Requiring all three mental stats to be an effective caster is ick. That's not fun for anybody.
Reducing spell power is the way to go about it, not requiring more stat juggling at charop or increasing the difficulty of casting in the first place. That accomplishes making casters less desirable to play, but not more BALANCED, which is the goal.
except it changes from class to class actually. 9th level casters NEED the stats for max caster level, lower level casters can forgo as much of it or put off raising it for longer. Save or suck builds would require the save DC stat. builds based on buffing allies would prefer the stats that raises spells per day.
Not all divine casters beg to the gods for spells. Some of them just *do* divine magic. (Like the Oracle.)Indeed, I always wondered why divine casters weren't always wisdom based. What deity in their right mind is going to give the power to warp reality to a guy without a lick of common sense?Martials are usually much more MAD than Casters, so this would definitely be in the right direction.
This could also use some addressing.
Making casters more MAD is fairly easy. Instead of basing the spellcasting trinity (bonus spells, max spell level, save DCs) on one stat, spread it out to two or three. Since Charisma is the measure of one's 'personal power', let that set save DCs for all spellcasting. Max spell level and bonus spells could vary by class, swapping between INT and WIS ... probably, if annoyingly, on the arcane/divine concept. Alternately, INT is always bonus spells, WIS is always max spell level, but various classes will have class abilities to encourage, but not require, the 'appropriate' stat.
For the martials ... just let them decide to use STR or DEX for melee attack rolls and damage. Well, do that for any melee combat, of course. Make basic stuff like Power Attack, Combat Expertise, Piranha Strike basic combat options (or essentially 'free feats', if you prefer). Something like the maneuver system from the Tome of Battle, of course, would also be wonderful.
For that matter, clerics don't have to, either.
Casters need toned down. Or rather, there spells do. Removing or modifying some of the more hideous spells would make life a lot simpler.
I find that Conjuration, especially, is a problem. Partially because it tends to do at least a bit of what the other schools are meant to - direct damage from Evokers, battlefield control Illusion, Minionmancy from Necromancy - into one school that most would be crazy to ignore.
I'd also add a reduced DC to save or suck/die/be mine spells. Giving martials a chance to not be one shoted because the other guy has Dominate Person is a good thing. No idea how you'd fluff it, maybe have it be a surge of will in the face of destruction/being rendered useless/turned to another's control rather simply being lightly baked by a fireball.
Finally, and this is a good rule for most games anyway - avoid the fifteen minute work day. Don't let Spellcasters go Nova each battle, then for a nap to restore there spells. Make it awkward for them. If they remain in the dungeon, harrasing attacks work. If they don't or if the creatures are smart then re-arranging, re-inforcing and re-trapping are all solid plans. No wizard likes to open the door to the room they napped in to find a gently fizzing fuze.
It's not impossible too bring casters into balance. I just don't see it happening, either.
Design Manager
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In 3.5 they had a lot of good ideas that started showing up late in the game. Of particular relevance are the Beguiler and the Warmage, who really are what wizards should look like. An evocationist should look like the warmage, an illusionist like the beguiler. It's the fact that Wizards can be unrivaled specialists in a particular field of magic while giving up absolutely nothing that starts to swing things out of whack, combined with the fact that they have spells which are pretty much deific in power.
Narrow the scope of casters, expand the scope of martials, and hopefully end up meeting in a nice middle ground that resembles classes like the bard, inquisitor, magus, alchemist, and ranger.
I really like a lot of Pathfinder's half casters. Alchemists, Inquisitors, Magi, and Summoners are all a lot of fun. Plus I like the options that Bards/Paladins/Rangers have picked up. Bards especially. Now if they would just reprint the Sublime Chord...
..... Both.
If martials are to compete with casters at the current level, they will require much buffing.
If casters are to stop making many martials feel obsolete, much of their capability require nerfing.
Personally, I've always like the old school "If you specialize, you lose ALL access to your rival schools". At this point, it only costs 2 spell slots.... Oooh, scary. YOU CAN STILL FREAKING CAST 'EM!
Personally, I think if things are going to get fixed with balance in mind that lasts until the very end-game, you'd have to kill off almost every sacred cow in the herd, and revamp the system from the ground up. Take a look at every bit that results in the gross imbalance issues, and FIX 'em..... Just... Not like 4th did, that was just atrocious.
The way I propose fixing this, is bringing back completely restricted schools. Thassilonian Specialists are the right way to play specialists, IMO.
