Class features with less to no prerequisites (like sneak attack hampered for being precision based), binary outcomes ("yes/no", not swingy DCs), not being a feat (which means that only those with levels in said class may benefit from this) for common non-combat situations (hazardous natural obstacles, foul tempered NPCs, etc.) for each major level tiers (like being plain immune to hellfire at levels 17+). Even better if not duplicable by spells.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From the CRB, Magic > Arcane Magic:
"When preparing spells for the day, a wizard can leave some of these spell slots open. Later during that day, he can repeat the preparation process as often as he likes, time and circumstances permitting. During these extra sessions of preparation, the wizard can fill these unused spell slots. "
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
#2 - Did I miss where wizards are allowed to just rest and then go about the day with open spell slots, and as a need arises pick them? I thought that was only possible via your bonded item 1x per day.
Spell Selection and Preparation
Until he prepares spells from his spellbook, the only spells a wizard has available to cast are the ones that he already had prepared from the previous day and has not yet used. During the study period, he chooses which spells to prepare. If a wizard already has spells prepared (from the previous day) that he has not cast, she can abandon some or all of them to make room for new spells.
When preparing spells for the day, a wizard can leave some of these spell slots open. Later during that day, he can repeat the preparation process as often as he likes, time and circumstances permitting. During these extra sessions of preparation, the wizard can fill these unused spell slots. He cannot, however, abandon a previously prepared spell to replace it with another one or fill a slot that is empty because he has cast a spell in the meantime. That sort of preparation requires a mind fresh from rest. Like the first session of the day, this preparation takes at least 15 minutes, and it takes longer if the wizard prepares more than one-quarter of his spells.
...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
Recast the spell. Extend the spell.
Keep your body in storage back home and have the gem-Jar carried by someone in the party you trust, if need be. Or in stasis in a bag of holding. If your familiar can talk and has hands, it's a viable second target in emergencies.Most PF buff spells are straight buffs, regardless of the body you are in. So working off some of the already high stats, a Mage can get monstrously strong. ANd high stats easily sub for BAB in a fight...it's all about hitting and doing damage, after all, and high Str lets you do that in spades. Giving them more attacks and better ability to hit with a high BAB is a bad idea.
Seriously, look at something like Form of the Dragon. Realize that if you are possessing a Large Fire Giant, the bonuses from the spell still technically stack on top, because Fire Giants don't have Size bonuses in their stat block. So on top of your str 31 you gain +4 more, ANOTHER +4 in Nat Armor on top of what you have...and 5 natural attacks to replace using an axe!!!
Str 35, 3/4 BAB, 5 attacks...he'll make your melee toons look like posers.
==Aelryinth
Giving them more attacks and better ability to hit with a high BAB is a bad idea.
With unchained action economy, they wouldn't get more attacks.
The to-hit is better, but that is mainly so casual players won't have to cheese to use ray spells.
NOTE: Polymorphing as a non small or medium creature changes how stats are changed via miscellaneous table 34543645.
Unchained action economy has its own issues, mainly that its really rough on characters that use swift action buffs (Cavaliers/Paladins, Magi, etc).
Unchained action economy has its own issues, mainly that its really rough on characters that use swift action buffs (Cavaliers/Paladins, Magi, etc).
Sort'of, you do get the option of multiple swift actions.
Magi -> enhance weapon, hasted assault, move in range, attack
Next round -> Arcane accuracy, Spell combat, attack, attack
Giving them more attacks and better ability to hit with a high BAB is a bad idea.With unchained action economy, they wouldn't get more attacks.
The to-hit is better, but that is mainly so casual players won't have to cheese to use ray spells.
NOTE: Polymorphing as a non small or medium creature changes how stats are changed via miscellaneous table 34543645.
Mmm. Form of the Dragon 1 lets you change into a Medium Dragon, yet STILL grants a +4 size bonus to strength, even though it assumes you are already Medium to begin with.
meaning the bonus doesn't stack if you actually gain a size, but if you don't have a Size bonus defined and active, it will still apply, even if you don't actually gain a size.
they get more attacks by morphing into Forms with more natural attacks, like Form of the Dragon, carrying their enhanced stats along with them. It's part of the spell to get 5 attacks.
