@Ashiel, at the risk of retribution, I just want to jog your memory as to what might have provoked your censorship.
It had to do with a 20th level fighter, a CR 10 squid, and a PC death.
I'm always baffled by people's sensitivity to the term 'rape' since its original use was meant to despoil, seize, etc. and not necessarily a sex crime.
Ohhhhh. Yeah, rape is actually the correct term here as well by definition of the World English Dictionary and Dictionary.com. Perhaps instead I should have said "Brutally overpowered and butchered by the monster that was half his level, and torn asunder with no means of rebuking his foe or retaliating, in what was an entirely one-sided battle, of which he could have done little to nothing to stop the onslaught". However, given that there was already a word in the english dictionary for this...
EDIT: English is cool like that. If I had also wanted to say "The wizard grabbed the Fighter telekinetically, and then proceeded to hurl the fighter out of a window, causing him to fall a few hundred feet to his death below" I could have said "The wizard defenestrated the Fighter with telekinesis, killing him after a long fall".
EDIT 2: I'm also a bit baffled by the sensitivity as well, when you use the word correctly in the context where it means a certain thing. Why is there not the same sensitivity with other words or violence? Murder is a terrible thing as well, as is violence, war, animating your own dead children to serve as your undead sex slaves, hiding dead bodies by feeding them to people, and so forth.
You can pick up any Paizo Adventure Path and find most of all of these things. So why exactly does using a word, in the correct context, to describe a game character being brutally overpowered and ravaged by an opponent in a completely one-sided battle invoke the deletion of a post? Especially when it wasn't being used to A) describe a sexual act, B) promote crime or violence against others, C) be overly graphic so as to disturb the readers?
If that was indeed why the post was removed, I'm a a bit outraged by it, on sheer principle.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The reason is because in the modern age nobody cares what the original definition of the word 'rape' was used for, they use it for their current meanings.
Nazi didn't use to be a bad word. National Socialism saved Germany after WW I.
N~*+%$ didn't use to be a bad word. Go read Tom Sawyer.
Holocaust used to mean a holy offering to god.
Slavery used to be a commonly accepted fact of society.
Words change, meanings change, contexts change.
Rape is not a neutral word. Kindly cease to be baffled, eh?
===Aelryinth
The reason is because in the modern age nobody cares what the original definition of the word 'rape' was used for, they use it for their current meanings.
Nazi didn't use to be a bad word. National Socialism saved Germany after WW I.
N#&&&! didn't use to be a bad word. Go read Tom Sawyer.
Holocaust used to mean a holy offering to god.
Slavery used to be a commonly accepted fact of society.Words change, meanings change, contexts change.
Rape is not a neutral word. Kindly cease to be baffled, eh?
===Aelryinth
Words change meaning because people use them incorrectly, or only to describe one thing. You stand here rebuking the use of the word in its correct context, because it is commonly used by the populace to denote something else. I have been using it in the correct context. Suggesting that we stop using the word correctly would be akin to suggesting that we not use the word speed because it is the name of an illegal narcotic based on amphetamines; when clearly the word is not being used in that context.
Educate yourself.
EDIT: Murder is also not a neutral word. Dominate is not a neutral word. Killing children is not neutral. Burning people alive is not neutral. Want to know what sorts of things are found in Pathfinder? All of the above.
Senior Software Developer
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As to the removed posts, yes, if you use the word "rape" to describe anything other than sexual assault we will remove it.
I do not care what the dictionary says. Do not use the word "rape" unless you are referring to sexual assault. I do not care what dictionary definitions you pull up. We will not bend on this. This is not open to discussion here.
I removed a post and a lot of replies to it (and replies to them and so forth.)
Don't make arguments personal, and rape is not funny.
Murder on the other hand can be downright hilarious if done right. In-game ofcourse.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Aye, you keep citing 'correct' meaning. The 'correct' meaning in this day and age is sexual assault. The 'correct' meaning three centuries ago was looting and pillaging.
We are not in three centuries ago, so your defense is INCORRECT.
Thank you.
==Aelryinth
As to the removed posts, yes, if you use the word "rape" to describe anything other than sexual assault we will remove it.
I do not care what the dictionary says. Do not use the word "rape" unless you are referring to sexual assault. I do not care what dictionary definitions you pull up. We will not bend on this. This is not open to discussion here.
That's fine. I won't use the word again. I just wanted clarification.
Aye, you keep citing 'correct' meaning. The 'correct' meaning in this day and age is sexual assault. The 'correct' meaning three centuries ago was looting and pillaging.
We are not in three centuries ago, so your defense is INCORRECT.
Thank you.
==Aelryinth
I for one am not impressed with the forceful despoiling and ravaging of the english language, thank you. I will use words for what they mean, not for what others wish them to mean. You will find no reception from me by dismissing dictionaries, including modern dictionaries that list both current and archaic meanings, such as dictionary.com.
Willful ignorance is still ignorance.
noun: an act of plunder, violent seizure, or abuse; despoliation; violation: the **** of the countryside.
verb (with object): to plunder (a place); despoil.
to seize, take, or carry off by force.
These are modern uses of the word as well. Since I have been asked not to use the word because the Paizo board only uses it to refer to sexual abuse regardless of context, I shall not use the word again; but I will point out that I am not amused by ignorance, willful or otherwise; Mr. Aelryinth.
Perhaps we can get back to whether or not fighters are worth playing. Of all the off-topic discussions, this is probably the least productive.
Something I've come to really like is the human fighter favor class bonus. With it you can get your CMD for combat maneuvers high enough that they simply aren't a concern. I mean sunder isn't a picnic anyways, but you take half your favor class bonus and put it against sunder and it's almost impossible for someone to hurt your weapon. Put the other +1 bonus on grapple every level and that's a problem you won't have either, I mean with that and your BAB you are looking at a CMD of 50 before anything else like your strength, dexterity, dodge bonuses, deflection bonuses and the like.