Also... Archetypes... They need to be killed... With fire, even though it'd be a heresy to fire. Part of balance is that every class has their niche, has their own specific thing they do to help the party.... Over 60-some-odd-% of archetypes I see let you do what other classes do.... In many cases, these archetypes let you do what the Rogue does, only BETTER!
Just... Lots of stuff needs to be addressed.
I like what 4th edition did. Giving all classes "Encounter" and "Daily" powers meant that low level casters got access to rechargeable spells while still having access to more powerful but limited types as well. High level casters were powerful, but they still had to deal with ability cap and their spells weren't anything NEAR on the level of some of the things you see in the Wizard spell list. Martials meanwhile got access to cool abilities that let them do cool things other than just plain attacks.
Plus 4th had a wide array of very Gishy classes that meant you had good access to classes that weren't strictly martial or magic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Without getting into an edition war here...
I find the concept appealing... What I don't like was that in order to "Balance" everything, you were pretty much locked into your choices. Literally, after playing for a while, and looking very close at what everything did... It's all the same thing, across many of the classes. You weren't cookie cutters, but... Really... It was just a whole mess of the same stuff with different fluff and maybe a different damage type. My biggest gripe was the tiny number of abilities you get outside of utility powers.
I once had a guy tell me you could build more versatile and unique concepts in 4E than PF... It took everything I had to not laugh in his face.
Personally I prefer a breadth of options. Truly unique options. Which is why I like PF... At least until Archetypes started shanking other classes in the back and taking their stuff. At that point it became a major question of "Why play X anymore when Y can do it too, with all this other awesome stuff!"... Not merely from a desired power level stand point, but from the pure fact of I had a game where the rogue was seriously outclassed and incredibly unhappy with her character when the Bard was doing everything the Rogue was typically saved for, and BETTER! (Despite her being built with trap finding and disabling in mind.)
Which is the problem with a public game/forum. Not everyone's going to be happy with something, so you get things like this.
I suppose I should also clarify I don't mind the idea of archetypes... Archetypes mugging other classes for their stuff is the thing I hate... With a burning, flaming, fury of a THOUSAND SUNS! kind of passion.
To get back on topic track of attempting to take this seriously and not devolve into more pointless arguing....
Perhaps a list of these uber-spells that add to the martial-caster disparity would be useful?
Off the top of my head-
Wish/Limited Wish
Miracle
Color Spray
Blood Money (as much as I love it, it's cheese potential)
...
.... More comprehensive list later, I think, when I can actually sit down and consider it more often.
I think it would benefit the thread for people to put up some ideas on how to increase martials to definitively useful levels in the later game. I know someone mentioned full attack as a standard, which in and of itself is an excellent start. Then someone (I might come around and do it later) can come around and compile everything, and discussion on these things could occur.
Not that the dev team would give too much consideration to it, I think. PF's pretty well set as is with all the material. Unless... There's a PF 2.0 gasp!... No, seriously, just some ideas and a civil discussion of pros and cons of each would do well, I think.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like what 4th edition did. Giving all classes "Encounter" and "Daily" powers meant that low level casters got access to rechargeable spells while still having access to more powerful but limited types as well.That's the very thing that kept me from taking a second look at 4e. Skill based, completely non-magical abilities that are limited to once per encounter or once per day? I'm afraid there's not enough cable in the entire multiverse to let me suspend that much disbelief.
*Looks at the multitude of abilities, especially Rogue Talents that work the same way in Pathfinder*
'Kay.
So which martials are we talking about falling behind exactly?
Is it just fighter and rogue or is it them plus gunslinger, cavalier, rangers, paladins, barbarians, and monks?
Or are we talking about anyone who is not a fullcaster?
I like what 4th edition did. Giving all classes "Encounter" and "Daily" powers meant that low level casters got access to rechargeable spells while still having access to more powerful but limited types as well.That's the very thing that kept me from taking a second look at 4e. Skill based, completely non-magical abilities that are limited to once per encounter or once per day? I'm afraid there's not enough cable in the entire multiverse to let me suspend that much disbelief.
If they'd gone just one step further and made the characters spend Fatigue Points out of a finite budget to use certain abilities, I wouldn't have had a problem with it.
Starting to sound like Grit points and Deeds.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What are your guys thoughts on this? And please, try and keep it civil I am legitimately curious.
