Pathfinder 1E Pathfinder Sneak Peeks (Old thread)

[Twowolves]

I didnt say monsters, now did I? Fighter/Ranger/Barbarian etc ability, gained at BAB 6... make 2 attacks as a standard action. At +11, 3, etc. Whirlwind attack sure as hell should be a standard action as well.

Or make all non healing/defensive spells over 3rd level take multiple full round actions to cast and fatigue, then exhaust casters. Casters should sort of suck in combat anyways, since they can completely dominate non-combat through utility magic

Either way you slice it, full attacks suck in their current implementation for keeping melee equal to casters/ranged characters. Pathfinder could have easily fixed this through feats/class abilities, but didnt.

So, let's take a class with the worst selection of armor and weapons, the worst BAB progression and the worst hit dice..... and make them WORSE in combat. Yeah, that'll show them for having Knock on their spell list.

Full attacks by melee-optimized characters are capable of dishing out triple digit damage, something tha all but the most tricked out spells cannot do. And swords don't use charges or spell slots. The greatsword weilding, power attacking fighter can swing that sword every round all day long, something casters can't match under a Vancian system. It's fine.

And finally, you have no clue what is in the Pathfinder RPG core rules. Already some feats have been previewed that address some issues with the fighter class, but until the final document is released and in our hands, you just can't say what they did or did not "fix".

 

[Runestar]

Full attacks by melee-optimized characters are capable of dishing out triple digit damage, something tha all but the most tricked out spells cannot do.

Casters can arguably do much more with a standard action, considering that they possess save-or-die spells which ignore hp altogether, or battlefield control spells which can disable the foe, sometimes without saves or sr.

Plus, the problem, as bolded above, is that it requires a full round, meaning that fighters are normally unable to move in and full-attack in the same round. If the enemy decides to play hit-and-run, this can seriously reduce the fighter's overall damage output.

But you are right that melee PCs are typically the best choice for dealing damage, since they can do so without needing to expend any resources. Plus, if the enemy has been disabled, then they can safely stand in place and full-attack away without fear of reprisal, doing tons of damage while helping to conserve caster resources.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Casters can arguably do much more with a standard action, considering that they possess save-or-die spells which ignore hp altogether, or battlefield control spells which can disable the foe, sometimes without saves or sr.

Spells with neither saves, nor attack rolls, nor SR-- all need to go. Pathfinder fixed quite a few of them (see forcecage.)

Especially since the Conjuration school is so frequently abused by designers as a cheap way to get around saves and SR.

"No, this spell doesn't evoke fire, like fireball. It conjures fire. So, you don't get a save."

Uh huh.

I call shenanigans on Monte Cook here, specifically, but I have my suspicions about Andy Collins, too.


I'd be happy to rule that any spell whose area of effect includes a creature with SR is negated entirely if the caster fails to beat SR.

And SR should always apply.

You'll want some fighters around for those situations.

 

[Twowolves]

Casters can arguably do much more with a standard action, considering that they possess save-or-die spells which ignore hp altogether, or battlefield control spells which can disable the foe, sometimes without saves or sr.

So they can do big things, a handfull of times per day. And foes get a save, often for no effect at all, essentially wasting the caster's action. Battlefield control is another subject entirely, since the only way for non-casters to duplicate this is to be a defender with time and manpower to sculpt a battlefield. But it's not impossible.

Plus, the problem, as bolded above, is that it requires a full round, meaning that fighters are normally unable to move in and full-attack in the same round. If the enemy decides to play hit-and-run, this can seriously reduce the fighter's overall damage output.

Many spells require full round actions to cast, and ranged fighters almost always get full attacks. Yes, if the enemy is doing hit-and-run it limits the effectiveness of full attacks, but it's supposed to do that. The attackers don't get their full attacks either. It's a viable strategy, not a deficiency of melee fighters.

But you are right that melee PCs are typically the best choice for dealing damage, since they can do so without needing to expend any resources. Plus, if the enemy has been disabled, then they can safely stand in place and full-attack away without fear of reprisal, doing tons of damage while helping to conserve caster resources.

Well, it IS a team-oriented game, after all. The casters immobilize or channel the opposition into an area where the fighters can whip-up on them. A fighter in a 5' wide hallway can hack his way through a staggering number of foes with full attack actions, and do it nearly all day. A mounted knight can dish out an obscene ammount of damage on a charge as well. It's their focus, so they do it pretty well.

What I've seen so far for Pathfinder, they have streamlined combat maneuvers, so they should be easier to use and therefore add to the fighter's bag of tricks. They have also added feats that increase damage at the expense of mostly-useless iterative attacks, and added class features that also help fighters fight better. I haven't been able to playtest the Beta fighter, but there will be one in the Pathfinder game I am starting up in August, so maybe I'll be in a better position to comment then.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

So, let's take a class with the worst selection of armor and weapons, the worst BAB progression and the worst hit dice..... and make them WORSE in combat. Yeah, that'll show them for having Knock on their spell list.

Sounds about right to me. You get charm person, read thoughts, etc. Fighters get to fight. And nothing else. So they should utterly dominate all combat. They should be the toughest, and deal the most damage, and impose status effects with basic attacks, at will.

