While not any single feat would have that much of an impact, removing all of them surely would.
But yeah, removing spells is much more of a game-changer.
I disagree. I've had games with no primary casters. I once even ran a game where I banned all arcane magic. I even ran that game all the way to 13th or so level with about 4 total magic items.
Didn't have the disastrous effects you are describing.
I don't know how many of your games turn into rocket tag, but that's not the way every one plays.
While not any single feat would have that much of an impact, removing all of them surely would.
But yeah, removing spells is much more of a game-changer.
I disagree. I've had games with no primary casters. I once even ran a game where I banned all arcane magic. I even ran that game all the way to 13th or so level with about 4 total magic items.
Didn't have the disastrous effects you are describing.
So you have no idea what effects losing the nine level casters would have? There was no reprecusion at all? you didn't lose out on anything like fly or haste or teleport or plane shift or any of that crazy awesomeness that was mentioned above or any sort of status recovery?
So you have no idea what effects losing the nine level casters would have? There was no reprecusion at all? you didn't lose out on anything like fly or haste or teleport or plane shift or any of that crazy awesomeness that was mentioned above or any sort of status recovery?While not any single feat would have that much of an impact, removing all of them surely would.
But yeah, removing spells is much more of a game-changer.
I disagree. I've had games with no primary casters. I once even ran a game where I banned all arcane magic. I even ran that game all the way to 13th or so level with about 4 total magic items.
Didn't have the disastrous effects you are describing.
It had no effect on our ability to tell a good story, to have fun, and to enjoy the game, no.
Didn't have the disastrous effects you are describing.
The funny thing about that statement is that am not describing any effect, disastrous or not. I'm simply acknowledging that there would be an effect.
I don't know how many of your games turn into rocket tag, but that's not the way every one plays.
Dafuq are you talking about? I didn't mention Rocket tag at any point in this thread. Also, Rocket Tag is not a play style, it's just a common consequence of the rules.
It had no effect on our ability to tell a good story, to have fun, and to enjoy the game, no.
Not what I asked is it? and it very well can. Fight a flying foe without the ability to fly? Fight an invisible foe without the ability to make it visible? Can't detect/identify magic items without a guy who can cast detect magic either.
It had no effect on our ability to tell a good story, to have fun, and to enjoy the game, no.
Good lord the storm of cliches continues, and not one of them has yet managed to hit the point.
If you are playing games where you will stop below level 12 and you will never fight anything above CR 12 where outsiders and dragons dominate the battlefield you can probably play a game and have plenty of fun.
You might even be able to power through a standard AP using level 6 casters although there are definitely going to be encounters that you'll struggle with or the GM is liable to have to pull some punches.
The game is largely still predicated on the ideal of 1 divine full caster and 1 arcane full caster + skillmonkey/face and meatshield.
It's just that after a certain level (differences in opinion on exactly where) the fighter and the rogue tend to be more or less expendable because meatshield and skillmonkey can be handled with spells/called creatures.
I think the key example that shows how much the fighter and rogue really struggle in the high end game is how inept martial only NPCs are as antagonists. Even with UMD and potions the high level fighter gets trucked easily by a competent group because basically he's got good HPs and good damage. What's particularly noticeable is how much you have to buff said warrior with consumables and gear to not make him one-shot vulnerable to a decent SoL.
It had no effect on our ability to tell a good story, to have fun, and to enjoy the game, no.Not what I asked is it? and it very well can. Fight a flying foe without the ability to fly? Fight an invisible foe without the ability to make it visible? Can't detect/identify magic items without a guy who can cast detect magic either.
Arrows hit flying foes.
Blindfighting and good old fashioned work hits invisible foes.
Items can be used without identifying and their effects determined as they go. . . I remember a club that it was 5 levels before I gave the effect to the player, but he got the bonuses before that regardless.
Blindfighting and good old fashioned work hits invisible foes.
It really doesn't.
Items can be used without identifying and their effects determined as they go. . . I remember a club that it was 5 levels before I gave the effect to the player, but he got the bonuses before that regardless.
Not a good solution. Requires extra bookkeeping from the GM and doesn't solve the problem of actually detecting magic items or identifying cursed ones.
Using a magical item without knowing what it does is beyond foolish.
Blindfighting and good old fashioned work hits invisible foes.
Good old fashioned work can move a mountain! Am I right folks?
Still, you did lose out on a lot of things, and moving that mountain is much easier with magic, as illustrated.
Blindfighting and good old fashioned work hits invisible foes.It really doesn't.
Items can be used without identifying and their effects determined as they go. . . I remember a club that it was 5 levels before I gave the effect to the player, but he got the bonuses before that regardless.Not a good solution. Requires extra bookkeeping from the GM and doesn't solve the problem of actually detecting magic items or identifying cursed ones.
Using a magical item without knowing what it does is beyond foolish.
I'll make sure to tell my players they never killed those invisible guys . . . I mean, you have to take a 50% miss chance and guess at squares, but it can be done.
I'll also tell them that they were foolish for using magic items without identifying them. . . you know, the four of them that they got. . .
Thanks for pointing out the extra work that caused me as a DM, I wasn't aware!
