Should martials be buffed... or casters brought down?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 484 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

So, I swear I am not trying to start a flame war here. My thought process is:

High level martials have some sort of benchmark. We can envision them if you will. They are the Hurcules and the Beowulf (for the most part).

High level casters though I have noticed have NO equal in fiction or literature short of a all mighty diety. Heck, a level 20 wizard puts most of the Greek Gods to shame.

Like, if we look at most other literature and fiction, most "caster types" pretty much cap out at what would be a level 7-8 wizard. Beyond that they tend to either power up their current spells, learn most powerful spells that take time (i.e. rituals and such), or learn ways to utilize magic in ways that go beyond simply casting a spell (golem creation for instance). Things like Elder Scrolls, Dragon Age, even the D&D books themselves tend to be much more low magic when it comes to power of wizards ( you tend not to see very much stopping of time and universe creating).

So, I know many people like to say that martials should be beefed up, but I was thinking, maybe casters should be brought down a bit and specialized? Like, rather than having 9 level, full casting that covers all bases, casters should be more liek teh summoner and the magus. 6 level casting that is focused but powerful and contain spells normally in the 7-9 range (but much more specialized... like the summoner having Conjuration spells). This would allow for a more varied selection of classes and interesting mechanics to back them (instead of your "mechanic" being fullcasting).

What are your guys thoughts on this? And please, try and keep it civil I am legitimately curious.

Sovereign Court

I sort of like what they did in 5E for casters. High level slots are few and spells can be powered up by using them in higher slots. Also you need to concentrate and can not have unlimited spells up at once. I think that is the right track. Though, I do not like the at will pew pew canon aspect. I agree though I would rather see casters knee capped then make martials godlike.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

The problem is that martials are not Beowulf or Hercules. They're not even close.


DominusMegadeus wrote:
The problem is that martials are not Beowulf or Hercules. They're not even close.

To an extent. They may nto seem liek it, but taking out a giant demon with 5 attacks in a 6 second time span is pretty legit....

For the most part, martials can use more other options, but the biggest offender for balance I have noticed is just how rediculous casters can end up.

And don't get me wrong, I LOVE casters. I prefer playing casters over martials 100% of the time. But they are sheer rediculous at higher levels. Additionally, I just have a hard time visualizing just their capabilities... The fact they can do so many things in just 6 seconds (i mean they have so many options), it just boggles my mind. Usually the things you see high level wizards doing requires LONG, uninterrupted rituals or multiple casters workign simultaniously.


Well divine casters having very thing on their list in addition to their far superior class features on top of that makes them ridiculous compared to martials. Arcane casters on the other hand are more narrow in their options but have the best spells in game. This is why I like hybrid classes like magus as they can do whatever they want and be good at it. I agree kneecap the casters a bit. IMO the invulnerable rager with superstitious is as good as you should get with pure martial but even that falls short , even in melee, to a well designed melee caster.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

i think they're "fine" and that martials should be brought back up to ADnD levels with a free faction and such at higher levels.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Both.

Martials in general need a leg up.

In exchange, bring the casters down. Reduce their UNLIMITED COSMIC POWAAAAAAAAH and maybe they can even fit in neat class features.

Meet in the middle around the same balance space as the Inquisitor.


Yes, in my opninion casters/spells should be toned down.


Rynjin wrote:

Both.

Martials in general need a leg up.

In exchange, bring the casters down. Reduce their UNLIMITED COSMIC POWAAAAAAAAH and maybe they can even fit in neat class features.

Meet in the middle around the same balance space as the Inquisitor.

Yeah, I agree. I personally believe the 6-level casters are probably the best fit and balance for casters. They are magical enough to feel magical and play as a "magician" (see the Magician Bard or the Inquisitor with certain builds ( i forgot the anti-casater caster build for inquistors)) while not feeling like you are pretty much a diety walking among mortals.

Additionally, this allows the developers to actually make "mythic" things for the "casters" that FEELS mythic. because right now the caster stuff is eather STUPID OP or just doesn't really feel mythic.

