
Paradozen |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |

So here's a question: how many different types of problems should any given class be able to solve? Can different classes have the tools to solve a different variety of tasks?
As an example, say martials got more skill points to play with (like 6 per level) & skills, especially ranks, were made more meaningful. Would that be sufficient for giving martial characters versatility? Does the fighter need to be able to cast dimension door by cutting a hole in reality? Would it be okay that, to travel a long distance instantaneously you need a wizard or some caster? Added on to that, the caster's versatility could be cut by a system like spheres of power where the caster must devote themselves to a magic school in order to draw out all the power is has to offer. This would make the discrepancy in versatility smaller...would that be enough?
I would personally like to see a system where most skills did most of what spells did. Sure, I can't fly at an impossible speed, but with a DC 30 skill check I can sprint all day. Sure, I can't fly but with a good acrobatics check I can reasonably jump a skyscraper. I am considering houserules where every few BAB you DCs become easier as you become more legendary and less realistic.

GM 1990 |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are too many things to account for. Nothing you come up with will be accurate. Things such as I can teleport the party away so we dont have a TPK cant really be measured accurately with math.
One could assign a subjective measurable for comparison though. For example, non-damage spells, abilities, and skills could still be given a score between 1 (least valuable) and 5 (most valuable), and used as a relative comparison between classes.
My son's designing his first class right now, sort of a spin off of the 5E Eldritch Knight. While I personally don't think its needed, this is more about him enjoying home-brewing something so I'm trying to help him come up with just this kind of relative comparison so he can get a feel for the power of class abilities compared to what other classes already have. he's using Ranger/Paladin as his benchmark but still has to compare his ideas for class abilities to those 2 and figure out what's more or less powerful compared to what it'll give up.
It would be best if designers had a "point buy" for classes before they even start creating classes for a game, and then a comparative list of everything. The 2E DMG had something like this, although I never used it. I think failing to have something like this established before a game is designed, leads to the imbalance as new classes are generated. With that kind of system, different design teams could all make a class balance out and fall within +/- of the point capability, and every class would at least have a better chance of being somewhat balanced. The challenge would be getting honest assessments of new things that aren't like any existing power and what it's relative worth is.
So even though teleport is subjective in its power, I could at least say, if this class gets access to teleport which is a "5 of 5" utility spell, then its burning a full 3 points towards its class abilities. Since that would put me over the point buy I need to take something away from another part of the class ability.
While its not nearly as objective as something like BAB, it would be better than no comparison tool at all which is where most systems including PF seem to be, and why I think new supplements become even harder to balance. That being said, you can start at the CRB and see imbalance, so it goes IMO to not having an established point buy to create classes from the ground up.

Ranishe |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

I've seen a lot of responses to making the fighter better at fighting to the line of "but that trivializes fighting encounters" and I always wonder "why does that matter? Shouldn't that be what a fighter is for?"
Couple of problems. If you increase the fighter's fighting power ( not combat versatility, power) you have a harder time granting them versatility elsewhere (which is what they need). Second is if a fighter becomes such a powerful combat force above other classes, they're more of a liability to the party. Now if they get dominated, you're looking at a tpk (was it 3.5 that had some kind of barbarian build that would literally kill a party in 1 round without them having a hope to stop it?). Or if they're cced for the fight, and non-fighters can't hope to resolve the situation, you've just created the same problem, but backwards (we need a fighter or we can't hope to win a combat against a meaningful enemy)

GM 1990 |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ranishe wrote:I would personally like to see a system where most skills did most of what spells did. Sure, I can't fly at an impossible speed, but with a DC 30 skill check I can sprint all day. Sure, I can't fly but with a good acrobatics check I can reasonably jump a skyscraper. I am considering houserules where every few BAB you DCs become easier as you become more legendary and less realistic.So here's a question: how many different types of problems should any given class be able to solve? Can different classes have the tools to solve a different variety of tasks?
As an example, say martials got more skill points to play with (like 6 per level) & skills, especially ranks, were made more meaningful. Would that be sufficient for giving martial characters versatility? Does the fighter need to be able to cast dimension door by cutting a hole in reality? Would it be okay that, to travel a long distance instantaneously you need a wizard or some caster? Added on to that, the caster's versatility could be cut by a system like spheres of power where the caster must devote themselves to a magic school in order to draw out all the power is has to offer. This would make the discrepancy in versatility smaller...would that be enough?
you could also limit what stacks. That IMO seems to be a little lost in how magic supports skills in PF. They've built in lots of controls on AC/ToHit type bonuses to keep too many things from stacking, but you can always cast Jump on someone. If Jump failed to help after X ranks for example, but of course that would limit vs expand magic.
For my family game I just accept the fact that magic, as it comes on line is going to affect the game as the power level goes up. One of the interesting things that came out of the threads "Game Altering (or Game Breaking) Spells", was that most of the GMs who responded to things like Fly and Teleport did not see it as a problem in their game because by the time they got to that level the idea of describing a 3 day horse ride to the next town had been played out. And the novelty of being able to Teleport was the new cool thing - I don't recall any GM's responding that they or their players felt it had broken their game at the levels those things came on line.

M1k31 |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
M1k31 wrote:Couple of problems. If you increase the fighter's fighting power ( not combat versatility, power) you have a harder time granting them versatility elsewhere (which is what they need). Second is if a fighter becomes such a powerful combat force above other classes, they're more of a liability to the party. Now if they get dominated, you're looking at a tpk (was it 3.5 that had some kind of barbarian build that would literally kill a party in 1 round without them having a hope to stop it?). Or if they're cced for the fight, and non-fighters can't hope to resolve the situation, you've just created the same problem, but backwards (we need a fighter or we can't hope to win a combat against a meaningful enemy)I've seen a lot of responses to making the fighter better at fighting to the line of "but that trivializes fighting encounters" and I always wonder "why does that matter? Shouldn't that be what a fighter is for?"
1. I was referring to upping saves as well, not just DPS.
2. I was referring to not updating CR to compensate, if you have a fighter, should combat be as difficult? I don't think it should, unless the other PC's are designed for combat alone I don't think they need to spotlight in it.
3. There are still other things that can be placed in an encounter to make it a challenge, like traps.

GM 1990 |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
M1k31 wrote:Couple of problems. If you increase the fighter's fighting power ( not combat versatility, power) you have a harder time granting them versatility elsewhere (which is what they need). Second is if a fighter becomes such a powerful combat force above other classes, they're more of a liability to the party. Now if they get dominated, you're looking at a tpk (was it 3.5 that had some kind of barbarian build that would literally kill a party in 1 round without them having a hope to stop it?). Or if they're cced for the fight, and non-fighters can't hope to resolve the situation, you've just created the same problem, but backwards (we need a fighter or we can't hope to win a combat against a meaningful enemy)I've seen a lot of responses to making the fighter better at fighting to the line of "but that trivializes fighting encounters" and I always wonder "why does that matter? Shouldn't that be what a fighter is for?"
True, I think its why most of the house-variant fighter's start with the same basics:
4 (or 6)+Int Sklls: for out of combat utilityGood Will Saves: ...so you're not the death blender turned against your party (Ssalarn's visual is still making me laugh)
Some kind of story-line benefit as a class ability: IE - gaining a Cohort; ability to gain boons from NPCs that no other class has. This is a throwback to the 1E "Lord" who got a keep and followers - unique to fighters.
Regarding Dominate.
I look at these kind of challenges as something to use on a very limited basis because it shuts down that player. I doubt I'm unique in that, IMO good GM's don't go out of their way to continually attack the party's weakest link or shut-down their strongest strength. One or 2 times in an entire campaign it is a great challenge for the group if you use things like: Dominate, Anti-magic Shell, Save or Die, No Teleport Zones, to make the group think of out of the box ways to solve the problem.
I'm surprised when this comes up it doesn't get the same responses as Anti-magic shell. It seems like most people look at AMS as a DM over-rule to punish a caster, but dominate person to turn the blender of death against the party is just what you get for playing a low-Will save martial. Used in very small doses, both can have their place in your toll-box to challenge the PCs IMO.

