There are some pretty good guidelines for that in DMG2, MM3 and the Monster Vault (they were still working out the kinks cirka DMG/MM1), but just grabbing an existing monster (or multiple existing monsters) for inspiration works out pretty well in my experience.
The DMG2 monster creation stuff is especially great, it comes with a lot of themes you can apply to generic monsters to give them a feel of "belonging" to the encounter, as well as a number of traps and hazards to pull everything together.
It's probably not as effortless as just reskinning/leveling existing monsters (which is absolute cakewalk) but it's close.
Ah, I only had the Core Rule books. That would be the reason the experience was opposite. That makes sense.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
......
By that logic there can never be any problem with any RPG system ever because the GM can fix it. This is dumb.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
GM 1990, so, are you offering a 5-year intensive course of study for every potential DM in the world, in order to teach them how to make the game work with a fraction of your self-professed level of awesomeness? Gee, that's an awful lot of people, and a potentially infinite amount of time invested. My word, wouldn't it be easier if the written rules actually functioned as intended to begin with, so that a PhD. in DMology wasn't needed?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is actually no way a level 20 fighter could solo a pit fiend
If the pit fiend's Int has been somehow reduced to 2 beforehand, so that all it does is stand there and trade full attacks, it works fine.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
You're essentially saying the GM should always completely customize every encounter to his particular party, ignoring important things like the fact that many people play at open or public tables like PFS, that there are classes capable of fulfilling multiple roles so well they can actually eclipse other classes built to do those things to the exclusion of all else, the fact that Paizo's entire business model grew around their APs and modules which support GMs who don't have the time to carefully craft hundreds of hours of story and encounters for their players, and other pertinent issues.
I suspect you aren't even familiar with thr rules for challenge rating and encounter design you're touting, and indeed, probably not even terribly familiar with what a high system mastery game looks like. At least, that's the impression I get from your posts, which routinely show that you haven't listened to or read more than a tiny fraction of the discussion being had here.
More than that, and I can't stress this enough, you're not saying anything new. People experiencing issues with martial/caster disparity have explained why your "solutions" are inadequate for their needs, and have shared and proposed solutions with others who have the same problems. If you have nothing new to contribute, and you don't experience the issue, then what are you even trying to accomplish?
*Applies 5e liberally*
Maybe I just want martials to be able to do martial things well. Maybe I don't want to have to coddle my fighter and rogue players I DM. Maybe you can rein in the balance design disaster that is Vancian magic and make it even cooler and more fun in the process.
Anyone else disappointed in Path of War? Am I missing something about it?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
This was never about the martials ability to do damage and/or compete in combat, at least to my understanding -- and only then in a more general way like adding ranged/area attacks and the like.
This discussion was, I believe, about closing the gap in narrative ability between the classes, giving martials a bit more control over their own destiny and over the game itself instead of being tag-a-longs for the spell casters.
The solution of simply overpowering the party with tons and tons of encounters isn't one that addresses what has been talked about, doesn't address the topic, and ends up with a lot of dice rolled and some very broken encounters.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Talking pretty big there for someone who said this only a few months ago:
just got back into gaming a few months ago after 20yrs....wow a lot has changed,
I'm curious as to why you don't have more respect for the decade and a half of experience the others have in this current edition's idiosyncrasies.
Though, knowing the vast majority of your experience is from 2e or earlier.. and a couple decades old at that.. could explain your stance on this.
I just don't understand the attitude.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was curious which part of the neverending cycle we'd be on when I got back to this thread.
Perhaps predictably, it was the phase of "new person shows up, doesn't read the thread or any prior discussions, and lays down what they expect to be a solution then mocks everyone who points out 'no that doesn't work, it's been tried already, read the damn thread'."
|
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 would argue, as a 'boss' NPC, such a fighter should have PC level appropriate gear not just 'NPC gear'.
|
I was curious which part of the neverending cycle we'd be on when I got back to this thread.