It had no effect on our ability to tell a good story, to have fun, and to enjoy the game, no.Not what I asked is it? and it very well can. Fight a flying foe without the ability to fly? Fight an invisible foe without the ability to make it visible? Can't detect/identify magic items without a guy who can cast detect magic either.Arrows hit flying foes.
Blindfighting and good old fashioned work hits invisible foes.
Items can be used without identifying and their effects determined as they go. . . I remember a club that it was 5 levels before I gave the effect to the player, but he got the bonuses before that regardless.
Arrows are subject to such factors as weather, terrain, cover, and range increments. not the best substitute for flight, especially in a forest, underwater, on a massive battlefield, or anywhere where there are lots of places to hide
blindfighting doesn't work as well as you state. and before you point out flour as an option, flour can be washed off with a 0 level spell, and requires you to be able to actually target the foe or square. without a way of knowing what square the foe is in with a swift action or less. there is no way to target the invisible person because they could simply move. this doesn't work with scent because i requires a standard action. a see invisibility spell allows you to see the target you are revealing. thing is, that requires magic, or access to an extremely limited ability called blindsight, but the only way i can think of to gain permanent blindsight, is 10-15 levels of a highly specific divine full caster with a highly specific feature choice
items can be used without identification. but the effect is eventually going to be revealed at some point when the player uses it, and if it's a cursed item. they need a spellcaster to help them remove it. and either a 3rd or 5th level spell. using detect magic to identify it could save you the knowledge of whether or not it is cursed, and would have potentially saved you the higher level spell slot spent removing the curse.
I'll make sure to tell my players they never killed those invisible guys . . . I mean, you have to take a 50% miss chance and guess at squares, but it can be done.
You can also play a blind man using weapons he's not proficient with. You have to deal with a 50% miss chance a -4 to all attack rolls, but it can be done.
I'll also tell them that they were foolish for using magic items without identifying them. . . you know, the four of them that they got. . .
They were foolish. It was an unnecessary and risky gamble. It may have worked in their favor, but that doesn't make the decision any less foolish. Just like a man who bets all his money in a horse race shouldn't be considered any less foolish because he won, just luckier.
Thanks for pointing out the extra work that caused me as a DM, I wasn't aware!
Your sarcasm is not clever or called for. Stop acting like a little brat.
the only combat feats that i know of, that change the pace and/or outcome of combat in a similar way, are weapon finesse, deadly aim, power attack, piranha strike, and all the other power attack clones.Hit stuff harder isn't exactly changing the battlefield though. Some feats apply debuffs, sometimes en masse, and others can change the way your character works, but rarely will you see one that affects the world around you or is gamechanging.
Hit Stuff Harder doesn't change the battlefield, but it does change the pace and thus potentially change the outcome. it's not 100% about controlling the battlefield. sometimes, somebody has to inflict the wounds that help eliminate the enemy from the fight. whom better than somebody with the ability to hit stuff really hard?
a statement on a martial character's value to an adventuring party
I'm pretty sure when I tell you I ran a campaign where something happened I am aware what it takes for that to happen. . . you telling me that its extra work wasn't clever or called for, it was obvious.
Yes, Arrows have their limits. Ironically most of those limits also limit the ability of anything in the sky to threaten someone on the ground. . .
These aren't theoretical situations, they are things that actually happened in a game I ran. . .
Did it take longer for them to kill the invisible enemies?
Yes, they missed a lot. But since they were fighters when they hit, the did a ton of damage and they eventually defeated the encounter. . .
Just because something is easier with magic doesn't mean that the game is brokenly unbalanced. Killing things is easier with Fighter than without him.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm pretty sure when I tell you I ran a campaign where something happened I am aware what it takes for that to happen. . . you telling me that its extra work wasn't clever or called for, it was obvious.
I said it wasn't a good solution and then gave my reasoning for thinking so. Simply say "this is not true" doesn't add much.
Did it take longer for them to kill the invisible enemies?
Yes, they missed a lot. But since they were fighters when they hit, the did a ton of damage and they eventually defeated the encounter. . .Just because something is easier with magic doesn't mean that the game is brokenly unbalanced.
If the difference is that big, (e.g.: between "use one standard action to reveal the enemy's position" and "spend lots of rounds trying to pinpoint the enemy and then even more rounds dealing with 50% miss chance. Pray the invisible enemy doesn't have ranged weapons") it does mean there is an unbalance.
Killing things is easier with Fighter than without him.
Only if you don't have anything to replace the Fighter.
I'm pretty sure when I tell you I ran a campaign where something happened I am aware what it takes for that to happen. . . you telling me that its extra work wasn't clever or called for, it was obvious.
Yes, Arrows have their limits. Ironically most of those limits also limit the ability of anything in the sky to threaten someone on the ground. . .
These aren't theoretical situations, they are things that actually happened in a game I ran. . .
Did it take longer for them to kill the invisible enemies?
Yes, they missed a lot. But since they were fighters when they hit, the did a ton of damage and they eventually defeated the encounter. . .Just because something is easier with magic doesn't mean that the game is brokenly unbalanced. Killing things is easier with Fighter than without him.
Fighter is better at Dealing Damage with their Signature Weapon, doesn't mean they are better at combat. merely that they are that much better with their signature weapon.
