|
I like the new edition of hackmaster where there just aren't a lot of magic items and spellcasters are very squishy and easy to disrupt in general, but spells cut through armor reduction and generally can cast quickly(faster than weapon attacks even, generally, but the way movement works in the game everyone acts every second, and if you reach someone with a melee attack you get an instant attack, so even if you can cast a spell in for second you better make sure no one has a 20 foot unimpeded path to you). But I think I'm the only person who's ever played it.
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 23:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 05:42 |
|
|
Colander Crotch posted:I remember years ago a friend talking about how on the official forums some people did a one on one arena style combat thing and have everyone a level to use, and the amount of gold for items. Then they ran it through the combat and posted the results. They said that some absurd percentage of the time, a cleric won hands down. Like three rounds in. I remember those; clerics usually won those, true, but that was largely an issue of positioning. At the level that most of those fights were held at (5? I think?) druids haven't come into their own, and arcane casters didn't have enough raw firepower to completely eradicate their opponents on round one. Meanwhile clerics DID have some really reliable buff spells that stacked cleanly with magic items they could buy from a small budget; a fighter having one more BAB and two extra damage from a weapon specialization would be matched cleanly with a bull's strength spell, and then the cleric would have as many items, as many potions, and buffs on top of them, plus the bonuses from two clerical domains which were pretty sick. Surprise surprise, the cleric would simply have better combat numbers and more hit points than a similarly optimized fighter. Sometimes people would run oddball classes like bard, hexblade, or psion, and they'd do well enough if they didn't just brick against a cleric's overwhelmingly higher numbers. Most of the clerics would only have a wisdom of 12 or 13 and otherwise be statted for raw melee combat; these were just arena combatants, not characters you hoped would someday be casting level 9 spells. Theoretically there were higher level fights, too, but they were such a pain to judge they mostly didn't happen.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 23:59
|
|
|
Nihilarian posted:Every class gets Magic Items. Trying to use Magic Items to bridge the gap between fighter and wizard is an exercise in futility because every advantage the fighter buys in order to even the playing field, the wizard buys one to keep himself out of reach. Of course, the Wizard also has access to Magic Item crafting and can get what he needs for half the price, if he feels like it. Yeah, that's another thing I didn't go into, because it felt a bit tangential, but the "magic" part of "magic items" is relevant in that this hypothetical Wizard could be gearing up on their own, cheaper. And at higher levels can nullify the enemy's magic items without the same option being available to the other side. Also they have summons, so they can put those between them and the Fighter. Or just make a literal wall between them and leave. They have a lot of options, unlike their opponent.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 00:06
|
|
|
If druids can fall just like paladins, shouldn't there be some kind of wealthy industrialist class as its counterpoint like anti-paladins are?
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 00:18
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:If druids can fall just like paladins, shouldn't there be some kind of wealthy industrialist class as its counterpoint like anti-paladins are? Artificer from Eberron?
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 00:25
|
|
|
W.T. Fits posted:Artificer from Eberron? If there's a class about being a bloated plutocrat using money to oppress the less fortunate, it's artificer.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 00:41
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:Character classes should only be allowed to use items that they have crafted themselves, that's why only wizards can use magic items, and only cobblers can wear shoes. Also if we compare a wizard with infinite spell slots who has prepared all the spells from the PHB and a fighter without magic item, we find out that the wizard is overpowered, so clearly the balance in D&D sucks. Except if we give the Wizard comparable magic items, he comes out even farther ahead. 3.5 is designed poorly and basically gives Casters the run of the place and martial types (or, god forbid, Monks) basically have to go dumpster diving for splat books that will give them an edge. And by "an edge" I mean "an actual use".
