Another thought that has been expressed on this thread. That if you fail a single will save, your DM lets you sit the entire night reading comic books while waiting for the spell to wear off/be countered. There is a phrase for that - BAD DM. I don't care how strict he wants to be by the rules, how careful he is to dot every T and cross every I, that is bad DMing. A DM's responsibility is to see that EVERYONE has fun. And it's never fun to sit there all night doing nothing. There are any number of ways to move that along, too many to mention, but you don't let one of your players sit idle for two or three hours. If I had a DM do that, there would be a talk at the end of the round, with emphasis that if that ever happened again, he would not be DMing, at least not for our group. Frankly, I'm just outraged at the thought that a DM would do that. If that's what's happening to you, I don't blame you for wanting the rules to be changed back to 1E, where you save 99% of the time against everything.
I admit, if I had one of those fighters mentioned here in this thread, you know, the metagamey guy who tanks his WIS so he can spend extra points on STR, never takes Iron Will and doesn't care about saving throw items, all because he expects the DM to coddle him and not exploit his weakness because it would be no fun.
If I had that guy in my group, I'd tell him to bring some comic books; He'll need them.
But only that guy.
Players who make a decent effort to compensate their racial and classial [sic] weaknesses won't get the comic book treatment.
1. First, it's no cheaper than any wizard with craft wondrous item, which is nearly as ubiquitous as arcane bond.
2. Second, since headband is not an option for arcane bond, technically any +Int Rings or Amulets created would cost +50% for being off-spot. I'm not certain if I'd enforce that myself or not, but that's the rules as written.
Thanks for the heads-up, Majuba. Maybe I'm stuck in the wrong Alpha vs. Beta verion on that:
1. Can't you enhance the arcane bond item for half price? Maybe that's been revoked, or I've been misinterpreting that.
2. I definitely need to go back and read it again; I don't recall offhand any prohibition on headbands. Even if the headband is not possible, 150% cost for a ring x 50% for arcane bond (unless I'm confused on that, too) = 75% normal crafting cost = vastly less than what a fighter pays for his save-boost headband or cloak.
1. Yes - they clarified the Alpha language in the Beta. the "half price" referred to is the normal crafting cost. Half "price" not half "cost".
2. Arcane bond items are limited to rings, amulets, staves, wands, and weapons. Staves, wands, and weapons must be held, rings and amulets worn (to avoid spellcraft check to cast). Yes, that's 75% of normal, but most wizards will take craft wondrous by the time they go past a +2 Headband.
Nevermind, I forgot D&D is about holding player's hands lest they have "unfun".
No, I think that's just 4e.
|
I admit, if I had one of those fighters mentioned here in this thread, you know, the metagamey guy who tanks his WIS so he can spend extra points on STR, never takes Iron Will and doesn't care about saving throw items, all because he expects the DM to coddle him and not exploit his weakness because it would be no fun.
If I had that guy in my group, I'd tell him to bring some comic books; He'll need them.
But only that guy.
Players who make a decent effort to compensate their racial and classial [sic] weaknesses won't get the comic book treatment.
But, then, you're also the dude that seems to think fighters were "overpowered" in 1e (which makes me think you never played 1e, or never played it with any game mastery - maybe you moved on to 2e before you were old enough to find your groove in 1e? - but that's another discussion all together).
You're right, though. 3x is meant to be played a certain way. And not optimizing your character seriously screws up a player's chances of not reading comic books all night. All things being equal, the only way non-optimized characters survive at high levels is through a lot of DM hand holding or the DM intentionally playing NPCs as idiots, much of the time.
|
|
Nevermind, I forgot D&D is about holding player's hands lest they have "unfun".No, I think that's just 4e.
I've seen a lot of hand holding "kumbaya" DMs in 3x. I think most of them MOVED the 4e when it came out, but, again, that's another discussion (that should probably never be started) all together.
Something else, if we want to say something is "broken" here I would point out that apparently a Wizard that doesn't fully min/max is "nerfed" and "not being played right" at which point I say hold the phone. The problem isn't the fighter it's the fact you can't play a wizard without min/maxing.
I would suggest that such an opinion is folly. I've played wizards (sorcerers/clerics/druids/et al) without maximizing my DC's on my save throws, and have come out fine and well content with what I had. Even without maxed out Save throw DC's my spells went off a good 25% of the time (I would guess I didn't track them) when it had a save based full effect (probably more if you don't count reflex saves). However I found plenty of other worthwhile spells to cast that didn't require a save throw:
Summon Monster (usually for lantern archons)
Dispel magic/greater dispel magic
Haste (usually a great encounter starter)
The occasional buff (energy protection, spell immunities, etc)
Rays (especially ray of exhaustion, enervation, and scorching rays)
The occasional touch spell (I had a ring of blink so melee wasn't quite suicidal and occasional it can't be avoided)
A wizard doesn't have to max out his save throw DCs and isn't "nerfed" just because he didn't do so.
It's called balance. If the wizards knows that a party of four, with three fighters, is coming, and he has time to prepare, he might go with lots of the SOS spells. But this is doubtful, at best, and certainly shouldn't be standard. Given a choice between "I can cast hold person at the fighter closing, and maybe get him - or I could fireball the whole PC party." For most wizards, that's not a choice. If your NPC wizards are making that choice, I would call that optimizing based on your players weaknesses.
I agree 100% that it's "no choice," but not in favor of the fireball -- because fireballing the party is incredibly stupid and ineffective in 3e/3.5/PF, and an NPC with an Int of 20+ is not stupid. That's why we always assume the caveat: fighters get shut down easily... UNLESS the NPCs are not played intelligently. If your Int 22 NPC wizard acts like he has an Int 2 because of "balance," and you believe that playing him any other way is "BAD DMing," then so be it at your table. If I pulled that on my players, Derek would be using my head for a football.
(a very useful list)
Your list of no-save spells is a good one; at a median level, I'd expect most wizards would have a similar list of "auto-prepare" utility spells, in addition to the SOD/SOS ones for serious killing use.
The problem isn't the fighter it's the fact you can't play a wizard without min/maxing.