NOT by using the all the base attacks of their new body, which magic jar doesn't allow.
It's counter-intuitive, but otherwise, a Small Character would receive a bigger stat buff from the spell then a Medium character would (i.e. their Form would be stronger!)
===Aelryinth
taking over a low Will save enemy generally isn't a problem. Giant-kind, in particular, are easy targets.
The problem is more that it is subject to abuse, and we don't want it for an option, not that it is 'common'.
If your ride dies, get another ride. You've thinned the enemy, saved damage inflicted on the party, out performed the party fighter, and now, you can do it again with a new victim for the duration of the spell! i.e. it's like having a reusable Dominate Monster spell, only more effective!
==Aelryinth
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What have people seen a caster do to get around that part of the rule?
GM 1990, you seem to be missing a fundamental part of the disparity. A GM can compensate with a variety of tricks to prevent the casters from trivializing encounters, the same way he could compensate for half the PC's being 5 levels lower, or commoners, or having a 5 point buy, or whatever. Yes, a GM could compensate for these things. The problem is the number of things that need to be compensated for, in order for some of the players not to feel like sidekicks or waterboys. If a GM is required to throw in all these time pressures, social consequences, limited magic item economy, etc. etc. for the game to function, it limits the adventuring options considerably. If these things are limiting a PCs power, the player is going to take steps to get around these things, or avoid areas where they are present. If they continue to pop up, even when it is not logical, fun will suffer. Also the other players are going to quickly notice that the caster is just a more valuable team member, and it is going to be a problem.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think in game consequences, time pressures, and such are excessive or having the player follow the requirements listed in the books already. If I needed to recalc a bunch of martial feats/skills and other possible solutions to let them do more damage that would be work as well. But I'd prefer to avoid that if the real problem is a player not the mechanics. that's why I started asking specifics and proposing possible solutions that are already provided for in the rules and within the GM's ability.
Again, you seem to be missing the entire point of the caster martial disparity. THIS IS NOT ABOUT MARTIAL CHARACTERS NEEDING TO DO MORE DAMAGE. This is about casters having more overall power and options in almost all aspects of adventuring. Also, in game consequences, time pressures, and such, are temporary band-aids that only work in limited circumstances, and often punish the martial characters just as much (if not more) then the casters.
There are fundamental imbalances in the game - casters crafting themselves items well over their suggested Weath By Level. Casters adding powerful additional party members thru summoning, planar ally/binding, domination, undead creation, simulacrum. Casters bypassing HP/AC entirely with powerful save-or-suck spells such as blindness that essentially end combats in a swift action with quicken spell. Casters can move themselves and later the whole party into or out of danger with only a single word.
If you have good fixes for these problems though encounter design, I would be all ears. But keep in mind that at the levels these things become problems (usually above 10th level) the party will often be traveling hundreds of miles to isolated places, or even traveling to different planes and times. Casters will also have access to scrolls, wands, potions, staves, wondrous items, and even the spells of summoned, bound, or dominated minions, and will be able to go dozens or even over 100 rounds without running out of useful spells to cast/items to use.
PS If you want to see how martial power compares with caster power in Pathfinder, spend some time looking at how dragons are designed. Dragons have BAB equal to hit dice, (like a fighter), logically , they should have caster level equal to HD (like a caster) as well...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Again, you seem to be missing the entire point of the caster martial disparity. THIS IS NOT ABOUT MARTIAL CHARACTERS NEEDING TO DO MORE DAMAGE. This is about casters having more overall power and options in almost all aspects of adventuring. Also, in game consequences, time pressures, and such, are temporary band-aids that only work in limited circumstances, and often punish the martial characters just as much (if not more) then the casters.
There are fundamental imbalances in the game - casters crafting themselves items well over their suggested Weath By Level. Casters adding powerful additional party members thru summoning, planar ally/binding, domination, undead creation, simulacrum. Casters bypassing HP/AC entirely with powerful save-or-suck spells such as blindness that essentially end combats in a swift action with quicken spell. Casters can move themselves and later the whole party into or out of danger with only a single word.
