This is called the "argumentum ad fireballum". It's a rule that in any discussion of FRPG realism, someone will claim the whole discussion is moot because of the existence of spellcasters.
My version of that argument is that it's fantasy, if the only way to do fantastic things is to cast magic, there would be no interest in non-magical classes.
Martial classes should be able to perform otherwise impossible feats too, and realism shouldn't get too much in the way there, not because Magic exists but because it's fantasy and even if you are a guy swinging around a sharp piece of metal you want to do things out of reality too.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Actually, if you look at all the examples I gave there, they are to make the wizards far more careful about what they do and when they do it. The metal example sucks for fighters admittedly, but then I once used the idea of metal conduction to have elcetricity based spells earth out in a complex instead of travelling to their intended target. Forced my casters to rethink their strategy (the building used natural conduciton and static charges to power its magical wards. When the players discovered why ther magic was behaving wiedly they thought it was great)
A point of imbalance here is simply that a case as you describe is rare and unusual vs. the
Fighting/magic
There are already rules for maiming, blinding etc (they are feats) and death by massive damage.
This is the place where, if I were a player in your game, I would perhaps have a problem.
In order to get "realistic" extra effects from martial effects, you force the martial types to spend feats.
In order to get "realistic" extra effects from magical effects, you get them FOR FREE.
That's the imbalance.
To be fair, you should go one of two ways:
1. If getting realistic extra effects is free, make it free for everybody.
2. If getting realistic extra effects costs feats, make it cost feats for everybody.
I don't think anyone would object if both fighting types and magic types got realistic extra effects all the time, nor if you required them both to get feats in order to get their extra effects.
I think the objection is that one group gets them automatically, without resource cost, and as early as 1st level, while the other class gets them only if they invest character resources, and at minimum not until 11th level (see below).
If you're going with option #1, that means you'll need to decide what are the realistic effects of common weapon injuries. Whenever someone is hit, they should have a high chance to suffer bleeding from wounds, broken limbs, stunning, blinded by eyes gouged out or bleeding head wound or eye swollen shut, broken jaw makes it impossible to speak, etc.
Realistically, an ordinary hoodlum with a switchblade can inflict potentially fatal bleeding with one slash or thrust, or shatter an arm with a baseball bat or a golf club as an improvised weapon. It shouldn't require a magnificently trained warrior to achieve such an effect (those critical feats require a MINIMUM BAB of +11, and so are impossible for any character less than double-digit levels to achieve), nor should it only be possible to do one thing at a time (possible only for 14th level fighters (only, no other class) who have invested at least FOUR feats in crit effects, and then they only get them on crits, not on regular longsword hits).
Couldn't one shortsword thrust from a 1st-level goblin warrior cause both bleeding and a sickening amount of pain from damaged viscera?
If you're going with option #2, then spells would work as described in the book, but in order to get realistic extra effects you'd have to create a bunch of magical special effect feats (Noxious Acid Fumes, Flammable Spell, Conductive Lightning, Heat Convection, Casting-Disruptive Wind, etc.).
There is perhaps a third option:
3. Apply magical extra effects only on a critical hit (if an attack roll spell) or a natural 1 on a save (if a save spell).
That way, they would apply in exactly the same way that martial extra effects presently occur - not as something that just always automatically happens, but what happens when the magic hits the target extra-hard. You can already get critical hits with a spell with an attack roll, but you would probably still want to create a new family of "Spell Critical" feats to cover things not generally part of the present crit range that would reflect other kinds of effects.
Really, the point is this:
Whatever the frequency of "realistic" extra effects you choose, and whatever the cost to acquire the ability to inflict them (whether it be free, require feats, etc.), it should be the SAME frequency and cost for martial characters as magical characters.
I occasionally throw in interesting effects for critical fumbles on saves (twisted ankle or broken limb which require restoration to recover from or long term care instead, maybe a failed caster check sets off the wrong spell or drops the intended spell in the wrong area). Those are very rare though.
As you say, it's very rare, vs. extra effects that you describe accruing from magical effects seem pretty common.
You need to be careful of adding too much detail into the game or it bogs down, and what's more, becomes unbalanced.
Agreed.
The other thing that can make a casters day really suck is environmetnal conditions. High winds can ruin incantations as they can destroy both auditory and verbal queues to make casting work (spellcraft checks please). Low visibilty effects such as fog/smoke/dust tend to reduce the caster to "Gods I hope nothing comes at us or I'm going to have to cast while they can hit back".
Actually, he doesn't need to worry unless the enemy has special senses that ignore fog/smoke/dust, as that kind of obscurement works both ways. If the enemy has concealment from him, he has concealment from them, and he doesn't provoke AoOs from casting if he has concealment.
Now, if he's in darkness and the enemy has darkvision and he doesn't, THEN he might be in trouble.
Unstable ground (if its hard to balance because teh rocks are slippery or earht is shaking, the caster needs to make accrobatic hecks too or maybe a caster check to stay focused while still balancing on the slippery ground)
There are rules for casting in high winds and shaky ground already, in the concentration check rules, so there is a chance for spells to get spoiled.
