| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I suppose I'm an optimist then.
"Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / General Discussion/ " is but a single subforum, and even it contains things of value.
But it does tend to contain a higher percentage of "WTF" threads.
I've been fortunate enough to play in a very large circle of gaming groups, and in many different simultaneous campaigns. A lot of things I see that get theory-crafted as weak and useless, I have seen in-game, firsthand, actually do really cool stuff.
I once broke a campaign with a multiclassed *Warmage/Shadowcaster. I actually voluntarily retired the character because I was obliterating every encounter and ruining everyone's fun. Yet, numbers-wise, those are two of the weakest classes in all of 3e-3.5.
*Should be noted that it also had the Dark Creature template, and made great use of the Hide in Plain Sight racial ability, with a ridiculous Hide skill modifier.
And, while I'm at it, your "fix" to the Fly skill is deeply, tragically flawed. It basically reads "You cannot fly in combat, even if you've taken full ranks in Fly and have a racial bonus". Let's take a Cauchemar Nightmare for example. CR 11, Fly +19. A level 9 Wizard casts a 2nd level spell, scorching ray. The Cauchemar now has to make, on average, two Fly checks against DC 48. It cannot make those checks. Its average roll is 30, so it falls 40 feet, potentially taking another 7 damage on top of the 28 it's already taken from a spell 3 levels under the Wizard's highest level and is already exceedingly powerful even after Paizo directly nerfed it from 3.5. And now all the rest of the party gets to take their shots at it, forcing it to make even more checks it can't possibly succeed on (seriously, 14 damage is nothing at level 9).
Say the nightmare is 60 ft. up. It fails the roll and loses 40 ft. of altitude, but is otherwise unaffected. The only cases in which failing a roll is even an issue is when the flying critter is very close to the ground, in which case falling damage is minimal anyway. So, yeah, if you decide the roll is binary, and failure to meet it causes you to automatically plummet to your death, that would be indeed by a "deeply, tragically flawed" rule -- but that's a stawman. As written the rule doesn't say "you cannot fly in combat" -- it says "you can fly in combat, but will almost certainly lose altitude if hit, so judge your height and risk accordingly."
So OK, our nightmare is now 20 ft. off the ground, still flying. The rest of the party focuses fire on it. It falls 20 ft. for 2d6 damage and is on the ground, but it's now the nightmare's turn -- it takes a double move and is now 180 ft. up in the air, and will have a very hard time failing enough rolls badly enough to lose that much altitude as a consequence.
Tangle bolt - Crossbow - 226 gold - /thread
Look up the "entangled" condition and get back to us with that.
[I know the OP won't read this reply, I'm still going to make it. I've actually learned a bunch of neat tricks from reading replies here so I figure I'll add to the fun discussion!]
I actually read the entire thread!
High five!
No one? Oh...
Seems like the OP is 100% correct in the thread title (If we assume he's saying that Fighters don't gain the ability to fly through a standard Class Feature).
Does OP agree with me, then, that we should also start a thread called: 'Wizards can't melee, and they can't cast spells while sealed in full plate, with both hands full while also being gagged with no access to spell components and no metamagic feats'
Because I don't think they can, I might be wrong of course, I usually am.
On a less sarcastic note, I've been running games for well over a decade now and some of my favorite moments are from my players encountering enemies with weird movement mechanics. You've got your phase shifting baddies, the burrowing ones, the flying ones, the plane hopping ones....ooooh the ones that grapple you, plane shift, let you go and then shift away...Good times.
When designing encounters for players you don't just make a flat area and fill it with monsters, or if you do it smacks of horrible encounter design. I'm quite aware of my groups purchases, available spells, items and such...of course I am, I'M THE GAMES MASTER! *queue dramatic lightning, crash of thunder*
I can, without fail, gimp any combination of class, race and item buy. I don't even care WHAT you come up with. If you are a player in one of my games I can make anything you do suck, not work, fail, fall apart. I'm not even joking. That über wizard you refer to that can blast things from range? Neutered. Instantly. Nothing you do can stop someone with absolute world control.
I only bring this up because all your baseline assumptions about the ability of other classes is already extremely invested in favorable GM actions. He's allowed them the power they have. In any comparative set you can come up with, ANY item, spell even feats (if we want to be crazy about it) are there and available to the players due to the GM allowing it.
You cannot give me an example that exists in a vacuum because the game is never played that way. Tell me again WHY a fighter can't fight a flying foe? If he truly can't then the only conceivable answer is that the GM has made it so. The system is not broken, it can't ever be broken. You, as a Games Master, are not beholden the whims of rulebooks and design errata.
