PDA

View Full Version : Random Rants about Random Things



Ashiel
2010-08-20, 10:06 AM
I don't really have anything specific to contribute, so instead, here are several rants about several topics that have come up in off-board conversation recently, that I've gotten somewhat heated about; so I figured I'd write about them a bit.

Ranting About Tome of Battle
One of the more successful long-term campaigns I've ran (running from 1-29th before completion) included no less than 6 players. A sorcerer, two wizards of different specializations, a shugenja, a barbarian, and a warblade.

The warblade in the group felt horribly overshadowed by the barbarian's raw killing power, because he was doing everything he could to optimize his damage as a wablade, and couldn't even compare with the barbarians damage output round for round; which ended up with a maximum of somewhere around 1500 damage divided by 5-6 targets, at about 20th level; to which I had to explain to him that he was more of a tactical fighter, while the barbarian was super-good at one thing - killing.

I found this interesting because of people complaining about the ToB characters overshadowing the core classes. Laughed at it a bit.

So on another thing, I've never understood why people complain that the ToB breaks casual games where characters are un-optimized. I've never found the 3.x system to be particularly forgiving, and seems setup to be very lethal right out of the box. Without heavy optimization, you will die as a warrior; and you will fail.

The standard ability score array is 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, and 8; as noted in both the PHB and the DMG. A riding dog beats the fighter's expectancy and comes with a light version of improved trip and a higher AC built in; and is CR 1. The riding dog is pretty mild as well; compared to other CR appropriate encounters.

Because I'm a fairly lazy GM, I tend to use only core-stuff when I'm designing encounters. Most enemies are made up of warriors, adepts, experts, or monsters that are generally simple but sometimes have increased hit dice (if I'm looking to make them a bit tougher; especially vs casters); and I've found warrior types to be the most likely to die.

The reason is because they suck at their job. No, really. If you're playing a laid-back warrior, without a lot of mechanical help, you suck at your job. Let's take a sword & board fighter. Even with your shield, many CR appropriate (or even under-CR) enemies will hit you 50% of the time, and triple your damage output with your dinky 1 handed sword; and many of these enemies have nasty surprises such as poison, diseases, or in the case of dragons (something you are likely useless against) snatch.

Since it's incredibly easy for "I run up and whack it" to be nothing more than a secret code for "I use my opponent to commit suicide", I think the Tome of Battle is actually better for casual play. It comes strong enough to handle what the core system dishes out, with some decency, while also being hard to break compared to most material; since the ToB might offer options besides "I run up and whack it", such as "I run up and try to push the ogre off the cliff, without him turning me into a mushy smear on the gravel".

3.5 Fighter Nerfs
So I was recently in a conversation with someone about fighters through the editions. I commented about how fighters were nerfed hard in 3.5; and they replied "but how, the fighters didn't change"; noting the statblock for fighters which appears as the same perfect BAB and Bonus Feat progression.

And that's when I noted the effects of "stealth nerfing"; or system ripple. Back in 3.0, the majority of the "omg brokzors" threads were actually about fighters. In short, in 3.0, fighters got nice things. Casters got nicer things (not to the point of 3.5, but damn it haste was nice). Fighters had a few of their "broken tricks" such as combining whirlwind attack with great cleave vs a lot of mooks or summoned monsters to shell out a lot of high-damage attacks vs the main opponent (this is similar to WoW "revenge spamming); but broken tricks aside, fighters got hit hard.

Back in 3.0, fighters enjoyed a wide variety of nice optional weapons. 3.0 used a weapon-size system which, IMO, was both simpler and more efficient than the 3.5 version; where weapons came in different sizes (ranging from fine to collossal+). You could wield any weapon up to your size category +1, but you required 2 hands to wield a weapon greater than your category (and weapons below your category were light weapons).

So by taking a single feat (EWP: Bastard Sword) you basically got the option to wield light 1d8 weapons, 1 handed 1d10 weapons, or 2 handed 2d8 weapons. They also got things like Mercurial weapons (think a greatsword with 2d8 damage and a x4 crit multiplier). So you had a lot of options for your character.

Weapon enhancements favored fighters. Almost every fighter would grab a keen weapon and the improved critical feat, because they stacked (being from different sources); which could easily net you a 12-20 threat range on a scimitar, or a 15-20 threat range on a longsword, or a 17-20 on anything else. The weaponmaster prestige class could push it to 10+, 13+, and 15+ respectively (as could a prestige class from BoVD, but meh).

There were less exotic damage reductions. While damage reduction was far nastier in 3.0 (since it wouldn't be uncommon to see stuff like DR 30/+3), having a strong weapon ensured you would penetrate virtually everything (all fighters wanted a +5 weapon or two, 'cause that penetrates everything in 3.0 core); so with a good weapon you were solid (or a casting of GMW from your party's mage or cleric).

And so on, and so forth.

So 3.5 rolls around, and the designers say "Ok, fighter is fine" and change nothing while face-lifting the other classes. So what happened? Well they made it illegal to stack +crit, they nerfed weapon size rules, they nerfed the ability to combine a number of feats, and they introduced varied damage reductions while making having a higher +X valued weapon meaningless (except for +hit/dmg which is often less useful than special abilities which deal more damage).

So where you had people complaining about the fighter being overpowered in 3.0, you have the complete opposite today.

Beware the stealth-nerf.

Munchkin Gamer Rant
I'm an optimizer by nature. I always have been, even as a child. When I play video games, I wanted to have the best. I did those side-quests in video-RPGs to get that secret spell, or the infinity+1 sword, or whatever it was that was awesome. I wanted the highest level, all the stages unlocked, or the best gears; or characters that could make final bosses roll-over and cry; and I loved optional bosses to test against.

But damnit there is a limit. I've been playing with different groups, and frankly I've become very disenchanted with what I now see as a "game imbalance desire". I've played alongside a number of players and GMs who desire game-imbalance; particularly in their characters' favor; often trying to break the rules or at least twist them; even getting upset if a less destructive alternative is offered.

I'm interested in game design, and I favor a game that has a tighter high and low-point. I do a lot of custom work for my groups to make under-represented arch-types more viable; and re-balance classes. In a recent OpenRPG game I've been running, I banned all 3.5 material unless OK'd first; because half the player-base was developing not only mechanically questionable but downright stupid characters.

They cooed as they noted that their characters could cast 10th level (yeah, up to 10th level) spells using their cantrips due to the correct combination of abilities; but had characters with the personality of a handicapped brick; often with the express intention of just breaking the game.

I'm an optimizer. I'm a power-gamer. I hate this sort of thing. I'm a firm believer that you can be a great optimizer and a great roleplayer; but these kinds of players annoy me as badly as people who intentionally drag on their party by being useless, in the name of role-playing. Which brings me to...

Useless Role-Player Rant
I have become just as disenchanted with useless role-players. I've had a player who, in the spirit of "being a better roleplayer" makes the most mechanically useless character they can; often completely ignoring better options for the same things; even to the point of complaining that people are trying to turn them into power-gamers.

If you're trying to achieve a light to no-armor warrior who fights with a single rapier, then fighter 20 is not for you. Do not complain if you refuse to take alternatives, and then are outclassed by the party's warrior (NPC class) cohort.

Do not complain about everyone else being power-gamers because you intentionally suck. Do not complain about the encounters in the game being unfair or overpowered because you intentionally suck. Do not complain that the bad-guys can use tactics, because you refuse to, because you intentionally suck. Do not call yourself a good role-player, because you intentionally suck.

Frankly, your character should be dropped off for being a useless drain on the party. While your kobold commoner 3 / monk 1 / fighter 3 / druid 1 / ninja 4 who runs from enemies bigger than him might be flavorful (to you), there's no reason other than meta-gaming for the group to keep you around and have you risk their lives while splitting their treasure.

If your character is having mechanical difficulties, or having trouble working on your archtype - we can work something out. If your character isn't performing as well as you would like, because of your role-playing desire, then we can fix that with a few new options. If you're sucking on purpose, prepare to die horribly at the hands of my core-CR monsters and NPCs. Perhaps it will make you a better role-player, since you're going to get to try out a dozen new characters in about 3 sessions, until you cut this crap out.

Flavor Killing Rant
I am so sick of people wanting to play things that kill flavor. I really don't mind working stuff in, and writing in a character to a game is usually pretty easy. You wanna play a Warforged outside of Eberron? No problem, we can have you be a rare creation or something. Do you want to play a nonstandard race like a goblin, an orc, or even a drider? We can probably work something out.

You wanna play a cat-girl? GTFO.
I honestly had a player who wanted to play a cat-girl. That was the concept. "Cat girl". A cute, cuddly, cat-girl. Human girl, eats and a tail. That was pretty much the concept. Nothing else. Nuuuuuu.

This kind of thing irks me.

Published Material be Damned
It's very tiring when players keep referring to meta-game information that is frankly unrelated to anything going on in game; especially involving alignment and stuff that's already been mentioned in house-rules or overviews of the campaign setting.

Sure, maybe a splat-book says all undead are evil; but damnit I'm not buying that the LG ghost of the paladin come to warn you of evil needs to be smote; nor is it a valid target - especially since this was covered in the campaign notes.

*exhale*
/rant

Aroka
2010-08-20, 10:21 AM
Fighter overpowered (or even powerful, or even halfway decent) in 3.0?

Our 3.0 campaign had a fighter, a monk, and a druid for the most of it (level 1 to past 20). The druid was a powerhouse whose animal companion alone outperformed the others put together (and the fighter had a 3.0 keen vorpal axe with Improved Critical!). Harm was hideous, and once the druid got shapechange things got ugly. I can't think of any real advantage 3.0 fighters had over 3.5 fighters, other than Improved Critical and Keen stacking.

We had fun playing, but I was sweating as a DM every time, because it took the most ridiculous contrivances to create encounters that challenged the whole party, simply because they were so grotesquely varied in power level. The fighter appropriated all magic items and loose cash, the monk got a ton of unique bonuses completely outside of any rules, and none of them could touch the druid who was the most by-the-book of them all. In 3.5, the druid is less powerful, because they can no longer have advanced Huge dire bear animal companions (who they cast animal growth on) and drop enemies to 1-3 hp (from 1000+!) with one touch spell.

Of course, the druid's player also found a way to use pretty much every single druid spell to giant advantage, and wasn't even close to dependent on harm and shapechange, and is still a monster in 3.5. (He now only plays druids when I warn the group that a campaign will be a meat grinder.)

tumble check
2010-08-20, 10:34 AM
{scrubbed}

Aroka
2010-08-20, 10:40 AM
{Scrubbed}

IME it's more like "Well, the druid just single-handedly killed all the enemies after controlling the terrain and one-two-punched the BBEG with harm and a bite attack in dragon form." The game is just twisted, and non-casters really will sit around and watch as a well-played (not optimized, just the right spells) caster does everything before they can start.

kamikasei
2010-08-20, 10:43 AM
{Scrubbed}
Okay. So when you're not the best even at the thing your character's supposed to be specialized in, and are consistently outshone at the task that should give you some time in the spotlight?

tumble check
2010-08-20, 10:44 AM
You're right. A DM needs to know when to abandon RAW for the aim of making everyone have fun.

If they're only able to have fun by being better than everyone, then RPGs may not be the ideal outlet.

Greenish
2010-08-20, 10:45 AM
Your rogue won't do as much damage as the cleric, and his class features won't be as strong as the wizards, because the rogue is not a caster class.

Show a little maturity and realize that you can't contribute as much as some other players!You don't play D&D to be bad at something. It's natural to want to play a strong character, and there's nothing wrong with that.

tumble check
2010-08-20, 10:47 AM
Okay. So when you're not the best even at the thing your character's supposed to be specialized in, and are consistently outshone at the task that should give you some time in the spotlight?

If a player is a victim of this, then someone's victimizing him. If the wizards constantly beats the rogue to the locked doors and unlocks them with Knock, then the wizards kind of being a **** player, no?

tumble check
2010-08-20, 10:48 AM
You don't play D&D to be bad at something. It's natural to want to play a strong character, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Just because you're not the best at something doesn't mean you're not bad at it.

Aroka
2010-08-20, 10:49 AM
If a player is a victim of this, then someone's victimizing him. If the wizards constantly beats the rogue to the locked doors and unlocks them with Knock, then the wizards kind of being a **** player, no?

No.

If a druid uses buff, battlefield control, and damage spells to even decent efficiency, and all of those are better options than anything a fighter, for instance, can do, the problem is in the system. Should the druid and wizard just sit on the sidelines throwing first-level spells (and not the good ones, either) while they let the fighter smash at enemies?

If the wizard has a knock spell, what sense does it make not to use it? And how great is the rogue's player going to feel that the wizard's player is letting him try Open Locks rather than just solving things with knock? (Or passwall, disintegrate, shatter, teleport... and the list goes on.)

Greenish
2010-08-20, 10:50 AM
Just because you're not the best at something doesn't mean you're not bad at it.If you're not very good at anything compared to other PCs (and to what else would it make sense to compare?), you are bad.

tumble check
2010-08-20, 10:52 AM
No.

...the problem is in the system.



Then go play another system?

kamikasei
2010-08-20, 10:54 AM
If they're only able to have fun by being better than everyone, then RPGs may not be the ideal outlet.
You're being kind of insulting here. Though it may not be your intention, you're implying that anyone who has issues with balance or design in a given system is a bad RPG player out to give the rest of the table a hard time. Sometimes problems really do arise through bad design and it's not really helpful to suggest that someone who notices that is either complaining groundlessly or the target of malice.

Then go play another system?
This seems largely disconnected from your first post which seemed to lay all the responsibility for dealing with balance and ability to contribute at the feet of the players, with the system assumed to be balanced if they could only use it properly.

Aroka
2010-08-20, 10:54 AM
Then go play another system?

I do.

This does not alter that the system is broken, and as you can see by the forums, a lot of people have to suffer through it for various reasons and like to rant about it. (I think the thread title may have had the word "rant" in it.)

Can I take the subtext in your reply to be that you acknowledge these issues are real?

tumble check
2010-08-20, 10:54 AM
If you're not very good at anything compared to other PCs (and to what else would it make sense to compare?), you are bad.

What's your solution? Should there be no overlap in character's abilities in a party? Should a group meticulously create their characters in concert so that everyone can optimize perfectly?

darkpuppy
2010-08-20, 10:55 AM
You don't play D&D to be bad at something. It's natural to want to play a strong character, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Half-true (you can play D&D to be bad at something and still have fun), but nonetheless, I think what's being hit on here is the idea that one class is inherently better than another. Sure, a wizard can do a thief's job, but if he does that, he loses combat potential, and that can be his downfall. Sure, a cleric can fight, and usually does... but if he does so without a good meatshield at his side, or other backup, he's toast. In a good game, classes work together, they don't try to get all the limelight. Equally, it's a GMs job to make sure everyone gets their moment in the sun. To complain that one class takes all the glory is avoiding the much more important thing: why?

tumble check's already shown one possibility. There are others out there, both constructive to note and disruptive to note. But they all have to be taken into account.

EDIT: Most of the encounters I've run later in dungeons, a druid or wizard taking that much time to buff themselves would already have had to make at least two concentration checks. After all, enemies know the druid likes to buff, they're going to make sure he doesn't.

kamikasei
2010-08-20, 10:57 AM
What's your solution? Should there be no overlap in character's abilities in a party? Should a group meticulously create their characters in concert so that everyone can optimize perfectly?
Yes actually, I think it's generally a good idea to have enough discussion during character creation that players can establish what their characters are supposed to be good at and avoid having other characters accidentally overshadow them.

Aroka
2010-08-20, 10:58 AM
Half-true (you can play D&D to be bad at something and still have fun), but nonetheless, I think what's being hit on here is the idea that one class is inherently better than another. Sure, a wizard can do a thief's job, but if he does that, he loses combat potential, and that can be his downfall. Sure, a cleric can fight, and usually does... but if he does so without a good meatshield at his side, or other backup, he's toast. In a good game, classes work together, they don't try to get all the limelight.

Neither example is true. The wizard just needs a wand, a scroll, or a very low-level spell slot (from the dozens he has at higher levels). The cleric is a better fighter/meatshield than anyone else. The druid is a caster-meatshield with a meatshield companion.

Full casters are just better. Spells (and psionic powers) work on a whole different level - you don't even need to do the rogue's job, you make the rogue's job unnecessary with spells like mass overland flight, teleport and greater teleport, and divinations.

Greenish
2010-08-20, 10:58 AM
What's your solution? Should there be no overlap in character's abilities in a party? Should a group meticulously create their characters in concert so that everyone can optimize perfectly?Everyone should recognize that there is an innate difference in the power levels of the game and aim their characters at the same level of power. (Speaking about 3.5)

[Edit]:
Half-true (you can play D&D to be bad at something and still have fun),Well, perhaps I should've said that I don't play D&D to be bad at everything.
but nonetheless, I think what's being hit on here is the idea that one class is inherently better than another. Sure, a wizard can do a thief's job, but if he does that, he loses combat potential, and that can be his downfall. Sure, a cleric can fight, and usually does... but if he does so without a good meatshield at his side, or other backup, he's toast.But that's not how 3.5 works.
In a good game, classes work together, they don't try to get all the limelight. Equally, it's a GMs job to make sure everyone gets their moment in the sun. To complain that one class takes all the glory is avoiding the much more important thing: why?Because of innate power differences? "Good at hitting with sword" is very unimpressive next to "capable of summoning and enslaving balors".

tumble check
2010-08-20, 10:59 AM
@kamikasei

I don't mean to imply that.


@Aroka

Sure, 3.5, for example, is nowhere near as balanced as 4e. But balance has never been an issue in any of my parties (except in epic level, but that's a diff discussion)

Rogues can pick locks for free and wizards use resources to do it... that's a fine reason to let a Rogue do it. As long as you don't have a wizard or druid LOOKING for the spotlight, they don't always find it as naturally.

Even in an unbalanced system, we always managed to make players not feel left out. How is it that so many other groups have huge problems doing this?

darkpuppy
2010-08-20, 11:02 AM
Neither example is true. The wizard just needs a wand, a scroll, or a very low-level spell slot (from the dozens he has at higher levels). The cleric is a better fighter/meatshield than anyone else. The druid is a caster-meatshield with a meatshield companion.

Full casters are just better. Spells (and psionic powers) work on a whole different level - you don't even need to do the rogue's job, you make the rogue's job unnecessary with spells like mass overland flight, teleport and greater teleport, and divinations.

