I've seen some commenters here with unfavourable opinions of 'wuxia' for martials. Isn't that already built into the monk class? As in, isn't that what it's supposed to do, in a sense? Abundant Step is considered one of the better abilities even if it's limited to 'can't do anything after'.
That said, it's interesting to consider how opening up full attacks for martials would be. Especially if you have a lot of NPCs with them ready to come at you. One thing to remember is that whatever you use to upgrade your barbarian is technically going to apply to that pile of orcs who want to get to know you.
Still, yes. More skill points would be nice, especially for the poor fighter! Even the full-casting, armoured cleric shouldn't be hosed as bad as it is with a whopping 2.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Really good point. Pathfinder still retains major artifacts from those early D&D days of Tomb of Horrors, strange traps that didn't really have solutions, Wish spells etc that you basically had to cheat to have access to. Nothing was balanced -at all-. It's amazing that it's as playable as it is at high levels when you put it in this perspective.Its not meant to be balanced. The old balance actually was achieved by the "weaker" classes having higher level caps and such. Even so, in 2nd Edition, Wizards sucked at level 1, came on par with Fighters around level 5, Passed them around level 8, and ruled the roost for the last 3-5 levels of play.
To me, that isn't broken, that is balanced.
If you have never died to a freaking housecat then you can't understand it.
Oh, I've died to a housecat, brother. I understand. Don't make assumptions!
You're saying that overall gameplay from levels 1-10 (or whatever) balance out on average. People want characters to be roughly equal all the time.
Like I said, I'm glad you brought all this up, and it's a good point that classes had different level caps.
|
I generally don't think that you need to really change the rules of the game to avoid creating a disparity (in either direction) between martials and casters. Just introduce challenges which require the skills of the different members of the party. Other than that, it is really a matter of identifying where you've introduced a disparity and fixing it.
Put another way... I think the reason you get arguments like Jiggy's thread claiming 'XYZ is not the disparity' is because sometimes XYZ >IS< the 'disparity', sometimes it's ABC, and sometimes it's both. That is, there are multiple VERSIONS of the 'martial/caster disparity' introduced by various different play styles. There's the 'a single casting of the Simulacrum spell is infinitely more powerful than Wish' version of the disparity, the 'you can cast all your spells in 15 minutes and then rest up to regain them and enemies will never ever use that time to ambush or set a lethal trap for you' version, the 'casters should be able to use their spells and item crafting to benefit only themselves because martials deserve no support for keeping the monsters off the squishies' version, and so forth. Figure out which of these you are doing... and stop doing them.
That said, there is one house rule I use sometimes which didn't really have anything to do with martial/caster disparity, but might be helpful to people who have trouble avoiding it. Basically, in v3/3.5 crafting and powerful spells had an XP cost... which was annoying because going up and down in levels was complicated. So I changed it. Instead, I had the XP costs of these things accumulate and ruled that characters could never have more XP spent on these things than they had actual XP earned. Pathfinder 'solved' the same problem by removing XP costs entirely, but I like my old rule so I still use it sometimes. Side benefit - players don't craft ridiculous amounts of items of cast Wish on a whim because they want to have that XP available to spend when it is important.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
People want characters to be roughly equal all the time.
The problem is that to do this it would be a fundamental change to the core nature of what D&D/PF is, and many people are happy with what it is and has been over the years. 4E accomplishes this (for the most part) and was much reviled in doing so. I've heard 13th Age is pretty good on this front too, though I haven't personally played it. But overall to do so will change the nature of the game and many people don't want that (myself included).
This was why I was really underwhelmed by the Path of War, personally; it just boosted what martials could already do and the options for doing anything new took a very long time to come online if they came online at all.To me it feels like giving the martials their own way to feel epic really requires some sort of special maneuver system, such as Path of War or Book of Nine Swords.This statement reduces the disparity to a combat problem, which is Argument #1.
==Aelryinth
While I agree that PoW could offer more out-of-combat utility, there are some pretty decent options. For example, Veiled Moon's Fading Strike and Ghostwalk let you teleport and turn incorporeal at will, at levels 3 and 5 respectively. Both are very handy options for bypassing non-combat challenges.
Primal Fury's Running Hunter Stance gives you scent at level 1. Easily missed, but surprisingly useful with the right GM.
Silver Crane offers healing (at 1), detect evil (at 1), permanent flight (at 9), and condition removal (at 13).
All three initiators benefit from mental stats, so they avoid the dumb fighter quagmire. All three initiators also benefit greatly from investing ranks and money in skills for counters like Warning Roar and Half-Gone, which helps them contribute indirectly out of combat as well.
