Ways to make martials less terrible.


Advice

151 to 200 of 1,079 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Chengar Qordath wrote:
I don't really see how creating a demiplane would be the focus of a campaign. The only requirement for it is having access to 7th level spells and a cheap-for-its level focus. Sure, you could massively change the requirements of the spell so that a campaign could be built around casting it, but then you're into houseruling territory.

Like Nicos said, I specifically said should. As written it's up to the DM to decide how creating a demiplane would impact his campaign world. I will admit I've never had a player that tried to cheese creating a demiplane, but I can easily think of ways that I might handle such a player. After all, the spell allows for the creation of a demiplane, it says nothing about what that does to the prime plane, nor what kinds of planar creatures might take notice of such an act. >:) Part of the trick of running mid- to high-level games is being flexible. A 13th level wizard suddenly deciding he's going to get into the demiplane creation business could add all sorts of new friends and foes to the game.

Quote:
That's my big issue with the Fighter—they don't get any Cool Stuff.

If we're simply looking at class mechanics, then I don't disagree with you. In actual play, though, it never seems to work out for me in the games I play or DM.

Often, the fighter's Cool Stuff will, however, revolve around his magic items and possibly the plotline, so like I said, if we're looking strictly at mechanics, I don't disagree with you. It just doesn't bother me because in actual gameplay the fighter still gets his toys.

I'm also not sure how one would fix the issue. A martial character without magic is, by definition, mundane. If you start giving him insane non-magical abilities then you've crossed into cartoon territory.


9th level Wizard pays 5 HP to cast a 5th level spell?

hardly a significant cost

Wizards often already invest plenty in constitution, and all you did, was cripple the non-optimized Raistlin Wizards.

my suggestion

enforce terrain conditions

enforce harsh weather

enforce sailing ships

enforce underwater concentration checks

have archers occasionally ready actions to interrupt (their primary purpose)

encourage fighters, rangers, paladins, and other martials to invest in archery as a secondary style, even if it is taking 14+ dexterity and deadly aim.

allow potions of personal spells. the potion of see invisibility works wonders against wizards, and ninja.


Melee is fine the way it is. The game was build in a fitted model. Caster beat brute, brute beats specialist, specialist beats caster. We just need to make rouge more caster bane but giving them ability to hide their magical items with their stealth and harder to be detect by magic.

They might make specialist really powerful. But as I said earlier brute are made to beat specialist. Sneak attack is rarely useful against barbarian, and the chance of hitting a flat footed fighter is harder. In the sense of PVP, they are all balance. In terms of PVE, GM just need to place the right encounter for the players. Like having swarms of rat with larger rats attack at the same time. Caster will have trouble to hit the large rat one by one, but can get rid of the swarm more effective than anyone. For brute, they can chop down the larger rat easy, but can't hit swarm rat at all.


SiuoL wrote:

Melee is fine the way it is. The game was build in a fitted model. Caster beat brute, brute beats specialist, specialist beats caster. We just need to make rouge more caster bane but giving them ability to hide their magical items with their stealth and harder to be detect by magic.

They might make specialist really powerful. But as I said earlier brute are made to beat specialist. Sneak attack is rarely useful against barbarian, and the chance of hitting a flat footed fighter is harder. In the sense of PVP, they are all balance. In terms of PVE, GM just need to place the right encounter for the players. Like having swarms of rat with larger rats attack at the same time. Caster will have trouble to hit the large rat one by one, but can get rid of the swarm more effective than anyone. For brute, they can chop down the larger rat easy, but can't hit swarm rat at all.

i think you misunderstand

it is Fighter Beat Rogue

Ranger and Paladin Beat Fighter

Barbarian Beat Both

Partial Caster Beat Barbarian

Full Spontaneous caster beat partial caster

Full prepared caster beat full spontaneous caster

Full Spontaneous caster with human favored class bonus and paragon surge beats everything else


Lord Pendragon wrote:
Drachasor wrote:
Really balancing things would require that you fix this...that or allow a warrior to hammer out a new reality.
This is the part of this discussion that's always puzzled me a bit. When we compare the "power" of martials versus casters, I tend to view it as a combat comparison. And in combat, I've always found martials equal to casters in most circumstances.

Let me guess, your casters focus on damaging spells in combat?


Dear lord I never realized exactly HOW good Superstition was until today.

My Barbarian has something like a +22 Will save (vs Fear only, like +18-ish without it).

Give other martials something like Superstition, suddenly less suckage.

Though the Barb was always the best off anyway, so that's no surprise I guess.


In practice I target and nerf Arcane Users quite heavily and make no apologies for it. The players are still capable of enjoying the game and wizards still have a major contribution but a much less dominant one. The players in our group are experienced and appreciate the reasoning for the nerfing (and some are arcane spell-user addicts). They also practice their own version of this when they DM.

