|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can we stop talking about why Rogues suck and focus on the more general issue of balancing the playing field between full/half casters and everyone else.
When people complain about balance it typically goes something like this:
Rock: "scissors are fine, paper is overpowered."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To all those who ask for means to make fighters and rogues better:
Do you want something "official" so you can use it with PFS or advice for home games?If it's for PFS, no point making thread after thread: the dev's have already stated their POV.
If it's for home games, why not try to incorporate the Tome of Battle Stuff into these classes?
Examples:
- the rogue has to sacrifice his sneak attack ability, but gains the maneuver and stance progression as if he were a Swordsage?
- the fighter has to sacrifice his bonus feats, but gains the maneuver and stance progression as if he were a Warblade?
- the monk has to sacrifice his flurry of blows, but gains the maneuver and stance progression as if he were a Crusader?(no idea if this is balanced, just an idea thrown out there to get somewhere constructive instead of rant-counterrant about "martials suck - no, they don't")
Why wouldnt the monk also have the maneuver progression of the sword sage? Its styles are a much better fit then those of the crusader. The paladin would be the appropriate choice for that (giving up his spell casting and a bunch of other class abilities).
It would be a start. But its not the whole picture.
I really think the issue is more about narrative power, then just who kills stuff the best. What I mean by narrative power is the ability to change the situation. Fighters and rogues, act in the situation. If there is a fight in a dark alley, the fighter and rogue fight in a back alley. Or they run out of the dark alley.
If a wizard is in a fight in a dark alley, he can make it a fight in a bright alley. Or he can make it a fight in a dark alley crowded with big grabby tentacles hostile to his enemies. Either way, he isnt just acting IN the situation, he is changing the situation. That is narrative power in the encounter scale.
As you go up in level, generally the scale of things go up. From thugs in a back alley, you go to dark lords gathering evil armies, or mystic artifacts poised to doom the world. The scale of the narrative is bigger, though there is still individual small scale narratives of individual encounters.
At higher levels the wizard can once again change the narrative, now at this new scale. Lets say between you and the dark lord gathering power is a big evil forest of doom. You have to get past this forest to stop the dark lord. Martial characters walk through the forest, fight all the bad things in there, and then take on the dark lord and his minions.
The wizard scrys the dark lords keep, teleports over there, has the alchemist pour poison in the sleeping dark lords ear, then goes home and has a sandwich. Again the narrative is changed by the high level spell caster.
Now ofcourse dms can be prepared for these sorts of things, tell appropriate stories that arent solved by a single teleport, make it important for the players to actually go into the dark forest etc. Or sometimes you have a gentlemans agreement not to do these things and mess up the story.
All of that is fine, but the caster can still do these things. So somewhere, somehow, he will. And he will overshadow the guys with the sharp bits of metal who just kill one thug at a time. There was a point in the games history where martial characters got narrative power as they leveled. They got armies and theives guilds. Not a story element, but as a simple function of leveling up. But in true, martials cant have nice things, we rejected this hijacking of the story on the part of martial characters (with GMs feeling they should say when and where guilds and armies turn up). But we not only didnt reject caster's narrative power, we've actually expanded it. Dramatically. Spells can do friggan everything, cuz magic.
But the fighter who doesnt get his army anymore is still left with a bad taste in his mouth, since his buddy gandalf still gets all and more of his narrative warping toys.
That is the balance issue. If everyone felt like they impacted the story the same, it wouldnt matter if one character had bigger numbers then the other. Balance isnt a math problem, its about feelings, perceptions and story.
@Kolokotroni
Even if you give martials a thieves guild / sellsword group kind of thing (which you could sort of do with the leadership feat), for, as you say, the narrative stuff... the wizard will still beat them because the wizard can do so in a single standard action. Doing story-influential stuff through a guild takes weeks or months to do.
From what I read in rant-threads, one complaint was that martials were "dead weight" as the wizard has to buff them, teleport them, and otherwise make sure their meat-shield is well-fed and rested.
I was reading the TOB to Pathfinder threads and most agree that these 3 classes are fitting into Pathfinder's powercurve without any effort on the DM's part. Martials would get those nifty cool standard-action thingys, that give you an alternative to stationary full-attack sword-tennis (slash-slashback-slash-slashback).
The only way for a wizard to not do those narrative-changing things, is for the DM to use highlevel countermagic measures. How in the blazes can that wizard scry on his enemy in the castle and teleport there? the castle should be warded with anti-scrying and anti-teleportation stuff.
If a wizard starts to mess too much with entire cities (not villages) and countrys, how come no god feels the need intervene and send an avatar to bring things "back to normal".
