|
For the fighter this was addressed to some extent with the Bravery ability, which grants a bonus to Will saves versus fear effects. I believe Barbarians have an anti-fear effect as a rage ability, but don't quote me on that. Paladins have their Divine Grace bonus to all saving throws, so they are probably OK. I can easily see any, if not all, of these bonuses applying with the Heroes of Horror book's revised fear system and the phobia system. Your DM's opinion may vary.
I see where you're coming from with this.. but do you have any examples from SRD/Pathfinder? Other than supernatural fear effects (like a dragon charging), I can't think of any Will saves from non-magical effects (maybe some exotic mental poisons?)
Yes, you can take feats that help with saves, but I don't think the big brave fighter should have to take a special feat just to be as brave as a a wizard.
How about rephrasing this in other contexts? Why should the wizard have to take a feat to be as nimble as a rogue or as tough as a fighter?
If you want to have a mentally tough fighter, he can also choose to go with a lower Con and a higher Int.
I don't, honestly. I haven't looked. My feeling is that if Pathfinder is aiming for compatibility with 3.5 products, then that would include Heroes of Horror and other works. It's really just a philosophical thing for me... when I see that fighters and barbarians have low Will, it seems strange to me. Conan sure didn't have low Will! If your PC has been captured and is being interrogated, I don't want the tough guy wimping out while the wizard holds fast.
I don't have a problem with a fighter having less "willpower" or "mental discipline" than a wizard (so, for example, a fighter might fall under a charm spell more easily), but I think you have a good point about fear -- it seems a little odd that a fighter is less brave than a wizard by default. Maybe it would make more sense to have fear saves be Fort saves instead of Will.
It doesn't really bother me that much, but it's something to think about.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Yes, you can take feats that help with saves, but I don't think the big brave fighter should have to take a special feat just to be as brave as a a wizard.
If you want to have a mentally tough fighter, he can also choose to go with a lower Con and a higher Int.
I was under the impression that Will saves drew their base from Wisdom, rather than Intelligence. Have I missed a memo somewhere?
As an example of a non-magical Will save, let's say that a character has to plunge his hand into a small barrel of boiling tar to grab a gem at the bottom. He knows beyond a doubt that it's going to hurt like crazy and likely cause permanent damage.
A mid-level fighter has a better Will save than a low-level fighter. Fighters with high Wisdom have better saves than fighters with low Wisdom. Low-level characters have better saves than commoners.
I suppose my counter-question is: All right; if not a fighter or rogue, who should have poor Will saves?
Why does any class need to have a poor save in general? I think base save bonuses should be equal based on level for each class. Each class can have a static bonus to particular saves. That's how I'd do it if I was designing the game.
How about rephrasing this in other contexts? Why should the wizard have to take a feat to be as nimble as a rogue or as tough as a fighter?
Yeah. It's a magic fireball, how come the wizard, who is really good at magic, is worse at it than that magic-dead rogue?
And how can that fighter withstand magical powers that turn his molecules into vapour, but the wizard, who probably has charged all his molecules with anti-vapourising magic, cannot?
Let's not make the game overly complicated with rules that aren't even consistent.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
The Will thing is especially bothersome to me because the fighter-heroes are traditionally (in literature) tough-minded when it comes to non-magical things. Boromir is the prime example: weak minded when it came to resisting the Ring, but tough-minded when it came to crossing Caradhras. My point is that Will needs to be better defined as a magic-only stat, or at least giving each PC the choice of what save to make good, poor, etc.
Jirell of Joiry is another excellent example. She just ploughs through mind-influencing threats by being meaner and angrier than her magician foes anticipate. (Northwest Smith, on the other hand, falls victim to every last attack on his willpower, all the time...)
But there are ways of building a combat character with a pretty good Will save: having a high Wisdom, investing in the Iron Will feat, obtaining a ring of protection, hiring on a bard cohort, and so on.
My proposal: give players one of the following choices when designing their save progressions:
1) one good (+12), two medium (+9)
2) two good (+12), one poor (+6)
Vivsavage, I'll confess that I have a prejudice here. Whenever anybody suggests strengthening PC's even more than the Pathfinder Beta, I always hear "You know, I have one simple request. And that is to have sharks with frickin' laser beams attached to their heads!"
Low-level fighters are supposed to be vulnerable to attacks on their will power. Being able to resist those attacks is notable and heroic.
It sounds to me like everyone is confusing Will with Fortitude.
Crossing the alps, that's Fortitude.
Facing a mind flayer's mental attack - that's will.
Hand in pot of boiling water - Fortitude.
Facing a horror that you'd never see in the village, or even the gladatorial pits, but only in your deepest nightmare - that's will.
Physical torture - Fortitude.
Mental torture - Will.
Eating the gastronic horror - Will
Not puking it up - Fortitude.
I personally feel that the Bravery Bonus of the Fighter Class fills this niche well.
Barbarians have a great Rage Power useful vs. ALL Enchantments, Rangers are motivated to have decent WIS for their Spells as well as Survival/Tracking, and Paladins basically have the best Saves of anybody.
I'd actually like Intimidate to more clearly be included as a "Fear Effect" (the Beta doesn't seem 100% clear on it to me), since "Bravery" should logically work just as well against an Intimidating Ettin as some wimpy Enchanter.
This is really in the definition of "Fear" Effects, not the Fighter Ability, though.
And while I'm mentioning it, the mechanic of Intimidate is very wierd...
IMHO, It should use the stronger of either the Target's Will Save (no new sub-system) or CMB (likewise) to set the DC. Consolidating wonky sub-systems like that seemed a pretty big goal of Pathfinder, so hopefully that little sub-system will see some work in the Final... ???
I don't, honestly. I haven't looked. My feeling is that if Pathfinder is aiming for compatibility with 3.5 products, then that would include Heroes of Horror and other works. It's really just a philosophical thing for me... when I see that fighters and barbarians have low Will, it seems strange to me. Conan sure didn't have low Will! If your PC has been captured and is being interrogated, I don't want the tough guy wimping out while the wizard holds fast.
