather than keep him in the fight (the most likely thing to break the enchantment) by the time the wizard and his cronies have finsihed off his buddies, then they can kill off the fighter.
a save every six seconds just so you can break a spell you dont want to be under? No. I can't vote for that.
But I still say the fighter needs more saving throw bounus, especially in will, its too weak.
To have to stack that much specific gear on and still only save 30% of the time?
Would it be fair if a monster could hit your mage 80% of the time? Your arguement would be the same "gee if you optimize your character then you can make sure he only hits you 70% of the time!"
See saving throws are the characters "spell armor" its generally the only protection they have from spell effects. And a 20th level fighter failing at that 80% of the time isnt a good mechanic.
The main problem I see in nerfing the Enchantments spells, is that it would really degrade the PCs who rely on enchantment spells. In my opinion the school isn't at all overpowered, and should instead gain some higher level spells, which are as good as the other schools.
One class that would really suffer from the nerfing, is the bard. Enchantment is the one magic, which they get to do almost as good as wizards/sorcerers. Nerf this, and the haven't really got any spells that are useful.
You also has to consider the out of combat utilities of these spells. If charmed persons gain an extra save the following round, it would seriously degrade the spell.
Keep in mind that I only advocate offering round-by-round saves for Enchantment/Charm spells for creatures that are threatened or are in combat. If you're not engaged in combat, they get the one saving throw, and that's it. So if you are an Enchanter or a Bard, you can still use these spells to great effect - you just have to take care that the creatures you enchant are kept out of threatening situations so they don't end up subverting your Enchantment.
So against a 9th level spell (wish/miracle or heightened perhaps) a weak will save and no Wisdom bonus has to roll 19 to save, though som of the additional magic equipment can drop that to as low as 15. So that's a 30% chance to save against the highest level spells.
Only a 75% to 95% chance that a single spell will completely take me out of an entire combat? That sounds like tons of fun! I'd better make sure I bring my PS with me!
Suggestion is 3rd level, Dominate person is only 5th. And even if your fighter succumbs to the Charm he's got the rest of his party to help him out.
Correction: he has the rest of the party to help him so long as one of the members of the party is a Paladin, Wizard, or Cleric. If your party consists of a Fighter, a Bard, a Druid, and a Ranger, you are boned.
Again adventuring is a team sport.
... for characters that fall below Tier 1.
You step outside of core and there are many more items (armor abilities, armor crystals) and feats (Steadfast Determination, Force of Personality) that help will saves considerably or even let you ignore an effect for a round (Mad Foam Rager).
--Vrocknrolla!
You can do whatever the hell you want if you take Feats and Spells that aren't core. Much of what's out there that isn't core is either broken, unbalanced, or poorly implemented, which is why I only prefer using the Core Books.
Melee classes are not doing less damage than they used to in 2e. I had never seen melee classes in 19 years of 1e/2e dish out the monstrous damage they get in 8 years of 3e. The powers that enable it just aren't there in 1e/2e like they are in 3e.
Are they able to do more damage in melee combat with a full-attack-action then a comparable 2nd Edition Fighter? Certainly. Just the inclusion of Feats like Power Attack ensures that. But are they capable of bringing that power to bear like a 2nd Edition Fighter? Not so much. They can only make one attack when they move, and unless you're in Mithril Armor, you're about as fast a molasses. It's difficult to hit things when you're being constantly outmaneuvered, and for most of the game, that's the kind of situation that the Fighter is looking at.
They are not more reliant on magic items than they used to be since they were absolutely dependent on magic weapons past a certain point and now no longer are. Magic armor of some sort was always an imperative, so that hasn't changed. What has changed is the availability of custom magic enabling players to pursue the strategy as if they couldn't do without it, not the addition of the necessity.
Let me ask you this: what did you spend your money on in 2nd Edition? You spent it on cool things like castles and keeps, acquiring land and building kingdoms. No one could manufacture magical items - everything you found was given to you by the GM, a bygone relic of a forgotten age - so you were free to spend your gold as you pleased and do wonderous things with it that had a real impact on the campaign world. The GM had complete control over the distribution of magical items and gave them out as necessary to maintain the balance of party both within the party and against Team Monster.
