Irrelevant to a conversation about changes and errata.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?
I am totally for changing snowball, not sure how that can be irrelevant. In the same token I am in favor of making golems inmune to snowball, acid arrows and and glitterdust.
It woudl be a good errata for those poor golems.
And that somehow makes martials more fun?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And that somehow makes martials more fun?
[snip]
I am totally for changing snowball, not sure how that can be irrelevant. In the same token I am in favor of making golems inmune to snowball, acid arrows and and glitterdust.It woudl be a good errata for those poor golems.
Yes. It would make them feel less irrelevant. If you don't see why, take a look at this video.
(Okay, this was mostly an excuse to post a link to the video. I'm kind of surprised no one's brought it up earlier.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And that somehow makes martials more fun?Irrelevant to a conversation about changes and errata.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?
I am totally for changing snowball, not sure how that can be irrelevant. In the same token I am in favor of making golems inmune to snowball, acid arrows and and glitterdust.
It woudl be a good errata for those poor golems.
Normally, I'd be on your side. I think nerfs are a less desirable way to implement balance than simply raising up the weaker classes. In the abstract. But in the case of 3.x casters vs martials, it's clear that both approaches need to be taken. Yes, I think the more important step is to make sure martials are given boons (a big issue being that there is little that deviates from the Full-attack paradigm for martials, and where it does, like with maneuvers, the game doesn't scale well to high levels), but it's hard to bring martials up, to even come close to bridging the power gap with casters, without becoming completely impossible to suspend disbelief, without bringing casters down.
I'm all for mythic (in terms of the power-scale, not the ruleset) martials, but there's only so far you can go with that, and casters still stand head and shoulders above that. Without dropping casters from their completely absurd power-level at high levels, you'll never see an end to this argument.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think you can fix the caster-martial problem.
It would kill the fanbase.
Make fighters more powerful, they're too wizardry
Make casters less powerful, everyone whines because their broken crap got taken away.
Piss potential "fixes" that actually address the issue.
1. Let characters trade their last iterative attack for an extra move action.
2. Create a martial technique system where martials can learn techniques without spending feats. Things like being able to stomp the ground to cause a small earthquake and trip nearby foes and damage structures. Have these techniques always be flavored around strength, speed, or endurance. Don't give them weird encounter or per day limits or limits at all. Just let them be something they can do, once they learn it.
3. A rework of the call shot system to both include melee attacks and be effective at delivering conditions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd change the system so that multiple attacks was the standard, and a full attack gave BONUSES. You give up your movement for something extra, like a bonus TH, DMG, or AC.
That would solve some of the problem, although it would mean monsters would now be getting all their attacks more often, and full attacks would be hella dangerous.
==Aelryinth
I like my solution because it precludes natural attacks.
so, you'd be ditching feats as the core of martial power, and basically making them monster-only or some general feats, and instead substituting a separate mechanic as the basis of martial power?
Sounds like Tome of Battle from 3.5!
==Aelryinth
so, you'd be ditching feats as the core of martial power, and basically making them monster-only or some general feats, and instead substituting a separate mechanic as the basis of martial power?
Sounds like Tome of Battle from 3.5!
No you just add the system on top of the current one. It's not done on level up or tied to level in any way. It's just something martials can learn and train for so long as they meet the prerequisites.
ToB had interesting ideas, but the execution just made sword casters.
Nerfs can be fun?
Examples?
I know many examples from fighting games, but you need a lot of knowledge to understand them. I can try if you want, but regardless your binary attitude is not super helpful
Funny how that genera has nothing to do with pathfinder.
No matter how much you nerf casters that will not make martials more fun to play. You can only succeed in making the game less fun to play overall, so much so that it appears like the martials are more fun play in what is an overall worse game.
To the "but you have to have that spell memorized": That's what bonded items are for. And that's why my caster who had it seldom used his 1 free spell per day. Because it was saved for emergencies.
Like in the fight vs a lich we once had. I had depleted almost all of my spells, except for a couple of utility spells. I could still fly and had my bonded item spell left. So I analysed which spell would have the biggest impact on the situation, cast call the void and more or less won the fight by keeping the lich from castring spells.
I had 5th level spells at that point but non of my 4th or 5th level spells seemed as good, so I used a level 3 one.
