Just a couple of thoughts on the balance issues (and I think this discussion is awesome, by the way):
Instantaneous vs duration. Once a spellcaster gets to the point that they can cast a spell with a duration 5/day or more, it is (almost) an unlimited resource, because (using a sorcerer as the easier example) once the sorcerer can cast haste (probably a bad choice of spell, but it was the first one that came to mind) 5/day, it will be used in every encounter. No need to hoard it. The game is balanced around 4-5 encounters per day. In a way, spells 5/day are equivalent to unlimited use abilities. (Feel free to discuss feat cost vs sorcerer spell choice vs wizard spell choice as a balance point - I don't really have the time to do so, right now.)
The truly limited spells are the instantaneous duration ones, and those are the ones you have to be careful about moving martial balance towards, because if you go too far the power balance swings in the opposite direction. Sticking to 3rd level spells, our sorcerer picks up fireball. 5/day he can rain fiery doom down upon his enemies, so it's pretty much a "1/encounter" deal. On designing a martial ability that is "equivalent" you need to either make it much weaker and an unlimited resource (see whirlwind attack) or approximately the same strength and just as limited as the spells in terms of uses per day. Of course, you could go further, make the martial ability more powerful than the spell, and limit it to once per day (and this is part of why people don't like the 1/day rogue talents - they're not strong enough for the use limit).
Anyway, wasn't really going anywhere with this, just wanted to bring those points up to help the discussion.
Holy hostility, Batman!
I wasn't suggesting anything about spells. It was a response to Rynjins post about granting a climb speed every 5 ranks.
I don't know many spells that give a +30 to a skill. Spider climb gives a climb speed and the inherent +8 that comes with it. Jump can give up to +30 to jumping, but still has nothing on a ninja. Not sure what else there is for huge skill boosts.
The low low price of a 2nd level spell is too rich for a 1st or 2nd level wizard and a 3rd level sorcerer, a steep price for a 3rd or 4th level wizard who could use that spell slot better elsewhere, and at fifth level the wizard can cast fly.
The easiest solution is to give a climb speed based on skill ranks, but should still be representative of ability to give value to class skills, feats, traits, stats, and anything else. At 5,10,15,20 ranks you gain a speed equivalent to your ranks by reaching a set modifier level. Giving a speed based on ranks alone trivializes terrain and an entire set of pit spells.
Going by the 5 ranks minimum and a +15 mod to gain a climb speed a fighter with 20 strength could have a +13 modifier. Using a climbers kit it bumps up to +15 and that fighter has a climb speed of 5 that comes complete with another +8 inherent bonus to climb putting him to a +23 modifier. The fifth level fighter can always take 10 due to a climb speed and has a roll of 33 which gets him out of a 4th level spell with ease. A 5th level fighter should not be able to defeat a 7th level wizard casting a 4th level spell by just putting ranks into a skill and keeping his primary stat at a good level.
1.) Presumably the Climb speed would not include the +8. THat would be silly, gaining a +8 to a skill on putting your 5th rank into it, for free.
2.) It doesn't negate a 4th level spell at all. Assuming you're talking about something like Acid Pit, it still takes him several rounds to climb back out. Delaying a target for several rounds is hardly a failure.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Your first point only serves to make casters stronger. Haste isn't a spell wizards use for themselves it's to benefit the rest of the party. If anyone can haste themselves it just frees up a spell slot.
The next step in this logic chain is, "Why not just cut out the fighter entirely, then, and save the spell slot? We'll use his wages to pay another caster instead, and cast two 'I win' spells a round instead of using all our spellcasting to buff some bozo just so he can do what we hired him to do in the first place."
Forcing casters to carry dead-weight companions, Harrison Bergeron-style, maybe isn't the best way to make everyone feel special.
