The prerequisites are all stuff you'd want, anyway, if you're going for the capstone, are they not? I detest feat taxes. The level prereqs are just there to prevent dipping.
Oh and what he suggests is, again, similair to a Magus spell. Draw the line creates a line around you and gives you increased AoO equal to ypur casting stat. Combined with Combqt Reflexes and Kensai, you are lookin at over 10 AoO a round....
The prerequisites are all stuff you'd want, anyway, if you're going for the capstone, are they not? I detest feat taxes. The level prereqs are just there to prevent dipping.
Who wants combat expertise...
Oh and what he suggests is, again, similair to a Magus spell. Draw the line creates a line around you and gives you increased AoO equal to ypur casting stat. Combined with Combqt Reflexes and Kensai, you are lookin at over 10 AoO a round....
You are absolutely right that essentially de-mystified Magus abilities are an important part of the inspiration for some of my house rules regarding martials.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh and what he suggests is, again, similair to a Magus spell. Draw the line creates a line around you and gives you increased AoO equal to ypur casting stat. Combined with Combqt Reflexes and Kensai, you are lookin at over 10 AoO a round....You are absolutely right that essentially de-mystified Magus abilities are an important part of the inspiration for some of my house rules regarding martials.
Oh yeah, but the fact they made them spells annoys me since that means it is HIGHLY unlikely we will ever see something like them for classes that dont have magic.
For instance, the spell Blurred Movement. Should that not have been something a.rogue does? I mean... casters get blur so a blur conditional on movement should be ok right? NOPE. Spell... so dont expect your rogue to get it ever... I mean.. its just ridiculous...
The prerequisites are all stuff you'd want, anyway, if you're going for the capstone, are they not? I detest feat taxes. The level prereqs are just there to prevent dipping.Who wants combat expertise...
Mine is essentially the improved version without the crappy Int prereq. Specifically when trying to lock down an area with reach AoOs, it can be very useful in fending off whatever attacks might get through.
Ah ok I didnt notice haha
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What makes me sad is that, especially for people of the video game generation (like myself), the Magus is more a iconic "warrior" than the fighter himself. With Kensai it gets even more insulting since they count most of their levels as FIGHTER for feat prereqs... what a lot of people think of a badass warrior is not the foghter anymore... its the magus... thats sad..
1 Ki point gives you +4 AC for 1 round
1 first level spell gives you +4 AC for 1 hour/level
This is the scope of the disparity even when martials are given a resource pool. Granted potions of mage armor exist. But that just leads back to the fact that martials have to pay for what casters get for using a tiny fraction of their daily resources.
Casters can even get bracers of armor half price with a single feat. That's an extra 12.5k gold of effective character wealth saved by 10th level (for +5 bracers of armor). That's not even counting the other wondrous items crafted like a Cloak of Resistance or headband/belt.
That right there is probably a 40% increase in effective wealth AND there are SIX other magic items slots that can be filled at half price with a crafting feat.
Just for an example:
+2 Amulet of natural armor... add another 4k to the savings..
Robe of Components... another 2.5k saved
Spectacles of Understanding 1.5k saved
BOOTS OF SPEED BECAUSE YOU GOTTA GO FAST 6k saved
Gloves of Storing because you need to hide your feminine beauty products somewhere 5k savedThat's going to amount to an approximate 80% increase in wealth by 10th level, easily leaving you enough funds for scrolls, wands, metamagic rods, rings and whatever else you need.
And to add insult to injury, Hedge Magician is a trait that shaves off an extra 5% off the cost of creating wondrous items. No feat/trait combo available to martials delivers that kind of raw power increase. This is just one aspect of what makes non-casters inferior to casters. YES they need better things.
This is Rant-Man signing off
A point of contention here.
The monks AC bonus from the Ki expenditure and the spell provide two differing sets of bonuses.
That means they apply to two differing sets of AC. One Flatfooted and one Touch. Armor and dodge.
There's also big differences in action economy and distance. Ki expenditure is a swift action which makes it more flexible in terms of how you use it tactically. Do you ue it before moving to fortify against AoO's? Or do you use it after a full attack to keep the retaliating full attack mitigated?
If you're caught flatfooted its virtually meaningless anyway.
Mage Armor is meant to be a "fire and forget" buff that is a nice bonus in the early game but won't often last a whole dungeon while becoming a staple use of first level slots in the mid to late game.
