Easy, by reverting to something like AD&D. Where Casters have to take a full round action to cast; & martial characters can take a full-attack after a move.
It's a common misconception that martial characters could full attack after a move in AD&D. They couldn't. If they had to close to melee (assuming they started over 10 feet away), they got one attack tops. They had to be within that closing distance to get multiple attacks. So the main differences were: 1) they effectively got a 10 foot adjustment instead of the 5 ft adjustment in 3e, 2) that 10 feet was actually 1", so while it translated to 10 feet indoors, it meant 10 yards outdoors.
Those, and dubious understanding of the rules, probably contributed to the impression you could move and get multiple attacks in AD&D. But if you followed the rules, that was not the case. And if you decided not to follow the rules in AD&D on that score, what's to stop you dropping those rules in 3e/PF?
Better GM support. Organize and clarify the existing rules that are meant to keep casters in check, and make it clear to both players and GMs how that works.
Big +1 to that.
Personally, I think that the problem lies not so much on martial character not being to accomplish enough, but on spellcasters being able to accomplish too much (or at least too fast and to easily). In a high fantasy world, I think that even martial characters should be able to perform some magic, but that 'magic' shouldn't equal spellcasting.
If I would fix anything, it would be the spells and their effects; the mechanics of the class is sound IMO*.
I would like to see the effects of spells more specific and contained - potentially expendable with metamagic - especially in the case of open-ended spells like stone shape and the like. I would also like the underlying spell design philosophy to include a couple of things:
- The idea that not everything is doable via spellcasting; there shouldn't be a spell for every situation (or at least not necessarily better, faster, stronger than the good old mundane ways).
- Clear limits of magic; like all systems magic should have its limits, and clear ways to circumvent them when/if need be.
- More exclusive effects for potions, and items with a limited amount of charges usable by all characters.
*The vancian system offers a non-linear progression, while most of the (martial) classes are designed to progress on a more or less linear scale. This ensures that there will always be some degrees of disparity, but IMO that is acceptable in its own.
Don't look at me. I never mentioned 4E.
I'm not looking to step on caster's toes and give martial classes the same mechanics as spellcasters, I'm looking to give martial characters more to do than full attack every single round.
What is something you'd like martial characters to be able to do?
My solution:
...I would embrace that level 13+ is the realm of super humans, 6+ is the realm of superior normal humans...Special Forces, Martial Arts masters, and ancient warriors that trained 10 or more hours per day.
Lemme get this straight..So rogues would have 16d6 sneak attack at level 20??? EACH ATTACK...Can I please make a bow rogue in your game??? 80d6 damage just from sneak attacks in 1 round...yeah that's balanced...
You do realize that
casters RUN OUT OF SPELLS??
Casters can be interrupted
Casters can be silenced
Casters can be deafenedMeta magic items are only useable 3 times per day and meta magic spells that counter these generally have to be prepared ahead of time.
That only averages out to around 300-ish damage. A 20th level paladin, barbarian or fighter can eclipse that without having to hide, every round. Your rogue still has to hide. A Caster can deliver than much damage to an enemy force by level 10, about as many times per day as a rogue can (thanks to the complications of delivering SA). This isn't putting the Rogue at OverPowered, it's dragging it out from UnderPowered.
Casters don't run out of spells so easily in the higher levels. We're talking about higher levels.
Casters can do many things a non-caster could never dream of doing without specialized gear (which casters can also get).
Every caster I've played has laughed at things like being silenced or interrupted. Oftentimes a 5' step can thwart many anti-casting measures. The rest are handled by choosing your spell list carefully and thinking ahead.
What is something you'd like martial characters to be able to do?Don't look at me. I never mentioned 4E.
I'm not looking to step on caster's toes and give martial classes the same mechanics as spellcasters, I'm looking to give martial characters more to do than full attack every single round.
Not spend half their feats (the only real resource they get) on useless feats that they need to qualify for other feats? Have interesting class features (feats and a couple armor/weapon abilities doesn't cut it)?
The issue isn't power, and I specifically said so. The issue is that martial classes lack anything other than full attacking every round at high levels. Well, except the Rogue. Rogues are completely suboptimal compared to pretty much everything. I don't want more damage, I want more versatility to make people stop complaining about the classes.Can you be a bit more specific by what you mean as versatility? What exactly do you want the martials to do.? Something other than "I want them to do something other than full attacking every round". There such things such as combat maneuvers, but I suspect you're looking elsewhere.
