|
Maybe not in your world......aaaand Rule 0 is trotted out once again to try and argue why something isn't imbalanced...
If I had even a grain of sand for how many times that argument gets used, I'd have made a fortune selling kitty litter.
Nothing so complex or sinister. One of my past DMs got sick of us flying over anything, so he just made flying mummies. Then flying sharks. Then flying gelatinous cube. Then flying sahugin.
Etc.
It was quite humorous.
|
|
Ok, so they get nothing like that until 11, and it's not a proper full attack and move until 20. So that example doesn't work.Happy to help Tom.
And for CoDzilla...
I present... the Mobile Fighter Archtype, with it's nice idea that didn't go far enough.
Yeah. It's a 'good' idea... until you realize that by sacrificing their BEST attack they're sacrificing 35ish% of their DPR if hasted.
That archtype should have sacrificed the WORST attack instead. Then it would be worth using. (Granted it would be best if the game just gave that option to everybody for free. It's almost as good as a standard action full attack.)
I remember being excited and reading that archtype. And then once I read they lose their top BAB attack, I facepalmed, and stop reading for a few hours.
Why can fighters get nice things? :)
|
|
With lasers?Maybe not in your world......aaaand Rule 0 is trotted out once again to try and argue why something isn't imbalanced...
If I had even a grain of sand for how many times that argument gets used, I'd have made a fortune selling kitty litter.
Nothing so complex or sinister. One of my past DMs got sick of us flying over anything, so he just made..... flying sharks.
Didn't need lasers. They can swallow whole.
BTW, what happened to that online game you wanted to run? We were waiting patiently :)
Anything other than a flat, featureless plain against mindless attackers hinders martials.
So they aren't allowed to use the terrain to their advantage to increase their AC, gain concealment, improve Reflex saves, bull rush, ki throw, prevent opponents from charging, fight from higher ground, etc? I can see why your martials have problems. I love using the terrain to my advantage.
Back in the old days of AD&D, characters were settling into rulership at 9th level. I still run it that way. I'm not sure why that changed, or why people insist on playing higher level games now. In fact, I'm not sure why they bothered with rules for it sense they know it doesn't work.A lot of folks played AD&D at higher levels too, and I sometimes found that frustrating. I really think most of the best roleplaying is done at 1-10, and can sometimes be extended into the teens. Almost every game I've seen at 17+ has left roleplaying far behind as the game devolves into miniatures combat.
Have to disagree with you there. I run an obscenely high-level game, and not only is there heavy roleplaying, both the players and I prefer the roleplaying, as many combats drag.
We had one combat last three game sessions. Nobody wanted a repeat of that.
Anything other than a flat, featureless plain against mindless attackers hinders martials.So they aren't allowed to use the terrain to their advantage to increase their AC, gain concealment, improve Reflex saves, bull rush, ki throw, prevent opponents from charging, fight from higher ground, etc? I can see why your martials have problems. I love using the terrain to my advantage.
Think of it strategically and you will understand why he said that.
Increase their AC: If you are they can as well
Gain concealment: If you are they can as well
Improve Reflex Saves: If you are they can as well
Bull Rush: Negatives outweighs the positives to make this a good tactical decision the lion's share of the time.
ki throw: one class has it
Prevent opponents from charging: If you are they can as well
All of these things the melee player tries to do the casters can virtually ignore. That is completely discounting the fact that the DM is most likely trying to do the same exact thing with the 'bad guys'
kyrt.. seriously...
The tactical advantage behind Whirlwind Blitz in an high level game is enormous.
A standard action full attack means move + full attack or full attack on a prepared action.
In a high level environment plenty of mobile enemies this can well be worth the weapon mastery. In that case, better move and deal 3-4 blows with chanche of crit than deal 1 blow with a chance of a more powerful crit.
Not to say that is an effortless substitution, but saying is not worthy is unfair.
Fixed.kyrt.. seriously...
The tactical advantage behind Whirlwind Blitz in a 20th level game is enormous.
:P sorry thank you TOZ....
@kyrt: so, what did you mean?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Part one: The problem.
I'm going to not talk about combat. Instead, I'll hit something that bothers me far more - narrative power.
