|
Danhenge posted:zealous demagogue
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2010 17:50
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 8, 2024 13:29 |
|
|
Are you kidding me? Fighters can't do poo poo to intelligent casters. Did you mean to type unintelligent casters? Because I can totally see a DM trying to make a fighter feel good about himself by making all the evil wizards cast a vs. Fort save or lose rather than a vs. Will save or lose, sure, but if an enemy wizard or cleric is actually planning at all the fighter might as well not be there.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2010 06:46
|
|
|
Right, see, they get a decent bit of them. Like, there are a lot of them there. Seemingly more every day! Now, why could this be...
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2010 07:04
|
|
|
grah posted:Hitting SR on an 11 means half your spells fail before even provoking a save, and monsters with good saves can up the failure rate considerably more. Battlefield control spells like wall of force are great, but they're not going to end the fight for you. At some point, something has to hit that monster and kill it. That's about when you want to start teleporting Bob the fighter close in. Since spells are the only important game element at mid to high levels in the game, even an unoptimized and unimaginative wizard's 50% chance of landing a ninth level spell blows the fighter's 0% chance of landing a ninth level spell completely out of the water. Of course, you've already been told that the best wizards will just kill you with spells that ignore SR. Plenty of them do that affect targets directly, even ones that just blast you for straight damage. quote:A lot of people will rip on a fighter's bad Will save, but a Wizard's bad Fort save is just as much of a liability if he doesn't do anything about it. At the same levels where failing a Will save takes you out of combat or puts you on the wrong team, failing a fort save probably means you die. A wizard can do something about it - he can stay out of enemy reach and protect himself with a thousand and one hours/level defensive buffs, starting with Superior Resistance and working up from there. quote:If a spell resistant enemy is flying around to avoid attacks, what's the wizard doing? He's casting area denial spells to keep it close so the rest of the party can hit it, or he's casting overland flight on his buddies so they can hit it, and in both these cases you'd rather have a fighter hitting it than a cleric almost 100% of the time. Haha, maybe if we could somehow get a fighter to cast Divine Power and Righteous Might on itself. Oh, and actually get itself a Will save worth a drat, since of course one of the many advantages of having a cleric be your main tank is that it can't be trivially mind-controlled. quote:And fighters are not confined to doing only hitpoint damage either. A fighter should have far and away the best CMB in the party. He can run around with a swordbreaker dagger disarming and sundering any weapon-using enemies, which is as good or better than a lot of debuff spells. He can drag and bullrush enemies around the battlefield, granting the other party members lots of nice attacks of opportunity, or protecting the fragile ones from being attacked. A fighter can be built to be an extremely effective mounted combatant, and if placed on a flying mount (not terribly expensive at high levels) can absolutely terrorize flying enemies. With the Disruptive and Step Up/Following Step/Step Up and Strike feat chain, the fighter can almost completely nullify an enemy caster. Why are you pretending that the fighter's crowd control abilities are comparable at all to any spellcaster's crowd control capabilities? Gosh, with the right combination of feats and the ability to get in reach and succeed on a few rolls a fighter might be able to inconvenience one guy! quote:Oh, and the most important thing! The fighter is still just as effective and putting out the same damage, using the same CMB on the last turn of the last encounter of the day as he on the first turn of the first encounter. The fighter has staying power. And yes, when possible the pace of the party will be dictated by spellcasters' need to rest. But if your party is fighting its way up the Big Bad Evil Guy's Tower in a big climactic series of final battles, I don't think they're pitching a tent there in the spire, and rope-trick doesn't let you remove or conceal the rope anymore. Every time a fighter kills an enemy in melee, that's a spell the cleric or wizard didn't have to cast. Every time an attack misses a fighter's high AC, that's healing the cleric doesn't have to worry about. PF is frequently a game of resource management, and the fighter who's doing his job lightens everyone's load in this department. I think you mean every time a cleric kills an enemy in melee, or a druid's animal companion kills an enemy in melee, that's a spell that druid or cleric didn't have to cast. Because of course the spellcaster classes are basically 90% as good as fighters all the time (at fighting; they're way better at not dying or not falling to disabling attacks), and hundreds of times better whenever they actually need to be. Ferrinus fucked around with this message at 00:47 on Nov 9, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2010 16:52