Honestly, I just don't worship at the altar of balance. I've never been in a room much less on a team where everyone was equal in talent and abilities, never seen a movie or read a book where that was the case, and yet everything seems to work out just fine.
The system IS imbalanced, favoring casters, yet in my experience I still see more martials than full casters at the table, so by all appearances there is nothing that needs actual fixing...
So which martials are we talking about falling behind exactly?
Is it just fighter and rogue or is it them plus gunslinger, cavalier, rangers, paladins, barbarians, and monks?
Or are we talking about anyone who is not a fullcaster?
Fighter and Rogue are commonly cited as the two weakest classes. Fighters can fight but have a hard time doing anything else. Rogues are frail in combat, have a hard time hitting, and their skillmonkey/trapfinding schtick has been handed out to better classes. You can even get it as a trait now.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fighter and Rogue are commonly cited as the two weakest classes. Fighters can fight but have a hard time doing anything else. Rogues are frail in combat, have a hard time hitting, and their skillmonkey/trapfinding schtick has been handed out to better classes. You can even get it as a trait now.So which martials are we talking about falling behind exactly?
Is it just fighter and rogue or is it them plus gunslinger, cavalier, rangers, paladins, barbarians, and monks?
Or are we talking about anyone who is not a fullcaster?
I've found that fighters even have struggles fighting at high levels. The game gets very complicated while the fighter does not. The lack of tactical burst options really inhibits their ability to participate in the chess match that is higher level combat. It's not impossible, but the fighter is more handy in fights than good at fighting.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fighter and Rogue are commonly cited as the two weakest classes. Fighters can fight but have a hard time doing anything else. Rogues are frail in combat, have a hard time hitting, and their skillmonkey/trapfinding schtick has been handed out to better classes. You can even get it as a trait now.So which martials are we talking about falling behind exactly?
Is it just fighter and rogue or is it them plus gunslinger, cavalier, rangers, paladins, barbarians, and monks?
Or are we talking about anyone who is not a fullcaster?
It's funny, but all Paizo had to do was make rogue talents really good and the rogue could easily work as it is. Yet when you look at that list, you find at least 3 terrible talents for every good one. Hell, some of them don't even make sense by the rules, like Underhanded. I'm doing a revamp of the entire rogue talent list and, while it's a lot of work, it's not that hard at all to make some of these talents work really well as long as you don't adhere to sacred cows of 3.X and earlier. Toss in some 1/round or 1/encounter options, some talents to expand potential sneak attack circumstances, and consolidate options that are similar both thematically and mechanically. Do this and suddenly the rogue has a lot of really good options to pick from every even level. But no, instead we get stuff like Hold Breath, or Acrobatic Stunt, or Sniper's Eye. It's just disappointing.
It's funny, but all Paizo had to do was make rogue talents really good and the rogue could easily work as it is. Yet when you look at that list, you find at least 3 terrible talents for every good one. Hell, some of them don't even make sense by the rules, like Underhanded. I'm doing a revamp of the entire rogue talent list and, while it's a lot of work, it's not that hard at all to make some of these talents work really well as long as you don't adhere to sacred cows of 3.X and earlier. Toss in some 1/round or 1/encounter options, some talents to expand potential sneak attack circumstances, and consolidate options that are similar both thematically and mechanically. Do this and suddenly the rogue has a lot of really good options to pick from every even level. But no, instead we get stuff like Hold Breath, or Acrobatic Stunt, or Sniper's Eye. It's just disappointing.Fighter and Rogue are commonly cited as the two weakest classes. Fighters can fight but have a hard time doing anything else. Rogues are frail in combat, have a hard time hitting, and their skillmonkey/trapfinding schtick has been handed out to better classes. You can even get it as a trait now.So which martials are we talking about falling behind exactly?
Is it just fighter and rogue or is it them plus gunslinger, cavalier, rangers, paladins, barbarians, and monks?
Or are we talking about anyone who is not a fullcaster?
In our home rules we made some changes to each class, in the case of Fighters and Rogues they were buffs - not game-changing buffs to put them on equal footing with full casters at 20th level, but appropriate buffs that made sense and elevated their effectiveness.
For the Rogue we made them full BAB and gave them Improved Evasion for free at 11th level.
For Fighters we gave them the Lore Warden Manuever Mastery up to +10 at 19th level, helping Fighters further carve out their own corner of the combat world. They also increased in skill points from 2 to 4.
