| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This post was full of antagonistic and snarky commentary in response to ShadowcatX. I've removed it in order to avoid escalation and move back on topic.
I normally do not edit or remove any posts in this fashion, but there is no benefit to the thread by allowing it to remain and be responded to.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, good, we can all sit here trying to out-snark each other, in the meantime convincing everyone else who reads the thread that there's no martial-caster disparity, just a bunch of e-peen envy.
There is a disparity. Scaling back spells would help. Elevating martials would help. Nor are the two mutually-contradictory; one could conceivably do a bit of each, and meet in the middle. But that's simply a matter of approach, and there's no sense in getting antagonistic over it. Save that for the people saying, "I never notice a problem, therefore there isn't one, therefore you have to shut up!" THOSE are the people in legitimate need of more snark.
Oh, good, we can all sit here trying to out-snark each other, in the meantime convincing everyone else who reads the thread that there's no martial-caster disparity, just a bunch of e-peen envy.
Fair enough, I'll abstain from further antagonistic behavior, as well as responding to it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Inspired by the discussion of scaling feat trees earlier:
Feat chains are feats that automatically get you the next feat in the chain if you meet the next feat’s prerequisites. Current Feat Chains (Very much open to suggestions):
• Weapon Finesse > Agile Maneuvers
• Weapon Focus > Greater Weapon Focus
• Weapon Specialization > Greater Weapon Specialization
• Blind Fight > Improved Blind Fight > Greater Blind Fight
• Cleave > Great Cleave
• Rapid Reload (Crossbow) > Crossbow Mastery
• Deathless Initiate > Deathless Master
• Deflect Arrows > Snatch Arrows
• Precise Shot > Focused Shot
• Two Weapon Fighting > Hammer the Gap
• Hellcat Stealth > Hellcat Pounce
• Jawbreaker > Bonebreaker
• Dodge > Landing Roll
• Mobility > Wind Stance
• Improved (Combat Maneuver) > Greater (Combat Maneuver)
• Improved Unarmed Strike > Monastic Legacy
• Mounted Combat > Mounted Shield
• Net Adept > Net and Trident
• Net Adept > Net Maneuvering
• Penetrating Strike > Greater Penetrating Strike
• Weapon Focus (Crossbow or Firearm) > Prone Shooter
• Power Attack > Rhino Charge
• Shield Focus > Greater Shield Focus
• Sidestep > Improved Sidestep
• Step Up > Step Up and Strike
• Two-Weapon Fighting > Thunder and Fang
• Weapon Focus Falcata > Taldane Duelist
• Improved Unarmed Strike > First feat in an unarmed fighting style feat chain (may only gain one unarmed fighting style feat in this manner)
These are some good chains I can think of. They take some okay-ish feats, and make them worth taking because they will get you something more later. They also make some good feats that were previously believed to be hard to invest in, and make them more attainable.
It also gives players some combat styles (Thunder and Fang, Taldane Duelist, unarmed styles) by gaining all "pieces" of the style.
I like your list. I think agile maneuvers needs to just be rolled into CMD calculations and not a feat; weapon finesse needs to just be an attribute of finesse weapons and not a feat, in my opinion.
Thanks to a suggestion by Damian Magecraft, I have implemented a different rate of leveling up based on the class. I decided to use the PFS 3/level for the Medium advancement, but for slow and fast I do the following:
Fast is 3 for odd-numbered levels, 2 XP for even-numbered levels.
Slow is 3 for odd-numbered levels, 4 XP for even-numbered levels.
The result is similar to what his proposed XP table was like. Basically when Medium is level 6, the Slow is at level 5 and the Fast is at level 7. Mulitclassing still works, but it can work best if you juggle a Fast with a Slow (to effectively get a Medium). Of course your level is cut in half that way, but it IS an option.
The only fast classes are Ninja and Rogue. Full casters and Summoners are Slow classes.
Additionally, I am not fond of the 2 skill points/level classes. All of them were bumped up to 4 skill points / level. It does not really hurt anybody and helps people be happier about their characters.
For the non-caster "martials" (Fighter, Cavalier, Barbarian, Monk) I give them a bonus feat on every even-numbered level in those classes. Multiclassing stacks if applicable. This way they get a feat every level on top of their class benefits. This also helps to take care of the "feat tax" (and even better with built-in feats as people suggest).
