And, some people think this is a crushing argument of why the Fighter is underpowered. It's not- in fact it's the opposite.
You never explained why that means its balanced, just said some people like it that way. I'm actually fine with a kickbutt mundane hero myself, but I hate being the buttmonkey to someone else. I can always play the mundane hero with a fighter or rogue and enjoy it, but that won't make him any more balanced mechanically or narratively with spellcasters.
How about re-introducing different experience points requirements for each class?
You run into trouble with BAB/HP. The gish's get a whole lot weaker even though they're closer to balanced, and the fighter types don't bolster what they needs so much as escalates what they already good at. The casters have less dakka, and a whole lot less survivability, which isn't the best balance either.
Well, if we go with 8 you have spells that last for 8 rounds and 8 minutes to "bolster your defense" Sleep no longer has any effect on the 8th level Fighter or Barbarian, Grease they have to make a DC 10 check to walk across and has no effect on their arrows, Glitterdust they get a new save every round (ditto hold person, ditto Hideous Laughter)-- not to mention those spells have low saves because they are low level. . .If you go with level 8 you have more than 8 spells and they can last hours or a single round. Lots of durations and cast times and targets. If we're talking wizard, you have 12 spells, +4 for specialization if your not generalist, +bonus spells from intellect(at least 4).
You don't have to use grease on the ground, you can use it on their weapon too. Prepared action too, so use it right when they attack and slip! Maybe someone steals it too, but that would be mean. DC 10 acrobatics can be pretty rough with ACP and too little skill points. As a bonus, you can use it to assist with escape artist checks and CMB! Grease is nifty.
Might help if you compared it all to spells of a higher level. At 8 level you have 3 more spell levels to play with. Slow/Haste and fly and invisibility are pretty nice for instance. The various pit spells have opened up, reflex 18 or be dumped into a horrible acid pit? ouch! Hope you have climb to get out if you did. OH! and black tentacles and dimensional door. Just one school too.
You are clearly having an inflated sense of how "powerful" all these effects are based on some pretty lazy encounter and game designs. I cannot speak to you longevity if you sat down at my table. . .
And remember, in order to do anything you have to win initiative first. You talk as though you auto cast all these spells the second initiative is rolled, not one a round after it gets to your turn.
Here's what I think is interesting the argument that all a Fighter gets as he levels is more HP and more DPR thus the fighter is a bad class or underpowered or something.
In a way they are right, a Fighter is the plain vanilla of classes. It has little flexibility and few options other than different ways to deal DPR or take DPR. The Fighter has few skill points, and altho it has lots of feats so can can certainly do out of combat stuff, in order to be best at DPR and Tanking, most Fighter players spend their feats making their PC better and better at doing those. And, altho you can build another class that does better at tanking oR DPR, it's very hard to beat a fighter at both. But that's about all it can do- and do well, anyway.
And, some people think this is a crushing argument of why the Fighter is underpowered. It's not- in fact it's the opposite.
Choices. You want a martial class with lots of Skills? Ranger or even monk or rogue. With healing & smiting? Paladin or Inquisitor. With arcane spells? Magus. Then there's the barbarian. There are NINE martial classes (More if you count Samurai, Antipaladin, etc). Each gains something over the fighter- or even several somethings: Saves, mobility, spells, flexibility, skills, and more. And by doing so each gives up something.
Yes, indeed the Fighter is the plain vanilla martial class. But it's there because some people LIKE vanilla. And, why not? Why can't they have vanilla? Sure, I prefer chocolate, and someone may prefer strawberry and another triple fudge/rum/pistachio ripple. But every 31 flavors still have vanilla.
Why do the fighter haters insist upon taking that Choice away from other who PREFER vanilla? Sure, it may be a sub-optimal choice/flavor to YOU, but to them, it's what they want. Are you calling "badwrongfun" on whoever wants to run one?
So, there are 8 other flavors of warriors/martials. EIGHT. You don't want vanilla? The devs have provided you with 8 other flavors, and with PrC's and such, you can even...
This is a terrible argument and you know it.
"Some people like to suck" is not a good argument for why something should suck. I'm sure they would just as much like to suck less as they would to suck.
Arguments like this just give game designers/developers ammo in their arsenal to be lazy.
"Yeah, we could TRY to do something interesting and balanced here...but people who 'like vanilla' are going to lap up whatever s&&% we throw out anyway so why expend the effort?"
The consumer is just as responsible for nonsense like that as the developers. It's the same reason long running video game series can survive and thrive by re-releasing the same garbage in a different package with another $60 pricetag, because some people have convinced themselves that garbage is better than innovation, and if the company's raking in millions of dollars why should they care whether their product is actually good or not?
"Some people are willing to settle" is the gist of your argument, as if willingness to settle implies that they would not appreciate something better. That's counterproductive and somewhat insulting to the intelligence of the "people who like vanilla" (this analogy is also terrible as it implies that game balance is a purely subjective matter, which it is not for the most part) you're talking about.
I cannot speak to you longevity if you sat down at my table. . .
This is the stock phrase for someone who doesn't have anything more useful to say on this subject. Give me something new please.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Some people are willing to settle" is the gist of your argument, as if willingness to settle implies that they would not appreciate something better. That's counterproductive and somewhat insulting to the intelligence of the "people who like vanilla" (this analogy is also terrible as it implies that game balance is a purely subjective matter, which it is not for the most part) you're talking about
How about "Some people like to do massive amounts of hit points damage by swinging swords or firing bows?"
Should we deny those people this ability?
This is the stock phrase for someone who doesn't have anything more useful to say on this subject. Give me something new please.
How about you give ME something new? You're the one arguing that either A. Fighter needs wizard-ized to compete or B. Wizard needs neutered because he's too good.
My argument is that the game is basically fine and player who like Fighter and players who like Wizard can both have equal fun in the cooperative game that this is.
