|
+1. Not to mention most of those things are weaker versions of 3.5 material. Don't believe me? Check out 3.5 Stand Still, and Mage Slayer for that matter. Compare the latter to Paizo's take. Cry as once again, Fighters are denied Nice Things.Teleportation is negated by a featYes. But let's look at the feats that our fighters are assumed to have, per this thread:
Iron Will (more or less a feat tax for all fighters)
Combat Reflexes (to address > 1 attacker, and prereq for SS)
Stand Still (with a very poor success rate, since relies on CMB roll)
Following Step (prerequisite for SU&S)
Step Up and Strike
Vital Strike
Improved Vital Strike
Greater Vital Strike
etc. That's already eight feats we're assuming, off the top of my head, and Dabbler just rattled off six more, many of which have their own additional prerequisites. Yeah, fighters get a lot of feats, but here's the thing:
Remember "The wizard is only good if he has the right spells prepared?" Remember all the screaming about people assuming the wizard would have the right spell? Many of those same people are now assuming the fighter always has all the right feats. And the fighter has (a) no access to divination spells, to help in planning which feats he'll need coming up; and (b) no way to swap out his feats, even if he did know.
I'm trying to show that attempts to establish the fighter as viable, using the same tactics as were used in trying to establish caster supremacy, are on even weaker ground, because the fighter lacks all of the tools the wizard has in order to make the base assumption more likely to hold true.
I love how you skip the response threads.
To repeat, if you are a fighter you have 8 feats by 7th level. By 6th if your human.
Barbarians get less, but many of the effects are duplicated by rage powers.
|
|
2) I take issue with the idea that Martial characters are meant to tank at all. I just never see it in play. Martial characters are there to deal direct damage, and the ones I have seen are very good at that. Some people are claiming that dealing direct damage is not glorious. That's fine, they shouldn't play martial characters. I beg to differ. I think that even if the wizard is in back making your job easier, direct damage is an incredibly fun style of play. That is a statement of opinion, so please, don't waste your breath contradicting it.Except that non fatal HP damage is worthless, and it takes a lot of HP damage to be fatal. The problem is PF nerfs martials, so he's a damage class that can't do enough damage to matter. And since that's all he can do, he fails to accomplish anything.
What would be enough damage per attack for you, as a percentage.
If for example they could take half in the initial move action and the other half if they try to retreat, would that be enough?
|
|
At what level? See, that's a baited question because at higher levels you get more attacks, but that just further reinforces the full attack or be worthless thing. At higher levels you also have massive amounts of HP to plow through.
Which is why I posted the chart in google docs showing each level.
|
|
You mean using the stats from the Bestiary for average per CR level is invalid to you?Which is based on the lowballed stats that in no way match up to the very source material they reference and is therefore invalid.
So, what level?
Yes, because they do not actually average the stats they reference. They lowball these stats.
So anyways, since you continue to refuse to answer the question, here's the real numbers for minimum damage contributions required to even be a blip on the tactical radar:
Level 5: 60.
Level 10: 150.
Level 15: 300.
Level 20: 450.If you do less than that, you don't matter. If you need a full attack to do that much (and you do, because even optimized characters don't pull it off in single hits), but cannot full attack every single round you don't matter.
Critical hits do not count, only consistent damage counts. No, AoOs are not consistent damage. You won't get one every single round.
Why so high? Well, aside from the high HP, there's also plenty of things that shut hit it with a sword down hard. Which means in practice, you'll do a lot less.
1. Where are you pulling these numbers from. Exactly. I don't consider you a more viable source than the people who actually designed the game.
2. Critical hits don't matter because? And of course by that logic critical status effects from critical damage also don't matter...
3. Obviously combat maneuvers also don't matter to you.
I love how you always add degrees of difficulty for the others side, but ignore them for your side. No monsters have immunities to any spells in your game. No creatures are criticaled despite that being the main thing two weapon fighters focus on (and generally accomplish with a 15 or better with improved crit on high crit range weapons)
When you say "Too many feats" and when I show you how many feats you have by level, you move on.
