PFS has a number of very Caster unfriendly rules. Such as not letting Animated Dead carry over. Furthermore, my character can't take a day off adventuring to stockpile up on Explosive runes. I can't have buffs with hour/level duration cast yesterday and I can only carry over 1 of a few spell effects. I can assure Pathfinder has done the exact opposite of making caster more dependent on Martials. Casters have been given early permanent minions (Animate Dead, Lesser), XP free Simulacrums, and a spell to mitigate any gp cost associated with their spells, all of which seems counter to making casters dependent on martials.Plus a good Caster can (and should) bring his own Fighters. Why else would Animate Dead/Summon Monster X/Planar Binding/Planar Ally/Simulacrum/Gate exist? Also let's all take a moment to miss one best 3.5 Core PRC's: Thaumaturgist (Really just me?)Yeah it's just you. Seriously one of the major reasons that casters were such a problem in 3.5 was the over powered PrC's that boosted them.
I've played PFS up to 12th level and quite frankly it was usually the Martials that were the stars of the show, even over the Summoners. I won't say that Casters and Martials are perfectly balanced, but as long as you are properly strict with magic, and are imaginative with encounter design, it generally isn't a major issue. Pathfinder has generally restructured the casters to be dependent on martials to execute their awesomeness.
Not to mention the removal of crafting feats. Getting your magic items at half-cost can be a huge advantage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is nothing wrong with Martial classes. They function fine next to casters. There is no balance issue.
The only real difference I see between casters and martial classes is caster get new things to as they level up. The martial class keep doing the same thing. So after 15 levels as martial class you are doing the same thing you did at level 1. The casters is doing all kind of nifty things they couldn't do at level 1.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Martials get new things too. If they are Fighters they get feats and abilities related to weapon and armor use. IF they are any other class such as Paladins, Cavaliers, Rangers, etc., they get new class features.There is nothing wrong with Martial classes. They function fine next to casters. There is no balance issue.
The only real difference I see between casters and martial classes is caster get new things to as they level up. The martial class keep doing the same thing. So after 15 levels as martial class you are doing the same thing you did at level 1. The casters is doing all kind of nifty things they couldn't do at level 1.
True, but those things don't fundamentally alter the way the class performs the same way new spells will. A higher level wizard opens a lot more options than they have at level 1. A higher level Fighter will... hit things harder, and take more hits.
PFS Has so many rules hostile to casters it's not funny. They've banned or effectively removed a number of problem spells. Example
Simulacrum, create undead, any creation spell
Are all removed. If I could create undead I'd walk into any given adventure with a skeletal army. If simulacrum carried over between sessions it would be comically broken. By capping the duration of spells to 1 session they've created a huge number of nerfs. Removing permanency and off day contingencies removes a lot of power.
Levels 1-4 ARE martial levels where the barbarian excels and sword and board is still good!
There is also no crafting in PFS which effectively halves the gold available to casters.
Casters start to pull ahead at 5, pull farther at 7, at 9 the disparity is noticeable, and by 11/13 casters should dominate every encounter unless played poorly. There really is no comparison damage wise to wall of stone blocking the boss while the minions die and then you dump your entire spell list before removing the wall.
Crafting doubling caster wealth is generally an example of rafting being abused to the extreme, especially when high level characters are created, as opposed to being naturally advanced. A big problem with Pathfinder is that there are certain spells which were held back with experience point costs, which vanished with 3.5, that can and will break things if interpreted too liberally.
And despite all of what you just said, at the 11th level tier, Martials and other combat characters still dominate at the top end of PFS. They get tremendous help from their caster allies, but over all it's still them doing most of the heavy lifting when it comes to actually beating the opposition.
