Seriously now, how do you fix martial / caster disparity and still have the same game?

[Boomerang Nebula]

Kudaku wrote:

Boomerang Nebula wrote:

Interesting viewpoint.

Schrodinger's wizard exists without mythic rules, adding a mythic tier does not add any noticeable power to a well optimised wizard.

Schrodinger's Wizard can be briefly explained as the fallacy that a wizard will always have the appropriate spell on hand to solve any problem. In reality The wizard's limited spell slots, funds and time means it is unlikely (but not quite impossible) that the wizard can reliably pull this off in practice.

That changes with the introduction of the mythic system. The Archmage and Hierophant paths both get path abilities (at tier 1) that allow them to cast any spell from their spell list without preparing or even knowing it first - Inspired Spell and Wild Arcana. That means that at X times a day a wizard can choose any one spell he can cast, out of the ~1200 wizard spells published by Pathfinder, to solve any particular problem he has encountered.

They've basically taken the pre-nerf Paragon Surge combination (which was widely considered one of the most broken options in the game), somehow turned it up to 11, and sent it out into the world as a baseline mythic path ability. It's an incredibly powerful ability and will massively impact the power of a full caster if put in play.

It is interesting seeing how different events play out in different groups using the same set of rules. I think wild arcana hasn't had much impact in our games because within combat it uses a valuable swift action and out of combat there is time to pull out scrolls or find other alternatives. Obviously the wild arcana ability is still used, but nowhere near as often as I thought it would be when I first starting reading the mythic rules.

[Jiggy]

Wrath wrote:

Now look at spells that replace skills and instead have them buff skills instead. Skill must be known for buff to work.

No more find traps spells, now it just buffs perception.
No more disarming spells, now it just buffs disarming skill.
No more displacement or miss chance spells, now they just buff bluff for feinting. Feint becomes a swift action that provides a miss chance.

Better yet, make the spells be something that alters the circumstances in which the skill can be used. For instance, what if the Ranged Legerdemain ability were a spell? The wizard could learn it, but the ability to pick locks at range doesn't help if he sucks at picking locks. The rogue (or whoever) is the one who can actually get the job done, and then the wizard can let him do it from waaaay over here.

Alternatively, what if you had a spell (or series of spells, one for each skill) where you could cast it on somebody, then when the target uses that skill, both the target and the caster roll a d20, and the target uses whichever roll is better. Big buff to the skill guy, literally useless to the caster. Teamwork required. :)

[Chris Lambertz]

Removed a series of posts and their responses and moving to Suggestions/Homebrew. Let's avoid turning this into another heated thread arguing about the existence about martial vs. caster issues, and stop bringing up previous drama you may have had with various posters. Some folks clearly want solutions for their games, so please let them move forward with the original topic.

[HWalsh]

Blackwaltzomega wrote:

Wrath wrote:

Interesting paradox here.

I can screw Martials by setting up situations that make them look like chumps while casters are fine.

But if I screw casters by setting up situations that make them look like chumps then I'm being a dick.

Ok then.

Anzyr, rope trick does not prevent supernatural effects, which is what the demonic influence is. Your little Demi plane now becomes its own little piece of the multiverse affected by demonic whisperings coming in through your 5 foot entrance.

I'd also like to point out that I've only shown examples used in published products so far, most of them by Paizo.

When you present a problem that can't be overcome by magic, casters cry fowl. It's not that hard to design those situations honestly. Especially if you know what's capable of happening.

All classes have weaknesses. All of those can be exploited. All,of them can be overcome with the game as is.

Feel free to house rule to your hearts content if those fixes don't work for you, but don't pretend they're no more viable than anything else offered.

You can address the disparity by changing the way you think narratives should work. It's a trick Kirth used for his players before Kirthfinder. Someone wanted a fighter, he'd ask what they wanted the character to be able to do and then suggest something he felt better catered their needs.

Do the same with your plot.

Well, the thing here, as someone else said, is that the game is set up so that it's easy to come by situations where the martials' tricks just don't work at all despite remaining functional, whereas to impose a similar feeling on their caster counterparts, you often need to make sweeping changes to the world like setting up zones that tun all spells off or adding home-brew consequences to spell casting based on your setting. Shortening this slightly, you usually need to bend the rules to make a caster feel helpless because the baseline assumption of Pathfinder's rules is that magic is easy, consistent, and safe on top...

Just to point out the anti-magic monster isn't the golem. It's the canny tumble circling mongoose rogue who attacks from stealth with dirty fighting and uses dirty trick blind in the surprise round followed by the step up Fighter with stagger-proof boots.

[Michael Sayre]

JonathonWilder wrote:

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

Given that combat is 80 percent or more of the game.

I contend that, largely because I disagree that D&D/Pathfinder having such a focus. It is a roleplaying game, where an adventure and story is created between players and the DM. I personally go 50/50 or 60/40 when it comes to combat and out of combat experiance.

Agreed. Unless I'm doing a one-off dungeon crawl, Pathfinder as we play it is usually about 1/3 social encounters, 1/3 exploration or puzzle solving, and 1/3 combat. My favorite classes usually are able to participate in all 3 to one degree or another, while my least favorite classes are generally the non-participants, who either don't have the tools for all three aspects of play, or whose tools are so potent they can trivialize or bypass some or all of the encounters. A lot of the PFS play I've done has been pretty similar to the 1/3s breakdown as well, so I don't think that distribution of challenges is particularly uncommon.

