You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 02, 2016, 10:52:12 PM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: Pathfinder D&D (aka 3.75)  (Read 10248 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Chris Brady

Re: Pathfinder D&D (aka 3.75)
« Reply #75 on: July 09, 2008, 03:53:42 PM »
So has anyone played the Pathfinder Fighter for more than one level?  If so, how does he feel like?

Better?  Same as 3.x?  Worse?

I can't seem to find a straight answer that isn't biased for or against.

Offline BrandonTopic starter

Re: Pathfinder D&D (aka 3.75)
« Reply #76 on: July 09, 2008, 04:37:36 PM »
I havnt played the pathfinder fighter yet but one of the members of my group does and Ive seen some interesting things. The first thing that comes to mind is our fighter is more resistant to fear then any other mind effecting ability. Right now he only has a +1 bonus against fear spells/abilities but at level 18 it would be +5 and bravery also stacks with a paladin's aura. Armor training is something else thats been helpful because his Maximum dexterity bonus is higher then normal in full plate and his regular armor bonus is also higher. Its an Extra 2 ac compared to say a paladin with the same gear which doesnt sound like a lot but at level 5 it can be. He has just picked up weapon focus this level (he took axes cause he's a dwarf duel wielding a dwarven war ax in one hand and a hand ax in the other) so I havnt seen that in action yet but weapon training stacks with the weapon focus/specilization feats so I think we'll see some big damage numbers in the near future

Offline kongming

Re: Pathfinder D&D (aka 3.75)
« Reply #77 on: July 09, 2008, 10:20:32 PM »
Well, I haven't actually played it, nor even actually looked at the stuff, but I will give you a quote:

"Fighters are underpowered? No problem! Just give them flat bonuses that fuck the math in the ass!"

That being said, I'm not sure whether that means "They can compete as actual characters, and tend to always hit, damage, make saves, avoid attacks etc. while not having *options*" or if it means "They still don't do anything." It's hard to tell (and is a biased statement).

Offline BrandonTopic starter

Re: Pathfinder D&D (aka 3.75)
« Reply #78 on: July 09, 2008, 10:49:05 PM »
As someone who does know whats going on with fighters I think they now have a mix of interesting ablities. They get bravery, weapon training, armor training (probably their biggest boost), and they still get a lot of bonus feats but thats about it. That said, I still think they need some major bonuses but they're far better then they were. As you can see in one of my earlier comparisons Fighters can beat other heavily armored characters in AC easily, sometimes by 1/4 or more of the d20.

The fighters also get these 2 abilities which arent bad

Armor Mastery (Ex): At 19th level, a fighter gains DR
5/ whenever he is wearing armor or using a shield.
Weapon Mastery (Ex): At 20th level, a fighter chooses one
weapon, such as the longsword, greataxe, or longbow. Any
attacks made with that weapon automatically confirm all
critical threats and have their damage multiplier increased
by 1 (a 2 becomes a 3, for example). In addition, he cannot
be disarmed while wielding a weapon of this type.

I think the fighter needs a few things that ONLY effect the fighter. Those things include but arent limited to

1. The highest base attack bonus. Give them 25/20/15/10/5 at level 20. Just make it so that after level 15 Bab scales at a larger rate then +1 bab per 1 level. Maybe something like this

15 15/10/5
16 18/13/8
17 20/15/10/5
18 23/18/13/8
19 24/19/14/9
20 25/20/15/10/5

2. I remember hearing some 4e stuff about weapons acctually meaning something to fighters. Like spears helped bypass armor and swords granting extra attacks. I dont think that ever happened, or perhaps it was just a lie, but lets bring that idea to fighters so that weapon choice is a big deal in their hands (and only theirs). How about a fighter with Weapon training (swords) gets +1 attack in a full attack action or Axes deal +int modifier in damage when sundering armor and that damage cant be effected by hardness.
3. Keep armor training, I like it, its slow at first but it adds up and if you want to be a purely defensive character no one does it better then the pathfinder fighter.
4. Give bonuses similar to size bonuses when the fighter is the recipient of combat manuvers or special attacks like Improved grapple, bull rush, or swallow whole
« Last Edit: July 09, 2008, 10:56:04 PM by Brandon »

Offline kongming

Re: Pathfinder D&D (aka 3.75)
« Reply #79 on: July 10, 2008, 05:20:36 AM »
Allow me to put my bitch hat on and critique.