It can also be cast on others and for some classes, specifically the monk, to benefit them as well. Since it's a standard action cast its uses in combat are very limited at best at a level where you can do way more terrifying things.
So, as a comparison it's not really a good one. They occupy two different spaces in terms of the toolbox available. The monk uses the extra AC to boost his already considerable defenses (monks if nothing else can be really good defensively) whereas the caster uses the Mage Armor to give him access to a bonus not normally available to him or to boost the defenses of others in the same boat (such as the monk).
Now, if you want to have a better comparison, and one that actually ties in to the crafter argument than you want to look at the difference between Feather Fall and Slow Fall.
Slow Fall comes online at 4th level and eliminates 20ft. of distance off of a fall. He has to be within arms length (aka adjacent) of a wall and it's automatic expending no resources in the process. The distance eliminated goes up until it reaches infinite at 20th level.
Contrast this to feather fall. It comes online at 1st and only requires that the caster have the spell either memorized or in hand (i.e. a scroll or staff). It also targets multiple creatures. And while not exactly infinite the nature of immediate actions means that the caster could, if so willing, cast it a mere inch from impact and gain the full effects.
The only real argument that feather fall is not objectively better in every way to slow fall is that the wizard has to have it.
Which doesn't hold much weight once you factor in at every spell level afterwards an arcane caster has an option to negate gravity as a threat relegating feather fall to a mere emergency option.
At 2nd level there's spider climb.
At 3rd there's fly.
Eventually theres overland flight.
And eventually there's Winds of Vengeance.
So when the monk can finally slide down an 800foot canyon without harm the wizard has become Boreas, The North Wind.
Yes Tark, it's about the same, the biggest difference is that when the Sorcerer is reverting to one of his lower level [no Sorcerer can cast a top level spell every round of every combat every day, perhaps top and second to top level will manage most days] the Martial is using one of his schticks at top level.
The lack of limited resources is more theoretical than practical, but it does come in really handy those times the adventuring day is forcefully stretched beyond its usual ken.
Handy, yes. But mostly meaningless in the long run because the group is still tied to the lowest important resource pool.
Even extending the adventure day is not without its perils or mitigating factors.
If you've made those abilities as powerful or equivalent to that level's most powerful spells, you've made a design mistake.
If you've made them less powerful you've gotten it right from a balancing perspective (i.e. at will being less impactful than limited resource) but didn't necessarily address the imbalance. Since groups are incentivized to refresh immediately upon a certain resource pool dropping below a given threshold at will abilities only get to see as much use as those abilities allow with their only advantage coming from situations wherein everyone else is forced to contribute far less meaningfully.
However even that is problematic as the pools that players tend to take as cues to rest are those that are most important to continued gameplay (i.e. healing, combat equalizers, and utility effects) thus it necessarily makes things more difficult for the group regardless.
The solution to me would require a bit more compromise if we're not changing casters all that much.
The trouble with the resource pool vs. constant design concept is that players will always be incentivized to value the limited but necessarily powerful pool more readily than the constant.
That's why, love it or hate it, the resource pool is a favorite design choice for modern pathfinder stuff. You'll notice every single Occult class draws off of one or more resource pools even the least magically inclined, the medium, has a system of influence that they must carefully manage in order to achieve success.
What it allows is parity between multiple resource pools and gives players a chance to both nova or carefully spread out responsibility and conserve.
That's soemthign else I'm observing with my current group of all casters (Hunter, Magus, Witch, Oracle). If we all get the ability to heal with the same capacity as our Oracle we can spread the responsibility and extend our adventuring days since no one pool will rapidly be drained
Ultimately, to me the diffrence between martial and caster should not be long but weak versus short but powerful but physical and easier versus magical and difficult.
Like, let me talk about the difference in that between a Rogue using Disable Device and a caster utilizing Knock. Under the current system the rogue can disable device all day everyday but it's difficult and has a chance of failure. The caster has to expend a resource but does so in a binary way that mostly succeeds.
Under the system that would be ideal to me the rogue and the caster don't expend resources in order to unlock the door. Instead they do so in different but similar ways. Both would have to make skill checks (disable device versus spellcraft) and both would have to expend a resource to make it easier. However, the skill check would be easier for the rogue but harder for the caster. The trade off would be the rogue has to be physically present with tools in hand. In order to unlock the door the rogue has to reach the door physically. However the caster could do so from across the room and perhaps with resource investment from around the corner as well without physically touching the door.