As for me? I design encounters based on the group that will attempt the encounter. I don't just blindly populate the dungeons, caves, warrens, crypts (etc) of my worlds and herd my players in.
What GM is pitting your pure melee fighter against only flying foes and not giving you any means of contributing? Show me on the doll where he hurt you.
I think part of the disconnect is that the game inherently gives full casters all the tools they need to contribute, in and out of combat, as class features -- whereas melee characters need to expend additional resources in order to perform their basic functions. No one is disagreeing that fighters can choose to expend additional resources in order to handle common situations; it's just that no everyone agrees that they should have to.
The OP, albeit potentially ill-worded and poorly placed, seems to be heading in that direction. And I share that philosophy to a large extent, although I understand that adjusting it requires house ruling, and isn't going to happen here -- the core rules start from the assumption that it's wrong, so there you have it.
Still, that difference in philosphy does not justify eleven pages of sarcasm, ridicule, and downright ass-hattery I'm seeing here. If you believe that casters SHOULD have a leg up on martials, in terms of their class "toolkit," that's good for you -- the core rules agree with you, and I agree that the core rules agree, but I disagree that that means any other standpoint is "badwrongfun" (although I've already conceded that "Suggestions/Houserules" is a better forum for that).
Cntinued outright statements of "badwrongfun" (and I can almost hear the inevitable "you fail at life!" that was so popular here a few years ago), as everywhere else, really have no place anywhere on the forums, though -- no matter what your philosophy on the matter.
I personally believe that martials, as class features, should be given all the baseline tools they need to perform their basic job functions at all levels. Without begging spells and items from their caster friends. You can disagree with that all you want, and the designers also clearly disagree with that, but that doesn't make an alternative standpoint one that justifies people gleefully breaking all the cardinal rules of the forums. Even if I didn't agree with the OP, I'd still be on his side just because of the venom in most of the responses.
So if I seem to be going overboard arguing against the tide, now you know why.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
See, now you're overemphasizing the bad behavior of the pile-on posters.
It's not essential to the quality of their argument, but I'll refrain from opening a can of rhetorical-name-calling on you.
The wizard needs to buy fly or learn it at a level. That's easier than it is for the fighter, sure, but the fighter can buy fly in a can. Or, if that hurts his pride, use a bow, and specialize in a bow, because that works.
Yes, posters on both sides have been a bit boorish. I only got incredulous after the OP started calling people stupid.
It's not badwrongfun, nobody has failed at anything, either. There are solutions on the table, and not taking them means you're either being willfully ignorant or there's some subjective factor in your campaign that makes this a problem for you and not everyone else.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think part of the disconnect is that the game inherently gives full casters all the tools they need to contribute, in and out of combat, as class features -- whereas melee characters need to expend additional resources in order to perform their basic functions. No one is disagreeing that fighters can choose to expend additional resources in order to handle common situations; it's just that no everyone agrees that they should have to.
The OP, albeit potentially ill-worded and poorly placed, seems to be heading in that direction. And I share that philosophy to a large extent, although I understand that adjusting it requires house ruling, and isn't going to happen here -- the core rules start from the assumption that it's wrong, so there you have it.
Still, that difference in philosphy does not justify eleven pages of sarcasm, ridicule, and downright ass-hattery I'm seeing here. If you believe that casters SHOULD have a leg up on martials, in terms of their class "toolkit," that's good for you -- the core rules agree with you, and I agree that the core rules agree, but I disagree that that means any other standpoint is "badwrongfun" (although I've already conceded that "Suggestions/Houserules" is a better forum for that).
Cntinued outright statements of "badwrongfun" (and I can almost hear the inevitable "you fail at life!" that was so popular here a few years ago), as everywhere else, really have no place anywhere on the forums, though -- no matter what your philosophy on the matter.
I personally believe that martials, as class features, should be given all the baseline tools they need to perform their basic job functions at all levels. Without begging spells and items from their caster friends. You can disagree with that all you want, and the designers also clearly disagree with that, but that doesn't make an alternative standpoint one that justifies people gleefully breaking all the cardinal rules of the forums. Even if I didn't agree with the OP, I'd still be on his side just because of the venom...
Firstly this isn't and wasn't about Casters having a "leg-up" on Martial's. The OP made claims that a Fighter can't do anything about anything with Fly.
People then told him about Ranged Weapons/Potions/Magic Items.
He then changed it to a Fighter 100% dedicated to Melee combat and claimed they suck at fighting Flying creatures.
Well no kidding the Fighter that is 100% Melee can't effect something flying without using a magic item to give flight.
That's like being mad at the game because my Fire Spells can't kill the Fire Elemental.
But it isn't even that bad because a large majority of the flying creatures have to engage in melee to be effective. (This was shown earlier in the thread.)