Armor Mastery (Ex): At 19th level, a fighter gains DR
5/ whenever he is wearing armor or using a shield.

I still stand by my belief that DR 5 is worthless at 19th level - it should seriously be "half your level" at a minimum.

Quote
Weapon Mastery (Ex):

Not amazing, but it's certainly nice.

Quote
1. The highest base attack bonus. Give them 25/20/15/10/5 at level 20.

The +10/+5 already aren't hitting, why bother? Better idea: Fighters get +20/+15/+15/+15 - they only take up to a 5 point reduction. This way, their extra attacks actually hit. Then let them, as part of a feat, change it to -2 (+20/+18/+18/+18).

They'll then be routinely hitting enemies. You needn't ask if this is already used successfully in a system. You know what I'll say.

Quote
2. I remember hearing some 4e stuff about weapons acctually meaning something to fighters. Like spears helped bypass armor and swords granting extra attacks. I dont think that ever happened, or perhaps it was just a lie, but lets bring that idea to fighters so that weapon choice is a big deal in their hands (and only theirs). How about a fighter with Weapon training (swords) gets +1 attack in a full attack action or Axes deal +int modifier in damage when sundering armor and that damage cant be effected by hardness.

This couldn't hurt - especially if they allowed options ("special attacks") and benefits that scaled. For instance "Spears ignore any and all DR. At level 5, a spear deals 1 point of Con damage whenever it hits. At level 10, you can make one attack with a spear as a standard action (so you can't do it on a charge or in a full attack), making it as a touch attack as it finds the perfect spot to ignore armour. At level 15, you may take an attack of opportunity on someone who charges at you. If you hit, they are held in place and can't advance (thus, can't make the attack)."

Quote
4. Give bonuses similar to size bonuses when the fighter is the recipient of combat manuvers or special attacks like Improved grapple, bull rush, or swallow whole

No arguments here - after all, I'm sure we can all agree that many a hero of legend could out-grapple monsters far bigger than themselves.

Offline BrandonTopic starter

Re: Pathfinder D&D (aka 3.75)
« Reply #80 on: July 10, 2008, 05:44:24 PM »
Armor mastery: I dont think DR is supposed to be high at any level. I think its supposed to be a small scaling ability that just helps a little bit. That said, I do still think that Armor mastery needs to scale for epic levels but so far I dont think Paizo is planning for any epic level material (which is a shame because I love epic). One thing I would like to see for armor mastery though is get rid of the speed penalty when wearing armor

Weapon Mastery: I think a good way to improve this is Increasing the Critical rate by +1 and letting it scale with epic levels. Likewise I would also like tos ee the critical multiplier scale with epic levels. Maybe an addition x1 for every 10 levels or so

1. The only problem I see with that is that sometimes you arent fighting a big baddy with a few levels above you but instead you're fighting 10-20 little things at once. In these cases the extra attacks could be a lot more useful and have a lot better chance of hitting. I could be convinced on taking the 20/15/15/15 idea though

2. For spears I think Ild rather see something like 1st level: Spears Negate armor bonus up to 1/2 the class level 5th: same but includes natural armor 10th: same but includes deflection bonuses 15th: same but includes Dexterity bonuses 20th: same but negates all other (i.e. sacred, morale, etc)armor bonuses

Axes could be 1st: The fighter gets +4 to confirm criticals 5th: adds 1/2 class levels to confirm crits 10th: can get crits on creatures normally immune to critical hits 15th: Automatically confirms crits 20th: Crits bypass DR

Swords could be 1st: Gain 1 additional attack per day 5th: Gain 1 addtional attack per hour 10th: Gain 1 addtional attack per encounter 15th: Gain 1 additional attack per round 20th: ?

4. I see it in two different movies. First think back to Dragonheart where the guy gets trapped in the dragons mouth and eventually puts the tip of his sword against the roof of its mouth as they sit there and try to get the other to give up. Thats the fighter with expertise fighting bigger opponents. Then think of Jaws 3 where the hollywood guy dives down into the pumps for the aqua park and he gets trapped in the sharks mouth tries to unsuccessfully blow the thing up with a grenade. Thats the fighter without the expertise.