At higher levels, this is true, and everybody I've met agrees that above 9th level, things get broken. But even wands require a standard action to activate, scrolls still need concentration to use, last I checked, and both can be countered. But, as kamikasei says, it's best to ensure inter-player co-operation, so nobody feels left out.

I genuinely haven't seen a caster or psionicist yet who I couldn't nullify somehow, and, while fighters' solutions to problems are generally pretty simple (Hit Things? HIT THINGS!), they can take obscene amounts of damage that a caster can't. Casters are like Amarr or Caldari ships in EVE Online... once you get through that outer shield layer (especially if you hit them before it's on...), they crumble like tissue paper.

tumble check
2010-08-20, 11:03 AM
Yes actually, I think it's generally a good idea to have enough discussion during character creation that players can establish what their characters are supposed to be good at and avoid having other characters accidentally overshadow them.

I would never do that, as a DM. Then again, I'm big on verisimilitude, so because the characters in my campaigns grew up separately and THEN joined together, I have them create characters separately. And you know what? They do just fine. Optimization is not a must.

Greenish
2010-08-20, 11:06 AM
At higher levels, this is true, and everybody I've met agrees that above 9th level, things get broken. But even wands require a standard action to activate, scrolls still need concentration to use, last I checked, and both can be countered. But, as kamikasei says, it's best to ensure inter-player co-operation, so nobody feels left out.Swift action spells are still swift action spells in wands (sometimes). Scrolls only need concentration if the enemy readied actions to interrupt them.
while fighters' solutions to problems are generally pretty simple (Hit Things? HIT THINGS!), they can take obscene amounts of damage that a caster can't.Fighters? Those fragile little things with no real defenses against anything?

Aroka
2010-08-20, 11:07 AM
What's your solution? Should there be no overlap in character's abilities in a party? Should a group meticulously create their characters in concert so that everyone can optimize perfectly?

No, and no.

Or, rather, not quite and not quite.

On the first:
In a good game, like RuneQuest, there's a lot of overlap: most party members will need to be capable at combat, basic athletics and stealth, some languages and some aspect of social interaction, and basic magic. But the specialization is a lot more significant: someone should specialize in more complicated magic (or different types, if appropriate; having an animist in a party of deists is a huge advantage), someone in most social skills, someone in all kinds of stealth and sleight of hand, someone in knowledge, someone as the combat champion, etc. The same goes for Artesia, Pendragon, and many others. Everybody's fairly capable of acting on their own, and when acting as a group, everyone has something where they occasionally get to go "Step aside - I can handle this!" and have that hero moment, because they really are the one who can handle it best. Even jacks-of-all-trades gets their moments sometimes, when they're the second-best at everything, and inevitably the best is indisposed.

In D&D, the problem is that one class (most any full caster) can cover all the bases. and at high levels, can have them all covered all the time.

On the second:
Creating PCs together, to form a cohesive and organized group, is essential in most RPGs. There's no need for either "meticulously" or "optimize perfectly", but see above: there should be some sense of having a specific role in the group, of bringing something new or unique to the table.

kamikasei
2010-08-20, 11:09 AM
I would never do that, as a DM. Then again, I'm big on verisimilitude, so because the characters in my campaigns grew up separately and THEN joined together, I have them create characters separately. And you know what? They do just fine. Optimization is not a must.
Verisimilitude and discussion at chargen are hardly mutually exclusive. The choice of what character to play is made out of character. A player may simply not want to play a particular character type if he knows it's already represented in the party. This is a matter of narrative as much as of mechanics. I see such discussions as part of the whole parcel of agreeing on the type of game you want, along with things like setting, tone, overall optimization level, the nature of the characters' relationships, particular things to include or avoid, etc.

tumble check
2010-08-20, 11:12 AM
snip





Truth be told, I play a heavily-modded Pathfinder, and I believe I've fixed some of those shortcomings from 3.5

But with that said, system imbalance does not demand a lack of player restraint.

WarKitty
2010-08-20, 11:12 AM
I would never do that, as a DM. Then again, I'm big on verisimilitude, so because the characters in my campaigns grew up separately and THEN joined together, I have them create characters separately. And you know what? They do just fine. Optimization is not a must.

This always feels odd to me. If our party already has one skill-monkey, my natural in-character reaction to another one wanting to join would be "No, we don't need two of them, he'd just dilute the treasure share." Having characters worked out before hand provides a logical reason why they all would be in the party - why would any adventuring party with any sense bring along redundant characters, or not have certain necessary roles?

Greenish
2010-08-20, 11:14 AM
Even in an unbalanced system, we always managed to make players not feel left out. How is it that so many other groups have huge problems doing this?
Then again, I'm big on verisimilitudeVerisimilitudious Eigen plots (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EigenPlot)?

kamikasei
2010-08-20, 11:17 AM
But with that said, system imbalance does not demand a lack of player restraint.

When is the player to exercise this restraint? If after the characters have been created and found to be imbalanced, how is the player to restrain herself without breaking verisimilitude?

Consider a group taking the approach it seems you favour. They're playing a system with balance issues, say 3.5. They come up with their characters separately without discussing role or optimization. I would think it's uncontroversial that it's possible for one player to create a primary melee character who may be much less able to contribute in melee than another character for whom melee isn't their focus. So how would you deal with this? If you concede that the system makes such things possible, and you don't want to have the players discussing their goals in advance, how are they supposed to let the weaker character shine in play without breaking verisimilitude by having the stronger character deliberately hobble herself?

tumble check
2010-08-20, 11:18 AM
Verisimilitudious Eigen plots (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EigenPlot)?

Haha, fair, but I hate those.

Also, classes are at least something the party shares before going ahead and making characters in groups that I'm usually in.

Psyx
2010-08-20, 11:18 AM
"The reason is because they suck at their job. No, really. If you're playing a laid-back warrior, without a lot of mechanical help, you suck at your job. "

I disagree. The fighters job is to stand between the tentacled gribbly of the week and the squishies, and to stop the squishies from dying. They're not too bad at that.


"Mercurial weapons"

I despise those things. Nearly as much as dire flails.



"Obession over being "outshined"."

It depends. You're right about varied rolls, but when one character can outperform you in your chosen niche AND at least one other player's chosen niche, there's an issue. When another character has 'dabbled' in your chosen speciality and is far better at it that you are; it can be annoying.
Basically; it's a bit annoying to have a fairly balanced party with one member who is better than any given two of you put together... even outside their chosen area of expertise. Either the system is borked, or the player needs to rein it in a little. Playing second fiddle ALL THE TIME is very dull.

Drascin
2010-08-20, 11:23 AM
"The reason is because they suck at their job. No, really. If you're playing a laid-back warrior, without a lot of mechanical help, you suck at your job. "

I disagree. The fighters job is to stand between the tentacled gribbly of the week and the squishies, and to stop the squishies from dying. They're not too bad at that.


It's more a problem that the squishies fail pretty hard at being squishy, really, since they usually end up being more resilient than the guy supposedly protecting them. It's like having a palisade protecting a bunker - okay, it does add something, but... :smalltongue:

As for the other argument, Kamikasei is saying everything I'd want to say, but better, so I'll say that I concur with him and leave it at that.

Aroka
2010-08-20, 11:23 AM
I genuinely haven't seen a caster or psionicist yet who I couldn't nullify somehow, and, while fighters' solutions to problems are generally pretty simple (Hit Things? HIT THINGS!), they can take obscene amounts of damage that a caster can't. Casters are like Amarr or Caldari ships in EVE Online... once you get through that outer shield layer (especially if you hit them before it's on...), they crumble like tissue paper.

Casters can be nullified, sure. But it's a huge freaking chore.

After our game burst into epic levels (no Epic Spellcasting allowed), three of the best examples of the ridiculous contrivances I needed to challenge the druid (not the party, just the druid, the others weren't even relevant to the party's power):

- Fighting CR 20 bone oozes in an antimagic field. Seriously. SERIOUSLY. The monk was actually the one who survived, despite also losing them majority of his abilities. This was the only time the monk ever came out on top.
- Fighting hellfire wyrms with improved invisibility taking turns spamming blasphemy and attacking to keep the druid daze-locked. They didn't even target the monk, and he couldn't do a thing to them (can't fly!). The druid killed them anyway.
- The village they'd taken over was attacked by drow. The other PCs were challenged, individually, by conventional encounters. The druid? I had to have half the drow, with a pile of high-level casters, attacking him and springing their ambush by magically undermining his freaking bear and dropping him into a cave and out of the fight. They actually managed to overcome and subdue him, for once.

Trying to come up with challenges for the druid was absolutely terrible. If I didn't contrive to specifically target him (which puts him in the spotlight constantly), he'd mop up any encounter in no time, with near-zero contribution from the others.

It's not like he needed to stop and buff himself either. Spell durations were obscene on all his main buffs, and if he didn't have many buffs on, he'd just unload with offensive magic. (Really, harm plus attack was all he needed. I actually had to try to find ways to give enemise multiple heal spells somehow, and even then it's a game of "who runs out first" - and it was never him.)


I would never do that, as a DM. Then again, I'm big on verisimilitude, so because the characters in my campaigns grew up separately and THEN joined together, I have them create characters separately. And you know what? They do just fine. Optimization is not a must.

How is a bunch of random people getting together verisimilitude? Most of my campaigns feature PCs who are from the same family or clan or unit or temple, or otherwise know each other or maybe were each chosen to complement each other by an employer, or by each other to complete a team. Because nothing says "screw verisimilitude" like "so you meet these strangers at the pub and get together to mug monsters."

A game of all wizards or all fighters or whatever can work (although probably not too well in D&D), but the PCs still need some shtick to distinguish them from the others (and in most games, "I use an axe, not a sword" isn't enough of a one).

Some campaigns - ones that start in media res when a bunch of strangers get swept up by unusual events - can work fine with a group of strangers as far as verisimilitude goes, but they still benefit from planning. It's a game, not a reality simulation.


Edit: I know I keep going on about druids, but that's because one of my players plays them so often and so well, with no actual cheese, and they are horrible. What's their "role", anyway? They're not "squishies." A druid is pretty much a buffer-controller-blaster-doubletank.

oxybe
2010-08-20, 11:27 AM
Rogues can pick locks for free and wizards use resources to do it... that's a fine reason to let a Rogue do it. As long as you don't have a wizard or druid LOOKING for the spotlight, they don't always find it as naturally.

it's not the wizard's fault for playing a smart wizard, it's the rogue's fault for picking rogue and hoping the wizard plays dumb.

if i can make a Cleric, call him a fighter (IE: take many long-lasting combat buffs) and have him outdo the Fighter class, there's a problem with the system

if i can make a Wizard, call him a rogue (IE: his spell lists specializes in being a sneak) and have him outdo the Rogue class, there's a problem with the system

if A & B both make characters with similar concepts, but A is a mage & B is a not-mage, why should A play dumb?

Aroka
2010-08-20, 11:37 AM
if i can make a Cleric, call him a fighter (IE: take many long-lasting combat buffs) and have him outdo the Fighter class, there's a problem with the system

I'd say specifically that there's a problem with the system when you can do this at no real cost.

In Artesia: AKW, for instance, if I want to create a magic-user and outperform a fighter, I still have to devote time and experience points to fighting skills instead of magic skills (resource drain: less good at magic skills), then learn the single most difficult Incantation, then indefinitely set aside Mind/Spirit points to cast it on myself to offset (the points won't come back when I drop the spell, they'll just regenerate normally over the next 24 hours; while I maintain the spell my potential to use other magic is reduced and I'm closer to passing out from exhaustion). I can reasonably maintain maybe three of these Incantations (covering my Strength and Dex characteristics and enchanting my weapon to offset my poor skill).

While the game is supposed to allow for magician-warriors (like the titular comic character is), and it's an "everyone does some magic" type of setting, it's still a trade-off. A clever magician will instead use her spells to improve her party members - rather than making herself a halfway decent warrior, she makes the party knight a superlative warrior, provides the party with enchanted items to protect them, and uses magic in subtler (and cooler) ways, to do things only magic can (like dealing with spirits, fae, and ghosts, countering other magic, or truly stunning displays like cursing an entire city at permanent cost of about half your magical capacity).

Drascin
2010-08-20, 11:38 AM
Edit: I know I keep going on about druids, but that's because one of my players plays them so often and so well, with no actual cheese, and they are horrible. What's their "role", anyway? They're not "squishies." A druid is pretty much a buffer-controller-blaster-doubletank.

Far as I'm aware, they were supposed to be a bit of a jack-of-all-trades thing - medium power melee, medium power caster, decent but not awesome skills, and etcetera, with a mild focus on buff and support.

Except they missed the balance point, so it turned out that they did have the "jack of all trades" part... but forgot the "master of none" bit, and Druid ends up winning at everything :smallamused:.

hamishspence
2010-08-20, 11:45 AM
Published Material be Damned
It's very tiring when players keep referring to meta-game information that is frankly unrelated to anything going on in game; especially involving alignment and stuff that's already been mentioned in house-rules or overviews of the campaign setting.

Sure, maybe a splat-book says all undead are evil; but damnit I'm not buying that the LG ghost of the paladin come to warn you of evil needs to be smote; nor is it a valid target - especially since this was covered in the campaign notes.

Especially given that the rules for ghosts explicitly allow for alignments other than evil (even though, RAW, they detect as evil anyway). Plus there are lots of splatbooks that mention nonevil and Good undead.

Aroka
2010-08-20, 11:50 AM
Far as I'm aware, they were supposed to be a bit of a jack-of-all-trades thing - medium power melee, medium power caster, decent but not awesome skills, and etcetera, with a mild focus on buff and support.

Except they missed the balance point, so it turned out that they did have the "jack of all trades" part... but forgot the "master of none" bit, and Druid ends up winning at everything :smallamused:.

It's just so ... argh! Sure, druids get some spells later, but they're still full casters with an "infinite" spell selection like clerics, plus they are two bears.

Greenish
2010-08-20, 11:54 AM
It's just so ... argh! Sure, druids get some spells later, but they're still full casters with an "infinite" spell selection like clerics, plus they are two bears.I think there's a weird blind spot in WotC in regards to druids. There's the box in UA that suggests giving them a Domain for free, then they suggested against druids for The Neverending Dungeon (didn't they?) because they'd be too weak, and of course there's the Planar Shepherd.

Caphi
2010-08-20, 12:20 PM
I think there's a weird blind spot in WotC in regards to druids. There's the box in UA that suggests giving them a Domain for free, then they suggested against druids for The Neverending Dungeon (didn't they?) because they'd be too weak, and of course there's the Planar Shepherd.

Not to mention Shapeshift Druids. Was it ever supposed to be a viable alternative to Wild Shape? 'cause I see it as a conveniently packaged optional nerf patch meant for the GM to spring on the players.

kamikasei
2010-08-20, 12:55 PM
I disagree. The fighters job is to stand between the tentacled gribbly of the week and the squishies, and to stop the squishies from dying. They're not too bad at that.
"Meatshields/beatsticks can't tank" is a common complaint re: 3.5 melee. The fighter, if acting as a meatshield rather than a tripper/controller, doesn't really have a good way to defend others bar physically blocking conveniently narrow passages or glaring with hurt pride at the monster who broke the mood by simply bypassing him.

Not to mention Shapeshift Druids. Was it ever supposed to be a viable alternative to Wild Shape? 'cause I see it as a conveniently packaged optional nerf patch meant for the GM to spring on the players.
I think that's generally assumed to be deliberate. Certainly I know full well that it's weaker than Wild Shape whenever I take it, so it's not simply a weapon for the GM.

Greenish
2010-08-20, 12:59 PM
Not to mention Shapeshift Druids. Was it ever supposed to be a viable alternative to Wild Shape? 'cause I see it as a conveniently packaged optional nerf patch meant for the GM to spring on the players.At least they finally caught on.

Devils_Advocate
2010-08-20, 06:52 PM
I'm big on verisimilitude, so because the characters in my campaigns grew up separately and THEN joined together, I have them create characters separately.
I find this attitude odd.

4 random people from the game world would probably be 4 unextraordinary peasants who live far apart from each other and never meet. If you can accept that the "camera" focusing on a group of adventurers doesn't imply that most people are adventurers, why can't you accept that the camera focusing on a balanced group of adventurers doesn't imply that most groups of adventurers are balanced? Heck, do you randomize starting level, because it's "implausible" for everyone to have the same level of experience?

This also applies to a player wanting to play a type of character that's rare in the game world. Okay, so there aren't a lot of heroic Good-aligned goblins. But aren't there at least a few, in the whole world? What's wrong with a story about one of them? A lot of stories describe unusual things by design, because unusual things tend to be more interesting than more ordinary, everyday stuff.

This principle can also be used to justify the Sorting Algorithm of Evil (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SortingAlgorithmOfEvil), the treatment of game rules as narrative conventions that only apply "onscreen", and a bunch of other things. ("Most groups of adventurers get horribly killed by monsters. We shall endeavor not to follow the exploits of such a group, as their story would be very short.") That can easily interfere with a player's ability to relate to his character, though, since it gives players different expectations about what will happen than the characters in the game should have. So that sort of thing does have a way of interfering with immersion and so on.

But that doesn't really apply to initial character creation, now does it? Improbable backstories are different, because they aren't roleplayed out.

Ashiel
2010-08-21, 05:56 PM
Fighter overpowered (or even powerful, or even halfway decent) in 3.0?

Our 3.0 campaign had a fighter, a monk, and a druid for the most of it (level 1 to past 20). The druid was a powerhouse whose animal companion alone outperformed the others put together (and the fighter had a 3.0 keen vorpal axe with Improved Critical!). Harm was hideous, and once the druid got shapechange things got ugly. I can't think of any real advantage 3.0 fighters had over 3.5 fighters, other than Improved Critical and Keen stacking.

We had fun playing, but I was sweating as a DM every time, because it took the most ridiculous contrivances to create encounters that challenged the whole party, simply because they were so grotesquely varied in power level. The fighter appropriated all magic items and loose cash, the monk got a ton of unique bonuses completely outside of any rules, and none of them could touch the druid who was the most by-the-book of them all. In 3.5, the druid is less powerful, because they can no longer have advanced Huge dire bear animal companions (who they cast animal growth on) and drop enemies to 1-3 hp (from 1000+!) with one touch spell.

Of course, the druid's player also found a way to use pretty much every single druid spell to giant advantage, and wasn't even close to dependent on harm and shapechange, and is still a monster in 3.5. (He now only plays druids when I warn the group that a campaign will be a meat grinder.)

