|
7 months ago ::
Nov 23, 2012 - 6:12AM
#51
|
Date Joined:
Sep 25, 2009
|
But absent AoOs, there's no way to prevent a monster just walking to the back of the party and lopping the wizards' head off in one shot. Unless we actually gave wizards enough HP and defenses to last a round, then threw on a mark mechanic so it stops at one round, but then we're playing 4e. And 4e is WoW. And WoW is evil. And evil is a crime. And crime doesn't pay. So if we get rid of AoOs, we'll go broke!
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 23, 2012 - 6:21AM
#52
|
Date Joined:
Nov 11, 2011
|
But absent AoOs, there's no way to prevent a monster just walking to the back of the party and lopping the wizards' head off in one shot. Unless we actually gave wizards enough HP and defenses to last a round, then threw on a mark mechanic so it stops at one round, but then we're playing 4e. And 4e is WoW. And WoW is evil. And evil is a crime. And crime doesn't pay. So if we get rid of AoOs, we'll go broke!
Hahahahaha! :D
I still agree that the mechanics do not need to be like 4th ed. Though, maybe a little bit less AC on the fighter is needed or else the other classes will suffer like it has been said earlier in this thread.
Yes, there is other monsters to be played with that use range or spells, but this then limits the DM. Plus, we did not even speak about ambushes or places where the players are, in any way, surrounded. If something can kill the fighter that have 60 hp in 3 hits (to make up for his AC, like it has been said before), in those situation the group is just dead because the fighter will not be able to "be in front" since there is NO front at all!
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 23, 2012 - 6:27AM
#53
|
Date Joined:
Aug 31, 2008
|
I don't know why he picked 3 rounds, but a defensive dwarf fighter will have AC 21 or so, or AC 25 if he dodges. Basically, the monsters only hit on a 20 and it takes 3 hits to take the fighter down. So are we supposed to be attacking him for 60 or so rounds? (And this assumes there aren't any clerics in the party.) At what point are the defenses too strong?
So now there are three separate issues:
1) Does Parry get too strong (particularly at the level 10 bump to 3d10)?
2) Does AC get too high (once you get plate and shield + potential dwarf + potential magic armor)?
3) Is Dodge too good?
Anywhere with a narrow corridor or chockpoint (like, say, the provided adventures) the fighter is able to block the monsters more or less forever at the cost of negligable damage. The rest of the party can attack at range. More dangerous monsters are the obvious solution, but the question is: If it's dangerous enough to kill the fighter what does it do to the rest of the party?
In addition to more dangerous monsters (because I think the majority of the feedback so far is that the monsters are too weak right now), I can think of two other solutions:
1) Don't have every fight take place in a narrow corridor where the fighter can be a total roadblock. (And no, saying, "But the provided adventures have lots of narrow corridors" is not a valid response. DMs can and should change things to make for a better play experience. If your players are bored with narrow corridors, say that the corridors are 20 feet wide.)
2) Don't have every fight simply involve melee monsters. Especially at higher levels, the heroes should be facing a wide range of attacks: melee, ranged, blasts, bursts, spells/attacks vs. all the abilities, etc. A very high AC + dodge + parry isn't going to help much when you are having to make Wisdom or Charisma saving throws.
I haven't actually played at level 10 yet, but my gut tells me the 3d10 is too much. Assuming PC Hit Points and ACs are set right now, it would be very nice to see monsters get boosted up to a good level. That would let us really judge how many ED dice would be good (and of what size) and also how strong Parry is (for example, would it be better to have it be roll dice and pick the highest?).
