|
I think bumping up Skill Lists and Skill Points for Martials is easy, make everyone at least a 4SP class, and open up the class skill lists a bit--maybe let the player choose Bonus Class Skills equal to his INT modifier.
As to combat, the more I play with Tome of Battle, the more I think all martial characters could benefit from Stances and something like Maneuvers or "Weapon Powers" or something.
Again, it's that way in 4e--everyone, caster and non, have "power sets" and everyone's more or less equal.
I think more Feats would mean more feats, but Stances and Maneuvers and Powers might close the gap in the perceived differences in "amazingness" between martial and casters.
...Of course, if you go too far, you'll end up in 4e...
I see you as having double-posted, Buri.
Fixed.
I think bumping up Skill Lists and Skill Points for Martials is easy, make everyone at least a 4SP class, and open up the class skill lists a bit--maybe let the player choose Bonus Class Skills equal to his INT modifier.As to combat, the more I play with Tome of Battle, the more I think all martial characters could benefit from Stances and something like Maneuvers or "Weapon Powers" or something.
Again, it's that way in 4e--everyone, caster and non, have "power sets" and everyone's more or less equal.
I think more Feats would mean more feats, but Stances and Maneuvers and Powers might close the gap in the perceived differences in "amazingness" between martial and casters.
...Of course, if you go too far, you'll end up in 4e...
Note that some Tome of Battle stuff made it's way to PF.
Lunge is the equal of 5th level Iron Heart Stance. While Dazing Assault is the equal of Dazing Strike, again, 5th level Iron Heart Maneuver. I liked Tome of Battle, it was new, and cool, and let us pull off some cool maneuvers. But then our players realized it. We all played a warblade in a short trial ToB campaign. After being able to use Tiger Claw maneuvers with TWF, or Stone Dragon with a two handed weapon, not to mention an Iron Heart with spiked chain, we eventually had to scrap ToB, because no one felt like going back to the rogue, the ranger or the barbarian. The fact that you could pull off 8 maneuvers and 3 stances per day, ALL day made it a win-win situation.
Now, it'd be nice if Ultimate Combat had added that function, albeit somewhat more balanced than ToB, like they worked in Words of Power.
My personal giggle was when everyone had been using Iron Heart Surge on anything.
You're on fire? IRON HEART SURGE!
You're frozen to the ground? IRON HEART SURGE!
Dominated by a vamp? IRON HEART SURGE!
Though, I kinda do miss maneuvers. If we'd houserule them back, we'd probably either raise caster's bab or allow more spells per day. When you can use a maneuver that gives you 6d6 extra damage, ignores DR and Hardness at full bab, why not let casters hit more often?
|
|
Though, I kinda do miss maneuvers. If we'd houserule them back, we'd probably either raise caster's bab or allow more spells per day. When you can use a maneuver that...
Fwiw, perhaps showing our 4e bias, one of my groups set everyone to +1 BAB and just kept the slower iterative attack progression--so everyone had a better chance of hitting, but only the martial classes got the extra attacks (they also got +2 SP/level and +2HP/level to offset everyone else's "power creep" in BAB).
As to stances and maneuvers, I was disappointed UC didn't bring them back in a Pathfinder-friendly version as I do miss my ToB characters and think they were more fun to play and more flexible than pretty much any "standard" martial class...
Of course, I also liked the play-test Inquisitor with it's "ramping" powers instead of the final version with it's fixed bonuses just because I thought the ramping was a neat way to see your character evolve from round to round...
Hmm, didn't think of that, might hear what others at my table think. Full bab for all, iterations for martial classes.
For a real earlier-edition call-back, let only fighters get +1 BAB; only martials get iteratives; only rogues, rangers, and elves can get the Perception skill; only those plus halflings can get the Stealth skill; only rangers can take ranks in Survival, and only rogues can take ranks in Disable Device or Sleight of Hand.
I don't like those rules, Kirth. I really don't.
I don't like those rules, Kirth. I really don't.
I have to agree with Kelsey. Sounds very restricted.
Try rolling 3d6 in order down your sheet--just once--to complete the 1e gaming experience.I don't like those rules, Kirth. I really don't.I have to agree with Kelsey. Sounds very restricted.
My last 2e campaign about a year and a half ago did that. Thus was born the party wizard: "Dumpling" Con and Int of 18 everything else 8 or less. Made it all of the way to level 9.
The progressions you described seem accurate with those roles. If you want to incapacitate someone you deal nonlethal damage. If you want to get past a chasm you can either go around, look for a bridge or, if you're feeling dangerous then climb down one side and climb up the other.
