THe only problem is with invoking the term "mundane" is that it will be latched onto by the sort of people whose mindset is "non-caster = peon = of course they shouldn't be able to affect the world on the same scale, they're just mundanes."
Caster/Martial may not be perfect terminology, but it doesn't reflect that problem, or at least not to the same degree.
Is there a possibility of raising this thread from the dead after all?
If there is, it probably is to return to its original purpose, of ways to improve martials. It is not possible (or necessary) to try to resolve the dispute over whether people like Vancian casting (AKA D&D's magic system) or not, or squabbles over specific spells
There are ways of improving martials that have nothing to do with what is done to Casters. Note I don't say that nothing needs to be done about certain spells and certain abilities (I agree with what Kirth said), but that's an independent topic. There are ways in which martials need and can be helped.
The only thing discussing all the other stuff in this particular thread has accomplished is a repetitive churn of mutual bickering, from which no illumination can escape. And perhaps an increase in people's postcounts.
THus I humbly recommend a return to the original focus of the thread. That might produce more actual ideas. It's only a recommendation, mind; some people's preference scales rank the repetitive churn higher in their ordinal rankings. After all, this is the interwebs, and people need amusing diversions. But perhaps, for them, there are other threads to engage in a repetitive churn of mutual bickering in.
It's the colossal failure of the rule of cool; what's cool eventually creates problems that lead to uncool results.High level spells fall into this category, but those would be a relatively painless thing to fix. The more worrisome problem with high level play is the inability of the system to work with modifiers that approach or exceed the randomness of the game (i.e. as modifiers approach 20, the core game system breaks down).
There are a lot of things that one can do other than grant increasingly problematic modifiers. One possible option is to give a "mundane" a limited-use ability that does equivalent amounts of damage (to a single target of course) that a same-level wizard could produce. Alternatively, granting more abilities that produce bleed damage, adverse effects when the target is hit (staggering, panicked, etc...). However, these all suffer from the same issues that I pointed out that could be used against player characters in order to dramatically increase the lethality of the game.
...Ergo, the solution cannot be related to making martials better at killing, but rather, giving them lateral abilities that help to balance the playing field. This can make martials less martial, unless you distinctly keep those lateral abilities within the realms of what martial characters do; command and conquer.I think a better term than martial would honestly be mundanes versus casters. Rogues aren't really a martial character, but they're in the category of mundanes that need a serious leg up. Monks are not mundane, persay, given their access to some kinda/sorta supernatural abilities, but they also suffer from many of the same problems, exacerbated by design decisions that make their abilities work against each other rather than with each other.
I agree that "mundanes" need a leg up, but the problem lies in how to do so without breaking the system or without creating an arms race where casters then feel underpowered, and so they must be brought into balance again. On some level, I do understand the sentiment that casters could be dialed back a little (and I wouldn't be morally opposed to it), but it should not be the primary focus. It seems to be, what with the major threadjack.
One possible option is to give a "mundane" a limited-use ability that does equivalent amounts of damage (to a single target of course) that a same-level wizard could produce.
"The marmot is not the issue, Walter! They're going to cut off my Johnson!"
Giving mundanes the ability to do more damage won't fix anything that's wrong with them, and doesn't address any of the real system imbalances.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bodhizen:
Agreed, though I'd like to point out that the martial enemy one-shotting a player isn't that far off from the magical enemy that is already one-shotting players. :)
Nem-Z & Kthulhu:
I liked a lot of the ideas of 4E, including the way the fighter played his role as party defender so well. They experimented with a lot of novel and clever ideas. But at the end of the day I agree that the overall execution of 4E failed. Too few people liked it -- I have a stack of 4E books collecting dust because people want to play Pathfinder instead. 4E was a bit too ambitious, changed too much too blindly, felt too little like D&D and too much like an MMO, etc. That's too bad, since I had a lot of fun with some of the changes despite the flaws.
I do think we can learn something from 4E though: Fighter had a lot of tools on his belt that actually did stuff. He wasn't just a stat & feat fridge with more space for lackluster magnets and bad children's drawings. The fighter had several paths he could take that worked very well for him, and he was designed right out of the box to be a proper and effective party defender. He had the ability to stop enemy movement, pull hate onto himself and away from his allies, etc. If you want to even begin to do that with Pathfinder's fighter and feat system, expect to spend lots of feats AND wait until level 12 or so. It's that taboo. I'm guessing the defender role isn't very popular in the Pathfinder crowd (my GM hates it and has effectively banned defender-like feats), or at the very least the developers don't care for it.
But here's the point I'm trying to make: 4E tried to add well-defined features to its fighter because that's what the fighter was lacking. Maybe they botched 4E overall, but they recognized the problem facing martial classes. Players were told they could swing a sword or fire arrows, and here, have some lackluster feats that do nothing compared to the god caster next to them. So the developers tried some very experimental fixes, and I liked a lot of what they tried.