It doesn't need balanced like an MMO or a DOTA, its fine the way it is-- the burden of proof is yours not mine.
Good to know that now Wizards have been deemed "OP" at even low levels. . . I will be sure to remember that the next session my 1st level Wizard is rolling in standing in the back watching the Fighters handle the majority of the encounters. . .
How about you give ME something new? You're the one arguing that either A. Fighter needs wizard-ized to compete or B. Wizard needs neutered because he's too good.
I don't see where that was said.
How about "Some people like to do massive amounts of hit points damage by swinging swords or firing bows?"
Should we deny those people this ability?
Having narrative power and swinging a sword good are not mutually exclusive concepts.
How about you give ME something new? You're the one arguing that either A. Fighter needs wizard-ized to compete or B. Wizard needs neutered because he's too good.
Quote me. I'll wait.
My argument is that the game is basically fine and player who like Fighter and players who like Wizard can both have equal fun in the cooperative game that this is.
Fun and balance are different things.
I love Monks. I find Monks very fun.
Monks are not balanced.
It doesn't need balanced like an MMO or a DOTA
Why not? Should not every product be held to a high standard?
its fine the way it is-- the burden of proof is yours not mine.
I've already mentioned multiple times EXACTLY why casters are a pain in the ass the way spells are done. The way this game is designed is in a very "No spells? Sorry hon." manner.
Skills bridge that gap slightly, at least enough that it's palatable, but it's not a perfect solution. Unless the power to affect the world is brought UP (my preference) for non-casters in some way, or DOWN for the casters, that disparity will exist.
You can't honestly sit there and tell me a Fighter and a Wizard have the same narrative power.
Wizards affect the world around them, and they can shape the story. Teleportation, creating planes of existence, divinations...all of these things directly impact the plot in a major way.
Martials don't really get anything in that vein. Like I said, skills help sometimes, but many have either too minor a benefit comparatively, or are obsoleted by spells. Perception, Sense Motive, Diplomacy/Intimidate, Survival...these skills give a modicum of the power a spellcaster can muster, yes. You can affect the plot with these in a significant way SOMETIMES. But they require the investment of a finite resource, and so are MUCH more limited in the long term.
As well, the lack of easy and unrestricted access to those skills for the Fighter (2+Int skills, very limited skill list that only contains few of those narrative impacting skills, and little incentive to invest in Int) is what makes most people pick on him.
The game would be much more balanced and allow everyone the same input if other classes were given that wide scope of power. Giving Fighters access to an army (much like the Organization rules for Way of the Wicked, able to be used for information gathering, strikes on certain areas, supply trains, rapid message delivery, etc. but no real combat benefit), for example, grants a similar kind of power to one of the classes that desperately need it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Remember, if you think Pathfinder isn't a absolutely and completely perfect divine mandate given from on high by the gods themselves, the problem is with you. Heretic.
Giving Fighters access to an army (much like the Organization rules for Way of the Wicked, able to be used for information gathering, strikes on certain areas, supply trains, rapid message delivery, etc. but no real combat benefit), for example, grants a similar kind of power to one of the classes that desperately need it.
Now, options like this certainly feel a lot better to me than some of the "give fighters mythic-level abilities" suggestions I see floating around.
Things like being able to drag subordinates around with you - scouts that can explore wilderness hexes for you, squires that can carry things for you, even trainees that can fight alongside you in dungeons.
Another option I can envisage would be gaining larger bonuses from magical equipment, due to being trained in the more effective use of it. At higher levels, non-casters tend to be far more defined by their equipment than casters, so it also makes sense to provide any power increase there.
I'll clarify that I'm purposely avoiding the whole issue of whether there is or isn't balance currently, or whether it's even needed. I'm far more interested in finding options for what to do with non-casters if it's deemed they do need more power, and trying to keep those options themselves in the realms of the mundane to ensure they work for pretty much any setting (as well as for those who purposely don't want their fighter to be special by virtue of any fantastic methods.)
Naw. Barbarians are the ones who should get Mythic stuff. ;)
Actually the wink may have been premature, I'm KINDA serious on this. Stuff like Seven League Leap and that one power that lets you scream "Choo choo! Train won't stop!" and smash straight through walls on a charge just SCREAM Barbarian.
I'm far more interested in finding options for what to do with non-casters if it's deemed they do need more power, and trying to keep those options themselves in the realms of the mundane to ensure they work for pretty much any setting
Don't suppose you've ever seen 3.5's Tome of Battle? Warblade was a class in it that only had abilities that were extraordinary and didn't really reach a level I'd call Wuxia. That might be something to peak at. Abilities would be something like jump as a swift, a single attack that ignored DR and hardness, or shrugging off a condition. Was interesting, can't have a pathfinder version though because its not OGL.
I'm far more interested in finding options for what to do with non-casters if it's deemed they do need more power, and trying to keep those options themselves in the realms of the mundane to ensure they work for pretty much any settingDon't suppose you've ever seen 3.5's Tome of Battle? Warblade was a class in it that only had abilities that were extraordinary and didn't really reach a level I'd call Wuxia. That might be something to peak at. Abilities would be something like jump as a swift, a single attack that ignored DR and hardness, or shrugging off a condition. Was interesting, can't have a pathfinder version though because its not OGL.
^
And my player who likes fighter literally burned his copy of Tome of Battle because he hated it so much. . . good thing there is still Fighter for him to play.
Don't suppose you've ever seen 3.5's Tome of Battle? Warblade was a class in it that only had abilities that were extraordinary and didn't really reach a level I'd call Wuxia. That might be something to peak at. Abilities would be something like jump as a swift, a single attack that ignored DR and hardness, or shrugging off a condition. Was interesting, can't have a pathfinder version though because its not OGL.
