so paizo just needs to hire kirth, expand and build upon his alterations, and become even more awesome than they already are. This...probably isn't going to happen(crosses fingers for pathfinder 2.0)
Stranger things have happened in the history of gaming. :p
It' true nevertheless that he's participating in the thread beyond just saying "look at Kirthfinder."
How does this one occur? In 4e, they just sort of removed narrative power from the spellcasters, and that didn't go over that big.
I agree -- we have one example that shows how NOT to do it. So I advocate the opposite approach. Instead of taking narrative power away from casters, we give it to the martials. Two days ago, I presented a series of hypothetical class features -- at level breaks 5, 9, 13, 17, and 20 -- that allow a fighter to keep up with a planar binding mind-controlling caster on a level-appropriate basis. And then I posted an example of how it would work. None of the abilities were magical. All of them were based on stuff fighters used to be able to do in earlier editions, and/or based on what fighters in literature (e.g., John Carter in Burroughs' Barsoom novels) could do. People didn't like those ideas, but so far no one has posted anything at all that comes close to meeting the same bench mark.
It's not a guess. I'm Coriat's DM, and I've heard the complaints for years.It almost sounds as though your casters are annoyed because they have to carry you through everything, when I'm pretty sure they are annoyed because they rarely get kills, and the fighters often do.Them's fightin' words. That said, I've played wizards who play clean up more than the martials. I've also seen fighters who suck at doing clean up after the control is done because the barbarian and ranger does it better.
And your point? I didn't say anything was a guess. In my groups fighter's usually do get the kill, but only because they're cleaning up after the caster. I said it was fighting words because your trying to infer people are just complaining because casters are weak.
What if fighters got the ability to make an intimidate check as an immediate action to disrupt the casting of a spell.
Too swingy imo. The all or nothing thing with casters gets old. That's why I want the concept of save or dies to just die and stay buried. As much as I love baleful polymorph and some of the more interesting spells, all or nothing isn't climactic because there isn't any build or chance to recover.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fighters don't provide any resource. They just drain them
I completely disagree with this. Fighters are capable of reaching and maintaining AC levels that can exceed the attack potential of any of the Bestiary monsters (though admittedly this is true of most other classes as well) and they do it quickly. I think the argument that Ranger Favored bonuses are somehow better than Weapon Specialization and similar feats is laughable in actual play. I've been in very few campaigns or games where a Ranger lucked out enough to use a given Favored bonus in more than one or two sessions, and only once have I seen someone actually utilize both bonuses simultaneously.
Fighters "provide" the resources of damage absorption, both via the damage they don't take and the damage they deal. Their ability to take out small encounters at minimal resource cost also means their compatriots are able to conserve their own limited resources for more crucial moments.
The argument that "Resource doesn't matter because everyone will rest when the wizard's out of spells anyway" is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. That's a sign of a player with a push-over GM who has never actually put them in a position where taking an hour rest means that their objective fails completely. I cannot even count the number of situations I've been in or experienced where stopping to take an 8 hour nap would mean that the party fails to prevent the goblin invasion / advent of an evil demigod / murder of a critical npc / etc. Rise of the Runelords is a great example of an AP where this comes up, where there are numerous points where stopping to rest because of resource burn leads to miserable failure. Jade Regent has many examples of this as well, and also includes areas where the party is likely to get ambushed in their sleep if they break to take a nap. I cannot think of a single published AP where I wouldn't want a Fighter in the party helping to watch our backs during a particularly draining slog.
Again, I'm not saying that I don't believe the Fighter should get a good Ref save in addition to his Fort, or 4 + Int skills, but I think people indicating he's massively under-powered are only reflecting the reality of one particular playstyle that is not indicative of everyone's play experience.
The argument that "Resource doesn't matter because everyone will rest when the wizard's out of spells anyway" is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. That's a sign of a player with a push-over GM who has never actually put them in a position where taking an hour rest means that their objective fails completely.
The thing is the game isn't fun at all when you run out of spells as a caster. Watch me fire my crossbow for pidly damage? No thanks. Its boring, and terribly balanced.
