3.5 Produced martials near the end that where competitive with the Tome of Battle. However the devs at Pathfinder have clearly stated they hate that book, so do not expect a similar system to be brought forth at any time.Cite?
BoNS is not Open Content. Paizo CAN'T use it.
They can make a PF equivalent. I'm sure that by this point a 3PP has remade it with the serial numbers filed off enough to be ok.
They can't use those rules but you can write new rules that work more or less the same. This is incredibly obvious since a lot of PF splat material is just rehashed versions of 3.x material with a new or different name.
Sort of, the rules are a bit odd as far as I know. Also, CAGM's older cousin says hi.
Side note, All I could find was a post saying JJ isn't a big fan of it, but I don't know who's said what so hard to do a search. Not knowing where makes it even harder.
Side note, All I could find was a post saying JJ isn't a big fan of it, but I don't know who's said what so hard to do a search. Not knowing where makes it even harder.
I could believe that. I still think that the ToB was testing the waters for 4e, with the emphasis on encounter powers and martial abilities with effects that approached those of spells.
Dreamscarred is doing a spiritual conversion of Bo8S, aren't they?
Path of War. Not a big fan of it personaly, it follows a different design philosophy and even comes with daily resources and disciplines with alignment restrictions. Might be better to think of it more like another man's child than a spiritual successor.
I think that the style feats was an excellent start of somthing that can be a goo solution for this. But it need to be expanded there need to be more that crane style that works with weapons. By adding several styles pehaps with some scaling in the initial feat but also with advanced versions the Martial will be allowed to expand there options and that is a fun part of the game.
I dont know how the styles should be different but i am working on that. For starters i will try to allow the styles to work with weapons and not allow the level dips for early style feats.
A level 1 wizard can put goblins to sleep and summon badgers.
A level 11 Wizard can teleport 100's of miles, turn people into stone, and summon a Succubus that can do all kinds of social shenanigans.
As a wizard levels up the horizon of their opions greatly expands.
We know that a level 1 Fighter is pretty handy with a weapon, but...
What do you expect a level 11 Fighter to be able to do?
What do you expect a level 15 Fighter to do differently? Level 20?
The balancing point most people like is around level 6, that's a nice level where spells aren' too wacky and "I charge at it with my sword" still works against most monsters. But higher than that and you approach the realm of dimensional beings with instant-teleportation powers that can summon more dimension beings that have a spell specifically to target your weakest save.
Is there a point that the fighter's contacts ("I know an oracle who can lead us to a portal to hell!") or the fighter's equipment ("This artifact sword lets me fly & break force effects") is more important than the fighter's levels ("I can make 3 melee attacks if I stand still!")?
Do you want Level 15 adventures to feel different from Level 6 adventures? Are you willing to have a level 15 Fighter feel different from level 6 Fighters?
I hear a lot about how worthless martial classes are compared to casters, but I'm just not seeing it. Damage remains pretty strong throughout their lifespan, and not having a limited number of spells per day seems to be a boon regardless of level. Sure, Wizards might not actually run out of spells, but if all they're using is a 5d6 Shocking Grasp attack, they may as well be out of spells compared to a martial, who can charge in and swing for something like 2d6+20 every round (if not far more), repeatedly, while dishing out multiple such attacks if they don't have to move.
I guess to refine my question, what is it that martial characters want to do that they are not currently doing?
How about "anything beyond DPS"? Note that this is the only this your post ever references. You assume martials are about DPS only (and just one way to generate said DPS), so of course this conversation must be confusing...
Okay, that's fair, that's fair. Can I get more specific examples, though? I mean, anything is pretty vast. Theoretically you can put skill points into Craft and do more than just damage, but I feel like you aren't content with that. What is something you think a Fighter or Barbarian should be able to do that they are not able to do?
What I don't understand is the pedestal the barbarian is held on. Sure with the right build he can sunder spells, pounce, and "come and get me", but aside from spell sunder, he is still just doing DPR.
Then we look at a class like the paladin who can heal, cast spells, and provides buff auras to the party. If it wasn't for the RP restrictions I think all martial fans would love her.
Ranger is also interesting with skill points, an AC, and spells.
To answer the other half of the question:
I think martials should be able to impose unconsciousness akin to Sleep, gain extra attacks akin to Haste, Fly, create difficult terrain, gain 50% miss chance, nauseate opponents, heal themselves or gain temporary HP on command, etc. You know... things a wizard/cleric/druid can do. And I don't mean all of this on one character that spams it repeatedly. Limited numbers of times per day and earned at a pace with which a wizard/cleric/druid could do them.