I hear you about doing amazing things without spells. Something like a long jump would be nice, the case of the chasm. Things like this can be solved, easily enough. However, without wings, there's no mundane way to fly. There's no mundane way to spontaneously create water. You're not going plane hopping. You're not banishing demons. That's what mundane is.
Why not? Why can't a superstitious barbarian who hates magic with all his might have a chance to banish a demon on a critical hit? Why can't a fighter sunder a hole between the planes? This is a fantasy world, everything is magic.
mun·dane/ˌmənˈdān/
Adjective:
Lacking interest or excitement; dull.
Of this earthly world rather than a heavenly or spiritual one.
Your point?
However, if you want physical prowess to be amazing then that makes sense. I've had some additional feats ideas crop up from time to time that I think would be cool if I ran a game. But, to be non-magical in a magical universe is going to be lackluster in comparison. The other "but" is that if you want to throw a spear a mile and still hit your target for 20d10 damage and you're level 20 fighter with the requisite ability scores and environmental conditions are right (weather, line of sight, etc) then go for it as far as I'm concerned.
And that is exactly the problem that causes the disparity. Who in their right mind would take a feat that let them throw a spear a mile? How often would you actually get the chance to use that feat? These are things that should be built into the game and given out automatically, not made into stupid situational feats. Wizards and clerics can change their specialization on a daily basis. Spontaneous casters can change out spells at certain levels. A martial class that picks a bad feat is stuck with it for life(except for fighters).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't like those rules, Kirth. I really don't.
Most people don't, which is one reason why 3e variants are more popular than 1e variants! 1e did have a whole lot more "niche protection," though, which is one simple way to prevent one class from stepping on another class' toes.
Imagine if there were no spells that could supersede skills nor kill monsters -- if only rogues could open locked doors, if only fighters could kill monsters, etc. The game would be a lot better balanced -- but also a lot less fun, because it would consist of one person doing their thing, and everyone else waiting for the next situation, hoping it would be their turn to get to do something next.
The trick is to strike a reasonable compromise between niche protection, everyone-is-the-same-ism, and total imbalance. What constitutes an optimal mix of those will differ for each group.
OD&D and AD&D 1e: STR, INT, WIS, DEX, CON, CHA, (CMS)
AD&D 2e: STR, DEX, CON, INT, WIS, CHA
Fixed it for you.
|
For the "how to fix CM Disparity", I would do it by changing the rules for non-magical combat.
Give all the melee guys more options.
- Lower the requirements on some combat feats, or make them into tricks you can just do if you meet the prereqs, instead of having to spend a feat slot.
---> Example: In my next game, any time your BAB gives you a new attack, you'll get the next level of Vital Strike for free.
- Make it easier to do combat maneuvers.
- Make moving around not be such a DPR sink.
- Come up with new combat tricks people can do in combat.
---> There were a few of these in an old KQ (#3 I think).
---> Conan has a few.
---> Iron Heroes has some as well.
Some more abilities outside combat for noncasters would help too.
Why not? Why can't a superstitious barbarian who hates magic with all his might have a chance to banish a demon on a critical hit? Why can't a fighter sunder a hole between the planes? This is a fantasy world, everything is magic.
Not everything. Not even close. The adventuring gear you buy at first level isn't magical. Even special materials aren't magical. A barbarian being superstitious doesn't make him magical either. He might get a circumstance bonus to attack but that'd be about it. Otherwise he has no means to send a demon back to the abyss.
And that is exactly the problem that causes the disparity. Who in their right mind would take a feat that let them throw a spear a mile? How often would you actually get the chance to use that feat? These are things that should be built into the game and given out automatically, not made into stupid situational feats. Wizards and clerics can change their specialization on a daily basis....
They can't change their specialization. A cleric can change what spells they have ready. A wizard can do the same. However, Wizards have to be picky not to prepare a spell from opposition schools and clerics can't use their spells in a way that goes against their deity. It's no different than our barbarian choosing a silver broadsword today and an adamantine sword tomorrow except that can switch out from round to round, to be honest, and no caster can do that. If you want to create a list of things a martial character gets then, again, go for it. But, do so without magic. You can break the laws of physics but don't involve magic. Otherwise, you're just making a pseudo caster anyway. They may not have a spell called "banish on critical" that is an immediate action and applies only on critical strikes but that's exactly what they're doing if they can banish on a critical strike. If you cross that bridge nothing is stopping them from gaining abilities such as spontaneously creating water. Then they might as well be a full caster anyway and have their BAB reduced and such to fit.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If magic exists, it's part of the physics of the setting. If something is a part of the physical underpinnings of the universe, then everything in that universe contains it.
If magic exists, everything is magic.
