PA comic: Wednesday Nov. 30, 2011 - The Conflux, Part Four

PMAvers

see317 wrote:

Maybe edit in the cover of FATAL (was it ever actually published?).
I mean, if you really want to punish your players for playing the game you set up, you should be receiving some of the punishment as well.

I'm pretty sure it did, although it might've come out with a different name.

I know I've seen the free PDF they were giving out for a while there leading up to the "release." All, what, 800ish pages of crap?

Loopy1492

I think the real reason for the pfs level cap is how long combat takes in high end 3.X games. That is one thing they haven't cured that 4.0 excels at. For me that's not enough to make me want to play 4.0.

Der Waffle Mous

That's giving me flashbacks. High end 3x combat had a swingy as hell time investment. Either it ended instantly, or it ended "instantly" but still took half an hour because you needed to work out the results of a spell that was cast, or you spent another hour chewing through HP, often before the second result happened anyway.

I think it got to the point where we mostly fudged what happened.

Which I guess makes sense since this group is big on storygames now.

TharkWarrior

Pathfinder is hardly old school. If you want real old school feel go for one of the "retro-clone" old school renaissance games like Swords and Wizardry http://www.swordsandwizardry.com/corerulesproducts.htm or better yet Crypts & Things http://d101games.co.uk/books/crypts-and-things/

admanb

TharkWarrior wrote:

Pathfinder is hardly old school. If you want real old school feel go for one of the "retro-clone" old school renaissance games like Swords and Wizardry http://www.swordsandwizardry.com/corerulesproducts.htm or better yet Crypts & Things http://d101games.co.uk/books/crypts-and-things/

They don't want an old-school game as much as they want an old-school philosophy towards creating challenges for the players.

kaorti

Full disclosure: I haven't played pathfinder. I haven't played 4e either. I've had cursory glances at both, but not enough to speak about them.

I'm currently mired in a 3.5 game. The DM is good and the players are friends, but things are a slog. I made the mistake of playing a fighter.

We have time for exactly one encounter each game for the following reasons:
1) Rules issues. We've been playing 3.5 since it was released, but we still have to constantly look up rules for spells or status effects because there is no good shorthand system to quickly tell us what is going on. It's cross-reference hell.

2) Spellcasting. Large area or multi-target save or suck spells introduce significant bookkeeping and slow the game to a crawl. When everyone is slowed and stuck in solid fog, not much happens for quite a few rounds.

3) Ability damage & level drain. Recalculating all of the bonuses and penalties on the fly. We're fighting undead, so this is depressingly common.

This would be bearable, but for the fact that I'm a non-entity in combat at this point. I can do damage and take damage. The wizard wins fights by making the enemies irrelevant. I have no way of motivating my enemies to attack me instead of the squishy casters. My way of fighting is routinely rendered irrelevant.

Out of combat it's even worse - I don't have the skill points to support social skills. I don't have any cool out of combat abilities to help the party. The arcane casters can get us across the world in a couple of days. I sit there and take up space. I'd love to engage in some roleplaying, but the rules make it a terrible idea for me to talk to anyone outside the party.

So I guess my question is: what has pathfinder done to make fighters relevant to high-level play? Has it made damage a viable alternative to save-or-die malarkey? Has it given fighters something to do outside of combat? Do fighters have any way to actually make sure that things fight them? Is there any mechanical support for a fighter player to have fun?

If the answer to all of that isn't yes, I don't see how this could work out well.

PiptheFair

Der Waffle Mous wrote:

PiptheFair wrote:

let me introduce you to the dwarven spellbreaker inquisitor for all your overpowered arcane pc crushing needs

also PFS fixes broken characters at higher lvls by stopping at lvl 12 (although they are now allowing 13 and very soon 14)

Hm. Yes.

Obviously the solution to overpowered arcane spellcasting classes is a divine spellcasting class. Now what about the other two main offenders in the caster supremacy trinity?

And, honestly, I don't even know what to say about a level cap being the official fix.

