Seriously now, how do you fix martial / caster disparity and still have the same game?


Homebrew and House Rules

751 to 800 of 1,465 << first < prev | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | next > last >>

Kirth Gersen wrote:
Otherwhere wrote:

Of course, changing what martials are capable of does bring forward: what do you need casters for, then?

If they can True See, self-buff, self-heal, bring down fliers, alter reality thru sheer bad-assery, would you need a caster any longer?

I never played 4e, so I don't know what making all the classes nearly the same in terms of class abilities and options is like. It seems many people didn't like that approach, hence Pathfinder and 5e.

Yawn. Read #5.

Doesn't answer the question, Kirth. I'm asking: What would you need casters for? In a world where martials are capable of a more equitable contribution, how do you inspire interdependence?

It's not a challenge to the disparity. It's a question for clarification on what the roles would be.


Ssalarn wrote:
Cerberus Seven wrote:
Otherwhere wrote:
Which begs the question: at what point are you no longer playing Pathfinder? Some people have a much broader tolerance for variation and still consider themselves to be playing "the same game" than others. What constitutes "the same game"?
Unchained changed a lot of the answer I would otherwise give. I guess the core components of Pathfinder would be the following:

  • d20 base system
  • AC, DC, and similar numbers / terms being the die roll targets
  • the six core ability scores and how their modifiers work
  • the class system
  • the monster classification system and how many iconic abilities work
  • the basics of how magic works, including the existence of magic item creation
  • feats being a thing that augment how well / what you do

Remove any of these and you're not really playing Pathfinder anymore. Everything else is optional.

I don't think I really agree with your 6th point. I can't speak for anyone other than myself of course, but to me, Vancian casting and item creation are optional subsystems, completely unnecessary to be playing Pathfinder. Even in core, you could, for example, play a party of all Kineticists who have all the tools to handle most adventures without having any access to item creation or Vancian magic (I'm a little fuzzy on how they handle condition removal since I've never played a Kineticist healer, but I'm told it's doable).

Your 5th point is a little vague as well and I could see some interpretations where I might disagree (for example, I don't think invisibility needs to work exactly as it does for the game to be Pathfinder), but other than that I largely agree with the rest of your points.

Part of the reason I put down the magic bit is that, while you could tweak the system to do without these elements, it wouldn't feel like 3.P afterwards. At least, to me it wouldn't. While a party of all kineticists could function, I wouldn't really feel like I was playing Pathfinder if the existence of spells and magical artifacts wasn't a thing. Systems like psionics or spheres of power stay close enough in feel and function that I think they suffice. Regardless of how fun and playable it'd be, totally removing magic as is would make it lose that high-fantasy feel of abundant, powerful magic that's synonymous with Pathfinder in my mind.

Yeah, I was a little vague with these, but that's because the exact boundaries of what is essential in each category is a little uncertain in my mind. Basically, it wouldn't be quite the same if things like oozes and dragons, giants and demons weren't a thing, but instead you merely built critters that functioned like them. Actual types carries not only inherent mechanical standards, bonuses, and limitations, but also a thematic feel to it. Being able to say, "Oh s$~*, it's a dragon!" has a lot more weight to it than "Oh s%!@, it's a giant flying reptilian genius beast which spews random elemental energy from its mouth in one of several predefined patterns and is typically brimming with magical power and it's got a treasure horde the size of a mountain! *GASP*". Also, it's much faster to say.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Otherwhere wrote:
Doesn't answer the question, Kirth. I'm asking: What would you need casters for? In a world where martials are capable of a more equitable contribution, how do you inspire interdependence?

That's what I was talking about earlier, in terms of niche protection. No matter what direction we take, that needs to be addressed if classes are to remain distinct at 20th level.

You could take all the location/tracking spells and give them to the ranger as class features, and remove them from all the spells lists. Now if you need to track a person, discern location, or find the path, you need a ranger to do it.

You could take all the spells that supersede skills and give them to the rogue, and remove them from the spells lists. Now if you need to do stealthy stuff, you need a rogue to do it.

You could remove all the spells and feats and fiat that allow you to command armies and give them to the fighter. And take all the spells that bodyguard the casters and make them fighter features, and remove them from the spells lists. Now if you need to command an army, or protect a frail wizard, you need a fighter to do it.

That still leaves a breathtaking array of stuff that only the casters can do!

It doesn't need to be either/or. There can be overlap in what people can do, as long as each class is still the best at their particular schtick. The classes don't seem identical, but at high levels, there are ways to cover for a "missing" party member, even if they're not as efficient. That's what I did with Kirthfinder, and it seems to work. So I'm not just guessing that better balance can be achieved without sameness; I know it can.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Otherwhere wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Otherwhere wrote:

Of course, changing what martials are capable of does bring forward: what do you need casters for, then?

If they can True See, self-buff, self-heal, bring down fliers, alter reality thru sheer bad-assery, would you need a caster any longer?

I never played 4e, so I don't know what making all the classes nearly the same in terms of class abilities and options is like. It seems many people didn't like that approach, hence Pathfinder and 5e.

Yawn. Read #5.

Doesn't answer the question, Kirth. I'm asking: What would you need casters for? In a world where martials are capable of a more equitable contribution, how do you inspire interdependence?

It's not a challenge to the disparity. It's a question for clarification on what the roles would be.

There are already classes in the game that benefit from interdependence without being utterly dependent. Look at the Inquisitor, for example. It's a great class that can fill almost any role the game offers, and its Solo Tactics ability rewards it for smart choices and cooperative play. I've written several 3pp classes that are also capable of strong and well-rounded performance while still greatly benefiting from being a team player. You may have seen my post earlier in this thread regarding teamwork; teamwork is not 1 strong player splitting his time between contributing and helping another player contribute, it is when two capable individuals come together to become greater than the sum of their parts.

Basically, start looking at teamwork as providing options that work better when leveraged as part of a team, rather than as a dynamic where someone has to have all the tools and someone else needs to rely on them to dole them out.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Otherwhere wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Otherwhere wrote:

Of course, changing what martials are capable of does bring forward: what do you need casters for, then?

If they can True See, self-buff, self-heal, bring down fliers, alter reality thru sheer bad-assery, would you need a caster any longer?

I never played 4e, so I don't know what making all the classes nearly the same in terms of class abilities and options is like. It seems many people didn't like that approach, hence Pathfinder and 5e.

Yawn. Read #5.

