Kirth's attack the flying creature rule is perfect. so what if a high level archer can ground a balor in one round? it's a non issue since there are so many far more broken things a caster can do with time to prepare.
This is a problem for you because...?
(a) Because it IS flawed?
(b) Or because you disagree that it's flawed?
(c) Or because you disagree with his perceived tone?
(d) None of the above?
The answer for HIS game would be (a), but the answer for MY game is (b), or maybe even "(e) it's not flawed." And the answer for both of us is (c). And you can delete the "perceived" from in front of "tone."
As far as your other comments, I tried to address them previously, but the point was lost. Run a few more high-level adventures with the same group. Eventually you'll see it, and a light bulb will probably go off (as it did for me), and you'll know exactly what I'm talking about -- I base that prediction on the fact that I had almost this exact same discussion some years ago, except with me arguing your side of the issue.
The answer for HIS game would be (a), but the answer for MY game is (b). And the answer for both of us is (c). And you can delete the "perceived" from in front of "tone."This is a problem for you because...?
(a) Because it IS flawed?
(b) Or because you disagree that it's flawed?
(c) Or because you disagree with his perceived tone?
(d) None of the above?
Right.
No I think I'll keep 'perceived' right where it is. It's a messageboard, you can't assume his tone is hostile just because you disagree with him.So, your fly skill fix aside.
Why are flying enemies a problem again?
[edit]
Oh snap, assumption made about my lack of experience as a GM. Golden.
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.
My favourite class is the Rogue.
On paper it gets punished (on these boards for example), yet in play seems to work really well.
Oh snap, assumption made about my lack of experience as a GM. Golden.
Correction: Comparative lack of experience in high-level games with players who have a high degree of system mastery. And yes, I had the same reaction then as you do now -- I had something like 25 years' experience as a DM, but not enough experience yet as a DM under 3.X rules with extremely knowledgeable, high-optimization players.
Why are flying enemies a problem again?
1. They're not -- to you or most others in this thread.
2. They can be, for me and a few others, for the reasons previously stated.| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why does every class have to be able to handle every situation independently?
Why does every class have to be able to handle every situation independently?
They don't. It's only a problem if SOME classes are able to handle every situation independently, but others aren't. And even then, it's only a problem for people who are tired of dealing with it on the downstream end of things.
Oh snap, assumption made about my lack of experience as a GM. Golden.Correction: Comparative lack of experience in high-level games with players who have s fair to high degree of system mastery.
Oh sorry.
Assumption made about my experience as a GM and the system mastery of my players ^^. Lets not, it's silly and only leads to silly places.I doubt any player that plays a non-spellcasting melee class is unable to achieve flight, invisibility, plane-shifting or any number of movement effects near effortlessly at higher levels, not to mention if given WBL and access to anything they want.
I understand what you are saying about the Fighter being mundane. I get it. I really do, I just don't have a problem. I also can't see how you have a problem with this particular part of Pathfinder.
You said something earlier...
In my personal design philosphy, rules presented as equal options should be more or less equal in value.
And you see the lack of movement modes of Fighters as a problem? Ok. What about Feats? Feat power is extremely varied. It isn't AT ALL that any feat will be handy and some are almost auto-pick for their class (which is a design problem imo) What about classes? You can't say one class will be AS good as any other under ANY circumstance. What about party composition? What about parties of fewer than 4? Why have classes at all, if this is a problem? (is it?)
So yes, I can make a Fighter and equip so he cannot fight an opponent that stays at range. I can also do the same with a wizard. I can do the same with a Ranger. I can do the same with pretty much every class!
If we were discussing Super Dungeon Explorer, I can totally see how we could work out a problem that can be fixed via rule change. If we were discussing Warmachine & Hordes, I can see how a system fix would help with a balance problem.
In a game with a Gamesmaster that has as much power as a GM in any RPG you will never achieve system balance without doing away with huge sections of the system.
2. They can be, for me and a few others, for the reasons previously stated.
Ok. Can you restate them?
My favourite class is the Rogue.
On paper it gets punished (on these boards for example), yet in play seems to work really well.
Not to get off topic too much, but I believe the problem with the Rogue is that it is a skill based class when skills are largely open to GM interpretation. Just look at Stealth for instance. You'll be much more effective as a Rogue if your GM lets you succeed with one Stealth check in an instance where another GM would require you to make three.