Opinions are fine and dandy but when you are given the solution to the problem and continue to say your right no matter the evidence then clearly someone is doing it wrong.
I'll admit to being a particularly "venomous" poster, and I certainly could have used more tact and patience, but the OP was a rare gem; despite repeatedly being given solutions to their problem, the OP, again and again, slapped down helping hands, called names, and based arguments on flat-out-wrong information. Even with some posters giving a level-by-level CR breakdown of every creature in the bestiary, the OP never relented their misuse of "50% of the time" antics.
Any other attempt to describe the situation will likely get this post removed, so I'll stop now.
I think part of the disconnect is that the game inherently gives full casters all the tools they need to contribute, in and out of combat, as class features -- whereas melee characters need to expend additional resources in order to perform their basic functions.
[snip]
I personally believe that martials, as class features, should be given all the baseline tools they need to perform their basic job functions at all levels. Without begging spells and items from their caster friends. You can disagree with that all you want, and the designers also clearly disagree with that, but that doesn't make an alternative standpoint one that justifies people gleefully breaking all the cardinal rules of the forums.
[snip snip]
I'm of course not going to tell you how to do things in your game, nobody can really. I still find the assumption that spellcasters have access to any and all spells and abilities at all times to be abit worrying
As for the impression that casters have all the tools (for killing, in this case).
There's...what...9 schools of magic? How many different ways do we have for killing something in a mundane way? Lets count. Hit something up close, hit something far away...Right. Two.
There's going to be more diversity in sheer capability amongst magic users for this reason, I suspect. A bow and arrow isn't that different from a ballista, in game terms. Nor is a greatclub so different from a greatsword, shurikens and throwing axes etc. Sure they've got different stats and all but they all mostly feed off of the same mechanics and yield hit point damage as a result.
In addition to this, magic users gain access to a wide variety of things other than damage such as movement modes, illusions, charm person, transmutations etc. etc.
I agree. Magic is totally badass.
A mundane fighter doesn't stand a chance against a prepared spellcaster. Nothing, can stand against a prepared spellcaster with access to everything.
Again though, we've assumed massive amounts of GM support to even have a situation like that.
Why doesn't the fighter have the tools he needs to tackle the enemies he's facing? Why isn't he able to contribute? Why are his direct class features relevant to what enemies he can deal with?
How is none of this the GM's responsibility? If I was playing in a game where I was useless, as any class, I would have some serious questions for the GM that let this kind of thing happen in the first place. If we were going to be placed in a permanent anti-magic field all along (as an example) why did he let me make a wizard? In a similar vein, if the only thing a character is allowed to rely on is his or her own class features and the adventure takes places mostly, say, underwater or high in the air. Why is there a Fighter in the group? Or a Rogue? Or a Ranger? Or a Barbarian? Etc.
On a personal note.
I have fighters pasting my BBEG wizards in the games I run. A group of entirely non-magical characters (not even divine spells) still took on almost nothing but sorcerers, wizards and druids with trolls coming out of the walls and survived. High AC, lots of hitpoints and the ability to choke a bi*** can go a long way.
Catching them unawares is also a huge factor (re: Nothing can stand against a prepared wizard, one that doesn't know you are coming...well.)
I'm not even on topic anymore, but that's ok...I think.
How is none of this the GM's responsibility?
There's a name for that, when you say "there's no problem in the rules because the DM can fix it." But let's not go there.
There are solutions on the table, and not taking them means you're either being willfully ignorant or there's some subjective factor in your campaign that makes this a problem for you and not everyone else.
... or that you're like me, and find the "solutions" to be a constant reminder of the problem, like putting band-aids on a severed leg.
But, yes, I'll agree that if one is determined to stay within the core rules, and if one is willing to ignore the baseline discrepancies, and if one's DM doesn't mind the additional work, then yes, the situation can be just fine as it is.
There are solutions on the table, and not taking them means you're either being willfully ignorant or there's some subjective factor in your campaign that makes this a problem for you and not everyone else.... or that you're like me, and find the "solutions" to be a constant reminder of the problem, like putting band-aids on a severed leg.
But, yes, I'll agree that if one is determined to stay within the core rules, and if one is willing to ignore the baseline discrepancies, and if one's DM doesn't mind the additional work, then yes, the situation can be just fine as it is.
I'm not attempting to be snarky or anything.
So how do you "fix" fighter in your games?
How does a melee fighter in your game combat flying opponents?
Does his Fighter training let him fly at a certain level?
... or that you're like me, and find the "solutions" to be a constant reminder of the problem, like putting band-aids on a severed leg.
At this point, I think we're arguing more about the color of the band-aid than whether it will stop the bleeding.
