Yeah, but I see a Fighter pulling the stunt of thinking he can take on the World solo as being one who is looking for a glorious death.
I know a lot of fighters get carried away with thinking they are untouchable, but when it goes pear shaped for them it gets pretty dramatic.
The whole game is a team game, and I think a lot of people lose sight of that.
Not what I'm suggesting at all. But they can make them lose the spell, can duck behind a tower shield, 5ft step behind a wall, or a lot of things that may negate the spell completely.
Two of those same things can be done to prevent being flanked by a Rogue. As well as a host of other things which have been numerously recited on this thread. There is no need to invent new ways of preventing flanking and circumventing Sneak Attack which will only unbalance the combat system.
So the rogue needs to be a team player but the fighter is allowed to be a one man juggernaut? I don't see any balance here.It is fairly consistent, and requires the Rogue to be more a team player rather than waiting for the team to play for them, so to speak.
Not what I'm suggesting at all. But they can make them lose the spell, can duck behind a tower shield, 5ft step behind a wall, or a lot of things that may negate the spell completely.
To be fair, fighters have very little to do out of combat. Rogues detect and disarm traps, scout ahead using stealth, haggle for better prices at Magic R Us, and ask around town about that evil necromancer.
Back to the topic at hand though, I don't think that a particularly tenacious monster that for some reason REALLY wants that rogue dead, should be unable to focus completely on him to the overall detriment of his defenses. To me, in this INCREDIBLY RARE SCENARIO, concentrating on one opponent, thus negating any flanking bonus, at the cost that all other opponents are effectively invisible to him, is a fair trade-off.
The way people are talking it is as if you feel that every monster in every combat will be doing this and rogues will be able to do nothing but cry in their beer in a corner. IF this were a rule, which I don't believe is official ANYMORE (though it was mentioned in a 3.0 FAQ way back when) I don't think it would end up happening more than once in a blue moon anyway.
Feel free to post the spot where I initiated such activity rather than respond to it.
Ok then, quotes and links, as requested:
And as to the "It denies the prime ability wah wah" stuff, well if a Rogue is coming at you and you KNOW what he is about to do, then why wouldn't you be doing all you could to avoid it.
Here we have the first example, implying that those who don’t like the idea of nerfing Rogues are cry-babies.
I could give you my credentials, but you'd just whine and get upset.
Here we are again with the implication of being a cry-baby who is easily upset. That in response to my use of the term "rant" to describe your false statements about how easy it is to fight multiple assailants in real life. I will address my use of the term "rant" further down.
Then when I said, “I was simply pointing out how meaningless your statement was to the actual debate at hand and how it sounded rather like a tough guy rant,” which it was and it did, you said this:
See that's your only line of thought. Any time anyone says things you don't agree with, you just label it a rant and then make a load of assumptions about the person.
Which was addressed in this little exchange:
All that name calling about my use of the term “rant” to describe your statement. However, by virtue of the fact that it was a false blanket statement and completely irrelevant to the debate at hand, I think rant (to speak extravagantly) was a fair term to describe it.
And all the while you have been accusing myself and others of misrepresenting, labeling, and denigrating you:
you want to go around labeling people with differing viewpoints as you have done.
I would ask that (in this case Zurai) actually took the time to read the preceding posts before getting out the label jar and misrepresenting other people and their arguments. Possibly not bad advice for you either at present.
I am happy to be civil so long as you can discuss a matter without simply denigrating differing opinions.
So again I would ask, where has anyone misrepresented you, unfairly mislabeled you, or been at all denigrating (to speak damagingly of; criticize in a derogatory manner; sully; defame) against you?
Ok then, quotes and links, as requested:
Ouch, that has to hurt.
The first part really doesn't stand up - WHO was labeled or called a name?
The second one, by YOUR OWN ADMISSION was in reply to you INITIATING.
Once that is established, the rest becomes moot.
So actually, you can't back it.
Now that the matter has been cleared up, I expect that you will REFRAIN from belittling commentary and stick to the debate at hand, rather than just attack people and denigrate differing opinions.
Anyhow, now that you have taken the time to get that together (and the record is now straight), we can move on and debate the matter at hand.