Now, if we know anything about the terrible door menace that means the caster is largely shielded from the consequences of failure (or if something nasty is behind that door the consequences of success). Ultimately it balances out as the rogue and caster have to decide among themselves the choice between a higher chance of success of opening the door versus mitigation of consequence from being near it and whose resources are more important for the future beyond that door.
Now, please keep in midn this isn't a dig on your game but a look at the concept through the lens of someone who under certain circumstances would have to sit down and put this concept to rules and put those rules up for other tables to use.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Giving martials the power comparable to full caster necessarily imply making them casters, stuff like "I hit reality with a sword so hard that I plane shift" is just casting a spell. Which is not necessarily a bad thing, but it is understandable that some people don't like.
IMHO, the above would create a very crazy game, the DM will not only have to take into account the big amount of caster crazy stuff but also a high amount of martials crazy stuffs. The best option, in my not so humble opinion, is to first fix the casting system and the spells to a way more reasonable levels.
Can we even talk about how crazy some people have become over magic? Like with this crap? Where you're not even allowed to do anything even a little extraordinary, otherwise it's "casting a spell" and "I don't want fighters to just be wizards with another name."
4e really got the bad rap from players accusing it of turning martials into casters, except it never actually did (except for the couple of times it did, except those were new classes). That's the difference between 4e and Pathfinder, if you want to play a spellsword type character - in Pathfinder you're shunted into the Magus/Eldritch Knight class where you 'cast spells' that you'd see off a wizard's spellbook while you fight, in 4e you just ARE a spellsword and you get powers (not damn spells) that accompany your class.
I had a character in 4e who could teleport, turn invisible, walk on walls, and attack people with raw shadowstuff at will and not a ONCE was that character "just a fighter who can cast spells."
I mean, don't get me wrong, Pathfinder has some amazing NOT-spellcasting fighters with magic...they just happen to mostly be gimped ass PrCs like the Shadowdancer.
Like, let me talk about the difference in that between a Rogue using Disable Device and a caster utilizing Knock. Under the current system the rogue can disable device all day everyday but it's difficult and has a chance of failure. The caster has to expend a resource but does so in a binary way that mostly succeeds.
While I overall agreement with your assessment, I don't think Knock is the best example.
The caster essentially rolls a Disable Device check using his caster level +10 in place of his DD modifier. At level 3, that means the caster rolls a Disable Device check of +13. In comparison we have an average level 3 rogue - he has max ranks (+3), Disable Device is a class skill (+3), masterwork thieve's tools (+2) and he has 18 dex (+4). His total bonus is +12. The gap between the wizard and the rogue is noticeable but not dramatic, and the rogue has an advantage in that he can T10 which is enough to open an average lock (DC 20) or T20 to open a good lock (DC 30). The wizard has an above average chance of succeeding on the average lock (needing to roll 7+) but poor odds against the good lock (17+). One poor roll wastes the spell slot for no gain.
Let's do the same comparison at level 10. The wizard is looking at a +20, 10 from CL and 10 from Knock. The rogue in the meantime has 10 ranks (+10), class skill bonus (+3), masterwork tools (+2), and has a dex of 22 (+6) for a total of +21. The rogue is guaranteed being able to open an Amazing lock (DC 40), whereas the wizard's best shot at the same lock is a coin flip. As the levels progress the gap changes in favor of the rogue, provided he keeps investing skill ranks. It's fairly easy to find other Disable Device bonuses, whereas caster level bonuses are usually expensive and hard to come by.
Ultimately though, the wizard and the rogue are doing the same thing - the rogue has to invest skill ranks to match the wizard's check but he can do it all day and he can use the skill for other things as well, while the wizard gets a good modifier v locks "for free" but has to invest spell slots, and is not guaranteed a success via T10 or T20.
A better example is perhaps Rogue Stealth v Wizard Invisibility, where even a level 20 rogue needs magic in order to replicate the things a level 3 wizard can do - namely bypass the cover/concealment limitations.
Like, let me talk about the difference in that between a Rogue using Disable Device and a caster utilizing Knock. Under the current system the rogue can disable device all day everyday but it's difficult and has a chance of failure. The caster has to expend a resource but does so in a binary way that mostly succeeds.While I overall agreement with your assessment, I don't think Knock is the best example.