Perhaps predictably, it was the phase of "new person shows up, doesn't read the thread or any prior discussions, and lays down what they expect to be a solution then mocks everyone who points out 'no that doesn't work, it's been tried already, read the damn thread'."
As IF!?
Talking pretty big there for someone who said this only a few months ago:
just got back into gaming a few months ago after 20yrs....wow a lot has changed,I'm curious as to why you don't have more respect for the decade and a half of experience the others have in this current
editionthread's idiosyncrasies.Though, knowing the vast majority of your experience is from 2e or earlier.. and a couple decades old at that.. could explain your stance on this.
I just don't understand the attitude.
I would say I fixed that for you, but really I just did it for my own entertainment.
|
|
Giving any enemies PC level gear throws off the PC's wealth. That's fine for the final boss, but not for anyone else.
But wouldn't WBL restrict what you equip him with anyways? you wouldn't just kit him out with the best level 18+ gear, because that would be the same as giving the level 9 party level 18 gear, so you'd probably give him lots of boosts/defensive buff potions and traps, gear to get past any one party members DR/resistance, and more powerful gear to cover his inefficiencies.
Then don't have the fighter be such a high level, that way such a concern of gear is less of such.
I still feel it is insane having him be level 18... no matter what side of the C/MD you are on. I would rather give the fighter Mythic levels then having it be level 18, or consider other ways of increasing difficulty other then having the fighter be level 18.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Giving any enemies PC level gear throws off the PC's wealth. That's fine for the final boss, but not for anyone else.But wouldn't WBL restrict what you equip him with anyways? you wouldn't just kit him out with the best level 18+ gear, because that would be the same as giving the level 9 party level 18 gear, so you'd probably give him lots of boosts/defensive buff potions and traps, gear to get past any one party members DR/resistance, and more powerful gear to cover his inefficiencies.Then don't have the fighter be such a high level, that way such a concern of gear is less of such.
I still feel it is insane having him be level 18... no matter what side of the C/MD you are on. I would rather give the fighter Mythic levels then having it be level 18, or consider other ways of increasing difficulty other then having the fighter be level 18.
Mythic levels as a fix can actually be pretty interesting, in part because the Mythic rules themselves are so hilariously imbalanced. Since 2 mythic tiers are considered to be worth about 1 level in determining encounter balance but can actually be substantially more potent then that, you can come very close to a "two wrongs make a right" scenario by applying mythic tiers in place of class levels to martial NPCs only as part of adjusting the dynamic.
Given how swingy and awkward that particular solution is, it wouldn't be at the top of my list, but it's certainly a feasible way to achieve the desired result of adhering to the current rules while still implementing a solution. I've actually seen several people suggest that you could simply give martials, and only martials, mythic tiers, and while I know it's a bit more complex than that, I think a little grooming of the mythic system could actually make that a very viable solution.
Comparing casters and Martials is like comparing oranges and apples. Sure you can use citrus in more dishes, the flavour is stronger and duck a la pomme would taste pretty lame, but it isn't all about power. Apple may be a bit less flexible or overwhelming but sometimes you just can't beat apple pie.
Now as a player I like apple pie, but I also like a orange juice in the morning. I wouldn't dream of thinking the orange juice drinkers spoil things for the apple pie eaters. At the end of the day it all gives us energy and it all turns to poop in the end, so why worry!
Peace in 2016 Y'all
I had a brain fart the other day and thought i would bring it here for critique as it could help deal with the disparity.
Have a feat line possibly or maybe add onto all characters the following:
The character treats his caster level as BAB/2. He may learn a single spell of appropriate level when his effective caster level allows him to cast a new level of spell. He may cast each spell once per day. The character must however fluff these "spells" as non mogically as possible. So for example a rogue could learn spider climb, and fluff it as he has such prowess with climbing that he can run up walls and hang from ceilings or whatever.
At lvl 20 a full BAB class would have 1 spell of each level up to 5 once per day.
