A 4e fight is 10 or 15 rounds long.
I've only experienced combat this long when it's really dynamic, like major "boss" fights or at one point when we battled our way through an entire village. Not regular in the slightest. And in those cases the fight was really dynamic, so it was far from a grind of just mashing the same power over and over again.
And finally, the special power aren't even powerful or memorable; they're like "deal twice the normal damages and pull the target 3 cases instead of 1".
Entirely untrue on both accounts. Encounter, Daily, and at-will powers (except for with psions who don't have Encounter) tend to be rather different from one another. Even beyond that, pulling a target 3 is rather different from pulling him 1, unless you want to claim "immobilizing a target for three turns is just the same as immobilizing him for one"
Actually, I've seen two-characters nova (each action of the two characters increase his damages or the damages of the other), the two characters used all of their powers and the result was less than 20% of the monster's HP. When we think about this fight, we don't remember about "the great combo XXX and YYY did to kill the monster" but about "the fight in which we removed 400 HP using at-will only".
You have a p. bad DM. Sorry man.
The 4e system could be a good one, if everyone didn't have an absurd amount of HP. With those masses of HP, after a few combat everyone pick the powers with the more damages, and don't even look at the special effect. If it ends with a TPK because the party isn't playing tactically, that's still better than an endless fights with lesser damages.
See, you keep speaking about enemies being these massive damage sponges. And yeah, in MM1, there are a few problematic monsters that have too much HP. But it a) isn't that big of a problem, b) nowhere near as widespread as you make it sound, and c) easily fixed by a DM. Or they can just use different monsters.
Incidentally, you can also do that with full attack in Pathfinder, instead of arguing "characters are more the same in pathfinder than in 4e". I pity your lack of consistence.
Indeed you can! It's just a pity that "full attack" is all there is, while 4e has a wide spread of powers. I mean, you could claim that spellcasters just cast spells every round - all the same, right?
As for full attack being all there is in Pathfinder, that's not true.
As people learn Pathfinder, they discover that there are standard attacks as well as things like spring attack, dirty trick, trip, disarm, repositioning attack, feinting, etc.
Right, some of the charge builds are incredibly powerful, most combat magic spells don't take a full round to use, and pretty much every special move (whirlwind, vital strike, etc.) is a standard action. More importantly: it doesn't take a limited resource for me to use trip or grapple, I might not be very good at it, but it doesn't take up anything other than an attack.
The wizard is a clasx in PhB 1. I've never heard of the Arcanist class or Mage class. What books are they in?
When the Essentials book came out, it basically divided the wizard into two classes - the Arcanist (PHB wizard) and the Mage. There's a few differences between them (Mage specializes in a school, the Arcanist specializes in an implement and is more of a generalist, Arcanist starts with cantrips and ritual casting, Mage chooses different cantrips and can put encounter powers in his spellbook) but they use the same pool of powers. The Mage is basically the e-class version of the Arcanist.
As for full attack being all there is in Pathfinder, that's not true.
As people learn Pathfinder, they discover that there are standard attacks as well as things like spring attack, dirty trick, trip, disarm, repositioning attack, feinting, etc.
And as people learn more, they find that most of those are bad choices.
As for full attack being all there is in Pathfinder, that's not true.
As people learn Pathfinder, they discover that there are standard attacks as well as things like spring attack, dirty trick, trip, disarm, repositioning attack, feinting, etc.
I think the spirit of those mechanics in what you are talking about is just that. That thes things should be a part of dynamic cinematic combats. That the players in thier meta-role as those who are the audience of the story think are cool. However, the play encourages (after iterative attacks are had) full attacks. Because these tactical maneuvers, which should be great additions to the defense of the party, are in most cases (a fighter who specializes in them, maneuver master monks, sundering barbarians, & feint builds being notable exceptions) not as good for defensive purposes as simply hitting the monster for more damage. Coupled with stat inflation and size modifiers for monsters make successfully performing the maneuvers harder than trying to just hit them.
Or these actions require casters to, instead of controlling the battle field / performing party wide buffs, for their action to instead make another player large sized to hopefully counter balance some of the size bonus to CMD, which seems like a loss of a round of layered defense (possibly mitigated by the range and the ability to cast a mass version at levels 7+ and positioning at the start of combat). So needing another party member to make your shtick work means it doesn't really work.
Sub question: Do people really see a lot of PC races as bad guys beyond 5-6 th level? If so how do you reconcile the "characters of this level should be super rare" line of thinking?
