Only if they win init. And the ogres fail the save. One little glitch and they're geography.
True, but if you spray a group, only one or two need to fail their save to make the spell worth it.
Direct damage spells quickly become useless compared to other spells...and well...direct damage is somthing that can be done easily by other classes anyway.
True, but if you spray a group, only one or two need to fail their save to make the spell worth it.
Only if they win init. And the ogres fail the save. One little glitch and they're geography.
Er...under most circumstances, you would only be able to target one or two ogres in the first place. It hard to fit a lot of 10'x10' ogres into a 15' cone.
Only if they win init. And the ogres fail the save. One little glitch and they're geography.With ogres' Dex, at least one of them is bound to gain initiative. And the chance of any ogre making two Will saves (one for each sorcerer) is fairly low...
The chance of hitting two large creatures with one 10' cone is fairly low as well.
As well as the chance of an ogre missing the attack of opportunity for the sorcerer getting close enough to use it...
The chance of hitting two large creatures with one 10' cone is fairly low as well.
No, you're right by 3.5e rules. I forgot that an 8-ft. tall ogre is now 10 feet across. I still use the 3.0-edition facing, and sometimes forget the rest of the world has moved on to a more miniatures-friendly system.
Anyway, the point is that a 1st level caster can instantly take out an ogre (sleep will work if you're worried about range; it affects 4 HD) with more or less even odds of success. A 1st level fighter or evoker cannot reasonably expect take out an ogre at all, unless he gets a lot of help.
The chance of hitting two large creatures with one 10' cone is fairly low as well.No, you're right by 3.5e rules. I forgot that an 8-ft. tall ogre is now 10 feet across. I still use the 3.0-edition facing, and sometimes forget the rest of the world has moved on to a more miniatures-friendly system.
Anyway, the point is that a 1st level caster can instantly take out an ogre (sleep will work if you're worried about range; it affects 4 HD) with more or less even odds of success. A 1st level fighter or evoker cannot reasonably expect take out an ogre at all, unless he gets a lot of help.
Blind and stun is pretty bad for a 1st level spell - though it's only 1 round stun for most of the ogres you'll run into. Yay class levels.
Blind and stun is pretty bad for a 1st level spell - though it's only 1 round stun for most of the ogres you'll run into. Yay class levels.
True. The thing is that higher-level spells continue that trend: unless the final Pathfinder rules give undead their Cha bonus to Fort saves, for example, disintegrate is an insta-win against any corporeal undead you'd care to name. Save-or-out-of-the-fight is so much more efficient than damage that it's no contest. Unless, like I said, the target monsters could sometimes disrupt the casting of those spells...
Here's a simple test: Take an 18th level wizard. Run him through, say, any high level adventure out there. See how long he survives.
Take an 18th level fighter. Do the same. See how long he survives.
The wizard, if played well, has a chance, however small, of completing the adventure by himself.
The fighter, if played well, has ZERO chance.
That's the difference.
This really isn't a fair assessment to see if one class is better than the other. Too many factors involved, most of which rely on the makeup of the adventure itself.
A fair assessment would have to involve the basic assumptions of the game itself. First and foremost, that is cooperative play and not one PC going it alone.
I think it would be fairer to say try a group of 4 wizards and then try a group of 4 fighters, for instance.
Even so, the adventure would have to be tailored to allow each individual group makeup a chance based on their abilities.
For instance:
You couldn't put in an encounter that only high level magic could overcome, just as you couldn't put in an encounter that that renders magic obsolete.
"the clerics and wizards can between them, in effect, do everything the rogue and fighter can do better. "
Well, my playtest experience has lead to a totally different conclusion. The fighter in our party has been kicking ass non-stop from the beginning. We have also seen 2 very different mid- high level paladins, both of whom were totally effective melee combatants.
I'm the wizard of the group, and I really can't out shine the fighter even with augmented summons and empowered save or suck type magic. Not saying I can't do some great stuff, but the fighter is still a very important part of the group. A great example was a Dread Wraith encounter around level 13. We knew undead were a problem, so the fighter had a ghost-touch weapon (=+1 I think- basic equipment.) With the fighter, the thing lasted a round or two, encountered again without the fighter, we were close to a TPK. Granted, when you are rolling 50% for most actions, things get swingy, but there was just no substitute for the fighter. You can fake a lot of things with magic, but the fighter is the real deal.
Now, if I choose to, I can break the game with my magic. I could "win" D&D by doing all kinds of "Wall of Iron - iron mine" or Planar Ally the Angel in for every encounter, or scribe a million scrolls of this or that spell. Many would argue that those are just "smart playing", but I feel that just because the system allows you an option, does not mean things are broken because you can exploit it.
And, no. Assuming a four person party, you're STILL better off with all wizards and clerics over the standard "cleric, fighter, rogue, wizard" make up, as the clerics and wizards can between them, in effect, do everything the rogue and fighter can do better. There is no niche protection in 3x like there was in 1e, I'm sorry to say.
Now this in bold is simply not true.
If you said the wizard and cleric (or druid) can overcome any given encounter better than the fighter and rogue, you may be in the right. Even in Pathfinder.
But to say the wizard and cleric (or druid) can do everything the rogue and fighter can do (and do it better)? In Pathfinder? I don't see it.
