| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If it has not become apparent yet, the game is meant to balanced around the concepts printed in the core rulebook. Certain principles must always true even in the every growing expansion of rule books.
Sometimes these expansions are later ruled not to coincide with the balance in core. The most recent example is the crane wing errata. Here we had a decent and powerful option to negate one melee attack per turn. This appears to be similar to that of deflect arrows except for melee attacks instead of range. Here is why they are not equal in effect. Pathfinder range weapons tend to full-attack opponents and can do so by level 1 via rapid shot. In Core there is no way to negate an attack with 100% effectiveness, even spells like mirror image have some chance of failure. It's not that old crane wing was BETTER than mirror or deflect arrows, it just broke a principle established in Core. There is no-way to with 100% effectiveness negate any melee attack. This is just something that we are going to have to deal with. The game is balanced to Core, even though Core itself is not balanced.
The devs have already stated that they are not going to try and re-balance the system in the 10th+ book.
So the question becomes, how can issues inherit in Core and the system be addressed that doesn't change the balance set forth by Core?
There is a trope that martials can't have nice things. Well that's not entirely true. Martials do have nice things. They are strong durable front-liners and can unleash a lot of damage. They are scary and terrifying opponents on the battle-field that whole strategies have to be built around to handle. It's not that martials don't have nice things. It's that the nice things they have are very limited. Where the caster/martial disparity comes into play is that martials do not have the plethora of options of nice things to choose from.
It seems martials are forced into the role of tanky DPR machines. This is further compounded when we look at a class devoted to the idea that a martial is not this. And that would be the monk. The problem stems from the to-hit gap. Just a +6 difference in to-hit can be devastating. This makes the monk choose between hitting hard (power attack) or hitting with accuracy, while similar martials class have to choose between power-attacking at the same accuracy of the monk or not power-attacking for even more accuracy. The monk appears to be a martial focused on defense and combat maneuvers. Yet do to the her lack in offense she actually is worse than other martials at combat maneuvers and doesn't even have the best saves (both paladins and barbar match her saves). She is eclipsed as a class. The monk was trying to be a different martial and flopped.
How do we expand the nice things martials have access to? Well I can tell you the answer is not feat chains. The balance in Core shows that the further down a feat chain you go, the more specialized you are, but the more those feats have diminishing returns in usefulness. This is one of the reasons crane wing was nerfed. It did not follow the pattern laid down in Core. The answer to the question is also not ONLY scaling feats. If you look through Core, the feats that scale in benefit also scale in trade-offs. This is the only kind of scaling feat we can expect. Feats do not scale like rage powers. Rage powers have their own rules that they follow. That's why they are generally considered "better" than feats.
OK so what is left? (Some of my own thoughts below)
1. Scaling feats like power attack. For example a monk feat that would help them is being able to trade iterative attacks for bonus damage (because no monk can really use power attack and Vital strike already exist for other martials and is a similar idea). Core power attack trades offense for offense, while combat expertise trades offense for defense. If following Core balance, we cannot trade defense for offense outside of a rage power.
2. Feats that add new styles of combat. A bad example of this is Dervish Dance (a non PRD feat). No matter how long the chain we will never be able to make dex combat as hard hitting as strength based combat. But if we like the idea of a monk trading attacks for more damage per attack as a feat, then the same logic can apply to our dex fighters. They are fast right? Shouldn't they be attacking more than strength fighter anyways. Adding means of gaining extra attacks for dex based characters (like TWF which is already in Core) and then trading those attack away for different effects like parry, sneak attack, crits, bleeding, ect..., could be a way to make the dex character viable without stepping on the toes of the strength based character.
3. Magic items. The magical abilities of weapons and armor do not have to be purely for damage and defense (just look at glamered for armor). How this could be changed such that martials benefit more from them is to have the effects dependent on things like skill ranks, feats, BAB, ability scores ect. Most of the special abilities for weapons depend on hitting the target anyways, so it's not like there is not precedent to-hit being needed to trigger an effect. For example you could make a Warhammer that as a standard action be used to strike the ground and trip all but the wielder in a fixed radius. The wielder makes a CMB check and that is what is used to trip creatures in the effect, perhaps this can only be done so many times per day. You could also make a weapon that as a standard action can be swung to create a ripple in the air, allowing the user to make a ranged sunder attempt using their CMB.