In short: As long as there is only one "emergency" per day the "you have to have it memorized" doesn't fly.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
To the "but you have to have that spell memorized": That's what bonded items are for. And that's why my caster who had it seldom used his 1 free spell per day. Because it was saved for emergencies.
Like in the fight vs a lich we once had. I had depleted almost all of my spells, except for a couple of utility spells. I could still fly and had my bonded item spell left. So I analysed which spell would have the biggest impact on the situation, cast call the void and more or less won the fight by keeping the lich from castring spells.I had 5th level spells at that point but non of my 4th or 5th level spells seemed as good, so I used a level 3 one.
In short: As long as there is only one "emergency" per day the "you have to have it memorized" doesn't fly.
Agreed and even then, I don't see anyone saying the caster *always* has the "perfect" spell. Sure I may not have another Fly to give the Fighter, but I do have Summon Monster that can get me access to a Flying creature. This is why summons are so fantastic, while they aren't always the "best" choice, they are rarely the wrong one. But the argument the "casters aren't overpowered if you enforce the rules" seems to be that casters never prepare the right spell or even an ok spell, only the wrong spell all day every day and have no way to change it or leave open slots to fill." So their argument is pretty terrible.
Perfect party, Master Summoner, Synthesis Summoner, Summoner, Alchemist
A party without a Druid can't be a perfect party.
Perfect party, Master Summoner, Synthesis Summoner, Summoner, AlchemistA party without a Druid can't be a perfect party.
Ah but then it would just be Druid, Druid, Druid, Druid.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Funny how that genera has nothing to do with pathfinder.
Not actually relevant for balance discussion!
No matter how much you nerf casters that will not make martials more fun to play. You can only succeed in making the game less fun to play overall, so much so that it appears like the martials are more fun play in what is an overall worse game.Actually nerfing some spells would make martials more fun, because they would be able to deal with it. This is partly why barbarians are very fun, they can spell sunder things like wall of force, while the fighter just looks at it and cries.
I guess I will try to give it anyway. There is a character in Guilty Gear named Slayer. He is a vampire, and one of his moves is to grab and bite you. In one of the earlier versions of the game, Slayer could bite you over and over repeatedly, and you had no chance to escape. It actually lead to the opponent losing basically no matter the situation if he ever landed a bite. Not only was it not fun for the opponent to be hit by this move over and over with no chance of escape, it isn't actually that fun for the Slayer player either! It was a complicated and very hard set of inputs, and the result was boring as you do the same thing to defeat the opponent. There was no chance to actually play.
In later games, it was nerfed such that Slayer could only bite you up to 2 times. This was way more fun for the opponent (They didn't immediately lose), and the Slayer player didn't actually lose any fun. They could still bite people, and the move was still good, it was just not an auto win any more.
That is what I want for nerfs. It is boring to win every fight with whatever no escape spell I have on hand. It would be more exciting if there was some play around it
All of that was irrelevant to a game that is not 1v1 PvP.
Ah but then it would just be Druid, Druid, Druid, Druid.Perfect party, Master Summoner, Synthesis Summoner, Summoner, AlchemistA party without a Druid can't be a perfect party.
4 druids make for a nice party, yes. :P
But you could slip a Master summoner, or Wizard, or Half-elf Oracle, or Synthesist there if you feel it's cool. A Sorcerer with the right archetype can disable the traps if you feel it's needed, or anyone with the new trait, for that matter.You could go with Magus, Alchemist and others like those, but it'll be slightly below perfect then.
ALL HAIL THE TREEEEEEEEEZZZZ!!!!!
All of that was irrelevant to a game that is not 1v1 PvP.Why? Is it because it is 4v1 pvp instead?
GMs don't play against the party.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ok then, here is a Question then.
How about we quit looking at it in a PvP setting and how about this.
Which is a tougher challenge for a party:
A CR 10 Human Fighter
or
A CR 10 Human Wizard?
How does that help people...
Hell lets not forget that the level 10 Wizard can have an Improved Familiar, minions from Planar Binding, Lesser, can summon more minions, can have animated dead fighting for him and is capable of buffing them with low level slots (ie. Haste).
Hell I'd rather fight a higher level fighter, then a a lower level Wizard. You get more xp and loot and there's less risk of dying.
