Rule are constant. GM allowance and player skill aren't.
To use another analogy, give one man a tank and another a fully stocked airship carrier with lazer cannons and men to control them. That's slightly closer to the comparison between two people of the same skill playing a fighter and a wizard next to each other...
Its not a player problem, its a system problem.
Huh, I've never seen any of those books for sale at the local stores, nor in the hands of any of my friends. I have a ridiculously hard time convincing people to play something other than DnD, or even try it. That's always been a major part of the issue for me.
Sadly, Japanese book RPG's haven't had an easy time getting translated into English. However that might change in the future. Tenra Bansho Zero is now available.
This is not an Eastern vs Western fantasy bias. It's a mundane vs supernatural bias. Period. Attempting to claim that this is some sort of cultural bigotry is just silly. Pathfinder has incorporated Eastern and other cultural mythology into the game.
Having a faux-Japan in a Western RPG is not making an Eastern RPG... just as having faux-Europe in an Eastern RPG is not making a Western RPG.
The bias I am taking about, is what an Eastern RPG is willing to consider the realm of "pure magic" and what it is willing to consider the realm of "superhuman" but not magical. Not that Paizo has a version of Japan and China in their setting.
Western RPG's already have a ton of things that a fighter can do, that are considered magical in the real world. The Eastern RPG's just go farther with it... because their literature tells of warriors (and again these are FANTASY settings; not realistic depictions of reality) doing more than what LotR or Conan says they can do.
It's cultural from that end. A Japanese gamer complains that a D&D fighter is too weak for a fantasy warrior... just how a Western game complains that an Alshard fighter is too powerful. Because the strengths and limitations of both are different in what they expect.
Narg, there are plenty of game systems in the West that provide "fighters" with awesome reality altering cosmic powers. D&D 4e is just the latest example.
There may well be games in Japan that constrain certain characters to something like the laws of physics as we understand them. I don't know, I don't game in Japan.
Why you keep trying to claim this is some sort of cultural clash is beyond me, unless that's just one of your pet agenda items to push.
The issue is that the game treats some classes as (supposedly) mundane and tries to limit their powers accordingly. Period. Not that there is some sort of Western cultural bias.
Rule are constant. GM allowance and player skill aren't.To use another analogy, give one man a tank and another a fully stocked airship carrier with lazer cannons and men to control them. That's slightly closer to the comparison between two people of the same skill playing a fighter and a wizard next to each other...
Its not a player problem, its a system problem.
To use your analogy, The tank has heavy armor and unlimited ammo, it has enough fuel to run for three days.
The airship has a nuclear power cell that has an eight hour cool down after being fired five times. No armor and a 2 meter exhaust port; if you can bull's eye a wump rat you can cause a chain reaction...You seem to for forget the wizards crippling weaknesses.
Wizards are only gods when their power plant isn't on cool down...or being hit.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To echo a few other posters - it's the spells, not the classes.
In older editions casters were powerful, but damn hard to play with plenty of risks and associated dangers –at low levels, very difficult to play, and at high levels they still were very vulnerable.
Older editions:
-Casters had less spells per day
-Saves were target internal, not caster controllable (terrible design)
-Powerful spells had risks associated with them
-Could not cast in direct combat (stupid and suicidal)
On top of that, the main currency that Fighters deal in – blood (hp), just got more and more inflated with no cap on Hp/HD, exploding con bonuses (more than base hit points) all making them less effective in their core task - and that's even if casters were entirely removed from the game!
Some bootstomping spells that stomp other class abilities should be changed or dropped all together and there should be a solid re-examining of the way spells are written and balanced. As much as many people hate on Gygax here at least he made spells and spell casting in 1st ed damn hard and risky.
To me it feels like 3rd ed was written by bunch of bitter casters from 1st and 2nd ed era "who were going to do it their way" in 3rd ed, much like an angry child designing his school curriculum. Well, they did it their way and it sucks.
I agree with Pan, wands in particular are priced way too low - stupid low.
