PDA

View Full Version : Improving the Fighter Class



Woot Spitum
2007-01-19, 09:29 PM
A lot of people have talked about the weakness of melee fighting classes at higher levels compared to primary casters in general. Fighters are considered particularly weak. Does anyone have any suggestions on how to balance the class a little more, especially in the damage department?

Bears With Lasers
2007-01-19, 09:44 PM
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=30692

Woot Spitum
2007-01-19, 09:54 PM
Sweet. I wish I'd seen that thread before I posted this one.:smallfrown:

Shisumo
2007-01-19, 10:00 PM
Not to knock Bears' fine work, but you might also want to check this (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=761528) out.

Woot Spitum
2007-01-19, 10:11 PM
(brain exploding from sheer volume of feats) That's amazing.

Shisumo
2007-01-19, 10:20 PM
(brain exploding from sheer volume of feats) That's amazing.

Yeah, there's a lot of stuff there - taking it all in's a bit tricky. I love the intense scaling and customization though.

Behold_the_Void
2007-01-20, 01:24 AM
This may also work. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=31818)

Note: requires Tome of Battle.

Matthew
2007-01-20, 06:54 AM
Nerf the hell out of the Spell Casters?

Yakk
2007-01-20, 09:50 AM
Here is another varient fighter:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=31412

It grants multiple sets of stances, each with a full complement of "fighter bonus feats" (11 by L 20). This doesn't make a L 20 fighter match a L 20 wizard (honestly, I do not believe that is a good idea -- L 9 spells that are simply "I win" is not the kind of ability that any class should have), but it does make fighters better and makes fighters more fighterly (more flexibility, and less one-trick-ponyness).

I_Got_This_Name
2007-01-20, 05:55 PM
Well, there's also the fighter fix I've found here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=9776630&postcount=4), about 1/3 of the way through the post, but that one's a little controversial.

Yakk
2007-01-22, 02:43 PM
Name, that guy is a genious. Not sure if the answer "if other classes have an I win button, simply give the fighter an I win button as well" is a good one, still.

And, AFAICT, his barbarian is really biased away from two-handed fighting, and rather biased towards two-weapon fighting.

Rei_Jin
2007-01-22, 05:28 PM
I just read through that last link, did anyone else see the horrible painfulness that was his Samurai?

At level 14, any weapon you wield becomes vorpal. But at level 3, you gain the ability to change any confirmed hit into a critical hit, up to your level +2 times a day.

So, at level 14 you gain the ability to pretty much auto-gib 16 people per day. I don't think that's very balanced, does anyone else?

Fax Celestis
2007-01-22, 05:30 PM
I just read through that last link, did anyone else see the horrible painfulness that was his Samurai?

At level 14, any weapon you wield becomes vorpal. But at level 3, you gain the ability to change any confirmed hit into a critical hit, up to your level +2 times a day.

So, at level 14 you gain the ability to pretty much auto-gib 16 people per day. I don't think that's very balanced, does anyone else?

And at level 14, the wizard gets to go "You die" a good number of times per day. So?

Rei_Jin
2007-01-22, 05:33 PM
At least with the wizard, they get a save. That's an active chance for them to either use an item, special ability, or hope they roll well.

Whereas if he hits them, they die. Wow, I can see boss fights getting pretty short when everyone gets these kinds of abilities. Whoever gets the better initiative wins.

Draz74
2007-01-22, 05:45 PM
In 3.5, Vorpal weapons need a natural 20 to work, not just a crit. (3.0 Vorpal Scimitars were a little too much.)

The DM could easily extend this ruling to prevent this Samurai auto-kill madness.

Rei_Jin
2007-01-22, 05:48 PM
Oh, I know. But if you're going for cheese, have some gouda. If the Samurai gets a little higher in level, he gets auto-crit on all attacks of Opportunity.

So, I'm off to vent the cheese from my system, be back later, k?

Draz74
2007-01-22, 06:11 PM
Mmmmmmm, gouda :smallwink:

I miss Gouda ... had it all the time in Russia.

Maybe I need to play cheesier roleplaying games to simulate the experience for nostalgia's sake ...

RaistlinandPals
2007-01-22, 11:13 PM
Nerf the hell out of the Spell Casters?

Make a reflex save.

Spellcasters are just fine the way they are, thank you >.>

Yakk
2007-01-22, 11:31 PM
K decided to say "ok, players who play optimized CoDzilla and Wizards are X powerful. Can I make classes that match that?"

The classes are powerful. But, a SRD wizard that can get off a time stop simply wins.

The Fighter can interrupt 2 actions not on his round, and a third if he delays his initiative. But he has to be within 30 feet and make a touch attack.

But a Wizard more than 30 feet away casts maximized Time Stop, and proceeds to win.

Forcecage the Fighter, move out of range, drop a maximized no-save con drain/round spell, and block teleports.

Now, let the Fighter get to within 30' of the Wizard, and the Wizard loses due to lack of actions.

In other words, if spellcasters are fine, I'm still not sure if that Fighter is strong enough to stand up against a L 20 Wizard.

Cruiser1
2007-01-22, 11:45 PM
Now, let the Fighter get to within 30' of the Wizard, and the Wizard loses due to lack of actions.Wizard wins then too, due to the PHB2 spell Celerity that can be cast during another player's turn. :smallsmile: Wizard always goes first in combat (meaning they can always get off a Time Stop), regardless of initiative order, unless they're surprised and can't act in a surprise round.

Woot Spitum
2007-01-22, 11:50 PM
If the fighter is anything like Ryld Argith from the War of the Spider Queen series, he'll be carrying an enchanted greatsword that can dispel ANY magic.

(I'm not entirely sure how that would translate into actual game stats, but still...)

Just Alex
2007-01-23, 03:05 AM
If the fighter is anything like Ryld Argith from the War of the Spider Queen series, he'll be carrying an enchanted greatsword that can dispel ANY magic.

(I'm not entirely sure how that would translate into actual game stats, but still...)

A sword with x times per day Mordenkainen's Disjunction? Otherwise, your dispel isn't going to do a hell of a lot against a force spell.

Yakk
2007-01-23, 10:07 AM
Wizard wins then too, due to the PHB2 spell Celerity that can be cast during another player's turn. :smallsmile: Wizard always goes first in combat (meaning they can always get off a Time Stop), regardless of initiative order, unless they're surprised and can't act in a surprise round.

No, wizard's don't go first. Initiative is not a contested roll: it is a dex roll, but not a directly contested one by RAW.

Second, the Fighter can interrupt more actions on his own turn than on the Wizards turn. K's fighter can completely lock down any single non-fighter who isn't engaged in a full melee attack within 30' of them (part of a full melee attack can get through, but the full-BaB rounds are blocked). You can't even move away from them, because movement is an action that they can stop.

K basically gave fighters an "I win" button with a 30' range.

Bears With Lasers
2007-01-23, 10:14 AM
Yakk, he's not talking about Moment of Prescience. He's talking about the spell Celerity.

Shisumo
2007-01-23, 10:54 AM
Yakk, he's not talking about Moment of Prescience. He's talking about the spell Celerity.

Which you also cannot use to win initiative, because casting it's an immediate action, and you can't use immediate actions when you're flatfooted.

Bears With Lasers
2007-01-23, 11:00 AM
There are a number of ways to solve that problem. Keeping a rod-extended Foresight going is one; Contingency and Craft Contingent Spell are two more. There is also the Divine Oracle prestige class, or a feat from Dragonmarked for Eberronians.

Matthew
2007-01-23, 12:33 PM
Make a reflex save.

Spellcasters are just fine the way they are, thank you >.>

*Rolls* "Passed."

Full Spell Casters are way too powerful beyond Level X. Nerfing the hell out of them at higher levels is pretty much the obvious house ruling answer. It would almost certainly improve the Fighter Base Class

iceman
2007-01-23, 12:47 PM
I think everyone is missing the point, a spell caster is supposed to be more powerful than your everyday run of the mill fighter. Yes, they do come with an "I win" button, but only a certain amount of times per day. Playing a wizaard or other spellcaster doesn't mean pushing the I win button when ever it fancies them it's knowing WHEN to push the button and when to let your allies take some of the glory. A wizard verses a fighter wins almost every time. However, if that fighter is backed up with his/her own spellcasting buddy, then the fighter should have reletively little to fear, especially if properly equipped. I'm not sure if there are potions of Death Ward in the DMG (can't find mine at the moment) but i do know that for either 25,000 or 50,000 a fighter can purchase a (Scarab of protection?) to protect themselves from death effects and energy draining abilities. I'm also sure there are items that protect against compulsions and charm effects. Throw in a ring or potion of energy resistance (most likely fire) and the fighter can wade into battle with near impunity.
A

iceman
2007-01-23, 12:52 PM
I think everyone is missing the point, a spell caster is supposed to be more powerful than your everyday run of the mill fighter. Yes, they do come with an "I win" button, but only a certain amount of times per day. Playing a wizaard or other spellcaster doesn't mean pushing the I win button when ever it fancies them it's knowing WHEN to push the button and when to let your allies take some of the glory. A wizard verses a fighter wins almost every time. However, if that fighter is backed up with his/her own spellcasting buddy, then the fighter should have reletively little to fear, especially if properly equipped. I'm not sure if there are potions of Death Ward in the DMG (can't find mine at the moment) but i do know that for either 25,000 or 50,000 a fighter can purchase a (Scarab of protection?) to protect themselves from death effects and energy draining abilities. I'm also sure there are items that protect against compulsions and charm effects. Throw in a ring or potion of energy resistance (most likely fire) and the fighter can wade into battle with near impunity.
Also as a DM and a player I know not to burn all of my best spells on a mere fighter unless of course the fighter is my ally and the spell is a buff, or if the you know what hits the fan and my party is in serious danger of going down. To waste all of my best spells on an average encounter is to invite the DM to throw another more challenging encounter in right after the first one and watch the party founder because I used spells against weaker minions instead of saving them for the baddies they were intended for.

Matthew
2007-01-23, 12:53 PM
Basically, it would be nice if that was true. However, both Fighters and Wizards have a limited primary resource that is recouped by resting. For the Fighter it is Hit Points and for the Wizard Spell Slots. Since Fighters cannot recover all their Hit Points from eight hours rest, but Wizards can recover all their Spell slots, thre is an inherent imbalance. Couple this with the fact that Spell Casters can do a *lot* more at higher levels and you have people looking to power up Fighters or power down Spell Casters.

iceman
2007-01-23, 12:54 PM
oops sorry about the double post not sure how it happened

Matthew
2007-01-23, 01:04 PM
You can delete one through the editing options.

Yakk
2007-01-23, 01:44 PM
Regaining HP is cheap -- cheap spells, cheap potions.

Regaining spell points pretty much requires rest.

elliott20
2007-01-23, 01:57 PM
yeah, but when regaining a meteor swarm is just a matter of getting 8 hours of sleep at the nearest motel 6, you have a problem.

The problem with casters is two fold. their power increases exponentially past a certain point and they can renew this magical resource very readily in a very short amount of time.

