I'm still not getting where the martial can't contribute. A flying creature is an easy target for an archer. Readied actions can shut down enemy casters minus quickened spells. Nothing is saying the caster is required to do anything to make a martial viable.Not many foes can Tport, and a 10'x10' dungeon corridor, (or a smart battlefield control caster) will shut down the few flyers.Once flying and dimension door/teleport become a thing... in a word no.Really? A martial standing in front of a caster doesn't block charge lanes or gain an AoO against creatures trying to move past them to get to the caster? The martial can't then use an AoO to use standstill preventing the creature from getting to the caster or trip it, grapple it, any maneuver to stop it? If it gets by they can't then apply an AC bonus with bodyguard and if that gets through use in harms way to take the damage themselves?
"Don't worry, as long as a caster's there to bring the enemies down to the fighter's level, the fighter's totally contributing!"
Sorry, but playing a character who needs other characters to cut up his food for him is not my idea of "fun". I have fun when I can contribute even if I get separated or my comrades have other fires to put out; I don't have fun when I have to wait for my comrades to finish setting up my high-chair for me before I can eat.
Only if that readied action is a ranged attack or spell and then that's giving up a full attack or spell in the hopes you *might* hit the caster (and that the caster doesn't have fickle winds up, man would that be rough) and that you *might* interrupt his casting (and does nothing against other ranged attackers). And readying ranged attack actions or spells still isn't a tank thing and not something a Fighter can do better then say a Zen Archer or Ranger, or at all in the case of spells.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But how else are they supposed to get the thrust of the situation unless you stab them with puns until they get the point?Mechanically, telling a pun so awful it enrages an intelligent enemy would be about the same thing, wouldn't it?
==Aelryinth
Sound Striker Bard... You lash them with puns so bad you cause physical pain xD
Always with the tank nonsense and another specific build can do something better. Hey guess what! A zen-archer IS a martial class. A martial that's probably the best archer in the game along with making him the best at shutting down a caster with a readied action. If preventing the wizard from being disintegrated by the enemy wizard isn't important to you go ahead and full attack hoping that kills him instead.
Nothing says a person with feats making them useful at preventing attacks and enemies from reaching others can't be effective with a bow. Key word being effective as you don't have to be the best at something to stop a caster from getting a spell off.
If "tanking" to you means "readying an action to shoot someone" I think we have very different definitions of tanking. Again this is not a martial v. caster thing, so your comment that Zen Archer Monks are martials is kind of irrelevant. This is a "tanking" does not exist discussion and while you can ready an action to interrupt a casters spells, that far from a guarantee and has a massive opportunity cost and still doesn't really protect the team mate you wish to "tank" for.
Starting to see the problem?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like to start off with just a few example spells and keep it to strictly low-level examples
I don't think you need these adjustments at low level. A fighter can already hack up a room full of people without a burning hands. He can wear heavier armor than the wizard to start with. He can hack down or smash in a door (or even have ranks in Disable Device). The rogue can use Diplomacy or Intimidate to get a similar effect of charm person.
It's the higher level 'you must be this tall to ride' abilities the fighter and rogue have trouble with.
Starting to see the problem?You bet I am.
See now you know! And Knowing is half the battle (and all of system mastery)! Go Joe!
I agree that the low levels are fine the way that they are. Even so, I think it's useful from a design perspective to look at the low levels as a baseline for establishing the dynamics of the higher levels. That way, even if the first five levels stay exactly the same, the advances beyond that would feel like they flow in a consistent and logical manner.I'd like to start off with just a few example spells and keep it to strictly low-level examplesI don't think you need these adjustments at low level. A fighter can already hack up a room full of people without a burning hands. He can wear heavier armor than the wizard to start with. He can hack down or smash in a door (or even have ranks in Disable Device). The rogue can use Diplomacy or Intimidate to get a similar effect of charm person.
It's the higher level 'you must be this tall to ride' abilities the fighter and rogue have trouble with.
I think that's half the problem with the thread. The people who claim you can tank are right, but only at low levels in a dungeon corridor. The people who claim rogues and fighters are fine don't see their failing, which makes sense provided you don't go past level 6. In truth, I think the problem is that those people carry a level 1-6 game mindset and try to expand that to higher levels where it is simply not true.
Design Manager
|
Hee hee, turpentine swords :)
I like the idea that's been brought up by a few posters that Fighters could have more anti-magic capabilities. You'd think the guy who spends all of his time dodging spells and trying to avoid getting mind-screwed by evil enchanters until he can get close enough to put a sword in them would be the one most incentivized to learn how to stop that kind of stuff from happening.