Also of some note, I think more skills for some classes is certainly a step in the right direction, but I think reevaluating skills themselves is also necessary. For example, an investment in 20 ranks in Stealth, which requires 20 levels of investment, isn't as good in many situations as a simple casting of invisibility, which is available to some characters as soon as 3rd level. In fact, smart application of a 1st level vanish spell can provide all the same benefits, albeit at a limited duration, right from character creation. While skills probably shouldn't scale at quite the same rate as spells, they really should still scale. Skill Unlocks from Unchained for example, were definitely a step in the right direction but really could have and should have gone a little bit farther. Skills tend to suffer from that "Guy at the Gym Fallacy" mentality, where despite the fact that you have long ago surpassed the upper limits of what someone in the real world is capable of, what you're doing still has to play by real world rules, an extremely self-contradictory viewpoint that I can never quite grasp.

I think that's a big part of martial/caster disparity and the road to resolution though; first, you need to decide how "fantastic" your fantastic world is, then you need to ensure that the inhabitants of said world are appropriately suited to dwell on it. Pathfinder right now has wizards that start out as glorified street performers and eventually become world-shattering demigods able to bend reality to their will, and fighters that start out as Gimli the dwarf from LotR, and after 20 levels of adventuring with their demigod wizard companion transform into... Gimli the dwarf with a sharper axe and fancier armor. It's like casters evolve through multiple subgenres- they start as the wimpy mystic with a few magic tricks you might see in Conan, then they're fast traveling and communicating over long distances with a few offensive tricks like in Lord of the Rings, and a few steps later you've got full blown high-powered anime spellcasters that would be perfectly at home in Naruto: Shippuden, transforming into monsters that can shatter moons, summoning powerful allies through space and time, animating the dead, and unleashing powerful attacks capable of leveling cities. Meanwhile, Gimli the dwarf is always Gimli the dwarf, and is generally doing the same things at level 20 he was doing at level 1, just with more numbers attached. Gimli makes sense in Lord of the Rings, but he's terribly out of place in Naruto: Shippuden, so I think addressing this evolution of the game and applying it equally across the board is really the solution for martial/caster disparity.

There was actually a thread a while back where I proposed that m/cd could even potentially be fixed just by making the existing system more honest-

Right now, the system pretends that Fighters and Wizards are equal, but what if it didn't? What if instead, every class, feat, archetype, spell, monster, etc. had something denoting the type of game it was appropriate for? You could have class summaries that looked something like this-
Fighter: Low fantasy. Works best against foes with limited or no magical abilities, requires other party members to assist in most tasks.

Cavalier: Low and Standard fantasy. Has some abilities that may seem extraordinary in nature. Can participate in and out of combat, but may need assistance from other classes in some aspects of play. Cavaliers in Standard fantasy settings should gain access to flying mount options at 7th level.

Wizard: Standard to Epic fantasy. Routinely breaks the laws of reality as we know them. May gain access to abilities that will seem near deity level in a Standard fantasy world, particularly during levels 10 and up. Can participate in any aspect of play.

Obviously that's just a rough and dirty, but pretend that those classifications existed in the CRB, and every feat and spell was denoted with a marker indicating whether it was designed for a Low, Standard, High, or Epic Fantasy world. Would you be okay with imbalance if they came right out and told you "Fighters simply don't belong in a High Fantasy world, please see the Barbarian, Ranger, or Paladin"? Because right now, the game tries to encompass everything from classic Conan to Naruto: Shippuden, and some of those ideas simply don't belong together, which is where a lot of trouble comes from.
If that (I daresay more honest) classification system existed up front, it might even up new avenues of design. A designer could potentially say "For this project, I'm building an Epic fantasy archetype for the Fighter that can travel overland Hulk style with mile long leaps and cleave mountains like Chu Culain" or "I'm making a Low fantasy Wizard archetype that only gets access to two schools of magic and has half the spell slots, but gets light armor proficiency and can use its Intelligence modifier on attack rolls".
That could potentially make it easier to create better inter-party balance (Low Fantasy options belong with Low, Epic with Epic, High Fantasy can fit in either Standard or Epic, etc.), while preserving the game's ability to cater to a huge array of game types. My experience would indicate that problems arise when classes with completely different floors and/or ceilings try to pretend they all belong together. A brand new player is going to think the Kineticist is really strong because it's a Standard - High fantasy class, with basic damage dealing set at a reasonable floor and with certain utility and mobility options baked right in, while the Fighter is Low fantasy, lacking all but the most basic tools. The fact that the Kineticist's relatively high starting floor is matched by an equivalently low ceiling won't be a factor for these players.
The Wizard is so hard to quantify because the setting he fits in is almost entirely dependent on the options he chooses, so denoting spells as standard-epic fantasy could even help improve the wizard, at least as a member of the cooperative roleplaying game the GM is presumably attempting to run.
If we knew up front that the Fighter wasn't really intended to play in a High fantasy game without having access to High fantasy feats or options, and if Wizard spells were noted as belonging to a certain classification (For example, wish could be classified as "Epic fantasy" with a subnote that says "If allowed in a Standard or lower fantasy game, this spell should be treated as a special ritual rather than a standard spell, with availability similar to a lesser artifact"), you could probably achieve "balance" without changing much, if anything.

[Blackwaltzomega]

HWalsh wrote:

Just to point out the anti-magic monster isn't the golem. It's the canny tumble circling mongoose rogue who attacks from stealth with dirty fighting and uses dirty trick blind in the surprise round followed by the step up Fighter with stagger-proof boots.

