Hi everyone. Things have been raging a few degrees hotter than usual in the general discussion forums for a few days now. I've noticed many of forum regulars who have been around since forever expressing opinions that surprised me about the Caster-Martial disparity in Pathfinder.
Because those threads are so contentious, and only a small portion of them interests me, I want to try an experiment:
This thread is meant to serve as a reference for Pathfinder GMs. It is a storehouse of ideas that they can use to decide whether the Caster-Martial Disparity is going to be trouble for them, and most importantly how to fix it.
Quite a few ground rules, if you'll indulge me:
You see, I'm primarily interested in surveying everyone's ideas, and I get really bored by 1000 posts of picking eachother apart in the details. I think the +1/-1 system will keep this thread clutter-free. I'm interested to see if it works, so I'll ask that if you MUST discuss something at length, make a spinoff thread. Thanks!
(all of the above rules apply to me as well, and I am already suppressing the urge to comment!)
{Also, thanks in advance! I don't want to clutter the thread with my thanks — but it is always noble to provide reference for other GMs, so thank you!}
Okay. I believe that there is a disparity at a certain level, not so much in combat as out of combat. At high levels, casters dominate a lot of the play and though martial types may not feel like sidekicks, they'll still be the ones who "clean up" after the wizards to some degree. Worse of than in-combat though, is the out of combat effects. Skills lose value due to spells; sure, a stealthy invisible guy is more stealthy than a regular invisible guy, but when you have Spider Climb there's no reason to put points into climb anymore and with Locate Creature and Purify Food & Water survival loses it's main features.
At lower levels, I don't think this is an issue since the number of utility spells per day a wizard can prepare is very limited, but at higher levels they can just get scrolls, wands, and have a lot of more slots for 2nd level spells that they don't need to survive.
I think some of it can be determined by playstyle. Having heavy item destruction/removal in games seem to nerf the wizard the most, clerics and druids somewhat, martial types a little bit, and not at all the sorcerer. It's usually easier for the fighter to get a new sword in the middle of the campaign than for the wizard to get a new bonded item or spellbook.
I mostly play at lower levels so it isn't a big issue for my groups, but if I were to do something I'd specialize the casters more. The issue isn't that they have too high power IMO, but that they at high levels are too versatile. That's why the sorcerer is far less of an issue than the wizard. Bringing back banned schools as well as increasing spell level of certain spells for casters not of that school (I'm testing rewriting the wizard now, I'll post an example later on) so that for example, Fly would be a 4th level spell for non-transmuters, means that spellcasters can't usually do EVERYTHING which is something good.
Problems:
Fix 1: I've redone the basic combat movement chassis. Half move + full attack is OK. Casting allows a 5-ft. step only. Also, a character can "hold" movement and/or attacks for use as immediate actions later in the round.
Fix 2: I've given martial characters better tools. For example:
Cute thread. I'd been ducking out of a lot of those raging and only chiming in a bit after they've turned into a warzone, props and candy to you, Sir.
First off I haven't seen TOO much disparity between the two during encounters in that both are often more than adequate in combat, and thus I don't bother looking, which is to say that I've not noticed any martials lagging behind in my personal experiences. But I recognize some key differences which favor casters in theory, especially at higher levels:
1. Casters full potency often comes from a standard action, thus facilitating a move with ease, while a martial character's power drops significantly in a round if he needs to move, as he would no longer get a full attack in melee. This seems only to be a problem at higher levels, obviously, since before a BAB of +6, there is little difference if a fighter needs to move or not. I feel with a stronger buff for ranged combat and the extra feats to facilitate it (allowing more martials to pull quick draw and some of the archery tree even if it is not his focus) PF made great strides towards closing the gap. However when a caster picks up Quicken Spell with the slots to use it on a regular basis, he in effect gets his full potency twice in one round, even if he moves, while a fighter is at full or less in power depending on whether or not he moves.
A fix? Perhaps increasing casting time to a full round, or allowing quicker casting as a standard action should the caster accept a penalty to the save DC.
2. Casters have more options than martial characters, in combat and out. A caster has a large supply of spells at their disposal. They can do many things in addition to damage in combat (battlefield control, buff, debuff, summoning, divinations, ect) where as a martial character is usually limited to his damage and perhaps a small handful of tricks (trip, disarm, ect) which in taking an action to do, remove his ability to quickly advance through the battle - for example a mage who chooses to cast stinking cloud hasn't done damage to the opponent, but may well have made them lose anyways, a fighter who disarms has weakened his opponent mechanically, but hasn't "ended the fight". Skills, even with the greater number and ability to crossclass effectively in PF don't come close to an interchangable spell list.
A fix? As opposed to giving martials more options, what if we limited the options of the casters? Perhaps a wizard will only know 2 schools from which he can cast at all and opens up more through level progression, but never the highest levels. I brought up this idea briefly in "worst thing about PF" thread. This will limit his versitility and give him a narrower focus, like many martial characters.
3. Non-Casters are more heavily dependent on wealth. They need items to boost multiple statistics to be optimal (which isn't to say they can't do fine without them, but they are dependent on more stats than primary casters) as well as AC and Damage boosting items. A wizard can spend a great deal more wealth on items that add to their already larger versitility, like a handful (or bag of holding full) of scrolls.
A fix? Grant all characters bonuses based on level (I already do), and do away with statistic boosting items, enhancement bonuses to armor class, and so on. A fighter is then free to spend more of his wealth on gear which provides him more combat and out of combat versility as well as more exciting items than a Ring of Deflection +____. Wizards enjoy this as well as they will have a better AC using my system and don't need to always be taking Craft feats to make sure they can get "staple" items. My Chart.
A fix? Grant all characters bonuses based on level (I already do), and do away with statistic boosting items, enhancement bonuses to armor class, and so on.
