Without nerfing spellcasters any? I've heard some suggestions, such as letting Fighters ignore some feat prerequisites or giving them more skill points, and I'd love to hear more. Personally, I really think it comes down to giving martial characters more versatility, not more power, as I feel that issues of versatility is where all the disparity comes from, but how does one go about doing this?
I'm with you that versatility is where the problem lies, but to be honest, I can't imagine there is a solution which does not involve nerfing casters. If you even tried to give non-casters more varied class abilities, they'd look like cheap magic-esque additions. For example: Barbarians who choose the Pegasus totem can fly with a speed for 60 feet while raging. Yeah, ok. That's non-magical?
The problem is that magic is...well...magic! It doesn't have to make real world sense, whereas we can't conceive of a flying barbarian that isn't magical. You can put a massive boost into acrobatics, but then it's just like you said, we're just making him more powerful, not more versatile.
|
4e attempted to address this by flattening everything, so no matter if you were "martial" or "arcane" you ended up with essentially the same thing.
In 3/3.5/PF it'll never be quite like that, the disparity is inherent to the classes. No marital class will ever be able to match a high-level Wizard's ability to do (literally) nearly anything it has a spell for, and with all the spells out there, that's pretty much anything up to and including a wish.
I give all 2-SP classes a minimum of 4SP/level, and I do let fighters "hot swap" some feats, but it ultimately doesn't match, and never will match what the spellcasters can do--unless you do as StJohn suggested above, but once you pile on the spell-like abilities, they're not really the martial classes that they were...
Another thread on this?
The answer is 4e. Or something like 4e. There is no way that you will get everyone to agree that characters with different mechanics are "balanced." There will always be some argument that the mechanical difference ALONE is unbalancing. This is why 4e uses the same mechanic for all classes.
They spent three years and hundreds of thousands of dollars on this question and came up with 4e, the essentials of which is to make all characters nerfed casters using the same mechanic.
If there was a better "solution" then they would likely have come up with it. Frankly I don't think it's a problem in the first place, and every "solution" I've seen so far is worse than the "problem."
The funny thing is that people hate 4e for flattening everything, and claim that they love the inherent differences in 3/3.5/PF, but then they want to "level" those inherent differences to be more "balanced"--but somehow not like 4e...and without nerfing or limiting spellcasters...
Well, I don't hate 4e. I play in a regular 4e campaign and I enjoy it. It's just not remotely the same game as PF or 3.5. And as much as I enjoy playing it, it really seems to me to be more of a tactical combat simulation than a role playing game. But I love tactical combat simulations too, so that's fine.
I guess people are going to keep looking for some way to "balance" a dude swinging a pointy stick against a master of the arcane secrets of the universe without going the 4e route which is essentially to create an entirely new game.
I do think that it will take an entirely new game to balance all the classes. But the real problem isn't that the classes aren't balanced, the real problem is that you have to pick from CLASSES. You want pure balance, then make the game totally skill-based. You want to cast spells? Fine, invest in spell casting. You want to swing a sword? Fine, invest in that. Now every character is equal in opportunity at least, even if they aren't equal in execution. Nobody can say "my character is inherently unbalanced!" If you wanted more power, you should have picked the right skills.
There is no way that I've been able to come up with that fixes the inherent imbalance in the fundamental design of Pathfinder classes. There may be a way to do it, but nobody has found it yet. I suspect it is as impossible as squaring a circle or integrating across a singularity. But that won't stop people from continuing to try.
My simple solution if you really, really, really want class balance is go play 4e.
Don't look at me. I never mentioned 4E.
I'm not looking to step on caster's toes and give martial classes the same mechanics as spellcasters, I'm looking to give martial characters more to do than full attack every single round.
Honestly I don't see much of an advantage to casters until higher levels, and the martials absolutely rule at the early levels (where many games are played). My archer may be a one trick pony, but it's a damn good trick, and it beats your wizard in combat (where a fighter is suppossed to shine, right?) every single time. He flies, he shrugs off many magical effects, and he does damage at a range that makes most casters cringe. There are cavalier builds that (debateably) do 1000+ pts. of damage on the ground, and they have a ton of face skills and beneficial class abilites. Rogues can pull off many tricks and have a versitility that doesn't require the forward planning that all those fiddly utility spells take. The pure cheese of AM BARBARIAN.