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 23, 2012 - 6:30AM
#54
|
|
|
If monsters can't kill fighters in 3 rounds, then a fighter is invincible for any combat that is 3 rounds or less. It we say that a fighter can survive 7 rounds, then the Only way to challenge a fighter is have more than 7 rounds of combat.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 23, 2012 - 6:32AM
#55
|
|
|
As for AoO, I had thought that's what the rogue and fighter manouvers are for. But if using those manouvers punishes you by reducing your damage, then those manouvers are going to feel like traps as everyone stands around in combat.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 23, 2012 - 7:10AM
#56
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2007
|
I don't know why he picked 3 rounds, but a defensive dwarf fighter will have AC 21 or so, or AC 25 if he dodges. Basically, the monsters only hit on a 20 and it takes 3 hits to take the fighter down. So are we supposed to be attacking him for 60 or so rounds? (And this assumes there aren't any clerics in the party.) At what point are the defenses too strong?
So now there are three separate issues:
1) Does Parry get too strong (particularly at the level 10 bump to 3d10)?
2) Does AC get too high (once you get plate and shield + potential dwarf + potential magic armor)?
3) Is Dodge too good?
Anywhere with a narrow corridor or chockpoint (like, say, the provided adventures) the fighter is able to block the monsters more or less forever at the cost of negligable damage. The rest of the party can attack at range. More dangerous monsters are the obvious solution, but the question is: If it's dangerous enough to kill the fighter what does it do to the rest of the party?
In addition to more dangerous monsters (because I think the majority of the feedback so far is that the monsters are too weak right now), I can think of two other solutions:
1) Don't have every fight take place in a narrow corridor where the fighter can be a total roadblock. (And no, saying, "But the provided adventures have lots of narrow corridors" is not a valid response. DMs can and should change things to make for a better play experience. If your players are bored with narrow corridors, say that the corridors are 20 feet wide.)
2) Don't have every fight simply involve melee monsters. Especially at higher levels, the heroes should be facing a wide range of attacks: melee, ranged, blasts, bursts, spells/attacks vs. all the abilities, etc. A very high AC + dodge + parry isn't going to help much when you are having to make Wisdom or Charisma saving throws.
My playtest group is five players. Two of them run fighters. Am I SUPPOSED to need to use a 35' wide corridor for the monsters to have any chance?
20' is absurd for a corridor in any case, 20' wide is not a corridor, it's a rather large room.
And either that absurd corridor size or ranged attacks just mean we're back to the fighters live while everyone else dies. At which point since fighters ALSO do pretty good damage there's no reason not to run a party of all fighters.
Saving throws? Ability mods are only +5 at best, a save based attack can easily work on anyone baring Iron Will. And the fighter needs manuevers he gets by level 1 or 2, fighter proficiencies, and 3d10 expertise to cause the problem. We don't have multiclassing rules yet, but it seems likely that a multiclass fighter/rogue or fighter/monk will get full expertise progression (all the classes have the same progression, and they ED are supposed to be how damage scales for mundane attacks), so multiclass long enough to get Iron Will and suddenly the fighter is BETTER at making charisma or will saves than the cleric.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 23, 2012 - 7:40AM
#57
|
Date Joined:
Sep 25, 2009
|
I'm sorry, but "go around the fighter" (either with wider hallways or ranged attacks) is even less of a valid response than "playtest dungeons have 10' halls." Even if it were possible to go around the fighter in every single conceivable situation without limiting the DM's choice of terrain or monsters, it doesn't solve the problem. The fighter is still invincible, and that's boring. He's still 8 times as tough as a wizard WITHOUT using dodge, and can still out damage that wizard in any decently long day without using his XD for anything other than parry, and that's imbalanced (not that they should be even, but 8x?). Completely eviscerate his ability to attract damage by having all fights occur in 20' or wider rooms with creatures that can disengage freely, and you destroy a legitimate "tank" playstyle far more thoroughly than bringing dodge and parry/protect back to manageable values.
1) The fact that this is a problem only if players choose to abuse it does not mean it shouldn't be fixed. If you weren't using it anyway, then you shouldn't care if we bring it back to par as an option.
