|
After talking it over it one of my players, we thought it might be good to give fighters all good saves. There are plenty of reasons for this based on how we perceive the fighter, his temperament, and training.
More importantly, I was wondering if anyone felt that giving this ability to fighters marginalized any of the other classes. For example, monks have all good saving throws. Do they need a bonus sense the fighter is getting this, or does it not matter?
Some possible counterarguments (based off monks since you used monks) may be since monks having a smaller hit die, more dependent upon multiple decent attributes (as opposed to the fighter) and not as good of a BAB progression that maybe fighters should have saving throws not as good as the monks, if just to give the monks something to look forward to other than their unique abilities.
You cant have your cake and eat it to. Fighers have huge survivability and high damage without any need to fiddle around with builds to get either.
You can easily get a Fighter with good saves by spending your Extra feats on things like Lightning Reflexes or Iron will or the greater versions. They /easily/ have the feats to spare to do it.
the problem with 'all good saves' is they can still do the above but would be on a /much/ higher base to the point where their saves would be stupid high.
Basically, if your fighters want better saves they should invest feats in it or look into defensive gear.
Kinda depends on the game. Are your fighters seriously throwing (and failing) that many saving throws? From a purely balance point-of-view, I definitely do not see any such need, if that's what you're asking.
You cant have your cake and eat it to. Fighers have huge survivability and high damage without any need to fiddle around with builds to get either.
You can easily get a Fighter with good saves by spending your Extra feats on things like Lightning Reflexes or Iron will or the greater versions. They /easily/ have the feats to spare to do it.
the problem with 'all good saves' is they can still do the above but would be on a /much/ higher base to the point where their saves would be stupid high.
Basically, if your fighters want better saves they should invest feats in it or look into defensive gear.
+1 They get all those feats for a reason. Also, they have more HP for a reason. Fighters are not underpowered, and increasing saves just detracts from the other classes.
Greg
Rewrite a more fighteresqe version of stalwart as a fighter only feat.
At 11th level, an inquisitor can use mental and physical resiliency to avoid certain attacks. If she makes a Fortitude or Will saving throw against an attack that has a reduced effect on a successful save, she instead avoids the effect entirely. This ability can only be used if the inquisitor is wearing light armor, medium armor, or no armor. A helpless inquisitor does not gain the benefit of the stalwart ability.
Remove the armor limitations and keep the helpless. For your campaign, I would remove the level minimum as well.
Greg
One thing, no one on this thread is going to get me to think that fighters are fair and balanced.
So why ask at all?
One thing, no one on this thread is going to get me to think that fighters are fair and balanced. I've been playing this game for a long time and followed plenty of other threads on the subject.
If the main complaint about boosting the fighter's saves, asides from making them too powerful, which I would never agree with, is that it detracts from the glory of other characters that can pass their saves, I'm inclined to just give fighters the bonus.
If your players are mad that they are failing will saves they should take iron will, they have a ton of bonus feats anyway so its not that much of an issue, also theres a character trait that ups will saves by one. also they could invest in items for saves. Now if they don't do any of this they have no reason to complain about failing saves because they didn't attempt to counter the issue.
It makes sense for wizards to have high will saves, It allows them to combat their own kind, just like all fighter abilities.
+1 to kaeyoss
Rewrite a more fighteresqe version of stalwart as a fighter only feat.
** spoiler omitted **
Remove the armor limitations and keep the helpless. For your campaign, I would remove the level minimum as well.
Greg
+1 Me Likes.
Kinda depends on the game. Are your fighters seriously throwing (and failing) that many saving throws? From a purely balance point-of-view, I definitely do not see any such need, if that's what you're asking.I don't like how low Fighter saves are compared to Will save DCs from wizards.
Imagine a 6th level Fighter with a 10 Wisdom, a +2 resistance, and Iron Will. He has a +6 Will save.
He is most likely going to be fighting a 6th level wizard. Being very generous about how low the wizard's INT is, we will say 16. The wizard casts a 3rd level spell, and has a feat or power that adds +2 to the save DC. The fighter still needs a 12. Unless the fighter started the battle up in the wizard's face, the wizard is going to get off at least a second spell, meaning the fighter probably has less than a 12% chance overall to beat the wizard. This is assuming the wizard doesn't have an 18 or 20 for his INT.