RDM42 |
Quintessentially Me wrote:Can we flip the argument? Instead of trying to state why martials should have a wider variety of options, could those who disagree with the C/MD Hypothesis state why they think martials should *not* be given more flexibility?
Thanks. I was going to do this earlier, but I got distracted.
Going back to one of my earlier post here are examples I want to see solved.
Scenario 1:
A little more detail this time.
The party is out in the middle of nowhere, and have been hit with a curse and ability drain. They have no expendables to fix this. Their chances of taking on the bad guys to include a boss level fight are not good. What do they do?In a party with magic the cleric goes to sleep, wakes up, and cast the spells assuming he had the gold pieces or material component if one is needed. If he can't fully fix the party summon monster to eat some of the attacks and/or planar ally is an option.
Scenario 2: Enemies are tagging them with AoE's, and they are flying out of the reach of any melee weapons. The party is level 7.
2b: Replace the AoE magic with archers.
I came across this in a game more than once. I used fog spells to cover our retreat, and I've blinded the enemy.
How are the martials solving these problems?
PS: No GM handouts
So why, in all of these scenaris, do people start by takng away the wealth by level which is part of the character?

wraithstrike |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

wraithstrike wrote:So why, in all of these scenaris, do people start by takng away the wealth by level which is part of the character?Quintessentially Me wrote:Can we flip the argument? Instead of trying to state why martials should have a wider variety of options, could those who disagree with the C/MD Hypothesis state why they think martials should *not* be given more flexibility?
Thanks. I was going to do this earlier, but I got distracted.
Going back to one of my earlier post here are examples I want to see solved.
Scenario 1:
A little more detail this time.
The party is out in the middle of nowhere, and have been hit with a curse and ability drain. They have no expendables to fix this. Their chances of taking on the bad guys to include a boss level fight are not good. What do they do?In a party with magic the cleric goes to sleep, wakes up, and cast the spells assuming he had the gold pieces or material component if one is needed. If he can't fully fix the party summon monster to eat some of the attacks and/or planar ally is an option.
Scenario 2: Enemies are tagging them with AoE's, and they are flying out of the reach of any melee weapons. The party is level 7.
2b: Replace the AoE magic with archers.
I came across this in a game more than once. I used fog spells to cover our retreat, and I've blinded the enemy.
How are the martials solving these problems?
PS: No GM handouts
I never saw it like that. From my point of view I was putting the class in a position to rely on its own abilities.
If you want to look at it from another angle, things such as being turned to stone or going down in a fight happen. Casters just fix their buddies. Most martials will struggle to have the UMD for scrolls, and wands(past 2nd level spells) and staves are ridiculously expensive.

GM 1990 |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With versatile weapon training and adaptive armor training and specialized armor training, you lose Dex dependence and gain skillmonkey status.
Without needing dex those points can go into int which leads to even more skills.
Now you can minorly contribute to all parts of the game.
This is true, and full disclosure, I don't own either but used the AWT from d20 in my house variant, but I tend to agree with what I've read others postulate:
It comes on a little too late in the game, especially when the casters at those levels may make a few of the actions like climb/swim non-factors in many sessions, and 8-10th may be top end for many groups.
With what it delays by investing an WT, it can put the fighter's hand-to-hand utility farther behind peer competitors like Ranger/Paladin/Monk as well. its better than what we had, and it'll be interesting to see how it gets incorporated -when- Unchained Fighter eventually comes out....hope springs eternal.

Das Bier |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

M1k31 wrote:Couple of problems. If you increase the fighter's fighting power ( not combat versatility, power) you have a harder time granting them versatility elsewhere (which is what they need). Second is if a fighter becomes such a powerful combat force above other classes, they're more of a liability to the party. Now if they get dominated, you're looking at a tpk (was it 3.5 that had some kind of barbarian build that would literally kill a party in 1 round without them having a hope to stop it?). Or if they're cced for the fight, and non-fighters can't hope to resolve the situation, you've just created the same problem, but backwards (we need a fighter or we can't hope to win a combat against a meaningful enemy)I've seen a lot of responses to making the fighter better at fighting to the line of "but that trivializes fighting encounters" and I always wonder "why does that matter? Shouldn't that be what a fighter is for?"
Yes, the Frenzied Berserker. Granted, he'd have to charge you, but a minimum 200 dmg with Supreme Cleave basically meant he'd wipe the weakest member of the party with his first swing, swat the next weakest with a cleave, maybe swat the next weakest, take his Hasted iterative on that, cleave again, and take his 3rd attack at -5 on the next, kill him, and cleave to the last, toughest one standing before hitting him. Unless everyone in the party had OVER 400 HP, they all died.

M1k31 |
Ranishe wrote:M1k31 wrote:Couple of problems. If you increase the fighter's fighting power ( not combat versatility, power) you have a harder time granting them versatility elsewhere (which is what they need). Second is if a fighter becomes such a powerful combat force above other classes, they're more of a liability to the party. Now if they get dominated, you're looking at a tpk (was it 3.5 that had some kind of barbarian build that would literally kill a party in 1 round without them having a hope to stop it?). Or if they're cced for the fight, and non-fighters can't hope to resolve the situation, you've just created the same problem, but backwards (we need a fighter or we can't hope to win a combat against a meaningful enemy)I've seen a lot of responses to making the fighter better at fighting to the line of "but that trivializes fighting encounters" and I always wonder "why does that matter? Shouldn't that be what a fighter is for?"
True, I think its why most of the house-variant fighter's start with the same basics:
4 (or 6)+Int Sklls: for out of combat utilityGood Will Saves: ...so you're not the death blender turned against your party (Ssalarn's visual is still making me laugh)
Some kind of story-line benefit as a class ability: IE - gaining a Cohort; ability to gain boons from NPCs that no other class has. This is a throwback to the 1E "Lord" who got a keep and followers - unique to fighters.
Regarding Dominate.
I look at these kind of challenges as something to use on a very limited basis because it shuts down that player. I doubt I'm unique in that, IMO good GM's don't go out of their way to continually attack the party's weakest link or shut-down their strongest strength. ...
Back to one of my posts first suggestions, if the fighters were built with "spell slots" they could have had the wizard charge them with something like dispel magic to save/buff them without using the wizards spell slot.