The issue I have with boosting non-spell users to match arcane spell-users is that it makes designing encounters much harder at mid to high levels. The game then becomes decisively decided by the arcane spell power of a party to the extent other classes are mere spectators/secondary (hence this thread and others like it).

The game has held this flaw since its inception but the reality is that it has gotten worse not better and so the answer I don't feel is to boost non-casters, but is to put greater restraint on spell-use, especially arcane spell use.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lord Pendragon wrote:
Drachasor wrote:
Really balancing things would require that you fix this...that or allow a warrior to hammer out a new reality.
This is the part of this discussion that's always puzzled me a bit. When we compare the "power" of martials versus casters, I tend to view it as a combat comparison. And in combat, I've always found martials equal to casters in most circumstances.
they aren't. There's a reason why every othrr BBEG at the end of an AP is a high level caster. Karzaug, Nyrissa, etc aren't 20th lvl fighters or rogues.
Quote:

Outside of combat, I have no problem with casters having greater power than martials. A wizard simply does things a swordsman can't. Unless the swordsman comes across some sort of ancient artifact, anyway. WHich would involve the storyline of the campaign, the same way a wizard creating a demiplane should...

problem with that is that you can only run combat-centric adventures (or make your martials suck)


Plus a good Caster can (and should) bring his own Fighters. Why else would Animate Dead/Summon Monster X/Planar Binding/Planar Ally/Simulacrum/Gate exist? Also let's all take a moment to miss one best 3.5 Core PRC's: Thaumaturgist (Really just me?)


Umm, simple answer here.

Put some monsters in your game that have high saves.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
beej67 wrote:

Umm, simple answer here.

Put some monsters in your game that have high saves.

summon monster,wall of force, maze, earth to mud, solid fog, enervation...

And that's not counting Haste, Greater Heroism or Polymorph. Or simulacrum and planar binding


Lumiere Dawnbringer wrote:


i think you misunderstand

it is Fighter Beat Rogue

Ranger and Paladin Beat Fighter

Barbarian Beat Both

Partial Caster Beat Barbarian

Full Spontaneous caster beat partial caster

Full prepared caster beat full spontaneous caster

Full Spontaneous caster with human favored class bonus and paragon surge beats everything else

I don't think I misunderstood anything. Ranger and paladin beats fighter because ranger = caster <+ specialist. Paladin = caster >+ brute. Barbarian beats both because Barbarian = Brute + specialist. Partial caster beats barbarian is no necessarily all true as it depends on what kind of spells the caster use. Everything so on is because full should always be better than partial. It's just that Paizo failed to push the brute and specialist end to balance so full brute on the same footing with partial caster, it doesn't mean the triangular balance is not there. It's something came from the basics of all role playing game. Other class are just a class made based on the three, they can seem to be better than the core three but it's just poor balancing. Specialist should always beat caster.

I'm still kind of new to Pathfinder, so I don't know about level 20. But from what I see now, rouge can beat caster easy. Just need to be patient, stealth and wait till the right time, slowing get in and back stab enemy's main caster with a full attack.

Caster is strong, no doubt about that. But to say melee is terrible, not really. With right tactic, a rouge will do well against caster. And if they can't do that because of poor game design, then it's just ashame.


A well built Rogue is mathematically inferior to a mediocre built any class.

The Rogue is hilariously terrible.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Rynjin wrote:

A well built Rogue is mathematically inferior to a mediocre built any class.

The Rogue is hilariously terrible.

Wooo, armchair theorycrafters ahoy!


Rynjin wrote:

A well built Rogue is mathematically inferior to a mediocre built any class.

The Rogue is hilariously terrible.

Mathematically, yes. In combat, rouge and ranger has the highest chance of killing a caster compare to most of other class. I have a rogue team mate, she kicks ass at killing caster-like encounters with back stab. All she need is a chance to sneak or flank.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
SiuoL wrote:
Rynjin wrote:

A well built Rogue is mathematically inferior to a mediocre built any class.

The Rogue is hilariously terrible.

Mathematically, yes. In combat, rouge and ranger has the highest chance of killing a caster compare to most of other class. I have a rogue team mate, she kicks ass at killing caster-like encounters with back stab. All she need is a chance to sneak or flank.

Or a player who doesn't have a rampart obsession with DPR and ability to kill everything in 1 round all by himself.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DeathQuaker wrote:
In Pathfinder games I've played, I have not experienced martials being "terrible," nor have I experienced casters being "overpowered."

I have seen and felt it so often I don't even bother to count it anymore. All those monsters with 20ft reach where the martial don't even get into melee range before the enemy is half dead. And all those incorporeal or high DR mobs often at low levels.

