I don't want a game without gear and I am ok with some classes needing more gear than others.You missed my point. I like magic items. They're cool and fun.
I just wish they were more like Ring of Invisibility, Cloak of Wings and Flaming Swords... You know, things that actually sound magical. Not +X to random attribute/AC/to-hit/damage/saves/whatever that you NEED to have in order to not suck.
+x swords and armor are fine they have been here from the beginning and they reproduce the fantasy stories well.
However, I dislike the stat boosting items and the cloak of resistance.
But the stat-boosters are also fantasy staples from stories, myths, and legend. Belts of Strength, cloaks that ward off danger, these are all fine by me.
As MrSin says, if the item is ESSENTIAL for you to function and isn't pretty common (like magic swords), then it should not be an item, it's really a misplaced class ability and that's what it should be. I feel the same way about feats that are essential to make class abilities work properly - the feat shouldn't be there as a feat, it should be an ability for the class.
Well that's the issue, the entire system is designed around non-casters needing magic items to do stuff beyond low levels.
In fairness, casters need magic items too for protection and utility beyond their spells. All of the classes need and use items, and as such they have become dependent on having a certain number at any given level - to the point where low-magic games are hard to manage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe opting to allow a full-attack on a half-move when your BAB hits +6. That way you could move up to half your speed and full-attack. Still combos decently with haste since haste gives +30 ft. speed.
Also, Pounce isn't perfect. You can only use it on a charge and it can be a big pain to charge. Anyone or anything in your way? No charging. Did you just slay an enemy and now his corpse lies before you in the path of your next enemy? No charging. Is the ground rough? No charging. Are you moving uphill? No charging. Do you need to move around something or bend during your movement? No charging. Are you unable to see effectively? No charging (yay Blindfight). Are you in water? No charging (at least without a Swim speed).
Pounce is horribly imperfect. But it just looks incredibly amazing because it's the best thing martials have to being relevant at higher levels. The problem with martials is while other characters are getting progressively more powerful, martials are getting progressively WEAKER.
See, it's not "linear fighters, quadratic wizards". It's "downspiraling fighters, quadratic wizards". Relatively speaking, Fighters are getting weaker with every passing level.
Level 1: You can move and attack almost anything with a decent chance to one-shot it. CR equivalent enemies rarely have more than 12 hit points, which means a PC focused on damage can probably one-shot that and every other enemy on a successful hit.
Level 20: You are worthless. If you move and attack you are going to do less than a 4th of your average mook's hit points, and you're surrounded by mooks, summoned mooks, animated mooks, called mooks, and then there's a big bad too.
But the stat-boosters are also fantasy staples from stories, myths, and legend. Belts of Strength, cloaks that ward off danger, these are all fine by me.
Well... Yeah... Kinda...
I'd like to see a PF edition where those items are not obligatory must-have gear. A belt that makes you stronger and tougher is pretty cool. Every low-level Fighter using one of these... not so much.As it's we might as well not have any other belt item, because every martial character will use it for stat-boosters. Same goes for cloaks, and, to a lesser degree, amulets. (Ring are somewhat safe from this because we have 2 ring slots, although most often, one of them will be a Ring of Protection.)
But then again, that would involve a huge change to the system, and a unnecessary one. On the list of problems to fix, the fact that so many items are basically math filler ranks pretty low.
See, it's not "linear fighters, quadratic wizards". It's "downspiraling fighters, quadratic wizards". Relatively speaking, Fighters are getting weaker with every passing level.
Well, it's possible to say that if you agree that wizards don't really get much more powerful, based on their number of their highest level spells available at first compared to 20th level. Martials get increases that are conditional rather than blanket.
That said, I can see where you are coming from. However, martial classes do a job that is just as important at 20th level as it is as 1st.
Just the same, I'd like to see some means of improving the move-and-attack options, and see some greater mobility in combat than just hammering away at one another.
As it's we might as well not have any other belt item, because every martial character will use it for stat-boosters.I saw the Blinkback Belt being used once when someone decided to try out a throwing weapon based build. I thought the same thing at first, but he pointed out that attribute boosting ioun stones were cheaper than getting an attribute belt, and then also having to enchant another four weapons if he wanted to make a full attack.
In the end, he's still using a Belt of Str, only it's not a belt anymore.