Of course pounce builds are full attack builds with the added benefit of being like Wilma and Betty form the Flintsones. CH-CH-CH-CHARGE IT!
All in all the internal cost-benefit analysis of maneuvers, done by players, makes them less productive out side of super focused builds and is counter to the assumption that blinding, tripping, disarming, or skirmish tactics; that have been mainstays of close quarters fighting for millennium, simply don't work on two bestiaries worth of opponents, and may not be as effective against other humans as simply beating down appears to do.
People often play a game the way the rules tell them is the most effective way to play. It's true of virtually any RPG and why we see "cookie cutter" builds, and optimization guides. Which, of course, coupled with large amounts of magic items only serves to encourage developers to engage in stat inflation as the primary method of keeping monsters viable against said characters.
|
c) easily fixed by a DMTo quote somebody: "the fact that something is easily fixed by a DM does not excuse poor design".
I just can't remember who that quote was from.
Hey!
you're supposed to be in the public, eating popcorn. Not to argue against Cirno. Or at least, argue against me as much as you argue against Cirno! >_<
Sorry, couldn't resist. I'll now moonwalk away, be back here next week.
I still get to eat popcorn, right?
It is funny, but it seems like the bard and the rogue have basically traded places in PF.
In 3.0/3.5, the bard was a 5th wheel character, but for the most part they lacked any focus or specific niche. Now the bard is a solid buffer/backup healer/secondary damage dealer while the rogue struggles to have a niche.
Take a standard party with a fighter, cleric, and wizard. A bard is generally a much better compliment to the party than a rogue. The bard is almost as good at the face/scout/skill monkey game, while bringing hard to replace buffs and secondary damage.
And the funny thing is that the bard wasn't given much in Pathfinder, while the rogue gained all those new "rogue talents".
That being said, rogues are not totally useless. Rogues are there for players who like challenges. :D
Actually, Bards got quite a lot in PF, because they benefitted greatly from the general changes to the rules.
The skill changes from 3.5 to PF actually weakened the rogue quite a bit relative to other classes.
- 3.5 had 36 skills. Pathfinder has 26. The consolidation of skills benefitted classes with fewer skill points since their points go further.
- Most classes gained or stayed the same in terms of class skills, the rogue actually lost out on class skills because there are fewer skills total. For example, in 3.5 the bard had Listen and Move Silently as class, but didn't have Hide and Spot. In PF the bard got Stealth and Perception. I would say that was a net gain for the Bard.
- The way that non-class skills work changed. In 3.5, raising a non-class skill was painful and hard. After 10 levels, the difference between cross class and non-cross class skills was +5. In PF, the difference starts out moderate, but the advantage of class skills fade as you go up in levels. At level 10 you are looking at the difference between a +15 and a +18.
- Traits. Traits allow you to further erase the rogue's advantage on class skills by allows any class to cherry pick 2 extra class skills.
- Trapfinding is no longer the must have that it was in 3.5. While I think this is a good thing overall, the rogue didn't get a whole lot to make up for losing this edge.
Bard specific boosts from 3.5 to PF
- Bardic Music was always a standard action in 3.5. In PF, it becomes a move action at 7th. Notably, level 7 is exactly the same time the bard gets access to haste. The Haste + Inspire Courage combo took 2 rounds in 3.5.
- Bard can cast spells while maintaining Bardic Performances. In 3.5, any spellcasting ended your bardic performance. This is huge, because in 3.5 if you wanted to cast a spell in combat, you had to stop your performance, and it took a standard action to restart it.
- Versatile Performance. With smart versatile performance selection, the bard can basically gain the benefits of having an extra 2-3 skill points/level.
- New feats like arcane strike are perfect for bards.
In summary from 3.5 to PF
1. Bards gained class skills and class features that almost completely erase the skill advantage rogues have over Bards.
2. Bards got several quality of life improvements that allow them to buff the party while still being able to meaningfully contribute to combat.
3. Rogue's specific niche over other classes(skills and trapfinding) has erroded to almost nothing.
Acute Senses and See Invisibility are the natural counters to invisibility for most low-level classes.All it means is that the guard hears you and looks, but doesn't see anything and shrugs it off as his imagination. Thus he is still unaware of your presence.Don't get me wrong, I don't have a problem with invisibility affecting all stealth vs perception checks.