I thought the purpose of this thread was to discuss whether or not melees were "Effective" in high level play… not if they were "Needed". A class that has Wish or Miracle at its disposal will never "Need" any other class. That doesn't mean the other classes are obsolete or less important. It also doesn't mean the other classes will feel like sidekicks. What it means is: If you want to have godlike power, play a cleric or wizard. If you want to beat things up close or use stealth and subterfuge, play a fighter or rogue.
Are melees effective at high level? Even amongst casters? Yes they are.
Can players have fun playing melees at high level? Even amongst casters? Yes they can.
With Pathfinder, it's that simple.
Very true, Mr. Valente.
And thank you for stepping up against a few of the more specious arguments, Mr. Rathbun.
I started to reply about 20 some-odd posts back, lost my connection, and just haven't had the energy to wade back in.
|
Blind and stun is pretty bad for a 1st level spell - though it's only 1 round stun for most of the ogres you'll run into. Yay class levels.True. The thing is that higher-level spells continue that trend: unless the final Pathfinder rules give undead their Cha bonus to Fort saves, for example, disintegrate is an insta-win against any corporeal undead you'd care to name. Save-or-out-of-the-fight is so much more efficient than damage that it's no contest. Unless, like I said, the target monsters could sometimes disrupt the casting of those spells...
Disintergrate only does damage now (in pathfinder).
2d6 per level of caster. So at 18th level thats 36 D6 for an average of 108 damage. At 18th level many of the Undead they're fighting are going to absorb that and keep coming.
If you empower it, or maximise it then they're going take more damage. However, Age of worms at this level is pretty much all undead, and the large number of the big hitters rolling in are also going to absorb that damage and keep coming. Certainly not teh one shot win you are throwing out there.
Also, if they pass a save (about 15 - 25% of the time based of will saves I've seen in this level of play) then they only take 5d6 damage.
The last game sessionthe party were ambushed by 6 undead chimeras, (advanced). There were four players, and the critter did very big damage. The average output from the first round from them was 80 hit points. Tell me your party of wizards was going to survive that.
Likely combat was going to go another round, even if the four wizards managed to drop one of the creatures each (unlikely). Second round and another average 80 damage. One or two fo your wizards is going to die.
Maybe with a cleric onemight live.
Our guys lived because they had two fighters tanking some of those critters and took the damage. They needed healing, but the first round they didn't care. Was a dicey fight, but they made it through due to their teamwork.
|
I just want to say, once again, that making spells full round actions, is a terrible, terrible idea. Everything you think this will solve for the fighters "problems", it will amplify. Is a cleric going to give up two full rounds to go heal you? Or buff you? Or get rid of that poison? No. They are going to say well I only have this one spell to burn, so I'm going to do the biggest, nastiest thing I can to the monster, and you know what, it's not my fault the fighter didn't get out of the way, I'll heal him to conciousness after the fight. Because that is the one thing it encourages.
Is the wizard going to spend any time whatsoever buffing the group with haste, or invisibility, or bulls str, or are they going to go exclusively with all those spells that you are against, (because you just made them the only valid tactic for the wizard and cleric and whoever else to contribute to a combat).
|
|
Not to be a jerk, but why do you think fighters had the best saves in the older editions? They didn't, though they are pretty comperable to the 3x good fort. Depending on what edition, that honor belonged to the dwarf (or dwarven anyclass), than the priest, than a tie between the warrior and the thief.
Not to be a jerk, but why do you think fighters had the best saves in the older editions? They didn't, though they are pretty comperable to the 3x good fort. Depending on what edition, that honor belonged to the dwarf (or dwarven anyclass), than the priest, than a tie between the warrior and the thief.
Definitely not the thief. His saves may have been better than fighter's at low level, but he gets beat pretty quickly overall. He's the only one who, at the highest end of the table, who still has one of the saves in the double-digits.
I just want to say, once again, that making spells full round actions, is a terrible, terrible idea. Everything you think this will solve for the fighters "problems", it will amplify. Is a cleric going to give up two full rounds to go heal you? Or buff you? Or get rid of that poison? No. They are going to say well I only have this one spell to burn, so I'm going to do the biggest, nastiest thing I can to the monster, and you know what, it's not my fault the fighter didn't get out of the way, I'll heal him to conciousness after the fight. Because that is the one thing it encourages.
Is the wizard going to spend any time whatsoever buffing the group with haste, or invisibility, or bulls str, or are they going to go exclusively with all those spells that you are against, (because you just made them the only valid tactic for the wizard and cleric and whoever else to contribute to a combat).
I've advocated during the playtest to make "certain" spells full-round actions to cast. Agree that making spells in general, full round/full-round actions to cast may be too much.
*For instance, Summon Monster I takes 1 round to cast. But Gate takes only a Standard Action?*
The disadvantage of doing it would be that the designers would have to do it on a case-by-case basis and that it might seem arbitrary.
The advantage of doing this is that you'd have a more tactical choice to make as a caster when in the thick of combat. Instead of always resorting to your big gun spells, (which ideally would take a full round or full-round action to cast), you may be better off casting a quicker spell.
I've also advocated that certain spells don't provoke attacks of opportunity, namely, the ones meant for close combat: burning hands, color spray, and shocking grasp for example.
Spell choice and selection would be much more interesting.
Only my opinion of course.
*EDITED*
Comment: Fighters are SUPPOSED to be totally lame compared to wizards!
Response: That's an opinion not everyone shares -- certainly Gygax et al. didn't see it that way. To me, 18th level should be 18th level, regardless of class. If you want to simulate wizards easily overpowering fighters, just make the fighters lower level.
