|
@Vuron: Agree.
I dont think I'd go as far as to give full attack on a move, but I could definitely see giving 50% of your attacks as a standard action. Though with a big enough penalty I could maybe see it.
Between your post, and my post, you have a substantive boost to meleers, without turning htem into pseudocasters.
The problem with caster/martial disparity in Pathfinder is that it already fixed it in a way ... it gave a subset of martial builds (archers/mobile/pouncers/lancers) a large damage increase. Once iterative attacks and haste kick in full attacks can kill level appropriate monsters in one or two full attacks. Martial damage is actually the most reliable way to take opponents out at the moment (ignoring fundamentally broken stuff like persistent metamagic rods).
If you "fix" the game by allowing martial characters greater flexibility (swift action jumps for instance to take a ToB example) then an even larger amount of martial builds will be playing rocket launcher tag ... in a way this is more balanced, but it's not the kind of balance most DMs are looking for I imagine.
IMO there are two good ways to balance magic and martial :
- The animu/ToB way, everyone has magic ... but to avoid everything feeling samey like 4e you give the martials a different resource management scheme and flavour.
- The best way ... make martial damage synergize with spells, increase chance to save for most opponents but allow martials to reduce saves through damage (and let them do it more effectively than casters can do with direct damage spells). Balance through mutual dependence.
Well said :) [+] for you.
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
[+] for you and Mr. Lincoln's feats as well :) All great ideas now fresh in the community lexicon.
--PC
Personally, I'm all for the "do away with classes and have a massive skill tree instead" idea. Keep the mechanics of spells, exceptional abilities, etc the same but let me pick and choose what I get.
|
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.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that it doesn't exist. But people (myself included) do say that many of the percieved issues come from individual groups misunderstanding of various rules, ignoring certain aspects that tend to favor casters (and by that I mean Wizards/Sorcerers primarily, not casters), and not understanding how to really use martial classes beyond the single thing they are complaining off.
Priority 1) Drop skills a balancing factor.
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.
I agree partially. It has been suggested multiple times to Paizo to make 4+Int the min for skill points, and they do not feel it is a sound idea. However, the issue is that while I agree with your premise, I do not think Fighters are the ones that should get more skills. Or rather they are more on the back of the line.
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.
Why would those in heavier armor and most likely the most encumbered deserve ore mobility than an unarmored guy with a staff and practicly nothing else or a light armored semi-warrior whose job it is to weave in and out of combat (Rogue, Medic-Cleric, Bard, Monk, etc. . .) I can see potentually lessening the encumbrence/movement penulties, but they should still certainly be worse off than if not wearing medium or heavy armor.
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.
This isn't a Caster vs Martial issue, but rather certain classes or builds issues. Martials that focus on Dex builds can be devistating. Martials that bump Str and focus on massive damage and going first can also be devistating. It is just easier to ignor the many downsides for casters who do this, like the fact that some super smart Wizard can't even carry his robe and staff without being encombered, not to mention his backpack.
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.
Not all/most casters have this problem. Cleric spells do not scale well at all, for example. SO you have a point, in a sense, but it is not a Martial vs Caster issue, but again certain individual classes. Also, keep in mind that casters have limited resources while generally Martials have infinite resources.
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.
Simple solution. Every time a Fighter would qualify for an upgrade tio their existing Feat chain and they are at a Fighter Level that they would normally get a Free Bonus Feat, they instead get the new Feat in their Feat Chains ladder. They can only do this once per level that they recieve a Bonus Fighter Feat, however. :)
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.
Agree, but nothing to do with Casters vs Martial. As a Cleric fan, I would love to not be expected to heal people all the time they break a nail. You'd actually expect "martials" to be less babies about it, too.
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.
Not sure I agree here. It sounds nice at first, then I look at the Cleric. I hate Channel Energy. It's not a Cleric Class Feats, it's a Party Feature that happens to have a Cleric (or a few other classes in it). Pathfinder meakes it so that all clerics must autoupgrae that class feature, even if they have nothing to do with healing in their faith. I see similar things happening if this is the stance for all classes. I want to be a cool finesse swashbuckler Fighter guy, but I'm stuck with all the bonuses to heavy armor and tower shield automatically, because that's what "fighters are good at". Just not mine.
|
|
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.Why would those in heavier armor and most likely the most encumbered deserve ore mobility than an unarmored guy with a staff and practicly nothing else or a light armored semi-warrior whose job it is to weave in and out of combat (Rogue, Medic-Cleric, Bard, Monk, etc. . .) I can see potentually lessening the encumbrence/movement penulties, but they should still certainly be worse off than if not wearing medium or heavy armor.
This is not a question of armor. This is referring to how bad it is to get only a standard attack for a melee guy when he moves, and the result that meleer's try to move as little as possible.
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.Not sure I agree here. It sounds nice at first, then I look at the Cleric. I hate Channel Energy. It's not a Cleric Class Feats, it's a Party Feature that happens to have a Cleric (or a few other classes in it). Pathfinder meakes it so that all clerics must autoupgrae that class feature, even if they have nothing to do with healing in their faith. I see similar things happening if this is the stance for all classes. I want to be a cool finesse swashbuckler Fighter guy, but I'm stuck with all the bonuses to heavy armor and tower shield automatically, because that's what "fighters are good at". Just not mine.
