Condense feat chains so that martials can feasably pursue more than 1 combat style and that solar problem becomes "Fighter wins initiative, full attacks with his bow and gibs the solar"
You will need to condense them really hard for it to be meaningful. Because you need not only to be able to use weapons but also to defend and have utility for out of combat stuff. And you will need to balance it so that instagibbing on a won initiative is not a thing. Because it is just not very fun when the only thing that determines the winner is who goes first.
If the feats were like progression tracks where they grant multiple choices at different BAB/HD it probably could work for fighter in the long run.
So for example Shields and other weapons will have 3 feats each:
Proficiency: Allows the use of the weapon group without penalties and is prerequisite for other feats.
Style: At 1,2,4 and etc. level/BAB you get to chose one option that gives some additional use of the weapon without numerical bonuses - shield bashes, blocking magical attacks, shoving people around and so on.
Mastery: Gives numerical bonuses to a certain weapon group - you get bonuses to all options that you have chosen for your style.
Same could be done for Skills - you must have 1 rank in skill, and then you can get a feat that will allow you to chose additional options for the skill at different ranks. And you also could get a Mastery feat that gives you numerical bonuses.
Fighters with their proficiencies and bonus feats could easily grab multiple styles and masteries. Other classes either will need to work with only proficiencies that they have from the start or will need to spend feats on them.
I was thinking again on the topic of balancing casters vs fighters and it occurred to me that three simple and easy to implement changes would alter the math significantly:
- Remove the +5 limit on magic weapons and armor (this is already gone for those of us who play epic)
- Halve the cost of magic weapons
- Halve the cost of magic armor (not including Bracers of Defense, Rings of Protection, etc..)
One concern is that gives Clerics (and other armored casters) a large boost. If that turns out to be a significant issue, it might be better to halve the cost of magic weapons, but not magic armor.
What are your thoughts?
If your desire is for fighters to be equal to casters in not only combat but all roleplay and the power to shape a game, quite simply, you have to remove 95% of spells from the game. Keep a few very narrow, damage/combat only spells from each list, and allow only skill points and ranks to be factors in or of combat challenges.
The sheer amount of silliness you need to do to make a fighter equal to a wizard... It's far asier to just restrict casters to World of Warcraft rules: no difference out of combat, one uses a sword and the other uses ice balls in combat.
Why play with fighters?
A character in a magical world who does not possess magic from the beginning is poor.
And the balance here will not help.
Why play with fighters?
A character in a magical world who does not possess magic from the beginning is poor.
And the balance here will not help.
Many other RPGs adopt this approach because it does make logical sense. Applying it to Pathfinder would mean Fighter, Rogue, etc. would only have around 6 levels before forcing you into a magic class of some sort. That would make a lot of people really upset, because they want to take their mundane melee warrior all the way to 20.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If your desire is for fighters to be equal to casters in not only combat but all roleplay and the power to shape a game, quite simply, you have to remove 95% of spells from the game. Keep a few very narrow, damage/combat only spells from each list, and allow only skill points and ranks to be factors in or of combat challenges.
The sheer amount of silliness you need to do to make a fighter equal to a wizard... It's far asier to just restrict casters to World of Warcraft rules: no difference out of combat, one uses a sword and the other uses ice balls in combat.
I don't think that you need to remove 95% of the spells from the game, but I do think it's a little strange and slapdash that you can learn to cast a fireball, but you never learned a spell that lets you light a candle, or create a campfire, first. When studying magic, and having schools of magic, and studying how magic works, and how to perfect it, it just seems odd to me that you can summon demons of great power, despite never having learned how to summon a chihuahua first. Granted, forcing spellcasters to learn a low-level version of a spell that generates wind (for example) before they can conjure a tornado limits the spellcaster greatly, but when we're talking about overall balance of martial characters versus spellcasters, it's certainly a valid topic of discussion.
