Some people can't seem to get beyond the issue. I have never had an issue with it because common sense and respect are fixes for 99% of the power issues in the game. If some looks broken and you don't know whether to do it, you probably shouldn't at least not without speaking to the others round the table. Unfortunately there a small number of gaps in the rules that are always used to justify why 'rules suck'. Often by people who write their own material I have noticed.
Any way at post 701 I am calling it a day as the original point of the thread was lost some 200 posts ago. Have a good Xmas everyone.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is the martial/caster disparity in full force. The fighter can hit something a few times around and be really ineffectual against level appropriate creatures. The wizard can create stuff from nothing, kill gods, engage in erotic selfcest, and the only way for them to "play nice" with everyone else is for them to intentionally hold back on what they can do.
Is this NOT the problem that has been lamented for the last two iterations of 3.x? It's compounded in 5E because buffing the martials is less appealing because it requires actions to maintain buffs.
First of all, hot. Second and only tangentally related, hasn't this been a thing since the start? I know the harm spell used to be completely broken by dropping the target's HP to, what was it, 1d4? And that's without a save.
Point is, this has been a thing for a long time and probably will be a thing for the eternity of this style of tabletop. As long as the table's all having fun it's not an issue.
Well, that was the thing. When this thread started, it was originally about "our table isn't having fun because look at all these things casters can do, especially in out-of-combat scenarios, that make it superfluous to have non-casters in the party; how can we fix this?"
The problem is, like every thread before this and likely every one to follow, it got derailed along the way by people coming along and saying "this discrepancy doesn't exist!" or "it only exists because DM/players/someone is doing something wrong!" or the latest lovely argument "it exists but the way to fix it is to tell one player to hobble themselves rather than actually fixing the system!".
And now instead of the original productive discussion that was going on in the first handful of pages of this thread, we have yet another page upon page upon page of debating about the existence of the stupid imbalance rather than just accepting that some people are not satisfied with the status quo and want to find reasonable ways to rework it, and that if you are not in that classification (read: if you think the current magic-vs-mundane power level is either not imbalanced or that the current imbalance is acceptable) you should just move on.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Some people can't seem to get beyond the issue. I have never had an issue with it because common sense and respect are fixes for 99% of the power issues in the game.
Thank you for most EXCELLENTLY making my point. *facepalm*
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is the martial/caster disparity in full force. The fighter can hit something a few times around and be really ineffectual against level appropriate creatures. The wizard can create stuff from nothing, kill gods, engage in erotic selfcest, and the only way for them to "play nice" with everyone else is for them to intentionally hold back on what they can do.
Is this NOT the problem that has been lamented for the last two iterations of 3.x? It's compounded in 5E because buffing the martials is less appealing because it requires actions to maintain buffs.
First of all, hot. Second and only tangentally related, hasn't this been a thing since the start? I know the harm spell used to be completely broken by dropping the target's HP to, what was it, 1d4? And that's without a save.
Point is, this has been a thing for a long time and probably will be a thing for the eternity of this style of tabletop. As long as the table's all having fun it's not an issue.
Exactly. But it always results in this weird issue where someone playing the game as written ends up upsetting someone else, in either direction.
I don't even take any issues with people enjoying 5E. However, it's not fair to praise it as some sort of holy grail when it's just as stained and tarnished as any other. :P
First of all, hot.
D&D is filled with some amazing fetish fuel. Really wish you could find someone who understood you? Simulacrum. Toss in sculpt simulacrum and you can even have a heterosexual partner who really gets you. Or you could always forge your familiar a magic trinket that let's them keep a humanoid form 24/7 (maybe a wedding ring). I mean, it's almost like you have this special connection.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
First of all, hot.D&D is filled with some amazing fetish fuel. Really wish you could find someone who understood you? Simulacrum. Toss in sculpt simulacrum and you can even have a heterosexual partner who really gets you.
Man, considering I'm planning an extended Runelords plot right now and one of the big things I have planned for Xanderghul is that he's a simulacrum experimentation fanatic....
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
My brother had a sorcerer who became a lich. He decided that he wanted to settle down and raise a family. So he raised a family, quite literally, as he created them (in vats IIRC). Said sorcerer also decided that he wanted to build a town, so he did. He also constructed a giant tunnel between his town and another for safe trade. He also turned into a dragon. He created a majestic airship which was used to ferry the party around the world in style, and used to invade a tower of evil doers from the roof. He had an army of undead. He occasionally dabbled in summoning (though usually through illusions).
My brother by another mother had a barbarian. She hit things. It was great.
Still thinking about how to address this fascinating issue as it can be a bit bewildering.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Man, considering I'm planning an extended Runelords plot right now and one of the big things I have planned for Xanderghul is that he's a simulacrum experimentation fanatic....First of all, hot.D&D is filled with some amazing fetish fuel. Really wish you could find someone who understood you? Simulacrum. Toss in sculpt simulacrum and you can even have a heterosexual partner who really gets you.
Who wouldn't be? It's such a fascinating spell.
Who wouldn't be? It's such a fascinating spell.Man, considering I'm planning an extended Runelords plot right now and one of the big things I have planned for Xanderghul is that he's a simulacrum experimentation fanatic....First of all, hot.D&D is filled with some amazing fetish fuel. Really wish you could find someone who understood you? Simulacrum. Toss in sculpt simulacrum and you can even have a heterosexual partner who really gets you.
Well, he is the Runelord of Pride, and I've more than once heard of Pride defined as "inordinate or excessive love of self"... might as well take that literally if you can, right?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have no experience with 5e, but one thing I often try to implement in one form or another in my PF homebrew classes and which I like as an idea is the "investment" of spell slots in spells with long or permanent durations. Instead of (or possibly in addition to, depending on taste) various permanent spells costing a bunch of gold, have them occupy a bunch of spell slots. So that it's fine to bind a demon to serve you, but it's going to take up a lot of your magical potential. That's the kind of rule I like both the flavor and mechanical implications of, and I think PF could benefit greatly from having more spells and other magical abilities function like that. The exact implementation on a case-by-case basis I am not sure of, but as a baseline principle of design philosophy I think it seems very promising.