That said, I think them being considered (not acctually be) a size category larger for every 4 levels would go along way. That means for a small character youre medium at 4, large at 8, huge at 12, Gargantuan at 16, collassal at 20 and collossal+ at 24
« Last Edit: July 10, 2008, 05:48:08 PM by Brandon »

Offline kongming

Re: Pathfinder D&D (aka 3.75)
« Reply #81 on: July 10, 2008, 09:17:24 PM »
Armor mastery: I dont think DR is supposed to be high at any level. I think its supposed to be a small scaling ability that just helps a little bit.

That's the Mike Mearls/Paizo talking. If you want it to be there at all, it has to be relevant. DR 5 at level 20, especially when half the attacks are from energy types (and thus ignoring DR straight-up), just isn't doing anything meaningful. If it was higher, it would mean enemies would have to adjust tactics (using less effective energy attacks, or missing more often by Power Attacking), or you'd straight-up survive more hits.

Quote
but so far I dont think Paizo is planning for any epic level material (which is a shame because I love epic).

To be fair? Epic would require more than the minor fixes Paizo are doing. It would need a complete 100% rewrite. Epic doesn't work. At all. That doesn't mean it's not cool, mind you, it's still awesome in theory, but so far is best handled by making shit up - the fighter types are riding dragons in Epic. This means you give them dragons to ride, with level-appropriate abilities (even if you make the dragons up with hit dice and stuff instead of picking them from the manuals), and make rules for doing so. Rather than the silly Epic Magic rules, you just keep giving spell slots and let them invent fantastic new spells to fill those slots. And so on and so forth.

By this stage, you can't just pick an encounter from a book anyway - you actually have to look at the numbers the PCs have and tailor something for those numbers (because there is no "standard". A 20th level armour class could be anything from "less than zero" to 100+)

Quote
1. The only problem I see with that is that sometimes you arent fighting a big baddy with a few levels above you but instead you're fighting 10-20 little things at once.

Except people rarely care about those little enemies. I mean, if you're doing damage appropriate for your level, you should be popping them on a successful hit or two, and if you have DR that is worth writing down, half their attacks won't even hurt you. Or you use Whirlwind or something. Because fighting groups of weaker enemies is less common, it shouldn't be the assumed default - you can take things that make you better at it.

But you are right in that high level characters should be fighting armies and winning. But level-appropriate DR and damage goes a long way to allowing that (and it can be done in regular 3.5 if you know what you're doing).

Quote
That said, I think them being considered (not acctually be) a size category larger for every 4 levels would go along way. That means for a small character youre medium at 4, large at 8, huge at 12, Gargantuan at 16, collassal at 20 and collossal+ at 24

Exactly, and a Medium character would, at level 20, grapple as a Titanic/Colossal+/Awesome creature - which means that he'll be able to grapple the monsters of that level, and won't be outgrappled by a wizard (who currently make the best grapplers).

Offline BrandonTopic starter

Re: Pathfinder D&D (aka 3.75)
« Reply #82 on: July 10, 2008, 10:54:19 PM »
As long as you're being delt physical damage then DR is relevant. Even if its only 5 points per hit thats still 5 points per hit. Its not negligible because its always in effect with physical attacks just like energy resistance is always in effect for fireball lobbing mages or flaming weapons. Would it be nice to have more sure, but this is the kind of DR you cant bypass too unlike when the paladin gets holy champion with his DR 10/Evil

Epic: yeah I totally agree that they need a complete redesign. I always thought a cool idea would be to give Epic moves to fighters (and just fighters) which were pretty much the same thing that epic magic was. The system still has some promise but after about level 26 it breaks down, till then its acctually pretty good if you establish clear guidlines for you players

I also like epic more as a DM because I feel like it gives me more room to be creative and tailor a game that better fits my players

Offline Chris Brady

Re: Pathfinder D&D (aka 3.75)
« Reply #83 on: July 11, 2008, 04:55:18 PM »
I'm not sure, to be honest, but I think what Konming is saying is that at around level 20 most things that are a challenge don't focus on physical attacks anymore.  Mainly due to the fact that most monster damage doesn't scale.

So, assuming I've read this right and to use an example, if a monster has the option of attacking 3 times for 2d8, 2d8 and 4d6, or casting one spell (Let's say disintegrate doe 40d6), more often than not the spell will be used, and DR won't help.