So just to be clear, your problem with will saves in Pathfinder is inherited from the core 3.5 PHB? Because as far as I can tell, will saves haven't changed, conceptually or otherwise.
Will saves should be no more or less a problem with Pathfinder regarding phobias and the Heroes of Horror supplement than they were a problem in standard 3.5 D&D when Heroes of Horror was introduced. The same will save system for Pathfinder was already in play with 3.5 D&D.
My understanding of Pathfinder is that it is supposed to modify enough of the core material to make it comparable to some of the expanded classes introduced in the Complete series and other supplements. Judging from some of the other responses in this thread regarding bonuses certain classes receive for will saves (bravery, divine grace), it seems like that has occurred.
I personally feel that the Bravery Bonus of the Fighter Class fills this niche well.
Barbarians have a great Rage Power useful vs. ALL Enchantments, Rangers are motivated to have decent WIS for their Spells as well as Survival/Tracking, and Paladins basically have the best Saves of anybody.
I'd say it patches the situation well--for fighters. But I'd agree with other posters that there are times in which the 3 saves don't really cover everything that would be nice to cover. Resistance to fear/bravery/valor/what-have-you is one of those things not well modeled for any 3.5 character other than the paladin.
Barbarians get can get bonuses to Will saves while in rage thought (when they should have such bonuses), and have good incentive to have a decent wisdom score (several of their class skills are wisdom based). Paladins have good will saves now, while rangers as mentioned have reason to have decent wisdom scores too.
Over all I see this as a non-issue. The fighter is good versus fear, otherwise turning his head around is fairly easy. We are talking about fighters in general here, not just the heroes of legend at level 20 with their super swords and what not. These are the town guards, captains of the watch, bodyguards of the king, and such... not just the Conans, Aargons, and such.
The specific power heroes mentioned here are a cut above normal people of their class, this is represented by higher stats (including wisdom) and feats such as iron will.
Since the system can handle both ends of the spectrum for multiple classes I think it works.
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
Correct. Although Bravery, as others have noted, is a help with the fighter at least. But the whole courage/bravery thing is still an issue with other classes.. namely the barbarian IMO.
So just to be clear, your problem with will saves in Pathfinder is inherited from the core 3.5 PHB?
The barbarian gets a +2 on will saves when raging, and they're more likely to have a higher wisdom then the average fighter. I think that's farily balanced out.
The Rage Will Bonus scales with level.
And there's a Rage Power to REROLL failed Will Saves. Slightly useful.
We'll have to agree to differ.Over all I see this as a non-issue.
But of course, different folk different strokes.
However I would point out again that for that average joe fighter shouldn't have great will saves. For a "hero" sure you might expect more, but the classes are made to represent a more toned down hero than those of epic status (conan, gimlee, legolass, et al) and for those average fighters the poor save is appropriate. The more "heroic" fighter types still have the option to boost their saves with Iron Will and having more Wisdom (which most of those big named heroes have) which in turn leads to a better Will save.
And even having a good save throw doesn't mean you'll have a good save. For example my most recent wizard had poor wisdom which of course adversely affected his Will save.
In my opinion complaining about the fighter's poor Will save is akin to complaining about the cleric's poor Reflex save, or the wizard's poor Hit Points. These are the prices you pay for the class features you get.
|
Barbarians get can get bonuses to Will saves while in rage thought (when they should have such bonuses), and have good incentive to have a decent wisdom score (several of their class skills are wisdom based). Paladins have good will saves now, while rangers as mentioned have reason to have decent wisdom scores too.
Over all I see this as a non-issue. The fighter is good versus fear, otherwise turning his head around is fairly easy. We are talking about fighters in general here, not just the heroes of legend at level 20 with their super swords and what not. These are the town guards, captains of the watch, bodyguards of the king, and such... not just the Conans, Aargons, and such.
The specific power heroes mentioned here are a cut above normal people of their class, this is represented by higher stats (including wisdom) and feats such as iron will.
Since the system can handle both ends of the spectrum for multiple classes I think it works.
We've discussed this before, but those 20th level legendary "martial" PCs (using Epic point-buy) would have... what... Will +10, at best? Add in +5 Resistance Bonus for a whoppin' +15 (assuming you have such a magic item), which is still quite low. Dragonfear? Mind-affecting spells? Forget about it... not a chance against ancient dragons or BBEGs.
I think that *if* there were less bonus types and/or less ways to rack them up, the math and the balance would work better in high-level play (i.e. less "buffs", feats and magic items that grant bonuses to ability scores).
Um, nice but no. A basic human fighter with iron will and a wisdom of 14 would only have a +10 save bonus (to start with). A dwarf would have +12 against spells, an elf would have +12 against enchantment spells, a halfling would have +11, and a half orc would have +11 (bonus points to wisdom).
And that's assuming that they have a wisdom of 14 to start with and are a fighter. Not a barbarian (add 2 more, if not more from rage powers), ranger, or paladin or have anything else going for them (like traits).
Also a ranger in 3.5 qualifies for the two weapon fighting tree and ranged fighting trees without needing a good DEX.
Beyond that we also identified that the highest save throw the fighter is going to have to face against a fully maxed out wizard is 34. Anything less than a fully maxed out wizard and the DC starts dropping very quickly (the 'average' DC for most level 20 NPC wizards is in the 26~28 range for ninth level spells).
Buffing save throws is much easier than buffing save DC's. You can get a morale bonus, luck bonus, and sacred bonus, not to mentioned a few more untyped bonuses.
The problem is again, people choosing to look at the low end fighter and compare him to the high end wizard. If you take a high end fighter then compare him the wizard's DCs come out much less favorable.
I'd also like to remind folsk that the fighter's will save only corresponds to their bravery against supernaturally frightening things: Fear spells, a dragon's fightful presence, and the like.