There is no possible way to bring martials up to what 7th-9th level spells can do, unless you give them access those exact spells! Now you could do that by giving martials something close... like the powers from TOB.
... or you can tell them to put ranks into UDM and use scrolls.
But no Mercenary/Thieves Guild will ever feel as powerful to a fighter/rogue, as creating your own personal demiplane will to a wizard.
Edit: as far as tentacles in the backalley go... isn't there a way for martials to do some kind of whirlwind tripping or dirty-tricking attack that would allow a fighter with a polearm weapon to mess with a load of mooks?
But then, some people say: it's the wizard's job to incapacitate the mooks, while the martials go slit their boss a new smile...?
Can we stop talking about why Rogues suck and focus on the more general issue of balancing the playing field between full/half casters and everyone else.When people complain about balance it typically goes something like this:
Rock: "scissors are fine, paper is overpowered."
Yes, but rehashing why the rogue sucks for the millionith time gets kind of old. Most everybody gets it.
I would instead prefer to focus on constructive measures of handling the overall game rather than focus on once specific class. If you think the Rogue sucks so bad the easy choice is don't play a Rogue.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But no Mercenary/Thieves Guild will ever feel as powerful to a fighter/rogue, as creating your own personal demiplane will to a wizard.
You can get pretty close, though, if you keep scaling things up. For example, for the fighter class:
Assess Prowess (Ex): By 5th level, you have seen enough combat to guess at the skill of those you meet. On a successful Sense Motive check made as a full-round action, you can determine one creature's base attack bonus and preferred mode of combat (melee, ranged weapon, spells, etc.). If you actually see the creature in combat, you can make this check as a free action.
Leader of Men (Ex): At 9th level, you gain Leadership as a bonus feat. If you have a keep or stronghold, you are seen as the protector of the surrounding lands, and gain a noble title.
Commanding Presence (Ex): At 13th level, your command in battle is so sure that your every order is treated as a command spell. Once they have seen you fight, intelligent NPC combatants of CR equal to your level -3 or less refuse to fight you in melee under any circumstances, even if commanded to (magical control will still work), and must save vs. Will (DC 10 + half your fighter level + your Charisma bonus) or throw their weapons at your feat and join your service on the spot (they can save again when not in your presence, and once per day thereafter, in an effort to shake off the effect).
Supreme Warlord (Ex): By 17th level, nearly all of the soldiers and warriors in the places you've travelled have been awed by your prowess. At will, you can personally assert control of any military apparatus or personnel in the world not directly commanded by an equal or higher-CR leader. This transcends racial and tribal loyalties and national boundaries.
Warlord of Mars (Ex): At 20th level, your supreme warlord ability applies even on other planes.
Assess Prowess (Ex): By 5th level, you have seen enough combat to guess at the skill of those you meet. On a successful Sense Motive check made as a full-round action, you can determine one creature's base attack bonus and preferred mode of combat (melee, ranged weapon, spells, etc.). If you actually see the creature in combat, you can make this check as a free action.
The debate about how much time this would take put aside...
why is your DM not allowing you to do so at your request with a simple skill check? why do you need this as a class feature?perception/sense motive/knowledge skills should already allow you to assess humanoids?
Preferrend mode of combat: what weapons is he carrying? (after a full round of watching he most probably already has that weapon in hand)
Fighting style: is he lightfooted, strong, nimble, scars of battle, ...?
Leader of Men (Ex): At 9th level, you gain Leadership as a bonus feat. If you have a keep or stronghold, you are seen as the protector of the surrounding lands, and gain a noble title.
having a keep/stronghond costs money... out of your WBL...
how is being a protector/noble helpful? if any it makes things harder as you are busy taking care of your land... (I had one DM who actually forced the player to give up his character and turned it into an NPC because the pc wasn't participating in the campaign any more. The game had turned into a 1-on-1 with noble, then rest-of-party ongoing campaign) This power would mean "the rest of the party has to play in the country I want because I'm a noble there"...Commanding Presence (Ex): At 13th level, your command in battle is so sure that your every order is treated as a command spell. Once they have seen you fight, intelligent NPC combatants of CR equal to your level -3 or less refuse to fight you in melee under any circumstances, even if commanded to (magical control will still work), and must save vs. Will (DC 10 + half your fighter level + your Charisma bonus) or throw their weapons at your feat and join your service on the spot (they can save again when not in your presence, and once per day thereafter, in an effort to shake off the effect).
Intimidate and Diplomacy...? Still fail to see how this ability gives you something you could not do before?
