Casters have too many options: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.
+1.
|
Some other ideas on caster-martial disparity.
Additional ideas/alternate perspective
Not a nerf (like my original post).
This goes to casters doing tasks better than non-casters (negating some roles). I've been kicking around some changes to reduce the "selfish" buff aspect of 3rd edition and build in more on options on promoting group diversity and role specialization.
Here are a few suggestions/minor spell changes for people to shoot down - I'll also list some boons and ideas behind the suggestions.
Disguise Self –
Alter Self -
Heroism -
Heroism, greater -
Fighter gets the maximized effectiveness of the use of this spell.
Invisibility -
Find Traps -
Spider Climb –
Jump –
Knock –
Some other spells could be incorporated into craft (trapbuilding): Snare and Fire Trap plus some glyphs/runes could be combined with a skilled PC attempt at making a trap.
The spells I mentioned are just a suggestion are change in direction and design philosophy.
In an effort to simplify the results of spells in 3rd they also eliminated the desire to cast the spell on better suited targets. Think strength from 1st/2nd edition - fighters got the biggest bonus (+1 to +8 Str) while wizards got the least (+1 to +4).
So not just these spells, but a greater emphasis on changing spells to accommodate considerations in the game - such as other classes. Be it boosting them and their abilities vs. negating their need entirely.
|
|
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.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 on KGs idea.
Been bouncing around a similar variant from Ars with another DM.
What about bringing back some of the "casting speeds" of old editions, related to initiative? I started playing in the dawn of 3.0, and thus don't know the old ones very well, but IIRC spells were some kind of delayed action more or less, taking effect on a lower initiative. While I think that might be overly complex, what about this?
Whenever a spell is cast, lower the initiative count of the caster by a number equal to the spell level of the spell. If a caster has an initiative count lower than a certain spell's level, he can't cast it.
EDIT: Just to clarify, lower initiative AFTER the spell has been cast. So if Wizzy has initiative count 22 and casts a glitterdust, the glitterdust takes effect and next time he acts on initiative count 20.
This would make casters more MAD, since they now all NEED a decent dex (even clerics) and it would mean that once in a while, they have to use the Refocus action or whatever it's called, that puts the initiative on top again.
EDIT: It's certainly easily fluffed too, in that casting requires one to focus on something completely different than combat meaning you lose grip on what is currently happening for a split second, thus losing initiative.
Why not just ban pure Casters in your games. That way the Melee classes can be the best they can be without any modifications.
How about just maxing spell magic at 1-6 levels. That way the melee classes do not have to worry about the really nasty 7-9th level spells.
How about making all casting time take 1d10 minutes. That way you do not have to worry about spell magic beating fighters during melee combat. Give that old cast feel; spells before or after combat.
How about giving your 15+ Fighter, rogues, etc... More magic items. After all, they should have more magic items or better magic items, than pure casters. After all, Wizards should have blow there gold on spells books (2-3 copy), Spell components, or distortable magic items like scrolls and wands. Clerics should have spend 10% right to there church, not to mention spell components, donation to good causes, Healing wands, scrolls, potions etc.
|
+1Spoiler:*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
+1 for spoilers tho.
Here is a system I created that we are currently trying out. It is actually working out wonderfully. It doesn't "nerf" the casters, but it changes their incentive to continue gaining spell slots.
First, any class that gets less that 7 spell levels (Bard, Paladin, Ranger, etc etc) are not affected by this rule.
Second, any class that gets level 7, 8 and 9 spells are affected by the following rules.
- All 7th, 8th, and 9th levels spells have been removed from access. If you have a prestige class that grants you access to a particular spell, you may still gain that spell, but only as the class feature. The 7th, 8th and 9th level bonus spells for clerics, sorcerers and oracles have been removed as well, any 7th, 8th or 9th level spell must be accessed by a prestige class.
- The caster is still required to have a casting attribute of 10 + the spell slot level, in order to gain the spell slots, bonus metamagic feat and enhancing level effect. For example: in order to gain level 8 spell slots a wizard must have an intelligence of 18.
*** When a character gains the slots for 7th level, the character's spells are enhanced by a +1 bonus to determine the spell's DC, and +1 bonus to caster level to overcome spell resistance and for concentration checks. This effect can and does stack with the benefit of the heighten spell metamagic feat. Therefore, a 13th level wizard with an Int modifier of +5, casting a 1st level spell would normally have a DC of 16 [10 +5(mod) +1(spell)], but under our system, the DC is 17 [10(lvl) +5(mod) +2(spell+1)]. In addition, the character may choose any metamagic feat with a spell level modifier of +1 as a bonus feat when he gains his first 7th level spell slot. The character still gains his slots for 7th level, allowing him/her to prepare metamagically enhanced spells into those 7th level slots, or use them for other spells.
*** When a character gains the slots for 8th level, the character's spells are enhanced by a +2 bonus to determine the spell's DC, and +2 bonus to caster level to overcome spell resistance and for concentration checks. This effect can and does stack with the benefit of the heighten spell metamagic feat. Therefore, a level 15 wizard with an Int modifier of +5, casting a 1st level spell would normally have a DC of 16 [10 +5(mod) +1(spell)], but under our system, the DC is 18 [10 +5(mod) +3(spell+2)]. In addition, the character may choose any metamagic feat as a bonus feat when he gains his first 8th level spell slot. The character still gains his slots for 8th level, allowing him/her to prepare metamagically enhanced spells into those 8th level slots, or use them for other spells.
*** When a character gains the slots for 9th level, the character's spells are enhanced by a +3 bonus to determine the spell's DC, and +3 bonus to caster level to overcome spell resistance and for concentration checks. This effect can and does stack with the benefit of the heighten spell metamagic feat. Therefore, a level 17 wizard with an Int modifier of +5, casting a 1st level spell would normally have a DC of 16 [10 +5(mod) +1(spell)], but under our system, the DC is 19 [10 +5(mod) +4(spell+3)]. In addition, the character may choose any metamagic feat as a bonus feat when he gains his first 9th level spell slot. The character still gains his slots for 9th level, allowing him/her to prepare metamagically enhanced spells into those 9th level slots, or use them for other spells.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like bringing back the unequal xp rule.
If a wiz/10 > f/10, then the fighter should be higher level. Is a wiz/10 > f/12? f/14? Then skew the xp system to make 'lower power' classes higher level sooner. This both ups their wealth by level (giving the gear dependent a gear advantage) and equalizes the power spread. Your only other alternative is to nerf the casters by level, which essentially means a massive amount of class rewrites, as opposed to just re-writing an xp change.
1E, Wizards took 50% more xp then fighters after level 11. A wiz/18 would be fighting alongside a ftr/23, and a theif/25.
HP limits from Con, Str limits th/dmg, more stat limitations period. in 1E it was VERY hard to raise mental stats past 18. Str was the only stat you could semi-easily beat 18 at, with Girdles. Stats getting out of hand are what drives most casters.
Increases in arms and armor for 'free' vs WBL. This gives a fighter the tools to do his job without paying half his wealth for them, giving them gear flexibility.
==================
I would like to point out that there's a complete fallacy that high level wizard > high level fighter.
The high level wizard has great cosmic power, remolds reality to his making.
The high level fighter just f'ing kills him, and there's nothing the wizard can do to stop him.
Wizards can kill armies.
Fighters kill CHAMPIONS. the main problem with non-casters in PF and 3.5 is that they have no special resistance against magic, despite being anti-magic by design. Spell resistance, better saves against magic, in-your-face try-and-stop-me does not work in 3.5.
Non-casters all rely on skills far more then casters. If you don't have magic, you should have skills, period. Feats are not a substitute.
Fighter bonus feats should mean something more then 'just another feat'. If a feat is taken in that slot, it should be 'more' then a feat taken in a general slot. Stand Still should be escalated from 'blah' to the old form, as strong as the class ability of a Shield Cavaliar. Weapon Spec would only take ONE Bonus feat slot, and auto-scale with Fighter levels. Furthermore, those Bonus feat slots would ignore stat reqs...he's a fighter!
A somewhat simpler way of solving the MAD of the melee classes is simply introduce a level 1 MAS. Example, Fighter's Power: Anytime your Str score is raised, your Coord is raised an identical amount. Brutal Endurance: Str/Con (favored by Barbarians and Dwarves); Enduring Dance of Battle: Dex/Con (favored by rogues and rangers). This kind of thing means two stats are raised by levels, AND cuts gear costs down, as you only need a Str buffer to raise Coord or Con, etc.