Against mundane things that you should be fearful of: Pain, danger, and the like, no one has to roll saves. It's a roleplaying matter. And a fighter with a million hit points has much less reason to be afraid of pain than a wizard with only a few. We don't need an extra mechanic for this, because wizards should (usually) be roleplayed as being afraid of pain. Mechanics are not always necessary to back up roleplaying.
To use the above example of needing to draw a key or something out of a pot of boiling pitch: There is no save here. The DM says 'you'll take 3d6 damage from this', and the end result will probably be the fighter volunteering because that will hurt him the (comparatively) least. If there IS a save, I agree with the folks who say a Fort save is more appropriate.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
Um, nice but no. A basic human fighter with iron will and a wisdom of 14 would only have a +10 save bonus (to start with). A dwarf would have +12 against spells, an elf would have +12 against enchantment spells, a halfling would have +11, and a half orc would have +11 (bonus points to wisdom).
And that's assuming that they have a wisdom of 14 to start with and are a fighter. Not a barbarian (add 2 more, if not more from rage powers), ranger, or paladin or have anything else going for them (like traits).
Also a ranger in 3.5 qualifies for the two weapon fighting tree and ranged fighting trees without needing a good DEX.
Beyond that we also identified that the highest save throw the fighter is going to have to face against a fully maxed out wizard is 34. Anything less than a fully maxed out wizard and the DC starts dropping very quickly (the 'average' DC for most level 20 NPC wizards is in the 26~28 range for ninth level spells).
Buffing save throws is much easier than buffing save DC's. You can get a morale bonus, luck bonus, and sacred bonus, not to mentioned a few more untyped bonuses.
The problem is again, people choosing to look at the low end fighter and compare him to the high end wizard. If you take a high end fighter then compare him the wizard's DCs come out much less favorable.
In addition you can get a headband that enhances your wisdom, which indirectly boosts your will save.
|
|
Um, nice but no. A basic human fighter with iron will and a wisdom of 14 would only have a +10 save bonus (to start with). A dwarf would have +12 against spells, an elf would have +12 against enchantment spells, a halfling would have +11, and a half orc would have +11 (bonus points to wisdom).
And that's assuming that they have a wisdom of 14 to start with and are a fighter. Not a barbarian (add 2 more, if not more from rage powers), ranger, or paladin or have anything else going for them (like traits).
Also a ranger in 3.5 qualifies for the two weapon fighting tree and ranged fighting trees without needing a good DEX.
Beyond that we also identified that the highest save throw the fighter is going to have to face against a fully maxed out wizard is 34. Anything less than a fully maxed out wizard and the DC starts dropping very quickly (the 'average' DC for most level 20 NPC wizards is in the 26~28 range for ninth level spells).
Buffing save throws is much easier than buffing save DC's. You can get a morale bonus, luck bonus, and sacred bonus, not to mentioned a few more untyped bonuses.
The problem is again, people choosing to look at the low end fighter and compare him to the high end wizard. If you take a high end fighter then compare him the wizard's DCs come out much less favorable.
And that's what I noted, i.e. that if your spellcaster buddies spend a few rounds "buffing" you before combat, you can easily end up with reasonably high Will bonus (and some of the PCs may end up with ridiculously high save bonuses, such as the paladin). That's under the *optimal* circumstances, however, and if the DM uses it as the "base assumption" in building encounters, you better make sure you won't charge into melee until you're brimming with bonuses. And that's the issue here; in some situations some/most/all PCs might struggle against "average" Will DCs (such as if the spellcasters are dead), while others only fail on a natural 1. The high-level math is "off", *unless* you focus on optimizing your character, and spellcasters *always* memorize every "buff" they can (and the group retreats to rest when most of them have been used).
I've played in several high-level campaigns, and in every single one of them this has been a serious issue, i.e. that at some point your fighter with Will save +8 is going to be caught with his "pants down" (no "buffs"). In every one of them the spellcasters have adamantly refused to act in the "healbot/support" role, preferring to use offensive spells.
My example was of a fighter or ranger or rogue with Iron Will and Wis 14; barbarian would add +2 on top of that when raging, but let's remember that using point-buy you simply *cannot* afford Wis 14. Unless you use Cha and Int *both* as "dump stats". I didn't take any racial modifiers into consideration, because not all PCs will get them.
So, let's take a look the "high-end" martial PC with Iron Will, Wis 14, +5 Resistance Bonus... that's +15, right? Assuming three things which are, in my experience, not so common: firstly, you're willing to spend 20% of your points on a secondary ability score, and secondly, you're burning a feat on Iron Will, and thirdly, your DM actually doles out +5 Resistance items or lets you create/shop them. Elves and Dwarves receive +2 on top of that, and your might receive +1 from a Trait (again, assuming your group uses them; mine doesn't). At best, that's +20 without "buffs", and only if you're a dwarven or elven barbarian who's raging and yet all the three conditions mentioned above are fulfilled. The thing is, most high-level "melee types" I've seen had something like +8 or +10 on Will saves at best -- and often even worse, if the player is not into "min-maxing". For example, in my PF Beta playtest group, people used Wis as "dump stat", and they're most certainly not picking Iron Will at any point, so here's the cold truth: the barbarian will have (when raging) +6 Will save bonus at 20th level, and the dwarven fighter is going to have +7 -- even if I gave them +5 magic items, it's still going to be +11 and +12 respectively (if the fighter was human, he'd have only +10 Will save bonus). And the cleric of the deity of War prefers to mainly "buff" himself before entering melee; he's already said that the group shouldn't count on him to spend his first three or four rounds trying to keep the "melee types" in the game.
Of course, your experience may vary, especially if +5 items are common in your group and you like to "min-max" your characters; but if the "baseline assumption" for game balance is that you always take 'Iron Will', you always wear +5 items at high-levels, and the spellcasters *must* use "buffs" on the "martial" types in *every* combat, something's wrong.
|
|
Joel, Cloak of Resistance +5 and Headband of Inspired Wisdom Wisdom +6 would cost 61,000 GPs; a high-level PC could afford them, surely, but if those items are "baseline assumptions" for every "martial" high-level PC, why not include them in the game math? Or, rather, increase the Will Save bonus to +8 or +9 for the "martial" classes... anything on top of that would be "extra".