Edit: May as well go get coffee and wait on them to rest, because your likely not doing much In combat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ambushes to prevent rest work until rope trick (vs. dumb monsters) and magnificent mansion become available. Timers work until plane shift lets you move the party to a fast-time plane where they can rest a night, and then return a minute after they left. Yes, it's the DM's prerogative to nerf the planar rules to prevent that, but again, that's something we should maybe fix in the rules, instead of fixing by fiat.
But the biggest problem of all with the "make everyone keep going so fighters feel special" approach is that it kills fighters. Because, at mid- to upper-levels, fighters run through healing and restoration spells from their friends way faster than a wizard runs out of spells. When the party is stopping, it's because Fred the Fighter is down to 2 hp, your wand of healing is out of charges, and Father Frobozz the cleric has burned all his channeling and restoration and death ward spells. Keep going, and Fred dies.
I cannot think of a single published AP where I wouldn't want a Fighter in the party helping to watch our backs during a particularly draining slog.
Every. Single. One.
Barbarians are still Full BaB/D12 HD/DR Having mofos even without Rage.
Rangers are good combatants normally, amplified against their FE, with the ability to make ANYONE their FE a few times a day.
In addition, each of those classes has more utility than the Fighter does.
You keep looking at it in a vacuum of "What if there's this slog one time, wouldn't you want a Fighter then?"
But you don't just have a Fighter THEN. You have him ALL THE TIME. And the majority of that time, he is inferior to the other martial classes out of combat, and only matches (or is blown out of the water by in the case of the Barbarian) them IN combat.
What if fighters got the ability to make an intimidate check as an immediate action to disrupt the casting of a spell. I could easily see a wizard casting a spell then seeing a decked out fighter with greatswords and earthbreakers evil eying him and suddenly feel like its more important to s!## himself then say alakazam while flapping his arms. Or if fighters got improved bonus feat as a class feature and he can increase the feat variables, scaling, making fighters superior with combat feats.
I think the first one is the Disruptive Feat? Sorta. I like the idea but I'm not sure exactly how to implement it without things getting too annoy like anti-magic fields.
The best part about it is that Fighters have intimidate as a class skill, they have the potential to be scary, and if you're in melee mowing through minions you're covered in blood and gore making you incredibly scarier. I know I would be scared if there was a guy covered in my family's guts running around. The point is that they can be scary and I think more means to use that scariness in combat would be nice. As far as I could find only Dazzling display and Boar style really does the trick and Dazzling Display is more helpful to bards (considering that it lasts for one round and is a full round action) so i'm not too enthused bu the current use of intimidate in combat.
having Fighters count as higher level or higher BAB for feats could be pretty nice. i know I like it.
|
|
The argument that "Resource doesn't matter because everyone will rest when the wizard's out of spells anyway" is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. That's a sign of a player with a push-over GM who has never actually put them in a position where taking an hour rest means that their objective fails completely.The thing is the game isn't fun at all when you run out of spells as a caster. Watch me fire my crossbow for pidly damage? No thanks. Its boring, and terribly balanced.
And that's why they gave unlimited 0 level spells so you can still be "magical" after you've burned your resources. The fact that you blew all of your spells and aren't having fun anymore is your fault, because you chose to play a limited resource class.
The fact that you think getting to be a demigod during one encounter and then being reduced to a piddly inept archer the next encounter because you blew your load last fight isn't balanced to being competent but not terribly flashy every fight of the day doesn't reflect a flaw of the system, it reflects your lack of understanding about what balance really is, or what resource management actually entails.|
|
Actually, isn't there a blurb in D&D that wrote something like "a day's encounters shouldn't typically go over a magic-user's resources," or something?
That would be ridiculous and completely fly in the face of the whole principle of resource management. Spellcasters should be carefully weighing whether or not it's a good idea to use their more spells in a given fight, or if they should conserve them for future challenges. This is and always has been a normal part of the game, and a playstyle that assumes otherwise, while just as valid as anyone else's, does not reflect the balance the game is designed to, nor the majority of published adventures that provide an example of what gameplay should look like.
If your version of resource management is blowing all of your spells in 1-3 encounters and then taking an 8 hour nap, you are not playing the same game the designers are using as a baseline for the rules and the assumed concept of balance.
