Having special "martial only" feats that do more than just add to damage would help. Being able to deflect a targeted spell with his sword, for instance, a few times a day. (Though I hate the "limited uses/day" thing, but - well - I guess that's "balance"?)There's no need to limit it per day. Just make it a non-guaranteed result.
Rolling d20+BAB vs Caster Level+5 as an immediate action for example, provides roughly 75% odds of success against an equal level caster, and can only be done once per round.
*Cue Star Wars' theme music*
Also, something helping with the Aluminium Christmas Tree would be needed as well.
^But it's not necessarily a bad thing that a martial character might need the spell-caster's magic to overcome some obstacles, such as flying up a cliff side that he might otherwise fall from if he tried to climb it.
It's having magic overcome almost all the obstacles while the fighter just waits to hit things that's the problem.
Having special "martial only" feats that do more than just add to damage would help. Being able to deflect a targeted spell with his sword, for instance, a few times a day. (Though I hate the "limited uses/day" thing, but - well - I guess that's "balance"?)
We already have a feat that lets you deflect spells with your shield; the problem is that rays are only a tiny fraction of a Wizard's arsenal. It's certainly nothing compared to Spell Sunder.
If you could redirect AOE abilities then we could talk. I'm sure that Wizard would love to feel the effects of his own cloudkill.
Or I could see something like being able to hide from an AoE behind your shield.
A minor question; does the martial-magic disparity has anything to do with the jock-nerd enmity in real life manifesting as a form of wish-fulfillment revenge on the former?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A minor question; does the martial-magic disparity has anything to do with the jock-nerd enmity in real life manifesting as a form of wish-fulfillment revenge on the former?
I doubt it. The manliest martial class in the stereotypical sense (barbarian) is also the least affected, because it is so manly that it can just say screw this to magic and smash it's face through a wall of force, realism be damned. The classes that aren't either supernatural or supernaturally macho are the ones that have it really bad.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just throwing it out there my group just finished up Wrath of the Righteous and hands down the fighter was the most powerful character in the group. Two handed fighter build with champion path was hitting for 900 a swing by the last part of the game. Things like the path ability always a chance and build ability devastating blow and him having something like a +40 to hit. I can say casting spells is only great if you need to wipe out a lot of smaller things.
Great, he did a lot of damage. How much did he contribute to social situations, knowledge checks (such as identifying monsters), circumventing perils without a spellcaster's assistance, etc?
Damage is largely unimportant in PF, especially in the hilarious rocket tag that is high level Mythic stuff. The Fighter does 900 damage? That means an Inquisitor would probably be doing no less than 500 under the absolutely worst conditions, and that's still enough to murder most things in the bestiary in one round. Like, 90% of everything. And he's WAY better than the Fighter in literally every way. Oh, and I'm probably markedly underselling him, because between Judgments, buffs and other things, he's likely not that far behind the Fighter when it comes to damage, either.
Stop trying to imply the Fighter is okay because he does a lot of damage. Damage doesn't get the King to allow you to pass through the kingdom, damage doesn't help get everyone across the 500ft. wide canyon, damage doesn't do anything but kill bad guys.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why is it that low-optimization players care so much about damage? It's only a fraction of what you need just to be good at combat; the Barbarian and Paladin do less damage than a Fighter, but they also have insanely superior defenses so that that damage can actually be used on the enemy.
That's not even considering all of the utility abilities the Barb and Paladin have naturally that the Fighter can never feat into.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Damage is largely unimportant in PF, especially in the hilarious rocket tag that is high level Mythic stuff. The Fighter does 900 damage? That means an Inquisitor would probably be doing no less than 500 under the absolutely worst conditions, and that's still enough to murder most things in the bestiary in one round. Like, 90% of everything. And he's WAY better than the Fighter in literally every way. Oh, and I'm probably markedly underselling him, because between Judgments, buffs and other things, he's likely not that far behind the Fighter when it comes to damage, either.