Exactly and its one I'm working on some ideas for myself.
|
|
And any qualified GM will break that flank with tactical maneuvers from other monsters or a counterflank before it amounts to much.Flanking assumes perfect tactical positioning. This is pretty much impossible to achieve, as any intelligent GM will have the other monsters break up the flank or counter flank.In our games flanking just assumes that you are opposite a friend that is threating your target. It's not impossible, they have some good charts in the rulebook of how you achieve flanking.
Actually that is the exact opposite of what a qualified GM should do in most situations. It is the role of the GM to play the monsters/bandits/mastermind as the creature not as he would play himself. For example if your group of pc's happens to stumble into a group of crocodiles there is no reason for those croc's to begin to start forming up defensively and setting up a flank their croc's they ambush and drag prey away (usually solo) and have an INT of 1, same thing goes for mindless things like constructs and vermin all of them will only go off what they know. Meanwhile a group of say bandits on a normal day might flank but are not trained fighters and are more looking for a group of people that they can easily take, rob, and get away from and if they encounter more then that might very quickly run away lest they get severely hurt and lacking a cleric probably die from it. You have to temper your want to play like a tactical master to match the things you are playing not just try to shoehorn it in.
|
|
So you're saying give everyone magic?
That's certainly one approach.
Earthdawn (FASA 1991, now Red Brick) used this as the core of its system.
While the everyman was mundane, every Player Character "Class" (called 'Discipline') was enhanced with magic.
Some, like Elementalists and Wizards obviously channeled this into Spells, but the Swordmaster, Rogue, Warriors channeled it through themselves to accomplish "amazing" feats.
Essentially, just like in 4e, all the classes had power sets, the casters got spells and other arcane abilities, the 'martial' classes got boosts/augments and things like ToB Maneuvers.
I think the easiest way to incorporate something like this into PF would be to import Stances and Maneuvers from ToB and let the Martial classes pick from them.
Thus, you have some magical or at least superhuman abilities that go beyond the mundane sword-swinging.
You don't have to import the ToB classes themselves if you don't want them, but at least open up the Stances and Maneuvers where appropriate. You can use the Crusader's lists for Divine/Champion/Cavalier types, Warblade's list for Fighters/Barbarians, and the Sword Sage's list for Rogues/Rangers etc.
How many you make available is up to the power level you want in your campaign. I obviously wouldn't give the PF classes as many as the full ToB classes have, but maybe 1 per 3 levels or something like that...
Note--I've not tried this myself, just thought of it, but I think it's the easiest way to add "Magic" to the Martials without having them actually all be (essentially) Gestalt Ranger/Sorcerers or something like a Fighter casting spells...
I think bumping up Skill Lists and Skill Points for Martials is easy, make everyone at least a 4SP class, and open up the class skill lists a bit--maybe let the player choose Bonus Class Skills equal to his INT modifier.As to combat, the more I play with Tome of Battle, the more I think all martial characters could benefit from Stances and something like Maneuvers or "Weapon Powers" or something.
Again, it's that way in 4e--everyone, caster and non, have "power sets" and everyone's more or less equal.
I think more Feats would mean more feats, but Stances and Maneuvers and Powers might close the gap in the perceived differences in "amazingness" between martial and casters.
...Of course, if you go too far, you'll end up in 4e...
Note that some Tome of Battle stuff made it's way to PF.
Lunge is the equal of 5th level Iron Heart Stance. While Dazing Assault is the equal of Dazing Strike, again, 5th level Iron Heart Maneuver. I liked Tome of Battle, it was new, and cool, and let us pull off some cool maneuvers. But then our players realized it. We all played a warblade in a short trial ToB campaign. After being able to use Tiger Claw maneuvers with TWF, or Stone Dragon with a two handed weapon, not to mention an Iron Heart with spiked chain, we eventually had to scrap ToB, because no one felt like going back to the rogue, the ranger or the barbarian. The fact that you could pull off 8 maneuvers and 3 stances per day, ALL day made it a win-win situation.
Now, it'd be nice if Ultimate Combat had added that function, albeit somewhat more balanced than ToB, like they worked in Words of Power.
My personal giggle was when everyone had been using Iron Heart Surge on anything.
You're on fire? IRON HEART SURGE!
You're frozen to the ground? IRON HEART SURGE!
Dominated by a vamp? IRON HEART SURGE!Though, I kinda do miss maneuvers. If we'd houserule them back, we'd probably either raise caster's bab or allow more spells per day. When you can use a maneuver that...
Iron Heart Surge is a standard action.
While you are dominated, you can't initate it unless the vampire lets you. Hope you had prot/evil to get rid of it.But for the other stuff? that's exactly what it was supposed to do...remove adverse conditions, without needing a spellcaster.