They also greatly weakened spellcasters, to many people's chagrin.
I don't think we have to go that far to fix martial vs caster disparity in pathfinder. But something ought to be done, like fixing the martial feat tree and giving martials more skills and fun & effective features. "I cast spells" is apparently the only class feature people on these forums consistently think is worth while. And some people seem to think if you're not a full caster, you should just go home. That kind of domination screams of failure to properly design the classes, or at least upkeep the power balance sanely. Original design or power creep, something is flawed here.
An aside:
Of course, as others have suggested, I suspect that time management also comes into play. Medium- and high-level spellcasters are literal gods of time and space if they're allowed a 15-minute work day. Too many people optimize for that easy campaign with a rest stop every few steps, whether it's something the GM gives them or one they create.
But this is not a video game. A wise GM uses enemy behavior and time pressures to encourage the party to manage its resources carefully and stick it out before taking a full rest, or bad things happen. Hostages are killed while they're away, enemy won while they slept, enemy reacted to their initial attack and improved its preparations, enemy skipped town with the magic items, Mordenkainen's Arcane Dynamo (which the party was supposed to reach and fix in time) destabilized and sucked half the plane into nothingness, etc.
This doesn't solve everything, but a good portion of disparity comes from spellcasters having more god spells than they can reasonably cast in a single encounter, and they're in a rush to blast out as much power as they can at once. However, if they know it's going to be a long day, they won't waste all their ammo on one battle and the team works more uniformly as a natural product. This might involve lowering the difficulty of each battle slightly so the casters don't have to burst, but even if that's necessary it can certainly be done.
Sprinting vs Distance Running are very different challenges. And most casters expect (even demand) sprinting, claiming a TPK is on the horizon unless they can rest between encounters. A distance run changes the game, and once players learn to expect an endurance challenge, they manage their energy reserves differently and that TPK isn't the threat it seemed to be.
Porphyrogenitus:
Agreed. I think martial classes can be made more interesting and effective, independent of what the casters are doing. We don't have to nerf casters. 4E tried radical changes and made a lot of people mad. Pathfinder took a more conservative approach and fixed a few things, but not enough. Some of the non-core classes like Gunslinger and Cavalier have taken that route, but with very specific focuses (and I've not played those classes, so I don't know how successful they were). Maybe fixing the fighter will look more like that.
.....
If I disappear for a bit, I'm dodging assassination attempts. One does not claim "4E had some good ideas despite the bad ones" in these forums and live to tell the tale. I need to move my family to a secure location. ;)
Bodhizen:
Agreed, though I'd like to point out that the martial enemy one-shotting a player isn't that far off from the magical enemy that is already one-shotting players. :)
True as that may be, the arms race is undesirable.
One possible option is to give a "mundane" a limited-use ability that does equivalent amounts of damage (to a single target of course) that a same-level wizard could produce."The marmot is not the issue, Walter! They're going to cut off my Johnson!"
Giving mundanes the ability to do more damage won't fix anything that's wrong with them, and doesn't address any of the real system imbalances.
This is only true from a certain perspective. Please note that I do not propose it as a solution, merely a single option for resolving inbalance issues. It would only be useful as a part of a more comprehensive solution. As I do not claim to have that more comprehensive solution at this time, I proposed it as an option and immediately qualified it with obvious downsides.
Hey Kirth, I'm ignoring most of the bickering and abuse of the term 'house rule' going on elsewhere in this thread, but I wanted to let you know I was really taken by the idea of narrative power. I came up with an archetype that essentially changes the fighter (while still allowing a wide selection of other archetypes to still be chosen) into a class that can select both combat and narrative powers, just like the spellcasters can.
I need more talents, but I tried to incorporate a lot of your ideas in to the mix. Let me know if the link doesn't work for those who haven't signed up on the forums, it should be public.
i see a few that worry me from like the 3rd size matters not
player take a large race and vital strikes
but i like were your going with it
I came up with an archetype that essentially changes the fighter (while still allowing a wide selection of other archetypes to still be chosen) into a class that can select both combat and narrative powers, just like the spellcasters can.
Thanks for the nod, and for the link, Kain. Obviously I like the direction you're headed in, but I think the execution could be polished. Specifically, the talent choices listed are wildly imbalanced against each other. "Commander" is extremely potent, scales with level (maybe a bit too much so), but overall pretty much does what you want it to do. Contrast that with "+4 to AC vs. AoO," which doesn't scale, doesn't do much at all, and exists as a roadblock against getting other talents further up the chain.
Lock, I think if you are allowing Large races into the game, you are already going to be making certain accommodations. Not to mention I doubt you can find a Colossal greatsword just laying around. Nor at Ye Olde Sword Shoppe.