The problem is, though, that you've got players of spellcasters that don't want to be limited in that fashion, and I completely understand that. In order to bring a martial character into something close to resembling parity, even just in terms of combat, you'd have to give them the option to start out with stabbing foes with a dagger, then allow them to make trick shots with a bow (despite never having learned to shoot one), then allow them to be able to decapitate foes with a spoon (despite never having learned exactly where to strike a creature so that their head pops clean off), then give them the option of exploding half a dozen opponents with a flexed bicep and a stern look.
This is why the system has parity issues. Spellcasters don't have to follow any sort of spell progression, save the restriction of spells by level. Martial characters have to grab a feat in order to progress, then grab another feat that builds off of the first feat, or grab a feat that gives them more utility by giving them a different skill or combat option. Spellcasters don't have prerequisite spells to get to the bigger, better versions of those spells. They can just grab whatever spell they like when they get access to more spells. Martial characters just can't keep up with that kind of character flexibility, and that's why your spellcasters are far more versatile than your martials can hope to be.
It's not enough to condense feats into auto-upgrading versions of themselves (that grant new abilities when you reach specific levels). You'd have to do away with the concept of pre-requisites for combat feats (except for level restrictions) for martial characters entirely. Let the fighter take point-blank shot at 1st level, swordplay style at 3rd level, then improved whip mastery at 5th level, and so on. That's the only reasonable way to give your martial characters as much flexibility (at least in terms of combat) and utility as the wizard gets without restricting spellcasting to having prerequisite spells (or at least forcing spells to require spells from the same school and/or subschool and/or having the same descriptor in order to learn a spell of the next spellcasting level). Doing so would force the wizard to take burning hands at 1st level (or some other evocation spell with the fire descriptor), flaming sphere at 3rd level (or some other evocation spell with the fire descriptor), in order to allow them to take fireball at 5th level (an evocation spell with the fire descriptor).
Until you deal with the fact that the spellcaster can grab any spell they want while the martial character is forced to follow a feat progression, you're never going to achieve parity. I would encourage GMs to consider balancing a martial character's feat progression to only require Base Attack Bonus (or character level), and class ability, as the only prerequisites for grabbing a feat as the solution to this issue. Sure, your spellcasters are going to be annoyed that the ranger can grab any feat he likes (provided he's got the class ability it links to, if a class ability is required), but since the oracle can grab any spell in her spell list she likes, I think it's a fair trade-off. All you need to do is grant martial characters a class ability that allows them to ignore feat prerequisites that require you to have another feat in order to select the feat you want.
Best wishes!
I think people underestimate the effect 1 combat feat becoming 2 or 3 would have on martial versatility. Having room for those feats like blind fight/greater and the kinds of feats presented in UI without losing combat capability, or even simply being able to engage at range and melee equally effectively changes the martial dynamic significantly.
You still aren't charming, teleporting, or creating your own demiplane but you likely have the skill and feat support to accomplish most of these things in a mundane fashion.
I feel like the best reason to condense combat feats is that nobody feels excited about having combat expertise, power attack, or point-blank shot. Those are just things you take because you need to have them for what you're doing. There's just no reason that "mastering combat maneuvers" (to the point where you don't provoke doing them) is like 11 feats instead of 2-3. Surely, one's expertise at bull-rushing could be applicable to overrunning as well... those seem similar similar in terms of theory and practice.
I think people underestimate the effect 1 combat feat becoming 2 or 3 would have on martial versatility
Not by much. Many of these 2-3 feats were just one feat in 3.5 and they still were underwhelming. Now if we look at tactical feats that started in Complete Warrior - which were basically PF Style feats condensed into one. Those were actually somewhat useful. And fun to use in the game because they gave you a bunch of options to choose from.
But they still had prerequisites. Though authors actually did try to make them not so crippling.
I don't recall TWF being a single feat that scaled up.