|
|
|
grah posted:This is just plain false and if you believe it there's not any discussion of any melee class to be had, and there is literally nothing that can balance a non-casting class short of giving them spells. Hey, you're right.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2010 00:46
|
|
|
Fighters beat wizards (not clerics) (honestly though, I bet they don't even beat wizards if wizards optimize for hitpoint damage. I don't want to learn enough Pathfinder minutiae to figure out the combination of spells you'd need, but if you think it doesn't exist imagine me laughing hoarsely at you) at hit point damage in a game where hit point damage simply doesn't matter. Fights are won by cleverly removing your opponent's ability to attack you. I mean, it's just wholly absurd to harp on a wizard's lack of hitpoints. Wizards can increase their hitpoints in a million ways, but I'd actually be surprised to see them bother because the combination of their crowd control powers and array of daylong defenses should render them pointless to attack to start with.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2010 07:12
|
|
|
grah posted:All of these sweeping "any caster control every battle and automatically win all the time and are also gods outside of battle" statements pretty much tell me that these people have not spent any significant amount of time playing this game. ...playing this game with people who aren't good at using the system, you mean. Because this is the way it was in 3.5, and Pathfinder buffed casters. The fact that you're crowing about Wish of all things being depowered is clear indication that you just don't know where the money is in terms of wizard supremacy.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2010 19:59
|
|
|
It was a Favored Soul, a cleric would've been way stronger
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2011 18:07
|
|
|
That rule is going to get really funny the first time a wizard casts True Strike.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2012 02:44
|
|
|
G.M.K. posted:Moderately high mobility [limitless times per day] No, these are all things wizards can do better than fighters. quote:Wear heavy armor If you look closely, you realize that the entries in this list aren't of the same kind as the entries in the list preceding it. "Survive hitpoint damage" is an effect you can achieve by having many hitpoints to start with, having DR, having a lot of healing, etcetera. "Wear heavy armor" is not a challenge you overcome, it is a strategy you might adopt to overcome a challenge. Saying that fighters wear armor better than wizards do is like saying that clerics cast divine spells better than wizards do; so what? That's not what anyone was talking about. More broadly, why would anyone want to do any of the those things, when they're manifestly less effective than using magic spells? Certainly, a fighter can use his abilities a limitless number of times per day, but those abilities aren't any good, and no adventurers ever do anything a limitless number of times before resting. In fact, a great many wizard tricks are things you do a limitless number of times per day... because they come as the beneficial effect of a spell that you've cast on yourself that has an hours/level or daylong duration.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2012 02:13
|
|
|
G.M.K. posted:Haha, looks like I couldn't make the hard sell after all! Oh well. It was an obvious long shot. Yes, caster supremacy ruins a game. Yes, the game is better if all classes are balanced. INTERLUDE In your original version of this post you had just written "exactly balanced." However, I notice you have edited ", meticulously" in. Perhaps you'd like to throw in "mathematically", or better yet "rigidly"? It'd do a much better job of communicating to everyone involved exactly who they are dealing with. END INTERLUDE Why? Because if classes are badly balanced, people playing weaker classes will have less ability to engage with the game. As evidence I cite Dungeons and Dragons 3E and 3.5E, games in which many players found themselves struggling with the fact that their beloved characters grew more and more obsolete as the party increased in character level.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2012 04:59
|
|
|
