One of the biggest issues with 3.x was well played casters obsoleting non-casters. Some people around here might have heard of the tier system, for those who have not: http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?PHPSESSID=qvl9769e49o3vs4 eqdovgnq2k2&topic=5293
This is the metric by which I am judging balance. As you can see, non-casters typically occupy the lower tiers while casters occupy the upper tiers. PF has made some strides towards closing this imbalance, however, the gap none-the-less remains.
Now for the current state of affairs in PF (magus unranked due to inexperience, though I suspect tier 3):
Tier 1: Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Witch
Tier 2: Sorcerer, Oracle
Tier 3: Rogue, Bard, Summoner, Alchemist
Tier 4: Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Cavalier, Barbarian, Inquisitor
Tier 5: Monk
Now some builds may adjust things a bit such as blaster sorcerers dropping down a few tiers, while the evolutionist summoner moves up to tier 2. In short, PF brought up most of the non-casters up a tier. For the sake of this post, I don't really care about any fine tuning to the rankings, what does matter is that there is a huge difference between what a wizard can do and what a fighter can do.
Let's look at some of the basic choices available upon character generation. Herein lies the problem. There is doing magic, clobbering bad guys, and other stuff. One thing that PF did fix was full casters suddenly becoming better than fighters at fighting because of polymorphs. That's one problem solved. Since we're specifically looking at what non-casters can do, doing magic isn't much of an option. So we're left with being very good at clobbering or other stuff. Looking at the tier criteria, the ability to contribute out of combat is quite important.
Here is where I must reiterate an important point regarding the tier structure, everything that is taken into consideration for the class must be some kind of MECHANICAL benefit from the class. This is why item solutions to problems are not considered unless your class has some direct effect on your ability to use that item compared to others (the link cites UMD'ing wands and stuff in the cases that UMD is a class skill, which makes those classes better at using those items).
In order to close the gap between casters and non-casters, two tracks must be approached. Bumping up non-casters and toning down casters.
First let's start tackling bumping up non-casters. To which I ask, "What do you call a non-caster who does stuff out of combat?" A rogue. Is there anything that a fighter is better at outside of combat? By my count, handle animal and engineering. Yes, that is it. Cavalier? Handle Animal. Monk? Religion, history, running, the occasional dim door. Barbarian? Running, nature. Paladins and rangers don't fair too much better despite their limited casting abilities and a rogue can reasonably catch that at later levels with UMD.
This is a very very big problem. If we want the classes to be able to meaningfully contribute in a number of scenarios and at least help out in others, this needs to be fixed.
So what can we do about that? I suggest two approaches. One possible thing is to give the classes various bonuses akin to bardic knowledge, such as barbarian's intimidate. Another is to give them the ability to use skills in unique ways. For example, a ranger making a survival check to get a clairaudience / clairvoyance 2/day in their favored terrain. Monk making a religion check to receive a commune.
Now let's look at toning down the casters.
Step 1: we need to simply cut out some of the overly abusable spells. (I'm looking at you Planar Binding (http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinder RPG/advice/soYouHaveGottenAnEfreetiToGrantYouSomeWishes))
With that taken care of, we have two more steps towards fixing casters. Step 2 is make sure that casters do not step on non-casters' toes. Step 3 is to give mundane some answers to magic.
A good way to trim through the list is to go through all the schools and subschools.
Abjuration: Magic should be the best at taking care of other magic, that being said it shouldn't be the only answer
Conjuration: Calling: Sufficiently unique and a common fantasy trope
Creation: This is where conjuration is known to be the batman school. This and transmutation seems to be where they simply put "other" spells. Sure you conjured up that acid arrow that flew at the enemy, but you also conjured up that little bead that turned into a fireball? Spells like fabricate and minor creation don't seem to serve any purpose other than to make the craft skill obsolete. Considering that we're trying to make mundane things more effective, this is a bad thing. The Wall of X line has been known to be a bane of mundane classes due to the difficulty for them to deal with it. Outside of combat, if you want to build a city wall, use the craft skill. The fog line is borderline so it'll stay.
Healing: Mundane means should be able to take care of the low end of this such as CLW through Cure Serious. However, it is reasonable to segregate off resurrection to magic only, even if only for verisimilitude.
Summoning: Same as calling
Teleportation: I take this to be very heavily a matter of preference.
Divination: most of this can easily be folded under mundane means and really only abusive players will significantly miss it. Detection magic under sense motive / perception, scrying under diplomacy to simulate information gathering.