Please generate your own ideas to answer the question in the title
Adding in new classes with new options and ways to play is a way to do it, though I think they're also attempting to stay close to vancian casting for casters and martials being glued to the full attack ideal.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think feats should be trade-able for a special talent from a list specific to a class. Already this is possible with Rage Powers and look how much it's done for them. Barbarians went from MUNDANE SMASH! to SUPERNATURALRAGEPOUNCEDIE SPELLSUNDERING monstrosities. And that's awesome. That's exactly the kind of high fantasy stuff I want.
Fighter Expertise
Monk Styles
Rogue Talents
Rage Powers
All the more martial/mundane bent folks should have access to those sort of things. Stuff that lets them go beyond the boundaries set.
EDIT: Sorting out some stuff in my head, gonna dig into this later.
martials being glued to the full attack ideal.
There is no changing this. Full-attacking will always be the best and strongest option against a single foe, but it is possible to expand the options martials have and still have these new options being effective, even if full-attack is still the most optimal.
There is even examples of this in core. If surrounded enough it is possible in core to get 24 attacks off with great-cleave + lunge.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you insist on such a straitjacket limitations to the problem, well then there is no solution to the problem. So the answer to your thread is simple:
Can't be done.
If you insist on such a straitjacket limitations to the problem, well then there is no solution to the problem. So the answer to your thread is simple:
Can't be done.
I believe there is enough wiggle room.
I'm not really sure how... the problem martials face is the limitations of core... so if you aren't willing to use anything outside of the thing thats holding them back... well you end up where you started, going nowhere fast.
I'm not really sure how... the problem martials face is the limitations of core... so if you aren't willing to use anything outside of the thing thats holding them back... well you end up where you started, going nowhere fast.
That depends on what exactly are the limitations of Core. Because the alchemist, gunslinger, summoner, and witch all fall within those limitations.
martials being glued to the full attack ideal.There is no changing this. Full-attacking will always be the best and strongest option against a single foe, but it is possible to expand the options martials have and still have these new options being effective, even if full-attack is still the most optimal.
There is even examples of this in core. If surrounded enough it is possible in core to get 24 attacks off with great-cleave + lunge.
Not true, if we enhance Vital Strike, but the devs are unlikely to do that.
Not true, if we enhance Vital Strike, but the devs are unlikely to do that.martials being glued to the full attack ideal.There is no changing this. Full-attacking will always be the best and strongest option against a single foe, but it is possible to expand the options martials have and still have these new options being effective, even if full-attack is still the most optimal.
There is even examples of this in core. If surrounded enough it is possible in core to get 24 attacks off with great-cleave + lunge.
They did make mythic vital strike.
I'm not really sure how... the problem martials face is the limitations of core... so if you aren't willing to use anything outside of the thing thats holding them back... well you end up where you started, going nowhere fast.That depends on what exactly are the limitations of Core. Because the alchemist, gunslinger, summoner, and witch all fall within those limitations.
Well in that case, this is easy... just give them useful abilities via Discoveries, allow them hit touch AC and give them 1/per creature/per day abilites that inflict nasty status conditions and can take a creature out of the fight if it fails its save. Problem solved, martials fixed.
They did make mythic vital strike.Not true, if we enhance Vital Strike, but the devs are unlikely to do that.martials being glued to the full attack ideal.There is no changing this. Full-attacking will always be the best and strongest option against a single foe, but it is possible to expand the options martials have and still have these new options being effective, even if full-attack is still the most optimal.
There is even examples of this in core. If surrounded enough it is possible in core to get 24 attacks off with great-cleave + lunge.
But that requires you to be Mythic though. But it is close.
Well in that case, this is easy... just give them useful abilities via Discoveries, allow them hit touch AC and give them 1/per creature/per day abilites that inflict nasty status conditions and can take a creature out of the fight if it fails its save. Problem solved, martials fixed.I'm not really sure how... the problem martials face is the limitations of core... so if you aren't willing to use anything outside of the thing thats holding them back... well you end up where you started, going nowhere fast.That depends on what exactly are the limitations of Core. Because the alchemist, gunslinger, summoner, and witch all fall within those limitations.