Das Bier |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |

The reason people bring up WBL restrictions is pretty simple. Martials are tool users...they get all their power from gear.
Casters are spell users...they get 99% of their power from themselves. A 9 level caster can get by just fine without a single stat buff, and at higher levels don't even need magical protective devices with the right spell set up. Clerics are a poster child for this.
So, yeah, WBL is a thing to look at, because martials need gear, always have, and casters didn't...they had spells.
It would be MORE appropriate to change the pricing on gear to favor martials. Cheaper magic armor and weapons, cheaper miscellaneous items, cheaper physical stat raising gear.
More expensive wands and scrolls; more expensive mental stat raising items; more expensive acquisition of spells; more expensive to cast and use such spells.

Blackwaltzomega |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can we flip the argument? Instead of trying to state why martials should have a wider variety of options, could those who disagree with the C/MD Hypothesis state why they think martials should *not* be given more flexibility?
For example, there was a thread that asked people to describe how a group of all four martials could successfully breach the fortress of a high power Wizard but using "extraordinary" versions of standard martial abilities. Things like the Rogue being so sneaky they are eventually under a permanent Mind Blank and able to Disguise as well as Alter Self or something at will, that sort of thing.
Why shouldn't such alterations be adopted as a mainstream part of Pathfinder, giving martials the ability to operate within certain areas of the game on equal footing with casters?
I've been advocating for a while now that things like this should happen. Skill Unlocks are nice but honestly I think those should just be rewards for investing a lot in a skill while Rogues get something even more powerful.
I think a rogue who takes some kind of, I dunno, "skill mastery" in Stealth gets SO GOOD at hiding that the auras of their magic items don't show up and creatures with scent, blindsight, blindsense, tremorsense, and the other things that automatically beat stealth and invisibility normally still don't notice the rogue is there unless they win an opposed perception roll. The Stalker Vigilante flirts with this ability somewhat, which is nice, but I think it's something a rogue should be able to do without giving the enemies a massive bonus to their percpetion. It feels right to me that Invisibility is a very powerful, easy stealth tool to magic your way past normal sight, but someone who really masters the art of tricking the senses into erasing their presence, and doing it the HARD way, eventually unlocks the power to be better than invisible because they learn tricks to fool their enemies' senses that Mr. "Now You See Me, Now You Don't" never needed to.
I also feel like being a martial class you should naturally get a climb speed and a swim speed past a certain level. Part of being full BAB (or a rogue) is that you're presumed to be in incredible shape, and so you gain a nice boost to your ability to climb around or swim without needing racial access or magic. Right now I feel a flaw in game design is that magic tends to hog all the alternative forms of movement when I feel like the only exclusively magical/racial form of movement would be a fly speed. You can climb, swim, or maybe even burrow a bit if you're strong enough, in my mind. So a mage might need Spider Climb to get his scrawny butt up that cliffside, but the trusty fighter needs no magical aid; his muscles are pumped and he can get a-climbin' right away, and have little worries about crossing the mighty river they get to next while the mage is working out how to levitate over it or bridge it with magic.

GM 1990 |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Back to one of my posts first suggestions, if the fighters were built with "spell slots" they could have had the wizard charge them with something like dispel magic to save/buff them without using the wizards spell slot.
Some players enjoy the buffing their party aspect as their role, in those games something like that would be good. Others already don't like having to consider using a spell slot to beef up a party member. Different playing styles.
I preferred our house fighter doing things themselves, and actually even getting to buff others with some things that operate similar to team-work feats (except their allies don't need to have it to benefit). I'd rather make the fighter more valuable to a group on their own, and more options to support the group rather than being one of the few classes who don't have any kind of buff-other's ability (either spells, Su, or class ability).
Even a companion or summoned creature can be a "buffer" by providing a flanking partner to others in the group. So, I gave our fighter an option of taking a cohort NPC or becoming a master trainer which allows them to use their "Retraining" ability on others as well as grant weapon/armor proficiencies to other classes.

Das Bier |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

There was a feat that allowed Stealth to be used against ALL forms of senses in 3.5, Lords of Madness, since so many aberrations had alternate senses (blindsense, tremorsense, blindsight, mindsight, etc).
Considered a top tier feat, of course. Don't remember the name off the top of my head, however.
Edit; Remembered the name! Darkstalker. Great feat.

![]() |
5 people marked this as a favorite. |

In the LOTR, the Fellowhsip travel during nearly all the books, and do you think than Legolas, Gimli, Aragorn or Boromir were boring...
In all fairness, my wife finds the LotR movies excruciatingly boring, and the worst parts for her are when they go to yet another big scenic shot of the group jogging to the next "encounter". She's far from the only person I know who shares that opinion. So.... yeah, when it comes to travel, Legolas, Gimli, and Aragon can be pretty darn boring.
Anzyr wrote:OK, I'll bite. Please explain how antimagic field is a joke. Lets take level 10, standard WBL, no custom crafted magic items as the baseline for the campaign.
The only actually effective "anti-magic" option is GM fiat. Antimagic field is a joke
First and foremost, it shuts down the person using it. You've just taken a character capable of casting 6th-8th level spells and turned them into a 10 foot null zone who probably can't even get people inside of their dead zone since they have no magic to aid their movement.
Secondly, it doesn't stop a whole array of spells. Conjuration spells in particular, especially those with the Calling subschool or Creation spells with instantaneous effects, can be cast outside of the field's area with their effects directed into it. That means spells like acid splash, silver darts, nauseating dart, rampart, pellet blast, mudball, touch of slime, caustic eruption, planar ally, etc. can all still be used against someone inside an antimagic field, and ironically enough, since they don't have any magic of their own they'll have no defense against those magically conjured attacks and effects.
There was a feat that allowed Stealth to be used against ALL forms of senses in 3.5, Lords of Madness, since so many aberrations had alternate senses (blindsense, tremorsense, blindsight, mindsight, etc).
Considered a top tier feat, of course. Don't remember the name off the top of my head, however.
I think that Dreamscarred Press has a similar feat, Lurker in Darkness.

Firewarrior44 |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

There was a feat that allowed Stealth to be used against ALL forms of senses in 3.5, Lords of Madness, since so many aberrations had alternate senses (blindsense, tremorsense, blindsight, mindsight, etc).
Considered a top tier feat, of course. Don't remember the name off the top of my head, however.
Edit; Remembered the name! Darkstalker. Great feat.

M1k31 |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
M1k31 wrote:Back to one of my posts first suggestions, if the fighters were built with "spell slots" they could have had the wizard charge them with something like dispel magic to save/buff them without using the wizards spell slot.Some players enjoy the buffing their party aspect as their role, in those games something like that would be good. Others already don't like having to consider using a spell slot to beef up a party member. Different playing styles.
I preferred our house fighter doing things themselves, and actually even getting to buff others with some things that operate similar to team-work feats (except their allies don't need to have it to benefit). I'd rather make the fighter more valuable to a group on their own, and more options to support the group rather than being one of the few classes who don't have any kind of buff-other's ability (either spells, Su, or class ability).
Even a companion or summoned creature can be a "buffer" by providing a flanking partner to others in the group. So, I gave our fighter an option of taking a cohort NPC or becoming a master trainer which allows them to use their "Retraining" ability on others as well as grant weapon/armor proficiencies to other classes.
but it wouldn't be the wizards slot, it would be the fighters, so it wouldn't be a problem if it was a spell the wizard already knew but didn't utilize, like mage armor, cure, dispel, teleport, etc.

wraithstrike |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

There was a feat that allowed Stealth to be used against ALL forms of senses in 3.5, Lords of Madness, since so many aberrations had alternate senses (blindsense, tremorsense, blindsight, mindsight, etc).
Considered a top tier feat, of course. Don't remember the name off the top of my head, however.
Edit; Remembered the name! Darkstalker. Great feat.
There is a similar feat in Pathfinder. I think it has skill focus(stealth) as a prerequisite.

