|
In light of this very disparity, I once jokingly suggested adding an extremely OP melee weapon to the game that would deal less damage the more total caster levels that you had. My reverse-scaling lightsaber was poorly received.
In more serious terms, I'd suggest replacing Attacks of Opportunity with class-specific Actions of Opportunity; Fighters can do combat maneuvers, Barbarians can do extra attacks, Rogues can do dirty tricks, casters can do counter-spelling, etc.
In light of this very disparity, I once jokingly suggested adding an extremely OP melee weapon to the game that would deal less damage the more total caster levels that you had. My reverse-scaling lightsaber was poorly received.
In more serious terms, I'd suggest replacing Attacks of Opportunity with class-specific Actions of Opportunity; Fighters can do combat maneuvers, Barbarians can do extra attacks, Rogues can do dirty tricks, casters can do counter-spelling, etc.
Nothing prevents you from using trip, disarm, or sunder as an attack of opportunity.
In light of this very disparity, I once jokingly suggested adding an extremely OP melee weapon to the game that would deal less damage the more total caster levels that you had. My reverse-scaling lightsaber was poorly received.
In more serious terms, I'd suggest replacing Attacks of Opportunity with class-specific Actions of Opportunity; Fighters can do combat maneuvers, Barbarians can do extra attacks, Rogues can do dirty tricks, casters can do counter-spelling, etc.
You do the obverse of this. As the weapon gets more powerful, it lowers your caster level by an amount equal to its enhancement bonus. Oh, and you have to 'bond' to it, so 'not having it in hand' doesn't allow you to sidestep the penalty.
Then you add something like adding the weapon bonus to Str and Con, and stacking DR = Enhancement /- to make it REALLY sweet, a Guardian/Defender weapon, and watch all the spellcaster's faces go purple.
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My favorite anti-caster sword is Glirendree, from Larry Niven's "Not Long Before the End" (1969). A human barbarian gets his hands on it and finds he can't let go of the hilt. That's because Glirendree is actually a demon, and has swallowed the guy's hand; it only looks like a sword to fool the rubes. Glirendree's metabolism runs on magic, so any spells that target the barbarian (like the Warlock's meteor swarm in the story) get instantly absorbed, nullifying their effects and making the demon that much more powerful.
|
My favorite anti-caster sword is Glirendree, from Larry Niven's "Not Long Before the End" (1969). A human barbarian gets his hands on it and finds he can't let go of the hilt. That's because Glirendree is actually a demon, and has swallowed the guy's hand; it only looks like a sword to fool the rubes. Glirendree's metabolism runs on magic, so any spells that target the barbarian (like the Warlock's meteor swarm in the story) get instantly absorbed, nullifying their effects and making the demon that much more powerful.
Sounds like it sucked for both parties in that instance.
I like the concept of awesome power like that coming at a cost though. Making players take tough choices for immense power is on of my main ways of mitigating caster martial stuff.
Lol lime any caster would give a s+++ about that weapon, when magic is way more powerful
Now, now. You take a weapon assuming the caster wants a weapon in the first place.
Like a cleric.
Or paladin.
Or magus.
Or warpriest/inquisitor/alchemist.
or WHATEVER.
I didn't say 'wizard'.
And they could take the weapon, but they'd end up with a much, much lower caster level. So they don't take the weapon, while complaining loudly that they want something just as cool.
Which is kind of like complaining that you want a Holy Avenger even though you aren't a paladin. Exact same concept.
==Aelryinth
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My favorite anti-caster sword is Glirendree, from Larry Niven's "Not Long Before the End" (1969). A human barbarian gets his hands on it and finds he can't let go of the hilt. That's because Glirendree is actually a demon, and has swallowed the guy's hand; it only looks like a sword to fool the rubes. Glirendree's metabolism runs on magic, so any spells that target the barbarian (like the Warlock's meteor swarm in the story) get instantly absorbed, nullifying their effects and making the demon that much more powerful.Sounds like it sucked for both parties in that instance.
I like the concept of awesome power like that coming at a cost though. Making players take tough choices for immense power is on of my main ways of mitigating caster martial stuff.
I gave my players a reusable Wish scroll at level 5. The Wish can be cast by anyone, but has 3 requirements:
1) Requires 5 people gathered in a circle.
2) They all have to agree and speak the exact same wording.
3) They all have to kill themselves to complete the ritual
So if one person chickens out, or decides to wish for something else, the spell fizzles. The spell also doesn't work if they aren't doing it of their own free will, so you can't dominate 5 people and have them cast it for you.