Now? No one spends a dime on any of that crap. Strongholds are useless. We can manufacture magical items items now. And magical items aren't cheap. And if you're a Fighter (or any other melee character, really), you're going to need to spend all of your gold on magical items in order to try and keep up with the power curve that the Tier 1 characters are setting. Alas, the Wizard and the Cleric are usually also doing this (and at discounted rates), so the Fighters end up behind the curve anyway - with just enough cash left in their pockets to allow them to stay at an inn and buy some trail rations.
And the "enormous gulf" between good saves and bad is 6 and that's only at 20th level. It's 4 if you take a feat to shore up the weakness. Taking a look at 2nd edition, the gap between the best and weakest saves for a cleric was 5, rogue 7(!), wizard 5 (not so far from that 6 mark, are they?). Though it's true the fighter had it best off having a gap of 3.
Remember the fact that your Saves are also being affected in a negative way by Feats and Items. A 20th Level Fighter going up against a 20th Level Wizard still has a 75-95% chance of being Dominated in the first round of combat. That means that you are out of the game until that combat ends or another party member uses a hard counter like Protection From Evil against you. I hope your primary spellcasters aren't Druids or Bards!
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16
|
If said fighters walking into a battle against a Wizard with his proverbial pants around his ankles he deserves to get Dominated. A Fighter needs a Game plan against a caster. Potions of first level spells like Protection from X are cheap and readily available.
And both Druids and Ranger can summon Unicorns (which project Magic Circle vs. Evil as aSu ability),and both Bards and Paladins have Break Enchantment. And as a cheap, mundane way to slow your charmed teammate or a wizard... Tanglefoot bag, hell use two! The entangled condition will reduce their Reflex save from the first one enough you might stick em with the second!
|
|
The saving throw mechanic is not broken. It's been stated before that core only you can only get a 9th level spell save DC into the mid 30's.
Starting Ability (max) 20
Stat Boost item +6
ability points +5
Spell Focus (Gr) +2
Tome +5
Total ability score 36 (+13)
Total DC 10+9+13+2 = 34Fighter w/10 wisdom, weak save @ 20th +6
Cloak of resist +5
Iron Will +2
Wis boost item/spell +4 (assume Owl's Wis potion)addidition misc. boosts:
Luck Stone +1 (luck)
Heroism potion +2 (morale)
Pale green prism +1 (competance)So against a 9th level spell (wish/miracle or heightened perhaps) a weak will save and no Wisdom bonus has to roll 19 to save, though som of the additional magic equipment can drop that to as low as 15. So that's a 30% chance to save against the highest level spells. The number only goes up as the spell level drops.
Suggestion is 3rd level, Dominate person is only 5th. And even if your fighter succumbs to the Charm he's got the rest of his party to help him out. Again adventuring is a team sport.
You step outside of core and there are many more items (armor abilities, armor crystals) and feats (Steadfast Determination, Force of Personality) that help will saves considerably or even let you ignore an effect for a round (Mad Foam Rager).
--Vrocknrolla!
That's a lot of assumptions, and let's leave all non-core stuff (Magic Item Compendium and the like) aside, because if those are needed to "patch" the saving throw system... well, you get my point.
First of all, Owl's Wisdom-potion gives you +2 on Will Saves -- not +4 (it gives you +4 to your Wisdom score). Also, I think there are far more "fighterly" items for you than wasting a slot on Pale Green Prism or Luckstone. So let's leave those out, too.
Also, in my group all "melee" PCs (a paladin, fighter, rogue and barbarian) used WIS as a "dump stats" (7 or 8), because even the Epic Point-Buy tends to give you lower scores than rolling methods do. If you want decent physical scores (i.e. 15+), you have to use CHA and WIS as "dump stats".
Therefore, excluding the paladin (and the cleric), the rest of the PCs will have Will Save +5 (or +4) at 20th level. Even if all of them bought or found Cloaks of Resistance +5, that would be +9/+10, and let's add in 'Iron Will' (I don't they will burn a Feat for that purpose, but anyway) and both of the potions for a *temporary* save bonus (if they waste two rounds in the beginning of the combat to quaff them) of +15/+16 -- still needing to roll 18+ to succeed. If the wizard (and which wizard wouldn't want to raise the DCs for *ALL* his spells?) didn't pick Spell Focus at all, it's still 16+ in the "best case scenario".