Gear should work better for the non-caster classes. It was a 1E truism that a whole lot of neat stuff casters just couldn't use, instead of just vice versa. Str enhancers? Not for mages!
==Aelryinth
Non-Combat Problem/Solution:Problem #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.Solution #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.
+1
March of Levels Problem/Solution:Problem #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.Solution #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.
+1 (Actually, more than +1 on this one.)
An interesting way to handle the skills problem for fighters is to give them bonus feats at the levels they currently don't get them, and have those slots able to be taken by feats like Skill Focus, Save Boosters, and Affinity/dual skill feats, and the like.
So, at level 3,5,7,9,11,13,15,17 and 19, the Fighter could take, say, Iron Will, Lightning Reflexes, Skill focus (spot), Alertness, Improved iron Will, Educated, Skill Focus (Ride), Silver Tongue, and Magical Artisan (which relies on a crafting skill). This character will have +4 to diplomatic skills, +10 to Perception checks, +6 to ride checks, +4 to Reflex and Will saves, can reroll a failed Will save, and all knowledge skills are class skills. Even if he doesn't have more skill points, he can get +10 bonuses to a skill easily if he so desires with the feats, something few other characters will both to spend skill points on. (+10 to UMD, anyone?)
==Aelryinth
Also like to point out that with an expanding spell list, caster abilities are always growing.
Melee abilities, on the other hand, tend to be constantly narrowing to superspecialize into an effective shtick.
this was touched on above. Anything which makes Melee incredibly competent at a given task out of combat is not a bad thing when a mage can just cast a spell and get a similar bonus.
==Aelryinth
Spoiler: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.
+1 and well said.
Spoiler: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
Spoiler:@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.
+1 to reducing hit points to speed up combat and making damage more meaningful.
I am somewhat in support of death spiral mechanics except for a few quibbles.
1)Death Spiral mechanics generally favor the team with greater numbers. While this helps simulate wolfpack tactics I think that a bunch of people still play with the PCs vs 1 big monster. In this case the monster (who is already suffering under the action economy) suffers even more meaning that the PCs can hit above their weight class. If you like PCs vs vast faceless horde then this tends to disadvantage the PCs because the horde members generally don't suffer from the death spiral they are either fine or they are dead.
2)Casters are much less likely to take HP damage. Between all the spell defense most casters have up all the time and the ability to hover above the battlefield invisible this seems to be a net disadvantage for the martial characters who take HP every battle.
I like them in theory but I'm very reluctant to condone them as a solution without seeing methods of reducing the above mentioned problems.
From what i gather, we can boil down any DnD game session, to two different things.
Combat and non combat
Ccombat:
At the earlyer levels wizards will have a small amount of spells to choose from, and it will generally result in, the wizard buffs the fighter or uses stuns/daze/sicken i.e debuff the monster. Dealing hp damage in any comparison to the fighter at these levels is redicilous, and is therefore not an option (besides shoot the bow, hurray). The fighters job is to deal damage, and take damage. Both party members are very much needed at these levels.
Midgame a wizard will recieve more spells, but will generally only have 5-10 spells a day that has any meaningfull save associated to them. The strat for the wizard should be to buff the fighter, or debuff the monsters(control spells) or maybe we can include summoning other things the monster can hit too. Some people mistakingly think that wizards can actually do any damage compared to other classes at these levels (5-12), but a fireball that gives 35 average dam at level 10 (every monster will make the save so only 17, and thats before resistance and other stuff), while a medium optimized melee dude will deal 60-70 DPR on a full attack, and a highly optimized around 100-120 DPR. The roles at these levels appear to be the same as before. The wizard can use save and suck spells, but without the fighter to do damage, it dosnt even matter.
At high levels the only difference is that wizards recieve save or lose spells, while still being a bad choice for the wizard to actually use, as most BBEGs (you dont use it on something easy to kill) will have such a high will or fort save, that a wizard will have maybe 20% to win. So he should win in about 5 rounds, while still slower than a standard melee fighter in killing the mob (he will use about 4 rounds) its to close to really call. The rest of the roles are as before, and dealing pure hp dam for spellcasters is so inferior to anything else they can do, and compared to what the melee types do, that it is never really an option..
I dont really think this should be altered, as the 2 types clearly have different things to do in combat. Is that unbalanced? i would say no, as a party consisting of both melee and casters will deal with stuff best.
Out of combat there is a different problem, the wizard have utility, and so much of it its hard to grasp the concept. A fighter has a very small amount if any. But i have to say, that for a Party to solve problems outside of combat, i dont think its important who use what, as long as the party coorporates about it. Its not important who opened the door, but that they could use a skill in the party to do it. But if you really should change this, so everyone can the same out of combat, im really not sure how, unless you want to remove some spells from the core book, specificly spells that substitute skills. like finding food, make shelter, and so on.
On a side note, i hear a lot of people complaining that melee types cant do anything without magic items, and that they need to be at the WBL. Well as the WBL is a strong guideline in the core book, and pathfinder assumes the players are there, is it really fair to discuss balance if they are not, and have for example only 40% of WBL, as this is clearly not the intent for the players to be there, why do it need to be balanced? If we handed out 2,000,000 g worth of items to chars that are level 7, the melee types would have no problem dealing with any wizard, as the melee types benefit more from magic items. Is this then also a problem with the rules, or do we simply have to stay close to WBL to solve that big complaint.
Spoiler:What about bringing back some of the "casting speeds" of old editions, related to initiative? I started playing in the dawn of 3.0, and thus don't know the old ones very well, but IIRC spells were some kind of delayed action more or less, taking effect on a lower initiative. While I think that might be overly complex, what about this?Whenever a spell is cast, lower the initiative count of the caster by a number equal to the spell level of the spell. If a caster has an initiative count lower than a certain spell's level, he can't cast it.
EDIT: Just to clarify, lower initiative AFTER the spell has been cast. So if Wizzy has initiative count 22 and casts a glitterdust, the glitterdust takes effect and next time he acts on initiative count 20.This would make casters more MAD, since they now all NEED a decent dex (even clerics) and it would mean that once in a while, they have to use the Refocus action or whatever it's called, that puts the initiative on top again.
EDIT: It's certainly easily fluffed too, in that casting requires one to focus on something completely different than combat meaning you lose grip on what is currently happening for a split second, thus losing initiative.
+1 (been tossing that around in my head for years, myself, but haven't done it.)
Another solution is Ban pure melee classes. That way they do not have to compete with pure casters.
After all, do you really want to play a Fantasy game were being a pure caster is so stacked against you, that you think using a magic item for armor and weapons is better than using spells. When you spend more time building magic items for other to use, than using them yourself, because your a magic engineer class.
Spoiler:Another solution is Ban pure melee classes. That way they do not have to compete with pure casters.After all, do you really want to play a Fantasy game were being a pure caster is so stacked against you, that you think using a magic item for armor and weapons is better than using spells. When you spend more time building magic items for other to use, than using them yourself, because your a magic engineer class.
-1. Banning pure melee classes is not a good idea at my table.
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.
-1 (Nothing personal, just didn't think it was a helpful solution the first time around.)
Thanks Evil Lincoln!
Once again, you have presented an oasis in a desert of peckerdueling.
Problem with full casters:
It is easy and effective to create several types of mages that become game bendingly powerful in mid-to-late game.
Ability to maximize your casting stat from the beginning, giving you more spells, crazy DCs, greater ability to cast defensively, etc, etc..
The ability to shut down boss-level monsters, with a single spell with a good success rate. (sleep, paralyze, stun, lose-a-turn, etc. effects. These upset the expected balance of the game and result in swingy encounters that are often over before they start. Not a fun campaign style for most people.
Ability to litter the battlefield with strong summons, and slow down the game. At higher levels use of planar binding/ally to add sidekicks in the form of outsiders and such.
Ability to charm/dominate to change social encounters and add crazy sidekicks.
Ability to travel vast distances instantly and later hop planes.
Ability to remove themselves from harm, while still remaining highly effective. (Mirror image, displacement, invisibility, projected image, etc.)
Spell-like and supernatural abilities,bonus feats, bloodlines, etc.
Not the squishy 90lb weaklings they used to be.
Solution:
Limit initial max character stats to something like 17 (after racial adjustment). (Dice rollers gather pitchforks and line up here.)
