|
I was wondering if anyone had any ideas about making martial characters that can work as well as full casters. I know the devs said that there is no difference and anyone who disagrees with that is someone with an agenda. My agenda has nothing to do with that, I just want a balanced game. (There are whole other posts about how much fighters suck more than casters and martials, so can we keep those posts to this post please).
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd dial back the casters instead of boosting the non-casters.
I don't think it's all of the martials; Paladins, Rangers, Barbarians, Samurai. . .they seem fine. Fighters are getting help in the appropriate thread. Now if Paizo will incorporate some of these things. . .
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nerfing casters doesn't fix the problem. Magic is an obviously useful tool in RPGs. I think more people will complain with casters getting nerfed then martials getting buffed. Buffing martials could make the game much more fun then limiting casters. I like playing clerics and druids and such, and wouldn't like seeing them be reduced in power, but I also like playing barbarians and fighters and rangers, and would perfer seeing ways to get them to the point where they are almost as effective as full casters.
*Response to zhayne's post
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that Kirth is really on to something regarding the narrative strength of full casters. If there was a way to gain similar narrative capability, or even one aspect of the narrative potential that casters enjoy for each of the martial and mundane classes, you would see far less grumbling on the boards. Not that it would stop all-together, humans being human. :)
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know, I was going to give some advice, but to include that tripe in the original post? No thanks.
What tripe?
Nerfing casters doesn't fix the problem. Magic is an obviously useful tool in RPGs. I think more people will complain with casters getting nerfed then martials getting buffed. Buffing martials could make the game much more fun then limiting casters. I like playing clerics and druids and such, and wouldn't like seeing them be reduced in power, but I also like playing barbarians and fighters and rangers, and would perfer seeing ways to get them to the point where they are almost as effective as full casters.
*Response to zhayne's post
If the problem is 'casters are too powerful', how is 'nerfing the casters' not a solution?
You know, I was going to give some advice, but to include that tripe in the original post? No thanks.
You do kind of have to accept the premise that some of the gaming community has a different set of expectations than the developers. I don't know that I would use such emotionally charged language though.
If the problem is 'casters are too powerful', how is 'nerfing the casters' not a solution?
The main issue is that "nerfing the casters" without making them useless or unfun would require a full rework of the magic system.
It's a lot easier to bring the martials up a bit (at the very least make them all on par with each other) than to make casters less powerful.
If the problem is 'casters are too powerful', how is 'nerfing the casters' not a solution?
The main issue is that "nerfing the casters" without making them useless or unfun would require a full rework of the magic system.
It's a lot easier to bring the martials up a bit (at the very least make them all on par with each other) than to make casters less powerful.
I'm not entirely sure that's true. in my experience, it's always easier to limit than to add.
Antagonize works pretty well to force the tactics of Casters away from what might perhaps be their optimal God Caster options.
Perhaps something like 'Armor piercing blow'? Where they can unleash a touch attack with their weapon
Better CC abilities I think, a 2nd level mage can drop sticking clouds and neutralize entire mobs.
If it were simply a matter of "Drop this, ban that, make this less powerful" that would be true. But the problem is inherent in the Vancian casting system itself. Pre-packaged spells that can do anything and everything if you have enough of them.
If it were simply a matter of "Drop this, ban that, make this less powerful" that would be true. But the problem is inherent in the Vancian casting system itself. Pre-packaged spells that can do anything and everything if you have enough of them.
Those would be in the 'ban that' category. :)
Or you could just ban the cleric, druid, and wizard outright ... that's what I did in 3e.
The martials aren't the broken part of the game, it's the casters. Since that's what's broke, that's what should be fixed.
Better to improve on the non-casters than to tone down casters. The thread on Fighters outlines some good fixes for the Fighter.
Those would be in the 'ban that' category. :)Or you could just ban the cleric, druid, and wizard outright ... that's what I did in 3e.
The martials aren't the broken part of the game, it's the casters. Since that's what's broke, that's what should be fixed.