And yes, they were much more fun then the core melee classes.
As for letting spellcasters get BETTER because of that book...what? Your melees were finally good at their job, and now spellcasters need a boost? What? And +6d6 dmg on a standard action is like, what? That's like getting a second swing is all. Punching DR is nice, but the rest of the time its just a little bonus damage. Ask the rogue if +6d6 dmg once a round is worth it.
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, I think he's saying let everyone be fantastic, because the casters aren't the only ones living in a fantasy world.
I'd have to agree with this.
Actually that is the exact opposite of what a qualified GM should do in most situations. It is the role of the GM to play the monsters/bandits/mastermind as the creature not as he would play himself. For example if your group of pc's happens to stumble into a group of crocodiles there is no reason for those croc's to begin to start forming up defensively and setting up a flank their croc's they ambush and drag prey away (usually solo) and have an INT of 1, same thing goes for mindless things like constructs and vermin all of them will only go off what they know. Meanwhile a group of say bandits on a normal day might flank but are not trained fighters and are more looking for a group of people that they can easily take, rob, and get away from and if they encounter more then that might very quickly run away lest they get severely hurt and lacking a cleric probably die from it. You have to temper your want to play like a tactical master to match the things you are playing not just try to shoehorn it in.And any qualified GM will break that flank with tactical maneuvers from other monsters or a counterflank before it amounts to much.Flanking assumes perfect tactical positioning. This is pretty much impossible to achieve, as any intelligent GM will have the other monsters break up the flank or counter flank.In our games flanking just assumes that you are opposite a friend that is threating your target. It's not impossible, they have some good charts in the rulebook of how you achieve flanking.
Eh. My group is really into Player versus GM, almost as much as we are into Player versus Player. I'm not into it so much, but if I "went soft" I'd be laughed away from the table.
I've been in a player vs GM group, after I got fed up with his nonsense, I built something (several somethings actually) so ridiculous the GM just took what I did, and made a copy of it from that point on.
Actually that is the exact opposite of what a qualified GM should do in most situations. It is the role of the GM to play the monsters/bandits/mastermind as the creature not as he would play himself.
So there's only one correct way to play the game? Sanctimonious garbage.
I feel that the role of the GM is to entertain his players, and if that means building challenging encounters out of simpleton mobs, then so be it. Lul, this is an open ended, highly tailored game, and yet there's a ton of this sort of garbage running around these forums.
Now, I'm not saying rewrite your mobs during live play because your players are more successful than you expected, but certainly plan a damned hard encounter regardless of the 'fluff' that comes with each creature description. Let things unfold as they may.
This thread is Kelsey's, not yours, and so in this thread 'Qualified GMs' will play tactically intelligent mobs. And for the record, I am also of the camp which feels that combat should be challenging and/or meaningful. If it cannot be one or both, then don't include it--waste of time otherwise.
____________________________________________________
As for additional ways of removing the disparity, I was thinking about how to make the existing physical skills, like climb, acrobatics, etc more exciting. I don't have a write up, but what if a character could jump 60+ into the air using only Acrobatics as part of a charge action, success based on a rewritten Acrobatics/jump skill. Fly becomes less of a wedge between casters and martials, because the martials can now reach them and deal melee damage.
Improve the value of skills by making them epic. Thoughts?
--PC
Not everything. Not even close. The adventuring gear you buy at first level isn't magical. Even special materials aren't magical. A barbarian being superstitious doesn't make him magical either.
If character's don't have magical gear by as early as level 2, they fall behind; this is especially true of the martial classes, as monster AC generally outpaces any increases to a character's BaB. They need these magical +1 Attack/Damage modifiers because the kernel mechanics were designed around this. Hence, they are not fully functional without magic.
They can't change their specialization.
School specializations and Domains have no meaningful affect on daily spell choice. If the wizard needs a spell from an Opposition school, he'll take the two-slot hit because it completes a task. Which, honestly, is the point. Why would I memorize two spells that I *might* need, when I can memorize and use one that I *know* that I'll need.
Domains have absolutely no impact on divine spell selection, they grant a bonus spell and (some grant) useful abilities.
The guy you quoted was quite obviously saying that spells are wholly better than feats, and the quantity of spells that can be known and the combinations of spells that can be memorized are always tailored to the caster's needs. Hence, he can change his entire ability set each day to deal with any situation. Martials and feats do not work to the same degree of power, and there is no flexibility once selected. I found his argument clear and easy to understand, and I agree with it.
