| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
do you think i should have a badass talent to allow you to qualify for crafting feats using your badass tier for your caster level?
Eh, Master Craftsman already fills that role.
Perhaps one that builds off that.
Legendary Craftsman
Prerequisites: Master Craftsman (Feat), BT 6
Benefit: Your crafting skills exceed any known mortal. Gain a Magic Item Creation Feat of your choice (you are not limited to Craft Wondrous Item and Craft Magic Arms and Armor). You may use the skill ranks used to qualify for Master Craftsman for the skill checks required to craft those items. Additionally, you no longer take the -5 penalty for not knowing the proper spell.
do you think i should have a badass talent to allow you to qualify for crafting feats using your badass tier for your caster level?No, I think you should have a badass talent that GIVES you crafting feats that use your relevant Skill Ranks as your caster level.
Stole the words right out of my mouth.
On a side note, I feel that it's extremely necessary to make a Badass Talent that gives more of a bonus to combat manuvers, so that a Badass can actually do things like grapple a Huge or larger creature with good chances of success, trip multi-limbed creatures, etc.
EDIT: And Rynjin makes it even better. Forgot about Master Craftsman there for a moment.
Trap the Soul already exists. And Hellfire Ray. And probably a few others.
There are some subtle differences. Both are much easier to undo. With Trap the Soul, there's a physical object that can be dealt with, and any commoner can smash the gem and return the body without even the need for resurrection magic. Hellfire Ray simply adds a caster level check to the process of returning the soul, which adds to the expected cost and time but doesn't prevent resurrection. (And there are lots of ways to add bonuses to caster level checks if time and cost are factors).
The proposed Terrifying End ability cannot be undone at all, and the Utter End can't be undone by a typical caster.
Basically, if I'm slain by Trap the Soul, then the party has some work to do, which means an adventure hook. If I'm slain by Terrifying End, there's literally nothing that can be done at that point, except possibly right the table after I flipped it.
hmm i kinda just didn't want to make multiple talents, but i suppose a talent that just lets you pick any craft feat and use your badass tier for it works as well.
probably will mix in Legendary craftsman.
edit:
Legendary Craftsman
Prereq: Master Craftsman feat, BT 6
Description: The badass is not limited to a single field of crafting. The badass may use his craft skill to craft any object that can be crafted, and craft any type of magic item using the Master craftsman feat. The badass also gains any Item Creation feat of his choice and uses his craft skill to create any items from that feat. This talent may be taken multiple times, each time you may select another feat.
I feel this is sloppier than it could be
Trap the Soul already exists. And Hellfire Ray. And probably a few others.There are some subtle differences. Both are much easier to undo. With Trap the Soul, there's a physical object that can be dealt with, and any commoner can smash the gem and return the body without even the need for resurrection magic. Hellfire Ray simply adds a caster level check to the process of returning the soul, which adds to the expected cost and time but doesn't prevent resurrection. (And there are lots of ways to add bonuses to caster level checks if time and cost are factors).
The proposed Terrifying End ability cannot be undone at all, and the Utter End can't be undone by a typical caster.
Basically, if I'm slain by Trap the Soul, then the party has some work to do, which means an adventure hook. If I'm slain by Terrifying End, there's literally nothing that can be done at that point, except possibly right the table after I flipped it.
I'm surprised you aren't seeing the story hook here. You want a way to counter it? Fine, go to the afterlife and talk them out of their fear. Remind them why they're a hero (or villain). You're a badass! This should be bread and butter for you!
Badass Craftsman
Prereq: BT 3
Description: a true badass of his craft extends beyond the ken of mortal makingsA badass with this talent treats his ranks in craft skills as caster level for use with Item Creation Feats, and is treated as having any Item Creation Feat for which his Craft Skill Ranks hold sufficient Caster Level to Qualify.