For rogues and ninjas, I give them a feat every class level. These classes are supposed to be skilled and talented, and skill points are only a part of the way to show it. Feats help them to shine, and help to get them developed in whatever direction the player wants.
And the nice thing is that I got it all to work in Herolab, which is the REAL limiter for incorporating a house rule. :)
And the nice thing is that I got it all to work in Herolab, which is the REAL limiter for incorporating a house rule. :)Alternatively, there's always plaintext/plain paper character sheets like I use. Printed 'layout' based sheets are pretty and organized in their own way, but nothing beats a simple custom sheet written and adjusted as needed.
True, I used to play using pre-made sheets that I had to actually fill out. :) But I saw better back then. Even signing my name can be difficult. It is hard to write on a paper while looking through a magnifier.
Something I've been planning on doing in my next campaign to try and fix the power differences is to harken back to different xp lists.
full casters = slow progression
half casters = medium progression
no casting at all? = fast progression
This would apply after Archetypes and such, as things like the Ranger Skirmisher Archetype would be on fast, not medium, since it loses all casting.
If you multiclass, you use the worse progression of the two.
Something I've been planning on doing in my next campaign to try and fix the power differences is to harken back to different xp lists.
full casters = slow progression
half casters = medium progression
no casting at all? = fast progressionThis would apply after Archetypes and such, as things like the Ranger Skirmisher Archetype would be on fast, not medium, since it loses all casting.
If you multiclass, you use the worse progression of the two.
Thats not as effective as you think. For instance, I'd actually place barbarians on medium track despite having no casting. They belong in the same experience tier as a ranger and paladin.
I utilize all 3 EXP Tracks for the classes:
Fast Track
barbarian, fighter, monk, rogue, cavalier, ninja, samurai
Medium Track
bard, paladin, ranger, inquisitor, gunslinger, magus
Slow Track
cleric, druid, sorcerer, wizard, alchemist, oracle, summoner, witch
I was actually wondering recently whether something like this would be effective (remembering, of course, the AD&D progressions), so it's good to see it's been successfully used.
I was actually wondering recently whether something like this would be effective (remembering, of course, the AD&D progressions), so it's good to see it's been successfully used.I utilize all 3 EXP Tracks for the classes:
Fast Track
barbarian, fighter, monk, rogue, cavalier, ninja, samurai
Medium Track
bard, paladin, ranger, inquisitor, gunslinger, magus
Slow Track
cleric, druid, sorcerer, wizard, alchemist, oracle, summoner, witch
It works And quite well.
I am still debating on the exact track for various classes however.Certain Archetypes could raise or lower the track for a class. (the Skirmisher Ranger for example should be a fast track not medium).
I just thought of this, so it hasn't had any sort of internal balancing, but you could give casters a kind of training system based on their caster level such that they have to use a resource to learn different school spells.
For example, a wizard could get access to all the spells of his specialized school for free. At each level up, the wizard then chooses a school that he/she wishes to open a spell level on. Lets say the wizard is a conjurer. At level one, the wizard would have access to 1st level conjuration spells and one other school (lets say abjuration) similarly of the first level. At level two, the caster could further invest in the abjuration school, or he/she could gain access to another school up to the first level.
I would then add a feat that allowed a caster to improve their casting potential in a school outside of levels. It could be focused on one school, or it could allow you to pick two separate spell schools to improve.
I think this would probably help make casting classes slightly more consistent with most spell casting tropes.
I had a crazy idea. What if magic had a deteriorating effect on spellcasters? What if the higher level magic they can cast equates to weakening their bodies
I had a crazy idea. What if magic had a deteriorating effect on spellcasters? What if the higher level magic they can cast equates to weakening their bodies
Then every caster immediately takes Leadership and gets a healbot cohort, and the game proceeds exactly as before. The only way to actually implement this as a meaningful change would be if the effects were some kind of non-curable "burn" as opposed to straight ability damage/drain.
I had a crazy idea. What if magic had a deteriorating effect on spellcasters? What if the higher level magic they can cast equates to weakening their bodiesThen every caster immediately takes Leadership and gets a healbot cohort, and the game proceeds exactly as before. The only way to actually implement this as a meaningful change would be if the effects were some kind of non-curable "burn" as opposed to straight ability damage/drain.