Let me rephrase... We might as well have 4 less item slots, because they'll be used for numerical bonuses anyway. I'd still say that qualifies as unnecessary math.On that note, how much would you pay for a belt of pounce?
That's a good question. I honestly don't know... But IMO, it should be reasonably accessible by 7~8th level.
Maybe opting to allow a full-attack on a half-move when your BAB hits +6. That way you could move up to half your speed and full-attack. Still combos decently with haste since haste gives +30 ft. speed.
Also, Pounce isn't perfect. You can only use it on a charge and it can be a big pain to charge. Anyone or anything in your way? No charging. Did you just slay an enemy and now his corpse lies before you in the path of your next enemy? No charging. Is the ground rough? No charging. Are you moving uphill? No charging. Do you need to move around something or bend during your movement? No charging. Are you unable to see effectively? No charging (yay Blindfight). Are you in water? No charging (at least without a Swim speed).
Pounce is horribly imperfect. But it just looks incredibly amazing because it's the best thing martials have to being relevant at higher levels. The problem with martials is while other characters are getting progressively more powerful, martials are getting progressively WEAKER.
See, it's not "linear fighters, quadratic wizards". It's "downspiraling fighters, quadratic wizards". Relatively speaking, Fighters are getting weaker with every passing level.
Level 1: You can move and attack almost anything with a decent chance to one-shot it. CR equivalent enemies rarely have more than 12 hit points, which means a PC focused on damage can probably one-shot that and every other enemy on a successful hit.
Level 20: You are worthless. If you move and attack you are going to do less than a 4th of your average mook's hit points, and you're surrounded by mooks, summoned mooks, animated mooks, called mooks, and then there's a big bad too.
Do keep in mind that flying, and to a lesser extent, Jumping, takes care of: People in your way (go over them), rough ground (go over it); corpse of an enemy (jump or fly over it); moving uphill (if you can jump to it, or fly without reduced move); moving around something (fly or jump over it, possibly); and water (you can fly underwater).
Which is why, at higher levels, melee fly. Note that Jump is part of normal movement, you are perfectly able to jump as part of a charge, or to get around obstacles in your way.
However, the jump rules really do hit 'high jumps' hard, since you have a /10 distance modifier. One of the nice things about Pouncing Tiger is that it had a stance that added 10' to all your jumps...which meant up and down as well as sideways. I still think that boots of striding and springing should just add 5' to all jump distances, for much the same effect.
==Aelryinth
However, the jump rules really do hit 'high jumps' hard, since you have a /10 distance modifier. One of the nice things about Pouncing Tiger is that it had a stance that added 10' to all your jumps...which meant up and down as well as sideways. I still think that boots of striding and springing should just add 5' to all jump distances, for much the same effect.It also had sudden leap, a 1st level power allowing the user to jump as a swift action. A Tiger Claw Warblade could move and attack as soon as level 1, though it didn't really become effective until level 5 gave leaping dragon stance that added 10ft and negated the penalty for making a jump without a running start. Then again, they didn't need that until they started getting iteratives anyway, or if they had 3+ natural attacks, two weapon users just used wolf fang strike.
Pouncing Tiger style is a thing in pathfinder. Leaping Dragon Stance is the stance your thinking of. Great when used with Leap Attack, depending on how you see the wording of the two. Leap attack + Leaping Dragon + Emerald razor. Full power attack with x3 power attack damage against a targets touch AC.
Warblades were fun yes.
Well that's the issue, the entire system is designed around non-casters needing magic items to do stuff beyond low levels.In fairness, casters need magic items too for protection and utility beyond their spells. All of the classes need and use items, and as such they have become dependent on having a certain number at any given level - to the point where low-magic games are hard to manage.
My point is more that a "patch" item is pretty much par for the course for martial characters who want to do their job of being a martial character in 3.X.
3.0 Martial characters needed Boots of Speed to get an extra move action so they could move and full attack just as much as they needed a magic sword.
3.5/PF Martials just had access to extra move action granting items taken away from them for so long that adding one back in feels like a patch when it's really just a return to what the base system was designed to have available to them from the start.