Enchantment: Charm and compulsion just laugh at diplomacy / intimidate / bluff. I can understand the appeal of having these around, but they really, really need to be toned down.
Evocation: Each class needs some way to do some clobbering, much of this can stay.
Illusion: There's just a few offenders. First is the invis line, this obsoletes stealth. Why put ranks in it when you can get +20 from a second level spell? While it is iconic, we have to concede a bit of function over flavor.
Necromancy: Much of this is sufficiently distinct the non-casters' turf.
Transmutation: Despite the nerfs, the polymorph line still steps on the toes of disguise. But really this is just a case of disguise needing to be a bit more effective. Also some of the transmutation spells should be moved into other schools, like pyrotechnics.
The next step is to find some mundane answers to magical problems. Some amusing examples include wearing a tinfoil hat to protect against compulsion effects, being drenched in water mitigating fire damage. Being unable to summon creatures inside a lead building. This is somewhere where things should go by whether it makes sense.
Anecdotal note: In one of my groups the barbarian outshines the wizard, sorcerer and cleric most of the times in terms of NPC/monsters that refuse to leave without being killed. (He is of course buffed by all three).
I like it as it is.
Carry on.
edit: I notice this is in the house rules section, sorry I don't have any suggestions for you.
Solution - Save or Lose casting time increase to 1 round (start casting this round, spell goes off at the beginning of your turn next round).
Which is to say doesn't go off at all because of failed concentration checks, and even if you somehow manage to get the spell off it still fails when the creature makes its save throw.
The best SoD in the game? Fighter Full Attack -- No save just death.
Increasing casting time on save or suck spells is actually a decent idea worth trying out.
I know that there is this compulsive desire among many gamers and game designers to "balance all the classes."
I wish they'd stop. I play 4e and that's about as balanced as you can get, and the end result is that every class has essentially the identical mechanic, and every class has essentially the same impact. The end result is what feels like an endless repetition of "is it time to use a daily power yet? Do we want to use our action points?" It's an Elaine Benes approach to gaming. "Is this boss daily-worthy?" I get real tired of all that balance.
I guess I just think a game that is based on fantasy magic probably SHOULD have spellcasters be more powerful than non-spellcasters. It's magic, after all. That is one reason I play PF and prefer it over 4e. In PF wizards are still wizards.
I love to play all classes, melee, ranged, spellcaster, buffer, etc. So don't think I'm saying I like PF because I get to play a wizard god. I like to play PF because magic is still magic. In 4e it's something else entirely.
Ahh, the eternal question of balance. This is truly pointless, you know. You can balance classes all you want, but the players themselves vary greatly in ability, experience, and what they want out of a game. An experienced player who wants to power game will "outshine" other members of his goup who are more laid back or less experienced no matter what class he is playing.
The bottom line is always the same, play whatever you most enjoy and dont worry about how "powerful" other pcs are. They are on your side after all, aren't they?
It's the action economy that really screws non-casters. If Doctor Professor Wizard can end a fight with a standard action and use his move action to do a victory dance... Sir Fighter has to move, then attack once and wait... and hope Mr. Villain doesn't a) kill him or b) move away and force Sir Fighter to move again, limiting him to a single attack, which may or may not be Vital Strike, if he takes it. So if most spells, say any that affect enemies... were a full-round, that could go a long way to help.
It's the action economy that really screws non-casters. If Doctor Professor Wizard can end a fight with a standard action and use his move action to do a victory dance... Sir Fighter has to move, then attack once and wait... and hope Mr. Villain doesn't a) kill him or b) move away and force Sir Fighter to move again, limiting him to a single attack, which may or may not be Vital Strike, if he takes it. So if most spells, say any that affect enemies... were a full-round, that could go a long way to help.
This doesn't take into account the failure rate of spells (typically 45% or more), the limited use of such spells (you only have so many a day of your best spells, and then your failure rate goes up, and you might want those spell slots for something other than a barely better than 50/50 chance of success), and new archetypes and abilities (such as using ranged weapons) that allow melee characters to get off full attacks (or their equivalents -- cavalier spirited charge).
Increasing casting time on save or suck spells is actually a decent idea worth trying out.
I know that there is this compulsive desire among many gamers and game designers to "balance all the classes."
I wish they'd stop. I play 4e and that's about as balanced as you can get, and the end result is that every class has essentially the identical mechanic, and every class has essentially the same impact. The end result is what feels like an endless repetition of "is it time to use a daily power yet? Do we want to use our action points?" It's an Elaine Benes approach to gaming. "Is this boss daily-worthy?" I get real tired of all that balance.