G.M.K. posted:Oh snap son, you totally caught me before I edited my post like a thief in the night! Whats more, you have exposed me to the world . This is proof positive (to an eye as trained as yours) that I am...what? Please elaborate (mathematically/rigidly) on what the hell you're talking about so I can make fun of you properly. What, indeed. quote:I've never been involved in a game where somebody ended up feeling totally obsolete because they didn't roll a caster. I have gamed with a LOT of people, and none of them have felt that way. Who are you talking about in particular? The greater whole of D&D players? The gross imbalance between spellcasters and non-spellcasters that emerges around level 9 or 10, and the damage it does to continuing games, are widespread and widely known. Most people do not choose the Fighter class to play a character who is at best a janitor and at worst a helpless liability, but they end up in this role because the rulebooks are not honest as to what being a Fighter actually entails.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2012 05:59
|
|
|
G.M.K. posted:If we're going to try to examine an old cliche to see if it holds up, "Everyone knows it's true!" is a pretty poor argument. It doesn't have to be all or nothing here - caster supremacy may a thing, but that doesn't necessarily equate to everyone else being rendered obsolete. Have you actually seen this happen in a game? Wait a minute, you're saying that you're going to discount basic critical analysis of the game's mechanics but will listen to permanent testimony from one random person, i.e. me? Well, that's a lot easier then: I played a lot of 3.5 before 4E came out and saw caster PCs dramatically and grossly overshadow non-caster PCs as soon as the game got to around level 9 or 10. This has happened even in games without a wizard, cleric, or druid; I've seen something as piddly and second-rate as a Dread Necromancer completely break encounters apart and stop every other PC from even having to bother to fight with a single spell. Boom, headshot, you have to concede now. I'm sure you're not going to just pull out your own meaningless personal experience as a counter-anecdote and leave the discussion exactly nowhere. Ferrinus fucked around with this message at 19:15 on Mar 28, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2012 15:46
|
|
|
G.M.K. posted:Yes, I am going to discount speculation and ask for personal testimony. My plan from there was to ask somebody giving that testimony to describe the situation a little more clearly in terms of who was playing what, and whether or not the people playing the non-casters were simply inexperienced (as newbies tend toward simpler classes). First off, being a jerk? What? You were the guy just licking his lips in anticipation of mocking me or whatever. I'm just trying to be helpful by laying down the facts. Discounting speculation and asking for personal testimony is stupid, though, because you might get the personal testimony of someone whose resident wizard only ever memorized 1d6/level evocations and whose resident fighter was built by someone using six separate sourcebook who accidentally added a zero onto their recommended wealth by level. I mean, obviously, the vast majority of the testimony you're going to get is going to be about casters grossly overpowering the game, but since you've clearly decided ahead of time what conclusion you're going to draw from the data there is nothing stopping you from countering with your own testimony, or pointing out that the DM was making some sort of mistake, or whatever. In fact, you did it right up there! "Whether the people playing the non-casters were simply inexperienced". Inexperience on the part of a fighter is completely irrelevant to mid to high level D&D, since fighters are poo poo to start with. quote:I submit the following rebuttal- Golems? Are you joking? Golems? What kind of wizard couldn't trivialize a golem? Counterspells? Resistance to elemental damage? How were you planning to judge inexperience on a player's part, exactly, when you yourself are clearly inexperienced as a player? Either way, you yourself have admitted it: you tailor encounters around casters. Does that actually counterbalance casters, such that casters aren't any more capable of contributing to the resolution of an encounter than non-casters? No, obviously not. What it does do is subtly reinforce spellcaster primacy. The single most important piece of information about any oncoming challenge becomes: To what extent, and by what strategy, have our opponents attempted to counter our own spellcasters? How can we countermand or bypass their anti-spellcaster measures so that we can bring our spellcasters fully to bear? Both PCs and NPCs, allies and enemies, implicitly and explicitly acknowledge that the party's spellcasters are its most important characters. In the course of running a game of D&D, you, the GM, are forced to pay the wizard more attention and give the wizard more spotlight. Gosh, can a situation in which one player constantly receives more attention, acknowledgement, and importance than another possibly harm gameplay? I- I just don't know. I can't see it. Guess I'll have to poll the crowd, Ferrinus fucked around with this message at 21:08 on Mar 28, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2012 21:06
