| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I would be happy seeing Pounce featified somehow, at least. Martials really tend to need full attacks to be effective, and without pounce, it's absurdly difficult to get those (at least for melee).
As for making full attacks a standard action... I'm wondering if it might make sense to do something like, once your BAB allows you to take more than 1 attack, you can get those attacks(and just those) in a standard action, while still needing to full attack or pounce for extra natural attacks and such.
That seems like it could be a fairly logical progression, imo. Still makes the classes that actually get pounce have a little something extra (though again, I think it should at least be available through feats), but means the melee classes can actually move and get some attacks in, rather than just getting one little swing and basically being crippled in their effectiveness when an enemy is more than 5 feet away from them.
Just imo, of course.
|
Unless combat is only lasting one or two rounds, lack of "pounce" should not be that big a deal. Most of the time the frontliners should be able to close in the first round, and likely attack, then full on all subsiquent rounds. Against high AC targets only the first and maybe second attack are generally that likely to hit. The only people that absolutely need full attack are dual-wielders, and that is the drawback to that build.
@ justicar: Not necessarily. If you have 2 or 3 enemies that stay close to the fighter, and can take lots of hits before going down, then yeah, on most subsequent rounds, the fighter can probably full attack.
If you've got 5-10 moderately strong enemies who are going after the ranged and casters, with only one who cares to bother with the fighter, the fighter needs to charge them each individually. If that first attack doesn't kill them, they can full attack on the next round, then on the third round get another hit on their second enemy. And if that first enemy they attacked doesn't care to stay close to them, because they know if they move, the fighter will only get one attack, and the paltry damage means their time could better be spent killing other people, well... the fighter's not gonna be getting lots of full attacks.
On the other hand, the barbarian can go RAGELANCEPOUNCE, dead enemy. RAGELANCEPOUNCE, dead enemy. RAGELANCEP- err... you probably get the idea.
Circumstances being quite variable in combat situations, there's plenty of scenarios where not having pounce will make a big difference.
Pounce is awesome, when you can use it, but like anything else, it's not an ability you can use all the time. Yes, it'll be a game changer in some fights, but it shouldn't be in most.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Me me me mine mine mine now now now all all all.
|
I think you should also give all martials the ability to ignore difficult terrain like dragon style for free...
Action economy is part of the tactics of the game, and sarcasim aside now, there's no need to really change the parts you're trying to. You'll remove the tactics required, and downplay unique aspects of builds/classes.
I don't agree with giving full pounce or the mobile fighter ability to everybody. What I would do is allow characters to attack with the first two interatives (three with TWF) as a standard action. Prereq BAB 11+, so you still have a difference between move and attack and full attack.
Me me me mine mine mine now now now all all all.
Very close to being an exact quote from Hook. So close it makes me sad that's not what it was.
Sunder that bow string once and a while to give that fighter his time to shine.
Use large creatures and pounces will still draw some AOOs or use obstacles and difficult terrain and pouncer's can't charge.
A GM should never allow a feat/ability to be the end all be all perfect solution to every problem.
This gives other players a chance to be the big man too.
Agreed. I think if giving all character an ability to benefit from regardless of build makes every encounter easier, then the problem is your encounters, not the game mechanics.
It wouldn't make encounters easier most of the time. I mean, monsters would follow the same rule, right?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was going for the idea we should make it so one option isn't completely optimal. Mind you going the other way banning pounce and making spell casting a full round action instead of a standard would also work and would add in some new tactical considerations for spell casters. I might go with that instead.We should remove all tactical considerations, players just need to read out their average DPR numbers on their turn. COmbats will resolve much faster.I think you should also give all martials the ability to ignore difficult terrain like dragon style for free...
Action economy is part of the tactics of the game, and sarcasim aside now, there's no need to really change the parts you're trying to. You'll remove the tactics required, and downplay unique aspects of builds/classes.
That would just nerf spellcasters needlessly, especially at low levels, and banning pounce entirely... how does that solve anything? There aren't very many player builds that get it to begin with.