Never had these problems in 1st or 2nd, even for high level casters planning out their "bestest" spell list for the day. They were always afraid that a comparable fighter could still kick his ass, and they could have. Not in 3rd+ editions.
Anyway
Just thinking about the relative power and utility of full casters, I was wondering how far they would have to be nerfed before people thought they became too bad to play.
What if Wizards and clerics had a spellcasting progression like the Magus, gaining a new spellcasting level every 3 levels, would they still be 'tier 1'?
Partial casters would of course be berfed as well, in proportion.
Nerfing casters at all is a bad idea and you should feel bad for having it.
Mr Fishy,
But a system has to be balanced assuming some level of player competence and optimization. That's why for instance a fair number of feats are really underpowered UNLESS you're making one particular combination. What level do we want the game balanced assuming? Parties full of sword & board fighters, healbot clerics, and unoptimized blasters? It's not an easy question.
Mr. Fishy still agrees.
"unoptimized blasters" Isn't that redundant?
Player skill makes or breaks balance quickly, a good fighter will keep the monsters off the party, a good wizard will keep the monsters from swarming or running the fighter over. Clerics heal and support the fighter potition. If one player is out of step the dynamic fails and the party suffers.
Allow rogues to sneak attack without flanking and to ignore armor on sneak attack and the rogue becomes OP because you remove the balancing factor that was written in to the game. Every time a fighter crits the target has to roll fort or die (as coup de grace). Resting for eight hours is the spell casters balancing in game rule so use it. Next time the party rest anywhere not secure (inn) roll for encounters once per hour. If how long until the rest of the party has had enough of the wizards foolishness?
There may well be games in Japan that constrain certain characters to something like the laws of physics as we understand them. I don't know, I don't game in Japan.
They exist. Not the most popular, but I've played 'em.
Why you keep trying to claim this is some sort of cultural clash is beyond me, unless that's just one of your pet agenda items to push.
I blame myself for using the wrong words, or directing it from the wrong angle. Maybe it's something I need more time to phrase better.
There is a reason why American RPG's (book or console) fail to gain much traction in Japan, despite the efforts to get them to take hold. D&D succeeded because it was so novel, awesome, and the first. It's one of the grandfathers of Japanese RPG'ing (along with Wizardry). But many -- and I mean MANY -- attempts to bring various Western RPG's to Japan have failed, because of the mechanics and presentation. The Japanese "rendition" of Cyberpunk is Tokyo NOVA more or less, with MAJOR adjustments for a Japanese market. Battletech was a complete failure all around, and FASA tried some major marketing back in the heyday. It didn't present "mecha" like the Japanese thought mecha should have been presented... later another company made their own spin of it, and that did great (forget the name of it though). Off the top of my head, only GRUPS became a success, largely due to how flexible the system is. The newer versions of D&D still get published in Japan, but it's mostly due to WotC having so much $$$ to do it (MtG is big in Japan)... but not the raw sales of D&D.
I'm just saying there is a different mindset to things. It's not just RPG's. For example The SIMS is considered a colossal failure in Japan and Korea (despite being a massive success in Europe and South America), and the common Japanese or Korean review has said the character models were ugly. So EA made tailored MySIMS for the Japanese/Korean market... which ironically failed for other various reasons, but found some success in the West. In Japan, the king of MMO's was Ragnarok Online for the longest time (and popular anime like Sword Arts Online reflect that): WoW would never succeed in Japan for a laundry list of reasons, and no effort has been made because of them. It's probably an argument best made over a cup of coffee face-to-face in a café, than on an Internet forum, but it's not an agenda I'm trying to push. Things that you can market in the US, won't ever market in Japan... and vice versa. It's something along those lines.
EDIT: Accidently mentioned Shadowrun and meant Cyberpunk. Edited that part. Shadowrun never made it to Japan. It was years ago, and I was thinking about FASA at the same time, so don't hold it too hard against me. :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The airship has a nuclear power cell that has an eight hour cool down after being fired five times. No armor and a 2 meter exhaust port; if you can bull's eye a wump rat you can cause a chain reaction...You seem to for forget the wizards crippling weaknesses.