The fact that you blew all of your spells and aren't having fun anymore is your fault, because you chose to play a limited resource class.
Its the developers fault! You know what a pain the butt it is to revolve the whole campaign around who has how much resources? There's a problem if I can't have a 15 minute adventuring day. There's a problem if someone stops having fun. Stop saying it makes the game good, if someone isn't having fun!
The argument that "Resource doesn't matter because everyone will rest when the wizard's out of spells anyway" is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. That's a sign of a player with a push-over GM who has never actually put them in a position where taking an hour rest means that their objective fails completely.The thing is the game isn't fun at all when you run out of spells as a caster. Watch me fire my crossbow for pidly damage? No thanks. Its boring, and terribly balanced.And that's why they gave unlimited 0 level spells so you can still be "magical" after you've burned your resources. The fact that you blew all of your spells and aren't having fun anymore is your fault, because you chose to play a limited resource class.
The fact that you think getting to be a demigod during one encounter and then being reduced to a piddly inept archer the next encounter because you blew your load last fight isn't balanced to being competent but not terribly flashy every fight of the day doesn't reflect a flaw of the system, it reflects your lack of understanding about what balance really is, or what resource management actually entails.
The later in levels you get the more the fact that casters have spell limits becomes irrelevant. Especially for players that play Magic: the Gathering or such games.
Fortunately I play Magic and have an affinity towards resource draining tactics so in games that I DM casters have a lot of problems. I tend to make them keep track of components, send monsters in waves, attack them if they rest somewhere stupid, 'punish' for sleeping too much in one day, ect.
But I understand that most GMs aren't a@##~%!%s (like me) so I dont' think that a fighter's longevity is that big of an advantage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If your version of resource management is blowing all of your spells in 1-3 encounters and then taking an 8 hour nap, you are not playing the same game the designers are using as a baseline for the rules and the assumed concept of balance.
I agree with you here, but with a caveat: there's a disconnect in the rules themselves. Because the developers who designed around a longer adventuring day are the same ones who inserted any number of spells and effects that allow you to take a 15-minute adventuring day and get away with it, as outlined above. If they wanted more combats to be the baseline, they shouldn't have handed out ways to cheat the limitations and deadlines. If they wanted to include things like magnificent mansion and plane shift, they should have designed around fewer encounters. But instead, they left everything as-is, and just rely on a tacit assumption that casters will ignore the resources they have at their disposal in favor of toeing the invisible agreed-upon line. And that's not good design.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If one person makes everyone else wait because he wasted all his resources on a goblin, then everyone else isn't having fun. The solution is know/prep fun cantrips. Brand is a good example. Useful? not really, but its pretty darn funny when you write "my mother was a (insert profanity here)" on them in less than a minute by touching them. Making others stop having fun because you ran out of gas is a terrible way to play your game.
|
|
I wasn't saying that you should be able to throw out your top-level spells every encounter - it's just something that a friend told me back when I was learning how to play (in 3.5), and I thought I had read it in the DMG, but I couldn't remember. I agree that going hands-a-wavin'/guns-a-blazin' every encounter is against the spirit of resource management, but if you only use 1-4 (depending on level) spells per encounter, and you run out... I thought that's what it was addressing.
Gotchya. I think that at levels 1-3 the assumption is probably that you're using about 1 non cantrip/orison spell per encounter (maybe more if you're a spontaneous caster) and then scaling up at a rate of about 1-2 spells per encounter per 2-3 levels.
I actually never meant that a Fighter having an army was in it of itself bad.
I do think that longterm army management belongs more in a Kingdom game:
HOWEVER. There can indeed be rules for armies, and how a Fighter could have better armies then other classes.
You know what rules would be nice? Rules for Training soldiers. And Make it that the Fighter (Or whatever class) could do it faster, cheaper, better.
There, fighter now has more influence over the world.
In fact it provides a IG mechanic too do the exact same thing that a OOG mechanic about flocking followers too do the exact same thing:
People are flocking towards you in order to gain the honor of being TAUGHT by you.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The fact that you blew all of your spells and aren't having fun anymore is your fault, because you chose to play a limited resource class.Its the developers fault! You know what a pain the butt it is to revolve the whole campaign around who has how much resources? There's a problem if I can't have a 15 minute adventuring day. There's a problem if someone stops having fun. Stop saying it makes the game good, if someone isn't having fun!
