Should martials be buffed... or casters brought down?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

151 to 200 of 484 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

Rynjin wrote:
Kaiser D. wrote:

I'm expecting to get a lot of heat for this suggestion, but I always just enjoyed the way Naruto physical fighters had access to the chakra gates to empower them in exchange for their life. The more gates you open, the stronger you become, and the worse the damage is once you're done. Any basic martial would be able to buff up for a couple of actions, then pay the price if they can't do what's needed in the time. Obviously the more powerful a martial, the less the drawbacks would be, but never completely removed. It may not be a great solution to the problem, but for a couple of rounds, a high level martial could be toe to toe with a high level caster.

I wrote up something for this that might work but I can't find it.

I recall you posted some stuff in my topic.

Link


I have posted a suggestion for fixing multiple attacks for fighters, barbarians and other BAB +20 warrior classes, take a look:

Link


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

wouldn't Chakra unlocking be a barbarian?


Thomas Long 175 wrote:


This game is to be played for fun. These characters are meant to be fun to play. The game should not be balanced around "well his character will be fun at this point in the game and yours will be fun at this point."

power =/= fun for everyone.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Grimmy wrote:
Thomas Long 175 wrote:


This game is to be played for fun. These characters are meant to be fun to play. The game should not be balanced around "well his character will be fun at this point in the game and yours will be fun at this point."
power =/= fun for everyone.

And yet I'm pretty sure lack of power is fun for no one.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

@Bandw2: That was my take (sort of, it was allowing monks to "rage"). Rynjin's version is a quicker monk (which I also like, looking back on it).


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Grimmy wrote:
Thomas Long 175 wrote:


This game is to be played for fun. These characters are meant to be fun to play. The game should not be balanced around "well his character will be fun at this point in the game and yours will be fun at this point."
power =/= fun for everyone.

this is like the statement money doesn't buy happiness.

It just happens people who have more money are happier.

:/


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Fine you guys are right. The great times I had roleplaying my wizard at low levels in ad&d must have never happened and there must have been an increase in fun when I got to higher levels that I just failed to notice. I will try to get more in touch with my own feelings.

Also being a starving artist in the city with awesome friends must have sucked more than I'm remembering and when I got a high paying job and spent all my time with shallow people I couldn't relate with I guess my misery then wasn't real either.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Grimmy wrote:

Fine you guys are right. The great times I had roleplaying my wizard at low levels in ad&d must have never happened and there must have been an increase in fun when I got to higher levels that I just failed to notice. I will try to get more in touch with my own feelings.

Also being a starving artist in the city with awesome friends must have sucked more than I'm remembering and when I got a high paying job and spent all my time with shallow people I couldn't relate with I guess my misery then wasn't real either.

while nice, it's probable both of those circumstances had little to do with money or power.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:
Grimmy wrote:
Thomas Long 175 wrote:


This game is to be played for fun. These characters are meant to be fun to play. The game should not be balanced around "well his character will be fun at this point in the game and yours will be fun at this point."
power =/= fun for everyone.
And yet I'm pretty sure lack of power is fun for no one.

Actually some people are really into that kind of thing if you know what I mean.


lol, yup^^

Rynjin I get the distinction and that nuance in your original comment and yes it's more despite of than because of in my wizard case, but not entirely, because at times I was enjoying that wizard because of the way the power differences and how they scaled modeled a type of character and helped me get into character.. I don't know of I'm explaining this right, but yes, for me those differences are part of the charm of d&d. And then when the wizard gets more power, I like how the fighter can't do such spectacular feats but he can keep doing what he does around the clock.

Sorry for getting sarcastic, but seriously "blank is fun for no one" is too blanket. I have players in my group who like a serious handicap for rp purposes. More than one. I have seen it come off annoyingly or hilariously, but they really like to do that sometimes.

I have met a lot of players who want to lower the overall power level because it feels too superhero-ey. Yes, that is an overall global change and doesn't result in a disparity, but I have also played and enjoyed games where the very disparity was a feature not a bug for us.

Rifts. That game had no semblance of balance. Since we gave up any hope of being on even ground we had a blast just seeing where the game took us without obsessing about how we were "performing".


Wall o text...