Whenever they complain that they can't solve a problem, I remind them that they still have this scroll....
My favorite anti-caster sword is Glirendree, from Larry Niven's "Not Long Before the End" (1969). A human barbarian gets his hands on it and finds he can't let go of the hilt. That's because Glirendree is actually a demon, and has swallowed the guy's hand; it only looks like a sword to fool the rubes. Glirendree's metabolism runs on magic, so any spells that target the barbarian (like the Warlock's meteor swarm in the story) get instantly absorbed, nullifying their effects and making the demon that much more powerful.Sounds like it sucked for both parties in that instance.
I like the concept of awesome power like that coming at a cost though. Making players take tough choices for immense power is on of my main ways of mitigating caster martial stuff.
I gave my players a reusable Wish scroll at level 5. The Wish can be cast by anyone, but has 3 requirements:
1) Requires 5 people gathered in a circle.
2) They all have to agree and speak the exact same wording.
3) They all have to kill themselves to complete the ritualSo if one person chickens out, or decides to wish for something else, the spell fizzles. The spell also doesn't work if they aren't doing it of their own free will, so you can't dominate 5 people and have them cast it for you.
Whenever they complain that they can't solve a problem, I remind them that they still have this scroll....
This is beautiful.
|
|
Hire a 6th person to tez them? OE bind an outsider or something, doesn't seems like that hard of a problem.
Anyway where is this sweet wizard slayer coming back for our rumble.
Seems like the scroll is bound to the five party members as part of the magic. Binding or hiring or tricking others probably won't work. Likely it's one of the first things the group tried as a work around.
oi and the 5k each to raise them from the dead is amusingly the same cost as the component of the Wish spell.
==Aelryinth
|
I would recommend checking out the Midnight campaign setting, that setting went a long way in greatly lessening the M/CD with a feat based magic system. They also cutting out the Christmas tree effect of magic items, by making such extremely rare and instead offering what is called Heroic Paths to player characters.
Aren't rangers clearly the best in 4e because they get attack twice as a power.Multi-attack powers are the best at dealing damage, since they double-up the damage buffs from weapons, feats, allies, etc. (as opposed to attacks with multiple die damage which only get those added once) and rangers happen to have a lot of multiattack powers, including the at-will Twin Strike. This means that Rangers, if built for it, can do the most damage by a not insignificant margin, especially when conserving powers by using at-wills.
However, the Ranger has little else in terms of combat utility when built that way (it's often said that Rangers secondary role is also Striker). Depending on group, having a Warlock or Monk shore up the Control side of things, a Blackguard for some extra Defense, or a Hybrid leader can outweigh the benefits of pure damage, not to mention party-synergy things like basic attack and charge optimization dethroning the generic ranger in terms of damage when built around (but the ranger can also play that game and it evens out a bit).
One of the funnier things SKR commented on about 4e was that it was a Striker's game...they were the offensive class, so they got to have the most fun in combat. All the others there were basically to support the Striker in fighting.
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh noes, my enemies are prepared for typical magical means to overcome defences. How dare th enemies do that, damn them for being aware of the world and how it works and responding appropriately. How dare they not just react like nothing is more powerful than a low level warrior.
Oh woe is me.
Sarcasm and humour.
I'm giving suggestions on how to bring things more into line. Apparently only sweeping rules changes are acceptable though.
Yeah congratulations on providing a solution to a problem that no longer works.
Enemy: Muahahah.... Look at my preparations for this for encounter.Competent Spellcaster: What preparations? *Casts a LEVEL 1 Spell*
Enemy: Oooo s&@+ I forget them.
You can try and play that game but honestly with Pathfinder spellcasters are probably going to gain a way to negate your preparations.
Aren't rangers clearly the best in 4e because they get attack twice as a power.Multi-attack powers are the best at dealing damage, since they double-up the damage buffs from weapons, feats, allies, etc. (as opposed to attacks with multiple die damage which only get those added once) and rangers happen to have a lot of multiattack powers, including the at-will Twin Strike. This means that Rangers, if built for it, can do the most damage by a not insignificant margin, especially when conserving powers by using at-wills.
However, the Ranger has little else in terms of combat utility when built that way (it's often said that Rangers secondary role is also Striker). Depending on group, having a Warlock or Monk shore up the Control side of things, a Blackguard for some extra Defense, or a Hybrid leader can outweigh the benefits of pure damage, not to mention party-synergy things like basic attack and charge optimization dethroning the generic ranger in terms of damage when built around (but the ranger can also play that game and it evens out a bit).