What about giving everyone a move action along with their full attack and letting maneuvers be move actions?
New rules. I'm pulling a leaf out of Monte Cook's Book of Experimental Might and giving everyone a feat per level instead of every two levels. That should loosen up those damn feat taxes by making feats more abundant and feat taxes therefore less of a drag.
Furthermore, borrow the idea of Double Feats from Monte Cook's Book of Experimental Might. These are feats so awesome that they cost two feat slots, not one, and if you aren't a Fighter you can't have any. That's the sort of interesting class feature I want to give martial characters: really badass new combat tricks that only their class is allowed to learn.
Figure out a way to make combat maneuvers move actions and full attacks standard actions, and we now have the martial fix I want.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Be careful, Kelsey.
A lot of house rules can be okay, but they add to the complexity of the game and therefore rob the GM of some control over the experience.
Houserules often look good on paper, but after years of being a very active ruleswonk I've come back to playing the game almost RAW. There are few problems that a determined GM can't solve with GMing — changing the rules is better when your ideas are multi-campaign in scope.
By all means, double the feats — but remember that even "fixing" the rules carries a cost of complexity that can ruin the fun for the players or GM.
EDIT: Basically, the way I look at it nowadays is thus: any rule or thing that bothers me goes on my active-GMing-TO-DO-list. Whatever people might say about Rule Zero being a cop-out, it's only a cop-out for designers. The GM's job is still to run the best session possible, rules be damned. So if I have a party with some martials and some casters and I observe the disparity becoming an issue (not always), then yes, I will actively intervene to balance it.
There are limits. The rules are imperfect. But the game works if a good GM makes the right moves, just as any RPG works with a good GM behind it. People can (rightly) critique the system design by saying "The GM shouldn't have to balance the system on the fly" ... but that doesn't change my job as a GM. And trying to solve this problem as a designer (through house rules) doesn't do my job as a GM either. So I'd rather fix as a GM than as a designer.
This doesn't mean giving an active boost to martials or gimping casters... it's more an environmental change to the basic assumptions of the campaign setting and players. I assume that casters can get almost anything done alone with enough time and money — so the story needs to be one that limits time and money for good reasons, and makes a hero of the martials for being the people casters need.
TLDR: Coffee-fueled balance rant. Rules shouldn't rely on GMs to balance, but GMs shouldn't rely on rules to balance either.
Eh. You should see the list of house rules I have all ready. Most of it is stylistic, but still. I'm a major house ruler.
I do think these are good rules. Make Fighters a bit more fun, alleviate those damn feat taxes, and let martial characters move and full attack or combat maneuver and full attack.
Eh. You should see the list of house rules I have all ready. Most of it is stylistic, but still. I'm a major house ruler.
I do think these are good rules. Make Fighters a bit more fun, alleviate those damn feat taxes, and let martial characters move and full attack or combat maneuver and full attack.
Far be it from me to criticize what other people choose to modify. I do think it is worthy to consider the ecological consequences of houseruling on the game, however. Friendly discussion on this is most welcome while I am bored at work.
I've found that a good way to handle it is to introduce an unsure house rule provisionally, so that it can be pulled if things go pear shaped.
Stop making Combat Feats but give them Abilities inspired by the style of the Book of the Nine Swords(? or how it was called) which enable them to do cool stuff.
Don't look at me. I never mentioned 4E.
I'm not looking to step on caster's toes and give martial classes the same mechanics as spellcasters, I'm looking to give martial characters more to do than full attack every single round.
I don't think there's anything wrong with fighters. They do a LOT of damage and have a lot of options available to them (including a lot of non-damage options if you CHOOSE). It's a straight forward class to play, which is a great option for beginners and experts alike.
If you want more skill points, multi-class every 3-4 levels. You can't get something for nothing.
If you want a magical fighter, pick a class like Magus or Inquisitor or (Battle) Oracle.
Some would say the fighter is too good now, personally I think they're just right.
My solution:
...I would embrace that level 13+ is the realm of super humans, 6+ is the realm of superior normal humans...Special Forces, Martial Arts masters, and ancient warriors that trained 10 or more hours per day.