And in the last 3 years, it's healed to stump.
But, yes, I'll agree that if one is determined to stay within the core rules, and if one is willing to ignore the baseline discrepancies, and if one's DM doesn't mind the additional work, then yes, the situation can be just fine as it is.
Core Rules, only because it is necessary to the discussion. I do house rule. The only thing that's stopped me from making Lincolnfinder is that I'm a lot lazier than you.
Baseline Discrepancy, yes some consider this a feature. Some don't even experience it at all! I've seen it, but it doesn't seem to hit my group as hard as yours.
Additional work, here's the one I don't get. My entire style of play is predicated on as little work as possible. Can you honestly say I've done more "work" by letting the players get access to magic items (that the game heavily implies they should have) than you have by rewriting much of the rulebook? (I think it's great that you did that, BTW, but I am waaaay to lazy for that).
So how do you "fix" fighter in your games?
How does a melee fighter in your game combat flying opponents?
Does his Fighter training let him fly at a certain level?
I tweaked the Fly skill, as I posted above. So if your enemy is flying and you thwack him with an arrow, he'll almost certainly lose some altitude. How much altitude depends on how much damage you dealt, so that playing a flying combatant involves a lot of weighing of odds -- closer to the ground means more likely to hit it when you fall, but also means less damage from falling. Flying higher up means you're almost certainly not going to fall far enough to hit the ground, but also means your favorite attack forms might not be within range of the guys on the ground. For people like William Senn who want flying in combat to be a lot easier than I prefer, it's easy to tweak the check DC.
This "fix" requires no feats or magic items on the part of the fighter, nor does it require him to fly.
For the rest of the problems we saw, my group (especially houstonderek) and I eventually went a bit haywire and basically rewrote the game: link. It's a rules-heavy, player-option-heavy, martial-empowered variant Pathfinder that fits the kind of games we like to play better than do the core rules... but that said, it's definitely not suited to mainstream tastes. (For one, it assumes the players are at a level of system mastery where they realize it takes some effort on the part of the player for a wizard PC not to break the game at higher levels.)
Additional work, here's the one I don't get. My entire style of play is predicated on as little work as possible. Can you honestly say I've done more "work" by letting the players get access to magic items (that the game heavily implies they should have) than you have by rewriting much of the rulebook?
No, but if you play at higher levels (13+), and if your players are at a certain level of system mastery (e.g., realize that blaster wizards are really inefficient), then I've found as DM that it takes a lot of work to keep tweaking scenarios so that the casters aren't pulling all the weight. For example, we eventually gave up on Savage Tide because the discrepancy in 3.5 was so bad that by 13th - 15th level or so, the game was totally unplayable for us. (Other people might not have a problem, which is their good fortune.)
For people in that situation, rewriting the game isn't the only option -- because it's already been done at least twice. My homebrew system works for people who want to start with Pathfinder, but have the problems that houstonderek and I did. And Frank and K's Tome stuff works really well for groups whose system mastery is greater than ours, and who automatically see the math underlying all the rules without trying. Anyone can pick up either set and have the work done for them.
Could you link the second one for me?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So how do you "fix" fighter in your games?
How does a melee fighter in your game combat flying opponents?
Does his Fighter training let him fly at a certain level?I tweaked the Fly skill, as I posted above. So if your enemy is flying and you thwack him with an arrow, he'll almost certainly lose some altitude. How much altitude depends on how much damage you dealt, so that playing a flying combatant involves a lot of weighing of odds -- closer to the ground means more likely to hit it when you fall, but also means less damage from falling. Flying higher up means you're almost certainly not going to fall far enough to hit the ground, but also means your favorite attack forms might not be within range of the guys on the ground.
For the rest of the problems we saw, my group (especially houstonderek) and I eventually went a bit haywire and basically rewrote the game: link. It's a rules-heavy, player-option-heavy, martial-empowered variant Pathfinder that fits the kind of games we like to play better than do the core rules... but that said, it's definitely not suited to mainstream tastes. (For one, it assumes the players are at a level of system mastery where they realize it takes some effort on the part of the player for a wizard PC not to break the game at higher levels.)
Okay then so in your games in order to combat a flying creature you use a ranged weapon or fly yourself.
The OP declared that he didn't want to have to use a ranged weapon or any item that would allow him to fly while at the same time wanting to melee the creature in the sky. Do you see the problem there?
And we are talking a normal non house rules game here. So he has been shooting down the proper ways to combat flying creatures in Pathfinder and then would complain that they suck because of it.
Could you link the second one for me?
How is none of this the GM's responsibility?There's a name for that, when you say "there's no problem in the rules because the DM can fix it." But let's not go there.
