A dispelling strike should just be an extension of the Vital Strike line.
Use the 3.5 guideline. If you take a feat which gives you the ability to dispel or ignore certain magicks, your caster level is -4. Bing! No caster in his right mind would take it. At least, not without a Practical Spellcaster feat to offset it.
But yes, there very much extremely so should be lines of feats based on No Magical Ability. Such should be the terror of spellcasters.
==Aelryinth
Pierce Magical Defenses and Pierce Magical Concealment were two feats that basically stripped away all basic defenses of a caster.
If you extend those feats to a strike that disrupts and dispels all summonings; to a rapidly increasing ability to defy and neutralize divination spells, until even the gods can't tell what a character is going to do; to increasing resistance and defiance of all forms of necromancy and soul-trapping; to allowing evasion/mettle as feats instead of class abilities (subject to caster level -4 if taken as a feat, of course!) and utter resistance to enchantment/charm spells while fighting, you get melee types who can choose their resistance to magic and really, really be only able to be fought by other melees.
Which is the default in a lot of heroic tales. Throw in a magic-immune melee and casters start wetting their shorts trying to deal with them. If the melees are actually competent, that's much worse.
But, eh. Fighters can't have good things.
==Aelryinth
I don't know, I'm opposed to the notion of "mundane" class doing "magical" things. Arturius Fischer isn't really arguing the same point as me, but his words nonetheless inform my position:
Removing the "Su" tag but not the "Sp" tag would mean that either everything magical is now of the more fragile, disruptable nature or there is no difference between the magical and mundane ...
And that's what would be happening: magic would become mundane.
Magic, by definition is a power that allows people to do the impossible. It's exerting supernatural power over natural forces.
Much of the argument for allowing "mundane" classes to do "magical" things cites the fact that certain rules systems within the game allow individuals to do superhuman things. Is that proof that low-mid level Pathfinder characters are practically superhuman, though, or that certain rules systems are bent/broken/don't reconcile well with the character's overall power level and place in the world?
The same ruleset, after all, that allows a low-level character to break Olympic records in (e.g.) long jumps or a mid-level character to bullrush a giant also ensures that every single unencumbered standard fighter will run 36.6 meters in 6 seconds - no matter what their level, skill-set, or ability scores are (so long as they are 1 or higher).
Nor do I agree with the idea that a discussion about magic-equivalent effects should be informed by Sean's opinion - that level 6 is the equivalent of the greatest real-world humans we've produces. I don't want to sound rude because I respect the work Sean put in for WotC and Paizo, but he is one designer among many. In this case, his opinion is trumped by the fact that, throughout every edition, published campaign worlds have been populated by NPCs of level 6 (or greater) who are absolutely inconsequential to even their regional events (nevermind national or continental).
I'm not opposed to "mundane" classes getting access to a greater range of effects, abilities, etc., but I think the process of determining those should not be informed by what Spell X or Spell-Like Ability Y can achieve. All that does is dilute what already exists for spellcasting characters. I'd much rather see an effort by Paizo to eliminate "trap" Feats, make certain Feats default abilities for certain classes (e.g., Combat Expertise and Power Attack should be built in to the Fighter class), make other Feats more meaningful, and get rid of unnecessary Feat trees.
Beyond that, there are so many combat mechanics that could be fixed/made more appropriate while making the Fighter (and other mundane classes) more effective in the process. Aid Another is a joke as it stands. Charge's defauly benefit is minimal. Grappling requires an armed combatant to not use their weapons - even though that was historically a huge part of armored warfare.
Bottom line, I would argue that there are a ton of existing things that could be fixed before we start thinking about how the Fighter starts making the Magus obsolete with dispelling attacks, or how he can sever the fabric of the universe with his non-magical sword.
Dispelling Blow
Your understanding of magic has taught you to sever the essence that binds it to a target.
Prerequisite: Spellcraft 5 ranks, Base Attack Bonus +5
Benefit: As a full attack action you can study the magic bound to a creature and make a single attack against the targets touch AC with any weapon at your full Base Attack Bonus. If your attack hits the target takes no damage, but is subjected to a targeted dispel magic using your Base Attack Bonus or ranks in spellcraft as your caster level.
Or break it into 2 feats; one for melee and one for ranged.
Requires a full attack action vs standard action.