But I do agree there are concerns there. The bigger idea there was to allow the fighters to grapple massive dragons and giants and such.
Kain: I like what you're doing. As mentioned, it needs balancing and more narrative, but it's a great start. I'm happy when people set out to try solutions (even when they risk fantastic failure) -- it's a lot more productive than arguing about tangents that don't get us closer to our goal. ;)
Kirth mentions the Mobility-like talent doesn't really match or scale with other talents, and others scale too well. I wonder if one problem is that some of these talents should be moved into a separate class feature. For example, the fighter has a list of decent talents, but he also chooses a Prowess (let's call it that for now for argument).
So at 1st and every even level the fighter picks up a Talent, but at first level he picks up an Prowess which will stay with him throughout his career and auto-scale. Or merge all talents with prowess. Prowesses could look like this:
*Commander: Your talent with words and ability to influence and lead gives you +2 to Diplomacy and Intimidate. You gain Leadership as a bonus feat. In addition, at 4th level, you gain X dedicated followers (independent of Leadership)... etc (scales ala Commander talent).
*Martial Paragon: Your purpose is to become the pinnacle of martial prowess. This path will give weapon training, combat feat swapping, fear effects, daze, stun, etc. Just as importantly, it grants the ability to strongly influence people, enemies and nations with your reputation, which goes from noted to famous to legendary.
*Shadowblade: This prowess gives stealth, sneaking, bluff, manipulation, hitting foes with surprising reach. You find hidden doors easily and are able to create a way out of trouble for you and your allies.
*Larger than Life: Gives the ability to wield large weapons, intimidate, smash through obstacles, etc.
*Bulwark: You take punishment better, and protect allies well. This includes AC, saves, more OAs per round, temporary DR effects, eventually some permanent DR, etc. You have a network of like-minded associates who will assist you and the party in finding shelter, achieving goals, and saving lives.
One thing to note about such a system though, is it detracts a bit from the fighter being a generalist who can go in any direction. If we were playing a robot game like Armored Core or Front Mission 4, the fighter would be the multi-slot chassis that has little built in but tons of optional slots. The problem in Pathfinder is the feats that go into those slots often don't measure up with a chassis that has few options but lots of built-in support. Or the spellcaster chassis that is playing a completely different game, for some reason. ;)
But to end that analogy, let me just say that my idea does limit that capacity to some extent (for better or for worse).
Grappling massive dragons would be great. ;) Combat Maneuvers just don't work at all against too many foes.
Looks like my post taking them to task and asking where we stood was also removed. Guess I should have used the "flag" link instead. :) I'll keep that in mind.
Thank you very much.
I came up with an archetype that essentially changes the fighter (while still allowing a wide selection of other archetypes to still be chosen) into a class that can select both combat and narrative powers, just like the spellcasters can.Thanks for the nod, and for the link, Kain. Obviously I like the direction you're headed in, but I think the execution could be polished. Specifically, the talent choices listed are wildly imbalanced against each other. "Commander" is extremely potent, scales with level (maybe a bit too much so), but overall pretty much does what you want it to do. Contrast that with "+4 to AC vs. AoO," which doesn't scale, doesn't do much at all, and exists as a roadblock against getting other talents further up the chain.
Yeah, most of the talents atm are just brainstorming.
I'm not quite certain which direction to move in with regards to the design. Taking the Risk Taker chain as an example:
The lesser version is superior to Mobility, right off the bat. The chain itself provides a solid host of abilities for fighters who don't mind provoking AoOs. They have higher defenses against the AoOs, eventually culminating with a counter attack.
Now, would it be out of order to simply have the ability upgrade automatically after taking Risktaker? I don't know, but I was looking towards the Barbarian rage powers (which come in chains) to generally guide me in the ideal power level.
With more narrative powers, I didn't have an extant baseline to compare them to, so they might have ended up 'better' as a result. I'm sure you recognize most of them as rewrites of your Endurance Skill and the initial offerings you made.
One of the design goals for the archetype is to provide something that could be added in without errataing any existing fighter. Technically, the 'core' fighter is now just a talented fighter who took all of his talents as feats.
That's why I didn't put your really well written endurance skill in as a skill, but as a talented fighter level check. I like it better as a skill, but that's errata/houserules.
One thing I think should be added to all fighters is the assess prowess talent and the feat switch with hour of drill practice. These would immediately separate mere warriors (and even PC class martials) from fighters.
Hey Kirth, I'm ignoring most of the bickering and abuse of the term 'house rule' going on elsewhere in this thread, but I wanted to let you know I was really taken by the idea of narrative power. I came up with an archetype that essentially changes the fighter (while still allowing a wide selection of other archetypes to still be chosen) into a class that can select both combat and narrative powers, just like the spellcasters can.