Granted, the utility an initiator has won't measure up very well to a 9th level caster but it's been my experience that they can hold their own against a 6th level caster like a bard or a magus. They're miles ahead of the traditional derp melee classes like the fighter, gunslinger and swashbuckler.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's important for us to bear in mind that, for different people, the invocation of wuxia can conjure very different sorts of ideas about fantastic martial combat (especially as the term is so often misapplied to encompass all kinds of Chinese martial-arts narratives). While I might be thinking of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon or Hero, someone else might be thinking of Stephen Chow's cinematic adaptation of Journey to the West (two completely different kinds of martial arts movies).
In my mind, addressing the C/MD would likely require a two-pronged approach that reined in the versatility and narrative impact (dominion?) of casters while simultaneously pushing the boundaries of what we deem within the realm of possibility for non-casters in a fantasy setting.
For my taste, fantasy as a genre isn't simply "Add magic and stir".
An example: One thing I've always wanted to see for fighters especially would be some sort of infamy feature, where the fighter's talent for combat without the need for magic is so prodigious that he carries far greater social clout than a caster could muster. (Or at the very least, he gains social benefits that rival the impact of such effects as cause fear, charm, dominate, etc.) Naturally, this could also work for barbarians, monks, cavaliers, et al.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you're embracing the issue of disparity, then I suggest you find things that truly give a DM a hard time and learn to design around them. Remembering that the setting itself controls the power of magic users.
People mention things like low level flour spray yadyadyada, it's not an issue. It might be powerful once, but varying encounters and layouts of encounters mean not likely more than that.
Really, the m/cd guys are talking high level where they feel things are broke.
Look at those levels and create a world where those spells exist, then explain why they're not ruling everything.
Teleport is disrupted by areas of intense magic or forces like volcanoes etc. maybe this is why all movie villains build here? What if your teleport line crosses one of these areas, suddenly you drop out of port mode in the middle of a high energy zone. Can't port no more, and you may be in a nasty place. You're safe for now, cos the spel says that's what happens, but six seconds from now that's not going to be the same.
Communing with other beings for information. Have them answer in their own language and using terms of old. Dragons are drrreichio, bastardised through time to Draco and then dragon. But the Angels and gods still use the real names. Then players need to make skill checks too. Also, many of these say things like tell the truth. Literal or apparent truth? What would they actually know of the world ending plans? There's a reason the heavenly hosts aren't stopping the end of the material plane, what is it? Perhaps they don't know because they have enemies working to stop the knowledge getting out. So,you get the apparent truth. Like a Cold War of misinformation. It makes these less reliable.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The fighter vs Wizard issue.
The fighter is a highly trained martial artist. In a world where magic is not rare and you have chosen to train as a martial artist, I believe the fighter does not have the same amount of tools as the wizard and i dont understand why.
It is my opinion that fighters require antimagic Feats. Not only those feats that improve their salvations rolls, but something that goes the extra-mile. Interrupt casting, anticipate magic danger, or something like that.
This would give the fighter the choice to select his path, and would not deminish the potential of the wizard.
And extra skill points for the fighter, and more class skills. Just because you went to Fighters academy you cant perceive?, or know about history, religion, or similar?. I find that absurd, players should be able to choose their class skills.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Make rare spells rare.
A classic example is blood money, a favourite of one of the posters in these threads. That spell comes from one chapter of the rise of the rune lords. It's a spell that died with a he rune lords and only pops up as an enemies tool against players. Why is it suddenly available to everyone.
The SRD has made all content available without access to context. Tell players no using stuff from this unless the have the original source so DM can check its context.
Wish- powerful stuff. Why isn't this being bandied about all the time? Surely there's a reason. If you have access to,the article on genies and wish economy from the 3rd Paizo ap, you'll know why golarion isn't overburdened here. If not, it pretty much states there's a balance, break it and genies and other creatures that keep tabs on this stuff get all sorts of upset. Then they take your soul and use it to make their buildings on the planes of fire.
In other words, have the world react to the power out there.
Caster creates his own Demi plane. The rules say no one should be able to,enter it. That's the understanding of the players and nearly all mortal casters at least, but what if there is a way in. A simple vent shaft say, overlooked in design. Or maybe at this level you've annoyed a God and he or says "ya know what, screw those limitations, here's my lieutenant and his best troops to show you just how unsafe yor Demi plane is." After all, players are entering Demi planes all the time in adventures. The entire premise of paizos third AP is based on this.
Creative thinking enables powers to be available but limit the abuse they have. It stops DM plans being ruined, and when used well, explains why casters take meat shields with them. Especially if teleport goes wrong like I suggest above.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Make rare spells rare.
A classic example is blood money, a favourite of one of the posters in these threads. That spell comes from one chapter of the rise of the rune lords. It's a spell that died with a he rune lords and only pops up as an enemies tool against players. Why is it suddenly available to everyone.
The SRD has made all content available without access to context. Tell players no using stuff from this unless the have the original source so DM can check its context.
If you're going to do this, just do the responsible thing and ban it. We know it's broken, making players jump through hoops for it just makes it a delayed route to power, so if you want it gone or NPC only, be up front about it.