It allows all characters to give themselves the options that they want. Gives them later than casters would have access to those spells. But still gives them to them. Each person can define if they want narative power or combat power
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Some possible solutions
1. Unchained action economy
2. Unchained automatic bonus progression
3. Create Athletics skill that can be used for jumping, climbing, and swimming. Classes with climbing or swimming as class skills get Athletics instead. Athletics is a strength base skill normally. Acrobatics still retains it's jumping function.
4. Combat maneuvers use Athletics or Acrobatics as appropriate (Describe action, GM decides). They are countered by the target's athletics or acrobatics (the target's choice). Attempting a combat maneuver does not generate an attack of opportunity.
5. The mounted combat feat lets you redirect all attacks to your mount to yourself. You may roll reflex saves for your mount and your mount is treated as having evasion.
6. No such thing as flat-footed (dex denied) or touch AC. Whenever a foe would be considered dex-denied instead just add +5 to the attack roll.
7. 3/4th BAB is the minimum
8. Spells that require an attack roll use the casting stat instead of dexterity
9. Remove SR. Creatures with SR instead gain +5 to saves against magic including those spells that say "SR no".
10. Your maximum negative HP is equal to your maximum HP.
11. Thrown weapons may use strength for the to-hit roll instead of dexterity.
12. 4+int is the minimum for skill points
There that would go a long way to bring C/M closer to where I want it.
Just to throw my two cents of what I do in my games which I am sure will get washed in the mix.
1)I limit character creation to stats to be 18 after racial modifiers On a 20 point and 16 on a 15 point. Helps limit the range that characters can end up at making it easier to balance encounters for me as a GM. I also control what items drop so as to not give one character access to breaking the DC/to hit table.
2)All spells must be picked at the start of the day. This tends to drive people more to spontaneous casting classes.
3)Outside of an Inn or guarded stronghold it can be difficult to get a full 8 hours rest and an hour for study. I do not hand wave the uninterrupted rest or study time requirements as they are there to show the weaknesses of 9 level casters. Often there are many creatures that only come out at night, or someone must be caught as soon as possible so there is no time to rest, sooooo . . . . you are going to take a nap in this room to regain your spells because you do not want to open the door for fear of what is on the other side? *Monsters open the door*
4) No daze meta-magic, just no.
5) As the levels increase so do the number of monsters that are immune to many of the godwizard spells or highly resistant to spells and or specific elements. The general thought process is that anything that isn't at least a little resistant to wizard spells has already been killed off by CR 14 if they are considered dangerous.
6) Not all spells are created equal and there for should not be equally available. I tend to restrict the free spells for leveling to just the core spells. That way if they want a specific spell they need to find someone who knows it and convince them to teach it to them, and wizards do not like to share power. Sorcerers need to declare what they are practicing and need to at least see a spell being cast and make the spell-craft check to learn it, unless it is core which is considered common knowledge. They can research a new spell if they spend the time and money but can only swap one researched spell per level or learn them next level.
7) Environmental tactics. Often the biggest strength of casters is range. If your encounters often restrict the field of vision and or start in close range casters are at a distinct disadvantage. Many targets on a flat open play mat is where a wizard should own, in the warren of a shanty town alleys not so much.
8) Social consequences of magic. Any mind effecting magic is the equivalent of rape, depending on your setting could be major or minor. Illusions outside of entertainment show untrustworthiness. Divination is invasion of privacy, which again will be setting specific. Summoning monsters is very alignment driven on how it is viewed.
All of this might be a little heavy handed but it is how I handle the disparity, along with the 2 background skills per level.
2) Running exp costs. Instead of having an ever-growing cost for "character level" to which you overlay a class level, have level cost based on the actual level of the class being attained. To illustrate, instead of a lvl 19 Fighter needing lvl 20 exp to get Rogue 1, let him get Rogue 1 for only lvl 1 exp cost. This bolsters multi-classing a bit because it lets a multi-class character gain "point values" (ie. saves, HP, attribute increases, BAB, etc) at a faster rate while foregoing class specialty.