Well, that's the rub -- the wizard's prime stat is Intelligence. The game, to me, loses something if a supposedly supra-genius wizard has no idea what side his bread is buttered on, so to speak. Yes, I could give all my NPC wizards 0 ranks in Spellcraft/Concentration, and make all their spells create illusions of butterflies (or straight evocations, almost as bad), but that would imply that they were stupid -- and, like I said, my players would quit if I did that.
|
|
A wizard doesn't have to max out his save throw DCs and isn't "nerfed" just because he didn't do so.
They specifically went out of the way to change the way Spell Focus and Greater Spell Focus gave bonuses from 3.0 to 3.5. While I totally agree that a wizard doesn't need to max his DCs, its often too tempting to pass up. At the very least I'd take Spell Focus almost everytime.
What's really funny is when a wizard doesn't max his Will save thinking he'll just be fine. Dominating a wizard is every bit as fun as dominating a fighter.
|
Another thought that has been expressed on this thread. That if you fail a single will save, your DM lets you sit the entire night reading comic books while waiting for the spell to wear off/be countered. There is a phrase for that - BAD DM. I don't care how strict he wants to be by the rules, how careful he is to dot every T and cross every I, that is bad DMing. A DM's responsibility is to see that EVERYONE has fun. And it's never fun to sit there all night doing nothing. There are any number of ways to move that along, too many to mention, but you don't let one of your players sit idle for two or three hours. If I had a DM do that, there would be a talk at the end of the round, with emphasis that if that ever happened again, he would not be DMing, at least not for our group. Frankly, I'm just outraged at the thought that a DM would do that. If that's what's happening to you, I don't blame you for wanting the rules to be changed back to 1E, where you save 99% of the time against everything.
I admit, if I had one of those fighters mentioned here in this thread, you know, the metagamey guy who tanks his WIS so he can spend extra points on STR, never takes Iron Will and doesn't care about saving throw items, all because he expects the DM to coddle him and not exploit his weakness because it would be no fun.
If I had that guy in my group, I'd tell him to bring some comic books; He'll need them.
But only that guy.
Players who make a decent effort to compensate their racial and classial [sic] weaknesses won't get the comic book treatment.
Are you seriously saying that it's alright and the system, as per RAW, is just fine if you need to pick Feat X, Items Y, Z, Q, R and preferable also T, *plus* expect that you get several "buffs" or potions before every combat? Unless, of course, you wish to spend half the session reading those comic books. And, if nobody creates a "buffer"/healbot, they need to be taught a lesson, because they don't know "how to play the game"?
As I said, if you want to play a low-Wis "martial" character, he should be a valid, playable concept even at high levels *without* being totally dependaple on items/spells/potions.
Maybe you don't fudg... er, "coddle" your players, but I've noticed that enouraging min-maxing quite often leads primarily to "turtling" and everyone just trying to "beat the system". My players come to my table to have *fun*, and that's how I prefer to run and play the game. If I need to fudge rolls or adjust the numbers because my players didn't want to "min-max" their PCs, I'm willing to do it. YMMV.
As I also said, the math (as per RAW) wouldn't have such a major impact in encouraging (or even requiring) "powergaming" and "min-maxing" if the results weren't so fatal -- if I could, for example, roll another save against domination/paralysis each round, you wouldn't need to bring the comic books so often, right? ;)
Are you seriously saying that it's alright and the system, as per RAW, is just fine if you need to pick Feat X, Items Y, Z, Q, R and preferable also T, *plus* expect that you get several "buffs" or potions before every combat? Unless, of course, you wish to spend half the session reading those comic books.
It's a lost cause, Asgetrion. You, me, and houstonderek are fully on board with the absurdity of this statement, but everyone else who agreed with us was so emotional about it they've gotten themselves banned for life. I never thought I'd see myself type this, but 3.0/3.5/PF really do mean that "Fighters Don't Get Nice Things." Maybe we can start another thread, "Nice Things for Fighters," and just post wish lists; we might at least end up with a whole mess of useful house rules in that event!
Then again, Abraham and I and others had a very productive thread involving the use of Action Points as a way to fix wanky Will saves and Fighter deficiencies in general... it might be more profitable to resurrect that line of thinking.
|
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!"
THAT IS SUCH A COOL IDEA! I want sharks with laser beams attached to their heads! AWESOME! Just rename it to Magic Missile shooting Sharks! Cool!
anyway... way too much to read EVERYTHING.
But honestly the way I like for fixing the Saving Throw problem is really easy.
At character generation, you pick your ability scores, race, and class. I think they should pull Saving Throws out of being class dependent and make it a stand alone choice. Three levels of Saves. Assign them at character generation and that progression remains from then on.
Change classes? No problem, no extra +2 save boost everyone gripes about.
Want a mentally tough Fighter? Sure thing put Will Saves as Primary or Secondary as your choice.
It allows the player to customize their characters just a bit more to fit what they want to play.
I would also allow players to alter their choices a few times during the characters career to reflect changes in personality from the beginning. Probably 5th, 10th, 15th and 20th levels.
|
|
Are you seriously saying that it's alright and the system, as per RAW, is just fine if you need to pick Feat X, Items Y, Z, Q, R and preferable also T, *plus* expect that you get several "buffs" or potions before every combat? Unless, of course, you wish to spend half the session reading those comic books.It's a lost cause, Asgetrion. You, me, and houstonderek are fully on board with the absurdity of this statement, but everyone else who agreed with us was so emotional about it they've gotten themselves banned for life. I never thought I'd see myself type this, but 3.0/3.5/PF really do mean that "Fighters Don't Get Nice Things." Maybe we can start another thread, "Nice Things for Fighters," and just post wish lists; we might at least end up with a whole mess of useful house rules in that event!
Then again, Abraham and I and others had a very productive thread involving the use of Action Points as a way to fix wanky Will saves and Fighter deficiencies in general... it might be more profitable to resurrect that line of thinking.