--PC
The guy you quoted was quite obviously saying that spells are wholly better than feats, and the quantity of spells that can be known and the combinations of spells that can be memorized are always tailored to the caster's needs. Hence, he can change his entire ability set each day to deal with any situation. Martials and feats do not work to the same degree of power, and there is no flexibility once selected. I found his argument clear and easy to understand, and I agree with it.
--PC
What happens when the spellcaster has made a mistake and doesn't live to see the next day? This is the problem with the basic assumption you're making. You are also assuming that you will always be able to escape to rectify your errors.
There's been a sort of "magic creep" over the history of the game, and the martial classes are something of a last bastion for non-magical heroes. It's inevitable that this will one day break in the spirit of fairness as discussed upthread, but the disparity is part of the charm for the martial classes; they are making due with mere mortal powers.
Maybe that's what bothered some people so much about those 3.5 books that blurred the line?
What happens when the spellcaster has made a mistake and doesn't live to see the next day?
We are arguing over the disparity between the classes, which is basically the versatility and power granted via spell casting. I'm not following the point you're trying to make. I'm genuinely not trying to be rude :) But fatal mistakes are the consequences which motivate all players of all classes to play well. And so to answer your literal question: The same as any/every other class applied in equal fashion.
This is the problem with the basic assumption you're making. You are also assuming that you will always be able to escape to rectify your errors.
I do not understand the point you are making. I want to gauge it fairly, if you will please restate your premise and perhaps use an example. "is the problem with the basic assumption you're making" I'm making no such assumption.
--PC
What happens when the spellcaster has made a mistake and doesn't live to see the next day?We are arguing over the disparity between the classes, which is basically the versatility and power granted via spell casting. I'm not following the point you're trying to make. I'm genuinely not trying to be rude :) But fatal mistakes are the consequences which motivate all players of all classes to play well. And so to answer your literal question: The same as any/every other class applied in equal fashion.
This is the problem with the basic assumption you're making. You are also assuming that you will always be able to escape to rectify your errors.I do not understand the point you are making. I want to gauge it fairly, if you will please restate your premise and perhaps use an example. "is the problem with the basic assumption you're making" I'm making no such assumption.
--PC
You said that casters can change their spell selections daily to deal with new problems. That is a very true and certainly inarguable statement. The problem isn't that they can change their spells daily. The problem is that you, and others that tout the superiority of casters, assume that they live to do so. If they make a few poor choices on Monday, they may not live long enough to change their spell selection for Tuesday.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
This part isn't directed at you
There is obviously a disparity between the classes and it is easy to see. However, I don't think it's as big of a gap as people claim. As was pointed out earlier in the thread (and in many other threads too), the easiest way to deal with the disparity is to start with enforcing the rules. When GMs don't force the wizard to take the time to learn new spells they find and simply let them add the spell to the spellbook, it is a ruling that favors the wizard. A spell should take 1 hour plus an additional number of hours equal to its spell level to scribe into the book. That means these high level wizards with more than 27 spells (assuming a 17 starting Intelligence and the not counting cantrips) has spent a lot of time and money that was probably not accounted for.
Not counting the cost of simply buying or learning the spells, to scribe all the 9th level spells (minus the 8 you can get just by leveling) would cost 90770 gold and 78 days of just writing without taking a break to rest. The book doesn't say anything about a maximum number of hours per day you can scribe but I think it's reasonable to cap it at 10 hours (the one hour to learn and the nine hours to scribe a 9th level spell). That puts us at 6 months of just writing.
I know that you didn't tout this. However it is way too often an assumption in these discussions that is overlooked by many. Gods forbid that the wizard wants to either learn or buy the spell from someone because that gets expensive for the number of spells wizards are often assumed to know. If they want to research their own spell (maybe they just couldn't figure out uber-spell X from Gandalf's spellbook or ultra-Y wasn't available in the town they were in), it now costs 1,000 gold pieces per spell level and an additional week. Now a single 9th level spell is going to run 9810 gold (the cost to write it down isn't part of the research). This adds up fast with high level spells.
Often these uber-casters are also crafting items. This also takes time and a lot of money. When are they adventuring?
What happens when the spellcaster has made a mistake and doesn't live to see the next day?We are arguing over the disparity between the classes, which is basically the versatility and power granted via spell casting. I'm not following the point you're trying to make. I'm genuinely not trying to be rude :) But fatal mistakes are the consequences which motivate all players of all classes to play well. And so to answer your literal question: The same as any/every other class applied in equal fashion.
This is the problem with the basic assumption you're making. You are also assuming that you will always be able to escape to rectify your errors.I do not understand the point you are making. I want to gauge it fairly, if you will please restate your premise and perhaps use an example. "is the problem with the basic assumption you're making" I'm making no such assumption.