Lemme get this straight..So rogues would have 16d6 sneak attack at level 20??? EACH ATTACK...Can I please make a bow rogue in your game??? 80d6 damage just from sneak attacks in 1 round...yeah that's balanced...
You do realize that
casters RUN OUT OF SPELLS??
Casters can be interrupted
Casters can be silenced
Casters can be deafenedMeta magic items are only useable 3 times per day and meta magic spells that counter these generally have to be prepared ahead of time.
That only averages out to around 300-ish damage. A 20th level paladin, barbarian or fighter can eclipse that without having to hide, every round. Your rogue still has to hide. A Caster can deliver than much damage to an enemy force by level 10, about as many times per day as a rogue can (thanks to the complications of delivering SA). This isn't putting the Rogue at OverPowered, it's dragging it out from UnderPowered.
Casters don't run out of spells so easily in the higher levels. We're talking about higher levels.
Casters can do many things a non-caster could never dream of doing without specialized gear (which casters can also get).
Every caster I've played has laughed at things like being silenced or interrupted. Oftentimes a 5' step can thwart many anti-casting measures. The rest are handled by choosing your spell list carefully and thinking ahead.
1. rogues don't need to hide to be able to sneak attack...the other just needs to be denied their DEX bonus or flanked.
2. bleed damage on 16d sneak attack is 16??? ouch...talk about bleeding out.
3. You run your game your way...I'll run mine using mostly rules as written. Pathfinder as it is written is the least amount of house rules I've ever needed since I started in 1983.
I hardly think there is much of a power gap between the martial and magical classes. As a die hard martial player and DM I'm more inclined to think the power sits on the other side of the fence on this one. Every fighter-type I've played under the current rules set has repeatedly out performed the party's caster types, even at higher levels. On the DM front, my current party's barbarian is an avatar of destruction that the rest of the party, caster included, haven't been able to compete with. Most cases of casters being overpowered come from the DM either not knowing the rules/spells, and often not running enough encounters per day.
EDIT: I do think it is silly that characters need the feats to perform combat manoeuvres without provoking AoO's, however.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1. rogues don't need to hide to be able to sneak attack...the other just needs to be denied their DEX bonus or flanked.
The only way to safely flank with a bow is via snap shot and a 4-level fighter dip to qualify for weapon spec and point blank mastery (because to threaten with snapshot you need to be in melee). You were talking about a bow rogue here.
A TWF Rogue is what would really exploit the 16d6 SA, but even then we're still talking about SA.
I'm playing a Rogue right now, and I tell you that under the best of conditions I can only use SA half the time. Usually, I can only deliver 1 or 2 rounds of SA per entire combat.
2. bleed damage on 16d sneak attack is 16??? ouch...talk about bleeding out.
How about Offensive Defense? +16 dodge bonus to AC. It's almost as crazy as delivering a Save-or-Die, huh.
If you compare it to what an equal level caster is delivering, these are still trivial.
This thread is a question: What would you modify to make non-casters as viable/attractive as casters? I'm answering that question, and you're here... why, exactly?
You run your game your way...I'll run mine using mostly rules as written. Pathfinder as it is written is the least amount of house rules I've ever needed since I started in 1983.
How were you playing PF in 1983 when Paizo was founded in 2002? If you mean RPGs in general (likely D&D boxes, maybe AD&D), congrats on starting gaming a year before me. I was 8 years old when I got my first D&D module for my birthday, and my brother and I joined a D&D club at the neighborhood community center that summer.
However, this isn't the thread for talking about our gaming histories, and certainly not for "I'm more old-school than you and therefore better than you" contests (which is both fallacy and phallus-ey). Since you're here, why don't you answer the question posed in the OP: How would you level the field between casters and non-casters?
How would you level the field between casters and non-casters?
Spell blights and called shots. Throat shots are wonderful.
I house ruled that everyone gets the Vital Strike feat chain for free. This has kept all of our melee types on par with the spellcasters (in a 16th level game no less). With this the melee types can still move and make a meaningful attack each round.
I house ruled that everyone gets the Vital Strike feat chain for free. This has kept all of our melee types on par with the spellcasters (in a 16th level game no less). With this the melee types can still move and make a meaningful attack each round.