Cheers,
- Gears
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh yeah definitely! Honestly, how great would it be to see a group's reaction to someone whose only friends were various copies of himself? That would probably be an immediate red flag concerning the mental balance of the individual.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have no experience with 5e, but one thing I often try to implement in one form or another in my PF homebrew classes and which I like as an idea is the "investment" of spell slots in spells with long or permanent durations. Instead of (or possibly in addition to, depending on taste) various permanent spells costing a bunch of gold, have them occupy a bunch of spell slots. So that it's fine to bind a demon to serve you, but it's going to take up a lot of your magical potential. That's the kind of rule I like both the flavor and mechanical implications of, and I think PF could benefit greatly from having more spells and other magical abilities function like that. The exact implementation on a case-by-case basis I am not sure of, but as a baseline principle of design philosophy I think it seems very promising.
Cheers,
- Gears
Yeah I told my brother I'd make a class or two with some mechanics like that, and Aratrok and I were discussing how something along that line might be cool to do as part of a casting system.
I really liked it in Dragon Age: Origins, 'cause you could have various buff spells and such active but doing so locked a certain amount of your mana into sustaining them. It was really cool as you struck a balance between "check out my sweet buffs" and "I nuke your face". I really loved the arcane knights who essentially ended up using the vast majority of their mana to keep buffs up and so don't really get to cast much...but swinging a super magic sword and covered in stoneskin and mage armors and stuff. :D
Yeah, I am very partial to that idea. One thing I dislike about magic in PF is how "cheap" and "easy" a lot of it feels. I'm all for granting characters terrifying magical powers. I just want there to be some kind of "weight" to the resources you expend or invest in them. A single spell slot, which renews on a daily basis, along with a smattering of gold, seems like such a laughably small price to pay for the power granted by certain spells.
|
Yeah, I am very partial to that idea. One thing I dislike about magic in PF is how "cheap" and "easy" a lot of it feels. I'm all for granting characters terrifying magical powers. I just want there to be some kind of "weight" to the resources you expend or invest in them. A single spell slot, which renews on a daily basis, along with a smattering of gold, seems like such a laughably small price to pay for the power granted by certain spells.
Or having to pay in blood ? Like suffering damage when launching spell ?
I have tested also the limited spellcasting from unchained, combined with overclocking spell.
It does wonder for some offensive or Save or Suffer spell, but utility spell are not that nerfed. And imaginative player can do wonder with these one.
I will rewrite this system a bit.
How about extending the martial ressources ?
Fighter coyld use their stamina from Unchained to not only improve their feat, but to perform "exploit" ?
These exploit could be mundane in nature (extraordinaty ability), but mimicking spell.
And extending use of ki, grit, Panache etc...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe I didn't make myself clear. Allow me to cast Enlarge Text.
Alright, I want some facts. The heck does your average level 1, 4 member 5E party and 5E encounter look like? And I want of everything there.This means numbers, AC, HP, Saves, Ability Scores, the full deal, not anecdotal tales that I reasons to doubt. And this is at people who are in favor and not in favor for 5E.
Alright. I'm going to provide a "classic" 4 man party of Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard. Humans, because they're still good at every class in this edition and it's less time consuming for me. Using point buy for stats because consistency and it's 2015.
Rock "Smasher" McKay
Rock McKay is not known for his wits, but he's got solid arms and is in the 1% of fighters that remember to bring a ranged weapon.
Human Fighter 1
AC 19, HP 13
Str 16 (+3), Dex 14 (+2), Con 16 (+3), Int 8 (-1), Wis 13 (+1), Cha 8 (-1)
Fighting Style: Defense, Second Wind (Heal 1d10+1 as a bonus action, recovered after resting 1 hour)
Gear: Scale Mail, Shield, Longsword, Arbitrary Number of Handaxes
Attacks: Longsword +5 (1d8+3) [7.5] or Thrown Handaxe +5 (1d6+3) [6.5] [20/60 ranges]
Jimmy "the Corpse" Vasquez
Will be a part-time Tarrasque exterminator in a level. Look it up. Plans on being an Arcane Trickster some day, to be like his big brother.
Human Rogue 1
AC 15, HP 11
Str 8 (-1), Dex 16 (+3), Con 16 (+3), Int 14 (+2), Wis 12 (+1), Cha 10 (+0)
Expertise: Some Skills Without Set DCs I Guess, Sneak Attack +1d6
Gear: Studded Leather, Rapier, Arbitrary Number of Daggers
Attacks: Rapier +5 (1d8+3) [7.5] or Thrown Dagger +5 (1d4+3) [5.5] [20/60 ranges]
Father O'Malley O'Conner O'Carol O'Reily O'Brian O'Sullivan
On loan.
Human Cleric 1
AC 18, HP 11
Str 8 (-1), Dex 14 (+2), Con 16 (+3), Int 8 (-1), Wis 16 (+3), Cha 13 (+1)
Spellcasting, Life Domain, Ritual Casting
Spells (He can change these, but for argument I'm settin' em in stone in advance before I build anything)
1st Level (2/day) - bless, cure wounds, guiding bolt, bane
Cantrips (At-will) - guidance, sacred flame, thaumaturgy (It's like prestidigitation for clerics!)
Gear: Scale Mail, Shield, Dagger, Holy Symbol
Attacks: Dagger +4 (1d4+2) [4.5] or Thrown Dagger +4 (1d4+2) [4.5] [20/60 ranges] or sacred flame Dex DC 13 Negates (1d8) [4.5] [60 feet]
Jeff "The King" Vasquez
Along with his best buddy Father O'Malley O'Conner O'Carol O'Reily O'Brian O'Sullivan and his little brother Jimmy, Jeff is on a journey to immortality and infamy, and they're along for the ride. Sigh. Fine. Rock can come too, Mrs. McKay.