I just wanted to chime in here with a comment about fighters being able to dispel\interrupt magic - while on the outset I don't mind this type of thing - I would point out that being able to disrupt or counter a spell is *very hard* even for another caster - at least currently the counter spell rules are pretty difficult - and for a caster to 'disrupt' casting at range requires either a readied spell or a quickened one - and quicken takes high level slots to use. For these reasons I think the melee spell disruption equivalent of 'step-up' feat chain to be fine at lower levels - and perhaps something that requires a readied action or 1/day at range would be ok at higher levels - but I think anything that lets you disrupt spellcasting at range to be *very* powerful and unless it's very limited it will quickly make casters worthless.
As to dispel - well spell sunder barbs are already considered a 'must have' - to me that indicates it's a bit too powerful - when I see caster spell lists even at high level play I rarely see more than 2-3 dispels at most - and those require a caster level check to remove an effect (or more for greater) - or the ultimate bomb with a level 9 spell - but that requires very high levels and giving up a wish to use it (theoretically).
I don't really have a problem with the idea of melee having some kind of spell disruption - but it shouldn't be at will or unlimited honestly - my idea would be something like this:
Feat Spell-Bane : You have fought through spells time and again and have started to 'see' how magic forms - although others think you are a bit daff this has allowed you to become attuned to magic in a way that lets you disrupt and cancel magical effects.
BAB +9 - you can use this ability in the following ways: 1/day as an immediate action you can make a melee level check (1d20 + BAB) and compare that to the caster level of a spell effect that is targeting you - if your result is higher than the effect unravels on you and you can ignore that spell for the rest of it's duration. You may do this ability 1 more times per day for every 3 points of BAB above 9 you have.
1/day as a standard action you can unravel the effects of a ongoing spell effect as per dispel magic - use your BAB in place of caster level. You can do this 1 more time per day for every 3 points of BAB above 9 you have.
3/day taking 10 minutes to study an ongoing magical effect you can attempt to dispel it as per dispel magic - using your BAB in place of cater level.
These uses per day are not exclusive.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just wanted to chime in here with a comment about fighters being able to dispel\interrupt magic - while on the outset I don't mind this type of thing - I would point out that being able to disrupt or counter a spell is *very hard* even for another caster
I'd be pretty okay with the people who don't use magic being the best at disrupting it.
I just wanted to chime in here with a comment about fighters being able to dispel\interrupt magic - while on the outset I don't mind this type of thing - I would point out that being able to disrupt or counter a spell is *very hard* even for another casterI'd be pretty okay with the people who don't use magic being the best at disrupting it.
It's a pretty common staple of fantasy, so I'm also okay with it.
3.5 had two awesome feats that were useful against wizards. The price of them? -4 to caster level if you had them.
Pierce Magical Defenses and Pierce Magical Concealment. Those were awesome effects. Completely removed most cast spell defenses vs fighters, and the martials, not having a caster level, didn't give a hoot.
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, spellbreaker,Pierce Magical Defenses and Pierce Magical Concealment etc are certainly martial possibilities. Also something the Iron Heart Surge from ToB/BoNS could work.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
His point is not that they aren't effective.
His point is that the caster can do other, extremely effective things that don't require there to be a fighter along.
So, instead of casting a spell which helps someone else attack more effectively, he instead casts an attack spell himself, which might end the fight or an opponent right there instead.
You see the difference?
And that situation will not change until there's a lot more anti-magic or spellcasting is made more dangerous to use in combat. It's just the nature of the system.
==Aelryinth
That's purely exaggeration. The initial post said in optimization threads. Optimization isn't how everyone plays and was never the game intent. A fighter is still useful without the haste spell, much like a barbarian, rogue, paladin, ranger, melee cleric, inquisitor, cavalier, and every other class that makes attack actions. Haste amplifies this by providing an extra attack and a +1 to hit which is more beneficial to everyone except a wizard, sorcerer, or witch. So giving all martials the ability to cast haste frees up all the current classes that use the spell to cast something else entirely. It's not balancing martials to casters, it's freeing up more resources for casters.Your first point only serves to make casters stronger. Haste isn't a spell wizards use for themselves it's to benefit the rest of the party. If anyone can haste themselves it just frees up a spell slot.The next step in this logic chain is, "Why not just cut out the fighter entirely, then, and save the spell slot? We'll use his wages to pay another caster instead, and cast two 'I win' spells a round instead of using all our spellcasting to buff some bozo just so he can do what we hired him to do in the first place."