With martials I have had TONS of fights in which I had to watch the casters win the fight because I was useless.
Now I play a witch and I've not had a single fight in which I was truely useless because even when my offencive spells and hexes don't work I still have buffs and healing to hand out.

Yesterday we fought some constructs. First I entangled them with a spell then I buffed the party.

Quote:
If you like to be consistently useful and don't mind having few crowning moments of glory, play a martial.

If that was anywhere near possible I would not complain. But being consistently useful is what casters can, not martials. In my experience.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:


Or a player who doesn't have a rampart obsession with DPR and ability to kill everything in 1 round all by himself.

So please, tell me, what's the Rogue got going for him?

Mediocre BaB/Hit die, mediocre damage (with Sneak Attack, crap without it), good amount of skills (which are obsoleted by 2nd and 3rd level spells for the most part, and other classes get near as many or more of anyway), Trapfinding (which other, better classes like the Bard can get anyway), and... that's about it.

This isn't theorycraft. They fail. Hard. Both in theory and practice.

There is nothing a Rogue can do that another class cannot do better. It is the most underpowerd class in the game. Fighters are at least DPR monsters who can be nigh unhittable if built right, but the Rogue doesn't have that or many out of combat options or unique abilities going or him.

A Ranger can be just as sneaky, but twice as hard hitting and doesn't rely on Sneak Attack to get his damage, so even in your "The Rogue sneaks up on the caster and kills him" scenario, another class does it miles better.

Hell, at least the Ninja has some cool, unique class features going for him. I'd be somewhat less hard on the class if it was at least that good.


Rynjin wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:


Or a player who doesn't have a rampart obsession with DPR and ability to kill everything in 1 round all by himself.

So please, tell me, what's the Rogue got going for him?

Mediocre BaB/Hit die, mediocre damage (with Sneak Attack, crap without it), good amount of skills (which are obsoleted by 2nd and 3rd level spells for the most part, and other classes get near as many or more of anyway), Trapfinding (which other, better classes like the Bard can get anyway), and... that's about it.

This isn't theorycraft. They fail. Hard. Both in theory and practice.

There is nothing a Rogue can do that another class cannot do better. It is the most underpowerd class in the game. Fighters are at least DPR monsters who can be nigh unhittable if built right, but the Rogue doesn't have that or many out of combat options or unique abilities going or him.

A Ranger can be just as sneaky, but twice as hard hitting and doesn't rely on Sneak Attack to get his damage, so even in your "The Rogue sneaks up on the caster and kills him" scenario, another class does it miles better.

Hell, at least the Ninja has some cool, unique class features going for him. I'd be somewhat less hard on the class if it was at least that good.

The point of this thread is not to compare class one after another. Ranger have better DPR and can stealth just as good. Rouge can do a whole lot more outside of combat to gather info on what will come next.

The point of this thread is how to make martial class less terrible, against what? Caster, because if not a martial, it must be caster. I don't get why you guys so aggressive attacking when I just put out the point that Rouge was meant for against caster, if ranger can do better, good. Now martial isn't so bad isn't it? Why so offended? Can't you guys just make a calm discussion at all?


I'd like to point out that a rogue can take ninja tricks as rogue talents.


Quote:

Caster is strong, no doubt about that. But to say melee is terrible, not really. With right tactic, a rouge will do well against caster. And if they can't do that because of poor game design, then it's just ashame.

That works in world of warcraft, not in Pathfinder. In PF stealth can't give you a backstab, and a second level spell (blur) completelly renders sneak attack ineffective.


SiuoL wrote:


The point of this thread is not to compare class one after another.

Err, actually, that's pretty much the ENTIRE point of this thread.

SiuoL wrote:
Rouge can do a whole lot more outside of combat to gather info on what will come next.

He has a whopping TWO extra skill points per level vs a class with an already adequate amount.

He can't do "a whole lot more outside of combat".

SiuoL wrote:
The point of this thread is how to make martial class less terrible, against what? Caster, because if not a martial, it must be caster. I don't get why you guys so aggressive attacking when I just put out the point that Rouge was meant for against caster, if ranger can do better, good. Now martial isn't so bad isn't it? Why so offended? Can't you guys just make a calm discussion at all?

Martials in general are inferior to casters, but that's a system flaw. Rangers, Paladins, and Barbarians are close enough that buffing them wouldn't accomplish all that much (bringing the full casters closer to their level in some way without a hard nerf would be ideal).

It's the Fighter (matched by Ranger/Paladin in combat and exceeded by Barbarian, and exceeded out of combat by Rannger/Barb), Rogue (exceeded by everyone in pretty much any given scenario involving anything), and Monk (an unfocused mish-mash of cool ideas and poor execution with no real party niche) that need the real leg-up.

Hence the comparisons.


