C&C and melee classes at higher levels

daddystabz · Post by **daddystabz** » Fri May 22, 2009 2:03 am

I am currently playing in a new Pathfinder campaign and I was wondering how balanced C&C is toward melee characters in the higher levels? A big and often stated issue with 3.5 was that melee classes got overshadowed in the high levels by spellcasters. How does C&C hold up in this regard? I have a lot of C&C products and love it dearly but I think my group wants to play Pathfinder.
_________________

Treebore · Post by **Treebore** » Fri May 22, 2009 2:28 am

Are they still overshadowed? Yes, a bit. Do they still seem kick butt? Yes, clearly.

I think it helps if Game Masters realize that giving cool and powerful magic items to the fighter types helps offset this "over shadowing". So I think the fact that I give the characters powerful items helps reduce the effects of over shadowing. Like the 17th level Paladin commissioned his wife and another fellow party member, a Runemark/Druid, to make him a "heir loom" set of Full Plate Armor and a sword. He in no way feels over shadowed by them. He knows, especially in this armor and with this sword, he is a match for any of them.

However, fighter types just have to accept the fact that they will never be able to match spellcasters for coolness. They will always be able to dimension Door, Telelport, throw a half dozen fire balls, throw Meteor Swarms, Summon cool monsters, etc...

There is no way to balance that out without making everyone the same. Even unified XP charts can't fix it.

So short of making everyone spell casting warriors, fighter types are going to have to accept they are the best at what they do, and spell casters are the best at what they do.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

Lord Dynel · Post by **Lord Dynel** » Fri May 22, 2009 2:56 am

I'm not running a high level game, but I have looked over the book and envisioned the scenarios that could be, if that's any consolation.
But Tree was pretty much right. It doesn't appear to me that melee types in this game are able to match, toe-to-toe, with the casters. But it's close, it seems. A lot closer than in 3rd Edition and, by extension, Pathfinder.

Let me put it this way, daddy, and I mean no offense when I say this - if you fall into the habit of comparing class vs. class in a almost pvp-likec comparison like many of the folks on the WotC boards do/did to compare the relative power of the classes, I think I could construct a fighter in CnC that could take down a wizard of equal level. And that's hard to say in 3.5. And there's not really much "constructing" to do - a Dex prime fighter has a good chance to shrug off that fireball or lightning bolt and come at the wizard with both barrels...and that's going to hurt.

Don't get me wrong - I feel casters are still more powerful. But the gap is closer in CnC. And like Tree said, they both do their jobs well. And I always thought it was the fighter's job of keeping the bad guys at bay while the wizard worked his magic. They both fill a role, have a job, and can perform it well, IMHO.
_________________
LD's C&C creations - the witch, a half-ogre, skill and 0-level rules

Troll Lord wrote:
Lord D: you understand where I"m coming from.

serleran · Post by **serleran** » Fri May 22, 2009 3:22 am

Well, by the rules, with the removal of spell caps and the general difficulty of making saves, and the fact that C&C spellcasters have more spells to cast / day (usually) then, yes... they are powerful. And rightfully so. A 15th level wizard is uber... but, his buddy the fighter is probably 18th level and won't miss a thing without some serious penalties... plus, he probably has an army of magically armed buddies to go kick it with. So, the approach is different, because the archetypes are different.

Straight comparison should not be done. The classes are not intended for it, and it only results in flawed perception based on flawed reasoning.
_________________
If it matters, leave a message at the beep.
Serl's Corner

Treebore · Post by **Treebore** » Fri May 22, 2009 3:31 am

Lord Dynel wrote:
It doesn't appear to me that melee types in this game are able to match, toe-to-toe, with the casters.

Actually, in toe to toe I still expect the fighter to completely own the spell caster, except maybe a cleric. Their buffs, and their ability to heal, can allow them to win the day. Still, 4 times out of 5 I expect the fighter class to win in a truly toe to toe fight.

Spell casters advantage is devastating spells at range with high maneuverability. If you give fighters the ability to take away these advantages, the spell caster will lose.