Finally read every post and I still have no clue to the point of this thread or the many like it complaining of imbalance. It's not like the authors of the Pathfinder gaming system are going to scrap their years of hard work to please the vocal minority that post on these boards and the even smaller minority that post complaints in general discussion. Some things can be changed in the development phases and others can be errata'd if the imbalance is noted, but the things people say in these threads require reinventing the wheel. Seems like it would be easier to just play a different game or create your own by manipulating existing rules than complaining until the developers give you what you want.

I also see lots of "this class needs magic items more than that class" in threads like these along with points about the wizard being able to do anything because he can know every spell without ever acknowledging that the wizard needed an abundance of scrolls to gain every spell as their class isn't giving them that many spells. Sure a fighter needs an item to gain the ability to fly, but it's no different than a wizard needing bracers of armor and costing a whole lot more than a suit of full plate. Every class needs items and every class/archetype/build will need many different ones beyond the big six which also have as much variance between classes/archetypes/builds.

There's also so much about this is better than that or these set of classes are better than those sets of characters. Obviously so in questioning disparity of martials to casters. None of this comes with merit beyond opinion from personal experience, play style, your group, and your GM though. A group of casters may spend time buffing that a martial party spends being murderhobos. Even throwing up improved invisibility is one less round spent defeating your foes. A group of Sohei monks could be flurrying of arrows until creatures close then flurrying with their next set of weapon training weapons potentially killing 2-4 creatures in the first round. The rogues could be winning initiative and front loading sneak attack damage doing something similar as can any martial that buys a bow.

Power=/=fun is and isn't true as much as the inverse. Fun is completely subjective. I have a player in my group that likes to weaken all of his characters through some means that adds to his enjoyment of role playing just as others like to optimize and post big numbers. To each their own and no one has a right to say otherwise.

But since we're discussing things to change...:

Martials should get many feats for free. Quick draw, combat expertise, power attack, piranha strike, weapon finesse, agile maneuvers, and many like these should just be a part of martial classes. Why require a feat to know that if you swing harder you add damage, but reduce accuracy. Anyone who's played golf or baseball knows this. Drawing your weapon quicker is something you would practice if weapons is what you do. Using dex to hit or for maneuvers is intuitive to a dexterous character. Why would a 7 Str, 20 dex character waste their time learning to use their weapon any other way. I find a lot is counter intuitive in regards to martials.

I'd also like to see something akin to 2e initiative being based on your weapon/spell and possibly your BAB. Not breaking attacks up through initiative though as I enjoy the current streamlining. Swinging a dagger 4 times a round should be faster than swinging a Greatsword 4 times a round. I get that it's supposed to mean opportunities that you slip the guard of an enemy and a chance to land a blow, but if you can swing more times with a dagger per round then statistically you will get more opportunities to land blows.

Last I'd like to see better action economy as martials progress. A caster can quicken spell and cast as a swift action granting the equivalent of two standards and a move action where martials don't get things like this. Let them use a swift action to move 10 or 15 feet as their prowess has enabled them to maneuver combat. Or being able to perform a full attack as a standard action. I think this might also clean up some of the problems some people find with rogues and sneak attack although I already find that one can be circumvented with the appropriate feats or tactical playing.

As to casters, lessen the spells they can use per day, increase casting times, and make more restrictions on schools for specialists. I'd prefer a mana pool approach, but that can lead to abuse of high tiered spells so the only option there is to just reduce the spells per day on the higher tiered spells like 2 8th and 9th levels, 3 5th to 7th, and 4 4th and below. Higher tiered spells should be taking longer to cast as they are more powerful and to stop some quickened high tiered spells through rods. As for opposition schools, drop it and just make all spells that aren't your specialist school cast at a -1 caster level or else increase the number of opposition schools so specializing to get the bonus spells and ofttimes boon school abilities comes with some substantial drawbacks.


Flawed wrote:
Power=/=fun is and isn't true as much as the inverse. Fun is completely subjective. I have a player in my group that likes to weaken all of his characters through some means that adds to his enjoyment of role playing just as others like to optimize and post big numbers. To each their own and no one has a right to say otherwise.

Right that is what I meant to say.