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.
Part of it isn't so much the damage as it is the options. A FA can pump out quite a bit of damage. Where the caster shines is his or her ability to:
- Multiply their actions per round- Affect the battlefield in ways aside from damage
They can do damage as well, but it's access to these additionals that truly make them a force to be reckoned with.
Hell lets not forget that the level 10 Wizard can have an Improved Familiar, minions from Planar Binding, Lesser, can summon more minions, can have animated dead fighting for him and is capable of buffing them with low level slots (ie. Haste).
Hell I'd rather fight a higher level fighter, then a a lower level Wizard. You get more xp and loot and there's less risk of dying.
The wizard can get his Improved Familiar, and the fighter can take a feat to get a Natural Companion.
The wizard can do lesser binding. The fighter can take the same amount of money and hire some NPC's. THe wizard can animate dead. The fighter can take the same amount of money and hire some more NPC's. ANimate Dead costs 25 gp a hit die, remember!
No, he can't buff them, which is a shame.
Now, summoning monsters short term, the fighter can't do, either, but those he just generally kills.
===Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the GM allows blood money, it's not core and its probably broken.
The bound can be compelled, which creates all sorts of problems with loyalty, obedience, and revenge. Hiring NPC's does not.
A fighter who doesn't cover his will save is an idiot.
You can hire spellcasters.
==Aelryinth
the fighter can take a feat to get a Natural Companion.
So can the Wizard.
The wizard can do lesser binding. The fighter can take the same amount of money and hire some NPC's. THe wizard can animate dead. The fighter can take the same amount of money and hire some more NPC's. ANimate Dead costs 25 gp a hit die, remember!
I wonder what 10 HD creature would agree to work til the end of its existence and unconditionally obey the Fighter's every command for 250gp...
Hell lets not forget that the level 10 Wizard can have an Improved Familiar, minions from Planar Binding, Lesser, can summon more minions, can have animated dead fighting for him and is capable of buffing them with low level slots (ie. Haste).
Hell I'd rather fight a higher level fighter, then a a lower level Wizard. You get more xp and loot and there's less risk of dying.
The wizard can get his Improved Familiar, and the fighter can take a feat to get a Natural Companion.
===Aelryinth
It takes 2 feats to get an Animal Companion(3 if you want it to be useful) and they're not as generally useful as a Familiar.
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?
I think it's worth acknowledging that the issue you highlight in the last paragraph is a big part of the disconnect and that it probably does constrain what will happen prior to Pathfinder 2nd edition (if that ever happens). Back when Pathfinder came out, backwards compatibility with 3.5 was a huge issue. I dont think it's such a big deal now (or not for as large a proportion of the player base, anyway) but it was frequently cited as the number one issue people were going to support pathfinder.
.I think the game is much more seen on its own merits now, but trying to make a PF fighter work in a 3.5 game and a PF wizard work in a 3.5 game and trying to preserve the feel of a pre-existing 3.5 party 'upgraded' to Pathfinder puts necessary constraints on what they could do and how far they could stretch the fundamental way the classes compared.
Having embraced that model, it seems to me that striving to keep everything in line with the assumptions in Core is another constraint they've adopted. This time to serve those who bought into Pathfinder and to protect them from power-creep.
I'm of the view that the critics of the martial-arcane discrepancy are probably correct. However, I think any actual solution to be implemented in the current edition of Pathfinder is going to need to be framed within those two constraints Paizo have set for themselves. There are historical reasons for those and it seems to me Paizo have made an intentional choice to operate within them. As such, "Martials are worse than Casters" is not actually an argument in favor of abandoning them - the development team are well aware of the discrepancy, I would think and so pointing it out wont actually change their base assumptions.
An argument for rejecting the level of balance implicit in core or for abandoning backwards compatibility needs to speak to the reasons that led to Paizo adopting those base assumptions.
It takes 2 feats to get an Animal Companion(3 if you want it to be useful) and they're not as generally useful as a Familiar.Hell lets not forget that the level 10 Wizard can have an Improved Familiar, minions from Planar Binding, Lesser, can summon more minions, can have animated dead fighting for him and is capable of buffing them with low level slots (ie. Haste).