I mean, if the game math assumes that you fail half the time at high levels (i.e. +15 Will Save bonus vs. DC 26 mentioned by Abraham), it tends to make encounters "swingy" and hard to build and predict. For example, what should have been an *EASY* encounter vs. two ghouls almost resulted in a TPK in my playtest campaign, because two out of three "melee" PCs failed their Fort saves on the first round (both rolled poorly). And the paladin *ALMOST* failed his two saves on the second round (if he had failed either, everyone would have started to roll new characters). At high levels, a single Will save will probably take out everyone but the cleric and the paladin... and if either of the two fail, it's over (so I won't be using any Will-effects in that campaign).
However Paladins at high level are immune to most the things they need a will save for, so having a good will save for them is almost a moot point.
Clerics could be immune to most the effects depending on spell choices.
Over all the only real difference is that at high level in 1st and 2nd edition you had great saves, then you added items. In 3.x you have alright saves (meaning the spell caster actually has a chance to affect you) then you add on for great saves.
Also if you compare low end saves to low end DC's (low magic fighter to low magic wizard) the DCs for the wizard drop by 9 points compared to the fighter's 5 point drop (losing the headband and book +5 compared to losing the cloak of resistance). At high magic levels the fighter will have more immunities (which the wizard will need to guess at) and the spellcaster will have higher DCs (but still capped at 34 compared to the fighter's virtually unlimited save throw bonus).
A fighter doesn't need a spellchucker to get other bonuses to his saves: Morale bonuses can come from a bard (still a spellchucker but not for the purposes of what I'm talking about), a luck bonus can come from a luckstone, alchemical bonuses are also available depending on books.
Finally, bad saves happen. They've happened in every edition, and will continue to do so as long as a chance to fail is in the game. The complaint that the party almost bought it because everyone rolled poorly is like saying that you don't like Uno because someone loses -- it happens everythign find a way around it don't play. The only way it couldn't happen is if we stop allowing a chance at failing.
The complaint that the party almost bought it because everyone rolled poorly is like saying that you don't like Uno because someone loses -- it happens everythign find a way around it don't play. The only way it couldn't happen is if we stop allowing a chance at failing.
You know, I have concerns that this could happen....
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
So, let's take a look the "high-end" martial PC with Iron Will, Wis 14, +5 Resistance Bonus... that's +15, right? Assuming three things which are, in my experience, not so common: firstly, you're willing to spend 20% of your points on a secondary ability score, and secondly, you're burning a feat on Iron Will, and thirdly, your DM actually doles out +5 Resistance items or lets you create/shop them. Elves and Dwarves receive +2 on top of that, and your might receive +1 from a Trait (again, assuming your group uses them; mine doesn't). At best, that's +20 without "buffs", and only if you're a dwarven or elven barbarian who's raging and yet all the three conditions mentioned above are fulfilled. The thing is, most high-level "melee types" I've seen had something like +8 or +10 on Will saves at best -- and often even worse, if the player is not into "min-maxing". For example, in my PF Beta playtest group, people used Wis as "dump stat", and they're most certainly not picking Iron Will at any point, so here's the cold truth: the barbarian will have (when raging) +6 Will save bonus at 20th level, and the dwarven fighter is going to have +7 -- even if I gave them +5 magic items, it's still going to be +11 and +12 respectively (if the fighter was human, he'd have only +10 Will save bonus). And the cleric of the deity of War prefers to mainly "buff" himself before entering melee; he's already said that the group shouldn't count on him to spend his first three or four rounds trying to keep the "melee types" in the game.
So you're saying will saves are a problem because of examples of characters built specifically to have really low ones? That's not a problem, that's a feature. If someone makes wisdom their dump stat, and takes no measures to cover their weakness, then they have to live with (and suffer through) their weakness. If we're talking 20th level characters, I don't see how taking iron will is burning a feat. They have tons of feats in PRPG. Multiple tons of feats if they're a fighter.
If you're not allowing 20th level characters to have access to +5 resistance items (which cost 25,000 only) then you're playing a game with vastly different assumptions than baseline D&D or PRPG. If that's the case, then you should come up with some alternative, but that doesn't mean that the base game is flawed.
|
|
However Paladins at high level are immune to most the things they need a will save for, so having a good will save for them is almost a moot point.
Clerics could be immune to most the effects depending on spell choices.
Over all the only real difference is that at high level in 1st and 2nd edition you had great saves, then you added items. In 3.x you have alright saves (meaning the spell caster actually has a chance to affect you) then you add on for great saves.
Also if you compare low end saves to low end DC's (low magic fighter to low magic wizard) the DCs for the wizard drop by 9 points compared to the fighter's 5 point drop (losing the headband and book +5 compared to losing the cloak of resistance). At high magic levels the fighter will have more immunities (which the wizard will need to guess at) and the spellcaster will have higher DCs (but still capped at 34 compared to the fighter's virtually unlimited save throw bonus).
A fighter doesn't need a spellchucker to get other bonuses to his saves: Morale bonuses can come from a bard (still a spellchucker but not for the purposes of what I'm talking about), a luck bonus can come from a luckstone, alchemical bonuses are also available depending on books.
Finally, bad saves happen. They've happened in every edition, and will continue to do so as long as a chance to fail is in the game. The complaint that the party almost bought it because everyone rolled poorly is like saying that you don't like Uno because someone loses -- it happens everythign find a way around it don't play. The only way it couldn't happen is if we stop allowing a chance at failing.