Make upping your ability scores more difficult then the current rates. Or better yet, make it easy to up your lowest scores, but not your highest scores. (Point-buy never stops???)
Spells that are Super-Save-or-Suck take longer to cast or have slowed onset, or allow more then one save. Also spells of higher then level 6 take 1 round to cast, not 1 standard action. 9th level magic - you're smoking crack! Wish? Miracle? I don't know how to balance that.
Reign in all the hold, dominate, sleep, blind, nauseate, stun, etc. spells a little
About the only thing I would do to boost melee is to allow an additional 5ft step in place of additional attacks granted by a higher base attack. (e.g. With a 11 BAB you could: 5 ft step, attack at +11, 5ft step (instead of attacking at +6), then attack at +1. Full attack as standard action is WAY too much (see dragons)! I could probably be talked into all additional attacks being only -5, rather then -5,-10,-15, etc.
Most of this is easy to implement at the start of a campaign, and most of the changes to individual spells would be subtle.
The last thing I want is a game where fighters cast wish through their swords, and everyone ganks each other in surprise rounds. Combat should be epic battles, not instant nukings-from-orbit. I enjoy the classes being very different, and think that each should have a valid, effective role in combat. When the game is played with an agreement to play for the benefit and enjoyment of the group, balance probably won't be much of an issue in Pathfinder. If you push the limits of the CR system/character building, that is when problems come up, which they always will if you search them out, and focus your game on them. It is all a work in progress.
+1 to everyone keeping this an informative thread, even if I disagree with you, and to Evil Lincoln for starting it.
Personally, I think that part of the issue isn't so much that casters have all the answers to the adventures as presented, but that adventures cater particularly to the casters-type characters.
By "adventures", I also consider the choice of monsters and the solutions expected from the players. More often then not, the key to beating a flying creature is to attack it from flight, but non-magic solutions to prevent it from flying are just as conceivable. Only, they are not encouraged by the game.
I think that a big part of the disparity between casters and fighters is created by the playing community itself; by choosing challenges that are (more) easily resolved with the existing spells and powers available to casters.
Nevertheless, casters DO have more options - and to a certain extent that should be Ok; this has been the whole attractiveness of magic since the dawn of time - and many of these options are perhaps granted too soon and too easily.
Of all the solutions proposed in this thread, I find the adoption of the full-attack as a standard action the least disruptive of the RAW in terms of "workload" for DMs and players alike.
'findel
|
-1 (Nothing personal, just didn't think it was a helpful solution the first time around.)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.
-1 also. Furthermore, it has the problem with not being true except very early on and until higher levels. Magic users actually leveled faster than fighters at mid-levels.
** spoiler omitted **+1 (been tossing that around in my head for years, myself, but haven't done it.)
This is a pretty good one, but I think there could be more done. At higher levels a casters standard action has the impact of melee character's full attack action or more. It might not be direct damage, but they often turn the tide of a battle.
Higher level spells (5th level and above) aught to be rebalanced to include more full round castings. That way if you are throwing out a powerful spell, you risk a concentration check due to damage, and you pin yourself to a 5' move. Some higher level spells should be exempt from this, of course based on their intended use. Power word spells might not make sense as full round casts if only because they are meant to be cast with a single verbal component.
The other half of the equation might be that melee characters need more options at higher levels. Perhaps there should be advanced combat maneuvers that are made available to all melee characters that cost iterative attacks. It would be a trade off, and hopefully worth it, but it would at least allow melee characters to decide between the chance to do slightly more damage with the chance to debilitate an opponent.
In my opinion there is nothing wrong with casters. They are equipped to handle the challenges they are expected to face. As long as the adventuring day is not 10 minutes long the casters will be sufficiently challenged and burn through many of their resources.
I believe that there are three major problems with fighter (I mean all melee classes when I say fighter but for the purpose ease I will just call them all fighter). The first is that their class features and feats do not scale appropriately. The second is that they aren't doing anything out of combat. And the third is that the fighters are for more dependent on magical items then the caster.
The first thing to change is skills. The wizard is now the only class in the entire game that only gets 2 + Int skill points per level. All former 2 + int classes now get 4 + int.
When you replace your magical cloak with an only slightly more magical version of them same thing, that's not very interesting. But players are dependent on the Big Six to survive. That means all characters have generally the same items. This is doubly true for fighters. So there needs to be some changes.
A.) Characters receive an ability score every even number level (rather than every 4th level). You may still spend money on a wish spell to enhance your ability score but ability boosters no longer exist. At levels six, eleven, and sixteen, all characters receive an additional ability score.
B.)Characters now receives an inherent bonus to his saving throws every 4 levels. When the a characters reaches 4th, 8th, 12th, 16th, and 20th level he gains a +1 inherent bonus to all of his saving throws. Cloaks/Vests/Ioun Stones of Resistance no longer exist. Now you can actually get wings of flying and not fail every single saving throw. Happy Birthday.
C.) Enhancement bonuses to armor no longer exist. When a character's BAB reaches 3 all armor’s that he wears that he is proficient with gain a +1 enhancement bonus while he is wearing it. This enhancement bonus increases by +1 when the characters BAB reaches 6, 9, 12, 15, and 18. Armor no longer requires a +1 enhancement bonus to add special properties properties.
This bonus does no apply to shields. Shields may still have enhancement bonuses as usual, however they do not require a +1 enhancement bonus to enchant with other properties.
D.) When a character's BAB reaches 3 all weapon’s he wields that he is proficient with gain a +1 enhancement bonus while he is wielding it. This enhancement bonus increases by +1 when the character's BAB reaches 6, 9, 12, 15, and 18.
The first attack you make in a round is considered your primary attack. If you have the Two-Weapon Fighting feat then the first off hand attack you make is also considered a primary attack. All attacks that follow your primary attacks are considered iterative attacks. If you have the Two-Weapon Fighting feat, all off hand attacks made after your first off hand attack are also considered iterative attacks.
Primary attacks are made at your full-base attack bonus. Iterative attacks are made with a -5 penalty to the attack roll. So a 20th level fighter has a BAB of +20/+15/+15/+15 not +20/+15/+10/+5.
This was inspired by Trailblazers -2/-2 system.
Power Attack, Combat Expertise, Deadly Aim, and Weapon Finesse aren't feats. Nor do they have a requirement. You can just do these now. Whenever really. They still follow the same rules as before. Feats and PrC's that had these as prerequisites no longer do. Feats shouldn't be used as a tax to not fall behind they should be used to make you better.
Long feat chains need to go. If a feat has more than 2 feats as a prerequisites than it needs to be changed. If you take a feat to be a two-weapon fighter than you should just be a two-weapon fighter. Every other feat you take that is related to two weapon fighting should make you more interesting and more versatile, it shouldn't be a tax to keep you relevant.
Combat feats also need to scale with BAB. If they feat has fighters in mind than it should scale with BAB, if it has sneak attackers in mind than it should scale with sneak attack, etc.
Here are a few examples of the way I believe feats should be. I'm sure I'll be told this is uber broken or some such.
Catch Off-Guard (Combat)
Benefit: You do not suffer any penalties for using an improvised melee or thrown weapon and you receive a +1 circumstance bonus on attacks rolls made with improvised weapons. Unarmed opponents are flat-footed against any attacks you make with an improvised melee or thrown weapon within 30 feet. Any feats you have that may be applied to a normal weapon such as Power Attack, Two Weapon Fighting, etc. may also be applied to attacks made with improvised weapons. You may only use an object as an improvised melee weapon if it weighs less than your medium load. If you are a monk you may treat improvised weapons as monk weapons.
When your BAB reaches +6 you may treat improvised weapons you are wielding as any weapon you are proficient with for the purposes of determining the die size, threat range, and critical multiplier. In addition if you choose a weapon you have feats or abilities that with enhancing your combat skills with that specific weapon such as Weapon Focus or Weapon Specialization you may apply those as well as long as you are emulating that weapon with your improvised weapon. This does not change the damage type of the improvised weapon. For example if you choose to treat a crowbar as a long sword the crow bar is still treated as a bludgeoning weapon.
Also improvised weapons you use are treated as magic for the purposes of over coming DR.
When your BAB reaches +11 you deal double damage with all improvised weapons you wield. Normal weapons with the broken condition may also be used without penalty.