I feel like you're kind of making my point stronger in that two optimized anti-caster NPCs with a surprise round (against a non-diviner wizard, who as we have pointed out, is never surprised and basically always goes first) are the anti-magic monster while a bog-standard CR3 swarm of frigging wasps are still an unbeatable and usually unescapable encounter for a level 20 fighter that doesn't have a piece of anti-swarm equipment on him at the moment.

Or, to put it another way, you want to make the fighter feel foolish? Open the bestiary and turn to a page that doesn't have a combat brute with no special abilities on it.

If you want to make the mage feel foolish, read the art of war and optimization guides, because the bestiary is effectively useless to your needs.

[HWalsh]

Blackwaltzomega wrote:

HWalsh wrote:

Just to point out the anti-magic monster isn't the golem. It's the canny tumble circling mongoose rogue who attacks from stealth with dirty fighting and uses dirty trick blind in the surprise round followed by the step up Fighter with stagger-proof boots.

I feel like you're kind of making my point stronger in that two optimized anti-caster NPCs with a surprise round (against a non-diviner wizard, who as we have pointed out, is never surprised and basically always goes first) are the anti-magic monster while a bog-standard CR3 swarm of frigging wasps are still an unbeatable and usually unescapable encounter for a level 20 fighter that doesn't have a piece of anti-swarm equipment on him at the moment.

Or, to put it another way, you want to make the fighter feel foolish? Open the bestiary and turn to a page that doesn't have a combat brute with no special abilities on it.

If you want to make the mage feel foolish, read the art of war and optimization guides, because the bestiary is effectively useless to your needs.

No I mean either of themn ruin the caster's day quick. The Fighter is arguably nastier.

If the fight starts at 30 ft or less then the Wizard is likely toast. Even if he goes first the odds are against him.

Also... Optimized? Step up is a single feat. Stagger-proof boots are only 2k

[Trogdar]

The high level fighter is like Schroedingers inventory. He has more items than a ancient red dragon.

[HWalsh]

Trogdar wrote:

The high level fighter is like Schroedingers inventory. He has more items than a ancient red dragon.

Nah. Like any class there are just some items they should carry.

I mean heck a single 2315 GP (at high levels that is nothing) backup weapon can cover both a specific DR issue and swarm issues forever.

[TarkXT]

HWalsh wrote:

Trogdar wrote:

The high level fighter is like Schroedingers inventory. He has more items than a ancient red dragon.

Nah. Like any class there are just some items they should carry.

I mean heck a single 2315 GP (at high levels that is nothing) backup weapon can cover both a specific DR issue and swarm issues forever.

Out of curiosity what are those items they should always carry?

Also, I feel really bad for that mongoose stepping suddenly smashed rogue.

[HWalsh]

TarkXT wrote:

HWalsh wrote:

Trogdar wrote:

The high level fighter is like Schroedingers inventory. He has more items than a ancient red dragon.

Nah. Like any class there are just some items they should carry.

I mean heck a single 2315 GP (at high levels that is nothing) backup weapon can cover both a specific DR issue and swarm issues forever.

Out of curiosity what are those items they should always carry?

Also, I feel really bad for that mongoose stepping suddenly smashed rogue.

It varies class to class. Off the top of my head a Fighter needs:

1 Adamantine Weapon
1 Magic Weapon
1 Ranged Weapon (slings ain't bad)
1 Blunt Weapon
1 Slashing Weapon
1 Silver Weapon
1 Piercing Weapon
1 Weapon that can deal with swarms
1 Cold Iron Weapon
1 Reach Weapon

Those can be doubled (or tripled) up.

So...

Say, level 12-ish a weapon load out might be...

1 +2 Flaming Adamantine Longsword
(Handles swarms, DR adamantine, DR slashing, DR Magic)

1 Cold Iron Heavy Mace
(Handles DR Blunt, DR Cold Iron)

1 Silver Longspear
(Handles DR Piercing, DR Silver, Reach Weapon)

1 +1 Sling with Silver, Adamantine, and Cold Iron bullets.

Probably need a way to fly in a pinch, so a feather token maybe. Potion of See Invisible. Lesee an item with a heightened Continual Flame can be useful if they don't have dark vision, a crowbar, etc etc.

Just the basic, "prepared Warrior" stuff.

[Boomerang Nebula]

@ Ssalarn

Some really good points there. Perhaps there should be an epic fighter archetype (and epic rogue etc.) that is considerably more powerful than the standard fighter at high levels and more suitable for high level play.

[Snowblind]

HWalsh wrote:

...

1 +2 Flaming Adamantine Longsword
(Handles swarms, DR adamantine, DR slashing, DR Magic)
...

Flaming weapons against swarms is a dubious rules interpretation at best. Even accepting that, it's a whopping 1d6 fire damage. Taking a quick skim through a few swarm creatures on d20pfsrd, swarms are typically slightly below the recommended HP on the monster creation table. Your 1d6 is going up against 90HP creatures (see:Hellwasp swarm) at level 8. That's assuming they don't have elemental immunities or resistances (which the Hellwasp swarm does). This doesn't look particularly stellar.

[Aelryinth]

Icy Turbo wrote:

I'll also spitball some solutions:

1. Lump acrobatics, climb and swim together into Athletics. Why do I have to spend 3 skill points to be able to climb, jump and swim? Ludicrous.

2. Add the ability to do Quickened Strikes, basically attacks at range or in melee that can be used as a swift action. Kind of like Quickened Spell.