Touch AC vs. auto hit (although touch AC for martials should be an auto hit)
Unlimited use vs. limited to spell slots
So you're basically doing what some Magi can do... but better?
Dispelling Strike (Su): The magus can spend 1 or more points from his arcane pool as a swift action to imbue his weapon with a special power. If the weapon strikes a creature within the next minute, that creature is the subject of a targeted dispel magic using the magus's level as the caster level, except that this effect cannot dispel a spell of a level higher than the number of arcane pool points expended to activate this ability (treat higher-level spells as if they do not exist and apply the dispel attempt to the remaining spells with the highest caster level). Once the strike is made, the power dissipates, even if the dispel attempt is unsuccessful. The magus must be at least 9th level before selecting
this arcana.
certain rules systems are bent/broken/don't reconcile well with the character's overall power level and place in the world?
Let's talk about overall power level, then, by all means. Which of the following determines a character's power (choose ONE and ONLY ONE answer):
(a) Character level(b) Character class
(c) Other
If you picked anything other than (a), you're no longer discussing the same game system as the rest of the people in the thread. What answer (a) means is that a 13th level fighter or rogue is supposed to be equally as powerful as a 13th level wizard, by definition. When you skew off of that definition, you're talking about Ars Magica, not 3.0/3.5/PF.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Kirth, out of curiosity, how would you handle a 13th-level fighter who dumped Str, Con, and Dex as opposed to a 13-th level fighter who didn't? Are they equally powerful?
A is quite objectively the wrong answer.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Kirth, out of curiosity, how would you handle a 13th-level fighter who dumped Str, Con, and Dex as opposed to a 13th level fighter who didn't? Are they equally powerful?
They would be in different campaigns. Because they're playing in two totally different games. The 13th level fighter who dumped Str, Dex, and Con is playing in a game with a sorcerer 4/monk 5/druid 4, not a druid 13.
And that's sad, because, in a better-designed game (one in whioh CR means what 3e claims it means), they'd all be fine together. But multiclassing blatantly doesn't work (witness all of Paizo's "hybrid classes" as a patch), and some classes are objectively weaker than others (rogue vs. wizard) even at the same level, and some characters can really be screwed up badly if you're not careful (your fighter who's dumping physical stats) without coming out equally as far ahead in other areas. These are flaws, not features.
The claim that the game makes is that a 13th level fighter is equal to a 13th level fighter is equal to a 13th level wizard. That's why they need equal xp, and supposedly adventure together as equal partners. Any time that doesn't work, the system itself isn't working. Any time someone nods sagely and says, "good, because it's more realistic that way," that person is missing out on how the game, mechanically, is supposed to be functioning.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
certain rules systems are bent/broken/don't reconcile well with the character's overall power level and place in the world?Let's talk about overall power level, then, by all means. Which of the following determines a character's power (choose ONE and ONLY ONE answer):
(a) Character level
(b) Character class
(c) OtherIf you picked anything other than (a), you're no longer discussing the same game system as the rest of the people in the thread. What answer (a) means is that a 13th level fighter or rogue is supposed to be equally as powerful as a 13th level wizard, by definition. When you skew off of that definition, you're talking about Ars Magica, not 3.0/3.5/PF.
Comparing wizards, rogues, and fighters is like comparing quarterbacks, safeties, and offensive linemen. No football player is "more powerful" than the next, but one is more likely to be mentioned in the papers.
If you want to talk power, fighter vs paladin, and wizard vs arcanist, and rogue vs X are more definitive.
Narrative power is a different discussion though, but considering the game comes from games that came from games balanced around the idea of dungeon-like combat it is to be excepted.
certain rules systems are bent/broken/don't reconcile well with the character's overall power level and place in the world?Let's talk about overall power level, then, by all means. Which of the following determines a character's power (choose ONE and ONLY ONE answer):
(a) Character level
(b) Character class
(c) OtherIf you picked anything other than (a), you're no longer discussing the same game system as the rest of the people in the thread. What answer (a) means is that a 13th level fighter or rogue is supposed to be equally as powerful as a 13th level wizard, by definition. When you skew off of that definition, you're talking about Ars Magica, not 3.0/3.5/PF.