When your BAB reaches +16 you may use any item as an improvised weapon as long as it weighs less than your heavy load. Whenever you are using a weapon that weighs more than your light load you are treated as a large creature for determining attack and damage rolls. However unarmed opponents are no longer flat-footed against your attacks and your range increment is reduced to 5 when using such weapons.
In addition any creature you have successfully grappled may be used as a melee weapon provided you succeed on a Combat Maneuver Check against the Grappled creatures Combat Maneuver Defense. IF you succeed the creature is treated as being pinned for one round and you may treat the target as an improvised weapon for a single attack, following all the normal rules for improvised weapons. Both the creature being used as a weapon and the creature you are targeting take full damage from your attacks.
Critical Focus (Combat)
Benefit: You receive a +4 circumstance bonus on attack rolls made to confirm critical hits. When your BAB reaches +1, +6, +11, and +16 you gain a Focus Ability from the list below. Whenever you score a critical hit you may apply the effect of one Focus Ability that you know against the target. You must meet all the prerequisites to choose an ability focus, and you may not add the effects of more than one Focus Ability at a time unless you have the Critical Mastery feat. The DC of any effect that allows for a save is equal to 10 + your base attack bonus.
* Bleeding – You opponent takes 2d6 points of bleed damage (see Appendix 2 of the Core Rulebook) each round on his turn, in addition to the damage dealt by the critical hit. Bleed damage can be stopped by a DC 15 Heal skill check or through any magical healing. The effects of this feat stack. You must be using a slashing or piercing weapon to gain the benefits of this Focus Ability.
* Blinding – Your opponent is permanently blinded. A successful Fortitude save reduces this to dazzled for 1d4 rounds. This has no effect on creatures that do not rely on eyes for sight. Creature with more than two eyes get a +4 to their saving throw. This blindness can be cured by heal, regeneration, remove blindness, or a similar ability. You must have a +6 BAB before you can select this Focus Ability.
* Deafening – You opponent is permanently deafened. A successful Fortitude save reduces the deafness to 1 round. This feat has no effect on deaf creatures. This deafness can be cured by heal, regeneration, remove deafness, or a similar ability.
* Sickening – Your opponent becomes sickened for 1 minute. The effects of this Focus Ability do not stack. Addition hits instead add to the effects duration.
* Staggering – Your opponent becomes staggered for 1d4+1 rounds. A successful Fortitude save reduces the duration to 1 round. The effects of this focus ability do not stack. Additional hits instead add to the duration. You must have a +6 BAB before you can select this Focus Ability
* Stunning – Your opponent becomes stunned for 1d4 rounds. A successful Fortitude save reduces this to staggered for 1d4 rounds. The effects of this focus ability do not stack. Additional hits instead add to the duration. You must have the Staggering Focus Ability before you can select Stunning.
* Tiring – Your opponent becomes fatigued. This feat has no additional effect on a fatigued or exhausted creature.
* Exhausting – Your target immediately becomes exhausted. This focus ability has no effect on exhausted creatures. You must have the Tiring Focus Ability before you can select Exhausting.
Special: For each die of sneak attack a character has he may treat his BAB as being +1 point higher than it actually is for determining when they gain Focus Abilities. For example a 10th level rogue has a BAB of +7 and +5d6 sneak attack and thus has a +12 BAB for the purpose of this feat. This grants the rogue access to new Focus Abilities at a slightly faster rate than other martial classes.
Dastardly Finish (Combat)
Prereqs: +3d6 Sneak attack
Benefit: You can deliver a coup de grace to cowering or stunned targets.
When your sneak attack reaches +6d6 you can deliver a coup de grace to dazed or staggered targets
When you sneak attack reaches +8d6 you can deliver a coup de grace to staggered or flat-footed opponents
Normal: You can only coup de grace helpless targets.
Deflect Arrow (Combat)
Prereqs: Dex 13, Improved Unarmed Strike
Benefit: You must have at least one hand free (holding nothing) to use this feat. Once per round when you would normally be hit with an attack from ranged weapon, you may deflect it so that you take no damage from it. You must be aware of the attack and not flat-footed. Attempting to deflect a ranged attack doesn’t count as an action. Unusually massive ranged weapons, such as boulders or ballista bolts, and ranged attacks generated by natural attacks or spell effects can’t be deflected.
When your BAB reaches +1 you may choose to catch the weapon instead of just deflect it. Thrown weapons can immediately be thrown back as an attack against the original attacker (even though it isn’t your turn) or kept for later use.
When your BAB reaches +6 may attempt to deflect ray spells and spell like abilities. This functions like spell resistance equal to 7 + your base attack bonus.
When your BAB reaches +11 you may reflect a ray that has failed to overcome your spell resistance back at the caster. Use your attack roll to determine if you hit.
When your BAB reaches +16 you may deflect even unusually massive ranged weapons, such as boulders or ballista bolts.
Elven Accuracy (Combat)
Prereqs: Elf.
Benefit: If you miss due to concealment when making a ranged attack with a longbow or shortbow (including composite bows), you can reroll your miss chance roll one time to see if you actually hit.
When your BAB reaches +6 you may apply the bonus from your Keen Senses racial trait to all attacks made with a longbow or shortbow (including composite bows). This counts as a racial bonus to your attack rolls.
When your BAB reaches +11 when you successfully hit a concealed or invisible creature with an attack from a longbow or shortbow the target looses all benefits for being concealed (including total concealment. This applies to total concealment granted to enemies due to the elf being blind however all other penalties for being blind still apply.) or invisible against you (your allies still treat the target as concealed or invisible). This lasts for as long as you continue to hit the concealed or invisible creature. If you fail to hit the creature for one round the creature regains the benefits from invisibility and concealment against you.
When your BAB reaches +16 once per day as a free action you may enter a special trance. This trance lasts a number of rounds equal to 1 + Wisdom mod. While in this trance you are under the effects of a Haste spell (does not stack with Haste spell or Speed weapon property) and you must designate a target. You may change targets as a free action but only once per round. You roll twice on all attacks rolls made with a longbow or shortbow (including composite bows) and take the better result. If an attack made while in a trance is a critical threat it is automatically confirmed. However you take a -4 penalty to AC against all attacks from sources other than your current target.
Improved Bull Rush (Combat)
Prereqs: Str 13
Benefit: You do not provoke an attack of opportunity when performing a bull rush combat maneuver and whenever you bull rush an opponent his movement provokes attacks of opportunity from all of your allies (but not you). In addition, you receive a +3 bonus to both your CMD and CMB in all checks regarding bull rushing or being bull rushed. This bonus increases to +4 when your BAB reaches +6, to +5 when your BAB reaches +11, and finally to +6 when your BAB reaches +16.
Iron Will (Combat)
Benefit: You get a +2 bonus on all Will saving throws.
When your BAB reaches +1 you may re-roll a failed Will saving throw once per day. You must decide to use this ability before the results are revealed. You must take the second roll, even if it is worse.
When your BAB reaches +6 you cannot be shaken (you can still be frightened or panicked).
When your BAB reaches +11 you gain Slippery Mind similar to a rogue. If you already have Slippery Mind or if at any point you acquire Slippery Mind from a secondary source then Slippery Mind improves allowing you to make a new saving throw each round.
When your BAB reaches +16 you are immune to fear effects.
Mounted Combat (Combat)
Prereqs: Ride 1 rank
Benefit: Once per round when your mount is hit in combat, you may attempt a Ride check (as an immediate action) to negate the hit. The hit is negated if your Ride check result is greater than the opponent’s attack roll.
When your BAB reaches +6 when you attempt to overrun an opponent while mounted, your target may not choose to avoid you. Your mount may make one hoof attack (or other natural attack) against any target you knock down, gaining the standard +4 bonus on attack rolls against prone targets.
In addition you no longer take a –5 penalty for riding a mount bareback.
When your BAB reaches +11 you may attempt a free drag maneuver attempt (with the target following behind your mount) against any creature you overrun. Unlike a normal drag however this drag does 1d6 point of damage per five feet you drag the target. You must be wielding a reach weapon to use this ability.
When your BAB reaches +16 you may add half your ranks in ride as a bonus to your mounts AC and reflex saves. The mount only gains this bonus while you are mounted and when your are not flat footed. You may also include your mounts natural attacks in any full attack you make. Finally you may make a Ride check to negate damage done to your mount twice per round instead of once.
Special: You may treat your ranks in ride as your BAB for the purposes of determining when you gain additional benefits from this feat.
