Using miniatures and grids is relatively new to me too, but I love 'em.
|
Man, this argument pops up all the time.
My group are playing level 18 characters through the age of worms campaign. My fighting types, including two fighter classes are perfectly fine. They need buffs to be able to survive combats, but then so do the druid, wizard and cleric.
They've bought gear to help them with things such as grapple (Ring of freedom of movement anyone, expensive but at level 18 who cares.) Boots of teleport, rings of flying, capes of same. Cloaks with save bonuses all help and are used by different ones.
They don't need to spend money on getting gear to up their damage as much or their armour as much as the PF fighter has built in certain of those numbers for them. Now they can deversify their gear to compensate for some of the classic take out maneuvres high level critters have tried to use on them.
What's more, our casters quickly learnt that the fighters are far more efficient at taking down the baddies than they were, becasue the fighters could go all day with their damage while the casters ran out of the big guns very early.
Now our group tactics see the casters and fighters working in tandem beatuifully to take down anything I throw at them. The gap isn't as big as many keep throwing out there.
To make a point, I DM'd a game one week where 4 of the fighters turned up and the cleric. Nothing I threw at them was a problem, and combats rarely went longer than three rounds as the damage output for the fighting types was amazingy scary. The cleric healed alot.
The next session we had one fighter, one druid, one wizad and one cleric. Nothing I threw at them was a problem, combats rarely lasted more than three rounds (though the real life time to play them out was staggering, given all the slection and hming and ahhing the casters did). The cleric had to heal alot.
In essence, absoulutely no difference between a predominantly caster party and predominantly fighter party. This is of course only my experience, but it is real evidence, not a contrived scenario.
Final thought though, don't play high level without a celric, or everyone dies.
Cheers
Man, this argument pops up all the time.
My group are playing level 18 characters through the age of worms campaign. My fighting types, including two fighter classes are perfectly fine.
Just curious: are the fighters using non-Core feats or prestige classes? Because I find that a pure Core fighter doesn't have as many flashy options as non-Core ones do.
|
I'm not pointing fingers or anything, just making an observation. It seems funny to me that over on the "what does psionics mean to you" topic that a lot of people say that it isn't psionics that's broken, just the way individuals play their games. But here, we have the same basic problem, and most people seem to go the opposite route. Just an idle thought.
I just took this to sum up the track of several posts, as it kind of makes my (and Kirth's) point on a couple of things.
When the playtest was going on, we pointed out what we felt some of the issues with fighters (and weapon dependent classes in general) were, and 90% of the responses (some quite heated) were in the "Well, your DM needs to do something about making fighters more useful" vein.
Um, yeah. Relying on DM fiat is poor game design. Beckett, I chose to quote you because you said something about the play style in your group, and how magic using classes aren't as dominant (or at all). And, you're right. If the DM doesn't use critters and NPCs to their full potential, it will smooth out a lot of problems with weapon dependent classes in high level play.
But. The game shouldn't have to rely on that. The game should be designed to allow for character class usefulness and relevance without having to cripple the opponents. Without a wizard and a cleric, a party should be CRUSHED by a CR appropriate dragon (or demon or devil or NPC spell caster....). Most high level critters of intelligence have all sorts of abilities that make trying to beat them with a sharp pointy thing difficult, if not impossible, without a LOT of help from magic.
When Kirth and I were running our playtests and simulations, we used all of the opponents to their fullest abilities and intelligence. And wizards, clerics and druids were indispensable. Fighters, barbarians, rangers and paladins, on the other hand, weren't really needed after, say, 13th level or so. And, that's a problem. "Melee" classes almost always need magic back up, "magic" classes rarely need muscle back up, after a certain point.
And, the problem with dismissing players of "older editions" (forgot who said something to that effect) is we DO tend to use opponents to their fullest. OUR playstyle generally doesn't include holding the parties hand. You better have a plan, because MY dragon isn't going to sit around, use melee attacks and breathe, it is going to use its lair (which has been prepped to be advantageous to the dragon, not to intruders), its spells, and every bit of its intelligence to defend itself. And don't catch a high level dragon away from its lair, when it can take full advantage of its flying ability...
It annoys me to no end when people dismiss legitimate complaints about the SYSTEM by saying "Well, our DM does x, so y isn't a problem".
Beckett, side note: Psionics in D&D have always been a problem, as neither TSR nor WotC has ever created a psioncs system that wasn't an afterthought. Just sayin'...
|
|
Just curious: are the fighters using non-Core feats or prestige classes? Because I find that a pure Core fighter doesn't have as many flashy options as non-Core ones do.Man, this argument pops up all the time.
My group are playing level 18 characters through the age of worms campaign. My fighting types, including two fighter classes are perfectly fine.
Yeah, that always seems to be the counter argument: "Hey, just use feats x,y,z out of the Complete Cheesemaster, or the alternate classes out of Tome of Cheese"...
Yep, that cures all of the problems with core...
|
|
Just curious: are the fighters using non-Core feats or prestige classes? Because I find that a pure Core fighter doesn't have as many flashy options as non-Core ones do.Man, this argument pops up all the time.
My group are playing level 18 characters through the age of worms campaign. My fighting types, including two fighter classes are perfectly fine.
Just typed this the first time and the hit back before posting. Stupid me.
In short no, the fighters aren't using prestige classes or feats outside core pathfinder and the beta high level feats. Will double check this for you though.
We have a swashbuckler though, and he uses a few things from complete warrior and phb 2, plus a new build for said class that someone did up in the test threads.
We use spell compendium and magic item compendium. Characters get to use them but I also mod the baddies to do the same.
