Honestly? You could probably open up some of the non damage enhancing mythic options for martials if what you're looking for is more versatility.
Itd probably be a lot of work but theres plenty in the mythic book that lets martials behave similarly to casters, while retaining martial flavor.
This runs into the problem of not working well with multiclassing, or requiring you to create formulae for determining what a character's average hit die are, which really seems unnecessarily complex. I liked the idea of using a percentage of total hit points a bit more than this, primarily because it's roughly the same difficulty of math, but with fewer steps involved.
Nah, you just go by the class/race that you have the most dice in, bumped up in the case of equal numbers.
For example, if you have a barbarian 6/druid 5/wizard 6 you get the d12. No math required.
|
This runs into the problem of not working well with multiclassing, or requiring you to create formulae for determining what a character's average hit die are, which really seems unnecessarily complex. I liked the idea of using a percentage of total hit points a bit more than this, primarily because it's roughly the same difficulty of math, but with fewer steps involved.
Nah, you just go by the class/race that you have the most dice in, bumped up in the case of equal numbers.
For example, if you have a barbarian 6/druid 5/wizard 6 you get the d12. No math required.
Which now promotes multiclassing over single classed characters, a dynamic Pathfinder intentionally tried to move away from... Also makes PrCs with larger hit die that advance spellcasting more appealing, so good for the eldritch knight I guess?
I just don't see how that does anything to address M/CD.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm convinced that a lot of the casters vs martials problems is on the DM's end. For some reason there's an expectation out there that things should just be harder for martials.
If the fighter wants to intimidate someone you've got a 50/50 shot of getting push back or straight up fiated. If the wizard using crushing despair it just works, no questions asked.
If the rogue tries a dirty trick to blind or entangle it has to make sense to the DM. If the bard casts glitterdust it just works.
I've seen quite a few DM's nail martial character with fiat denials or penalties because 'it doesn't make sense' but casters never face that kind of scrutiny.
Dirty Trick to entangle someone. Do you pull down their pants? Stone Golems do not have pants. Do you use the rope you have in your backpack? Did you take the action to take it out of the backpack first?
Spells work the way they say they work because Magic. It doesn't have to follow a logical flow or order of events, it has an effect that is (hopefully) clearly outlined, so the DM just applies it. Some things are immune to some magics. Eyeless creatures vs. Blind, extrasensory abilities vs. invisibility, etc.
You can bend the rules and make concessions for mundane characters, but there is a limit even to that. By the definition of "mundane", they have to be able to explain their actions. It sucks, but that's how it is.
|
|
I rest my case.
Dirty trick doesn't have any text requiring setup or additizonal actions. It already has a detailed list of its limitations and counters. Why does glitterdust automatically work? What if the target happens to be blinking when the spell goes off? What if it's acclimated to brightly colored lights in its eyes?
Some DMs love it to create extra rules for martials. Casters rarely suffer the same treatment. From my experience that's a big part of the martials vs casters dilemma.
In relation to the hit points, when i was GMing on 3E/3.5E, i used to do this when they got a new class level:
If the HD of the class is d4, d6 or d8, roll a dice twice and take the better result.
If the HD of the class is d10 or d12, roll a dice thrice and take the better result.
Result: more hit points for the combat characters.
If i have to adapt that rule to PF... i'd ask the casters to take whatever the dice gave them and the non-casters to roll twice and get the better result.
How about making cure spells restore HP based on recipients HD, rather then 1d8? For example, cure moderate wounds heals 2d12+Caster Level(CL) on the barbarian, and 2d6+CL on the wizard.
I proposed that before, Fergie, but i think they didn't bother to consider it for the reason Ssalarn mentioned... buuuut...
This runs into the problem of not working well with multiclassing, or requiring you to create formulae for determining what a character's average hit die are, which really seems unnecessarily complex. I liked the idea of using a percentage of total hit points a bit more than this, primarily because it's roughly the same difficulty of math, but with fewer steps involved.
Buuut there's a solution for that, Ssalarn. You don't need to do that calculation everytime, you only do it when the character gains a level then you write it in the character sheet and call it "Healing Die".
Then we test both methods.
First the percentage method, it's roughly like taking the character current hit points, dividing them in his/her total class levels, then using the closer die for the result.
Laira is barbarian 2/sorcerer 8, her first class is barbarian.
Dorwei is barbarian 12.
With 18 Con:
Laira: HPs 86.5; dividing, 8.65. Then, Healing Die: d9 or d8.
Dorwei: HPs 110.5; dividing, 11.05. Then, Healing Die: d11.
Cure moderate wounds heals Laira 2d9 + CL or 2d8 + CL.
Cure moderate wounds heals Dorwei 2d11 + CL.
Naturally, they're healtier, hence easier to heal.
With 6 Con:
Laira: HPs 26.5; dividing, 2.65. Then, Healing Die: d3 or d2.
Dorwei: HPs 50.5; dividing, 5.05. Then, Healing Die: d5.