WAAAAT???:
Heck, in Golarian (was on golarian I guess?) there is a level 15 wizard who made a wizard tower ON THE FREAKING SUN. Not to prove anything or whatever. He did it just because he got tired of politics... I mean REALLY? REALLY? That is the stuff that is kind of rediculous


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Get rid of spells like wish, limited wish, and miracle. Close some of the more open ended super spells.

Give martials more ability to interact with the environment (maneuvers don't cost feats just to not be attacked doing them, better skill scaling, etc)


Do both. Go back to d4 for hit points for wizards and sorcerers, and make casting 0 level spells expend slots just like the higher levels do. At the same time make being a 9th level fighter or rogue a prerequisite for the Leadership feat. Finally, give fighters and rogues Leadership as a bonus feat at 9th level (basically, everyone who meets the prerequisite gets it automatically).

Or, just play 2e.


Rynjin wrote:

Both.

Martials in general need a leg up.

In exchange, bring the casters down. Reduce their UNLIMITED COSMIC POWAAAAAAAAH and maybe they can even fit in neat class features.

Meet in the middle around the same balance space as the Inquisitor.

Well said. Inquisitor is honestly the best designed class in the game.


The problem resides not so much with the casters as with the spells.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't know why we need another topic on this, since there have been so many already (which always devolve into the same thing), and I don't see the opening post bringing anything new to the table (martials can vs. casters can, discuss).

But as others have said, it needs to be both. Martials need a better action economy (full attack as a standard action) or casters need to take longer to cast their higher level spells. Casters should have more limited breadth, rather than the ability to do anything/everything well, or martials should have expanded versatility. Casters don't need to be squishier however.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I say neither.

Rebalancing does not necessitate nerfs or buffs.

I think it would be better if casters did not have to play the exploit game to be powerful. Casters don't think to themselves, "What's useful for this encounter" they think, "What invalidates this encounter?". High level combat tends to be casters throwing spells until one invalidates the other. Caster defenses invalidate certain caster offensive spells and yada yada yada.

If casters weren't playing their own game like that then martials would feel less hung out to dry.

But I'm not advocating nerfs, just check out DSP psionics and compare then to full casters. They are just as strong while still playing the same game for the most part. Standard PF martials are still left in the dust, but powers like psychic reformation and battlesense being used on the martials helps them forget their troubles.

The martial game of "if I start my turn next to something without non-AC melee defense then it dies" is equally borked and needs toned down. With that the martial game could expand into more interesting directions. The issue with martials is making the thematics work out, but I think some adjustments to the jumping and climbing rules could fix that and a revamp to combat maneuvers is in order. I'm also not against giving rogues and fighters a stamina pool that they could use for burst actions.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The designed "balance" between martial and magical classes, going all the way back to the beginning, was for casters to be less powerful than martials during the first half of the campaign, and more powerful during the second half. Over the various versions, the crossover point has shifted around a bit, and I think with PF its now lower than it has ever been - largely because of buffs that the casting classes got at 1st level; especially the unlimited use of cantrips/orisons (which also doesn't make any sense given the otherwise Vancian magic system).

There are other games that try to keep martial and magical characters pretty much equal throughout the length of the campaign. Most of the ones that I am familiar with manage it by not having classes at all. (In Mutants and Masterminds, for example, a skilled crimefighter with no powers, built on 150 points, is pretty much the equal of a wizard built on 150 points - although they'll get things done in very different ways.) Pathfinder is not designed that way, however.

To be "balanced," a PF campaign should probably only go to about 12th level before retiring the characters and starting a new bunch. (Of course, balance is not the goal - fun is. If a group is enjoying the game they should keep going as long as they want.)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

What I've noticed is that casters keep getting the wrong kind of power. They get summons and teleports and generally stuff designed to be powerful in the adventuring context instead of getting iconic large scale powers.

It's really easy to make a wizard mister scry and fry. It's really hard to make him an artillery substitute over a realistic length battle, much less a strategic asset that can produce the sort of wastelands high end mages in fiction often do.