See, casters have all the narrative power. If you want to effect the campaign or the setting itself, you need a spell caster to do so. The fighter is limited to...well, look at the name. He's limited to things he can fight. More skill based classes have some bigger ups, but ultimately also fall behind.
To give an example, let's look at what players can do at level one.
The fighter can hit things with a weapon.
The wizard can put people to sleep, detect magic, charm others, use minor telekinesis, summon fog, or animals, or invisible servants, comprehend all languages, hypnotize, create a magical floating cargo disk, move twice as fast, etc, etc.
At level 3, the fighter can now hit things with a weapon and maybe do one combat trick moderately well.
The wizard can magically lock items, detect surface thoughts, throw out a powerful gust of wind, turn invisible, conjure illusions and images with sound, alter his appearance, magically open any lock, repair anything, conjure an extradimensional space to hide or sleep in.
See where I'm going with this?
Even when you count in skills, it doesn't quite work, because skills start low and end high, while spells start at "Works," with the only variation being "Not Works."
Spellcasters have all the narrative power. For every problem that exists, there's a spell to fix it. if you can think of a long, overreaching campaign, then the wizard could theoretically do all of it on his own.
"Cirno," you say, "the wizard can't do all of that, he's limited by spell slots!" Yes, that's true. In fact, I would state that the level 3 wizard is the best one (more on this later). But the fact is, spell casters eventually get enough spell slots to render the argument moot. Even beyond that, wizards have a hilariously large array of spells that allow them to rest whenever they damn well please. And, quite frankly, the x/day limitation isn't a good one either - being able to control the universe only once per day isn't that bad of a deal, really.
So, the problem seems somewhat clear. Non-spell casters are limited in what they can individually do. This isn't a problem, mind you - it's actually a good thing. It has some heavily flaws I'll be hitting later, but the big problem is simply that there's no holds on what spellcasters can do in terms of narrative ability.
Mind you, it's not just that spellcasters do lots of things, it's that they actively take the roles of other classes with their spells. Spells can let you go invisible and silent, or unlock and open trapped doors and chests. They can charm others. Turn yourself into a bigger, more powerful monster. Heck, summoning spells alone give you an absurd variety of abilities.
Cirno, I see your point and it's IMHO far more deep and valid (no offense to other people) than combat analysis or power level.
My question is: what would you do? I like PF because magic is able to do all those things. Remove them would be a bad move for people like me - another company did it and I no longer buy their products.
I can see that in a future iteration of the game, a way could be a greater specialization for spellcasters (say, every wizard can cast weaker divinations, but only diviners can cast the most powerful divination spells).
Said this, I would point out that class features are very important for the ability PCs have to influence the story, but aren't everything.
Interaction with the world can be done with every sort of action in an RPG.
Of course, spells are a very powerful tool, probably the most powerful one, but politics, intrigue or a well placed poison or blow can change the story as well.
|
Personally I divide the game up into 'five' tiers of 4 levels each, with the grittiest closest to realistic at the bottom, and pretty much openly declaring the game about demigods and gods at 17th + levelYup. In fact, one character who actually lived to 17th level in my home campaign is called a "demigod" in game by almost all NPCs. I mentally divide the game into 4 tiers:
1st - 5th level (+/-): Local heroes. Exploration and long voyages are still fun and exciting.
6th - 10th level (+/-): Major regional heroes. Start to get into multiplanar stuff.
11th - 15th level (+/-): High-level. Adventures span multiple planes. Most characters will retire in this range.
16th level+: Epic/demigod level.
I agree 100%. It becomes a completely different game at higher levels, one where the DM actually is at times trying to kill the players (within the CR framework) because that is the only way it is competitive. The players have more options than you can account for, and will do things you never considered.
You have to become the bad guy and do what he would do, then trust that they will figure out a solution so long as the encounter you put out is of reasonable level. It's at least 4 on one at that point, so they have the advantage to start with.
I was discussing the 11th level ability.... Rapid Attack I believe it's called.
I apologize for my mistake.
Even in that case, I'd say that Party Composition (Bard, Haste) and Build (to hit bonus, off hand) can help a lot in that regard.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Part two: the Reasoning.
The biggest reason for this problem is literally the existence of the wizard class.
Let's go into our fantasy books and our mythology and pull up the archtypes we see. We have brave heroes, sly and clever swashbucklers, daring thieves, powerful warriors, and wise old sages.