Cure moderate wounds heals Laira 2d3 + CL or 2d2 + CL.
Cure moderate wounds heals Dorwei 2d5 + CL.
Laira, Dorwei, doctors has bad news for you, your health is weak then the treatment is not very effective, even when Laira multiclassed to barbarian to improve her condition. Damn, Laira, you need to do more physical activity and waste less time with those magic stuff, sigh!
With 11 Con:
Laira's estimated HPs are 46.5, let's make it 47, dividing them in 10 class levels we got 4.7. Her Healing Die is d5 or d4.
Dorwei's estimated HPs are 70.5, dividing them in 10 class levels we got 7.05. His Healing Die is d7.
Cure moderate wounds heals Laira 2d5 + CL or 2d4 + CL.
Cure moderate wounds heals Dorwei 2d7 + CL.
I like this method, but poor people with low Con, sigh.
The HD average method, we sum the HD, calculate average, ignore Con bonuses:
Laira: HD (2*12 + 8*6)/10 = 7.2. Then, Healing Die: d7.
Dorwei: HD 10*10/10 = 10. Then, Healing Die: d10.
Cure moderate wounds heals Laira 2d7 + CL.
Cure moderate wounds heals Dorwei 2d10 + CL.
I find it simpler, i have to admit. And it does reflect better the HD differences than the other.
If i want to consider the Con bonus, then add the con bonus to the total.
Cure moderate wounds heals Laira 2d7 + CL + Laira's Con bonus and heals Dorwei 2d10 + CL + Dorwei's Con bonus.
So, the easier to heal when having a high Con, more difficult to heal with low Con, but not too dramatic.
Remember, you don't need to keep doing those calculations every time, just put that number in parenthesis in the character sheet as "Healing Die"; you only update the value when they get a new level.
Combine it with my other house rule and your casters would think twice in getting hurt as they do now. I also used to allow double rolls take the best when healing, or at least re-roll 1s and 2s. Advice!, it works for both sides.
|
|
That's nice, but how do you propose to fix this imbalance ? By allowing mundane maneuvers to be so supernatural that they works without caring about anything even a bit realistic ? But in that case, if a character can entangle without reason "just because", isn't it "magical" ?
That's easy. DMs can just stop applying fiat where it's not appropriate and creating unnecessary rules/restrictions. The rogue using dirty trick to entangle the stone golem isn't creating some kind of imbalance. He still needs to spend an action and roll high enough. Why are his mechanics sometimes subject to a player creativity check? If the DM really has a hard time with the 'realism' he can just as easily chip in.
Rogue: I dirty trick to entangle the golem by pulling down its pants! *rolls dice*
DM: Sorry, golems don't have pants so your dirty trick fails.
Try instead:
Rogue: I dirty trick to entangle the golem by pulling down its pants! *rolls dice*
DM: Well golems don't have pants but that roll hits its CMD so you manage to trip it up on a chunk of its shoulder the barbarian knocked off with his last power attack. It's entangled.
Just because martial /stuff/ is non-magical doesn't mean they should be saddled with additional mechanical restrictions. The game's rules handle that well enough already.
Crushing despair "just" work, *if* the target fails a Will save and isn't somehow immune to mind-effects. Same difference, really.
Not at all. The fighter's intimidate check requires the target not be immune to mind-effects and he must succeed on a roll (the inverse of the target failing a save).
In response the DM might:
* Rule the target cannot be intimidated because he's bigger than the fighter, higher level, have more goons, have nicer hair, or anything else.
* Rule that the fighter is a bully and hit him with an alignment infraction.
* Rule that the target is upset and vengeful and come down with the full force of the law.
This is all stuff that casters rarely have to deal with me.
They both required the target to be not be immune to mind affecting and make a check or fail a save but the martial character's efforts come with a lots of extra baggage.
That's nice, but how do you propose to fix this imbalance ? By allowing mundane maneuvers to be so supernatural that they works without caring about anything even a bit realistic ? But in that case, if a character can entangle without reason "just because", isn't it "magical" ?That's easy. DMs can just stop applying fiat where it's not appropriate and creating unnecessary rules/restrictions. The rogue using dirty trick to entangle the stone golem isn't creating some kind of imbalance. He still needs to spend an action and roll high enough. Why are his mechanics sometimes subject to a player creativity check? If the DM really has a hard time with the 'realism' he can just as easily chip in.
Rogue: I dirty trick to entangle the golem by pulling down its pants! *rolls dice*
DM: Sorry, golems don't have pants so your dirty trick fails.
Try instead:
Rogue: I dirty trick to entangle the golem by pulling down its pants! *rolls dice*
DM: Well golems don't have pants but that roll hits its CMD so you manage to trip it up on a chunk of its shoulder the barbarian knocked off with his last power attack. It's entangled.
Just because martial /stuff/ is non-magical doesn't mean they should be saddled with additional mechanical restrictions. The game's rules handle that well enough already.