I'll try and find some spreads (or put some together if I get the chance), but I think an Inquisitor with the Anger Inquisition or Rage subdomain can exceed Fighter damage if he gets a buff round, at least up until 20th level when Weapon Mastery provides automatic crit confirmations and the Fighter gets that huge DPR boost as a result.
Stop trying to imply the Fighter is okay because he does a lot of damage. Damage doesn't get the King to allow you to pass through the kingdom, damage doesn't help get everyone across the 500ft. wide canyon, damage doesn't do anything but kill bad guys.
And sometimes killing bad guys is the least efficient way to resolve a scenario. Not only that, we're talking about Mythic in the given example, which is a horse of a different color. Actually, there's a lot of mythic stuff that would be great if it was just baked into the Fighter natively, though it still doesn't address things like participating by doing things other than hitting stuff.
Why is it that low-optimization players care so much about damage? It's only a fraction of what you need just to be good at combat; the Barbarian and Paladin do less damage than a Fighter, but they also have insanely superior defenses so that that damage can actually be used on the enemy.
That's not even considering all of the utility abilities the Barb and Paladin have naturally that the Fighter can never feat into.
Probably because damage is the most visible type of effectiveness in Pathfinder, and is most troublesome in encounters against NPCs and monsters that aren't optimized.
I would suspect that most people first imagine the brave warrior standing against the giant/necromancer/dragon/devil that has been plaguing the village/kingdom and the two having a climactic final battle, and so much GMs trying to encourage that confrontation. The problem is that such cinematic confrontations are usually over in 1 or 2 rounds with the way damage works in Pathfinder.
The ol' greatsword wielding fighter killing a dragon story and all that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why is it that low-optimization players care so much about damage? It's only a fraction of what you need just to be good at combat; the Barbarian and Paladin do less damage than a Fighter, but they also have insanely superior defenses so that that damage can actually be used on the enemy.
That's not even considering all of the utility abilities the Barb and Paladin have naturally that the Fighter can never feat into.
Probably because damage is the most visible type of effectiveness in Pathfinder, and is most troublesome in encounters against NPCs and monsters that aren't optimized.
I would suspect that most people first imagine the brave warrior standing against the giant/necromancer/dragon/devil that has been plaguing the village/kingdom and the two having a climactic final battle, and so much GMs trying to encourage that confrontation. The problem is that such cinematic confrontations are usually over in 1 or 2 rounds with the way damage works in Pathfinder.
The ol' greatsword wielding fighter killing a dragon story and all that.
And if the GM plays the dragon well they instead end up with "And then despite his legendary bravery, Sir Falcataham was slain by the fearsome dragon Not-An-Idiot in an epic 1 minute confrontation during which Falcataham was kited to death by flyby breath attacks while only able to retaliate by plinking away with a longbow he is barely able to use".
Either way, it's not the tale worthy of heroic ballads that the GM is looking for.
Of course, "The powerful mage Syndar the Red defeated the hideous winged beast by having his faerie dragon UMD Dim Door him off a wand into the monster's lair and hit it with a Suffocate in the surprise round" probably isn't either.
I'm sure this has been covered already, but I blame Cosmo for martials being underpowered.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFuMpYTyRjw
Sounds partly on topic.
@ Arachnofiend, Squirrel_Dude and Snowblind, it is hard to balance an encounter when the abilities of the participant aren't balanced, and many things that can "stop" casters are a pain in the ass for martials too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder's Color Spray is not the Color Spray of 3.5 with it's 30 foot range.
It was a 15-ft. cone in 3.5e, too.
P.S. "It's" = "it is." "Its" = possessive. English is weird.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Stop trying to imply the Fighter is okay because he does a lot of damage. Damage doesn't get the King to allow you to pass through the kingdom, damage doesn't help get everyone across the 500ft. wide canyon, damage doesn't do anything but kill bad guys.