Not sure we can do that since there is already combat feats, which is the special sub-list fighters pick feats from.
But that requires you to be Mythic though. But it is close.They did make mythic vital strike.Not true, if we enhance Vital Strike, but the devs are unlikely to do that.martials being glued to the full attack ideal.There is no changing this. Full-attacking will always be the best and strongest option against a single foe, but it is possible to expand the options martials have and still have these new options being effective, even if full-attack is still the most optimal.
There is even examples of this in core. If surrounded enough it is possible in core to get 24 attacks off with great-cleave + lunge.
Mythics are an interesting creature. The boost mythics give to martials is far larger than the toys casters get aside from the spont casting options, but mythics also show what the upper limit for martials is. No non-mythic creations will be able to mimic mythic abilities without long feat chains.
Personally I think Feats being just either being better or functionally doing something other than numbers a lot more problems would be solved.
Personally I think Feats being just either being better or functionally doing something other than numbers a lot more problems would be solved.
Like what though?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally I think Feats being just either being better or functionally doing something other than numbers a lot more problems would be solved.Like what though?
Like being able to automatically deflect 1 attack per round.
Oh... Right...
Personally I think Feats being just either being better or functionally doing something other than numbers a lot more problems would be solved.Like what though?Like being able to automatically deflect 1 attack per round.
Oh... Right...
Well I did pick up this one product with feats that produce effects similar to Book of 9 Swords or Path of War only more mundane and based on kind of a spontaneous maneuver system. One of the abilities was to automatically deflect a melee attack as an immediate action, so technically Lemmy is correct.
Mythics are an interesting creature. The boost mythics give to martials is far larger than the toys casters get aside from the spont casting options,
I think you are underestimating what mythic does for spellcasters. Some mythic spells are rather absurd in what they can do (mythic time stop is my favorite example). There's a mythic ability that lets you auto-pass concentration checks. There's one that gives you all the magic item crafting feats. There's one that lets you roll twice on caster level checks. Or counterspell as an immediate action. Or one that let's you fill an empty spell slot as a swift action. Or you could cast summon monster spells as a standard action (swift if you spend a mythic power!). Or you can ignore a single component (verbal, somatic, or (expensive) material) of your choice whenever you cast a spell. Mythic spellcasters get their weaknesses minimized or even removed while they are given huge buffs to their offense. Over her entire mythic career, a mythic wizard gets to increase her Int score by 10!
More on topic, I agree with Anzyr. Most of the martial/caster disparity is in core. One of the most damaging things to martials, for example, is the full-attack paradigm. Fixing martials means stepping away from core.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
One suggestion I saw, which I liked was to give Fighter the Vital Strike series for free, 5, 10,15th, 20th levels.
This means when they can't FA, they can still do a nasty hit.
Note that I think the Fighter is just fine up thru about level 4 or 5, and still able to hold his own even thru 12.
What we need is some way to boost martials at the highest levels.
One thing might be a combat feat available at BaB 12+, where you can emulate a transmutation spell maybe as a swift action lasting one round per level or something. This would allow a fighter to emulate Fly for example. This sorta hearkens back to the BoNS.
Another could be a 15th level ability to re-roll one save a day.
Personally I think Feats being just either being better or functionally doing something other than numbers a lot more problems would be solved.Like what though?
Pick a barbarian rage power at random.
That.
Personally I think Feats being just either being better or functionally doing something other than numbers a lot more problems would be solved.Like what though?Pick a barbarian rage power at random.
That.
Like this one? :P
Like this one? :PPersonally I think Feats being just either being better or functionally doing something other than numbers a lot more problems would be solved.Like what though?Pick a barbarian rage power at random.
That.
I could see getting that on a human fighter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Like this one? :PPersonally I think Feats being just either being better or functionally doing something other than numbers a lot more problems would be solved.Like what though?Pick a barbarian rage power at random.
That.
Actually, yeah. I'd consider taking LLV for a feat. It basically lets you see clearly in any area of dim light or better, which means in a lot of cases you can avoid pesky concealment and enemies can't make Stealth checks (such as the dim of night).
Low-light vision is pretty cool. One of the perks that makes it somewhat competitive with darkvision is the fact there's no range limit on it either, so in cases where there is just concealment-levels of darkness, it's kind of like super-vision.
