| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can you elaborate on those stealth-nerfs to casters Ashiel?
Certainly. Concentration was nerfed. Many, many, many of the spells were nerfed (from grease right up to wish). Many spells like glitterdust which were encounter-enders in 3.5 core allow multiple saving throws. Several spells don't provide absolute immunities anymore (death ward provides bonuses on saves rather than strait immunity to Fortitude-targeting death spells). Transmutation spells modify and adjust rather than replace and aren't nearly a closely based on the type of animal that you transform into (while also making it easier to assume forms not already generated in the bestiary such as medium-sized bears) which lowered the power while broadening style.
Many of the CoDzilla spells were toned down heavily. Divine power for example no longer gives you a full BAB. In 3.5 Divine Power actually grants you a perfect BAB and everything that goes with it on top of temporary HP equal to your level and a +6 enhancement to Strength on top of it (if you include non-core material this spell alone made the Cloistered cleric a no-brainer next to the core cleric 'cause you traded 3/4 BAB and a d8 for 1/2 BAB and a d6 for more spellcasting and 6 + Int modifier skills, an extra domain, and more class skills, and then cast this spell to stomp over Tokyo). Today divine power doesn't provide a full BAB and doesn't provide extra attacks next to haste (in 3.5 it did).
Black tentacles is another fine example. It's still a great spell but in 3.5 this spell crushed everything. It was near impossible to avoid getting grappled by it and grappled was a much harsher condition in 3.5 which meant you tended to be limited in your actions, had to waste actions breaking from the grapple, and suffered very heavy penalties for it. Today it's still a good spell but it's not nearly as battle-ending (still good enough that I recommend it though).
Some spells have even been hit with the nerf bat when not necessary. Unfortunately ray of enfeeblement went from a decent single-target debuff spell to being effectively useless (it's now a single target short range ray that applies a small-ish temporary penalty with a fortitude save for half, whereas in 3.5 it applied the penalty with no saving throw if you successfully hit with it).
It's much easier to disable casters in Pathfinder. Unfortunately for casters you currently are hard pressed to cast spells while bound and gagged no matter your metamagic effects like still and silence since casting while grappled means you must concentrate and the concentration DC is equal to the CMD, and the CMD when you're tied up is 20 + the binder's CMB. Since it's a caster level + key ability check, good luck.
Clerics and druids got hit pretty hard in the optimization standpoints. The Magic Domain isn't half of what it used to be (in 3.5 the Magic Domain allows a cleric to activate spell-completion and spell-trigger items as if she were a wizard!). Their biggest loss comes in the depowering of their buffs and/or shapechanging capabilities.
Summon monsters are weaker. In 3.5 you could summon things like Huge Monstrous Centipedes with Summon Monster III. The suckers were huge (it's a living wall with damage reduction) with reach (10 ft. of reach) that had a +15 Grapple modifier (+15 to hit on a touch attack and +15 in your opposed grapple, which is damn hard to beat when you're rolling BAB + Strength as a medium sized humanoid), which means that you can summon the thing outside the reach of most creatures and then begin a grapple from your reach in place of your bite attack and then tie your foe down while also forcing your opponent to carve through 33 HP worth of fiendish centipede ass instead of your party.
Wish no longer allows you to create magic items or wish for money and costs a whopping 25,000 gp to cast. A huge, huge nerf since it was an easily breakable spell since casting wish as a SLA could allow you to create infinite money or infinitely powerful magical items. In 3.5 wish cost 5,000 XP to cast which sounds like a lot but due to the way XP worked in 3.5 it wasn't that bad (you could easily refund all of it from the same encounter and cast it without the need for special material components which made it a strong option for Spell Mastery when you were out of other spells, and if you fell behind the rest of the party from casting it you got bonus XP from subsequent battles until you caught up).
As a side effect "chain gating" is also no longer possible so that is a much needed stealth nerf as well (in 3.5 core you can gate a solar, have the solar use wish to create a candle of invocation and gate in another solar, repeating until you have all the solars you need to help you). Hooray for no-more chain gating. The only thing preventing you from doing this in an actual game was just good sportsmanship and the threat of getting the stinkeye or books thrown at you.
Shapechangep was OMFG-WTF-HAX in 3.5. It allowed you to take the form of virtually any creature each round as desired and you got their powers too. This included a balor's vorpal weapons (which you could legally give to someone else and resume shapeshifting). Notice that you gain all extraordinary and supernatural abilities of the form and can assume incorporeal and gaseous forms as well. With Eschew Materials you could happily fly around as an incorporeal spellcasting Wraith, transform into undead creatures and/or creatures with Regeneration, transform into a Choker to get extra actions each round (chokers have an ability that grants an extra standard or move action each round which is scary if you feel like releasing the kraken...which may actually involve releasing a literal kraken 'cause you might as well have been God).
Lots of stuff like that. The disparity was much, much higher between the core martials and casters in 3.5. Virtually all of the core martial classes sucked in 3.5. Fighter sucked extra hard due to stealth nerfs from 3.0 to 3.5 (in 3.0 haste allowed moving and full-attacking, keen + improved critical stacked, great cleave + whirlwind attack stacked and allowed you to wipe mooks while whiping mooks, etc). In 3.5 core, Paladin is god-awful, Barbarian did nothing useful other than Rage x/day (not X rounds but X/day which meant the barbarian could easily push the 15 minute workday faster than casters ever would). Fighters sucked monkey bolts (the extent of their special features were "bonus feat" and they could take weapon specialization if they wanted to spend their feats on it).