But, think about your campaign. Compare the number of encounters that occur in severe environmental conditions vs. those that don't. Maybe your campaign is different from most, but what I think you might find is that:
A. On rare occasions, spellcasters are inconvenienced when casting their spells.
B. On those rare occasions, OTHER CLASSES are inconvenienced too!
C. On the great majority of occasions, neither side is particularly inconvenienced and combat proceeds without major environmental challenges.
Spellcasters are not inherently more inconvenienced than non-casters by severe conditions. In fact, they might be LESS inconvenienced because of simple magical counters they possess (such as an endure elements spell that obviates environmental damage and fatigue from extreme heat or extreme cold). But, even if they are more inconvenienced than other characters by severe environmental conditions, in most campaigns those are rare exceptions rather than the rule.
All of these things are catered for in the rules, it just comes down to how much a person wants injected into their game. If everyone knows beforehand that there's going to be some realism, then its not an issue.
Sure, as long as everybody gets the same level of realism.
That's the oddity: Spellcasters get realism in their favor without having to pay for it, non-casters don't unless they pay for it.
And you can just as easily "Nerf" the casters as you can the fighters. They have feats that allow them past them, but then the fighty types do as well.
Well, the casters have spells, class abilities, and feats, while the fighty types get only class abilities and feats.
I don't think nerfing is really the issue; I think it's just in coming up with an equitable distribution of realism.
As Shakespeare said, "If you prick us, do we not bleed?" - In PF, not unless you're a high-level fighter with the right feat or a sneak attacking rogue with the right rogue talent. All others need not apply. How realistic is that? :)
Me personally, I tend to go for "Cinematic realism" in most of my games. If it sounds like it would look cool in a movie, then you've got a shot at pulling it off in my games. It's why we play after all.
Tru dat. It's all about having fun! Just make sure everybody gets to get in on the fun!
If you're going with option #2, then spells would work as described in the book, but in order to get realistic extra effects you'd have to create a bunch of magical special effect feats (Noxious Acid Fumes, Flammable Spell, Conductive Lightning, Heat Convection, Casting-Disruptive Wind, etc.).
(Raises hand) I'm doing that now! Been working on them for two weeks.
My version of that argument is that it's fantasy, if the only way to do fantastic things is to cast magic, there would be no interest in non-magical classes.
Martial classes should be able to perform otherwise impossible feats too, and realism shouldn't get too much in the way there, not because Magic exists but because it's fantasy and even if you are a guy swinging around a sharp piece of metal you want to do things out of reality too.
Not me. But maybe that just means my games aren't fantasy.
1. If getting realistic extra effects is free, make it free for everybody.
2. If getting realistic extra effects costs feats, make it cost feats for everybody.
1.Just as a side note, paizo published a critical hit deck that makes it easy to make up free realistic effects for fighter types. It does make the critical feats obsolete or weird (congrats, your critical hit cut his tendons and blinded him !), though.
2.Since the number of available feats depends on the class, that would be delicate.
I think I'll ignore the fact that it's automatically assumed that I'm a guy...
Anyway, yes I am complaining of unfairness. Fighter in fall, wizard uses feather fall. Fighter in lava, wizard either flies or uses superior fire resistance. While the wizard gets to bend the laws of reality the fighter gets what? the ability to hit things. A fighter is also more vulnerable to mind affecting, the fighter can't dodge like the rogue who takes half damage from a fireball on a failed reflex save. The rogue who can deal ridiculous amounts of sneak damage by bluffing or flanking. While every other class can do amazing things, the fighter is limited by the DM by what they believe is within human limits.
I don't know if certain DMs don't get and thus they can't comprehend the concept of strength and endurance training. After coming so far with a caster that learned to shift planes and a rogue who can jump 20 feet in the air and a monk who can decimate building with his fists why in the world is this normal mook of a human even considered an equal when he can't even survive a fall? Is the fighter under some sort of muscle atrophy where no matter how hard he trains his muscles and skin will never toughen up?
Yes I believe in keeping the suspension of disbelief, but I want to call this favoritism disbelief. Sure the ranger can hide RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOUR EYES, but the fighter, surviving from a fall off of a cliff... man that is sooo unrealistic >.> Now let's go fight some gods! o.O
I'm jumping in WAYYY late to this thread so if this has been pointed out earlier please excuse me.
First let me say all examples are useing 3/3.5 rules not Pathfinder or 4.0.Second allow me to point out that what you consider unfair is simply the nature of the game. It's how it was designed and played since it's creation.
When we do charecter intros and the "martial" types say they have muscles for days with a 16 str score nobody questions it but let a wizard check in with the same stat and all of a sudden your told thats not realistic. Seriously! it's a score and you had no problem accepting the sword swinger had biceps the size of cantelopes but for a wizard to be as strong as a fighter is just not done. I rolled well and wasn't gonna waste a stat in charisma for a wizard.
Then it gets better when the fighter is useing a longsword and my wiz is killing stuff with a double bladed great axe. the heroics spell removes all non proficency penalties so I am doing a min 4-16 points while the fighter is hanging in with 4-11, not my fault the other guy chose a poor weapon.