Those simple changes have been all we've needed to feel great about Fighters and Rogues both.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To answer the OP, it's both, though my humble opinion is that martials are far more in need of help than casters are of nerfing. I could go on for a while about why, but I think this will sum up my feelings on it:
Crane Wing? Sorry, but we're worried that T-rexes will have their feelings hurt if this continues. Your one free negating a melee attack feat is now at 1/3 it's prior effectiveness. Maybe 1/8. We don't know, not really important.
vs.
You want to send an advanced, half-fiend T-rex with 10 barbarian levels into a Maze for 2 minutes with no chance of it escaping the spell's casting? Screw those dino chumps, that's awesome! Go ahead, that's supported by the Core Rulebook after all.
Now, no one's saying casters shouldn't be able to do awesome things. It's just that the awesome things for non-casters that aren't simply about dealing damage are always in either in very limited quantity or very hard to get at in comparison.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sensing some purposeful intent to derail the thread and be hostile here.
In any case, I can see where this thread is headed. Much as I'd like to stick around a help try to keep it on topic, it's starting to get a bit too heated in here for me to hold out much hope.
Comes from people thinking that someone's attacking their fave system. Knee-jerk, grab the bazooka, blast the tracks.
Wiggz, I'm writin' down what your group did and going to give that a try the next couple times around. Sounds like a pretty workable fix to me.
To answer the OP, it's both, though my humble opinion is that martials are far more in need of help than casters are of nerfing. I could go on for a while about why, but I think this will sum up my feelings on it:
Crane Wing? Sorry, but we're worried that T-rexes will have their feelings hurt if this continues. Your one free negating a melee attack feat is now at 1/3 it's prior effectiveness. Maybe 1/8. We don't know, not really important.
vs.
You want tend an advanced, half-fiend T-rex with 10 barbarian levels into a Maze for 2 minutes with no chance of it escaping the spell's casting? Screw those dino chumps, that's awesome! Go ahead, that's supported by the Core Rulebook after all.
Now, no one's saying casters shouldn't be able to do awesome things. It's just that the awesome things for non-casters that aren't simply about dealing damage are always in either in very limited quantity or very hard to get at in comparison.
Everything that big should be able to Trample, maybe.
In our home rules we made some changes to each class, in the case of Fighters and Rogues they were buffs - not game-changing buffs to put them on equal footing with full casters at 20th level, but appropriate buffs that made sense and elevated their effectiveness.
For the Rogue we made them full BAB and gave them Improved Evasion for free at 11th level.
For Fighters we gave them the Lore Warden Manuever Mastery up to +10 at 19th level, helping Fighters further carve out their own corner of the combat world. They also increased in skill points from 2 to 4.
Those simple changes have been all we've needed to feel great about Fighters and Rogues both.
I can see how full BAB would help, but then that concept always felt odd to me as well. Rogues are one of the two weird classes in the game that has neither full BAB nor at least 0-6 spellcasting, the other being the monk. Monks I can see being full BAB easily, all they do is fight. Rogues, otoh, are all about being stealthy and skilled and devious subverters of the enemy's will. Yet, the transition from 3.5 to Pathfinder eroded a lot of that already tenuous niche. It's not easy to see where they really belong anymore, since they're never getting the 'skills master' role back from bard and anyone interested in making a devastating burst damage dealer is probably better off with an inquisitor or something.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wiggz, I'm writin' down what your group did and going to give that a try the next couple times around. Sounds like a pretty workable fix to me.
Let me know how it works for you. We found Maneuvers were terribly under-utilized as combat options, especially at later levels, because they diminished in effectiveness so badly. We liked the ideas that it gave Fighters one more martial aspect to specialize in above and beyond the Raging Barbarians and the Favored Enemy Rangers.
Officially, its +2 to all CMB checks and to their CMD at 3rd level, with an additional +2 every 4 levels, maxing out at +10 at 19th.
Then again, if a group or a GM doesn't choose to use Maneuvers regularly as part of their repertoire, there won't be a noticeable difference.
Full BAB on a Rogue goes a very long way. Makes sense too - they are the only full martial who doesn't get full BAB, unless you count Monks whom I believe should also be full BAB.