So the solution to me, is to either nerf the power that casters gain (via nerfing the spells) or making renewing this resource something that is no trvial task. (so, regaining your level 9 "destroy the world" spell would not just be a matter of a good night sleep.)

Golthur
2007-01-23, 02:36 PM
Basically, it would be nice if that was true. However, both Fighters and Wizards have a limited primary resource that is recouped by resting. For the Fighter it is Hit Points and for the Wizard Spell Slots. Since Fighters cannot recover all their Hit Points from eight hours rest, but Wizards can recover all their Spell slots, thre is an inherent imbalance. Couple this with the fact that Spell Casters can do a *lot* more at higher levels and you have people looking to power up Fighters or power down Spell Casters.
Or both :smile:!

Woot Spitum
2007-01-23, 03:46 PM
yeah, but when regaining a meteor swarm is just a matter of getting 8 hours of sleep at the nearest motel 6, you have a problem.

It isn't if you're in the middle of a dungeon, and even if the rest of the party agrees, the gamemaster can overrule it ("No, you may not rest for eight hours deep inside the desecrated temple in the middle of Acheron. There are hordes of monsters following your trail. Now roll initiative before I decide to let the Balor have a surprise round."):smallmad:

Dark
2007-01-23, 04:16 PM
A sword with x times per day Mordenkainen's Disjunction? Otherwise, your dispel isn't going to do a hell of a lot against a force spell.
Now I have to have one of those.

TimeWizard
2007-01-23, 04:33 PM
I never understood the argument "wizards are meant to be more powerful then fighters" They certainly are more powerful, but I highly doubt the game creators sat down with the notion of making several classes vastly more powerful then others. After reading some of the forgotten realm's time of troubles (a time when magic didn't work), my DM gave the party fighter a ring, of "ultimate power and weakness"- a ring of permenant antimagic out to 20', not subject to dispel. It works exactly as well as you think it might, but it was only for our last session.

Edit:

It isn't if you're in the middle of a dungeon, and even if the rest of the party agrees, the gamemaster can overrule it ("No, you may not rest for eight hours deep inside the desecrated temple in the middle of Acheron. There are hordes of monsters following your trail. Now roll initiative before I decide to let the Balor have a surprise round."):smallmad:

That's what teleport is for.

Morty
2007-01-23, 04:38 PM
That's what teleport is for.
And that's why I think that teleport is overpowered. Sure, teleportation is what wizards do in high magic settings, but seriously, it's way too easy. Same with Rope Trick, but it's just too ridiculously stupid spell even for D&D standards.

Woot Spitum
2007-01-23, 04:50 PM
That's what teleport is for.

Balors (and I believe all demons) can Teleport Without Error at will.:smallfrown:

Matthew
2007-01-23, 05:16 PM
Or both :smile:!

Indeed.


I never understood the argument "wizards are meant to be more powerful then fighters" They certainly are more powerful, but I highly doubt the game creators sat down with the notion of making several classes vastly more powerful then others. After reading some of the forgotten realm's time of troubles (a time when magic didn't work), my DM gave the party fighter a ring, of "ultimate power and weakness"- a ring of permenant antimagic out to 20', not subject to dispel. It works exactly as well as you think it might, but it was only for our last session.

Ah, well. That's where you have to take the game's heritage into account. Spell casters have always been more powerful than Non Spell Casters and 3.x didn't do enough to rectify the situation (indeed, it may well be argued 3.x did nothing or even made matters worse). In previous editions Spell Casters were clearly designed to be weaker than other Classes at low levels and more powerful than them at high levels.

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-01-23, 06:36 PM
Mage's Disjunction greatsword? Hell yes I am getting that.

iceman
2007-01-24, 10:24 AM
There is a reason that weapons would not have Mordenkainen's disjunction as an ability. The disjunction has a 40 ft radius burst or 80 ft across that would more than likely disjoin all allies gear, your gear, and even the sword from which the spell originates.

Orzel
2007-01-24, 10:32 AM
There is a reason that weapons would not have Mordenkainen's disjunction as an ability. The disjunction has a 40 ft radius burst or 80 ft across that would more than likely disjoin all allies gear, your gear, and even the sword from which the spell originates.

That's not always a bad thing. 'Specially if you have a 40ft+ speed.

But I use regular old counterspelling shields instead.
"Lopen, two questions. Why does your shield have a face on it and are the lips on the face moving?"

Woot Spitum
2007-01-24, 11:22 AM
Since the weapon was from a novel, not a sourcebook, you would probably have to make a custom weapon to duplicate its powers. The sword, "Splitter", basically could destroy magic effects by touching them. Maybe it had an ability to deliver Mordekainen's Disjunction with the range of touch? That might lower the cost somewhat. Another idea would be to make a weapon based on the Master Sword from the Zelda series. I don't know how balanced it would be, but say you get attacked by a spell. As an immediate action (or even a readied action from the previous round) you make a single attack roll on the spell. The spell uses the casters AC. If the attack is successful, the spell is reflected back at the caster.

Yakk
2007-01-28, 10:09 AM
That guy is amazing.

I mean, I think he ****ed up a bit with Barbarians (rage dice seem to discourage 2 handed weapons a bit much), but:
[quote]The Stone Ledger: The Dwarves Remember

Deep in the mountains, the Dwarf people have records that go back to when most of the other races were learning about fire. Second only to the Aboleth themselves, the racial memory of the Dwarves extends to days beyond reckoning. At least, beyond reckoning to anyone who isn't a Dwarf. Dwarves keep their records chiseled into stone and preserved for all time with mystical might. While the spellbooks of the Elves eventually crumble into dust, the Ledgers of the Dwarves will stand in mute testament to their triumphs and failures for as long as day follows night and night follows day.

The Ledgers of the Dwarves measure in exact terms the location of all the cool things that the Dwarven people have found, they give tips for dealing with problems that Dwarves have overcome in the past, and they record in excruciating detail every bad thing that anyone has ever done to the Dwarven race. Remember that when you consider the implications of the fact that every group has at one time or another been at war with any other race you care to name. So the fact that sometimes goblins commit atrocities against Dwarf settlements means that each and every Dwarf child grows up reared on vivid and gory stories of generations of conflicts with goblins – and goblins really don't. From the goblin perspective… nothing is happening at all. Goblins don't live nearly as long as Dwarves do, and that means that they don't have a war with Dwarves even every generation.

This discontinuity leads to Dwarves being much better at the eternal war they are fighting with the Orcs, the Giants, and the Goblins than their opponents. That's because noone else really has the perspective to see that it is an ongoing conflict. The other races see it as a series of separate conflicts that are all individually about something, and mostly their poor record keeping techniques leave them often unable to even recollect the previous conflict. So really, the Dwarves keep winning because they are the only ones playing.

You may be tempted to ask "If these wars kill thousands, and the only reason they're being kept alive is because of the Dwarf Ledger, doesn't that make the Dwarves the bad guys?" And honestly, that's a pretty good question. The Dwarves are Lawful Good and are the only race involved that understands the epic scale of the over-conflict. But that doesn't mean that they bear sole responsibility. Indeed, while the average Goblin on the street doesn't even know that there's an ancient rivalry between his people and the Dwarves, the list of usual suspects for evil overlords is a laundry list of people who actually also know the whole deal. Liches, Fiend Lords, and of course Maglubiet and Hruggek all know that Dwarves spend large amounts of time training and preparing for battle with the goblin people, and they don't tell the goblins. The thought is that by not telling the goblins that the Dwarves are totally ready for them and have been for thousands of years, that goblins will fight more bravely – they literally don't know how very unlikely each individual goblin is to make it out alive from any conflict.

So life is pretty weird for a Dwarf. As a Dwarf you know that you are in an eternal struggle with the Goblin people. You also know that several times in your life, goblinoids are going to behave towards the Dwarven people as if nothing was wrong and have flourishing trade relations instead. But you also know that once every couple of goblin generations (which is to say several times in your life if you happen to be a Dwarf) some warlord is going to arise and send hordes of goblins to destroy your family. So if Dwarves come off as being intolerant jerks, that's why.

A special note has to be made about Dwarves and Arcane Magic. They like it. They are really good at it and have tremendous supplies of wizardly goods down in the depths. They can read spellbooks in the dark, and they are encouraged to do so. In some previous editions of D

Arceliar
2007-01-28, 09:39 PM
The problem with casters is two fold. their power increases exponentially past a certain point and they can renew this magical resource very readily in a very short amount of time.


Oh really? Because last I checked, most spells had an effect directly proportional to caster level, usually with a maximum possible effect (ie: 10d6 on a fireball max). Yeah, that's exponential. If your exponent is 1.

There are a handful of spells which deal damage AND have a duration based on level, so those are technically exponential..as is anything w/ the chain spell metamagic feat applied. But for the most part, the spellcasters seem pretty linear to me.

Compared to a wizard, a fighter does tend to.....suck, but that's because of a few fundamental differences between the classes. Let's think about this for a moment: fighters get on average just over twice the HP each level (plus Con) and their attacks don't just run out at the end of a long day (unless you're a sorc, then you might not run out of spells..but your job is to blow it up in that case). That's the price of being a fighting class, lower average damage but you can take a beating. With spellcasters, one way or another, the fight is usually over quick.

Don't get me started on melee though. A barbarian/frenzied berserker with a scythe is terrifying. In a rage + frenzy, that's an extra +14 str. If you put just the +7 bonus from those attacks into power attack, you get an extra 38-39 (pending rounding on str bonus for 2 handed weapon) damage from str+power attack to each attack without decreasing your attack bonus below your out-of-rage-and-frenzy normal--and way more if you feel like using all your base attack and hope you get lucky dice rolls. Don't forget about criticals, that's x4 to damage with the scythe, which is..enough.

Don't get me wrong, the sheer power of most wiz/sorc spells is impressive, but melee fighting can be overpowered too in the right hands.

Parlik
2007-01-28, 10:36 PM
Well the real reason I see high level wizards as more powerfull are because they are supposed to be a lot smarter than everyone else really. Superior intellect does take you a long way, and lets face it, no other class have the idiots and fools weeded out as thoroughly at lower levels as the wizards do. Heck even at high levels you have them weeding out eachother.

Orzel
2007-01-28, 10:56 PM
The problem isn't the fighter, it's their tools. Magic Weapons and armor, for the most part, just increase or decrease damage dealt. Fighters and other pure combat class DON'T need more damage and accuracy modifiers. They need noncombat effects. Full casters are the masters of "noncombat" effects and still have good combat effects. Skill users have a bit of both too. Fighter are too one sided.

Fighters can neither teleport nor trick/summon/charm/talk cohorts/magical beast/animals into triggering contingency teleports.

Raum
2007-01-28, 11:00 PM
Oh really? Because last I checked, most spells had an effect directly proportional to caster level, usually with a maximum possible effect (ie: 10d6 on a fireball max). Yeah, that's exponential. If your exponent is 1.Well that may be true...as long as you're limiting the discussion to spells causing damage. How do you quantify a Finger of Death spell? Or a Shapechange? Gate? Wish? However you quantify it, I suspect they won't be linear...

