Here's an idea to give martials nice things while using books and rules Paizo has already published:
What if we give martials, well, any weak-tier class, automatic Mythic Tiers as they progress?
Of course, we wouldn't do the same for the stronger tiers, but we might give a slower Mythic progression for some of the middle-tier classes.
I haven't played Mythic, just read through my book a bit (more like skimmed) so I can't even guess how well this would work. But it seems like it would actually give them nice things without requiring us to rewrite all those classes or make up a gazillion house rules.
Maybe we start with fighters getting a Mythic Tier at level 5 and ever three levels thereafter, ending up with 6 Mythic Tiers. Chained rogues (i.e. not-unchained) would maybe just get a Mythic Tier as early as level 2 and then every three levels thereafter.
It might take a little brainstorming to figure out the right amount of Mythic awesomeness to hand out, and I know we'll never agree (some people want 10th level fighter to be able to swallow the moon and arm-wrestle tarrasques and topple entire armies with the stomp of a foot, while other want to keep their martials a bit more grounded in pseudo-reality.
But, I'd love to hear everyone's discussion on this - would it fully balance those weak-tiered classes? Nearly balance them? Not really make enough difference to matter (but if not, would it be a good first step)?
(on a side note, it might give me a chance to incorporate a book I bought without ever expecting to actually use)
(on another side note, it probably would NOT work very well in a game where the players want to use the Mythic rules for everybody, such as playing the Wrath of the Righteous AP)
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here is the ultimate question.
Does adding in mythic give martials many more options?
If it just bloats their numbers then you will be wasting your time and imbalancing the system math. Numbers aren't the problem. It's versatility and narrative power.
Here is the ultimate question.
Does adding in mythic give martials many more options?
If it just bloats their numbers then you will be wasting your time and imbalancing the system math. Numbers aren't the problem. It's versatility and narrative power.
at first tier, the character would be able to take a power allowing him to commune as the spell 1/day, and the Trickster path ability, Thwart Detection, helps with getting past magical defenses(basically lets you ignore Alarm, symbol spells, Forbiddance, etc). the rest seems mostly combat related.
Like I said, I skimmed. But I thought there were things in there to increase reach and/or range, get extra actions, gain more mobility during combat, resist spells - maybe that's all just "numbers" too, but being able to move farther and faster and still get more than one attack sounds exactly exactly like what the martials' supporters have been crying for. Well, one of the things they want.
Sure, it might not let fighters teleport or summon monsters or fly around invisible or dominate kings and emperors - solving the versatility issue is for a different thread.
Well, it can turn a commoner into a god (Literally)... and having an army of followers can be useful...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is possible to raise the relative tier of martials with encounter design. An adventure that escalates into an all-out war with civilian bystanders that forces the party to keep fighting without rest or resupply plays to the strengths of a Fighter, whose only limited resource is hit points, while a 10th-level Wizard is a poor substitute for a 5th-level Warrior once he's run dry.
I'd look at adjusting encounters and adventures so supernova tactics create problems - alienate allies, put you on the radar of far more powerful enemies, while the more mundane efforts of martials and skill-monkeys remain relevant, effective, and discreet.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How many threads have to be churned out in the space of 72 hours over this, when "Martials" ALREADY DO get nice things??? How uber do you have to be, and what do you consider "balanced" when the classes are so different in so many ways? Even if you remain convinced that certain classes are underpowered relative to others, shouldn't wanting built-in Mythic Tiers be an unambiguous sign you've crossed over into "you're getting ridiculous" territory?
Holy cats, here it comes again...
How many threads have to be churned out in the space of 72 hours over this, when "Martials" ALREADY DO get nice things??? How uber do you have to be, and what do you consider "balanced" when the classes are so different in so many ways? Even if you remain convinced that certain classes are underpowered relative to others, shouldn't wanting built-in Mythic Tiers be an unambiguous sign you've crossed over into "you're getting ridiculous" territory?