Hmm. I think you're misunderstanding this one.
Fighters attack things, and Need AC, and Save Boosters. Generally.
He's saying instead of making those a huge cash sink (which is not a problem for any caster but a wizard, whose spellbook is a huge cash sink), build the numerical bonuses into the class.
You'd have a Higher BAB and bonus to damage with any weapon, and it wouldn't be a big deal if you're level 5 and only have a masterwork sword. You'd have a level-based AC bonus. etc.
|
|
This is not a question of armor. This is referring to how bad it is to get only a standard attack for a melee guy when he moves, and the result that meleer's try to move as little as possible.
I should have been clearer and more focused in what I was trying to say. I still find it odd that characters that generally focus on heavier armor and carrying a lot, should be given special treatment like that, especially over characters who have similar "combat" experience and are designed for better mobility, or over the Monk, who this basically slaps in the face, kicks in the junk, and then tramples their twitching corpse.
Priority 8) . . .
Fighters attack things, and Need AC, and Save Boosters. Generally.He's saying instead of making...
My mistake. I was thinking they where implying Feats, Skills, and basically what is called a ____ Tax, shold basically be given for free to martials.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Indulge me while I take a look at a new potential solution.
Martials are not the only casualties of the "caster disparity". The "skilled classes", mainly the rogue, are really hurting. The martials are doing alright in my game, partly because a number of good options have emerged in the recent books, and partly because a certain kind of player is just O.K. with doing violence and not much else.
But the rogue in my game is suffering. And I don't think the solution is upping the combat profile of the class.
The Caster Disparity is usually put in terms of problem-solving. The caster has lots of effective tools, and nobody else does. The skillmonkey is supposed to be a great problem solving class, but some fundamental issues with skills vs. spells mean they are usually just backup.
Maybe what we need is a new approach to skill-monkey characters. Then, but upping the number of skills in the non-caster classes, we can give all of the classes decent problem-solving ability without spoiling the non-magic feel of the non-magic classes. I would say, to any class with no spellcasting at all, +2 skill ranks.
Some pie-in-the-sky skill solutions off the top of my head:
I'm just scratching the surface on this approach — house-rulers assemble!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Add "extraordinary" skill applications. This could kick in around the level where the game goes "super" (I call it 8th). PCs at that point should get "super" skills... those things that non-supernatural folks can do in comic books that make no real sense. Crazy tinkering MacGuyver stuff, Batman's urban-trapeze grappling hooky, Sherlock Holmes' wild extrapolation from the perception skill.
This is actually really good stuff, but wizards and alchemists will have alot of this too. Anyhow...
Sense Motive to do "Cold Reading" and pretty much pick a person apart within seconds of meeting them (a la Mentalist)
Swim to effectively gain a swim speed, and to "breach" like a dolphin can, leaping out of the water.
Sleight of Hand to make bigger things vanish or appear, like making a sword appear in mid-swing to make the target flatfooted.
YES! Keep them coming!
|
|
The Caster Disparity is usually put in terms of problem-solving. The caster has lots of effective tools, and nobody else does. The skillmonkey is supposed to be a great problem solving class, but some fundamental issues with skills vs. spells mean they are usually just backup.
Maybe what we need is a new approach to skill-monkey characters. Then, but upping the number of skills in the non-caster classes, we can give all of the classes decent problem-solving ability without spoiling the non-magic feel of the non-magic classes. I would say, to any class with no spellcasting at all, +2 skill ranks.
So what about the Bard? They are not really a caster or a martial class, not really a skill monkey, either. Or the Cleric. They are a caster, but don't really have any of those "spells that are better than skills", except for healing and the Heal Skill.
Some pie-in-the-sky skill solutions off the top of my head:
Auto-success. Most skill-obviating spells have it. Spells will always be preferable as long as this is true. Would it be so bad for skillmonkeys to get some guarantees of success?
Actually, Pathfinder has already change a lot of those spells to require a check. They are not autosuccess any more. Also, I think it is more your group. Most casters either wouldn't want to waste their limited resources when someone can do it for free otherwise without a really good reason. What skills vs spells are you talking about, anyway, out of curiosity. The only one I can think of is Fly vs certain actions like Climbing and Jumping, under the right circumstances, (and still requires a check. . .). Knock, Remove Disease, Find Traps, Neutralize Poison, Jump, Remove Disease, etc . . . all require a Skill or CL check, or something similar. Not at all autosuccess, and unlike with the mundaine skills, can't get bumped by Skill Focus, Class Bonus', or other things and generally cap out, while skills do not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Skills and general problem solving are things I've seen to be something that varies greatly from table to table. I think the skills are fine if you use what's in the book more as guideline instead of a "this can only do this" approach. For example, doing your Sherlock Holmes thing can be a series of knowledge, sense motive and perception checks. Also, I think people forget about the take 10 mechanic. Most skills that a player has trained, even at level 1, can easily result in a 20 result with take 10. Outside of trying to identify a spell being cast on you, this is either an automatic success or gets you close to a success on most checks even at low levels.