Honestly, why even play a fighter past 5th level anyway? lol and Fighter is my favorite character. I didn't get banned, I just stopped reading those threads before I did get banned! lol
I didn't get banned, I just stopped reading those threads before I did get banned! lol
You are a far wiser man than I, Krome.
Are you seriously saying that it's alright and the system, as per RAW, is just fine if you need to pick Feat X, Items Y, Z, Q, R and preferable also T, *plus* expect that you get several "buffs" or potions before every combat? Unless, of course, you wish to spend half the session reading those comic books. And, if nobody creates a "buffer"/healbot, they need to be taught a lesson, because they don't know "how to play the game"?
As I said, if you want to play a low-Wis "martial" character, he should be a valid, playable concept even at high levels *without* being totally dependaple on items/spells/potions.Maybe you don't fudg... er, "coddle" your players, but I've noticed that enouraging min-maxing quite often leads primarily to "turtling" and everyone just trying to "beat the system". My players come to my table to have *fun*, and that's how I prefer to run and play the game. If I need to fudge rolls or adjust the numbers because my players didn't want to "min-max" their PCs, I'm willing to do it. YMMV.
The problem I see here is a double-standard. The fighter (or other weak will savers) only have to invest in feat x, items y, z, q, r, yadda yadda... if their opponents are investing in their offensive spell buffers. When you're dealing with rolled stats and limited access to offensive stat boosters, the fighter's Will save isn't looking so bad. But the main point is of course you need to invest in defensive items when you're in an arms race with the opposition. Decrying the need to engage in that investment seems fairly pointless.
The problems with the system come from the offensive spellcasters having too little MAD and too much ability to concentrate on their offensive spell casting stat with magic item creation rules. Make them roll their stats. Get rid of the discount for creating your own magic items. The problem suddenly isn't so bad. Defensive items, substantially cheaper than offensive ones, hold their own pretty well.
|
|
I would like a system where you don't HAVE to have two dozen magic items to be able to stand up to a bad guy.
In our Epic campaign we were compelled by a dragon to a fight without any of our magic items. We took some time to rewrite our characters and quickly realized without gear there was no freaking way we could stand up to critters of our level. Thankfully it turned out to be about roleplaying and not combat. If it had been combat we had 0% chance of winning. Higher levels is NOT about the character, the feats, or the spells, it is ALL about the gear.
and for Chris Mortika:
Not a shark but close...
I would like a system where you don't HAVE to have two dozen magic items to be able to stand up to a bad guy.
In our Epic campaign we were compelled by a dragon to a fight without any of our magic items. We took some time to rewrite our characters and quickly realized without gear there was no freaking way we could stand up to critters of our level. Thankfully it turned out to be about roleplaying and not combat. If it had been combat we had 0% chance of winning. Higher levels is NOT about the character, the feats, or the spells, it is ALL about the gear.
ALL about the gear? So the same gear on 1st level characters and you'd get the same results as you would with the Epic level characters?
It all depends on your assumptions. The standard CR guidelines assume you have reasonable gear for your level. It's ultimately no more about the gear than anything else, you just have to realize that deviating from the assumptions means you have to do a bit of retooling and resetting of expectations.
But it's always been that way, dating from 1e and running right though to 4e. Gimp (or enhance) any element and you're not going to conform to the game's standard assumptions and expectations. Trying to soldier on with standard assumptions and expectations will only lead to disappointment.
Maybe we can start another thread, "Nice Things for Fighters," and just post wish lists; we might at least end up with a whole mess of useful house rules in that event!
Personally, I don't need a message board thread with "Nice Things for Fighters" because I have a whole book full of that sort of thing -- the Tome of Battle. (Well, maybe it's actually warblades instead of fighters, but you get the point.)
Personally, I don't need a message board thread with "Nice Things for Fighters" because I have a whole book full of that sort of thing -- the Tome of Battle.
That's certainly a viable approach -- simply re-imagine the warriors as full caster classes. More alternatives are always nice to have, though!
|
1. First, it's no cheaper than any wizard with craft wondrous item, which is nearly as ubiquitous as arcane bond.
2. Second, since headband is not an option for arcane bond, technically any +Int Rings or Amulets created would cost +50% for being off-spot. I'm not certain if I'd enforce that myself or not, but that's the rules as written.
Thanks for the heads-up, Majubah. Maybe I'm stuck in the wrong Alpha vs. Beta verion on that:
1. Can't you enhance the arcane bond item for half price? Maybe that's been revoked, or I've been misinterpreting that.
2. I definitely need to go back and read it again; I don't recall offhand any prohibition on headbands. Even if the headband is not possible, 150% cost for a ring x 50% for arcane bond (unless I'm confused on that, too) = 75% normal crafting cost = vastly less than what a fighter pays for his save-boost headband or cloak.
I took it to mean that the caster could use the normal crafting rules to make the item for half normal market price, just as if he had the crafting feat, whether he had the feat or not (which, at level 1, he won't).
Not 'craft items at half price, then halved again for being an Arcane Bond item'.{EDIT: Already answered up-thread}
I took it to mean that the caster could use the normal crafting rules to make the item for half normal market price, just as if he had the crafting feat, whether he had the feat or not (which, at level 1, he won't). Not 'craft items at half price, then halved again for being an Arcane Bond item'.
Bulmahn yet again casts the Spell of Vague Wording, and I obviously haven't spent enough gold compensating for my low Will save.
But, then, you're also the dude that seems to think fighters were "overpowered" in 1e (which makes me think you never played 1e, or never played it with any game mastery - maybe you moved on to 2e before you were old enough to find your groove in 1e? - but that's another discussion all together).
Nope.
You seem to have me confused with someone else.
I have never said anything about fighters being overpowered in 1e, or any other time.
1e had its balance problems, but it wasn't fighters who tipped those scales. Same with 2e.
I loved those versions, and played them because they were D&D and pretty much the best game in town, more or less (though there was lots of experimenting with WFRPG, Rolemaster, Hero, GURPS, and Palladium along the way).
But nevertheless, pleae don't confuse me with whoever it was that said 1e fighters were overpowered. I certainly didn't feel that they were, and I'm sure I haven't said that they were.