Wish- powerful stuff. Why isn't this being bandied about all the time? Surely there's a reason. If you have access to,the article on genies and wish economy from the 3rd Paizo ap, you'll know why golarion isn't overburdened here. If not, it pretty much states there's a balance, break it and genies and other creatures that keep tabs on this stuff get all sorts of upset. Then they take your soul and use it to make their buildings on the planes of fire.
In other words, have the world react to the power out there.
Not everyone plays Golarion, and I myself am not large on flavor balancing for magic like this. Even that material talks about how smaller wishes (stat boost, replicating spells, etc) isn't nearly as high on the radar as other things (releasing super powerful fragments of a god slaying monster to impress your sweetheart), and those smaller things are generally what I see Wish being used for in my experience.
Caster creates his own Demi plane. The rules say no one should be able to,enter it. That's the understanding of the players and nearly all mortal casters at least, but what if there is a way in. A simple vent shaft say, overlooked in design. Or maybe at this level you've annoyed a God and he or says "ya know what, screw those limitations, here's my lieutenant and his best troops to show you just how unsafe yor Demi plane is." After all, players are entering Demi planes all the time in adventures. The entire premise of paizos third AP is based on this.
Creative thinking enables powers to be available but limit the abuse they have. It stops DM plans and when used well, explains why casters take meat shields with them.
If you're going to change a spell, you should inform the players of it to make sure that they would still want to take it. You can fiat in balance, but that's not fixing a problem as a whole, that's fiating a solution to a problem and should be seen as such. Players creating demiplane should know if it's safe or not to do so since the description of the spell tells you that it's safe. I mean you can change it, but at least make sure a player has all the knowledge of an ability, or again, just outright ban it instead of punishing them like this.
To answer the original post, you can't preserve your cake and eat it too.
You can fix the disparity, such as spheres of power or adding utility to martials, yet this tweaks the fundamental class abilities of the game.
At best it is making a heavily house ruled alternate game setting. I'm not saying don't do it, there might be a market for such a Pathfinder setting. I am saying that it is a big change.
It can be done, yet it can't be done without changing the game. It is too big a tweak. Limiting play to the first seven or eight levels makes things more equal, and not so over the top. Still, that solution spoils the whole leveling carrot for many. It is a big change.
|
|
N jolly, I'm not changing any spells at all. Wish is probably powerful enough to get you into a Demi plane. Heck, Paizo themselves have shown how the magic can break in one of their APs. The spell is exactly the same, as far as the majority of the world is aware. It's just some very powerful creatures, or artefacts or gods can bypass those normal restrictions.
This is not punishing anyone. It's certainly changing how much apparent narrative power they might have though. which is what the current concensus is on disparity, narrative power.
You don't play golarion, fine. When you create your world, come up with these answers. Why aren't these things causing casters to just rule everything?
Eberron is a good setting. I loved it. In that setting, gods don't actually exist. The religions are based on ideas instead. Commune etc just won't work there like it says in the players hand book, because there's no God to actually talk to.
Planar stuff in that setting is als really iffy. The planes shift in their axis so sometimes it's impossible to even reach them, other times it's possible to step into them without using magic at all.
The rules are a guide, the setting is the thing that defines how much of that actually works.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Eberron is a good setting. I loved it. In that setting, gods don't actually exist. The religions are based on ideas instead. Commune etc just won't work there like it says in the players hand book, because there's no God to actually talk to.
Planar stuff in that setting is als really iffy. The planes shift in their axis so sometimes it's impossible to even reach them, other times it's possible to step into them without using magic at all.The rules are a guide, the setting is the thing that defines how much of that actually works.
Eberron is a really good setting, agreed. And really, Tippyverse shows what happens with unregulated casters, it's a pretty interesting idea for a setting.
And the rules are a guide, but any changes to them should be made public to the players. I've had enough GMs change rules on me without any warning, some of which completely obliterated my character. If something is unbalancing the group, it's fine to ban it, but don't "soft ban" it by changing how it works to the point where it's worthless, like the original crane wing revision.
|
|
Other settings that take this into consideration.
War of the burning sky. Try jumping planes or teleportation magic in that one and it doesn't end well.
Zeitgeist - gold circles prevent most magic from working. Put a gold ring on a caster, can't teleport. Put gold rings around rooms, not teleport or scry
Edit - removed the last two sentences here as they sounded impolite to N jolly. Apologies if you read them before my edit. Not meant to be rude, but read that way in hind site.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, agreed fully. It needs to be upfront.
I think this is the issue with d20psrd. It has everything for players to access without any setting relevance. This is my point with blood magic. It's only broken if every caster a player makes has access to it. If it stays in the game as a super rare spell that only the runleords knew, then it becomes something a player might strive for. It actually becomes their narrative, not just some tool. Like questing for a powerful weapon.
