Sure no problem.
The Fly spell is the most oft misused, poorly understood, and wildly exaggerated spell I think I have seen.
You can fly at the speed of a slow jog, and only for a couple of minutes. Those minutes also have to include your ascent and descent times.
60'/6 seconds = 10' second = 6.6mph
For 5 minutes.
So they can go just shy of 1km/0.65miles, and that isn't a round trip, and nor does it cover the distance lost in ascent descent.
This is hardly the Mach 1 Top Gun stuff people think of, and as it was a key point of the 'cool story bro' tale, I will simply add it to the pile.
Sure no problem.
The Fly spell is the most oft misused, poorly understood, and wildly exaggerated spell I think I have seen.
You can fly at the speed of a slow jog, and only for a couple of minutes. Those minutes also have to include your ascent and descent times.
60'/6 seconds = 10' second = 6.6mph
For 5 minutes.
So they can go just shy of 1km/0.65miles, and that isn't a round trip, and nor does it cover the distance lost in ascent descent.
We've always paid attention to the speed. It seems like that range would work ok if the party was invisible, wouldnt it? There's also the option of recasting if a second is needed.
We arent too bad at applying the rules within each spell description - we're not particularly competent at remembering how things work which arent spelt out right in front of us though. I'd be glad if there was some way to make invisibly flying less effective than it often seems.
YOU might, but from all the stories on these boards there are a lot that are just pretending that Flying = Superman.
That the flight is at the speed of a jog seems to be missed, and once they popped cover they are now slow moving aerial targets... how exactly are they ducking in and out of the range of any counter attack again?
Similarly it seems there was no treetops of canopy to contend with, nor were any sort of perception problems identified.
Who was casting the extra Fly spells?
And really, why was the enemy so badly lobotomised?
YOU might, but from all the stories on these boards there are a lot that are just pretending that Flying = Superman.
That the flight is at the speed of a jog seems to be missed, and once they popped cover they are now slow moving aerial targets... how exactly are they ducking in and out of the range of any counter attack again?
Similarly it seems there was no treetops of canopy to contend with, nor were any sort of perception problems identified.
Who was casting the extra Fly spells?
And really, why was the enemy so badly lobotomised?
I dont know - doesnt a fireball have a range of several hundred feet? So popping into view (I presumed they'd be invisible, since that's not difficult to organise) directly above the centre of the army and letting them have it is going to result in pretty severe penalties for any archers (together with the likelihood of misses inflicting damage on their own troops, I'd presume).
I'm kind of assuming these guys were low level mooks (based on the PCs being level 5 - if this tactic doesnt work, they're not going to go very well against an army of mid-high level foes if they're forced to fight head-to-head.
Fly and invisibility are two of my big bugbears with DnD. I wish they'd made invisibility as rare as it is in Middle Earth (ie artifact-level). Flying is just something I've got screwed over through not thinking things through when designing a campaign. It gets tiresome to have to 'flyproof' every adventure site or at least evaluate all the potential uses for it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So the fly is going to get you a short distance. Thats pretty much a given.
The best you could have hoped for is to be waiting for the vanguard of the army and then tried to get above them, though given you now need height and a bit of distance you will find it will take a minute or two and you wont have covered very much real distance.
Now think of the size of an actual army on the ground, its 'footprint', and then consider the relatively small blastspace of a fireball.
An advancing formation is going to be in the order of 200ft by 200ft per 30 guys. Thats going to take a lot of fireballs to hit them all, and thats 30 guys. Thats also assuming they were walking out in an open desert or something.
Now you have 'popped', why aren't their support casters now returning fire? How come the Orcs have no shaman/witchdoctor types, nor any capacity to deal with really slow moving aerial targets?
The story is just stupid, yet stories like this abound.
Its all just 'Gee whiz!' GMing.
The fighter's problem was everything else. But, if you never saw those problems or saw those as a problem, then the Pathfinder fighter is totally better because he does more damage.
Well, yes and no.
The core 3.5 fighter (and I'm talking straight fighter, not the I'm-level-12-but-have-10-different-classes mutt you would actually build if you were halfway trying in 3.5) has two problems:
1) Many classes, including several full casters, blow him away when it comes to physical attack damage, the thing he's theoretically good at, and
2) As you point out, everything BUT combat.
One of those problems got fixed; the other mostly didn't. (I think I can pretty convincingly argue that the fighter has somewhat better options in PF than 3.5 where skills, at least, are concerned, if not much better.)