Vital strike is another one thatd be a reasonable 1 feat expenditure
Improved/greater/quick Combat maneuver are downright desireable at 1 feat
Point blank/precise/improved precise and Rapid/manyshot as a single feat does wonders for being able to range/melee
When two feat selections gives you a combat style you can burn feats on skill support or wonky shit like antagonize as a martial. Seriously, next campaign try it, it makes a bigger difference on those non casting martials than you'd think.
|
The Pathfinder system and the standard setting both assume a world where magic is very commonplace. Luckily the system also allows any character to potentially cast any spell, thanks to the existence of wand and scrolls and the like, via the Use Magic Device skill. Some of the perceived shortcomings of the martial classes can be overcome by simply recognizing the type of world the game is set in and investing in UMD.
This isn't suggesting that round-shaped Fighters need to be stuffed into a square-shaped Wizard hole, but building a character that completely refuses to utilize magic and then complaining about it is a bit like building a Wizard that refuses to prepare anything but fire-based spells and then complaining that he doesn't stack up in comparison to other spellcasters.
Of course, in many situations it'll be better for the Fighter to have magic cast for them by the party magic chaps - after all, it's what they're there for. In some situations, though, that's impossible - such as with spells which have a range of 'personal'. In this sort of situation it behooves a Fighter to have invested in UMD. Many spells with a range of 'personal' are, when you look at them, pretty terrible choices for squishy Wizard types, but pretty good choices for front-line clankies: from the humble shield (for Fighters who aren't sword 'n' boarding) and mirror image (much more useful for the chap charging in first than for the guy hiding at the back behind as much cover as he can find hoping he won't get targeted) to the game-changing anti-magic field.
If we look at anti-magic field we see that, at caster level 11, it'll take a DC 31 UMD check to cast it from a scroll. A similarly level 11 Fighter with 11 ranks in UMD who has taken the Magical Aptitude and Skill Focus (UMD) Feats will have a +21 to his check - making the roll on a 10 (he'll also need a separate DC 31 UMD check to simulate the needed Int 16 if he's not got it). Not too difficult, and the spell stays up for just ten minutes shy of two hours. Now, anti-magic field is often a very situational or 'spell of last resort' move for spellcasting types, but for a Fighter - who gets a great deal of his combat potential from non-magical means - it can level the playing field greatly. The spell will prevent the vast majority of the things Fighter types have problems facing, and cripple a lot of the magic-heavy opponents you start to face at mid to high levels as the Fighter runs up to smash their food-holes in.
Of course, no spell should be an all-purpose fix to everything, and anti-magic field is no exception. The Fighter needs to be built well enough to be competent without all his own Ability Score boosting items and the like functioning, and the party he's in needs to co-ordinate well enough so that he's not shutting down everything his own casters are trying to do. Magic can still effect the world around the Fighter with nasty results not blocked by the spell (dropping rocks on him, or whatever), and many more things besides, but it's one example of how there's already 'fixes' for some of the perceived problems in place in the system.
Now, some will complain about the idea of a Fighter type spending Feats and Skill Points on UMD - particularly those with very tight, Feat-intensive, specific builds in mind... but that's the trade-off: if you're not willing to spend resources to cover your character's deficiencies, then you're going to have to take the limitations that choice brings.
Anyway, YMMV...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Again, Potts, kryptonite problem. If the only solution to level the playing field is to blow over a thousand gold on a spell that says, "Now you can't play," something has gone very, VERY wrong.
As an object that exists in the game, an Antimagic Field is a terrible idea, particularly since so much of the game is balanced around a presupposition of ubiquitous magic items. You literally break the math of the game when you shut off magic.
More importantly, the game presents a sword-wielding warrior who approaches problems by being a sword-wielding warrior as an equally viable heroic adventurer as the spell-slinging Wizard.
Needing a very specific skill to get off a very specific spell in order to counter the mage and be relevant again is counter to the image of a sword-wielding warrior.
And that's part of the thing. A lot of the things it takes to make the warrior even momentarily viable are counter to image, or require really weird fighting styles. The things that make mages amazing are in-line with mage image.
|
I still say the best way to stylize the Fighter (other than playing the concept with a different class) is to have the casters buff them. Teamwork makes the dreamwork, man.