This.
Like, it would be cool if the Barb or fighter could smash the ground with a bludgeoning weapon and cause all the area in a 10 ft radius to be treated as difficult terrain (essentially liek him litterally destroying the ground with the force of his blow), or the Fighter learned to use slashing weapons to perform a trip manuever as part of the attack (sweeping the opponents legs with a scimitar). You could also have like a feat in which the fighter draws from his inner strength and forces himself to shrug off some of his previous injuries (gains temporary HP). For the nasuating you could have it such that when the fighter can attempt to attack the opponent, but instead of damaging them they gain the nasuated condition (like the fighter hitting with the pommel into the opponents kidneys or similiar area).
Like, it would be cool if the Barb or fighter could smash the ground with a bludgeoning weapon and cause all the area in a 10 ft radius to be treated as difficult terrain (essentially liek him litterally destroying the ground with the force of his blow),
There's actually a rage power that does something similar. It could stand to be better, though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Could make Full Attack a standard action. Higher level spells don't take longer to cast after all, they actually get faster when they can toss in quickens.
|
bab perks. kind of like the ability to draw your weapon as part of a move at bab 1. To make it more focused, give a class ability to anyone with a spell list that says they do not qualify (also prevents multi-classing).
edit: this is just some brainstorming on options for the bab perks.
Temp HP in heavy armor
Vital Strike
quick draw
all of the lame combat feats.
DR
bonuses vs lower bab opponents
you should not need spells to be motivated, any moral or emotion effect can be martial.
Could make Full Attack a standard action. Higher level spells don't take longer to cast after all, they actually get faster when they can toss in quickens.
I think it would be better to keep it a full-round action, but allow up to one move action's worth of movement in the middle of it. That way, if your first strike falls the foe next to you, you can still move 10 feet and use the rest of your iterative attacks. Presumably, high-level characters can walk and swing a sword at the same time. I mean, I've never seen any wuxia films where the protagonist and antagonist stood still next to each other, taking turns hitting each other. There's a lot of moving about as they hit at each other!
all of the lame combat feats
Yeah, minimizing or outright removing feat taxes is a good thing. Is there currently a feat for martials that's remotely as useful as Craft Wondrous Item or Quicken Spell?
Like, it would be cool if the Barb or fighter could smash the ground with a bludgeoning weapon and cause all the area in a 10 ft radius to be treated as difficult terrain (essentially liek him litterally destroying the ground with the force of his blow),There's actually a rage power that does something similar. It could stand to be better, though.
hence why I said a 10 ft square lol. And Honestly I feel like it would be cool if Paizo made feats that or style feats the require fighter levels that worked with certain weapon groups that expanded the use of them (like using heavy blades to sunder armor and reduce natural armor as a free action when making a power attack).
Oh, I agree, the rage power is really bad. Which really, is the problem. When martials are given options besides "hit things with magical metal stick", they aren't very good. Cf. the nerf to Crane Wing.
Like, it would be cool if the Barb or fighter could smash the ground with a bludgeoning weapon and cause all the area in a 10 ft radius to be treated as difficult terrain (essentially liek him litterally destroying the ground with the force of his blow),There's actually a rage power that does something similar. It could stand to be better, though.That rage power comes at level 6 and is usable only conditionally (in a rage, once per rage). It likely will be usable in multiple fights (and certainly more often than a wizard's single spell slot). It affects a very small 3 x 3 area, centered on the barbarian. It is actually so small that it cannot (by itself) create a situation in which the barbarian is made "sticky" by it. Things can 5' step backward away from the barbarian after he uses this ability, making the rage power useless.
There are a few comparable spells to this.
Sleet Storm hampers both vision and movement in an area. This comes as a two-edged sword; vision in and out of the storm is impossible. It does, however, lock up groups of monsters nicely and can create a sort of choke point/impassable terrain like the barbarian is attempting to do.
Spiked Pit and its lesser kin Create Pit both make 2 x 2 square areas of entirely impassable terrain (I guess you could jump it or climb into and out of it). These can both be cast at range and can crop up underneath an opponent, meaning they have at least lost one turn even with a save to avoid falling.