But back on track, I think that the OP is largely feeling the effects of "mundanes can't have nice things," and dealing with fliers has pushed him to his breaking point.
Yes, there are some ways for Fighters to deal with flying creatures. And I certainly don't agree with everything the OP has said. But some of us feel that there are thematically appropriate options that are missing from the rules, and a lot of the options are mundane in nature. For instance, PC traps and crafting rules are terribly implemented, and poisoning options are awfully limited.
In the specific case of dealing with Flying creatures, personally I would love to jump on the back of a Roc and then try to stab it while holding on for dear life. That idea just really appeals to me. Sadly, while jumping on the back of a larger creature is a common fantasy trope, there are no real rules for that in PF.
I'd also like a way for mundanes to bring fliers to the ground without killing/knocking them out. Called Shot (wing) is an awesome house rule, and Kirth, I do feel like your idea has a lot of potential. Actually Kirth, I prefer Kirthfinder to PF as a whole, but its nigh impossible to gather enough like minded players. But kudos for some great rules.
I still think that there is definitely room for PF to improve in this area, as well as others.
|
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.
Why should an archer be able to force a creature that doesn't rely on physical means to plummet to the ground just by hitting it with arrows? I understand it as a replacement/abstraction for called shot wings for creatures that rely on physical means to fly, but it doesn't make sense for things like nightmares, beholders, and so on.
I suspect your answer will be "game balance", and actually that's fine as far as it goes. I prefer to be able to couple game balance adjustments with logical, internally consistent reasons, but sometimes you just have to nerf things.
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.
I said that your fly fix was flawed. I showed, mathematically, with a very mild example, exactly how it's flawed (your DC is too high and scales too hard). This somehow means that I think fliers should automatically win even though I'm the guy who made FighterMan in part to prove that flying wasn't an automatic win. So no, you're not telling me how to play (nor am I you); what you are doing is telling me what I think, which is just not really a good idea in civil discourse.
Please stop projecting your dislike of opposing opinions on others (it's not just me; you're projecting on Dreihaddar, too). I havn't written any insults in this thread. My comments about the flaws of your Fly fix aren't insults, they're criticism; there is a difference. I apologize if you were insulted by the criticism.
I actually wrote all that because I found it interesting but, as I said, flawed. If the math were fixed -- and IMO the ideal way involves more than just changing the DC -- and some of the other issues I raised (which I note you havn't addressed; oh, here's another one: how does this interface with nonlethal damage?) were addressed, I think it'd be a potential houserule for my group. As it stands, it has to go in the same pile as WotC's Truenaming: interesting, but unusable IMO as written.
Why should an archer be able to force a creature that doesn't rely on physical means to plummet to the ground just by hitting it with arrows? I understand it as a replacement/abstraction for called shot wings for creatures that rely on physical means to fly, but it doesn't make sense for things like nightmares, beholders, and so on.
I suspect your answer will be "game balance", and actually that's fine as far as it goes. I prefer to be able to couple game balance adjustments with logical, internally consistent reasons, but sometimes you just have to nerf things.
Far too often, "realistic" is the enemy of "fighter." I like to start from the balance end and then come up with some sort of abstraction or fluff text that covers the "realism" part.
If the math were fixed -- and IMO the ideal way involves more than just changing the DC -- and some of the other issues I raised (which I note you havn't addressed; oh, here's another one: how does this interface with nonlethal damage?) were addressed...
The only "other issue" I recall involved AoO; in most cases, forced movement does not provoke them (Cf. Bull Rush maneuver) and I see no reason why this should be an exception. I honestly hadn't thought about nonlethal damage -- ranged nonlethal damage comes up fairly rarely -- I'd be open for suggestions there: treat it as normal? Half? Doesn't count? Why?
|
|
Believe me, I do understand and even agree with your "realism > fighters" stance. I've railed plenty enough on my own about how Fighters seriously can do nothing better than a Commoner outside of combat, and in a lot of cases Fighters do suffer from the "realism curse". On the other hand, I just cannot "see" how filling a horse that can literally stand on the air with arrows causes it to plummet. That's got very little to do with game balance, but it is a personal sticking point. If it were the only one, I wouldn't even have brought it up.
As for nonlethal damage, I'd probably lower the DC. Using your as-written DC, I'd probably just halve it. Nonlethal damage is bruises and strains rather than cuts and broken bones (IMO), so it makes sense that it could still make a creature fall out of the air, but also that it wouldn't be as effective.