Notice something missing?
There is no wizard archtype. The D&D wizard is a mix of two archtypes - the wise old sage, which is fine, and the deus ex machina, which is, well, somewhat obviously not.
See, in books and mythology, there is no "does everything with magic" character. Remember how I mentioned the level 3 wizard is perhaps the best? That's because level 2 spells are typically the most powerful ones mortal wizards know. Turning invisible, opening and unlocking things with a wave of their hand, changing shape - that's a big one. It also sets wizards as having a (relatively) small number of spell slots.
There is the wise old sage, however, and there's deus ex machina. Merlin was a wise old sage. What he does for Arthur is provide information, learning, advice. He doesn't jump around with the knights and throw fireballs. His biggest, most impressive power is to change shape - not to mention one of the only powers he uses. Oh, and he's the antichrist.
What about Gandalf? Again, we don't actually see a lot of magic from the old guy. He makes fireworks and creates choo choo train noises and casts Light a lot. Oh, and he's the archangel Gabriel.
The problem with the D&D is this:
Imagine you are making a game based somewhat loosely on the Trojan War and the Odyssey. You tell your character that they'll be fighting on the side of thee Greeks, and should take inspirations from the likes of Odysseus and Agamemnon, proud and daring warriors and men of battle.
Then one guy shouts "I call dibs on Poseidon!"
D&D is trying to be two games, but they're contradictory. The non-casters are playing a low magic game of strength, wit, and survival. The casters are playing a high magic game of intense magical shenanigans and powerful setting changing abilities. Wizards have narrative power because they're the deus ex machina - they're expected to have a spell for every occasion. In other words, if non-casters play by the rules of the setting, casters get to make the rules.
Someone earlier mentioned that they were fine with the differences in power because, after all, magic should be all powerful. I will grant you that on one condition - there is no class that utilizes it.
In short, wizards appear in fiction quite often, but they fall under one of two catagories.
1) Wise old sage who really doesn't do a whole lot of magic
2) Deus ex machina
The D&D wizard falls under the second. Which is bad.
Also, to your earlier question about how to deal with Cirno's statements, one of the answers, to me at least, is skills.
Skills right now are far too limited and mundane.
I somewhat liked how ELH managed them in 3.0 - some skill went so high to become "quasi-magic". I can see more "cool" use of skills for noncasters.
The issue is: how would you forbid casters to use them as well? You should create a new mechanic, at least some rule basing mundane class features as prerequisites for exceptional stunts OR place them directly in the build of the mundane class (as an example, HiPS for the ranger).
And again, let's remember that the game already put steps in that direction - a +20 strenght surge is far from being "mundane", strictly speaking.
Part two: the Reasoning.
... ...
Nice, Professor. I agree.
On a side note, I would argue that the wizard does show up in fantasy quite often in two cases which you have not described.
First, as a foil for the fighter, rogue, "regular guy" type hero. Prime example is Thoth Amon and his clones who all fall victim to Conan.
Second, you got stereotypical wizards, very well exemplified by Geb from the Earthsea trilogy. You also see the young wizard going after the big bad evil wizard. Kind of an echo of Conan with magic on both sides. Harry Potter being an example.
The reason the "powerful wizard" doesn't show up as hero is exactly what you propose however. Narrative power. There's no compelling story in omnipotent being bends reality to suit his goals, because there's no credible challenge to him.
IMHO, is beautiful the game has magic with this flavour. I'd keep it regardless the fiction.
If keep it in check is needed, IMHO one should look more to specialization (see my example above) or how several things worked in AD&D.
I see points raised but last change attempt, in my opinion, failed miserably. Dangerous ground.
Anything other than a flat, featureless plain against mindless attackers hinders martials.So they aren't allowed to use the terrain to their advantage to increase their AC, gain concealment, improve Reflex saves, bull rush, ki throw, prevent opponents from charging, fight from higher ground, etc? I can see why your martials have problems. I love using the terrain to my advantage.Think of it strategically and you will understand why he said that.