Man, if you had the chance to pilot the Death Star wouldn't you take it in a heartbeat? Even if you only get one shot your bound to leave an impression...
Player skill makes or breaks balance quickly,
You have this weird idea that game balance has nothing to do with the game... Quit that.
My biggest problems with Vancian magic is that it is generally successful, barring concentration check failures. Many abilities of non-casters require a dice roll, which casters generally do not.
Some balancers for me are, limit/change the levels for some spells, See "Midnight" OGL setting. or "Dark Legacies"
Use a skill/feat based system. ENWorlds "Mythic Earth" or Green Ronin's "True20: True Sorcery"
Man I feel like I should get some endorsement money for plugging all those.
|
My biggest problems with Vancian magic is that it is generally successful, barring concentration check failures. Many abilities of non-casters require a dice roll, which casters generally do not.
Except for saving throws
And spell resistance
And occasionally concentration checks and to-hit rolls.
On top of that, the main currency that Fighters deal in – blood (hp), just got more and more inflated with no cap on Hp/HD, exploding con bonuses (more than base hit points) all making them less effective in their core task - and that's even if casters were entirely removed from the game!
Ignoring that the same inflation favors martials when it comes to increased strength, increased hit points and increased damage output in general.
In Pathfinder an optimized fighter can generally do enough damage on a full attack to 1-round an equal CR encounter.
The airship has a nuclear power cell that has an eight hour cool down after being fired five times. No armor and a 2 meter exhaust port; if you can bull's eye a wump rat you can cause a chain reaction...You seem to for forget the wizards crippling weaknesses.Man, if you had the chance to pilot the Death Star wouldn't you take it in a heartbeat? Even if you only get one shot your bound to leave an impression...
Player skill makes or breaks balance quickly,You have this weird idea that game balance has nothing to do with the game... Quit that.
Death star like the wizard was crittically flawed, that flaw was ignored...
The balance of the game is written in and then ignored. Mr. Fishy can't account for the GM at your table. The balance of any game can be shifted or out right thrown off, GM/Player problems. Look at the advice threads; some one ask a "how does this work" question and you get 2 answers, 4 fires, a monkey, a streaker, a different question and a 6 page flame war over the defintion of unconscious.
Mr. Fishy can't make that last bit up; really happened.
Mr Fishy is making up a lot of things really. He's pretending the game is inherently balanced and that anything that went wrong is the players fault.
In Pathfinder an optimized fighter can generally do enough damage on a full attack to 1-round an equal CR encounter.
Yeah, but that makes a rather large assumption that Mr. Fighter hasn't had his full-attack capability neutralized by a caster...
I think one of the problems here is that in Pathfinder, Magic and Supernatural have become synonyms.
If you want to play a Supernatural Fighter, you have to do it with spells. There's no real option in the game for a character who can perform supernatural fighting abilities like shockwaves and cutting fireballs in half because they practiced their butts off every day to learn those moves. The closest I can think of is a Barbarian with certain Rage Powers, and even they don't have everything I'd necessarily want for that kind of character (along with being saddled with typical Barbarian RP baggage that I might not want).
Yes, some fighter options should be entirely mundane for those who want fighters that way. But Supernatural Fighters aren't badwrongfun.
Mr Fishy is making up a lot of things really. He's pretending the game is inherently balanced and that anything that went wrong is the players fault.
Never stated the the system is perfectly balanced. Mr. Fishy admits the system has many explotible faults. Flaws that "players" use to make characters that exist out side the RAI. You ever ride a bike? Mr. Fishy sees it kind of like that. The user has to provide the balance. Analogy!
Mr. Fishy stated that the rules are written with certain class balancing weakness inherent to the varying classes such as a cool down and reboot that is hand waved thus creating an imbalance in the game at the table. An imbalance that is addressed in the rule of the system but ignored in play. Therefore the balance issue lies on the side of the players.
