|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I remember once considering that martials (especially monks) might suck, but then I saw this. (And see Crosswind's follow-up a little farther down on that page.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm... A T-Rex Fighter with Armor Training, Full Plate, Vital Strike, and Lunge. Awwwwww-Yeeeeaaaaah!
(Also known as casting Devour Person at-will)
But a T-Rex that can cast Wish? *shudder*
More seriously:
Yea, casters are generally a lot more serious a threat to the party. Partially because magic is flat out better with its variety and effects, and partially because NPC casters often don't have to ration their spells as carefully as players do (they can nova all they want because they're not playing for the long term -- often for just one encounter, unless the GM is playing them well). Also, casters can be specifically tailored to make use of spells that just pick the party apart (curse, dominate person, or whatever else will exploit the party's weaknesses), especially if the GM is feeling evil or the enemies have had a chance to analyze and strategize against the PCs. Harder to do that with an enemy fighter NPC.
Sir Thugsalot:
That's pretty cool. It's a very specific case that other martials have trouble living up to, but really cool nonetheless. I like survivor builds, especially when they start hoarding resources to resurrect the party members after what should have been a TPK.
How does he hold up to non-ray spells that require a fortitude save though? I suspect spellcasters can still cause him serious problems? Maybe not.
(edit: I'm trying to think about how I, as a GM roleplaying the monk's nemeses, would try to challenge the monk and put him back in danger)
But in martial vs martial or vs rays he's obscenely well-protected.
I think a T-rex fighter in armour would get the same rolled eyes and chuckle as a dragon in full plate.
Really dm? You had to have that extra AC?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think a T-rex fighter in armour would get the same rolled eyes and chuckle as a dragon in full plate.
Really dm? You had to have that extra AC?
Yea but my T-Rex grants wishes (but only if you wish for more T-Rexes).
Edit: You could always have living armor, such as a Dullahan, wearing full-plate. Which itself is enchanted with intelligent self-awareness and thus wears full-plate, to protect itself from taking blows for the Dullahan. Let's not get into what the sword is doing.
|
We should note that as we condense feat chains like Blind Fight, Cleave, Step-Up, etc (either by modifying the feats or providing class features to acquire whole chains), any NPCs the GM builds or that come with an external campaign will enjoy the same benefits (unless efforts are made to exclude them).
I don't think it will be as much of an issue as it might seem. The idea I agree with is to create optional systems which are not required. In this way existing things (including generated baddies) do not change, but the options are available for both GM and player. A GM might want a more interesting and potentially more powerful fighter instead of what is currently available. However, just adding options does not require them to be used. The GM should always use good judgement when creating custom foes. I could create a custom race and min/max some build to destroy my players without going outside normal CR challenges for their range. It is my duty as GM to make sure my party is challenged reasonably without overdoing it. Admittedly I have missed the mark a few times both too easy and too hard, but that was my fault not the fault of the options available to me.
I think a T-rex fighter in armour would get the same rolled eyes and chuckle as a dragon in full plate.
Really dm? You had to have that extra AC?
Yea but my T-Rex grants wishes (but only if you wish for more T-Rexes).
Edit: You could always have living armor, such as a Dullahan, wearing full-plate. Which itself is enchanted with intelligent self-awareness and thus wears full-plate, to protect itself from taking blows for the Dullahan. Let's not get into what the sword is doing.
Armour wearing armour you say?
Are you sure you want to suggest that?
|
|
How does (Crosswind's Snot-the-Goblin) hold up to non-ray spells that require a fortitude save though?
Well, Snot is a monk, so I'm guessing his fort save is pretty good. Such spells are also usually touch-attacks; and touch-attacking a monk (and ending your turn next to him) is generally a poor idea for a spellcaster who doesn't want his rib-cage caved in about four seconds later.
(I can only imagine how many Limburger-reeking builds containing Adopted(Goblin) are being created for PFS as we speak.)
One of the posters was wondering how to recreate her Stand Still Fighter-spellcaster (i.e. Lockdown build) in PF.
In PF, the feat Stand Still is worthless, as it works against CMB.
However, an 8th level Cavalier of the Order of the Shield gets a vastly superior Stand Still. Basically, if you hit and deal damage, the target stops...while still taking the damage.
Yes, friends, this 'bonus feat' is more then twice as good as the same bonus feat the fighter might take at the same level.
Combine with Wizard and Eldritch Knight as you wish, and you've got the PF version of your Lockdown build.
==Aelryinth
I am currently subscribed to the Zeitgeist Adventure Path, which is slowly releasing its modules (heh, they started over a year ago!)
One of the rules in this system is very much like Harry Dresden.
Gold rings/unbroken lines/etc absolutely block teleport/dimensional spells and scrying within them. As such, they find their way into all sorts of construction where security is required. I believe even wearing a gold ring means you can't teleport, so, for instance, a gold thread is often worked into the manacles of prisoners to stop such stuff.