If the fix is to hack off full casting altogether, that's not a fix. Those classes are fun to play and deserve to exist in their own right.
By that same token just getting rid of the Fighter, Monk, and Rogue would "fix" the problem as well. That's no good either.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If it were simply a matter of "Drop this, ban that, make this less powerful" that would be true. But the problem is inherent in the Vancian casting system itself. Pre-packaged spells that can do anything and everything if you have enough of them.Those would be in the 'ban that' category. :)
Or you could just ban the cleric, druid, and wizard outright ... that's what I did in 3e.
The martials aren't the broken part of the game, it's the casters. Since that's what's broke, that's what should be fixed.
Easy does not necessarily mean good. It is certainly easy to run a game if you strip all narrative power from players, but then you may find yourself without players who are interested in your game. Forcing people to follow the script is not something that I can get behind.
| 14 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wish you all the best with the problem you are having in your games
it is not in my games
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was wondering if anyone had any ideas about making martial characters that can work as well as full casters. I know the devs said that there is no difference and anyone who disagrees with that is someone with an agenda. My agenda has nothing to do with that, I just want a balanced game. (There are whole other posts about how much fighters suck more than casters and martials, so can we keep those posts to this post please).
Balance is not every class being equally powerful individually. As long as everyone can be useful it should not be an issue, and you will have more of an issue when players with varying degrees of system mastery sit at the same table than anything else. You could have someone playing a martial, and someone with a caster, and if the person playing the martial character or at least a "not full caster" then they can still dominate game play...
What problems are popping up in "your" game, and yes that is all that really matters. What is a problem for group A is not a problem for group B.
Those would be in the 'ban that' category. :)Or you could just ban the cleric, druid, and wizard outright ... that's what I did in 3e.
The martials aren't the broken part of the game, it's the casters. Since that's what's broke, that's what should be fixed.
If the fix is to hack off full casting altogether, that's not a fix. Those classes are fun to play and deserve to exist in their own right.
By that same token just getting rid of the Fighter, Monk, and Rogue would "fix" the problem as well. That's no good either.
The game should be fun for most of the group; People should be able to play what appeals to them and have a great time playing. Of course, occassionally a player will come that ruins it for the rest of the group, but that's a problem with an individual player.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If it were simply a matter of "Drop this, ban that, make this less powerful" that would be true. But the problem is inherent in the Vancian casting system itself. Pre-packaged spells that can do anything and everything if you have enough of them.Those would be in the 'ban that' category. :)
Or you could just ban the cleric, druid, and wizard outright ... that's what I did in 3e.
The martials aren't the broken part of the game, it's the casters. Since that's what's broke, that's what should be fixed.
They are not broken..The GM and the players just have to be on the same page with the level of optimization..
Houserule for Casting Action Economy
This only affects Standard Action Spells, not ones with Swift Action casting or that have another Casting Time/Action.
Cantrip/Orisons and 1st Level Spells are always exempt.
Full Casters have their top 2 spell levels increased to Full Round Actions (distinct from 1 Round, which is more Interruptable)
3/4 Casters do the same for their top spell level only.
1/2 Casters are not affected.
This is based on comparing spell level progression to BAB progression to gain iteratives (requiring full attacks/full round action),
and thus aims to set caster/martial on a more equivalent scale re: level scaling and action economy.
Effectively, it makes Move Actions more precious for Casters, and thus makes movement/position even more precious.
Move Actions are often superfluous for Casters, but this makes them feel the pinch of action economy like martials.
D20 Modern did it by limiting all spells to 5th level spells, tops. As long as caster level keeps scaling, this still makes casters extremely powerful. There are very, very few feats or class abilities that rival a 5th level spell.
And that way, you can actually have unique class abilities that cannot be duplicated by high level spells.