I get flack from the fighters player cause when I run outta spells I go defensive and help him flank and if the AC is too high for me to even begin to touch I aid another and give him a better chance to hit.
The martial types are great when you need a HP sponge, somebody that can take 52 points of damage in a single attack and not be dead but for dealing damage that has always been the profince of wizards until the psions came along.
Thats just how it is played. If you want a heavy fighter type that can roll 15dg for damage I would suggest the 3rd edition of shadowrun.
Second allow me to point out that what you consider unfair is simply the nature of the game. It's how it was designed and played since it's creation.
Overlooking the dissimilarities in the 1e/2e vs. 3e/3.5e combat systems that totally gimped the fighter, and assuming that "since it is creation" means "since 3.0," then I still have one question: why the hell isn't fighter an NPC class, if that's all it's supposed to be good for?
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Second allow me to point out that what you consider unfair is simply the nature of the game. It's how it was designed and played since it's creation.Overlooking the dissimilarities in the 1e/2e vs. 3e/3.5e combat systems that totally gimped the fighter, and assuming that "since it is creation" means "since 3.0," then I still have one question: why the hell isn't fighter an NPC class, if that's all it's supposed to be good for?
It's true. Round-based rather than initiative, longer casting times, automatic spell disruption on a hit at any point during the round prior to completing the spell, automatic initiative for your first attack if you were a fighter-types if you had multiple attacks in a round due to your level (or specialization), full move plus multiple attacks, and free attacks vs. "rear AC" on any kind of retreat (i.e., no Dex bonus, no 5-foot step to move and attack) were all massive fighter > caster advantages in 1st Ed, slightly lessened in 2nd Ed with switching from d6 to d10 initiative and adding weapon speed factor to initiative rolls. Also, you had a surprise system in 1st Ed. that enabled fighter types to get off one attack per melee segment, while a caster could only cast very quick (i.e., low-level) spells. Fighter/ranger/paladin saves stunk early on, but by high levels their saves were the best of anyone's.
If we're talking about how the system was designed and played since it's creation, that was D&D for the first 20+ years of its existence, and those are all rules to the fighting classes' advantage that do not exist in 3.x versions of the game.
Of course, casters could do more damage with spells, and people had fewer hit points in general, so it's not like casters didn't have some perks of their own in that system, but the gameplay of actually getting a spell off in combat was much harder to manage in 1st/2nd than it is in 3.x.
Second allow me to point out that what you consider unfair is simply the nature of the game. It's how it was designed and played since it's creation.Overlooking the dissimilarities in the 1e/2e vs. 3e/3.5e combat systems that totally gimped the fighter, and assuming that "since it is creation" means "since 3.0," then I still have one question: why the hell isn't fighter an NPC class, if that's all it's supposed to be good for?
I think I may have mis stated my case if thats what you took from my earlier post. A fighter is very needed in the group because of his HP and ability to withstand anything thrown at him.
It also allows alot more customization for your role playing experiance if you want to be a heavy armord guy or a high dex two sword weilding lady or any combination. Think of the conan's and red sonja's lets hear it for the beowolf's and the sinbads of the game table.Fighters are very needed to keep the bad guy occupied while the others do their thing. Teamwork is needed in every game and if an intergral part of the team isn't their then everybody suffers, my earlier post should have said this better, sorry.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
1.Just as a side note, paizo published a critical hit deck that makes it easy to make up free realistic effects for fighter types. It does make the critical feats obsolete or weird (congrats, your critical hit cut his tendons and blinded him !), though.1. If getting realistic extra effects is free, make it free for everybody.
2. If getting realistic extra effects costs feats, make it cost feats for everybody.
It's true. That is a good technique to use for semi-random "realistic" extra effects from weapon blows (and, for that matter, from spells, since the crit decks have one entry each for P, S, and B weapons AND one for magical attacks).
The decision point then is: Do realistic extra effects ALWAYS happen, or do they only happen on crits?
If we want to be realistic, you should probably make a Fortitude save (or maybe a Reflex save; perhaps the defender can choose which save to make) every time you get hit to avoid taking a realistic extra effect, be it from magic or from a weapon or claw. Or you could just keep it to crits, or find some other method in between.
Perhaps on any critical THREAT you do extra damage, and on a CONFIRMED crit you get special effects. Or the other way around.
The thing is, whichever way it goes, it should apply the same way to magical attacks and effects as it does to martial effects.
That's all I'm sayin.
As for the existing specific crit feats, yeah, it could be a little weird, but those let a character choose particular killer moves they are especially adept at using and that would be an over-and-above effect.
Using the crit cards is a way to emulate the purely realistic deadliness of getting stabbed or slammed or chomped or whatever from low and mid-level mooks and warriors that will never see 11th level in their wildest dreams but are still holding a three-foot length of sharpened steel in their hands, and realistically they should be able to shove it right up your six-hole in a manner most unpleasant instead of being dismissed as credible threats.
2.Since the number of available feats depends on the class, that would be delicate.
