Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Does pathfinder strike anyone as too gamey?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Starfox" data-source="post: 6193828" data-attributes="member: 2303"><p>I guess part of the problem is what attack vectors a DM prefers to use. In my experience, at least 50% of all attacks target armor class - the fighters's forte. Maybe 10% of those actually are touch attacks or incorporeal touch attacks, but about as many (actually some more) are against flat-footed AC. Of the remainder, about half target Fortitude, mainly in the form of poison. The remaining 25% are divided between Reflex and Will, with a slight bias towards Reflex. So, this is the typical attack spread I see:</p><p></p><p>30% AC - Figher's forte (Also the cleric's in 3E and 3.5)</p><p>5% Touch AC - Rogues shine</p><p>5% incorporeal touch - Wizards shine</p><p>10% Flat-footed AC - Rogues and fighters shine</p><p>25% Fortitude save - Fighters & clerics shine</p><p>15% Reflex save - Rogues shine</p><p>10% Will save - Wizards & cleric shine</p><p></p><p>Fighters shine against about 65% of attacks, clerics 35%, rogues 30%, and wizards 15%. Wizards also have lots of other ways to defend themselves other than AC and base saves, but they have less hp.</p><p></p><p>But this is all IMC. In your games, the opposition might look vastly different. And you can argue that attacks against Will are more devastating, but then again attacks against AC really are a lot more than 30% of all attacks, at low levels it is 75% or even 90%. again IMC.</p><p></p><p>A GM that thinks wizards outshine everything else may use a lot more wizards as opponent's, which ups the will save as a percentage of all attacks, making the perceived strength of wizards self-fulfilling. </p><p></p><p>About clerics, I think 3E clerics are deliberately overpowered to make anyone actually want to play them. There are so many tables where cleric equals heal-bot, and the class has a great amount of stigma associated with it from 1E and 2E as a boring suckfest. Part of that stems from many tables leveling all characters up at the same pace, where clerics and rogues at almost all levels were supposed to be 1-2 levels above fighters and magic-users at the same xp. This kind of overcompensation in a revision is common - that which sucks (or is perceived to suck) in edition x is made to shine in edition x+1. I feel this is what happened with the 4E fighter.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Starfox, post: 6193828, member: 2303"] I guess part of the problem is what attack vectors a DM prefers to use. In my experience, at least 50% of all attacks target armor class - the fighters's forte. Maybe 10% of those actually are touch attacks or incorporeal touch attacks, but about as many (actually some more) are against flat-footed AC. Of the remainder, about half target Fortitude, mainly in the form of poison. The remaining 25% are divided between Reflex and Will, with a slight bias towards Reflex. So, this is the typical attack spread I see: 30% AC - Figher's forte (Also the cleric's in 3E and 3.5) 5% Touch AC - Rogues shine 5% incorporeal touch - Wizards shine 10% Flat-footed AC - Rogues and fighters shine 25% Fortitude save - Fighters & clerics shine 15% Reflex save - Rogues shine 10% Will save - Wizards & cleric shine Fighters shine against about 65% of attacks, clerics 35%, rogues 30%, and wizards 15%. Wizards also have lots of other ways to defend themselves other than AC and base saves, but they have less hp. But this is all IMC. In your games, the opposition might look vastly different. And you can argue that attacks against Will are more devastating, but then again attacks against AC really are a lot more than 30% of all attacks, at low levels it is 75% or even 90%. again IMC. A GM that thinks wizards outshine everything else may use a lot more wizards as opponent's, which ups the will save as a percentage of all attacks, making the perceived strength of wizards self-fulfilling. About clerics, I think 3E clerics are deliberately overpowered to make anyone actually want to play them. There are so many tables where cleric equals heal-bot, and the class has a great amount of stigma associated with it from 1E and 2E as a boring suckfest. Part of that stems from many tables leveling all characters up at the same pace, where clerics and rogues at almost all levels were supposed to be 1-2 levels above fighters and magic-users at the same xp. This kind of overcompensation in a revision is common - that which sucks (or is perceived to suck) in edition x is made to shine in edition x+1. I feel this is what happened with the 4E fighter. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Does pathfinder strike anyone as too gamey?
Top