In order: Means they can't full attack, and they'll be auto hit anyways, irrelevant and can't full attack, irrelevant, doesn't work, and can't full attack, can't full attack, doesn't work and can't full attack plus interefers with YOUR charges, trivial bonus and can't full attack. Did I mention can't full attack? It's kind of important.Anything other than a flat, featureless plain against mindless attackers hinders martials.So they aren't allowed to use the terrain to their advantage to increase their AC, gain concealment, improve Reflex saves, bull rush, ki throw, prevent opponents from charging, fight from higher ground, etc? I can see why your martials have problems. I love using the terrain to my advantage.
Gotta love unsupported hyperbole. "irrelevant...irrelevant..."
What makes you think that they need to full attack all the time? That seems to be the problem. When I play martial characters I find that I don't need to full-attack all the time. I find that using tactics is often much more rewarding. I'm not the player who needs to be in the spotlight all the time. I am more than content having fun with the system and seeing what I can do that makes the encounter more fun. I don't need a 1-round kill. I can pull it off, and I can even find a way to get more than one attack if I need to. It may not be a full attack, but it's enough to keep the enemy focused on me.
As for interfering with my charges, I think you missed part of my post where I explained exactly how to charge in difficult terrain. Would you like a build that can pull it off? I think I can do it well with 15 point buy. I know that I can get the feats to ignore the effects of difficult terrain by level 5, possibly level 3 if I go with human.
UIuuugh and I said I wouldn't comment on combat.
Ok, here's the problem.
Things in 3.x have a lot of HP. Way more then they did in earlier editions.
Now, I think we can all agree that EVERY class has the following "need" in combat:
"Do something that contributes meaningfully"
That's not a heavy bit to assume.
So, Captain Fighter needs to contribute meaningfully. Let's say he's decided his contribution will be "Damage." Remember, monsters have a lot more HP. That means he needs to do a lot of damage to contribute meaningfully. Which in turn means he needs to full attack. It doesn't need to be a one hit kill! But at the same time, if it's a twenty round kill, just how much are you contributing?
UIuuugh and I said I wouldn't comment on combat.
Ok, here's the problem.
Things in 3.x have a lot of HP. Way more then they did in earlier editions.
Now, I think we can all agree that EVERY class has the following "need" in combat:
"Do something that contributes meaningfully"
That's not a heavy bit to assume.
So, Captain Fighter needs to contribute meaningfully. Let's say he's decided his contribution will be "Damage." Remember, monsters have a lot more HP. That means he needs to do a lot of damage to contribute meaningfully. Which in turn means he needs to full attack. It doesn't need to be a one hit kill! But at the same time, if it's a twenty round kill, just how much are you contributing?
Why does he have to limit himself to damage though? There are plenty of other things he can do in combat besides just damage. Even if it's just keeping the enemy focused on him so that someone else can take the beastie down, that's contributing meaningfully. If he can make himself a threat to the point where he is targeted instead of someone else, that is meaningful. If he can stop the enemy from moving, that's meaningful.
Of course he needs to be built for those options and he needs to know when to use them. Most of the time these discussions teach me who understands tactics and who doesn't. Those who think that trip sucks because you can't trip dragons fail to understand tactics. Those who think that an attack of opportunity sucks because it can't kill a creature in one round, fails to understand tactics. Meaningful does not need to mean "damage." I know that you aren't saying that damage is the only way to be meaningful. That seems to be how these discussions end up.
I think the biggest problem is defining "meaningfully." From being in these discussions, that term means different things to different people. No two campaigns are alike. Not even when using the same AP. Each DM and each party handles things differently. I let my players tell me when they feel like they aren't doing enough and we discuss what they can do. Often it's because they don't realize the options they have.
Ok, let's talk tactics.
You have a setting where magic is a known, and someone is casting magic. Magic is known to be horrible, scary, dangerous, and powerful.
You also have someone covered in armor who's really not doing a whole lot of damage to you.
Assuming we aren't talking a mindless beast, how is the fighter keeping the baddie focused on him?
So your fighter decides not to full attack, and he's not using a maneuver. What is he doing that's meaningful? GO on, tell me the tactics behind it.
Ok, let's talk tactics.
You have a setting where magic is a known, and someone is casting magic. Magic is known to be horrible, scary, dangerous, and powerful.
You also have someone covered in armor who's really not doing a whole lot of damage to you.
Assuming we aren't talking a mindless beast, how is the fighter keeping the baddie focused on him?
So your fighter decides not to full attack, and he's not using a maneuver. What is he doing that's meaningful? GO on, tell me the tactics behind it.
He's standing in the way, taking up space, generally being a cool guy?
Bad guy goes over or around?He's standing in the way, taking up space, generally being a cool guy?Ok, let's talk tactics.
You have a setting where magic is a known, and someone is casting magic. Magic is known to be horrible, scary, dangerous, and powerful.
You also have someone covered in armor who's really not doing a whole lot of damage to you.
Assuming we aren't talking a mindless beast, how is the fighter keeping the baddie focused on him?
So your fighter decides not to full attack, and he's not using a maneuver. What is he doing that's meaningful? GO on, tell me the tactics behind it.
Then the caster would still step back and make him die, wouldn't he?