Crushing despair "just" work, *if* the target fails a Will save and isn't somehow immune to mind-effects. Same difference, really.Not at all. The fighter's intimidate check requires the target not be immune to mind-effects and he must succeed on a roll (the inverse of the target failing a save).
In response the DM might:
* Rule the target cannot be intimidated because he's bigger than the fighter, higher level, have more goons, have nicer hair, or anything else.
* Rule that the fighter is a bully and hit him with an alignment infraction.
* Rule that the target is upset and vengeful and come down with the full force of the law.
This is all stuff that...
Having to deal with the NPC having a negative attitude after being intimidated is actually part of the rules.
Success: If successful, the opponent will:
...give you information you desire
...take actions that do not endanger it
...offer other limited assistanceAfter the intimidate expires, the target treats you as unfriendly and may report you to local authorities.
|
|
Having to deal with the NPC having a negative attitude after being intimidated is actually part of the rules.
Sure but doesn't it make just as much sense that someone would have a negative attitude after being charmed by the wizard or fascinate/suggested by the bard? Why are DMs so quick to punish the fighter's intimidate but the casters get a free pass?
Having to deal with the NPC having a negative attitude after being intimidated is actually part of the rules.Sure but doesn't it make just as much sense that someone would have a negative attitude after being charmed by the wizard or fascinate/suggested by the bard? Why are DMs so quick to punish the fighter's intimidate but the casters get a free pass?
It depends on the GM. If the GM knows the difference between player and character, then the GM doesn't ask the player to state how the Fighter intimidated, just roll the dice, use the skill and done. The casters don't have a free pass, they still have a Will save.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Having to deal with the NPC having a negative attitude after being intimidated is actually part of the rules.Sure but doesn't it make just as much sense that someone would have a negative attitude after being charmed by the wizard or fascinate/suggested by the bard? Why are DMs so quick to punish the fighter's intimidate but the casters get a free pass?
Do they know they were charmed? Suggestion is made to sound reasonable, and actually gives a penalty to the save if it's especially so. The Bard's fascination effect doesn't make them do anything but watch. This is done to distract them and reduce their perception modifiers so their friends can do something unseen. The person watches (in their mind, it's of their own free will) and then the Bard is done. Do you report street performers to the authorities?
How about someone who threatens to kill you (mundane intimidation)?
You can balance that too.
The drow saw your wizard casting, but he ignored the fact. Go ahead with the spell as normal.
The drow saw your wizard casting, and is boring of that guy always casting at him, so he decides to do a spellcraft to determine what the wizard is casting, it is an enchantment spell, so he decides to focus on not being enchanted, i'd give him a +2 circumstancial bonus on his will save... but if he fails to identify the spell by 5 or more i'd give him a -2 penalty on that save; "damn you, wizard, you're going to taste my poisoned blade!".
You always have the option of using circumstance bonus/penalties. Just use them on spellcasting too. I got a fighter NPC who hate drows and start spending points in spellcraft just to know what the mofos are casting. I think it is fair to give him some circumstantial bonus on his saves.
You can balance that too.
The drow saw your wizard casting, but he ignored the fact. Go ahead with the spell as normal.
The drow saw your wizard casting, and is boring of that guy always casting at him, so he decides to do a spellcraft to determine what the wizard is casting, it is an enchantment spell, so he decides to focus on not being enchanted, i'd give him a +2 circumstancial bonus on his will save... but if he fails to identify the spell by 5 or more i'd give him a -2 penalty on that save; "damn you, wizard, you're going to taste my poisoned blade!".
You always have the option of using circumstance bonus/penalties. Just use them on spellcasting too. I got a fighter NPC who hate drows and start spending points in spellcraft just to know what the mofos are casting. I think it is fair to give him some circumstantial bonus on his saves.
"He's trying to scare me into doing [whatever], This shall not stand!"
Would you give some NPC a +2 circumstance bonus on the DC to Intimidate them?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
cablop, an easier way to do it is to just use the d6+ method.
D6 classes roll a d6.
d8 classes roll a d6+2
d10 classes roll a d6+4
d12 classes roll a d6+6.
If you just use average hit points, that ends up with a 2 hp/level difference, instead of a 1 hit point/level.
So, a wizard gets 6 hp at level 1, +3.5/level.
A cleric gets 8 hp at level 1, +5.5/level. 2 hp/level more then a wizard.
A fighter now will have 10 hp at 1, +7.5/level. A whopping 4 hp/level more then the wizard! Without a vastly higher Con score, the wizard will NEVER have more hp then the fighter.
And of course the barbarian rules the roost with 9.5 hp/level, 12 at level 1. 6 hp/level more then a wizard!
That simple adjustment will basically guarantee better HP for the higher HD classes.
----------------
For healing, you need to look at healing effects three ways - cast spells with caster levels, healing effects without caster levels (such as channel/LoH), and healing effects that cost money (namely, wands and potions).
