Martial characters should have nice things Part I: What should martial characters be able to do?

[Terokai]

OgreBattle wrote:

Marthkus wrote:

Martials don't have innate magical power.

A level 6 Fighter is

-tougher than a grizzly bear
-can jump down a 60ft chasm without fear of dying.
-Wrestle tigers to death (if he took the right feats)
-Deflect a tyrannosaurus's bite

That's what leveling up does, it makes you stronger. Level up high enough and you are a human who can wrestle a tyrannosaurus to death.

Quote:

The wuxia fightan powers ideal just doesn't fit the concept.

There are alternatives to Die Hard's John McClane for examples of what a Fighter hero can do. Heck, even Conan learned and used magic before. When Gary Gygax gave him stats in D&D it was straight 18's and he had psychic powers. Why not look at actual mythology of great warriors?

Zhang Fei could let out a war-shout that froze an advancing army in its place
Guan Yu (and every other great warrior in Romance of the Three Kingdoms, really) could just fight an entire army by himself.

Yoshitsune could double-jump like a Castlevania character.

Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:

go full wuxia and anime. go full eastern fantasy, where the badass warrior is more badass than the badass wizard because martial training allows one to bypass the limits of powers bestowed by magic

You don't even need to look to East Asia, there's superhumans of European mythology too:

Cu Chulainn was fighting wars as a kid and destroying armies as a teenager.
-leap over houses in a single bound to hit a house-sized monster in the head
-jump off of a spear thrown at him in mid flight and kill the guy who threw it, before the spear touches the ground
-Rage and turn into a super saiyan: "The hair of his head twisted like the tange of a red thornbush stuck in a gap; if a royal apple tree with all its kingly fruit were shaken above him, scarce an apple would reach the ground but each would be spiked on a bristle of his hair as it stood up on his scalp with rage"
-Knew a super special secret sure-kill finishing move that...

All great examples and each of these fighters and legends were unique just as pc's should be.

[Marthkus]

LazarX wrote:

Marthkus wrote:

LazarX wrote:

My martials all pack bows. If your caster takes more than a 5 foot step up and casts, he's provoking during his move up unless he does nothing for that round but withdraw, which means my fighter has a move action free to draw his bow. Even my mid BAB folks have str adjusted composites if practical. And if your caster cowers behind cover, than he does not have line of effect to cast.

You can ready a standard action. You may move like 5-15ft with the step-up chain. The caster can walk 30ft.

SO. Your fighter would have to pull out a bow and ready one standard attack trained on the caster to perform your tactic. And God forbid the GM require you to make a spellcraft or perception check to tell that they are casting.

If the caster does ANYTHING, but state a double move withdrawal in his turn, he provokes if he moves more than 5 feet. If he does the proper withdrawl, he's DONE for that turn.

Caster moves 30ft away from fighter

Fighter gets his AoO

Caster takes damage

Caster finishes move action

Caster cast a spell as a standard action with fighter no-where near her.

[K177Y C47]

or you can be a conjuration (teleportation) mage and simply Teleport A VERY FAR ways...

[Throne]

Marthkus wrote:

LazarX wrote:

Marthkus wrote:

LazarX wrote:

My martials all pack bows. If your caster takes more than a 5 foot step up and casts, he's provoking during his move up unless he does nothing for that round but withdraw, which means my fighter has a move action free to draw his bow. Even my mid BAB folks have str adjusted composites if practical. And if your caster cowers behind cover, than he does not have line of effect to cast.

You can ready a standard action. You may move like 5-15ft with the step-up chain. The caster can walk 30ft.

SO. Your fighter would have to pull out a bow and ready one standard attack trained on the caster to perform your tactic. And God forbid the GM require you to make a spellcraft or perception check to tell that they are casting.

If the caster does ANYTHING, but state a double move withdrawal in his turn, he provokes if he moves more than 5 feet. If he does the proper withdrawl, he's DONE for that turn.

Caster moves 30ft away from fighter

Fighter gets his AoO

Caster takes damage

Caster finishes move action

Caster cast a spell as a standard action with fighter no-where near her.

It amazes me that wizards never bother with Contingency anymore.

Or quicken spell.... because despite the firm insistance that when he Withdraws, he's DONE for that turn, Withdrawing is just a double-move full round action, you can still take a Swift at the end of it.

[Neurophage]

I know OP wanted to keep mechanical considerations out, but there's a design aspect a number of people have brought up that needs to be addressed: Feat chains.

Feat chains are the result of a perfectly-fine concept-level design decision that was implemented very poorly. Feats are the bread and butter of the martial character right now. There are a huge number of feats that directly augment a characters mundane combat ability and are bound to feat chains: The Vital Strike series, the Improved Maneuver series, etc. At a concept level, these options are fine. They represent abilities that scale and become more effective over time. The problem is that they don't actually become more effective over time. They become more effective as you invest more into them. This is bad. This is unnecessary. This is part of the problem.

Let's look at Power Attack for a second. A lot of people claim that Power Attack should be an option that you just have, that you shouldn't have to invest a limited mechanical resource into being able to do it. While I agree, Power Attack is also a fantastic example of good design for one specific reason: Its effectiveness improves as your BAB increases. You don't have to take additional instances of it, you don't have to spend skill points or stick to one specific class or one specific weapon or any other option-sealing nonsense to make it scale. It just does it on its own. You take it once and you never have to invest in it again because it just does its work and steadily gets better. We need more of this. Scaling feats are the answer to the problem with feat chains. What if you took Vital Strike once and it just automatically became Improved and Greater at +11 and +16 BAB? Wouldn't that be good? What if you decided to take Two-Weapon Fighting and you got Improved and Greater automatically when you hit the right BAB and DEX? Why don't these these things exist already? Why were Power Attack and Combat Expertise reduced to scaling feats but not every other feat-chain?