There is only a problem if you seem to think magic is the end all be all. At 20th level this is closer to true, but not nearly entirely true.
In the end a balanced party will always adventure better and be more fun for everyone than thinking one person's character is better than another because they have magic. My current group is a ranger, two rogues, a cleric, a witch, and my barbarian. There isn't much we can't handle as a group and I'm no less viable than either of the full casters.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, I don't think there is much caster/non-caster(martial) disparity as much as there is the illusion and preconcieved notions that there is. And the fact that people often tend to ignor certain aspects of one or the other, which favors casters. Assuming that casters have the better circumstances while martials do not, or following that rediculous Class tier system.
A lot has to do with play style, and having optimizers and rules lawyers in the group and other players who do not do this sort of thing too much. Or allowing casters special treatment as far as buying gear (scrolls and wands) easily, especially when other classes can't have a similar magic-mart.
As far as combat encounters go, you can always try to spread out monsters a bit more, or try some tactics (like Silence with an ambush). Or small area close combat. I am not, however, suggesting that you go out of your way to screw over casters, just that perhaps different ways of challenging the group. This goes for martialists, too. All them to utalize the things they are good at, and challenge them with encounters that they are both built for, but also have to do a little extra to pull through.
Are there specific disparities or problems you are seeing?
The issue isn't power, and I specifically said so. The issue is that martial classes lack anything other than full attacking every round at high levels. Well, except the Rogue. Rogues are completely suboptimal compared to pretty much everything. I don't want more damage, I want more versatility to make people stop complaining about the classes.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the ideal solution is to nerf the casters a bit. I don't mean significantly nerfing spells, but making the spellcasting a bit harder to do, easier to interrupt, a bit easier to resist. Basically, I'd push back toward making magic a bit more what it was back in the 1e/2e days.
I'll say right out that I like cyclical initiative in the way it makes managing the table easier. But it, combined with standard action spellcasting, are very easy on the caster compared to previous editions. I'd probably be interested in seeing more casting times that significantly slow the caster down to nothing more than 5 foot steps or even 1 round casting times as a higher proportion of spells than now. I'd raise the DCs on maintaining concentration for being hit. And I'd put all saves on a 1/2 level footing instead of the strong ones on 1/2, weak on 1/3.
I think those measures would help substantially and do so without significantly nerfing the scope of the spells being cast. Magic would still be reality warping, but the wizards and other major casters would have a harder time bringing it to bear.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Don't look at me. I never mentioned 4E.
I'm not looking to step on caster's toes and give martial classes the same mechanics as spellcasters, I'm looking to give martial characters more to do than full attack every single round.
Let's see, a martial character by definition is one that relies on physical weapon attacks to participate in combat.
If they are doing something other than full attacking every round (or doing a move and a standard attack) and they are doing damage, then they must be using magic. Because if it wasn't magic, then it would be martial and would be part of their attack.
See, you don't really have any other option, unless you want to use semantics (as 4e does) and do magical things but PRETEND they aren't magical.
4e comes up in any discussion about "balancing" the "disparity" between casters and non-casters because that was the primary goal of the three-year million-dollar design effort.
And 4e is the best they could do. I suppose someone in their basement might just happen to hit on a better solution, but the odds are stacked pretty highly against that. But if they do, HEY, deal me in!
Are there specific disparities or problems you are seeing?
Yes. The issue I'm seeing all over the forums (just look at the Does Anybody Play a Fighter Thread) is a lack of things for martials to do. All they get is feats and a couple armor/weapon bonus, and all they can do on a turn is full attack.
I think those measures would help substantially and do so without significantly nerfing the scope of the spells being cast. Magic would still be reality warping, but the wizards and other major casters would have a harder time bringing it to bear.
... and yet when they DID bring it to bear, regardless of how much more difficult it was to do so, there would still be cries of "that's unbalanced!" from the other party members who had to do more than stand in the corner for two rounds wiggling their fingers.
Hang on. I think I got an idea. It's a little fix, and it won't fundamentally change things, but it'll give martials a little bit more. Give me some time to type it out.
... and yet when they DID bring it to bear, regardless of how much more difficult it was to do so, there would still be cries of "that's unbalanced!" from the other party members who had to do more than stand in the corner for two rounds wiggling their fingers.
