PDA

View Full Version : Quick Fix



drengnikrafe
2009-12-12, 02:56 PM
I often see ideas for quick fixes that are low-effort to help improve the balance of the game. Then, suddenly, I had an idea.

How balancing would it be to give the fighter a bonus feat at every level, and opening it up to all feats instead of just fighter feats?

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-12-12, 03:11 PM
It's been proposed a thousand times before, and does not address the key issue.

drengnikrafe
2009-12-12, 03:14 PM
What is the key issue?

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-12-12, 03:17 PM
http://www.nuklearpower.com/comics/8-bit-theater/010308.jpg

Siosilvar
2009-12-12, 03:19 PM
What is the key issue?

Spells >>>>>>>> feats, in both versatility and power (and scaling).

drengnikrafe
2009-12-12, 03:24 PM
Right, of course. What, then, should the new maximum spell level be to balance it? Because, I imagine, there must be a specific level you could limit spells to to balance it out a little better.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-12-12, 03:29 PM
Right, of course. What, then, should the new maximum spell level be to balance it? Because, I imagine, there must be a specific level you could limit spells to to balance it out a little better.

Three, I suppose.

drengnikrafe
2009-12-12, 03:32 PM
Three, I suppose.

I've seen you post a lot of stuff. I understand that when you say things, you're generally right. As a result... This almost makes me cry. Mostly because, based upon my 30 seconds of thinking about what spells of various levels are, you're right.

Morty
2009-12-12, 03:33 PM
What? No, this is ridiculous. How is a wizard who can't cast anything beyond third level balanced?

tyckspoon
2009-12-12, 03:41 PM
If you're working with better base classes to match with the Wizard you can probably go up to five or six without too much trouble. It's trying to make the game include both the Fighter and the Wizard that gives you three; "Guy who has feats" just doesn't balance with "guy who thinks the laws of physics are just weak guidelines."

And if you open the Fighter's bonus feats up as general feats instead of Fighter Bonus Feats, you aren't going to fix the Fighter; you're just going to make it even more attractive as a dip class. 2 levels for universal weapon/armor proficiency, 2 BAB, and any 2 feats I want? Yeah. I'll take that. It'll make putting gishes together so much easier.. or you get a Barbarian who can now use his Fighter dip to take Rage feats. Druids who can snag Wildshaping feats. Probably not the intended result, unless you *already* think of Fighter as being effectively a template instead of a class.

drengnikrafe
2009-12-12, 03:52 PM
Seeing suggestions like these reminds me to not say stupid things. Like that thing I started this thread with.
It also reminds me that I don't need to worry about these things. The only person who is even vaguely capable of optimizing characters in my party is me, and I'm the DM.

Sorry for wasting you guys' time.

Eloel
2009-12-12, 03:54 PM
What? No, this is ridiculous. How is a wizard who can't cast anything beyond third level balanced?

Because even Grease is a 1st level spell, and Mr. Level 20 Fighter in Full Plate with 12 Dex needs to roll a 15 or better to move, at half speed. 9 or below, and he falls.

Fly, a 3rd level spell, makes most of fighter's stuff useless. He's down to using a bow.
Wind Wall, another 3rd level spell, makes arrows useless.

Total immunity to Vanilla Fighter 20 with 2 L3 spells.

Morty
2009-12-12, 03:57 PM
And how is the wizard actually going to kill the fighter without spells above 3rd level? Congratulations, he's flying inside a Wind Wall that he can't take with himself. Now what?

Eloel
2009-12-12, 03:59 PM
Scorching Ray. Touch attacks are 'very' easy to make. 12d6 damage. Kkthx.

Alternatively, Acid Arrow, and laugh as he dies.

Frog Dragon
2009-12-12, 03:59 PM
Just lock fighty macfightpants down with grease and the like, fly and bomb fighty with orbs until he goes down. Easy.

Aggh. Swordsage'd.