I agree casters are a little weak. I mean only two attacks wtf!?!!? It's impossible to hit things at high levels. I have to take feats just to be proficient with my great-sword and full-plate. At the end of the day casters are just fighters with worse BAB, HD, and less feats. I mean how am I suppose to run up beat things to death? Summons? That's just not personal enough. Buffs? Take too long to cast. Nah just give me my full power attack Greater vital strike vanilla fighter great sword fighter.
Seriously though, how would casters kill things without martials? Spell damage is a poor substitute to Great-sword to the face. Casters can bend the laws of reality to better match their preference, but someone has to smash the BBEG's face in and live long enough to get close.
Cleric and druid say hi.
And Oracles.
If you expand to 2/3 casters, we also have Inquisitors, Magi, Bards and Summoners.Not to mention summons and the always lovely SoL spells...
The +5 BAB loss hurts. Not mention strength is not your max stat, lower con, less money spent on melee, ect. Druids can overcome for awhile by having strength bonuses that aren't enhancement, but even then the penalties and logistics of size start being a factor. Maintaining buff caster combat only gets you on par with a fighter or a paladin and only last for so long. Martials last for as long as the potions of cure-light wounds do.
Summoners are fun. Summons make better tanks than martials, but will still have trouble actually hitting things. Which martials aren't for tanking. Casters are the tanks. They prevent damage. Fighters deal the damage, while being able to survive a counter attack.
The +5 BAB loss hurts.
Indeed it does, but nothing that can't be solved by high level spells. ( or even mid/low level ones)
Not mention strength is not your max stat
I dunno... When I make melee focused Oracles/Clerics/Druids I do tend to focus Str. YMMV.
lower con
I'll give you that one. Although self healing and buffing makes up for it.
less money spent on melee, ect.
Why would any melee focused character spend less money on melee??? A melee Cleric is just as likely to buy a magic sword and belt fo giant strenght as a melee Fighter. If anything, the casters will have more money.
Druids can overcome for awhile by having strength bonuses that aren't enhancement, but even then the penalties and logistics of size start being a factor.
I dunno... Wild Shape, Animal Companions, spontaneous summoning and self buffin healing pretty much garantee Druids are a threat in any kind of enviroment.
Maintaining buff caster combat only gets you on par with a fighter or a paladin and only last for so long.
That ay be true, but while Clerics/Druids are not as damaging as Fighters and Paladins, they sure are good enough to live without the aid of any martial class.
Martials last for as long as the potions of cure-light wounds do.
Potions are extremely expensive. Wands are cheap, of course, but without a caster to use them, they are not as reliable.
Summoners are fun. Summons make better tanks than martials, but will still have trouble actually hitting things.
They will not hit as often as Fighters, but they will hit often enough. Especially considering Summoners have access to a some long-lasting buffs.
Which martials aren't for tanking. Casters are the tanks. They prevent damage. Fighters deal the damage, while being able to survive a counter attack.
That doesn't even make sense. Any enemy with half a brain will target whoever it sees as the greater threat.
Clerics, Druids and Oracles can easily survive without the aid of Fighters, Rangers or Paladins. Especially at higher levels. It's a lot harder for martials to thrive without spell-casting friends...
I'm not saying martials are not useful. They contribute a great deal to the party and a real beasts in combat, especially Paladins and Barbarians, IMO.
My point is that they're a lot easier to replace than casters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My point is more that a "patch" item is pretty much par for the course for martial characters who want to do their job of being a martial character in 3.X.Well that's the issue, the entire system is designed around non-casters needing magic items to do stuff beyond low levels.In fairness, casters need magic items too for protection and utility beyond their spells. All of the classes need and use items, and as such they have become dependent on having a certain number at any given level - to the point where low-magic games are hard to manage.
I agree, it's par for the course. I also have to point out that this was a bad precedent set by 3.X, and there are better ways of doing things.
Seriously though, how would casters kill things without martials? Spell damage is a poor substitute to Great-sword to the face. Casters can bend the laws of reality to better match their preference, but someone has to smash the BBEG's face in and live long enough to get close.