I interpret those spells very non-liberally to the point of only using Simulacrum in my examples to create Simulacrums of myself. Even just making Simulacrums of yourself (which I pretty damn sure was intended) gives me a small and ever growing army of Casters and more importantly free spell slots that can be converted into explosive runes and buff spells, saving my slots for other uses. Is it abusive to make Undead in a Desecrate effect with an altar to the Desecrate Caster's deity? No, that's intended. Is it abusive to make a Bloody Skeleton? Again... part of the spell. To gain control of 1 Bloody Skeleton with the Command Undead spell and then make another? Seems like it was intended. Using Blood Money to convert STR into free components? Clearly intended, that's literally what it does. Did the designer of the spell realize how easy it was to pump STR... probably not.
|
Martials get new things too. If they are Fighters they get feats and abilities related to weapon and armor use. IF they are any other class such as Paladins, Cavaliers, Rangers, etc., they get new class features.
They get feats that they are locked into, barring the occasional opportunity for retraining, which doesn't help much if the feats you no longer use are still prerequisites for the later feats.
Some of the prerequisites make little sense (tripping being dependent on Expertise being dependent on Int 13, despite being a valid tactic for wolves of Int...2)
A prepared caster can redesign almost their entire character concept overnight.
Is there not a good argument that casters should be made to focus equally on their abilities? To have a rule that spells are only unlocked for preparation, if the caster has prepared the prerequisite spells of lower level?
To cast Dominate, they must have learned and prepared Daze, Charm Person, Hypnotism, Charm Monster,....this learning of an entire lower-level themed list was the default assumption in Rolemaster, which was the game Monte Cook worked on prior to designing D&D3.
The concept of minor versions of spells being locked behind learning the higher level version (thus delaying access to some of the gamechangers, even if they eventually use a lower slot) is used extensively in his Arcana Unearthed ruleset, for the Diamond Throne setting.
And if they are unlucky enough to find themselves in an encounter with a creature immune to that school of magic? Well, sucks to be them, just like it sucks to be a martial character who finds half his feats invalidated.
I interpret those spells very non-liberally to the point of only using Simulacrum in my examples to create Simulacrums of myself. Even just making Simulacrums of yourself (which I pretty damn sure was intended) gives me a small and ever growing army of Casters and more importantly free spell slots that can be converted into explosive runes and buff spells, saving my slots for other uses.I don't allow Simulacrums to have spellcasting power, which eliminates 90 percent of the abuse of the spell off the bat. That's really the only ruling I make of the spell, which to my book only gives the abilities of the basic bestiary version of the creature. And the basic Bestiary version of PC's aren't spellcasters.
That's a reasonable Houserule, but I'm pretty sure the basic Bestiary Entry for a Simulacrum of a 20th level Wizard, would have 10 Wizard hit die. I'm not sure if you are actually arguing against that or being humorous with the Bestiary version of PC's, (I failed my tone check this time probably) so please consider this a clarification as to how non-liberally I construe Simulacrum.
That being said a neat trick that I would argue is valid even under my fairly strict reading of Simulacrum is how to make Simulacrums of 2HD Bestiary Creatures that are exactly as they appear in the Bestiary. A Bard with Inspire Greatness can make any 2HD creature a 4HD creature. Make a Simulacrum of the resulting 4HD creature (I like Lantern Archons) and you will end up with a 2HD version of the creature. Although I consider this valid, its nothing I would use in my arguments about the power of casters.
I really don't understand these threads. I'm playing a Sorc in a current level 9 game and I'm hopelessly far behind in combat effectiveness compared to the rest of the party.Haste won that battle, don't kid yourself.
What would have happened if Salazaar Slaan played with a party of Wizards and Clerics, like the messageboards seem to want everyone to do? Pretty sure the martials won that battle and as its name suggests, haste let them do it faster.
Casting haste on a wizard was cool in Third Edition. In Pathfinder, that spell solely exists as a party buff for martial characters. As others have pointed out, this doesn't make the wizard overpowered. Its simply good teamwork and using resources at the opportune moment.
All those guards existed for the sole purpose of giving the melee guys something to do while you were fetching the important thing in a place none of them could reach.
