|
Except things like Spheres of Power exist, which explicitly removes a lot of the problematic parts of spellcasters, without making them unfun or weak. So it's not that it's impossible, it's that too many people are too content with being able to solve any problem they ever come across with magic.
When Fighters get boots of flying or a flying horse or any sort of ability that lets him sidestep the innate problems he has right now (such as terrible skill list, lack of utility, no additional movement options, etc.) then we can talk about leaving spellcasters alone. But until that point, they're playing a different game than the fighter, entirely. And that's not even remotely how it should be.
I dunno, as a DM i find it fun catching my spellcaster here and there with their utility set of spells prepared and watch them twiddle their thumbs in a corner asking if they can identify the monster to death.
Honestly if people aren't complaining about casters they're saying how broken Zen Archers and Gunslingers are.
I just find that if you really want to limit casters just remove a couple spell slots and pearls of power and watch them turn into their low level counterparts who have to carefully decide what to cast spells at because they might need that big spell for something even nastier.
If you want to be extra mean to them make them go back to d4 hit dice and laugh.
I've taken a look at the Spheres of Power free download, and I must say I'm intrigued - but I'd like to see it in play before I decided that it was the solution I was looking for. Anyone else have actual hands on experience with it? Does it make play more balanced between the classes?
Meanwhile - back to Unchaining the Fighter...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To be honest, 1E fighters START with the worst set of saves of the classes.
They are on par or better by level 7, and only get better thereafter, finishing with the best set. This is largely because their saves improved every 2 levels, and the other classes every 3,4 or 5 levels.
I made a big and very long lists of effective nerfs to the Fighter/Melee classes when 2e moved to 3E. Basically, the only thing they didn't give away for the fighter was the d10 HD and +1 th/level. EVERYTHING else was either given to other classes, or neutered on the fighter.
It was really kind of sad. He went from a really strong centerpoint with unique skills to 'eh.'
==Aelryinth
I've been gone for a while and I'm not sure how well this conversations has actually progressed. Thinking about things I think my personal solution is just to do what I've been doing(stamina, technique and Runic feats that use stamina, a series of combat feats that can be changed each day, and Path of War.) with the probability of replacing spellcasting with Spheres of Power. Spheres of power is really an ideal solution. It covers more ground than most of the spells printed so far in a little amount of space, I've found that it's more intuitive for new players, it has logical limits without making you stop being a caster, you get at-will abilities that make it so that you aren't settling with a crossbow when you run out of spells and its easy to customize it to a setting or mode of play. About the only problem I have with it is that older players will struggle to figure out how to replicate what spellcasting does without reading the whole thing. Other than that its a pretty fast and easy fix that doesn't require much houseruling.
But overall due to third party material I have not seen disparity problems for a long time but I guess we're talking about fixing the system at it's core without third party or homebrew rules or patches. Something that's a simple fix that could appear in a Pathfinder Unchained 2 or similar book. For a solution like that I think 'more stamina support' is the key. I've linked Stamina to three different third party products to great effect so I'm sure it can be done. Have combat effects supported by stamina so that it gives martials an edge, add in stamina based skill unlocks for Str and Dex based skills, have minor magic effects based on stamina. I think Book of 9 Swords, Path of War, and 4th edition proved was that giving a per-encounter resource for martials can be used to give powerful effects to martials and I think stamina pools can fill that kind of role.
For a solution like that I think 'more stamina support' is the key. I've linked Stamina to three different third party products to great effect so I'm sure it can be done.
To quote the part of this I'm most interested in, mind sharing how you've done this?
I haven't read through all of the thread, just the first and last page, so this might be redundant but here's my KISS solution for the imbalance:
Embrace the imbalance and learn to love it.
Look at LOTR for an example. The fellowship of the ring is a party that consists of (almost) useless hobbits, couple of fit fighters, superior magicked human ranger who's almost good at everything, an immortal elf who's literally better in everything, and an immortal spellcasting angel with overpowered magic items. They don't need to have a balanced party to spin a wonderful story where everyone plays an important part.
The only problem is expectations - if players expect all PCs to be of equal utility. The solution? Make it clear that classes and races are NOT balanced. It's not a bug - it's a feature. If you like swinging a sword, go ahead and play a fighter - knowing that while you enjoy fencing with that orc your wizard friend if single-handedly obliterating the rest of the orc army. If you don't mind that and still want to play with swords and shields- enjoy!
