Why don't fighters / rogues / etc get "epic" at high levels?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

451 to 500 of 574 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>

Claxon wrote:
JoeJ wrote:

Nothing in the rules allows even a 20th level caster to take after Odin and create an entire planet, or make all the plants in the world stop growing because they're pissed, like Demeter, if that's what you mean.

What do you call Create Greater Demiplane? He doesn't just create a planet, he creates a whole new plane of existence.

Of up to 20 10-foot cubes per level. That's quite a long way from creating the Earth.


Claxon wrote:
No, I hate the martial caster imbalance and wish I knew of a good way to resolve it.

The practical answer is probably skilled GMing (in the sense of using your cosmic powers to obscure the class imbalances). Setting up encounters for everyone, artifacts, fiats, ect.

[That or just play characters from Ultimate Psionics, having too much fun with this book]


JoeJ wrote:
Claxon wrote:
JoeJ wrote:

Nothing in the rules allows even a 20th level caster to take after Odin and create an entire planet, or make all the plants in the world stop growing because they're pissed, like Demeter, if that's what you mean.

What do you call Create Greater Demiplane? He doesn't just create a planet, he creates a whole new plane of existence.

Of up to 20 10-foot cubes per level. That's quite a long way from creating the Earth.

Also, as I recall, the only material component Odin needed was the body of a giant. A really really big giant, granted, but still...


3 people marked this as a favorite.
JoeJ wrote:
Claxon wrote:
JoeJ wrote:

Nothing in the rules allows even a 20th level caster to take after Odin and create an entire planet, or make all the plants in the world stop growing because they're pissed, like Demeter, if that's what you mean.

What do you call Create Greater Demiplane? He doesn't just create a planet, he creates a whole new plane of existence.

Of up to 20 10-foot cubes per level. That's quite a long way from creating the Earth.

Per casting.


JoeJ wrote:
Claxon wrote:
JoeJ wrote:

Nothing in the rules allows even a 20th level caster to take after Odin and create an entire planet, or make all the plants in the world stop growing because they're pissed, like Demeter, if that's what you mean.

What do you call Create Greater Demiplane? He doesn't just create a planet, he creates a whole new plane of existence.

Of up to 20 10-foot cubes per level. That's quite a long way from creating the Earth.

Theoretically, a 20th lvl Sorcerer could just burn a while adding to it, by casting over and over and would have (barring extra spells per day from stats of other things):

Create Demiplane, Lesser x 6 = 18 10x10x10 squares added
Create Demiplane x 6 = 60 10x10x10 squares added
Create Demiplane, Greater x 6 = 120 10x10x10 square per day
Total added per day = 196 10x10x10 or 196(1,000 cubic feet)

The Earth's moon has a volume of 775,446,770,000,000 cubic feet, in 10x10x10 squares, that's: 775,446,770,000.

Assuming the Demiplane was made with the greater version, and all spells are being used to boost the area, at a rate of 196 squares per day it would take 3,956,361,071 days and 6hrs or 10,839,345 years 5 months, 6 days, 6 hours to create a Demiplane the size of the moon....

I'm sure now that we have the time frame, there are folks more versed in magic that could speed things up via extra slots or something.

Edit: crap I forgot it was a per level number of blocks.....more math!

Ok, 196x20= 3,920 blocks per day

So, counting the original day, it would take 197,818,053 days and 12hrs, or 541,967 years, 3 months, 8 days, 12 hours.

It's not like it would be a huge moon sized rock either, it's that volume of space, with even gravity acting as the caster wishes, an incredible amount of space! And it's all capable of supporting life...all of it...


Rynjin wrote:
JoeJ wrote:
Claxon wrote:
JoeJ wrote:

Nothing in the rules allows even a 20th level caster to take after Odin and create an entire planet, or make all the plants in the world stop growing because they're pissed, like Demeter, if that's what you mean.

What do you call Create Greater Demiplane? He doesn't just create a planet, he creates a whole new plane of existence.

Of up to 20 10-foot cubes per level. That's quite a long way from creating the Earth.

Per casting.

So a 20th level caster creates 400,000 cubic feet per casting, and therefore requires 88,286.7 castings per cubic km. Multiplied by 1.083 X 10^12 cubic km for the planet = 9.46 X 10^16 castings. At six hours apiece that's 6.5 X 10^13 years, or only 4734 times the current age of the universe.

And don't forget all those forked metal rods, or the diamond dust necessary to make it all permanent.

No, I don't think that 20th level character is going to be matching Odin anytime soon.


