|
But there's a problem Jal. The DMG also says that a PC class character's CR = their level. That means that a sole level 10 melee built fighter should provide the exact same challenge as that CR 10 fire giant, and that the Fire Giant and Melee Fighter, as both CR 10 melee combatants, should be on roughly (I say roughly, I can see it leaning a little to one side or the other and fitting the scale fair enough) on equal footing.
So the real test is to put a Level 10 fighter against a party of 6th level characters and see if he kills one or two. Now we're getting somewhere. Or have a level 10 fighter battle a level 7 wizard and see if the fighter wins more than 1/2 the time (I suspect the answer to that one is "no").
The funny thing is, we aren't disagreeing about the end result, we're disagreeing about how we got there. If you look at my original post, I agree that fighters need more interesting abilities. I don't agree that the math shows that, the math only shows averages and simple tactics. The reason I think all warriors need special abilities is because they should be able to do things that can't be done in the game at this time.
Wish, Miracle, and the like are ridiculously powerful spells that can fundamentally alter the fabric of reality.
When I played in 1E, the way my DM's would balance wish, miracle and alter reality was in the wording. If it was something relatively minor (ie duplicating a spell you do not have or a minor magic item), the DM would be lenient, but if it was something major, they would disect it word for word. If you made any mistakes in your wording, it would backfire because they would give you the literal result. They would ask you to write it down. Belive me you feared using a wish. I once had a wish on an object a whole campaign and never used it.
But there's a problem Jal. The DMG also says that a PC class character's CR = their level.
Council of Thieves seems to imply that their CR = their level -1.
You are assuming a single PC of X level can fight a monster of CR X and have a 50/50 chance of winning. That's not just an assumption, it's wrong.
I am comparing a monster of CR X to a monster of CR X. After all, a level X character is a CR X monster, as well. They are the same, and thus should be comparable.
However, if you want it in more specific terms, a lone level 10 PC is a level 6 party, and thus a fire giant is a challenge of party level plus four and ought to be beatable by consuming 100% of the party's daily resources (which translates to a 50% chance of death).
In either case, the lone character is supposed to stand a legitimate chance against an encounter of CR equal to their level. More generally, a level X character ought to stand a legitimate chance alone against a challenge at their own level that gauges their strengths.
Given the CR+4 = deadly rule, it is no surprise your fighter cannot challenge a fire giant successfully, as the averages show the giant wins most of the time, just as the DMG says it should.
"Deadly" means a 50% chance of death. The Fighter is supposed to die half the time against the fire giant, but little more. However, the Fighter can't even keep that up.
And the CR+4=deadly (as in 50% chance of death) rule is precisely what makes the Fighter's failure to keep up with the fire giant such a problem. An encounter at CR isn't a big strain. It's not a challenge in that it might beat you, but in that it might inconvenience you, slow you down, drain some resources. A CR 10 creature's no big deal to a level 10 party. If you want a legitimate threat, there will be multiple CR 10 creatures, or a CR 13 or 14 creature (which is getting into adult dragon territory). Once there's a party in the mix, the Fighter doesn't merely have to be able to beat a fire giant while having three people as backup, because that's not even a trial. The Fighter has to be relevant against a storm giant, or multiple fire giants.
So the real test is to put a Level 10 fighter against a party of 6th level characters and see if he kills one or two. Now we're getting somewhere. Or have a level 10 fighter battle a level 7 wizard and see if the fighter wins more than 1/2 the time (I suspect the answer to that one is "no").
Er... are you not seeing how silly it is to make the test for whether or not the Fighter qualifies as an equal consist of pitting her against one PC three levels lower?
I am comparing a monster of CR X to a monster of CR X. After all, a level X character is a CR X monster, as well. They are the same, and thus should be comparable.
The CR system implies that a CR X PC should have a comparable general effect on a party of 4 PCs as a CR X monster. It implies nothing about a direct comparison of the two creatures in a 1 on 1 encounter.
The CR system implies that a CR X PC should have a comparable general effect on a party of 4 PCs as a CR X monster. It implies nothing about a direct comparison of the two creatures in a 1 on 1 encounter.
It's a gauge of raw power. Two creatures of the same CR that have the same modus operandi (such as, say, melee) ought to be comparable. Using melee against the party and using it against a monster aren't worlds apart, after all. But even if you don't accept that, the Fighter is still a level 6 party who ought to be able to compete with the fire giant with about a 50% success rate.
Except if the Fighter, a class whose primary role is ostensibly melee, has to resort to ranged combat to stand a chance against a CR 10 melee creature, that means the Fighter cannot perform melee in a manner appropriate to a level 10 character. The Fighter has failed as a melee character.
Except if the Fighter, a class whose primary role is ostensibly melee, has to resort to ranged combat to stand a chance against a CR 10 melee creature, that means the Fighter cannot perform melee in a manner appropriate to a level 10 character. The Fighter has failed as a melee character.
Or the designation "melee creature/character" is too broad. I bet the fighter has a decent chance against another fighter and the giant has a decent chance against another giant.
I think the problem here is that the CR system has the look of an objective measure but is not actually a very accurate gauge of a creature's overall power. I dont think every CR10 "melee creature" is going to have a 50/50 chance against the fire giant. I dont think it's because they are unbalanced, I think it's because the CR measure is inherently flawed as a "how good is this thing" measure.
Except if the Fighter, a class whose primary role is ostensibly melee, has to resort to ranged combat to stand a chance against a CR 10 melee creature, that means the Fighter cannot perform melee in a manner appropriate to a level 10 character. The Fighter has failed as a melee character.
That's 4e-style thinking. A fighter fights but he's got leeway on how to do it. He's got the access to abilities that could make him a top notch melee character but he is not bound into being one.
I think the problem here is that the CR system has the look of an objective measure but is not actually a very accurate gauge of a creature's overall power. I dont think every CR10 "melee creature" is going to have a 50/50 chance against the fire giant. I dont think it's because they are unbalanced, I think it's because the CR measure is inherently flawed as a "how good is this thing" measure.