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 01:01
|
|
|
You want to be true to old D&D in 3.5e, give each Fighter the Leadership feat for free. They probably still lose to a Wizard, but there you go.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 01:18
|
|
|
I would be all for fighter formations where you can pull off big, spell-like effects by ordering your dudes around. You have Fireball, but I can Blot Out The Sun. You have your Wall of Stone, but I can call up a Wall of Iron.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 04:33
|
|
|
You guys, a fighter is the paper is this rock paper scissors game. A rogue goes unnoticed up to a wizard, piles on enough sneak attack damage in a surprise round to almost kill him, then possibly finishes the job. Fighters beat rogues by virtue of hp. Wizards beat fighters by virtue of magic bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 05:08
|
|
|
Caster supremacy is real.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 05:59
|
|
|
Bongo Bill posted:Caster supremacy is real. Why even have a Rogue if your Wizard can cast Invisibility and Silence, and be literally invisible? Why worry about traps when you can summon a monster to set it off and get chumped? Why worry about who's going to be the meatshield when you can summon a literal rhinoceros from hell? ikanreed posted:A rogue goes unnoticed up to a wizard, piles on enough sneak attack damage in a surprise round to almost kill him, then possibly finishes the job. d20srd.org posted:Alarm
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 06:03
|
|
|
Poison Mushroom posted:Why worry about traps when you can summon a monster to set it off and get chumped? In a world where that was standard operating procedure, wouldn't important defensive traps be set to cause wide area damage? Trip the trap and the whole corridor gets filled with gas or flame or rolling logs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 06:31
|
|
|
Angela Christine posted:In a world where that was standard operating procedure, wouldn't important defensive traps be set to cause wide area damage? Trip the trap and the whole corridor gets filled with gas or flame or rolling logs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 06:33
|
|
|
Angela Christine posted:In a world where that was standard operating procedure, wouldn't important defensive traps be set to cause wide area damage? Trip the trap and the whole corridor gets filled with gas or flame or rolling logs. Nihilarian posted:stay out of the corridor then. Nihi has the right of it. Unless you're willing to collapse the entire building or fire off a tactical nuke every time there's a hair out of place, there's not really any way to keep a Wizard out of somewhere.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 06:38
|
|
|
Poison Mushroom posted:Nihi has the right of it. Unless you're willing to collapse the entire building or fire off a tactical nuke every time there's a hair out of place, there's not really any way to keep a Wizard out of somewhere. And if for whatever absurd reason you can't cast Summon Monster or Summon Undead or whatever and you're high enough level, just Telekinetic Sphere and hurl someone down there. Although at the level you get that it might just be easier to Dominate Monster or, poo poo, even Animal Messenger and make a rat or something do it. EDIT: Or if you REALLY wanna be a dick, find something like a bat, tell it to find the nearest guard and tell them that your entire party has just disarmed every trap and is preparing to loot it, Invisibility on the party (or Invisibility Sphere and stay close) and watch the guards run right over the traps you were hoping to trip. Depending on what you're fighting, it may be easier/more fun! The point is, Wizards have a lot of poo poo they can do to replicate what other classes can do. Sometimes better. And setting off traps is one of those things they do exceedingly well. Classtoise fucked around with this message at 07:40 on Sep 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 07:37
|
|
|
ikanreed posted:You guys, a fighter is the paper is this rock paper scissors game. Warlocks are mushrooms.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 08:29
|
|
|
Mystic Mongol posted:A cleric'd fill that role better. I feel like Fighters should have had a videogame style Taunt from the start so they could at least potentially force people to fight on their terms. OriginalPseudonym posted:Warlocks are mushrooms. I get that joke.  Poison Mushroom posted:Caster supremacy is more about the fact that everything any character can do, a Tier 1 class can do better, and don't have to dedicate themselves to it. One of my favorite "Oh DND" things is Wizards get like, a level 2 spell to just straight up open every lock in the building. Doesn't work on magic or (I think?) really good locks, but at that point a rogue probably wouldn't exactly be guranteed to open a top tier lock either. Cuntellectual fucked around with this message at 08:44 on Sep 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 08:39
|
|
|
Here's the winner of an epic level 3.5e tournament held years ago on these very forums: http://mussel.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au/~banana/sheets/Gul%20Banana%20%7C%20Lol-R-SK8.pdf
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 09:24
|
|
|