But failing that? If full casters are dragging the ge down, consider a shoft in their functionality. What if 9th level casters were replaced with Kineticists? Give them less of a swiss army knife feel and more of a blaster dynamic that you see in some JRPGs.
Consider it. Burn could represent magic taking a physical tax on those who overuse it. Con based DCs and abilities could be replaced with a mental stat in order to ensure that the wizardly folk can't pile on the HP so easily. Elemental Overflow can also give mental bonuses. Heck, the Kineticist has so many elements and archetypes that you can capture the theme of most other caster classes just fine.
This is hardly a perfect fix, and I still say it's better to just embrace the game's imbalances, but this might help some groups. I gotta admit, homebrewing fixes can be a lot of fun.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem goes beyond this, in that skills aren't very good at actually doing anything.
For example, once your Heal skill is at +10, you are literally as good a doctor as it is possible to be, barring specific diseases and poisons with higher DCs, or torture, a subject most people don't care about when taking a skill titled "Heal." You can take 10 to hit the highest extent DC of 20, and any more points in that skill don't actually make you any better at treating wounds.
No matter how good your Heal skill, you're worse at treating wounds than a low-level wand, and only get minor corner case abilities after reaching a pretty low bar.
Or the Climb skill. There are DCs up to 35, if you're climbing upside down along a slippery ceiling, but even if you put twenty ranks in Climb and have all manner of bonuses beside, it's worse than a simple Spider Climb spell. What's the point?
Skills just aren't very good at doing things, even when you are nominally very good at them, especially when put next to low level spells.
|
|
As Rosc says, teamwork is the basic answer (often the most effective use of a spell-slot is something to allow the martial characters to do their thing), but if this perceived lack of balance is rearing its ugly head at your gaming table (and not just as a theorycraft exercise) then we have to assume that's lacking somewhat in your group.
Like Omnius points out, many skills effectively 'top out' at quite low levels, due to relatively low target DCs, so Fighter types heading into the higher levels should be able to invest in UMD without problems, unless they're belligerently against doing so on principle or something. If you're worried about losing out to the spell-chuckers at high levels then that's when you'd invest in the Feats too. But UMD's a pretty handy skill even if you can only reliably hit a DC 20 and use wands - anti-magic field is a possible tactic if you really want to level the playing field, but it's not your only option by far (you can, essentially, play with any spell you want with a few gold and a good UMD skill).
Remember - the game system has know way of knowing how you'll choose to build your characters, but its stated base assumption is that any character, at any given level, will have around 15% of their wealth-by-level invested in 'disposable' magic items - like wands, scrolls and potions. If you choose, by accident or design, to render your characters incapable of using any but the weakest and least powerful of those items then that's on you, not the system.
I'm not trying to claim that the classes are balanced at all levels - they're not, and were never meant to be. It was really obvious back in the day when your 'Magic-User' got one first level spell to cast at level one, period, and no way of boosting that spell's effectiveness, no 'school powers', no cantrips, no Skill points, and no Feats. In those days low-level spell-chuckers generally ended up holding the torches and hiding while they prayed to whatever gaming gods would listen that they'd survive long enough to leech enough XP from the party so that they could get to a level where they could finally contribute. The situation was reversed at high level, where the Fighters were carting around wagon-loads of magical longswords (because no-one else in the party could use them, they couldn't be sold, and magic items couldn't be brought or crafted, only found), praying to those same gaming gods for something that would let them fly, or breathe underwater, or last at least one gaming session without being turned into the mind-controlled prank monkey of the bad guy of the week...
... Luckily the game's moved on from there. Low-level casters have stuff to do to make them feel like they're helping, whilst high-level martials have access to whatever magic they need. Low-level casters are still, essentially, pointless to a group of martials (at low levels a martial character can roll over the encounters in the first couple of books of an adventure path without breaking a sweat), start to become important in the mid-levels (due to an increase in weird abilities used by the bad guys) and the situation gets reversed at high levels (where martials are just as unnecessary to completing most adventures as the casters were at low level, but - like the low-level casters - at least can now still contribute something). It's the same basic design philosophy, but with the sharper edges filed off.