Edit: oh hey, its basically mass harm.

you get similar results with a dwarf barb running the superstitious rage power line
+more damage and way faster movement
- easier for the mage to cast on the D

orrrr you can take a 2 handed dwarf fighter with disruptive/improved disruptive and cut the caster in half in literally a single attack

but yes I know you hate pathfinder and 3.x and take every opportunity to make it known so whatevs

Fiaryn

PiptheFair wrote:

Der Waffle Mous wrote:

PiptheFair wrote:

let me introduce you to the dwarven spellbreaker inquisitor for all your overpowered arcane pc crushing needs

also PFS fixes broken characters at higher lvls by stopping at lvl 12 (although they are now allowing 13 and very soon 14)

Hm. Yes.

Obviously the solution to overpowered arcane spellcasting classes is a divine spellcasting class. Now what about the other two main offenders in the caster supremacy trinity?

And, honestly, I don't even know what to say about a level cap being the official fix.

Edit: oh hey, its basically mass harm.

you get similar results with a dwarf barb running the superstitious rage power line
+more damage and way faster movement
- easier for the mage to cast on the D

orrrr you can take a 2 handed dwarf fighter with disruptive/improved disruptive and cut the caster in half in literally a single attack

but yes I know you hate pathfinder and 3.x and take every opportunity to make it known so whatevs

At level 10 and up, the caster has more than enough tools to kill your theoretical dwarf fighter long before he gets close enough to make that single attack, or leave the area and start the fight again later on his terms. This is the fundamental problem with spellcasters. In the unlikely event that you overmatch them, they can and will simply leave and come back tailor made to remove you from existence.

Platypus Beirut

I had to look closely and thought at first that it would be first or second edition D&D/AD&D. With monsters that could easily kill your character off permanently and with mages who start the campaign with only one hitpoint and couldn't learn higher tier spells because their intelligence was too low. Oh yeah, and with level caps for all races instead of humans.

Der Waffle Mous

The caster was 50ft in the air when the fight started because he cast overland flight several hours earlier.

Rolling initiative triggered at least one spell contingency so he was now invisible, mirror imaged, ethereal, a dragon, made of metal, or any combination of the above.

After which is, at the low end, something like draining several levels with empowered enervate, or at the more insane end stopping time long enough to surround you with a few suicide balors, an iceberg hurdling down from overhead, and teleporting himself to the nearest festhall.

Also: your riding griffon is now his riding griffon, because magic.

TharkWarrior

admanb wrote:

They don't want an old-school game as much as they want an old-school philosophy towards creating challenges for the players.

I can't argue with that AdMan since you seem to know that they want.

"Old School Philosophy" is what the retro-clones are about though. If you are looking for it that's one place you can find it. Or just throw out the rules and wing it. But you're never going to convince me that Pathfinder is "old school". It was published last year for crissakes!

I've been gaming for over 30 years. I know Old School Games. Old School Games are friends of mine. Pathfinder, sir, is not Old School Gaming.

Der Waffle Mous

They already did the retro clone thing a while back.

admanb

Der Waffle Mous wrote:

The caster was 50ft in the air when the fight started because he cast overland flight several hours earlier.

Rolling initiative triggered at least one spell contingency so he was now invisible, mirror imaged, ethereal, a dragon, made of metal, or any combination of the above.

After which is, at the low end, something like draining several levels with empowered enervate, or at the more insane end stopping time long enough to surround you with a few suicide balors, an iceberg hurdling down from overhead, and teleporting himself to the nearest festhall.

Also: your riding griffon is now his riding griffon, because magic.

This is basically what I would write if I was trying to write a post parodying people who argue about wizards in D&D.

So... well done.

Der Waffle Mous

I try my best.

kaorti

Der Waffle Mous wrote:

The caster was 50ft in the air when the fight started because he cast overland flight several hours earlier.

Rolling initiative triggered at least one spell contingency so he was now invisible, mirror imaged, ethereal, a dragon, made of metal, or any combination of the above.