I think this is also overlooked by a majority of GMs as I've seen several who think a challenging check is something around 30+ when the book clearly illustrates a picture of that range being for higher level things. This is infuriating to low level parties as most checks result in failure. To identify a 9th level spell being cast on you is a DC 34 check, which is probably the highest stated DC I've found explicitly stated in that entire chapter. To gain insight to a CR 15's abilities and weaknesses is 25 or 30 if it's a "rare" monster and that's something no level 1 should have to face.
The issue, I see, is that a lot of GMs don't think this way and if you propose combining skills in a way not stated in the book they will think you're trying to break their mod. So, while I think the skills themselves are fine, there should be a mechanic, or even just a paragraph, stating either that it's okay to combine skill checks to come up with various results or to provide a mechanic about how various skills can be combined.
This is largely why I think there is no real disparity. Of course casters have access to powers that non-casters don't. That doesn't make non-casters inept nor should it. Any table that plays that way is doing it wrong. Either they're blatantly favoring casters, which screws non-casters by default, or they don't have things in a "Pathfinder perspective," or they're trying to use Pathfinder for something it wasn't built for.
So what about the Bard? They are not really a caster or a martial class, not really a skill monkey, either. Or the Cleric. They are a caster, but don't really have any of those "spells that are better than skills", except for healing and the Heal Skill.
I'm not sure. They get a decent amount of skills already, but they also get a lot of mileage out of their performance abilities. I play a bard as my only active PC, so I have to recuse myself. Maybe partial-casters should get +1 skill point...
The whole idea needs some sussing out.
One tempting solution is to make those special applications into a Feat, but many of the classes that need it are feat-starved, and some are very much NOT feat starved, so it could end up lopsided. Still, nothing like a feat for a nice, encapsulated patch rule.
Of course, there's nothing wrong with giving out a few bonus feats along the thematic lines of the classes that deserve them.
Actually, Pathfinder has already change a lot of those spells to require a check. They are not autosuccess any more. Also, I think it is more your group. Most casters either wouldn't want to waste their limited resources when someone can do it for free otherwise without a really good reason. What skills vs spells are you talking about, anyway, out of curiosity. The only one I can think of is Fly vs certain actions like Climbing and Jumping, under the right circumstances, (and still requires a check. . .). Knock, Remove Disease, Find Traps, Neutralize Poison, Jump, Remove Disease, etc . . . all require a Skill or CL check, or something similar. Not at all autosuccess, and unlike with the mundaine skills, can't get bumped by Skill Focus, Class Bonus', or other things and generally cap out, while skills do not.
Exactly this. Another example is Identify which only grants a +10 to a spellcraft check.
|
|
This is largely why I think there is no real disparity. Of course casters have access to powers that non-casters don't. That doesn't make non-casters inept nor should it. Any table that plays that way is doing it wrong. Either they're blatantly favoring casters, which screws non-casters by default, or they don't have things in...
Thats what I said way back on page one. . . :)
I wonder if adding new powers and options in a game that already starts to suffer from a too-much-is-like-not-enough syndrome is really the way to go.
I'm still convinced that the solution doesn't reside in creeping the power of high level martial characters up to match that of high level casters. IMO, high level martial characters are 'epic' enough in terms of what they can do. Skills as written can shine and make a rogue indispensable; only most skills (if not all) can be trumped by magic which performs faster, better and often on individuals with no training whatsoever. This isn't an issue in itself, but becomes problematic because magic that outperforms skills (whether or not we include fighting 'skills') is readily available for player characters as cheap, renewable resources throughout their whole career.
If the power of casters crept too far with 3e/pathfinder, I believe the sensible solution is to critically look at casters and re-balance them if need be.
'findel
Actually, Pathfinder has already change a lot of those spells to require a check. They are not autosuccess any more. Also, I think it is more your group. Most casters either wouldn't want to waste their limited resources when someone can do it for free otherwise without a really good reason. What skills vs spells are you talking about, anyway, out of curiosity. The only one I can think of is Fly vs certain actions like Climbing and Jumping, under the right circumstances, (and still requires a check. . .). Knock, Remove Disease, Find Traps, Neutralize Poison, Jump, Remove Disease, etc . . . all require a Skill or CL check, or something similar. Not at all autosuccess, and unlike with the mundaine skills, can't get bumped by Skill Focus, Class Bonus', or other things and generally cap out, while skills do not.
Yes and no. In come cases, you just succeed(Spider Climb for example). In some cases, the spell requires you to make a check, but the spell gives such a large bonus that the actual roll is pointless(Invisibility and Glibness). At level 3, most opponents are going to have a perception of +5 to +8. the +20 from invisibility alows you to take a 10 without any chance of being noticed. Good spell selection doesn't just render the rogue rudundant, the invisible wizard actually outperforms the rogue by a significant margin when it comes to being sneaky.
A rogue with a 14 wis, level 3, with skill focus has a perception skill of 11. With take 10 that's a result of 21 with a potential of 31 if they rolled 20. That's assuming no other feats or racial buffs. Wizards aren't typically too dexterous or stealthy. So, let's say a Wizard, level 3, 12 dex, no ranks in stealth has a stealth modifier of +1. Take 10 with 11. A rogue can see a non-invis wizard no problem even without a check. An invis-wizard would take a 20 roll for the rogue to spot. Still possible. However, as they gain levels the rogue is going to get more perceptive but the wizard isn't going to get equally more stealthy as that's not what the class is built for. I don't see the issue.
