PDA

View Full Version : Non-magical melee fix



Evard
2009-12-28, 08:44 PM
After looking at 2ed dnd i noticed that if your intelligence is high enough you can resist certain spells and figured this would be a perfect fix to the problem with magic and melee balance in 3.x dnd.

*note i'm thinking core only*

Fighter, Barbarian, and Rogue are the three core classes that are melee but don't get spells unless they multiclass or have magic items. Give each of these classes a list of lets call them anti-spells. These are spells that they know how to counter by sheer force or because they have studied it. Based on the characters Int/Wis score give them a list of what level and how many spells they can resist/ignore. These spells will come from any spell list that the character wants to take them from (divine/arcane). These lists wont be as extensive as a wizard/sorcerer or cleric list but it will give them enough to defend themselves against many of the spells they would be weak against.

If a character choose fireball as one of their anti-spells then when hit by it the fighter could expend his anti-spell and either shrug off 3/4 of the damage or be able to ignore all the damage. Charm person would be one that a fighter could ignore completely.

I'm not sure what a good table for this would look like but an example would be

Int/Wis --- Resist Spell Level ---- Number of Anti-spells
12 --- 0 --- 2
13 --- 1 --- 2
14 --- 3 --- 3
15 --- 4 --- 3

and so on ^ ^

what do you all think?

Foryn Gilnith
2009-12-28, 08:54 PM
Mages still have flight, terrain control, divination, and SAD.

taltamir
2009-12-28, 08:58 PM
mages have spells... spells are unbelievable overpowered daily abilities. Thing is... if you fight a reasonable amount of opponents, you burn your dailies and avoid combat for the rest of the day.
Fighters have a simple and unvarying at will attack, thats it.

Balancing a fighter and a wizard is done entirely by the DM, and it s done entirely via stamina... the wizard dominates with the fighter being second fiddle, until it runs out of good spells, then it is a level X commoner with a crossbow for the rest of the day, playing second fiddle for the fighter.

Taking turns sucking is not fun.

4e solves it by giving equal amount of daily, at will, and encounter abilities to all class. And making each one "appropriate".

the 3e solution is to take rests often and a lot so you always have spells so that the wizard doesn't suck...
but take spells that allow you to buff your friends into well oiled machines of death and destruction.
Haste, GMW, flight (cast on your fighter) etc etc...
3e takes a conscious effort to do so, but it is doable.. it is also entirely up to the players and it is inherently unbalanced between the two.

Evard
2009-12-28, 09:00 PM
save or die... can be resisted/ignored

flight? that's what bows are for and even if they are flying if they waste the wrong spells then all the flying wont matter.

terrain? Barbarians and monks (i forgot about monks lol) have fast movement and reach weapons.

edit: 4e powers dont make much sense ... at least encounter and daily powers ^ ^

Foryn Gilnith
2009-12-28, 09:08 PM
SAD, not SoD. Single Ability Dependency. Fighters need Strength, Constitution, Dexterity, and now Intelligence too. Mages need their casting stat, and maybe constitution.

Mage flies away. Melee person draws bow. Mage casts Wind Wall. Mage casts Summon Monster. Mage buffs monster. Mage teleports away if he starts losing. Mage scries your loved ones and kills them.

It's not always easy to walk around a field of Black Tentacles or Solid Fog. But yeah, crowd control is one of the things this would offer decent immunity to.

Now, to actually offer a bit of constructive criticism...

I think this sort of thing should be a universal resistance. Having to choose a few dozen spells just gets tedious.

PS: Do not want to haz edition war plox

Tavar
2009-12-28, 09:11 PM
Actually, as much as I dislike 4ed, they do make sense from a certain perspective: if you simply spam the same move over and over again, an enemy will just tear you apart. Additionally, some can only be used when an opponent is in a certain position. Thus, the limited use of the powers represent how difficult it is to get an opponent into said position, and how obvious it is after they've seen it. Yeah, it doesn't quite work 100% of the time, but there's always things in DnD that don't make sense some of the time.

taltamir
2009-12-28, 09:12 PM
a simple SR "ritual" that fighters perform in the morning?

Evard
2009-12-28, 09:18 PM
The problem i have with the power system is that why does the fighter have the ability to do an encounter but then later in the fight (next round) a daily? anyways

Change it to Con then, make it where its based on their rigorous training or even don;t make it dependent on a stat? Make it a secret that melee trainers teach their students then

Quirinus_Obsidian
2009-12-28, 09:21 PM
1) powerful race with spell resistance and a bite attack.
2) speedy race/class with grappling. Win initiative.
3) Succeed on grapple check and chow down on spellcaster's mouth, thereby removing it's ability to use verbal component. Grappling removed somatic and material/focus component. Unless you are a spellcaster that has a stilled, silent, and quickened spell prepared that may get you out of that situation, I think you are dinner.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-12-28, 09:28 PM
Initiative is no certainty. Speed may not be enough to catch a wizard (flying and/or on phantom steed). 3.5 doesn't have called shot rules.

How was that on-topic, anyhoo?

@Evard: Quantifying what "melee" classes are is difficult - especially since paladins might need this fix just as much as barbarians. I'd be inclined to grant this via DM fiat, but that's not very good for a rules system.