Rangers were probably the only martial class in 3.5 that was actually pretty decent (it was a decent martial, had some spells, full BAB, 6 + Int modifier skills, but it also had a d8 HD and its animal companion was of questionable strength and it lacked its high level teeth like quarry, but it was probably the best core martial in 3.5). Today I'd say that Barbarian, Paladin, and Ranger are all worth playing pretty much right out of the box and Fighters aren't as bad as they once were.
Rogues were even worse in 3.x. Yes...worse. d6 HD, no talents, sneak attack was useless against huge swaths of creature types (no sneak attack vs undead, constructs, elementals, plants, oozes, etc; and heavy fortification was 100% immunity to crits and sneaks).
Essentially in 3.5 core you could have just cut out every class except Bard, Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, Wizard and Cleric (yes I said cleric twice). And even then the Cleric, Druid, Wizard, and Sorcerer had spells that have campaign shattering potential without really even trying. The "tier 1" classes were described by JaronK as often possessing world-changing powers that can break campaigns by sheer accident or with their general use.
Some things have become unnecessarily better in PF. Invisibility is probably the most obvious offender. Simulacrum is still pretty bad (a bit worse actually as now you don't need a hair sample or some other piece of the creature to be cloned). But all in all the game is much more fluid, much smoother, martials are much better, casters are significantly weaker and harder to break the game with, and while I keep a few house rules (I nerfed invisibility, I recommend an alternative Simulacrum I posted on the boards for Wraithstrike, I changed sorcerers a bit) the amount of effort to tweak stuff is really minor IMHO.
Having played 3.x near religiously since it came out I remember a lot of the balance issues innate in the core game. If you got into splat material then god help you. Spells that allowed you to always act first even during surprise rounds, Craft Contingent Spell (wizards simply own the game once this arrives), Divine Metamagic (spend exceedingly useless turn undead attempts to meta-magic my buffs? Yes please), and things like Greenbound Summoning (because who doesn't want to give every creature a druid casts immunity to critical hits, sneak attacks, at-will entangle, huge bonuses to Strength and natural armor and make them immune to spells that don't target plants on top of a +10 racial bonus to Hide checks in wooded areas, damage reduction, and more, right? RIGHT!? :D).
I believe pretty firmly (at least for now) that it's entirely possible to run most of the core classes amongst one another throughout the various levels without anyone getting left sitting on the corner while the big kids resolve encounters and problems. At the very least they made Barbarians, (Anti)Paladins, and Rangers valuable members of a party now.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Some of those are good, some not so much. Nerfing grapple, for example, might nerf one of a caster's spells, but it nerfs entire martial builds.
Quite the contrary. Grapple favors martials a lot more today. The only grapple builds that were actually any good in 3.5 revolved around casters. That's right. Fighters, barbarians, paladins, rangers? All those classes sucked ass at grappling. The reason was pretty simple. Your size and strength scores meant a lot more to grappling. Every size category above large granted an additional +4 to grapple attempts. This meant that grappling builds actually tended to be shapeshifting casters (druids were good at it) and things like psychic warriors (they could make it work pretty well).
Martials were notoriously vulnerable to grappling. A single summoned monster could easily render you out of the majority of a fight at higher levels. For example, first you make a grapple attack vs the foe's touch AC, then you rolled opposed grapples while you were grappling. Now who exactly do you expect to come out on top in a grapple?
A 20th level Fighter with a 30 Strength has a +30 to grapple. A CR 8 gargantuan fiendish monstrous centipede has a +27 to grapple (+29 with Augment Summoning) and can be conjured at 11th level. It also has a 40 ft. speed and a 15 ft. natural reach and is Intelligent. If it lands its grapple vs your touch attack you can't use a two-handed weapon during the grapple so you have to punch your way through its DR 10/magic 66 HP (90 with augment summoning) or draw a smaller weapon and work your way through.
That's a 20th level Fighter vs an 11th level caster's minion. Minion. Say it with me. MINION. So while the Fighter is like "hot damn I could grapple somebody and make them flat-footed against their attackers while I am also flat-footed against all my attackers too", the wizard says "excuse my while I summon a disposable __________".
Today due to the way grappling works it's actually easier to be a dedicated grappler because you are a martial. Hell all you need to be good at grappling is a full BAB, good Strength, and maybe a buff or two or class feature adding to your to-hit chances. The CMD system means that it's very difficult for martials to be negated by grapples, especially from summons, especially at higher levels.
Grappling is still a good option but in 3.5 it was anti-martial and didn't hurt casters that much (casters just rolled a skill check vs a fairly low DC and cast their spells just fine while grappling). No being grappled is actually damn scary for a caster and it's not a huge deal for a martial in most cases.
God help you if a dragon grappled you in 3.x.
Thank you for taking the time to make those posts Ashiel! I have felt the same way about the difference in caster/martial balance from 3.X to 3.P myself, but just never bothered to write it all out like that. Spell casters appear to be buffed because they have more new class powers, but the actual spells themselves did take a lot of nerfs which alleviates a few of the abuses from 3.5. Net result is that casters are definitely weaker since the power of the class is 99% due to the power of their spell list, not their class features.