This idea is amusing, but it needs development to become workable. Fortunately, I have been mathematically analyzing the leveling of classes and have some of the answers you need.
Letting a character get Rogue 1 for only level 1 experience cost ignores that level 1 has no experience cost. Everyone starts at fist level with zero experience points. However, I analyzed the Pathfinder's fast progression for experience: 0, 1300, 3300, 6000, 10000, 15000, 23000, 34000, 50000, 71000, 105000, 145000, ....--and found that it fits the curve 3000×(1.43^(n-1)) - 3000 reasonably well, where n is the level. This curve suggests that everyone starts at first level with 3000 hidden experience points. Therefore, the hidden cost for a first level class is 3000 xp.
Unfortunately, the math ignores that some aspects of first level are just as powerful as tenth level. For example, a fifth-level fighter multiclassing with one level of paladin still reaches BAB +6/+1 gaining a second attack that a first-level paladin would not ordinarily have. Likewise, skill points don't change for level.
What would make this idea workable is rather than revising the level progression system to allow cheaper multiclassing, how about using the existing Prestige Class system? Create special retraining prestige classes that would allow a fighter to retrain to magus and a magus to retrain to wizard.
For example, a fifth-level fighter has BAB +5, fort +4, ref +1, will +1, martial weapon proficiency, heavy armor proficiency, bravery, armor training 1, weapon training 1, three bonus combat feats, and five levels of d10 hit dice (31 hp) on average). A magus gets BAB+5 at 7th level, where he also has fort +5, ref +2, will +5, martial weapon proficiency, medium armor proficiency, third-level magus spells, arcane pool, spell combat, spellstrike, spell recall, two magus arcana, one bonus feat, a knowledge pool, and seven levels of d8 hit dice (35 hp).
Imagine a Magus Retraining prestige class with prerequisites BAB +5, martial weapon proficiency, medium armor proficiency, and no arcane spellcasting abilities.
First level offers +0 to BAB, +1 to fort and ref, +2 to will, magus cantrips, four first-level magus spells per day, arcane pool, spell combat, 1d3 hit dice (2hp), and the character counts as a first-level magus for taking further magus levels.
Second level offers +0 to BAB, +2 to will, second- and third-level magus spells, spellstrike, spell recall, 1d3 hit dice (2hp), and the character counts as a seventh-level magus for taking further magus levels.
The fighter now would be much like a magus archetype, having gained heavy armor proficiency with arcane spell failure chance, two bonus combat feats instead of two magus arcana, and armor training and weapon training instead of a knowledge pool.
A Wizard Retraining prestige class for a magus would be more difficult to design, since it needs to convert magus spellcasting to wizard spellcasting.
This is not a good solution to the caster/martial disparity, but it would keep some players happier because their characters could retrain to caster when the disparity cramps their character too much.
Some possible solutions
1. Unchained action economy
2. Unchained automatic bonus progression
Just these two have actually gone a long way for me. At least, as far as combat goes. The martials get more freedom, and the casters barely even notice their "nerfs" in the UAE. The Big 6 have always been a pet peeve of mine, so I absolutely adore the #2 (except the attunements).
However there's still plenty going on outside of combat as for the disparity. But that's where our table doesn't really mind it much. Especially for plot-advancing abilities like Teleportation.
Some shenanigans I've never been fond of however include things like Simulacrum. Pretty much ever since that spell was ever thought of, that spell itself has been a shenanigan. Great "bad guy" spell, but rather absurd. A rather long list can be made of other offenders. You know. Those ones that you look at and say "No. Just....no." To me, that's where the disparity is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I read toppling spell when one of my players picked the feat.
My first thought was "well, now they don't need trip focused martials anymore..."
I think any spell that replicates something a non-caster usually does should still have to use the same stats that the other class would have to use. Most of the caster solutions substitute CL or prime casting stat in place of BAB or STR/DEX to accomplish things.
