Book Aragorn does arguably reach level 8, particularly if he doesn't release the undead army.
He started at say 6 and gained two levels on his epic quest. I can buy that. Anything in particular stick out as past level 6? The last time I read the books was before the movies and... ya that's been awhile.
To the OP... not long ago I restricted full-casters from my game, allowing only martials and partial casters and reserving Clerics, Wizards, etc. for as key NPC's and villains. Its worked spectacularly well and I've never looked back.
I'd thought if doing that, but haven't made the jump yet.
So, the 6-casters still have some of the problem spells... Does their fewer amount of casts help, or do their relative glut of class options offset the tenet that "If all you have is a thermo nuclear bomb, then everything looks like ground zero."
Yeah it's pretty patronizing to say people who are happy with martials have to cap them at 6th. When progression exists in all classes. Maybe I want to have four attacks, +16 BaB, and 15 feats? Who are you to stop that.
The Valkyrie chosen didn't need wings, and celestial powers to be cool. She did that as a martial. Though I respect your right to use archetypes, templates and feats to recreate you image if you want. I don't want that. You guys can keep using splat books and 3pp products. Everyone gets on with it.
Pathfinder as it stands is a broad church with space for many different play styles.
This is exactly what went wrong with 4e. People complaining because they had issues with something. That resulted in fighters getting extraordinary powers and casters nerfed...
... wait a minute wasn't that the whole point for Pathfinder to avoid that? Then 4e flops because people don't play it and it gets a new edition after only 5 years. Be care lfulnwhat you wish for.
People have different play styles. The existing one allows for bolt ons. Making mundane characters cap at 6th doesn't.
On Aragorn, he and frankly all of Middle Earth do not really fit into the Pathfinder box.
Necromancer, really? Trying to fit an ages old pact into a character class. Weather top would have been a lot different if Strider was a Necromancer. Funny though. The undead would be a plot device in any sane game construct. Not as funny though.
It was roleplay as I recall. Which Aragon could have achieved whatever class he chose.
What makes him higher than 6th level is that he single handedly fights off 5 ringwraiths at weathertop with two weapon fighting.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah it's pretty patronizing to say people who are happy with martials have to cap them at 6th. When progression exists in all classes. Maybe I want to have four attack, +16 BaB, and 15 feats? Who are you to stop that.
Well if you have to move, in most cases your martial has exactly the same number of attacks you have at level 1. Which is exactly the problem. More feats, more attacks, none of that really changes the martials paradigm from person who hits stuff well, in a game where the entire paradigm of the game changes every 4-5 levels or so.
To explain further, the martial who fights to keep goblins off the homestead fits in fine without anything fancy. But for the martial who punches out literal ruling powers of other planes? For that Martial to just be able to "fight hard" and "hit lots" completely destroys the narrative. They can't actually get to their targets on their own, have no means of overcoming thier abilities, can't even fly, or break down their fortresses doors in time, can't prevent them from just teleporting away. That "fight hard" "hit lots" character does not fit in that narrative any more than a level 20 caster fits in the protecting farms from goblins narrative.
Pathfinder is broader than say 4E in it's approach, but part of the range is the levels. And what the martial haters seem to want is martials that do not anything that would be out of place in our world, ie. they want them restricted to E6. But contradictory to this they also want the martial who fights goblins to still fit in the narrative of punching out Cthulhu but without expanding their narrative scope at all. Which is ridiculous at best.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, are we arguing because JRR Tolkein failed to write his stories to fit into the basic assumptions of the Pathfinder Rules System?
You all realize that no one can possibly be right in this kind of argument, right?
I find it amazing that you classify people who love martials (as they are currently) in all their forms as 'haters' when it is you who says you aren't happy with them and they need to change.
Why not create 3pp classes that can do the things you want if you desperately want a new class that can hit with a sword and fly without magic. Or use one of the wide range of products already out there. If there is such a desperate need for a solution then I'm sure your DM will approve. If the problem is as vast as you make out it will be a best seller.
Leave the people who love martials as they are alone. You have your solution let us have ours.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sigh.
Honestly, are we arguing because JRR Tolkein failed to write his stories to fit into the basic assumptions of the Pathfinder Rules System?