To be fair, fighters have very little to do out of combat.
I think this has a lot to do with how a player builds the Fighter. True they don't have a ton of skill points like the Rogue but if they don't make INT and/or CHA complete dump abilities, they could take advantage of more skill points and higher modifiers. They do have several class skills that are useful outside of combat and now that PF has eliminated the cross-class skill rank penalty they can much more effectively use skills that aren't on their class skill list as well. In addition they have a huge pool of feats to utilize between class granted feats and level granted feats. Not all of those level granted feats have to be combat oriented, they could make one or two feat selections that would give bonuses to their skills.
Rogues detect and disarm traps, scout ahead using stealth, haggle for better prices at Magic R Us, and ask around town about that evil necromancer.
Unless PF changed something that I have completely missed I think you are referencing a house-rule here. I don't think any skills or a high CHA bonus can influence the price you can get for selling equipment or the price at which you buy equipment.
To me, in this INCREDIBLY RARE SCENARIO, concentrating on one opponent, thus negating any flanking bonus, at the cost that all other opponents are effectively invisible to him, is a fair trade-off.
This and a few of the other suggestions made sound fairly balanced. But some seem to be suggesting that you should just be able to ignore one combatant with little or no consequence, which is unbalancing to the combat system. Personally I also think the Rogue should get a little something in return for everyone being able to ignore his ability to SA via flanking, which most likely leads into a facings combat system.
Hmmm could make a good Feat, 'Mitigate Flanker', allowing a Fighter with a shield etc to deny flanking to an attacker of their choice as a standard action.
I've seen some pretty wild feats out there, this would be rather tame.
Stuff
What skills do fighters have that are useful outside of combat? Meaning class skills. Intimidate I SUPPOSE. I will concede that, yes, if you purposely don't optimize and have say 16 str instead of 18 you could have an extra skill point or two per level to put in the same things rogues take for granted. Or bards or rangers for that matter. The wonderful thing about the PF/D20/3.x system is that the classes aren't strict job classes and you can be as creative as you like. However the fighter, as written, was clearly not meant to excel in these things the way a rogue was.
As for the haggling thing, yeah I suppose that's a houserule but it's a houserule I've encountered in every game I've ever played (or run)regardless of how disparate the DM styles otherwise. I suppose I took it for granted that everyone does that.
This is all rather off topic in the end though.
The first part really doesn't stand up - WHO was labeled or called a name?
Anyone and everyone who doesn't like the idea of ignoring a flanker to circumvent a Rogue's SA was essentially called a cry-baby in your first quote that I posted above.
The second one, by YOUR OWN ADMISSION was in reply to you INITIATING.
Once that is established, the rest becomes moot.
What I admitted was that I called your speech an erroneous rant, which it was, and then you resorted to name calling, which you did.
Now that the matter has been cleared up, I expect that you will REFRAIN from belittling commentary and stick to the debate at hand, rather than just attack people and denigrate differing opinions.
I didn't belittle you. I pointed out that you had made a false statement, which you have not refuted.
I didn’t denigrate your opinion. I pointed out that it was an erroneous rant, which (by virtue of the fact that it was meaningless to the PF rules debate and wasn't even accurate to reality) it was.
What skills do fighters have that are useful outside of combat? Meaning class skills. Intimidate I SUPPOSE. I will concede that, yes, if you purposely don't optimize and have say 16 str instead of 18 you could have an extra skill point or two per level to put in the same things rogues take for granted. Or bards or rangers for that matter. The wonderful thing about the PF/D20/3.x system is that the classes aren't strict job classes and you can be as creative as you like. However the fighter, as written, was clearly not meant to excel in these things the way a rogue was.
Craft - could be used to make money during down time. Or they could create poisons which could make them money if sold or augment their abilities in combat.
Intimidate - you already covered that. Most Rogues will go for the more subtle Diplomacy or Bluff but if your DM throws a lot of RP into the game than Intimidate can be a big advantage in those situations.
Knowledge - can be useful but that really depends on the DM.
Survival - can be extremely useful. Not only does this allow you to survive out in the wilderness with nothing but it also allows you to track. This is a skill that the party might otherwise be without depending on the classes in the party. It is extremely useful in outdoor campaigns and it is often overlooked.