It would. Fighters would get the most bonus feats (though they are essentially replacing all the class features that other classes, caster or otherwise, get; the fighter is a modular build-your-own warrior type).
Wizards also get bonus feats every 5 levels. Sorcs get bonus feats every 6 levels. Rangers get them every 4 levels. Monks get them at sort of oddball levels. Paladins and barbarians... don't get them at all. Rogues can get a few if they take feat-based rogue talents. Clerics and bards and druids, nothin.
But, everybody gets their base every-odd-level feats, so no reason they can't spend those on weapon-crit or spell-crit feats if they like.
Martial classes should be able to perform otherwise impossible feats too, and realism shouldn't get too much in the way there, not because Magic exists but because it's fantasy and even if you are a guy swinging around a sharp piece of metal you want to do things out of reality too.
I don't really think people are saying that a fighter (or other martial class) shouldn't be able to do "impossible" things. After all, mowing through an army camp of a thousand kobolds with nary a significant scratch should be impossible. The question, as I see it, really is "What impossible things should a martial character be able to do?"
Should they be able to shrug off blows that would fell several normal men? Yes. Should they be able to hack down creatures much larger than them with a modicum of well-placed sword blows? You bet. Should they be able to run off a 200 ft cliff, dust themselves off, and keep running? ...Maybe not.
Fantasy characters all break certain elements of reality. What we should care about is what justifies those breaks in reality. What mechanism, inherent to the characters, allows that to work when it shouldn't for a normal person? For spellcasters, we look to the spells they know. Without the right spells for the situation, they aren't particularly fantastic either. No fly, featherfall, or other spell that will save them from a cliff drop? Guess what? We expect them to make a splat noise too no matter how many hit points they were lucky enough to roll. For martial characters, we look to their fighting abilities and other class features that support the abilities they have. In most cases, there aren't built-in resistances to falling off cliffs or damage from reaching terminal velocity and experiencing a sudden stop.
So I think I've had enough of people saying that we (DM's who keep some mind to realism) don't want our fighters or other martial characters to do fantastic things.
Should they be able to run off a 200 ft cliff, dust themselves off, and keep running? ...Maybe not.
"I believed this movie, because Chicago Jones, he like, understood the laws of gravity and polarity...
And besides, he braced himself!"
|
@ Jason, thanks for the feedback.
For the record, those are rules I have introduced at different times and for differemt campaigns, and usually situationally dependant. They are rare events for everyone, and usually as descriptive ways of describing "cool" things in game. However, they are consistant within the world. If powerful acid causes choking, it does so whether it's cast from a spell or because a vat of the stuff was just knocked over by the fighter. For that rule by the way, we considered anything over 10d6 damage as enough to cause the extra effect, but you got a fortitude save against it as normal for that kind of environmental condition. It was rarely a problem, but it added a cool effect that mde people think a bit more about what they were doing.
If I put them in there, everyone knows how they work and everyone can use them as they need. Also important to note, if we added them but later found they imbalanced things too much, we dropped them again.
I mentioned blinding needing feats, but that's only if you want to do it permanently. I let my players grappple and gag, or grapple and blind as actions (without feats). I let my players throw blankets over people to momentarily blind them or perhaps do the whole abduction thing too. I even had a dirty trick mechanic in my games before the AP came out and made an official version (kicking or flinging dirt in the eye). Not that it ever came up in one of my games, but I guess if someone made a called shot and flung a flask of acid into the eyes of someone, I would come up with a mechanic to see of they were blinded too, I guess but I doubt it would e permanent or again that becomes too powerful.
If I was going to make casters take feats for extra effects on spells it would be for more than just moderate stunning effects. Perhaps something like electricity effects causing uncontrollable twitching damage afterwords. But then, that would be an imbalance.
It's important to note that at no time am I actually injecting these rules in to disadvantage ANYONE, I'm just trying to make the game more interesting and have my players think a little bit more about waht they do and the effects their actions can have.
Also, you seem to have this idea that extra effects are more common for magic than for others. Those were only examples I gave to get a point across to the OP about how realism can be used effectively with casters as well. However, I guess you need to think, in a world where dangerous elemental conditions exist, if you keep playing with them then you're going to see them more frequently. Those effects only pop up when used, and even then it may not come in to play, since they tended to be high level situations. Also note, many of those things were used to help control possible power imbalance issues (simple illusions tricking high level critters, scry and die etc). Many of the reasons for including them in older campaigns don't really exist any more as the game is far more balanced in pathfinder than it was in 3.5, and my players have changed their play style a little.
Anyhow, I appreciate the feedback from someone who is far better at this stuff than I am. You made some valid points which I have taken on board.
Cheers
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
If you're going with option #2, then spells would work as described in the book, but in order to get realistic extra effects you'd have to create a bunch of magical special effect feats (Noxious Acid Fumes, Flammable Spell, Conductive Lightning, Heat Convection, Casting-Disruptive Wind, etc.).(Raises hand) I'm doing that now! Been working on them for two weeks.
Post em when you're done. Sounds neat!