No, not every CR10 melee creature is going to have a 50/50 chance against the fire giant. But they'll have about a 50/50 shot. They'll be comparable, taking into account what abilities they were unable to bring to bear. But the fact remains, the melee Fighter can't stand against the kinds of enemies that can actually threaten the party. The ones that actually matter.
A fighter's primary role is fighting. Not necessarily melee or ranged; simply non-magical combat. A fighter can make a better archer than any Ranger or a better melee fighter than any barbarian if built correctly, and if forced to fight in a way that doesn't play to his strengths can still do a good job of it. Versatility is the Fighter's strength, and since armour training was introduced this is more the case than ever.
The Fighter can make a comparable archer to the Ranger, and even then, it's by sacrificing the actual class abilities Rangers get. Meanwhile, the Fighter fails as a melee combatant (unless you're going ubercharger/spiked chain tripper/counter spammer), even against a Barbarian (which has most of the same problems as Fighter out of the box).
Yes, you can make a decent archery Fighter. You're also supposed to make a legitimately good melee Fighter, yet unless you're going one of the three routes that work, Fighters inevitably fall behind and their melee capabilities fail to remain level-appropriate.
That's 4e-style thinking. A fighter fights but he's got leeway on how to do it. He's got the access to abilities that could make him a top notch melee character but he is not bound into being one.
Except the Fighter doesn't have access to the abilities that could make him a top-notch melee Fighter, as he can't melee in a manner appropriate to a level X character past level 6 or so. The Fighter's job is to fight, yes, and one of the primary modes of fighting that a Fighter is supposed to be able to focus on and excel at is melee. They can't. That's the problem.
If "classes should be good at what they're supposed to be doing" is 4e thinking, then I'm not seeing any problem with it. Flinging 4e around like it's an expletive doesn't attend to the actual issues at hand.
Well, As I just pointed out the fighter can become a better archer than a ranger in fewer levels due to the number of bonus feats he gets; especially when one considers +4 damage from weapon training, +4 from weapon specialisation and the greater version thereof, the +2 bonus from weapon focus and the greater version and the +4 to hit, not to mention that by level 15 he gets a +4 higher maximum dex mod; allowing him to take advantage of a 20 DEX for archery and AC whilst wearing full plate. By level 15 he probably has all of the archery feats, both focus and specialisation feats and by level 20 can get plenty of critical feats for his composite longbow, making him a more effective archer than anyone else short of an arcane archer could even hope to be.
The Ranger also gets bonus feats of precisely the archery kind, and by spending normal feats on archery, she gets all the feats she actually cares about while the Fighter runs out of feats that actually advance her archery, making the extra feats a non-benefit. The Ranger's got Favored Enemy and (if we're talking Pathfinder) Favored Terrain, as well as class abilities, skills, and even spells that actually support archery. And the full plate isn't even an advantage; if you're an archer, you need to be able to move.
And the Ranger is only barely a decent class with its class abilities.
Except the Fighter doesn't have access to the abilities that could make him a top-notch melee Fighter, as he can't melee in a manner appropriate to a level X character past level 6 or so.
The Fighter's job is to fight, yes, and one of the primary modes of fighting that a Fighter is supposed to be able to focus on and excel at is melee. They can't. That's the problem.
On that assessment, I think we'll have to disagree. I think they can.
If "classes should be good at what they're supposed to be doing" is 4e thinking, then I'm not seeing any problem with it. Flinging 4e around like it's an expletive doesn't attend to the actual issues at hand.
The 4e comment comes from the idea that, if you want to be anything but a melee character, you're not taking a fighter at all. Limiting the fighter to just the single role in the party is not what the 3e fighter is about. Taking his measure just upon that single metric against other CR x creatures isn't getting the whole picture of the fighter's capabilities.
On that assessment, I think we'll have to disagree. I think they can.
Then provide evidence that they can! "I disagree" is not a valid argument when it doesn't have a basis. Put next to a level 10 melee force, a level 10 melee Fighter dies. They cannot bring enough melee force of their own to match a level 10 melee force. That is the definition of not being competent at melee.
The 4e comment comes from the idea that, if you want to be anything but a melee character, you're not taking a fighter at all. Limiting the fighter to just the single role in the party is not what the 3e fighter is about. Taking his measure just upon that single metric against other CR x creatures isn't getting the whole picture of the fighter's capabilities.
I've been speaking about melee Fighters repeatedly, and the melee capacity of Fighters. For there to be such a thing as a melee Fighter, it stands to reason that there must be a non-melee Fighter option. And in gauging melee ability, you gauge melee ability.
It's supposed to be a valid option to build a Fighter for melee and create a melee character. A Fighter is supposed to be able to be competent at melee. The fact that you can make an archery Fighter who might not suck does not change the fact that Fighters are incompetent at melee.
I've been speaking about melee Fighters repeatedly, and the melee capacity of Fighters. For there to be such a thing as a melee Fighter, it stands to reason that there must be a non-melee Fighter option. And in gauging melee ability, you gauge melee ability.It's supposed to be a valid option to build a Fighter for melee and create a melee character. A Fighter is supposed to be able to be competent at melee. The fact that you can make an archery Fighter who might not suck does not change the fact that Fighters are incompetent at melee.
Now, you're moving the goalposts. Before, you were implying that the fighter in general was deficient, particularly against the melee brute fire giant, without taking into account other fighter options based on an overly-strong assumption that the CR system implies they should be an even odds match-up.
A melee-focused fighter may not be able to keep up with the fire giant in a solo fight. But the CR system doesn't imply he can either. You have no idea, based on CR, whether or not that's a match-up that should be expected to net a 50-50 win-loss ratio.
Giants are, in general, super-competent at melee. That's their job as monsters. They're vulnerable elsewhere, particularly in being kind of slow to react, kind of dumb, and not particularly resistant to mind-affecting magic. That helps determine their CR against a party of 4 PCs. Remove those vulnerabilities by cooking up a fight that can't really exploit them, and you're undermining some of the reasons the giant has the CR he has.
Now, you're moving the goalposts. Before, you were implying that the fighter in general was deficient, particularly against the melee brute fire giant, without taking into account other fighter options based on an overly-strong assumption that the CR system implies they should be an even odds match-up.