What skills do fighters have that are useful outside of combat? Meaning class skills. Intimidate I SUPPOSE. I will concede that, yes, if you purposely don't optimize and have say 16 str instead of 18 you could have an extra skill point or two per level to put in the same things rogues take for granted. Or bards or rangers for that matter. The wonderful thing about the PF/D20/3.x system is that the classes aren't strict job classes and you can be as creative as you like. However the fighter, as written, was clearly not meant to excel in these things the way a rogue was.Craft - could be used to make money during down time. Or they could create poisons which could make them money if sold or augment their abilities in combat.
Intimidate - you already covered that. Most Rogues will go for the more subtle Diplomacy or Bluff but if your DM throws a lot of RP into the game than Intimidate can be a big advantage in those situations.
Knowledge - can be useful but that really depends on the DM.
Survival - can be extremely useful. Not only does this allow you to survive out in the wilderness with nothing but it also allows you to track. This is a skill that the party might otherwise be without depending on the classes in the party. It is extremely useful in outdoor campaigns and it is often overlooked.
Craft-useless. Seriously have you seen the rules? Okay if you want to max out ranks in it, take a week of downtime, and make a single non-masterwork longsword.
I hadn't actually noticed that Survival had been added to the fighter skill list. That's actually pretty awesome.
What I admitted was that I called your speech an erroneous rant, which it was, and then you resorted to name calling, which you did.
Ok so saying someone is 'ranting' is perfectly acceptable and not derogatory, but stating someone is whining is name calling and insulting them. I see your problem now.
Thanks for clarifying.
Craft-useless. Seriously have you seen the rules? Okay if you want to max out ranks in it, take a week of downtime, and make a single non-masterwork longsword.
Yeah it really depends on the pace of the campaign and the style of the DM. Craft could be nice or it could be a waste of time depending on those things.
I hadn't actually noticed that Survival had been added to the fighter skill list. That's actually pretty awesome.
I was happy to see it added as well. It provides the Fighter with a major addition to his out of combat usefulness.
Ok so saying someone is 'ranting' is perfectly acceptable and not derogatory
That was addressed in this statement:
I didn't belittle you. I pointed out that you had made a false statement, which you have not refuted.
I didn’t denigrate your opinion. I pointed out that it was an erroneous rant, which (by virtue of the fact that it was meaningless to the PF rules debate and wasn't even accurate to reality) it was.
That was addressed in this statement:
So you ARE saying that claiming someone is 'ranting' (and it's associations) is perfectly acceptable and not derogatory, but stating someone is whining is name calling and insulting them.
A short 'Yes' would have been a lot easier.
Thanks for clarifying, and on that note of clarity, yes I also refute your statement. Obviously I wasn't explicit enough in doing so.
Craft-useless. Seriously have you seen the rules? Okay if you want to max out ranks in it, take a week of downtime, and make a single non-masterwork longsword.
On that side topic, it would be great to see crafting given an overhaul, along with magic item crafting!
Interjection:
If (by virtue of the fact that it was meaningless to the PF rules debate and wasn't even accurate to reality) is true then it is a rant.
So what needs to be shown is whether or not the statement was meaningless in a rules debate and inaccurate.
Ultimately, this is a game and the rules aren't meant to reflect a perfect reality. They are meant to provide enough reality, while remaining balanced (in terms of game play), maintaining a good flow of action, and being fairly simple to learn so that the game can be enjoyed. If you want something based more on reality then you would have to completely rewrite the combat system and a true rendering of what flanking should look like would be very different, perhaps more like this:
(snip excellent description of a realistic system for both facing and multiple-opponent advantages)
Why so harsh you may ask? Because the reality of combat is that fighting multiple opponents doesn't increase by a static amount, it gets exponentially harder the more enemies there are and exponentially harder again when you can't see them all at the same time. Even if you are only fighting two guys, ideally you want them both in your immediate field of vision. If you get between them and give one of them your back, you are screwed! The cold hard truth is, if you are totally surrounded, you are screwed! In reality the bonuses would add up to a whole lot more than the current +2 (and SA if they have it) if the combatants are on opposite sides of you.