Human Wizard 1
AC 13, HP 8
Str 8 (-1), Dex 16 (+3), Con 14 (+3), Int 16 (+3), Wis 12 (+1), Cha 10 (+0)
Spellcasting, Arcane Recovery (Rest for 1 extra slot)
Spells
1st Level (2/day) - magic missile, sleep
Cantrips (At-will) - fire bolt, light, prestidigitation
Gear: He has a spellbook. I cannot be bothered to fill it at 5 AM. Probably has utility spells for when it's not a Fightin' Day. Probably a dagger too, for the same hit/damage as Jimmy's.
Attacks: fire bolt +5 (1d10)
An encounter for a party of 4 1st level PCs in 5E has between 100 (for an easy encounter) and 400 (for a 'deadly' encounter) XP worth of creatures in it. A medium encounter has 200, so I'll go with that.
If you have 2 creatures in the encounter, you multiply the total XP value of all of them by 1.5. 3-6 is x2, 7-10 is x2.5, 11-14 is x3, 15+ is x4. This kinda makes sense, due to action economy, but it's a b@**~ to work with at certain levels due to the XP values of available creatures. I'll give you a variety of encounters for available XP values, for posterity.
Murder of Hawks
200 XP
4 Bloodhawks (25x2 EXP each)
Bloodhawk
Small, unaligned beast
AC 12, HP 7
Fly 60 ft.
Str -2, Dex +2, Con +0, Int -4, Wis +2, Cha -3
Has advantage when attacking with at least one ally adjacent to the target.
Beak Attack: +4 to hit, 1d4+2 piercing damage
At low levels gameplay starts off pretty similar to Pathfinder, but mages don't fall behind quite as much when things aren't perfect for them. Anyway- bloodhawks swoop down from the sky and swarm the party.
Rock and Jimmy have a 44% chance of dropping a bloodhawk with an action.
The Father has a measly 12.5% chance with sacred flame, but then again, he isn't much of a fighter- he's a classical healy-cleric. He can hand someone 1d8+6 hitpoints back, which is pretty neato at this level, or give +1d4 to hit to everyone else with bless. He can smoke one of them with a guiding bolt, but it's of questionable use against a little bird.
A swarm of little things is the ideal combat situation for a low level wizard. Sleep affects 5d8 hp of creatures, which gives him a 99.98% chance of dropping one, 96.09% chance of dropping two, 64.77% chance of dropping three, and a 16.96% chance of dropping all 4 with one action. He can light one up with magic missile if he's feeling wasteful for a 98.44% chance of killing it. His firebolts have a 28% chance of killing a bloodhawk, which is okay but obviously not as good as Rock and Jimmy's weapon attacks.
Okay, I planned on writing up more of these and going into more detail (suffice to say the hawks can get their munch on on any of 'em with focus fire, but Rock and the Father can live through it for 1 round), but it's past 5 AM, I should have gone to bed like 4 hours ago, and I'm pretty sure my tone is getting surlier with each paragraph. Hopefully that's an okay jumping off point, I was gonna grab a pair of ~60 XP creatures for a mid-size encounter and a big 200 XP creature for a bruiser encounter, but if I do that it's going to be tomorrow. G'night (or good morning) everybody.
EDIT: Though man, there are some creatures that would be way more one-sided in favor of low level mages (especially with sleep). Flying snakes absolutely eviscerate everything at low levels, +6 bite for 3d4+1 damage. Damn. They only have 5 hp though, so there's a 71.56% chance sleep drops them to the last.
I've always been a bit leery of blood magic, or any kind of magic system that involves taking damage in order to cast spells. Not because I dislike the flavor, but because such systems tend to be hard to balance.
I do think some casting classes could benefit from being reigned in by a mechanic similar to (but less problematically worded and implemented than) the kineticist's burn ability, or possibly something akin to the wild surge mechanic of Dreamscarred Press's wilder base class, or some kind of combination of these.
Honestly, I think the difference in flavor and execution between DSP's psion and wilder are a lot closer to what I think wizards and sorcerers should look like. I do in general think it would be cooler if wizards were standard spellcasters while sorcerers worked off a point pool.
Cheers,
- Gears
|
|
I've always been a bit leery of blood magic, or any kind of magic system that involves taking damage in order to cast spells. Not because I dislike the flavor, but because such systems tend to be hard to balance.
I do think some casting classes could benefit from being reigned in by a mechanic similar to (but less problematically worded and implemented than) the kineticist's burn ability, or possibly something akin to the wild surge mechanic of Dreamscarred Press's wilder base class, or some kind of combination of these.
Honestly, I think the difference in flavor and execution between DSP's psion and wilder are a lot closer to what I think wizards and sorcerers should look like. I do in general think it would be cooler if wizards were standard spellcasters while sorcerers worked off a point pool.
Cheers,
- Gears
Yep, I think all spontaneous caster should use spell point, but I can understand your concern with blood magic. After all, the Infamous blood money spell is blood magic spot on.
For the Kineticist, I think this is a great class impacted by complex mecanisms. But it is a good start.
I recall a lot of people being bothered by the burn mechanic's "It's totally nonlethal damage you're taking but it follows none of the rules usually associated with nonlethal damage" angle, but I do think something like that will probably end up being required by a damage-based casting mechanic. What I mean is, somehow the damage you take has to be non-healable until the next time you replenish your spells per day, or similar. I do think in the specific case of the kineticist's burn the people at Paizo implemented the whole thing kind of sloppily, but the core concept I think is sound.
|
|
I recall a lot of people being bothered by the burn mechanic's "It's totally nonlethal damage you're taking but it follows none of the rules usually associated with nonlethal damage" angle, but I do think something like that will probably end up being required by a damage-based casting mechanic. What I mean is, somehow the damage you take has to be non-healable until the next time you replenish your spells per day, or similar. I do think in the specific case of the kineticist's burn the people at Paizo implemented the whole thing kind of sloppily, but the core concept I think is sound.