The Sword |

Can we flip the argument? Instead of trying to state why martials should have a wider variety of options, could those who disagree with the C/MD Hypothesis state why they think martials should *not* be given more flexibility?
For example, there was a thread that asked people to describe how a group of all four martials could successfully breach the fortress of a high power Wizard but using "extraordinary" versions of standard martial abilities. Things like the Rogue being so sneaky they are eventually under a permanent Mind Blank and able to Disguise as well as Alter Self or something at will, that sort of thing.
Why shouldn't such alterations be adopted as a mainstream part of Pathfinder, giving martials the ability to operate within certain areas of the game on equal footing with casters?
Brawlers, Swashbucklers, slayers, barbarians, monks and unchained rogues are all martial with flexibility. I have no idea why people fixate on the fighter. Probably because it's an ancient class and easy target. Just play one of its more interesting defendants... I for one would love to see an unchained fighter and it will probably come some day but we waited 8 years for unchained rogue we may need to wait a bit longer for an unchained fighter.
I have no issue with some things only being possible with magic. Otherwise magic ceases to be... Well... Magic?

Fergie |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |

Uugghhhh! Just waded through the last ~150 posts.
There are many great guides for building optimal characters for damage dealing, being invulnerable, battlefield control, and being Batman! While it is fun to play a character that excels at what they do, many players find that playing these builds results in a severe game often dictated by the first person to win initiative and go nova. The requirement to keep up with the Best Caster Build or Highest Melee Machine narrows the options down considerably. Likewise such characters require APL+3 (Epic!) or more encounters that bend the CR system in ways that make encounter design and management a more difficult task for the GM. The rules, the adventures, and almost everything else published is not intended for that kind of optimized play.
So what are these rules designed for, if not optimization? Like most other games, the intent is that these rules facilitate a GM and players to have fun. Sounds easy, but what is fun?
As a player, I have fun:
- Controlling the actions of my PC.
- Customizing my PC with skills, feats, equipment, and other features.
- Knowing that if I generally play well, and have a little luck, I will do well most of the time.
- Having my characters decisions and actions affect the environment and story.
- Getting experience and treasure that allows me to increase the power of my character.
- Feeling that I can, and occasionally must do my best to defeat encounters.
- Knowing that my fellow PCs are supporting me, and that we act in each others best interests.
- Knowing that my PC is on par with the rest of the party and that we affect the game in fairly equal amounts.
- Not knowing exactly what to expect, and trying to be ready for anything.
- Even if bad things happen to my character, or the dice go against me, I still have fun if I am engaged in the game.
- Feeling that in most opposed circumstances, it is the dice that decide the outcome.*
GMs enjoy the game for different reasons then players.
As a GM I have fun:
- Presenting a campaign world with locations, encounters, mythos, timeline and NPCs.
- Presenting a wide variety of encounters that engage the players, and encourage them to have fun playing their characters.
- Knowing I have general control of the storyline and timeline, with occasional (sometimes unexpected) exceptions.
- Knowing that players will use wits and creativity to solve encounters, and vary their tactics to fit the situation.
- When everyone at the table participates in the game to the amount they are comfortable with.
- When players are friendly, kind, and enjoy themselves.
- While I decided if a roll is needed and add the modifiers, the dice decide the outcome.*
* GM, and even player "Cheating" (i.e. ignoring dice rolls) is a highly debatable topic. Like all issues, discuss it beforehand, and come to a consensus on how your group views it.
So how do we use the rules to make that kind of fun happen?
We start at the beginning - Creation!
Ability scores and character creation
First off, skip the dice. I know many people love rolling, but a few low rolls can result in less fun for the life of the PC. This can also result in dramatic party imbalances, and players unable to play the character they want. Let the dice decide what happens that round, not for life.
The point buy or stat array system used usually doesn't really matter much, in the sense that it slightly affects everyone in the group fairly equally (Low point buys actually benefit full caster types a little). The goal at this stage is to set the game up to work with the CR system, and encourage parity among classes throughout the game.
- 10 Points - I generally avoid 10 point buy simply because players are unable to perceive how little it increases difficulty, and even experienced players secretly don't want the added challenge. The balancing effect isn't worth the whining, unless you have a large group of experienced players.
- 15 Points - This is the "Standard" the game was balanced around, and should be the default for most groups of 4-5 players.
- 20 Points - This is the PFS standard, and has become a default for many games. I recommend this for 3 person parties, inexperienced players, or players looking to try lower powered builds such as small martial characters, monks, or builds that fall outside the default role of the class.
- 25 and up Points - While not much stronger then 20 points, this starts to bend the CR system in most games, and should be avoided except for unusual circumstances.
This is normally where the players take over and deliberately or unintentionally exacerbate some of the worst balance issues of the game. The key to evening out those power imbalances is to start characters off by evening out their ability scores. For example, it is much more difficult to become a game shattering god wizard with a starting intelligence score of 16. I recommend limiting the max starting ability scores (AFTER racial adjustments) to 16 or 17! For the same evening-out reasons, I also recommend limiting minimum stats to 10 or 8 (AFTER racial adjustments). These limits will encourage PCs more capable of dealing with a variety of situations, and less able to damage game balance.
Next is Hit Points. This is another area where many people have a wide variety of different methods that frequently bend game balance. Again, skip the dice, as no one wants to play a character that rolls a 1 every level, or be the sidekick to the guy who always rolls max. Follow the default max hit die (plus con modifier) for level one characters. After that, just give the PC happy side of average (plus con modifier) every level. PFS really got this one right. Generally, you should not modify this formula, as it can alter many factors such as the relevance of healing, AC, direct damage, etc.
How does everyone have fun?
So far we have significantly rebalanced the game, without really altering the rules, so much as providing guidelines for character creation. But perhaps I jumped the gun a little. Before we even get to character creation, it is probably a good idea for the GM to sit down with the players, and discuss what the expectations for the game are.
I would start by going over the different ways the players and GM have fun and discussing them as a group. This is NOT the time to argue, it is a time to be HONEST with yourself and the group, and express and LISTEN to everyone's opinions. Do you like Rollplaying more then Roleplaying? Be open about it! Your not doing yourself or anyone else a favor by pretending to like things you don't really like. Be open to new experiences and playstyles, but express your desires and expectations honestly. Come to some kind of consensus with the GM and players about how you will all enjoy the game.
In addition to how YOU have fun, this is a great time to discuss other aspects of play, such as:
House rules.
Use of computers and/or phones and access to reference material at the table. In general characters should have access to information about their own characters, but most GMs frown on players looking at information about enemies. Reading the adventure path or module is usually very strictly forbidden.
What books and material are allowed in the game and what restrictions are there. Do these restrictions apply equally on both sides of the screen?
Dice handling and GM and/or players ignoring dice. This usually take one of three forms:
- -GM roles in the open, results are not altered by the GM
- -GM rolls in secret, and may or may not follow the dice. Requires the players to trust the GM will fudge, but they will not know when, for fun to be maintained.
- -GM dictates action in some opposed circumstances without dice rolls. Requires players to trust the GM will dictate the action for the benefit of the game (without the 'illusion' of dice rolls) for fun to be maintained.
Amount of table time dedicated to combat, NPC interactions, and exploration.
Amount of expected wealth, mundane and magic item availability.
How downtime and/or crafting will be handled.
Tracking of encumbrance, minor items, ammunition, rations, water, mounts, living expenses, etc.
