It's strange, I don't really bought the argument "fighters suck".
And in the campaigns I've been DMing, my players love the fighters. It's the only class that always been present in each campaign. And players never felt that they were underpowered compared to the other classes.
|
I'll try not to be rude here just in case my poor English has made me missunderstand something.
I'll now repeat some stuff I posted in other threads.This is not a computergame like Diablo, Oblivion or Neverwinter Night.
This is Not PVP.
This is not one player vs. one monster.
A fighter, or any class for that matter, can't have it all.
It is good when you can get TPK:ed.Some game sessions ago our group allmost got TPK:ed ...by our lvl 6 archer ranger. Had he been a archer fighter, we would all have been dead.
A vampire Dominated the ranger and our fighter got his hands full by two lycanthropes. Yes Dominated.So what do you do? Hope you stay alive and get your ranger back to normal by spells. In this case we had to kill the bad guys and beat our ranger to -7.
....some more damage and he would have been killed by his own - ahahaha
Anyway. If you are a fighter. If you get Dominated. You should hope you get some help from your local cleric, Paladin, Bard or sorcerer/wizard.
Spells like Dispel Evil works perfect.
If your Fighter has lost 100 HP and need healing. What does he do? Get a feat and heal himself? No, he turns to his lokal Cleric, Paladin, Bard, druid or whatever.
This is not a solo game. The Fighter...
Can't get the whole quote in, but - your english is fine and your message is great. Well spoken Zark. Perfectly summed up the general feelings of many of us opposed to this movement of fighters suck threads.
cheers
We all know that high-level spell-casters rule the roost and that many situations could be avoided by judicious use of high-level NPCs. D&D is still a team game and, as I play it, a game for fun, not one for vituperative castigations of various character classes.
We all know that high-level spell-casters rule the roost and that many situations could be avoided by judicious use of high-level NPCs. D&D is still a team game and, as I play it, a game for fun, not one for vituperative castigations of various character classes.
The real question should be: Does a team of a Fighter and Wizard suck against a team of two Wizards.
If a wizard would always chose another wizard as his teammate over a fighter, than the fighter does need readjusting.
And in the campaigns I've been DMing, my players love the fighters. It's the only class that always been present in each campaign. And players never felt that they were underpowered compared to the other classes.
To the best of my understanding, the argument is not, and has never been, that "fighters suck." At low to mid levels they're an excellent, excellent class. The argument is that at higher levels (12+) they increasingly get left behind in usefulness. NOT in "power" -- this isn't about how many hp of damage you can deal -- it's about your ability to be in a position to deal any.
This is not a solo game. The Fighter or Ranger (or whatever) should have his/her weak spots. You help each other.
In the end, this is the main argument that the "fighter is fine at high levels" camp backs their stance with. What it boils down to is that Commoner is an awesome PC class, too, if they have wizards and clerics covering for them. Or that a 10th level character in an 18th level party is a full participant if the other characters look out for him.
Pretend, just for a second, that instead of 1 wizard, 1 figthter, 1 cleric, and 1 rogue, we have a high-level party of 4 fighters, and another high-level party of 4 wizards. The problem Rumiere and I see is that the all-wizard party can successfully complete (high-) level-appropriate adventures with little additional difficulty. The all-fighter party cannot complete them at all. Before you say "parties like that don't happen!" think about what it means for a mixed group: that the other three characters are, in essence, spending their resources to cover for the fighter's inability to do the things he needs to do. The main thing he represents at high levels is a potential liability (a la dominate person) -- and I, personally, don't want to play a character whose only purpose at 18th level is to be a Greek Horse to the party. I want to feel like an equal partner.
If the combat rules changed to something more like in 1e/2e -- in which interception of enemies is possible, and in which spellcasting can be reliably disrupted by an attacker, and in which fighters didn't have such a glaring propensity to become enemies every time they're faced with an enchantment spell -- then the fighter would once again be an equal participant at 12th-19th levels. It's not the class' fault that the combat rules work against it in increasingly brutal ways as levels increase... but that's exactly what happens. Change those rules, and you fix the fighter. Adding more damage to his full attack does nothing.
The proble with the greek horse/dominated arguement is, if your fighter is already a lame duck, why then if he is dominated would he be more effective against your friends than undominated aginst your enemies?
If he's little more than an annoying pest to the bad guys, what about the parties mage? Should be the same, no?
also if he's so "worthless" then there would be no point for the enemy wizard to waste time dominating him.
See the arguement cant work both ways.
Dont get me wrong I agree the saving throw/ spellcraft system is a joke.
but a worthless enemy is also a worthless ally.
The proble with the greek horse/dominated arguement is, if your fighter is already a lame duck, why then if he is dominated would he be more effective against your friends than undominated aginst your enemies?
Disagree, because it's not binary (all-powerful vs. worthless). Yes, the PC wizard ("you") can tumble away from him, but you generally start off adjacent -- which means that if you lose initiative, the fighter actually gets his one full attack of the game -- against you. Maybe he misses because of your defenses, but even still at best he's forcing you to waste resources protecting him a priori, or else distracting you from the important business at hand... or worse, causing you to move to tactically worse positions, or to waste actions dispelling the magic.