Volos Guide to all things Magical brings back some strong 1E feel with fairly cheap, blanket solutions to magic that require very little money. There's gemstones that if you carry them make you immune to body-changing magic, glow when magic is near, ward away enchantments, prevent you from being burned by fire (i.e. no scarring and reduced damage), give a 'natural' deflection bonus, absorb electrical damage, absorb magic missiles, blur divination spells. Black Star Sapphires make use of time and dimensional based magic impossible within 20' just by being what they are.
It's these sorts of 'blanket solutions' to magic that have been largely done away with.
I mean, in the Dresdenverse, if you draw and seal a circle with blood, you're immune to magic and magical creatures, except some hugely powerful ones. It's like Prot/Evil 10'r taken to 11.
It's these drawbacks and protections against magic that are NOT in the game, not commonplace, so spellcasters don't have to put up with 'common defenses', that are yet another thing that swings the pendulum away from martials.
==Aelryint
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd also like to point out that all martials are far, far more reliant on physical stats then casters are reliant on mental stats.
As a matter of fact, casters automatically get very broad and strong buffs to mental stats, and their power, by GETTING OLDER.
melees, of course, get nothing but weaker.
An average melee character of any type needs a good Str, Dex and Con. Ideally, their Con should be higher then any caster, Str MUCH higher, and Dex at least on par. Training in skills should make up for lack of mental stats. Those classes that do NOT have magic, should have more skill points to make up for this lack, as their training goes elsewhere.
Yes, it means fighters should have more skill points. Rangers have spells, why do they need six?
Monks, too, should be getting stat bonuses as they level...they are, after all, in pursuit of perfection.
An easy way to do this is simply to give martials more stat bonuses then spellcasters get.
The best way to balance this is to award all such bonus stats to the LOWEST stat. Furthermore, just make them inherent bonuses...this caps them and gives them the feel of magical bonuses without having to pay for them.
Every 4 levels of fighter, you get 2 Inherent bonus points to spend on your lowest physical stats. This should quickly raise your physical stats to excellent levels, while not overpowering things since your highest stat will still require buying books at higher levels.
Every 4 levels of barbarian, you get 1 bonus point to your lowest physical stat.
Every 4 levels of Rogue, you get 1 bonus point to your lowest physical and 1 point to your lowest mental stat.
Every 4 levels of Monk, you get 1 bonus point to each of your lowest physical, mental, and just lowest stat (+3 pts).
Rangers and paladins get a bonus point to their lowest stat.
Caster classes get it to their lowest mental stat. Since it is an inherent bonus, it also devalues the power of wish to raise stats, and all the hijinks inherent in trying to get such things.
As to the hit point training methodology in the Ultimate Campaign book, pure melee classes and rogues should get 2 hp for training instead of 1...I've never seen a game where a fighting class didn't gain more hit points from that kind of training then a caster (Toughness is Might and Magic comes to mind).
==Aelryinth
|
I'd also like to point out that all martials are far, far more reliant on physical stats then casters are reliant on mental stats.
As a matter of fact, casters automatically get very broad and strong buffs to mental stats, and their power, by GETTING OLDER.
melees, of course, get nothing but weaker.
An average melee character of any type needs a good Str, Dex and Con. Ideally, their Con should be higher then any caster, Str MUCH higher, and Dex at least on par. Training in skills should make up for lack of mental stats. Those classes that do NOT have magic, should have more skill points to make up for this lack, as their training goes elsewhere.
Yes, it means fighters should have more skill points. Rangers have spells, why do they need six?
Monks, too, should be getting stat bonuses as they level...they are, after all, in pursuit of perfection.
An easy way to do this is simply to give martials more stat bonuses then spellcasters get.
The best way to balance this is to award all such bonus stats to the LOWEST stat. Furthermore, just make them inherent bonuses...this caps them and gives them the feel of magical bonuses without having to pay for them.Every 4 levels of fighter, you get 2 Inherent bonus points to spend on your lowest physical stats. This should quickly raise your physical stats to excellent levels, while not overpowering things since your highest stat will still require buying books at higher levels.
Every 4 levels of barbarian, you get 1 bonus point to your lowest physical stat.
Every 4 levels of Rogue, you get 1 bonus point to your lowest physical and 1 point to your lowest mental stat.
Every 4 levels of Monk, you get 1 bonus point to each of your lowest physical, mental, and just lowest stat (+3 pts).
Rangers and paladins get a bonus point to their lowest stat.
Caster classes get it to their lowest mental stat. Since it is an inherent bonus, it also devalues the power of wish to raise stats, and all the hijinks inherent in trying to get such things.As to the hit...
Actually don't forget that /many/ of the spell casters tend to get an ability that also negates all the loss of physical stat loss. And before that, they often get a spell to remove them as well.
And I mean, a 15th level wizard is a proper CR14 encounter. A 15th level fighter is not. Since martial characters are so dependant on wealth, the lowered wealth for NPC's hurt them much more.
PF showed, in Kingmaker, decided it doesn't matter.