The core concept is great. But we have to think about it and how to simplify a bit the mecanisms.
|
|
Back to topic,
I want to sum up a bit and presenting some food for thought :
Disclaimer : the following post is no the Ultimate Answer. Just a start, something to discuss.
How fixing the problem and still have the same game ?
-First, nerfing the caster.
How ?
-- Dangerous/Wild magic
-- Limited magic efficiency
Do these rules work ? I have tested them. They work a bit, but do not prevent clever use of utility spellcasting to outschine martial.
Do we still havde the same game ?
The flavor change a bit, but the core engine is still here.
-- Finantial Cost (more than material one)
I have not tested this one. If somebody has, I encourage him to put his input here.
-- Blood /Burn cost, based on the level of the spell
I have not tested this one. But, this food for thought can be envisonned as using bloodmoney to cast spell, basically spending hitpoint/ability point to cast spell.
Or in case of a Burn system, non lethal damage.
Do we still have the same game ?
I will wait for user imput.
-- Using 3pp magic.
Some people have mentionned sphere of Power. I have not read it so I cannot have an clear opinion on this matter, but you can use Dreamscarred psionic or radiance House work on pact magic.
Do we still have the same game ?
I would say roughly yes, but with an amputation and a graft.
-Second Upping the martial :
How ?
-- Using the revised action economy.
I have tested it, in conjunction with other unchained content.
Martial have enjoyed their new mobility. Some have mourned the death of the swift action (Slayer etc..;), but my testing player group have enjoyed it.
But this is useful in battle, not in other context.
-- Expanding the "ressources" used by martial (grit/panache/ki), and giving them more use outside of combat.
The idea here is to allow martial with ressources to use them to perform exploit, which are extraordinary ability mimicking utility or buff spell, like the burst of adrenaline or jump spell.
I haven't tested it. I want to work on this.
-- Expanding the skill Unlock
Skill unlock are an amazing system, and in the same way there are Occult skill unlock we can make martial skill unlock.
-- shortening feat chain, abolishing feat taxes
Merging some feat, considering some feat as combat option (power attack, combat expertise etc..). SOme feat evolved when ou meet the prerequisite, example : improved [maneuver] evoled in greater [maneuver].
Is this still pathfinder . yes
-- Using 3pp martial (tome of battle)
Is still this Pathfinder ? Yes, but a modified version.
-Third : The setting and rules of Magic :
How ?
Magic should have rule beyond only spellcasting.
Some setting have interesting rule about it. Some people have mentionned Dark Sun, but there are anothers.
Spell should have some side effects or function like litteral genie.
For example, Find the path allow you to find the shortest path. But not the safest... And the same for nature's path.
It is still the game ? Yes and no. The crunch is the same, but the flavor change a bit.
To answer the question in a nutshell, If you think of the game RAW, yes, solving the martial caster disparity change it. But RAI, I thinks this is an improvement.
Has anyone else suggested just giving the martial classes spells? I mean we already have three of them that cast up to 4th level, why not make that the standard...unless you want to play someone with no magic of course.
But seriously, look at a few JRPGs. Crono Cross, Grandia II, Final Fantasy 7, Xenoblade and Etrain Odyssey to an extent. It doesn't matter how physically focused the character is, they can still use magic. And not just to damage, they can heal, remove statuses, and buff the party. It works out in those games, so maybe it can work out in Pathfinder. I know it's an entirely different thing, but it's worth a shot!
Presumably the people who like fighters, who even want them buffed, don't necessarily want them to buffed in a way that just adds magic. Certainly the people who question the existence of disparity don't.
I am all for martial-oriented classes that can use magic, but to me those are new classes/archetypes. They don't replace fighter. I like fighters and think that they should be buffed up, but I don't think giving them spells is the solution. and the discussion in the last page or so about what you can do with simulucrum certainly affirms in my mind that he problem isn't all on the fighter.
I do notice, in various threads discussing the power gap between mages and mundanes, people keep making references to all this Asian media which I don't consume in any way, shape or form as some sort of template to base the game's balance around. While I'm sure it's all fine, it's just completely alien to me and not something I think I would enjoy (sounds too magic-heavy for my tastes). I don't mind magic being rather widely available in a game world, but I think it would be nice to have a system where being a spellcaster isn't considered a baseline prerequisite for becoming a successful adventurer. I realize PF will tend towards modeling campaign settings of a far higher fantasy level than, for instance, Lord of the Rings or Conan the Barbarian or similar, but I would still like the rules to allow playing a non-magical character as a viable option.
Cheers,
- Gears
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do notice, in various threads discussing the power gap between mages and mundanes, people keep making references to all this Asian media which I don't consume in any way, shape or form as some sort of template to base the game's balance around. I realize PF will tend towards modeling campaign settings of a far higher fantasy level than, for instance, Lord of the Rings or Conan the Barbarian or similar, but I would still like the rules to allow playing a non-magical character as a viable option.
I don't follow any of that Anime stuff either -- but that said, I'm a big fan of the Táin Bó Cúailnge (ca. 12th century), which is 100% Western and is as high-powered as any of the Asian stuff people complain about.
Well, my point was mostly that there seems to be this massive common reference pool shared by a lot of people on these boards which means little or nothing to me, and this sometimes makes me leery of taking part in certain discussions. I have no clue about your reference either, Kirth, but if it's as high fantasy as some of this other stuff seems to be, I don't think it'd be for me either, at least not as far as being something to base a revamped PF ruleset around goes.
Cheers,
Gears
I do notice, in various threads discussing the power gap between mages and mundanes, people keep making references to all this Asian media which I don't consume in any way, shape or form as some sort of template to base the game's balance around. I realize PF will tend towards modeling campaign settings of a far higher fantasy level than, for instance, Lord of the Rings or Conan the Barbarian or similar, but I would still like the rules to allow playing a non-magical character as a viable option.I don't follow any of that Anime stuff either -- but that said, I'm a big fan of the Táin Bó Cúailnge (ca. 12th century), which is 100% Western and is as high-powered as any of the Asian stuff people complain about.