I need more talents, but I tried to incorporate a lot of your ideas in to the mix. Let me know if the link doesn't work for those who haven't signed up on the forums, it should be public.
Overall, a good effort and starting point. I agree with Kirth's misgivings about relative balance among the talents, however.
Leaving the option for combat feats means that some players will pick through the strong combat talents and then go back to classic fighter feats while ignoring anything that would give them narrative power. "But casters can have all combat or all narrative spells!" you argue. The "most powerful" casters can change these from day to day however. A martial needs to have both all the time to approach similar versatility. Make that a downside of casters: they are forced to choose between the two.
Some martial players I'm sure are accustomed to minmaxing combat effectiveness (usually offense) and ignoring all other aspects of their character. Let them retain all their bonus feats and make talents a pure addition (we are after all, trying to make them suck less, not just give them more options to sift through). Every 3rd or 4th level should do it. Then just take care that talents only give defensive ability (primarily vs. spells and the environment), narrative power, or maybe battlefield control options. As long as talents are tied to the action economy, this will increase action diversity in combat without making the full-attack any more powerful than it already is. These martial talents should be available to all classes with a full BAB, although individually flavored talents might require a specific class. With that model, players could pick their role(s) besides straight damage without it interfering with that sacred primary role.
The Size Matters Not tree I feel should be moved into feats because they directly increase DPR. I do like the concept though.
I don't like the damage-come-from-X-stat talents either. Conceptually, damage comes from either brute force or precise targeting, not from stage presence or a sharp wit. Int is almost reasonable as an alternative to dexterity for precision damage, but wisdom and charisma are way out there. I feel that martial damage should remain in the realms of physical stats to prevent abuse and bad flavor.
I like the array of defensive options you've come up with. I'd like to see more activated abilities going forward. As interesting as the commander idea is, more narrative concepts are also needed although I'm not sure where to start to be honest.
This is all meant in the spirit of constructive criticism. I hope it helps :)
Pandora: I actually like merging wisdom or intelligence with melee damage, at least thematically. It may be too exploitable to completely replace strength with it though. I just think a wise or clever fighter being able to exploit that in other ways would be great. I'm not sure which way to take that though... :/
Maybe wisdom or intelligence determining the number of times the fighter can use certain feats or class features per day, or the DC. For example, dazing attacks, extra distance on a 5-foot step, skill check to gain followers, etc.
I dunno. We also don't want to make the class MAD as hell. :)
Leaving the option for combat feats means that some players will pick through the strong combat talents and then go back to classic fighter feats while ignoring anything that would give them narrative power.
I feel that I don't care about this. Not that you aren't making a valid concern, but if the lack of a fighter/martial is lack of narrative power for their character, and they choose not to take that option, how is that any different from the wizard who fills every spell slot with magic missile and fireball?
That's a serious question, by the way. My answer thus far is "It's not, really." If you have a different answer, and reasons for that, I'm absolutely happy to listen and change my approach. Before hearing Kirth, my response to 'fighters are weak' was 'no they're not'. Largely based on Coriat and his fellow fighter's insane combat damage.
However, I agree that you shouldn't be mechanically boned for taking narrative options. Charm monster provides you with a potential high powered ally. The talented fighter's fearsome prowess pretty much turns mooks into your mooks, and prevents even lower leveled threats from moving against you. (Keep in mind, this simply changes the baseline of DM input on the matter. It is still possible that none of the fighters will engage you in melee, or that they will break and run, just like it is possible that a huge summoned monster will cause foes to break and run.) Commander gives you your own army, but also bonuses on mass combat. So even the more 'narrativey' powers have some mechanical backing. Is it enough? I don't know.
Some narration I think ought to be held in the DM's hands and not a player's choice. Kirth for instance, provided a noble title to the fighter. I like titles. I like the idea of my players getting them. I don't like the idea that all 9th level fighters are noble, and I don't even like the idea that a player can simply take that, rather than get it as a background or reward. So it's definitely something I think a fighter should be able to do, but in the same way that I think he should be able to slay a dragon. Something to accomplish with his character, not select for his character.
It's easy with a standard 20 point buy to go 16/10/16/10/10/10 or 10/16/16/10/10/10, slap on racial mods, and call it a day. Or even 16/14/14 if you want more AC/initiative. Fighters and barbarians really aren't that MAD.
The Guided property irks me slightly but if it were restricted to monk weapons/unarmed attack enhancers, it works thematically and helps a class that truly is MAD. From a wizard player, no class needs to get casting stats to damage, period. Summoners, alchemists, and magi especially would get way too much from that. Locking it behind a full BAB progression seems a bit arbitrary too.
What is the goal? Better will saves? Bump it directly. More skill points? Give fighters more than that absurd 2+int/level. Social options? Make social skills class skills.