I cannot hit the favorite button hard enough for this.
This is not about doing damage. At all. Period. Please stop addressing that. (with the minor exception of a desire by many martials to do things like attack an area, attack at range, full move and attack, etc.)
There are, surprisingly, other things that characters do in game. Casters are good at most if not all of them. Martials are usually very bad to not able at all to do these things.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think in game consequences, time pressures, and such are excessive or having the player follow the requirements listed in the books already. If I needed to recalc a bunch of martial feats/skills and other possible solutions to let them do more damage that would be work as well. But I'd prefer to avoid that if the real problem is a player not the mechanics. that's why I started asking specifics and proposing possible solutions that are already provided for in the rules and within the GM's ability.Again, you seem to be missing the entire point of the caster martial disparity. THIS IS NOT ABOUT MARTIAL CHARACTERS NEEDING TO DO MORE DAMAGE. This is about casters having more overall power and options in almost all aspects of adventuring. Also, in game consequences, time pressures, and such, are temporary band-aids that only work in limited circumstances, and often punish the martial characters just as much (if not more) then the casters.
There are fundamental imbalances in the game - casters crafting themselves items well over their suggested Weath By Level. Casters adding powerful additional party members thru summoning, planar ally/binding, domination, undead creation, simulacrum. Casters bypassing HP/AC entirely with powerful save-or-suck spells such as blindness that essentially end combats in a swift action with quicken spell. Casters can move themselves and later the whole party into or out of danger with only a single word.
If you have good fixes for these problems though encounter design, I would be all ears. But keep in mind that at the levels these things become problems (usually above 10th level) the party will often be traveling hundreds of miles to isolated places, or even traveling to different planes and times. Casters will also have access to scrolls, wands, potions, staves, wondrous items, and even the spells of summoned, bound, or dominated minions, and will be able to go dozens or even over 100 rounds without running out of useful spells to...
And in addition to all this, there is the fact that magic completely dominates every other method of performing almost all out-of-combat actions, whereas most fully-martial characters are extremely limited on skills that allow these things to be done (and even if they weren't, magic easily makes them unnecessary after the earliest levels).
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
And in addition to all this, there is the fact that magic completely dominates every other method of performing almost all out-of-combat actions, whereas most fully-martial characters are extremely limited on skills that allow these things to be done (and even if they weren't, magic easily makes them unnecessary after the earliest levels).
This kind of ties back to a lot of the old Rogue issues, where you had classes like the Alchemist, Bard, Inquisitor, Summoner, and even Magus who could not only do everything the Rogue could do, sometimes they could do it in the exact same way, only better. It's one thing when the wizard teleports to the other side of the room the medusa is guarding while you sneal across, another when the magus taps you on the shoulder as he passes by you moving at full speed with a higher stealth bonus thanks to a quick casting of vanish. I think the ultimate insult I've personally witnessed was a magus having to sneak into a castle dungeon to free the rogue who got caught breaking in earlier that evening.
Part of the issue in things like that, for me, is I personally believe that it really is a fallacy that there's any advantage to so-called "all day" options that run at lower thresholds compared to the much more powerful limited use actions that magic provides. How often do I need to be using stealth? Do I use it when I'm brushing my teeth, sleeping, cooking my meals, carousing at the bar to gather information? How often does it need to be used to actually create a paradigm where class A getting an always on +3 class skill bonus is equivalent to class B getting a +20 - +40 bonus and total concealment 3 times a day in 10 round increments? How long can a fighter actually keep swinging his sword at CR 10+ enemies when the cleric can't heal and protect him and the wizard can't buff and maneuver him anymore? If there things that only I can do, and anyone can do what you do, how much better do you have to be at your thing for you to actually be worth carrying around?
IMHO, caster limitations are typically matters of rules understanding and system mastery. The more familiar you are with the rules and the higher your system mastery, the less their "limitations" actually seem like limitations. Martials, meanwhile, have very specific limitations hardcoded directly into the rules, and the higher your system mastery, the more stymied you realize you are.