I have a problem with a level 2 spell granting a +20 to a skill for 1 min/level plus giving you hide in plain sight and a 50% miss chance.
In most cases, acute senses counters stealth just as well as it counters invisibility. Also, special senses like blindsight, blindsense, scent, etc, work just as well if not better against stealth. At least with invisibility, you still have concealment when something with these abilities spots you.
Yes, see invisibility counters invisibility, but how many guards and other peons run around with see invisibility on? If you are smart about when and where you use invisibility, see invisibility is rarely problem.
Given the choice between having a +20 base stealth check and having a +0 base stealth check with an invisibility spell, I would rather have invisibility.
Actually, I meant "not doing magic" by "entirely confined to physics" in my original post.
I think bending what's physically possible is still being confined by physics, as opposed to the wizard's thought of "Physics? Oh yea, I had that for breakfast today with a side of froghemoth eggs."
And I'm asking you why.
Such as?Beowulf, Hercules, Cuchullain, Roland, Siegfried, everyone involved in the Three Kingdoms, the list goes on.
Chances are, if it's a character from mythology or fiction, and it's a protagonist, it's a warrior or a rogue. In fact, I cannot off the top of my head think of any wizard protagonists from mythology, and a very decidedly few from fiction.
I think you are wrong here, in several of exemples that you gave , there a spellcaster that is far more powerfull than the martial. For exemple:
Beowulf , ok he was badass, but see how he was easily dominated by Grendel mother( i am seeing her as a witch) and manipulated like a puppet. Ok in the end he win but it is obivious that in a game table ( if another pc played Grendel Mother ), Beowulf destiny would be diferent.
By the way, this exemple can be given to almost every mythology.
sorry for my poor english.
OBS:reading other theads i can see that you are a very intelligent person , but why you spend your energy with confrontation? , it would not be better if you were more like a constructive person?
peace.
c) easily fixed by a DMTo quote somebody: "the fact that something is easily fixed by a DM does not excuse poor design".
I just can't remember who that quote was from.
Probably the Alexandrian.
Rule 0 Fallacy: "The rule isn't broken because I can fix it."
It's a pretty deeply ingrained fallacy in gamer thinking, in my opinion. To get back to the topic of the thread, the fallacy would go something like this:
"Rogues aren't broken because I can roleplay."
Or:
"Rogues aren't broken because they aren't supposed to deal damage."
Which leads back to my argument that class DPR should be about 95% equal. Like in WoW. Which several people bashed on the head with the Stormwind fallacy:
"Concern with mechanics excludes concern with roleplaying."
I don't see it that way, Cantrips though usable all the time are relatively a non point at higher levels. Nor do they make the other classes useless.They make my class that specializes in opening and closing doors useless!
Wizards can even do it from range!
Tots OP.
Rogues do more than open and close doors.
I have players constantly playing Rogues why because the Wizard is more likely to want to do something other than things a Rogue should do.Rogues are very good skill monkeys, good back up damage, a decent scout ahead type. Yes a Wizard can do these things but they should be doing something else. Opening Doors, scouting, acting as group face should be a waste of their time. I'd rather make sure I have Detect Magic, Read Magic, Ghost Sound, Light and Mage Hand than take over the rogues job of opening doors. I'd rather not waste a 1st level spell at low levels when my rogue can use Bluff, Diplomacy, or Knowledge: Local.
I mean if you want your Wizard to waste precious resources replacing the rogue then by all means do it it is your character. I'd rather my Wizard do things like Color Spray, Sleep, and such then spend it's resources being a Rogue.
I don't see it that way, Cantrips though usable all the time are relatively a non point at higher levels. Nor do they make the other classes useless.They make my class that specializes in opening and closing doors useless!
Wizards can even do it from range!
Tots OP.
Rogues do more than open and close doors.
I'm talking about the Door Basher base class. They can open and close mundane doors, as well as magically locked ones.
They also can conditionally do huge amounts of damage versus objects.
And don't forget Doorsense! Automatic perception check for doors within 30 feet, with a nice bonus that scales with level.
Oh, and backdoor connections.
I don't see it that way, Cantrips though usable all the time are relatively a non point at higher levels. Nor do they make the other classes useless.They make my class that specializes in opening and closing doors useless!
Wizards can even do it from range!
Tots OP.
Rogues do more than open and close doors.
I'm talking about the Door Basher base class. They can open and close mundane doors, as well as magically locked ones.
They also can conditionally do huge amounts of damage versus objects.