I guess I just think a game that is based on fantasy magic probably SHOULD have spellcasters be more powerful than non-spellcasters. It's magic, after all. That is one reason I play PF and prefer it over 4e. In PF wizards are still wizards.
I love to play all classes, melee, ranged, spellcaster, buffer, etc. So don't think I'm saying I like PF because I get to play a wizard god. I like to play PF because magic is still magic. In 4e it's something else entirely.
Just wanted to say i agree, that is all :)
The only times I can remember a spellcaster really outshining everyone else and/or breaking the game, that was what they were actually trying to do. The rest of the time there was no problem. I've never seen spellcaster accidentally break the game. It has always been deliberate. Yes spells can be powerful (they should be - they are a limited resource after all). But it seems most of the real problems are not with the system, but the players themselves.
You really want to "fix" this? Strip wizards of all (most) crowd contol, save-or-dies, and things that replace skills (like Knock.) Make them purely blasters. Thats what the game was "balanced" around anyway - blaster wizards. Make clerics and druids healers again.
Go ahead and "balance" everything. I guarantee that players will find even more loopholes and broken things, and this whole cycle will begin again.
(As a note, I went through a "balance everything" phase. Once I realized that it was impossible, and I would have to basically throw out the entire magic system, and that the real problem is the players, I grew out of it. The only way to really balance everything it to basically switch to a different game, or to change enough things it may as well be a different game.)
Solution - Save or Lose casting time increase to 1 round (start casting this round, spell goes off at the beginning of your turn next round).
Which is to say doesn't go off at all because of failed concentration checks, and even if you somehow manage to get the spell off it still fails when the creature makes its save throw.
The best SoD in the game? Fighter Full Attack -- No save just death.
I honestly think all of these threads are created by people who have never seen exactly what a well played fighter is capable of. Casters overpowered? Either you aren't scaling monsters properly to party power level, your melee isn't as optimized as your casters, or there is some tactical quirk to your game I'm not seeing. In general save or suck should not be hitting more than about 30-35% of the time. Yes 1 out of every 3 casts it works, but 2 out of every 3 its a wasted action that could have been used to summon, shape the battlefield, or buff the fighter.
In the games I DM the casters use summons and control spells to shape the battlefield and buff the melee. The ratio of melee to caster DPR is so in the favor of melee, I can't imagine anyone asserting casters are overpowered from a combat perspective. Out of combat, yes they have more utility but that is the tradeoff. If you want to give every class caster utility, there'd be no reason to play the utility classes anymore unless you also gave casters melee level DPR potential. At that point you have an utterly normalized game where character class is utterly moot. No thanks.
Reading through the posts I'm forced to facepalm. It seems everyone read "balance" in the title, saw a long post, and didn't read it.
First concern, the necessity of balance:
I'm well aware of the dystopian ideal of balance in 4e, and neither do I seek such a thing. My concern is that outside of combat, there are a number of classes that are simply irrelevant. I'll transcribe the most relevant portion that PF does not fix.
What PF failed to fix:
Q: So what exactly is this system measuring? Raw Power? Then why is the Barbarian lower than the Duskblade, when the Barbarian clearly does more damage?
A: The Tier System is not specifically ranking Power or Versitility (though those are what ends up being the big factors). It's ranking the ability of a class to achieve what you want in any given situation. Highly versitile classes will be more likely to efficiently apply what power they have to the situation, while very powerful classes will be able to REALLY help in specific situations. Classes that are both versitile and powerful will very easily get what they want by being very likely to have a very powerful solution to the current problem. This is what matters most for balance.