Then what is the point of playing this game at all if it's that unbalanced? Why are we still on this message board? Shouldn't we be playing a game that is more balance then? No, we are here because it's not unbalance, the game is still playable, the caster doesn't mean they can beat all martial. If not, then everyone must be caster in this case, but no because it's not unbalance and every class have their use. That's why we are still playing, am I correct?


gustavo iglesias wrote:
Quote:

Caster is strong, no doubt about that. But to say melee is terrible, not really. With right tactic, a rouge will do well against caster. And if they can't do that because of poor game design, then it's just ashame.

That works in world of warcraft, not in Pathfinder. In PF stealth can't give you a backstab, and a second level spell (blur) completelly renders sneak attack ineffective.

Also, point of sneak attack is to attack without being notice. No one would cast spell when they don't know when are they going to be attacked, if they do, you can just wait until there is no more spell left. However, no caster would do that. They normally buff as soon as roll initiative, as long as the attack is done before they do any buff, they can't do much about it.


The problem really lies in the genre of High Fantasy. The thing that makes magic, well, magical is the fact that it can do things normal people can't, or it can do things normal people can do, but better. While I never really saw this problem, one of the bigger complaints about 4e was that people felt that magic didn't feel magical enough, because the line was blurred on what magic could do vs what mundanes could do. (While I do sort of get where they're coming from, I've played enough point buy systems that it doesn't really bug me that much, since point buy got me into that notion of fluff being mutable and a certain effect not being innately magical or nonmagical)

But here's what I'd do first and foremost for this:
-Find the most problematic of the Mundanes and fix their biggest issues.

For Fighters, this means give them more stuff to do out of combat, and maybe beef up a few feats which are conceptually neat, but really underpowered, like antagonize.

For a monk, this means reducing their MAD-ness and fixing the way they operate unarmed. Also, I find the fact that they're supposed to be mobile, but also supposed to be full attacking to be a glaring design flaw, so fixing their abilities to work in the same round in which they Flurry (i.e. Adding movement to their 5-foot step/having more 5-foot steps in a round)

And for rogues, I'm not too sure, having rarely seen them in play, but I'd say, given one of their bigger problems is that the only thing major they have going for them is the extra skills (which even then, is overshadowed by a bard, with Versatile Performance and the like), so I'd either give them more things that make them play as more skilled than a character with equal ranks in a skill, or give them another niche to keep. Unfortunately, I don't really know how to do either of those effectively, since other classes, like Bard and Alchemist or Ninja have already monopolized on a lot of the directions you could go with a rogue. I'd almost say just rename Ninja as Rogue, but Ninja are only slightly better than base Rogues anyway.

Next I'd nerf casters, but by way of "in play" nerfs, rather than ones obvious at the get go. Before you get to the really insanely high levels (at which point the game can easily become masturbation for a full caster), there are things you can do to limit their ability to be broken. One of the ways is when you have a smart enemy, play them smart, and have them try to pick off the wizard first, or have them keep their bow trained on the wizard when she begins casting a spell. Don't be relentless about this, but every once in a while, it keeps things more manageable.


SiuoL wrote:
Then what is the point of playing this game at all if it's that unbalanced? Why are we still on this message board? Shouldn't we be playing a game that is more balance then? No, we are here because it's not unbalance, the game is still playable, the caster doesn't mean they can beat all martial. If not, then everyone must be caster in this case, but no because it's not unbalance and every class have their use. That's why we are still playing, am I correct?

I have to disagree with this vehemently. I don't particularly like 3.x, pathfinder included. Nor do I particularly like 4e, and I loathe the TSR editions for everything except for their role in establishing the hobby, and from what I've seen of the playtests for D&D Next, I'm pretty sure I won't like it either. I don't play pathfinder because I think the system is some great masterpiece, or that the game math is even remotely good outside of a small window between 4th-8th level. I play it because it's an acceptable compromise that can get people around a table to have fun and roleplay.

Personally, In terms of high fantasy role playing, I'd rather use either of two supers games, Mutants and Masterminds or Hero System (which I recognize is technically a universal system, but the system was Champions for years before it turned universal, so I'm counting it as such) for high fantasy, than I would pathfinder or any edition of D&D, but it's not particularly easy to get everyone around a table and tell them, "Alright I want to run a game of M&M as a Fantasy game" (and trying to get people who've never played Hero System before to grasp it is a nightmare, even in its best element of Supers), so I play PF, but I am in no way blind to its faults, of which there are many and they are severe.


Tholomyes wrote:
SiuoL wrote:
Then what is the point of playing this game at all if it's that unbalanced? Why are we still on this message board? Shouldn't we be playing a game that is more balance then? No, we are here because it's not unbalance, the game is still playable, the caster doesn't mean they can beat all martial. If not, then everyone must be caster in this case, but no because it's not unbalance and every class have their use. That's why we are still playing, am I correct?