At higher levels, what about Fighters being able to do things like cut the weakened fabric of reality where an enemy has just teleported to follow after them and keep the pressure on? I don't know that I think they should just get teleportation, but being able to re-tear reality after a spellcaster has weakened it seems perfectly feasible.
What if endure elements was just a natural function of the Survival skill after a certain number of ranks?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hee hee, turpentine swords :)
I like the idea that's been brought up by a few posters that Fighters could have more anti-magic capabilities. You'd think the guy who spends all of his time dodging spells and trying to avoid getting mind-screwed by evil enchanters until he can get close enough to put a sword in them would be the one most incentivized to learn how to stop that kind of stuff from happening.
At higher levels, what about Fighters being able to do things like cut the weakened fabric of reality where an enemy has just teleported to follow after them and keep the pressure on? I don't know that I think they should just get teleportation, but being able to re-tear reality after a spellcaster has weakened it seems perfectly feasible.
What if endure elements was just a natural function of the Survival skill after a certain number of ranks?
I've always liked the idea of higher level skill uses that are basically magic. Why can't I make a DC 40 check to Escape artist my way out of a Forcecage?
I just wanted to chime in here with a comment about fighters being able to dispel\interrupt magic - while on the outset I don't mind this type of thing - I would point out that being able to disrupt or counter a spell is *very hard* even for another casterI'd be pretty okay with the people who don't use magic being the best at disrupting it.
They already are with a bow - there is no reason that you need to give them more free ways to do it - that kind of idea leans on punishing the casters for being casters - if a martial wants to lock a wizard down *now* they can with 0 feat investment and a readied action - (the same action another caster would need to use to attempt a counterspell, or disruption btw).
I thought you said this should focus on things that melee - can't - do. Disrupting casters *isn't* one of those things - dispelling is - thus my suggested dispel type ability for higher level melee that gives them personal quick dispel - in fight action eating dispel - and a freebie 'in case you need a dispel in the adventure' type of deal - none of which make them any more powerful at *disruption* than they already are.
|
Design Manager
|
Only if that readied action is a ranged attack or spell and then that's giving up a full attack or spell in the hopes you *might* hit the caster (and that the caster doesn't have fickle winds up, man would that be rough) and that you *might* interrupt his casting (and does nothing against other ranged attackers). And readying ranged attack actions or spells still isn't a tank thing and not something a Fighter can do better then say a Zen Archer or Ranger, or at all in the case of spells.
As Ashiel would say, "My favorite counterspell is lightning bolt".
;)
Tanking, assuming that by tanking you mean "effectively preventing or mitigating threat, damage and assault on an ally so that they can continue to do their job unimpeded" isn't something that's very well supported in Pathfinder, particularly as the battlefield starts growing and spends more and more time in 3 dimensional dynamic combat. I think the only higher level characters I've seen capable of doing this (without delving into 3pp materials where there is some really good stuff) would be Paladins running shield other and similar spells and abilities to shunt damage to themselves, and well built Sensei Monks using things like Stunning Fist and Touch of Serenity to actually prevent enemies from taking hostile actions while buffing the party with Advice.
Increasing the Fighter's ability to react to enemy threats and actually "stay on their tail" would certainly be helpful in making tanking (as described above) a role that stays viable throughout the life of play.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You could run a tank build 'sort of' with a 3.5 Stand Still build, as you could literally force the enemy not to go anywhere, leaving you the only viable target (Stand Still doesn't work in PF as a feat). Thicket of Blades also meant they couldn't physically bypass you, and Proof against Teleportation up stopped dimensional shenanigans. You couldn't stop ranged attacks, of course, but you could handle most anything else.
But the ability to keep a monster in place, and make yourself the target instead of squishy casters, doesn't really happen here. Just look at your players. If the monsters can't make them draw fire instead of 'geeking the caster', why should they think the monsters will be that dumb?
===================================
I personally think that the reason melees are second string is not because they can't do viable damage, they can, but because there are too many ways to take them out of the equation.
Without superior defenses and ability to avoid/shut down magic, melees are always going to be second string. They simply don't bring enough defenses and flexibility to the table to justify an offensive ability which can be rivaled by many other classes, who also get spellcasting on top.
UP the defenses to specifically include things that defy magical tricks to shut them down, and yeah, the only way to stop the melee coming at you is with another melee, not a spell or two that incapacitates him almost effortlessly.