3. Remove Metamagic Rods.

4. Make skill unlocks a core part of the game.

1) Because skill consolidation benefits classes with few skill points, and shafts those with high skill points (aka Rogue).

also, ANYONE can climb, swim and jump easily...but the ability to climb, swim and jump at a SUPERHUMAN LEVEL should take just as much investment as ranks in Knowledge (Nature), shouldn't it? Otherwise, you are doing the typical caster thing - degrading physical skills in favor of mental ones.

IN other words, letting the Fighter and Rogue treat combined Ranks in CLimb, Swim and Jump as Athletics is fine. Letting Casters do it? Nope. Climbing is NOT an easy skill, and why bother to learn to Jump, Climb and Swim when you can fly?
=========================

As I po9sted earlier, defenses against Magic should Absolutely Exist. People protesting are doing monstrous double standards.

Wahhhh, this area has a zone that shuts off divination and charm spells. Unfair, mr DM is discriminating!
Oh, but the fact the palace is AIRBORNE and immune to non-flying martials, that's not a 'zone defense'.

Ohhh, there's a monster that's spell resistant/immune, and I don't have the right no-save non-resist spells memorized! Woe is me! Unfair!
There's a Rust Monster! LOL stupid melees in armor aren't going to get close to that, are they? DM should use them more! Or, as pointed out, maybe it's just a SWARM OF ANYTHING. AIE! Martials, FLEEE!

Look! There's a no-fly magic zone over that castle! And I can't teleport into it! Unfair!
Oh, there's a CASTLE WALL there, and I can't just charge up and hack on the enemy! Unfair! DM, no MORE CASTLES! WE HATES WALLS!

Mr. DM, these tunnels are twisting and turning too much! I can't get line of sight of the enemy at range! you're discriminating against me!
(THe Archer notes neither can he, and the wind blowing through it means he can't shoot arrows accurately at all, anyways, but the caster still can cause spells ignore winds).

Mr DM, there's a magic zone here and I can't cast spells! Discrmination!
Mr. DM, I had to turn my weapons in at the door for this party, including my +5 sword of ultimate annihilation! Discrimination!

FRICKING DOUBLE STANDARDS!

DEfenses exist for a REASON - BECAUSE SANE PEOPLE DON"T LIKE BEING VULNERABLE.

Letting wizards use charm spells and people not having defenses against them is like letting fighters use swords and things not having armor.

IT MAKES NO SENSE. Furthermore, it should be just as easy to get those defenses as it does to buy armor or throw up a castle wall.

THat's PARITY, not DISCRIMINATION.

()&)*(&)

==Aelryinth

[Trogdar]

There definitely should be defenses to magic. I would even say that defenses should be easier to access. That said, just because you have casters who can deal with a problem six different ways doesn't mean you ought to shut them all down so the martial, who has one way to deal with the same obstacle, feels relevant.

There's nothing fun or interesting about getting railroaded because you think that's more fair to martial characters.

[Zerombr]

have spells cast cost a significant amount of EXP. ;)

[Aelryinth]

Oh, noez, the Mage is relegated to solving problems the eXACT SAME WAY THE MARTIAL IS.

Horrors. How unfair it is.

Oh, wait, they are ABSOLUTELY EQUAL. Huh.

===Aelryinth

[Snowblind]

I would hesitate before calling double standards. If you ask the posters complaining about adding hard counters to large swarths of PC abilities whether they find the current hard counters good, I suspect the answer will be a definite "No". Personally, I don't find PC classes getting hard countered by simple and common effects a particularly fun thing, regardless of whether they use magic or not. Adding more horrible things so everyone can have a terrible time (yay balance!) doesn't exactly appeal to me, and I doubt I am alone feeling like this.

[Aelryinth]

IN a magical world, 'walls' against magic should be as common and necessary for important locations as 'walls' against martial attack.

That's COMMON SENSE. That's 'warcraft'. Not having it is akin to saying 'I'm going to ignore the fact the enemy has homing missiles and grenades and automatic weapons and air cover, and make all plans as if they only had revolvers and knives.'

PLEASE. People aren't stupid.

==Aelryinth

[Trogdar]

Yes, equally mundane with a side of half the bab.

[Trogdar]

Let me know when all those missile defense systems become 100% effective.

[Aelryinth]

Trogdar wrote:

Yes, equally mundane with a side of half the bab.

I wonder how many skill checks rely on BAB.

Oh, NONE.

As for combat...sometimes the casters get to Aid ANother the Martials, and sometimes the martials get to twiddle their thumbs and do jack all while the casters one-shot the encounter.

Guess which one is doing less?

I guess each class would get its time to shine. huh.

==Aelryinth

[Aelryinth]

Trogdar wrote:

Let me know when all those missile defense systems become 100% effective.

Probably right when all those anti-magic systems become 100% effective, I'm guessing.

Because, you know, PC's are dumb and don't find ways to circumvent defenses.

==Aelryinth

[CWheezy]

Getting through dr is the least of the fighter's issues. The top dr in the game is what, 15? Also, since +enhancement goes through dr/x, you don't need a ton of weapons to deal with dr, you just need your +3 weapon or whatever.

[Snowblind]

Aelryinth wrote:

IN a magical world, 'walls' against magic should be as common and necessary for important locations as 'walls' against martial attack.

That's COMMON SENSE. That's 'warcraft'. Not having it is akin to saying 'I'm going to ignore the fact the enemy has homing missiles and grenades and automatic weapons and air cover, and make all plans as if they only had revolvers and knives.'