You have brakes on your car, you refuse to use the brakes, you ram into things and then curse the car manufacturer. The fault lies on the side of the user. Another analogy...YEAH! Two more and we winning a prize.
|
|
Aranthos,
If you look at the DPR Olympics fighters, who are fairly optimized, they can generally 2 or 3 round an opponent with CR equal to their level. Rarely can they one-round one. (typical DPR 50-60, typical hit points of opponent 100-140 or so).
At 10th level, the level the DPR Olympics took place, an unarmed monk with no archetypes can do 100 DPR while maintaining a decent AC and saves.
Fighters and Barbarians can manage somewhat higher.
In Pathfinder an optimized fighter can generally do enough damage on a full attack to 1-round an equal CR encounter.Yeah, but that makes a rather large assumption that Mr. Fighter hasn't had his full-attack capability neutralized by a caster...
"Scissors is fine, Paper is OP" --- Rock
|
|
"Scissors is fine, Paper is OP" --- RockIn Pathfinder an optimized fighter can generally do enough damage on a full attack to 1-round an equal CR encounter.Yeah, but that makes a rather large assumption that Mr. Fighter hasn't had his full-attack capability neutralized by a caster...
Yep.
Because we are also making the assumption that Mr. Wizard has not had his spellcasting neutralized by a fighter - grappling.
"Scissors is fine, Paper is OP" --- RockIn Pathfinder an optimized fighter can generally do enough damage on a full attack to 1-round an equal CR encounter.Yeah, but that makes a rather large assumption that Mr. Fighter hasn't had his full-attack capability neutralized by a caster...Yep.
Because we are also making the assumption that Mr. Wizard has not had his spellcasting neutralized by a fighter - grappling.
Sure... that's possible.
But the reality in my gaming has been that it's much harder for the fighter to grapple the wizard before the wizard can cast a spell, than it is for the wizard to nullify the fighter's full attack before the fighter can move.
But then again, I don't contest the notion that casters are more powerful than martial characters. I pretty much take that as understood.
|
|
Sure... that's possible."Scissors is fine, Paper is OP" --- RockIn Pathfinder an optimized fighter can generally do enough damage on a full attack to 1-round an equal CR encounter.Yeah, but that makes a rather large assumption that Mr. Fighter hasn't had his full-attack capability neutralized by a caster...Yep.
Because we are also making the assumption that Mr. Wizard has not had his spellcasting neutralized by a fighter - grappling.
I've been on both sides of the table plenty of times, from both martial and melee perspectives.
Both sides have a chance to neutralize the other before they act. It is the rocket tag of mid-high level play where the person who wins initiative wins the fight.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
On top of that, the main currency that Fighters deal in – blood (hp), just got more and more inflated with no cap on Hp/HD, exploding con bonuses (more than base hit points) all making them less effective in their core task - and that's even if casters were entirely removed from the game!Ignoring that the same inflation favors martials when it comes to increased strength, increased hit points and increased damage output in general.
Absurd, hit points go exponentially insane with high HD and Con for creatures at mid to high level.
+2 to +4 in STR mod =/= +2 or +4 Con Mod X HD in bonus hp, on top of extra hit points from high hit die.In Pathfinder an optimized fighter can generally do enough damage on a full attack to 1-round an equal CR encounter.
Depends on the creature - still don't see how inflated hit points make the game better.
It's a metric that 1st tier martials need to be optimized to deal with to begin with (keeping up damage output), and 2nd tier martials (rogues) can just pound sand. Bad design.Casters also have to follow a metric, a Binary Save metric where they control the target number. They get optimized in that dept. - they don't need to roll to hit, they just need to make sure the target doesn't make their save to shut off the encounter. And then they get to do other fun stuff. Bad design.
In 3rd ed +, all martials are trying to do is keep up – they need to be hyper-optimized to do this and just this. 2nd Tier martials are considered useless in combat and out of combat mid-level skill monkeys are not needed when spells can do more and better.