Paladins, Rangers, and Barbarians aren't bound by their Signature Weapon. yes, Barbarian is limited by Rage Rounds, but they are quite abundant past level 7. Ranger is limited by creature types and 3rd level slots, but this only matters for bosses, and paladin is limited by smites, which only matter against bosses.
you aren't raging, smiting or casting instant enemy on every last mook. you are saving those for the important fights, plus while paladin has better defenses in the form of saving throws, healing and condition removal, barbarian and ranger have more skill points, barbarian has more HP and a similar though slightly lower AC, but more mobility due to pounce, ranger has access to a large pouncing pet, the ability to use wands and scrolls, and the ability to mimic a rogue out of combat.
i'd rate what the paladin, barbarian and ranger get on the side, more valuable than the fighter's extra damage output with one weapon.
i'd rate what the paladin, barbarian and ranger get on the side, more valuable than the fighter's extra damage output with one weapon.
For the purposes of this discussion those guys are all still basically "fighter". . . they don't cast spells.
But we're back to wizards being able to do wizard stuff makes them unbalanced. . . not a very productive thread of conversation. . .
Of course, if Fighters had a feat that let them dispel invisibility I wonder how many times it would be taken?
If they had a feat that let them knock flying creatures out of the sky and stop them from flying for a number of rounds?
My guess is that they would not. The game is balanced around the idea that you have four characters who fill the four main roles (Arcane, Divine, Martial, Skilled). . .
But I guess some people aren't going to be happy unless we all ban all spell casters from the game or give fighters spells. . .
I'm pretty sure when I tell you I ran a campaign where something happened I am aware what it takes for that to happen. . . you telling me that its extra work wasn't clever or called for, it was obvious.I said it wasn't a good solution and then gave my reasoning for thinking so. Simply say "this is not true" doesn't add much.
i can agree with Lemmy here, the issue with most nonmagical solutions is the amount of time invested, the amount of resources expended, or the need for a magic item to fake the presence of a caster. either way, you are going need a caster, even if it's a 3/4 caster such as a bard, inquisitor or magus. not only because of the impact magic has upon recovery, but also because of the impact magic has upon problem solving. a 3/4 caster can also in most cases, fill in for a fighter in a pinch, and some, are clearly martial stand ins, like the magus, inquisitor, and alchemist. druid, oracle and cleric can fulfill these roles to an extent as well
If the difference is that big, (e.g.: between "use one standard action to reveal the enemy's position" and "spend lots of rounds trying to pinpoint the enemy and then even more rounds dealing with 50% miss chance. Pray the invisible enemy doesn't have ranged weapons") it does mean there is an unbalance.Did it take longer for them to kill the invisible enemies?
Yes, they missed a lot. But since they were fighters when they hit, the did a ton of damage and they eventually defeated the encounter. . .Just because something is easier with magic doesn't mean that the game is brokenly unbalanced.
in this case, pinpointing our invisible foe becomes impossible the moment he makes a single movement oriented action to change his position, because every move action, completely undoes your pinpointing. it's also known as the pixie's trolling method for a reason
Killing things is easier with Fighter than without him.Only if you don't have anything to replace the Fighter.
that would require nobody that can summon, nobody with an eidolon or animal companion, and nobody with a base attack bonus progression of 3/4 or better. i don't see many parties that don't possess at least one of these options. as Q says, somebody has to pull the trigger. pull the trigger is a way of saying, deal the damage. this can just as easily be a 3/4 caster as it can a full B.A.B. PC.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is not that the classes in theory have niche protection (although honestly the idea that characters should only be competent in one area of expertise is a pretty dated albeit popular design choice) it's that the niche protection afforded the casters isn't really afforded to the skillmonkey and martial classes.
Now personally my preference is that classes should be competent in combat, social interaction and exploration phases of the game. That way if I have an extended session of social interaction the fighter isn't acting bored while the bard does all the work, further I like having each of the characters get some ability to advance subplots on their own which means pretty much every character needs at least one social skill moderately developed because otherwise they are too passive when separated from the designated face character.
Unfortunately the truth of the matter is that the martial and skillmonkey classes have very very limited niche protection and that's larely obviated by spells and called/summoned creatures by level 6-10.
The traditional balliwick of rogues is trapfinding, scouting, door opening, pick pocketing, etc. Trapfinding is useful but at a certain point in time can largely be done away with by summoned creatures and a 10' pole. Scouting can be done better with invisibility and silence. Door opening can be handled with knock, climbing is a joke with spider climb, etc.
PF toned down some of the skill bonus of various spells but it's pretty clear that the rogue is not a particularly stellar class and let's be honest the vivisectionist and urban rogue have basically killed it and stolen it's stuff.
The fighter still has a role to play but let's be honest it really begins to lose ground to some of the other martial classes and the casters around mid-level where called creatures, summons, and battlefield control can successful reduce the need for a tank to absorb opposition. Yes it's still useful to have some classes be able to do decent DPR but a decent battle oracle or druid or summoner should be able to step on the fighter niche pretty effectively not to mention how the fighter begins to lose ground to the barbarian and paladin.
Listen I'd love for PF to be a game about the big 4 classes and their various hybrids getting along as a team fighting crime and you can do that with PF but in many ways you almost have to work against the system.