--PC
You said that casters can change their spell selections daily to deal with new problems. That is a very true and certainly inarguable statement. The problem isn't that they can change their spells daily. The problem is that you, and others that tout the superiority of casters, assume that they live to do so. If they make a few poor choices on Monday, they may not live long enough to change their spell selection for Tuesday.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
This part isn't directed at you
There is obviously a disparity between the classes and it is easy to see. However, I don't think it's as big of a gap as people claim. As was pointed out earlier in the thread (and in many other threads too), the easiest way to deal with the disparity is to start with enforcing the rules. When GMs don't force the wizard to take the time to learn new spells they find and simply let them add the spell to the spellbook, it is a ruling that favors the wizard. A spell should take 1 hour plus an additional number of hours equal to its spell level to scribe into the book. That means these high...
Nitpick: Gandalf really didn't cast any high level spells. His most impressive display was in his dealings with Saruman where you could argue that is at tops telekinesis. Saruman, however, at least has like control weather which is a 7th level spells compared to Gandalf's 5th.
On a more serious note: Here's the thing about pulling out those scribing numbers. In many ways they do not matter. This doesn't affect the sorcerer, oracle, cleric, Druid, bard, summoner, and inquisitors. The wizard simply does it with the most flashiness. Also the wizard can circumvent this in many ways. Starting at level 5, the wizard has a safe haven from which to scribe their spells. Also with good forethought on spell selection, the wizard really only needs like 1/4 of the spells, tops, in order to do everything they need to do between spells like shadow X, polymorph X, summon monster X, and illusion X. You would be surprised how far a well played wizard can take their 40 odd spells, after all sorcerers had to live with about that many until the APG gave them the human option.
|
|
Actually that is the exact opposite of what a qualified GM should do in most situations. It is the role of the GM to play the monsters/bandits/mastermind as the creature not as he would play himself.So there's only one correct way to play the game? Sanctimonious garbage.
I feel that the role of the GM is to entertain his players, and if that means building challenging encounters out of simpleton mobs, then so be it. Lul, this is an open ended, highly tailored game, and yet there's a ton of this sort of garbage running around these forums.
Now, I'm not saying rewrite your mobs during live play because your players are more successful than you expected, but certainly plan a damned hard encounter regardless of the 'fluff' that comes with each creature description. Let things unfold as they may.
This thread is Kelsey's, not yours, and so in this thread 'Qualified GMs' will play tactically intelligent mobs. And for the record, I am also of the camp which feels that combat should be challenging and/or meaningful. If it cannot be one or both, then don't include it--waste of time otherwise.
Call it whatever you want man the point of the matter is that Kelsey has created this page to address her problem she feels that martial characters are being outstripped by the spellcasters and wants a solution. I am offering one that is simple to implement and supported by the material and only really require a change in her perspective. If they would like to continue the way they are playing that's fine it is not my game but since she's made a thread asking for help she is clearly not having as much fun as she would like to. At the end of the day all I'm really saying is try it once or twice to hit them with a few encounters between rests, don't play every encounter like it's an evil mastermind, try to give all the players some challenges that engage the skills they have put all their time into, and remember that you are the gm your job is to understand their strengths and weaknesses as both pc's and people and use that power accordingly. Work from that and work with your players to get them to work as a team and not as one guy with 3 sidekicks and I can tell you it will get a lot better.
P.S. Wasn't aiming for sanctimonious was just stating what I've always seen in the end GM's who want to get the most out of telling a great story and keep control of the game don't usually get it with other styles of play and the groups usually end up falling apart and from the sounds of it Kelsey wants to get back some control on her game.
|
|
Now if that doesn't work might I suggest Golems? They are big, mean, and best of all highly resistant to magic. Could make a whole campaign about stopping an evil golem army set to awaken and hit them with one whenever you feel like and if they get too complacent change the golem type or hit them with 2 different ones simultaneously.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Give all the martial classes in your game a Cha to saves like the Paladin, but only against spell and spell-like abilities. Later, give them mettle.
Now they can use their hero-like willpower to survive spellcraft used against them, and potentially, later on, take a fireball to the face and laugh it off.
|
|
Actually that is the exact opposite of what a qualified GM should do in most situations. It is the role of the GM to play the monsters/bandits/mastermind as the creature not as he would play himself.So there's only one correct way to play the game? Sanctimonious garbage.
I feel that the role of the GM is to entertain his players, and if that means building challenging encounters out of simpleton mobs, then so be it. Lul, this is an open ended, highly tailored game, and yet there's a ton of this sort of garbage running around these forums.