The Fighter is generally deficient. However, the testing was only on melee capacity. Testing melee ability in a test of melee ability is perfectly legitimate. If it were a test of ranged ability and the Fighter were instead an archer, then the opponent would not be a fire giant as the fire giant is not a level 10 ranged combat creature.
A melee-focused fighter may not be able to keep up with the fire giant in a solo fight. But the CR system doesn't imply he can either. You have no idea, based on CR, whether or not that's a match-up that should be expected to net a 50-50 win-loss ratio.
Er... the level 10 melee Fighter's a level 6 party, and the fire giant's a level 10 encounter that pits the Fighter's strength against the Fighter's strength (melee to melee). A level 6 party against a level 10 encounter is supposed to be winnable at the cost of 100% of daily resources, which translates to a roughly 50% chance of death in a duel. That's the CR system applied as intended. However, the fact still remains that a level 10 melee Fighter is still a CR 10 creature and should still wield the same level of raw power a a fire giant, and in this context, it means the melee Fighter should be able to at least compete with the fire giant in melee.
Giants are, in general, super-competent at melee. That's their job as monsters. They're vulnerable elsewhere, particularly in being kind of slow to react, kind of dumb, and not particularly resistant to mind-affecting magic. That helps determine their CR against a party of 4 PCs. Remove those vulnerabilities by cooking up a fight that can't really exploit them, and you're undermining some of the reasons the giant has the CR he has.
Giants, in general, are fairly standard melee creatures. Not even super-competent. Just standard. Middle of the road. An elephant, a hill giant, and a huge earth elemental are all CR 7 melee creatures. The hill giant would probably go toe-to-toe with an elephant, but it'd most likely get decked by the earth elemental nine times out of ten. For a super-competent melee creature, look to the earth elemental.
The standard melee Fighter also tends to be as slow or slower (though the Fighter almost certainly has the initiative advantage), are often dumber (and actually, other than hill giants, all core giants have at least human-level intelligence, not that intelligence has much mechanical impact), with even worse resistance against mind-affecting spells. The typical melee Fighter has all the same weaknesses as the giant, but worse. How does that not make their match-up more fair and make it an even more direct comparison of their strengths?
No, not every CR10 melee creature is going to have a 50/50 chance against the fire giant. But they'll have about a 50/50 shot. They'll be comparable, taking into account what abilities they were unable to bring to bear.
I just dont think this is true at all. Especially at high levels I dont find the CR a meaningful measure of a creature's power. It's purely a mechanical way of calculating experience points but (in my experience at least) you can build two encounters of the same CR monsters and have the resulting threat range anywhere from lethal to mildly amusing.
But the fact remains, the melee Fighter can't stand against the kinds of enemies that can actually threaten the party. The ones that actually matter.
I think there is an asymmetry between PCs and monsters. This may be counter to how 3.5 is designed (I'm not very well-read in the rules department) but the CR10 monster is designed to be fighting a party of 4 CR10 PCs. The giant is expected to be facing off against a whole party, the fighter is "supposed to be" part of a unit - he's not designed to stand up in a one-on-one fight with the giant. He's supposed to be being healed/buffed/aided by all the other party members.
I still maintain that the reason such analysis is leading to disparate views is a feature of the coarse scale of CRs. Equal CR monsters are nowhere near equal (even if they are both "melee" or both "spellcaster" types or whatever.
Having said all of that - I agree with the view that the fighter is underpowered in comparison to the other classes. I just dont agree that a one-on-one comparison between a PC and a monster in a contrived situation is a very useful way of demonstrating the fact.
|
|
I am comparing a monster of CR X to a monster of CR X. After all, a level X character is a CR X monster, as well. They are the same, and thus should be comparable.However, if you want it in more specific terms, a lone level 10 PC is a level 6 party, and thus a fire giant is a challenge of party level plus four and ought to be beatable by consuming 100% of the party's daily resources (which translates to a 50% chance of death).
No, you are fundamentally ignoring the arbitrary degrees of the CR system. They are based on the guidelines I outlined above. Changing those guidelines without changing the resultant numbers is not using the CR system as intended.
Pittin level 6 versus level 10 is a "very difficult" challenge; to quote the DMG p.49 "...even one or two levels higher than the party level might tax the PCs to their limit...Very Difficult: One PC might very well die." CR=level+4 is pushing the boudnary of level+5 which is certain death.
And this is where experiential balance comes in. In a party of four, multiple characters can do things that allow a single or smal group of PCs to overcome a challenge. Less PCs means dramatically less options, which means the odds of failure increase significantly.
100% of a fighters resources equates to "all his hit points".
In either case, the lone character is supposed to stand a legitimate chance against an encounter of CR equal to their level. More generally, a level X character ought to stand a legitimate chance alone against a challenge at their own level that gauges their strengths.
No.
"Deadly" means a 50% chance of death. The Fighter is supposed to die half the time against the fire giant, but little more. However, the Fighter can't even keep that up.
Again, the PARTY is supposed to lose 50% of their resources, which could mean everyone loses 1/2 their hp, or 1/2 their spells, or 1/2 their consumable items, or they lose 2 characters to death.
Er... are you not seeing how silly it is to make the test for whether or not the Fighter qualifies as an equal consist of pitting her against one PC three levels lower?
Nope, because we are talking about CR. The fighter has a role outside of single-combat (whether they are successful at that role is a matter for debate, I don't think many warriors are and that is the real problem).
That's not a fact, it's merely your opinion. It's only a fact if you can prove or disprove it.
The "mere opinion" fallacy. Fun.
Chief, not all opinions are created equal. There's no magical dividing line between opinions and fact. In the absolute sense, reality itself is absolutely unprovable. You cannot truly know that I exist, and I cannot truly know that you exist. What's more, gravity can't truly be proven. There's been a great deal of study and testing, and all we've seen speaks to the accuracy of the theory of gravity, but it's still unprovable. It's merely an opinion. Just an opinion with piles and piles of evidence behind it.