I've had 'Weapon Finesse' style feats for every single stat except Constitution in my game, and none of them were seen as overpowered. Spellcasters frequently pass them up, and our fighters are definitely strength based.
The talent line is essentially to allow a fighter to avoid being locked into the 'super strong' guy. He's still going to be down in damage or options from the strong guy who takes those talents to do something else, but the concept is no longer hosed. Same as the cunning fighter or the dashing swashbuckler. Ultimately, it frees a fighter up from being locked into some predetermined 'viable' array. Two handed strong smashers are still going to be ruling the damage day.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel that I don't care about this. Not that you aren't making a valid concern, but if the lack of a fighter/martial is lack of narrative power for their character, and they choose not to take that option, how is that any different from the wizard who fills every spell slot with magic missile and fireball?That's a serious question, by the way. My answer thus far is "It's not, really." If you have a different answer, and reasons for that, I'm absolutely happy to listen and change my approach. Before hearing Kirth, my response to 'fighters are weak' was 'no they're not'. Largely based on Coriat and his fellow fighter's insane combat damage.
I addressed that vaguely in my initial response. A prepared caster (usually used as the comparison point here) may know that the day's activities consist of a dungeon crawl and nothing else, and therefore loads up on black tentacles and fireballs. He may plan to spend the day trying to sway local political opinions, and prepare mass charm person and illusion spells. If a smart caster doesn't know what he'll be faced with, he'll use some diversity. The point is, he can change his options from day to day. Even sorcerers get far more discrete abilities (spells known) than a fighter does (feats). Many fighting styles require deep feat trees to function well, such as my player's two-weapon whip style. It's effective, but he has not a feat to spare. Given the choice of half-baked combat effectiveness and narrative powers vs. actually achieving your role, what would you choose? My point is that they shouldn't have to. Again, I like the idea that casters must choose as a weak point of theirs. Fighters are intrinsically good at everything they're good at, and don't rely on a days notice to be prepared.
In addition, I want the system to encourage roleplaying. Some players might be happy playing a straight-forward combat machine, but I feel that doesn't add to the overall experience. Giving them "ability slots" of some kind that must be filled with something besides DPR and combat maneuvers encourages storytelling. Is that the system's right to encourage? I don't know. Do I wish that it did that? Definitely.
I do agree with your last sentiment completely. I even take that a step farther and apply that mentality to abilities. When my players reach high levels, they will not look like anything out of the core rulebook. They will have truly unique powers that reflect their character reaching the apex of who they are. I just want martials to have similar amounts of narrative power to casters.
I see what you are saying. I'm not comparing a fighter who takes all combat talents to a wizard who only prepares their combat spells.
I'm comparing him to a wizard (or sorcerer) who only takes combat spells for their spells known/written.
What is it that keeps the spellcaster from loading up solely on un-narrative power? How do they keep getting narrative power if it is mechanically sub-optimal for combat?
Come on now. Saying "it's not appropriate for a 5hd creature to have wish because it inappropriately affects game balance" is not a house rule, it's a completely valid interpretation of the spell and the creature. Saying "it is appropriate for a 5hd creature to have wish because wish is not HD based" is ALSO a completely valid intepretation of the rules, it's not a house rule.
Marthkus, Rynjin's statement are not a house rule. They're a valid interpretation.
Rynjin, your interpretation is not the only RAW interpretation.
The problem with Simulacrum is that it is so badly written, that anything could be a valid rule. Nowhere says what does a 5hd Genie have. Let's agree for a moment it doesn't have the ability to grant wishes (Which is no the same than casting wishes by himself). So, what about Plane Shift? Wall of Fire? Quickened Scorching ray? How do you know what's "appropiated for a 5hd creature"? You can't use it's racial HD as hypothetical HD. Because, you know, Wish is NOT appropiated for a 10hd creature either, and it has it. Or Quickened Scorching ray (which is a 6th level spell, which should be casted by a 11th level wizard, also beyond 10hd).
Let's say I make a 11hd Solar. Can he cast wish? Is wish appropiated SLA for a 11hd creature? If the answer is no... then why Efreet has 3? What if I copy a Jannissair, wich would be 6hd? Can he cast wish? What if I copy an advanced jannissair, or a Sultan? Which other SLA does the 11hd Solar has? Can he cast PW: kill? And PW: stun? Can he Animate objects, or Earthquake, or Blade barrier? Is SR 34 appropiated for 11hd? If not, what amount is appropiated? And DR 15/epic? What about several immunities and high resistances? What about his (Su) ability to shoot Slaying Arrows? Let's say I copy a Balor. Can he give the Vorpal ability to his sword? What about Marilith, does it give +1 enhancement to it's swords?
Let's say I copy the Tarrasque. Does it have regeneration 40 as 15hd creature? If not... what does it have? None? 20? What about Caparace? Does 15hd tarrasques have caparace?