Hell I'd rather fight a higher level fighter, then a a lower level Wizard. You get more xp and loot and there's less risk of dying.
The wizard can get his Improved Familiar, and the fighter can take a feat to get a Natural Companion.
===Aelryinth
It's a permanent companion that is more combat capable then a familiar, can be buffed, yet is replaceable.
It's also a very good place to spend skill points.
Improved Familiar already costs a feat. Natural Companion is simply matching it. The Wizard is free to also take Natural Companion, but such a thing doesn't synergize with a wizard well at all.
And how long the level 10 will work for the fighter isn't relevant, it is whether he'll work for him long enough to offset the 10 HD wizard's pet, who also counts against his undead control limit, and will probably be inferior to the fighter. Preparation, remember!
==Aelryinth
And how long the level 10 will work for the fighter isn't relevant, it is whether he'll work for him long enough to offset the 10 HD wizard's pet, who also counts against his undead control limit, and will probably be inferior to the fighter. Preparation, remember
Not really... First, even if hiring a NPC is possible and more advantageous than creating undead... The Wizard can do it too. Hiring NPC is not a Fighter-exclusive ability. It's also not something Fighters are particularly good at.
2nd, a hired NPC might decide the risk is not worth the reward. It might simply say "I'm not being paid enough for this" and leave. know that if I were a 5th level <whatever> I wouldn't agree to obey someone's every command until I cease to exist for 125gp. Especially if the person trying to hire me is more than willing to let me die without a second thought.
the wizard has already spent his funds on bribing a planar ally or on bringing up an undead being.
The fighter is spending the same amount on an NPC.
The wizard doing both is double dipping, so the fighter just buys another one.
And sure, the wizard gets a generally inferior 10 HD combatant for a pittance that he can expend, but it still counts against his undead control limit until it dies.
The fighter gets a generally superior 10 HD creature with no control limit.
You then start adding in roleplay elements, which are irrelevant to the rules at hand. The fighter also has initiative and adaptability, which a zombie minotaur does not. And it's amazing what some NPC's will believe for a shot at gold and glory, you know?
==Aelryinth
(...)You can hire spellcasters.
Mind linking the rules for this? I know you can hire spellcasting services (ie 1 spell, cast on location, typically at least 24 hours after you purchase the service), but for an actual high level spellcaster (or any high level NPC, really) following you around I'd personally use the Leadership feat with the rules for Cohorts. If there is an alternate rule set covering this that doesn't tie up a feat slot I'd be very interested in reading it - might come in handy for an upcoming Kingmaker game!
the wizard has already spent his funds on bribing a planar ally or on bringing up an undead being.
The fighter is spending the same amount on an NPC.
The wizard doing both is double dipping, so the fighter just buys another one.
And sure, the wizard gets a generally inferior 10 HD combatant for a pittance that he can expend, but it still counts against his undead control limit until it dies.
The fighter gets a generally superior 10 HD creature with no control limit.
You then start adding in roleplay elements, which are irrelevant to the rules at hand. The fighter also has initiative and adaptability, which a zombie minotaur does not. And it's amazing what some NPC's will believe for a shot at gold and glory, you know?
==Aelryinth
Inferior?
I don't know about you, but I would say the ability to:
1) Not eat
2) Not Breath
3) Not Sleep
4) Be immune to... pretty much everything (yay for being already dead!)
seems pretty valuable to me for a guardian. Add in the fact that your henchman will not disobey your command, will fight to the death (again) for you, and don't care if you hit them with a fireball, make for much better henchmen. Additionally, if you are a Necromancer (which you pretty much are if you are raising a wall of undead) it is not that hard to find ways to raise much more than the normal cap of undead. Also, ANY wizard can have 40HD worth of undead at level 10. Good luck trying to match that with any reasonable amount of gold in hirelings...
Oh and if you give each class just 1 more level things get even funnier. Because now wizards have Create Undead... So now they are creating Morgues instead of zombies...
Cohorts and followers are not hirelings.
As for inferior: Living beings can:
1) Take initiative
2) Change tactics to adapt to an enemy.
3) Revise plans on the fly
4) Accomplish objectives
5) Act independently of direct orders.