Permanent reduction of con scores as you gain levels would be noticable for anyone.
Not saying I'd implement such a thing, but say, your con drops 1 point every spell level you gain access to and suddenly a high level wizard is a fair bit frailer.
You could still have the burn recoverable by rest (maintaining the whole "regain spells every day" thing), just not by restoration spells and so on.
I had a crazy idea. What if magic had a deteriorating effect on spellcasters? What if the higher level magic they can cast equates to weakening their bodiesThen every caster immediately takes Leadership and gets a healbot cohort, and the game proceeds exactly as before. The only way to actually implement this as a meaningful change would be if the effects were some kind of non-curable "burn" as opposed to straight ability damage/drain.
Well, obviously so. I always like it when a class has an Achilles heel.
|
Are there any good house rules against the problem Linear Warriors - Quadratic Wizards?I really like this thread, but i do not think that the general balance of caster vs martial is that hard to fix.
i mean, making it perfect? impossible
but making it standable, very doable
I see casters as quite weak starting out in the game, id like to see that buffed slightly.
but they soon outstrip martials. this is also an issue.
early levels they do not have enough spell slots or spell choices to really maintain anything, and are very frail.
midrange casters dont really have this issue, im talking full casters.
martials however are sturdier with stronger physical stats for doing that damage thang.
high levels casters do things that either martials cannot replicate, or straight up break the game.
so here are my very rough ideas, many if not all have been repeated.
1) edit/remove all spells that literally break the game. allow otherworldly beings to have them tho, this creates a world where a demon/angel/dragon etc are truly feared as they ahve abilities mortals cannot achieve.
2)bring non spell abilities like fighter feats/talents/ki/etc up to par.
3)need some way for full casters to contribute when starting out other then the occasional spell every other battle without fear of running dry and being useless.
4) give martials the ability to accomplish some of those things that casters can.
I think that's a good summary of things to do.
|
|
All of the caster buffs since first edition are fun enhancers. Rolling them back would make the game less fun for almost everyone.
That's a very good observation. A lot of the "fixes" proposed are along the lines of "let's make casters less fun" or "let's punish the casters".
Let's not do that. Let's focus on making every class fun, rather than trying to make everyone equally miserable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Fun" is not a one-size-fits-all, so let's stop pretending it is. People use "it's more fun for everyone" as an argument to shut off dissent, the implication being that those arguing against a proposed rules thingy are "against fun." But the same change is very often more fun for some people and less fun for others.
For many people, playing a caster fuels some kind of adolescent geek fantasy, and is therefore lots of "fun." In that respect, ALL caster buffs "make the game more fun." But they don't make it more fun for everyone, and they certainly don't make it more balanced.
When I play a wizard, I want my Int to really count. I want to have to be very, very careful to deploy limited resources strategically, and to avoid getting in the middle of direct conflict because of my squishyiness. Buffing the wizard actively makes the game LESS fun for me, so in that respect, I'd like to roll back a lot of his 3.0/PF buffs -- "punish" him, if you prefer -- back to where he was in 1e (still at the top of the heap, but vulnerable and limited in resources).
It also makes multiclassing weeeeeeeird.Nah, it's easy. You just have to decide in advance what your next level is going to be* , and then you gain it when you've earned a number of XP equal to New Class XP Total (Current Character Level +1) minus New Class XP Total (Current Character Level).
* as an aside, this is something I've considered house-ruling anyway - if a Rogue wants to suddenly pick up a level of Bard, they better have spent some time in recent adventures singing songs or playing an instrument or generally getting in touch with their creative side.
I use the PFS 3 xp per level for Medium.
For Fast every even level is only 2 xpFor slow every even level is 4 xp.
It works easily enough for multiclass characters, too.
In addition to the different rate of advancement, the Fast classes get a feat every even level of a Fast class. So they get a feat every single level if they are a Fast class.
Additionally, all classes get at least 4 skill points per level. For Rogues and Ninjas, instead of bumping up the feats every even level, they get one every class level. So they actually get two per odd level, one per even level.This helps them to be the most skilled and talented of the classes.
Are there any good house rules against the problem Linear Warriors - Quadratic Wizards?
Sorry for the double-post. I have updated the "wrestling rules", which are really much more than that.
Now there is an exciting sample combat at the end of the page!