==Aelryinth
Always with the tank nonsense and another specific build can do something better. Hey guess what! A zen-archer IS a martial class. A martial that's probably the best archer in the game along with making him the best at shutting down a caster with a readied action. If preventing the wizard from being disintegrated by the enemy wizard isn't important to you go ahead and full attack hoping that kills him instead.
Nothing says a person with feats making them useful at preventing attacks and enemies from reaching others can't be effective with a bow. Key word being effective as you don't have to be the best at something to stop a caster from getting a spell off.
If "tanking" to you means "readying an action to shoot someone" I think we have very different definitions of tanking. Again this is not a martial v. caster thing, so your comment that Zen Archer Monks are martials is kind of irrelevant. This is a "tanking" does not exist discussion and while you can ready an action to interrupt a casters spells, that far from a guarantee and has a massive opportunity cost and still doesn't really protect the team mate you wish to "tank" for.
Starting to see the problem?
To quote myself against your assertions one more time;
Always with the tank nonsenseYou are the one bringing up this tank thing repeatedly. Not me. I don't spend my time playing mmo's and using mmo terminology in my everyday life. That' seems to be your schtick.
The initial argument was that martials NEED casters to be effective and the current game mechanics aren't conducive to a martial being able to get in the way of attacks or enemies. I listed all the relevant feats making them competent at getting in the way. Listed tactics for dealing with casters, fliers, charging, and repositioning against magical maneuvering just to show that there is mechanics already for this.
Your initial response was in regards to me pointing out that tanking does not work once flying and teleport come into play. if you agree with me that tanking does not work in Pathfinder (which you seem to here as far as I can tell) then we're on the same page. Unfortunately some of those tactics you listed are not especially helpful (how does one reposition against magical attacks?) and as I've already state readied actions have a good chance to completely waste a turn. If you could address those points it would help significantly.
*If a 1st level Wizard can cast Mage Armor to increase his defensive parameters, a 1st level Fighter should be able to "toughen up" or "take a defensive stance" to accomplish the same thing.
*If a 1st level Wizard cast Disguise Self or Charm Person to change their appearance or make someone their friend, a 1st level Rogue should be able to accomplish the same with sheer panache and charm.
*A 3rd level Wizard with Knock can just flat-out open any door or lock, within a certain level of reason. I see no reason why a 3rd level Rogue shouldn't be able to do that all day every day if they feel like it. The Rogue is just so good at getting where he doesn't belong that doors might as well be open to him.
1. They can now.
2. They can now, in fact Diplomacy can be a game breaker.
3. This is how I originally designed the Thief class. At 1st level, they could pick any normal lock. At 3rd level, any complex lock. At 5th- even magically locked.
But do note that there can be a LOT of locked doors and chests in a dungeon. Most 3rd level wizards will only cast Knock once a day, if that. The rogue can do it dozens of times. That has much added value.
Mind you a Seeker Sorcerer can both Disable Device as well as the Rogue can and cast Knock as needed, as can an Archaeologist Bard. So wouldn't they both have more "added value" then a Rogue. Objectively speaking, I think the answer is yes. A Wizard can also Disable Device, though they have no class bonus to it.
Always with the tank nonsense and another specific build can do something better. Hey guess what! A zen-archer IS a martial class.
I actually think that melee and archery play so differently in combat (past the first few levels) that it's fairly problematic to lump them into a big category like "martials" and make generalizations about their combat abilities.
When someone talks about fighters in combat, I tend to assume melee unless they specify otherwise. Archery is largely its own discussion IMO. In some ways, archers are a lot better off than melee fighters at higher levels. In other ways, not so much.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Always with the tank nonsense and another specific build can do something better. Hey guess what! A zen-archer IS a martial class.I actually think that melee and archery play so differently in combat (past the first few levels) that it's fairly problematic to lump them into a big category like "martials" and make generalizations about their combat abilities.
When someone talks about fighters in combat, I tend to assume melee unless they specify otherwise. Archery is largely its own discussion IMO. In some ways, archers are a lot better off than melee fighters at higher levels. In other ways, not so much.
Yeah, archers (and similarly gunslingers) are a pretty different discussion. I too am mostly talking about melee characters when referencing "fighters" or "martials" (in general).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find the initial premise set forth in the original post to be false.
