|
There is a difference. they get their huge number of attacks by being restricted to flurries, they get a lower CMB/CMD as opposed to Fighters which is as it should be.
The other important thing is that unlike the Fighter, they're not a "pure melee" class. They're a combination of martial and mystic and that puts them into a different ball park.
If you say so.
There is a difference. they get their huge number of attacks by being restricted to flurries, they get a lower CMB/CMD as opposed to Fighters which is as it should be.Not huge. Basic TWF chain.
Plus Ki Point strikes, stackable with Haste...
also, CMB:
At 3rd level, a monk uses his monk level in place of his base attack bonus when calculating his Combat Maneuver Bonus.
So, no.
Right, but Fighters and Barbs and even Paladins and Rangers (more restricted) will OFTEN have other to-hit bonuses on top which apply to many maneuvers (weapon training, greater weapon focus, rage bonus/powers, smite, favored enemies), so Monks can only match the base minimum CMB of the true martial classes. There are also bonuses to CMD.
The other important thing is that unlike the Fighter, they're not a "pure melee" class. They're a combination of martial and mystic and that puts them into a different ball park.+1. Trick is in giving them enough _other_ stuff that's worth what they lose in combat department.
Having Stun off the bat at level 1, with a DC that scales well with level, and usable on top of any Unarmed Strike attacks (incl. AoO´s) is pretty damn nice. Fighters start get status effects via Crit Feats around 12th level, and eventually can get Stun on Crit around 16th or 17th (I forget), but the Monk ability is VERY nice. And there´s plenty of variants on it now with APG.
|
|
Fighters- Precise strike teamwork feat + Outflank (extra damage + a +4 bonus when flanking)
Rogues with poison and feinting, bring down those saves. Monks don't have uncanny dodge.
Wizard- Power word Stun/Blind (either one causes them to lose their dex & dodge bonuses to AC), Detect Magic, Disjunction specific items (-5 on the item's will save to resist being disjoined) "Oh, those bracers are glowing... This guy's really hard to hit, so I'm betting they're bracers of armor!" Sure, the monster/npc could be wrong and disjoining Bracers of Archery, but it's worth a shot.
Devil rogues + Deeper Darkness = blind monk, no save
Melee + Anti-magic field
And if there's a BBEG, you can bet that he'll start scrying on the party after they foil a plot or two, find out their weaknesses and work to exploit those. If he can't scry, I'm sure he has an underling that can. Or send someone to join the party as a spy, preferably a female bard that can seduce the secrets out of the men in the party. The healing abilities will help her appear to be good natured. (Glibness' +20 to bluff. If the skill is high enough that people can't beat it, don't even let them roll. You don't auto-succeed on a 20 with a skill, nor do you auto-fail with a 1.)
And there are similar counters to most other situations. Sure, it gets cheesy, if every encounter is like this, but at this level of the game, your enemies are going to be cunningly elite survivalists... People aspiring to Godhood, not a pack of kobold mooks.
Basically, think outside the box.
Nope all treasure was split evenly. Most of it came right at the end.
This is very likely the problem. Several of the adventure paths give out a LOT of treasure in the last part of the series, simply because it is assumed to be the end of the campaign and the players should feel like if they're getting a proper reward.
In the Age of Worms AP (from Dungeon Magazine) this was specifically pointed out, with the caveat that if the DM was going to continue the campaign, he should cut down the treasure from that adventure to a more proper amount. I can't right now remember if this has been pointed out in any of the Pathfinder APs, but it could still be the same way.
Nope all treasure was split evenly. Most of it came right at the end.This is very likely the problem. Several of the adventure paths give out a LOT of treasure in the last part of the series, simply because it is assumed to be the end of the campaign and the players should feel like if they're getting a proper reward.
In the Age of Worms AP (from Dungeon Magazine) this was specifically pointed out, with the caveat that if the DM was going to continue the campaign, he should cut down the treasure from that adventure to a more proper amount. I can't right now remember if this has been pointed out in any of the Pathfinder APs, but it could still be the same way.
