Wizards vs Melee

[Ross Byers]

I removed some posts. Let's all act like adults here.

Also, I'd like to remind everyone that trolls thrive on attention, negative or otherwise. Attempting to prove that they are incorrect, or that you know they are a troll, only encourages them to continue.

Instead, simply pretend the post isn't there. If it violates our messageboard rules, please flag it. Don't call them out. Don't tell them you're going to ignore them. Just continue the conversation as if there were not there, just like a child throwing a tantrum.

Thank you for making the Paizo messageboards a more friendly and civil place.

[Ashiel]

Ross Byers wrote:

I removed some posts. Let's all act like adults here.

Also, I'd like to remind everyone that trolls thrive on attention, negative or otherwise. Attempting to prove that they are incorrect, or that you know they are a troll, only encourages them to continue.

Instead, simply pretend the post isn't there. If it violates our messageboard rules, please flag it. Don't call them out. Don't tell them you're going to ignore them. Just continue the conversation as if there were not there, just like a child throwing a tantrum.

Thank you for making the Paizo messageboards a more friendly and civil place.

Mr. Ross, can you bring my post back? My post was primarily a mechanical one, and discussing the merits of PF PA vs 3.5 PA, and the logical inconsistency of arguing balance based on 3 different feat sources vs 1 feat in Pathfinder, and the mechanics behind it. It also included a fair amount of gameplay anecdotes discussing creatures and their participation in the game.

My post didn't qualify for anything you called out in your reasons for removing posts, so I'm wondering why my post got removed. Can you give me some feedback, please?

[Ross Byers]

Ashiel wrote:

My post didn't qualify for anything you called out in your reasons for removing posts, so I'm wondering why my post got removed. Can you give me some feedback, please?

When we remove posts, we also remove posts quoting those posts (and so on down the line). We do this because leaving the quote results in out-of-context material at best, and a repeat of the offending material at worst.

While this does sometimes mean that perfectly civil posts get caught in the crossfire, there isn't really a better alternative.

Feel free to repost your mechanical material, if necessary.

[CoDzilla]

Ross Byers wrote:

Ashiel wrote:

My post didn't qualify for anything you called out in your reasons for removing posts, so I'm wondering why my post got removed. Can you give me some feedback, please?

When we remove posts, we also remove posts quoting those posts (and so on down the line). We do this because leaving the quote results in out-of-context material at best, and a repeat of the offending material at worst.

While this does sometimes mean that perfectly civil posts get caught in the crossfire, there isn't really a better alternative.

Feel free to repost your mechanical material, if necessary.

How about explaining why my mechanical material was removed? I quoted no one except him.

[houstonderek]

FatR wrote:

houstonderek wrote:

And the modern player expectation seems to be survive until level 20, which is mathematically unlikely.

Then make it mathematically likely. I mean, there are good reasons for PCs to die, but this particular reason is stupid and insulting. Why the heck should anyone play the game where they are likely to be randomly and irrecoverably shafted due to bad rules? Particularly past very low levels, when a character is likely to have significant investment put in it. The only real advantage that TTRPGs have over modern CRPGs (not counting out-of-game ones, like hanging with one's friends) is players' ability to play out their own, personalized power fantasies. Death by random chance screws it over. It is only tolerable in DnD because raising the dead becomes quite possible quite early (assuming the party prepares for eventual accidents), so by the moment your character becomes established and gets some effort put into him he isn't likely to be lost on a poor roll.

There's a reason I tend to, these days, play with older players or players who don't exhibit a sense of entitlement. I don't do "easy mode" as a DM. The guys I game with are fairly to decently competent to optimize (o at least min-max) their characters, so it isn't that I pick on sub-par characters.

I don't fudge rolls.

The point in a game I run is for the players to minimize risk. Where possible, I expect them to gather intel, set the rules of engagement, and use tactics that maximize their resource management (I don't allow the "15 minute" workday unless the characters can actually effect such a strategy through proper spell use or planning - my intelligent opponents pursue and harass if they are capable, and they will prep and be on a higher alert level for a few days after being raided).

The game can be swingy. It happens. My players understand that their characters, were they truly risk averse, they'd take up farming or shop keeping, not adventuring. Also, the best stories over the years, the ones players laugh over time and time again, are the funny/heroic/ or just weirdly random deaths.

With easy access to raise dead after a certain point, character death isn't terribly traumatic. Either the character can get raised (or, in one case, reincarnated as a pixie - that character was a pita after that) or the player can try out a different character concept.

As to the pixie: the player was despondent until he realized that an 11th level pixie rogue can be nasty. Dude wound up soloing a 14th level necromancer at one point (surprise round sneak attack, won initiative, fight's over in one round - this was 3x, necro only had d4 HD and was completely unaware the party had targeted him so he wasn't buffed (I don't do alignments, so the party was basically just assassinating the guy because he had some macguffin they wanted) - Knox was doing recon - dude's disable device was off the charts for his level, and free improved invisibility and fly allowed him to keep up with the cleric and the wizard in the party, usefulness-wise).

Anyway, the point is, I don't conduct "story hour" (although the stories to tend to be pretty memorable), I play a game. D&D without death is like soccer without scoring - I guess it's still a game, but the point isn't adventure, imo, it's protecting the self esteem of six year olds. My players know this up front, and have the choice to play or not play. If you wouldn't play in my game, fair enough, I don't force people to play with me. But, with one or two exceptions over the 25 years I've been running games, I haven't had any complaints, and still run into the occasional "back in the day" player who still remembers "that time [inset funny/memorable character situation here]."

Everyone has a different style, not everyone will mesh with everyone else, style wise, and the game supports several play styles. So, find what you like and have fun, that's the ultimate point anyway.