I can see how full BAB would help, but then that concept always felt odd to me as well. Rogues are one of the two weird classes in the game that has neither full BAB nor at least 0-6 spellcasting, the other being the monk. Monks I can see being full BAB easily, all they do is fight. Rogues, otoh, are all about being stealthy and skilled and devious subverters of the enemy's will. Yet, the transition from 3.5 to Pathfinder eroded a lot of that already tenuous niche. It's not easy to see where they really belong anymore, since they're never getting the 'skills master' role back from bard and anyone interested in making a devastating burst damage dealer is probably better off with an inquisitor or something.
That's an archetypical Rogue, but Rogues as much or more than any other class can be created in a wide variety of ways, including brutish thugs and debonaire cads... a full BAB doesn't hurt them any more than 3/4 BAB does a Bard or Summoner.
I'll let ya know whenever I get around to it. Don't have much of a gaming group atm (just me, my gf, and I'm going to be introducing one of our friends to the glory of TTRPGs pretty soon). Still debating with myself if I should use that maneuver bonus with the new guy (who'll be playing an Ulfen Viking Fighter, given that he's swedish and has an obsession with vikings).
That said....
All this is why I'm working on scrapping classes all together and using Archetypes. Not the piddly little things in the game now, but real Archetypes, of the "The Mage", "The Warrior", "The Sneak", etc. Basically just giving each archetype a basic outline of spells/bab/saves/etc, but class abilities are selected in a manner similar to Talents and Rage Powers, with appropriate level and "if you chose this, you can't choose this" limitations. Of course, at that point, it's only half-Pathfinder at that point, but still.
Which reminds me... Need to spring for some PDFs that those guys (Rogue Genius Games I think) made that pretty much already did that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yep, we're all conspiring to take away the things you love, out of sheer malice and not at all because we're right.Oh look the exact same arguments again! How useful for me to read that its super important to take away all the classes I love. So many new ideas in here that haven't been said four hundred thousand times before.
This discussion will go useful places! So glad that its been essentially resurrected from all the other ones covering the exact same ground. . .
Wow. . . you're right about how I should enjoy the game?
It could be that the fact that of the 5 editions of this game published so far 1/5 did things your way and it was the only one that was an abject failure means you're wrong?
I mean, the designers, writers, developers or D&D, AD&D, D&D 3.0, D&D 3.5, and Pathfinder are all on my side of this that the game is fun in generally its current form?
The fact that each of those games was the top selling RPG during its publication run, while 4th edition was not suggest that generally speaking the public agrees as well.
Don't be obtuse, wanting balance is not the same as wanting homogenization.
Pathfinder set out with the stated goal of buffing martials and nerfing casters, because the problem had gotten way out of hand in 3rd Edition. Even WotC acknowledged the problem by introducing the Book of 9 Swords, whose mechanics and aesthetic I can't say I'm a fan of. Casters, while still powerful, are undoubtedly weaker in PF than in 3.5 for a score of reasons. And the game is better for it, which (presumably) is why you're here and not still playing 3.5.
Older editions of the game felt martials should be given armies in lieu of spells. A kingdom, its armies, and its resources for your very own, that might come close to being a fit substitute for spellcasting. At the very least, martial classes had the best saves. I still don't know where this idea came from that anyone with spells has a good Will save by axiom. Warhammer maybe?
Sure the old games were fun, but the designers et al. always felt they could do better.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To answer the OP, it's both, though my humble opinion is that martials are far more in need of help than casters are of nerfing. I could go on for a while about why, but I think this will sum up my feelings on it:
Crane Wing? Sorry, but we're worried that T-rexes will have their feelings hurt if this continues. Your one free negating a melee attack feat is now at 1/3 it's prior effectiveness. Maybe 1/8. We don't know, not really important.
vs.
You want to send an advanced, half-fiend T-rex with 10 barbarian levels into a Maze for 2 minutes with no chance of it escaping the spell's casting? Screw those dino chumps, that's awesome! Go ahead, that's supported by the Core Rulebook after all.
Now, no one's saying casters shouldn't be able to do awesome things. It's just that the awesome things for non-casters that aren't simply about dealing damage are always in either in very limited quantity or very hard to get at in comparison.
I recently read a very good example of this sort of comparison.
Wizard Player: "What did you learn at level 11? I learned three different ways to bring outsiders to this plane to do my bidding!"
