| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...Right. It's impossible to ever have total parity between the two camps. So if I were to make a feat letting wizards quicken all their spells as for free and another one that doubles their caster level for all spell parameters....
Who cares, amirite? I mean, so long as it isn't perfectly balanced, why should we care about balance at all? It's not like we're going to completely fix the problem no matter what we do, so f*** it. It wasn't balanced before, and wasn't balanced after. And all decisions on balance are clearly Boolean true/false.
** spoiler omitted **
Oh, I absolutely care about balance, make no mistake. I'll add a corollary list of necessary adjustments that would allow a semblance of balance:
* martials can move and still get melee iterative attacks (pounce would provide a different bonus). Archers still have the stand still to get iteratives.
* most of the martial maneuvers do not require a feat, and provoke AoOs only on a miss.
* arcane casters should be far more restricted in spell selection
* divine casters should not instantly gain access to all their spells
* removal of spell effects scaling on caster level. Base it purely on spell level. Heighten Spell is inherent metamagic, not a feat.
* spells that act as skill-replacements (detect X, knock, invisibility, et al) become skill-bonuses based on spell level (~ +2 * spell level, and allow the caster's casting stat to substitute for the normal stat for the skill).
* metamagic feats would need another "cost" instead of spell level adjustment. Probably a limited number of uses per day. Quicken would be 1/day, but ones like Maximize/Empower would be 2 and 3 per day, respectively. Metamagic rods can go bye-bye, IMO.
* spells must be completely reorganized. In general, have spells affect a maximum of 1 target per spell level. The larger area of effect spells need to do considerably less damage. The overall damage should be roughly equatable to martial damage of the same character level. That is not to say the same, but at least not an order of magnitude more, either.
---
Now, are ANY of those changes EVER gonna happen? Nope. Thus, yes, I have concluded that 3.5/PF will always be unbalanced between the martial classes and casters, and will just enjoy what I can out of it.
The martial vs caster arguement is a sad thing to bring up over and over. Martials want to feel awesome and casters always seem to do more than them.
...
My last session in a level 5 party our serenrae cleric fireballed a group of 6 orcs who were clumped up near a barracks entrance. One shotted them. About ten minutes prior, our ranger had in two turns killed 5 guys with no help or even a chance for backup (we weren't around) and the 6th guy he didn't kill fled. Guess what, our cleric has 1 fireball a day. The ranger always stays stocked on arrows like he should...
So archers are essentially fine, because they are like casters... /sarcasm
Most of the martial vs caster debate is focused on melee characters. Ranged combat is not balanced well with melee combat, either. Mounted archery is just absurd, currently.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
See, I hate the imbalance, but I'm actually pretty fine with casters as they are now. I'd make some tweaks to how they work, based on personal opinion, but as far as overall capability goes, I got no problem with "god wizards" or whatever. For examples of changes I'd like to see:
•Metamagic should be based on a per-day rather than increase the spell level. Very similar to Gherrick's suggestion above (as each feat would be balanced differently - silent might be 3/day per feat but quicken would be 1/day), but my idea replaces the cost rather than adds to it.
This is important for twofold reasons: 1, it gets rid of ridiculous gimicky builds that abuse the current system (ie: say goodbye to nonsense like Shocking Grasp Magi - you actually have to get creative with your spell lists!) and 2, it's so much more fluid. If you want to quicken a spell, bam, done, and now you're done for the day unless you took the feat more than once. No ridiculous preptime involved.
•More spells that scale with level. Now I'm gonna disagree with Gherrick, lol. Give me a reason to want to use my low-level spells at high levels. Feeling like I've got a ton of wasted potential (unless I metamagic it) feels dumb and boring. If I'm a spell caster, I want to cast spells.
•Default prep works like Arcanist and Wizard/Cleric/Druid style just goes away. Yes, I'm totally fine merging Wiz and Sorc into a single class, and allowing you to pick "how" you cast. But I'm a sandbox fan, so I get that some people would disagree.