[Ashiel]

Ross Byers wrote:

When we remove posts, we also remove posts quoting those posts (and so on down the line). We do this because leaving the quote results in out-of-context material at best, and a repeat of the offending material at worst.

While this does sometimes mean that perfectly civil posts get caught in the crossfire, there isn't really a better alternative.

Feel free to repost your mechanical material, if necessary.

Ok. Thanks for the info. I'm a bit bummed because it was a pretty long and in-depth post, but maybe I'll be able to summarize it better this time. Either way, thanks for answering. ^-^

Power Attack Crunch
In response to some commentary on Pathfinder Power Attack being weaker than 3.5 Power Attack, I'd like to point out a few very important notes.

3.5 Notes

The arguments for 3.5 PA being better rely on 3 feats, rather than 1.

It relies on combining Leap Attack and Shock Trooper, requiring three different sources to achieve: PHB, Complete Warrior, and Complete adventurer.

Shock Trooper is a tactical feat that provides 3 different options in combat. The only reason anyone takes this feat is one of those three options is applying the attack penalty from Power Attack to your Armor Class instead of your attack rolls for that round.

3.5 Power Attack has a 2:1 ratio on damage with a 2 handed weapon, so -5 becomes +10 damage.

Leap Attack doubles the power attack bonus, or triples it when wielding a 2 handed weapon, so +10 becomes +30.

Pathfinder Notes

Pathfinder Power Attack reduces your attack rolls to add to your damage in a 1:3 ratio (so -1 atk / +3 dmg). Every 4 points of base attack, the penalty increases by -1, increasing the damage output by +3 (so -2/+6). By 20th level, a full BAB class has a -6 to hit and a +18 to damage with a 2 handed weapon.

Other Notes

If your to-hit falls too low, your damage per round drastically decreases due to dealing no damage on a failed hit.

Since we're comparing 2 3.5 feats in addition to 3.5 Power Attack, we shall compare PF Power Attack with the same feats, to try and be fair.

Some maintain that AC at higher levels is far less valuable, because you will be automatically hitting one another (PC vs NPC) so it becomes a war of burst-damage, whereas at lower levels AC is more relevant to keep up due to lower attack bonuses.

The Crunch
For our example, we will use the capstone (20th) as the level we're comparing them at. For our example, we will use a generic +20 BAB class (fighter, ranger, paladin, barbarian, cavalier, warrior, etc) without immediately adding in class features (such as weapon training, or rage). The reason 20th level was chosen is because it represents the highest amount of damage that can be added via the feats, and also represents the level in which AC contribution will, theoretically, be at a minimum (I'm inclined to agree that AC is far from the main defense mechanism at this level).

The mechanics shown at this 20th level are likewise applicable at lower levels, except the numbers are smaller. The exception being Leap Attack which cannot be taken until 5th level at the lowest (requiring a converted 5 ranks in Acrobatics), in which case the PF Power Attack (hereafter referred to as PA) is the clear victor of the two in terms of attack/damage ratio.

Basic Statistics
Our hypothetical warrior has a +20 base attack. Likewise he will be wielding a +5 weapon (allowing him to ignore most DRs), and he will have a 30 strength (obtainable relatively easily by 20th level, starting with a 14 strength at 1st level), granting a total to-hit bonus of +35. We will also assume that he is currently under the effects of haste and heroism granting a +38 attack bonus to begin with. I chose haste and heroism because they are staple and/or long-term buffs that can be assumed to be active (either through spellcaster buffs or via cheap magic items).

Our warrior will be wielding a 2 handed weapon (we will say a glaive because they have reach, which is important). His base damage is 1d10+20 per hit, or an average of 25.5 damage.

Our Opponent
I've chosen a standard "naked" pit-fiend from the bestiary. He is CR 20 before factoring in any equipment he possesses as part of his 137,000 gp treasure (he would need PC Equivalent WBL to increases his CR by +1 according to the Gamemastering chapter), so simply the baseline naked pit-fiend strait out of the book, with not so much as leather armor.

This pit fiend can buff itself to AC 42 with one of its spell-like abilities at-will, lasting 20 rounds, in 3 seconds, as often as it likes per day, so we can assume that the pit fiend will have this buff active (this buff is the equivalent of a +4 ring of deflection, and a +4 cloak of resistance, and does not stack with either of those).

Finally, the pit-fiend has 350 hit points before buffs. We'll be leaving this portion untouched.

Note: While not directly related to this discussion, the 3.5 pit-fiend was actually 10% harder to hit than the Pathfinder version, sporting a 44 AC with the same buff, due to a higher natural AC.

3.5 PA Combat Test

With a +38 to hit, our warrior needs a 2 to hit the pit-fiend without PA. He's also charging so he gets a +2, bringing him to +40. However each -1 that we take adds +2 to the damage, and increases the number we must roll to hit by 1. We PA for -6/+12, allowing us a 70% chance to hit the pit fiend with power attack. Our average damage per hit (DPH) becomes 37.5, but our chance to hit has gone from 95% to 70%, meaning we will miss 30% of the time, which reduces the Damage Per Round (DPR) by roughly 30%, bringing the damage per round to about 26.25 which is actually only a .75 damage bonus. This factor is especially cruel to iterative attacks which can make them almost certainly deal 0 damage each round; but we're charging so we're only looking at 1/round.

By pushing the penalty to -9, we can reach a +18 damage bonus, but now we need a 11 to hit, so we are now 50% likely to miss our target and deal no damage at all, actually drastically reducing our DPR to less than our DPR is, but increasing the damage of our individual hits.

3.5 PA + Leap Attack

Leap Attack allows us to Jump 10 ft and triple our PA damage.

We take the same -6 penalty to add a +32 damage to give us an average damage of 57.5, increasing our average DPH by 130%, so if our hit lands it's worth 2.3 hits, so it now becomes a good option to push more power attack.

