Should Mundanes be better at resisting magic?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

Silver Crusade

Okay, I've been following a lot of the "X is overpowered, what can X do that Y can't?" threads as of late, and I started to get an idea in my head.

What if Mundane classes were just straight out better at saves, especially against Magic? Look at Superstitious Barbarians, save tanks. Paladins are born save tanks. Even base book Monks are great save tanks by design with innate class spell resistance. Should a strong defense against magic and other effects be more of an ingrained part of mundanes (and Paladins, who while not true mundanes, are clearly a martial class), or is this not the direction to take them?

I'm actually pretty intrigued by the idea of the Mundane niche being great saves, as to me it more encapsulates the spirit of the mundane never bowing down or giving up, and giving the more casty classes a bit more of a glass jaw so to speak.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yes, I think full casters should have 1 good save, partial casters two and non casters all good saves.


Yeah that's a good change for the levels most commonly played.
Nobody is 'mundane' after level 6 though, further ahead is when Paladins start sprouting wings.

I love the Conan novels, but I also know that Conan is not a 20th level character concept. Coincidentally the levels where Conan is a valid concept (1-6, a bit higher with a stretch) are the levels I like the most. But after a certain point Conan will need to pick up Thor's Hammer and gain godly powers to go beat up Crom.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_DSs2bX13hVc/S8CebyJMNtI/AAAAAAAAB_c/XZJTN1MkoeI/s 1600/conanthor3.jpg


It wouldnt be a bad idea, but it would only assure the dominance of the already strong conjuration school. While it is possible to annihilate with Save or Dies (and other Save of X's), they are still considered a poor choice. This will merely make it an even poorer choice.


Wouldn't it make more thematic sense that spell caster would better know how to resist magic?

Personally I think superstitious is a bork overpowered ability. While paladin's divine grace is borderline.

Things like feats and traits can make a fighter better at resisting magic than a wizard already.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Marthkus wrote:

Wouldn't it make more thematic sense that spell caster would better know how to resist magic?

You can see it two ways:

A) The caster knows what he's doing so he knows how to resist it
B) The caster has to open himself up to magic and by that makes himself more vulnerable to it.


Marthkus wrote:

Wouldn't it make more thematic sense that spell caster would better know how to resist magic?

Personally I think superstitious is a bork overpowered ability. While paladin's divine grace is borderline.

Things like feats and traits can make a fighter better at resisting magic than a wizard already.

It can be argued either way. There are plenty of literary examples of the martial hero surprising the evil wizard by shrugging off his magic.

From a mechanics and game balance perspective, it would help remedy the caster/martial imbalance.

And can't a wizard also use those feats and traits to keep resisting magic even better?

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Should Mundanes be better at resisting magic? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in General Discussion