Yep, I have that book :) (actually I think I have pretty much every 3.5 book WotC put out with the exception of some of the settings books and Fiendish Codex II which to this day I'm unsure how I missed)
I can actually see using that, or a "followers" system as two alternatives you could choose between at higher levels - maybe something that should be done via an archetype?
Naw. Barbarians are the ones who should get Mythic stuff. ;)
Actually the wink may have been premature, I'm KINDA serious on this. Stuff like Seven League Leap and that one power that lets you scream "Choo choo! Train won't stop!" and smash straight through walls on a charge just SCREAM Barbarian.
See, I don't have too much of an issue with that either (especially as it doesn't affect the Fighter who is traditionally the most ultra-mundane class imaginable), although I'd probably want an archetype option to go a different route.
Things like that scream campaign (not necessarily setting, but sometimes just table-specific) flavor at me, and I'd like to think that the more options available for everyone so they can play the character they envisaged, the better. Tables that don't want those options can avoid them, tables that do can have them - and that's one of the things that I think makes this hobby great, and so much better than trying to cram everyone into an MMO with a one-size-fits-all design.
EDIT: Also gotta add, if someone said "Warp Spasm" in connection with the Barbarian class I'd go grab a character sheet and roll one up right now. No matter how hard-lined we think any of us are on anything in our games, there's always going to be an exception that grabs us :)
Don't suppose you've ever seen 3.5's Tome of Battle? Warblade was a class in it that only had abilities that were extraordinary and didn't really reach a level I'd call Wuxia. That might be something to peak at. Abilities would be something like jump as a swift, a single attack that ignored DR and hardness, or shrugging off a condition. Was interesting, can't have a pathfinder version though because its not OGL.
Yep, I have that book :) (actually I think I have pretty much every 3.5 book WotC put out with the exception of some of the settings books and Fiendish Codex II which to this day I'm unsure how I missed)
I can actually see using that, or a "followers" system as two alternatives you could choose between at higher levels - maybe something that should be done via an archetype?
You missed Fiendish Codex II because they snuck it out right as they were killing the system. . .
Fighters used to have followers in AD&D. In 3.x and Pathfinder they are moved to the Leadership feat-- you do have to spend a feat on it, but you get a n army and a powerful cohort, and you have the feats to spare because you get a ton of them.
I think the book of 9 Sword showed how to make interesting fighter-types that can hold their own against/side-by-side casters mid-level and above.
One of the most important things it does is giving the "fighter" ways to selfbuff (stances) and contribute in meaningful ways with standard-actions.
IMO what makes higher level fighter really boring is the NEED to make full attacks to dish out good damage.
The fighter per-se has interesting things to do in combat (even in core: trip, disarm and the like), but most of em don´t work in combination with full-attacks.
One of the most fun melee characters i ever played was a charge-focused dwarfen crusader.
"Some people are willing to settle" is the gist of your argument, as if willingness to settle implies that they would not appreciate something better. That's counterproductive and somewhat insulting to the intelligence of the "people who like vanilla" (this analogy is also terrible as it implies that game balance is a purely subjective matter, which it is not for the most part) you're talking aboutHow about "Some people like to do massive amounts of hit points damage by swinging swords or firing bows?"
Should we deny those people this ability?
This is the stock phrase for someone who doesn't have anything more useful to say on this subject. Give me something new please.How about you give ME something new? You're the one arguing that either A. Fighter needs wizard-ized to compete or B. Wizard needs neutered because he's too good.
My argument is that the game is basically fine and player who like Fighter and players who like Wizard can both have equal fun in the cooperative game that this is.
It doesn't need balanced like an MMO or a DOTA, its fine the way it is-- the burden of proof is yours not mine.
Good to know that now Wizards have been deemed "OP" at even low levels. . . I will be sure to remember that the next session my 1st level Wizard is rolling in standing in the back watching the Fighters handle the majority of the encounters. . .
I'm the one is arguing that at high level (Let's say 9+) the Fighter/Rogue need Charles Atlas Superpowers to even be relevant against enemies that properly use their spells and special abilities. Thats because as I've been mentioning (and still haven't seen a counter-argument to) casters can continue to wrap themselves up in buffs that force the mundanes of the world to somehow overcome them before they can ever *try* and hurt the caster.
You also seem to vastly underestimate a level 1 Wizard. Which class can teleport to avoid AoO at level 1? A Teleportaion focus Conjurer. Which class can take multiple enemies out of the fight with a single standard action? Caster with Colorspray.
Now you likely, to say something like "A caster can only do that X times a day!" Right... but so? Winning 4 Encounters isn't powerful enough for you? And its not like the caster has to blow these at the drop of a hat, which is why Light Crossbow is on all my low level casters. You use your spells when their needed and when your out... well time to stop adventuring. Seriously, when your gun runs out of bullets, why on earth would *not* stop until you reload?
I'd say around 5th level is the tipping point if the caster is played skillfully enough. Once Fly is in the mix with invisibility and mirror image and mage armor being a 5 hour thing, on top of the caster being able to stock up on explosive runes and shrink item on off days, as well as being able to sleep in an extended rope trick for 10 hours... they'll virtually never run out of spells or be in danger from a mundane.
This continues to get worse as the levels go up. More defenses come into play, more long duration spells, and more ways to simply leave if the situation is bad (which is good roleplaying, since sense of self-preservation is a thing!) Meanwhile, Mr. Mundane is still moving and making 1 attack, same as he did at level 1, while the caster is dropping two spells around while still getting a move action.
I have yet to see a counter argument for YOU CAN STILL ONLY CAST ONE SPELL A TURN AND ONLY ON YOU OWN INITIATIVE.
5th level wizard wants to spend the first four rounds buffing? Fighter has already solved the encounter.
8th level Wizard wanna spend the first 8 rounds buffing? . . . Good luck with that.
Show me how this miraculous 5th level wizard "wraps himself in buffs" that makes fighter useless against him?