+1
The core problem is that casters alter the laws of physics and possibility. Martial characters simply cannot, unless they have some access to "magic" (this of course being defined as something that alters the laws of physics and possibility).
When one class is bound by reality and the other is not, that is the core of the imbalance.
I know part of the idea is to post solutions, but, frankly, I don't think solutions are needed. I've never played in a group that is all casters, even though they are generally acknowledged by the people I play with as "more powerful."
It makes logical sense that high level wizards are more powerful than high level warriors. It would be strange if a guy with a sword could somehow stand on even footing with a guy with nearly limitless cosmic power. It's just the reality of the situation in Fantasy.
Also, part of the "balance" of playing a caster is that it (almost always) requires a good deal more work on the player's part from a mechanical standpoint. Many people refuse to play casters, despite acknowledging their statistical advantage, because of the effort involved. That, to me at least, is a serious factor in balance. You get to be more powerful, but you have to put in more time, effort, and work for it IRL. (And to add to that point, you only end up WAY more powerful as a caster if you truly study the game and understand how to choose spells, arrange your character to maximum effect, understand how to "game the game" because of all the time you've put into it...otherwise you just pick Fireball and Cone of Cold and play combats like you're in a summer blockbuster movie....which is fine, and fun, and more balanced with what your party's warrior will be doing)
If your idea of the problem is that Melee folks need magic weapons to fight, and have to have Flight (which is magical) to compete and all that and therefore "magic always wins".. Then you need to find a new game.
Not being snarky or a jerk- just honest. D&D has always been and shall always be about finding the next new shiny. That shiny begets the next shiny, and so on. The shinys allow you to combat better things that lead to the next shiny, and so on. If that isn't for you- then neither is D&D. The entire CR system is balanced around it to some extent or another and you can't get away from it. Even if you shoe-horn some massive rules changes you still end up with.. flying fighters using "inborn" powers to emulate magical effects.. so you are just twisting your pretzel into a different shape and trying not to call it a pretzel.
That being said- I do believe that Wizards and Clerics can have the potential to share more than their deserving part of the lime light when it comes to out-of-combat scenarios. This has always been solved- and by always I mean in 100% of the groups I've ever been in- by having the *whole group* get engaged in solving any given problem. Sure, it may be that the cleric cast Enlarge Person and the wizard cast Spider Climb but the group as a whole came up with the strategy.. its just that those two individuals happened to have the "skill" necessary to accomplish it. It is no different than the group deciding to kick down a door and have the barbarian do it, or to have a hallway scouted out and to ask the rogue to do it. As long as the group is working together- which cog in the machine actually does the spinning is irrelevant. It then just comes on the DM to make sure that enough things happen that all the cogs get a chance to spin occasionally.
In combat things are a bit different. I've seen a few posts (more than a few actually) that claim the Melee are just there as side kicks- to clean up after the primary casters in battle. Nothing could be further than the truth.
See- if that were true then it would mean that the primary caster could wipe the field and simply chooses not to. That isn't usually the case. With the party properly working in tandem both parts get to do their thing.. and survive. a crowd controller without someone to kill the mob does nothing but piss off a crowd- and quickly too. Likewise, the barbarian or fighter against a small horde of critters won't likely get far without that controller to lay down some slowing effects. By combining their efforts they are both able to accomplish what neither could effectively do alone- and they do so while consuming a great deal fewer resources than either would if they did try to do it alone even assuming they could. (the melee by expending fewer HP, the casters by expending fewer spells and potentially fewer HP). This lets them continue on instead of having to have a 15 minute adventuring day.
If the wizard starts to get a big head and rattle off about being the "king cog" in the machine.. just let a gobbie or orc or whatever slip through occasionally to remind him that your job is just as important as his. :)
Most of the "problems" are all theoretical anyway. In no game I have ever been in has their been a major power discrepancy. Melee and Casters work in concert to overcome their objectives and everyone gets their time in the lime light. What that time is depends largely on the character build, but everyone gets their moment.
-S
|
I can agree that there is a possible disparity between the the two. Martial classes do seem to have fewer options compared to caster classes. The problem arises with playstyles, and this is the only place where these disparities occur. If you have a player running a martial character who optimizes his build, min-maxes his character, and fully understands every facet of the games mechanics, then he'll outshine the player that built a gnome caster that's designed to be funny for the helluvit.
Problem: Martial characters don't have versatile blaster capability that higher level casters do. This causes a seemingly unaviodable power gap between the two. Melee may be able to dish out massive physical damage, and other typed dependent on gear, but are slighted by things like movement, certain types of DR, etc.
To consider: Their BAB and ability to armor themselves may be a balancing factor, but again it takes knowing the system intricately for most people to balance this with what casters can do with defense buffs. Also, isn't that pretty much the job of casters? To buff their other party members so they actually have a group role?
Solution: Give Martial characters more abilities that are on-par with caster classes that can hopefully balance out this disparity we're encountering.
Problem with solution: This isn't 4E...not everyone's a caster....
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Evil Lincoln +1 for the structured thread!
.
Define the caster/hitter problem:
At levels 11-20 dedicated spellcasters have abilities that can overshadow the other characters.
First, I use the term "dedicated spellcasters" very deliberately. Wizards, Witches, Clerics, Druids, and to a lesser extent Sorcerers & Oracles are dedicated casters, and that's who we're talking about. "1/2-casters" such as Bards, Paladins, Rangers, multi-classed casters, and even prestige class casters who don't gain full casting abilities don't overshadow the Fighters, Barbarians, and Rogues.
Levels 1-4 are dominated by hitters.
Casters don't have enough spells to last more than a fight or two. Many buff spells that get cast on the hitters are low level, so the most efficient thing a caster can do is buff the hitters rather than take the lead. AC differences between those who can wear armor and those who can't are still very relevant.
At level 5-6 casters catch up.