A rogue with a 14 wis, level 3, with skill focus has a perception skill of 11. With take 10 that's a result of 21 with a potential of 31 if they rolled 20. That's assuming no other feats or racial buffs. Wizards aren't typically too dexterous or stealthy. So, let's say a Wizard, level 3, 12 dex, no ranks in stealth has a stealth modifier of +1. Take 10 with 11. A rogue can see a non-invis wizard no problem even without a check. An invis-wizard would take a 20 roll for the rogue to spot. Still possible. However, as they gain levels the rogue is going to get more perceptive but the wizard isn't going to get equally more stealthy as that's not what the class is built for. I don't see the issue.
First, how many level 3 rogues actually have the feats to take skill focus(perception)? For a human rogue, that is a third of your feat selection. For any other rogue, that is half of your feat selection.
Second, most wizards take dexterity as their second stat because they can't wear armor, and need all the AC they can get. Dex also increases initiative. Most wizard have a 14 dex at level 1. This gives them 32 stealth check if they take a 10 with invisibility.
Third, wizards only get 2 + int skill points, but they usually have a crazy high int. This mean that most wizard have more skill points than a bard. They can easily afford to throw a few points into stealth.
Fourth, invisibility give concealment, which lets you stay hidden anywhere. With just the stealth still, you have to find a source of cover or concealment to stay hidden.
Again, an invisible wizard blows a rogue out of the water when it comes to being sneaky.
How many level 3 rogues actually have the feats to take skill focus(perception)? For a human rogue, that is a third of your feat selection. For any other rogue, that is half of your feat selection.
Everyone I've ever played with, actually, which has been more than a few. It's one of those oft overlooked skills that actually has great rewards if you can take advantage of it and is a reason several people I know favor rogues. Also, it's something a rogue is known for so it's not a stretch of the imagination to assume a rogue would have that feat. Furthermore, a human rogue would have a "feat to blow" so to speak and the players I play with play human rogues more often than not for this very reason. Wizards, on the other hand, are not known for being stealthy so it's not too likely for their stealth abilities. That's actually more of the rogue domain, oddly enough. I've actually never encountered someone who buffed up their wizard's stealth skill and I've never done it myself. The point remains that the example I gave is in line, and likely, given the typical role those classes serve in the game.
How many level 3 rogues actually have the feats to take skill focus(perception)? For a human rogue, that is a third of your feat selection. For any other rogue, that is half of your feat selection.Everyone I've ever played with, actually, which has been more than a few. It's one of those oft overlooked skills that actually has great rewards if you can take advantage of it and is a reason several people I know favor rogues. Also, it's something a rogue is known for so it's not a stretch of the imagination to assume a rogue would have that feat. Furthermore, a human rogue would have a "feat to blow" so to speak and the players I play with play human rogues more often than not for this very reason. Wizards, on the other hand, are not known for being stealthy so it's not too likely for their stealth abilities. That's actually more of the rogue domain, oddly enough. I've actually never encountered someone who buffed up their wizard's stealth skill and I've never done it myself. The point remains that the example I gave is in line, and likely, given the typical role those classes serve in the game.
Rogues may indeed take SF(Perception), but unless they enjoy being nearly useless in combat, I doubt they take it at level 3. Rogues need a lot of feats to be even semi-functional in combat. Weapon Focus, Weapon Finesse, Dodge, TWF, Improved Initiative, and Mobility are all better feat choices depending on your exact goals. Taking a non-combat feat at level 3 is very sub-optimal. If I take take SF(Perception) on my rogues, it usually isn't until level 7 or level 9.
|
|
I'm going to side with Charender on that one example. However, I agree that most of the time that Rogue's player's complain, it's more that they do ot know how to properly play/use a Rogue.
1.) Rogues are not a Combat Class. They have some combat ability, but that is a very different thing.
2.) Rogues actually reqquire the player(s) to set up. But then again, so does every class if they want to be most effective. A Fighter with a Bulls' Str, Bear's Endurence, Bless, and other common buff is better than a Fighter.
3.) As was discussed at length a few pages back, most of the issues tend to come from a combination of #1 and the group either overly favoring other clases and making it unfair for the Rogue, not that the class itself is wrong or bad. The case above, the OP didn't know that a Rogue who acts first gets Sneak Attack, or that there are a lot of ways besides JUST FLANKING that allow for Sneak Attack.
I'm also going to add, it is usually better and smarter for the Wizard to use Invis on the Rogue unless they are trying to hide, working together to set up an ambush, or both trying to go stealth. However, the Rogue can do it all day, and also <should> have other things to back it up, like Bluff, Thievery, and Accrobatics.
I'm also going to add, it is usually better and smarter for the Wizard to use Invis on the Rogue unless they are trying to hide, working together to set up an ambush, or both trying to go stealth. However, the Rogue can do it all day, and also <should> have other things to back it up, like Bluff, Thievery, and Accrobatics.