I think those measures would help substantially and do so without significantly nerfing the scope of the spells being cast. Magic would still be reality warping, but the wizards and other major casters would have a harder time bringing it to bear.
A whole lot of us accepted the differences back in 1e/2e days. There's no inherent reason we can't accept the differences now. The main balance these games need anyway isn't mechanical, it's narrative balance and screen time. That's always been the case and it pretty much always will be for any RPG.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Are there specific disparities or problems you are seeing?Yes. The issue I'm seeing all over the forums (just look at the Does Anybody Play a Fighter Thread) is a lack of things for martials to do. All they get is feats and a couple armor/weapon bonus, and all they can do on a turn is full attack.
Martial characters can grapple, trip, bull rush or several other things. They can also employ nets, bolas and chains to control the battlefield. In fact there are dozens of feats which are designed specifically so that martial characters gain some battlefield control abilities.
In a role-playing game they can taunt, cower or otherwise entice the bad guys to attack or not attack to gain some advantage.
Some martial characters can hide and sneak and even disarm opponents or sunder their weapons.
I'm sure I'm leaving options out, but that's a pretty good list of non-attack options right there.
A whole lot of us accepted the differences back in 1e/2e days. There's no inherent reason we can't accept the differences now. The main balance these games need anyway isn't mechanical, it's narrative balance and screen time. That's always been the case and it pretty much always will be for any RPG.... and yet when they DID bring it to bear, regardless of how much more difficult it was to do so, there would still be cries of "that's unbalanced!" from the other party members who had to do more than stand in the corner for two rounds wiggling their fingers.
I think those measures would help substantially and do so without significantly nerfing the scope of the spells being cast. Magic would still be reality warping, but the wizards and other major casters would have a harder time bringing it to bear.
Absolutely, you are making my point now. It's not a problem for me. I'm fine with the "disparity."
|
|
Are there specific disparities or problems you are seeing?Yes. The issue I'm seeing all over the forums (just look at the Does Anybody Play a Fighter Thread) is a lack of things for martials to do. All they get is feats and a couple armor/weapon bonus, and all they can do on a turn is full attack.Martial characters can grapple, trip, bull rush or several other things. They can also employ nets, bolas and chains to control the battlefield. In fact there are dozens of feats which are designed specifically so that martial characters gains some battlefield control abilities.
In a role-playing game they can taunt, cower or otherwise entice the bad guys to attack or not attack to gain some advantage.
Some martial characters can hide and sneak and even disarm opponents or sunder their weapons.
I'm sure I'm leaving options out, but that's a pretty good list of non-attack options right there.
And, two well-built and well-played martials can run the battlefield--as they should. I've got two players who built their characters together over the campaign, and they're a trip-sweep-sunder-kill nightmare.
If the players are just taking a 5' and doing their full attacks, then it's their "fault" for not doing more than that, the versatility of the martial classes is less obvious than the casters, but there's quite a bit if you look for it.
Martial characters can grapple, trip, bull rush or several other things.Are there specific disparities or problems you are seeing?Yes. The issue I'm seeing all over the forums (just look at the Does Anybody Play a Fighter Thread) is a lack of things for martials to do. All they get is feats and a couple armor/weapon bonus, and all they can do on a turn is full attack.
That sounds all good and well until you see the baddie's CMD.
They can also employ nets, bolas and chains to control the battlefield.
Sure, if you want to eat up a lot of feats.
In fact there are dozens of feats which are designed specifically so that martial characters gains some battlefield control abilities.
Two words. Feat tax.
In a role-playing game they can taunt, cower or otherwise entice the bad guys to attack or not attack to gain some advantage.
How often does that actually work?
Some martial characters can hide and sneak
Only if you were hidden when combat began or have cover or concealment and multiple rounds to work with in which you aren't doing anything to the enemy.
and even disarm opponents or sunder their weapons.
Disarm has that pesky CMD. I'll give you sundering.
I'm sure I'm leaving options out, but that's a pretty good list of non-attack options right there.
You have all of one.
Hang on. I think I got an idea. It's a little fix, and it won't fundamentally change things, but it'll give martials a little bit more. Give me some time to type it out.
Never mind. It's a neat little ability, but not really relevant to this issue.
|
|
Are there specific disparities or problems you are seeing?