I think it's just best if I don't throw any wizards their way (BTW, I did use one, and it almost ended in TPK, as the wizard used a 'Web' spell -- only a natural 20 for a STR check for the fighter saved the party).
|
|
If said fighters walking into a battle against a Wizard with his proverbial pants around his ankles he deserves to get Dominated. A Fighter needs a Game plan against a caster. Potions of first level spells like Protection from X are cheap and readily available.
And both Druids and Ranger can summon Unicorns (which project Magic Circle vs. Evil as aSu ability),and both Bards and Paladins have Break Enchantment. And as a cheap, mundane way to slow your charmed teammate or a wizard... Tanglefoot bag, hell use two! The entangled condition will reduce their Reflex save from the first one enough you might stick em with the second!
And if the door in the dungeon doesn't say: "Tread lightly, for there is an angry high-level wizard lurking inside!"? Sometimes you just cannot know what's behind the next door, and often the DM won't give you this info, unless the person in question is a major villain/minion in the campaign. It's a bit hard to prepare yourself, if you only know that "Lord Sargreth is served by many kinds of black-hearted villains and monsters. He himself is a peerless commander and blademaster, yet little is known of his goals or who are his closest advisors." Add in a few false rumours (e.g. as a result of a failed skill check)...
Tanglefoot bags... the 18th level wizard is flinging spells at you, and you're throwing Tanglefoot bags at a dominated party member?!? Uhm, you can soon make it *two* or even three dominated PCs... ;)
|
|
Keep in mind that I only advocate offering round-by-round saves for Enchantment/Charm spells for creatures that are threatened or are in combat. If you're not engaged in combat, they get the one saving throw, and that's it. So if you are an Enchanter or a Bard, you can still use these spells to great effect - you just have to take care that the creatures you enchant are kept out of threatening situations so they don't end up subverting your Enchantment.
In the spirit of fairness, I will point out the precedence for this has already been set.
Suggestion and Hold Person are both enchantment (compulsion)(mind affecting) spells of the same level that accomplish very similar results.
Hold Person renders the target totally paralyzed, while a completely reasonable Suggestion to the target like, "You look tired, you should sit and take a rest." or "Can you go fetch me my slippers?" effectively accomplishes the same result. Both targets are "removed" from combat for the duration of the respective spells.
However, Hold Person does allow for a new save attempt on the target's turn each round.
Obviously there are a few differences (Suggestion being language dependent, different durations etc) between the two spells, with the most obvious and significant difference being that a Held target is rendered "helpless" and as such is susceptible to coup-de-gras and the like, and this is most assuredly the reason they give the new save attempts.
One could argue (and they are indeed as evidenced by this thread), that the same consideration be given to other enchantment spells.
I would be more interested in debating suggestions on a spell by spell basis, rather than debating the apparent power of an entire class of spells en masse. A significant source of my opposition all along has been to the "factual statements" that all enchantment spells are "broken" and need "fixing". This I do not agree with. In fact this entire thread (and a few others just like it) have been turned into a rehash of already discussed and contentious topics/issues. This thread needs to refocus on the question at hand and move the rest to other more appropriate forums.
Cheers
Let me ask you this: what did you spend your money on in 2nd Edition? You spent it on cool things like castles and keeps, acquiring land and building kingdoms. No one could manufacture magical items - everything you found was given to you by the GM, a bygone relic of a forgotten age - so you were free to spend your gold as you pleased and do wonderous things with it that had a real impact on the campaign world. The GM had complete control over the distribution of magical items and gave them out as necessary to maintain the balance of party both within the party and against Team Monster.
Now? No one spends a dime on any of that crap. Strongholds are useless. We can manufacture magical items items now. And magical items aren't cheap. And if you're a Fighter (or any other melee character, really), you're going to need to spend all of your gold on magical items in order to try and keep up with the power curve that the Tier 1 characters are setting. Alas, the Wizard and the Cleric are usually also doing this (and at discounted rates), so the Fighters end up behind the curve anyway - with just enough cash left in their pockets to allow them to stay at an inn and buy some trail rations.