A good GM makes sure that all of her players are engaged over the course of a given adventure. The GM's job is to facilitate fun and to move the story along first and foremost.
The higher in level you get the more you will find yourself effectively ending encounters with one spell, setting it up so that you can comfortably hang back and let the meatshields clean up. You'll also notice more and more often that all the important, adventuring business depends on you while everyone else is doing some sort of busywork.
I find that the opposite is usually true. At higher levels creatures have better and better defenses against spellcasting in the form of Spell Resistance, energy immunities, and flat-out immunity to magic, and a talented GM will use a variety of creatures that cater to the strengths and weaknesses of her players. Actually, this is the only thing that I find "wrong" with the Gunslinger class. Because of its unique role as a touch AC martial class, the pool of monsters that can challenge the gunslinger is extremely shallow and is mostly restricted to incorporeal foes.
I understand that I am late to the party, but I felt moved to contribute.
First, I believe that it goes against the design paradigm of a martial class that to improve the martial aspects of that class, one must necessarily turn to magic (i.e. "Just grant them spellcasting."). If the point is for fighters to be better at doing what they do, then a martial class should accomplish this by feat of arms, not by feat of magic. Magical enhancement is all well and good, but there are few purely martial classes in Pathfinder as-is (and by pure, I mean that they do not rely upon some spell-like or supernatural ability to increase their combat effectiveness like paladins or barbarians do, for example). Enhancement would ideally be a matter of climbing toward the pinnacle of martial prowess. It is somewhat of a concern for balance when your wizard can kill 30 low-level antagonists with a single spell, while the fighter may require up to 30 actions to accomplish the same task. Granted, such is the nature of dropping atomic bombs as opposed to sending in ground troops, but a greater level of balance can be aspired to.
Secondly, as has been stated repeatedly in this thread, balance is not equivalent to ensuring that every character class is evenly matched in terms of ability or outcomes. There are certain things that specific classes should do much more effectively or efficiently than other classes. Making things die is not necessarily one of those things, though it would be interesting to see your fighter felling antagonists with one-shots more often than your wizard could; the flip side of this is that when you grant an ability to your protagonists, you can reasonably assume that it can also be granted to antagonists. Who wouldn't enjoy playing a fighter that at some point during his or her level progression could apply the vorpal quality to their sword for a limited number of times per day just because they're that awesome at killing things and the vorpal quality could reflect that awesomeness? However, it would "sucketh mightily" if one of your antagonists could one-shot your character in the same fashion, and who wouldn't be crying dirty pool if their GM pitted them against such foes with even a reasonable degree of commonality (i.e. not "incredibly rarely and only in major fights near the end of a long campaign")?
Thirdly, this is a game of swords and sorcery in a world where sorcery exists in magnificent splendor. There is going to be a natural leaning toward the sorcery aspect, since such games are more about escapism from our own world (otherwise we'd be playing games about farming, tax evasion and world war two) than they are about strict adherence to reality. This offers some benefits and some drawbacks, but the benefits far outweigh the drawbacks in my opinion. I believe it to be the popular opinion, as the game has far more supporters than detractors. The goal is to ensure that the game does not lean so heavily toward sorcery that one simply choose sorcery a vast majority of the time over the sword aspect. This can be troubling to keep balance while maintaining the appeal of the system, but I feel that Pathfinder has done a reasonable job of maintaining that balance. Obviously, some things could stand to be improved upon, otherwise this thread would not have gone on for quite so long.
In essence, strictly martial abilities could use improvement to narrow the gap, certainly more than just additional incremental bonuses to hit and damage. I personally believe that little should be able to match the one-on-one effectiveness of martial builds, particularly since they're not going to be able to (reasonably) match the one-on-many effectiveness of spellcasting builds, nor will they match the versatility of ability. Getting hit by a fighter should be extremely deadly, and that requires a focus on something greater than simple hit point damage.