Comparing wizards, rogues, and fighters is like comparing quarterbacks, safeties, and offensive linemen. No football player is "more powerful" than the next, but one is more likely to be mentioned in the papers.
If you want to talk power, fighter vs paladin, and wizard vs arcanist, and rogue vs X are more definitive.
Narrative power is a different discussion though, but considering the game comes from games that came from games balanced around the idea of dungeon-like combat it is to be excepted.
Actually, if you are talking same level and wealth, the wizard could probably kill both the fighter and the rogue himself...just saying...
What answer (a) means is that a 13th level fighter or rogue is supposed to be equally as powerful as a 13th level wizard, by definition.And in our 13th level game, our fighter is far and away the most dangerous member of the team, more so than my Sorc.
Mind you, I admit our rogue is the weakest, but that's because he only shows up half the time. (we still give him full levels and a share of the cash, but he still loses out on some of the more primo loot choices, not to mention he still has a talent and a feat he hasnt bothered to select yet. ) I think his lack of involvement is the issue here, not the class. But I admit I can't be sure. (He also has a bard in the other 8th level party, and a 7th level battle oracle, and those PC's are also the weakest in those groups, so....
\
Ok that is cute...
That really doesn't mean much...
I could say that "WELL IN MY GAME THE MONK IS THE MOST LETHAL GUY OF ALL!!"
All that means is that:
1) The fighter player knows what he is doing
2) The other players have no idea what they are going
and/or
3) The GM is playing right to the fighter by throwing big dumb things that just full attack in melee and nothing else...
I think your one moment of anecdotal evidence is greatly outweighed by many times where Full casters are shown to have much greater potential...
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
What answer (a) means is that a 13th level fighter or rogue is supposed to be equally as powerful as a 13th level wizard, by definition.And in our 13th level game, our fighter is far and away the most dangerous member of the team, more so than my Sorc.
Mind you, I admit our rogue is the weakest, but that's because he only shows up half the time. (we still give him full levels and a share of the cash, but he still loses out on some of the more primo loot choices, not to mention he still has a talent and a feat he hasnt bothered to select yet. ) I think his lack of involvement is the issue here, not the class. But I admit I can't be sure. (He also has a bard in the other 8th level party, and a 7th level battle oracle, and those PC's are also the weakest in those groups, so....
\
Ok that is cute...
That really doesn't mean much...
I could say that "WELL IN MY GAME THE MONK IS THE MOST LETHAL GUY OF ALL!!"
All that means is that:
1) The fighter player knows what he is doing
2) The other players have no idea what they are going
and/or
3) The GM is playing right to the fighter by throwing big dumb things that just full attack in melee and nothing else...I think your one moment of anecdotal evidence is greatly outweighed by many times where Full casters are shown to have much greater potential...
But everyone knows DrDeth's anecdotal evidence is the only evidence that counts. As he'll be more than happy to tell you himself, if you've had a different gameplay experience from him you're obviously not playing the game the right way, or you're just a dirty liar. After all, the devs totally told him they agree with him about everything ever.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, his evidence DOES count -- for how things work in his campaign and others like it (such as, presumably, the developers'). What his evidence doesn't do, however, is dictate how everyone else's games "should" be played.
I believe that he has no problems with fighters and rogues at high levels. When he says he's played for 400 years across all editions with no class disparity, I don't think he's lying.
I know that other people do have a problem, however, and those problems directly stem from the rules for the classes' abilities, not from the players' supposed "maturity".
I believe the best solution is not to simply tell people they're "being immature" or "playing wrong." I believe a far better solution is to expand the potential of the monk, fighter, rogue, etc. so that they can perform on equal footing in campaigns other than DrDeth's "correct" ones.
What answer (a) means is that a 13th level fighter or rogue is supposed to be equally as powerful as a 13th level wizard, by definition.And in our 13th level game, our fighter is far and away the most dangerous member of the team, more so than my Sorc.
\
That really doesn't mean much...
I could say that "WELL IN MY GAME THE MONK IS THE MOST LETHAL GUY OF ALL!!"
All that means is that:
1) The fighter player knows what he is doing
2) The other players have no idea what they are going
and/or
3) The GM is playing right to the fighter by throwing big dumb things that just full attack in melee and nothing else...I think your one moment of anecdotal evidence is greatly outweighed by many times where Full casters are shown to have much greater potential...