Heh.
The only concession made by the AP to cutting down the treasure is to point out that if the PCs let the word get out about Xin-Shalast's location and riches, they'll have a lot of competition for it.
|
Nope all treasure was split evenly. Most of it came right at the end.This is very likely the problem. Several of the adventure paths give out a LOT of treasure in the last part of the series, simply because it is assumed to be the end of the campaign and the players should feel like if they're getting a proper reward.
In the Age of Worms AP (from Dungeon Magazine) this was specifically pointed out, with the caveat that if the DM was going to continue the campaign, he should cut down the treasure from that adventure to a more proper amount. I can't right now remember if this has been pointed out in any of the Pathfinder APs, but it could still be the same way.
Heh.
** spoiler omitted **
I don't see the problem with that. How many explorers are high enough level to a)get through the barrier and b)survive the monsters?
*peers at the maze counter for the monk* GO GO MONK OF THE SACRED MOUNTAIN!
Also. Lets add some glamored clothes that look like some hilarious armor, and a black tabard.
I shall challenge the wizard to combat at a small creek.
When he casts maze, I shall chuckle and point at him.
"I move, for no man!"
Obviously quite a bit of set up.. But hey. Its funny.
*peers at the maze counter for the monk* GO GO MONK OF THE SACRED MOUNTAIN!
Also. Lets add some glamored clothes that look like some hilarious armor, and a black tabard.
I shall challenge the wizard to combat at a small creek.
When he casts maze, I shall chuckle and point at him.
"I move, for no man!"
Obviously quite a bit of set up.. But hey. Its funny.
:) Only if you're 16th level - and only if you have not moved at all. Makes said monk rather easy to get around doesn't it?
@malacalypse:
Whuh? They have full BAB where it counts - their attacks (although they're forced to TWF full attack, sorta) and combat maneuvers.
No, they don't. 'Where it counts' would be a full BAB in the Pathfinder Core Rulebook, Table 3-10, right next to the monk class description.
Asking for a monk with full BAB is asking for an unarmed fighter. The monk would need to loose some saves, skills, ki powers, maybe stunning fist, immunities, etc., etc.
I think someone needs to make a separate class so people can let the monk be a monk, and create a viable unarmed fighter class.
Asking for a monk with full BAB is asking for an unarmed fighter. The monk would need to loose some saves, skills, ki powers, maybe stunning fist, immunities, etc., etc.
I think someone needs to make a separate class so people can let the monk be a monk, and create a viable unarmed fighter class.
Actually, full bab wouldn't be that big of a deal if the hit dice was kept at d8. He'd gain a +1 per four levels bonus to non-full attacks, which he's pretty bad at anyway since his schtick is two-weapon fighting (more or less). Vital Strike would be possible, maby even useful, but on the other hand it's not very useful now and the monk doesn't have THAT many free feats to spare.
EDIT: He'd also save a feat from defensive combat training or w/e it's called, and he'd gain a +1 bonus to CMB at 1st and 2nd level (that would go away at 3rd level)
IMO, people should just stop to think the monk as an unarmed fighter or barbarian.
When they flurry they have full BAB. If they move, they perform a medium BAB vital strike (likely to land), maybe paired with a stun.
Or, they move and use full BAB for a maneuver, very likely because they are supposed to control the enemy, be high mobile to hinder enemy mobility.
They have high saves, touch AC, and the ability to heal themselves to manage to be isolated from the party from a short time.
High jumps, abundant steps.. everything is supposed to do it.
If you want to do RAW damage, monk is not for you. Other classes do it better (even if you can be decent if you pay attention). Why every class should be compared basing on damage, when other things come in play?
It's like whan people compare Barbarian and Fighter, forgetting that a barbarian can perform a maneuver, time to time, that is liely to land against an enem that could even laugh at the fighter. Or compare their defenses ignoring uncanny dodge.