Lets go there, I don't mind since I agree with the sentiment to a large extent.
The problem at hand is entirely self made, unless you can somehow show me when you'd ever be playing in a vacuum, free from a GM that dictates the encounters and their location.
Even your solution to the supposed problem (tweaking the fly skill) is an example of not gaming in a vacuum. If I were a player in your game that is the game I'm playing. If I want to demand set rules that don't change depending who's at the helm we have a slew of boardgames that fill that niche.
I can't even believe I have to mention the "Most Important Rule" from page 9 of the Core Rulebook. I was just assuming everyone was following it, what with it being most important and all.
So go ahead, explain to me why this hypothetical fighter facing this hypothetical flying/burrowing/underwater/in another plane enemy is doing so without the tools he needs? Furthermore if he can't contribute at all to that encounter, who's to blame?
...
And why doesn't he have a bow? (*giggle*)
Okay then so in your games in order to combat a flying creature you use a ranged weapon or fly yourself.
The OP declared that he didn't want to have to use a ranged weapon or any item that would allow him to fly while at the same time wanting to melee the creature in the sky. Do you see the problem there?
Sure -- given the RAW, you can't fight flying opponents (which are increasingly common as you level up) without expending more money and feats on the ability to do so. He doesn't like that. Neither do I.
However, there are solutions to that problem. The difference between the OP and myself is that I realized that Paizo and the forums weren't going to fix things for me, and I was also lucky enough to have players who didn't mind that situation being altered.
You know this thread has actually made me wonder about something. Should the fighter actually have those tools? Or should we leave him alone. There are people (its come up as several threads of their own) that dont want any magicy things in their characters. For some the monk is too castery. The fighter is the prime example of this. He hits/stabs/bashes. Thats what he does, thats it, and some people like it that way. If you wanted more tools, there are other classes that have some of those tools and still bash/slash/stab things. Heck you can use a 3.5 tome of battle warblade and be just fine. Or a super genius games Templar and get a nearly completely Martial character with Just enough magical touch to get along in the flying combat. Does the fighter really NEED to have that additional toolkit. Should we deny those who dont want it the option to have a mundane combatant because we know at level 10+ it will be painful for the player to match his magicy companions?
Maybe its just that I consider super genius games products part of my core assumption (and thus have a TON of additional options) but I figure there are enough ways to do everything floating around, that you can simply not choose the ones you think 'suxxor'. If you think the fighter is lame because he cant fly, play one of a dozen other ways where you can. Or use 3rd party material to make it so the fighter CAN fly. There are options out there to do just about anything at this point, its just figuring out what works for the game and character you want to play.
So go ahead, explain to me why this hypothetical fighter facing this hypothetical flying/burrowing/underwater/in another plane enemy is doing so without the tools he needs?
If you really can't see the difference between "have everything given to you already, if you're smart enough to use it" vs. "have to spend additional resources to get the things you need, even if you're smart about it," then there's not much I can do for you.
Okay then so in your games in order to combat a flying creature you use a ranged weapon or fly yourself.
The OP declared that he didn't want to have to use a ranged weapon or any item that would allow him to fly while at the same time wanting to melee the creature in the sky. Do you see the problem there?
Sure -- given the RAW, you can't fight flying opponents (which are increasingly common as you level up) without expending more money and feats on the ability to do so. He doesn't like that. Neither do I.
The difference between us is that I realize Paizo and the forums aren't going to fix that for me, and I was also lucky enough to have players who didn't mind that situation being altered.
Kirth, quick question, how does that flying rule (much harder to avoid falling if hit) work in practice when someone is actually focused on archery. If you have say a hasted archer fighter, do flyers actually have a hope of staying aloft? What if there are 2 competant archers in your party, say an archer bard and an archer fighter? I am aware this is off topic, I am just wondering how it has gone in actual use as I like the idea of giving a better chance of shooting things out of the sky so to speak.
Kirth, quick question, how does that flying rule (much harder to avoid falling if hit) work in practice when someone is actually focused on archery. If you have say a hasted archer fighter, do flyers actually have a hope of staying aloft? What if there are 2 competant archers in your party, say an archer bard and an archer fighter? I am aware this is off topic, I am just wondering how it has gone in actual use as I like the idea of giving a better chance of shooting things out of the sky so to speak.
That's a great question -- but, sadly, isn't a scenario we've been able to playtest yet. Of the top of my head, two dedicated archers would be murder on flying opponents -- the whole game, at higher levels, would quickly shift groundwards, unless the flyers had special defenses (displacement, greater invisibility, Deflect Arrows, or whatever) enabling them to withstand the anti-aircraft artillery the party was packing.
P.S.