Martials don't need a boost certain martials need a boost. Casters don't need a nerf certain spells/abilities do. Feats and combat needs the revamp. If you fixed the mundane martials with a slight boost while making combat more mobile and gave options other than damage real 20 level teeth without ridiculous investment while at the same time removing the ridiculous spells toning down SoS and make combat caster checks much more difficult then they would be more balanced

Shadow Lodge

I'll join the "Both" crowd. I'd like to see Martial action economy brought up[to the point where move+attack is good even for those who don't build for it, and where you have options that are as effective as damage], and Caster action economy brought down[to where they are as effective as a martial who has to move]. Maybe making the Combat Maneuver system not require feats to be decent[not provoke AoO's], and make CMD not scale way too quickly, making all single-attack option forms stack with eachother[like Vitalstrike+Spring Attack or Charge] would make things work better. And perhaps if casters needed to make concentration checks[of a reasonably moderate DC of course], or some CL if they move.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
proftobe wrote:
make combat caster checks much more difficult then they would be more balanced

Some friends and I have toyed about with this and the general consensus is that having to roll to decide whether you do anything at all is a poor mechanic. Failed the roll? Your turn is over. Yikes.


Frankly, when you full attack action you should be able to move half your speed before or after the attack. That way Martials are a relevant threat even if they're more than 5ft away.

Scavion wrote:
proftobe wrote:
make combat caster checks much more difficult then they would be more balanced
Some friends and I have toyed about with this and the general consensus is that having to roll to decide whether you do anything at all is a poor mechanic. Failed the roll? Your turn is over. Yikes.

Just remove combat casting period. It's super cheesy for Spellcasters to just instadefeat an AoO with a roll (that it fairly easy to make, even if the odd roll fails).

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

Part of the problem is that things like Invisibility are iconic. At low levels, you can cast it once or twice, and at the exclusion of your other top spells for that level. So it's clutch when needed, but doesn't replace Stealth entirely.

At high levels, you've got Invisibility for days.

Invisibility being an example of something that's high utility balanced early by uses, but not later.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Grimmy wrote:
Sorry for getting sarcastic, but seriously "blank is fun for no one" is too blanket. I have players in my group who like a serious handicap for rp purposes. More than one. I have seen it come off annoyingly or hilariously, but they really like to do that sometimes.
Flawed wrote:
Power=/=fun is and isn't true as much as the inverse. Fun is completely subjective. I have a player in my group that likes to weaken all of his characters through some means that adds to his enjoyment of role playing just as others like to optimize and post big numbers. To each their own and no one has a right to say otherwise.

If martials got a power-boost, the "power = fun" crowd would be pleased and your players could still handicap themselves for fun. It would be a win-win.


Scavion wrote:
proftobe wrote:
make combat caster checks much more difficult then they would be more balanced
Some friends and I have toyed about with this and the general consensus is that having to roll to decide whether you do anything at all is a poor mechanic. Failed the roll? Your turn is over. Yikes.

while I can see what you're saying but I think it should be hardto cast if hit and or grappled. Maybe have spells have a lesser effect or lower saves if you blow the roll


Posit:
-Remove Power Attack and Deadly Aim from the game
-Remove Interative Attacks from the game (Monk flurry still works the same)
-Remove Meta-Magic From the game

+At 6 BAB your single attack does double base damage. Crits multiply this base. At 11 BAB you do triple damage, at 16 you do quadruple. (NOTE: All attacks sans flurry are subject to this. TWF is one feat that allows you to make one off-hand attack with this same scaling)
+Every successful melee attack allows you to attempt a combat maneuver against the target without generating an AOO.
+Combat Expertise is now built into BAB and is no longer a feat. All feats requiring it no longer do so. Furthermore, you now decide how much BAB you trade for AC up to your total BAB.
+The bonuses from Iron Will, Lightning reflexes, and great fortitude increase by one for every -2 you have to attack rolls from combat expertise.
+Once you have 6 or more BAB you reduce your effective max BAB by 5 at the start of the round to gain an extra move action. This can only be done once per round.


I think there is a contradiction in the original rules for movement and attack.

If you use a move action (30 ft.), then you can use your remaining standard action to:

1. make another move, resulting in a double move; or
2. make a single attack; or
3. make a charge action (which is equal a move + a single attack).