They gain 3rd level spells, usually 3-4 3rd level spells at once, making their arsenal capable of lasting a full day of adventuring without resorting to melee or wands. Spell durations are long enough to last through entire fights.
Around level 9, casters may start to outshine hitters.
The casters will now have enough 3-5th level spells to last a full day of adventuring, leaving 1-2nd level spells for utility and variety. Having a couple levels to shine isn't really a problem. After all, the hitters got levels 1-4, right?
Starting around level 11, casters have enough 5-6th level spells to last a number of fights, and huge lists of effective magical powers to choose from. It becomes trivial (or at least cheap) for them to teleport, fly, effect large numbers of low-level enemies in a single action, overcome physical obstacles, navigate many social situations, etc. through the use of spells.
At the same level, hitters have not diversified their abilities significantly, and are still generally constrained to choices of move & strike. Their movement is important, but frequently complicated by enemies with flying or reach. Their striking is still an effective method of dealing damage when it can be brought to bear, but they increasingly depend on full round attacks to get the most out of their abilities.
An extremely well built hitter will likely deal 60 damage on a full-round attack, and 25-30 on a standard attack. Monsters have 150-200 hit points, which means 3-8 rounds of combat to kill a beast. A single failed save against a spell will take the same beast out, as a standard action, at range.
So, between having a plethora of non-combat abilities at their disposal and having multiple spells that will end a fight in short order, it's easy for well played casters to steal the spotlight from hitters on a consistent basis. These effects are dependent on build and optimization, of course. A heavily optimized and well played Fighter will outshine a non-optimized and poorly played Wizard at just about any level.
These differentials in ability can have a significant impact on roleplaying as well. It's difficult to play a fighter as a "Powerful warrior, bold and strong!" when both in and out of combat the Wizard and Cleric are actually getting all of the results.
Many solutions have been proposed, some good, some lacking. I'm not fond of solutions that consist primarily of improving hitters until they match the casters. That way lies power-creep, and parties will soon be fighting enemies way above their level, which throws other elements of the game out of balance.
On the other hand, I'm not fond of solutions that fundamentally change the use of magic (e.g. All spells take full-round actions to cast). Those solutions generally penalize many characters which were not over-powered, especially 1/2-casters and low-level casters.
My favorite solution is to eliminate the class/level combinations at the top end of the power curve. Simply require that all dedicated casters must multi-class or take prestige classes that don't offer full spell casting improvement in their primary casting class. This plan must be announced before characters are made, of course, so that players can plan accordingly.
This method takes advantage of multiple simultaneous effects: Not only are maximum spell level and spells per day reduced, but multi-classed characters usually demand a wider variety of attributes, magic items, and feats, diluting the spellcasting focus of the character even further.
I like to play the exact requirements by ear. For non-optimized builds or non-expert players, a simple 3-level dip to qualify for Arcane Archer or Mystic Theurge goes a long way, and a Sorcerer/Dragon disciple may be held back just enough to work. Also, many of the character concepts you'll see people use under these rules will naturally lead them away from chaffing against the extra requirement.
If I had to write a rule for it, I would say:
Dedicated spellcasters must take 3 levels of a class other than their primary spellcasting class by 13th level, and be prepared to take another 3 levels of non-primary class by 20th if necessary.
i definitely feel there is a disparity, i feel this disparity comes from the idea that you need magic to do amazing things and I'm not talking about magic items.
while i don't have a direct laid out fix i have a suggestion.
Except the fact that non casters can do things that push the limits of physics and basic human ability. just because they don't use magic is no reason they cant be a lot better than a human in real life.
|
I'll use an argument people often use AGAINST casters for no reason: fun and non-combat aspects.
In combat, casters and caster hybrids have a myriad of options, deciding how they want to set up the battlefield, how many resources to use, what to do every round.
Also, thanks to an encouragement to keep mental stats at high levels, out of combat they are always the faces, the researchers... the ones who can make a difference.
Most melée, in order to keep up, have to be focused on one trick. Often it is a good trick... they really can keep up with damage If they focus in. But generally, they do one thing, and do it very well... on rare occasions they have a substantially weaker backup plan (switch hitters), but many lack even this.
Also, all melees need to focus on 2 of 3 Str/Dex/Con, with the 3rd being a 12 or 13. This usually results in them dumping Cha and Int for points (Wis feeds will save and Perception, so is usually kept "OK"), resulting in no out-of-combat options. Yes, rogues and rangers can throw skill points at the problem, but they cannot start at terribly high levels without sverely compromising their build.
|
|
To me the problem isn't necessarily scaling up non-casters to the power level and flexibility of casters - the problem is that in the transition from 2nd to 3rd edition many balance points and important factors were dropped or changed. This is a MAJOR ROLLBACK, so I'll expect plenty of hate.
The solution would be two-fold.
Scale casters back (and how some of the DC/d20 system works)
Design non-casters as if they live in a world with magical foes.
I'll post the problem an solution I have implement or considered implementing.
Scaling back on casters:
- Concentration. Nice feature but implemented poorly: I would raise the DC check considerably.
The harder the spell being cast (level, V, S, M) the harder to check. Casting after being hit should only be a product of luck. Hit= Anything disrupting casting, not just damage.
- No drawbacks on spell function (wish, teleport, haste, etc, etc): restore some harsh limitations on casting spells. I wouldn't make it binary live/die but I would increase the drawbacks and introduce some chance of failure/increase neg effects for some of the more powerful spells. Example - Badly failed teleport may do nothing but increased damage and stun for duration.
- Cap spell function by level. Magic Missile has a max number of attacks, and Fireball has a damage cap. Cap spells to their level of power similar to sleep, et al :Charm Person max effect on 6th level npc or creature.