If you cling to the "Wizards can tell the fundamental forces of the universe to sit down and shut up" and "Fighters must be as realistic as possible", anything resembling balance is going to be extremely difficult if not impossible. Pathfinder does not do realism, it does verisimilitude. And if a level 20 fighter full attacking twice in the same turn, breaking through walls like the Kool-Aid, ignoring invisibility through training, and restarting a stopped (Billionaire? I'm going with Billionaire) Billionaire's heart by screaming breaks your verisimilitude I honestly think you need to calibrate your expectations of what a level 20 character is.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What would have happened if Salazaar Slaan played with a party of Wizards and Clerics, like the messageboards seem to want everyone to do?
Then in that situation he would have cast something different if he isn't a fool, right? Slow, perhaps.
And he said they were all in a tight cooridor, perfect time to break off a lightning bolt or two. Or use stone shape to collapse the tunnel on them, maybe. Or just summon some stuff. Lots of ways to deal with random guards.
A good GM makes sure that all of her players are engaged over the course of a given adventure. The GM's job is to facilitate fun and to move the story along first and foremost.
I agree, and am glad the whole group had fun. That doesn't change the fact that they were there as fodder to give the melee guys something to do because otherwise they'd have just been playing fruit ninja.
I find that the opposite is usually true. At higher levels creatures have better and better defenses against spellcasting in the form of Spell Resistance, energy immunities, and flat-out immunity to magic, and a talented GM will use a variety of creatures that cater to the strengths and weaknesses of her players.
Sure, because a smart caster always makes sure to only cover one element, only target one save, and certainly never uses spells that don't have a save at all. Why, that would be rude!
Or, failing all else, just skip around the encounter completely. Casters can do that sort of thing, while martials can only fight or run away.
... And if a level 20 fighter [...] restarting a stopped (Billionaire? I'm going with Billionaire) Billionaire's heart by screaming breaks your verisimilitude I honestly think you need to calibrate your expectations of what a level 20 character is.
Yes, Billionaire, and Technically, I think the Hulk is a barbarian [/CompletelyMissingThePoint]
Then what is the point of playing this game at all if it's that unbalanced? Why are we still on this message board? Shouldn't we be playing a game that is more balance then? No, we are here because it's not unbalance, the game is still playable, the caster doesn't mean they can beat all martial. If not, then everyone must be caster in this case, but no because it's not unbalance and every class have their use. That's why we are still playing, am I correct?
Unbalanced does not mean unplayable.
Unbalanced does not mean MORE unbalanced than other games.
Unbalanced does not mean un-fun.
Stating the fact that it is unbalanced does not mean I dislike the game.
On the contrary. If I disliked the game I would simply not play it at all. And if I didn't like it, I wouldn't bother coming on these forums to point out minor (mostly) flaws I see because I want them fixed.
I see this whining about rogues on the boards constantly. In PFS play I see two types of rogues. Those that know how to play them effectively and those who don't. The first group are simply amazing in both utility and combat effectiveness. The second group are at best marginal in thier performance.
And there is nothing they can do that a decently made Ranger couldn't do better.
After weighing the theorycraft on these boards vs. the actual play experience, I am forced to conclude that many people who play rogues never actually master playing them right. This is understandable because among all the core classes, rogues are generally among the hardest to play, more so than wizards in my opinion.
Which is the issue.
It is possible to make an effective Rogue. The problem is that it takes 10x more effort for about 1/2 of the effectiveness of a similar Ranger (skills and damage) or Bard (skill monkey/face/utility) or Alchemist (skill guy/damage/utility).
And this one isn't just theorycraft on my part. I've seen Rogues fail, and fail hard in actual play quite a few times. And every time they brush themselves of, make a new character, and are usually AMAZED by how much better they're doing, even with a similar build on a new class.