So, with the same action cost (a standard action), you can do much more with the number 3 (move and single attack) than with the number 2 (just a single attack).

To make it makes sense, the option for number 2 should be a full attack, instead of a single attack, resulting in the following rule:

If you use a move action (30 ft.), then you can use your remaining standard action to:

1. make another move, resulting in a double move; or
2. make a FULL ATTACK; or
3. make a charge action (which is equal a move + a single attack).


Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Scavion wrote:
JoeJ wrote:
Scavion wrote:
In any event, in regards to Wizards specifically, I want specialization to mean something. Right now you don't lose anything really for specializing. There is no reason to play a Universalist in Pathfinder, unless for some strange reason you...

I agree with that, but I want it even more for clerics. A special emissary of Aphrodite should not have essentially the same spell list as a special emissary of Thor.

I can't emphasize enough how annoyed I am that the only Cleric feature we got in Pathfinder was..."NOW YOU CAN BE A HEALBOT EVEN IF YOU DON'T WANT TO"
And they nerfed their ability to front line in order to do it ;) Yay, now clerics can't wear heavy armor. :P

It is annoying that every new version tries so hard to make clerics less like the original concept. When the cleric class was first introduced in Basic D&D, they were armored knights with a little bit of divine magic. They couldn't even cast spells until 2nd level. (That's right; a party of all 1st level characters had NO healing!) That role obviously became redundant when the paladin was introduced in 1e, and clerics have steadily become less martial and more magical, until now. A cleric in PF is just a wizard with a different back story.

This will probably get me a lot of hate, but I think divine spellcasting should probably be eliminated. Just combine the two spell lists so wizards and sorcerers can use healing magic, and adjust the martial abilities and/or special powers of the paladin and ranger to compensate for the loss of spellcasting ability. The cleric class goes away and druids are considered a special kind of mage instead of a special kind of priest.

Dark Archive

3 people marked this as a favorite.
K177Y C47 wrote:
So, I know many people like to say that martials should be beefed up, but I was thinking, maybe casters should be brought down a bit and specialized?

A little of both, I think.

A condition is a condition, for example.

A Fighter can impose some conditions by purchasing a critical X feat, at around 9th+ level, that goes off if he scores a critical hit (10% chance-ish, with a good weapon and reliable confirmations). It might happen to a 'trash' monster like the skeleton standing between him and the evil big bad boss guy, and then never happen to the evil 'boss' at all.

A Wizard can impose some buff conditions, like 'asleep and helpless' or 'stunned by color spray' to entire groups of people *at first level.*

*Both* of these things should be moved more towards the middle.

Lower level Fighters should be able to impose lower level conditions right out of the gate, and not just have a small and random chance of imposing them at 10th+ level. Shaken, sickened, dazzled, lamed, entangled, a small ability penalty or movement restriction or even a point of ability damage here or there. Nothing too shocking at the start. The great stuff like blinded and nauseated and stunned can wait a few levels, and require a little bit more investment.

Lower level spellcasters, using limited resource spells instead of every round martial attacks, can do things Fighters can't, like imposing conditions at range, or affecting entire groups at the same time (or removing conditions without Heal checks to stop a bleed or end lamed or actions spent to un-entangle or Str checks to break free or whatever), but should *still* be sticking to lower level conditions like shaken and sickened and lamed and dazzled and fascinated at lower levels, and getting the sexy stuff like panicked and stunned and asleep and unconscious at higher levels.

A better selection of conditions (such as a step between dazzled and blind that gives the 'super-dazzled' victim a 20% miss chance as if all foes have partial concealment, in addition to a -2 penalty to hit, or just completely replacing dazzled with that...) and some consistency between both martials and casters as to what levels the ability to apply those conditions might appear (with casters having *some* advantages, due to using limited resources), would, IMO, go a long way to making fights feel like more than a DPR check, or gating off casters or martials into 'damage-dealer' and 'debuffer/control' roles.

Instead of the occasional uber-fiddly and over-specialized 'martial controller' appear as a chain-gatling-tripper or whatever, the martial controller would be a viable thing, and not be utterly dead weight against something that can't be tripped, since he wouldn't *have* to overspecialize to operate in that mode. Martials would be *expected* to have multiple options, and not just 'I stab it with the pointy end, yes?'