Dienekes
2009-12-12, 04:01 PM
It's not a verses game Morty. With 3rd level spells would be a perfect asset to the team and no one would call him weak, however he wouldn't be able to end encounters in a round.

Here, go look at the 4th level spell list and above and then look at what a Fighter can ever do. A Fighter would be able to do a lot of damage, sure. A wizard with 4th level spells can control the battlefield like no one's business.

Morty
2009-12-12, 04:02 PM
Unless the fighter just flies up to you using a magic item he can easily have at this level. And killing a 20th level fighter using blasting spells of no higher level than 3rd is going to take a while.
Seriously, it seems like the "fighters suxx, wizards roxx" arguments are getting more extreme with every month. Or week. Even if it is possible for a 20 th level wizard to kill a 20th level fighter using 3rd level spells or lower, how many people who don't read theoretical optimization threads on gaming boards are going to do it?

Harperfan7
2009-12-12, 04:03 PM
Try E6. lkasdfnl;ak

Eloel
2009-12-12, 04:03 PM
Unless the fighter just flies up to you using a magic item he can easily have at this level.

Magic Item you say? Dispel Magic. Shatter.

No more Magic Item.
More concerns?

Edit:


Even if it is possible for a 20 th level wizard to kill a 20th level fighter using 3rd level spells or lower, how many people who don't read theoretical optimization threads on gaming boards are going to do it?

Anyone who has read all his -core- spells, and has common sense, can do it, without much problem.


Try E6.

Nice idea. E6 DOES balance 'alot' of things.

ericgrau
2009-12-12, 04:06 PM
Action economy. By the time you wind wall (unless you banned evocation), dispel (unless it fails) and shatter (unless he saves) you are already dead. And that's assuming you even prepared those 3 spells.

Eloel
2009-12-12, 04:08 PM
Action economy. By the time you wind wall, dispel and shatter you are already dead.

How so?

Round 1, Wizard flies up. Fighter either flies, or pulls bow.
Round 2, Wizard dispels the magic item if flying, or puts up Wind Wall if he pulled a bow. Fighter does the remaining thing.
Round 3, Wizard does the remaining counter. Fighter does whatever he pleases to do.
Round 4, Shatter. Good Game.


Dispel doesn't ever fail once you get Arcane Mastery (admittedly not core). We're talking about Will saves & a Fighter, I feel like laughing.

ericgrau
2009-12-12, 04:11 PM
Overland flight has average manuevaribility, like a bird. Dungeons tend to be enclosed spaces, and the most common setting from which the game gets its name. Fly takes an action, assuming you even win initiative, and still faces the annoying ceiling problem. You can pull a bow and fire in the same round, even ready an action to disrupt casting. Spells fail via checks and saves, so getting all 3 to land is unlikely. Etc., etc.

Eloel
2009-12-12, 04:13 PM
Overland flight has average manuevaribility, like a bird. Dungeons tend to be enclosed spaces, and the most common setting from which the game gets its name. Fly takes an action, assuming you even win initiative, and still faces the annoying ceiling problem. Also, boots of flying on the crazy rich level 20 guy.

Wizard wins initiative easy, he has higher Dex than Fighter, because he only cares about Int.

Boots of flying on the crazy rich L20 fighter, but Wizard is a poor guy? Oh really?

ericgrau
2009-12-12, 04:15 PM
Even the likelihood of preparing a rarely used spell from a commonly banned school is poor. This is contrived and assumes one-sided perfect planning and luck on too many stages. Even with one-sided perfect planning the chances of winning initiative and landing all 3 are less than 10%.

drengnikrafe
2009-12-12, 04:15 PM
A new Wizard Vs. Fighter thread was not my intention when I started this thread. It really wasn't.

Morty
2009-12-12, 04:16 PM
A new Wizard Vs. Fighter thread was not my intention when I started this thread. It really wasn't.

It's a fact of life - when you mention those two classes in your beginning post, there's a 90% chance of the thread turning into Wizard Vs. Fighter regardless of your original intention.
I apologize for starting it. I really should have known better.