It's the small scale stuff like dominate person/monster and teleport and planar binding that really messes up the game. Having a crater named after you isn't unless you destroyed important clues of gained a reputation for genocide and at that point the problem isn't with the availability of magic it's with player attitudes.

It's the same sort of issue with Widen Spell having the same modifier as Dazing Spell. The devs have always overvalued the things that make magic impressive and undervalued the things that make it overpowered.


My preference is to see more feats that give you the added effects of spells.

Slashing Flurry for example, gave martial characters an extra attack as if they were under the effect of haste.

If we could see some more abilities that were based on a system that was comparable to spells, but believably nonmagical as with the Grit mechanics, I think martials would be in good shape.

Grit is one of the best mechanics Paizo has ever come up with. Spending a Grit point to gain the benefits of Haste for one turn, or to gain a free action feint to make your opponent flat-footed, or to gain the ability to move and gain a full attack, knowing that it is a limited resource would be a very good mechanic to include in a better designed 3.x.

The fact that Grit is renewable by doing awesome things like landing criticals or [DM says this action is awesome]ing makes it distinct from magic and is totally worth looking into for future designs of classes.

I've said it before and I will say it again, Paizo could write a whole book about Grit.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Honestly?

I think a more nuanced approach is caled for and a total scrapping of a lot of sacred cows from d20.

I'm going to put some proper thought into this. Mainly because it's only until recently I've been thinking about solutions and the actual core of the problem and what it means for the system.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
JoeJ wrote:
The designed "balance" between martial and magical classes, going all the way back to the beginning, was for casters to be less powerful than martials during the first half of the campaign, and more powerful during the second half.

Honestly this is one of the few things that's been wrong with d&d nearly across the board is this one basic premise. When it takes weeks or even months for your character to start really doing the kinda fantasy stuff you want to do there's a problem.

Alternatively, just when your friend's character really starts taking off yours starts falling along the way side is an idiotic thing to say the least.

This game is to be played for fun. These characters are meant to be fun to play. The game should not be balanced around "well his character will be fun at this point in the game and yours will be fun at this point."


I think the problem is more capability.

At level 5, both the fighter and wizard are vital additions to the party.

At level 15, the wizard can warp reality and influence kings. The fighter simply got better at fighting.

The way that Fighters got a free army in earlier editions was a good way of solving this.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
JoeJ wrote:
The designed "balance" between martial and magical classes, going all the way back to the beginning, was for casters to be less powerful than martials during the first half of the campaign, and more powerful during the second half.

Honestly this is one of the few things that's been wrong with d&d nearly across the board is this one basic premise. When it takes weeks or even months for your character to start really doing the kinda fantasy stuff you want to do there's a problem.

Alternatively, just when your friend's character really starts taking off yours starts falling along the way side is an idiotic thing to say the least.

This game is to be played for fun. These characters are meant to be fun to play. The game should not be balanced around "well his character will be fun at this point in the game and yours will be fun at this point."

The anticipation of great power is itself part of the fun. Obviously, not everybody agrees with this philosophy, but it is nevertheless fundamental to the design of the game. I doubt that there's any way to get rid of it and still have something that is recognizable as a version of D&D.


Rynjin wrote:

Both.

Martials in general need a leg up.

In exchange, bring the casters down. Reduce their UNLIMITED COSMIC POWAAAAAAAAH and maybe they can even fit in neat class features.

Meet in the middle around the same balance space as the Inquisitor.

Seconded. A little from column A, a little from column B.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
JoeJ wrote:
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
JoeJ wrote:
The designed "balance" between martial and magical classes, going all the way back to the beginning, was for casters to be less powerful than martials during the first half of the campaign, and more powerful during the second half.

Honestly this is one of the few things that's been wrong with d&d nearly across the board is this one basic premise. When it takes weeks or even months for your character to start really doing the kinda fantasy stuff you want to do there's a problem.

Alternatively, just when your friend's character really starts taking off yours starts falling along the way side is an idiotic thing to say the least.

This game is to be played for fun. These characters are meant to be fun to play. The game should not be balanced around "well his character will be fun at this point in the game and yours will be fun at this point."