And don't forget Doorsense! Automatic perception check for doors within 30 feet, with a nice bonus that scales with level.
I am so playing this next time i start a new game!
Oh, and backdoor connections.
Does this make them a "backdoor man"?
It's OGL, so I will post it later. You don't wanna know what backdoor connections means.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Rogues aren't broken because they aren't supposed to deal damage."
Which leads back to my argument that class DPR should be about 95% equal. Like in WoW.
Not necessarily for this particular thread, but in general, that claim of 95% DPR is absurd. Not because of any WotC messageboard fallacy, but because you're neglecting that combat has more depth and variety than "DPR". Status effects (buffs, debuffs) and battlefield control are all VERY valid means to contribute in combat. The Bard is a class which illustrates this very well, having relatively few DPR options, but overflowing with effective buff and debuff options.
I can argue that Rogues may not necessarily be required to deal damage to contribute. They should certainly have that option, but they should also have alternatives, such as blinding enemies, confusing them, safely dividing them into bite-sized groups which can be easily crushed by comrades. These sorts of things, which can fit under names like "dirty tricks" or "bait and vanish".
I don't think that anyone is saying that DPR is the only way to help in combat, but since DPR is pretty much the rogues only tool at the rogues disposal it should be higher.
It's the Oberoni Fallacy.To quote somebody: "the fact that something is easily fixed by a DM does not excuse poor design".
I just can't remember who that quote was from.
Is it the same fallacy with a different name, or is there a subtle difference that is eluding me?
"Rogues aren't broken because they aren't supposed to deal damage."
Which leads back to my argument that class DPR should be about 95% equal. Like in WoW.
Not necessarily for this particular thread, but in general, that claim of 95% DPR is absurd. Not because of any WotC messageboard fallacy, but because you're neglecting that combat has more depth and variety than "DPR". Status effects (buffs, debuffs) and battlefield control are all VERY valid means to contribute in combat. The Bard is a class which illustrates this very well, having relatively few DPR options, but overflowing with effective buff and debuff options.
I can argue that Rogues may not necessarily be required to deal damage to contribute. They should certainly have that option, but they should also have alternatives, such as blinding enemies, confusing them, safely dividing them into bite-sized groups which can be easily crushed by comrades. These sorts of things, which can fit under names like "dirty tricks" or "bait and vanish".
Then the fault is my usage of "DPR." What if I say "DPR equivalency contribution?"
This also raises the question:
If everyone at the table is capable of similar DPR, does that mean they will all simply do that?
I think you are wrong here, in several of exemples that you gave , there a spellcaster that is far more powerfull than the martial. For exemple:
Beowulf , ok he was badass, but see how he was easily dominated by Grendel mother( i am seeing her as a witch) and manipulated like a puppet. Ok in the end he win but it is obivious that in a game table ( if another pc played Grendel Mother ), Beowulf destiny would be diferent.
By the way, this exemple can be given to almost every mythology.sorry for my poor english.
I would ask: Is Grendel's Mother meant to be a PC?
And no worries on the poor english; if I wanted perfect spelling and grammar, I wouldn't be on the internet ;)
I think you are wrong here, in several of exemples that you gave , there a spellcaster that is far more powerfull than the martial. For exemple:
Beowulf , ok he was badass, but see how he was easily dominated by Grendel mother( i am seeing her as a witch) and manipulated like a puppet. Ok in the end he win but it is obivious that in a game table ( if another pc played Grendel Mother ), Beowulf destiny would be diferent.
By the way, this exemple can be given to almost every mythology.sorry for my poor english.
I would ask: Is Grendel's Mother meant to be a PC?
And no worries on the poor english; if I wanted perfect spelling and grammar, I wouldn't be on the internet ;)
Why not?
I am not a fan of the " Manichean" view (i dont know if this expression exist in english) that the world must be divide between good X evil.
My point is, in a lot of mythology you see the spellcaster(evil) being far superior than the martial(good). The fact that in the end the Martialcharacter wins, has a lot more to do with the fact that the story wants to teach about virtures and morale than with the power.
thanks for the reply.
The caster antagonists in mythology are also generally higher level than the heroes. They are not supposed to be equal. Two other lessons to take from mythology is that people relate to the underdog, and the virtue of the hero's sacrifice (without which the Big Bad Wizard can't be defeated).
In the game, most would agree that equal level caster and martial characters should have equal power. The nature of that power is subject to much debate, but the idea that casters should be more powerful "just because" is, in my opinion, losing ground.