Perhaps we can get back to whether or not fighters are worth playing. Of all the off-topic discussions, this is probably the least productive.
Fair enough, and I agree. My apologies. Sorry if I got short with you, Bob. :o
Something I've come to really like is the human fighter favor class bonus. With it you can get your CMD for combat maneuvers high enough that they simply aren't a concern. I mean sunder isn't a picnic anyways, but you take half your favor class bonus and put it against sunder and it's almost impossible for someone to hurt your weapon. Put the other +1 bonus on grapple every level and that's a problem you won't have either, I mean with that and your BAB you are looking at a CMD of 50 before anything else like your strength, dexterity, dodge bonuses, deflection bonuses and the like.
That is a nice feature. I usually prefer putting favored class bonuses into skill points on low-skill point classes, but this is a good method for defending yourself against combat maneuvers. Though, I've never really had much of a problem with resisting combat maneuvers with Fighters, since their high BAB and solid Dex modifiers in heavy armor tend to really go a long way for them.
I will happily say that their weapon speccing makes them probably the best people for preforming combat maneuvers without even investing in the various feats for them. Since you receive any bonuses that you would get with an attack to combat maneuvers made with that attack, their weapon training and focus gives some pretty serious modifiers. For example, a 20th level Fighter with weapon training (polearms) at +5, gloves of dueling for +7, and greater weapon focus adds up to a +9 to all maneuvers preformed with that weapon.
Since it was ruled that you can trip with any weapon, the Mancatcher is arguably the best weapon a combat maneuvering fighter can wield now. It allows them to disarm, trip, and preform grapples, all with reach, and all benefitting from your weapon specializing bonuses. You might have to carry multiple versions for different sized enemies (you can select what size of enemy it works against), but it's a small price to pay. The low 1d2 damage isn't a big deal since most of your damage comes from your strength modifier (2 handed weapon so you're looking at 1d2+6 or so from 1st level).
Pop a potion of enlarge person and you have a quick 20 ft radius of damage, disarms, trips, and grapples. At 1st level you're looking at +6 to hit and CMB with all three assuming you take weapon focus and have a +4 Strength. By 20th level, you can easily sport a +20 BAB, +12 Strength, +7 weapon training, +2 focus, +5 enhancement, for a +46 before buffs or feats like Improved Grapple or Improved Trip (having both Improved X and Greater X brings you to +50).
As to the removed posts, yes, if you use the word "rape" to describe anything other than sexual assault we will remove it.
I do not care what the dictionary says. Do not use the word "rape" unless you are referring to sexual assault. I do not care what dictionary definitions you pull up. We will not bend on this. This is not open to discussion here.
I guess I'm confused now.
I thought the comments were censored because you DID think it was being used to mean sexual assault, and that that use of the word inadvertently trivialized the suffering of those who had been sexually assaulted.
Yup however it gives you a bit extra room to really know that you aren't getting grappled. I have to say it is at its nicest at the low-middle levels when your bonuses are still getting together and the enemies sometimes come at you with specialties in not letting go.
Yup however it gives you a bit extra room to really know that you aren't getting grappled. I have to say it is at its nicest at the low-middle levels when your bonuses are still getting together and the enemies sometimes come at you with specialties in not letting go.
True, true. :)
EDIT: It kind of becomes less useful later on though, when freedom of movement is preferred, and locked gauntlets are available from 1st level. I have to say that it's a good guard vs sundering, but honestly most of the weapon destruction I see comes from spellcasters, because it's actually goofy hard to destroy a weapon when you count the CMB to actually hit it, then you have to roll damage, subtract hardness, and then hope the remaining damage is enough to break the weapon. Since each +1 on a weapon adds +2 hardness and +10 Hp, and you can't critically hit a weapon, that gets pretty tough to do. Adamantine weapons are a good option for sundering most items, but they only ignore hardness up to 20, which means after some +1s, that might be harder than expected. :o
As to the removed posts, yes, if you use the word "rape" to describe anything other than sexual assault we will remove it.
I do not care what the dictionary says. Do not use the word "rape" unless you are referring to sexual assault. I do not care what dictionary definitions you pull up. We will not bend on this. This is not open to discussion here.
I guess I'm confused now.
I thought the comments were censored because you DID think it was being used to mean sexual assault, and that that use of the word inadvertently trivialized the suffering of those who had been sexually assaulted.
I too figured much the same, which is why I was clarifying. I too was very surprised with the response which just seems bizarre, but I'm not going to argue it. We do play a game that continually makes use of murder, warfare, and so forth in the name of entertainment and family fun, however. One could say that it trivializes murder and violence, which are extremely serious things in real life. However, it's all about context. I appreciate consistency, whatever the choice is. Though the incestuous necrophiliac ogres are just downright special. :P
1) Maybe, it seems like a great item. But the uses per day are limited, and the rod can be sudered, disarmed or stealed (quickened (telekinesis) for example).
Then you get it off his corpse.
Or cary multiples. YOu can afford it.
2)the same with greater teleport, he go away (fliying or with teleport) an get rid of any SoS with G dispel. you lost a spells and a used yoour precious rod.
And aventurers not always have time and/or chance to rest.
Many of the sos's are not subject to greater dispel, or remove him completely, like a dismissal for example.
3) you still have to beat his SR. Also they stack why to argue?
Because you're running numbers without the assumption of greater spell penetration, which is like running the numbers on a fighter without weapon focus.
4) So? if the wizard stagered the balor with a quickened slow he is doing great but if the fighter do that is almost nothing?
I never suggested using a quickened slow. No, stagger is not great on something that casts because as mentioned before, casters are just as dangerous with a standard action as they are with a full round action.
If he use implosion he provokes
Casters get get concentration checks, and the concentration checks to avoid provoking are almost unmissable at that level.