Yeah - it's not so different from Greek or Roman hero myths either. Or think of 300 and the incredible feats being executed by the Spartans during combat.
It's allowing martial characters to do things that are on the same epic scale as magic, but without "magic," but due to the incredible awesomeness/near-godlike ability someone at that level would possess.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since I consider the problem pretty much gone in my games I'll list what I did.
1) Introduced Spheres of Power. I didn't exactly eliminate the option of vancian casting and I do have some outliers that don't trust third party anything or don't trust 'weaker' options in fear that it's a trap by the GM to 'beat' them or something, but players new to Pathfinder and players that always try to build by kooky themes tend to eat it up because it's quick and easy, combos well and allows theme builds to a huge degree. My January campaign is the first campaign where vancian is not an option to begin with so I'll have to see where that takes me. Same goes for other magic systems that remain fun without being as pervasive as spellcasting.
2) For Monk I introduced third party monk replacement, The Talented Monk. Its honestly rarely used since I also introduced Way of Ki from Lengendary Games and later the two Meditation books from Amora Game. I also allowed fist weapons to deal unarmed damage instead of weapon damage a long time ago and enchanting clothes with armor enhancements.
3) For Rogue I introduced The Talented Rogue and later Rogue Glory. The real breadwinner was a feat from A Fistfull of Denarii that allowed sneak attack damage on crits and being more permissive with stealth.
4) For Fighter I introduced The Talented Fighter, Bravery Feats, Fighter Nuances, Free Stamina in conjunction with The Book of Martial Action. A lot of other third party content have good combat feats so things just naturally got better. Things were fine until the weapon master's guide where I have to evaluate whether or not Fighters are too strong now. I actually wrote some new feats that make some things better that I had to take back and am now applying nerfs.
5) Condensed some feats. Power Attack and feats like it are free and Vital Strike, TWF, Cleave and some others are one feat. I had to be minimal about this because certain combinations with third party feats make this too good.
6) Changed skills. I started using the consolidated skill list from Pathfinder Unchained only instead of getting 1/2 ranks per level + 1/2 Int bonus I just have it at Ranks per level with Int controlling your number of class skills. I also introduce Rite Publishing's 101 new skill uses and grafted pieces of Superior Synergy to expand what skills do. All in all Skills are more valuable. Int casters seem like they get a nerf but 2 ranks per level nets you about 3-8 maxed effective skills so so they aren't hurting that much. a wizard with 20 Int is normally granted 7 maxed skills so it's not that bad. Plus the effective skills are more valuable so it works out better. Rogue makes out like a bandit by being a skill monster with usually about 20 effective skills maxed.
7) Introduced more Alchemy. With several books, mostly from Necromancers of the Northwest alchemical items have a huge range of uses and you can hunt for herbs to make new alchemical items. There are also alchemical items that can enhance the DCs of other alchemical items. Basically if you have someone wit enough ranks in Craft Alchemy (Expertise Alchemy in the new skill list) You don't really need a healer.
8) Automatic Bonus progression. This one was less about fixing things and more about laziness of having to be responsible for supplying marts and players with 'needed' items. But it seems to work out for Monk who now has a reason to take Vow of Poverty.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have no clue about your reference either, Kirth, but if it's as high fantasy as some of this other stuff seems to be, I don't think it'd be for me either, at least not as far as being something to base a revamped PF ruleset around goes.
It goes back to what I keep saying .
At high levels, Pathfinder casters do crazy bonkers world-breaking stuff. The challenges scale accordingly.(1) One can cut the casters off at the knees, scale back the challenges, and in essence stretch the first 10 levels of Pathfinder across 20 levels. Martials don't have to be demigods at 20th level to keep up.
(2) To people who like the bonkers crazy stuff, it's crippling to have a game pointedly created around the censorship of that stuff. They prefer to have high-level wizards do what they can do, and high-level martials like Cu Chulainn or Herakles.
If you go with the first game, you make half the fan base very happy, but the other half abandon it. Intentionally eliminating half the potential customer base for what's already a dwindling hobby is ultimately bad for everyone.
If you go with the second game, you expressly explain that "realistic" adventures stop at 10th level, and encourage people wanting non-fantastic martials to retire their characters at or before that level. Everyone else can keep playing and get into the bonkers demigod stuff. And you potentially make EVERYONE happy, not just half of them.
I actually prefer a more realistic game. But I prefer a game system that caters to as broad a fan base as possible. Therefore, I prefer a game system with demigod-like martials at high levels, in which as DM I simply don't include too many (or any) high-level NPCs, and as a player I can simply retire my PC when he starts getting too fantastic.
Oh, no, sorry, I should have clarified, I was speaking in reference to my earlier post. I don't mind high fantasy as such. All I mind is a system wherein all classes are spellcasters.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, no, I should have clarified, I was speaking in reference to my earlier post. I don't mind high fantasy as such. All I mind is a system wherein all classes are spellcasters.
I'm trying to head off the inevitable, I guess. Someone like me proposes that a 20th level fighter, with his godlike mastery of tactics, should be able to deduce which of a set of mirror images is the real caster. And, inevitably, a whole bunch of people start yelling "That's magic! True seeing is magic! You're trying to make fighters into spellcasters!!!" And we're back where we started. It happens in every thread discussing ways of addressing the disparity.
@Kirth: Oh, no I have quite the opposite mindset to the one you're describing there. Or at least I think so. I'm all for making (Ex) abilities truly Extraordinary with a capital 'E', and the example you just gave (the True Seeing one) is far below the level of "extraordinariness" I can stomach when it comes to non-magical characters. The only thing I'm rather strongly against is building a system around the idea that characters who adventure in the kinds of campaign settings the system is designed to portray must by definition have access to overtly supernatural powers and spells. This seems to be the kind of system that was being described by the people referring to jrpgs and such.