Not to mention that just removing the Spell Compendium (which I would say most gamers had been playing 3.5 with for years) is a GIGANTIC nerf to 3.5 casters all on its own. That book was responsible for so much caster ridiculousness.
Thank you for taking the time to make those posts Ashiel! I have felt the same way about the difference in caster/martial balance from 3.X to 3.P myself, but just never bothered to write it all out like that. Spell casters appear to be buffed because they have more new class powers, but the actual spells themselves did take a lot of nerfs which alleviates a few of the abuses from 3.5. Net result is that casters are definitely weaker since the power of the class is 99% due to the power of their spell list, not their class features.
Not to mention that just removing the Spell Compendium (which I would say most gamers had been playing 3.5 with for years) is a GIGANTIC nerf to 3.5 casters all on its own. That book was responsible for so much caster ridiculousness.
And I only listed the stuff I was thinking off off the top of my head. There's more that is certain. This list is by no means comprehensive, just a good start. :P
|
A party featuring all the "food groups" will probably have an easier time than a single-class party. There's a couple of classes that do well solo, but wizards and witches really do like having martials in the party.I've found the opposite in my (albeit limited) playtesting of single-class parties. They are noticeably more powerful than a diversified group. Against any level appropriate challenge the party is capable of defeating at all, it will rock.
Which makes sense if you think about it. It's a lot easier to overload a defense (whether that defense is AC/HP or saves or whatever) if you have four guys targeting the same defense. And if a party is all capable of using a tactic like Stealth, that tactic becomes a lot more valuable.
However, single class parties are also boring, which matters quite a bit more.
But how do they do against a whole adventure? By that I mean a series of different difficulties to overcome, including but not limtited to combat against various creatures. Also includes opponents attacking when you don't expect (another) encounter, or opponents who are freakishly fast in melee (velociraptor to the face!)?
There's value in having a party theme, like stealth, because if the whole party can be stealthy suddenly you can do whole new kinds of tactics that would fail if you had one paladin in heavy armor with you.
But casters tend to be less efficient at emulating the features of other classes, than those classes themselves. They can't do it quite as often (running out of Knock spells vs. Disable Device all day) or take a while to warm up (buffing cleric vs. full martial), meaning that in a surprise encounter they're not as good as theory suggests.
So I think there might be good value in having a party of characters that are built to a coordinating theme, so that they support each others' tactics and cover the others' weaknesses. And I think that probably works better with a mixed party than with a single-class party.
I have GM'd for an all caster party before. Psion, Wizard, Cleric, Sorcerer, and I forget what the 5th one was. They struggled at first, but by the time level 7 came around......
Between SoD's, and battlefield control they did not have a lot of trouble. Admittedly they were optimized, but the it still shows they can handle things on their own.
The lines have blurred some. There isnt as clear a line between most 'martials' and most 'casters'.
THe fighter, rogue and monk are still pretty clearly martials. They have an unfortunate time of things for various reasons, and even though the fighter got a big buff in pathfinder, he still is basically a guy with a sharp bit of metal to use. He is really good at what he does, probably the best, but he can only really do the one thing. The rogue and monk are kind of a mess, though there are a few ways to make them rather good (monk with cranefist and the ninja alternate class).
Then there are classes like the paladin, ranger, bard, inquisitor, alchemist, and even the barbarian that while usually 'martial characters', they have alot of supernatural and magical abilities. They all have resources they have to manage, rounds of rage, spells, number of alchemist bombs, and such, but they not as tied to the mundane (and thus low on options) as the fighter, rogue, and monk.
Then there are the real 'casters'. Wizard, Cleric, druid, witch, and summoner (note even though the summoner is not a full caster I put them in here because the eidolon is such a flexible and powerful tool its basically a series of high level spells in and of itself in addition to the summoners partial casting). The druid and summoner can both overcome the resource reliance because of their powerful pets that can fight even if their character runs low on resources. The other casters have to worry about having spells available, but while they do, they have an overwhelming wealth of ways to deal with problems that pure martials dont have.
What was the fighters big buff? Everytime I imagine him in a coversation it goes like this...
Pally: Hey guys! My smites finally worth something, my spell list is special, and I've got the choice to make my weapon blessed by the gods!
Barbarian: I've got the best saves in the game and am the only martial who can get pounce. Sorry about the saves pally.
Pally: Its fine, I've still got superpowers, how about you fighter?
Fighter: I get more +1s. And some not -1s.
Everyone: ...
Readied actions aren't full attacks. How is he doing 100s of damage with a standard action? I was talking about how someone said fighters got big buffs, and was talking about hte difference between 3.5 and pathfinder. A Paladin's smite in 3.5 was pretty awful and was changed into something amazing. A barbarian got superstitious and totem lines, rage powers. The fighter got... weapon and armor training, and everyone got more feats, which was his gig.
Still, the point of my post was something else entirely. I don't think the Archer Archetype helped that guy out in any special way. I was talking about 3.5 > Pathfinder. Because I'm not sure if fighter got a buff.
Also ranger I forgot to include him!
Ranger: Guys! I was out playing with my animal companion! He's got -4 progression but I can fix that with a feat. Full progression! and my spelllist looks cooler! And I can ignore feats prereqs!