It takes nothing for a player to make a trip focused caster, other than to take this one metamagic feat, then that seems a bit out of whack, when it takes feats, appropriate ability scores, and sometimes class abilities to get the same level of competence for a non-caster, at the cost of other combat options.
I may rule that when spells do this, they have to use their actual CMB/CMD, not a modified one.
Exceptions for spells like Transformation obviously.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Could you explain how these two help? The first seems like a serious detriment to rogues while with the second I don't know what you intended.Some possible solutions
...
6. No such thing as flat-footed (dex denied) or touch AC. Whenever a foe would be considered dex-denied instead just add +5 to the attack roll.
7. 3/4th BAB is the minimum
...
There that would go a long way to bring C/M closer to where I want it.
Both of these actually just seem like buffs to casters, actually... 3/4 BAB Wizards will serve only to bring back the polymorphed terrors of yesteryear. Suddenly the best martial is a Brown Fur Transmuter Arcanist.
Could you explain how these two help? The first seems like a serious detriment to rogues while with the second I don't know what you intended.Some possible solutions
...
6. No such thing as flat-footed (dex denied) or touch AC. Whenever a foe would be considered dex-denied instead just add +5 to the attack roll.
7. 3/4th BAB is the minimum
...
There that would go a long way to bring C/M closer to where I want it.
Martials have higher AC than casters but that AC is irrelevant if casters only target touch AC. Casters then receive a buff to compensate. 3/4 bab + main stat is equivalent to crb rogue garbage tier to-hit. It's enough so their attack roll spells aren't worthless, but still leaves them worse in melee than an eldritch Knight.
Not all foes have 20 or more Dex. It ends up being a buff for the rogue.
You're right that changing the way flat-footed works helps Rogues since monsters that rely on dexterity more than natural armor are pretty rare, but I don't think you understand what giving arcane casters 3/4 BAB would do. The Rogue has garbage to-hit because she has nothing to boost her attack past that mediocre BAB; the wizard, on the other hand, is capable of polymorphing for huge main-stat gains. All you did was make it so that the same problem we already have with clerics (being a perfectly acceptable martial if she wants to be, robbing the Fighter of that niche) now applies to wizards.
It would probably be better to just cut the armor or nat armor bonus in half, rather then doing away with it, for touch attacks. Arachno is right...giving full BAB to wiz/sorcs is once again grinding down on the role of pure martials. Do you give your fighters 1/2 wizard spellcasting, now?
I can see the +5 for the rogue. It'll be a net buff until higher levels.
==Aelryinth
You're right that changing the way flat-footed works helps Rogues since monsters that rely on dexterity more than natural armor are pretty rare, but I don't think you understand what giving arcane casters 3/4 BAB would do. The Rogue has garbage to-hit because she has nothing to boost her attack past that mediocre BAB; the wizard, on the other hand, is capable of polymorphing for huge main-stat gains. All you did was make it so that the same problem we already have with clerics (being a perfectly acceptable martial if she wants to be, robbing the Fighter of that niche) now applies to wizards.
Crb rogue to-hit is still bad even with caster buffs.
I think the fighter ends up better off on that trade. Sure a wizard could pull off some decent melee, but the fighter's main advantage of AC still matters. It's not like it's impossible for wizards to out melee fighters right now. Magic jar a nice body then polymorph = better to-hit and damage than the fighter.
Magic is all sorts of busted, but punishing the fighter for it seems wrong.
You're right that changing the way flat-footed works helps Rogues since monsters that rely on dexterity more than natural armor are pretty rare, but I don't think you understand what giving arcane casters 3/4 BAB would do. The Rogue has garbage to-hit because she has nothing to boost her attack past that mediocre BAB; the wizard, on the other hand, is capable of polymorphing for huge main-stat gains. All you did was make it so that the same problem we already have with clerics (being a perfectly acceptable martial if she wants to be, robbing the Fighter of that niche) now applies to wizards.Crb rogue to-hit is still bad even with caster buffs.