Martials can stab people... and ummmmmmmmmm. Nope that's it. That's why people say they don't have nice things. Martial classes like the Slayer do help though with their ability to get a bonus on a few skills, but it's nowhere near the utility that casters get.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Look, we get that you don't agree that martials still need more "niceties", but is it really necessary to obstruct threads trying to think of ideas? If you don't like the solutions, don't use them. Don't stop people from devising them. This (and the "what does a 'realistic' badass fighter look like" thread) is not intended to be another home for the old argument.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Stop talking about "martials" like you're talking about a single class. Sure, there's the old "Warrior/Thief/Mage/Priest" Holy Quaternary that remains recognizable, but all these classes are different. Sure, the Fighter doesn't do much besides one fight, but that's why they're called Fighters - they only gots one job, but they does it well, yaaarrrr! They're specialists who exchange versatility for excellence in a single pursuit.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Martials can stab people... and ummmmmmmmmm. Nope that's it.
They can also bludgeon.
A well-built 3rd-level human fighter can walk into a pack of enemies with a guisarme, Combat Reflexes, and Improved Trip and Bull Rush and have a similar effect on the battlefield as Black Tentacles. A 2nd-level barbarian can reliably crash-tackle an ogre.
And if you put an Anti-Magic field on a high level fighter with armour that's still masterwork full plate under the enhancement bonus and a sword that can carve facets into a ruby... you didn't really accomplish very much.
And they are still worse than it than a cleric or druid who puts their mind, a feat(power attack) and a few spell slots to it. And the cleric/druid has bundles of versatility as well. Non-archer Fighters are terrible at anything other than than trading blows in melee against big fat stupid beefcakes. Anything that doesn't just roll over and take a beating is really difficult if not impossible for the fighter to deal with. Clerics and druids have both ways of countering anti-melee tactics and alternative avenues of attack should melee not really be appropriate. This isn't balanced, and for people playing fighters in situations like the above, it isn't fun.
Hence all the threads on how to fix martials.
Stop talking about "martials" like you're talking about a single class. Sure, there's the old "Warrior/Thief/Mage/Priest" Holy Quaternary that remains recognizable, but all these classes are different. Sure, the Fighter doesn't do much besides one fight, but that's why they're called Fighters - they only gots one job, but they does it well, yaaarrrr! They're specialists who exchange versatility for excellence in a single pursuit.
Yes, this is definitely the main point to take from my post. I'm glad you fully addressed my complaints about your contributions thus far to the thread.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, this is definitely the main point to take from my post. I'm glad you fully addressed my complaints about your contributions thus far to the thread.
It took me a while to figure out where you were coming from/headed (and that last thing still left me a bit confused, since I have a hard time telling whether that means we actually agree or disagree). Yes, I stepped in (and stayed longer than intended) to say I was tired of all the threads about same-old same-old, but only after 3-ish days of watching this dead horse show up, gimp suit and ball gag on, under a few too many aliases. I felt like I had to say something. I've said my peace now.
Yes, this is definitely the main point to take from my post. I'm glad you fully addressed my complaints about your contributions thus far to the thread.It took me a while to figure out where you were coming from/headed (and that last thing still left me a bit confused, since I have a hard time telling whether that means we actually agree or disagree). Yes, I stepped in (and stayed longer than intended) to say I was tired of all the threads about same-old same-old, but only after 3-ish days of watching this dead horse show up, gimp suit and ball gag on, under a few too many aliases. I felt like I had to say something. I've said my peace now.
Alright, fair enough. I, too, think we have too many threads—I just don't want to see the "solution" threads get continually bogged down in the "Is there a problem?" debate. One is at least productive, while the other is a bottomless pit.
|
|
Even for those who might take issue with magical items being a valid rebuttal, why not brush up on your folklore and mythology? Gilgamesh, Heracles, Beowulf, Ali Baba, Robin Hood, Pecos Bill, Conan, Bilbo, Wolverine, The Tick...not knowing magic doesn't stop them from achieving great deeds, even when they fight enemies and/or fight alongside allies who do. Try spending more time on the mage's end of things if you don't think the limitations on their powers matter. Anyone who spends their magic carelessly is going to regret it after a few hours (unless you're a Warlock or something, in which case you pay for it with strict limitations on what you can do).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And if you put an Anti-Magic field on a high level fighter with armour that's still masterwork full plate under the enhancement bonus and a sword that can carve facets into a ruby... you didn't really accomplish very much.