It is important to note that twice in teh campaign, charaters are given the chance, time and resources to sell an rekit themselves. Once at around level 8 and the other around level 15. This written into teh game, not something I added in. We also play in the very magic rich world of Eberron so buying gear isn't that hard. I had to bring the NPC's in the Eberron up to parr though, as it is a world realy designed to be played in for only 10 levels or so, and this was a campaign desigend to go to 20.
|
|
Just curious: are the fighters using non-Core feats or prestige classes? Because I find that a pure Core fighter doesn't have as many flashy options as non-Core ones do.Man, this argument pops up all the time.
My group are playing level 18 characters through the age of worms campaign. My fighting types, including two fighter classes are perfectly fine.
Yeah, that always seems to be the counter argument: "Hey, just use feats x,y,z out of the Complete Cheesemaster, or the alternate classes out of Tome of Cheese"...
Yep, that cures all of the problems with core...
The problem with core isn't feats or classes, but combat mechanics in general. However that's another discussion in which people can open a flame war.
As an aside,
I'm always interested to know why people only care about the core. The core rules were written many years ago and now there are a number of books that have been released that offer solutions to problems people face. Yet still there are those that say "You can't use them, it isnt core!"
It's like telling people to drive an orginal model T ford despite the fact that modern cars have fixed the prolems with that model. "But it isn't the original!"
Unfortunately Pathfinder isn't core either as far as I can tell from your statements. It's basically another splat book, although it tries to rewrite the rules as well. No different to many of the other books out there that Pathfinder is trying to be "compatible with".
I often find these same people are the ones who argue that fighters getting gear to overcome obvious weaknesses is not a solution as magic users can do it inherintly. I wonder why we have loot at all if that is the case?
Oh well, as curious as it is, it's not really relevent to the discussion.
Cheers
As an aside,
I'm always interested to know why people only care about the core.
Generally, I'm not a core-obsessed nut. :-)
But I acknowledge that the PHB has some failings, so when people say "It works fine for me!", I just want to double-check that people are actually talking about the core rules only and not some blend of splatbooks, house rules, etc.
(Personally, I'd be delighted to throw out the fighter class altogether and substitute the warblade from the Tome of Battle. But that's just me.)
|
|
Just curious: are the fighters using non-Core feats or prestige classes? Because I find that a pure Core fighter doesn't have as many flashy options as non-Core ones do.Man, this argument pops up all the time.
My group are playing level 18 characters through the age of worms campaign. My fighting types, including two fighter classes are perfectly fine.
Yeah, that always seems to be the counter argument: "Hey, just use feats x,y,z out of the Complete Cheesemaster, or the alternate classes out of Tome of Cheese"...
Yep, that cures all of the problems with core...
The problem with core isn't feats or classes, but combat mechanics in general. However that's another discussion in which people can open a flame war.
As an aside,
I'm always interested to know why people only care about the core. The core rules were written many years ago and now there are a number of books that have been released that offer solutions to problems people face. Yet still there are those that say "You can't use them, it isnt core!"It's like telling people to drive an orginal model T ford despite the fact that modern cars have fixed the prolems with that model. "But it isn't the original!"
Unfortunately Pathfinder isn't core either as far as I can tell from your statements. It's basically another splat book, although it tries to rewrite the rules as well. No different to many of the other books out there that Pathfinder is trying to be "compatible with".
I often find these same people are the ones who argue that fighters getting gear to overcome obvious weaknesses is not a solution as magic users can do it inherintly. I wonder why we have loot at all if that is the case?
Oh well, as curious as it is, it's not really relevent to the discussion.
Cheers
Let's see:
Point one: Why am I hung up on core? Well, I'm not, I use some stuff from Green Ronin and Malhavoc that works well with my playstyle, without being cheese like much of the CRAP WotC put out.
Point Two: D&D v.3.5 is no longer supported by much of anyone except Paizo, and that will end in August. Pathfinder Roleplaying is a new game, based on the SRD, and will be "core" for all Pathfinder products released from August '09 until Pathfinder 2nd Edition is released.
Sure, you can use it as a splat book for 3x, but that isn't what it is. You can use a butter knife to loosen a screw, doesn't make it a screwdriver.
Point Three: When I c an build a wizard, cleric or druid using just the 3.5 Player's Handbook that competes well with anything from the various splats, and a rogue that can most of the time, but I can't build a fighter, barbarian, ranger or paladin that can, something is wrong with those classes. To use your analogy, it's like saying "We really don't need a sports car (magic using classes) after the '63 Stingray, they're fine, but we have to use a 2009 F350 XLT (workhorse melee types) from Ford's new catalog, The old '73 F150 isn't getting it done anymore.
Or something. Car analogies are silly when discussing this stuff. This is a game, and I shouldn't have to buy Bo9S to have a viable fighter...
|
|
As an aside,
I'm always interested to know why people only care about the core.Generally, I'm not a core-obsessed nut. :-)
But I acknowledge that the PHB has some failings, so when people say "It works fine for me!", I just want to double-check that people are actually talking about the core rules only and not some blend of splatbooks, house rules, etc.
(Personally, I'd be delighted to throw out the fighter class altogether and substitute the warblade from the Tome of Battle. But that's just me.)
See, I can't STAND Bo9S. So, I guess, according to Wraith's logic, I should just have to suffer through a class he (through inference) admits sucks.
Wow, now I feel old. Didn't everyone used to play 1st and 2nd Editions without all the pretty accessories like vinyl maps and painted figures and tea-cozies?
[waves cane]
We used to use our imaginations, goshdarn whippersnappers, before 3.5 when people's movements started being measured in 'squares!'