Yes. The issue I'm seeing all over the forums (just look at the Does Anybody Play a Fighter Thread) is a lack of things for martials to do. All they get is feats and a couple armor/weapon bonus, and all they can do on a turn is full attack.
I was being sincere and trying to be helpful, not sarcastic. I am trying to see what angle you are asking from. IF it is that you would like more options, then I can better help answer.
Martial characters do have a lot of options, it more that people do not know how to really use them. Saying something more than just "move and full attack" is kind of like saying why can't casters do anything besides cast spells. It isn't really that helpful to see what the issue you are having is.
As was mentioned, and I fully agree with, all the combat options are most powerful in the martial characters hands. But even further beyond that, martial characters are also the most resistant towards those attacks. Try having BBEG Disarm/Sunder/etc. . . Spell Components, Holy Symbols, Scrolls and Wands, or a Focus.
A few things I can suggest for adding more options are the Weapon Style Feats from 3.5 Complete Warrior, and other sources.
You know what? I think I got it. Feats. It's a martial character's bread and butter, and you have to spend half of them on useless feats that you need to qualify for better feats. Fix the prerequisites (DOWN WITH FEAT TREES!), and maybe the classes will have the fun versatility I'm looking for.
Time consuming, but it should be precisely what is needed to give martial classes the versatility I'm screaming for.
I think the ideal solution is to nerf the casters a bit. I don't mean significantly nerfing spells, but making the spellcasting a bit harder to do, easier to interrupt, a bit easier to resist. Basically, I'd push back toward making magic a bit more what it was back in the 1e/2e days.
I'll say right out that I like cyclical initiative in the way it makes managing the table easier. But it, combined with standard action spellcasting, are very easy on the caster compared to previous editions. I'd probably be interested in seeing more casting times that significantly slow the caster down to nothing more than 5 foot steps or even 1 round casting times as a higher proportion of spells than now. I'd raise the DCs on maintaining concentration for being hit. And I'd put all saves on a 1/2 level footing instead of the strong ones on 1/2, weak on 1/3.
I think those measures would help substantially and do so without significantly nerfing the scope of the spells being cast. Magic would still be reality warping, but the wizards and other major casters would have a harder time bringing it to bear.
This is actually the best idea I've seen. A friend of mine has been trying clunky methods of evening things out a little bit because he's obsessed with how godlike wizards are and when he dms he wants to try to smooth it over somehow. In the last game he actually changed the point buy system so that you received more points based upon how many core abilities your class required (so wizards and sorcerors really only rely upon their main casting ability score, and had a very low point buy, whereas monks, who need decent strength, dexterity, constitution, and wisdom, had a high point buy)
But I like your solution a lot. It's more...elegant. Plus it's easier to see the results of and decide if it needs tweaking. I like it!Beldhyr: The problem isn't raw damage. It's actually really hard to do raw damage. it's more "oh! black tentacles! Alright, you guys with swords go clean up a little bit, they're not going to be able to move for a few rounds so don't you worry about being hurt. just chop off their heads for me" :P
battlefield control is where wizards excel. To be honest damage spells are rarely worthwhile.
The issue isn't power, and I specifically said so. The issue is that martial classes lack anything other than full attacking every round at high levels. Well, except the Rogue. Rogues are completely suboptimal compared to pretty much everything. I don't want more damage, I want more versatility to make people stop complaining about the classes.
That sounds more like a roleplaying issue. Either your problem is your casters are using spells as a crutch to replace skills and abilities, or your martials aren't allocating any resources (magic items, feats, skills) to problem solving and adventuring means.
|
|
Also, are you looking for more combat style options, more out-of-combat (social/intrigue) options, everything, or just more (not power) umph?
I believe it was you that had a list of house rules that included the option to change out feats at every level or with a long rest? (I apologize if I am mixing you up with someone else). What about expanding upon that so that Martial characters can buy up a Feat Chain, to a point. Maybe along the lines of, once they have the 3rd Feat in the Chain, they can switch out the first (and any other Feats not directly related) for something else? Especially the ____, -> Improved ____, -> Greater ______, Super Master Invincible _______, Chains.