Okay, now that that's over and done with: I have a standing idea in campaigns that I run that once you hit 6th level, you're not mundane anymore. There's a big differences between realism and verisimilitude, and realism has no place in the your life once max damage from a critical hit with a greatsword can't kill you anymore. A 6th level martial should join the ranks of Conan and Beowulf, Arthur and Lancelot. They should be recognized as the kinds of heroes whose abilities emerge in a few hundred people in a given century. An 11th level martial should join the ranks of Achilles and a younger Heracles. They should be the kinds of heroes whose abilities emerge out of maybe a few dozen people in a given century. A 16th level martial should join the ranks of Heracles at his full power, Gilgamesh and Enkidu, Cu Chulainn near the end of his life, the sorts of heroes who stand without equal in the niche. A 20th level martial should be of the likes of Karna from the Mahabharata, who was so powerful he fought on-par with gods, who only ever lost a fight because he no longer wanted to win, who was so strong that every one of his strikes would cause the whole universe to shake.

So what should martial characters be able to do?

A mid-level martial should be a warrior of such caliber that he can fight foes the size of buildings without fear, and crush dozens of lesser foes at a time. A high-level martial should be able to fight a dragon the size of an imperial palace and routinely crush entire armies. His physicality should be superior without the aid of magic, though augmenting him with spells should make him potent beyond belief. His weapons and armor should be prodigious regardless of what spells have gone into their creation, though the armaments that have made him famous should be without peer.

A mid-level rogue (or rogue equivalent) should be able to sprint without ever making a sound, steal a necklace of a princess with ease and disarm any mundane and most magical traps. He should be so confident in his ability to hit an enemy in just the right spot that he can trick an enemy into lowering their guard just by saying the right thing. A high-level rogue should be effectively invisible and inaudible, able to mimic the appearance of anyone should he please, rob a king's vault blindfolded and bound without being caught (he maybe needs to take off the blindfold if its a god's vault. Maybe.) and disarm snares that have existed since the world began. A slip of the knife should render even great demons unable to walk or unable to see, permanently. A single flurry of stabs and cuts to the right joints should make golems created by the greatest of wizards fall pieces.

In short, while verisimilitude is important, realism is an unwelcome burden once you hit 6th level.

[rooboy]

I think there's really two levels to this question. One is the combat level (which I'm sure people are going to hash out ad nauseaum).

Personally, I'd like to see martials have more out of combat flexibility. As an example, I'd like to see about getting bonus skills based off the modifier for the skill's associated ability score, rather than intelligence. Why should being smart mean that I spent time learning how to swim? Everyone spends time learning how to do things, and I find it hard to believe that it took longer for my fighter to learn to swing a sword than it did for a bard to play his instrument, a wizard to read his spellbook, or a priest to learn just the correct devotion to get the results he needs.

Rather than having like 2 + INT skills, I should get 3 STR, 2 DEX, 1 CON, 1 INT, 1 CHA skills (or whatever). Then everyone is working off the same basis of skills. If I'm strong, it means that I probably spent that time swimming and/or climbing. Wizards and other INT builds will still be the king of the Knowledge skills (as they should be). Since skills are disproportionately distributed in WIS, CHA, and INT, this would not really affect how many skills each class has, in my opinion.

On that note, I'd like skills that maybe have two possible related skills. For example, get rid of the feat Intimidating Prowess and just give me the option to either use STR or CHA for Intimidate checks. Once I've chosen, that's the one I get.

Also, skill Focus should probably just make a skill count as a class skill (I almost wish there was no such thing as class skills at all). If I'm good at something, I should just be good at it, rather than having to spend a feat to undo the terrible burden of having been born a fighter, or, (as I suspect happens more often), pore through the Traits to find the one that gives you the class skill that you want.

I would also like it if the various talent trees (rogue talents, etc) gave more viable out of combat benefits. Personally, I'd like to play non-rocket tag fighters who can do more, rather than building to some ideal DPS amount. But if I do that, I don't want to be worse at it than someone who put less effort into it than I did.

For combat, I'd like to see feat chains compressed. Later on in the feat chain, I'd like if the feat gave new abilities that added action economy. For example, if the combat manouvers are going to be broken out into different areas, then there should be options like Tripping Twirl, or an option that lets me pounce and full attack trip as an action.

[Petrus222]

A fairly interesting idea would be to be able to sacrifice iterative attacks. Make it part of a feat chain that lets you do other things when you sacrifice iterative attacks sort of like the critical feats.

E.g.
Feat tier 1- The Best Defense: BAB +6,
Sacrifice one iterative attack for +4 AC against one attack.

Feat tier 2- Grounded: Pre-req The best defense, BAB +11 -
Sacrifice one iterative attack to gain SR equal to 10 + 1/2 level (rnd down) + Con mod against one spell or spell like ability this round.

Feat tier 2- Slow and steady: BAB+ 11, The best defense, Wpn focus Sacrifice one iterative attack for +4 to hit on your next attack. (Not so useful for fighters, very useful for people who flurry.)

Feat tier 2- the best offense: BAB+ 11, The best defense, Wpn focus Sacrifice one iterative attack for +4 to damage hit on your next attack. (Again not so useful for fighters, very useful for people who flurry.)