"And we liked it!"
;)
See, I can't STAND Bo9S. So, I guess, according to Wraith's logic, I should just have to suffer through a class he (through inference) admits sucks.(Personally, I'd be delighted to throw out the fighter class altogether and substitute the warblade from the Tome of Battle. But that's just me.)
Some of the stuff in Bo9S I don't like (my particular pet peeve is the healing maneuvers -- "If I punch this orc in the face, my buddy will stop bleeding to death!"). But I like the idea that melee fighters get a lot of flashy things to do, and they're actively discouraged from doing the same flashy thing twice in the same fight (e.g. tripping your opponent ten times in a row).
|
|
Some of the stuff in Bo9S I don't like (my particular pet peeve is the healing maneuvers -- "If I punch this orc in the face, my buddy will stop bleeding to death!"). But I like the idea that melee fighters get a lot of flashy things to do, and they're actively discouraged from doing the same flashy thing twice in the same fight (e.g. tripping your opponent ten times in a row).See, I can't STAND Bo9S. So, I guess, according to Wraith's logic, I should just have to suffer through a class he (through inference) admits sucks.(Personally, I'd be delighted to throw out the fighter class altogether and substitute the warblade from the Tome of Battle. But that's just me.)
Well, Bo9S was the proving ground for a lot of the concepts in 4e, after all. Yeah, and in all of my years of being involved in fighting and whatnot, I never saw anyone pull off the same maneuver repeatedly...
Player: "I go to trip him again".
DM: "You already used that power for the day."
Player: "Um, I can't trip someone twice in a row?".
DM: "No, you see, you're not actually a warrior from then Land Beyond the Salt Sea, trained in physical combat through tons of repetitive practice to increase muscle memory and stamina, you're actually an icon on a grid, who can only spam certain buttons x times a day".
Player: "Oh, ok, sorry, thought I was playing a fighter in D&D or something. Gotcha."
When the playtest was going on, we pointed out what we felt some of the issues with fighters (and weapon dependent classes in general) were, and 90% of the responses (some quite heated) were in the "Well, your DM needs to do something about making fighters more useful" vein.
Um, yeah. Relying on DM fiat is poor game design. Beckett, I chose to quote you because you said something about the play style in your group, and how magic using classes aren't as dominant (or at all). And, you're right. If the DM doesn't use critters and NPCs to their full potential, it will smooth out a lot of problems with weapon dependent classes in high level play.
Houstonderek, your play experience is obviously quite different than mine.
I think it isn't quite accurate to claim that you've reached your conclusions about non-casters ineffectiveness because you play monsters as intelligently as possible, and other DMs who think non-casters are fine don't play their monsters that way.
The game has never been designed around DM fiat, nor has it needed DM fiat to be workable. But a DM has enormous influence on the game and can make encounters that favor any class or party make-up he/she wishes. A successful game depends on the DM's decisions more than anyone.
The game, however, is designed around a "default playstyle"… that of assumed cooperation between the players and their individual powers, an assumed party make-up, level appropriate challenges, an assumed amount of magical gear, and a certain number of encounters between rests.
Any deviation from that (which is sure to happen and even encouraged) will influence the game in unpredictable ways. In a game like this, it is impossible to satisfy all playstyles, players, DMs, party make-ups, etc.,etc with "core" rules alone. But there has to be a "baseline" for the designers to start with. That's why the game is intended to be open to interpretation and house rules are encouraged.
I won't deny that there have been some holes in the system, and that the game breaks down even when you play using the "default playstyle" (CR is one of the most obvious culprits). But I think the breakdowns occur in the game mechanics themselves, not with the classes. (If I remember correctly during the playtest, I think you agree with this)
But to claim that DMs need to coddle the fighters to make them feel important? It can just as easily be said that if you don't throw enough stuff at the party, you are coddling the casters, because they will always have their best resources available. Noone gets anywhere with this argument, because the rules can't address each and every group's playstyle.
*EDIT* I realize You know pretty much all of this as I would hazard a guess that you've been playing this game a little longer that I have, but I just take issue that other DMs "coddle" certain classes and that said classes only work if DMs do this. You are entitled to your own opinion of course. :)
Yeah, and in all of my years of being involved in fighting and whatnot, I never saw anyone pull off the same maneuver repeatedly...
I don't play D&D to simulate reality; I'd much rather simulate books and movies, etc. Different strokes for different folks.
|
|
When the playtest was going on, we pointed out what we felt some of the issues with fighters (and weapon dependent classes in general) were, and 90% of the responses (some quite heated) were in the "Well, your DM needs to do something about making fighters more useful" vein.
Um, yeah. Relying on DM fiat is poor game design. Beckett, I chose to quote you because you said something about the play style in your group, and how magic using classes aren't as dominant (or at all). And, you're right. If the DM doesn't use critters and NPCs to their full potential, it will smooth out a lot of problems with weapon dependent classes in high level play.
Houstonderek, your play experience is obviously quite different than mine.
I think it isn't quite accurate to claim that you've reached your conclusions about non-casters ineffectiveness because you play monsters as intelligently as possible, and other DMs who think non-casters are fine don't play their monsters that way.
The game has never been designed around DM fiat, nor has it needed DM fiat to be workable. But a DM has enormous influence on the game and can make encounters that favor any class or party make-up he/she wishes. A successful game depends on the DM's decisions more than anyone.
The game, however, is designed around a "default playstyle"… that of assumed cooperation between the players and their individual powers, an assumed party make-up, level appropriate challenges, an assumed amount of magical gear, and a certain number of encounters between rests.