|
|
|
G.M.K. posted:So if the rogue or ... yes, even the lowly fighter isn't on the ball, the whole thing can go to poo poo. Just like a quarterback can't win a game all by himself! Nope, wrong.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2012 22:40
|
|
|
G.M.K. posted:It isn't gonna happen. There is a big gray area in the middle that isn't being acknowledged. No, that's wrong. There is not a gray area where caster supremacy is concerned. That it exists and has an increasingly negative effect on play is obvious. There is a level range during which caster supremacy hasn't fully come to define play. For instance, at level one, a druid and a barbarian teaming up to use entangle + a strong axe attack to defeat a group of goblins that would normally be too big to handle is legitimately teamwork - neither character could defeat ~9 goblins alone, but with the druid's ability to control how many goblins attack at once and the barbarian's ability to dispatch a single goblin effortlessly the encounter is manageable. At level one, the druid does not have enough magical power to both crowd control the goblins and kill the crowd-controlled goblins. There's nothing ambiguous about the situation, though. For instance, it clearly previews that the role of nonmagical characters is fundamentally janitorial; they sit back while a spellcaster defines the terms of the encounter, then get to work on cleanup. And it demonstrates that it's only the per-day limitations on spellcasters which allow non-spellcasters to see any play at all; one can clearly extrapolate that once the druid gets to a point where it has more spells to cast or the ability to spend all day in a combat-capable animal form, it'll be able to do both the crowd control and the cleanup without needing any help from a nonmagical character.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2012 18:29
|
|
|
Fundamentally you need to set up a situation in which A) every character class has the ability to deploy exception-based rules toys so powerful that they can't be used at-will B) every character's limited-use exception-based rules toys scale dramatically in both power and scope of effect, such that any level eighteen character can in a moment of high drama throw down something that's as big a deal as Gate or Time Stop, and C) every character's bank of exception-based rules toys can interact magic-psionics transparency style such that a rogue can dodge a wizard's scrying, a cleric can ward against a fighter's deathblow, a barbarian can dispel a druid's buffs. Book of Nine Swords is a fine start, but frankly you could do worse than just outright giving previously spell-less characters license to cast heavily reflavored and slightly-rejiggered high level spells. Finger of Death becomes Arrow of Death (or an instakill charge attack or some other means of causing instant death at a distance), Mordenkainen's Disjunction is a magic-wracking war cry, etcetera.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2012 03:33
|
|
|
Is that actually any fun, though? High-powered magic is sort of the hallmark of high-level D&D. Assuming you were able to write up a dedicated antimagic warrior class whose abilities weren't circumventable by wizard cleverness, you've got a guy whose primary mode of combat is forcing everyone else to become as boring as he is and then just trading blows with it. Like, a wizard or cleric clashes with a balor with a massive exchange of explosive supernatural power. Antimagic guy clashes with a balor... forcing it to stand there and attack him with its suddenly non-vorpal sword while he attacks it back?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2012 04:01
|
|
|
edit: poo poo, ignore this post, literally thought I was in the WoD thread!! 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2012 23:43
|
|
|
Wrist Watch posted:Found a source for this, if anyone's interested: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13206508&postcount=28 This loving rules, thanks for posting it.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2012 22:53
|
|
|
You might want to look at how casters work in 5e. They pretty much incorporate ideas 1, 2, and 3.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2014 21:41
|
|
|
Paolomania posted:After taking a look, the 5e casting does look fairly simple to adapt - basically fewer spell slots in exchange for limited slot recovery after short-rest, preparation that is independent of slots, ability bonus gives you more prep but not more slots. As part of an official product it might be an easier sell than a hack of my own. What's nice is that, since it puts everyone on the "prepare spells then spend interchangeable slots to cast any of them as often as you like" standard it feels like a sidegrade at least to some extent for a wizard who's used to having to guess if they'll need two disintegrates or three. If you ask me, the single biggest improvement is the addition of "Concentration, up to..." to the duration of like every buff or conjuration in the core rules, but that'd be way harder to port over.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2014 22:39