Easier teamwork and ability to cause debilitating conditions would help keep melee characters potent as they increase in level, by providing many available options aside from "lower a foe's HP".
"Fun" is not a one-size-fits-all, so let's stop pretending it is. People use "it's more fun for everyone" as an argument to shut off dissent, the implication being that those arguing against a proposed rules thingy are "against fun." But the same change is very often more fun for some people and less fun for others.
For many people, playing a caster fuels some kind of adolescent geek fantasy, and is therefore lots of "fun." In that respect, ALL caster buffs "make the game more fun." But they don't make it more fun for everyone, and they certainly don't make it more balanced.
When I play a wizard, I want my Int to really count. I want to have to be very, very careful to deploy limited resources strategically, and to avoid getting in the middle of direct conflict because of my squishyiness. Buffing the wizard actively makes the game LESS fun for me, so in that respect, I'd like to roll back a lot of his 3.0/PF buffs -- "punish" him, if you prefer -- back to where he was in 1e (still at the top of the heap, but vulnerable and limited in resources).
The shift to d6 hit dice for wizards makes the game more fun-- because nothing is less fun than being able to literally be killed by two house cats.
Things that give the caster more options with minor or flavorful effects are fun without being powerul for the most part and again make the game more fun because 'Oh, its round four I guess I can fire a crossbow every other round and hit if I roll a 20' wasn't any fun.
Seriously. . . if Fighters only got their bonuses X times per day then they switched down to Wizard Attack bonus it wouldn't be any fun for them either. . .
And no, enjoying playing a Wizard or other caster is not an "adolescent geek fantasy" that destroys everyone else's ability to enjoy the game.
warriors g Summoners and 9-level casters seems the simplest way.
This removes resurrection magic above Raise Dead from the game (and makes even Raise Dead exceedingly rare) and otherwise promotes a 'low-magic' feel to some degree...but it's doable and solves the issue.
Whether or not that is a good idea or not depends on which side of the equation you have the problem with. For those who think the warriors need to be brought up, that doesn't do much.
For many people, playing a caster fuels some kind of adolescent geek fantasy, and is therefore lots of "fun." In that respect, ALL caster buffs "make the game more fun." But they don't make it more fun for everyone, and they certainly don't make it mored.
You do realize that the hulking Barbarian cleaving fools in twain with his massive sword, the near-invisible Rogue/Ninja slitting throats in the shadows, the agile Gunslinger mowing down his enemies with well-placed single shots or a storm of flying lead, those are all adolescent geek fantasies too, right?
And there's nothing wrong with that.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Theres also those whos fantasy involve a barbarian wielding a blade as large as a house or splitting a mountain in two or redirecting a river by hand to clear out a stable , but those are all prohibited from the rules b/c "realism" or "balance" or because some people think theyre the wrong kind of fantasy.
We have a system that limits what martial fantasies people can recreate to "legolas to braveheart" while the magical fantasies that can be recreated go from willow to Zeus (and beyond).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
That is pretty much the heart of the matter: one side is restricted by "realism"(and, let's be honest, low technology), and the other is not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes. Im generally with kirth on this one though i do understand why some read his comment as demeaning (i didnt, but that could be because english isnt my main language).
I think a lot ofthe changes theough the editions where a good thing; in some ways wizards were even more quadratic and warriors even more linear in earlier editions, just that wizards had a lowräer starting point and more levels until their quadraticness outdid the warriors linearity.
Some of the previous weaknesses of wizards i think should be put back, including part of their fragility. Right now they are better at surviving most ordeals than most martials, even if built as glass cannons.
Partly i feel casters need to be morefocused, especially the wizard. A fighter has to choose between being a good archer or a good swordsman or havung decentskills etc. A fighter cant be william wallace, drizzt, legolas and boromir at the same time, but a wizard can be gandalf, zeus and merlin at the same time or at most switch day to day.
I think that making casters choose between power and versatility rather than have both all the time would be a step in the other direction.
On the othrr hand, med-to-high level martials should het options that allow them to do realy mythical stuff, the stuff that cu cuallain or hercules do.
In öarge, i think the mythic rules could have filled that purpose, but since full casters already have truly mythical powers, it ended up being yet another boost for casters.
Teleport, overland flight, greater invisibility and wish would all make excellent mythic powers.