The balor can also 5 foot step away from the fighter and then cast implosion, if the fighter doesn't have step up.
the figther probably saves, the fighter full atacks (maybe adding bleeding and another round of stagger condition) and finally the spellcsters are free to cast spells.
Right, but you don't put implosion on the fighter, you put it on the casters and skill monkey.
More or less this. Thanks Abraham, for your great explanation. ^-^The core rulebook notes that you can pay other wizards to copy spells from their spellbooks, and the prices are very fair for just letting you have the opportunity to learn a new spell from them.Perhaps I'm a curmudgeon, or perhaps my approach is merely a holdover from earlier editions, but I make wizards work for every spell they learn. They either obtain spells as loot through play, via their own research, or by undertaking quests pursuant to such purpose.
Merely approaching another wizard and asking to copy his work would, in my game, elicit a response not entirely dissimilar to what might happen if a research scientist from one pharmaceutical company asked a rival from a competing company if he could copy his formula. . .
Well quite frankly you are being a smudge curmudgeonly and a bit of a holdover. The simple fact is a the approach outlined by Ashiel is the one provided in the core rules and assumptions about the game.
Now this isn't to say your approach can't work (it has before and obviously is for your group) -- just that it is... outdated.
Also this has little to do with the actual cost of a spell book which is also outlined in the magic section of the core rulebook.
HOW the spell gets into the book is honestly of little importance. Once its in the book it adds to the value as outlined in the magic section. If a scroll was used that scroll has no more meaning than the potion the fighter drank at level 1.
I can see the point here, it is just that the premise is so alien to my 30+ years of gameplay that I have a hard time wrapping my head around it. I realize it is currently RAW but I do not plan to make spell procurement so ubiquitous in my own games any time soon.
My group has never lacked for the tools needed to complete a campaign, and there have never been any complaints, so I see no reason to reverse course. That being said, I am not trying to castigate the approach of anyone else, especially given that such is in accordance with RAW. It is just that such is quite alien to the approach and philosophy of magic that permeated the game we grew up on.
I can see the point here, it is just that the premise is so alien to my 30+ years of gameplay that I have a hard time wrapping my head around it.
Imagine what man must have felt like with the discovery of fire. :P
Yup however it gives you a bit extra room to really know that you aren't getting grappled. I have to say it is at its nicest at the low-middle levels when your bonuses are still getting together and the enemies sometimes come at you with specialties in not letting go.True, true. :)
EDIT: It kind of becomes less useful later on though, when freedom of movement is preferred, and locked gauntlets are available from 1st level. I have to say that it's a good guard vs sundering, but honestly most of the weapon destruction I see comes from spellcasters, because it's actually goofy hard to destroy a weapon when you count the CMB to actually hit it, then you have to roll damage, subtract hardness, and then hope the remaining damage is enough to break the weapon. Since each +1 on a weapon adds +2 hardness and +10 Hp, and you can't critically hit a weapon, that gets pretty tough to do. Adamantine weapons are a good option for sundering most items, but they only ignore hardness up to 20, which means after some +1s, that might be harder than expected. :o
Well I would primarily recommend it for grapple, and here's my way of looking at it. Yes you can get an ring with freedom of movement on it, however things can happen to the ring and it has the opportunity cost of not being able to wear a different ring. If instead of you a base CMD for grappling of 50 and then add in your strength, dexterity and what not you get effectively the same result (when it comes to grappling) for a much lower opportunity cost (1/2 of your favored class bonus).
Also consider that it's not just your weapon you want to protect from sunder -- you do not want that cloak of protection getting sundered, or your wings of flying if you go that route instead, or whatever else you have that isn't a weapon.
Imagine what man must have felt like with the discovery of fire. :P
I can see the point here, it is just that the premise is so alien to my 30+ years of gameplay that I have a hard time wrapping my head around it.
As an aerospace engineer and technical consultant, that actually isn't terribly difficult for me to imagine. Nonetheless, I still think the game is best served when magic retains at least a degree of enigmatic semblance.
Hi. Peter Stewart's DM here.
Ashiel, it is fairly hypocritical to argue that the Gamemastery NPCs (the vast majority under 10th level) are all far too high for suspension of disbelief, and then to turn around and say "9th level scrolls fall under the wealth limit, thus spell casters that can cast them will be around, and they will share their spellbooks with you."
Peter's character plays in the Flaness, and Gary Gygax instilled a particular flavor about wizards and spellwork there. They don't share, except in exceptional circumstances. (And in fact, Peter's character is part of a wizard's guild of sorts, and has in fact, shared magic between members.) The fact that the world is not loaded with 17+ level wizards cuts down on the availability of 9th level scrolls and open booked spellcasters.
His fighter fellows are, as I previously said, held to be some of the more powerful members of the group. Peter does regularly downplay his own contributions to the team, however. Wizards are certainly not useless in the game, but neither do they utterly overshadow any other character.
I don't know if anyone has mentioned this but in order to learn a spell from a spellbook or a scroll the Wizard must make a spellcraft check for each spell. Also, if a wizard does allow you to copy a spell from his spellbook he is most likely going to charge you.
Which is again covered in the magic section of the core rulebook.
People got smart when they realized that because you could easily have 5 copies of your spell book letting someone see one copy is a rather small risk of exposure.
I'm playing a fighter in Jade Regent. No archetype, but using a flail and going up both the power attack tree and the expertise tree. We just started book 2, and he's 5th level.
I am presently enjoying his undiluted fightering. He's accurate enough that he's just power attacking at all times, and if I need to be hitting harder he just tosses his shield and starts swinging with two hands. His CMB is high enough that he can actually hit monsters reliably; he disarmed two main melee guys in book 1.
We have a melee inquisitor; I'm curious as to how many levels it'll take before the inquisitor finally catches up. I'm even more curious as to when the inquisitor will reach a point where she's better. I'm guessing that'll be much later later in the campaign.