Yes, bad rolls happen, but what if the "good" (successful) roll is 15+, instead of, say, 8+? That's how it's going to be in my playtest campaign, unless I will pull my punches and ignore all Will-based 'save-or-suck' effects altogether. It's a bit different from those days when high-level PCs routinely succeeded on 5+ (or even less), which still meant that there was a decent chance to fail; especially if you needed to roll several saves in the adventure. You see, there's middle ground here; if the baseline assumption is that you should fail 50% of the time even under the optimal (or close to optimal) circumstances (magic and feats and whatnot included), then it's very likely that you fail the second roll, if not the first. And, if several PCs fail the first roll, it's usually catastrophic. Now, in AD&D, my high-level fighter had a very good chance to survive, say, his first three or four saves... and yet I dreaded every roll nonetheless, because there was also that 10% chance that I would fail every time (and eventually I *would* fail).
It's easy to say that "Hey, even a 5% chance to succeed is still a CHANCE!"; it doesn't change the fact that you will, with 95% certainity, fail in it. It's a fact that the 3E rules favor powergaming and metagaming over role-playing, and rules lawyers know how to bend and break the odds. In my group, I know for a fact that the cleric's player is not going to become a "buffer" and "healbot", because that's not what the player wants (note: the paladin does his best in this regard, but his slots are way more limited, and there are no other spellcasters in the party). Therefore, I'm left with the choice: do I adjust the game so that no monsters or NPCs use Will-based effects (because three out of five PCs are almost guaranteed to fail the first roll), or do I run it as written, and tell my players to prepare for a TPK?
If your idea of "great saves" is 15+, it doesn't even compare to the previous editions. And it's a mighty big assumption (and a poor and inelegant way to "patch up" flawed math) to say that *every* fighter is going to take Items A and B and C and D and E, plus Feats F and G, plus invest H points in Ability score I. If these are base assumptions, why not include the list under the class, so new players will know that the game *expects* their PC to have them at certain level? Or, preferably, wouldn't it be easier to include them in class abilities and get rid of X number of items and spells that grant a wide range of bonuses to saves and/or ability scores?
To me it's a sign that something doesn't add up if two characters of the same level and class hit by the same effect are either:
1) At a huge disadvantage, if the character doesn't have certain spells, items and feats (which together give him a fair to good chance)
2) At a huge advantage, if he has the "expected" stuff and can get even more bonuses from other items, feats or spells (which together virtually guarantee that he won't fail)
(BTW, that fight with ghouls was supposed to demonstrate that IMO too many 'save-or-suck'-effects easily lead to serious results if you fail the save; in this case I expected only the rogue to end up being paralyzed for the rest of the combat. However, this is a bit off-topic, so let's not dwell on it here)
|
|
So you're saying will saves are a problem because of examples of characters built specifically to have really low ones? That's not a problem, that's a feature. If someone makes wisdom their dump stat, and takes no measures to cover their weakness, then they have to live with (and suffer through) their weakness. If we're talking 20th level characters, I don't see how taking iron will is burning a feat. They have tons of feats in PRPG. Multiple tons of feats if they're a fighter.
If you're not allowing 20th level characters to have access to +5 resistance items (which cost 25,000 only) then you're playing a game with vastly different assumptions than baseline D&D or PRPG. If that's the case, then you should come up with some alternative, but that doesn't mean that the base game is flawed.
I'm not saying the "base game" is flawed; I'm saying that the *math* behind the mechanics is flawed, which becomes painfully evident at high levels (although I'm sure that high-level play will be more balanced in the final product and less dependant on items).
"Tons" of feats... well, three more than in 3E. In general, I see feats and magic items (or, specifically, "must-have" feats and magic items) as a poor patch for "broken" math. Not to mention that it requires knowledge that new players don't have... unless, of course, you mean that PF RPG should favor the "min-maxer"? Also, I don't like the fact that you should always strive to "cover" your weaknesses, such as whining for spells or items from your party members, or avoiding putting a low score in your Wis ("Oh, I forgot! I can't create this type of character, because he'd absolutely *suffer* at high levels!"). And are you really fine with the fact that *every* freakin' non-spellcaster should take Iron Will so he will "suck less"? Or that characters with average or even low Wis (especially if there's a role-playing/background reason for the score) are a "no-no" (unless, of course, you willfully want your PC to suffer)?
And, not every DM or GM uses the Wealth by Level-table (in fact, *none* of the DMs/GMs I know do, and neither do I), or allows PCs to freely shop anything, anywhere. I *do* adjust the encounters accordingly, however. Maybe we're playing a different game, then?
And, not every DM or GM uses the Wealth by Level-table (in fact, *none* of the DMs/GMs I know do, and neither do I), or allows PCs to freely shop anything, anywhere. I *do* adjust the encounters accordingly, however. Maybe we're playing a different game, then?
So, the fact that you and the DMs/GMs you know depart from one of the baseline assumptions of the 3.x system (that PCs have a certain amount of gear and are allowed to personalize what gear they have*) and have to make adjustments is a flaw of the 3.x system? Like it or not, the Wealth-by-Level table is factored into the way the 3.x system is designed. Complaining that one part of the 3.x system "doesn't work" or "is broken" when you alter or ignore another part is hardly something that will get you sympathy.
As others have pointed out, the 3.x system works fairly well when you use the options available. There are some aspects that need more work (the CR and monster advancement systems, for example), but this "OMG, Will saves are a fatal flaw" nonsense gets old. If you want a 3.x OGL variant that has fewer magic items, look at Iron Heroes.
*- Note, that "MagicMarts on every corner," which is basically the same as "freely shop anything, anywhere," is another flawed argument (slippery slope fallacy); the gp limits on buying/selling in communities are there in the DMG for a reason. Also, nothing states that PCs can (for example) just plunk down 98,315 gp and buy an already created +4 speed longsword; the DM can have the PC search for a spellcaster willing to enchant an item "to spec" and commission the item (to include the 1 day/1,000gp enchantment time).
Considering again, that the only character class that really has a problem here is the fighter, and again, that that's his weak area, a 30% chance of success isn't bad at all, for a weak area.
I think that's slightly off the point of why weak saves, particularly Will saves, are at issue. A fighter, rogue or other weak Will save character frequently gets targeted by DMs with creatures, spells and abilities. How many of us have hit the Barbarian with confusion because it's fun?