You know what a pain in the butt it is to play a character designed for a different type of game than the one I ended up in because someone doesn't get the idea of "resource management" and wants to be able to be the center of attention every fight and then force me to wait 8 hours with an encroaching monster hoard because they couldn't restrain themselves and make wise decisions?
"Fun" is relative to the person having it. If you want a 15 minute adventuring day, good for you, but make sure the rest of the players realize that that is what is you're going for, because it's not the anticipated baseline for play. IF you're going to stop to nap after every fight, than this thread is right, and the fighter sucks. If, however, you are group of adventurers who don't suffer from spell-induced narcolepsy, they're pretty solid, requiring maybe a small tweak to skills and saves.
Except they're not.
Seriously, WHAT does the Fighter bring to the table that another class couldn't do? And do just as well or BETTER?
as an alternate option to leadership, how about the option for simply getting spell sunder, and the ability to demoralize all casters in an area from casting. simply call it disbelief and have it function similar to antimagic field but extraordinary. Also anyone have any thoughts on the immunities suggestion I brought up earlier?
"Fun" is relative to the person having it. If you want a 15 minute adventuring day, good for you, but make sure the rest of the players realize that that is what is you're going for, because it's not the anticipated baseline for play. IF you're going to stop to nap after every fight, than this thread is right, and the fighter sucks. If, however, you are group of adventurers who don't suffer from spell-induced narcolepsy, they're pretty solid, requiring maybe a small tweak to skills and saves.
Because everyone knows that one way to play is better than being open to several? Especially if its Slalarn's right? I mean as long as he's okay with it, it gives him a right to tell other people they're bad people for wanting to play more than just 4/encounter a day and basing the whole game on the casters resources.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Fun" is relative to the person having it. If you want a 15 minute adventuring day, good for you, but make sure the rest of the players realize that that is what is you're going for, because it's not the anticipated baseline for play. IF you're going to stop to nap after every fight, than this thread is right, and the fighter sucks. If, however, you are group of adventurers who don't suffer from spell-induced narcolepsy, they're pretty solid, requiring maybe a small tweak to skills and saves.Because everyone knows that one way to play is better than being open to several? Especially if its Slalarn's right? I mean as long as he's okay with it, it gives him a right to tell other people they're bad people for wanting to play more than just 4/encounter a day and basing the whole game on the casters resources.
I specifically said that there was nothing wrong with other playstyles, but that if you're playing a 15 minute adventuring day, you are not playing the game the developers designed. And that is on you. And you need to ensure the other players are aware of the fact that you are deviating from the base expectation so they can design their characters accordingly. I never said anyone is a bad person, and I don't appreciate you making it sound like someone having a reasonable discussion is in someway bashing other people. It is just a simple fact that all expectations of balance in the core game include an expectation of resource management.
bolded the relevant part.
I completely disagree with this. Fighters are capable of reaching and maintaining AC levels that can exceed the attack potential of any of the Bestiary monsters (though admittedly this is true of most other classes as well)
I think the argument that Ranger Favored bonuses are somehow better than Weapon Specialization and similar feats is laughable in actual play. I've been in very few campaigns or games where a Ranger lucked out enough to use a given Favored bonus in more than one or two sessions, and only once have I seen someone actually utilize both bonuses simultaneously.
that's damage. Fighter damage is ok. But they don't bring anything else to the party. A Ranger can heal with wands, cast protection spells on weak party members, or buff everybody with hunters bond. Paladins can make everybody smite, give aura bonuses, heal and remove maladies, and help everybody with litanies. Magus can tekeport the party, make the druid pet fly, or cast invisibility in the cleric who is bad at stealth. A summober or druid bring a body that absorbs as well as the fighter, with a thousand other things to help.
Other classes bring resourcez to the party. Fighters just drain them. Tbhe party has to cast fly on him so he can fight the flying monsters. The party has to protect him from fure couse he has sucky ref save. Tge party has to dispel the confusion on him. And so on.