- DC and saving throw system manipulation: Max bonus on spell DCs is +3. Spell focus and greater spell focus can raise this to +5. From levels 1-4 the max bonus (independent of modifiers) is the casters level. Ex level 1 Wizard casts charm DC 10 (base) +1 (spell level) + 1 (max modifier for level) = DC 12. Again caps out at +3 unless extra feats are purchased. SLAs would not be affected nor would supplemental casting (dragons). Dragon is going to be casting lower level spells due to the secondary nature of their casting - hence no cap on their Charm Person (since a high CR dragon is going to have a relatively lower range of spells to use against targets).
- Animal Companions (druids), familiars (sorc/wiz) with major game impact: Get xp share for combat and only if used in combat.
- Summoned creatures which are killed or die either restrict the later use of the spell (nothing shows up for a few days) or can be taken as an xp hit. Summoned creatures count against party xp division (as animal companions/familiars).
- Item creation: Should be very difficult to do on all levels. Great risk in creation and yes, diminishing returns. Items are created for a purpose, you don't get more than what you paid for but less. Works for every military and R&D project. The end result is there for a function, not for a profit. Magic item creation should have never been turned into a for profit industry - one of the worst ideas in gaming history.
Also limit resources used to create mid to higher level items (special/magical components vs gold).
-Special movement spells would require concentration to maintain (fly), requiring caster checks to cast other spells while they are in effect. Blink already does something like this for attacks, they just forgot to include anything about spell casting (the story of 3rd edition).
-Evocation spells would do a little more damage but each would also get some kind of effect (ignite, stun, etc).
Non-caster and caster changes (general rules):
All casting stats cost more than others. Wis and Int being the most expensive with Cha being the 2nd. Str, Dex and Con would be cheaper.
This helps address the issue of MAD vs SAD builds. The spread for needed stats for the monk would have to change (only need two prime stats).
Classes:
- Fighters would get options on built in leadership (interaction/face guy) or tactics (team bonuses to saves and/or attacks) as they progress.
- Fighters and Rogues get a second "Good" save of their choice which they select upon getting their 1st level in the class.
- Barbarians now get a "Good" save on Reflex, Cavaliers get a "Good" save on Will.
- Iron Will, Great Fortitude and Lightning Reflexes (and improved versions) are now eligible via bonus combat feats and any situation that would allow the selection of a combat feat (applies to other classes that get bonus combat feats).
- No more Full Attacks
Spell disruption feats
Individual feats tied to fast or med BAB reqs which may allow:
-Ranged Spell disruption/shut down (archers and Rangers). Can cause flyers (depending on size and PC level) to slow, come down or crash.
-Destroy force effects or artificially/magically created materials (walls etc) upon striking.
-Banishing Strike, send back or impede summoned or extra-planar creatures.
-Advanced Iron Will, Great Fortitude or Lightning Reflexes (feat tree based + level req). Allows PC to operate at limited ability if spell or effect is failed which affects: the mind, endurance/life force or impedes and hinders based on appropriate feat..
Anyway there are just a few ideas. The critical ones would be fixing the DC manipulation problems.
'ello there. Nice idea this :)
The problem: The current problem seems to be that people judge classes in relation to how they compare on basic stats, not how they work togeather. The focus on "broken" spellcasters has become an overwhelming issue on these forums simply because people are apparently afraid that they'll be cheated out of their promised 15 minutes of fame, figuratively of course.
My take on this issue is that it is moot. I play both Casters and Non-casters and I have no issue with the casters having more options than my melee dudes and no issue that my melee dudes generally have more AC/HP/Skills/Dependable Damage than the casters. My regular group is a throng of personal power gamers, with little trust in each others abilities to work as a group (yes, they all think that nobody else can co-operate). And yet; I time and again manage to hammer out a group that has the nessessary skills and even manage to compliment eachother - and quite well too, since everyone is a monster in his paticular field.
Solution: In a simple sentence; Get it togeather. With a bit more meat on it; We're supposed to play this game as a group, so we should play off the others strengths to augment our own, not rant about the "broken" issues with us not having them our selves. Even if I do not kill anything with my Treantmonk-style God Wizard, I can still count somewhere between 15-30% of the party's damage as my own and thus feel good about myself. As a Damage type char, I chop off heads left and right, but only because the Wizard is smart enough to NOT fireball my ass along with the bad guys' and even boost me instead.
Each to his own I guess, but people should own up to the image they try to cultivate and become a lot less whiny and a lot more creative and co-operative.
Sorry if I seemed harsh, but the whole discussion seems rooted in an illogical need to be better than the others in a game that is about everyone winning.
Stay good :)
To me the problem isn't necessarily scaling up non-casters to the power level and flexibility of casters - the problem is that in the transition from 2nd to 3rd edition many balance points and important factors were dropped or changed. This is a MAJOR ROLLBACK, so I'll expect plenty of hate.
The solution would be two-fold.
Scale casters back (and how some of the DC/d20 system works)
Design non-casters as if they live in a world with magical foes.
I'll post the problem an solution I have implement or considered implementing.Scaling back on casters:
** spoiler omitted **...
-1
-1
My proposition is magic is fickle, unless you dedicate extra time and attention it may not go off.
When casting any spell make a modified concentration check DC = 12+double spell level. IF YOU FAIL THIS CHECK THE SPELL (OR SLOT) IS NOT EXPENDED. Of course other concentration checks for damage, weather, etc. can cause you to lose the spell and must still be made.
If a caster decides to increase the casting time there is a +4 bonus to the concentration check per incriment (below). Spending even more time beyond what is required to make the check succeed on a 1 or better can increase the DC of the spell(max of +3).
swift
standard
1 round
1 minute
10 minutes
1 hr
2 hr
4 hr
8 hr(max)
So a magic missle cast by a sorcerer at 1st level with a +3-4 stat mod, will succced 50-55% of the time. If he fails he DOES NOT lose the spell. If he makes it a full round action he will get the spell off 70-75% of the time. To me, this makes having non-summoned physical types around useful.