@Kirth: Oh, no I have quite the opposite mindset to the one you're describing there. Or at least I think so. I'm all for making (Ex) abilities truly Extraordinary with a capital 'E', and the example you just gave (the True Seeing one) is far below the level of "extraordinariness" I can stomach when it comes to non-magical characters. The only thing I'm rather strongly against is building a system around the idea that characters who adventure in the kinds of campaign settings the system is designed to portray must by definition have access to overtly supernatural powers and spells. This seems to be the kind of system that was being described by the people referring to jrpgs and such.
The Chrono Trigger example given earlier is amusing to me, because while many of the characters have magic abilities (Chrono, despite being known as a warrior is definitely a Magus) even that game still has a pure martial character in Ayla. She only gets to use magic abilities when buffed up by one of the casters in the party, otherwise she's a Beast Totem Barbarian.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is that some people consider such (Ex) abilities to be magical or supernatural with the numbers shaved off, and it offends their sensibilities.
:P
==Aelryinth
Has anyone else suggested just giving the martial classes spells? I mean we already have three of them that cast up to 4th level, why not make that the standard...unless you want to play someone with no magic of course.
But seriously, look at a few JRPGs. Crono Cross, Grandia II, Final Fantasy 7, Xenoblade and Etrain Odyssey to an extent. It doesn't matter how physically focused the character is, they can still use magic. And not just to damage, they can heal, remove statuses, and buff the party. It works out in those games, so maybe it can work out in Pathfinder. I know it's an entirely different thing, but it's worth a shot!
Presumably the people who like fighters, who even want them buffed, don't necessarily want them to buffed in a way that just adds magic. Certainly the people who question the existence of disparity don't.
I am all for martial-oriented classes that can use magic, but to me those are new classes/archetypes. They don't replace fighter. I like fighters and think that they should be buffed up, but I don't think giving them spells is the solution. and the discussion in the last page or so about what you can do with simulucrum certainly affirms in my mind that he problem isn't all on the fighter.
Jim Butcher's Codex Alera series gives most Citizens magical powers of some sort. Even the most common soldier has basic abilities to start fires, march tirelessly, reinforce their armor and weapons to strengthen/sharpen them and so on. Knights and Citizens with more training and/or better bloodlines (higher level) gain superhuman speed, strength, durability, immunity to pain, heightened senses and so on.
While there are external powers that would be better replicated with casters (manipulating wood/metal/earth into new shapes, creating fire, changing the weather, calling lightening, etc), the basics are still there and mean that someone with the right powers can buff themselves without need of a caster. It isn't world changing, but it does alleviate the dependence on a caster to enhance a martial and makes them a little more self-reliant.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I said "still have the same game" and, ironically, a bunch of posters are talking about 5th ed.
Just how, exactly, is that the same game?
Query: 5e... a simulacarum creating and controlling another simulacarum would be exactly the same thing magically as creating a magic item. Are simulacra capable of maintaining control over another artificial being?
If you have them incapable of maintaining control over other beings as a form of 'gaining power', it would shut down the simulacra abuse in 5e very quickly.
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Right. Well, obviously, I can't speak for anyone but myself. I did play the Final Fantasy games numbered VII-IX as a kid, which I suppose fall under this banner. And, indeed, I don't think I'd favor a system similar to those games. I mean, everyone in Final Fantasy VII is basically a magus with different weapons and feat choices, sort of.
I don't know Chrono Trigger, though, except I am familiar with the existence of the title.
I don't know what to do about people who don't want high level fighters to be able to suss out a caster among his/her mirror images. That's just a depressingly low bar in my book. I don't want to disparage people for having that opinion, but that's just so far from the kind of game I personally want PF to be that it seems quite incompatible with anything I'd feel remotely satisfied with.
Cheers,
- Gears
All the martial classes come with built in damage increasers that drop low HP things like there's no tomorrow.
Could you point out specifically what option this is? I'm not aware of whatever thing I'm missing on my Way of Shadow monk.
Has anyone else suggested just giving the martial classes spells? I mean we already have three of them that cast up to 4th level, why not make that the standard...unless you want to play someone with no magic of course.
But seriously, look at a few JRPGs. Crono Cross, Grandia II, Final Fantasy 7, Xenoblade and Etrain Odyssey to an extent. It doesn't matter how physically focused the character is, they can still use magic. And not just to damage, they can heal, remove statuses, and buff the party. It works out in those games, so maybe it can work out in Pathfinder. I know it's an entirely different thing, but it's worth a shot!
Presumably the people who like fighters, who even want them buffed, don't necessarily want them to buffed in a way that just adds magic. Certainly the people who question the existence of disparity don't.
I am all for martial-oriented classes that can use magic, but to me those are new classes/archetypes. They don't replace fighter. I like fighters and think that they should be buffed up, but I don't think giving them spells is the solution. and the discussion in the last page or so about what you can do with simulucrum certainly affirms in my mind that he problem isn't all on the fighter.
Jim Butcher's Codex Alera series gives most Citizens magical powers of some sort. Even the most common soldier has basic abilities to start fires, march tirelessly, reinforce their armor and weapons to strengthen/sharpen them and so on. Knights and Citizens with more training and/or better bloodlines (higher level) gain superhuman speed, strength, durability, immunity to pain, heightened senses and so on.
If you read wuxia novels, the improvement of physical stats/attacks, senses, damage and energy reduction, fast movement, and later ability to fly are all part of the 'level up' process, and occur regardless of what emphasis you place on your training (martial vs magical). IT's just ASSUMED you get these fantastic abilities as you get stronger. At higher levels, there is very little difference between martial and magical people, it's all the same kind of power and how you wield it.
==Aelryinth
Design Manager
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have no experience with 5e, but one thing I often try to implement in one form or another in my PF homebrew classes and which I like as an idea is the "investment" of spell slots in spells with long or permanent durations. Instead of (or possibly in addition to, depending on taste) various permanent spells costing a bunch of gold, have them occupy a bunch of spell slots. So that it's fine to bind a demon to serve you, but it's going to take up a lot of your magical potential. That's the kind of rule I like both the flavor and mechanical implications of, and I think PF could benefit greatly from having more spells and other magical abilities function like that. The exact implementation on a case-by-case basis I am not sure of, but as a baseline principle of design philosophy I think it seems very promising.