There is a 4th level character who is a fallen Paladin but is CR 3 when he should be lower (because his Paladin levels are basically warrior levels now).|
|
what im getting out of this thread is that people find overpowered things fun
who knew?
caster is the problem, nerfing/changing it is the solution, its only "unfun" cuz your used to the level of power they now have.
im more a fan of limited spell schools, just as a martial isnt going to be doing all the combat maneuvers and do damage, a caster isnt gonna have full access to the spell lists they do.
you pick a school, you get spells for said school, maybe get a secondary school later (that maxes at 6th instead of 9th).
this way a wizard isnt going to be doing massive damage followed by a way to escape. obviously i think this needs some adjustin in other places as well. and some defensive spells may need to be allowed as general spells they can learn in any school.
Well, you'd never see anyone be divinationists in your game, that much is for certain due to the lack of spells. Not offensive spells.. or even defensive spells or any other spells, but just spells. Divination has the worst amount of spell selection in game. (They may have some great spells, but its kinda lost.)
what im getting out of this thread is that people find overpowered things fun
who knew?
caster is the problem, nerfing/changing it is the solution, its only "unfun" cuz your used to the level of power they now have.
im more a fan of limited spell schools, just as a martial isnt going to be doing all the combat maneuvers and do damage, a caster isnt gonna have full access to the spell lists they do.
you pick a school, you get spells for said school, maybe get a secondary school later (that maxes at 6th instead of 9th).
this way a wizard isnt going to be doing massive damage followed by a way to escape. obviously i think this needs some adjustin in other places as well. and some defensive spells may need to be allowed as general spells they can learn in any school.
Well, you'd never see anyone be divinationists in your game, that much is for certain due to the lack of spells. Not offensive spells.. or even defensive spells or any other spells, but just spells. Divination has the worst amount of spell selection in game. (They may have some great spells, but its kinda lost.)
here is what you do
you give Abjuration and Divination for free, and choose 3 of the remaining 6 schools with the caveat that they cannot have both conjuration and transmutation together because they are both exceptionally powerful schools that require dedicated focus beyond the others. (a means to keep the 2 strongest schools separate)
what im getting out of this thread is that people find overpowered things fun
who knew?
caster is the problem, nerfing/changing it is the solution, its only "unfun" cuz your used to the level of power they now have.
im more a fan of limited spell schools, just as a martial isnt going to be doing all the combat maneuvers and do damage, a caster isnt gonna have full access to the spell lists they do.
you pick a school, you get spells for said school, maybe get a secondary school later (that maxes at 6th instead of 9th).
this way a wizard isnt going to be doing massive damage followed by a way to escape. obviously i think this needs some adjustin in other places as well. and some defensive spells may need to be allowed as general spells they can learn in any school.
No, people find options fun. Martials do fantastic damage... and that's it. Same rolls, from level 1 to 20. The most convincing arguments in this thread have been for more breadth of options, especially out of combat. Not many think martials need to be more "OP."
Also, keep condescension out of discussion please. It doesn't help your point.
|
|
here is what you do
you give Abjuration and Divination for free, and choose 3 of the remaining 6 schools with the caveat that they cannot have both conjuration and transmutation together because they are both exceptionally powerful schools that require dedicated focus beyond the others. (a means to keep the 2 strongest schools separate)
If you wanted to do this,it would be better to start over with the spell schools. Create a list of must have spells which fit into the Universalist school and then keep the spells for the other schools extremely closely tied together thematically. It might even be worth splitting schools into sub-schools and requiring a caster to choose a limited number of sub-schools with feats/class abilities which allow more sub-schools. This would require a lot of work, but could have some nice payoff in the end. Everyone get Universalist school and then a small selection of other schools which contain thematically linked spells (representing a focused intent for the spellcaster).
Again we are drifting away from the focus of "ways to make martials less terrible."
|
|
No, people find options fun. Martials do fantastic damage... and that's it. Same rolls, from level 1 to 20. The most convincing arguments in this thread have been for more breadth of options, especially out of combat. Not many think martials need to be more "OP."
I would agree. I think the heart of the issue (which has been touched in many of the on-topic posts) is a lack of options for martial types. The spellcasters are given a giant bag of toys and the martials get one really nice schtick. Most of the fix ideas focus on providing martials more options: make maneuvers more attainable, condense feat chains, move certain feats (e.g., power attack) to be base abilities available to everyone.
Unfortunately, there has been an excessive amount of noise in the thread, and unless some generous soul(s) decides to condense all these ideas into a wiki or doc of some sort many will be lost in the bowels of this mammoth thread.
I think most of the powers of spell should be accessible through some means, however many spells have vague wording that allows for abuse, or are powerful enough that getting them should be a more serious investment.
Armour wearing armour you say?
Are you sure you want to suggest that?
Not seriously. That's the joke though: it'll probably end up in the next monster manual. ;)
Dammit, now I want my T-Rex that grants wishes for more T-Rexes.
Nipin:
I agree, we SHOULD put up a wiki or Google Doc that can be edited by several people or everyone, so that we can coalesce all these ideas into one place and not lose stuff we like.
