I've DM'd epic6. The lack of progression compared to the first six levels left it ultimately in satisfying for our group (we didn't want 75% of abilities locked at 6th). I appreciate that others are big fans though.
As has been said earlier Ranishe the word mundane means dull, and uninspiring which is why I have used the term non-magical. Pathfinder is capable of representing all sorts of environments depending on the area the game is set. Don't forget Pathfinder is not Golarion.
I'm not advocate that Aragorn be modeled. There isn't an Aragorn class, though I may want to play a character who is inspired by and goes on to be better than Aragorn was in that particular piece of fiction.
The reality is that in games of Pathfinder and D&D high level fighters HAVE been going up against high level threats for thirty odd years. My hunch is that this was mainly as part of a mixed group of casters and martials.
I don't really accept the argument that in order to act heroically at high level every character has to have access to the same abilities as the creatures it's facing. There are a huge range of creatures to face and only some have flight and spell like abilities and when they do many of the those spell like abilities wouldn't stop fighters doing what they do best anyway.
To be clear I'm also not suggesting fighters never change. I am all for an unchained fighter that basically looks like a brawler just with heavy armour and ability to use its brawlers flurry etc with any martial weapons. This isn't a question of power - it's an issue with the types of powers people want to tack onto the fighter.
I thought it best to make that clear just so I'm not misunderstood.
Not the same abilities but abilities of the same grade.
Then that is a question of the power of abilities - not of their nature (magical or non-magical)
See my last comment. I can hit something harder, faster and more powerfully but I am still hitting it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, my extremely late few cents on the entire issue. The main reason for the reaction is because people don't like limits on their characters, and that's all there is to it. Once your character can do stuff like create entire demi-planes, stop time, polymorph, or even just fly, giving that up is getting rid of the reason you chose that class.
The other issue with removing casters powers via limiting them is that they are too hard-baked into the setting. Pathfinder is built on the idea magic is common, plentiful, and powerful. It's not like Black Company, ASOFAI, Lord of the Rings, etc. The setting itself is built for high-magic fantasy, so removing it would make little sense.
Personally, that's why whenever I think of solutions to the caster-martial dilemma, my general solution is too instead buff martials. Instead of a negative change, it is rather a positive one, that takes away no ones goodies, and instead grants new ones. I personally love Path of War for it's approach to the problem, and personally don't get the reactions some people have to it. Same for Gestalt.
Essentially make late-level martials into something similar to Dark Souls bosses in concept. Using Path of War, I can build Gwyn, Ornstein, Artorias, Raime, Velstadt, Alonne, etc. This kind of character is still obviously a martial in terms of fighting style and so on, but approaches a mage in terms of power.
So, don't nerf the good option, unless it is ridiculously OP and trivializes everything it touches, instead buff the low power stuff.
Why not reduce high level powers to 1-2 slots per day to still allow for the presence of Demi-planes but force casters to decide if that is the best use of their resources.
Why aren't Spell scrolls made dramatically more expensive/rare so casters had to actually chose the spells they want or invest in a wand rather than be prepared for any encounter with unlimited options.
Why don't we restrict the spells a wizard can add to his spell book to the two per level and say that spell books can only be found as loot, rather than be a comodity.
Why don't we restrict crafting to items below a certain grade unless a quest is undertaken for crafting formulas in conjunction with the DM.
Why don't we dramatically increase the component cost for problem spells like simulacrum so they don't become go-tos.
Why don't we restrict the number/HD of creatures a single character can control to prevent lantern archon spam.
None of these remove magic from the game, just the abuse.
What people really don't want to lose is power I'm all for limiting spell casters by forcing them to make reasoned choices over what they can do.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What people really don't want to lose is power I'm all for limiting spell casters by forcing them to make reasoned choices over what they can do.
Why not let people who want to play high-level casters play in high-level games and people who want to play low-level casters confine themselves to low-level games instead of trying to ruin the fun of the others?
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Well why haven't the wizards just taken over the whole fantasy land by now?! Nobody can stop the optimized wizard!"
YO.
What people really don't want to lose is power I'm all for limiting spell casters by forcing them to make reasoned choices over what they can do.Why not let people who want to play high-level casters play in high-level games and people who want to play low-level casters confine themselves to low-level games instead of trying to ruin the fun of the others?
I think there's a disconnect here. Are we talking about:
- Limiting casters period, in all versions of a game.
-OR-
- Limiting casters in a specific instance of a game to better fit that game.
The former seems like a bad idea on face, because people should be able to run the games they want, which is specifically why the second is a good idea.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Buffing is always more satisfying than nerfing. It's simple psychology, given two things of equal magnitude, one with a negative effect hurts more than one with a positive effect.