In some cases you would be right, but what if invisibility is also the wizard's main defense in combat? A lot of wizards use invisibility in combat, then make heavy use of indirect attacks(summons, battlefield control that doesn't directly target enemies, etc) to keep the invisibility from breaking. Invisibility is a spell that has double utility. It can be used for stealth or for personal defense.
|
|
Just curious, what would the Rogue player think if the tactic was switched up? Maybe the Wizards casts Invis on the Rogue and then hands him/her a wand of Cure Light to run around and contribute to combat that way (or pelt the ground with oil/tanglefoot bags/etc. . .) or anything but essentually waste the spell by getting a single Sneak Attack round?
On that note, why isn't the Rogue investing in a Wand/scroll/potion of Invis instead (IE using their mundaine NOT MAGIC skills to do something cool)?
|
|
First, how many level 3 rogues actually have the feats to take skill focus(perception)? For a human rogue, that is a third of your feat selection. For any other rogue, that is half of your feat selection.
I agree with that, but I focused in Bluffing and it is worth it, believe me.
+3 to distract, and thus hide in combat+3 to feint
+3 to deliver hidden messages in conversation ("attack when I say 'go'")
+3 to lie the group's way to victory ("I killed him because he was a spy, honest!" "Put those weapons down, we're here to talk, honest!")
Goes up to +6 at level 10.
My only problem: A commoner can do the same 8'-(
On that note, why isn't the Rogue investing in a Wand/scroll/potion of Invis instead (IE using their mundaine NOT MAGIC skills to do something cool)?
Because I'm having fun with my Wands of Silent Image, Obscuring Mist, Cure Light Wounds, and the Wands of Fireball and Lightning bolt we pilfered from dead mages (the sorcerer and alchemist get first pick, I get the extras... there are 4 wands of fireball in the party from loot).
But once again, A commoner (with trait for UMD as class skill) can do the same 8'-(
Just curious, what would the Rogue player think if the tactic was switched up? Maybe the Wizards casts Invis on the Rogue and then hands him/her a wand of Cure Light to run around and contribute to combat that way (or pelt the ground with oil/tanglefoot bags/etc. . .) or anything but essentually waste the spell by getting a single Sneak Attack round?
On that note, why isn't the Rogue investing in a Wand/scroll/potion of Invis instead (IE using their mundaine NOT MAGIC skills to do something cool)?
The wand/scroll/potion is limited use. Using limited use items to keep up with a wizard is a sucker's game.
To add to Evil Lincoln's ideas, I would make the bonus ability part of the skill focus feat. IE skill focus gives you a +3/+6 to the skill check AND allow you to do something special.
Skill focus(stealth) gives you hide in plain sight.
Skill focus(bluff) allows you to lie in a zone of truth and make magical truth divinations have a chance to fail.
Skill focus(Sense Motive) allows you to cold read people(a la mentalist).
And so on.
In fact, I would love to see a lot of feats reworked. I think every feat should give you a static bonus, combined with a situational, fun bonus ability.
For example...
Weapon Focus gives you a +1 to hit, and lets you do something cool based on the weapon once per day.
Dodge gives you +1 AC, and lets you gain +4 AC as a swift action 1 per day.
Far shot give you the increased range increments, and lets you ignore all range penalties once per day.
Improved trip gives you the normal bonuses, and lets you gain a +10 to trip or resist a trip once per day.
This way, not only are martial characters increasing their static power, but they are also gaining the ability to do cool tricks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Skill focus(stealth) gives you hide in plain sight.
Skill focus(bluff) allows you to lie in a zone of truth and make magical truth divinations have a chance to fail.
Skill focus(Sense Motive) allows you to cold read people(a la mentalist).
And so on.In fact, I would love to see a lot of feats reworked. I think every feat should give you a static bonus, combined with a situational, fun bonus ability.
This way, not only are martial characters increasing their static power, but they are also gaining the ability to do cool tricks.
I like the idea where Skill Focus, Weapon Focus and other "+X feats" granting an ability instead of/in addition to the numerical value.
I like the idea where Skill Focus, Weapon Focus and other "+X feats" granting an ability instead of/in addition to the numerical value.
Skill focus(stealth) gives you hide in plain sight.
Skill focus(bluff) allows you to lie in a zone of truth and make magical truth divinations have a chance to fail.
Skill focus(Sense Motive) allows you to cold read people(a la mentalist).
And so on.In fact, I would love to see a lot of feats reworked. I think every feat should give you a static bonus, combined with a situational, fun bonus ability.
This way, not only are martial characters increasing their static power, but they are also gaining the ability to do cool tricks.
I would put myself firmly in the "in addition" to category. These feats are balanced and necessary, but beyond that they are fairly boring.
Some pie-in-the-sky skill solutions off the top of my head:
Auto-success. Most skill-obviating spells have it. Spells will always be preferable as long as this is true. Would it be so bad for skillmonkeys to get some guarantees of success? Change the meaning of roll failure. This one is a little radical, but if you look at games like Mouse Guard/Burning Wheel, there are consequences of failure but they are never "roll again and don't fail this time". Add "extraordinary" skill applications. This could kick in around the level where the game goes "super" (I call it 8th). PCs at that point should get "super" skills... those things that non-supernatural folks can do in comic books that make no real sense. Crazy tinkering MacGuyver stuff, Batman's urban-trapeze grappling hooky, Sherlock Holmes' wild extrapolation from the perception skill. Really, the guy next to them is summoning...