Forcing casters to carry dead-weight companions, Harrison Bergeron-style, maybe isn't the best way to make everyone feel special.
It's still useful only in the sense that "I'd rather have another party member in a fight (not when splitting loot though)", but not useful in the sense that the Fighter would be more useful if the were any other class (except the Rogue, or a core-only monk). If it was two casters, they could play the debuff + SoD game which is really really effective. Much more so then haste + move and single attack. And don't forget, casters can deal plenty of damage if they so choose. Lord help the enemy that gets by 2 blaster wizards who can each dump 2 blasting spells at it. Best of all this can hit a ton of enemies, not just one and both wizards can still move!
Well there have several suggestions for allowing them to cut wedges out of fireballs and I know I'm on board with that. Maybe even have a few varieties of that effect. And of course I'd rather the Barbarian with excellent saves against mind control and pounce have haste then the Fighter.
It shouldn't be buffs that martials can perform, but better ways at countering magic.This was the same point I made in the post Kirth quoted. The very next line of text that he didn't quote.
Clear spindle Ioun stone + wayfinder. 4500 gold and never worry about mind control again. Doesn't take up an item slot, is extremely cheap, and reduces the argument of dominate to a moot point. Easily affordable by level 9 when a wizard gets dominate person which just won't work on you.
Pounce is a specific build, not the barbarian class. Could make a turret fighter who doesn't have to move and full attacks at 100+ feet. Including airborne targets.
Unless said mind control is cast by a Neutral or Good person. So... not particularly effective.
You could tie it to a Rogue's Spellcraft roll, if we want to help the skill monkeys be cool with skills.I think you should have to spend a resource for it to work, not just have it on all the time. Maybe you could spend an AoO in reaction to the spell being cast?I feel like the ability to be so obnoxious you throw off a wizard's spellcasting would make a perfect rogue talent.Arcane Annoyance (Ex): You know how to vary and repeat vocal components in a way that breaks the concentration of spellcasters. Any opposed spellcaster that begins casting a spell with a vocal component within 20 feet of you must succeed at a concentration check with a DC of 5 + your rogue level + your Charisma bonus + the spell level or lose the spell.I set the DC lowish because it was passive. You're right that it should be an action. How about this:
Arcane Annoyance (Ex): You know how to vary and repeat vocal components in a way that breaks the concentration of spellcasters. When an opposed spellcaster begins casting a spell with a vocal component within 30 feet of you, you may try to interrupt him as an immediate action that provokes an attack of opportunity. If you do, the spellcaster must succeed at a concentration check with a DC of 10 + your rogue level + your Charisma bonus + the spell level or lose the spell.
That would make the DC 'your Spellcraft check + spell level', but I'm not sure that's a great idea. Opposed dice have less predictable results, it's yet another skill for the rogue to invest in, and I don't need to know calculus to interrupt the concentration of a mathematician. Maybe require a prestige-class-esque 3 or 5 ranks in Spellcraft as a prerequisite?
His point is not that they aren't effective. His point is that the caster can do other, extremely effective things that don't require there to be a fighter along. So, instead of casting a spell which helps someone else attack more effectively, he instead casts an attack spell himself, which might end the fight or an opponent right there instead. You see the difference?
And that situation will not change until there's a lot more anti-magic or spellcasting is made more dangerous to use in combat. It's just the nature of the system.
Exactly. I'm totally OK with the wizard being an "I buff my team" guy. But to do that, we have to alter the rules so that it's clearly to his benefit to work with martial guys and buff them, as opposed to simply hanging out with more casters. We can do that by making the wizard's other options less impressive, or more difficult to pull off in combat, or both. What we don't do is say "the wizard is required to buff the fighter so that the fighter feels special, even though the fighter is technically extraneous."