Doesn't answer the question, Kirth. I'm asking: What would you need casters for? In a world where martials are capable of a more equitable contribution, how do you inspire interdependence?

It's not a challenge to the disparity. It's a question for clarification on what the roles would be.

It's a good question, one I know I've thought about at times. I suppose the best way to summarize it would be thusly:

  • Martial: combat experts with limited magical prowess // accomplishes amazing feats with cunning and physical power // has a small # of easily rechargeable options to augment it's out-of-combat capability in keeping with its thematic nature
  • Caster: magic experts with limited physical prowess // accomplishes amazing feats with raw willpower and magical potential // spells allow great versatility and power both in and out of combat but with thematic limitations and drawbacks

Essentially, martials should be able to take care of themselves and solve any of the problems that come their way. Casters should be able to step in and, to a limited extent, fill any needs that unexpectedly go above and beyond the martial's capability. That way, there is no issue of 'needing' a caster most of the time, but you're very glad you have one when you suddenly need just a little bit more defense, speed, or insight into a situation.


A lot of this comes down to how you describe the martial abilities I think.

Kirth's True seeing example seems find to me: a veteran fighter at a certain part of his career has probably seen enough illusions and fought enough invisible creatures to get around those problems. It's also a trope frequently employed in TV, movies, comics, etc. Although I would probably have an intermediary step which which might give a percentage of concealment and moving to True Seeing at some higher level.

In contrast the other example, a swordsman who swing so hard the force of his blow takes out people far beyond his reach seems a bit too much for me.

I am all for the existence of classes that evoke the latter style of tropes, I just don't want the existing Fighter to go in that direction, and would rather see that as a separate class. I think there are plenty of ways to boost fighters without going in completely magical directions


MMCJawa wrote:
Kirth's True seeing example seems find to me: a veteran fighter at a certain part of his career has probably seen enough illusions and fought enough invisible creatures to get around those problems. It's also a trope frequently employed in TV, movies, comics, etc. Although I would probably have an intermediary step which which might give a percentage of concealment and moving to True Seeing at some higher level.

Absolutely. True seeing is (minimum) a 5th level spell; I wouldn't have it as an at-will option any lower than, say, 11th level.

MMCJawa wrote:
In contrast the other example, a swordsman who swing so hard the force of his blow takes out people far beyond his reach seems a bit too much for me.

At 1st - 10th level, I agree. In the Tain, there's a rainbow sword that cuts the tops off of mountains; Cu Chulainn, using a mundane sling, can send rocks flying over miles, to unerringly kill the people he's shooting at. I'd like to think the ownership of such a sword, and that kind of ability with a tertiary weapon (Cu Chulainn vastly preferred his spear and sword), would largely be a consequence of character level, rather than strictly of character class.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:
Kirth's True seeing example seems find to me: a veteran fighter at a certain part of his career has probably seen enough illusions and fought enough invisible creatures to get around those problems. It's also a trope frequently employed in TV, movies, comics, etc. Although I would probably have an intermediary step which which might give a percentage of concealment and moving to True Seeing at some higher level.
Absolutely. True seeing is (minimum) a 5th level spell; I wouldn't have it as an at-will option any lower than, say, 11th level.

I'd probably remove it from the game, to be honest. It needs a massive reworking. A single spell shouldn't be able to negate an entire school of magic.

See Invisibility might be a pretty good at-will power for martial characters, though.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

1 person marked this as a favorite.
MMCJawa wrote:

***

In contrast the other example, a swordsman who swing so hard the force of his blow takes out people far beyond his reach seems a bit too much for me.

I am all for the existence of classes that evoke the latter style of tropes, I just don't want the existing Fighter to go in that direction, and would rather see that as a separate class. I think there are plenty of ways to boost fighters without going in completely magical directions

This is something I think a high level feat should accommodate. While I don't see it as being baked into a particular class, I think there is plenty of material out there that supports such abilities as appropriate to high level martials. This also ties into the idea of martials getting to scale in a way similar to casters, rather than linear "same thing with more numbers" progression they have now.


MMCJawa wrote:

A lot of this comes down to how you describe the martial abilities I think.

Kirth's True seeing example seems find to me: a veteran fighter at a certain part of his career has probably seen enough illusions and fought enough invisible creatures to get around those problems. It's also a trope frequently employed in TV, movies, comics, etc. Although I would probably have an intermediary step which which might give a percentage of concealment and moving to True Seeing at some higher level.

In contrast the other example, a swordsman who swing so hard the force of his blow takes out people far beyond his reach seems a bit too much for me.

I am all for the existence of classes that evoke the latter style of tropes, I just don't want the existing Fighter to go in that direction, and would rather see that as a separate class. I think there are plenty of ways to boost fighters without going in completely magical directions

Just how far is too far with a fighter attacking out-of-reach opponents? I ask because we have options like Lunge and Retributive Reach, some classes like bloodragers can extend their arms and such without spells, and things like legendary items, which function as an extension of your mythic nature, can give you things like long arm or other reach-enhancing spells. If they're specced for it, is a martial of extraordinary skill and power striking people 50 ft. away with a sharp blastwave from his sword-swing really that magical and non-fighter-type-appropriate?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Cerberus Seven wrote:
If they're specced for it, is a martial of extraordinary skill and power striking people 50 ft. away with a sharp blastwave from his sword-swing really that magical and non-fighter-type-appropriate?

Also, does it change people's opinion if you call it a super Spring Attack and don't describe it as a "blastwave"?

Mechanically, assume they both have an effective range of 30 ft., require both line of sight and line of effect, require an attack roll, and deal normal weapon damage. In one case, we give it an (Ex) tag and say the fighter is rushing forward in a charge (jumping over pits or caltrops or whatever in the way), attacking, and then retreating back to his initial position. In the other case, we describe it as a video game shockwave.

What amazes me is that, if you pitch it the first way, a lot of people will nod and say, "yes, that's reasonable." Then, if you point out the second description, they not only yell "NO WAY!!!11!", but they actively change their mind and won't let you use the first description, either. The whole concept of hitting people at reach gets taken off the table just because one possible description of it offends one person's sense of realism.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Otherwhere wrote:
Doesn't answer the question, Kirth. I'm asking: What would you need casters for? In a world where martials are capable of a more equitable contribution, how do you inspire interdependence?

That's what I was talking about earlier, in terms of niche protection. No matter what direction we take, that needs to be addressed if classes are to remain distinct at 20th level.