As far as other classes emulating rogue tricks, those come at a cost. For the casters it's the use of limited spell slots that aren't there for when they should be performing their main jobs. For the others it's the sacrifice of a core class feature, such as spells for the Ranger. There isn't a single class however, who can do ALL the rogue stuff in one package.
I really don't place much value on Trapfinding, and little on Sneak Attack (which just situationally ups their damage, but not to-hit, up to just under dedicated martial levels), which is all the Rogue has going for him.
Traps just aren't a big thing in Pathfinder. They don't show up all that often, and when they do they're not that dangerous. In addition to that, there are so many other ways to disable or bypass the magical ones without Trapfinding that's it's just ridiculous, running the gamut from throwing an explosive at it (Dispelling Bomb), hitting it with a hammer (Spell Sunder), or even just setting it off from a safe distance.
Rogue talents are 90% lol worthy and really quite sickeningly bad for the most part. There's about 4 worth taking, and two of those just give you Feats anyway, one allows for automatic Perception checks for traps (which is only situationally useful but I find it worthwhile on occasion), and one lets you take the somewhat better Ninja Tricks.
Really, the Rogue would improve exponentially if Rogue Talents didn't suck like a Hoover. If they were as neat as Rage Powers and allowed him some good Ex and some flavorful and useful Su abilities I wouldn't come down so hard on the guy, but they're like 75% of what he gets and they suuuuuck.
Like, look at the Barbarian. He only gets like 3 real class features too (Fast Movement, Rage, and DR), but it doesn't matter because those class features are good, synergize well with each other, and his Rage Powers are GREAT. Even the "non-optimal" ones (You know, your stereotypical Beast Totem/Superstition/Spell Sunder Barba man) are worth taking with a few notable exceptions (I don't see the point if Groundbreaker, no matter how cool it sounds).
But Rogue Talents either make you slightly better at one thing once a day, and it's such a minor boost it hardly matters, or outright make you WORSE.
If all martials were as fun to play and good as the Barbarian I wouldn't harp on them so much. The Barbarian is probably the closest this game is going to get to a martial character that's balanced with a caster, since at the last he has some good Supernatural powers, anti-caster effects/resistances, and so on.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
contingency->blur works just fine.If your Schrodinger's wizard is blowing his contingency on Blur he's an idiot.
And my Schrodinger's rogue has blind fighting and heartseeker weapons.
if my wizard knows he has a rogue enemy, he'll be smart to protect himself against sneak attack.
If what you are saying that a random rogue could decide to attack a radom wizard for no particular reason, and then stalk and stab him, then yes your schrodinger combat situation might end with a random dead wizard, depending on which cobtingencybthe wizard has. On the other hand, a random wizard doing the same against a random rogue would be a massacre.
PS: blindfight doesn't help your rogue at all. It's not the 20% miss what damage you, it's thr sneak attack being negated by concealment.
This may not be popular, but I actually made a thread similar to this before found here.
Now, that thread actually started off rather poorly, mostly because I was a little hostile towards people I was playing with and the abuse I felt that was being allowed.
However, the result is this. Which has been a list of rules I plant to implement for the next game I run to test how they work. They may not be perfect, and many people (the ones that only play casters) don't like.
Just thought I'd share.
|
|
contingency->blur works just fine.If your Schrodinger's wizard is blowing his contingency on Blur he's an idiot.
And my Schrodinger's rogue has blind fighting and heartseeker weapons.
if my wizard knows he has a rogue enemy, he'll be smart to protect himself against sneak attack.
If what you are saying that a random rogue could decide to attack a radom wizard for no particular reason, and then stalk and stab him, then yes your schrodinger combat situation might end with a random dead wizard, depending on which cobtingencybthe wizard has. On the other hand, a random wizard doing the same against a random rogue would be a massacre.
PS: blindfight doesn't help your rogue at all. It's not the 20% miss what damage you, it's thr sneak attack being negated by concealment.