Fighters "provide" the resources of damage absorption, both via the damage they don't take and the damage they deal. Their ability to take out small encounters at minimal resource cost also means their compatriots are able to conserve their own limited resources for more crucial moments.
so does the druid pet. And dont ask for a share of the treasure.
The argument that "Resource doesn't matter because everyone will rest when the wizard's out of spells anyway"
resources matter. But the wizard only run out of spelks at very low levels. More often than not, party has to rest when healers no longer can heal the fighter or when the casters no longer can buff the fighter. That happens because the fighter doesn't bring resources.
Takke any party with a fighter. Change the fighter for a paladin. He has armor, can swing a sword all day long, but also has lay on hands, mercies, auras, a mount, several inmunities, far better saves. Do you think their lasting power has raised or reduced?
If your friends think patgfonder wizards and clerics are more powerful than 3.5 versions, then they don't optimize as well as they think. We cannot Pun-Pun or CoDzilla anymore, and we cannot do 4000+damage per round with magic missiles that drain levels.There's a difference between optimization and exploitation. I couldn't say with a straight face that those 3.5 experiments were "working as intended."
fell draining-twinncasted repetitive magic missile isn't an experiment. It's a spell. That gives up to 20 negative levels. PF can't put that because we don't have anything close to fell drain feat.
you are not playing the game the developers designed. And that is on you.
If I want fighters not to suck I'm not playing the game the developers designed. Its on the developer.
That would be ridiculous and completely fly in the face of the whole principle of resource management. Spellcasters should be carefully weighing whether or not it's a good idea to use their more spells in a given fight, or if they should conserve them for future challenges.
Actually, isn't there a blurb in D&D that wrote something like "a day's encounters shouldn't typically go over a magic-user's resources," or something?
A 10th level wizard has over 25 spells. A typical encounter don't last more than 3-4 rounds. A typical day doesn't have more than 5-6 encounters. That's 15-24 rounds, being generous. And that's not including wands, scrolls, and magic items.
CAsters don't run out of spells. That's a lvl 1-7 thing. They only run out of spells when they have to Fly, enlarge, haste and Prot from Fire thre fighter. If you have a magus ibstead, he can self buff and so he foesn't drain resources from casters.
as an alternate option to leadership, how about the option for simply getting spell sunder, and the ability to demoralize all casters in an area from casting. simply call it disbelief and have it function similar to antimagic field but extraordinary.
That's a nifty ability! I'd like to see it as an option.
But by the bar I set earlier, it's not an alternate to Leadership because it still fails to give the fighter any influence on any part of the world outside of his immediate presence. When your caster friends can talk to people across the country, summon reinforcements, and teleport them to where they're needed -- at that point, if you can't influence things half a kingdom away, your narrative power is totally eclipsed by theirs.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
you are not playing the game the developers designed. And that is on you.If I want fighters not to suck I'm not playing the game the developers designed. Its on the developer.
Fighters are designed to the expectation that a given adventuring day encompasses multiple encounters, and with the expectation that someone who can consistently deal and absorb damage and adapt their combat style to the situation at hand is going to be a useful contribution. If your expectation of the game is that everyone is going to see who can cast the biggest spells the fastest and that resources are functionally unlimited because every enemy everywhere is going to politely wait while you sleep the day away to regain your spells, than the fighter falls short because he was designed for a different game than the one you are playing. That is not a failure of the class, that was your decision to play a game that he was not suited for. The developers have to design a game that accomodates the widest variety of playstyles possible, and the fighter is a very important tool in their ability to do so. They are a class that is simple to play, but through their various feat chains can accomodate even seasoned system masters in their possible complexity. They have minimal resource management and their class abiities are straightforward static modifiers that even a novice player can track and manage. They are equally effective throughout the day at doing what they do (which granted is limited in scope) and won't leave an untested player twiddling their thumbs because they got trigger happy and are out of abilities or spells.
The fact that the developers included a class in the game to accomodate people who are not you is to their credit, not a fault they should be blamed for.
as an alternate option to leadership, how about the option for simply getting spell sunder, and the ability to demoralize all casters in an area from casting. simply call it disbelief and have it function similar to antimagic field but extraordinary.That's a nifty ability! I'd like to see it as an option.