Stuff about not letting metagamers get away with it.Are you seriously saying that it's alright and the system, as per RAW, is just fine if you need to pick Feat X, Items Y, Z, Q, R and preferable also T, *plus* expect that you get several "buffs" or potions before every combat? Unless, of course, you wish to spend half the session reading those comic books. And, if nobody creates a "buffer"/healbot, they need to be taught a lesson, because they don't know "how to...
Nope, I didn't say that at all.
I don't expect my fighters to do all of that. I don't even expect them to do most of it. I listed all of it by way of showing what they can do, if they want to.
I suggested that doing some of those things, even many of those things, would be wise.
And I stated that I believe any experienced gamer who knows this system and deliberately tanks his WIS and makes no in-character effort to offset that weakness is abusing the system.
Such a player is metagaming.
He knows I won't kill him because that would be unfair. He knows I won't make him spend every fight in a hold person spell, or running in fear, because that would be unfair.
So he tanks his Will Save, counting on me being a "fair" DM (by his rationale) and letting him get away with it.
He deliberately creates a glaring weakness in his character confident that his DM will protect him from himself.
In return, he has a higher STR, more combat feats, more destructive magic items, and kill the mosters better and faster than anyone else.
He wins. In his mind.
That's metagaming.
If, in some imaginary world in a far away universe where our game rules are their laws of physics, but there are no DMs to protect players, if in that imaginary universe some heroic fighter undertook a career as an adventurer, despite having the willpower (WIS) of a potato, and if that adventurer had acess to older wiser menotrs who try to teach him Iron Will, try to encourage him to invest in magic items that help him resist enchantment type spells, and yet he refuses all this sagely advice...
If such a place with such a hero existed, he would die. Fast.
He would be a huge liability to any adventuring party, and no sane group of adventurers would travel the world with this fool.
But, at the D&D table, some players (evidently) feel that gaming this way is OK because it's fun, and we're all here to have fun.
And if everyone agrees, then, at that table, it is fun.
But at my table, this player will be held accountable for his decisions. Not every fight. Probably not even most. But many fights will exploit his weakness, because, when you get down to it, every fight he's in he can exploit his strengths against the monsters.
It's all about balance.
THat player wants to exploit the system, create a character that is stronger than all the other characters at the table, but he does so by creating weaknesses to offset those strengths, then it is completely imbalanced to let him reap the benefits of his strengths without paying the price of his weaknesses.
And it would be unfair to the rest of the group to watch this guy always take the spotlight, always dish out more damage than they can, always be the superhero in a group of heroes, just because he is more exploitative than the other players.
No, you want to metagame like that, I will tell you during character creation how I'm going to react to it, and advise you of the consequences. I will direct you to a more balanced character, so you can be a hero in a group of heroes, but also so you won't have glaring weaknesses that will get you and your friends killed.
If you won't take that advice, I certainly won't let you reap the rewards without also paying the price.
Balance.
It's not even being a heavy-handed GM. The RAW has things in it like aboleths, illithids, succubi, erinyes, vampires, nymphs, nereids, dragonfear, mages who specialize in enchantment, etc., for a reason. It's in the game system. These things are meant to be encountered. And they're smart. They know about adventurers, and they know how their magic works. They're smart enough to target the weak-minded with their Will-based spells, and to target the weak-bodied with thier Fort-based spells.
Not using them or not using them correctly just lets the one-dimensional superhero steal the spotlight, reap the power without paying the price.
Not gonna happen.
But honestly the way I like for fixing the Saving Throw problem is really easy.
At character generation, you pick your ability scores, race, and class. I think they should pull Saving Throws out of being class dependent and make it a stand alone choice. Three levels of Saves. Assign them at character generation and that progression remains from then on.
Want a mentally tough Fighter? Sure thing put Will Saves as Primary or Secondary as your choice.
It allows the player to customize their characters just a bit more to fit what they want to play.
You're right, it does allow more customization.
But it also looks to me like it's a power-gamer's playground here.
Roleplayers aside, if we look at this from a munckin perspective, who wouldn't match their worst save to their best stat, and their best save to their worst stat?
Why would a fighter, who's always going to have decent CON and DEX, pick anything except WILL to be their best save?
Sure, that means his FORT save is lower, but he has all that CON, and he'll no doubt pick up magic items that improve his CON, much more likely than WIS items. That should compensate it just fine. Heck, normally fighters in the RAW have more FORT than they really need anyway.
Rogues pick REF as their primary? No way, they have plenty of DEX for that, and they'll get more DEX along the way.
In the end, I see clerics running around with weak WILL and good REF, fighters with the opposite, and everyone having mediocre saves against everything.
Which may not be bad - at least nobody will have glaring weaknesses. Except, of course, the roleplayers who build a character concept around the brainless fighter with a WIS of 6 who gets dominated every time a vampire rolls over in his casket.
Maybe that's what you want. It doesn't really even sound too bad.
But I do think munchkins will have a heyday with it.
Thanks for the heads-up, Majubah. Maybe I'm stuck in the wrong Alpha vs. Beta verion on that:
1. Can't you enhance the arcane bond item for half price? Maybe that's been revoked, or I've been misinterpreting that.
2. I definitely need to go back and read it again; I don't recall offhand any prohibition on headbands. Even if the headband is not possible, 150% cost for a ring x 50% for arcane bond (unless I'm confused on that, too) = 75% normal crafting cost = vastly less than what a fighter pays for his save-boost headband or cloak.I took it to mean that the caster could use the normal crafting rules to make the item for half normal market price, just as if he had the crafting feat, whether he had the feat or not (which, at level 1, he won't).
Not 'craft items at half price, then halved again for being an Arcane Bond item'.
I took it the opposite way.
All a mage needs to turn his Arcane Bond into a magic item is one feat.
And that's one feat that many mages are going to take anyway.
So, essentially, by your ruling, a mage is trading away an infinitely useful familiar, and in return he gains one spell/day and a bonus feat (well, half a feat because it can only create a single item).
That's not a good trade off.