Higher levels carry higher reputations... yes, it's not something written in numbers, but a good DM should account for the reputation of PCs. Because I still believe in the good old ways of villagers being level 1-2, city guards being 3-5 and anything higher being rare and sparse.I'd not put the level at -3... more at -5... but then why would humanoids with a minimum of selfpreservation go try and fight somebody they have no chance to vanquish? unless the alternative is worse (thinking FR drow using kobolds as cannon fodder here)?
This should be ruled by common sense and a DM with a good scenario...
Supreme Warlord (Ex): By 17th level, nearly all of the soldiers and warriors in the places you've travelled have been awed by your prowess. At will, you can personally assert control of any military apparatus or personnel in the world not directly commanded by an equal or higher-CR leader. This transcends racial and tribal loyalties and national boundaries. Casters are creating personal demi-planes and gating in gods at this point. You now control your home plane.
Reputation... see above.
Taking control of military groups... why does that group not have a leader? If it has: convince him with intimidate/diplomancy?
Some ideas for improving martials:
1) more skill points in general and add optional skill trick system that unlock specialty options at certain rank levels.
2) Combat feats become style groups (not feats at all) that scale with BAB. Most classes that aren't full casters get one, but fighters get two and can retrain.
3) Eliminate full attacks. Simply add BAB to attack and damage instead and allow move actions to be spent to make a single extra attack. TWF style gives two swings per attack, but only half BAB bonus on each.
4) At higher levels all martials can limited spell-like ability to self heal, self buff, or other thematically appropriate enhancements. They don't 'cast spells', they just tap into the natural magic of the world instinctively through sheer badassery.
5) Everyone gets power attack and combat expertise by default.
Some ideas for reigning in casters:
1) Change spell progression to allow access to new spell levels more slowly. Full casters get to 7th, 3/4 casters to 5th, half casters to 3rd. 8th and 9th level spells are now epic only.
2) As casters level up lower levels spells gain uses faster and eventually become at-will like cantrips.
3) Make summoning spells require choosing what it will summon at the time it is prepared.
4) Rework arcane spell lists so that they are tied to additional school benefits similar to cleric domains, and likewise break up divine spells into different domain groups. Full casters have access to 3 such groups, 3/4 casters get 2, and 1/2 casters get 1.
|
|
Can we stop talking about why Rogues suck and focus on the more general issue of balancing the playing field between full/half casters and everyone else.When people complain about balance it typically goes something like this:
Rock: "scissors are fine, paper is overpowered."
Yes, but rehashing why the rogue sucks for the millionith time gets kind of old. Most everybody gets it.
I would instead prefer to focus on constructive measures of handling the overall game rather than focus on once specific class. If you think the Rogue sucks so bad the easy choice is don't play a Rogue.
Rogues have issues.
Melee in general are doing quite well in Pathfinder.
1) more skill points in general and add optional skill trick system that unlock specialty options at certain rank levels.
For fighters... I'd agree, bump to 4. Otherwise: no. Pathfinder already reduced the amount of skills there are... if you give out too many skill points everybody will "max" all their skills and everything becomes cookie-cut.
2) Combat feats become style groups (not feats at all) that scale with BAB. Most classes that aren't full casters get one, but fighters get two and can retrain.
There are already fighter archetypes that sort of do this... and fighters already get bootloads of feats to take these feat chains.
I hate retraining, the entire concept is silly: how would you forget something you've learned? (But the I also disagree with Sorcerers/Bards retraining spells, unless they swap out invis, but got greater invis at the same time.)3) Eliminate full attacks. Simply add BAB to attack and damage instead and allow move actions to be spent to make a single extra attack. TWF style gives two swings per attack, but only half BAB bonus on each.
Bad idea, it scews with the entire damage resistance and hp balancing... you'll have to rebalance all Monsters.
4) At higher levels all martials can limited spell-like ability to self heal, self buff, or other thematically appropriate enhancements. They don't 'cast spells', they just tap into the natural magic of the world instinctively through sheer badassery.
At higher levels martials are wearing items that don't stack with spells...? But many people ignore/don't know the stacking rules. Self-heal is a bad idea... and reminds me too much of 4E second wind, I hate that thing. If you want slef-healing play a paladin or monk.
5) Everyone gets power attack and combat expertise by default.
Fighters get enough feats, and can get combat expertise without requirement from an archetype.
_______________________________1) Change spell progression to allow access to new spell levels more slowly. Full casters get to 7th, 3/4 casters to 5th, half casters to 3rd. 8th and 9th level spells are now epic only.
???
Just make the main offending spells higher level, everything else will imbalance the DC-to-saves and damage-to-hitpoints, good luck rewriting all the monsters (poor DM).3) Make summoning spells require choosing what it will summon at the time it is prepared.