What it would achieve is then everyone would need to spend a full action to pull off there main attack it brings parity. Honestly nerfing casters is hardly a bad thing either its not as if the action economy is their only advantage over martials.That would just nerf spellcasters needlessly, especially at low levels, and banning pounce entirely... how does that solve anything? There aren't very many player builds that get it to begin with.I was going for the idea we should make it so one option isn't completely optimal. Mind you going the other way banning pounce and making spell casting a full round action instead of a standard would also work and would add in some new tactical considerations for spell casters. I might go with that instead.We should remove all tactical considerations, players just need to read out their average DPR numbers on their turn. COmbats will resolve much faster.I think you should also give all martials the ability to ignore difficult terrain like dragon style for free...
Action economy is part of the tactics of the game, and sarcasim aside now, there's no need to really change the parts you're trying to. You'll remove the tactics required, and downplay unique aspects of builds/classes.
The problem is your changes actually eliminate the need for strategy or overcompensate for a problem that isn't even a big deal.
Spellcasters can, at higher levels, deal more damage in 1 standard action, but they can only do so X number of times per day. At lower levels, they deal about as much damage with their standard actions spells, but the advantage they gain is the versatility their spells offer. Making all spells require a full-round action would make them very weak compared to martial characters at low levels (shocking grasp would deal 1d6 damage flat and be usuable, on average, 3 times per day by an evocater, while a fighter with a greatsword can deal 2d6+4 as many times as he wants). Furthermore, while the fighter doesn't get multiple attacks until 6th level, the poor wizard will have to deal with his full round casting for all 20 levels.
And what about spellcasters that don't have "attacks" but focus on tactical spells such as Obscuring Mist, ro casters that focus on buffing spells such as Shield and Bull's Strength?
You keep mentioning your changes will provide balance and make a need for strategy, but they would be removing it! You would be taking a measure to make every class closer to being the same. The definition of strategy is using the right tool and the right tactic for the right situation. Holding your ground until the enemy comes to you, getting to high ground, flanking, choosing the right spells... these are all strategies. Certain builds are more effective when working with certain strategies and in certain situations. Not every class is going to shine in every situation. This is the Pathfinder RPG, not the Pathfinder Hack-n-Slash or the Pathfinder FPS.
If someone experiences a serious, continual problem where they find themselves worse off than everyone else continually, it is a problem with their build, their playstyle, or the GM's structuring of their encounters.
Tactics are one thing, but strategy is another.
Not having the ability to full attack most of the time and needing to position to get them adds tactics to the game. From a strategic point of view though there are also bows ...
Or throwing axes, or darts, or slings...
If the character's only response to Initiative Rolls is to run in and hit it with a sword or throw fire at it, he is going to continue to run into walls where the players who give themselves more options succeed more often.
I think you should also give all martials the ability to ignore difficult terrain like dragon style for free...
Action economy is part of the tactics of the game, and sarcasim aside now, there's no need to really change the parts you're trying to. You'll remove the tactics required, and downplay unique aspects of builds/classes.
What you mean to say is its part of the tactics of the game for melee. Which would be fine if it wasn't ONLY for melee.
As levels go on casters get BETTER action economy (Quicken metamagic.) while there standard action spells get stronger (From higher lvl spells and from most spells scaling in some way.) They never have to jump through hoops to get the most out of a round.
Melee on the other hand. Their action economy progresses backwards and never gets better.
Of course, Quicken Metamagic requires a feat (and sacrificing a higher level spell slot each time it's used). Martials that are concerned with their action economy can always take Vital Strike and double their damage die instead of relying on full attacks. They don't have to deal with spell slots at all. When you don't like certain weaknesses for your character, you take a feat that deals with it.