If a fighter's will save was higher, he would probably still lose, but it would be closer to fair.
Does that mean we should raise the wizards attack bonus to be able to hit the fighter's AC with a melee attack? Each class is good at different things. Will saves is a fighters weakness. Even with that being a weakness he has a chance to succeed on a roll of a 12, thats pretty good for something the fighter isnt actually good at.
Now I am not saying all things are fair and balanced, what I am saying is no class can be good at everything. The fighter is already the king of the full attack, if you arbitrarily buff him you marginalize all other martial classes.
So your fighter has a weakness. Shore it up, or get abused by it. All classes have weaknesses and have to expend resources of one kind or another to shore them up.
Don't shore up their weaknesses for them. If the fighter wants a better will save, he should invest in a good wisdom score and saving throw gear. If you start boosting his saves- it partially devalues those classes who Do get the good saves. The paladin is one example and the monk is another.
I'm Not of the mind that "omg fighters suck!" and they definately do not need this boost. They just need to be built with a mind towards defense instead of just trying to squeak out every possible damage per swing.
-S
|
See this guy? My avatar? Yeah, Roy Greenhilt. He's very representative of what fighters are in Pathfinder: butt-kicking machines, if he had amazing saves aside from fort, he would be an unstoppable juggernaut. Oh wait, he already is, there wouldn't be a response to the guy. Fighters are awesome in Pathfinder and you should be ashamed for wanting them to be better.
Also: if you want your guy to have amazing saves, give him a decent charisma and two levels of paladin, or 2 levels of monk, or 2 levels of rogue and wizard.
You don't get a full BAB, all the armor and weapon proficiencies, bonuses to hit and damage, tons of feats, and all good saves. You have to give a little to get a little. The barbarian loses defense for offense, the paladin loses offense for defense, the fighter has flexibility and can go any route he wants, even multiple routes if they are short enough, the cavalier gives up flexibility for flavor, which still improves his presence on the battlefield. The fighter is the "mario", by the tvtropes definition, of the classes with a full BaB.
|
One thing, no one on this thread is going to get me to think that fighters are fair and balanced. I've been playing this game for a long time and followed plenty of other threads on the subject.
I to have been playing this game for a long time, and I don't just mean Pathfinder, and completely disagree with you and just about everyone else who says the fighter is to weak (or in all that any class is to weak), each has its own strengths and weaknesses. The fighter has one really and that is magic, everything else the fighter can punch in the face and say I win.
And also the fighter would probably not lose to the wizard because of the fighters friends the rogue, wizard, and cleric who all get to act against the wizard as well. Plus my fighter has a good Dex and Imp Initiative and acts before the wizard and I charge forward to punch him in the face causing him to lose his spell. :P
+100 to KaeYoss
Actually I think fighters are mean b*tches, they tear everything apart if you take away their weaknesses. They do however have plenty of feats, so they can shore up some of those weaknesses by investing in feats.
I never considered to give fighters a good will save, but I did think to introduce an average save category and apply it to their reflex save. No reason you can not apply it to their will save too though.
Average saves by class level:
lvl 1 +1
lvl 2 +2
lvl 3 +2
lvl 4 +2
lvl 5 +3
lvl 6 +3
lvl 7 +4
lvl 8 +4
lvl 9 +4
lvl 10 +5
lvl 11 +5
lvl 12 +6
lvl 13 +6
lvl 14 +6
lvl 15 +7
lvl 16 +7
lvl 17 +8
lvl 18 +8
lvl 19 +8
lvl 20 +9
for PRC:
lvl 1 +0
lvl 2 +1
lvl 3 +1
lvl 4 +1
lvl 5 +2
lvl 6 +2
lvl 7 +3
lvl 8 +3
lvl 9 +3
lvl 10 +4
I think you should probably remodel all the other one good save classes if you do
After talking it over it one of my players, we thought it might be good to give fighters all good saves. There are plenty of reasons for this based on how we perceive the fighter, his temperament, and training.
More importantly, I was wondering if anyone felt that giving this ability to fighters marginalized any of the other classes. For example, monks have all good saving throws. Do they need a bonus sense the fighter is getting this, or does it not matter?