But what I'd really like to see is non-Casters who can really shine without feeling like they have to punish themselves with subpar mechanics just to get to the "meat" of their build. Casters can stay right where they're at, but non-Casters need to be able to reach the clouds too.
I don't want to feel like I'm being punished when I take a feat. I want my choices to be fun and interesting and help me achieve my desired playstyle - Basically, I want what Casters have, without being a caster.
Why is that too much to ask? [dripping sarcasm]Because we really like the 3.5 model and that's nothing like it![/dripping sarcasm] Ugh. Can we please put on our big-girl panties and make changes that players want, instead of just kowtowing to the designs of yesterday's game?
.
Monks have an attack roll problem. No way to consistent boost it.
Issue is Monk feats have too high a Prereq.
Style feasts are 5th level monk or +9 BAB on average. And that is not counting needing other feats to qualify.
I think that one good way to ease the gap between martials and casters would be to get an easier way to iteratively attack without going Barbarian for pounce or hoping your GM will let you go Mythic for the Champion's Fleet Attack path ability. I'd maybe propose a feat where you could either, as a standard action, choose between making one attack with your full BAB or any and all iterative attacks except the one at your highest BAB.
I'm not sure how it would play out in testing, but I've been thinking it would provide some high damage outputs that the martials strive for.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that's probably the best balance option you could get for the current system, aceDiamond.
Realistically, full attacking is too powerful, but single attacking is too weak. Dropping your best attack to move and get the rest of your attacks seems fair.
Edit- Ya know, gave it a second thought, and even that seems awful. You can already move and attack once. So, assuming full BAB (ie: best-case scenario) you're not actually getting any benefit until level 11.
Weak.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Everybody know that if a 20th level fighter walks up to 20th level mage, the mage prolly wins even if he has no expensive components and neither have any magic gear
But why?
Why has to be so?Because a flawed paradigm. Because dnd wizards are Gandalf, while dnd fighters are Boromir. And of course Gandalf> Boromir.
Where is the flaw? The flaw is that gandalf>Boromir because of level, not class . Boromir is lvl 4 at best. A cave troll or giant spider will beat him 1vs1. Want to see a fighter with Gandalf's level? Finarfin was a fighter too and he could beat batallions of Balrogs
BeoWulf, Achilles or Cuchulain are High level fighters. HULK is a high level (mythic) barbarian. Aragorn is lvl 5
I think that's probably the best balance option you could get for the current system, aceDiamond.
Realistically, full attacking is too powerful, but single attacking is too weak. Dropping your best attack to move and get the rest of your attacks seems fair.
Edit- Ya know, gave it a second thought, and even that seems awful. You can already move and attack once. So, assuming full BAB (ie: best-case scenario) you're not actually getting any benefit until level 11.
Weak.
But I thought that the idea was that it was around this level that the disparity between martials and casters became too much to deal with. At least for some people.
Besides, if you down a potion of Haste or have a sword of speed beforehand, wouldn't this essentially be the same thing as pounce?
Like I said, not perfect, but it's something that may ease the gap in some people's minds.
The martial vs caster arguement is a sad thing to bring up over and over. Martials want to feel awesome and casters always seem to do more than them.
...
My last session in a level 5 party our serenrae cleric fireballed a group of 6 orcs who were clumped up near a barracks entrance. One shotted them. About ten minutes prior, our ranger had in two turns killed 5 guys with no help or even a chance for backup (we weren't around) and the 6th guy he didn't kill fled. Guess what, our cleric has 1 fireball a day. The ranger always stays stocked on arrows like he should...So archers are essentially fine, because they are like casters... /sarcasm
Most of the martial vs caster debate is focused on melee characters. Ranged combat is not balanced well with melee combat, either. Mounted archery is just absurd, currently.
Good point. How is this then? Our fighter character in our last session had to attack a "mighty unhallowed flesh golem" and his initial damage (DR I think was bypassed anyway but being specific on purpose) was apparently 25 dmg or more. I wasn't paying attention but he is under a compulsion and the subject came up, "could he oneshot me?"