I would respectfully disagree with this interpretation. In those old editions, an 18th-level Fighter was (XP based) equal to a 16th/17th-level Magic User. In D&D BECMI (the game where I have more expertise), an 18th-level Fighter required 1.320.000 XP to be eligible; the same XP would lead to a 15th-level Magic User (they needed 1.350.000 XP to be 16th-level).
Perhaps this is the single, most important fault of the whole 3.x rules system - trying to state that a mundane hero, which relies on his might, wits and guts, is perfectly equal to somebody who masters supernatural forces.
Now, after said that, I have to disagree on the fact that a group composed only of casters can do things better than a mixed group of both casters and martials. Can a caster-only group destroy a single menace with less efforts than a mixed (or martial-only) group? Yes, they can. Can they do the same thing twice? Perhaps (it really depends on the spells known/memorized... sometimes it baffles me to see some 'Yugi-Oh' duels on forums, where the casters know always and exactly the resources of their enemies in advance and have prepared the right counterattacks every time). Can they do 7/8/9/10 times per day ? Now, that's a big question.
It all falls back to my 'Shadow over Mystara' example pages above: if you burn your resources like there's no tomorrow in every encounter, when you really need the big cannons (and you have no more...) you are in big troubles.
Of course, YMMV.
EDIT: regarding 'hp are the spell slots of Martial characters', I disagree on this, too. Even casters need hp to survive (...), and - as stated above - although not a perfect solution like having a Cleric on hand, Potions and Wands of Cure are disposable items who can help any character to go on.
After all, the usefulness of the healings of Clerics/Druids/Paladins in battle lies on the fact that they can heal great amounts of hp in a short time (when they are really needed); after the fight is over, it's always better to drink potions of CLW (1d8+1) or better yet (if possible) use Wands of CLW to restore hp - to allow Healers to keep their spells when they are most useful (in the heat of battle).
Here's a simple test: Take an 18th level wizard. Run him through, say, any high level adventure out there. See how long he survives.
Take an 18th level fighter. Do the same. See how long he survives.
The wizard, if played well, has a chance, however small, of completing the adventure by himself.
The fighter, if played well, has ZERO chance.
That's the difference.
O.K., now do the same test in AD&D; you'll get very similar results. And yet you're generally happy with how the AD&D fighter performs.
It's not exactly a news flash to suggest that high level mages can handle a wider variety of challenges than high level fighters. As far as I know, that has always been the case in D&D. You don't have to like it, but it's true. Well, I can't speak about 4e; in 4e it looks like they tried pretty hard to balance out the classes a little more.
|
Here's a simple test: Take an 18th level wizard. Run him through, say, any high level adventure out there. See how long he survives.
Take an 18th level fighter. Do the same. See how long he survives.
The wizard, if played well, has a chance, however small, of completing the adventure by himself.
The fighter, if played well, has ZERO chance.
That's the difference.
O.K., now do the same test in AD&D; you'll get very similar results. And yet you're generally happy with how the AD&D fighter performs.
It's not exactly a news flash to suggest that high level mages can handle a wider variety of challenges than high level fighters. As far as I know, that has always been the case in D&D. You don't have to like it, but it's true. Well, I can't speak about 4e; in 4e it looks like they tried pretty hard to balance out the classes a little more.
No, in AD&D a stiff breeze could disrupt casting, the magic user has to stay in one place, and his spells take FOREVER to cast if they're powerful enough. The magic user, except in some rare cases, actually needed someone to block for him.
In 3x, unless the wizbangs are going up against a Golem, they really don't need anyone to run interference. They're much more mobile, and spell disruption happens rarely enough to not even consider. Oh, and 99% of their powerful spells are standard actions. Completely different dynamic.
And I'm getting tired of the "It isn't PvP" argument. No, it isn't, but, in most published adventures, it definitely becomes "Character class V. Character class" much of the time. And, I am also getting tired of the "but the party can plan well and strategize", but the flip side is always "How come that 18th level wizard is ready for the party? That's not fair!". You know, after the group slogged through his tower, killing his minions and henchmen, but the BBEG is supposed to just be in his lab, doing research, like nothing is happening in his home.
Right.
No, in AD&D a stiff breeze could disrupt casting, the magic user has to stay in one place, and his spells take FOREVER to cast if they're powerful enough. The magic user, except in some rare cases, actually needed someone to block for him.Here's a simple test: Take an 18th level wizard. Run him through, say, any high level adventure out there. See how long he survives.
Take an 18th level fighter. Do the same. See how long he survives.
The wizard, if played well, has a chance, however small, of completing the adventure by himself.
The fighter, if played well, has ZERO chance.
That's the difference.
O.K., now do the same test in AD&D; you'll get very similar results. And yet you're generally happy with how the AD&D fighter performs.
It's not exactly a news flash to suggest that high level mages can handle a wider variety of challenges than high level fighters. As far as I know, that has always been the case in D&D. You don't have to like it, but it's true. Well, I can't speak about 4e; in 4e it looks like they tried pretty hard to balance out the classes a little more.
Bushwah. An AD&D wizard still has access to Shapechange, Summon Monster, Project Image, Improved Invisibility, Simulacrum, and tons of other game-breaking effects. Just because you never souped-up an AD&D wizard doesn't mean that it's not trivial to do.
Fighters have more resources...Do they have a different WBL chart? I am unaware of this...