==Aelryinth
the simplest way to make Martial's less terrible is to double your intended point buy allotment and give the following feat taxes as freebies
Power Attack
Deadly Aim
Combat Expertise
Pirahna Strike
Weapon Finesse (combinable with shield)
Quick Draw (free action to draw a thrown weapon or reload a sling)
Rapid Reload (Free action for all applicable weapons, whether gun or crossbow)
Brutal Throw (STR to thrown weapon attack rolls)
Rhino Charge
Dervish Dance (Applicable with all finesse weapons, applies even when dual wielding or carrying a shield)
Heighten Spell
Combat Reflexes
Close Combat Shot (allow ranged weapons to be fired at melee range without provoking)
Add a static attribute bonus to all ranged weapons for free
Allow the Readying of Full Round Actions
Allow Full Attacks alongside movement or charging
give everybody 3 extra skill points per level, and a 4th extra skill point per level that must be spent on a background skill
give everybody the ability to use combat manuevers without provoking unless the guy making the AoO has one step higher in the appropriate manuever feats
don't bother tracking weapon proficiencies. a streamlined series of weapons would be preferred over every feat taxed weapon.
| 22 people marked this as a favorite. |
The implication here is that a rules change is the only way to fix the OP's problem. I'm not opposed to an occasional house rule (I use them myself when I GM) but rather than using sweeping house rules to alter the balance of entire groups of casters, some simple GMing changes can go a long way.
.
- Schedule more fights per day.
With 1-2 fights per day, casters have a lot of advantages. At 6 fights per day, casters grow conservative with their spells, and non-casters have to (get to) do a lot more of the heavy lifting. Find the balance that's right for your group, and don't be afraid to push them occasionally. - Build encounters well.
A single big monster can be taken out by a single spell, as can a swarm of identical enemies who stand together. The right mix of enemies can keep single spells from winning encounters.Varying, or not varying, the types of enemies encountered can keep casters on their toes. For example, if you have a caster who can only cast her best AoE spell twice per day, send a third or fourth mass enemy against the party.
- Play monsters intelligently.
At higher levels when casters are more powerful, most of the monsters are pretty smart. A threatened caster has to expend resources defending himself rather than always being on offense, so don't be afraid to send an enemy at him sometimes. A smart enemy may send multiple waves of troops against the party, drawing out spells before the main attack. - Be generous with magic items.
Martial classes are much more dependent upon gear than casters are. By placing treasure suitable to your martial characters, allowing frequent shopping trips for upgrades, and allowing custom built magic items (not "house-rule custom" just letting the crit-fishing fighter order up a keen weapon as soon as he can afford it) you can keep martial characters acting at their full potential. - Know the rules.
Spellcasting can be tricky to GM. If you're letting summoned monsters show up too quickly or to psychically understand their summoner's desires, not enforcing full-round actions for spontaneous metamagic, and any number of other common mistakes can make casters more powerful than intended. - Encourage players to work together.
The game is supposed to be fun for everyone, and we all know that, but it can be easy to lose track of other people's enjoyment during the stress of battle. Talking to your players about ways that casters and martial characters can support one another can go a long way toward keeping the casters from accidentally becoming glory hogs.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A friend of mine when we debate about this, has a interesting sentence that, I think, define it perfectly.
He takes the PAthfinder Core Book. He opens it by the spells section, and show the number of pages that are spells, and compare it to the number of pages that are rules. And he says this: "this first half of the book is for everybody. Character creation, skills, feats, rules about combat, leveling... everybody has access to those. This other half of the book (*points to the spells*), is for spellcasters only. It's impossible to have balance between casters and non casters, when half of the game is exclusively for casters"
I think it's a good definition.
IMO, the primary issue between full casters and full martials is simply a matter of scaling. There is a lot of truth in the "linear fighters vs quadratic wizards" debate, and Paizo only improved the comparison, but it still exists overall.