A fighter should totally be able to go down a 200 foot cliff without a splat.
As someone else said, he's catching branches on his way down to slow his fall. Or he lands on a cart filled with hay. Or he does a roll as he lands which totally shrugs off the impact.
Because he's a hero. Because it's not a Magical Roleplaying Game where only magical characters get to be cool. It's a fantasy roleplaying game. Characters are meant to be fantastic.
I use Paizo's critical hit deck, so in my game any critical does have a chance to do interesting things like blind, bleed, etc. Once our barbarian managed to behead a foe with a lucky critical, which was an awesome and surprising result.
The deck has some special stuff for magical criticals as well, but those are rare since only one of my casters uses a ranged touch spell with any regularity, and those only critical on a 20. The barbarian gets the most criticals with his many attacks (and an extra bite).
So those feats are great if you want to consistently do a specific effect with a critical, but at least in my game a lot of interested things can happen on a critical hit.
A fighter should totally be able to go down a 200 foot cliff without a splat.
As someone else said, he's catching branches on his way down to slow his fall. Or he lands on a cart filled with hay. Or he does a roll as he lands which totally shrugs off the impact.
Because he's a hero. Because it's not a Magical Roleplaying Game where only magical characters get to be cool. It's a fantasy roleplaying game. Characters are meant to be fantastic.
Fighters do fantastic and cool things. Why should they do that particular fantastic thing?
Fighters do fantastic and cool things. Why should they do that particular fantastic thing?
Because wizards can do ANY fantastic thing at all! Name it, and there's a spell for it. Fighters are MUCH more limited, and there's no need to limit them even more than the core rules already do.
Fighters do fantastic and cool things. Why should they do that particular fantastic thing?A fighter should totally be able to go down a 200 foot cliff without a splat.
As someone else said, he's catching branches on his way down to slow his fall. Or he lands on a cart filled with hay. Or he does a roll as he lands which totally shrugs off the impact.
Because he's a hero. Because it's not a Magical Roleplaying Game where only magical characters get to be cool. It's a fantasy roleplaying game. Characters are meant to be fantastic.
Because it's fantastic.
And ironically, it's not even all that fantastic. As others have brought up, it's been done.
To understand how this works, you have to see that I'm coming from the statement of "is this awesome and fantastic and fitting a heroic warrior? Go for it."
Many others approach from "SHould I allow this for the fighter?"
That's a really, really bad and dangerous question to ask. Primarily because there is no "Should I allow this for the wizard?" as there is a spell for every situation.
There's a spell for every occasion? Does every wizard have all of those spells prepared all the time? No they don't. The potential that some wizard could do it somewhere if prepared for it is the standard we're trying to compare martial characters to? Shouldn't we then include all of the potential magic items a fighter might have at his disposal? After all, if there's a spell for every occasion, then there's going to be a magic item for every occasion too that the martial characters can use.
There's a spell for every occasion? Does every wizard have all of those spells prepared all the time? No they don't. The potential that some wizard could do it somewhere if prepared for it is the standard we're trying to compare martial characters to? Shouldn't we then include all of the potential magic items a fighter might have at his disposal? After all, if there's a spell for every occasion, then there's going to be a magic item for every occasion too that the martial characters can use.
Everyone gets magic items; let's cancel them out and look at class features. The wizard gets spells; the fighter gets bonus feats. So, by your logic, the fighter should be able to take a bonus feat to do anything a spell can do. After all, feats are even more restrictive than spells: not only does the fighter get fewer of them, but he can't change them out every day.
Everyone gets magic items; let's cancel them out and look at class features. The wizard gets spells; the fighter gets bonus feats. So, by your logic, the fighter should be able to take a bonus feat to do anything a spell can do. After all, feats are even more restrictive than spells: not only does the fighter get fewer of them, but he can't change them out every day.
Clearly, you are not groking my logic. I'm not making any assertion that a fighter should be able to do anything a wizard's spell can do. My point is that the fighter gets to do different totally fantastic things than a wizard does with his class features. They may be less, I dunno, magical, but they're certainly fantastic. Why should the wizard's ability to defy reality with spells define the range of what the fighter's ability to defy reality is?
|
There's a spell for every occasion? Does every wizard have all of those spells prepared all the time?
If you listen to the "Wizards are teh GOD" posters, of course they do. And if they, for some unknown reason, don't happen to have any given spell memorized at any given moment, they DO have it on a scroll.
I'm not making any assertion that a fighter should be able to do anything a wizard's spell can do. My point is that the fighter gets to do different totally fantastic things than a wizard does with his class features. They may be less, I dunno, magical, but they're certainly fantastic. Why should the wizard's ability to defy reality with spells define the range of what the fighter's ability to defy reality is?
You know... to keep the game fair between classes. All these "fantastic" things that a fighter can do, are different mechanically, but the wizard can pull off the same effect with less effort.
In fact, Fighters even need to take feats to emulate reality in their favor, *references Jason's post*
Really though, going back to consistency, someone who can fight dragons, destroy hordes of goblins, and grapple trolls, shouldn't be as squishy as a normal human. That's just not consistent.