Of course as the caster progresses the checks for lower end spells become so easy that there is no need to cast them at an increased time frame except to boost DC's to make sure the effect sticks. But more advanced magics still run the risk.
1. (Prepared) casters are versatile and can easily swap their load-out around for a particular situation; martial characters basically can't. This results in a player skill imbalance in that the better a player becomes at anticipating what problems will come next, the better the (prepared) casters become.
2. Movement: casters have every incentive to move every round. Martials have every incentive to about stand still.
3. SoD/SoS: An awful lot of these are fixed in Pathfinder, but not quite enough.
4. Saves: Effectively, martial character saving throws took a serious hit in Pathfinder because it's now smarter for them to be 20 levels of one class instead of 20 total levels of 1-2 levels each of 15 different classes, each with front-loaded saves.
5. Durations: In theory, a spellcaster can be caught with their pants down. In practice, even in a game that lacks 3E-Persistent, spell durations can often be either literally all day as low as 8th level.
6. Non-combat: Typically, non-caster characters are either utility/skill-monkeyish like the rogue (or the bard, which I'll count even though it's a 6 level caster) and have good non-combat function, or they're like the fighter and built to fight. Usually they're not good at both. The casters can typically do a better job of being good at both.
7. March of levels: Although I disagree with those who think the casters are weak at low levels, it's definitely more and more their game as levels pile up.
8. Generally, there aren't a lot of standard monsters built as though they're going to try to take on casters.
1. A good start would be: broaden class features and feats, and allow some mechanic for eventually retraining them, even if it's as limited as, say, sorcerer's ability to swap spells. I'd probably limit this to swapping one combat feat for another, one rage power for another, one favored enemy for another maybe +2 worth of bonus shifted at a time, etc.
Maybe for fighter/barbarian/ranger/paladin/cavalier feats like weapon focus / improved critical / etc. gradually come to apply to broad classes of weapons instead of single weapons. This could be a ~5th level feature of those classes or implemented in some other way. This fixes the problem of, you put a feat into weapon focus greataxe and never see a greataxe.
(Side note: we should, at least, just decide that for the purposes of unarmed attacks and/or qualifying for feats that apply to unarmed attacks, that monks are a full BAB class already.)
I wouldn't be opposed to some level/number of floating feats or abilities for martial classes that could be swapped each day or so, either, or changed from one to another with a minute of downtime. Stances or what have you.
2. Full attack needs to not be an all or nothing thing; the APG provides some help here but I'd take it a little further.
Things like vital strike, cleave, etc. that alleviate the problem a little bit are good ideas, but should just be class features or given out as specific bonus feats, or things everyone who meets certain criteria can just do. Maybe barbarian automatically gets Cleave at level 6 and Great Cleave at 10, or whatever.
I wouldn't go as far as making spellcasting a full-round action, but I'd add some restrictions or incentives for doing it as one. For example maybe you can't cast your highest couple levels of spells as a standard action (although then you'd need to rethink spells like Color Spray or Burning Hands that are highly dependent on moving for positioning), or maybe moving and casting a spell that doesn't have a special 'mobility ok' descriptor happens at a lower caster level and/or a lower DC.
3. Pretty simple: address the remaining really good SoS/SoD spells. I'm sure it's not far enough for some people but I'm even happy with the power level of, say, PF Glitterdust, even if, yeah, one round of being blind before the next save could be an eternity in some cases.
One mechanic to maybe introduce here is the making of multiple saves like for PF poisons. So maybe the active part of Flesh to Stone lasts X rounds. First failed save, maybe you're basically entangled, second failed save, upgrade it to slowed, third failed save, you're a statue. If you're a statue when the spell ends you stay a statue as before, otherwise when the spell ends you're okay again.
4. Back-load the save progressions for martial classes and probably monsters, and/or give them class features later that help out. Maybe the full BAB classes pick one of the save feats or the improved save feats every 4 levels as another bonus feat.
5. Revisit spell durations, and this is key: give up on the 3.0 idea that spell durations are almost always of the form: caster level times X. This was one of the worst ideas in 3rd edition. Yes, it's streamlining in that you basically know a spell duration is always rounds, minutes, ten minutes, or hours per level, but it makes it virtually impossible to choose spell durations intelligently as a designer, especially with caster level boosting items/effects and Extend Spell in play. So: maybe a buff spell can last one hour, plus one minute per level. Or ten minutes, plus a minute per level. Or twenty rounds, plus a round per level. Basically you could pick a duration that makes the spell useable at the level that you get it, without meaning that the spell is later completely permanent.
Probably you'd want to raise the price of all +caster level items, especially the bead of karma.
Probably you'd also want to rewrite extend spell such that it only doubles your level for the variable part of a spell duration, or only adds +5 or +10 levels for determining duration instead of doubling, or so on.
6. More skill points for non-casters is a start; more class features that are useful outside of combat is a better one. Maybe the barbarian is set up to be intimidating and good at feats of pure strength even without having to rage. More of these that aren't duplicated by items and spells would be even better.
7. The martial classes should be seriously back-loaded in terms of abilities. I'm not saying take away what they get early; I'm saying give them a lot more late. Maybe past 10 you get a rogue talent or rage power every level. Give a fighter extra bonus feats in the back 10 that aren't useful to their main schtick to round them out -- e.g. a fighter built to fight with a two-handed weapon gets a bonus archery feat. Give more monk bonus feats. Etc.
I mean, we understand that one of the problems is the whole linear martials quadratic casters divide, so why not try to quadratic up the martials a bit? Maybe a 20th level fighter ends up with 50 feats that way. That doesn't bother me.
8. Build more monsters with the anti-caster feats; also create some monsters that are more difficult for casters specifically to deal with. Golems used to be this, but they don't qualify anymore. On that note, sharply cutting down on and/or raising the levels of existing SR: No spells is a step in the right direction, too.