Lord of the Rings isn't a game
Furthermore, Lord of the Rings is not the end all be all of what fantasy is, nor does Pathfinder claim to follow that false idea
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lord of the Rings isn't a game
Furthermore, Lord of the Rings is not the end all be all of what fantasy is, nor does Pathfinder claim to follow that false idea
Dungeons and Dragons was originally based on Lord of the Rings. It was a tactical fantasy combat game. When it became a role playing game it was still based on LotR. It was so based on it that there were a number of races that had to be changed due to copyright/trademark issues.
D&D begat Advanced Dungeons and Dragons, which begat 2nd Edition Advanced Dungeons and Dragons, which begat Players Option: 2nd Edition Advanced Dungeons and Dragons, which begat 3rd Edition Dungeons and Dragons, which begat Dungeons and Dragons 3.5, which begat Pathfinder.
Which, I agree that LotR isn't the end all be all...
But it is the basis and it has heavily influenced pretty much every work of this genre of fantasy... Therefor it is logical to conclude that references to LotR regarding Pathfinder are indeed valid.
Indeed they are. For the first 5 levels. After that you need to look at D&D's other inspirations where magic is absurdly powerful.
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.
This is so wise I had to quote it just so people can more easily read it twice. ^^
I concur, Lemmy.
It's exactly like saying: Because there's Rule 0 allowing us to change the rules, there are no problems with the rules.
or
As long as I don't play my class to its potential and give up my fun, everyone else can play theirs and they can have fun.
Which are both ridiculous on the face of it.
==Aelryinth
Indeed they are. For the first 5 levels. After that you need to look at D&D's other inspirations where magic is absurdly powerful.Lord of the Rings isn't a game
Furthermore, Lord of the Rings is not the end all be all of what fantasy is, nor does Pathfinder claim to follow that false idea
Dungeons and Dragons was originally based on Lord of the Rings. It was a tactical fantasy combat game. When it became a role playing game it was still based on LotR. It was so based on it that there were a number of races that had to be changed due to copyright/trademark issues.
D&D begat Advanced Dungeons and Dragons, which begat 2nd Edition Advanced Dungeons and Dragons, which begat Players Option: 2nd Edition Advanced Dungeons and Dragons, which begat 3rd Edition Dungeons and Dragons, which begat Dungeons and Dragons 3.5, which begat Pathfinder.
Which, I agree that LotR isn't the end all be all...
But it is the basis and it has heavily influenced pretty much every work of this genre of fantasy... Therefor it is logical to conclude that references to LotR regarding Pathfinder are indeed valid.
I think the thing is, for a pretty major chunk of fantasy genre, magic NEVER is as powerful as it gets in Pathfinder. Powerful Magic in many, many, many settings has some sort of price or limits that prevents it from reaching the zany levels of high level Pathfinder. So there is a weird mental disconnect between the rules and what people might be looking for in a setting that reflects those rules.
Lol Pathfinder is LOOSELY based on LotR....
Last i checked Gunslingers, Bards, Clerics, druids, Samurai, Ninjas, monks, and the rediculous pantheon are not anywhere near anything in LotR
For a solution like that I think 'more stamina support' is the key. I've linked Stamina to three different third party products to great effect so I'm sure it can be done.To quote the part of this I'm most interested in, mind sharing how you've done this?
Some of it I've mentioned before; Since before Unchained came out I've been using and praising The Book of Martial Action and since its nearly identical to how Stamina works I've made it synonymous. Basically its two products full of 'techniques'. Each technique is some sort of martial ability that you use by spending from your martial pool which scales with BAB. The martial pool refreshes after each combat after resting for a minute.
Using an idea from a homebrew rule pdf posted on here and another product, The Combatant I made technique feats that you can switch each day with an hour of training much like a wizard prepares spells. (its a bonus that the Combatant is a fighter clone that's better than the fighter.) Additionally I combined the concept with Tomes so that martial characters can find and discover manuals on new techniques.
This escalated to supernatural techniques by using lifting from various sources to homebrew them from spells in third party products I don't use for whatever reason.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lol Pathfinder is LOOSELY based on LotR....