Another option might be to look at altering high level play to include having characters run and maintain lands and a head quarters, like a castle. These things are less Class dependant, and allow for Martial characters to be the other side of warriors as well, leading subordinates, training and maintaining their lands, etc, as well as to assume a sense of responcibilty and glory.
|
|
I think the ideal solution is to nerf the casters a bit. I don't mean significantly nerfing spells, but making the spellcasting a bit harder to do, easier to interrupt, a bit easier to resist. Basically, I'd push back toward making magic a bit more what it was back in the 1e/2e days.
I'll say right out that I like cyclical initiative in the way it makes managing the table easier. But it, combined with standard action spellcasting, are very easy on the caster compared to previous editions. I'd probably be interested in seeing more casting times that significantly slow the caster down to nothing more than 5 foot steps or even 1 round casting times as a higher proportion of spells than now. I'd raise the DCs on maintaining concentration for being hit. And I'd put all saves on a 1/2 level footing instead of the strong ones on 1/2, weak on 1/3.
I think those measures would help substantially and do so without significantly nerfing the scope of the spells being cast. Magic would still be reality warping, but the wizards and other major casters would have a harder time bringing it to bear.
This is actually the best idea I've seen. A friend of mine has been trying clunky methods of evening things out a little bit because he's obsessed with how godlike wizards are and when he dms he wants to try to smooth it over somehow. In the last game he actually changed the point buy system so that you received more points based upon how many core abilities your class required (so wizards and sorcerors really only rely upon their main casting ability score, and had a very low point buy, whereas monks, who need decent strength, dexterity, constitution, and wisdom, had a high point buy)
But I like your solution a lot. It's more...elegant. Plus it's easier to see the results of and decide if it needs tweaking. I like it!Beldhyr: The problem isn't raw damage. It's actually really hard to do raw damage. it's more "oh! black tentacles! Alright, you guys with swords go clean up a little bit,...
Nerfing casters isn't a viable solution, nor does it impact the perceived usefulness of the martials, it just...nerfs the casters.
|
|
Also, you could introduce more options for thing like Intimidate, Survival, and more "Martial" style skills, or Feats that work with/off-of those skills?
The other big thing to possibly try, is (again more playstyle) to add some more encounters in the average day. If you are having 3 or less, than obviously casters are better because they practically always have out their "big gun" spells. But if you increase the number to 5+ (rarely 6 or more), then that both forces Casters to rely on less powerful spells and also to need to conserve their powers more, (as the players now know that there might be something else later).
Both of these are appropriate. Also, remember that arcanists need 8 hours of rest, followed by an hourish of uninterupted study/meditation/etc. . ., or they do not replenish their spells. Surprize encounters, and the fact that they might need to contribute to taking a watch screw that up, (though I am not suggesting that this should be a common thing, it does happen).
My solution:
- Give martials theme-consistent abilities which add versatility.
- Embrace, via the mechanics, that level 6+ is the realm of superhumans.
All classes with no spell progression get +1 stat point at double the normal rate (1 per even level), from levels 7-12. Low magic hybrids (such as Paladins and Rangers) start this at level 12.
All classes with no spell progression get +1 stat point every level, from levels 13+. Low magic hybrids (such as Paladins and Rangers) don't get this.
Here's what I'd also give to fighters and rogues, as examples.
I'd also give to Barbarians and Monks and Cavaliers, and a bit of something to Rangers and Paladins.
Fighter
From levels 7-12, get 1 combat feat per level. Odd numbered levels give feats with no feat prereqs. Even numbered levels give feats with feat prereqs. This ensures the Fighter will have almost all the first feats in every combat feat tree, and also have specialization in one or more feat trees.
From levels 13+, get 2 combat feats per level with none of the above restrictions.
Rogue
From levels 7+, Sneak Attack goes up +1d6 per level.
From levels 13+, get a rogue trait per level. Advanced rogue traits are only available on even-numbered levels.
From level 8+ and every even level, select a feat whose only benefit is a bonus to skills.
At level 7 select a combat style from: Steal, Dirty Tricks, Feint, Gang-up, Betrayal. Each provides a feat at levels 7, 10, and 13. When using these combat style feats, treat BAB and CMB from Rogue levels as if they were full BAB instead of 3/4.
|
|
I suggested it in the other thread and I still think it's a workable idea although obviously it would require some testing to get the balance right but I was thinking of something like the skill trees from MMOs or in Diablo.