I need a third option that isn't +1 or -1, but signifies: You totally miss the point of this thread; please be quiet, the adults are talking.
But in nicer way.
The main problem i see between Non-casters and Casters is the people who play them.
DnD has long been a game that requires magic to succeed and in fact CR takes into account the wealth of a character.
Really what will it take to make people stop whining about Non-casters, Oh no my 20th Fighter can't swing his sword and make a dimensional rift from the material plane to the elemental plane of earth., i mean really Non-casters are just that they don't cast magic.
Casters and Non-casters should not share the same abilities. Example: Caster A casts Fly to travel into the air 60ft = Non-caster B uses an innate power(you know jumped really hard and stayed up) named "Non-caster Fly" to travel into the air 60ft.
Casters can bend reality to their will but with out Non-casters to support them Casters will fail.(That is unless your DM is incompetent and favors Casters over others, which seems to be the case, since as is they are well balanced.)
Also for those of you who want Non-magical magic for Non-casters go play 4E, where all the classes have magical powers and do just about the same thing except one is with a spell and the other a sword.
CoDzilla
-1
Brain in a Jar
CoDzilla
-1
-1
Problems:
Melees can't really do any of the things they need to do to compete at higher levels themselves -- flying, penetrating DR, etc. all require magic gear, representing not only an additional drain on their wealth but also a reminder that only magic can cope with magic -- adding insult to injury. They can compete only by using gifts from their magic-using friends, never using simply their own ability and courage. And that wrankles, when the casters really don't need handouts to perform. Add to this the fact that casters can move and cast, but that warriors cannot move and full attack, and that casting defensively is an auto-success at mid level and above, and the disparity is glaring.
Finally, monster hp are so much higher than optimal damage output in Pathfinder that it's almost a waste to attack with weapons to begin with. Fix 1: I've redone the basic combat movement chassis. Half move + full attack is OK. Casting allows a 5-ft. step only. Also, a character can "hold" movement and/or attacks for use as immediate actions later in the round.
Fix 2: I've given martial characters better tools. For example:
Combat feats that scale with BAB;
A feat to shoot down fliers using a ranged weapon;
Expanded reach to account for better combat skill;
Ability to deduce true enemy locations through tactical reasoning, simulating a non-magic true sight.
Etc.
+1
From my PoV, the disparity is not that martial- & skill- focused characters can't do enough, it's that spellcasters can do too dang much. And that's not an issue of class build, it's an issue of the magic/spell system itself.
I've been playing for almost 30 years with various players & groups of differing ages & parts of the country. They overwhelmingly gravitated towards the martial- & skill-types and I'm seeing the same thing with my kids & their friends. They want fantasy & magic to be cool. They don't want it to overpowering. They want heroic fantasy, not magic-fueled-superhero-action-hour.
Raise dead, resurrection. That should be one of the highest level spells of the game. Teleport on a continental scale? Same thing. Fly? Should be 2-4 levels higher than it is now.
One player put it this way. Flying on a magic broom or magic carpet = cool. Flying around like Superman in anything other than a Supers game = lame.
YMMV.
|
|
I think the more productive approach would be instead of fix what's there, build on things. If feats were scalable, they would be more useful (look at Power Attack). If skills gave you more options, they too would be good.
Say a trick you can learn if you have 8 ranks survival, 8 ranks perception, and BAB +6. As a move-action, you can pinpoint an invisible foe, and until you attack another foe you have them pinpointed and can attack them as though they are visible; threaten them; and reduce the chance to miss by 25%. You don't have to invest a feat, you just get this.
Suddenly skills become more useful, and by adding a BAB aspect casters and partial-casters don't get then as quickly. Further, you can focus these on things that will hamper magic more.
It's minor power creep, but monsters will get these options as well (note a dragon easily has these ranks). It would be a huge boon for rangers, rogues, and bards; and really any skill-based class. People would also stop dumping int; especially if they want to access something other than "Me swing sword".
It just makes things more interesting. could see characters with fly and spellcraft being able to shoot arrows to force opponents using magic to stay in th air to land, or those with intimidate and acrobatics being able to stop someone from moving away.
Building on the system, rather than rebuilding from the ground up.
I think the more productive approach would be instead of fix what's there, build on things. If feats were scalable, they would be more useful (look at Power Attack). If skills gave you more options, they too would be good.
Say a trick you can learn if you have 8 ranks survival, 8 ranks perception, and BAB +6. As a move-action, you can pinpoint an invisible foe, and until you attack another foe you have them pinpointed and can attack them as though they are visible; threaten them; and reduce the chance to miss by 25%. You don't have to invest a feat, you just get this.
Suddenly skills become more useful, and by adding a BAB aspect casters and partial-casters don't get then as quickly. Further, you can focus these on things that will hamper magic more.
It's minor power creep, but monsters will get these options as well (note a dragon easily has these ranks). It would be a huge boon for rangers, rogues, and bards; and really any skill-based class. People would also stop dumping int; especially if they want to access something other than "Me swing sword".
It just makes things more interesting. could see characters with fly and spellcraft being able to shoot arrows to force opponents using magic to stay in th air to land, or those with intimidate and acrobatics being able to stop someone from moving away.
Building on the system, rather than rebuilding from the ground up.
+1
Reposting from another thread:
One of the issues I currently see with the game is that PCs have 5 methods of dealing with a combat encounter.
1)Do HP damage
2)Weaken encounter (Status effects and other debuffs)
3)Strengthen Allies (Buffs)
4)Bypass Encounter (Diplomacy, Stealth and other hax)
5)Auto-win (SoS/SoD)
The problem is that for the most part the casters have access to all five methods (although their ability to do HP damage is really bad). Martial characters generally have access to 1 or 2 options. Outside of Diplomancy which is heavily DM dependent auto-wins are generally limited to casters.
The primary options I see are making HP Damage = to the other options including auto-win, removing some options from casters (notably the auto-win options), or give additional options to martial characters. Also each modification doesn't have to be completely binary.