People keep comparing apples to oranges.
Monks are not big damage dealers for sure, but they are far from useless and can't be just ignored, which I have seen mentioned in this thread. Using the stats posted by Overdark, which are not optimal by any means, I come up with the following.
15 BAB +5 Dex +4 Enhancement -2 Flurry = +22 to hit.
So that is:
+22/+22/+22/+17/+17/+12/+12 2D10+8 Unarmed Strike 19-20x2 (w. Ki Strike)
Vs. AC 30 (without crits)
19x.65=12.35 + 19x.65=12.35 + 19x.65=12.35 + 19x.40=7.6 + 19x.40=7.6 + 19x.15=2.85 + 19x.15=2.85 = 57.95 damage
So if the average CR 15 creature has 225 HP Overdark's Monk will do damage equal to one quarter of the creatures hit points in one round. He can kill it by himself in 4 rounds even if nobody else in the party did a single point of damage.
In an average 4 character party it seems like he is easily pulling his own weight.
The monk would need to loose some saves, skills, ki powers, maybe stunning fist, immunities, etc., etc.
Yeah, all those things are tight. I love it that way, though.
And isn't it "loosen"? Loose is the adjective, I think.
Monks are not big damage dealers for sure, but they are far from useless and can't be just ignored, which I have seen mentioned in this thread. Using the stats posted by Overdark, which are not optimal by any means, I come up with the following.
15 BAB +5 Dex +4 Enhancement -2 Flurry = +22 to hit.
So that is:
+22/+22/+22/+17/+17/+12/+12 2D10+8 Unarmed Strike 19-20x2 (w. Ki Strike)Vs. AC 30 (without crits)
19x.65=12.35 + 19x.65=12.35 + 19x.65=12.35 + 19x.40=7.6 + 19x.40=7.6 + 19x.15=2.85 + 19x.15=2.85 = 57.95 damage
So if the average CR 15 creature has 225 HP Overdark's Monk will do damage equal to one quarter of the creatures hit points in one round. He can kill it by himself in 4 rounds even if nobody else in the party did a single point of damage.
In an average 4 character party it seems like he is easily pulling his own weight.
This is reminding me of the discussion about how much damage a character needs to be able to do in melee to be relevant. Avg damage= 1/4 of CR=lvl HP was one of the points considered a decent measurement for someone performing as a primary damage dealer. IIRC, the general consensus was that you would need about 3 people on this strength in a party of 4. Fighters were able to count for about 1 1/3 people in this regard, while others non-arcane specialists tended to count for 3/4 to 1 1/4, with most arround the 1 mark.
Asking for a monk with full BAB is asking for an unarmed fighter. The monk would need to loose some saves, skills, ki powers, maybe stunning fist, immunities, etc., etc.
No.
The monk would not need to lose anything for getting full BAB, and the game would not suffer for it, at all. It's already one of the weakest classes, it certainly could use a power-up.
No.
The monk would not need to lose anything for getting full BAB, and the game would not suffer for it, at all. It's already one of the weakest classes, it certainly could use a power-up.
Yes.
Board ate my post, so I'll just say this: Compare what a 2 level dip in fighter gets you, then compare what a 2 level dip in monk would get you. Think of this as both a player and a GM. Which would make a random creature from the beastiery more powerful?
I'm not saying monks don't need a little help, but full BAB probably isn't the right solution. I think a full BAB unarmed fighting class would be cool but I think monks could be improved in ways that steer the class away from fighter, not behind it.
Board ate my post, so I'll just say this: Compare what a 2 level dip in fighter gets you, then compare what a 2 level dip in monk would get you. Think of this as both a player and a GM. Which would make a random creature from the beastiery more powerful?