Taking a -9 penalty to increase the damage by +54 or 79.5 damage would increase the average DPH by 310%, making it equivalent to 4 direct hits on a successful attack. Even with the 50% DPR penalty of factoring in missed attacks, a single landed strike becomes an average of about 2 hits per round (though a bit less damage per round than Power Attacking for -6). Not a bad deal.

PF PA Combat Test

With the same +38 to hit and +2 from charging, we need a 2 to hit the pit-fiend. Like with the 3.5 version, we have what is known as an "auto-hit", which means you have only a 5% chance of missing (by rolling a 1 on the d20).

PF PA takes a -6 penalty and adds a +18 damage bonus, increasing our average damage per hit from 25.5 to 43.5, but drops our accuracy from 95% to 70% as noted previously. This means our DPR drops to about 30.45, but that's still about +5 damage per round than normal.

We can see that the PF PA grants a higher Damage Per Hit (DPH) and DPR by default for the same sacrificed hit chances.

PF PA + Leap Attack

By applying the supplemental Leap Attack feat to our PF PA we increase our damage and damage per round significantly, as with the 3.5.

With the same -6 penalty as the 3.5 PA, we receive a +54 damage bonus bringing our DPH to 79.5 (310%), or 55.65 DPR, which is about 20% more damage per round than 3.5 PA + Leap Attack when you cound the loss of accuracy.

Applying Shock Trooper

Shock Trooper is a 3rd option from Complete Warrior. It is a Tactical Feat that allows you to, in addition to 2 other combat options, apply the penalty from your PA to your AC for 1 round instead of your to-hit rolls.

Applying Shock Trooper in both cases allows you to negate the to-hit penalty to resolve the attack with the increased DPH and DPR using your normal attack bonus, meaning you drastically increase the DPR portion of your damage, since you now hit 95% of the time each round, so your DPR becomes almost identical to your DPH.

Applying Shock-Trooper to the 3.5 PA allows you to use your entire BAB as a penalty to your AC to get a +120 bonus to your DPH when combined with Leap Attack. Making it 570% (145.5) DPH, with almost equal DPR.

The drawback to this option means your AC becomes garbage, but it allows you a greater possibility to kill your opponent in a shorter amount of time, especially considering that scoring a critical hit, or using a lance while mounted, will multiply the damage into the 1640% range (about 436.5 damage), or the equivalent of 17 direct hits at once.

The feat in both cases makes the character a "glass cannon", since if the initial hit misses (such as due to mirror image or a cloak of displacement) the hit is wasted and you're now auto-hittable and auto-critical-confirm for 1 round, since all opponents effectively have a +20 bonus to hit you for 1 round. Likewise, you are likely screwed of you're fighting multiple opponents (you'll slaughter 1, then be killed by their allies).

We can clearly see that the catalyst for 3.5 PA being more attractive than PF PA is entirely reliant on having the Tactical Feat Shock Trooper available as a character option. In either case, neither 3.5 PA nor PF PA can allow the character to do such obscene amounts of damage in a single round, but the PF PA is superior in both DPH and DPR when compared to the 3.5 PA.

So really, the "problem" is Shock Trooper. Not Power Attack. Paizo did not in any way "nerf" Power Attack. In fact, they made Power Attack better and easier to use, and it is still usable with Shock Trooper. The difference is, now it's not as disruptive or abuse-able as it was in 3.5. So even if you didn't allow Shock Trooper in your 3.5 games (I know many people didn't), it would probably be far more viable now. Pathfinder has succeeded at being Backwards Compatible, while also maintaining a more balanced pace.

In either case, the 3.5 vs PF Power Attack argument is pretty much void. It relies on two additional splat-books which may or may not be available for the game, and it was far, far from being 3.5 Core.

Other Notes/Writer Commentary

Most of the shock trooper builds also rely entirely upon charging to maintain their exceedingly above average DPR.

Most of the statements that "melee was nerfed" are based on the idea that the "norm" are warriors with shock trooper, leap attack, and acquiring the Pounce ability either through a supplement (such as through a 1 level dip of lion totem barbarian).

I've GMed for these types of PCs before (mounted barbarian/fighter/frenzied berserker with shock trooper + spirited charge), and they're not really very interesting, and glass cannons bore me.

If you factor in the Pathfinder Fighter's Weapon Training + Weapon Specialization line, the Fighter actually ends up with a +39 bonus to hit will full power attack in effect, pushing their DRH and DPR to very high levels, especially counting iterative attacks. Without PA, their iterative attacks alone can easily push their DPR to about 127.5 on weapon damage alone, since their lowest to-hit in a full attack is +30.

[Kaiyanwang]

*applause*

An essay!

[CoDzilla]

houstonderek wrote:

FatR wrote:

houstonderek wrote:

And the modern player expectation seems to be survive until level 20, which is mathematically unlikely.

Then make it mathematically likely. I mean, there are good reasons for PCs to die, but this particular reason is stupid and insulting. Why the heck should anyone play the game where they are likely to be randomly and irrecoverably shafted due to bad rules? Particularly past very low levels, when a character is likely to have significant investment put in it. The only real advantage that TTRPGs have over modern CRPGs (not counting out-of-game ones, like hanging with one's friends) is players' ability to play out their own, personalized power fantasies. Death by random chance screws it over. It is only tolerable in DnD because raising the dead becomes quite possible quite early (assuming the party prepares for eventual accidents), so by the moment your character becomes established and gets some effort put into him he isn't likely to be lost on a poor roll.

There's a reason I tend to, these days, play with older players or players who don't exhibit a sense of entitlement. I don't do "easy mode" as a DM. The guys I game with are fairly to decently competent to optimize (o at least min-max) their characters, so it isn't that I pick on sub-par characters.

I don't fudge rolls.