The anticipation of great power is itself part of the fun. Obviously, not everybody agrees with this philosophy, but it is nevertheless fundamental to the design of the game. I doubt that there's any way to get rid of it and still have something that is recognizable as a version of D&D.

Of course you can. Just make it so all classes have approximately equal power level all the way up, not Linear Warriors, Quadratic Wizards, Geometric Clerics. Claiming that something is balanced by being imbalanced one way, then the other, is positively stupid.

Especially since you can just change characters when you get to the tipping point (and may well have to, since you're more likely to die).


Zhayne wrote:
JoeJ wrote:
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
JoeJ wrote:
The designed "balance" between martial and magical classes, going all the way back to the beginning, was for casters to be less powerful than martials during the first half of the campaign, and more powerful during the second half.

Honestly this is one of the few things that's been wrong with d&d nearly across the board is this one basic premise. When it takes weeks or even months for your character to start really doing the kinda fantasy stuff you want to do there's a problem.

Alternatively, just when your friend's character really starts taking off yours starts falling along the way side is an idiotic thing to say the least.

This game is to be played for fun. These characters are meant to be fun to play. The game should not be balanced around "well his character will be fun at this point in the game and yours will be fun at this point."

The anticipation of great power is itself part of the fun. Obviously, not everybody agrees with this philosophy, but it is nevertheless fundamental to the design of the game. I doubt that there's any way to get rid of it and still have something that is recognizable as a version of D&D.

Of course you can. Just make it so all classes have approximately equal power level all the way up, not Linear Warriors, Quadratic Wizards, Geometric Clerics. Claiming that something is balanced by being imbalanced one way, then the other, is positively stupid.

Okay. How do you do that and still have a game that feels like D&D?


That's pretty much what we're discussing here. Which is ... tone down the casters, buff up the martials, find a happy middle ground, so everybody gets to work towards being awesome.

If 'anticipation of great power' is fundamental to the design of the game, why do so many classes not get great power?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

...Is ensuring that half of the table will be bored for half of the campaign and the other half bored for the other half really that essential for the game to "feel" like D&D?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
JoeJ wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
JoeJ wrote:
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
JoeJ wrote:
The designed "balance" between martial and magical classes, going all the way back to the beginning, was for casters to be less powerful than martials during the first half of the campaign, and more powerful during the second half.

Honestly this is one of the few things that's been wrong with d&d nearly across the board is this one basic premise. When it takes weeks or even months for your character to start really doing the kinda fantasy stuff you want to do there's a problem.

Alternatively, just when your friend's character really starts taking off yours starts falling along the way side is an idiotic thing to say the least.

This game is to be played for fun. These characters are meant to be fun to play. The game should not be balanced around "well his character will be fun at this point in the game and yours will be fun at this point."

The anticipation of great power is itself part of the fun. Obviously, not everybody agrees with this philosophy, but it is nevertheless fundamental to the design of the game. I doubt that there's any way to get rid of it and still have something that is recognizable as a version of D&D.

Of course you can. Just make it so all classes have approximately equal power level all the way up, not Linear Warriors, Quadratic Wizards, Geometric Clerics. Claiming that something is balanced by being imbalanced one way, then the other, is positively stupid.

Okay. How do you do that and still have a game that feels like D&D?

Expand maneuvers. Make fighters capable of moving about, striking their enemies. Stunning them with each blow. Shattering the earth to make it difficult to move over. Becoming so imposing that they strike terror into the hearts of their enemies, causing them to flee, not just take a measly -2.

Honestly, everything I just named is currently possible. But the difference is that martials need feats to do everything I just named. Dazing assault, dazzling display (with a dip level in rogue (thug)), combat patrol.

The difference is currently all martial powers come from feats and class abilities. You only get a few of those across the entire course of the game.

Casters, especially divine or wizards, gain all their powers from spells. They can switch out their abilities daily, take a feat that lets them memorize into an open slot any one they know in a mere 60 seconds (and its still only 15 minutes without it), or they can get a scroll and learn each new one.