Tracking of important information such as HP, spells cast, limited abilities used, harmful conditions, etc.
If tracking discrepancies occur, will there be punitive action?
Level advancement - will the game use an XP advancement track or will leveling be handled a different way?
How will PC death be handled and how will bringing new PCs into the game be handled. Note: I recommend bringing in new PCs at the same level as the rest of the party, but with the starting wealth of a character one level lower. I also disagree with the designers about allowing characters to exceed WBL if they have crafting feats. I feel this unbalances the game in favor of the classes that generally need the least help (especially wizards) and breaks the assumptions that a PC used all his powers to get his starting wealth.
Expectations about what general types of encounters the PCs can expect. Players should be able to make informed decisions about character aspects such as favored enemy, deity and domains, schools, etc.
How alignment will be handled. Is it polar (the rules/setting default) or more of a subjective "realistic" situation.
Level of gore and sexuality in the game as well as any topics that players would have issues with encountering in game.
Out of game issues like food, drugs/alcohol/smoking, money, attendance, guest etiquette, etc.
Again, BE HONEST with yourself and the people you play with.
ABILITY SCORES
The more you spread your ability scores out, the more you can contribute in a variety of situations. Always pay attention to weaknesses your character might have, and don't neglect the scores associated with that weakness. For example, clerics and druids have weak reflex saves, and can greatly benefit from a little dex. This can be especially true for will saves, as failing them can often result in loss of actions, or wost, your characters actions being dictated by the enemy. Failing saves and being consistently hit in combat is generally not fun for most players, so plan for strong defenses (adequate Dex,Con,Wis)
To participate effectively in social situations it helps to have a little Cha, although Wis for sense motive is good in a pinch. Being able to put ranks into a variety of social and other types of skills (especially knowledge and languages) is easier when you have more Int. I don't want to leave out Str, especially for characters who wear armor, and want to deal weapon damage.
CLASS
Barbarian
Save the super raging power attacking crazy high damage stuff for when it is required. Put a little effort into ranged attacking, and consider what you can do when you can't be effective by doing melee damage. Put resources into AC (perhaps ude a shield sometimes) and will saves. Invest in being effective without raging and/or taking excessive damage. Other then intimidate, the class doesn't give many social options, but put some points into sense motive or diplomacy, keep your Wis high, and don't dump Cha or Int.
Other then being aware that you can disrupt combat encounters with massive damage, barbarians are also more then capable of losing massive amounts of hit points as well. As the player of the Barbarian, YOU are responsible for dealing with this, and you should not expect any other player to give up their actions, spell slots, or resources without talking about it first.
Bard
Bard is one of the funnest classes to play! You are great in social and skill situations, and with a little effort, you can be an archer, melee, or specialize in enchantment or illusion. You also have great skills, and inspire courage and many other buffs makes you welcome in any party. Huzzah!
Cleric
Clerics are a very powerful and very versatile class. By selecting domains, you gain access to all kinds of different spells and abilities. Channeling positive energy will make you an exceptional healer, and there are many great buff spells clerics can cast. You can melee, summon, blast, de/buff and more. Keep a supply of scrolls and potions around so you don't have to fill your memorized spells with delay poison and remove paralysis. Clerics are one of the most skill starved classes, so you will need to spread your ranks carefully.
Druid
Similar to clerics, druids are versatile, and can be built to fulfill many different roles. Druids can be very powerful summoners, but this can really suck the fun out of the game if used excessively or if the player is not prepared and knowledgeable of the creatures abilities. It is generally best to only have one summon spell at a time, and be aware of affecting other PCs with you summons. A similar idea applies to some of the druids battlefield control spells like entangle and spike stones. Be careful not to slow the game down or interfere with other players.
Fighter
Fighters are the most consistently powerful martial characters, often the only one in the group who doesn't need time to get up to full power when suddenly facing an enemy. While fighters have many options for specializing in defense, archery, 2HD, 2WP, focus/specialization, maneuvers, they also have enough feats to do a few other things well in addition to their specialties. Fighters should mix up their tactics to best fit the situation and avoid over using action-denial tactics like tripping and grappling. Like Barbarians, fighters struggle to succeed in social situations, and have even less skill points to spend... dig deep, and spend a feat or two on being effective in non-combat situations.
Monk
Monks are one of the most difficult classes to play and have fun with. Monks often feel overshadowed by the full BAB classes in combat, and lack decent options for ranged attacking. While monks have some great defensive abilities, AC is not among them, and they struggle with hit points as well. If you are going to play a monk, work with the other party members and get buff spells like mage armor and displacement cast on you. Monks also tend to do better in groups that play a more lawful style rather then chaotic kick-in-the-door-play.
Paladin
Paladins can be a very fun and powerful class to play, however, this class is more dependent on alignment then any other class. Be sure that the ENTIRE group is willing to compromise with a paragon of lawfulness and goodness. Create a code of conduct that your character will follow, and agree with the GM about what constitutes Lawful and Good.
Ranger
Rangers are a slightly odd class, with a little of everything, and a few amazing feats and options here and there. Like fighters, rangers class features/ feats focus them in a particular style, but with a little effort into diversity, they can participate in any situation. I highly recommend checking out the switch hitting ranger in Treantmonks excellent guide. Rangers do best in campaigns where their favored enemies and terrains come up frequently.
Rogue
The rogues problems are largely not the fault of the class, but rather the parts of the game that he specializes in. The rogue is generally consider to be the "skill monkey" however most skills do not ramp up throughout the game as well as other class features. The "skill monkey" is also the character who is expected to sneak ahead, scout, and find/disable/trigger traps, however, none of the other characters can generally be more then a liability for the rogue in these situations. This results in the situation of one player acting alone while the rest of the players wait, and the GM attempts to minimize the rogues spotlight time in order to get the other players back in the game. Finally, rogues generally require a fairly high level of game skill to do well in combat. If possible, work with the other players to maximize your assets and minimize your liabilities.
Sorcerer
Sorcerers can be very versatile, however it requires careful spell selection. Try to select spells that can be used in a variety of situations. Remember that you will be casting the same spells over and over (often round after round) so you don't want to select spells that will bog down the game, or focus too much on action denial. Spells that you can cast on other characters will always be appreciated. Sorcerers are one of the most skill starved classes, but have a great Cha for social situations.
Wizard
Wizards are generally considered the most powerful and easiest to optimize of the core classes. A high Int and focus on save-or-suck magic can upset game balance from the beginning, and full casters progressively get more and more spells that bypass common adventure plots. They also have access to crafting bonus feats that allow them to be masters of magic equipment far beyond their suggested wealth by level. The best way to play a wizard is to focus on teamwork and save your most powerful spells for when things are going badly for the party. If you use your magic to make the whole party succeed, everyone gets to participate, and the GM has a much easier time maintaining parity among party members. Be wary of using powerful spells with long duration such as command undead, dominate person, and planar binding. These spells can be used to drastically upset game balance and story development. Wizards (and other full casters) can eventually do things to break the game - so don't do those things.
NEXT UP: GMing the Game
Here is the quick summary of the guide:
People have fun in different ways, but most players would rather participate in the game, then merely observe the other players at the table. Therefore the key to fun is building characters who are competent in their expected role, but also capable of meaningfully participating in most encounters.