I think people found his comment demeaning because generally speaking calling people children for what they enjoy is demeaning.
And now you are back to "the only way for martials to have fun is to make sure Wizards aren't"
"Can I play a wizard?"
"Sure-- but you can't have teleport, flight, you never get wish, and no spells that a failed save eliminates a combatant"
"So what do I get?"
"Damage; but less than martials and limited times per day-- have fun being wizard"
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Whether or not that is a good idea or not depends on which side of the equation you have the problem with. For those who think the warriors need to be brought up, that doesn't do much.
It does comparatively. I really don't think, say, Inquisitors and Barbarians have a huge power gap. The point is to level things off.
Powering up martials is certainly also viable, but much harder to put into practice.
Actually, I think the best way is to make more powerful spells simply take longer to cast. It also allows for the dramatic moment of having to hold off the bad guy for three (or more) rounds so the game-breaker spell to go off (or to stop the bad guy before they pull off theirs).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nathanael: stop putting words in my mouth. And stop lyig about the damage potebtial of casters - you know full well that with all the splat they can heavily outdanage bearly any martial, especially vs groups. And i did not mention save or sucks. And i did not mention banning spells like teleport - i said theyd make great epic powers.
So if youwant to play a superpowered game where casters havestuff like teleport andwish you play mythic, but then martials instead get to redirect rivers with their hands or jump to the moon. Casters get to be zeus, martials get to be hercules.
Or if you want a more lowpowered game you play without mythic, martials can be boromir and casters can be gandalf.
A simple way to solve it is to simply:
1. Make better martial mythic powers that have narrative power and
2. Give martials mythic tiers as they level without giving casters any.
That would serve the same purpose for those that want to play with mythically powered castefs (as the core rulebook casters are).
And it doesnt nerf casters, so wouldnt that fit you?
"heavily outdamage any martial?"
Interesting. . . still not sure how?
Have you even ever played a martial to high level?
Have you looked at DPR builds?
Martials outdamage casters by a gigantic margin in 9/10 situations (the 10th being "dozens of tightly packed together guys with incredulously low saves" i.e. the one that doesn't matter at all).
So how about you quit lying about the damage potential of martials.
This narrative power argument is a crutch. You want the power to be able to redirect rivers? You got it-- now think back through every game you have ever played and every published adventure you've read-- how many times has redirecting a river been useful.
You want to jump to the moon? You got it-- now tell me, what do you need to do when you get there?
People claim that you need GM fiat to make martials useful, but these kind of abilities just create more situations where the GM has to invent ways for jumping really high and moving rivers is useful. Sounds like even more GM fiat to me.
Casters in the core rulebook aren't mythically powered and you are severely overrating their abilities. And the suggestion that a 2nd level spell needs to be a mythic power is ludicrous and a perfect illustration as to just how far you are overrating spells.
One of the things I found amusing here is that the topic about game balance over in the Wrath of the Righteous seciton of the forums has barely mentioned casters. Everyone over there is freaking out trying to figure out what kinds of houserules they have to make to prevent martials from doing hundreds of damage per hit with the mythic rules.
Moral of the story: be careful about throwing around random overpowered buffs and nerfs in the game, or you may just end up with a different kind of problem.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
MMM, narrative power.
For fighters, the primary narrative power was historically Leadership. They were the class that set up a keep and got followers. No other class had it so easy (the cleric could do a temple, but that wasn't so easy, and they had to deal with the hierarchy).
I made a fighter revamp where I added in a minor Aura-like Marshall effect, and automatic lesser Leadership (they could get a fighter cohort of their own fighting school as early as level 2).
The Aura's effect was doubled on followers. So a +1 TH/Dmg against Orcs would be +2 for his followers.
His bravery enhanced his leadership score, granting him more and more followers as he leveled. At 18th, A King Among Men was the ability where his followers DOUBLED, including letting him have 2 cohorts. He could be granting any follower within 180' of him a +4 TH/DMG bonus against the foe of the day!
Lastly, I let him 'train up' his followers...he could turn commoners into warriors or experts, experts into rogues, and warriors into fighters of his own school. He could 'level them up' to a maximum of 1/3rd his level, rounding down.
Which means, at 18th level, he could spend the gold his followers make for him to level them up to 6th level...and they could take leadership and get their own followers, creating a truly grand following for a great warrior/teacher, a sort of 'leadership capstone' if you will.