I believe he may have crit becuz that makes sense but understand that as long as we all have hitpoints he never "runs out" of damage. He also ends up tanking for all of us squishies. Now, explaining the reason behind our overly templated flesh golem: we r feat per level in this game. At the end of this session tho, our "fighter" (who did that damage) had like 5 feats. He is playing a homebrew that is a fallen paladin deriving its power from a thing called zeal, 3 levels, and 2 levels of fighter. In short, he was 2 feats short in that fight due to a player oversight.Edit: Ifeel like I should mention he is one handed, lol, and had his otherhand.holding onto a book (part of the compulsion) so was shieldless that fight. Id never trade him in for another mage.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The martial vs caster arguement is a sad thing to bring up over and over. Martials want to feel awesome and casters always seem to do more than them.
...
My last session in a level 5 party our serenrae cleric fireballed a group of 6 orcs who were clumped up near a barracks entrance. One shotted them. About ten minutes prior, our ranger had in two turns killed 5 guys with no help or even a chance for backup (we weren't around) and the 6th guy he didn't kill fled. Guess what, our cleric has 1 fireball a day. The ranger always stays stocked on arrows like he should...So archers are essentially fine, because they are like casters... /sarcasm
Most of the martial vs caster debate is focused on melee characters. Ranged combat is not balanced well with melee combat, either. Mounted archery is just absurd, currently.
Good point. How is this then? Our fighter character in our last session had to attack a "mighty unhallowed flesh golem" and his initial damage (DR I think was bypassed anyway but being specific on purpose) was apparently 25 dmg or more. I wasn't paying attention but he is under a compulsion and the subject came up, "could he oneshot me?"
I believe he may have crit becuz that makes sense but understand that as long as we all have hitpoints he never "runs out" of damage. He also ends up tanking for all of us squishies. Now, explaining the reason behind our overly templated flesh golem: we r feat per level in this game. At the end of this session tho, our "fighter" (who did that damage) had like 5 feats. He is playing a homebrew that is a fallen paladin deriving its power from a thing called zeal, 3 levels, and 2 levels of fighter. In short, he was 2 feats short in that fight due to a player oversight.
Edit: Ifeel like I should mention he is one handed, lol, and had his otherhand.holding onto a book (part of the compulsion) so was shieldless that fight. Id never trade him in for another mage.
One thing i would like to point out is that Golems are easier for mages to take care of than fighters...
A simple create pit spell or reverse gravity with fly pretty much neutrilizes the encounter. Or you can play a master summoner and spam the crap out of lantern archons while flying around and poke him to death with a Personnel Self Defense Plasma Drone System, brought to you by Elysium Inc.
Ironically enough, a party consisting of a Master Summoner, Regular Summoner, Wizard, and half-elf oracle of brokenness (paragon surge)would probably make a stronger party than a "classical" party...
Perfect party, Master Summoner, Synthesis Summoner, Summoner, Alchemist
Perfect party, Master Summoner, Synthesis Summoner, Summoner, Alchemist
*random Alchemist looks around* Hmm.. I feel like something here is not like the others...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Create Pit or Fly are pretty basic spells mate.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
People list multiple different options of "win spells" not because the wizard needs to know ALL of them at any given point. It's because he just needs to know ANY of them.
I love how many spells are "VERY common" and assumed to "ALWAYS be memorized". Especially how the list of "very common" and "always memorized" spells vastly exceeds the amount of spells that a wizard is actually allowed to memorize.
Again, you use Divination spells/Enchantment spells to get a gist of what is going on WELL before hand... For instance, if your going up agaisnt Undead, then Dominate/charm is obviously not something you prepare. If you are going to take out some orcs, then your Enchantment spells become funny. If your going into a Wizard's tower, just use some thinking and think abotu what YOU would defend your tower with. Invisible threats, golems, magical traps, ect...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I love how many spells are "VERY common" and assumed to "ALWAYS be memorized". Especially how the list of "very common" and "always memorized" spells vastly exceeds the amount of spells that a wizard is actually allowed to memorize.