Fighter: You can do what now!?
Ranger: and I have d10 Hit dice. I'm just like all of you!
Barbarian: I miss Warblade...
What was the fighters big buff? Everytime I imagine him in a coversation it goes like this...
Pally: Hey guys! My smites finally worth something, my spell list is special, and I've got the choice to make my weapon blessed by the gods!
Barbarian: I've got the best saves in the game and am the only martial who can get pounce. Sorry about the saves pally.
Pally: Its fine, I've still got superpowers, how about you fighter?
Fighter: I get more +1s. And some not -1s.
Everyone: ...
And my point is all those +1s plus the improvement to power attack, or to ranged attacking with deadly aim and many shot working on full attacks means that fighters can really churn out a ton of damage. By mid levels and archer fighter or a 2handed fighter will do a TON of damage and do it more consistently then the paladin or barbarian. But that damage is ALL they can do. Their options are alot more limited when they want to do something other then impose bits of sharp metal on the enemy's flesh.
If you are not sure how much a +1 to attack and damage is worth, consider that it is like increasing the bonus on your weapon by 1. A fighter weith weapon training 2 and a +3 sword (not outrageous) effectively has a +5 sword (most likely outrageous for the level he gets weapon training 2). In terms of average damage/to hit it means quite a bit.
Thats... Not really a fighter buff. Thats something all martials got. Thats a martial buff. If Power attack or deadly aim were fighter only it would be a fighter buff, but at the moment that just helped everyone. The barbarian at midlevels has a +9 to 2 stats with a courageous weapon btw. Thats +4 to attack and +6 to damage with a two handed weapon. You rarely if ever run out of rage even when a barbarian is starting out.
It is not as special as a +1 because it doesn't help bypass DR and the like. It is nice, but I'm just pointing out its not what I'd call a big buff. Opinions may vary.
Maneuvers are cool, but they cost an arm and a leg in feats to be effective or viable when the foe isn't completely immune. At higher levels Manuevers are very hit or miss. Trip VS. Flying or slugs for instance.
The fighter needs many things. That isn't this thread. This thread is about martial caster disparity.
Edit: And the fighter doesn't get anything no one else does. He does not get options no one else does. He doesn't have a special fighter feature called "Look what I can do!" he has feats. Everyone gets them, few are fighter only.
And my point is all those +1s plus the improvement to power attack, or to ranged attacking with deadly aim and many shot working on full attacks means that fighters can really churn out a ton of damage. By mid levels and archer fighter or a 2handed fighter will do a TON of damage and do it more consistently then the paladin or barbarian. But that damage is ALL they can do. Their options are alot more limited when they want to do something other then impose bits of sharp metal on the enemy's flesh.What more does a fighter need? And you're wrong. the fighter also has extra feats to spend on combat control. for using tactics like reposition more effectively. What the fighter is, is about COMBAT. And he gets more options about that than any other class. He's the class for the people who want to play the straight brawny hero, who doesn't rely on magical powers to carry the day.
Again, i am not worried about fighting things. The fighter, oddly enough is really good at that. And he can use a few manuevers pretty well (as long as the thing he is using it against is a medium sized humanoid and not any of the multitude of large(or bigger), strong, four legged creatures in the bestiary.
I get what the fighter is supposed to be, but you end up with the problem of the green arrow standing next to the green lantern and having them work together, or hawkeye in the avengers. Iron man can have all sorts of cool tricks and powers, hes got a hyper advanced mecha suit. But hawkeye is a due with a bow, and is thus mostly tied to reality. The fighter has the same problem, he is this mundane 'realistic' character among a group of superheroes at high levels. And sure the wizard might run low on spells, but when he is going he can do all sort of crazy things. The fighter can use bow or sword or spear. And he might be able to move an enemy a square or two with a difficult to pull off combat manuever. The wizard can literally move heaven and earth to take on their foes, and when he is running low on magic, he has to tools to get the f out of there before he runs out.
Thats... Not really a fighter buff. Thats something all martials got. Thats a martial buff. If Power attack or deadly aim were fighter only it would be a fighter buff, but at the moment that just helped everyone. The barbarian at midlevels has a +9 to 2 stats with a courageous weapon btw. Thats +4 to attack and +6 to damage with a two handed weapon. You rarely if ever run out of rage even when a barbarian is starting out.
Maybe because you played in campaigns where the DM ignored things such as movement rate that you didn't notice, but while the fighter's buffs weren't shout to the world, mountain splittng buffs, they were pretty important for all their subtlety.
1.Armor Training. At 7th level, Fighters are moving at full speed with heavy armor. This is a big deal. those two extra squares of movement can make a lot of difference. Ask your neighborhood barbarian about that.
2.Weapon Training, a hit and accuracy buff beyond BAB advancement, and it stacks with the relevant feats.
3.All of the other class based abilities. The 3.5 fighter had NO class abilities beyond his bonus feats.
I think your infering things. Thats not nice. Mithril armor is my friend, and in tight spots movement speed isn't too big I don't think. I don't consider 10 movement a big deal anyway, also doesn't do a thing for dwarves. Thats just my opinion though, and opinions vary greatly.