(Also, Fighter has Improved Init-- assume he always beats your initiative Wizard, since you seem to assume he always fails his saving throw)
I never said 1st level wizard couldn't do anything. . . heck if your an elf you can even swing long sword. I just don't see how 1st level wizard swinging long sword or firing crossbow demonstrates how much more powerful than 1st level fighter he is. . .
And any DM who has never woken the party up with an ambush in the middle of the night so Wizard has not regained spells yet. . . well, you need to. You don't always get to decide when every encounter happens.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You realize many buffs have rather long durations right? A simple combination of invisibility, fly, mirror image and mage armor is enough to defend you very solidly from most mundanes at this level. If I'm entering a building at this level where combat is very likely, I'll have all three of those up (they eat surprisingly few resources, when you can depend on explosive runes and shrink item for damage while remaining invisible add summons to taste).
Thus no rounds are "wasted" buffing. Thats 50 solid rounds of magical defenses. Now you can enter the target location and use all your actions. Simple no?
Also, Initiative assumptions should usually go to the Wizard thanks to their familiar in conjunction with improved initiative. I always have +10-12 to my initiative at level 1.
The point of the 1st level wizard example was that he can that stuff to, but can also take multiple opponents of combat with 1 standard action. The mundanes... can't.
I never get woken up with an ambush past 5th level thanks to extended rope trick. Later levels allow for Teleport and the highest involve me resting on my fast time demiplane and getting a free day to cast long term spells. This makes surprise ambush mostly a 1-4 issue outside of fiat.
So while no, I don't get to decide all the encounters, realistically the PCs are going to decide most them. Sure you get ambushed once in a while, but 9 times out 10 you need to investigate X location or person and if you don't buff up before you do that... well that might be why you don't see the gap. (Seriously if more then 1/3rd of the encounters you have are surprise ambush with no prep, your GM has it out for you.)
And those times you do get ambushed? Meh, so your running on only your hour per level/10min per level buffs... still more than enough to make a mundane cry.
But ya... When Chessmaster Hex goes to investigate the local Strongarm (your 5th level Fighter) he's definetly going there in invisibility/fly/mirror image/mage armor. Your not going to get around that before his summons suicide bomb you with Explosve Runes.
"Some people like to suck" is not a good argument for why something should suck. I'm sure they would just as much like to suck less as they would to suck.
Except you, see, folks that run fighters don't think they suck. Nor do I. Nor does James Jacobs.
Now, like I said, I agree the Fighter is the vanilla of classes- but vanilla doesn't "suck".
Just saying it's so doesn't make it so.
How about "Some people like to do massive amounts of hit points damage by swinging swords or firing bows?"
Should we deny those people this ability?
Unless the power to affect the world is brought UP (my preference) for non-casters in some way, or DOWN for the casters, that disparity will exist.
Wizards affect the world around them, and they can shape the story. Teleportation, creating planes of existence, divinations...all of these things directly impact the plot in a major way.
That's if you WANT to cast T-port or create a plane of existence, or do divinations. How about if you don't want to do those things? Are we going to force every class to have those abilities whether the players wants to or not?
And if you want to do those things, if that's what's fun for YOU, then you run a spellcaster. Of course, you're not gonna get to do some of those ever, but....
And, some people think this is a crushing argument of why the Fighter is underpowered. It's not- in fact it's the opposite.You never explained why that means its balanced, just said some people like it that way. I'm actually fine with a kickbutt mundane hero myself, but I hate being the buttmonkey to someone else. I can always play the mundane hero with a fighter or rogue and enjoy it, but that won't make him any more balanced mechanically or narratively with spellcasters.
That's exactly why it's balanced- some people like it that way. D&D is a Game. Games are there to have Fun. You can have Fun in PF by making a Choice of a couple dozen classes, dozens of archetypes and some PrCs. If *I* think playing a Fighter is balanced, then it is. If you don't think you will have fun playing a fighter, then theres many other Choices for you. You get to Choose the one that's fun for *YOU*. There's even some martial types with arcane spells.
What's so hard about that?
Redoing an entire game from ground up and throwing out 40 years of tradition, and making everyone buy all new material- just to TRY to make a handful of people happy that every class is "balanced"? Sure. That'll happen.
You realize many buffs have rather long durations right? A simple combination of invisibility, fly, mirror image and mage armor is enough to defend you very solidly from most mundanes at this level. If I'm entering a building at this level where combat is very likely, I'll have all three of those up (they eat surprisingly few resources, when you can depend on explosive runes and shrink item for damage while remaining invisible add summons to taste).
Thus no rounds are "wasted" buffing. Thats 50 solid rounds of magical defenses. Now you can enter the target location and use all your actions. Simple no?
.
That's 2 second and a third level spell, one of which goes down as soon as you attack. Fly is great- until you're in a building or dungeon with a 10' ceiling.
And, now you have used over half your spells, for FIVE minutes worth of encounters. Of which one will go down as soon as you attack, and the other isn;t any use in low ceilings.
So, you have one encounters worth of spells left, for a day in which you are supposed to have 4. Good thing you can carry a crossbow.....
And the Explosive runes trick doesn't work in combat, people don't stop to read notes. If your DM let you get away with that, of course your spellcasters are unbalanced.
Except you, see, folks that run fighters don't think they suck. Nor do I. Nor does James Jacobs.
Whether you THINK they do or not has no bearing on whether they actually DO.
That's if you WANT to cast T-port or create a plane of existence, or do divinations. How about if you don't want to do those things? Are we going to force every class to have those abilities whether the players wants to or not?
And if you want to do those things, if that's what's fun for YOU, then you run a spellcaster. Of course, you're not gonna get to do some of those ever, but....
Please read the WHOLE post before you comment, or you just embarrass yourself. Go back and point out where I said every class needs to be able to cast those spells.
Again, I'll wait. You and Nathanael keep trying to attribute things to me I have not said. You'd both save yourselves a lot of time and frustration if you'd actually read.