Furthermore, you need to differentiate between caster/non-caster classes. Caster classes can more easily use UMD, or can use Wands via spell lists with no penalty. Wands are 1/2 the price of potions per point of healing...this is a BIG difference.
The easiest way to address 'needs more healing because has more hit points', assuming they actually DO have more hit points (note that a mage with Toughness and +2 Con has the same hit points as a fighter!), is simply to add their martial level to the healing magic, OR to double the power of the healing.
The first one makes low level spells useful on non-caster martials at high levels. A fighter/10 getting +10 extra HP off a Cure Light wounds basically is getting a CSW off a level 1 slot, and makes wands and potions VERY efficient on them.
The second method actually lines up the power of healing magic more with Channels and scales more evenly with the Heal spell.
Either method also works with Channels and Lay on Hands. Again, I'd restrict it to non-Casters. The fact casters have magic is also the bump they need.
And the method also works with purchased products. At the VERY least, you should double the hit points gained from Potions for non-Casters. This makes them equal to Wands in terms of cost/hp, meaning the non-caster can suck down potions instead of using a CLW wand for the same effect, and get the same benefit for the same cost without needing a caster around.
I would NOT give classes that can spellcast any bonus on healing magic. QUite literally, they don't need it.
Note: There's a Totem (Good/sacred/celestial) I believe, that gives barbs who take it more hp from healing effects. If not, it's a rage power associated with a totem.
==Aelryinth
cablop, an easier way to do it is to just use the d6+ method.
D6 classes roll a d6.
d8 classes roll a d6+2
d10 classes roll a d6+4
d12 classes roll a d6+6.If you just use average hit points, that ends up with a 2 hp/level difference, instead of a 1 hit point/level.
I like that method, yeah, i do!
The easiest way to address 'needs more healing because has more hit points', assuming they actually DO have more hit points (note that a mage with Toughness and +2 Con has the same hit points as a fighter!), is simply to add their martial level to the healing magic, OR to double the power of the healing.
I tend to look at HP not as a currency, how much HP the character can spend. It is more a rate, how hard is to take that individual down, how much effort does it take. So a 20 hp damage could take 50% out of a wizard but just 20% of of a fighter of the same level. I need to work harder. I state it should remain when healing. Why a healing thing recovers 30% on the wizard but just 10% on the fighter? So keep things even.
The first one makes low level spells useful on non-caster martials at high levels. A fighter/10 getting +10 extra HP off a Cure Light wounds basically is getting a CSW off a level 1 slot, and makes wands and potions VERY efficient on them.
I like this method more than the second method. Cause you cannot just multiclass for the sake of having a double the healing.
I'd give the bonus to non-casters rather than just martial classes.
Calculate your healing bonus and write it in your characters sheet.
Recalculate when gaining a new level and update.
The second method actually lines up the power of healing magic more with Channels and scales more evenly with the Heal spell.
I don't really like it, because of the multiclassing issue. But i can manage to fix it. If all your classes are non-caster you get 2x healing. If half your classes are non-caster just get half extra healing, that is 1.5x healing. If just 10% of your classes are non-caster, then you get just additional 0.1 healing for 1.1x healing. All caster levels? No bonus so just 1x healing. And so on.
Round down, always. Sorry for multiclassing. (Well, i'd round up on .75, cause i'm a merciful master ("am i not merciful? AM I NOT MERCIFUL?"))
Calculate your healing factor and write it in your characters sheet.
Recalculate when gaining a new level and update.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the GM knows the difference between player and character, then the GM doesn't ask the player to state how the Fighter intimidated, just roll the dice, use the skill and done. The casters don't have a free pass, they still have a Will save.
I wholeheartedly disagree.
As a GM, I always ask. As a player, I'm disappointed if the GM doesn't ask. And I very much know the difference.
Sure, I don't base the success chance on what the player says; I know the player might be very far removed from knowing how a professional badass would intimidate, or charm, or bluff, or diplomatize, or whatever, so I don't expect the gaming geek (e.g. me) sitting at my table to impress me with an Oscar performance.
But I do expect them to at least describe what they say or do.
Because it's roleplaying.
I know, KNOW, that players are disappointed, even flat out angry, if a GM says "I rolled a 27, you're intimidated. Here's what you have to do." The first thing the players ask is "What the hell did that NPC do to intimidate me? What did he say? What's going on???"
In other words, the players expect me to be descriptive about what NPCs say and do to them and I expect the same from my players. The success is decided by character skill, but the description, whatever it may be, however "good" it may or may not be, is provided by the player, or GM, who is in control of that character.
Every time.
Because it's roleplaying.
If the GM knows the difference between player and character, then the GM doesn't ask the player to state how the Fighter intimidated, just roll the dice, use the skill and done. The casters don't have a free pass, they still have a Will save.I wholeheartedly disagree.
As a GM, I always ask. As a player, I'm disappointed if the GM doesn't ask. And I very much know the difference.