Critters that attack everyone deal hit point damage, and there's a range of possibilities that everyone will suffer. Running up against mentally powerful opponents, or mentally threatening ones, gets frustrating. (I know. The DM in the game I played in ran us up against several opponents several weeks in a row where we lost a lot of actions to bad Will saves.)
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
To me it's a sign that something doesn't add up if two characters of the same level and class hit by the same effect are either:
1) At a huge disadvantage, if the character doesn't have certain spells, items and feats (which together give him a fair to good chance)
2) At a huge advantage, if he has the "expected" stuff and can get even more bonuses from other items, feats or spells (which together virtually guarantee that he won't fail)
Maybe I'm not understanding your arguement? You want all characters to be equal?
1) a 5th level (3.x) fighter with a 12 con will have an average of 46 HP, his wizard buddy has an average of 19. Both get hit by a fireball doing 8d6 damage (average of 28) should the wizard have more HP because he's at a 'huge disadvantage'?
2) A fighter and a rogue are playing poker. Should the fighter have more skill points because he's at a 'huge disadvantage' because the rogue has bluff, sense motive, and profession (gambler) as clas skills?
3) The Fighter has a good base attack bonus, the wizard doesn't. Should the wizard have a good BAB because he's at a 'huge disadvantage' when using his quarterstaff?
In addition to the 3.x mechanics you've already said you're disregarding (wealth by level, equipment assumptions etc.) 3.x assumes teamwork everyone fills the niches. This extends to heroes' feast in the morning to slapping protection from evil on the fighter when fighting a thrallherd.
The only classes that can do 'everything' are the bard, cleric, and psychic warrior. The bard and psychic warrior don't have the endurance to be 'jacks of all trades' and the discussion of CoDzilla is well known.
|
|
In addition to the 3.x mechanics you've already said you're disregarding (wealth by level, equipment assumptions etc.) 3.x assumes teamwork everyone fills the niches. This extends to heroes' feast in the morning to slapping protection from evil on the fighter when fighting a thrallherd.
The only classes that can do 'everything' are the bard, cleric, and psychic warrior. The bard and psychic warrior don't have the endurance to be 'jacks of all trades' and the discussion of CoDzilla is well known.
It would be nice if the fighter, wizard, and rogue could contribute more with those things you mentioned above. </snark>
In all seriousness, I think Asgetrion is saying that there are certain markers that denote how effect a character is in the chosen niche. However, I don't think that comparing individual stats in comparison makes the argument. Player experience is often a better indicator than any potential statistics on a sheet of paper.
I'd also like to remind folsk that the fighter's will save only corresponds to their bravery against supernaturally frightening things: Fear spells, a dragon's fightful presence, and the like.
A dragon's frightful presence is not supernatural; it's an (Ex) (i.e. totally non-magical) ability.
|
I think we've gone wildly off-topic here.
The OP was not asking for martial PCs to be more resistant to magical compulsions or fear effects; he was pointing out that some of the physically demanding situations that call for Will saves ought to be Fort saves instead.
The firefighter who has to prepare to enter a burning building, the lifeboatman who answers a Mayday call in a fierce storm, the circus performer who performs without a safety net, the stuntman who risks his neck in place of the actor who'll get all the credit.
Do you consider these to be 'martial characters'?
Do you also believe they should be able to pass the saves required to do their jobs?
If so, then you probably agree with the OP.
I'd also like to remind folsk that the fighter's will save only corresponds to their bravery against supernaturally frightening things: Fear spells, a dragon's fightful presence, and the like.A dragon's frightful presence is not supernatural; it's an (Ex) (i.e. totally non-magical) ability.
Ah. Then I think that the Dragon's ability should be (Su) instead. I don't think we need rules for mundane fear.
I think we've gone wildly off-topic here.
The OP was not asking for martial PCs to be more resistant to magical compulsions or fear effects; he was pointing out that some of the physically demanding situations that call for Will saves ought to be Fort saves instead.
The firefighter who has to prepare to enter a burning building, the lifeboatman who answers a Mayday call in a fierce storm, the circus performer who performs without a safety net, the stuntman who risks his neck in place of the actor who'll get all the credit.
Do you consider these to be 'martial characters'?
Do you also believe they should be able to pass the saves required to do their jobs?If so, then you probably agree with the OP.
I consider them experts, and even then there isn't a save throw involved here. They make a choice, it's not someone forcing them to do something. It would be like asking the fighter to roll a will save before he attacks a troll because, "He knows the troll could hurt him."
|
|
So, the fact that you and the DMs/GMs you know depart from one of the baseline assumptions of the 3.x system (that PCs have a certain amount of gear and are allowed to personalize what gear they have*) and have to make adjustments is a flaw of the 3.x system? Like it or not, the Wealth-by-Level table is factored into the way the 3.x system is designed. Complaining that one part of the 3.x system "doesn't work" or "is broken" when you alter or ignore another part is hardly something that will get you sympathy.
As others have pointed out, the 3.x system works fairly well when you use the options available. There are some aspects that need more work (the CR and monster advancement systems, for example), but this "OMG, Will saves are a fatal flaw" nonsense gets old. If you want a 3.x OGL variant that has fewer magic items, look at Iron Heroes.
*- Note, that "MagicMarts on every corner," which is basically the same as "freely shop anything, anywhere," is another flawed argument (slippery slope fallacy); the gp limits on buying/selling in communities are there in the DMG for a reason. Also, nothing states that PCs can (for example) just plunk down 98,315 gp and buy an already created +4 speed longsword; the DM can have the PC search for a spellcaster willing to enchant an item "to spec" and commission the item (to include the 1 day/1,000gp enchantment time).