Designating abilities as Su or Ex adds an additional level of detail that provides more options instead of restricting them. In addition, they are a necessary designation as the 'magical' abilities are sorted into the "inherent, hard to prevent, natural use of magic" and "learned, calculated, interruptible, and resistable forms of magic" (ie: Spell-like abilities). Removing the "Su" tag but not the "Sp" tag would mean that either everything magical is now of the more fragile, disruptable nature or there is no difference between the magical and mundane as long as it's not interruptible.
Furthermore, there are numerous examples besides the "screw you" situations put forth in the article. There are planes with no magic. There are "magic targeting" feats, spells, items and class abilities that grant bonuses for/against creatures that possess Su/Sp abilities of their own. Removing the Su designation would remove such options.
The problem isn't the existence of the tag. The problem lies in the thinking and lack of creativity in those that use such things as straight-jackets. Do we want Fighters with magic abilities? Alright, make them Archetypes or add Feats for it. No worries.
As for Anti-Magic Field... it's a joke. While it CAN, in very specific cases, chew into the spellcaster's day, in most cases they have plenty of options to go around it, including manipulating the battlefield, using magic to attack with thrown objects (Telekinesis), creating effects that cause problems when the magic is removed, or through simple and vigorous application of a lower level spell that still works in the area (Wall of Force). All the creatures that could really be nasty with it exceed the target area. And in most cases, its presence means that it is a very unique monster or a spellcaster themselves who has problems as they've now gimped their own offensive options. Even if something uses it against the party caster and wipes him out before being obliterated by the party's martial characters, they are sufficiently high level where they've already been used to the Revolving Door of Death and Resurrection for quite some time now... something that hurts a lot less in Pathfinder than it did in 3.5. The player may be a bit grumpy, but they know that the DM has specifically targeted them and, unless this tends to happen over and over again, will eventually get over it (or, if it DOES happen repeatedly, realize the DM is just being a jerk to them specifically).
I would love to see feat design shift toward doing something unique and holistic rather than the current +-to x or y, or if it is a unique effect, bet on three prerequisite feats. It almost sours me on feats in there entirety.
Hee hee, turpentine swords :)
I like the idea that's been brought up by a few posters that Fighters could have more anti-magic capabilities. You'd think the guy who spends all of his time dodging spells and trying to avoid getting mind-screwed by evil enchanters until he can get close enough to put a sword in them would be the one most incentivized to learn how to stop that kind of stuff from happening.
At higher levels, what about Fighters being able to do things like cut the weakened fabric of reality where an enemy has just teleported to follow after them and keep the pressure on? I don't know that I think they should just get teleportation, but being able to re-tear reality after a spellcaster has weakened it seems perfectly feasible.
What if endure elements was just a natural function of the Survival skill after a certain number of ranks?
You know its funny you mention that about the fighter. I actually wrote a series of feats for fighters that represented them becoming desensitized to magic.
As they level up, they are constantly bombarded with magic of all kinds. They are healed, harmed, and failing their saves to being blown up, paralyzed, put to sleep, feared, mind-controlled, ect. Due to this constant overexposure to magic, they eventually become desensitized to it. What the feat line did was delay the effects of magical status effect spells, letting you beat some face before eventually succumbing to whatever happened.
|
Design Manager
|
Dispelling Blow
Your understanding of magic has taught you to sever the essence that binds it to a target.
Prerequisite: Spellcraft 5 ranks, Base Attack Bonus +5
Benefit: As a full attack action you can study the magic bound to a creature and make a single attack against the targets touch AC with any weapon at your full Base Attack Bonus. If your attack hits the target takes no damage, but is subjected to a targeted dispel magic using your Base Attack Bonus or ranks in spellcraft as your caster level.
Or break it into 2 feats; one for melee and one for ranged.
Requires a full attack action vs standard action.
Touch AC vs. auto hit (although touch AC for martials should be an auto hit)
Unlimited use vs. limited to spell slots
I think it would be better to make something like this a standard action CMB check against their CMD, closer to the Barbarian's Spell Sunder ability. Action economy is one of a caster's biggest advantages over martials, so an ability that widens the action economy gap in an attempt to bridge the effectiveness gap is kind of a net zero.
Compared to Spell Sunder (which is a true Sunder check...i.e. can be made as part of a full attack, multiple times a round) it's still kind of lacking as a Standard, so I see no issue with making it so.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hence why I'm also okay with it being a Standard.
They invest less, and get less. Up to one spell, and no more.
Meanwhile the Barbarian gets one attempt for every attack he can make, but invests more.
Seems fine to me.