I'm openly asking everyone for suggestions on how to best do this. Forget off-topic arguing about spellcasters for a moment and let's brainstorm on this. Does anyone have a website where they could throw up a wiki on the side? Or does anyone want to start and maintain a google doc and grant access to the major thread contributors? Any other ideas?
This forum doesn't allow editing old posts, otherwise I'd recommend creating a new thread where we constantly update the top post with the summarized suggestions (plus links to the full ones).
|
|
This forum doesn't allow editing old posts, otherwise I'd recommend creating a new thread where we constantly update the top post with the summarized suggestions (plus links to the full ones).
I have always felt that not being able to do this was a bit limiting. Perhaps the option could be enabled for a stickied post (e.g., Guide to the Guides).
A wiki would be ideal. If we use a Doc, then I would suggest having a few who can edit and then allow general users to comment. The comments could then form a basis for other contributors to suggest patches, provide feedback, or propose new ideas without allowing direct editing of the main doc. Allowing comments on the doc would allow people to keep their discussion localized to the section they are discussing without having multiple streams overlapping.
So we have 3 options to look into:
1) Wiki (preferred): If someone has a website and is willing to put up a basic wiki, that would be excellent. The few dozen users tops from this thread shouldn't strain their bandwidth much (hopefully). Anyone who creates a free account can edit the wiki. Moderators keep it clean, remove trolls, and move off-topic rants etc to their own sections to keep on-topic discussions from being drowned (so nerf-spell discussions can occur, but separate from discussions of feat chains and skill points). Talk section of each page allows localized discussion, in addition to any talk on this thread.
2) Google Doc: Owner and multiple "moderators" can edit the document. Anyone else can add area-specific comments to the document or in the forum thread. Moderators keep the document up to date and organized.
3) New Sticky Thread: Owner alone can make changes to the top post (unless a sticky can be granted multiple editors?). He is responsible for keeping it up to date on a semi-regular basis with the serious ideas that have been submitted (and organizing that info etc).
So! Any volunteers to set up a wiki? Or any ideas on where we could get one?
Another option that is half-way between a wiki and a google doc would be a Wordpress page where several moderators have the password. It's free and (I think) adfree and has better structuring than a google doc (IMO; YMMV).
Due to a comment section, each different main suggestion of ways to improve martials can get it's own "thread", kinda.
I have set up a Google Sites wiki here. This has the advantage of compatibility with many of Google's other services including embedded Google Docs and allows the use of existing Google accounts. Anyone interested can PM me your Google account email and I will add you as a contributor. Be aware that the name associated with your Google account will be visible to other contributors (not site visitors as far as I can tell). If this is a privacy concern for you, create a new Google account for editing the wiki.
I suggest we also have a forum topic here (probably in the homebrew section?) that links to the wiki and provides a broader forum for discussion.
Should comments be enabled on individual pages or do we want to restrict discussion to a forum topic here?
Another option that is half-way between a wiki and a google doc would be a Wordpress page where several moderators have the password. It's free and (I think) adfree and has better structuring than a google doc (IMO; YMMV).
Due to a comment section, each different main suggestion of ways to improve martials can get it's own "thread", kinda.
Google Sites are also free, ad free, and support comments. The wiki already has categories to handle your "threads" idea :)
Pandora: Awesome. I'd say comments on individual pages is a good idea. That way people discussing skills are not fighting for visual space with people discussing feats or spells, and vise versa. The forum thread (which we should move to homebrew, or start a new one there and close this one) can be used for more general discussion, and for exploring new options & ideas to add to the wiki.
That's my opinion anyway. Thanks for doing this!
No problem. I agree on creating a new forum thread. Let's hope this one stays open so the argumentative types with nothing to contribute won't end up in our thread. Would you be willing to set the thread up?
Ah, didn't know google had wikis.
Looks awesome.
I feel like I've missed so much over the last few days.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
od&D's spells were actually balanced just fine. Remember, save or suck spells got WORSE as you leveled...because everything saved against them more and more often, not less.
Spells that were abusable, like Wish, the DM was ENCOURAGED to twist the wording on, or effects, so you only had abuse if the DM let you get away with it.
It was a very different game in tone and function. Casters got huge upgrades moving from 1/2E to 3E. Melees got massive downgrades. I still goggle at the ideas against nerfing casters...it's not a nerf, it's more returning them to what they used to be!
==Aelryinth
Also, keep condescension out of discussion please. It doesn't help your point.
it was barely sarcasm, it was akin to saying the sky is blue, people like overpowered things its how it is, and people will vehemently disagree/defend them, intelligently or otherwise.
casters have too much narrative power, too much impact on a encounter.
now that said, the issue dissolves somewhat if you have a DM that doesnt follow strict modules. Dont let the group prepare for a battle easily, if ever, interrupt there sleep so they cant regain all there spells, provide more large/hard encounters then they have that one uber spell that can nullify groups. hell, LIE and say they saved if you have to (im sure many will get offended at that idea)
martials may lack narrative power, but thats not hte only thing magic users are too powerful on.
edit: but im sure everyone and there mother will in fact disagree with needing to nerf anything (i honestly wonder about society as it applies to this dont nerf but buff instead crap)
then simply give martials access to more things. martials get double the feats of casters (fighters would need a new gimmick at that point), allow manevers to be done without provoking AoOs with martials, give them better base bonuses to them. re-work the cmb vs cmd disparity slightly. dissolve/lessen some feat chains or make those evolving feats thing.