Here's a simple test: Take an 18th level wizard. Run him through, say, any high level adventure out there. See how long he survives.
Take an 18th level fighter. Do the same. See how long he survives.
The wizard, if played well, has a chance, however small, of completing the adventure by himself.
The fighter, if played well, has ZERO chance.
That's the difference.
The only issue with this argument is the the fighter by himself has a chance to get to 18th level the Wizard doesn't. The wizard by himself will be killed before making it to second level.
The only issue with this argument is the the fighter by himself has a chance to get to 18th level the Wizard doesn't. The wizard by himself will be killed before making it to second level.Fighters have more resources...Do they have a different WBL chart? I am unaware of this...
Here's a simple test: Take an 18th level wizard. Run him through, say, any high level adventure out there. See how long he survives.
Take an 18th level fighter. Do the same. See how long he survives.
The wizard, if played well, has a chance, however small, of completing the adventure by himself.
The fighter, if played well, has ZERO chance.
That's the difference.
LOL
I had thought of this as well, but didn't bring it up because it isn't relevant to this thread.
The point is, melees are effective at high level and people want to play them and they have fun doing it.
Yes, melees tend to be better during the low levels overall. Then the pendulum swings in the casters favor at the high levels. So what? I would agree that in 3.5, the pendulum may have swung too far in the casters favor at the very high levels. (And even then, I'd say a melee could be effective). But we're not comparing PCs using 3.5 rules anymore. It's Pathfinder now.
It's Pathfinder now.Yep, and I haven't seen anything that addresses the mechanical disadvantage 3x placed upon melee classes. Just some more feats.
Whoop-de-doo...
As he said, "The point is, melees are effective at high level and people want to play them and they have fun doing it."
Frankly, that's the real test of effectiveness.
Yes, melees tend to be better during the low levels overall. Then the pendulum swings in the casters favor at the high levels. So what?
"So what?" Lemme esplain... To me, it's FUN to play a guy who maybe starts off pathetic, but gradually grows in power until he can challenge dragons. That's what a level advancement system is all about: you always have something to look forward to. On the flip side, it's not at all fun, for me, to play a guy who starts off as a super-babysitter, but after every level gets less important (more powerful than he was, but comparatively less powerful to all his friends and enemies), until eventually he's totally irrelevant to the guy he used to protect. Maybe that kind of inevitable destiny appeals to some masochistic players, but for me, it's just a drag.
|
|
O.K., now do the same test in AD&D; you'll get very similar results. And yet you're generally happy with how the AD&D fighter performs.
It's not exactly a news flash to suggest that high level mages can handle a wider variety of challenges than high level fighters. As far as I know, that has always been the case in D&D. You don't have to like it, but it's true. Well, I can't speak about 4e; in 4e it looks like they tried pretty hard to balance out the classes a little more.
Bushwah. An AD&D wizard still has access to Shapechange, Summon Monster, Project Image, Improved Invisibility, Simulacrum, and tons of other game-breaking effects. Just because you never souped-up an AD&D wizard doesn't mean that it's not trivial to do.
No, in AD&D a stiff breeze could disrupt casting, the magic user has to stay in one place, and his spells take FOREVER to cast if they're powerful enough. The magic user, except in some rare cases, actually needed someone to block for him.
Ok, and, without a fighter to run interference, when does the magic user in 1e get a chance to get those spells off? I mean, if we're using the "nothing wrong with melee" side's constant argument about "it's unfair for an NPC wizbang to prep for an encounter" argument?
I've used improved invisibility, project image and summoning to great effect in both editions, but my 1e players never complained about it being "unfair". I've had such tactics used against me in both editions, never had a problem with it.
But, go back through the play test threads, and see how many "but melee doesn't suck" proponents do say those tactics are "unfair". No, again, I have to say, when opponents are used to the fullest, and play up to their intelligence, in 3x, spell casters wreak much havoc, and melee characters can generally do jack all about it.
Again, I reference my Maure Castle experience. Party had one cleric and one wizard, and three melee types (two min/maxed fighters - one chain tripper and one two weapon fighter - and a rogue). All 13th level. Yug-Anark almost soloed the party (Cr-16, and a weak 16, as the +1 LA for being a gnoll really means squat at that level). A 15th level cleric. All by herself. Against a pretty good group of experienced players. Of course, the fight wasn't "fair" (according to the melee is all good crowd). They let a gnoll get away and warn her, so she had time to buff before she took the party on, on her terms, in her territory. And she wasn't even particularly optimized (J.J. did a nice job picking her spells, though).
The other thing I can't stand about this argument is when the pro-melee types say stuff like "...but the wizards/clerics always seem to have exactly the right spells!", but, when anyone points out deficiencies with melee types, they always come back with "but the fighter should have [insert item] to deal with that!" If you go through the playtest threads, all the items a fighter "should have to deal with" whatever situations were brought up would cost almost three times WBL. Wizards have CLASS FEATURES to deal with most situations, fighters have magic items. Casting most spells cost much less WBL than having to have several magic items.
And, again, casting rules were quite different in 1e. Magic users actually DID need someone watching their back far more often in that edition. 3x wizards have less situations where it is completely necessary to have someone guarding their 6 (and 12, 9 and 3, for that matter).