We don't have a wizard or sorcerer, so we won't have multiple save or die spells being chucked every round.
Out of combat, he's got knowledge (engineering), survival, profession (soldier), and used a trait to get diplomacy as a class skill, with his other points getting split between handle animal and ride. He's not amazing with skills, but he's a got a few no one else does, and engineering and soldiering are amusingly flexible skills.
As to the removed posts, yes, if you use the word "rape" to describe anything other than sexual assault we will remove it.
I do not care what the dictionary says. Do not use the word "rape" unless you are referring to sexual assault. I do not care what dictionary definitions you pull up. We will not bend on this. This is not open to discussion here.
That's fine. I won't use the word again. I just wanted clarification.
Aye, you keep citing 'correct' meaning. The 'correct' meaning in this day and age is sexual assault. The 'correct' meaning three centuries ago was looting and pillaging.
We are not in three centuries ago, so your defense is INCORRECT.
Thank you.
==Aelryinth
I for one am not impressed with the forceful despoiling and ravaging of the english language, thank you. I will use words for what they mean, not for what others wish them to mean. You will find no reception from me by dismissing dictionaries, including modern dictionaries that list both current and archaic meanings, such as dictionary.com.
Willful ignorance is still ignorance.
These are modern uses of the word as well. Since I have been asked not to use the word because the Paizo board only uses it to refer to sexual abuse regardless of context, I shall not use the word again; but I will point out that I am not amused by ignorance, willful or otherwise; Mr. Aelryinth.noun: an act of plunder, violent seizure, or abuse; despoliation; violation: the **** of the countryside.
verb (with object): to plunder (a place); despoil.
to seize, take, or carry off by force.
Are you calling modern English forcefully despoiled and ravaged? Because we all grew up with it, and it's still evolving, unlike, say, Latin.
Your willful ignorance of the current use of the word is still ignorance, I agree. Kindly don't lambaste me for not knowing the original usage, as I most definitely do...I simply don't USE it, because words change meanings over time, and you are arguing willfully against it.
Thus, you are being willfully ignorant, and thus are not amused at yourself, Ms. Ashiel. Kindly don't take it out on me, but look around at the time you find yourself in, and comport to the norms here. Rape is very, very VERY seldom used to mean anything other then sexual assault or highly intrusive and degrading violation of something...all wrapped up in the same meaning.
===Aelryinth
Hi. Peter Stewart's DM here.
Ashiel, it is fairly hypocritical to argue that the Gamemastery NPCs (the vast majority under 10th level) are all far too high for suspension of disbelief, and then to turn around and say "9th level scrolls fall under the wealth limit, thus spell casters that can cast them will be around, and they will share their spellbooks with you."
I never said that high level NPCs shouldn't exist. Please don't put words in my mouth. I commented that high level mundanes are verisimilitude breaking. In a city of 25,000+ people, I have no problem with there being other exceptional individuals much like the player characters, but I do have a problem with every hobo and street walker being over-leveled.
Notice earlier, I commented that I had no problem with the queen's elite bodyguard being in the double digit levels, because she's exceptional. She's not your typical guard. She is like the player characters in terms of her ability, and is likely a giant next to her peers who are (based on the statistics given for the city guard) only about 1st to 2nd level warriors.
I didn't they were all to high. If you're going to argue with me, at least get your argument and mine strait first. Thank you.
Are you calling modern English forcefully despoiled and ravaged? Because we all grew up with it, and it's still evolving, unlike, say, Latin.
It is when somebody intentionally ignores a still current use of the word out of ignorance, and then tells other people it can't be used because it doesn't fit their narrow definition of the word.
I commented that someone was ignorant not long ago. This girl I know suddenly got amazingly angry at me, because I said this person was ignorant to what they were speaking about. I asked her "Do you know what ignorant means?", and that seemed to catch her off guard. She responded "Er...y-yeah..." but had a confused look on her face. I asked "What does it mean?" and she responds "It's a bad thing...". I sighed and told her "Ignorance means that you do not know something. As I am ignorant to much sports trivia, that man is ignorant in the subject he is discussing, and making it obvious."
Her response was "Oh...it means they don't know something?"
She had only heard people use it in a derogatory way. She never bothered to look it up, or to check what it means. We have schools for this sort of thing, but a lot of junk still slips through. It's like the word "Cult". A newspaper article notes a dangerous "Cult", and because most people don't hear the word cult often, and have never looked it up, they don't know that Cult is actually any religious group, particularly small groups of religious devotees; not just dangerous ones with sweatpants and koolaid. Which is why my own mother was disturbed when reading an review that noted the movie as a "cult classic" because she thought it must have something to do with evil religions(TM)!
As someone who actually appreciates the english language and learning more of it, it does indeed bother me.
Your willful ignorance of the current use of the word is still ignorance, I agree. Kindly don't lambaste me for not knowing the original usage, as I most definitely do...I simply don't USE it, because words change meanings over time, and you are arguing willfully against it.
The word means one thing in one context and another thing in another context. The problem is that the word still holds both meanings, and thus it depends on the context. "Sexual assault" is a more specific term, but the word works perfectly fine for sexual violation when used in the correct context. It doesn't mean that the word only means that.
Thus, you are being willfully ignorant, and thus are not amused at yourself, Ms. Ashiel. Kindly don't take it out on me, but look around at the time you find yourself in, and comport to the norms here. **** is very, very VERY seldom used to mean anything other then sexual assault or highly intrusive and degrading violation of something...all wrapped up in the same meaning.
Thank you for your understanding and agreement.
Intrusive: tending or apt to intrude; coming without invitation or welcome.
Degrading: to reduce in amount, strength, intensity, etc.
Violate: to treat irreverently or disrespectfully; desecrate; profane
So what did that CR 10 squid do to that 20th level Fighter? Exactly that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I play fighters almost exclusively.