You know this thread has actually made me wonder about something. Should the fighter actually have those tools? Or should we leave him alone.
That's the $64,000 question! And it's one that ultimately depends on the personal preferences of your group. It's definitely a conversation worth having, though.
If you really can't see the difference between "have everything given to you already, if you're smart enough to use it" vs. "have to spend additional resources to get the things you need, even if you're smart about it," then there's not much I can do for you.
I can see the difference between those two statements.
I don't see how they are at all relevant.You seem to refer to some kind of base case scenario that assumes WBL access to gold, items, spells, and equipment, assume them fighting in terrain that the fighter can in no way rig to his advantage and only then declare that the Fighter can't handle higher level encounters.
Additionally, you then refuse to explain how none of this is clearly the GM stacking things against the fighter who even in this ludicrous scenario can drink a potion, slip on a magic item or get out his bow. That the fighter has access to a potion of Fly is no less the result of the GM making it so than the Wizard being able to learn a particular spell.
If you can't see that and if you choose to ignore 'The Most Important Rule' that's entirely your business.
How is none of this the GM's responsibility?There's a name for that, when you say "there's no problem in the rules because the DM can fix it." But let's not go there.
There's a HUGE difference in "there's no problem in the rules because the DM can change the rules" and "there's no problem in the rules because the DM is by the game assumed to design encounters/rewards/the world in a certain way".
if you choose to ignore 'The Most Important Rule' that's entirely your business.
Again, there's a difference in philosophy. I don't feel that, as a consumer, I should spend $60 on a rulebook only to find that I have to spend an inordinate amount of time thereafter tweaking the game to correct built-in imbalances just so that the people who choose not to play casters still get to play. I'd rather spend $0 and write a set of rules that work for me thereafter. YMMV.
There's a HUGE difference in "there's no problem in the rules because the DM can change the rules" and "there's no problem in the rules because the DM is by the game assumed to design encounters/rewards/the world in a certain way".
You're right, but there's a point you eventually hit a point at which the DM tweaking becomes so obvious that it breaks immersion. It's like every old "Superfriends" cartoon having some sort of underwater bit -- no matter how tangential or out of synch -- just so that Aquaman wasn't useless. There are only so many 30-ft. ceilings and antimagic zones you can include before it becomes glaringly obvious that you're designing the entire world around an imbalance that could more easily be corrected upstream, as it were.
That the fighter has access to a potion of Fly is no less the result of the GM making it so than the Wizard being able to learn a particular spell.
That's not strictly true.
The wizard can pick two spells to learn for free at each level. I'm not sure fly would top every wizard's list (and certainly not those who need double slots to prepare it)... but technically it is easier for the sorcerer or wizard to learn than it is for a fighter to buy.
I'm not sure fly would top every wizard's list (and certainly not those who need double slots to prepare it)...
Again, that would depend on the group's level of tactical rules knowledge and practical optimization. I'm not sure I know anyone who would pass up fly and overland flight -- or who would ever willingly pick Transmutation as a barred school unless I flat-out told them they had to.
or who would ever willingly pick Transmutation as a barred school
Now that's a decision that looks to me suspiciously like choosing to play a melee fighter with no bow and no flight item.
Do we have a duty to make every option a great one?
Do we have a duty to make every option a great one?
Not if you don't care. In my personal design philosphy, rules presented as equal options should be more or less equal in value. Every instance of one option being clearly a lot better than another, and yet the cost being the same, is, to me, an instance of game design failure. No one should have to intentionally sacrifice effectiveness for flavor, if both could reasonably be accommodated.
Again, there's a difference in philosophy. I don't feel that, as a consumer, I should spend $60 on a rulebook only to find that I have to spend an inordinate amount of time thereafter tweaking the game to correct built-in imbalances just so that the people who choose not to play casters still get to play. I'd rather spend $0 and write a set of rules that work for me thereafter. YMMV.
There's no need to spend an 'inordinate' amount of time tweaking the game. A basic rundown for an encounter should suffice. Do you assume that every wizard has access to all the spells at all times? No? Do you, perhaps, check what your group does have at hand to deal with a given threat? If the answer is no and you throw any old thing at them I don't mind actually. You'll quickly see that any class can be rendered obsolete by either going in blind or having a particular type of opponent set against them. Recently, for instance, a Magus in my group went into an encounter expecting wererats and instead found vampire spawn. Sure sucks to have all those negative energy spells ready, don't it? Similar cases can and will crop up across the board.
Its not complex. Don't make the Fighter useless and he won't be. I can create any number of scenarios where any class is rendered useless. In a high fantasy world of fantastical creatures and wondrous locations it isn't even that hard to do, Fighter happens to have more mundane problems than the rest.