Just looking at the boards I saw this post "Boosting Fighters" right on top of your other post "Weakening Wizards." This leads me to believe that your mindset on this might be a bit skewed. This is not WoW or an MMORPG with their constant class balance arguments. One thing is certain, I wouldn't want to play a wizard in a game where I had the nerf bat broken off in by backside.
This does remind me of one of my complaints about this game. The feat Improved Iron Will. Just how is it improved? I understand that the designers wanted to be careful not to give players too many stacking bonuses with feats. However, this feat comes off as useless. What were the designers thinking when they came up with this?
After talking it over it one of my players, we thought it might be good to give fighters all good saves. There are plenty of reasons for this based on how we perceive the fighter, his temperament, and training.
More importantly, I was wondering if anyone felt that giving this ability to fighters marginalized any of the other classes. For example, monks have all good saving throws. Do they need a bonus sense the fighter is getting this, or does it not matter?
Just looking at the boards I saw this post "Boosting Fighters" right on top of your other post "Weakening Wizards." This leads me to believe that your mindset on this might be a bit skewed. This is not WoW or an MMORPG with their constant class balance arguments. One thing is certain, I wouldn't want to play a wizard in a game where I had the nerf bat broken off in by backside.
This does remind me of one of my complaints about this game. The feat Improved Iron Will. Just how is it improved? I understand that the designers wanted to be careful not to give players too many stacking bonuses with feats. However, this feat comes off as useless. What were the designers thinking when they came up with this?
improved iron will isnt so bad, how many will saves are you going to fail in a day ? If a fighter has a 50 % chance to fail, his reroll gives him 75% chance to succeed instead, equal to a +5 bonus at least till he uses it.
If a character with 80% chance to succeed in a save means he only has 4% chance to fail till he has used his reroll.
In most situations it is just better than a flat +2 bonus in my opinion.
I personally dislike the failure rate of PC poor saves vs Monster/Caster Save DCs.
Monster DCs are 10+ 1/2 HD + ability
Level Poor Save Monster DCs PC success rate
1 0 12 45%
2 0 13 40%
3 Cloak +1 2 14 45%
4 2 15 40%
5 2 15 40%
6 Cloak +2 4 16 45%
7 4 17 40%
8 4 18 35%
9 Cloak +3 6 18 45%
10 6 19 40%
11 6 20 35%
12 Cloak +4 8 21 40%
13 8 21 40%
14 8 22 35%
15 Cloak +5 10 23 40%
16 10 24 35%
17 10 24 35%
18 11 25 35%
19 11 26 30%
20 11 27 25%
That's pretty dreadful especially if you start throwing in CR+3 outsiders and dragons into the mix.
In understand that Iron Will is pretty much expected early on, but I pretty much reject a design that taxes the player with purchasing not only a Cloak of Resistance every 3 levels until 15th level but spending feats on Iron Will and more than likely purchasing a headband of wisdom.
This is a problem that not only hampers Fighters but it hampers a ton of classes.
Personally my favored solution is to not give everyone good saves but to alter the rate of advancement for poor saves to Level/2. Good saves are still 2+level/2.
Modified table
Level Poor Save Monster DCs PC success rate
1 0 12 45%
2 1 13 45%
3 Cloak +1 2 14 45%
4 3 15 45%
5 3 15 45%
6 Cloak +2 5 16 50%
7 5 17 45%
8 6 18 45%
9 Cloak +3 7 18 50%
10 8 19 50%
11 8 20 45%
12 Cloak +4 10 21 50%
13 10 21 50%
14 11 22 50%
15 Cloak +5 12 23 50%
16 13 24 50%
17 13 24 50%
18 14 25 50%
19 14 26 45%
20 15 27 45%
Basically 50% failure rate vs CR appropriate SLAs as long as you buy cloaks of resistance at the appropriate intervals. With Iron Will this PC success rate is 60%.
I feel like this allows players more latitude in designing characters than just going Cloak every 3 level, Iron Will by level 5, +Wis Item by 10th. Hell you can even be Valeros with a 8 Wisdom under this system and not feel like your likelihood of killing your party is insanely high.