I think (and Paizo's success would indicate that this is true) that much more of the game is played in balanced adventures that mix fair chunks of social and exploration encounters into the adventuring day, like you would see in an Adventure Path or module, and this model of game very much favors casters. I suppose Tomb of Horrors style Gygaxian crawls arguably help partially balance this out, but even then you have so many situations where a more powerful limited use tool is going to be better than an "unlimited" solution that operates at a fraction of the effectiveness.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rogues's problem is that in 1E and 2E they were the stealth class. Invisibility went so far, but could be detected. If the rogue made his HIS and MS, he was invisible to most creatures.
He was also the only one who could find traps, disarm them, and open locks.
He had niche protection. You know, like casting wizard spells.
Now, everyone can use his skills, and while he gets a bunch, the bard gets more, fights just as well AND has magic. And gets bonuses from his class on those skills.
The rogue has NOTHING but the trope behind him. He's not better at skills then any other class...he's vulnerable with both encounter ending saves...dependent on others to maximize combat ability...
He's just...pathetic. They took EVERYTHING in his niche away from him, THEN debuffed him. It's like, duh, wha.
==Aelryinth
For a different approach what if casters were not guaranteed to receive new spells every day?
One mechanism could be to have the GM roll in secret to see how many days elapse before the magic returns and they can memorise spells again. To make it very difficult for players to predict when their spells will return (and therefore prevent players from gaming the system) I would use an unusual kind of dice rolling mechanism that does not give a linear spread. For instance you could roll a dice as many times as it takes to reach a target number and record how many rolls it took before that number was rolled. If for example you were using a six sided dice and the target number was a one the probabilities of obtaining results from 1 to 15 days would be:
Result Probability (%)
01, 16.667
02, 13.889
03, 11.574
04, 9.645
05, 8.038
06, 6.698
07, 5.582
08, 4.651
09, 3.876
10, 3.320
11, 2.592
12, 2.243
13, 1.869
14, 1.558
15, 1.298
There is no upper bound using this system, which is why the percentages above do not add up to 100 percent, but achieving very high numbers are very unlikely. Rolling a 50 or higher using the example above is roughly a: 1 in 10,000 chance.
You could also introduce high magic areas like ley-lines where the target number is much easier to achieve, for example keep rolling a 1d20 until a 19 or lower is rolled, virtually guaranteeing that spells will be replenished every day in those particular areas.
Under this system casters would be need to be more careful than normal to preserve spells for a special occasion. They certainly would not be casting invisibility on a whim to upstage the rogue of the party. This would fit well will the standard wizard in a fantasy novel trope, where wizards tend to conserve their magic (other than cantrips) until some significant part of the story forces them to use the full extent of their powers.
I recommend that other abilities like: cantrips, spell-like abilities and supernatural powers would still replenish like normal to prevent casters from becoming too weak.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you have one prep of spells for 3 days of combat, you are useless. Cantrips do not fix that.
This is not how you balance something.
If you have one prep of spells for 3 days of combat, you are useless. Cantrips do not fix that.
This is not how you balance something.
So you have to rely on the fighters to fight and the rogues to be sneaky and find and remove traps.
Clerics can still heal through bursts. I don't see the downside.
If you have one prep of spells for 3 days of combat, you are useless. Cantrips do not fix that.
This is not how you balance something.
So you have to rely on the fighters to fight and the rogues to be sneaky and find and remove traps.
Clerics can still heal through bursts. I don't see the downside.
You haven't actually made martials better, you've just made casters suck.
Besides, given the general dependency of martials on spells to counter certain challenges as the game goes on, this also rather hurts them as well.
And of course, some people actually, you know, like playing casters. I personally like martials, casters and gishes alike, and want to be able to play all of those in a roughly equal playing field. And I want to do it without pigeonholing each class into a rigidly defined niche. Maybe I want a fighty frontline Magus. And when I do get to the Fighter, well I want him to be okay at personal combat, but have his real strength lie in inspiring and exhorting his companions to ever greater acts of heroism.
If you have one prep of spells for 3 days of combat, you are useless. Cantrips do not fix that.
This is not how you balance something.
So you have to rely on the fighters to fight and the rogues to be sneaky and find and remove traps.
Clerics can still heal through bursts. I don't see the downside.
