Dispose of action types in favor of fungible action points.
For example give everyone 20 AP per round. Some monsters may get more on a case by case basis. Excess AP at round's end are lost.
- Moving your speed takes 10 AP in 5' increments. Yes this means tracking fractional AP for movement, there's no way to get away from that without putting the normal AP per round at something like 360.
- Most other move actions take 8 AP.
- Making an attack uses 4 AP per 1/2 strength mod it has by default. (ie. anything that increases the strength mod does not also increase the action cost). This cost is reduced by 1 AP per 1/2 strength mod per 5 BAB.
- Charging allows you to count AP spent on terminal straight line movement towards a single attack made at the end of the charge.
- Casting a spell usually takes 15 AP.
- Casting a full round spell takes 18 AP, but the effect still takes place on the next round.
- Applying metamagic as a spontaneous caster uses 2 AP.
- Most other standard actions use 12 AP.
- Swift actions become 1-5 AP actions depending on the action. Some free actions become 1 AP actions.
- Immediate actions take AP on your next turn.
- Most, but not necessarily all, currently swift and immediate actions get a once per turn clause.
- When staggered or acting in a surprise round all AP costs between 8 and 16 are reduced to 8.
Stand and attack magically goes away. Flurry and its variations require rewrites, as does rapid shot, and various free and swift actions require consideration, but for the most part power should stay about the same. And the natural attack/weapon attack distinction goes away.
A more complicated action system could improve the game as a whole. This would go beyond just a martials.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've already rolled Climb, Jump and Swim into Athletics in my game, a Strength based skill.
As to the OP's original question... I've used these 2 "fixes" in my games and so far they've worked for my group. Perhaps they'd work for him/her as well.
1)I strictly enforce the use of spell components -even for divine spells - and disallow any feat/ability that negates their requirement(other than eschew materials). (oh, you're all out of 25K gp diamonds, looks like no wish spell for you).
2)I allow certain combat feats to improve based on your BAB. (for instance weapon focus adds +1 to attack rolls and an additional +1 to attack rolls for every 6 points of your BAB).
The 1st option requires alot of extra bookkeeping by the PC caster and trust by the DM that the PC isn't cheating. I wouldn't use it with some groups i've played with, but with my current group everyone is trustworthy and more importantly cool with the change.
The 2nd option requires alot of extra bookkeeping by the DM and a certain amount of rules-fu to not make the feats too overpowered and thus create a bigger problem than you're trying to solve. Some DM's don't have the extra time or give-a-!@#$ to implement such a change.
In short, each gaming group is different and the solution that works for 1 group might be desasterous for another one. The best thing i can say is talk with your group to see if there's really a problem, and if so how you (as a group) can fix it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
every few days I click and open up this thread
and I put my cursor in the typing boxand I try to type in it
but the only thing I can type in this thread is
AGGGGHHHHHHH
AGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHH
AGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH
AAAAAAAGGGGGHHHHHHHHover and over
well I mean except for all these other words
I'm having a similar experience.
I keep wanting to type, "This is the Advice forum, not the Suggestions/House Rules/Homebrew forum!"
- If you want to suggest paizo make changes to the game, go to the appropriate place.
- If you want to discuss extensive house rules, go to the appropriate place.
- If you want to make a homebrew game, go to the appropriate place.
- If you want to disagree that OP has a problem, PM or start a new thread.
- If you want to insult each other, join 4chan.
At the core of the issue is that each martial character is meant to represent a single martial trope, while each caster gets to represent more or less all spellcasting tropes there is.Um, excuse me, perhaps you haven't heard of school specialization? My conjurer is slightly less efficient at raising the dead than some wizards are, and needs to dedicate at least like two spells per day to the extremely limited "do stuff" school.
I'm not talking about individual characters that have chosen specific spells as much as the design philosophy.
If a D&D/PF designer reads a novel and it has a mage that can do some awesome spell effect:
"Oh, that's awesome! Let's make that a sorcerer/wizard spell.
If the same designer reads a novel that has a martial character that can do some awesome martial effect:
"Oh, that's awesome! Let's make that a prestige class/archetype.
This is all over the game and has been since at least 3.0. A single wizard can cover many, many different tropes wizards from literature at the same time, while a martial character can just fill a single trope.
|
Pathfinder suffers from some of the same problems that every other game suffers from; namely power creep and balance issues at higher levels.