[Merkatz]

Neurophage really hit the nail on the head here when talking about feat chains, and the relative lack of non scaling feats.

I mean its really annoying when I invest 3 feats into a chain just to be good at 1 combat maneuver, whilst the wizard can cherry pick 1 spell to be good at 4.

And while it is stupid that martials have to suffer through feat chains, while spell casters can select spells at their leisure, the biggest slap in the face is that casters don't even have to deal with feat chains or obnoxious requirements for their feats. For instance, similar design would require spellcasters to take Spell Focus for every school they would want to use metamagic feats on- or something of that nature.

The other big thing that would help martials out would be a reworking of skills to make them more useful in a wider variety of situations without the need of feats/abilities to modify them. For example, I'd let anyone inspire their allies with the Oratory skill (skill check to see how well you inspire them). Why is that only members of the bard class can give stirring speeches that actually do something? Of course you'd change bards to give them better bonuses to Oratory, such as longer duration, smaller action to activate, etc...

I'd also look at modifying skills to make things like traps and poison actually useful to PCs, increase the power of profession skills so they do something other then generate money, and give more inherent combat options for skills like acrobatics, slight of hand, intimidate, and sense motive without the need for special feats or abilities.

[Set]

Merkatz wrote:

the biggest slap in the face is that casters don't even have to deal with feat chains or obnoxious requirements for their feats. For instance, similar design would require spellcasters to take Spell Focus for every school they would want to use metamagic feats on- or something of that nature.

That, IMO, is a side-effect of the Fighter and his 'class feature' of having a crapload of Feats. Some of these feat chains seem to have been designed with the assumption that they are going to be taken by a class that has ten extra feats to blow on fancy hats, and that means that one specific feature gets split across two to four different feats, when it should have been designed in such a way that a Ranger or Paladin or Barbarian, who doesn't get ten extra feats to waste on junky prerequisites, can't afford to take.

By giving the Fighter all those extra feats *instead of real class abilities,* the combat feats end up so watered down that they are priced out of reach of anyone who *doesn't* have all those extra feats, and, for the Fighter, end up being lackluster at best anyway, making his 'awesome class feature of lots of feats' an actual downside, since it's reduced the individual utility and effectiveness of feats in general.

I'd rather the Fighter have some real class abilities (perhaps modular ones, like the different combat style options for Rangers or Monks), and less bonus Feats, and for the Feats section itself to be pruned back savagely, turning some into basic maneuvers that anyone can do, class features of the Fighter, or smooshed together into scaling feats (such as taking the entire TWF line and making it one feat, or taking all of the Improved [Maneuver X] and Greater [Maneuver X] feats and smooshing them together).

[Marthkus]

The 3rd ed devs specifically said that whirlwind attack was meant as a powerful action that only fighters would ever get access to.

[Rerednaw]

What should martials be able to do? Really? Hurm...

As it's most basic the fundamental concept I would want is (not AD&D/Pathfinder by the way):

Regardless of your class, you can do exactly the same thing mechanically. All that varies is the fluff.

Whether I use a crossbow, throw an axe, or fire bolts of mystical energy, they all accomplish the same thing: damage at range.
First aid with a medikit should be just as effective as laying on hands.
Whether I throw a net or cast web should have the same initial result.
Everything else would be fluff.
The more effective you are at a given thing the more it costs.

Other game systems already do this.

If I were to convert it to a d20 system.
Everyone starts with basic melee, basic ranged, basic defense.
Everyone can then choose to assign 'points/feats/traits/whatever' that increase each ability.
Various other qualifies "x/day (say I have 10 arrows or 10 uses of a spell) alter the cost or effectiveness (only at night, doesn't work against fire-using, etc...)

Then the system becomes more cinematic and story driven...not 7-feat chains that need 6 splatbooks, bloodlines, and obscure supplement build quest as it stands today.

But then we're no longer playing Pathfinder.

If I want to play Pathfinder I play Pathfinder. If I want more crunch I'll play GURPS. If I want a level playing field, I'll play Hero system or Dungeonworld and add extra story/narrative to boot.

You know it's not

Quote:

"Three Systems for Steve Jackson under the sky,
Seven for White Wolf in their halls of stone,
Nine for the alternative publishers doomed to die,
One for TSR on his dark throne
In the Land of WotC where the moneys lie.
One System to rule them all, One System to find them,
One System to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
In the Land of WotC where the moneys lie."

Really unless you more the system more generic (like 4th edition) and create more parity I don't think it will ever really fully resolve the disparity between class abilities. And then would it still be a viable profitable product? I don't know.

[Cornuthaum]

Looking at the thread title...

I want high level martials to be able to do, in no particular order:

Throw a spear so hard that the gate of the fortress standing in their way explodes into a thousand shards, scything down the spearmen standing ready behind it.

Ride their mount with such skill that it defies the boundaries of logic and reason. Not rain nor lava nor inclement weather or confounded gravity shall keep this cavalryman from their duty.

Shoot an arrow around four right angles, hitting the neck of the rogue that was about to backstab them.

Bash their axe against their shield with such force that its thunderous wave throws the insects clawing at them off their feet.

Hold high their hammer and crash it into the earth, splitting it asunder with all the fury of their herculean might, sending into disarray anything they face.

Use their CMB for any Strength check, instead of their Strength bonus. They shall be as Herakles.

Intimidate the world itself into granting them safe passage through dangerous terrain.

Divert the course of a major river through nothing but the force they can muster.

And many, many more.

But mostly, anything that lets them get away from "I full attack. Hit, hit, miss, hit, damage is X, I'm done, next."