I did already mention more +1s and not minus 1's. Thats all the fighters features beyond moar feats. Bravery, armor training, and weapon training. Until his capstone anyway, but capstones almost never come into play and if they mattered Truenamer would be viable.
|
I agree, casters and melee need to be brought into balance with each other.
I'm in favor of low level melee only allowed 5 swings/day with their weapons. Maybe grant them an extra 1 swing/day per point of constitution bonus.
The melee would still do higher damage than the casters, but it would be more balanced.
If you have more than 16 dex(not that hard) you want mithril breastplate, which is cheaper and cooler. Barbarian in mithril plate has 30, in mithril breastplate has 40. Armor Expert lets someone without proficiency wear a mithril breastplate at 0 ACP. Also Celestial armor. Also this was already given a long talk in the fighter thread a while ago and I really don't want to read all that again.
I don't think most other armor materials are worth it for their price really. Adamantine is expensive and doesn't always stack, and the other can be situational at best. My Wizards usually wear griffon mane just to be fancy. With armor spikes just to be cool.
I agree, casters and melee need to be brought into balance with each other.
I'm in favor of low level melee only allowed 5 swings/day with their weapons. Maybe grant them an extra 1 swing/day per point of constitution bonus.
The melee would still do higher damage than the casters, but it would be more balanced.
Fighter: "I can swing my sword 8 times a day! Whee! I sure hope I don't run into nine goblins!"
...not sure that helps the disparity option...at all...the only thing fighters have going for them right now is that they are really consistent on their ability to stab things.
So...what?
I'm pretty sure that was a joke...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Codzilla and his brother Druidzilla have been effectively been nerfed down to mortal status.
This is just me being rather anal but this kinda irritated me. There is no "Druidzilla" hi brother, and clerics are codfish. "CoDzilla" means "Cleric or Druid"-zilla. The word specifically notes both clerics AND druids.
There is a game for you in which that was achieved. It was called D+D 4th edition. Fighters had powers, Wizards had powers. If a fighter wanted to do magical things he took the Ritual Talent and the Arcana Skill and spent a lot of gold doing them,just like the Wizard would.
You really couldn't get more balanced than that. Now if you don't like 4th edition's definition of balance between caster and martial, what is your own definition then?
Um, no they weren't. I have the core 4E rulebooks. I have no idea how much errata they've put out for it but in core Fighters can't even dual wield and Orb wizards can utterly destroy boss monsters while wiping mook battles pretty easily. Rituals in general tend to suck but wizards get their rituals for free. In 4E fighters aren't even good at defending because they don't deal nearly as much damage and their marking system only applies a -2 penalty to your attacks if you ignore the fighter (but since the AC of most of your squishies is still lower than 2 points lower than the Fighter...).
Meanwhile Paladins in 4E actually have a legitimately decent marking system because they burn enemies with divine power if they turn "turn their backs on them" figuratively speaking. With the Paladin he goes:
Paladin: "Okay monster. Feel my divine wrath. I'm calling you out on the feel of battle!"
Beholder: "Hah, as if dweeb. I'ma eat that wizard." "Ahhhh! IT BURNS!"
Paladin: "I warned you fiend!"
Wizard: "Thanks Paladin. You're way more awesome than that silly Fighter over there at melee, and our Ranger back there will deal all the damage. Meanwhile, since this is a boss monster I figure it's time that I..." "Make this boss encounter a joke. Okay Ranger, tear him apart with two-weapon fighting or archery or whatever else you feel like today."
Ranger: "Behold my choppy-ness! Oh, and you can't multiclass into Ranger and get my advanced classes. Yeah, they biffed and my multiclass is broken. Good job Wizards!"
Fighter: "I...I just wanted to be special. Q.Q"
I'm pretty sure that was a joke...
I have failed my sense motive check. I hate it when I roll a one.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm pretty sure that was a joke...I have failed my sense motive check. I hate it when I roll a one.
Skillchecks don't fail on a one, are you typing on an android?
I actually don't know that much about 4E. I just know Barbarians learned to Shoryuken. Doesn't sound that much better when you describe it... I feel bad for 4E fighter though. At least he's not 3E monk.
3E Monk: Hey, this isn't working out, suggestions?
Everyone: Be someone else!
Swordsage: Dude, I can totally blow someones heart up! Also I'm a ninja.
Okay, I need to stop doing that. I don't think I can take myself seriously when I do.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm pretty sure that was a joke...I have failed my sense motive check. I hate it when I roll a one.Skillchecks don't fail on a one, are you typing on an android?
I actually don't know that much about 4E. I just know Barbarians learned to Shoryuken. Doesn't sound that much better when you describe it... I feel bad for 4E fighter though. At least he's not 3E monk.
3E Monk: Hey, this isn't working out, suggestions?
Everyone: Be someone else!
Swordsage: Dude, I can totally blow someones heart up! Also I'm a ninja.Okay, I need to stop doing that. I don't think I can take myself seriously when I do.
Well many of us basically realized the Tome of Battle was a big "we're really sorry" to all the people who had been wanting to play martial characters and be somewhat relevant throughout all of 3.5. Warblade = Fighter/Barbarian, Crusader = Paladin, Swordsage = Monk/Combat Rogue. Multiclass to taste (ToB was multiclass friendly!). It gave three classes which were essentially martial characters who had some techniques you could choose to give them stuff to do other than standard attacks (most were standard actions so it also alleviated the problem with mobility at higher levels) and gave them some fairly decent defenses.