I wouldn't say EVERY other game. There are quite a few games where your character doesn't really gain much in the way of power, and a lot that lack levels altogether.
every few days I click and open up this thread
and I put my cursor in the typing boxand I try to type in it
but the only thing I can type in this thread is
AGGGGHHHHHHH
AGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHH
AGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH
AAAAAAAGGGGGHHHHHHHHover and over
well I mean except for all these other words
I'm having a similar experience.
I keep wanting to type, "This is the Advice forum, not the Suggestions/House Rules/Homebrew forum!"
- If you want to suggest paizo make changes to the game, go to the appropriate place.
- If you want to discuss extensive house rules, go to the appropriate place.
- If you want to make a homebrew game, go to the appropriate place.
- If you want to disagree that OP has a problem, PM or start a new thread.
- If you want to insult each other, join 4chan.
OP's first post sounds like he wants house-rules in the form of advice.
Although his first damn reply is "LOL nerf casters". Which ignores OP's question.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder suffers from some of the same problems that every other game suffers from; namely power creep and balance issues at higher levels.I wouldn't say EVERY other game. There are quite a few games where your character doesn't really gain much in the way of power, and a lot that lack levels altogether.
Dude Boardwalk and Park Place need a nerf to make the side after go more balanced.
They can one shot opponents late game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not to mention I doubt you can find a Colossal greatsword just laying around. Nor at Ye Olde Sword Shoppe.
unless youre playing FF12, in which case they've got them hanging on the back wall!
The Guided property irks me slightly but if it were restricted to monk weapons/unarmed attack enhancers, it works thematically and helps a class that truly is MAD.
anyone that concentrates on WIS (clerics, druids, inquisitors) all could see some use of the guided property, and limiting it to just monks would be kind of a kick between the knees to them, or promoting the ever-present monk issue of "dip and be better than the base class".
If you want to insult each other, join 4chan.
hey, we're not ALWAYS that bad. there's lots of boards with a wide variety of people to meet and insul--discuss things relatively maturely about
Actually, FFXII was pretty light on super-huge weapons.
You'd want X (Auron's blades) or VII (the Buster Sword).
im talking the behemoth(the monster)'s swords hanging in the back of every weapon shop by a bunch of chains in FF12.
aurons swords are pretty firmly into 2-hander territory, and while i'd qualify the base buster sword as large, some of cloud's weapons aren't quite so spectacularly huge.
it is true. Not to mention that all those powerful Evil Wizards seem to employ years, even decades building their undead army (example) and a wizard PC just need to have the right level and have the money and puff.
well, those and a good deal of corpses, and a place out of the way of prying eyes, and a way to contain them without neighboring cities/kingdoms/paladin orders breathing down his neck for "perverting the natural order of life and death", or "robbing the graves of no less than six cities", or "being evil"
though that last bit is debatable since at that point they're just golems (which happen to be powered by negative energy) and can be order to do whatever the caster wants, including saving orphans, tilling fields (instead of the frail mortal farmers), rowing ships (instead of tiring out the living crew), and other ways of improving the general standard of living in an area.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are you not entertained?FTFY
I should really watch that movie already.
it is true. Not to mention that all those powerfull Evil Wizards seem to employ years, even decades building their undear army (example) and a wizard PC just need to have the right level and have the money and puff.At the core of the issue is that each martial character is meant to represent a single martial trope, while each caster gets to represent more or less all spellcasting tropes there is.Um, excuse me, perhaps you haven't heard of school specialization? My conjurer is slightly less efficient at raising the dead than some wizards are, and needs to dedicate at least like two spells per day to the extremely limited "do stuff" school.I'm not talking about individual characters that have chosen specific spells as much as the design philosophy.
If a D&D/PF designer reads a novel and it has a mage that can do some awesome spell effect:
"Oh, that's awesome! Let's make that a sorcerer/wizard spell.
If the same designer reads a novel that has a martial character that can do some awesome martial effect:
"Oh, that's awesome! Let's make that a prestige class/archetype.This is all over the game and has been since at least 3.0. A single wizard can cover many, many different tropes wizards from literature at the same time, while a martial character can just fill a single trope.
They don't even need money, they can use Blood Money. (Why? Because spells that don't deal damage are virtually all about rewriting some aspect of the rules. Including the rule about spending money on components.)
I should really watch that movie already.Are you not entertained?FTFY
i recommend it, personally.