But, if he also gains the ability to enchant his bonded item at a cost less than he would pay to enchant the same item with a regular normal feat, then it starts to get appealing.
So, given that, I took the wording to mean that whatever the mage would pay to enchante a normal ring/staff/etc., if the item he is enchanting is his Arcane Bond item, he can put the same enchantment on that Bond item for half price.
IMO, it makes it worth the price of giving up a familiar.
in return he gains one spell/day
He gains one spell per day out of his entire spellbook. That he doesn't have to prepare in advance. That means that once per day, an item-bonded wizard can pull the perfect silver-bullet spell up without any preparation. That's pretty good to me.
Still does squat for Arcane bloodline sorcerers, except handicap them into not being able to cast without their bonded item, though.
Balance (x2)
If all the other classes had equally glaring weaknesses that they had to go to equal lengths to ameliorate, I'd be right with you. But they don't. It's not "balance" to dump on one class and then expect him to die if he doesn't put his primary functions on the back burner because he's busy covering for it. In the words of Raymond Chandler, that's like kicking in his teeth and then shooting him for mumbling.
Personally, I don't need a message board thread with "Nice Things for Fighters" because I have a whole book full of that sort of thing -- the Tome of Battle.That's certainly a viable approach -- simply re-imagine the warriors as full caster classes. More alternatives are always nice to have, though!
I would compare the Tome of Battle classes more to something like a warlock than a full caster, but sure.
I actually see more problems with weak saves at the beginning of a campaign (low levels) than I do at high levels. At lower levels the spellcasters usually (not always but most the time) tank Str, and maybe Cha while boosting their primary casting attribute to the maximum they can. Coupled with spell focus a first level spell at first character level can easily have a DC of 18 or 19, when most characters have a save bonus of +2~+6 (at the high end). This isn't just a problem with will saves though (about the only two to really worry about at level 1 are sleep and color spray), as even a fair amount of damage from a spell can tank most characters (same with any decent damage from an attack really or a failed fortitude save). The players haven't had enough time (or resources of any flavor) to help compensate for the fact that the DC's they could face are well beyond their means of facing.
A note on the fighter though:
If a player starts with 15 points in a pathfinder point buy he could have the following stats as a Human:
Str 14 (5)
Dex 14 (2)+2 human
Con 14 (5)
Int 10
Wis 14 (5)
Cha 8 (-2)
or the following:
Str 16 (5) + 2 human
Dex 12 (2)
Con 14
Int 10
Wis 14
Cha 8
or the following:
Str 18 (10) + 2
Dex 10 (0)
Con 14 (5)
Int 10
Wis 10
Cha 8 (-2)
The difference in a 14 wisdom is only a +1 to hit and Damage on Str. It doesn't even add up to any extra damage when you two hand a weapon (or when power attacking at these levels for that matter).
You don't have to "Dump" or "Give up" your "main function" to have a decent Will save for a Fighter.
It would be like a wizard taking the following stats and complaining when he dies or doesn't make a Fort save:
Str 10
Dex 10
Con 8 (-2)
Int 20 (17) + 2 human
Wis 10
Cha 10
He shouldn't expect to make those fort saves or survive an encounter with a half orc's sword.
Well, except the fighter has to keep up Str and Con, and even then he still has to dump Cha in order to keep up the 14 Wis that, under the current model, he is "stupid" not to take. The wizard is under only a fraction of those conflicting imperatives.
My point was that it is completely feasible to have a fighter with a 14 wis and good stats otherwise. The wizard on the other hand has an almost absolute imperative to max his INT, and that costs him any chance at doing anything else. He can dump Str, but then he can't carry as much and has trouble with str related tasks (climb, and jumping for example which are both common at lower levels and can still be common at higher levels too), if he dumps Cha it's stereotypical, but not a huge deal (same for the fighter actually). Dex isn't really dump-able for anyone, neither is Con (maybe if you are staying out of direct combat, but skills suffer, and so does your Ref save... something to remember for a wizard enough direct damage from AOE's can kill or ruin a spell). Wisdom isn't dump-able for similar reasons to Con, it helps on perception (and a few other skills) in its own right, but also for those will saves.
In the end Will saves don't show up as much as Fort or Ref saves, they don't have any consequences if the save is made (unlike save for half reflex saves, or left over effects from fortitude saves) and only appear when magic is involved (unlike fort or reflex saves which can come from mundane effects).
1. In the end Will saves don't show up as much as Fort or Ref saves, 2. they don't have any consequences if the save is made (unlike save for half reflex saves, or left over effects from fortitude saves) and 3. only appear when magic is involved (unlike fort or reflex saves which can come from mundane effects).
1. (Debatable);
2. And have much more severe effects if the save IS failed; and3. Appear frequently in a game world in which ubiquitous magic is a baseline assumption.
I've had it. You guys made me join just to respond to this same stupid argument that has been going on as long as games have had rules.
The fighters will save is fine. There, I said it. Now everyone who disagrees with it can ignore the rest of my post.
The problem with the game is it is a game. It will never be as complex as the real world "rules system" we run under (which is much less forgiving and much more foreboding than any spell your epic min/max wizard can throw). People play this game to have fun. It's a form of entertainment. People will always keep their entertainment entertaining. Whats good for one person, sucks for another. Make your changes for your personal experience and move on.
That said, let us explore this topic of "unfair disadvantage". The fighter is a class that, by definition, fights. That is his specialization. he's rough and tumble, no holds barred, combat. His definition blurs at this point because this is a game that allows customization. The base fighter is a toy who's box states "I like to hit things, I laugh at poisons, I'd rather take a hit head on than dodge it, and I'm so focused I may become easily distracted". Translated he's saying I have a good BAB & Fort, but a bad Ref and Will. That is his one dimensional base. Now take him, love him, and add more dimension to him. This is the point you, as a player, choose his path. Will he alway be so focused he's easily distracted, or will he train his mind to resist the way he trains his body to. Maybe he'll be more susceptible than your average melee combatant. That is your choice as a player.