I've always advocated allowing the rules to shape the world you make. If you understand the way the levels of play change as a consequence f magic then you can design ahead for this.
High level play is not for amateurs I believe.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Another option, which Paizo discussed somewhere, was magic schools. Certain spells can only be learned in these colleges. You can only get scrolls of them from these colleges. It's possible for you to obtain them as th free spells at level, but now it limits other ways to access them. It also provides a DM with a potential policing force that tries to regulate heir use in the world.
Again. Be up front about this.
What's the benefit of making them hard to get over just banning them?
who would you be more impressed with, a man who could jump 10 feet straight up into the air, or a man who had a device on his feet that could propel him up 10 feet in the air?
Keep in mind they can both do the exact same thing.
If everyone could use said device?
Or if only he could use/operate said device?
|
|
What's the benefit of making them hard to get over just banning them?
Keeping them in adds desire and motive. Powerful spells make casters drool. It adds plot and inspiration for players to adventure, especially in sandbox style.
Outright banning removes that.
Also, dark sun took the power of unrestrained casters for its setting. Post appocalyptic with a few God kings where clerics could cast freely but arcanists destroyed the world around them as they cast.
Another awesome setting inspired by the power of the magic in the game, rather than hindered by it.
Keeping them in adds desire and motive. Powerful spells make casters drool. It adds plot and inspiration for players to adventure, especially in sandbox style.
Except then it keeps the same issues of the spell... soooo... what's the benefit for this topic of discussion?
As a side-note, my personal preference is tonnes of high magic where players use things like simulacrums and planar bindings and use wondrous item rules in... more expansive ways.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
So given the parameters already established by Paizo, how can we fix the disparity?
Those parameters are: this is NOT a superhero game, it's not a demigod game, it's not a vampires game, it's not an immortal game.
If you stop here, then fixing it is a simple matter of removing everything that fails to abide by the above parameters. (As it happens, that will involve removing a LOT of spells.)
It IS a game where normal people learn how to do cool stuff but magical people learn how to do cooler stuff than non-magical people.
...
...but obviously it's easier to rock the world with the spellbook.
This is the C/MD. By including this as a parameter, you are literally saying "How do we remove the C/MD without removing the C/MD?"
Did you just not realize you were doing that? Did you not realize that's what the C/MD is?
Is it possible to fix this disparity without rewriting the entire game?
Depends on what direction you go to fix it. Bringing the casters down to the martials is mostly a matter of liberal banning, while bringing the martials up (or meeting in the middle) involves lots of rewriting.
If not, can we rewrite it so it's the same game with the same feel and follow those parameters but with greatly reduced disparity?
As long as one of the parameters is "keep the disparity intact", then no, it is literally impossible to meet the parameter of "keep the disparity intact" while simultaneously fixing the disparity. The goal you've set forth is impossible by definition.
EDIT: If you're really set on having magic be superior by default, then my normal suggestion would be "In that case, ban all the nonmagical classes, because presenting them as being equivalent to what you're deliberately making not-equivalent is dishonest." But I think removing them would go against some of your other parameters, so you're still stuck. But hey! If you actually like the C/MD, keep it! It's not inherently bad, and it's not your responsibility to fix it for everyone else, so feel free to just shrug your shoulders and enjoy your game while others work on tailoring their own that may or may not match your own parameters. :)
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
A few solutions I've used to fair degrees of success in the past:
1) Mythic Ranks.
Characters without spellcasting get a Mythic Rank at level 1. Then they get another one at levels 4, 8, 12, 16 and 20.
Mythic Power Attack and Mythic Vital Strike are off limits. Everything else is fair game.
2) Easier Combat Maneuvers
Combat Maneuvers do not Provoke. Any Combat Maneuver (other than Pin) can be performed as an attack action. Now a mid-level monk can grappe someone, Drag them backwards, reposition them into an ally's threat range, and trip them, all in the same action.
This might seem overpowered, but it isn't. Even grappling, dragging, repositioning and tripping someone still isn't as effective as pretty much any Save or Suck spell. (Even if this could be done at first level it still wouldn't be as good as Color Spray).
What it does is make melee combat far more dynamic and changes the way people have to build their characters because combat maneuvers become a credible threat on a more than circumstantial basis.
As an added note, Moving enemies into danger is what Bull Rush and Reposition are for. The rules note about not being able to push foes into danger is removed. Anyone dumb enough to be fighting at the edge of a cliff deserves what happens next.
3) More Mobility and Reactionary Combat Options.
Characters get a number of 5' steps per turn equal to the number of attacks granted by their BaB.
Same for Attacks of Opportunity. A character gets 1 per attack granted by their BaB.
This makes combat just a little more mobile, which helps fights feel more interesting than they tend to when it's just a series of people moving to position then standing in one place to full attack until someone falls over. More AoOs also means players paying better attention when it isn't their turn.