But, here's the very insulting one... Grease. Level 1 classic spell. Creates a 2 x 2 square of difficult terrain anywhere within the range of the encounter. Reflex save of 10 + 1 (Spell level) + likely 4 (casting stat) is already comparable to the Barbarian's rage power at level 6, but this one will scale as the caster invariably will get enhancement bonuses to...
Well you can always have the ability scale with strength.... or level.
3.5 Produced martials near the end that where competitive with the Tome of Battle. However the devs at Pathfinder have clearly stated they hate that book, so do not expect a similar system to be brought forth at any time.Cite?
BoNS is not Open Content. Paizo CAN'T use it.
Tell that to Snake Style which they ripped wholesale from BoNS.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Tell that to Snake Style which they ripped wholesale from BoNS.
Umm... I don't see it!
Tell that to Snake Style which they ripped wholesale from BoNS.Hah! The true reason for the nerf has come up, and it's actually copyright issues!
I don't think that actually is a copyright issue. The two are functionally the same, but how you obtain and what system they use is slightly different. Its not quiet the same as ripping it word for word.
Then again, I don't know much about OGL. Rombilar's Gambit is my go to for an example of 3.5 feat in pathfinder.
They can't use those rules but you can write new rules that work more or less the same.3.5 Produced martials near the end that where competitive with the Tome of Battle. However the devs at Pathfinder have clearly stated they hate that book, so do not expect a similar system to be brought forth at any time.Cite?
BoNS is not Open Content. Paizo CAN'T use it.
Is that your legal opinion?
Is that your legal opinion?
More like fact, as far as I know. You can't really restrict use of a basic game mechanic, only the name, flavor, and maybe the exact wording of it.
They can make a PF equivalent. I'm sure that by this point a 3PP has remade it with the serial numbers filed off enough to be ok.3.5 Produced martials near the end that where competitive with the Tome of Battle. However the devs at Pathfinder have clearly stated they hate that book, so do not expect a similar system to be brought forth at any time.Cite?
BoNS is not Open Content. Paizo CAN'T use it.
Possible. And note that 3PP aren;t big targets like Paizo is. Not to mention, Paizo guys are pretty cool and they don't like stepping on the 3PP guys toes, which is one reason why there's no PF psionics. That 3PP designer has done a decent job, and PF devs said they are in no rush to do psionics due to that.
3.5 Produced martials near the end that where competitive with the Tome of Battle. However the devs at Pathfinder have clearly stated they hate that book, so do not expect a similar system to be brought forth at any time.Cite?
BoNS is not Open Content. Paizo CAN'T use it.
Tell that to Snake Style which they ripped wholesale from BoNS.
There is no Snake Style feat in BoNS. And Snake style is a martial arts style in existence long before D&D.
There is no Snake Style feat in BoNS. And Snake style is a martial arts style in existence long before D&D.3.5 Produced martials near the end that where competitive with the Tome of Battle. However the devs at Pathfinder have clearly stated they hate that book, so do not expect a similar system to be brought forth at any time.Cite?
BoNS is not Open Content. Paizo CAN'T use it.
Tell that to Snake Style which they ripped wholesale from BoNS.
I think he was referring to baffling defense, which uses the same mechanics(though it does follow maneuver mechanics instead of style). Snake style of course exist outside of DnD, as do many others.
Tell that to Snake Style which they ripped wholesale from BoNS.Umm... I don't see it!
Tell that to Snake Style which they ripped wholesale from BoNS.Hah! The true reason for the nerf has come up, and it's actually copyright issues!I don't think that actually is a copyright issue. The two are functionally the same, but how you obtain and what system they use is slightly different. Its not quiet the same as ripping it word for word.
Then again, I don't know much about OGL. Rombilar's Gambit is my go to for an example of 3.5 feat in pathfinder.
But really, I applaud them ripping it off. I wish there was more BoNS in Pathfinder.
To answer the other half of the question:
I think martials should be able to impose unconsciousness akin to Sleep, gain extra attacks akin to Haste, Fly, create difficult terrain, gain 50% miss chance, nauseate opponents, heal themselves or gain temporary HP on command, etc. You know... things a wizard/cleric/druid can do. And I don't mean all of this on one character that spams it repeatedly. Limited numbers of times per day and earned at a pace with which a wizard/cleric/druid could do them.
"I think things that aren't wizards should be able to do the same things as wizards."
Have you considered just playing a wizard? Why do Fighters have to also be wizards?
you should not need spells to be motivated, any moral or emotion effect can be martial.