I like to do one of two things to casters.

So my answer is bring casters down.

#1
I take away 7th - 9th spells.
These become rituals.
7th - 9th level spell slots remain for metamagic enhancements

OR instead I do...

#2
Arcane casters become more specialized as they increase in level.
Thus they only are capable of casting 2nd level spells with 7 schools + Universal. 3rd level spells w/ six schools, 4th level spells with 5 schools. 5th level spells with 4 schools. 6 level spells with 3 schools. 7 level spells with 2 school and 8th - 9th level spells with 1 school.

This helps somewhat and takes very little change in rules.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Justin Sane wrote:
Grimmy wrote:
Sorry for getting sarcastic, but seriously "blank is fun for no one" is too blanket. I have players in my group who like a serious handicap for rp purposes. More than one. I have seen it come off annoyingly or hilariously, but they really like to do that sometimes.
Flawed wrote:
Power=/=fun is and isn't true as much as the inverse. Fun is completely subjective. I have a player in my group that likes to weaken all of his characters through some means that adds to his enjoyment of role playing just as others like to optimize and post big numbers. To each their own and no one has a right to say otherwise.
If martials got a power-boost, the "power = fun" crowd would be pleased and your players could still handicap themselves for fun. It would be a win-win.

I'm not the least bit against a martial power boost, or a caster nerf, I was just replying to a very specific point. This guy said that no one likes having wizards start off weaker and end up stronger than fighters and I'm just saying I know people that enjoy that. I am someone who enjoys that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:
Grimmy wrote:
Thomas Long 175 wrote:


This game is to be played for fun. These characters are meant to be fun to play. The game should not be balanced around "well his character will be fun at this point in the game and yours will be fun at this point."
power =/= fun for everyone.
And yet I'm pretty sure lack of power is fun for no one.

You are incorrect. Sometimes the journey matters more than the destination. For many players, the struggle to gain incredible power from a start of almost none is the interesting part. When you finally at long last gain those godlike powers, it's time to roll the credits.


JoeJ wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
Grimmy wrote:
Thomas Long 175 wrote:


This game is to be played for fun. These characters are meant to be fun to play. The game should not be balanced around "well his character will be fun at this point in the game and yours will be fun at this point."
power =/= fun for everyone.
And yet I'm pretty sure lack of power is fun for no one.

You are incorrect. Sometimes the journey matters more than the destination. For many players, the struggle to gain incredible power from a start of almost none is the interesting part. When you finally at long last gain those godlike powers, it's time to roll the credits.

Nobody is arguing for godlike martials in the early levels. We're arguing for martials to scale at the same rate as casters, so that everyone can feel powerful relative to their party members and nobody gets relegated to being the servant of another player's character (unless that's what they want, of course).


Valian wrote:

I think there is a contradiction in the original rules for movement and attack.

If you use a move action (30 ft.), then you can use your remaining standard action to:

1. make another move, resulting in a double move; or
2. make a single attack; or
3. make a charge action (which is equal a move + a single attack).

You can not move and charge in the same round.

Quote:

Charge

Charging is a special full-round action that allows you to move up to twice your speed and attack during the action. Charging, however, carries tight restrictions on how you can move.

...

If you are able to take only a standard action on your turn, you can still charge, but you are only allowed to move up to your speed (instead of up to double your speed) and you cannot draw a weapon unless you possess the Quick Draw feat. You can't use this option unless you are restricted to taking only a standard action on your turn.


I agree with the line of thinking that 'martials' should get, essentially, feats for free and probably the equivalent to multiple of them as class features. But, to keep the mechanical rules changes as minimal as possible I invented a Combat Tricks rule. It said that all combat feats were renamed to combat tricks. All creatures gain a trick at each BAB increase, including an additional feat a level 1 if that gets you a BAB of +1. Class features that award combat feats no longer do so, and trick prerequisites that depended on a class of a certain level instead have a BAB requirement that class would have at the equivalent level.