I have to disagree with this vehemently. I don't particularly like 3.x, pathfinder included. Nor do I particularly like 4e, and I loathe the TSR editions for everything except for their role in establishing the hobby, and from what I've seen of the playtests for D&D Next, I'm pretty sure I won't like it either. I don't play pathfinder because I think the system is some great masterpiece, or that the game math is even remotely good outside of a small window between 4th-8th level. I play it because it's an acceptable compromise that can get people around a table to have fun and roleplay.

Personally, In terms of high fantasy role playing, I'd rather use either of two supers games, Mutants and Masterminds or Hero System (which I recognize is technically a universal system, but the system was Champions for years before it turned universal, so I'm counting it as such) for high fantasy, than I would pathfinder or any edition of D&D, but it's not particularly easy to get everyone around a table and tell them, "Alright I want to run a game of M&M as a Fantasy game" (and trying to get people who've never played Hero System before to grasp it is a nightmare, even in its best element of Supers), so I play PF, but I am in no way blind to its faults, of which there are many and they are severe.

I have to very much agree on this point. For me, the biggest advantage to D&D or Pathfinder is the fact that they are much easier to find groups for due to name recognition. It doesn't matter how much better than Pathfinder a given rules system is if whenever I mention playing said game, the general reaction is: "Never heard of that, and I don't want to learn a completely new system. Let's just play Pathfinder instead."

Heck, a big part of why Pathfinder exists is because 4th edition was too different from 3.5, and a lot of gamers don't like big changes or having to learn new systems.

Sovereign Court

I really don't understand these threads. I'm playing a Sorc in a current level 9 game and I'm hopelessly far behind in combat effectiveness compared to the rest of the party.

While I was able to 'win' a recent encounter early using invisibility and fly to retrieve the mcguffin, during the 6 or so rounds I was gone our Fighter, Samurai, and Gunslinger were able to chew through over a dozen well equipped guards who were nearly our level. The only thing I did to assist them was cast Haste and summon a Lemure (it died in round 1).

Had I stayed to fight I probably would have waisted a lot of resources blasting or just gotten myself chewed up by the halberd-weilding baddies and the encounter wouldn't have been resolved any sooner.

While I have probably pulled ahead in terms of shear utility, I don't foresee ever coming close to what they can do in combat. I've found it's more effective for me to boost their abilities and setup opportunities for them rather than try and use my own attacks. It's like teamwork or something.


Salazzar Slaan wrote:
I really don't understand these threads. I'm playing a Sorc in a current level 9 game and I'm hopelessly far behind in combat effectiveness compared to the rest of the party.

Then you are probably doing it wrong, especially if you are casting 1 round casting time summons. Summonign is only really effective if you can get the spells as a standard action.

At level 9 persistent Glitterdust or Create Pit, Stinking Cloud, Dazing (with magical lineage) Fireball or a host of other spells will brutalize encounters.

I would recommend looking at your spell list


Salazzar Slaan wrote:


While I have probably pulled ahead in terms of shear utility, I don't foresee ever coming close to what they can do in combat. I've found it's more effective for me to boost their abilities and setup opportunities for them rather than try and use my own attacks. It's like teamwork or something.

Magic's strength lies in all the options it grants.You don't have to do the killing personally.

By casting haste you nearly double the damage output of some melees. That all by itself is awesome.

With my witch I can kill or disable opponents, buff or heal friends. When I cast one of my usual openers, rimed frost fall or rimed ice storm itÄs seldome done for the pure damage I deal with it. It's for the entangle which debuffs enemies offence, defence and maneuverability. And sometimes even frost fall's staggering effect hits, debuffing the target even more.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Umbranus wrote:


Magic's strength lies in all the options it grants.You don't have to do the killing personally.
By casting haste you nearly double the damage output of some melees. That all by itself is awesome.

With my witch I can kill or disable opponents, buff or heal friends. When I cast one of my usual openers, rimed frost fall or rimed ice storm itÄs seldome done for the pure damage I deal with it. It's for the entangle which debuffs enemies offence, defence and maneuverability. And sometimes even frost fall's staggering effect hits, debuffing the target even more.

Buffing your allies while debuffing your opponents does not make you overpowered.

It makes you a team player.


Salazzar Slaan wrote:
I really don't understand these threads. I'm playing a Sorc in a current level 9 game and I'm hopelessly far behind in combat effectiveness compared to the rest of the party.

Haste won that battle, don't kid yourself. All those guards existed for the sole purpose of giving the melee guys something to do while you were fetching the important thing in a place none of them could reach.

The higher in level you get the more you will find yourself effectively ending encounters with one spell, setting it up so that you can comfortably hang back and let the meatshields clean up. You'll also notice more and more often that all the important, adventuring business depends on you while everyone else is doing some sort of busywork.