You could take all the location/tracking spells and give them to the ranger as class features, and remove them from all the spells lists. Now if you need to track a person, discern location, or find the path, you need a ranger to do it.

You could take all the spells that supersede skills and give them to the rogue, and remove them from the spells lists. Now if you need to do stealthy stuff, you need a rogue to do it.

You could remove all the spells and feats and fiat that allow you to command armies and give them to the fighter. And take all the spells that bodyguard the casters and make them fighter features, and remove them from the spells lists. Now if you need to command an army, or protect a frail wizard, you need a fighter to do it.

That still leaves a breathtaking array of stuff that only the casters can do!

It doesn't need to be either/or. There can be overlap in what people can do, as long as each class is still the best at their particular schtick. The classes don't seem identical, but at high levels, there are ways to cover for a "missing" party member, even if they're not as efficient. That's what I did with Kirthfinder, and it seems to work. So I'm not just guessing that better balance can be achieved without sameness; I know it can.

Still the most fun I ever had playing a rogue.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Cerberus Seven wrote:
If they're specced for it, is a martial of extraordinary skill and power striking people 50 ft. away with a sharp blastwave from his sword-swing really that magical and non-fighter-type-appropriate?

Also, does it change people's opinion if you call it a super Spring Attack and don't describe it as a "blastwave"?

Mechanically, assume they both have an effective range of 30 ft., require both line of sight and line of effect, require an attack roll, and deal normal weapon damage. In one case, we give it an (Ex) tag and say the fighter is rushing forward in a charge (jumping over pits or caltrops or whatever in the way), attacking, and then retreating back to his initial position. In the other case, we describe it as a video game shockwave.

What amazes me is that, if you pitch it the first way, a lot of people will nod and say, "yes, that's reasonable." If you point out the second description, they not only yell "NO WAY!!!11!", but they actively change their mind and won't let you use the first description, either.

I believe because it's "too anime". Which is kinda funny, 'cause one is really just as anime as the other.


Aratrok wrote:

You're free to play your games however you like, but the system you're playing isn't 5e and telling people how great 5e is while describing something totally different isn't honest or helpful (wallets are at stake here!). It's mind caulked together with 5e as the title, but you are not playing the game that's for sale.

EDIT: The limits on undead are how many spell slots you want to dedicate to it. I did say hundreds not infinite. And I said nothing about buffs, though that's another black mark against martials; casters are strongly encouraged not to waste their time making them stronger with spells anymore.

For reference, a 15th level necromancer, using only one cycle of 8 hours, can maintain 90 undead with their spell slots, and can have infinite captured undead from other sources due to Command Undead.

Have you had this happen in a game? Or are you just theorycrafting?


Cerberus Seven wrote:
Which is kinda funny, 'cause one is really just as anime as the other.

I can't even tell what's happening, in either one of those clips. I don't begrudge anyone else wanting to play that, but I'd get motion sickness just trying to imagine it.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Cerberus Seven wrote:
Which is kinda funny, 'cause one is really just as anime as the other.
I can't even tell what's happening, in either one of those clips. I don't begrudge anyone else wanting to play that, but I'd get motion sickness just trying to imagine it.

I supposed it does lose a bit if presented out of context. Both clips are from an anime called One Punch Man, which is pretty silly and over-the-top, but it's a lot of fun. The girl in the first clip is a mosquito-human cyborg who just absorbed a lot of blood and is now super-powered, letting her do a shockwave type attack with her claws. The guy in the second clip is named Saitama and is the main character of the series. He's...let's just say that he's extremely OP, even by professional hero standards.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Cerberus Seven wrote:
If they're specced for it, is a martial of extraordinary skill and power striking people 50 ft. away with a sharp blastwave from his sword-swing really that magical and non-fighter-type-appropriate?

Also, does it change people's opinion if you call it a super Spring Attack and don't describe it as a "blastwave"?

Mechanically, assume they both have an effective range of 30 ft., require both line of sight and line of effect, require an attack roll, and deal normal weapon damage. In one case, we give it an (Ex) tag and say the fighter is rushing forward in a charge (jumping over pits or caltrops or whatever in the way), attacking, and then retreating back to his initial position. In the other case, we describe it as a video game shockwave.

What amazes me is that, if you pitch it the first way, a lot of people will nod and say, "yes, that's reasonable." If you point out the second description, they not only yell "NO WAY!!!11!", but they actively change their mind and won't let you use the first description, either. The whole concept of hitting people at reach gets taken off the table just because one possible description of it offends one person's sense of realism.

to be honest the first description of spring attack sounds worse, and almost reminds me more of old school video game play than anything anime.

People have fundamentally different baselines of what they want from classes. For a "mundane" fighter I want emulation of aaction movie heroics along the lines of something like Die Hard or movies in that vein, which require some suspension of belief but perhaps not as much as in some anime.

The True Seeing stuff seems to match that, but the shockwave stuff doesn't.

This is again just my personal baseline. I would have no problem with introduction of more fabulous new martials (see Bloodrager, Paladin, various 3pp), but I don't want that to be the default for fighters. I think you can bring Fighter up in power level without necessitating the game to be "super gritty" or making them magical.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
MMCJawa wrote:

to be honest the first description of spring attack sounds worse, and almost reminds me more of old school video game play than anything anime.

People have fundamentally different baselines of what they want from classes. For a "mundane" fighter I want emulation of aaction movie heroics along the lines of something like Die Hard or movies in that vein, which require some suspension of belief but perhaps not as much as in some anime.

The True Seeing stuff seems to match that, but the shockwave stuff doesn't.

This is again just my personal baseline. I would have no problem with introduction of more fabulous new martials (see Bloodrager, Paladin, various 3pp), but I don't want that to be the default for fighters. I think you can bring Fighter up in power level without necessitating the game to be "super gritty" or making them magical.

I don't think you can. "Action movie heroics along the lines of something like Die Hard" are functionally not on the same level of scale that most everything in d20 goes to. It can work conceptually at a certain band of levels (something like 1st through 8th), but if your idea for a character only goes that far they either need to be retired at some point or they need to change to keep up.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Homebrew section means you can introduce what ever the hell you want. Don't be limited by what others think of your idea, just put it out there and maybe some folk will use it.

Lots of people read this section but never post. Sometimes they like a post, to show they're going to use it. Other times they just snaffle it up and use without even acknowledging. That's the joy of the homebrew section actually.