Most DMs restrict summoning already to keep combat smooth: 1 summon per caster.
4) Rework arcane spell lists so that they are tied to additional school benefits similar to cleric domains, and likewise break up divine spells into different domain groups. Full casters have access to 3 such groups, 3/4 casters get 2, and 1/2 casters get 1.
You might want to have a look at schools/spheres from AD&D2... it's exactly what you suggest: but you had plenty of clerics who had next to no healing (access to healing up to 3rd level spells... that's Cure Serious Wounds, but nothing beyond... healing at higher levels was a PITA and 15-min-days common in such cases.
I hate retraining, the entire concept is silly: how would you forget something you've learned?Trust me, I've forgotten several skills I once had. Use it or loose it is a very real concept.
I've also trained in new professions, the reason I stopped using my old skills.
You don't forget how to swim, dance, ride a bike, speak a language, ... you get a bit rusty, sure, but you never really forget and can get back up to speed in no time.
You might have stopped "progressing" one skill, but if you needed, you could go back to it (if you wanted).The only concept I'd admit is not being up to date with the latest developments/findings/...
That still doesn't take away what you learned back then.
|
|
You don't forget how to swim, dance, ride a bike, speak a language, ... you get a bit rusty, sure, but you never really forget and can get back up to speed in no time.
You might have stopped "progressing" one skill, but if you needed, you could go back to it (if you wanted).
The only concept I'd admit is not being up to date with the latest developments/findings/...
That still doesn't take away what you learned back then.
It's been 13 years since I repaired a radar system.
Would you trust a crews life to my work today?
You don't forget how to swim, dance, ride a bike, speak a language, ... you get a bit rusty, sure, but you never really forget and can get back up to speed in no time.
You might have stopped "progressing" one skill, but if you needed, you could go back to it (if you wanted).
The only concept I'd admit is not being up to date with the latest developments/findings/...
That still doesn't take away what you learned back then.It's been 13 years since I repaired a radar system.
Would you trust a crews life to my work today?
Certainly more so than trusting someone like me who's never repaired a radar system in my life. You're more likely to remember as you go than I am as I've never learned how.
why is your DM not allowing...?
yes, it's not something written in numbers, but a good DM should account for the reputation of PCs.
This is exactly what I'm trying to do -- move the fighter's abilities outside of DM fiat and into the realm of hard-coded rules. Any class that requires "DM being really nice to you in constant games of mother-may-I" just to retain some semblance of viability? That's really poor design. Yes, a good DM can make it work, but it's still Story Hour, not an actual game with rules.
There are hundreds of pages detailing what exactly spells can do. Would you prefer that there was one page that just said, "spells can pretty much do anything if the DM allows it, so just ask a lot if you can do stuff, but we can't be bothered to come up with actual guidelines." Yet there's a couple of sentences in the Core Rulebook given to things like I'm describing.
That means what's sold as the "Core Rulebook" is really only half a game.
Also, the abilities I'm describing start with Intimidate and Leadership and so on, but go WAY beyond what those things actually allow you to do. Again, in a game governed by actual rules instead of just hand-waving everything, "just ask your DM for a Jump check if you want to reach the Moon" doesn't really cut it.
Certainly more so than trusting someone like me who's never repaired a radar system in my life. You're more likely to remember as you go than I am as I've never learned how.It's been 13 years since I repaired a radar system.
Would you trust a crews life to my work today?
Exactly :-)
It get's buried in your mind, but when needed the human mind can remember extraordinary details... the only this that might be hard, is how technology has evolved since then.But most skills/abilities in a medival fantasy setting don't evolve. Fighting techniques stay the same... once you have learned how to do a judo throw of aikido technique, you might get rusty (as in less nimble/strong) but you never forget the technique when in a dire situation.
:-)
Certainly more so than trusting someone like me who's never repaired a radar system in my life. You're more likely to remember as you go than I am as I've never learned how.It's been 13 years since I repaired a radar system.
Would you trust a crews life to my work today?Exactly :-)
It get's buried in your mind, but when needed the human mind can remember extraordinary details... the only this that might be hard, is how technology has evolved since then.
But most skills/abilities in a medival fantasy setting don't evolve. Fighting techniques stay the same... once you have learned how to do a judo throw of aikido technique, you might get rusty (as in less nimble/strong) but you never forget the technique when in a dire situation.:-)
Not to mention that the GM can also set penalties for it having been years since you last used the skill to reflect the fact that you're out of practice, but as you use the skill once more, those penalties go away. Perfectly reasonable option to reflect "forgetting how to do something".
Can we stop talking about why Rogues suck and focus on the more general issue of balancing the playing field between full/half casters and everyone else.When people complain about balance it typically goes something like this:
Rock: "scissors are fine, paper is overpowered."