Does this go for Monsters too?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd give rogues/ninjas +1 hit/1d6 of sneak attack and they'd gain half of this (so on non-flanking/flat-footed/surprised strikes they would get +1hit/+1d6 damage at first level, +2hit/+2d6 at 5th and so on) when not actually qualifying for sneak attack. I'd give them a floating good save.
I'd give fighters more skill points and a large skill list. I'd give them a good will save (I'm aware this makes them incredibly durable against fear, the paladin is immune to fear, so hush).
I think the barbarian is fine.
The Cavalier would have a floating good save and the ability to ride a mount indoors.
I'd give all of the non-magical classes access to skill-based tricks (the rogue would get all, the rest would gain access to a number equal to a mental stat of their choice) that would scale up with level.
I'd give the aforementioned classes access to spell-like abilities (the fighter would get the largest selection, with the rogue coming up second, and everyone else gets a smaller number) that would also scale up with level.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It would be very hard to close the gap without nerfing casters. Also if you up power the martial’s so they can have powers similar to level afforded by spells you essentially have a different game (at least from a design goal/historical perspective).
One thing I would do is give fighters, rogues, cavaliers and barbarians an extra "good" save from level 1.
Fighters get to chose at 1st level between Reflex or Will as an extra "good" save, while Rogues get to choose between Fortitude or Will as their "good" save. This choice is made at the 1st level for the class and stays that way forever.
Cavaliers now get a "Good" save on Will (no choice, just a class change) and Barbarians get a "Good" save on Reflex (as Cav, just a class change).
Also change the feats associated with Saves into "Bonus feats", Lightning Reflexes, Iron Will, et al can now be chosen as a bonus by those who qualify to get them.
With that all said, here is the nerfing......
- Nerf casting time: All spells are full rounds unless the spell by nature needs to go off quickly (feather fall, true strike, etc). So no more move and cast.
- Return of the Consequence: Going back to 1st/2nd ed games almost all powerful spell had some limiters - chance of failure, death, damage or aging. I am bringing those back for my game. The spells still are tempting to cast, but in practice they are used in emergency situations only.
- Concentration gets much more difficult: Spike up the DC numbers so the spells are much less likely to be cast if the caster is damaged, hit, harassed, etc.
- Spell casting time/initiative: I use a declared action/timed resolution for my game (which is cumbersome, but my players like it since it means that they can affect the speed of things based upon their decisions vs. being locked in an initiative cycle).
For everyone else in Pathfinder land maybe a system which makes higher level spells slower to cast. So spells with VSM/DF get -1 a level on initiative - level 1: -1, level 2: -2, etc, with a total roll in the negative meaning it carries over the activation of the spell to the beginning of the next round.
Also to players, and GMs should help with this, should be more inventive. There are a ton of ways to interact with situations that don't involve swinging a sword. You don't need an ultra powerful spell to disable a machine: a "wrench" will do. You can throw flour around instead of glitterdust. You can throw sand in someone's face rather than casting a blinding spell. You can throw a concussive bomb at someone instead of deafen. Gags prevent speaking as does throwing a glass vial of goop/poison, or just a glass vial LOL, at someone's mouth to interrupt a spell being cast.
Granted, you can't go plane hopping or cast dispell but there's A LOOOOOT of options out there to accomplish the same things as magic does.
Nobody likes my suggestion :(
Yet everyone who had that book loved the melees in it...
Stop making Combat Feats but give them Abilities inspired by the style of the Book of the Nine Swords(? or how it was called) which enable them to do cool stuff.
The full title is Tome of Battle: The Book of Nine Swords. I think it's a pretty good book, but some of the stuff was wacky, as usual, like the Warblade's ability to overcome any condition that would keep them from winning, keep in mind the most horrible application of this I've seen was "ending pregnancy", which I don't even want to know what situation would cause such a thing to be standing between you and victory.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe weapons themselves could be reworked. Certain weapons are more effective against different targets, and this is represented by DR being bypassed by certain types of attacks. This works, but they could also be done as inherent functions of the weapon. For example, blunt weapons are good against armor since they are about concussive force. All blunt weapons could ignore X points of armor bonus AC, and maybe some would be better than others. Hammers and picks tore up armor. Piercing weapons could inherently cause bleed damage, as such a deep wound is harder to close off than a cut, and slashing weapons could deal additional damage to naked opponents or those denied their dexterity mod, to represent either slashing bare flesh or hitting a gap in the armor.