A wizard's familiar is no match for a wizard, but if they had a tendency to attack at least once per adventure, the bonded item would get a lot more popular!
So let's take this a different direction.
I agree, fighters lack the ability to handle high-level content. They can't hit or catch highly mobile (teleporting, flying, etc.) enemies, they can't deal reliably with invisibility (Blindfighting range is terribly limited), they can't overcome powerful magic (walls, dominates, etc.).
This is all true.
And it's also true that some other classes can do this kind of stuff.
So what's the answer?
Should we turn fighters into supermen? Faster than a speeding bullet? More powerful than a locomotive? Able to leap tall buildings in a single bound? Should we throw in Spidey Senses so they can find hidden enemies? And while we're at it, turn them all into ninjas so they can walk thorugh prismatic walls and be in three places at once?
If we do, then they're not fighters anymore.
Then they are a one-stop supermarket of everything you need to play D&D at high levels.
Then nobody will want to be a wizard because they can only do a few times a day what fighters can do all day long.
Do we make them limited supermen? 3/day you can leap a tall building to tackle a flying invisible archmage?
And if we do give this stuff to the fighter class, then what about barbarians? How do they catch flying invisible archmages?
Do we really want every fighter in the world leaping from mounain top to mountain top, flying from continent to continent, zipping along the highways and hundreds of miles/hour with superhuman speed, sniffing out invisible arch enemies from three kingdoms away, and invulnerable to spells, dragonfire, and volcanoes?
Should the captain of the city watch have these abilities? What about his lieutenants, sergeants, and veteran watchmen?
And even if we do this, doesn't this mean that enemy fighters will also be supermen? Heck, I would never give a beholder levels in sorcerer when I could give him levels of superman fighter instead (oooh, beholders in full plate, now *that* would be fun!)
Really, this kind of stuff is not what fighters do. If they want to do that, they better be prepared to buy or find or make magic items to do it.
If fighters want to survive the dadly high-level game, they better have friends.
When you think about it, a mage standing there all alone is a pretty easy target too with his low AC and low HP. High-level encounters have plenty of tricks to deal with the PC mages. If mages want to survive the deadly high-level game, they better have friends too.
That's how it should be.
Teamwork.
Some people specialize in ground-n-pound, while others deal with the long-range threats, while others deal with the weird stuff.
Everybody has a role to play within the team.
And when we fought something with Spell Immunity, like a Golem, our wizard had to do other stuff than cast fireball or Disintegrate.
And when we fought rogue vampires. No fun for the rogue (3.5 couldn't sneak attack) and no fun for the wizard (the have great reflex saves + evasion)
Wizard had no fun due to vamps having good reflexes and Evasion? Why is he even relying on Fireball against vamps anyways? Since that wizard already knows Disintegrate (and prepares it, according to your story), he should be hitting vamps with that instead (works against objects, and undead have no Con score and hence have bad Fort saves). Not having fun because you can't use Fireballs against vamp is like saying you can't have fun because your Lightning Bolt doesn't work against Tanar'ri Demons. Wizards have the tools to deal with almost any situation. The Wizard has to do something else other than Disintegrate or Fireball against the Golem...oh noes! Whatever will he do to contribute now? Oh yeah, Grease or Solid Fog. Next.
And at least your Rogue has the option to investing and utilizing Use Magic Device (they have it as a class skill, unlike Fighters or Monks) so they can cast something on the vampire or cast Gravestrike from a wand to be able to Sneak Attack undead.
Almost every class (except the Samurai) has more options than the Fighter and more tools.
If it's one thing fighters should be able to do in high level combat, it should be that they have in-class abilities that allow them to go toe-to-toe with high level melee brutes. I think it's unreasonable for the fighter, or most melee classes for that matter to have in-class ways to deal with the powerful magical forces flying about.
This naturally should lead us to the high-level feats. I think we've pretty much established that fighters are fine at low-mid levels. High level feats and the combat rules themselves are the main "battlegrounds" at this point.
Hmmm lets take my eldritch knight.
He began play as a 1st level half-or wizard.
He spent two modules (literally) doing nothing! (not for lack of trying) He always missed with his acid dart, Half-orc weapon proficency was useless because he always missed with that too, and he amlost always missed with his crossbow.
Mind you this was basically because he just rolled so bad seeing as baddies only had Ac from 12-15, but he couldnt even hit touch AC!
Finally, he decided to just cast buffs, because well he couldnt miss, and there was no chance of him failing so he cold DO something.
LEt me tell you how satisfying it was to give the fighter and are rogue and extra 8 AC. I could have acid darted entire combats and not had the outcome those buffs did.
I had gotten my hands on a wand of teleport at one point ( I used it too much and now its gone *bashful look*) it was kinda useless to teleport ME, but really good to teleport the rogue or fighter.
my point is a buff, or battefield control mage (one that accents say the party fighter) is actually fun to play, nothing you ever do actually fails and you "lead the league in assits"
Being able to put a fighter in place to actually DO full attacks AND summoning monsters supplying him with flanks is far better than lightening bolt anyday.