But by the bar I set earlier, it's not an alternate to Leadership because it still fails to give the fighter any influence on any part of the world outside of his immediate presence. When your caster friends can talk to people across the country, summon reinforcements, and teleport them to where they're needed -- at that point, if you can't influence things half a kingdom away, your narrative power is totally eclipsed by theirs.
how about they entrench the effect in the area just based on the knowledge that it happened there. It could be explained as casters losing their confidence in their spells whenever they're in the area.
A 10th level wizard has over 25 spells. A typical encounter don't last more than 3-4 rounds. A typical day doesn't have more than 5-6 encounters. That's 15-24 rounds, being generous. And that's not including wands, scrolls, and magic items.CAsters don't run out of spells. That's a lvl 1-7 thing. They only run out of spells when they have to Fly, enlarge, haste and Prot from Fire thre fighter. If you have a magus ibstead, he can self buff and so he foesn't drain resources from casters.
You can not just say what is a typical encounter. It may be typical in your games, it may be tipycal in other people games but it is just not a FACT of Pf.
sure I can. A typical encounter is the more common encounter in official published Adventure Paths. Then you can change that in your home game, to have zero combats in a socisl interaction heavy game, or make endless fights of hundreds of monsters per side. They wouldn't ve typical, though
Ssalarn, all that your'e saying is true, but it doesn't excuse the developers from giving the fighter a 9-level lifespan but extending the game to 20th level.
The fact that the developers included a class in the game to accomodate people who are not you is to their credit, not a fault they should be blamed for.
The game is not the developers fault? I didn't say anything about accommodating me. The fact is they chose to accommodate a specific one. They have even said they want spell slots for psychic magic. They didn't not choose to accommodate several.
You also didn't respond at all to the thing about the fighter sucking being the fault of the developers... They still fall short. They are crap out of combat, and they still end up having to wait on the other classes to rest when they run out. They don't get to fight endlessly. They're stuck with a resource(HP) and they have teammates who would probably like to rest. I guess he can go it alone?
Fighters are designed to the expectation that a given adventuring day encompasses multiple encounters, and with the expectation that someone who can consistently deal and absorb damage and adapt their combat style to the situation at hand is going to be a useful contribution.
fighters can't heal. They force other members to heal them A party with 2 fighters and two rogues have to rest way more than a party with two clerics and two wizards.
|
|
How about if fighters got the ability to make intimidate checks to recruit temporary allies that remain for one day. The idea is not that you scare them into doing your bidding exactly, but you impress them into wanting to help you. This way, you don't have "overpowered" cohorts and don't know everything about your new allies, but can have an even more versatile set of fame because no matter where you are, your cohorts are adapted to the landscape. To avoid getting killed in your sleep, make the feature say that you always start as friendly against those NPC's and someone controlling them has to make a secret opposed control check vs. your intimidate check (made secretly by GM).
|
|
That would be ridiculous and completely fly in the face of the whole principle of resource management. Spellcasters should be carefully weighing whether or not it's a good idea to use their more spells in a given fight, or if they should conserve them for future challenges.
Actually, isn't there a blurb in D&D that wrote something like "a day's encounters shouldn't typically go over a magic-user's resources," or something?A 10th level wizard has over 25 spells. A typical encounter don't last more than 3-4 rounds. A typical day doesn't have more than 5-6 encounters. That's 15-24 rounds, being generous. And that's not including wands, scrolls, and magic items.
CAsters don't run out of spells. That's a lvl 1-7 thing. They only run out of spells when they have to Fly, enlarge, haste and Prot from Fire thre fighter. If you have a magus ibstead, he can self buff and so he foesn't drain resources from casters.
Your math just broke down to exactly what I said the spell casting expectations were earlier. Also of note, not all spells are created equal. A wizard may have 25 spells at 10th level, but of those only a limited selection are actually going to be greater than or equal to the fighters contribution to combat. Your math would have the wizard down to his last spell at the end of the day, and a lot of those spells were 1st and 2nd level spells, which were likely of less use against the challenges a 10th level wizard is facing, or used for buffs that the fighter is much better suited to benefit from. The wizard's 5d4+5 magic missile likely won't equate to one attack from the fighter, and the best 1st level control spells will no impact on the CR 8 - CR 13+ creatures a 10th level wizard will encounter.