Examples include Brew Potion through Craft: Alchemy, Craft Magic Arms and Armor through Craft: Arms and Armor [seriously who splits those?] and Craft Wondrous Item through Craft: Jeweler, Craft: Leatherworker, Craft: Tailor etc.
i like how yours is better, i'm going to change mine a bit
edit:
Legendary Craftsman
Prereq: Master Craftsman feat, BT 6
Description: The badass becomes an exemplar in a field or fields of crafting. The badass adds half his tier as a bonus to any craft checks. The badass gains any item creation feats that are relevant to his craft skill automatically, using his craft ranks as his caster level to qualify. Craft weapons would yield Craft magical Weapons and Armor, and craft (construct) would yield the Craft Construct feat.
Not entirely sure how to feel about Craft Construct. I feel that one should remain in the domain of magic myself, but I acknowledge that everyone else will not feel this way. Also, technically the -5 penalty from not knowing the spell will be there as well.
Not entirely sure how to feel about Craft Construct. I feel that one should remain in the domain of magic myself, but I acknowledge that everyone else will not feel this way. Also, technically the -5 penalty from not knowing the spell will be there as well.
the -5 is mitigated by pure badassery(add half their tier to all craft checks).
but i'm pretty sure i included that because i imagined a guy who didn't know how to cast any magic putting together a toy soldier
I've used this idea to great success in a couple games.
I gave 1 Mythic tier every 4 levels to martial classes.
I completely removed Mythic Power Attack and Mythic Vital Strike, but that's about it. That kept the damage numbers within reason and encouraged players to take abilities that increased their available options rather than simply focusing on DPR.
I encourage others to try this.
I think it's a matter of perception. I think that a major reason why martials don't get nice things is because contributors to the rules forums reflexively interpret all rules and build options in the most restrictive way possible. I've seen even worse: in some cases contributors to this forum actually disregard the text of the rules! They declare that certain rules must have been written in error and that justifies dismissing them altogether. And the certitude that the rules must be written in error is the prejudice that martials can't have nice things!
Another way martials could have nice things is if GMs would open up the Open Source Gaming License, letting players take 3.5 Feats for their Pathfinder Characters. But that would be really opening the floodgates, then!
well i mentioned this, on the rules forum people should interpret as restrictive as possible, in the same way a home game should disregard any rules that aren't fun.
hence why i am making this thread.
the problem is, is that no matter how powerful you build your martial, he can never help a party travel 500 miles in a day, while a caster can travel a thousand or so in a second.
also, fighter do, in fact, need to rest to recover their hit points, which need to be replenished by the caster or at least the proxy caster with the love stick.
also, fighter do, in fact, need to rest to recover their hit points, which need to be replenished by the caster or at least the proxy caster with the love stick.
You could do something similar to what 5E does: make hit dice an out-of-combat healing resource. You rest (similar conditions to how stamina recharges) and then 'spend' a hit dice by rolling it and adding your Con mod to the result in healing. You can choose to keep rolling hit dice and healing this way over the course of the 10 minute rest period. You regain your spent hit dice the next morning after 8 hours of rest.
I think that if the restrictiveness of interpretation doesn't go beyond the RAW, then martials can indeed have nice things. It takes more creative character building to make powerful martial characters than to make powerful wizards, but it can be done. And even in the absence of optimization, it's not just about being the one who inflicts the most hit points. Different character classes have different tactical, strategic, and utilitarian capabilities that other classes don't but need. Fighters don't need to rest to recover their feats.
The bolded is something that you really need to back up with a couple of examples. Because here is my response to that...
Barring very loose usage of the terms "creative" "powerful", "martial" or "RAW", I don't think the above is true, except maybe in the case of a couple of well known "power" builds (beast totem barbarian, for example).
Feel free to try to prove me wrong.