3) Remove Feat Taxes.
Everyone is considered to have Weapon Finesse. Dex-dominant folks intuitively know how to attack in ways that take advantage of that. They shouldn't be expected to pay a feat for that. Also, if a martial character gets attribute drained, changing up their style to put emphasis on a different attribute to attack with should be an option (and a no-brainer).
Improved Unarmed Strike is just a Martial Weapon Proficiency. Anyone who's been trained how to swing a sword has also been trained how to punch someone without looking like a buffoon.
Combat Expertise is just a combat option. It replaces Fighting Defensively.
Power Attack is also just a combat option. To balance this, power attack against a bonus to damage on a 1-for-1 ratio rather than a 2-for-1 ratio. (Two handed weapons get a 2-for-1 ratio rather than a 3-for-1 ratio)
Exotic Weapon Proficiency is a Trait, not a Feat.
All Improved X feats automatically get their [i]Greater X[/x] versions as soon as the prerequisites are met. (This holds true for Style feats as well)
4) Less Pointless/Arbitrary/Nonsensical Restrictions
Reach Weapons don't use the cover rules. Attacking from behind people is what they are for. There's no reason a Polearm wielder should have to invest in archery feats like Improved Precise Shot to be able to ignore the penalty caused by using their weapon the way it is intended.
On a similar note, Reach Weapons [i]do[/] threaten on diagonals. By RAW they don't. yes, I know no one actually plays that way, but its worth mentioning.
Light Weapons count as Ammunition for the purposes of drawing weapons. If drawing an arrow is a non-action, so is drawing a dagger. (This means that when a martial character kills their target and still has attacks left over, they can always throw something rather than just lose the rest of their action).
Drawing Objects From Pouches: Sometimes it's handy to have things like caltrops, tanglefoot bags or potions as accessible as possible. As such, bandoleers and pouches are treated exactly like (and cost the same as) Wrist Sheathes or Spring Loaded Wrist Sheathes. A typical belt can hold up to six of them. With a belt and two bandoleers an adventurer could have as many as 20 ready pouches. This rule exists mostly because the system for retrieving small objects is total b%~%$*&*.
5) Size Matters
Creatures that are bigger than you might move you if they hit you. Slam or Bludgeoning attacks from a creature one size category larger than their target (or any melee attack from a creature two or more size categories larger) initiate a Bull Rush as a free action after a successful hit (regardless of damage dealt). This bull rush is not automatically directed by the attacker. Uses the Grenade scatter rules to determine which direction the target is moved. Any result that would indicate the target is moved toward the attacking creature instead moves the target straight back away from them.
If you get hit by something four or more times your mass, expect to go flying.
5) Size Matters
Creatures that are bigger than you might move you if they hit you. Slam or Bludgeoning attacks from a creature one size category larger than their target (or any melee attack from a creature two or more size categories larger) initiate a Bull Rush as a free action after a successful hit (regardless of damage dealt). This bull rush is not automatically directed by the attacker. Uses the Grenade scatter rules to determine which direction the target is moved. Any result that would indicate the target is moved toward the attacking creature instead moves the target straight back away from them.
If you get hit by something four or more times your mass, expect to go flying.
Isn't this going to tend to work against martials and promote more reliance on spellcasters to deal with these creatures? I'd be more of a mind to reduce how much size matters - particularly in the rise in monster strength because of the way it skews CMDs so high.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Isn't this going to tend to work against martials and promote more reliance on spellcasters to deal with these creatures? I'd be more of a mind to reduce how much size matters - particularly in the rise in monster strength because of the way it skews CMDs so high.5) Size Matters
Creatures that are bigger than you might move you if they hit you. Slam or Bludgeoning attacks from a creature one size category larger than their target (or any melee attack from a creature two or more size categories larger) initiate a Bull Rush as a free action after a successful hit (regardless of damage dealt). This bull rush is not automatically directed by the attacker. Uses the Grenade scatter rules to determine which direction the target is moved. Any result that would indicate the target is moved toward the attacking creature instead moves the target straight back away from them.
If you get hit by something four or more times your mass, expect to go flying.
My quick-n-dirty solution has been to simply remove size modifiers from CMB/CMD, as well as any restrictions on which maneuvers you can use based on size. So really, it's more of a "size doesn't matter". Except that it does, since strength is usually related to size anyway.
By banning them you are effectively saying the magic doesn't exist. Most things in Pathfinder aren't broken in and of themselves. It is when combined or used out of context that they can be super powerful...
As low level example is the mirror image spell. Used on a wizard it is a fairly effective but disruptable illusionary ward. Worth taking but not essential. However on a Paladin with Unsanctioned Knowledge or a Magus it dramatctically changes the paradigm of how much damage the Paladin can absorb - particularly if they already have a high AC. Yes it can be overcome but it forces the DM to jump through hoops, particularly when for a standard effort you can cast it again.