What I am saying is:
1. Wizards walking around leaving large craters behind them generate enemies.
2. Smart enemies are proactive and tend to hire talent appropriate for the problem.
3. Rogues can make extremely effective mage hunters if set up for it. You will literally never see them coming and no number of magical traps will stop them.
|
|
This may not be popular, but I actually made a thread similar to this before found here.
Now, that thread actually started off rather poorly, mostly because I was a little hostile towards people I was playing with and the abuse I felt that was being allowed.
However, the result is this. Which has been a list of rules I plant to implement for the next game I run to test how they work. They may not be perfect, and many people (the ones that only play casters) don't like.
Just thought I'd share.
While not exactly the way I would rule everything, there is nothing particularly onerous there.
I would add Blood Money to the proscribed list.
This may not be popular, but I actually made a thread similar to this before found here.
Now, that thread actually started off rather poorly, mostly because I was a little hostile towards people I was playing with and the abuse I felt that was being allowed.
However, the result is this. Which has been a list of rules I plant to implement for the next game I run to test how they work. They may not be perfect, and many people (the ones that only play casters) don't like.
Just thought I'd share.
While not exactly the way I would rule everything, there is nothing particularly onerous there.
I would add Blood Money to the proscribed list.
Good call on blood money. I welcome other suggestion and comments and would consider adding them in or revising my current policies.
This may not be popular, but I actually made a thread similar to this before found here.
Now, that thread actually started off rather poorly, mostly because I was a little hostile towards people I was playing with and the abuse I felt that was being allowed.
However, the result is this. Which has been a list of rules I plant to implement for the next game I run to test how they work. They may not be perfect, and many people (the ones that only play casters) don't like.
Just thought I'd share.
rule 10 b on general rules has a very big influence in adventure design. It basically destroy low level undead adventures
rule 10 b on general rules has a very big influence in adventure design. It basically destroy low level undead adventuresThis may not be popular, but I actually made a thread similar to this before found here.
Now, that thread actually started off rather poorly, mostly because I was a little hostile towards people I was playing with and the abuse I felt that was being allowed.
However, the result is this. Which has been a list of rules I plant to implement for the next game I run to test how they work. They may not be perfect, and many people (the ones that only play casters) don't like.
Just thought I'd share.
I assume you mean for players trying to create large groups of undead? That was part of the intention. I don't like players having large persistent groups of things that they control.
This is for players. The GM is free to ignore it for NPCs.
Indeed, I was a little confused by his statement.
|
|
rule 10 b on general rules has a very big influence in adventure design. It basically destroy low level undead adventuresThis may not be popular, but I actually made a thread similar to this before found here.
Now, that thread actually started off rather poorly, mostly because I was a little hostile towards people I was playing with and the abuse I felt that was being allowed.
However, the result is this. Which has been a list of rules I plant to implement for the next game I run to test how they work. They may not be perfect, and many people (the ones that only play casters) don't like.
Just thought I'd share.
This is for players. The GM is free to ignore it for NPCs.
You didn't understand me. I mean the staple "catacomb filled with zombies and skeletons from ancient" isn't possinle anymore
Oh, I see. I don't like that spells work different for PC or NPC. It's like if NPC invisibility can't be dispelled or NPC scry doesn't allow a save. But if your group likes that and they are happier that way, go for it
Oh, I see. I don't like that spells work different for PC or NPC. It's like if NPC invisibility can't be dispelled or NPC scry doesn't allow a save. But if your group likes that and they are happier that way, go for it
I don't like making spells work differently for NPCs and PCs, but allowing players to have large amounts of undead roving around under their command is definitely unbalancing from a martial player characters perspective.
Oh, I see. I don't like that spells work different for PC or NPC. It's like if NPC invisibility can't be dispelled or NPC scry doesn't allow a save. But if your group likes that and they are happier that way, go for itI don't like making spells work differently for NPCs and PCs, but allowing players to have large amounts of undead roving around under their command is definitely unbalancing from a martial player characters perspective.