What you're proposing is that your undead are better then living henchmen. If that were true, everyone would have constructs as minions, for the same reason as undead without the social problems. There's a reason that getting a cohort with Leadership is generally considered the strongest of feats.
Don't they have rules for hiring NPC's somewhere in the Core rules or Game Master's Guides? I thought the NPC Codex was chock full of characters for the PC's to either hire or fight.
==Aelryinth
the wizard has already spent his funds on bribing a planar ally or on bringing up an undead being.
Not if he decides hiring people would be more effective. OTOH, even if the Fighter decides creating undead minions would be a better option, he's still stuck with with hired NPCs, which may or may not be available.
Why are you assuming that Fighter have some kind of advantage on hiring NPCs? If anything, Wizards have the advantage here, since they have more means to contact NPCs and negotiate a fair price.
I'm not saying animated undead are better than a Fighter, I'm saying "Hire NPCs" is not a Fighter-exclusive option. And Fighter don't do it any better than any other class.
Cohorts and followers are not hirelings.
As for inferior: Living beings can:
1) Take initiative
2) Change tactics to adapt to an enemy.
3) Revise plans on the fly
4) Accomplish objectives
5) Act independently of direct orders.What you're proposing is that your undead are better then living henchmen. If that were true, everyone would have constructs as minions, for the same reason as undead without the social problems. There's a reason that getting a cohort with Leadership is generally considered the strongest of feats.
Don't they have rules for hiring NPC's somewhere in the Core rules or Game Master's Guides? I thought the NPC Codex was chock full of characters for the PC's to either hire or fight.
==Aelryinth
The reason why Golems are not everywhere is because they require a high level wizard to make, in addition to a small fortune per golem.
As for the "advantages" you give the living cohorts, those can easily be remedied by the Spell Create Undead. With that spell you can make intelligent undead. BAM. Additionally, the undead make much better defenders (which is the case with a CR 10 wizard who is the BBEG).
Oh, and lets not forget that a Wizard can have 4x the HD of minions if using animate dead than a fighter really can if using leadership (Animate Dead can allow up to 40HD of undead to be controlled at level 10, without accounting for things that allow you to control even more).
the wizard has already spent his funds on bribing a planar ally or on bringing up an undead being.Not if he decides hiring people would be more effective. OTOH, even if the Fighter decides creating undead minions would be a better option, he's still stuck with with hired NPCs, which may or may not be available.
Why are you assuming that Fighter have some kind of advantage on hiring NPCs? If anything, Wizards have the advantage here, since they have more means to contact NPCs and negotiate a fair price.
I'm not saying animated undead are better than a Fighter, I'm saying "Hire NPCs" is not a Fighter-exclusive option. And Fighter don't do it any better than any other class.
I'm not saying its fighter exclusive. But the wizard can't spend his money in two places at once, either. That's the point I'm trying to make.
And while the wizard might have more options, the fighter likely has more time, and more likely to have Profession (solider/military/whatever) enabling him to interact with his foes.==Aelryinth
Cohorts and followers are not hirelings.
As for inferior: Living beings can:
1) Take initiative
2) Change tactics to adapt to an enemy.
3) Revise plans on the fly
4) Accomplish objectives
5) Act independently of direct orders.What you're proposing is that your undead are better then living henchmen. If that were true, everyone would have constructs as minions, for the same reason as undead without the social problems. There's a reason that getting a cohort with Leadership is generally considered the strongest of feats.
Don't they have rules for hiring NPC's somewhere in the Core rules or Game Master's Guides? I thought the NPC Codex was chock full of characters for the PC's to either hire or fight.
==Aelryinth
The reason why Golems are not everywhere is because they require a high level wizard to make, in addition to a small fortune per golem.
As for the "advantages" you give the living cohorts, those can easily be remedied by the Spell Create Undead. With that spell you can make intelligent undead. BAM. Additionally, the undead make much better defenders (which is the case with a CR 10 wizard who is the BBEG).
I don't know about better defenders, but we're not talking a one-shot, we're talking minions.
Intelligent undead minions are slaves just looking for a way to get out from under your control. So, yeah, they are expendable, they know it, and if they get lose, you have problems.==Aelryinth
Yes, anyone can hire people to do just about anything.
But cohorts and followers are LOYAL to YOU not necessarily to the COIN.