You could choose say one of three feats which would be fighting styles (fighters would get one by default or maybe they could pick 2 instead of one) but your choice would block out the other two and for the sake of simplicity we'll call the three Taunting Warrior, Defensive " ", Offensive " ".
Taunting would let you make three or four psychological combat maneuvers which give you battlefield control like bring the enemy to you, frighten the enemy when they attempt to move into your charge range, and feigned weakness which gives you an AoOp when anyone tries to hit you but a minor AC negative.
Defensive would give you things like parrying and ripostes as well as feints and something like endangered retreat which lets you take a 5ft step back when you are struck by a blow(this can interrupt full attack sequences) for either X/day or maybe once per combat iunno.
And then offensive would give you a lesser rage sort of ability where you can dump AC for dmg or to hit as well as a boost to bull rush and things like blinding strike - as a standard action you may specifically target a creatures eyes causing 1 rnd + 1rnd/3lvls of the blind condition.
The idea isn't to step into the realm of the magical but to increase utility and to increase options while maintaining the idea of being a melee combatant.
This all sounds very reminiscent of 4e, with it's various powers and stances--or, at the very least, the Tome of Battle: The Book of Nine Swords
Valmar: which was 4e alpha :P
the thing is, is that real people without magic cannot compare to the versatility of the magical infrastructure in place for casters without seeming like they're getting away from reality. We expect fighters to obey laws of physics. if they don't then they're pseudo casters. They can do amazing things within the laws, sure, but the fact is that we can't bring non-casters up to a high enough level of versatility, because once it gets anywhere near as versatile as magic, it begins to look either like a cheap cover up of a spell like ability, or downright silly! Making magic less of a panacea would help to make sure that casters don't always steal the spotlight.
Beating them over the head with the nerf bat is no fun though, can't take away good spells or anything, so simply altering the balance of the mechanics to make casting harder is not a bad thing at all!
I wouldn't. (except for changing the skills, I would increase skill points all around, more skills the better.)
Pathfinder and D&D in general are meant to be played as a cooperative group game. Wizards in the OD&D editions had 1-4 HP at first level and hit dice stopped before you got to those final 3 spell levels, so it took effort and lots of luck to reach those upper levels. They were all powerful back then because of said frailty. A Wizard's defense was making sure nothing lived long enough to damage him. A Wizard could 2 shot a dragon in 1e. Not at all likely now, since dragons have huge saves, hit points, and armor classes.
|
|
Valmar: which was 4e alpha :P
Basically, though I think I'm one of maybe ten people who've ever bought the book.
the thing is, is that real people without magic cannot compare to the versatility of the magical infrastructure in place for casters without seeming like they're getting away from reality. We expect fighters to obey laws of physics. if they don't then they're pseudo casters. They can do amazing things within the laws, sure, but the fact is that we can't bring non-casters up to a high enough level of versatility, because once it gets anywhere near as versatile as magic, it begins to look either like a cheap cover up of a spell like ability, or downright silly! Making magic less of a panacea would help to make sure that casters don't always steal the spotlight.
Beating them over the head with the nerf bat is no fun though, can't take away good spells or anything, so simply altering the balance of the mechanics to make casting harder is not a bad thing at all!
But, as it is, there's already tons of ways to disrupt/counter spell casting, and with their limited number of Spells/Day--unlike the limitless swings of a fighter--adding extra hoops for mages to jump through, and/or making casting even more difficult penalizes the casters for doing what they're supposed to be doing--being the versatile "go to" character who can fly the group to the top of the tower, or who can summon the ice storm, fireball, whatever--as and when needed.
As it is, the casters in my group all scream bloody murder once they're grappled or disrupted or fail to overcome SR, etc.
Again, I don't think you can nerf the casters as a "fair and balanced" way to offset the perceived restrictions of the martial characters.
But, just heaping more feats on top of martial classes is only a band-aid, it gives them a pile of feats to sort through, but in the end there's only so many ways they'll be able to utilize them, and they'll still probably be their full attack. And, I'm willing to bet that there'll be a "core" of feats that the player will routinely fall back on, there still won't be the round-to-round flexibility a caster has.
Even FASA's Earthdawn (circa 1991) tried to address this issue, and they did it through various "magical" abilities that each martial class had--so they were forced to leave the pure martial/"real" combat behind.