Lest anyone think I'm agreeing with Derek because we play together, long before I met him I'd come to similar realizations in running Savage Tide. At higher levels the demons can teleport around; a full attack quickly became a thing of the past. Even when he met something he could stand and fight, the party barbarian made a poor showing compared to the wildshaped druid (thankfully nerfed in Pathfinder) and the wizard's planar binding subjects and summoned monsters. The rogue/bard stayed relevant through the whole AP because of his maxed out Diplomacy skill (devastatingly useful at all levels), but the barbarian eventually started finding that, every session, he had less and less to do. After a couple of combats in which he was relegated to the sidelines due to terrain and range issues (his longbow nigh-useless against high-HD demons), he more or less quit playing -- "wake me up if we meet another dinosaur, OK?" Like a good DM, I introduced the mercanes a bit early, who wanted to interest the barbarian in a lovely pair of boots of flying. He says no, he doesn't want to be superman, he just wants an evil outsider bane sword. I tell him, "well, they have an excellent helm that allows you to teleport..." OK, fine, player won't accept that flying around everywhere is mandatory, not optional. I adapt. I make enemies landbound, so he can stand and melee them. They still chew him up.
In the end, I spent ten times the effort thinking of ways to keeping melee possible that I did on any other aspect of planning. The game flat-out doesn't support melee well after X level, and while DM intervention (by dumbing down monsters and redesigning encounters) can counteract this problem, it tells me there are system problems that might work a bit more smoothly.
No, in AD&D a stiff breeze could disrupt casting, the magic user has to stay in one place, and his spells take FOREVER to cast if they're powerful enough. The magic user, except in some rare cases, actually needed someone to block for him.O.K., now do the same test in AD&D; you'll get very similar results. And yet you're generally happy with how the AD&D fighter performs.
It's not exactly a news flash to suggest that high level mages can handle a wider variety of challenges than high level fighters. As far as I know, that has always been the case in D&D. You don't have to like it, but it's true. Well, I can't speak about 4e; in 4e it looks like they tried pretty hard to balance out the classes a little more.
Bushwah. An AD&D wizard still has access to Shapechange, Summon Monster, Project Image, Improved Invisibility, Simulacrum, and tons of other game-breaking effects. Just because you never souped-up an AD&D wizard doesn't mean that it's not trivial to do.
Even when your wizard is (improved) invisible? Or shapechanged into a xorn? Or a spectre? Or is ethereal? Or isn't even there in the first place because of Project Image? Or is in a Cube of Force? Or uses Polymorph Any Object to turn a turnip into a purple worm? Or has a simulacrum at his beck and call? Or [lists a zillion other things that a fighter can't do].
:-/
But, go back through the play test threads, and see how many "but melee doesn't suck" proponents do say those tactics are "unfair".
I don't think the fairness or unfairness of those tactics has substantially changed since AD&D.
|
|
I've advocated during the playtest to make "certain" spells full-round actions to cast. Agree that making spells in general, full round/full-round actions to cast may be too much.
*For instance, Summon Monster I takes 1 round to cast. But Gate takes only a Standard Action?*
The disadvantage of doing it would be that the designers would have to do it on a case-by-case basis and that it might seem arbitrary.
The advantage of doing this is that you'd have a more tactical choice to make as a caster when in the thick of combat. Instead of always resorting to your big gun spells, (which ideally would take a full round or full-round action to cast), you may be better off casting a quicker spell.
I've also advocated that certain spells don't provoke attacks of opportunity, namely, the ones meant for close combat: burning hands, color spray, and shocking grasp for example.
Spell choice and selection would be much more interesting.
I don't believe it would be, because the decision would be made pretty much based on the mechanics and numbers.
Additionally, I would never advocate fixing a class by nerfing others (unless the class by itself is ruining other classes). Each nerf takes away options from other players and makes classes a little less fun, but it still doesn't help the fighters to be the superbad*sses they (never really) were in AD&D.
Melee does need some little help. I've suggested before that when any character gets their 3rd attck from a high base attack, they can take two swings as a standard action. That solves a lot of the problems for any character that depends on multiple attacks for their damage output. It is very simple, and it helps almost all classes to a similar extent. It also makes tacticle movement more appealing (rather than standing still and full attacking every round possible). But all you can do is make two attacks as a standard action, not take two standard actions.
It's Pathfinder now.Yep, and I haven't seen anything that addresses the mechanical disadvantage 3x placed upon melee classes. Just some more feats.
Whoop-de-doo...
Well, it was certainly discussed in the playtest. Just because we haven't seen it in the teasers does not mean it hasn't been addressed. A real fix would necessarily be a rule in the combat and/or magic chapter, not a feat or a class feature.
If they do increase casting time for highest-level spells that should rectify the problem, or at least narrow the gap in actions. If they give the warriors some way to get more out of their multiple attacks (as per our conversations on interception during the playtest) that shores the warriors up on the other end a little more. Nerfing of problem spells should cover the last of it, giving us a conservative, multi-lateral solution to the power gap, which is definitely the stated preference of the designers.
It's too early to declare nothing has been done. If it turns out that they did nothing, I'm on your side grumbling about it, but I'll just fix it in a house rule.
|
Melee does need some little help. I've suggested before that when any character gets their 3rd attck from a high base attack, they can take two swings as a standard action. That solves a lot of the problems for any character that depends on multiple attacks for their damage output. It is very simple, and it helps almost all classes to a similar extent. It also makes tacticle movement more appealing (rather than standing still and full attacking every round possible). But all you can do is make two attacks as a standard action, not take two standard actions.