Face it man, the melee squad are already more your pets than your partners. If they weren't there you probably still could have grabbed the thing and made it out just fine on your own.

Sovereign Court

andreww wrote:
Salazzar Slaan wrote:
I really don't understand these threads. I'm playing a Sorc in a current level 9 game and I'm hopelessly far behind in combat effectiveness compared to the rest of the party.

Then you are probably doing it wrong, especially if you are casting 1 round casting time summons. Summonign is only really effective if you can get the spells as a standard action.

At level 9 persistent Glitterdust or Create Pit, Stinking Cloud, Dazing (with magical lineage) Fireball or a host of other spells will brutalize encounters.

I would recommend looking at your spell list

Both the Samurai and Fighter are wielding two-handed weapons with Power-Attack. One had Cleave and the other had Lunge. Since we were in a series of tight hallways they just stood in a row and killed everything.

Given the close quarters an AoE like Fireball wouldn't have fit anywhere. My Lemure was intended to clog up the other side of the hallway for the Gunslinger (He's got Deadly Aim and a lot of attacks) but the baddies got a few lucky rolls and killed it.

Don't get me wrong, I have Scorching Ray and Magic Missile and could lay down some hurt if I wanted. But the damage department is already well covered by the other players. I'm not saying this is a bad thing, since I enjoy buffing and battlefield control just fine.

Personally I like to avoid spells that allow a save and lean toward actions that I feel are more reliable. But I do like that Create Pit spell there. I'll have to try it sometime.


SiuoL wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Quote:

Caster is strong, no doubt about that. But to say melee is terrible, not really. With right tactic, a rouge will do well against caster. And if they can't do that because of poor game design, then it's just ashame.

That works in world of warcraft, not in Pathfinder. In PF stealth can't give you a backstab, and a second level spell (blur) completelly renders sneak attack ineffective.
Also, point of sneak attack is to attack without being notice. No one would cast spell when they don't know when are they going to be attacked, if they do, you can just wait until there is no more spell left. However, no caster would do that. They normally buff as soon as roll initiative, as long as the attack is done before they do any buff, they can't do much about it.

contingency->blur works just fine. So does being the agtessor, a wizard have much better ways to surprise a rogue than the other way around scry, teleport, invisibility...


2 people marked this as a favorite.

My suggestion is get rid of pearls or power for spells greater than 3rd level, get rid of metamagic rods beyond lesser (good up to 3rd level spells), and get rid of peristent and dazing metamagic feats.

Limit the usefulness of scrying and teleportation magic. Say both are blocked by 5ft of earth, 1ft of stone, or 1in of metal. It makes the castles and dungeons of the universe make a lot more sense if you can't just scry to the creature/object your after and teleport right to it. This isn't helpful so much in balancing, but in lowering the power of casters to jump through portions of a campaign.

It's a decent start to toning down casters, even if it wont get you all the way there.


SiuoL wrote:
Then what is the point of playing this game at all if it's that unbalanced? Why are we still on this message board? Shouldn't we be playing a game that is more balance then? No, we are here because it's not unbalance, the game is still playable, the caster doesn't mean they can beat all martial. If not, then everyone must be caster in this case, but no because it's not unbalance and every class have their use. That's why we are still playing, am I correct?

Miami Heat team isn't balanced with Charlote Bobcats. Yet some people root for the bobcats (and a lot more hate Miami). That shouldn't deceive us and think having Lebron James in your team is the same than having Kemba Walker


Claxon wrote:
My suggestion is get rid of pearls or power for spells greater than 3rd level, get rid of metamagic rods beyond lesser (good up to 3rd level spells), and get rid of peristent and dazing metamagic feats.

As said earlier that is pretty much what I do as a DM (but it is the whole lot of them - all metamagic rods, all pearls of power and pages of spell knowledge).

The metamagic feats are less of an issue due to the spell level increases which limit casters in our games (as said which stop about 9th level) - also the player has invested something of value in them (a feat) not just mere cash. So I'm inclined to be more tolerant of what will probably be on e of their few 'special tricks'.


Salazzar Slaan wrote:

I really don't understand these threads. I'm playing a Sorc in a current level 9 game and I'm hopelessly far behind in combat effectiveness compared to the rest of the party.

about that level, (10 actually) my DM asked me to stop using metamagic fireballs and start buffing the teammates becouse they were complaining that they never had the option to act. So I did, and started casting haste and other stuff, instead of instantly killing every monster in 20' radious


strayshift wrote:
Claxon wrote:
My suggestion is get rid of pearls or power for spells greater than 3rd level, get rid of metamagic rods beyond lesser (good up to 3rd level spells), and get rid of peristent and dazing metamagic feats.