What people are saying is that they'd like the fighter to actually deliver on it's promise rather than be the flunky of a wizard
i'd rate what the paladin, barbarian and ranger get on the side, more valuable than the fighter's extra damage output with one weapon.For the purposes of this discussion those guys are all still basically "fighter". . . they don't cast spells.
But we're back to wizards being able to do wizard stuff makes them unbalanced. . . not a very productive thread of conversation. . .
Actually ranger and paladin both cast spells. Those three are still behind full casters, but they're doing much better than fighter out of combat. Fighter vs. wizard is just a really wide gap where its more obvious, which is why people point to that. Even between a magus and a Barbarian or Ranger, there is a discrepancy between how powerful the characters are and what they can do. Not nearly as wide and obvious though.
Of course, if Fighters had a feat that let them dispel invisibility I wonder how many times it would be taken?
If they had a feat that let them knock flying creatures out of the sky and stop them from flying for a number of rounds?
My guess is that they would not.
I'd totally take those feats! That's pretty darn useful. Now let me follow a wizard through his portaling or something, that'd be awesome too! Or severe the connection between him and conjured objects. Also give me some good saves, I'm fighting darn near everything and I got nerfed over several editions somehow!
i'd rate what the paladin, barbarian and ranger get on the side, more valuable than the fighter's extra damage output with one weapon.For the purposes of this discussion those guys are all still basically "fighter". . . they don't cast spells.
But we're back to wizards being able to do wizard stuff makes them unbalanced. . . not a very productive thread of conversation. . .
Of course, if Fighters had a feat that let them dispel invisibility I wonder how many times it would be taken?
If they had a feat that let them knock flying creatures out of the sky and stop them from flying for a number of rounds?
My guess is that they would not. The game is balanced around the idea that you have four characters who fill the four main roles (Arcane, Divine, Martial, Skilled). . .
But I guess some people aren't going to be happy unless we all ban all spell casters from the game or give fighters spells. . .
Barbarian has plenty of Rage powers that produce effects similar to spells
Ranger and Paladin actually do get spells, saying they don't is irrelevant. yes, they still fight stuff. and they might not have many spells, but the fact they get a handful, is more beneficial than the fighter's extra damage
now, a feat that was useable at will in place of a melee attack that allowed a fighter to dispel a spell effect with a sunder check would be pretty sweet. every fighter i know would definitely want it.
a lot of fighters would love a feat that let them make a ranged touch attack as a standard action with no saving throw that carried the effect of causing such pain to an enemy's wings, they couldn't fly for 24 hours and came crashing down to the ground and taking falling damage, i'd love it and it would give bows some extra utility for non-dedicated archers, we can call it wing clipper. the reason for touch attack, is because wings are not something you would realistically wear armor over, and something not likely to be thickly protected. it would still deal damage and be combinable with power attack and the like. i'd also make DR not apply to the attack either for the reason your wings sure as heck aren't covered in steel and thick skin would hinder their ability to function.
a lot of fighters would love to spend a feat on pounce. in fact, any martial character would. as would most pets. lets open up pounce as a feat tax. lets give pounce out to every martial character. it's an endgame necessity.
lets create a feat that gives PCs that take it access to fast healing based on their level or HD. so as to make magical healing less of an issue.
i'd rate what the paladin, barbarian and ranger get on the side, more valuable than the fighter's extra damage output with one weapon.For the purposes of this discussion those guys are all still basically "fighter". . . they don't cast spells.
But we're back to wizards being able to do wizard stuff makes them unbalanced. . . not a very productive thread of conversation. . .
Actually ranger and paladin both cast spells. Those three are still behind full casters, but they're doing much better than fighter out of combat. Fighter vs. wizard is just a really wide gap where its more obvious, which is why people point to that. Even between a magus and a Barbarian or Ranger, there is a discrepancy between how powerful the characters are and what they can do. Not nearly as wide and obvious though.
Of course, if Fighters had a feat that let them dispel invisibility I wonder how many times it would be taken?
If they had a feat that let them knock flying creatures out of the sky and stop them from flying for a number of rounds?
My guess is that they would not.
I'd totally take those feats! That's pretty darn useful. Now let me follow a wizard through his portaling or something, that'd be awesome too! Or severe the connection between him and conjured objects. Also give me some good saves, I'm fighting darn near everything and I got nerfed over several editions somehow!
Ever see Occult Slayer from 3.5? It gets bonuses to all saves versus spells, supernatural spell turning. . . non-detection. . .immune to all mind affecting abilities?
Do you guys just not know this stuff exists? It seems like there are plenty of options out there to be honest, but its not in the PF core rules, and it won't ever be. . . but its around if you look for it. . .
Do you guys just not know this stuff exists? It seems like there are plenty of options out there to be honest, but its not in the PF core rules, and it won't ever be. . . but its around if you look for it. . .
We do. Doesn't change the facts though. Casters have a lot of oomph. The fact they don't have to put that much work into fighting the invisible guy is a part of it. He can cast glitterdust and he's visible and he might have blinded the invisible foe! Sure you can move a mountain with enough work, but its easier with the move mountain spell(Which was a thing!)