The problem is that then a certain crowd of people insisted that the Tome of Battle was badwrongfun because it "overshadowed the core martial classes". That is to say "was just like everything else", except the Tome of Battle was actually really well balanced (the CharOp boards on WotC remarked at how balanced it was compared to virtually any other WotC product published, with the Tome of Battle and the Expanded Psionics Handbook being the two best balanced in all of 3.5).
Ironically the classes that are actually well balanced today are much closer to the Tome of Battle. Barbarians and their Rage powers are quite similar to the concepts behind the Tome of Battle for instance. Paladins and rangers get decent abilities but also have spells to fall back on (many of which are similar to maneuvers for their purposes).
|
|
There is a game for you in which that was achieved. It was called D+D 4th edition. Fighters had powers, Wizards had powers. If a fighter wanted to do magical things he took the Ritual Talent and the Arcana Skill and spent a lot of gold doing them,just like the Wizard would.
Somebody failed their detect sarcasm check.
4th edition is exactly what I was implying.
Somebody failed their detect sarcasm check.
Well, I'm glad I wasn't the only one. :P
I would say the caster-martial disparity cannot be resolved while both of the following hold true:
1) Charm person, dominate person, and hold person exist at lower levels than the nonspecifically targeted versions. (Possibly these spells existing at all is unacceptable, but certainly the early availability of the anti-PC versions is a dismal failure of nostalgia over intelligent game design.)
2) Martials by default have poorer will saves than casters.There are other things relating to versatility, but as long as mundanes are puppets for casters they cannot be considered balanced.
Ehhh, I dunno. I never had a problem with the sirens and stuff in Baldur's Gate I and the saving throws were harder to make then. The charm line of spells is pretty mild (you get a +5 to your save if you're engaging in hostilities).
I've never felt that Rangers were sucky 'cause their will save is pretty poor. 2/3 martials in the core rulebook have good-ish will saves (barbarians and paladins are both good with will saves, rangers aren't). Wait, did you say there are other martials in the core rulebook? I hadn't noticed. :P
EDIT: Hold spells were nerfed anyway. They now allow saving throws every round to break free of them. Hold person used to be fail a save and wait 1 round / caster level. Now you get a saving throw to break free each round.
Well many of us basically realized the Tome of Battle was a big "we're really sorry" to all the people who had been wanting to play martial characters and be somewhat relevant throughout all of 3.5. Warblade = Fighter/Barbarian, Crusader = Paladin, Swordsage = Monk/Combat Rogue. Multiclass to taste (ToB was multiclass friendly!). It gave three classes which were essentially martial characters who had some techniques you could choose to give them stuff to do other than standard attacks (most were standard actions so it also alleviated the problem with mobility at higher levels) and gave them some fairly decent defenses.
The problem is that then a certain crowd of people insisted that the Tome of Battle was badwrongfun because it "overshadowed the core martial classes". That is to say "was just like everything else", except the Tome of Battle was actually really well balanced (the CharOp boards on WotC remarked at how balanced it was compared to virtually any other WotC product published, with the Tome of Battle and the Expanded Psionics Handbook being the two best balanced in all of 3.5).
Ironically the classes that are actually well balanced today are much closer to the Tome of Battle. Barbarians and their Rage powers are quite similar to the concepts behind the Tome of Battle for instance. Paladins and rangers...
Hmm... If we could include ToB? I'd say Pathfinder is worse off actually. ToB did good things for martials. I'd love a team of tier 3/4 over a group where a fighter is overshadowed by the wizard. Even the chasis of the classes in ToB are better than some martials have it now.
I'm okay with barbarian, I wouldn't say its anything like manuevers were. Rage Powers do nice things though, and in some cases open up more options. Spell sunder is fun. No martial class has int synergy like warblade, we still have 2+ skillpoints on non int characters. Martials still don't do more than full attack most of the time. Paladin with all his nice things is still "I smite then full attack" or "I use litany of blah and full attack". They still just full attack but with new things while full attacking every once in a while.
And of course they overshadowed martials. Core paladin/fighter/monk were just awful and somewhat unattractive. I like that the ToB was both flashy and capable with class features that had synergy. It made things fun and useful! I really wouldn't mind something similar in pathfinder. Martials with skillpoints and things to do other than full attack I mean. I have trouble getting a DM to let me even try to convert those classes.
I don't see what the big deal is. Martial classes do just fine in the game. Take the fighter, they do fine at low levels and at high levels. Sure the wizard at high levels is great but the wizard a low levels is short on resources. I find I prefer the fighter, no spells to figure out. The Wizard is too much resource management and the sorcerer is kind of maddening with picking the right spells to know for example. Not that I won't play a caster I just prefer the simplicity of the fighter and I like picking a feat every level. I'm not upset that I can't fly, I'm here to smash heads. For any magic need I use magic items. If I need to fly a potion of fly is cheap enough more often than not. If the party is lacking an arcane caster as fighter with tons of feats I can take leadership to get wizard cohort.
In the end I find a fighter just does a specialized job and does it very well. Sure there are ways to get by with out the fighter or what ever martial class you choose but really they do the job best. A wizard can summon but what they summon won't be a strong as fighter in the party with its full share of wealth.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I must be the only one who has ever seen the fighter of the party kill most everything in the encounter, while the Wizard and Cleric provided support.