As for different classes having different capabilities that others don't have(typo?) but need...what capabilities does a party of wizard, druid, cleric, bard "don't have but need"? What about a party of Fighter, Rogue, Monk, Swashbuckler. See the difference. Oh, and if you dispute that a lot of things are needed, instead come up with a list of all the capabilities that one group has, but the other doesn't. How many does the caster party have, and how many does the mundane party have. See the difference. The only one I can see for the mundane group is "is slightly less screwed when trapped in an AMF field". Even the "can go longer" thing is bubcus, because druids, clerics and bards can get by on martial capabilities and maybe long duration buffs. It's only the wizard that becomes a commoner when out of spells. OTOH, the mundanes have to rely on consumables a lot of the time instead of class abilities, so they will actually run out of resources faster (since the casters can pick up those consumables too but actually can get things like flying in class).
And if the fighter spends a little of his own cash for a healing wand for a buddy to use or some healing potions, what difference does that make? It's an easily solved problem - why do these always seem to assume that the fighter is naked in an arena.
i mentioned that whom ever is using the love stick is simply a proxy caster.
Which is utterly irrelevant.And if the fighter spends a little of his own cash for a healing wand for a buddy to use or some healing potions, what difference does that make? It's an easily solved problem - why do these always seem to assume that the fighter is naked in an arena.i mentioned that whom ever is using the love stick is simply a proxy caster.
except it isn't, the fighter is still reliant on a caster to overcome his weaknesses.
basically, i find it an issue that a martial has to become a fake caster to compete.
So in your magic fairy land monsters neither have Reach at level 12, nor have any ranged option to...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.
No. Not all of them do. This one doesn't. Simple as that. It was a melee enemy. As such its options require it to get close.
The funny thing? A lot of those enemies will eat a caster for lunch due to saves, resistances, or force the mage to blow 2-3 high level spells.
Limited resources.
The fighter can go all day long.
Also, good lucK tripping a guy with no feats...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I had a gp for everytime someone said "all day long" in these sorts of threads, I'd get twice as much value out of it as a non-caster.
So your wizard gets the benefit of no cleric spells, your cleric gets the benefit of no wizard spells, etcetera, right?Which is utterly irrelevant.And if the fighter spends a little of his own cash for a healing wand for a buddy to use or some healing potions, what difference does that make? It's an easily solved problem - why do these always seem to assume that the fighter is naked in an arena.i mentioned that whom ever is using the love stick is simply a proxy caster.except it isn't, the fighter is still reliant on a caster to overcome his weaknesses.
basically, i find it an issue that a martial has to become a fake caster to compete.
I don't even remotely know what you're trying to say with this statement.
I don't even remotely know what you're trying to say with this statement.So your wizard gets the benefit of no cleric spells, your cleric gets the benefit of no wizard spells, etcetera, right?Which is utterly irrelevant.And if the fighter spends a little of his own cash for a healing wand for a buddy to use or some healing potions, what difference does that make? It's an easily solved problem - why do these always seem to assume that the fighter is naked in an arena.i mentioned that whom ever is using the love stick is simply a proxy caster.except it isn't, the fighter is still reliant on a caster to overcome his weaknesses.
basically, i find it an issue that a martial has to become a fake caster to compete.
If a fighter using a wand is a 'fake caster' then a wizard benefiting from a cure want is a 'fake cleric'
Its an absurd differentiation.'
no not really, the wizard has other means like infernal healing, also they can get int to UMD with pragmatic activator, both stats that aren't good to get high on a martial. basically, no they're still a caster and a martial NEEDS magic to keep going or falls flat just alongside the caster who's running out of spells. The caster for instance never needs to buy a stick of stabbing or armor class or what ever.
everything trickles down from the full caster's pockets.
This game was an arena fight with two players lining up naked on others opposite sides of an arena and somebody yelling fight that might have some meaning. But instead I thought it was a quality people who interact and help each other
"Quality" people who interact and help each other can provide magical buffs for their team mates. Or come with a free meatshield that you don't have to pay. And don't just leech party resources. Seriously, why would someone give a Fighter a cut of gold, when he's only marginally more useful then an Eidolon or Animated Skeleton/Object. And even then only sometimes.
|
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.