Increase their AC: If you are they can as well
Gain concealment: If you are they can as well
Improve Reflex Saves: If you are they can as well
Bull Rush: Negatives outweighs the positives to make this a good tactical decision the lion's share of the time.
ki throw: one class has it
Prevent opponents from charging: If you are they can as well
All of these things the melee player tries to do the casters can virtually ignore. That is completely discounting the fact that the DM is most likely trying to do the same exact thing with the 'bad guys'
I did think about it before I posted. I also know that not every encounter is going to be up against opponents that can or will maximize the terrain. Looking through the Bestiary and at all the NPCs, I just don't see a situation where the terrain can never be used to your advantage.
To gain a bonus to AC, you need to actively use cover.
To gain concealment, you need to actively use cover.
To improve AC, you need to actively use cover.
As for bull rush, you can't think of any situations where it can be useful? What about with pits, lava, rivers, cliffs, fire, other characters, traps, hazards, and countless other situations. Bull rush by itself is useless. You need to move them somewhere useful for you and bad for them.
Ki throw is available to any class that qualifies. Even a commoner can qualify by level 5.
As for charging, that isn't true either. There are several ways to avoid the problems with terrain. Flight is one way but there are mundane ways as well such as Acrobatic Steps and/or Light Step. You can also essentially charge if you leap down onto someone. It's not hard to do so but you can make it difficult for the enemy to do the same.
There are more bad guys than just the BBEG. Not every tactic is usable against every opponent. You shouldn't try to bull rush huge dinosaurs just like you shouldn't use color spray against zombies.
Part three: Solutions
There's been a few attempts from the start to patch up the discrepency. Magic items were a big one. The assumption goes: "Magic is everything in the game that is strong, including the strongest baddies. We have classes that do not have magic. Therefor, they should have magic items."
This was the birth of the Christmas Tree problem.
See, I don't buy that it's a 3e-ism. It's always been there. I'm literally playing a 2e game as I type this (thus the slowness, sorry :p), and I deny the idea that characters didn't need magic item. Our fighter needs magical weapons to even harm many baddies, for starters. In fact, if you look through the books, as others have mentioned, most magic items are either intended for fighters or, in fact, are only usable by fighters. The intent is somewhat clear - wizards have magic, fighters have magic items.
But, for me, this isn't enough. It doesn't solve the problem, only loopholes back into it - at the end of the day, your non-wizard needs items a wizard made.
First off, let's look at the good.
The skill system isn't bad. Personally I think the number of skills could be cut down even more, but that's me. The 2+int has to go, though. That's horrible. The wizard being unskilled isn't so bad because he has spells, but the fighter has nada to make up for it. This is a relic of 2e, where fighters were more or less only capable of, well, fighting, and the paladins and rangers - who were simply better in every way - got extra bonuses to reward you for being lucky. 3.5 also had skill tricks, which were really neat, and I wish more robust and numerous, because they really did add some cool stuff.
Outside of full casters, things generally work rather well. The bard is a great class that really fits the "wise old sage" archtype fantastically well, if perhaps not quite so old. Back in 3.5 we had the beguiler, an awesomely fun class, that hit the magical trickster archtype perfectly. These are examples of magical classes that don't overshadow everyone else. In general, if it doesn't have level 9 spells, it's not that big of a game breaker (if one at all).
I'm going to be stoned to death for this, but I loved Tome of Battle. Consider the following: each ToB class had systems set up around a non-physical attribute. Warblades used intelligence, crusaders used charisma, and swordsages used wisdom. They all also had a robust skill list. But they did lack something - out of combat abilities.
So, what can be done?
First, a decision needs to be made, I think: Is D&D a low magic game, a mid-magic game, or a high magic game? This is a really important decision, I think. Currently, fighters are a low magic class, and wizards are a high magic class. Bards lie somewhere inbetween. The mid-magic classes such as the bard can work with either of the two moderately well, but high and low don't work well together narratively.
Let's say you choose high magic. Martial classes, then, need magic. Tome of Battle is the seemingly obvious suggestion, but that leaves the problem of narrative power. So, step one is, add supernatural stunts that aren't related to combat. Think of them as more potent skill tricks. Perhaps make it literally a "stunt" ability that non-casters get at varrying amounts, or maybe even a secondary "stunt" system. I admittingly don't know the details on this mechanical stuff. The basic idea is to give martial classes the ability to do supernatural things. Let's face it, right now, the wizard is better at wire-fighting then the monk is. That's a shame.