MendedWall12 |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

I think there is a martial/caster disparity.
That is all, continue thread.

Chess Pwn |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

Quintessentially Me wrote:Can we flip the argument? Instead of trying to state why martials should have a wider variety of options, could those who disagree with the C/MD Hypothesis state why they think martials should *not* be given more flexibility?
For example, there was a thread that asked people to describe how a group of all four martials could successfully breach the fortress of a high power Wizard but using "extraordinary" versions of standard martial abilities. Things like the Rogue being so sneaky they are eventually under a permanent Mind Blank and able to Disguise as well as Alter Self or something at will, that sort of thing.
Why shouldn't such alterations be adopted as a mainstream part of Pathfinder, giving martials the ability to operate within certain areas of the game on equal footing with casters?
Brawlers, Swashbucklers, slayers, barbarians, monks and unchained rogues are all martial with flexibility. I have no idea why people fixate on the fighter. Probably because it's an ancient class and easy target. Just play one of its more interesting defendants... I for one would love to see an unchained fighter and it will probably come some day but we waited 8 years for unchained rogue we may need to wait a bit longer for an unchained fighter.
I have no issue with some things only being possible with magic. Otherwise magic ceases to be... Well... Magic?
What do you mean by, "Brawlers, Swashbucklers, slayers, barbarians, monks and unchained rogues are all martial with flexibility."?

Athaleon |
5 people marked this as a favorite. |

Quintessentially Me wrote:Brawlers, Swashbucklers, slayers, barbarians, monks and unchained rogues are all martial with flexibility. I have no idea why people fixate on the fighter. Probably because it's an ancient class and easy target. Just play one of its more interesting defendants... I for one would love to see an unchained fighter and it will probably come some day but we waited 8 years for unchained rogue we may need to wait a bit longer for an unchained fighter.Can we flip the argument? Instead of trying to state why martials should have a wider variety of options, could those who disagree with the C/MD Hypothesis state why they think martials should *not* be given more flexibility?
For example, there was a thread that asked people to describe how a group of all four martials could successfully breach the fortress of a high power Wizard but using "extraordinary" versions of standard martial abilities. Things like the Rogue being so sneaky they are eventually under a permanent Mind Blank and able to Disguise as well as Alter Self or something at will, that sort of thing.
Why shouldn't such alterations be adopted as a mainstream part of Pathfinder, giving martials the ability to operate within certain areas of the game on equal footing with casters?
Flexibility means having a huge list of ways to break the laws of physics, not having a slightly larger list of mundane things you can be good at. In a system where such powerful magic exists and is accessible to players, "mundane flexibility" is an oxymoron. They all use different ways to accomplish the same thing: Hit a creature with an object. At the very least, their idea of flexibility is of a far lower order than what's available to casters. And casters have skill points too. I don't have to link this thing again, do I?
This is why, though I applaud the OP's efforts, no mathematical argument (or even an argument from in-combat effectiveness) has to be made at all. The fact that Wizards have the Wizard Spell List and Fighters have Bonus Combat Feats is enough on its own to make the martial/caster disparity self-evident. If martials shouldn't get (Ex) versions of good spells, then martial classes shouldn't have more than five levels.

Lemmy |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

Brawlers, Swashbucklers, slayers, barbarians, monks and unchained rogues are all martial with flexibility. I have no idea why people fixate on the fighter. Probably because it's an ancient class and easy target. Just play one of its more interesting defendants... I for one would love to see an unchained fighter and it will probably come some day but we waited 8 years for unchained rogue we may need to wait a bit longer for an unchained fighter.
Brawlers are only versatile in combat, though... As soon as "hitting them with a pointy stick" is no longer a viable option, they're barely better than Core Fighters. Same goes for Swashbucklers, except they aren't all that versatile in combat either...
Slayers are better, of course, with lots of skill points and a bonus to certain skills. Still nowhere near anyone with spells, though...
Barbarians can be versatile thanks to Spell Sunder, IMO. Magic is so prevalent in Pathfinder that having an "at will" dispelling effect is always useful. They have access to flight too, which is always nice...
Monks kinda suck, but there might be a few ki powers for Qiggong Monks an UnMonks that let them be occasionally useful too.
I have no issue with some things only being possible with magic. Otherwise magic ceases to be... Well... Magic?
So the invention of dynamite makes Fireballs mundane? Magic should have its advantages and disadvantages... But it shouldn't be the only thing capable of anything of importance.

HyperMissingno |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

Honestly as long as everyone gets to contribute a notable portion in each adventure I'm perfectly happy, but in one campaign I've seen three full casters completely dominate out of combat time (even if mine was mostly just using restorations to fix blood money) while the bard had f+~!ing nothing to do during that time. In another my rogue struggles so hard in combat I had to ask the GM for an overhaul midlevel and only now do I think they'll be able to contribute much to fights, and that's only because of scout's charge. My favorite campaigns to play in are the ones that either lack a full caster, or have a party of mid-casters save an oracle who manages to not break the game that much.

The Sword |

The Sword wrote:Quintessentially Me wrote:Brawlers, Swashbucklers, slayers, barbarians, monks and unchained rogues are all martial with flexibility. I have no idea why people fixate on the fighter. Probably because it's an ancient class and easy target. Just play one of its more interesting defendants... I for one would love to see an unchained fighter and it will probably come some day but we waited 8 years for unchained rogue we may need to wait a bit longer for an unchained fighter.Can we flip the argument? Instead of trying to state why martials should have a wider variety of options, could those who disagree with the C/MD Hypothesis state why they think martials should *not* be given more flexibility?
For example, there was a thread that asked people to describe how a group of all four martials could successfully breach the fortress of a high power Wizard but using "extraordinary" versions of standard martial abilities. Things like the Rogue being so sneaky they are eventually under a permanent Mind Blank and able to Disguise as well as Alter Self or something at will, that sort of thing.
Why shouldn't such alterations be adopted as a mainstream part of Pathfinder, giving martials the ability to operate within certain areas of the game on equal footing with casters?
Flexibility means having a huge list of ways to break the laws of physics, not having a slightly larger list of mundane things you can be good at. In a system where such powerful magic exists and is accessible to players, "mundane flexibility" is an oxymoron. They employ a myriad of various means to hit things. At the very least, their idea of flexibility is of a far lower order than what's available to casters. And casters have skill points too. I don't have to link this thing again, do I?
This is why, though I applaud the OP's efforts, no mathematical argument (or even an argument from in-combat effectiveness) has to be made at all. The fact that Wizards...
It is a valid opinion and there are increasingly methods of gaining those if that is your beef (weapon masters handbook etc). It is worth noting that yours isn't a view shared by everyone. I firmly believe in options, then if I don't want that in my games I have that choice.
Re-writing core fighters to make them pseudo wizards doesn't work for me though - too 4th ed for my liking.
As for dynomite, it doesn't invalidate fireballs, I don't see any incompatibility - mainly because you need a stick of dynomite to use it and secondly because they work in totally different ways.
Some overlap is obviously to be expected, but I prefer there to be a line. It's one of the reasons I don't like the hi tech equipment. But that is a personal choice. Options like the way tech was implemented is perfect for me.