PLEASE. People aren't stupid.

==Aelryinth

Why does having defences against magic necessarily entail saying "HELL NO" to large swarths of PC abilities. Why can't the anti-teleportation zone decrease range, require a CL check or add a random element to the destination of the teleport. Why must it be a firm "NEIN". Why can't the anti-charm zone light up people who are affected by non-harmless enchantments. Enchantment spells are weakened, but their utility isn't completely lost. Why just a "no fly" zone. Why not an area of extremely high winds that is fliable through with the right skills or abilities, but that makes gaining entry to a structure by flight substantially more difficult. After all, armor doesn't stop all attacks from hitting. It just makes them less likely to succeed. A wall isn't an insurmountable obstacle, but yet another problem that has many solutions. Yes, flying does hurt martials massively to the point that it is often a hard counter, but as we have established a lot of people do not find that to be a good thing, and would rather have flight be less of an eff you to melee brutes than have more rules elements act in a similar way to flight by shutting down a lot of abilities of certain PCs.

[Nox Aeterna]

I dont think there is anything wrong with the idea of some zones having defenses up to magic , honestly , i rather like the idea myself and hoped to see it implemented in a few books actually , i mean ... there are all those cool fortresses which are meant to be super hard to enter, but they have no defense to the stuff that can bypass/melt/blow... its walls?

Weird to me.

Ofc , like any other idea such as this , it isnt something that should be used every single time , but there is value to the idea as long as it is used on cool plot points that make tons of sense and that players probably know it is going to happen and can prepare accordingly.

PS: Im impressed , someone actually said they get their casters to do aid another lols , past lvl 4 i and others i have seen are more likely to do nothing the entire turn than do such a thing lols.

[Milo v3]

Aelryinth wrote:

IN a magical world, 'walls' against magic should be as common and necessary for important locations as 'walls' against martial attack.

That's COMMON SENSE. That's 'warcraft'. Not having it is akin to saying 'I'm going to ignore the fact the enemy has homing missiles and grenades and automatic weapons and air cover, and make all plans as if they only had revolvers and knives.'

PLEASE. People aren't stupid.

==Aelryinth

Except the rules are blatently opposed to this considering how hard it is to counter magic, generally requiring very high level magic, while countering a martial requires things like rocks.

[Blackwaltzomega]

HWalsh wrote:

TarkXT wrote:

HWalsh wrote:

Trogdar wrote:

The high level fighter is like Schroedingers inventory. He has more items than a ancient red dragon.

Nah. Like any class there are just some items they should carry.

I mean heck a single 2315 GP (at high levels that is nothing) backup weapon can cover both a specific DR issue and swarm issues forever.

Out of curiosity what are those items they should always carry?

Also, I feel really bad for that mongoose stepping suddenly smashed rogue.

It varies class to class. Off the top of my head a Fighter needs:

1 Adamantine Weapon
1 Magic Weapon
1 Ranged Weapon (slings ain't bad)
1 Blunt Weapon
1 Slashing Weapon
1 Silver Weapon
1 Piercing Weapon
1 Weapon that can deal with swarms
1 Cold Iron Weapon
1 Reach Weapon

Those can be doubled (or tripled) up.

So...

Say, level 12-ish a weapon load out might be...

1 +2 Flaming Adamantine Longsword
(Handles swarms, DR adamantine, DR slashing, DR Magic)

1 Cold Iron Heavy Mace
(Handles DR Blunt, DR Cold Iron)

1 Silver Longspear
(Handles DR Piercing, DR Silver, Reach Weapon)

1 +1 Sling with Silver, Adamantine, and Cold Iron bullets.

Probably need a way to fly in a pinch, so a feather token maybe. Potion of See Invisible. Lesee an item with a heightened Continual Flame can be useful if they don't have dark vision, a crowbar, etc etc.

Just the basic, "prepared Warrior" stuff.

As mentioned elsewhere, the elemental energy enchants are not particularly useful against swarms (and some GMs will insist that energy-charged weapons still don't work because they're still weapons, as I've discovered to my annoyance), and it is facetious to assume someone will always have one on hand when the energy enchants are generally thought to be one of the weaker +1 enchantments you can have on a weapon compared to things like bane, called, heart seeker, ghost touch, and other such things.

It also seems like a double standard that you and others who share your sentiments say it's unfair to assume the mage has a scroll or wand to get out of Corner Case X or is walking around with a contingent dimension door that whisks him out of the room if two enemies are both within 30 feet of him but a martial will always have a complete golf bag of magical weapons and miscellaneous items that let them deal with an unconventional monster, particularly since having that many weapons and types of exotic ammunition would be a decent bit more costly than it is to write or buy a couple scrolls.

Also, you seem to be trying to sidestep the point that "well, they should honestly be equipped like this if the GM wanted to take on a mage" doesn't change MY point that there is a clear disparity if making a high-level fighter's life hell is a simple as throwing a wasp (or even worse, HELLWASP) swarm at him anytime he doesn't have a lot of acid vials on hand with no modifications from the base bestiary entry required, while your theoretical "anti-mage monster" is the mage to be ambushed by two high-level enemies the GM has custom-built to try and pin down and blind the mage immediately, and this is STILL a situation the mage has a better chance of escaping from or fighting back than the fighter does.