In addition to their bonuses to hit you, the more enemies you face the harder it will be for you to accurately and powerfully strike any of them. So you should also be suffering a -1/2x enemies. You would also have to incorporate fatigue rules because if you did manage to survive more than one or two rounds you would quickly run out of energy, possibly even lose the will to fight and surrender or accept death, which leads to morale bonuses and penalties.
You probably get the point though. You are trying to justify making it easier to fight multiple opponents. Sure with a system that is more closely based on reality, you probably should be able to ignore one combatant, if you feel it isn't a threat, and focus on another. In such a system you have to accept the good with the bad, and the bad can get really, really ugly. The point of the rules isn't to be totally realistic; it is to be balanced and simple, with a good flow, and enough realism to be enjoyable.
For The Win! I think that was the most useful post on this thread; the next time I DM, I may use your version of combat facing, with the additional bonuses for multiple attackers. It makes weak, numerous monsters like goblins or kobolds a hell of a lot more dangerous, even to high-level characters, if they can surround you.
The standard rules seem to me to favor a highly cinematic, low-realism style of combat. For example, under those rules The Bride's massacre of the Crazy 88 at the climax of Kill Bill Vol. 1 would actually be feasible. With the system Shadowlord describes, even if she's, say, a 20th-level Ninja and most of the 88 were 1st-level Warriors, there's simply no way she'd slaughter all fifty-odd of them before they did enough damage to take her down. I don't think even an epic character should be able to drop into the middle of an army of mooks and massacre them all without even getting seriously hurt, so this system appeals to me. I always thought combat facing was one of the few UA rules that actually made Core 3.5 a substantially better game, but adding the +1 per additional opponent threatening makes even more sense than the version that completely replaces flanking with facing.
Of course, I may be biased by the fact that I almost always play mages, and try to stay out of any opponent's threatened areas as much as humanly (or elvenly, as the case may be) possible -- generally, a wizard is pretty-well screwed if even one combat type of comparable level gets in melee reach of him, never mind what happens if he gets surrounded. Artillery is not meant to engage armor within the latter's effective range.
So what needs to be shown is whether or not the statement was meaningless in a rules debate and inaccurate.
Noted, and well made as an observation.
Though further, whether indeed it was found to be a 'rant' or not, there is the added issue at hand about whether saying someone was ranting in the manner he did could be construed as unnecessarily antagonistic and offensive any less than suggesting someone might whine.
Glass houses n stuff.
So what needs to be shown is whether or not the statement was meaningless in a rules debate and inaccurate.Noted, and well made as an observation.
Though further, whether indeed it was found to be a 'rant' or not, there is the added issue at hand about whether saying someone was ranting in the manner he did could be construed as unnecessarily antagonistic and offensive any less than suggesting someone might whine.
Glass houses n stuff.
Now you're definitely ranting. Someone please be the bigger man here and STFU it's not helping the thread.
Now you're definitely ranting. Someone please be the bigger man here and STFU it's not helping the thread.
Yeah I guess I can take on that role. I had asked for it to be knocked off, the points have been made, and we can just discuss the matter to hand :)
I think the Kill Bill episode translated to PF, they'd have been better off using Aid Another and going the grapple!
At some stage I'd like to see facing making a return for a range of reasons - I just can't get why they phased it out.
I'm in an undead heavy campaign and my halfling rogue is having a rough go contributing effectively in combat situations. The simple answer is why do you want to underpower your own party?
Aren't undead vulnerable to sneak attacks now?
I'm in an undead heavy campaign and my halfling rogue is having a rough go contributing effectively in combat situations. The simple answer is why do you want to underpower your own party?Aren't undead vulnerable to sneak attacks now?
It's still a 3.5 campaign. What I was saying is that without the Sneak Attack ability a rogue can still contribute but his/her effectiveness is reduced considerably. What a PC does needs to be considered that the NPC can do as well and handicapping your own party so that a single class can avoid a special ability that can easily be overcome by other means doesn't make much sense to me.
|
It's still a 3.5 campaign. What I was saying is that without the Sneak Attack ability a rogue can still contribute but his/her effectiveness is reduced considerably. What a PC does needs to be considered that the NPC can do as well and handicapping your own party so that a single class can avoid a special ability that can easily be overcome by other means doesn't make much sense to me.I'm in an undead heavy campaign and my halfling rogue is having a rough go contributing effectively in combat situations. The simple answer is why do you want to underpower your own party?Aren't undead vulnerable to sneak attacks now?