I never believed the fighter was OP; but the truth is there were a lot of threads on the WotC boards complaining that fighters were too strong; or had too many overpowered tricks.

However, in core 3.0 they were better off than in 3.5 core. Due to the way weapons worked, you got more mileage out of the Exotic Weapon feats; had more options with your weapons (since upping or lowering your weapon size allowed for a wide variety of options), and almost every fighter had Improved Critical + Keen, and might carry a nice +1 mace of disruption or two for those pesky undead. DR was easier to penetrate if you kept your weapons up or had a wizard or cleric in your party to cast GMW.

They did have their "tricks", such as the "bag o' rats" where you whirlwind vs lots of weak targets and then great-cleave into your main target. Again, this is similar to "Revenge Spam" in World of Warcraft (using multiple weak opponents, such as a hunter's pet to trigger your Revenge counter, which you use to murder your actual threat - such as the pet's master).

Mercurial weapons were kind of dumb, but they were one of the options for warrior types in 3.0. I personally prefer them over stuff like Shock Trooper (a badly designed feat that has become a staple for 3.5 fighters).

Either way, if you go from 3.0 to 3.5, there was indeed a drop in fighter ability right in core. The best thing they got was Greater Weapon Focus and Greater Weapon Specialization; which IIRC was also included in the 3.0 splats and just moved into the PHB in 3.5.

Aroka
2010-08-21, 06:13 PM
True, I can see a slight drop in fighter power between 3.0 and 3.5, but that's like going from 20 down to 17, and the druid is sitting on a pile of bears at 100 the whole time. (Well, the damage cap on harm and the changes to animal companions may put the druid down to 95 in 3.5.)

Ashiel
2010-08-21, 06:41 PM
True, I can see a slight drop in fighter power between 3.0 and 3.5, but that's like going from 20 down to 17, and the druid is sitting on a pile of bears at 100 the whole time. (Well, the damage cap on harm and the changes to animal companions may put the druid down to 95 in 3.5.)

Indeed. The original conversation (which began that rant) was actually about being careful with what you're adding or taking away from the system. 3.0 fighter got slammed in a lot of odd areas that didn't actually have anything directly to do with the fighter. Kind of like replacing a carpenter's modern tools with their archaic equivalents. The carpenter is still the same, but he is overall less efficient.

In the same way, adding something might tip things the other way. There are countless ways to improve core melee, but I've seen first hand taking it a bit too far; to the point where the only way they are balanced with casters is if the casters are making use of all the super-cheesy things; leading to overpowered fighters (with a lot of home-brew of course).

It's kind of like a scale and a pond. A single grain can tip it, and a ripple will be felt throughout.

Greenish
2010-08-22, 09:13 AM
Mercurial weapons were kind of dumb, but they were one of the options for warrior types in 3.0. I personally prefer them over stuff like Shock Trooper (a badly designed feat that has become a staple for 3.5 fighters).I like the tactical feats in general, and two of the shock trooper's three options are actually cool and pretty balanced. Sadly the third eclipses the others like nothin'.

Haarkla
2010-08-22, 09:38 AM
I've never found the 3.x system to be particularly forgiving, and seems setup to be very lethal right out of the box. Without heavy optimization, you will die as a warrior; and you will fail.
This is the complete opposite of my experience.
My rather unoptimised, mainly melee party can easily handle opponents of the 'appropiate' challenge rating.

Ashiel
2010-08-22, 10:24 AM
I like the tactical feats in general, and two of the shock trooper's three options are actually cool and pretty balanced. Sadly the third eclipses the others like nothin'.

Agreed. :smallsmile:


This is the complete opposite of my experience.
My rather unoptimised, mainly melee party can easily handle opponents of the 'appropiate' challenge rating.

Maybe I'm just doing it wrong. What's your secret?

At low levels, adepts casting sleep are really scary. Animals are stronger than humanoids. Orcs deal more damage per swing than most characters have hit points. Poison is nasty and debilitating. Disease is a threat. That's not even getting into traps.

As levels rise, opponents get bigger, scarier, nastier, and have more tricks. What was a riding dog and an orc is now a bear and an ogre. The things you're supposed to protect your party from will squash you like a grape.

These are also the low levels, where warriors have the greatest advantages over casters. As levels rise higher still, more monsters and NPCs have access to better items, better magic, better special abilities, stronger poisons, etc.

A wyvern can dive bomb you to deal x2 talon damage during a surprise round, get a free grapple check due to improved grab, deal 1d4+4 unarmed strike damage, sting you once for good measure, then fly away with you on the following round by moving 1/2 it's flight speed (30ft) into the air and hauling you off. Core only, without even swapping a feat. So assuming everything hit your AC (it has a +12 to hit during this round with all of its attacks), it deals an average of 36 damage, threatens you with a DC 17 fortitude save vs 2d6 con damage - on the surprise round (and they have surprisingly good stealth modifiers). Mind you, the Wyvern is CR 6.

Humanoids are dangerous too. Their equipment values allow for a few oils and potions. Simple spells like an adept's bless and a few oil of magic weapon can turn large groups of piddly mooks into dangerous opponents when they start focus firing on party members (smart enemies pick one opponent, take them down, then move to the next, and +2 hit/+1 damage and bypasses protection from arrows is a step in that direction).

By 6th level, an adept can carry a wand with a charge or two of lightning bolt, which makes for a nice piece of treasure if you can stop 'im from using it; but it's also a nasty 5d6-line emergency attack.

Warriors and creatures with Power Attack can be devastating. A bodyguard for an encounter who sports power attack and a buddy who can lower an opponent's AC can be a nasty, nasty team (even if it's just having a level 1 wizard cast grease before the bruiser power attacks with his reach weapon).

Creatures with NPC levels are also dangerous. An ogre is bad, but an ogre warrior 6 is much, much worse (CR 6); as it gets a nice HP bump, more fortitude, better proficiencies, and +6 BAB (oh look, an extra attack and more power attack fuel). He's also wielding a large glaive (2d8) and he's bumped his strength up to 22, and he carries a potion of bull's strength for when he's out to kill his master's most hated enemies (oh look, that puts our ogre at strength 26, with a 20ft reach, 2d8+12 attack with a x3 crit, two attacks (at +16/+11 without masterwork or +atk buffs), and 4 feats (like power attack, weapon focus glaive, iron will, and lightning reflexes). Officially however, he has the NPC funds for a few more potions, some decent gear, and maybe a magic item or two (a potion of expeditious retreat would make him nastier, and you could drop lightning reflexes and give him WP: Spiked Chain).

A CR 8 Huge Red Dragon Skeleton has 123 hit points (without the BBEG animating it in a desecrate spell, otherwise add an extra +2 to its attack and damage rolls, and +38 hp), a vicious full-attack, natural speed, DR 5/bludgeoning, immunity to both fire and cold, a 10ft reach, and makes a nice mount for the 5th level cleric it took to animate him. :smalltongue:

I was running the Red Hand of Doom campaign by WotC a few years back, and it was the core monsters that were giving the party the most guff. The NPCs with the fancy prestige classes and such didn't do much; but dang it that ettin didn't kill a party member, or the "don't even give XP anymore" level clerics all charge the party's rhino-shaped druid with a symphony of inflict X wounds; which hurt pretty bad (even after the saves).

The same campaign, the party had a sorcerer who had a habit of polymorphing himself and his familiar into Hydras and Ghaz'rilla-ing it. He and his familiar however almost died at the hands of a couple of ogres at a hobgoblin camp; which scared him bad.

What am I doing wrong?

Peregrine
2010-08-22, 10:27 AM
I don't really have anything specific to contribute, so instead, here are several rants about several topics that have come up in off-board conversation recently, that I've gotten somewhat heated about; so I figured I'd write about them a bit.

Feel better? :smallcool:


So by taking a single feat (EWP: Bastard Sword) you basically got the option to wield light 1d8 weapons, 1 handed 1d10 weapons, or 2 handed 2d8 weapons.

I don't think that's how it worked, though it was a while ago, so forgive me if I'm wrong.

But I seem to recall that in 3.0, a bastard sword was a bastard sword -- it was always one size... Medium? Large? Okay, I'm not sure, thanks to the EWP two/one-handed situation, so bad example.

A longsword, then. A longsword was alway a Medium weapon, which made it a one-handed weapon for Medium characters. It was a two-handed weapon for Small characters, and a light weapon for Large characters.

I found this system silly because it basically assumed that humans (and elves and dwarves) made nearly all the weapons. Sure, there was the gnome hooked hammer, which was a Medium weapon because it was a two-hander for gnomes. But longswords -- a halfling wielding a two-handed sword was wielding a "longsword", because that's what humans called it, and a halfling could never wield a "greatsword". But the longsword was functionally identical, for a halfling, to a greatsword for a human. And halflings didn't get one-handed slashing swords; no, they had to content themselves with short swords, a stabbing weapon.

3.5 changed that by saying that any weapon could be sized for any wielder. A 3.5 Small greatsword is functionally identical to a 3.0 longsword; but a 3.5 Small longsword finally gives halflings a real longsword, not a human's cast-off short sword. And it gets rid of the need for halfling nunchaku, halfling lances, etc.

The downside is that before, if you fought a centaur wielding a one-handed sword, well, that meant its weapon was Large weapon -- specifically, a greatsword -- so you (being Medium-sized) could wield it. In 3.5, you can still do that, only with a -2 penalty for it being wrongly sized.


You wanna play a cat-girl? GTFO.
I honestly had a player who wanted to play a cat-girl. That was the concept. "Cat girl". A cute, cuddly, cat-girl. Human girl, eats and a tail. That was pretty much the concept. Nothing else. Nuuuuuu.

This kind of thing irks me.

I was dubious about letting the new player play a Races of the Wild catfolk, for more or less this reason. But she was new to D&D (the wife of an existing player), and at least it wasn't really a catgirl, so I was willing to let her do so. I haven't had cause to regret it, as she really does play it as a proper race rather than a furry's daydream. :smalltongue:

Ashiel
2010-08-22, 11:01 AM
Feel better? :smallcool:
Actually yes I do. :smallredface:



I don't think that's how it worked, though it was a while ago, so forgive me if I'm wrong.

But I seem to recall that in 3.0, a bastard sword was a bastard sword -- it was always one size... Medium? Large? Okay, I'm not sure, thanks to the EWP two/one-handed situation, so bad example.

A longsword, then. A longsword was alway a Medium weapon, which made it a one-handed weapon for Medium characters. It was a two-handed weapon for Small characters, and a light weapon for Large characters.

I found this system silly because it basically assumed that humans (and elves and dwarves) made nearly all the weapons. Sure, there was the gnome hooked hammer, which was a Medium weapon because it was a two-hander for gnomes. But longswords -- a halfling wielding a two-handed sword was wielding a "longsword", because that's what humans called it, and a halfling could never wield a "greatsword". But the longsword was functionally identical, for a halfling, to a greatsword for a human. And halflings didn't get one-handed slashing swords; no, they had to content themselves with short swords, a stabbing weapon.

3.5 changed that by saying that any weapon could be sized for any wielder. A 3.5 Small greatsword is functionally identical to a 3.0 longsword; but a 3.5 Small longsword finally gives halflings a real longsword, not a human's cast-off short sword. And it gets rid of the need for halfling nunchaku, halfling lances, etc.

The downside is that before, if you fought a centaur wielding a one-handed sword, well, that meant its weapon was Large weapon -- specifically, a greatsword -- so you (being Medium-sized) could wield it. In 3.5, you can still do that, only with a -2 penalty for it being wrongly sized.

It was often a fairly solid option to wield a small scimitar and a medium scimitar for your main and light weapon, so you could benefit from feats such as Weapon Focus / Specialization at the same time for both weapons.

I don't have my old books with me, but I believe you could also retain reach by wielding a small or medium version of a 2 handed weapon that had reach. This allows you to do the whole spear + shield thing like spartans; which was pretty cool. I can't recall if it actually worked that way though.

Somehow I think it did though, because I remember that a marilith with six spiked chains wielded in a single hand each was kinda scary. :smalltongue:


I was dubious about letting the new player play a Races of the Wild catfolk, for more or less this reason. But she was new to D&D (the wife of an existing player), and at least it wasn't really a catgirl, so I was willing to let her do so. I haven't had cause to regret it, as she really does play it as a proper race rather than a furry's daydream. :smalltongue:

This player didn't want a catfolk type race. The player wanted this.
{Scrubbed. Please link to oversized images. Please do not post them.}

Awnetu
2010-08-22, 11:05 AM
Coulda had fun treating it like Kenny.

WarKitty
2010-08-22, 11:11 AM
This player didn't want a catfolk type race. The player wanted this.
{Scrubbed. Please link to oversized images. Please do not post them.}

As a dedicated cat-player, I am insulted!

http://images.elfwood.com/art/k/i/kirin/blkp.jpg
that's my cat-person

Ashiel
2010-08-22, 11:37 AM
As a dedicated cat-player, I am insulted!

http://images.elfwood.com/art/k/i/kirin/blkp.jpg
that's my cat-person

Heh, this I could have accepted more readily. But the above was the concept. No really, the character concept was "cat-girl". Nothing deeper. Just that she be cute and have ears and a tail.

Also, because I'm curious (and worried it may have been missed in the post-flood), I'm reposting:


This is the complete opposite of my experience.
My rather unoptimised, mainly melee party can easily handle opponents of the 'appropiate' challenge rating.

Maybe I'm just doing it wrong. What's your secret?

At low levels, adepts casting sleep are really scary. Animals are stronger than humanoids. Orcs deal more damage per swing than most characters have hit points. Poison is nasty and debilitating. Disease is a threat. That's not even getting into traps.

As levels rise, opponents get bigger, scarier, nastier, and have more tricks. What was a riding dog and an orc is now a bear and an ogre. The things you're supposed to protect your party from will squash you like a grape.

These are also the low levels, where warriors have the greatest advantages over casters. As levels rise higher still, more monsters and NPCs have access to better items, better magic, better special abilities, stronger poisons, etc.

A wyvern can dive bomb you to deal x2 talon damage during a surprise round, get a free grapple check due to improved grab, deal 1d4+4 unarmed strike damage, sting you once for good measure, then fly away with you on the following round by moving 1/2 it's flight speed (30ft) into the air and hauling you off. Core only, without even swapping a feat. So assuming everything hit your AC (it has a +12 to hit during this round with all of its attacks), it deals an average of 36 damage, threatens you with a DC 17 fortitude save vs 2d6 con damage - on the surprise round (and they have surprisingly good stealth modifiers). Mind you, the Wyvern is CR 6.

Humanoids are dangerous too. Their equipment values allow for a few oils and potions. Simple spells like an adept's bless and a few oil of magic weapon can turn large groups of piddly mooks into dangerous opponents when they start focus firing on party members (smart enemies pick one opponent, take them down, then move to the next, and +2 hit/+1 damage and bypasses protection from arrows is a step in that direction).

By 6th level, an adept can carry a wand with a charge or two of lightning bolt, which makes for a nice piece of treasure if you can stop 'im from using it; but it's also a nasty 5d6-line emergency attack.

Warriors and creatures with Power Attack can be devastating. A bodyguard for an encounter who sports power attack and a buddy who can lower an opponent's AC can be a nasty, nasty team (even if it's just having a level 1 wizard cast grease before the bruiser power attacks with his reach weapon).

Creatures with NPC levels are also dangerous. An ogre is bad, but an ogre warrior 6 is much, much worse (CR 6); as it gets a nice HP bump, more fortitude, better proficiencies, and +6 BAB (oh look, an extra attack and more power attack fuel). He's also wielding a large glaive (2d8) and he's bumped his strength up to 22, and he carries a potion of bull's strength for when he's out to kill his master's most hated enemies (oh look, that puts our ogre at strength 26, with a 20ft reach, 2d8+12 attack with a x3 crit, two attacks (at +16/+11 without masterwork or +atk buffs), and 4 feats (like power attack, weapon focus glaive, iron will, and lightning reflexes). Officially however, he has the NPC funds for a few more potions, some decent gear, and maybe a magic item or two (a potion of expeditious retreat would make him nastier, and you could drop lightning reflexes and give him WP: Spiked Chain).

A CR 8 Huge Red Dragon Skeleton has 123 hit points (without the BBEG animating it in a desecrate spell, otherwise add an extra +2 to its attack and damage rolls, and +38 hp), a vicious full-attack, natural speed, DR 5/bludgeoning, immunity to both fire and cold, a 10ft reach, and makes a nice mount for the 5th level cleric it took to animate him.

I was running the Red Hand of Doom campaign by WotC a few years back, and it was the core monsters that were giving the party the most guff. The NPCs with the fancy prestige classes and such didn't do much; but dang it that ettin didn't kill a party member, or the "don't even give XP anymore" level clerics all charge the party's rhino-shaped druid with a symphony of inflict X wounds; which hurt pretty bad (even after the saves).

The same campaign, the party had a sorcerer who had a habit of polymorphing himself and his familiar into Hydras and Ghaz'rilla-ing it. He and his familiar however almost died at the hands of a couple of ogres at a hobgoblin camp; which scared him bad.

What am I doing wrong?

What am I doing wrong?

WarKitty
2010-08-22, 12:35 PM
Heh, this I could have accepted more readily. But the above was the concept. No really, the character concept was "cat-girl". Nothing deeper. Just that she be cute and have ears and a tail.

Also, because I'm curious (and worried it may have been missed in the post-flood), I'm reposting:



Maybe I'm just doing it wrong. What's your secret?

At low levels, adepts casting sleep are really scary. Animals are stronger than humanoids. Orcs deal more damage per swing than most characters have hit points. Poison is nasty and debilitating. Disease is a threat. That's not even getting into traps.

As levels rise, opponents get bigger, scarier, nastier, and have more tricks. What was a riding dog and an orc is now a bear and an ogre. The things you're supposed to protect your party from will squash you like a grape.

These are also the low levels, where warriors have the greatest advantages over casters. As levels rise higher still, more monsters and NPCs have access to better items, better magic, better special abilities, stronger poisons, etc.

A wyvern can dive bomb you to deal x2 talon damage during a surprise round, get a free grapple check due to improved grab, deal 1d4+4 unarmed strike damage, sting you once for good measure, then fly away with you on the following round by moving 1/2 it's flight speed (30ft) into the air and hauling you off. Core only, without even swapping a feat. So assuming everything hit your AC (it has a +12 to hit during this round with all of its attacks), it deals an average of 36 damage, threatens you with a DC 17 fortitude save vs 2d6 con damage - on the surprise round (and they have surprisingly good stealth modifiers). Mind you, the Wyvern is CR 6.