Sure, I don't base the success chance on what the player says; I know the player might be very far removed from knowing how a professional badass would intimidate, or charm, or bluff, or diplomatize, or whatever, so I don't expect the gaming geek (e.g. me) sitting at my table to impress me with an Oscar performance.
But I do expect them to at least describe what they say or do.
Because it's roleplaying.
I know, KNOW, that players are disappointed, even flat out angry, if a GM says "I rolled a 27, you're intimidated. Here's what you have to do." The first thing the players ask is "What the hell did that NPC do to intimidate me? What did he say? What's going on???"
In other words, the players expect me to be descriptive about what NPCs say and do to them and I expect the same from my players. The success is decided by character skill, but the description, whatever it may be, however "good" it may or may not be, is provided by the player, or GM, who is in control of that character.
Every time.
Because it's roleplaying.
Requiring some roleplaying to be done is different than arbitrating that a mechanical ability does not function because you didn't roleplay hard enough.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have also noticed that GMs are more likey to houserule ban martial options than caster options citing realism and sense.
It's part of the problem making mundane match magic. Even if you do write a good mechanical option, it has to make sense or GMs will ban it because they think it will disrupt their tables suspension of disbelief.
I do not think that is unfair, part of the appeal of a mundane is that it has a base in reality. Proper explanation should be expected. That doesn't limit martials. Saitama (OnePunch-Man) is a mundane. All of his abilities are just exaggerated human abilities. Everything he does in show/manga/web-comic reflects that. Yet at the same time he could be considered a deity because his vast prowess is cosmically powerful (If he punched both of his fist together as hard as possible it would have the same amount of force as the Big Bang). What's unfair is when GMs get upset at abnormal martial prowess. When a GM imposes his or her own physical limitations on the Fighter, absurd situations occur. "You can long jump 25ft?! Nonsense! I don't care what the rules say, human muscles can't exert that much force. You fall into the lava and auto-die. I know you have more than enough HP to swim in lava, but I couldn't do that so your fighter can't!"
The easiest way to address 'needs more healing because has more hit points', assuming they actually DO have more hit points (note that a mage with Toughness and +2 Con has the same hit points as a fighter!), is simply to add their martial level to the healing magic, OR to double the power of the healing.I tend to look at HP not as a currency, how much HP the character can spend. It is more a rate, how hard is to take that individual down, how much effort does it take. So a 20 hp damage could take 50% out of a wizard but just 20% of of a fighter of the same level. I need to work harder. I state it should remain when healing. Why a healing thing recovers 30% on the wizard but just 10% on the fighter? So keep things even.
The first one makes low level spells useful on non-caster martials at high levels. A fighter/10 getting +10 extra HP off a Cure Light wounds basically is getting a CSW off a level 1 slot, and makes wands and potions VERY efficient on them.I like this method more than the second method. Cause you cannot just multiclass for the sake of having a double the healing.
I'd give the bonus to non-casters rather than just martial classes.
Calculate your healing bonus and write it in your characters sheet.
Recalculate when gaining a new level and update.The second method actually lines up the power of healing magic more with Channels and scales more evenly with the Heal spell.I don't really like it, because of the multiclassing issue. But i can manage to fix it. If all your classes are non-caster you get 2x healing. If half your classes are non-caster just get half extra healing, that is 1.5x healing. If just 10% of your classes are non-caster, then you get just additional 0.1 healing for 1.1x healing. All caster levels? No bonus so just 1x healing. And so on.
Round down, always. Sorry for multiclassing. (Well, i'd round up on .75, cause i'm a merciful master ("am i not merciful? AM I NOT...
Rather then having to calculate healing bonus that way...
Just add martial level to ALL healing. Note this makes Lay on Hands even stronger, unless you restrict this ability to spells only.
And on top of that, if you are a non-Caster, double it.
So fighters, cavaliars and barbs get both, Rogues get the double, and paladins and rangers get +level.
==Aelryinth
because that makes cure spells pathetic for low level characters, but wonderful for high level characters.
i.e. at level 1, your character is getting back 2 hp tops from a CLW?
Also, that's a change to the spell/casters. We want to change how the spell interacts with martials, not casters.
==Aelryinth
|
I have never seen this martial / caster disparity in any game I have ever participated in. Vanilla fighters remain a popular choice in our games and we generally have one in every campaign because a straight-up fighter is a fantastic option and in 90% of our encounters ends up the MVP.
You do not need magic or gimmicks to have a fun game. What you need are players that cooperate and are interested in playing a ROLE-PLAYING GAME instead of just rolling dice for damage.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have never seen this martial / caster disparity in any game I have ever participated in. Vanilla fighters remain a popular choice in our games and we generally have one in every campaign because a straight-up fighter is a fantastic option and in 90% of our encounters ends up the MVP. You do not need magic or gimmicks to have a fun game. What you need are players that cooperate and are interested in playing a ROLE-PLAYING GAME instead of just rolling dice for damage.