For example, here's how the various Tiers might deal with a specific set of situations, cut to spoilers due to size:
Tier 6:Tier 6: A Commoner. Situation 1: If he's REALLY optimized, he could be a threat to the dragon, but a single attack from the dragon could take him out too. He can't really offer help getting to said dragon. He could fill up the entire cave with chickens, but that's probably not a good idea. Really, he's dead weight unless his build was perfectly optimized for this situation (see my Commoner charger build for an example). Situation 2: Well, without any stealth abilities or diplomacy, he's not too handy here, again unless he's been exactly optimized for this precise thing (such as through Martial Study to get Diplomacy). Really, again his class isn't going to help much here. Situation 3: Again, no help from his class, though the chicken thing might be amusing if you're creative.Tier 5:Tier 5: A Fighter. Situation 1: If he's optimized for this sort of thing (a tripper might have trouble, though a charger would be handy if he could get off a clear shot, and an archer would likely work) he can be a threat during the main fight, but he's probably just about useless for sneaking down through the cave and avoiding any traps the dragon has set out without alerting said dragon. Most likely the party Rogue would want to hide him in a bag of holding or something. Once in the fight if he's optimized he'll be solid, but if not (if he's a traditional SAB build or a dual weilding monkey grip type) he's going to be a liability in the combat (though not as bad as the Commoner). Situation 2: As the commoner before, his class really won't help here. His class just doesn't provide any useful tools for the job. It's possible (but very unlikely) that he's optimized in a way that helps in this situation, just as with the Commoner. Situation 3: Again, his class doesn't help much, but at least he could be pretty useful during the main battle as a front line trooper of some sort. Hack up the enemy and rack up a body count.Tier 4:Tier 4: The Rogue. Situation 1: Well he can certainly help get the party to the dragon, even if he's not totally optimized for it. His stealth and detection abilities will come in handy here, and if he puts the less stealthy people in portable holes and the like he's good to go. During the combat he's likely not that helpful (it's hard to sneak attack a dragon) but if he had a lot of prep time he might have been able to snag a scroll or wand of Shivering Touch, in which case he could be extremely helpful... he just has to be really prepared and on the ball, and the resources have to be available in advance. He's quite squishy though, and that dragon is a serious threat. Situation 2: With his stealth and diplomacy, he's all over this. Maybe not 100% perfect, but still pretty darn solid. An individual build might not have all the necessary skills, but most should be able to make do. Situation 3: Perhaps he can use Gather Information and such to gain strategic advantages before the battle... that would be handy. There's a few he's pretty likely to be able to pull off. He might even be able to use Diplomacy to buff the army a bit and at least get them into a good morale situation pre battle. Or, if he's a different set up, he could perhaps go out and assassinate a few of the orc commanders before the fight, which could be handy. And then during the fight he could do the same. It's not incredible, but it's something.Tier 3:Tier 3: The Beguiler. Situation 1: Again, getting through the cave is easy, perhaps easier with spell support. And again, if he's really prepared in advance, Shivering Touch via UMD is a possibility. But he's also got spells that could be quite useful here depending on the situation, and if he's optimized heavily, this is going to be pretty easy... Shadowcraft Mage, perhaps? Or Earth Dreamer? Either way, he's got a lot of available options, though like the Rogue he's somewhat squishy (and that Dragon won't fall for many illusions with his Blindsense) so he still needs that party support. Situation 2: Again, with his skills he's all over this one, plus the added ability to cast spells like charm makes this one much easier, allowing him to make contacts in the city quickly while he figures out where this guy is. Situation 3: Like the Rogue, he can get strategic advantages and be all over the Diplomacy. He's not quite as good at assassinating people if he takes that route (though sneaking up invisible and then using a coup de gras with a scythe is pretty darn effective), but using illusions during the fight will create some serious chaos in his favor. A single illusion of a wall of fire can really disrupt enemy formations, for example.Tier 2:Tier 2: The Sorcerer. Situation 1: It really depends on the Sorcerer's spell load out. If he's got Greater Floating Disk, Spectral Hand, and Shivering Touch, this one's going to be easy as pie, since he can just float down (and carry his party in the process) to avoid many traps, then nail the dragon in one shot from a distance. If he doesn't he'd need scrolls with the same issues that the UMD Rogue and Beguiler would need. If he's got Explosive Runes he could create a bomb that would take out the Dragon in one shot. If he's got Polymorph he could turn the party melee into a Hydra for extra damage. If he's got Alter Self he could turn himself into a Skulk to get down there sneakily. Certainly, it's possible that the Sorcerer could own this scenario... if he has the right spells known. That's always the hard part for a Sorcerer. Situation 2: Again, depends on the spell. Does he have divinations that will help him know who's part of the resistance and who's actually an evil spy for the Tyranical Govenerment? Does he have charm? Alter Self would help a ton here too for disguise purposes if