The increased ability to pursue the Big 6 strategy has absolutely no bearing on whether or not the fighter is more dependent on magic items. It doesn't matter if nobody spends a dime on strongholds anymore, there's nothing requiring them to spend their money as they are doing so, merely a strategy that tends to dominate simply because it exists.
And so what if the cleric and wizard are getting stuff at discount rates? If they aren't doing it for the whole party there's a serious problem with the group dynamic. And no purchasing of magic items, strongholds, or anything will fix that.
Are they able to do more damage in melee combat with a full-attack-action then a comparable 2nd Edition Fighter? Certainly. Just the inclusion of Feats like Power Attack ensures that. But are they capable of bringing that power to bear like a 2nd Edition Fighter? Not so much. They can only make one attack when they move, and unless you're in Mithril Armor, you're about as fast a molasses. It's difficult to hit things when you're being constantly outmaneuvered, and for most of the game, that's the kind of situation that the Fighter is looking at.
Did a little looking in my 2nd ed PH tonight. Could 3e fighters bring the same power to bear as 2e counterparts? Yes. Movement in combat was pretty limited in the old days if attacking was involved. Half movement rate and half attack rate for missiles or single attack for melee was the norm. If that 2e fighter had multiple attacks, he was standing in place to take them, not even getting a 5' step.
That said, 3e did change the economy of actions between martial characters and spellcasters by allowing the spellcaster to move. In that sense the 3e fighter doesn't keep up with the wizard, but he keeps up with his 2e counterpart just fine.
|
|
Are they able to do more damage in melee combat with a full-attack-action then a comparable 2nd Edition Fighter? Certainly. Just the inclusion of Feats like Power Attack ensures that. But are they capable of bringing that power to bear like a 2nd Edition Fighter? Not so much. They can only make one attack when they move, and unless you're in Mithril Armor, you're about as fast a molasses. It's difficult to hit things when you're being constantly outmaneuvered, and for most of the game, that's the kind of situation that the Fighter is looking at.
Did a little looking in my 2nd ed PH tonight. Could 3e fighters bring the same power to bear as 2e counterparts? Yes. Movement in combat was pretty limited in the old days if attacking was involved. Half movement rate and half attack rate for missiles or single attack for melee was the norm. If that 2e fighter had multiple attacks, he was standing in place to take them, not even getting a 5' step.
That said, 3e did change the economy of actions between martial characters and spellcasters by allowing the spellcaster to move. In that sense the 3e fighter doesn't keep up with the wizard, but he keeps up with his 2e counterpart just fine.
Did you look up and compare the saving throws, as well? I'm fairly sure that the 3E fighter can't match his 2E counterpart in that regard.
Did you look up and compare the saving throws, as well? I'm fairly sure that the 3E fighter can't match his 2E counterpart in that regard.
Already touched on further up-thread.
|
Generally, I run a charmed creature as caught in the middle between it's original friends and it's new, magical charm buddy. Because of this, it either switches to attacking the caster's allies, or if the caster wins an opposed charisma check, then it will switch to magical abilities or grappling to stop the caster's allies from hurting it's other freinds.
Its funny you said that, because that is what we do at our table, except the DM doesn't run the character or tell the player how to play, the players without prompting were like "Oh, I'm charmed, that means my one friends are fighting my other friend, I got to break this up."
I would like to point out a fighter has great reason to want both a luckstone and a pale green ioun stone:
They both add to attack, saves, skills, and ability checks.
The pale green also adds to damage.
So for the price of the pale green you can: Get another + 1 to hit and damage on your magic sword... OR get a + 1 to hit, damage, saves, skills, and ability checks.
Close to the same thing with the luckstone.
I would consider those very "fightery" things. As I would a Winged Cloak, and several other "helps me in situations I may face items." IF the fighter is only running around in magic armor with a magic shield and weapon his CR is lower than it should be becuase he's missing over half his wealth.
Also NONE of the items in that list where from the MiC.
Again the fighter has a similar choice that the wizard does with blasting spells...
He can either sit there and cry becuase he "can't do anything" without magical equipment "and that's not fair!" or he fines new and different ways of handling problems, or he picks up that magical gear and goes at the problem.