The point in a game I run is for the players to minimize risk. Where possible, I expect them to gather intel, set the rules of engagement, and use tactics that maximize their resource management (I don't allow the "15 minute" workday unless the characters can actually effect such a strategy through proper spell use or planning - my intelligent opponents pursue and harass if they are capable, and they will prep and be on a higher alert level for a few days after being raided).

The game can be swingy. It happens. My players understand that their characters, were they truly risk averse, they'd take up farming or shop keeping, not adventuring. Also, the best stories...

I like you. I tried to respond to you, but it got removed for no reason whatsoever. This was basically what I was trying to say. The odds are against the players, so they have to optimize to overcome that. Optimizing isn't a purely mechanical thing, though the best plans still fall flat if you lack the actual tools to follow through.

For the most part, this is how I and those I run with play. And aside from levels 1 and 2 being a luck based mission it works great all the way up to 20.

[Dabbler]

Ashiel wrote:

Power Attack Crunch

In response to some commentary on Pathfinder Power Attack being weaker than 3.5 Power Attack, I'd like to point out a few very important notes.

I crunched some numbers on this a while back. At BAB +20 if the target AC is 12 or less than your total attack bonus, 3.5 power attack is better. If you are using a one-handed weapon it drops to an AC 18 worse than your attack bonus before the 3.5 power attack wins.

Then the APg produced the two-handed specialist, and that make PA even MORE effective.

[CoDzilla]

You got Leap Attack wrong. Your entire premise is invalid. Still.

I had a much more detailed response to you, but despite the complete lack of flames it keeps getting removed.

It is not a secret that martial characters need many books to be viable, nor is it a secret that, barring a very high to hit score they need Shock Trooper. It's just the way the game is, because core is the epitome of imbalance.

[Evil Lincoln]

CoDzilla wrote:

It is not a secret that martial characters need many books to be viable, nor is it a secret that, barring a very high to hit score they need Shock Trooper. It's just the way the game is, because core is the epitome of imbalance.

Okay, this makes no sense. What is viable? Geez man, you can finish whole campaigns without a caster. It's totally possible.

You're confusing optimal for viable. It is causing people (like me) who might otherwise agree with your points to throw a fit.

Also, please, please stop saying "argument invalid". If you are actually explaining yourself intelligently, it ought to be redundant. Every time you put others down like that, it makes your own case seem weak. You are plainly smarter than that.

[Dabbler]

Evil Lincoln wrote:

CoDzilla wrote:

It is not a secret that martial characters need many books to be viable, nor is it a secret that, barring a very high to hit score they need Shock Trooper. It's just the way the game is, because core is the epitome of imbalance.

Okay, this makes no sense. What is viable? Geez man, you can finish whole campaigns without a caster. It's totally possible.

You're confusing optimal for viable. It is causing people (like me) who might otherwise agree with your points to throw a fit.

Also, please, please stop saying "argument invalid". If you are actually explaining yourself intelligently, it ought to be redundant. Every time you put others down like that, it makes your own case seem weak. You are plainly smarter than that.

I hope he's talking about 3.5, because Pathfinder only has one supplement you can apply to martial characters, the APG, and they can be really effective without even that much!

[Evil Lincoln]

Dabbler wrote:

I hope he's talking about 3.5, because Pathfinder only has one supplement you can apply to martial characters, the APG, and they can be really effective without even that much!

The rhetoric does sound a little like it hasn't been updated for this edition. I'm sure arguments exist about Pathfinder not fixing the melee-caster disparity. None of that matters though, because viable is different from optimal.

[juanpsantiagoXIV]

houstonderek wrote:

I don't fudge rolls.

Neither do I. I feel like there's no point in using dice if you're going to change the results to make things more "cinematic".

houstonderek wrote:

]The game can be swingy. It happens.

Indeed. I had a guest player once get one-shotted by a ninja's sneak attack (he was a 5th level dread necromancer) and start whining because the damage the ninja ended up doing was over four times his hit points. His cry of "WHAT'S THE POINT IN PLAYING A CASTER?" became a group running joke after that game.

[kyrt-ryder]

Evil Lincoln wrote:

Dabbler wrote:

I hope he's talking about 3.5, because Pathfinder only has one supplement you can apply to martial characters, the APG, and they can be really effective without even that much!

The rhetoric does sound a little like it hasn't been updated for this edition. I'm sure arguments exist about Pathfinder not fixing the melee-caster disparity. None of that matters though, because viable is different from optimal.

Whether Viable equals Optimal or not depends largely on the GM. If you have a GM who is playing the monsters intelligently, who ruthlessly takes advantage of their abilities and makes the bestiary work for him, noncasters really, really, really struggle. To the point that one would generally be better off playing a caster in such a gaming environment.

[wraithstrike]

Dabbler wrote:

Evil Lincoln wrote:

CoDzilla wrote:

It is not a secret that martial characters need many books to be viable, nor is it a secret that, barring a very high to hit score they need Shock Trooper. It's just the way the game is, because core is the epitome of imbalance.

Okay, this makes no sense. What is viable? Geez man, you can finish whole campaigns without a caster. It's totally possible.

You're confusing optimal for viable. It is causing people (like me) who might otherwise agree with your points to throw a fit.

Also, please, please stop saying "argument invalid". If you are actually explaining yourself intelligently, it ought to be redundant. Every time you put others down like that, it makes your own case seem weak. You are plainly smarter than that.

I hope he's talking about 3.5, because Pathfinder only has one supplement you can apply to martial characters, the APG, and they can be really effective without even that much!

He is. According to his group's playstyle you need 3.5 splat books to make it in his group as a martial character.

[Kaiyanwang]

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Whether Viable equals Optimal or not depends largely on the GM. If you have a GM who is playing the monsters intelligently, who ruthlessly takes advantage of their abilities and makes the bestiary work for him, noncasters really, really, really struggle. To the point that one would generally be better off playing a caster in such a gaming environment.