Heck, a better fix for this problem would be to grant Vital Strike (and the other feats that follow it) as free feats to martials instead of severely nerfing spellcasters of all levels for an alleged problem that doesn't show up until 6 levels in.
spell slots a weakness of casters? Really? I can not help but wonder if you know the game at all. Since they do not need to pay for extremely costly weapons and armor casters can afford things like pearls of power and metamagic rods.
While granting vital strike as something melee can do normally indeed is a good idea vital strike on its own is bad. For free it would be good but for 3 feats its trash.
|
|
Stome, as things go higher in levels, the HP differences matter more and more comparing melee to casters (in particular the wizards)
Melee's action economy never goes backwards, it just never improves.
Although they do start getting uses for their swift actions...
The wizard, yeah he's got quickened but when can he use that? right lvl 9... he can quicken a magic missile that does 1d4+1 dmg x5... man that 10-25 as a swift action is amazing! oh right, it's also using a 4th level slot that he's only got 3 max of...
I mean the fighter is doing what, three attacks, two of which are almost guaranteed to hit and are probably doing at least 30dmg each and maybe applying status effects with also?
yeah it's horribly imbalanced! lol... oh yeah the wizard has a base of 36hp, and the fighter a base of 54hp (and guess who probably has a higher chance of being hit, and also of having a lower con score!)
It in fact does go backwards. At +5 BAB a melee can make a optimum attack as a standard. At +6 when suppository they get "better" they have to use a full action to preform an optimal attack. That is in fact backwards progression.
You really shouldn't try to speak on things you clearly don't understand. How much damage does the fighter do? Doesn't matter since damage is the least optimal way to end an encounter. Save or Die, control, and flat avoidance all trump damage.
Spouting on about how much hp ether have is flat ignorant as hp is almost as meaningless as damage unless the wizard has no idea how to play.
The fighter does not have teleports, flight, Walls, Stoneskin and so on.
spell slots a weakness of casters? Really? I can not help but wonder if you know the game at all. Since they do not need to pay for extremely costly weapons and armor casters can afford things like pearls of power and metamagic rods.
While granting vital strike as something melee can do normally indeed is a good idea vital strike on its own is bad. For free it would be good but for 3 feats its trash.
Three things:
1. Spells slots are unarguably a limit on how many times per day they can use a spell of a given level. Limiting a beneficial effect decreases it's power, so it is by definition a drawback.
2. I don't know about you, but most adventuring parties I know of find their gear in dragon hoards and troll caves, rather than working a day job so they can save up and buy them at Sword R Us. Fighters end up taking all those magic swords that give them very good benefits that apply to every single attack they make while casters are restricted to rods that improve their magic a few times per day or scrolls, wands, and staves that let them use spells more often. All three of those, along with most rods, have a limited number of uses before they are either destroyed or must be recharged. Both get a number of great wondrous items. If magic items are a problem a GM can easily adjust the level of caster items in a given hoard versus fighter items in a given hoard as needed. People tend to forget that.
3. The only prerequisite that Vital Strike requires is having a +6 base attack bonus. It has no feat prerequisites. Given that Weapon Finesse also requires a feat investment, I see no problem with Vital Strike requiring a feat (granted, at my table weapon finesse is given free to all creatures, but we're not talking about house rules here).
It in fact does go backwards. At +5 BAB a melee can make a optimum attack as a standard. At +6 when suppository they get "better" they have to use a full action to preform an optimal attack. That is in fact backwards progression.
You really shouldn't try to speak on things you clearly don't understand. How much damage does the fighter do? Doesn't matter since damage is the least optimal way to end an encounter. Save or Die, control, and flat avoidance all trump damage.
Spouting on about how much hp ether have is flat ignorant as hp is almost as meaningless as damage unless the wizard has no idea how to play.
The fighter does not have teleports, flight, Walls, Stoneskin and so on.
A good rule of thumb is to not assume people don't understand the subject and instead ask them to elaborate on why they've come to a certain conclusion.