The simple truth is that full casters have too many spell slots at higher levels, and the spell slot progression should cap out at about 20ish slots (not counting cantrips). There should also be a hard limit of number of 7+ spells prepared, regardless of level. Something like a max of 5 spells total that are 7th+, or similar.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's not necessarily true. It's not the number of spells that's the problem (though it doesn't help). It's the fact that spells are just BETTER than feats or other non-caster options.A friend of mine when we debate about this, has a interesting sentence that, I think, define it perfectly.
He takes the PAthfinder Core Book. He opens it by the spells section, and show the number of pages that are spells, and compare it to the number of pages that are rules. And he says this: "this first half of the book is for everybody. Character creation, skills, feats, rules about combat, leveling... everybody has access to those. This other half of the book (*points to the spells*), is for spellcasters only. It's impossible to have balance between casters and non casters, when half of the game is exclusively for casters"
I think it's a good definition.
I do think it is. I don't talk about the number of the spells, but about the number of pages dedicated to spells. Spells are complex, varied, and have interesting and long rules that do a lot of things. That's why Plannar Binding takes a page, while Weapon Focus reads "+1 with a weapon".
Not all spells are better than feats, some of them are terrible. However, there are a TON of options for casters. Half the book talks about them, exclusivelly. Casters only need to cherry pick the good parts of that huge amount of options.
If you want to make the martials less terrible, then make a 180 page long section about martial options, which only martials have access to.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A friend of mine when we debate about this, has a interesting sentence that, I think, define it perfectly.
He takes the PAthfinder Core Book. He opens it by the spells section, and show the number of pages that are spells, and compare it to the number of pages that are rules. And he says this: "this first half of the book is for everybody. Character creation, skills, feats, rules about combat, leveling... everybody has access to those. This other half of the book (*points to the spells*), is for spellcasters only. It's impossible to have balance between casters and non casters, when half of the game is exclusively for casters"
I think it's a good definition.
It is rather telling the even Ultimate Combat (AKA the book which is supposed to be about martial characters) has more pages devoted to new spells and other caster goodies than it spends on new martial archetypes.
I think Kirth did hit a big point on narrative power. Most of the martial characters are fine in straight combat, but they just don't have anything that comes remotely close to a caster's power to influence the campaign. Swinging a sword extra-hard pales compared to stuff like Teleportation, Plane Shifting, Planar Binding, etc. Martials just don't get game-changing abilities like that.
To get onto another subject, martial classes tend to feel very flat in their advancement. Casters get a lot more Cool Stuff as they advance in levels, martials often just get better numbers. Granted, Pathfinder made improvements in this field over 3.5, but in a lot of ways that just highlighted the problem. A few martial classes, like the barbarian, got just enough Cool Stuff to make it clear martials need more of it. Getting one cool rage power when you level up just reminds you that the caster got a few dozen cool new spells.
One thing I did like in Tome of Battle, it made leveling up as a martial so much more exciting. Instead of mostly just changing out numeric bonuses for new, slightly higher, numeric bonuses, I was getting cool new things my character could do. Sure, the optimizer in me always likes a good numeric bonus, but getting Cool Stuff my character can do now is a lot more fun.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd dial back the casters instead of boosting the non-casters.
And I could stop playing pathfinder too.
Fixing broken spells is one thing. Like the 3.5 to pathfinder jump.
But nerfing casters to the point that martials are just as good in combat, versatility, and utility would make the game bland and stupid.
Nerfing casters to current martials would do little but turn the game into something as mechanically boring as WOW with non of the aesthetic appeal.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just make combat feats more awesome, instead of the current suck-fest they are.
Pathfinder's feats are worse than 3.5 feats, but we need feats that are better than they were in 3.5 to close the martial-caster gap.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
One way to give martial characters many more options is to use The Book of Martial Action by Necromancers of the Northwest. Martial characters are given a pool of "martial points" which can be used during each combat to pull off special martial techniques and maneuvers. For example, Flash Cut allows you to make an Attack of Opportunity on anyone moving next to you for 1 martial point. This book has made our martial characters much more diverse and fun to play. I am not sure how much it increases their overall power, if at all. The book also includes new archetypes for the martial classes that focus on the use of martial points. Definitely worth checking out IMHO.