You are going to keep moving the goalposts. In your game, melee damage on the initial attack is minimal, the damage taken from an attack of opportunity is negligible, you are never are able to get full round attacks, and you can't take the feats that do exactly the things you say Melee classes can't do.
Wizards are by far the most versatile class. I don't think anyone can reasonably argue against that. But although a wizard can be many different things at any given time, at any given time they can only have the spells they memorized and the build they created.
Melee and Martial classes work best in synergy with each other. A wizard can do a lot of things to help a martial class get it's full round attack. And at nearly all levels even a moderately well built martial class can hit your exaggerated numbers with a full round.
You minimize the value of this, over and over. It is clear you aren't interested in discussing synergies or strategies different than those that would maximize your caster builds ability to shine in a given situation.
At this point, the only thing I think you may contribute to making this discussion more helpful would be if you would give me the link to the greasemonkey script you so often reference, so that I can use it appropriately.
Yes, because they do not actually average the stats they reference. They lowball these stats.
I just did some poking around, randomly clicking on some CR 5's in the PRD and almost all were within 4 HP, most within 2 HP, of the average listed (55 I think it was), one was substantially higher, one substantially lower. Without literally going through monster by monster I cannot get more exact, but to me the averages looked, well, pretty average.
Fair enough; I average about 27 damage with a non-optimized melee character per swing at level 5, fighter or barbarian, not enough to kill a monster in the bestiary on CR per swing. I cannot end an encounter meant for 4 PCs with a single standard action without a critical hit, but I certainly could with a second due to Haste, on the second round, or due to an AoO, or due to the chance I critical. And 27 will kill a few CR 3's (a couple of CR 3's is a fair encounter at level 5 just as any single CR 5 should be) and wound most others to within an inch of their lives. If they provoked AoO's to leave and attack elsewhere they would die, and a attack or several back from such creatures should put a fighter in no immediate danger due to HP damage, and at level 5 AC should still be good enough to stop plenty of incoming melee attacks.
Critical hits do not count, only consistent damage counts. No, AoOs are not consistent damage. You won't get one every single round.
Earlier I think it was mentioned that SoS/SoD spells are going to land what, 75% of the time, and the other quarter of the time they do nothing. As a fighter at mid higher levels it isn't uncommon to critical 25% of the time (Falchion, Schimitar, Kukri + Improved Critical or Keen), and if every monster is going to ignore the fighter and head towards a mage, then it isn't going to be uncommon to take an AoO. So what do you think is a fair % of the time to say I get to double my single damage attack due to a critical or AoO per monster? Close to that 75% that is so relied heavily upon?
Does my chance increase if I'm using a polearm (my favorite fighter varient from the APG, what with the short haft as an immediate action)?
|
Dude. Seriously. Where do you pull these numbers. i mean, other than your butt.
You are saying that you need to do A MINIMUM 60 damage in a single hit at level 5? No wonder fighters don't live up to your expectations.
Yes, because they do not actually average the stats they reference. They lowball these stats.
So anyways, since you continue to refuse to answer the question, here's the real numbers for minimum damage contributions required to even be a blip on the tactical radar:
Level 5: 60.
Level 10: 150.
Level 15: 300.
Level 20: 450.If you do less than that, you don't matter. If you need a full attack to do that much (and you do, because even optimized characters don't pull it off in single hits), but cannot full attack every single round you don't matter.
Critical hits do not count, only consistent damage counts. No, AoOs are not consistent damage. You won't get one every single round.
Why so high? Well, aside from the high HP, there's also plenty of things that shut hit it with a sword down hard. Which means in practice, you'll do a lot less.
|
|
.
Earlier I think it was mentioned that SoS/SoD spells are going to land what, 75% of the time, and the other quarter of the time they do nothing.
Since I was the one that wrote it, let me correct this again since all the caveats keep getting removed.
The 75% was if the caster was absolutely optimized AND casting against the lowest save of the creature.
So the 75% is the BEST case, not the NORMAL case.
I broke down all the CR 5 creatures and saves somewhere, I'm not sure if it was here or in the "Rules work fine" thread.
|
|
My understanding of it is 100% or you don't matter.
What would be enough damage per attack for you, as a percentage.
I thought a party had 4 characters...