Scrolls, wands, staves, spontaneous casters, mythic power, pearls of power, pages of spell knowledge, divinations, scouting, ect...
The power of spellcasters doesn't come from spells.
It comes from handwaving.
Craft Wondrous Items
Craft Wands
Scribe Scroll (usually for free)
Craft staffs
So a Wizard COULD MAKE IT HIS OWN DAMN SELF... Not that hard...
Oh! And if your a Paragon Surge Half-Elf Oracle you have THE ENTIRE ARCANE SPELL LIST at your finger tips on call....
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I love how many spells are "VERY common" and assumed to "ALWAYS be memorized". Especially how the list of "very common" and "always memorized" spells vastly exceeds the amount of spells that a wizard is actually allowed to memorize.Scrolls, wands, staves, spontaneous casters, mythic power, pearls of power, pages of spell knowledge, divinations, scouting, ect...
Also, Kthulhu is underestimating just how many spells full casters get. When you have dozens of spell slots, it isn't hard to have all the spells you need prepared.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The power of spellcasters doesn't come from spells.
It comes from handwaving.
^^Has given up the argument and conceded his points, but just doesn't want to admit it^^
Oh! And if you are an Arcanist it gets even funnier, because you have the flexibility of the Sorcerer's spontanious casting with the ability to change up his spells known list every day (much like the Spirit Shaman from 3.5 Complete Divine).
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh! And if you are an Arcanist it gets even funnier, because you have the flexibility of the Sorcerer's spontanious casting with the ability to change up his spells known list every day (much like the Spirit Shaman from 3.5 Complete Divine).
But per day spell limits!
Actually I have yet to play a fighter who swung her sword more times a day than a caster had spells past lvl 5.
|
]Also, Kthulhu is underestimating just how many spells full casters get. When you have dozens of spell slots, it isn't hard to have all the spells you need prepared.
4 slots per spell level, we'll be generous and bump that up to 7 (assuming your wizard is 20th level and has a 36-37 INT).
Yeah, he can put lower level spells into higher level slots. But when he does this, he's actually having to give up those higher level slots...you don't get to handwave that away that you get to filll them with the appropriate level spells as well.
Oh! And if you are an Arcanist it gets even funnier, because you have the flexibility of the Sorcerer's spontanious casting with the ability to change up his spells known list every day (much like the Spirit Shaman from 3.5 Complete Divine).But per day spell limits!
Actually I have yet to play a fighter who swung her sword more times a day than a caster had spells past lvl 5.
Haha true story. Between Quickened spells, spells being used out of combat to fix the rest of the party's weak points, and spells being used to bypass a lot of things, a wizard can actually cast A LOT of spells...
Also, Kthulhu is underestimating just how many spells full casters get. When you have dozens of spell slots, it isn't hard to have all the spells you need prepared.4 slots per spell level,
What's this 4? Does anyone even ever play a universalist wizard?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
]Also, Kthulhu is underestimating just how many spells full casters get. When you have dozens of spell slots, it isn't hard to have all the spells you need prepared.4 slots per spell level, we'll be generous and bump that up to 7 (assuming your wizard is 20th level and has a 36-37 INT).
Yeah, he can put lower level spells into higher level slots. But when he does this, he's actually having to give up those higher level slots...you don't get to handwave that away that you get to filll them with the appropriate level spells as well.
Yes, but one thing you are failing to understand is that you only need 3 TOPS TO END MOST LEVEL APPROPRIATE ENCOUNTERS... additionally you are forgetting the spell slot for specialization (playing a generalist is an exercise in masochism), "spell slots" for pearls of power, making scrolls for situational answers (i.e. Knock Spell), and wands for more common situational answers (Wand of Infernal Healing/CLW)...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, and let's not forget that if you memorize Fireball 3 times, that's THREE slots that go away, not just one.