I'd say they're quite even, generally. It depends on the creature type, but there's pretty good benefits from both. I'll just name the differences. Compare:
Fighter:
+11 hp
2 bonus combat feats
Simple & Martial weapons training
All armor and shields training
+1 save against fear
Monk:
+9 hp
1d6 unarmed attack (if medium sized)
Flurry of blows with unarmed strikes (NOT natural weapons)
+3 Will & Ref
Stunning Fist (does not work on natural attacks)
+Wis to AC
Evasion
2 bonus feats from very restricted list (though there are some good there)
The monk gets many more benefits, but the fighter gets a huge one: All armor training. Most monsters in the bestiary has a wisdom of <16, so Monk will give them only +3 or less AC. Fighter on the other hand, allows the creature to wear a mithral fullplate for +9 AC (or breastplate for greater agility and +6 AC). So AC-wise, the fighter is a far better choice unless the creature is very agile.
Weapons training is circumstantial, since many creatures won't be able to use weapons, but there are some that can. I could easily see a Greater Earth Elemental swing a Huge stone Greataxe (+19/+14/+9 for 3d6+27 damage, crit x3). A fair bit better than a flurry (+17/+17/+12/+7 for 1d10+22 damage, crit x2) or his normal slams (+17/+17 for 2d10+22). Both are circumstantial, so we'll call this even.
+2 hit points and +1 against fear is far worse than +3 to two saves (though one of them is the least important save) and evasion. The monk clearly wins there.
The bonus feats are of course better and less restricted for the fighter, but the monk have both combat reflexes and dodge on it's list, so it's not by a large margin that the fighter wins there.
All in all, I think it would be quite even between them. If compared rules as-is, though, I'd say the fighter was a better choice.
And one more note, I think about 1/4 of the bestiary can't even become monks since they are of incompatible alignment and not able to change. All demons, most dragons, and most celestials are all banned.
EDIT: And you picked about the worst dip the creature could do in fighter and compared it to the best dip the creature could do in monk. If we would compare a 1 or 3-level dip, the fighter would win in both cases IMO.
I'm not seeing monks as broken or needing to be "powered up". I really do appreciate the fact I can grab deflect arrows at level 1. Being able to deflect a crit from a strength rated bow that could possibly drop a fighter is sweet. OR on the other hand not even taking it an people thinking you have it can help (until it comes out you can't :-p)
Not uniquie. A Fighter can do the same thing. You can take Deflect arrow as a Fighter.
Remember everyone gets 1 feat (add in bonus feat from Class).
:) Only if you're 16th level - and only if you have not moved at all. Makes said monk rather easy to get around doesn't it?*peers at the maze counter for the monk* GO GO MONK OF THE SACRED MOUNTAIN!
Also. Lets add some glamored clothes that look like some hilarious armor, and a black tabard.
I shall challenge the wizard to combat at a small creek.
When he casts maze, I shall chuckle and point at him.
"I move, for no man!"
Obviously quite a bit of set up.. But hey. Its funny.
Thats what you think.
Just wait until the monk pulls open his robes to reveal...
THOUSANDS OF HORRIBLE TENTACLES THAT STRETCH FOR MILES AND MILES!
Yeah. Watch out and stuff.
Shameless promoting.
Looks interesting. Thanks for the link.
Edit: I've seen that you have a few rewrites for other classes as well. Looks great, but it would be really useful to have a short paragraph on top summarizing the most important changes...
No.
The monk would not need to lose anything for getting full BAB, and the game would not suffer for it, at all. It's already one of the weakest classes, it certainly could use a power-up.Yes.
Board ate my post, so I'll just say this: Compare what a 2 level dip in fighter gets you, then compare what a 2 level dip in monk would get you. Think of this as both a player and a GM. Which would make a random creature from the beastiery more powerful?
I'm not saying monks don't need a little help, but full BAB probably isn't the right solution. I think a full BAB unarmed fighting class would be cool but I think monks could be improved in ways that steer the class away from fighter, not behind it.
The problem with 3.5 and PF melee classes is certainly not that they are too powerful. So anything that helps is a good thing. Why would you deny full BAB to a primary melee class? Melee is what they do, so the least you can give them is the appropriate BAB progression.