After which is, at the low end, something like draining several levels with empowered enervate, or at the more insane end stopping time long enough to surround you with a few suicide balors, an iceberg hurdling down from overhead, and teleporting himself to the nearest festhall.

Also: your riding griffon is now his riding griffon, because magic.

This is much more eloquent than my post. I'm saying that this is dumb even when you are a fighter on the same side as the wizard, because you never get to do anything cool yourself unless he feels lazy.

syriquez

Der Waffle Mous wrote:

The caster was 50ft in the air when the fight started because he cast overland flight several hours earlier.

Rolling initiative triggered at least one spell contingency so he was now invisible, mirror imaged, ethereal, a dragon, made of metal, or any combination of the above.

After which is, at the low end, something like draining several levels with empowered enervate, or at the more insane end stopping time long enough to surround you with a few suicide balors, an iceberg hurdling down from overhead, and teleporting himself to the nearest festhall.

Also: your riding griffon is now his riding griffon, because magic.

Assuming you beat initiative and the Fighter hasn't simply specced into Archery if he chose to fight you on an open field like an idiot. Assuming he hasn't taken Feats like Lightning Stance or the myriad of other things that will make your touch attack rolls into painful experiences. Alternatively, an APG Barbarian can do some impressive things for a mundane against mages. (Though I'm definitely not saying a properly-played Wizard can easily prepare for and crush anything it comes against. I'm just saying it's stupid to give all these immediate assumptions about what will and won't succeed as a hypothetical situation. I mean, if you include the supplementary books Ultimate Magic and Ultimate Combat, you've got even worse power creep on all sides involved.)

All-in-all, one-on-one PvP in a D&D setting is stupid and will result in nothing but a headache for all involved, since you can wax idiotic about "well, then he has this!" and "but then he has that!" for all eternity. And for all involved, sending a Fighter after a Wizard for a duel is about the dumbest choice a player could make (since that's not what they're there for)--I'd send in another caster primarily, a Paladin, or even a Rogue long before a Fighter even was considered.

---

And if nothing else, I'd just have the DM attack your group with a pile of wolves with Improved Trip at level 2 and prevent any of this nonsense from transpiring.

Der Waffle Mous

Then what are fighters there for?

jwalk

ROLL THE DICE TO SEE IF I'M GETTING DRUNK!!

Pata

This totally makes sense for Tycho, after all, his goal is to drive players to ruin. And no better way then from going from a good game to a bad one.

kaorti wrote:

So I guess my question is: what has pathfinder done to make fighters relevant to high-level play? Has it made damage a viable alternative to save-or-die malarkey? Has it given fighters something to do outside of combat? Do fighters have any way to actually make sure that things fight them? Is there any mechanical support for a fighter player to have fun?

By level 20 Fighters have a +5 against fear

The paladin is immune to fear at level 3

Counterspin

We get into this ridiculous.. "Well then I.." discussions because the underlying fact is so obvious. There are really 5 things D&D characters do, fighting, sneaking, spellcasting, healing, and talking. Of those, spellcasting is a given win for the wizard, there are a variety of spells that make wizards better than rogues at sneaking(invisibility, zone of silence), a wizard's capacity to get around HP puts them ahead on fighting, and there are spells that trump talking(charm person/monster,dominate). Which leaves healing, the thing that you have to force someone to do. Pathfinder wizards can, just as their 3e predecessors, defeat any class on their home ground, with no permanent investment required. No one cares that the wizard can kill their character, they care that the wizard does their job better then they do, while also being able to do everything else. That's what the comparisons are set up to show, a fighter getting trivially outfought by a wizard.

Arivia

Pata wrote:

This totally makes sense for Tycho, after all, his goal is to drive players to ruin. And no better way then from going from a good game to a bad one.

kaorti wrote:

So I guess my question is: what has pathfinder done to make fighters relevant to high-level play? Has it made damage a viable alternative to save-or-die malarkey? Has it given fighters something to do outside of combat? Do fighters have any way to actually make sure that things fight them? Is there any mechanical support for a fighter player to have fun?