I think the fighter ends up better off on that trade. Sure a wizard could pull off some decent melee, but the fighter's main advantage of AC still matters. It's not like it's impossible for wizards to out melee fighters right now. Magic jar a nice body then polymorph = better to-hit and damage than the fighter.
Magic is all sorts of busted, but punishing the fighter for it seems wrong.
The note about magic jar sent me digging through the CRB and bestiary and just made me wonder - is this really happening "a lot" in actual game play. Once in a while is one thing, my point has been GMs should set conditions for everyone to shine and the rules already give a lot of leeway to GMs to control this. Once in a while setting up a combat that allows a caster to just dominate the action by doing this would be cool for that player. But are situations like this happening consistently at gaming tables and that's one of the things driving this martial vs caster disparity discussion (at least regarding during combat)?
Will saves for 7-9 CR mobs can run from to 5 Dracolisk to 12 Vampire and a 5th level Magic Jar spell probably looking at save DC of 19 to 22? So 50% chance the vampire fails but also, its a standard action to cast Magic Jar, its then a full round action to try the possession. Given there are...
You don't magic jar as a combat action. You do it hours, days, weeks ahead of time, keeping your body nice and safe while wearing around a tougher spare.
Giving mages more hand to hand combat ability when they can take a monstrous form stronger then the party fighter and then BUFF it up ahead of time is completely unnecessary.
Keep in mind that in 1E, wizards had 1/3 BAB, and were not considered WEAK. They were designed not to get into hand to hand combat unless they were a little crazy (i.e. using Tenser's Transformation)
==Aelryinth
You're right that changing the way flat-footed works helps Rogues since monsters that rely on dexterity more than natural armor are pretty rare, but I don't think you understand what giving arcane casters 3/4 BAB would do. The Rogue has garbage to-hit because she has nothing to boost her attack past that mediocre BAB; the wizard, on the other hand, is capable of polymorphing for huge main-stat gains. All you did was make it so that the same problem we already have with clerics (being a perfectly acceptable martial if she wants to be, robbing the Fighter of that niche) now applies to wizards.Crb rogue to-hit is still bad even with caster buffs.
I think the fighter ends up better off on that trade. Sure a wizard could pull off some decent melee, but the fighter's main advantage of AC still matters. It's not like it's impossible for wizards to out melee fighters right now. Magic jar a nice body then polymorph = better to-hit and damage than the fighter.
Magic is all sorts of busted, but punishing the fighter for it seems wrong.
...Have you never played with a battle cleric in your party before? Because that's literally all I'm saying. A 3/4 BAB Wizard would have the martial ability of a 3/4 BAB Cleric.
...Have you never played with a battle cleric in your party before? Because that's literally all I'm saying. A 3/4 BAB Wizard would have the martial ability of a 3/4 BAB Cleric.You're right that changing the way flat-footed works helps Rogues since monsters that rely on dexterity more than natural armor are pretty rare, but I don't think you understand what giving arcane casters 3/4 BAB would do. The Rogue has garbage to-hit because she has nothing to boost her attack past that mediocre BAB; the wizard, on the other hand, is capable of polymorphing for huge main-stat gains. All you did was make it so that the same problem we already have with clerics (being a perfectly acceptable martial if she wants to be, robbing the Fighter of that niche) now applies to wizards.Crb rogue to-hit is still bad even with caster buffs.
I think the fighter ends up better off on that trade. Sure a wizard could pull off some decent melee, but the fighter's main advantage of AC still matters. It's not like it's impossible for wizards to out melee fighters right now. Magic jar a nice body then polymorph = better to-hit and damage than the fighter.
Magic is all sorts of busted, but punishing the fighter for it seems wrong.
I have. But neither of them get auto-hit rays anymore. When the Fighter goes up against the bestiary, he or she will do better.
EDIT: IMO Martial vs Bestiary > Interparty balance
Not making a whole branch of spells useless > Interparty balance