Facts and opinions are just one continuous scale of validity. An opinion with a lot of evidence behind it is more valid than an opinion with very little evidence behind it, or an opinion based solely on personal taste. An opinion with enough evidence behind it generally gets accepted as a "fact," when it's ultimately just a highly valid opinion. And an opinion can be wrong.
Opinions are subject to reason, just like everything else in this world, which is the purpose of logical discourse.
So, yes, everything I've ever said is an opinion. That's a given. That's a tautology. That goes without saying. It contributes nothing to state that what I'm saying is opinion. If you disagree, the only thing that matters is evidence that refutes what I've presented. Simply writing my assertions off as opinion is quite simply illogical.
You have yet to prove that a melee fighter sucks at melee, and no one here can prove that it doesn't. The fact is, there is more to being good at melee than damage per round. The environment can also play a role in the fight, which in turn makes improved and greater grappling very handy feats to have (especially near a cliff). If an enemy relies on one specific weapon for all of his damage, the ability to disarm him and leave his weapon lying useless on the ground 15' away is going to help considerably; especially if you can then prevent the owner of that weapon from retrieving it for a further two rounds (three 5' steps and a move action to pick it up). The ability to simply ignore DR regardless of its source can be rather useful as well, depending on how much DR the target has.
If you're a 1 HD Commoner, an enemy fire giant is sitting in a cathedral, and you have lots of explosives, the safest and most effective course of action is probably to blow out the supports and drop the cathedral on the giant's head. Going ahead and saying that because the Commoner was able to blow out the supports and crush the fire giant, the Commoner is as powerful as the fire giant and has the mechanical abilities an appropriate, equally contributing member of a level 10 party is absurd.
The situation will matter, sure. The Fighter could take advantage of her surroundings, drop heavy objects on the fire giant, and all that rot, but the fire giant's a sentient being of human-level intelligence, too. The fire giant could use her surroundings as well. She could grapple the Fighter and jump into a pool of lava where her fire immunity will protect her. But that's not an accurate assessment of the fire giant's or the Fighter's power.
Yes, there will be weird stuff coming up in game. However, the purpose of a lab test is to weed out extraneous factors. The test is about whether or not the level of raw power the Fighter wields is level-appropriate, without the extraneous, irrelevant factors of terrain or any of that. Because anyone, friend or foe, can take advantage of terrain. It's not a part of the creatures or the classes, and is thus irrelevant to a test of power. In fact, due to a poor skill list and a complete lack of class features, the Fighter is the absolute worst class at taking advantage of all the little perks and quirks of the surroundings.
Now, as for the Fighter's various other options? Pretty much none of the ones you've listed actually work on anything but other medium sized humanoids, which are in all likelihood as underpowered as you are. By level 10, pretty much all melee creatures are at least large, and often huge or even greater- this is the second level where you can see a colossal creature. Melee creatures whose strength isn't at least high twenties are getting rarer, though there are still some around, sure. Any melee creature at CR 10 will have more than 10 hit die and more than 10 BAB, granting the weapon-users three attacks from their BAB in addition to any natural attacks. In comparison, a Fighter who's really pushing it might have 24-26 strength at this point, and they're not going above medium without magic, possibly from an expendable item, possibly at the cost of an action in combat. They still only have 10 HD, and if they're really pushing their strength, their constitution's unlikely to top 16 or 18, when there aren't any melee monsters at that level who don't have at least 16 Con (assuming they have a Con score) in addition to more hit die. The higher BABs, innate size bonuses to damage, and prevalence of multiple natural attacks are usually close to a guarantee that the Fighter will be out-damaged, against foes that are resistant to combat maneuvers and grappling to the point where they may as well be immune.
Grappling, bull rushing, disarming? These are all things that are better weapons against the Fighter, as enemies are bigger, stronger, and have more BAB, meaning a higher CMB/CMD. Grappling is, in fact, one of the biggest "screw you" buttons against the Fighter that there are. Disarming? Even if you could, unlike you, most monsters have natural attacks to back them up if they even use a weapon in the first place. And if you fail your trip, you're either tripped yourself or you're disarmed. Not good.
The +8 damage means that a fighter with a great sword is doing damage on par with the monk (the fighter averages 15 per attack to the monk's 11 and is more likely to hit in the first place), even taking into account the monk's extra attacks, and all of his critical threats are automatically confirmed. Improved Critical and Critical Mastery are both excellent in this regard, especially when one considers the 2d6 bleed and the ability to exhaust an opponent. The ability to swap out a bonus feat every four levels is also nice: so long as he keeps the prerequisite feats for what he already has, he can have access to considerably more high level feats than would otherwise be the case. Assuming his DEX started at 15 or above, he can get his DEX to 20 and still take advantage of it while wearing full plate. This in turn allows him an AC on a par with a monk with 20 DEX and 18 WIS; higher if he adds a shield and if given magical equipment. He also gets damage resistance equal to that of the monk but only feats and abilities that state they ignore DR can get through it (though only if wearing armour of using a shield). The other nice thing about having access to lots of feats is that when more melee-based feats are published, the fighter has even more potential options.
The Monk is even worse than the Fighter. If the Fighter is on par with the Monk, that doesn't mean anything. The Monk is a complete mess with no coherent goal and without the ability to really accomplish much of anything due to extreme lack of focus.
High AC is not an advantage at higher levels, as attack bonuses, especially from monsters powerful enough to pose a threat to the party, can oftentimes get so high that enemies will hit on a two or better unless you pour so much effort into your armor class that you're crippled in other fronts. And the Monk generally has mediocre to bad AC anyways. Note that a Monk with 18 WIS is probably going to suck, as she sunk most of her points into Wisdom and now doesn't have the other abilities to contribute. At the very least, DEX has to be great and CON has to be very good, and even then, your damage is going to suck (meaning you need STR) and you need all the skill points you can get because the only thing a Monk is actually pretty good at is skill monkey (which means they need INT). With a pressing need for five stats, 18 WIS is a Bad Idea, and an 18 WIS Monk is not a good standard.
As for pretty much every ability you've listed? The critical feats don't even start until level 11, where more and more enemies have longer and longer lists of immunities (including critical immunity), and by the time you can actually get them, the effects often replicate second and third level spells, maybe, with the caveat that they're completely unreliable; at best, a 30% chance if you hit, and if the enemy isn't immune.