So, mostly, the perceived problems of any class imbalance will come from players being jerks: high-level Wizards can stop the martial players from having fun by shutting down all encounters with SoS spells, just as low-level Fighters can stop the casters from having fun by killing all the bad guys before the caster's turn, or punching the charmed ogre in the face.
As always, YMMV...
How is the low level Fighter going to kill all the bad guys before the caster's turn? For one, casters generally have better initiative, and less to worry about so they can boost initiative more easily. More importantly though, Fighters don't have much in the way of AoE.
Low level casters can max out a Color Spray or a Burning Hands to be able to incapacitate/annihilate multiple enemies in a single move. A low level Fighter might be able to attack one opponent, but he can't really do much more than that. Maybe if he grabbed Rapid Shot he could attack twice with a bow, but then it's unlikely that he's killing his targets with one arrow shot a piece.
By the time a Fighter could afford to grab something like Whirlwind Strike, the wizard has already moved on to bigger and more powerful spells, like Fireball or Black Tentacles. If the Wizard is played to their potential, there's never really a level where the Fighter can be considered above them.
|
How is the low level Fighter going to kill all the bad guys before the caster's turn? For one, casters generally have better initiative, and less to worry about so they can boost initiative more easily. More importantly though, Fighters don't have much in the way of AoE.
Low level casters can max out a Color Spray or a Burning Hands to be able to incapacitate/annihilate multiple enemies in a single move. A low level Fighter might be able to attack one opponent, but he can't really do much more than that. Maybe if he grabbed Rapid Shot he could attack twice with a bow, but then it's unlikely that he's killing his targets with one arrow shot a piece.
By the time a Fighter could afford to grab something like Whirlwind Strike, the wizard has already moved on to bigger and more powerful spells, like Fireball or Black Tentacles. If the Wizard is played to their potential, there's never really a level where the Fighter can be considered above them.
Combat Reflexes and a reach weapon are the best source of AoE damage for martials, especially against mindless/low int opponents who will just charge.
Casters do not generally have better initiative than fighters nor anywhere near the options available to boost initiative.
Also if you're building to whirlwind attack you can have it by level 4, not that whirlwind attack is a good feat choice.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But UMD's a pretty handy skill even if you can only reliably hit a DC 20 and use wands
A Level 10 Fighter with a Charisma of 7 and 10 ranks can hit DC 20 45% of the time. He's an inadequate in-combat wand user (and out of combat, he's probably better off getting an ally to use the wand for him), and all it cost him is half his skill points.
How much does he have to invest to actually be competent?
Design Manager
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Casters do not generally have better initiative than fighters nor anywhere near the options available to boost initiative.
Uhm, I would disagree. Martials need feats to do all their stuff, while there's no feat a caster needs, so I see Improved Initiative on casters way more often. Plus, wizards and sorcerers in particular rarely have must-have stats outside of their casting stat, so Dex is usually a strong stat for them. Then you look at all the spells that can boost initiative- alter self, anticipate peril, cat's grace, elemental body, heightened awareness, battlemind link, beast shape, embrace destiny, eaglesoul, fey form, storm sight, vermin shape, magical beast shape, hunter's blessing, form of the alien dragon, etc., not to mention class features like the Divination arcane school's Forewarned ability, the Tactics subdomain's Seize the Initiative, the inquisitor's Cunning Initiative, Grant the Initiative from the Tactics Inquisition, the initiative bonus from the Dreamspun Bloodline.... I mean, I could go on for a really long time, but long story short, casters have so many ways to pump their initiative it's not even funny, and it pretty much always requires significantly less resource than a martial needs to spend for similar results, assuming they even can get remotely close to the same initiative numbers a caster can reach (very unlikely without some archetype stacking, multiclassing, and a significant investment of resources that have to be redirected from more impactful functions).
|
Design Manager
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Don't forget an easy +4 from a familiar!