This would promote selecting weapons that suited the encounter, carrying different weapons for different occasions, switching weapons mid combat as certain enemies call for it, and give melee characters something to manage like spellcasters manage spellbooks.
Maybe weapons themselves could be reworked. Certain weapons are more effective against different targets, and this is represented by DR being bypassed by certain types of attacks. (snip)
I've always been a fan of this concept, and I love it. The craft of knowing your weapons would be a fantastic addition to any fantasy setting, because it adds depth and intelligence to physical combat.
However, I know alot of people just want to play high-fantasy games where such things are ignored. That said, it would be great if it were an optional rule, or one that could be dropped without hurting gameplay... so it shouldn't be heavily integrated.
Stop making Combat Feats but give them Abilities inspired by the style of the Book of the Nine Swords(? or how it was called) which enable them to do cool stuff.The full title is Tome of Battle: The Book of Nine Swords. I think it's a pretty good book, but some of the stuff was wacky, as usual, like the Warblade's ability to overcome any condition that would keep them from winning, keep in mind the most horrible application of this I've seen was "ending pregnancy", which I don't even want to know what situation would cause such a thing to be standing between you and victory.
The best application of it was stopping the flow of time of the multiverse xD.
Some stuff in that was right out broken or badly made.
But I am talking about the spirit in it. The first previews of 4th was a lot like the ToB and I was really excited at that time. But then they FUBARed it.
Yet it is the best version of giving melees cool thingies without them outright copying spells (maybe the sword sage slips over that line but it was intended).
The Crusader and the Warblade had cool abilities outside endless feat chains you had to plan ahead since lvl 1 which were useful but didn't outright kill the good old Full Attack Action for serious damage.
Maybe weapons themselves could be reworked. Certain weapons are more effective against different targets, and this is represented by DR being bypassed by certain types of attacks. This works, but they could also be done as inherent functions of the weapon. For example, blunt weapons are good against armor since they are about concussive force. All blunt weapons could ignore X points of armor bonus AC, and maybe some would be better than others. Hammers and picks tore up armor. Piercing weapons could inherently cause bleed damage, as such a deep wound is harder to close off than a cut, and slashing weapons could deal additional damage to naked opponents or those denied their dexterity mod, to represent either slashing bare flesh or hitting a gap in the armor.
This would promote selecting weapons that suited the encounter, carrying different weapons for different occasions, switching weapons mid combat as certain enemies call for it, and give melee characters something to manage like spellcasters manage spellbooks.
All these are good suggestions.
|
|
Nobody likes my suggestion :(
Yet everyone who had that book loved the melees in it...
No offense directed at you but I hated that book.
The one good thing I can say is that it was an attempt to fix the disparity between casters and fighters, but the philosophy of giving one side more was a feeble & uneven attempt at best.
At that point in the game scaling back power would have been met with too much resistance, so I can understand the need to "give moar" as a splat vs. fixing issues in the game.
I didn't like the heavy anime/wuxia influenced themes in the book, and in the end it still didn't address the powers of casters. Just a bad attempt at catch-up for martials.
Spellcasting in 3.5 should have been nerfed/checked or better assessed in a risk-reward paradigm and we may have gotten a 4e that was different from what was put out.
If the book works for you (and it works for those who may want to preserve casters power) then by all means convert it to PF.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nobody likes my suggestion :(
Yet everyone who had that book loved the melees in it...
No offense directed at you but I hated that book.
The one good thing I can say is that it was an attempt to fix the disparity between casters and fighters, but the philosophy of giving one side more was a feeble & uneven attempt at best.
At that point in the game scaling back power would have been met with too much resistance, so I can understand the need to "give moar" as a splat vs. fixing issues in the game.
I didn't like the heavy anime/wuxia influenced themes in the book, and in the end it still didn't address the powers of casters. Just a bad attempt at catch-up for martials.
Spellcasting in 3.5 should have been nerfed/checked or better assessed in a risk-reward paradigm and we may have gotten a 4e that was different from what was put out.
If the book works for you (and it works for those who may want to preserve casters power) then by all means convert it to PF.
Spellcasters aren't better per se anymore than melees. They only excel at variety and utility stuff.