I can certainly see your point. I've been in more than one game that I focused in something and never even got to use it. The way I see it, casters would be in a similar, probably worse, situation in a Golem-heavy game. [golems are straight up immune to 95% of magic, with a few exceptions that affect them in minor ways].
What it does mean is that a spellcaster, except maybe the Bard, must change their typical M.O. in order to remain combat effective. Focusing on buffs, battle field control, and using spells in inorthodox ways. A Wizard that goes for fireball and cone of cold is likely to either heal/buff a golum as it is to not do a thing to to it, but probably will not be dealing damage to anyone but the party. Spells like harm, command, and hold person are useless. In such a campaign, Tanking, melee damage output beyond D.R., and the ability to stealth past possible encounters are much more important than general spellcasting. Sometimes weakening a party by weakening a few members isn't a bad thing. It forces you to think and act slightly differently, to come up with other tactics, and creative ideas.I've also been in campaigns that my undead destroyer cleric never got to so much as use a single Turn Undead. So I get how it feels. I've been in a boss fight with Golems where almost all of my prepaired spells were useless.
The big difference is, that in 3E, there is something that any character can attempt to do to avoid being hit by spells. Concentration is there so that anyone, PC or NPC, can choose to try to prevent it when they know something is comming. Why is it so wrong that someone shouldn't be able to do the same thing to a Rogue? All the arguements saying that it hurts the party by nerfing the Rogue already do apply to all casters, which makes it a weak arguement, (in my opinion). With melee characters, stepping out of their 5ft step range significantly cuts down on their combat effectiveness, (less so in PF), because they can't Full Attack/TWF. Against ranged, you can hide behind an area that makes you unhittable, making the sniper move, (again lossing Full Attack), or close with them. These are things that any character with basic intellegence can do.
So why is the Rogue suppossed to be so different? Especially in PF were there is less protection against Sneak Attack, which itself can affect nearly everything.
PS. Where did the stuff about fighter come in? Seems like someone is forcing words out of me that I didn't say or even imply.
I think the Kill Bill episode translated to PF, they'd have been better off using Aid Another and going the grapple!So would the seventeen goblins my gaming group massacred in our Rise of the Runelords game last night -- that's always a good tactic for weak creatures outnumbering strong ones, Fortunately, the goblins in question weren't that clever.
At some stage I'd like to see facing making a return for a range of reasons - I just can't get why they phased it out.
I don't think it's a matter of phasing it out, unless you mean in the transition from 2nd to 3rd Edition. It was never a core rule of 3e (although, like most of the optional rules in Unearthed Arcana, and unlike optional rules from any other source except the Expanded Psionics Handbook, it was designated Open Gaming Content and included in the SRD), so there's no particular reason it should be a core rule in Pathfinder. However, I'd like to see the UA optional rules from the SRD updated, maybe expanded, and included in a similar optional rules supplement for Pathfinder -- some of them are needlessly complicated or broken, but others, like the environmental race variants, or the totem barbarians (ideal for Shoanti characters in Varisia) are great for adding flavor to a game.
You are right, avoiding flanking can benefit all classes yet the class I see with the biggest benefit is the fighter that's why I continue to harp on that. Sure the spellcaster can get disrupted in his casting but it too takes a concentrated effort on the part of the melee combatant and a stupid spellcaster wanting to match muscles. (Yes I am over exagerating). Also it is feasible to avoid the sneak attack with a concentrated effort. I don't see how the melee combatant wants to stop the spellcaster using sensible range spells without also needing to disrupt his power routine. Or are you saying the rogue needs to also be a ranged specialist so that his sneak attack can't be foiled as easily?
For The Win! I think that was the most useful post on this thread; the next time I DM, I may use your version of combat facing, with the additional bonuses for multiple attackers. It makes weak, numerous monsters like goblins or kobolds a hell of a lot more dangerous, even to high-level characters, if they can surround you.