6th level human fighter. Elite array. Rough quick build.
+1 heavy flail. +1 heavy steel shield. +2 breastplate (7,000 gp/16,000 gp)
Combat Expertise, Greater Disarm, Greater Trip, Improved Disarm, Improved Trip, Power Attack, Weapon Focus (flail)
Weapon training (flails) 1
HP 55 (6d10 + 18)
AC 22; CMD 21 (23 vs trip/disarm)
Melee +13/+8 (1d8 + 6 /19-20)
Atk options - combat expertise (-2, +2), power attack (-2, +4)
CMB: +10 (+18 trip or disarm with flail)
High CMDs I spot in the NPC gallery are 24. (For CR 6) High CMD I spot in Monster Index is 25. (girallon) Boss monsters like a mohrg or ogre mage (CR 8) are CMD 29-30.
So...trip or disarm success on a 6 vs equal CR. Success on an 11-12 vs a high level boss. AC is functional if not ideal, even against boss monsters. (they need 8-9 to hit)
This is pre-buffed by his party. Trips and disarms aren't always going to be useful, but they are fairly so, and relatively simple to perform if you put a bit of feat investment in. If you are in a campaign where you fight triceratops and wooly rhinos exclusively instead of ogre magi and ettins, then I'd suggest not trying the trip/disarm build, but otherwise they come up enough to be useful. Taking away an enemy's weapon can reduce their damage down to zero for the round, whether it is to recover the weapon or because they aren't equipped to fight barehanded. Tripping is great, especially when you are flanking with a rogue. (Although a favored enemy or smite AoO is also nice)
I guess I just don't see how that guy is useless to the party.
Part two: the Reasoning.
The biggest reason for this problem is literally the existence of the wizard class.
Let's go into our fantasy books and our mythology and pull up the archtypes we see. We have brave heroes, sly and clever swashbucklers, daring thieves, powerful warriors, and wise old sages.
Notice something missing?
There is no wizard archtype.
No. In truth, there is not nearly enough information about fantasy literature or mythology in your head. Hate to repeat it for you, but non-magical heroes are in the minority for quite some time now. And even before that they never were capable of competing with magical adversaries on equal footing. Period. Any sword&sorcery hero would have died a thousand deaths without the author tailoring the plot to him (and fudging rolls when the probability of survival was still too low for non-superhumans). Note, that the last time we had this "discussion" inspired me to reread some of the stories by Leiber and Howard and it is ridiculous how much the worlds bend to make their protagonists useful.
Now you have half of a point in that DnD spellcasters are overpowered by most fantasy standards (although only through flexibility and reliability, as in sheer power they are, by 3.5, nothing special). But the rubbish above distracts from it.
See, in books and mythology, there is no "does everything with magic" character.
O'rly? Even Harry freaking Potter disagrees. Now, if we look at real fantasy powerhouse wizards, like Rand al'Thor, or Pug (both protagonists), or the Lady (eventually a protagonist) we'll see the problem directly opposite to one that faced sword&sorcery weaklings. They are so g!$$&$n powerful, that the plots of the later books have to bend and twist just to avoid being resolved by "OK, I'm using my magic". Rand is a neurotic mess and there is a reason for him to avoid overusing magic, built into the very laws of the world (more accurately, there was, until he went and fixed it). Pug spends many of the post-Riftwar Midkemia novels being depowered by some plot twist (or not really involved in the plot, if it is minor by his standards). His only peer (both among non-wizards and at all) is a literal demigod. The Lady just loses her power the instant she becomes one of the protagonists, so she can't just nuke all obstacles, and only comes close to fully recovering by the end of the plot.
Notably, major enemies of all these characters tend to have access to resurrection, or at least powers that make them survive when survival seems impossible. Because they really need such.What about Gandalf? Again, we don't actually see a lot of magic from the old guy. He makes fireworks and creates choo choo train noises and casts Light a lot.
Even on-page, Gandalf does stuff other charaters cannot dream of, such as shattering a solid stone bridge or standing up to the balrog for even a second. He is clearly more powerful, better-learned, smarter and more charismatic that any other character, by large margins. Your example undermines your argument.
EDIT: Actually you have another half a point - writing stories about powerful characters who can overcome human-scale challenges with zero effort is hard. But from where you picked the mind-boggling ideas that there is no such characters in fantasy, and that wizards aren't quite likely to be such characters, I don't know.
Any sword&sorcery hero would have died a thousand deaths without the author tailoring the plot to him (and fudging rolls when the probability of survival was still too low for non-superhumans). Note, that the last time we had this "discussion" inspired me to reread some of the stories by Leiber and Howard and it is ridiculous how much the worlds bend to make their protagonists useful.
I largely agree with you...magic users abound throughout fantasy, and saying otherwise is silly.
But what do you mean 'the worlds bend' to make someone like Conan useful? I feel like this is something I would disagree with, but I'm not sure precisely what you mean by it.
I largely agree with you...magic users abound throughout fantasy, and saying otherwise is silly.But what do you mean 'the worlds bend' to make someone like Conan useful? I feel like this is something I would disagree with, but I'm not sure precisely what you mean by it.