They only made all these changes to open up the numbers (vs. TSRs closed system) for higher level play, which they never properly supported. Even Paizo is dreading dealing with Epic play (hence Mythic). The numbers don't work.
So all of this was a side-effect of opening up Hit points/AC and increasing powers/Save DCs in an effort to market higher level play (which they never did successfully) and make casters more attractive (like they really needed to do that). Again, bad design.
I've been on both sides of the table plenty of times, from both martial and melee perspectives.
Both sides have a chance to neutralize the other before they act. It is the rocket tag of mid-high level play where the person who wins initiative wins the fight.
Initiative? Are you suggesting that the wizard needs to go first? The wizard is so mighty that he waits until round 2 act so the fighter doesn't feel sad.
Yes, some fighter options should be entirely mundane for those who want fighters that way. But Supernatural Fighters aren't badwrongfun.
Thing is, supposedly we already have a mundane fighter: we call it the Warrior NPC.
Traditionalists fight for the status quo of keeping the meleers down. You don't have to tear down the spellcasters, if you can raise up the fighter. But they want meleers to be weak, because a mere swordsman can NEVER be the equal of a wizard.
Animesque meleers? Sure, it's not realistic. Neither is a game full of city sized dungeons and nation destroying dragons. We've seen awesome fantasy settings with fighters doing the fireball cutting and teleport fast movement. It didn't kill fantasy. For some of us, it made it better. Just saying it's not Paizo is a weak argument too. It wasn't Paizo for Charisma based divine casters or pistol carrying gunslingers... until they made such classes.
Yeah... go play another system that does it... I've obviously proven that I have. I'm just of the mind it would work for Paizo too.
|
|
On top of that, the main currency that Fighters deal in – blood (hp), just got more and more inflated with no cap on Hp/HD, exploding con bonuses (more than base hit points) all making them less effective in their core task - and that's even if casters were entirely removed from the game!Ignoring that the same inflation favors martials when it comes to increased strength, increased hit points and increased damage output in general.Absurd, hit points go exponentially insane with high HD and Con for creatures at mid to high level.
+2 to +4 in STR mod =/= +2 or +4 Con Mod X HD in bonus hp, on top of extra hit points from high hit die.In Pathfinder an optimized fighter can generally do enough damage on a full attack to 1-round an equal CR encounter.Depends on the creature - still don't see how inflated hit points make the game better.
It's a metric that 1st tier martials need to optimized to deal with to begin with (keeping up damage output), and 2nd tier martials (rogues) can just pound sand. Bad design.
Casters also have to follow a metric, a Binary Save metric where they control the target number. They get optimized in that dept. - they don't need to roll to hit, they just need to make sure the target doesn't make their save to shut off the encounter. And then they get to do other fun stuff. Bad design.
No different than the metric Fighters control. To-hit. A fighter putting any effort at all into it will hit on a 2+ on his first 2-4 attacks.
The most efficient means of boosting to-hit is boosting strength, Which also sends damage through the stratosphere.
Deal enough damage, you've just shut the encounter off, with no opportunity for your opponent to many any rolls.
In 3rd ed +, all martials are trying to do is keep up – they need to be hyper-optimized to do this and just this. 2nd Tier martials are considered useless in combat and out of combat mid-level skill monkeys are not needed when spells can do more and better. They only did it to open up the numbers for higher level play, which they never properly supported. Even Paizo is dreading dealing with Epic play (hence Mythic). The numbers don't work.
Fortunately we are not playing 3.0 - 3.5. Both martial classes and casters have been altered since then.
And frankly, I don't care what the disparities were in 3.5, I am playing Pathfinder.
So all of this was a side-effect of opening up Hit points/AC and increasing powers/Save DCs in an effort to market higher level play (which they never did successfully) and make caster more attractive (like they really needed to do that). Again, bad design.
If it is high level play you find game breaking. Avoid high level play. Most people do, which is why you see more low level content published.
That is not class specific or caster/martial specific. It is a game style decision that is class neutral.