I think there is an asymmetry between PCs and monsters. This may be counter to how 3.5 is designed (I'm not very well-read in the rules department) but the CR10 monster is designed to be fighting a party of 4 CR10 PCs. The giant is expected to be facing off against a whole party, the fighter is "supposed to be" part of a unit - he's not designed to stand up in a one-on-one fight with the giant. He's supposed to be being healed/buffed/aided by all the other party members.
A CR 10 monster is supposed to fight a level 10 party, yes, and it's also supposed to die horribly at the hands of said level 10 PCs while mildly inconveniencing them. It's supposed to be a fairly easy fight, and the assumption going in is generally "the players win." It takes an encounter at level+2 or level+3 before it becomes something that's actually a threat. Level+3 or level+4 before you get to something truly dangerous.
Also, "be supported" is still not a party role. "Kick butt" is. If the Fighter cannot kick butt on her own, and can only kick butt if there are two people behind her piling on buffing and healing spells, then the Fighter is incapable of doing her own job and it's the buffing and healing spells that are doing the heavy lifting, while pulling the two casters from the more important task of actually winning the fight. The party would be better off with a Favored Soul who can do her own buffing and healing without wasting the rest of the party's resources. Or a Druid, who comes with a complimentary Fighter in the form of her animal companion, and has the ability to heal and buff her animal companion. Or a Warblade, who actually comes with inherent buff-equivalents in the form of her maneuvers and stances that result in her actually bringing butt-kicking ability to the table. If you've got a job to do, you ought to have the tools to do it.
No, you are fundamentally ignoring the arbitrary degrees of the CR system. They are based on the guidelines I outlined above. Changing those guidelines without changing the resultant numbers is not using the CR system as intended.
I'm not ignoring the arbitrary whims of the CR system. The fire giant was selected specifically for fairness. Numerous CR 9-11 creatures were examined, and the fire giant was found to be a fairly average melee creature for the level which is uniquely comparable to the Fighter in many respects. It's the most Fighter-like monster of the level, and not exceptionally powerful among melee creatures of the level range. It was selected as a fair assessment of what level 10 melee means.
Pittin level 6 versus level 10 is a "very difficult" challenge; to quote the DMG p.49 "...even one or two levels higher than the party level might tax the PCs to their limit...Very Difficult: One PC might very well die." CR=level+4 is pushing the boudnary of level+5 which is certain death.
The CR guidelines are written under the assumption that one PC dying over the course of fifty encounters is a Big Deal. "Taxing the PCs to their limit" means that you're getting to the point where the encounter is beyond mere inconvenience to the point where it might actually do long-term harm. "One PC might very well die" is where you are actually pushing the PCs to their limits, and sending a creature that is actually a legitimate threat, with a significant chance of actually defeating the party. A monster that doesn't stand a chance of defeating the party is not a threat and does not truly test the limits of the party.
And this is where experiential balance comes in. In a party of four, multiple characters can do things that allow a single or smal group of PCs to overcome a challenge. Less PCs means dramatically less options, which means the odds of failure increase significantly.
Hence, a fire giant, as it is so very similar to a melee Fighter in default manner of operation, selected because it can meet the melee Fighter on her own terms using her own strengths in a level-appropriate manner. Sending, say, a Rakshasa or a Guardian Naga, who can screw with the Fighter via brainomancy would be failing to compensate for the lack of versatility within the group, as that's a monster that can specifically target the Fighter's weaknesses. The fire giant targets the Fighter's strengths, using the Fighter's strengths.
100% of a fighters resources equates to "all his hit points".
On average. Meaning about 50% of the time, it should take a little less than all the Fighter's hit points, and the Fighter will win, and about 50% of the time, it should require a little more than all of the Fighter's hit points, and the Fighter will die.
Again, the PARTY is supposed to lose 50% of their resources, which could mean everyone loses 1/2 their hp, or 1/2 their spells, or 1/2 their consumable items, or they lose 2 characters to death.
No, the party is supposed to lose one hundred percent of their daily resources on average in a deadly (CR of level+4) encounter. Everyone, whether it's one member or eight. Some are expected to die if there are multiple party members, and there is a chance that everyone will die. A 100% average resource cost on average means a 50% chance of running out of resources and everyone dies, and a 50% chance of having enough resources and winning (at varying survival rates).
Nope, because we are talking about CR. The fighter has a role outside of single-combat (whether they are successful at that role is a matter for debate, I don't think many warriors are and that is the real problem).
The Fighter versus fire giant test was a test. One. There are other tests that can be run. Like level 10 Fighter versus three hill giants. Or four level 10 Fighters versus four fire giants. Or a level 13 Fighter versus a pair of elder elementals. Or any of many other permutations. There are many other ways to test the Fighter. This is one test, and it is a valid test. Legitimate evidence within the confines of being a test.
Also, "be supported" is still not a party role. "Kick butt" is. If the Fighter cannot kick butt on her own, and can only kick butt if there are two people behind her piling on buffing and healing spells, then the Fighter is incapable of doing her own job and it's the buffing and healing spells that are doing the heavy lifting, while pulling the two casters from the more important task of actually winning the fight. The party would be better off with a Favored Soul who can do her own buffing and healing without wasting the rest of the party's resources. Or a Druid, who comes with a complimentary Fighter in the form of her animal companion, and has the ability to heal and buff her animal companion. Or a Warblade, who actually comes with inherent buff-equivalents in the form of her maneuvers and stances that result in her actually bringing b@%@-kicking ability to the table. If you've got a job to do, you ought to have the tools to do it.
I think we are talking past one another now - I agree with you that the fighter is underpowered, so the alternatives you cite dont really apply to what I'm saying. Yes there are other choices of class which will make a party more effective in a general sense than if they utilise a fighter - I'm not arguing that the fighter is as powerful as the other classes.