Spellcasters loose a LOT of their "overpoweredness" if you actually bother to use the rules.
You do use the rules, Just because you don't seem to understand how to play a Wizard, don't go and think everyone one is simply ignoring the rules... Besides, there have been MANY posters who have EVEN STRONGER UNDERSTANDING OF RULES THAN EVEN ALOT OF PAIZO'S STAFF who rule on the side of the spell puts you into a very poor light...
Yes, but one thing you are failing to understand is that you only need 3 TOPS TO END MOST LEVEL APPROPRIATE ENCOUNTERS... additionally you are forgetting the spell slot for specialization (playing a generalist is an exercise in masochism), "spell slots" for pearls of power, making scrolls for situational answers (i.e. Knock Spell), and wands for more common situational answers (Wand of Infernal Healing/CLW)...]Also, Kthulhu is underestimating just how many spells full casters get. When you have dozens of spell slots, it isn't hard to have all the spells you need prepared.4 slots per spell level, we'll be generous and bump that up to 7 (assuming your wizard is 20th level and has a 36-37 INT).
Yeah, he can put lower level spells into higher level slots. But when he does this, he's actually having to give up those higher level slots...you don't get to handwave that away that you get to filll them with the appropriate level spells as well.
There's also the trick of leaving a slot or two open to prepare later in the day. For the cost of just a single spell slot and 15 minutes (1 minute with the right arcane discovery) you can have any spell you want!
There's also the trick of leaving a slot or two open to prepare later in the day. For the cost of just a single spell slot and 15 minutes (1 minute with the right arcane discovery) you can have any spell you want!Yes, but one thing you are failing to understand is that you only need 3 TOPS TO END MOST LEVEL APPROPRIATE ENCOUNTERS... additionally you are forgetting the spell slot for specialization (playing a generalist is an exercise in masochism), "spell slots" for pearls of power, making scrolls for situational answers (i.e. Knock Spell), and wands for more common situational answers (Wand of Infernal Healing/CLW)...]Also, Kthulhu is underestimating just how many spells full casters get. When you have dozens of spell slots, it isn't hard to have all the spells you need prepared.4 slots per spell level, we'll be generous and bump that up to 7 (assuming your wizard is 20th level and has a 36-37 INT).
Yeah, he can put lower level spells into higher level slots. But when he does this, he's actually having to give up those higher level slots...you don't get to handwave that away that you get to filll them with the appropriate level spells as well.
That is true. A lot of people forget to take advantage of thise little trick, which truly allows the wizard to be versatile.
Spellcaster at mid to high levels have a lot of options. It is not true, however, that they always will have the right spell to aouto win a fight...
... It is just that Golems are absurdly weak against magic.
Does the ivory tower design thing extend to cover GMing? Golems seem like they were made to be a trap for the neophyte GM who lacks system mastery. They trick neophyte GMs into thinking golems can make an encounter which challenges spellcasters. Except they don't.
Hmm..
I wonder how many of the broken spells would be removed if you just-
Removed the conjuration school alltogether
And removed dazing spell.
Does the ivory tower design thing extend to cover GMing? Golems seem like they were made to be a trap for the neophyte GM who lacks system mastery. They trick neophyte GMs into thinking golems can make an encounter which challenges spellcasters. Except they don't.Spellcaster at mid to high levels have a lot of options. It is not true, however, that they always will have the right spell to aouto win a fight...
... It is just that Golems are absurdly weak against magic.
It's the classic monster that is immune to magic...that is targeted at them. SO many spells are not targeted, and the summon spells are probably the best example. Until casters are truly limited in their versatility, parity cannot occur.
One idea is to have scrolls, wands, et al, use up spell slots instead of charges. You get the added versatility, but still are tapping from the same well, which is based primarily on caster level.
Another idea is to have the spell number progression cap at X slots total instead of getting an ever increasing number of slots. Capping out at 10-15 slots total (basically keeping only the top 3-4 spell levels in the progression chart) would be a fair place to start.