Perhaps the real answer is in adjusting both martials and full casters. In a "low power" campaign, casters are toned down to be more in line with martials at the high end. A "high power" campaign imitates anime with martials breaking laws of physics on a regular basis, and the casters still keep their world-bending powers at the high level.
One way to give martial characters many more options is to use The Book of Martial Action by Necromancers of the Northwest. Martial characters are given a pool of "martial points" which can be used during each combat to pull off special martial techniques and maneuvers. For example, Flash Cut allows you to make an Attack of Opportunity on anyone moving next to you for 1 martial point. This book has made our martial characters much more diverse and fun to play. I am not sure how much it increases their overall power, if at all. The book also includes new archetypes for the martial classes that focus on the use of martial points. Definitely worth checking out IMHO.
It sounds like 3.5's Tomb of Battle, but many people complain about that. I think the book needed better editing, but it was still playable.
Schedule more fights per day.
With 1-2 fights per day, casters have a lot of advantages. At 6 fights per day, casters grow conservative with their spells, and non-casters have to (get to) do a lot more of the heavy lifting. Find the balance that's right for your group, and don't be afraid to push them occasionally.
The problem with this is that if you push too hard (and how hard is too hard depends more on how hot your dice are that night than on anything you can control) the guy with overland flight running or dimension door prepared or who's wildshaped as an earth elemental that can just meld into the floor is the one who's going to live to fight another day, not the martial. Wizards generally need adjacency to pull people out of trouble so archers and casting focused clerics and oracles live and the melee guys who don't have their own escape mechanism (that would be only casters apart from monks) die. Or everyone dies and your campaign prep goes to waste.
I agree that it's easier for a well prepared caster to escape a TPK than it is for a melee character, and easier for the caster to get his back-row teammates to safety than his melee friends. However, that's a problem common to the first and last fight of the day. Pushing parties into high CR fights favors casters in a number of ways, and "escape plan availability" is one of them. (Same-day fights allow melee characters to get healed in between, but casters don't get spell slots back. Same-day fights prevent prepared casters from preparing "magic bullet" spells when certain enemies are predicted, but don't affect the preparation of martial characters.)
I suggest drawing out combat across a longer time period, separated into more fights of a moderate CR. This actually reduces the frequency of needing escape plans, since the GM isn't pumping up one fight to the power level where it's likely to tip from "challenging" to "impossible" based on 1-2 rolls of the dice. CR+0 and CR+1 fights can turn ugly too, but they usually to it a bit slower, giving martial characters more opportunities to retreat. That also gives the spellcasters with the escape buttons a little less pressure to save themselves, allowing them greater opportunity to save their friends.
It also doesn't really address the issue that at a certain point casters are much more capable of determining the pace of the action and controlling how many encounters the group deals with between rests. Now obviously there are ways you can deal with that, time pressured quests, intelligent enemies who react to events etc but after a while that can really start to look pretty contrived.
You're right, I didn't address the issue of letting casters determine the pace of your adventure. I just suggested that it be done, without saying how. Your two suggestions (time pressure, intelligent enemies) are excellent, and there are a myriad of other ways.
Personally, I think adventures that allow a 15 minute adventuring day feel more contrived than ones with full work days. For example, if you're exploring a dungeon, why would monsters wait one or two rooms away while you rest for a night? It makes much more sense for them to attack you when you try to rest.
If you look at most missions, time pressure is implied, if not necessarily measured in discrete units. How long would you leave a kidnapped civilian in captivity, possibly being mistreated by the villain? As little time as possible! Going to defeat the dragon who threatens the town? Better do it before he attacks again! Information surfaced about a powerful artifact you want? I bet you're not the only one's who heard about that.