The fighter's thing is to be a christmas tree - pile magic items on them until they finally matter a little. Monk's are much more restricted in this, so they better be valuable on class features alone...
...admittedly, I think I'd go for an APG alternate monk 9 times out of 10, which probably means the basic chassis is a touch problematic.
Agreed.
Given the state of the game, and the already low opinion of monks, all most people have are the numbers to show how they stand in relation to the top classes. Which says something right there. Since when was a comparison to the top classes (via damage) worth much of anything? Where do monks rank on the median?
I'm still hoping to see a PF reprint of the feats Offensive/Defensive Metered Foot. Unlikely, seeing as how the Inquisitor's Judgement scaling mechanic was received, but a Monk can dream, right?
(of course, others would say that it was artificial scaling that exceeded 'X' in comparison to 'Y', and therefore invalid according to 'blah'..) *grumble*
|
|
Shameless promoting.Looks interesting. Thanks for the link.
Edit: I've seen that you have a few rewrites for other classes as well. Looks great, but it would be really useful to have a short paragraph on top summarizing the most important changes...
Good idea. They are mostly not my own work, but I can probably manage that. The main point was to give the classes modularity for customization and increase melee power.
|
|
The monk gets many more benefits, but the fighter gets a huge one: All armor training. Most monsters in the bestiary has a wisdom of <16, so Monk will give them only +3 or less AC. Fighter on the other hand, allows the creature to wear a mithral fullplate for +9 AC (or breastplate for greater agility and +6 AC). So AC-wise, the fighter is a far better choice unless the creature is very agile.Weapons training is circumstantial, since many creatures won't be able to use weapons, but there are some that can.
Actually fighters can get weapon training for unarmed and natural attacks.
Side note: non-caster classes are quite dangerous if the player runs them like they are Batman, but that's about the only way they can keep up with the casters- preparation and equipment. What really gets to be a pain in the butt is when a character with spell casting starts behaving like Batman, then things get kind of silly, but a smart spell-less character will win that fight every time, because he brought a disjunction scroll and an item that can cast anti-magic field, which leaves it to fisticuffs.
Side note: non-caster classes are quite dangerous if the player runs them like they are Batman, but that's about the only way they can keep up with the casters....
Reject the false paradigm. Fighters, for example, aren't meant to "keep up" with "the casters". Fighters, for example, are meant to deal out small amounts of damage consistently over longer periods of time. Casters are meant to follow the reverse: higher amounts of damage over shorter periods of time.
The problem isn't class imbalance. It's almost always play-style. For example, put the 15-minute adventuring day to bed once and for all, and the balance-over-time between melee classes and casters becomes much more apparent.
And, no, monks aren't "broken". The monk in question that started this entire thread is a 25-point buy PC with over-the-limit wealth. There might be someting broken in there, but it isn't the class per se.
Mark L. Chance | Spes Magna Games
|
|
Side note: non-caster classes are quite dangerous if the player runs them like they are Batman, but that's about the only way they can keep up with the casters....Reject the false paradigm. Fighters, for example, aren't meant to "keep up" with "the casters". Fighters, for example, are meant to deal out small amounts of damage consistently over longer periods of time. Casters are meant to follow the reverse: higher amounts of damage over shorter periods of time.
The problem isn't class imbalance. It's almost always play-style. For example, put the 15-minute adventuring day to bed once and for all, and the balance-over-time between melee classes and casters becomes much more apparent.
And, no, monks aren't "broken". The monk in question that started this entire thread is a 25-point buy PC with over-the-limit wealth. There might be someting broken in there, but it isn't the class per se.