If the melee can't solo everything he is useless, but if the wizard can't do any damage at all and fails completely between 25 and 40% of the time (more when you add in immunities) he is invincible.
Got it.
.
Earlier I think it was mentioned that SoS/SoD spells are going to land what, 75% of the time, and the other quarter of the time they do nothing.Since I was the one that wrote it, let me correct this again since all the caveats keep getting removed.
The 75% was if the caster was absolutely optimized AND casting against the lowest save of the creature.
So the 75% is the BEST case, not the NORMAL case.
I broke down all the CR 5 creatures and saves somewhere, I'm not sure if it was here or in the "Rules work fine" thread.
Of course.
I've been skimming this thread for a while and don't think I saw it here (could have missed it), but I'd like to take a look. Rules work fine thread you say? *Runs off to check it out.*
I saw your spreadsheets of damage vs HP by non-optimized martial level, however. It has actually been very helpful in designing encounters for some new players I'm teaching the game to, in weighing their likely damage output versus simple stand and fight monsters. My normal group likes to powergame and use some very advanced tactics, so I'm so used to ramping up difficulty and intelligence of encounter design to provide a fair challenge and that it is hard to riegn back in at times when you aren't used to doing so.
|
I thought a party had 4 characters...
If the melee can't solo everything he is useless, but if the wizard can't do any damage at all and fails completely between 25 and 40% of the time (more when you add in immunities) he is invincible.
Got it.
Honestly, if he wants melee to one-round opponents, I don't see why he doesn't use a Damage Save type rule and throw out HP. Melee hits enemy, enemy rolls save or dies. Green Ronin had something like that in their Black Company book.
|
|
Honestly, if he wants melee to one-round opponents, I don't see why he doesn't use a Damage Save type rule and throw out HP. Melee hits enemy, enemy rolls save or dies. Green Ronin had something like that in their Black Company book.
I thought a party had 4 characters...
If the melee can't solo everything he is useless, but if the wizard can't do any damage at all and fails completely between 25 and 40% of the time (more when you add in immunities) he is invincible.
Got it.
He doesn't. He wants to win the argument.
Kirth and Kurt are the ones who are actually trying to design and develop things. Even if I don't agree that there is a problem, I can respect that they are looking to address it.
|
|
Positive action instead of negative reaction?
That and actual study and research.
Kirth and Kurt think an issue exists, so they dig into the rules for modifications to address them. They try to understand how melee works and then how that relates to how they want it to work, and build from that. They are here to discuss the issues they see and get feedback on possible corrections.
I'm here to look at the rules as they are and see if they work or don't work, and where they don't work ask for adjustment. If I am wrong and it doesn't work, I want to let the developers know so they can fix it.
Both of these two groups want to make the game better.
...Who is, and is not a one trick pony?I rest my case.
I'm going to say the guy who keeps making up numbers, and claiming that they prove his wild assertions about the game.
Also, the term "I rest my case" is traditionally used when you have proved your point, and have nothing left to say. Considering neither of these things occurred, I would say you are not using that term correctly.
I would also say that the "Damage doesn't matter until it kills the creature" is only true against non-intelligent, or controlled monsters. Most intelligent creatures are not going to flush their lives down the toilet if they think they might be able to escape.
EDIT: Kirth, although my play/GM style is different, I would love to play in one of your games, they sound like a lot of fun.
Kirth and Kurt think an issue exists, so they dig into the rules for modifications to address them. They try to understand how melee works and then how that relates to how they want it to work, and build from that. They are here to discuss the issues they see and get feedback on possible corrections.
That is an excellent assessment in my case -- nearly spot-on. Thank you.
I would also say that the "Damage doesn't matter until it kills the creature" is only true against non-intelligent, or controlled monsters. Most intelligent creatures are not going to flush their lives down the toilet if they think they might be able to escape.
Are you trying to say that the world is supposed to be filled with creatures that have a natural inclination to live? Are you saying that someone taking 50% of their health in a single shot is unlikely to want to do that again unless they strongly think they can defeat their enemy immediately? Are you trying to say that PnP RPGs are not computer simulations?
The feat is "deflect arrows" not "deflect bolts"!