Arachnofiend wrote:
JoeJ wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
Grimmy wrote:
Thomas Long 175 wrote:


This game is to be played for fun. These characters are meant to be fun to play. The game should not be balanced around "well his character will be fun at this point in the game and yours will be fun at this point."
power =/= fun for everyone.
And yet I'm pretty sure lack of power is fun for no one.

You are incorrect. Sometimes the journey matters more than the destination. For many players, the struggle to gain incredible power from a start of almost none is the interesting part. When you finally at long last gain those godlike powers, it's time to roll the credits.

Nobody is arguing for godlike martials in the early levels. We're arguing for martials to scale at the same rate as casters, so that everyone can feel powerful relative to their party members and nobody gets relegated to being the servant of another player's character (unless that's what they want, of course).

There are already a lot of games that have that. For me, not having all the classes advance in unison is a plus. It gives me a choice of what kind of character path I want to follow.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
JoeJ wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
Grimmy wrote:
Thomas Long 175 wrote:


This game is to be played for fun. These characters are meant to be fun to play. The game should not be balanced around "well his character will be fun at this point in the game and yours will be fun at this point."
power =/= fun for everyone.
And yet I'm pretty sure lack of power is fun for no one.

You are incorrect. Sometimes the journey matters more than the destination. For many players, the struggle to gain incredible power from a start of almost none is the interesting part. When you finally at long last gain those godlike powers, it's time to roll the credits.

You misunderstand what I mean (I could have stated it a lot clearer, so that's my bad).

Nobody has fun BECAUSE their power is low.

It is either a non-factor, something they do in spite of the low power, or just because they like the game.

It's very rare for someone to go "Man, I wish I wasn't this good at doing stuff", while it is decidedly more common for someone to go "I really wish I was better at doing stuff".

Even "struggling to gain power from a start of almost none" is wanting the acquisition of power...you're just fine, for the nonce, with not having any.

basically, to put it in Grimmy's terms, while it's true that power =/= fun for everyone, it is also true that LACK of power also =/= fun for everyone, and it is more common for more power to = more fun than it is for less power to = more fun.

JoeJ wrote:


There are already a lot of games that have that. For me, not having all the classes advance in unison is a plus. It gives me a choice of what kind of character path I want to follow.

Balancing the classes in no way changes your choice of which character path to follow.

Character paths won't change at all.

Your Fighter will still be a Fighter. He will be mechanically better, but if your "character path" involves using a weapon really good, or any of the other things a Fighter can and would be able to do, then your character path is unchanged.

Likewise Wizard.

And Rogue.

And every other class.

You seem to be under the impression that balancing the classes means we're taking something from you to give to others. Which isn't true. There's not a finite amount of good balance to go around. It's not a resource that can be used up. It just is.


Before I get into reading what has been written.

Yeah I think casters do to much, and I am just not talking about the wizard. The other full casters do also. I personally have ran games to 20, but from conversations on the boards, not everyone likes to run games past 13 or 15. If only a small set of GM's really want to run a game past that level then that tells me there is a problem.

I would bring martials up by allowing them to do extraordinary(not the game term) things with and without feats. I don't think Paizo would mind, but they have to be careful because of the reaction ToB got. Martials got nice things and people called them OP, said it was magic even when it wasn't, and made up reasons to not allow the book to be used. Maybe it was because the maneuvers used a system similar to spells. The ability to move and get more than one attack should also be possible without pounce, at least for the fighter since he does not get much else he can do.

As for the casters things such as Miracle or Wish should be done away with. A mortal's magic should not be able to do anything(as in "without limits"). Fly should be a higher level spell. Teleport should be a ritual that takes time to complete in hours, if not days. It is basically a big "F you" to any overland adventure. Other spells should be rituals also in my opinion.

For the most part I like the game the way it is, but stopping the power level of casters where they are at about level 15 would have been good.


The brawler class coming out really gives martials the essence of magic without being magic with being able to ad hoc their abilities. I'm kind of worried it will replace most martial classes. Anyway...

wraithstrike, what would you give casters between levels 15 to 20 if they had done that?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:
For the most part I like the game the way it is, but stopping the power level of casters where they are at about level 15 would have been good.

That can be done simply by not playing the game higher than that. The game fundamentally changes with levels. GMs don't have to start their games at 1 or end at 20 for them to get the most out of the system. GMs don't even need to let their be level gain at all.