Let's say you choose low magic. Kill the wizard. The druid goes too, and say goodbye to the cleric. Maybe even the sorcerer! "Cirno," you say, "there goes all the healing. What now?" Create an item, a potion bandoleer, let's say, that allows characters to pull and drink as a swift action. Massacre the cost of potions and the time it takes to make them. Maybe even give the Survival skill the ability to act as Craft: Alchemy (Can you tell I've been playing The Witcher lately?). So far, what we've done is remove the highly powerful casters, left the mid-range magical ones such as bards, and given ALL the classes a potential means of buffing and healing themselves inside combat.
One idea I've had for BOTH styles is the removal of all the magic items. Instead, let's grab the best thing to come from 4e - inherent bonuses. To put it another way, there is no +1 sword or +5 sword. Instead, classes gain the +1 as they level. Same with armor. Now, you can have flaming swords or vorpal swords or etc etc, but they'd be how I think earlier editions semi-intended them to be - rare and powerful. In fact, all magic items with inherent bonuses would fit under one of two catagories: Rare/powerful, and weird. After all, if you don't have to worry about keeping up with the magic items, you're free to give whatever bizarro magic gear your heart desires.
However, people like new gear. That goes without saying. Inherent bonuses works well with a high magic style game, but not so much with a low magic style. So what do we do?
We learn some more from video games. Monster Hunter, to be precise.
The idea is, we don't just grab magical items lying around (though certainly we can have that, as rare and powerful magic items works in a low-magic style game). Instead, we use monster bits to make weapons. The rogue's magic dagger is fashioned from the tooth of a chimera. The fighter's axe blade is the sharpened scale of a sea serpent's tail. And of course, there's the classical magical animal skin armor. In essence, you can actually use this AS magical armor. Combine this with the now very cheap and numerous potions and you have the basics of a semi-normal 3.5 game, just with loop arounds.
Wow, that was a long one.
As for bull rush, you can't think of any situations where it can be useful? What about with pits, lava, rivers, cliffs, fire, other characters, traps, hazards, and countless other situations. Bull rush by itself is useless. You need to move them somewhere useful for you and bad for them.
Heh. I'm fondly reminded of the 3.0/3.5 game wherein Furious Brokenfang, my Large lizard folk ranger/spirit adept, stunned the DM by jumping a 50-foot wide chasm and then started bull rushing enemy stone golems into the aforementioned chasm. Good times.
Someone else where has asked me what I see the sort of "ideal party" for the low-magic style game.
Bard, Factotum, Ranger, Warblade.
The bard is your loremaster. Monsters are weird, but he's the guy who knows his way around them. Ancient temples, dank dungeons, long lost ruins, or even the strange behaviors of magical animals, the bard knows how to apply his knowledge right where it matters. The ranger can take you to the chimera, but the bard knows where the soft scales are, and where it's blind spot is. Tag teams with the ranger to make the items for the rest of the group. Admittingly the whole "perform" thing is a bit off :B
The factotum is your jack of trades. Certainly she knows her way around locks and traps, but she's more then that. Caught and arrested and put naked in a cell? She's your woman who finds a way out and breaks the rest of you free. Need to infiltrate a ballroom party? She and the bard grab their respective costumes and open the backdoor for the others. She's sneaky, she's wild, she's got more skills she knows what to do with, she's your trickster
The ranger is your wild lore professional. The bard might be the one to identify the monster's weak points, but the ranger is the one who brings you to it. She and the bard together know that if you mix the blood of a wolf and fallenflower together you make a curative that can heal any wound. Or that you can cure the hide of a chimera to create a suit of protective armor. She's a marksman and sharpshooter as well, tagging monsters with an arrow to give the warblade a weakness or blind spot to attack. And you'll never go hungry in the woods with her by your side.
The warblade is your tough guy, master at arms. One warblade ability that I cannot freaking believe Paizo passed up is the ability to change your weapon focus, which is amazing. He's not dumb, mind you - warblade champions intelligence alongside physical stats. He's a powerful guy, he can handle most weapons after a bit of training, and he's got his mind in the game, too. If the bard identifies monsters and strange, mystic lore, if the factotum can snap a trap a mile away and has enough tricks to get himself out of almost any jam, and if the ranger is a master of the wilderness and wild lore, then the warblade is their front liner, the man who's in it for the glory and love of battle.