Now as this is a game, there must be a reason to play and a goal to prove how well you did. Sure, your little league coach said it didn't matter if you win or lose, its how you play the game. He's right. You guys lost 14 to 2 and the other team got that shiny gold trophy. You guys played your best and should be proud. But then the coach takes you out for pizza at Chubby Charles after the game, where the other team went to celebrate. You look at them as they laugh and play pinball and fling pepperoni at each other and think 'if its all about how you play the game, then why due I feel so empty?'. The reason- You didn't earn your pizza. Your having a victory party for participation. The other team is enjoying their victory- and your supposed to celebrate your defeat? NO! The goal of a game is to win against the odds. Even if the odds are greater than ever before, that is your goal. It just doesn't feel right being handed your victory when you didn't earn it. The same is true for the fighter.
The fighter you create will face numerous battles. In some he will have the advantage, like the poison using kolbolds. In others he will be challenged, like the enchanter's mesmerizing orb. The thing is both of these "games" have a chance of being lost or won. That is why this game, OUR GAME, the game we love so much, uses dice. Random probability to simulate this chance. How he prepares for this chance is up to you. you were given the base, and through experience and "victory" (See winning) you have amassed "treasure and new abilities" (see thing you earned, not were handed). These "treasure bonuses" are accounted for in the rules of our game for a reason: Losers don't make it this far. Losers don't get the rewards. Losers don't advance beyond GO. Losers don't get there pieces on the home space. They don't collect the pot. They don't get the trophy. and they don't move on to the next level. By a Dungeon Master allowing his players to advance in level with no challenge but all the reward, he is making them losers and lying to them about it.
If you and your friends want to tell open ended tales of knights and wizards fighting demons and dragons, go ahead. I cant stop you. Just know that that is not Pathfinder. That is not D&D. That is not a game. That is a bunch of people telling stories. That is what my players do *AFTER* they prove they are winners. They tell stories of the heroic character they made who face the odds and survived. They tell the tale of the surely fatal encounter with the Necromancer in his crumbling necropolis over a portal to the Abyss. And how they survived. And those they lost; the poor souls who tried so the others could succeed.
But you guys talk, were my players PLAYED.
I could hand them arbitrarily large bonuses to everything so they feel comfortable, safe, and warm. But my players like to earn the things they are given. My job is not to mother them, but to evoke emotion in them. If they want to be safe, read a book. If they don't want emotions, play a video game. But me, I MOTHERF***ING ROLEPLAY! I wear the skin of my character proudly. I think like him for experience. If I'm afraid of spiders, I don't need a rule or number to tell me that. Thats character. I run into burning buildings with the thought of saving people on my mind, not my low reflex or how much damage I may take. The rules are here to provide a system for challenge, not cheapen the victory or grind in the loss. So you have a character with a low will. Big deal. Does he play it? Does he compensate for it? No? Then one day his luck runs out and that character doesn't win this game unless you hand him the victory and tell him everything will be better next time 'cause you won't throw anymore big, bad, evil will saves at him any more. Or he could learn. He could adapt. Maybe his next character actually cares about his weakness. Get a sword or a cloak; he chooses cloak. Get gloves or amulet; he chooses amulet. Suddenly a big, nasty will save comes up but this time he's prepared. But he's still afraid. 'Cause if he fails this save any way he might lose this character he has come to love and appreciate. He might lose.
Don't cheapen the game. When its all said and done, it's still a game. When the smoke clears and you look at the bodies of your miniatures toppled over and the negative game mechanic that represents your hit points, smile. Say 'good game'.
...Hell, play again.
Morel: As a DM, you are here to challenge the PC's without abusing or pampering them. if you players make min/maxed munchkins from hell, fight back in kind. If they play reasonable characters challenge them appropriately. But under no circumstances should you ever believe that just because a blaring weak point shines on their character like a Legend of Zelda villain, that the bad guys aren't going to take advantage of it. If they are allowed to use the old "fort save versus wizard; will save versus fighter" logic, so can you. They have access to the same spells you do. the same items and feats and skills to, believe it or not. If your complaining about a low will save, just play a damn wizard. And if you complain about their fort or reflex, just play a monk. And if you complain about their low base attack bonus, just play something other than Pathfinder because there is no pleasing you. Make your own class. boost its save threw the roof. Just don't bring that "it's broken cause I don't like and/or understand it this way" crap to the rest of the people who enjoy this beloved GAME!
Flame off!
Sorry (to OP) for the elongated response. Just a little passionate. I hope you caught my reference to the original subject in there.
Happy Gaming, Everyone!
Welcome to the boards, Erik!
Have some virtual cookies!
Arigato, Snorter. Always good to feel welcome
Erik,
Welcome -- and kudos on spelling your name correctly, as do Erik Mona and I. You and I also seem to share the sense that, "if the rules are unimportant, then it ceases to be a game and becomes storytime hour." The only difference is that we don't share the same conclusion from there. Pathfinder's purpose IS to fix glitches, rather than simply ignore them (if the latter, Paizo would have stuck with 3.5) -- so this forum is an opportunity to bring play experience with said issues and discuss. Yes, "play experience." Not just talk.
Now, if it's OK to break one of the Little League kid's knees and then feel he's earned his pizza because he tried, good for you. Others would rather have a game in which all the kids begin at more or less the same ability -- some better at catching, others better at batting, but nobody wants to be the kid who's supposedly able to field but in reality can't do anything at all. The rules are separate from roleplaying, by the way; one can roleplay a good character or a hopeless one, but it's less fun, for me, if I know I'm always going to get to be the kid who can't do anything well.
Hope that sheds some light; if not, you can go back to being superior and I'll get back to looking at the issue at hand.
|
|
But honestly the way I like for fixing the Saving Throw problem is really easy.
At character generation, you pick your ability scores, race, and class. I think they should pull Saving Throws out of being class dependent and make it a stand alone choice. Three levels of Saves. Assign them at character generation and that progression remains from then on.
Want a mentally tough Fighter? Sure thing put Will Saves as Primary or Secondary as your choice.
It allows the player to customize their characters just a bit more to fit what they want to play.
You're right, it does allow more customization.
But it also looks to me like it's a power-gamer's playground here.