For example, give a fighter armor with the ability to teleport and a sword that activates an anti magic shell, the fighter can teleport to the spell caster, activate the anti magic shell, and win every time.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

ssfsx17 · Post by **ssfsx17** » Fri May 22, 2009 3:44 am

Once I came to the realization that "balance" in a party-based roleplaying game should never be about which party member can beat up the rest of the party, I suddenly became better-able to appreciate roleplaying. In fact, I've had the most fun playing as characters whose primary role was not to "kick butt" or anything like that.

On top of all this, I feel that if a wizard really wanted to kill as many people as possible, all of the damage-dealing and killing spells are actually incredibly inefficient. The wizard ought to research a way to make Mass Suggestion more effective, then command millions of people to kill in the name of the gods.

Treebore · Post by **Treebore** » Fri May 22, 2009 4:06 am

ssfsx17 wrote:
Once I came to the realization that "balance" in a party-based roleplaying game should never be about which party member can beat up the rest of the party, I suddenly became better-able to appreciate roleplaying. In fact, I've had the most fun playing as characters whose primary role was not to "kick butt" or anything like that.

On top of all this, I feel that if a wizard really wanted to kill as many people as possible, all of the damage-dealing and killing spells are actually incredibly inefficient. The wizard ought to research a way to make Mass Suggestion more effective, then command millions of people to kill in the name of the gods.

Back in the day I have played some pretty powerful spell casters. My humanoid species killing spell was called "Disease Storm".

It still wouldn't kill everyone, but it got things down to manageable numbers.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

DangerDwarf · Post by **DangerDwarf** » Fri May 22, 2009 8:25 am

My highest level games with C&C were in the early 20's.

The wizard rocked out loud and while we joked about the other PC's being his henchmen, the truth of it is the relative power level varies by circumstance. Like others have said, doing a side by side comparison doesn't really do much. The archetypes have their own ways of doing things.

One of the deadliest circumstances for wizards in my game was always combats that had large numbers of lesser powered foes. The fighter can survive fairly well in those combats while the wizard sweats it all the way through because with more critters than the fighting types can hold off, the wizard got fewer spells off and doesn't stand up to damage real well.

Fighters in those circumstances kick ass though.

DangerDwarf · Post by **DangerDwarf** » Fri May 22, 2009 8:46 am

Also, another thing to remember to keep spellcasters from overshadowing your fighting types.

Be sure you aren't allowing spell casters to cast spells with impunity even on rounds which they are being smacked around like step-children.

That alone greatly keeps the fighting types closer to the spell slinging types in versatility/power.

Treebore · Post by **Treebore** » Fri May 22, 2009 9:42 am

I can't imagine a 20+ level wizard being smacked around. Cleric, yes. Wizard type? Nope. Between flying, improved invisibility, Project Image, Mind Blank, Dimension Dooring, or even teleporting, no one should even get close enough to smack a wizard. If they are staying closer than 200 feet to the battle they are being foolish.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

Relaxo · Post by **Relaxo** » Fri May 22, 2009 10:06 am

C&C doesn't have Stoneskin, does it? that used to help Wizards alot. You just shrug off the first 2-3 melee hits.

But Any level wizard shouldn't be in melee at all, IMO.

I really can't add anything, I agree the classes don't match, and aren't supposed to, so it's comparing apples and oranges and apricots.

Lord Dynel · Post by **Lord Dynel** » Fri May 22, 2009 10:07 am

I agree with what DD just said. I'm not above having foes attempt to stop the cleric in the group from casting spells. And the cleric has to succeed at a constitution check to get the spell off sometimes. I don't always do that sort of thing, but the cleric knows it's a possibility. And he sure is glad the knight is there in tyhe front taking the brunt of the attack so he can get off his spells.

Concerning balance - I get so pissed these days when people talk about what class can beat up what other class. It's so aggrivating. Hey, long before pvp, and long before we pulled out the rulers to measure our...egos...we used to work together. We used to worry about what was the right party composition - we wanted to make sure we has a cleric and a thief, and if we were balanced and strong enough to take on th edragon and didn't need another fighter or a ranger. We didn't worry about the party druid being more powerful than the fighter, or how we were "building" our characters to be most efficient.

Sorry for the rant and my apologies if that offended anyone...it wasn't directed at anyone here.