Last i checked Gunslingers, Bards, Clerics, druids, Samurai, Ninjas, monks, and the rediculous pantheon are not anywhere near anything in LotR
Quite. And if one wants to go back to the origins of D&D, IIRC Gygax only included any LotR elements in the game for marketing reasons: he was a far bigger fan of fantasy like Vance's works (thus the Vancian casting).
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
what you call "common courtesy" is in fact an elaborate series of gentleman's agreements
Lemmy, I would totally read a book titled "An Elaborate Series of Gentlemen's Agreements." It sounds like a story about an ancient secret society of British dudes who go around saving the world through legal loopholes and corporate espionage. :)
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.
Hmm, or we could turn it into a Pathfinder supplement... Let's talk about it over here.
Frodo possibly had Aristocrat- His uncle Bilbo had some of his dragon hoard left over from his adventuring days. At the very least, Frodo had way above WBL- a Mithral/Adamantine (LOTR Mithril is basically Mithral + Adamantine) shirt, maybe magical, as well as an at least +1, unique goblin-bane sword.
And don't forget his ring of invisibility which was also somewhat empathic and had the ability to dominate others (well, certain others)...
I think it may be a Legendary type item or something...
SAM on the otherhand, by the third book, he took on the Queen of Spiders and LIVED! He may have been a tad higher then level 2 at that point. Maybe a level 3?
Sounds totally fun to play a halfling who is level 1 in some NPC class alongside the level 5 ranger and some casty angel. The fact that there are two other guys (Elf and Dwarf) with pc class levels of around 4 don't change much now, does it?
GM: So Tom plays Gandalf, Harry plays Aragorn, Jim has Gimli and Tanja plays Legolas. We have the three halflings left. Who wants to play which one?
Left over player 1: I'll go to the comic bookstore and see if there is another game to be had.
Left over player 2: I could be the GM so we only need one or two more players
Left over player 3: Sounds like a plan. You'll manage without the halflings I guess.
I've thrown some ideas around earlier in this thread. Let me throw another two:
Make non-casting classes quadratic. If part of the argument is that gaining a level 8 spell (plus the other level spell slots that come along) is not like gaining a feat, then give more feats to those classes as they level. For example, the fighter usually gains 11 combat feats over 20 levels (1+1+1+...). Why not make it something like 1+2+3+4+..., giving the fighter a total of 55 combat feats over his career? If you think it's too much, then perhaps a sequence like 1+1+2+2+3+3+4+4+..., giving the fighter 36 feats over his level progression.
Make non-casting classes schroedingeresque. If part of the argument is that full casters can adjust their spell lists to solve many problems better than non-casting classes, then perhaps part of the solution can be found in giving similar options to non-casting classes. The equivalent of brawlers' martial flexibility, but adapted to the class. For example, rogues could get talent flexibility based on the same mechanics.
Trying to keep it simple and within Pathfinder.
I must admit that adding more rules doesn't seem the best path to bridging the gap. I'm all for looking at ways, but in my view, the simplest way is probably to remove things.
Isn't it simpler to say these spells, and/or these spell levels, and/or the metamagic feats will not be available in my game, than to say this is the bundle of additional rules that I'm adding? (See World of Xoth's rules on magic for an example. Admittedly, this is also tied to campaign setting considerations.)
I know this thread is about adding, and I provided the OP with suggestions, but I had to clarify where I stand.
Now I feel better :)
what you call "common courtesy" is in fact an elaborate series of gentleman's agreementsLemmy, I would totally read a book titled "An Elaborate Series of Gentlemen's Agreements." It sounds like a story about an ancient secret society of British dudes who go around saving the world through legal loopholes and corporate espionage. :)
Well... Now you made me want to read it too!
(BTW, the original author of that awesome piece of text is Kirth. All I did was quote the man).
I've thrown some ideas around earlier in this thread. Let me throw another two:
Make non-casting classes quadratic. If part of the argument is that gaining a level 8 spell (plus the other level spell slots that come along) is not like gaining a feat, then give more feats to those classes as they level. For example, the fighter usually gains 11 combat feats over 20 levels (1+1+1+...). Why not make it something like 1+2+3+4+..., giving the fighter a total of 55 combat feats over his career? If you think it's too much, then perhaps a sequence like 1+1+2+2+3+3+4+4+..., giving the fighter 36 feats over his level progression.