Now, I'm not saying rewrite your mobs during live play because your players are more successful than you expected, but certainly plan a damned hard encounter regardless of the 'fluff' that comes with each creature description. Let things unfold as they may.
This thread is Kelsey's, not yours, and so in this thread 'Qualified GMs' will play tactically intelligent mobs. . .
Maybe you misread the post? It is saying that a good GM will play the monsters as they are designed to be played. IE dumb monsters are played as dumb monsters, not masterminds with the DM's IQ and tactics. There is more than one way to play, but there are good and bad habits, and playing all NPC types as super tactical, smart, etc. . . is certainly a bad one. Otherwise, why have stats? Everyone <except the players, of course> is good at everything.
Nitpick: Gandalf really didn't cast any high level spells. His most impressive display was in his dealings with Saruman where you could argue that is at tops telekinesis. Saruman, however, at least has like control weather which is a 7th level spells compared to Gandalf's 5th.
I just picked a name of a wizard, I wasn't trying to discuss the Lord of the Rings. Use the name "Larry" instead.
On a more serious note: Here's the thing about pulling out those scribing numbers. In many ways they do not matter. This doesn't affect the sorcerer, oracle, cleric, Druid, bard, summoner, and inquisitors. The wizard simply does it with the most flashiness. Also the wizard can circumvent this in many ways. Starting at level 5, the wizard has a safe haven from which to scribe their spells. Also with good forethought on spell selection, the wizard really only needs like 1/4 of the spells, tops, in order to do everything they need to do between spells like shadow X, polymorph X, summon monster X, and illusion X. You would be surprised how far a well played wizard can take their 40 odd spells, after all sorcerers had to live with about that many until the APG gave them the human option.
It doesn't matter how many spells the wizard needs. If it's more than 4 per spell level, until level 18, then they need to pay for those spells in several ways with time and money. If the GM doesn't enforce that, for whatever reason, then he is favoring wizards over other classes. When the GM doesn't count the extra spells against the WBL, he is favoring the wizard. When the GM always gives the casters time to craft but tells the non-casters that making their adamantine armor and weapons will take too long (by the gods, it really takes way too long but that's a different issue), then he is favoring the casters.
Nitpick: Gandalf really didn't cast any high level spells. His most impressive display was in his dealings with Saruman where you could argue that is at tops telekinesis. Saruman, however, at least has like control weather which is a 7th level spells compared to Gandalf's 5th.I just picked a name of a wizard, I wasn't trying to discuss the Lord of the Rings. Use the name "Larry" instead.
On a more serious note: Here's the thing about pulling out those scribing numbers. In many ways they do not matter. This doesn't affect the sorcerer, oracle, cleric, Druid, bard, summoner, and inquisitors. The wizard simply does it with the most flashiness. Also the wizard can circumvent this in many ways. Starting at level 5, the wizard has a safe haven from which to scribe their spells. Also with good forethought on spell selection, the wizard really only needs like 1/4 of the spells, tops, in order to do everything they need to do between spells like shadow X, polymorph X, summon monster X, and illusion X. You would be surprised how far a well played wizard can take their 40 odd spells, after all sorcerers had to live with about that many until the APG gave them the human option.It doesn't matter how many spells the wizard needs. If it's more than 4 per spell level, until level 18, then they need to pay for those spells in several ways with time and money. If the GM doesn't enforce that, for whatever reason, then he is favoring wizards over other classes. When the GM doesn't count the extra spells against the WBL, he is favoring the wizard. When the GM always gives the casters time to craft but tells the non-casters that making their adamantine armor and weapons will take too long (by the gods, it really takes way too long but that's a different issue), then he is favoring the casters.
Have the non-caster buy a scroll and use Fabricate. Add hot water and you got Instant-Armor!
|
|
The guy you quoted was quite obviously saying that spells are wholly better than feats, and the quantity of spells that can be known and the combinations of spells that can be memorized are always tailored to the caster's needs. Hence, he can change his entire ability set each day to deal with any situation. Martials and feats do not work to the same degree of power, and there is no flexibility once selected. I found his argument clear and easy to understand, and I agree with it.
--PC
Evil Lincoln made some combat feats that help with that flexibility.
|
|
Maybe that's what bothered some people so much about those 3.5 books that blurred the line?
That would have been it for some people, and that annoyed me a bit, but for me it was mainly the making of martial techniques into spell-like-abilities with limited numbers of uses - without sufficient justification for the immersion breaking mechanics to make them stomachable.
There's been a sort of "magic creep" over the history of the game, and the martial classes are something of a last bastion for non-magical heroes. It's inevitable that this will one day break in the spirit of fairness as discussed upthread, but the disparity is part of the charm for the martial classes; they are making due with mere mortal powers.