By level 20 Fighters have a +5 against fear

The paladin is immune to fear at level 3

fear isn't maze, petrify, hold monster, confusion, wail of the banshee, need I continue?

kaleedity

fighters are overwhelming good against casters in pf. Much harsher concentration checks, weaker spells (every spell mentioned by waffle is much weaker in pf or a generally bad idea to use against a fighter anyway), feats that nullify five foot steps, feats that make the basic concentration checks harsher, and feats that pretty much a guarantee that a fighter can actually ready a melee ranged attack against a caster and then connect on them while they're casting to cause a separate, usually impossible concentration check kind of adds up against the clothie guys. You can't just make guaranteed defensive casting checks and huehuehue against fighters in pf.

Arivia

kaleedity wrote:

fighters are overwhelming good against casters in pf. Much harsher concentration checks, weaker spells (every spell mentioned by waffle is much weaker in pf or a generally bad idea to use against a fighter anyway), feats that nullify five foot steps, feats that make the basic concentration checks harsher, and feats that pretty much a guarantee that a fighter can actually ready a melee ranged attack against a caster and then connect on them while they're casting to cause a separate, usually impossible concentration check kind of adds up against the clothie guys. You can't just make guaranteed defensive casting checks and huehuehue against fighters in pf.

Who cares about the fighter when I can just whip up contingency ironguard and stoneskin?

Pata

Arivia wrote:

Pata wrote:

This totally makes sense for Tycho, after all, his goal is to drive players to ruin. And no better way then from going from a good game to a bad one.

kaorti wrote:

So I guess my question is: what has pathfinder done to make fighters relevant to high-level play? Has it made damage a viable alternative to save-or-die malarkey? Has it given fighters something to do outside of combat? Do fighters have any way to actually make sure that things fight them? Is there any mechanical support for a fighter player to have fun?

By level 20 Fighters have a +5 against fear

The paladin is immune to fear at level 3

fear isn't maze, petrify, hold monster, confusion, wail of the banshee, need I continue?

Pretty much yeah.

I just love that example though, because it pretty much epitomizes how terrible Pathfinder is.

kaleedity

Arivia wrote:

kaleedity wrote:

fighters are overwhelming good against casters in pf. Much harsher concentration checks, weaker spells (every spell mentioned by waffle is much weaker in pf or a generally bad idea to use against a fighter anyway), feats that nullify five foot steps, feats that make the basic concentration checks harsher, and feats that pretty much a guarantee that a fighter can actually ready a melee ranged attack against a caster and then connect on them while they're casting to cause a separate, usually impossible concentration check kind of adds up against the clothie guys. You can't just make guaranteed defensive casting checks and huehuehue against fighters in pf.

Who cares about the fighter when I can just whip up contingency ironguard and stoneskin?

can't contingency iron body, it's too high level. fighters are really good at getting around dr in pathfinder, much better to contingency displacement and hope there's no true seeing instead of hoping for no adamantine weapons or DR ignoring feats (ed: or +4 or higher weapons, they count as adamantine for that kind of DR).

Confusion is a good call, but most of the others are more appropriate to use on non-fighters.

admanb

oh god just please stop talking about fighters vs. wizards in a comic thread

kaleedity

sorry, pf fighters don't suck

just sayin

Der Waffle Mous

Most of those spells were just things from the top of my head. The fact that you need a specific build to negate a specific spell types is a problem in itself.

Well except the suicide balor part. That's just referencing a poster's hilarious story about how he ended a bad campaign as a player.

Edit: how about rogues? PF rogues suck big time. They had to release a whole new class just to fix them.

Arivia

Der Waffle Mous wrote:

Most of those spells were just things from the top of my head. The fact that you need a specific build to negate a specific spell types is a problem in itself.

Well except the suicide balor part. That's just referencing a poster's hilarious story about how he ended a bad campaign as a player.

Edit: how about rogues? PF rogues suck big time. They had to release a whole new class just to fix them.