There's a spell for every occasion? Does every wizard have all of those spells prepared all the time?If you listen to the "Wizards are teh GOD" posters, of course they do. And if they, for some unknown reason, don't happen to have any given spell memorized at any given moment, they DO have it on a scroll.
And thye pay for those scrolls either in EXP or gold AND exp.
I keep hearing about the poor fighter not being able to do as much cool stuff as a wiz/cleric or druid but I have seen fighter after fighter deal fireball level damage PER NON CRIT HIT. Spellcatsers get a few really good damage spells before they run out but fighters swing their weapons all day long.
I almost fell outta my chair laughing at the earlier post about fighters not getting as many feats. Are you kidding me? They get a feat every level, think about it every level. By the time the rare fighter in my group gets to 7th or 8th they are haveing tropuble decideing which feat tree to start next.
It boils down to what YOU the player like to play. I personally don't like fighters because they are not spellcasters, a buddy of mine refuses to play if he has to have any spells for any of his charecters because he hates the complexity of casters. My point is no one class is above the others in anything it should be all about teamwork and haveing fun.
You know... to keep the game fair between classes. All these "fantastic" things that a fighter can do, are different mechanically, but the wizard can pull off the same effect with less effort.
In fact, Fighters even need to take feats to emulate reality in their favor, *references Jason's post*
Really though, going back to consistency, someone who can fight dragons, destroy hordes of goblins, and grapple trolls, shouldn't be as squishy as a normal human. That's just not consistent.
Who cares if the wizard can take out some monsters with less effort? Is that why people choose the classes they play? Relative effort spent by the classes? Most people I know playing fighters do so because having their PC wade in with a sword and start kicking ass is simply a lot of fun.
But why shouldn't a fighter be somewhat as squishy as a normal human outside of their element? Clearly they're not as squishy in a fight. That's good fantasy genre convention. But outside that context, what's the justification for being less squishy to that degree? Metagame considerations like hit points? I'm not really seeing it.
Personally, I'm actually OK with falling of some fairly high cliffs (and surviving) in general. I am, however, in favor of the massive damage rule and particularly applying it when there are no reasonable justifications for the fighter slowing his fall (I'm thinking about a roc dropping the PC from 500 feet up over the rocky badlands terrain). But I would expect my PCs to not try to exploit the metagame aspects of having a lot of hit points and being blasé about such a fall. Any hint of that and reality will become a lot tougher to ignore.
I almost fell outta my chair laughing at the earlier post about fighters not getting as many feats. Are you kidding me? They get a feat every level, think about it every level. By the time the rare fighter in my group gets to 7th or 8th they are haveing tropuble decideing which feat tree to start next.
20th level human fighter: 21 feats.
20th level human wizard: 36 spells per day, plus Int bonus spells and possibly school spells, plus at-will cantrips.The earlier post said that fighters get fewer feats than wizards get spells, for those who bothered to read it.
Clearly, you are not groking my logic.
I grok it well enough to see the flaw in it. If F is the suite of things a fighter's feats can do, and W is the suite of things a wizard's spells can do, then F is a subset of W, not a partially-overlapping and equally large array.
Personally I don't have much of a problem with a fighter being able to survive a fall off a cliff. As mentioned it's happened in real life, so why not with super tough high level fighters?
I do have a bit of a problem with the metagaming that can potentially come from it though. While I want the high-level fighter to be incredibly tough I also don't want situations where a player decides to leap off a flying castle several thousand feet in the air, just because it's faster than the alternatives and he has a few healing items.
+1
I don't think its worth changing the rule, but I prefer when the players (and the DM) take a realistic approach of how their character perceive reality. Yes it is a fantastical world, but it still has gravity.
Falling = hurting, and no sane character should be fooled otherwise because "I have a 200 hp buffer, I can take it!" even if the player knows that the fall will result in a very minimal loss of resources. It goes along the typical "cast a fireball centered on me, I can take it but the goblins won't" or the casual "chop my arm-off and prepare regeneration tomorrow morning".
Spectacularly escape the BBEG's tower in a memorable jump is one thing. Jump down the 4th level to impress the chicks is something esle...
Ok so the fighter survives the fall or fireball
but does all his stuff?
I grok it well enough to see the flaw in it. If F is the suite of things a fighter's feats can do, and W is the suite of things a wizard's spells can do, then F is a subset of W, not a partially-overlapping and equally large array.
Then you clearly are not following me at all. The space of fantastic things a fighter (or ranger, rogue, barbarian, etc) does doesn't have to be an equally large space as the wizard. Just different. And it certainly does play quite differently.
Just different.
As I said, a fighter can't do anything that a wizard can't also do.
Improved Critical -> keen edgeBlinding Critical -> blindness/deafness
(etc.)
As long as we're okay with spells that can do anything you can imagine, then the fighter has nothing unique. Ban most spells that deal damage, improse conditions, affect combat -- then the fighter has things that ONLY he can do.
I don't think its worth changing the rule, but I prefer when the players (and the DM) take a realistic approach of how their character perceive reality. Yes it is a fantastical world, but it still has gravity.