The major problem with this is that default Spell DC formula doesn't scale with HD but instead scales with spell level. Honestly I dislike the current spell DC formula and would rather go to a 10 + Caster Level/2 + Ability formula but this admittedly does increase the power of low level spells cast by high level casters.
Cranewings,
My housreules were an effort to boost the fighter, monk, etc. so that they maintain some semblance of balance with the wizard. Check them out HERE, especially the martial classes.
|
After talking it over it one of my players, we thought it might be good to give fighters all good saves. There are plenty of reasons for this based on how we perceive the fighter, his temperament, and training.
More importantly, I was wondering if anyone felt that giving this ability to fighters marginalized any of the other classes. For example, monks have all good saving throws. Do they need a bonus sense the fighter is getting this, or does it not matter?
I have changed the base save tracks for four classes in my PF game.
Fighters get Fort (default) and either Will or Reflex as a "Good" saves. This is chosen at level 1 and can't be changed thereafter.
NPC fighters just default to Fort and Will (unless it is a light/high dex Fighter NPC)
Rogues get Reflex (default) and get to choose between Fort or Will as a good Save. This is chosen at their first Rogue level (same as Fighter). NPC Rogues default to Reflex and Fort as their good saves, with variations - as determined by the DM if the Rogue was going to go down a caster path, then "Good" Reflex and Will.
Cavaliers get a "Good" Will save in addition Fort
Barbarians get a "Good" Reflex save in addition to Fort.
The last two classes don't get a choice and I assigned the "good" bonus save tracks based upon their traditional and thematic roles - the Knight of staunch will and determination, and the Barbarian who is swift and nimble. If a player gave me a good argument for the inverse I would allow it – again, once the additional "good" will save tracks are chosen then that is set for the 1-20 path of that character.
I also made Iron Will, Great Fort, and Lightning Reflexes and all their next step improved feats count as Fighter/Combat feats.
So a level 1 Fighter who selected Will as his second "good" save could start out with Iron Will (+4 unmodified level 1 Will Save) and Improved Iron Will out the gate.
I changed Iron Will, et al. so that they simply provide the Good saving throw progression for any one class of your choice. Improved Iron Will (et al.) give you a +2 bonus on top of that and a free reroll.
I changed Iron Will, et al. so that they simply provide the Good saving throw progression for any one class of your choice. Improved Iron Will (et al.) give you a +2 bonus on top of that and a free reroll.
Do you qualify for improved save X if you already have a good save from the class?
Do you qualify for improved save X if you already have a good save from the class?
Yes. Basically, all poor saves is a baseline, with each class getting one or more save-related bonus feats. Instead of presenting columns for individual classes' save progressions, I simply reference which save-related bonus feats they get. For example, the wizard would say something like
"Saving Throws: Wizards receive Iron Will as a bonus feat, providing the Good progression for Will saves for their wizard class levels. Their Fortitude and Reflex saves remain at the Poor progression unless they select the appropriate feat(s) to improve them."
More importantly, I was wondering if anyone felt that giving this ability to fighters marginalized any of the other classes. For example, monks have all good saving throws. Do they need a bonus sense the fighter is getting this, or does it not matter?
Fighters do the most damage, over any other class, have the best survivability, and good CC at higher levels. What do you think?
You should read the rogue vs fighter thread, you'll clearly see that fighters need nerfs, not buffs. But it's your game and it is fantasy, so whatever works...
More importantly, I was wondering if anyone felt that giving this ability to fighters marginalized any of the other classes. For example, monks have all good saving throws. Do they need a bonus sense the fighter is getting this, or does it not matter?Fighters do the most damage, over any other class, have the best survivability, and good CC at higher levels. What do you think?
You should read the rogue vs fighter thread, you'll clearly see that fighters need nerfs, not buffs. But it's your game and it is fantasy, so whatever works...
Using the example of a fighter vs rogue in terms of DPR as the basis for an argument that Fighters are too good and need nerfs isn't going to find much traction.
You don't compare a completely one-dimensional class against a class that is implicitly designed to be inferior to it in combat and get anything resembling a coherent picture. The rogue is designed with the idea that being good at skills means that you should be inferior at slicing and dicing.
A much more telling debate is the comparison of classes that have a bunch they can do in combat and out of combat vs a one trick pony like the Fighter.
