What about multiple weaker creatures? I would think that a swarm of yipping kobolds stumbling over each other would be just as distracting as a deathknight with a two handed sword.
See my rules spoiler. "Aid Another" is a wonderful mechanic, so often underutilized...
spoiler omittedThat's a nice solution! ** spoiler omitted **
Now back on topic…
You've come up with a solution as well as I, on one of the most obvious imbalances in 3.5: the Concentration check to Cast on the Defensive. It has been debated thoroughly in the playtest. Do you really think that the designers haven't attempted to fill this hole in the game as well? Now I'm not saying that their solution will completely satisfy You or I. We might like their idea and say to ourselves, yeah we don't need to house rule this one. Or we might say to ourselves, they didn't take it far enough, and keep using our house rules. But whatever their solution is, it has got to be better than how it was in 3.5. It's almost impossible for it not to be better.
And this example illustrates where I have confidence the gap in effectiveness between casters and melees is definitely smaller. And it is why I advocate looking beyond the feats by themselves. To me it seems that they have chosen not to fundamentally change the basic rules from 3.5, but to instead tweak them in an attempt to close the gap on this issue.
Another example: the new CMB mechanic. Looking at the previews, you'll notice that Seoni has a CMD of 19. Contrast this with Harsk (CMB of +13) and Valeros (CMB of +17). Given the chance, the melees in this case have a decided advantage in this area that they can attempt to exploit. All either melee really needs is one opportunity to present itself. And they have a number of options available, with trip and grapple, being among the best IMHO. They need not worry about Seoni's AoO at +4 to hit assuming she even gets one.
What about multiple weaker creatures? I would think that a swarm of yipping kobolds stumbling over each other would be just as distracting as a deathknight with a two handed sword.
1) Use the highest BAB of all threatening foes. And leave it at that.
2) Or, use the highest BAB of all threatening foes, and add 2 for each additional foe threatening beyond that one.
I like the 1st because it's simple and this game is complicated enough. I like the 2nd because it takes the "outnumbered" factor into account.
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.
I will have to take a look :)
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
What about multiple weaker creatures? I would think that a swarm of yipping kobolds stumbling over each other would be just as distracting as a deathknight with a two handed sword.See my rules spoiler. "Aid Another" is a wonderful mechanic, so often underutilized...
::hits self in forehead:: D'oh. I needs 2 lern how 2 reed.
|
What about multiple weaker creatures? I would think that a swarm of yipping kobolds stumbling over each other would be just as distracting as a deathknight with a two handed sword.See my rules spoiler. "Aid Another" is a wonderful mechanic, so often underutilized...
I have built whole characters whose strength lies in misdirection and aiding their teammates. My favorite is a gnome beguiler that pretty much is useless once engaged in combat. she uses a longspear and stays right behind the fighter or cleric to grand combat bonuses to them, when she doesn't have helpful spells to cast.
Very effective at lower levels, and sometimes higher too. :)
Do you really think that the designers haven't attempted to fill this hole in the game as well? Now I'm not saying that their solution will completely satisfy You or I. We might like their idea and say to ourselves, yeah we don't need to house rule this one.
I anticipate something like this:
Feat: Disrupt Spellcasting [Combat]
Prerequisites: Int 19, Cha 19, Combat Expertise, Combat Reflexes, Dazzling Display, Spellcraft 15 ranks, Weapon Focus
Benefit: Choose a weapon for which you have weapon focus. As a full-round action, you can adopt a stance causing any adjacent spellcaster you threaten with the selected weapon to suffer a -2 penalty on Spellcraft checks made to cast defensively. This effect lasts until your next turn, or until the caster is no longer adjacent to you.
So, yes, I think I'll probably need to houserule it!
Do you really think that the designers haven't attempted to fill this hole in the game as well? Now I'm not saying that their solution will completely satisfy You or I. We might like their idea and say to ourselves, yeah we don't need to house rule this one.I anticipate something like this:
Feat: Disrupt Spellcasting [Combat]
Prerequisites: Int 19, Cha 19, Combat Expertise, Combat Reflexes, Dazzling Display, Spellcraft 15 ranks, Weapon Focus
Benefit: Choose a weapon for which you have weapon focus. As a full-round action, you can adopt a stance causing any adjacent spellcaster you threaten with the selected weapon to suffer a -2 penalty on Spellcraft checks made to cast defensively. This effect lasts until your next turn, or until the caster is no longer adjacent to you.So, yes, I think I'll probably need to houserule it!