Any deviation from that (which is sure to happen and even encouraged) will influence the game in unpredictable ways. In a game like this, it is impossible to satisfy all playstyles, players, DMs, party make-ups, etc.,etc with "core" rules alone. But there has to be a "baseline" for the designers to start with. That's why the game is intended to be open to interpretation and house rules are encouraged.
I won't deny that there have been some holes in the...
The problem is, using the "default" playstyle, with the "iconic" characters, fighters are irrelevant after 12th level. The people who wrote the game have more or less admitted they didn't focus much playtesting beyond 12th level. Most games don't ev en get to high levels, a lot of campaigns start over after getting through the "sweet spot" of 8th through 12th level. Look at a lot of the high level published adventures (either in Dungeon or other places). If you run an "iconic" party through them (based on the 3x "assumption" of style of play) either they tear through everything because the author didn't take into account that the party had WAY more spell options than at 9th level, or they resulted in a TPK because the author threw in more than the wizards and clerics could handle (I believe there was quite a bit of grief over Shackled City in this respect).
3x does not do high levels well. Never did. The game breaks down because d20 doesn't scale well, and never ending modifiers leaves too many party members with glaring weaknesses, as their base stats don't keep up with ACs and DCs. Using "default" assumptions.
You're correct about the game from low to mid-levels, but high levels DO require a ton of DM interference to work.
(And, actually, 1e was designed around a LOT of DM fiat. Just not in the realm of "use it to cover up the mistakes I made in character design")
|
|
Yeah, and in all of my years of being involved in fighting and whatnot, I never saw anyone pull off the same maneuver repeatedly...I don't play D&D to simulate reality; I'd much rather simulate books and movies, etc. Different strokes for different folks.
I'm still trying to find that book where a mundane character couldn't attempt to use a trick he learned more than once a day...
No, that would be a video game, not any book I've read (and it's a joke to say 3x attempts to simulate anything but WotC lit) or movie (unless I accidentally watched an Uwe Boll movie based on a video game) I've seen...
Heroes in literature and movies aren't limited by artificial game constructs.
Houstonderek, I can honestly say that the fighters (and ranger) in our Age of Worms Campaign are just as involved in the high level encounters (currently 19th and about to face Kyuss himself!) and feel just as relevant as they were at the lower levels in relation to the casters (2 wizards and 1 cleric). In other words, "they aren't sidekicks." In fact, a ranger can be tailored (and indeed, this one has been) to dominate the AP just by picking Undead as his favored enemy. This PC scares the foes far more than any other PC. Other than adding additional monsters and upping HPs to compensate for a larger group, I've played the AP straight up. I'm not sure if you are familiar with that AP, but there are multiple unique encounters to challenge any party makeup, but they are rewarded with a slew of magic items. (Too many for my taste… after finding a 10th set of Gloves of Dexterity +4, the item starts to lose some of its luster)
I totally agree that high level play does break down somewhat, and the DM has work to do to make it work well. But I don't see it breaking down between the classes. It is more the: only fail on a 1, only pass on a 20 deal, wading through adjudicating a slew of ongoing enhancements placed on players and monsters, the piling on of so many modifiers, and the slow pace of high level play problems that can be frustrating.
But that is for another thread. :)
|
|
Houstonderek, I can honestly say that the fighters (and ranger) in our Age of Worms Campaign are just as involved in the high level encounters (currently 19th and about to face Kyuss himself!) and feel just as relevant as they were at the lower levels in relation to the casters (2 wizards and 1 cleric). In other words, "they aren't sidekicks." In fact, a ranger can be tailored (and indeed, this one has been) to dominate the AP just by picking Undead as his favored enemy. This PC scares the foes far more than any other PC. Other than adding additional monsters and upping HPs to compensate for a larger group, I've played the AP straight up. I'm not sure if you are familiar with that AP, but there are multiple unique encounters to challenge any party makeup, but they are rewarded with a slew of magic items. (Too many for my taste… after finding a 10th set of Gloves of Dexterity +4, the item starts to lose some of its luster)
I totally agree that high level play does break down somewhat, and the DM has work to do to make it work well. But I don't see it breaking down between the classes. It is more the: only fail on a 1, only pass on a 20 deal, wading through adjudicating a slew of ongoing enhancements placed on players and monsters, the piling on of so many modifiers, and the slow pace of high level play problems that can be frustrating.
But that is for another thread. :)
Take the same ranger (optimized for undead) and run him through something without undead. I'm sure he or she wouldn't scare as many opponents...
That's the problem with the weapon classes, they need to narrow their focus and more or less become "one trick ponies" to be effective. Chain tripping fighters come to mind, rangers optimized for one type of critter do as well. Spell casters don't have to do that. They can be generalists and thrive in almost any situation...
Yeah, I had a sub to Dragon when AoW was going. I know that you can tailor a party to handle the AP, but my example was the "core assumptions" the game was built around. Run four characters not optimized for the AP through it (Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, the "standard four" the game was playtested with), the thing gets a LOT harder...
You're correct about the game from low to mid-levels, but high levels DO require a ton of DM interference to work.
I'm not so sure about this. It's been my experience that they also require a lot of DM interference to seriously break as well, particularly if one assumes that the default assumption is that enemy BBEGs will pursue any and all stat-boosting items the game can provide. I don't find that to be the case and if the DM pursues it, he's causing his own problems when it comes to building a disfunctional game.
Yeah, I had a sub to Dragon when AoW was going. I know that you can tailor a party to handle the AP, but my example was the "core assumptions" the game was built around. Run four characters not optimized for the AP through it (Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, the "standard four" the game was playtested with), the thing gets a LOT harder...