Yes, but rehashing why the rogue sucks for the millionith time gets kind of old. Most everybody gets it.
I would instead prefer to focus on constructive measures of handling the overall game rather than focus on once specific class. If you think the Rogue sucks so bad the easy choice is don't play a Rogue.
Rogues have issues.
Melee in general are doing quite well in Pathfinder.
I think in general I agree with the principle that melee is doing okay in Pathfinder, it's more that in comparison to casters they still look lack luster. The wind needs to be taken out of the caster's sails a bit. Which is why I have the house rules I've created.
This is exactly what I'm trying to do -- move the fighter's abilities outside of DM fiat and into the realm of hard-coded rules. Any class that requires "DM being really nice to you in constant games of mother-may-I" just to retain some semblance of viability? That's really poor design. Yes, a good DM can make it work, but it's still Story Hour, not an actual game with rules.why is your DM not allowing...?
yes, it's not something written in numbers, but a good DM should account for the reputation of PCs.
The problem with this is you basically need a huge DMing book... and then get all DMs to read it (I didn't, shame on me, but I believe common sense and willingness to talk makes up for it) and apply all that stuff.
Reputation works in a campaign where the players stay in the same region they become popular in... if they then travel to a different continent they have to start over (Jade Regent). The AP I DM actually spoon-feeds the entire reputation progression to the DM (Council of Thieves).If you put these things into actual class features it means you can't use them when you don't have the feature... remember the outcry when paizo brought out the feat "Strike Back"?
-----------
Benefit: You can ready an action to make a melee attack against any foe that attacks you in melee, even if the foe is outside of your reach.
-----------
Many believed readying such an action without the feat was perfectly fine... and felt this was a cheezy feat tax when paizo brought it out.
Forcing everything into spells and powers is exactly what 4E did... anything that was not a power you had, was impossible for you to do!
no combat maneuvers without training, no alchemist fire, thunderstones, ... everything depended on those friggin' encounter/daily powers. :-(
It takes away so much creativity... let players find new creative solutions! Don't limit them.
I guess you could expand the description what skills you can use for what situation to expand possibilities and give examples. But do not squeeze it into feats/features that take away from creativity of players and DMs alike.
If your DM favors spellcasters and wont be bothered (talked to him?)... don't play with him/her.
trying to find good new feats fighters/rogues could get to make this skill-based stuff work:
similar to combat maneuvers requiring combat expertise, these new feats would require skill focus first...
requiring diplomacy:
- you are great at convincing foes something is not worth fighting for: you can do a diplomacy +4 vs will check to have your foes stop fighting your group, some trigger event must happen for this to be useable in the midst of a fight (their leader is killed, they keep missing with their attacks for 3+ rounds, ...)
requiring acrobatics:
- you fighting style is more then just nimble, you hop on tables, dangle on candeliers, bounce off walls, ... you are considered to have higher ground and get an additional +2 to attack and dmg whenever you only roll a single attack in a round (useable with charge/vital strike/...)
...but then this reminds me a lot of Skill Tricks in 3.5's Complete Scoundrel and Tactical Feats in 3.5's Complete Warrior. You might as well steal from there.
|
Concealment isn't a big problem for rogues. It's just a feat tax.a feat tax on a MAD class with an attack bonus low enough to rival a monk, that is extremely feat starved, is pretty much dependant on being a fetchling with agile weaponry, has less hit points than a wizard and not enough more skill points to matter
can be foiled by many senses possessed by a variety of monsters
a class that requires an ally to help them deal any damage at all
has a fix archetype that isn't much better than the base class because it literally bleeds Ki like crazy and is even more MAD
and Weapon Finesse/Agile weapons/Dervish Dance, Reduces your MAD for a handful of weapons, weapons that lose a precious point of attack bonus and a precious feat or two to use.
look at how useless your D4-D6 medium weapon is when you have an insignificant strength score and rely on a damage bonus that is so easy to negate unless you have the right feat/class/template tax.
Str rogues work just fine. Ninjas use invisibility, which gives a bonus to hit in addition to sneak attack. rogues have umd as a class skill even and magic talent to cast more spells. it is easy to pump your to hit numbers.
if dex rogues are a problem, that is sad. i assume twf works pretty good with sneak attack for just a slightly reduced to hit. i guess the full attack reliance is a problem, maybe pick up some wands of nice range spells (in a spring loaded wrist sheath - i had fiery shuricans)to make use of your high initiative. a wand of flame blade could be fun here too (but i dont think it will apply dervish dance)
Why not? (I'm really asking.) Given the bit of Supreme Warlord that got truncated, it seems to me that you can have as many high level fighters as you want, they (and their forces, if I'm reading correctly) just don't fall under each other's sway according to Kirth's description.