Make skills better. Preferably to superhuman heights after a certain level (a remark from SKR saying he wants this gives me great hope for a possible change in PF 2.0...whether that's a decade away or not though is up for debate) Get rid of or change all the spells that piss on skills.
Suddenly, martials have more out of combat utility, and casters stop stepping on their toes.
They still get all their big goodies (Teleport/Overland Flight, the "I'm immune or highly resistant to stuff you can hurt me with lol" spells, and so on), but the gap has been bridged somewhat without beating casters over the head with a fun destroying nerf, and giving martials more fun toys to play with.
Win-win for everybody but that guy who WANTS casters to literally be better at everything because "that's what magic is SUPPOSED to be like".
@Nargrakhan
Have you tried Exalted? White Wolf did the 1st and 2nd ed. But Mr. Fishy saw a web site for 3rd ed that is being produced by the creative team not the a publisher. It's a lot like what you are describing over the top martial arts and supernatural warriors very high octane. Mr. Fishy managed to play a few types, the hyperkenetic archer dance across the battle field on the heads of the opposing army. Stealing arrows out of an enemies quiver and firing them. Played a warrior priest had a party member leap off Mr. Fishy's shield because he need a boost. Can't wait for Exalted 3rd ed come out.
Have you tried Exalted?
I have. There was also Scion for a "modern world" version. 7th Sea also made being a meleer pretty slick (the original AEG system... NOT the d20 remake).
Both Scion and 7th Sea died slow painful market deaths.
Didn't know Exalted was getting a new lease on life. Glad to hear and will definately support it. Hope it survives this time.
@Nargrakhan
Have you tried Exalted? White Wolf did the 1st and 2nd ed. But Mr. Fishy saw a web site for 3rd ed that is being produced by the creative team not the a publisher. It's a lot like what you are describing over the top martial arts and supernatural warriors very high octane. Mr. Fishy managed to play a few types, the hyperkenetic archer dance across the battle field on the heads of the opposing army. Stealing arrows out of an enemies quiver and firing them. Played a warrior priest had a party member leap off Mr. Fishy's shield because he need a boost. Can't wait for Exalted 3rd ed come out.
I can't say I care for Exalted combat much. It can be fun to decimate an army with ease, but as soon as you're facing off against someone else with motes it's just rocket tag; if you use a combo you will do enough damage to one shot another Exalt unless they use some sort of perfect defense, and if it's two on one then his partner will just do the his combo now that you used your charm for the turn. If it's one on one then it seems to be a game of who has more motes left.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No different than the metric Fighters control. To-hit. A fighter putting any effort at all into it will hit on a 2+ on his first 2-4 attacks.
No, it is different - by your own admission. Fighters need to-hit. And then they need to do damage. Caster just needs to cast (no roll) and the target has to hope to save. Fighters are subject to considerable number of die variables to pull off his trick - and he has less control. When he does enough damage he shuts off the encounter, the wizard has been playing this trick from 1st level with 1st level spells and it doesn't stop from there, it just gets worse.
The most efficient means of boosting to-hit is boosting strength, Which also sends damage through the stratosphere.
Not disagreeing with you on this, my question is why? Why does he need to do so much damage and to be optimized in full focus build to do so? What is the benefit of having everything do more damage, have more hit points? What is the game function for the numbers to go exponentially bigger?
Deal enough damage, you've just shut the encounter off, with no opportunity for your opponent to many any rolls.
And the caster does this better.
There are no variables needed for damage (unless he's a blaster), it's a binary/yes no in effect. There are no de-buffs to casting, even most spell effects/de-buffs do not impair the actual ability to cast unless the spell does damage. They impair everything else though: to-hits, damage, AC, Saves. The only time they impair casting is when they shut down the character function entirely.Fortunately we are not playing 3.0 - 3.5. Both martial classes and casters have been altered since then.
And frankly, I don't care what the disparities were in 3.5, I am playing Pathfinder.