Guy with pointy things smacking them into the bad guys fixes encounters far better than anything else in pretty much EVERY game I have been a part of.
Countdown to "but but but personal experience doesnt matter in the face of such overwhelming theory!" argument in 3.........2.........
Well many of us basically realized the Tome of Battle was a big "we're really sorry" to all the people who had been wanting to play martial characters and be somewhat relevant throughout all of 3.5. Warblade = Fighter/Barbarian, Crusader = Paladin, Swordsage = Monk/Combat Rogue. Multiclass to taste (ToB was multiclass friendly!). It gave three classes which were essentially martial characters who had some techniques you could choose to give them stuff to do other than standard attacks (most were standard actions so it also alleviated the problem with mobility at higher levels) and gave them some fairly decent defenses.
The problem is that then a certain crowd of people insisted that the Tome of Battle was badwrongfun because it "overshadowed the core martial classes". That is to say "was just like everything else", except the Tome of Battle was actually really well balanced (the CharOp boards on WotC remarked at how balanced it was compared to virtually any other WotC product published, with the Tome of Battle and the Expanded Psionics Handbook being the two best balanced in all of 3.5).
Ironically the classes that are actually well balanced today are much closer to the Tome of Battle. Barbarians and their Rage powers are quite similar to the concepts behind the Tome of Battle for instance. Paladins and rangers...
Hmm... If we could include ToB? I'd say Pathfinder is worse off actually. ToB did good things for martials. I'd love a team of tier 3/4 over a group where a fighter is overshadowed by the wizard. Even the chasis of the classes in ToB are better than some martials have it now.
I'm okay with barbarian, I wouldn't say its anything like manuevers were. Rage Powers do nice things though, and in some cases open up more options. Spell sunder is fun. No martial class has int synergy like warblade, we still have 2+ skillpoints on non int characters. Martials still don't do more than full attack most of the time. Paladin with all his nice things is still "I smite...
Well what I was getting at was that the martials who have greatly improved have done so by becoming more like martials from Tome of Battle. While Rage Powers aren't replicating maneuvers they are a big step towards the Tome of Battle style martial character because:
1) They are abilities you choose as you gain levels that aren't feats and aren't spells.
2) They often allow you to do things you simply couldn't do otherwise instead of just providing a marginal bonus. If it does provide a bonus, it's usually a noteworthy one that stacks with stuff you're going to have.
3) They allow you to play your turn tactically (especially once rage-cycling kicks in somewhere around 8th-9th level).
Meanwhile Rangers and Barbarians tend to have spells that let them do things that are handy and cool, in addition to being less MAD than the 3.5 core classes were (as you said Paladin was a nightmare, today they are Charisma-kings with epic saving throws, lots of immunities, and have guns mounted on their shoulders).
We're still pretty much anchored to the full-attack routine though. Vital Strike was a nice nod in the right direction but it's not really good enough. In a Star Wars homebrew I'm making I've changed Weapon Specialization to function for all classes and add base damage dice (which likewise scales nicely with vital strike).
For example, in my Star Wars homebrew I'm working on...
You have Weapon Specialization I, II, and III. Each time you take it you increase the base damage dice of all weapons in a chosen group (such as lightsabers, blasters, heavy blasters, slugthrowers, etc) by +1 die. If you were to convert this to Pathfinder it would look something like this.
Weapon Specialization
Your experience with a group of weapons makes you especially deadly with them.
Prerequisites: BAB +6
Benefit: When you take this feat, choose a group of weapons (chosen from Fighter weapon groups). You increase the damage rolls with weapons from this weapon group by +1 die (so 1d6 becomes 2d6).
Special: You may take this feat multiple times. Its effects do not stack. Each time you must select a different weapon group for which you are proficient.
This effect stacks with Vital Strike. Thus if you were to use it in Pathfinder a warrior class with Vital Strike, Improved Vital Strike, Weapon Specialization (Axes), and Weapon Specialization II (Axes) would be able to vital strike with a greataxe for 9d12 damage (58.5 average damage). So in my Star Wars homebrew you have certain builds that emphasize making multiple attacks and then you have certain builds that emphasize singular powerful attacks (which is perfect for representing the Form V).
I must be the only one who has ever seen the fighter of the party kill most everything in the encounter, while the Wizard and Cleric provided support.
Guy with pointy things smacking them into the bad guys fixes encounters far better than anything else in pretty much EVERY game I have been a part of.
Countdown to "but but but personal experience doesnt matter in the face of such overwhelming theory!" argument in 3.........2.........
Your personal experience is as good as mine. So that's a wash. I'd be interested in hearing how they go about killing everything. It's my experience that fighters in core PF have great difficulties with the mobility and opportunity of options that creatures have at mid to high levels in Pathfinder. None of which is game theory but purely personal experience as someone who has GMed several high level games.
I must be the only one who has ever seen the fighter of the party kill most everything in the encounter, while the Wizard and Cleric provided support.
Guy with pointy things smacking them into the bad guys fixes encounters far better than anything else in pretty much EVERY game I have been a part of.
Countdown to "but but but personal experience doesnt matter in the face of such overwhelming theory!" argument in 3.........2.........