Raum
2007-01-28, 11:03 PM
The problem isn't the fighter, it's their tools. Err, don't casters get "tools" also? Seriously, saying a fighter's weakness is due to poor item selection is like saying a turtle is slow because he doesn't have a car.

Whamme
2007-01-28, 11:13 PM
What is needed:

1) Antimagic Field on a permanent item
2) Some way to get to fliers
3) Some way to bypass forcecage (although arguably since it is not explicitly immune to AMF it is not immune - Wall of Force is mentioned, but Forcecage is not, and unlike Prismatic Wall, Wall of Force doesn't actually mention AMF - I suspect there may have been an editing error)

I think that covers most of it. I think a feat that adds about 10ft of base movement and stacks with itself, and lowering the DC on high level jump and epic balance checks.

Jack Zander
2007-01-28, 11:25 PM
Personally, I like that spellcasters are more powerful as they pregress in levels than fighters. That's how it should be. Ever notice how its the young strong boys that are good fighters, but the really powerful people of fantasy are old, grey wizards. Spells at higher levels should be the bomb-diggity compared to "I run up and swing my sword at him". Honestly, who ever heard of Gandalf being bested by a fighter?
As long as the players have no problem playing a character that simply isn't as powerful as another, it's fine. My group's barbarian has no problem not casting spells cuz simply attacking for insane amounts of damage if more fun for him, even though the party spellcasters could take him down easy. But guess what? They never will cuz we are all in the same party. Being weaker than a wizard has never prevented me from playing a fighter, rogue, paladin, ranger, or monk.

Orzel
2007-01-28, 11:45 PM
Err, don't casters get "tools" also? Seriously, saying a fighter's weakness is due to poor item selection is like saying a turtle is slow because he doesn't have a car.

It's more like giving glasses to a person with perfect vision.

Casters can hear and see well. Roguelikes can see and hear decently. Fighters can see very well but have poor hearing. Then you give all 3 glasses. Casters and Roguelikes can now see better but Fighters are unaffected.

Warrior classes are good in the AB vs AC and damage vs DR checks. But 90% of the core enchancment on weapons increase damge or accuracy. They don't deal with flying, teleporting, cages, walls etcs. Skill monkeys and Spellcaster tools (skills and spells) deal with these things better. Therefore fighter must hoard wondrous items to deal with onesideness of their tools.

Malachite
2007-01-29, 01:20 PM
I think Jack summed it up pretty much perfectly.

At high levels, casters should be more powerful. They're bending the freakin' laws of physics to their will! The fighter, well, learns to swing a sword really well. :smallamused:

Don't get me wrong, I think fighters should be a little bit more powerful; have the ability to eventually take on big baddies by themselves, but there's no way they should catch up with high level casters if they face them on their own terms.
I do, however, think that a fighter should be able to take a caster if he's close enough, but that would require a different hp system, like the wp/vp one, or whatever it's called.


Incidentally, what do you think of a feat along the lines of giving you an attack of opportunity against natural attacks, with the posibility of deflecting them? It's pretty much a staple of films/books to have something try to bite the hero only to have a sword/torch shoved in it's face after all.

Woot Spitum
2007-01-29, 02:09 PM
Maybe if there was some way fighters could get spell resistance...

Marius
2007-01-29, 02:28 PM
Regaining HP is cheap -- cheap spells, cheap potions.

Regaining spell points pretty much requires rest.

Do you know how easy is to rest for a mid-high level caster? rope trick, teleport, magnificient mansion are all core.

Yakk
2007-01-29, 09:52 PM
And if you aren't fighting against a clock in DND, the game pretty much breaks down. There has to be an enforcement of 3 to 4 encounters/day, or game balance doesn't work.

Marius
2007-01-30, 06:13 AM
And if you aren't fighting against a clock in DND, the game pretty much breaks down. There has to be an enforcement of 3 to 4 encounters/day, or game balance doesn't work.

Yes but a good high level wizard has enough spells to "win" 3 or 4 encounters by himself, game balance doesn't work, ever.

Orzel
2007-01-30, 09:07 AM
Yes but a good high level wizard has enough spells to "win" 3 or 4 encounters by himself, game balance doesn't work, ever.

An arcane spellcaster usually won't win 3-4 decent fights in a row by himself without resting. Spellcasters solo nonjobbers by casting 4-7 defensive spells on themself and 1-4 offensive spells on their enemies. Higher level encounters require even more spells.

By the 3rd or 4th fight:
The spellcaster would be low of her high level spells (7-11 spells a fight is a lot)
The spellcaster would have ran out of the spells she needs (if wizard)
The spellcaster would have by now need a spell she doesn't know (if sorcerer)

Marius
2007-01-30, 11:49 AM
An arcane spellcaster usually won't win 3-4 decent fights in a row by himself without resting. Spellcasters solo nonjobbers by casting 4-7 defensive spells on themself and 1-4 offensive spells on their enemies. Higher level encounters require even more spells.

By the 3rd or 4th fight:
The spellcaster would be low of her high level spells (7-11 spells a fight is a lot)
The spellcaster would have ran out of the spells she needs (if wizard)
The spellcaster would have by now need a spell she doesn't know (if sorcerer)

At low levels that is usually true but at high levels casters are more and more powerful, they have 24 hours buffs and way too many save-or-die and save-or-lose spells. Plus it's not only that the casters gain a lot of power but also the fact that the other classes are more useless. They can even "win" social encounters or others meant to be solved by skillmonkeys (a wand of knock and open locks is suddenly useless). Also Wizards are not the only casters around, Druids and clerics are better at soloing than wizards.

Leush
2007-01-30, 12:43 PM
To be fair, I'd allow fighters to take any bonus feats rather than just the fighter bonus feats, and then I'd also give them paladin progression spellcasting (or something slightly worse)/increase the skillpoints to give them a little more flexibility also, I'd take a really big sword, go up to the people who say "wizards teh uberz, nerf teh wizardz ftw, pwned!" and power attack them over the head for full. Honestly, spellcasters start off weak enough, that in your normal 1-20 level campaign they frankly deserve to become a little more powerful by level 20. If you start off at level 20, then there may be justfication to remove some spells.


Edit: I will not comment on CoDzilla- whoever had that idea really needs to be shot.

Marius
2007-01-30, 01:13 PM
Honestly, spellcasters start off weak enough, that in your normal 1-20 level campaign they frankly deserve to become a little more powerful by level 20. If you start off at level 20, then there may be justfication to remove some spells.

They don't start weak at all, they start well balanced until you hit 7th level (for wizards) or 5th level for Clerics and Druids, by that level they can do more than any fighter in a fight and they are still full casters.
At low levels wizards can win fights casting grease or sleep for example.



Edit: I will not comment on CoDzilla- whoever had that idea really needs to be shot.

What idea? The idea that the Clerics and Druids are comletely overpowered and can be much better than any fighter in a fight?

Leush
2007-01-30, 02:55 PM
My argument seems to have caused dismay, here's some clarification.

Actually I meant, whoever made CoDzilla with d8, full casting, and armor proficiency and a lot of other stuff to boot needs to be shot. I don't know whether it's my bad for not experessing myself clearly.

As for casters being balanced at low level: A bow works from a range of 800 feet, a spellcaster has significantly less health. He is also soft and squishy. Unless he prepared mage armor. In which case he will have one less sleep. Unless he's a sorcerer, in which case having mage armor may well mean that he doesn't have sleep. Level one fighter with rapid shot and a longbow? Sucks to be level one wizard/sorcerer.

Besides low level spellcasters not having the versatility they have at high levels- they don't have the luxury of choosing where they fight as they don't have access to spells like teleport and magnificant mansion. Bad weather? Make a concentration check? You're not standing still? Make a concentration check? Tanglefoot bag? Make a concentration check? Monk? Pray to Boccob.

Casters are high output, low hp creatures. Every sapient being on the battlefield will try to take the caster out first due to this property. It also means that it is liable to succeed. A save or die is a save or die for both the target and the caster: If the target succeeds the will save, the caster dies.

Add to this clever villains who make resting/crafting difficult, and the fighter (or more correctly the rogue who hides behind him) is going to all of a sudden feel so much better about not having to recharge his sneak attacks.

Having said all this, I bow to the logic of those who say that a well a full progression, level 20 caster who meets rosy fingered dawn in a nice safe place where he can prepare for the day, is the god for the rest of said day. Even then a rod of absorbtion (did I spell that correctly) can make him cry.

Marius
2007-01-30, 06:44 PM
As for casters being balanced at low level: A bow works from a range of 800 feet, a spellcaster has significantly less health. He is also soft and squishy. Unless he prepared mage armor. In which case he will have one less sleep. Unless he's a sorcerer, in which case having mage armor may well mean that he doesn't have sleep. Level one fighter with rapid shot and a longbow? Sucks to be level one wizard/sorcerer.

I didn't say that they were kings at 1st level, I just said that they are good enough. And a longbow works with a range increment of 120 feet (not much more than the wizards crossbow) so at 800 feet your fighter will be shooting with a -12 penalty, I don't think that he could hit anything.



Besides low level spellcasters not having the versatility they have at high levels- they don't have the luxury of choosing where they fight as they don't have access to spells like teleport and magnificant mansion. Bad weather? Make a concentration check? You're not standing still? Make a concentration check? Tanglefoot bag? Make a concentration check? Monk? Pray to Boccob.

Sure at really really low levels but a 5th level Diviner is still low level and he has a lot of spells to play with. Even at level 1 a wizard could make himself useful for the day.



Casters are high output, low hp creatures. Every sapient being on the battlefield will try to take the caster out first due to this property. It also means that it is liable to succeed. A save or die is a save or die for both the target and the caster: If the target succeeds the will save, the caster dies.

Sure they will since they are obviously far more dangerous that everyone else. And you are mistaken if you think that is easy to hiw a wizard, a 5th level wizard can cast flight and wind wall and make himself inmune to everything but other spellcasters. Of course at low levels he has a few meatshields to stand in front of him just in case.



Add to this clever villains who make resting/crafting difficult, and the fighter (or more correctly the rogue who hides behind him) is going to all of a sudden feel so much better about not having to recharge his sneak attacks.

The rule is 4 encounters in a row not 6 or 9 so even if the fighter can keep swinging his sword he won't have the opportunity and another possibility is that those 4 encounters won't be all fights a social encounter still counts towards the limit.



Having said all this, I bow to the logic of those who say that a well a full progression, level 20 caster who meets rosy fingered dawn in a nice safe place where he can prepare for the day, is the god for the rest of said day. Even then a rod of absorbtion (did I spell that correctly) can make him cry.

At 9th level a wizard stops worrying about that (rope trick lasts 9 hours at that level). And a 20th level wizard won't even blink at a rod of absorbtion they will just cast time stop, force cage and cloudkill and wait until you die and even if you don't they still haven't used any of thier true potential.

barawn
2007-01-30, 08:07 PM
Since Fighters cannot recover all their Hit Points from eight hours rest, but Wizards can recover all their Spell slots

(There's more than just that problem - really, quite a bit more - but...)