I don't have a problem with mirror image - I have a problem with it being spammed at the start of every encounter by a magus with a wand. In our group a gentlemans agreement to not memorise more than one or cast for all but the most frightening fights works.
Banning it is unnecessary. It also removes the opportunity to use some rate and ancient spells as rewards in ancient places... I.e a Runelord's laboratory. Not every spell has to be available to every caster. A DM is more than reasonable in allowing the two spells per level to be picked from a core range.
My quick-n-dirty solution has been to simply remove size modifiers from CMB/CMD, as well as any restrictions on which maneuvers you can use based on size. So really, it's more of a "size doesn't matter". Except that it does, since strength is usually related to size anyway.
Trouble is, those are the small modifiers in the subsystem. They're much smaller than they were in 3e - a good change. The bigger problem is the +4 CMB/CMD gained for each size class change past Medium due to the +8 to Strength when building monsters.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People want characters to be roughly equal all the time.The problem is that to do this it would be a fundamental change to the core nature of what D&D/PF is, and many people are happy with what it is and has been over the years. 4E accomplishes this (for the most part) and was much reviled in doing so.
That wasn't the reason that it was reviled. It was the method that it used to achieve it.
4E used symmetry to get balance - and symmetry is boring in co-op games. (it can be fine for 1v1 as Chess & Go demonstrate) Asymmetrical balance is the goal here - it's just a heck of a lot harder to do - especially the relatively hard asymmetry of D&D/Pathfinder. (most RPGs have much softer asymmetry)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I were to be honest, I like Pathfinder where it stands.
The thing about the disparity is - wizards are tier 1 primarily because of their day-to-day versatility, not just in the cases that allow them to be prepared for far more situations than a prepared caster should be able to muster. Even if you removed scrolls, removed narrative-changing spells (Find the Path, Magic Jar, Simulacrum, Contingency, Planar Binding/Ally) and the highly versatile ones (Image spells, Summon Monster), and take away stuff like Shift/Divination Initiative Bonus/Fast Study, as long as they still have a large portion of their breadth of spells, wizards will still be 3 tiers higher due to simply having more options than, say, a barbarian.
I'm in support of options that bring the martials higher in the tier system. I enjoy building mystical fighters with awesome supernatural abilities (ala Dreamscarred Press), but we all know that even those do not fully bridge the tier gap between a full-caster and a martial. Sure, my three-level Aegis Dip Warlord can do awesome things like fly through walls, teleport short steps, and sword-beam things that can never escape from me, but she's never going to mind control anyone, see the future, or summon angels at my side. And when those are necessary, usually the only other substitute is UMD or the obligatory "GM-approved quest chain".
The only way to achieve absolute balance, then, is to bring casters down a notch, but I've never really encountered a method to do so that also preserves the options that made me enjoy playing a full caster in the first place. I've seen options like making magic harder to cast to compensate (like multi-round casting times, which, in a more simulation-favoring GM, is just plainly not fun anymore) or supplements like Spheres of Power, which constrains casters to far narrower focuses. Even in the case of Spheres of Power, the limit is constricting enough (especially in some of my favorite schools, like Illusion) that it won't really replace the same feel that I had with a full-caster.
tl;dr: I like tier 1 casters, and am resist to any change that would make them less versatile (or ridiculous to use) because it would be less fun for me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Item 1:
Don't play at "Epic Level"In older editions, anything beyond 11 was Epic level, so that is the terminology I am using.
Your points in your post were all good, but I object to the one I'm quoting here for two reasons:
1. Nearly half of the content in all the books is written for level 11+. All the high-level spells, expensive magic items, class abilities above 10th level, monsters with more than CR 10 (or groups of monsters with less than CR 10), etc.
In my original post, I was looking to NOT chop off the top of the game. I'd like to enjoy the higher levels and actually USE this "epic" content, rather than ignore it.
2. Paizo constantly publishes adventures for these "epic" levels. Sure, their single standalone adventures are usually in the level 1-10 range, but not. But it's worth noting that EVERY adventure path starts a story at level 1 but doesn't finish that story until well into the double-digit "epic" levels. Following your suggestion automatically invalidates every AP since you can never finish any of those stories. it would be like trying to enjoy the Lord of the Rings but never reading the third book and never finding out how it ends.
So while your suggestion does work, it definitely invalidates a bunch of content. At least a third and maybe nearly half of it, by my estimate.
That's a price I don't want to pay to "fix" this problem.
To answer the original post, you can't preserve your cake and eat it too.
You can fix the disparity, such as spheres of power or adding utility to martials, yet this tweaks the fundamental class abilities of the game.
At best it is making a heavily house ruled alternate game setting. I'm not saying don't do it, there might be a market for such a Pathfinder setting. I am saying that it is a big change.