I have never had AIDS. You do not need retroviral drugs to have a healthy life. What you need are people that cooperate and are interested in DENYING THE PROBLEM, because if it doesn't affect them directly, why should they care about it, amiright?
|
For healing magic we want it to be a more stream lined in its healing then knowing how each class gets healed.
There are already enough things in Path Finder that are overly math intensive and Healing shouldn't be that. I agree that healing works out well for small dice characters and less for lager ones.
You could just do healing spells heals your for your Hit Die amount + caster level of the caster. Or if you want the person being healed to have some sort of influence you could do
Hit die + double Con modifier.
@ Shroud I think a lot of what the people on here are referencing to is PFS which doesn't use the same gentle mens agreements that home games do since, you don't really know what everyone is bringing to the table.
Could work as well;
CLW 10 HP per CL up to 30 HP
CMW 10 HP per CL up to 50 HP
CSW 10 HP per CL up to 70 HP
CCW 10 HP per CL up to 90 HP
I know that it will be more beneficial for casters again but it is a flat amount, I know that rolling dice is a large part of the game but this might speed up combat a bit for healing. PCs with high HP tend to lose out on rolls.
I never really got the CLW being the best cost per gold value, what if you roll a 1 on the D8 roll and it only adds +1 for the caster level.
Yes, your fighter should automatically die if he falls into lava. To be fair, the wizard flying 20' above the lava should also auto-die because convection, b##!&es.
If your lava rules don't make all but the most adversarial DMs decide that no one should ever want to go anywhere near lava they aren't realistic.
Actually, being over lava does deal damage in Pathfinder because of how hot the air is and there is also the smoke danger. Also, if it wasn't for HP inflation because of the leveling system, lava would be considered rather damaging. I mean, a swim in it deals 20d6 each turn and lingers for a few turns after you leave the lava because of it's viscosity.
I never really got the CLW being the best cost per gold value, what if you roll a 1 on the D8 roll and it only adds +1 for the caster level.
CLW wand charge cures 1d8+1 hp (average 5.5) and costs 15 gp
CMW wand charge cures 2d8+3 hp (average 12 - one point more than double of CLW) and costs 90 gp (or six times more).| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@ Shroud I think a lot of what the people on here are referencing to is PFS which doesn't use the same gentle mens agreements that home games do since, you don't really know what everyone is bringing to the table.
I'm not. I've never played PFS and likely never will. No objection to it, I just don't have free evenings (I teach chess in the evenings) and that's the only time I ever see local PFS groups meet.
In any case, I started this thread to solicit ideas to fix the disparity with minimal effort. Assuming the disparity exists in the official rules, it cannot be fixed in PFS since PFS insists on using the official rules (plus some PFS embellishments). House rules to fix this disparity will, perforce, remain inapplicable to all PFS games.
That is, until Pathfinder 2.0 which, dare I dream, might include some mitigation of this disparity.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have never seen this martial / caster disparity in any game I have ever participated in. Vanilla fighters remain a popular choice in our games and we generally have one in every campaign because a straight-up fighter is a fantastic option and in 90% of our encounters ends up the MVP.
You do not need magic or gimmicks to have a fun game. What you need are players that cooperate and are interested in playing a ROLE-PLAYING GAME instead of just rolling dice for damage.
Jiggy, you have an afflicted patient in thread. Please bring along the cures to Myths #4 and #7 please for the dear fellow, with a touch of #1.
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have never seen this martial / caster disparity in any game I have ever participated in. Vanilla fighters remain a popular choice in our games and we generally have one in every campaign because a straight-up fighter is a fantastic option and in 90% of our encounters ends up the MVP.
You do not need magic or gimmicks to have a fun game. What you need are players that cooperate and are interested in playing a ROLE-PLAYING GAME instead of just rolling dice for damage.
Jiggy, you have an afflicted patient in thread. Please bring along the cures to Myths #4 and #7 please for the dear fellow, with a touch of #1.
==Aelryinth
I'm not Jiggy, but ever since I converted to Kirthfinder, I've found it much easier to Reposition than when I was still stuck using the Improved Reposition feat chain. Hence, I can Reposition Shroud to Jiggy's thread.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have never seen this martial / caster disparity in any game I have ever participated in.
Hey, that's great. Unfortunately, many cooperative role players (including GMs)have experienced the problem.
This might help everyone understand why some games are affected, while others are not:
Why the Caster Martial Disparity might not appear in your games.
As Pathfinder is a highly complex game, and varies widely from table to table, there's almost an infinite number of reasons it might appear or not. Here are some of the most common reasons it might not affect your games:
- Most of your play happens under 10th level.
- Players don't choose to play pure martial, or pure caster characters.
- Caster players don't optimize, and/or martial players optimize heavily.
- There is a spoken or unspoken agreement not to use some options and spells.
- The GM is highly skilled in pacing, presenting a campaign setting, presenting challenges, and giving rewards that even out or minimize the disparity.