[Neurophage]

Rerednaw said wrote:

Really unless you more the system more generic (like 4th edition) and create more parity I don't think it will ever really fully resolve the disparity between class abilities. And then would it still be a viable profitable product? I don't know.

Just because complete parity is impossible doesn't mean that trying for some parity is useless. Not being able to do it perfectly is no excuse to not try and do it right.

For example: Let's say that we have a design philosophy of making the point of casters "variance" or "flexibility." In this theoretical system, a full spellcaster would be able to use magic to deal ranged damage, inflict positive and negative status effects, apply battlefield control effects and all other manner of things that casters typically can do. However, they have to pick and choose a handful of these to do by the day. Also, while powerful, all of them have a certain amount of wind-up or cool-down (in the form of extended casting time or a daily limit to casting) which would depend on the casting class.

If the design philosophy for casters would be "flexibility," then the design philosophy for martials should be "specialty." A martial has a small list of useful things that their class abilities exemplify, both in and out of battle. For battle suites, a fighter could have Combat Maneuvers, Melee/Ranged Damage, Endurance and a choice of a bunch of other options including Weapon-Augmentation, Damage-Type Changing, Ally-Buffing, Enemy De-Buffing and a few others, while a barbarian would have Melee Damage, Self-Buffing and Endurance, and a rogue might have Battlefield Mobility, Precision Damage, and maybe De-Buffing (status ailments from sneak attacks and poison seem like a rogue thing.) Meanwhile, a Fighter's out-of-combat suite of specialties might include Athletic Ability, and a choice of a few wildcards like Military Etiquette, Weapon Augmentation, Wilderness Survival, and a few others, a barbarian would have Athletic Ability, Wilderness Survival, and a similar group of wild cards, while a rogue would get Athletic and Acrobatic Ability, Stealth, Dungeon Navigation, Negotiation and a list of others. As a class's list of out-of-combat specialties gets longer, its list of combat specialties gets shorter (not weaker, just more narrow), and vice-versa.

Meanwhile, secondary-casters like magi and inquisitors would have spellcasting abilities focused on certain specialties (combat magic/self-buffs/enemy de-buffs for magi and investigation/enemy de-buffs/healing for inquistors, for example) their mundane specialties would be more restricted as a result. And tertiary-casters (paladin, ranger, etc.) would have an even shorter list of spell-specialties than half-casters with an even longer list of mundane ones.

The system and trappings could be identical, just with slightly differently-designed classes. While this change wouldn't result in perfect parity, it would be closer to it than what we have now.

[The_Hanged_Man]

Marthkus wrote:

LazarX wrote:

Marthkus wrote:

LazarX wrote:

My martials all pack bows. If your caster takes more than a 5 foot step up and casts, he's provoking during his move up unless he does nothing for that round but withdraw, which means my fighter has a move action free to draw his bow. Even my mid BAB folks have str adjusted composites if practical. And if your caster cowers behind cover, than he does not have line of effect to cast.

You can ready a standard action. You may move like 5-15ft with the step-up chain. The caster can walk 30ft.

SO. Your fighter would have to pull out a bow and ready one standard attack trained on the caster to perform your tactic. And God forbid the GM require you to make a spellcraft or perception check to tell that they are casting.

If the caster does ANYTHING, but state a double move withdrawal in his turn, he provokes if he moves more than 5 feet. If he does the proper withdrawl, he's DONE for that turn.

Caster moves 30ft away from fighter

Fighter gets his AoO

Caster takes damage

Caster finishes move action

Caster cast a spell as a standard action with fighter no-where near her.

I've seen this strategy go disastrously wrong, and there is a good amount of risk involved. Sometimes the caster takes way more damage than expected due to a crit or is disabled due to some special attack.

Or the fighter just trips the caster instead for the AoO. Pretty easy to do against wizard/sorc types. Now the caster is stuck casting from a prone position in the same place where he started.

Now of course the caster can have protective spells up, but you can't be prepared for all contingencies at all times.

[Marthkus]

The caster can also have fly up making trip worthless.

[The_Hanged_Man]

Marthkus wrote:

The caster can also have fly up making trip worthless.

Obviously, but once again you can't be prepared for all contingencies at all times. If you assume casters have all their spells going for just one fight they are going to do well.

Also, I've been running a mythic campaign and found the mythic rules do a decent job at closing the gap between casters and martials. For example, casters, while they can get extra standard actions, can still only cast one spell per round outside of quickened spells. However, abilities like Fleet Charge and Fleet Warrior grant extra move actions making full round attacks easy to get.

For example a fighter with both Fleet Charge and Fleet Warrior can in 1 round:
Spend a swift action and a mythic point to move and get a free attack at any point along that movement.
Do a full around attack and get a free move before or after the attacks.
Spend another mythic point to get a another standard action that can be used to move, attack, or do whatever.

So for 2 mythic points you get 2 moves, a full round attack plus another single attack, and then another move or attack. Pretty nuts.
Even at no mythic points expended you still get a free move every round with Fleet Warrior as long as you full attack. Pretty good deal in my opinion.

[Pan]

Anzyr wrote:

So... you mean the book that covers level 11 to 15 right Pan?

Ha-Ha thats pretty funny. No I would prefer that book be beyond 20. In fact I think martials are fine and casters are the problem. Forgive my ignorance but does Mythic not allow for high octane martials? We are probably on opposite sides when it comes to what we want from PF.

[Mondoglimmer]

Pan wrote:

Anzyr wrote:

So... you mean the book that covers level 11 to 15 right Pan?