Don't forget that as a part of creating the Earth, Odin also created the sky. All of it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Make it a Timeless plane and you won't need to worry about the diamond dust. Nor the time taken. =)

The forked rod is a Focus, so you only need one.

Toss in a couple of ways to increase your caster level, and you can do it a bit faster.

Be a Divine caster and use Miracle to drop the casting of regular Create Demiplane to a Standard action and you can do it a LOOOOOOOOOOT faster. This is assuming, naturally, that Miracle can't just magic up an even bigger area by default (if you worship a deity of Creation I think this would be within his nature to grant though).

I'm not too great at math, but I believe that would drop the time taken to something more reasonable, though you'd need to be incredibly long-lived to pull it off regardless.

But the fact that we're even discussing the POTENTIAL CAPABILITY of a caster creating an entire planet from nothing kind of proves the point about the different scales of "epic" casters and martials are held to.


All kidding aside, if I were going to GM a game with the expectation that the PCs are near gods, I'd use M&M rules instead of Pathfinder. That way the martial characters can be every bit as epic as casters built on the same number of points.


I'd rather PF became a more balanced game than completely give up on it and use M&M.


Lemmy wrote:
I'd rather PF became a more balanced game than completely give up on it and use M&M.

I don't see that happening. I'd also like PF to have a dozen completely different magic systems for the GM to choose from, like GURPS does. But I don't see that happening either. Unfortunately, no rules set is going to be optimal for every possible combination of genre, setting, and power level.


What genre, setting, and power level does PF represent then? Its M&M for casters and Savage Worlds for martials?


The genre is "magic is way more powerful than anything else."


JoeJ wrote:
The genre is "magic is way more powerful than anything else."

Which could be rectified.

Balance will never be perfect, but that doesn't mean there is no point in improving it.


Okay, so basically A is A. Valid, but trivial Joe.


DrDeth wrote:
Marthkus wrote:

What I find odd is that a high level fighter can solo dragons but can't leap 3 feat off the ground.

Sure he can. That's a Acrobatics check of 12. A first level fighter can do that. A 20th level fighter should be able to get 8 feet. With one Mythic Tier it's 18 feet and with a mighty hit, too. That's without spending a feat or any special equipment, etc. Add a trait to make it a class skill, and it's even better.

I mentioned that a few pages back when I listed the main problems that out right broke spell casters.


KainPen wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
andreww wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Probably could have clarified. In BECMi the ratio remains constant ie the wizard is always behind the fighter. AD&D the wizard did level up faster for a few levels. By level 18the fighter was 2 levels ahead IIRC and the thief 4 levels ahead of the wizard.
The AD&D Magic User levelled faster than the fighter for the majority of the mid levels of the game. The Druid levelled faster than either of them, often hitting about 12th while they were still around 9th. Only the Thief was faster and that was offset by the Thief being a mechanically terrible class who would be lucky to make it past 3rd.

The AD&D Druid was not the CoDzilla monster of 3rd ed and the fast leveling thing hit a brick wall at level 12.

I have been playig retroclones and the ones I play have mostly fixed the issues around the AD&D xp tables. Wizards only level up faster from level 6-10 IIRC. The AD&D wizard was less broken still than the 3rd ed one due to the various drawbacks, difficulty of getting bonus hit point via con score (15 required), can't easily create magic items and the various things I listed earlier. They also lacked a lot of spells that entered the game later. Most AD&D spells were not broken either except maybe boom spells above level 11 or so in BECMI/1st ed (2nd ed capped them), it was more spell combos that broke wizards in AD&D ir fly+ improved invisibility (wizard could not do this in 1st ed btw).

A few spells that are really good in 3.5/PF could kill you in AD&D such as haste, casting limited wish or wish could also kill you.

By comparison healing was limited, magic items were limited, hit points above level 10 were limited. being raised from the dead cost you con points, creating a permanent magic item cost wizards con points etc.

Removing those limitations and letting wizards level up as fast as rogues and the saving throw changes were the big offenders IMHO or at least the main ones.

Go and play Pathfinder, cap

...

That sort of proves my point you could nerf the hell out of the wizard and they would still be broken.

Note the way I would fix it would be going backwards and looking at AD&D rather than rewriting the game (4E) or nerfing everything in to the ground *5E).

Shadow Lodge

Lemmy wrote:
JoeJ wrote:
The genre is "magic is way more powerful than anything else."

Which could be rectified.

Balance will never be perfect, but that doesn't mean there is no point in improving it.