Fighter Player: "I gained a +2 to CMB against guys named Vinnie"
The saddest part is that the Wizard (who is referring to Summon Monster 6, Planar Binding, and True Name) would be called wasteful and suboptimal for taking those three redundant choices.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To answer the OP, it's both, though my humble opinion is that martials are far more in need of help than casters are of nerfing. I could go on for a while about why, but I think this will sum up my feelings on it:
Crane Wing? Sorry, but we're worried that T-rexes will have their feelings hurt if this continues. Your one free negating a melee attack feat is now at 1/3 it's prior effectiveness. Maybe 1/8. We don't know, not really important.
vs.
You want to send an advanced, half-fiend T-rex with 10 barbarian levels into a Maze for 2 minutes with no chance of it escaping the spell's casting? Screw those dino chumps, that's awesome! Go ahead, that's supported by the Core Rulebook after all.
Now, no one's saying casters shouldn't be able to do awesome things. It's just that the awesome things for non-casters that aren't simply about dealing damage are always in either in very limited quantity or very hard to get at in comparison.
I recently read a very good example of this sort of comparison.
Wizard Player: "What did you learn at level 11? I learned three different ways to bring outsiders to this plane to do my bidding!"
Fighter Player: "I gained a +2 to CMB against guys named Vinnie"
The saddest part is that the Wizard (who is referring to Summon Monster 6, Planar Binding, and True Name) would be called wasteful and suboptimal for taking those three redundant choices.
Hey! Vinnie is a common name in published APs!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Probably needs to be a three pronged approach.
Martials need more narrative agency, casters need to be brought in line, and spells need a hard looking at. The skill system could also use a revamp.
Martial feats either need to be brought up to par with caster ones or caster ones need to be dropped. A martial pays for a feat and gets a very specific, narrow use out of it. A caster gains extreme, far ranging and more versatile use from their feats. A Martial will never get a feat as powerful as Quicken. They have no ability to increase their action economy like that.
I far prefer casters being stronger than martials at later levels, it's in keeping with high fantasy and I wouldn't play any version of Pathfinder 2.0 which tried to balance them
I've played your version of the game, with all its imbalances, and given it a fair shot.
It would only be common courtesy to extend the same nicety to a new game which attempted to fix the problems with this system.
|
I'd give it a shot, sure. Not least because you are one of the more sensible people on the boards, Rynjin (if a bit grumpy).
My objection to drastic changes is that
A) Narratively, casters should be amazing at the endgame in a high-fantasy setting.
B) Martials should be amazing too, but not in such an Earth-shattering way. However, making them viable is still vital, I'll concede that. Bear in mind they are all using magic anyway by then.
C) Making everybody as powerful as one another, with different descriptions for rolling the same dice seems to defy the point of choice. Why have different classes and builds then?
On a practical, mechanical level:
C) quite a lot of this is theory and focused on high-level play, as discussed by people on boards who know the rules backwards. I've spent almost all of my playing time between levels 1-10, with excursions into 16+ very rare indeed. I think a lot of people's experience will be similar. Of those levels, 1-5 is even more common than higher levels.
D) even though I almost exclusively play casters, I can't be alone in not playing them to abuse the system. I play to aid my group - including the GM. Very little in the shape of scry/teleport/instakill stuff, they group gets a lot more fun out of me turning the rogue invisible and setting up a Create Pit, for example.
E) I concede tweaks are needed and these should probably be addressed in Unchained. Movement and hitting is complicated, Rogue Talents should be boosted, things like Gate should be a long and complex ritual if the dreadful spell is needed at all. Monks need to be able to do stuff. 'More narrative agency' is a nice expression mentioned earlier, and it seems an inarguable goal. And yes, the very weak classes do have trouble keeping up. But I'd submit that at the level most people play - up to 10, say - will a well-made Ranger for example feel left out with his pet and his arrows and his outdoors skills and his smattering of thematic spells? Will a Paladin with his super smite and his Diplomacy and his protection magic?
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Full casters need some needing. But even more than that, the spell list needs a SERIOUS culling. A lot of spells need to be seriously nerfed, have their spell level raised, or both, or even be cut altogether.
Especially spells that do more to reduce adventuring than contribute to it.
I just want when two things have the same level written on their sheet, for them to actually be on the same level.
in other words a 20th level Martial should be a Martial with enough umph, that he has a 50% chance of besting a caster, without particularly trying to counter casters and this is across all the different Martials. so sure maybe some Martials fall to 20-30% chance of success but others should have an 80-70% chance of winning against a random caster.
basically, anyone with a "level" should actually intuitively be on that level. like if you had gold and platinum both ranked as lvl 5 on some scale, but along that scale platinum was actually far superior.