If spells were WAY easier to disrupt, and if fighters could effectively block and intercept attacks against their teammates, then fighters would be badly needed in combat: the wizard and fighter would be co-dependent, instead of the latter being parasitic on the former.
I'm totally OK with the wizard being an "I buff my team" guy. But to do that, we have to alter the rules so that it's clearly to his benefit to work with martial guys and buff them, as opposed to simply hanging out with more casters.
It's already clearly to his benefit. Buffing the Tank gets more DPR and more damage absorbtion out there than just having another spellcaster.
It's already clearly to his benefit. Buffing the Tank gets more DPR and more damage absorbtion out there than just having another spellcaster.
As I very carefully went on to explain, if "tanking" were an actual role supported by the combat mechanics (i.e., intercept attacks, opponents as immediate actions), and there were a more active need for it (i.e., no casting defensively), then a dedicated tank character would be far more useful than another caster. You and I would both get what we want.
I'm trying to get to where your style of play is a natural consequence of the RAW, not of a cabal of "mature gentlemen players" with their secret handshakes and so on.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Buffing the Tank gets more DPR and more damage absorbtion out there than just having another spellcaster.
No, it doesn't.
Replacing the haste with a save-or-die (if a single enemy) or an AoE (if facing a group) while also getting a second caster doing the same thing is just about always more effective than casting haste on the fighter.
I'm totally OK with the wizard being an "I buff my team" guy. But to do that, we have to alter the rules so that it's clearly to his benefit to work with martial guys and buff them, as opposed to simply hanging out with more casters.It's already clearly to his benefit. Buffing the Tank gets more DPR and more damage absorbtion out there than just having another spellcaster.
Your "tank" (which I'm defining as the person who stands in front and smacks things with a stick because a traditional MMO tank does not exist in Pathfinder) could be a Battle Oracle. Now you've got a full caster doing exactly what the Fighter does AND casting spells.
But this is just tactics. Martials already play meat shield to casters so buffing them only serves to benefit the caster by making them better meat shields. Everyone is supposed to friends of sorts in an adventuring group. You care for others well being and RP as such not just optimizing damage output.
These tactics are not well-supported by the rules. They actually run more or less contrary to the way the rules are currently written.
Your "tank" (which I'm defining as the person who stands in front and smacks things with a stick because a traditional MMO tank does not exist in Pathfinder) could be a Battle Oracle. Now you've got a full caster doing exactly what the Fighter does AND casting spells.I'm totally OK with the wizard being an "I buff my team" guy. But to do that, we have to alter the rules so that it's clearly to his benefit to work with martial guys and buff them, as opposed to simply hanging out with more casters.It's already clearly to his benefit. Buffing the Tank gets more DPR and more damage absorbtion out there than just having another spellcaster.
The term "tank" as a heavy martial (often a fighter, but a Bbn, Paladin, etc) existed and was used in D&D back in OD&D days, long before there was even a thought a MMO might be possible.
And yes, tanking works in D&D. Always has.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I want to make a post about how all the people who bring up tanking are just MMORPG players that don't understand "real" TTRPGs.... but such a post while parody would be quite vitriolic and mean spirited. So instead, lets just go with tanking is a role in MMORPGs, not TTRPGs, because there is a mechanic in MMO's for hate/enmity, while no such mechanic exists in TT. The dragon doesn't care that your Fighter in Full Plate is "provoking" him. He's going to kill the guy altering reality first.
Your "tank" (which I'm defining as the person who stands in front and smacks things with a stick because a traditional MMO tank does not exist in Pathfinder) could be a Battle Oracle. Now you've got a full caster doing exactly what the Fighter does AND casting spells.I'm totally OK with the wizard being an "I buff my team" guy. But to do that, we have to alter the rules so that it's clearly to his benefit to work with martial guys and buff them, as opposed to simply hanging out with more casters.It's already clearly to his benefit. Buffing the Tank gets more DPR and more damage absorbtion out there than just having another spellcaster.The term "tank" as a heavy martial (often a fighter, but a Bbn, Paladin, etc) existed and was used in D&D back in OD&D days, long before there was even a thought a MMO might be possible.