I'm sure I've seen "commander" type martials around that buff the party without using magic. I don't have the details on hand, though.
Seriously Martials have plenty of combat options but that's all they have and has been noted repeatedly the Caster just takes them down. Caster - "I toss a Will Save or lose spell at the Fighter" - Fighter "that's ok. I have Iron Will and Improved Iron Will. Crap, I only rolled a 15. Reroll, damn still failed to get the 17 I needed. Guess I lose". And also give them something to give them a fighting chance against the "no save you lose" spells.
I'm worried you're supporting some kind of bizarre arms race here. I think rather than giving more things to Fighters so that they match wizards, the wizards should just not be able to do so much stuff. Maybe spells that make the fighter automatically lose if they don't pass their save shouldn't be used? Maybe the save DC should just be lower? Do they work equally well on other casters?
Similarly, if the complaint is that casters are too versatile, should their versatility be shut down? Should they have to specialize to get things like invisibility? I remember Knock was an incredibly early spell that basically replaced the rogue's ability to pick locks, and I think spells like that should mostly just be removed. Casters have plenty of damage, they have good utility, they don't need to also have the utility of all the other classes, and the other classes definitely don't need the versatility of the wizard, which would not only be ridiculous (Do you really expect your Fighter to fly and and regenerate their wounds? Stop watching so much anime or houserule the Book of Weeaboo Fightin' Magic into your campaign, 'cause that stuff doesn't need to be anywhere near the core.), but potentially game breaking.
Have you considered just playing a wizard? Why do Fighters have to also be wizards?
I'm not who you asked, but if you don't mind me saying so, everyone can do a lot of the same thing but in their own way. There's a lot to be said with how much you can do and how much variance you can create. At the moment fighters don't do much of anything, and that... kinda' sucks. Like I said earlier though, it looks like pathfinder itself wants to stick with vancian casting and full attacking martials, while a lot of people will point to 3rd edition examples because they spread out quiet a bit and there's a lot to love and dislike about that. Mind you that's filled with personal opinion and nostalgia, and its all important to not have an edition war.
Again, I have to wonder why Pathfinder holds a known failure of earlier editions of D&D to be venerable sacred cows.Because the PLAYERS do. The players wanted a game that was basically a continuation of 3.5 and said so with their paying dollars, in their rejection of one game over another. I perused Tome of Battle and decided that I wasn't looking for wuxia in all of my martial classes. The overall sales failure of 4.0 pretty much spells out what many thought of the Tome of Battle.
Except 4.0 and Tome of Battle aren't the same.
Tome of battle allowed regaining your powers in same battle: 4.0 doesn't.
4.0 increased 1st level hp, but devalued Con (as gave none/level): Tome of Battle wasn't built with this idea.
You had strikes, boosts, counters, and stances.
4.0 you had strikes.
Have you considered just playing a wizard? Why do Fighters have to also be wizards?I'm not who you asked, but if you don't mind me saying so, everyone can do a lot of the same thing but in their own way. There's a lot to be said with how much you can do and how much variance you can create. At the moment fighters don't do much of anything, and that... kinda' sucks. Like I said earlier though, it looks like pathfinder itself wants to stick with vancian casting and full attacking martials, while a lot of people will point to 3rd edition examples because they spread out quiet a bit and there's a lot to love and dislike about that. Mind you that's filled with personal opinion and nostalgia, and its all important to not have an edition war.
I feel like there's a lot of people who enjoy being a martial class that mostly just hits things, so I'm hesitant to say that it's a requirement to give things like the fighter or barbarian spell like abilities to put them "on par" with the casters. There's a beauty to tabletop games that you don't find in things like an MMO, and that beauty comes from how the game is balanced. Which is to say, it isn't always balanced. It doesn't need to be. The game does not require you to have fighters in it to be played, a party of four to six wizards would not only function, but probably function decently well (and possibly have some cool roleplaying effects). So even if everyone hated playing a fighter, they could just choose not to play the fighter. Furthermore, a Fighter does hit things very well, they are good at this. Even at high levels, so long as you're in combat, a Fighter/Barbarian is absolutely contributing to the party and should really not be seen as a detriment by anyone. They do have skills, and if they don't dump their int they might have a good three or four going for them, with enough feats that they can add a ton of extra ranks, too. A way to get some extra class skills might be handy, but in Pathfinder that really just amounts to a +3 in the skill, which feats already apply and then some.