Mystic Mongol posted:I remember those; clerics usually won those, true, but that was largely an issue of positioning. At the level that most of those fights were held at (5? I think?) druids haven't come into their own, and arcane casters didn't have enough raw firepower to completely eradicate their opponents on round one. Meanwhile clerics DID have some really reliable buff spells that stacked cleanly with magic items they could buy from a small budget; a fighter having one more BAB and two extra damage from a weapon specialization would be matched cleanly with a bull's strength spell, and then the cleric would have as many items, as many potions, and buffs on top of them, plus the bonuses from two clerical domains which were pretty sick. Surprise surprise, the cleric would simply have better combat numbers and more hit points than a similarly optimized fighter. A.o.D. posted:edit: Best fighter move in a wizard fight is to sunder the spellbook. The first time I've ever played AD&D, my wizard failed his save against a stray lightning bolt and so did his spellbook. It burned to a crisp and, since the campaign was taking place in a remote forest, I was told that there was no way for me to get a replacement. (That was also the last time I've ever played AD&D)
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 09:29
|
|
|
Ephemeron posted:This, unironically. I am really not a fan of D&D. Sadly, the group I play with pretty much only plays Pathfinder, which is basically D&D 3.75e. My solution to this so far has been to push them towards things like Dreamscarred Press's Path of War stuff, as well as, now that I've been introduced to it, Drop Dead Studios' Spheres of Power; the former is basically Tome of Battle for PF, making martial classes cooler and stuff, while the latter is a new magic system that is simultaneously more usable (both in that it is considerably simpler, and that you can use your basic magic effects all day, with only your bigger effects costing your "spell points") and less game-breaking; put the two together and you have a relatively even playing field between martial and magic classes. Among other things: Anatharon posted:I feel like Fighters should have had a videogame style Taunt from the start so they could at least potentially force people to fight on their terms. One of the PoW classes (the warder) has an ability that's basically this; enemies they mark get a penalty to attacking things that aren't the warder. This includes spells; it actually imposes a spell failure chance on (arcane) casters that target their allies. It's great. Roland Jones fucked around with this message at 10:35 on Sep 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 10:20
|
|
|
The last character I played in Pathfinder was a Barbarian, who went down the Superstitious/Witch Hunter route. They are basically like Conan that when you come up against a spell caster you can freak out and just chop their heads off. Huge bonuses to save against spells/super high Touch AC and the ability to Dispel Magic as attacks means that you can do a good job of messing up a Wizard's day.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 12:46
|
|
|
The Question IRL posted:The last character I played in Pathfinder was a Barbarian, who went down the Superstitious/Witch Hunter route. They are basically like Conan that when you come up against a spell caster you can freak out and just chop their heads off. Pathfinder is different. The runaway power curve on fighters is insanely good, thanks to how they reworked power attack.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 14:05
|
|
|
Anatharon posted:I feel like Fighters should have had a videogame style Taunt from the start so they could at least potentially force people to fight on their terms. 4th edition did that and it was awesome. All the tanks had a taunt mechanic and wizards were DPS or battlefield control that wasn't completely backbreaking. But no flavor or something. I'm convinced people who play pathfinder/3.5 don't like fun and suck people in because nerds don't have backbones.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 16:15
|
|
|
Naramyth posted:4th edition did that and it was awesome. All the tanks had a taunt mechanic and wizards were DPS or battlefield control that wasn't completely backbreaking. Some of it is the whole "don't like fun" part; some of it is that pathfinder/3.5 is conservative and familiar and 4 means actually thinking and learning new rules and not just doing what you've been doing for ten years; and some of it is that Pathfinder is pretty open source and easy to find web resources to support, while WTC clamped the gently caress down on anyone providing tools or open discussion of 4 because of terror that it would interfere with their copyright. Essentially, if I want to run Pathfinder, my group already knows the rules, and they can download cheap apps or search free wikis to answer questions and support character tracking/building/spells/combat. If I want to run 4.0, everyone has to buy new books, read new books, and pay a subscription fee for any character creator or action cards or general supporting poo poo. IMO, 4 is neat and everyone is useful and Pathfinder is boring bullshit, but trying to get everyone to learn new systems and shell out $60-$100 to support it is not going to happen.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 16:32
|
|
|