Bibliomancer
2009-12-28, 09:42 PM
1) powerful race with spell resistance and a bite attack.
2) speedy race/class with grappling. Win initiative.
3) Succeed on grapple check and chow down on spellcaster's mouth, thereby removing it's ability to use verbal component. Grappling removed somatic and material/focus component. Unless you are a spellcaster that has a stilled, silent, and quickened spell prepared that may get you out of that situation, I think you are dinner.

1) SR will not save you. 1st level spell = +10 on the CL check (can be quickened easily at high levels)

2) Not likely, see hummingbird familiar, besides, caster is flying. How's your jump check?

3) This is highly likely, and it wouldn't have ot be quickened. Any 9th level wizard with some brains (so any NPC and most PCs) would have a silenced Dimension Door (V only) prepared. Get away, then win.

Also, can't chew someone's mouth off. A silence field can be bypassed as above.

Draz74
2009-12-28, 10:15 PM
The only really reasonable way to decide how many "anti-spells" a character would get is to use the Bonus Spells table. On the other hand, that really won't be enough to fix anything. I mean, how often do you meet a Fighter/Rogue/Barbarian with INT or WIS 24, even at high levels? That's what they would need to even be able to anti-spell Forcecage (one of the first spells that occurs to me for this purpose).

Incidentally, Rogues already have an "anti-Fireball ability." It's called Evasion. And it really is effective -- a Dragonfire Adept, for example, fears no monster as much as she fears any character with Evasion. :smalltongue:

sonofzeal
2009-12-28, 10:40 PM
This seems rather complicated. Why not a bonus to saves, like Dwarves get, that scales with level? I could see something like....

Barbarians: +1 per three levels, but only in Rage.

Fighters: +1 per five levels, all the time.

Rogues: +1 per three levels, but only against spells that don't target the Rogue directly.


Maybe a bit less, depending on how good you want it to be.

Mando Knight
2009-12-28, 10:41 PM
Now, remind me again... which characters tend to have the highest Intelligence? Wouldn't it be one of the peskiest caster classes in existence?

Really, the only way for melee to beat magic is for D&D to allow the "mundane" characters do the impossible without relying on magic.

In other words, melee needs to be able to take a beating, spit out the blood from its mouth, grin madly, and in a serious voice ask the mage "Just who the hell do you think I AM?!" before smashing the guy's face in with a sword. 'Cause that's the Dai-Gurren-dan way!

Draz74
2009-12-28, 10:47 PM
This seems rather complicated. Why not a bonus to saves, like Dwarves get, that scales with level?

Because a lot of the most troubling spells just don't allow a save?

Mongoose87
2009-12-28, 10:56 PM
What the mundanes really need is some sort of "Feats of Strength/Dexterity/Endurance" abilities that enable them to do things ordinarily impossible, but without being spells. Some sort of useful maneuvers like that could fit. Maneuvers that make the mundanes more powerful. In battle.

Milskidasith
2009-12-28, 11:07 PM
What the mundanes really need is some sort of "Feats of Strength/Dexterity/Endurance" abilities that enable them to do things ordinarily impossible, but without being spells. Some sort of useful maneuvers like that could fit. Maneuvers that make the mundanes more powerful. In battle.

If only there were a book on combat that added... I dunno, three classes with such things. But "Book of combat" just sounds lame... hmm... Tome sounds really fantasy-ish, and means the same thing. Tome of combat, though, just seems a bit odd. Tome of... battle, yes.

Somebody should write a tome about battling, for melee/ranged characters that enjoy using tactical maneuvers that are similar to spells.

Draz74
2009-12-28, 11:14 PM
If only there were a book on combat that added... I dunno, three classes with such things. But "Book of combat" just sounds lame... hmm... Tome sounds really fantasy-ish, and means the same thing. Tome of combat, though, just seems a bit odd. Tome of... battle, yes.

Somebody should write a tome about battling, for melee/ranged characters that enjoy using tactical maneuvers that are similar to spells.

I'll get right on that ... :smallwink:

Skaven
2009-12-29, 01:48 PM
Question:

Would allowing those with full BaB classes full attack while moving overpower fighters?

I'm pondering a house rule for my next game:

If you have full BaB up to your level, you gain the ability to full attack on a move. For every point of BaB less than your total level, you lose an attack on your full attack after move, so if your BaB drops to 17 at 20th level things work as they do now without the house rule.

I mean, I know this will still have them be tiers below wizards, but it might help to raise fighters and barbarians a tier or two.

Saintjebus
2009-12-29, 01:51 PM
I don't think that it would overpower them. It's the equivalent of giving all fighter types pounce- which is quite often part of a suggested melee fix.

The Glyphstone
2009-12-29, 01:53 PM
Okay, the idea that wizards are not overpowered because a monster can chew their mouth off has officially made my day. Have a cookie.:smallbiggrin:

taltamir
2009-12-29, 01:59 PM
The problem i have with the power system is that why does the fighter have the ability to do an encounter but then later in the fight (next round) a daily? anyways

Change it to Con then, make it where its based on their rigorous training or even don;t make it dependent on a stat? Make it a secret that melee trainers teach their students then

so... power point like a psion?

Evard
2009-12-29, 11:00 PM
Actually yes I love the idea of the power points system in 4e, and it would be easy to integrate into 4e.

Melee types would have Stamina Points
Arcane would have Spell Points
Divine would have Sacred Points
etc...

Therefor there will be more for a character to do at any given time with the ability to make that power better by putting in a bit more effort