So... why not fix that problem?

Either 1) have fighters recover all of their hit points from eight hours rest, or 2) wizards can't recover all of their spell slots unless, say, fully healed.

1) is actually not a bad solution. Hit points aren't really supposed to be damage. It's just an abstraction - in some sense, it could be 'exhaustion'. No reason that eight hours couldn't do it. If you wanted to be slick, you could make the number of hit points you recovered from an 8 hour rest period be dependent on the hit dice you have. You gain 6 hit points for each d12, 5 for a d10, 3 for a d8, 2 for a d6, and 1 for a d4, plus Con bonuses, etc.

2) I don't think does anything. Maybe there's a more clever way to make wizards expend more effort to have their full complement of spells.

But 1) ... that's an interesting thought. I think functionally it wouldn't do much, except speed up the game a bit. Wizards would be a *lot* less capable of doing dungeon crawls on their own even at high levels, though. Especially if you combined 1 and 2.

Marius
2007-01-30, 09:29 PM
It wouldn't work, Wizards can be healed a lot more easyly than fighters since they have low hit points and they usually don't get hit (since it could mean their death) so a few spells from your friendly cleric (or even a cheap wand of CLW) could heal them quickly while the fighter needs a lot more healing. Healing them in one night wouldn't help them one bit, their problem is not that they lack of hit points or healing, they lack power and actions.
ToB helped the non-casters in many ways one of them is giving them more to do in one turn (since they can use maneuvers as inmediate or swift actions for example).

Woot Spitum
2007-01-30, 09:38 PM
I don't remember a strict "no more than 4 encounters" rule. Whatever happened to finishing the dungeon?

barawn
2007-01-30, 09:48 PM
so a few spells from your friendly cleric (or even a cheap wand of CLW) could heal them quickly while the fighter needs a lot more healing.

So? Why should a fighter - whose entire point is melee combat - need a cleric to fight day after day? Now, a wizard - that I can see.

As for the game balance of the situation, eh. The cleric's going to burn most of the healing spells on the melee fighters during combat. After combat, the cleric might not have any spells left to heal the mage. Or he/she just might not consider the mage important enough.

And as for the "well, they could just use a cheap wand of CLW" - yeah, and a fighter could have a slew of potions and other random magic devices as well. Big deal.


ToB helped the non-casters in many ways one of them is giving them more to do in one turn (since they can use maneuvers as inmediate or swift actions for example).

I won't disagree with you there. That's the "other problem" that I mentioned. But the previous post definitely did have a point in that the main advantage melee types have over spellcasters is hit points, so it's a bit strange that fighters and wizards heal at the same rate. It does mitigate that somewhat if wizards can't heal overnight nearly as much as fighters can.

The "lack of abilities" you'd have to mitigate in other ways.

Marius
2007-01-31, 07:19 AM
So? Why should a fighter - whose entire point is melee combat - need a cleric to fight day after day? Now, a wizard - that I can see.

Well, they can burn feats to heal faster but by RAW everyones heals according to their level. You could house rule it but it wouldn't make much of a difference.



As for the game balance of the situation, eh. The cleric's going to burn most of the healing spells on the melee fighters during combat. After combat, the cleric might not have any spells left to heal the mage. Or he/she just might not consider the mage important enough.

The cleric won't cure anyone in combat since it's FAR more effective to kill the enemies first and heal later. And after the fight if I were a cleric I would heal the Wizard first, since he is REALLY important.



And as for the "well, they could just use a cheap wand of CLW" - yeah, and a fighter could have a slew of potions and other random magic devices as well. Big deal.

Not really is far more cheaper to heal a wizard since he has low hit points and since he won't get hit a lot. And in any case even if the wizard is not fully healed he can still be as good as when he is healed. But the point is that the fighter would need more resources than the wizard to be fully healed all the time.



I won't disagree with you there. That's the "other problem" that I mentioned. But the previous post definitely did have a point in that the main advantage melee types have over spellcasters is hit points, so it's a bit strange that fighters and wizards heal at the same rate. It does mitigate that somewhat if wizards can't heal overnight nearly as much as fighters can.

You really think that don't healing overnight could bother a wizard? A high level wizard could just afford a Ring of Regeneration and not care about that anymore.


I don't remember a strict "no more than 4 encounters" rule. Whatever happened to finishing the dungeon?

It's in the DMG , it doesn't say that you should make dungeons with only 4 encounters it says that after 4 encounters you should allow the party to rest to recover it's resources (spells and hp) before they move foward.

barawn
2007-01-31, 08:38 AM
Well, they can burn feats to heal faster but by RAW everyones heals according to their level. You could house rule it but it wouldn't make much of a difference.

Yes, I know how the game actually works, thanks. I'm pointing out it doesn't make much sense for everyone to only heal according to their level. At the very least, everyone should heal a percentage of their total hit points per day.

As for changing things, I think the main thing it would do is slightly speed the pacing of the game. But it would make a party of, say, 4 melee combatants with no cleric feasible, with decent tactics and frequent resting.


The cleric won't cure anyone in combat since it's FAR more effective to kill the enemies first and heal later. And after the fight if I were a cleric I would heal the Wizard first, since he is REALLY important.

Man, if you've got a DM who never puts you in battles where mid-battle healing is needed, those are far, far too easy battles. As for healing the wizard first: the wizard's not injured severely.


And in any case even if the wizard is not fully healed he can still be as good as when he is healed.

Hence the addition of the "you can only memorize spells when fully healed" addition, as well. I'm not sure how much that would change, though.

It would be hilarious to have at the end of the battle a completely exhausted fighter and cleric, bloodied and beaten, and completely out of spells, and a wizard who's got a few scratches coming over and saying "Ahem, excuse me, but I need healing!"


But the point is that the fighter would need more resources than the wizard to be fully healed all the time.

Hence the reason why it doesn't make sense!


You really think that don't healing overnight could bother a wizard? A high level wizard could just afford a Ring of Regeneration and not care about that anymore.

High level fighters can afford lots more magic equipment than wizards as well. So what? The point is that the fighter wouldn't need to spend money on something like that. The wizard would. So that'll slow down the wizard's progression, slightly.

Marius
2007-01-31, 09:01 AM
Yes, I know how the game actually works, thanks. I'm pointing out it doesn't make much sense for everyone to only heal according to their level. At the very least, everyone should heal a percentage of their total hit points per day.

As for changing things, I think the main thing it would do is slightly speed the pacing of the game. But it would make a party of, say, 4 melee combatants with no cleric feasible, with decent tactics and frequent resting.

The concept of "hit points" doesn't make sense, this is d&d many thinks don't make sense at all.



Man, if you've got a DM who never puts you in battles where mid-battle healing is needed, those are far, far too easy battles. As for healing the wizard first: the wizard's not injured severely.

Well I'm the DM in our group and I give them a hard time but they usually don't waste actions in healing unless someone is dying. And it doesn't matter if the wizard is not severly injured if he can't recover his spells I will heal him first.



Hence the addition of the "you can only memorize spells when fully healed" addition, as well. I'm not sure how much that would change, though.

It would be hilarious to have at the end of the battle a completely exhausted fighter and cleric, bloodied and beaten, and completely out of spells, and a wizard who's got a few scratches coming over and saying "Ahem, excuse me, but I need healing!"

What I'm saying is that it wouldn't chang a thing. The wizard with a few scraches would just drink a potion and move on.



High level fighters can afford lots more magic equipment than wizards as well. So what? The point is that the fighter wouldn't need to spend money on something like that. The wizard would. So that'll slow down the wizard's progression, slightly.

No they don't, high level fighters depend almost exclusively in their equipment, they are nothing without it. While a wizard could just do fine with a Headband of intellect and if he wants a Ring of Regeneration he can make one himself! (and he could catch up with the others quickly since he would gain more XP).
The problem with wizards is that they can do quite literally anything they want (speacially at high levels).

barawn
2007-01-31, 09:32 AM
The concept of "hit points" doesn't make sense, this is d&d many thinks don't make sense at all.

And.. this is a reason not to improve it... why? You've got a rule that doesn't make sense. The fix is fairly obvioius, and unobtrusive. The reason not to improve it is because... the game doesn't make sense anyway, so why bother?


The wizard with a few scraches would just drink a potion and move on.

Exactly. What you're requiring the wizard to do is actually spend more effort, and more money. I don't get why you keep saying "the wizard could just have an X" - so? Fighters can carry equipment to counteract what wizards can do as well, for the most part. The extreme cases still would need to be dealt with, I agree.


No they don't, high level fighters depend almost exclusively in their equipment, they are nothing without it.

What did I say that disagreed with that? In fact, this helps fighters because it means they wouldn't need potions, etc. for healing. Well, they still would if they couldn't rest.

A wizard making a ring of regeneration on their own? Um. Not without help, considering regenerate's not in their spellbook. And if wizards can hire help to overcome their own class limitations, so can fighters, so what's the big deal?



The problem with wizards is that they can do quite literally anything they want

I'm not arguing there are other problems with wizards (how many times do I need to end a post with that?). But the simple change I mentioned with hit points at least changes it so that fighters don't need clerics/healing items nearly as much as wizards do, which gives the fighters (gasp) more stamina.

Marius
2007-01-31, 10:15 AM
I'm not arguing there are other problems with wizards (how many times do I need to end a post with that?). But the simple change I mentioned with hit points at least changes it so that fighters don't need clerics/healing items nearly as much as wizards do, which gives the fighters (gasp) more stamina.

Because it doesn't change a thing! The wizard would still be as powerful as always and the fighter will still be useless, the only change is that now he can be useless a everyday without a cleric! Great! Now the cleric can spend even more spells on buffing himself or healing the wizard so that he can recovers his spells.

Making a rule like:
Natural Healing

With a full night’s rest (8 hours of sleep or more), you recover 10% of your hit points +2% per character level +5% per con mod. Any significant interruption during your rest prevents you from healing that night.
If you undergo complete bed rest for an entire day and night, you recover at twice your hit point recovery rate.


Would make fighters and the like heal faster but it would change the game at all. It would make more sense but it's also more complicated. But in the end it wouldn't make them better.

barawn
2007-01-31, 10:47 AM
Because it doesn't change a thing! The wizard would still be as powerful as always and the fighter will still be useless, the only change is that now he can be useless a everyday without a cleric!

Let me get this straight.

Before this, fighters were useless, because while they had tons of hit points, in order to maintain those hit points, they needed a cleric's attention all the time. So really, they were useless without a cleric. With a cleric, they were of limited usefulness, and at high levels they were useless.

This change makes the fighters need the cleric less, and it's bad? Does it fix the high level bit? No, but so what?


Great! Now the cleric can spend even more spells on buffing himself or healing the wizard so that he can recovers his spells.

Hardly. Only if the party's intending to rest immediately afterwards. Otherwise, the fighter still risks being injured more in future combat. You're not going to wander around with a tank at 5 hp out of 100.

And if the cleric needs to devote attention to the wizard constantly, that's an improvement. The cleric should be supporting the wizard more than the fighter.