Blatantly untrue. Martials suffer just as badly (if not worse) as caster in an AMF. Because the game relies on you having certain magic items to come close to matching CR adjacent challenges.
A dragon in an AMF is still a Huge-Colossal beast with 6 attacks per round and a massive AC. All it loses is its spelcasting.
Your Fighter just lost, AT MINIMUM, 8 to-hit and 9 damage (+5 weapon, +6 Str belt) per swing, -5 to saves (Cloak of Resistance), -15 to AC (Ring of Protection, Amulet of Natural Armor, +5 armor enhancement), and quite likely even more AC and/or a ton of HP (+6 Dex or Con on his belt as well, if not both). And his ability to bypass DR.
The dragon will END HIM. And so will any similar beatstick creature with an AMF.
Because a monster's power comes from its hit dice and racial abilities.
A Fighter's power comes from his magic bling.
As for the topic, yes giving Mythic ABILITIES (with some restrictions) would be helpful, but not Mythic TIERS.
Tiers are a problem by the high tiers, when you get into the unkillable thing.
But getting access to stuff like Seven League Leap, Uncanny Grapple/Master Grappler, Adamantine Mind and so on are the kind of utility boost martials need.
Cool s~%~ for cool people.
The Fighter Quick Draws a Bow and Fires 2 arrows into the Monster as a full attack action. Then the Fighter takes a 5 ft Step backward, putting 65 feet between the two.
The Monster advances by running, as a charge would only have gotten him within 5 squares and, being pretty smart, for a monster is in position to nail the fighter should the fighter shoot it, or try to switch weapons.
So in your magic fairy land monsters neither have Reach at level 12, nor have any ranged option to fight back, or any special SLAs or Su powers?
Their ONLY option (as a "smart" monster) is to RUN in (giving them a big penalty to AC and no further actions) and get wailed on.
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
And if you put an Anti-Magic field on a high level fighter with armour that's still masterwork full plate under the enhancement bonus and a sword that can carve facets into a ruby... you didn't really accomplish very much.
Blatantly untrue. Martials suffer just as badly (if not worse) as caster in an AMF. Because the game relies on you having certain magic items to come close to matching CR adjacent challenges.
A dragon in an AMF is still a Huge-Colossal beast with 6 attacks per round and a massive AC. All it loses is its spelcasting.
Your Fighter just lost, AT MINIMUM, 8 to-hit and 9 damage (+5 weapon, +6 Str belt) per swing, -5 to saves (Cloak of Resistance), -15 to AC (Ring of Protection, Amulet of Natural Armor, +5 armor enhancement), and quite likely even more AC and/or a ton of HP (+6 Dex or Con on his belt as well, if not both). And his ability to bypass DR.
The dragon will END HIM. And so will any similar beatstick creature with an AMF.
Because a monster's power comes from its hit dice and racial abilities.
A Fighter's power comes from his magic bling.
As for the topic, yes giving Mythic ABILITIES (with some restrictions) would be helpful, but not Mythic TIERS.
Tiers are a problem by the high tiers, when you get into the unkillable thing.
But getting access to stuff like Seven League Leap, Uncanny Grapple/Master Grappler, Adamantine Mind and so on are the kind of utility boost martials need.
Cool s++& for cool people.
Bolding mine
Unless I am very much mistaken, this is about balance between player characters, not about Varsuvius's subplot in OOTS.
a wizard in an AMF is a guy with d6 HP, bad BAB, bad Saves, and a stick.
a fighter in an AMF is a guy with d10 HP, full BAB, varyingly good saves, good armor, good weapons, feats that still matter, and a temper.
Can't planar allies go into antimagic areas, though? I seem to recall hearing something about that. :P
Comparing the two straight across is next to meaningless in this case. An AMF is only an issue if an enemy has cast it.
In which case, both are equally screwed within it.