Quick Draw (Combat)
Benefit: You can draw a weapon as a free action instead of as a move action. You can draw a hidden weapon (see the sleight of hand skill) as a move action.
When your BAB reaches +6 you may draw a weapon as an immediate action. As long as the character has the ability to take an immediate action they are always considered armed.
When your BAB reaches +11 you may draw a hidden weapon as a free action.
When your BAB reaches +16 you can draw a hidden weapon as an immediate action.
A character who has selected this feat may throw weapons at his full normal rate of attacks (much like a character with a bow). Alchemical items, potions, scrolls, and wands cannot be drawn quickly using this feat.
Spellbreaker (Combat)
Prereqs: Disruptive, Fighter level 6th
Benefit: Enemies in your threatened area that fail their checks to cast spells defensively provoke attacks of opportunity from you.
When your BAB reaches +11 you may make an attack as a standard action if this attack hits it does damage as normal and the target is affected by a targeting dispel magic. Your caster level for this is your BAB.
When your BAB reaches +16 any target you hit with an attack of opportunity due to a failed concentration check must make a second concentration check. If they fail this check they loose another prepared spell or spell slot of equivalent level to the one they were casting. If they have no more spells of that level this effect does nothing.
Blind-Fight (Combat)
Benefit: In melee, every time you miss because of concealment, you can re-roll your miss chance percentile roll one time to see if you actually hit.
An invisible attacker gets no advantages related to hitting you in melee. That is, you don’t lose your Dexterity bonus to Armor Class, and the attacker doesn’t get the usual +2 bonus for being invisible. The invisible attacker’s bonuses still apply for ranged attacks, however.
You do not need to make Acrobatics skill checks to move at full speed while blinded.
When your BAB is +6 or you no longer suffer the penalties for attacking a target who has concealment, though the normal penalties for total concealment still apply.
When your BAB is +11 or higher you may spend a swift action to gain blindsense out to 30 feet for 1 round.
When your BAB is +16 or higher your blindsense becomes blindsight.
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.
...
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.
+1, but I don't think the solution is making such spells a higher level, this simply delays the problem, or makes some spells useless instead of not broken.
Problem #1
No one else has options like that, even the most uberoptimized martial class cannot automatically decide that "X happens" or "Y stops doing anything", not even a limited number of times per day, at best the formula goes like this:
- Roll to hit, then actually hit or it goes to waste (also applies with limited uses per day).
- Apply a very specific condition that can usually be removed with a standard action or voided with a minimum of preparation.
Point 1 applies to SoS or SoDs too, you might say, albeit I believe the chances are actually higher, but the big problem is point 2: spells are a lot meaner, in no way cloudkill compares to trip, sunder, bull rush or any of the combat maneuvers, and this is in favour of spells, of course. Also, a lot of spells do their job even if point 1 fails.
Problem #2
I'm not going to address how easy it is to inflate attacks with magic and how AC cannot keep up, or do so at heavy expenses that do nothing to mitigate actual threats, like spells, I'll just say I like the expected per-level to hit and AC benchmarks in PF and think they just need to be enforced somehow.
Anyhow, we all have to admit that the only way to contribute to a fight without magic is HP damage, because combat maneuvers are ridiculous: either no one ever tries them because they get hit in the face first and for free and then, assuming they hit, something trivial happens, or a one-trick pony always does his pet maneuver that costs him zero risk and has added effect... When it isn't voided automatically due to the monster being immune to it, period.
There's also the problem that most combat maneuver feats are parts of chains, and yes, PF fighters get lots of feats but I think there are more speedbump feats than 3.5 in this sense, which kind of mitigates the advantage, plus having more only compensates the fact that if you have a monster that, say, is immune to trip, you have 3 feats you can't use. Also, since feats are unlike spells and they can't be changed around depending on who you think you're going to fight or how you feel like fighting today, it's even worse.
Solution #1
I'm not talking about grease or colour spray, actually, I'm talking about things like rope trick, teleport, fabricate, planar binding, gate and ridiculously long-lasting buffs, or way to turn them permanent or almost.
2e has a lot of lessons to teach in this sense: magic was way less predictable: scry and teleport was a less sound tactic considering teleport had a non-dismissable chance of screwing with you if you weren't absolutely, positively familiar with your destination (and even then, the chance of error was there), taking any damage would disrupt a spell automatically, and so on.
I don't think the part about autodisrupting spells is necessary, but rope trick shouldn't last that long, it should be what it says: a trick, not "I automatically am safe unless the DM decides I'm dead anyways and wants to screw with me", invisibility has already been nerfed a bit, but improved invisibility should still turn you partially visible when you attack or cast a spell to prevent the arms race that says "you either have true sight or are useless" from level X on.
Flight shouldn't last that long either, there shouldn't be a level point where walking on solid ground means you fail as a player. Wish and miracle should still be very positive spells, but way less predictable in their effects.
The intrinsic problem in this is that you need to really browse through the whole spell list and nitpick every single one, which is a lot of work. Then you should do the same to magic items, which I believe have too many persistent effects that are just there to serve as compensation because noncasters don't cast spells, which is a kick in the groin of any pretense of "balance".
I may put more on this in another post, for it's really a lot of work.
Solution #2
It's a game where you're a dude or dudette that runs around killing dinosaurs and carving their stuffs out of their carcasses, then uses the collected loot and various other resources to build better armour and ridiculously oversized weapons. Does this remind you of anything?
Anyways, one thing I like about this game is that no matter how cool your equipment is, you still have a base of 100 HPs and 100 endurance that never improves on its own, you only get better loot. And monsters are huge and hurt. This means that if you charge headfirst and just swing your weapon around you're gonna get stomped to the ground by any monster that isn't a mook. It may work if you have uber gear and go against a weak one, but the biggest threats can still annihilate you if you're not smart, even with top-notch equipment.
This doesn't happen in D&D. Not in 3.X/PF at least. There, you either built "correctly" and have a higher statistical chance of doing HP damage that is irrelevant until it brings the total to 0 or you built "incorrectly" and have a lower statistical chance. Optimization can easily turn this into "autowin" and "autofail", or close to that. Actually, "autofail" is a much easier and most likely result of failing to optimize in a campaign where you're meant to if we speak of noncasters.
So what do we do? Well, we have to first make sure that you can do other things than dealing HP damage, and at the same time allow you to both try them to a potentially good result even if you're not optimized for that, and prevent an optimized tripper from being either god of battlefield control or useless, depending on whether the monster is flat-out immune or not.
Here's some practical examples of what I mean:
If they look like 4e powers, it's because I like 4e and its powers format, but I'm using it here just for practical reasons and ease of understanding
Requirement: You must attack with a shield
Hit: You deal damage normally, and the opponent must make a Fortitude save (DC 10 + your BAB + your Strength modifier) or take a -2 penalty to AC and all attack rolls for one round.
Miss: You lose your shield bonus to AC until the beginning of your next round, and your target gains an Attack of Opportunity against you.
Note: Attacking with a shield to deal HP damage does not make you lose your shield bonus to AC, not even on a miss.
Requirement: You must be fighting defensively with a shield equipped
Trigger: You are missed by an attack
Attack: Make an attack roll with your equipped shield.
Hit: You deal damage normally, and the opponent must make a Fortitude save (DC 10 + your BAB + your Strength modifier) or be dazed for one round.
Miss: The opponent's attack hits you instead.
Requirement: You must attack with a shield
Hit: You deal damage normally, and the opponent must make a Reflex save (DC 10 + your BAB + your Strength modifier) or be pushed back one square and fall prone.
Special: Creatures larger than you gain a +2 bonus to their Reflex save for each size category. Creatures with more than two legs or extraordinary stability gain an additional +4 bonus to their Reflex save. Attacking with a light shield does not cause the creature to fall prone unless it is smaller than you.
Miss: You lose your shield bonus to AC until the beginning of your next round, and your target gains an Attack of Opportunity against you and can move you one square in a direction of his choice.
Note: Attacking with a shield to deal HP damage does not make you lose your shield bonus to AC, not even on a miss.
Hit: You deal unarmed damage normally, and the opponent is considered grappled and must make a Reflex save (DC 10 + your BAB + your Strength modifier) or fall prone and be considered prone. You end prone as well in the same square.
Special: Creatures larger than you gain a +2 bonus to their Reflex save for each size category. Creatures with more than two legs or extraordinary stability gain an additional +4 bonus to their Reflex save.