Yeah, I'm just remembering stuff I used to screw around with.

kaleedity, I didn't mean Iron Body. I meant Iron Guard - the spell that makes you immune to all non-magical weapons, then you can just use stoneskin to shut down the rest of it. Or whatever.

kaleedity

rogues are infinitely, infinitely better than they were in 3.5, as you can actually sneak attack most things sometimes, and they're capable of doing some crazy shit with full attack actions. But yeah, they're weaker than a lot of the other classes in a lot of situations.

re: kaorti: in pf for most levels a competent fighter would dominate encounters as much as a competent wizard.

I'd have more problems with that specific build of fighter being so much better than the other options that don't involve sheer damage mitigation. Most of those feats are awesome against everything.

Neaden

If you honestly think that any fullcasting class is equal in power to any non full casting class in 3.x then you don't have any systems mastery to be honest. From mid levels on a Cleric or Druid can be built that can literally do anything a given fighter can do but better and have a bunch of utility.

Aegeri

re: kaorti: in pf for most levels a competent fighter would dominate encounters as much as a competent wizard.

Not in my experience. Especially when the Wizard is summoning a creature that can out-fight the fighter in every manner, the creature can usually cast a ton of different spells and can the wizard just wreck the encounter with his own spells anyway. Or a druid who gains an animal companion from level 1 that substantially equals or even outperforms a low-level fighter, while still being a spellcaster in every single other respect.

fighters are overwhelming good against casters in pf.

Which is why people crunched the math early on in Pathfinder to show lower level wizards could reasonably trivially beat higher level fighters (minding, that was due to the way certain save or suck spells worked)? I have basically never heard anyone claim this so confidently who has ever played higher level Pathfinder (or 3.5 in general). The fact they feel the need to restrict the level in PF to keep balance just goes to show how poorly designed the system is. For all my criticisms and flaws with 4E - especially their "direction" of the game post essentials - 4E actually does function within its own assumptions all the way to 30th level. While Pathfinder, like any 3.5 variant breaks down as soon as the spellcasters get into their own, meaning there is a distinct spot - which I will credit Pathfinder with by saying it is bigger than 3.5 - where the game is best balanced between classes.

PiptheFair

Der Waffle Mous wrote:

Most of those spells were just things from the top of my head. The fact that you need a specific build to negate a specific spell types is a problem in itself.

Well except the suicide balor part. That's just referencing a poster's hilarious story about how he ended a bad campaign as a player.

Edit: how about rogues? PF rogues suck big time. They had to release a whole new class just to fix them.

ninjas! which do things rogues should do, only better


also, if you wanna talk about shitty pf classes, monks that are not tetoris are literally worthless

PiptheFair

Aegeri wrote:

re: kaorti: in pf for most levels a competent fighter would dominate encounters as much as a competent wizard.

Not in my experience. Especially when the Wizard is summoning a creature that can out-fight the fighter in every manner, the creature can usually cast a ton of different spells and can the wizard just wreck the encounter with his own spells anyway. Or a druid who gains an animal companion from level 1 that substantially equals or even outperforms a low-level fighter, while still being a spellcaster in every single other respect.

are you not familiar with how fighters work in PF or something? because you are talking majorly out of your ass at this point

EDIT: and to bring this back to the actual comic, PF allows a huge amount of options with how archetypes and feats work now, to tailor enemies to straight up fuck a cocky party to death

to wit, that scary mage isn't shit when a witch with arcane sight and true seeing going puts it to sleep and her scythe-wielding 2-handed fighter buddy coup-de graces it the same turn

EDIT2: also a synthesist, which can do literally anything

Aegeri

PiptheFair wrote:

Aegeri wrote:

re: kaorti: in pf for most levels a competent fighter would dominate encounters as much as a competent wizard.