If *I* think playing a Fighter is balanced, then it is.
That's not how balance works.
If I thought a class that literally had an instant win button were balanced, that would not somehow make me correct.
Redoing an entire game from ground up and throwing out 40 years of tradition, and making everyone buy all new material- just to TRY to make a handful of people happy that every class is "balanced"? Sure. That'll happen.
Stagnating and letting a game continue to show its flaws because you refuse to bend tradition is a terrible thing to do, and is a lot closer to what is actually happening than your little near-strawman here.
"Some people like to suck" is not a good argument for why something should suck. I'm sure they would just as much like to suck less as they would to suck.Except you, see, folks that run fighters don't think they suck. Nor do I. Nor does James Jacobs.
Now, like I said, I agree the Fighter is the vanilla of classes- but vanilla doesn't "suck".
Just saying it's so doesn't make it so.
I once ran a game without a lot of holding back. The fighter was struggling. I use reverse gravity. I mazed him. I used one of those alignment spells, and even if he made a save he lost a few rounds to inactivity at times because the caster was x number of levels above his(the fighter's) HD.
The fighter struggled mightily. Now some will say I was a jerk GM. Not really. I let everyone know the game would be running at a 9.0 on a scale of 1 to 10. Had I run a normal game I would have had the bad guys trading blows, knowing it was a bad idea. Now I had some casters die to, but it was not so easy to kill them, and they were more able to affect the game in and out of combat. Now admittedly these issues did not come up until higher levels, but they still came up.
Now I know everyone does not push the game to difficulty 9, and neither do I normally, but that game let me know the difference in power level, and how much I had really toned things down before.
I am not saying fighters suck. They do work in most people's games, but I still think they need to be able to do more than hit things hard with a pointy stick. If the option to do other things is not desired by a player then that player can ignore them, but they should be there.
You realize many buffs have rather long durations right? A simple combination of invisibility, fly, mirror image and mage armor is enough to defend you very solidly from most mundanes at this level. If I'm entering a building at this level where combat is very likely, I'll have all three of those up (they eat surprisingly few resources, when you can depend on explosive runes and shrink item for damage while remaining invisible add summons to taste).
Thus no rounds are "wasted" buffing. Thats 50 solid rounds of magical defenses. Now you can enter the target location and use all your actions. Simple no?
.
That's 2 second and a third level spell, one of which goes down as soon as you attack. Fly is great- until you're in a building or dungeon with a 10' ceiling.
And, now you have used over half your spells, for FIVE minutes worth of encounters. Of which one will go down as soon as you attack, and the other isn;t any use in low ceilings.
So, you have one encounters worth of spells left, for a day in which you are supposed to have 4. Good thing you can carry a crossbow.....
And the Explosive runes trick doesn't work in combat, people don't stop to read notes. If your DM let you get away with that, of course your spellcasters are unbalanced.
Buffing works wonders for spells with long durations, and of course nobody cast fly if they know the building only has low ceilings. At lower levels you wait until you need it. At higher levels where low level spell slots are not as valuable it is an ok risk, and the longer duration also helps.
I dont agree with always casting fly, no matter what level you are, but his general point about casting buffs before hand is a good point. I see it in my game, and how well it works. I had a dragon ambush the party when they were not buffed. The difference was very noticeable.
|
Who says that they are false?
Magic being imaginary isn't something that we can objectively measure so it's really up to the artistic license of the developers to say exactly how strong or weak it is in comparison to the feats of brawny men (and women).
I mean it's not even like the 3.x Godwizard was even the norm within the history of D&D. AD&D casters were way way weaker and easy to defeat than 3.x casters ever were and AD&D fighters were significantly more powerful than they currently are. Same with B/X and OD&D.
Granted some changes in 3.x were made to limit caster squishiness and give them more low level narrative power but a lot of the buffing of casters was also done by weakening the martial classes (mobility, saves, etc were all weakened for Fighters in 3.x).
AD&D fighters more potent that AD&D wizards? At what levels?
At the same level the AD&D wizards were more potent from level 5 onward.
Unlike a computer gamme, ttrpgs allow a variety of options limited only by the players creativity and intelligence and that of the GM, therefore, mechanical balance is impossible. You might balance things for your group, but hand that to others and their diferent ideas and IQs will disrupt that so-called balance beyond recognition.
And whoever mention swiming for 3 wks in full plate and etc, those can only be aachieved by magic, it doesnt need to be wizard spells type magic, but its still requires magic unless you are fundemmentally changing people in such a way that ordinary people can do it, in which case it is nothing special and wont be far beyond everyone else in the setting including the caster at which point you're back to square one with tech/magic beating the idiot who refuses to use the "weapons" and techniques most likely to achieve victory (strangely enough, there are plenty of those idiots in real life and they are still smart enough to use a gun if the can get one.)
You realize many buffs have rather long durations right? A simple combination of invisibility, fly, mirror image and mage armor is enough to defend you very solidly from most mundanes at this level. If I'm entering a building at this level where combat is very likely, I'll have all three of those up (they eat surprisingly few resources, when you can depend on explosive runes and shrink item for damage while remaining invisible add summons to taste).
Thus no rounds are "wasted" buffing. Thats 50 solid rounds of magical defenses. Now you can enter the target location and use all your actions. Simple no?
Also, Initiative assumptions should usually go to the Wizard thanks to their familiar in conjunction with improved initiative. I always have +10-12 to my initiative at level 1.
The point of the 1st level wizard example was that he can that stuff to, but can also take multiple opponents of combat with 1 standard action. The mundanes... can't.
I never get woken up with an ambush past 5th level thanks to extended rope trick. Later levels allow for Teleport and the highest involve me resting on my fast time demiplane and getting a free day to cast long term spells. This makes surprise ambush mostly a 1-4 issue outside of fiat.