My suggested fix for your fix ( ;) ) would be DC 5 (maybe 10, would need testing) + damage, and a failure would make the creature fall a distance equal to the damage dealt, min 5 feet. That still gets 10-15 feet from each ray of a scorching ray up to a couple hundred feet for a FighterMan Manyshot crit or a disintegrate (or God forbid, a disintegrate crit, which would kill almost anything and SHOULD ground anything that it doesn't kill).
It may sound like an issue that wouldn't be so bad in normal gameplay, but I think everyone's just playing that new AP: Revenge of the Open Field with No Trees, Catapults, or Other Features but Several Flying Monsters that Never Need Land and can Repeatedly Attack from Range and Have No Grounded Allies. One might think it seems like an oddly specific theme for a campaign, but fortunately I know that ever having anything other than flying ranged monsters in open fields is pretty much exactly as contrived as having crimes in an aquarium to make Aquaman useful. After all, Things That Walk, aquariums, they're all equally rare, right?
Fighters seriously can do nothing better than a Commoner outside of combat
This bothers me too. Since Fighters generally have the most straightforward role in combat, it would be nice if they had more to do elsewhere. Did they really need to have only two skill points per level? Meanwhile, was it really necessary to make a whole bunch of Charisma-based spellcasting classes (I'll buy Bard, sure, but why Sorcerer, Oracle, Summoner?) that encourage the casters to take on social roles as well while the fighters stand there?
It may sound like an issue that wouldn't be so bad in normal gameplay, but I think everyone's just playing that new AP: Revenge of the Open Field with No Trees, Catapults, or Other Features but Several Flying Monsters that Never Need Land and can Repeatedly Attack from Range and Have No Grounded Allies.
You realize that's pretty much every adventure after 15th level or so, right? Nobody complains about fighters at low levels because they're fine at low levels.
After all, Things That Walk, aquariums, they're all equally rare, right?
When you hit levels at which most of the monsters either fly, greater teleport at will, or both, then walking things are potentially LESS common than aquariums. But by all means, continue the snark-fest if it amuses you.
Perhaps 'ranged' versions of combat maneuvers, such as trip?
Kirth's attack the flying creature rule is perfect. so what if a high level archer can ground a balor in one round? it's a non issue since there are so many far more broken things a caster can do with time to prepare.
On the other hand, the classical Red Dragon flying attack on a town will rarely happen... with +14 to fly checks, even a couple of 1st level wizards with Magic Missile will produce DC's 24-30 causing it to drop quickly. A few Acid Arrows from wizards/sorcerers of level 6+ will ground it for a long time.
EDIT: I do think it's a good approach, just a too quickly increasing DC. Half the DC (10+Damage) seems more appropriate to me - making a focused archer capable of easily downing a bad flyer (dragon) but and having a decent chance with a good flyer (balor), while a meddling archer will have a decent chance against bad flyers and a slim chance against good flyers. But YMMV.
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 don't get how it's considered "have to spend additional resources" when really, the Fighter is one of, if not THE, most gear-dependent classes in the game? Nothing "additional" about spending your resources acquiring means to play your character effectively given the circumstances of the campaign world you're in. If much of the game revolves around underwater exploration, I would assume the Fighter is going to procure some means of being able to explore underwater.
Nothing "additional" about it. It's completely subjective and based on the kind of game being run, but really, your resources are spent shoring up your character and making them more effective. This includes means to combat flying foes, even if it means not actually flying yourself.
OK, mountains out of molehills, I know, but this sort of thing just bugs me. You're not wasting additional resources if you're spending them on what you're supposed to be spending them on in the first place. If I buy gas and food with my paycheck, that's not spending "additional resources" because I need those things to survive and drive to work. If a Fighter is playing in a campaign that features lots of flying monsters, then it's their responsibility to procure a means of dealing with those obstacles, either by way of a Wizard teammate casting spells, or buying potions, items, etc.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why does every class have to be able to handle every situation independently?
The crux of this entire argument. IN my opinion, every class should NOT be able to handle every single potential obstacle in the game, or else there would be no need to bother with playing with other people.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Kirth, I have to question your assertion that players who can't get by as a Fighter in the RAW are demonstrating "system mastery".