Eeeew...
you got sarcasm all over the place!
I have higher expectations, I suppose. How else are they to be crushed?
I anticipate something like this:
Feat: Disrupt Spellcasting [Combat]
Prerequisites: Int 19, Cha 19, Combat Expertise, Combat Reflexes, Dazzling Display, Spellcraft 15 ranks, Weapon Focus
Benefit: Choose a weapon for which you have weapon focus. As a full-round action, you can adopt a stance causing any adjacent spellcaster you threaten with the selected weapon to suffer a -2 penalty on Spellcraft checks made to cast defensively. This effect lasts until your next turn, or until the caster is no longer adjacent to you.
You are emphatically, absolutely 100% wrong.
EPIC FAIL LOLOL
(You forgot the prerequisite "Fighter level 18".)
|
I think Fighters are more or less fine, but I would mind if they got changed either. I feel that the Armor Training was a little to good, (should be more along the lines of one of the benefits or the other or the other, rather than and). But I did just want to add, I think that the autocrits and extra effects may not be a good as they sound. Many upper level monsters are just straight out immune to some or all of those effects, so again it really falls back into the dm's playstyle court.
I still, even if it is specific spells only, don't think Full Round casting is a good option, as all that does is switch the priority of "broken" from spell to spell, and nerf certain builds/player preferences. Also taking away the casters ability to cast defensively, consistancy, just isn't a good idea at all. If the big boss is say a Wizard, and goes lasty in initiative, will the party all charges and he is 0 threat. He can't possibly cast defensively, and the party has no need to try to disrupt him, so he has no power to do anything whatsoever to save himself.
That is like saying that the Fighter, and only the Fighter, unless it is an NPC Fighter under the DM's control, must make a Will save anytime they try to swing their sword, or it just breaks outright, (magic bonuses nor feats help here, base Will Save only). Yes, I realize this is over the top, but the idea that casting defensively should not work much, if at all, can really destroy casters, unless the Dm just waves it by when it become really important DM, (fait, right?). Maybe it is just me, but it is not at all easy to make that check if a decent Fighter attacks you to distract you. Not only are you going to take damage, but you also lose your turn, and that spell is just gone.
My point is, why should rules mastery be required for players?
Right here is the key factor, IMO.
If you want to play a high-level character, then yes, a certain level of mastery over the rules should be required. High-level characters are supposed to be great heroes, legends in the making, etc. and playing them should not be simple, just as their adventures should be something more than a standard dungeon crawl.
*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.
Over in another thread, I suggested the following as a quick patch (edited from a couple posts):
An alternate solution is to tie casting time to the spell level relative to caster level: all spells, unless specifically designed with shorter/longer casting times, take a full round action to cast until the caster level is four times the spell level (or CL 2 for 0-level spells), at which point they take a standard action to cast; I personally prefer this solution, as it simulates a spellcaster's growing "mastery" of magic.
This does make things a bit more interesting tactically, since the most powerful spells a character can cast require a full round action (and can be disrupted without requiring a readied action). It also makes sense, IMO, "organically." Higher levels shouldn't just be about more powerful spells, but also about using lower level spells more effectively.
Rapid Spellcasting
The character has trained in casting spells quickly.
Prerequisite: Caster level 5th.
Benefit: The caster is treated as if four levels higher for determining what spell levels they can cast as a standard action (i.e., an 8th level caster with this feat can cast 3rd level spells as a standard action). The caster gains no other benefit (increased damage, duration, range, etc.).
If you're going to limit the ability to cast and move, IMO 7th, 8th, and 9th level spells should be full round actions (apart from a few specifically designed for shorter casting) and should not be cast more rapidly by less than deities/epic characters. Also, the spell slot limitations on Quicken Spell make it useless for any spell higher than 5th level, so the "need" for 6th-9th level spells to be cast as a standard action is less critical; in a world using this rule, I'd also get rid of greater Quicken metamagic rods.
My problem is this, basically. I can play a viable wizard, druid, cleric and rogue with one book. I have to have a library of splats, apparently, to play a viable melee class.