2) The fact that the fighter can only parry once does not solve the problem, that was worked into the math and he can still solo 3 monsters for enough rounds to last 3 encounters, without healing.
3) The fact that parry only works on melee attacks does not mean that it isn't a problem for melee attacks (which are the VAST majority of monster attacks) and shouldn't be fixed.
4) The fact that the problem can be to some (extremely limited) extent mitigated by having monsters use other actions does not mean it shouldn't be fixed.
5) The fact that monsters can still kill people other than the fighter doesn't mean it isn't a problem and shouldn't be fixed.
I've seen an awful lot of talk about why the problem is smaller than I think it is. Most of it has truth, but most of it is exaggerated, and given how big a problem the numbers say it is, a marginal reduction in its size doesn't begin to make it disappear. More to the point, I have yet to see a single argument for why fixing it would be a bad thing (besides "I like my fighter to be invincible"). However small a problem it might be at your table, if you can't point to a reason not to fix it, then it doesn't matter how small a problem it is it's worth fixing.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 23, 2012 - 8:07AM
#58
|
Date Joined:
Nov 11, 2011
|
I'm sorry, but "go around the fighter" (either with wider hallways or ranged attacks) is even less of a valid response than "playtest dungeons have 10' halls." Even if it were possible to go around the fighter in every single conceivable situation without limiting the DM's choice of terrain or monsters, it doesn't solve the problem. The fighter is still invincible, and that's boring. He's still 8 times as tough as a wizard WITHOUT using dodge, and can still out damage that wizard in any decently long day without using his XD for anything other than parry, and that's imbalanced (not that they should be even, but 8x?). Completely eviscerate his ability to attract damage by having all fights occur in 20' or wider rooms with creatures that can disengage freely, and you destroy a legitimate "tank" playstyle far more thoroughly than bringing dodge and parry/protect back to manageable values.
1) The fact that this is a problem only if players choose to abuse it does not mean it shouldn't be fixed. If you weren't using it anyway, then you shouldn't care if we bring it back to par as an option.
2) The fact that the fighter can only parry once does not solve the problem, that was worked into the math and he can still solo 3 monsters for enough rounds to last 3 encounters, without healing.
3) The fact that parry only works on melee attacks does not mean that it isn't a problem for melee attacks (which are the VAST majority of monster attacks) and shouldn't be fixed.
4) The fact that the problem can be to some (extremely limited) extent mitigated by having monsters use other actions does not mean it shouldn't be fixed.
5) The fact that monsters can still kill people other than the fighter doesn't mean it isn't a problem and shouldn't be fixed.
I've seen an awful lot of talk about why the problem is smaller than I think it is. Most of it has truth, but most of it is exaggerated, and given how big a problem the numbers say it is, a marginal reduction in its size doesn't begin to make it disappear. More to the point, I have yet to see a single argument for why fixing it would be a bad thing (besides "I like my fighter to be invincible"). However small a problem it might be at your table, if you can't point to a reason not to fix it, then it doesn't matter how small a problem it is it's worth fixing.
Thank you thank you thank you thank you so much.
My point exactly. I tried to say this in earlier post, but it seems that it fell into a bottomless pit.
Why NOT fix what can be fixed?
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 23, 2012 - 10:54AM
#59
|
Date Joined:
Nov 23, 2012
|
Really interesting read. We only had two gaming session, so we have not the chance to test higher level yet.
But my opinion is that the whole expertise dice mechanic is crap. They want a bounded accuracy system (wich i personnaly love), but on the other end they make a mechanic that slip out of this and it's really hard to balance.
Deadly strike, Parry, ligthing reflexe, great fortitude, iron will, and skill mastery are all maneuver that are insanely ridiculous. Deadly strike and parry make the other class look pretty much useless. Save maneuver make you almost auto success any save in it's category. Skill mastery make all class other than rogue useless skill wise. How legendary is a DC 25 for rogue when you add +8 to all you're trained skill check?
|
|
|