So what your suggesting is for the DM to tell the wizard to go screw himself and houserule that if your not playing a melee then I am going to make your life miserable. Copy that.
I have not read all the post, so sorry if this have been already discussed.
The greater advantage martials have in my opinion are the extra bonus feats, so in order to increase their versatility they should have access to amazing feats. My proposal is to create feats that give options to martial like ToB did with maneuvers and stance, this can function similar to how Qinggong function gaining spell-like abilities, in this way martials would have nice toys like fly or dimensional door, I really believe an approach like ToB is the best solution, especially for high levels, because give option and cool toys instead of just bonuses.
Does are my two cents.
There comes quickly a point where a caster is harassed enough that they aren't having fun and aren't playing the class they signed up to play. I am not of the opinion that all disparity should be solved by a GM instead of the system, and I'm definitely not a fan of that heavy-handed approach.
Returning casters to what they used to be? We're talking about the days where casting Haste aged the caster dramatically every time he cast it? No thanks. Hilariously, that specific example hurts martial characters the most. If a spell's effect is an issue, it should be cleanly removed from the game. You shouldn't hide it behind terrible costs that no one wants to pay. All that does is take up rulebook space.
As much as I'm loathe to suggest any broad-spectrum caster nerfs rather than actually identifying and removing specific problems, the Wordcasting system seems to power down casting in much the way recent posters seem to want. It retains the feel that casters have many options while removing many of the highly specific effects and spells that people gripe about. There is also far fewer effects that replace skills in Wordcasting.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Returning casters to what they used to be? We're talking about the days where casting Haste aged the caster dramatically every time he cast it? No thanks. Hilariously, that specific example hurts martial characters the most. If a spell's effect is an issue, it should be cleanly removed from the game. You shouldn't hide it behind terrible costs that no one wants to pay. All that does is take up rulebook space.
I think Aelrynth was talking more about things like:
1) pre 3e, being "a fragile caster" had a meaning. Wizards have d4hp and his Con modifier couldn't be higher than +2. They only got 9hd max (like all classes), so they only could add the con modifer 9 times. There's a huge difference in HP disparity there. FIghters ussually had more than *double* the hp of casters. In my current campaign, our summoner has 234hp.2) pre 3e, fighters had the best saves in the game at mid to high levels. They have the second worse now, right behind rogues.
3) pre 3e, casting spells was hard to do and spells were easy to interrupt, specially high level, high-octane spells. In 3e, only damage done *exactly* while the spell is cast helps to counter the spell. Not even in the same initiative. So if a Wizard can't step 5' out of harm to cast his spell, or can't cast on the defensive and ignore the AOO, he can just WALK AWAY, take the AOO, suffer the damage, and then start chanting and gesturing his spell a few miliseconds later.
4) pre 3e, the casters had high-powered but expendable resources. They could save the day, but few times per day. As an example: a non-enchanter wizard could only have 1 sleep spell at level 1. He could bypass one low level encounter per day, but then he was useless the rest of the day. A lvl 1 non-enchanter wizard in PF can have FOUR sleeps per day. Which mean he can bypass ALL the encounters in a given day. Spells were much harder to obtain, and harder to learn, copy and memorize.
5) pre 3e, high level casters were *Assumed* to be better by the rules, and thus had slower XP tables. In 3e, we ran with the false assumption than a 14th level rogue and a 14th level wizard are equally powerful, and thus gave both of them the same XP table.
6) the way Magic Resistance and Saves worked, mean that even at high levels, wizards needed martial party members to overcome certain encounters.
The list goes on. It has been mentioned several times. But the underlying truth in it, it's it *can't* be true both that AD&D wizard and fighter were balanced and that D&D3.X wizard and fighter are balanced. From AD&D to D&D, wizards got a *massive* buff, while fighters got a *massive* nerf. In AD&D, fighters were actually worse than casters. Not by so huge margin, but for sure they weren't better, that's for sure. So if class A is slightly lower than class B, and you massively nerf A and massively nerf B... you can't be surprised that class B is now massively better than class A.
1) Being killed in one hit is not fun. Further, this makes spells like Power Word Kill even stupider.
2) No issues with this being reverted, but this has nothing to do with what casters themselves used to be.
3) Because sitting there trying to cast your 5 total spells for that day and having each one interrupted is fun?
4) Are you kidding me? Bypass one encounter and then watch the other people play for the rest of the adventuring day? Isn't that exactly why there are complaints about martials, sitting there feeling useless and watching?