And yes, tanking works in D&D. Always has.
You have an enmity mechanic you use in your games? Care to share? Don't you find this makes the monsters act unrealistically and detract from game experience?
But this is just tactics. Martials already play meat shield to casters so buffing them only serves to benefit the caster by making them better meat shields. Everyone is supposed to friends of sorts in an adventuring group. You care for others well being and RP as such not just optimizing damage output.These tactics are not well-supported by the rules. They actually run more or less contrary to the way the rules are currently written.
The rules support them just fine, and have done so for over 40 years. As you have said many times, your game is WAY different than PF.
I want to make a post about how all the people who bring up tanking are just MMORPG players that don't understand "real" TTRPGs.... but such a post while parody would be quite vitriolic and mean spirited. So instead, lets just go with tanking is a role in MMORPGs, not TTRPGs, because there is a mechanic in MMO's for hate/enmity, while no such mechanic exists in TT. The dragon doesn't care that your Fighter in Full Plate is "provoking" him. He's going to kill the guy altering reality first.
This reality is even acknowledged in some TTRPGs. Shadowrun, for example, outright spells it out as both a player philosophy and an in-game philosophy. "Geek the mage first" is a pretty common tactic in that game.
And yes, tanking works in D&D. Always has.
Only because your games start with the assumption that you need one, and everyone obligingly plays accordingly. But if you send a pair of casters against the same threat as a caster and a tank, and you play all of the PCs to their abilties, the pair of casters is often a much better choice.
As you have said many times, your game is WAY different than PF.
In this case, it's different in that casters actually do need bodyguards -- as a consequence of the rewritten rules, rather than gentleman's agreement to do it that way "because it's tradition."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or as Penny Arcade puts it - Shoot the Medic first. Learn tactics fast here.
Really? A martial standing in front of a caster doesn't block charge lanes or gain an AoO against creatures trying to move past them to get to the caster? The martial can't then use an AoO to use standstill preventing the creature from getting to the caster or trip it, grapple it, any maneuver to stop it? If it gets by they can't then apply an AC bonus with bodyguard and if that gets through use in harms way to take the damage themselves?
First off, none of these are things you can't do with a Battle Oracle, secondly, none of these are things that work very well and are nullified completely by anyone with a ranged attack.
Really? A martial standing in front of a caster doesn't block charge lanes or gain an AoO against creatures trying to move past them to get to the caster? The martial can't then use an AoO to use standstill preventing the creature from getting to the caster or trip it, grapple it, any maneuver to stop it? If it gets by they can't then apply an AC bonus with bodyguard and if that gets through use in harms way to take the damage themselves?
Once flying and dimension door/teleport become a thing... in a word no.
You have an enmity mechanic you use in your games? Care to share? Don't you find this makes the monsters act unrealistically and detract from game experience?Your "tank" (which I'm defining as the person who stands in front and smacks things with a stick because a traditional MMO tank does not exist in Pathfinder) could be a Battle Oracle. Now you've got a full caster doing exactly what the Fighter does AND casting spells.I'm totally OK with the wizard being an "I buff my team" guy. But to do that, we have to alter the rules so that it's clearly to his benefit to work with martial guys and buff them, as opposed to simply hanging out with more casters.It's already clearly to his benefit. Buffing the Tank gets more DPR and more damage absorbtion out there than just having another spellcaster.The term "tank" as a heavy martial (often a fighter, but a Bbn, Paladin, etc) existed and was used in D&D back in OD&D days, long before there was even a thought a MMO might be possible.
And yes, tanking works in D&D. Always has.
You don't need one. Didn't need one back in 1974, don't need one now.
Dungeon corridors or battlefield control spells funnel foes and the tank stands in the funnel end.
Many monsters are not very smart, and will attack the target in front.
Other monsters react to getting hit, and attack the guy who hurts them the most.
Doubtless, some DMs give their monsters many ranks in Ks metagame and the uncanny ability to detect the spellcaster.