Hmm..
I wonder how many of the broken spells would be removed if you just-
Removed the conjuration school altogetherAnd removed dazing spell.
I think no school is safe when it comes to imbalanced spells. Part the problem is that so many spells have huge benefits, but the cost isn't commensurate with the gain.
The summoning spells should probably be much more ritualistic in nature, where you need to cast them outside of combat, due to casting times of 1 minute+ (as if every summon was like an eidolon). Being able to cast one spell as a standard action (or even full-round) and get multiple fresh bodies onto the field is HUGE from a tactical standpoint, even if all the summons do is stand still and absorb a hit or two.
No, a fundamental issue is that the spells are not even balanced at the spell level. We have multi-target level 1 spells that can effectively disable (through damage or effect) groups, while the melees are still at best hitting 1-2 adjacent foes. Instead, have the maximum number of targets of spells scale on par with a fighter's BAB. Spells like Fireball with their insane radius become ~ spell level 7+. Haste might be a single target spell initially, and only later can affect the entire group.
This rationale would, IMO, truly address (in a constructive way) the parity issue. If those that favor casters insist they remain as gods in their power level (thus ignoring the entire premise of character level), this dialog is moot.
The summoning spells should probably be much more ritualistic in nature, where you need to cast them outside of combat, due to casting times of 1 minute+ (as if every summon was like an eidolon). Being able to cast one spell as a standard action (or even full-round) and get multiple fresh bodies onto the field is HUGE from a tactical standpoint, even if all the summons do is stand still and absorb a hit or two.
2E Elemental summon was a 2-3 rd event:
Fire you summon, but not till next round did control check happen. If you won it followed every order, but it has a chance to attack caster.However, you summon a stronger or weaker version randomly as well.
However, the normal summon monster spells didn't have this issue.
So you want to turn all summoning into 2E Elemental summoning?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Making other classes less fun does not make martials more fun.
Caster Nerfs are a fallacy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You are equatin power and brokeness with fun, that is a falllacy.Making other classes less fun does not make martials more fun.
Caster Nerfs are a fallacy.
Nerfs can be fun?
Examples?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Everybody know that if a 20th level fighter walks up to 20th level mage, the mage prolly wins even if he has no expensive components and neither have any magic gearBut why?
Why has to be so?Because a flawed paradigm. Because dnd wizards are Gandalf, while dnd fighters are Boromir. And of course Gandalf> Boromir.
Actually, simply because of bad 3.X design. Back in 2nd Edition or earlier,if a fighter got up and personal with a magic user, the magic user was terrified. Lower hit points, the fighter getting multiple attacks, fighters having incredible saves, magic users losing spells for any damage...in fight after fight I saw a fighter close with a magic user and the magic user frantically backpeddaling and trying to retreat, or quickly dying.
Of course this resulted in the power gamers whinging about how weak magic users were. So, if you look at 3.X, one thing they did is take every limiting factor on spellcasters away. Casting time, maximum spells known, spell disruption, requiring going up a level if one fails to learn a spell, spell purchasing scarcity, availability of scrolls...and then people think spellcasters being overpowered is natural.
It's not that 3.X took its design philosophy from Magic the Gathering that's so much the problem, it's that they didn't playtest the results well, and as a result, there's a "White and Blue cards are awesome, Red and Green cards suck" situation. And then they never fixed the fundamental problems with the system. And so by the time Pathfinder came out, there was a strong contingent of people going "This is the way things are supposed to be! Spellcasters rule, martials drool!" Unfortunately, you can include the designers of Pathfinder in that contingent. And that's where we are today, with no fix in sight.
Not the nerf itself but the final product. Does Snowball have to be utterly superior to shocking grasp to be fun?You are equatin power and brokeness with fun, that is a falllacy.Making other classes less fun does not make martials more fun.
Caster Nerfs are a fallacy.
Nerfs can be fun?
Examples?
Irrelevant to a conversation about changes and errata.