It beats the hell out of Weapon Focus, that's for sure. It opens up new tactical options and foils a few tactical options.
Again, I have to wonder why Pathfinder holds a known failure of earlier editions of D&D to be venerable sacred cows.
Jason has basically said that the CRB is the sacred cow, so any tie overs from 3.5 in the CRB will stay a part of the game for as long as the edition stands (whether or not this is a good/sane strategy is a separate debate. What we are looking for is possible answers within the constraints).
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
martials being glued to the full attack ideal.There is no changing this. Full-attacking will always be the best and strongest option against a single foe, but it is possible to expand the options martials have and still have these new options being effective, even if full-attack is still the most optimal.
There is even examples of this in core. If surrounded enough it is possible in core to get 24 attacks off with great-cleave + lunge.
i would argue that there are many better options then full attacking, for martials. one of my favorite fighter characters used combat patrol and pindown + combat reflexes + reach weapon, he was netting 6+ attacks per round, then followed that up with whirlwind for another 6+ attacks.
it made pounce look silly.
it made pounce look silly.
Still isn't very interesting though. You just traded one kind of full attack for another, and burned a bunch of feats on it. You aren't mobile, so you aren't very tactical while using it. You just stand there and make AoO's and hope that you fight guys that are stupid enough to try and make them.
Whirlwind Attack is actually very interesting. Unlike Great Cleave, your attack can be a trip, sunder, or disarm maneuver.
I still think some magic items like the ones I talked about in the OP would go a long way to give martials more options.
|
|
it made pounce look silly.Still isn't very interesting though. You just traded one kind of full attack for another, and burned a bunch of feats on it. You aren't mobile, so you aren't very tactical while using it. You just stand there and make AoO's and hope that you fight guys that are stupid enough to try and make them.
funny how you assume the action wasnt tactical. placement of the zone was more tactical then charging into a group of enemies. it also allowed my casters and ranged characters to have a second layer of defense while tripping/hindering/killing/ anything that moved towards them.
tactically it was a superior form of full round action, and wasnt just a dpr action. the fullround action increased the function of the group in almost every aspect.
dont barbarians have to burn a bunch of rage powers to get pounce? yes? so why should any other class be different?
funny how you
Funny how you aren't actually using your own words when you say FUNNY HOW YOU because I get the feeling you didn't think it was actually funny. Are you really laughing at that?
And I know its tactical, but its lacking. Its not anything like what I was talking about.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Again, I have to wonder why Pathfinder holds a known failure of earlier editions of D&D to be venerable sacred cows.
It's a Feature, not a Bug. Warriors have always been better than wizards at low levels, then the reverse happens at high levels.
In general, we find that martial rules levels 1-4, then spellcasters level 17-20. But of course, MUCH more playing is done levels 1-4 than 17-20.
Games differ, of course.
dont barbarians have to burn a bunch of rage powers to get pounce? yes? so why should any other class be different?
Mr. Sin's complaint is that he also finds pounce to be boring.
Martials appear to be able to do nothing but attack. Combat maneuvers should be the solution to this problem, but the problem with them is how well they work. And it normally does not behoove you to master more than one or two. Furthermore, it is generally better for a martial to just full-attack whatever they are fighting.
Now if CMB didn't scale down with iterative attacks, then it would behoove martials to use them more (do you hit with -15 to-hit or perform a trip maneuver at full CMB?). I doubt the devs would ever change the rule to this, but a feat or magic item for this effect is not out of the question.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Again, I have to wonder why Pathfinder holds a known failure of earlier editions of D&D to be venerable sacred cows.It's a Feature, not a Bug. Warriors have always been better than wizards at low levels, then the reverse happens at high levels.
In general, we find that martial rules levels 1-4, then spellcasters level 17-20. But of course, MUCH more playing is done levels 1-4 than 17-20.
Games differ, of course.
Power is not the issue here. It is options.
I actually find classes like Druid, Alchemist, Bard, Magus, and Summoner to be more desirable than squishy casters like sorcerer or wizard.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, Martials aren't more powerful then Casters at low levels. Casters are still stronger than Martials at levels 1-3, they just have a realistic chance of running out of spells and becoming less powerful and thus Martials seem balanced at low levels. However after Level 3 running out of spells becomes less and less likely, and thus it becomes more apparent that the Caster is more powerful than the Martials.