You all realize that no one can possibly be right in this kind of argument, right?
Let's put it this way...
If Aragorn were level 20, a Balor should be a fair fight for him. If he where level 20, then he should make sense in a narrative where his oppoonents can teleport at will, fly, control minds, cause enemies to implode, strike people defenseless with a word, undo magical wards, rain storms of flames and summon demons. Aragorn simply does not fit that narrative. He does however fit the kind of a narrative a campaign might have at level 5.
No a balor would be a medium challenge for a full party of lvl 20 characters. A balanced party as well - with a range of classes that complemented each other.
For aragorn at 20th on his own it would be beyond epic. Though a 20th level fighter against the Baltic as portrayed in the books would do a pretty good job because it doesn't do all the things you mention like teleport etc. you're comparing oranges with apples to suit your arguments.
You don't like the rules. You still haven't answered why all multitude the existing options, powers, templates and 3pp aren't enough.
I suspect you won't because you're arguing for the sake of it.
No a balor would be a medium challenge for a full party of lvl 20 characters.
For aragorn on his own it would be beyond epic.
A level 20 Ranger with PC wealth is a CR20 challenge. Therefore, both Aragorn and the Balor should be equally challenging.
And quite frankly most full casters would react to that kind of threat with a shrug. Since they do fit in a narrative where the opponent can fly, control minds, etc. since they can not only do *All* of those things, they have tools to counter and work around them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, are we arguing because JRR Tolkein failed to write his stories to fit into the basic assumptions of the Pathfinder Rules System?
You all realize that no one can possibly be right in this kind of argument, right?
Let's put it this way...
If Aragorn were level 20, a Balor should be a fair fight for him. If he where level 20, then he should make sense in a narrative where his oppoonents can teleport at will, fly, control minds, cause enemies to implode, strike people defenseless with word, undo magical wards, rain storms of flames and summon demons. Aragorn simply does not fit that narrative. He does however fit the kind of a narrative a campaign might have at level 5.
I'm going to regret this, but LotR isn't high level Pathfinder, that's certainly true. It's also not low level Pathfinder.
Sauron can't do the kinds of things PF characters can. Nor can they do what he can do. Hell, Morgoth couldn't or at least didn't bother with most PF style magic tricks.
Galadriel can't teleport or fly, but she can change time within her realm and wall enemies out.
Tolkien's magic is generally subtler, but not necessarily weaker. Nor are his heroes - "There are names among us that are worth more than a thousand mail-clad knights apiece."Direct comparisons don't make sense.
Let's put it this way then.
A 9-10 level full caster does not fit in the Lord of the Rings narrative because they would casually trivialize it and that's even ignoring the big story breaking power teleport. The closest fit for the overall narrative of Lord of the Rings is levels 5-6. They run from goblins, fight trolls and wraiths. Those enemies fit in a 5-6 narrative, not a 9-10 narrative. Is it an exact fit for Lord of the Rings? No of course not, stories translate very poorly rules. Is a better fit than other options? Yes.
No a balor would be a medium challenge for a full party of lvl 20 characters.
For aragorn on his own it would be beyond epic.
A level 20 Ranger with PC wealth is a CR20 challenge. Therefore, both Aragorn and the Balor should be equally challenging.
And quite frankly most full casters would react to that kind of threat with a shrug. Since they do fit in a narrative where the opponent can fly, control minds, etc. since they can not only do *All* of those things, they have tools to counter and work around them.
You don't seem to understand the way average party level and CR work. Go and check the book / prd as it's quite clear what appropriate challenges are.
Again, apples and oranges. Its a straw man argument claiming that the monsters in lotr are equivalent to Pathfinder.
The basic principal that people haven't answered is why don't you use the special options in the weapon masters handbook etc.. I guess there is no answer to that as you've ignored it for quite a while now.
Hard wiring magic into existing martial classes is about stopping people being able to play the game how they want.
(You can reskin it however you like but realty-changing effects are just a form of magic)
The Sword, what you're missing here is that a 'Fair Fight' as Anzyr is saying it is an equivalent fight to the death.
A Balor is a 20-25% resources speedbump for a level 20 party. It's a death battle for a level 20 PC class character with PC wealth.