I once played a 3.5 game where you got no xp unless you killed a monster. I played a transmuter wizard who got rid of his enchantment, evocation, and necromancy schools. I cast haste and if the fight got out of hand, polymorph. I cast black tentacles if I wanted to control the field.
I was really really annoyed when the GM said I didn't do anything during a fight because the barbarian and ranger did all the direct damage. Because haste and polymorph were balanced and do nothing I guess...
What was the fighters big buff? Everytime I imagine him in a coversation it goes like this...
Pally: Hey guys! My smites finally worth something, my spell list is special, and I've got the choice to make my weapon blessed by the gods!
Barbarian: I've got the best saves in the game and am the only martial who can get pounce. Sorry about the saves pally.
Pally: Its fine, I've still got superpowers, how about you fighter?
Fighter: I get more +1s. And some not -1s.
Everyone: ...
No, he gets up to +4 to hit and damage (+5 to hit and +8 to damage with feats that other classes can't get factored in). Against ANYTHING. He also gets the ability to get more out of his armour. At top whack, he can have a better AC than any other martial (and that includes the monk), and he gets to hit more accurately than any other martial, and deal more damage on average to any target of his choice.
Yes, it's only some +1s added and -1 negated...but those add up to a lot. You can make of the fighter what you will, that's the point of him. You aren't tied to a particular theme or style.
What was the fighters big buff? Everytime I imagine him in a coversation it goes like this...
Pally: Hey guys! My smites finally worth something, my spell list is special, and I've got the choice to make my weapon blessed by the gods!
Barbarian: I've got the best saves in the game and am the only martial who can get pounce. Sorry about the saves pally.
Pally: Its fine, I've still got superpowers, how about you fighter?
Fighter: I get more +1s. And some not -1s.
Everyone: ...No, he gets up to +4 to hit and damage (+5 to hit and +8 to damage with feats that other classes can't get factored in). Against ANYTHING. He also gets the ability to get more out of his armour. At top whack, he can have a better AC than any other martial (and that includes the monk), and he gets to hit more accurately than any other martial, and deal more damage on average to any target of his choice.
Yes, it's only some +1s added and -1 negated...but those add up to a lot. You can make of the fighter what you will, that's the point of him. You aren't tied to a particular theme or style.
Also he doesn't have class features beyond that was my point. Its boring. You can reflavor and you decide the fluff. The fighter being a blank slate with few skillpoints or features beyond smacking things is not that special. I don't understand how it is I guess. Those +1s to damage aren't that amazing either. Raging barbarian at level 1 already has a bigger to hit. Urban barbarian gives up nothing for that rage. With a courageous weapon he too has big +1s, but with rage powers and possibly superstitious line to bolster his poor saves.
How does he get more out of his armor anyway? He doesn't get +1s to AC. He gets the ability to move in it better. He pays less of a tax for full plate, but you get more AC if you have over 16 dex and wear a mithril breastplate. He gets enough feats he can grab feats that add to his AC or crane style, but that can be expensive even for the fighter.
Edit: Can we not turn this thread into one about the fighter?
Ashiel you have to keep in mind that a LOT of GM's simply don't use the wealth of options available in high level monsters. I can't tell you the number of GM's I've spoken to, for example, who look at a Balor or a Dragon and call it a 'Melee Monster.'
Every time I hear things like this I feel like throwing up a little. I can't understand how anyone can look at a Balor and think "yes, clearly a melee brute" when it's got CL 20 SLAs and the following SLAs:
Constant—true seeing, unholy aura (DC 26)
At will—dominate monster (DC 27), greater dispel magic, greater teleport (self plus 50 lbs. of objects only), power word stun, telekinesis (DC 23)
3/day—quickened telekinesis (DC 23)
1/day—blasphemy (DC 25), fire storm (DC 26), implosion (DC 27), summon (level 9, any 1 CR 19 or lower demon 100%)
I mean said Balor would logically greater teleport to a nice place, summon a Marilith (possibly an advanced Marilith or advanced version of some other demonic critter), then proceed to hurl minions into pools of hellfire while stripping buffs off his foes with a targeted greater dispel magic, then tag-teaming with his uber-marilith minion and no-save stunning any foe that looks quite wounded (<151 HP and you're stunned 1d4 rounds no save), and if you actually get up in his face then you're asking for him to start pounding you with a flurry of vorpal attacks while tossing quickened telekinesis without provoking attacks.
That's not even counting that if you encounter it in its native plane (where its ecology says you are expected to fight it) then he can just wipe most of the party and summoned creatures off the map with blasphemy unless they make a DC 25 Will save at a -4 penalty (which is probably going to boot any animal companions caught in the area).
Gaahhh...my brain it hurts. Whyyyy!? DX
I once played a 3.5 game where you got no xp unless you killed a monster. I played a transmuter wizard who got rid of his enchantment, evocation, and necromancy schools. I cast haste and if the fight got out of hand, polymorph. I cast black tentacles if I wanted to control the field.
I was really really annoyed when the GM said I didn't do anything during a fight because the barbarian and ranger did all the direct damage. Because haste and polymorph were balanced and do nothing I guess...
Aaaaaack! Now it hurts more! Oh GOD!
THE GM, THE GM! The cheating GM!