|
|
|
Pathfinder Unchanged.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2015 02:42
|
|
|
Making fun of people for actually playing a roleplaying game rather than coolly and calmly reading it on the toilet is such next-level posting tech that I'm not sure I can handle it.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2016 16:05
|
|
|
I'm impressed to see that they just plain deleted resonance, which I couldn't even finish reading when I first saw it because of how transparently awful it was. But here's the question - do nonmagical characters have any access to attacks, supermoves, or other special actions that are powerful enough that they have to be rest-limited? Or is it still presumed that half the party has only at-wills while the other half of the party has at-wills and dailies?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2019 17:35
|
|
|
My god. Well, I’ll make sure to pay attention to what the final 2E looks like.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2019 18:14
|
|
|
So where in PF2 are the provisions for fighters or fighter-adjacent classes to get limited-use (per-hour or per-day) abilities and/or to throw save-or-dies or at least save-or-loses? The fighter's unique feats seem to be a variety of increasingly-consequential at-will powers; are they all in the skill feats or do I need to read more closely?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2019 17:33
|
|
|
Drone Jett posted:The only offensive ability that is time limited is the Barbarian 20 feat that gives you an Earthquake spell stomp every 10 minutes. The other time limited feats for martial classes tend to be defensive no sells on damage or conditions. Or the Rogue's "LOL, I'm Invisible to All Senses" trick. (His "walk through walls" ability is unlimited, however.) I guess it was too much to hope for.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2019 19:55
|
|
|
Kylra posted:Why were you hoping for cooldown abilities for fighters? Why is it a disappointment? Fighters as is built in a straightforward manner seem to be really good at inflicting death, generally the best condition. A fighter with no feats whatsoever but +50 to all attack, damage, save, and hit die rolls would be incredibly powerful but still lacking something the classes with actual resources and powers have.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2019 20:51
|
|
|
Kylra posted:Well, yeah, if you don't have any skills and the feats to go with them or any of your class feats all you'll do is damage to a single target up to 3 times per round. That's like saying a wizard who takes nothing but fireball and has no skills or other features can only cast fireball every round. Fighter feats do things that give you more options rather than just all being +1s, as do skill feats and to a lesser extent ancestry feats. I'm not actually concerned with strict game balance here, which I'll bet PF2 has at at least 5e level. I'm concerned with access to interesting problem-solving tools and the ability to heighten drama. Even a casual glance makes it clear to me that a 2E fighter has, like, optimization problems to solve and decisions to make round by round, and that the specific attack-augmenting feats you pick are going to give you a preferred "line" in a fight (open with this thing, then do this thing, save this other thing for your last action each turn, etc). What said fighter can't do is respond to to a big threat by breaking out the big guns, or find themselves in desperate straights because they're almost or completely tapped out (except in the sense of being low on HP) and having to run on fumes, or whatever. Whether you're fighting a random brigand or the evil warlord who razed your village you're making the same plays, whereas a player of a wizard choosing to open with Prismatic Spray instead of a cantrip, or a player of a Solar Exalt pouring 30 motes and 3 willpower into some sort of nightmarish death combo, are making important statements about how their characters are feeling at the moment.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2019 21:10
|
|
|