...this garbage.
So, let's see what you've got that so much better?
Where does it say you can gate in gods?
Celestials/Fiends, sure, as they're planar creatures (I'm assuming you're speaking of Warlord of Mars), as well as elementals, but gods are not residents of the planes.
They're also not statted (neither are Demon Lords), which means that by default they're assumed to be higher than your CR (MUCH higher than your CR, infinitely so) which means any of said troops under their command you can't take over.
So basically, it's a no-save version of Planar Binding that only come sonline at level 20, but on any troops directly controlled by powerful enemies (Balors/Pit Fiends and so on as well) it automatically fails.
Where does it say you can gate in gods?
That's what I said the casters were basically doing at that level, to put the proposed fighter ability into perspective.
Where does it say you can gate in gods?
In the spell.
"Deities and unique beings are under no compulsion to come through the gate, although they may choose to do so of their own accord"
You don't control them, but you CAN call gods.
My opinions on martial-vs-caster are grounded in my early gaming with AD&D. My experience then was that no class was inherently better than the other, they each just had specific roles and playstyles. Thieves, fer instance, weren't considered inferior to fighters in killing things, because thieves weren't *intended* for that, they were so you could not get killed by traps or get stuck behind locked doors.
Meanwhile, magic-users' spells *could* be more effective at killing things or unlocking doors, but that edition of the game enforced a very limited number of potential spells so the M-U player really had to decide what was important. Do I use up one of my 7 knowable spells with knock, or do I just trust that the thief will handle that and take something more useful?
My personal choice is to reign in spellcasters rather than boosting martials, so these are the houserules I've enacted:
* No casting defensively - casters are at-risk if they try to cast their spells in melee.
* Seriously limit the amount of accessible spells available such that they can't assume that anything's free. Spellcasters will have to either quest for or research (per spell research rules) spells not readily available.
Houserules I've considered but haven't seen the need to enact yet:
* casters are flat-footed while spellcasting - to really play up the precariousness of casting spells in combat (plus rogues become usefull as wizard-stoppers)
* put a limit to the number of spells a caster can ever know (a la AD&D) to make spell selection more of a critical decision.
* allow spell effects to scale up only if memorized in a higher spell slot (I confess, I like how this is done in D&DNext)
Those last three feel kind of heavy handed for a problem I'm not really having, so they've remained in theory rather than practice.
What they get is that ENTIRE package which no one class can steal from them entirely. They get the skills, the sneak attack, the evasion (with options for improvement) thethe trapfinding, etc. in ONE class. Without having to cheat with spells or magic items, or trading away a core class ability.
that's not a point. Every class get class features, in a pack unique to it. It doesn't mean al packages are equally good.
A ranget with trapfinding doesn't have sneak attack, just like the rogue doesn't have favored enemy, spells, a pet companion, martial proficiencies an extra non-req feats. That both packages are different is obvious. That both are balanced is a different thing| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What they get is that ENTIRE package which no one class can steal from them entirely. They get the skills, the sneak attack, the evasion (with options for improvement) the...
The problem being that this "entire package" is made up of class features that are nearly entirely garbage.
"It's good because there's a lot of it" it not very good logic.
Or have you never eaten at a Golden Corral?
What they get is that ENTIRE package which no one class can steal from them entirely. They get the skills, the sneak attack, the evasion (with options for improvement) the...
Your premise suffers from a lack of relevance.
Perphaps an anti-magic fear chain for
Core fighters only.
Also in the realm of hobbling other classes rather than boosting fighters, I've turned trip, over run, and other special attacks into feats. You can't even attempt to disarm without having taken the disarm feat and, since fighters get bonus feats as a class feature, it's easier for them to take such non-magic battlefield control abilities.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh dear lord that's terrible.
Locking all combat maneuvers behind Feats so you can't even ATTEMPT them without said Feat HURTS martials, not helps them.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My personal preference would be lowering casters a bit (most preferably in allowing fighters a greater chance to stop casting, and making sure the game allows fighters to be better able to protect casters) and raising martials a bit. Kind of...meet in the middle.
This is pretty rough and off the cuff...