"I slay the king. I slay his guards. I slay his kingdom. Find a canyon? I slay the gap."
Why is it that low-optimization players care so much about damage? It's only a fraction of what you need just to be good at combat; the Barbarian and Paladin do less damage than a Fighter, but they also have insanely superior defenses so that that damage can actually be used on the enemy.
That's not even considering all of the utility abilities the Barb and Paladin have naturally that the Fighter can never feat into.
Probably because damage is the most visible type of effectiveness in Pathfinder, and is most troublesome in encounters against NPCs and monsters that aren't optimized.
I would suspect that most people first imagine the brave warrior standing against the giant/necromancer/dragon/devil that has been plaguing the village/kingdom and the two having a climactic final battle, and so much GMs trying to encourage that confrontation. The problem is that such cinematic confrontations are usually over in 1 or 2 rounds with the way damage works in Pathfinder.
The ol' greatsword wielding fighter killing a dragon story and all that.
And if the GM plays the dragon well they instead end up with "And then despite his legendary bravery, Sir Falcataham was slain by the fearsome dragon Not-An-Idiot in an epic 1 minute confrontation during which Falcataham was kited to death by flyby breath attacks while only able to retaliate by plinking away with a longbow he is barely able to use".
Either way, it's not the tale worthy of heroic ballads that the GM is looking for.
Of course, "The powerful mage Syndar the Red defeated the hideous winged beast by having his faerie dragon UMD Dim Door him off a wand into the monster's lair and hit it with a Suffocate in the surprise round" probably isn't either.
Yup Yup Yup.
And we haven't even mentioned the problem of solo monster encounters vs an almost competent party.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yup Yup Yup.
And we haven't even mentioned the problem of solo monster encounters vs an almost competent party.
I've been toying with the idea of giving solo "bosses," the ones who are supposed to be unique creatures and/or badasses, the ability to act multiple times in the initiative order on top of buffed HP. Never actually tried it though.
I've been toying with the idea of giving solo "bosses," the ones who are supposed to be unique creatures and/or badasses, the ability to act multiple times in the initiative order on top of buffed HP. Never actually tried it though.Yup Yup Yup.
And we haven't even mentioned the problem of solo monster encounters vs an almost competent party.
My current GM does this and it seems to work well. It helps that all of the important bosses in his campaign are custom built from the ground up to take the sort of punishment he expects them to take (read: his monsters have massively more HP than their CR would dictate).
This is one of the issues with a CR system that is supposed to apply equally to PC's and NPC's, I think; PC's generally can deal far more damage than they can take, so building monsters like PC's are how you end up with rocket tag where initiative is the only thing that matters. You want to build your bosses more like a video game RPG where they have way more defense than offense if you want the encounter to last more than a couple turns.
I've been toying with the idea of giving solo "bosses," the ones who are supposed to be unique creatures and/or badasses, the ability to act multiple times in the initiative order on top of buffed HP. Never actually tried it though.Yup Yup Yup.
And we haven't even mentioned the problem of solo monster encounters vs an almost competent party.
My current GM does this and it seems to work well. It helps that all of the important bosses in his campaign are custom built from the ground up to take the sort of punishment he expects them to take (read: his monsters have massively more HP than their CR would dictate).
This is one of the issues with a CR system that is supposed to apply equally to PC's and NPC's, I think; PC's generally can deal far more damage than they can take, so building monsters like PC's are how you end up with rocket tag where initiative is the only thing that matters. You want to build your bosses more like a video game RPG where they have way more defense than offense if you want the encounter to last more than a couple turns.
yeah take something their CR give it 4 times the health and 4 turns in initiative, then as he gets weaker he loses a random initiative, corresponding to every fourth of their HP.
I've been toying with the idea of giving solo "bosses," the ones who are supposed to be unique creatures and/or badasses, the ability to act multiple times in the initiative order on top of buffed HP. Never actually tried it though.Yup Yup Yup.