However, in general I don't really think the fighter needs more DPR production, I think where they are most deficient is in terms of flexibility, out of combat utility and oddly enough defense.
I changed Iron Will, et al. so that they simply provide the Good saving throw progression for any one class of your choice. Improved Iron Will (et al.) give you a +2 bonus on top of that and a free reroll.By the way, after all the talk, this is the solution I'm using. It still allows fighters to be DPR meat heads, but if you want, it lets you build a fighter than can endure magic. It is perfect. Thanks.
I like this too, and even though I don't think Fighters need a boost, this option (easier for Fighters to get than other classes due to their freebie Feats), covers ALL Classes, so it's not a Fighter Boost, it just so happens that the Fighters will be the ones most affected by this effect.
|
|
I like this too, and even though I don't think Fighters need a boost, this option (easier for Fighters to get than other classes due to their freebie Feats), covers ALL Classes, so it's not a Fighter Boost, it just so happens that the Fighters will be the ones most affected by this effect.I changed Iron Will, et al. so that they simply provide the Good saving throw progression for any one class of your choice. Improved Iron Will (et al.) give you a +2 bonus on top of that and a free reroll.By the way, after all the talk, this is the solution I'm using. It still allows fighters to be DPR meat heads, but if you want, it lets you build a fighter than can endure magic. It is perfect. Thanks.
IMO it's just too much power for casters and options they don't really need (or deserve).
Don't get me wrong, I like the modular "build your character" approach to Kirths suggestion, it just doesn't really reflect/resolve the imbalance (again my opinion) that exists between casters and non-casters. I know the suggestion is a feat tax on casters, i'd just rather give it to a few martials for free as a built in improvement.
I have given martials (the ones I listed) the extra bonus, casters do not need more options or built-in higher save options. That is what they can already acquire through their spells.
For me the idea is to slightly up-power a few of the martials, in my philosophy everything else needs to be toned down, not escalated in power.
I only gave my Fighters one other up-power: Focus - a feature I have for Fighters where they can choose tactics, leadership, craft or trade as secondary aspect that scale with level akin to a rangers favored terrain (all of these aspects can scale, the player just picks his primary area to stack his best bonuses).
After that it is all about taking away: capping DCs for spells and abilities, restricting casting and movement, making crafting more difficult, increasing concentration DCs, tying DCs for monsters to their CR instead of their relevant stat, and so on.
I just come from the school of though that the game has scaled in power (3rd edition actually) way too much and beyond what me and my group want to play. I think most people who started with 3rd wouldn't have these issues since it is the level of power they are used to, it just doesn't work for us.
You cant have your cake and eat it to. Fighers have huge survivability and high damage without any need to fiddle around with builds to get either.
You can easily get a Fighter with good saves by spending your Extra feats on things like Lightning Reflexes or Iron will or the greater versions. They /easily/ have the feats to spare to do it.
the problem with 'all good saves' is they can still do the above but would be on a /much/ higher base to the point where their saves would be stupid high.
Basically, if your fighters want better saves they should invest feats in it or look into defensive gear.
This, +1000. I have fighters in my games with good will saves. The player just has to have desire and know how to make it happen.
I have an easy fix for your woes:
Play in a classless system.
You seem hellbent on making everyone everything. In a classless system you can do this. Wizards are only as strong as their weaknesses. Warriors are only as weak as their strengths. The difficulty you are running into is the fact that in a (nominally) balanced class system you have both niche protection and built in weaknesses.
Wizards are terrible in melee. And kick-butt in casting. Their atrocious BAB and weak HP are all you need to show this to be true.
Fighters kick-butt, but are weak in skills and 'resistances' This is born out in the fac that they are only pulling 2 skill points per level, and only have one good save (Fort).
Rogues have miserable Fort and Will saves, do you want to fix those, too? Well rogues also have mediocre BAB and terrible armor! We should let them have heavy armor and full BAB. And all thier other goodies, too.
You can't perfectly balance a Class'd system. The more you try, the less it works. It's like trying to right the Leaning Tower of Pisa: you have to tear it down, and start over.
You quick-built a lvl6 Fighter with a +6, and quick-built a lvl6 wizard to force Will Saves. 12+ on the d20 to ignore the wizard's spell is pretty good! What's the Wizard's 'save' against the fighter's spell? Fighter's spell? Whoop-Arse. It is a ranged attack that does d8+10. at least twice per round.