(Re: Manichean. That is correct english, and a new word for me. More common would be dualism.)
The "caster/martial" debate in a way reflects the "rogue/other martial" debate. I believe the argument that the rogue should do less damage "just because" is also losing ground. At least, that's the only argument for the status quo I've seen so far--"because."
I could make my peace with a rogue that contributes equally in combat but in different ways, but this speculatory added utility should not exclude raw DPR potential. Look to the barbarian for precedence.
|
I don't think that anyone is saying that DPR is the only way to help in combat, but since DPR is pretty much the rogues only tool at the rogues disposal it should be higher.
This :) could not of said it better my self :)
Personally i would love the rogues to have something else.. something UNIQUE but as paizo seems happy to ignore the rogue and shove out a super natural ninja band aid i doubt that will happen.
And please don't say the rogue has skills cause the bard DESTROYS a rogue in a skill comparison due to his bard abilities.
Hell i would LOVE a revision of traps. If they changed traps around to make them actually useful/deadly/decent then there would be less of a argument i think :)
Maybe a trap rework paizo *nudge nudge wink wink* :P
something like the stealth revision? :P
Hell i would LOVE a revision of traps. If they changed traps around to make them actually useful/deadly/decent then there would be less of a argument i think :)
Nope, because you'd still have other classes with trapfinding that otherwise outshine the rogue. A rising trap-based tide would lift all those ships and you'd still (mechanically) prefer a ranger or bard as your trapfinder.
The caster antagonists in mythology are also generally higher level than the heroes. They are not supposed to be equal. Two other lessons to take from mythology is that people relate to the underdog, and the virtue of the hero's sacrifice (without which the Big Bad Wizard can't be defeated).
In the game, most would agree that equal level caster and martial characters should have equal power. The nature of that power is subject to much debate, but the idea that casters should be more powerful "just because" is, in my opinion, losing ground.
(Re: Manichean. That is correct english, and a new word for me. More common would be dualism.)
The "caster/martial" debate in a way reflects the "rogue/other martial" debate. I believe the argument that the rogue should do less damage "just because" is also losing ground. At least, that's the only argument for the status quo I've seen so far--"because."
I could make my peace with a rogue that contributes equally in combat but in different ways, but this speculatory added utility should not exclude raw DPR potential. Look to the barbarian for precedence.
Ok you interpretation is plausible.
But i can argue that the diference in power is based on the fact that the hero relies in phisical prowess while the villan relies in magic.In fact one of the things that support this interpretation is when we look at gaming experience ( at least mine) we see the spellcaster growing from a carefull and wise behavior in the lower levels to a bold and unwise behavior in higher levels.
Example:
In my last campaing(Age of Worms) i had a player who was a Psion/Wizard(Gestalt). In the beginning he was very carefull and chosen his action with great wits, well in the end(psion19/Wizard19) as you can image, he became a instrument of destruction (in fact he always stated that the even Gods would tremble before his power).
What happened was exactly what i stated , he became bold and selfish and tried to overcome the forces of Kyuss(Dawn of a New Age) ALONE...you can picture what was the result(In my campaing Dragotha survived and Lashona died).
Good discussion and sorry again for my poor english.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just some notes from earlier in the thread.
The 12th level wizard is going to be hanging around with a 15th+ level Theif, not a 13th.
Magic traps halved the skill, sure, but then you added all the bonuses from dex and race and whatnot back in...often +20-30%. If it was a spell, you could have the wizard take care of it or find some other way to trigger it then a roll. Lens of Detection or Eyes of Minute Seeing helped tons.
Backstab multiplied weapon damage. That included MAGIC WEAPON damage. So, a sword +5 was doing (d6+5)x 5, + Str. Remember that in 1E your most powerful Red Dragon had 88 Hit points, and an AC of -1 (21). And the Rogue could and did wield two weapons, and with a high Dex, with no penalty. His backstab was almost guaranteed to kill that Red Dragon, let alone any normal monster he ran across. God help the dragon if he was using a Dragon Slayer...multipliers multiplied in 1E. A short sword Red Dragon Slayer did 3-18 +4, x 5, + Str, to a Red Dragon.
Elvenkind boots and cloaks granted big stealth mods very early. Surprise and stealth...that Rogue backstab was often close to an instant kill.
Gygax's main literary character was a theif-acrobat, although Gord eventually picked up fighter levels, too.