This entire post was awesome and constructive. I really like your solutions too, thank you for posting them :) I think I'll try and integrate these ideas into my Kingmaker campaign.
--PC
Just curious, what would the Rogue player think if the tactic was switched up? Maybe the Wizards casts Invis on the Rogue and then hands him/her a wand of Cure Light to run around and contribute to combat that way (or pelt the ground with oil/tanglefoot bags/etc. . .) or anything but essentually waste the spell by getting a single Sneak Attack round?
On that note, why isn't the Rogue investing in a Wand/scroll/potion of Invis instead (IE using their mundaine NOT MAGIC skills to do something cool)?
I believe what you've just typed here is exactly the problem. You're asking why the Rogue doesn't simply use magic to do what his non-magical abilities absolutely cannot achieve.
UMD requires *magic* to be useful.
You've made the point many of us have been making about the Disparity. I'm not sure if you intended to, but you did it well.
--PC
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One tempting solution is to make those special applications into a Feat, but many of the classes that need it are feat-starved, and some are very much NOT feat starved, so it could end up lopsided. Still, nothing like a feat for a nice, encapsulated patch rule.
Of course, there's nothing wrong with giving out a few bonus feats along the thematic lines of the classes that deserve them.
Personally, I tend to hate when they take something that "should" be a universal rule, and make it a feat. because then it goes from "upping the power of the weaker classes" to "you can trade one thing you need and have for something else you need and dont have"; and the end result is a net cancellation. Nothing gets better (or worse) that way.
The weak classes stay weak, and the strong classes can trade something they dont want for something better.
just a few tweaks to close the gap and give combat characters the advantages they should have whilst balancing casters the little they need too;
1. Replace all 'Improved' CM feats with 'Combat Veteran [Weapon Class]' Feat - this gives access to ALL Improved CM's for a class of weapons.
2. Replace ALL variable effect binary spell results (SoD etc.) with numerical effects - very high if save fails, lower (but not insignificant) for saves which succeed. Do the same for poisons etc.
3. Replace the d6 in sneak attacks to 'Dex Bonus' damage per current number of dice, so a Dex 18, +3d6 sneak attack rogue would land 12 damage. Where lower or higher dice are involved due to feats or archetypes etc. reduce Dex Bonus damage by an average like amount (-1 for d4, +1 for d8). This would mean small changes in damage output at lower levels but much more competitive damage at higher levels where the problems are. In addition - allow (as part of the ability) Sneak attack 'dice' to be swapped out with hit bonuses where the Rogue wants to sacrifice the extra damage with a sure hit. For poisoners - or effect delivery, allow level of sneak attack to be swapped out for a penalty to applicable save or increase in effect (the poison on the blade was delivered near the heart [-Fort save]; the Bleed effect is doubled in damage for a number of rounds equalt to SA dice as it hit an artery.... etc.).
4. Replace the many and various spell components with something simpler SO EVERYONE USES IT. This could be magic dust, crystals, blood - whatever - but used for ALL spells, or for flavour - one component for all spells of one college etc. These should have a consistent and scaling cost.
5. Ditch the Vancian System for 'Spell Energy' which equals the number of spell levels of the character (including stat bonuses) and is used point for point for casting spells - i.e. Fireball costs 3 points, Great Dispel costs 6 etc.
5. Ditch the Vancian System for 'Spell Energy' which equals the number of spell levels of the character (including stat bonuses) and is used point for point for casting spells - i.e. Fireball costs 3 points, Great Dispel costs 6 etc.
This would still make it a Vancian system since you are still using spells, limited magical resources and spell preparation; only, it would be a Vancian system without spell slots (or did you mean that these spells would cast spontaneously?)
But never mind that. A mana point system (or equivalent) usually favours spellcasters in terms of flexibility (and therefore usefulness), and would increase even more the disparity between martial vs casters IMO.
There are lots of reasons to adopt a different spellcasting model than typical Vancian D&D, but in terms of bringing martial characters to par with casters (or the other way around), this proposition would be counter-productive unless you bring more to it, such as much less spell points than its RaW equivalent, casters checks based on mana points spent or loose spell etc.
The problem is that with every book we have some new spells. Some of them are not useful, other are broken. It's easy for an experienced GM to change spells text. I do this everytime there's a problem (sometimes even with feats).
In my game melee or rouge have not problem. Everyone got his role. Also, I use this rule for spells dc: 10 + (lev/2)+ plus bonus of related skills (a 10th mage with +4 int bonus has a DC of 19 for ALL spells).
If a spell is broken I change or remove it.
In my party we have a witch, oracle, magus, fighter, rogue and alchemist.
None is bored because his character is weak or useless. Oracle, witch and alchemist got more options but do less damage, but they can buff and debuff.
Indeed, the matter is not how to empower weak classes, but to take down "overpowered" one. Then attention on party's gear. I don't like powerplaying. Rules permits casters to give broken DC, but worst is that everyone can have insane bonus on ST and never fail one.
We'r not playing a mmorpg, that the purpose is to win and there are rules enforced by an AI. Be more flexible and remember that PF comes from recognizing the errors of 3.5. Now we have to go over it. Past structure is impeding the evolution of game. Sure what we DON'T need is more power for players, I think it's enough. Variety is a thing, power totally another one.
|
|
One minor thing to help out martial’s/fighters is to change the Weapon Focus feat to a group vs. a single weapon - using the Fighter Weapon Training ability as the basis for these groupings. This brings WF on par (not really) with Spell Focus.