Kylra posted:The Fighter already looks to be the big guns all the time in combat compared to a wizard for damage, especially single target. And ultimately death is still the best status effect. I think it's ultimately fine if fighters are a class that in combat just consistently hurts things really well, with a few good utility effects to cause penalty conditions or crowd control. There's room for both a class like this fighter and a class like pf2 monk that does have a bit more of that "I'm going to use my quivering palm now" feel. If someone doesn't want that mechanical flavor, there are other options than fighter. I feel like you're not reading what I'm saying. I don't care that/if the fighter does too much/too little/nothing but damage. I care that the fighter can't do anything so powerful or cool that it'd be plain unfair if you could do that thing at-will. Like you pointed out, you could easily sit down and build a (any edition) wizard that casts nothing but damage spells, and I'd even add that I could build a 4e fighter who does nothing but damage (except for the marking and movement interdiction thing, I guess). However, the evocations-only blaster wizard, who has to pick between casting magic missile, fireball, and meteor swarm based on the situation they're faced with, would still be a better design than some kind of stripped-down warlock whose at-will eldritch blast hits so hard that it puts out the same amount of damage as is contained in all the evoker's spell slots over the course of an adventuring day.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2019 21:39
|
|
|
Kylra posted:Debuff enemies? Yep, while also hitting with your sword at the same time if you want. Fly? Dimension door? Fighter (anyone with athletics really) can leap dozens of feet. Open a door? Nothing really stopping you from disarming the trap and picking the lock if you took Thievery. Or just break it v0v. Save or die? Scare to death, if you really want to gamble on a crit fail. What else is there? I'm asking as someone who hasn't read all the material - can a fighter clonk someone on the head and stun them? Knock them out of breath so they can't take verbal casting actions? Hamstring them to screw up their movement or cripple them to hamper/slow/take away their actions? quote:Also also want to say this is the second time I've been potentially interested in playing a fighter in D&D/PF. The first was 4e, but even then it was more samey compared to other things I liked the flavor of more so that kind of generally fell off as I played other classes, while the fighter is a bit more of its own thing in PF2. It sounds from the rest of your post like the exact opposite is true, since a lot of what the PF2 fighter has going for it is improved/more flexible access to the generic skill list and skill feats that everyone can draw on, while the 4e fighter legitimately had unique and irreplaceable class features and powers. There's no "Fighter Attack 19" in Pathfinder.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2019 00:27
|
|
|
For the life of me I can't actually find what allows fighters to A) opportunity attack in response to a spell and B) disrupt on a regular hit rather than a crit. Are all casting actions considered to be "manipulate" actions or is there an upgrade I can't find anywhere?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2019 02:02
|
|
|
Yeah, it's cool that fighters have at least a few basic battlefield manipulation effects (threatening AoOs, immobilizes, knockdowns, etc.) and the "flourish" keyword is a neat mode of rationing, but what I really want to see is some sort of "flourish+" keyword denoting a level of exertion only achievable once per encounter or hour or day, and appropriately powerful maneuvers that have it.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2019 03:44
|
|
|
Arivia posted:Why do they even have to? If fighters are just as capable in and out of combat, it doesn't matter if they have a once a day ability or whatever. Well, firstly there's a prosaic balance concern which still exists even if CoDzilla doesn't: if only half the party has per-day abilities, then party balance is suddenly sensitive to day length. Short days favor people who can alpha strike, long days favor people who've sacrificed the ability to alpha strike for passive +3 damage per round every round, so a DM has to worry more about how they structure adventures. If we're traveling along a great expanse and get into, say, a random encounter every few days, rather than multiple random encounters per day, our wizards and clerics have way more free reign to wild out. There's also this balance/encounter design concern, which begins to shade into the more drama/narrative problems I mentioned upthread: if half your party can't alpha strike no matter how much they want to, it's now not fair for you to create challenges or opponents that require special exertion of resources to defeat. Like, suddenly a bomb enemy appears that'll explode for massive damage unless killed immediately - quick, we have to focus it down! Fighter, hit it as hard as you can! But the thing is that the fighter can only hit it exactly as hard as he hits every other enemy, every single round, from morning to evening, day after day - he has no way to put the pedal to the metal or pump the brakes in response to changing circumstances. Or, if