I'd also point out that most casters can also use the Improved Initiative combat trick, and not that much farther behind the martials. Not having "must-have" feats means that they can pick up Improved Initiative and Combat Stamina about as easily as any martial class; arguably easier, but Combat Stamina is a combat feat so it falls under the fighter's bonus feats, meaning that it's much more realistic to claim he has an advantage with CS than feats like Iron Will. Getting bonus crafting feats and/or (again) just not having must-haves also means that they typically can afford to craft their own wondrous items, meaning they'll have access to belts cheaper and higher modifiers faster. Combine all that with the fact that CON is the go-to secondary or tertiary stat for most casters and there's no reason even a wizard couldn't use the Improved Initiative combat trick once every 10 minutes by 8th level. So an 8th level diviner wizard, for example, could easily be looking at +4 (familiar) + 4 Improved Initiative + 3 Dex (assuming CON is the focus for a stamina pool and thus what we're using a belt for) + 4 (forewarned class feature) + 2 cat's grace + 4 heightened awareness + 2 trait, for a walking around initiative score of +23 and the option to treat his initiative roll as a 20 once every 10 minutes, and the vast majority of that benefit is from stuff he would just naturally want to take and be using anyways. Said wizard doesn't even really need to be taking combat stamina since his average rolls will still be equivalent to or greater than a fighter actively burning massive amounts of his only resource other than hit points just to try and compete with the wizard's walking around benefits.
I think an important factor to note is that beginning martial characters often emphasize using Strength to hit and to inflict damage, and so may have less emphasis on Dexterity. But, they can use a feat to improve their initiative. The spellcaster has less imperative to go first in combat, as they're likely going to hang back away from the front line.
Sure, they can also take a feat that improves their initiative, but as has been stated before, they don't have such an imperative to grab a feat to enhance their spellcasting, while martials do have an imperative to grab feats that enhance their combat abilities. Better spells have naturally higher DCs to resist, and natural damage enhancement (if you're just looking at to-hit and damage spell effects) without the spellcaster having to use feats to improve their chances to hit and the amount of damage that they do.
This creates conditions under which martials must use feats to improve their combat effectiveness, while spellcasters may use feats to improve their combat effectiveness. This is just one other area where spellcasters have the advantage.
But, the real advantage is in utility, not combat effectiveness, and that's where martial characters suffer from pretty severe handicaps by comparison.
Best wishes!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think an important factor to note is that beginning martial characters often emphasize using Strength to hit and to inflict damage, and so may have less emphasis on Dexterity. But, they can use a feat to improve their initiative. The spellcaster has less imperative to go first in combat, as they're likely going to hang back away from the front line.
Going first does so much more for a caster than a martial. Being able to buff or throw out Crowd Control prior to enemies reacting in a fight is a huge benefit that in the higher levels is referred to as "Rocket Tag."
Saying that a spellcaster doesn't have a greater imperative than the martials to go first to buff their party members and/or control the battlefield is outright false.
*EDIT* Fixed the terminology used to avoid confusion.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Incentives for the caster to act first :
Buff your friends before they attack
Debuff opponents before they attack
Ready a spell before the opponents act
Cast your spell before the opponents get in threatening range
Not being flat-footed when the enemy Rogue attack you
Cast your spell before the opponents ready to attack you as soon as you start casting
And I am pretty sure that I forgot some
I think an important factor to note is that beginning martial characters often emphasize using Strength to hit and to inflict damage, and so may have less emphasis on Dexterity. But, they can use a feat to improve their initiative. The spellcaster has less imperative to go first in combat, as they're likely going to hang back away from the front line.Going first does so much more for a caster than a martial. Being able to buff or throw out Crowd Control prior to enemies reacting in a fight is a huge benefit that in the higher levels is referred to as "Rocket Tag."