If you want inflexible rules I suggest a boardgame. I don't even mean that in a snarky way.
That's not strictly true.
Conceded. I was mostly referring to a wizard not selecting Fly at level up and instead procuring a scroll for it, which is the most common way I see people getting toolkit spells.
since noncasters have issues with spellcasters. lets give them a Ki pool like mechanic that entitles them to a few spells. using their base attack bonus as their caster level usable a number of times per day equal to half their character level plus their constitution bonus. it would be usable as a swift action, always but is always self only
spells that this would grant (1Ki each)
*haste for a number of rounds equal to your base attack bonus
*true strike for all attacks made within 1 round
*fly for a number of minutes equal to your base attack bonus
*lay on hands as a paladin of a level equal to your base attack bonus, including mercies
*pounce for a number of rounds equal to your base attack bonus
*full attack anything, regardless of distance, reach, terrain, circumstances or special abilities (such as burrowing, aquatic or invisible foes) for a number of rounds equal to your base attack bonus
i recommend this for the following classes
Rogue (including ninja)
Cavalier (including samurai)
Fighter
Gunslinger
Monk
Barbarian
if you want, we can call it a heroism pool to differentiate the two.
Do you assume that every wizard has access to all the spells at all times?
No need. Between open spell slots, cheap scrolls he can scribe for himself, and a reasonable selection of offense/defense/utility spells prepared, a high-level wizard pretty much DOES have what he needs at all times. If you have never seen one played to its full potential, I can understand your confusion regarding this point. (I don't mean that in a snarky way, either.)
Regarding flexible rules, as DM I prefer to adopt more a "tour guide and referee" role and less of a "railroad conductor" role. Again, that's a difference in philosophy. It doesn't require that I use a board game, either -- houstonderek and I are quite pleased with our house rules.
|
As written the rule doesn't say "you cannot fly in combat" -- it says "you can fly in combat, but will almost certainly lose altitude if hit, so judge your height and risk accordingly."
So OK, our nightmare is now 20 ft. off the ground, still flying. The rest of the party focuses fire on it. It falls 20 ft. for 2d6 damage and is on the ground, but it's now the nightmare's turn -- it takes a double move and is now 180 ft. up in the air, and will have a very hard time failing enough rolls badly enough to lose that much altitude as a consequence.
Congratulations, you've now completely neutered the nightmare, because it's spent its entire turn doing nothing but moving while eating the entire party's full attack (plus probably an AoO, because it certainly hit the ground). It won't survive two turns of that (just the initial scorching ray did 20% of its hp), so your rule has completely prevented it from having any impact on the fight, through no fault of its own, and with absolutely no recourse. This is a powerful outsider that flies through sheer magic and it has a 10% chance to lose 5 feet of altitude for being bit by a mosquito (1 hp of damage).
If you really can't see the difference between "have everything given to you already, if you're smart enough to use it" vs. "have to spend additional resources to get the things you need, even if you're smart about it," then there's not much I can do for you.
4 spells per spell level is not "everything". Wizards have to expend resources just like Fighters if they want to actually be the masters of the universe that everyone claims they are.
No need. Between open spell slots, cheap scrolls he can scribe for himself, and a reasonable selection of offense/defense/utility spells prepared, a high-level wizard pretty much DOES have what he needs at all times.
Open spell slots, even with the silly 1 minute preparation APG thing, are useless in combat situations. They're great for utility purposes ("there's a locked door that we have to get past stealthily but our Rogue didn't make it today" / "we need to get a scout across that chasm to flip that lever") but 1 minute is about two to three times as long as the average combat lasts. You can't see a lich, realize you havn't prepared any non-Fort/Will-targeting spells, and be able to pull one out of your spellbook. Scrolls aren't a good solution in that case either, as their DC is set to bare minimum just like wands are. You really do have to pick and choose which combat spells you're going to take at the start of the day.
If you have say a hasted archer fighter, do flyers actually have a hope of staying aloft?
Not a prayer in Heaven or Hell. FighterMan did 1d8+2d6+33 damage per shot, with 6 attacks per round, and the first attack did 2d8+4d6+66 with a 95% hit chance. That first attack alone is an average of a DC 198 check vs an average Fly roll of 43. That's -160 feet of altitude on average just on the first hit. The Balor has a 90 foot fly speed, so that's the majority of a double move, with 5 attacks still to come. Each subsequent hit (and there are two more with a 95% chance to hit and one with a 90% chance) is an average of another 71 feet of altitude lost. On average, the Balor is going to lose something like 450 feet of altitude per full attack -- that's a run action with the Run feat.
Hell, even if the check was just "DC = damage dealt" the Balor would be losing altitude. Not nearly as much, but it still can't make the check for the initial shot ever and the average damage for subsequent shots is higher than its average Fly check result.