+1

The classes don't need to be perfectly balanced either. If a fighter is still a bit less powerful then a Wizard, that is fine, but if a fighter is a little less powerful then a Cavalier that is a little less powerful then a Paladin that is a little less powerful then a Barbarian that is a little less powerful then a Cleric that is a little less powerful then an Oracle that is a little less powerful then a Sorcerer that is a little less powerful then a Wizard, then there is the problem of the Fighter falling way behind. Yes, someone has to be at the bottom, no the bottom doesn't have to be so far down.

Note:These comparisons are just as an illustration of point, not meant to discuss which order this actually should be in. Keeping the martials and casters on their respective sides, you can mix this up and mix in new things all day long and the point still stands. Each class seems to have roughly its own power step, then the tiers are set around 3 or 4 steps of one of them, and then while you still have a fixed number of tiers you still have staggering amount of power steps you have to climb to get up a few tiers.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Pretty much this. I would be more than happy if classes were sort of in the same ball park. Perfect balance in never going to be achieved. Unfortunately we currently have a situation where the different camps aren't even playing the same game. Casters are playing premier league football, partial casters are in the conference and martials are kicking a ball around some waste ground using their jumpers for goalposts.

Or to put it in a way our American friends might get, after a certain level (around 10ish in my view) casters have migrated to being the Avengers while martials are still stuck at the Kick Ass level and it just gets worse at higher levels.


I think Paizo is trying to address this issue in Pathfinder Unchained.

As a GM you can address this issue by handing out narrative power to players and seeing what they do with it. For combat some creative artifacts/lots of extra martial gear may also help out.


This may not be popular, but I think it might be good to look at going back to different xp levels to advance in different classes. What I would suggest is set the xp requirement at 6 xp for Rogue, 12 xp for Druid, all the other classes somewhere in between. Then instead of giving xp for monsters killed, give 1-3 xp per adventure. (1 point for successful completion, +1 if it was especially long or tough, +1 for good roleplaying.) Whenever a PC accumulates enough xp they can buy a level in whatever class they want.

Martial characters will gain levels faster than magical ones with this system, which will restore some of the balance.


JoeJ wrote:

This may not be popular, but I think it might be good to look at going back to different xp levels to advance in different classes. What I would suggest is set the xp requirement at 6 xp for Rogue, 12 xp for Druid, all the other classes somewhere in between. Then instead of giving xp for monsters killed, give 1-3 xp per adventure. (1 point for successful completion, +1 if it was especially long or tough, +1 for good roleplaying.) Whenever a PC accumulates enough xp they can buy a level in whatever class they want.

Martial characters will gain levels faster than magical ones with this system, which will restore some of the balance.

While it may rebalance the game some, this is probably the most un-fun way of doing it possible.


Trogdar wrote:
JoeJ wrote:

This may not be popular, but I think it might be good to look at going back to different xp levels to advance in different classes. What I would suggest is set the xp requirement at 6 xp for Rogue, 12 xp for Druid, all the other classes somewhere in between. Then instead of giving xp for monsters killed, give 1-3 xp per adventure. (1 point for successful completion, +1 if it was especially long or tough, +1 for good roleplaying.) Whenever a PC accumulates enough xp they can buy a level in whatever class they want.

Martial characters will gain levels faster than magical ones with this system, which will restore some of the balance.

While it may rebalance the game some, this is probably the most un-fun way of doing it possible.

Why do you think so?


JoeJ wrote:

This may not be popular, but I think it might be good to look at going back to different xp levels to advance in different classes. What I would suggest is set the xp requirement at 6 xp for Rogue, 12 xp for Druid, all the other classes somewhere in between. Then instead of giving xp for monsters killed, give 1-3 xp per adventure. (1 point for successful completion, +1 if it was especially long or tough, +1 for good roleplaying.) Whenever a PC accumulates enough xp they can buy a level in whatever class they want.

Martial characters will gain levels faster than magical ones with this system, which will restore some of the balance.

ALready thinking of something like this. Use the fast/medium/slow xp tables and the weak classes ge tthe fastest ones while the powerful classes get the slow one.


Because if you want to play a spellcaster, then you have to accept that progression in your class choice will occur infrequently as compared to the other players.

In essence, the whole reason they got rid of these sort of balancing mechanics is because of the dynamic it creates in the real world, not the consequences within the game itself.


I notice that Create Demiplane bases the amount of volume created on an equation that uses caster level. How high can we get the caster level of a level 20 character who can cast a version of the Create Demiplane spells?