No, you do not need "a library of splats" to play a viable melee character. Granted, the splats make it easier to power up the melee classes, but it's not required. Earlier in this thread I posted the following:
Mobility is easy to fix: 1-2 levels of barbarian (I usually prefer 2 for Uncanny Dodge) gives +10 ft to base movement (untyped, so it stacks with enhancement bonuses) in light/medium/no armor. Make it a dwarf barbarian 2/fighter 20 in mithral full plate with boots of striding and springing and you maximize your possible armor bonus (+8 plus enchantment), still get a +3 Max. Dex bonus (plus Armor Training in PF), AND a have normal movement of 40 ft (60 ft when under the effect of haste). If Evasion is desired, a human barbarian 2/fighter 18/rogue 2 in a mithral breastplate (+5 plus enchantment, +5 Max. Dex) or a mithral chain shirt (+4 plus enchantment, +6 Max. Dex) with boots of striding and springing can move at a fast 50 ft. All of this is core 3.5, not requiring splatbooks.
Stopping movement requires use of feats like Combat Reflexes, Improved Grapple, and Improved Trip; works best with a reach weapon and/or enlarge person. Nothing requires you to make a "normal" attack with an AoO, you can easily initiate a grapple or a trip attempt instead. PF also has the Shield Slam feat, allowing you to initiate a free bull rush on a successful shield bash.
At high levels, everyone is dependent on buffs; it's an expectation built into the 3.x system. The non-spellcasters can be proactive and invest in some potions, X-times per day items, etc. and/or the party can pool some money for some wands of often used spells (much like many parties pool money for wands of cure x wounds).
In high-level play, melee types can usually out-perform spellcasters against small numbers (1-3) of tough opponents. It's not that difficult to make a high-level melee character who can deal over 200 points of damage on average with a full attack (counting the decreasing hit percentages from iterative attacks). Spellcasters usually do better against larger numbers (4+) of equivalent or weaker foes. Most of the SoD/SoS spells are a bit of a wash, since most can be completely negated with certain protections, are affected by SR, and require a saving throw (good for mooks, but not often useful against a prepared BBEG).
|
|
Ah. Now that is a little different a story. I could see something like that, though I might go something a little more along the line of 3x spell level or maybe x2.5. Additionally, there should be a class standard, like this does not apply to clerics and cure or inflict spells, including heal/harm, regardless of other rules, or a specialist wizard gets 1 school spell per spell level at normal time. Additionally, sorcerers may be overly burdened by this sort of rule.
The other side is that in groups like mine, melee is overpowered, and a rule like this would straight up make casters unplayable, so making this a core rule would mean Id never play again. In essence, it could be a nice "if magic is to strong, here's a optional rule" sort of sidebar.
Ah. Now that is a little different a story. I could see something like that, though I might go something a little more along the line of 3x spell level or maybe x2.5.
I was basing this house rule off of two things: Quickened Spell adds 4 to a spell's level for preparation/casting (making it only useful with spells up to 5th level) and a 20 level progression (20 / 5 = 4). The Rapid Spellcasting feat just allows standard action casting of spells of one spell level higher than normal (to a maximum of 6th level spells at 20th caster level with the feat). A 3x progression would result in 6th level spells (7th level with the Rapid Spellcasting feat) cast as standard actions at 18th caster level, while a 2.5x progression results in 8th level spells (9th level with the feat) cast as standard actions at 20th caster level.
This may be what you wish out of the game, but lessening the attractiveness of casters "going nova" with their most powerful spells (especially at high level play) would go a long way in dealing with the concerns some have with melee classes vs. spellcasters.
Wow, I can't take the time to read all 7 pages of this, but I think the Pathfinder RPG (at least in beta) made huge strides to make the fighter class viable and fun to play at higher levels.
Not sure if there is much more to discuss, it's not like anyone runs groups of 4 wizards, even at high levels.
|
|
What are you referencing?
And Heck No!
I think a Wizard should not have to worry about a leaf brushing their arm in the wind and them losing that spell that will keep them from dying, sure. Failing Defensive casting checks is not as hard as people assume. Especially if they might have to make 4 of them in a row, which any ol Fighter can easily force them to do. I honestly just think you don't understand how devistating the changes you suggest are.
I'm not trying to be a jerk when I say this.