Falling = hurting, and no sane character should be fooled otherwise because "I have a 200 hp buffer, I can take it!" even if the player knows that the fall will result in a very minimal loss of resources. It goes along the typical "cast a fireball centered on me, I can take it but the goblins won't" or the casual "chop my arm-off and prepare regeneration tomorrow morning".
Spectacularly escape the BBEG's tower in a memorable jump is one thing. Jump down the 4th level to impress the chicks is something esle...
Yeah, even the rules as is, and the fact that people can survive, I rarely see people jumping to just impress others. Frankly, even if you can be healed, it is a waste of resources.
The only time it ever really happened in a game I was party of, was in a game I was running where the party was in this buried city. A group of baddies had been unburying it, the party found another way inside. In a domed area, the baddies opened the top, saw the party and had four people leap down into the hole and fall to the group a 100 feet below. Next round the four trolls, that's what they were, stood up and the party could see their bones shifting back into place and healing (regeneration). It was a pretty dramatic scene (though the trolls were easy pickings due to taking so much non-lethal damage from falling).
But yeah, I've never seen PCs make leaps just for gits and shiggles.
There's a spell for every occasion? Does every wizard have all of those spells prepared all the time?If you listen to the "Wizards are teh GOD" posters, of course they do. And if they, for some unknown reason, don't happen to have any given spell memorized at any given moment, they DO have it on a scroll.And thye pay for those scrolls either in EXP or gold AND exp.
I keep hearing about the poor fighter not being able to do as much cool stuff as a wiz/cleric or druid but I have seen fighter after fighter deal fireball level damage PER NON CRIT HIT. Spellcatsers get a few really good damage spells before they run out but fighters swing their weapons all day long.
For starters, wizards need significantly fewer magic items then fighters do. They don't need a fully enchanted weapon, or a fully enchanted suit of armor. They don't need the natural armor necklace, or the ring of protection. Wealth per level guidelines harass martial classes far more then spellcasters.
Secondly, please don't compare damage. Damage is not what wizards excel at. A fighter can swing their weapon all day long, unless the wizard casts Dominate Person or Forcecage, and then the fighter can't do anything.
That's the big difference. The fighter can do damage all day long, but the wizard needs only two or three of his 30+ spells to end the fight. And outside of a fight, when there's nothing for the fighter to hit with a sword? Then what?
Just different.As I said, a fighter can't do anything that a wizard can't also do.
Improved Critical -> keen edge
Blinding Critical -> blindness/deafness
(etc.)
I'm sorry but a fighter wielding a weapon with improved critical is really not the same as the wizard being able to cast keen edge on something. What exactly is the wizard going to do with that keen edged weapon that matches the fantastic stuff the fighter can do with it?
I'm sorry but a fighter wielding a weapon with improved critical is really not the same as the wizard being able to cast keen edge on something. What exactly is the wizard going to do with that keen edged weapon that matches the fantastic stuff the fighter can do with it?
Transformation, maybe? Or give it to his planar binding assistant, who likely outpowers the fighter anyway?
And the fighter can't do ANY fantastic stuff with it -- only mundane stuff.
|
And outside of a fight, when there's nothing for the fighter to hit with a sword? Then what?
The spellcasters get to use their spells to handle non-combat challenges, the skilled characters get to use their skills to sneak around, look for clues or notice oddities, steal things and influence people, and the fighter gets a fantastic chance to roleplay without any abilities to let him accomplish any in game progress.
The spellcasters get to use their spells to handle non-combat challenges, the skilled characters get to use their skills to sneak around, look for clues or notice oddities, steal things and influence people, and the fighter gets a fantastic chance to roleplay without any abilities to let him accomplish any in game progress.
...
Please tell me that's sarcasm. You may as well call a 1HD Commoner in a 10th-level party a "roleplaying opportunity."
|
|
The spellcasters get to use their spells to handle non-combat challenges, the skilled characters get to use their skills to sneak around, look for clues or notice oddities, steal things and influence people, and the fighter gets a fantastic chance to roleplay without any abilities to let him accomplish any in game progress....
Please tell me that's sarcasm. You may as well call a 1HD Commoner in a 10th-level party a "roleplaying opportunity."
I thought my post was dripping. Evidently my sarcasm is subtler than I thought!
I thought my post was dripping. Evidently my sarcasm is subtler than I thought!
Just checking. Pure-text medium, Poe's Law, and all that rot.
But yeah, I've never seen PCs make leaps just for gits and shiggles.
Unfortunately, I have, and other similar situations as well.
Just to clarify my position, I have absolutely no problem with the rules as they are. But sometime, I have a problem with how casually some PCs accept the loss of hp as being insignificant.
'findel
And outside of a fight, when there's nothing for the fighter to hit with a sword? Then what?The spellcasters get to use their spells to handle non-combat challenges, the skilled characters get to use their skills to sneak around, look for clues or notice oddities, steal things and influence people, and the fighter gets a fantastic chance to roleplay without any abilities to let him accomplish any in game progress.