And FighterMan was made with just the core rulebook. No archetype, no APG/UC feats, no APG/UE magic items. A modern version without Man in Black's hobbling rules (ie, allowing an evil outsider bane bow) would easily exceed 600 feet of altitude lost.
A modern version without Man in Black's hobbling rules (ie, allowing an evil outsider bane bow) would easily exceed 600 feet of altitude lost.
For a 20th level archer fighter, whose sole job is to kill things (preferably with arrows)? You're not making me cry.
Congratulations, you've now completely neutered the nightmare.
Forced it to the ground, anyway. And that's not hurting my feelings at all -- especially because in the core rules it can't be done by any archer, no matter how skilled, ever.
Look -- I'm not telling YOU to use that rule, or what to set your DC for if you use it. You obviously like "fly=win" and "no fly=you suck" in your games, and that's fine for you. I'm not telling you how to play.
The reverse is not true, however.
Holy Christ in a sidecar this is STILL going on?? Even the OP has left the building.
Accusations of badwrongfun must be fought wherever they appear.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
if you choose to ignore 'The Most Important Rule' that's entirely your business.Again, there's a difference in philosophy. I don't feel that, as a consumer, I should spend $60 on a rulebook only to find that I have to spend an inordinate amount of time thereafter tweaking the game to correct built-in imbalances just so that the people who choose not to play casters still get to play. I'd rather spend $0 and write a set of rules that work for me thereafter. YMMV.
How is "buy a bow" in any way at all even remotely close to "an inordinate amount of time...to correct built-in imabalances"???
How is "get a flying mount" the same?
How are any of the other umpteen examples of why the OP is wrong...dead dead dead wrong in his assertion an "inordinate amount of time" spent??
Using expendables IS "still getting to play". So are any of the other buttload of ideas/suggestions.
How can you not see that??
Nobody is accusing the OP of badwrongfun.
What we are accusing him of is badwrongopinion.
Heh. Now, if people would stop accusing me of both, we'd be all honky-dory! I wish everyone in the thread were as easy to get along with as you are.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see anyone forcing anyone to adopt a playstyle they dislike.
Your flier rule, for instance, seems cool at lower levels but it scales badly. That being pointed out (and demonstrated) doesn't invalidate your way of playing. It just points out that your flier 'fix' scales badly.
You know how I fix fighter with no access to fly spells vs. higher level flying opponents.
*looks around*
*leans in close*
[whisper]I stage the fight so that the fighter is fulfilling a vital role while those with more of a ranged niche take care of the flying target.[/whisper]
See! Not that hard is it? There's plenty of ways to do this:
* Any dragon that provides a challenge for a high level party surely has waves of lizardfolk cultists that will hurl themselves at the party?
* What about the ballista of the fort that the dragon just demolished? Maybe it survived! =O
* The old church is still standing! I'll climb up, toss a grapnel at that dragon and climb my way up to it!
* What in the Nine hells is that? The Circus was in town? *reads sign* Gnomish...cannonball? That gives me an idea!
* The catapult is useless against his minions at this range...unload that stone and put me in!
* Toss me!
* Give me that bow!
* What? Those golems are trying to free the other dragon? I'll take care of those, you take care of old scaley up there!
* Figures! That Dragon is in league with the Penumbral League! Your back to me wizard, I'll keep those shadow plane scum off you while you work a spell to get that dragon on the ground!
* The orphanage is on fire! You deal with the dragons, those orphans need me!
And so on and so on and so on.
It's easy to come up with something for people to help with. If your fighter has no interest in ever flying, fine. There's plenty for him to do.
Unless you refuse to design your encounters that way of course. Can't help that.
Your flier rule, for instance, seems cool at lower levels but it scales badly. That being pointed out (and demonstrated) doesn't invalidate your way of playing. It just points out that your flier 'fix' scales badly.
Compare:
1. "That's one approach -- but it would scale a lot better if the DC were XXX."
2. "And, while I'm at it, your 'fix' to the Fly skill is deeply, tragically flawed."
Which one is a direct quote? Hint: Not #1.
Compare:
1. "That's one approach -- but it would scale a lot better if the DC were XXX."
2. "And, while I'm at it, your 'fix' to the Fly skill is deeply, tragically flawed."Which one is a direct quote? Hint: Not #1.
I hope your read further, he proceeds to demonstrate why it IS deeply and tragically flawed. This is a problem for you because...?
Because it IS flawed?
Or because you disagree that it's flawed?
Or because you disagree with his perceived tone?
None of the above?
And how exactly (hint:it doesn't) does this address any of the other points I made?