All Casting Defensively does is not let anyone near you get a free hit against you. That is it. It was only different in the earlier editions in that that check was not needed, because there were no Attacks of Opertunity. So as it is, that is something automatically making Casting spells more difficult than earlier editions. Also, the Casting Time you speak of, was a varient rule, in the 2nd Ed AD&D book I just looked at.
In 3.5, casters have to worry about casting defensively (that is to say avoiding a lot of free attacks against them), until about 7th Level (for 1st Level Spells only). That is with Combat Casting, a +1 Con, and Max Ranks. Without Combat Casting, that is 11th Level, and just the Base DC (15 + Spell Level). If they take Damage, that DC can go up significantly, to the point is is easily impossible to make, (and that is at any Level). NOt to mention the fact that you are taking damage, so you might just be dead, anyway.
|
|
Seriously, if your fighters are have so much trouble against wizards, here is some advice. These are all completly valid options. Have you ever tried Sundering a SpellBook. That will completely screw over a Wizard. A sundered item is destroyed, so not just cut in half, it is in shreds, and can't be used. That means that that Wizard can't ever use it again to reprepair spells, (unless they have more than one which is expensive).
You can either take or Sunder their Spell Component Pouch. While this is easily bought back, it drastically cuts down on what spells they will be able to cast imediatly, unless the havbe escew materials, (in which case they probably don't have a pouch anyway). Same thing for almost any caster(PF Sorcerers get it free). A Cleric/Paladin/Blackguard's holy symbol. While this doesn't rob them of most of their spells, it does cut the list down enough to make it worth trying. All of these things are extremely easy to do. Attack roll, and minimal damage, and they are gone.
Grapple also means Spellcasters are in trouble, if not practically helpless, and very few spellcasters are good in a grapple, (watch out for Clerics with their many touch spells though).
Trip causes them to have to check to see if the spell fails, take damage as they get back up, and uses a lot of their next turn up.
In fact, probably all of the combat special attacks either cause them to check to see if they lose the spell, might automatically make them lose the spell or make them unable to use it, or something. And these are all the perview of the Fighter, and all other melee characters secondly.
Lastly, and this is just mean, but works. Have you ever read the 3.5 Fireball spell? Ever played a character with a bow? Ever wondered why Fireball is the most common attack spell used against a lot of close together targets, like maybe your group? Ever wonder what happens to a Wizard when you get to go first in initiative, and you say I am readying an action to shoot if he casts a spell. He cast a spell, (fireball), and you say "ok I shoot. I am going to target the little orange bead that he is making as soon as it forms"? They usually don't live past that first spell. . .
Also taking away the casters ability to cast defensively, consistancy, just isn't a good idea at all. If the big boss is say a Wizard, and goes lasty in initiative, will the party all charges and he is 0 threat. He can't possibly cast defensively, and the party has no need to try to disrupt him, so he has no power to do anything whatsoever to save himself.
I thought of doing this in my own campaigns going forward. Removing this one change would definitely swing the pendulum in favor of non-casters, and it would simplify the game, as you would get rid of a sub-system.
But it wouldn't work if that is the only thing you changed. You'd have to give casters some compensation. I'd thought of changing certain spells to be cast while being threatened without provoking attacks of opportunity. Spells like: Burning Hands, Color Spray, Chill Touch, Shocking Grasp and Ghoul Touch are perfect examples of spells that would be eligible. Spell trigger items such as wands would practically become "melee weapons for casters" and thus would need to be readily available. Indeed, Gygax in 1st ed. DMG stated on p.65: "Because spell casting will be so difficult, most magic-users and clerics will opt to use magical devices whenever possible in melee, if they are wise."
Ultimately, I didn't want to change the system too much, and simply decided to keep the casting on the defensive mechanic, but make it more fair. But I will nod to those who admire 1st ed's solution on this point that (IMO) it was a neat way of doing things in 1st ed. and it had a great feel to combat and it had more versimilitude to how spells of great power were intended to be cast… or not able to be cast in melee as it were.
I just don't see overhauling Pathfinder this drastically, when tweaking what's already there would be a simpler, and ultimately better solution, in regards to backwards compatibility, how people play the game currently, and all that. Upping certain spells casting times to full-round actions or even some being 1 round actions would bring back some of that versimilitude of 1st ed for me.