I wanna say the Warlord was the best because arguably outside of replicating Twin Strike they can effectively stack more buffs onto damage than the Ranger can. Its entirely reliant on the party composition though but still with the right party its far more effective than just a party of strikers.
oi and the 5k each to raise them from the dead is amusingly the same cost as the component of the Wish spell.
==Aelryinth
Forgot to add, we're playing E8.
@MadScientistWorking: I agree I think. Warlord probably brings the most damage to the group. It is also the most fun I had playing combat in an RPG ever, so what I'm trying to say is that yeah, warlords are absolutely the best.
Which is utterly hilarious because its the only class in any edition of D&D where its at its most effective at damage while never lifting up a sword. Quite possibly the comment I replied too was referencing hybrid wizard/warlord which given that ability interaction is ridiculously powerful and swaps out some of the dead abilities for useful ones.
I still think making the Fighter class a viable enemy for a party to face is a red herring. Player classes can certainly give you a guideline for how powerful an NPC should be, but I see no reason why they should constrain you on creating challenges that are appropriately difficult for the party.
Is a 10th level Fighter too easy for your party? Just give him 50 extra HP and +2 to AC/Saves, without changing his CR. It's not like the world is going to implode. And before you respond "That's not RAW" we're in the homebrew section.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sweet, hire a druid, use your wish scroll, pay for reincarnate for 5 people. 5 k for a reusable wish? yes please
Suffice to say, I already know all the loopholes you think might be present. I'm sorry, I'd rather not derail this thread with you guys guessing what they are, and what house rules are already in place that prevent them. This campaign setting is home brewed and 13 years old. There are many, many legacy rules that remain in place and I don't want to go over all of them.
This scroll wouldn't work in every campaign. It works in mine. I gave the players a nuclear option, but it will require sacrifice. Significant sacrifice. Enough so that they've been carrying the scroll for 2 years and have not yet used it.
|
|
Sweet, hire a druid, use your wish scroll, pay for reincarnate for 5 people. 5 k for a reusable wish? yes please
Reincarnate may very well ruin the prerequisites of the scroll. Same soul different body may well break whatever parameters the scroll has in its binding magic.
It would suck to find that out having used the wish the first time, only to come back as a troglodyte and find the scroll no longer works for you.
Oh, one last thing for how they got the scroll: They were assaulting a lighthouse, several enemies tried to prevent them from getting inside and they had a battle. During the battle, they could hear chanting from inside the lighthouse. Once the battle was over, the chanting had stopped though. When they made their way inside, they discovered 5 dead people, with a magical dagger floating in the air between them. The dead people belonged to a secret religious order, of which the players were also members, but unaware of each other.
I still think making the Fighter class a viable enemy for a party to face is a red herring. Player classes can certainly give you a guideline for how powerful an NPC should be, but I see no reason why they should constrain you on creating challenges that are appropriately difficult for the party.
Is a 10th level Fighter too easy for your party? Just give him 50 extra HP and +2 to AC/Saves, without changing his CR. It's not like the world is going to implode. And before you respond "That's not RAW" we're in the homebrew section.
Not originally... it got booted here because it's suggesting changes to the core system so everything mechanically meshes well.
Sure you can do your suggestion, but it'd be nice if encounter creation made any sense in the first place.
Dont even get me started on traps.
I would recommend checking out the Midnight campaign setting, that setting went a long way in greatly lessening the M/CD with a feat based magic system. They also cutting out the Christmas tree effect of magic items, by making such extremely rare and instead offering what is called Heroic Paths to player characters.
I love midnight, especially the fact that magic items are almost more of a hindrance than they are a help any time you try to do something important.
I would recommend checking out the Midnight campaign setting, that setting went a long way in greatly lessening the M/CD with a feat based magic system. They also cutting out the Christmas tree effect of magic items, by making such extremely rare and instead offering what is called Heroic Paths to player characters.I love midnight, especially the fact that magic items are almost more of a hindrance than they are a help any time you try to do something important.