Weapon Focus
Feat effect remains the same "+1 to hit with weapon". What changes is how many weapons or weapon group types this affects.
If a non-fighter takes this feat he gains one Weapon Group per feat slot used. For all weapons in that group he gains +1 to hit.
For fighters with WF, they gain an extra Weapon Focus group every time they gain the Weapon Training ability. If a fighter starts/has two Weapon Focus feats at the time he gets Weapon Training 1 (say Heavy Blades and Bows) he will get two additional Weapon Focus Slots/Groups. These are not bonus feats, but additional groups would be sub-listed under each of the original WF feat.
Axes
Blades, Heavy
Blades, Light
Bows
Close
Crossbows
Double
Flails
Hammers
Monk
Natural
Pole Arms*
Spears* (may be folded into Pole Arms)
Thrown
-------------------------------------------------------------------
This +1 to hit is NOT on par with an open ended feat that makes all saves from one school a DC point higher (Spell Focus). Under the current SoD save system it just really can't compete with that level of power. But it does gives the Weapon Focus feat a scaling ability for fighters and pairs up with a Fighter ability well.
It also makes non-fighters seem a bit more competent with a weapon similar to the one they are already using (under this system a Rogue with WF (Light Blades) gets a +1 to hit with daggers, rapiers and short swords).
I would probaly limit the groups to only provide a bonus for weapons covered by class allowed proficiency, eg a Cleric with Weapon Focus (Hammers) would only get the grouping bonus for heavy mace, light hammer, light mace. The only way to get the full grouping would be if he took a Martial Weapon Proficieny in either Warhammer or Greatclub, at which point those two would be added to his grouping. Or allow the bonus of +1 to offset not having the Martial weapon proficiency neg of -4.
The flip side is this is good feature for me as the DM. Creatures who are given Weapon Focus (Natural) makes much more sense as a viable feat slot to be used on creatures vs. the weak (imo) ability to give one natural attack out of a set +1.
Weapon Finesse
Also Weapon finesse is a non-feat but standard feature for players/creatures using light weapons (using DX mod to hit) or low Str creatures who use their DX mod to hit - this is a default always in effect aspect of light/natural weapons.
Weapon Finesse as a feat will allow high DEX combatants to add their DEX mods instead of their STR if they choose (for appropriate attacks). This makes the light weapon/high DEX martial a more viable option.
So now a Rogue with this feat will be hitting and doing damage based on his DEX (with light weapons only) just as Fighter does with his STR to hit and damage.
Anyway, those are a few feat changes I'm looking at.
blah blah blah, a lot of stuff about skills and baby eating.
I feel Alderac was really on to something in Spycraft with Critical successes for skills. Under normal circumstances a 20 would allow a critical threat for skill use just like an attack. In addition all of the feats that added a feat bonus to multiple skills (alertness, prodigy etc.) increased the threat range by one for the skills it effected. In addition there where 4 layers of add on feats that increased the bonus to the skill, an increase to the threat range and sometimes the ability to reroll a certain amount of failed rolls.
Those and a few other well made feats really served to make the skill part of the game as or more important than the combat part of the game.
blah blah blah, a lot of stuff about skills and baby eating.I feel Alderac was really on to something in Spycraft with Critical successes for skills. Under normal circumstances a 20 would allow a critical threat for skill use just like an attack. In addition all of the feats that added a feat bonus to multiple skills (alertness, prodigy etc.) increased the threat range by one for the skills it effected. In addition there where 4 layers of add on feats that increased the bonus to the skill, an increase to the threat range and sometimes the ability to reroll a certain amount of failed rolls.
Those and a few other well made feats really served to make the skill part of the game as or more important than the combat part of the game.
Critical Skill success and Babyeating skill. Both excellent suggestions!
Can you link me Spycraft info in case I don't find it on my own? Wikipedia Blackout today.
|
|
I think it's a very difficult thing to do, because (in my less-than-humble opinion) it's more based on a sense of entitlement than anything else. Casters feel that they're entitled to be better at practically everything than martias, and have their weaknesses marginalized. And let's face it, as the game has progressed, it's become more true, especially with the marginalization of their weaknesses.
From 2e to 3e, concentration allowed them to keep casting, even while taking an axe to the face. From 3e to PF, they don't even have to spend skill points on this anymore.
The number of spells that allow a caster to do the things that were generally considered the niche of the non-caster classes have grown, and those spells have grown in power. Why bother with a 20th level rogue who can possibly roll a 1 and NOT pick the lock when a 1st level wizard can cast Knock and get through it without the chance of failure?
In pre-d20 editions, a high level wizard who expended ALL his spells could expect to spend a few days of down time trying to get everything memorized again. Now a 20th level wizard can completely blow his load, and he getss fully loaded the next morning with a single hour of studying.
And then the cantrips/orisons got bumped up to being able to be cast at will...but without considering if they needed nerfing or even bumping up to level 1.
I think it needs to be a pulling back of caster power rather than skyrocketing martial power.