A level 20 party is expected to be able to easily take down Pit-Fiends and Balors, powerful outsiders one step below Gods before the introduction of mythic rules. I sort of expect masters of cosmic powers to be able to alter the very fabric of reality and create planes of existance, when they consider such foes as trivial.

Thematically it is the martial that falls behind, but one only needs to look at a superstitious dragon totem spell sundering Barbar to see how martials can compete, being able to negate magic. In a world saturated with magic such as high level play the ability to resist and remove it is enough to be seen as special.


Rynjin wrote:


JoeJ wrote:


There are already a lot of games that have that. For me, not having all the classes advance in unison is a plus. It gives me a choice of what kind of character path I want to follow.

Balancing the classes in no way changes your choice of which character path to follow.

Character paths won't change at all.

Your Fighter will still be a Fighter. He will be mechanically better, but if your "character path" involves using a weapon really good, or any of the other things a Fighter can and would be able to do, then your character path is unchanged.

Likewise Wizard.

And Rogue.

And every other class.

You seem to be under the impression that balancing the classes means we're taking something from you to give to others. Which isn't true. There's not a finite amount of good balance to go around. It's not a resource that can be used up. It just is.

I should have been more clear. What I meant by character path is specifically the way in which they advance over time: Somewhat low power to somewhat high, or very low to very high, or somewhere in between. I like being able to choose to go from being the weakest member of the party to the strongest, or alternatively to start out as the strong protector knowing that I will one day step aside for a friend who has grown even stronger. I like seeing the party dynamic change over time as characters grow at different rates and in different directions. I enjoy that both as a player and as a GM.

The bottom line is I don't see balance between the classes, measured at any one point in time, to necessarily be a good thing. (It's not necessarily a bad thing either.) I do think that there should be a balance of spotlight time, but that has almost nothing to do with a character's power and everything to do with how the GM creates (or adapts) adventures.


Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
For the most part I like the game the way it is, but stopping the power level of casters where they are at about level 15 would have been good.

That can be done simply by not playing the game higher than that. The game fundamentally changes with levels. GMs don't have to start their games at 1 or end at 20 for them to get the most out of the system. GMs don't even need to let their be level gain at all.

A level 20 party is expected to be able to easily take down Pit-Fiends and Balors, powerful outsiders one step below Gods before the introduction of mythic rules. I sort of expect masters of cosmic powers to be able to alter the very fabric of reality and create planes of existance, when they consider such foes as trivial.

Thematically it is the martial that falls behind, but one only needs to look at a superstitious dragon totem spell sundering Barbar to see how martials can compete, being able to negate magic. In a world saturated with magic such as high level play the ability to resist and remove it is enough to be seen as special.

I get what you are saying, but many GM's want to play up to the highest levels. That would mean bring many of the monsters down a few notches if the game stopped at 15 unless balors and similar monsters were only used as boss fights.

Also, I think many are saying they dont want casters to have cosmic powers.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:
Also, I think many are saying they dont want casters to have cosmic powers.

The game already supports that. It shouldn't be change to exclude the people who like the exemplars of magic to be good at magic, when the people who don't want that can just play at lower levels and scale the gear up to fight high level mobs or just not have full casters in their party.

It's not like you even need them with all the 3/4s running around.


wraithstrike wrote:
Also, I think many are saying they dont want casters to have cosmic powers.

Semi Phenomenal, nearly cosmic powers please. :)


Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Also, I think many are saying they dont want casters to have cosmic powers.

The game already supports that. It shouldn't be change to exclude the people who like the exemplars of magic to be good at magic, when the people who don't want that can just play at lower levels and scale the gear up to fight high level mobs or just not have full casters in their party.

It's not like you even need them with all the 3/4s running around.

They can be good without cosmic powers, but I get that you are saying that those who don't like it can just not use it.

I agree, but I think many GM's don't want the players to even be able to ask for it. I am not a limiting GM for the most part, so this is not something I generally have to deal with.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

basically, i think if a wizard should be able to do something godlike, a fighter should be able to do something awesome as well. like cut a mountain in half.


Bandw2 wrote:
basically, i think if a wizard should be able to do something godlike, a fighter should be able to do something awesome as well. like cut a mountain in half.

