Page 2 of 2

Posted: Mon Aug 09, 2010 4:03 pm
by Murtak
spasheridan wrote:There's a big difference between the tripmaster fighter and the grapplemancer wizard.
Why are you talking about a one-trick-pony at all? A trip-only-fighter does indeed only ever mash one button, but that is a tautology. And any wizard has the option to prepare different spells each day, but that again is a tautology. And yes, wizards top fighter types in versatility by a huge margin. This is not contested, and not under discussion.

The main question is "are fighter types necessarily one-dimensional at low levels" and a related question is "is grapplemancy one-dimensionsal".

Posted: Mon Aug 09, 2010 4:36 pm
by Murtak
Zinegata wrote:The problem is, if the game goes beyond level 5 then you need to start focusing on your schtick right from the start or else you'll get left behind later on.
Which is exactly what I already outlined.


Zinegata wrote:In fact you'll want to have your Trip/Snipe/Dual-Wield Sneak Attack maxed out as soon as possible, as it makes you viable compared to casters until they get their nukes.
What nukes? What caster "nukes" for a loving? At best fireball and friends are specific, problem-solving spells. In most cases they are just inefficient damage sources. If you want to deal damage, melee or shoot arrows. Magic is terrible at damaging monsters. Seriously. At level 3 wizards get to cast two scorching rays per day, at 4d6 each. Fighters to attack for a 2x d8+5 all day long (targeting regular AC instead of touch AC, granted) if they are interested in archery at all. A raging level 1 barbarian gets to attack for 2d6+9. Spell damage sucks. Wizards aren't powerful because they do damage, they are powerful because they do not need to do damage. Ideally the wizard casts one spell and from there on the rest of the party just mops up the opposition. But "nukes" are not involved.


Zinegata wrote:For instance... Yes, 3d6 sneak attack hurts on its own. But at low levels the main reason to dual wield is to roll twice against an enemy, which greatly increases the chance you'll land at least one hit that will inflict sneak attack damage.
Sneak attack is not a shtick. Sneak attack is just damage. Dual wielding is not a shtick, it is just damage. Additionally dual wielding sucks at low levels. If you want to do damage with sneak attack either pretend you are a barbarian or grab some flasks. You don't even need to dual wield flasks just throw them. Ideally using rapidshot and dual wield of course, but that is optional.

Anyways, all of that is just damage. You really want options, like the wizard has the option to go for will or fort or reflex or no save at all or reshaping the battlefield or summoning additional party members or skipping the encounter altogether. And melee types can indeed get useful options. Generally speaking they are less powerful than those wizards get, but they do exist. Stunning Fist is weak and too restricted, but occasionally quite useful. Grappling is an option, as it bullrushing and tripping. Various maneuvers and psychic powers let you control opponent's movement. Self-healing can be an option, especially in the crusader style. Simply having the choice between archery and melee combat is an option. All of these allow you to choose a fighting style suited to your opponent.

Damage on the other hand is merely a prerequisite. You merely need to do enough damage to let your fighting style succeed. Having additional options lets you get by with less damage - sometimes dramatically so. If you can stunlock or grapple-lock an opponent you only need to do one damage per turn to win. If you can bullrush someone off a cliff you don't need to do damage at all. If you can outheal your opponent's damage you will eventually win. If you can shoot at opponents for multiple turns before they even reach you, you probably need to deal a lot less damage in melee (if you need any at all). If you have enough options your odds of finding a weak spot to exploit are quite good.

If, on the other hand, all you do is trip people all day long, you will find yourself up against a nice monstrous centipede some day and desperately hope the rest of your party will save your ass. Of course this happens to everyone sooner or later, but one-trick-ponies are really damn easy to stop. As a sidenote, this is why mind-control-specialists and pure necromancers have issues, too.



Wow, that turned into quite a rant. Summary: nukes suck, damage and big numbers are nice, but not everything and versatility is power just as much, if not more so, as raw numbers are.

Posted: Mon Aug 09, 2010 11:51 pm
by Zinegata
Murtak wrote:But "nukes" are not involved.
You're jumping the gun and immediately equating nukes = fireball. What I meant by nukes are "any game-breaking caster spells that end encounters".
Wow, that turned into quite a rant. Summary: nukes suck, damage and big numbers are nice, but not everything and versatility is power just as much, if not more so, as raw numbers are.
Yes, but you're wrong about big damage numbers. Because the truth is versatility isn't the big issue in early-game D&D (or even late-game D&D). It's about taking the enemy out of the fight as quickly as possible. For most melee classes, that pretty much involves killing them (grapplers exempted), hence the need for high damage numbers.

