I think I get it now

[Koumei]

Jerry: If it works, we don't need to discuss it - it works, full marks! We don't need to fix anything, and the designers have done what they were supposed to do (I don't feel we should praise them for doing their damn job, calling a normal task a great triumph like Fox News does any time Bush manages to tie his own shoes). So really, it's only what needs fixing that is mentioned.

Sigma: Bard? Psychic Warrior? Have you been into the drugs again?

I would actually like to see the "Tome" (not K and Frank) Dragon Disciple be used as a bench-mark: it has basic movement abilities (flight, some have swimming or burrowing) built-in, can dish out plenty of damage, can take plenty of damage, and doesn't intrinsically throw SoD effects around. While still having enough spellcasting to throw down buffs, non-save battlefield control and party tricks.

And that's a fighter-type. On the same lines, the RoW Barbarian can hand out shiteloads of damage, can take a curb-stomping, clears the field in three strides and doesn't intrinsically make people die without HP being involved.

[SphereOfFeetMan]

Seriously, with a little creative gameplay I could beat Orcus with a 4th level character. He's just a pile of saves and HPs, so doing something like collapsing a mineshaft on him actually is the best way to beat him.

That is just stupid. Falling damage is just flat out broken, and using it in any argument is inane.

In 3e, many high level outsiders have teleport, but that only happens on their turn. If you dump a mountain on their head they take thousands of points of damage, and they're dead. Very few outsiders have contingency teleports vs falling damage up.

In the Tome series, you can't teleport through 40 feet of material. So even if you had a contingency teleport, you would still auto-die.

Monsters are just less powerful and tactically interesting.

No argument there.

[Username17]

In the Tome series, you can't teleport through 40 feet of material. So even if you had a contingency teleport, you would still auto-die.

Well, no.

You can't teleport through more than 40 feet of stone, so no one can teleport to Orcus and kill him while he's indisposed. But he can still plane shift out of the problem and then teleport back.

-Username17

[RandomCasualty2]

3e Orcus would Teleport out and rip your heart out. 4e Orcus is just a puzzle monster until 30th level when you fight him straight out.

Well, in all fairness, given the falling object rules, if you dropped something suitably heavy on 3E orcus' head he'd die instantly, so I seriously don't care if he could teleport out or not, because he'd be dead. In 4E, orcus would have a chance of surviving.

[K]

3e Orcus would Teleport out and rip your heart out. 4e Orcus is just a puzzle monster until 30th level when you fight him straight out.

Well, in all fairness, given the falling object rules, if you dropped something suitably heavy on 3E orcus' head he'd die instantly, so I seriously don't care if he could teleport out or not, because he'd be dead. In 4E, orcus would have a chance of surviving.

Well, in 3e falling object damage caps at 20d6 and he's got epic DR so you'd have to hit him with many, many rocks in a single round.

If you follow the rules in Heroes of Battle, then hitting people with rocks is actually a to hit roll vs touch AC or straight AC(I don't recall which).

[JonSetanta]

Sigma: Bard? Psychic Warrior? Have you been into the drugs again?

Only the beers my dear and I am quite serious this time.

[Koumei]

...but those classes are kinda' piss-poor. I mean, no-one takes the bard seriously until they're suddenly a... whatever the fuck that PrCl is that gives them 9th level spells. Even then, they have their spell levels 2 class levels before a wizard (that sounds like "cohort" to me).

And the psychic warrior is, I suppose, a good example of what a fighter should be. But I still generally prefer the DD one, even ignoring dragon flavour.

I mean, you don't spend resources to be big, or to have natural armour, or to be stupid-strong, or to have natural weapons - you just have them, they're yours to keep. Maybe coat them in adamantine or Baatorian green steel, then enhance them (+1 spellstoring, because why not add a MM or scorching ray to every unarmed attack 1 round per combat?). They don't need to spend time and spell slots making themselves combat-worthy, they just walk in with their power.

I'd think psi-wars were excellent (flavour excluded) if they could just spend a swift action and suddenly have all their buffs on, like Ceilingcat's Shadow Warrior though. Which is another example of what a decent balance point for fighters is - it has excellent speed, air-walking, plenty of natural attacks with various benefits nailed on, aura of difficult terrain, darkness...

[Aktariel]

Koumei, which Dragon Disciple are you referring to when you say ""Tome" Dragon Disciple"?

[SphereOfFeetMan]

Well, in 3e falling object damage caps at 20d6 and he's got epic DR so you'd have to hit him with many, many rocks in a single round.

That is a common misconception.

The damage a character can take from falling a great distance is capped at 20d6.

The damage a character can take from a falling object landing on him is uncapped, and dependant upon the weight of the falling object. If you dropped a rock the size of a combine on somebody from 11 feet up, they die.