There's a simple f~*+ing solution...don't f*#+ing click on those threads.
There isn't going to be a solution to the martial-caster disparity. Not only does Paizo categorically deny that it exists, they also seem intent on exacerbating it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Soldiers rely on engineers and factory workers to build their heavy weapons, vehicles, and basic equipment, but you wouldn't want to do away with your soldiers and just have an army of engineers and factory workers.
The problem is that a Caster works better with another Caster that can fight than he does with a Fighter. More spells, more buffs, more options.
Even in the "partying with a caster" category, non-casters fall behind. Why have a Fighter when you could have a Wildshape Druid, or an Arcane Duelist Bard, or a Warpriest?
In short, The Factory Workers can be just as good Soldiers while still fueling the war machine.
Just because Napoleon's cannons may have killed more Prussians than Napoleon's bayonets doesn't mean that there weren't legitimate heroes amongst the infantry.
The problem is that casters and martials aren't bayonets and cannons. Those all fill distinctly different roles.
No, what we have at the moment is this.
The wizard is an MLRS. They can destroy things with no warning from very far away, and don't even need to be in the same country to wreck your day
The cleric is an M4 with 50 attachments hanging off it. Not spectacular at anything, but damn flexible
The druid is a squad automatic weapon. They mulch things, and lay down serious suppressive fire in the form of battlefield control.
The bard is a suppressed Glock. Not as showey, not as powerful but used in just the right way they can get things done a lot easier than the heavy guns due to their tendancy to keep a low profile
The fighter is a ****ing musket.
The rogue is a flintlock pistol.
Now, in different situations, you will want different tools. However, that tool isn't the musket or the flintlock. Sure, you can kill people with a musket or a flintlock. People did it for a while. That still doesn't mean that you should actually ever use one given the opportunity to walk around with a SAW or a 9mm pistol instead.
That's what a lot of the people on this thread are trying to say. Mundane types can't keep up with casters. They can fill some roles, but casters fill the same roles better and do other things too.
As for using "creativity" to make things work...let me put it this way. It is possible to hammer a nail in with your forehead and pull it out with your teeth. A better idea is to use a hammer and not break your face.
There isn't going to be a solution to the martial-caster disparity. Not only does Paizo categorically deny that it exists, they also seem intent on exacerbating it.
I wouldn't even go so far as to say they've denied it. They've acted on it many times before. Look at Crane Wing. Look at Divine Protection. Look at Charmed Life. Look at Fighters, Rogues, non-archetype Monks, compared to Paladins, Barbarians, Magi, Inquisitors, Summoners, and every single full-progression caster, look at the f!&*ing Oracles (yes, I'm double-pegging them. You know why), and that's just the tip of the iceberg.
They've released so much content, and a lot of it caters to certain classes that have certain features, and a majority of that content always involve the same classes with the same features, book after book.
Don't get me wrong, I understand Paizo has to keep pumping product to keep their business blossoming, and that's natural for a company to do, because to do otherwise is self-destructive. But a thing that can be worse than product bloat, is product bloat that's selective in what it's bloating. With them doing what I said above, adding more and more content to the same select few all the time just adds to this disparity we argue about (that, with a certain product publication they've endorsed themselves, is conclusive proof they understand there is a disparity).
The only thing they did right to try and curve some of those disparity problems was with that publication, and that's the Unchained book, and it's a shame they only did a select few classes, as well as a few (yet very intriguing) rules. Maybe if they release an Unchained 2, it would be an even bigger step in the right direction, altering more classes that need it, providing equal options to every class, not just the one or two they like so much in the standard publications, and a lot more that my "puny brain" can't come up with.