The caster essentially rolls a Disable Device check using his caster level +10 in place of his DD modifier. At level 3, that means the caster rolls a Disable Device check of +13. In comparison we have an average level 3 rogue - he has max ranks (+3), Disable Device is a class skill (+3), masterwork thieve's tools (+2) and he has 18 dex (+4). His total bonus is +12. The gap between the wizard and the rogue is noticeable but not dramatic, and the rogue has an advantage in that he can T10, which is enough to open an average lock. The wizard has an above average chance of succeeding on the same check (needing to roll a 7 or better), but it's not guaranteed. One poor roll wastes the spell slot for no gain.
Let's do the same comparison at level 10. The wizard is looking at a +20, 10 from CL and 10 from Knock. The rogue in the meantime has 10 ranks (+10), class skill bonus (+3), masterwork tools (+2), and has a dex of 22 (+6) for a total of +21. As the levels progress the gap changes in favor of the rogue, provided he keeps investing skill ranks. It's fairly easy to find other Disable Device bonuses, whereas caster level bonuses are usually expensive and hard to come by.
Ultimately though, the wizard and the rogue are doing the same thing - the rogue has to invest skill ranks to match the wizard's check but he can do it all day and he can use the skill for other things as well, while the wizard gets a good modifier v locks "for free" but has to invest spell slots, and is not guaranteed a success via T10.
A better example is perhaps Rogue Stealth v Wizard Invisibility, where...
I think it's because I keep misremembering Knock as a binary "and now its unlocked" spell. :P
Honestly it sounds like you'd rather play 4e than Pathfinder...Giving martials the power comparable to full caster necessarily imply making them casters, stuff like "I hit reality with a sword so hard that I plane shift" is just casting a spell. Which is not necessarily a bad thing, but it is understandable that some people don't like.
IMHO, the above would create a very crazy game, the DM will not only have to take into account the big amount of caster crazy stuff but also a high amount of martials crazy stuffs. The best option, in my not so humble opinion, is to first fix the casting system and the spells to a way more reasonable levels.
Can we even talk about how crazy some people have become over magic? Like with this crap? Where you're not even allowed to do anything even a little extraordinary, otherwise it's "casting a spell" and "I don't want fighters to just be wizards with another name."
4e really got the bad rap from players accusing it of turning martials into casters, except it never actually did (except for the couple of times it did, except those were new classes). That's the difference between 4e and Pathfinder, if you want to play a spellsword type character - in Pathfinder you're shunted into the Magus/Eldritch Knight class where you 'cast spells' that you'd see off a wizard's spellbook while you fight, in 4e you just ARE a spellsword and you get powers (not damn spells) that accompany your class.
I had a character in 4e who could teleport, turn invisible, walk on walls, and attack people with raw shadowstuff at will and not a ONCE was that character "just a fighter who can cast spells."
I mean, don't get me wrong, Pathfinder has some amazing NOT-spellcasting fighters with magic...they just happen to mostly be gimped ass PrCs like the Shadowdancer.
I kinda would yes, but my table likes Pathfinder a lot more, so, yeah.
Besides which, 4e does a lot of other stuff badly that Pathfinder does well that I can still enjoy the game.
I think it's because I keep misremembering Knock as a binary "and now its unlocked" spell. :P
Ah, you're probably thinking of the 3.5 Knock version. Yeah, that spell was obnoxious.
Honestly I think Pathfinder's Knock spell is fairly decently balanced. It allows you to copy the skill investment to a limited degree at the cost of spell slots, but anyone who's actually invested skill ranks in Disable Device will most likely beat you handily.
Now, Invisibility v Stealth, Spider Climb/Levitate/Fly v Climb, Touch of the Sea/Water Breathing v Swim... Those are problem spells.
Edit: Added quotes to make it more clear who I'm replying to. :)
RantA point of contention here.
The monks AC bonus from the Ki expenditure and the spell provide two differing sets of bonuses.
That means they apply to two differing sets of AC. One Flatfooted and one Touch. Armor and dodge.
There's also big differences in action economy and distance. Ki expenditure is a swift action which makes it more...
You are correct.