Well, P.H.D., once again I find myself recommending Malhavoc Press's old Iron Heroes sourcebook, which was a creditable attempt to present a d20 fantasy RPG that was not reliant on magic in any way. Sheesh, do I get a T-shirt from those guys if I recommend them one more time?... It was released well after 3.5 and made attempts to fix some of its problems, although the big one that wiped out a lot of previous problems was eliminating spellcasting (or rather, replacing it with a slightly unreliable and extremely dangerous form of magic, a la the magicians of Robert E. Howard or H. P. Lovecraft.)
(Oh dear, I just looked up-thread and saw Black Knight approves of Iron Heroes too. So, uh, if the two of us agreeing causes the Zombie Apocalypse, I officially want to take this moment to say: My Bad.)
lols. Sometimes it's ok to agree :P
Iron Heroes is by far my favourite 3e/3.5e adaptation. It's a shame it's not more popular.
The classes all feel really fun and unique, and I love the token mechanic they used to fuel the character's abilities.
It's definitely worth a look if you're into epic swords & sorcery flavoured gaming. :)
It just looked like needless complication that didn't actually accomplish anything to me.
I liked it. It broke up the monotony of "stand there and full attack till it dies" that pretty much every 3.5e non-caster experiences.
Plus, combined with the stunt rules and "action zones" the combat was far more exciting and dynamic.
Wasn't it the precursor to 'Book of Nine Swords' and then 4E? and aren't some of those similar concepts now found in Pathfinder?It just looked like needless complication that didn't actually accomplish anything to me.I liked it. It broke up the monotony of "stand there and full attack till it dies" that pretty much every 3.5e non-caster experiences.
Plus, combined with the stunt rules and "action zones" the combat was far more exciting and dynamic.
I will slaughter kobold children by the thousands in the name of whoever gets around to using ToB style martial alongside PF style spellcasting and extrapolates other systems for other classes from there. I want that game so badly. >.<
Wow, just wow. no fighter is ever dead weight. In any campaign. Period.Nope, Wizards can do one thing well. Without the support of a party they die quickly.
Umm Nope yet again... complaining that a trip build fighter can't tip over a Dire Croc or an Elephant doesn't really matter. If you build a linear character (someone who does one thing well), don't be suprised if you find something you can't for example; trip. This is the same for any Witch or Wizard specalising in Charm for example and then complaining that undead aren't affected....
Balance has nothing to do with the game system (at least in the points you have raised). It sounds like you are unable to build a well-rounded fighter, (give your trip-build fighter a bow or some alchemists fire, perhaps even a name and a concept).
Are you telling all those people who had played Fighters and had problems keeping up on later levels are liars? I doubt you could prove that without actual evidence (like, linking examples instead of just saying things). Here's my question: What can a Fighter do against a flying, teleporting, telekinesis-spamming Vrock?
And that's a fail Wizard. Already at level one, anyone playing a Wizard right could dominate the field and never really feel threatened unless they roll a bad initiative and the enemies roll well...and that Charm example is just the DM being a prick, and that's not the Wizard's fault since he isn't the one who decides what monsters decide to try and turn him and the party to dinner.
Lastly, you can live in your illusion, but you did cross a line by insulting my character concepts. Mind you, all my characters have names, backgrounds and such unlike those of some min-maxer, as I had stated earlier on this thread. I just think that I shouldn't be shot in the foot for playing a mechanically flawed class that doesn't work well just because I want to play my character right.
Just as planned.Who cares about your subjective "fun" when somewhere out there a GodWizard is making some glorified Commoner look silly!"Fun" is the entire 100% point of playing any game, by definition. As long as you are having fun, the game is a success.
Balance is objective, measurable, quantifiable and I happen to understand it better than everyone else because I'm SMARTER.Balance is not that objective or that measurable, for that matter.
Are you balanced for role-play vs combat? Combat only? Endurance vs 15-minute adventuring day?
Do you measure balance by 'limelight time' or by DPR or some other method?
How do you balance for gamer skill? Class and style?
Unless you lay down the clear strictures of what you are balancing for, your balance is a meaningless term.
He kinda walked into that one, didn't he? ^^
To sum it up more succinctly, the following are all equally a pain in the ass to me as a DM:
The wizard casts flesh to stone and wins the encounter.
The two-hander fighter crits a monster for 200 points of damage and then swings a couple more times for another 120.
The Come and Get Me barbarian with the 8/- DR, a gazillion hit points, +far more than I make a spell DC on his saves steps within melee range of a big bad to the bone dragon and proceeds to rip it to pieces in one round while wearing a ring of evasion and doding the things breath weapon all day.
Or the magus using spellstrike to deliver 150 point crits at level 10.
Or the cleric healing the 100 plus points of damage the big bad dragon or enemy fighter did in one round to make all the enemies seem trivial.