You win one Internet.
- If you want to insult each other, join 4chan.
Thank you:) 4chan really is an excellent training ground for insults. Perhaps the greatest concentration of experts ever assembled in the English speaking world.
OP's first post sounds like he wants house-rules in the form of advice.
Yes, he does explicitly rule out muser-gimping houserules, and imply that he would rather boost martials. He doesn't explicitly say that he wants to boost martials using house rules rather than advice withing the existing rules, but it does seem that he's open to it.
I am getting really tired of the current meme that Fighters, Monks and Rogues suck. They don't. All three classes as a blast to play and are popular. Yes, for certain roles there can be better builds- so? And at the highest levels spellcasters rule- but few ever play up there.
I always liked to play fighters, rogues and the like. But I grew tired of playing a second rate character and now I enjoy my witch. So perhaps you still like those classes and don't care that they are much weaker than the rest but others do care.
Yes they suck. Hard. And in my opinion the fighter is the worst of them.
I'll keep it short and listy:
- Make manoeuvres much more easily accessible and reliable (I collapse both the improved and the greater versions into 2 feats each)
- Make Power Attack a standard combat option not requiring a feat. Drop it as a prerequisite.
- Drop the combat expertise feat, remove it from all prerequisites. Add a feat tree that improves defensive fighting in two steps (first feat: to hit -2, AC +3; second: -1,+4) and doesn't stack with crane style.
- Attach some kind of drain or cost to spells. Example: if you cast a spell with a level higher than 1/4 of your character level, make a fortitude save (10+spell level) or become fatigued, if already fatigued, become exhausted, if already exhausted, become staggered until rested for 10 minutes, if already staggered, become unconscious for 10 minutes.
- Attach high gold prices to powerful OoC utility spells. [I typically houserule 100+ GP per mile of teleportation e.g.]
- Give Fighters 4 skill points, make perception, stealth & acrobatics class skills. Make bravery +1 per 2 levels
- Make Weapon Focus & Specialisation scale (slowly) with BAB. Drop the greater versions. (Focus: +1, +1 per 8 BAB. Specialisation: +2/+1 per 4 BAB beyond 4). Make the martial versatility feats available to all races.
- Give Rogues full BAB, sneak attack at level 1,3,5,... and at level 2 a class features that allows them to make a single attack with sneak attack damage as a standard action.
- Make Weapon Finesse also grant DEX to damage.
That can easily be applied as house rules.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You were doing great up until the caster nerfs.
I'd love some caster nerfs (or rather, forced specialization). I don't think that kind of nerf is the way to go though. It's too heavy-handed and adds another layer of complexity.
I've been considering removing the first tier on the maneuvers lists, and replace it with maneuver proficiency which classes gain a few each of that have roughly the same effect. Not sure on exact implementation though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the people talking about caster nerfs should go to their own thread and quit soiling this one with unwanted advice. OP clearly stated he did no want caster nerfs. He wanted martial buffs.
I maneuvers to be a waste on the whole. They tend to lose effectiveness rapidly at higher levels. The 13 int requirement on half of them is all the more aweful.
I don't like forced specialization and I rather hope the idea doesn't spread.
Plus it has the potential to clutter the game with too many sub-classes ("But, Porphy, aren't schools subclasses already? And Archetypes?" - sort of. But I think if casters are forced to specialize, to the exclusion of all spells outside their specialty [I assume that's what Ilja means by specialize] - the Devs will feel compelled to "give them something in exchange," and it will ultimately devolve into what amounts to a class for each specialty.)
Though that's not my reason for disliking forced specialization of that sort. Or at least not my only one. My meta-reason is that while some things need to be done, nothing that radical needs to be done.
Anyhow Marthkus is correct; we should keep on the topic of discussing ways to improve Martials in this thread, and avoid casty controversies (those can have their own threads). This thread is relatively productive when it sticks to topic (a bunch of people have had interesting ideas), and a deluge of nonproductive bickering when it drifts.
(I'm not against topic drift as such, but I am against unproductive topic drift).
i recommend it, personally.I should really watch that movie already.Are you not entertained?FTFY
I don't. It's incredibly dumb. OTOH, if you make it past the first 15 minutes or so, you're immune to dumb and may as well carry on.