Make non-casting classes schroedingeresque. If part of the argument is that full casters can adjust their spell lists to solve many problems better than non-casting classes, then perhaps part of the solution can be found in giving similar options to non-casting classes. The equivalent of brawlers' martial flexibility, but adapted to the class. For example, rogues could get talent flexibility based on the same mechanics.
Trying to keep it simple and within Pathfinder.
I did a Fighter build that gave two feats per level, divided by levels between Combat feats and training feats.
And THEN I improved the feats to equal class features.
Still didn't come across as overpowered, because Higher DPR wasn't the target.
Man, it is REALLY hard to balance spellcasting against the constant effects of feats. Having that spike when you want it and core competency want it vs above avg core compentency is hella hard to deal with.
==Aelryinth
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
These bravery based solutions won't work for anyone who plays with archetypes.
Sure they can, just provide a back door for Fighters to regain Bravery at a slightly reduced rate. Considering that most archetypes trade Bravery for something distinctly stronger, they should be able to hold out a couple extra levels before their piece of the fix becomes available.
I really like Bravery focused fixes, because the concept of Bravery is the only part of the Fighter that I think has the potential to be a really iconic niche. Weapon Training and Armor Training are utterly bland and not even universally useful; dwarves are very much one of the "iconic" races for a Fighter, and they will generally get almost no benefit out of Armor Training unless you build them against the common fantasy concepts for them, and Weapon Training is a small bonus to attack and damage easily matched or exceeded by other classes. Bravery is the only hook the Fighter has left to hand a unique niche on.
I had to horrendously upgrade Bravery to make it relevant as a class feature.
It ended up combining bonus vs Fear, fetch-a-feat, and self-healing all in one. Just the right pacing and number of uses, too. It was also the number to use when boosting anything int, wis or cha related, as it represented the fighter's mental fortitude and training.
==Aelryinth
There's a reason why the Eldritch Guardian replaces it with a straight bonus to will saves...
So random Bravery thought: What if it was a uses per day ability, say 1/2 level + a the higher of strength and dex, and the bonus from it could be applied to any skill, save, or attack roll retroactively?
That feat is ridiculous. I like the idea, but it doesn't really close the gap so much as put balance into a tailspin. Mechanically, it's a no-save pretty much die against commoners and the occasional 12th level wizard or 12 HD fae. 11th level samasaran wizards can pull out a no-save lose your turn (irresistible dance), as well as cloudkill, but this particular feat is so strangely specific, especially around BAB, that it's not quite as useful as either. Ok, so you're a fighter, and you can bully commoners and maybe get lucky against a wizard. But your wizard is busy bullying a god.
Still, I like the concept and fluff.
List of cool possible feats and/or just things for fighters:
Mage Slayer
Requirements: Disruptive, Spellbreaker, Fighter (level ?)
You gain a bonus to hit and damage equal to the highest-level spell or spell-like ability your target possesses. If all spells and spell-like ability have no level, you gain a bonus equal to half the target's hit dice. If you hit, your target treats your hit as continuous damage for the purposes of making concentration checks and casting spells, for 1 round.
Fluff: Your combat experience against the arcane has given you an edge against casters. You can hit them where it hurts.Careful Strikes
Requirements (Iron Will? Combat Expertise?), Fighter (level ?)
You may take -2 to attack rolls and CMB checks for a round to ignore all concealment, cover, and invisibility miss chance. You may take and additional -2 to be able to hit ethereal creatures.
\
PLEASE NO MORE FEATS! WE NEED TO REDUCE THE NUMBER NOT MAKE MORE!
So random Bravery thought: What if it was a uses per day ability, say 1/2 level + a the higher of strength and dex, and the bonus from it could be applied to any skill, save, or attack roll retroactively?
maybe a con based charmed life?
basing bonuses on stats just leads to more MAD.
If you want to center class bonuses on the fighter's stats, make sure he gets to choose the stat, so it applies to multiple things.
Y'know, like spellcasters get for spells.
==Aelryinth
basing bonuses on stats just leads to more MAD.
If you want to center class bonuses on the fighter's stats, make sure he gets to choose the stat, so it applies to multiple things.
Y'know, like spellcasters get for spells.
==Aelryinth
but you always want con...