Unless the fighter has no imagination or the DM hates fighter types then he has the exact same role playing oportunites as every other charecter in the game.
I have seen many fighters that used intimidate to gather information, or made their own weapons and armor or basically used their skills in the most creative manner possible to further the story.The fighter type isbn't know for being sneaky thats the theif's job, the fighter is the meat sheild tank of the group that absorbes everything a BBEG can throw at him and survive.
In my current eberron campaign(3.5) we are noticing the lack of fighter type. The players work schedule changed so he can't make it anymore, now my wizard is haveing to step in and be the muscle of the group. I grappled a guy we needed information from then second round got the pin, then my buddy the psion had to expend PP to shove him off a cliff to dispose of the body when we were done with him. A fighter type should have been the one to do all of that, the muscle,intimidation and brutality are halmarks of that class.
We need a fighter so bad that the cleric player has retired his charecter to bring in a fighter. Healings easy, we never face undead so we can get by without a cleric but we need a HP sponge.
The game isn't the same with out your mongo-swing-stick to take all those hits that would have killed every other charecter at the table.
And outside of a fight, when there's nothing for the fighter to hit with a sword? Then what?The spellcasters get to use their spells to handle non-combat challenges, the skilled characters get to use their skills to sneak around, look for clues or notice oddities, steal things and influence people, and the fighter gets a fantastic chance to roleplay without any abilities to let him accomplish any in game progress.Unless the fighter has no imagination or the DM hates fighter types then he has the exact same role playing oportunites as every other charecter in the game.
I have seen many fighters that used intimidate to gather information, or made their own weapons and armor or basically used their skills in the most creative manner possible to further the story.
The fighter type isbn't know for being sneaky thats the theif's job, the fighter is the meat sheild tank of the group that absorbes everything a BBEG can throw at him and survive.
Oh come on, you're arguing FOR us now.
"The fighter's job isn't to have skills. Or to have magic. Or to do things outside of combat. It's his job to be an NPC and just absorb attacks"
Your comment of "Well he has roleplaying opportunities" falls flat. What does he do? Look at the fighter skill list and number of skills he has. What does he do outside of combat that other classes can't do?
As for your second example, if anything it shows how unneeded a fighter is.
Look I just want my fighters to be somewhat capable of what free runners can do: Climbing, Jumping, and Making it out of a fall without hurting themselves too much. The only difference is that I expect them to be better at it, I mean wizards get better spells than most wizards get in a majority of movies, in fact in most movies if the wizard isn't a BBEG, they are little more than an adviser.
As for those who say that people don't jump out of buildings to impress people, watch free running or parkour.
Fighters should be physically more impressive than people in real life, if Wizards can be magically more impressive than characters in a movie...
:p just saying
I use Paizo's critical hit deck, so in my game any critical does have a chance to do interesting things like blind, bleed, etc. Once our barbarian managed to behead a foe with a lucky critical, which was an awesome and surprising result.
The deck has some special stuff for magical criticals as well, but those are rare since only one of my casters uses a ranged touch spell with any regularity, and those only critical on a 20. The barbarian gets the most criticals with his many attacks (and an extra bite).
So those feats are great if you want to consistently do a specific effect with a critical, but at least in my game a lot of interested things can happen on a critical hit.
We use the critical hit deck as well (and the critical miss deck). I would recomend it to anyone who thinks the melee/ranged combat classes are lacking in relation to the caster classes. Since we started using it, the crit special effects have had a decisive effect on several battles. Examples: crit on a dragon that crippled a wing, preventing it from taking off and escaping, crit on a devil blinding it and causing it to teleport away in panic, crit on a giant hamstringing it and bringing it to its knees, crit on an enemy spellcaster cutting his vocal chords, crit on a fleeing monster inflicting bleed that allowed it to be easily tracked to its lair where it eventually bled out.
As for the critical miss deck, that is pure DM evil fun! I love watching the panic on the face of the player who created an optimized damage-dealing machine as he realizes he has hit himself or one of his buddies rather than the bad guy, and prays to roll a 1 for damage. Crit misses have had less profound effect on the game as they are more rare, in our experience, but we did have one guy who nearly bled out from a self-inflicted wound.
|
|
I have problems with critical misses. I've had one magic item, about 1/4 of my wealth, destroyed by one (the dm said I could injure a party member or destory my own cape, my choice). I've see house rules where critical hits and misses weren't to be confirmed (I played a spellcaster that game, let me tell you!). I've seen house rules where if you roll a natural 1 on any attack, you lose all iteratives for the rest of the round.
Confirmed crits are better than unconfirmed, but unless a caster has to make some sort of concentration check for every spell that allows them a critical success or failure, I don't think that every one of a martial character's actions should have a a critical failure chance. So I stick to RAW with critical misses.
Confirmed crits are better than unconfirmed, but unless a caster has to make some sort of concentration check for every spell that allows them a critical success or failure, I don't think that every one of a martial character's actions should have a a critical failure chance. So I stick to RAW with critical misses.
Amen. Or unless a confirmed "good" crit can give you something that disproportionately benefits warriors -- e.g., an action point.