[K]

Well, in 3e falling object damage caps at 20d6 and he's got epic DR so you'd have to hit him with many, many rocks in a single round.

That is a common misconception.

The damage a character can take from falling a great distance is capped at 20d6.

The damage a character can take from a falling object landing on him is uncapped, and dependant upon the weight of the falling object. If you dropped a rock the size of a combine on somebody from 11 feet up, they die.

I hate to break it to you, but page 303, second paragraph of the Falling Object rules(the paragraph after the table), says differently.

But, I could see how someone might interpret that the damage from the size of the object is uncapped, and the damage from the distance is capped. It's a poorly written section.

[Calibron]

Yes, that rule from CW about adjudicating damage from massive objects(whether dropped or swung) is a variant, and probably shouldn't be used because it encourages people to do stupid shit in-game.

[Absentminded_Wizard]

Well, in 3e falling object damage caps at 20d6 and he's got epic DR so you'd have to hit him with many, many rocks in a single round.

That is a common misconception.

The damage a character can take from falling a great distance is capped at 20d6.

The damage a character can take from a falling object landing on him is uncapped, and dependant upon the weight of the falling object. If you dropped a rock the size of a combine on somebody from 11 feet up, they die.

I hate to break it to you, but page 303, second paragraph of the Falling Object rules(the paragraph after the table), says differently.

But, I could see how someone might interpret that the damage from the size of the object is uncapped, and the damage from the distance is capped. It's a poorly written section.

Ouch. Somebody who really wanted to be literal could argue that there's a cap on 200+-pound objects but not on lighter objects.

[Koumei]

Koumei, which Dragon Disciple are you referring to when you say ""Tome" Dragon Disciple"?

The one here:

http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=48557&start=2

I say Tome because it's made by a Denizen and has been put through "the standard balance test", coming out more or less fine.

[JonSetanta]

I'd think psi-wars were excellent (flavour excluded) if they could just spend a swift action and suddenly have all their buffs on, like Ceilingcat's Shadow Warrior though. Which is another example of what a decent balance point for fighters is - it has excellent speed, air-walking, plenty of natural attacks with various benefits nailed on, aura of difficult terrain, darkness...

What about a warrior class that walks around with those combat buffs on all the time?
Is that going too far, or should they be required to activate such things somehow.

[Koumei]

I have no issue with a warrior class that can fight in a level-appropriate manner without spending time buffing. Make sure they have options so as to not get boring, give them a means to deal with invisibility, incorporeality, flying bastards and the like, and there you go.

[JonSetanta]

I have no issue with a warrior class that can fight in a level-appropriate manner without spending time buffing. Make sure they have options so as to not get boring, give them a means to deal with invisibility, incorporeality, flying bastards and the like, and there you go.

Fair enough.

In a grander scale, such situations as "I must buff up!" and "Oh, I'm all set." when entering battle could better define 'spellcaster' and 'warrior'.

The warrior may not have as good of a range or utility in their repetoire, but they "wear what they own" pretty much 24/7 when it comes to combat buffs.

Mages would need to power up and all that jazz but must choose between going offense (encounter-ending spells) or defense (highest level buffs) every battle.

[Maxus]

So a warrior class with selectable (maybe exchangeable, eventually), permanent buffs?

[Voss]

I have no issue with a warrior class that can fight in a level-appropriate manner without spending time buffing. Make sure they have options so as to not get boring, give them a means to deal with invisibility, incorporeality, flying bastards and the like, and there you go.

Me either. I've played the alternative and even just a few buffs means you're out of the fight for a good long while. Particularly short duration stuff that you have to activate in combat if you don't constantly ambush enemies. It sucks ass, because you're missing a quarter of the fight.

[ubernoob]

So a warrior class with selectable (maybe exchangeable, eventually), permanent buffs?

I think something similar to the 3.5 warlock would be a good starting base. Something full bab that gets a new buff at each odd level. The buffs are half as numerically potent as whatever 10 min/lvl spell a full caster could have at that level. Something like that?

[Voss]

No... As Jason proved with Pathfinder, just fucking with the fighter's numbers doesn't help, or make it interesting. And even with those numbers, half of something level appropriate is something that inherently isn't level appropriate, so it really doesn't matter.

The only number I'd really change on a warrior class is the will save. Making them a sucker doesn't add anything.

[Maxus]

I have no issue with a warrior class that can fight in a level-appropriate manner without spending time buffing. Make sure they have options so as to not get boring, give them a means to deal with invisibility, incorporeality, flying bastards and the like, and there you go.

Me either. I've played the alternative and even just a few buffs means you're out of the fight for a good long while. Particularly short duration stuff that you have to activate in combat if you don't constantly ambush enemies. It sucks ass, because you're missing a quarter of the fight.