I would embrace that level 13+ is the realm of super humans, 6+ is the realm of superior normal humans...Special Forces, Martial Arts masters, and ancient warriors that trained 10 or more hours per day.
Damn straight! That is exactly how I characterize those levels. None of this "level 6+ are super human/super heroes" nonsense. That line of logic is largely based on dry math using hit points and skill bonus numbers, as well as "4th level spells are world altering magic". I don't subscribe.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, change my post somewhat, give the fighter additional skills based on a concept, kind of like the Cavalier's orders.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I house ruled that everyone gets the Vital Strike feat chain for free. This has kept all of our melee types on par with the spellcasters (in a 16th level game no less). With this the melee types can still move and make a meaningful attack each round.Does this go for Monsters too?
Yes, it does.
I house ruled that everyone gets the Vital Strike feat chain for free. This has kept all of our melee types on par with the spellcasters (in a 16th level game no less). With this the melee types can still move and make a meaningful attack each round.
I'm cribbing that.
Yes, it does.I house ruled that everyone gets the Vital Strike feat chain for free. This has kept all of our melee types on par with the spellcasters (in a 16th level game no less). With this the melee types can still move and make a meaningful attack each round.Does this go for Monsters too?
I would suggest modifying it so that it's not disproportionately good for druids and dinosaurs. In my game, it deals +2d6/+4d6/+6d6 damage, rather than +W/+2W/+3W. Otherwise, you encourage every PC warrior to be Apache Chief, and that can get boring.
|
|
Actually, change my post somewhat, give the fighter additional skills based on a concept, kind of like the Cavalier's orders.
I think this is a great idea.
So not exactly archetypes, but almost like the old kits (sort of) where depending on the sub-type of fighter (say, like a Weapons crafter/Blacksmith) he may get some extra points to use on specific crafting skills or whatnot. Something minor change when compared to archetypes - which are more of a class rewrite while staying within a framework.Is that is what you were trying to put out there or something more drastic?
Edit: I like this thread, some great ideas in here. As long as we can keep any criticism constructive here I would love to see ideas keep coming in for a solution to the (presumed/proposed) problem.
Actually, change my post somewhat, give the fighter additional skills based on a concept, kind of like the Cavalier's orders.I think this is a great idea.
So not exactly archetypes, but almost like the old kits (sort of) where depending on the sub-type of fighter (say, like a Weapons crafter/Blacksmith) he may get some extra points to use on specific crafting skills or whatnot. Something minor change when compared to archetypes - which are more of a class rewrite while staying within a framework.Is that is what you were trying to put out there or something more drastic?
Edit: I like this thread, some great ideas in here. As long as we can keep any criticism constructive here I would love to see ideas keep coming in for a solution to the (presumed/proposed) problem.
More or less. Though I did a lot more in the initial post. I'd initially given the fighter floating skills, which still isn't a bad idea all things told, but I decided to add a concept to it akin to the Cavalier.
My solution lately is to run folklore and fairytale plots, rather than modern fantasy plots. In folklore, wizards and clerics might be helpful sagely support characters, but for the most part magic casters are villains. Main characters translate best to fighters and rogues. In short, when I run these plots, I don't allow casters.
This isn't really answering the question in the way it is intended, but utilizing the awesomeness of wizards for the villains without allowing casters in the PCs' party adds to the sense of being a small man against an overwhelming force, returns the sense of mystery to magic, and alleviates that pesky problem of one player's character being clearly more powerful than another at later levels. The game doesn't even need to be low magic. In a folklore oriented game, the GM just needs to make sure the magic items are relevant to the plot, just like in real folklore.
Really? Where does it say that?Easy, by reverting to something like AD&D. Where Casters have to take a full round action to cast; & martial characters can take a full-attack after a move.It's a common misconception that martial characters could full attack after a move in AD&D. They couldn't. If they had to close to melee (assuming they started over 10 feet away), they got one attack tops. They had to be within that closing distance to get multiple attacks. So the main differences were: 1) they effectively got a 10 foot adjustment instead of the 5 ft adjustment in 3e, 2) that 10 feet was actually 1", so while it translated to 10 feet indoors, it meant 10 yards outdoors.