Honestly, Martials aren't more powerful then Casters at low levels.
Haven't you two been through this one before? I could've worn I've seen this one word for word.
|
|
funny how youFunny how you aren't actually using your own words when you say FUNNY HOW YOU because I get the feeling you didn't think it was actually funny. Are you really laughing at that?
And I know its tactical, but its lacking. Its not anything like what I was talking about.
its not "lacking" at all once you realize that it functionally is superior in almost every way to a charge action pounce, or full attack. the only issue i had was like you said, i had to let the enemies come to me. but once they decided that letting the wizard cast freely, the archer full attack unhindered, the cleric to summon/heal/buff it was in there best interest to pass through my combat patrol, where the rogue then blendered them with a "free flank" sneak attack damage on everything that entered my 60 foot combat patrol zone, then got tripped and hit by whirlwind on the following round. i mean DPR aside my martial was not tied to the "full attack idea" at all and i was a linch pin in my group.
the point you made is "the game is based around full attack dpr and not mobility or x". and my counter point was full attack is not the only way to skin a cat.
Mr. Sin's complaint is that he also finds pounce to be boring.
Martials appear to be able to do nothing but attack. Combat maneuvers should be the solution to this problem, but the problem with them is how well they work. And it normally does not behoove you to master more than one or two. Furthermore, it is generally better for a martial to just full-attack whatever they are fighting.
Now if CMB didn't scale down with iterative attacks, then it would behoove martials to use them more (do you hit with -15 to-hit or perform a trip maneuver at full CMB?). I doubt the devs would ever change the rule to this, but a feat or magic item for this effect is not out of the question.
yeah i got that, and my point was that you can make interesting characters that fulfill other aspects of combat like my above character, it provided so much defense and group assistance without being a DPR focused "Full attacker" he does much much more then just "I attack!".
the point you made is "the game is based around full attack dpr and not mobility or x". and my counter point was full attack is not the only way to skin a cat.
My words look a lot different coming out of your mouth than mine.
Honestly, Martials aren't more powerful then Casters at low levels.Haven't you two been through this one before? I could've worn I've seen this one word for word.
It's entirely possible this is purgatory. In which case everyone is the messiah and hell is other people.
It's entirely possible this is purgatory. In which case everyone is the messiah and hell is other people.Honestly, Martials aren't more powerful then Casters at low levels.Haven't you two been through this one before? I could've worn I've seen this one word for word.
Well this thread got dark fast.
It's entirely possible this is purgatory. In which case everyone is the messiah and hell is other people.Honestly, Martials aren't more powerful then Casters at low levels.Haven't you two been through this one before? I could've worn I've seen this one word for word.Well this thread got dark fast.
Isn't this the boards in general?
Isn't this the boards in general?It's entirely possible this is purgatory. In which case everyone is the messiah and hell is other people.Honestly, Martials aren't more powerful then Casters at low levels.Haven't you two been through this one before? I could've worn I've seen this one word for word.Well this thread got dark fast.
To be fair, I just come here for escapism.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's entirely possible this is purgatory. In which case everyone is the messiah and hell is other people.Honestly, Martials aren't more powerful then Casters at low levels.Haven't you two been through this one before? I could've worn I've seen this one word for word.
Well, it's not Hell-
there's better company and more interesting people there....;-)
One suggestion I saw, which I liked was to give Fighter the Vital Strike series for free, 5, 10,15th, 20th levels.
I like that. That is now a thing I will do.
It's a Feature, not a Bug. Warriors have always been better than wizards at low levels, then the reverse happens at high levels.In general, we find that martial rules levels 1-4, then spellcasters level 17-20. But of course, MUCH more playing is done levels 1-4 than 17-20.
Games differ, of course.
Feature is not synonymous with good (and bug is not synonymous with bad =))
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
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.
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.
Probably a good sign that we are never going to see anything really fixed. Ever.
They keep buffing and buffing casters and keep nerfing or adding nothing especially useful to martials. It's 3.5 again, just with fewer prestige classes.
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'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.