- The GM alters dice rolls, and/or encounters so that everyone has fairly equal amounts of success.
- The group views combat and/or other rules heavy parts of the game as something to get resolved as quickly as possible, in order to move on to more roleplay and storytelling elements.
- House rules.
|
|
For the Lava suggestion, maybe instead of rolling die for somethings they should just do a flat damage.
So Lava will always do 30 points of dmg per round while touching it. 15 points of dmg per round if flying over it at less then 30'. it will do 10 addition points per round for 3 rounds after leaving it unless you spend 1 whole round removing the clothing that has touched the lava.
You could also have it do automatic dmg to all items as well.
edit. I know this will again affect a martial more than a caster, just a suggestion on how to fix lava and make it seem more deadly.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lava is already insanely deadly. Guy falls in, takes 20d6 damage - that's a mean of 70 points. Almost everyone in the world is 5th level or below -- the healthiest NPC-classed person has, say (1d8+2)x5 = 32 hp and is QUITE dead in 1 round.
The thing to take away isn't that lava "isn't deadly enough." The thing to take away is that humans with 150 hp aren't really human anymore; they're more akin to demigods.
Don't get me wrong -- if the damage is "20d6," as DM I have no problem saying it's "70." Because as much fun as it is for me to roll that many dice, nobody else wants to sit there and watch. But that has less to do with lava and more to do with large numbers of dice!
Rather then having to calculate healing bonus that way...
Just add martial level to ALL healing. Note this makes Lay on Hands even stronger, unless you restrict this ability to spells only.
And on top of that, if you are a non-Caster, double it.
So fighters, cavaliars and barbs get both, Rogues get the double, and paladins and rangers get +level.
==Aelryinth
Two problems with that method are
One: How to deal with muticlass characters?
Two: Too many HPs from simple spells:
A Cure Light Wounds would give a Fighter 17: 17 + CL + 1d8*2 when Cure Serious Wounds would give: 17 + CL + 3d8*2.
That's nice with the Fighter... but then the cleric can just use CLW, instead of CSW, on him and save a 3rd lvl slot... back again to too powerful casters. 17 constant points are still too much, considering 1d8*2 avg is 9 and 3d8*2 avg is just 27, difference is 18, very close to 17.
But it think i can just make them roll that bonus, a 1d17 (1d20 re-roll invalid numbers).
EDIT: One more question... what to do with non full caster classes? E.g., Bard and Alchemist? And what to do with the Magus? I think you placed Monk with combat classes...
|
|
Healing may give better results if it is a % of your over all hit points that are healed.
Fighter 100HP (% is 10)
CLW has a x 1 multiplier + CL ( We will just use the max caster level)
10 x CLW + CL is 15
10 x CMW + CL is 30
10 x CSW + CL is 45
10 x CCW + CL is 60
Basically just turing the cure spells in to a modifier by making it a crit based off of the 10% of characters HP works quick and simple.
Two: Too many HPs from simple spells:
It is a fundamental change in healing. No matter what you do, you are effectively looking at changing it so that some people get more out of healing by virtue of having higher maximums.
This means low level spells will end up doing more than they used to.You'll have to decide if you are able to stomach that kind of change to healing magic/abilities in the game.
Keep in mind though, both suggestions (% of max health, or bonus based on martial levels) put the "extra healing" factor on the side of the character, rather than the caster.
It's not that the caster is becoming more powerful, it's that the martial gains more benefit from any source of healing. It's no different than the Fast Healer feat.
Healing may give better results if it is a % of your over all hit points that are healed.
Fighter 100HP (% is 10)
CLW has a x 1 multiplier + CL ( We will just use the max caster level)
10 x CLW + CL is 15
10 x CMW + CL is 30
10 x CSW + CL is 45
10 x CCW + CL is 60Basically just turing the cure spells in to a modifier by making it a crit based off of the 10% of characters HP works quick and simple.
I think the only problem that came up from this was the extreme low end of things: it actually made healing spells too *weak* at lower levels.
A 1st level character with only 10 hitpoints, getting the spell from a 1st level caster, would get a big whopping 2 hitpoints healed (20%). Whereas in-game now, you can get an average of ~5.5 hitpoints (~50%, with 1d8+1), with the barest minimum being 2, and a chance at near full healing.
Perhaps a base amount of healing, similar to how the Toughness feat gives a base amount of extra hitpoints. Perhaps if casters gave minimum +3, or +caster level, whichever is higher (still max 5 for cure light wounds). That would bring up 1st level healing to at least 4 points guaranteed (compared to 5 points average, I'd probably still take the guaranteed amount, cuz rolling 1s and 2s suck for healing).
|
|
Why not just make healing do a flat amount then. I understand that rolling the dice is fun and all but if healing is lousy because it is always to little does not just making it a flat amt not fix it that simple?
CLW 6 + CL? so a first level Barb with 16 HP would get back almost 1/2 their HP in one casting?