Do you guys just not know this stuff exists? It seems like there are plenty of options out there to be honest, but its not in the PF core rules, and it won't ever be. . . but its around if you look for it. . .We do. Doesn't change the facts though. Casters have a lot of oomph. The fact they don't have to put that much work into fighting the invisible guy is a part of it. He can cast glitterdust and he's visible and he might have blinded the invisible foe! Sure you can move a mountain with enough work, but its easier with the move mountain spell(Which was a thing!)
So to reiterate:
1. options to give fighters/martials more power and abilities to deal with spell casters exist (see afore mentioned PRC)
2. options to give martials more spell-like abilities exist (see Tome of Battle)
3. options to play martials with spells exist (Paladins, Rangers, ect)
4. optional settings that reduce the power of spell casters exist
SO what exactly is the remaining problem?
Is it that important to you that my table where I might enjoy spell casters as they are is allowed to exist and have fun that way as well?
And my character who repeatedly rolls the vanilla fighter, and I'm not really sure he ever even assigns his skill points because, you know, they do nothing to help him kill stuff. . . he shouldn't have that option?
Ever see Occult Slayer from 3.5? It gets bonuses to all saves versus spells, supernatural spell turning. . . non-detection. . .immune to all mind affecting abilities?
Do you guys just not know this stuff exists? It seems like there are plenty of options out there to be honest, but its not in the PF core rules, and it won't ever be. . . but its around if you look for it. . .
the issue with the Occult Slayer is that it is a prestige class from a prior version of the game, comes with the downside of being from a rarely allowed iteration of the system, has the issue of people not wanting to bother converting it, has the issue of requiring an investment of countless levels to utilize, the loss of favored class benefits, and delays class features in a system that greatly penalizes multiclassing by taking every incentive to remove the benefits from it.
the issue with the Occult Slayer is that it is a prestige class from a prior version of the game, comes with the downside of being from a rarely allowed iteration of the system, has the issue of people not wanting to bother converting it, has the issue of requiring an investment of countless levels to utilize, the loss of favored class benefits, and delays class features in a system that greatly penalizes multiclassing by taking every incentive to remove the benefits from it.Ever see Occult Slayer from 3.5? It gets bonuses to all saves versus spells, supernatural spell turning. . . non-detection. . .immune to all mind affecting abilities?
Do you guys just not know this stuff exists? It seems like there are plenty of options out there to be honest, but its not in the PF core rules, and it won't ever be. . . but its around if you look for it. . .
Seems like if YOU wanted it in a game YOU would take the effort to convert it?
I think you are overstating how much effort that would take at that. . . reduce the skill requirements by a few to compensate, and voila. . .I don't recall that being a "rarely allowed iteration of that system" it was literally from the first 3.5 splat book published (Complete Warrior) not some bizarre off shoot or campaign specific source material?
Its main, limiting requirement was +5 BaB, so its 5 levels could be taken as 6-10 or any combination of mixing that and your main class you wanted to achieve the abilities you want.
If you are going in as a fighter the only class features you are delaying are more bonus feats-- so is that really that big of an issue?
Do you guys just not know this stuff exists? It seems like there are plenty of options out there to be honest, but its not in the PF core rules, and it won't ever be. . . but its around if you look for it. . .We do. Doesn't change the facts though. Casters have a lot of oomph. The fact they don't have to put that much work into fighting the invisible guy is a part of it. He can cast glitterdust and he's visible and he might have blinded the invisible foe! Sure you can move a mountain with enough work, but its easier with the move mountain spell(Which was a thing!)So to reiterate:
1. options to give fighters/martials more power and abilities to deal with spell casters exist (see afore mentioned PRC)
2. options to give martials more spell-like abilities exist (see Tome of Battle)
3. options to play martials with spells exist (Paladins, Rangers, ect)
4. optional settings that reduce the power of spell casters exist
SO what exactly is the remaining problem?
Is it that important to you that my table where I might enjoy spell casters as they are is allowed to exist and have fun that way as well?
And my character who repeatedly rolls the vanilla fighter, and I'm not really sure he ever even assigns his skill points because, you know, they do nothing to help him kill stuff. . . he shouldn't have that option?
does nothing for single classed fighters, but does a lot for nonfighters and for multiclassed fighters. does nothing to fix that the fighter itself is a highly limited class. the fact that class options exist for the fighter if he chooses to multiclass, does nothing for the multiclassed fighter, and choosing to play a ranger or paladin, does nothing to fix the fighter's shortcomings.
SO what exactly is the remaining problem?
The fact (2)tome of battle didn't do spell like and the fact the (1)PrC you pointed too didn't give options, it gave defenses. Your also not talking about pathfinder anymore. Optional settings are optional and house rules(4). I also just said that there is still a disparity between the ranger/paladin/barbarian and the full casters, its just not as glaringly obvious(3).
Is it that important to you that my table where I might enjoy spell casters as they are is allowed to exist and have fun that way as well?
Its great that you have fun, no one is trying to tell you its bad to enjoy things or have fun. The thing is that doesn't have to do with balance. You can have fun with a commoner, but that doesn't make him mechanically balanced with the wizard or fighter. Its great that you have fun, alright? But then you keep denying that there is an imbalance, why?
And my character who repeatedly rolls the vanilla fighter, and I'm not really sure he ever even assigns his skill points because, you know, they do nothing to help him kill stuff. . . he shouldn't have that option?