With all that being said, it's quite clear that Paizo, regarding their stand-alone Pathfinder game, doesn't give two damns about balance any more than the thoughts they give for PFS. Hint; they don't go past the levels where Martials get trivialized on a roundly basis. The same exact reasons why PFS plays the way it plays, is the same reasons we're complaining about: The disparity becomes more and more prevalent if PFS deviated from what the Book RAW/RAI does and doesn't allow.
It's also quite clear that Paizo trusts the players themselves to come up with fair rules for their own tables (as they have with PFS), which is precisely what Rule 0 is, and why such a thing was put in the book.
I would like to make one correction, though: There can be a solution to the martial-caster disparity. But that won't come without tearing down the brick house and redoing it all over again from scratch.
Is there disparity? Yes, not even Paizo has promised that all classes would be equal. What I have yet to see that it is a problem on the level that some of habeen claiming. The only real classes that needed fixing were the ons served in Unchained! three that had problems, and one that was clearly out of balance.
If you're playing PFS, then you're not going to see the problem. Because Paizo knows the problems, and fixed the problems in PFS.
Unfortunately, they basically made the game E12, because they realized the disparity becomes extremely powerful from 13th level onward. Access to 7th level spell isn't a joke.
There are a lot more problems they could've addressed with Unchained that they needed to address. They barely touched the disparity via the Summoner, the Barbarian (essentially nerfed, but still better than the others), Monk (re-worked, not sure if better or worse yet, though archetyped Monks probably still better), and Rogue (workable, but still garbage compared to a real martial). They are either going to split other changes into an Unchained 2, or they decided to cut their losses and realize it takes an entire system makeover to fix the real problems of the disparity.
So, around the original idea.
I think going into Mythic is a can of worms that requires too much oversight and just another book, especially one that I've found to be unpopular around my DMs . . . and myself.
I don't think we'll ever see casters and non-casters nearing each other in power and effectiveness. Magic is a force of overwhelming power, and in the world of Pathfinder, it has relatively few consequences. It's magic.
One of the most important things, I think, is to try and make martial characters (the rogue, monk, fighter are those who mainly come to mind) capable of things that a wizard cannot simply duplicate, and one of the main ways to do that is to make them unlike martial monsters.\
Similar to that badass system, I created something for fighters to make them seem relevant and flexible. I re-titled them Heroes, and at third level and every three levels thereafter, gave them a new Feat of Heroics, similar to the class features that alchemists and magi pick up. However, I made the fighter ones hugely versatile, and encouraged them to be campaign-fitting. Mounts, bound items, damage negation, contact with a deity: relatively common things among other classes. For rogues, I just gave a significant boost in power to a lot of rogue talents. Monks . . . monks required a lot of re-working.
But I think PF is a game where magic simply outstrips non-magic to a degree that cannot hope to be accounted for. While I really like concepts like Shadowrun's magic-or-mech essence, the Pathfinder universe so far does not have a force of the universe that benefits people without magic or with less magic. If you were to turn something like Heroism into a fundamental component of the game and grant it disproportionately to non-magical classes, perhaps they could gain the power and versatility to stand beside magical classes, but it's not going to happen in this current Pathfinder game.
or they decided to cut their losses and realize it takes an entire system makeover to fix the real problems of the disparity.I remain doubtful that they'll put that as a higher priority than backwards compatibility when Pathfinder v2 rolls around.
IF Pathfinder 2nd edition rolls around. Which is doubtful, and I don't think backwards compatibility will be their big focus with that. Adventure Paths and Companion Books are still being published, and is probably their stable source of income, because these are being published constantly. If they want an influx, then they can expand on the Unchained line some more, making Unchained 2 to help rebalance other classes that certainly need it, implement other optional rules, etc. Mythic Adventures 2 is also a possibility.
They're still trying to expand more options with books like Ultimate Intrigue, and I imagine they still have a few more products like that in mind (Beastiary 5).
The only time they'll work on a Second Edition Pathfinder is when they run out of all other options for content publication for their first edition.
ooooh yay big numbers, still not the point.