How many times Conan would have been completely screwed without a McGuffin magic item, or an expendable companion around? In fact, Conan likely would have bit the dust during the very first story he appeared in, "The Phoenix on the Sword", if not for the titular enchantment.
|
Any sword&sorcery hero would have died a thousand deaths without the author tailoring the plot to him (and fudging rolls when the probability of survival was still too low for non-superhumans). Note, that the last time we had this "discussion" inspired me to reread some of the stories by Leiber and Howard and it is ridiculous how much the worlds bend to make their protagonists useful.I largely agree with you...magic users abound throughout fantasy, and saying otherwise is silly.
But what do you mean 'the worlds bend' to make someone like Conan useful? I feel like this is something I would disagree with, but I'm not sure precisely what you mean by it.
He means that Mr. Howard stacked the deck for Conan. That, unless a whole lot of "author fiat" takes place, Conan should have died a thousand times over.
I don't entirely disagree with the premise from a gaming standpoint (although it makes zero sense from a literary one - games =/= books/short stories, after all), and I think a huge failing of D&D in any incarnation is its complete inability to emulate the serious luck any mundane character displays in many literary sources.
Conan regularly shrugs off effects that would stop a normal man (all good saves), often gets to the sorcerer before/right as he finishes his summoning (better initiative) and always finds a way to defeat whatever demon posing as a god shows up (ignores DR, overpowers natural defenses) all without any noticeable magic items. Sometimes with no gear at all.
So, basically, Conan is an impossible character. Because nothing in 3x core or Pf core emulates him well (or at all, really), I'm afraid.
This is why a lot of people consider 3x and Pf "caster edition". It was actually easier to emulate Conan in earlier editions, not because mundanes were any better, but because casting rules were much harsher for magic types. When 3.0 came out, they totally screwed anyone who wasn't a caster by changing the action economy and making disrupting spellcasting a joke.
Until those two things are addressed, Pf is doomed to the same failings its predecessor suffered.
6th level human fighter. Elite array. Rough quick build.
** spoiler omitted **
CMB: +10 (+18 trip or disarm with flail)
High CMDs I spot in the NPC gallery are 24. (For CR 6) High CMD I spot in Monster Index is 25. (girallon) Boss monsters like a mohrg or ogre mage (CR 8) are CMD 29-30.
So...trip or disarm success on a 6 vs equal CR. Success on an 11-12 vs a high level boss. AC is functional if not ideal, even against boss monsters. (they need 8-9 to hit)
This is pre-buffed by his party. Trips and disarms aren't always going to be useful, but they are fairly so, and relatively simple to perform if you put a bit of feat investment in. If you are in a campaign where you fight triceratops and wooly rhinos exclusively instead of ogre magi and ettins, then I'd suggest not trying the trip/disarm build, but otherwise they come up enough to be useful. Taking away an enemy's weapon can reduce their damage down to zero for the round, whether it is to recover the weapon or because they aren't equipped to fight barehanded. Tripping is great, especially when you are flanking with a rogue. (Although a favored enemy or smite AoO is also nice)
I guess I just don't see how that guy is useless to the party.
Useless is a far shot from underwhelming. He has a decent chance of tripping a boss monster, and his entire existence revolves around this trick (because, let's face it, his AC, hit and damage is far from inspiring for that level).
Any arcane caster can do the same with Grease, a first level spell. And the same spell can help free others from grapple, and disarm people. All with a better chance of success than a fighter dedicated to doing ONE of those things.
Sure the fighter eventually catches up and surpasses the chance of success for a grease sell, but by then the same caster can dominate said monster and use it to beat the other monsters. And that is merely one of his many many many tricks.
Useless is a far shot from underwhelming. He has a decent chance of tripping a boss monster, and his entire existence revolves around this trick (because, let's face it, his AC, hit and damage is far from inspiring for that level).
Oh, I agree, and I geared him quick, he still has 8,000 gp to spend. His AC or hit and damage might go up there.
He also uses the elite array, rather than having a 16 or 18 starting score. His AC is effective if not inspiring against most of the CR 6 and reasonable against the CR 8s. At the very least, it stands as a barrier between power attack and regular.
And he focuses on two maneuvers. Sacking one of them would free up a weapon specialization and dodge or shield spec or vital strike to improve damage. You can wield a flail two handed if you want to squeeze another +2 damage from him. (and turn power attack into +6 while giving up his shield)
The main reason I whipped him up was to show that maneuvers aren't impossible to pull off. I'm sure someone determined to do so could get more out of that than a +18 to their preferred maneuvers. And against the CR values, his stats are fairly impressive.
Hate to repeat it for you, but non-magical heroes are in the minority for quite some time now. And even before that they never were capable of competing with magical adversaries on equal footing. Period.
Untrue.
Certainly non-magical heroes are vaguely uncommon, I will agree with that, but the idea of non-magical heroes being unable to compete with magical adversaries in "equal footing" is batently untrue. Watch:
1) Is the protagonist non-magical?
2) Is the adversary magical?
3) Does the book end in the protagonist winning?
Hey, I solved it!
Any sword&sorcery hero would have died a thousand deaths without the author tailoring the plot to him (and fudging rolls when the probability of survival was still too low for non-superhumans).