Let's go back to the fact a 13th level wizard, playing in a setting like Forgotten realms, could, with the proper feats, magic items and spells, raise it's CL temporary to the point he can simulacrum La Simbul, Elminster, or one of the Thay Wizards, which have levels around 36 in that settings. There you go... your own instant lvl 18 companion! Access to 9th level spells, at level ... 13!
Simulacrum IS poorly written. It's a bad spell, because it is easily abusable by the Player AND the GM. The ruling about it is awful.
I see what you are saying. I'm not comparing a fighter who takes all combat talents to a wizard who only prepares their combat spells.
I'm comparing him to a wizard (or sorcerer) who only takes combat spells for their spells known/written.
What is it that keeps the spellcaster from loading up solely on un-narrative power? How do they keep getting narrative power if it is mechanically sub-optimal for combat?
A wizard who writes only combat spells is either foolish or tying his hands due to a gentleman's agreement or roleplaying. Since he isn't burdened down by them in combat, the only downside to possessing them is a small write-in cost which should be near trivial. I just can't imagine anyone doing that.
Sorcerers get to relearn some spells as they progress, potentially turning combat spells into utility/narrative ones. As this 13-page whinefest of a thread has shown, most people think a decent full-caster should be able to trivialize 5 encounters a day without burning through his top 3 levels of spell slots. Even if a sorcerer did go straight combat spells (not incredibly wise but far more understandable than the wizard), he still can use narrative spells through a staff or scroll far easier than a martial could.
Unfortunately many narrative spells don't give up much combat potential. I don't feel more talk about Simulacrum is necessary. Teleport is a fantastic escape option, and scry-n-fry kills both encounters and narratives. A divine caster burning a slot or two for commune/divination is less optimal, but can still give life-saving hints about upcoming encounters. Illusions spells can be used to mess with Big Stupid Beasty as easily as they can be made to quickly evacuate a countryside with a "dragon." Dominate person turns that pesky warlord stopping all your plans into an extra fighter, massage therapist, and heated footstool. The list goes on.
Ok. So what I'm hearing is that for a sorcerer or wizard, the opportunity cost is very low to gain narrative effect potential, which they can use or ignore at their leisure.
With 11 talents and 10 feats over 20 levels, the opportunity cost for a Talented Fighter to select something narrative instead of combative is too high, even if that narrative provides something as useful as an army, or the inability to be meaningfully threatened by opponents 2 levels lower than you or below.
Is that correct?
I want to say that I am in favor of that heated footstool. :D
So one problem that keeps coming up with Fighter, in one variant or another, is that he has minimal skill points and no class features for narrative control. Perhaps a solution is to not try to replace the fighter's combat feats with anything; instead, let him keep all of them. But increase his skill points, and let him pick a narrative feature in addition to his feats. He's still weaker than a spellcaster because feats and a narrative power don't compete with the spell variety and power of a full caster, but now he has far more options.
To make him choose between combat prowess vs narrative power from day to day, you could do something like give him a daily martial pool that he can spend on nice combat bonuses or on his narrative effects.
But what narrative powers would a martial character have, alongside his normal feats?
Depends on the fighter. A greatsword-wielding brute won't miss those feats nearly as much, especially before level 10, but weren't we trying to move away from that being the dominant archetype? Specialized fighters can genuinely have not enough feats in 20 levels. Considering most games don't go past level 12, their outlook further declines. And that's for a feat-swamped fighter. How about paladins, rangers, and monks? The army is also likely to be banned out by GMs as it is essentially Leadership on 'roids, and Leadership is frequently banned.
If we're working on the assumption that martials are too weak, why force an opportunity cost on them at all? Is there a reason you're opposed to talents being given as a less frequent but additional ability?
Its kinda why I've got the prestigious style feats I'm developing. While they don't exactly address the need for more skill points for fighters (Fighters should get 4+int) It does help against some what of a feat swamped fighter by giving them a feat that grows with them.
My current need is to start putting non-combative uses within the PSF as well.
But what narrative powers would a martial character have, alongside his normal feats?
That is...the right question. Current brainstorm:
Paladin's Call
When a paladin speaks of danger, even crimelords and tyrants pay heed.
When faced with a clear and present danger, all humanoids of CR/level equal to or lower than the paladin will aid her in the defense of life and lands. This effect lasts until the danger has passed or the paladin is defeated by the threat. This is not a magical effect.
Tell the World
"The monks spread our message. They would not stop until the world knew of its importance."
A monk with a message or delivery of dire importance (GM is the final arbiter of what qualifies) taps into strength no one imagined possible. Sustained by her ki, she may run at full speed without stopping for anything except water for a number of days equal to her constitution score or until the message or item is delivered to all who need hear.