Perhaps we can get back to whether or not fighters are worth playing. Of all the off-topic discussions, this is probably the least productive.Fair enough, and I agree. My apologies. Sorry if I got short with you, Bob. :o
It's all good. I backed away because I was noticing that I was letting my disagreement with you and my personal life combine into something beyond stupid on my part. It's just a game and I need to not take it quite so seriously. But you're still wrong :P
I actually don't get to play a fighter too often. I tend to get locked into the arcane caster roll because no one else at the table can do it right. I know that sounds egotistical and like I'm saying there is only one way to play an arcane caster... however I still stand by it.
Playing an arcane caster, especially a wizard means knowing your spells and having the tactical and strategic thought processes to place and time them well. It doesn't matter what type of arcane caster you are playing (blasting, battlefield control, debuffing, buffing, summoning or some combination) if you cast the wrong spell at the wrong time you can actually make things worse for your party -- either by hitting the fighter in your crushing despair, putting the wall of force in the wrong area cutting your party in two, or summoning a monster that is useless for the encounter.
No one wants to wait while you figure out what spell does what on your turn either -- you got to have at least a broad knowledge of the tools you have now, and how they interact with all the different variables.
We have several players that can play a good martial character -- we have some that can handle being the healer or self buffer and a (basically) martial character. What is lacking are those that both know when and how to use a spell and survive with poor BAB two bad saves and no armor.
What's more the others get frustrated at times because I do it well... so when they attempt to and their efforts don't match... they don't like it (never mind that it's perfectly understandable and that it's part of the learning process).
As such the people at our table tend to play towards their strengths while branching out slowly (we have a player playing an inquisitor that uses more offensive spells who would normally a cleric or druid as a self buffer and healer). They'll get there -- but in the mean time unless I want to be the fourth or sixth martial character at the table I'm playing caster.
I play fighters almost exclusively.
I actually really like Fighters. In games where GMs let them have nice things, they're really incredibly wonderful members of a team. In many ways, this hasn't changed from older editions.
I recall a very impressive example from another Fighter thread. It's not from my games, but it makes good sense non-the-less. Back in 1st Edition, Lolth the Demon Queen of Spiders had about 63 hit points. For those only experienced with 3E, read that again: 63.
She had lots of spell resistance, good saves, etc. The best way to kill her avatar (or maybe it was actually her) was in fact with your party's Fighter. You would buff him to the high heavens, crowd control the minions, and let him jump on her with his multiple attacks per round and 1d8+5 damage or so. Now when you've got 2+ attacks at 1d8+5, all attacks using your full attack bonus, the Fighter is probably going to carve his name into that demi-god-thingy.
Fighters are much like that today. A decently built Fighter can deal such excessive raw-HP damage that they make exceptionally good strikers. I mean, I noted earlier that a 20th level 2-handed Fighter can auto-crit for about 285 damage every round as a standard action. There is quite literally nothing that is going to stand up to that kind of abuse for very long, barring outright evasion.
Core Fighters are just as good at dealing damage (and are harder to evade due to spells like displacement or mirror image due to splitting their damage over multiple attacks) as well, and can support both Melee and Ranged combat almost regardless of their primary specialization (for example, if you specialize in Polearms to +5, you still can specialize in Bows to +4, etc).
Honestly, the only thing that holds Fighters back is the fact they have to rely on magic items or spells from their party members to avoid being removed from combat easily with CC effects, or to help keep them mobile. Truly, a Fighter really shines when they have a handful of useful magical effects up their sleeves.
For example, if a Fighter and a Rogue in your party both have a magic item that lets them dimension door, they can escape certain hazardous situations quickly (fall in lava, get tossed out a window, thrown into space, or just surrounded by cannon fodder), or even use it offensively by placing themselves into flanking positions and locking an enemy into melee.
one thing that is curious about the arcane spell casters is that modtly is asumed that theye can cast spell almost with total impunity, the figther seems to be asumed to fail his will save, but nobody target a wizard with flhes to stone or feeblemind.
The saving throws of arcane spellcaster are usually (I think) not that good
Impunity isn't really needed. Feeblemind is indeed a good option, but it's a sor/wiz vs sor/wiz counter more often than not, since it's a spell only possessed by sorcerers and wizards, and there are plenty of ways for them to protect themselves from it in turn. No one said spellcasters aren't vulnerable to spells, for example. In fact, that's actually the hands down best way to counter spells (maximized lightning bolt > dispel magic as an interrupt).
Most of my arguments haven't involved saving throws, since most good CC spells don't allow a saving throw or have desirable results even on a successful save (for example, even if you don't anchor people with entangle, you still cut their movement speed by 1/2 and force them to save each round in a massive radius for a long duration).
I did point out that there are a lot of Will save spells that Fighters have little defense against without the assistance of magic items or soaking spells from their party. Many of these effects aren't super expensive (or otherwise useful) to have on magic items, but a lot of GMs don't let Fighters have nice things. For example, if a Fighter can have protection from evil continuously on his armor, Fighting a succubus can still be a pain, but it's much less likely that you will need to turn your character over to the GM for a while. :P
My commentary on Fighters is most definitely not a commentary on Fighters vs Wizards but Fighters vs Game.
It's all good. I backed away because I was noticing that I was letting my disagreement with you and my personal life combine into something beyond stupid on my part. It's just a game and I need to not take it quite so seriously.
Nice. ^-^
But you're still wrong :P
Heheh, ok. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Something we did once in a high wealth campaign was sovereign glued a ring gate to the dwarf's tower shield. and left the other ring with the wizard. The wizard could reach through the ring and cast to his heart's content without being on the front line. Our back line cleric liked it too since he could slip a heal through to the fighter if needed.
It really helped extent both the fighter's and the caster's combat options since it allowed easier buffing, spreading, and angling of spells.