But the Wizard still has a better chance of just leaving, or staying out of the way of the enemy.
And regardless, he said using an AMF on a Fighter doesn't accomplish much.
I showed him that was a factually incorrect statement.
Can't planar allies go into antimagic areas, though? I seem to recall hearing something about that. :P
Yeah, since they're called they can just fly right in and start smashing.
Ain't True Name a b+$*&?
Ain't True Name a b~+~$?
As player of a wizard who took Truename twice. Yes. Yes it is :P
Having an inevitable lawyer and angel side-kick is fun.
Ain't True Name a b**** ?
Poor Wizard never got the chance to take it in the last campaign I ran. He instead took levels in Arclord of Nex.
Blatantly untrue. Martials suffer just as badly (if not worse) as caster in an AMF. Because the game relies on you having certain magic items to come close to matching CR adjacent challenges.
A dragon in an AMF is still a Huge-Colossal beast with 6 attacks per round and a massive AC. All it loses is its spelcasting.
That's if you put a martial character in an Antimagic Field... with a dragon. A completely different kettle of fish.
If you put a high-level fighter in an antimagic field, you have a high-level fighter in an antimagic field. The loss of saves or spell resistance doesn't matter as much as you've made out, because most things that they save or resist don't work. He has all his iterative attacks, and can penetrate DR either the old-fashioned way, or with his feats.
The AMF doesn't render the fighter a non-threat. It doesn't bring the job of finishing him off so close that you may as well call it. And if you have to drop an ancient black dragon on him to do it, clearly he was still a threat.
A high level wizard in the field is weaker than an equivalent commoner.
I showed him that was a factually incorrect statement.
...really, not so much.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, really. Any melee monster will pretty handily give the Fighter his own ass on a platter in an AMF.
Because monsters don't get their to hit and damage bonuses from gear. They get it from HD, size bonuses, and naturally high stats. It doesn't really matter if the Wizard is twice as f!*#ed (again, arguable). F$@%ed is f#$~ed. He's still dead.
Replace dragon with Giant or whatever you prefer. The only monster that's going to cast an AMF is one little hindered by it. Unless your scenario involves a single classed PC race Wizard using it and then wading into melee. Which makes it even more ludicrous and contrived than HWalsh's scenario.
@HWalsh: Check the bestiary some time. Find me a CR 12+ monster that is Medium or smaller with no SLAs or other special abilities, a 30 ft. Move speed or less, and no ranged attack of any kind.
If you find one, I'll be quite surprised, because if they exist, they're a rarity.
And I know you haven't been around here long, but you should know the "Fighters can go all day" myth has been bunked time and time again. Fighters need buffs and healing to keep going.
Guess who has those?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Even for those who might take issue with magical items being a valid rebuttal, why not brush up on your folklore and mythology? Gilgamesh, Heracles, Beowulf, Ali Baba, Robin Hood, Pecos Bill, Conan, Bilbo, Wolverine, The Tick...not knowing magic doesn't stop them from achieving great deeds, even when they fight enemies and/or fight alongside allies who do.
Gilgamesh physically fought concepts (Humbaba). The 12 labors of Heracles included several non-combat problems he was able to solve with his super strength, such as rerouting a river. Beowulf was also a supreme swimmer, able to fend off sea serpents while in a race or something. Conan probably had 20 in every stat, because he does stuff like totally shrug off enchantment spells thrown at him before ripping arms off evil sorcerers--at the very least he had all good saves. Wolverine has super regeneration. Bilbo contributed mostly non-combat stuff to a world without any real non-deity spellcasters that capped at 6th level at most. The Tick is a comedy super hero. The others all lived (or supposedly lived) in the real world, and so, like everyone here, were limited to real world stuff, and also contributed mostly out of combat stuff with an absolute cap of maybe 6th level tops.
So, uh, the last half of those guys basically don't count because martials are perfectly fine for the first 5-6 levels, easy. The first half, well--where's my Fighter's ability to chop up concepts? Why can't my Fighter reroute a river? You can't win this. It doesn't work. Martials do something everyone can do (fight/have feats/have skills) better. Spellcasters do something not everyone else can do (cast spells). There's no contest.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And I know you haven't been around here long, but you should know the "Fighters can go all day" myth has been bunked time and time again. Fighters need buffs and healing to keep going.