As much as it's important for GMs to write coherent campaigns, there's also a degree of expectation management involved. Once the GM has set the pace, that becomes the players' assumed pace as well. It's what they prepare for, and they know it's OK to go into another fight even if the casters are "nearly out of high-level spells" for the day. Players used to 4-5 fights/day will often keep up that pace even when there is no external pressure.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The simple answer is allowing a 20th level Martial class to act like a 20th level melee class. A level 20 character should not be constrained by things like "the laws of physics". The problem is a lot of the community has a subversive double standard when it comes to martial classes and they expect, nay want high level casters to be better then high level martials (I wonder why there's a balance issue huh?) And because someone is going to come along and cry out "Please Anzyr, think of the realism!" those people need to check the difference between verisimilitude and realism. Pathfinder does not do realism, it does verisimilitude. Your average level fighter can fling himself off cliffs and take a mere 20d6 damage. (Hell he could fall from the stratosphere and it'd still be 20d6. REALISM!) However, the game does do verisimilitude for this situation by dealing damage when a character falls.
So really the answer is let the Martial characters do the kind of things a level 20 character should do. Tome of Battle from 3.5 is an excellent example of what a high level martial class should be able to accomplish. There's no reason that you shouldn't be able to full attack twice in one round, break through walls like the Kool-Aid Man, shrug off debilitating effects and quickly move from spot to another. If you think that is to "weeabo fightan magic" you need to calibrate your expectations on what a level 20 character is. A duel between two level 20 martial should not be two people standing next to each other swinging their weapon four times every 6 seconds.
|
A friend of mine when we debate about this, has a interesting sentence that, I think, define it perfectly.
He takes the PAthfinder Core Book. He opens it by the spells section, and show the number of pages that are spells, and compare it to the number of pages that are rules. And he says this: "this first half of the book is for everybody. Character creation, skills, feats, rules about combat, leveling... everybody has access to those. This other half of the book (*points to the spells*), is for spellcasters only. It's impossible to have balance between casters and non casters, when half of the game is exclusively for casters"
I think it's a good definition.
Absolutely NOT true. ANYONE can use the second half of the book with UMD. There is already a way to make martials less terrible...it's the UMD skill and scrolls.
Yes, the Book of Martial Action is somewhat similar to a Tome of Battle for Pathfinder. However, it is not "over the top" and does not give martial characters spell-like powers--just some much-needed variety and effective new techniques (as an alternative to just full attacking again). Managing a martial point pool during combat does make running martial characters using these rules a bit more complex, but it is no problem to combine martial characters using these rules and martial characters using the standard rules together in the same party.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Absolutely NOT true. ANYONE can use the second half of the book with UMD. There is already a way to make martials less terrible...it's the UMD skill and scrolls.A friend of mine when we debate about this, has a interesting sentence that, I think, define it perfectly.
He takes the PAthfinder Core Book. He opens it by the spells section, and show the number of pages that are spells, and compare it to the number of pages that are rules. And he says this: "this first half of the book is for everybody. Character creation, skills, feats, rules about combat, leveling... everybody has access to those. This other half of the book (*points to the spells*), is for spellcasters only. It's impossible to have balance between casters and non casters, when half of the game is exclusively for casters"
I think it's a good definition.
I really hope this is sarcasm
Absolutely NOT true. ANYONE can use the second half of the book with UMD. There is already a way to make martials less terrible...it's the UMD skill and scrolls.A friend of mine when we debate about this, has a interesting sentence that, I think, define it perfectly.
He takes the PAthfinder Core Book. He opens it by the spells section, and show the number of pages that are spells, and compare it to the number of pages that are rules. And he says this: "this first half of the book is for everybody. Character creation, skills, feats, rules about combat, leveling... everybody has access to those. This other half of the book (*points to the spells*), is for spellcasters only. It's impossible to have balance between casters and non casters, when half of the game is exclusively for casters"
I think it's a good definition.
Please feel free to eat into your wealth by level, us casters will be over here casting Wish for free, chilling on our private demiplane, with our horde of servant simulacrums that we get without dipping into our bottom line. (Oh we can also UMD all that stuff to.)