Eloel
2009-12-12, 04:16 PM
Even the likelihood of preparing a rarely used spell from a commonly banned school is poor. This is contrived and assumes one-sided perfect planning and luck on too many stages.

Leave all luck aside, and let the Wizard cast Web, from Conjuration. It's game over for the fighter, who gets to move what, 10ft/round, while Wizard puts all buffs previously talked about on himself.

Also, we're derailing, please let's take it to tells after this.

Dienekes
2009-12-12, 04:17 PM
A new Wizard Vs. Fighter thread was not my intention when I started this thread. It really wasn't.

Whenever you start talking about balance fixing people inevitable turn it into "my guy can kill your guy." People seem to confuse that with balance for some reason.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-12-12, 04:18 PM
I think monks are cool. They not afraid and kill wizards and everything.

Eloel
2009-12-12, 04:18 PM
Whenever you start talking about balance fixing people inevitable turn it into "my guy can kill your guy." People seem to confuse that with balance for some reason.

The thing is, if a class that is primarily focused on killing (fighter), is worse at it than a utility class (wizard), it's not balanced. The balancing should be done on that basis.
I think monks are cool. They not afraid and kill wizards and everything.
Thx for the laugh.
Yes I know it's sarcastic, or otherwise making fun of us.

ericgrau
2009-12-12, 04:23 PM
Also, we're derailing, please let's take it to tells after this.
Whoops. I was baited I say! :smallbiggrin:

Uh, ya, gotta stop killing time now, got things to do. Carry on.

drengnikrafe
2009-12-12, 04:24 PM
I almost want to build a 20th level fighter, and a 20th level wizard that doesn't use any of his spell slots 4 or up in any way, shape, or form (as well as having no access to said spells by use of potion, wand, or anything else), and then have them fight. But then, I'm not as much of an optimizer as possible, and would probably make too many mistakes.

Dienekes
2009-12-12, 04:26 PM
The thing is, if a class that is primarily focused on killing (fighter), is worse at it than a utility class (wizard), it's not balanced. The balancing should be done on that basis.


This is very true, however having them fight each other in theoretical fighting ops isn't a very good determination of it.

Draz74
2009-12-12, 04:30 PM
Who says hordes of magic items and Wealth By Level would still exist if casters could only get up to Level 3 spells?

Honestly, the best (ish) balance would be if the casters could get all their normal combat-focused spells (i.e. blasting and some defenses), but were limited to about Level 3 spell effects for everything else (e.g. Fly).

Or, yay E6. :smallcool:

Eloel
2009-12-12, 04:30 PM
I almost want to build a 20th level fighter, and a 20th level wizard that doesn't use any of his spell slots 4 or up in any way, shape, or form (as well as having no access to said spells by use of potion, wand, or anything else), and then have them fight. But then, I'm not as much of an optimizer as possible, and would probably make too many mistakes.

I'm also interested in seeing the results of this.

Should we try?

drengnikrafe
2009-12-12, 04:32 PM
I'm also interested in seeing the results of this.

Should we try?

If you want to, go right ahead. I can't DM it, or play either of the characters because... Well, I don't exactly know. I just feel like I'd ruin it, somehow. But if you can find willing people, go for it, and tell me the results later.

Nero24200
2009-12-12, 04:36 PM
While I agree that alot of work is needed to bring the fighter up to a decent level compared to the wizard, it isn't simply "Wiz always wins, Fighters always suck". Honestly, theres a bit of an exhaggeration going on.

Now, if you're wanting to make the fighter and wizard more even, theres a few things to note.
1: Fighters aren't that tough form the mid-levels onwards. Even compared to other core classes (like the barbarian and rogue) the fighter lags behind. Yes, in a fight, they're alright, but outwith their comfort zone they are awful.