See, someone taking the system at face value is going to think that golems being immune to magic means if he wants to give the enemy caster a really bad time, he can just throw a golem at them. As it turns out, this is wrong, because there are a lot of spells that you can still cast on a golem, so to start killing mages you need to build your own mage-killers, since NPC books and bestiaries are pretty useless for providing any.

But for a martial, the GM might think from the large number of swarms that they're fine to throw at the party frequently, and there's one and PRECISELY one magic item that lets you use weapons effectively against a swarm rather than doing roughly 3 damage a turn to one. A combination that means a fighter doing an average of 3 damage with his flaming weapon's energy needs to hit a perfectly normal CR3 wasp swarm eleven times to kill it. That's nearly THREE full attacks from a character that's one-shotting greater demons on a regular basis.

To put it more briefly; if you're looking to the bestiary for building encounters, you'll get a lot of ways to make a martial's life a living hell and only a few things that cause nearly as much stress to mages. On top of that, you'll notice a ton of the bestiary is not designed to respond properly to ANY of the unconventional tactics mages are expected to be capable of as the game advances, so if your casters are even a tiny bit creative many monsters are not nearly as challenging for them to beat as their CR indicates.

[graystone]

CWheezy wrote:

Getting through dr is the least of the fighter's issues. The top dr in the game is what, 15? Also, since +enhancement goes through dr/x, you don't need a ton of weapons to deal with dr, you just need your +3 weapon or whatever.

Then add the fact that a single feat lets your weapon deal any damage type [bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing]. There is NO reason for a golfbag of weapons in pathfinder. That's a 3.5 issue.

[Trogdar]

Aelryinth wrote:

Trogdar wrote:

Let me know when all those missile defense systems become 100% effective.

Probably right when all those anti-magic systems become 100% effective, I'm guessing.

Because, you know, PC's are dumb and don't find ways to circumvent defenses.

==Aelryinth

You've entirely missed my point. Stacking hard counter after hard counter into your games is boring. It should be hard to access a fortress, even impossible to teleport into, but that's not the same as entire cities that are immune to enchantment. If that's how you want to play, just ban enchantment altogether.

Magic defenses are a good idea, hard counters to whole schools of magic kilometers across is just too much.

[Wrath]

Magical traps.

Make them not show up as magic until tripped. More about the rogues ability to,set traps allows them to hide them from magical detection as well as normal detection.

That means detect magic no longer defeats these things easily.

Another idea.

[Wrath]

Trogdar - how about cities that have laws against using magic unless in specific areas, and outright ban certain schools of magic.

I can imagine Abadar banning enchantment and transmutation magic in markets. They'd likely have priests available for checking magic items to be real and also to detect unsanctioned magic in the area.

This kind of zone protection is less restrictive but comes with serious consequences if they step out of line.

Limits caster ability to change narrative quite so much.

[DominusMegadeus]

Did any example presented in this thread involve enchantment or transmutation magic being used in marketplaces?

If it didn't, then this did little to limit caster narrative power.

[Michael Sayre]

Wrath wrote:

Trogdar - how about cities that have laws against using magic unless in specific areas, and outright ban certain schools of magic.

I can imagine Abadar banning enchantment and transmutation magic in markets. They'd likely have priests available for checking magic items to be real and also to detect unsanctioned magic in the area.

This kind of zone protection is less restrictive but comes with serious consequences if they step out of line.

Limits caster ability to change narrative quite so much.

Reminds me of Baldur's Gate 2, where you had the cabal of wizards with basically unlimited authority to police any unsanctioned use of magic who "capture" the BBEG and your friend towards the start of the game. If you're a wizard, you end up spending the first 8 levels or so of the game gritting your teeth in frustration whenever you're attacked on the city streets, since using magic to defend yourself is still going to summon the heat.

[Malwing]

One fun experiment designing city guard NPCs that are a legitimate threat to casters around level 10. Its a bit difficult unless third party is involved and I found that the real equalizer is technology. For example; an alchemical arc grapple gun is basically useless against a mid level martial, but get the drop on a wizard and it's pretty much instant death. One thing that I'm struggling with whether or not to allow is this alchemical lead material that basically works like nth metal in Justice League, being a weak disenchanter and can functionally deal continual damage against spellcasters. On one hand, lead can block magic in some ways but I don't want everyone to carry around a ton of led and noting else.

[CWheezy]

Ssalarn wrote:

Wrath wrote:

Trogdar - how about cities that have laws against using magic unless in specific areas, and outright ban certain schools of magic.

I can imagine Abadar banning enchantment and transmutation magic in markets. They'd likely have priests available for checking magic items to be real and also to detect unsanctioned magic in the area.

This kind of zone protection is less restrictive but comes with serious consequences if they step out of line.

Limits caster ability to change narrative quite so much.

Reminds me of Baldur's Gate 2, where you had the cabal of wizards with basically unlimited authority to police any unsanctioned use of magic who "capture" the BBEG and your friend towards the start of the game. If you're a wizard, you end up spending the first 8 levels or so of the game gritting your teeth in frustration whenever you're attacked on the city streets, since using magic to defend yourself is still going to summon the heat.

you know you could just buy a license right

[Goth Guru]

I'm going to hide this topic. Problem solved.

[Michael Sayre]

CWheezy wrote:

Ssalarn wrote:

Wrath wrote:

Trogdar - how about cities that have laws against using magic unless in specific areas, and outright ban certain schools of magic.

I can imagine Abadar banning enchantment and transmutation magic in markets. They'd likely have priests available for checking magic items to be real and also to detect unsanctioned magic in the area.