Over in another thread, I suggested the following as a quick patch (edited from a couple posts):
An alternate solution is to tie casting time to the spell level relative to caster level: all spells, unless specifically designed with shorter/longer casting times, take a full round action to cast until the caster level is four times the spell level (or CL 2 for 0-level spells), at which point they take a standard action to cast; I personally prefer this solution, as it simulates a spellcaster's growing "mastery" of magic.
This does make things a bit more interesting tactically, since the most powerful spells a character can cast require a full round action (and can be disrupted without requiring a readied action). It also makes sense, IMO, "organically." Higher levels shouldn't just be about more powerful spells, but also about using lower level spells more effectively.
The only problem I see with this solution is that it adds another layer, of complexity. I'd rather see each spell in the handbook looked at in turn, stated in the description whether it takes a standard action, full-round action, or 1 round action to cast (in general of course). Yes it's a lot of work for the designers, but once done, actual play would be simpler and more equitable I think.
It might even be able to address some of the inequities amongst casters themselves, like how weak evocation spells are. Evocation spells for the most part might remain standard actions to cast for instance, while spells of other schools would be changed to have longer casting times.
Lastly, and this is just mean, but works. Have you ever read the 3.5 Fireball spell? Ever played a character with a bow? Ever wondered why Fireball is the most common attack spell used against a lot of close together targets, like maybe your group? Ever wonder what happens to a Wizard when you get to go first in initiative, and you say I am readying an action to shoot if he casts a spell. He cast a spell,...
Interesting, but that's just one spell. Most people don't think that is one of the problem spells. And in Pathfinder, I bet most wizards will survive it with their upped hit die. It only averages 35 hp after all.
Grappling works wonders against many casters if you can get close to them.
The readied action is another great defense. I'm bewildered why my players don't use it more against the enemies I throw at them. Maybe because it isn't a proactive tactic? But I predict it'll be even more effective with Deadly Aim, which is essentially a ranged form of Power Attack. If the DC to maintain a spell when taking damage works similar to what it did in 3.5 that is.
Seriously, if your fighters are have so much trouble against wizards, here is some advice. These are all completly valid options. Have you ever tried Sundering a SpellBook. That will completely screw over a Wizard. A sundered item is destroyed, so not just cut in half, it is in shreds, and can't be used. That means that that Wizard can't ever use it again to reprepair spells, (unless they have more than one which is expensive). You can either take or Sunder their Spell Component Pouch.
1. Spellbook: wizards don't cast directly out of their books; they study them, then put them away -- usually, by the time they're above 10th level (when fighters start lagging), in some extradimensional space like a portable hole. You cannot sunder a spellbook in combat.
2. Eschew Materials. ALL sorcerers get it for free now. High-level wizards are supposedly geniuses; if they engage in combat, they should know daggone well how vulnerable that little bag makes them. Therefore they, too, should take Eschew Materials -- failure to do so plays back into "playing intelligent monsters as if they were stupid."
Re: Readying actions: you must declare a specific trigger, not "when that guy tries something." Therefore, unless you know in advance he's throwing a fireball, you can't target the bead. Indeed, if I understand the rules correctly, you can't even target the caster, if you ready an action for when he casts a spell and he instead decides to blast you with his staff.
In short, in your game, the "the fighter is fine" because you've already houseruled in a bunch of options that work in his favor -- exactly what we've been discussing, but a different set of houserules in your case. By the rules as written, however, those options don't really work.
|
|
Every single one of them does work, officially. In 3.5, anyway. I am not perfectly familiar with PF, but I don't see any reason that they do not. If your DM is not allowing them to be used, than they are not DMing right, or rather not understanding the rules correctly and are not a good DM for it.
You most certanly can sunder a spellbook, (it is 1 inch think paper, so your looking at maybe 6 damage total). If it is tucked away in a EDS, than you can always destroy the the little chest replica that is a focus for the spell, and is probably either tucked away in their Spell Pouch or Backpack, which does even worse than sundering the spellbook. This should probably take either some sort of spot check, or something.
Just because they have Escew Materials, doesn't always mean that still don't have and need one. That feat only makes you not need the inexpensive components. Especially at higher levels (x10 in PF with no more xp costs), many spells require expensive materials, and those are probably kept in the pouch for ease of access.