It can be done, yet it can't be done without changing the game. It is too big a tweak. Limiting play to the first seven or eight levels makes things more equal, and not so over the top. Still, that solution spoils the whole leveling carrot for many. It is a big change.
I'm obviously willing to "tweak" - that's the point of this thread.
I'm more than willing to print a list of a couple dozen banned spells, or to even ban a few classes.
I'm quite happy to adjust some class features to make martials more interesting or to reel in some casters.
The only things I don't want are what I said in the OP. I don't want to invalidate the upper end of the game or ignore it entirely. I don't want to rewrite dozens of classes/archetypes to make them all newer and shinier, especially if that means turning martials into magical superheroes.
And I'd prefer to not end up with 100 pages of houserules to keep track of. I'd prefer if it's just a page or two of good, useful tweaks.
So yeah, I do want to preserve the game and consume it too.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Someone posed a similar question in another thread, and I offered this solution. (Well, more like a methodology for reaching a solution.) It might be more work than you're interested in, but I think it's your best bet at arriving where you want to arrive (since it starts with setting your own parameters).
So what I'm liking so far is:
1. Longer casting times for some spells, making combat nova harder to achieve and making casters easier to disrupt.
2. Banning (or heavily changing) the most disruptive spells (I have a few in mind but might make a separate thread to try to figure out a comprehensive list).
2a. Perhaps a simple fix for the most disruptive spells is to put expensive components on them. Ban Blood Money entirely and make casters actually pay for components, and make those prices really high for the worst spells. How often would a group "scry and fry" if Teleport consumed a 5,000gp gem every time? This works very well since GMs are not obligated to limit BBEGs' financial resources, so the BBEGs might be more freely able to afford these spells than the PCs.
3. Do something about scrolls. I'm inclined to raise the casting time to make them all non-combat. Maybe take a minute instead of a standard action. Won't fix out-of-combat utility scrolls but it solves part of the problem.
(#1 and #3 work together to reduce caster supremacy IN COMBAT - this can achieve asymmetrical balance by making sure that martials are NEEDED for combat and caster are better at supporting them rather than overshadowing them, especially if #2 fixes the summoning and polymorphing problem so martials are not easily replaced, too).
4. More skills for everyone (including casters). Let people solve some problems with mundane solutions so magic isn't always Plan A.
5. I'm on the fence about feat chains. It seems if we fix those for martials we should fix them for casters too, so while it probably benefits martials more, it really benefits both sides of the disparity. And, ultimately, the feat chains that really matter are the ones that only apply in combat so this doesn't address the non-combat narrative utility disparity (which I believe is the bigger issue). Besides, it sounds like a fairly major overhaul which would be a bigger list of house rules than I'd like.
6. I've been toying with an idea to make spellbooks non-portable. I'm not sure how yet. But imagine if a wizard (etc.) had to choose his spells in town rather than any old time he camps in the middle of an adventure - this would make it much harder for him to select new spells each day; he might have to select a list of prepared spells in town and keep the same unchanged list for days or even weeks at a time (sleeping refreshes his used spells but there's no way to change the selection). Martials cannot easily swap out class abilities each day but casters can swap out spells each day (and spells are somewhat like limited-use class abilities) so restricting how easily casters can alter these limited-use class abilities might narrow the disparity. Not sure how I'd do this for clerics, or even if I'm as worried about them.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
4. More skills for everyone (including casters). Let people solve some problems with mundane solutions so magic isn't always Plan A.
How many ranks in Swim do I need to go down to the sunken ship/ruins of Atlantis without "Plan A" being water breathing/life bubble?
How many ranks in Stealth do I need in order to be "Plan A" over simply using invisibility?
How many ranks in Survival do I need in order to encounter extreme weather and have "Plan A" be my skills instead of endure elements?
How many ranks in Perception do I need in order to be "Plan A" for finding invisible creatures/clues/macguffins instead of see invisibility/invisibility purge?
How many ranks in Acrobatics do I need in order for jumping to be "Plan A" instead of fly when encountering a tall/deep obstacle or an airborne destination?
How many ranks in Sense Motive do I need in order for my skills to be "Plan A" in reacting to the possibility of illusions, instead of detect magic, arcane sight, true seeing, etc?
Look, I like the idea of giving some classes more skills, but that doesn't actually solve anything unless you also change the surrounding context of how interacting with the world works.
|
Starting at about 13 or so, the game does become a bit of Rocket Tag. The fight ends after the first caster successfully sets off his nuke. If the NPC caster does it, the party is SOL. Martials have better chance of surviving the initial nuke. (Assuming not having a specific counter already in place)
After the initial boom, then it is the martials on both sides time to mop up.
For me I see the Caster-Martial issue more like the differences between Cruisers and Air Craft Carriers. Sure the Air Craft Carrier is a stronger piece, but without a collection of Cruisers and other similar ships, they can get sunk fairly quickly if caught off guard.