If you want some serious martial power ups, read Kirth's ruleset. He's got some awesome stuff in there. None of it suits my play style but it is good stuff. It isn't the same as Pathfinder any more (in my opinion), but it can certainly be used to run Paizo AP's.

All through this thread there are great ideas that people can use, no matter what their play style.

Some posters have had a back and forth with each other, mostly due to different solutions not matching their exact expectations so they disagree. That doesn't make any of the ones posted less valid for certain people. Different horses for different courses.

If you want gritty game all the way to twenty, nerf casters and casting critters too. It works.

If you want massive power at higher levels, buff martials to have abilities that are like Manga power. Who cares what others feel.

If, like me, you are happy with things as they are because you use narrative means to control potential game breakers, then use that method. It doesn't need rule changes, but does require players to be happy with certain DM decisions about the setting.

Home brew is awesome for ideas to run in your home game.

The reason this thread got moved here is because the Devs aren't looking to make changes suggested here. Nothing written here is wrong if it works for your group. Choose what works, ignore the nay sayers.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:
Aratrok wrote:

You're free to play your games however you like, but the system you're playing isn't 5e and telling people how great 5e is while describing something totally different isn't honest or helpful (wallets are at stake here!). It's mind caulked together with 5e as the title, but you are not playing the game that's for sale.

EDIT: The limits on undead are how many spell slots you want to dedicate to it. I did say hundreds not infinite. And I said nothing about buffs, though that's another black mark against martials; casters are strongly encouraged not to waste their time making them stronger with spells anymore.

For reference, a 15th level necromancer, using only one cycle of 8 hours, can maintain 90 undead with their spell slots, and can have infinite captured undead from other sources due to Command Undead.

Have you had this happen in a game? Or are you just theorycrafting?

"Have you ever seen an iron ball and a wooden ball fall at the same speed when dropped from the same height? Or are you just theorycrafting?"


Irontruth wrote:
Aratrok wrote:

You're free to play your games however you like, but the system you're playing isn't 5e and telling people how great 5e is while describing something totally different isn't honest or helpful (wallets are at stake here!). It's mind caulked together with 5e as the title, but you are not playing the game that's for sale.

EDIT: The limits on undead are how many spell slots you want to dedicate to it. I did say hundreds not infinite. And I said nothing about buffs, though that's another black mark against martials; casters are strongly encouraged not to waste their time making them stronger with spells anymore.

For reference, a 15th level necromancer, using only one cycle of 8 hours, can maintain 90 undead with their spell slots, and can have infinite captured undead from other sources due to Command Undead.

Have you had this happen in a game? Or are you just theorycrafting?

Looks like theory crafting to me.

I am also suspicious about the money saving "wallet" angle. I am old school so I like to have the actual physical books. I have bought 13 Pathfinder books and only 3 5th edition books for the current campaigns at our table and I have not regretted a single purchase, but the dollars spent clearly don't suggest that 5th edition is a bad investment, especially compared with Pathfinder. RPGs are not an expensive hobby anyway, if you really want to spend money take up golf or fishing!


Athaleon wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Aratrok wrote:

You're free to play your games however you like, but the system you're playing isn't 5e and telling people how great 5e is while describing something totally different isn't honest or helpful (wallets are at stake here!). It's mind caulked together with 5e as the title, but you are not playing the game that's for sale.

EDIT: The limits on undead are how many spell slots you want to dedicate to it. I did say hundreds not infinite. And I said nothing about buffs, though that's another black mark against martials; casters are strongly encouraged not to waste their time making them stronger with spells anymore.

For reference, a 15th level necromancer, using only one cycle of 8 hours, can maintain 90 undead with their spell slots, and can have infinite captured undead from other sources due to Command Undead.

Have you had this happen in a game? Or are you just theorycrafting?
"Have you ever seen an iron ball and a wooden ball fall at the same speed when dropped from the same height? Or are you just theorycrafting?"

When I went through high school in Australia in the 1980s everybody did this experiment as part of science class. It is important to experience things for yourself and not just accept word from authority.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Boomerang Nebula wrote:
Athaleon wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Aratrok wrote:

You're free to play your games however you like, but the system you're playing isn't 5e and telling people how great 5e is while describing something totally different isn't honest or helpful (wallets are at stake here!). It's mind caulked together with 5e as the title, but you are not playing the game that's for sale.

EDIT: The limits on undead are how many spell slots you want to dedicate to it. I did say hundreds not infinite. And I said nothing about buffs, though that's another black mark against martials; casters are strongly encouraged not to waste their time making them stronger with spells anymore.

For reference, a 15th level necromancer, using only one cycle of 8 hours, can maintain 90 undead with their spell slots, and can have infinite captured undead from other sources due to Command Undead.

Have you had this happen in a game? Or are you just theorycrafting?
"Have you ever seen an iron ball and a wooden ball fall at the same speed when dropped from the same height? Or are you just theorycrafting?"
When I went through high school in Australia in the 1980s everybody did this experiment as part of science class. It is important to experience things for yourself and not just accept word from authority.

This being a pen & paper RPG, no experiment needs to be run to find out what the rules are.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Boomerang Nebula wrote:
Athaleon wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Aratrok wrote:

You're free to play your games however you like, but the system you're playing isn't 5e and telling people how great 5e is while describing something totally different isn't honest or helpful (wallets are at stake here!). It's mind caulked together with 5e as the title, but you are not playing the game that's for sale.

EDIT: The limits on undead are how many spell slots you want to dedicate to it. I did say hundreds not infinite. And I said nothing about buffs, though that's another black mark against martials; casters are strongly encouraged not to waste their time making them stronger with spells anymore.

For reference, a 15th level necromancer, using only one cycle of 8 hours, can maintain 90 undead with their spell slots, and can have infinite captured undead from other sources due to Command Undead.

Have you had this happen in a game? Or are you just theorycrafting?
"Have you ever seen an iron ball and a wooden ball fall at the same speed when dropped from the same height? Or are you just theorycrafting?"
When I went through high school in Australia in the 1980s everybody did this experiment as part of science class. It is important to experience things for yourself and not just accept word from authority.

Your teacher telling you something isn't an argument from authority, its an argument from expertise.


Athaleon wrote:
This being a pen & paper RPG, no experiment needs to be run to find out what the rules are.

But they do need to be run to figure out just how crazy things can actually get.