Basically, there's no inherent cap on the number of spells you can really know unless you're a spontaneous caster. No matter what you do there's a cap on the number of feats you get as a martial, and even then you get feat taxes. When was the last time a caster needed to know a spell before he could learn a higher order of magnitude version of that spell?


JoeJ wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
JoeJ wrote:
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
JoeJ wrote:
The designed "balance" between martial and magical classes, going all the way back to the beginning, was for casters to be less powerful than martials during the first half of the campaign, and more powerful during the second half.

Honestly this is one of the few things that's been wrong with d&d nearly across the board is this one basic premise. When it takes weeks or even months for your character to start really doing the kinda fantasy stuff you want to do there's a problem.

Alternatively, just when your friend's character really starts taking off yours starts falling along the way side is an idiotic thing to say the least.

This game is to be played for fun. These characters are meant to be fun to play. The game should not be balanced around "well his character will be fun at this point in the game and yours will be fun at this point."

The anticipation of great power is itself part of the fun. Obviously, not everybody agrees with this philosophy, but it is nevertheless fundamental to the design of the game. I doubt that there's any way to get rid of it and still have something that is recognizable as a version of D&D.

Of course you can. Just make it so all classes have approximately equal power level all the way up, not Linear Warriors, Quadratic Wizards, Geometric Clerics. Claiming that something is balanced by being imbalanced one way, then the other, is positively stupid.

Okay. How do you do that and still have a game that feels like D&D?

Kirthfinder is one approach. It's still pretty much Pathfinder/D&D, but designed so there are many more viable builds and that all classes can enjoy getting new and exciting abilities to interact with the game at all levels.


Arachnofiend wrote:
...Is ensuring that half of the table will be bored for half of the campaign and the other half bored for the other half really that essential for the game to "feel" like D&D?

If you really think D&D/Pathfinder is boring, then you should probably either find a different group or try a different game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
K177Y C47 wrote:
What are your guys thoughts on this? And please, try and keep it civil I am legitimately curious.

Neither in my opinion - very little play takes place in the realm of 9th level spell availability anyway, and full casters struggle so much at lower levels I don't have a problem with them shining in the late game.

Having said that, I've been toying around with building a home-brew world and running a home-brew campaign where full casters aren't available as PC's, that they exist in extremely limited numbers as almost godlike villains or mythical sages, etc. Very Lord of the Rings/Game of Thronesish, which is the style of play we all prefer anyway. So far the idea has been very well recieved.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Wiggz wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:
What are your guys thoughts on this? And please, try and keep it civil I am legitimately curious.

Neither in my opinion - very little play takes place in the realm of 9th level spell availability anyway, and full casters struggle so much at lower levels I don't have a problem with them shining in the late game.

Having said that, I've been toying around with building a home-brew world and running a home-brew campaign where full casters aren't available as PC's, that they exist in extremely limited numbers as almost godlike villains or mythical sages, etc. Very Lord of the Rings/Game of Thronesish, which is the style of play we all prefer anyway. So far the idea has been very well recieved.

Full casters don't struggle at the start of the game though. Especially Druids and Summoners. And the casters low spell resources is solved by around level 5. If you are having another experience it may be that your full caster players are lacking enough optimization skills to make it apparent.

In response to the OP: I feel that while casters need a nerf, particularly in the range of abilities they get, martials need a buff far far more. The problem is that this requires martial to not be mundane at high levels and that will undoubtedly cause cries of "OP" much like Tome of Battle before it.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Wiggz wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:
What are your guys thoughts on this? And please, try and keep it civil I am legitimately curious.

Neither in my opinion - very little play takes place in the realm of 9th level spell availability anyway, and full casters struggle so much at lower levels I don't have a problem with them shining in the late game.

Having said that, I've been toying around with building a home-brew world and running a home-brew campaign where full casters aren't available as PC's, that they exist in extremely limited numbers as almost godlike villains or mythical sages, etc. Very Lord of the Rings/Game of Thronesish, which is the style of play we all prefer anyway. So far the idea has been very well recieved.

i liked how Shadowrun did magic users, where you have to spend a resource used in character creation to play as an amazing caster. It really does bug me that players just say they have a magical heritage or went to a college to learn, and then it must be.