It's all a pain in my behind at high level. Not just Mr. Wizard. I have to put a lot of work into encounter design to challenge all of it.
Yeah, same here. Monsters at high levels don't have nearly enough HP ( and high enough saves if you got an optimizer caster ) to withstand the damage/magic output of a well-played character. Their own offense simply doesn't happen enough, because the players kill the monster way more efficiently. The economy of actions is weighted towards the PC's a quite bit too heavily.
I pointed that problem out during the playtest years ago, but the devs apparently didn't listen.
That said, my players are having fun with the system, it just doesn't correspond that much with my own vision of what an epic encounter should look like. Those kind of encounters should, IMO, give the villain a chance to shine and be threatening, before being killed by the PC's. And that is happening very seldomly, most encounters end very rapidly and that really feels anticlimatic to me, as a GM.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I removed a post. Be constructive, please.
Quick draw his magic longbow and stuff it full of arrows?Are you telling all those people who had played Fighters and had problems keeping up on later levels are liars? I doubt you could prove that without actual evidence (like, linking examples instead of just saying things). Here's my question: What can a Fighter do against a flying, teleporting, telekinesis-spamming Vrock?
I second that. It's like people forget fighters at high levels carry an arsenal of magical weapons and armor.
Plus, no man is an island. You're supposed to work as a team, remember?
The bottomline is: are all classes fun to play at all levels? The answer is yes.
I second that. It's like people forget fighters at high levels carry an arsenal of magical weapons and armor.
Plus, no man is an island. You're supposed to work as a team, remember?
The bottomline is: are all classes fun to play at all levels? The answer is yes.
I am slowly feeling like I should just stop posting here (I'm only hurting myself reading these posts), but hey: Challenge accepted.
Fighters are THE most gear-dependent class in the game. And guess who are the ones who make magical gear? THE CASTERS (*Shocked expression*)!!
And really, on a high-enough level (or even at low-levels) and with the right spells, a Wizard or a Cleric (Druid works too) could solo most encounters that aren't comprised of anti-caster monsters (and if the DM decides not to cheat). And even then the Cleric still has some armor to help him/her.
And that last question is entirely subjective and thus rather silly. Not all people have fun playing a Fighter in high levels and not all people like playing their caster at low levels (and vice-versa). Some people don't have fun on ANY level...sooo, yeah. Next time, think twice before you try speaking for the whole TTRPG community, alright?
Fighters are gear dependent because weapons are priced exactly twice as expensive as just about anything else in the game.
In older versions of the game, magic weapons and armor were plentiful, and Strength was actually the ONLY effective Str buffer (1E buffs for other stats were typically +1 max).
A Fighter SHOULD take Master Craftsman and create magic arms and armor and make all his own stuff at half price. That's saving him 100K in gold on his +10 sword, and getting better gear to him 2-3 levels sooner then otherwise. It's massively valuable. If he takes Create Wondrous Item also, more power to him. 18k for +6 Str is barely more then +4 Str booster without the feat...which frees up 14k at later levels for MORE GEAR.
Look at the old AP's. Level 10, Valeros is waving around a +2 sword. If he was a Crafter, that would be +3. His armor and shield would be at least +1 higher. He can make a +10 sword for the cost of a +7 Sword otherwise.
And if he wants more then one effective magic weapon, that is what he needs to do.
He should focus all his efforts on getting a Sun Sword, if he's going to be a swordsman, and/or finding an equivalent in any other weapon.
==Aelryinth
I am getting the feeling that you don't like me very much for one reason or another, Gorbacz. Care to tell me if you have any grudges against me other than the one you just mentioned in your newest post?
Aelryinth, you present a good point, but like crane said, why should the Fighter waste a feat when the Wizard could just craft those pieces of equipment for him? It would also show some willingness for team-work on the Wizard's part, since both he AND the rest of the party benefit from his ability to craft magic items.
So the first impression from my nickname spawned the negative reaction. Okay, understandable on a psychological level.
But now I'm left to wonder if the OP of this thread is even following all of this anymore.
I am getting the feeling that you don't like me very much for one reason or another, Gorbacz. Care to tell me if you have any grudges against me other than the one you just mentioned in your newest post?
Aelryinth, you present a good point, but like crane said, why should the Fighter waste a feat when the Wizard could just craft those pieces of equipment for him? It would also show some willingness for team-work on the Wizard's part, since both he AND the rest of the party benefit from his ability to craft magic items.
1) Why would the Wizard take the feat? He doens't need magic arms and armor. The cleric, maybe.
2) The wizard wants wondrous items, rings, and staves. That's 3 feats of his own.