I was of the opinion that this was the route to go too, until Mattastrophic opened my eyes to a new problem that would introduce - it would ramp up damage to the point where healing couldn't keep up, and everyone would be forced to be purely offensive in the hope they killed the enemy in a round before they were killed themselves. This is already a problem - multiple attacks in a standard action just make it worse.
I understand that taking away or nerfing the shinies in a class isn't fun. I understand the joy in having a cool ability and the anger in having it removed. But...increasing the speed of high damage output only increases the difficulty in DMing high level games, not decreases it. I'd rather fighters gain the ability to give negative statuses to enemies and casters lose some of their ability to throw spells around with impunity. A little boost for one and a little lowering of the other would be just what's needed, imho.
It's Pathfinder now.Yep, and I haven't seen anything that addresses the mechanical disadvantage 3x placed upon melee classes. Just some more feats.
Whoop-de-doo...
If that's all you see, then you aren't looking very hard.
First of all, implying that AD&D was in any way "balanced" is a total joke!
It wasn't balanced, and it wasn't supposed to be*. Many classes were supposed to pay dues and be useless at lower levels, then be devastating at higher levels. The different classes were not even intended to be at the same level! Take a look at the xp advancement charts... the thief needs much less xp compared to the magic-user, who does not catch up until he starts getting XP from magic items at later levels. You want to see how "balanced" AD&D was - go play a monk!
If you got a good play experience out of AD&D, it was because you had a good DM and were skilled players, not because the rules system was balanced.
Funny, but I have seen a Pathfinder fighter do better then what most people are asking for: (i.e. move then auto-crit) but I guess folks aren't interested because it is a feat. I think they are missing out.
*Balanced in terms of one class being proportionally effective compared to another at any given level.
Yes, melees tend to be better during the low levels overall. Then the pendulum swings in the casters favor at the high levels. So what?"So what?" Lemme esplain... To me, it's FUN to play a guy who maybe starts off pathetic, but gradually grows in power until he can challenge dragons. That's what a level advancement system is all about: you always have something to look forward to. On the flip side, it's not at all fun, for me, to play a guy who starts off as a super-babysitter, but after every level gets less important (more powerful than he was, but comparatively less powerful to all his friends and enemies), until eventually he's totally irrelevant to the guy he used to protect. Maybe that kind of inevitable destiny appeals to some masochistic players, but for me, it's just a drag.
Kirth, I've already explained that we (as in two separate groups I play with… a total of 11 people) have found non-casters fun to play at the highest levels of play and certainly they aren't irrelevant.
None of us babysits anyone else at any level of play.
None of us mope about how irrelevant our PCs are.
We don't play opponents like idiots unless they are idiots (i.e. low INT).
You and Houston seem to be implying that all our (as in my groups and others posting here who disagree with your opinions) high level experiences are somehow flawed (were using DM fiat, or we're not playing the party's opponents correctly, or we're codddling the non-casters, and so on).
You also keep referring to older editions to explain your point of view and to explain why Pathfinder falls short of your expectations. I do find reminiscing on how older editions were run nostalgic and enlightening and although it's a little off-topic, I love remembering how it all worked back then.
But frankly, they ultimately don't contribute to answering the questions: Can you play a non-caster effectively at high level? Are you relevant? In Pathfinder? And the simple answer is Yes you can. Obviously this hasn't occurred in your campaigns, but it has in so many others. I personally have singlehandedly defeated spellcasters of higher level than me as a fighter. (and no, it was not in PvP. The party went on to fight other opponents). I've also been killed by them. And please don't tell me that we played the game wrong. It's beginning to become offensive.
And please don't tell me that we played the game wrong. It's beginning to become offensive.
That's exactly what I did NOT mean to imply. I'm glad that your experiences have been different than mine. It's excellent that we all have different play styles. My concern is that so far we have a game that supports your style well, but doesn't support Derek's or mine. Therefore, if anything, Derek and I are without question the ones who are playing "wrong," and you are in fact demonstratively doing it "correctly."
But shouldn't it be possible to have a game that supports all our styles of play? Or is that too pie-in-the-sky? I apologize if my boundless optimism and hopeless naivete are offensive, but I honestly think the game could be altered subtly, to keep supporting what's already working for you, but to also allow Derek and I to play and have fun. I'm playtesting some of those subtle tweaks using LoF, but it takes a while to work up to higher levels, and I want to examine things from the bottom up.
Anyway, from the flip side, telling us to "stop complaining -- the game is perfectly fine for everyone" -- when in fact it isn't for us -- is basically saying the game should not be tweaked to support our play style, because we're overly-nostalgic and/or impossible to please, and therefore somehow less worthy to play than people who were happy with 3.5. And while I do tend to a bit of nostalgia, I don't think that 3.5 is perfect, and I don't see that, up to the Beta, that Pathfinder has addressed any of our concerns at all (although hopefully the final rules will, and we'll all be happy).