You haven't actually made martials better, you've just made casters suck.
Besides, given the general dependency of martials on spells to counter certain challenges as the game goes on, this also rather hurts them as well.
And of course, some people actually, you know, like playing casters. I personally like martials, casters and gishes alike, and want to be able to play all of those in a roughly equal playing field. And I want to do it without pigeonholing each class into a rigidly defined niche. Maybe I want a fighty frontline Magus. And when I do get to the Fighter, well I want him to be okay at personal combat, but have his real strength lie in inspiring and exhorting his companions to ever greater acts of heroism.
I originally thought the solution was to make the martials better, but I think in order to do that you have to reconstruct the entire game, you would also have to redesign all of the published adventure paths because every class would become too powerful for them, not just full casters. Therefore it does not meet the requirement of the opening post where you still feel like you are playing the same game with only minor changes.
My proposal still grants full casters their versatility, it just reduces their raw power so that they don't dominate the game any more. It is a simple mechanic that doesn't disrupt any other rules and can be fine tuned by the GM to suit their individual campaign. It also matches nicely with the typical fantasy wizard trope.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you have one prep of spells for 3 days of combat, you are useless. Cantrips do not fix that.
This is not how you balance something.
So you have to rely on the fighters to fight and the rogues to be sneaky and find and remove traps.
Clerics can still heal through bursts. I don't see the downside.
You haven't actually made martials better, you've just made casters suck.
Besides, given the general dependency of martials on spells to counter certain challenges as the game goes on, this also rather hurts them as well.
And of course, some people actually, you know, like playing casters. I personally like martials, casters and gishes alike, and want to be able to play all of those in a roughly equal playing field. And I want to do it without pigeonholing each class into a rigidly defined niche. Maybe I want a fighty frontline Magus. And when I do get to the Fighter, well I want him to be okay at personal combat, but have his real strength lie in inspiring and exhorting his companions to ever greater acts of heroism.
I originally thought the solution was to make the martials better, but I think in order to do that you have to reconstruct the entire game, you would also have to redesign all of the published adventure paths because every class would become too powerful for them, not just full casters. Therefore it does not meet the requirement of the opening post where you still feel like you are playing the same game with only minor changes.
My proposal still grants full casters their versatility, it just reduces their raw power so that they don't dominate the game any more. It is a simple mechanic that doesn't disrupt any other rules and can be fine tuned by the GM to suit their individual campaign. It also matches nicely with the typical fantasy wizard trope.
Making casters play "wheel of competence" isn't reducing their raw power, it's just slapping the player with a ridiculous punishment for playing a caster. Getting to contribute once or twice over the course of several encounters, then sitting on your hands simply isn't fun.
There are perfectly reasonable and valid ways to reduce caster dominance that doesn't rely on punishing the player. Remove or nerf problem spells, use alternate systems like Psionics or Spheres of Power. Just don't take it out on the player.
And no, that matches no typical fantasy wizard I've ever heard of.
I don't see how my idea is a punishment. I think you are just using unnecessarily emotive language.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see how my idea is a punishment. I think you are just using unnecessarily emotive language.
I would definitely feel punished if I was a caster and that rule was in effect.
Really? Can you elaborate?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You have to rely on RNG to be allowed to even try to do things, and at that rate of recovery the majority of the time you have to sit out and do nothing while things are happening. That's not fun.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Really? Can you elaborate?
Well firstly, it doesn't seem to make any sense from a flavour standpoint. Secondly the fact that dice are determining whether my character is playable, not whether he succeeds at an action, but whether he is playable At All for the day. If you screw up on the roll then you may as well leave the table. Three, if I want to play a caster I do not want to play as a 1/Day plot device, I want to play as a person able to use spells as often as a stealthy guy gets to stealth or as often as the fighty guy gets to fight. Four, it doesn't actually help martials At All (if anything it weakens them because I cannot afford to help my allies with buffs), it simply weakens mages, meaning "Yay, you've made all characters useless rather than just martials." Five, who benefits? I mean that seriously. I am not sure who's enjoyment would be increased by removing casters from play every couple of days. Six, wouldn't it just result in more "five minute adventuring" since parties will likely decide "no we are not going to adventure today because two of our members are crippled", so you're punishing the whole group.