I was playing fast and loose with the comparisons to a degree. What I wanted to really point out is how fleeting the benefits of martial resource pools are compared to even the simplest 1st level spells in terms of durations. If the monk's Ki abilities such as the dodge bonus OR EVEN the extra attack were to last say... half their level in rounds, that would make an expenditure of Ki much more potent and worthwhile. As it is, the monks Ki pool does not benefit the monk exponentially in the same way a Spellcaster's spell progression does. Each use of Ki has the same effect at level 4 as it does at level 20. (This is with the exception of Qing Gong monk ki powers, some of which actually have scaling durations.)
Yes action economy is an issue as well. But then the spellcaster has access to feats and metamagic rods to make sure their spells last a good portion of the day if not the entire day. Even their most fleeting buff spells last for round/level such as haste. Meanwhile the monk spends a point from their pool and the benefit lasts for 1 round.
Spells like Resist Energy scales in both benefit AND duration and that's a 2nd level spell.... which gives you energy resistance 30 to a particular element by level 11! Do martial resource pools scale the same way? Nope.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Motherf#%~er we're back folks.
CONGRATULATIONS! Your thread has been added to the Martial-Caster Disparity Discussion Index, where we catalog the diverse set of topics on this subject. The Index contains such varied sentiments as, "Why do Martials Need Better Things", "Do martial characters really need better things?", "Isn't it time to stop saying "Martials never get nice things"?", and "What's with the lack of respect for martials?". I'm proud that we can add this new thread of fresh, original concepts to the ongoing effort to productively resolve this issue.
Motherf$~+er we're back folks.CONGRATULATIONS! Your thread has been added to the Martial-Caster Disparity Discussion Index, where we catalog the diverse set of topics on this subject. The Index contains such varied sentiments as, "Why do Martials Need Better Things", "Do martial characters really need better things?", "Isn't it time to stop saying "Martials never get nice things"?", and "What's with the lack of respect for martials?". I'm proud that we can add this new thread of fresh, original concepts to the ongoing effort to productively resolve this issue.
Careful now or you'll conjure up a Sarcasm Elemental.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Motherf*#%er we're back folks.
Time to get to work on another thread titled: "Do Martials need nice things, or better things?"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Time to get to work on another thread titled: "Do Martials need nice things, or better things?"Motherf*#%er we're back folks.
At this point I think martials need a lawyer.
Here's what I mean, Secret Fire. My own interpretation of each of those abilities you list, without prerequistes.
- Combat Expertise: can trade +1/-1 up to full BAB at any level. This is a circumstance bonus (stacks with everything) which only works vs. melee attacks (combat)
- prereq: none (was Int 13)Combat Expertise: Can trade +1/+3 up to full BAB at any level. This is a circumstance bonus (stacks with everything) which works vs all attacks and does not apply to attacks of opportunity.
Hold the Point: Does not exist
Celerity: you may make unlimited Attacks of Opportunity per round
- prereq: Hero [Fight and Rogue Hybrid with full BAB full Skills and Full Saves] 3rdChoke-Up: reach weapons can be used to attack adjacent targets (combat)
- [Natural function of having Proficiency in all Martial Weapons OR proficiency in a particular Martial or Exotic Reach Weapon when wielding a reach weapon OR possibily a Combat:Trait rather than a feat. Note that in my games Combat Traits are the one category of trait that can be taken repreatedly, thus Additional Traits could be taken for as many combat traits as one desires.]
We should exchange notes some day, kyrt. This thread is not really the place for it, though.
Time to get to work on another thread titled: "Do Martials need nice things, or better things?"Motherf*#%er we're back folks.
I wanted to start one titled, "Do martial characters really really need better things?"
It is not because they think there isn't oneActually, they DO think that there isn't one, with a rather strong added claim.TBF, doesn't JJ describe himself as "not a rules guys". The trouble is AFAICT most of the the actual rules guys are not rules guys either...
_
glass.
Or they just don't see the rules the way you do. Nothing nefarious, just a difference of opinion.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
On Wikipedia I see 3rd edition starting in 2000, 4th edition starting in 2008 and 5th edition 2014. (8 years for 3rd, and six years for 4th.) Are we not counting 3.5 and 3.0 as the same edition? Well I guess not because by that logic Pathfinder counts making 3rd edition 15 years old and still active. Although I would argue 3.5's girth more than it's length when it's compared to 4th edition due to the amount of clones and expansion. 4th edition went on pretty hard but is kind of weak and floppy compared to the 3rd edition boom.