I am glad someone appreciated that.
The standard rules seem to me to favor a highly cinematic, low-realism style of combat. For example, under those rules The Bride's massacre of the Crazy 88 at the climax of Kill Bill Vol. 1 would actually be feasible. With the system Shadowlord describes, even if she's, say, a 20th-level Ninja and most of the 88 were 1st-level Warriors, there's simply no way she'd slaughter all fifty-odd of them before they did enough damage to take her down. I don't think even an epic character should be able to drop into the middle of an army of mooks and massacre them all without even getting seriously hurt, so this system appeals to me. I always thought combat facing was one of the few UA rules that actually made Core 3.5 a substantially better game, but adding the +1 per additional opponent threatening makes even more sense than the version that completely replaces flanking with facing.
I am going to have to read UA again and try to find this facings system everyone keeps referencing. Anyway, I am glad you liked that system I threw together. If I ever decide to change the combat system in any of my games I will probably introduce something along those lines as well as probably rewriting how the AC system works. The problem I have with changing the combat system is that it inevitably makes the system more complicated both to learn and to play. I like the system in the core rules; while not all that realistic, it flows well and is simple to learn. Those are good qualities if you are dealing with several new players.
I don't think it's a matter of phasing it out, unless you mean in the transition from 2nd to 3rd Edition.
Yeah thats the transition I refer to :)
I can sort of 'get it' when the game wasn't usually resolved on a battleboard, but the recent (3+) versions of the game are a bit more of a hybrid of Wargame and RPG. So seeing as we are going to grid, I think it reasonable we factor in facing. Been at this hobby since... well since it came in a white box, and have only started having to use mini's since picking up PF.
He he he. I remember when I asked the same exact question as the OP. Fun times. :)
I am going to have to read UA again and try to find this facings system everyone keeps referencing. Anyway, I am glad you liked that system I threw together. If I ever decide to change the combat system in any of my games I will probably introduce something along those lines as well as probably rewriting how the AC system works. The problem I have with changing the combat system is that it inevitably makes the system more complicated both to learn and to play. I like the system in the core rules; while not all that realistic, it flows well and is simple to learn. Those are good qualities if you are dealing with several new players.
That's true; I think alternate, more realistic combat systems are best used with experienced players who are accustomed not only to the game but to each other -- better to introduce them when an established group starts a new campaign, rather than spring them on a group that contains several newbies.
The UA facing rules are part of the D20 3.5 SRD. If you look over the rest of the Variant Adventuring Rules section, you'll also find a couple of variations on how armor functions -- one set of rules for converting half of the AC bonus for armor into damage reduction (i.e. full plate would provide a +4 bonus to AC and DR 4/-), and another for having armor turn up to its bonus of lethal damage into non-lethal damage -- both probably more realistic than the core AC system, but also more complicated, as is true of most UA rule variants.
Yeah thats the transition I refer to :)
I can sort of 'get it' when the game wasn't usually resolved on a battleboard, but the recent (3+) versions of the game are a bit more of a hybrid of Wargame and RPG. So seeing as we are going to grid, I think it reasonable we factor in facing. Been at this hobby since... well since it came in a white box, and have only started having to use mini's since picking up PF.
I agree -- getting rid of facing, at the same time they were transitioning to an entirely grid-and-minis based combat system (you can still play without them, but if you do you're effectively playing a home-brew game -- core 3.5 assumes that you're using minis), makes very little sense to me.
Later,Alex
I agree -- getting rid of facing, at the same time they were transitioning to an entirely grid-and-minis based combat system (you can still play without them, but if you do you're effectively playing a home-brew game -- core 3.5 assumes that you're using minis), makes very little sense to me.
I disagree. We didn't play 3.x with any miniatures or anything for probably five years. We then introduced a white board and minis and only started using a battle map of sorts a few months ago. Granted, you are estimating a lot more without a battle map but it didn't really change the game much. It was more a choice you could make one way or the other.
Now 4E seems pretty dependant on these and would be very difficult to play without. I'd say that this is where the transition you speak of happened. It was one of the things a lot of people didn't like about 4E.