Theif was usually best paired with fighter levels, of course. Took away nothing and gained a bunch.
==Aelryinth
Just some notes from earlier in the thread.
The 12th level wizard is going to be hanging around with a 15th+ level Theif, not a 13th.
Considering I actually checked a 2E PHB before posting that, you're wrong.
Magic traps halved the skill, sure, but then you added all the bonuses from dex and race and whatnot back in...often +20-30%.
That's an interesting house rule, but that's not the way it's written.
Again, one of us checked a 2E PHB before posting, and one of us did not.
If it was a spell, you could have the wizard take care of it or find some other way to trigger it then a roll.
That the casters could solve the problem isn't a counterargument to the idea that the casters could replace the thief but not vice-versa.
Backstab multiplied weapon damage. That included MAGIC WEAPON damage. So, a sword +5 was doing (d6+5)x 5, + Str.
No, no, no, no, no. No it did not. Would you like me to quote you the exact text? Because it specifically says the exact opposite of what you're saying.
Well, I'm quoting from memory, and not 2E. I'm quoting 1E. As you know, there are SIGNIFICANT differences between 1E and 2E, and not just the Ranger class.
I do remember the Rogue was 220k per level and the Wizard was 375k per level once xp flattened. The Rogue got to 20 before any other class, and I think only the illusionist beat it to 10.
My backstab example was taken out of Dragon Magazine Sage advice from back then. Weapon damage was defined as including the bonuses of the weapon for a backstab. Str was not included, so no Gauntlet of Ogre Power love for the Thieves...
Same thing on the magic traps and bonuses and stuff. Note also that 1E let you have modifiers that added up above 100%, so you could take penalties. Yes, 96-100 still failed, IIRC, but if you had 135% and a -50% modifier, you ended up with 85%.
And no scent to catch the Thief!
Probably codified and changed it a bit in 2E. I played 1E a lot longer then 2E.
===Aelryinth
|
Magus in pf/4e....
Okay, those sound like fairly different characters, and it sounds like you have alot of fun playing 4e.
My play experience was rather different. Perhaps it was atypical, but all the classes seemed to be a move + damage setup.
But as TOZ Pointed out, even if you're right, that doesn't make me a liar, it just makes me wrong.
And I can be wrong. I've done it on occasion. It happens.
As TOZ pointed out, it does seem like all the characters are based around attacking. I like that there are more options to reposition your opponent, but I'd like to have more non-damage-dealing ways to eliminate an enemy. Things like ability damage, open ended spells you can use in combat (rock to mud, mud to rock, wall of stone, gate, fabricate, etc); an option to have at /Least/ 6 summoned creatures in combat at once, even if it takes a couple rounds to put them up, dominate, suggestion, and geas.
I have to agree with you about Pathfinder being too static, and often coming down to stand and full attack. I houserule the crap out of my pathfinder specifically to cut down on that, and encourage players to attempt cool stunts and be mobile (and not be boring) and to do combat maneuvers.
It has interesting options, and it has stand and full attack, and the interesting options are rarely worth losing the full attack over; and I think that's really a shame.
|
|
Nope, because you'd still have other classes with trapfinding that otherwise outshine the rogue. A rising trap-based tide would lift all those ships and you'd still (mechanically) prefer a ranger or bard as your trapfinder.Hell i would LOVE a revision of traps. If they changed traps around to make them actually useful/deadly/decent then there would be less of a argument i think :)
when i said revision of traps i just assumed that would also include the rogues ability to find/disable/recover them. Traps need more than a CR and damage change, the whole system needs a rework and to me that would include trap finding.
...the interesting options are rarely worth losing the full attack over...
This is a good point, and shows why the rogue is lacking. I would also prefer if the rules accomodated the other interesting options such that they were as effective as full attack. Even healing, or aid another. If the choice between full attack and another interesting option was usually a judgement call, I'd say that would be perfect.
|
|
...the interesting options are rarely worth losing the full attack over...This is a good point, and shows why the rogue is lacking. I would also prefer if the rules accomodated the other interesting options such that they were as effective as full attack. Even healing, or aid another. If the choice between full attack and another interesting option was usually a judgement call, I'd say that would be perfect.
Agreed, It would be nice if you had to make a judgment call whether youre better off full attacking, or move+standard, or combat maneuver, or heal, etc.
Right now, you're almost always better off full-attacking.