That said I'm not going to say that 4th edition was universally reviled or even a bad game. I also see HWalsh's point in not trying to make the game something else. But this only goes so far. I fell in love with Pathfinder for the same reasons 3rd edition was so strong. With the third party material I have I can play any kind of game I want and nobody has to learn a new system. I think that the spirit of 3.5 is patching. That's why my general attitude is that asking for drastic changes to martials from Paizo is futile and that the greatness of 3pp is what makes the game really go round. Pathfinder is an engine that runs pretty good but its still the factory setting that settles to run well in the greater macrocosm of the game where casters aren't THAT great because people generally don't have master degrees in Pathfinder. Martials get by okay because they're easier to play competently. with 3pp we can do more. We can play beyond medievel stasis, we can shoot past the moon and patch things to our own microcosms. So much has been said by developers about the spirit of modding and patching when Pathfinder Unchained came out.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lol almost makes PF sound like the Elder Scrolls games.
You have a solid game, but also, as many people found, modding improves.it,
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't really understand the push to make Pathfinder more like 4e when 4e was nearly-universally considered a bad game.
Probably worth noting, this isn't actually true. 4E was incredibly successful until WotC's poorly considered business decisions so completely devalued their own print runs that they tanked their own product line.
More than that though, the 4E fallacy that "the game failed so everything they did was terrible and nothing with similar goals can succeed" is just that, a fallacy. It's absolutely possible to make a system where you have dynamic balance between magical and non-magical abilities without them all just being cookie-cutter stat blocks. After all, 5E is hailed as a huge improvement over 4E but anyone familiar withgame design can tell the difference between the two systems is 90% aesthetic.
Pathfinder features a robust toolset that offers a degree of granular control and customization over your character combined with the familiarity and easy access of a class/level based system that's hard to find elsewhere. That, for me, is the core of what Pathfinder is. Linear martials and quadratic casters isn't part of its identity, it's an unfortunate design decision that's been perpetuated for a decade or so. So when someone says "I want martials who can do cool stuff, kind of like 4E had" they're not saying they want to play 4E (not necessarily anyways) they're saying "Here's an example of another system that does something right, which I feel like Pathfinder gets wrong".
The Occult Adventures Kineticist class is a Pathfinder class, but it's also a clone of the 3.5 Warlock, which was one of the classes whose mechanics informed the design of 4E. That alone should show that you can look outside the current prevailing design dynamic. We now have a "caster" whose core functionality is more like a martial, so the next step is looking at martials who are more like casters in their balance and capability, perhaps classes more like those seen in Liber Influxus Communis, which includes a military commander who can share buffs and teamwork feats through "Drills", a pseudo-Monk character who's basically Taskmaster from Marvel Comics, and a class with an array of defensive abilities accompanied by a suite of tactical options whose use is largely keyed to action economy instead of limited resource. It's actually a great book for seeing what a version of Pathfinder that had martial and caster classes balanced against each other might look like. (Disclaimer: I did write one of the martial classes in it, and Endzeitgeist called it "A thing of beauty" so there is an author's bias in my opinion.)
Take a class like the Battlelord and combo it up with something like The Genius Guide to Bravery Feats, and you've got a really solid non-magical character who makes sense surviving and thriving in a magical world, as well as scratching that itch of having martials who have a variety of cool things to do all day.
|
No, I haven't read the entire thread. But I thought I'd chime in on this topic with personal experiences and opinion.
Personally, I love fighters. Until 3rd edition I never once got to play a paladin, ranger, or bard. Never rolled high enough stats to be one. That said, with 3.5 D&D I went from mainly playing fighters and fighter/mages to mainly playing sorcerers with the occasional monk thrown in. Why? Because I felt they made fighters too powerful too quickly. Fighters went from someone who's a master of melee combat to someone who can potentially carve through an entire army... in one round. No, seriously. I've seen a fighter use great cleave to chop down an entire orc warband on the first round of combat.
That said, I don't really see the problem others do. Okay, yeah the wizard or sorcerer can probably negate a given encounter on their own. But that assumes they have the initiative. PK has the potential to kill anything. But the things you'll most want to PK can probably make the save easily enough. And touch of death means you're getting into melee range of whatever you're casting it on. Then you're casting a spell (attack of opportunity time) THEN making a touch attack (yet another attack of opportunity). Better hope whatever it is didn't kill you already. Also better hope it has a low fort save.