It's already covered with the "you can't play evil characters" rule
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's already covered with the "you can't play evil characters" ruleOh, I see. I don't like that spells work different for PC or NPC. It's like if NPC invisibility can't be dispelled or NPC scry doesn't allow a save. But if your group likes that and they are happier that way, go for itI don't like making spells work differently for NPCs and PCs, but allowing players to have large amounts of undead roving around under their command is definitely unbalancing from a martial player characters perspective.
No, it's not. Casting a spell with the [evil] descriptor does not mean you are evil.
No, it's not. Casting a spell with the [evil] descriptor does not mean you are evil.It's already covered with the "you can't play evil characters" ruleOh, I see. I don't like that spells work different for PC or NPC. It's like if NPC invisibility can't be dispelled or NPC scry doesn't allow a save. But if your group likes that and they are happier that way, go for itI don't like making spells work differently for NPCs and PCs, but allowing players to have large amounts of undead roving around under their command is definitely unbalancing from a martial player characters perspective.
Casting evil spells every day all the time might turn you evil, but to what you're using those spells and the general effect you have on the world outside of just casting a spell with a descriptor will influence it far more.
If you cling to the "Wizards can tell the fundamental forces of the universe to sit down and shut up" and "Fighters must be as realistic as possible", anything resembling balance is going to be extremely difficult if not impossible. Pathfinder does not do realism, it does verisimilitude. And if a level 20 fighter full attacking twice in the same turn, breaking through walls like the Kool-Aid, ignoring invisibility through training, and restarting a stopped (Billionaire? I'm going with Billionaire) Billionaire's heart by screaming breaks your verisimilitude I honestly think you need to calibrate your expectations of what a level 20 character is.
Hulk should far above lvl 20, unless you want your characters to be able to do thisby just charging a foe. (If you are just talking about the movie version I'm sorry.)
That being said the martials shouldn't be bound by the rules of realism. They should IMO be able to do cool stuff without turning too comicky/shonenlike.
The real problem IMO are the campaign breakers(flying, teleport, scrying) and abuseable permanent spells(Planar Ally, Simulacrum).
Now there are three possibilities:
1) Tell the caster to stay away from abusing such spells.
2) Ban gamebreaking spells.
3) Buff the martials! Now that's hard to do. Copying teleport without ruining flair seems impossible, but increased saves would be nice. They already do some nice damage so increasing that won't help either. Maybe some nice Aura feats to buff themselves and there allies and a few more debuffing feats.
Martials in asian fantasy culture seem to do just fine at copying some of the magical effects of spellcasters just by being awesome.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is nothing wrong with Martial classes. They function fine next to casters. There is no balance issue.
The only real difference I see between casters and martial classes is caster get new things to as they level up. The martial class keep doing the same thing. So after 15 levels as martial class you are doing the same thing you did at level 1. The casters is doing all kind of nifty things they couldn't do at level 1.
THIS!
You are always effective as a martial character. Your DPR is the best in the game. Most of a casters tactics involve funneling the monster to you and weakening them so you put in the finishing blow.
But "I hit them with my sword" being the most effective tactic can get boring after awhile.
You have to really get into to your character and role play out the actions, before hitting them with a sword becomes an exciting experience.
Meh. Hulk is level 5 at most. He's just the 'gamma-powered' template at its highest end. nasty template, that one!
Tony's the smartest pure human on the planet, so he's a 6. With level 20 gear.
Thor's probably 21+, and Asgardian God of Thunder on top of it.
Cap is probably 6th, with 23 in all stats from the Super Soldier template, and a full Ranger with Human FE +4. He could be as high as 10th if you let Super Soldiers break human limits.
Hawkeye is the best ranged attacker on the planet, so an overspecialized 23 Dex human ranged weapon specialist.
===Aelryinth
Tony is not as smart as Mr. Fantastic. But Tony is an engineer while Mr. Fantastic is a scientist.