Why bother with a 20th level rogue who can possibly roll a 1 and NOT pick the lock when a 1st level wizard can cast Knock and get through it without the chance of failure?
While I agree with the gist of your post, this is factually incorrect. Skills do not automatically fail on a role of a 1. A 20th level rogue with any sort of investment in trapspringing is really much better than anything a wizard can bring to the table over a sustained number of encounters — if all we're talking about is a trap-laden dungeon.
blah blah blah, a lot of stuff about skills and baby eating.I feel Alderac was really on to something in Spycraft with Critical successes for skills. Under normal circumstances a 20 would allow a critical threat for skill use just like an attack. In addition all of the feats that added a feat bonus to multiple skills (alertness, prodigy etc.) increased the threat range by one for the skills it effected. In addition there where 4 layers of add on feats that increased the bonus to the skill, an increase to the threat range and sometimes the ability to reroll a certain amount of failed rolls.
Those and a few other well made feats really served to make the skill part of the game as or more important than the combat part of the game.
Critical Skill success and Babyeating skill. Both excellent suggestions!
Can you link me Spycraft info in case I don't find it on my own? Wikipedia Blackout today.
http://www.crafty-games.com/
Alas no free stuff, I'll see what I can do for a non copyright breaking conversion.
I think it's a very difficult thing to do, because (in my less-than-humble opinion) it's more based on a sense of entitlement than anything else. Casters feel that they're entitled to be better at practically everything than martias, and have their weaknesses marginalized. And let's face it, as the game has progressed, it's become more true, especially with the marginalization of their weaknesses.
No, distract a wizard for one round and you can smash his face in pretty well. They have crap for AC and always will. Since martials work against AC I see nothing wrong with this.
The number of spells that allow a caster to do the things that were generally considered the niche of the non-caster classes have grown, and those spells have grown in power. Why bother with a 20th level rogue who can possibly roll a 1 and NOT pick the lock when a 1st level wizard can cast Knock and get through it without the chance of failure?
Skill checks aren't auto-success or fail. If lockpicking is that vital to your rogue character you'd have at minimum Disable Device of 30 check by level 20. With take 10 that's a guaranteed 40 result. What's the issue?
In pre-d20 editions, a high level wizard who expended ALL his spells could expect to spend a few days of down time trying to get everything memorized again. Now a 20th level wizard can completely blow his load, and he getss fully loaded the next morning with a single hour of studying.
So just because a caster can be viable again the next day is an issue? The way it was, if you described it correctly, is what sounds unbalanced. EDIT: Don't forget you need 8 hours of uninterrupted rest as well. That means no playing night watchman. That means any raids on your camp and your normal routine is ruined and your rest counter restarts from zero. Tons of ways to mess with this.
And then the cantrips/orisons got bumped up to being able to be cast at will...but without considering if they needed nerfing or even bumping up to level 1.
What cantrip "breaks" the game? They're pretty weak.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1. No, distract a wizard for one round and you can smash his face in pretty well. They have crap for AC and always will.
2. Don't forget you need 8 hours of uninterrupted rest as well. That means no playing night watchman. That means any raids on your camp and your normal routine is ruined and your rest counter restarts from zero. Tons of ways to mess with this.
3. What cantrip "breaks" the game? They're pretty weak.
1. I would assume any wizard of 9th level or above would have overland flight active at minimum, which means you can't reach him to hit him in the face unless you've spent 54,000 gp on wings of flying just to keep up... and you're only expected to have 46,000 gp worth of gear at that level. Oops.
2. Again, your game is already distorted at 7th level, when the wizard is casting an extended rope trick to rest in, and breaks completely at 13th, when he sleeps in a magnificent mansion.
3. At-will detect magic sort of makes the rogue (or other trapfinder) obsolete, insofar as the nonmagic traps are pretty lame for their CR (and thus can be ignored by mid-level or so), so the only traps you worry about are the magic ones. Granted, that doesn't break the game at all if you hate rogues and don't want anyone to play one. Just as overland flight is no problem if you hate non-casters and don't want them to be able to keep up.
|
That means any raids on your camp and your normal routine is ruined and your rest counter restarts from zero. Tons of ways to mess with this.
Even provided that you can stage a raid, this is incorrect.
If his rest is interrupted, each interruption adds 1 hour to the total amount of time he has to rest in order to clear his mind, and he must have at least 1 hour of uninterrupted rest immediately prior to preparing his spells.
Since when was the disparity about PVP dueling?
It's about PC contribution in all the facets of the game.
Casters will always be able to do their job, OR the non-caster's job plus a few extras.
Martials will always be able to do their job, OR ... nothing valuable.
And then the cantrips/orisons got bumped up to being able to be cast at will...but without considering if they needed nerfing or even bumping up to level 1.What cantrip "breaks" the game? They're pretty weak.
As mentioned above, detect magic is the greatest offender.
Also, Detect Poison and Stabilize greatly reduce the use of the Heal skill.
Create Water and Purify Food and Water reduce the use of the Survival skill.
Mending pretty much kills the only concrete use of the Craft skill for adventurers.
Prestidigitation reduces the use of the Sleight of Hand skill.
Does it break the game? Of course not. But it does contribute to the feeling that spellcasters have it easier than martial/skillful characters.
'findel