I think at some point, when dealing with un-optimized characters, you get the point of asking the PCs why they aren't adapting to the tone of the campaign and the types of monsters they're fighting. Sure, there are some shifts in the opponents from undead to dragons/giants and back, but if the party isn't well stocked with disease-resistance, poison-resistance, level-drain resistance, and good undead fighting gear/skills by the end, they're not paying attention.
|
|
You're correct about the game from low to mid-levels, but high levels DO require a ton of DM interference to work.I'm not so sure about this. It's been my experience that they also require a lot of DM interference to seriously break as well, particularly if one assumes that the default assumption is that enemy BBEGs will pursue any and all stat-boosting items the game can provide. I don't find that to be the case and if the DM pursues it, he's causing his own problems when it comes to building a disfunctional game.
As a default, assume when I'm discussing rules, I mean RAW. So, assume that the bad guys are limited by the NPC WBL tables.
Having said that, there are a ton of abilities available in stat blocks (Intelligent undead, demons, devils, dragons, stuff like that) that seem to get ignored by a lot of DMs in order to make things smoother for some of the classes who would be in trouble if all of those abilities were brought to bear (a lot of stuff targets will saves, for instance).
I've houseruled 3x to make it do what it do what I want (play more like the 1e structure vis a vis what each class can do in a round) and it fixed 99% of the issues I have, but I still think I shouldn't have had to do that. 3x DID change the dynamic action economy between melee and magic for no good reason, and it lead to the kind of stuff a lot of us have a problem with.
|
|
Yeah, I had a sub to Dragon when AoW was going. I know that you can tailor a party to handle the AP, but my example was the "core assumptions" the game was built around. Run four characters not optimized for the AP through it (Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, the "standard four" the game was playtested with), the thing gets a LOT harder...I think at some point, when dealing with un-optimized characters, you get the point of asking the PCs why they aren't adapting to the tone of the campaign and the types of monsters they're fighting. Sure, there are some shifts in the opponents from undead to dragons/giants and back, but if the party isn't well stocked with disease-resistance, poison-resistance, level-drain resistance, and good undead fighting gear/skills by the end, they're not paying attention.
My point is, why should rules mastery be required for players? People wonder why our hobby is so niche these days, and I think a big part of it is we didn't HAVE to optimize anything back then, just roll up a character and go. Now, players who just want to have a fun game are at a disadvantage if they play with people who have a good grasp of the best and worst features to take. Back then, the DM was the only one at the table who had to know all the rules, and that was just to make sure stuff went smoothly.
Monte forgot something when he brought his experience to designing 3x. A HELL of a lot more people played the D&D system he wasn't too fond of (1e) than the Rolemaster game he helped create. For a reason. Rules (too many, anyway) and rule mastery gets in the way of fun, much of the time...
The more I think of it I don't think I'd want to see the fighter effect as caster at high levels. The fighter is just a mere mortal with mortal skill in combat. Casters are supernatural beings capable of moving mountains.
Think of it like today. You have special ops soldier, high trained and deadly in combat. Now along comes some guy who can deflect bullets with the wave of a wand and teleport to any location while tossing fireballs on whim. That's D&D Casters vs Non Casters. It's just how it is.
Now I have played some games where I've give the fighters supernatural powers allowing the fighter to take on template at higher level. Maybe they are half god like Hercules was for example. Do this and you have fighter who can keep up with the wizards at high levels.
|
|
The more I think of it I don't think I'd want to see the fighter effect as caster at high levels. The fighter is just a mere mortal with mortal skill in combat. Casters are supernatural beings capable of moving mountains.
Think of it like today. You have special ops soldier, high trained and deadly in combat. Now along comes some guy who can deflect bullets with the wave of a wand and teleport to any location while tossing fireballs on whim. That's D&D Casters vs Non Casters. It's just how it is.
Now I have played some games where I've give the fighters supernatural powers allowing the fighter to take on template at higher level. Maybe they are half god like Hercules was for example. Do this and you have fighter who can keep up with the wizards at high levels.
Or, you can just play 1e and not have any issues like that...
Take the same ranger (optimized for undead) and run him through something without undead. I'm sure he or she wouldn't scare as many opponents...
That's the problem with the weapon classes, they need to narrow their focus and more or less become "one trick ponies" to be effective. Chain tripping fighters come to mind, rangers optimized for one type of critter do as well. Spell casters don't have to do that. They can be generalists and thrive in almost any situation...
Sureley that would be the case. But where you see a disadvantage in class makeup, I see an asset. The decisions the player made to tailor his ranger were borne out of events that the player experienced during the campaign. That PC will be retiring (one way or another heh, heh…) after the campaign ends. He doesn't need to be anything else. The player enjoys this PC! I didn't tell the players beforehand that this was an AP riddled with undead. If the campaign contained other monster types, the player would have tailored his PC to handle those. In a campaign where there wasn't a monster type theme, the player could make a more generalist ranger. The fighters have done the same thing in their feat selection. Heck, even the cleric does the same thing when selecting his daily spells. So does the wizard.
If they are "one-trick ponies", yet still effective, then obviously, they they're effective.
The only real "advantage" I can see for casters in the caster vs. non-caster discussion is this:
Casters can be just as ineffective in any given encounter, based on their daily spell selection as any non-caster class. (I've seen it numerous times) They are ineffective when they are low on spells.
The difference is, the casters can rest and restructure their abilities. Even sorcerers and bards can swap out spells upon gaining certain levels.
Indeed, the casters dictate when the party rests because their powers eventually wane. The non-casters are almost always ready to go.