Roleplayers aside, if we look at this from a munckin perspective, who wouldn't match their worst save to their best stat, and their best save to their worst stat?
Why would a fighter, who's always going to have decent CON and DEX, pick anything except WILL to be their best save?
Sure, that means his FORT save is lower, but he has all that CON, and he'll no doubt pick up magic items that improve his CON, much more likely than WIS items. That should compensate it just fine. Heck, normally fighters in the RAW have more FORT than they really need anyway.
Rogues pick REF as their primary? No way, they have plenty of DEX for that, and they'll get more DEX along the way.
In the end, I see clerics running around with weak WILL and good REF, fighters with the opposite, and everyone having mediocre saves against everything.
Which may not be bad - at least nobody will have glaring weaknesses. Except, of course, the roleplayers who build a character concept around the brainless fighter with a WIS of 6 who gets dominated every time a vampire rolls over in his casket.
Maybe that's what you want. It doesn't really even sound too bad.
But I do think munchkins will have a heyday with it.
I'm a bit confused here, because you replied to my post and said that players who're metagaming put a low score in Wis, and here you're stating that nobody will have glaring weaknesses except for "roleplayers roleplayers who build a character concept around the brainless fighter with a WIS of 6 who gets dominated every time a vampire rolls over in his casket". Ignoring that you can't drop a stat under 7 with point-buy, why can't my players simply be doing it for the sake of role-playing? Because they know I'll adjust my campaign to suit their characters?
3E encourages metagaming and "number-crunching", no matter what you do, because the price for failure is so costly; even if you have +20 on all your saves, at high levels there's still a margin for failure. If your players invest heavily in Wis and Iron Will and magic items that boost Wis, they're metagaming, too -- they, the players, know that they'll be reading the comic books if they let
Finally, being able to customize your saving throws is mechanically no different from buying items that boost certain saves and ability scores -- whether your fighter picks that Iron Will and Headband to rack up his Will save or chooses Will as his 'Good' save, it's pretty much the same end result, right? Besides, powergamers and "munchkins" are rewarded in 3E anyway, so I don't think what more they would gain from this.
Erik,
Welcome -- and kudos on spelling your name correctly, as do Erik Mona and I. You and I also seem to share the sense that, "if the rules are unimportant, then it ceases to be a game and becomes storytime hour." The only difference is that we don't share the same conclusion from there. Pathfinder's purpose IS to fix glitches, rather than simply ignore them (if the latter, Paizo would have stuck with 3.5) -- so this forum is an opportunity to bring play experience with said issues and discuss. Yes, "play experience." Not just talk.
Now, if it's OK to break one of the Little League kid's knees and then feel he's earned his pizza because he tried, good for you. Others would rather have a game in which all the kids begin at more or less the same ability -- some better at catching, others better at batting, but nobody wants to be the kid who's supposedly able to field but in reality can't do anything at all. The rules are separate from roleplaying, by the way; one can roleplay a good character or a hopeless one, but it's less fun, for me, if I know I'm always going to get to be the kid who can't do anything well.
Hope that sheds some light; if not, you can go back to being superior and I'll get back to looking at the issue at hand.
Thanks for the acknowledgment of superiority, Kirth... That's a joke by the way.
You seem to have missed the point in my metaphor. The fighters knee isn't broken. Far from it. The fighter is a catcher. And while the catcher may not be as fast as an outfielder or shortstop, nor have the throwing power of the pitcher, he's excellent in his position. Strong, stable, and standing right where the damage is going. Nobody else is filling his position. You think the pitcher (wizard) wants to be the one going toe to toe with the other teams winning runner headed strait for him. Not going to happen. However you seem to have made my point for me. Your catcher is part of a team. Each member of your team has strengths and weaknesses. That's why you work together. If your adventuring group had to volunteer one member to resist magical temptation, are you going to send the fighter in? No, you send the wizard. Disable a trap? Send the Rogue. Fight a monster, one-on-one? Probably the fighter. What you don't seem to be getting is that the weaknesses these characters have is a necessary part of the game. If the catcher can play every spot on the team, then let him try. as long as the group works with him, he'll steal their thunder until their tired of it.
I'm not saying don't discuss problems (this is a beta test after all). What I'm saying is the fighters will save is not a problem (hell, it's not even the topic of post). The math of the situation has been presented (and skewed for the posters benefit) several times, yet its devolved into the same arbitrary argument I've heard time and again. The reason the forsaken prestige class was never reproduced from 3.0 to 3.5 was because no one breaks their treasure (on purpose) and no one is supposed to forsake the core idea that magic is helpful depending on its source. I feel the fighter is fine (save-wise) as is and the problem you are trying to debate is one of roll-play style. Pathfinder can give us hard crunch rules, soft fluff settings, ans informative play tips, but they can't run the game for you.
|
|
Erik, welcome to the forum! I wholeheartedly agree with Kirth, and I just wish to add this:
It's easy to say that "hey, it's just a game!" and talk about challenge, trials-by-fire and how hard-earned victories and uphill struggles taste the sweetest; they do, but as years have rolled by and gaming sessions take place on a less and less regular basis, character deaths or skipping action due to stunning/petrification/death/etcetera tastes also more and more bitter. Especially when you fail a single roll you were supposed to succeed with 90% certainity at.
I've been playing and running the game since BECMI, so that's over 20 years now. I've seen the good and bad in every edition, and while I dearly love 3E, there are aspects in the rules and the math underlying it that I'd like to see "fixed". Not everyone has these same problems, and I've played under DMs who ran the game mercilessly with the "let the dice fall as they may"-philosophy -- if you died, you didn't play (or create your character) "right", or it was just "bad luck".
My main gripe is with high-level play, and how much the "martial" characters -- and the game math in general -- are dependant on magic. In 2E my fighter could perform in his job without cloaks of resistance and headbands of inspired wisdowm and being a potion addict; I could rely on the fact that he could charge into melee and trade blows with most "level-appropriate" monsters even without "buffs" or powerful magical items. In 3E I just can't, unless I wish to spend the rest of the session reading comic books. Sometimes it's a single saving throw, but surprisingly often I've died due to losing initiative (i.e. a full attack causing 200+ points of damage even before my guy has drawn his weapon).