One thing that helped my players was my using the opposition appropriately. When the wizard opens with a devastating spell, wiping out a good chunk of the opposition, the target has been acquired. It's amazing how fast a wizard can die when the enemy wants to live. After a few near deaths and two actual deaths, the wizard decided to pull back just a little bit. Let the heavy hitters because targets and then he can unleash. By then it's too late for the enemy.
He has also learned that it is sometimes better to wait to see what happens before unloading. There was one encounter where he went first, didn't finish the battle, and the party was almost completely wiped out with a prismatic spray. He was the only one left who could teleport the party back to safety, but he had to wait until his turn. The spell weaver they were facing was more dangerous than they thought. He said that he would have taken other options had he not gone first.
There have been many times when the one to save the day was the fighter. When fighting lizarfolk at the lower levels, it was the fighter that was able to keep them bottle necked so that the rest of the party could set up their tactics. At the mid levels, it was the fighter that was able to stand his ground against the 4 dragons while the rest of the party moved in to flank. It was the fighter who was able to keep the elementals engaged in combat while the party figured out the traps and hazards.
The last few modules haven't had much in the way of spell casters or creatures that use spell like abilities that target Will saves. The module may have been that way, but some creatures have changed since they were converted from 3.5 to Pathfinder. That being said, he's in for a world of hurt real soon because he let his Will save lag. It's +8 at level 20. Hopefully he lives to correct that. The next few encounters are not forgiving at all.
Something we did once in a high wealth campaign was sovereign glued a ring gate to the dwarf's tower shield. and left the other ring with the wizard. The wizard could reach through the ring and cast to his heart's content without being on the front line. Our back line cleric liked it too since he could slip a heal through to the fighter if needed.
It really helped extent both the fighter's and the caster's combat options since it allowed easier buffing, spreading, and angling of spells.
Hahaha, I love it. XD
someday someone have to run a fighter Vs wizards championship, not ones against the others but against BBEGs, to see ho can handle the most diverse situation.
I woul propose it to my players but I play by forum it would take an eternity.
Well the first step would be to determine what sort of options they have access to, and what do you mean when you say Big Bad Evil Guy. Technically a GM could make a Commoner the big bad evil guy (maybe an exceptionally rich merchant who is pulling the strings behind the scenes), but I assume you mean somebody who is exceptionally capable; but what their class, race, and so forth is would heavily influence it.
The second is, would this just be a showdown with all resources on the table, or is it post dungeon, where conservation becomes more of a concern, since anything you use against the mooks means less you have to bear against the Big Bad.
Does the big bad have cannon fodder? One big bad I had in a game was a 15th level lich (CR 14) with a pair of advanced allips as her minions (CR 8 each), versus an impressively large party (about 7+ players). Otherwise, is it just the Big Bad vs the PC?
Do they get to have regular Wealth By Level? If so, are magic items that bestow spell-benefits allowed to the participants? This is a big one, since this is where Fighters get most of their good wards like energy resistances, death ward, freedom of movement, and so forth. Most spellcasters have ways to achieve these things on their own, so Fighters benefit the most from this option.
Is it in a 20 x 20 room, or is it in a sufficiently adventurous locale, like a long wide bridge over a pit of dangerous circumstance (acid, fire, running water, spikes, swarms, etc). Is it open, inclosed, are their natural hazards like landslides and such?
All these things are worth considering.
My personal opinion on it is that the Wizard has a definite advantage since their opportunity for options means they are more easily ready for different kinds of situations, and one of your goals was to see who could "handle the most diverse situation". If you remove the option to spend your wealth to buy buffing gear, the Wizard has a far more noticeable advantage.
Personally, I just like the Fighter to be able to have the option to convert some of his wealth into equipment that can get him out of some tough scrapes. Once he has that, he is guaranteed to be a valid member of a party, and probably one of the hardest for enemies to stop from contributing.
EDIT: It's worth noting that in Baldur's Gate I & II, Fighter types were pretty awesome, but the designers realized that magic items with nice buffs and wards on them were where it was at for warriors. For example, you could get the Spider's Bane greatsword which granted freedom of movement when wielded. There was a shield that granted resist energy vs acid, fire, electricity, and cold, that was particularly nice against dragons. There was a helmet that protected you against charm spells (essentially a protection from evil helmet) which kept stuff like evil dryads from making you slaughter your party.
At no point did having these nice trinkets make you less of a Fighter, make you a "pretend spellcaster", or anything like that. You were definitely a Fighter, and it was pretty nice. :)
someday someone have to run a fighter Vs wizards championship, not ones against the others but against BBEGs, to see ho can handle the most diverse situation.
I woul propose it to my players but I play by forum it would take an eternity.
I think the fighter will probably win against a good deal of monsters.
However, if the challenge isn't something that can be overcome by hitting it harder even the best fighter will have a hard time being as useful as a *meh* caster.
someday someone have to run a fighter Vs wizards championship, not ones against the others but against BBEGs, to see ho can handle the most diverse situation.
I woul propose it to my players but I play by forum it would take an eternity.
I think the fighter will probably win against a good deal of monsters.
However, if the challenge isn't something that can be overcome by hitting it harder even the best fighter will have a hard time being as useful as a *meh* caster.
One of the reasons the Tome of Battle Warblade was pretty cool. I remember running a game where the party was fighting some big-nasty, and it was pretty tough. I forget exactly what all its defenses were, but just whacking it was generally not that effective against it. So what did the Warblade do?
He grabbed it and chucked over his shoulder into a river of molten lava. Like not bull rushed a little ways into it, but like chucked the sucker through the air and into the middle of the pool, Mortal Kombat style. By the time the big-nasty could have swam and climbed out of the flowing lava, it was pretty much dead at that point. The party (wizards included) nodded, clapped and was like "Yeah man, good thinking. Smooth move. That's using your head." lol
I mean more like social challenges, traps, environmental puzzles, race against the clock situations, stealth reconnaissance, information gathering. Basically everything up to the point where the fighter draws his sword (or whatever) and smashes the baddie. And sometimes the baddie isn't really the baddie at all but a lieutenant and you wish you had slept him or incapacitated him instead of making mincemeat out of him.