Nerfing more also tends to hurt the game more in the long run. Reducing options (particularly with little to no thought on how it interacts with other options) jumbles the game.
This is easier to see in stuff like fighting games, but the same principle applies here.
I like the epic battles that high level characters get into.
I wish they didn't require magic to beat.
What people really don't want to lose is power I'm all for limiting spell casters by forcing them to make reasoned choices over what they can do.Why not let people who want to play high-level casters play in high-level games and people who want to play low-level casters confine themselves to low-level games instead of trying to ruin the fun of the others?
I think there's a disconnect here. Are we talking about:
- Limiting casters period, in all versions of a game.
-OR-
- Limiting casters in a specific instance of a game to better fit that game.
The former seems like a bad idea on face, because people should be able to run the games they want, which is specifically why the second is a good idea.
Okay, time to address two people's posts in one.
@Sword: The main issue with your fixes, which I actually do like, is that they've been hard-baked into the game, and so people are used to them to the point that nerfing will cause an outcry. I prefer positive change myself, because instead of getting rid of what people already have, it adds more to it. A lot of what you say really doesn't take much away, but not so in the eyes of some people.
I'm also a fan of buffing martials like I said because I do believe that higher level martials should be like the characters I mentioned. I see no reason why a tenth or higher level martial can't be a Sir Alonne or Raime.
@PossibleCabbage: The former I believe, and I agree with your point, but some people have to deal with groups that refuse to do so and with players who don't think anything less than epic magic is a good thing.
What people really don't want to lose is power I'm all for limiting spell casters by forcing them to make reasoned choices over what they can do.Why not let people who want to play high-level casters play in high-level games and people who want to play low-level casters confine themselves to low-level games instead of trying to ruin the fun of the others?
I think there's a disconnect here. Are we talking about:
- Limiting casters period, in all versions of a game.
-OR-
- Limiting casters in a specific instance of a game to better fit that game.
The former seems like a bad idea on face, because people should be able to run the games they want, which is specifically why the second is a good idea.
I agree totally that we shouldn't force other people to play the game they don't want to play. That was a response to the argument that Casters can't be reduced because of the game. I think probably all those things are easy and possible. They should only ever be options though. Incidentally most of those options could be implemented by the player showing self restraint in not abusing the system.
b) who says he's lvl20? sure, he's most likely high level, but nothing to say 20
c) the Balrog is not a Balor, I suspect it's an epic monster
d) Gandalf is an epic demi god in disguise and probably alone higher than a mythic level 20
e) reducing the Nazgûl to mere spectres is like saying smaug was a young adult dragon
Yes, and altho it is true that he didnt show high level abilities, he handled his foes with ease, such as the "huge orc chieftain"- so even tho what Aragon did could have been handled by a lower level- that doesnt mean he was lower level. he walked out of every fight without a wound.. He may well have started as say a lvl 12 or something then got more levels.
The are THE Spectres. Here are the Nazgul statted out by a fan:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?10746-Nazg%FBl
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When people talk about 'buffing martials', what exactly are they suggesting?
I see talk about One punch man, suggesting that letting high level fighters effectively fly and do thousands of HP of damage with one hit is about right...
Is there anything high level fighters shouldn't be able to do? It seems like vague suggestions at the moment, how about some more concrete proposals?
My personal flavor of high-level martial, mentioned above, is some of the better armored bosses from the Dark Souls games if you've ever played them. If not, look up some videos of fights with them, Sir Alonne, Sir Raime, Champion Gundyr, Orsntein and Artorias in particular. They still use the cornerstone of martials, bit with additional tricks and abilities that are still distinctly martial. That's what I tend to think of when I think 'high-powered martial'.
The only time-traveling power in Pathfinder is Time Stop, which requires 17th level. Time travel in Back to the Future is more powerful, hence Doc must be a god.These type of things used to peeve me, but it's just amusing, now, especially since I see it all the time. Like how Shelob is an epic level encounter despite it doing nothing beyond what an Ogre Spider can do.
I remember that a lot of people couldn't except Drogon and the other dragons from GoT being considered Drakes in Pathfinder instead of True Dragons despite have little relation to True Dragons.
I can't help but imagine someone watching Back to the Future and saying "Biff Tannen must be level 20, because everyone at Hill Valley High School is afraid of him. And so George McFly, who punched out Biff, must be at least level 20, too!"
Same circular reasoning. And no more convincing when applied to Shelob. She must be epic because she beat Frodo? And because a bunch of garrison orcs are afraid of encountering her?