Saying that a spellcaster doesn't have a greater imperative than the martials to go first to buff their party members and/or control the battlefield is outright false.
*EDIT* Fixed the terminology used to avoid confusion.
A lot of the buffing can be done before combat (unless one is surprised), as buff spells often have decent enough duration that they can be cast in advance. This gives less of an imperative for the spellcaster to go first within combat. Granted, this is a subjective matter, as it depends on whether or not the spellcaster can pre-buff the martials, but it isn't outright false.
Going first for a spellcaster isn't explicitly more important, even with battlefield control spells, but that does highlight yet another disparity in utility within combat... the fact that if the spellcaster goes first, the martial can "mop up" what the spellcaster doesn't manage to deal with. If this creates an imperative for the spellcaster to act first, it is just one more example of how the spellcaster is better than the martial character at doing what the martial character is supposedly specialised to do.
Best wishes!
Incentives for the caster to act first :
Buff your friends before they attack
Debuff opponents before they attack
Ready a spell before the opponents act
Cast your spell before the opponents get in threatening range
Not being flat-footed when the enemy Rogue attack you
Cast your spell before the opponents ready to attack you as soon as you start castingAnd I am pretty sure that I forgot some
Incentives for the martial to act first:
Reduce your opponent's hit points to 0 (or below).
Use a Combat Maneuver to handicap opponents before they attack.
Ready an action before the opponents act.
Attack with a ranged weapon before the opponents get in threatening range.
Not being flat-footed when the enemy Rogue attacks you.
Make your attack before the opponents ready to attack you begin their attacks.
Your list isn't exclusive to spellcasters, good sir.
Best wishes!
Much disappointment is flowing from this thread.
To master the fighter is to understand one must have more knowledge than the wizard.
And one must also take Warrior Spirit.
Probably also Barroom Brawler with Abundant Tactics.
And a Manual of War, the most important 7,500 gp in a fighter's arsenal. After all, fighters aren't illiterate!
One must then understand the propensity of the class is one with virtually limitless options, once those options are opened up.
The fighter is a class with untapped versatility, abundant means to rotate skills for skill purposes, and roundabout ways to be better than the brawler at what the brawler intends to be, though indirectly and with a lot more book work.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Incentives for the caster to act first :
Buff your friends before they attack
Debuff opponents before they attack
Ready a spell before the opponents act
Cast your spell before the opponents get in threatening range
Not being flat-footed when the enemy Rogue attack you
Cast your spell before the opponents ready to attack you as soon as you start castingAnd I am pretty sure that I forgot some
Incentives for the martial to act first:
Reduce your opponent's hit points to 0 (or below).
Use a Combat Maneuver to handicap opponents before they attack.
Ready an action before the opponents act.
Attack with a ranged weapon before the opponents get in threatening range.
Not being flat-footed when the enemy Rogue attacks you.
Make your attack before the opponents ready to attack you begin their attacks.Your list isn't exclusive to spellcasters, good sir.
Best wishes!
1. Not happening unless they are a fully optimized Archer with all buffs included. Which probably requires the spellcaster to go first.
2. Combat Maneuvers scale badly and still require closing the distance to use. For an archer this is basically a non-option.
3. Unless the readied action is against an enemy spellcaster when they cast a spell, that's basically a waste of action economy. Even if it is, I'd only expect an Archer to make proper use of it.
4. Archers make that their schtick, so much so that having melee characters is absolutely pointless.
5. If you're in a position where you get flanked on the first round of combat, I can assure you that a Rogue is the least of your worries.
6. This is kind of the same as the first point, so it's needlessly redundant.
|
|
I think an important factor to note is that beginning martial characters often emphasize using Strength to hit and to inflict damage, and so may have less emphasis on Dexterity. But, they can use a feat to improve their initiative. The spellcaster has less imperative to go first in combat, as they're likely going to hang back away from the front line.Going first does so much more for a caster than a martial. Being able to buff or throw out Crowd Control prior to enemies reacting in a fight is a huge benefit that in the higher levels is referred to as "Rocket Tag."