I'm suggesting that your methodology of taking one member, designed to be one constituent unit of a larger, cohesive group and claiming it should be able to stand against what you deem to be an equivalent individual (based on CR) is unlikely to demonstrate the fact that we actually agree on. I think this is partly because monsters and PCs are not the same thing, despite 3.5's attempt to treat them as such. I also think it's because the discrete and subjective/situation-dependant nature (especially at the higher end) of CRs make it a poor tool for measuring "equivalent combatants".
It's probably a side issue and not worth going further with - some people think CRs are a silly and almost meaningless measure, others that they're accurate to extraordinary precision. No doubt you and I fit somewhere on that scale the closer you are to the latter group, the more power your argument will have.
EDIT (In order to be more constructive): I think your above post suggests a superior methodology. Set a 10th level mage, 10th level cleric, 10th level rogue and 10th level fighter a task at which the fighter would be expected to play a key role. Then see if the party would be better able to complete the task with a...warblade, paladin, barbarian, another cleric or whatever you think would be a superior choice. Obviously it's more work - but a simpler version might be doable and (imo) much more persuasive.
If they've made the CR of a PC equal to level-1, then they've introduced yet another internal inconsistency into the system unless they overhualed the CRs themselves, as the Fighter is still a level 6 party and the fire giant is still an encounter at level+4, meaning applying the CR system as designed, the Fighter's supposed to have about a 50% chance of death against the fire giant, yet a considerably larger chance of success fighting against her identical clone. Which, as they say, makes no bloody sense.
If you're talking combat maneuvers, though, things become even worse for the Fighter, as the giant is good at sundering; Greater Sunder is most certainly one of the feats the fire giant'd pick up in the transition. With its bare hands, if necessary. A Fighter with no sword is worse off than a giant on its knees. Particularly being prone is only a penalty to attack and armor class. So, the giant on his knees still has ten feet of reach and the ability to make full attacks, and every attack in that full attack can be a sunder attempt until the Fighter's weapon breaks.
And as for disarm? The fire giant has a CMD of 41 against that, since it can afford locked gauntlets easily. The other reason disarm is useless, aside from the fact that of the melee enemies at this level, only a handful even bother using weapons in the first place.
I was re-readind the novel "Spellfire" by Ed Greenwood. Terrible book really but I was travelling and bored. It struck me that Wizards/Magic-users were seen as the most powerful things on the planet (bar a few critters). This under 1e was very true at high levels (and some would say 3e also). Anyway has making say a fighter of high level equal to a Mage at high level a good thing? The novel Spellfire really falls apart if we take the balancing of classes view. I will make a statement I may get flak for but... In a roleplaying game is it required that all PC's are "equal"? Perhaps when I was younger I adhered to "the world must be fair" view, but back then I was stuck with 1e so even in my gaming world it wasn't. Just wondering if we have lost something, fear of evil wizards?
Thoughts?
S.
I dislike the idea that balance must mean sameness.
I like the idea of balancing swords and sorcery by making magic dangerous. It makes game world sense and doesn't subtract from the wizard's power.In a sense 2E wild magic, which I really liked, was a step in that direction. You want to play with magical power, be prepared for an anvil to materialize and fall on your head once in a while.
And what about the idea that magic takes a physical toll on its user, like breaking his body down and/or aging him prematurely? I seem to recall reading variations on this theme in a bunch of fantasy novels.
If they've made the CR of a PC equal to level-1, then they've introduced yet another internal inconsistency into the system unless they overhualed the CRs themselves, as the Fighter is still a level 6 party and the fire giant is still an encounter at level+4, meaning applying the CR system as designed, the Fighter's supposed to have about a 50% chance of death against the fire giant, yet a considerably larger chance of success fighting against her identical clone. Which, as they say, makes no bloody sense.
Check out the bestiary previews. Most of the CRs are similar (with some major exceptions -- check out the shadow mastiff), but the abilities may vary. Don't know yet whether "CR = party level + 4" is still considered the "100% resource depletion" break point. In fact, don't know much yet about WHAT exactly they've done with CR... other than it was going to be reworked so that a mountain giant (to pick a non-OGL example that won't actually come up) should end up with the same CR as a hill giant of the same size, HD, and abilities -- rather than, say, a CR that's listed as 6-7 higher.
Equipment is a good point. Hadn't thought of that... and the difference between PC wealth and NPC wealth does generally justify that CR difference, though it does get into the issue that classes are affected by lower wealth differently. A Druid or a Sorcerer, who don't particularly care about equipment, will lose less than a Barbarian or a Rogue, after all. But, 'tis a trifle... though considering Pathfinder CR rules and monsters aren't out yet, discussing PF CR seems kinda pointless.
Going back to tripping the giant, tripping is generally a legitimately useful option, yes, and has a decent chance of working against the fire giant. Which is why it's one of the three paths for Fighters that actually work, along with chargers and counter builds, which can't really be done well in core. Meaning that for a Fighter who wants to be effective in core, the only real option is to ramp up tripping. But the thing is, it's the only combat maneuver that's worthwhile. And there are many, many foes who are highly resistant to tripping to the point of immunity. The gargantuan scorpion gets +12 CMD against tripping after its size bonus, very high strength, and 15 BAB. Quadrupeds in general are probably the norm, and get a +4. When reaching 55% success against a biped is a stretch, the drop to 35% against the standard quadruped is a major loss. And mind, that's only 35% for the -4 to AC and AB, which some monsters can just eat and move on with anyways. That's for the Fighter's good option.
|
|
Since we're looking at options now, in Pathfinder the fighters best bet is a Sunder build, especially if they can get shatterspike or an adamantine greatsword (even better all three).
Fire Giant (core) CMD = 29
Level 10 Fighter (let's just go with it for now) CMB Sunder = +23 (or higher)
Plus, the with an adamantine weapon the fighter does all his extra damage (no hardness) to the fire giant. (20 hp, so some gets through plus no more weapon).
Except sunder 1) doesn't work against enemies who don't use weapons (and most who do have backup natural attacks anyways) and 2) destroy loot. Which can be a big deal considering the fire giant doles out almost 6k in loot, and is an intelligent creature, so that sword of the fire giant's could well be a +1 adamantine greatsword and very nearly the entirety of the encounter's swag, gone.