It would make more sense but it's also more complicated.

It's not that much more complicated. You write down the number of hit points you gain each night beside your HP total, and you can just easily figure it out from the class list. I prefer my suggestion a little more - if a fighter's not crippled or dying, I don't see any reason that he wouldn't be fine the next day. Bumps and bruises? Whatever. He's a fighter, for crying out loud.

Marius
2007-01-31, 12:40 PM
Let me get this straight.

Before this, fighters were useless, because while they had tons of hit points, in order to maintain those hit points, they needed a cleric's attention all the time. So really, they were useless without a cleric. With a cleric, they were of limited usefulness, and at high levels they were useless.

Not, they aren't useless because they need clerics, they are useless (at high levels) because all they to is hit things and they're not even good at that. They have bad saves, few class skills, few skill points and no versatility whatsoever. A low level fighter can hit stuff once per round all the time when he levels up he gets a little better a hitting things but the things are a lot harder to hit and all he can do in a round is swing his sword. A high level wizard only needs one round to do whatever he wants.
If you want to argue that the fighter is useful at high levels (if he gets fully healed with rest) then go read the several topics about how the fighters are a million times weaker than the casters.



This change makes the fighters need the cleric less, and it's bad? Does it fix the high level bit? No, but so what?

It just doesn't matter, why make a change when it doesn't change anything?



Hardly. Only if the party's intending to rest immediately afterwards. Otherwise, the fighter still risks being injured more in future combat. You're not going to wander around with a tank at 5 hp out of 100.

But if you do plan to rest afterwards then yes, they do end up with more spells to play with.



And if the cleric needs to devote attention to the wizard constantly, that's an improvement. The cleric should be supporting the wizard more than the fighter.

No it's not, the wizard always goes to bed fully healed, this is something that already happends all the time.



It's not that much more complicated. You write down the number of hit points you gain each night beside your HP total, and you can just easily figure it out from the class list. I prefer my suggestion a little more - if a fighter's not crippled or dying, I don't see any reason that he wouldn't be fine the next day. Bumps and bruises? Whatever. He's a fighter, for crying out loud.

So you just think that when your 200hp fighter is down to 1 hp he is just bruised? A character is injured when he loses hit points they don't just get bruised. A dragon just bit you for 75 damage, roll for massive damage but don't worry you are just bruised if you pass the roll... Granted the hp system doesn't make sense, you shouldn't be able to perform the same when you are fully healed than when you are injured but that's the way it is. The rolmaster is system it's better in that regard.
So if you think as I do then no, the fighter is not a troll and he can't recover just resting.

barawn
2007-01-31, 01:21 PM
If you want to argue that the fighter is useful at high levels (if he gets fully healed with rest) then go read the several topics about how the fighters are a million times weaker than the casters.

How many times do I have to say that this doesn't change the fact that spellcasters get ridiculously powerful at very high levels, and that needs to be dealt with in other ways? I can suggest several, if you want me to, but that's not my point.

Any fix that you make with a fighter - giving him more abilities, etc. - still falls prey to the fact that a fighter lacks any ability to heal himself, and his main advantage is hit points. It's, in fact, harder for a fighter to heal himself due to his massive hit points.

No matter what else you do, you still would have to address that.


It just doesn't matter, why make a change when it doesn't change anything?

It does change something. Fighters on their own can now maintain some competency without a cleric. Casters could already do so. Fighters also have no dependence on another class for continued ability to fight day after day.

I can think of a bajillion examples where this would actually make a fighter useful. Especially if you made it such that injured spellcasters couldn't regain spells easily - the idea that I had there was a Spellcraft or Concentration check (or something else for Clerics - probably Concentration again), with a DC of 10+number of hit points of damage to actually gain the spells. Maybe even higher.

I mean, what if the Cleric was killed, but the party managed to escape the battle? The other spellcasters are pretty injured, and the fighter's beaten up. The next day, the spellcasters fail to recover their spells (they're too injured), barely heal, whereas the fighter - nearly fully healed - looking around at the rest of them. "What's wrong with you? We need to move. Let's go. We need to get the Cleric to a church and have him resurrected."


But if you do plan to rest afterwards then yes, they do end up with more spells to play with.

Exactly. Which is what I said a while ago, is that it basically will likely tend to speed up the game slightly, but I also think that it will boost a fighter's usefulness a little later. It won't fix the high levels, though it's a start.


No it's not, the wizard always goes to bed fully healed, this is something that already happends all the time.

After weak encounters, sure. After major encounters? Yeah, I hope half the party's near dead by the time they collapse for the evening, otherwise it sure as heck wasn't a major encounter.

Sorry, I think you're thinking mainly of cakewalk encounters. I've DMed, and played, in plenty of encounters where we weren't able to heal everyone by the end of the night, because everyone was out of spells. In those cases they sometimes used healing items, and in the case of a spellcaster they probably still would - if they had enough.


So you just think that when your 200hp fighter is down to 1 hp he is just bruised? A character is injured when he loses hit points they don't just get bruised. A dragon just bit you for 75 damage, roll for massive damage but don't worry you are just bruised if you pass the roll...

1) Hit points are an abstraction of the ability of a character to avoid damage and to absorb it. Get hit for 75 damage? You're rolling to see if the dragon tore an artery. Otherwise, you just got, in a sports sense, "jacked up". Maybe a concussion, or a severe flesh wound, or something else which implies with further damage you'll be less capable of defending yourself, and eventually, you'll make a mistake, and die.

2) Unless you're playing a system where the character gets penalties as they lose hit points, you're basically already saying they're just bumped and bruised. They can still fight at full effectiveness. They can still do everything they normally do. It's not like the dragon ripped off a muscle, or a limb, or anything.

3) You're not talking about a troll. You're talking about healing eight hours, and the player would be presumed to have expertise in actually dealing with his own wounds. Trolls regenerate 5 hit points each round. They can't actually be killed by non-fire/acid damage. In this case, you're just saying that a person who isn't dead or dying, and has no serious injuries (they can still fight at full capability, after all!), can recover in a day. I don't see the problem.

Marius
2007-01-31, 02:13 PM
Any fix that you make with a fighter - giving him more abilities, etc. - still falls prey to the fact that a fighter lacks any ability to heal himself, and his main advantage is hit points. It's, in fact, harder for a fighter to heal himself due to his massive hit points.

No, that is not the fighters problem, here is where we disagree I don't think that the fact that a fighter can't heal by themselves is a problem, the problem is something different.



It does change something. Fighters on their own can now maintain some competency without a cleric. Casters could already do so. Fighters also have no dependence on another class for continued ability to fight day after day.

No they don't, in combat they still relay on the cleric even when in that same combat the cleric is already doing more than the fighter. They gain independence from the cleric the next day until they fight again...



I can think of a bajillion examples where this would actually make a fighter useful. Especially if you made it such that injured spellcasters couldn't regain spells easily - the idea that I had there was a Spellcraft or Concentration check (or something else for Clerics - probably Concentration again), with a DC of 10+number of hit points of damage to actually gain the spells. Maybe even higher.

Again that rule would make things worse for the fighter than for the casters since the casters wouldn't heal the fighter anymore to heal themselves after a fight. So the fighter will be the last one to be healed.



I mean, what if the Cleric was killed, but the party managed to escape the battle? The other spellcasters are pretty injured, and the fighter's beaten up. The next day, the spellcasters fail to recover their spells (they're too injured), barely heal, whereas the fighter - nearly fully healed - looking around at the rest of them. "What's wrong with you? We need to move. Let's go. We need to get the Cleric to a church and have him resurrected."

If the cleric was killed then you have potions if you don't the party rogue could just use a scroll of CLW or a wand to heal you. And that won't even happen too often.



Exactly. Which is what I said a while ago, is that it basically will likely tend to speed up the game slightly, but I also think that it will boost a fighter's usefulness a little later. It won't fix the high levels, though it's a start.

It will probably speed up the game a bit but it won't fix a thing. It doesn't matter if the fighter is fully healed no one will travel if the wizard couldn't recover his spells it's just suicide.



After weak encounters, sure. After major encounters? Yeah, I hope half the party's near dead by the time they collapse for the evening, otherwise it sure as heck wasn't a major encounter.

Sorry, I think you're thinking mainly of cakewalk encounters. I've DMed, and played, in plenty of encounters where we weren't able to heal everyone by the end of the night, because everyone was out of spells. In those cases they sometimes used healing items, and in the case of a spellcaster they probably still would - if they had enough.

If the wizard was hit chances are his dead right now and even if he's not if he can't recover spells until he is fully healed the party will heal him first. You will use every potion, scroll and wand to get him healed, not just "sometimes" but all the time.



1) Hit points are an abstraction of the ability of a character to avoid damage and to absorb it. Get hit for 75 damage? You're rolling to see if the dragon tore an artery. Otherwise, you just got, in a sports sense, "jacked up". Maybe a concussion, or a severe flesh wound, or something else which implies with further damage you'll be less capable of defending yourself, and eventually, you'll make a mistake, and die.

Well we play a different game, yes they are an abstraction but that doesn't mean that you are right (or that I am for that matter). But in any case people don't heal bruises, severe flesh wounds or anything else in 8 hours. That why you need magic.



2) Unless you're playing a system where the character gets penalties as they lose hit points, you're basically already saying they're just bumped and bruised. They can still fight at full effectiveness. They can still do everything they normally do. It's not like the dragon ripped off a muscle, or a limb, or anything.

So when your 20 level fighter is down 1 hp he's just bruised and suddenly he steps over a caltrop and stars to die? I just don't see what's the logic behind that.



3) You're not talking about a troll. You're talking about healing eight hours, and the player would be presumed to have expertise in actually dealing with his own wounds. Trolls regenerate 5 hit points each round. They can't actually be killed by non-fire/acid damage. In this case, you're just saying that a person who isn't dead or dying, and has no serious injuries (they can still fight at full capability, after all!), can recover in a day. I don't see the problem.

See my other points.

Orzel
2007-01-31, 02:17 PM
I don't think HP vs spell slots and healing the point. The reason why people complain about fighters is becaus they have few available actions and barely perfom these actions better than other classes.

Fighters' features are manly in 2 groups: Weapons Combat and Athletics.

Compare that to a bard that has access to Athletics, Social, Stealth, Magical combat, Magical Ultility, and Healing

or a ranger with Weapons Combat, Athletics, Stealth, Detection, Magical Ultility, Healing, and Wilderness Skills.

And a wizard has access to everything except Healing.


This because Fighters are masters of weapon and armor use nut arms and armor can only naturally aid in Weapons Combat. Once weapons combat and climbing trees are no longer options, pure fighters rarely have a fallback plan. Thus full fighter progression is discouraged.

Full casters can prepare a larger number of options. Most other classes have a bunch of options too. Their weakness is not their options but either the the power of these options or their overall survival.

barawn
2007-01-31, 02:49 PM
No they don't, in combat they still relay on the cleric even when in that same combat the cleric is already doing more than the fighter. They gain independence from the cleric the next day until they fight again...