Did I get that right, Kon?

Offline kongming

Re: Pathfinder D&D (aka 3.75)
« Reply #84 on: July 11, 2008, 10:51:23 PM »
That is partly the issue, but also, DR 5 isn't a big enough portion of the physical damage dealt - let's pick a few things you might face at level 20:

Balor: You'll never see your DR come into play. It summons another Balor, and they seriously spam Implosion, Dominate Monster, Blasphemy and PW: Stun. Or they both unleash a Firestorm to help chisel his HP down (bypassing DR) so as to make sure PW: Stun works. Then, once he's stunned, he dies.

Pit Fiend: Blasphemy for the win. Maybe a Mass Hold Monster, followed by Fireball (Held = no Ref save) or a coup de grace. It can even summon a Horned Devil to speed up the coup de grace process. It also has Meteor Swarm, but really it just spams Blasphemy.

22 HD Marilith: If it's being kind, it has 6 swords. One deals 3d6+13, the other five deal 3d6+6. Then there's the tail slap of 6d6+6 plus improved grab and constrict (6d6+19 plus a chance to pass out and lose instantly). If it's being mean? It holds one sword in all six arms, dealing 4d6+45 damage (and with a 6:1 power attack ratio, it burns 5 points of BAB and slaps an extra 30 damage on top. Final result? 89 damage -5 is 84 damage, followed by a tail for about 32-5 = 27, plus improved grab, followed by constriction of 40-5=35 plus save vs pass out. Total damage taken this round by the fighter: 146, and if he passes out? He is killed in the following round). How much did DR help him? It took 15 points away, meaning it takes 2 rounds to finish him off just like it would have anyway (and not saving him if he fails the Fort save).

A tag-team of Half Dragon Fiendish 44 HD Colossal Centipedes: they bite for 4d6+18 each. That's an average of 32 damage each, or 52 on the smite. There's poison as well, but I'm confident he'll pass the save. His DR is moderately useful here, although the smite attacks will be scary for a brief moment, until he realises they only get 1 smite each. Note: Take 8 HD from each of them and you have four centipedes dealing the same amount of damage each.

Mature Adult Red Dragon: Bite (2d8+11), 2 claws (2d6+5), 2 wings (1d8+5) and tail slap (2d6+16), or a 14d10 breath weapon. It could easily choose Power Attack and Improved Natural Attack as feats. His DR works best against this - assuming it does a full attack (it probably will) instead of a breath weapon, grabbing and swallowing, or casting spells.

Offline BrandonTopic starter

Re: Pathfinder D&D (aka 3.75)
« Reply #85 on: July 13, 2008, 12:06:18 AM »
I guess Im just going to have to disagree. I think that DR should never be more then 1/4 of a single hit. It should be something small, especially if its the type that cant be bypassed.

Also I think the Dms you all have played with lack a little creativty. When I run a game I do use appropriate CR encounters but do so by usually adding class levels to lower CR monsters or in rarer circumstances advancing creatures to give an equal challenge.

Offline kongming

Re: Pathfinder D&D (aka 3.75)
« Reply #86 on: July 13, 2008, 08:03:19 AM »
The thing is that it can be bypassed: by everything that isn't a regular weapon attack. But energy types get through just fine, save-or-lose powers don't even deal damage (yes I know the death effects are few and far between, but Dominate/Hold/Sleep/Stun all result in you losing the game).

And for those that are using physical attacks, if it isn't a relevant amount, it's worthless. It needs to extend your lifespan by at least one round per battle, because it's accepted that you're going to heal up between fights (a wand/trap of CLW is spare change) and are not going to receive sufficient healing in battle (anything less than "he's nearly dead after fighting a few rounds. Heal up to full HP!" is a waste of a turn). Therefore, if you're not surviving at least one more round out of it, the DR was actually as useful as an accordion except you can't use it for Bardic music.

And most of my DMs prior to coming here did lack creativity, but I certainly don't - I pulled up some critters that are automatically CR 20 (and the dragon is listed as less than that, but that's an example of WotC blatantly under-rating a monster to artificially make it more challenging, and thus more memorable). But the Marilith has HD added to make it CR 20, the centipedes have templates and loads of extra HD...