Again, untrue. The very fact that the hero didn't die a thousand deaths proves you wrong. You are entering with this thought: "Spellcasters must win, and if they do not win, the 'rolls' are being fudged." In other words, you are entering with the preconcieved ideas of D&D magic wherein there are saving throws that are always so very hard to reach, or pure caster supremacy.
To simplify it more: the book is not written out of 3.5 rules. Once you strip those rules away, your argument falls apart.
Note, that the last time we had this "discussion" inspired me to reread some of the stories by Leiber and Howard and it is ridiculous how much the worlds bend to make their protagonists useful.
Again, you assume that "magical foes winning" is the natural and neccesary ending.
O'rly? Even Harry freaking Potter disagrees.
Does he now? I admittingly have no read Harry Potter, I've only seen the first movie, bits and pieces of the others, and read wikipedia awhile ago, so I'm sure someone who has could correct me where I'm wrong. But at least from what I've seen/read, Harry never once solves a problem with nothing more then "I cast a spell.".
Harry is a standard intellectual-style hero. The vast majority of his problems he solves with his wit, his learning, and his ~*~friendship~*~. In fact, let's examine the first book/movie. The titular scene of conflicts come first from the troll, second from their journey into the depths of the castle. In the first case, the two boys distract the troll, Harry grabs it's club and leaps on it's head and injures it, and Ron uses a bit of trickery and magic together to defeat it somewhat accidentally. A far cry from "I use my save of die." In the second case, Hermione acts as the "wise old sage" archtype to pass by the plans, Ron uses intelligence and tactical knowledge to solve the chess, Harry uses his skills in flying, and it all ends not with a magic spell, but with ~*~love~*~.
Similarities to D&D: zero.
Now, if we look at real fantasy powerhouse wizards, like Rand al'Thor, or Pug (both protagonists), or the Lady (eventually a protagonist) we'll see the problem directly opposite to one that faced sword&sorcery weaklings.
Really? Wheel of Time? A book series who's biggest flaw is that there's too many side characters all doing their own thing? And Rand's biggest strength isn't even in his ability to wizard at his enemies. The vast majority of his foes are dispatched through martial arms, with his magic acting more as ritual-style casting. Nor does he ever portray just about any of the D&D spells.
Pug? Pug is either the intelligent hero, the wise old sage, or deus ex machina depending on the book - and more importantly depending on his importance in the book. In the first book he rarely uses magic at all, and most of his conflicts are ones that aren't solved by magic or combat, but through perserverance or achieving a higher understanding. Later, he isn't a protagonist in the slightest - mostly he appears, dispenses wisdom or acts as the hand of god, and then vanishes.
I dunno who the Lady you refer to is.
So far, you've done nothing to prove the existance of a "wizard" archtype. The fact that they're "depowered" has nothing to do with what kind of magic they should be throwing around and everything to do with literary and narrative function.
Even on-page, Gandalf does stuff other charaters cannot dream of, such as shattering a solid stone bridge or standing up to the balrog for even a second. He is clearly more powerful, better-learned, smarter and more charismatic that any other character, by large margins. Your example undermines your argument.[/quoote]
No, your argument proves me correct. He is clearly more powerful, better-earned, smarter, and more charismatic. He also spends a good portion of the books not doing anything. Once more, there is a reason the book series doesn't start and end with "Gandalf took the ring and got on his b#&*+in' eagle ride and then flew over and threw it into the volcano the end."
EDIT: Actually you have another half a point - writing stories about powerful characters who can overcome human-scale challenges with zero effort is hard. But from where you picked the mind-boggling ideas that there is no such characters in fantasy, and that wizards aren't quite likely to be such characters, I don't know"Character" and "protagonist" are not the same thing.
There is certainly the archtype of a super powerful character that can do anything. That archtype is the deus ex machina. It is the hand of the author who solves the problems himself. It's Zeus coming down in the play to suddenly wash away all the worries. And the deus ex machina is never a protagonist.
UIuuugh and I said I wouldn't comment on combat.
Ok, here's the problem.
Things in 3.x have a lot of HP. Way more then they did in earlier editions.
And at higher levels, still not enough. That the devs nerfed dragon HP instead of buffing up the other monsters, is something I've yet to understand.
Of course there is the crowd who'll say "HP are irrelevant", but that is only partly true. The beatsticks in the party need something to wail up and the way level 10+ Pathfinder is set up, they can easily do away with 75% of the HP of an appropiate CR encounter in one round.
As for the actual argument that casters can circumvent HP with SoD/SoS spells, that, IMO, needs a careful application of the DM not letting the players get access to high inherent bonuses and adjusting the monsters saves, if the last fights were all finished by SoD spells with too high saves.
I've been noticing a trend in the arguments for "PF = Caster Edition"; Nonmagical characters cannot overcome magical obstacles without a combination of plot-sword +2 and the GM holding back to cater to said characters.
And yes. Dear god, yes. This holds true to an obscene amount as far as my experience go. Let's take a look at the session I played yesterday (spoiler tags due to being part of Serpent Skull Part 2)
- a bunch of fast zombies and an undead troll, as well as a flying wizard. With a paladin and a cleric in the same party, the zombies were dispatched rather quickly. Flying wizard was apparently not given any REAL defensive spells beyond false life, nor real offensive spells, as he tried to use an item replicating a Scare spell. Troll attacks, but since we got the drop on them and had some defensive buffs going, no hits to speak of. Wizard is shot down by ranger in two rounds.