For example, you point about Wizards being able to work around their HP weakness is a good point, he gets around it by preparing spells and investing spellbook space in versatile spells to get them out of trouble. What would be so bad with a Fighter doing the same thing with his weapons and feats? Is there something about the fighter that means the game should be bend to allowing him to get away with using the same technique all the time? And what keeps the wizard from casting those spells you mentioned on the fighter? all can be cast on any willing creatures (except walls, which just create a bit of obstacle that any character can use as cover).
How you do magic items at your table is fine but its not a valid argument for balance. The system as it is built without house ruling is for PCs to have access to buying items and a a roughly set wealth progression. They fact that you can talk about how you can force casters in line by messing with this and yet don;t see the problem is pretty comical.
Vital strike takes 3 feats no from prerequisites but because it does not scale. Hench improved and greater vital strike.
|
|
It in fact does go backwards. At +5 BAB a melee can make a optimum attack as a standard. At +6 when suppository they get "better" they have to use a full action to preform an optimal attack. That is in fact backwards progression.
You really shouldn't try to speak on things you clearly don't understand. How much damage does the fighter do? Doesn't matter since damage is the least optimal way to end an encounter. Save or Die, control, and flat avoidance all trump damage.
Spouting on about how much hp ether have is flat ignorant as hp is almost as meaningless as damage unless the wizard has no idea how to play.
The fighter does not have teleports, flight, Walls, Stoneskin and so on.
So when wizards can cast quickened spells, it's a boon even though it takes more actions to perform and resources to perform? prior to quickened spells they can cast one spell as a standard to full round action depending on the spell.
At lvl 9, they can now cast two spells "casting an optimal spells" by spending a swift action and a standard or full round to get two off and using two spell slots.
Somehow this seems vaguely parallel...
I mean at lvl 9 a fighter is what, doubling his threat range and also adding +4 to confirm crits? oh and adding a +2 to hit and damage on his chosen weapon group?
Yeah the fighter doesn't have spells, but then again half of why spell casters are around is to make the fighter that much more awesome with their spells. Control is well and good but without the fighter to do the damage they don't die regardless of how well controlled they are usually. Save or die is a terrible waste of most casters resources.
The more you talk the more you seem bitter that fighters aren't one hitting things and having all the glory. That their potential is just for damage and taking damage and some effects applied on crits. Where wizards can do soo many awesome things.
I'm still confused as to how you think that they are progressing backwards when prior to bab6 they are using a standard to perform one attack, and afterwards they are using a standard for one attack, but have the option to perform more than one using a full round... A wizard casts one spell a round, two if he's quickened them (but now he's going through limited resources at twice the rate, and casting very low lvl spells in that quickened slot)
at lvl 20 he's still casting this at most, while the fighter is now getting what, 5? 6? 9 attacks? yeah the fighter TOTALLY progresses backwards.
How you do magic items at your table is fine but its not a valid argument for balance. The system as it is built without house ruling is for PCs to have access to buying items and a a roughly set wealth progression. They fact that you can talk about how you can force casters in line by messing with this and yet don;t see the problem is pretty comical.
Vital strike takes 3 feats no from prerequisites but because it does not scale. Hench improved and greater vital strike.
My argument for how treasure is placed in the world was not my only, or even strongest, argument for the game being balanced, but was simply one easier way to balance things out if a GM feels one character is stronger than the rest. It was a need that game up in the first campaign I ran, and I was able to do it without the players even noticing, but ultimately the characters were more balanced. Frankly, I don't see a need to "force casters in line" and don't see a problem (my specific situation was actually a druid who had rolled stats poorly, so I placed a few items that no other players would want that would help him). The OP does, so I was suggesting a solution that wouldn't require any changing of the character build rules.
Here is why I don't think the magic items are an issue:
A Fighter's Magic Items:
-Bonuses to Str, higher damage and accuracy on all attacks
-Bonuses to Con, more health and higher Fort saves 100% of the time
-Bonuses to Dex, higher AC and/or accuracy
-Magic Weapon qualities, usable a limitless number of times per day
-Magic armor qualities, which are always active
A Caster's Magic Items:
-Metamagic Rods, which can be used 3 times per day. Most other rods have interesting abilities that can also only be used a certain number of times per day.