It's a somewhat arrogant position for you to argue from. If it were true, I don't think you'd have to state the case. I'm going to have to ask you to start presenting math on how exactly the "no brainer" methods are inferior if you're going to keep implying that we, or our players, somehow have a less complete understanding than you and yours.
Why should an archer be able to force a creature that doesn't rely on physical means to plummet to the ground just by hitting it with arrows? I understand it as a replacement/abstraction for called shot wings for creatures that rely on physical means to fly, but it doesn't make sense for things like nightmares, beholders, and so on.
I suspect your answer will be "game balance", and actually that's fine as far as it goes. I prefer to be able to couple game balance adjustments with logical, internally consistent reasons, but sometimes you just have to nerf things.Far too often, "realistic" is the enemy of "fighter." I like to start from the balance end and then come up with some sort of abstraction or fluff text that covers the "realism" part.
While I work the other way (start with the flavor and try to work towards balance) I agree with you about 'realistic' being the enemy of the fighter. I hate that word. Consistent sure, but if I'd wanted realistic I'd play game of thrones d20.
If you dont want realistic, you have lots of options besides the fighter. If you want realistic, you dont have as many options (fighter, rogue, cavalier). I'm starting to think its ok to have a suboptimal option (the mundane) so long as there are other routes to choose. The problem ofcourse is the system mastery thing. And that I dont know how to address without some really meta elements being added to the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From what I have learned skimming this thread, the appropriate response to when the warriors in my game are shooting monsters out of the sky with bows, is flipping the table and cry "YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG!"
Also, Sirocco is a fantastic spell for dealing with flying enemies. Brings them down, does damage and debuffs. That spell alone has made just about every flying encounter in my Kingmaker game into a walk in the park. But then again, that implies teamwork, and not the fighter being able to do everything on his own.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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 don't get how it's considered "have to spend additional resources" when really, the Fighter is one of, if not THE, most gear-dependent classes in the game? Nothing "additional" about spending your resources acquiring means to play your character effectively given the circumstances of the campaign world you're in. If much of the game revolves around underwater exploration, I would assume the Fighter is going to procure some means of being able to explore underwater.
The issue is with the inherrent flexibility of the magical classes, and the inherent inflexibility of non-magical classes. In order for a wizard to be able to fly, he needs a spell, a relatively small investment. To go under water, he needs another spell, to be able to prevent a creature from going to any one place, he needs a spell. I fighter might devote half his feats and half his gear to doing any one of these things. Its not additional, its the level of investment.
The fact that the fighter is gear dependent is part of the problem. Because the wizard gets gear too. And while he gets to spend it on things he WANTS (with the exception of maybe an int headband which is a need) the fighter has to spend it on things he NEEDS to do his job. That is an inbalance that ought to be addressed, but really cant be without something like tome of battle being part of the core assumption, or a far more restricted version of magic being part of the core assumption.
Nothing "additional" about it. It's completely subjective and based on the kind of game being run, but really, your resources are spent shoring up your character and making them more effective. This includes means to combat flying foes, even if it means not actually flying yourself.
Again its about the degree of investment. Concrete example. Hidden or invisitble enemies. There is a feat that helps alot with the, blind fight. Thats a feat. It could be the only thing a fighter gets that level he chooses it. The wizard has a spell, see invisibility, which depending on level, may be one of 20 other new spells he has learned recently. There is a big disparity in investment there.
OK, mountains out of molehills, I know, but this sort of thing just bugs me. You're not wasting additional resources if you're spending them on what you're supposed to be spending them on in the first place. If I buy gas and food with my paycheck, that's not spending "additional resources" because I need those things to survive and drive to work. If a Fighter is playing in a campaign that features lots of flying monsters, then it's their responsibility to procure a means of dealing with those obstacles, either by way of a Wizard teammate casting spells, or buying potions, items, etc.
Certainly, its not a waste, but think about it this way.
You have a choice between two lives. Both lives come with the same job for the same money. You will have about enought money to feed you and your family with a few minor added luxaries.
Person A lives out this life normally. Struggles some, but overall has a good life.
Person B doesnt have to pay base neccessities, his family is automatically taken care of, and can essentially spend the majority of his salary on whatever he wants, fancy cars, nice clothes whatever. He isnt paying rent or for food, that all comes free.
(Note Person B isnt living at home or something, he just has free rent, free food, and no bills, same life, just no bills).
Who do you want to be?