It might be possible to implement a house rule having people have to spend point buy points for magic. like 1 point for any 1/2, 3 points for any 2/3, and 9 points for any full.


JoeJ wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
...Is ensuring that half of the table will be bored for half of the campaign and the other half bored for the other half really that essential for the game to "feel" like D&D?

If you really think D&D/Pathfinder is boring, then you should probably either find a different group or try a different game.

Look up the word 'hyperbole'.

The fact remains, sucking for half the game, no matter which half, is not a good design decision.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bandw2 wrote:
Wiggz wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:
What are your guys thoughts on this? And please, try and keep it civil I am legitimately curious.

Neither in my opinion - very little play takes place in the realm of 9th level spell availability anyway, and full casters struggle so much at lower levels I don't have a problem with them shining in the late game.

Having said that, I've been toying around with building a home-brew world and running a home-brew campaign where full casters aren't available as PC's, that they exist in extremely limited numbers as almost godlike villains or mythical sages, etc. Very Lord of the Rings/Game of Thronesish, which is the style of play we all prefer anyway. So far the idea has been very well recieved.

i liked how Shadowrun did magic users, where you have to spend a resource used in character creation to play as an amazing caster. It really does bug me that players just say they have a magical heritage or went to a college to learn, and then it must be.

It might be possible to implement a house rule having people have to spend point buy points for magic. like 1 point for any 1/2, 3 points for any 2/3, and 9 points for any full.

Except they already pay for it by not playing any other class that would give them class features. That's the thing, spellcasters get this one gigantic class feature called spells.

Except its not like other class features. It doesn't let you do this one specific thing, or negate this penalty everyone else takes. It lets you access the other half of the core rule book.


Hmm, buff martials.

Give them spell immunity at high levels or something (in AD&D by the time they were high levels, they didn't need to really roll all that high to make a saving throw...which made it much harder for casters to touch them).

Add in some other items, and they'd be good to go.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zhayne wrote:
The fact remains, sucking for half the game, no matter which half, is not a good design decision.

And yet we still play.

Honestly, if our enjoyment of the game depends on characters being "balanced" at any given moment, then I really think it would be a lot easier to use a different game system than to try and "fix" Pathfinder. At the very least, you'd need to redo nearly the entire list of spells. You'll probably also have to change the way feats work, and rewrite most of them too. And skills if you want to make things fair for rogues.

In the end, it would probably be easiest to just scrap classes altogether and let PCs buy whatever abilities they want out of some kind of point budget. There's a lot to be said for a point buy approach, in fact, but I wouldn't call it Pathfinder/D&D.


The problem is definitely the spells, yes (and some of the ways to modify them like Dazing Spell). All the game's supposed balancing mechanisms for spells tend to be ludicrously easy to circumvent unless the GM is outright gunning for you with a grappling monk with a silence spell on him with Greater Steal ... or the ultimate wanker move, the anti-magic field.

Spells need to be toned down, both in terms of access and power level. Divine casters shouldn't have access to every spell on the list; that's just ridiculous. They should only get spells relevant to their god's portfolio/domains/whatever. A cleric of Thor should be casting storm spells, lightning bolts, calling rain and winds, not Hold Person or Sanctuary. Only gods who have life or healing in their jurisdiction should be giving healing spells.

And wizards ... ugh. Don't even get me started on wizards and their insanity.

For my next game, I've decided ... prep casting does not exist. It is not a thing. Cannot be done. Magic does not work like that.


JoeJ wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
The fact remains, sucking for half the game, no matter which half, is not a good design decision.

And yet we still play.

Honestly, if our enjoyment of the game depends on characters being "balanced" at any given moment, then I really think it would be a lot easier to use a different game system than to try and "fix" Pathfinder. At the very least, you'd need to redo nearly the entire list of spells. You'll probably also have to change the way feats work, and rewrite most of them too. And skills if you want to make things fair for rogues.

In the end, it would probably be easiest to just scrap classes altogether and let PCs buy whatever abilities they want out of some kind of point budget. There's a lot to be said for a point buy approach, in fact, but I wouldn't call it Pathfinder/D&D.