This is why the 'disparity' in power is not one of importance, IMHO. While I'd like to see martials do more (particularly the monk) I can't agree with those that seem to think they are redundant. Every party needs somebody to dish raw damage, and martial classes do that better than any other.
|
I've asked this elsewhere, but I want opinions directly from those that most use the system. How is Pathfinder faring with caster/martial disparity these days? The "Linear Fighter, Quadratic Wizard" issue, or the fact that at higher levels (even at mid levels) casters dominate. Another name is CoDzilla (Cleric or Druid). Basically casters can perform as well as martial classes, but then have a whole toolchest of spells on top of it (teleport, fly, Ddoor, etc). Plus a lot of martial functionality relies on full attacks, but a moving opponent prevents such things (a big blow to Monk in particular), whereas a caster has no such issues.
D&D 3.5 had big problems with it, and PF core rules alleviated the rules a bit. But now with the Advanced Players Guide and other mechanic additions, I just wonder if things are better at all.
I'm curious both hypothetically (from a build perspective) and practically. In your campaigns do optimized casters run roughshod over the martial characters?
I remember in one high level (15ish) campaign of 3.5, 4 of the PCs (Monk, Warlock, Paladin, and Ranger) took out 2 Vrocks while the Cleric took out 4 others by himself. That kind of stuff.
Thanks!
In my humble opinion I think that the game is leaps and bounds over 3.x in terms of game balance. Most of the core martials have been given a very big leg up. Barbarians are currently THE mundane warrior. Paladins and Rangers are both very well balanced and play comfortably alongside spellcasters throughout most levels. Casters have been heavily Stealth-nerfed while having more options built into their classes.
As someone who was very familiar with a lot of the nonsense from 3.x, Pathfinder is a much, much more balanced game with far less troubles overall. I disagree with some of the splat material and Fighters, Rogues, and Monks are still lagging (though monks have gotten a lot of splat-book love which has helped them out from core).
I am so sick of people crying about high level unbalancing of the classes, get over it. It doesn't need to be balanced. Crits happen. Allof your crying about spellcasters is what started fourth ed. Just shut up and roleplay. It is not a video game. It needs to be unbalanced
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Aku, I have to point out that all that 'splat book love' largely helped out every other martial class improve as well, and more than the monk even when using toys meant for the monk. Monk is still lagging behind.
There are a few houserules I have in place to level the playing field for the people who cast spells, and the people who do not.
Vital strike has been adjusted to do a fixed +2d6 per step in the chain, and can be used in ANY situation where you are reduced to a single attack. Including charge and spring attack.
Rogues and Monks have full BAB and d10 hp. Monks already have full bab on flurry, and on CMB/CMD after level 3. And rogues don't contribute in a meaningful way in combat apart from damage, which they don't do particularily well in the first place. Tried playing a classic dualwielding rogue? Dat To-Hit, dat damage output when not flanking.
I have completed a couple of APs, and gone halfway or so in others. And every single time, it is my experience that the pecking order goes something like this: PartialBAB noncasting - Full Bab Noncasting - Partial Bab partial casting - full casting
Suffice to say, in the Jade Regent Game i am in, if the "power level" of the monk/ninja is a factor of 1, the sorcerer is a 5-6, my bard is a 4-5, and the magus wielding an artifact and an OP magical item that heals him every time he uses an arcane pool point is about 10, as he can cast three spells (one himself, one of 3 preset from the artifact, and one cure spell from the item) on TOP of doing a full attack which does more damage than anyone else can hope for. This does not take into account the ninja's ability to sneak and deal with traps, not my bard's ability to do social stuff or skills. Just their ability to contribute in a fight.
There are a few houserules I have in place to level the playing field for the people who cast spells, and the people who do not.
Vital strike has been adjusted to do a fixed +2d6 per step in the chain, and can be used in ANY situation where you are reduced to a single attack. Including charge and spring attack.
Rogues and Monks have full BAB and d10 hp. Monks already have full bab on flurry, and on CMB/CMD after level 3. And rogues don't contribute in a meaningful way in combat apart from damage, which they don't do particularily well in the first place. Tried playing a classic dualwielding rogue? Dat To-Hit, dat damage output when not flanking.