I wasn't saying 'Fighters can go all day.' - I was saying that if you build the day around more than 4 encounters, and you limit downtime, and you make consequences run adventuring day to adventuring day rather than give everyone a fresh start, you change the way the game plays out.
The game plays martially. Like a war.
The fighter can't go all day, but the fighter doesn't lose effectiveness as he fights. A wizard does. They only have so much wizard in the tank, and when that's exhausted, which it can be, they become the weakest class. A barbarian or paladin that's out of their per day resources is much less effective, but rangers and fighters cannot run out of fighting ability while they remain alive and conscious. Yes, healing is a factor there, and no, full casters are not the limit of a martial character's recourse to healing.
I'm not saying a fighter is better than a wizard. They aren't. I am saying a campaign can be designed to balance martial classes and full casters without adding mythic powers to the martials or penalising the full casters. Not for all levels - if you can keep a full caster contained past level 13, well done, but you can maintain some parity, enough that people can play martials alongside full caster without feeling the need to write 4 threads decrying the lack of nice things. Hopefully.
For the record, if you put a CR appropriate giant into an AMF with a solo fighter, you get a dead giant.
Stop talking about "martials" like you're talking about a single class. Sure, there's the old "Warrior/Thief/Mage/Priest" Holy Quaternary that remains recognizable, but all these classes are different. Sure, the Fighter doesn't do much besides one fight, but that's why they're called Fighters - they only gots one job, but they does it well, yaaarrrr! They're specialists who exchange versatility for excellence in a single pursuit.
I strongly disagree, especially with the bolded part. I see a lot of other martial class builders complain about being feat-starved to go into specific feat chains, and a lot of those classes are ones who don't get bonus feats; Fighters, Monks, and Rangers are the only few classes that can not be a one trick pony, but when it comes to optimization, being a jack of all trades is actually the strength of a deuce. Specialization is far more rewarding, because the specialization offers more utility than the utility options themselves for martials.
And that's ridiculous. The classes that don't get bonus feats, as it turns out, don't really need those bonus feats because they get wicked class features that no bonus feat could make up for. Fighters get bonus feats, and outside of Weapon Specialization, Critical Mastery, and Penetrating Strike, their bonus feat options suck, because feats to class features is not a fair comparison.
It is as I've said before; the only way for this to work is if these underpowered martials were given a complete overhaul (i.e. Unchained Rogue is a prime example of a step in the right direction). We've already seen what happens when you try to make a class feature into a feat. And you know how many people balked at its power? Everyone. Including myself.
And you know what that class feature-made-feat helped? It sure as hell wasn't one of our several weak martials, who doesn't have the resources to acquire the feat, and if he did, he's not exactly optimal in what he needs to be optimal in. It was a class whose power level is well beyond what a silly martial could ever do, a class who is the most RAW-broken in the world (ironically enough, not Wizards). Oracles. The class who can get Charisma for everything, and cheese an infinite amount of Charisma with the correct mystery (or whatever it is).
We've also seen what happens with another subject that's so damn weak it's not even worth spending the feats on. Martials need options that can help expand their niche; Paladins got feats like Unsanctioned Knowledge, which gives their spellcasting ability much-needed utility and power. Barbarians get Rage Powers every single dang book, and a few of them are pretty damn strong. Several of the high tier classes (Paladins, Barbarians) also get this niche-expansion through class features. When their class feature is a sub-par version of what an actual class feature is supposed to be in terms of power level (Fighters, base Monk), or when their class features don't actually f&*#ing do anything (Rogue), it's a fruitless effort.