In short, no wizard has the inclination to enchant arms and armor without a good self-interest. The fighter-types really should mind their own.
If he will do it, more power to him. Just don't rely on it.
Also, keep in mind time constraints. A +10 Weapon represents 7 MONTHS of down time, or 13 months of adventure time. That is ONE item. Unless you've got an AP or campaign that's going to last years, the cleric is NOT going to be able to provide stuff for the party.
Secondly, it gives the fighter a very legitimate use for his down time. Effectively, he can now make 500 gp/day as a magic item crafter!
Note also that once he has Magical Artisan, no reason he can't take Craft Wondrous Item, take a Headband of Int (Leatherworking), and craft his own miscellaneous items and stat boosters...saving himself even more money, which he can plow into affording greater gear.
Wondrous items and arms and armor are 80% or more of your WBL, usually. Getting that stuff at half price is a bargain, especially 2-3 levels early.
==Aelryinth
Well, the wizard not needing arms and armor frees up a LOT of gold.
But basically it comes down to the fact that with spells, a wizard can skimp on magic items. Without magic items, a fighter becomes ridiculously underpowered.
A Wizard without magic items basically loses stat buffers and some armor class, the latter he can replace with miss chances.
The fighter will lose at least 18 points in AC at high level, a minimum +8 to hit (Str+ Magic) and a like amount in damage. In short, he'll have a devil of a time hitting anything, do markedly less damage when he does, and he won't be able to avoid anything hurled his way.
And with no con buffer, a lot fewer hit points.
The main item a wizard wants is his Int booster. Everything else is nice, but gravy. But since he's not going to be spending 400k on arms and armor, he's got a lot of money to buy the other stuff he desires, but doesn't NEED.
The fighter NEEDS his magic weapon, armor, and 3 stat boosters to stay ahead of the curve. The Mage is SAD - Single ability dependent. He can totally suck as long as he's smart. The fighter needs 3 stats. That's a problem.
===+Aelryinth
Fighters are THE most gear-dependent class in the game. And guess who are the ones who make magical gear? THE CASTERS (*Shocked expression*)!!
Or anybody with master crafter, but that is irrelevant. Who says the fighter has to find people to make this gear when he can take it from treasure troves? Character Wealth by Level shows the value of possessions that PCs are entitled to have at every level. If not by outright purchase, then by slow acquisition of rewards.
And really, on a high-enough level (or even at low-levels) and with the right spells, a Wizard or a Cleric (Druid works too) could solo most encounters that aren't comprised of anti-caster monsters (and if the DM decides not to cheat). And even then the Cleric still has some armor to help him/her.
Are you claiming that you can make a single caster and complete a published adventure written for a balanced group of 4+ PCs?
I have played Pathfinder since it was in Beta. I have played D&D for 30 years in every edition. I have never, ever, seen or heard of this happening anywhere.
The only way this could happen is the GM designing or altering an adventure for a single character (I guess that would include no "anti-caster" monsters, whatever those are.)
people don't have fun on ANY level...sooo, yeah.
Insert "the consensus" into it then. Yes, some people refuse to have fun. That is not important. What is important is that every class has a role to play in the game at every level and Pathfinder has provided that.
What is important is that every class has a role to play in the game at every level and Pathfinder has provided that.
You do know that 3.5 edition (and to that extent, 3.0) D&D brought those same things to the table BEFORE Pathfinder, right?
Pathfinder wouldn't exist without those, and somehow, despite the "perfection" of the game that you cling to so vehemently, I still prefer 3.5.
If you're not having fun you're doing something wrong.
So when the game has an actual flaw that everyone and their hamster can see that does bother in having fun, it's still somehow MY fault? That's like saying that the CD-i Legend of Zelda games (or any other horrible game you can think of) aren't fun because I am doing something wrong while playing them. And this is why I might as well stop posting here. No matter what I say, someone will somehow "prove me wrong" with the silliest of statements.
So when the game has an actual flaw...
I can see no flaw.
This game has a very easy to play very easy to flavor class that is good on only a few, mechanically nevertheless important things.
It also has a lot of quite complicated classes that can do a lot of things very well but to do this a good number of rules need to be known and used by the player.
It also has a GM that has the job to make sure everyone is getting their fun.
If you would remove a beginner freindly universal class like the Fighter, this game would be not a good as it is today.
So, yes, pathfinder is as balanced as a RPG needs to be and no, if you approach this as a trivia challenge or a tabletop battle game, it isn't balanced at all.
TOZ stole my line.
Schtroumpf.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
News flash to Maddigan: The balance DOES affect the fun.