Interesting points.
From a flavour point of view it makes perfect sense to me. Spell casting is using magic, it shouldn't be too predictable otherwise it becomes too much like a science.
I don't think it will play the way you expect. The player does not know how long their magic has to last, they can't game the system and plan for their spells to last x number of encounters. There will be no leaving the table, the player just has to hope the magic will come back soon. I've played in games where magic is fickle and it works very well, Wizards become richer characters, not just magical Swiss army knives with a spell for every occasion. That is what is boring for me, having every interesting situation made trivial by the wizard because they have just the right spell.
The not knowing brings in an extra element of tension, which can make the game exciting. Also since the GM rolls in secret they can bring the magic back early if it fits the story and the players need never know!
I think the diversity of encounters really leans towards the spell casters at high levels, especially if it's just a group of regular humanoids on the other side of the map huddled in the exact formation of a max meta magic fireball.
Alternatively if high level magic was in play then why isn't the environment also catching up to their level? Sure in SmallTownMc'Village your greater invisibility gives you entire impunity- but what about in a heavily fortified magic elf city? Or a cutthroat null magic dive metropolis found in the shadow plane? Or maybe all encounters are against magic immune golems, counter-magic mastering nethys worshipers or a colossus Disenchanter with every counter magic feat the book tacked onto it?
This becomes more apparent if the group cannot safely rest and recover spell slots, making the casters the glass cannons that need to be babied and looked after for 8 hours by the more mundane classes while worgs stalk and drow lurk around. Do you let the party expend all their spells on that one orc and then pat themselves on the back as they check themselves into the nearest inn? What if their next safe sleeping destination is a week away? How long can you hold that level 6 slot spell for buddy because the undead don't sleep and they're COMMIN' FOR YOOOOU?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Interesting points.
From a flavour point of view it makes perfect sense to me. Spell casting is using magic, it shouldn't be too predictable otherwise it becomes too much like a science.
I don't think it will play the way you expect. The player does not know how long their magic has to last, they can't game the system and plan for their spells to last x number of encounters. There will be no leaving the table, the player just has to hope the magic will come back soon. I've played in games where magic is fickle and it works very well, Wizards become richer characters, not just magical Swiss army knives with a spell for every occasion. That is what is boring for me, having every interesting situation made trivial by the wizard because they have just the right spell.
The not knowing brings in an extra element of tension, which can make the game exciting. Also since the GM rolls in secret they can bring the magic back early if it fits the story and the players need never know!
Your houserule could be sumed up in one sentence : the DM decides if and when the caster are allowed to cast spells.
That is just one of the worst and least fun houserules i've seen in all my gaming experience (which is nearly 15 years).
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Interesting points.
From a flavour point of view it makes perfect sense to me. Spell casting is using magic, it shouldn't be too predictable otherwise it becomes too much like a science.
There is a difference between magic being predictable (which is required in this thread since the point is to keep the game still Pathfinder) and it not being magical. What you suggest means that for wizard's (who literally DO treat magic as a science and it is the entire point to their concept and if your invalidating it you should probably ban the class) suddenly don't know who to actually memorize their spells, sorcerer's innate power than doesn't depend on anything or anyone mysteriously doesn't work every couple of days, gods forget to give spells to their most devout followers who might have literally talked with them last night, occultists lose their ability to tap into relics, all without any plot reasons. Please tell my why my psychic who gets power from his own soul suddenly cannot cast spells? Please tell my why my cleric's god forgets him for a day? Please tell my why you let a wizard play in your setting if the fundamental concept the class requires to exist doesn't exist in your campaign setting?
The player does not know how long their magic has to last, they can't game the system and plan for their spells to last x number of encounters.
This has not been my experience at all, I've generally seen players take note of the durations for each of their spells as part of deciding what spells to prepare and ensure that they have enough spells for passive buffs at the start of the adventure while having enough spells to contribute in battles and in non-combat situations.
There will be no leaving the table, the player just has to hope the magic will come back soon.