Sundering is generally a bad idea, both for the high likelihood of it being useless/impossible and for the fact that it destroys loot.
Whenever you are debating on a board the common rationale is to use 10 on the dice for everything. We know upsets happen, but on average can the fighter win?A level 10 Pathfinder fighter (arguably worse than the 3.5 fighter, I believe you said) can't kill a 3.5 fire giant, can he? I beg to differ. I didn't bother working out skill totals; I only listed the taken skills for completeness.
Edit: Forgot to mention; the giant requires a 13+ to hit when the fighter uses combat expertise. The fighter only requires 8 to hit. Imagine what the difference would have been if I'd given the fighter magic equipment...
** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **...
would it not make more sense to alternate between 5 and 15 - 10 might be just enough to hit every time which could easily prove something that in reality is not true, statistically speaking. Even 5 & 15 could do that but its less likely.
would it not make more sense to alternate between 5 and 15 - 10 might be just enough to hit every time which could easily prove something that in reality is not true, statistically speaking. Even 5 & 15 could do that but its less likely.
Again, average effect is generally better. If you have a 15% chance to hit, and your average hit deals 20 damage, then just say the attack deals 3 damage (because on average, it does), and use that as the standard.
Which is pretty much my point. The fighter is now a "Defender". He has a strictly defined party role; not that of a tactician (that's the warlord) or of someone to beat the tar out their enemies (that's the dual wielding ranger) but of someone to stand there and be beaten up so the wizards can cast their spells and the archers can fire their arrows unmolested. How is that a "chance to shine"?
How is it not a chance to shine? They're in the thick of it every combat and are a critical contributing member by keeping the monsters off the more vulnerable classes. In fact I'd say the argument actually goes the other way if anything. in 4E comparatively few parties will venture forth without a defender of some kind as its ability to be 'sticky' is extremely useful and really quite powerful. If your going o go without a role then the wizards role, Controller, is probably the easiest to cut. You need a defender or the party's most vulnerable members tend to be cut to ribbons and the mission might well fail. You need a striker because someone has to deal out some major hurt, you need a leader because your likely to be in real trouble without some way of accessing critical extra healing during a combat to keep important members from being removed from a fight but controllers are generally not critically needed. Mainly because the Controllers role is the least defined. It can be a class that excels at taking on many enemies at once or it can be a class that morphs the battlefield to suit the parties need but its slot is not as core as the other slots.
At least in Pathfinder I can go ahead and create a fighter who also happens to be a fairly decent diplomat, is capable of defending himself while unarmed (as may well happen in a game that focuses more on social role play than dungeon crawling) and given a wizard to protect, stands close enough to said wizard with a reach weapon that going anywhere near said wizard will provoke three or four attacks of opportunity.
Actually Paladins are often pretty good diplomats in 4E. Every class is going to be good at some things outside of combat and the game design insures that they are all roughly comparable outside of combat though the specific skills they are going to be good at will vary.
The philosophical underpinnings of 4E emphasize this - every class is designed to be roughly comparable in combat and roughly comparable outside of combat. In effect there was an explicit rejection of the idea that the Bard is balanced with the fighter because the fighter is good in combat and the bard is good at social situations. In 4E the bard is comparable to the fighter in combat and comparable to the fighter out of combat. In other words if your next three sessions won't feature a single fight that should not be a problem for any of the classes since they all have strengths outside of combat as well as in it and those strengths are, by design, comparable.
Sundering is generally a bad idea, both for the high likelihood of it being useless/impossible and for the fact that it destroys loot.
The latter is no longer much of a worry, with the new "broken" condition in Pathfinder that makes the said item temporarily useless, but easy to repair to full functionality.
The broken condition doesn't help, either. It only imposes a -2 penalty to attack and damage, which can be kinda useful, but not nearly as big a deal. If you want to use it to really hinder someone, you have to outright destroy their weapon. In which case, it's no longer part of the swag.
Agree
Back in 1e and 2e, one of the scariest things you could meet was a Lich. Worse than a dragon. Able to produce multitudes of magic missiles as a last ditch effort and fireballs that were visable for miles away.
Now, they do not deserve their CR's. Unless they can get a meat sheild up to stop the fighter, he'll have a lich chopped up into zombie bits before he can get any but his quickened spells off.
Back in 1e and 2e, the lich and the fighter played Rocket Launcher Tag. If the lich got a spell off, the fighter died. But if the fighter won initiative, he ran in, full attacked the lich (who was standing still for it, and automatically lost his one spell that round, because there was no casting and moving, and there were no quickened spells)... and killed it in 1 round. Which was why the lich had blockers, and the fighter was forced to cut his way through them first.
Now the lich's blockers are useless, because the fighter can move diagonally across the battlemat grid to avoid them. But the fighter gets only one attack, and the lich easily casts defensively while moving -- and the fighter, instead of saving on a "2" or better, now saves on a "19" or better. The fighter dies automatically now, instead of winning 50/50.
Individual spell effects were a lot more impressive in 1e -- love those 20-dice fireballs! But in exchange, the combat, initiative, saving throw, and level progression systems in 3e were skewed so far in the casters' favor -- particularly at high levels -- that the fighter is now a sad mockery of his former self.
At extreme levels it has to become rocket tag. A level 20 fighter vs a level 20 wizard, they are both so deadly no defenses are up to the challenge so it becomes rocket tag. I don't know but it makes sense to me. The vast number of hit points of 3.X just don't make much sense, as skilled as the mage is in melee at level 20, a level 20 fighter is pure death for him once he closes. Same as the fighter, as much experince and skill as he might have against magic, we're talking the best of the best at magic, that fighter's defenses shouldn't be up to the challenge of holding off the magical death wielding by a level 20 mage.
At extreme levels it has to become rocket tag. A level 20 fighter vs a level 20 wizard, they are both so deadly no defenses are up to the challenge so it becomes rocket tag. I don't know but it makes sense to me. The vast number of hit points of 3.X just don't make much sense, as skilled as the mage is in melee at level 20, a level 20 fighter is pure death for him once he closes. Same as the fighter, as much experince and skill as he might have against magic, we're talking the best of the best at magic, that fighter's defenses shouldn't be up to the challenge of holding off the magical death wielding by a level 20 mage.