Time Stop isn't time travel.. it's essentially super-accelerating yourself so fast that everyone appears to stand still. Much like an an old classic Trek episode.
As I wrote earlier, in AD&D, 9-10th level characters were the expected pinnacle of PC accomplishment, at which point you retired from active adventuring and played Diplomacy instead.
This is absolutely not true. We routinely played AD&D with PCs up to 20th level. I have a folder with over a dozen of them.
In OD&D, 40+ could be seen.
Time Stop isn't time travel.. it's essentially super-accelerating yourself so fast that everyone appears to stand still. Much like an an old classic Trek episode.The only time-traveling power in Pathfinder is Time Stop, which requires 17th level. Time travel in Back to the Future is more powerful, hence Doc must be a god.These type of things used to peeve me, but it's just amusing, now, especially since I see it all the time. Like how Shelob is an epic level encounter despite it doing nothing beyond what an Ogre Spider can do.
I remember that a lot of people couldn't except Drogon and the other dragons from GoT being considered Drakes in Pathfinder instead of True Dragons despite have little relation to True Dragons.
I can't help but imagine someone watching Back to the Future and saying "Biff Tannen must be level 20, because everyone at Hill Valley High School is afraid of him. And so George McFly, who punched out Biff, must be at least level 20, too!"
Same circular reasoning. And no more convincing when applied to Shelob. She must be epic because she beat Frodo? And because a bunch of garrison orcs are afraid of encountering her?
Kind of semantics really though :)
Whatever the method, it's still stopping time, which kind of shows why people (not all, as I know some people think they are perfectly balance) who play martials get a little annoyed when they're just getting another +1 to hit and maybe a feat while the wizard gains access to the ability to stop time, change into a dragon, summon angels, and create an entire demi-plane. Martials shouldn't be able to do those things of course, but they maybe should get something with a little more 'wow-factor' than 'I hit a little harder and more accurately' or 'I gain an extra 10 ft of movement in heavy armor'
Above isn't directed at you Moonrunner, I just saw Time Stop and the post came to me, and I thought it was worth putting here.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is there anything high level fighters shouldn't be able to do? It seems like vague suggestions at the moment, how about some more concrete proposals?
Well, I'm hugely in favor of buffing martials, so take what I read with a grain of salt.
I get pushback on two major things.
First, that high-level martials should be able to do physical actions of the sort you'd see done with wires (if not outright CGI) in an action film.
Second, that martials should be able to take actions (other than killing important NPCs) that have narrative effect on the story -- for example, that make the GM go "um, I didn't plan for this, so can we break early and pick it up next week?"
For example:
* teleporting Frodo (and the ring) to the Crack of Doom
* dominating Saruman so that he "agrees" to help Gondor at the Battle of of the Pelennor Fields.
* binding a servant of Eru Illúvatar and getting Him simply to blink the Ring out of existence
* causing a natural disaster like an earthquake or tsunami to destroy the army of orcs massing on the far side of Anduin, thus preventing Sauron from invading Gondor at all.
Of course, fighters can't do any of those things..... but wizards have spells for any of them. And, yes, we can analyze any of those cases to death and argue about how it should or shouldn't have been an option and how it would or wouldn't have worked... but that's Gandalf and Galadriel discussing which of their options are the best. That's not something that Aragorn and Boromir would be able even to consider.
I do wonder how much this problem could be helped if someone were to design classes or archetypes of existing classes specifically to allow concepts to exist in game styles they are not actually well-suited for.
So for example we could have dedicated arcane and divine (maybe psychic) casters whose powers and spell list are appropriate for a grittier and less magical world, and also full-BAB d10 HD non-spellcasting classes who can do clearly supernatural things that can keep up with traditional spellcasters at high levels in a more fantastic sort of world.
So instead of having quadratic wizards and linear fighters, you could introduce fighters who are quadratic to keep pace with the wizards and wizards who are linear who don't run away from the fighters.
That way, if you want to keep the game relatively even for all the players you can just say "this is a high fantasy game that will go far afield, feel free to play your level 1 Gilgamesh who can grow into someone who can punch a hole in time and jump over mountains", or you can say "this is a lower magic setting, please play these versions of the wizard, cleric, etc. instead."
That way everybody can have the game they want.
Yes, martials should have powers but based on their physicality -- their accrued plot essence. Martial urination should have powers analogous to spells but of course they should only be allowed to urinate a certain amount in a certain time period. Also, martial defecation, vomiting, hair cutting, and fingernail clipping could provide magical items suitable to their situation. This would provide needed game balance at upper levels.
Orfamay - to be clear, is the anything you think Wizards can do that Fighter's shouldn't be able to do?