So while no, I don't get to decide all the encounters, realistically the PCs are going to decide most them. Sure you get ambushed once in a while, but 9 times out 10 you need to investigate X location or person and if you don't buff up before you do that... well that might be why you don't see the gap. (Seriously if more then 1/3rd of the encounters you have are surprise ambush with no prep, your GM has it out for you.)
And those times you do get ambushed? Meh, so your running on only your hour per level/10min per level buffs... still more than enough to make a mundane cry.
But ya... When Chessmaster Hex goes to investigate the local Strongarm (your 5th level Fighter) he's definetly going there in invisibility/fly/mirror image/mage armor. Your not going to get around...
Yep . . . you buff up and then it takes 5 minutes to walk down the super long hallway before you ever get to the bad guy. Good job wasting most of your spells for the day. IF you DM seriously allows you to infinitely buff yourself and choose all your encounters like that maybe that's why you are imagining a gap that doesn't exist.
Your scenario is for a very limited scope of game-- one where the PCs are investigators of some variety, there are plenty of other games that can be run than that.
What if the PCs are in a dungeon crawl-- do you honestly let them go room by room and either rush with no travel time wearing out their buffs? No-- it takes time to open locks, it takes time to move down hallways and tunnels, and you cannot just back out and rest after the first encounter.
What if the PCs are taking part in massive battle between two vast armies? Battles last longer than five minutes. . . you can spend your entire allotment of buffs for the first few encounters, but then you can't just stop the battle and rest for the day in a rope trick-- not unless you want your side to lose without your aid and to find yourselves wanted criminals in both sides-- the one you fought against because you fought against them and the one you are fighting for because you are deserting.
A rope hanging in mid air out of nowhere is clearly not suspicious. . . I'm sure a group of enterprising bandits would never hide themselves within 30 ft of said rope but outside of sight of the tiny window you can see out of with crossbows. . . they would certainly never sneak attack you the first round you come out of said rope trick . . .
I don't know why you would assume the Wizard wins initiative-- dex is not a high priority for him, and he doesn't have infinite feats the way a fighter does to take improved initiative. +4>+2 last I checked. . . never mind my sarcasm included in that statement. . .
The wizard has a CHANCE to take multiple opponents out in a single combat. At 1st level once the Wizard has spent his three spells he is a bad fighter-- if there are 10 enemies even spending all three of your spells on sleep won't work unless every single one fails their save-- but you seem to live in a world where no one has ever succeeded in a saving throw so I can see why you think that works.
I'm really not sure how you are getting Thug A to read your explosive runes to trigger them, so I'm going to ignore that-- he may not even be able to read because he doesn't give two bits about books.
As to summons-- I think you are overestimating how good summons are. 5 rounds of what amounts to a bad version of fighter is supposed to be scary? And at the point where you are bringing in something else to then roll a BaB to deal hit points damage that the fighter can just do himself. . . well needless to say I don't find that a particularly strong argument of the 'OP'-ness of the wizard-- that's like saying Wizard is OP because at 6th level he can take leadership and have a fighter follow him around to smash stuff.. . .
Who says that they are false?
Magic being imaginary isn't something that we can objectively measure so it's really up to the artistic license of the developers to say exactly how strong or weak it is in comparison to the feats of brawny men (and women).
I mean it's not even like the 3.x Godwizard was even the norm within the history of D&D. AD&D casters were way way weaker and easy to defeat than 3.x casters ever were and AD&D fighters were significantly more powerful than they currently are. Same with B/X and OD&D.
Granted some changes in 3.x were made to limit caster squishiness and give them more low level narrative power but a lot of the buffing of casters was also done by weakening the martial classes (mobility, saves, etc were all weakened for Fighters in 3.x).
AD&D fighters more potent that AD&D wizards? At what levels?
At the same level the AD&D wizards were more potent from level 5 onward.
But level 5 Wizard had way more experience than level 5 fighter did. . . and it just got worse over the course of the game from there. Fighter was levels ahead of wizard and levels behind rogue. . .
Also-- No Dachi + Grand Mastery made fighter do d100 damage with each swing.
"Some people like to suck" is not a good argument for why something should suck. I'm sure they would just as much like to suck less as they would to suck.Except you, see, folks that run fighters don't think they suck. Nor do I. Nor does James Jacobs.
I've run plenty of fighters, that's why I think they're supbar. I won't say they suck, they aren't horrendously broken, but they do tend to fall behind in all things except full attacking. The problem is there were a lot of parts to the game other than full attacking, and I still had to reach people to smash them. The skill point thing really became troublesome as I leveled, and I did appreciate buffs that helped me reach foes greatly!(and haste, of course)
I actually used to only use martials. I had fun, but I won't say they're balanced in 3.5 or PF. Just because I say they're imbalanced doesn't mean I haven't used them before.
That's exactly why it's balanced- some people like it that way.And, some people think this is a crushing argument of why the Fighter is underpowered. It's not- in fact it's the opposite.You never explained why that means its balanced, just said some people like it that way. I'm actually fine with a kickbutt mundane hero myself, but I hate being the buttmonkey to someone else. I can always play the mundane hero with a fighter or rogue and enjoy it, but that won't make him any more balanced mechanically or narratively with spellcasters.
Erm... That's not how balanced works. You can have fun playing a commoner, some people want to, but that doesn't mean you should or that its balanced or that the game was built around it.
...You realize many buffs have rather long durations right? A simple combination of invisibility, fly, mirror image and mage armor is enough to defend you very solidly from most mundanes at this level. If I'm entering a building at this level where combat is very likely, I'll have all three of those up (they eat surprisingly few resources, when you can depend on explosive runes and shrink item for damage while remaining invisible add summons to taste).
Thus no rounds are "wasted" buffing. Thats 50 solid rounds of magical defenses. Now you can enter the target location and use all your actions. Simple no?