Full casters tend to have low hit points and crappy armor class. Sure you can devastate stuff. But you NEED protection. If anything gets past the martial types then you're probably dead. Heck, lost my lev 6 sorc that way. A dire boar ignored the 'tank' type who was yelling insults at it and trying to attract attention. Instead it charged my sorc and killed me. Sure I could probably have killed that dire boar in one round with a single spell. But my initiative roll was slightly lower then the boar's.
Clerics have the potential for having good AC and full casting. But most of their spell list is buff/recovery type spells. They also run into the issue of angering their god if they act like murder hobos. Angry patron god(dess) means no spells after all.
Conversely martial types typically require lots of gear. Well, DUH! Ask yourself this question: How effective would Conan have been if he didn't have a sword? If Legolas didn't have his bow and swords, would he have been anywhere near effective enough? Of course a fighter needs weapons and armor. Fighters are NORMAL people after all. Very well trained, but still normal people. In order to stand against monsters they naturally need weapons and armor. And equally naturally they need magic equipment to improve beyond what they can do at base.
And sure martial classes typically have low will saves. But on the other hand casters typically have low fortitude and/or reflex saves. Thus it kind of balances out. That fighter's probably not going to fight off a Dominate, but attempts to PK or Touch of Death him are likely to fail. Conversely the wizard can probably fight off a Dominate, but even a scratch from a poisoned dirk is probably going to ruin his day. Or going to sleep in a tropical jungle. I've seen more full casters die due to disease and poison then I've seen martial types get charmed and/or dominated.
As for the whole "fighting a dragon" example... What adventuring party worth their salt is going to fight a farking dragon on the dragon's terms? No, rather then just charging the dragon where it wants to fight, you use strategy. You draw the dragon into a battle field where YOU have the advantage. You limit the dragon's mobility. And in all probability... you have siege weapons set up to help you kill it.
Or you don't even fight the dragon, and instead outmaneuver it with diplomacy. And that's something fighters are bad at usually. Of course it's also something many full casters are bad at too.
No, I haven't read the entire thread. But I thought I'd chime in on this topic with personal experiences and opinion.
Personally, I love fighters. Until 3rd edition I never once got to play a paladin, ranger, or bard. Never rolled high enough stats to be one. That said, with 3.5 D&D I went from mainly playing fighters and fighter/mages to mainly playing sorcerers with the occasional monk thrown in. Why? Because I felt they made fighters too powerful too quickly. Fighters went from someone who's a master of melee combat to someone who can potentially carve through an entire army... in one round. No, seriously. I've seen a fighter use great cleave to chop down an entire orc warband on the first round of combat.
That said, I don't really see the problem others do. Okay, yeah the wizard or sorcerer can probably negate a given encounter on their own. But that assumes they have the initiative. PK has the potential to kill anything. But the things you'll most want to PK can probably make the save easily enough. And touch of death means you're getting into melee range of whatever you're casting it on. Then you're casting a spell (attack of opportunity time) THEN making a touch attack (yet another attack of opportunity). Better hope whatever it is didn't kill you already. Also better hope it has a low fort save.
Full casters tend to have low hit points and crappy armor class. Sure you can devastate stuff. But you NEED protection. If anything gets past the martial types then you're probably dead. Heck, lost my lev 6 sorc that way. A dire boar ignored the 'tank' type who was yelling insults at it and trying to attract attention. Instead it charged my sorc and killed me. Sure I could probably have killed that dire boar in one round with a single spell. But my initiative roll was slightly lower then the boar's.
Clerics have the potential for having good AC and full casting. But most of their spell list is buff/recovery type spells. They also run into the issue of angering their god if they act like murder...
You must not play very many wizards...
A wizard is harder to kill than any fighter... sure the fighter has got AC, but the mage has miss chance, DR, escape abiloty, and invisiblity... oh and flight..
Oh and summon monster...
Oh and using Save or Dies is a poor choice... a blaster wizard can reliable do nearly as much.damage.as the fighter in a area, and cause a.reflex save or daze. Or the wall of Save of Sucks. ...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If high level melee counters high level melee, and melee in general counters magic, and mages get no skills, and magical assaults can't work, then what is the threat of the big bad evil mage that is the central core to 99% of fantasy?Most big bad evil mages in fantasy fiction are significantly less omnipotent than high-level PF wizards.