Ha-Ha thats pretty funny. No I would prefer that book be beyond 20. In fact I think martials are fine and casters are the problem. Forgive my ignorance but does Mythic not allow for high octane martials? We are probably on opposite sides when it comes to what we want from PF.

For the most part I agree. The problems of martial disparity and what have you come from issues with what casters are able to do rather than what martials are not able to do. All the stuff I listed in my last post? Most of that is fairly possible. I wouldn't mind some fancier effects here and there, but a Fighter geared with fairly basic stuff that easily fits within the amount of money he should have at a given level can absolutely take on an equal level dragon. That's pretty impressive stuff in my book, going up to adult dragons and standing toe to toe.

In terms of gameplay, a lot of people are upset that the way the fighter would battle said dragon is by standing still and using full attacks. I've also ignored the fact that the dragon can just kinda fly away from the fighter, something that would also be nice to find a remedy for. Perhaps they could attempt to grapple the dragon and ride on its back while they make their attacks? I'm not sure what would really make the fight more interesting, but in terms of capabilities, martial classes are still quite strong.

[OgreBattle]

Neurophage wrote:

I know OP wanted to keep mechanical considerations out, but there's a design aspect a number of people have brought up that needs to be addressed: Feat chains.

There was a D&D fan project that created a ton of scaling feats that give you new abilities as you hit certain BAB bonuses:

http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Tome_Combat_Feats

Here's an example of what one looks like:
-----
Point Blank Shot
You are crazy good using a ranged weapon in close quarters.
Benefits: This is a combat feat that scales with your Base Attack Bonus.
+0: When you are within 30' of your target, your attacks with a ranged weapon gain a bonus to hit.
+1: You gain a bonus to damage with any ranged attack within the first range increment.
+6: You do not provoke an attack of opportunity when you make a ranged attack.
+11: When armed with a Ranged Weapon, you may make attacks of opportunity against opponents who provoke them within 30' of you. Movement within this area does not provoke an attack of opportunity.
-----

Pathfinder feats could easily be set to a similar format. As for skills... the Skill system should come BEFORE the magic system.

By the rules, invisibility gives you a +40 stealth bonus and the invisibility condition. With the way it's presented, even a 'mundane rogue' with a +50 stealth bonus would have a worse time sneaking past a guard looking his direction than a wizard with only his +40 bonus from his spell.

Instead it should be a +40 Stealth bonus makes you invisible to that level 1 guard staring down a corridor you are walking through. If the abilities granted from magic are tied to the skill system that 'mundanes' get to use then the disparity between them is reduced.

As it stands, the current way "magic skills" like invisibility work are just a legacy from the early days of D&D when there was a giant spell list of effects, but no skill system.

[Marthkus]

I feel like the current state of low tier martials is more about gear optimization than build optimization.

[Kthulhu]

They should be able to do different, YET EQUIVALENT, things as a spellcaster of the same level.

If this means toning down spellcasters, then that IS an option.

[Marthkus]

Kthulhu wrote:

If this means toning down spellcasters, then that IS an option.

It's not an option.

Making another class less fun will not make martials more fun. No amount of changing other classes will fix martials.

[RJGrady]

Casters should actually be toned down to make casters more fun. A lot of high level spells are too quick and easy to cast. It doesn't make the game unplayable, but powerful spells should really be a more meaningful decision.

[Marthkus]

RJGrady wrote:

Casters should actually be toned down to make casters more fun. A lot of high level spells are too quick and easy to cast. It doesn't make the game unplayable, but powerful spells should really be a more meaningful decision.

Shame that you need high level spells at high levels.

You are asking for a complete system overhaul which will not happen.

[Malwing]

To the topic, look at all the pictures of Valeros. I want to do that.

[Kthulhu]

Marthkus wrote:

RJGrady wrote:

Casters should actually be toned down to make casters more fun. A lot of high level spells are too quick and easy to cast. It doesn't make the game unplayable, but powerful spells should really be a more meaningful decision.

Shame that you need high level spells at high levels.

You are asking for a complete system overhaul which will not happen.

Frankly, for Pathfinder 2.0, I think they should take a good long look at the PRD, the 3.5 SRD...

And burn them.

[thaX]

Not read one word of the thread, answering the question of the title...

Watch 300.

That.

[Mondoglimmer]

Marthkus wrote:

Kthulhu wrote:

If this means toning down spellcasters, then that IS an option.

It's not an option.

Making another class less fun will not make martials more fun. No amount of changing other classes will fix martials.

Actually, that's exactly the issue in some cases. Some casters (not all of them) actually just obsolete the other characters to the point that it is not fun to play. Take the rogue for example, as has already been mentioned in the thread. If the wizard in the party can cast invisibility, the rogue is left to wonder why it put points in stealth. If the entire party is decked out in swift action healing belts to keep them going, then the cleric's Cure spells stop being fun because he doesn't get to show off what he can do.

In another game I'm playing, all homebrew based on Fallout, there isn't any incentive to doubling up on most non-combat skills, of which there are already very few. If two people decide to specialize in lockpicking, one of them just isn't going to get to do any lockpicking. If an energy weapon drops and two players have skill in energy weapons, one player gets the shiny new toy and the other one does not. In every system, it is important that the party's abilities are unique to each character, such that they are all able to do the things they have committed to doing. If the wizard is capable of trumping the skill system in so many ways via spells like Knock of Invisibility, then other character might not get to do their thing.

Personally, I think a similar issue comes up with things like Bags of Holding, wherein characters with high strength don't get to muscle their carrying capacity into the party.