Athaleon wrote:
Boomerang Nebula wrote:
Athaleon wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Aratrok wrote:

You're free to play your games however you like, but the system you're playing isn't 5e and telling people how great 5e is while describing something totally different isn't honest or helpful (wallets are at stake here!). It's mind caulked together with 5e as the title, but you are not playing the game that's for sale.

EDIT: The limits on undead are how many spell slots you want to dedicate to it. I did say hundreds not infinite. And I said nothing about buffs, though that's another black mark against martials; casters are strongly encouraged not to waste their time making them stronger with spells anymore.

For reference, a 15th level necromancer, using only one cycle of 8 hours, can maintain 90 undead with their spell slots, and can have infinite captured undead from other sources due to Command Undead.

Have you had this happen in a game? Or are you just theorycrafting?
"Have you ever seen an iron ball and a wooden ball fall at the same speed when dropped from the same height? Or are you just theorycrafting?"
When I went through high school in Australia in the 1980s everybody did this experiment as part of science class. It is important to experience things for yourself and not just accept word from authority.
This being a pen & paper RPG, no experiment needs to be run to find out what the rules are.

I agree.

Taking it one step further, the best way to determine if the rules pose an in game problem is to actually play the game (do the experiment).


Trogdar wrote:
Boomerang Nebula wrote:
Athaleon wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Aratrok wrote:

You're free to play your games however you like, but the system you're playing isn't 5e and telling people how great 5e is while describing something totally different isn't honest or helpful (wallets are at stake here!). It's mind caulked together with 5e as the title, but you are not playing the game that's for sale.

EDIT: The limits on undead are how many spell slots you want to dedicate to it. I did say hundreds not infinite. And I said nothing about buffs, though that's another black mark against martials; casters are strongly encouraged not to waste their time making them stronger with spells anymore.

For reference, a 15th level necromancer, using only one cycle of 8 hours, can maintain 90 undead with their spell slots, and can have infinite captured undead from other sources due to Command Undead.

Have you had this happen in a game? Or are you just theorycrafting?
"Have you ever seen an iron ball and a wooden ball fall at the same speed when dropped from the same height? Or are you just theorycrafting?"
When I went through high school in Australia in the 1980s everybody did this experiment as part of science class. It is important to experience things for yourself and not just accept word from authority.
Your teacher telling you something isn't an argument from authority, its an argument from expertise.

I am happy to say that in my experience you are absolutely correct in most circumstances. There are a lot of really great teachers out there.

The Exchange

Aratrok got the rule on command undead wrong. And 8 hours to create 90 undead leaves very little time for adventuring, since he needs another 8 hours of rest to regain his slots to then recast his 8 hours of spells to keep controlling the undead created. That gives 8 hours to do something with the undead, not taking time for eating etc and he has no slots left for anything else who the undead get roflstomped by high level players.

At the same time, any character can invest down time in creating a mercenary company with similar power. They become self maintaining and require a little time to manage and can be called on to fight the undead. Leaving your character with all his abilities to,fight the caster who has no spells left. Caster of course can't use down time to do,the same because he's too busy keeping his undead going all day.

He also forgot to mention how badly sleep spell can ruin your own party when they have less hp than the critters in his example earlier. A single wounding hit one of his mates in his encounter means they drop before any of the birds do. It all comes down to situational setup. It's rare to never that I see the "perfect" setup for spells to ruin a battle.

Caster power is heavily mitigated in fifth, and martial power is increased comparatively.

However, none of that is home brew nor to do with the original intent of this thread. Just an aside that went a bit far really.

The Exchange

Ooooohhhh, also, also, as a science teacher in Australia right now, we still do that experiment and now we use time lapse cameras on iPhones and stuff to show them hitting at the same time. We can also set up vacuum chambers where we drop feathers and weights and watch them drop at the same time.

Proving science through experimentation is easier than ever now. Sadly, legislative restrictions means there's less cool experiments that get run due to potential safety stuff. Bah, safety. Who ever learnt anything being "safe". /partially joking.


Wrath wrote:

Ooooohhhh, also, also, as a science teacher in Australia right now, we still do that experiment and now we use time lapse cameras on iPhones and stuff to show them hitting at the same time. We can also set up vacuum chambers where we drop feathers and weights and watch them drop at the same time.

Proving science through experimentation is easier than ever now. Sadly, legislative restrictions means there's less cool experiments that get run due to potential safety stuff. Bah, safety. Who ever learnt anything being "safe". /partially joking.

Do schools still do the sodium metal in a bucket of water experiment? That was one of my favourites.

The Exchange

Boomerang Nebula wrote:
Wrath wrote:

Ooooohhhh, also, also, as a science teacher in Australia right now, we still do that experiment and now we use time lapse cameras on iPhones and stuff to show them hitting at the same time. We can also set up vacuum chambers where we drop feathers and weights and watch them drop at the same time.

Proving science through experimentation is easier than ever now. Sadly, legislative restrictions means there's less cool experiments that get run due to potential safety stuff. Bah, safety. Who ever learnt anything being "safe". /partially joking.

Do schools still do the sodium metal in a bucket of water experiment? That was one of my favourites.

Match stick head size piece of sodium in water with a colourless indicator. As the sodium zips around the water, the reaction makes it look like a trail of blood as the indicator turns red in presence of a base (sodium hydroxide).

Still gotta be real careful and whole bunches of schools just won't run it. Having burning sodium land on an overzealous student is bad. Also, kids don't seem to want to follow safety instructions like they used to. Makes doing risky experiments harder than ever.

We can't do Roman candle experiment any more either. Even running it in a sandpit with kids in a safe distance puts it at the high danger mark and most schools just won't sign off on it. Sad really, cos that one rocks, especially as the kids realise the red stuff pouring out the bottom is molten iron. We used to set it up in a tough pot with a whole in bottom. We out a metal mould beneath it that said science rocks and give the cast iron result to the kid with the best results at the end of the year. Students loved it. Gone are the good old days.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Wrath wrote:
Aratrok got the rule on command undead wrong. And 8 hours to create 90 undead leaves very little time for adventuring, since he needs another 8 hours of rest to regain his slots to then recast his 8 hours of spells to keep controlling the undead created. That gives 8 hours to do something with the undead, not taking time for eating etc and he has no slots left for anything else who the undead get roflstomped by high level players.