Also, Initiative assumptions should usually go to the Wizard thanks to their familiar in conjunction with improved initiative. I always have +10-12 to my initiative at level 1.
The point of the 1st level wizard example was that he can that stuff to, but can also take multiple opponents of combat with 1 standard action. The mundanes... can't.
I never get woken up with an ambush past 5th level thanks to extended rope trick. Later levels allow for Teleport and the highest involve me resting on my fast time demiplane and getting a free day to cast long term spells. This makes surprise ambush mostly a 1-4 issue outside of fiat.
So while no, I don't get to decide all the encounters, realistically the PCs are going to decide most them. Sure you get ambushed once in a while, but 9 times out 10 you need to investigate X location or person and if you don't buff up before you do that... well that might be why you don't see the gap. (Seriously if more then 1/3rd of the encounters you have are surprise ambush with no prep, your GM has it out for you.)
And those times you do get ambushed? Meh, so your running on only your hour per level/10min per level buffs... still more than enough to make a mundane cry.
But ya... When Chessmaster Hex goes to investigate the local Strongarm (your 5th level Fighter) he's definetly going there in invisibility/fly/mirror image/mage armor. Your not
Do you realize how long that corridor would have to be to take more then a minute to walk down? Even if you are just double moving you can cover 300 ft. in a minute. I haven't seen any 300 ft. Corridors in any published adventures but maybe I'm missing one. And yes when my PCs go into a dungeon we absolutely keep track of rounds and they almost always can stomp through in under 20 minutes. Mind you I keep my dungeons realistic, so there's no random 300 ft. corridors or megadungeons (which evidently you only use megadungeons hardly a standard baseline).
My campaign actually did have battles with massive armies including the PCs securing a beach head in devil controlled goblin territory. Fights are short even with lots of enemies, when fights drag on in my campaigns the idea of them lasting more then 3 minutes or so is impossible. The amount of hit points/enemies you would need to a make a fight last more than 3 minutes... would be incredibly unusual. (And either be a bunch of weak mooks or way way over CR.)
So... after having their headquarters busted into, their men slain and suddenly the invaders leave the keep and disappear into the woods, you have the bandits be able to track their rope to the tree foliage its hidden in. That seems... highly fiated.
Wizards win initiative because Wizards focus on going first. Like I said my level 1 Wizards have +10-12 to Initiative, because Wizards need DEX just as much as Fighters do. Personally, I back seat it to CON, but DEX is easily the tertiary stat on Wizards. Which is true of all non-Dex based fighters as well since they need STR and CON. The big kicker here is that Wizards have a free stacking +4 initiative off their familiar and eventually spells that will add even more bonuses. And lets not compare with the Diviner wizard who is going to be going first... period.
A chance to take multiple people out of the fight (And a high chance to easily 65% or higher against CR 1-4's) is much better then being able to do the same thing anyone else can do just slightly better. Sure the Fighter may be better than the Wizard with a crossbow, but assuming equal DEX (again tertiary for both excepting DEX fighters) the Fighter only has +1 more to hit...
So you want to trade the ability to take multiple out of a fight for +1 to hit (admittedly its more in melee, but melee is very risky at level 1 for any character regardless of class) that seems like a terrible trade to me.
The thugs don't trigger the runes, the summons do. They just happen to be close enough for the thug to read them when they do. Guaranteed force damage that doesn't use up spell slots is quite the game changer.
Uh... Leadership is completely different from summons. One is a special ability limited to casters, the other can be taken by anyone. A fighter with leadership is going to be worse than a wizard with leadership because Wizard + lets say Divine caster is always going to beat Fighter + Caster. Oh and the double caster team can *both* summon... your comparison here is bad.
Also Book of Extended Summons are super super cheap so you have your summons for 10 rounds which is going to be 6-7 more rounds then the average fight lasts (most are 3-4 rounds).
Who says that they are false?
Magic being imaginary isn't something that we can objectively measure so it's really up to the artistic license of the developers to say exactly how strong or weak it is in comparison to the feats of brawny men (and women).
I mean it's not even like the 3.x Godwizard was even the norm within the history of D&D. AD&D casters were way way weaker and easy to defeat than 3.x casters ever were and AD&D fighters were significantly more powerful than they currently are. Same with B/X and OD&D.
Granted some changes in 3.x were made to limit caster squishiness and give them more low level narrative power but a lot of the buffing of casters was also done by weakening the martial classes (mobility, saves, etc were all weakened for Fighters in 3.x).
AD&D fighters more potent that AD&D wizards? At what levels?
At the same level the AD&D wizards were more potent from level 5 onward.
Being a Dev back in the OD&D days I can say he's wrong. From the original 3 Vol set to today (leaving out 4th ed), The Fighting Man was more powerful at low levels, the Magic User at high levels. It's always been that way. The "sweet spot" has moved around but this is a traditional Feature of D&D.
Except you, see, folks that run fighters don't think they suck. Nor do I. Nor does James Jacobs.Whether you THINK they do or not has no bearing on whether they actually DO.
Yes. Balance is entirely a matter of Opinion, not Fact. Everyone has a different view of what is Balance, what is balanced, and what should be Balanced. Thus, if they think their fighter is Balanced it is- for them.
Yes. Balance is entirely a matter of Opinion, not Fact. Everyone has a different view of what is Balance, what is balanced, and what should be Balanced. Thus, if they think their fighter is Balanced it is- for them.Except you, see, folks that run fighters don't think they suck. Nor do I. Nor does James Jacobs.Whether you THINK they do or not has no bearing on whether they actually DO.
There's a bit of a disconnect when you walk into a talk about mechanics and shout that its balanced if you can have fun roleplaying it though.
But you don't have 20 minutes. You have 5. And a search check takes at least a minute in and of itself. . . so no search, I assume you must be kicking down every door because picking a lock or searching for traps would eat up your minutes. . . whose doing this door kicking?
