Caster / non-caster problem. OK, but why?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 740 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

I start this 3d because I'd like to find out the reason of the old problem of disparity between casters and non casters. A problem not only involving character's power (opinions here are different) but also that seems that casters got so many options in comparison to non casters.

This is true. I explain that this way.

Everyone is used to fantasy. Books, films, etc. All this thing are inspiration for players. Here come the problem. It's normal that a fighter do the job of a fighter. Even if he's the hero, he will fight, maybe get the beautiful girl, kill the evil one and lead an army.
If a fighter do something like jumping 50 mt, deflect spells with his sword, using his spiritual strenght to resist magic, move faster than you could see... ok, this is no more fantasy ad anyone is used. This is a cinematic game style.

Instead a caster can do anything. Accepting that someone can cast a spell creates an automatic "suspension of disbelieve". So, a spell say that you cast a fireball? Uh, ok, no problem. Teleport? Yes, of course. And so on. Because we'r used to a narration that say that magic can do anything. Magic is used often as a narration tool, and it's useful because make happens thing that otherwise should not happen.
But this bring the game to the "cinematic level" that I wrote before.

So when players and designers put rules down they create the fighter to be a fighter (we got many example) and wizard to be wizard. Ok, seems silly, but in "normal" fantasy caster do a lot of thing. If we think about warriors that do a lot of thing maybe the best example is not traditional fantasy but japanese manga.
This is the game style of the old "Book of nine sword".

What I think we need, and now should be done by GM, or community, is to try to define what is "cinematic level" also for caster.
Spells that creates demiplane are a good example. Teleport is another one (not short form of teleport, but something that avoid a trip).
Etc. If a game include this options for a caster there's the need to add some to non casters.
I prefer to restrain a bit the power of characters, but it is my opinion. If I'll play a campaign when casters can do anything of what presented in books I think I'll add options to non casters.

Hope I am clear.
Now, speaking on rules, I want to discuss about something that bring the game to a "cinematic level".

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

What's "cinematic"? it's too vague a term in describing class or game design.

For my input cinematic pretty much requires an acceptance of a fast and loose game style. It's not something that fits well with hex measurement spell coverage templates, and the endless number crunching that d20 and other number happy systems like HERO or RIFTS are built around.

"Cinematic" not a games mechanic... it's a style of presentation. It can be done in D20 but that pretty much requires a willingness to be fast and loose, to cut a lot of corners with the ruleset, and a heightened level of casualness and trust.

It's a style that's much more suited for games like Storyteller or BESM.


First, the magic items. I see this in game, and in a lot of 3d that concern game balance and build comparison, at the end magic gears is more important than the character itself.
Spells DC become to high (and now I explain when), so everyone will try to have the cloak of resistance (indispensable), every caster will try to max the DC with item and feats, and so on. We know that same problem exists for weapons, not only for bonuses but also to overcome DR.
Why spells DC is to high? Because at 9th level a wizard can cast feeblemind, that more or less make a character useless (and you can't revert the effect), but also baneful polymorph, etc.
So what I do? Since I don't want to force players to create build to be spell proof I changed the spells. For example you can give the same ST every round, or give a detrimental progressive effect (physical stats reduction every round, and when you reach 3 you became a squirrel ^_^).
What happened in my game? That casters do something, maybe a little, with every spell. I love spells that got a secondary effect even with a succesful ST. So I go this way to modify spells.

I'm trying to fix that in the next campaign to have 1, 2 o 3 magic items / players, but also that this item will not be something that just add a bonus. This will not be handled with a fixed rule, because every magi item will be an exception, but for spells I will make big changes.

Someone is interested in this? Someone want to help me to define what is "cinematic" in spells and try to fix it or to put as a cinematic option?
If there's a good number of people interested I will also post some spells I changed as an example, or some feats I modified.


LazarX wrote:

What's "cinematic"? it's too vague a term in describing class or game design.

For my input cinematic pretty much requires an acceptance of a fast and loose game style. It's not something that fits well with hex measurement spell coverage templates, and the endless number crunching that d20 and other number happy systems like HERO or RIFTS are built around.

"Cinematic" not a games mechanic... it's a style of presentation. It can be done in D20 but that pretty much requires a willingness to be fast and loose, to cut a lot of corners with the ruleset, and a heightened level of casualness and trust.

It's a style that's much more suited for games like Storyteller or BESM.

You'r right, cinematic is a definition of a style more than a game design, but in past edition we have seen a lot of example. An example of cinematic design is the Book of Nine Sword. GURPS also got a cinematic set of rules (that give balance to caster/non caster).

Cinematic is that someone do something clearly physical impossible, like destroing a wall with bare hands, jumping very high (monk, that is an oriental flavour warrior is cinematic). I'm not talking only about power: a knight can do a lot of damage in charge, more than casters. It's not that the problem now, but another.
When a class is too strong usually is not nerfed. The other classes are empowered. We see this in every MMORPG and I think also in RPG. PF is all on more powerful classes (I love all this new options), but I think that now if we see that one is too powerful we need to nerf a little instead of giving (for example) the ragelancepounce to give something powerful also to melee. Hope this was more clear.

Sczarni

Are you trying to say that melee classes need a buff? Why? Only thing a spellcaster has is few spells which aren't unlimited. They are already bellow melee classes until lv10+, but this is just my personal opinion.