Whatever the copyright holders decide PF/D&D is, that's what it is.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
JoeJ wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
The fact remains, sucking for half the game, no matter which half, is not a good design decision.

And yet we still play.

Yes, because there's a very thick line between 'not a good design decision' and 'FATAL'. It's not game-breaking (usually), but it is very game-bending and needs to be addressed.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
stuff

Except they already pay for it by not playing any other class that would give them class features. That's the thing, spellcasters get this one gigantic class feature called spells.

Except its not like other class features. It doesn't let you do this one specific thing, or negate this penalty everyone else takes. It lets you access the other half of the core rule book.

I don't care if they pay for it by not having class levels in other classes, a fighter should have more other resources to make use of. A fighter will have more all around stats than a "mage", or he'd have more free money to spend on potions, or to get a jump start on item progress.

Martials are usually much more MAD than Casters, so this would definitely be in the right direction.

choosing to have any amount of magic affinity was a hard choice in shadowrun, if you wanted to cast spells, you perfectly well can but more than likely teammates would have more money, or higher attributes, or would be a troll so that they honestly wouldn't care if you had magic.

Magic is obviously more powerful than martial's abilities, this could even things out well. I might try to make a shadowrun esc system later.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
JoeJ wrote:

Okay. How do you do that and still have a game that feels like D&D?

You play a retroclone because D&D hasn't played like D&D since 3e came out.


Zhayne wrote:
Divine casters shouldn't have access to every spell on the list; that's just ridiculous. They should only get spells relevant to their god's portfolio/domains/whatever. A cleric of Thor should be casting storm spells, lightning bolts, calling rain and winds, not Hold Person or Sanctuary. Only gods who have life or healing in their jurisdiction should be giving healing spells.

One of the things that 2e really did better was having spheres for clerics. It's not remotely plausible that, for example, Poseidon would grant Flame Strike to his clerics. Or that anybody would pray to Poseidon for flaming death to their enemies in the first place!


Bandw2 wrote:
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
stuff

Except they already pay for it by not playing any other class that would give them class features. That's the thing, spellcasters get this one gigantic class feature called spells.

Except its not like other class features. It doesn't let you do this one specific thing, or negate this penalty everyone else takes. It lets you access the other half of the core rule book.

I don't care if they pay for it by not having class levels in other classes, a fighter should have more other resources to make use of. A fighter will have more all around stats than a "mage", or he'd have more free money to spend on potions, or to get a jump start on item progress.

Martials are usually much more MAD than Casters, so this would definitely be in the right direction.

choosing to have any amount of magic affinity was a hard choice in shadowrun, if you wanted to cast spells, you perfectly well can but more than likely teammates would have more money, or higher attributes, or would be a troll so that they honestly wouldn't care if you had magic.

Magic is obviously more powerful than martial's abilities, this could even things out well. I might try to make a shadowrun esc system later.

Choosing to cast spells was not a difficult choice in shadowrun. Physical adepts were by far the most powerful martials in all of 4e shadowrun, yet were still magic users. Only difference was their "magic" was always on.

So they could keep paying low tolls for skills but their magic skills would stack with mundane ones to make them all around better than if you maxed out a mundane skill. Not to mention the best defenses in the game against magic were in the magic section itself.

I had a troll that had only garnered about 30 experience that still had 30 dice against ranged assault, 29 versus melee, 18 versus magic, 13 hp before he even went unconscious, 16 points of attack with an axe (for a base of 13 points of damage), or 14 with heavy assault weaponry. Key here? Spent 40 points to become a physical adept at character creation and unlocked some of the best powers in the game.

Edit: and he still had enough points to be the teams pilot with 18 dice in the skill of piloting our aircraft.


Bandw2 wrote:

Martials are usually much more MAD than Casters, so this would definitely be in the right direction.

This could also use some addressing.