I have completed a couple of APs, and gone halfway or so in others. And every single time, it is my experience that the pecking order goes something like this: PartialBAB noncasting - Full Bab Noncasting - Partial Bab partial casting - full casting
Suffice to say, in the Jade Regent Game i am in, if the "power level" of the monk/ninja is a factor of 1, the sorcerer is a 5-6, my bard is a 4-5, and the magus wielding an artifact and an OP magical item that heals him every time he uses an arcane pool point is about 10, as he can cast three spells (one himself, one of 3 preset from the artifact, and one cure spell from the item) on TOP of doing a full attack which does more damage than anyone else can hope for. This does not take into account the ninja's ability to sneak and deal with traps, not my bard's ability to do social stuff or skills. Just their ability to contribute in a fight.
In my games I house ruled Vital Strike can be used in full attacks, charges, with cleave, on spring attacks. I've toyed with the idea of Full BAB/D10 HD rogues/ninjas/monks but haven't tried it. Seem reasonable though. I did add a new feature to the fighter class giving them a choice between a floating good save or more skill points. Basically they get to choose will or reflex as good save or get +4 skill points and 2 class skills.
|
You know, Zark, I'd love to see Fighters and other martials .... feats scale with level and their mobility and in-combat options get better based on character level.
You might check out Scaling Combat Feats in the Pathfinder RPG in the premier issue of Gygax Magazine for feats that do exactly that!
You might check out Scaling Combat Feats in the Pathfinder RPG in the premier issue of Gygax Magazine for feats that do exactly that!
Or Frank and K's "Tome Feats" do the same thing, as do most of the feats in "Kirthfinder." It's so obvious an idea that's it's hard to believe that Pathfinder chose to stick with "feat chains" instead of simply implementing scaling feats.
Or Frank and K's "Tome Feats" do the same thing, as do most of the feats in "Kirthfinder." It's so obvious an idea that's it's hard to believe that Pathfinder chose to stick with "feat chains" instead of simply implementing scaling feats.You might check out Scaling Combat Feats in the Pathfinder RPG in the premier issue of Gygax Magazine for feats that do exactly that!
To be fair, they had to keep things similar to 3.5 in order to attract DnD players. There was a lot of advertisement about backwards compatibility and whatnot, after all.
Why they decided to make some feat chains even longer, weaker or both (like the Improved [Combat Maneuver] feats), is still a mystery to me...
Making feat chains longer and weaker is contrary to backwards compatibility. I think the left hand didn't know what the right was doing. And one of the hands wanted martials to suck while the other wanted them to be cool. I wish the hand that wanted cool martials had handled the rogue and fighter instead of the barbarian and paladin.This, this, a thousand times this!
And mebbe the monk, too...
I really like the idea of the Rogue. Been playing them since they were called Thieves in 1E AD&D (back when you HAD to be a halfling to have a decent chance with most abilities).
Once I got on the boards here, and started reading the complaints/criticisms about Rogues, I realized my groups and I had been houseruling a lot of stuff without knowing it; lots of the "rogues suck" problems are easily cured with a dose of "Uh, what if we make it make sense?"
Anyway.
I think that there is a basic imbalance between casters and martials -- but I also think that a good party can handle it without too much trouble. And a bit (or a lot) of house rules. Eh. Here's your 2cp.
What were your houserules for rogues?
Oh, well... houseruling Stealth doesn't even count as houseruling...
If you follow RAW, Stealth is the basically useless unless you have constant access to invisibility, and even then, I'm nto sure how well it works.
I think Rogues problems are a bit more severe than that, but the "mundane stealth sucks" thing is probably the most irritating flaw. As that is maybe the most iconic ability for Rogues.
Once I got on the boards here, and started reading the complaints/criticisms about Rogues, I realized my groups and I had been houseruling a lot of stuff without knowing it; lots of the "rogues suck" problems are easily cured with a dose of "Uh, what if we make it make sense?"
The game is written with the idea that the players and the DM will try to make sense of it.
A lot of people in this forum complains about stealth rules for example, but personally I do not know any DM that enforce the ridiculous 360° vision line of sight idea, nor I would play in such game.
EDIT: besides the stealth issue, how do your group handle the others rogue issues?
I don't know anyone who doesn't use 360 vision, as there is no facing.
I don't know anyone who doesn't use 360 vision, as there is no facing.
I had a guy use facing once. Was actually pretty brutal because he ruled we had to see the bards to get the effect of the performances. Of course the fighters weren't constantly staring behind them...