Picture this, if you have a fighter and the DM throws a rust monster at you, what are you going to do? Aside from "Run" or "Hide behind the rest of the party to protect my gear", theres little you can do. On the other hand, a wizard can still contribute if the enemy decides to sit in an anti-magic field. He can buff, use effects around the field (such as Stone Shape to seal the foe in) and even cast some types of spells into it. If you want to make the fighter better, the best way is to open up their options.

Many here prefer TOB for this reason, though theres a few fighter fixes wandering about this forum as well that should give you an idea of what might be needed (as well as my own in my sig, called the soldier [/shameless plug]).

2: Wizards are overpowering. Really overpowering. At low levels, yes, you can one-shot them, but a wizard with a degree of optimisation poses headaches all round once they start to reach the mid-levels. Even if the fighter was perfectly balanced, it would still lag behind the wizard, since they have far too many options avaliable. This is partly due to a few reasons, though problematic spells (Fly, Contingency, Greese, Colour Spray). If you sort though the problematic spells, they become alot more balanced.

What spells are problematic seem to vary from group to group, so it's best to sort these out with your group rather than asking on the forums (though some are common offenders, like the examples above).

If you're aiming for a good degree of balance though, I wouldn't start with the wizard or fighter. I'd use classes more balanced as a base point, like the bard or psion.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-12-12, 04:38 PM
I'm also interested in seeing the results of this.

Should we try?
Orbs. Frikkin' Orbs...

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-12-12, 04:50 PM
If we want to do this at level 20 with third level spells, Unicorn Arrow gives 5 arrows each dealing 1d8+8 for a total of 5d8+40 damage, or 60 damage on average. Maximize spell increases this to 80 damage. Making them all hit will require a casting of Heroism for a likely attack modifier of roughly +15 at level 20.

You'd need some method of remaining unreachable for 4 rounds while you cast four maximized (via a rod) Unicorn Arrows. With twenty actual arrows being launched, one will miss statistically. Still, you deal 304 damage with the rest. You'll probably want a Ring of Wizardry 3 for the spell slots.

You just need some way of remaining unseen or unreachable through all of this, which I suppose is possible if you get the fighter to fall for Glitterdust or something else (Pyrotechnics?) that makes people blind.

drengnikrafe
2009-12-12, 05:02 PM
Back on the original topic...

Is there a way to make feats scale in a way that doesn't break the game?

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-12-12, 05:04 PM
Back on the original topic...

Is there a way to make feats scale in a way that doesn't break the game?

Feats would have to grant access to multiple options, and improve on these options/introduce more powerful options when the next feat in the chain is taken.

Offhand, something like a feat that granted Spell-Like abilities (a few exist) would be improved on by another feat in the line that granted access to higher level SLA's.

drengnikrafe
2009-12-12, 05:07 PM
Feats would have to grant access to multiple options, and improve on these options/introduce more powerful options when the next feat in the chain is taken.

Offhand, something like a feat that granted Spell-Like abilities (a few exist) would be improved on by another feat in the line that granted access to higher level SLA's.

Marvelous. Thank you.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-12-12, 05:15 PM
For example. Spell Hand allows you the following abilities 1/day: 1/day - mage hand, open/close, Tenser's floating disk.

Spell Hand mkII (and you'll want a better name for it) would allow the previous abilities to be used 2/day, and grant new 1/day abilities such as some thematically appropriate second level spell.

Spell Hand mkIII would allow +1/day to previous abilities, and a new third level SLA.

Now, Spell Hand's SLAs suck, so you'll want to make feats with actually useful SLA's. Like Shield or Protection from Evil, or Enlarge Person, or something.

Origomar
2009-12-12, 05:17 PM
Not if the fighter has really overpowered ring of antimagic shield! then and only then he may defeat a wizard who uses only level 3 spells.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-12-12, 05:19 PM
Not if the fighter has really overpowered ring of antimagic shield! then and only then he may defeat a wizard who uses only level 3 spells.

Do you mean Lesser Globe of Invulnerability?