Exactly so.
Again, apples and oranges. Its a straw man argument claiming that the monsters in lotr are equivalent to Pathfinder.
The basic principal that people haven't answered is why don't you use the special options in the weapon masters handbook etc.. I guess there is no answer to that as you've ignored it for quite a while now.
Hard making magic into existing martial classes is about stopping people being able to play the game how they want.
And how many bullet points does that address on my list of combat versatility for martials? I am genuinely curious, so please do let me know.
The classes people want to play from a narrative perspective are Martials in an E6 campaign. I have yet to see anything a level 20 martial can do that would make them fit in the same narrative as a Balor. But if you have an example please do provide it.
I am unhappy with you telling me I can't play my 12th level fighter with the rest of the 12th level party, because I can't handle the disappointment. It really isn't complicated.its patronizing.
When you DM feel free to restrict whatever classes you want - that's your prerogative.
Use 3pp materials. If there was demand as you claim someone would have written them.
So precisely what is the problem? If you can use feats etc to make the fighter exactly what you want?
Why are people insistent on hardwiring this into a class that can already be both things to both people.
I am unhappy with you telling me I can't play my 12th level fighter with the rest of the 12th level party, because I can't handle the disappointment. It really isn't complicated.its patronizing.
We are saying the level 12 Fighter does not fit into the narrative a level 12 D&D campaign is telling. At level 12, casters are completely shattering an concept of low fantasy and are fighting enemies that match that narrative. We want to make your Fighter fit in the narrative and by extension make them capable of actually dealing with say the mid-tier forces of the abyss you should be a threat to at this level.
The whole situation just keeps creating an arms race of power that results in the game being bloated.
W40k is going through exactly the same thing where people are screaming for more powerful codex's for their rules which results in a constant state of imbalance and power creep.
Moderates who show restraint get frozen out and sidelined.
What we want is to make your Fighter awesome in a way that actively contributes resources to a group of Pathfinder Player Characters into Tier of Play 3 and beyond.
Rather than a resource drain.
You're telling me how to play my character because my way is bad-wrong-fun. How my character drives the narrative is between me and my DM and the other players in our group.
Astrid (without) wings, challenged the Norns, led the clan against the. Northlanders, captained the Sea Drake and killed the giant chief in single combat. She forges her narrative without you telling her she can't. That's because the DM is in total control of the narrative and what challenges are posed to any particular party whatever the makeup.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What we want is to make your Fighter awesome in a way that actively contributes resources to a group of Pathfinder Player Characters into Tier of Play 3 and beyond.
Rather than a resource drain.
You're telling me how to play my character because my way is bad-wrong-fun. How my character drives the narrative is between me and my DM and the other players in our group.
Astrid without wings, challenged the Norns, led the clan against the. Northlanders, captained the Sea Drake and killed the giant chief in single combat. She forges her narrative without you telling her she can't. That's because the DM is in total control of the narrative and what challenges are posed to any particular party whatever the makeup.
The misuse of bad-wrong-fun on this board is getting out of hand. Fixing Fighter (the class) has nothing to do with you or how you have fun. If you find Fighter (the class) being considered a resource drain to be an attack on you or your fun, the issue lies entirely with you. Especially since mechanically, mathematically, and factually the Fighter is a resource drain. Regardless of how you feel about it.
The GM selects the challenges that players are faced with. The narrative is in the dramatic tension between the characters and the events that the PCs undergo. The PCs can chose the path but what is on the path is determined by the DM.
PCs can suggest, intimate, react, plan, request, and predict.
The DM (good DM) uses these seeds to set appropriate challenges. Even a good sandbox, has the depth, colour, grain, viscosity, and shape of the sand chosen by the DM.
The only reason the aforementioned spells lack the destructive force of their themes is a deliberate act from the game designers to protect the setting and make no sense.Wait. So... let me make sure I'm understanding you correctly. Are you saying that the root cause of this balance argument of why we (supposedly) absolutely positively need to buff martials to Saitama levels is because you first buffed your casters orders of magnitude beyond what Paizo's RAW has them at... so that what they can do would be consistent with the spells' names?