Command Undead is a different ability that lets you capture undead you didn't create and retain them indefinitely at-will (if they're mindless- they can escape your control if they aren't). The 15th level necromancer with 90 undead was an example of just making an army and having it handle everything for you. That character could actually get into a fight with 4 20th level fighters and kill them all pretty trivially with no risk to himself, since all it takes is 65 of his skeleton archers shooting at one of them (assuming they're a Defensive fighter with plate and a shield- a two handed fighter goes down to less than that) to score a kill and a 20th level fighter with a two handed weapon can only kill 4-6 of them in a round tops, burning action surge.

Quote:
At the same time, any character can invest down time in creating a mercenary company with similar power. They become self maintaining and require a little time to manage and can be called on to fight the undead. Leaving your character with all his abilities to,fight the caster who has no spells left. Caster of course can't use down time to do,the same because he's too busy keeping his undead going all day.

Sorta. There aren't any hard rules on doing that in 5e. Assuming you could hire normal people, mercs aren't as resilient nor are they as powerful as undead (remember that the necromancer's skeleton archers have 24 hp and shoot for between 1d8+5 and 1d8+8 damage), and they don't respond to commands instantly and obediently, nor are they necessarily loyal. They also require upkeep and a supply chain providing them with food which, while not super expensive is a stringent limitation on what you can do with them and how far they can follow you. Plus they might not appreciate being thrown into a meat grinder to kill a balor- your skeletons will do that without a second thought.

Quote:
He also forgot to mention how badly sleep spell can ruin your own party when they have less hp than the critters in his example earlier. A single wounding hit one of his mates in his encounter means they drop before any of the birds do. It all comes down to situational setup. It's rare to never that I see the "perfect" setup for spells to ruin a battle.

I guess if you decide to try and kill your allies with a spell you can do it? I'm not sure what your point is. I didn't even make any mechanical commentary in that post, just listed existing numbers and factors since I was asked.

Quote:

Caster power is heavily mitigated in fifth, and martial power is increased comparatively.

However, none of that is home brew nor to do with the original intent of this thread. Just an aside that went a bit far really.

You keep saying this, but you've yet to actually provide any evidence. Looking at what spells exist and what they do, casters still have most of the same tricks as before. Some of them are better in some ways and worse in others (shapechange doesn't give you all the abilities of a creature, but it does give you all their ability scores and attacks and a buffer of hundreds of hitpoints, animate dead and planar binding are stronger than they've ever been due to the ability for crowds of mooks to seriously threaten a high level character), but their power is mostly around the same level.

Martials are, mathematically, much weaker compared to their d20 incarnations. They straight up do not have the physical offense to be a threat at mid to high levels, and it's easy for crowds of mooks to gank them very quickly. They didn't get any cool tricks or abilities either.

For reference, a 1st level fighter can be expected to attack at either +5 for 1d8+3, or 2d6+3. A 20th level fighter attacks at +11/+11/+11/+11 for 1d8+5 or 2d6+5. They can use Action Surge twice between 1 hour rest periods to attack twice in a round. While a 1st level fighter has decent odds of putting down a relevant threat in a round (against the bloodhawk up above that's 44% for a one handed fighter, 60% for a two handed fighter) , a 20th level two handed fighter dealing with the first Challenge 10 threat in the book, an Aboleth, takes 4 rounds to drop it. That's a pretty unacceptable level of drop-off. A 20th level fighter in Pathfinder can pretty easily do enough damage kill two CR 10 adlets in one full attack, and they suck.


Aratrok wrote:

You're free to play your games however you like, but the system you're playing isn't 5e and telling people how great 5e is while describing something totally different isn't honest or helpful (wallets are at stake here!). It's mind caulked together with 5e as the title, but you are not playing the game that's for sale.

EDIT: The limits on undead are how many spell slots you want to dedicate to it. I did say hundreds not infinite. And I said nothing about buffs, though that's another black mark against martials; casters are strongly encouraged not to waste their time making them stronger with spells anymore.

For reference, a 15th level necromancer, using only one cycle of 8 hours, can maintain 90 undead with their spell slots, and can have infinite captured undead from other sources due to Command Undead.

Wait. You're talking about 5e right?

Each use of Command Undead releases any undead you controlled from a previous use of Command Undead. All undead get a save, and due to bounded accuracy and a nearly hard limit on ability scores at 20, they will still have a chance to save. If they make their save, no use of Command Undead will ever work on them again (at least not from you).

All spells in the game that create/animate undead also have a limit. At 20th level, a necromancer has a hard limit of 17 undead from Animate Undead and 5 undead from Create Undead. A second casting of those spells releases your control of those undead, so now they're free to attack you.

I've seen other people also claim that you can abuse the undead minions with a necromancer in 5e; but I've yet to see them actually prove it through a correct application of the rules.

Also, every person that I've seen criticize 5e in any manner other than "it doesn't fit my personal taste" has got the rules wrong. So before you go bad mouthing another system (which is against Paizo's code of conduct), at least get the rules right.

And as long as you're telling people to be wary with their money, the advice we should be giving is thus: Give it a try. If you like it, win! If you don't like it, go back to Pathfinder and enjoy the game. Win! Either way, it's a win-win situation.

Edit: Also, Command Undead only works on one undead at a time.

The Exchange

Hey Bookrat, I knew I'd seen a hard cap somewhere. And yeah, he got command undead incorrect.

Also, action surge lets you make all your attacks again. So that's 8 attacks at level 20 in one round split up as you like amongst your move. And it can be done twice per 1 hour rest at level 20 etc etc. their damage also has boosters in there for classes. Rolling extra dice etc, re rolling low damage dice etc etc.

You've misread some rules and not presented a full picture of the game at all so far.

I have no issue with someone not liking a game, but I do have issues with people telling me I'm misrepresenting a game and then getting it completely wrong on their end.

Also, this discussion should really move from this thread.

Edit - it's under the section called combining magic effects btw. The effects of the same spell cast more than once can never combine. Only the most powerful version remains.

This has no delineation at all on what type of spell it affects. You can only have version of any spell running at a time.


Wrath wrote:
Match stick head size piece of sodium in water with a colourless indicator. As the sodium zips around the water, the reaction makes it look like a trail of blood as the indicator turns red in presence of a base (sodium hydroxide).

Well.. Not pure sodium. Adding that to water will have a slightly more drastic effect. :)


Wrath wrote:

Hey Bookrat, I knew I'd seen a hard cap somewhere. And yeah, he got command undead incorrect.