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-12-12, 05:20 PM
Now, a Transmutation SLA feat chain which grants Enlarge Person, Alter Self, Haste, Polymorph, and etc would be something...

drengnikrafe
2009-12-12, 05:24 PM
Do you mean Lesser Globe of Invulnerability?

This wouldn't exist outside of epic, according to the 3rd level limit. It's a 4th level spell. Of course, you probably already knew that.

And, in regards to your transmutation SLA feat chain... yes, yes it would.

This also brings up something that I imagine has been brought up in every FvW thread in existance. Then again, I don't read those, so I haven't seen it. The wizard uses wizard abilities to beat the fighter. The fighter emulates wizard abilities to fight back.

Boci
2009-12-12, 05:27 PM
On topic, how about allowing a fighter to shift his bonus feats around as a standard action as level 1, a move action from level 3, a swift action at level 5, and a free action at level 15?

Foryn Gilnith
2009-12-12, 05:27 PM
The fighter emulates wizard abilities to fight back.

The fact that flying is defined as a wizard ability is a bit problematic.

Zaq
2009-12-12, 05:55 PM
For example. Spell Hand allows you the following abilities 1/day: 1/day - mage hand, open/close, Tenser's floating disk.

Spell Hand mkII (and you'll want a better name for it) would allow the previous abilities to be used 2/day, and grant new 1/day abilities such as some thematically appropriate second level spell.

Spell Hand mkIII would allow +1/day to previous abilities, and a new third level SLA.

Now, Spell Hand's SLAs suck, so you'll want to make feats with actually useful SLA's. Like Shield or Protection from Evil, or Enlarge Person, or something.

So basically Dragonmarks, only better?

Glimbur
2009-12-13, 02:59 PM
On topic, how about allowing a fighter to shift his bonus feats around as a standard action as level 1, a move action from level 3, a swift action at level 5, and a free action at level 15?

This will make combat take even longer.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-12-13, 03:01 PM
This wouldn't exist outside of epic, according to the 3rd level limit. It's a 4th level spell. Of course, you probably already knew that.
I've never heard of a Ring of Antimagic Shield before.

Boci
2009-12-13, 03:02 PM
This will make combat take even longer.

Depends how the player handles it. If he has a list of situationally useful feats, such as blind-fight and mage slayer, it doesn't need to slow down combat too much.

Reaper_Monkey
2009-12-13, 04:12 PM
Seeing suggestions like these reminds me to not say stupid things.


Is there a way to make feats scale in a way that doesn't break the game?

It's only logical to want to fix something that is broken within the basic confines of its initial implementation, however at times it is exactly this which is why they cannot be fixed. This is why a common suggested fix for the Fighter is the Tome of Battle. It's harsh to say and often not what the person asked for, as they wanted a simple patch that would bring a Fighter up to the same power as other classes but on the Fighters terms, ie, in a way that maintained the mechanics which define a Fighter.

However, the mechanics that define a Fighter are inheritable weak. They can be obtained by any other class due to being feats, they all have to be the same power, and the only way to grant anything that directly builds on older abilities is ugly feat chains. This is why another common fix which tries to preserve the customisable feat choice of a Fighter often adds in another class only improvement which is normally a pick and choose combat ability which mimics spells or other Extraordinary Abilities which feats cannot (or should not) grant to any real effect.

Ultimately fighters, like monks, are cursed by their own definition, the rules which make them are just too flawed for a simple patch fix and the only real solution is to just rebuild the mechanics from scratch to better emulate the flavour that is sought after. Or, yaknow, rebuild the entire rule set of the game your playing, but the former is infinitely quicker and easier. I'm sorry to say it, but sometimes you just have to accept that something are beyond fixing and have to replaced, and Fighters pretty much fall into that category. :smallfrown:

I hoped I have now softened the blow, but really, if you want a fighter to shine, your class should not be Fighter. Try anything from ToB, try Barbarian, try minimal dips in rogue or ranger and jump into a broader prestige at the earliest moment, but really, don't use Fighter for anything other than a quick power dip as it really can't provide meaningful play pure.