Author Topic: Does Pouncing Make Maneuvers Suck?  (Read 4034 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

pfooti

  • Bi-Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 531
  • Pants are for Suckers
    • /castrandom - even we don't know what it's about
    • Email
Re: Does Pouncing Make Maneuvers Suck?
« Reply #20 on: August 25, 2009, 01:16:56 PM »
But you also have to consider that even though pounce is a very powerful melee option it is weak compared to spell casting.

This is not actually the case. A well-designed pouncer (say, a TWFing swift hunter) can easily apply damage that exceeds the average CLd6 spellcast each round, and can effectively do this every round for the entire day limited only by his HP and the party's ability to heal damage (I understand that blasting for CLd6 isn't the best kind of spellcasting, but it's the most direct comparison).

Most spellcasters are limited in ways we don't like to worry about - accidentally-poor spell selection, good saves and SR on many monsters, and a limited number of "big combat enders" per day. If you can control the pacing of the adventuring day, yeah, spellcasting is better than melee pretty much all the time (since you can always summon BSFs for mop-up duty).

But I've found that in general table-play, unless you're speaking about level 17+ performance, a well-crafted melee character without pounce brings plenty of options to the table that a well-crafted spellcaster just can't do as efficiently. Adding pounce puts that further out of balance.

RobbyPants

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 7139
Re: Does Pouncing Make Maneuvers Suck?
« Reply #21 on: August 25, 2009, 01:27:32 PM »
This is not actually the case. A well-designed pouncer (say, a TWFing swift hunter) can easily apply damage that exceeds the average CLd6 spellcast each round, and can effectively do this every round for the entire day limited only by his HP and the party's ability to heal damage (I understand that blasting for CLd6 isn't the best kind of spellcasting, but it's the most direct comparison).
Both of these statements are true, but what is the point of comparing one of the best options in melee to one of the worst options for a caster?  Sure, a pouncer can out damage a blaster who's not using metamagic reducers, but the caster can just use metamagic reducers to outdamage the pouncer or use a variety of other options to flat out win.
My balancing 3.5 compendium
Elemental mage test game

Quotes
[spoiler]
Quote from: Cafiend
It is a shame stupidity isn't painful.
Quote from: StormKnight
Totally true.  Historians believe that most past civilizations would have endured for centuries longer if they had successfully determined Batman's alignment.
Quote from: Grand Theft Otto
Why are so many posts on the board the equivalent of " Dear Dr. Crotch, I keep punching myself in the crotch, and my groin hurts... what should I do? How can I make my groin stop hurting?"
Quote from: CryoSilver
I suggest carving "Don't be a dick" into him with a knife.  A dull, rusty knife.  A dull, rusty, bent, flaming knife.
Quote from: Seerow
Fluffy: It's over Steve! I've got the high ground!
Steve: You underestimate my power!
Fluffy: Don't try it, Steve!
Steve: *charges*
Fluffy: *three critical strikes*
Steve: ****
Quote from: claypigeons
I don't even stat out commoners. Commoner = corpse that just isn't a zombie. Yet.
Quote from: CryoSilver
When I think "Old Testament Boots of Peace" I think of a paladin curb-stomping an orc and screaming "Your death brings peace to this land!"
Quote from: Orville_Oaksong
Buy a small country. Or Pelor. Both are good investments.
[/spoiler]

pfooti

  • Bi-Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 531
  • Pants are for Suckers
    • /castrandom - even we don't know what it's about
    • Email
Re: Does Pouncing Make Maneuvers Suck?
« Reply #22 on: August 25, 2009, 01:33:43 PM »
The point I'm trying to make is that I feel it's something of a mistake to start from the position of: "Ability X is less powerful than an optimal spellcaster, so therefore it is not in need of balancing or power reduction", in part because the optimal spellcaster is something of a theoretical creature, and in part because it seems reductionist to say that this is always the case.

In the case of pouncing, a well-designed pouncer (in a decent support environment especially, such as one that includes a Bard (even a non-DFI bard)) can deal enough damage each round to pretty much kill one monster at CL+1 or CL+2 per round. Five or six attacks, each of which has 5d6 precision damage, is enough overkill that it sort of moots the question. If spellcasting is "better", both scenarios end up with killing the monster, and the pouncer can do it more often.

I think that when we compare to spellcasters, we often forget the limited uses per day of most of their signature moves, which can be a powerful limiting factor (although, again - it's asking the DM to intervene in the balance equation, which can be problematic).

Havok4

  • Man in Gorilla Suit
  • *****
  • Posts: 2144
  • It can only be attributable to human error.
Re: Does Pouncing Make Maneuvers Suck?
« Reply #23 on: August 25, 2009, 01:50:11 PM »
Yes but pouncing is also very environmentally dependent and enemy dependent. If you are fighting in close quarters pouncing is harder to use, and if you encounter a flying creature it is almost useless. Where a spell caster can be viable in all situations if they are built right or have time to prepare, where a pouncer is stuck with his strategy whether it is useful or not. Also it cannot be used outside of combat leaving the character extremely specialized where a spell caster can still do amazing things in and out of combat, even with only a baseline level of optimization.

pfooti

  • Bi-Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 531
  • Pants are for Suckers
    • /castrandom - even we don't know what it's about
    • Email
Re: Does Pouncing Make Maneuvers Suck?
« Reply #24 on: August 25, 2009, 02:03:40 PM »
I agree that a well-crafted spellcaster has a lot more flexibility and versatility than a typical (or even well-crafted) non-ToB melee character. That's actually why I like ToB so much, there are a number of maneuvers with noncombat utility, and most ToB characters have enough flexibility that they can change tactics to respond to a variety of situations.

But where I disagree is in saying that this means we should just leave all areas of game balance that don't exceed standard spellcasting alone. I also continue to contend that most spellcasters are actually not as versatile as claimed, unless you include lots of consumables (scrolls) in the equation - I've played a fair number of prepared casters, and seen other people play them as well, and there are *many* times when the notion comes up that we could have had a much easier time fighting that one encounter if we had waited 24 hours to refresh spells or properly prepare.

Proper preparation and encounter pacing serve as a strong balancing factor for most spellcasters, which is similar to encounter design that balance out most melee (not just pouncing ones) characters. In their own element, they both tend toward the overpowered, and need to be contained (at least, in my opinion).

But this is kind of a tangent to the original thread, so I can just agree to disagree with you - I see your position. I'm not sure where we all end up heading in discussions like this, but personally it helps me think about restrictions and house rules for my upcoming 3.5e campaign (and I'll be restricting certain elements of spellcasting along with access to pounce).

Brainpiercing

  • Hong Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 1475
  • Thread Killer
    • Email
Re: Does Pouncing Make Maneuvers Suck?
« Reply #25 on: August 26, 2009, 12:47:46 PM »
Spellcaster versatility goes up with player knowledge. I'm currently witnessing an Illusionist played at around Tier 4. So... yeah.

I've had some more maneuver use last session - admittedly mostly charges. I DID use an Emerald Razor to hit that same Illusionist with non-lethal damage and max PA. But wait, Emerald Razor is sort of a weaker man's Wraithstrike. So no win, there.

Well, I'm going to go on with my progression as planned. If I die again I might swap to something entirely different, so it'll be nice to find out some more about how a mix-and-match Warblade+X will fare in the meantime.