wraithstrike |

Brawlers, Swashbucklers, slayers, barbarians, monks and unchained rogues are all martial with flexibility. I have no idea why people fixate on the fighter. Probably because it's an ancient class and easy target. Just play one of its more interesting defendants... I for one would love to see an unchained fighter and it will probably come some day but we waited 8 years for unchained rogue we may need to wait a bit longer for an unchained fighter.
I have no issue with some things only being possible with magic. Otherwise magic ceases to be... Well... Magic?
So you are saying these martials have the same versatility(flexibility) as casters in any one build, and they are fine on their own in the same sense that casters can survive without martials?

The Sword |

I'm saying that they have both flexibility and abilities that allow them to contribute meaningfully in the game. They can do more than just hit things with sticks as fighters have been accused of. But not everyone needs to be equal in all things. It's ok to specialise.
I don't know what you mean by fine on their own? I don't believe a standard caster (non optimised) can survive without a balance of other classes in a well written adventure. Unless it was written for casters in mind.

Athaleon |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

It is a valid opinion and there are increasingly methods of gaining those if that is your beef (weapon masters handbook etc).
Fine, I'll bite. What is in the Weapon Master's Handbook that bridges the gap between casters and martials? If you tell me "Versatile Training lets you use your BAB for skill ranks" then you've missed the point entirely.
Re-writing core fighters to make them pseudo wizards doesn't work for me though - too 4th ed for my liking.
Again, you've missed the point. Putting casters and martials on a more equal footing does not require (in fact has nothing to do with) making them both use the exact same mechanics.

HyperMissingno |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

I don't know what you mean by fine on their own? I don't believe a standard caster (non optimised) can survive without a balance of other classes in a well written adventure. Unless it was written for casters in mind.
Clerics, druids, and shamans are standard casters that can either grab medium armor and decent enough weaponry, or can take an animal form when needed. A party with Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer is gonna be just fine.

![]() |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |

There ar too many things to account for. Nothing you come up with will be accurate. Things such as I can teleport the party away so we dont have a TPK cant really be measured accurately with math.
Thanks for finally reading the first post :V
"There are too many things to account for" is entirely true. There's a reason I'm not accounting for things like number of casters, or what spells they had prepared, or what buffs the fighter had for breakfast that day . . . The data I collected is completely different from that. The death analysis is looking at results across hundreds of characters, with the idea that random chance plays less and less of a role with larger sample sizes. The party happening to have teleport absolutely matters for individual groups, but one party should not unduly affect the final Z scores.
One could assign a subjective measurable for comparison though. For example, non-damage spells, abilities, and skills could still be given a score between 1 (least valuable) and 5 (most valuable), and used as a relative comparison between classes.
My son's designing his first class right now, sort of a spin off of the 5E Eldritch Knight. While I personally don't think its needed, this is more about him enjoying home-brewing something so I'm trying to help him come up with just this kind of relative comparison so he can get a feel for the power of class abilities compared to what other classes already have. he's using Ranger/Paladin as his benchmark but still has to compare his ideas for class abilities to those 2 and figure out what's more or less powerful compared to what it'll give up.
It would be best if designers had a "point buy" for classes before they even start creating classes for a game, and then a comparative list of everything. The 2E DMG had something like this, although I never used it. I think failing to have something like this established before a game is designed, leads to the imbalance as new classes are generated. With that kind of system, different design teams could all make a class balance out and fall within +/- of the point capability, and every class would at least have a better chance of being somewhat balanced. The challenge would be getting honest assessments of new things that aren't like any existing power and what it's relative worth is.
So even though teleport is subjective in its power, I could at least say, if this class gets access to teleport which is a "5 of 5" utility spell, then its burning a full 3 points towards its class abilities. Since that would put me over the point buy I need to take something away from another part of the class ability.
While its not nearly as objective as something like BAB, it would be better than no comparison tool at all which is where most systems including PF seem to be, and why I think new supplements become even harder to balance. That being said, you can start at the CRB and see imbalance, so it goes IMO to not having an established point buy to create classes from the ground up.
Are you familiar with Rynjin's Free-Form Class Selection system? It's a bit more subjective than you're describing, and significantly more than MageHunter's method, but it works fairly well once you understand it. However, these sorts of comparison tools are best understood as a guide, not the final judgement of a class' balance. Just as for death analysis!

Kryzbyn |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

I dunno...swashbucklers can 100% negate an attack that's been rolled and hit, even if it's a confirmed critical, as long as they roll higher, all for the low low cost of an attack of opportunity.
That's better than a high AC or a flat miss chance, imho.
But that's pretty much their thing. Not much beyond that except pseudo divine grace, though.

Chess Pwn |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

I'm saying that they have both flexibility and abilities that allow them to contribute meaningfully in the game. They can do more than just hit things with sticks as fighters have been accused of. But not everyone needs to be equal in all things. It's ok to specialize.
I don't know what you mean by fine on their own? I don't believe a standard caster (non optimized) can survive without a balance of other classes in a well written adventure. Unless it was written for casters in mind.
Did you read my scenario about the sneaky rogue and the bard? Skills don't cut it. Yes they allow for slightly more interactions with the world, but they don't increase your options available. Most those classes you listed are the examples of the low end problem.
In a well written adventure of generic make a party of 4 casters will do awesomely, even if just 4 full casters, even if just 4 wizards. I bet you for sure that they'd do better than a party of 4 martials, even if it was a Brawler, Swashbuckler, slayer, and unchained rogue. Four of the classes you say are flexible.

The Sword |

The Sword wrote:It is a valid opinion and there are increasingly methods of gaining those if that is your beef (weapon masters handbook etc).Fine, I'll bite. What is in the Weapon Master's Handbook that bridges the gap between casters and martials? If you tell me "Versatile Training lets you use your BAB for skill ranks" then you've missed the point entirely.
Quote:Re-writing core fighters to make them pseudo wizards doesn't work for me though - too 4th ed for my liking.Again, you've missed the point. Putting casters and martials on a more equal footing does not require (in fact has nothing to do with) making them both use the exact same mechanics.
Item mastery feats?
Giving fighters the same effects may not be mechanically the same but is functionally the same. its not my bag.
Have your magic fighter splat book and allow those that prefer a more traditional game to enjoy it.