Especially when its a fighter that you buffed, and hes not only got mutliple attacks but cleave and great cleave. He's a cuisenart!
I imagine Ill do alot with myself as soon asI atually get some levels of EK going, but I can just as well fire my bow (i WAS toying with a few levels of Arcane Archer, but I think the Sorceress/Dragon Disciple might do that) and cast spells for the fighter.
I guess it really depends on fiyou like being the show or part of making the show.
If it's one thing fighters should be able to do in high level combat, it should be that they have in-class abilities that allow them to go toe-to-toe with high level melee brutes. I think it's unreasonable for the fighter, or most melee classes for that matter to have in-class ways to deal with the powerful magical forces flying about.
This naturally should lead us to the high-level feats. I think we've pretty much established that fighters are fine at low-mid levels. High level feats and the combat rules themselves are the main "battlegrounds" at this point.
We need to make tactical things like Tripping, Bullrush, Disarm, Sunder etc more viable and possible against high level melee brutes (some melee brutes are just pure immune to these sorts of things) so that even if a fighter can't outperform in terms of damage against say...the Warforged Titan, he can still force the enemy to contend with him (by limiting their mobility such as by tripping and bullrushing, or by getting rid of enemy offense via disabling of weapons via disarm and sunder).
So what's the answer?
Should we turn fighters into supermen? Faster than a speeding bullet? More powerful than a locomotive? Able to leap tall buildings in a single bound?
Clearly you're not reading posts here, so I'll not repeat everything, except to say "see above." None of your hyperbole resembles any of the recommendations I've made in any way. (I've responded to the "teamwork!" argument as well.)
|
Should we turn fighters into supermen? Faster than a speeding bullet? More powerful than a locomotive? Able to leap tall buildings in a single bound? Should we throw in Spidey Senses so they can find hidden enemies? And while we're at it, turn them all into ninjas so they can walk thorugh prismatic walls and be in three places at once?
Honestly?
YES.
Here's the thing.
At 20th level a wizard can greate a gate to another dimension, dominate and control anything for days, kill creatures with the utterance of a single word, call down meteors from the sky, stop time for anywhere from 12 to 30 seconds for everyone but themselves or make a wish - at LEAST 4 times per day.
At 20th level a cleric can suck 2 to 8 levels of life from someone, restore everyone within a 10' from the verge of death to full health in an instant, implode a person every round for a minute into a quivering mound of goo, call a god down to perform a miracle or raise a dead person into perfect health right before your eyes at least 4 times per day.
A 20th level rogue can ignore fireballs with near impunity, gain an extra chance to break free of compulsion magics, make a killing strike against anything the rogue can sneak attack with a DC 20+ fortitude save to live, cast spells, dispel buffs on enemies, do stat damage attacks, use magical items such as wands, scrolls, or specific to other races, classes or alignments with near impunity, move while hiding with at least the same chance to be unnoticed as a moving invisible person, climb around on normal walls with no chance of failure, skitter across tightropes without a care in the world and max out at least 4 other skills too while also getting at least half as many feats as the fighter.
And you're suggesting that a fighter at that near-epic level shouldn't be able to make unbelievable leaps into the air, shouldn't be able to focus himself to the point where he can detect an invisible person in his midst who isn't focused on stealth, shouldn't be able to peform feats of strength, training and will as amazing as the other classes?
The fighter needs more versatility. 4 skill points would help greatly here, giving him some room to move in skill selection.
I've said this before and I'll say it again. Don't penalize the fighter because his abilities are based on something we can actually imagine happening in the real world - because if equal level wizards and clerics are bending the laws of the universe to their will, I think a fighter able to stop an oncoming locomotive isn't too ridiculous to fathom. For us? For an Olympic athelete even? Sure, it's crazy. For a fighter so awesome he can stand in the company of a cleric, rogue and wizard of 20th level? Not so unbelievable.
Everyone could do with 4 skill points per level. Skill points will do nothing to reverse the high-level trend where fighters are awesome in combat but are increasingly unable to actually get into combat.
Jess, I think we can do better to make the fighter feel near epic without actually giving him near epic qualities. The appeal of the fighter for me is that he gains his awesomeness through his own power and skill, much as the rogue does... not through calling on the powerful forces of magic and miracles.
The high level qualities of a fighter just don't represent that quite yet, but pathfinder is closer than 3.5 was. To me, powers that seem amazing are preferable to powers that seem epic. At high level, I'd like to see abilities such as:
*Being able to climb atop an enormous creature and fight.
*Being able to turn a foe's hit into a near miss.
*Being able to wade through several foes with a better than average chance of not suffering a scratch.
*Have the ability to escape the clutches of an enormous beast before being swallowed.
*Being able to Stand Toe-to-Claw with an ancient dragon and not die in one round.
*Being able to freely switch between melee and ranged weapons on the fly to remain viable when opponents are faster than him.