No one said you shouldn't have that option. Where are you getting that from?
the issue with the Occult Slayer is that it is a prestige class from a prior version of the game, comes with the downside of being from a rarely allowed iteration of the system, has the issue of people not wanting to bother converting it, has the issue of requiring an investment of countless levels to utilize, the loss of favored class benefits, and delays class features in a system that greatly penalizes multiclassing by taking every incentive to remove the benefits from it.Ever see Occult Slayer from 3.5? It gets bonuses to all saves versus spells, supernatural spell turning. . . non-detection. . .immune to all mind affecting abilities?
Do you guys just not know this stuff exists? It seems like there are plenty of options out there to be honest, but its not in the PF core rules, and it won't ever be. . . but its around if you look for it. . .
Seems like if YOU wanted it in a game YOU would take the effort to convert it?
I think you are overstating how much effort that would take at that. . . reduce the skill requirements by a few to compensate, and voila. . .I don't recall that being a "rarely allowed iteration of that system" it was literally from the first 3.5 splat book published (Complete Warrior) not some bizarre off shoot or campaign specific source material?
Its main, limiting requirement was +5 BaB, so its 5 levels could be taken as 6-10 or any combination of mixing that and your main class you wanted to achieve the abilities you want.
If you are going in as a fighter the only class features you are delaying are more bonus feats-- so is that really that big of an issue?
it was commonly allowed in 3.5. 3.5 material is rarely allowed in pathfinder, despite pathfinder being backwards compatible.
not only do i have to adjust skill rank requirements by lowering them by 3, but i have to consolidate fused skills, adjust class skills, and marry Hit Die/BAB to the faster progression of the two. i also have to fill in a few dead levels and change how certain terms work such as changing turn undead requirements to channel energy requirements, or altering feat requirements to their closest pathfinder equivalent.
filling in those dead levels is the hard part
SO what exactly is the remaining problem?The fact (2)tome of battle didn't do spell like and the fact the (1)PrC you pointed too didn't give options, it gave defenses. Your also not talking about pathfinder anymore. Optional settings are optional and house rules(4). I also just said that there is still a disparity between the ranger/paladin/barbarian and the full casters, its just not as glaringly obvious(3).
Is it that important to you that my table where I might enjoy spell casters as they are is allowed to exist and have fun that way as well?Its great that you have fun, no one is trying to tell you its bad to enjoy things or have fun. The thing is that doesn't have to do with balance. You can have fun with a commoner, but that doesn't make him mechanically balanced with the wizard or fighter. Its great that you have fun, alright? But then you keep denying that there is an imbalance, why?
And my character who repeatedly rolls the vanilla fighter, and I'm not really sure he ever even assigns his skill points because, you know, they do nothing to help him kill stuff. . . he shouldn't have that option?No one said you shouldn't have that option. Where are you getting that from?
You keep insisting that this imbalance somehow has any affect on the game?
I disagree. So is it literally just that you want to argue about this theoretical imbalance?
I offer solutions, you say they aren't good enough regardless of what they are. You've basically shot down everything single option that isn't Paizo publishing a new version of the game that meets your exact idea of what balanced is.
SO what's the point really? What's going to solve this problem for you?
If you want a completely different version of the game where you remove all the offending spells, "fix" the fighter and publish your perfect version of the game even that is technically within YOUR power-- it is all open content after all.
But at some point you have to accept a solution of some kind to a problem or there isn't any point in yelling so loudly that it exists.
it was commonly allowed in 3.5. 3.5 material is rarely allowed in pathfinder, despite pathfinder being backwards compatible.not only do i have to adjust skill rank requirements by lowering them by 3, but i have to consolidate fused skills, adjust class skills, and marry Hit Die/BAB to the faster...
Too easy:
Requirements: BaB +5, Skills-- spellcraft 1, Knowledge (arcana).
All of its class skill still exist. Good bab and fort save. d8 hit die. All the abilities can work the same since they either explain themselves, or reference spells which still exist. . .
How hard is that?
You keep insisting that this imbalance somehow has any affect on the game?
I disagree. So is it literally just that you want to argue about this theoretical imbalance?
The fact you say its theoretical means you don't really think it exist. The fact that a wizard can teleport does directly affect my game. The fact they can recognize magic items affects my games. The fact they can move a mountain does affect my game. Fighters and other martials don't do anything to affect my game like a wizard can.
I'd just like it if people didn't repeatedly say it doesn't exist and that you should never ever fix things.
SO what's the point really? What's going to solve this problem for you?
What is your point, eh? Your solutions aren't the ones I'm looking for. They carry their own problems. Its a bandage that comes at a cost. It would help if you presented them as kindly offered solutions and sought other peoples opinions instead of saying there shouldn't be a problem and throwing things out there. I didn't even know you were trying to give solutions.
If you want a completely different version of the game where you remove all the offending spells, "fix" the fighter and publish your perfect version of the game even that is technically within YOUR power-- it is all open content after all.
That's not what I asked for nor what I'm doing. I can play my game however I want, as can you.
SO what exactly is the remaining problem?The fact (2)tome of battle didn't do spell like and the fact the (1)PrC you pointed too didn't give options, it gave defenses. Your also not talking about pathfinder anymore. Optional settings are optional and house rules(4). I also just said that there is still a disparity between the ranger/paladin/barbarian and the full casters, its just not as glaringly obvious(3).