Indeed. In a number of fantasy fiction novels, wizards are limited in some way which isn't replicated in the Pathfinder material. Which is why I add that in!
I see rigorous analysis as an important part (perhaps the most important part) of rules writing. The Pathfinder development team do not. So you're absolutely right, it is a difference of opinion, but an important one.
I never said it was "nefarious", I think the term I used was "unfortunate".
I didn't mean to imply that you said it was. But there are schools of thought on the forums that the devs must be doing something out of spite if not blatant ignorance because you can CLEARLY see X, Y and Z.
Rigorous analysis is good but it is something that requires time, something of which isn't always a luxury for those putting out multiple books a year written by a number of people while still maintaining a convention schedule and a life.
Fans find errors and have time for analysis on the rules and find fiddly bits that are wrong (or they believe are wrong) because they have thousands of people with thousands of hours to do so in.
Look at IMDB sometime at all the continuity errors and other "Goofs" (they are listed under goofs, that is) that people have time to find by pouring over something frame by frame.
The question becomes does the mistake or error or "OMG! The clock was 2:15 in one scene and 2:09 in another!" make the movie less enjoyable. Does a disagreement over the rules -- which you can fix at home! -- make the game material less enjoyable or useful?
I kinda would yes, but my table likes Pathfinder a lot more, so, yeah.Besides which, 4e does a lot of other stuff...
If you like 4e... There is nothing that says that you can't play 4e... There is no reason to try to make Pathfinder into 4e.
If your table prefers Pathfinder to 4e, then trying to make Pathfinder 4e wouldn't make your table happy, and if you did, since they prefer Pathfinder, they'd simply keep playing Pathfinder as it is now rather than switching to a 4e-ish Pathfinder.
I guess that is the part of this I don't understand.
I like nWoD, and M:tA, but I don't like V:tR or V:tM.
I don't join a V:tR game and then try to turn it into M:tA.
So I don't really understand the push to make Pathfinder more like 4e when 4e was nearly-universally considered a bad game.
Did I ever say Pathfinder should be 4e? Did I even suggest 4e was better than Pathfinder?
All I did was point out how many players have the same knee-jerk response to martials having good things that they did when 4e gave martials good things.
Any you know what? It worked. The classes for 4e worked, and they didn't actually "turn martials into fighters with spells" like those knee-jerk responses said they would.
Just because I want parts of Pathfinder that do suck (like casters being way, WAY more powerful than martials) to stop sucking, doesn't mean I want Pathfinder to be 4e.
And it's attitudes like that, "Hey, stop trying to change Pathfinder, this is MY game, I like it the way it is!" (aka the America - love it or leave it slogan) that means Pathfinder doesn't get any better, and the game system continues to languish with bare touch ups that make classes like the Rogue on par with the fighter...while crap like Sacred Geometry gets released for casters.
I'm sorry but, 4th ed is nothing like "MMO" games, there are fundamental design differences. It's not even similar to any "MMORPG" games that are out there. I'd say that any edition of D&D and most other pen&paper RPGs are more like 4th ed than any "MMO" game. I think you just need to get over your hate for young people and their "MMO" games and motorcycles and their punk-rock music and their "My Little Pony" and their what not. Even when I'm not a fan of MMORPGs, I can't really say "people didn't like it", so 4th ed would probably be better off if it was more "MMORPG"-esq.
I dunno...I also get a video-gamey feel from the daily/encounter/at-will breakdown of abilities in 4th ed. It feels like a very contrived and artificial way to achieve game balance which is ultimately quite similar in its execution to games like Diablo.
I think 4th ed. is a perfect example of designers taking the easy way out in terms of game balance. Balancing limited-use magic with at-will martial abilities is hard, but that doesn't mean it can't or shouldn't be done.
|
|
So some potential goodies we could give fighters and other martials, lets say, 100% for fighters and other martials get half of these benefits
1) reduce the miss chance to attack rolls given by spells by 1% per level
2) let them use say, intimidation or their base attack bonus + strength, as an imitate action, to cause a caster to miscast the spell they were just about to cast
3) give casters a spell failure chance equal to the damage they've taken the round before
4) then from 3, give fighters to cause double the miscast chance from damage they deal and other martials 1.5x
5) give fighters and other martials a way to force enemies to come to them (we had a feat for that but apparently it was too powerful)
You could make fighters invulnerable, give them a fly speed, and 5 bonus move actions, and they would still suck.