If I told one of my players, no today you are useless and cannot do anything, they would probably get up to leave the others to play. To then tell the player "no, you cannot leave. You must sit here while everyone else gets to play and have fun." They would probably storm out and shout expletives at me for being a horrible host.
I've played in games where magic is fickle and it works very well, Wizards become richer characters, not just magical Swiss army knives with a spell for every occasion.
So? What you suggested wasn't even magic fickle. It was turning one or more players into deadweight every couple of days. In my experience. Also, there is actually no reason you have to play your character as a magical swiss army knife. I personally haven't played as one when I played as a caster. You can be a rich character who is a caster without the character having to fit a specific archetype of wizard. There are many archetypes and ideas out there, not just "mages are walking plot devices who rarely cast spells".
That is what is boring for me, having every interesting situation made trivial by the wizard because they have just the right spell.
Yes. And that is why we are trying to fix that issue. But making it so that wizards cannot do anything some days does not fix the issue.
The not knowing brings in an extra element of tension, which can make the game exciting.
Tension can also bring frustration and annoyance. Tension is not in itself a good or bad thing. You've effectively told fighters "You have a random chance of not being allowed to heal at all today, regardless of means". and then expect them to be happy about you enhancing their game by random chance of them being pathetic and a hazard to the group every single day?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
#2 - Did I miss where wizards are allowed to just rest and then go about the day with open spell slots, and as a need arises pick them? I thought that was only possible via your bonded item 1x per day.Spell Selection and Preparation
Until he prepares spells from his spellbook, the only spells a wizard has available to cast are the ones that he already had prepared from the previous day and has not yet used. During the study period, he chooses which spells to prepare. If a wizard already has spells prepared (from the previous day) that he has not cast, she can abandon some or all of them to make room for new spells.
When preparing spells for the day, a wizard can leave some of these spell slots open. Later during that day, he can repeat the preparation process as often as he likes, time and circumstances permitting. During these extra sessions of preparation, the wizard can fill these unused spell slots. He cannot, however, abandon a previously prepared spell to replace it with another one or fill a slot that is empty because he has cast a spell in the meantime. That sort of preparation requires a mind fresh from rest. Like the first session of the day, this preparation takes at least 15 minutes, and it takes longer if the wizard prepares more than one-quarter of his spells.
Time and circumstances permitting is the big issue. I never left spell slots open when playing a magus or a wizard because so much of my adventuring was time dependent.. I didn't have luxury of taking 15 mins on an infiltration mission to fill a spell slot. (The "Disappeared is an excellent example when you have exactly 30 mins to fulfill your mission and come back.) Nor was I playing the Wizard Schodinger that would always have the exact spell needed. I'd have to load using my best guesses and have the team be at my back when the guesses did not pan out.
|
People keep talking about "martial/caster disparity", but these things are present only in specific situations. I am not saying that this isn't an issue, I have seen it happen before on high levels, but that's just it. It only happens when the casters have: a) time to prepare and execute their magic and b) foreknowledge of what to expect. This is often overshadowed in paizo's APs and scenarios in order to make more challenging and interesting encounters, and time is of the essence always. This system only tends to fail apart at higher levels when casters simply have too many options to pick from.
The problem here is that if you want to change this "disparity", you'll have to change the system. I believe that Pathfinder simply has too much magic in general. Magic is hard-coded into the system and became a N.01 solution for everything. As it is, you are better of playing 5E or some other system, otherwise there is too much work involved.
If I had to however say how to change the system, I would probably include things like "mana points" for spells, wounds and injuries that can't be easily healed, limited buffs and effects and more cool abilities (not powerful, but cool) for martials, but then again I am not an expert on changing systems.
Adam
|
#2 - Did I miss where wizards are allowed to just rest and then go about the day with open spell slots, and as a need arises pick them? I thought that was only possible via your bonded item 1x per day.Spell Selection and Preparation
Until he prepares spells from his spellbook, the only spells a wizard has available to cast are the ones that he already had prepared from the previous day and has not yet used. During the study period, he chooses which spells to prepare. If a wizard already has spells prepared (from the previous day) that he has not cast, she can abandon some or all of them to make room for new spells.