Ideas for lowering Casters a bit:
- Make casting take more time. I have less of a problem with the powerful nature of spells like Cloudkill or Maze if it takes 2-3 rounds to cast them. (Note: This only works if the martial side of the game is changed such that other characters can protect the casters mid-cast). This fixes some of the action economy disparity - in fact, it moves it the other direction. Rather than caster = I change the universe to suit my whim in a standard action and still get a full move! vs. martial = I stand there and smack it, the fighter becomes more mobile than the caster. It could be something like: 0-1 (standard); 2-3 (1 full round action); 4-5 (1 round), 6-7 (2 rounds), 8-9 (3 rounds)
- Flatten the number of slots available per day. I"m going to define "raw spellcasting power" as sum(spell slots * spell level). For example, a wizard's 3rd level spellcasting power (not considering exxtra slots from stat bonuses) would be 4 (cantrips) x 0 (level 0) + 2 x 1 + 1 x 2 = 4. The wizard's 7th level spellcasting power would be 4 + 6 + 6 + 4 = 20. The wizard progression is: 1, 2, 4, 7, 10, 15, 20, 27, 34, 43, 52, 63, 74, 87, 100, 115, 130, 147, 163, 180. If we came up with a way to "flatten" that curve, there, I think that would help a lot. Better than simply dropping the max spells per level, I think some sort of "You can have up to 15 levels of spells memorized at 10th level, in any combination" would be good. The wizard could memorize 3 5th level spells, or 15 first level spells, as he wished. (Note: looking at classes with spellcastings' "spellcasting power" and comparing it to feat progressions further outlines the disparity in parity between spellcasting options and feat / other martial options as levels rise. I would argue many feat chains' individual feats get LOWER in power as the martial character takes deeper feats in the chain. Greater Two Weapon fighting is less powerful than Improved Two Weapon Fighting, which is less powerful than Two Weapon Fighting because attack bonuses get lower and damage remains the same. It would be as if the fighter with two weapon fighting's progression was: 2, 3, 3.5...)
Ideas for helping martials a bit:
- Options to keep combat mobile. I would prefer that iteratives were removed or changed greatly in order to make the "Stand and smack each other until someone dies!" paradigm a little less pervasive. Maybe something as simple as the Vital Strike feat chain becoming a gimme to all characters. This doesn't up the power of martial characters, so much as make them a little more fun. Some options for removing iteratives or making them less necessary in combat might help monks a bit, with their "flurry vs. movement" conflict.
- Have better support to allow martial characters to act as body guards. I know MMOs are at least as much a negative reference as a positive here, but some sort of ability to "tank" would be good. The typical martial hero is often protecting someone. There's very little in the core rules that allows a martial character to offer significant protections to comrades. Combat Patrol is a nod in this direction. I don't know what form this should take, but I would like a martial that is spending his actions devoted to protecting someone be able to offer significant protections. I think this ability would naturally prevent the character from being very (or at all) significant offensively while in bodyguard mode, but robust support for something like this allows the typical "Everyone protect the mage as he casts a world altering spell! Hold off the enemy for just a few more seconds!" scene to be enacted without DM Fiat. I would want this to be a general option for martials, a "mode of operation" that can be turned on and off, if you will, like POwer Attack or Combat Expertise, rather than forcing a character invest significant resources into it that prevent him from varying. I think a feat like Power Attack or Combat Expertise here would be perfect...it requires a little investment, but is available early and can be used by martials in the correct situation, as they need.(Note: I like this combined with option 1 for lowering casters a bit)
- Make each feat a character takes allow them to do something new and different. Any feat that exists now that simply ups numbers or copies an existing ability gained in a prerequisite feat should disappear or be rolled into the prerequisite. Vital strike should increase with BaB, as well as Two Weapon Fighting. Feat chains that require significant investment should provide progressively more powerful options to the character. A feat 4 steps into a chain should be about equivalent in power and/or awesomeness to a 2nd or maybe even 3rd level spell (if limited to uses per day).
- Every martial class needs to have options that allow them to deal with, mitigate, or fight their way through spell abilities. Maybe higher saves, maybe SR. Maybe spell sunder. Maybe something new. If a caster spends 3 rounds to cast a spell, it should be super scary dangerous. But a martial needs to have some ability to deal with magical/supernatural attacks and obstacles.
- Kirth's excellent point: martials need to have greater narrative influence in the game.
Hm. Long. I have lots more to say, but should probably just let what I got down stand for now.
Agreed. Fighters need 1. the ability to gain feats without it's prerequisite ( of course you don't gain access to the feats before it, of course, so there's still a reward for going the long way ), and feats that scale in power at varying intervals ( if a Fighter uses Vital Strike at 6th level and continues using it, wouldn't he - through improvement - figure out how to *IMPROVED* Vital Strike at 11th? ). Also, the stuff included back on the Fighter thread, which many of us remember. . .
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...this garbage.So, let's see what you've got that so much better?
You don't need a solution to find a problem.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
He didn't find a problem.