And we haven't even mentioned the problem of solo monster encounters vs an almost competent party.
My current GM does this and it seems to work well. It helps that all of the important bosses in his campaign are custom built from the ground up to take the sort of punishment he expects them to take (read: his monsters have massively more HP than their CR would dictate).
This is one of the issues with a CR system that is supposed to apply equally to PC's and NPC's, I think; PC's generally can deal far more damage than they can take, so building monsters like PC's are how you end up with rocket tag where initiative is the only thing that matters. You want to build your bosses more like a video game RPG where they have way more defense than offense if you want the encounter to last more than a couple turns.
I like this idea and have used it a few times... There is one issue, though... It does make SoD effects relatively more powerful. If you like SoD that's not a problem, if you don't... Hopefully your players won't use them. :P
Oh, yeah... One more thing... Giving the boss multiple turns is fun and all... But make sure he doesn't get 2 turns in a row. Make sure at least one of the PC gets to act before the boss has another turn, otherwise it could be infuriating... e.g.: A PC taking two full attacks in a row without having any chance of acting or being saved by his friends could be really annoying. In fact, ti's probably best if the boss doesn't target the same PC with both his actions (unless he ahs no other reasonable choice).
One thing I think worth checking is simply how the classes are constructed, and the sort of assumptions made from the very beginning of D&D.
And I'm just going to mention Saving Throws. Even in 1e, fighters and rogues had terrible saving throw bonuses, while classes like the cleric had significantly superior ones because they were expected to resist.
However, in some other games I've seen, classes/races that are non-magical are inherently more magically resistant, like the dwarves of Dragon Age.
I think one of the important things to change, just on a mathematical level, is that non-magical classes get better bonuses. For the instance of the fighter, entirely non-magical, grant him 3 good saving throws. This would be further boosted by his inherent dependence on ability scores that increase resistances (Con and Dex).
I also think tying spellcasting not only to its spellcasting stat, but to an associated skill as previously mentioned is a great idea. Perhaps also requiring spellcasting trees, so that martials and casters alike get the sensation of increased specialization over time. Spell trees creating spell taxes, just like feat trees creating feat taxes.
I also do think directly expanding the capabilities of martial classes, and modifying spells so that they tie more into skill usage that can thus be duplicated to a certain degree by rogues, bards, and other skill-versatile classes.
TL;DR: Martial classes are more magic-resistant, magical classes are more spell-vulnerable (except for counterspelling). Spellcasting dependent on skills to make skills more important and require 'spell tax' tree progressions. Make spells impact skills more directly, so that skills can act a little more like magic.
One thing that would be impossible in terms of maintaining backwards compatibility, but might be help in terms of game balance in a way greater than skills would.
Why not add a magic ability score to the game? Some classes (Paladin, Inquisitor, Bard) could level 1 abilities that let them use an ability score in place of their magic ability score, and other classes (Barbarian, Fighter, Rogue) wouldn't ever have to invest points into it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
When you start matching up level by level benefits with rogues and fighters vs other classes, it gets REALLY obvious there's a problem.
Just try matching up bards vs rogues. Go on, do it.
When you start comparing class features, the bard is the equal of the rogue in pretty much all ways...IF YOU REMOVE BARDIC SPELLCASTING.
Otherwise, the most powerful bardic power, spells, you have to match against the strongest rogue ability, sneak attack, OR, ALL of a Rogue's Talents.
Just like 11 combat feats ain't equal to 6 or 9 levels of casting, 10d6 SA or 10 Rogue Talents isn't equal to bardic spellcasting, either.
Now, compare to the Inquisitor.
Then, THE CLERIC OR DRUID. Yeah, 10d6 = 9 levels caster. Suuuuuure. And they get equal or better armor, too, and same BAB.
For fighters, all his bonus feats have to equal the paladin's # of lay on hands, his number of smites, AND his spellcasting.