Looking at the Psychic Warrior Power List (taking an example of a buffing warrior), they get some pretty sweet stuff that even builds on previous stuff.

The problem is, buffing up looks like this:

-Do Claws of the Beast to gain a natural weapon.

-Buff up your natural weapon with stuff like giving it an enhancement bonus, increasing its threat range, critical multiplier, whether or not it poisons, and let it heal you each time you do damage. At the cost of a standard action each.

I may write something based on the Psychic Warrior powers gained permanently on the tried-and-true method of "Add Onto Your Major Shtick Every Other Level, Get Nifty Options on the other levels".

[ubernoob]

No... As Jason proved with Pathfinder, just fucking with the fighter's numbers doesn't help, or make it interesting. And even with those numbers, half of something level appropriate is something that inherently isn't level appropriate, so it really doesn't matter.

The only number I'd really change on a warrior class is the will save. Making them a sucker doesn't add anything.

I can only assume you guys know more than me. Fair enough.
*lurk*

[SphereOfFeetMan]

Well, in 3e falling object damage caps at 20d6 and he's got epic DR so you'd have to hit him with many, many rocks in a single round.

That is a common misconception.

The damage a character can take from falling a great distance is capped at 20d6.

The damage a character can take from a falling object landing on him is uncapped, and dependant upon the weight of the falling object. If you dropped a rock the size of a combine on somebody from 11 feet up, they die.

I hate to break it to you, but page 303, second paragraph of the Falling Object rules(the paragraph after the table), says differently.

But, I could see how someone might interpret that the damage from the size of the object is uncapped, and the damage from the distance is capped. It's a poorly written section.

It is poorly written. If we go by my interpretation, it is not too bad. If we go by your interpretation, it is extremely poorly written. Here is the relevant passage:

For each 200 pounds of an object's weight, the object deals 1d6 points of damage, provided it falls at least 10 feet. Distance also comes into play, adding an additional 1d6 points of damage for every 10-foot increment it falls beyond the first (to a maximum of 20d6 points of damage).

Lets use my example of a combine sized rock being dropped on somebody from 11 feet above them:

My interpretation: The first sentence describes the damage from the size of the combine-rock as uncapped. The second sentence describes bonus damage if an object weighing 200+ pounds falls an additional 10 feet or more. The cap on this damage is 20d6. This 20d6 damage cap also applies to smaller objects as described on Table 8-4. Since the combine-rock only falls 11 feet, there is no additional damage, and the sentence is not applied.

Your interpretation: The first sentence describes the damage from the size of the combine-rock as uncapped. The second sentence describes bonus damage from falling a great distance. But the distance fallen is only 11 feet, so the sentence isn't relevant or applicable. Here is the heart of your misinterpretation:

For your interpretation to be correct, you would have to assume that the parenthesized phrase in the second sentence is modifying the first sentence, when the second sentence doesn't even come into effect.

________________

Your interpretation can also lead to situations like Absentminded Wizard conclusion that "...there's a cap on 200+-pound objects but not on lighter objects."

You might be arguing from a point that only the RAW matters, and nothing else does. In that restricted case, my interpretation has more evidence, and is read sentence by sentence, applying the second one if necessary. Your interpretation requires an illogical reading where you are mixing and matching sentences whether they apply or not.

Finally, if you care about intent or gameworld verisimilitude, my interpretation wins out. Dropping a combine sized rock on somebody would do more than an average of 70 points of damage. Using your interpretation, the combine-rock would do exponentially more damage if you simply broke it with a hammer 11 feet before it fell on somebody, so it would break into multiple smaller rocks (each doing 70 damage).

In sum: My interpretation is correct, and falling damage is broken no matter how you rule it.

[JonSetanta]

I can only assume you guys know more than me. Fair enough.
*lurk*

Wrong assumption, especially with generic statements by Voss like that.
If you have an idea, even a tiny one, put it up!


Right now I consider these features important for combat buffs, be it for Mage or Warrior:

• Usable per encounter, lasts until combat is over. Perhaps a few rounds after the last violent action was witnessed or made.

• Usable as Swift, Immediate, or sometimes Free actions depending on the power of buff. Weaker or mobility-related buffs would be more like equipment than spells, occupying slots or spaces on a character. The powerful buffs would mostly not stack; this can be done with certain tags much like how Polymorph spells don't combine.

• Most importantly; the purpose of a buff as party support or user-only. I assume almost all Warrior buffs would not be for party support.
User-only is easier to regulate within RNG due to stacking or limiting class ability range. As party support it would need to be more careful since combining X buff with Y class and Z ability could skyrocket in effectiveness beyond munchkin-range for any given level.

[Voss]

That wasn't a generic statement, that was general, in response to a generalized suggestion of half the bonus of a spell. Thats very simply a bonus that isn't ever good.