he has it. Once again, the options exist that could totally make this easy, but he might not have those options. Runestaffs would help a bit, but not that much. Scrolls would help too, but that requires access to them and good long term preparation. Situation 3: Again, does he have Wall of Iron or Wall of Stone to make fortifications? Does he have Wall of Fire to disrupt the battlefield? How about Mind Rape and Love's Pain to kill off the enemy commanders without any ability to stop him? Does he have Blinding Glory on his spell list, or Shapechange, or Gate? Well, maybe. He's got the power, but if his spells known don't apply here he can't do much. So, maybe he dominates this one, maybe not.Tier 1:Tier 1: The Wizard. Situation 1: Memorize Greater Floating Disk, Shivering Touch, and Spectral Hand. Maybe Alter Self too for stealth reasons. Kill dragon. Memorize Animate Dead too, because Dragons make great minions (seriously, there's special rules for using that spell on dragons). Sweet, you have a new horsie! Or, you know, maybe you Mind Rape/Love's Pain and kill the dragon before he even knows you exist, then float down and check it out. Or maybe you create a horde of the dead and send them in, triggering the traps with their bodies. Or do the haunt shift trick and waltz in with a hardness of around 80 and giggle. Perhaps you cast Genesis to create a flowing time plane and then sit and think about what to do for a year while only a day passes on the outside... and cast Explosive Runes every day during that year. I'm sure you can come up with something. It's really your call. Situation 2: Check your spell list. Alter Self and Disguise Self can make you look like whoever you need to look like. Locate Creature has obvious utility. Heck, Contact Other Plane could be a total cheating method of finding the guy you're trying to find. Clairvoyance is also handy. It's all there. Situation 3: Oh no, enemy army! Well, if you've optimized for it, there's always the locate city bomb (just be careful not to blow up the friendly guys too). But if not, Love's Pain could assassinate the leaders. Wall of Iron/Stone could create fortifications, or be combined with Fabricate to armour up some of the troops. Or you could just cast Blinding Glory and now the entire enemy army is blind with no save for caster level hours. Maybe you could Planar Bind an appropriate outsider to help train the troops before the battle. Push comes to shove, Gate in a Solar, who can cast Miracle (which actually does have a "I win the battle" option)... or just Shapechange into one, if you prefer.So yeah, as you move up the Tiers you go from weak, unadaptable, and predictable (that Commoner's got very few useful options) to strong, adaptable, and unpredictable (who knows what that Wizard is going to do?). A Wizard can always apply a great deal of strength very efficiently, whether it's Shivering Touch on the Dragon or Blinding Glory on an enemy army. The Sorcerer has the power, but he may not have power that he can actually apply to the situation. The Beguiler has even less raw power and may have to use UMD to pull it off. The Rogue is even further along that line. And the Fighter has power in very specific areas which are less likely to be useful in a given situation.
That's really what the Tiers are about. How much does this class enable you to achieve what you want in a given situation? The more versitile your power, the more likely that the answer to that question is "a lot." If you've got tons of power and limited versitility (that's you, Sorcerers and charging Barbarians) then sometimes the answer is a lot, but sometimes it's not much. If you've got tons of versitility but limited power (hi, Rogue!) then it's often "a decent amount." If you've got little of both (Commoner!) then yeah, it's often "it doesn't."
And of course reversing that and applying it to DMs, you get "how many effective options does this class give for solving whatever encounters I throw at them?" For Commoners, the answer may be none. For Fighters, it's sometimes none, sometimes 1, maybe 2, but you generally know in advance what it will be (if he's got Improved Trip and a Spiked Chain and all that, he's probably going to be tripping stuff, just a hint). For Wizards, it's tons, and they're all really potent, and you have no idea how he's going to do it. Does he blind the enemy army or assassinate all its leaders or turn into a Solar and just arbitrarily win the battle? There's no way to know until he memorizes his spells for the day (and even then you might not see it coming).
A significant disparity in tiers is NOT a feature of the system, it is a flaw.
Second concern, action economy:
Action economy is a very critical aspect of analyzing combat. However, it is completely moot when outside of combat or other extreme time constraint. After all, you're not going to be counting rounds during sensitive negotiations with the archduke. Monk's could auto-kill 10 guys a round from across the world and he'd still only be tier 3. Going back to the example given, he's got the dragon covered. In theory he might be able to help against the army by simply beating the orcs, but reasonable mass combat rules won't allow that. If he can't just beat up the army, he's otherwise useless. The slave resistance? Useless. Combat is only a small part of the equation.
Reading through the posts I'm forced to facepalm. It seems everyone read "balance" in the title, saw a long post, and didn't read it.
I covered combat and non-combat in my post merely to illustrate both sides. If you give fighters the same utility as a wizard, why ever create a wizard in the first place? It honestly seems to me like you would prefer a classless system, because that's the only system in which I could envision the tenets of your ideas not fundamentally breaking the game.