So for example we could have dedicated arcane and divine (maybe psychic) casters whose powers and spell list are appropriate for a grittier and less magical worldWould you interpret 4th Edition D&D as an attempt at this method? It certainly felt far more linear to me than 3E [Naturally there are different ways to make the attempt.]
I think 4e tried this and was largely successful in redesigning the magic system (though there were some really unbalanced things in that game that were grating due to the overall emphasis on balance, ironically one of them was a fighter.) My problem with that game has always been with how irredeemably board-gamey it is. I don't think "push/pull/shift/etc." should be a necessary component of your ruleset because I feel like the game should support those who don't want to play it with a grid and minatures.
So if we want "low level is gritty, and high level as gonzo" to be the default way to play Pathfinder, could we just fix it with a full-BAB d10 HD no-spellcasting fighting guy who gets suitably gonzo with class features at higher levels?
You probably can't turn the fighter into this with feats, since feats are available to everybody, but maybe something like vigilante talents that are generally strictly superior to feats?
So for example we could have dedicated arcane and divine (maybe psychic) casters whose powers and spell list are appropriate for a grittier and less magical worldWould you interpret 4th Edition D&D as an attempt at this method? It certainly felt far more linear to me than 3E [Naturally there are different ways to make the attempt.]
I wouldn't. It is certainly more linear, but there was nothing "grittier and less magical" about caster abilities in fourth edition. Instead, "they" seemed to go the other way, and simply passed out highly unrealistic abilities like candy to the martials (for example, the ability to "shout hands back on" through sheer leadership qualities, something that I'm sure every hospital administrator wishes she had).
I mean, I hate to keep harping on this, but "powers and spell list [that] are appropriate for a grittier and less magical world" is exactly what E6 gives you, compared to vanilla D&D. A lot of the more over-the-top spells could be reflavored to make them darker/grittier -- for example, the 1d6/level fireball could instead become a 1d6/level ball of antilife energy, or a 1d6/level ball of tortuous miasma that shrivels the soul of those exposed to it, or simply a 1d6/level cloud of corrosive, poisonous gas.
Indeed, there are very few spells that couldn't simply be reflavored as a pantheistic world where there are spirits of everything and everywhere, and if you want to fly you're simply demanding that an air spirit grab you by the ankles and carry you where you want to go. [That's more or less the approach taken by Legend of the Five Rings in a more Japanese-expy flavor.)
Orfamay - to be clear, is the anything you think Wizards can do that Fighter's shouldn't be able to do?
Certainly. For example, over-the-top feats of strength (piling Ossa upon Pelion to reach the heighs of Olympus) are probably best reserved for the martials. I wouldn't expect mages to be able to carry the sky on their shoulders. And anything cool that wizards do should deplete their magical reserves, so even if they were able to cast a spell and raise a ship over their heads, they'd need to put it down again shortly as the spell ran out.
I'm also perfectly fine with infinitely-leveled wizards and infinitely-leveled fighters being indistinguishable, but wizards get some things earlier, but some things later. We already see this, for example -- an infinity-level wizard has exactly the same BAB and saves as an infinity-level fighter, but until that point, the wizard typically has lousy Fort saves and attack bonuses by comparison. I'm perfectly fine with it being much harder (meaning, requiring a much higher level) for a fighter to move thousands of miles in an instant (while a wizard can do it at 9th level with teleport), but it wouldn't be an unreasonable capstone for a Dex fighter who has been focusing on mobility for twenty levels.
There really isn't anything I'm uncomfortable with Martials learning, if you read the second post in my link you'd see the valkyrie gains a dorm of summonong at level 17 [and breath of life]So, your solutions is to make everyone a 'caster'?
Can a high level martial obtain a wish ability?
Heh, When I said not really anything I was excludong multispells.
But sure, Alladin might Bond to a Djinn and gain limited acces to Wish.
So, why not give all martials a SLA at each even level. They can select one spell at level/2 (or lower) for that SLA, from any spell list, and use it anywhere from once/day to CHA bonus/day.
Would that about cover it?
Make it an (Ex) ability and it would better fit the theme. It also gives an advantage to martials (the ability can't be dispelled, still works in an AMF, etc), and also reflects the fact that the reason Conan's mind can't be read isn't because he's doing wierd gestures and incantations to pseudocast mind blank, but just because his will is so strong it renders his mind immune to divinations.
The real problem is flavor. Mind blank makes sense and is easy to justify. Exactly what Conan does to produce a fireball-like effect is a little odder. Incendiary bomb, maybe? That he's throwing 800 feet? Well, he's Conan..... But then we get to "shout the dead back to life" and things are really screwy.