No, I don't say that melee need a buff (I think that are strong enough). I say that part of the spells decribed in books bring the game to a level that render non caster's option useless. When the wizard got flying, teleport, and can create a demiplane mundane abilities doesn't work anymore. So if the game style for fighter is "vanilla fighter" spell selection should be limited. If casters could use every spell in book so we need a type of fighter like the 3.5 Book of nine sword.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

*ahem*


Please I'd like some feedback :)
What do you think about this? Is true that there are two levels of play, that caster can reach both (plausible and implausible), while non casters usually are confined in the plausible (or a little implausible, but not much)? This is more important than simple dmg or class power, I think, because that can be fixed with ease.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

For those who want to play a game with casters and non-casters balanced as closely as possible, the 4e forums are ---> that way.


You are out of your element Donnie....


Ok, since we're in the pathfinder forum it's clear that I'm talking about PF. If you can't bring something useful to discussion please avoid provocations. 4E is a board game. If you think that my 3d is stupid, think about this:
in RPG almost every warrior become strong as Hercules, because augmenting strenght is mandatory. Fantasy, you'r doing it wrong.
Every mage can teleport and create demiplane when reach the right level. Yeah, like Gandalf. No, wizards in narrative fantasy are not like this.
And everyone is doped from magical gear.
Oh, I also would say nothing if the forum was not full of people that complain. I'm trying to share my experiments with community, if none is interested, well, I'll play PF my way with my friends, until a better system will be published (if will be published).If someone is interested I'm glad to give what I create around this game. But plz, we don't need this comments.


AlecStorm wrote:

No, wizards in narrative fantasy are not like this.

You're in dangerous territory here. Narrative fantasy runs the gamut of archetypes and thoughts on how magic and its rules work. You can potentially have some very boring not so exciting wizards, or you can beings of such immense power and capability that dudes with swords simply cannot compete.


What do you mean by 3d?


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Adamantine Dragon, I dont think the OP is concerned with balance as he is with the wealth of options. There is a definate 'purely martial characters cant have nice things' vibe going on in 3.x. The reason is their connection to reality. The wizard can literally warp time and space, the cleric is a literal walking miracle, the druid is a force of nature, the summoner pulls a powerful ally from the great beyond. The fighter swings a sharp bit of metal (really well mind you).

You can give the fighter a wealth of things to do without worrying all that much about 'balance'. Heck we are already seeing it in pathfinder with our friend the lowly rogue. The rogue has always been kind of dull in terms of options. Sure he has lots of skills, and sneak attack...but what real 'choices' does a rogue player have? Step one - move to flanking (possibly using acrobatics to get there) Step 2 sneak attack. Repeat as neccessary. Enter our friend the ninja...the ninja tricks that use ki add alot of depth to what the rogue can do in combat and out.

Another example? The monk. He suddenly (well not suddenly its over the course of 2 years) has a wealth of things he can do. With the different styles in UC, or some of the archetypes in the apg or UM, the monk suddenly isnt just a flurry of blows. Heck with abundent step and the dimensional agility line of feats a high level monk is a dbz character.

But the fighter, the poor fighter (and the cavalier, and samurai and other purely martial classes) are still stuck in lord of the rings or a game of thrones, while everyone else is playing dresden files or [insert anime power fantasy here[/url]. This has zero to do with balance and everything to do with options. The book of nine swords tried to add these options but everyone thought it was 'too anime' or 'overpowered', mean while the time and space warping wizard and walking miracle cleric whistled idly and looked from side to side.

This can only be changed with a shift in perspectives, because up until now we have been rather schitzophrenic about how we view 'reality' in our games. Martial characters are stuck in the lord of the rings, while magic characters are harry dresden instead of gandalf. The martial characters SHOULD be able to step out of the bounds of what silly things like physics dictate. Otherwise even if they arent marginalized, they become fairly boring compared to the guys who are doing all the crazy stuff with magic.


3d is thread shortened :)

To TarkXT
It's true, there are different type of casters, like Richard Rhal, or those in Wheel of Time, or those in Feist Raymond books, but usually is not. This is also an RPG, as we don't play all the fighter like the "divine fighter" of oriental adventure, the godly wizard of some narrative can't have place in a game that needs to be balanced (not equally in all things, but balanced in general).
It's also true that in narrative often a lucky blow with a mundane sword or arrow can kill every mage or monster, but we don't have this in RPG, too. It's a matter of survival ;)


I totally agree with Kolokotroni. As a choice, our group "put down" the game power level to a traditional fantasy flavour (as I explained before), but since someone could prefer to play it high fantasy (and maybe some of my future campaign will be) I think is important that non caster would have new option to do impossible things, or at least to interact with magic (the AM barbarians is an example).


Have you ever looked at Tome of Battle? It is a 3.5 product, but fighter-types do get more options.


@Kolok & Alec.

I'm saying that what you are complaining about is by design of the game developers.

That's the way it is intended to be. Those who master the arcane secrets of the universe have more options than those who swing pointy sticks.

Makes perfect sense to me.


Personally, I hate the fact that martial characters are so tied to reality, and that their only outlet out of it is external (magic items). That along with my dislike for the wealth = in game power mechanic of the wealth system in game has lead me to replace it with my own system. Characters get internal abilities as they level up that replace the 'big six' magic items. They also get a free super genius games archetype.

This allows a player to (if they choose) add magic to any class. My favorite is the Youxia archetype from the Martial Archetypes book, which basically turns you into a easter fantasy style character, where things like walking on raindrops (or eventually just flying) isnt out of the question for someone who also is good at weilding a sword. But there are many other choices as well, some of them more mundane then others. There is a thread here that lays out my system for replacing the vast majority of magic items carry here on these boards that I can dig up if you'd like to see it.

I prefer to add to the options of the other classes then cut the options of existing ones but that is just me. I would be happy to have martial characters be able to enter the realm of 'implausable' actions like in say the anime bastard. But if I understand your intent then it seems you would rather bring the caster classes down.