- some insignificant encounters with monkey-men and griffins, easily remedied with magic and force, as they were pure physicals. Hurt severely under-optimized cleric, but no surprise.
- succubus in disguise, cue dominate and charms, lucky streak of rolls on new saves from Magic Circle vs Evil is only reason we don't TPK. ONE magic-using enemy, and only reason I made my save is because I play a paladin. Any other martial would fail and help succubus kill off party.
- some other physical encounters, no need to worry. Tentacle monster and more monkeys.
- suddently huge water elemental get the drop on us in aqueduct. Ranger is almost ninja-killed (auto-stealth due to GM rolling "nat 20s on stealth" suspiciously often is the _only_ way physicals have really threatened us so far), party drives back, I stand up and block, trading blows and eating most of my lay on hands. At a point it could have been really deadly, but walked away without much problem after element of surprise and scrambled positioning was remedied.
- more physicals, no worries. Some snakes, MORE monkeys.
And we are a party without an arcane caster. Next example is from my Kingmaker game:
- next room, party facing down with Barbarian/Fighter boss who is 3 levels higher than cleric before) wielding a lesser artifact sword. With the bare minimum of buffs, the fighter and the cavalier takes him down in less than two rounds.
Magical encounters are on a completely different scale than merely physical ones. And without magical interference/gear, there is hardly anything a martial can do against a caster.
Compare this to 2e, where the fighter had so insane saves that he could basically just go "Screw your magical nonsense, I need a 4 on the die to save against ANYTHING you can whip up, and my 3-6 attacks will eat your face."
Yeah, PF is still caster edition, but at least the martials get to do some decent damage when the wizard has made you into a war-god and incapacitated the enemy for you.
FatR vs. Cirno in "archetypes of fantasy". I'm off for the popcorn. And don't forget Geb of Earthsea (the novels, not the craptactular anime movie) !
The Wizard of Earthsea is actually the closest thing to a DnD 3.X wizard we have in fantasy literature not influenced by DnD. It is not very obvious, because there is not many fights, but he does stuff like abusing polymorph, dropping SoLs and gunning for the enemy's weaknesses as a matter of course. As nothing weaker than a castle-sized dragon can really challenge him physically, all of the real obsctacles he faces are constructed in a way that makes directly attacking them impossible or meaningless.
|
FatR vs. Cirno in "archetypes of fantasy". I'm off for the popcorn. And don't forget Geb of Earthsea (the novels, not the craptactular anime movie) !The Wizard of Earthsea is actually the closest thing to a DnD 3.X wizard we have in fantasy literature not influenced by DnD. It is not very obvious, because there is not many fights, but he does stuff like abusing polymorph, dropping SoLs and gunning for the enemy's weaknesses as a matter of course. As nothing weaker than a castle-sized dragon can really challenge him physically, all of the real obsctacles he faces are constructed in a way that makes directly attacking them impossible or meaningless.
That's pretty much my conclusion as well, it's a shame that everybody forgets about LeGuin when discussing archetypes.
|
The series Gygax touted as being the closest to D&D in book form? ;-)I dunno who the Lady you refer to is.
I think perhaps he means The Lady from Glen Cook's Black Company Series.
-Uriel
That's odd,since there aren't any Dwarfs,Elves etc...
I read them back when they were 'new', early 90s.Re-read the first again a few years ago,it doesn't hold up as well.
-Uriel
|
You've just called one of the most expensive to boost stats, and one of the most ineffective stats one of the cheapest things to raise. And even if that were true, instead of the exact opposite of the truth all you've done is convince enemies not to attack you.
Quite the opposite; armour, and shield enhancements are the cheapest of the game, and you can get
armour
shield
deflection
natural armour
dex bonus (gloves)
on the othe hand to attack
you can get
weapon (double than armour cost)
strengh bonus (double than weapon, four times armour wich you can get twice)
Thats it. So every point to attack cost you more and more since you cant split them (besides costing more for starters). Gameplay have showed me that is easier to pump your ac to untouchable levels.
Also about the weaker healing of the tome of battle feat you only need a pair of easy combats to heal yourself, at least at lower levels it works really great.
But this is derail the thread, again the thing is that casters are not as much overated as melee classes underated.
I also got the impresion by your posts that the game you play has nothing to do with the game that most of us play, so how useful are your opinions to most of the people in the boards?
You keep saying that melee tipes are useless like a mantra but thats not what I see, or what I read on the boards. Hell, I even have read about a somewhat succesful truenamer, hardly I can believe, and my personal experience also tell me so that non-casters are useless.
|
|
The series Gygax touted as being the closest to D&D in book form? ;-)I dunno who the Lady you refer to is.
I think perhaps he means The Lady from Glen Cook's Black Company Series.
-Uriel
That's odd,since there aren't any Dwarfs,Elves etc...
I read them back when they were 'new', early 90s.
Re-read the first again a few years ago,it doesn't hold up as well.-Uriel
Cook's been publishing them since the early/mid '80s at least. First I had heard of them was a Dragon magazine issue where Gygax was talking Black Company up.