If you want to balance casters, then restrict their access to spells of wildly different sorts. If a wizard has to choose a field to specialize in, and has three barred schools, then I think you would find their power becomes much more reasonable.*

Still cosmic in their area of specialization, but not the omni-tool they currently are.

*example off the top of my head


It's also really fiddly in a multiclass system, and a lot of it is up to opinion.

I'm also opposed to it on the conceptual level because levels are supposed to mean that people on the same level are supposed to be on the same level.

However, if you also keep the WBL in the game as written that gives a pretty nice boost to the quick progress classes. Wizards can also advance in power by hunting down spells (and you can give other story goals for clerics/druids/etc.).

So, mixed bag.


Trogdar wrote:
Because if you want to play a spellcaster, then you have to accept that progression in your class choice will occur infrequently as compared to the other players.

Adding a level as a wizard gives you more than adding a level as rogue. So while the wizard isn't advancing as frequently, she's taking bigger steps when she does.

Trogdar wrote:


In essence, the whole reason they got rid of these sort of balancing mechanics is because of the dynamic it creates in the real world, not the consequences within the game itself.

Based on my experience in 1 & 2E, that sounds like a solution in search of a problem. I don't recall anybody ever getting jealous because the player sitting next to them had a higher number written on their character sheet.


LoneKnave wrote:

It's also really fiddly in a multiclass system, and a lot of it is up to opinion.

I'm also opposed to it on the conceptual level because levels are supposed to mean that people on the same level are supposed to be on the same level.

However, if you also keep the WBL in the game as written that gives a pretty nice boost to the quick progress classes. Wizards can also advance in power by hunting down spells (and you can give other story goals for clerics/druids/etc.).

So, mixed bag.

Multiclassing doesn't create any problems as long as each level in a given class costs the same number of xp. Gaining your 1st level in Rogue or your 20th both cost 6 points. That's why I changed the xp award to 1-3 per adventure rather than making it dependent on what you've killed.

Under this system, it will be characters with the same total experience that are comparable instead of characters of the same level.


JoeJ wrote:

I'd also like PF to have a dozen completely different magic systems for the GM to choose from, like GURPS does. But I don't see that happening either.

Well, pathfinder already has Vancian, psionics, truenaming, evolutions, spirits, akashic mysteries, wordcasting, cartomancing, and ethermancing. That's nine right there. You could also pretty easily reflavor the prototypes (from the machinesmith class) and the martial adept maneuvers (from path of war) as "magic". That's 11 different magic systems, so we're almost there! Now if someone writes a conversion of the 3.5 shadowcaster (from Tome of Magic), we'll be at your goal of a dozen different magic system:)


137ben wrote:
JoeJ wrote:

I'd also like PF to have a dozen completely different magic systems for the GM to choose from, like GURPS does. But I don't see that happening either.

Well, pathfinder already has Vancian, psionics, truenaming, evolutions, spirits, akashic mysteries, wordcasting, cartomancing, and ethermancing. That's nine right there. You could also pretty easily reflavor the prototypes (from the machinesmith class) and the martial adept maneuvers (from path of war) as "magic". That's 11 different magic systems, so we're almost there! Now if someone writes a conversion of the 3.5 shadowcaster (from Tome of Magic), we'll be at your goal of a dozen different magic system:)

I don't recognize most of those names. They must be from books I don't have.


They're all (sans Words of Power/"wordcasting") from 3rd Party Publishers.


Rynjin wrote:

They're all (sans Words of Power/"wordcasting") from 3rd Party Publishers.

True, but DSP is a third party publisher and contributes an integral part to the Pathfinder mechanics (psionics).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arnwolf wrote:
At 20th level a Fighter can slay a dragon all by himself. At 20th level a fighter can take on multiple giants all by himself. That sounds pretty epic to me.

not if the dragon has any sense. For example a Red Dragon (wyrm) drops an anti-magic field, and melees the fighter to pieces. Any magic ac adds, or weapons, or resists you had no longer work, it's damage resistance is such that your now none magical weapons do the best part of jack all to it.

Or it hits your overland flight with a dispel magic, melts the rock you land on, then prismatic walls-melt ground-prismatic wall-melt ground-prismatic wall- breath weapon- melt ground- wall of force..yea.

This is a critique of having dragons being stupid enough to trade full attacks more than a critique of martial character however.

It's a genius level intellect spell casting juggernaut of destruction, credit it with a little combat savvy ;p

Shadow Lodge

K177Y C47 wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Gaberlunzie wrote:

Nope.