That is a perfectly valid readied action. You only need to know what spell it is if you are trying to Dispel it, (i.e. if there is a Wizard/Sorcerer pretty far away, and your grouped pretty close together, and about 4th+ level, it is very likely a Fireball). You can also Ready an action to move, after the spell is cast, but before it hits you, and completely avoid many spells, if you can move enough.
To Ready an action, you specify what conditions you are waiting for. It does not have to be very specific. If someone begins casting a spell, I will attack. That is perfectly fine. Look at the WotC FAQ. You do not have to give exact directions and conditions and targets all that. The example they give of a good readied action is a group at a T intersection with two unopened doors. The ranger says "I ready to shoot if the door opens". If either or both doors open, he can opt to shoot at a target from either,(but not both), or not shoot if it is an ally, or shoot past whoever opened the door, if he wants, because any of those fit the criteria that the readied action would allow. He could not however, deside to cast a spell, because he did not say that.
I think you misunderstand what I said about one of my groups. In that group, (I have more than one), they use house rules that make Fighters and Barbarians extremely overpowered, (like extra started feats, super high abilities, and treasuure drops are designed to cover would-be weak points like healing potions that the monsters seem to never ever drink, and a lack of complex or magic threats). That is not the norm. I have the opposite problem that you discribe, (in that group, Fighters can do everything). Also, just so you know, I like Fighters a lot more than I like Wizards. Niether are my preference.
|
|
Re: Readying actions: you must declare a specific trigger, not "when that guy tries something." Therefore, unless you know in advance he's throwing a fireball, you can't target the bead. Indeed, if I understand the rules correctly, you can't even target the caster, if you ready an action for when he casts a spell and he instead decides to blast you with his staff.
This is partially true. The point I was making is you ready for if someone casts a spell. "I am going to ready an action to shoot if someone casts a spell". Thats all you have to say. If the DM wants more, than give it, but they shouldn't always need more. You have given what action you want to perform (shoot) and the trigger (someone casts a spell).
It doesn't have to be, and likely you will not know if it is a fireball. That is irrelevant in this stage. You ready for him to cast a spell, and wait until he does, or your next turn is up. If, at any point in between, anyone on their side casts a spell, you can say I'm going to take my readied action to shoot. Readying an Action takes place just after the condition that triggered it, but before it has a result. In this case that is after they have cast the spell, but before the spell is actually released or whatever. If it is a buff, it is not effecting him yet. If it is a fireball, it is still in his hand.
Now if he desides to blast you with a staff, technically your right. He didn't cast a spell, so you don't get to act. However, a reasonable DM may allow you to as the two are very, very similar actions. Then again, they may not, and that is also fair. It is about the same as your ready against a spell and it turns out they are a psion instead.
If your DM is not allowing them to be used, than they are not DMing right, or rather not understanding the rules correctly and are not a good DM for it. You most certanly can sunder a spellbook, (it is 1 inch think paper, so your looking at maybe 6 damage total). If it is tucked away in a EDS, than you can always destroy the the little chest replica that is a focus for the spell, and is probably either tucked away in their Spell Pouch or Backpack, which does even worse than sundering the spellbook.
I DM often, and don't allow individual items within a backpack or portable hole to be seen as if by x-ray vision and individually targetted with a Sunder. Does that make me a bad DM? On the contrary; I'd suggest that perhaps sundering a backpack would merely drop the contents all over the floor, rather than destroy a particular item inside (and it certainly wouldn't automatically destroy everything inside). A portable hole is especially problematic if it's folded up in the said wizard's pocket -- problematic for me, that is, although YMMV if you allow enemies to somehow locate it, see what's inside of it, and potentially sunder them. My rules knowledge isn't deficient here, rather, my interpretation is a lot less liberal than yours.
Re: targetting a fireball bead with a readied action: if the readied action takes place immediately, the casting is potentially disrupted, and the spell totally lost. The only way to individually target the bead itself (and thus cause it to prematurely detonate, as you seem to be claiming will happen) would be to ready an action to attack a fireball bead (or, more generally, "I ready an action to attack whatever visible spell manifestation occurs, if any"). Again, it's not my knowledge of rules that's flawed -- it's the fact that I don't adopt an "anything goes" standpoint to them that's where you and I differ.
|
|
My intension is not to suggest that you have xray vision. It should be common sense that certain items are probably stored in certain places is all. A dagger is probably on your belt, or in your boot, or in your ponytale, etc . . .