I think the path to that is two fold. First of all, you should eliminate full caster classes. If you want to take out the more rediculous things casters can do, you need to get rid of the highest level spells. The game can get along fine with 3/4 casters. It is a better solution then gutting the abilities of full caster classes which usually (cleric, wizard, oracle, sorceror) almost completely depend on their spells for the things that they do.

Second you should take a long hard look at something called E6. If you search these boards you should be able to find a link. It was developed for 3rd edition but it works just fine in pathfinder, basically halting the advance of levels at level 6, 7, or 8. This is important because basically its level 6 where everyone, martial and mundane, leave the realm of reality. Before that everything the characters do fit 'plausible' worlds like the lord of the rings. Even magic is fairly tame. Its those crucial 3rd and 4th level spells where things start to get mirky. It means cutting a big chunk out of the game, but if you want to stick to 'plausible' its your best recourse.


Adamantine Dragon wrote:

@Kolok & Alec.

I'm saying that what you are complaining about is by design of the game developers.

That's the way it is intended to be. Those who master the arcane secrets of the universe have more options than those who swing pointy sticks.

Makes perfect sense to me.

I am not sure how much by design that really is anymore. I think its more of a hold over from 3rd edition then what the designers of pathfinder are doing. Look at what Paizo has added to the game, rage powers is a big screaming shout toward more options for martial characters, the APG reads like a love letter to the barbarian. Ultimate combat is a wealth of new kinds of things for a monk to do. They added several new martial/caster mixes in the inquisitor, the magus, the alchemist and the summoner.

They gave us a new take on the rogue with the ninja who has a bunch of 'non-mundane' options. The gunslinger, who is thematically completely mundane, can do all sorts of things with his gun (deeds). Really the only ones left out to dry are the fighter and the cavalier, because paizo couldnt think of a way to cram the supernatural into their theme.

Edit: I also think that paizo left the fighter and cavalier mundane for the sake of those playing the game that want it that way, of which there are many.


Kolokotroni wrote:


Edit: I also think that paizo left the fighter and cavalier mundane for the sake of those playing the game that want it that way, of which there are many.

Exactly. The market split with 4e, and a large part of that split was between players who wanted "perfect balance" and players who wanted "magic to be magic."

I am in the latter camp.

I play both 4e and Pathfinder.

I like Pathfinder a lot more.

Casters is a big reason why. When magic doesn't do any more than swinging a big stick, well, there's not really much point to it, is there? Just swing a big pointy stick yourself.

What you are complaining about is the PRIMARY reason that Pathfinder has emerged as a serious competitor to D&D.


Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Kolokotroni wrote:


Edit: I also think that paizo left the fighter and cavalier mundane for the sake of those playing the game that want it that way, of which there are many.

Exactly. The market split with 4e, and a large part of that split was between players who wanted "perfect balance" and players who wanted "magic to be magic."

I am in the latter camp.

I play both 4e and Pathfinder.

I like Pathfinder a lot more.

Casters is a big reason why. When magic doesn't do any more than swinging a big stick, well, there's not really much point to it, is there? Just swing a big pointy stick yourself.

What you are complaining about is the PRIMARY reason that Pathfinder has emerged as a serious competitor to D&D.

Again you are missing the point. Both I and the OP dont care about balance. It is the perception that should change. The thing people like about pathfinder is the 'feel' of the rules over the balance of the mechanics. I want magic to be magic, I am ok with teleports and demi planes. What I want is for martial characters to ALSO have cool options besides swinging swords. And without question paizo has been adding those in spades as I said in my above post, that you completely fail to address.


Actually the feat missle shield can get fighter to completely ignore one arrow a round with their shiled and that is completely mundane. I am pretty sure it works with klars so you could deflect it with the blade as it has no effect mechanically. Mundane order of teh tome gets to use magical scrolls as an order ability. Also samurai's will make them almost impossible to defeat thorugh will that is not possessed by normal humans.


OK, let's address a few of your points Kolok,

Kolokotroni wrote:
First of all, you should eliminate full caster classes.

Hmm... not interested in balance? You just want to get rid of all full casters.... Why? Because you think they are overpowered. But that's not a "balance" issue.... Right....

Kolokotroni wrote:
If you want to take out the more rediculous things casters can do, you need to get rid of the highest level spells

"The more re[sic]diculous things casters can do..." Nope, no indication of balance concerns their either Kolok... What might those things be? Oh. Magic things.

Kolokotroni wrote:
halting the advance of levels at level 6, 7, or 8.

Hmm... would that be because you think that casters get... "unbalanced" at higher levels Kolok?

And the rage powers thing... You seriously think rage powers are equivalent to, oh, say "wish?"

Oh wait. That's right. "Wish" would be on your list of spells to get rid of, wouldn't it. In the search for "balance" presumably.

There. Addressed enough for ya?


OK, let's address a few of your points Kolok,

Kolokotroni wrote:
First of all, you should eliminate full caster classes.

Hmm... not interested in balance? You just want to get rid of all full casters.... Why? Because you think they are overpowered. But that's not a "balance" issue.... Right....

Kolokotroni wrote:
If you want to take out the more rediculous things casters can do, you need to get rid of the highest level spells

"The more ridiculous things casters can do..." Nope, no indication of balance concerns there either Kolok... What might those things be? Oh. Magic things. Spells.

Kolokotroni wrote:
halting the advance of levels at level 6, 7, or 8.

Hmm... would that be because you think that casters get... "unbalanced" at higher levels Kolok?

And the rage powers thing... You seriously think rage powers are equivalent to, oh, say "wish?"

Oh wait. That's right. "Wish" would be on your list of spells to get rid of, wouldn't it. In the search for "balance" presumably.