My personal preference would be to
a)Increase martial options so that they have the ability to do methods 1-4
b)Make HP damage a more enticing option
c)Weaken Auto-win (mainly through an decreased rate of success).
Technically you could even modify the death by massive damage rule to incorporate scaling Fort Saves and a lower initial threshhold (50 point threshhold favors THF and Big Monsters disproportionately). Considering how many saves that could force over time I'm reluctant to condone it in anything but the grittiest and most lethal games.
Eliminating auto-win is the 4e solution and honestly it works well. I actually like 4e (especially Essentials) because the rocket tag gameplay style was completely excised from the game. However plenty of people have plenty of reasons for not shifting to 4e so I'm going to assume that at least a percentage of the audience likes autowin (SoS/SoD, etc).
The key is to make auto-win solutions problematic enough that the other solutions become reasonable alternatives in a halfway optimized game.
I think a lot of that can be done by decreasing the rate of success and altering the rules so that SoS spam is not a spell efficient solution. I also think that the various ways for the caster to manipulate the action economy (quicken and other swift actions) need to be addressed.
After all these threads, I've asked myself a question:
What is the balance supposed to be?
I think, and I hope I'm not drawing too much from other games, or an old trope here, its dedicated meelee'r is supposed to stretch out damage over time but have great surviveability, while a dedicated caster is supposed to do "flash" damage, ie. alot up front, either AoE or DD, at the expense of less than good surviveability.
In pathfinder, this doesn't seem to be true in numerous ways. Dedicated meelee'rs increase in damage creep along at +1 to hit per level, with some getting boosts (weapon training, for example). A dedicated caster does less than optimal damage at the low levels and suffers from low Hp and AC (cleric being the exception here). But, around 5th level or so, access to 3rd level spells changes things. While meelee'rs continue to creep along, caster begin to surpass them. Not only in damage output, but by simply not needing to be in battle, ie Save or Suck/Die spells.
The slow climb by the meelee'rs is trumped but a severe upswing in class ability through the use of magic that doesn't ever slow back down, and with which meelee'rs can't compete with or begin to match.
Unfortunately, I don't have any proposed fixes to this.
I guess you can either:
A) Make SoS spells harder to land/increase spell cap usage; or
B) Compensate meelee'rs to even the upswing.
That's all I got.
Thanks for your time.
@Flashblade Challenge:
Problem - Character Hit Points have inflated to the point where direct damage is less relevant. It is still necessary, but it is difficult to win high level fights through swift application of direct damage, or so I am told.
Solution - Reduce hit points across the board. If the proportion of evocation spells and melee weapons is brought back up to a significant fraction of hit points, that puts damage dealers on equal footing. In other words, the Martial characters have a good chance of killing enemies before spells change the battlefield.
I have no idea if this would actually work, and I'm certain it would be really fiddly. But I do find it aesthetically pleasing. I'm willing to deal with rocket-tag if it speeds up the combat round, and it sounds like this might, and frankly characters should all be more fragile when it comes to lethal weapons.
I guess "Challenges" like flashblade has done are kosher, as long as they are generic and not veiled responses.
@Flashblade Challenge:
Problem - Character Hit Points have inflated to the point where direct damage is less relevant. It is still necessary, but it is difficult to win high level fights through swift application of direct damage, or so I am told.
Solution - Reduce hit points across the board. If the proportion of evocation spells and melee weapons is brought back up to a significant fraction of hit points, that puts damage dealers on equal footing.
...
characters should all be more fragile when it comes to lethal weapons.
+1
Problem: (See quote)
Solution: Lethal weapons do BAB/2 (or some other fraction) in Con damage, in addition to HP damage, to effectively differentiate between real damage and stamina/luck/designated-hero-wounds. Armor and special feats/class abilities provide Con. DR. vs physical attacks.
A different approach:
Problem: Casters can move about and still do their jobs, fighters can't.
Possible solutions: Make Vital Strike an automatic feature of BAB. This approaches the problem in the last post I made, but from the other end, and it does little to help HP damage spells (some might consider that a plus).
The second, more important part of this solution is to make concentration checks harder, and force a concentration check for any spell with an S component if the caster moves more than 5 feet.
A third suggestion. This one is a little out there. Have casters make concentration checks based on the TOTAL DAMAGE they have sustained, instead of just what they sustained that round. So if they're down by 20 HP, their Concentration DC to cast a 3rd level spell is 10+20+3. That gives martials a tool.
Okay, that last one is a little silly.
You might also allow full-attacks as Standard actions. You could combine them with a move, and you could execute the attacks at any point during your movement sort of like spring attack (except you would still incur AoOs from leaving if you don't have SA).
|
If your idea of the problem is that Melee folks need magic weapons to fight, and have to have Flight (which is magical) to compete and all that and therefore "magic always wins".. Then you need to find a new game.
Not being snarky or a jerk- just honest. D&D has always been and shall always be about finding the next new shiny. That shiny begets the next shiny, and so on. The shinys allow you to combat better things that lead to the next shiny, and so on. If that isn't for you- then neither is D&D. The entire CR system is balanced around it to some extent or another and you can't get away from it. Even if you shoe-horn some massive rules changes you still end up with.. flying fighters using "inborn" powers to emulate magical effects.. so you are just twisting your pretzel into a different shape and trying not to call it a pretzel.
That being said- I do believe that Wizards and Clerics can have the potential to share more than their deserving part of the lime light when it comes to out-of-combat scenarios. This has always been solved- and by always I mean in 100% of the groups I've ever been in- by having the *whole group* get engaged in solving any given problem. Sure, it may be that the cleric cast Enlarge Person and the wizard cast Spider Climb but the group as a whole came up with the strategy.. its just that those two individuals happened to have the "skill" necessary to accomplish it. It is no different than the group deciding to kick down a door and have the barbarian do it, or to have a hallway scouted out and to ask the rogue to do it. As long as the group is working together- which cog in the machine actually does the spinning is irrelevant. It then just comes on the DM to make sure that enough things happen that all the cogs get a chance to spin occasionally.