Mark L. Chance | Spes Magna Games
Yet people have them competing against each other all the time, like it's an arena. I was thinking of a hypothetical scenario where you have players fight it out amongst each other. Even in terms of sheer damage, if you do it right, a melee combatant can hit just as hard, or harder, on a more consistent basis than a spell caster can. A level 5 fighter, with a lance and a mount can deal (+2 lance, spec, and weapon training 1, plus an assumed strength of 16 for small and 20 for medium, half orc, half-elf, humans only) 30+3d8, or 24+3d6 if you want to make him work in most dungeons, any time there is more than 10 feet between him and his target. You can also have the character lose the shield for an additional 1-2 points of damage. Statistically speaking his average is 35-43, whereas a level 5 wizard casting Scorching ray will only get 28 points on average, even if it's a touch attack.
Later on you get the melee character using vital strike on his charges keeping things relatively balanced, in terms of damage. Thankfully the durability of spell casters is better than it used to be, more readily available class features to improve AC and more HP. I'm not saying that they are completely even, they shouldn't be, that way leads to 4e and none of us want that.
Speaking of the durability of spell casters. I don't like the concept of the squishy wizard. Only a few times in fiction have wizards been depicted as easily knocked down. Typically they are closer to magically-empowered battle tanks than glass canons. Doctor Fate, Doctor Strange, Doctor Doom, Doctor Druid, Constantine, The Phantom Stranger, Gandalf, Nanoha Takamachi and most of her team, Saruman, Harry Potter and the other members of the wizarding community (even if they are rather inept), Negi Springfield, so on and so forth. The weakest individual on the list can take what basically amounts to a cannon ball to the chest, then a 30 foot drop, and he's 12 when this is shown. Most spell-using individuals are
Board ate my post, so I'll just say this: Compare what a 2 level dip in fighter gets you, then compare what a 2 level dip in monk would get you. Think of this as both a player and a GM. Which would make a random creature from the beastiery more powerful?I'd say they're quite even, generally. It depends on the creature type, but there's pretty good benefits from both. I'll just name the differences. Compare:
Fighter:
+11 hp
2 bonus combat feats
Simple & Martial weapons training
All armor and shields training
+1 save against fearMonk:
+9 hp
1d6 unarmed attack (if medium sized)
Flurry of blows with unarmed strikes (NOT natural weapons)
+3 Will & Ref
Stunning Fist (does not work on natural attacks)
+Wis to AC
Evasion
2 bonus feats from very restricted list (though there are some good there)The monk gets many more benefits, but the fighter gets a huge one: All armor training. Most monsters in the bestiary has a wisdom of <16, so Monk will give them only +3 or less AC. Fighter on the other hand, allows the creature to wear a mithral fullplate for +9 AC (or breastplate for greater agility and +6 AC). So AC-wise, the fighter is a far better choice unless the creature is very agile.
Weapons training is circumstantial, since many creatures won't be able to use weapons, but there are some that can. I could easily see a Greater Earth Elemental swing a Huge stone Greataxe (+19/+14/+9 for 3d6+27 damage, crit x3). A fair bit better than a flurry (+17/+17/+12/+7 for 1d10+22 damage, crit x2) or his normal slams (+17/+17 for 2d10+22). Both are circumstantial, so we'll call this even.
+2 hit points and +1 against fear is far worse than +3 to two saves (though one of them is the least important save) and evasion. The monk clearly wins there.
The bonus feats are of course better and less restricted for the fighter, but the monk have both combat reflexes and dodge on it's list, so it's not by a large margin that the fighter wins there.
All in all, I think it would...
I would take the monk over fighter for most monsters any day of the week. The save boost, evasion, and overall increase in survivability is huge. And 2 levels of fighter increase most monster's CR by 2. 2 levels of monk only increase it by 1.
Level 20 Fighter can get his AC to this with Magic Items.