And Tree, I hope youre right. Like I said, I haven't made it to high-level play, but I hope the fighter has a damn good chance to kick the wizard's ass at any level in this game.
_________________
LD's C&C creations - the witch, a half-ogre, skill and 0-level rules

Troll Lord wrote:
Lord D: you understand where I"m coming from.

HatterMadness · Post by **HatterMadness** » Fri May 22, 2009 10:34 am

Even before i realize that you shouldn't be comparing classes by their ability to kill each other, i never found the Wizard overpowered. I mean it was a matter of timing. Everyone would always assume if it was a Fighter vs Wizard battle that the wizard would have all these amazing spells up and ready. But it doesn't work that way. He needs time to cast them all. It's not like he can walk around covered in spells all the time. And in C&C Timestop (that spell that always gave the Wizard that time he needed) is wonderfully dangerous. Seriously, are you willing to age and possibly cripple yourself for a few rounds? It damn well better be an emergency!

Lord Dynel · Post by **Lord Dynel** » Fri May 22, 2009 10:59 am

Indeed. That's the thing with me, too - the lack of recognition of overpowered classes. I've never seen the issues, personally in my game, but none of my players "optimize" as such, nor do they alk around looking to challenge other PCs in "duals" or whatever it is they do to determine who's more powerful than who.
_________________
LD's C&C creations - the witch, a half-ogre, skill and 0-level rules

Troll Lord wrote:
Lord D: you understand where I"m coming from.

HatterMadness · Post by **HatterMadness** » Fri May 22, 2009 11:54 am

Lord Dynel Oh i have played with people who power-build, Muchkinize, finagle the rules, and wheedle the DM. And while that may unbalance the party. A good player doesn't need good stats and a bad player can be taken down even with the best stats.

Overpowered wizards don't survive long if they don't plan how to use their spells. And Overpowered fighters die quick if they aren't aren't careful around magic.

Where a good player's wizard always has a backup plan and/or saved spell. And just knows how to best use the spells he has.

A good player's fighter will rush an enemy wizard, keep distance from the wrong sort of undead, and positions himself to best result in battle.

Haha, And how many players out there forget that they can always RUN AWAY! That IS an option

Banesfinger · Post by **Banesfinger** » Fri May 22, 2009 12:28 pm

HatterMadness wrote:
...you shouldn't be comparing classes by their ability to kill each other...

Why not?

If I have a 12th-level party and I want them to encounter enemy 12th-level NPC wizards - I would hope that the encounter would be balanced*.

(* environmental and XP value factors aside)

CK's have enough work to do - they shouldn't have to have to second guess levels (after all - if levels can't be trusted to gauge power, what good are they?)

dunbruha · Post by **dunbruha** » Fri May 22, 2009 12:55 pm

DangerDwarf wrote:
Be sure you aren't allowing spell casters to cast spells with impunity even on rounds which they are being smacked around like step-children.

How do you work this? Do you have them make a check if they took damage in the same round? In a previous round? Do you use simultaneous actions or do you have them act in initiative order?

Lord Dynel · Post by **Lord Dynel** » Fri May 22, 2009 6:51 pm

Readied actions, mainly for me. I have players and the bad guys prepare themselves for spellcasters by holding their strike until a caster begins casting.
_________________
LD's C&C creations - the witch, a half-ogre, skill and 0-level rules

Troll Lord wrote:
Lord D: you understand where I"m coming from.

Treebore · Post by **Treebore** » Fri May 22, 2009 6:51 pm

dunbruha wrote:
How do you work this? Do you have them make a check if they took damage in the same round? In a previous round? Do you use simultaneous actions or do you have them act in initiative order?

Read the rules for concentration checks in the pages just before the spell tables.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

Treebore · Post by **Treebore** » Fri May 22, 2009 7:02 pm

Banesfinger wrote:
Why not?

If I have a 12th-level party and I want them to encounter enemy 12th-level NPC wizards - I would hope that the encounter would be balanced*.

(* environmental and XP value factors aside)

CK's have enough work to do - they shouldn't have to have to second guess levels (after all - if levels can't be trusted to gauge power, what good are they?)