There. Addressed enough for ya?

Oh, one more thing.

What you are recommending bears as striking resemblance to what Wizards actually DID. They call the result "Fourth Edition."


I think people ask for too much. I personally think the "Tome of Battle" book was garbage and one of the most over-rated books ever, but the ONLY thing I liked about 4th edition was the swordmage.

Fighters with flaming swords can be made through clerics, fighter/mages, etc, or you can just get a magical weapon.

The only real issue I have with Pathfinder/3.5 is that casters should be nerfed. I'm talking specifically about spells like resurrection/gates/wish/feeblemind etc. High level casters should not be demigods. I'm ok with doing massive damage but turning characters into dust and everything else is ridiculous.

Silver Crusade

Alec: You really need to take a moment and look at what you are arguing here. Casters wield magic, that's why they can bend reality. If you want martial classes to have magic then you ,multiclass or play a Magus.

Fighters and other melee classes are designed to be aided by magic items, their own abilities and the casters.

It's supposed to be a team game where the martial guys stay in the front while the casters sit back and buff the martial guys, while slinging offensive spells on their own. I think the team work thing is where this is all breaking down.


Oh, is this a Fighters vs. Wizards thread? It must be Thursday. :)

I haven't got much to add that hasn't already been said over the last decade, except:

1: I think D&D's insistence that "all levels are equal" (One level of Fighter (or Commoner!) is 'equal' to one level of Wizard) was probably a mistake.

2: There is NO WAY to balance the 'mundane' classes with the 'magic' classes without either beating the casters viciously with the Nerfbat OR making the 'mundane' classes equally demigodlike. As it stands, magic is JUST THAT GOOD.


Adamantine Dragon wrote:

OK, let's address a few of your points Kolok,

Kolokotroni wrote:
First of all, you should eliminate full caster classes.

Hmm... not interested in balance? You just want to get rid of all full casters.... Why? Because you think they are overpowered. But that's not a "balance" issue.... Right....

Kolokotroni wrote:
If you want to take out the more rediculous things casters can do, you need to get rid of the highest level spells

"The more ridiculous things casters can do..." Nope, no indication of balance concerns there either Kolok... What might those things be? Oh. Magic things. Spells.

Kolokotroni wrote:
halting the advance of levels at level 6, 7, or 8.

Hmm... would that be because you think that casters get... "unbalanced" at higher levels Kolok?

And the rage powers thing... You seriously think rage powers are equivalent to, oh, say "wish?"

Oh wait. That's right. "Wish" would be on your list of spells to get rid of, wouldn't it. In the search for "balance" presumably.

There. Addressed enough for ya?

Oh, one more thing.

What you are recommending bears as striking resemblance to what Wizards actually DID. They call the result "Fourth Edition."

You mistake advice I gave to the OP in leu of his idea to take out or change specific spells, with what I personally believe. Thank you for responding to a different post rather then the one I was addressing you with. Lets be clear, I dont want the magic system changed. I wont change it in my game. I gave that recomendation to the OP to try to acheive something he mentioned in ONE of his posts (though I am honestly no longer certain precisely what the op is trying to accomplish he seems to be all over the place in his posts.).

This most assuredly does not invalidate my point that you keep dodging that paizo has consistently, and effectively been adding interesting options to martial characters. I dont care which is 'more powerful', I care that they are interesting and fun. Wish can stay right where it is so long as a fighter isn't just swinging a sword at the same level.

That and using different parts of the existing pathfinder system to accomplish a goal (E6 is still pathfinder it is just low levels, and using 3/4 caster classes is still pathfinder it just is excluding certain classes) is most assuredly nothing like what wizards did with 4E. 4E fundamentally changed the basic principles on which the game is built. That isnt the same as only using parts of pathfinder to get the kind of game you want. Unless the game isnt pathfinder if a party happens to not include a wizard, or a cleric? Are you saying if soneone plays a game from levels 1-6 and has a party of a barbarian, ninja, inquisitor, and bard, they are not playing pathfinder but instead fourth edition?


@Arbane, and D&D 4e did both. There are no "mundane" classes in 4e. They are all magic classes, with nearly identical in-game abilities fluffed different ways to call some "martial" and some "arcane" but they do virtually identical functions with nearly identical impact. And that's by design.

4e is a great game. I love to play it. It's just not "Dungeons and Dragons" imho. Despite having purchased the name rights.


Adamantine Dragon, I ask you to read very well what I and Kolokotroni wrote. You have assigned to us things that none wrote.
I will repeat again.

There are a lot of people in this forum that complains about game balance and game options of certain classes outside of combat.

I think that part of the problem comes from a misunderstanding of the literature that put bases for RPG. According to western litterature and traditions mage do the strange thing and fighter do the mundane thing. This is something that should be ambient dependant and not rules dependant.
There are many different RPG. This is a class / level based RPG. Common sense says that power of different classes should be balanced as possible. Another important thing is that if we have 20th level all levels should be handled by GM to fit specific campaign / play style. Not all campaigns are high fantasy, and not all are low fantasy.

What I ask it's if someone is interested in this. Togheter we can fix what is a "bug" that comes from previous design of game. Not interested? No problem.

I'd like to set the game to better fit different campaign. Not eliminating spells or creating a type of fighter that is very different from the traditional flavour, but report spells that should be used in high magic campaign and adding the same option to martials character.
Another important thing is that character should be less gear dependant. In every thread where people talk about classes balance the most important things are level and then gear. Higher the level, more important is gear (until gear defines completely the encounter).
So in a low magic campaign GM should be advised to don't use wish, teleport, etc. In an high magic campaign more option to martial characters.
Another thing that show this difference is the gunslinger class: this is a pure martial class, but since the image that we have of a gunslinger is "cinematic" the class do different things, otherwise it should be a fighter archertype.