I punch quite hard both categories, as a GM. IME, "keep the game at a level viable for meleers" does not exist.

I punch hard and the party adapt, as a team. The develop tactics basing on what classes are chosen. Optimization of built and tactics is made post class choice.

There are not strong/screwed PCs. There is a strong/screwed TEAM.

[CoDzilla]

Evil Lincoln wrote:

Dabbler wrote:

I hope he's talking about 3.5, because Pathfinder only has one supplement you can apply to martial characters, the APG, and they can be really effective without even that much!

The rhetoric does sound a little like it hasn't been updated for this edition. I'm sure arguments exist about Pathfinder not fixing the melee-caster disparity. None of that matters though, because viable is different from optimal.

Yes it is. I mean viable. High level is crazy town. Things that seem crazy are merely viable.

As for the book sources, it's already been established that PF martials fail because they don't have access to the stuff they need. So, aside from agreeing why mention there's only 2 books?

Edit: Teamwork means teamwork. Not some people contribute, some are just there to be made to feel better about themselves.

[CoDzilla]

juanpsantiagoXIV wrote:

houstonderek wrote:

I don't fudge rolls.

Neither do I. I feel like there's no point in using dice if you're going to change the results to make things more "cinematic".

houstonderek wrote:

]The game can be swingy. It happens.

Indeed. I had a guest player once get one-shotted by a ninja's sneak attack (he was a 5th level dread necromancer) and start whining because the damage the ninja ended up doing was over four times his hit points. His cry of "WHAT'S THE POINT IN PLAYING A CASTER?" became a group running joke after that game.

He got one shotted 4 times over by... around 4d6 damage?

...What did this guy have, a Con of 3?

[Kaiyanwang]

CoDzilla wrote:

You got Leap Attack wrong. Your entire premise is invalid

Explain, please.

[CoDzilla]

Kaiyanwang wrote:

CoDzilla wrote:

You got Leap Attack wrong. Your entire premise is invalid

Explain, please.

Leap Attack is +100% damage. Not +200%, like he said the first time and not a doubling, using the odd doubling D&D math like he said the second time.

= 4 damage per BAB for a two handed weapon.

[Ashiel]

CoDzilla wrote:

You got Leap Attack wrong. Your entire premise is invalid. Still.

I'm off for dinner for a while, but I'd be happy to read why when I get back. I look forward to your elaboration.

Quote:

I had a much more detailed response to you, but despite the complete lack of flames it keeps getting removed.

It is not a secret that martial characters need many books to be viable, nor is it a secret that, barring a very high to hit score they need Shock Trooper. It's just the way the game is, because core is the epitome of imbalance.

I can't say that I agree. I've seen far too much stuff outside of core during my 3.x days. Every core problem they fixed, they did by shattering something else. Shock Trooper builds aren't a fix. Saying "you play this one kind of fighter-type, or else" is not a fix.

Likewise, in my own games (which admittedly are very, very unforgiving to the PCs) I've yet to see a game at my table where melee isn't viable in PF Core. My NPCs are pretty mean too. You can believe that Pit Fiend in the example post would be using at least a fair portion of that 137,000 gp worth of gear for some basics (perhaps a +3 bracers of armor, a ring of electricity resistance, a minor cloak of displacement, and perhaps a +2 headband of alluring charisma and a small assortment of consumable wands, and other treasures (stuff like coins, art objects, gems, etc).

Combined with the ability to purchase, have crafted, or even craft your own (thanks to Master Craftsman), warrior types who are smart enough to just get some staple gears are far from weenies. You yourself mentioned using a life-drinker, which is easily done in core with some death ward armor, or just having a cleric or someone cast death ward on you when you want to begin laying waste to your enemies by carving throw their levels (it lasts 10 rounds per level, 4th level spell, a 5/day effect on your armor for 70 rounds at a time costs 11,200 gp, or 112,000 gp for a continuous effect).

Fighter-types really don't need huge amounts of damage dealing stuff, but instead should invest in items and equipment that allows them to deal with more obstacles. I mean, a +5 weapon is pretty much all you'll need at higher levels to do your job (especially with the PF adjustments to DR), so all those extra abilities are just gravy. Spend some of your 880,000 gp WBL on stuff like x/day freedom of movement, overland flight, death ward, haste, energy resistances, cloak of displacement effects, and so forth.

If you'd like to explain to me why you actually need to deal 300-600 DPR to be viable, or why you have to be a glass cannon, I'm all ears.

[Evil Lincoln]

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Whether Viable equals Optimal or not depends largely on the GM. If you have a GM who is playing the monsters intelligently, who ruthlessly takes advantage of their abilities and makes the bestiary work for him, noncasters really, really, really struggle. To the point that one would generally be better off playing a caster in such a gaming environment.

I'm not sure that's true. Doesn't such a GM target the caster first? ;)

[Ashiel]

CoDzilla wrote:

Kaiyanwang wrote:

CoDzilla wrote:

You got Leap Attack wrong. Your entire premise is invalid

Explain, please.

Leap Attack is +100% damage. Not +200%, like he said the first time and not a doubling, using the odd doubling D&D math like he said the second time.

= 4 damage per BAB for a two handed weapon.

Actually, I'm reading leap attack right now from my copy of the complete adventurer. Leap Attack deals double damage, or triple damage with a 2 handed weapon.

[BYC]

Evil Lincoln wrote:

CoDzilla wrote:

It is not a secret that martial characters need many books to be viable, nor is it a secret that, barring a very high to hit score they need Shock Trooper. It's just the way the game is, because core is the epitome of imbalance.

Okay, this makes no sense. What is viable? Geez man, you can finish whole campaigns without a caster. It's totally possible.

You're confusing optimal for viable. It is causing people (like me) who might otherwise agree with your points to throw a fit.