To have the solutions at hand then push them away becuase you don't want to use them is not poor game design.
|
|
Again, I ask, wouldn't it just be much easier to give the poor high level fighter more love (good Will saves, a bit more mobility) and make disrupton DCs a bit more reasonable (i.e. easier to disrupt) than CHANGE EVERY FREAKING SPELL IN THE BOOK?
Just asking...
This is off thread topic (again) but I have an idea derek. Maybe this has been put forth before and I apologize if this is a repetition of something already discussed (and possibly rejected). I also do not expect this suggestion to actually make the final PF rules, but it would be a possible house rule solution to some of the issues swirling around this thread and others like it.
Much like the way PF has "equaled" out the races (cumulative +2), why not equal out the saves across the classes? Each class would have 1 good save and 2 poor (or some other combo). I know that the saves are part of each classes build but maybe this wouldn't be too over balancing. Maybe.
Or (and I like this a little better) why do all fighters have to have inherently weak wills? Are there not fighters that don't fit that mold. Could you not be an extremely strong willed fighter who happens to have poor reflexes? What I am proposing is allow each character (by class) to choose which saves they excel at and those that do not. It adds a little more opportunity to character creation and diversity. Fighters would then choose one save type they are good at and two they are poor at. Other classes would likewise benefit. Classes with two good saves and one poor would have the option which was there poor save.
Everything would still be "balanced" and would still be modified by stat score distribution and the like. The result would be a larger spread of available save scores.
It also allows for a lot more role playing possibilities and decreases the opportunity for meta gaming. One could now not rely on the fact the the "fighter guy" is always the one with the weak will save, so Charm/Dominate him.
Just a thought.
Cheers
[edit] Multi-classing and prestige class implications could be problematic in this type of system.
|
|
I would like to point out a fighter has great reason to want both a luckstone and a pale green ioun stone:
They both add to attack, saves, skills, and ability checks.
The pale green also adds to damage.
So for the price of the pale green you can: Get another + 1 to hit and damage on your magic sword... OR get a + 1 to hit, damage, saves, skills, and ability checks.
Close to the same thing with the luckstone.
I would consider those very "fightery" things. As I would a Winged Cloak, and several other "helps me in situations I may face items." IF the fighter is only running around in magic armor with a magic shield and weapon his CR is lower than it should be becuase he's missing over half his wealth.
Also NONE of the items in that list where from the MiC.
Again the fighter has a similar choice that the wizard does with blasting spells...
He can either sit there and cry becuase he "can't do anything" without magical equipment "and that's not fair!" or he fines new and different ways of handling problems, or he picks up that magical gear and goes at the problem.
To have the solutions at hand then push them away becuase you don't want to use them is not poor game design.
My problem is, I want something in the class that does some of these things. I would hate for every fighter to have a list of "must haves" that are identical. You know, EVERY fighter has "a luckstone, a pale green ioun stone (great item for the cost, btw), boots of flying, cloak of resistance, etc...). I would like to see gear fit the personality of the character, instead of having the system demand it.
But, yeah, there are items that alleviate some of the save DC issues, so the problem isn't as drastic as some make it out.
|
|
I would like to point out a fighter has great reason to want both a luckstone and a pale green ioun stone:
They both add to attack, saves, skills, and ability checks.
The pale green also adds to damage.
So for the price of the pale green you can: Get another + 1 to hit and damage on your magic sword... OR get a + 1 to hit, damage, saves, skills, and ability checks.
Close to the same thing with the luckstone.
I would consider those very "fightery" things. As I would a Winged Cloak, and several other "helps me in situations I may face items." IF the fighter is only running around in magic armor with a magic shield and weapon his CR is lower than it should be becuase he's missing over half his wealth.
Also NONE of the items in that list where from the MiC.
Again the fighter has a similar choice that the wizard does with blasting spells...
He can either sit there and cry becuase he "can't do anything" without magical equipment "and that's not fair!" or he fines new and different ways of handling problems, or he picks up that magical gear and goes at the problem.
To have the solutions at hand then push them away becuase you don't want to use them is not poor game design.
Abraham, if the fighter uses a Winged Cloak, how could he use Cloak of Resistance at the same time? Wasn't that supposed to be the biggest single boost to his saves? That would be a whoppin' -5 to his saves, according to your calculations.