I would love to see any playable caster (can't have 3 dump stats) that is not gear dependent that can handle CR appropriate encounter. I have yet to see it. I would love to see it as a 15-point buy but I would accept 20 point buy. If you really want to show off, make it a Core-only character too.
I would love to see any playable caster (can't have 3 dump stats) that is not gear dependent that can handle CR appropriate encounter. I have yet to see it. I would love to see it as a 15-point buy but I would accept 20 point buy. If you really want to show off, make it a Core-only character too.
You realize thats actually quite easy right? The only magic Item a caster NEEDS is a stat booster (presumably 1 magic item is not gear dependent) but if that is too much, then I present to you the summoner. No gear required in order to be awesome. Bonus points for Synthesist. Druid being a close second.
I don't get how it's considered "have to spend additional resources" when really, the Fighter is one of, if not THE, most gear-dependent classes in the game? Nothing "additional" about spending your resources acquiring means to play your character effectively given the circumstances of the campaign world you're in. If much of the game revolves around underwater exploration, I would assume the Fighter is going to procure some means of being able to explore underwater.
The issue is with the inherrent flexibility of the magical classes, and the inherent inflexibility of non-magical classes. In order for a wizard to be able to fly, he needs a spell, a relatively small investment. To go under water, he needs another spell, to be able to prevent a creature from going to any one place, he needs a spell. I fighter might devote half his feats and half his gear to doing any one of these things. Its not additional, its the level of investment.
The fact that the fighter is gear dependent is part of the problem. Because the wizard gets gear too. And while he gets to spend it on things he WANTS (with the exception of maybe an int headband which is a need) the fighter has to spend it on things he NEEDS to do his job. That is an inbalance that ought to be addressed, but really cant be without something like tome of battle being part of the core assumption, or a far more restricted version of magic being part of the core assumption.
Right, but it's not the same gear. Just as a Fighter spends his resources on a means of being effective underwater, and a Wizard simply prepares the spell, the Wizard must still first get that spell. Sure, it could be as easy as choosing it at level up, researching it, copying a scroll, etc. Point it, the Wizard is also spending resources. Sure, a comparatively much smaller investment, but maybe that player had other plans for their spells acquired that level? Maybe no shop in town has that scroll?
Nothing "additional" about it. It's completely subjective and based on the kind of game being run, but really, your resources are spent shoring up your character and making them more effective. This includes means to combat flying foes, even if it means not actually flying yourself.Again its about the degree of investment. Concrete example. Hidden or invisitble enemies. There is a feat that helps alot with the, blind fight. Thats a feat. It could be the only thing a fighter gets that level he chooses it. The wizard has a spell, see invisibility, which depending on level, may be one of 20 other new spells he has learned recently. There is a big disparity in investment there.
Okay, but in this example wouldn't the Fighter come out better than the Wizard? I Fighter spends a feat, which they get one at practically every level, while a Wizard not only has to procure the spell, but have it ready at all times, either by means of prepared for the day(using up valuable slots), by scrolls(more time and money), or by a wand(yet still even more time and money)?
Yeah, the Wizard has access to an infinitely higher amount of "options", but only has so many available at any given time. The Fighter has access to their feats at all times. More options is always better, but BOTH classes had to invest something to get there. No freebies. Every spell a Wizard picks up at level-up is another spell that didn't get selected. Maybe too many DM's hand out spell learning access too easily.
OK, mountains out of molehills, I know, but this sort of thing just bugs me. You're not wasting additional resources if you're spending them on what you're supposed to be spending them on in the first place. If I buy gas and food with my paycheck, that's not spending "additional resources" because I need those things to survive and drive to work. If a Fighter is playing in a campaign that features lots of flying monsters, then it's their responsibility to procure a means of dealing with those obstacles, either by way of a Wizard teammate casting spells, or buying potions, items, etc.Certainly, its not a waste, but think about it this way.
You have a choice between two lives. Both lives come with the same job for the same money. You will have about enought money to feed you and your family with a few minor added luxaries.
Person A lives out this life normally. Struggles some, but overall has a good life.
Person B doesnt have to pay base neccessities, his family is automatically taken care of, and can essentially spend the majority of his salary on whatever he wants, fancy cars, nice clothes whatever. He isnt paying rent or for food, that all comes free.
(Note Person B isnt living at home or something, he just has free rent, free food, and no bills, same life, just no bills).
Who do you want to be?