Reminds me of something that happened to my GM. He gets together with a big group, and they all make up characters, and set up this huge mass combat. When it finally starts, the very first longbow shot crits him and he dies. Luck is a b&~#!!
However a DC 60 Reflex save or halt in place is not negligible. And that's what you get with 3.5
Yup, that really is the paragon of balance that Pathfinder should be shooting for. If you can't spam DC 60 SoS, you are not viable, and should go cry that you are not an uber caster.
Cod, I get that your games function in a totally different way, and that is fine. Please stop insisting that our games don't work because they are not like yours.
PS ToZ or Kirth, I like the class rewrites, but I feel I need to know what (if any) other house rules are in place to get the big picture. Do you have a list of house rules for movement, combat, etc.
|
|
1. Where are you pulling these numbers from. Exactly. I don't consider you a more viable source than the people who actually designed the game.The actual statblocks in the actual books. Not the table within that book that does not accurately reference itself.
Which stats? The monster's full HP...SO if you cannot kill a creature in 1 round, 1 attack you have done nothing meaningful? That is an odd way of seeing the game.
2. Critical hits don't matter because? And of course by that logic critical status effects from critical damage also don't matter...Show me a build that critically hits on every single attack, at will, without fail. Then they can matter. Until then what will happen far more often than not is you need a crit, don't get it, and die.
When someone breaks down a concept for optimization critical hits are included in its damage potential. Also, damage done through a PC optimization is about averages, you can never build a PC on max damage due to unreliability to rolling all the dice needed. So is your 60 damage @ 5th a max or an average?
However a DC 60 Reflex save or halt in place is not negligible. And that's what you get with 3.5Yup, that really is the paragon of balance that Pathfinder should be shooting for. If you can't spam DC 60 SoS, you are not viable, and should go cry that you are not an uber caster.
Cod, I get that your games function in a totally different way, and that is fine. Please stop insisting that our games don't work because they are not like yours.
Perhaps non-casters don't work in his game because it isn't like ours?
|
|
Oh, you mean the martial characters randomly drop dead more than usual rule? Which is exactly what it actually does? Massive Damage was houseruled out within 5 minutes of reading it. It was that obvious that 50 damage just isn't a big deal anymore.
So what ARE you saying? Do melees need to one round enemies or not? Do PCs need to one round enemies while enemies can't one round them? Do both sides need to be unable to one round each other?
PS ToZ or Kirth, I like the class rewrites, but I feel I need to know what (if any) other house rules are in place to get the big picture. Do you have a list of house rules for movement, combat, etc.
You'll find the Word docs here. Slightly out of date, but I'll put the version 2 docs on GoogleDocs when Kirth finishes them.
|
|
In order: Yes, Yes, No. If you can one round the enemy, and they can't one round you, you are safe (relatively). Even if the enemy goes first, you'll still survive.
Under any other condition you either die any time you lose initiative, or die any time you enter a fight period, unless someone else drags you through it.
So roll initiative, if you win, you kill the enemy, move on to the next?
|
Critical Existence Failure. This is the only response to such.
People actually run all their NPCs like that?
@#$% that noise. I'm running NPCs and monsters like living beings. Not vidya game mooks.
For that matter, most NPCs statted up in PF material operate that very way, as per their Morale notes.
Also, Kirth and etc., props for taking a postive and productive stance in all this. <3
|
|
D&D IS Rocket Launcher Tag... but notice the way I worded it again.So roll initiative, if you win, you kill the enemy, move on to the next?In order: Yes, Yes, No. If you can one round the enemy, and they can't one round you, you are safe (relatively). Even if the enemy goes first, you'll still survive.
Under any other condition you either die any time you lose initiative, or die any time you enter a fight period, unless someone else drags you through it.
And this is fun?
Agreed, Mikaze. CoD, if your monsters get hit for only 75% of their HP, what do they do?
So roll initiative, if you win, you kill the enemy, move on to the next?
Rock Paper Scissors anyone?
I have to say, that sounds like the least-fun version of the game I have ever heard of.
Ninja'd by ToZ.
But really, is that the most enjoyable way of playing to you?
|
|
Pain hurts. Pain hinders you. HP damage does not hinder you. Therefore, it doesn't even really hurt.