That depends. Like the other day I was worried about a TPK when I decided the Thieves Guild would hire a wizard assassin to kill them. They had just killed off a kill squad of 10 competent killers, so the guild hired a 10th level wizard, and the party is 5th.

I was very concerned I was going to get a TPK. Luck was on their side. Two of them went immediately to unconsciousness, 4 out of 5 of their horses became barbecue, but 3 of them were still up and fighting and despite the wizard flying they were still able to get lucky enough to take him down.

So can a 12th level party take on a 12th level wizard? Probably. Saves in C&C are dangerous, finally, like they should be. So I find I have to really consider what spells are thrown at them, how many times, etc... So I look at what their saving throws are, determine how likely they are to make them, I look at their HP and determine how many fireballs they can likely handle, consider how they could handle having one or two of their fighters taken out by successful hold persons, etc...

I even had to do this in 3E. The CR's were an idea, but to really know you have to just gain experience as a game master and learn to be a judge of the odds.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

dunbruha · Post by **dunbruha** » Fri May 22, 2009 9:33 pm

Treebore wrote:
Read the rules for concentration checks in the pages just before the spell tables.

Yes, but most spells are CT 1, so unless there is a readied action (as LD mentions above) there is no chance for a concentration check. Some people play using declared actions at the beginning of the round--I was wondering if that is what DD was doing, of if he had another system, such as requiring a check if the spellcaster took damage immediately previously.

Treebore · Post by **Treebore** » Fri May 22, 2009 9:51 pm

dunbruha wrote:
Yes, but most spells are CT 1, so unless there is a readied action (as LD mentions above) there is no chance for a concentration check. Some people play using declared actions at the beginning of the round--I was wondering if that is what DD was doing, of if he had another system, such as requiring a check if the spellcaster took damage immediately previously.

Well, I do a little house ruling there, Casting time may be one, but they are spending the time from the beginning of the round until their initiative "preparing to cast", IE getting out spell components, focusing their mind, etc... So any hit between the beginning of the round until the second in which they cast can disrupt their ability to cast. Plus the pain from those hits is definitely still there when they actually try to cast the spell. I am nice, if they get hit multiple times I allow a check per hit, rather than total up all damage.

So I define "While they are casting" from the beginning of the round up until the spell is released, since all pain suffered during that time would definitely have a chance to destroy their clarity of mind.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

serleran · Post by **serleran** » Fri May 22, 2009 10:18 pm

If the initiative system had worked as I had wanted, with declarations happening prior to rolling, most of this would be a gone bye bye.
_________________
If it matters, leave a message at the beep.
Serl's Corner

DangerDwarf · Post by **DangerDwarf** » Fri May 22, 2009 10:57 pm

Treebore wrote:
If they are staying closer than 200 feet to the battle they are being foolish.

Them are some big dungeons then if the wizard has that luxury.

DangerDwarf · Post by **DangerDwarf** » Fri May 22, 2009 11:00 pm

dunbruha wrote:
How do you work this? Do you have them make a check if they took damage in the same round? In a previous round? Do you use simultaneous actions or do you have them act in initiative order?

Declared actions prior to initiative generally.

Even when not using declared actions though, if a wizard is smacked around in a round I generally will disallow spell casting under the assumption that the spell was started at the begining of the round and being engaged in melee isn't always the easiest way to carry the spell to completion.

Lord Dynel · Post by **Lord Dynel** » Sat May 23, 2009 12:32 am

I don't necessarily go with declared actions, but I might go back to having PCs state their intent. I allow readied actions, and I allow them to happen multi-round, so if an enemy wizard goes first in a round, and then the ranger want to train a bow on him, I let that action continue into the next round, up to the ranger's action. Basically the same as stating declared action at the start, at least in this case.
_________________
LD's C&C creations - the witch, a half-ogre, skill and 0-level rules

Troll Lord wrote:
Lord D: you understand where I"m coming from.

dunbruha · Post by **dunbruha** » Sat May 23, 2009 7:49 pm

I've never been a big fan of declared actions. I've been thinking of requiring a concentration check if the caster took damage since his last action (whether the damage occurred in the current round or the previous round).