It wasn't the racial make up that Gygax was going on about, it was how the books read like how he envisioned a D&D party working, and the way he saw the game flowing. Dwarves and elves are just setting window dressing really, they don't define what a role playing experience is ;-)
You've just called one of the most expensive to boost stats, and one of the most ineffective stats one of the cheapest things to raise. And even if that were true, instead of the exact opposite of the truth all you've done is convince enemies not to attack you.Quite the opposite; armour, and shield enhancements are the cheapest of the game, and you can get
armour
shield
deflection
natural armour
dex bonus (gloves)on the othe hand to attack
you can getweapon (double than armour cost)
strengh bonus (double than weapon, four times armour wich you can get twice)
Thats it. So every point to attack cost you more and more since you cant split them (besides costing more for starters). Gameplay have showed me that is easier to pump your ac to untouchable levels.
Also about the weaker healing of the tome of battle feat you only need a pair of easy combats to heal yourself, at least at lower levels it works really great.
But this is derail the thread, again the thing is that casters are not as much overated as melee classes underated.
I also got the impresion by your posts that the game you play has nothing to do with the game that most of us play, so how useful are your opinions to most of the people in the boards?
You keep saying that melee tipes are useless like a mantra but thats not what I see, or what I read on the boards. Hell, I even have read about a somewhat succesful truenamer, hardly I can believe, and my personal experience also tell me so that non-casters are useless.
Earlier I said "Underwhelming is a far shot from useless." I play a paladin, and have come to terms that I am little more than a wall of steel and steadily healing meat to keep stuff at bay, and poke at stuff with my sword or bow. And I am USEFUL, sure. If I played a caster, I could summon something to soak damage instead, but since Serpent Skull pretty much is auto-surprise in 90% of the encounters, you kinda need an armored ever-present obstacle.
And I get to be all theatrical. Is fun to RP. Action gets kinda monotonous. If I had a buck for every time I have spent a round to "Power Attack against <insert target>", optionally adding "and Lay on Hands as a swift action to heal myself" I would be able to pay a months rent or two.
|
|
1st - 5th level (+/-): Local heroes. Exploration and long voyages are still fun and exciting.
6th - 10th level (+/-): Major regional heroes. Start to get into multiplanar stuff.
11th - 15th level (+/-): High-level. Adventures span multiple planes. Most characters will retire in this range.
16th level+: Epic/demigod level.
Mine dont go up so fast:
1-4:irrelevant, perfect unknowns, the characters are mooks at this level
5-8:somewhat known at local level, they start to go on their own
9-12:well known, established forces at local level, adventures start to affect at regional level
13-16:now things scalate pretty fast, they are forces at regional level,plane travel could happen
17-20:forces at planar level, albeit pretty weak ones.
21-21+:Now we get serious.
No demigods at any rate pre-epic, although a campaign like this sounds cool, you could make all kind of crazy s&#*.
EDIT: I cannot say s!@+? S-h-I-T. XD
Played the Black Company d20 game, where the martials and the casters are more or less on par due to a huge limitation on magic compared to D&D. But I also saw that ALL the story-relevant major NPC casters were past level 30, and NO martial was past 12 or so. Worse balance than forgotten realms prior to 4ed violently molesting it and turning it into something wholly unrecognizable.
I have seen lots of people make "Conan" in various incarnations of D&D. Never goes quite so well for them. Remember the first time we played 3.0 to epic. The barbarian/fighter player quit the game for good, since fighting characters were no longer relevant past double digit levels, and he hated playing spellcasters. Everyone else were spellcasters, except the contrived duelist type who was like the token "special kid" we brought along with us and helped overcome his limitations, geting picked on by anything magical, but always coming back for more when the cleric spent the true res slot he dedicated to him, warming the hearts of non-casters everywhere.
And when we went from 3.5, used to optimizing and dealing with magical monstrosities of epic magnitude, and started playing pathfinder Adventure Paths, I quickly found that unless I limited the casters to Core spells, and bumped the monsters, they would mostly be pointless. As I pointed out earlier; Any given 2 characters from my kingmaker group could take on the rest of the AP alone, as long as at least one of them is one of the casters.
For myself the problems are more apparent from the DM side of the table when I try to develop foes for games.
IMHO, the solo Fighter type (even supported by troops) quits being a workable Boss Fight or even Sub-Boss fight way before an equivalent level Caster BBEG. Now I could break the rules and give the BBEG fighter x number of fate points that give him some sort of plot armor but that would kinda break the whole PCs and NPCs use the same ruleset that I feel is a strength of 3.x and Pathfinder.
The problem is simply that Fighter types are way too gear dependent, so even if I gear them up to the point where they are a significant threat they give too much loot to the party. The other problem is that they have glaring weaknesses in the form of bad saves and poor skill points.
So even if I want to use a fighter as a high level social encounter the Fighter is kinda stunted.
In contrast the Mage as a foe offers a bunch of flexibility, the bulk of his offensive power is non-transferable. I can give a mid-level sorceror a headband, a wand, and maybe a defensive item and he's still a convincing threat. The wealth he provides is more appropriate to the wealth levels of the party and if I want to make the encounter more meaningful I just need to give him some minions that he can buff.