Only if they're in a combat over their heads. Hence, a party of 4 fighters might actually be able to fight at their expected CR for a sustained length of time.


Again that rule would make things worse for the fighter than for the casters since the casters wouldn't heal the fighter anymore to heal themselves after a fight. So the fighter will be the last one to be healed.

Yeah, I doubt that. There's no change during combat, so I don't see why any strategy would change.



It will probably speed up the game a bit but it won't fix a thing. It doesn't matter if the fighter is fully healed no one will travel if the wizard couldn't recover his spells it's just suicide.

Gee, sitting around in a dungeon unable to recover spells is already suicide. At that point, your only bet is to rely on the only guy who can do anything.


But in any case people don't heal bruises, severe flesh wounds or anything else in 8 hours.

These aren't just "people". These are some of the finest specimens of their species on the planet. You're not talking about the bruises actually healing. You're talking about their ability to "play through the pain".


So when your 20 level fighter is down 1 hp he's just bruised and suddenly he steps over a caltrop and stars to die? I just don't see what's the logic behind that.

Wait, there's more logic to the idea that he's fully capable of fighting while bleeding massively? When the level 20 fighter is down to 1 hp, he can't pay attention to anything anymore - can't protect himself, nothing. The slightest hit will be a fatal blow. Stepping on a caltrops is the equivalent of tripping, and breaking your neck.

Is it logical? Probably moreso than the idea that stepping on a caltrops causes just enough additional blood loss/trauma so that you can't fight anymore, and fall unconscious.


I don't think HP vs spell slots and healing the point. The reason why people complain about fighters is becaus they have few available actions and barely perfom these actions better than other classes.

And because their benefit, hit points, is partially a liability. Fighters are meat shields. That's what they get called. Yet in order to maintain that, they need clerics at the end of each day.

Whatever other complaints you might have about fighters, the idea that fighters recover, by percentage, less of their ability to absorb damage than a wizard who never lifted anything heavier than 5 pounds and just got clobbered on the head by a club is ridiculous.

I get the "few available actions" bit. Really. How many times do I have to say that I get it? But even if you fix that, a wizard will still kick a fighter to the curb. Especially if you consider how each would handle being on their own at high levels.

Marius
2007-01-31, 03:58 PM
Only if they're in a combat over their heads. Hence, a party of 4 fighters might actually be able to fight at their expected CR for a sustained length of time.

No they won't, make your 4 fighters party and I'll prove you they they'll die all the time when facing monster at their expected CR. Because they just suck, they can't do anything new! They are the same puny fighters as before.



Yeah, I doubt that. There's no change during combat, so I don't see why any strategy would change.

Because you have to be fully healed to regain spells so you will just heal the ones that MATTER.



Gee, sitting around in a dungeon unable to recover spells is already suicide. At that point, your only bet is to rely on the only guy who can do anything.

Rope Trick, Magnificent Mansion, Teleport, etc. Also if you could rest 8 hours in the dungeon you can rest 8 more hours not only that, now the fighter is healed so they next 8 hours are going to be even easier.



These aren't just "people". These are some of the finest specimens of their species on the planet. You're not talking about the bruises actually healing. You're talking about their ability to "play through the pain".

Even in that case the ability would be another temptation to just make a one or two level dip in fighter, yeah that would really help them.



Wait, there's more logic to the idea that he's fully capable of fighting while bleeding massively? When the level 20 fighter is down to 1 hp, he can't pay attention to anything anymore - can't protect himself, nothing. The slightest hit will be a fatal blow. Stepping on a caltrops is the equivalent of tripping, and breaking your neck.

Is it logical? Probably moreso than the idea that stepping on a caltrops causes just enough additional blood loss/trauma so that you can't fight anymore, and fall unconscious.

Neither idea is logical at all but if I would have to choose I would stay with the first. And if I would have to change anything I would change the system to one that gives you a penalty when you are injured.



And because their benefit, hit points, is partially a liability. Fighters are meat shields. That's what they get called. Yet in order to maintain that, they need clerics at the end of each day.

They need everyone just to survive, they need clerics to kill the things they can't and to heal them from everything that isn't hit point damage (ability damage for example), they need wizards to buff them and to save them from everything they can't kill, they need skillmonkeys to deal with any encounter that doesn't mean climbing trees. So you see, they still suck just as hard as before.



I get the "few available actions" bit. Really. How many times do I have to say that I get it? But even if you fix that, a wizard will still kick a fighter to the curb. Especially if you consider how each would handle being on their own at high levels.

No you don't get it you still think that having a few hit points and being healed after some rest makes a fighter better and it doesn't. You still think that it will somehow help them when it won't because they are just where they started.

Matthew
2007-01-31, 04:05 PM
(There's more than just that problem - really, quite a bit more - but...)

So... why not fix that problem?

Either 1) have fighters recover all of their hit points from eight hours rest, or 2) wizards can't recover all of their spell slots unless, say, fully healed.

1) is actually not a bad solution. Hit points aren't really supposed to be damage. It's just an abstraction - in some sense, it could be 'exhaustion'. No reason that eight hours couldn't do it. If you wanted to be slick, you could make the number of hit points you recovered from an 8 hour rest period be dependent on the hit dice you have. You gain 6 hit points for each d12, 5 for a d10, 3 for a d8, 2 for a d6, and 1 for a d4, plus Con bonuses, etc.

2) I don't think does anything. Maybe there's a more clever way to make wizards expend more effort to have their full complement of spells.

But 1) ... that's an interesting thought. I think functionally it wouldn't do much, except speed up the game a bit. Wizards would be a *lot* less capable of doing dungeon crawls on their own even at high levels, though. Especially if you combined 1 and 2.

The contention was that there is an inherent imbalance to begin with in how Spell Casters and Non Spell casters recover their primary resources. It certainly wouldn't hurt to allow Characters to recover all their Hit Points after eight hours rest, but personally I am in favour of using Spell / Magic / Mana Points and bringing their recovery rate down to the level of Hit Point recovery... but, then, I am in favour of reducing the power of Spell Casters in general...

barawn
2007-01-31, 04:36 PM
Because you have to be fully healed to regain spells so you will just heal the ones that MATTER.

During combat, the meat shield matters. Otherwise they'll drop him. Then they'll come after you. And you can't heal yourself fast enough.

Feel free to believe that it wouldn't change anything. I'd be very, very surprised if it didn't. And guess what? Considering neither you, nor I, have run a campaign with those rules in place, both of our opinions are just as valid!


No you don't get it you still think that having a few hit points and being healed after some rest makes a fighter better and it doesn't.

That's right. I've suggested giving fighters a specific advantage over spellcasters, and it doesn't make them any better.

Just because it doesn't fix the entire problem doesn't mean it doesn't make them better at all. It's an advantage. It doesn't even matter how minor it is. It's certainly less minor than certain other class advantages. Somehow the fact that it doesn't fix all of the problems of a fighter means it's useless in your eyes.


It certainly wouldn't hurt to allow Characters to recover all their Hit Points after eight hours rest, but personally I am in favour of using Spell / Magic / Mana Points and bringing their recovery rate down to the level of Hit Point recovery... but, then, I am in favour of nerfing Spell Casters in general...

I think you can get rid of a lot of the 'godliness' of spell casters easier than people think, but the point of the thread was how to improve the Fighter class.

The point that spells recover much faster than hit points made me realize how utterly idiotic it is that a fighter actually heals slower than a magic user. It's also fairly stupid to believe that a character that's about ready to drop over dead could study spellbooks effectively, or focus their mind enough.

Marius
2007-01-31, 09:16 PM
During combat, the meat shield matters. Otherwise they'll drop him. Then they'll come after you. And you can't heal yourself fast enough.

At low levels they may matter but noy nearly as much as a caster, at high levels they really don't. If you have to choose between having a wizard with his full spell list prepared or a fully healed fighter what would you choose?



Feel free to believe that it wouldn't change anything. I'd be very, very surprised if it didn't. And guess what? Considering neither you, nor I, have run a campaign with those rules in place, both of our opinions are just as valid!

Sure they are but that doesn't mean that we can't argue about it in theory.



That's right. I've suggested giving fighters a specific advantage over spellcasters, and it doesn't make them any better.

It's a tiny, meaningless advantage. You really think that a change like this could really help a fighter?



Just because it doesn't fix the entire problem doesn't mean it doesn't make them better at all. It's an advantage. It doesn't even matter how minor it is. It's certainly less minor than certain other class advantages. Somehow the fact that it doesn't fix all of the problems of a fighter means it's useless in your eyes.

No, the fact that it doesn't help them at all means that is almost useless in my eyes. If you look at the guidelines a party is supposed to start the 4 encounters fully recovered now you make sure that the fighter can start fully healed no matter what and you really think it's so useful? I think that this rule is actually better for the clerics! Now they don't have to be the fighters healbot and can be more CoDzilla than before.



I think you can get rid of a lot of the 'godliness' of spell casters easier than people think, but the point of the thread was how to improve the Fighter class.

Share that with us in another topic I would like to hear it (or read it :smallbiggrin: )



The point that spells recover much faster than hit points made me realize how utterly idiotic it is that a fighter actually heals slower than a magic user.

Well that's true it's not logical for a wizard to heal faster than a wizard. I didn't say it wasn't.



It's also fairly stupid to believe that a character that's about ready to drop over dead could study spellbooks effectively, or focus their mind enough.

Now we disagree again. Your ready to drop dead fighter can fight as well when he's fully healed. Why wouldn't a wizard be able to focus and study when they are about to drop dead, hell they can cast just as well!
You could argue that the fighter is trained to fight under those conditions but the wizard could be trained to study under those same conditions.

barawn
2007-01-31, 10:02 PM
Well that's true it's not logical for a wizard to heal faster than a wizard. I didn't say it wasn't.

Except that a wizard does heal faster than a fighter.

Wizard and fighter, both beaten to within an inch of their lives - i.e. 1 hp. Lying on the ground. No one else around. They manage to crawl, half-naked, to a farmhouse where they're nursed back to full health.

Of course, the wizard's back at full health weeks before the fighter is.


You could argue that the fighter is trained to fight under those conditions but the wizard could be trained to study under those same conditions.

Well, the "you're not able to learn spells while injured" (or, you have to have a check) is separate from upping the healing rate.

If you want a reasoning for it, though, I can give it: adrenaline. In a battle, fighters are clearly in a fight or flight situation, adrenaline's rushing, and their pain response is clearly being overcome. That's what hit points are. Wizards, trying to prepare spells, are not.


Share that with us in another topic I would like to hear it (or read it )

Mainly it involves fixing spells, and removing a bit of the flexibility of spellcasters. There's already a thread on fixing spells, which contains a lot of good ideas. Mainly getting rid of "Save or you die", "save or I win" spells in such a way that it nerfs low level opponents, but it's much harder to actually kill higher level opponents. Plus making spell preparation less automatic - that's from a friend of mine, actually - clerics, for instance, don't choose their spells. They suggest spells to the DM. The DM decides which spells they actually get.