And if you want class levels, consider this: At level 20, a rogue who, for whatever reason, is throwing darts instead of acid flasks (ranged touch attacks) will unleash up to 10 attacks per round. Heck, make them Brilliant darts (and we're still being kind and not just using DR-ignoring acid flasks) and they are basically an automatic hit. Each of those darts does tiny damage, plus anywhere from 10d6 to 12d6+20 sneak attack damage.

Best-case scenario? 7 attacks, only 4 hit, and it's only +10d6 sneak attack each. Ignoring the actual darts, around 140 sneak attack damage is dealt, minus 5*4 (20) = 120. The DM knows how to optimise? 10 attacks each hit for 12d6+20 sneak attack, or a total of ~620-(5*10=50) ~570.

The fighter explodes into a fine red mist. Granted, in this instance, no amount of sensible DR will actually save him, as DR 20 is still letting 420 points through, but even the best-case scenario is cutting the fighter's HP in half (if he's lucky).

Now, if a caster does something, DR doesn't even come into play.

---

Essentially, so few things are actually affected by it that the DR needs to be impressive enough to make weak attacks (see: all minion-things, armies of significantly lower-levelled enemies) do ~0, and to let him survive a few extra rounds by level-appropriate foes who choose to deal physical damage. It basically acts as a way of shutting that option down for enemies. They go "Oh, that's a fighter. No good trying to use swords, let's make do with our weak magic/throwing acid."

Offline Chris Brady

Re: Pathfinder D&D (aka 3.75)
« Reply #87 on: July 16, 2008, 11:27:36 AM »
I guess Im just going to have to disagree. I think that DR should never be more then 1/4 of a single hit. It should be something small, especially if its the type that cant be bypassed.

Also I think the Dms you all have played with lack a little creativty. When I run a game I do use appropriate CR encounters but do so by usually adding class levels to lower CR monsters or in rarer circumstances advancing creatures to give an equal challenge.

See the problem as Kongming points out is that at level 15+ DR is pointless.  Mainly because most of the critters at that level don't use physical attacks if they can get away with it.  And most of them can get away with it.

Offline RubySlippers

Re: Pathfinder D&D (aka 3.75)
« Reply #88 on: July 16, 2008, 12:48:46 PM »
Pathfinder D&D doesn't exist unless GARY GYGAX designed the rules and guided the creation its NOT D&D.

For me D&D is the original game, AD&D 1st Edition and D&D 2nd edition anything else is D&D-esque or a cheap and crappy knock off of the real game he crafted.

(my opinion)

I'm in a AD&D 1st edition game now and the fighter with double weapon specializatio and heavy armor is perfectly good for a fighter they don't need uber powers just walk up and beat the guy into pulp that's what they do. And take damage so that the other players can do their thing.

I did play this and found it utterly unnecessary and far to complicated for a simple class why change things that aren't broken? Fighter + Hit Points + Armor + Decent Weapon (maybe with some combat improvements in his or her favorite) and there you go.

Offline shadowheart

Re: Pathfinder D&D (aka 3.75)
« Reply #89 on: July 16, 2008, 05:07:11 PM »
Pathfinder D&D doesn't exist unless GARY GYGAX designed the rules and guided the creation its NOT D&D.

For me D&D is the original game, AD&D 1st Edition and D&D 2nd edition anything else is D&D-esque or a cheap and crappy knock off of the real game he crafted.

(my opinion)

I'm in a AD&D 1st edition game now and the fighter with double weapon specializatio and heavy armor is perfectly good for a fighter they don't need uber powers just walk up and beat the guy into pulp that's what they do. And take damage so that the other players can do their thing.

I did play this and found it utterly unnecessary and far to complicated for a simple class why change things that aren't broken? Fighter + Hit Points + Armor + Decent Weapon (maybe with some combat improvements in his or her favorite) and there you go.

Ahh, so I am not alone in this opinion! :)

Though I will state that I found 2E fun (then again it's what I remember playing fondly in my college RP group so .... :) )

Offline Chris Brady

Re: Pathfinder D&D (aka 3.75)
« Reply #90 on: July 16, 2008, 06:18:08 PM »
Gary Gygax hadn't designed a game alone since the original with Dave Arneson...

In fact the BECMI version was barely looked at by him.

Alternatively, the things that he and Dave put INTO the original game ARE STILL THERE.