Saying that a spellcaster doesn't have a greater imperative than the martials to go first to buff their party members and/or control the battlefield is outright false.
*EDIT* Fixed the terminology used to avoid confusion.
A lot of the buffing can be done before combat (unless one is surprised), as buff spells often have decent enough duration that they can be cast in advance. This gives less of an imperative for the spellcaster to go first within combat. Granted, this is a subjective matter, as it depends on whether or not the spellcaster can pre-buff the martials, but it isn't outright false.
Going first for a spellcaster isn't explicitly more important, even with battlefield control spells, but that does highlight yet another disparity in utility within combat... the fact that if the spellcaster goes first, the martial can "mop up" what the spellcaster doesn't manage to deal with. If this creates an imperative for the spellcaster to act first, it is just one more example of how the spellcaster is better than the martial character at doing what the martial character is supposedly specialized to do.
Best wishes!
So with battlefield control and blast spells you are running into issues of friendly fire if you don't go first. Many enchantment spells take penalties if they are already getting hit. It is much harder to buff the party if you're in the middle of the init. and the party is now spread out.
Compare that to a martial where their benefits of going first is that they can get into position or get a hit in before someone else kills it.
1. Not happening unless they are a fully optimized Archer with all buffs included. Which probably requires the spellcaster to go first.
2. Combat Maneuvers scale badly and still require closing the distance to use. For an archer this is basically a non-option.
3. Unless the readied action is against an enemy spellcaster when they cast a spell, that's basically a waste of action economy. Even if it is, I'd only expect an Archer to make proper use of it.
4. Archers make that their schtick, so much so that having melee characters is absolutely pointless.
5. If you're in a position where you get flanked on the first round of combat, I can assure you that a Rogue is the least of your worries.
6. This is kind of the same as the first point, so it's needlessly redundant.
Nothing on your list of items here is explicitly wrong, but as I (and others) have mentioned before, not only is it somewhat subjective (and situationally dependent), but it further highlights how "spellcasters are better at everything", including doing the job of the martial for them... Which I believe is the point of this entire thread.
So, how would you make martials both better at the "making things dead" part that is their primary role, and better at being useful in a variety of situations?
Martials don't need help with the former, and the latter depends on what class you play. For example, an Inquisitor doesn't need help with out-of-combat utility with having a good spell list and ample skills and features that help their abilities.
Compared to a Rogue or Fighter, the Inquisitor is an outright better class than both of them combined.
|
Design Manager
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Incentives for the martial to act first:Reduce your opponent's hit points to 0 (or below).
Considering that going first is generally the worst way to do this, I'd disagree with this point. The best way for a martial to do damage is to perform a full attack, and if they're going first, it's unlikely anyone will be within reach. Going first actually lowers the chances of them taking down an opponent in the first/early round(s) of combat, or even at all in the worst case scenario since it surrenders the early damage advantage to the enemy.
Use a Combat Maneuver to handicap opponents before they attack.
Ready an action before the opponents act.
Attack with a ranged weapon before the opponents get in threatening range.
All more or less reasonable.
Not being flat-footed when the enemy Rogue attacks you.
Dubious benefit. If you're a martial character, your main strengths compared to the casters are likely AC and hit points, so you should be drawing the attacks towards you. If the casters are a more appealing target, not only are you not helping out the team, you're hamstringing yourself in further rounds when the casters aren't able to fulfill their roles as effectively. Even if the casters aren't hampered, this entire benefit is contingent upon facing an enemy who cares that you're flat-footed.
Make your attack before the opponents ready to attack you begin their attacks.
Opposite of a benefit.
Fighter: "Haha sucker! My mighty fighter initiative has allowed me to run up and make a powerful charge attack against you! I'm 10% more likely to connect with this single attack!"Enemy: "Cool. Now I don't have to move and can make a full attack against you. Thank goodness you dumped all those resources into letting me eat you faster."
Also, this is basically the same thing as the first point.