"If you successfully grapple a creature that is not adjacent to you, move that creature to an adjacent open space (if no space is available, your grapple fails)."

Oooh. With Hamatula Strike and a bow, you can accomplish some pretty miraculous battlefield movement. Just shoot an ally 100s of feet away and teleport him right to you.

*SCORPION VOICE*

GET OVER HERE!!!!

*NOOBSAIBOT VOICE*
WHOOPSIES!!!

Not at all how it works. Hamatula applies the grappeled condition not the maneuver. No different then being blinded, you go straight to the conditions section and skip the combat rules for initiating a grapple.

You don't teleport the target, and it's key for non casters to take down flying targets.


TheSideKick wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Gaberlunzie wrote:

Nope.

"If you successfully grapple a creature that is not adjacent to you, move that creature to an adjacent open space (if no space is available, your grapple fails)."

Oooh. With Hamatula Strike and a bow, you can accomplish some pretty miraculous battlefield movement. Just shoot an ally 100s of feet away and teleport him right to you.

*SCORPION VOICE*

GET OVER HERE!!!!

*NOOBSAIBOT VOICE*
WHOOPSIES!!!

Not at all how it works. Hamatula applies the grappeled condition not the maneuver. No different then being blinded, you go straight to the conditions section and skip the combat rules for initiating a grapple.

You don't teleport the target, and it's key for non casters to take down flying targets.

So, you don't teleport the target. You can do it with a bow. Both of you acquire the grappled condition.

What actually happens? How does it work?
Can the grappled creature continue flying? I don't see anything that says they can't.
You both have the grappled condition, but you're not next to each other (possibly hundreds of feet apart.) So you can't do any of the normal grapple things right? Pin, tie up, any of that. You can continue hurting it with the impaling weapon, but that's about it.

How am I taking down the flying target?

Not in my game, sorry. Makes no sense to me and I refuse to accept anything in a setting book as such a key part of the game it can't be ignored.


I'm pretty sure that the RAI on Hamatula Strike is that it works with piercing melee weapons.

I think that would include the harpoon, though.


Harpoon with a rope attached would be epic actually.


Arachnofiend wrote:

I'm pretty sure that the RAI on Hamatula Strike is that it works with piercing melee weapons.

I think that would include the harpoon, though.

I could work with a harpoon, though I'd probably tweak how it work. No auto move to you with a ranged grappling weapon, for example.


thejeff wrote:

So, you don't teleport the target. You can do it with a bow. Both of you acquire the grappled condition.

What actually happens? How does it work?
Can the grappled creature continue flying? I don't see anything that says they can't.
You both have the grappled condition, but you're not next to each other (possibly hundreds of feet apart.) So you can't do any of the normal grapple things right? Pin, tie up, any of that. You can continue hurting it with the impaling weapon, but that's about it.

How am I taking down the flying target?

Not in my game, sorry. Makes no sense to me and I refuse to accept anything in a setting book as such a key part of the game it can't be ignored.

You're basically fishing at this point. If you hit you've got him on the line, start reeling/pulling him in.


Suichimo wrote:
thejeff wrote:

So, you don't teleport the target. You can do it with a bow. Both of you acquire the grappled condition.

What actually happens? How does it work?
Can the grappled creature continue flying? I don't see anything that says they can't.
You both have the grappled condition, but you're not next to each other (possibly hundreds of feet apart.) So you can't do any of the normal grapple things right? Pin, tie up, any of that. You can continue hurting it with the impaling weapon, but that's about it.

How am I taking down the flying target?

Not in my game, sorry. Makes no sense to me and I refuse to accept anything in a setting book as such a key part of the game it can't be ignored.

You're basically fishing at this point. If you hit you've got him on the line, start reeling/pulling him in.

RAW as near as I can tell, you don't even need a rope. Much less one strong enough to hold most of the high level flying baddies. For that matter the rope has two ends. No matter how strong you are, unless you anchor yourself, he's likely to take off with you instead.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Trogdar wrote:
Harpoon with a rope attached would be epic actually.

Using a bow to shoot an arrow with a rope attached would be epic as well. But I would expect that either one would lead to the target being Entangled, not Grappled.


Sacred Geometry.

Things from setting books (as in not on the PRD) have to be ran by me before I allow them in my games. If you are a GM that allows everything pls look up that feat.

451 to 500 of 574 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Why don't fighters / rogues / etc get "epic" at high levels? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.