I am not trying to be snarky, or snide, or rude. However, my impression is that you are *very* unsatisfied with PF. I hope you all the best in your enjoyment of the hobby (gaming as a whole).
GNOME
@Gnome- If you read some of cranewings other threads, you may notice a pattern. Don't think of it as class balance. Think more in the lines of a low magic/martial class encouraged game. Like alot of fantasy fiction, casters will be rare, and a fighter can often shrug off their mind effects if he just wills it. Casters will be greatly dependent on martial classes for protection, but can offer versatile noncombat or buffing uses and the occasional situational lucky blast vs bad guys.
Cranewings and I are both fans of E6, we just see differently on styles. ( I don't see a need to adjust fighters or casters, my problem is overpow'd low level rangers to meh fighters) If you look at it this way, I am certain you can offer good advice.
Just remember, we are talking about his group and the way they want to run THEIR game. Not what we think about our games :P This is a houserules thread he is seeking advice in, not General. I keep forgetting it myself, cuz it does go against how I play :)
Apologies to cranewings for any snarkiness in any of my other posts.
Greg
@Gnome- If you read some of cranewings other threads, you may notice a pattern. Don't think of it as class balance. Think more in the lines of a low magic/martial class encouraged game. Like alot of fantasy fiction, casters will be rare, and a fighter can often shrug off their mind effects if he just wills it. Casters will be greatly dependent on martial classes for protection, but can offer versatile noncombat or buffing uses and the occasional situational lucky blast vs bad guys.
This can all be handled from the GM side without making potentially imbalanced house rules for every contingency. If cranewings wants a low magic campaign then he can lower the number and level of NPC wizards and build their spell lists with fewer save or suck spells. Problem solved.
If, however, he has beef with PC wizards then he should just ban them from his game, or ban the most abused save or suck spells. No player likes having their character nerfed. In cranewings case I can imagine some poor schmuck taking the time to roll a wizard before being handed a laundry list of nerfs and do-nots and can-nots.
So you make the wizard into a low AC, low BAB, low HP buff-bot that gets an occasional, situational lucky blast vs. bad guys while the super-powered fighters charge in killing everything. That's supposed to be fun?
It won't be. Not for the wizard, and ironically not for the Fighters either.
IMO it's just too much power for casters and options they don't really need (or deserve).
Not in my game, it isn't -- my casters need a full-attack action to cast, and it's a lot easier to disrupt spellcasting. Meanwhile, fighters, rangers, barbarians, and monks were totally rewritten with actual versatile class features. Spells in my home game are very powerful -- but they're so hard to get off reliably in combat that martial characters end up doing all the heavy lifting.
That kind of game suits me and my players, but I'll be the first to acknowledge that it isn't for everyone.
On the 3.5 forum near the bottom of the message board page, I have a thread about my house rules. I'm trying to come up with some new - awesome - fighter feats for 6th level. You should come give some input.
I've been posting in your E6 thread -- is that the one? Anyway, if you want more ideas for fighters, follow THIS LINK and click on "Fighter."
Spells in my home game are very powerful -- but they're so hard to get off reliably in combat that martial characters end up doing all the heavy lifting.
That kind of game suits me and my players, but I'll be the first to acknowledge that it isn't for everyone.
Fair enough, but why would anyone actually play a spell-casting class in this system?
Fair enough, but why would anyone actually play a spell-casting class in this system?
You could ask my players. The thing is to keep a large mix of combat, exploration, and investigation going on. Casters are indispensable for the latter two. In combat, they can turn the tide if and only if the martials buy them some breathing room.
A player accustomed to playing a caster because they dominate everything in combat and out of it would certainly be very unhappy playing my game.
Thank you Greg. I appreciate the cool-headed thinking. However, I *am* trying to think of it from Crane's perspective. He wants to overhaul the game so much that he may as well start over in design. That was my point.
I understand the thought behind "wizards are too powerful" but, simple fixes like...