Making casters more MAD is fairly easy. Instead of basing the spellcasting trinity (bonus spells, max spell level, save DCs) on one stat, spread it out to two or three. Since Charisma is the measure of one's 'personal power', let that set save DCs for all spellcasting. Max spell level and bonus spells could vary by class, swapping between INT and WIS ... probably, if annoyingly, on the arcane/divine concept. Alternately, INT is always bonus spells, WIS is always max spell level, but various classes will have class abilities to encourage, but not require, the 'appropriate' stat.

For the martials ... just let them decide to use STR or DEX for melee attack rolls and damage. Well, do that for any melee combat, of course. Make basic stuff like Power Attack, Combat Expertise, Piranha Strike basic combat options (or essentially 'free feats', if you prefer). Something like the maneuver system from the Tome of Battle, of course, would also be wonderful.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Requiring all three mental stats to be an effective caster is ick. That's not fun for anybody.
Reducing spell power is the way to go about it, not requiring more stat juggling at charop or increasing the difficulty of casting in the first place. That accomplishes making casters less desirable to play, but not more BALANCED, which is the goal.


Zhayne wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:

Martials are usually much more MAD than Casters, so this would definitely be in the right direction.

This could also use some addressing.

Making casters more MAD is fairly easy. Instead of basing the spellcasting trinity (bonus spells, max spell level, save DCs) on one stat, spread it out to two or three. Since Charisma is the measure of one's 'personal power', let that set save DCs for all spellcasting. Max spell level and bonus spells could vary by class, swapping between INT and WIS ... probably, if annoyingly, on the arcane/divine concept. Alternately, INT is always bonus spells, WIS is always max spell level, but various classes will have class abilities to encourage, but not require, the 'appropriate' stat.

For the martials ... just let them decide to use STR or DEX for melee attack rolls and damage. Well, do that for any melee combat, of course. Make basic stuff like Power Attack, Combat Expertise, Piranha Strike basic combat options (or essentially 'free feats', if you prefer). Something like the maneuver system from the Tome of Battle, of course, would also be wonderful.

Indeed, I always wondered why divine casters weren't always wisdom based. What deity in their right mind is going to give the power to warp reality to a guy without a lick of common sense?


GreyWolfLord wrote:

Hmm, buff martials.

Give them spell immunity at high levels or something (in AD&D by the time they were high levels, they didn't need to really roll all that high to make a saving throw...which made it much harder for casters to touch them).

Add in some other items, and they'd be good to go.

This was one of the biggest subtle changes in the switch to 3.0. It removed one of the major balancing factors for caster (others also went away) and it seemed to be done more in the name of regularizing and standardizing the game than out of balance concerns. I still wonder if the designers actually realized the effect it was going to have.

When I started playing 3.0, I thought high level casters had been nerfed, despite the boosting they got at low level. Damage didn't scale as well as it used to and martials seemed to do even more damage. It took awhile to realize that those SoS/SoD spells that didn't use to work most of the time were now dominant.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:

Martials are usually much more MAD than Casters, so this would definitely be in the right direction.

This could also use some addressing.

Making casters more MAD is fairly easy. Instead of basing the spellcasting trinity (bonus spells, max spell level, save DCs) on one stat, spread it out to two or three. Since Charisma is the measure of one's 'personal power', let that set save DCs for all spellcasting. Max spell level and bonus spells could vary by class, swapping between INT and WIS ... probably, if annoyingly, on the arcane/divine concept. Alternately, INT is always bonus spells, WIS is always max spell level, but various classes will have class abilities to encourage, but not require, the 'appropriate' stat.

For the martials ... just let them decide to use STR or DEX for melee attack rolls and damage. Well, do that for any melee combat, of course. Make basic stuff like Power Attack, Combat Expertise, Piranha Strike basic combat options (or essentially 'free feats', if you prefer). Something like the maneuver system from the Tome of Battle, of course, would also be wonderful.

Indeed, I always wondered why divine casters weren't always wisdom based. What deity in their right mind is going to give the power to warp reality to a guy without a lick of common sense?

Not all divine casters beg to the gods for spells. Some of them just *do* divine magic. (Like the Oracle.)

1 to 50 of 484 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Should martials be buffed... or casters brought down? All Messageboards