Plus it has the potential to clutter the game with too many sub-classes ("But, Porphy, aren't schools subclasses already? And Archetypes?" - sort of. But I think if casters are forced to specialize, to the exclusion of all spells outside their specialty [I assume that's what Ilja means by specialize] - the Devs will feel compelled to "give them something in exchange," and it will ultimately devolve into what amounts to a class for each specialty.)
I was thinking more along the lines of picking 3 schools, not just 1. One of those is primary and gets you benefits in the same vein as a domain, the others are just as normal. Everything else is strictly off limits, even to the point of not being considered on your casting list for UMD checks. Clerics and druids should have to make that choice as well, but divided up into broad categories of thematic domains or some equivalent. 3/4 casters get access to 2 schools and 1/2 casters access 1 school. In both cases the available choices should be thematically limited depending on class.
despite attempts to steer the conversation away from casters I remind you that questions of balance are always in relation to other comparable classes, so nerfing casters IS a way of relatively improving martial classes.
I feel that combat feats are under-powered. I think we should do away with many feat chains and instead have some feats scale with BAB. Better feats would help the fighter and other kinds of martials.
For example two weapon fighting, improved two weapon fighting, and Greater TWF could all be one feat that gives you more attacks as your BAB increases.
The weapon focus tree could stand to be one feat that scales with fighter level.
The Vital strike chain could stand to be one feat that works for all single attack actions.
Cleave, great cleave, cleaving finish, improved cleaving finish could all be one feat.
Dodge and mobility should be the same feat.
And so forth.
I am also of the opinion that some of the combat feats are underpowered. However, I might suggest one of two different approaches to this with regard to combat feat chains that are fully accessible to non-fighters. Instead of making Two-Weapon Fighting, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting and Greater Two-Weapon Fighting all one single feat that either casters simply cannot take or enjoy all of the benefits from, you could either make it one single feat with a specific caveat that only specific martial character classes enjoy the benefits of automatically acquiring greater access to the feat's higher-level abilities (which would remove the possibility of a caster ever acquiring those abilities, which I feel is not desirable), or you could leave the existing feats alone and grant those specific martial character classes the ability to automatically upgrade/acquire those additional feats if they already have the prerequisite. This would allow your caster to use advanced combat feats if they really wanted to invest in them while still giving the specific martial character classes a leg up. In the case of the fighter, I believe this was the intention when granting them bonus fighter feats. Unfortunately, as one feat that requires character level 13 to acquire (such as Ifrit racial feat Blazing Aura, for example) is not the equivalent of a delayed blast fireball which can be acquired when the wizard reaches character level 13, it is challenging to find equivalency when comparing a fighter's feats to a wizard's spells, and therein lies the problem.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Instead of making Two-Weapon Fighting, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting and Greater Two-Weapon Fighting all one single feat that either casters simply cannot take or enjoy all of the benefits from, you could either make it one single feat with a specific caveat that only specific martial character classes enjoy the benefits of automatically acquiring greater access to the feat's higher-level abilities (which would remove the possibility of a caster ever acquiring those abilities, which I feel is not desirable), or you could leave the existing feats alone and grant those specific martial character classes the ability to automatically upgrade/acquire those additional feats if they already have the prerequisite.
I think that adds too much complexity for not much payoff.
As long as the prerequisites for the existing feats carry over into the upgrades, it's really not going to be a big problem.
You can fight with a weapon wielded in each of your hands. You can make one extra attack each round with the secondary weapon.
Prerequisite: Dex 15.
Benefit: Your penalties on attack rolls for fighting with two weapons are reduced. The penalty for your primary hand lessens by 2 and the one for your off hand lessens by 6. See Two-Weapon Fighting.
If you have a base attack bonus of +6 and a Dex of 17, in addition to the standard single extra attack you get with an off-hand weapon, you get a second attack with it, albeit at a –5 penalty.
If you have a base attack bonus of +11 and a Dex of 19, you get a third attack with your off-hand weapon, albeit at a –10 penalty.
Normal: If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. When fighting in this way you suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand. If your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. An unarmed strike is always considered light.
A wizard can take this feat. Unless he's multiclassing into Eldritch knight, he's not going to get much out of it. Unless he multiclasses into something with a higher base attack bonus, he'll never benefit from the third clause in the benefit section. Two weapon fighting for a caster having to handle somatic components is a serious problem.
A rogue can take this feat, and they will progress throughout their carreer. A cleric could take this feat too. The dex requirements get pretty hefty for a cleric - I don't see too many taking this.