As said earlier that is pretty much what I do as a DM (but it is the whole lot of them - all metamagic rods, all pearls of power and pages of spell knowledge).

that's why you feel there's some resemblance of balance. In dead magic worlds,fighters aren't weaker than wizards. That's not the base assumtion of the game, which is what we are discusing here

Sovereign Court

Nem-Z wrote:

Haste won that battle, don't kid yourself. All those guards existed for the sole purpose of giving the melee guys something to do while you were fetching the important thing in a place none of them could reach.

The higher in level you get the more you will find yourself effectively ending encounters with one spell, setting it up so that you can comfortably hang back and let the meatshields clean up. You'll also notice more and more often that all the important, adventuring business depends on you while everyone else is doing some sort of busywork.

Face it man, the melee squad are already more your pets than your partners. If they weren't there you probably still could have grabbed the thing and made it out just fine on your own.

Jeez, that's a really negative way of looking at it. With that kind of attitude there was really no reason to even have the encounter. Yet we all had fun and everyone felt like they made a meaningful contribution. That sounds like the game was worthwhile and balanced enough to where no one was left out.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Anzyr wrote:
Plus a good Caster can (and should) bring his own Fighters. Why else would Animate Dead/Summon Monster X/Planar Binding/Planar Ally/Simulacrum/Gate exist? Also let's all take a moment to miss one best 3.5 Core PRC's: Thaumaturgist (Really just me?)

Yeah it's just you. Seriously one of the major reasons that casters were such a problem in 3.5 was the over powered PrC's that boosted them.

I've played PFS up to 12th level and quite frankly it was usually the Martials that were the stars of the show, even over the Summoners. I won't say that Casters and Martials are perfectly balanced, but as long as you are properly strict with magic, and are imaginative with encounter design, it generally isn't a major issue. Pathfinder has generally restructured the casters to be dependent on martials to execute their awesomeness.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

First its important to have a clear objective. What does it mean to make martial characters less 'terrible'. What are we talking about here? Its clear enough to me that its not about who can stab things with sharp bits of metal best. Martials already do that well. And there in lies the problem. Most of what martial characters get revolve around the whole martial combat thing. And sure wizards and clerics and druids are really good in combat, but I dont think the problem lies there. It lies, as some have said in NARRATIVE power. A 16th level wizard can change the shape of a campaign with one spell. He can cross vast distances, influence events with little to no effort.

So what, if anything should a martial character get in order to match this. If memory serves, by the rules, fighters used to come out with an army and rogues with a thieves guild. Not story wise, but rules wise as they leveled up. DMs dont really like that sort of thing, they want to have control over where the armies or theives guilds turn up, which is fine, but because of that, the part of the rules that granted these things was cut from the game. However, the internalized (spells) narative power of the wizards was mostly untouched, if not expanded (there sure are alot of spells out there).

With this branch off, the game has evolved in such a way where the casters keep devloping interesting new powers as versions of the game release spells and powers, but fighters, rangers, rogues, monks, they hit things with sharp bits of metal (or blunt bits, or fists, or arrows). And for the most part, DMs, who are intimately important to the game, dont like giving narrative power to the players. If they did, they probably would have gravitated to more collective style games that have emerged over the years. Most dms of pathfinder want to tell a specific story where they set the world, and the players interact with it.

So basically you have two choices, cut down on the wizard's narrative power both on the large scale (world, kingdoms, politics) and the small scale (combats and encounters), or increase the narrative power of martial characters. I personally am more inclined for the latter, but I also really like games like fate, where the players have significant influence over the story besides their characters basic actions. Others might not like that sort of thing.

Either way, you have to think about it in that context. As it stands, full wizards and clerics of medium to high levels can literally high jack the story and shape it to their liking. Its kind of like a phone commercial 'theres an app for that', well most problems, theres a spell for that. Maybe the fighter should have a minion for that, but it has to be a concious choice on the part of the community to accept that kind of play, or the devs would never have the ability to introduce it even if they wanted to.

Scarab Sages

gustavo iglesias wrote:
Salazzar Slaan wrote:

I really don't understand these threads. I'm playing a Sorc in a current level 9 game and I'm hopelessly far behind in combat effectiveness compared to the rest of the party.

about that level, (10 actually) my DM asked me to stop using metamagic fireballs and start buffing the teammates becouse they were complaining that they never had the option to act. So I did, and started casting haste and other stuff, instead of instantly killing every monster in 20' radious

That was your DM's fault for packing all the mobs in a tight formation for you. Any force that is close together like that in a world where magic fireballs are somewhat common has a death wish. If they were spread out with ranged weapons and were using ready vs speallcasting, you may have gotten one or two of them, but you likely would have never gotten the spell off.


LazarX wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
Plus a good Caster can (and should) bring his own Fighters. Why else would Animate Dead/Summon Monster X/Planar Binding/Planar Ally/Simulacrum/Gate exist? Also let's all take a moment to miss one best 3.5 Core PRC's: Thaumaturgist (Really just me?)