I covered combat and non-combat in my post merely to illustrate both sides. If you give fighters the same utility as a wizard, why ever create a wizard in the first place? It honestly seems to me like you would prefer a classless system, because that's the only system in which I could envision the tenets of your ideas not fundamentally breaking the game.Reading through the posts I'm forced to facepalm. It seems everyone read "balance" in the title, saw a long post, and didn't read it.
http://www.sirlin.net/articles/rock-paper-scissors-in-strategy-games.h tml
You can likely just scroll down to the part where he discusses starcraft. There exists a balance point other than homogeneity.
One of the biggest issues with 3.x was well played casters obsoleting non-casters. Some people around here might have heard of the tier system, for those who have not: http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?PHPSESSID=qvl9769e49o3vs4 eqdovgnq2k2&topic=5293
It's imo too harsh to say obsoleting. No class is obsolete. Casters at higher levels are fundamentally more powerful, but that's how the game was designed since like 1st edition I think.
This is the metric by which I am judging balance. As you can see, non-casters typically occupy the lower tiers while casters occupy the upper tiers. PF has made some strides towards closing this imbalance, however, the gap none-the-less remains.Now for the current state of affairs in PF (magus unranked due to inexperience, though I suspect tier 3):
Tier 1: Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Witch
Tier 2: Sorcerer, Oracle
Tier 3: Rogue, Bard, Summoner, Alchemist
Tier 4: Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Cavalier, Barbarian, Inquisitor
Tier 5: MonkThis system is crap btw. It's overly simplistic in it's form.
Now some builds may adjust things a bit such as blaster sorcerers dropping down a few tiers, while the evolutionist summoner moves up to tier 2. In short, PF brought up most of the non-casters up a tier. For the sake of this post, I don't really care about any fine tuning to the rankings, what does matter is that there is a huge difference between what a wizard can do and what a fighter can do.
This system is crap btw. It's overly simplistic in it's form and ugly in it's presentation. Blaster sorcerer is not above the fighter using any metric system. You are generally right though, a cleric is more 'powerful' than the fighter.
There is a huge difference between a wizard and a fighter because that's how the classes were designed. The fighter is the master of combat and wizard is the master of magic. I prefer them that way, thank you.
Once a fighter gets abilities comparable to spells by making skill checks and swinging swords that will be the day day I will stop playing this game.
Keep my master of arms and combat outside of magic.
Once a fighter gets abilities comparable to spells by making skill checks and swinging swords that will be the day day I will stop playing this game.
This is in essence a short, accurate and devastating description of the 4e system.
http://www.sirlin.net/articles/rock-paper-scissors-in-strategy-games.html
You can likely just scroll down to the part where he discusses starcraft. There exists a balance point other than homogeneity.
Pathfinder is not a competitive game. Starcraft is. Besides you are comparing a computer game to a role playing game.
Perceived balance in a role playing game is pretty much of no importance because players are not competing amongst themselves, or at least they shouldn't be. The relative balance is important though in a sense that every class should be good at what it is designed for. A monk is a good example of a game design failure, while a fighter is not.
In other words, what is important is for everyone to have a spotlight. Does a wizard steal your fighters show or not ? Is fighter able to be the groups frontline hardest hitting combatant? Is rogue able to be sneaky and deadly at the same time ? etc ... Those should be the primary concerns of this system.
Yes wizards are much more versatile and fighters are much more focused.
To be honest, I prefer it that way. I prefer rangers being woodland skirmishers to rangers being some silly incarnation of newest computer game trends and game balance crusades.
This idea that spellcasters must be more powerful and better then fighters is truly bizarre.
In basically no fantasy or fiction or mythology ever is it claimed or even shown outright that spellcasters are "better" then martial classes. If anything, martial classes - who are 99/100 times the protagonists - mow through wizards like it ain't no thang.
The problem is that Deus ex Machina is more powerful then everyone else, because it's freaking Deus ex Machina. Or rather, the problem is that spellcasters often take the role of Deus ex Machina.
Imagine you're playing a game based on greek/roman myth, and everyone gets to be heroes similar to Ajax or Hercules or Odysseus. Now imagine someone claims they want to be Zeus. Guess what? That's the guy who thinks wizards should just automatically be better then anyone else.
Your opinion is bad. And you are wrong.
Perceived balance in a role playing game is pretty much of no importance because players are not competing amongst themselves, or at least they shouldn't be. The relative balance is important though in a sense that every class should be good at what it is designed for. A monk is a good example of a game design failure, while a fighter is not.
Yes I too enjoy games in which players spend the majority of the time not being able to do anything because the wizard already did it all.
That's fun.
Not doing anything.
Because I "chose the wrong class."