Humanoids are dangerous too. Their equipment values allow for a few oils and potions. Simple spells like an adept's bless and a few oil of magic weapon can turn large groups of piddly mooks into dangerous opponents when they start focus firing on party members (smart enemies pick one opponent, take them down, then move to the next, and +2 hit/+1 damage and bypasses protection from arrows is a step in that direction).

By 6th level, an adept can carry a wand with a charge or two of lightning bolt, which makes for a nice piece of treasure if you can stop 'im from using it; but it's also a nasty 5d6-line emergency attack.

Warriors and creatures with Power Attack can be devastating. A bodyguard for an encounter who sports power attack and a buddy who can lower an opponent's AC can be a nasty, nasty team (even if it's just having a level 1 wizard cast grease before the bruiser power attacks with his reach weapon).

Creatures with NPC levels are also dangerous. An ogre is bad, but an ogre warrior 6 is much, much worse (CR 6); as it gets a nice HP bump, more fortitude, better proficiencies, and +6 BAB (oh look, an extra attack and more power attack fuel). He's also wielding a large glaive (2d8) and he's bumped his strength up to 22, and he carries a potion of bull's strength for when he's out to kill his master's most hated enemies (oh look, that puts our ogre at strength 26, with a 20ft reach, 2d8+12 attack with a x3 crit, two attacks (at +16/+11 without masterwork or +atk buffs), and 4 feats (like power attack, weapon focus glaive, iron will, and lightning reflexes). Officially however, he has the NPC funds for a few more potions, some decent gear, and maybe a magic item or two (a potion of expeditious retreat would make him nastier, and you could drop lightning reflexes and give him WP: Spiked Chain).

A CR 8 Huge Red Dragon Skeleton has 123 hit points (without the BBEG animating it in a desecrate spell, otherwise add an extra +2 to its attack and damage rolls, and +38 hp), a vicious full-attack, natural speed, DR 5/bludgeoning, immunity to both fire and cold, a 10ft reach, and makes a nice mount for the 5th level cleric it took to animate him.

I was running the Red Hand of Doom campaign by WotC a few years back, and it was the core monsters that were giving the party the most guff. The NPCs with the fancy prestige classes and such didn't do much; but dang it that ettin didn't kill a party member, or the "don't even give XP anymore" level clerics all charge the party's rhino-shaped druid with a symphony of inflict X wounds; which hurt pretty bad (even after the saves).

The same campaign, the party had a sorcerer who had a habit of polymorphing himself and his familiar into Hydras and Ghaz'rilla-ing it. He and his familiar however almost died at the hands of a couple of ogres at a hobgoblin camp; which scared him bad.

What am I doing wrong?

What am I doing wrong?

I think a lot depends on how high-magic your campaign is. If you run low-magic, the warrior types handle things pretty well, but a reasonably optimized magic-user can blow things out of the water. If you run high-magic, the magic-users have good challenges, but the warriors get killed.

And then there's my strategy...here have some constructs!

Edit: And my cat-girls tend to be more the "call me cute again and I'll rip your throat out with my teeth" type.

Ashiel
2010-08-22, 01:01 PM
I think a lot depends on how high-magic your campaign is. If you run low-magic, the warrior types handle things pretty well, but a reasonably optimized magic-user can blow things out of the water. If you run high-magic, the magic-users have good challenges, but the warriors get killed.

And then there's my strategy...here have some constructs!

Edit: And my cat-girls tend to be more the "call me cute again and I'll rip your throat out with my teeth" type.

Well, I don't go outside the standard. Potions and dinky wands are available in all but the smallest of D&D communities (1st level potions can be purchased in thorpes, IIRC), and small towns can easily support a few used wands with two or three charges. Most of my encounters, for example, are generally either mixed groups or physical opponents.

Such as the aforementioned wyvern, which was strait out of the MM; or the Ettin in the Red Hand of Doom; or the examples of animals, ogres, and so forth.

This isn't assuming a high magic world like Eberron or even Faerun. It's just the default standard. Adepts are common NPC classes, just like warriors, experts, aristocrats, and commoners. Most see to the needs of even small communities; and I'd be surprised if most monstrous races didn't have a few witch-doctors.

Now if you mean "almost no magic", then I'm actually inclined to say it would be even more deadly. Warrior types are gimped by this the most (having no cheap alternatives to magic weapons such as oils), and typical monsters and animals come packing huge amounts of strength, natural attacks, armor, and so forth; not even figuring in damage reductions, breath weapons, spell-like abilities, and high save DC specials (most creatures have save DCs beginning at 10 + HD*.5 + key ability) which you will want things like +resistance and +energy resistance items to save you from.

But I'm just going with the core stuff; with little optimization (short of maybe chugging a potion or using a reach weapon; but seriously that's not optimization). Most of it would probably feel right at home if you've ever played Baldur's Gate or Baldur's Gate II (enemy fighters were perfectly happy drinking haste potions and then mauling your party).

Exactly, what in core, suggests that an unoptimized fighter with the elite array of 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, and 8 is even close to being "just fine", when without even swapping feats he's up against all the above?

Here's an example of a tough encounter at low-levels. Assuming APL 2, we'll have a difficult encounter of APL+2 or so; so we take 3 orcs (a warrior, an adept, an expert) and a wardog (riding dog with leather barding) on patrol around an orc camp. The orcs are wielding longspears, and wearing studded leather armor (they all look about the same). The dog is sporting a 17 armor class, 1d6+3 bite, and a tripping ability; as well as speed.

The expert has maxed ranks in Stealth and Perception based skills, being a lookout. The dog is good for this too, and has scent. The orcs have the non-elite array of 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8; with the expert and warrior have 12+4=16 strength and the adept having an 11 wisdom, and 16 strength.

The adept can bless his allies to grant +1 to their whole group, while the orc warrior is hitting at +5 with bless for 1d8+4 damage, and the expert is hitting for the same at a +4 with bless, while the dog is tanking and hitting for 1d6+3, and sporting about 15 hp and an AC of 17; and the adept has the same attack routine as the expert. All of them have reach, allowing easy flanking and making it difficult to safely close on them.

If you're including usable treasures (as the DMG suggests), you can toss in a few potions of enlarge person which is 50gp for a CL 1 potion; which allows the warrior, expert, and adept to double in size (2d6+6 damage on their reach weapons, 20ft reach) without hurting their +hit chances. The orcs might call these flasks of bloody-looking liquid "Blood of Gruumsh", but it's basically a can o' whupass called enlarge person.

Now, PCs can handle this. Mine always have. Heck, investing in a potion or two can double your combat effectiveness. For some reason however, people just seem to dislike using potions and magic items, since apparently their warriors should come with it all built in.

darkpuppy
2010-08-22, 01:20 PM
Hrm. With high-magic campaigns (using adepts and all), fighters do need to have things to level the playing field, it's true. Resistance amulets and armours, etc, handy wizard casting dispel like it's going out of fashion... but even wizards are not immune. Even *druids*, seemingly the bane of many a GMs life, are not immune. It all depends on this little thing called "what makes sense within the setting?" , and, while difficult to adjudicate, it's not impossible.

Now, I don't know the Red Hand of Doom adventure, but many times now, I have tried to get parties all the way through Return to Undermountain. Myself, I love the challenges therein, but my biggest problem is getting players to understand that, whatever the encounter, you get XP for *dealing* with the problem, and that doesn't just mean "kill everything". Two good examples are the Metalmaster tribe of Goblins, and Squaamulsh the Mimic, both on the first dungeon level. If one deals with the goblins by trade or whatever, they avoid the embarassment of being led through a dungeon by something that knows where all the traps are way better than the party... one party chased a goblin into a swing-bar trap that can be used again and again and again, and actually debated what was going on while this trap went again and again and again... almost losing a party member. Another party decided to kill Squaamulsh, and not only did they lose a party member in the process, they lost out on possibly one of the cheapest informants in DnD history. One bottle of wine each trip, a bit of food, and he tells all!

But to get back to the point: If you're having trouble with a certain party member decimating whatever encounter you throw at him, and a group of monsters knows damn well he's coming, then you are quite free, as a DM, to rig an encounter where he is the biggest priority, where he is the one in crap, and the rest of the party save *his* behind. Good example was a rules lawyer in one of my games who completely circumvented a mountain troll encounter using... Ray of Stupidity. This guy always walked in front, and became heavily injured just a few encounters later, because he wouldn't let the rogue look for traps. I'm deadly serious about the idea that there is no class/race combination that cannot be overcome, and I freely admit that, every time there's been a druid in the group, he has, in fact, been second in usefulness to, taking examples from games, a rogue with ranged backstab, the cleric of Lathander (who seemingly healed from every pore), and a fighter with spiked armour.

I do, however, know what you mean, Ashiel, about parties not using magic items. I've not yet found a way, beyond forcing them to recognise that these items are useful, to get them to use them regularly...

TooManyBadgers
2010-08-22, 01:28 PM
Exactly, what in core, suggests that an unoptimized fighter with the elite array of 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, and 8 is even close to being "just fine", when without even swapping feats he's up against all the above?
Usually, it's the party element. If the enemies are debuffed and/or the thief's looking for a flanking buddy, it's not hard for a fighter to shine -- or at least feel useful -- when the party's fighting level-appropriate encounters.

The Wizard needs somebody to ____* for him.

[*Alternatively: "clean up the mess" or "fight the fight," depending on what sort of spin you want to put on the Big Stupid Fighter role.]

DragoonWraith
2010-08-22, 01:45 PM
Isn't that kind of like saying "playing a Fighter can be fun, as long as the Wizard holds himself back so it's not obvious that he's actually the one doing all the work, and the Fighter player isn't familiar enough with the system to catch on"? I mean, I can buy people saying "hey, my combat contribution isn't important to me, I just roleplay and I have no trouble either working my non-contribution into the story, or just hand-waving things like I am contributing", so long as everyone's on board with that, but assuming someone wants to contribute equally, your answer seems to hinge on the Fighter not realizing that he isn't doing much.

Because the Fighter in those situations is eminently replaceable. By a summoned creature, if the Wizard really has to.

Ashiel
2010-08-22, 01:51 PM
Usually, it's the party element. If the enemies are debuffed and/or the thief's looking for a flanking buddy, it's not hard for a fighter to shine -- or at least feel useful -- when the party's fighting level-appropriate encounters.

The Wizard needs somebody to ____* for him.

[*Alternatively: "clean up the mess" or "fight the fight," depending on what sort of spin you want to put on the Big Stupid Fighter role.]

It's hard to have a good party element when you're short a fighter 'cause he's dead or incapacitated. Then again, everyone is vulnerable to such, barring certain types of contingencies at high levels. But seriously, wyverns are CR 6, have a +12 to hit on a diving charge, and a +15 to grapple. As I noted previously, the wyvern can drop on your unsuspecting party member, and pluck them off the ground (giving your allies only 1 round to stop the wyvern, most likely), and bam, no more party member.

I can't help but to see how "my job is suicide" is fine. Fighters aren't good versus casters, and they aren't good versus sneaks, and they aren't good versus brutes; because A) magic owns them, B) they can't find the sneak or catch them, and C) because the brutes are stronger than them by default.

In short, the wizard would be better off buying a trained dog, horse, bear, or something else expendable. If your entire point in the party is "equal opportunity cannon-fodder", then you're not functioning just fine.

So as I asked before...
What am I doing wrong? I'm going by the books here, and I'm using core only material and monsters for a good 90% of my encounters, dungeons, adventures, and so forth. Exactly why is it that I'm hearing about core being so much easier, when I end up with near-dead players constantly (and that's with giving them almost double starting HP).

TooManyBadgers
2010-08-22, 02:26 PM
... assuming someone wants to contribute equally, your answer seems to hinge on the Fighter not realizing that he isn't doing much.It's not that he isn't doing much, it's that he's doing a job that other classes can also do.

By 'cleaning up' debuffed/isolated targets, the Fighter either 1) leaves other party members free to deal with the other threats or 2) reduces the action/resource cost that would otherwise fall on the rest of the group.

stuffI really don't see why you're complaining about the fighter's frailty. That's the one area where it isn't outstandingly sub-average. Between its high HP, a focus on reach and melee damage, full armor and the various Will patches that came out over the years (Steadfast Determination, the Combat Focus chain, Resolute, Shape Soulmeld), the Fighter's pretty average in terms of defense -- it's probably less squishy than most Tier 2+ classes, even.

Ashiel
2010-08-22, 02:56 PM
I really don't see why you're complaining about the fighter's frailty. That's the one area where it isn't outstandingly bad. Between its high HP, a focus on reach and melee damage, full armor and the various Will patches that came out over the years (Steadfast Determination, the Combat Focus chain, Resolute, Shape Soulmeld), the Fighter's pretty average in terms of defense -- it's probably even less squishy than most non-prepared spellcasters, even.

I'm not complaining about the fighter's frailty. The question was, why is it that I'm seeing core as not being easy mode. Earlier in the thread, someone said it was there experience that in an unoptimized core party the fighter preforms just fine, etc; but didn't actually explain the thought process behind this.

I showed a sample of some of the nastiness that is core-only, standardized, non-elite array, MM/DMG, none GM-fiat enemies and obstacles you can face without even trying to make it really hard; and just sticking to relatively simple encounters with moderate strength opponents.

I just cannot fathom it. The standard fighter like Tordek, a sword & board guy with a bastard sword or waraxe comes out of the box will lower survivability with equal equipment than a wardog, or even a combat-trained horse. It doesn't get any better from there. Keep in mind, the point was unoptimized. Such fighters in my games tend to die (hence why I do a lot of homebrew to improve upon them). They don't die because I'm gunning for them, but because they can't handle themselves.

As I noted, they die easily. Now, fighters in my games don't die so easily anymore (pathfinder fighter + various house rules) and they contribute meaningfully (you might actually want a fighter rather than an animal companion); but we were talking about them in terms of how it is naturally - not in "my little world"; so I was speaking about core.

When your job is "go out and die", that's where I'm seeing the problem come in. Without purchasing potions and the like, you will do just that. A 6th level fighter will snuff it fighting a MM ettin (who has reach, as well as an attack routine of +12/+12/+7/+7, which deals 2d6+6 damage per hit, for an average of 26 damage per round if only 2 hit, or 52 if all hit; versus the 55.5 average HP that a 6th level fighter will have with a +3 con modifier), versus the fighter's 10-20 average damage with a greatsword and a +2 strength modifier the fighter can dish out. So engaging the ettin is suicide, since you'll also be eating an attack of opportunity for another 2d6+6 damage.

Now, you could draw back and grab your extra pole-arm you carry, chug a 50gp potion of enlarge person to give yourself 10 rounds of "big & beefy", and wait for the ettin to engage you (who now has 10ft more reach than the ettin) and then poke him for about 2d8+4 damage while denying him the full-attack since you're forcing him to approach you (or you can hang back and shoot 2d6 arrows). But people complain about "high magic" if you have potions, and also complain if the fighter uses a potion - since he can't make them; etc, etc, etc.

So discuss. Why is it that I'm not seeing this as "easy mode" or "works just fine without optimization"?

darkpuppy
2010-08-22, 02:57 PM
Hrm, the Wyvern is a special case, much like the Bulette, due to that little thing called the "surprise round". In a surprise round, no matter how high the level, the creature's going to get a free hit in, and, at low levels, whatever's surprised is dead.. the trick here is judicious application of bonuses. For example, when hunting a wyvern, you don't generally carry melee weapons for the beginning of the fight. Melee's for when the thing's wounded enough not to fly anymore... and if you go into a wyvern hunt knowingly, and don't look up every now and again, yes, you're screwed.

I think the problem, Ashiel, is that you're running creatures *properly*, and that ups the CR by a large amount. CR doesn't take into account environmental factors, and is very often poorly thought out. The biggest example of this is the bulette. Now, CR states that it's the level where you expect 1/4 of the resources of a party to be used fighting it, both HP and kit. What they don't tell you is that, at its CR level exactly, this usually means losing a party member... one leaping rake, and scratch whatever it raked, usually. Similarly, you're running wyverns correctly in that no sane wyvern would attack from the ground... similarly, goblins' low hit points do not reflect the fact that goblins don't fight fair. Nor do kobolds, or anything else with low HP. So, in fact, the problem is that you're running monsters correctly, but the CR system accounts, much like DPS in games like EVE or WoW, only for encounters where the two are slogging at it toe to toe. Hence, it's better to ask yourself "How much are these environmental factors going to add to CR?"

My general guide in this matter:
Creature has ranged ability that party, for the most part, doesn't - +1 to 3 CR
Creature has had time to set up traps - account for trap in CR as per rules.
Creature is aerial - +1 to +2 CR.

The list goes on, but the fault is, this time, within the CR system. For example, I never introduce bulettes anymore, because, every time I've done so for anything near the right CR, at least one party member dies.

Aroka
2010-08-22, 03:11 PM
Melee's for when the thing's wounded enough not to fly anymore... and if you go into a wyvern hunt knowingly, and don't look up every now and again, yes, you're screwed.

When is anything in D&D ever wounded enough not to be able to fly? (Absent application of some wing-clipping special ability.)

Edit: Also, ranged weapons don't help you against surprise.

TooManyBadgers
2010-08-22, 03:17 PM
When your job is "go out and die", that's where I'm seeing the problem come in.
You say that's what Fighters do, and you use the Wyvern as an example to prove it. This doesn't mean much to me, because that Wyvern will very likely kill any level 6 character.

When the rest of the party is functioning -- casters are nullifying targets, noncasters are backing each other up for failsages -- Fighters can make things stop moving just fine. That's all I've seen anyone claim in this thread.

I've never seen an Animal Companion that I'd say was more useful than the Fighter past level 1. That could be because the Fighter comes with an extra package of WBL.

The only place I've ever encountered Fighters kneading their hands on the sidelines has been on internet discussions.

darkpuppy
2010-08-22, 03:29 PM
When is anything in D&D ever wounded enough not to be able to fly? (Absent application of some wing-clipping special ability.)

Edit: Also, ranged weapons don't help you against surprise.

Generally, I personally rule that when something's got low enough HP, it's too wounded to fly. But that's a houserule, not core, and you are quite correct that there is no defacto rule in the PHB/DMG/MM about losing flying just through damage.