Rather then having to calculate healing bonus that way...
Just add martial level to ALL healing. Note this makes Lay on Hands even stronger, unless you restrict this ability to spells only.
And on top of that, if you are a non-Caster, double it.
So fighters, cavaliars and barbs get both, Rogues get the double, and paladins and rangers get +level.
==Aelryinth
Two problems with that method are
One: How to deal with muticlass characters?
Two: Too many HPs from simple spells:
A Cure Light Wounds would give a Fighter 17: 17 + CL + 1d8*2 when Cure Serious Wounds would give: 17 + CL + 3d8*2.
That's nice with the Fighter... but then the cleric can just use CLW, instead of CSW, on him and save a 3rd lvl slot... back again to too powerful casters. 17 constant points are still too much, considering 1d8*2 avg is 9 and 3d8*2 avg is just 27, difference is 18, very close to 17.
But it think i can just make them roll that bonus, a 1d17 (1d20 re-roll invalid numbers).
EDIT: One more question... what to do with non full caster classes? E.g., Bard and Alchemist? And what to do with the Magus? I think you placed Monk with combat classes...
You're missing the implications.
A fighter/cleric is a caster. He wouldn't gain the effect of the fighter doubling. You'd have to be a Non-Caster. Period.
Monks have supernatural, spell like abilities that include healing. I don't put them in the martial category personally, but you could if you liked. The idea they might be very responsive to healing fits well with their spiritual training.
and the +hp/level is based on martial level. Why is it hard to appreciate that one of the strengths of a martial is that they respond to healing magic much more favorably then normal people?
It's not going to be too many hp from low level spells, because you're in a higher level game, and the strength of a pure martial IS his hit points.
The strength of a caster is his spells. So casters don't need massive amounts of hp back, they need spells.
That's also why I wouldn't give a bonus to fighting bards, magus, inquisitors, and the like. they have SPELLS. That more then pays for not getting a boost from healing magic.
Give the benefit where it works to offset an existing weakness, i.e. lack of recovery options.
==Aelryinth
I saw a dream last night that settles this matter once and for all:
"How to fix this thing? Give casters full BAB and Fighter feat progression. Give martials full caster access to spells. Problem solved!"
Rather then having to calculate healing bonus that way...
Just add martial level to ALL healing. Note this makes Lay on Hands even stronger, unless you restrict this ability to spells only.
And on top of that, if you are a non-Caster, double it.
So fighters, cavaliars and barbs get both, Rogues get the double, and paladins and rangers get +level.
==Aelryinth
Two problems with that method are
One: How to deal with muticlass characters?
Two: Too many HPs from simple spells:
...
You're missing the implications.
A fighter/cleric is a caster. He wouldn't gain the effect of the fighter doubling. You'd have to be a Non-Caster. Period.
Monks have supernatural, spell like abilities that include healing. I don't put them in the martial category personally, but you could if you liked. The idea they might be very responsive to healing fits well with their spiritual training.
and the +hp/level is based on martial level. Why is it hard to appreciate that one of the strengths of a martial is that they respond to healing magic much more favorably then normal people?
It's not going to be too many hp from low level spells, because you're in a higher level game, and the strength of a pure martial IS his hit points.
The strength of a caster is his spells. So casters don't need massive amounts of hp back, they need spells.
That's also why I wouldn't give a bonus to fighting bards, magus, inquisitors, and the like. they have SPELLS. That more then pays for not getting a boost from healing magic.
Give the benefit where it works to offset an existing weakness, i.e. lack of recovery options.
==Aelryinth
Mmm, i get it, but then i like less that method. I remembered an option where if the world has a lot of magic or the faith is very important in the setting, all characteres, even NPCs have one or two levels of wizards or clerics. We cannot make such settings with your method.
Also, i saw some guys use to take one cleric level just to be able to self buff themselves in an emergency but continue being fighters. So a Fighter 13/Cleric 1 cannot heal better than a Fighter 7/Cleric 7, or a Cleric 13/Fighter 1 (i've seen that build too in clerics of war gods just to get a special fighter feat or a couple). So, your system forces the guy to not to take a single level in clerics, making himself MORE dependant on having healers in the party than before. But i guess we are looking for the opposite.
Buuuut, i am thinking in a simpler solution... The BAB, it is a stat directly related to the fighting/non-fighting ability of the character. So we can craft a formula that uses the BAB of the character. I don't care if it is caster or not, but the BAB, for example, it can take an additional d6 per each +5 BAB. So a fighter gets 2d6 at 10 lvl a sorcerer just 1d6 and a fighter with 1 sorcerer level must wait till level 11 to get the 2d6 benefit, 1d6 still. Or just plainly add your BAB to your healing when CLW, CMW, CSW or potions.
Also, allow the character to recover 1 HP in a minute per each 5 fighter, fighter-like levels or each 10 non-fighter and non-caster levels or moderate caster levels or each 15 full caster levels.