Is it that important to you that my table where I might enjoy spell casters as they are is allowed to exist and have fun that way as well?Its great that you have fun, no one is trying to tell you its bad to enjoy things or have fun. The thing is that doesn't have to do with balance. You can have fun with a commoner, but that doesn't make him mechanically balanced with the wizard or fighter. Its great that you have fun, alright? But then you keep denying that there is an imbalance, why?
And my character who repeatedly rolls the vanilla fighter, and I'm not really sure he ever even assigns his skill points because, you know, they do nothing to help him kill stuff. . . he shouldn't have that option?No one said you shouldn't have that option. Where are you getting that from?You keep insisting that this imbalance somehow has any affect on the game?
I disagree. So is it literally just that you want to argue about this theoretical imbalance?
I offer solutions, you say they aren't good enough regardless of what they are. You've basically shot down everything single option that isn't Paizo publishing a new version of the game that meets your exact idea of what balanced is.
SO what's the point really? What's going to solve this problem for you?
If you want a completely different version of the game where you remove all the offending spells, "fix" the fighter and publish your perfect version of the game even that is technically within YOUR power-- it is all open content after all.
But at some point you have to accept a solution of some kind to a problem or there isn't any point in yelling so loudly that it exists.
Occult Slayer from complete warrior didn't give options, it gave defenses. being able to deal with casters requires more than merely having defenses. you have to actually have counters to the spells, the class provided no counters, merely defenses
tome of battle wasn't spell like, the manuevers were not even spells, most of them did the same things martial characters did the whole time. deal hit point damage, perform combat manuevers, and make saving throws. some of the manuevers offered stuff like replacement saving throws or personal condition removal, but those were merely defenses. they weren't legitimate options. it was like being a reactive occult slayer.
the disparity between rangers, barbarians and paladins against the wizard, druid and cleric, is still there, but it's merely less obvious. doesn't eliminate it.
the imbalance does have an effect on the game, the weaker characters feel overshadowed compared to their stronger counterparts. as a good example
Martial/Caster imbalance. see how the wizard completely overshadows the fighter?
Ok, so. . . /thread.
Ok, so. . . /thread.
why can't the fighter have nice things too?
is it because they weren't intended to cast spells?
and thus had to be inferior to a proper arcanist?
I'm still waiting to see how Fighters deal with the layered buffs that the Wizard will keep adding and haven't seen an answer outside of "They'll never have those up".
Also, the Occult Slayer was pretty useless against Casters in 3.5. +3 to saves, no big deal. +1d6 to casters... meh. Their spell turning was twice a day and no help against summons. The only half decent thing they really get is Blank Thoughts. Really its pretty much an inferior Slayer and Slayer is a full bab 9/10 manifesting PRC.
Fickle Winds is a spell. It should be assumed to be active. Try again. (And seriously, thats just an Astral Projection... and even if you did somehow kill a caster, big deal, my casters can die 8 times before breakfast as a minor inconvience.)
You realize that Druid can cover the Fighter's role better than the Fighter right? While having casting?
After level 5+ Casters don't run out of spells. I've never seen a high level caster get even close to going through the 60-100 spells available to them.
Edit @ CWheezy, that would be pretty funny to read and I know I'm still waiting on that CR 24.
No person on the Magic Users are OP side is claiming that Casters have no counter.... they do. The problem is the only counter to a level 20 caster is *another* level 20 caster that thought of more things then you did. (Which means the winner is really the person who has more experience with casters and knows what tactics they need defenses against and what offensive abilities can get around most defenses and then throwing these effects against each other until one casters defenses weren't enough at which point they lose).
These tend to break into "I knew you knew that I knew that you knew that I knew..."
Nope, the counter to magic users is usually a hail of magical arrows or a cleaving greataxe. Especially at high-levels; please take the time to look at the DPR threads for stats on high level fighters/archers. They do horrendous amounts of damage on casters who traditionally don't have too many hit points.
Melee builds use magic as well, it's simply crafted into their items.
the problem with those items, is that they too, require a caster to produce. so melee guys are still dependent on casters to slay casters. effectively, it becomes like Jackie Chan adventures where the only way to defeat a spellcaster, is to be a better prepared spellcaster.
the problem with those items, is that they too, require a caster to produce. so melee guys are still dependent on casters to slay casters. effectively, it becomes like Jackie Chan adventures where the only way to defeat a spellcaster, is to be a better prepared spellcaster.No person on the Magic Users are OP side is claiming that Casters have no counter.... they do. The problem is the only counter to a level 20 caster is *another* level 20 caster that thought of more things then you did. (Which means the winner is really the person who has more experience with casters and knows what tactics they need defenses against and what offensive abilities can get around most defenses and then throwing these effects against each other until one casters defenses weren't enough at which point they lose).
These tend to break into "I knew you knew that I knew that you knew that I knew..."
Nope, the counter to magic users is usually a hail of magical arrows or a cleaving greataxe. Especially at high-levels; please take the time to look at the DPR threads for stats on high level fighters/archers. They do horrendous amounts of damage on casters who traditionally don't have too many hit points.
Melee builds use magic as well, it's simply crafted into their items.
Jackie! Listen to Uncle! Magic must defeat Magic.