As to the ranged weapons, you're right that it doesn't help against surprise, but there, it's partly my fault for not clarifying that, when the party knows damn well they're hunting Wyvern, or are going into Wyvern territory (of which there would be clues, or at least foreshadowing), I'd usually give them a bonus to spot, so long as they are expressly watching in all directions. But, again, this isn't expressly in the PHB/DMG. The problem is that not every situation can be covered in aforementioned core books (The "One in a million" section of GURPS Discworld, along with the accompanying section from "Guards Guards", shows the difficulty of doing so in an amusing fashion) , and a certain amount of houseruling must always take place.

If Wyverns are mullering your party, rule 0 must take precedence. Fudge if you have to, houserule if you have to, but rule 0 is the truly important rule. All the combat stuff, initiative and all that, is there to prevent the "I shot you" "No you didn't, I had bulletproof armour" "I thought there wasn't any...[ad nauseam]" situations that can crop up, to give you a framework. It's a valid rant, in it's way, but circumvented by rule 0.

Greenish
2010-08-22, 03:34 PM
When is anything in D&D ever wounded enough not to be able to fly?Creatures with average or lesser mobility without a diehard equivalent will be too wounded to fly between 0 and -9 hitpoints. :smallamused:

Bob the Urgh
2010-08-22, 03:42 PM
I like to play fighters and I agree with Ashiel, they are not easy to play and fun to play at high levels. Even at low levels I spent more time bleeding to death on the ground incapacitated than actively being useful. Thank you SP for the delay death spell. No, your not doing anything wrong.

Ashiel
2010-08-22, 03:47 PM
Hrm, the Wyvern is a special case, much like the Bulette, due to that little thing called the "surprise round". In a surprise round, no matter how high the level, the creature's going to get a free hit in, and, at low levels, whatever's surprised is dead.. the trick here is judicious application of bonuses. For example, when hunting a wyvern, you don't generally carry melee weapons for the beginning of the fight. Melee's for when the thing's wounded enough not to fly anymore... and if you go into a wyvern hunt knowingly, and don't look up every now and again, yes, you're screwed.

I think the problem, Ashiel, is that you're running creatures *properly*, and that ups the CR by a large amount. CR doesn't take into account environmental factors, and is very often poorly thought out. The biggest example of this is the bulette. Now, CR states that it's the level where you expect 1/4 of the resources of a party to be used fighting it, both HP and kit. What they don't tell you is that, at its CR level exactly, this usually means losing a party member... one leaping rake, and scratch whatever it raked, usually. Similarly, you're running wyverns correctly in that no sane wyvern would attack from the ground... similarly, goblins' low hit points do not reflect the fact that goblins don't fight fair. Nor do kobolds, or anything else with low HP. So, in fact, the problem is that you're running monsters correctly, but the CR system accounts, much like DPS in games like EVE or WoW, only for encounters where the two are slogging at it toe to toe. Hence, it's better to ask yourself "How much are these environmental factors going to add to CR?"

My general guide in this matter:
Creature has ranged ability that party, for the most part, doesn't - +1 to 3 CR
Creature has had time to set up traps - account for trap in CR as per rules.
Creature is aerial - +1 to +2 CR.

The list goes on, but the fault is, this time, within the CR system. For example, I never introduce bulettes anymore, because, every time I've done so for anything near the right CR, at least one party member dies.

I'm pretty certain that the CR system specifically takes into account how the enemy is supposed to fight and their strengths. I really don't think that a sea-cat should have its CR upped because you encounter it in the water; any more than I believe a wyvern's CR should be increased because it can fly. It's assumed to be able to fly, and that's what it is.

Same with kobolds and goblins. They're not supposed to run in and suicide hit in melee, since that's not even going to cause a 20% drain on the party, since they will likely die. They're small, and they have strong dexterity modifiers; and even their entries note things such as using traps and their cowardice in melee.

I don't have my DMG with me right now, but I know the Pathfinder book says the following:

"Unfavorable Terrain for the PCs: Monsters are designed with the assumption that they are encountered in their favored terrain—encountering a water-breathing aboleth in an underwater area does not increase the CR for that encounter, even though none of the PCs breathe water. If, on the other hand, the terrain impacts the encounter significantly (such as an encounter against a creature with blindsight in an area that suppresses all light), you can, at your option, increase the effective XP award as if the encounter's CR were one higher."

Which to my knowledge is the same in 3E.


You say that's what Fighters do, and you use the Wyvern as an example to prove it. This doesn't mean much to me, because that Wyvern will very likely kill any level 6 character.

When the rest of the party is functioning -- casters are nullifying targets, noncasters are backing each other up for failsages -- Fighters can make things stop moving just fine. That's all I've seen anyone claim in this thread.

I've never seen an Animal Companion that I'd say was more useful than the Fighter past level 1. That could be because the Fighter comes with an extra package of WBL.

The only place I've ever encountered Fighters kneading their hands on the sidelines has been on internet discussions.

The point was that core isn't easy mode, and I fail to see how being unoptimized helps you do anything other than die against standard encounters. In the wyvern example, any member of a party will likely be in terrible trouble - if not killed outright. In the ettin example, the fighter is committing suicide to engage the ettin (who also has a faster base-land speed than the fighter). The fighter's survivability is based around being able to take more punishment than someone else before dropping; but more than likely he will drop.

You can buy an oxen for 20 gold pieces (trade goods) and use Handle Animal to train it for war. This gives it the ability to wear barding with proficiency, as well as follow commands such as attack, defend, stay, etc. He can learn up to 6 tricks, so you could even teach him to guard, search, or whatever. With less gold than it would take to outfit the fighter, you can buy the oxen and outfit it with some studded leather barding. Meatshield extraordinaire, and he can kill stuff. He also gets the benefit of buff spells, can have potions or oils applied to him (incase you need him magical for a little while), and he can resist grapples, bull rushes, trips, and cannot be disarmed or sundered. He has scent, and low-light vision, and is immune to most charm and dominate effects (other than charm person or animal, which requires you to be fighting a druid); and so on. He even can carry huge amounts of loot, and riders to boot.

You can even train up to three of these at a single time, over the course of 1 week game time, and give them all orders as a move action. So you could spend your first action ordering your warbeasts to destroy your enemies, or guard somebody, and often they can do so by mere size alone (hard to walk around them in groups), while you still get a standard action to shoot, cast a spell, or move (if you're not riding them, in which case you can lead the charge while using their movement and all that).

And check this out. If that wyvern or ettin or whatever kills your warbeast...darn, you're out 20gp and maybe the cost of their armor. I guess you'll just need to buy three new ones and spend a week training them. They also have the side benefit of being entirely edible if they do die (whereas cannibalism is usually frowned upon).

The standard core fighter has a 15 as its highest expected stat before racial modifiers. Sword & board (unoptimized) with cheap armor and a shield can bring its AC up to about 16-20 at 1st level, or 20 to 22 when you get full-plate. Your damage is something around 1d8+2 or 1d10+2 with a feat; and you automatically suck at most forms of grappling and the like.

Hence why I was wondering why "in an unoptimized party the fighter does just fine"; because quite frankly, it looks to me like everyone would die (with the fighter contributing less while he's alive).

DragoonWraith
2010-08-22, 03:48 PM
It's not that he isn't doing much, it's that he's doing a job that other classes can also do.

By 'cleaning up' debuffed/isolated targets, the Fighter either 1) leaves other party members free to deal with the other threats or 2) reduces the action/resource cost that would otherwise fall on the rest of the group.
Yeah, sure, but it's not so much that "another PC" could do it, it's that "my cohort, or my planar ally/slave, or my summons, or hell, I myself, could handle this; you're really not necessary." Which is really the case. Sure, the Wizard saves himself a spell by not having to summon something to do the dirty work, assuming he doesn't just pull out a somewhat bigger gun to make everything actually Helpless as opposed to effectively helpless, and go around Coup de Grace'ing everything. That is not a heroic contribution, however. That is clean-up duty.

And even if we are talking about a situation where you really need another PC, and not a hireling or cohort or summon or whatever, the fact that the Fighter contributes nothing that someone else couldn't do is in and of itself a major problem. A massive one, actually.


The Fighter is a poorly designed class. Hideously so, in fact. In my opinion, obviously, but also in Fax's, and in that of almost every optimizer and homebrewer. That ought to count for something. Yeah, I know, appeal to authority, but whatever - that fact seems important to me. This is not just one person going "rah rah rah, I really dislike that class", it's a bunch of people who really know what they're talking about delineating all of the ways the class is terribly designed and balanced.

Ashiel
2010-08-22, 03:57 PM
I like to play fighters and I agree with Ashiel, they are not easy to play and fun to play at high levels. Even at low levels I spent more time bleeding to death on the ground incapacitated than actively being useful. Thank you SP for the delay death spell. No, your not doing anything wrong.

This is pretty much how I see it. Thank you Bob the Urgh. I like fighters too (and I made a number of nice adjustments to make them a little less screwed over against monsters and the like); but speaking of core and unoptimized, I couldn't understand the idea that they were in good shape. :smallconfused:


Generally, I personally rule that when something's got low enough HP, it's too wounded to fly. But that's a houserule, not core, and you are quite correct that there is no defacto rule in the PHB/DMG/MM about losing flying just through damage.

As to the ranged weapons, you're right that it doesn't help against surprise, but there, it's partly my fault for not clarifying that, when the party knows damn well they're hunting Wyvern, or are going into Wyvern territory (of which there would be clues, or at least foreshadowing), I'd usually give them a bonus to spot, so long as they are expressly watching in all directions. But, again, this isn't expressly in the PHB/DMG. The problem is that not every situation can be covered in aforementioned core books (The "One in a million" section of GURPS Discworld, along with the accompanying section from "Guards Guards", shows the difficulty of doing so in an amusing fashion) , and a certain amount of houseruling must always take place.

If Wyverns are mullering your party, rule 0 must take precedence. Fudge if you have to, houserule if you have to, but rule 0 is the truly important rule. All the combat stuff, initiative and all that, is there to prevent the "I shot you" "No you didn't, I had bulletproof armour" "I thought there wasn't any...[ad nauseam]" situations that can crop up, to give you a framework. It's a valid rant, in it's way, but circumvented by rule 0.

I'm not particularly fond of cheating to save my players (I don't like it as a player, and my group would get pissed at me if they thought I was holding back to make it easier for them). I just run the game, and root for my group from the GM's side (I really want them to win).

To me Rule 0 isn't a wild-card to say "oh well you should have died but you didn't, feel proud and accomplished", more-so the authority to say "this doesn't work for us, so we will change it".

Doug Lampert
2010-08-22, 04:05 PM
Far as I'm aware, they were supposed to be a bit of a jack-of-all-trades thing - medium power melee, medium power caster, decent but not awesome skills, and etcetera, with a mild focus on buff and support.

Except they missed the balance point, so it turned out that they did have the "jack of all trades" part... but forgot the "master of none" bit, and Druid ends up winning at everything :smallamused:.

The Druid is ballanced fine, it's maybe a bit weak compared to a wizard or cleric from level 15+ or so, and it's maybe a bit better from level 5-14, and of course it's got the free tank from levels 1-4, but against the other two important classes in the PHB the druid works fine.

My ideal (non-leadership, core) four person 3.5 party is something like Cleric, Cleric, Druid, Wizard. See all classes are balanced and have a roll to play.

The reason Druids come up in optimization talks isn't that they're any more imballanced than the cleric or wizard, heck they're probably the weakest tier 1 class. The reason they come up is because they can OBVIOUSLY beat the fighter at his own game WITHOUT spending any significant resources that could reasonably be used on anything else.

The Druid literally beats the fighter at his own game without really trying. Not a single spell-slot or special magic item is needed, and the only important feat to the build is Natural Spell (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0354.html).

It's not that druids are good that makes them come up in these arguments, its that the fact that clerics and wizards ALSO make fighters obsolete while still being good at lots of other stuff is slightly harder to see.

darkpuppy
2010-08-22, 04:06 PM
It's interesting that people are saying this... now, as noted, in the surprise round, anything can die. But the party is generally not surprised if even one member passes their Spot check and (little bit of Monty Python here) yells "LOOK OUT! THERE ARE LLAMAS!" (a free action)... I would genuinely like to see a group where every single member fails their spot check, including the ranger/rogue of the group, who generally has spot/listen flowing out from their behinds.

As to the Ettin example, it's no optimisation to just use a polearm, or other weapon with reach. Every time the guy tries to get you, he provokes an attack of oppurtunity... which, if it hits, interrupts whatever the guy was doing. Plus, Ettins.. lemme just quicky look this up... hrm, +12 to hit, and it's CR 5. Average CR for a 5th level character without magic armour is... 19, plus whatever he puts into fighting defensively. 11 damage average from a greatclub... nope, polearm sounds like a damn good idea there, as your average polearm does 1d10+STR mod, plus, if you crit, a X3 multiplier. If we're assuming that +3 strength, that's 8 damage if you hit (Ettin's AC is lower than an average 5th level fighter) , so you're guaranteed at least two hits in the first round with a polearm, for between 4 and (best case scenario) 39 damage apiece. I'm really not seeing the problem here, especially if the rest of the party is backing them up, and it's one Ettin.

TooManyBadgers
2010-08-22, 04:12 PM
The point was that core isn't easy mode, and I fail to see how being unoptimized helps you do anything other than die against standard encounters.I think it's odd that you'd expect the DM to do more to min-max/stack encounters than the players would.

The Fighter is a poorly designed class. I won't argue with that.

Greenish
2010-08-22, 04:13 PM
As to the Ettin example, it's no optimisation to just use a polearm, or other weapon with reach.Yes, it is. Reach weapons are a better choice than the alternatives almost always. Or should I say, more optimal choice.
Every time the guy tries to get you, he provokes an attack of oppurtunity...No, unless you're large, because ettin is 10'-by-10' with 10' reach and can thus close up to you without leaving a threatened square and provoking an AoO.
which, if it hits, interrupts whatever the guy was doing.No, it doesn't, unless it slaps the ettin to 0 hp or below (or if you have Stand Still).

WarKitty
2010-08-22, 04:27 PM
I think it's odd that you'd expect the DM to do more to min-max/stack encounters than the players would.

Depends on your party. If you have a wizard and a fighter, which one do you optimize for?

Aotrs Commander
2010-08-22, 04:27 PM
As to the Ettin example, it's no optimisation to just use a polearm, or other weapon with reach. Every time the guy tries to get you, he provokes an attack of oppurtunity... which, if it hits, interrupts whatever the guy was doing. Plus, Ettins.. lemme just quicky look this up... hrm, +12 to hit, and it's CR 5. Average CR for a 5th level character without magic armour is... 19, plus whatever he puts into fighting defensively. 11 damage average from a greatclub... nope, polearm sounds like a damn good idea there, as your average polearm does 1d10+STR mod, plus, if you crit, a X3 multiplier. If we're assuming that +3 strength, that's 8 damage if you hit (Ettin's AC is lower than an average 5th level fighter) , so you're guaranteed at least two hits in the first round with a polearm, for between 4 and (best case scenario) 39 damage apiece. I'm really not seeing the problem here, especially if the rest of the party is backing them up, and it's one Ettin.

Also, one fighter verses and ettin doesn't account for the fact CR represents four characters. Stick four sixth level fighters against an ettin, and suddenly it's s different story. As (preportedly) designed, a single CR 6 Ettin should use up 25% of the resources of a 6th level party (i.e. a 100% of a single character's resouces). In the case of save-or-dies, you get into the statisitcs of small numbers, where either the SoDer will hit and it'll work, or you'll be picking bits of caster off the floor.

(Unless the character can fly, of course, in which case the ettin is toast. But even a level 1 warrior with might to be able to tackle an ettin if he's airbourne and stays out of javelin range in the 30 rounds or so a minimum caster level Fly spell is. Statistically, 5 1st level warriors with Dex 10 and regular longbows are on average able deal enough damage to kill an ettin at a range of 200' in 30 rounds, and that's attacking at -1. That though, is not so much a function of level, as being a function of flying.)

darkpuppy
2010-08-22, 04:28 PM
So lemme get this straight... you want to fight an ettin, with no help whatsoever from kit, potions, rest of party running interference, and still win? Not for nothing does the CR mention it's optimised for 4 party members, and should be adjusted to account for this... The point about reach is well made, but I think one can reasonably expect that a creature wouldn't run into a polearm unless it was a beserker, or otherwise insane.

Bob the Urgh
2010-08-22, 05:27 PM
Against the ettin wielding a polearm the fighter isn't going to be able to do much. He can stay back and shoot it with his longbow doing 1d8 or 1d8 +1 with access to magic weapon. He can try to charge, get hit, which ends the charge or hang back and wait for an opening. Even accounting for the spell fly thats the wizard who's still winning. Against most of the monsters in or out of core it's like this. The whole 1/4 of the party resources never made much sense to me. At higher levels the cleric and wizard are supposed to cast over 5 spells each per CR appropriate monster? I forgot that the fighter will be dead at this point, so yeah, I can see why.

Aotrs Commander
2010-08-22, 05:38 PM
Against the ettin wielding a polearm the fighter isn't going to be able to do much. He can stay back and shoot it with his longbow doing 1d8 or 1d8 +1 with access to magic weapon. He can try to charge, get hit, which ends the charge or hang back and wait for an opening. Even accounting for the spell fly thats the wizard who's still winning. Against most of the monsters in or out of core it's like this. The whole 1/4 of the party resources never made much sense to me. At higher levels the cleric and wizard are supposed to cast over 5 spells each per CR appropriate monster? I forgot that the fighter will be dead at this point, so yeah, I can see why.

But again, one fighter (or rogue, or wizard or anything else) verses an ettin isn't a CR 6 encounter, it's, what, the equivilent of an CR 8 or so? (Arguably more, since a lower number of PCs is more deterimental than not; one fighter verses one etiin is probably a much harder encounter than four PCs verses four ettins, since the fighter only has to be unlucky once and it's all over.)

Four fighters (or arguably four rogues or four monks) of 6th level ought to be able to take an ettin down comparitely easily. It might well cost them 25% of their resources (i.e. likely one casualty), though.

Bob the Urgh
2010-08-22, 05:42 PM
But again, one fighter (or rogue, or wizard or anything else) verses an ettin isn't a CR 6 encounter, it's, what, the equivilent of an CR 8 or so? (Arguably more, since a lower number of PCs is more deterimental than not; one fighter verses one etiin is probably a much harder encounter than four PCs verses four ettins, since the fighter only has to be unlucky once and it's all over.)