Last in the string of posts:
If you want Wizard Supremecy Reigns Over All then D&D is not and should not be the game for you. D&D is about a bunch of heroes vaguely typecasted from fiction/fantasy/mythology getting together. And yes, the fact that the fighter class cannot be used to portray heroes typecasted from fiction/fantasy/mythology very much is a design flaw.
Play Ars Magica. Ars Magica is great! It's a fun game and it's built completely around Wizard Supremacy! It's exactly what you want!
But don't make D&D into Ars Magica.
The problem is less combat (though that's part of the problem) and more that as they level, wizards are flying, turning invisible, shapeshifting, altering reality, and creating their own demiplanes, while fighters...are a bit better at hitting a guy with a stick.
|
Last in the string of posts:
If you want Wizard Supremecy Reigns Over All then D&D is not and should not be the game for you. D&D is about a bunch of heroes vaguely typecasted from fiction/fantasy/mythology getting together. And yes, the fact that the fighter class cannot be used to portray heroes typecasted from fiction/fantasy/mythology very much is a design flaw.
Play Ars Magica. Ars Magica is great! It's a fun game and it's built completely around Wizard Supremacy! It's exactly what you want!
But don't make D&D into Ars Magica.
Aaaah Cirno. I'll hazard a guess that you didn't play much Ars Magica, did you?
The ironic thing is that Ars Magica is a game about Wizard Supremacy Which Ends The Moment Somebody With A Big Stick Stands Next To The Wizard.
And considering that trivial things such as fly or teleport are easily accesible in D&D but extremely limited in ArM, actually I would say that D&D is about GodWizards and Ars Magica is about grumpy old men/women who need strong young men around to protect them so they won't die in combat in 5 seconds. So that they get to cast a spell. Which might even not work, unlike D&D.
Last in the string of posts:
If you want Wizard Supremecy Reigns Over All then D&D is not and should not be the game for you. D&D is about a bunch of heroes vaguely typecasted from fiction/fantasy/mythology getting together. And yes, the fact that the fighter class cannot be used to portray heroes typecasted from fiction/fantasy/mythology very much is a design flaw.
Play Ars Magica. Ars Magica is great! It's a fun game and it's built completely around Wizard Supremacy! It's exactly what you want!
But don't make D&D into Ars Magica.
Aaaah Cirno. I'll hazard a guess that you didn't play much Ars Magica, did you?
The ironic thing is that Ars Magica is a game about Wizard Supremacy Which Ends The Moment Somebody With A Big Stick Stands Next To The Wizard.
And considering that trivial things such as fly or teleport are easily accesible in D&D but extremely limited in ArM, actually I would say that D&D is about GodWizards and Ars Magica is about grumpy old men/women who need strong young men around to protect them so they won't die in combat in 5 seconds. So that they get to cast a spell. Which might even not work, unlike D&D.
I'm not speaking of mechanics but of system philosophy. The philosophy behind Ars Magica is "Wizards reign supreme but have a few meatshields to keep other dudes at bay." if that's what you want, that's awesome! ...Go play Ars Magica!
The philosophy behind D&D after OD&D has been "A group of rag tag adventurers vaguely meant to model heroes do heroic things." The problem is that the wizard can do every heroic thing imaginable and the fighter can hit things with a stick.
Part of it is, obviously, in the build. I did some math earlier, and with a 20 point buy human level 20 fighter, with no magic items, can still hit 20 cr monsters with 2 attacks easily (roll less than a 10) and make it hurt. What if, while building the fighter, we took some of what we would devote to combat and put it elsewhere? Feats like skill focus, lower strength-better int or cha, and so on. With all of the fighter bonus feats and weapon training, you can afford feats that others can't. A human fighter with a 12 int, and favored class bonus to skill points would have 5 skill points per level. The feats that add +2 to 2 skills (+4 at 10th level) are almost as good, and later better, than having them as class skills. A fighter would not have the "pizzazz" of a mage, but he could get the job done.
Scrolls.
Magic is not limited in 3e, which is one of the big problems. Rainy Day utility spells can be put into scrolls. You get a ton of spell slots, and you simply don't fill them all in when you wake up, opting to fill in a few as you need them with utility spells.
Mister Big Stick cannot swing his stick all day long. He has a limited mechanic too. It is called "HP," and he cannot replenish his.
Let me review the options of the fighter.
1) He can do combat
Welp, that's about it!
Meanwhile Conan could climb walls and trick wizards and lead armies and
And Beowulf could dive underwater for hours on end, and rip off a monster's arm, and wield a sword made for a giant, and also lead men.