Miss: You fall prone in a square adjacent of your opponent of his choice.
Requirement: You must be either charging or in a Rage
Trigger: You hit with an attack
Effect: You can decide to give your opponent an Attack of Opportunity against you. If you do so, you can afterwards make another attack with an equipped weapon of your choice.
Hit: You deal damage normally, and afterwards move one square without provoking Attacks of Opportunity.
Special: If you are wielding a slashing weapon, you can instead move a number of squares up to your Dexterity modifier or half your movement speed, whichever is lower, without provoking Attacks of Opportunity.
Miss: You are flat-footed against your opponent. You can still move after attacking as per a hit, but you provoke Attacks of Opportunity while doing so.
Hit: You deal damage normally, which is applied both to your target and its armour. Your opponent must then make a Fortitude save (DC 10 + your BAB + your Strength modifier) or the next weapon attack he receives before the end of your next round will inflict an additional weapon damage dice.
Miss: Your opponent gains an Attack of Opportunity against you. In addition to that, you roll damage as if you hit your own weapon with this attack, and deal half that result to it; if you are attacking unarmed, you deal that damage to yourself.
Hit: You deal damage normally, which is applied both to your target and any of its equipped weapons. Your opponent must then make a Reflex save (DC 10 + your BAB + your Strength modifier) or the targeted equipped weapon will deal half damage for one round. You can target natural weapons as well, but they do not take additional damage.
Miss: Your opponent gains an Attack of Opportunity against you. In addition to that, you are disarmed of the weapon you have been using to attack
These are just very basic ideas, can expand more on them later if need be.[/spoiler]
While I think there is clearly a disparity in power and versatility of casters and non-casters or "martials" as you put it, I don't think it is game-breaking but rather part of the way the game was built since 1e. The problem now is that there are rules to cover a lot more situations, and players playing casters can think their way around the few drawbacks that casters had.
In 3.5 and now in PF every book that comes out will have feats for martials and spells for casters. The more options a caster has the more powerful and versatile he gets and many of these casters can swap their spells out day by day (wiz/cler/dru) whereas feats serve to narrow the gap between the two parties, and yet they are a finite resource that remain forever once chosen.
It all comes down to playstyle in the end. I think the majority of people who have some system mastery but still want everyone to be viable play that the melee are up front dishing out damage and protecting the casters, who are then casting party buffs and enemy debuffs and controlling the battlefield. This is sort of the iconic image. Therefore the solution is to make this work. There are some problem spots.
1)Let melee stop others passing by them with a core mechanic, not a feat (stand still) which rarely works. Something like if they are hit they take a penalty to their speed based on damage done. Or a feat that turns a fighter's threatened hexes into difficult terrain.
2)Let damage be a debuff. In a number of ways. The sickening critical type feats are a good idea, but they're too high level and rely on crits as well as a save. Something like you take 1/4 of your HP damage your speed is reduced by 10ft and you get a -2 to all rolls. at 1/2 y our HP you are shaken and at 3/4 you are sickened. Think cumulative penalties for "wounds" like in other rpgs.
3)Let's have workable mechanics to shoot down fliers. As soon as the game moves to 3 dimensions all but the casters are immediately removed from the game. Something like when you make your fly check each round you take a penalty equal to the highest BAB of anyone who did physical damage to you since the previous check. An adult green dragon (CR12) has a +10 to fly. If he takes a -9 from the archer's shot he just might not pass his check, or he will be forced to change his tactics to maneuver in ways that require a lower check. Either way it's the "martials" controlling the board.
4)Give the mobile fighter archetype to everyone. Move 5-feet: full attack move 10-feet: all but your lowest move up to full move: give up lowest 2 attacks. Has further benefit of evening the playing field between 2H and 2W fighters.
That's mostly it as I see it. Again, I'm fine with the disparity between casters and non-casters but the reasons why non-casters can't keep up boil down to these things IMHO. If you can only hit things with a stick and the thing you want to hit is out of reach of your stick, you might as well pack your toys and go home. If the monster can kite you, then you are a child's toy not a threat.
|
|
Having just finished playing in a 20-level campaign as a martial character and currently being behind the screen, I think I have something to add.
The problems:
- Martials need decent scores in multiple abilities
- Martials are functionally immobile at high levels
- Martials are extremely dependant on magic items to be functional and thus are also vulnerable to magic item destruction in a way that pure-casters aren't
- Pure casters are nearly fully effective standing in the nude
- Pure casters need decent scores in only two abilities (Int/Wis/Cha) and Con
- Pure casters can have limited duration functionality (i.e. they burn off their effective spells early, leading to the so-called 10-minute work day). Believe it or not, this is a problem at all levels as the casters start to get nervous once they scratch the top two levels worth of spells from their sheets.
The solutions:
- To address the ability score disparity (which can only be fixed with point buys) make the high values (15+) be even steeper in cost so those who have to spread their buys around aren't penalized versus those who don't.
- In my last campaign, the optimizers tended to play martial characters or more experimental and RP-builds and the non-optimizers played blaster-type spell-casters. This really evened things because at high levels, the blasters return to lower functionality. This isn't a solution in general, obviously.
- +1 to the ideas presented above of giving ability, armour, shield and save buffs on a regular schedule. I like that this would bring spells like Bull's Strength back into play.
- I like the idea of giving full-attack with a move functionality for those with iterative attacks.
i.e. an 11th level TWF-ranger pimped out with the full suite of feats can:
1) Take a 5' step and attack with TWF-adjusted BABs of +9/+4/-1 (primary) and +9/+4/-1 (secondary)
2) Take a single move and attack: +9/+4 (primary) and +9/+4 (secondary)
3) Take a double move and attack: +9 (primary) and +9 (secondary)
A 6th level sword-and-board fighter affected by haste can:
1) Take a 5' step and attack +6/+6/+1
2) Take a single move and attack +6/+6
3) Take a double move and attack +6 (this is debatable)
This change would also work for ranged fighters and would incur some small cost for movement, without crippling them.
- If the mobility of primary casters is really that much of a problem, one could invent a reciprocal mechanic like that proposed for martials.
Spell-casters may take a 5' step and cast a spell as normal. They may take a single move and cast a spell at ECaL (effective caster level) = CL-5 and may take a double move and cast a spell at ECaL = CL-10
ECL would affect what spell levels could be cast and not durations.
i.e. an 11th level wizard can:
1) Take a 5' step and cast any spell on his list up to 6th level spells
2) Take a single move and cast any spell that a 6th level wizard could (up to 3rd level)
3) Take a double move and cast any spell that a 1st level wizard could (just 1st and 0th level spells)
- Allow pure casters to refresh spells faster somehow or reduce HPs to reduce combat durations so they have enough resources to keep going.
i.e. After a big fight an 11th level druid could:
Rest for an hour and refocus and regain their spells up to 5th level. Later in the day after another big fight, they could meditate for an hour and regain spells up to 4th level.
In 3.5 and now in PF every book that comes out will have feats for martials and spells for casters. The more options a caster has the more powerful and versatile he gets and many of these casters can swap their spells out day by day (wiz/cler/dru) whereas feats serve to narrow the gap between the two parties, and yet they are a finite resource that remain forever once chosen.
+1 and a slow clap. I hope someone is listening.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In 3.5 and now in PF every book that comes out will have feats for martials and spells for casters. The more options a caster has the more powerful and versatile he gets and many of these casters can swap their spells out day by day (wiz/cler/dru) whereas feats serve to narrow the gap between the two parties, and yet they are a finite resource that remain forever once chosen.+1 and a slow clap. I hope someone is listening.
Oh, indeed, he's very right. No matter how many feats any supplement or any third-party product will throw in the mixer, it won't solve anything: you take a feat from there? Fine, one less feat you take from anywhere else, the situation is unchanged, the power level is the same. Meanwhile, if you add a cleric spell in any supplement or even adventure path, every cleric ever of any deity in every part of the whole world automatically has it available. At no cost.
This is why I don't like PF's fighter, it's all manners of wrong: 20 feats aren't going to do anything even if they are turned into the equivalent of spells, and that's because casters, of all types, get spells as class features without any sort of further investment, while everyone else needs limited resources, like feats, to catch up, but feats alone aren't enough.
Plus, casters get them too, so more powerful feats don't just benefit noncasters, quite the contrary: 3.5 got all sorts of crazy when people started throwing in supplemental metamagic stuff, a couple feats and an item or two did more to widen the gap than a hundred feats and magic items combined did to narrow it.