I don't know anyone who doesn't use 360 vision, as there is no facing.I had a guy use facing once. Was actually pretty brutal because he ruled we had to see the bards to get the effect of the performances. Of course the fighters weren't constantly staring behind them...
I kinda like the idea of facing, but it's too complicated and time-consuming to be worth the trouble. I feel the same way about rolling initiative every round.
Those are some cool ideas from older editions of DnD, but too impratical.
3.5 had a Facing Additional Rule that was simple to add in.
It even had a Shield Facing Rule that was simple to add in.
3.5 had a Facing Additional Rule that was simple to add in.
It even had a Shield Facing Rule that was simple to add in.
It was simple to track, but a bit boring to keep track of... And it doesn't add much to the game anyway, as the rules didn't take it in consideration.
I don't think it was worth the trouble... YMMV, though.
@TOZ: That is true.
@Facing: It adds to the game if your Party uses them logically. Like my group has used it to get the drop on plenty of groups.
|
I always allow an opposed Stealth check to avoid being noticed when moving through an area with line of sight to the perceiver. If they are spotted, then they are considered 'observed' until they can break line of sight. This simulates the possibility of the perceiver turning the wrong or right way when the stealther makes his move.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have Passive Test results that I always use. The Passive Test is always 1+the Modifier for the test. So a +5 Perception gives a Passive Result of 6. So a Passive Stealth of 7 means you are unobserved. If the person is actively on guard then it is an Opposed Roll.
We got the Idea from reading the A Song of Ice & Fire RPG Rulebook. So poison typically won't effect you if your Passive Save is successful.
NOTE: On things like a Save and Attack then the Passive Roll is 2+Mods. These are used if you are attacking a door and can hit it on anything short of a Natural 1 then you auto-succeed.
We have found this gives us the Ability to have a Wizard break a door but typically will mean the Barbarian or Fighter will have an easier time of it.
Magic Weapons, Armor, Cloaks of Resistance, ect ... are all item patches to a fundamental problem.
No
Magic Weapons, Armor, Cloaks of Resistance, ect ... are all item patches to a fundamental problem.No
Please elaborate.
Making feat chains longer and weaker is contrary to backwards compatibility. I think the left hand didn't know what the right was doing. And one of the hands wanted martials to suck while the other wanted them to be cool. I wish the hand that wanted cool martials had handled the rogue and fighter instead of the barbarian and paladin.This, this, a thousand times this!
And mebbe the monk, too...
[...]
I get to answer two jerks in one post. Great.
Implying that one dev or one part of a dev or one part of the DEgv team WANTED the martials to suck and by the same token implying or even right out claiming that martials do suck is not only BS but also rank high on any jerk meter.martials don't suck in Pathfinder (well rogues perhaps, if you count them as martials).
And all this BS about the monk sucking is just hyperbolic. Especially with the APG (Archetypes and the temple sword) the new ruling that say "You can make all of your attacks with a single monk weapon" and the FAQ has now reduced the cost of the Amulet of Mighty Fists, Ki by passing DR cold iron/sliver, new magic toys, UC, UM, and the Dimensional Dervish/Savant feat chain.
BTW, AMIB already proved a Hungry Ghost monk can match the DPR of a fighter.
Please elaborate.Magic Weapons, Armor, Cloaks of Resistance, ect ... are all item patches to a fundamental problem.No
A) I don't see a fundamental problem.
B) I like magic stuff. It let me spice up my characters.C) Auto-scaling is boring. +1 magic weapon at level 4, +2 at level 8, +3 at level 12, etc. It is perhaps good, but it is boring.
Finally again: I don't see a fundamental problem.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I get to answer two jerks in one post. Great.
Their opinions differ from my own. Therefore, they are jerks.
Please elaborate.Magic Weapons, Armor, Cloaks of Resistance, ect ... are all item patches to a fundamental problem.NoA) I don't see a fundamental problem.
B) I like magic stuff. It let me spice up my characters.
C) Auto-scaling is boring. +1 magic weapon at level 4, +2 at level 8, +3 at level 12, etc. It is perhaps good, but it is boring.Finally again: I don't see a fundamental problem.
Obviously Fighter Types needing certain magic items to do their basic job is not a problem if that is the flavor/style of campaign that you like.
It is, however, pretty much fundamental to the system. Which is the point I was aiming for.