*Being able to move faster than normal in tactical fighting.
*Being able to hamper a foe and reduce his combat effectiveness with your attacks.
*Having a decent chance to survive a magical attack.
These types of abilities IMO stretch the boundaries of believability without actually breaking them and turning the fighter into something that feels supernatural.
|
|
Everyone could do with 4 skill points per level. Skill points will do nothing to reverse the high-level trend where fighters are awesome in combat but are increasingly unable to actually get into combat.
I dunno, I don't think wizards or clerics need more skill points. Wizards get a lot form a high intelligence mod, and all spellcasters can cover a lot of area with their spells. But Fighters and Paladins deserve a little love in the skill point department, that's for sure.
The problems with high level fighters are all systemic. Combat system and magic system work together to harm their viability in high level play. Feats as class abilities means that once a fighter hits about 8th level, he's not improving some martial skill he already has by going up higher on some feat chain...he's starting on a new feat tree and essentially getting, at 8th level, a first level power. And he does the same at 12th level. And 18th.
|
|
Why is the fighter always being dominated? How do the enemies know he/she is a fighter with low will saves, as opposed to a paladin or heavily armoured cleric? Imagine a party where there was a heavily armoured cleric and a fighter dressed in similar gear. who does the caster dominate in their first action before the party is all over them?
Much metagaming going on here guys? If the fighters in my gamees worked out they were always getting targetted with dominates they take steps to prevent it, including dressing up like the cleric if it comes to that. Hell glamoured armour can make you look like the wizard if you really wanted it to(but of course, all enemy casters alwasy have truesight up - sorry sarcasm there)
Why are all you casters wasting high level spells slots with big spells to "wipe out entire groups" when you can drop low level buffs on the fighter and let them do it more efficiently (after all they can swing the weapon all day, the caster only gets a few little pews off before they're spent)
Here's an example where the cleric in our party has realised its more efficinet to let the fighters do the damage/removal work. Fighting an invisible dragon that was all set to do strafing runs over the group. Cleric with true sight held action and when dragon was overhead, cast a spell that grounded the dragon right in front of the melee types. Guess what happened to the dragon? No problem with fighters being unable to fight there, thanks to clever team work.
The best thing was it a was a low level spell and saved his higher level spells for later, possibly for when the Faecal matter hits the rotating air mover.
If a group of players wants to play all fighters, they're after a certain type of game, probably involving brutal close combat. Cater to what they want. Why would you throw a group of 4 casters specialising in enchantment at this group unless you wanted to have them captured for plot reasons (or were just interested in showing how tough you can be as DM). Cater to what they want
If a group of players are taking all spell casters, they're also after a certain type of game, probably with lots of magic and problems to be overcome with said magic. Would you throw a dragon surrounded by an antimagic field at this lot (Order of the Stick is great btw). Not unless you wanted to be mr big and were forcing them to play YOUR game rather than group game.
If a party plays a mixed group of casters and fighters then they want some form of teamwork and most things can be thrown at them as is, let them learn how to deal with the limitations. Most modules are written with this type of group in mind, and things balance nicely when played as a team.
Stop moaning about the apparent ineffectiveess of fighters and then using weak arguments involving broken CR mechanics (widely accepted that CR is pretty dodgy at best), completely unprepared parties coming up against completely prepared enemies, ridiculous scenario setups where things are perfectly set against the fighter, enforced limitations on the gear available to counteract some of the limitations.
Sure some of these things pop up some of the time, but if they keep popping up as regulalry as you guys seem to make out, then your mollycoddling to your casters and presenting a biased prespective on game play.
I also find it humorous to see this argument pop up again and again despite all the things the developers of PFRPG have looked at and hinted at for modifying the game to prevent some of these apparent "glaring inadequacies" of fighters. When the final game comes out and you still think fighters are broken, before starting another thread, play one through a 20 level campaign and then come back for it.
Well, rant over.
Cheers
|
|
CR 7, 152 HP, 18 armor class, immune to criticals, mind control and various types of negative conditions, damage reduction, Huge Size (10' reach, high CMB bonus), earth glide, 29 Str, Awesome Blow, Cleave, Great Cleave, Improved Bull Rush, Iron Will, Power Attack
Now, can you imagine 7th level Fighter equaling this guy?
Meanwhile, Rogues can sneak away/around or use Escape Artist. And let's not start about what other classes can do to defeat/circumvent/escape.Regards,
Ruemere
Why the hell is the rogue running away? What type of teammates have you got in your games Reumere? Shocking form really.
Cheers
Should we turn fighters into supermen? Faster than a speeding bullet? More powerful than a locomotive? Able to leap tall buildings in a single bound? Should we throw in Spidey Senses so they can find hidden enemies? And while we're at it, turn them all into ninjas so they can walk thorugh prismatic walls and be in three places at once?
Actually, if my vision (just mine, I know not necessarily anyone else's, and certainly not Paizo's) of a 20th level Wizard is something akin to Merlin, then why shouldn't a 20th level Fighter be something akin to Achilles or Alexander? So yeah! Bring on the supermen (I know I know, not gonna happen).