[RJGrady]

Marthkus wrote:

RJGrady wrote:

Casters should actually be toned down to make casters more fun. A lot of high level spells are too quick and easy to cast. It doesn't make the game unplayable, but powerful spells should really be a more meaningful decision.

Shame that you need high level spells at high levels.

You are asking for a complete system overhaul which will not happen.

It probably won]t happen, but if I were put in charge of Pathfinder 2e, I could do it in an afternoon with a magic marker. I'm not talking about anything radical, just rebalancing some of the higher level spells.

[Marthkus]

RJGrady wrote:

Marthkus wrote:

RJGrady wrote:

Casters should actually be toned down to make casters more fun. A lot of high level spells are too quick and easy to cast. It doesn't make the game unplayable, but powerful spells should really be a more meaningful decision.

Shame that you need high level spells at high levels.

You are asking for a complete system overhaul which will not happen.

It probably won]t happen, but if I were put in charge of Pathfinder 2e, I could do it in an afternoon with a magic marker. I'm not talking about anything radical, just rebalancing some of the higher level spells.

You would only succeed in making a less fun game.

[Marthkus]

Mondoglimmer wrote:

Marthkus wrote:

Kthulhu wrote:

If this means toning down spellcasters, then that IS an option.

It's not an option.

Making another class less fun will not make martials more fun. No amount of changing other classes will fix martials.

Actually, that's exactly the issue in some cases. Some casters (not all of them) actually just obsolete the other characters to the point that it is not fun to play. Take the rogue for example, as has already been mentioned in the thread. If the wizard in the party can cast invisibility, the rogue is left to wonder why it put points in stealth. If the entire party is decked out in swift action healing belts to keep them going, then the cleric's Cure spells stop being fun because he doesn't get to show off what he can do.

In another game I'm playing, all homebrew based on Fallout, there isn't any incentive to doubling up on most non-combat skills, of which there are already very few. If two people decide to specialize in lockpicking, one of them just isn't going to get to do any lockpicking. If an energy weapon drops and two players have skill in energy weapons, one player gets the shiny new toy and the other one does not. In every system, it is important that the party's abilities are unique to each character, such that they are all able to do the things they have committed to doing. If the wizard is capable of trumping the skill system in so many ways via spells like Knock of Invisibility, then other character might not get to do their thing.

Personally, I think a similar issue comes up with things like Bags of Holding, wherein characters with high strength don't get to muscle their carrying capacity into the party.

Rogues have a lot of problems. I also know that even my rogues have trouble carrying bags of holding. High strength characters are needed.

[Pan]

Marthkus wrote:

RJGrady wrote:

Marthkus wrote:

RJGrady wrote:

Casters should actually be toned down to make casters more fun. A lot of high level spells are too quick and easy to cast. It doesn't make the game unplayable, but powerful spells should really be a more meaningful decision.

Shame that you need high level spells at high levels.

You are asking for a complete system overhaul which will not happen.

It probably won]t happen, but if I were put in charge of Pathfinder 2e, I could do it in an afternoon with a magic marker. I'm not talking about anything radical, just rebalancing some of the higher level spells.

You would only succeed in making a less fun game.

Subjective. You could super charge martials to match casters and it would also make the game less fun.

[Marthkus]

Pan wrote:

Marthkus wrote:

RJGrady wrote:

Marthkus wrote:

RJGrady wrote:

Casters should actually be toned down to make casters more fun. A lot of high level spells are too quick and easy to cast. It doesn't make the game unplayable, but powerful spells should really be a more meaningful decision.

Shame that you need high level spells at high levels.

You are asking for a complete system overhaul which will not happen.

It probably won]t happen, but if I were put in charge of Pathfinder 2e, I could do it in an afternoon with a magic marker. I'm not talking about anything radical, just rebalancing some of the higher level spells.

You would only succeed in making a less fun game.

Subjective. You could super charge martials to match casters and it would also make the game less fun.

This is the exact fear of the devs. Nerfs to casters are unacceptable. Nerfs to martials are fine (see crane wing). Can't buff martials for risk of "too much weaboo".

Seems the solution is to make a whole bunch of 6th lvl casting classes that are just really cool and versatile to the point that you may want to play them over full-casters for MECHANICAL reasons.

Martial may one day just be an NPC concept.

[Anzyr]

Look... for the most part, martials need buffed more then casters need nerfed. Yes, some Spells (and a few abilities) could use a good swift whack with the nerf bat, but they are much less pressing concerns then the general weakness of martials that starts emerging after you get past level 6.

So really its a mix of both, its just martials need the help more at the moment.

[Mondoglimmer]

"Fun" is kind of subjective in general. There's at least half a dozen goals people have when people play the game, and which one is more prevalent changes from person to person. Many changes to the core game are going to make things less fun for one person and more fun for another due simply to player preference. Some might say that wizards getting some spells removed would be less fun, but perhaps those spells weren't actually fun in the first place, or the presence of those spells made things less fun for the non-wizards. Taking things away from people doesn't always mean ruining their fun.

[Marthkus]

Mondoglimmer wrote:

Taking things away from people doesn't always mean ruining their fun.

Unless you are talking about tumors, I don't grasp your point.

[RJGrady]

Mondoglimmer wrote:

"Fun" is kind of subjective in general. There's at least half a dozen goals people have when people play the game, and which one is more prevalent changes from person to person. Many changes to the core game are going to make things less fun for one person and more fun for another due simply to player preference. Some might say that wizards getting some spells removed would be less fun, but perhaps those spells weren't actually fun in the first place, or the presence of those spells made things less fun for the non-wizards. Taking things away from people doesn't always mean ruining their fun.