Against a barbarian, his bonus feats have to be equal to the barb's rage powers, and his class features equal to everything else, including Rage itself.
Against a Ranger, his bonus feats have to equal a ranger's bonus feats + spellcasting, and the rest keep place with FE, FT, AC, more skill points, and a better list.
It's CRAZY how imbalanced they are next to one another.
==Aelryinth
|
|
I've been playing D&D since the late 70's and Pathfinder since the original playtest phase. We have never had a problem with Martial characters being underpowered. Ever. Then again, we play to tell stories and develop characters, not to rack up individual kills and victory points. Those who play fighters do so because it makes sense in a role-playing aspect. The town guardsman who lost his family trying to find purpose in saving the city which is the only thing left in his life. A rogue using his skills to help a worthy cause, even if for purely selfish motives. etc... That said, the spellcasters in our party practice something we like to call......COMMON COURTESY, and they do not do things that would invalidate the value of another player's character. Each player has a role or niche to fill in the party, and at the beginning of each campaign, we discuss who will be playing what and how they will be focused, so that everybody gets a chance to shine. This way we don't end up with two guys trying to be the Archery God, or a Wizard who wants to be an uber-buffed melee wizard competing against a vanilla fighter.
Learn to apply limits, it's one of the greatest skills a DM can have.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The very fact that the wizard has to hold back is the very problem. The fact that a witch can over ride a rogue without trying is the issue.
And honestly Magical Story time is not a good measure of class effectiveness...
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
***
Against a Ranger, his bonus feats have to equal a ranger's bonus feats + spellcasting, and the rest keep place with FE, FT, AC, more skill points, and a better list.It's CRAZY how imbalanced they are next to one another.
==Aelryinth
Aratrok did a pretty good job of laying out the basic discrepancies betweens Fighters and Rangers a little over a year ago, and yeah, it's that whole "Fighters are missing about 1/3 of the stuff everyone else gets". It's kind of like, if Bravery were actually a good class feature by its own merit, and the Fighter had one more good save and twice the skill points, he'd at least be approaching a point where he was in the same basic playing field as the other primarily martial classes. It's one of the problems with using him or the Rogue as a guidepost for where things need to go, because (excluding Unchained materials which address a couple, though not all, of the issues) they're not even with where things are now.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've been playing D&D since the late 70's and Pathfinder since the original playtest phase. We have never had a problem with Martial characters being underpowered. Ever. Then again, we play to tell stories and develop characters, not to rack up individual kills and victory points. Those who play fighters do so because it makes sense in a role-playing aspect. The town guardsman who lost his family trying to find purpose in saving the city which is the only thing left in his life. A rogue using his skills to help a worthy cause, even if for purely selfish motives. etc... That said, the spellcasters in our party practice something we like to call......COMMON COURTESY, and they do not do things that would invalidate the value of another player's character. Each player has a role or niche to fill in the party, and at the beginning of each campaign, we discuss who will be playing what and how they will be focused, so that everybody gets a chance to shine. This way we don't end up with two guys trying to be the Archery God, or a Wizard who wants to be an uber-buffed melee wizard competing against a vanilla fighter.
Learn to apply limits, it's one of the greatest skills a DM can have.
:3 why does every single god damn person that claims they've never seen them as underpowered keep bringing up that their DPS/kills seem on par, when we specifically keep saying they lack narrative power? :3
EVERY SINGLE TIME!
@ common courtesy, you know what you can do to not require common courtesy? have everyone play a 1/2 caster or above (or a barbarian), where you can do things and not be limited to feats trying to carry you.
|
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
@ common courtesy, you know what you can do to not require common courtesy? have everyone play a 1/2 caster or above (or a barbarian), where you can do things and not be limited to feats trying to carry you.
The other thing about "common courtesy" is that if you're a new player to this game and not a 15 year vet who probably has more house rules than they even realize, "common courtesy" isn't necessarily so common.