I think most AP and module designers recognize the limitations of martial foes as party opposition and thus gravitate towards casters and caster analogues (like Outsiders with casting abilities or SLAs and Dragons) for mid to high level threats.
Stuff like Rituals/Incantations, Maneuvers, Full Attack + Full Movement, Inherent Bonuses, etc would all be welcome changes to the base rule set that would actually solve many of these problems. Oh and reasonable skill points :D
What I want to see from a high level fighter type is something like the following.
Full Move + Full Attack
Ability to negate Concealment/Invisibility
Good Saves
The ability to use a ritual/incantation to provide some sort of flight like ability for a short period of time
Good AC
Good DPR
All without making him a treasure trove of loot.
|
|
1) Wise old sage who really doesn't do a whole lot of magic
2) Deus ex machina
The D&D wizard falls under the second. Which is bad.
You have made very good points in your post, about how casters are playing a different game than non-casters, but I have to disagree to some extent with this one, the diference is not so steep, it can be if there is ilimited time (or a lot) so casters can research spells, craft magic items, learn spells, etc (by the way what are fighters doing all this time?), all this arguments about how Uber casters are always put casters in the most favourable position, and then presents the non casters as hapless victims.
But one thing is true, what have bothered me the most is the auto-win nature of some spells comprehend languages not gives you a bonus to a skill check; is autowin; same detect secrets doors.
I enjoy the diferent power of casters and non casters, but if you want to bring them more in line you have two options:
nerf casters: 4ed did this
boost noncasters to bring them to casters power: Bo9S did that.
If you refuse to do so you should accept the growing chasm between casters and non-casters.
The noncombat monopoly of power is harder to bring in line, in setting circustances, getting rid of the autowin spells, push spell levels a bit up, or changing the magic sistem are possibilities, but in the end it only delays the unavoidable. I´m okey with the difference, and I think that the difference is not so big in real play as potencially big (but in most games doesn´t materializes).
Ok, let's talk tactics.
You have a setting where magic is a known, and someone is casting magic. Magic is known to be horrible, scary, dangerous, and powerful.
You also have someone covered in armor who's really not doing a whole lot of damage to you.
Assuming we aren't talking a mindless beast, how is the fighter keeping the baddie focused on him?
So your fighter decides not to full attack, and he's not using a maneuver. What is he doing that's meaningful? GO on, tell me the tactics behind it.
Why would the fighter not use a maneuver? That's like saying the wizard should be ignored because he may not cast a spell this round. We are talking tactics.
So if the fighter trips him, grapples him, deals more than 50% of his current hit points in damage, stuns him, blinds him, repositions him, or any other list of options available to the fighter depending on build, the bad guy should be role played so poorly that he ignores this?
What if the fighter can't perform some of the maneuvers? What if he has some of the critical feats that cause problems for the opponent? What if he has positioned himself so that both he and the rogue are flanking so when the creature moves, taking the attack of opportunity, he has to deal with two people dealing decent damage to him?
That's the exact problem. Creatures should be played as if they react to the world around them. What would you do if someone stabbed you and in the process moved you into a position where you are now flanked by the rogue who takes an attack of opportunity because you moved? Not only are you not where you wanted to be, but you are now in a worse position than before. Sure, the fighter in question may have only done 40 points of damage to you, but his tactics should change yours.
Cook's been publishing them since the early/mid '80s at least. First I had heard of them was a Dragon magazine issue where Gygax was talking Black Company up.It wasn't the racial make up that Gygax was going on about, it was how the books read like how he envisioned a D&D party working, and the way he saw the game flowing. Dwarves and elves are just setting window dressing really, they don't define what a role playing experience is ;-)
It also parallels D&D pretty well in that the casters pretty much run the show. :)
I think part of the charm of the Black Company is the way that the BC knows, basically, that while they're your sort of archetypical scrappy clever heroes making their way with planning and trickery, they still know that they're screwed the minute a serious caster looks at them funny if they don't have one of their own backing them. And somehow the stories make those limitations fun, which they usually aren't in an actual D&D game.
Ok, let's talk tactics.
You have a setting where magic is a known, and someone is casting magic. Magic is known to be horrible, scary, dangerous, and powerful.
You also have someone covered in armor who's really not doing a whole lot of damage to you.
Assuming we aren't talking a mindless beast, how is the fighter keeping the baddie focused on him?
So your fighter decides not to full attack, and he's not using a maneuver. What is he doing that's meaningful? GO on, tell me the tactics behind it.
Why would the fighter not use a maneuver? That's like saying the wizard should be ignored because he may not cast a spell this round. We are talking tactics.
So if the fighter trips him, grapples him, deals more than 50% of his current hit points in damage, stuns him, blinds him, repositions him, or any other list of options available to the fighter depending on build, the bad guy should be role played so poorly that he ignores this?
What if the fighter can't perform some of the maneuvers? What if he has some of the critical feats that cause problems for the opponent? What if he has positioned himself so that both he and the rogue are flanking so when the creature moves, taking the attack of opportunity, he has to deal with two people dealing decent damage to him?
That's the exact problem. Creatures should be played as if they react to the world around them. What would you do if someone stabbed you and in the process moved you into a position where you are now flanked by the rogue who takes an attack of opportunity because you moved? Not only are you not where you wanted to be, but you are now in a worse position than before. Sure, the fighter in question may have only done 40 points of damage to you, but his tactics should change yours.