-"Extra Spell" items, such as the Pearl of Power or Scrolls, which grants a single extra spell that day (must have been previously cast that day, so not a "true" additional spell slot)
-Wands, which are destroyed after 50 uses (non casters can also use them, albeit with UMD ranks)
-Staves, which which may have 0-10 charges when found, and from that point, they have to "prepare" a spell in the staff in order to restore a charge, granting them one less spell that day but an additional spell they can use at a later time (or that day, in which case there is no difference)
-Bonuses to their Casting Stat (Int, Wis, or Cha), which has the effect of increasing their Spell DCs and maybe giving them a bonus spell per day. Once all of their spells that day have been cast, they have no benefit from the item a non-caster wouldn't receive (such as bonuses to skills).
So, as you can see, all of the "caster items" have a limited number of uses, either being consumable or only beneficial a limited number of times per day. If one group's sessions are built in such a way that a character only needs to use an ability once per day, that's hardly the fault of the game itself.
I'm still confused as to how you think that they are progressing backwards when prior to bab6 they are using a standard to perform one attack, and afterwards they are using a standard for one attack, but have the option to perform more than one using a full round... A wizard casts one spell a round, two if he's quickened them (but now he's going through limited resources at twice the rate, and casting very low lvl spells in that quickened slot)
I would say it probably goes something like this.
At level 1, a fighter can hit something as a standard action, while a wizard can cast magic missile as a standard action.
At level 9, a fighter can hit something as a standard action, while the wizard can rip the air out of an opponent's lungs with Suffocation, lock them in Ice with Icy Prison, or nuke the battlefield with a Fire Snake... as a standard action. If they want to throw a quickened spell too, that's just gravy.
At level 20, a fighter can hit something as a standard action, while a wizard can toss a meteor swarm, paralyze a large number of creatures, stop time, etc... all as standard actions. And then have that many more options if they want to quicken a spell as well, and they can still move if they want to.
Primarily, fighters, as they level, get to hit things better and more times. Unless they're right next to an enemy at the start of their turn though, that second part is moot.
You seem really really stuck on this limited number of uses thing that you hinge your argument on. The thing is its meaningless. So a fighter can swing all day... that is completely meaningless since hitting things is the least optimal way of winning. Yay for them they can do the least optimal thing more!
Exactly what Darkwolf said. There is nothing parallel about it. Spells become more and more powerful for a standard action. Attacks progress at a snails speed and to get anything even close to useful out of it take a full round action.
The big thing that is dead wrong here is the idea that some how the casting of a spell = to an attack. Not even close. Most single spells are more powerful then a full round of attacks even when fighters have 3-4 attacks. giving the ability to move and full attack won't change that. But at least it would be something for melee. I know... trying to give melee nice things...
|
|
at lvl 9, most the spells they can quicken, simply don't do anything.
spells simply work on some, don't on others and can be wasted without any effect, or sometimes only a partial effect.
Let's look at your fire snake example, a lvl 5 spell (so at lvl 11 this is happening)
FIRE SNAKE
School evocation [fire]; Level druid 5, sorcerer/wizard 5
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, M (a snake scale)
Range 60 ft.
Area see text
Duration instantaneous
Saving Throw Reflex half; Spell Resistance yes
You create a sinuous line of flames that you may shape as desired. The fire snake affects one 5-foot square per caster level, and each square must be adjacent to the previous square, starting with you. The fire snake may not extend beyond its maximum range. Creatures in the path of the fire snake take 1d6 points of fire damage per caster level (maximum 15d6).
we're seeing 11d6 with reflex for half and spell resistance, and a range of 60ft. Pretty groovy...
so damage with this "awesome" spell is 11 to 72 damage. (and they are probably doing this a max of three times a day) or 5-36dmg on a save. or non with evasion or none with failed spell pen or fire resistance...