A 12 year old kid who picked up Pathfinder because one of his friends plays, read through the Wizard and thought "Holy cow! If I replace 'wizard' with 'ninja' and 'magic' with 'chakra' I could totally make Naruto", isn't going to understand why some neckbeard jackanape is lecturing him about common courtesy when the kid's wizard makes the jackanape's fighter look bad because he chose spells that let him fight, move, and deal damage better than the fighter. Instead, "common courtesy" guy comes off as a jealous jerk and in the worst case scenario, the kid decides he doesn't want to play the game anymore. Having martials that belong in the same world as casters is something that isn't just nice for people who like martial characters, it's good for the hobby as a whole. If 5 kids are playing Pathfinder and 3 of them decided to go with cool anime-esque spellcasters and the other 2 go with a Fighter and Rogue, there's a very real chance that those latter players are going to decide the game isn't fun when their buddies are playing "I can do everything you can do better, and I can do other stuff better than you".
The game should support the same type of play across classes at all levels. I'm not saying that every class should play the same, I'm saying that at low levels you've got your "Lord of the Rings" play, where magic is relatively rare, orcs are scary, and Gimli the dwarf is one of the most badass fighters around, so things at least more or less make sense here. Levels 1-5 are acceptable-ish. But then you hit levels 6-12 or levels 13-20, and the game changes. At level 17, that wizard is basically the biggest badass from any anime you can think of, flying around, summoning giant beasts, hurling blasts of energy that aren't really doing anything other than emphasizing how awesome he is, etc. This is not a world where Gimli the dwarf as portrayed in the Lord of the Rings movies makes sense as the epitome of a warrior anymore. Fighters should be at a point where they have non-magical tricks that equal the effectiveness of the magical ones, whether that be the ability to rapidly gather an army based on your reputation alone, swat aside fireballs with the force of your sword-swing, or leap 60 feet straight up into the air to land on an evil dragon and forcibly make it your mount.
The very fact that the wizard has to hold back is the very problem. The fact that a witch can over ride a rogue without trying is the issue.
And honestly Magical Story time is not a good measure of class effectiveness...
Yep, everything works fine and there are no problems as long as most of the classes make a concerted effort to play less effective then they could so the martial characters can feel worthwhile and useful...
While I applaud the Shroud's group working to make sure everyone has a niche, that's really limiting the options for the other characters when one of the niches is a fighter or non-unchained rogue.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And I'm just going to mention Saving Throws. Even in 1e, fighters and rogues had terrible saving throw bonuses, while classes like the cleric had significantly superior ones because they were expected to resist.This isn't really true at all. While the Thief saving throw table was pretty terrible the Fighter one was excellent and, more importantly, increased more often than anyone else.
****
Was going to note this as well. Old school Fighter was more likely to shrug off a spell effect than pretty much anyone else, which was one of the big things that kept the class so relevant at that time. If modern Fighters had similar advantages, there wouldn't be so much talk about fixing them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Who decided Fighters should have a weak will save, anyways? I can't think of any literature that isn't specifically a reference to D&D where the group's Fighter is the one that is most susceptible to magic; usually the opposite, really. "I don't have time for your finger waggling, I've got stabbing to do."
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Who decided Fighters should have a weak will save, anyways? I can't think of any literature that isn't specifically a reference to D&D where the group's Fighter is the one that is most susceptible to magic; usually the opposite, really. "I don't have time for your finger waggling, I've got stabbing to do."
Would definitely agree, in non-D&D fantasy literature, it's usually the "not a spellcaster" character who shrugs off the spells and comes through in the clinch. Now, an NPC class like the Warrior, who's supposed to represent town guards and martials of the non-dragon-slaying variety, those should probably have poor Will saves, but the Fighter's trying to pretend he's not an NPC class.