When preparing spells for the day, a wizard can leave some of these spell slots open. Later during that day, he can repeat the preparation process as often as he likes, time and circumstances permitting. During these extra sessions of preparation, the wizard can fill these unused spell slots. He cannot, however, abandon a previously prepared spell to replace it with another one or fill a slot that is empty because he has cast a spell in the meantime. That sort of preparation requires a mind fresh from rest. Like the first session of the day, this preparation takes at least 15 minutes, and it takes longer if the wizard prepares more than one-quarter of his spells.
Was looking CRB - it makes sense though. Similar to just resting and deciding to not even study your spell book until later in the day.
Can't be done.
You must study with a fresh mind for 1 hour or less, then you can fill the slots you left empty when you want (studying for 15 minutes).But if you don't "recharge" your spell slots when you are fresh you can't recharge them later when you are tired.
Spell Preparation Time: [b]After restingè/b], a wizard must study his spellbook to prepare any spells that day. If he wants to prepare all his spells, the process takes 1 hour. Preparing some smaller portion of his daily capacity takes a proportionally smaller amount of time, but always at least 15 minutes, the minimum time required to achieve the proper mental state.
note that a divine caster don't need to rest but need to pray at a specific time of the day.
Time of Day: A divine spellcaster chooses and prepares spells ahead of time, but unlike a wizard, does not require a period of rest to prepare spells. Instead, the character chooses a particular time of day to pray and receive spells. The time is usually associated with some daily event. If some event prevents a character from praying at the proper time, she must do so as soon as possible. If the character does not stop to pray for spells at the first opportunity, she must wait until the next day to prepare spells.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
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
What do you expect? Effective water balloons? :P
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
What do you expect? Effective water balloons? :PAren'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
In all fairness to SKR, he's been making some pretty interesting comments since he left Paizo. :)
SKR's take on the Martial/Caster disparity. He has an interesting perspective. :)
A little bit later he talks about vancian casting/limited casting v "always-on" classes like the fighter - also worth listening to.
Finally, he talks about some of Paizo's experiences with high high-level games. This was eyeopening for me.
I've linked these earlier, so veterans of the M/C disparity debate might find these familiar.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I kind of wish the martials got feats like power attack, combat expertise, and dodge just baked into being a martial. Just kill these prerequisite feats and let the meaty goodness you wont see til mid levels come online earlier.
It may not solve the general utility issue but it would certainly free up more feats for "neat" rather than combat effectiveness
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That is actually another problem with pathfinders design.
Caster feats let you do more things. Martial feats often don't change what you can do.
Honestly more feats like antagonize keyed so that only martials really have access would be great, if they need to be high level effects don't shackle them with three gateway feats to get there, just have the requirements be high.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly more feats like antagonize keyed so that only martials really have access would be great, if they need to be high level effects don't shackle them with three gateway feats to get there, just have the requirements be high.That is actually another problem with pathfinders design.
Caster feats let you do more things. Martial feats often don't change what you can do.
Friendly reminder that they changed Antagonize specifically because it forced casters to perform actions they normally wouldn't.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Friendly reminder that they changed Antagonize specifically because it forced casters to perform actions they normally wouldn't.Honestly more feats like antagonize keyed so that only martials really have access would be great, if they need to be high level effects don't shackle them with three gateway feats to get there, just have the requirements be high.That is actually another problem with pathfinders design.
Caster feats let you do more things. Martial feats often don't change what you can do.
Doesn't make it a great change. Dominate person exists, antagonize is a FAR less frustrating experience.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I actually agree with you. I was mainly being snippy at Paizo for thinking Antagonize was too strong in a world with Dominate Person.
Maybe there'll be some good taunting solutions in the Armor Master's Book, that seems like a good place for it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see how my idea is a punishment. I think you are just using unnecessarily emotive language.
I'm really not, as demonstrated most ably by Milo, Aratrok and Avh. Probably better than I could have done so myself. The most irksome thing being that it is possible to nerf casters without making playing them an exercise in frustration. I even mentioned two systems to do so, SoP and Psionics. Both very fun, very elegant and a definite decrease in caster power, albeit in different ways.