Kolok, I was addressing the OP's point. I'm not going down side paths, when there is so much red juicy meat on "casters are teh boss, and it sucks!"...

But to address some of your comments...

I don't disagree with some of your points. I like some of the stuff Pathfinder has done with the game. Some of the new classes are cool. But I despise the gunslinger. Just doesn't fit the flavor I'm looking for. In general I don't think Paizo has made any determined effort to address any supposed martial limitations as you think they have. They've just created new classes, and there aren't a lot of pure martial options, so they tend to create partial casting classes or full casting classes.

I love the witch, for example.

Just for reference purposes, I tend to play PF from levels 1 - 14 or so. The game starts to get wacked out to me after that. I would be more than happy to play a game which locked the top level at level 8 or so. I think level 6 is too low.

Introducing new capabilities is fine. But getting rid of what exists is not. I liked 3.5 just fine, until the explosion of splat books turned it into a laughing stock. I'm worried PF is heading in that direction, frankly. But the good thing is that my groups can run our games with the content we want.

Sure, add more options for "martial characters." But don't make them crazy 4e things which are clearly magic that is just called "martial" for fluff. If I want magic, I'll multiclass or play a magic using class. I don't want to play pretend martial characters whose special abilities are clearly just an attempt to keep up with magic. Just not interested.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
AlecStorm wrote:

Adamantine Dragon, I ask you to read very well what I and Kolokotroni wrote. You have assigned to us things that none wrote.

I will repeat again.

There are a lot of people in this forum that complains about game balance and game options of certain classes outside of combat.

I think that part of the problem comes from a misunderstanding of the literature that put bases for RPG. According to western litterature and traditions mage do the strange thing and fighter do the mundane thing. This is something that should be ambient dependant and not rules dependant.
There are many different RPG. This is a class / level based RPG. Common sense says that power of different classes should be balanced as possible. Another important thing is that if we have 20th level all levels should be handled by GM to fit specific campaign / play style. Not all campaigns are high fantasy, and not all are low fantasy.

What I ask it's if someone is interested in this. Togheter we can fix what is a "bug" that comes from previous design of game. Not interested? No problem.

I'd like to set the game to better fit different campaign. Not eliminating spells or creating a type of fighter that is very different from the traditional flavour, but report spells that should be used in high magic campaign and adding the same option to martials character.
Another important thing is that character should be less gear dependant. In every thread where people talk about classes balance the most important things are level and then gear. Higher the level, more important is gear (until gear defines completely the encounter).
So in a low magic campaign GM should be advised to don't use wish, teleport, etc. In an high magic campaign more option to martial characters.
Another thing that show this difference is the gunslinger class: this is a pure martial class, but since the image that we have of a gunslinger is "cinematic" the class do different things, otherwise it should be a fighter archertype.

Ok I think I understand a little bit better. First off, I have actually addressed the gear dependance issue in my game. The thread where I lay that out is here. Essentially every character gets to choose from abilities as he levels up and choose from one of the super genius games archetypes that they can take without trading out the usualy abilities. With this system I expect a character to have 1 or 2 magic items throughout their whole career, instead of being loaded down with them at mid to high levels. So far in my current campaign it is working fairly well.

It also allows flexibility in terms of high vs low fantasy. For instance the weapon champion gives bonuses similar to a fighter, very low fantasy. Where as the Youxia gives wushu kung fu movie style abilities which are more in line with high fantasy.

Honestly I think High and low fantasy are rather simple, high fantasy, normal game rules allowing archetypes that add magical and magic like abilities to mundane classes.

Low fantasy, E6 rules with no full casters.

Its the middle ranges that are complicated.


shallowsoul wrote:

Alec: You really need to take a moment and look at what you are arguing here. Casters wield magic, that's why they can bend reality. If you want martial classes to have magic then you ,multiclass or play a Magus.

Fighters and other melee classes are designed to be aided by magic items, their own abilities and the casters.

It's supposed to be a team game where the martial guys stay in the front while the casters sit back and buff the martial guys, while slinging offensive spells on their own. I think the team work thing is where this is all breaking down.

No, no. Maybe I have to explain better.

First the fact that only casters could bend reality is an assumption that should be related to campaing and not rules. You want that only casters bend reality? Don't play monks. This is something that comes from western fantasy tradition. If I want to play an oriental campaign I have to change a lot base classes, this is clear.
I will make some example, maybe it helps.

I want to run a low level magic campaign. I can't use base rules, because teleport spells will ruin my game, and the inflation of magic items will ruin campaign flavour, so I need some changes.
I decide to ban teleport and greater teleport. Maybe I can keep shadow walk, but I decide that the journey is very dangerous. Then I give very few magic items, but this creates a problem with PC power. So I give a +1 on all ability score every 4 levels instead of a +1 on only one at players choice. The I ban wish, create demiplane, etc. Every spellcraft check DC is raised by 5 for type of spells that you can't cast (es mage trying to identify clerical one)
The advantage of casters is that usually people are not prepared against them.
This would not be a set of rules, but advice on how to handle game.

If I want to run an high magic campaign things are different. Since players can overcome a lot of situation with magic many options are no more useful (many skills related to movement like climb, etc), so I have to give players that use this options something else. Yes, classes like magus will be more common, and simple fighter less than usual, but every soldier will know something about magic, at least to defend against. As a minimun I should create anti magic archetype for fighters, and more feats. It's simple: more magic is widespread, more people know about it. I'd like to see this in ultimate magic, but as usual non caster doesn't have place in this book, while in ultimate combat there is something useful to casters.