There are actually many humans smarter than Tony, but he is the most innovative.
I kinda want to stat out the "Gamma Powered" template now.
"Grants +32 Str, -10 Int/Cha, +6 Wis and the ability to Rage. Rage bonuses start at +8 and increase by +4 every time you take damage."
Also gives a version of the Berserk ability of constructs.
3.5 Frenzied Berserker was the hulk, except the hulk never runs out of rage...
And levels up the madder he gets...
Hulk OP.
|
Treat spell casting as an obvious and visible action even if stilled, silenced, eschewed. This is supported by the art and spell craft/perception rules even - but not a written rule.
Spells function as written, don't allow shinanagins.
Don't allow metamagic rods (each is so underpriced its ridiculous)
Use weather
This won't stop everything but magic is supposed to be impressive.
|
I would suggest that you remove AoO for Combat Maneuvers. Keep the Greater Combat Maneuver Feats but just treat them as though they did not have the prerequisite of an Improved Combat Maneuver Feat.
As for add-ons I have looked into D&D Next and ToB to find the solution.
Instead of adding the classes, I would recommend allowing players to take a feat in order to use a single discipline school. Many 3rd party disciplines are expertly balanced as well. Their initiator level is equal to their BAB. Rogues may take a Rogue Talent to use their rogue level as their BAB for the purpose of determining Initiator level. Monks may use their Monk Level as their iniator level in place of Maneuver Training
For D&D Next Fighters get what is know as Expertise.I would suggest giving this to all Classes that have a Full BAB as well as the Rogue.
At first Level you get two Expertise Schools: Death Dealer & Superior Defense and may pick one from each. All must be announced before a roll is made unless otherwise stated. I would recommend allowing them to use any of them at any time or simply allowing them to decide on it each day.
Deal a Deep Wound Use one 1d6 of your expertise. This is how much extra damage that is dealt.
Inspire an Ally They deal an additional 1d6 of damage using your expertise die.
Shield Slam Leave the target at a disability until your next turn and deal an extra 1d6 damage. It doesn't say exactly what type of disability so I would assume staggered to best account for them being knocked windless. I would also remove the extra 1d6 damage to balance it with the Deep wound ability
Richochet a Ranged Weapon: Pick a target within five feet of another after making a successful ranged Attack. Roll 1d6+Dex mod Str is more plausible in pathfinder of damage. That's how much damage the second enemy takes.
Block a Ranged/Projectile WeaponRoll 1d6 Add this to your or an adjacent Ally's Armor Class.
Nimble Dodge If not wearing light or no armor you may roll 1d6 to
add to your armor class. If the Attack misses you may make a five foot step away from your opponent.
Parry When wielding a melee weapon or shield you may roll 1d6 and this to any attack from a melee weapon. If you roll a 6 and the attack fails, I would allow the defender to make AoO as a counter if you will.
Warn Another If you can see someone and they are capable of hearing you, you may warn them of the in rushing attack as an immediate action before the attack is made. They gain 1d6 insight bonus to armor class.
At level 4 you gain
Inspire Accuracy You may as an immediate action to someone you can see that is capable of hearing you point out a weak spot or give encouraging words. This grants 1d6 morale or insight bonus to your allies attack roll.
Careful AttackYou may add 1d6 to your attack roll.
Nick/Glancing BlowIf an attack fails you may roll 1d6 after being resolved as a miss. If it hits, it's a nick/Glancing Blow and deals half damage. You gain no extra benefits from a Sneak attack, Poison or similar ability. You do however still gain your full Str/Dex Mod and enhancement bonus to the attack.
Shield Swipe After missing an attack of opportunity with a primary weapon, you may reroll the attack with a 1d6 bonus using your shield as the weapon.
At Level 7 you gain
Bolster Save Roll 1d6 and add this to a saving throw.
Bolster Allies If you can see an ally, and they can heal you. You can grant them a 1d6 morale bonus to one of their saves.