I stated 3rd+, that is 3.5, PF and any other clone variant that uses 3.5 as a core structure. While PF did nerf some specific spells they did not change the core philosophy of casting spells = superior to everything else. Casting spells = superior to skill use. None of these core 3.0 game designs were changed or altered in any of the subsequent game editions, be it 3.5 or PF.
I can't say I care for Exalted combat much. It can be fun to decimate an army with ease, but as soon as you're facing off against someone else with motes it's just rocket tag; if you use a combo you will do enough damage to one shot another Exalt unless they use some sort of perfect defense, and if it's two on one then his partner will just do the his combo now that you used your charm for the turn. If it's one on one then it seems to be a game of who has more motes left.
Archers get three attacks but it take five minutues to...reload? Martial arts get 3 attacks and it takes 2 seconds to strike again!?!? 3 arrows, 3 shots was Mr. Fishy crafting the arrows on the fly? 1 attack recharge equal to unarmed maybe, it was a long bow, does shooting 3 arrows give Mr. Fishy arm fatigue?
The mote thing buged Mr. Fishy too. So Mr. Fishy dodged a lot. Combat and the skills where silly and the charms were bordering on punishment. But Mr. Fishy got to one shot a villain stealth means you can't block...SNEAK ATTACK!!!! for the win. Hopeful 3rd ed is better.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Exalted seems to lend itself more to intrigue and world building. I'm playing in a game now where I'm a purely social character that uses Bureaucracy + Manipulation for everything and it's a lot of fun. We spend most of the session plotting, I and another social character spend a bunch of motes, and the schemes go through... and the people with combat capabilities roll their dice one time to quietly assassinate those that couldn't be convinced or bought.
I felt bad for the GM originally though because it seemed like he thought he'd be running a high power DnD game, but I kept talking all his monsters down and made deals with them. He's on board now and is enjoying it because he changed his expectations.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've always thought the pure amount of schools of magic that a caster gets access too is a bit "unrealistic."
You've got a non-supernatural individual who is spending his life studying magic to cast.
Sounds a lot like a physician to me, I know a lot of doctors. Some are endocrinologists. Some are Proctologists. Some are cardiologists. Some are surgeons. Some are general practice.
They're all super smart. They all understand a little bit about other forms of medicine, but I know very few individuals who are both endocrinologists and cardiologists. I know few surgeons who are also psychiatrists.
So why do Wizards, who again are normal individuals who happen to spend a lot of time studying magic to cast able to cast 9th Level Evocation Spells and 9th Level Illusion Spells with relatively little difference in their ability to do either?
What if instead, you could separate schools of magic like schools of medicine. You can chose to be a evocation wizard, and get full access to evocation spells, but only know a smattering of low level spells in any other school. You could be an illusionist, but you're really limited on the number of conjuration spells you could cast.
Suddenly, you're not an all-knowing all seeing, all encompassing master of magic. But rather you're a really awesome fireball thrower, and you happen to know a few tricks with light.
I've always thought the pure amount of schools of magic that a caster gets access too is a bit "unrealistic."
You've got a non-supernatural individual who is spending his life studying magic to cast.
Sounds a lot like a physician to me, I know a lot of doctors. Some are endocrinologists. Some are Proctologists. Some are cardiologists. Some are surgeons. Some are general practice.
They're all super smart. They all understand a little bit about other forms of medicine, but I know very few individuals who are both endocrinologists and cardiologists. I know few surgeons who are also psychiatrists.
So why do Wizards, who again are normal individuals who happen to spend a lot of time studying magic to cast able to cast 9th Level Evocation Spells and 9th Level Illusion Spells with relatively little difference in their ability to do either?
What if instead, you could separate schools of magic like schools of medicine. You can chose to be a evocation wizard, and get full access to evocation spells, but only know a smattering of low level spells in any other school. You could be an illusionist, but you're really limited on the number of conjuration spells you could cast.
Suddenly, you're not an all-knowing all seeing, all encompassing master of magic. But rather you're a really awesome fireball thrower, and you happen to know a few tricks with light.
But-but-but then my God Wizard won't be a God Wizard! You're ruining everything forever!