1) Wizard takes HP damage = Spell Level Cast everytime they cast (simulate 'exertion from casting') This can be esepcially paionful in an E6 Game. (if the wiz only has 26 HP, 3 HP damage to throw a Fireball is an owwie! :D ) You could even apply that as a Concentration check *every time they cast*
2) Make all Spells have a casting time (equal to spell level) and if hit in the meantime lose the spell. Or stack damage to make a single Concetration Check at the completion of the spell.
If you look at the game from a niche protection perspective (default position of Class Systems) the Fighter is your Offensive Melee (along with the Ranger). Rogues, Skill Monkey. Clerics, Buffs and Medic. Etc. The *point* is that not everyone can do everything. Some are simply going to be *bad* at certain tasks. Fighters and Will Saves just being one of them. iirc, First/Second Ed Fighters were fodder for Save or Suck, too. In fact other than Save v. Poison, I don't think they led in *any* category of saves. (If someone can, please look that up! :D)
If you want to be a Save Monkey Melee, Go Paladin. By level 3 you will have Divine Grace, Immune to Disease, Immune to Fear, Smite Evil, Lay on Hand and a Mercy. And assuming a decent CHA and your saves are going to phenomenal (relative to a Fighter or Rogue).
It may be how I am interpreting the things Crane is saying, but it seems like he is catering to the Fighter only, without looking at the rest of the game. Rogues are 'weak' classes too. Do the same (wizard) problems exist in regards to Clerics, or Druids?
And of course we (I) must remember internet jargon like YMMV, IMO and LOL.
Again, I am not trying to be rude. I just want to give honest feedback for what I am hearing.
GNOME
You could ask my players. The thing is to keep a large mix of combat, exploration, and investigation going on. Casters are indispensable for the latter two. In combat, they can turn the tide if and only if the martials buy them some breathing room.
A player accustomed to playing a caster because they dominate everything in combat and out of it would certainly be very unhappy playing my game.
If your players enjoy themselves then more power to you, but I get the feeling that at higher levels your system will become increasingly imbalanced as fighters gain additional iterative attacks and feats.
Exploration and investigation are things which almost any class can be good at with a combination of good RP, skill rolls, and items.
I get the feeling that at higher levels your system will become increasingly imbalanced as fighters gain additional iterative attacks and feats.
I hope so. Our very strong opinion is that 3.X is so drastically imbalanced in favor of casters that only an equally large tilt in the playing field could right it.
And, seriously, skill rolls are no match for find the path and wind walk.
I hope so. Our very strong opinion is that 3.X is so drastically imbalanced in favor of casters that only an equally large tilt in the playing field could right it.
Wait, I'm sorry, is this a thread about 3.X or Pathfinder? Honest question.
And, seriously, skill rolls are no match for find the path and wind walk.
I agree. Spells like those present real balance problems to the GM (at least for me). In combat I can easily shatter the glass cannon, especially if he is assigning slots to non-combat spells. Out of combat, dealing with all the wizard's built-in game breakers is a real head-ache. Though it can be fun. Some times. Rarely.
Wait, I'm sorry, is this a thread about 3.X or Pathfinder? Honest question.
This thread, or my comments? I think cranewings plays some sort of E6 variant.
I looked at the Pathfinder rules, saw the changes to casters (LOTS more hp, more powers, and some of the most egregious problem spells nerfed somewhat but most unaffected), saw the changes to melees (8th level rage powers that duplicate 1st level spells, fighter class features like Armor Training that, while nice bonuses, don't address the most fundamental problems at all), and realized that PF didn't actually fix what was wrong with 3.0 and 3.5.
Fair enough, but why would anyone actually play a spell-casting class in this system?Spells in my home game are very powerful -- but they're so hard to get off reliably in combat that martial characters end up doing all the heavy lifting.
That kind of game suits me and my players, but I'll be the first to acknowledge that it isn't for everyone.
All the non-combat spells. ;) My Sorcerer doesn't have a single combat spell at all. I's be happy playing a Wizard in a game where Magic was a terrible idea to use in combat. You can still use Walls and such to control the combat field without targeting enemies, and Dex as a 2nd most important with a Skill Focus on Stealth makes it not so hard to do battleground control without doing combat. And GMs tend to not focus on Wizards who aren't doing damage (or adding effects onto his NPCs), they tend to play nicer when the Wizard is instead doing everything else. :P
At least, in my experience.