Actually, you're so right that I have realized there is a 3rd problem I haven't addressed in my previous post: back when 3e was something "new", feats were supposed to be things you add to baseline, fixed classes to further customize your character's abilities, along with skill points that should have provided better customization than NWPs. You could now have greatsword-swinging wizards, strong-willed fighters and rogues in heavy armour!
... Except no, you couldn't; it became clear after a very short while that feats were no good unless they were used to empower what you already had instead of trying to "customize" or add unusual stuff: greatsword-swinging wizard isn't so pretty when you realize that not having a -4 nonproficiency to hit doesn't help you not dying in melee, which means a wasted feat. +2 to a will save doesn't really change much when you need an 18 instead of a 20 to succeed in most rolls anyways, if you're that lucky. Heavy armour isn't good when you're sort of forced by the rules to have a high dexterity score, and ACP hurts you more than it should considering the feat investment you took.
At this point, however, there's no "fix" that doesn't involve a quite thorough rewrite of the system. Casters are always ahead by virtue of having quadratic power instead of linear, and having multiplying options that you can switch depending on how you feel like with additional resources, such as feats, to do whatever you want. Noncasters are always behind by virtue of having linear power instead of quadratic, having nothing but small numerical advantages to rolls that, alone, won't help much, and get none of the options and versatility casters have, not to mention that they are forced to gain what tiny little options they need just to not be a complete waste of character sheet by using a limited resource that is supposed to work as customization, instead of basic class design that is missing for no good reason.
I know there is a certain hatred on the board for the Book of nine swords, but it does mitigate the disparity by giving plenty of resources to noncasters that follow a quadratic power scheme, like those of casters, are selectable and can be switched albeit with limits, and thus end up giving you a "complete" class that doesn't have to rely on a dozen feats just to do something better than "I attack with my longsword with a +40 bonus for 1d8+20 damage" at level 20. Even in nonoptimization land, level 20 deserves better than that.
If you don't want to give this sort of options to noncasters, fine, but someone will have to come up with an alternative because the martial classes, as written, don't get even close in the amount, versatility and sheer power of built-in options that casters have, and saying they have feats to compensate is nonsense: that's not the role of feats.
|
|
At this point, however, there's no "fix" that doesn't involve a quite thorough rewrite of the system.
Simple version:
Change the spells + add more effect to the combat feats.That isn't a re-write of the system any more than the minor changes to the way spells/feats worked from 3.5 to PF.
Slightly more detailed version:
Change the spells - chance of failure on some, added risk when casting to straight nerf on others (ex - restore that you only get 1-6 targets on original Color Spray). Fix DCs caps tied to spell level (I have no idea why this isn't already in place).
Feats - should have abilities that extend beyond damage - expand condions and have feats that get those conditions out. Some basic feats should also scale (Weapon focus =/= any metamagic feat).
Feats and fighting at high levels is definitely static compared to spellcasters. Martials need something else to do besides pure damage. They need damage with a little status condition mixed in. This is what critical feats do, but I am bothered that they require feat chains to work, AND they require a critical to happen, so there is very little control. With critical feats, I am not making a tactical decision, I am rolling a roulette wheel.
I like the idea of using iterative attacks as a currency for special effects, something already done with vital strike. This seems to me a good way to widen the tactical options at higher levels and allow someone who high level to do something more than add up damage from 3-4 atacks. Damage is great, damage is important, but for there to be a dramatic system going on for martial characters there needs to be options that compete with damage as the best thing to do at this particular moment (for example, what if by sacrificing an iterative, you could crush the windpipe of a demon you are in combat with, so he can't use a verbal supernatural ability). I think that would improve the feel of high level martial play as compared to high level caster play. Cede some of the battlefield control back to the fighters.
I'm not sure how to do this but one idea would be to have the casters be able to rest and re-prepare spells/slots with maximum levels as though their ECaL were = CL-2*(the number of times they have done this).
i.e. After a big fight an 11th level druid could:
Rest for an hour and refocus and regain their spells up to 5th level. Later in the day after another big fight, they could meditate for an hour and regain spells up to 4th level.
The 10 minute work day is definitely a problem. Spell slots originally were meant as part of the balance between the casters and martials. Martials get abilities that have less of an impact (feats for example) but they can use them all day. The problem is that no one thinks its a good idea to fight the BBEG with a wizard who only has 0 level spells left. 4E took this problem head on and created a power system that refreshed after various intervals, such as after an encounter.
I like your suggestion, but there are gameplay issues that crop up. Healing spells, for example, might become too easy to refresh. If it becomes too easy for casters to heal everyone, every day will start out with full health and we would loose some of those experiences where we know that HP are a finite resource. There is drama in that, and I wouldn't want to loose it.
Perhaps this needs a cost. What if by re-preparing, you need to take 1 point of Con damage, due to fatigue, in addition to the time it takes. That would discourage casters from doing this too often, but in the bowels of a dungeon, its better than teleporting away or camping for 12 hours.
+1 to this thread as a whole. Please keep it going.
Feats and fighting at high levels is definitely static compared to spellcasters. Martials need something else to do besides pure damage. They need damage with a little status condition mixed in. This is what critical feats do, but I am bothered that they require feat chains to work, AND they require a critical to happen, so there is very little control. With critical feats, I am not making a tactical decision, I am rolling a roulette wheel.
There's some good stuff in the APG in this vein -- check out Stunning Assault, for example.
If it becomes too easy for casters to heal everyone, every day will start out with full health and we would loose some of those experiences where we know that HP are a finite resource. There is drama in that, and I wouldn't want to loose it.
I hate to say it, but very lowest levels aside, that ship sailed two editions ago. Players who know what they're doing will always start the day with full HP.
I hate to say it, but very lowest levels aside, that ship sailed two editions ago. Players who know what they're doing will always start the day with full HP.Precisely why I'd like to see abilities rebalanced to 'per encounter' rather than 'per day'.
as long as its not taken too far and turned into 4th ed.
as long as its not taken too far and turned into 4th ed.
It certainly would make no sense to imitate 4e with PF, since it's designed to be different, but since I'm a 4e fanboy, I have troubles seeing what you mean with "too far".
It's a honest question, I just don't understand, can you expand on what you would consider "taken too far" with per encounter powers? I believe it would help make great improvements for fighters and casters alike, but I don't know what other people here think when they say "per encounter powers".
well, the way i see it is so long as martial classes get class features that continue to 20th level along with "per encounter" abilities than i would be happy, i just don't want to see all of the martial classes abilities be turned into per encounter abilities, i want to see abilities that are permanent features of the class.
i hope that answers your question.
|
|
A different approach:
Problem: Casters can move about and still do their jobs, fighters can't.
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.
My groups have always house-ruled that. It's worked with us so far. It also seems to strengthen the bond between casters and martials. One one hand it makes Clerics less likely to "divine-tank" and it makes high powered arcane casters afraid of damage, usually to the point of treating some tanks like babysiters.
The main way my groups deal with this issue is to really push the team work aspect of the game. Which means that each member of the team has to be able to cover for the others when the time comes.
Anti-magic fields, spell resistance, and challenging environments all make it difficult to be a caster.
Anti caster DM tricks
-Rogues...a good stealth roll is better than invisibility. As it can't be purged. Also Wizards hate sneak attack and poisin.
-Spell components: They actually balance the game quite a bit if used. If that caster doesn't have the goods, those spell slots are not as useful as they could be.
-This is more of a wizard thing, but still an excellent party building quest. Have a spell book stolen. I built a mini campaign around that.
-Similar to the wizard issue is stealing a divine focus. In my games it's a hardened rule that your divine focus is attuned to you. Losing it has similar ramifications to losing a paladin's mount or bonded item. Replacing it takes time and resources, however recovering it makes for a better story and a greatful team.
I personally don't like the idea of the standard full attack. That was the idea of taking the whirlwind attack line of feats, or in the midnight setting whirlwhind charge. I again think in terms of time, sprinting thirty feet and attacking with reckless abandon is more animalistic than inteligent. That being said we do allow for charging on some combat manuevers in my games.
One huge thing that martials can much easier, faster, and often better than casters in combat is the use of attacks of opportunity. particularly how combat manuevers can be made in place of an attack. That fighter with a longspear might not be able to stone shape or change the battlefield, however he can keep a series of opponents tied up and hurting. Yes, martial weapons kill slower than a lightning bolt, but they still kill.