In combat things are a bit different. I've seen a few posts (more than a few actually) that claim the Melee are just there as side kicks- to clean up after the primary casters in battle. Nothing could be further than the truth....
Actually, in the earlier incarnations (OD&D, AD&D 1e) I have to say you're mistaken. The underlying mechanics supported martial types better than 3.0. It isn't that we need a different game than D&D, it's that D&D stopped being the game we wanted.
Different other thing all together.
Please keep responses to a minimum. I'd like to keep this thread a catalog of perceived problems and possible solutions. Responding directly to others will eventually create a back-and-forth argument, and there are very many threads for that already.
Post your statement of the problem and your proposed fix(es).
here is my proposal
i have liked some of the other solutions i have seen. i wil not name them specifically. but here is my first attempt at such a fix. though my groups problem is less about minmaxed casters as much as it is a problem with grognards who play the same "Traditional concepts" over and over. such as dwarven sword and board fighters, elven evokers, human mace wielding "Sun God" clerics and halfling "Thief" rogues.
1st problem (explained elsewhere)
noncasters don't have enough options in or out of combat compared to casters
my first proposed solution
give noncasters both a free manuever progression ala book of 9 swords (with warblade recovery method included) AND a progression of free skill tricks ala complete scoundrel. don't skimp on the disciplines either.
EDIT; removed problems 2 and 3 because somebody else might mention it. also cleaned up my solutions accordingly
Go here if you would like to comment on this thread or structured threads in general.
give noncasters a free manuever progression ala book of 9 swords (with warblade recovery method included) and free skill tricks ala complete scoundrel
+1
How about just making hitpoint damage mean something, setting up penalties for getting to half-hp, or perhaps every quarter hp down? -1 to all attacks, ac (dodge), saves, caster level per quarter of max hp lost?
As a downside, it creates death-spirals, where it becomes increasingly unlikely to come back from a beating, but that's ok with me. If the hp-continuum means something, then partial damage is contributing, making hitters and blasters effective, even if it just comes down to softening up the target before the SoS/D. We'd have to ignore temporary hp or constitution adjustment effects on the quarter max-hp #s to avoid way too much book-keeping.
(-1 on anything involving book of 9swords)
How about just making hitpoint damage mean something, setting up penalties for getting to half-hp, or perhaps every quarter hp down? -1 to all attacks, ac (dodge), saves, caster level per quarter of max hp lost?
+1, including the Death Spiral critique.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How about a solution ala AD&D?
Put casters on a slower advancement track? Or alternatively discount their experience gain by 25% or some other equitable number.
It wouldn't require a rewrite or major expansion of rules and would limit caster power versus melee types.
Multi-classers would require a little extra math to ratio their experience appropriately.
|
How about just making hitpoint damage mean something, setting up penalties for getting to half-hp, or perhaps every quarter hp down? -1 to all attacks, ac (dodge), saves, caster level per quarter of max hp lost?+1, including the Death Spiral critique.
Fix from Kirth's game: at less than half hp, character is fatigued. At less than quarter, character is exhausted. Penalties of -1 and -3 respectively to all rolls and stats, including spell DCs.
Fix from Kirth's game: at less than half hp, character is fatigued. At less than quarter, character is exhausted. Penalties of -1 and -3 respectively to all rolls and stats, including spell DCs.
+1
Problems:Problems:Melees can't really do any of the things they need to do to compete at higher levels themselves -- flying, penetrating DR, etc. all require magic gear, representing not only an additional drain on their wealth but also a reminder that only magic can cope with magic -- adding insult to injury. They can compete only by using gifts from their magic-using friends, never using simply their own ability and courage. And that wrankles, when the casters really don't need handouts to perform. Add to this the fact that casters can move and cast, but that warriors cannot move and full attack, and that casting defensively is an auto-success at mid level and above, and the disparity is glaring.
Finally, monster hp are so much higher than optimal damage output in Pathfinder that it's almost a waste to attack with weapons to begin with. Fixes:Fix 1: I've redone the basic combat movement chassis. Half move + full attack is OK. Casting allows a 5-ft. step only. Also, a character can "hold" movement and/or attacks for use as immediate actions later in the round.Fix 2: I've given martial characters better tools. For example:
Combat feats that scale with BAB;
A feat to shoot down fliers using a ranged weapon;
Expanded reach to account for better combat skill;
Ability to deduce true enemy locations through tactical reasoning, simulating a non-magic true sight.
Etc.
+1
@Evil Lincoln +1 for the structured thread!
+1 to that!
And, +1 to Blueluck for using spoilers!
Blueluck's Favorite Solution:My favorite solution is to eliminate the class/level combinations at the top end of the power curve. Simply require that all dedicated casters must multi-class or take prestige classes that don't offer full spell casting improvement in their primary casting class. This plan must be announced before characters are made, of course, so that players can plan accordingly.This method takes advantage of multiple simultaneous effects: Not only are maximum spell level and spells per day reduced, but multi-classed characters usually demand a wider variety of attributes, magic items, and feats, diluting the spellcasting focus of the character even further.
I like to play the exact requirements by ear. For non-optimized builds or non-expert players, a simple 3-level dip to qualify for Arcane Archer or Mystic Theurge goes a long way, and a Sorcerer/Dragon disciple may be held back just enough to work. Also, many of the character concepts you'll see people use under these rules will naturally lead them away from chaffing against the extra requirement.
If I had to write a rule for it, I would say:
Dedicated spellcasters must take 3 levels of a class other than their primary spellcasting class by 13th level, and be prepared to take another 3 levels of non-primary class by 20th if necessary.
+1