Hey now one of the chief complaints about the rogue is that anyone else can do his job with skills. A fighter can certainly have skills and room to use stealth, be diplomatic and disable traps. Environments might be a bit harder, but skills aren't necessarily going to hold him back that much.
Hey now one of the chief complaints about the rogue is that anyone else can do his job with skills. A fighter can certainly have skills and room to use stealth, be diplomatic and disable traps. Environments might be a bit harder, but skills aren't necessarily going to hold him back that much.
You mean, other than him not having any?
You can build a fighter to have a ton of skills. Or at least a ton of skills for a fighter. 14 int, human, favored class bonus, look 6/level! I assume point buy, and putting 5 points into Int means less somewhere else. That somewhere else being more vital for his specialty-doing damage. Starting with a 14 Str or 10 con is rather crippling. All but the most generous point buys will force that choice-brain or brawn.There are some skills that are still useful. Diplomacy, Perception, occasionally Bluff. You have to have someone in the party that can do some of these things.
But the rest? Yes I did in fact mean spells. Stealth reconnaissance (invis/fly) ya know. Environmental (blink/passwall/stone shape/etc).
Hey now one of the chief complaints about the rogue is that anyone else can do his job with skills. A fighter can certainly have skills and room to use stealth, be diplomatic and disable traps. Environments might be a bit harder, but skills aren't necessarily going to hold him back that much.You mean, other than him not having any?
You can build a fighter to have a ton of skills. Or at least a ton of skills for a fighter. 14 int, human, favored class bonus, look 6/level! I assume point buy, and putting 5 points into Int means less somewhere else. That somewhere else being more vital for his specialty-doing damage. Starting with a 14 Str or 10 con is rather crippling. All but the most generous point buys will force that choice-brain or brawn.There are some skills that are still useful. Diplomacy, Perception, occasionally Bluff. You have to have someone in the party that can do some of these things.
But the rest? Yes I did in fact mean spells. Stealth reconnaissance (invis/fly) ya know. Environmental (blink/passwall/stone shape/etc).
Most of my Fighters put their favored class bonus into skill points, which means an instant +1 right there. That means that even if you tank Intelligence, you end up with at least 2 points per level. 3 if Human. Let's not forget that intelligence bonuses raise skill points retroactively in Pathfinder, so getting some +Int via your party's wizard using planar binding, or with enhancement bonuses, means you will get a sudden bump in skill points.
Most of my Fighters, even with a 7 Intelligence will generally have a pretty diverse skill set as they gain levels. Especially since most DCs are reasonably low for things like Survival, Ride, and so forth.
But I also agree that without a little magical assistance, Fighters aren't going to do too well with skills in a high level game. In fact, rogues might not either. It's surprisingly easy to invalidate a lot of skills with a little planning. And you probably won't be the best at any of your useful skills.
In fact, I'd recommend Ranger as a martial character who wants to do stuff besides just kill things. While being almost as good at the Fighter at killing things, they also sport a rather impressive 6 + Int modifier skill set, and you're guaranteed 4/level even if you tank Intelligence like it was toxic, which is still enough for Perception, Stealth, Survival, and Spellcraft to be maxed out. Couple this with your spells which give you cool features (longstrider = +10 speed for hours, pass without trace means you can't be tracked and lasts hours, resist energy means you can take elemental spam more easily without relying on magic items, etc).
I never said that high level NPCs shouldn't exist. Please don't put words in my mouth. I commented that high level mundanes are verisimilitude breaking...I didn't they were all to high. If you're going to argue with me, at least get your argument and mine strait first. Thank you.Hi. Peter Stewart's DM here.
Ashiel, it is fairly hypocritical to argue that the Gamemastery NPCs (the vast majority under 10th level) are all far too high for suspension of disbelief, and then to turn around and say "9th level scrolls fall under the wealth limit, thus spell casters that can cast them will be around, and they will share their spellbooks with you."
I know this is a common misconception on nerd boards, but I don't actually have to go back and encompass your entire other topic point in order to show discrepancies with what you say there (mundane NPCs are too high level) and what you say here. (17+ level casters are available in every town that has a wealth limit to cover 9th level scrolls.) The intricacies of your argument there can be left over there to argue.
Also, given that I didn't say anything about you saying "high level NPCs shouldn't exist", set an example by heeding your own advice before you extol its virtues to others.
A for-sale scroll-maker is just about as mundane as a dirt farmer in DnD. Your entire approach to this suggestion and assumptions, that any wizard PC will just automatically (through the course of playing the game) have access to as much scribing as they wish isn't supported in DnD fiction or DnD rules, much less 'in every game'.
9th level scrolls are listed as 'major' magic items on the chart, despite their considerably lesser cost than other magic items. I would suspect that they are treated as such when generating available items in a city's market as well, and not as 3000gp wondrous items.
A for-sale scroll-maker is just about as mundane as a dirt farmer in DnD. Your entire approach to this suggestion and assumptions, that any wizard PC will just automatically (through the course of playing the game) have access to as much scribing as they wish isn't supported in DnD fiction or DnD rules, much less 'in every game'.
It IS supported within the rules. The relevant rules have already been quoted, in regards to city size and purchasing magic items. It is in the rules. You saying it's not supported by the rules makes about as much sense as saying the availability of metal isn't guaranteed. Unless the game specifically isn't going by the guidelines outlined in the CRB, i.e. a low magic game or whatever, it is fair for a player to expect those items to be available.
Now, you are partially correct, it won't be available 'in every game', but in games that it isn't available in in stipulated abundance, the DM is specifically straying from the RAW and, as such, has a responsibility to inform his players before the campaign starts of such house rules.