As a GM, I always feel that any trick the players do will work the first time, but will start to be countered going forward. High level NPCs hear/know about those tricks as well.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Starting at about 13 or so, the game does become a bit of Rocket Tag. The fight ends after the first caster successfully sets off his nuke. If the NPC caster does it, the party is SOL. Martials have better chance of surviving the initial nuke. (Assuming not having a specific counter already in place)
After the initial boom, then it is the martials on both sides time to mop up.
For me I see the Caster-Martial issue more like the differences between Cruisers and Air Craft Carriers. Sure the Air Craft Carrier is a stronger piece, but without a collection of Cruisers and other similar ships, they can get sunk fairly quickly if caught off guard.
As a GM, I always feel that any trick the players do will work the first time, but will start to be countered going forward. High level NPCs hear/know about those tricks as well.
Okay, but what about the other 80% of the C/MD, that isn't about combat?
Because it seems to be salient to this discussion, I'll just leave this here.
-Ben.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Broadly speaking, there are 3 choices to the problem.
One is to nerf casters. Take away their best spells, make casting more difficult etc. Simple in concept, but difficult to get the right ones, takes away some iconic aspects of the game and will surely be contentious as people hate things being take from them.
Another is to buff martials. Giving them wuxia like powers or boosting other abilities so they become more dominant. Wuxia is easy, but many feel it is setting inappropriate. Other ways that would make martials more important by just making them more martial require fairly extensive changes.
Lastly is to limit the scope to where the problem doesn't exist, or at least not as much, such as E6 or E8. Workable, but obviously some people want higher level play, and that doesn't solve that issue.
My preferred solution is a combo of the first two, using Path of War and Spheres of Power.
4. More skills for everyone (including casters). Let people solve some problems with mundane solutions so magic isn't always Plan A.How many ranks in Swim do I need to go down to the sunken ship/ruins of Atlantis without "Plan A" being water breathing/life bubble?
How many ranks in Stealth do I need in order to be "Plan A" over simply using invisibility?
How many ranks in Survival do I need in order to encounter extreme weather and have "Plan A" be my skills instead of endure elements?
How many ranks in Perception do I need in order to be "Plan A" for finding invisible creatures/clues/macguffins instead of see invisibility/invisibility purge?
How many ranks in Acrobatics do I need in order for jumping to be "Plan A" instead of fly when encountering a tall/deep obstacle or an airborne destination?
How many ranks in Sense Motive do I need in order for my skills to be "Plan A" in reacting to the possibility of illusions, instead of detect magic, arcane sight, true seeing, etc?
Look, I like the idea of giving some classes more skills, but that doesn't actually solve anything unless you also change the surrounding context of how interacting with the world works.
I never suggested that skills would REPLACE magic. I did suggest that sometimes a skill might be plan A instead of magic being plan A. To use your first example, if those sunken ruins are only 30' below the surface and everyone has a few ranks of swim, and if Water Breathing required a 1,000gp diamond to cast it (for example), then maybe the group might choose to explore the ruins in a series of quick dives rather than resorting to magic.
Etc.
It's not meant as a replacer but rather as a viable alternative - make skills more available and make magic less available (or less optimal at least).
Starting at about 13 or so, the game does become a bit of Rocket Tag. The fight ends after the first caster successfully sets off his nuke. If the NPC caster does it, the party is SOL. Martials have better chance of surviving the initial nuke. (Assuming not having a specific counter already in place)
After the initial boom, then it is the martials on both sides time to mop up.
For me I see the Caster-Martial issue more like the differences between Cruisers and Air Craft Carriers. Sure the Air Craft Carrier is a stronger piece, but without a collection of Cruisers and other similar ships, they can get sunk fairly quickly if caught off guard.
As a GM, I always feel that any trick the players do will work the first time, but will start to be countered going forward. High level NPCs hear/know about those tricks as well.
What if that "nuke" requires three rounds to cast?
Martials get those rounds to put arrows or other damaging attacks into the caster to disrupt the spell, or kill him outright.
In that scenario, the caster might choose a 1-round buff to make his martials more effective rather than risking a 3-round nuke that might just get him killed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The non-portable spell book idea is clever. Clerics would use temples or shrines if you wanted to do something similar, while Druids might need groves or something like that.
Some considerations:
- Maybe allow a small portable book/altar/piece of nature to switch out one slot per level per day. Or maybe they have one daily prep slot per level, and the rest are set at those special places. Some caster utility is just boring "get rid of annoying permanent conditions" and other situational busy-work, and you don't want to force the group back to town.
- What about urban campaigns or wilderness campaigns? It's not a very consistent balance. A possible alternative is a once-per-week ritual. Or just go with changing one slot per day. On the other hand, it's kind of cool to have casters tied to civilization or nature.