As TOZ pointed out, it does seem like all the characters are based around attacking. I like that there are more options to reposition your opponent, but I'd like to have more non-damage-dealing ways to eliminate an enemy. Things like ability damage, open ended spells you can use in combat (rock to mud, mud to rock, wall of stone, gate, fabricate, etc); an option to have at /Least/ 6 summoned creatures in combat at once, even if it takes a couple rounds to put them up, dominate, suggestion, and geas.
The basic problem with this is twofold.
a) All of those are spells, so those "open ended" options lie in and only in spellcasters.
b) It renders HP useless. If you can entirely bypass HP with a large number of spells, then HP - and, more importantly, HP damage - because useless. This is what happened in 3.x; due to numerous changes between the D20 engine and the 2e engine, doing HP damage became passe. It would take numerous, numerous turns to kill an enemy just doing HP damage, and a single turn to kill that enemy with one of the open ended spells.
That said, open ended spells still exist in 4e; they're just not combat spells. Plane Shift still exists as a ritual, but it takes ten minutes to cast. Other rituals including binding demons, commanding immortal creatures to your will, creating an invisible construction crew to forge a fortress or bridge or similar, imprisoning a creature inside the earth, and so on, and so forth. Those spells still exist, but they're meant to be grand and powerful rituals, not just easy throw away spells you turn into a you-don't-even-get-to-save-just-die.
|
|
Yes, I agree that a is a problem in 3.x and in pathfinder.
The fact that the open ended options are only available to spellcasters is a serious problem for the melee guys, and its probably the biggest contributing factor to the CM Discrepency.
I like that it renders HP Useless, personally. I dont think that HP should be the only way to kill a character. To that end, when I'm GMing, I encourage martial characters to do as many *nonstandard* combat actions as possible. I'll put them in situations where they are fighting on rooftops or ledges or cliffs, stage the boss fight in a room with changing terrain conditions, etc.
Alot of those spells are primarily utility spells. I dont really like the direct spells much (and often design caster characters to not take ANY of them). In my opinion, luring the enemy into a room and casting open/close on the pit trap you had the ranger/rogue jury rig is good combat. Open Lock is a spell you cast when you're trying to get away in a hurry and can't wait for someone to pick it. Passwall is a good way to escape, drop the enemies to another floor, skip to another floor of a dungeon yourself (featherfall), or retreat through the wall of the wizard's tower. It's completely legit for a character to use teleport to pull an abra, or for a wizard enemy to do the same. Opening a gate to the elemental plane of water is a good way to flood a dungeon, or kill a fire elemental, or what have you. Casting rock to mud on the ceiling is a good way to injure enemies, as an alternative to passwall. Mud to Rock will make sure they stay still while you run away. Summoning a Rhinoceros is a way to fight, a way to block off a hallway while you try to escape, or a way to start a fight and not have to worry about the biggest guy there, if the ceiling is high. A quaal's feather token (item) is for blocking halls, making a makeshift bridge, blocking a door, crushing an enemy, to combine with fabricate (lots of bows and arrows, many many many spears, siege engines, ships, doors, or sleds). Planar binding is how you stop a TPK if youre the only survivor left, and you can lock yourself in a room/wall of stone or something ("I summon Bob the cleric.
>>Bob. I'll release you if you resurrect the rest of the Party, then yourself and agree to come back.
>>Umm Okay....
>>Newly Revived Bob and other party members.").I'm not really interested in spells that are specifically limited to damage, or utility, or moving the enemy a few feet. Any given spell should be good for a number of purposes. I'm a player who (as a replacement for a fireball) will hit an enemy with alchemist's fire after covering him in oil to kill him faster. I want to be able to cast (cold) spells to walk on water or make a raft, (fire) spells to burn down a building or damage the enemy's equipment, or target that puddle on the ground to try to hit al lthe enemies standing in it. (I try to push spells to do things that logically make sense, not just things spelled out, and I try to play the less-open spells as open as possible. If I can't find a way to make it open, I probably don't want the spell at all.)
Now thats mostly available to casters. The options melee characters get are heavily reliant on the DM's encounter design, and most of them don't have many non-HP damaging options.
I see that as a problem with 3.x, which was made worse in 4e.
When I make a Martial character, a build I like is Fighter Monk; because I can pick a couple combat maneuvers, and I get to use them with flurry. Even a 1 or 2 level dip will do. Take both trip feats, and you can trip a character and get a free AoO out of it at full-BAB. Mix with Combat Reflexes for more AoOs.