What can a fighter do on a charge, EVERY charge, EVERY standard action assuming they can hit (which they probably can with the +15 without stats or gear factored in) regardless of what weapon you pick, they can have double crit, bleed added in (or nausea if you want) +6damage or more damage. Lets assume it's the lovely Falcata, 1d8 crits 17-20x3. With vital strike and assuming a +3 weapon that's a potential of 11-27 damage. That's SOOO inferior to the fire snake... (and yes I know it can affect alot of targets)
I'm going to go on a limb and say that the fighter isn't really hurting like you claim, is in fact awesome (and never runs out of awesome! unlike a caster)
When you look at things like the pouncing barbarian you realize that your issues become even more meaningless.
Anything the wizard does that's meaningful is usually battle field control, some buffs, and occasionally save or suck... These things all make the fighter that much better, not the wizard that much better than the fighter.
It's the team aspect of this, sorry the fighter is the guy that does the reliable consistant damage and ensures the party doesn't get taken apart piecemeal rather than be the star that does the really flashy things, but doesn't really win the game without his team there.
|
|
Atarlost, you don't always get the option of when to stop, if you do then there's no real meaning to limited resources, so sure these are non-issues.
I'll tell you right now though, half those classes can be out of their class feature and still be useful.
A wizard however is not except for knowledge checks.
I've never seen a monk, paladin, alchemist, cavalier, inquisitor, or witch, stop because they were out of a certain feature. And I've never seen encounters with enemies call a time out when the casters ran out of abilities.
At the higher levels where you're saying the casters really shine, guess who really shines as well? The melees, you know why? Because there are more encounters where magic is absolutely negated in its use and melee IS the only way to handle it and like wise, magic is the only solution...
You people trying to act like the fighter is so weak are just being silly.
Lets look at meteor swarm, 2d6 bludgeoning damage isn't bypassing most DR so we're looking at a max damage of 8d6 bludgeonings 8-48 bludgeoning, and a max fire of 24-144.
That's really awesome can affect multiple targets (although just the fire damage can) the fighter can at that point do more than that damage to a single target with all his attacks.
|
|
I have an idea for you. Sometime you should play with a normal group, and keep a running tally for a few sessions of the damage done each session by each character type.
Then come here and tell us how much damage the fighter types did and how much these op wizards did. (if they do save or die, count up the hp of the monster and it's negative value and add it as their damage done)
I'm willing to bet that the fighters are doing more damage than the wizardly types.
*sighs.* The fact that you picked a damage spell shows very clearly you do not understand the game at all. Casters don't win through damage. At least not good ones. Again damage is sub-optimal.
The caster should be using save or die. Target the weak save, with gear and feats the chance of success is almost as guaranteed as the fighters chance to hit.
Fighters (or any melee.) is not a needed part of a team as you try to put it. A party of full casters not only works well but often times better.
I have an idea for you. Sometime you should play with a normal group, and keep a running tally for a few sessions of the damage done each session by each character type.
Then come here and tell us how much damage the fighter types did and how much these op wizards did. (if they do save or die, count up the hp of the monster and it's negative value and add it as their damage done)
I'm willing to bet that the fighters are doing more damage than the wizardly types.
Seriously are you still on this? Can you not read? Damage in 3.5/PF is meaningless past the very low levels. Why the heck would anyone think damage matters when a spell can instant win with a snap.
-edit- Even if you did for some reason play a caster is the worse way possible (a blaster) one fireball spell that hits 5 targets will do a lot more then the fighters walk up and take one swing.
|
|
At level 9, a fighter can hit something as a standard action, while the wizard can rip the air out of an opponent's lungs with Suffocation, lock them in Ice with Icy Prison, or nuke the battlefield with a Fire Snake... as a standard action. If they want to throw a quickened spell too, that's just gravy...
I didn't pick it, I'm replying to points brought up in the conversation.