Hit Points, AC, the Six Stats, so technically, both of you are either fans of a game that hasn't existed in print since 1978, or you play all of them and like all of them.

So which is it?

Offline shadowheart

Re: Pathfinder D&D (aka 3.75)
« Reply #91 on: July 16, 2008, 07:03:46 PM »
If I am going to play AD&D, my preference is first edition AD&D (my agreement with RS was less the Gygaxian authorship than the spirit of 1E).  2E is fun, and as I noted, it's what my gaming group in college played. 

In my opinion, 3rd and 3.5 editions simply put in too many rules and layers of glitz that are just not necessary.  They bog the game down, again in my opinion, and just don't have the simple flow of 1E (despite its occasional clunkiness).


Offline Chris Brady

Re: Pathfinder D&D (aka 3.75)
« Reply #92 on: July 17, 2008, 01:20:01 PM »
The problem I always had with D&D in ALL it's versions (I started with AD&D 1e) was the fighter.

There never was much to it.  The Mage always got more special abilities, and magic toys just got boring after a while.  In 1 and 2e the fighter pretty much plateaued after level 3, while the Thief, Cleric and Mage all got cool abilities that scaled up with the levels.  And weapon specialization sucked compared to Fireball, Lightning Bolt, Disintegrate and Power Word: Kill.

The 3e came along and offered 'Feats' for the Fighter.  Which were cool in the beginning, but then it became clear that they weren't enough, especially as it boils down to an 'arms race', where you try to build as fast as possible to the 'Save or Dies' so that the bad guys don't get to use them on you.

But that problem has always been there since the beginning.  3e was a good attempt at trying to make all the classes fun, but in the end it failed by over doing the Cleric and Druid, quickly followed by the Wizard.  They dominate past level 10-12.  But then a lot of folks never really got past that.

The issue I have with Pathfinder is that as long as it uses the base issues of 3rd edition, the Magical Arms Race and clearly overpowered magic classes (the strongest and most common listed set of issues that WoTC got from it's surveys to players, which they did in terms of market research) and as long as they use 3.x as a base, then it'll have the same problems.

The main issue with Paizo is that they have no concept of a design goal.

They need to address it like:

1. List the most common "problems" with 3.5
2. Field experts and players for solutions.
3. Only keep the solutions that:
a. don't break compatibilities
b. are simple and elegant
c. if a. and b. cannot be met 100% don't even address the issue at all. All mechanics have warts and everybody knows it. People sticking with 3.5 have already accepted those warts. They'll lose no one.

Pathfinder RPG has ideas when they are in dire need of VISION.  A singular focus.  A real end result, because right now, it's only 3.55 at best, rather than the touted 3.75.

Offline kongming

Re: Pathfinder D&D (aka 3.75)
« Reply #93 on: July 18, 2008, 01:10:47 AM »
The problem I always had with D&D in ALL it's versions (I started with AD&D 1e) was the fighter.

Agreed. It's always been a problem class that needed to be fixed. In the earliest editions, the fighter was a punishment for not rolling well enough to be a real character. Seriously, that's why it existed. Your stats weren't good enough to be a ranger, thief or mage? You get to be the fighter. After that, well... it's still been a bit of a joke. Heck, one person suggested "If you have to play a fighter, play a group of them. Because each individual fighter is crap, you should have a whole bunch." (like a summoner or Pokemon master in that respect).

Alternatively, the DM gave special artefact swords and stuff to artificially balance it. And that's bad too.

Quote
The Mage always got more special abilities,

Usually after a few levels - traditionally, the casters have sucked at low levels, although the 3E divine casters broke that rule by starting awesome and getting better from there. Then taking a brief detour at overkill junction.

Quote
3e was a good attempt at trying to make all the classes fun, but in the end it failed by over doing the Cleric and Druid, quickly followed by the Wizard.

Not exactly. Ignoring a few individual problem spells (Gate, Shapechange/Polymorph etc.), they are what the balance point was - monsters were designed to be a challenge for them. So there was nothing wrong with them except for the problem spells (and the Druid class feature of Wild Shape, which duplicates a problem spell). The real problem was that the fighter and friends weren't as good - fighter was the problem class, and it hasn't been pulling its weight. So the issue is that people are given, at character creation, the option to be useless (without spelling it out for them).