Marius
2007-02-01, 05:40 AM
Except that a wizard does heal faster than a fighter.

Wizard and fighter, both beaten to within an inch of their lives - i.e. 1 hp. Lying on the ground. No one else around. They manage to crawl, half-naked, to a farmhouse where they're nursed back to full health.

Of course, the wizard's back at full health weeks before the fighter is.

That was a mistake I meant to write "fighter" at the end.



Well, the "you're not able to learn spells while injured" (or, you have to have a check) is separate from upping the healing rate.

If you want a reasoning for it, though, I can give it: adrenaline. In a battle, fighters are clearly in a fight or flight situation, adrenaline's rushing, and their pain response is clearly being overcome. That's what hit points are. Wizards, trying to prepare spells, are not.

No, it's not adenaline since you can be at 1 hp for a long time after the battle ended and use any skill such as "craft: weaving" and do it just as well as when you were healed, must be the adrenaline...
That's not what hit points are, they are your ability to sustain damage.
And if preparing your spells or not could be the difference between the life and death of your party and yourself I think that the adrenaline is going to be there. Or maybe they are just the opposite, they have such a cool head and focus that they can do it anyway.
In any case it doesn't matter they'll just stock more potions just to make sure that they are healed. It's not like they need a lot to be healed quickly.



Mainly it involves fixing spells, and removing a bit of the flexibility of spellcasters. There's already a thread on fixing spells, which contains a lot of good ideas. Mainly getting rid of "Save or you die", "save or I win" spells in such a way that it nerfs low level opponents, but it's much harder to actually kill higher level opponents. Plus making spell preparation less automatic - that's from a friend of mine, actually - clerics, for instance, don't choose their spells. They suggest spells to the DM. The DM decides which spells they actually get.

I thought you said "easy fix", there are like a thousand spells so you have to change them one by one that really not that easy. And it will be a lot harder to kill high level opponents but that's the way it is, right now the party just depends on the casters to kill them.
I hate the your friends cleric fix, no one will want to play a cleric that way. Just make Divine favor, Righgerous might and Divine power non-personal buffs but I don't think that's really the problem.
The fighter should be a lot more like the Warblade. Fixing the magic system is a hard task, probably they should change the whole system.

barawn
2007-02-01, 10:57 AM
I thought you said "easy fix", there are like a thousand spells so you have to change them one by one that really not that easy.

Not really. Large numbers of them have identical problems: they're 'save or die', or 'save or I win'. You mitigate those by having the result be contingent on how much the save is missed by. Thus, it remains a "save or I win" for low-level opponents, but for high-level opponents, it just gives a significant advantage in combat. Enough that the party will win, but not immediately. (There's also spells which should just give bonuses and untrained skill use, mostly - like Knock, Spider Climb, Freedom of Movement).

Of course, that's just the SRD. Non-SRD spells would take forever, granted, but once you realize what the common mistakes are, it's easy for a DM to just catch them immediately.


I hate the your friends cleric fix, no one will want to play a cleric that way.

Hardly. You're not realizing the potential of the rule - and in addition, is it a bit of a drawback for clerics? Sure. They deserve one. It's also heavily keeping in the spirit of the rules. A cleric's praying for spells. Prayers aren't always answered.

In addition, prayers are sometimes answered in ways you don't expect. Clever DMs can use this to add flavor to the game, and partially make it an advantage for the cleric ("control water? why is my deity giving me this? am I going to encounter water of importance, or is he just screwing with me?").

A full-on version of the rule for a DM who prefers a more structured instance would be to keep a stat (say, Faith) - maybe similar to a skill, but it wouldn't be so easy to dump points into it (maybe requiring a pilgrimage, etc.), as well as negative Faith modifiers could be applied for unhallow grounds, as well as a cleric who strays from the path, and have a Faith check done by the DM when the cleric prepares spells. A low enough faith check would result in spell slots left ungranted. A high enough faith check would give the "advantageous spell" mentioned above.

Gives a lot of potential in a very simple rule change. A DM who doesn't really care can just glance at the spells and say "yeah, sure."


Fixing the magic system is a hard task, probably they should change the whole system.

It'll be harder to create a new balanced system from scratch. You might as well leverage the experience that exists already.

Marius
2007-02-01, 02:25 PM
Not really. Large numbers of them have identical problems: they're 'save or die', or 'save or I win'. You mitigate those by having the result be contingent on how much the save is missed by. Thus, it remains a "save or I win" for low-level opponents, but for high-level opponents, it just gives a significant advantage in combat. Enough that the party will win, but not immediately. (There's also spells which should just give bonuses and untrained skill use, mostly - like Knock, Spider Climb, Freedom of Movement).

It's not that simple. How can freedom of movement be a bonus to a skill (escape artist I pressume) and still be nearly the same spell? How do you know when you have balanced the list? Will your players agree? Are save-or-suck spells like slow too good? Who's going to rewrite every (even core only) overpowered spell with descriptions of every result possible according to the results? How will you fix polymorph? Gate? What will you do with battlefield control spells like Forcecage, Wall of force, Solid Fog, etc.
There's no such thing as an "easy fix", your friends fix requires time and effor and it's not even good.
Personaly I don't have this problem since my players don't how to optimaze a PC so I just banned a few spells and gave the martial classes access to ToB and other goodies.



Hardly. You're not realizing the potential of the rule - and in addition, is it a bit of a drawback for clerics? Sure. They deserve one. It's also heavily keeping in the spirit of the rules. A cleric's praying for spells. Prayers aren't always answered.

In addition, prayers are sometimes answered in ways you don't expect. Clever DMs can use this to add flavor to the game, and partially make it an advantage for the cleric ("control water? why is my deity giving me this? am I going to encounter water of importance, or is he just screwing with me?").

A full-on version of the rule for a DM who prefers a more structured instance would be to keep a stat (say, Faith) - maybe similar to a skill, but it wouldn't be so easy to dump points into it (maybe requiring a pilgrimage, etc.), as well as negative Faith modifiers could be applied for unhallow grounds, as well as a cleric who strays from the path, and have a Faith check done by the DM when the cleric prepares spells. A low enough faith check would result in spell slots left ungranted. A high enough faith check would give the "advantageous spell" mentioned above.

Gives a lot of potential in a very simple rule change. A DM who doesn't really care can just glance at the spells and say "yeah, sure."

It's not simple and it sucks for the guy playing a cleric. Let's say your players cleric has the "War" and "Strenght" domains, he asks for divine favor, divine power and righteous might among his other spells and you knowing what he can do with them won't give him all of them despite the fact that they really work with his kind of cleric, the player also knows that you won't give them to him so it all turn to be a metagaming thing. Of course "his god" will always give him healbot spells like "raise dead" or "restoration" while he may never give them certain spells with no reason at all even when they could be very helpfull. So to be fair with my players I would rather just tell them "Look you can't use this spell" or "now this spell work like this" or something that I already did like giving clerics only light armor proficiency.

You could make the system like the crusaders maneuver recovery method, in other words you make it random but this has other troubles, if he really needs X spell (raise dead, neutralize poison, etc) to help the party he might not get them.




It'll be harder to create a new balanced system from scratch. You might as well leverage the experience that exists already.

Sure it's harder but it'll be a lot better than any fix.

Talya
2007-02-01, 03:25 PM
Meh. Fighters are only weak compared to casters in a "player vs. player" scenario. In a well balanced campaign, a spellcaster without a whole lot of martial backup is utterly screwed.

barawn
2007-02-01, 09:24 PM
It's not that simple. How can freedom of movement be a bonus to a skill (escape artist I pressume) and still be nearly the same spell?

If it gives a +10, or a +20. A lot of those fixes are already out there. It's a variant: no automatic successes, or something like that.


It's not simple and it sucks for the guy playing a cleric.

Only if he's whiny. It's a part of being a cleric. You're not the one learning the spells. You're asking for them - is it so surprising that if you don't prostrate yourself heavily for said deity, he might say "yeah, no." If it sucks so much, pick up arcane levels and you won't have to deal with it.


you knowing what he can do with them won't give him all of them despite the fact that they really work with his kind of cleric, the player also knows that you won't give them to him so it all turn to be a metagaming thing.

Why would I care what he's going to do with them? It's his relation with his deity that's important.

If it becomes a metagaming thing, then it's clearly a DM that needs more structure. Fine. So build it into the Faith skill/stat. Spend two weeks in devotion to your deity, you can spend a skill point to raise Faith. Always avoid doing things against your deity, and it won't go down. Make the Faith check a standard: I dunno, DC 10+maximum requested spell level. That'd be the DM's choice depending on how much he thinks clerics need to be nerfed. Miss Faith checks, and the number of points you miss it by become random spells, rolled by percentile. Succeed by more than 5, and for every more than 5, one spell slot at a level (1 for the 1st, 2 for the 2nd, etc.) becomes 'divinely inspired' and you can choose any spell from your list when you cast it.


Sure it's harder but it'll be a lot better than any fix.

No, it won't. You'll find out all the (new and interesting) problems with it later, and then have to fix your fix. Standard engineering mistake: leverage your existing knowledge. The best is the enemy of the good.

Bears With Lasers
2007-02-01, 09:31 PM
Meh. Fighters are only weak compared to casters in a "player vs. player" scenario. In a well balanced campaign, a spellcaster without a whole lot of martial backup is utterly screwed.

Untrue. Anything that can endanger the spellcaster can endanger the fighter a whole lot more, including enemy spellcasters.

Spellcasters are just vastly better than fighters when it comes to dealing with anything other than 1) possibly Antimagic Fields, depending (monsters with antimagic fields can utterly destroy the now-magic-item-less fighter; the wizard can get out of the AMF's range, fly around, pelt the monster with instantaneous conjurations, or just teleport away) and 2) six or more difficult encounters per day (provided the wizard contributes high-level spells to all of them, and the fighter has a source of healing).

Marius
2007-02-02, 05:20 AM
Meh. Fighters are only weak compared to casters in a "player vs. player" scenario. In a well balanced campaign, a spellcaster without a whole lot of martial backup is utterly screwed.

Sadly that's not true a regular mid to high level (from 7th level) wizard even without his super chesse is still far better than any fighter and useful in much more situations than just a fight.

Here're some topics about balance, read them and then tell me why do you think that the fighter can be as useful as a wizard.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=32619
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=32575
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=32533
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=30204
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=32425

And let's not get into the one on one thing, the wizard is just more versatile and powerful.

Marius
2007-02-02, 05:42 AM
If it gives a +10, or a +20. A lot of those fixes are already out there. It's a variant: no automatic successes, or something like that.

But it won't help you to get out of "paralysis" or "solid fog" so I guess you'll have to change those spells too witch means that you'll end up changing every core spell several times until you end up you rework that actually works.



Only if he's whiny. It's a part of being a cleric. You're not the one learning the spells. You're asking for them - is it so surprising that if you don't prostrate yourself heavily for said deity, he might say "yeah, no." If it sucks so much, pick up arcane levels and you won't have to deal with it.

They'll probably do that, it's always important to let the players think that HE is in control, the he can make the difference. Giving them the spells you won't takes that away.