All-powerful wizard protagonists are becoming more commonplace in fantasy fiction (even excluding the obvious D&D fiction category). That being said I agree with a bunch of what Cirno is saying.
Without getting too far into the literary theory aspects of roleplaying, past level 5 or so (3rd level spells being a big demarcation point) the caster gains a huge degree of agency vis-a-vis the campaign world.
While skills cover many aspects of interacting with the world in general spells can often act as a trump card that even the skillmonkey classes tend to struggle with.
Casters can solve combat puzzles, can solve non combat puzzles, and have abilities that non casters can only partially emulate (crafting, healing, etc).
The old school method for handling character of wildly different capabilities was to do alternating spotlight. That way if you had 5 PCs each character would have x amount of personal spotlight time for progressing their character.
Unfortunately this model is both difficult for many gamers and has some pretty significant limitations because it often requires the other players to sit around when it's not their turn.
It seems that for the most part game design has shifted to a every PC has plenty to do in both noncombat and combat situations. 4e even goes a step further and makes rituals (common utility spell functions) more or less available to every class.
4e has it's strengths and weaknesses but one thing I think it did do well was to give everyone the ability to be a critical factor in all phases of the game (combat, skill challenges, etc). If I could make any suggestions for a future iteration of pathfinder it would be to cease balancing based upon skill usage vs combat and give everyone the ability to influence the game.
For the sake of examining power levels;
In my 2e game, today we killed a chimera. That puts us at level 5 at the level of Bellerophon levels - in other words, greek myth.
Post #4985 on the same topic:
Another thing that can and should be stolen from 4e - rituals. Rituals are so bomb. They're one of the better ideas.
Post #4985 on the same topic:
Another thing that can and should be stolen from 4e - rituals. Rituals are so bomb. They're one of the better ideas.
Well, 3.5 SRD has the "ancestors" of those. Incantations. OGL.
A question: why don't just keep the class as they are, and choose the kind of campaign deciding ahead classes available (and maybe decide for inherent bonuses or magic items abundance from this point)?
Kaiyanwang, the way I handle the narrative authority issue in my games is all in the way society perceives spell casters. Besides the fact that they are generally pretty are, people in my settings don't believe that wizards can be given leadership because their other worldly nature and the source of their powers makes it difficult for them to relate to ordinary people. This is in fact true in my game worlds where I RP all of my powerful wizards with issues relating to their pursuit of magic. They aren't necessarily evil, but they can have a range of issues from aloofness to a lack of concern for their bodies, extreme stoicism, a belief that worldly power is no power at all... or on the other end, that mere humans are the pawns of the gods, of which he has more in common with than he does with man.
In more hostile cultures, people will believe that magic is a corrupting influence, turning all potential wizards into priests, or forcing them to be warriors -- forgetting about magic all together. The only wizards that are trusted are those who have equal levels of fighter to temper it.
Players playing wizards know that they aren't likely to receive help or gifts of any kind. All honor, land, political power, wealth, and man-power will go to the warriors unless something really odd happens.
This "fix" is a lot campaign specific.. I'm not sure would always work.
Please note that I don't completely agree with Cirno - or at least, I see the thing a lot less problematic. I think few things should be toned down, and few classes should take more skill points/ level to improve the game - but I consider the current version the best one so far.
I think that is a good thing have classes so different becaus I can choose my tone and campaign basing on 18 of them. I generally play with all the options, but stressing this department can bring in interesting twists (and our good Cirno already covered them).
And I will always state and re-state and re-state that class feaures are part of the things able to influence the plot, thankfully :)
What about Gandalf? Again, we don't actually see a lot of magic from the old guy. He makes fireworks and creates choo choo train noises and casts Light a lot. Oh, and he's the archangel Gabriel.
You are using the wrong book is all.
Read the Hobbit: with Bilbo. He goes magic crazy in that one. Lightning, and more. He showed how awesome he was.In LOtR (movie, somewhat book too): They DM fiated down his magic due to fear of being detected by Sauron (actual reason in book).
So... that seems a poor comparison.
Gandalf also is a gish due to fighting with swords not a straight mage (if was converted by what he did to D&D, ignoring he is a angel like a Solar in D&D if we converted what he is)