But is that true?
Yes, 1. is true, but the other two are not.
I see few examples here about IRL tabletop games.
And yes, Spellcasters often have more "potential" but I was quoting a poster that talked about "power". They are not the same.
No, his evidence DOES count -- for how things work in his campaign and others like it (such as, presumably, the developers'). What his evidence doesn't do, however, is dictate how everyone else's games "should" be played.
I believe that he has no problems with fighters and rogues at high levels. When he says he's played for 400 years across all editions with no class disparity, I don't think he's lying.
I know that other people do have a problem, however, and those problems directly stem from the rules for the classes' abilities, not from the players' supposed "maturity".
I believe the best solution is not to simply tell people they're "being immature" or "playing wrong." I believe a far better solution is to expand the potential of the monk, fighter, rogue, etc. so that they can perform on equal footing in campaigns other than DrDeth's "correct" ones.
I never claim my games are "correct". I think they are "mainstream", since they seem to match closely with how the devs say they play. A "correct" game is where everyone has fun. I would not have fun in a hyper-optimized rocket tag 3 rounds of combat then go rest game. But others enjoy those. Nothing wrong with that. I expect some here would be bored at our table, or even JJ's table.
Actually, we have not played much at what I call "high levels" in PF, i.e. 17th+. I have played quite a bit of 3.5 at those levels, and yes, I have said repeatedly that when spellcasters get 9th levels spells in 3.5 (such as Shapechange, etc) then there is a huge disparity. Maybe that's why so many AP's end before then, I dunno.
While I agree on "expand the potential" it seems I disagree with why and how. I don;t think either the rogue or fighter is underpowered. Many people play both, have fun doing so, and contribute. What's more, the fighter appeals a lot to those who want a simple DPR combat machine, one which isn;t complex. Why not let them have it?
But there's be nothing wrong with a Ninja Talent that allows some sort of limited Teleportation. Then, later, with Mythic, even more and better. But that'd be a OPTION, not a simple power boost across the board. Options- not changes to the core class.
There already is a Mythic feat for martials that allows a might leap and attack. I think there's room for more feats along that line. Options- not changes to the core class.
I also think your tone here is unnecessarily personal and antagonistic. Please tone it back, eh?
What answer (a) means is that a 13th level fighter or rogue is supposed to be equally as powerful as a 13th level wizard, by definition.And in our 13th level game, our fighter is far and away the most dangerous member of the team, more so than my Sorc.I'm going to have to ask for the Sorcerer character's build and a rough outline of the tactics you tend to use in play.
I frequently read you comment about 'buffing the martial' being a favorite tactic of yours, and under that situation OF COURSE the Fighter is going to be the most dangerous member of the team. He's using the power of 1.5 characters (1 Arcanist + a martial approximated as .5, were this a Paladin or Ranger we were talking about it may be more like 1.8 or so)
My Sorc casts GMW on all those who normally use weapons in Combat. This lasts all day. Indeed, this is a buff on the fighter, but also the cleric, the rogue, and even the bards bow sometimes.
During Combat, either my sorc or the bard will cast a haste, then the bard buffs & blasts, and I use 'divide and conquer" or "save or suck" battle field control spells. I then finish off foes with blast spells. Sometimes if the foes start off in perfect 'fireball formation" I start with a blast spell, but that's rare.
Other than Haste & GMW about the only other spell I cast on the fighter is Fly if a foe is out of reach.
And yes, Spellcasters often have more "potential" but I was quoting a poster that talked about "power". They are not the same.Potential becomes power if its applied. If the caster player either lacks system mastery or deliberately holds back on his potential then sure he's not going to be as powerful as he could be. Doesn't change the imbalanced power between classes before accounting for the Player element.
But I disagree that "imbalanced power between classes " is significant. So does James Jacobs. Perhaps its then your play style, not the system?
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I never claim my games are "correct". I think they are "mainstream", since they seem to match closely with how the devs say they play.
You don't use the word "correct", but you definitely treat others as incorrect. When you dismiss experiences that differ from your own with "that's not how people really play", yes, you're saying your games are "correct". (And simultaneously accusing the other person of either lying or not understanding their own experiences.)
And that's to say nothing of the absurdity of the "DrDeth + JJ = mainstream" claim that you just made.