For example:
* teleporting Frodo (and the ring) to the Crack of Doom
* dominating Saruman so that he "agrees" to help Gondor at the Battle of of the Pelennor Fields.* causing a natural disaster like an earthquake or tsunami to destroy the army of orcs massing on the far side of Anduin, thus preventing Sauron from invading Gondor at all.
Of course, fighters can't do any of those things..... but wizards have spells for any of them. And, yes, we can analyze any of those cases to death and argue about how it should or shouldn't have been an option and how it would or wouldn't have worked... but that's Gandalf and Galadriel discussing which of their options are the best. That's not something that Aragorn and Boromir would be able even to consider.
Couldnt be done.
Maybe.Saurons darkness, Sarurmans blizzard.
Defeating Sauron by chopping his finger off: Pure marital. Gandalf and the rest of the Five Wizards with Elrond and Galadrial helping couldnt have done that.
Orfamay - to be clear, is the anything you think Wizards can do that Fighter's shouldn't be able to do?Certainly. For example, over-the-top feats of strength (piling Ossa upon Pelion to reach the heighs of Olympus) are probably best reserved for the martials. I wouldn't expect mages to be able to carry the sky on their shoulders. And anything cool that wizards do should deplete their magical reserves, so even if they were able to cast a spell and raise a ship over their heads, they'd need to put it down again shortly as the spell ran out.
I'm also perfectly fine with infinitely-leveled wizards and infinitely-leveled fighters being indistinguishable, but wizards get some things earlier, but some things later. We already see this, for example -- an infinity-level wizard has exactly the same BAB and saves as an infinity-level fighter, but until that point, the wizard typically has lousy Fort saves and attack bonuses by comparison. I'm perfectly fine with it being much harder (meaning, requiring a much higher level) for a fighter to move thousands of miles in an instant (while a wizard can do it at 9th level with teleport), but it wouldn't be an unreasonable capstone for a Dex fighter who has been focusing on mobility for twenty levels.
Sorry I don't think I've made myself clear. Youve answered the opposite question.
I'm asking if there is any ability a wizard has... shapechange, plane shift etc, that you don't think a single class fighter should have access to?
If you have the time, can you list a couple of examples of what you're talking about? Are these tricks and abilities beyond what high level martials get in Pathfinder?My personal flavor of high-level martial, mentioned above, is some of the better armored bosses from the Dark Souls games if you've ever played them. If not, look up some videos of fights with them, Sir Alonne, Sir Raime, Champion Gundyr, Orsntein and Artorias in particular. They still use the cornerstone of martials, bit with additional tricks and abilities that are still distinctly martial. That's what I tend to think of when I think 'high-powered martial'.When people talk about 'buffing martials', what exactly are they suggesting?
I see talk about One punch man, suggesting that letting high level fighters effectively fly and do thousands of HP of damage with one hit is about right...
Is there anything high level fighters shouldn't be able to do? It seems like vague suggestions at the moment, how about some more concrete proposals?
Well, characters like Raime, Ornstein and so on don't technically have that many 'tricks' that aren't already kind of in Pathfidner fluff-wise, it was more their high-damage and health, but they each have some unique stuff. Ornstein can impale players, cause lightning to burst along the spear, throw the player with it, and have them be forced to waste time getting off the ground.
Translated into Patfinder, that could be an epic ability along the lines of make an attack, if successful deal huge damage, then get to throw target 30' and force them prone if they fail a save. Maybe even have them stunned for a few rounds.
Really what I always end up going back to is Paths of War style maneuvers, since while I have ideas differing from them, that is the one system currently easy to view that I can best relay my concept. A lot of the stuff done there is essentially along the lines of what could already be done, except scaled very well for the end-game.
Or bull rush, awesome blow, shocking weapon, lunge.
I watched the Alonne fight and what I saw was dodge, lunge and occassionally a power attack?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So if we want "low level is gritty, and high level as gonzo" to be the default way to play Pathfinder, could we just fix it with a full-BAB d10 HD no-spellcasting fighting guy who gets suitably gonzo with class features at higher levels?
You probably can't turn the fighter into this with feats, since feats are available to everybody, but maybe something like vigilante talents that are generally strictly superior to feats?
That's my thought. Only caveat is that gritty games that only use low levels (eg epic6) won't have a lot of scaling room. You'll have a lower feeling of progression throughout the campaign which I personally would find...annoying. but, other option is make 2 systems.
I mean, at the suggestion that you have high & low fantasy classes (and high & low fantasy enemies) built into the same system, the crb would have to explicitly state which were which so that things can match up nicely.