He just said "This sucks I hate it aaaaaaaaaa" in a few more words with nothing constructive anywhere to be found.
Oh dear lord that's terrible.
Locking all combat maneuvers behind Feats so you can't even ATTEMPT them without said Feat HURTS martials, not helps them.
I hear you. It's worth making them a class feature for some of the swordsy classes, I suppose.
In my case, though, I'm using a build-on version of the Beginner's Box rules. I'm starting with that stripped down version of the game and adding things as we want/need them. Simplified encumbrance, fer instance, or spell research.
In effect, the PFBB doesn't even have combat maneuvers so it's a lot more palatable to introduce them as feats than to add new class features.
The biggest issue I have with martials is that they only have three options to deal with any problem: stab it, shoot it, or threaten to stab it or shoot it.
I'm not sure all the Martials have the problem; I see a lot of people playing Barbarians, Rangers and Paladins; It seems mostly - and *ESPECIALLY* - about Monks, Fighters, and *POSSIBLY* Cavaliers. I think 3PP ( Since Paizo is sticking to their place on this ) should find a way to reintroduce combat manuevers ( best advantage to the Fighter, since, well. . . he epitomizes fighting more than *ANYONE*!! ), allow Fighters to add half their level to Str/Con/maybe Dex to their appropriate skills as Porph said, and allow a type of accelerated healing for the Fighter and Rogue to help them out.
Or have you never eaten at a Golden Corral?
The Golden Trough!
THey have quite the variety.
Nobody has quite the same package they do.
Stop ignoring the things that limit spellcaster's powers.
Spellcasters don't have limited slots.
Sure they only have like 3 of their top spells, but they have like 6 first level spells!
Stop ignoring the things that limit spellcaster's powers.
You know, I've played sor/wizs in lots of 3x and PF games, and this is something that GMs can overlook.
A lot of things have to go right when you cast a spell. If they don't, you can find yourself in a bad situation.
Casters don't always beat the enemy's defenses. Sometimes, the game-changing spell fizzles, or does less than you needed. Yeah, they've got other spells, but for the rest of this round, that's all.
My personal preference would be lowering casters a bit (most preferably in allowing fighters a greater chance to stop casting, and making sure the game allows fighters to be better able to protect casters) and raising martials a bit. Kind of...meet in the middle.
This is pretty rough and off the cuff...
Ideas for lowering Casters a bit:
Ideas for helping martials a bit:
My unhelpful initial reaction is: I like your ideas for helping Martials a bit, but I think your ideas for lowering Casters may be doing more than is necessary.
Anyhow as I'm sure you'd agree both sets of ideas wound need more refinement.
I'm not totally opposed to lengthening the casting time of some spells, but things that take too long simply won't be done. The amount of surgery required to the game may end up changing it more radically than I think is probably necessary.
The "flattening" of spell progression comes off like a step towards a "mana" system. I haven't ever seen these done well (either they've been over-generous, or under-generous. I guess a happy medium is possible, I've just never seen it in practice. Usually they end up being over-generous; right now yours seems under-generous - 15 levels of spells at 10th level? Noting that when any party member's resources are depleted, the adventuring day stops, even if people think this is "wrong" or "the DM should prevent them from resting" - it becomes doubleplusunfun for people whose resources are depleted to have to continue, and then be bystanders). (If a mana system isn't what you meant, I apologize form misinterpreting).
Plus, lowering the number of spell slots a caster can have simply means many more spells may as well not exist. Quite often a caster will have spells that don't get used because the situation doesn't come up, but it's handy to have them in case it does. This utility isn't a bad or gamebreaking thing, or something that necessarily, in-and-of-itself, ruins the experience for other players. What would probably happen is spellcasters would focus on self-centered spells. They simply wouldn't have the leeway to do much more.
I do think some caster abilities & spells need to be reined in, but probably all that is required is re-writing on a case-by-case bases (things that are broken, or abusable, should be fixed, or clarified).
I hope the above doesn't come off as overly critical. You obviously gave thoughtful consideration to how to address the problem, and I do agree with your overall point that it's not just a matter of doing the one (raising Martials) or the other (lowering Casters), but some combination of both.
A lot of things have to go right when you cast a spell. If they don't, you can find yourself in a bad situation.
Casters don't always beat the enemy's defenses. Sometimes, the game-changing spell fizzles, or does less than you needed. Yeah, they've got other spells, but for the rest of this round, that's all.
It's a fair point. Save-or-lose spells are only awesome so long as your opponent doesn't make the save.
That said, most casters who know the system inside and out will have options for bypassing most of the defenses against magic: targeting weak saves, SR: No spells, and such.