Yeah, rolling climb checks isn't fun, because you can make two rolls in a row easily, and then bam, you're tumbling down the mountain to possible dismemberment or death. I'd rather something that I can guarantee will work. Which is the problem. The spellcaster has access to things that mean he doesn't need to worry about failure, while the non-spellcaster always has a chance to fail until he's spent a decent amount of his character resources (skill points, feats and/or gold) into counteracting the problem.This is in fact exactly what happened in Test of Tar Kuata. Several level 6-7 martial characters completely failed to scale a relatively simple stone pillar because they had to make 3 checks to succeed. Meanwhile I walked up it using a level 1 spell. It was the perfect example of skill obsolescence in action.
It's not RAW, but you can solve part of this issue by changing a fundamental practice in how you game:
Only roll once.
You roll once and it either succeeds at the task or fails. You only roll again if something significantly changes. You also don't get to re-roll to try again, unless something significantly changes. I find this particularly useful for things like climbing and stealth.
One major benefit to this method is that it prevents two negative behaviors.
1) GM's can be jerks. The GM doesn't want you to climb the wall, so me makes the DC as high as he reasonably can. You beat the DC. Then he asks you for 10 more checks, cause he knows you'll fail at least one. I'm not saying that ALL GM's do this, or that all repetitive checks fit this category, but it does happen some times.
2. Players can be persistently annoying. A player who has minimal chance to succeed but knows they can if they try enough times just keeps rolling. Now everyone is sitting around the table watching them until they manage to roll high.
There's more to the concept to actually incorporating it, but I won't get into all of it right now. Suffice to say I've found it very useful overall and helps significantly in streamlining play and keeping the action moving forward. I also sometimes combine it with the "fail forward" concept. You fail the roll and don't achieve what you want, but things change and now you have to deal with a new obstacle instead.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If 5 kids are playing Pathfinder and 3 of them decided to go with cool anime-esque spellcasters and the other 2 go with a Fighter and Rogue, there's a very real chance that those latter players are going to decide the game isn't fun when their buddies are playing "I can do everything you can do better, and I can do other stuff better than you".
I think the more likely scenario is the kid taking the class names and descriptions at face value and think: "Oh wow, I want to be like Goku! Probably a Fighter because Goku was good at fighting, or a Monk because Monks have Ki and punch things! THIS IS GOING TO BE AWESOME!"
And then it isn't at all what he expected whether in lack of ability to do anything other than stand still and attack or the inability to hit due to monk and the kid doesn't understand why
| 15 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've been playing D&D since the late 70's and Pathfinder since the original playtest phase. We have never had a problem with Martial characters being underpowered. That said, the spellcasters in our party practice something we like to call......COMMON COURTESY, and they do not do things that would invalidate the value of another player's character.
Here's the thing: I've been playing the same amount of time, and have come to realize that what you call "common courtesy" is in fact an elaborate series of gentleman's agreements, rooted in an in-depth knowledge of the game, that is almost totally opaque to newer players. And as we all admit, at some point the game fails if you fail to observe them -- but to add insult to injury, none of what you really have to do to get the game to work, long-term, is mentioned in the rules at all.
It struck me that, if the purpose is to put an insurmountable barrier up against a new generation of players, we've done extremely well. And we can keep smugly playing while the hobby dwindles and, eventually, Paizo goes under, when we old farts get too old to buy more game stuff from them.
Or we could wake up and insist on a rulebook that has everything people need in it to actually play. In other words, rules that actually reflect all these agreements we've evolved over the last 35 years. Doing so would not affect our games at all -- we could still keep playing like we were. Alternatively, we could insist on a rulebook that powers up the martial guys to match the casters -- and, by gentleman's agreement, you could ignore those new abilities, too, and keep on playing exactly as you are. In either case, the ONLY thing that changes is that you open up the hobby to new people, which is vital to its survival.
To be so adamantly and smugly opposed to this, as so many people of our generation are, is to wilfully ensure the destruction of the hobby that's given us so much enjoyment.