Also, action surge lets you make all your attacks again. So that's 8 attacks at level 20 in one round split up as you like amongst your move. And it can be done twice per 1 hour rest at level 20 etc etc. their damage also has boosters in there for classes. Rolling extra dice etc, re rolling low damage dice etc etc.

You've misread some rules and not presented a full picture of the game at all so far.

I have no issue with someone not liking a game, but I do have issues with people telling me I'm misrepresenting a game and then getting it completely wrong on their end.

Also, this discussion should really move from this thread.

We have a good discussion on 5e rules over in the D&D 4th Edition and Beyond forum.

I'd welcome all 5e discussion over there. :)


The full text of Animate Dead:

Quote:

This spell creates an undead servant. Choose a pile of bones or a corpse of a Medium or Small humanoid within range. Your spell im bues the target with a foul mimicry of life, raising it as an undead creature. The target becomes a skeleton if you chose bones or a zombie if you chose a corpse (the DM has the creature’s game statistics).

On each of your turns, you can use a bonus action to mentally command any creature you made with this spell if the creature is within 60 feet of you (if you control multiple creatures, you can command any or all of them at the same time, issuing the same command to each one). You decide what action the creature will take and where it will move during its next turn, or you can issue a general command, such as to guard a particular chamber or corridor. If you issue no commands, the creature only defends itself against hostile creatures. Once given an order, the creature continues to follow it until its task is complete.
The creature is under your control for 24 hours, after which it stops obeying any command you’ve given it. To maintain control of the creature for another 24 hours, you must cast this spell on the creature again before the current 24-hour period ends. This use of the spell reasserts your control over up to four creatures you have animated with this spell, rather than animating a new one.
At Higher Levels: When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 4th level or higher, you animate or reassert control over two additional undead creatures for each slot level above 3rd. Each of the creatures must come from a different corpse or pile of bones.

You made that limitation up. If it were true and indicated in the text, you'd actually be totally unable to have more than one undead creature, +2 for ever spell level above 3rd.

Mea culpa on Command Undead, it's better for controlling a single champion. Doesn't change a whole lot, though, I didn't even use it in any of my examples.

The Exchange

bookrat wrote:
Wrath wrote:
Match stick head size piece of sodium in water with a colourless indicator. As the sodium zips around the water, the reaction makes it look like a trail of blood as the indicator turns red in presence of a base (sodium hydroxide).
Well.. Not pure sodium. Adding that to water will have a slightly more drastic effect. :)

Actually it is pure sodium. At that small size it whizzes around the container, fizzing and popping. We control it by using forceps to place it in the back of a floating bread packet clip. It looks like a speed boat racing through water.

If you make the piece too big though, yeah, that ends with a pretty spectacular bang.

The Exchange

Aratrok wrote:

The full text of Animate Dead:

Quote:

This spell creates an undead servant. Choose a pile of bones or a corpse of a Medium or Small humanoid within range. Your spell im bues the target with a foul mimicry of life, raising it as an undead creature. The target becomes a skeleton if you chose bones or a zombie if you chose a corpse (the DM has the creature’s game statistics).

On each of your turns, you can use a bonus action to mentally command any creature you made with this spell if the creature is within 60 feet of you (if you control multiple creatures, you can command any or all of them at the same time, issuing the same command to each one). You decide what action the creature will take and where it will move during its next turn, or you can issue a general command, such as to guard a particular chamber or corridor. If you issue no commands, the creature only defends itself against hostile creatures. Once given an order, the creature continues to follow it until its task is complete.
The creature is under your control for 24 hours, after which it stops obeying any command you’ve given it. To maintain control of the creature for another 24 hours, you must cast this spell on the creature again before the current 24-hour period ends. This use of the spell reasserts your control over up to four creatures you have animated with this spell, rather than animating a new one.
At Higher Levels: When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 4th level or higher, you animate or reassert control over two additional undead creatures for each slot level above 3rd. Each of the creatures must come from a different corpse or pile of bones.

You made that limitation up. If it were true and indicated in the text, you'd actually be totally unable to have more than one undead creature, +2 for ever spell level above 3rd.

Mea culpa on Command Undead, it's better for controlling a single champion. Doesn't change a whole lot, though, I didn't even use it in any of my examples.

Check my edit above Aratrok. Only one version of any spell you cast can be in effect at any one time. It's under "combining magic effects" right before the spell lists.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

You should post quotes instead of just claiming there's a rule that says you're right. So that everyone without the book can see it:

Quote:

The effects of different spells add together while the durations of those spells overlap. The effects of the same spell cast multiple times don't combine, however. Instead, the most potent effect—such as the highest bonus—from those castings applies while their durations overlap.

For example, if two clerics cast bless on the same target, that character gains the spell’s benefit only once; he or she doesn’t get to roll two bonus dice.

Please note that even if it did have a duration, this wouldn't shut down animate dead, it would be a redundant statement that one thing can't be animated multiple times, in the same way that this rule doesn't say you can't have multiple fog clouds or whatever (I have not looked up the 5e version of this spell, it could be Concentration for all I know, it's an example) hanging around. But animate dead has a duration of instantaneous.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ran a Serpent's Skull AP 25-pt buy. All 6 adventures, ended at 17-ish, iirc.

The Fire Elemental Wizard and fighter/rogue/barbarian/idk with a 3.5 meteor hammer, supported by an archer ranger, core summoner/bipedal greatsword eidolon and an oracle of life wiped the floor of the campaign.

The wizard and Tank were unstoppable. I let it get to that. It came to a point where they really couldn't die, as they had enough to grind figurative diamonds into life.

Damn, we had us some fun!

It was totally unbalanced, and no one cared because it was fun. Fun is an option, right?

The Exchange

Check that sentence carefully Aratrok. The effects of the same spell cast twice do not combine, however.

It then goes on to say that if they have overlapping durations, only the most powerful is in effect. This is an addition to the point above, not a clarification.

Animate dead gives you control over the undead you make for 24 hours as its effect.

You cast it a second time, you cannot control the new undead, because now you have the same effect from the same spell in action on a new group of undead. Yes you crate them, but the effect of the spell that lets you control them cannot be in play.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

You are now flat out ignoring what words mean. That... makes it very difficult to have a reasonable discussion.


Wrath wrote:
bookrat wrote:
Wrath wrote:
Match stick head size piece of sodium in water with a colourless indicator. As the sodium zips around the water, the reaction makes it look like a trail of blood as the indicator turns red in presence of a base (sodium hydroxide).
Well.. Not pure sodium. Adding that to water will have a slightly more drastic effect. :)

Actually it is pure sodium. At that small size it whizzes around the container, fizzing and popping. We control it by using forceps to place it in the back of a floating bread packet clip. It looks like a speed boat racing through water.