I've houseruled 3x to make it do what it do what I want (play more like the 1e structure vis a vis what each class can do in a round) and it fixed 99% of the issues I have, but I still think I shouldn't have had to do that. 3x DID change the dynamic action economy between melee and magic for no good reason, and it lead to the kind of stuff a lot of us have a problem with.
And there you go… a mechanics problem, not a class problem.
I think most of us feel there were some disparities between classes in 3.5. (the fighter dead levels at high level for instance). That doesn't exist with Pathfinder anymore. That's why I don't see any problems between the classes at high level. Every class can do cool things to contribute.
|
|
And there you go… a mechanics problem, not a class problem.
I think most of us feel there were some disparities between classes in 3.5. (the fighter dead levels at high level for instance). That doesn't exist with Pathfinder anymore. That's why I don't see any problems between the classes at high level. Every class can do cool things to contribute.
The problem is, the mechanics aren't going to change, which makes it a class problem. They changed the mechanics, then took away everything that made the fighter was it was in previous editions: Best saves in the game at high level, faster advancement, and more mobility (without a loss of the attack bonus on multiple attacks). They took away everything that checked the power of wizards: no mobility, easily disrupted spells, slower level advancement.
1e was remarkably "balanced", even with spells that make the 3x counterparts look like parlor tricks. 3x balanced class advancement, but changed everything else that actually BALANCED the classes. Wizards in 1e couldn't really survive without their meat shields. In 3x, they can. In 1e, fighters could do a bunch of stuff with just some magic armor and weapons. In 3x, they need to be magic Christmas trees to survive.
Pathfinder added a couple of neat feats, granted, and eliminated "dead levels", but they didn't address any of the mechanical problems 3x carried.
At least my houserules won't need to change. There's always that, I suppose...
My point is, why should rules mastery be required for players? People wonder why our hobby is so niche these days, and I think a big part of it is we didn't HAVE to optimize anything back then, just roll up a character and go. Now, players who just want to have a fun game are at a disadvantage if they play with people who have a good grasp of the best and worst features to take. Back then, the DM was the only one at the table who had to know all the rules, and that was just to make sure stuff went smoothly.
Whoa… wait a minute… now we're getting too off topic.
I also wish a few of my players weren't so rules intensive.
|
|
My point is, why should rules mastery be required for players? People wonder why our hobby is so niche these days, and I think a big part of it is we didn't HAVE to optimize anything back then, just roll up a character and go. Now, players who just want to have a fun game are at a disadvantage if they play with people who have a good grasp of the best and worst features to take. Back then, the DM was the only one at the table who had to know all the rules, and that was just to make sure stuff went smoothly.Whoa… wait a minute… now we're getting too off topic.
** spoiler omitted **
It all goes back to the class/mechanics issues. 1e didn't have those issues. 3x does.
Just to chime in, I'm playtesting LoF with a few changes to the basic combat rules:
* Any iterative attack can be "traded" for 10 ft. of movement;
* Iterative attacks can be saved for use as immediate actions later in the round;
* Casting while threatened is a lot harder (uses combat maneuver mechanics);
* Introduction of feats allowing better iterative attacks, intuition of displaced locations, "second wind" healing bursts, improved Lightning Reflexes and Iron Will, etc.
I just want to see if relatively modest changes in the underlying game structure can make fighters indispensible (not just playable) at higher levels. I'm only at 6th level, so most of the telling testing is yet to come. To ensure the sample fighter isn't being "carried" by his caster friends, neither the cleric nor wizard are full casters (prestige ranger and eldritch knight, respectively).
One critical point to remember is that in no version of the game can any combatant use his abilties "all day." He can use them only as long as the cleric can keep healing him.
|
|
Just to chime in, I'm playtesting LoF with a few changes to the basic combat rules:
* Any iterative attack can be "traded" for 10 ft. of movement;
* Iterative attacks can be saved for use as immediate actions later in the round;
* Casting while threatened is a lot harder (uses combat maneuver mechanics);
* Introduction of feats allowing better iterative attacks, intuition of displaced locations, "second wind" healing bursts, improved Lightning Reflexes and Iron Will, etc.I just want to see if relatively modest changes in the underlying game structure can make fighters indispensible (not just playable) at higher levels. I'm only at 6th level, so most of the telling testing is yet to come. To ensure the sample fighter isn't being "carried" by his caster friends, neither the cleric nor wizard are full casters (prestige ranger and eldritch knight, respectively).
One critical point to remember is that in no version of the game can any combatant use his abilties "all day." He can use them only as long as the cleric can keep healing him.
Where the heck have you been? :)
\The problem is, the mechanics aren't going to change, which makes it a class problem. They changed the mechanics, then took away everything that made the fighter was it was in previous editions: Best saves in the game at high level, faster advancement, and more mobility (without a loss of the attack bonus on multiple attacks). They took away everything that checked the power of wizards: no mobility, easily disrupted spells, slower level advancement.
Pathfinder added a couple of neat feats, granted, and eliminated "dead levels", but they didn't address any of the mechanical problems 3x carried.
Really?
You don't think the caster level check to cast defensively (that has been hinted at) is going to swing combat in the non-caster's favor? If it's anything at all what I think it'll be, it's a huge boost to the melees. I've been trying one of the proposed mechanics from the playtest boards and it's working great. (CL check: DC = 10 + spell level + 1/2 opponents BAB)
Again, feats: while not game mechanics, Lunge, Shall Not Pass, Fleet, and Step Up are direct contributions to help high level non-casters. Personally, I think some of these should be game mechanics and not feats (Step Up for instance, should just be a rule like readying and delaying. IMHO)
Spell mechanics: many have changed. I would not be surprised if certain spells had longer casting times. (I'm only venturing a guess on this one)
I'm very optimistic that Jason & Co. has taken our advice (including all your posts on economy of action) into consideration to make the game better.