Also, please, please stop saying "argument invalid". If you are actually explaining yourself intelligently, it ought to be redundant. Every time you put others down like that, it makes your own case seem weak. You are plainly smarter than that.

I'm not defending him, but people sometimes just don't get it. It might be because a person is that damn good at that skill (like Michael Jordan explaining in depth basketball play that most regular people couldn't begin to understand, or if the classic This Is Spinal Tap example of "This amp goes to 11". People still think Fireball is good. Why? Those people CANNOT explain it other than it does Xd6 to everything in 20' radius. But that's no longer the measuring stick. HPs have gone up in every edition. Fireball has stayed the same.

He obviously does not feel like explaining things in many cases. Partly because of 1 part he's an ass, and 1 part that he's done this tons of times.

What I don't get is why people bother debating with people like him. Everybody plays for different reasons. I don't play D&D to win, but I play just about everything else to win. Most video games I purchase I put on the hardest mode possibly as soon as possible. I thrive on challenges.

He plays for his reasons, and you play for your reasons. Unless there's a reason, who cares what each other says? He's probably right on tons of stuff he posts, but it doesn't matter because unless people play in games similar to his, his opinions and findings doesn't affect others.

[Kaiyanwang]

Ashiel: LA has been Errataed.

Quote:

"The second sentence of the Benefit paragraph should
read as follows: If you cover at least 10 feet of horizontal distance with
your jump, and you end your jump in a square from which you threaten your target, you deal +100% the normal bonus damage from your use of the Power Attack feat."

But does not matter. Ashiel point remains valid IMHO. Old 3.5 Shock Trooper combo already upped damage to eleven. Is not an errata or such the key of the question.

The key is that the SINGLE 3.5 PA feat is weaker than the PF one. The leap attack shocktrooper combo is too much in 3.5. PF adjusted the feat better, is viable for causal play and uses the feat combo without gianormous overkilling damage.

[Evil Lincoln]

BYC wrote:

What I don't get is why people bother debating with people like him. Everybody plays for different reasons. I don't play D&D to win, but I play just about everything else to win. Most video games I purchase I put on the hardest mode possibly as soon as possible. I thrive on challenges.

He plays for his reasons, and you play for your reasons. Unless there's a reason, who cares what each other says? He's probably right on tons of stuff he posts, but it doesn't matter because unless people play in games similar to his, his...

I have no desire to debate CoD. I would like him to tone it down so I don't ragequit when I'm reading his posts, because he actually seems like a smart guy who could contribute.

Maybe he doesn't care if I ragequit his posts, but then, why write them at all? So all I can say is, no need for the attitude, if you're right, it shows.

[wraithstrike]

Ashiel wrote:

CoDzilla wrote:

Kaiyanwang wrote:

CoDzilla wrote:

You got Leap Attack wrong. Your entire premise is invalid

Explain, please.

Leap Attack is +100% damage. Not +200%, like he said the first time and not a doubling, using the odd doubling D&D math like he said the second time.

= 4 damage per BAB for a two handed weapon.

Actually, I'm reading leap attack right now from my copy of the complete adventurer. Leap Attack deals double damage, or triple damage with a 2 handed weapon.

Are you using the errata'd version?

[BYC]

Evil Lincoln wrote:

BYC wrote:

What I don't get is why people bother debating with people like him. Everybody plays for different reasons. I don't play D&D to win, but I play just about everything else to win. Most video games I purchase I put on the hardest mode possibly as soon as possible. I thrive on challenges.

He plays for his reasons, and you play for your reasons. Unless there's a reason, who cares what each other says? He's probably right on tons of stuff he posts, but it doesn't matter because unless people play in games similar to his, his...

I have no desire to debate CoD. I would like him to tone it down so I don't ragequit when I'm reading his posts, because he actually seems like a smart guy who could contribute.

Maybe he doesn't care if I ragequit his posts, but then, why write them at all? So all I can say is, no need for the attitude, if you're right, it shows.

The smartest person in the room often hates others for not being able to think to his level.

I generally find people like him to be right more often than not in RAW environments. But most people don't like being told they're wrong or playing with kid gloves.

[wraithstrike]

Kaiyanwang wrote:

Ashiel: LA has been Errataed.

Quote:

"The second sentence of the Benefit paragraph should
read as follows: If you cover at least 10 feet of horizontal distance with
your jump, and you end your jump in a square from which you threaten your target, you deal +100% the normal bonus damage from your use of the Power Attack feat."

But does not matter. Ashiel point remains valid IMHO. Old 3.5 Shock Trooper combo already upped damage to eleven. Is not an errata or such the key of the question.

The key is that the SINGLE 3.5 PA feat is weaker than the PF one. The leap attack shocktrooper combo is too much in 3.5. PF adjusted the feat better, is viable for causal play and uses the feat combo without gianormous overkilling damage.

To the group looking to one-shot the monster gianormous damage is not overkill though. I am not defending CoD, but he does not play the same game we do.

I recently left a group because they wanted me to make special considerations for the PC's while fighting, but I don't DM like that, and I don't want a DM saving me. If I make a mistake or if I can't hack it within the rules then just give me a new character sheet to fill out.

My point is that some people only see their style of play as the correct one, and nothing will change that.

[Kaiyanwang]

BYC: Being the Smartest (Int) does not mean being the Wisest (Wis).

[Aelryinth]

Remember that CoD is making the premise that monsters are always buffed and always uber, and never get dispelled. Therefore, you must be uber before being buffed.

You MUST have his Power Attack, Shock Trooper and Leap Attack to survive. Preferably with a Valorous Weapon and wraithstrike at will.

That Pit Fiend may indeed keep his unholy aura up. It'll make him stick out like a bastard...and it can get dispelled. In the middle of combat, he's not going to put it back up.