This is not a computergame like Diablo, Oblivion or Neverwinter Night.
This is Not PVP.
This is not one player vs. one monster.
Maybe not, but if you don't balanced your classes against each other, you end up with some classes that are clearly better then others in terms of contributing to the party's well-being. No one wants to play a character whose class isn't capable of doing anything useful at high levels.
A fighter, or any class for that matter, can't have it all.
Maybe not, but there are some classes that clearly are closer to "having it all" then the Fighter. Wizards, Clerics, and Druids come to mind immediately.
If you are a fighter. If you get Dominated.
Sone people on this forum don't really seem to have a problem with the fact that Fighters can be enslaved with a single spell that they have a 75%+ chance of being affected by. It also seems like the general consensus amongst these people is that it is perfectly fine for Barbarians and Rogues to have class abilities that either provide bonuses to their Will saves or give them outright re-rolls. Why are these acceptable class abilities for Rogues and Barbarians, but not for Fighters? Fighters were known for having fantastic saving throws in 1st and 2nd Edition D&D. So why is giving them a leg up on their Will saves or nerfing Dominate spells considered to be so distasteful?
It's no wonder Fighters are a Tier 5 class (and probably will remain as such by the end of this playtest).
If you don't give the Fighter a class ability to help them with their Will saves, then we need to introduce something else. The power of the Dominate spell is such that it needs additional mechanics to mitigate its power. Offering Recovery Saves (like Hold Person and Command, Greater currently do) every round that a Dominated character is "in combat" seems like the best option to me at this point in time. This would reduce the amount of time that Fighters are Dominated from "infinite" to "three to five rounds". Not only would Fighters benefit from this, but it would allow low-Will save monsters to pose a greater threat against spellcasters that would otherwise simply enslave them and sic them against their former allies.
You should hope you get some help from your local cleric, Paladin, Bard or sorcerer/wizard.
Here's the rub - you're probably never going to run into this problem in a party that has a Cleric, Paladin, or Wizard because Team Monster knows that if they do use a Dominate effect against the Fighter, the Wizard or Cleric just has to cast a single 1st level spell - Protection From Evil - to remove the effect. That may serve to lock down a caster for a round, but it's a waste of resources. They are sacrificing a 5th level spell and a standard action to force an enemy caster to waste a standard action and a 1st level spell. It's not tactically sound unless 1) you have no other options available or 2) you can spam it like crazy without wasting spell slots (Vampires, Mind Flayers).
So the only time that Fighters really have to worry about being Dominated in the first place is when they DON'T have a Wizard or a Cleric in the party.
Druids and Bards MIGHT be able to help you out, but they have to rely on Dispel Magic to get rid of Dominate effects. Unlike PfE, it isn't guaranteed to work. And seeing as how most Druids might only be packing one or two Dispel Magic spells a day, they can't spam them like crazy, and they may very well have to blow two spells (and two standard actions) to accomplish what a Wizard or a Cleric would instantly accomplish with a 1st level spell. Balanced? Not really. You're still probably boned.
If your Fighter has lost 100 HP and need healing. What does he do? Get a feat and heal himself? No, he turns to his lokal Cleric, Paladin, Bard, druid or whatever.
Or he can drink potions, use other magical items, or (god forbid) regain HP from rest. These may not be quick or cheap options, but they will help you regain HP. But if you get Dominated - or fall prey to any Save-Or-Suck spell - you don't have any options.
The Fighter or Ranger (or whatever) should have his/her weak spots. You help each other.
It's good to have weak spots, but Fighters are pretty much helpless against Dominate effects.
It's not great to play rogue with bad will and fortitude saves when you fail to disable a trap and then have a disintigrate, slay living or Feeblemind to deal with.
At least Rogues have HP to help mitigate the effect of Disintegrate or Slay Living. And if they get Dominated, they can use Slippery Mind to try and shake off the effects.
Feeblemind is another Save-Or-Suck spell that needs a mitigation mechanic. It's no fairer to Wizards that they should be permanently lobotomized that it is that Fighters should be slaves. That being said, at least Wizards get to roll against their good save to resist the effect.
The real question should be: Does a team of a Fighter and Wizard suck against a team of two Wizards.
If a wizard would always chose another wizard as his teammate over a fighter, than the fighter does need readjusting.
I would choose a Wizard/Wizard team over a Fighter/Wizard team every time, no question.
The proble with the greek horse/dominated arguement is, if your fighter is already a lame duck, why then if he is dominated would he be more effective against your friends than undominated aginst your enemies?
If he's little more than an annoying pest to the bad guys, what about the parties mage? Should be the same, no?
also if he's so "worthless" then there would be no point for the enemy wizard to waste time dominating him.