This kind of zone protection is less restrictive but comes with serious consequences if they step out of line.

Limits caster ability to change narrative quite so much.

Reminds me of Baldur's Gate 2, where you had the cabal of wizards with basically unlimited authority to police any unsanctioned use of magic who "capture" the BBEG and your friend towards the start of the game. If you're a wizard, you end up spending the first 8 levels or so of the game gritting your teeth in frustration whenever you're attacked on the city streets, since using magic to defend yourself is still going to summon the heat.

you know you could just buy a license right

There was a license?!?!?!?

Actually, I kind of remember that now. I think I tried to avoid buying it since so much of the early game revolves around saving up money and it was expensive. That's the man for you though, always trying to regulate everything and turn a profit on people's reality-defying basic rights...

That being said though, that particular solution solves mages being too powerful by throwing more mages at the problem, maybe not my favorite solution.

[Milo v3]

Wait. So the true weakness of mages is bureaucracy?

[Wrath]

DominusMegadeus wrote:

Did any example presented in this thread involve enchantment or transmutation magic being used in marketplaces?

If it didn't, then this did little to limit caster narrative power.

Hmmmm, where's Jiggy. I'd like to point this comment to him as examples of the stuff I receive when I post solutions.

Now to Dominus. I've posted numerous ways to control caster power so the perceived narrative discrepancy disappears. This is but one, and it was in response to another posters complaint about blocking magic. This way magic isn't blocked, it just becomes more risky to use. Now it's not the first port of call to solve all problems like everyone thinks.

Maybe extrapolate the idea a little beyond my limited example and you'll see why casting spells in a city is going to be frowned on. Enchantments, illusions, necromancy, evocation, abjuration, conjugation. All of those are going to cause issues in cities, so cities would naturally take steps to limit them. Now you can't charm, or dominate, or summon or gate or other usual casters apparent answer to everything, without potential consequence.

That's limiting narrative power considerably I would say.

Now casters are facing the same restrictions as rogues and Martials etc. They have to really consider options to solve plots.

[Wrath]

Milo v3 wrote:

Wait. So the true weakness of mages is bureaucracy?

The true weakness of casters is getting and using their magic.

But if you target that people seem ready to call you a nasty name.

I mean, take a Martials weapon away and he picks another up to be a little less effective. Take a spell book, a focus, a holy symbol or a spell component pouch away and many casters are boned. But that upsets folks.

I am merely pointing out possible solutions. If they don't work for you, don't use them.

And I kind of like the idea of casters getting hosed by beaurocricy. It tickles my sense of irony.

[Aelryinth]

Trogdar wrote:

Aelryinth wrote:

Trogdar wrote:

Let me know when all those missile defense systems become 100% effective.

Probably right when all those anti-magic systems become 100% effective, I'm guessing.

Because, you know, PC's are dumb and don't find ways to circumvent defenses.

==Aelryinth

You've entirely missed my point. Stacking hard counter after hard counter into your games is boring. It should be hard to access a fortress, even impossible to teleport into, but that's not the same as entire cities that are immune to enchantment. If that's how you want to play, just ban enchantment altogether.

Magic defenses are a good idea, hard counters to whole schools of magic kilometers across is just too much.

It would be pretty much the same as an dead magic zone, really. They even have those in FR, you know?

That being said, if you knew an entire city was a no-charm zone, that would change how you did things in that city, wouldn't it? And people would feel safer from casters because of it.

But I agree, prohibited zones should be localized and smaller then anti-dimensional or anti-magical flight zones. The fact is, however, we don't have that option now. There ARE no defenses. Zones that keep out casters are no different then walls that keep out mundanes. They should exist, there should be defenses against all this crap spellcasters can pull, because people will pay for it to get into place.

But we don't even have the option, so casters rool and mundanes drool.

==Aelryinth

[Milo v3]

Wrath wrote:

I mean, take a Martials weapon away and he picks another up to be a little less effective. Take a spell book, a focus, a holy symbol or a spell component pouch away and many casters are boned. But that upsets folks.

The difference is that you are saying martials "without having any toys taken away" being not able to do anything is fine, because "you can take away the toys of casters". It's not a fair statement.

The issues that stop martials from doing things isn't taking away their swords, it's that swords don't do anything but stab and cut things.

[N. Jolly]

Wrath wrote:

I mean, take a Martials weapon away and he picks another up to be a little less effective. Take a spell book, a focus, a holy symbol or a spell component pouch away and many casters are boned. But that upsets folks.

I am merely pointing out possible solutions. If they don't work for you, don't use them.

If you let your party know this is an issue, all you've done is given a feat tax for most characters.

Lost spell component pouch: Eschew Materials (expensive stuff is still screwed, but most combat spells don't use expensive material components)

Lost holy symbol: Holy Tattoo trait (so a trait at best, the additional traits feat at worst)

Lost spell book is the only one that you're really seeing as an issue, and most casters don't need to pull their spellbook out in battle, so in most ways, it's pretty much a non issue in combat since it's very hard to steal things from inside a container in battle (even harder inside of an extradimensional space, although I suppose you could steal the bag of holding/handy haversack), so again, a non issue.

Losing a spellbook hurts a wizard, arcanist, and magus (also alchemist/investigator, but there's debates on them being casters), so now you're actually hitting a minority of casters. This isn't even going into HOW you're going to steal their spellbook.

Steal it in their sleep? Why not just kill them? You're close enough to just take it and they can't defend themselves. Most characters I've seen keep their vital class aspects (weapon, spellbook, armor, magic items) as close to themselves as possible for exactly this reason.