+1
Removed some derogatory posts and those that referenced it. Keep the conversation civil.
Also, the censoring filter is in place for a reason - please do not deliberately try and go around it.
|
|
Interesting, I havn’t read the entire thread, but I have skimmed it.
It seems to me that this is a discussion about the comparative power of melee classes to spell casters, in particular the wizard. The assumption seems to be that the wizard and arcane casters are more powerful then their melee companions.
Now I may be wrong about this, but it doesn’t seem as if Pathfinder has put together their character classes so that they are all the same.
The classes are different.
Also when talking about “balances” another point that might be considered is balance in terms of level progression. Around 1st level I think the fighter and rouge types are more “powerful” then the wizard sorcerer types. So in the beginning of the game, the melee types I think are more powerful, and towards the end of the game, the arcane types grow into their power.
Also I don’t think Pathfinder is designed to stick the character classes in an arena and square off against each other, I think the game is designed so that basically a fighter, rogue, cleric, and wizard, working together, can over come obstacles. They all need each other.
I am sure this has been said earlier. So I wonder why do we need the classes to all be equal to each other? A responsible GM will make sure each of his players at the table has a turn in the spotlight.
Just my two cents
To keep the enemy focused on him he must be doing damage and lots of it. To make himself a threat, he must be doing damage and lots of it. To make the enemy stop moving, he must be doing damage and lots of it. Full attack full attack full attack.
If you can disarm a foe consistently, you will prevent him from moving. You will cause him to focus on avoiding you, at the least, preventing his own full attack.
If this foe is a swordsman or weapon using monster, you've drastically reduced his own ability to deal damage to the party.
If this foe is using a shield to increase his armor class, you've drastically improved your group's ability to hit him.
If this foe is a spellcaster who relies on material components, a wand or scroll, holy symbol, you've drastically reduced the number of options he can bring to bear.
Once you have greater disarm, they have the choice between provoking an AoO or doing without whatever you took away from them.
Sundering is easier, but does essentially the same, although it deprives you of the gear afterward and does not force any choice on the opposition. However, it can target headbands of intellect and gives you the option of the remainder of damage carrying over.
Stealing is essentially disarming for things not held in the hand. Material component pouch, headband, cloak of resistance, belt and more are all good ways to reduce your foe's ability to deal damage.
If you can trip a foe consistently, you will prevent him from moving. You will cause him to provoke AoOs from the rest of your group, which turns your one attack into damage from their sources as well as inconvenience from you.
If you can reposition your foe consistently, you greatly increase the ability and access of flankers in your party to the foe, and decrease the ability of flankers with your foes to access your own party.
If you can feint a foe well enough, you cause him to be flat footed for an entire round, a boon to any rogues. This will lead to the afore mentioned damage, but from them rather than from you.
(I don't like grapple and overrun because they are strictly limited in the size categories you can attack with such)
If you use Vital Strike, you will deal more damage with your standard attack. If your foes consistently deny you a full attack, this feat chain makes a good alternative if you still want to just deal damage.
So....no, not really. A full attack is a great way to deal damage, but it is neither the only way, nor even the best way. Maneuvers have their place.
Also when talking about “balances” another point that might be considered is balance in terms of level progression. Around 1st level I think the fighter and rouge types are more “powerful” then the wizard sorcerer types. So in the beginning of the game, the melee types I think are more powerful, and towards the end of the game, the arcane types grow into their power.
That's an important point, but think of it this way:
You "level up" because people like to feel like they're getting more powerful. If not for that, the game would just have a set "level" that didn't change.
Starting off somewhat weak, and becoming awesome, is exactly what the wizard does. He ends up so awesome, in fact, that the universe alters itself at his whim. He not only gets better compared to what he was, but also compared to the opposition, and compared to the other classes.
Starting off awesome, and becoming more and more lame, isn't what anyone wants to do. Fighters and rogues start off awesome, but as level increases, although in a numerical sense they become better than they were, they still get progressively less and less awesome compared to their peers, and also compared to the opposition. Eventually they are irrelevant to their peers, and to the opposition.
So in a relative sense, mundane characters "de-level" with experience -- and that's bad design.
Also I don’t think Pathfinder is designed to stick the character classes in an arena and square off against each other, I think the game is designed so that basically a fighter, rogue, cleric, and wizard, working together, can over come obstacles. They all need each other.
I wouldn't say they need each other, but many of their abilities are complementary. My focus isn't an arena battle between class A and class B. Casters have the tools at their disposal to handily tackle those that don't in such a case, because they have a massive series of options which are designed to exploit an oponents' weakness and defend against their strengths. That alone I wouldn't say makes a caster superior to a martial, because there are simply far too many situations and variables that would alter play to take into account.
But because a caster has is the ability to exploit an opponents' weakness in so many situations and remove something from combat with a single standard action that isn't reliant on a critical they make far more viable villians to pit against the PC's in major battles. If you have the BBEG as primarily a martial type, the PC's will come in with spells of their own and find him, IME, to be far less of a credible threat. While a martial type can find many uses to use terrian to his advantage, casters have many ways to easily alter the terrian to fit their needs.