You make a single attack that deals significantly more damage than normal.
Prerequisite: Base attack bonus +6
Benefit: When you use the attack action, you can make one attack at your highest base attack bonus that deals additional damage. Roll the weapon’s damage dice for the attack twice and add the results together before adding bonuses from Strength, weapon abilities (such as flaming), precision-based damage, and other damage bonuses. These extra weapon damage dice are not multiplied on a critical hit, but are added to the total.
when your base attack bonus reaches +11, and 5 points thereafter, you may roll the weapon's damage dice an additional time, and add the results together before adding bonuses from Strength, weapon abilities (such as flaming), precision-based damage, and other damage bonuses. These extra weapon damage dice are not multiplied on a critical hit, but are added to the total.
Very simple, and only characters with a full BAB will benefit fully from this feat. I would prefer to allow vital strike to work with things like Spring Attack and Charge...but that's not really part of this particular conversation.
|
|
Another solution...move the bulk of non-combat spells into a ritual system akin to 4e's, where ANY class can perform the ritual.
I really did like the idea of a ritual system. It's iconic in so much sword and sorcery pulp fantasy, and it'd be nice to have a robust support for it in rpgs. the only support for it I'm aware of in 3.5 was epic casting and hag covens.
It'd be cool if a large cult led by a mid-level adept could concievably cast something like control weather to terrorize some farm village until the heroes run in and kill enough chanting cultists, or something.
despite attempts to steer the conversation away from casters I remind you that questions of balance are always in relation to other comparable classes, so nerfing casters IS a way of relatively improving martial classes.
1)(the part I snipped out) I still don't like it. :p But that's a debate for another time.
2) technically you're correct but people here can read multiple threads and all attempts in this thread to discuss how to improve martials by nerfing casters have produced nothing but the "NO U!" cycle. Absolutely nothing productive was accomplished. The only time this thread moves the ball forward in an interesting way is when it focuses on martials.
That may be a deplorable commentary on human nature, but it's a reality. it may be ideal to discuss everything in the context of everything else, but how successfully has that ideal been approached in this discussion? Epic Fail comes to mind.
Similarly, in my observation, ways to improve (by toning down, or otherwise) casters seems to work better in threads devoted to them.
Again, the same people can read both.
Also again, I don't tend to agree with Marthkus on everything, but on the one thing of keeping the martial thread focused on what to do to improve martials, i do, only because, empirically, it's obvious the forum can't do both at the same time. Again, unless of course the value one gets out of these threads is solely the entertainment value of watching and/or participating in pointless circular bickering, in which case, ignore everything I just said: it wouldn't apply in such a case.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Vital Strike (Combat)
Scaling these is a very common-sense thing to do, and solves a lot of problems. WAY off-topic, though, I still prefer Vital Strike to scale by a constant number of dice (say +2d6/+4d6/+6d6) rather than being dependent on the weapon dice. That way eveyone gets the same benefit from it, not just the enlarged lead-bladed monkey-gripping Buster Sword guy. (Also, given some of the damage dice assigned to single-attack monsters in the Bestiaries, sclaing VS by the number of base dice pretty much makes the feat intended for monsters, not PCs).
Another solution...move the bulk of non-combat spells into a ritual system akin to 4e's, where ANY class can perform the ritual.
I did like the ritual system and thought not nearly enough of its potential was explored. Doing this would also give something to the people who want to move to a "skill-based" magic system and away from the D&D magic system.
I suppose that would fit with "helping martials" as it would give them potential access (at the cost of a Feat) to a lot of thematic, out-of-combat, world-affecting capabilities. I don't think it fits the "theme" of every martial though. So there should also be ways for stright martials to affect the world on a similar scale as casters, without becoming casters (even "ritual casters").
I.E. it should be possible to be "Badass Normal." But that doesn't mean the ritual magic idea is bad.
Celestial Obedience is a good model for scaling feats, too. Though of course not nearly all Feats should be tied to getting benefits from a external source, but it does provide an obvious precedent for a single Feat that produces scaling benefits as one levels, with capstones.
There should be a way to build fighter-only, monk-only, rogue-only, ranger-only, &tc feats in a similar fashion. This would be an improvement on the "chain feats" with feat taxes.