;)
What you're saying P33J sounds a lot like the route the Psion took. The best powers (or at least the signature powers) of each school are only normally accessible by those who focus on that school (like the psion equivalents of Fly is only for Transmuters, Scrying for Diviners, Dominate -whatever- for Enchanters, etc), but a Psion can take a feat to gain access to a particular spell from another specialty.
You know, I think I like the way that's done.
You know, I think I like the way that's done.
Ditto, but I feel that the feats themselves could still use more Oomph, even those feats for spell casters. I actually like being able to cast from various schools, just the same if there were several schools of martial arts I'd like to be able to do a little bit of everything. Specializing being something of feats and class features and the like. It used to be you did lose 2 schools if you were a wizard, and sorcerers are always limited, but times have changed a lot.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Truth be told, I don't play wizards. I like to play Fighters, and occasionally a Barbarian and a Paladin.
I like the idea of honing a talent over years and excelling at it, but not necessarily being good at everything. Wizards are like those kids who always had to one up everyone in grade school, you know the ones I'm talking about.
You: "My dad took us to Chucky Cheeses this weekend it was great."
Wizard: "Well my dad owns the Chucky Cheeses and I get to play there every night and sleep in the ball pits."
You: "Oh, cool."
Wizard: "Yeah and he's best friends with Michael Jordan. I get to play basketball with him too."
You: "What does that have to do wit--"
Wizard: "My dad's the president of the U.S. too, I get to fly around on Air Force One every day to school?"
You: "That doesn't even make---"
Wizard: "I have a unicorn."
You: "That's nice, I'm going to leave now."
Wizard: "BUT I'M A FREAKING CENTAUR! LOOK AT MY GLORIOUS MANE!"
I'm not really sure where I'm going with this, but eh it was funny in my head.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Truth be told, I don't play wizards. I like to play Fighters, and occasionally a Barbarian and a Paladin.
I like the idea of honing a talent over years and excelling at it, but not necessarily being good at everything. Wizards are like those kids who always had to one up everyone in grade school, you know the ones I'm talking about.
I used to like to play martials. I really wanted them to work. They fall pretty short however. Hard to have everything when your choices are between almost nothing.
I'm not sure if you're familiar with psionics or not, but in the example I was giving there's not a complete division of schools. Plenty of powers from every school are open to all psions, it's just the "best" ones that are specialty based. Like your Transmuter could pick up Shocking Grasp and Burning Touch, but Fireball is for the Evokers (fill in the Psionic equivalents as needed).
In regards to Wizards, I could maybe see the Wizard never being able to gain access to the signature spells (which would need to be clearly designated) of his forbidden schools. Make it a little bit more restricted.
You know, I bet if wizards had one school from which they could learn all of the spells, and 2 that they could learn only up to 4th level, and the rest where they could only learn up to 2nd level.....Drum roll please....
People would STILL play them (assume sorcerors get analogous restrictions).
In 3.5 I could definitely do conjuration like that. Give me illusion for some defence and transmutation because spellbloat and I'm good! Not so sure how well that'd work with pathfinder.
Psions don't work like that though. You actually share a lot of spells. But there are some extra special spells that really give a school its flavor and the like. Like only a Psion specializing in metacreativity is going to nab Astral Construct and summon his own build your own minion without a feat, but anyone can grab crystal shard or entangling ectoplasm, two other metacreativity spells of the same level.
|
|
EWHM,
Yep. And you'd still get people complaining fighters are too weak, but we Fighter Loyalists like a challenge.
I just think that if we're going to draw lines in the sand about what a "Fighter" can't do because it's unrealistic for a body to do that. Then we should be willing to make the same line in the sand about casters. It's unrealistic to think the mind can master that many schools of magic.
I just think that if we're going to draw lines in the sand about what a "Fighter" can't do because it's unrealistic for a body to do that. Then we should be willing to make the same line in the sand about casters. It's unrealistic to think the mind can master that many schools of magic.
Are we trying to make magic follow the laws of physics now?