Where the heck have you been?
|
|
\The problem is, the mechanics aren't going to change, which makes it a class problem. They changed the mechanics, then took away everything that made the fighter was it was in previous editions: Best saves in the game at high level, faster advancement, and more mobility (without a loss of the attack bonus on multiple attacks). They took away everything that checked the power of wizards: no mobility, easily disrupted spells, slower level advancement.
Pathfinder added a couple of neat feats, granted, and eliminated "dead levels", but they didn't address any of the mechanical problems 3x carried.
Really?
You don't think the caster level check to cast defensively (that has been hinted at) is going to swing combat in the non-caster's favor? If it's anything at all what I think it'll be, it's a huge boost to the melees. I've been trying one of the proposed mechanics from the playtest boards and it's working great. (CL check: DC = 10 + spell level + 1/2 opponents BAB)
Again, feats: while not game mechanics, Lunge, Shall Not Pass, Fleet, and Step Up are direct contributions to help high level non-casters. Personally, I think some of these should be game mechanics and not feats (Step Up for instance, should just be a rule like readying and delaying. IMHO)
Spell mechanics: many have changed. I would not be surprised if certain spells had longer casting times. (I'm only venturing a guess on this one)
I'm very optimistic that Jason & Co. has taken our advice (including all your posts on economy of action) into consideration to make the game better.
The fighter gets one page. Not much hope for me, I'm afraid...
The fighter gets one page. Not much hope for me, I'm afraid...
The fighter got very few pages in 1e compared to the spell-casters as well. So page count clearly doesn't mean much when it comes to balancing classes.
The more I think of it I don't think I'd want to see the fighter effect as caster at high levels. The fighter is just a mere mortal with mortal skill in combat. Casters are supernatural beings capable of moving mountains. It's just how it is.
This is the underlying issue, I think. But if that's how the "natural laws" of the world operate, then why would anyone ever be a non-caster?
The problem is, the mechanics aren't going to change, which makes it a class problem. They changed the mechanics, then took away everything that made the fighter was it was in previous editions: Best saves in the game at high level, faster advancement, and more mobility (without a loss of the attack bonus on multiple attacks). They took away everything that checked the power of wizards: no mobility, easily disrupted spells, slower level advancement.
Best saves VERY late in the game. Before that, they're usually being beat by clerics and wizards, certainly against most poisons, paralysis, and all sorts of spells. It does change in the sense that fighters no longer have the best saves at any one point in the game like they did in 1e/2e around 16-18 level or so.
Faster advancement compared to high level wizards, not so much compared to mid-level wizards, mid-level clerics, and druids and thieves of any level.
More mobility didn't appear in 2e where the mobility rules for the fighter are virtually the same as 3e. I don't have 1e rule-book-handy right now to check.
It's true that the wizard's mobility has improved and his spells are easier to disrupt, but most of those other "advantages" of the fighter tend to be filtered through some very rosy-colored glasses.
|
|
The fighter got very few pages in 1e compared to the spell-casters as well. So page count clearly doesn't mean much when it comes to balancing classes.The fighter gets one page. Not much hope for me, I'm afraid...
Magic Users didn't get much ink, nor did clerics, not in 1e, they were spell lists, basically. Druids, Rangers and Paladins and Monks had the longest entries, since they actually had class skills.
One critical point to remember is that in no version of the game can any combatant use his abilties "all day." He can use them only as long as the healer can keep healing him.
Fixed for you Kirth ;)
In one of my campaigns, my brother is playing a low-level fighter right now who is investing in Use Magic Device to make use of healing wands.Inefficient, I know…
Sacrilegious, I know…
On par with a cleric? Not even close!
But even fighters can be healers.
This is the underlying issue, I think. But if that's how the "natural laws" of the world operate, then why would anyone ever be a non-caster?
Why would you assume that everyone has the potential to be a caster, even if that's how the natural laws of the world operate?
Why would you assume that everyone has the potential to be a caster, even if that's how the natural laws of the world operate?
If we're in charge of those natural laws (which we are, in designing the rules) why even include rules for noncasters if we intend from the start that only casters are important?
Why would you assume that everyone has the potential to be a caster, even if that's how the natural laws of the world operate?If we're in charge of those natural laws (which we are, in designing the rules) why even include rules for noncasters if we intend from the start that only casters are important?
Not everyone is into the game to move mountains and other such bizarre magical feats. There's always room for variety and personal preferences.
|
|
The problem is, the mechanics aren't going to change, which makes it a class problem. They changed the mechanics, then took away everything that made the fighter was it was in previous editions: Best saves in the game at high level, faster advancement, and more mobility (without a loss of the attack bonus on multiple attacks). They took away everything that checked the power of wizards: no mobility, easily disrupted spells, slower level advancement.
Best saves VERY late in the game. Before that, they're usually being beat by clerics and wizards, certainly against most poisons, paralysis, and all sorts of spells. It does change in the sense that fighters no longer have the best saves at any one point in the game like they did in 1e/2e around 16-18 level or so.
Faster advancement compared to high level wizards, not so much compared to mid-level wizards, mid-level clerics, and druids and thieves of any level.
More mobility didn't appear in 2e where the mobility rules for the fighter are virtually the same as 3e. I don't have 1e rule-book-handy right now to check.
It's true that the wizard's mobility has improved and his spells are easier to disrupt, but most of those other "advantages" of the fighter tend to be filtered through some very rosy-colored glasses.