I'm not asking on changing base rules. I'm asking cooperation to one thing: creating something that can help GM running low magic and high magic campaign. Now we got classes that are tied to low magic while others are to high magic.
So, creating a product? A new appendix of the GM book? Something related to ultimate combat and ultimate magic? Now doesn't matter, we'll think about later :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adamantine Dragon wrote:


But to address some of your comments...

I don't disagree with some of your points. I like some of the stuff Pathfinder has done with the game. Some of the new classes are cool. But I despise the gunslinger. Just doesn't fit the flavor I'm looking for. In general I don't think Paizo has made any determined effort to address any supposed martial limitations as you think they have. They've just created new classes, and there aren't a lot of pure martial options, so they tend to create partial casting classes or full casting classes.

So the monk, barbarian, and rogue are new classes yes? Because they have without question added new kinds of options for those classes that did not exist in 3.5 with rage powers, martial styles and ki based abilities, and the ninja.

Quote:

I love the witch, for example.

Just for reference purposes, I tend to play PF from levels 1 - 14 or so. The game starts to get wacked out to me after that. I would be more than happy to play a game which locked the top level at level 8 or so. I think level 6 is too low.

I prefer that level range too, my last campaign ran 1 to 12. But i dont think there is such a thing as 'too low' its all a matter of preference (of which you are entitled to yours)

Quote:

Introducing new capabilities is fine. But getting rid of what exists is not. I liked 3.5 just fine, until the explosion of splat books turned it into a laughing stock. I'm worried PF is heading in that direction, frankly. But the good thing is that my groups can run our games with the content we want.

Certainly you dont want to eliminate what exists. I think the OP just wants to categorize what is there, and add options to the classes that lack the more dramatic high level abilities. If you want to play a game of thrones, or lord of the rings (rather low magic settings) then the game currently doesnt support you well. And if you want to play something along the lines of the anime bastard, where even the fighter was flying around and throwing bolts of energy at high levels, again the game doesnt support that well. The wizard and fighter exist in separate thematic spaces that can be problematic to certain kinds of games.

Sure, add more options for "martial characters." But don't make them crazy 4e things which are clearly magic that is just called "martial" for fluff. If I want magic, I'll multiclass or play a magic using class. I don't want to play pretend martial characters whose special abilities are clearly just an attempt to keep up with magic. Just not interested.

I think it is possible to keep things out of the range of magic without being lip service. The tags for extraordinary and supernatural abilities exist for a reason. The gunslinger is an example (even if many dont like the theme). Shooting a dragon in the wing to try and get it out of the sky makes perfect mundane sense, and theres no reason why an archer fighter cant have the means to do something similar.

And even if you want to play with the martial guys as is, it should be from an informed perspective. People should understand that the martial caster disparity as it stands doesnt exist because of some failing of people to write rules, but from the perspective many people have of the fighter and his ilk being chained to reality where the casters are not. If you identify the 'high fantasy' and 'low fantasy' options within the game, and then add high fantasy options for those that lack them, then people can make more informed choices both as players and as dms.


Adamantine Dragon wrote:

Kolok, I was addressing the OP's point. I'm not going down side paths, when there is so much red juicy meat on "casters are teh boss, and it sucks!"...

But to address some of your comments...

I don't disagree with some of your points. I like some of the stuff Pathfinder has done with the game. Some of the new classes are cool. But I despise the gunslinger. Just doesn't fit the flavor I'm looking for. In general I don't think Paizo has made any determined effort to address any supposed martial limitations as you think they have. They've just created new classes, and there aren't a lot of pure martial options, so they tend to create partial casting classes or full casting classes.

I love the witch, for example.

Just for reference purposes, I tend to play PF from levels 1 - 14 or so. The game starts to get wacked out to me after that. I would be more than happy to play a game which locked the top level at level 8 or so. I think level 6 is too low.

Introducing new capabilities is fine. But getting rid of what exists is not. I liked 3.5 just fine, until the explosion of splat books turned it into a laughing stock. I'm worried PF is heading in that direction, frankly. But the good thing is that my groups can run our games with the content we want.

Sure, add more options for "martial characters." But don't make them crazy 4e things which are clearly magic that is just called "martial" for fluff. If I want magic, I'll multiclass or play a magic using class. I don't want to play pretend martial characters whose special abilities are clearly just an attempt to keep up with magic. Just not interested.

The gunslinger is different because in western imaginary it has a different place from fighter. While monks bend reality with his spiritual force, gunslinger do it with luck and determination. They are hero from different traditions.

Besides that, is pretty clear that plain fighter are out of place in an high magic campaign. It's more or less like a true barbarian in a high tech level. If magic is everywhere even non magic classes should be prepared. More anti magic feats or archetype, for example.


So, I have to admit that I do think some of the new powers for martial classes in PF are blurring the line between martial and magical.

But they are still light-years away from "wish". So far anyway.

I do think Alec is proposing something similar to 4e. I can play that any time I want to. It's a fun game. So is Risk. Or Chess. But none of those feel like heroic fantasy to me, and even with all its limitations, at least for now, PF still does.

And yes, that's in part because magic spells are more versatile than banging on things with sticks.

Silver Crusade

Our fighters do just fine in high magic campaigns.

How come people are expecting the casters to go off and do their own thing when high level is reached? Why wouldn't they continue to buff the martial guys, who will be decked out in magical gear galore along side the casters, and still work as a team?