IMHO, enemy spellcasters aren't going to use Dominate against Fighters that have Wizards and Clerics on their team unless they are complete retards. The Wizard or Cleric will simply drop PfE on their next turn, and they'll be out a 5th level (or higher) spell slot. They will focus on using things like Wall spells, Mirror Image, Flight, Displacement, and Wind Wall to mitigate the effectiveness of non-spellcasters and focus their power on the real threats. It's only when they face Fighters without Wizardly or Clerical support that they start throwing Dominate around and turning Fighters into slaves.
And hey - even if your new slave is usless against other spellcasters, he's still great for carrying things around for you or taking care of pests that you don't really want to deal with.
5. There are melee opponents which are far superior to Fighters. And they can be summoned at will by spellcasters of lower level than Fighters (example: Druid, 11th level, can summon Huge Elemental.
Summoning needs to be nerfed in PRPG something fierce. The summoning spells are just too good at higher levels. The ability for Conjurers to quickly raise up armies of monsters that are better in melee combat then their fellow party members needs to be eliminated. This would go a long way towards giving non-spellcasters more opportunities to contribute to the game.
Why is the fighter always being dominated? How do the enemies know he/she is a fighter with low will saves, as opposed to a paladin or heavily armoured cleric? Imagine a party where there was a heavily armoured cleric and a fighter dressed in similar gear. who does the caster dominate in their first action before the party is all over them?
In a high level game, there's a good chance that your enemies will already know quite a bit about you, either by your reputation or by scrying on you or your associates directly. But even if they aren't personally familiar with you, chances are pretty good that even in the most eclectic campaigns, the guys in armor aren't going to be casting spells unless their armor and weapons are slathered with holy symbols. And the guys in pajamas are still probably going to be the ones that will be summoning Pit Fiends to gnaw your face off.
As far as I can tell, the classic stereotype of a heroic fighter relies on a fighter being able to dodge, shrug off blows or, in a dramatic surge, pull themselves from the rubble and keep on fighting.
Fixing 3.5/Pathfinder fighter without breaking the game in fighter's favor should allow just that. For example:
1. Dominated? Just give me a round to come around. (i.e. fighter does nothing while shrugging off effects)
2. Walled off? Flexing muscles, bringing the house down! (i.e. surge of strength and breaking up stuff, including walls of force)
3. Attacked from range? Go fully defensive and sniff the bastard out using my sense of smell (i.e. more skill points to find out whereabouts of opponent)
4. Disabled by spell? Scream, flail about and slowly thaw.
By the way, Barbarian can already do most of this stuff.
Regards,
Ruemere
So let me see If I got this right.
Give the fighter the good stuff the barbarian have and give the barbarian nothing?
Our gruop almost got TPK:ed by a vampire. He used spells and vampire styff. Should the Vampire not be able to to that?That's not what I wrote. Rereading the message strongly advised.
Regards,
Ruemere
Sorry, Read again and I don't understand what you mean. Can you help me out?
And when we fought something with Spell Immunity, like a Golem, our wizard had to do other stuff than cast fireball or Disintegrate.
And when we fought rogue vampires. No fun for the rogue (3.5 couldn't sneak attack) and no fun for the wizard (the have great reflex saves + evasion)
Wizard had no fun due to vamps having good reflexes and Evasion? Why is he even relying on Fireball against vamps anyways? Since that wizard already knows Disintegrate (and prepares it, according to your story), he should be hitting vamps with that instead (works against objects, and undead have no Con score and hence have bad Fort saves). Not having fun because you can't use Fireballs against vamp is like saying you can't have fun because your Lightning Bolt doesn't work against Tanar'ri Demons. Wizards have the tools to deal with almost any situation. The Wizard has to do something else other than Disintegrate or Fireball against the Golem...oh noes! Whatever will he do to contribute now? Oh yeah, Grease or Solid Fog. Next.
And at least your Rogue has the option to investing and utilizing Use Magic Device (they have it as a class skill, unlike Fighters or Monks) so they can cast something on the vampire or cast Gravestrike from a wand to be able to Sneak Attack undead.
Almost every class (except the Samurai) has more options than the Fighter and more tools.
- At lover levels he did't have Disintegrate
- he did not always prep. Disintegrate- you do not always know what monsters you gonna meat.
Gravestrike - from what book is this spell. Please help me out :-)
finaly. In 3.5 we hade class skill and no class skill = cross class skill.
Now class skill only equals +3.
And snark stuff don't give you bonus points.
Fighters should have fly speed, energy resistance (or immunity), infinite teleportation, disintegrate for ranged attacks, mental control immunity without depending on magic items to let them compete at high levels.
Oh wait that's what a spell caster can do only a limited number times per day, that he must have prepared without knowing beforehand, and giving him also high bab and HP...
Yes, fighters really suck like this.
Actually, if my vision (just mine, I know not necessarily anyone else's, and certainly not Paizo's) of a 20th level Wizard is something akin to Merlin, then why shouldn't a 20th level Fighter be something akin to Achilles or Alexander? So yeah! Bring on the supermen (I know I know, not gonna happen).