If you make the piece too big though, yeah, that ends with a pretty spectacular bang.

Nifty! I guess I've just never seen it with a smaller piece. :)


Aratrok, may we please take this conversation to another thread; preferably the link I posted above?


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Honestly? I didn't want to have a big debate about 5e at all. But I also really don't want people to get the wrong idea about it and blow $150 to buy the core rules, then get something that doesn't deliver on its promises. If it's not here, adjacent to the claim that it'll solve all your problems and make wizards lowly serfs along with the martials, I don't really have any reason to talk about it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've been fading in and out of this thread and it keeps bursting with topic turns. We're back to 5e again? I like 5e well enough but as a Fighter in the middle of Kingmaker I'm not feeling too different from Pathfinder. In fact I feel a little worse because I can't commit to feat or archetype shenanigans to make things a bit more interesting. I pretty much just beat face and not die. We still nearly died to a lich due to me being dominated I still do pretty much nothing but kill things with damage and we still get pretty much stuck in situations because the casters ran out of spells and we need them to proceed. I'm insanely lucky that I went with the maneuver archetype rather than champion because at least then I have a few feat-like things to do but in all honesty in almost any situation but Ripose I'm only using my superiority die for damage because nost of the time any secondary effect is irrelevant. About what's different is that casters have a hard nerf so most of the time I'm actually necessary if not interesting.

But on topic, I do agree with the sentiment that after level 10 martials need a bit of super strength and some shenanigans revolving around that. If a caster can do anything I think martials should be able to survive anything and/or kill anything. That should be their niche.

At the very least they should be better at skills on the whole. I agree that magic should trump skills as it's a limited resource and vies for slots against more fantastical spells but I also agree that skills should be more useful in general. I find it slightly insane that skills and saves are not inversely proportional to magic.

Solutions along those lines that does not disrupt the game can include stamina and skill unlocks. They don't quite do the trick but they seriously open up doors in terms of design space. As I mentioned before I mash third party with Stamina to great effect and it solves so many problems. Particularly, Stamina opens up the concept of physical prowess influencing in and out of combat abilities, like swimming really well or jumping good. Because it recharges fast it can make for out of combat utility but its still limited so you can't abuse it in combat too much. The only issue is that the stuff isnt' printed yet. (third or first party)

From there it's only a matter of bringing casters down just a smidge but I think there's a problem that's inherent in how magic works. It basically functions as being so powerful it needs to be strictly finite but when that resource goes, its game over until they recharge so it doesn't always work in practice. That is unless you're pushing long adventuring days in which it becomes a game of chicken where the caster has to guess how long the dungeon will be to decide whether or not to use a spell, and penny pinching is not fun. Magic works on a different paradigm which makes it nessesary for it to be powerful but also makes it a problem. This is why I'm such a proponent of Spheres of Power. It follows the same paradigm as martials and thus the rest of the game. Power is gained linearly by coming in feat-like chunks. The resource pool is comparable to every other resource pool in the game. It has a foundation of at-will abilities which means the resource pool is a definite augmentation rather than a secondary ticking clock for when the game has to go back to the inn and you're not completely useless when you run out of resources. And that's besides the fact that advanced gamebreaking magic is separated so it can be slotted in or out depending on what kind of game you're running. (speaking of which, why not that for martials. a series of super-combat feats that can be slotted in or out depending on whether you're playing gritty mundane or wuxia-level sword swinging.)


Yeah the 5E stuff really should go into it's own thread...

Also spheres of power continues to sound amazing and seems to fit quite a bit with my thinking on how to reign in magic abuse without nerfing casters into the ground. I really can't wait to get hold of those rules at some point.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aratrok wrote:
Honestly? I didn't want to have a big debate about 5e at all. But I also really don't want people to get the wrong idea about it and blow $150 to buy the core rules, then get something that doesn't deliver on its promises. If it's not here, adjacent to the claim that it'll solve all your problems and make wizards lowly serfs along with the martials, I don't really have any reason to talk about it.

I believe I've been reading it wrong the entire time. I concede the point and apologize for my error.

My mistake lied in believing that anytime you recast it, you automatically reassert control, rather than having the option to reassert control.


MMCJawa wrote:

Yeah the 5E stuff really should go into it's own thread...

Also spheres of power continues to sound amazing and seems to fit quite a bit with my thinking on how to reign in magic abuse without nerfing casters into the ground. I really can't wait to get hold of those rules at some point.

You haven't yet? If you were nearby I'd lend you one of my three copies. In terms of reigning in casters it has several benefits.

1) They are still very powerful. Its not like its a solid nerf, its just that since the magic is gained linearly talent by talent and you can't rewrite your casting on a day to day basis you have way less versatility. The biggest example is that unless you allow the Cantrips feat even detect magic is the exclusive domain of one sphere. At that point you realize exactly how much casters get just handed to them.

2) There are two points where the system is modular in how it works. The first is whether or not to allow Advanced Talents. Advanced Talents are spell effects that have permanent worldchanging effects. If you allow them you're in the realm of high magic and if you don't you're still dealing with quite a bit of magic but it's not as worldshifting. The second is something called Traditions which is basically a list of restrictions that define how your magic works in exchange for a bigger resource pool. For example; you can have have your magic require somatic components and if you do you get a bigger resource pool. While this is very codified for the purpose of when the gm doesn't want to make up a tradition for the setting, the example chapter it gets nebulous. Basically you can do whatever you want based on what the setting is. You can have magic that only activates when you doo doo in your hand and throw it. This all means that the magic system can either resemble Pathfinder or work however your setting says it works so the restrictions on how things works and how powerful they are have a dial so if you think they do need to bee insanely powerful you can certainly do that, or you can dial it back to super gritty with a lot of points in between.

3) Non casters can opt in fairly easily. It takes two feats to be a low caster and you can get more talents using the extra talent feat. So two feats and you get yourself a fire blast or an animal companion or maybe some weapon bonuses. So magic isnt' so esoteric a thing that you have to cut your leg off to get a minor magic ability. Just study a little and you get a little bit of magic.

751 to 800 of 1,465 << first < prev | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Homebrew and House Rules / Seriously now, how do you fix martial / caster disparity and still have the same game? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.