Lest anyone think I'm agreeing with Derek because we play together, long before I met him I'd come to similar realizations in running Savage Tide. At higher levels the demons can teleport around; a full attack quickly became a thing of the past. Even when he met something he could stand and fight, the party barbarian made a poor showing compared to the wildshaped druid (thankfully nerfed in Pathfinder) and the wizard's planar binding subjects and summoned monsters. The rogue/bard stayed relevant through the whole AP because of his maxed out Diplomacy skill (devastatingly useful at all levels), but the barbarian eventually started finding that, every session, he had less and less to do. After a couple of combats in which he was relegated to the sidelines due to terrain and range issues (his longbow nigh-useless against high-HD demons), he more or less quit playing -- "wake me up if we meet another dinosaur, OK?" Like a good DM, I introduced the mercanes a bit early, who wanted to interest the barbarian in a lovely pair of boots of flying. He says no, he doesn't want to be superman, he just wants an evil outsider bane sword. I tell him, "well, they have an excellent helm that allows you to teleport..." OK, fine, player won't accept that flying around everywhere is mandatory, not optional. I adapt. I make enemies landbound, so he can stand and melee them. They still chew him up.
My response to this is that Savage Tide isn't everything high level D&D can be about. Different sorts of story arcs and themes can have a tremendous effect on the utility of the PCs. And I think Paizo's adventure paths, particularly in Dragon, have illustrated that. Age of Worms tended to fifth-wheel rogues because so much of the opposition, including the BBEG at the end, weren't sneak attackable (something PFRPG largely seems to fix). Lots of teleporting demon opposition in Savage Tide marginalizes characters who don't have the mobility.
All of these are D&D, but so is the campaign that focus on the battlefields of a war against humanoids. So is the one centered around the back alley politics of the guilds in a large city.
And please don't tell me that we played the game wrong. It's beginning to become offensive.That's exactly what I did NOT mean to imply. I'm glad that your experiences have been different than mine. It's excellent that we all have different play styles. My concern is that so far we have a game that supports your style well, but doesn't support Derek's or mine. Therefore, if anything, Derek and I are without question the ones who are playing "wrong," and you are in fact demonstratively doing it "correctly."
You know.. perhaps this is what needs to be focused on. If "your style" is resulting in unhappy high-level fighters, and "my style" is resulting in dominating high-level fighters, then what is the difference?
Is there some small rules tweak that one of us is using that causes this?
It *could* be random chance (yes, over and over), emphasized by expectations).
It could be player differences. My most crushing fighter-type player is actually *very* rules-light, plays and plans by feel.
One thing the High-Level playtest that got posted really brought out was how many little things get ruled differently by different groups. Those might be adding up to a huge difference, or rather a subtle one that has longterm impacts.
Best time I ever had was with a mind-controlled half-ogre fighter whomping on the pompus cleric :) This was back in first edition, but it was a beautiful sight to behold as the fighter chased the cleric just trying to get one more hit in and off him! The third party member, an assassin/mage was too busy laughing at the high pitched girlish screams coming from the cleric to successfully off the baddy that was mind-controlling the fighter in the first place :)
A 1st ed cleric wasn't a threat to anyone for the most part. So you wouldn't need to do much to put him in trouble. 1st ed clerics couldn't even buff themselves to be decent at melee.
3.X increased the power of the cleric in ways he never had before.
Don't forget that a lot of the feat trees now end in Standard Actions; guaranteed critical anyone? It seems that Paizo did attempt to take into account the inability of high level melee types to full-attack each round due to enemy mobility. Perhaps also came up with a reason for someone to use the Scythe...I know, it's odd to quote oneself. However, I would like to pose this as a serious question:
Does Devastating Blow adequately address the melee mobility issue?
Can't remember at the moment. But Vital Strike and Improved Vital Strike are certainly nods toward it. They appear to be different from how they work in the Beta going by the Valeros preview.
As a side note, I'm beginning to think I see why Valeros's CMD is seemingly so high. Just as fighters have one of the best ACs perhaps they have the best CMB? Comes in handy when going up against the huge monsters who always seem to have improved grab.
He may not be able to perform a maneuver on himself, but he has the potential to sure wreck Seoni or Harsk with CMs if he invested in combat maneuver style feats.
Talking of AD&D and who could make it through an adventure alone, I recall an old story were the first guys tried to go through tomb of horrors solo. Tenser and Robalar were the only two who made it. Tenser being a low level (like 3 or 4) cleric dual classed into magic-user (level like 14) and Robalar being a level 15 fighter. All the others died, and most were magic-users or clerics.
An AD&D magic-user could be hell on wheels, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise. They could use spells like stoneskin, mirror image, fly, dim door, blink, and well a ton more to prevent early trouble and destroy an enemy with the fire power others could only dream of. Fighters were able to reach the lowest ACs, have some of the best saves, most hit points, and do ton of damage too. Different ways to be powerhouses but both could certainly do it.
Talking of AD&D and who could make it through an adventure alone, I recall an old story were the first guys tried to go through tomb of horrors solo. Tenser and Robalar were the only two who made it. Tenser being a low level (like 3 or 4) cleric dual classed into magic-user (level like 14) and Robalar being a level 15 fighter. All the others died, and most were magic-users or clerics.
In fairness, the recounting I read was that Robilar banked heavily on the primary fighter "name level" class feature: a free army. In short, he sent orc troops ahead of him to trigger all the traps, and they died in droves, and he just followed after. But in 1e, that's what fighters DID after 9th level: they established strongholds and had armies. Wizards only got a tower and maybe an apprentice or two. A high-level fighter was good in melee, but even better on the political scene because he could conquer nations as a class feature!
But shouldn't it be possible to have a game that supports all our styles of play? Or is that too pie-in-the-sky? I apologize if my boundless optimism and hopeless naivete are offensive, but I honestly think the game could be altered subtly, to keep supporting what's already working for you, but to also allow Derek and I to play and have fun. I'm playtesting some of those subtle tweaks using LoF, but it takes a while to work up to higher levels, and I want to examine things from the bottom up.