Four fighters (or arguably four rogues or four monks) of 6th level ought to be able to take an ettin down comparitely easily. It might well cost them 25% of their resources (i.e. likely one casualty), though.

Good point. I think the problem is that there was still at least one casualty.

Tyndmyr
2010-08-22, 05:59 PM
If a player is a victim of this, then someone's victimizing him. If the wizards constantly beats the rogue to the locked doors and unlocks them with Knock, then the wizards kind of being a **** player, no?

He's being a bad wizard. Why would he waste resources on Knock's when the party rogue is right there? Sure, the cost may be low, but letting the rogue do it costs you nothing at all. Save those scrolls or spell slots for things that matter.

A wizard's spell allotment is sufficient that you'll never need to worry about resources if you watch your spell usage carefully. If you happily blow them whenever you possibly can, well, that's no longer very certain.

darkpuppy
2010-08-22, 06:02 PM
Actually, all four fighters attacking at once gives flanking bonuses to hit, so it's easier to cause damage, Ettin has 65 hp, so it goes down providing all hit (very likely with flanking bonuses) within two rounds, maybe three... giving the fighters plenty of time to survive.

Curmudgeon
2010-08-22, 06:06 PM
I don't really have anything specific to contribute, so instead, here are several rants about several topics that have come up in off-board conversation recently, that I've gotten somewhat heated about; so I figured I'd write about them a bit.
...
I do a lot of custom work for my groups to make under-represented arch-types more viable
In keeping with the spirit of your post, I'll just note that the word is archetype (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/archetype); it's not a two-word hyphenate.

Yes, it feels good to do a little venting sometimes. :smallwink:

Yahzi
2010-08-22, 06:31 PM
I'm not particularly fond of cheating to save my players
Same here, but as somebody else pointed out, what you are doing wrong is running the monsters intelligently.

Recall that in virtually every D&D module ever, after fighting a bunch of sword-swinging goblins, you would open their treasure chest and find a magic sword. :smallfurious:

What I do for fighters (besides home-brewing mods) is give them soldiers. Fighters should get a free squad of low-level mooks who are as easy to replace as the the Druid's animal companion.

darkpuppy
2010-08-22, 06:38 PM
Yeah, that was me. And considering I've TPKed a Lvl 8 party (druid and wizard included) with one goblin, I should know. As such, my own unofficial addition to the rules is:

If the GM is running the creatures as they genuinely would act: CR +/-5. The minus is there for Kobolds, who would go nowhere near a large party of adventurers unless it was absolutely necessary...

Ashiel
2010-08-22, 06:46 PM
I think it's odd that you'd expect the DM to do more to min-max/stack encounters than the players would.

Not at all, but not jumping on the swords of your enemies is a good start. Just using common sense and following the rules of the DMG (such as NPC WBL, and treasure values, and monsters using treasure, etc). I used common fantasy enemies to illustrate my point (the orc scouting party with a wardog, a two headed giant, and a wyvern).

Optimizing? It's not even going so far as to make use of good feats. Just cheap equipment and a simple tactics.


Against the ettin wielding a polearm the fighter isn't going to be able to do much. He can stay back and shoot it with his longbow doing 1d8 or 1d8 +1 with access to magic weapon. He can try to charge, get hit, which ends the charge or hang back and wait for an opening. Even accounting for the spell fly thats the wizard who's still winning. Against most of the monsters in or out of core it's like this. The whole 1/4 of the party resources never made much sense to me. At higher levels the cleric and wizard are supposed to cast over 5 spells each per CR appropriate monster? I forgot that the fighter will be dead at this point, so yeah, I can see why.

Bob's right. That's assuming just strait MM ettin. If the ettin was part of a war party, such as in the employ of a higher power as a bruiser, it wouldn't be surprising for him to not be effectively nekkid, and instead wear some decent armor or use reach weapons, or whatever. Changing basic mundane equipment doesn't change CR either.


But again, one fighter (or rogue, or wizard or anything else) verses an ettin isn't a CR 6 encounter, it's, what, the equivilent of an CR 8 or so? (Arguably more, since a lower number of PCs is more deterimental than not; one fighter verses one etiin is probably a much harder encounter than four PCs verses four ettins, since the fighter only has to be unlucky once and it's all over.)

Doesn't have to fight it alone. The point is that the fighter can't fight the ettin. The ettin will surely loose against a party of four 6th level characters; but the fighter will likely die if the party cannot focus-fire the ettin down; and the fighter will likely have little to do with it. As noted previously, if the fighter engages the ettin, he will get mauled. If the fighter attempts to keep his distance, he will likely get run down (the ettin's base land speed is 40ft with light armor). If the fighter drops his shield and draws his reach weapon to even the distance issue; he drops his AC and will still be mauled because the ettin is meleeing with him on equal distance; but with more damaging attacks more often.

At the level which you are likely to encounter an ettin as a standard encounter (not a difficult or hard encounter, just standard) the ettin will likely be handily defeated by the group ganging up on him; but the fighter will likely have the least to contribute since - if unoptimized as the topic was - will not be able to provide good damage, will not be able to tank properly, and so forth.

Now, as I mentioned, by quaffing a potion of enlarge person, grabbing your pole-arm, and bunkering down could give the ettin at least something to think about (since you actually exceed his own reach by 10ft, and you now deal 2d8+4 damage or so, which smarts; and he would have to approach you to defeat you, allowing you to get your full-attack on (if you're 6th level) and take the extra AoO); but this requires you to optimize a little bit; and it also requires you to invest in potions which give you access to magical powers (which people complain about since you're not using fighter power).

darkpuppy
2010-08-22, 07:04 PM
Hrm. 6th level, so that's 4 feats... Dodge, Mobility = +5 AC when moving out of AoO range. Nooo problem. goes from a 7 (likely) to a 12 (not so likely), making it easier. Remember that, odds are, you have the initiative, with or without Improved Initiative, so you get to decide where to stand your ground. Expertise as another feat also makes it harder for him to be hit by said Ettin, and he can quite easily take up to -3 to hit, considering the Ettin will have, on average, an AC one lower than him. Combat Reflexes, finally, means Ettin Chowder.

No magic items involved, just a fighter designed for fighting larger creatures, on the 6th level of his progression track. Took me 5 minutes to work out.

EDIT: Or is this, too, part of that nebulous category known as optimisation? In the end, the fighter is there to draw fire, and he does that beautifully. At higher levels, he's the one making sure nobody else gets targeted. At lower levels, he's one of the few classes that can go toe-to-toe at all.

Bob the Urgh
2010-08-22, 07:11 PM
How would combat reflexes help? I prefer Ashiel's way. Combat expertise is nice but dodge and mobility I would probably not take.

DragoonWraith
2010-08-22, 07:20 PM
In the end, the fighter is there to draw fire, and he does that beautifully.
I disagree. Why won't the Ettin simply ignore him? Also, your use of Combat Reflexes is wrong - the Ettin cannot provoke more than one AoO per action, no matter how many the Fighter has, and that since movement is the only way the Ettin can possibly provoke (he's not going to be casting spells now), that means one AoO, once, while the Ettin moves past him and gets to the real threats. The Ettin really doesn't care about possibly taking one AoO off of the Fighter.


At higher levels, he's the one making sure nobody else gets targeted.
How is he doing that exactly? Any smart monster is going to ignore him because he's pretty much not even remotely dangerous. They'll go for the real threats - the casters, usually, but in any case just about anyone who isn't him.


At lower levels, he's one of the few classes that can go toe-to-toe at all.
That's not true at all. As has been shown repeatedly (either in this thread or in the ToB thread, can't remember which now), the Barbarian's going to be strictly better at this at every level. And the Barbarian's not particularly good at it. Any martial adept, any PsyWar or Ardent, any Meldshaper, pretty much any Cleric, etc etc., are all going to be better at going toe-to-toe than the Fighter at every level past like 3.

darkpuppy
2010-08-22, 07:25 PM
Combat reflexes in 3E (have to double check in 3.5E, gimme a sec) = extra AoO on your part... wow, no change between 3 and 3.5E. Even with the limit on DEX from armour (which may or may not apply to feats... personally, I'd say it would), you'd get AoO every time he moves into your threatened square, which would help if he had backup. Even without the Combat Reflexes, Dodge and Mobility allow you to moderately safely leave his threaten space, allowing you to set up two attacks at full attack bonus, compared to the full attack, which allows 2 attacks, one at only +1. Combat Expertise would similarly allow greater safety when attacking.

So Combat Reflexes, while not completely necessary, helps with multiple attackers (groups of Ettin, or Ettin with backup), but can easily be replaced with another feat if you're specialising in one on one... lemme see... Weapon Focus would do, I suppose...

Then, if you're *not* in heavy armour (which Expertise, Dodge, and Mobility can help with), you can then take Spring Attack (which allows you to attack without the whole AoO nonsense a good half the time)

EDIT: Quite well spotted, but helps with multiple opponents. Also, you're giving the Ettin more credit than you actually should. Intelligence 6 means he's not going to go "Ohh, this guy is keeping ahead of me, dammit!", he's going to be annoyed, and go "URGH, SMASH!" ... as noted before, you're running encounters very intelligently, which, ironically, is a problem in DnD. For example, an intelligent vampire would nullify a caster he knows is even in the same building for the entire time he's in that building, and, by the time the vampire is to be fought, you have at least one spellcaster suddenly turning on his friends and killing everyone.

In the end, rants aside, it seems (don't take this wrong) that you're thinking of this purely in terms of DPS and such, where the point is to have fun. If number-crunching and tactical stuffs are your thing, that's cool, I have no rejoinder to it. But if somebody wants to play fighrer, my first thought isn't going to be "Wheurgh, he doesn't pull his weight", it's "how can I involve him in the game/story?"

Bob the Urgh
2010-08-22, 07:42 PM
The ettin doesn't go URGH, SMASH! I do. Still doesn't make sense since the ettin has better reach and can 5ft step. The ettin may be dumb but it has two heads. The problem with playing a fighter I found is that I'm not the one having fun when I am out of combat in round two.

darkpuppy
2010-08-22, 07:51 PM
Ah, but with spring attack, you can move inward, attack, move outward, and *still* have enough range to force him to move into AoO range, all without taking an AoO yourself. And if the Ettin isn't being singleminded, either he's got a higher INT than a paltry 6 (the minimum for a spoken language, last I recall), or he is being given more credit than previously thought. Besides, if the party's done everything right, that's all 65 of his average HP taken off within two rounds, one of which is the Ettin trying to lay into you.

The "get right in and smash" philosophy *can* work, but only if you crit like a mofo... there are feats to help with that, and feats to help with damage too, but, in the end, against larger creatures, mobility wins the day, and against smaller, better hits win the day.

But in the end, fighters rely in DnD, not only upon their weapons, feats and skills (yes, you heard me, *skills*... taunting or feinting using Bluff is an invaluable one), but also the magic shizzle they find, like amulets of fire resistance (damn useful if you're fighting that Ettin from the example, and the Wizard wants to risk a fireball to finish it off), magic armour (often useful), magic weapons (extra damage, anybody?), and other such stuff. The other thing to consider is terrain. When running monsters according to how they should act, as opposed to "goblins don't use potions, etc", fighters in my group always look to draw creatures to an area where they have the advantage, such as high ground from which they can fight.

That's where Taunt comes in. It's a straight skill vs Will (not an Ettin's strong point), and, if done successfully, forces the Ettin to come right at you... EDIT: Takes a full-round action, but worth it.

EDIT 2: Upon looking at the entry in MM some more, it's yet another case of "The CR lies." But it *does* say it doesn't stop fighting till everyone is dead (or it is), which would most definitely imply single minded behaviour, as would the INT of 6.

EDIT 3: Interestingly, in the 3E book, it does not mention whether Spring Attack counts as both moves, although it does say that you can, in a single attack action, move both before and after your attack, so long as it does not mean you are moving more than your speed in a single action... thus implying you can Spring Attack, then take a move action.

Tael
2010-08-22, 07:59 PM
That's where Taunt comes in. It's a straight skill vs Will (not an Ettin's strong point), and, if done successfully, forces the Ettin to come right at you... EDIT: Takes a full-round action, but worth it.


Uh, are you sure you're talking about D&D and not Neverwinter Nights? Where is this 'Taunt' you speak of?

darkpuppy
2010-08-22, 08:01 PM
Technically, it comes under Bluff, Tael... hence why I said it's a full round action... there is a problem with the ettin example that means it's still risky (see the Ettin's language bit), but, basically, you bluff the Ettin, it acts as you wish (as per the definition), and, since it's meant to be no more than 1 round, that means you can taunt it (IE- make it attack you)

Aotrs Commander
2010-08-22, 08:04 PM
Doesn't have to fight it alone. The point is that the fighter can't fight the ettin. The ettin will surely loose against a party of four 6th level characters; but the fighter will likely die if the party cannot focus-fire the ettin down; and the fighter will likely have little to do with it. As noted previously, if the fighter engages the ettin, he will get mauled. If the fighter attempts to keep his distance, he will likely get run down (the ettin's base land speed is 40ft with light armor). If the fighter drops his shield and draws his reach weapon to even the distance issue; he drops his AC and will still be mauled because the ettin is meleeing with him on equal distance; but with more damaging attacks more often.

I'm afraid I'll have to call cobblers on that. A 6th level fighter with a +2 heavy shield, +2 full plate and a +1 weapon, assuming only elite array stats, should have an AC of 25. Which is likely to be better than anyone else in the party at that time. That's a good chance the ettin is not going to hit with all it's attacks; in fact, it'll be lucky to get in three hits in one round, assuming the fighters takes an AoO as he closes. With the poorly-regarded feat choice of Weapon Focus (Longsword) and Weapon Spec (Longsword), he should be on +11/+6 to hit and D8+6 damage, per hit, and he's more likely to hit. With a Con of 14, he's got an average of 47 hits, which is a significant portion of the ettin's. The fighter's likely to get at least a couple of hits in, regardless of initiative, before he gets put down (assuming no-one does anything to help), and that's a third of the ettin's hit point right there. (Slightly more if the fighter charges and PA for +/-2 in the first round). That is hardly a non-contribution. A better statted and optimised fighter would be capable of far more.

The fighter may well take a lot of damage, yes. As a single character, the unoptimised fighter would not win one-on-one. But it is very unfair and untrue to say that, in practical game conditions, the fighter is unable to usefully contribute to the fight at all.

If nothing else, he's providing the ettin with a target. Which stops the ettin trying to go after the softer targets, unless it wants to get an AoO of its own. Remember, each hit is doing 1/6 of the ettin's hit points. That is in no way no threat. (Also, ettins are incredible stupid...)

(The wizard at level 6 doesn't have access to the better melee defenses - aside from Fly, which as I said previously, is a safe winner for tackling an ettin regardless of CR. A level 6 warlock with Fell Flight and Eldritch Spear can kill more ettins that you can shake a stick at without any risk, after all. If the wizard had loaded - and has time to cast - all his defensive buffs then he might be alright. Mirror Image would be the best bet, since it would make the ettin miss. On the other hand, if it did hit, it's likely to really freakin' hurt!)

That and the fighter is doing the highly important part of suppporting the rogue, so he can deftly tumble in behind the ettin and start sticking him for 4D6 sneak attack damage, thanks to the fighter giving him flanking.

But, really, if a 6th level party isn't capable of taking down one ettin in one round (or two if the Cleric actually has to do something like heal the fighter), they want taking out and shooting.

(Also notably, a Warblade or a Barbarian would be in the more-or-less the same boat, and as we're assuming a minimal level of optimisation, the Barbarian won't be Shock Trooper or Pouncing. The warblade would probably be best off, considering that they will probably have some manouvers capable of doing more damage faster, but their survivability would be about the same; the higher hit points being negated by a lower AC (since they don't have heavy armour). Actually, come to that, most unoptimised melee combatants would at that level. Giants are buggers to deal with by any melee types anyway, since they have lots of hits, reach and high damage.)

Though granted, in this specific case, a party of four rogues would probably be better than four fighters, all four tumbling into flanking postions and going to Sneak Attack City; an average of 8D6 damage per round (net of about +9 to attack (BAB, Dex 16, +1 or masterwork weapon, flanking) for at least two rounds (unless the ettin gets lucky, as it'll take three average hits to knock one out). They should manage it comfortably with TWF. (I'm going to ignore four primary casters, since that would be self-evident...)

Tyndmyr
2010-08-22, 08:06 PM
Agreed. :smallsmile:



Maybe I'm just doing it wrong. What's your secret?

At low levels, adepts casting sleep are really scary. Animals are stronger than humanoids. Orcs deal more damage per swing than most characters have hit points. Poison is nasty and debilitating. Disease is a threat. That's not even getting into traps.

At very low levels, EVERYTHING is scary. Levels 1-3 are rocket tag, and the casters haven't really hit their stride yet. This quickly fades for characters other than melee only types.


As levels rise, opponents get bigger, scarier, nastier, and have more tricks. What was a riding dog and an orc is now a bear and an ogre. The things you're supposed to protect your party from will squash you like a grape.

That's a CR 2 and a CR 3, for EL 5. At level 5, this isn't that scary. The bear has 19 hp and a 13 AC. That's fairly easy to hit, and 19 hp are really fast to deal. He's possibly dead in the surprise round. Certainly by the end of round 1.

The ogre has 29 hp and 16 AC. Both have poor init. Assuming the ogre somehow doesn't get nailed by one of his terribly bad saves, he's still quite beatable by melee. An average, core fighter will have better attack, armor, and hp, and thus, has better than even odds to kill him in a duel. With a party? Bearly a challenge.


These are also the low levels, where warriors have the greatest advantages over casters. As levels rise higher still, more monsters and NPCs have access to better items, better magic, better special abilities, stronger poisons, etc.

Better items only gets you so far. In short, better items means better loot for the party. You can only amp that up so much without getting into an evil cycle. Poisons are generally worthless.


A wyvern can dive bomb you to deal x2 talon damage during a surprise round,

You assume a surprise round. From a large creature flying above the party. It has poor maneuverability. It's also got a rather unimpressive hide, vs an entire party's spot checks. It's unlikely to deal the first damage.

It has no innate ability that grants it x2 talon damage, Im not sure what you're referring to. A lucky crit?