Im not really trying to say that anything goes. Rather im trying not to spend so much space with every detail. With the example im giving, you can't disrupt the spell, because you did not ready that action. If it turns out not to be a fireball or similar spell, you are kind of out of luck. Im just trying to give an example of something that "can" be done. At the same time the wizard can step behind cover, robbing the archer of the shot.
I'm just trying to give an example of something that "can" be done. At the same time the wizard can step behind cover, robbing the archer of the shot.
OK, I think I follow you now; I originally took the example as being more specific than you probably intended it.
Overall, I'm still unconvinced that sundering and/or readied actions close the gap between warrior-types (melee or ranged) and casters at higher levels, but that's evidently simply a prejudice shared by Derek and me (and a bunch of much less polite folks long since been banned for their style of argument during the Alpha playests...).
Banned? Really?
Some less-than-diplomatic folks had a mandatory "cooling off" period enforced on them; I don't know about permanent bans, though.
Kirth & Houston:
I'm pretty sure it's not in the final rules, but it's an interesting discussion and is a germ of an idea for those of us who like house rules. Another chink in the armor of casters in your group perhaps? (Eluding to mundane intimidate + success = one shaken spell caster)
Let me know what you think.
Sunder was never that widely used in my gaming, but the first day someone Disarmed a wand user, things were never quite the same - works for staffs as well!
I find it odd that folks who have trouble with wizards being over-powered in their campaigns are so quick to disregard Spell Resistance. Even a 10% or 20% chance of not beating SR makes a huge difference over the adventuring day. You don't have to over do it, since constructs get boring quick, but Drow, Rakshakas, Mind Flayers, and creatures with various amounts of outer planes blood, can sure take the wind out of a wizards sails. Funny that the creatures Gygax made had SR even back in the day (in classic % form!).
There is also the affect of magic on other planes. In addition to specific spells, I recall something in the DMG about magic in general not working too well: "Wild Magic: On a plane with the wild magic trait, spells and spell-like abilities function in radically different and sometimes dangerous ways."
This is not intended to say that 3.5 worked just fine for higher level non-casters, I think it was unbalanced. However, I don't think it was totally broken, and from what I have seen, Pathfinder brought the high level fighter and paladin up to speed. I look forward to seeing what can be done with monks, rangers, and others.
One final thought, remember that whatever proposals you make to restrict spell casting should logically extend across the board. Bards, rangers, paladins, arcane tricksters, arcane archers, eldritch knights, and everyone who isn't a full level caster would be the ones really suffering from many of the proposals. Remember that the problem has never been ALL casters being overpowered, just some classes, always straight casters, and usually with a combination of specific feats, such as Greater Spell Penetration, and/or Greater Spell Focus.
|
Funny that the creatures Gygax made had SR even back in the day (in classic % form!).
Yeah, but he also didn't have spell penetration and all that jazz. Oh, and his rules made casting in combat a huge PITA. Gygaxian spell casters could work amazing power, but they had a lot of obstacles to overcome to get that power to bear. 3x casters have a much easier time of it.
There is also the affect of magic on other planes. In addition to specific spells, I recall something in the DMG about magic in general not working too well: "Wild Magic: On a plane with the wild magic trait, spells and spell-like abilities function in radically different and sometimes dangerous ways."
Ok, so, for the one time in an adventurer's life he goes to Limbo, spells act funny if he can't pass a DC15 + spell level caster level check. Which. by the time an adventurer has any business being on Limbo in the first place, wouldn't fail all that terribly often...
As far as other classes who aren't full casters suffering? It isn't their shtick, for the most part, most don't cast in combat anyway, or, if they do, it isn't when someone is threatening them.
|
|
My point is, why should rules mastery be required for players?Right here is the key factor, IMO.
If you want to play a high-level character, then yes, a certain level of mastery over the rules should be required. High-level characters are supposed to be great heroes, legends in the making, etc. and playing them should not be simple, just as their adventures should be something more than a standard dungeon crawl.
Ok, so what you're saying is, only hard core Char Op geeks and amateur dinner theater mavens need apply.