I'd choose whichever fit the character concept I had at the time better. I don't always choose to be the most powerful, most effective, most "optimal" character every single time I play the game, otherwise the "role playing" part would be pointless.
That, and casters can be JUST as gear-dependent as some martials. Seriously, take away scrolls, wands, pearls of power, stat boosters, outside learning scribing spells into spell books, and the "all powerful wizard" is barely a fraction of as powerful as they typically are.
I would love to see any playable caster (can't have 3 dump stats) that is not gear dependent that can handle CR appropriate encounter. I have yet to see it. I would love to see it as a 15-point buy but I would accept 20 point buy. If you really want to show off, make it a Core-only character too.You realize thats actually quite easy right? The only magic Item a caster NEEDS is a stat booster (presumably 1 magic item is not gear dependent) but if that is too much, then I present to you the summoner. No gear required in order to be awesome. Bonus points for Synthesist. Druid being a close second.
I don't accept those as builds. Blanket statements are not proof. I want to see one build for any caster, but I would be even happier to see one for each caster.
I have read all of this and the other thread. I must say it was a rather irritating, sometimes just hilarious read.
The OP stated himself that
- he (or she, will use he from now on for simplification) has a problem with flying critters
- he does not want to use ranged weapon
- furthermore, only a dedicated archer build would be able to ombat a flying opponent, whilst a primarily melee oriented fighter would not be able to do this with a bow
- he disregarded sample builds and reasoning
- he stated himself that he wants something like tome of battle (white raven etc.) for fighters
- he stated he sees no need for a mundane fighter in Pathfinder
Taking all of this together he wants the fighter to be changed. Some others here seem to agree to this.
Well, I don't. First of all, I do not think anything is wrong with the fighter. In fact, I am just playing one in a campaign. I will probably multiclass with monk since it fits my concept and optimizes it with respect to what I want to do, but that's not decided yet.
I particularly stayed away from casting classes this time - I play them at other times, here I did not want to. I want this guy to be nonmagical (except for gear), be "mundane". I do not want magical powers, abilities to fly (as the OP wanted) or stuff like that. I am absolutely ready to
- pay for potions and other gear
- ask for help from team members
- potentially hire a spellcaster or other services
- simply carry a bow for ranged enemies
Personally I find some of the options silly that have been added to the barbarian like the flying stuff (which was repeatedly brought up by the OP to show how inferior the fighter is). Also, barbarians just don't cut it for me, I really dislike the rage stuff for myself. But that's me and preferences differ.
I have played in a lot of games with different groups. Never has there been a situation where martials were not useful, even out of combat. The theorycrafted superiority of wizards and other casters here is always quite amusing to me: Too often have I see wizards fail their fortitude saves, being targeted after their first spells by the enemy's archers, encountering the occasional golem which would have annihilated them without some good old hack and slash power by a fighter, not having spells the next day due to a lack of rest the previous night...
You are absolutely entitled to your own opinion, if you want the fighter changed, just do so. If it is inferior in your games, do what's necessary to fix it.
However, there are those, like me, that think a "mundane" fighter is absolutely cool and fine, who do not want any supernatural stuff to come with the class. To not be forced into some background (having studied, served in a temple, worship a deity etc.) makes it a very flexible class.
In fact, I am playing a LG fighter now who basically acts like a paladin, but without the divine backup of one. I think it's cool and I really enjoy it. Without a truly nonmagical class I could not do that.
I don't accept those as builds. Blanket statements are not proof. I want to see one build for any caster, but I would be even happier to see one for each caster.I would love to see any playable caster (can't have 3 dump stats) that is not gear dependent that can handle CR appropriate encounter. I have yet to see it. I would love to see it as a 15-point buy but I would accept 20 point buy. If you really want to show off, make it a Core-only character too.You realize thats actually quite easy right? The only magic Item a caster NEEDS is a stat booster (presumably 1 magic item is not gear dependent) but if that is too much, then I present to you the summoner. No gear required in order to be awesome. Bonus points for Synthesist. Druid being a close second.
What level would you like, and please define gear depenedent, just so i am clear, do you mean the character can have zero magic items, or a reduced amount? Just 1 item, no big six items etc? If you want a concrete build i need concrete parameters.
Also what does handle a CR appropriate encounter mean? Again, concrete examples require concrete parameters.