"Versatility" only really applies to being able to take out people who have specific defenses against your schtick.

Posted: Tue Aug 10, 2010 7:18 am
by Murtak
Zinegata wrote:
Murtak wrote:But "nukes" are not involved.
You're jumping the gun and immediately equating nukes = fireball. What I meant by nukes are "any game-breaking caster spells that end encounters".
I have only ever heard the term "nuking" in conjunction with direct damage spells. If you mean Gate, Polymorph and Wish disregard the part of my rant that deals with direct damage.


Zinegata wrote:Yes, but you're wrong about big damage numbers. Because the truth is versatility isn't the big issue in early-game D&D (or even late-game D&D). It's about taking the enemy out of the fight as quickly as possible. For most melee classes, that pretty much involves killing them (grapplers exempted), hence the need for high damage numbers.

"Versatility" only really applies to being able to take out people who have specific defenses against your schtick.
Agreed. Against any enemy without special defenses you better off just maximizing your strongest mode of attack (damage or otherwise). However, special cases are very common in DnD and it takes just one of them to kill you. Adventurers especially need to expect to deal with the weird and deadly, sometimes without the luxury of planning and preparation. If you only have one plan, be that tripping or grappling or "casting Color Spray and let the rest of the party kill them", you will run up against someone who is immune to your shtick and fail (and die, unless the rest of the party can carry you). This is of course balanced against the risk of lowering the effectiveness of your main shtick to be able to have multiple shticks.

I am claiming that at levels 1 to 5 fighter types can actually diversify without risking their tricks to stop working because of low numbers on their attacks. Indeed I think they are better off overall if they do so and can expect to be able to defeat a greater percentage of enemies, essentially trading the specialized fighters flawless victories against few opponents for narrow victories over many opponents. The same actually goes for casters, but they have such an easy time diversifying they'd be insane not to.

Posted: Tue Aug 10, 2010 12:40 pm
by RobbyPants
Murtak wrote:I am claiming that at levels 1 to 5 fighter types can actually diversify without risking their tricks to stop working because of low numbers on their attacks. Indeed I think they are better off overall if they do so and can expect to be able to defeat a greater percentage of enemies, essentially trading the specialized fighters flawless victories against few opponents for narrow victories over many opponents. The same actually goes for casters, but they have such an easy time diversifying they'd be insane not to.
It's a lot easier for casters because the potency of their tricks automatically increases with caster level as does the number of tricks available per day. So a caster who invests a fraction of his spells in blasting still blasts a as well as a guy who invests all of his spells in blasting. The only real exception to this is feats and what not, but that applies to every character.

Posted: Tue Aug 10, 2010 1:21 pm
by Murtak
RobbyPants wrote:It's a lot easier for casters because the potency of their tricks automatically increases with caster level as does the number of tricks available per day. So a caster who invests a fraction of his spells in blasting still blasts a as well as a guy who invests all of his spells in blasting. The only real exception to this is feats and what not, but that applies to every character.
This is not true. Firstly, spellcasters already have more variety at level 1. Secondly they get to pick up more options as they level. Thirdly they do not usually get new tricks from feats. Fourthly, while both casters and noncasters can get bonuses from feats, bonuses from equipment overshadow numerical feat bonuses for noncasters, while caster bonuses on gear are few and far between. Fifthly, caster level is largely irrelevant to the level-appropriateness of most spells.

Spellcasters have variety because they start out with 4 freely selectable moves at level 1 which they can change each day and get at least one move on every level thereafter. Noncasters get one fixed move, if they are lucky.

Posted: Tue Aug 10, 2010 1:27 pm
by RobbyPants
I was agreeing with you, but maybe that wasn't clear.

My point is, non-casters either specialize their feats/items or branch out. If they branch out, they can't devote as much vertical advancement to any one tactic.

Casters scale vertically automatically. This make branching out trivially easy. Aside from feats like Spell Focus (Insert School Here), they don't even have to try to vertically advance. Even still, non-casters already suffer the problem of devoting or splitting their feat allocations, so this doesn't really matter for purposes of comparison.