Midnight is my favorite campaign setting ever. Fantasy Flight stopped publishing new material when 3.5 went belly up, but there is still a thriving fan community over at againsttheshadow.org
I highly recommend that setting for anyone who prefers their fantasy with extra grit.
|
|
I would recommend checking out the Midnight campaign setting, that setting went a long way in greatly lessening the M/CD with a feat based magic system. They also cutting out the Christmas tree effect of magic items, by making such extremely rare and instead offering what is called Heroic Paths to player characters.I love midnight, especially the fact that magic items are almost more of a hindrance than they are a help any time you try to do something important.Midnight is my favorite campaign setting ever. Fantasy Flight stopped publishing new material when 3.5 went belly up, but there is still a thriving fan community over at againsttheshadow.org
I highly recommend that setting for anyone who prefers their fantasy with extra grit.
To add to this you can actually find some Pathfinder homebrews for Midnight on againsttheshadow.org by Doomed Hero... unfinished, but still.
Design Manager
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is a 10th level Fighter too easy for your party? Just give him 50 extra HP and +2 to AC/Saves, without changing his CR. It's not like the world is going to implode. And before you respond "That's not RAW" we're in the homebrew section.
Which makes roughly 0 difference unless the group is made up of Fighters, Rogues, and maybe Monks. The enemy still has trouble with things like mobility, non-save based magical effects, etc. All you've done, at best, is buy him an extra round or two while doing nothing to actually address the issues that make a 10th level Fighter an inadequate challenge for an adventuring party.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So just treat Fighter as always being a non-associated class for otherwise standard-race NPCs. An 18th level NPC fighter is probably an appropriate encounter for a 9th level party.
An 18th level fighter will probably have a Will save on par with an 8th level wisdom based caster, so it's not completely unfair.
It's going to be one hell of a glass cannon NPC, though.
Is a 10th level Fighter too easy for your party? Just give him 50 extra HP and +2 to AC/Saves, without changing his CR. It's not like the world is going to implode. And before you respond "That's not RAW" we're in the homebrew section.Which makes roughly 0 difference unless the group is made up of Fighters, Rogues, and maybe Monks. The enemy still has trouble with things like mobility, non-save based magical effects, etc. All you've done, at best, is buy him an extra round or two while doing nothing to actually address the issues that make a 10th level Fighter an inadequate challenge for an adventuring party.
Except the Fighter class doesn't need to be an adequate challenge for a party. It's a player class. As GM, you can put a sword in an NPC's hands, put armor on it, have it not cast spells, and viola, it "looks" like a Fighter. You don't NEED to use the Fighter class to make a "fighter" opponent. The answer is no.
Separate the issues of encounter design from class design and you'll make solutions for each much simpler. If you insist on forcing both to reside in the same sphere, you end up with a game that will mechanically operate much like D&D 4E. We know what that solution looks like.
I still think making the Fighter class a viable enemy for a party to face is a red herring. Player classes can certainly give you a guideline for how powerful an NPC should be, but I see no reason why they should constrain you on creating challenges that are appropriately difficult for the party.
Is a 10th level Fighter too easy for your party? Just give him 50 extra HP and +2 to AC/Saves, without changing his CR. It's not like the world is going to implode. And before you respond "That's not RAW" we're in the homebrew section.
Not originally... it got booted here because it's suggesting changes to the core system so everything mechanically meshes well.
Sure you can do your suggestion, but it'd be nice if encounter creation made any sense in the first place.
Dont even get me started on traps.
Note that, by the training rules, you can already give him 45 hp just by 'training' for hit points, and +2 to AC and saves is a potion of heroism or something.
If you think that's going to make ANY real difference, you haven't taken out many fighters with a caster.
==Aelryinth
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Except the Fighter class doesn't need to be an adequate challenge for a party. It's a player class. As GM, you can put a sword in an NPC's hands, put armor on it, have it not cast spells, and viola, it "looks" like a Fighter. You don't NEED to use the Fighter class to make a "fighter" opponent. The answer is no.
Separate the issues of encounter design from class design and you'll make solutions for each much simpler. If you insist on forcing both to reside in the same sphere, you end up with a game that will mechanically operate much like D&D 4E. We know what that solution looks like.
You know you're describing exactly how NPCs worked in 4e as what you want, while simultaneously talking smack about 4e NPCs, right?
4e had an extremely strict divide between NPC capabilities and PC capabilities. They didn't even have all of the same statistics in their stat blocks, and NPCs were built arbitrarily with no standardization and no similarities to the construction of player characters.
|
Design Manager
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Except the Fighter class doesn't need to be an adequate challenge for a party. It's a player class. As GM, you can put a sword in an NPC's hands, put armor on it, have it not cast spells, and viola, it "looks" like a Fighter. You don't NEED to use the Fighter class to make a "fighter" opponent. The answer is no.Separate the issues of encounter design from class design and you'll make solutions for each much simpler. If you insist on forcing both to reside in the same sphere, you end up with a game that will mechanically operate much like D&D 4E. We know what that solution looks like.