Relevant link is relevant: UNCLE!.
Seriously?
The melee role can be filled by any number of builds and casters? There are boards full of builds. Just type in DPR and learn for yourselves - it's not hard, it simply takes time.
Your arguments have the sound of reading rather than actual table experience actually playing through these classes and concepts. There is a great difference between what we might see on paper
Umbriere Moonwhisper
As for casters creating items? well what are your fighters spending their money on of an equivalent level? Are they paying for an army of followers? why wouldn't they pay someone to craft some decent armour for them? Do they make their own clothes and jewellery too? need to travel; build your own ship or rent one? What about a castle? pay a professional - are they going to insist no magic is used in its construction?Anzyr
Even the Druid is limited by Action economy, that is they can do one standard action, and one move action etc... Pick a level of say any archer and see how many arrows they can have in the air at once.How many times a round is a fighter hitting a target? Wan't to stop a 9th level spell - try readied action!
Both of you obviously have no idea how much damage an effectively (not cheesed) built front-liner can do. Easily 70-80 per hit... by level 10...sheesh..
Damage is irrelevant, when non-archery fighters are limited to move - single attack. The druid however is not. He has several forms with pounce and even if he only has a standard action, a Druid with Strongjaw and Vital Strike can easily one shot most things in the Bestiary. Archery is unfortunately rather weak as there are spells that make the caster completely immune to an archer's attacks, which is a poor situation to be in (especially if you invested your feats into it).
DPR is also hardly the most important thing to have, that distinction goes to versatility. Honestly, DPR means nothing once its enough to kill the enemy anything after that is wasted resources. If you think DPR matters more then versatility in a real game, then I would have to question how much actual game experience you have.
On top of doing enough damage to kill most targets, the druid can also debuff his enemies, buff his allies, reshape the earth, transform himself, change the weather, scry, summon more allies, healing, and stauts removal. There is no comparison, because the Fighter simply does not compare.
Seriously?
The melee role can be filled by any number of builds and casters? There are boards full of builds. Just type in DPR and learn for yourselves - it's not hard, it simply takes time.
Your arguments have the sound of reading rather than actual table experience actually playing through these classes and concepts. There is a great difference between what we might see on paper
my problem with the fighter isn't it's DPR with it's signature weapon
my problem with the fighter and other martial classes, is their blatant dependancy on others to set up the circumstances of the fights for them. especially fighters, rogues, ninja, monks, cavaliers and samurai.
essentially, a cavalier can't fight anyone effectively without access to his mount. remove it, and he is simply an NPC class
rogues and ninjas can't hit anything at all unless you are either facing foes with absurdly low ACs, or the rogue's/ninja's attack bonus is buffed out the wazoo
the monk suffers from the same problem as the rogue and ninja, they depend too much on buffs
the fighter and samurai are highly dependant on their signature weapon to fight with, because of the amount of resources invested in this weapon, or else they are both essentially NPC classes
what all of these classes lack, is narrative power and the ability to influence the story.
I think it's a bit unfair to say "if you remove fighters and rogues not much change because the other martial classes can feel in, but if you remove _all full casters_ there'll be a huge change!". Removing two classes will of course change much less than removing what, 5 classes?
Removing barbarian, gunslinger, ranger, paladin and summoner will also change the party dynamic a _lot_.
There aren't that many things that become completely impossible by removing full casters. Nearly every spell that exists can be gotten anyway if you're willing to go through a few hoops (as an example, summoners can planar bind efreeti who can fulfil Wishes copying all sor/wiz spells of 8th level or lower) so on those rare occacions where you really need a Trap the Soul, that's possible.
But of course, things change.
I've both run and played in a campaign with no full casters (mixed DMing). I played the most castery person in the party and I ended up as a Bard 8/Fighter 1.
And a lot of things people say "well how are you going to solve _this_" is pretty easy... I mean, take flying enemies.
At first when you encounter flying enemies they tend to be close combat opponents. That means their flight is a minor advantage only - either they have to stop to fight efficiently or they'll at least have to get close and then get away quickly. Which means apart from the obvious in ranged weapons, you can also simply ready actions - if you damage the creature it has to make a fly check or fall. Nets (and tanglefoot bags) are especially wonderful for this purpose.
At higher levels where flying ranged opponents start appearing, you can have flying mounts, potions of fly (remember, removing full casters does not mean removing all magic items; fly can still be cast by alchemists, summoners, magi, and some inquisitors), other items that grant flight, awesome ranged skills (really, archers can deal som hefty damage) and of course, you can use strategic positioning to force a flying enemy to close.
Invisibility is similar - you don't need a wizard to solve it. Just a bag of flour or a muddy floor. And remember that glitterdust is known by 3 non-full casters too, so even if you don't have one in the party you can get a scroll or two. Blind-fight combined with a good Perception score helps a lot too.
So it's not that a lot of problems become unsolvable, or even very hard to solve. But to say things don't change when you remove full casters if of course a lie - things change quite drastically, and you have to think about tactics in a quite different way. A lot of what casters in our games tend to do is create favorable circumstances for the party, circumstances that without full casters have to be found in the world instead. Combats tend to be longer, with much more moving into positions that are beneficial.
And of course, the CR system becomes even less useable than it normally is.