Here's the thing: I've been playing the same amount of time
LOL yeah, I know what you mean. I started with the blackmoor pamphlet all those years ago. There are some of us old bastards floating around. ;)
Yup. Been playing D&D since 197-something.
Sadly, the core Fighter was like the "basic model" - not meant to be anything special or flashy.
Then they started to create archetypes, and new classes. Why create a Swashbuckler class instead of a Swashbuckler archetype? Because they realized: "Hey! To make this work, we need new mechanics!"
That's all we're doing here - saying: "The existing mechanics don't support the character concepts we want to play. So here's some house rules and home brew to create mechanics to support it!"
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've been playing D&D since the late 70's and Pathfinder since the original playtest phase. We have never had a problem with Martial characters being underpowered. Ever. Then again, we play to tell stories and develop characters, not to rack up individual kills and victory points. Those who play fighters do so because it makes sense in a role-playing aspect. The town guardsman who lost his family trying to find purpose in saving the city which is the only thing left in his life. A rogue using his skills to help a worthy cause, even if for purely selfish motives. etc... That said, the spellcasters in our party practice something we like to call......COMMON COURTESY, and they do not do things that would invalidate the value of another player's character. Each player has a role or niche to fill in the party, and at the beginning of each campaign, we discuss who will be playing what and how they will be focused, so that everybody gets a chance to shine. This way we don't end up with two guys trying to be the Archery God, or a Wizard who wants to be an uber-buffed melee wizard competing against a vanilla fighter.
Learn to apply limits, it's one of the greatest skills a DM can have.
It is more than limits or common courtesy, however. The game has evolved over the years, and no, it isn't even a matter of the players changing or wanting to be like something that didn't exist "in our day."
In this case, some of the tools we've been given need some refining. There are a number of disputes on how far one needs to go to make things equal or fair; you'll see this on any number of games where one side has a distinct advantage over the other(s).
In those cases, the limits are more than just gentlemen's agreements and common courtesy, but house rules, from minor to as extensive as Kirthfinder. Some of us -- playing as long or longer than you -- note this often and have worked out various fixes over the years. I don't think there is a version of this game or any other I haven't doctored over the years; I doubt my efforts were the only ones,
The rules are a lot like a tool box. Some believe that the box is incomplete, however, or could use some adjustments here or there. Others believe it is fine how it is. Others still wish the box had come with a guide to building cabinets and decks instead of only giving you detailed guides and special tools for chairs.
You can certainly play the game as is and perhaps have no problem with it; many people do. I can build a cabinet with a screwdriver, some nails and an old shoe if I had to, but it would be nice if there was a hammer?
Labored metaphors aside, it isn't just a matter of "play better and work together and everything will be all right." Nor "If the GM applies limits, the problems go away." Both of those are fine, as far as they go. But often you need more, and there are those that would prefer not to have to house rule, but instead want something that addresses the issues before they get to that point.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yup. Been playing D&D since 197-something.
Sadly, the core Fighter was like the "basic model" - not meant to be anything special or flashy.
Then they started to create archetypes, and new classes. Why create a Swashbuckler class instead of a Swashbuckler archetype? Because they realized: "Hey! To make this work, we need new mechanics!"
That's all we're doing here - saying: "The existing mechanics don't support the character concepts we want to play. So here's some house rules and home brew to create mechanics to support it!"
I've been told that the original Fighting Man was hardly the "basic model" compared to everyone else when it came to fighting. He was the only one who got multiple attacks (and could move his full speed to take those attacks), had the most HP, was practically impervious to magic, and eventually earned his own castle full of soldiers. He really WAS the King of Fighting.
But in the name of making other classes more fun to play (especially the Cleric, I'm told), they took all the Fighting Man's toys and gave them to everybody else in 3.X. So now the Fighter is neither particularly good at fighting, and very much IS the basic model for fighting... which is terrible design, because he doesn't have anything OTHER than fighting.