Magic users and clerics didn't "catch up" at mid levels, they lagged a bit, but for a few levels everyone needed about the same to level. End result? Fighters (and thieves) were still two to three levels ahead by 10th level.
As far as saves go, you're pretty much wrong about that, fighters are on par through mid-levels, and by 11th, pretty much have the best saves.
"Mobility" in this case means fighters can move and use all attacks available to them, they don't lose attacks for moving more than 5'. And those attacks aren't iterative, they're at full bonus. Which is quite powerful when you consider how many fewer hit points critters had in 1e.
A nearly unfailing concentration check and instant cast spells (with movement, something not allowed in 1e) are HUGE advantages for wizards in 3x compared to their 1e counterparts. Fighters being rooted in place, lest they only be allowed one attack, and the inability to resist will attacking spells without a ton of magic boosting are HUGE disadvantages compared to their 1e counterpart.
I have my books handy, and I still play 1e when I can, so my "rose tinted glasses" are looking at both editions in the here and now, not through 20 years of fuzzy memories.
Not everyone is into the game to move mountains and other such bizarre magical feats. There's always room for variety and personal preferences.
That's OK, if your personal preference is to be, in essence, a henchman. But the rules should be clear, then, that we're playing "wizards & dragons," and that noncasters, rather than having any influence on the major events of the game world, are included solely for the sake of variety and/or comic relief.
The game I remember from my youth (1e), however, assumed that noncasters could have world-changing influence on campaign events even at high levels. If that assumption is to be thrown out, fine, but I figure we should at least be honest about it.
The game I remember from my youth (1e), however, assumed that noncasters could have world-changing influence on campaign events even at high levels. If that assumption is to be thrown out, fine, but I figure we should at least be honest about it.
They still do have world-changing influence, but like 1e, their world-changing influence is significantly less wahoo than the wizards.
In 1e, could fighters and thieves use powers like wish? No. That was still the sole domain of wizards. Could they raise creatures dead for 140+ years? No. Clerics. Those fundamental assumptions never changed between 1e and 3e.
What did change? Some of the combat balance. It's true that extremely high powered spells are more likely to be successfully whipped out in the heat of battle. But on the grand scheme of things as far as the world background goes, nothing changed. Characters of any type can still amass political and economic power, but wizards are still the people responsible for the reality warping powers of wishes (and clerics with miracle).
|
|
The game I remember from my youth (1e), however, assumed that noncasters could have world-changing influence on campaign events even at high levels. If that assumption is to be thrown out, fine, but I figure we should at least be honest about it.They still do have world-changing influence, but like 1e, their world-changing influence is significantly less wahoo than the wizards.
In 1e, could fighters and thieves use powers like wish? No. That was still the sole domain of wizards. Could they raise creatures dead for 140+ years? No. Clerics. Those fundamental assumptions never changed between 1e and 3e.
What did change? Some of the combat balance. It's true that extremely high powered spells are more likely to be successfully whipped out in the heat of battle. But on the grand scheme of things as far as the world background goes, nothing changed. Characters of any type can still amass political and economic power, but wizards are still the people responsible for the reality warping powers of wishes (and clerics with miracle).
By the time magic users got wish, getting one to cast it would take some serious convincing. Unless said magic user was planning on lichdom, the whole "ages the caster ten years" thing tended to be a deal breaker. Potions of longevity weren't exactly easy to come by, after all.
Clerics had nothing comparable to wish in 1e. Their spell list only went to seventh level, after all...
What did change? Some of the combat balance. It's true that extremely high powered spells are more likely to be successfully whipped out in the heat of battle.
Yes! In 1e, Vlad's Law always held: "No matter how subtle the wizard, a knife blade between the shoulders will seriously cramp his style." I can think of any number of times when a fighter, winning initiative against an archimage, ran up and full-attacked the wizard into oblivion, ruining the wizard's spellcasting to boot. That's all it took to keep the classes balanced at high levels. Re-introducing fighter mobility and making casting a full-round action will restore most of that balance in one fell swoop, allowing Derek and I to stop griping and go back to playing.
Unfortunately, I just don't think that's going to happen, to be honest. From what I'm seeing, fighters will probably get a tiny bit of crippled movement (a la the "Step Up" feat), and that casting defensively might get slightly more difficult.
Yes! In 1e, Vlad's Law always held: "No matter how subtle the wizard, a knife blade between the shoulders will seriously cramp his style." I can think of any number of times when a fighter, winning initiative against an archimage, ran up and full-attacked the wizard into oblivion, ruining the wizard's spellcasting to boot. That's all it took to keep the classes balanced at high levels. Re-introducing fighter mobility and making casting a full-round action will restore most of that balance in one fell swoop, allowing Derek and I to stop griping and go back to playing.
Unfortunately, I just don't think that's going to happen, to be honest. From what I'm seeing, fighters will probably get a tiny bit of crippled movement (a la the "Step Up" feat), and that casting defensively might get slightly more difficult.
A knife blade between the shoulders still seriously cramps the wizard's style. Especially an Improved Vital Strike knife blade… or a Sneak Attack knife blade, or Power Attack knife blade, or a Favored Enemy knife blade, or a Smite Evil knife blade, or a Stunning Fist err… fist blade.
I would not want a fighter winning initiative against a wizard and beating said wizard into oblivion in one round. That's just as bad as the other way around. That's not game balance. That's about who wins initiative.
*EDIT* I agree with you on the mobility part, and I see signs of that. I'm not so sure on the casting taking a full round bit though.
Either side should be able to have a reasonable chance to survive a one round onslaught from the other.