I would love to see any playable caster (can't have 3 dump stats) that is not gear dependent that can handle CR appropriate encounter. I have yet to see it. I would love to see it as a 15-point buy but I would accept 20 point buy. If you really want to show off, make it a Core-only character too.
What do you mean with "not gear dependant"? And at what level? If you mean completely naked, it might be hard (I'd bet on a cleric/monk). If you mean half wealth, it's going to be easy for ANY class to bring down CR-appropriate foes for one on one encounters (that is their level-4 CR, as a four PC 9th level party would have four CR5 enemies as a CR9 encounter, a single level 9 PC has a single CR5 enemy as an appropriate-CR encounter).
Define the parameter further, and I'll give it a shot. Is level 10 a good spot? Half normal WBL?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like how all the spellcasters that are being brought up and toted as superior are always assumed to have time to prepare, the correct spell selection, advantageous terrain, being aware of the danger and have whatever else they need to achieve that superior damage potential.
I take it you've never been:
* Attacked by a dragon that just smashes through the roof of the inn you were sleeping in?
* Assaulted by a kraken while onboard a ship being tossed around by a typhoon?
* Had all your gear stolen prior to facing an encounter?
* Get targeted first by everything the baddies have to throw at you seeing as you're that wizard they keep hearing about?
And so on.
Where the wizard dies due to lack of prep time the more mundane class just smashes a chair, grabs a chair leg and goes to town with their combat styles and superior physical stats and BAB.
I'll say it again: The majority of the problems people seem to be having seem to stem from poor encounter design.
I would add to the challenge being able to win (without rest) 4 fights against apporpiate CR enconunters .
Why? That isnt how the game works. This isnt a solo game. A wizard or any other caster doesnt have to beat a CR appropriate monster by himself. He just has to contribute to defeating it. Otherwise a battle field control wizard for instance (arguably one of the most powerful kinds of wizard) cannot succeed in this challenge because he wont normally win an encounter on his own.
Why? That isnt how the game works. This isnt a solo game. A wizard or any other caster doesnt have to beat a CR appropriate monster by himself. He just has to contribute to defeating it. Otherwise a battle field control wizard for instance (arguably one of the most powerful kinds of wizard) cannot succeed in this challenge because he wont normally win an encounter on his own.
I would add to the challenge being able to win (without rest) 4 fights against apporpiate CR enconunters .
But that's what the argument here is going on about, or at least what I understood: Casters handle everything by themselves, "they are given all the tools", while martials cannot, therefore martials need to be changed. That's what this thread has been about, even if the focus has shifted around a bit lately.
If you are talking about contributing, i.e. there is a party that assists, we are on the same page :-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like how all the spellcasters that are being brought up and toted as superior are always assumed to have time to prepare, the correct spell selection, advantageous terrain, being aware of the danger and have whatever else they need to achieve that superior damage potential.
I take it you've never been:
* Attacked by a dragon that just smashes through the roof of the inn you were sleeping in?
* Assaulted by a kraken while onboard a ship being tossed around by a typhoon?
* Had all your gear stolen prior to facing an encounter?
* Get targeted first by everything the baddies have to throw at you seeing as you're that wizard they keep hearing about?And so on.
All cases where a more mundane class just smashes a chair, grabs a chair leg and goes to town with their combat styles and superior physical stats and BAB.I'll say it again: The majority of the problems people seem to be having seem to stem from poor encounter design.
Funny thing is, in my mind at least, the wizard isnt king anymore, though even I often say wizard when i mean caster. The Druid and Summoner are in my book. Their abilities are stupid flexible, and they come with their own personal beat stick for just such ambush situations.
Wizards and clerics do need to be prepared or they get hosed, I'd certainly accept that. Druids, far less so, as they can still turn into a bear and eat your face, while their pet bear also eats your face.
Heck depending on the level, so long as the wizard has the right scrolls (which he can make himself) he can get out of the situation, then prepare and come back. Teleport, or even dimension door is really a game changer in the surprise ambush factor.
As for the all your gear stolen. Generally that is worse on martial characters then it is on all but the cleric and wizard. That table leg will not allow a fighter to handle CR appropriate encounters at mid to upper levels. And the sorceror still has all his tools, so does the oracle, and the summoner, and the druid has about 2/3 of them.