Stealing it in battle covers everything else that I've already mentioned due to the massive penalties to stealing anything that's attached to the character like a backpack or other holding item would be, so that's basically a null point. And if they do steal it, unless they can teleport, they're running away from you and basically giving you a chance to nail them from behind with free shots, which doesn't make for a great exit strategy. Not to mention at the point where their spell book is stolen, a wizard still has whatever spells they had before, so they can still use those to catch/track down said thief.

Also as far as stealing a spellbook goes, it's as you said a much bigger loss, but the reason why is really important. A stolen spellbook contains a customized collection of abilities unlike most weapons which are by CRB standards just +X and X abilities. You can't just 'get a new spellbook', so you're setting the character back infinitely more as well as removing their ability to contribute WAY more than you are for a martial, which limits their involvement in the game. It may work for you, but I don't want to bench a character for 3+ sessions of getting their spellbook back.

It even takes a lot of effort to attune one's self to a new spellbook, so they can't even go out and buy a new one that has some spells in it due to the massive amount of effort that this takes. Besides, take away a martial's best weapon (especially one they've come to love), and you'll upset them too. Not really seeing why that was even worth mentioning.

These are the reasons that people avoid targetting/damaging spellbooks, and partially why I don't like the Witch for having what's effectively a spellbook with a target on its back.

It always feels like you're telling us to try new things when people acquainted with the system are aware that the things you're telling us to do just don't work as listed above.

[The Sword]

just to be completely out of left field here, but do many 15th level wizards have more than 80 hit points? Most fighters I know could deal that out in a few rounds. Most fighters of that level that I run with have +4 or more weapons by that point and so are ignoring stoneskin. Plus the fighters in our group with a full attack seem to crit at least once a round.

I just want to be clear that in combat terms a 15th level fighter can chop a wizard to flinders in one round? Even a half way decent bow with adamantine arrows can do substantial damage to a mage in one round. I get that given time to prepare and the right selection of spells a wizard would win eventually but in a straight up fight in circumstances to favour the fighter (i.e a normal sized room) they would kick the wizards ass - simply by grappling if nothing else?

I'm phrasing this as questions because this has probabably come up before but I'm just interested to know if this is a valid point. I get that you can polymorph wizards for a straight up fight etc but you won't have the equipment, Hp or feats to win that way necessarily. Not and pull all your other tricks.

[N. Jolly]

The Sword wrote:

just to be completely out of left field here, but do many 15th level wizards have more than 80 hit points? Most fighters I know could deal that out in a few rounds. Most fighters of that level that I run with have +4 or more weapons by that point and so are ignoring stoneskin. Plus the fighters in our group with a full attack seem to crit at least once a round.

I just want to be clear that in combat terms a 15th level fighter can chop a wizard to flinders in one round? Even a half way decent bow with adamantine arrows can do substantial damage to a mage in one round. I get that given time to prepare and the right selection of spells a wizard would win eventually but in a straight up fight in circumstances to favour the fighter they would kick the wizards ass - simply by grappling if nothing else?

I'm phrasing this as questions because this has probabably come up before but I'm just interested to know if this is a valid point. I get that you can polymorph wizards for a straight up fight etc but you won't have the equipment, Hp or feats to win that way necessarily. Not and pull all your other tricks.

A wizard polymorphing itself for a real fight is a wizard who doesn't understand that underneath that spell, they are made of weak, weak cardboard and should never have made themselves a target.

A martial who gets the drop on a wizard will kill them, not really much of an issue. Sure, caster CAN have contingency up, but this isn't a certainty. Besides, having to recast it and set up your contingency over and over again seems annoying for any mage who isn't specifically setting up for this.

Really, if a martial can get a wizard into a martial way of fighting without the mage being able to respond, it's the martial's fight. The problem is getting to that point. Mages have ways to see into the future vaguely at the very least, and most divinations shouldn't fail at "will I be attacked when I cannot defend myself" as a question.

Personally, I'd enjoy feats (or something like the Vecna-Blooded template from 3.5) where you're immune to divination, give the fighter things that'll actually help them avoid this problem. If there was a way to get around a wizard's other senses (hellcat stealth, dampen presence) as well as avoid divination spells, this could be perfectly viable. It'd be a nice way to help even the playing field, that's for sure.

[Aelryinth]

The high level mage will rely on miss chances instead of high AC.

Greater Mirror Image and Displacement, along with Improved Invisiblity and Blink, are the combo here. That's three stacking miss chances, which puts your odds at hitting the mage at about 3% unless you've got true sight. It doesn't matter what your level is...you can't hit him.

Then he gets out of your threat range, probably with a Dim Door or teleport, and proceeds to kill you from afar.

That's much more like how it works. And that's if his Contingency spell doesn't just whisk him away as soon as a single blow lands.

And yes, a level 15mage will have more then 80 HP.

He's averaging 3.5 a level, so that's 55 hit points right there. Toughness is +15, FC bonus is +15, so we're at 85 before even touching Con, or a False Life spell. If we assume his Con was only 14, he's probably got a +4 Con booster by now, so that's 4/level, for +60, so he's at 145, and with a False Life cast, he's at 160.

yep, DEFINITELY got more then 80 hp.

And that's without any inherent bonuses or succubus shenanigans.

==Aelryinth

[Gurby]

You've all forgotten the thing that makes Martials so much better then caster! Simple thing called sleep. if you can't rest, you can't get spells back.