The invulnerable skin of Achilles is actually something that can be modelled for near-epic fighters. Other than syphilitic, drunken, friend-slaying rants, I would say that Alexander's only legendary traits were his military skill and his charisma, both of which need no extra class abilities.
|
I believe that many fighter defenders fail (no Den pun intended) that they are trying to compare a PC fighter with a PC caster. The PC caster has to worry about preparing the right spells, managing resources et al.
The NPC caster doesn't have to. He is going to make his one combat appearance against the PCs and he will blow all his resources to make it count. A PC wizard must conserve and can never be sure if the "final boss" is the FINAL boss - great example is Lady Andasin in 7DTTG.
A "monster" caster does not need to make such considerations - even if he has to retreat, a single dimension door/teleport/plane shift does the job - unlike the PC casters, who (usually) try to save the skin of everybody on the team, the NPC doesn't give a crap about what happens to his allies most of the time.
In the specific case where it's a vampire sneaking and it's the fighter at watch... I thought it was a general discussion.
I don't see any more difference if it's a barbarian, or ranger.
What the barbarian, ranger or paladin have that make them effective at high levels that the fighter don't have ?
Well, as far as I know, you must meet the gaze of one attempting to use a gaze attack on you. Therefore, a vampire cannot dominate someone if they are invisible nor can they dominate an invisible target.
|
|
I believe that many fighter defenders fail (no Den pun intended) that they are trying to compare a PC fighter with a PC caster. The PC caster has to worry about preparing the right spells, managing resources et al.
The NPC caster doesn't have to. He is going to make his one combat appearance against the PCs and he will blow all his resources to make it count. A PC wizard must conserve and can never be sure if the "final boss" is the FINAL boss - great example is Lady Andasin in 7DTTG.
A "monster" caster does not need to make such considerations - even if he has to retreat, a single dimension door/teleport/plane shift does the job - unlike the PC casters, who (usually) try to save the skin of everybody on the team, the NPC doesn't give a crap about what happens to his allies most of the time.
Yep, that's whats known as metagaming. I always laugh at stat blocks for magicians that are loaded for bear because they must intrinsically know that there is a party of adventureres about to break down their door. How do they get to plan all their dastardly deeds when they have to spend so much time being paranoid about attacks? Why haven't they already used some of their spells just during their dayly activities causing all the mayhem and chaos that the good guys are coming after them for? Why are they assuming this is the last fight they'll have for the day, when there could be waves of enemies coming? Where are all the evokers, necromancers and illusionist baddies that proably wont have all those amazing contingency spells because they prepare their magics for a different purpose on a daily basis other than killing PC's.
I guess the answer to all these is that DMs have to metagame their baddy wizards otherwise their little glass canons would be a walkover. I wonder how many players have had the fortune of actually catching their enemies off guard. This actually happens in my games when the players are smart and their plans work. Guess what? The BBEG's die pretty damn quick, just like the PC's seem to be doing in all these scenarios being put out there by the likes of reumere and co.
Where I see the wizards are far more powerful guys fail (no pun intended) is that they metagame their butts off and write it off as "what an inteligent opponent would do". If their opponent had spent all these resources tracking the party down and finding out all about them, there's a good chance they'd have burned through a number of their prepared spells, but that never seems to get figured into the final encounter. Go figure. Why arent the baddies ever attacked during their rest period when they've lost many of their spells? Why isn't the temple of evil godliness struck down by the PC's when the baddy clerics haven't finished their daily rights to renew their spells. DM metagaming is why.
There are a number of ways to build realistic encounters, but the only ones that seem to pop up in these types of discssions are the generalist destruction wizards for some reason. That's one class of spell caster out of how many?
cheers
|
|
For example, a vampire may use Hide/Invisibility before using Dominate on Fighter. There is no prerequisite of Vampire making itself visible to Fighter, merely that the Vampire can look straight into target's eyes from a distance of up to 30'.
So, you're camping, your party sleeps and a Fighter is guarding you. A hidden Vampire can repeatedly attempt to Dominate the Fighter and then order him to tie the party.Now, why would anyone want the most vulnerable guy to stand watch?
Thats a pretty big DM call there Reumere. Most DM's I know wouldn't rule it that way at all, the eyes have to be visible for the dominate to work.
I could see it hiding/invis until it snuck up close enough to suddenly become visible and try the gaze, but not the way you're presenting it here.
The most vulnerable guy is the wizard because the party is resting so they can get their used up spells back, including their short duration uber buffs that make them anything more than a monster mini snack.
However, in this very specific case I'd agree that if the party are out fightig vampires then the fighter shouldn't be on watch without at least some form of protection from domination effect. You could also set double watches so when mr vampire (or mrs, lets not be sexist here) suddenly appears in front of the fighter to dominate them, his buddy gets to act accordingly.
cheers
|
I do have to agree with you that having all spells all the time is a little unrealistic. I can point to Shackled City and it's Cagewrights however, who spend all their time hidden away in their lair, traveling only when necessary. What few spells they need to cast can be cast from consumables, and when you are hiding out in preparation to rule the world, you ARE paranoid about an enemy assault. As for novaing, well, you can't expect to survive the second wave if you don't survive the first.
|
|
I do have to agree with you that having all spells all the time is a little unrealistic. I can point to Shackled City and it's Cagewrights however, who spend all their time hidden away in their lair, traveling only when necessary. What few spells they need to cast can be cast from consumables, and when you are hiding out in preparation to rule the world, you ARE paranoid about an enemy assault. As for novaing, well, you can't expect to survive the second wave if you don't survive the first.