5) Leveling up is generally considered part of the fun. Players should level at the same rate, period.
6) Somewhat better creature defenses, or rather more dependable ones, is a reasonable change. Spell resistance would be a fine defense if you couldn't ignore 8 of it after two feats and an Otherworldly Kimono. And yes, there are problems spells that are SR:No. That is an issue with the spell, not spell resistance.
The problem with these "massive buffs" are that they are quality of life changes that were desperately needed. Notice how often I used the word fun? I don't care if they were still good, playing casters like that isn't fun.
You're not against some characters not having those weaknesses, you're against spellcasters not having those weaknesses because they cast spells. You think spells are OP, so you go after the wizard's HP? If spells are the problem, fix the spells.
5) pre 3e, fighters had the best saves in the game at mid to high levels. They have the second worse now, right behind rogues.
Incorrect.
Sure vs Death/Poison, wand, and Paralyzation.But they had bad Breath/Spells.
Fighter Level 1: 16/18/17/20/19
Level 7: 10/12/11/12/13
Level 17: 3/5/4/4/6
But Clerics:
Level 1: 10/14/13/16/15
Level 7: 7/11/10/13/12
Level 19: 2/6/5/8/7
Rogue:
Level 1: 13/14/12/16/15
21: 8/4/7/11/5
Wizard:
Level 1: 14/11/13/15/12
Level 21: 8/3/5/7/4
Strangely, all classes had better starting saves than Fighters.
Seriously, while Fighters grew better overall, the Fighters starting saves sucked.
To make an actual 2E Fighter: he would have all Poor saves but have +1 saves every 2 levels to all his saves.
I would give fighters and paladins 2 more skill points per level, but otherwise martials are already the kings and queens of dps which is their purpose, a fighter can be built to do nearly anything and one built with extremely normal straightforward ease can school casters on damage.
5) pre 3e, fighters had the best saves in the game at mid to high levels. They have the second worse now, right behind rogues.Incorrect.
Sure vs Death/Poison, wand, and Paralyzation.
But they had bad Breath/Spells.Fighter Level 1: 16/18/17/20/19
Level 7: 10/12/11/12/13
Level 17: 3/5/4/4/6But Clerics:
Level 1: 10/14/13/16/15
Level 7: 7/11/10/13/12
Level 19: 2/6/5/8/7Rogue:
Level 1: 13/14/12/16/15
21: 8/4/7/11/5Wizard:
Level 1: 14/11/13/15/12
Level 21: 8/3/5/7/4Strangely, all classes had better starting saves than Fighters.
Seriously, while Fighters grew better overall, the Fighters starting saves sucked.To make an actual 2E Fighter: he would have all Poor saves but have +1 saves every 2 levels to all his saves.
Agreed, starting out fighters didn't do well.
But they were equals about level 7, and pulling away after 11.
At level 17, they topped out with a total of 22 pts for saves.
At 19, two levels later, the cleric gets his best...his saves add up to 28. Note that will be about the same time as the fighter, because the cleric leveled slightly faster.
The rogue and the wizard have to wait for 21. That meant the rogue got his at the same time as the fighter 17, but the wizard had to wait until after EVERYONE ELSE. A 21st level wizard was about the same xpwise as a 25th level fighter.
Rogue - 35 points
Wizard - 29 points.
The Fighter ended up with the best saves across the board. A simple ring of protection +3, and he basically only fails on a 1 or 2.
==Aelryinth
1) Being killed in one hit is not fun. Further, this makes spells like Power Word Kill even stupider.
2) No issues with this being reverted, but this has nothing to do with what casters themselves used to be.
3) Because sitting there trying to cast your 5 total spells for that day and having each one interrupted is fun?
4) Are you kidding me? Bypass one encounter and then watch the other people play for the rest of the adventuring day? Isn't that exactly why there are complaints about martials, sitting there feeling useless and watching?
5) Leveling up is generally considered part of the fun. Players should level at the same rate, period.
6) Somewhat better creature defenses, or rather more dependable ones, is a reasonable change. Spell resistance would be a fine defense if you couldn't ignore 8 of it after two feats and an Otherworldly Kimono. And yes, there are problems spells that are SR:No. That is an issue with the spell, not spell resistance.The problem with these "massive buffs" are that they are quality of life changes that were desperately needed. Notice how often I used the word fun? I don't care if they were still good, playing casters like that isn't fun.
You're not against some characters not having those weaknesses, you're against spellcasters not having those weaknesses because they cast spells. You think spells are OP, so you go after the wizard's HP? If spells are the problem, fix the spells.
1) Ending encounters with one spell is the obverse side of this. Now, nobody is advocating going back to 9 HD. You could get away with 9 HD because monsters could NOT one hit you, for the most part, back then.
But giving melee HP supremacy once again would be a VERY good start. Power Word: kill used to be one of the most dreaded spells in the game. Now, it's an afterthought.2)Not sure what this means. It comes down to Melee got good saves, and casters got great spells.