(This ability also known as "!@#$ you, Overland Flight")
Famed Mercenary
This guy is a sure thing. He knows how to get the job done.
All authority figures who could reasonably have heard of you (GM is the final arbiter) know of your reputation as a competent hire. Anyone seeking to hire a mercenary or adventurer and is within two steps of your alignment prefers to give you the job. Due to the added security of hiring you and the fierce competition over your time, they are willing to increase rewards by 50%.
Friend of the Wilds
Many think animals stupid. They, at least, know who is their friend.
No true neutral creature will attack you under any circumstances except personal harm to them or to a creature in their care. This includes magical compulsion. You may attempt a Handle Animal check (DC 15+caster level of the effect) to break any such creature from magical control.
Some of my current thoughts. Do they require a lot of GM interpretation? Yeah, but that's how narrative abilities go. Sadly, it really is difficult to compete with "It's magic!" Fortunately, several of the above abilities can't be emulated with anything but a Wish or Miracle.
We're talking about how to improve martials now???
*checks to see if hell has frozen over*
Ok now I could argue how martials are fine and we should leave them alone, but then I read the title of thread...
So here is my more conservative approach to fixing martials.
Better feats and a rework of the skill system.
Now I have no idea what would be appropiate for skills, but I think we can all agree that they could have more umpf and applications both in and out of combat.
I feel that combat feats are under-powered. I think we should do away with many feat chains and instead have some feats scale with BAB. Better feats would help the fighter and other kinds of martials.
For example two weapon fighting, improved two weapon fighting, and Greater TWF could all be one feat that gives you more attacks as your BAB increases.
The weapon focus tree could stand to be one feat that scales with fighter level.
The Vital strike chain could stand to be one feat that works for all single attack actions.
Cleave, great cleave, cleaving finish, improved cleaving finish could all be one feat.
Dodge and mobility should be the same feat.
And so forth.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We're talking about how to improve martials now???
*checks to see if hell has frozen over*
Ok now I could argue how martials are fine and we should leave them alone, but then I read the title of thread...
So here is my more conservative approach to fixing martials.
Better feats and a rework of the skill system.
Now I have no idea what would be appropiate for skills, but I think we can all agree that they could have more umpf and applications both in and out of combat.
I feel that combat feats are under-powered. I think we should do away with many feat chains and instead have some feats scale with BAB. Better feats would help the fighter and other kinds of martials.
For example two weapon fighting, improved two weapon fighting, and Greater TWF could all be one feat that gives you more attacks as your BAB increases.
The weapon focus tree could stand to be one feat that scales with fighter level.
The Vital strike chain could stand to be one feat that works for all single attack actions.
Cleave, great cleave, cleaving finish, improved cleaving finish could all be one feat.
Dodge and mobility should be the same feat.
And so forth.
i agree with this wholeheartedly with the following additions
permanent magic enhancement bonuses of the big 6 variety should be an inherent feature of leveling up rather than part of an item
leadership should be a passive feature of having a decent charisma
weapon finesse, agile manuevers, the agile weapon property and dervish dance should be merged into one feat that affects all finessable weapons and allows both the use of shields, the use of finessable 2handers, and the use of dual wielding
dual wielding bonuses shouldn't be halved for the offhand
2handed should double instead of 1.5x
move + full attack should be an option
keen+improved critical should stack
power attack, deadly aim, pirahna strike, combat reflexes, heighten spell, rhino charge, and such should be bonus feats
one should be able to ready full round actions
skill checks should be able to mimic appropriate spells, like the more ranks you invest in the heal skill, the stronger version of an at will cure spell it will mimic, or diplomacy can eventually evolve into an at will version of suggestion and that then scales into at will dominate monster.
But what narrative powers would a martial character have, alongside his normal feats?That is...the right question. Current brainstorm:
Paladin's Call
When a paladin speaks of danger, even crimelords and tyrants pay heed.
When faced with a clear and present danger, all humanoids of CR/level equal to or lower than the paladin will aid her in the defense of life and lands. This effect lasts until the danger has passed or the paladin is defeated by the threat. This is not a magical effect.Tell the World
"The monks spread our message. They would not stop until the world knew of its importance."
A monk with a message or delivery of dire importance (GM is the final arbiter of what qualifies) taps into strength no one imagined possible. Sustained by her ki, she may run at full speed without stopping for anything except water for a number of days equal to her constitution score or until the message or item is delivered to all who need hear.
(This ability also known as "!@#$ you, Overland Flight")Famed Mercenary
This guy is a sure thing. He knows how to get the job done.
All authority figures who could reasonably have heard of you (GM is the final arbiter) know of your reputation as a competent hire. Anyone seeking to hire a mercenary or adventurer and is within two steps of your alignment prefers to give you the job. Due to the added security of hiring you and the fierce competition over your time, they are willing to increase rewards by 50%.Friend of the Wilds
Many think animals stupid. They, at least, know who is their friend.