I'm far as possible from 4E. You're talking about heroic fantasy, but I think you confuse that with high fantasy. There's a lot of heroic fantasy where magic is very rare and not so strong. This depends on campaign flavour. If I had proposed a rule to have less heroic character I should have proposed something about HP system. To have a "non heroic" fantasy you should play GURPS (with few points or points cap), where a commoner with a knife can kill you. I never touched this topic.
What I proposed is pretty clear now and I ask you to read my last comments where I made some example. Banning some spells because a GM doesn't want that players could change nation in a standard action is not going on 4E, is just adapting rules to campaign.
If you want to play campaign like Fritz Leiber books you can't keep magic unchanged. Same is for round table style, or viking. Think about a Dragonlance where Raistlin always teleport the party instead of having characters riding dragons. Heroic fantasy and high magic fantasy it's not the same.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Kolokotroni wrote:
Sure, add more options for "martial characters." But don't make them crazy 4e things which are clearly magic that is just called "martial" for fluff. If I want magic, I'll multiclass or play a magic using class. I don't want to play pretend martial characters whose special abilities are clearly just an attempt to keep up with magic. Just not interested.

Everyone draws that line for "realism" in a different place. To me, it's totally realistic that a seasoned soldier, one who has survived ambushes for years, would be able to anticipate likely locations for invisible enemies, automatically detect illusions for what they are based on situational and tactical clues, and deduce which of the set of mirror images is really the caster. I'd call it "tactical awareness," or "pierce the fog of war" or something suitably martial and give it an (Ex) tag. You might look at the same thing and say, "That sounds like what the true seeing spell does! That's magic! Ooooooh! Badbadbadbadbadbadbad!" And then a lot of people start yelling about Warblades or 4e or something.

Statements like "I'm OK with ability X as long as it makes sense" are actually nonsensical, because what makes no sense to you might make an awful lot of sense to me, and vice versa.


Alec, it might be a bit of hyperbole to say that you are trying to replicate 4e, but from my perspective you are definitely on that path and headed in that direction.

We can simply disagree about that, I suppose.

I said "heroic fantasy" and meant "heroic fantasy." Not all heroic fantasy is low magic.

I do tend to prefer lower magic compaigns to high magic ones. But I still want my wizards to be manipulating awesome cosmic powers when they get high enough. If that means that someone feels martial characters get less spotlight time... Oh well. There are trade-offs in everything. I play both martial and casters, and mixes of both and enjoy them all. I can enjoy the game even if my character is not able to match the awesome abilities of a teammate. That's not required for me when I'm playing a martial character. I do my role and that's enough.


shallowsoul wrote:

Our fighters do just fine in high magic campaigns.

How come people are expecting the casters to go off and do their own thing when high level is reached? Why wouldn't they continue to buff the martial guys, who will be decked out in magical gear galore along side the casters, and still work as a team?

I don't have so many problem with high magic campaign, during encounter. But this thread is not only about encounter, nor about fighters.

I pose you some questions. In a campaign were magic is widespread, fighter should be unchanged?
If something is very common, people should know something about it? Every class should have spellcraft as a class skill?
How can you play for example Dragonlance if every high level caster can create demiplane or use wish?

I'm not talking about base rule change, but (if someone want to help me) trying to define what should be used in hig magic campaign and what in low magic. If there would be a book with some new feats, advice, new magic items or variant rules to handle magic gear I'd like it very much.


Certain spells and spell combinations are too powerful, yes. But the main issue (in my eyes) with the scaling of classes in the game is the linear scaling of skills and the equal opportunity for all classes design.

1. Skills scaling linearly is bad. Higher skill ranks should grant additional abilities, stronger abilities, that are always on.

2. 3rd edition class skills were designed to be class specific. Pathfinder has demolished this design and made casters even more powerful at all levels. The half level cap on skill ranks for cross class skills was important for balance reasons.

3. Skill ranks per class. This is poor design all over. Much like hit points are tied to base attack bonus now, skills per level should be tied to maximum spell level in an inverse proportion.

Combining #1, #2, and #3 gives martial characters a bonus against casters, by drawing on what should be more available to them.

I've created a thread expressing this idea in more detail, and would like to hear some thoughts on the implementation. Please feel free to head over and comment.

Link


I don't find a problem with Caster Disparity. I find you have people who like casters and find the fighter to boring. I also find people who hate casters and just love the simplicity of a straight fighter. Personally I love the fighter just because it's simple. Pick your feats and spend loot. It doesn't get any easier than that and to top if off you get enough feats to really play with. I mean I can take feats just for the flavor as it adds the character concept. If I want fighter with more options, I go Barbarian or Ranger.

I also like casters but I hate playing them in group that doesn't or won't support them. I mean sure a Wizard can hold his own after 10th level but getting to 10th level is hard if you party leaves you to wolves because they don't work as team. In group like that I prefer a fighter.


Adamantine Dragon wrote:

Alec, it might be a bit of hyperbole to say that you are trying to replicate 4e, but from my perspective you are definitely on that path and headed in that direction.

We can simply disagree about that, I suppose.

I said "heroic fantasy" and meant "heroic fantasy." Not all heroic fantasy is low magic.

I do tend to prefer lower magic compaigns to high magic ones. But I still want my wizards to be manipulating awesome cosmic powers when they get high enough. If that means that someone feels martial characters get less spotlight time... Oh well. There are trade-offs in everything. I play both martial and casters, and mixes of both and enjoy them all. I can enjoy the game even if my character is not able to match the awesome abilities of a teammate. That's not required for me when I'm playing a martial character. I do my role and that's enough.

So, you said that you prefer low magic campaigns where wizards manipulate awesome cosmic powers? But... you know what is a low magic campaigns? Gandalf was a great mage in a low-middle magic campaign, and didn't cast such spells. In David Eddings' books characters fight against a god and kill him, but they don't create demiplane, and they could do almost anything. Run your low magic campaign this way if you want, but we are talking about different things. What's your problem? If you don't want advice on how to run a low magic campaign why you are still here to say that we're wrong?