Cheers,
- Gears
So, not to go around shamelessly self-promoting, but my Akashic Mysteries series works under a system that functions under very similar principles, and it has been pretty successful and well-reviewed. Loosely inspired by 3.5's Magic of Incarnum, each class has a selection of veils, each of which occupies a particular slot on the body (with different slots have different general purposes, like Feet being generally tied to mobility effects and Hands being primarily tied to offensive options) and which provides different effects that scale based on level and how you assign your pool of "essence", a set pool of power that you designate to different purposes instead of expending them.
I've found that these classes avoid many of the issues with martial/caster disparity in both sides of the equation; low op players won't find themselves turning into "crossbow mages" because they mismanaged their spells or made poor spell selections, and high op groups lack the more game-breaking tools of traditional casters. The martial options, like the Daevic class, are still easily playable by low op characters who can choose basic buffing options that largely provide static bonuses, but get options for things like wings, phantom steeds, healing, condition removal, SR, etc.
Someone claimed that caster martial disparity is at it's lowest in 5th edition. Turns out that's totally false and casters are still the best.I said "still have the same game" and, ironically, a bunch of posters are talking about 5th ed.
Just how, exactly, is that the same game?
To be fair, if this is true then it technically doesn't preclude the possibility of a disparity still existing, just that it's been scaled back a lot in how severe it is. 5E martials ARE less reliant on casters and casters ARE still cut back in just how powerful their magic is. Can my monk fly or raise the dead or coat a battlefield in roaring fire that rains from the sky? Nope, but he gets to use run across vertical surfaces, use shadowy magic, teleport between areas of darkness, go invisible, remove any charm or fear effects on him with 100% effectiveness, and heal himself between fights.
At the very least, 5E is (or seems to be) a good step in the right direction in terms of martial vs. caster power.
5e helped, but didn't eliminate, the disparity. It makes casters have to opt to power up their spells rather than simply, inherently gaining more power with the same spell as they level.
BUT, as this is about Pathfinder, and - I assume from DM_Blake's post above - that going 5e route changes the game too much to "be the same game."
Which begs the question: at what point are you no longer playing Pathfinder? Some people have a much broader tolerance for variation and still consider themselves to be playing "the same game" than others. What constitutes "the same game"?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Ssalarn: I've read some of the Akashic stuff on d20pfsrd.com, and I do think it looks very nice. I'm just in a sort of a weird position myself where I have like 10+ different homebrew classes I'm trying to playtest whenever I build a new character, so I so rarely get to try out cool 3pp stuff I find. Maybe I should get less egocentric gaming priorities. :P
In general, though, I think the Akashic Mysteries stuff, as well as DSP's Psionics and Path of War are all really great, and are far nearer to the kind of game I would like PF to be. This is not to say I don't think Paizo has created lots of awesome material. It certainly has. Most of the things I dislike about PF (such as many problematic spells) I've later on learned were actually inherited from 3.5, which I've never played.
That being said, my home group plays within such a heavily house-ruled version of PF, with many of us playing primarily homebrew classes, that I personally don't have any burning need to fix anything within the game. But that's not the point of this thread, of course.
Cheers,
- Gears
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Which begs the question: at what point are you no longer playing Pathfinder? Some people have a much broader tolerance for variation and still consider themselves to be playing "the same game" than others. What constitutes "the same game"?Unchained changed a lot of the answer I would otherwise give. I guess the core components of Pathfinder would be the following:
- d20 base system
- AC, DC, and similar numbers / terms being the die roll targets
- the six core ability scores and how their modifiers work
- the class system
- the monster classification system and how many iconic abilities work
- the basics of how magic works, including the existence of magic item creation
- feats being a thing that augment how well / what you do
Remove any of these and you're not really playing Pathfinder anymore. Everything else is optional.
|
Design Manager
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Kirth: Oh, no I have quite the opposite mindset to the one you're describing there. Or at least I think so. I'm all for making (Ex) abilities truly Extraordinary with a capital 'E', and the example you just gave (the True Seeing one) is far below the level of "extraordinariness" I can stomach when it comes to non-magical characters. The only thing I'm rather strongly against is building a system around the idea that characters who adventure in the kinds of campaign settings the system is designed to portray must by definition have access to overtly supernatural powers and spells. This seems to be the kind of system that was being described by the people referring to jrpgs and such.The Chrono Trigger example given earlier is amusing to me, because while many of the characters have magic abilities (Chrono, despite being known as a warrior is definitely a Magus) even that game still has a pure martial character in Ayla. She only gets to use magic abilities when buffed up by one of the casters in the party, otherwise she's a Beast Totem Barbarian.
A barbarian who can spin so fast she creates damaging whirlwinds, can command dinosaurs, and can leap to ridiculous heights and then come crashing down with the force of a lightning bolt multiple times per turn. While not "magical" in the sense that that game gauges such things, ahe would definitely be viewed as such by a fair chunk of the PF following. I actually would consider her a good influence for how a high level martial should perform though. Similarly, one of Crono's earliest "non-magical" techniques involves slashing the air so hard you create a damaging current that cuts through enemies in its path.
I think part of resolution involves a group, whether that be a collection of forum participants, a home table, a company, or what have you, agreeing on the "feel" of the game and whether or not all classes should conform to that. I always find the idea that Fighters can't gain extraordinary abilities that defy the laws of physics in our world because it's "too wuxia" a little silly, because Pathfinder is heavily influenced by anime already. You've got gnomes with pink or green hair, summoners with their customizable monsters that fight for them, you can easily play a "Naruto: Shippuden" inspired game by calling all your wizards "ninjas" (seriously, most of the "ninjutsu" used in that show can be directly identified as spells like shocking grasp or summon monster).