Of course, some foes are spellcasters or have a lot of savvy. So, yes, sometime they do target the spellcaster. But as has been said "when you're up to your rear-end in alligators, it's hard to remember your original objective was to drain the swamp." Do they then just ignore the Fighter standing next to them, getting a Full attack?
Then again at some tables, the way they play (rocket tag, 5 minute days, 3 round combats, allowing every single option from the PFSRD) marginalizes the non-spellcaster. And that's fine, as long as they have fun. But it's not the mainstream and it's not the basis of how PF needs to change.
Let's not turn this thread into the 10000th "martial/caster discepency" useless debate.
That's not at all what SKR is talking about. He never stated that martials need these things in order not to suck. His idea is that there's no reason why such things can't be a martial option. In that we agree.
Once flying and dimension door/teleport become a thing... in a word no.Really? A martial standing in front of a caster doesn't block charge lanes or gain an AoO against creatures trying to move past them to get to the caster? The martial can't then use an AoO to use standstill preventing the creature from getting to the caster or trip it, grapple it, any maneuver to stop it? If it gets by they can't then apply an AC bonus with bodyguard and if that gets through use in harms way to take the damage themselves?
Not many foes can Tport, and a 10'x10' dungeon corridor, (or a smart battlefield control caster) will shut down the few flyers.
Design Manager
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not many foes can Tport, and a 10'x10' dungeon corridor, (or a smart battlefield control caster) will shut down the few flyers.
I don't think I've ever had a GM who wanted us to win so badly that he started putting harpies in rooms where they couldn't fly out of reach. I imagine that particular scenario would be the follow up to an adventure where we're hired to fire arrows at some kuo-toa that have conveniently located themselves in a barrel.
Encountering enemies in environments that restrict their natural advantages doesn't seem like anything the game would actually intend.
This is turning into another Martial V. Caster conversation though, so I'd thank everyone to try their best to redirect. We've had this conversation before and it never ends well.
Let's try and focus on a few ideas:
Ways martials can interact with the world in ways as potent as spellcasters.
The difference between Ex and Su abilities and what those should encompass.
Focus conversation on the idea that the originator of this thread, a former PF designer, as stated that 6th level marks the end of characters performing in the same "reality" as a real world being, and assume that when someone makes a suggestion they are both agreeing with this premise, and specifically referring to levels 6+.
No, I play my monster with an INT of 14 plus with all of the tactics that I a human of average intelligence would use. I mean I guess a campaign full of Goblins, Golems, Orcs and Ogres can work. But Vercillacerix, the Thundering Insanity certainly isn't going to use such base tactics. And enemy casters have it easy targeting the other spellcasters because unlike a Fighter they can move and cast two spells in one round. And one of those spells can instantly move them across the battlefield. So... again... tanking simply put does not work except at E6 levels and not even all the time then.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not many foes can Tport, and a 10'x10' dungeon corridor, (or a smart battlefield control caster) will shut down the few flyers.Once flying and dimension door/teleport become a thing... in a word no.Really? A martial standing in front of a caster doesn't block charge lanes or gain an AoO against creatures trying to move past them to get to the caster? The martial can't then use an AoO to use standstill preventing the creature from getting to the caster or trip it, grapple it, any maneuver to stop it? If it gets by they can't then apply an AC bonus with bodyguard and if that gets through use in harms way to take the damage themselves?
"Don't worry, as long as a caster's there to bring the enemies down to the fighter's level, the fighter's totally contributing!"
Sorry, but playing a character who needs other characters to cut up his food for him is not my idea of "fun". I have fun when I can contribute even if I get separated or my comrades have other fires to put out; I don't have fun when I have to wait for my comrades to finish setting up my high-chair for me before I can eat.
Casters without teleport can still use ranged spells to target enemy casters first and the Fighter has 0 ways to tank that. They can do this twice a round and still move. This isn't a martial v. caster thing btw.... it's a "There's no such thing as tanking." thing. Because there isn't. Enemies can and will target the biggest threat. And there is very little that Fighter (or any other class for that matter) can do about it.