Or give them 8 skill points and other abilities, so they do stuff out of combat (not that it's allowed to be as good as spells though). Right now they cant even be fully trained in your typical "fantasy action hero" skills (jump, climb, ride and swim) with their stupid 2 skill points, another crappy design decision.

Full attacks by melee-optimized characters are capable of dishing out triple digit damage, something tha all but the most tricked out spells cannot do. And swords don't use charges or spell slots. The greatsword weilding, power attacking fighter can swing that sword every round all day long, something casters can't match under a Vancian system. It's fine.

This is a fallacy I'm incredibly sick of. The day ends when the casters are out of spells. No one presses on without healing, as fighters cant even stand up to a full attack without constant ass wiping from a cleric. If 1 HD critters dropped out of a tube constantly and allowed the fighter to win initiative, yeah, I guess high level fighters would have vast staying power. But in reality, their staying power is the same as the cleric's.

And finally, you have no clue what is in the Pathfinder RPG core rules. Already some feats have been previewed that address some issues with the fighter class, but until the final document is released and in our hands, you just can't say what they did or did not "fix".

I know the designers generally favor the same "caster supremacy" ideals which have plagued D&D for 30+ years. Unless spells are gutted 9they wont be), the few bones thrown towards non-casters dont really matter.

 

[Mikaze]

Or give them 8 skill points and other abilities, so they do stuff out of combat (not that it's allowed to be as good as spells though). Right now they cant even be fully trained in your typical "fantasy action hero" skills (jump, climb, ride and swim) with their stupid 2 skill points, another crappy design decision.

Human fighters can. 1 bonus skill point every level as a human, 1 bonus skill point for each level in a favored class.

Non-human fighters fall one short, but if they're going for Combat Expertise, their INT picks up the difference.

Also, jump is now Acrobatics, so a fighter taking that gets Tumble and Balance as well.

 

[AllisterH]

Spells with neither saves, nor attack rolls, nor SR-- all need to go. Pathfinder fixed quite a few of them (see forcecage.)

Especially since the Conjuration school is so frequently abused by designers as a cheap way to get around saves and SR.

"No, this spell doesn't evoke fire, like fireball. It conjures fire. So, you don't get a save."

Uh huh.

I call shenanigans on Monte Cook here, specifically, but I have my suspicions about Andy Collins, too.

You know, I always wondered about that....Surely the designers knew it was well, "cheating" for lack of a better term to design spells that explicitly get around the restrictions that other spells do....

re: Spellcasters

Spellcasters could still kick butt even if you had switched it around so that spells take a whole round to cast and full attacks are only a standard action....

 

[Kishin]

Sounds about right to me. You get charm person, read thoughts, etc. Fighters get to fight. And nothing else. So they should utterly dominate all combat. They should be the toughest, and deal the most damage, and impose status effects with basic attacks, at will.

So magic is utility only, now?

I think the design philosophy is more "X does this in combat, Y does that.."

Fighter types do have the possibility to cause status effects in 3.5E. In fact, that's basically a Spiked Chain fighter's primary schtick, via Trip.

I know the designers generally favor the same "caster supremacy" ideals which have plagued D&D for 30+ years. Unless spells are gutted 9they wont be), the few bones thrown towards non-casters dont really matter.

I think 'Make Magic suck' isn't exactly the best solution to this problem.

I also am inclined to think that if you are this vehement about the issue, perhaps D&D is not the best system for simulating the kind of fantasy world you want t run. It sounds like we're reaching the point where we're getting mad at our toaster for not also playing DVDs.

Without a massive rebuild (Which Pathfinder has specifically declared itself not to be, so as to maintain a high degree of backward compatibility), an issue this big is not going to go away.

 

[Starbuck_II]

In every game I ran, Fighters were inevitably the leader of the party. I have never seen this caster domination, except for people whining about it occasionally on the internet.

The fighter player is usually the one that carries our parties through. yes he gets buffs, yes he gets defenses. The fighter characters in my campaign though are always worthy to be called warriors of legendary tales.

Seeing as the casters are providing the buffs shouldn't they get the tales of legends?
They are doing 1/2 the work (fighter without the buffs couldn't function 1/2 as good).

Seems rather unfair.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Spells with neither saves, nor attack rolls, nor SR-- all need to go. Pathfinder fixed quite a few of them (see forcecage.)

Especially since the Conjuration school is so frequently abused by designers as a cheap way to get around saves and SR.

"No, this spell doesn't evoke fire, like fireball. It conjures fire. So, you don't get a save."

Uh huh.

I call shenanigans on Monte Cook here, specifically, but I have my suspicions about Andy Collins, too.


I'd be happy to rule that any spell whose area of effect includes a creature with SR is negated entirely if the caster fails to beat SR.

And SR should always apply.

You'll want some fighters around for those situations.

Well, on the flip side... I think there should also be less immunities and there shouldn't be too many dice rolls. I personally never liked Spell Resistance as extra roll, it could better apply as a kind on saves, maybe with an Evasion/Mettle like feature. (Succesful save negates everything.)