3) It meant that casting encounter-ending spells was nowhere near as simple as it is today, and you actually had to do things like take cover, stay out of line of fire, and worry about getting hit while casting. You know, things you ignore right now.
4) At level 1, when everyone sucks. Then you pick up your crossbow, or you use your staff to Aid Another. You get better as you level. But you don't dominate, and you learn how to be useful when out of spells.
5) If people level at the same rate, they should increase in power at the same rate. They don't. One of them has to give. Levelling at different rates gives very different flavor to the different classes...it's a feature, not a bug.
6) Spell balance is a key issue, but also the mechanics for saves. At high levels, you never had more then a 30% chance of affecting a creature with a save or die spell. As a result, these seldom got used.
a note on 1e HAste: Remember, that's not the same spell you're using today.
Haste doubled everything. 2 spells/round, double attacks, double move. That meant a high level fighter dual wielding his spec weapon could churn out 10 attacks, all at his full TH...enough to fricassee Demogorgon in one round.
A caster could throw out a massive damage spell and follow up with a no-save Power Word:kill.
Haste was a game changer and combat ender...and elves with the thousand year lifespan had no problems using it.
But basically, you memorized it in case you wanted to dispel a slow effect, which was horrifying when used successfully against you. It was THAT overpowered a spell. So yeah, burning a year was the cost. But when you used it, you won.
Don't forget that mages had limits on how many spells of each level they could learn, too, so you had to be careful what you put into your spellbook. Because stats had much harder limits then today, managing your spellbook became yet another restriction...you didn't want to learn a useless spell!
===Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Im not trying to be mean, but you meet almost any attempt at balance with "would not be fun" which is the same thing ive seen every single person defend something that other people consider overpowered. every...single...time
That's because everyone seems to have terribly unfun ideas of how to balance a class. It has nothing to do with the raw power you end up with (while some find raw power for power's sake fun, that is not my opinion) and everything to do with the design paradigm used.
Harassing players to the point that their "OP" character cannot function is bad design. Game players, shockingly, want to play. On the other hand, so are save or lose effects. Treantmonk's guide that gets so much attention in these discussions actually discusses the problem with save or lose: you either win in one spell while everyone else watches, or the target resists and you watch while everyone else does interesting things. Spells should have interesting and relevant effects that do not trivialize encounters by themselves.
Dramatically lessening the number of spells/day is also bad design. Players get bored when they run out and they pressure the party to let the adventuring day revolve around them. Spell effects should be balanced to allow casters to have spells nearly all day, every day without removing all difficulty from encounters and challenges.
Casters should not have less options. They should have many options and good options. Only their options that overshadow other party members need removed. Say Charm Person increased the target's friendliness to the whole group instead of just the caster. Would you have the caster talk or the rogue with a +25 to diplomacy talk? Spell effects just need to more synergistic, not reduced in number.
Martial characters, especially fighters, have few to no abilities that affect the narrative. Rather than making casters just as useless, martials should have some narrative ability added, because for both classes more options is more fun. I created and posted a list of this type of ability for martials and all of one person replied. Seems there is more interest in nerfs against the evil casters than exploration of design options.
Why hasn't this design change been done already? Because it would involve a complete rewrite of a massive system and would remove legacy spells that players know and love. It should happen, but it probably won't. Just like player-crippling nerfs won't ever become core.
TL;DR
Spells should...
- not trivialize encounters, instead requiring syngery between classes for full effect
- not trivialize skills and other classes' features
- have essentially no limit on uses/day
- be easy enough to successfully cast that the player feels neither harassed nor bored
5) pre 3e, fighters had the best saves in the game at mid to high levels. They have the second worse now, right behind rogues.Incorrect.
Sure vs Death/Poison, wand, and Paralyzation.
But they had bad Breath/Spells.Fighter Level 1: 16/18/17/20/19
Level 7: 10/12/11/12/13
Level 17: 3/5/4/4/6But Clerics:
Level 1: 10/14/13/16/15
Level 7: 7/11/10/13/12
Level 19: 2/6/5/8/7Rogue:
Level 1: 13/14/12/16/15
21: 8/4/7/11/5Wizard:
Level 1: 14/11/13/15/12
Level 21: 8/3/5/7/4Strangely, all classes had better starting saves than Fighters.
Seriously, while Fighters grew better overall, the Fighters starting saves sucked.To make an actual 2E Fighter: he would have all Poor saves but have +1 saves every 2 levels to all his saves.
The problem with that example you gave us, is you are comparign a lvl 17 fighter with a level 21 wizard. Compare them in the same level range. For example, level 15:
Fighter:4/6/5/4/7
Cleric:
5/9/8/11/10
Wizard:
11/7/9/11/8
Rogues:
10/8/9/13/9
Fighters are better than anyone, at any save, from mid- to high level.
1) Being killed in one hit is not fun. Further, this makes spells like Power Word Kill even stupider.
Ok. But if you build the class under the assumption that "you got incredible power and can bend reality to your will, but that is balanced with the fact you are fragile", and then you remove the fragile clause, you need to re-balance the you can bend reality to your will part too.