Those, and dubious understanding of the rules, probably contributed to the impression you could move and get multiple attacks in AD&D. But if you followed the rules, that was not the case. And if you decided not to follow the rules in AD&D on that score, what's to stop you dropping those rules in 3e/PF?
In a combat round a being can move up to 10 times it's movement rating in feet. However they types of moves a character can make during combat are somewhat limited.
Movement in Melee
The basic move is to get closer for combat....When closing for combat a character can move up to half his allowed distance and still make a melee attack.
Multiple Attacks
When the attacks are true multiples, the attacks are staggered. Everyone involved in the combat completes one action before the second.
There is no mention of only being able to move 1' between attacks.
I will concede that the 1st Ed rules are a lot more jumbled, with the fighter section not specifying any extra attacks or weapon specialization (left to Cavaliers in UA?). Not to mention the rules regarding weapon speed. With the more ambiguous rules and many games were/are house-ruled. Lastly on this point, thank you for the implication that I cheat.Anyway, the idea that fighters could move and full-attack thus doing enough damage to kill/harm a less-prepared caster (I am sure with contingencies, dimension door, teleport and other spells they could survive); whilst a caster could not stand toe-to-toe, or move and cast, for round after round would balance better. Thus a warrior-type could press a caster, who would take his licks and run.
What about giving everyone a move action along with their full attack and letting maneuvers be move actions?
Can you be a bit more specific by what you mean as versatility? What exactly do you want the martials to do.? Something other than "I want them to do something other than full attacking every round". There such things such as combat maneuvers, but I suspect you're looking elsewhere.
What about something patterned after the magus, only with maneuvers instead of spells?
I have a few untested ideas to add to the list:
1. Gestalt for martials with other martials or limited-casting hybrids. Think Natural Attack Barbarian/Rogue.
2. Different experience tables, allowing single-classed martials to advance 1-2 levels ahead of casters, easing the disparity. It does this by providing more options/abilities to the martials faster.
2.5. Both of the Above. Please check out this thread for an interesting character creation system.
3. Create two different types of casters: You're either an Evoker only, or you're everything except for an evoker. IE you can choose to deal damage and play that role, but lose the ability to alter reality/buff/control, etc. Or you can alter reality/buff/control/SoS/SoD but physical damage is someone else's schtick.
4. Allow as part of the attribute point buy system, the option to purchase class features not granted to the Favored class. I.E. I want to add sorcerer-like spell casting to my fighter, so it costs me 17 points out of my 20 allotted points, etc. or however it would be most fair/balanced to do this. You're giving up stats for major class features, this is a play-style choice and has built in moderation.
5. I have posted this idea in another thread, it is a pseudo-nerf for casters, where launching the 'most powerful spells' in their arsenal carries a monetary tax, becoming a choice rather than a no-brainer. Read here.
6. GM'ing differently is also an option. I have a regular group of 5 players, and so often create multiple situations which need immediate resolution, forcing the players to bandy into smaller groups. They have fun deciding which resources go where and in what combination. They know that there may be encounters built for a full party, tailored to the power/play-style of the group, of which only 2-3 will be there to deal with it.
Remember, they only have 1 action each round. Time is the major limiting factor on any class. With fewer player-turn actions each round, each player must be exceedingly thoughtful in what he chooses to do; power be damned, what does the situation *force* them to do ;)?
I hope that some of this is helpful.
--PC
One thing that would help rogues a lot is if they actually benefited from critical hits. Sneak attack should be affected by crits. How lame is it that when they crit, they get to often only add an additional 1d6 damage?
Really? Where does it say that?Easy, by reverting to something like AD&D. Where Casters have to take a full round action to cast; & martial characters can take a full-attack after a move.It's a common misconception that martial characters could full attack after a move in AD&D. They couldn't. If they had to close to melee (assuming they started over 10 feet away), they got one attack tops. They had to be within that closing distance to get multiple attacks. So the main differences were: 1) they effectively got a 10 foot adjustment instead of the 5 ft adjustment in 3e, 2) that 10 feet was actually 1", so while it translated to 10 feet indoors, it meant 10 yards outdoors.
Those, and dubious understanding of the rules, probably contributed to the impression you could move and get multiple attacks in AD&D. But if you followed the rules, that was not the case. And if you decided not to follow the rules in AD&D on that score, what's to stop you dropping those rules in 3e/PF?