BS. If my character falls off a cliff and takes less HP damage than his total HP, he STILL isn't going to jump off a cliff for the fun of it, because falling damage hurts.
To all the people batting about the "fun" strawman - this isn't about what I think. This is about what is. What I do, and do not consider enjoyable is irrelevant to the nature of the game. Which is the thing actually being discussed here.
But you still choose to play this way, yes?
|
|
Would your character jump off a cliff to get to or away from a greater threat? Because that is the example we're actually discussing here. Sucking up some non fatal HP damage at worst to deal with an immense threat.
And that assumes you don't just have a cheap magic item and Feather Fall down...
Nope. A cliff is most likely 100% death. Anything else has a chance to miss. If there's something that mitigates that 100% chance of death, then he would jump.
Edit: You're still missing the point. This isn't about me. This is about what is. There is no "choose" - if you play D&D, you are playing Rocket Launcher Tag, and the only way you could "choose" to avoid this is to not play D&D.
This is about what you think it is. So you choose to play D&D, and therefore play RLT? Or not? Meaning either you enjoy RLT, don't like it but still play it, or don't play it.
"There is no "choose" - if you play D&D, you are playing Rocket Launcher Tag, and the only way you could "choose" to avoid this is to not play D&D."
Wow! That is really one of the ummm... least accurate things I could imagine saying about the game.
Turning the game into Rocket Tag is a choice. If that is your thing, go for it. I choose to play/GM my games differently.
You should really read the first few pages of the core rule book. They spell out very clearly that the game is intended to allow you to play the way you choose. Really. Read those first few pages. Good stuff in there.
|
|
"There is no "choose" - if you play D&D, you are playing Rocket Launcher Tag, and the only way you could "choose" to avoid this is to not play D&D."
Wow! That is really one of the ummm... least accurate things I could imagine saying about the game.
Turning the game into Rocket Tag is a choice. If that is your thing, go for it. I choose to play/GM my games differently.
It did have a One True Way kind of ring to it, didn't it? But I think he has a point, somewhat. Change the game rules, and are you really playing D&D? From a rules perspective, no. From a playstyle perspective, yes.
Perhaps non-casters don't work in his game because it isn't like ours?We've been over this. Try to follow along.
3.5 rules = martial characters can work, with optimization.
Caster Edition rules = martial characters cannot work, no matter what.My games = 3.5 rules for martial characters, PF rules otherwise with 3.5 sources allowed.
Try again.
I will. I play Pathfinder, and martial characters work fine. You should try it some time.
It did have a One True Way kind of ring to it, didn't it? But I think he has a point, somewhat. Change the game rules, and are you really playing D&D? From a rules perspective, no. From a playstyle perspective, yes.
Yes and No...
The Most Important Rule
The rules in this book are here to help you breathe life into your characters and the world they explore. While they are designed to make your game easy and exciting, you might find that some of them do not suit the style of play that your gaming group enjoys. Remember that these rules are yours. You can change them to fit your needs. Most Game Masters have a number of “house rules” that they use in their games. The Game Master and players should always discuss any rules changes to make sure that everyone understands how the game will be played. Although the Game Master is the final arbiter of the rules, the Pathfinder RPG is a shared experience, and all of the players should contribute their thoughts when the rules are in doubt.
So, adjusting the rules is in there.
There are also dozens of things are are up to the GM to decide. Character creation, level of magic, treasure, pace of the story, encounter types, etc. There are numerous "Guidelines" to put things like CR into prospective, but there are also many mentions of running this-or-that type of campaign.
What I think what we are talking about here is players saying "Well, it is logical that I would choose the most numerically powerful build and play-style in the game", then complaining if the GM does the same. For example, you could give every mook in the game a level or three of cleric or monk or whatever and boost up their saves tremendously with out meaningfully adjusting their CR. You could find weird race/template/class combos that end up low CR, but crazy powerful (advanced vampire fey). But operating on the fringes of the game like that isn't really playing with the intended spirit of the game.
Don't get me wrong, there are real balance problems that should (and I believe are) being addressed. But saying the game MUST be played as a 1-shot gang-bang because the rules force it, is just not based on the rules.