Overall, it worked fairly well, and I do like that system, but it's not quite applicable here--or, it's here in the form (more or less) of the Tome of Battle.
My solution:So, that said...
- Give martials theme-consistent abilities which add versatility.
- Embrace, via the mechanics, that level 6+ is the realm of superhumans.
All classes with no spell progression get +1 stat point at double the normal rate (1 per even level), from levels 7-12. Low magic hybrids (such as Paladins and Rangers) start this at level 12.All classes with no spell progression get +1 stat point every level, from levels 13+. Low magic hybrids (such as Paladins and Rangers) don't get this.
Here's what I'd also give to fighters and rogues, as examples.
I'd also give to Barbarians and Monks and Cavaliers, and a bit of something to Rangers and Paladins.Fighter
From levels 7-12, get 1 combat feat per level. Odd numbered levels give feats with no feat prereqs. Even numbered levels give feats with feat prereqs. This ensures the Fighter will have almost all the first feats in every combat feat tree, and also have specialization in one or more feat trees.
From levels 13+, get 2 combat feats per level with none of the above restrictions.Rogue
From levels 7+, Sneak Attack goes up +1d6 per level.
From levels 13+, get a rogue trait per level. Advanced rogue traits are only available on even-numbered levels.
From level 8+ and every even level, select a feat whose only benefit is a bonus to skills.
At level 7 select a combat style from: Steal, Dirty Tricks, Feint, Gang-up, Betrayal. Each provides a feat at levels 7, 10, and 13. When using these combat style feats, treat BAB and CMB from Rogue levels as if they were full BAB instead of 3/4.
I would embrace that level 13+ is the realm of super humans, 6+ is the realm of superior normal humans...Special Forces, Martial Arts masters, and ancient warriors that trained 10 or more hours per day.
Lemme get this straight..So rogues would have 16d6 sneak attack at level 20??? EACH ATTACK...Can I please make a bow rogue in your game??? 80d6 damage just from sneak attacks in 1 round...yeah that's balanced...
You do realize that
casters RUN OUT OF SPELLS??
Casters can be interrupted
Casters can be silenced
Casters can be deafened
Meta magic items are only useable 3 times per day and meta magic spells that counter these generally have to be prepared ahead of time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I was to do something..
First thing I'd do, is run pathfinder on more of a point buy system, like ADnD 2.5 did as they were going to 3rd edition.
After that, I'd allow mundanes become closer to super human abilities as they level up. Thats the biggest problem right now is that mundanes are only human, while magics are exploding with supernatural fury.
Things Like SR, DR and the like. Essentially think Epic level stuff, earlier, where I might not be able to cast blur, but my training in combat arts makes me look blurry.
Most importantly though is that we arn't running of a feat by feat system like pathfinder currently is. It doesn't matter how many thousands of feats you throw at it, the problem one be fixed.
And for that, Basically, I'd release the TOMB OF BATTLE-esc for higher level mundanes, who learn how to do crazy magic level combat techniques.
|
|
Valmar: which was 4e alpha :P
Basically, though I think I'm one of maybe ten people who've ever bought the book.
I don't know, Bo9S was very popular in my various groups, and honestly was one of the more amazing 3E books, I thought. Up there with Unearthed Arcana. If only 4th Ed would have actually been like it.
|
|
One way to deal with those: characters get a small pool of Save Points, which they can spend to blunt (if not negate) save-or-die/suck/lose effects. Spend on to lower an effect 'type': So petrification becomes paralyzation, paralyzation becomes stunned, stun becomes daze, etc. Like hitpoints for your very existence!
(I obviously have not thought this through all the way.)
I actually really like this idea. Concider this stolen. I'm thinking more of a temporary staving off of affects, though. Still, that is a really good idea.
I don't think casters use spells a crutch to replace skills. It's the other way around. Martial characters jump and climb because they can't fly. The only reason anybody EVER jumped, in D&D or real life, is because they were unable to fly.
The way I've always seen it is casters are at least as good at fighting stuff as martial characters, sometimes significantly better at skills and can turn their talents to anything. Martial characters fight and do very little else.
We need to completely forget the concept of martial characters. They need to simply be non-casting characters, with all kinds of abilities for all kinds of situations, whether on the battlefield or anywhere else.