2) No issues with this being reverted, but this has nothing to do with what casters themselves used to be.
3) Because sitting there trying to cast your 5 total spells for that day and having each one interrupted is fun?
I had fun in AD&D with wizards if you ask me. And it was one of the most wanted classes in my groups. So I guess the answer is yes, if it pay off with incredible power and the ability to bend reality to your will?
4) Are you kidding me? Bypass one encounter and then watch the other people play for the rest of the adventuring day? Isn't that exactly why there are complaints about martials, sitting there feeling useless and watching?
Cool. But then, again, if the lvl 1 wizard goes from 1 spell to 5 per day, then that spell should go from totally destroying an encounter to doing a fair share of contribution. Right now, the wizard has gone from totally destroying an encounter, to totally destroying every single encounter. I guess you see the balance problem there.
5) Leveling up is generally considered part of the fun. Players should level at the same rate, period.
Then they should be equally powerfull too.
6) Somewhat better creature defenses, or rather more dependable ones, is a reasonable change. Spell resistance would be a fine defense if you couldn't ignore 8 of it after two feats and an Otherworldly Kimono. And yes, there are problems spells that are SR:No. That is an issue with the spell, not spell resistance.
it's not only the SR, it's the saves too. In AD&D saves were static. So high level wizards were able to cast spells that kill you, but the targets of those spells were able to save with regularity. In 3e, Wizards can cast a spell that is both lethal, and impossible to save for the target, beause they can target your weakest save, and they can ramp up the DC to points were you can't make it with your weak save.
You're not against some characters not having those weaknesses, you're against spellcasters not having those weaknesses because they cast spells. You think spells are OP, so you go after the wizard's HP? If spells are the problem, fix the spells.
I don't have a problem with fixing the spells, but a lot of people would have. The issue here is that magic used to be very powerful, but hard to cast or fragile. Now it is just very powerful.
Wow, haste used to be very powerful. And dangerous to cast. I wonder though, how might that be abused? Could a necromancer raise spellcasting undead to cast haste for him? Or could an ilithid capture a few wizards as thralls to cast haste for his group? It's fun being a villain! Those good guys don't know what they're missing.
Interesting that we're discussing letting casters cast all day. 4th Edition had a neat take on this, IMO. It gave casters Encounter spells that could be used again after a 5-minute rest, and it gave them some moderately beefed up combat cantrips in the form of at-will spells. Daily spells were the bad boys that the caster spent strategically, knowing they wouldn't get them again until they got a full 8-hour rest in.
Of course, 4th edition also did the same for martial classes. Everyone had At-Will, Encounter and Daily powers which they could use to great effect. Everyone was managing their resources of Encounter and Daily powers, and power levels between martials and casters were relatively balanced compared to Pathfinder.
But lots of people hated that about 4th edition. Put martials and casters on equal footing will you?! We'll rebel!! ;)
I'm not simply bringing this up for laughs though. One thing 4th Edition tried very hard to do was give martials some very potent abilities that could be used only rarely, but to great effect. Effects ranged from forcibly pulling aggro, to rearranging the battlefield, to slashing/shooting crowds, to rushing in to defend an ally in need or protect themselves, to leaping 10 meters and smashing the enemy dragon in the face.
Pathfinder does this, but... in a very limited capacity. The best example comes in Barbarian rages, which offer distinct and powerful effects tied to a core ability. Various prestige classes offer scattered bonuses and resource management (often as relatively weak effects), but it's really not a core mechanic for most martials. If martials had daily access to potent, resource-limited effects that were similar to spells in their range of effect in control and narrative power, I think that might be a great step forward in empowering martials.
That said, the main difference between casters and martials is fighter can keep swinging his sword until his HP runs low. The wizard is usually entirely focused on his limited spells, and he probably has little to offer once that resource is depleted. We could easily over-correct and make martials too powerful, since they still get to keep swinging after their new daily powers run low. So... this would take some tinkering, if we take it seriously at all.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think the issue people had with 4e was that martials and casters where on equal footing, rather that they where on identical footing.
I don't want martials to feel like casters and I don't want casters to feel like martials.
They should have different strengths and weaknesses, but both should have both. The issue right now is that the martials have too few strengths (at least fighters, rogues and monks) while casters have too few weaknesses that can't be adjusted with a few spells.
I think the key is to give martials more out of combat powers (and make those that are meant to be out of combat characters, like rogues, to be really really good at it) as well as reigning in on the versatility of casters. I WANT casters to be able to teleport the party across a vast distance or spy on the enemy or cast a deadly spell that turns a foe into dust. If nothing else because I as a DM love using casters as plot hooks. However, I don't necessarily think the same caster need to be able to do all three, and certainly not in the same day.
Agreed, but then we're getting into the "nerf casters" discussion again. ;)
Speaking of out-of-combat powers, how many skill points *should* a fighter, ranger, rogue, monk or barbarian etc have? Have we decided on amounts? And should casters get 1 or 2 extra points per level too, or just martials?