Comming back to the GM standpoint though, I feel it's more important to create scenarios that capitalize on each member of the group. Make the group work together. More importantly make them rely on the other members abilities. The best way to do tat is to sometimes take away their core abilities. Recover the spell book, steal the potion that will save the cleric, save the tank's village, and back that rogue up when the guild comes to collect "missed dues".
The real point of my statement was that you can add all the feats you want to level the playing field, but they're still consuming a finite resource. They need to change the core rules to allow these things, not variants, not archetypes, not feats. Anything else is just a bandaid.
Interesting thread; I only just saw it.
Based on my gameplay experiences running a high level Pathfinder game (ongoing) and playing and running 3.x for 10 years, and not just reading a book imagining how something works in an ideal circumstance:
Casters:
- Casters are versatile and potentially powerful, but...
- Resource management must constantly be first and foremost at the front of the player's mind. While they have potentially at their arsenal a number of ways to tackle a given problem, it comes down to being able to decide relatively quickly which way they will do it--and what are the consequences of expending a given resource. Players poor at making these decisions or learning to be creative with their arsenal of spells often end up feeling frustrated and overwhelmed--or even powerless.
----Example, based on actual game play: The 18th level party was attacked by a single glabrezu and a large number of vrocks. The party cleric prepared banishment once. She got rid of most of the vrocks with one spell. Cool! But then the party later had to face down five tough glabrezu--a much tougher fight, where banishment really might have come in handy (and in that fight, the cleric got zapped by one of the glabrezu's powed word stun and was out of the fight for a couple rounds anyway). Now, could she have memorized banishment more than once? Sure. But then she might not have had that heal spell she used to save the party rogue when he got knocked down to literally 2 HP from full in one blow.
----Another example, based on another in game event: use an arcanist's last disintegrate of the day on a door to get into an important area, or use it on a construct attacking the party?
----Of course, part of caster versatility is finding different ways/spells to solve different problems, but again--the fact remains: micromanagement of resources is fully in effect.
- With the obvious exception of quickened spells (which come with their own cost), you only get to cast on your turn once. Sure, for example, clerics are nasty if you let them cast Shield of Faith AND Divine Power AND Bull's Strength AND Righteous Might, but the enemy's likely not twiddling his thumbs during those 4 rounds that cleric is casting those spells. This also goes back to resource management, but I feel the need to point it out because a lot of arguments about caster power seem to overlook the fact that you still only get one standard action a turn, you don't get to cast every spell you have all at once.
- Casters can easily nerf and control others but can also be easily nerfed. A wizard that ends up in melee (sure, the wizard will do everything possible to avoid it, but there are creatures that sneak and teleport and do all kinds of nasty things) is sure to be hurt rather badly.
- If you use the 15 minute adventure day, sure casters are going to "win." But I can't imagine a 15 minute adventure day kind of game that would make any sense or be any fun (maybe it's possible, I just am incapable of imagining it). In my games, if the party is stopping to rest after every fight---the story continues on. The dragon will eat the damsel and move on to his summer lair; he's not waiting two weeks for them to get down a single corridor. This is NOT to say never ever let the party rest either, of course--but the balance in casters comes from their resource management. IIRC, the general guideline is a party should be able to take on about 4 fights of their CR, plus deal with a good chunk of non combat challenges, before feeling like they've run out of steam. And following these guidelines, things seem to work fairly well.
- Arguments for how powerful casters are tend to assume that casters beat saves and spell resistance 100% of the time. We know this is impossible.
- I have had tremendous fun playing spellcasters and have seldom felt like I was being unfairly treated or had nothing to do playing one.
Weapon Users:
- Weapon users can reliably and consistently deal damage, but often tend to be one trick (or a few trick) ponies.
- Weapon users however can do this one trick long after casters are starting to run out of steam (especially at lower levels)
- Where playing effective casters requires resource management, playing effective weapon users requires a keen knowledge of the game's combat rules (the basics are easy but there are a lot of complicated permutations) and the ability to plan ahead feat builds to make combat style the most effective as possible.
---- Example: Something I was facing when writing up a high level character recently: give him the fun, flavorful Dazzling Display tree? Or give him the Vital Strike Tree--where with Improved Vital Strike, even if he moves and attacks once, that one attack, if successful, hits similarly as if it were three successful hits (minus multiple strength bonuses).
- Weapon users are much more reliant upon gear to do extra "tricks" and need to plan out their non-combat contributions more carefully. This is less the case for skillmonkey characters, who ALWAYS have something to do no matter what--usually at a tradeoff of slightly less combat effectiveness, but combat is at most 50% of the game in my experience.
- Arguments for how powerful a weapon user build is tend to assume that a given build will always hit and do damage 100% of the time. We know this is impossible.
- I have had tremendous fun playing weapon users and have seldom felt like I was being unfairly treated or had nothing to do playing one.
Miscellaneous Ranting:
Summary:
- Casters and Weapon Users have different pros and cons. Both can be challenging to play in their own way. While casters are infinitely versatile by potential, they are limited by how much they can do in a given moment. While weapon users almost always can contribute to combat even when a caster is running out of options, they may, depending on build, have less to give to the team in other situations unless they are skill monkeys (but even then, I've seldom personally had that problem). In the end--what this means to me is that they are "balanced"--not in terms of whose DPS is better (that's not a major concern of mine), but in terms that they each have their role to play, are effective in that role on different yet equal terms, and that I, personally, have had tremendous fun playing both of them.
- I will remind anyone who bothered to read through this mess that this is based on my personal experiences, and others' experiences may differ.
I haven't removed any posts, but I would like to ask people to let the edition wars stay dead.
sorry
Please read the rules in the first post before posting. I have no authority to stop you from breaking those rules, but they have kept the thread at a high signal:noise ratio thus far. If you really want to riff on something make a spin off thread. You're even welcome to link it back here! Thank you.
Also, if you've broken the guidelines and you want to repent — please flag your own post. I think Ross can see who flagged a post, and maybe he'll help us with some voluntary cleanup to keep this thread an awesome resource for GMs. *civility fist-bump to Ross*
The Problem:
In 3.5 and now in PF every book that comes out will have feats for martials and spells for casters. The more options a caster has the more powerful and versatile he gets and many of these casters can swap their spells out day by day (wiz/cler/dru) whereas feats serve to narrow the gap between the two parties, and yet they are a finite resource that remain forever once chosen.
Martial characters aren't versatile enough compared to casters.
The Solution:
Combat Rites. Like those created matial characters in Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved.
Combat Rites increase martial characters versatility and don't need to be prepared in advance. They're not spells, but they're similar to spells in that a martial character has a given number of slots per day for the various levels of combat rites he or she can use. More Combat Rites can be added to the game just like more spells can be added for casters.
Sample abilities granted to martial characters via Combat Rites are similar to abilities that can be gained by feats or through extraordinary abilities. The difference is that the character can turn these abilities on (and/or enhance them) when using a Combat Rite. For instance, a martial character might not have the Improved Disarm feat, but he might choose to use a Combat Rite to emulate the feat for 1 round in a particular situation. Next combat, he might need the effects of Improved Bull Rush. But, not having the feat, he uses a Combat Rite to emulate the effect.
Arcana Evolved had 4 levels of Combat Rites, each more powerful than the previous level. This could be expanded to 9 levels.
Ultimate Combat should build upon or revamp the idea of Combat Rites for Pathfinder RPG and provide a way to add it into the existing PFRPG. Add Combat Rites to martial characters without taking away the rest of their class abilities.
. . .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.
My favored solution, detailed earlier, is what I've used in customized campaign settings. I don't think it's the best solution for publication.
That doesn't mean you'll agree with it, but I thought it was worth mentioning.
Some of the comments I've read here about feats are very insightful. I'm starting to like the idea of making feats scale. As it stands, many high-level or high-powered feats require long chains to acquire. Because of that, fighting classes have to continue spending character build resources to improve their abilities, while casters get higher and higher levels spells automatically. That won't solve the whole problem, of course, but I think it's one good element of a solution.
At BAB 1 = Improved Disarm
At BAB 6 = add Greater Disarm effect
At BAB 11 = add Disarming Strike effect
At BAB 16 = add "When you successfully disarm an opponent, you may follow up with an additional attack at the same BAB as the original strike."