In before obligatory "but that is not realistic" reply is made. ;)

To be followed by

"That is why martials can't have nice things."


Bandw2 wrote:
basically, i think if a wizard should be able to do something godlike, a fighter should be able to do something awesome as well. like cut a mountain in half.

Dude, we're still trying to get adamantine swords to cut holes in a wall, when they very clearly ignore its hardness.

One step at a time.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
basically, i think if a wizard should be able to do something godlike, a fighter should be able to do something awesome as well. like cut a mountain in half.

Dude, we're still trying to get adamantine swords to cut holes in a wall, when they very clearly ignore its hardness.

One step at a time.

◕__ ◕


Bandw2 wrote:
basically, i think if a wizard should be able to do something godlike, a fighter should be able to do something awesome as well. like cut a mountain in half.

So now that we've taken care of wizards and fighters, what classes would you recommend for people who don't want the medieval JLA?


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
JoeJ wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
basically, i think if a wizard should be able to do something godlike, a fighter should be able to do something awesome as well. like cut a mountain in half.

So now that we've taken care of wizards and fighters, what classes would you recommend for people who don't want the medieval JLA?

i keep doing this, i say fighter, when i mean any martial, or martial like abilities.

also, if you don't want the game to get to that power level, then you end the game at a lower level.

Edit: i did the math, a person with 26 or so strength can apply 8179.178 Newtons of force, while 32 strength equals 18492.0512. This is in sustained force such as PSI.

32 strength equals to someone putting something weighing 2 tons on you. once again as sustained weight, not burst strength such as during swinging a sword...


Bandw2 wrote:
JoeJ wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
basically, i think if a wizard should be able to do something godlike, a fighter should be able to do something awesome as well. like cut a mountain in half.

So now that we've taken care of wizards and fighters, what classes would you recommend for people who don't want the medieval JLA?

i keep doing this, i say fighter, when i mean any martial, or martial like abilities.

also, if you don't want the game to get to that power level, then you end the game at a lower level.

As it is, you only get to play for about 5 levels as a skilled normal, compared with about 15 as a superhuman.

And anyway, it doesn't matter what the wizards can do, I'm quite happy making the maximum possible for fighters = Batman.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
JoeJ wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
JoeJ wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
basically, i think if a wizard should be able to do something godlike, a fighter should be able to do something awesome as well. like cut a mountain in half.

So now that we've taken care of wizards and fighters, what classes would you recommend for people who don't want the medieval JLA?

i keep doing this, i say fighter, when i mean any martial, or martial like abilities.

also, if you don't want the game to get to that power level, then you end the game at a lower level.

As it is, you only get to play for about 5 levels as a skilled normal, compared with about 15 as a superhuman.

And anyway, it doesn't matter what the wizards can do, I'm quite happy making the maximum possible for fighters = Batman.

Batman is like a level 5-6 fighter... COVERED in magic items out of his WBL. XD


Squirrel_Dude wrote:
Valian wrote:

I think there is a contradiction in the original rules for movement and attack.

If you use a move action (30 ft.), then you can use your remaining standard action to:

1. make another move, resulting in a double move; or
2. make a single attack; or
3. make a charge action (which is equal a move + a single attack).

You can not move and charge in the same round.

Quote:

Charge

Charging is a special full-round action that allows you to move up to twice your speed and attack during the action. Charging, however, carries tight restrictions on how you can move.

...

If you are able to take only a standard action on your turn, you can still charge, but you are only allowed to move up to your speed (instead of up to double your speed) and you cannot draw a weapon unless you possess the Quick Draw feat. You can't use this option unless you are restricted to taking only a standard action on your turn.

I think you understood what I mean.

With a full-charge (full round action), you can move double your movement rate in a straight line and make a single attack.

With a partial charge (use a standard action in surprise rounds for charge) you can make a single move (straight line) combined with a single attack.

Why you cannot spend a standard action to make a full attack?

Or, in other words, if the game alreay support me to move and make a single attack with a standard action (partial charge), why I cannot usa a move action to move, then use a standard action to make a full attack? It doesn't make sense.

151 to 200 of 484 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Should martials be buffed... or casters brought down? All Messageboards