Yes, in my opinion the math is flawed if magic items are used to patch it up. In 2E, my high-level fighter did not *need* to get bonuses on his saves from magic items – all he needed was a magical weapon and maybe a magical armor on top of that and he could still more or less *function* in his role nearly as well as the guy with +4 or +5 equipment. I even remember times when he didn’t have access to *any* magic (such as escaping after being imprisoned by villains), and as long as he didn’t run into creatures with “+X needed to hit”-ability, he was fine. I never saw any lists for “+X this and +Y that by level Z or you’ll be screwed”. If you had a +3 weapon, you could hit nearly every monster in the game, but all this is, of course, way different in 3E. Maybe this is why some of the “old guard” (and I’m not speaking for everyone here; just the guys I know and some posters who have agreed with me on this) are struggling with the Wealth-by-Level idea?
Funny that you talk of “personalized gear”, if some of the items (e.g. Cloak of resistance and Ring of Protection +X per every Y levels) are, indeed, “baseline assumptions” in the game (and therefore, already *decided* for the players) . Also, if the baseline assumption is that, say, you need to have an armor, weapon, ring (of protection), and cloak (of resistance) +1 per every 5 or 6 levels, telling your players to wait for a year before their “updated” gear they spent 500,000 GPs on is finished would in my experience result in one thing (especially if they *know* of the baseline assumptions): your players telling you that they’ll want you to skip a year – after all, if the game expects them to have that gear after leveling up, they are going to need it on their next adventure. If I were a player in your group, and I knew you run the game according to these baseline assumptions, that’s exactly what I would do most likely do, because I would want to *protect* my character and make sure that he can function effectively in his role (and not get “screwed” because he didn’t have Cloak of Resistance +X, for example). Even players who never like to “min-max” their characters have fallen into taking “precautions” -- for example, in some campaigns I’ve played in people have “dipped” into two classes just to rack up their saving throws (just in case the DM did not hand out a lot of magical items). And I don’t like this sort of “turtling” (even though I do it as a player, too). I can’t count the times I’ve witnessed a player running a fighter or a barbarian delaying on this initiative and saying to another player: “Dude, if you don’t start buffing my guy, I’m not going in there!”.
Alright, lets deal with those “baseline assumptions” presented on this thread and several others (and I’m exaggerating them a bit here, but bear with me):
1) If you’re running a “martial” character, it’s assumed that you will not use Wis as your dump stat; instead, it’s expected that you boost it to the minimum of 14 by any means necessary.
2) If you’re running a “martial” character, it’s assumed that you will take all the feats that give +2 on your ‘poor’ saves. Don’t worry about “burning” feats, because PF gives you *tons* of them.
3) If you’re running a “martial” character, it’s assumed that you will always carry the best possible gear as per the Wealth-by-Level table; if you’re not, either you’re playing the game *wrong* or the GM is *breaking* the rules. Consider switching to another game.
4) If you’re running a “martial” character, it’s assumed that your spellcasting friends always carry a wide variety of “buffs”, and are willing to spend their first rounds in combat to use them on you; if they are not, those players are playing the game wrong.
5) If the group has no “full” spellcasters, it’s assumed that you will always carry a wide range of potions and scrolls to “buff” melee types; if you’re not, you’re playing the game wrong, or the GM is breaking the rules (see assumption #3). If there is nobody capable of casting 5th+ level spells in the party, consider switching to another game, because clearly you don’t know how to play D&D.
The thing is that there are so many bonus types and ways to get them that the game seems to base the “default” numbers on a “worst case scenario”, i.e. that players co-operate flawlessly and use metagaming and rules mastery to their advantage to rack up the numbers. This results in that you might have a slight advantage against monsters and NPCs under *optimal* circumstances, but if you don’t have access to certain items and “buffs”, you’ll be *penalized*. In most fights, especially if the PCs are surprised or only have a round or two before initiative, you may barely be able to “offset” *some* of the penalties, e.g. your fighter hits the BBEG with a 14 instead of 16. What this means is that a high-level fighter with a +1 weapon and no other magic items or “buffs” on him is effectively “gimped” – he may (barely) hit with his best attack against most opponents, but that’s all he can do… and I wouldn’t bet on his chances if he’s hit with a spell that requires a saving throw. And *that* is what the game has become; if you want to be an effective warrior, better be good friends with your spellcasting buddies or local potion/magic item vendors.
So, the whole system rests on the spellcasters, or the DM being *very* lenient with potions, scrolls and magic items in general. If you can’t get the bonuses on, you’re penalized; such as you’re penalized if you don’t pick feats that boost your ‘poor’ saves. And whenever the group runs out of “buffs”, it’s time to withdraw, even if it happens after the first combat.
I’m not looking for sympathy, because I know how to adjust the numbers for each party; I *am*, however, interested in seeing this flaw in the game math (reliance on “must-have” stuff and assumptions about PCs getting tons of bonuses in every fight) as a “bug” that needs fixing. However, I know the Paizonians already have taken measures to ensure low-magic campaigns are viable in PF RPG, so we might not even be discussing this in the future.
|
|
To me it's a sign that something doesn't add up if two characters of the same level and class hit by the same effect are either:
1) At a huge disadvantage, if the character doesn't have certain spells, items and feats (which together give him a fair to good chance)
2) At a huge advantage, if he has the "expected" stuff and can get even more bonuses from other items, feats or spells (which together virtually guarantee that he won't fail)Maybe I'm not understanding your arguement? You want all characters to be equal?
1) a 5th level (3.x) fighter with a 12 con will have an average of 46 HP, his wizard buddy has an average of 19. Both get hit by a fireball doing 8d6 damage (average of 28) should the wizard have more HP because he's at a 'huge disadvantage'?
2) A fighter and a rogue are playing poker. Should the fighter have more skill points because he's at a 'huge disadvantage' because the rogue has bluff, sense motive, and profession (gambler) as clas skills?
3) The Fighter has a good base attack bonus, the wizard doesn't. Should the wizard have a good BAB because he's at a 'huge disadvantage' when using his quarterstaff?
In addition to the 3.x mechanics you've already said you're disregarding (wealth by level, equipment assumptions etc.) 3.x assumes teamwork everyone fills the niches. This extends to heroes' feast in the morning to slapping protection from evil on the fighter when fighting a thrallherd.