Nice line at the end there :) Shackled city is also a good example of NPC baddies being paranoid eough to be prepared, well done. But then, I always hated the last few modules of shackled city, just one big dungeon crawl over two mags disapointed me. Still, well played sir.
|
|
I wouldn't know, I had to close out at Thirteen Cages when our deployment ended. Still a good campaign, tho I will certainly use some of Delvesdeep's work instead of the last two modules next time.
It does annoy me that there aren't more 'already cast' entries in spellcaster stat blocks beyond combat buffs. If you're not holed up somewhere waiting for attack, why aren't you casting in your normal workday? I'll have to address this in future games, so thank you for your own good point, sir. ^_^
Do you really think it would be feasible to recap all changes introduced by Pathfinder BETA and its subsequent updates here? Because that's what you're asking about.In short, Barbarians get new Rage abilities which allow them to deal with impossible odds, Paladins gain improved special abilities, their smite is revamped, and if they don't like it, they can replace pokemount with a pokeweapon. Rangers get new animal companions... the other changes are pretty vague - I have no ranger in my party so I cannot really speak on that.
Three helpful places to get more detailed information are:
- Pathfinder BETA download
- Playtest forum
and, most of all,
- Pathfinder RPG Beta Playtest reference thread
Thank you for all this effort, but I already know all that.
Meanwhile Fighters got some damage (weapon training) and more feats, lost maneuvers (high DC for Combat Manevuers, nerf of Trip), lost good feats (nerf of Combat Expertise, nerf of Power Attack, nerf of Improved Trip).
Unfortunately, as written, it is possible to create superior character to Fighter with almost the same BAB and number of feat AND with 14 SPELLCASTER LEVELS! (Fighter 4, Sorceer 2, Dragon Disciple 4, Eldritch Knight 10).Regards,
Ruemere
Nerf of feats you mention affect everyone, not just fighters.
It was already possible before to have almost equal bab, this has nothing to do with Pathfinder. And I never heard/read bab was a problem.Fighters gaining significant bonus to hit and damage (+4), to AC (+4 and more dex bonus, less armor check penalty), new fighter feats, automatic criticals, cannot be disarmed, DR 5/- is not efficient at high levels ? What do you want ? They can dish 250 damage in a round. I don't see them underpowered compared to paladin, ranger, barbarian.
And as for the full attack problem with moving some people mentioned, it also affects ALL characters.
Again, what the fighter lacks compared to others ?
Therefore:
- Vampire must be able to look into victim's eyes (30' allowed),
- Victim does not need to be able to see vampire. 30' distance reinforces the notion since it would be pretty hard to gaze meaningfully into someone's eyes from that distance :)Regards,
Ruemere
This is non sense. Invisible creatures can't use gaze attack, as blind creatures can't be affected by gaze attacks. If the fighter can be affected by the vampire gaze, vampire is not hiding from him.
Also it should be as easy to dominate the barbarian or ranger. So it's not a fighter problem.And sorry again for staying in a specific case in a general discussion.
It's good to have weak spots, but Fighters are pretty much helpless against Dominate effects.
Really? Why is all this Domination talk the reason why fighters stink?
A simple potion of Protection from Evil stops it cold. A fighter can certainly carry one. In pathfinder, they've made it easier for all non-casters... not just fighters, with UMD and the new skill rules. At high level, when the Dominate spell sees most of its use. The fighter class has the resources to personally protect himself from this spell.
And how is he a liability to the party because they have to waste their actions to dispel the Dominated fighter in the midst of combat? This is certainly not my experience at high level play. Often, the PCs cast Protection from Evil beforehand when given the chance "just in case"... and not just on the Fighter, but on Everyone. At those levels it lasts a long time in game terms.
Note:
- Vampire must look into victim's eyes,
- it is specifically stated that looking at merely looking at the vampire eyes does not activate the ability,
- Domination is not a gaze attack. Therefore rules for gaze attack do not apply.Therefore:
- Vampire must be able to look into victim's eyes (30' allowed),
- Victim does not need to be able to see vampire. 30' distance reinforces the notion since it would be pretty hard to gaze meaningfully into someone's eyes from that distance :)
Quoted from 3.5 DMG:
-Invisible creatures cannot use gaze attacks-If visibility is limited (...text...) there is a percentage chance equal to the normal miss chance for that degree of concealment that a character won't need to make a saving throw in a given round.
Quoted from SRD:
-Only looking directly at a creature with a gaze attack leaves an opponent vulnerable.
In the vampire description, it specifically states:
- It is similar to a gaze attack, except
- The vampire must use a standard action to use it
- those merely looking at it are not affected
The evidence is stacked against this style of use.