And, if your solution to this is that every warrior-type PC wears *identical* magic items at each level (i.e. the "optimal" choices), it's getting pretty boring fast.
Anyway, PF Beta doesn't say (to my knowledge) anything about Wealth by PC level or having to let your PCs go on a "shopping spree". They may be part of the 3.5 core rules and further elaborated on in certain supplements, but as I'm trying to run "Beta-faithful" campaign, I'm not using them (except for the Monster Manual).
Doesn't say any thing about wealth by level? Page 293 it's a nice table, fills up about half the page.
Also you can unslot a cloak of wings, or by winged boots... or a thousand other CORE suggestions. There is the carpet of flying, the broom, et al. Getting a resistance bonus to save throws is easy... becoming immune to mind affecting spells is just as easy, for most classes. Getting a potion to do the same is easy. A fighter that isn't prepared is going to die. That's the way it works. I agree some other means of adding to save throws could be nice... for the fighter, but I see it as something nice not something needed. Everyone else doesn't need anything more and save DC's for them are very low compared to save bonuses.
However I point out again that to take a gimped out fighter then saving he's weaked to a maxed out wizard is a very bad comparision.
Some means to increase DC for the wizard would be nice too. That 34 comes late in the game, and if you hit him with any INT damage he's completely undone.
If said fighters walking into a battle against a Wizard with his proverbial pants around his ankles he deserves to get Dominated. A Fighter needs a Game plan against a caster. Potions of first level spells like Protection from X are cheap and readily available.
How many potions of Protection From Evil do you need to solve this problem? Once you drink all the ones you have in your possession, will you be able to go back to down to get some more in the middle of your adventure? You can probably buy Potions of Protection from Evil in bulk in all but the most low-magic of campaigns, but once you run out, you're boned.
And both Druids and Ranger can summon Unicorns (which project Magic Circle vs. Evil as aSu ability),and both Bards and Paladins have Break Enchantment. And as a cheap, mundane way to slow your charmed teammate or a wizard... Tanglefoot bag, hell use two! The entangled condition will reduce their Reflex save from the first one enough you might stick em with the second!
Unicorns can be burned down easily. It takes a minute to cast Break Enchantment. Dropping a Tanglefoot Bag on your Dominated party member doesn't do anything to bring him back to the table.
How many times can he cast that spell? He'll run out before I do I wager.
I would be more interested in debating suggestions on a spell by spell basis, rather than debating the apparent power of an entire class of spells en masse. A significant source of my opposition all along has been to the "factual statements" that all enchantment spells are "broken" and need "fixing". This I do not agree with. In fact this entire thread (and a few others just like it) have been turned into a rehash of already discussed and contentious topics/issues. This thread needs to refocus on the question at hand and move the rest to other more appropriate forums.
I will concede this to you: I believe that the Enchantment (Compulsion) spells like Suggestion and Dominate are the type if spells that are busted. Based on what some of the people in this thread have said, I think that the Charm spells can probably stand as they are for the most part with a little fine-tuning and rules clarification. Here are the Enchantment (mostly Compulsion) spells that I believe need some work, and why.
Hideous Laughter - Works like Hold Person, doesn't allow for a round by round save to resist.
Suggestion - A lower-level version of the Dominate spells - can't be used to make a character attack his friends, but can be used to take a player out of combat with a properly worded Suggestion.
Confusion - Takes all characters in a 15 ft. burst that fail Will saves out of combat - only thing that makes it different from Hold Person is the fact that the affected characters only have a 75% chance of being useless per round (still not balanced, IMHO).
Feeblemind - Duration is too long. Guaranteed to work against Fighters, and extremely "swingy" against casters - it usually fails, but when it works, they are royally boned. If you implement round-by-round save mechanism, becomes completely useless against casters and other characters with high Will saves.
Mind Fog - A great spell for making characters that are unlikely to make their Will saves completely unable to make their Will saves.
Insanity - Should change casting time to 10 minutes like Geas.
Power Word, Blind - Change Permanent duration to one measured in hours, allow for round-by-round save - Blindness is such a severe effect that it should not be made permanent by standard spells (and the same goes for the standard Blindness spell).
Power Word, Stun - Allow spell to affect people based on HP levels, but allow for round-by-round saves afterwards.