Why would I care what he's going to do with them? It's his relation with his deity that's important.

If you don't care what he's going to do with them why are you choosing his spells? And how are you going to judge his relationship with his deity when you don't know anything about it?



If it becomes a metagaming thing, then it's clearly a DM that needs more structure. Fine. So build it into the Faith skill/stat. Spend two weeks in devotion to your deity, you can spend a skill point to raise Faith. Always avoid doing things against your deity, and it won't go down. Make the Faith check a standard: I dunno, DC 10+maximum requested spell level. That'd be the DM's choice depending on how much he thinks clerics need to be nerfed. Miss Faith checks, and the number of points you miss it by become random spells, rolled by percentile. Succeed by more than 5, and for every more than 5, one spell slot at a level (1 for the 1st, 2 for the 2nd, etc.) becomes 'divinely inspired' and you can choose any spell from your list when you cast it.

And you'll have the problem I presented to you before. "Hey Cleric dude we need to raise Bob what are you waiting for?" "Sorry god doesn't want me to raise him" The same goes for any other helpful spell and it'll still suck for the guy playing a cleric or they will probably try to optimaze the hell out of that skill.


No, it won't. You'll find out all the (new and interesting) problems with it later, and then have to fix your fix. Standard engineering mistake: leverage your existing knowledge. The best is the enemy of the good.

Not really, the psionic system is way better and balanced than the magic system already.

Orzel
2007-02-02, 09:20 AM
Untrue. Anything that can endanger the spellcaster can endanger the fighter a whole lot more, including enemy spellcasters.

Spellcasters are just vastly better than fighters when it comes to dealing with anything other than 1) possibly Antimagic Fields, depending (monsters with antimagic fields can utterly destroy the now-magic-item-less fighter; the wizard can get out of the AMF's range, fly around, pelt the monster with instantaneous conjurations, or just teleport away) and 2) six or more difficult encounters per day (provided the wizard contributes high-level spells to all of them, and the fighter has a source of healing).

Pretty much

Spellcasters don't need weapon back up, they need to not be the single target. They are hard to kill and killl very well. But they die easy on unfavorable rolls. High level spellcaster are rarely in danger but every situation is deadly. If something goes wrong, you die. Period.

Roguelikes can do a lot and are easy to kill if you can target/catch/find them.

Warrior classes have the luxury of slow death. They usually can't do much but fight and take "forever" to kill. Luckily fight always works... if you can target/catch/find the enemy.

One kind of class can do everything, another almost everything, and the last barely anything once high level hits.

Bears With Lasers
2007-02-02, 09:22 AM
Warriors don't take forever to kill. Casters can do it in a few rounds, tops.

Orzel
2007-02-02, 09:42 AM
Warriors don't take forever to kill. Casters can do it in a few rounds, tops.


I meant in time after targetting. Arcane full caster die 1-2 rounds once you're able to damage them. Roguelikes a bit longer. Warriors and Melee Casters can live for 3+ rounds.

barawn
2007-02-02, 10:23 AM
If you don't care what he's going to do with them why are you choosing his spells?

Because he can't, since he's requesting him from his deity. I really think you're kindof missing the point.


And how are you going to judge his relationship with his deity when you don't know anything about it?

Uh, what? I'm the DM. I know everything about his relation with his deity.


And you'll have the problem I presented to you before. "Hey Cleric dude we need to raise Bob what are you waiting for?" "Sorry god doesn't want me to raise him"

So, if the cleric has completely been neglecting his religion, flipping off his deity any chance he can get...

why would this be unrealistic?


or they will probably try to optimaze the hell out of that skill.

Exactly! Except given that the effort needed to boost Faith isn't just putting a skill point in it, Optimizing it requires a heckuva lot of time and effort, and it severely restricts what the character's able to do.

Woot Spitum
2007-02-02, 02:39 PM
If a cleric has been neglecting his religion, he'll probably end up losing all his powers, not just some of them. Unless of course he worships Olidammara or Garl Glittergold, in which case he'll be granted only the most useless spells on his list.

barawn
2007-02-02, 02:46 PM
If a cleric has been neglecting his religion, he'll probably end up losing all his powers, not just some of them. Unless of course he worships Olidammara or Garl Glittergold, in which case he'll be granted only the most useless spells on his list.

Exactly. The entire point of the variant mentioned above is to make that less of an absolute. There's neglecting, as in rarely visiting a temple, and neglecting, as in telling everyone else how much of a tool your deity is. You can also use the variant to not allow clerics to twink as much by making it harder and harder to stay in your deity's good graces as levels go up.

Matthew
2007-02-02, 02:57 PM
Why bother codifying it, though? You can always reduce a Cleric's powers relative to the level of transgression. I seem to remember that being a suggestion in (A)D&D 2.x, maybe even D&D 3.x.

barawn
2007-02-02, 03:02 PM
Why bother codifying it, though? You can always reduce a Cleric's powers relative to the level of transgression. I seem to remember that being a suggestion in (A)D&D 2.x, maybe even D&D 3.x.

That's my opinion too, actually. The only reason I mentioned codifying it was if the players didn't trust the DM to not be a jerk. Previous posters mentioned this, that's all.

Then again, I don't play in games where the players don't trust the DM to not be a jerk. :D

Marius
2007-02-02, 04:05 PM
Again, it wouldn't change anything, players are just going to be faithful to their characters deity just as before only that now the penalty for not being faithful is different. That's not nerfing them and it won't help the fighter (or anyone else).

barawn
2007-02-02, 04:37 PM
That's not nerfing them

Yes it does. It just depends on how faithful you require them to be. I don't know why this isn't obvious.

As a ridiculous example, you could set it so that the only way to gain enough Faith to reliably prepare 9th level spells is to spend your entire life working inside a temple to your deity, devoting all your time to worshipping.

Clearly, the adventuring cleric would therefore never be able to reliably prepare 9th level spells, be less able to reliably prepare 8th, etc. etc. You could nerf them even more if you set the bar for Faith even higher, or made it grow faster.

So now you've got an adjustable slider, as a DM, that allows you to nerf clerics as much as you want, or as little as you want. In a believable way, that doesn't really tremendously annoy the players, and still allows the existence of high-level clerics.

Marius
2007-02-02, 06:19 PM
Yes it does. It just depends on how faithful you require them to be. I don't know why this isn't obvious.

As a ridiculous example, you could set it so that the only way to gain enough Faith to reliably prepare 9th level spells is to spend your entire life working inside a temple to your deity, devoting all your time to worshipping.

Clearly, the adventuring cleric would therefore never be able to reliably prepare 9th level spells, be less able to reliably prepare 8th, etc. etc. You could nerf them even more if you set the bar for Faith even higher, or made it grow faster.

So now you've got an adjustable slider, as a DM, that allows you to nerf clerics as much as you want, or as little as you want. In a believable way, that doesn't really tremendously annoy the players, and still allows the existence of high-level clerics.

That's just dumb, you can't tell a cleric "you can't adventure" I mean, we play this game to adventure. He can adventure and keep being faithful to his god. That not only is extremly annoying but it's also ilogical, this game is name DUNGEONS & dragons for a reason.
If you want to tell them "look this spells are way unbalanced so I'm taking them off" is fine. But how do you tell a cleric of Olidammara "no you have to stay in the temple drinking and playing cards but no adventuring for you if you want spells". And don't tell my who this could work with other deities because no one will choose them anymore.
Plus it's a really really bad nerf. As I stated before it could potentially be even more harmful for the other players than to the cleric.
Fighter: "Dude I'm down to 1hp, you've got to heal me now!"
Cleric: "Sorry dude I got no heals or cure spells today, all I've got are 3 Word of recall and all crappy spells"
Fighter: "Oh crap I knew we should've stayed at the church a few more days"

barawn
2007-02-02, 06:37 PM
That's just dumb, you can't tell a cleric "you can't adventure"

1) Did you not read the "as an extreme example" comment?

2) That's not what you're saying. You're saying "extremely powerful clerics can't adventure and stay extremely powerful. They get weaker if they stop worshipping their deity 24/7." But again. It's an extreme example. You tweak it as needed.


As I stated before it could potentially be even more harmful for the other players than to the cleric.

You do not lose spontaneous healing. Said that multiple times already.

It can't possibly hurt the other players. The other players should not be counting on things from the cleric that aren't guaranteed.

And if the cleric sucks as a cleric, why is it not surprising it hurts the rest of the party? If a wizard only has 10 copies of Minor Image memorized, oddly enough, the party might struggle in a battle at a fair CL.

I really don't think you understand the way the mechanic works. Sorry.

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-02-02, 06:42 PM
How do you make a fighter stronger?

Give them magic.

Thus why Tome of Battle is practically a must for anyone with this problem. Wizard says "I'll take these guys out with my arcane magic, can you handle that group with sword magic?" And thus the wizard/martial adept team obliterates everything in existence by round 2, tops.

Dream team- two martial adepts, a wizard, a cleric, and a druid. A five man wrecking crew.

Matthew
2007-02-02, 06:46 PM
...or make take away some of the magic of Spell Casters

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-02-02, 06:51 PM
But this way, you keep casters happy while making the fighters extremely happy. I've only seen a few caster-lovers that hate ToB, and it's entirely because it can make a fighter-type character within the same universe of potential as a caster. I still say casters are stronger, but martial adepts are much better additions to a team then any fighter could be.

Cybren
2007-02-02, 06:53 PM
I meant in time after targetting. Arcane full caster die 1-2 rounds once you're able to damage them. Roguelikes a bit longer. Warriors and Melee Casters can live for 3+ rounds.
Why are you attacking old computer games? You can't be THAT pissed about falling into that pit trap...

barawn
2007-02-02, 11:22 PM
Why are you attacking old computer games? You can't be THAT pissed about falling into that pit trap...

I'm incredibly pissed at Rogue. Sucked entire days of my life away.

I'm pretty sure I've still got that original disk sitting around here somewhere.

Marius
2007-02-03, 07:34 AM
1) Did you not read the "as an extreme example" comment?

2) That's not what you're saying. You're saying "extremely powerful clerics can't adventure and stay extremely powerful. They get weaker if they stop worshipping their deity 24/7." But again. It's an extreme example. You tweak it as needed.

It's the same thing but if you want this rule to work tell me a better example that one wouldn't work.



You do not lose spontaneous healing. Said that multiple times already.

What would you do if he chooses to "inflict"? Plus spontaneous healing only works with "cure" spells, no raise dead, no heal, no neutralize poison, etc.



It can't possibly hurt the other players. The other players should not be counting on things from the cleric that aren't guaranteed.

And if the cleric sucks as a cleric, why is it not surprising it hurts the rest of the party? If a wizard only has 10 copies of Minor Image memorized, oddly enough, the party might struggle in a battle at a fair CL.

I really don't think you understand the way the mechanic works. Sorry.

Yes it will hurt them and if the wizard only has 10 copies of Minor Image then they are all dead. Plus it will really really suck for the guy playing a cleric, people already don't like to play clerics.