The "Mere Mortal" part ceases around 5 or 6, at which point you get into myth and legend, and then into superhero stories.
However, you can still keep that "exceptional but mundane" feeling, while giving meleers mountains more versatility.
- Give everyone who qualifies Vital Strike. Allow it on a charge or spring attack.
- Make it easier to do combat maneuvers. Perhaps they only provoke AoOs if you fail, or you give give everyone two or 3 improved combat maneuver feats. They won't benefit the casters much, but the meleers will appreciate them alot.
- Make alchemical items that can replace some potions. Now your meleers wont have to rely on a mage to make their potions.
- Lower Death by Massive damage for Piercing, Slashing, and Bashing Damage?
- Easier TWF: A TWFer would be about as good as a THFer with the same number of feats spent on it. This would require making TWF easier to do by reworking the feats and the base TWF Rules.
- Give inherent bonuses so that the meleer doesnt all the magic gear to keep up.
And of course, you can add new melee stunts that can be performed in combat.
- Beheading Combat Maneuvers.
- Dismembering Combat Maneuvers.
- Pressure points to disable limbs, impose penalties, etc.
- More cool stuff you see in kung fun and action movies that you don't see in D&D.
--PCEvil Lincoln made some combat feats that help with that flexibility.
Here they are. Thanks for the plug, DΗ.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Without heavily modifying the spell list to take away or alter any spell that nullifies another characters niche? Not really possible.
LFQW is definitely a problem that exists in the game both on the PC end and on the NPC end. It's a problem of power level and it's a problem of agency (i.e. casters can manipulate the world in a variety of ways that muggles simply can't handle).
While some groups compensate for the problem by taking suboptimal builds and making sure the muggles don't feel bad for other groups it can turn into Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit where the mundane characters just feel like glorified bag carriers for the casters.
If you've never experienced the phenomenon, good for you but to suggest that it doesn't exist seems like putting one's head in the sand.
That isn't to say that an intrepid house ruler can't modify the game to reduce or even eliminate most of the egregious issues.
Priority 1) Drop skills a balancing factor. People shouldn't be asked to suck out of combat in order to be decent in combat. Further the +Int mechanic just provides a massive advantage for Wizards vs Fighters even though they both start with 2+Int. Wizards can afford to prioritize and boost intelligence and fighters can't the result is that the fighter sits around and does nothing.
Personally I say give everyone 8 skill points per level for active skills and 2-3 skill points per level for background skills (knowledges, craft, profession) that simply aren't as valuable and just serve as trap picks.
Priority 2) Give the melee types greater mobility. If you have to stay within 5' to full attack then you are really static. The popularity of pounce build further indicates the need to enhance martial mobility. Allow people to full attack + move with a slight penalty to hit. Yeah dragons just got a lot scarier but so fragging what.
Priority 3) Make combat casting harder. The designers dropped weapon speeds in 3.x but the replacement was always mediocre and frankly easy to handle. By making the check to avoid losing a spell more problematic you encourage casters to be less adventurous thereby bringing back the 1e-2e norm of the caster hiding behind the front line. Clerics might have a slightly easier time of it being martial casters.
Priority 4) Fix average save DC vs average save progressions. Because casters can focus on a casting stat they quickly outpace average saves to the point where cloaks of resistance are required to give mundanes even a fighting chance of avoiding a SoL scenario. This is particularly noticeable in regards to NPC warriors who despite having good DPR totals typically go down like chumps in short order. Further the cost of actually boosting critical saves with magic items makes it so that they are veritable gold mines for the PCs to loot.
Priority 5) Any spell that replicates another classes core competency needs to be scaled so that the caster isn't better than the specialist but can merely provide backup. Thus the caster cannot be better at finding and removing traps or sweet talking the NPC or provide a better meatshield than the PCs just by using a spell.
Priority 6) Autoscale feats. If a fighter's core resource is martial feats then why doesn't his resources autoscale like spells? Either make casters pay extra for their awesomeness of give the fighter regular free upgrades for established feats and abilities.
Priority 7) Give people the ability to heal themselves easier. It doesn't have to be healing surges but we have to have a system that realizes that the bulk of HPs should recover quickly. Maybe 15 minute rest and X hitpoints are restored. Healing as a skill should be much more valuable than it currently is.
Priority 8) Make the things necessary to be good at class X (typically the big six) either be free inherent upgrades that scale with level or reduce their cost to the point where casters don't automatically have an advantage.
Fix those 8 issues and I think 3.x/PF would eliminate most if not all the LFQW problem but most people don't want their casters to take the relative power hit necessary.