*As a side note to illustrate my point further, I heard that M:tg dropped Mana burn, and that made three of my decks useless, and made me glad I only play legacy format with a handful of friends. Capping life at 50 eliminated a few other decks that would get me up to 1k+ and then have ways to shuffle the graveyard into the library. I dont want the straightforward option. I want to be able to think outside the box.
I'm also not a fan of the 10-minute ritual concept. I think a 10 minute ritual should be how the FIGHTER approaches magic, not how the wizard approaches it.
As for no-save then you die: When you use utility spells against characters, that aren't designed as combat spells, I've never not seen a DM give the guy a reflex save to get out of the way.
So yes. I dont think HP Damage should be the be-all-end-all, and I dont think save or die should be the only other alternative, for martial characters OR casters. I wanted more open options, I didnt want them to be eliminated. And multisummons? All-gone in 4e.
In 4e, everything is in neat little boxes that you can't think outside of. At least thats how everyone I've seen GM it does it, and that seems to be the way the rules work in general, (unless you're not in combat, in which case they encourage you to just make stuff up). In 3.x, if I have a GM like that, I'll gravitate toward a caster, specifically one where I can do more of it without being shut down.
So, as someone who specifically looks for open ended options, and tries to collect interesting uses for all the options available, closing them off completely in 4e makes me feel like I'm playing a Paladin, with a GM who makes melee characters boring, all the time.
The (complete) lack of open options that you can use/cast when needed (instead of having to take 10 minutes to cast them) kindof gets in the way of my fun. I played two characters in 4e over a 6 month period, a Wizard and a Rogue with some swashbuckler type options, and while it wasn't completely terrible, it was kindof boring compared to the other RPGs I've played.
Obviously Your-Mileage-May (and I imagine very much does in this case) -Vary.
I didn't play a rogue in PF, but when I used it in 3.5 d&D I had a great damage output. Now I see that a lot of ppl have problem with that. Yesterday we had encounter with undead for an entire session. I had an inquisitor, and I made the game. The rogue did nothing but taking damage.
Ok, if you play dungeon crawling sure it needs change (and maybe you should not play PF) but now I'm wondering if it's not a matter of tactics.
To encourage dex based melee I don't use weapon finesse, but a weapon that you can use with it simply give you the choice to use str or dex.
Then, there are some feats and combat situations that rogue can benefits from and gain a good damage.
So, what we lack?
Feats that can help a dex based melee to do dmg, or more options. Maybe sneak attack should be (level / 2 d6) + dex bonus on damage, more like an alchimist bomb? Rogue should have a better hit bonus when he make sneak attacks?
Sure crafting traps need a fix.
Lol I just discovered that you can snake attack undead and construct...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lol I just discovered that you can snake attack undead and construct...
Just because something doesn't have an anatomy, doesn't mean it doesn't have any weaknesses. There's an older show called Battlebots that demonstrates this nicely.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lol I just discovered that you can snake attack undead and construct...Just because something doesn't have an anatomy, doesn't mean it doesn't have any weaknesses. There's an older show called Battlebots that demonstrates this nicely.
I now have a new argument template:
"Battlebots did it, therefore truth."
|
|
I remember that show. Some has saws, some had big puncturey things.
Two geeks face off their stainless steel custom RC Cars with weapons, and see who wins. It was pretty entertaining.
There was one that was built to flip the enemy over, and drive two steel stakes into its underbelly repeatedly, and I dont think I remember it ever losing.
Good times. lol
I now have a new argument template:
"Battlebots did it, therefore truth."
If you don't like that example, ask any tanker if vehicles have weak points. Not saying you don't like it, but tank gunners are trained to shoot the part where the turret meets the hull on other tanks.
They can also shoot the treads, but it would be better to shoot the part that will take the tank out of commission completely, rather than just immobilize it. Tank drivers are trained to never show anything but the front of the vehicle to the enemy, because the side armor isn't as thick.
I now have a new argument template:
"Battlebots did it, therefore truth."
If you don't like that example, ask any tanker if vehicles have weak points. Not saying you don't like it, but tank gunners are trained to shoot the part where the turret meets the hull on other tanks.
They can also shoot the treads, but it would be better to shoot the part that will take the tank out of commission completely, rather than just immobilize it. Tank drivers are trained to never show anything but the front of the vehicle to the enemy, because the side armor isn't as thick.
Oh no, I love the example. I really will be using that from now on.