The Wizard?
Or are you only able to rush through because Barbarian is barreling through the doors for you?
So Wizard is broken because Barbarian can help him to get to all the encounters in a dungeon before his spells run out?
|
|
Who says that they are false?
Magic being imaginary isn't something that we can objectively measure so it's really up to the artistic license of the developers to say exactly how strong or weak it is in comparison to the feats of brawny men (and women).
I mean it's not even like the 3.x Godwizard was even the norm within the history of D&D. AD&D casters were way way weaker and easy to defeat than 3.x casters ever were and AD&D fighters were significantly more powerful than they currently are. Same with B/X and OD&D.
Granted some changes in 3.x were made to limit caster squishiness and give them more low level narrative power but a lot of the buffing of casters was also done by weakening the martial classes (mobility, saves, etc were all weakened for Fighters in 3.x).
AD&D fighters more potent that AD&D wizards? At what levels?
At the same level the AD&D wizards were more potent from level 5 onward.
But level 5 Wizard had way more experience than level 5 fighter did. . . and it just got worse over the course of the game from there. Fighter was levels ahead of wizard and levels behind rogue. . .
Also-- No Dachi + Grand Mastery made fighter do d100 damage with each swing.
You mean BECM D&D?
AD&D had no grandmastery rules and the wizard needed less XP than a fighter from level 7 to level 14.7th level fighter = 64,000 xp, 7th level wizard = 60,000
14th level fighter = 1,500,000 xp, same as a 14th level wizard-
To become 9th level a fighter needed 250,000 xp, a wizard 125,00.
The limiting factor was the time needed for a spellcaster to recharge his spell slots. 10 minutes for each level of the spell was a lot of time. As you could spend at most 8 hours memorizing spells you were limited to recharging 48 spell levels every day.
At the end of the campaign to recharge all his spell slot the wizard/druid my my playing group needed 3 day and a half (28 hours).
Grand Mastery was in Player Option Combat & Tactics. . .
The charts criss crossed back and forth, don't have my books here, but by the end Wizard took more experience than anyone but Druid.
Yes. Balance is entirely a matter of Opinion, not Fact. Everyone has a different view of what is Balance, what is balanced, and what should be Balanced. Thus, if they think their fighter is Balanced it is- for them.
Except it isn't. You can measure, relatively, how powerful a class is.
Compared to the average challenge, a Fighter is on par for combat in a damage sense, and woefully under par for anything else, in or out of it.
Compare to a Ranger, who is on par for combat, and does just fine out of it too.
Or a Barbarian, who has increased options over the Fighter (allowing him to deal with more challenges in his weight class) both in and out of combat.
In anything but a pure DPR race, a Fighter comes out behind.
Yes. Balance is entirely a matter of Opinion, not Fact. Everyone has a different view of what is Balance, what is balanced, and what should be Balanced. Thus, if they think their fighter is Balanced it is- for them.Except it isn't. You can measure, relatively, how powerful a class is.
Compared to the average challenge, a Fighter is on par for combat in a damage sense, and woefully under par for anything else, in or out of it.
Compare to a Ranger, who is on par for combat, and does just fine out of it too.
Or a Barbarian, who has increased options over the Fighter (allowing him to deal with more challenges in his weight class) both in and out of combat.
In anything but a pure DPR race, a Fighter comes out behind.
Now Wizard is OP because Ranger and Barbarian are op. . . interesting . .
Yes. Balance is entirely a matter of Opinion, not Fact. Everyone has a different view of what is Balance, what is balanced, and what should be Balanced. Thus, if they think their fighter is Balanced it is- for them.Except it isn't. You can measure, relatively, how powerful a class is.
Compared to the average challenge, a Fighter is on par for combat in a damage sense, and woefully under par for anything else, in or out of it.
Compare to a Ranger, who is on par for combat, and does just fine out of it too.
Or a Barbarian, who has increased options over the Fighter (allowing him to deal with more challenges in his weight class) both in and out of combat.
In anything but a pure DPR race, a Fighter comes out behind.
Measuring the power of a class is like measuring the power of swords, sure the katana is better then any european blade, but it is the weilder of the blade that determines victory not the blade itself, a great fighter with a europea blade can easily defeat a novice with a katana.
The same goes for classes, you can technically say that there are measurable differences, but in light of the players use of the classes, and what the GM allows, so completely overshadows those differences that it generally doesn't matter, for creative use, tactics, and strategy will determine the winner.
Measuring the power of a class is like measuring the power of swords, sure the katana is better then any european blade, but it is the weilder of the blade that determines victory not the blade itself, a great fighter with a europea blade can easily defeat a novice with a katana.
The same goes for classes, you can technically say that there are measurable differences, but in light of the players use of the classes, and what the GM allows, so completely overshadows those differences that it generally doesn't matter, for creative use, tactics, and strategy will determine the winner.
The fact that people are a variable is why we don't measure them. I should add that the person with the most options has the most potential available with creativity and the like. The difference is comparable to as if between a man with a hammer and a man with the toolbox, if both men where the same guy the guy with a tool box can do a whole lot more.*
* I dislike analogies and using them...
Can you point to any european blade that can cut slice a 50 caliber bullet? A katana is indisputably better made then european designs, based on actually tests and abilities. A katana can cut ice blocks, a longsword can't, a katana cut through leather like tissue paper, but not the longsword, in fact the katana even had slightly better penetration of full plate armor. Katanas don't need sharpened like european blades either, because european blades are single tempered so they have to be soft enough to handle parrying blows which precludes holding an edge, the katana is dual tempered so the back is soft enough to parry while the front is harder to hold an edge, not even going start on the advantages of the layering and folding techniques used in katanas.
Back to my point, players are the important part, classes are not effective enough to worry about so called balance. Players are limite by their preconceptions but because they cant see tthis they blame everything else and classes make a perfect thing to blame.