Not in my experience. Especially when the Wizard is summoning a creature that can out-fight the fighter in every manner, the creature can usually cast a ton of different spells and can the wizard just wreck the encounter with his own spells anyway. Or a druid who gains an animal companion from level 1 that substantially equals or even outperforms a low-level fighter, while still being a spellcaster in every single other respect.

are you not familiar with how fighters work in PF or something?

Yes, are you? Because there has been plenty of people who have compared fighters to druids, noting that the druids animal companion at low levels is actually better. While the fighter does of course eclipse the companion later, it doesn't change the fact the druid has a companion that fights extremely well and is still a damn spellcaster. So the druid gets most of the what a fighter actually does for nothing and spells on top of it.

to wit, that scary mage isn't shit when a witch with arcane sight and true seeing going puts it to sleep and her scythe-wielding 2-handed fighter buddy coup-de graces it the same turn

Yes, you need a spellcaster to beat a spellcaster, that's quite an observation there

PiptheFair

Aegeri wrote:

PiptheFair wrote:

Aegeri wrote:

re: kaorti: in pf for most levels a competent fighter would dominate encounters as much as a competent wizard.

Not in my experience. Especially when the Wizard is summoning a creature that can out-fight the fighter in every manner, the creature can usually cast a ton of different spells and can the wizard just wreck the encounter with his own spells anyway. Or a druid who gains an animal companion from level 1 that substantially equals or even outperforms a low-level fighter, while still being a spellcaster in every single other respect.

are you not familiar with how fighters work in PF or something?

Yes, are you? Because there has been plenty of people who have compared fighters to druids, noting that the druids animal companion at low levels is actually better. While the fighter does of course eclipse the companion later, it doesn't change the fact the druid has a companion that fights extremely well and is still a damn spellcaster. So the druid gets most of the what a fighter actually does for nothing and spells on top of it.

to wit, that scary mage isn't shit when a witch with arcane sight and true seeing going puts it to sleep and her scythe-wielding 2-handed fighter buddy coup-de graces it the same turn

Yes, you need a spellcaster to beat a spellcaster, that's quite an observation there

any good fighter build will obliterate an animal companion at any level

stop thinking that PF fighters are as poorly thought at as 3.5 ones

also http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/antagonize enjoy getting your caster torn apart

Der Waffle Mous

PiptheFair wrote:

also, if you wanna talk about shitty pf classes, monks that are not tetoris are literally worthless

Called it

PiptheFair

Der Waffle Mous wrote:

PiptheFair wrote:

also, if you wanna talk about shitty pf classes, monks that are not tetoris are literally worthless

Called it

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/monk/archetypes/paizo---monk-archetypes/tetori

look at that though, just a giant fuck you the archetype

Aegeri

PiptheFair wrote:

any good fighter build will obliterate an animal companion at any level

Not exactly true really, but misses the point entirely again: The druid has an animal companion and is still a druid. So the druid has something that can engage in melee combat comfortably and can still cast spells. So yeah a fighter might be better than a companion, but the fighter has to be better than the companion AND the druid at exactly the same time (And again IMO the fighter isn't even better than the companion in all cases at low levels especially).

So yes, they are still poorly thought out - it's just not as extreme as 3.5 until much later (where again, the fighter is worthless). Out of curiosity, have you played very high level pathfinder? Because if you haven't, then it's no wonder you think fighters are okay, because at lower levels they sort of are but like 3.5 when you can abuse a wide range of spells (some still infuriatingly ambiguous) that there is a problem.

Edit: And this entire discussion is really missing the point in that Gabe is changing from a system where spellcasters are not gods to one where they are. Pathfinder does not solve his issues, because magic is far better in Pathfinder and can do far more. This requires extremely careful design of epic level elements to prevent challenges being trivially overcome.

Der Waffle Mous

PiptheFair wrote:

Der Waffle Mous wrote:

PiptheFair wrote:

also, if you wanna talk about shitty pf classes, monks that are not tetoris are literally worthless

Called it

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/monk/archetypes/paizo---monk-archetypes/tetori

look at that though, just a giant fuck you the archetype

I suddenly want to play a luchador in something.