And all that said, it's important to point out that these rules aren't absolute and they aren't enforced. Right in the core rulebook itself, like a dozen times, it says that you should feel free to alter the rules to fit what works best for how you want to play. That's how tabletop games work! If you want Fighters to have spells, you can totally just give them spells. Just gotta get the rest of your group to agree with you. That's the second half of how beautiful these games are when it comes to balance. You can tweak it as much as you need without having to run it by the gods of Pathfinder.
The problem with Martisls is that they had an arms race and the Martisls lost where it hurt them and won where it hurt them.
They lost the ability to resist what Casters toss at them, but they won in the ability to do insane amounts of damage so that if you remove the ability for casters to simply shut down a Martial then the Martial promptly splatters bits of Caster over the landscape, so the casters will keep the shutdown advantage because if the Developers don't do so the casters get wiped.
It also seems like you're viewing this as a PvP game, when in reality the martials and casters are on the same side and fighting other martials and casters (usually in some kind of monstrous form). The fighters getting shut down by spells is kinda bad, but not really related to how balanced class choices are, which is what people are concerned about. If fighters are shut down by ridiculously powerful spells and casters are shut down by ridiculously powerful melee attacks, then I'd actually wager that this balances out for the most part, as both types of character have weaknesses that can be exploited. It's up to the party to prevent those weaknesses from being exploited, and really also up to the GM to make sure your Fighter isn't just getting shut down every combat because he keeps throwing powerful casters at you.
There's a beauty to tabletop games that you don't find in things like an MMO, and that beauty comes from how the game is balanced. Which is to say, it isn't always balanced. It doesn't need to be.
On the other hand, the game is built in a way it tells you a team with 4 monks is as balanced as one with a wizard/druid/cleric/Arcanist of the same level, and in the same way, you could emulate a more powerful character in a game where everyone was more balanced by just having a higher level character ideally. Additionally, none of the not so on par classes say "Hi, I'm not quiet as strong as the others!" they're presented pretty much equally.
Edit; Talking about this sort of thing also derails from what the OP asked.
Honestly not trying to be as negative as I might possibly have elsewhere... just reading your first post raised a question for me.
You say (or seem to imply) that Deflect Arrows is ok because ranged can full attack at level 1 with rapid shot?
But Deflect Melee isn't ok, because two-weapon fighting apparently doesn't exist?
There's a beauty to tabletop games that you don't find in things like an MMO, and that beauty comes from how the game is balanced. Which is to say, it isn't always balanced. It doesn't need to be.On the other hand, the game is built in a way it tells you a team with 4 monks is as balanced as one with a wizard/druid/cleric/Arcanist of the same level, and in the same way, you could emulate a more powerful character in a game where everyone was more balanced by just having a higher level character ideally. Additionally, none of the not so on par classes say "Hi, I'm not quiet as strong as the others!" they're presented pretty much equally.
Edit; Talking about this sort of thing also derails from what the OP asked.
That's a good point again, so I apologize for that. So to pull directly from the title, I think if you wanted to simply expand on the virtues on the core martial classes, it would probably be in the form of combat maneuvers. I don't really know what you could add, though, which is why I'm asking what people want. I really don't think flight and reshaping the earth or anything falls within the realm of what a martial class can do, though. I'm at a loss to what those characters could get or what they might need, since they seem to do everything I'd expect them to do already.
It also seems like you're viewing this as a PvP game, when in reality the martials and casters are on the same side and fighting other martials and casters (usually in some kind of monstrous form). The fighters getting shut down by spells is kinda bad, but not really related to how balanced class choices are, which is what people are concerned about. If fighters are shut down by ridiculously powerful spells and casters are shut down by ridiculously powerful melee attacks, then I'd actually wager that this balances out for the most part, as both types of character have weaknesses that can be exploited. It's up to the party to prevent those weaknesses from being exploited, and really also up to the GM to make sure your Fighter isn't just getting shut down every combat because he keeps throwing powerful casters at you.The problem with Martisls is that they had an arms race and the Martisls lost where it hurt them and won where it hurt them.
They lost the ability to resist what Casters toss at them, but they won in the ability to do insane amounts of damage so that if you remove the ability for casters to simply shut down a Martial then the Martial promptly splatters bits of Caster over the landscape, so the casters will keep the shutdown advantage because if the Developers don't do so the casters get wiped.
Not PvP but types vs types. And I have difficulties with Martial vs Martial if the casters aren't getting involved tend to 1 of 2 options.