All they can ever do is move, make attacks, be forced to spend feats for combat maneuvers (that don't do s&!* except for Dirty Tricks, and that requires inoptimal feat/stat taxes, and to be at the GM's mercy, to get it to work), and/or run around like a damn decapitated chicken until the casters decide to throw a save or suck/die spell at them and end their misery. Because none of their class features give them the niche-expansion they need to have. Their options are either too weak to bother investing in, or have too steep of requirements to make them effective.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Even for those who might take issue with magical items being a valid rebuttal, why not brush up on your folklore and mythology? Gilgamesh, Heracles, Beowulf, Ali Baba, Robin Hood, Pecos Bill, Conan, Bilbo, Wolverine, The Tick...not knowing magic doesn't stop them from achieving great deeds, even when they fight enemies and/or fight alongside allies who do. Try spending more time on the mage's end of things if you don't think the limitations on their powers matter. Anyone who spends their magic carelessly is going to regret it after a few hours (unless you're a Warlock or something, in which case you pay for it with strict limitations on what you can do).
Bah!
None of those guys except Conan and the Wolverine ever faced the kind of magic a 10th level Pathfinder wizard can throw at them.
Conan rarely faced magic, maybe a dozen spells in the entire series of Robert Howard books (and I think I"m overestimating). Even the monsters he faced were pretty tame compared to what a 10th level Pathfinder barbarian faces daily.
Wolverine regularly faces melee enemies, but occasionally runs into someone who has mutant "magic" that is way out of his league and, in those cases, he often loses (or depends on the other X-men to use their mutant "magic" to handle what Wolverine cannot.
For all the rest, the challenges they faced were as mundane as they were.
Bilbo never even saw a spell being cast except by his own ally and he never faced the dragon except to hide from it - a dragon, by the way, that was killed by one man with one arrow, so it wasn't much of a Pathfinder dragon in the first place.
Robin Hood? Not one mage in the whole story, and Friar Tuck never cast a spell. Not even a comparison. If the world of Dark Ages Nottingham is your campaign setting, then I guess your martial classes can be gods amongst the common man, but if you did have a Pathfinder wizard in that campaign, he would rule all of Britannia.
Mentioning guys like Gilgamesh and Heracles - that is exactly what Mythic is all about, so if they're your example for this thread, then it seems you're in FAVOR of slapping Mythic Tiers onto martials?
It is possible to raise the relative tier of martials with encounter design. An adventure that escalates into an all-out war with civilian bystanders that forces the party to keep fighting without rest or resupply plays to the strengths of a Fighter, whose only limited resource is hit points, while a 10th-level Wizard is a poor substitute for a 5th-level Warrior once he's run dry.
I'd look at adjusting encounters and adventures so supernova tactics create problems - alienate allies, put you on the radar of far more powerful enemies, while the more mundane efforts of martials and skill-monkeys remain relevant, effective, and discreet.
yes the fighter will totally help the party get to needed location like the wizard... wait the wizard has teleport... and can animate bloody skeletons and have them defend locations.... and can create illusions to make the gate look like more wall... and can craft magical arms for the defenders of the town.... and a whole lot of other stuff...
tbh, constantly being on a timer get's boring, and the caster is actually best at defending on the spot, not attacking the enemies fortress, so let them come
even then a martial has HP and has to get that back some how. probably with a caster. it was mentioned in the other thread, more encounters don't defeat casters, maybe it defeats a single caster in the group, but a team of casters will have spells to spare.
on topic:
mythic might be enough, we had a thread a while ago of a 10 tier mundane and a no tier caster, and they were about even if i remember. some mythic just ignores magic.
I think it might be most efficient to continue this discussion privately with like-minded thinkers.
At this point we've had 3-4 topics in quick succession touching on martial-caster disparity (and that is a new twist in my experience on this board, usually it's all contained in one topic at a time). And each topic starts over from scratch in defining/explaining/proving the disparity. Unless people enjoy that part of the conversation, I suppose, but it can get somewhat heated.
Edit: Or at least stick to one topic.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Stop talking about "martials" like you're talking about a single class.
I didn't. You might have noticed that, in the first post of this thread, I aid "any weak-tier class" and I suggested giving different amounts of Mythic Tiers to different classes based on their neediness. Clearly not talking about one class at all.