I'm not anti-fun, I'm just like, "Man, if you're going to warp the fabric of the universe or something, i think that should be, like, at least a full round action or something."

[Joyd]

It's trivial to show that it's not the general case that taking away an option can never create more fun. Imagine that there is a class called the Savant. Savants are basically like Rangers in every way, except that they have an ability called "Solution", which they can use at will. Solution instantly solves any problem, defeats any enemies, and flawlessly deals with any problem with no chance of failure and no drawbacks. It's pretty obvious that "Solution" is an ability that makes the class less fun, because its existence makes it the answer to every question. Character options that are too universally applicable and reliable can indeed make a class less fun.

Now, no class in Pathfinder has an ability that's anywhere close to Solution, but having more limited options can absolutely be more fun, as it forces creativity. When you can produce almost any effect, it's not nearly as great of a creative challenge as when you can produce a more limited range of effects. There's a floor on things too, of course; if you can't produce any interesting effects, that's generally less fun too, which is why the commoner class isn't all that fun. The middle ground is extremely wide, but I wouldn't call somebody crazy if they said that certain classes are above or below the idea range, at least by a little bit.

[Mondoglimmer]

Joyd wrote:

It's trivial to show that it's not the general case that taking away an option can never create more fun. Imagine that there is a class called the Savant. Savants are basically like Rangers in every way, except that they have an ability called "Solution", which they can use at will. Solution instantly solves any problem, defeats any enemies, and flawlessly deals with any problem with no chance of failure and no drawbacks. It's pretty obvious that "Solution" is an ability that makes the class less fun, because its existence makes it the answer to every question. Character options that are too universally applicable and reliable can indeed make a class less fun.

Now, no class in Pathfinder has an ability that's anywhere close to Solution, but having more limited options can absolutely be more fun, as it forces creativity. When you can produce almost any effect, it's not nearly as great of a creative challenge as when you can produce a more limited range of effects. There's a floor on things too, of course; if you can't produce any interesting effects, that's generally less fun too, which is why the commoner class isn't all that fun. The middle ground is extremely wide, but I wouldn't call somebody crazy if they said that certain classes are above or below the idea range, at least by a little bit.

The 3.5 iteration of Wish was basically Solution, but with the caveat that the DM had to be the one to shut it down rather than actual rules. Fortunately, Pathfinder added some extra rules to Wish, because Solution isn't really a very fun ability.

[Raith Shadar]

I don't feel this way at all about martials. I don't know why anyone does. High level martials aren't overly versatile like casters, but they are nightmares of destruction that can level armies and destroy castles with their weapons.

A high level martial is far more visually impressive than a caster (save perhaps an evoker). A caster does a lot of subtle, very cool feats with spells, but a high level martial can literally wade into an orc army and come out covered in blood and gore with a few hundred or more orcs dead. They can cut down castle walls, sunder catapults, go toe to toe with a gang of giants, and cut a portcullis in two with one strike. I don't get the whole "Martials don't have nice things" argument.

A better argument might be "Martials aren't very versatile". They aren't. They don't get teleport spells, summons, wall spells to divide battlefields, or the versatility of casters. They do get to take advantage of powerful magical weapons and items casters don't normally need, wear very cool armor, and look far more physically impressive than casters.

[Umbranus]

Fighters should be able to:

..Shrug off damage (heal HP) because they are tough SOBs and are used to being wounded.

..shrug off magic because being non magical makes them resistant. They don't have to open themselves up to magic after all. (Should be lost if multiclassing with magic users).

..effectively debuff enemies while fighting without spending attacks to do so. The critical feats are a good start but come too late.

..remain calm under pressure and not loose their heads. Bravery is a nice start but too weak.

..know stuff and be competent out of combat. Half level bonus on some skills would help, for example.

[Raith Shadar]

More skill points for a fighter would be nice. A good soldier has more than weapons knowledge.

Saving throws are shrugging off magic.

[Tholomyes]

Raith Shadar wrote:

More skill points for a fighter would be nice. A good soldier has more than weapons knowledge.

Saving throws are shrugging off magic.

Yeah, and it's a good thing the fighter is really good at those...

[Mondoglimmer]

Yeah. Unfortunately, instead of being especially resistant to magic via force of will, they're actually incredibly vulnerable.

[OgreBattle]

RJGrady wrote:

I'm not anti-fun, I'm just like, "Man, if you're going to warp the fabric of the universe or something, i think that should be, like, at least a full round action or something."

If you're born INT12 you'll never be able to master the expertise of defensive combat, but you can learn how to shoot a seizure rainbow from your hands.

Now for those that are looking at rejiggering the higher levels of play, what levels do you think the game is nicely playable at?

For a lot of people it's level 6, that's why E6 is totally a thing. Fighters get a 2nd attack, wizards don't have 4th level spells, and you're fighting iconic monsters like the troll, wyvern, frost giant, and so on.

[Cascade]

I think pathfinder (much like 3.5) changes as the levels go up...it essentially becomes a race for dps and save or die spells.

In those mid levels, the spellcasters contribute, have enough range to stick around and do stuff while the fighters mix it up. The problem arises in mixed tables where baddies getting into melee with a mostly poor AC group suffers horribly so beefy encounters are tamed back or additional soak up resources encounters are further limited.

Ultimately, there needs to be more content to suck up the casters spells; much like having traps to give rogues content, non combat spellcaster obstacles need to be increased; water encounters, environmental issues, sneaking snuff (buffs needed), intelligence (scrying required), special movement requirements, etc. So many casters are simply tailored to elimination of opponents, they should overshadow melee abilities because they are single mindedly focused.