Indeed many of the current feat chains could be redesigned as a single scaling feat.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Vital Strike (Combat)Scaling these is a very common-sense thing to do, and solves a lot of problems. WAY off-topic, though, I still prefer Vital Strike to scale by a constant number of dice (say +2d6/+4d6/+6d6) rather than being dependent on the weapon dice. That way eveyone gets the same benefit from it, not just the enlarged lead-bladed monkey-gripping Buster Sword guy. (Also, given some of the damage dice assigned to single-attack monsters in the Bestiaries, sclaing VS by the number of base dice pretty much makes the feat intended for monsters, not PCs).
Yeah, there are a lot of problems. I"m tackling one thing at a time. :)
Really, I keep coming back to the problems are so embedded in the base system (iterative attacks requiring more action cost than changing the rules of the universe while casting a spell, basic things like charging improving accuracy rather than damage, increased cost for decreased payoff in combat feat chains, the horribly confusing rules on actions for vital strike versus charging versus spring attack, the basic premise of a single d20 + modifiers that past level 15 easily exceed a value of 20, the nearly universal inability of purely martial actions within the current ruleset to exert force or zones of control in a battlefield....) that really a large rework is needed to get the worst of the problems solved. Everything else is just laying so much spackle over a hole punched in the wall. YOu can only do that so much before the wall is more spackle than drywall, and the whole thing crumbles around you.
Only modifying martials / mundanes to fix the mundane / caster disparity problem leaves you with only the option to add supernatural abilities of some flavor to mundanes. This causes a negative reaction for a significant portion of the community that doesn't want mundanes doing supernatural things.
The only real fix for all levels is a complete system overhaul. The easiest way to attempt a rebalance and stay mostly within the existing system is a little martial boost, a little caster debuff.
Also again, I don't tend to agree with Marthkus on everything, but on the one thing of keeping the martial thread focused on what to do to improve martials, i do, only because, empirically, it's obvious the forum can't do both at the same time. Again, unless of course the value one gets out of these threads is solely the entertainment value of watching and/or participating in pointless circular bickering, in which case, ignore everything I just said: it wouldn't apply in such a case.
That, and rampant threadcrapping is what bloated this conversation to 14 pages where we've maybe only spent 3 actually discussing martials.
The issue of scaling feats for martials is, I believe, a critical one when compared to a baseline of what spellcasters can do. This is not to bring spellcasting arguments back into the mix, but provide a baseline for discussion.
Shocking Grasp can offer you up to 5d6 damage (without enhancements) at 5th level. That's still more damage than a 5th level fighter often puts out in a single blow (without magical enhancement), even with her feats. Fireball puts out up to 10d6 against a single target (despite being able to affect multiple targets). Many spells scale with level, but most combat abilities do not. I feel it is one valid expression of character imbalance among many that could be relatively easily redressed.
The only real fix for all levels is a complete system overhaul. The easiest way to attempt a rebalance and stay...
This is pretty much my thoughts as well. Let casters keep their 'vertical' power level but cut down on the 'horizontal' flexability, and do the opposite for non-casters by making skills relevant and feats that scale so they are free to take a lot more options.
As is the mechanics of the system are telling me it's easier to learn multiple new ways to break reality with your mind than it is to learn an effective new way to swing a weapon. That swinging an object more than once is too complicated to mix with walking, but casting a spell while out for a stroll is no biggie.
Porphy: The reason people keep drifting to the "Change Casters" line of thinking is because no matter what we do to martials, we probably can't close the gap between them and casters without effectively making them casters. There's probably a lot we can do to somewhat narrow the gap, but it will remain huge all the same.
Whether or not it's a matter of dark and evil human character or simply the nature of the problem we're trying to tackle, we shouldn't be surprised that this keeps coming up again. When you're trying to fix something this broken, attacking it from one angle and only one angle is extremely limiting.
To frame the problem, I think it's like writing fantasy vs science fiction. Right from the get-go of imagining the two roles, casters can do everything. They are the quintessential fantasy role in that the storyteller or rules designer assumes everything is possible, then places select limits. In contrast, when dealing with a martial character it's more like writing science fiction: assume everything is like the reader's world, then make select exceptions from there.
So we are dealing with a natural disparity between "inherently unlimited" vs "inherently limited". Martial characters with super powers turn martial fanboys off unless they were expecting to play as Superman (and then it's no longer martial). Casters who are only comparable to their martial brethren will always be disappointing or repugnant to mage fans because now the master of time and space isn't.