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Kolokotroni wrote:
Sure, add more options for "martial characters." But don't make them crazy 4e things which are clearly magic that is just called "martial" for fluff. If I want magic, I'll multiclass or play a magic using class. I don't want to play pretend martial characters whose special abilities are clearly just an attempt to keep up with magic. Just not interested.

Everyone draws that line for "realism" in a different place. To me, it's totally realistic that a seasoned soldier, one who has survived ambushes for years, would be able to anticipate likely locations for invisible enemies, automatically detect illusions for what they are based on situational and tactical clues, and deduce which of the set of mirror images is really the caster. I'd call it "tactical awareness," or "pierce the fog of war" or something suitably martial and give it an (Ex) tag. You might look at the same thing and say, "That sounds like what the true seeing spell does! That's magic! Ooooooh! Badbadbadbadbadbadbad!" And then a lot of people start yelling about Warblades or 4e or something.

Statements like "I'm OK with ability X as long as it makes sense" are actually nonsensical, because what makes no sense to you might make an awful lot of sense to me, and vice versa.

I like your idea :) I think that a feat three made with this concept should be very nice for warriors that lives in a high magic campaign. If you deal with magic for 16 levels it's clear that you learned something.

Someone remember the Glantri nation? (was a part of Mystara settings).
In Glantri everything was made with magic. It substitute technology. It's right that someone who live there is more used to magic (and prepared against it) respect of someone that sees it rarely.


Well, there it is, the accusation that because I don't agree with you, I'm accusing you of doing something "wrong." I never said it was "wrong." I said it was heading down the same path as 4e. I think I made it clear that I play and enjoy 4e, so how do you feel that means I'm saying you're "wrong?"

I prefer it differently Alec. I think that the path you're on leads to a conclusion that I like less than I like the current game.

I think you are a solution in search of a problem. Your great ideas about introducing magical abilities to martial characters already exists. They're called paladins or rangers or other classes.

So go ahead. Seek on. I'm sure you'll get some people to agree with you, but I think most of the really vocal folks who would be flocking to your side here have already flocked to the 4e forums.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I must be weird, then. I agree with a lot of what Alec is saying; I don't play 4e simply because I don't really care for board games, and when I read the rulebook, it seemed like the game revolved around "shift X number of squares."

I also believe, very strongly, that you can give martial characters some craaaaaaazy-good abilities at high levels without turning the game into 4e. In fact, I've done so, as have others, which is why there are people playing Tomes 3.5 and Kirthfinder.


Kirth, 4e is "board gamey" too. Interestingly, that's one of the things I LIKE about 4e. The tactical options are greatly expanded in actual combat, the rules are tightened up considerably, the impact of powers is far more predictable and therefore easier to plan around etc. That's all really good stuff for me since I like to plan two or three moves ahead and know that effects I put into play will almost certainly still be active and effective.

But 4e is also all about balancing powers between martial and casting classes. It's all about giving martial characters exactly the same number and type of combat options as a caster. The same number of at will powers, the same number of encounter powers, the same number of daily powers, and all of those powers, from any class, do more or less the same things. They daze, stun, blind, slide, push, knock prone, deal damage, teleport... It really doesn't matter if you are a ranger or a wizard, once you are in combat either one of you will have powers that let you set states, rearrange the battlefield or do damage, more or less in equal measure, just with different fluff.

If I were to want to fix anything about Pathfinder based on what I've seen in 4e, I would want to improve the "tightness" of the tactical battlefield with more clarity around tactical situations and more predictability in what specific effects do and do not do. You don't see a whole lot of "how does invisibility work?" threads on the 4e boards. It's pretty much right there on your power card.


Adamantine Dragon wrote:

Well, there it is, the accusation that because I don't agree with you, I'm accusing you of doing something "wrong." I never said it was "wrong." I said it was heading down the same path as 4e. I think I made it clear that I play and enjoy 4e, so how do you feel that means I'm saying you're "wrong?"

I prefer it differently Alec. I think that the path you're on leads to a conclusion that I like less than I like the current game.

I think you are a solution in search of a problem. Your great ideas about introducing magical abilities to martial characters already exists. They're called paladins or rangers or other classes.

So go ahead. Seek on. I'm sure you'll get some people to agree with you, but I think most of the really vocal folks who would be flocking to your side here have already flocked to the 4e forums.

Only one thing I say is wrong: in a low magic campaign wizard doesn't handle incredible cosmic powers. You can see example in literature.

I agree that we disagree. But if you disagree with me, why you find this thread interesting? It's not a rethoric question, I'm serious. If you don't have any problem with game flavours, why you discuss about? I like to discuss different game style, but not when you don't read what I wrote.
Seriously, I'd like that you show me where I said that fighter should have magical abilities. I don't know if you made some similar discussion before, but seems that you brought here some unresolved problem.
If you prefer it differently, good for you. I don't agree with the definition of incredible cosmic powers handled by playing character in a low magic campaign, but it's your game, not mine. I said that in a high magic campaign eveyone should be used with magic, so fighters should be able to defend better against, even commoner should have ranks in spellcraft (and have it as a class skill). Never wrote that fighters should be able to use magic, BUT, because some people could prefer this way, if casters use all magical options and a high magic campaign is running I think that something similar to Book of nine sword should be used.

P.S. I play d&d from first edition, AD&D, 3.0, 3.5, and PF (almost 21 years of play). I read the book of 4E but never rolled a dice to play it. Is a board game, has little to do with RPG.

1 to 50 of 740 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Caster / non-caster problem. OK, but why? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.