Actually, a large part of the problem is that the Fighter isn't deadly enough to keep the pace in rocket tag, and the Wizard's spells become phenomenally powerful defenses. If a level 20 Fighter goes against a level 20 Wizard feeling merciful, even if the Fighter wins initiative, it could well start with Celerity>Time Stop>Prismatic Sphere>Wall of Stone to put up a stone sphere just inside your Prismatic Sphere, for a mighty defense. Or just Celerity>Extended Irresistible Dance, leaving the Fighter useless for 2d4+2 rounds.
The Wizard has dozens of ways to screw the Fighter in one round, but the Fighter's full attack isn't going to kill the Wizard in one round, unless he's an ubercharger, and even then, the mage could well have a brace of instantaneous spells that let her avoid even that.
The Wizard is the god of rocket tag, with a huge array of rockets and counters, while the Fighter hardly has any way to play at all, with one rocket, at best, if they really build for it, and no real defenses against rockets that weren't bought at great cost on a magic item for a class that already needs a ton of gear and is cash-strapped as they come.
But then, that's not balance, either. Particularly considering that's assuming a combination of cross-class skills and miracles to win. The scroll of AMF in particular has the glaring problem in that the Wizard has a working pair of legs. Walk out, teleport, the Fighter is now out an expensive scrap of paper. Considering AMF is generally the only effect that can truly counter mages (and even then, not necessarily), and it always gets brought up alongside the golems (who don't counter mages at all), it's pretty glaring that it takes one very specific spell to counter spellcasters.
"You can only win if you slit your opponent's throat in their sleep" doesn't mean much, particularly if the class doing the throat-slitting doesn't have any abilities that favor sneaky throat-slitting. The longbow scenario relies on sniping, which is a very difficult act of stealth, and it's hugely unlikely that the mage will remain unaware long enough to go down; even if the mage doesn't locate the Fighter, the mage still has a full salvo of spells to protect herself. It's to the point where the only paths for a Fighter to even stand a chance are purely theoretical and require the Wizard to be blindfolded and on the john.
In the earlier post I saw the 1d2 and 1000 hp, and I pretty much stopped reading. I was not willing to do the math. Now I have to go and read one of your other post. I will be back tomorrow.The arbitrarily lopsided numbers were the entire point. That you refused to even read it and then claim that I'm a troll over the matter is getting rather absurd.
I am not going to do math, just to check your math. You could have just as easily made it simple to understand, like you did with your 2nd example. You also misconstrued an earlier post when you thought I said use 10's for everything. I think it was a misunderstanding now, but what's done is done.
|
|
Except sunder 1) doesn't work against enemies who don't use weapons (and most who do have backup natural attacks anyways)
Fire giant natural attack deals 1d4+10 damage, which lowers the average attack damage by 13 plus no more iterative attacks, which lowers it even more in total.
and 2) destroy loot. Which can be a big deal considering the fire giant doles out almost 6k in loot, and is an intelligent creature, so that sword of the fire giant's could well be a +1 adamantine greatsword and very nearly the entirety of the encounter's swag, gone.
Sundering is generally a bad idea, both for the high likelihood of it being useless/impossible and for the fact that it destroys loot.
No loot > dead and no loot.
Now your imposing an arbitrary condition on the fire giant to counter a generic fighter build. Not every fire giant will have such a weapon. The point was you were positing a basic test, and the basic fire giant has no magic weapon.
Finally, other than sell, who is going to use a large greatsword?
Likelihood of impossible? No, not in Pathfinder or Core 3.5.
Useless? No, definitely has an intended effect. Victory. Just because you don't like the conditions doesn't mean it is not a valid test. In this case the "expended resource" is the future treasure.
A 10th level NPC fighter is supposed to be a CR 10 so how is the PC supposed to be a CR 10 when the PC has more wealth?
Well, if you're treating the 5000gp sword as an expendable, you've gone way beyond your expendable allowance for the level and you're starting to fall behind on a class that is already strapped for class, and the only reason any of it might work is completely ineffective against most enemies, who don't rely on weapons to begin with.
And those natural attacks? Usable in grapple. Where the fire giant quite likely still holds the advantage.
Edit:
A 10th level NPC fighter is supposed to be a CR 10 so how is the PC supposed to be a CR 10 when the PC has more wealth?
Been addressed.
|
In my own opinion, Balance has Always been a Issue with D&D and Role playing games in General but i tend to over look it as each and every edition of D&D has its High Points and Its Low Points I grew up on the Old 5 box sets of rules for Basic then made the venture to 1st then second so on and so forth, I hate to say this but i still see Glaring errors done in the Name of "the all holy balance" in 1st Edition and Second. and i have a feeling since Wizards did not want to invest time to rectify those errors they instead created a entirely different concept for the game. The 8 years down the line it seemed wizards did it again. but guess what the System didn't just roll over and die, The folks here who play tested the Pathfinder rules ( i did so but never submitted feedback) created a work that has fixed a lot of errors in 3.5 now what should be done in my view is to try and do the same with the 1st ed rules the 2nd ed rules and yes the 4th ed rules. Or here is a challenge..Merge ALL of the systems in to one but keep the best parts and work out the kinks and snags of the worse parts Pathfinder proved it could be done so why no continue that endeavor and do it again for the other editions?
|
|
Well, if you're treating the 5000gp sword as an expendable, you've gone way beyond your expendable allowance for the level and you're starting to fall behind on a class that is already strapped for class, and the only reason any of it might work is completely ineffective against most enemies, who don't rely on weapons to begin with.
And those natural attacks? Usable in grapple. Where the fire giant quite likely still holds the advantage.
Edit:
A 10th level NPC fighter is supposed to be a CR 10 so how is the PC supposed to be a CR 10 when the PC has more wealth?Been addressed.
In practice, humanoids make up the majority of opponents in published adventures, and thus rely on objects to use their class abilities. Sunder can be used for other things other than weapons - spell components, holy symbols, wands, etc.