A for-sale scroll-maker is just about as mundane as a dirt farmer in DnD. Your entire approach to this suggestion and assumptions, that any wizard PC will just automatically (through the course of playing the game) have access to as much scribing as they wish isn't supported in DnD fiction or DnD rules, much less 'in every game'.
It IS supported within the rules. The relevant rules have already been quoted, in regards to city size and purchasing magic items. It is in the rules. You saying it's not supported by the rules makes about as much sense as saying the availability of metal isn't guaranteed. Unless the game specifically isn't going by the guidelines outlined in the CRB, i.e. a low magic game or whatever, it is fair for a player to expect those items to be available.
Now, you are partially correct, it won't be available 'in every game', but in games that it isn't available in in stipulated abundance, the DM is specifically straying from the RAW and, as such, has a responsibility to inform his players before the campaign starts of such house rules.
I don't really do 'partially correct', but given that you've only quoted me 'partially' I suppose it falls on me to correct you the rest of the way.
I said 9th level spells are listed as a major item, which is also within the rules. 3d4 available (along with other categories) in a base metropolis. Unless you are suggesting that in any small city or larger settlement, you can find scrolls of 9th level with a 75% success rate?
That's precisely what I'm saying, because that's what the rules say. I'm sure you know where to find the chart. I'll quote the relevant text:
Each community has a base value associated with it (see Table: Available Magic Items). There is a 75% chance that any item of that value or lower can be found for sale with little effort in that community. In addition, the community has a number of other items for sale.
A small city has a "base value" of 4000g. Since a 9th level spell scroll is <4k, it should have ~75% availability rate in a small city. The random minor, med, major items, in my interpretation, would be any items that are above and beyond that base value.
The other interpretation that I've seen is that when you go looking for a specific magic item, if successful on the % check, a 1 would be subtracted from the random roll. So if I want a scroll of Implosion (<4k) and you rolled 3 Major magic items for the city, you can buy the scroll and now there are 2 items. I don't fly by this but I've seen it done.
A for-sale scroll-maker is just about as mundane as a dirt farmer in DnD. Your entire approach to this suggestion and assumptions, that any wizard PC will just automatically (through the course of playing the game) have access to as much scribing as they wish isn't supported in DnD fiction or DnD rules, much less 'in every game'.
I'm fairly certain that mundane flies out the window when you're scribing magic scrolls of an appropriately high level. It just means that the caster, who is obviously quite powerful, makes money by selling scrolls.
Also mage guilds, schools, libraries, and anything of that sort may also have various members of their organizations scribing scrolls to fund their activities. For example, if you have a group of wizards at a college, they may be expected to scribe at least one scroll once per week to donate to the college, or to give in exchange for tuition, unless they have some legitimate reason as to why they cannot (such as being busy creating another magic item, in which case they may need to scribe scrolls in advance depending on how strict the college was). Excess scrolls would in turn be sold to pay for college expenses.
I don't really care how at the moment, because it varies from campaign to campaign. I was just commenting that the core rules expect you to be able to be able to pay to scribe spells and buy scrolls; and like Meatrace said, if the core assumption is not going to be present, the GM should inform players of the house rule. It is only courteous.
|
A for-sale scroll-maker is just about as mundane as a dirt farmer in DnD. Your entire approach to this suggestion and assumptions, that any wizard PC will just automatically (through the course of playing the game) have access to as much scribing as they wish isn't supported in DnD fiction or DnD rules, much less 'in every game'.I'm fairly certain that mundane flies out the window when you're scribing magic scrolls of an appropriately high level. It just means that the caster, who is obviously quite powerful, makes money by selling scrolls.
Also mage guilds, schools, libraries, and anything of that sort may also have various members of their organizations scribing scrolls to fund their activities. For example, if you have a group of wizards at a college, they may be expected to scribe at least one scroll once per week to donate to the college, or to give in exchange for tuition, unless they have some legitimate reason as to why they cannot (such as being busy creating another magic item, in which case they may need to scribe scrolls in advance depending on how strict the college was). Excess scrolls would in turn be sold to pay for college expenses.
I don't really care how at the moment, because it varies from campaign to campaign. I was just commenting that the core rules expect you to be able to be able to pay to scribe spells and buy scrolls; and like Meatrace said, if the core assumption is not going to be present, the GM should inform players of the house rule. It is only courteous.
Actually the rules expect each DM to run their games how they see fit.
Magic items are valuable, and most major cities have at least
one or two purveyors of magic items, from a simple potion
merchant to a weapon smith that specializes in magic
swords. Of course, not every item in this book is available
in every town.
The following guidelines are presented to help GMs
determine what items are available in a given community.
These guidelines assume a setting with an average level of
magic. Some cities might deviate wildly from these baselines,
subject to GM discretion. The GM should keep a list of what
items are available from each merchant and should replenish
the stocks on occasion to represent new acquisitions.
This is from the core rulebook which states these are guidelines that are there for the DM to use if need be. It's not assumed that you are going to walk into a city and find what you want.
|
|
Also mage guilds, schools, libraries, and anything of that sort may also have various members of their organizations scribing scrolls to fund their activities. For example, if you have a group of wizards at a college, they may be expected to scribe at least one scroll once per week to donate to the college, or to give in exchange for tuition, unless they have some legitimate reason as to why they cannot (such as being busy creating another magic item, in which case they may need to scribe scrolls in advance depending on how strict the college was). Excess scrolls would in turn be sold to pay for college expenses.
You are trying to use a specific type of DM style campaign to justify your argument. DM's have the ability to cater more to one class and not another but the rulebooks don't say this is how it's done by default.
Fighter is a pretty good class. Casters are not overpowered. Sometimes a spell it is (every new spell is more or less a "variant rule"), so if you got problem with this just modify the spell (or feats).
I play a fighter (brawler). Is very strong and interesting. Leveling I didn't maximize dmg output to take some item to protect me (and feats). It works very well.