And having a few thousand loyal followers who walk onto a battlefield with +4 th/dmg or +4 to AC/Saves if you're in front of them is going to give new meaning to the term 'Epic Warlord'.
==Aelryinth
"heavily outdamage any martial?"
Interesting. . . still not sure how?
Have you even ever played a martial to high level?
Have you looked at DPR builds?
Martials outdamage casters by a gigantic margin in 9/10 situations (the 10th being "dozens of tightly packed together guys with incredulously low saves" i.e. the one that doesn't matter at all).
So how about you quit lying about the damage potential of martials.
This narrative power argument is a crutch. You want the power to be able to redirect rivers? You got it-- now think back through every game you have ever played and every published adventure you've read-- how many times has redirecting a river been useful.
You want to jump to the moon? You got it-- now tell me, what do you need to do when you get there?
People claim that you need GM fiat to make martials useful, but these kind of abilities just create more situations where the GM has to invent ways for jumping really high and moving rivers is useful. Sounds like even more GM fiat to me.
Casters in the core rulebook aren't mythically powered and you are severely overrating their abilities. And the suggestion that a 2nd level spell needs to be a mythic power is ludicrous and a perfect illustration as to just how far you are overrating spells.
Under the mythic rules, spending one use of Mythic Power allows you to regain a spell you cast.
That's right, one use of Mythic Power is equal to regaining a level 9 spell!...
The vast majority of DPR builds for the melee set also require them to expend mythic power to pull off that damage, and they've got a finite amount of it.
Basically, if they expend the equivalent of 3 9th level spells in one round to get off an attack combo, they should do a glorious amount of damage.
If a spellcaster focused on doing damage did the same, he'd also get off huge damage (Mythic Magic Missile and Mythic Disintegrate can put up some crazy numbers).
==Aelryinth
In my mythic campaign the fighter hits with 7 attacks dealing 5d6 damage +25 each nearly every single round without expending a single additional ability to deal extra damage.
By comparison an 8th level damaging spell deals 18d6 with no bonuses, still requires an attack roll, is subject to spell resistance, and cold resistance. . .
Please don't try to compare these things. That's the fighter using basically only ONE mythic ability as well (the one that lets him use Dex to damage instead of Str).
Martials deal more hit point damage than casters.
Non mythic martials deal more hit point damage than mythic casters.
Mythic martials make mythic casters feel utterly useless when attempting to deal hit points damage to the point where I had to let my mythic wizard re-roll.
How is he dealing 5d6+25 damage without expending any mythic power? I haven't looked into mythic melee abilities, and am curious how he is coming up with that.
Damage spells tend to have HORRIBLE scaling by spell level Nathanael.
A damage-focused mage takes low-mid level spells (typically level 3-4ish) and metamagics the crap out of them, usually reducing the metamagic cost in some way.
You're right. Damage spells have horrible scaling which is why claiming that casters do more hit point damage than martials is pretty silly.
2d6 large longsword + 3d6 insert weapon ability X + 12 (34 dex) + 4 Greater weapon spec + 4 weapon training+ 5 power attack= 5d6+29
Sorry. I was short changing him.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You obviously haven't seen some damage builds at work. At 16th level, a blaster mage using Firesnake can toss out 160ish +12.5d6 dmg + Quicken another 160 pts damage. He can bend the element as needed, and the save DC is likely in the high 20's for what is a large number of creatures' weak save, Reflex.
That's without dipping into ANY Mythic Ability.
The difference is that no, a rote mage isn't going to be putting up big damage numbers like those.
A blaster built mage? He can put up INSANE numbers!
The other mages? They just find a favorite spell and Spell Focus the crap out of it, so the save DC is 33-36. Before Mythic stuff.
So, color me unimpressed by 35d6+175 damage. The non-mythic caster can do more already if built for it.
If we use mythic versions of damage spells, it gets ugly fast.
And a 16th level fighter using TWF still has to hit with all of those attacks, You're going to have to tell us how he's getting 5d6, and I believe Mythic charge requires the expenditure of mythic power (otherwise we need to know how he's doing a full attack 'every round').
If he's getting the 7 attacks because of something someone else is doing, that doesn't count, either.
More details, please!
==Aelryinth