The only classes that can do 'everything' are the bard, cleric, and psychic warrior. The bard and psychic warrior don't have the endurance to be 'jacks of all trades' and the discussion of CoDzilla is well known.
No; I'm primarily talking of Will saves (or 'poor' saves for the "martial" classes in general). You see, at high-levels clerics and druids and paladins are vastly better as melee characters than fighters or barbarians, because they have so much better saves against SoS/SoD -type of spells (and the CoDzillas can also "buff" themselves to surpass the fighter's melee abilities, but that's not the issue here).
Anyway, my overall point was that regarding saves and attack bonuses the game seems to expect you to always "min-max" your abilities, i.e. that the numbers are based on the "worst/best case scenario" (whichever you might want to call it) in which PCs have bonuses from all possible sources. Now, if you don't "min-max" your guy and always get the best possible gear (items, scrolls, potions) and bonuses from at least four or five "buffs", you're at a disadvantage -- instead of being *rewarded* (i.e. you hit with all your attacks). If the baseline assumption for DCs and monster/NPC ACs would be 40-50% chance to succeed/hit, and using "buffs" and magical items would reward by making it even easier, I think it would reduce metagaming and "turtling" dramatically, because you could still fulfill your role without always reverting to them.
I've ran and played 3E in five different groups, and in every one we encountered this problem at high levels (if not even sooner); fighters and barbarians refusing to charge at demons or villains, because they knew the first spell would take them out. I have myself grown tired of being resurrected during *every* session in one particular high-level campaign -- just because we don't have enough magic at our disposal, and the DM doesn't adjust the opposition accordingly (note: my fighter in that campaign *does* have Iron Will and Wisdom 14 and +1 Resistance Bonus on his saves but it's just not *enough* against DC 28-30 spells).
|
|
I think that's slightly off the point of why weak saves, particularly Will saves, are at issue. A fighter, rogue or other weak Will save character frequently gets targeted by DMs with creatures, spells and abilities. How many of us have hit the Barbarian with confusion because it's fun?
Critters that attack everyone deal hit point damage, and there's a range of possibilities that everyone will suffer. Running up against mentally powerful opponents, or mentally threatening ones, gets frustrating. (I know. The DM in the game I played in ran us up against several opponents several weeks in a row where we lost a lot of actions to bad Will saves.)
Exactly. A dominated/confused barbarian is what *most* DMs/GMs always go for. In many 3E campaigns I've seen even good role-players go into the "turtling" mode if they feel their character doesn't have a "fighting chance" (i.e. not enough bonuses from feats, "buffs", items, potions). Most often it's the problem with the "melee" types, because they can be picked out of the fight easily with a single spell -- high-level casters, on the other hand, have often far better protection against magical and even non-magical attacks. Even if my guy has that +18 Fort Save Modifier, it's probably not enough vs. DC 30 (or even higher than that).
I remember one particular session in which was spent about three *hours* in waiting the party (elven) rogue try to save against horrible stench (Fort DC 24, I think, and he had something like +4 Fort even with the Ring of Resistance +2). He needed a natural 20 but could only try once per hour, so the DM made him roll until he succeeded.. and he had the worst luck that day... I think it took something like 50-60 rolls until he made it. The best in it all was that the DM didn't let him roll those tens of saving throws in succession; no, we had to role-play our evening and morning activities, tell him each day which "buffs" we used on who, and so on. Fun times. We were glad that this was not a lethal effect, because the rogue couldn't have handled that (which is actually why he's usually the last in marching order, even though he should be the first as the group's "scout" -- we've learned from mistakes, though).
Why does any class need to have a poor save in general? I think base save bonuses should be equal based on level for each class. Each class can have a static bonus to particular saves. That's how I'd do it if I was designing the game.
Gods no! Not everything's all strengths. There are weaknesses.
Gods no! Not everything's all strengths. There are weaknesses.
Exactly. Will saves are the only things that can save the Wizard b*tt when charged by an angry Fighter or Barbarian. Save or Die ? Almost useless, Fort Save is sky-high. Damaging spell ? Useless, high hp. Wizard has to escape ? Well, it's a possibility (the only one if you pump up the Will saves of martial characters) - but it really depends on 'where'. A fly spell is useful only on open ground (and again, a simple Carpet of Flying erases the gap), Invisibility only delays the inevitable and so on...
Seriously, the game takes in consideration the fact that magic is a tool for the trade, like it or not. A high-level Fighter can go nowhere without a good magical equipment - or he has to stay in the 'kindergarten playground', fighting against NPCs Warriors for all time long. Want to fight a Great Wyrm without some good equipment ? Let me take your measures for the coffin...
(and boys, even if I played D&D BECMI a lot - I cannot speak of AD&D because I played only occasionally - , I seriously always thought that the Saves in that game were horrible broken on the side of characters - 2 or more to save against a spell ? Sure, why not !?!...)
The problem is again, people choosing to look at the low end fighter and compare him to the high end wizard. If you take a high end fighter then compare him the wizard's DCs come out much less favorable.
I can only agree with that. Look at the DC Saves of most Monster abilities - almost nothing is higher than 26-28 (for 9th-level spell-like abilities). The Blasphemy spell-like ability of a Pit Fiend (CR 20) has a DC of 25 (Will negates, with the new PFRPG rules).
A 18th-level Fighter (a reasonable level to start finding such creatures) has a Base Will of +6; add Iron Will (+2), Wisdom 14 (12 at start, plus 4000 gp for a mere +2), and a Cloak of Resistance +3 for only 9000 gp and we have already a +13. Such a Fighter has 'burned' 1 feat, 2 points at character creation, and 13000 gp (on a Wealth of 530.000 gp...) to succeed 45% of the time against one of the most powerful abilities of the game - with his WEAK POINT. He is not even optimized...Let's face it, not wanting to invest some money in Will saves for the Fighter is almost akin to going around completely naked and then complaining that the Tarrasque hits you with a 2+ on his Attack roll (including his +17 damage from Power Attack)...