Base = 10
Dexterity 24 = +7
Shield +5 = +7
Mithrul Full Plate +5 = +14
Greater Shield Focus/Shield Focus = +2
Ring of Protection +5 = +5
Combat Expertise = +6
Dodge = +1
Ioun Stone (Insight AC Bonus) = +1
Amulet of Natural Armor+5 = +5
Boots of Speed (Haste) = +1 Dodge
Total Fighter AC = 59
Level 20 Monk
Base = 10
Dexterity 24 = +7
Wisdom 17 = +3
Bracers of Armor +8 = +8
Ring of Protection +5 = +5
Combat Expertise = +6
Dodge = +1
Ioun Stone (Insight Bonus) = +1
Amulet of Natural Armor +5 = +5
Boots of Speed(Haste) = +1
Belt of Dex +6 = +3
Headband of Inspired Wisdom +6 = +3
Tome of Undestanding +5 = +3 more (Because Wis could be 17 by then)
Manual of Quickness of Action +4 = +2
Total Monk AC = 58
So, seems to me that fully decked out, a warrior has more AC than a Monk. Less Decked out, the Warrior will still win hands down.
PS: The Monk spent 323,000gp more than the Fighter to get to relatively the same Armor.
Part of the caster imbalance derives from the fact that the Caster has a 15-minute adventuring day if it so suits them.
Not so. The caster has a 15-minute adventuring day if it so suits the DM. The DM has much more control over the pacing of the adventuring day then the PCs do because the DM is the fellow who makes decisions about when and where encounters happen.
But that's another thread. :)
Mark L. Chance | Spes Magna Games
If the DM is intent on making decisions that overcome character's abilities without any actual justification for them, then that kind of defeats any meaningful argument on the capabilities of any character doesn't it?
I'm going to ignore your strawman because it is a strawman and because it is off-topic.
Monks aren't broken. If a DM is going to allow more powerful characters (due to higher point buy, more magic items, custom magic items, et cetera), then those involved in that campaign should expect the PCs to outmatch challenges written to be level-appropriate for characters built within the game's guidelines.
That these more-powerful-than-recommended-for-their-level characters appear to run roughshod over the game doesn't make any part of the game broken. Granted, something might be considered broken, but that goes right back to play-style.
Mark L. Chance | Spes Magna Games
|
|
Speaking of the durability of spell casters. I don't like the concept of the squishy wizard. Only a few times in fiction have wizards been depicted as easily knocked down. Typically they are closer to magically-empowered battle tanks than glass canons. Doctor Fate, Doctor Strange, Doctor Doom, Doctor Druid, Constantine, The Phantom Stranger, Gandalf, Nanoha Takamachi and most of her team, Saruman, Harry Potter and the other members of the wizarding community (even if they are rather inept), Negi Springfield, so on and so forth. The weakest individual on the list can take what basically amounts to a cannon ball to the chest, then a 30 foot drop, and he's 12 when this is shown. Most spell-using individuals are
Sorry, finishing up this particular rant. Most spell-using individuals are, at minimum, at the peak of real human durability, so it always strikes me as wrong that they get the proverbial shaft in the hp department. Some of the more epic casters on that list are literally in the kryptonian class when it comes to durability and offenses. I'm actually at a loss for who is the most powerful, but I know that Nanoha has a mean wave-motion gun, she fights magically enhanced battleships and tends to come ahead.
|
Speaking of the durability of spell casters. I don't like the concept of the squishy wizard.Sorry, finishing up this particular rant. Most spell-using individuals are, at minimum, at the peak of real human durability
This comes back to the birth of D&D, this wasn't the Gygaxian wizard at all. Wizards were as you say envisioned and mechanically developed as Glass Cannons. From a philosophic point of view having a wizard who isn't this way would mean you are playing a game that isn't D&D, but rather a derivative of D&D. I grew up playing D&D where this was the way of things and they were accepted as fact. In fact I have issues with the ease of spell casting in combat these days. My point being I personally don't see D&D as a tool box of rules to try and recreate persons from fantasy books. D&D is it's own entity and I often find myself asking the reverse - why isn't the wizard in this fantasy book like a "real" wizard (i.e. a 1e D&D wizard).
Horses for courses,
S.