As I already said, if I organize my schedule to play or run the game, I don't really find it "fun" having my PC killed on the first round or ending up with a TPK in my campaign because all the PCs rolled badly on their first round (or, most likely, because they didn't have time to get all the "buffs" on before the encounter). If I wanted "grim'n'gritty" combat, I'd choose WFRP, Rolemaster or Riddle of Steel over D&D.
If the price of failure would not be so costly, or if there was less "swinginess" in the system, I think it would emphasize role-playing aspects of the game over character optimization.
Stuff..
Thanks for the welcome.
I believe I am beginning to see the problem.
The problem isn't the fighters save bonus, but the severity of will saves. Now, upon this I would agree with you. I have often felt that death effects and mind-influencing effects were overpowered. Point and click, your dead. How could you turn that down? And if no one can turn it down than its overpowered status needs to be investigated. I've often thought both spell categories should effect both mind and body (requiring both Fort and Will) or take several rounds to come to full effect or even the spell itself providing a bonus to the save due to the awesome result of failure.
I hope this makes some clarification.
I disagree. It's point and click, and pray. If they succeed on the save you get nothing out of your wasted action or wasted spell slot. This eats up resources you had for nothing (and more than just the action and slot if you've spent into having good save DCs which eat up feats, money and stat points). If they fail you hit the jack pot... this time. At mid to high level the DC's cap off, the save bonuses don't, and immunities become more and more common.
I don't want to see at again like what happened in 2nd ed... where a fighter without equipment can save against every spell thrown at him on a 2 plus. Why spend a spell slot on the spell in that case? When the fighter matches the wizard's investment in then he can get about a 50% chance... even investments means even chances on who will win.
*********************************************************
I don't see how will save effects are anymore dangerous to adventurers on average than fortitude save effects or some reflex save effects.
Hold person is no better than Stinking Cloud, Ghoul Touch is just as good as glitterdust, Blindness is as nice as Hideous Laughter. Pyrotechnics is as good as Daze Monster (better actually).
And anyone can pick up a poison.
**************************************
Things I could straight up agree to:
"Action points" for fighters (1/2 class level + Con mod?) that can be spent to do the following: Extra movement, extra AC (both normal and touch) bonuses on save throws (scales with points spent), extra attacks.
Concentration Check for casting Defensively = 10 + Threatening creatures BAB + spell level
More spells with full round actions to cast.
The problem isn't the fighters save bonus, but the severity of will saves. Now, upon this I would agree with you. I have often felt that death effects and mind-influencing effects were overpowered. Point and click, your dead. How could you turn that down? And if no one can turn it down than its overpowered status needs to be investigated. I've often thought both spell categories should effect both mind and body (requiring both Fort and Will) or take several rounds to come to full effect or even the spell itself providing a bonus to the save due to the awesome result of failure.
EXACTLY correct! The thing is, in Pathfinder, Fort saves are less dangerous; save-or-die spells now deal damage (save for less damage), and arcanists and rogues got a hit die bump (and possibly more bonus hp from the favored class gimick). Also, poisons are less deadly (most cannot kill anyone of Con 11+). Which leaves Will saves as the most dangerous weakness. Every class has either good Will saves, or class features to mitigate them (slippery mind, rage bonuses)... except the fighter. So, yeah, if his knee isn't broken yet, his Will save leaves everyone else with a kryptonite bat.
|
The problem isn't the fighters save bonus, but the severity of will saves. Now, upon this I would agree with you. I have often felt that death effects and mind-influencing effects were overpowered. Point and click, your dead. How could you turn that down? And if no one can turn it down than its overpowered status needs to be investigated. I've often thought both spell categories should effect both mind and body (requiring both Fort and Will) or take several rounds to come to full effect or even the spell itself providing a bonus to the save due to the awesome result of failure.EXACTLY correct! The thing is, in Pathfinder, Fort saves are less dangerous; save-or-die spells now deal damage (save for less damage), and arcanists and rogues got a hit die bump (and possibly more bonus hp from the favored class gimick). Also, poisons are less deadly (most cannot kill anyone of Con 11+). Which leaves Will saves as the most dangerous weakness. Every class has either good Will saves, or class features to mitigate them (slippery mind, rage bonuses)... except the fighter. So, yeah, if his knee isn't broken yet, his Will save leaves everyone else with a kryptonite bat.
Really I though that the fighter got a bonus vs fear.
Really I though that the fighter got a bonus vs fear.
Fear saves aren't the really dangerous ones, though.
Hold and domination and confusion and the like are, and a number of illusions, and a number of monster special attacks.The save vs. fear bonus is like a kevlar vest that only works against rubber bullets!
Fear saves aren't the dangerous ones, though.
Hold and domination and confusion and the like are, and a number of illusions, and a number of monster special attacks.
How would you feel if those effects gave you a save every round?
Maybe even at a penelty due to a failed save the previous round?
How would you feel if those effects gave you a save every round?
Maybe even at a penelty due to a failed save the previous round?
I'd feel great! Especially if the save is possible on other than a 20 (stacking penalties quickly translate to "don't bother even trying").
I'd feel great! Especially if the save is possible on other than a 20 (stacking penalties quickly translate to "don't bother even trying").
I never said stacking. Just think of it like the bonus on CMB for maintaining a grapple since the previous round. You fail the first round and ar overtaken by the effect. round two and every round thereafter, you make the save at a -2 penalty because the effect has already set in. Removing it rather than shaking it off is a harder goal to accomplish.
I'd feel great! Especially if the save is possible on other than a 20 (stacking penalties quickly translate to "don't bother even trying").I never said stacking. Just think of it like the bonus on CMB for maintaining a grapple since the previous round. You fail the first round and ar overtaken by the effect. round two and every round thereafter, you make the save at a -2 penalty because the effect has already set in. Removing it rather than shaking it off is a harder goal to accomplish.
A flat -2 is reasonable. Yeah, consider me all in favor.