He CAN teleport doesn't mean he's ABLE to teleport. NO PC group at that level is going to let something teleport around freely.

The fact it has great saves and spell resistance is, of course, moot. Every pit fiend at that level will be targeted with 4 save or dies at once and so die.

Also, Ashield, his power attack neutered by PF argument also comes from it being neutered for Monsters, which typically have more HD and BAB then PC's. What's a caster got to worry about, when the Dragon can only go +18 instead of +40?

Lastly, he has all the monsters optimize for combat, but none of them seem to optimize to take full attacks all the time (like PC's do), get True Sight/Pierce Magical Concealment and/or Ghost Touch (shutting down all miss chances), or build up their defenses/immunities like PC's do. Imagine a Int 36 Wizard in a world where every high level monster developed Iron Will to survive save or dies, and every spellcasting monster used Prot Evil and/or Mind Blank. They'd wither and die.

Lastly, monsters entitled to treasure may or may not even know how to use it. I'd like to point out that Ogres aren't proficient with the longspear...it's a martial weapon! likewise, they normally aren't proficient in medium armor..just light armor. So really, the treasure for monsters does indeed work and is logical. The idea that a lizard man is going to go out and buy a suit of breastplate is just as ludicrous as assuming it won't make use of armor...except for the fact that lizardmen who don't have class levels aren't proficient in ANY kind of armor!

Dragons empirically do NOT use their hoard to fund making magic items. They are not people...their hoard is their hoard. They may indeed acquire some magic items, but like the idea of a dragon investing its hoard to make more money is impossible, spending it on magical items is impossible. A dragon isn't going to rely on magic items like PC's do...magic items are what raise things to a dragon's level.

==Aelryinth

[kyrt-ryder]

Aelryinth, longspear is a simple weapon.

Edit: Also, swapping out a crappy feat (like one of the +2/+2 skill feats) in exchange for light armor proficiency is something I could totally see some bipedal intelligent creatures doing. One feat to wear a chain shirt and get +4 AC? Yes please.

[ciretose]

Ashiel wrote:

james maissen wrote:

I'm sorry I was talking about the gold dragon (unless your pet name for the Tarrasque is goldie and it casts spells like one), and I listed haste..

So what are you talking about?

Again I only put down some basic buffs and didn't go all out. At worst I used an amulet of mighty fists which people seemed to object to my using so much on.

With a little work beyond the 5 seconds it took me to write this I think that you could squeeze out another +7 to hit. But even if you couldn't the point stands.

Now I don't like agreeing with Cod both for how he argues and for what he argues, but you need to give the monsters their due. They're not just sitting around pages of the bestiary waiting for adventurers to attack them in a flat featureless plain.

-James

Emphasis mine. +1 to this.

Agreed, but each situations should be looked at individually. The Solar originally referenced has equipment on, rolling the treasure beforehand to give them more is different than planning the encounter with different but comparable cost/power stuff and making that the treasure.

I actually think CoDzilla would argue against Monsters being able to plan and think if he has to fight them.

[Aelryinth]

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Aelryinth, longspear is a simple weapon.

Edit: Also, swapping out a crappy feat (like one of the +2/+2 skill feats) in exchange for light armor proficiency is something I could totally see some bipedal intelligent creatures doing. One feat to wear a chain shirt and get +4 AC? Yes please.

Whoops, so it is.

However, it's a fighting weapon, it's not a hunting weapon (you can throw a club). Longspears are basically designed for fighting in formation shoulder to shoulder, because the lack of close support is fatal!

But note that ONE class level of fighter or barb makes him proficient in all armor and martial weapons, and even shields. He is therefore entitled to such things, because he's skilled in them and logically would have them, upping his combat ability tremendously (as folk int he Runelords AP found out).

==Aelryinth

[wraithstrike]

ciretose wrote:

Ashiel wrote:

james maissen wrote:

I'm sorry I was talking about the gold dragon (unless your pet name for the Tarrasque is goldie and it casts spells like one), and I listed haste..

So what are you talking about?

Again I only put down some basic buffs and didn't go all out. At worst I used an amulet of mighty fists which people seemed to object to my using so much on.

With a little work beyond the 5 seconds it took me to write this I think that you could squeeze out another +7 to hit. But even if you couldn't the point stands.

Now I don't like agreeing with Cod both for how he argues and for what he argues, but you need to give the monsters their due. They're not just sitting around pages of the bestiary waiting for adventurers to attack them in a flat featureless plain.

-James

Emphasis mine. +1 to this.

Agreed, but each situations should be looked at individually. The Solar originally referenced has equipment on, rolling the treasure beforehand to give them more is different than planning the encounter with different but comparable cost/power stuff and making that the treasure.

I actually think CoDzilla would argue against Monsters being able to plan and think if he has to fight them.

I think his group does play like that, and they boost monster's abilities with the treasure that will go to the players. That is why the melee types struggle in their games, without 3.5 books to boost them.

[Jon Otaguro 428]

Aelryinth wrote:

Remember that CoD is making the premise that monsters are always buffed and always uber, and never get dispelled. Therefore, you must be uber before being buffed.

You MUST have his Power Attack, Shock Trooper and Leap Attack to survive. Preferably with a Valorous Weapon and wraithstrike at will.

That Pit Fiend may indeed keep his unholy aura up. It'll make him stick out like a bastard...and it can get dispelled. In the middle of combat, he's not going to put it back up.

He CAN teleport doesn't mean he's ABLE to teleport. NO PC group at that level is going to let something teleport around freely.

The fact it has great saves and spell resistance is, of course, moot. Every pit fiend at that level will be targeted with 4 save or dies at once and so die.

Also, Ashield, his power attack neutered by PF argument also comes from it being neutered for Monsters, which typically have more HD and BAB then PC's. What's a caster got to worry about, when the Dragon can only go +18 instead of +40?