No true neutral creature will attack you under any circumstances except personal harm to them or to a creature in their care. This includes magical compulsion. You may attempt a Handle Animal check (DC 15+caster level of the effect) to break any such creature from magical control.Some of my current thoughts. Do they require a lot of GM interpretation? Yeah, but that's how narrative abilities go. Sadly, it really is difficult to compete with "It's magic!" Fortunately, several of the above abilities can't be emulated with anything but a Wish or Miracle.
I like these.
I'm also all for a rewrite of skills, especially to make them less mundane. IMO above a certain bonus (15 as a soft cut-off point?) all skills should have a pseudo-magical effects.
Climb should grant a Climb speed equal to the bonus (essentially making Climb checks a thing of the past, and making Spider Climb more of an augment to the guy with Climb and a small boost to others rather than a spell that obsoletes said skill), and Swim do the same for Swim speed.
Intimidate should be able to impart more than just Shaken, characters should be able to instill pants wetting terror in people at higher bonuses/checks that exceed the DC by X amount, and cause weak creatures to either turn tail and run (Panicked) or throw down their wepaons and surrender, even join you.
Acrobatics should allow you to "leap tall buildings in a single bound" at high levels, and let characters balance on leaves and clouds (hell, Ninjas can do this already).
And so on. If skills did things almost magical in nature, maybe less reliable and spectacular in some ways, but unlimited, some simple spells wouldn't be as much of an issue.
I really want to be able to use my strength score to jump.
Yeah, that'd be good for some classes. At least as a Feat, maybe as a class feature for Fighters and Barbarians?
hmmm maybe a feat that allows you to add strength to acrobatics checks in addition to dex.
Or a feat that allows you to make acrobatics jump checks only, but with your strength score and a scaling bonus to the roll. Thus not requiring skill point investment.
I'm still convinced that the way to fix it is to force casters to pick a specialty to the exclusion of other options
Fully agreed. This is the WAY OF DA FUTAHHH
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Remember that Kirth's granting narrative goodies to fighters is based on 1E, where you didn't get a noble title until you founded a castle and called for your followers. No castle, no title, no nobility. And if something wasn't around to grant you the title and lands, you had to go out into the wilds and clear them for yourself.
So, it wasn't automatic.
There are spells that need to be nerfed. There always are. Spellcasters get their power from spells, and spells can be as wildly varying in power as feats.
Non-magical characters should get anti-magical defenses the same way spellcasters get defenses against mundane attacks. But making magic-immune creatures is a nerf-scream, while making melee-immune creatures draws very little attention. It's a double standard.
Magic didn't dominate in 1E because it got less effective with level...basically, the only thing that improved was blaster damage. Spells were just less and less successful.
The reverse is true here. Not only are the spells more powerful as you level, but the chance of them working goes UP, not down. That's an incredible growth in power when dealing with SOS effects.
Melee, on the other hand, tends to have relative damage ability go down over time, and ability to affect the combat in other ways shrinks even faster.
It's a very double standard, and yes indeed, something needs to be done about it.
==Aelryinth
At the core of the issue is that each martial character is meant to represent a single martial trope, while each caster gets to represent more or less all spellcasting tropes there is.
At the core of the issue is that each martial character is meant to represent a single martial trope, while each caster gets to represent more or less all spellcasting tropes there is.
Um, excuse me, perhaps you haven't heard of school specialization? My conjurer is slightly less efficient at raising the dead than some wizards are, and needs to dedicate at least like two spells per day to the extremely limited "do stuff" school.
Since he gets a bonus spell, that means his 'two spells' just puts him back to being a 'normal wizard' instead of a 'specialist'. Except the normal wizard can't suddenly pick up a lot of bonus spells.
Not a valid argument.
==Aelryinth
Non-magical characters should get anti-magical defenses the same way spellcasters get defenses against mundane attacks. But making magic-immune creatures is a nerf-scream, while making melee-immune creatures draws very little attention. It's a double standard.
Weird I do not remember having an arcane caster with more than 10 AC after level 10.
Likewise most enemies in our High level encounters had SR.
They also had decent AC too.
Not to mention DR and energy resistance.
Which your casters all conveniently ignored or found ways around, right? Unless they were built very, very poorly.
And AC 10? Are you serious? If so, you have a very atypical game. And when was the last time a wizard was concerned about the AC or DR of the enemy? Or energy resistance/immunity he can simply choose to address or ply the most advantageous form against?
==Aelryinth
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
every few days I click and open up this thread
and I put my cursor in the typing box
and I try to type in it
but the only thing I can type in this thread is
AGGGGHHHHHHH
AGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHH
AGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH
AAAAAAAGGGGGHHHHHHHH
over and over
well I mean except for all these other words