There is no "Gandalf" class anywhere in the core rulebook, though a multiclass Fighter/Rogue/Druid might come kind of close. Pippin and Gimli, on the other hand, are pretty doable, but seem odd and weak adventuring alongside the cast of Naruto. It kind of reminds me of the anime Final Fantasy Unlimited, where the primary protagonists are a trio of mundanes who run around pretending to contribute and adventure until things actually dangerous, at which point the hero and his gun designed to literally shoot perfect "silver bullets" at the enemy wakes up from his nap and shows up to actually resolve the encounter and take out the enemy.
So, let's break it down. Wizards, as-is, are super anime, both in their power levels and in their execution (what with their hand signs and calling out the name of their attacks verbal and somatic components). Fighters, as-is, are the blandest form of fantasy, gainining no abilities at any level that really exceed something you might see in the real world, except perhaps in the realm of applied force and toughness (though the scaling of their applied force is extremely selective, often allowing them to push, lift, or strike enemies extremely hard while still limiting their ability to jump or break certain substances effectively. Even John Henry, the American Steel-Driving Man, is going to be capable of feats that a PF Fighter could only dream about.
So where on that scale should your campaign fit? How far between "envies the deeds of American folk heroes since they're beyond their reach without outside assistance" and "can comfortably emulate the abilities of Greek gods and anime suoerheroes" can you flex before martial/caster disparity becomes an issue in your game? Part of the problem is that since the game accomodates this breadth of character archetypes and power, every person sees it a little bit differently and is comfortable at different phases, but if Joe shows up with "Robbi, the kind-hearted watchman drawn into events above his paygrade" and Anna shows up with "Mysteriana, Knower of the Unknowable, daughter of the lich of Kathus, possessor of the Arch-Staff of Dreams", things might get weird, especially if those are both supposed to be 10th level characters built under a strict point buy and using stringent WBL. The rules definitely accomodate both characters, but if you're experiencing M/CD, that's the problem. At some point, Robbi needs to grow beyond a confused but earnest watchman into a full-fledged hero, or perhaps Mysteriana needs to be reined in a bit and reshaped to "Misty, the plucky apprentice with a couple good tricks up her sleeve". So, identify the type of game you want to play and the levels you see as appropriate to that type of game, and focus on adjusting the elements that don't meet that expectation.
I, personally, think the game should involve characters like Robbi and Misty for levels 1-5, but level 6 should be where we start to see the emergence of "Mysteriana", or where Robbi finds out he was drawn into all this because he's the destined scion of an ancient king, imbued with that ruler's undeniable strength and charisma, able to easily persuade lesser men and women to serve or follow him. Then it should evolve again at 11th level, with Robbi now imbued with the full spiritual might of all his ancestors, able to strike a man down from 60 feet away with the force of his sword swing, with a majestic griffin, part of an ancient bloodline that has long served his family, at his beck and call, and the inherent destiny of his right to rule allowing him to command the fealty of even dukes and warlords. At 16th level, we should see that final transformation, where Robbi becomes King Robbilious, the dragon-rider, One True King of Reborn Avalon. Robbilious' enemies should be things like avatars of Asmodeus seeking to subvert his rule or an ancient tarrasque seeking to destroy the kingdom he has forged.
All of that involves adding to the base Fighter quite a bit of course, but note that even my highest expectations of Robbi are things a spellcaster can accomplish much sooner. While I think that converting many spells from slot-based options to rituals that anyone with the ritual description and the appropriate components can perform (with many of those spells tied to components that are strictly under GM purview), I think the sheer bulk and inertia of Vancian casting is such that it's easier to use a more balanced 3pp alternative, like Spheres of Power or psionics refluffed as rune magic.
Of course, changing what martials are capable of does bring forward: what do you need casters for, then?
If they can True See, self-buff, self-heal, bring down fliers, alter reality thru sheer bad-assery, would you need a caster any longer?
I never played 4e, so I don't know what making all the classes nearly the same in terms of class abilities and options is like. It seems many people didn't like that approach, hence Pathfinder and 5e.
|
Design Manager
|
Which begs the question: at what point are you no longer playing Pathfinder? Some people have a much broader tolerance for variation and still consider themselves to be playing "the same game" than others. What constitutes "the same game"?Unchained changed a lot of the answer I would otherwise give. I guess the core components of Pathfinder would be the following:
- d20 base system
- AC, DC, and similar numbers / terms being the die roll targets
- the six core ability scores and how their modifiers work
- the class system
- the monster classification system and how many iconic abilities work
- the basics of how magic works, including the existence of magic item creation
- feats being a thing that augment how well / what you do
Remove any of these and you're not really playing Pathfinder anymore. Everything else is optional.
I don't think I really agree with your 6th point. I can't speak for anyone other than myself of course, but to me, Vancian casting and item creation are optional subsystems, completely unnecessary to be playing Pathfinder. Even in core, you could, for example, play a party of all Kineticists who have all the tools to handle most adventures without having any access to item creation or Vancian magic (I'm a little fuzzy on how they handle condition removal since I've never played a Kineticist healer, but I'm told it's doable).
Your 5th point is a little vague as well and I could see some interpretations where I might disagree (for example, I don't think invisibility needs to work exactly as it does for the game to be Pathfinder), but other than that I largely agree with the rest of your points.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Of course, changing what martials are capable of does bring forward: what do you need casters for, then?
If they can True See, self-buff, self-heal, bring down fliers, alter reality thru sheer bad-assery, would you need a caster any longer?
I never played 4e, so I don't know what making all the classes nearly the same in terms of class abilities and options is like. It seems many people didn't like that approach, hence Pathfinder and 5e.
Yawn. Read #5.
I would also point out that we already have the scenario of "since casters (and their summoned minions and pets) can already do everything the martials are capable of, and more, why have martials?"
There are spells in PF to do anything imaginable. If the benchline is that "no martial ability can duplicate a spell," then there can be no martial abilities whatsoever. Even something as simple as climbing a wall will be beyond them.