I... well... yes, I can see why you'd have an especially serious case of martial-caster disparity in your games, if that's what you're doing. But--just IMHO--that's not a very good standard to argue for a general redesign of the game's power tiers around.
In most every game I've ever played in, we actually run the spells by RAW. And if a series of 40' explosions aren't typically what we think of as a "Meteor Swarm", we don't houserule a completely different powerlevel to make it consistent with the name. We just assume that whatver ancient Golarion mage first came up with the spell had a flair for the bombastic in his naming sense, and it stuck. But that regardless of the name, the spell does exactly what it actualy says it does, no more, no less.
So no, our casters are not causing extinction-level events every time they cast Meteor Swarm, they're at most making 40' radius craters in the landscape. Which is still pretty dang powerful... but nowhere even remotely close to even being on Saitama's radar screen, much less a threat to someone like him.
And frankly, I don't think I'd even want to play in that kind of system. "Oh, sure, you've got this really cool ninth level spell. And you can even cast it! So long as you don't mind killing everyone on this particular hemisphere of the planet." As you said yourself: ecological/geological devastation.
No thanks, not...
The Point. ---------------------------------------> This Post.
The point is that Fighters need to be brought up to the level of something the resembles Saitama albeit easier on the environment (though not enemies, they should still explode). The fact of the matter is Saitama is one of the rare high level martials that a full caster might actually have to consider a threat. Even than, with Saitama's incredible power, I would still bet on the full caster. The problem is Fighters are not anywhere near that level despite playing in the same game as the guy who is.
The misuse of bad-wrong-fun on this board is getting out of hand. Fixing Fighter (the class) has nothing to do with you or how you have fun. If you find Fighter (the class) being considered a resource drain to be an attack on you or your fun, the issue lies entirely with you. Especially since mechanically, mathematically, and factually the Fighter is a resource drain. Regardless of how you feel about it.
That's easy to say from your stand point. You are the one criticizing.
It's like saying "I'm not telling you you're playing wrong - the universe is - it's mathematical"
Telling people who like fighters the way they are (of which several have posted and been shouted down) that they are a drain on the party, that they can't forge the narrative, that they will inevitably be disappointed for playing a character the way they want, the way it is designed in the game. Is Bad-Wrong-Fun. Pure and simple. Of course you don't see it that way because you think you know better - that is the definition of BWF!
The GM selects the challenges that players are faced with. The narrative is in the dramatic tension between the characters and the events that the PCs undergo. The PCs can chose the path but what is on the path is determined by the DM.
PCs can suggest, intimate, react, plan, request, and predict.
The DM (good DM) uses these seeds to set appropriate challenges. Even a good sandbox, has the depth, colour, grain, viscosity, and shape of the sand chosen by the DM.
I do not soft ball high level encounters. All 1-20 campaigns that I GM end with a CR 25 encounter and this encounter is decided before I know what the players will make. If the players make four Fighters and the last encounter can completely obviate them and tear them apart, it will do so. My enemies use the full scope of their abilities and are played to their INT score. Building characters that can cope with that is the players responsibility.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The misuse of bad-wrong-fun on this board is getting out of hand. Fixing Fighter (the class) has nothing to do with you or how you have fun. If you find Fighter (the class) being considered a resource drain to be an attack on you or your fun, the issue lies entirely with you. Especially since mechanically, mathematically, and factually the Fighter is a resource drain. Regardless of how you feel about it.That's easy to say from your stand point. You are the one criticizing.
It's like saying "I'm not telling you you're playing wrong - the universe is - it's mathematical"
Telling people who like fighters the way they are (of which several have posted and been shouted down) that they are a drain on the party, that they can't forge the narrative, that they will inevitably be disappointed for playing a character the way they want, the way it is designed in the game. Is Bad-Wrong-Fun. Pure and simple. Of course you don't see it that way because you think you know better - that is the definition of BWF!
Let me provide an example so you can understand.
"I like Fighters."
"NO! You are dumb is you like Fighters. You should use other classes because they are better." <- Badwrongfun
"That's nice, but we're talking about mechanics. Mechanically Fighters are very weak especially compared to other classes and lack both combat and narrative versatility." <- not badwrongfun
See in the second example, no one attacked the person who likes fighters or their opinion. Understand?