^^^ What my group initially did was we all pitched in a couple bucks a month for Insider. Then we just had to share the few basic rulebooks one of us bought for stuff like rulings and the like.Naramyth posted:4th edition did that and it was awesome. All the tanks had a taunt mechanic and wizards were DPS or battlefield control that wasn't completely backbreaking. I actually really like 4e for how it made every class feel useful. Maybe there was some amalgamation, but honestly that's to be expected if you want several VIABLE classes that fit similar roles. And I liked roles. The Wizard not being able to do literally everyones job meant that the other classes got some time to shine. Not to say I hated 3.5, but it definitely has flaws. I mean, so does 4e, but in 4e an optimized character can be incredibly effective and hard to combat. An optimized character in 3.5 can be terrifying.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 16:36
|
|
|
Ephemeron posted:(That was also the last time I've ever played AD&D) We had a five or so year break from 3.5 because that session started with "Len during the six months we were on break you failed the will save keeping the demon you had possessing you at bay and you had to be put down by the party. Roll a new character." and ended with everyone being pissy except the DM.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 16:36
|
|
|
Naramyth posted:4th edition did that and it was awesome. All the tanks had a taunt mechanic and wizards were DPS or battlefield control that wasn't completely backbreaking. 4e's Mark mechanic is not in the slightest a "taunt" mechanic. The point behind a "Taunt" mechanic is to force the enemy to attack the player. A Mark, on the other hand, does two things. First, it makes is so that if you try and attack a player other then one one who marked you, then you get an attack penalty. Next, the player that marked you is allowed to do some sort of punishment. You're not forced to attack only the marker, it's just encouraged. Heck, in general a DM should occasionally attack another player even if the monster's marked, if only for the Defender to have the fun of using their punishment mechanic.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 18:11
|
|
|
The other purpose of a mark is to give everyone yet another condition to keep track of.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 19:09
|
|
|
ikanreed posted:You guys, a fighter is the paper is this rock paper scissors game. This was literally NWN PvP servers by the way.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 20:09
|
|
|
If playing NwN has taught me anything it's that you can make 3.X a lot more fun and relatively more fair if you have basic spells widely and cheaply available for everyone. Clerics lose a lot of oomph if mundanes have a basically unlimited healing potion supply to work with. And speaking of NwN... some people in here might just appreciate this server. http://www.efupw.com/the-story-so-far.html
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 20:40
|
|
|
A.o.D. posted:edit: Best fighter move in a wizard fight is to sunder the spellbook. ...Unless it's a Sorcerer!
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 01:38
|
|
|
Or they're an archmage. Or they have spell-like abilities. Or a ring of wizardry. Or any of the several feats that let them cast certain spells without a book. Or (arguably) Eschew Materials.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 01:54
|
|
|
Aight cool, you sundered the wizard's spellbook, now he can't prepare spells tomorrow! So what are you gonna do about the spells he has prepared right now?
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 01:57
|
|
|
I believe Complete Arcane has rules for tattooing spells directly onto your body
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 02:03
|
|
|
Red Metal posted:Aight cool, you sundered the wizard's spellbook, now he can't prepare spells tomorrow! Save against/avoid them until I can successfully withdraw from the current battle, then heal up and engage in hit and run attacks against him over the course of the day to wear him down until I can force him into a fight where he's already exhausted most of his valuable spells and is at a disadvantage. Nihilarian posted:I believe Complete Arcane has rules for tattooing spells directly onto your body It does, but you still need the standard amount of time to rest and prepare spells again.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 02:03
|
|
|
W.T. Fits posted:Save against/avoid them until I can successfully withdraw from the current battle, then heal up and engage in hit and run attacks against him over the course of the day to wear him down until I can force him into a fight where he's already exhausted most of his valuable spells and is at a disadvantage. What if he prepared Teleport? Or Fly? Or Invisibility? Hell, even loving Hold Portal could be enough to give him time to set up several spells to ambush you the second you get the door open.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 02:05
|
|
|
We get it. If you aren't a high-level spellcaster in D&D 3.5, you're cannon fodder. It has been established. This is the other side of the "alignment argument" coin.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 02:13
|
|
|
Poison Mushroom posted:So, your strategy is "pray that I always roll high, and don't fail a single Will save, because once I do, oops, I can be rendered harmless by a first level spell (Charm Person)". Yep, just keep moving them goal posts. This is why my actual strategy is usually to avoid this argument because 3.5 is stupid about class balance.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 02:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 05:42 |
|
|
Moving the goalposts is literally the wizard's job.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 02:15
|
|