I suspect that caster fanboys, if I may call them that (affectionately!), will never tolerate any sort of new limit to what they can do. Ever. And that's quite understandable. They'll fight this fight partially because they have so much fun being a caster and they don't want any of that fun to face diminishing just to accommodate those "mundanes". And partially because limiting a caster changes their nature, their role, their presence in the mind of the player. There's a certain affection for casters' identity that defends them from any deflation, even if that modification were otherwise universally seen as necessary.
4th edition upset several of my friends because casters and martial characters were on par with each other. I have one friend who states this outright as his main problem with the system (he rants against everything else too, but this especially rubbed him raw). When everyone becomes super, no one will be. From that perspective, then, the vast gap between casters and martials is almost necessary for casters to enjoy their role.
To quote Q from Armed and Dangerous: "Gentlemen, we have a dilemma".
I do think martials warrant major fixing and improvement, but we'll never actually close the gap without making martials casters, or making casters much more limited. At least, that's my dark suspicion. In that sense, the goal should be giving martials narrative ability and fixing the broken feat system and class features that hold them back. But we shouldn't expect them to ever be even remotely comparable to casters. By the nature of the two roles, that cannot be accomplished without alienating one or both camps.
I should hope that the percentage of players who are childish enough to whine and cry because other people's toys are now as nice as theirs are is small enough that it wouldn't be an issue.
Rynjin: Sort of, but I'm also saying that this is sort of the nature of the two roles. The martial characters are supposed to resemble reality with a few empowering exceptions; mages are supposed to be fantastical and unlimited, with some limiting exceptions. If a martial and a caster are comparable at high level, people balk. Whether they're right or wrong for doing so is almost irrelevant -- they've been trained to expect this.
D&D players who like the system's casters won't accept limits placed on the casters, and martial players want to play a martial character (someone grappling with his limits, not superman with a flaming sword). And casters tend to be diminished if the inherently limited martial character is doing everything they do.
I'm not hating on mage players, I'm just pointing out that this is an expectation built right into the system. You'd have to be playing a completely different game to make really radical adjustments to the relative balances, because players in this system have their expectations written in concrete and wreathed with roses. That goes for both mages and martials. So, we should expect limits to what will be appropriate to change. :D
So limiting casters probably won't happen, save for the occasional offending spell that throws even other spells out of wack. Empowering martials hits two limits: they still need to stay identifiably martial in nature, and they can't upstage casters by doing with a sword what the caster does by bending time and space. It's a tough challenge, and possibly not one we can finish in its entirety. We should have realistic expectations of how far we can get.
That said, let's fix skills, feats and class features that were designed with the wrong mindset ("martials shouldn't be skillful or effective; swinging a sword is reward enough"). That, at least, is the first step, and an almost universally accepted one.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The fact that people think a fighter is anything that even looks like a human being after level fifteen is patently absurd. I mean, what is there carrying capacity again? Any character at that level is not acting within the realms of mortals anymore.
If you have a strength score that is just shy of a friggin dragon, then screaming poo poo when you do something supernatural seems... ridiculous.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I used to say to people who were mad at the unrealism of double weapons, "But when your character gets stabbed in the stomach, the cleric just heals him and tells him to walk it off. And that mage over there just summoned fire with his mind. I think we can excuse double weapons for their unrealism."
But people become irate at unrealistic martials all the same. ^_^
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think that I will be changing my position to pander to such a poorly reasoned limiter on balance. If people want their fighters to be mundane, just cap their levels at six and they can carry the bags.
I dislike the concept of many double weapons, but mostly because a lot of them are silly, not because they're unrealistic.
Pathfinder's a bit better with it, with the quarterstaff and kusarigama making sense.
But the "double axe"? Seriously?
At least there's no "double club" in Pathfinder.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I dislike the concept of many double weapons, but mostly because a lot of them are silly, not because they're unrealistic.
Pathfinder's a bit better with it, with the quarterstaff and kusarigama making sense.
But the "double axe"? Seriously?
At least there's no "double club" in Pathfinder.
Actually there is. Its the quarterstaff.
You're forgetting the double-double-club. It's a double-club with each end becoming its own double-club. It can go on like that in fractal format, but instead of approaching infinite damage it tapers off at approximately 2.0x damage. And requires infinite proficiency.
So only mages can wield it. ;)