Yeah it's just you. Seriously one of the major reasons that casters were such a problem in 3.5 was the over powered PrC's that boosted them.

I've played PFS up to 12th level and quite frankly it was usually the Martials that were the stars of the show, even over the Summoners. I won't say that Casters and Martials are perfectly balanced, but as long as you are properly strict with magic, and are imaginative with encounter design, it generally isn't a major issue. Pathfinder has generally restructured the casters to be dependent on martials to execute their awesomeness.

There is a reason pfs stops at 12th level. Its really after that point that things really start to diverge


Kolokotroni wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
Plus a good Caster can (and should) bring his own Fighters. Why else would Animate Dead/Summon Monster X/Planar Binding/Planar Ally/Simulacrum/Gate exist? Also let's all take a moment to miss one best 3.5 Core PRC's: Thaumaturgist (Really just me?)

Yeah it's just you. Seriously one of the major reasons that casters were such a problem in 3.5 was the over powered PrC's that boosted them.

I've played PFS up to 12th level and quite frankly it was usually the Martials that were the stars of the show, even over the Summoners. I won't say that Casters and Martials are perfectly balanced, but as long as you are properly strict with magic, and are imaginative with encounter design, it generally isn't a major issue. Pathfinder has generally restructured the casters to be dependent on martials to execute their awesomeness.

There is a reason pfs stops at 12th level. Its really after that point that things really start to diverge

i ussually make the split point in the double digits. 1-9 or 10+


gustavo iglesias wrote:
strayshift wrote:
Claxon wrote:
My suggestion is get rid of pearls or power for spells greater than 3rd level, get rid of metamagic rods beyond lesser (good up to 3rd level spells), and get rid of peristent and dazing metamagic feats.

As said earlier that is pretty much what I do as a DM (but it is the whole lot of them - all metamagic rods, all pearls of power and pages of spell knowledge).

that's why you feel there's some resemblance of balance. In dead magic worlds,fighters aren't weaker than wizards. That's not the base assumtion of the game, which is what we are discusing here

The base assumption of this thread was to find ways in which to make 'martials' 'less terrible'.

This is a viable way to make martial classes 'less terrible' - by reducing the power of arcane spell users. Make martial classes 'less terrible' by making them stronger if you wish but then the game will be a lot harder to DM as you struggle to design appropriate challenges.

I'd rather nerf the spell users and create an exciting enjoyable game than have a crazy amount of power and the players hammering everything.


Artanthos wrote:
Umbranus wrote:


Magic's strength lies in all the options it grants.You don't have to do the killing personally.
By casting haste you nearly double the damage output of some melees. That all by itself is awesome.

With my witch I can kill or disable opponents, buff or heal friends. When I cast one of my usual openers, rimed frost fall or rimed ice storm itÄs seldome done for the pure damage I deal with it. It's for the entangle which debuffs enemies offence, defence and maneuverability. And sometimes even frost fall's staggering effect hits, debuffing the target even more.

Buffing your allies while debuffing your opponents does not make you overpowered.

It makes you a team player.

If one spell from a caster nearly doubles the damage each martial deals then it IS overpowered.

Scarab Sages

If someone was going to make a house rule for nerfing casters, the easiest was is to ban all metamagic feats. Maximizing, Rime Spell, Toppling Spell, Empower, and so on all drastically increase a spealcaster's power.


LazarX wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
Plus a good Caster can (and should) bring his own Fighters. Why else would Animate Dead/Summon Monster X/Planar Binding/Planar Ally/Simulacrum/Gate exist? Also let's all take a moment to miss one best 3.5 Core PRC's: Thaumaturgist (Really just me?)

Yeah it's just you. Seriously one of the major reasons that casters were such a problem in 3.5 was the over powered PrC's that boosted them.

I've played PFS up to 12th level and quite frankly it was usually the Martials that were the stars of the show, even over the Summoners. I won't say that Casters and Martials are perfectly balanced, but as long as you are properly strict with magic, and are imaginative with encounter design, it generally isn't a major issue. Pathfinder has generally restructured the casters to be dependent on martials to execute their awesomeness.

PFS has a number of very Caster unfriendly rules. Such as not letting Animated Dead carry over. Furthermore, my character can't take a day off adventuring to stockpile up on Explosive runes. I can't have buffs with hour/level duration cast yesterday and I can only carry over 1 of a few spell effects. I can assure Pathfinder has done the exact opposite of making caster more dependent on Martials. Casters have been given early permanent minions (Animate Dead, Lesser), XP free Simulacrums, and a spell to mitigate any gp cost associated with their spells, all of which seems counter to making casters dependent on martials.

1 to 50 of 1,079 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Ways to make martials less terrible. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.