If you play a Fighter and eventually end up as dead weight in combat (because if the group has people who know how to actually play, you probably will not get any chances to do anything useful except MAYBE make a bit of damage on some foe) and out of combat (how many skill points did a Fighter get again?), you will very likely NOT have fun.
I myself am one of the (apparently) rare people who want a healthy mix of game balance and roleplay value. I am equally hostile towards min-maxers and munchkins as I am to roleplay obsessed maniacs and basket weavers. I know casters are overpowered in comparison to melee classes, and I am shocked that people believe that the melee classes shouldn't be made stronger so they can keep up with the casters.
And it's been proven countless times that Pathfinder failed to deliver on this. The melee/combat feats were weakened, while casters gained higher hit dice. I don't see the Caster > Melee issue being fixed in any way by both of those. Also, to those who speak of the Combat Maneuvers giving the Fighter an edge, go check the bestiary a second time. Unless the GM or the Fighter cheats, he could never Trip or Grapple the CR-appropriate monsters, the Dire Crocodile being an example I saw once being mentioned. (And now I can anticipate someone replying to this post with an "ad hominem" or then replying with something that makes no sense whatsoever)
Agreed and seconded on all of the above. And no you are not the only one who has experienced the same. I never understood and still do not understand the D&D community fear of making giving Fighters more. I'm not saying make them better. Yet a few feats that would progress like spells, more skill points would not imo kill the game.
So if the game has a problem with casters being too strong, it's the DM's fault? (Then again, most players think you can blame the DM for ANYTHING) Tell that to all the monsters that are both immune to spells AND can trash a Fighter in a fight without trouble (Golems are a good example). You need to point the finger at the rule-set itself by some part if there really is a problem somewhere there. Because if the rules were perfect, nobody would ever bother houseruling anything or giving critique of any kind.
|
|
Campaigns where the Fighters end up as "dead weight" are typically those whose DM's have given way too much leeway on the casters. For Wizards, they've made spell acquisition too easy, or frequently have ignored salient rules on spells, and gave away the store on custom item creation.
Part of it is the DM not taking everyone into account when it comes seeding treasure loots. A smart party will pass certain items to the fighter so he can dimension door that one time when it might make a difference, as well as an item of haste, assuming of course they don't decide to just make them themselves. If an ongoing party allows their fighter to fall behind in situational items to take care of certain mobile threats, they're about as foolish as if they'd set their wizard's spellbook on fire. And 90 percent of the time if a fighter has a problem contributing to a fight, it's because of a mobility issue which is usually avoidable with some forethought.
Agreed that sometimes it can be a the problem of an inexperiecned DM and or player. Yet 3.5 and by extesnion PF does have certain flaws to it. If threads keep popping up mentioning problems the system imo does have flaws. Ones that cannot always be blamed on someone else. I'm sorry but that to me seems to be away to not even attempt to acknowledge any flaws. Blame the person not the system just seems to be used to often on these forums and other types of forums. Rifts to a certain extent also has issues and no matter how many times you blame a player or a GM they still exist. I can respect posters for feeling that PF and other rpgs are perfect for them without flaws. I don't appreciate being told that I either play my character improperly or that I am an incomptent DM. It just feels too much of a copout and an attempt to sweep and problems under the rug.
Not saying you are LazarX just that I needed to say that.
I only now remembered that I am prone to giving horrible examples when trying to prove a point.
Anyway, I get what you're getting at, but I'm not saying I haven't had fun despite my constant complaints.
Hell, I've had fun playing 3.5, PF and 4e, but the problems both 3.X and PF have bother me outside the game sessions.
As a DM in both 2e, 3.x, and Pathfinder, I'm going to say yes.
I would say that people are missing a few points in their games which should be taken into account.
Caster classes have to deal with: resistances/immunities, SR, Saves, Spell Turning, Counterspells, targeting issues(miss chance), concentration checks, and effects that can be dispelled.
Mundane classes must deal with: AC, targeting issues(miss chance), and DR.
Also, casting classes have to deal with the "if it's casting a spell, target it first" mentality
I tend to think that it's fairly balanced. Mundane classes scale better with magic items than casters, so in low magic campaigns, casters get an advantage.
Also, caster classes don't survive as well at low levels... and having "adventure paths" which spread a character out of multiple levels shows how fighters/rogues have it easier.
I will say this. Caster classes have immense versatility, which would all change if you just gave them fewer spells at high level.... if a wizards spells looked like this at high level 4/4/4/4/3/3/2/2/1... and a sorcerer looked like this 6/6/5/5/4/4/3/3/2 it would go a long way towards balancing them.
They would have to conserve spells more and choose more wisely which to use. (Don't forget this is before extra spells are gained through high stats)