I would not have fun in a hyper-optimized rocket tag 3 rounds of combat then go rest game.
You also need to stop implying that this is the only type of game that sees these caster/martial issues.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And yes, Spellcasters often have more "potential" but I was quoting a poster that talked about "power". They are not the same.Potential becomes power if its applied. If the caster player either lacks system mastery or deliberately holds back on his potential then sure he's not going to be as powerful as he could be. Doesn't change the imbalanced power between classes before accounting for the Player element.But I disagree that "imbalanced power between classes " is significant. So does James Jacobs. Perhaps its then your play style, not the system?
Or perhaps it's that your and JJ's playstyle deviates from the system where most people see these issues?
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Caster: I cast persistent hold person on the guy in front of the fighter.
Fighter: I coup de grace the paralyzed guy.
Caster: Wow fighter, you're so dangerous; you just took that guy out in one hit!
-------------------
This is the kind of mental image I'm getting here.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Perhaps its then your play style, not the system?
The system could easily be fixed to accommodate his play style as well as yours -- by adding options, not straight power-ups.
I don't think the appropriate response to a problem is to always blame the victim.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
I never claim my games are "correct".
Perhaps its then your play style, not the system?
Do you see it now? When someone says "I have this problem" and your response is "Well it's not a problem in my or JJ's games, so maybe the problem is with the way you play," you are telling people that your games are correct and theirs are not.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The game was designed before APs existed.The game is designed around the APs. What's the point in arguing around home brew?I don't do AP's. Too rigid for my tastes. When I GM I favor spontaneity, when I'm a player I tend to rock the boat too much for AP style play.Those are some interesting numbers to say the least. Can't say that I've fought good creatures in any AP I've run through.How often do good spell casters try to dominate your PCs?First, the Wayfinder-Ioun combo only works against Evil. In my experience 40-60% of what the party faces is neutral, with about 10% being Good.
And yet here we are where people running APs don't see the problems that those running home brew have. Wonder why that is.
It was also designed to be backwards compatible with 3.5 where there were plenty of APs.
If the system can't handle campaigns which aren't included in the relatively small subset of predesigned campaigns, then it's probably a problem with the system, rather than GMs who aren't running APs.
Rise of the Runelords first adventure path was released in August of 2007.
Paizo's Shackled City debuted in March 2003. Then came Age of Worms (2005-2006), followed by Savage Tide (2006-2007). RotRL was written for 3.5 edition, not Pathfinder; the first AP for the new edition was Council of Thieves (2009).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The game was also designed around no system mastery and being able to read a book and create a character. Optimization causes problems and greater disparity. They won't cater to optimizers if it will affect entry level players. You reduce the player base by demanding a high level of understanding.
The problem is that a vast amount of optimization is required to make a martial character even halfway effective at median level, whereas a sorcerer is pretty hard to screw up even for a new person. Optimization causes problems only in a system designed with huge imbalances in it. In a better balanced system, a well-optimized fighter and wizard are on equal footing, as are a pair of poorly-optimized ones. Ideally, the system is transparent enough that optimization itself is built-in and all characters are more or less equal, at equal levels.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
DrDeth never sees any issue with PF because he doesn't really play the game.
PF is full of caster-martial disparity. His supposed "balanced Fighters and Rogues" never occur IRL games.
DD is just a "balance theorycrafter", part of a VERY VOCAL MINORITY that pretends there are no problems with the game.
What is probably true is that the game isn't designed to support the level of optimization commonly seen on these boards.
+1
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
But I disagree that "imbalanced power between classes " is significant. So does James Jacobs. Perhaps its then your play style, not the system?
I like James Jacobs. He seems like a great guy, and he shares several of my interests above and beyond RPGs.
But the man can be wrong. The game should try to strive for relatively balanced classes. It won't ever be 100% perfectly balanced, that's true. But that doesn't mean you should completely abandon all effort to try and even out the balance. That's just bad game design, whether it comes from WotC or Paizo....or any of the hundreds of other RPG publishers out there.
Rise of the Runelords is not a Pathfinder AP.
The ANNIVERSARY EDITION is fully Pathfinder, but the original RotRL (and Council of Thieves, even) runs more on 3.5 than PF since PF wasn't finished yet.
Hence the myriad references to things like "Spot checks" in the AP.