Continue your reptition of the "4E fallacy" all you want, the Pathfinder system already says that yes, a Fighter of Nth level is exactly as valid a challenge as a Wizard of Nth level. This is already described in the core rules. You seem unable to actually structure a cogent argument, instead proposing solutions that show an ignorance of the problem and then trying to deflect to a meaningless and long debunked fallacy about 4E every time you're stymied.
Pathfinder, like 3.5 before it, is predicated upon the assumption that PCs, NPCs, and Bestiary monsters all play by the same rules. Even if a monster or creature is given a new and entirely unique ability, that ability fits within the wider framework of encounter design that the whole game sits upon. Ironically, your suggestion that enemies should follow different rules than PCs actually is a 4E design principle. So, you constantly accuse others, implicitly or directly, of steering the game towards 4E, while you yourself are leading the charge on that front by suggesting that one just use 4E philosophies for class and encounter design.
***Edit***
Double-ninja'd
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was referring to the abilities. There's no standard list of abilities- each "gaze" attack has its own rules for resolution.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's one of the reasons it's so easy to DM the game, since you can make up level appropriate enemies on the fly pretty easily.
Huh, that was the opposite to my experience. When I tried to Dm it I found it difficult to make NPC's since I felt like I had to make up mechanics from scratch each time. Interesting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If your parameters are "what the wizard is doing must be cooler than what the fighter is doing" then no, you cannot fix the disparity.
This. I don't understand the stipulation that "martials shall not get cool things"... I just don't. It doesn't make sense to me. If you think martials are so far behind, give them cool things to compete.
I don't see how you fix something without fixing it. If you don't want to fix it (I don't really, because I don't see the problem) then don't. If you do - then give your martials spell-like abilities or extra loot.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
to be honest, not counting a full martials armor and weapons against his WBL would go a long way towards balance, as he'd be able to afford more misc magic items, potions, etc.
It's actually one of the best hidden characteristics of the Soulknife class, and even the half-price for raising for the Magus is pretty nice...he basically buffs his weapon, and gets his armor for free!
But you'd have to do the benefit level by level, or it would just be dipped and abused.
==Aelryinth
18th level NPC fighter yeah, that's probably fair
Eh, 9 levels worth of gear (or whatever the npc math would end up equating it to) would probably result in it being pretty lopsided victory for the fighter. He'd be able to pay for ways to overcome his class's weaknesses and wouldn't need to spend much money on his offense and defense because it would already be so far above the party's limits.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Eh, 9 levels worth of gear (or whatever the npc math would end up equating it to) would probably result in it being pretty lopsided victory for the fighter.
Total WBL for an 18th level NPC is only 75,000 gp. Each 9th level PC has 46,000 gp worth of gear, so a party of 4 has something like 2 1/2 times as much stuff.
It's really not much different than if the NPC were an 18th level Warrior with some random circumstance bonuses to attacks and AC. That's how bad the fighter "PC" class is.
I suggest the OP to look at Path of War, also if 3rd party content is allowed, to look at the skill-n-feat martial arts system (you can find it on Internet or PM me, so i can try to find it on my old PC), i liked it because it is a cheap solution for non-casters to not to stop feeling they're not playing their original classes.
But i have to agree, magic is too powerful at higher levels so non-casters get eclipsed by it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Eh, 9 levels worth of gear (or whatever the npc math would end up equating it to) would probably result in it being pretty lopsided victory for the fighter.Total WBL for an 18th level NPC is only 75,000 gp. Each 9th level PC has 46,000 gp worth of gear, so a party of 4 has something like 2 1/2 times as much stuff.
It's really not much different than if the NPC were an 18th level Warrior with some random circumstance bonuses to attacks and AC. That's how bad the fighter "PC" class is.
While the total gear would be less, NPCs dont' necessarily need to have the glut of random crap that player's do that eats away at their WBL. It also increases the cap on what the NPC character can have in a single item. And again, they wouldn't be needing to spend as much of their money on the defensive items they might normally need because they're so much higher level than the player characters. The fighter would be fighting a 9th level party, not an ECL 18 encounter like the party would.
At this point we're more talking about how gear can influence an encounter, and I would agree that most other classes would offer a much larger challenge than the fighter, who is only throwing around more numbers and not new abilities.