The Sword |

The Sword wrote:I'm saying that they have both flexibility and abilities that allow them to contribute meaningfully in the game. They can do more than just hit things with sticks as fighters have been accused of. But not everyone needs to be equal in all things. It's ok to specialize.
I don't know what you mean by fine on their own? I don't believe a standard caster (non optimized) can survive without a balance of other classes in a well written adventure. Unless it was written for casters in mind.
Did you read my scenario about the sneaky rogue and the bard? Skills don't cut it. Yes they allow for slightly more interactions with the world, but they don't increase your options available. Most those classes you listed are the examples of the low end problem.
In a well written adventure of generic make a party of 4 casters will do awesomely, even if just 4 full casters, even if just 4 wizards. I bet you for sure that they'd do better than a party of 4 martials, even if it was a Brawler, Swashbuckler, slayer, and unchained rogue. Four of the classes you say are flexible.
Apologies I thought by saying on their own we were referring to solo. I see he was referring to a collection of caster classes, which I wouldn't despute.
As for do 'better' I'm not sure how or why that metric is relevant. How it is measured or who decides which experiences are better.

Chess Pwn |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |

Chess Pwn wrote:The Sword wrote:I'm saying that they have both flexibility and abilities that allow them to contribute meaningfully in the game. They can do more than just hit things with sticks as fighters have been accused of. But not everyone needs to be equal in all things. It's ok to specialize.
I don't know what you mean by fine on their own? I don't believe a standard caster (non optimized) can survive without a balance of other classes in a well written adventure. Unless it was written for casters in mind.
Did you read my scenario about the sneaky rogue and the bard? Skills don't cut it. Yes they allow for slightly more interactions with the world, but they don't increase your options available. Most those classes you listed are the examples of the low end problem.
In a well written adventure of generic make a party of 4 casters will do awesomely, even if just 4 full casters, even if just 4 wizards. I bet you for sure that they'd do better than a party of 4 martials, even if it was a Brawler, Swashbuckler, slayer, and unchained rogue. Four of the classes you say are flexible.
Apologies I thought by saying on their own we were referring to solo. I see he was referring to a collection of caster classes, which I wouldn't despute.
As for do 'better' I'm not sure how or why that metric is relevant. How it is measured or who decides which experiences are better.
I made no mention to a better experience. I said that the characters would perform better at the quests in this generic adventure. The caster party would spend less, do it faster, and never get stuck. While the martial party might run out of money buying services, have to take a long time, and sometimes have things they just can't accomplish.

wraithstrike |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

I'm saying that they have both flexibility and abilities that allow them to contribute meaningfully in the game. They can do more than just hit things with sticks as fighters have been accused of. But not everyone needs to be equal in all things. It's ok to specialise.
I don't know what you mean by fine on their own? I don't believe a standard caster (non optimised) can survive without a balance of other classes in a well written adventure. Unless it was written for casters in mind.
On their own means "a party of non magic having martials".
So with that definition do you think they survive, and do well or just barely make it, if at all?And in any written adventure casters can survive no matter if it is
4 spell level casters such as paladins and rangers
6 spell level casters such as inquisitors and bards
9 spell level casters such as clerics and wizards.
As an example, a druid, bard, cleric, and sorcerer would do well. You can replace the cleric or druid with a paladin or ranger and they would still be ok.
What do you mean by non-optimized?

Lab_Rat |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

In the classic test of the C/M D, the barbarian is probably the best candidate for proving it doesn't exist. I absolutely love the versatility and survivability of the class.
You can build a Barbarian that is
1) 99.75% immune to spells with saves. Massive Saves plus free rerolls on a failed save with a side of free temp hp (Eater of Magic). My Barb has a ring of evasion making him basically immune to reflex saves and all the dazing cheese attached to them. You will not be the guy who get's dominated and kills your party...unless you roll two 1's in a row (that other .25%).
2) Massive DR and HP make them hard to kill physically.
3) Top of the game in melee combat. Not bad at ranged though most combat will take place within pounce distances.
4) Can fly. Not that special since you can buy items to fly as well.
5) Strength Surge. Nice for preventing grapples, busting down doors, shredding jail cells with your bare hands, etc. Not much can withstand a lvl 15 barb with a Strength check bonus of 25.
6) Spell Sunder + Strength Surge....nuff said. No magic in the game can survive the combo.
7) Battle field control. Reach is great with a ridiculous number of AoO's per round from Come and Get Me, surprise attack, and a fortuitous weapon. Surprise attack also makes the Barb the only class that can interrupt spells cast defensively with out spending a readied action. No other class get's close to the number of AoOs.
8) Party Buffing. For Barbs with Cha you can give your entire party the Reckless Abandon bonus as a move action. Who doesn't like a Barb that can hand out a big + Hit bonus that stacks with everything.
9) Ability to gain immunity to a variety of conditions

wraithstrike |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

The Sword wrote:I'm saying that they have both flexibility and abilities that allow them to contribute meaningfully in the game. They can do more than just hit things with sticks as fighters have been accused of. But not everyone needs to be equal in all things. It's ok to specialize.
I don't know what you mean by fine on their own? I don't believe a standard caster (non optimized) can survive without a balance of other classes in a well written adventure. Unless it was written for casters in mind.
Did you read my scenario about the sneaky rogue and the bard? Skills don't cut it. Yes they allow for slightly more interactions with the world, but they don't increase your options available. Most those classes you listed are the examples of the low end problem.
In a well written adventure of generic make a party of 4 casters will do awesomely, even if just 4 full casters, even if just 4 wizards. I bet you for sure that they'd do better than a party of 4 martials, even if it was a Brawler, Swashbuckler, slayer, and unchained rogue. Four of the classes you say are flexible.
I can verify this since I had a party of full casters running over an AP. They were optimized, but even if not they would not have had much trouble. Stock monster* mostly have at least one weak save, and they are normally inefficient when fighting flying creatures. They also don't have a way to adjust to player creativity most of the time. The casters, when they came upon something because I modified the game could just retreat, and come back with new spells or whatever else they needed. <---Not theorycraft. I saw it happen in an actual game.

wraithstrike |

Chess Pwn wrote:The Sword wrote:I'm saying that they have both flexibility and abilities that allow them to contribute meaningfully in the game. They can do more than just hit things with sticks as fighters have been accused of. But not everyone needs to be equal in all things. It's ok to specialize.
I don't know what you mean by fine on their own? I don't believe a standard caster (non optimized) can survive without a balance of other classes in a well written adventure. Unless it was written for casters in mind.
Did you read my scenario about the sneaky rogue and the bard? Skills don't cut it. Yes they allow for slightly more interactions with the world, but they don't increase your options available. Most those classes you listed are the examples of the low end problem.
In a well written adventure of generic make a party of 4 casters will do awesomely, even if just 4 full casters, even if just 4 wizards. I bet you for sure that they'd do better than a party of 4 martials, even if it was a Brawler, Swashbuckler, slayer, and unchained rogue. Four of the classes you say are flexible.
Apologies I thought by saying on their own we were referring to solo. I see he was referring to a collection of caster classes, which I wouldn't despute.
As for do 'better' I'm not sure how or why that metric is relevant. How it is measured or who decides which experiences are better.
The metric is how easily they handle various encounters*, noncombat based challenges, abnormal challenges.
* flying creatures, invisible creatures, monsters that use hit and run tactics in difficult terrain that does not affect them**, etc etc
**This one is really annoying.
edit:
Personally I would never suggest something crazy like trying to have one class solo an adventure. It would be pointless since it does not show how the class works within a party.