At any rate, the talon attack only does 2d6+4 dmg. This is barely superior to the orc you were fighting at level one(2d4+4) and you are now level 6. Clearly, the relative threat from damage is lowered.


get a free grapple check due to improved grab, deal 1d4+4 unarmed strike damage, sting you once for good measure,

Only if they hit. Not a guarantee, certainly. And 1d4+4 dmg is unimpressive at level 6.


then fly away with you on the following round by moving 1/2 it's flight speed (30ft) into the air and hauling you off.

Considering his size, this isn't that impressive. You've spent two rounds to get in minor damage, grapple a player, and take off. Er, ok. That 59 hp isn't going to last you forever.


Core only, without even swapping a feat. So assuming everything hit your AC (it has a +12 to hit during this round with all of its attacks), it deals an average of 36 damage, threatens you with a DC 17 fortitude save vs 2d6 con damage - on the surprise round (and they have surprisingly good stealth modifiers). Mind you, the Wyvern is CR 6.

Sure, assuming everything hits, you can get great numbers. Also, multiattack has a -2 penalty, so he won't get +12 to everything. Lets further assume a generic core party of rogue, wizard, fighter, cleric. Since wyverns are notoriously stupid, he attacks one at random.

Level 6.
Fighter, +1 fullplate, 12 dex. AC 20, with nothing special and no shield.
Cleric, +1 fullplate, 12 dex. AC 20, with no buffs up and no shield. Apparently a stupid party.
Wizard. Mage armor, 16 dex. AC 17. No other buffs or armor.
Rogue. Chain shirt, 18 dex(or more dex, lower armor. Whatever). AC 18.

Only 8+ hits the plate wearer, 6+ the rogue, 5+ the squishy. Assuming none of them are small, or took dodge, or have cover of any kind, etc. Since the attack is rolled randomly, this translates to a 1/3 chance to miss the initial attack, leaving the wyvern pretty screwed.

And even with a +15 grapple, it still has a chance to fail. All in all, there's only about a 50% chance of getting a grapple at all.

Your surprisingly good stealth modifiers are...+7 hide. Ignoring that hiding while flying above the party is surprisingly difficult, and would almost certainly be in a situation in which the party has at least some cover, even an untrained spot check with a +0 in wisdom would give you almost 2/3rds chance of success. Per party member. That's not very stealthy. Plus, the cleric probably has some wisdom, and the rogue has some ranks in spot. They're almost guaranteed to see it in advance.

It'll be dead before it gets out of range, even if it gets lucky and gets the grapple. The wizard can just, yknow, fireball it or something. Yay, you do 1d4+4 unarmed damage for the grapple on the poor character. You take 6d6 damage from a fireball. I can guess how this is going to end.



Edit: I had originally responded regarding the perceived implication that core itself was highly challenging in general. Further reading appears to reveal that the topic is mainly that of playing a fighter in core. This IS quite challenging. You'll note that in the above scenario, while a wyvern can be easily defeated, the warrior is the least useful in doing so.

For detection, the fighter is worst off, as without wisdom as a frequent skill selection, spot as a class skill, and poor skill points, he's almost guaranteed to be worst at this.

The fighter is no better than the cleric at avoiding the attack, and only barely better than the rogue/wizard. Since surprise isn't likely, the wizard is much more able to respond in a way that makes himself not a viable target than the fighter is. So he really isn't tanking from the aspect of avoidance.

The amount of hp damage dealt by the wyvern is not enough to be of grave danger to any of the characters. The only danger is either a good poison roll, or being flown off with. So, the fighters hp are of little help here. The fort save might be helpful, but it's marginal.

But most of all, the fighter is bad at actually dropping the wyvern. At level 6, the fighter simply won't be great with both melee and ranged. The wyvern can pick which of those it'll be. Both the cleric and wizard are vastly more threatening to the wyvern, even using steriotypical blasting spells like fireball.

darkpuppy
2010-08-22, 08:14 PM
Oh, before I forget, the one thing that completely mullered my Mountain Troll encounter. Ray of Stupidity. But that's a wizard thing, not a fighter thing... still, with two rays of stupidity and even half decent rolls, the fighter can deal *all* the damage! :smalltongue:

EDIT: Apologies, Ray of Stupidity is not core in 3E (might be in 3.5, will check), but Ray of Enfeeblement improves the chances of the fighter, while doing no *damage* to the Ettin, allowing the fighter to take lots of credit! :smalltongue:

Shadowleaf
2010-08-22, 08:14 PM
Technically, it comes under Bluff, Tael... hence why I said it's a full round action... there is a problem with the ettin example that means it's still risky (see the Ettin's language bit), but, basically, you bluff the Ettin, it acts as you wish (as per the definition), and, since it's meant to be no more than 1 round, that means you can taunt it (IE- make it attack you)
Uhm.. No. Just no. Bluff doesn't work that way. Bluff is making someone believe something that isn't right - lying. If you persuade them to believe you (Read: Make your Bluff Check), they believe you. As the skill states, it's not a suggestion spell. Even if you use this extremely outragous definition of the Bluff skill, you are already at -15 on your Bluff Check:

"... The bluff is hard to believe, or the action that the target is asked to take goes against its self-interest, nature, personality, orders, or the like..."

darkpuppy
2010-08-22, 08:18 PM
"... The bluff is hard to believe, or the action that the target is asked to take goes against its self-interest, nature, personality, orders, or the like..."

Oh, so someone shouting "I COULD KICK YOUR MOTHER'S BEHIND, YOU LAZY FLEA-BITTEN WANNABE TROLL!" wouldn't, mayhap, persuade it to be a tad angry, especially if you took 1/6 of its hitpoints last time? You're right, Bluff isn't a suggest. But enraging a stupid creature that prides itself on its strength using an insult telling it it's weak? Oh, I'd give that little penalty, apart from the language issue. EDIT 2: The Intelligence 6, along with its singleminded, violent nature, also comes into play here.

EDIT: And since it's technically a lie (you're not *certain* you can beat it), it comes under Bluff.

Shadowleaf
2010-08-22, 08:20 PM
Oh, so someone shouting "I COULD KICK YOUR MOTHER'S BEHIND, YOU LAZY FLEA-BITTEN WANNABE TROLL!" wouldn't, mayhap, persuade it to be a tad angry, especially if you took 1/6 of its hitpoints last time? You're right, Bluff isn't a suggest. But enraging a stupid creature that prides itself on its strength using an insult telling it it's weak? Oh, I'd give that little penalty, apart from the language issue.
That'd be Intimidate, not Bluff. Bluff is lying/persuasion/confusion. And that would be vs (1d20 + character level or Hit Dice + target’s Wisdom bonus [if any] + target’s modifiers on saves against fear). Good luck with that as a 2+int mod class without Intimidate as a class skill.

Edit: It's really not Bluff. Bluff would be "You do not want to attack my friend, he makes anyone who attack him explode!".

darkpuppy
2010-08-22, 08:22 PM
Intimidate is for demoralising, Bluff for lying/feinting/taunting, Diplomacy for trying to improve morale, Sense motive for working out what the hell was *actually* said.

EDIT: Since there is no specific "Taunt" skill, but the ability for kender and those with the Taunt ability comes under Bluff, and a taunt is, basically, an untruth, I make the assumption as a GM that taunting someone comes under Bluff.

Tiki Snakes
2010-08-22, 08:22 PM
I'm afraid I'll have to call cobblers on that. A 6th level fighter with a +2 heavy shield, +2 full plate and a +1 weapon, assuming only elite array stats, should have an AC of 25.

Given the wealth drought in most of my 3.5 games, I went a little boggle-eyed at this list of gear, personally. :smallsmile:
Wasn't sure if it was just my imagination, so I had a look at the wealth by level stuff and costs. Far as I can tell, that's 16000gp worth of treasure. Apparently, this is about right for a level 6 in pathfinder, but expected WBL in 3.5 is apparently just 13000gp.

Which I guess is not really that much overspend. Though it's a world of difference to even the better equipped of my old 3.5 characters of the same level. :smallbiggrin:

darkpuppy
2010-08-22, 08:26 PM
Though it's a world of difference to even the better equipped of my old 3.5 characters of the same level. :smallbiggrin:

Know what you mean, but from the other side of the table... I'm notoriously stingy with some of my stuff... except when I actually own copies of Hackmaster, then I play to the spirit of the game... hehe, funny anecdote about that, have to put that in funny stories now in a sec...

Shadowleaf
2010-08-22, 08:26 PM
Intimidate is for demoralising, Bluff for lying/feinting/taunting, Diplomacy for trying to improve morale, Sense motive for working out what the hell was *actually* said.

EDIT: Since there is no specific "Taunt" skill, but the ability for kender and those with the Taunt ability comes under Bluff, and a taunt is, basically, an untruth, I make the assumption as a GM that taunting someone comes under Bluff.
It might be because taunting has never worked on anyone ever. Seriously, in a word filled with frail Wizards, no one would go for the Fighter first - not even if it was a rude loudmouthed Fighter. Taunting with a simple skill check would require some obscene modifiers in my book, and since the Fighter probably doesn't want to use his precious skill points on Intimidate, chances are it does not matter.

WarKitty
2010-08-22, 08:29 PM
Out of curiosity, did anyone notice that the arms and equipment guide has equivalency rules for weapon sizes?

Edit: I think it was arms and equipment guide? I know I read it somewhere.

Caphi
2010-08-22, 08:31 PM
The wizard at level 6 doesn't have access to the better melee defenses - aside from Fly, which as I said previously, is a safe winner for tackling an ettin regardless of CR.

Mirror image is level 2. So is invisibility.

darkpuppy
2010-08-22, 08:33 PM
It might be because taunting has never worked on anyone ever. Seriously, in a word filled with frail Wizards, no one would go for the Fighter first - not even if it was a rude loudmouthed Fighter. Taunting with a simple skill check would require some obscene modifiers in my book, and since the Fighter probably doesn't want to use his precious skill points on Intimidate, chances are it does not matter.

You mean the "frail wizard" who, if he was doing his job right, has been casting Ray of Enfeeblement/Stupidity the first round, and has a fireball just waiting for the ettin? Also, the assertion that taunts never work? Try to tell that to the chavs round here. Question their masculinity (the most base and stupid taunt I can think of), and they'll want a fight toute suite.

EDIT: And yes, I've done this when I'm annoyed. On a sidenote, I genuinely think many of the local thugs round here are INT 6, because the best insult I've heard from them so far (and that's stretching it) is "reader"... I wish I was kidding.

Eldariel
2010-08-22, 08:40 PM
You mean the "frail wizard" who, if he was doing his job right, has been casting Ray of Enfeeblement/Stupidity the first round, and has a fireball just waiting for the ettin? Also, the assertion that taunts never work? Try to tell that to the chavs round here. Question their masculinity (the most base and stupid taunt I can think of), and they'll want a fight toute suite.

If the Wizard was doing his job, the Ettin would've been Greased or Webbed (a save it likely fails and even if it doesn't, it won't be moving), perhaps Glitterdusted (though that's notably harder due to peculiarities of the Giant-type) to more-or-less disable it and then peppered to death with mundane weapons. But I don't think this was about the fact that Wizards can trivialize/heavily inconvenience CR-appropriate encounters with few spells.

Do note that CR system assumes you can take 4 CR appropriate encounters a day; by extension, it's assumed that a single character has 50/50 chances against a single CR appropriate encounter in a day. So, if Fighter was as good as it should be, it should have 50/50 chances of beating Ettin with any reasonable build.


EDIT: And yes, I've done this when I'm annoyed. On a sidenote, I genuinely think many of the local thugs round here are INT 6, because the best insult I've heard from them so far (and that's stretching it) is "reader"... I wish I was kidding.

Perhaps. Note that Int 3 is the limit for "human intellect", not int 6. Anyone over Int 2 knows a language.

Shadowleaf
2010-08-22, 08:41 PM
You mean the "frail wizard" who, if he was doing his job right, has been casting Ray of Enfeeblement/Stupidity the first round, and has a fireball just waiting for the ettin? Also, the assertion that taunts never work? Try to tell that to the chavs round here. Question their masculinity (the most base and stupid taunt I can think of), and they'll want a fight toute suite.

EDIT: And yes, I've done this when I'm annoyed. On a sidenote, I genuinely think many of the local thugs round here are INT 6, because the best insult I've heard from them so far (and that's stretching it) is "reader"... I wish I was kidding.
Yes, the d4 non-armor-wearing Wizard who can end the Ettin's life in a heartbeat, should the Ettin fail his save. I wonder why it's more important to kill him, rather than 1d12+10 damage AC 25 guy over there.

Common sense and thinking on your feat is Wisdom, not Intelligence. Also, any trained warrior will know to go for the spellcasters first - that means anyone from the city guard to warrior tribes, since it makes no sense not to.

Eldariel
2010-08-22, 08:43 PM
Oh, and regarding Ettins' intelligence:
"Though ettins aren’t very intelligent, they are cunning fighters."

Straight from their description. So yeah, playing them with basic tactics is the very least you can do.

darkpuppy
2010-08-22, 08:44 PM
Perhaps. Note that Int 3 is the limit for "human intellect", not int 6. Anyone over Int 2 knows a language.

Conceded, although I'd still put the local thugs around the same intellectual level as an Ettin.


Yes, the d4 non-armor-wearing Wizard who can end the Ettin's life in a heartbeat, should the Ettin fail his save. I wonder why it's more important to kill him, rather than 1d12+10 damage AC 25 guy over there.

Maybe because AC 25 Guy is standing in the way, which is what fighters are well known for doing among most play groups I've come across? Sure, ettin boy may well go for Mr. Squishy wizard, but on the way, he gets AoO'd from Mr. Fighter, and, just as importantly, if not more so, Mr. Rogue.

Tael
2010-08-22, 10:50 PM
Ettin: Oh noes, I must take an AoO! Oh well, now I hit the squishies.
Fighter: Hmm, darn!

Also, since when does a fighter have like +20 on his bluff check? 'Taunting' is both extremely unreliable (even if you succeed the very hard check, no guarantee that he attacks you), and done terribly by fighters.

Lhurgyof
2010-08-22, 11:35 PM
Now, you could draw back and grab your extra pole-arm you carry, chug a 50gp potion of enlarge person to give yourself 10 rounds of "big & beefy", and wait for the ettin to engage you (who now has 10ft more reach than the ettin) and then poke him for about 2d8+4 damage while denying him the full-attack since you're forcing him to approach you (or you can hang back and shoot 2d6 arrows). But people complain about "high magic" if you have potions, and also complain if the fighter uses a potion - since he can't make them; etc, etc, etc.

So discuss. Why is it that I'm not seeing this as "easy mode" or "works just fine without optimization"?

I have never experienced players being bummed out that the fighter uses magic items, or a character of a fighter that groans whenever he recieves a potion of bull strength. :smalleek:

Ashiel
2010-08-23, 12:31 AM
It has no innate ability that grants it x2 talon damage, Im not sure what you're referring to. A lucky crit?


Flight Rules (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#fly)

A creature that flies can make dive attacks. A dive attack works just like a charge, but the diving creature must move a minimum of 30 feet and descend at least 10 feet. It can make only claw or talon attacks, but these deal double damage. A creature can use the run action while flying, provided it flies in a straight line.

See above.


Sure, assuming everything hits, you can get great numbers. Also, multiattack has a -2 penalty, so he won't get +12 to everything. Lets further assume a generic core party of rogue, wizard, fighter, cleric. Since wyverns are notoriously stupid, he attacks one at random.

During the dive-charge it gains a +2 bonus to its to-hit roll against a likely flat-footed opponent. Due to the wyvern's spot checks combined with rules for distance and encounters, the wyvern can get a surprise attack quite often. The +2 bonus applies to all attacks made during the round he charges, so if he hits with his talon at a +12 vs a potentially flat-footed foe, then he deals 4d6+8 damage, immediately gets a free grapple attempt (at a +15 which is huge compared to what a PC is likely to have under the normal rules), and then follows it up with a Sting (which gains the +2 bonus from the charge) for DC 17 vs 2d6 con.

On the following round, or any round after he succeeds with his improved grab ability, the wyvern can take flight with a successful grapple check on his next turn, leaving the group (unless the wizard did learn and did prepare fly) mostly alone. Should the struggling victim break free of the wyvern, he could also end up provoking an attack from the wyvern when he leaves his space in the air (yeah, I'm not joking) and then might suffer falling damage on top of it. If the wyvern happens to get lucky on initiative, he may be in the air before the party can even take their first action.


Level 6.
Fighter, +1 fullplate, 12 dex. AC 20, with nothing special and no shield.
Cleric, +1 fullplate, 12 dex. AC 20, with no buffs up and no shield. Apparently a stupid party.
Wizard. Mage armor, 16 dex. AC 17. No other buffs or armor.
Rogue. Chain shirt, 18 dex(or more dex, lower armor. Whatever). AC 18.

Only 8+ hits the plate wearer, 6+ the rogue, 5+ the squishy. Assuming none of them are small, or took dodge, or have cover of any kind, etc. Since the attack is rolled randomly, this translates to a 1/3 chance to miss the initial attack, leaving the wyvern pretty screwed.

So he has a 65% chance to hit the most heavily armored flat footed PCs, and upwards to a 90% to hit anyone else. So the odds are in the wyvern's favor, greatly. So the victim is lucky if the wyvern misses, according to the % stats.


And even with a +15 grapple, it still has a chance to fail. All in all, there's only about a 50% chance of getting a grapple at all.

Again, while there is always a chance to fail (an ancient red dragon could continually roll 1s for some reason), the odds are greatly stacked in the wyvern's favor here. The wyvern has a +15 to grapple checks - which it gets for free if it hits with its talon. Compared to the +8 a standard fighter might have (which is assuming your 15 was in strength, you have improved grapple, and you are currently under the effects of bull's strength); which means that best case scenario, the fighter has to beat the wyvern by 7 points on the die roll, with the average scenario being more like 9 to 13 on the die roll.


Your surprisingly good stealth modifiers are...+7 hide. Ignoring that hiding while flying above the party is surprisingly difficult, and would almost certainly be in a situation in which the party has at least some cover, even an untrained spot check with a +0 in wisdom would give you almost 2/3rds chance of success. Per party member. That's not very stealthy. Plus, the cleric probably has some wisdom, and the rogue has some ranks in spot. They're almost guaranteed to see it in advance.