Your math just broke down to exactly what I said the spell casting expectations were earlier. Also of note, not all spells are created equal. A wizard may have 25 spells at 10th level, but of those only a limited selection are actually going to be greater than or equal to the fighters contribution to combat. Your math would have the wizard down to his last spell at the end of the day, and a lot of those spells were 1st and 2nd level spells, which were likely of less use against the challenges a 10th level wizard is facing, or used for buffs that the fighter is much better suited to benefit from.That would be ridiculous and completely fly in the face of the whole principle of resource management. Spellcasters should be carefully weighing whether or not it's a good idea to use their more spells in a given fight, or if they should conserve them for future challenges.
Actually, isn't there a blurb in D&D that wrote something like "a day's encounters shouldn't typically go over a magic-user's resources," or something?A 10th level wizard has over 25 spells. A typical encounter don't last more than 3-4 rounds. A typical day doesn't have more than 5-6 encounters. That's 15-24 rounds, being generous. And that's not including wands, scrolls, and magic items.
CAsters don't run out of spells. That's a lvl 1-7 thing. They only run out of spells when they have to Fly, enlarge, haste and Prot from Fire thre fighter. If you have a magus ibstead, he can self buff and so he foesn't drain resources from casters.
using one turn to cast Grease, Color Spray,invisibility, Glitterdust or Blindness is a fair contribution for one round. Also you didn't take in account what I said about scrolls (which I have plenty) and wands (too). I don't see why Enlarge person is better suited to be cast on a fighter than, say, on a Barbarian, or Inquisitor or Magus. Classes that can do tge two things a fighter do (hit and be hit), and also bring resources to the party.
|
|
fighters don't need fly to fight flying monsters. They just need a longbow. They will be just as effective as a barbarian with a bow when fighting something that flys because str doesn't effect non-composite bows. Maybe not as effective as rangers (that specialize in archery) but don't need fly to fight.
fighters don't need fly to fight flying monsters. They just need a longbow. They will be just as effective as a barbarian with a bow when fighting something that flys because str doesn't effect non-composite bows. Maybe not as effective as rangers (that specialize in archery) but don't need fly to fight.
only switch hitting fighters. For those whi are not, this works at level 5 or so only. A level 10 two handed fighter will have like 10 or 15 points less in attack with a bow than with his 2h sword.
Fighters actually make great switch hitters... I'd still a Ranger over a Fighter, but for ranged combat, Fighters have a distinctive advantage over Barbarians and Paladins. Although Adaptive longbows and the Urban Barbarian archetype make Barbarians good enough at archery.
Melee-focused Paladins also make decent archers. Divine Bond can buff their bows and Smite Evil obviously shreds any flying creature that happens to be evil.
With Urban and Controlled Rage you are more likely to Rage with Dex, so Adaptive is not as necessary
|
|
fighters don't need fly to fight flying monsters. They just need a longbow. They will be just as effective as a barbarian with a bow when fighting something that flys because str doesn't effect non-composite bows. Maybe not as effective as rangers (that specialize in archery) but don't need fly to fight.only switch hitting fighters. For those whi are not, this works at level 5 or so only. A level 10 two handed fighter will have like 10 or 15 points less in attack with a bow than with his 2h sword.
A fighter who can't switch hit is a poorly built fighter. Just picking up Weapon Training in a ranged weapon at level 9 gives him a better chance with a bow than a Barbarian using the same TH fighting style.
In reference to your earlier post-
As I mentioned earlier, we are talking about a 10th level wizard, so Color Spray is useless, Invisibility is a 1 use buff that will only actually contribute to a rogue attacking once or helping the wizard hide long enough to burn another of his big spells. Potentially they use it to slip past an encounter, as long as said encounter the oarty is facing at 10th level doesn't include creatures with Scent, casters with wards or Detect Magic, etc. Grease is moderately useful, but is still has the DC to resist of a 1st level spell (not hard for most level appropriate challenges) and is not terribly useful against creatures that fly or use natural weapons (of which there are a lot at that point).