While your premise that martials do have nice things, it usually breaks down to this:
Ooooh, don't play THAT martial class, it's awful no matter what you do. Here, try THIS one. It mostly sucks and is full of trap options, but if you take this ONE archetype and these TWO specific TRAITS and focus on it with these FIVE specific feats, well, then you can do all right - but only if you play it exactly that way. Oh wait, here's another choice, but again, you have to ignore the 30 worthless archetypes and take only this ONE that works and BUILD it to perfection to give it any chance of being useful after level 10. Etc.
That's not really having nice things, unless you think a strait jacket is a nice thing. Being forced to play ONE way is not a nice thing; it's a restriction. Having a hundred options when 99 of them will fail means you have no options at all.
In this thread (and a couple others) I'm looking for a broader solution to fix ALL martial classes (see, plural, more than one class) so that people CAN choose to play them in ways that (without the fixes) people would say are crazy bad broken.
I want a new guy to sit down at my table and say "I want to play a monk" and not have all the other players cringe.
I want a new guy to sit down at my table and say "I want to play a sword and board fighter and NO, he won't TWF with his shield" and not make all the other players cringe.
I want a new guy to sit down at my table and say "I want to play a barbarian" and not immediately have the rest of the players start telling him how to "build" for Pounce and Superstition - I want that guy to be able to say "Yeah, but I don't want to be that kind of barbarian" without making all the other players cringe.
And mostly, after 8 or 10 levels, I NEVER want any of those guys to say to me "Damn, my character sucks, all I ever do is watch the other players solve everything and maybe I can help a little if I'm lucky."
I think it might be most efficient to continue this discussion privately with like-minded thinkers.
At this point we've had 3-4 topics in quick succession touching on martial-caster disparity (and that is a new twist in my experience on this board, usually it's all contained in one topic at a time). And each topic starts over from scratch in defining/explaining/proving the disparity. Unless people enjoy that part of the conversation, I suppose, but it can get somewhat heated.
Edit: Or at least stick to one topic.
I get what you want, but in this case I started two separate topics on two very separate specific ideas, hoping to get a thread's worth of discussion on those ideas - buying them on page 10 of an existing thread would not accomplish that.
Yes, it's irritating to have the same objections repeatedly on each thread, but I think it's the only way.
Stop disagreeing with me, it's not fair?
@ healing, the ones that use wands the best are casters. :/ don't need UMD, and can even get some nice low level encounter enders along with their wand of CLW/IH
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Stop disagreeing with me, it's not fair?
I'd say, "Stop going off-topic, it's not helpful."
Like I said before, this is like if the "Random Race Setting Creation" thread got derailed by people who hate non-core races in their games. If you don't dig the central conceit necessary to engage in the creative exercise, why try to ruin it for those who do?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
or like if someone wanted third party material, and people derailed it by saying 3pp sucks or something.
Or like if someone wanted to talk about adding Mythic Tiers and people derailed it by not talking about that...
;)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm just annoyed with people who want to play BatWizard getting pissy because they want people who want to play HerculesFighter held to differing standards of 'realism'.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or like if someone wanted to talk about adding Mythic Tiers and people derailed it by not talking about that...
;)
that's not a metaphor anymore that's just what's actually happening, stop derailing our derailment about making metaphors for a derail.
I just want my fighter to have a self-heal, that's all ;_;
Not fair to only give that to fighters - that would open up questions about why can the fighter heal but the rogue cannot, or the wizard cannot.
But what about something like this:
Every character gets Fast Healing X, where X = BAB/5.
(or for those who don't like math, X is always equal to the number of iterative attacks you're allowed).
This way everyone gets it, even the top-tier classes, but they get less of it. It removes the necessity of a Healbot (I know, not exactly a necessity but many groups think it is, now they won't) but it doesn't remove the necessity of a condition-removal-bot.
To me that feels too fast. I wouldn't want it to actually be much of a factor in combat. So maybe divide it by 10, so X = BAB/50. This way a 1st level fighter (or 2nd level rogue, etc.) would gain 1 HP every 50 rounds (5 minutes). He could fully heal in about an hour, which has the added benefit of slowing down the adventuring day (prolonging it past 15 minutes).