Negative. The +7 hide modifier is assuming the wyvern is already within 10ft of you and thus in the kill zone. For every 10ft of distance between the wyvern and you, that's another effective +1 to the hide check (technically a -1 to spot checks). The wyvern in turn can see much better with its +16 spot modifier. Wyverns are encountered in warm hills, which often means it has plenty of opportunities for cover or attacking from an elevated position. If it hunts at night, then it can fly in the open using low-light vision to hunt with relative impunity; but even in daylight it can keep its distance before diving for the kill.


It'll be dead before it gets out of range, even if it gets lucky and gets the grapple. The wizard can just, yknow, fireball it or something. Yay, you do 1d4+4 unarmed damage for the grapple on the poor character. You take 6d6 damage from a fireball. I can guess how this is going to end.

So basically if it catches the surprise round, assuming the target wasn't squishy enough to be dead already, then the wyvern now must survive until its turn to fly off or begin full-attacking another character; both of which are bad juju; but taking off generally will a least frighten players.


I have never experienced players being bummed out that the fighter uses magic items, or a character of a fighter that groans whenever he recieves a potion of bull strength.

My apologies for being unclear. I was passively referencing the fact people seem to cry foul in these internet discussions when fighters make use of "magic" to be effective; even in the form of invested potions and similar equipments; but the gist of it remains the same. I fully believe that if you're a core fighter, there's no "casual unoptimized" about it. You need to gear up, and potions are a part of that; since the potion of enlarge person goes a long way towards evening out the ettin.

But the original example was a sword & board fighter like Tordek, with a dex of 12, with a waraxe or bastard sword, a shield, some armor, etc. A standard archtype which has little chance of contributing meaningfully.

----

Also, I'd note that yes, debuffing the ettin would be a good idea. Grease, glitterdust, ray of enfeeblement and so forth are all good options to do this with; and will make it far more likely for anyone to survive. However, if the wizards are tossing around flaming sphere and the rogues are fencing, and the druid has an owl, and the fighter is sword & board (IE - unoptimized party in core), then yeah; I think someone is likely going to be kicking buckets.

darkpuppy
2010-08-23, 12:39 AM
Ettin: Oh noes, I must take an AoO! Oh well, now I hit the squishies.
Fighter: Hmm, darn!

Also, since when does a fighter have like +20 on his bluff check? 'Taunting' is both extremely unreliable (even if you succeed the very hard check, no guarantee that he attacks you), and done terribly by fighters.

Ettin Goes for Mr Squishy (who is sensibly over 15 foot away)
First attack: 1/6th of ettin's HP from fighter, probably considerably more from rogue (who is flanking, but wouldn't do as much if he weren't). Some debuff from wizard (DEX, STR, or move, doesn't matter much.) Cleric can do what the hell he wants, including pick his nose.
Ettin's go: Ettin goes for squishy, loses another 1/6 of it's hp. if greased, ettin falls over, gets backstabbed for being prone *and* flanked in AoO. Ettin most likely dies by this point.
Second round: Whoever wants the kill takes it.

Ettin goes for Mr. Fighter (the core of the argument)
First go: As before.
Ettin's go: Ettin wallops fighter for half his damage, less if STR debuffed.
Second go: bye-bye Ettin.

Neither accounts for the cleric (who can also debuff, or buff, or heal). Either way, Ettin dies with minimal resource loss.

Morithias
2010-08-23, 12:47 AM
I can see almost all of your argument...except for the catgirl thing. From what I can see you basically only have two arguments that I've ever heard about it.

1. It's female played by a male character (assuming the player is male)
or
2. It's too "anime and not dnd"

Well I say.. open your book called I think "Races of the wild" Oh look there's a catfolk LA +1 race. And it happens to have two genders.

So basically you're rejecting a race that is in a book that isn't even setting based, compared to one that is. What's next?

"oh can I play an artificer"
"sure"
"can I play a character based off a superhero" (Vigilante from complete adventurer"
"Hell no, this isn't mutant and masterminds"

Sorry that last part just came across like that.

Thurbane
2010-08-23, 12:53 AM
From my reading, he wouldn't have a problem with a Catfolk (or Tibbt etc.) - he has a problem with a character's core concept being walking around in Cosplay getup. Depending on the tone of the game, it just comes across as...silly, and possibly wildly out of place for the setting.

P.S. In a group I used to game with (all a little younger than myself), the DMs girlfriend played a Catfolk Wizard expressly because she wanted to be a catgirl. :smallsigh: The DM also had a poor grasp of LA and RHD, so he let her function as a Wizard of her ECL rather than her actual Wizard level. There was also a Lizardfolk Cleric in that group...I can't even begin to describe how his cleric level was calculated...some sort of Frankenstein blend of Cleric level, LA and RHD. Bear in mind, this was a game trying to get RPGA recognised status as an official game. In his defense, the DM was pretty awesome at creating story arcs and encouraging character development, as well as winging adventures on the fly. But his grasp of the rules was a bit shaky, even though he steadfastly believed his rules knowledge was immacualte, and rarely listened to anyone trying to point out a rules dispute.

Morithias
2010-08-23, 01:12 AM
I think one could easily have a catfolk female teenage monk in a scholar's uniform and have it be a legit character.

Heck I once played a character based off the ending I got in my first run of "Princess Maker 2" a female teenage General, although the concept seemed REALLY dumb at first to a lot of my friends. She was roleplayed brutally well, using her followers and cohort and tactical knowledge (and some planning on my part) to quickly beat down the challenges. Unlike what most players do with leadership and abuse it to hell however, she had a major hit on the players due to her nature, she never put a single follower on the front lines, only her the cohort and pc ever got up close. After a 12 level campaign from level 4 to 16, she never had a single follower die, her cohort died once, and before we even divided the small amount of loot from the encounter she stole it and had him raised. Although everyone got mad at first, it became brutally clear why she did it, "Leave no man, woman, or ally of any kind behind".

This was a character based off a game called "princess maker". Seriously, if someone can make that into a legit character, I am willing to bet a player willing to not metagame, and roleplay it well, could make a catgirl character legit too.

FelixG
2010-08-23, 01:19 AM
I can see almost all of your argument...except for the catgirl thing. From what I can see you basically only have two arguments that I've ever heard about it.

1. It's female played by a male character (assuming the player is male)
or
2. It's too "anime and not dnd"

Well I say.. open your book called I think "Races of the wild" Oh look there's a catfolk LA +1 race. And it happens to have two genders.

So basically you're rejecting a race that is in a book that isn't even setting based, compared to one that is. What's next?

"oh can I play an artificer"
"sure"
"can I play a character based off a superhero" (Vigilante from complete adventurer"
"Hell no, this isn't mutant and masterminds"

Sorry that last part just came across like that.

Except that the person wanted to play a human, with cat ears and a tail, not take the LA +1 race.

now i am not where i can look in my RoW book at the moment but are the +1 LA kittys "Anime" cat people?

It has to do with flavor, not the factthat someone wants to use a particular race, they obviously want to be human, but cute cuddly awwww humans

perhaps you missed the part where he said "human with cat ears, and tail, nothing else."

Morithias
2010-08-23, 01:22 AM
Except that the person wanted to play a human, with cat ears and a tail, not take the LA +1 race.

now i am not where i can look in my RoW book at the moment but are the +1 LA kittys "Anime" cat people?

It has to do with flavor, not the factthat someone wants to use a particular race, they obviously want to be human, but cute cuddly awwww humans

perhaps you missed the part where he said "human with cat ears, and tail, nothing else."

Ok, if he wanted to do that I cannot really argue against you.

The catfolk race is kinda like the race from Avatar, except they actually look like cats. They're kinda like....hmmmm....this

http://crpp0001.uqtr.ca/w4/campagne/images/WotC_Art_Galleries/Races_Wild/Catfolk%20by%20Emily%20Fiegenschuh.jpg

That's the picture. They're more like hunters. Kinda like a were-tiger hybrid except not lycan.

+4 dex +2 cha, la + 1 40 feet movement, and i think that's about it, besides some skill bonuses.

Favored class ranger.

Thurbane
2010-08-23, 02:07 AM
I actually prefer the original Miniatures Handbook pic:
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/mhbk_gallery/76978_CN.jpg
P.S. I personally think the Catfolk race is awesome.

Aotrs Commander
2010-08-23, 06:02 AM
I was actually wrong, by the way, chaps. Looking at the numbers again properly in the cold light of day, the ettin, with an AoO followed by a full attack, actually will only average two hits (1.9 hits, actually), not three, on an AC 25 fighter on the round he charges. A full attack alone (when the fighter isn't charging) gives him only one hit on average (1.3).

So, if the ettin stand still and full attacks, the fighter will last into round 3 on average (which is another hit to the ettin) or the ettin moves away, and it will likely take another hit, while the fighter stands a fair chance of not getting hit when he charges back in (he can take three hits on average). So the fighter will on average land three - maybe four - blows before the ettin can actually knock him down. Which is 31-42 damage, on average, over 2-3 rounds, regardless of whether the ettin ignores him or not.


Ettin: Oh noes, I must take an AoO! Oh well, now I hit the squishies.

Actually, considering the fighter has a better chance of hitting than the ettin, the fighter is actually better off if the ettin keeps walking away and doesn't full attack him while he twocks it, since the ettin hits 50% of the time on a AoO (Ac 25-2 for charging verses +12), and the fighter hits 80% of the time on a charge (+13) or 70% of the time (+11) with PA to +/-2 for as near as dammit to the damage the ettin does on average per hit (2D6+6 verses D8+8). So, no the ettin really does not want to just ignore the fighter and walk off, because even if he takes no damage at all from the other people he's attacking, and drops each in one attack, the fighter will have probably chopped off two-thirds of his hit points in the six attacks (4.2 hits) he'll have made before the ettin gets to him, and he stands a 50% chance of getting five hits in before he's dropped.

(Also noting that the other members of the party the ettin might go for unlikely to be 60' apart, which would allow the ettin to out-distance the fighter; a party that is fighting that far apart deserves to be slaughtered for splitting up and not supporting each other.)

50-66% of your hit points is NOT inconsequential. An remember, this is an unoptimised , Str 16, Dex 12, Con 14 fighter with no special tricks. Actually, looking at the cold, hard numbers, the fighter is better off than I thought. Two fighters of the same style should knock out the ettin easily.


Mirror image is level 2. So is invisibility.

The former I mentioned, the latter allows the wizard to run away or get off one spell in saftely; in either case the ettin is then allowed to pummel the other squishies, like say, the rogue.


Given the wealth drought in most of my 3.5 games, I went a little boggle-eyed at this list of gear, personally. :smallsmile:
Wasn't sure if it was just my imagination, so I had a look at the wealth by level stuff and costs. Far as I can tell, that's 16000gp worth of treasure. Apparently, this is about right for a level 6 in pathfinder, but expected WBL in 3.5 is apparently just 13000gp.

Which I guess is not really that much overspend. Though it's a world of difference to even the better equipped of my old 3.5 characters of the same level. :smallbiggrin:

It's about 12135k, actually. 4170k for the +2 shield, 2315k for the +1 weapon and 5650k for the +2 armour (= 12135). Under the limit of 13k. If you want to be really mean, drop another 2000k and make it a masterwork weapon. The extra 1 damage doesn't make that big of a difference. And then you're under by 20%. You could actually stand to lose another point of AC from the armour of the shield (that's another 3000 gold, bringing you to 55% of WBL) without it making too much of a difference. Maybe even from both armour and shield (which means you've spent 4135, merely 30% of the expected level). And you'll still winning on the AoO/charge exchance (ettin now has 60% chance to hit, still less than your 70-80%) but slightly less damage; not enough not make a difference either way, really. And the AC drop doesn't give the ettin much more chnace to hit on a full attack (1.5 hits per FA instead of 1.3, so you might take an extra hit).

If you're that tight with magical kit, though, I wouldn't be surprised in your fighters are struggling to keep up, especially as the levels rise. Melee needs the kit far more than casters.



Bear in mind of course, this is just one specific example, and there are a lot of "averages" in there. In practise, it's likely to be much more swingy, depending on who's rolling the dice, especially if criticals come in.

A barbarian or a warblade might, granted, be even better at the job (to say nothing of partial casters like psywars), but you can't say that the fighter contributes nothing in this instance, even without any optimisation.

Now, all that said, I do agree fighter is a weak class as it stands. Weak, but NOT as completely useless as people would have you beleive in many paradigms. In my own games, I've given them a fair boost of power (along with monks, rogues, swashbucklers and hexblades). Certainly in my particular little paradigm, they still hold out very well, even at high level. Though some of that is good equipment (thank you converted AD&D modules...), a lot of it isn't.

Peregrine
2010-08-23, 06:50 AM
Actually yes I do. :smallredface:

Excellent. :smallsmile:


It was often a fairly solid option to wield a small scimitar and a medium scimitar for your main and light weapon, so you could benefit from feats such as Weapon Focus / Specialization at the same time for both weapons.

See, that's what I'm saying you couldn't do in 3.0 -- if memory serves me correctly. In 3.0, there was no "small scimitar". In 3.5, there is, so you need to play 3.5 to wield a Medium and a Small scimitar. And then if your weapon-specific feats counteract the -2 wrong-size penalty, more power to you!

I have the 3e SRD around here somewhere, and will check my memory of the size rules, when I have time. I'm supposed to be preparing a maths lesson involving dice, which is subtly different from arguing D&D. :smalltongue:


Out of curiosity, did anyone notice that the arms and equipment guide has equivalency rules for weapon sizes?

Edit: I think it was arms and equipment guide? I know I read it somewhere.

I don't know about A&EG or other 3.0 sources, but 3.5 has this as an optional rule in the DMG. (Sidebar, page 27.)

Ashiel
2010-08-23, 08:28 AM
I think one could easily have a catfolk female teenage monk in a scholar's uniform and have it be a legit character.

Heck I once played a character based off the ending I got in my first run of "Princess Maker 2" a female teenage General, although the concept seemed REALLY dumb at first to a lot of my friends. She was roleplayed brutally well, using her followers and cohort and tactical knowledge (and some planning on my part) to quickly beat down the challenges. Unlike what most players do with leadership and abuse it to hell however, she had a major hit on the players due to her nature, she never put a single follower on the front lines, only her the cohort and pc ever got up close. After a 12 level campaign from level 4 to 16, she never had a single follower die, her cohort died once, and before we even divided the small amount of loot from the encounter she stole it and had him raised. Although everyone got mad at first, it became brutally clear why she did it, "Leave no man, woman, or ally of any kind behind".

This was a character based off a game called "princess maker". Seriously, if someone can make that into a legit character, I am willing to bet a player willing to not metagame, and roleplay it well, could make a catgirl character legit too.

See, you're trying and that's great. I think the character concept that you have here is great; and even though it's based off something else, that's fine since you're making it your own and you seem like you'd be giving it life in the setting.

But I'm being honest when I say the entirety of the character concept began, and ended, with "catgirl". :smalltongue:


See, that's what I'm saying you couldn't do in 3.0 -- if memory serves me correctly. In 3.0, there was no "small scimitar". In 3.5, there is, so you need to play 3.5 to wield a Medium and a Small scimitar. And then if your weapon-specific feats counteract the -2 wrong-size penalty, more power to you!

I have the 3e SRD around here somewhere, and will check my memory of the size rules, when I have time. I'm supposed to be preparing a maths lesson involving dice, which is subtly different from arguing D&D. :smalltongue:


I'm 90% positive that you could. Mechanically there was no difference between a longsword, shortsword, greatsword, and dagger, other than size; but the rules contained information on determining how much damage a weapon did based on size (still retained in 3.5); and you in fact could wield a 2 handed scimitar or a light scimitar by simply getting one of a different size. There was no -2 penalty for it being "the wrong size" like there is in 3.5.

It was stuff like this that actually worked well in favor of warrior types. As noted, there was nothing against picking up EWP-Bastard Sword and then wielding a large bastard sword 2 handed for 2d8 damage. It effectively made it so if you took this feat, you could get a 1d8 light weapon, 1d10 1 handed, or 2d8 2 handed, as long as it was a "bastard sword".

Make perfect sense? Probably not (though having a little brother of small size at the time, the -2 penalty for using oversized weapons is crap; since he could easily wield my swords in two hands). Was it nice for fighters? Yep.

Greenish
2010-08-23, 08:53 AM
Out of curiosity, did anyone notice that the arms and equipment guide has equivalency rules for weapon sizes?

Edit: I think it was arms and equipment guide? I know I read it somewhere.A&E is 3.0, where the weapon sizes were handled differently.

That's not true at all. As has been shown repeatedly (either in this thread or in the ToB thread, can't remember which now), the Barbarian's going to be strictly better at this at every level. And the Barbarian's not particularly good at it. Any martial adept, any PsyWar or Ardent, any Meldshaper, pretty much any Cleric, etc etc., are all going to be better at going toe-to-toe than the Fighter at every level past like 3.If you don't count Soulborn as a meldshaper.

[Edit]:
It was stuff like this that actually worked well in favor of warrior types. As noted, there was nothing against picking up EWP-Bastard Sword and then wielding a large bastard sword 2 handed for 2d8 damage. It effectively made it so if you took this feat, you could get a 1d8 light weapon, 1d10 1 handed, or 2d8 2 handed, as long as it was a "bastard sword".Amusingly enough, I don't think even that would make EWP: Bastard Sword worth taking unless you ran out of all the better feats. It merely increases the average damage by 1.

Ashiel
2010-08-23, 09:25 AM
[Edit]:Amusingly enough, I don't think even that would make EWP: Bastard Sword worth taking unless you ran out of all the better feats. It merely increases the average damage by 1.

It tended to work pretty nice when your size category increased for some reason (such as by an enlarge spell). Your 1d8 light weapon would become 2d6, your 1d10 1 hander 2d8, and your 2d8 2 hander I think became 3d8 (but it may have been 3d6, in which case that wouldn't have been very nice at all). :smallsmile:

Greenish
2010-08-23, 11:57 AM
Combat reflexes in 3E (have to double check in 3.5E, gimme a sec) = extra AoO on your part... wow, no change between 3 and 3.5E. Even with the limit on DEX from armour (which may or may not apply to feats... personally, I'd say it would), you'd get AoO every time he moves into your threatened squareTo avoid confusion, I'd wish to point out that in 3.5 (I don't know about earlier editions) moving into a threatened square doesn't provoke AoO, only moving out of one does.

The exception being the feat Hold the Line (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/divine/divineAbilitiesFeats.htm#holdTheLine), which triggers AoO when someone charges into a square you threaten.