That doesn't mean giving them power cards or named special attacks. It means that if a caster can fly up a wall, an equally powerful non-caster character should have the ability to run up it with no more chance of failure. Caster walks on water? Non-caster runs over it. Caster conjures up a gold chain out of raw materials? Non-caster makes one improbably fast and with consummate ease. Caster dominates, charms, summons and binds allies? Non-caster attracts legions of followers.
Easy, by reverting to something like AD&D. Where Casters have to take a full round action to cast; & martial characters can take a full-attack after a move.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Without nerfing spellcasters any? I've heard some suggestions, such as letting Fighters ignore some feat prerequisites or giving them more skill points, and I'd love to hear more. Personally, I really think it comes down to giving martial characters more versatility, not more power, as I feel that issues of versatility is where all the disparity comes from, but how does one go about doing this?
I like that you put "supposed" in the title of this thread ;-D
I have not really seen that disparity that is so often cited in any group I have played in based on class. If there was anything similar to that, it had nothing to do with the classes themselves, but was based on playstyle and the leaving out of factors/rules that limit the casters or allowing things like
- ignoring encumberance: "it's too annoying to keep track of it", and then a STR 7 wizard carries the 10000 gold pieces...
- concentration/spellcraft checks due to weather conditions, illumination etc.
- 15 minute-adventuring days: in another gaming group I am in there is a player who used to use all his high-level spells in the very first encounter. At about 9:15am (game time) he said the group needed to "rest" for the day since he was out of spells. A consolidated "hell no, we just got up 1 hour ago and we are on a tight schedule" taught him to do otherwise. But if we had followed his idea then yeah, the martials would have looked pretty dumb for having unlimited ressources which are not utilized...
- perfect meta-game knowledge: DM shows picture of monster, player immediately recognizes that that beast has perfect SR except against spells xxx and his caster, though he has never seen or heard of that beast and of course did not invest into knowledge skills, immediately uses the best spells for that instead of trying his usual combo which would have failed and make him lose a round
- the enemy does not gather information on you: No, never ever. Though the group (especially that mighty caster) is now level 15, widely known and has repeatedly killed minions or disrupted the plans of the BBEG, he is still completely surprised by their magic capabilities and does not prepare for it
Becket provided a lot of good input on why there may be this perceived disparity. I actually talked to my (primary) gaming group about this and they were just irritated by the notion of martials sucking or being inferior.
In my opinion the martials don't need a fix. They have different roles and different ways to shine. The whole game is geared towards having both casters and martials working together, so it's good enough for me.
I do agree with your idea about power not being an issue but versatility, though. Though I am fine with the way it is at the moment, this is certainly the one point that could be addressed (more skill points or such).
I also like the idea of higher saving throws that was put forward by someone else. If someone wanted a "quick" fix it would probably be cool.
Also I have seen (some time ago) someone propose that all spells have a casting time of at least full-round. That way casters are much less mobile and more in need of protection which in turn increases the importance of martials as body guards.
Have fun, and I am interested in further ideas in this thread :-)
Easy, by reverting to something like AD&D. Where Casters have to take a full round action to cast...
LOL - here I just write a long post about reading something like that a while ago, and then the one directly before me mentions it ;-D
I think the best way, which requires some paradigm shaking, is to do what those dungeon crawling video games have done for years:
Divorce the ability to cast spells from class.
Think about it--every character can attack, right? And every character has skills? Yes? What differentiates them is not the ability to do those things, but rather how well they do them.
You could have a Base Attack Bonus and a Basic Spell Bonus.
In dungeon crawling games, there are typically three classes--the Warrior (with good attacks and weak magic--but still some magic), the Wizard (with good magic and weak attacks), and the Rogue (with equal abilities in both). You could certainly take that as a base and expand on it to generate the same kind of variety Pathfinder has now.
I think it would work pretty well, actually.
How would I "fix" it?
Better GM support. Organize and clarify the existing rules that are meant to keep casters in check, and make it clear to both players and GMs how that works.
I don't have any problems with this in my game, and many will hasten to point out that this doesn't mean there isn't a problem. But the tools are there for the GM to manage the disparity (but probably not eliminate it) — they're just buried in the system so they're only available to expert and veteran GMs.