PDA

View Full Version : Why are PSC's so great in melee?



mroozee
2008-02-15, 03:52 PM
This has probably been discussed to death, but it seems unreasonable to me that a high-level primary spell caster should have much chance against a low-level warrior in straight melee.

What about the following changes?

Wizard
Hit Points: 1d4 at first level, 1d0 after that
BAB: +1 every 5 levels

Sorcerer
Hit Points: 1d4 at first level, 1d0 after that
BAB: +1 every 4 levels

Cleric: 1d4 at first level, 1d2 per level after that
BAB: +1 every 4 levels

Druid
Hit Points: 1d6 at first level, 1d3 after that
BAB: +1 every 3 levels

A 15th level Wizard might have only 20 hit points and a BAB of +3 as opposed to 50 hit points and a +7 BAB. She might give a 2nd level Fighter some challenge in a sword fight but by 4th level, a Weapon Specialist is going to eat her lunch.

The 1d0 is there (rather than 0 hp) for anything that is a function of hit dice.

What do people think?

Spiryt
2008-02-15, 03:59 PM
Well....

Those are kinda brutal changes.

The problems:

- Playing low level Wizard, Cleric, ec. would be completely tragic
- On high levels it will do nothing to balance wizards. Batman doesn't need BaB, no HP either.

Anyway, no.

If DnD had been so easy to balance, someone would have done it long ago. It won't work.

Keld Denar
2008-02-15, 04:10 PM
I aggree, those are pretty brutal. Most wizards (non-gish) don't use their BAB for warrior type combat. Most use it for ranged touch attacks. Just because the wizard can't swing a sword well even at high levels, doesn't mean he can't point and click. You proposed changes make an entire subset of spells (rays) pretty much useless. And rays are FUN!

Also, the hp thing is pretty crippling. Getting caught in an area effect spell like even the oft-bashed fireball is gonna TPK a party since it'll take out all of the PSCs in a quick flashbang. Its also not very realistic that a novice wizard (level 4-5) can 1shot an archmage (level 15ish) just by rolling better on initiative and getting some lucky dice on a scorching ray.

Hell, even environmental concerns would be exceedingly dangerous. Smoke from a burning building does about 1d6 non-lethal a round on a failed save. If he didn't teleport out, a high level wizard wouldn't even last 6 rounds (36 seconds!) if he failed his saves. His likelyhood of surviving a minute is almost nil. Cleric and druid aren't much better either.

Also, what you would end up with is that all PSCs would pump CON as their primary stat, even more than most already do. The HP they get from CON are usually higher than the dice HP anyway, and this just makes it even much more so.

fendrin
2008-02-15, 04:15 PM
A better fix would be to remove the spells that let them overcome their melee weaknesses.

This would be interesting: Make all buff spells 'other only' :smallamused:

Deepblue706
2008-02-15, 04:17 PM
Hmm...

Well, I'd say it makes sense, but not for D&D.

See, D&D is about HEROES!!

When I say that, I mean PCs in D&D are built to be so over-the-top that enforcing a rule like this would totally ruin their style. This game is not about making sense, it's about style.

I've always been a fan of GURPS, which is a skill-based role-playing system. It has a funny concept: You only get better at the things you actually put points into. That includes weapon skills.

Kantolin
2008-02-15, 04:18 PM
I personally like the fact that all wizards are doing at least rudimentary combat training, resulting in marginally more well-rounded units than the hyperspecialized units most people seem to be aiming for.

Either way, your particular changes will be absolutely cripping to the point of unplayability, especially due to hit points. It would make combat even more of a quick-draw than anything else - whomever goes first autowins against the other. The flaw is that this would then mean whomever goes first will autowin against the other spellcaster even if the other spellcaster is an archmage.

deadseashoals
2008-02-15, 05:22 PM
That would... suck. It would do nothing to balance spellcasters when they are broken anyway, and it would just make it impossible to play one until that point.

Overlard
2008-02-15, 05:42 PM
What do people think?
That it's a stupid idea really.

Why the hell would a Weapon Specialist eat a Wizard's lunch?

Fiery Diamond
2008-02-15, 05:50 PM
I concur entirely with the above responses. This is not a good idea. (understatement alert!)

Except for Overlard. A weapon specialist would eat a wizard's lunch because it's tasty, obviously.:smallbiggrin:

-Fiery Diamond

Dan_Hemmens
2008-02-15, 05:53 PM
I suppose that the glib answer to this is: PSCs are so great in melee because they learn extra spells by killing monsters.

Voyager_I
2008-02-15, 05:59 PM
Read this (http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/d&d-calibrating.html). It'll help put things in perspective, and might help you realize how absolutely ludicrous the suggested changes are.

In case the first comment didn't make it clear enough, I vote "Nay".

Overlard
2008-02-15, 06:38 PM
A weapon specialist would eat a wizard's lunch because it's tasty, obviously.:smallbiggrin:
Yeah, but with all the traps and precautions a wizard just puts on his spellbook, would you really want to try steal his ham sandwich?

Demented
2008-02-15, 06:53 PM
I have a fair chance of succeeding on the required Fort saves, I can tough it through the Ref saves, and I have nothing more to worry about if I fail a Will save. It's also a lunch fit for a wizard!