TL;DR - if casters are over shadowing the combats, then more caster specifc content needs to be added to reduce their longevity in spell casting.

[The_Hanged_Man]

Kthulhu wrote:

They should be able to do different, YET EQUIVALENT, things as a spellcaster of the same level.

If this means toning down spellcasters, then that IS an option.

Easy to say, very difficult to pull off. My main concern is that if they prioritize balance too high the game will no longer feel like D&D. For example, there is a particular game-that-shall-not-be-named (let's call it Voldemort). Voldemort did a bang up job of balancing the classes. However, while still fun in tactical sense, Voldemort was stripped of a lot it's flavor, a lot of the classes felt the same to play, and essentially it just did not feel like the game I grew up playing. As result poor Voldemort is being discarded ahead of its time in favor of a system that is deliberately trying to be more true to its roots.

I'm not saying balance at the higher levels is not an issue. However, releasing a lion into your house to catch mice, while effective, comes with its own set of problems. I'm actually a big fan of balance in a system but it shouldn't be the only, or even the highest priority, factor to consider. Sometimes the trade offs aren't worth it.

Anyone remember new Coke? I'm sure the people at Coke did a ton of taste testing before releasing that, and new Coke probably scored objectively better. However, people flipped out when it was released and it wasn't long before they returned to the original classic formula.

People hate change. For example, consider the reaction to the recent change to a certain avian feat chain. People especially hate change when it involves an object of nostalgia or sentimentality. D&D was a cherished part of my childhood, and I will play the game that best evokes that feeling I felt as a kid.

[Ilja]

Raith Shadar wrote:

but they are nightmares of destruction that can level armies and destroy castles with their weapons.

If they have a year or two perhaps. An army of say 5000 people will take most high-level martials at least 700 rounds to kill off, meanwhile it will take a bit of damage every round to their natural 20's on bows or javelins or what have you. Destroying a castle will take a long time even with adamantine weapons.

Now, if a high level martial actually COULD level armies or topple castles easily, that would be a different thing. If a high-level fighter actually had an ability that could do stuff like destroy a 10ft by 10ft cube of stone per attack (kind of like how an 11th level caster can), or a high level archer could shoot an arrow that struck a hundred people, things would be different.

Quote:

A high level martial is far more visually impressive than a caster (save perhaps an evoker). A caster does a lot of subtle, very cool feats with spells, but a high level martial can literally wade into an orc army and come out covered in blood and gore with a few hundred or more orcs dead.

Uhm... No. A high-level martial is a guy in fancy armor that's good with a sword. Meanwhile the caster can summon storms or great angels or turn into a dragon and so on. I can tell you which is more visually impressing.

Quote:

They can cut down castle walls

A 5ft thick castle wall has 900 hp. Cutting through it will take even most high level martials at least three rounds. Meanwhile, a high-level caster can do it in one round, or twice per round if they have a rod of quicken spell.

Quote:

sunder catapults

Which about anyone can do at level 5. Or, depending on catapult design, at level 1.

Quote:

go toe to toe with a gang of giants

Which is kind of the point. Yes, the martial is good at going toe to toe with enemies that wish to go toe to toe with it. It responds to the plot and the world, it has a very hard time to influence it.

Quote:

and cut a portcullis in two with one strike.

Which most 4th-5th level characters can do, regardless of class. I mean, it has 30 hp and 5 hardness. And that's not even in the same playing field of awesome as creating demiplanes (which others can do at late mid-levels).

Quote:

I don't get the whole "Martials don't have nice things" argument.

So far of your examples, the "nice things" have been doing stuff any class can do easily, or stuff that other classes do better by far. The only exception being melee combat with enemies that wish to do melee combat with you.

They can have nice stuff in the same way as a granite rock has nice stuff. It's good for weighing things down.

Quote:

A better argument might be "Martials aren't very versatile". They aren't. They don't get teleport spells, summons, wall spells to divide battlefields, or the versatility of casters. They do get to take advantage of powerful magical weapons and items casters don't normally need, wear very cool armor, and look far more physically impressive than casters.

Wait... So your argument is that they're not lacking because they get to use stuff others don't need? The fact that they need it and others don't is an argument that they ARE weaker.

And again, they are not more physically "impressive". They have a much harder time breaking the mundane barriers of impressiveness. They like anyone else can drink a potion of enlarge person, but they have a hard time turning into a dragon or earth elemental.

[Ilja]

Raith Shadar, using your examples of what you say martials can do, here is a suggestion of two things a high-level fighter doesn't have that it could have that would fulfil those claims:

Impressive Physique
You have such a stature people tremble and flee before you.
Prerequisites: BaB +11, Intimidating Prowess.
Benefit: Anyone that sees you must make a will saving throw (DC 10 + your BAB) or be affected. If their hit dice is 5 or less they are panicked. If their hit dice is less than half of yours but more than 5 they are frightened. If their hit dice is more than half your base attack bonus they are shaken. The effect lasts for one minute. A successful save means they are immune to the effect for one minute.

Leveler of Armies
Your swings are so mighty hordes of enemies fall before you.
Prerequisites: BaB +11, Great Cleave
Benefit: Whenever you make a cleave attack, you roll the attack roll as normal. Anyone within ten times your threat range with an AC equal or lower to your rolled attack takes damage equal to your weapon's base damage plus your strength modifier.

Now, these are just examples of the _kind_ of power high-level martials could have, and similar to what you seemed to believe they had.