No wonder our hobby is shrinking...
|
|
I think you are just trying to push buttons like some kind of a hard core feminist.
Nah, just telling it like I see it. I liked that in the old game you could just play, without having to know how to optimize characters. Rule mastery was only something the DM needed to worry about, players could just show up and play. We were also more open to teaching new kids how to play. This elitist crap spilled over from the on-line gaming community, I think.
And, yeah, I do see a lot of elitist crap at the FLGS back room and at cons, sorry.
|
|
You could just sit down and play, if you spent hours and hours learning the many rules, and had a group that was willing to go through it all with you. 2nd Ed was 10x as compicated, because most of the rules didn't work with each other, and knowing one aspect didn't mean you knew anything about the rest of the game. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy the older editions still, and sometimes more than the newer, but it was much harder to get into a group, learn the game, or know what your allowed to do. That is just a fact. There are always going to be jerks, and I know that 1st and 2nd Ed had the same ratio of them.
|
|
Same ratio, but in a much larger pool. And I even disagree on the same ratio, at least in the late Seventies/early Eighties. More of the people I saw were in "teaching" mode and welcomed new players and showed them the ropes. Nowadays (and, again, I blame the on-line gaming attitude), it's like "Get up to speed, n00b, we don't have time for this crap..."
Don't get me wrong, I have a degree in 3x min/maxing and optimization, I just can't stand that the game doesn't allow for a mix of rules masters and newer players just looking for a casual game to sit at the same table without problems creeping up. Like in the game Kirth and I had. I found myself intentionally nerfing my character build just so other (far less experienced, and some brand new) players could share the limelight. Which I have no problem with, but I've seen other groups where players show their elitist asses because some players either don't know or don't want to min/max to the limit, and maybe just want to take some skills and feats for RP purposes.
And, when rules mastery is a prerequisite for fighters being viable at higher levels, that's a design flaw, imo. Fighters in 1e were the class you gave players who were learning the game, so they could be useful while figuring out how to play. Now, fighters require a solid knowledge of how to build a character to keep up.
Sad, really...
|
|
Kirth & Houston:
** spoiler omitted **
Let me know what you think.
And, I'm not ignoring this post, I just want to absorb the full impact of that other thread before responding. My initial impression is I can get behind a mechanic like this, but some of the spell stuff in the thread gives me pause..
I find it hard to believe that there's a pandemic of "elite" gamers. I've known very few to be unapproachable.
As for difficulty, well one of my buddies is teaching his ADD-afflicted 6 yr old to play quite successfully, so...
My point is, why should rules mastery be required for players?Right here is the key factor, IMO.
If you want to play a high-level character, then yes, a certain level of mastery over the rules should be required. High-level characters are supposed to be great heroes, legends in the making, etc. and playing them should not be simple, just as their adventures should be something more than a standard dungeon crawl.
Ok, so what you're saying is, only hard core Char Op geeks and amateur dinner theater mavens need apply.
No wonder our hobby is shrinking...
Call me an "elitist," but IMO high level play should NOT be for casual gamers. There's a certain amount of commitment to being familiar with the rules, the characters, and the story arcs/threads involved. Anyone who plays sports would say similar things about playing on a team: you practice, you improve your fundamentals, and you improve as a team; those who just want to show up for the games and expect everyone else to make allowances for their lack of ability/familiarity with other team members usually don't make it far. You don't have to be an expert min-maxer or a budding thespian, but is expecting people to know what their character can and can't do (without having to constantly look things up), how to work together, effective tactics and teamwork, and keeping track of what's going on from session to session that much to ask for when your playing heroes who can save or doom the world?
Now, trying to put words in my mouth ("hard core Char Op geeks and amateur dinner theater mavens") is a typical hyperbole trying to make my statements seem more extreme than they are...
I think you are just trying to push buttons like some kind of a hard core feminist.Nah, just telling it like I see it. I liked that in the old game you could just play, without having to know how to optimize characters. Rule mastery was only something the DM needed to worry about, players could just show up and play. We were also more open to teaching new kids how to play. This elitist crap spilled over from the on-line gaming community, I think.
Hey, no one in this thread is saying "you can't play at all unless you're an uber-hardcore gamer." What we're saying is high-level play requires more than just knowing how to roll a d20...