And Odysseys could sail and bluff the gods and disguise himself and charm a witch. And also lead men.
The fighter cannot emulate fighters. This is a flaw.
Fighters can climb (class skill), lead armies (leadership feat), etc, and the rest is roleplay.
One thing I mentioned in a low magic thread a while back was have the time it takes to prepare a spell (or spell slot) appropriate to the level of the spell. 5 minutes + 5 minutes per level of the spell. Once you get to about 5th-6th level, it starts getting hard to prepare all of your spells each day, so you need to save the strong one for when you really need them (because you might not get them back until you get back to town).
This thread, like all the others like it, will not end well.
Unfortunately true. This issue seems to come down to fundamentally different playstyles that I'm not sure could ever be reconciled in the same game.
Generally, though, I agree with ProfessorCirno. Lots of people want a wizard to be like the guys they read about in stories, but the fighter needs to be just a regular guy with a sword. A guy who's really, really good with a sword, but otherwise normal. That doesn't cut it for me, it used to, but not anymore.
This idea that spellcasters must be more powerful and better then fighters is truly bizarre.
In basically no fantasy or fiction or mythology ever is it claimed or even shown outright that spellcasters are "better" then martial classes. If anything, martial classes - who are 99/100 times the protagonists - mow through wizards like it ain't no thang.
In traditional fantasy, martial characters are staple or protagonists because traditional fantasy tries to relate to real life and real people. In other words in traditional fantasy little guy is overcoming a big bully by leaps of faith, luck, skill or any other method that would not be applicable in a real life situation. Antagonists, or big bullies, are portrayed as beings with supernatural or magical powers, to illustrate their perceived superiority over normal people and disassociation with the normal flow of life. Protagonists are more martial mainly because normal people relate naturally to 'earthly' characters compared to antagonists who are usually 'otherwordly'.
Traditional fantasy has a story to tell and that one is usually - stand up to your would be superiors, a little guy can stand up, compete and even beat an obviously superior antagonist. It is a symbolic message that's bean retold as long as humanity exists.
In the most common example, the Lord of the Rings, that's more than obvious.
Imagine you're playing a game based on greek/roman myth, and everyone gets to be heroes similar to Ajax or Hercules or Odysseus. Now imagine someone claims they want to be Zeus. Guess what? That's the guy who thinks wizards should just automatically be better then anyone else.Your opinion is bad. And you are wrong.
Hercules is a demigod. Ajax is a half god, descendant of zeus. Greeks portrayed their heroes as half gods to explain their superhuman abilities unlike martial heroes from traditional fantasy who are more down to earth, which is a trait of christian culture but that's another discussion and I am pretty sure that was just a senseless rant.
I don't think wizards should be automatically better than everyone else, I just think that fighters should stay martial and wizards should stay "magical".
In fact, fighter is one of my favourite classes and I like how the game plays.
I would like to take this time to point out that the Greeks did not classify demi-gods as "Heroes", only humans could be heroes.
This thread is back?
I will say this. In a vacumm the class tier thing has merit, but the game is never played that way.
What really is important is player tiers. If someone decides to go into powergame mode it really does not matter to much which class they choose to do it with.
If there were a real issue as opposed to a paper issue then a majority of the gamers would have issues with the game.
For those of you that have issue it is better to solve those issue for your game. Even if two different GM's have the same issue it can be for entirely different reasons.
My question to the OP is this? What has happened in an actual game that gave you problems, and what house rules do you have?
I would like to take this time to point out that the Greeks did not classify demi-gods as "Heroes", only humans could be heroes.
Hmm... so then Achilles isn't a hero? Really? Hercules? Perseus?
I would like to take this time to point out that the Greeks did not classify demi-gods as "Heroes", only humans could be heroes.Hmm... so then Achilles isn't a hero? Really? Hercules? Perseus?
By traditional Greek standards, no. Although, they have been made heroes in modern society. If you think about it, Hercules wasn't very heroic anyways. He was living a normal life until Hera found out about him and drove him insane, forcing him to kill his wife and children. The only way he could atone and die peacefully was fulfill his famous tasks. Achilles only wanted a normal life, but his mother made a deal so that he could have glory at the cost of it.
Once a fighter gets abilities comparable to spells by making skill checks and swinging swords that will be the day day I will stop playing this game.This is in essence a short, accurate and devastating description of the 4e system.
+1
Just get rid of blasts. Most of them are straight stupid anyway.
Fixed it for you