he does, it's because he's got potions or other expendable/charged magic items that are his only means of closing the gap between his regular and now-it's-on damage output. So having only at-will powers is itself a drawback even if all your at-will powers have been tuned so high that their overall output sums up to what another character with per-encounters and dailies is expected to put out. And, since that's true, the fighter (and rogue and whoever else) end up looking like an automaton rather than an actual mortal adventurer, albeit an automaton with a wider array of combat algorithms than they had two editions ago. They can't go all-out, they can't get tired. They can't hit their hated archnemesis any harder than they can hit some random goblin that waylays them on the road. They are, frankly, unrealistic. Ferrinus fucked around with this message at 06:50 on Aug 15, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2019 05:02
|
|
|
Kylra posted:I think of it kind of like using monsters that have fire resists or weaknesses vs a group that has a fireball focused caster. The fireball caster gets to shine when there's a fire weak monster but others step up more when it's fire resistant. The lockpicker gets to shine when there is a lock to pick, and the diplomat gets to shine when there's diplomacy to be done. The fight all day guy gets to shine when they fights are all day and the burstier daily resource guy gets to shine when it's a 1/day thing. And I don't think that's inherently a problem as long as you take it into consideration and make sure everyone gets shining time. Also cantrips are way better now (automatically heightened and etc), to help level out the "wizard's out of spells no choice but to rest" problem. Right, but that's an extra concern, and a more abstract and metagamey one than whether you're putting undead in front of a paladin or fire elementals in front of a dragon sorcerer. Having game balance that's responsive to the presence of narrative tension/pressure generally is kind of weird, especially if the end result is that the magical half of the party starts to look like it's made of normal people who get exhausted and need breaks while the nonmagical half of the party seems more and more to consist of tireless golems. quote:Hero Points are a standard and you're supposed to get at least 1 at the start of each session, with more gained during the session. Though for offensive purposes this amounts to a reroll if you don't like the result. Fighters also are one of the classes that benefits the most from combat buffs, whether from allies or potions like you said. It's not just dps checks (although you'd think if there was anything a fighter could do in bursts in response to an emergency it would be weapon damage, right? even fuckin' D&D 5e lets them do that with Action Surge), it's any sort of extraordinary circumstance, whether tactical, narrative, or both, that demands you do something you usually don't. Just imagine something happens that makes your fighter really mad. They're red in the face, just charging and screaming and hammering as hard as they possibly can in response to this evil guy they hate or whatever... but don't actually have the option to hit them any harder than they hit the blink dog they randomly encountered this morning. At least if they were in a Chronicles of Darkness game they could spend a willpower point for +3 dice on their attack roll! quote:I can totally jump 90' horizontally or 30' into the air irl though. Well, that's the joke, right? The ability to survive a fireball or cut down an iron golem we D&D veterans can take in stride. But the ability to unleash your deadliest technique over and over and over again without flagging? Even Goku gets tired.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2019 07:03
|
|
|
Kylra posted:Doesn't really bother me much on its own, though I can understand why some people might not find it to their taste. No, I think they're androids, or at the very least the discount Tom Hardy who starred in Upgrade. In other RPG systems, "you can harness the maximum potential of your physique at will" would either be some kind of bizarre out-of-the-way capstone power or just far too strong to ever put in a player's hands! Imagine a vampire who just never ran out of blood to buff their stats and power their Disciplines with, or, hell, a 4th edition Fighter whose "Dailies" never needed time to recharge.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2019 07:26
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 8, 2024 13:29 |
|
|
Unrelatedly, how come characters can sometimes cast spells using their spell slots, but other times use powers which are fueled by spell points? "Power points" was right there, and surely it can't be so proprietary a phrase to future psionic classes that it can't be part of the game's general vocabulary.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2019 15:35
|
|