1) Martial A can't hit Martial B because of B's ridiculous defenses and B hacks him down at moderately fast speed,
Or
2) Martial A blows away over half Martial B's hit points. Martial B blows away over 1/2 Martial A's hit points. Martial A finishes off Martial B.Basically as an apology for not been able to handle Casters Martials have been fed on oodles of coke and crystal to make them feel good and do so much damage that they make their niched part of combat exceedingly brief and bloody....
So... in order for martials to feel good, everyone else needs to play like bloody retards... roget that ghostrider...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A lot of the Mythic stuff has the right idea.
IMO, Seven League Leap is the PERFECT example of stuff a high level Barbarian should be able to do.
It's thematic. It's powerful. It lets him recreate spell like effects in a different manner, with somewhat different effects (it's like a cross between Overland Flight and Teleport, far faster than the former but slower than the latter).
Likewise that one Mythic power that lets you charge straight through walls and tackle people on the other side. C'mon, TELL me you haven't seen that in cinema a billion times from the more martially inclined heroes. I'll call you a liar.
THAT is the kind of stuff martial characters need to be able to do. Not all of them all the same thing, but similar stuff in their own niche.
Other Examples:
Spider Step/Cloud Step are Feats. WHY aren't they a natural progression of the Monk's Slow Fall powers? The Ninja gets similar stuff as Tricks, why can't the supposed master of Ki get it?
Acrobatics DCs need to be lower. Why? To allow higher and longer jumps. I want a guy that can, through sheer Charles Atlas Superpower, hop from the ground to the second or third floor of a building at mid levels. This is something you see a lot too for fantasy or superpowered individuals.
Stuff like that. Cinematic. Powerful. Reduces reliance on Skill Replacing Spells™ without making those spells worthless.
The problem with Martisls is that they had an arms race and the Martisls lost where it hurt them and won where it hurt them.They lost the ability to resist what Casters toss at them, but they won in the ability to do insane amounts of damage so that if you remove the ability for casters to simply shut down a Martial then the Martial promptly splatters bits of Caster over the landscape, so the casters will keep the shutdown advantage because if the Developers don't do so the casters get wiped.
I'm not entirely sure that's the case, but I think you have a good point as far as martial damage being calibrated at a very high level across the board.
Where I might disagree is in the (implied) assertion that melee damage is exceptional in its ability to end foes quickly. I agree that it can stack up very swiftly if a full attack goes through facing no defenses other than AC.
I'm just not sure that a very dedicated blaster's blasting, a witch's save or lose or neutering of opposition, a god wizard's battlefield control and locking the foe in a corner, a save or die caster's save or dies... or even just an archer's full attack, rather than a meleer's, work any slower.
So against the victim-of-his-own-success point of view, I have to say that the whole game seems calibrated to similar standards. Melee damage doesn't seem to be the nail that sticks up above the board here. At least, not at high levels where the distinction between a melee full attack and having to move matters the most. Most classes have options to assert their power just as swiftly, and many of them don't have to worry about moving while doing so.
I'm not entirely sure that's the case, but I think you have a good point as far as martial damage being calibrated at a very high level across the board.
Where I might disagree is in the (implied) assertion that melee damage is exceptional in its ability to end foes quickly. I agree that it can stack up very swiftly if a full attack goes through facing no defenses other than AC.
I'm just not sure that a very dedicated blaster's blasting, a witch's save or lose or neutering of opposition, a god wizard's battlefield control and locking the foe in a corner, a save or die caster's save or dies... or even just an archer's full attack, rather than a meleer's, work any slower.
So against the victim-of-his-own-success point of view, I have to say that the whole game seems calibrated to similar standards. Melee damage doesn't seem to be the nail that sticks up above the board here. At least, not at high levels where the distinction between a melee full attack and having to move matters the most. Most classes have options to assert their power just as swiftly, and many of them don't have to worry about moving while doing so.
Arguments could be made about the balance between health levels and damage, or how AC can quickly scale to near immunity, but I think changing those things are beyond the scope of the topic, which wants to follow the core ruleset. And while that definitely might make things more fun, since it is a problem applied to every class, I don't think fixing it would allow the martial classes to gain more abilities.
I would like for magic items to be able to better replicate spells. That way martials could just gear up for spells AND then have martial prowess on top of that. Casters keep their advantage by having access to more spells at the same time, but martials would then have something over casters that casters could not easily emulate.