Because a party full of casters such as druids can work, doesn't mean all can, nor does it mean that melees are gimped and undesirable.
Nor does it mean that fighter types need handouts.
|
|
Stome lets go back to your claim real quick
As levels go on casters get BETTER action economy (Quicken metamagic.) while there standard action spells get stronger (From higher lvl spells and from most spells scaling in some way.) They never have to jump through hoops to get the most out of a round.
Melee on the other hand. Their action economy progresses backwards and never gets better.
I guess that at lvl 1 they spend a full round to get multiple attacks (two) and at lvl 20 they spend a full round to get 7+ attacks... That looks like they are totally getting less for their actions as the levels progress.
So let's go ahead and mark that claim as false, since the math doesn't back it one bit.
A wizard at lvl one spends a standard to get a spell out, at lvl 20, they spend a standard to get a spell out.
The action economy is the same progressively, the power of what they are doing with those actions increase for both. Your argument is not then about action economy but what is accomplished with those actions.
A full attack at lvl 20 from a fighter is a powerful thing and does a great amount of damage and it does more than a full attack option from a lvl 1.
@ lantzkev: Fire Snake was an example. Would it be better if I said they could use...
Beast Shape III
Baleful Polymorph
Cloudkill
Cone of Cold
Corrosive Consumption
Dismissal
Feeblemind
Fickle Winds
Geyser
Hold Monster
Hostile Juxtaposition
Hungry Pit
Icy Prison
Interposing Hand
Lightning Arc
Mind Fog
Mirage Arcana
Monstrous Physique III
Pain Strike, Mass
Persistent Image
Phantasmal Web
Plague Carrier
Plant Shape I
Shadow Evocation
Smug Narcissism
Sonic Thrust
Suffocation
Telekinesis
Transmute Mud to Rock
Transmute Rock to Mud
Undead Anatomy II
Vermin Shape II
Wall of Force
Wall of Sound
Wall of Stone
Waves of Fatigue
Any of these as a standard action?
I realize that wizards are not often used as blasters, so discussions of the DPR of any particular spell against a fighter seems kind of nonsensical.
The point was that a wizard gets new spells that do impressive things as they level. That's the point of a lot of spellcasters. And most of them need 1 standard action to use.
Fighters on the other hand, like I said, get to hit things a lot better. That's their main deal. But they need a full attack for it, so if they need to move more than 5 feet to reach the enemy, a lot of that potential is nullified.
|
|
And they have answers for that, ALA quick runners shirt, Vital strike to make the charge more worthwhile, etc.
You can pick any of those spells but which ones are prepared that'll actually affect anything in this zomg way you're suggesting.
The discussion of DPR is sensical, because it's the only way things DIE. the save or die spells are in general not effective, and they usually target critters strongest save. Things that cripple and make fights easier are where wizards shine, and guess what they do? They gimp the monster so that the fighter can clean it up easy as pie.
Without the fighter, the wizard is pretty well worthless in most cases.
You seem really really stuck on this limited number of uses thing that you hinge your argument on. The thing is its meaningless. So a fighter can swing all day... that is completely meaningless since hitting things is the least optimal way of winning. Yay for them they can do the least optimal thing more!
Explain to me why you think spells per day is meaningless and doesn't affect a wizard.
Is it meaningless when your party has been fighting a hoard of orc warriors for over an hour with no end in sight, and the 6th level wizard will probably be out of spells and his school power, whatever it is, is probably used up or not useful in this situation. If he's been casting Quickened spells the whole time, he'd have run out already. At this point all he can do is use cantrips and consume his precious scrolls or wands or sit by and wait for his previously cast spells to expire. The fighter can keep on swinging and not have to worry about consuming pearls, scrolls, or wands. The same goes for situations where the party is spending an entire day exploring a vast underground cavern and encountering pockets of all sorts of enemies.
Whether or not "hitting things is the least optimal way of winning", whatever specifically you mean by that, is irrelevant. They can always do something effective while the spellcaster will have situation where he cannot.