As for getting targeted first, depending on the way the caster is set up, that isnt a problem. Mirror image is a better defense then just about any AC, and casters get that right from the starting gate if they want it. My magus LOVES mirror image (and even has a descent ac to go along with it). And heck, the optimized synthesist literally giggles while the enemy throws everything they have at them, leaving the rest of the party to hit them in the back and the synth to still be up and smash them flat afterwards.
"Concrete example. Hidden or invisitble enemies. There is a feat that helps alot with the, blind fight. Thats a feat. It could be the only thing a fighter gets that level he chooses it. The wizard has a spell, see invisibility, which depending on level, may be one of 20 other new spells he has learned recently. There is a big disparity in investment there."
There's always the poor man's guide to casting: use a bag of flour to reveal invisible foes. It's a useful technique the I've used to my advantage several times.
Why? That isnt how the game works. This isnt a solo game. A wizard or any other caster doesnt have to beat a CR appropriate monster by himself. He just has to contribute to defeating it. Otherwise a battle field control wizard for instance (arguably one of the most powerful kinds of wizard) cannot succeed in this challenge because he wont normally win an encounter on his own.
I would add to the challenge being able to win (without rest) 4 fights against apporpiate CR enconunters .
But that's what the argument here is going on about, or at least what I understood: Casters handle everything by themselves, "they are given all the tools", while martials cannot, therefore martials need to be changed. That's what this thread has been about, even if the focus has shifted around a bit lately.
If you are talking about contributing, i.e. there is a party that assists, we are on the same page :-)
I am talking about contribution, and I think we are on the same page. The only point i have is that the caster's tools for helping the party take down the foe are WAY more flexible. The wizard can and should set the fighter up for the kill instead of getting it himself because its teh best use of his resources, but he doesnt HAVE to do it in a given situation (depending on preparation). The fighter NEEDS help in some situations, and that is the problem for the most part. The caster has a choice, the mundane fighter doesnt.
not to mention there are anohter ways to negate teleporting wizards.
Like having allies camp out at his known spot of retreat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Heck depending on the level, so long as the wizard has the right scrolls (which he can make himself) he can get out of the situation, then prepare and come back. Teleport, or even dimension door is really a game changer in the surprise ambush factor.
Sure, but again we're assuming prep time for a wizard. The point I was trying to make is that the wizard being compared to a Fighter is being given loads of advantages and no such concession is being done for the fighter.
As for the all your gear stolen. Generally that is worse on martial characters then it is on all but the cleric and wizard. That table leg will not allow a fighter to handle CR appropriate encounters at mid to upper levels. And the sorceror still has all his tools, so does the oracle, and the summoner, and the...
Wasn't trying to say that a Fighter equipped only with a chair leg will take on any level appropriate encounter. I was trying to get across that atleast a fighter with a chair leg is doing something whereas a Wizard without his book and no time to prepare is doing absolutely nothing close to what the fighter is doing.
I don't think we disagree really. The situation that's being attempted to pass off as a problem is just so ludicrous that my mind tends to wander. There's absolutely no reason a Fighter needs to handle a situation by himself. Even if he had to, there's equipment that allows him to do so. Once he slips on his little boots of Flight he's off in a flying monsters face doing his combat style things and mad attacks like its nobodies business.
The problem is a fabricated one. It doesn't exist.
(Come at me! =D)
not to mention there are anohter ways to negate teleporting wizards.Like having allies camp out at his known spot of retreat.
Sure, so to kill a fighter, you need to have one group of enemies attack him. To kill a wizard, you need to have one group of enemies attack him, and another group of enemies figure out where he'll go, get there, and still be ready to attack him. And no one sees a disparity there?
You know what -- never mind. Everyone but Kolokotroni and I is correct. There is no disparity here. Everything is fine. Go on with your games. I'll continue to work on fixes for myself without burdening anyone else with the discussion, which never leads anywhere.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
not to mention there are anohter ways to negate teleporting wizards.Like having allies camp out at his known spot of retreat.
Sure, so to kill a fighter, you need to have one group of enemies attack him. To kill a wizard, you need to have one group of enemies attack him, and another group of enemies figure out where he'll go, get there, and still be ready to attack him. And no one sees a disparity there?
You know what -- never mind. Everyone but Kolokotroni and I is correct. There is no disparity here. Everything is fine. Go on with your games. I'll continue to work on fixes for myself without burdening anyone else with the discussion, which never leads anywhere.
I just thought it was a cool idea, not some kind of antidote to your argument. Peace!