Lastly, he has all the monsters optimize for combat, but none of them seem to optimize to take full attacks all the time (like PC's do), get True Sight/Pierce Magical Concealment and/or Ghost Touch (shutting down all miss chances), or build up their defenses/immunities like PC's do. Imagine a Int 36 Wizard in a world where every high level monster developed Iron Will to survive save or dies, and every spellcasting monster used Prot Evil and/or Mind Blank. They'd wither and die.

Lastly, monsters entitled to treasure may or may not even know how to use it. I'd like to point out that Ogres aren't proficient with the longspear...it's a martial weapon! likewise, they normally aren't proficient in medium armor..just light armor. So really, the treasure for monsters does indeed work and is logical. The idea that a lizard man is going to go out and buy a suit of breastplate is just as ludicrous as assuming it won't make use of armor...except for the fact that lizardmen who don't have class levels aren't proficient in ANY kind of armor!

Dragons empirically do NOT use their hoard to fund making magic items. They are not people...their hoard is their hoard. They may indeed acquire some magic items, but like the idea of a dragon investing its hoard to make more money is impossible, spending it on magical items is impossible. A dragon isn't going to rely on magic items like PC's do...magic items are what raise things to a dragon's level.

==Aelryinth

+1

[ciretose]

Evil Lincoln wrote:

Dabbler wrote:

I hope he's talking about 3.5, because Pathfinder only has one supplement you can apply to martial characters, the APG, and they can be really effective without even that much!

The rhetoric does sound a little like it hasn't been updated for this edition. I'm sure arguments exist about Pathfinder not fixing the melee-caster disparity. None of that matters though, because viable is different from optimal.

Also remember, as he stated earlier he doesn't own the Advanced Players Guide.

[juanpsantiagoXIV]

CoDzilla wrote:

He got one shotted 4 times over by... around 4d6 damage?

...What did this guy have, a Con of 3?

It was beneath 10, though the exact number I forget. I remember the ninja did ((1d6+3)x2 crit) (short sword) + 4d6 (Sudden strike) + 1d6 (shocking burst normal damage) + 1d10 (shocking crit).

[Ashiel]

Aelryinth wrote:

Whoops, so it is.

However, it's a fighting weapon, it's not a hunting weapon (you can throw a club). Longspears are basically designed for fighting in formation shoulder to shoulder, because the lack of close support is fatal!

But note that ONE class level of fighter or barb makes him proficient in all armor and martial weapons, and even shields. He is therefore entitled to such things, because he's skilled in them and logically would have them, upping his combat ability tremendously (as folk int he Runelords AP found out).

==Aelryinth

Aelryinth, I would like to begin by saying I generally agree with your posts. ^-^

I would note that the standard PF ogre is equipped with a greatclub (martial weapon), and uses javalins for hunting. Ogres by virtue of their humanoid HD have proficiency in all simple weapons, but not the greatclub they are described as wielding (so the Ogre is mechanically incorrect, but a 2d6 longspear is perfectly valid). Spears are also a very primitive weapon, so I wouldn't be surprised to see an ogre using one.

It's not like the ogre hunts by throwing his 2 handed melee weapon at enemies anyway. More likely he carries clubs (but he's listed with javalins) for hunting because they're inexpensive and can be thrown. Of course, most ogres probably just hunt by endurance. They have a 40 ft speed and have 15 Constitution and a good Fortitude save. Most of their "hunting" probably involves running their food down and beating it over the head, or simply stealing food from weaker creatures.

Likewise, adding a level of Fighter or Barbarian does grant proficiency with a lot of nice gear (equipping an ogre in full-plate without those proficiencies would mean he suffers a -6 penalty to all his attack rolls and moves at 30 ft per round. Gross, right?). It's also boosts his treasure value because he also gets NPC gear, and increases his CR by +1 (for the key level).

Likewise, the Draconomicon (a very good 3.5 book that's worth getting just for the fluff) notes that most dragon hordes are primarily copper and silver pieces rather than gold pieces, and also notes that dragons will use magical goodies, and can wear a variety of items such as rings and the like. This makes perfect sense, considering the number of coins you need to make a dragon's horde. Say the dragon had the same 137,000 gp worth of treasure. If you took 10,000 gp of that and made it copper pieces, you would have 1,000,000 coins laying around in the lair. That's 20,000 pounds of coinage that the dragon happily rolls around and enjoys, with the other 127,000 gp divided into some nice shiny baubles dotting the room (such as a +2 amulet of natural armor or an old staff or pieces of equipment). The dragon can use the staff and the amulet (since wondrous items re-size to fit the wearer, and the dragons cast as sorcerers).

Dragons who get old are smart. They're greedy and they want to keep their treasures. They recognize that powerful adventurers can be dangerous, or know that dragons can be slain. Many of the chromatic dragons probably think those dragons were killed for being stupid, and not as smart as they are. Dragons don't want to be forced to flee their lairs and relinquish all their shinies to meddlesome adventurers. Imagine the time it took to amass all those coins while being a lazy, lofty, scaly monstrosity. :P

Just a few things to consider. ^_^

[Ross Byers]

I removed some more posts. Civility is a virtue.

If you have an issue with another member of the messageboards, please flag it and move on. If you have a concern about a post that you feel isn't obvious from the post itself (such as sockpuppetry), please send an email to [e-mail] to explain what the issue is, and it will be looked into.

[Dire Mongoose]

Aelryinth wrote:

Remember that CoD is making the premise that monsters are always buffed and always uber, and never get dispelled.

That's only so crazy. Have you read PF Dispel? 3.X Dispel it's not. It's a lot weaker. It's no longer the go-to option -- 95+% of the time, you now should have something better to do. (And if you don't, the something better you have to do is running for your life.)