In a combat round a being can move up to 10 times it's movement rating in feet. However they types of moves a character can make during combat are somewhat limited.
Movement in Melee
The basic move is to get closer for combat....When closing for combat a character can move up to half his allowed distance and still make a melee attack.I will concede that the 1st Ed rules are a lot more jumbled, with the fighter section not specifying any extra attacks or weapon specialization (left to Cavaliers in UA?). Not to mention the rules regarding weapon speed. With the more ambiguous rules and many games were/are house-ruled.Multiple Attacks
When the attacks are true multiples, the attacks are staggered. Everyone involved in the combat completes one action before the second.
The 1" came from 1e, as I recall. But even notice that the text you quoted says you can move up to half your movement rate and get in a melee attack. Couple that with multiple attacks coming in alternating fashion and you're really not seeing any support for moving and making iterative attacks in 2e. Even ranged attackers can only get half their missile rate if they move up to half their rate.
In fact, with all of the references to moving up to half rate, it really sounds like you can't move at all in 2e and get multiple attacks.Lastly on this point, thank you for the implication that I cheat.
Don't get your back up. There are MANY rules people elected not to use in AD&D. 3e was just as house-rule friendly, yet somehow people hold the rules so much more sacrosanct. I don't know why.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
3. Create two different types of casters: You're either an Evoker only, or you're everything except for an evoker. IE you can choose to deal damage and play that role, but lose the ability to alter reality/buff/control, etc. Or you can alter reality/buff/control/SoS/SoD but physical damage is someone else's schtick.
This sentiment confuses me. Evocation (as direct damage anyway) is waaay overrated. It doesn't contribute much to the disparity at all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The thing about spellcasters, is that their ability to alter reality at a whim is entirely dependent on what spells they prepared for that day, or the limited selection of spontaneous things they can cast. Even with the APG racial features, your spell list will still feel impossibly small.
At least, it will if the DM's doing his job of observing what his players are doing and what spells the casters know. You'll usually have just enough tricks to get yourself out of a jam that day. And even then, that's assuming you somehow picked just the right spells for every situation, at that time and place.
And I've yet to meet a sorcerer or wizard who didn't have a giant target sign on his back when enemy archers had them within visual range. I don't care what badass spells you have, until you're level 15 or so, you'd better pray the Fighter or Rogue has your back if a group of enemies REALLY wants you dead in a fight. Spellcasters do tend to be very squishy. The party had better keep the Squishy off the front line of combat, because he WILL get pasted pretty quickly if he's stupid about where he positions himself.
Of course, maybe they have found ways around their squishy, low HP nature. Maybe they somehow DO have all the spells they need for a given situation. I doubt it though. Sometimes, I think people forget that the whole "Tier System" that JaronK put together measured potential power across any given variety of situations. However, once a character is created, his potential is set. He can only do what the player constructs him to do...and as DM, you know exactly how the character is constructed before the game starts. And the DM constructs every situation the party encounters. It's really, really easy to construct a situation where Magic becomes a disadvantage, especially when dealing with fearful and superstitious townsfolk. Or an anti-magic field that means that the party needs to use good old fashioned ingenuity (which the Rogue specializes in) to get the job done.
And when the Wizard loses his spellbook (you can take those from your players. Lord knows MY Evil Overlord would have it stolen from the wizard's pack whenever possible...although the players would have ample opportunity to steal it back, don't worry), the Rogue has to track it down. And he has the skills to do it. Anyone who says that Rogues are Suboptimal at best should see what can be done with a bit of poison, and a careful selection of equipment. Meanwhile, in ALL situations, The fighter has to keep the squishy spellcaster out of the line of fire. The Cleric has to patch up the squishy spellcaster that got shot because he was silly enough to be in the line of fire.
And if the spellcaster is still dominating the game in spite of all of that? Start counting out his spell components, and pay attention to ALL the components that cost over a gold piece to purchase...and be really mean when he says that he didn't take Eschew Materials. It could be as easy as saying "You have the components for X number of each spell. Hope you can find more/get to a shop before you run out of components. Doesn't matter how many times you prepare it a day, if you don't have the components to cast it."
And nothing beats the look on a players face when you tell them there's a Bat Guano (Fireball Spell) shortage at the local apothecary.