I think the Pathfinder rules will have definitely made strides to satisfy your style of play. I can sympathize with the changes you suggest to make the system more… how shall I accurately put this… EQUITABLE for all classes. Again, we're not looking for "balance" here. I agree with many of your suggestions. For example:
I know you've said that you aren't expecting much from the new defensive casting mechanic, but I am. We don't know anything about it yet, but what if casting defensively were this formula or something along its lines:
Caster Level check: DC = 10 + 2x spell level
I know this is TOTALY hypothetical, but a formula similar to this gives a huge boost to non-casters. And unless Jason has introduced feats (other than Combat Casting) or magic items or class features to manipulate a caster level check, it's a good way to go to introduce balance to this area of the game (instead of basing it on a skill check which can be manipulated in so many ways in 3.5 coupled with such a low base formula for casting defensively to make successfully casting while threatened virtually automatic).
Another thing to consider: CMD Have you seen Valero's CMD? It's huge, when compared to the other classes previewed, and he can increase it. Don't you think that will shore up the fighter against high level monster brutes who always seem to have Improved Grab?
Have you seen today's preview of Harsk yet? He can do an awful lot of hurt on his favored enemies. Granted, he's super effective only against his favored enemies, but that is the niche of the ranger… to be specialized at defeating certain foes with ease. I personally think a lot of players are going to choose human as a favored enemy. And his 20th level capstone ability basically is an at will one shot kill against his favored enemies. Taking into account the ranger's super-specialization, I don't think it's a class that will ever satisfy your group's particular tastes (could be wrong about that though) :)
Also, you mention mobility being an issue. They mention Valeros being able to move 30' because of his armor training. While he doesn't get iterative attacks after moving more than 5', he does do extra damage via feats. Also, you shouldn't dismiss feats like Step Up, Lunge, and Shall Not Pass so soon. If a melee gets anywhere near a caster, they're almost forced to take an AoO or risk casting defensively. A melee who engages a foe with Shall Not Pass can stick a foe who tries to ignore him to go after the squishies.
In the end, I still think you and Houston will want to make up house rules to satisfy your playstyle. As will my group. There is nothing wrong with that, and it is even encouraged. Want to make casting all spells full-round actions? Do it. Want to give melees extra movement via giving up iteratives? Do it. Since one of my groups has started a new campaign, I myself am including a new rule allowing you to give up iteratives for an extra 5' step during a full attack. Their PCs aren't high enough level to take advantage of the rule yet. I'm sure some groups think that's preposterous and I seriously doubt my house rule will make it into the official rules. But I like what I see from Pathfinder, and am simply going to add my own flavor to it when the final rules come out. Even the designers themselves seem to do it :)
I think the Pathfinder rules will have definitely made strides to satisfy your style of play.
I hope you're right! I enjoy reading your posts, and would find it a great pleasure to be able to discuss things we both like about the new system. Dunno. Over the course of the playtests, I've become convinced that Jason Bulmahn's style of play is similar to yours, so that he doesn't see the problems that Derek and I run into, and therefore cannot "fix" them. So we have to do it ourselves. Which is fine; I've never been too afraid of houserules!
Re: Hrusk: No; I'll check him out ASAP. Thanks for the heads up.
Re: Trade attack for 5-ft. step: I'm playtesting the same thing, but for a 10-ft. step. We'll see how that works out.
Re: Casting defensively: I'm experimenting with DC = spell level + threatening CMB, so that a kobold is less of a threat to casting than a tyrannosaur. So far it's been a good rule, but I've only playtested up to 6th level so far.
Re: Casting defensively: I'm experimenting with DC = spell level + threatening CMB, so that a kobold is less of a threat to casting than a tyrannosaur. So far it's been a good rule, but I've only playtested up to 6th level so far.
Spoiler so as not to derail the thread:
It is DC = 10 + Spell Level + 1/2 opponent's BAB.
I like it because it takes into account the difficulty of the spell and the melee ability of foes. But it still gives casters a chance. As the casters rise in level, they naturally get more proficient at casting their lower level spells while being threatened, but casting their highest level spells remains a risky business. The best part I like is that a caster doesn't necessarily know what the target DC is (like he did in 3.5). He has to make an educated guess, just like the fighter does when deciding whether or not to Power Attack for instance. Only the Combat Casting feat (which I changed from +4 to +2) allows a caster any influence over their ability to succeed on the check.
Here's an example at 20th level, fighter threatening a wizard who wants to cast a 9th level spell:
DC = 10 + 9 (spell level) + 10 (1/2 threatening BAB).
Total: DC = 29
The wizard has a 60% chance of success to get off his biggest gun. In his favor, but very risky.
It has worked great so far :)
spoiler omitted
That's a nice solution!
In contrast to your system, this makes the base odds of success a bit more difficult, encouraging investment in feats like Skill Focus and Combat Casting, and soaking up skill points that Wizards (due to their high Int) have in abundance anyway. Unfortunately, it favors clerics over sorcerers by a wide margin -- both have a lack of skill points, but clerics have a high Wis anyway.
Of interest, go read Jason Bulmahn's Livejournal blog. He mentions some high level fighter fixes, and certainly it seems like they have made an attempt to change high-level class equity, within the constraints of backwards compatibility that is.
May not solve all, or in your opinion it may change nothing. But their trying, and that can only be a good thing.