Why the resistance to limiting spellcasters?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

551 to 600 of 1,237 << first < prev | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | next > last >>

4 people marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Irontruth wrote:


Do you think a Fighter is approximately as useful in a level 20 party as a Wizard? I'm not asking if they're balanced, I'm saying approximately as useful.

I don't need Fighters that are perfectly balanced to Wizards, what I want is for them to not feel redundant and useless. Right now they feel redundant and useless.

Are you opposed to making them unique and useful?

Do you think that the players who want a 100% mundane fighter feel redundant and useless? Are they having fun?

How many parties get to 20th level, anyway? Never seen one.

If they wanted a martial with spells and supernatural abilities, there are many such. So, they CHOOSE to play a 100% martial. Why cant they make that choice?

Its not like they didnt know and played for 19 more levels without a chance to change characters. I mean, sure, some parties do get to 20th level, but hardly with the same starting characters. If he felt useless, then he could refuse raise dead or ask the DM to switch out.

When we played thru TotRL, out fighter was the most dangerous member of the party. Buffed up, sure.

None of your arguments actually address any of my complaints. Nor do they counter what I would consider solutions.

which complaints? That you, personally, feel redundant and useless playing a Fighter in a 20th level game? Then, I suggest you play one of the other 34 classes.

What is your solution? Cant we leave one class of 35 for players that want a pure mundane class? What is wrong with that?

If the best solution you have is to not play the class, that means there's something wrong with the class.

You're right, I avoid the class. I love playing simple classes from time to time, but Fighter is dull, boring and offers nothing as a class. I WANT to play Fighters. The idea of a zero-magic class appeals to me. Why is it so sacrilege to ask for one that is actually useful in a world of wizards/clerics?

I wish for the same thing for the Rogue class.

Also, to reiterate, you're opposed to my ideas without even knowing what they are. Which by the way, does not incentivize me to bother sharing them. You, along with several other people in this thread, seem opposed to change based on the mere fact that it is change.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:


Why should they have to switch? The concept of a mundane hero is an awesome one. It's 3.P's execution that is lacking, not the premise.

No, it's not. There are ten martial classes with spells, supernatural abilities and the like.

There is one class out of 35 that's pretty much 100% mundane.

Why cant we let those who want a 100% mundane class have one, just ONE, out of 35?

Except they're already not 100% mundane. They're superhuman - see previous discussions.

They're just only allowed to be superhuman in some ways. Not ways that let them compete, just ways that let them get better at things already represented numerically.


DrDeth wrote:
There is one class out of 35 that's pretty much 100% mundane.

I count Fighter, Swashbuckler, Rogue, and Gunslinger.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
There is one class out of 35 that's pretty much 100% mundane.
I count Fighter, Swashbuckler, Rogue, and Gunslinger.

What about Cavalier, Brawler, and Slayer?


DrDeth wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:


Why should they have to switch? The concept of a mundane hero is an awesome one. It's 3.P's execution that is lacking, not the premise.
No, it's not. There are ten martial classes with spells, supernatural abilities and the like.

You missed the part where I don't WANT spells or supernatural abililities in my mundane martials.


edduardco wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
There is one class out of 35 that's pretty much 100% mundane.
I count Fighter, Swashbuckler, Rogue, and Gunslinger.
What about Cavalier, Brawler, and Salyer?

That too. I keep forgetting the Cavalier class exists; I've never seen anybody play one.

So that's 8 classes that are pretty much wholly mundane.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
There are like 35 classes in Pathfinder. THIRTYFIVE!! Some few people really want a 100% "mundane class".

If it's "mundane" in the sense of "not supernatural", then I agree. In fact, I already said exactly that upthread. I don't think we need to give the Fighter out-and-out magic abilities. I don't think the themes of the Fighter necessarily need to go beyond what can more or less be encompassed in the themes of "really strong" and "really tough" and "really, really good with weapons".

DrDeth wrote:
So, if there is a "Mad Martigan 'till 20 crowd" then let them have their one class. Why not?

The Fighter--right now, in its current form!--is not actually a "Mad Martigan 'till 20" class. That's the point that this whole last page has showcased in excruciating detail.

To reiterate: Mad Martigan cannot jump out of a high-flying airplane, hit ground at terminal velocity, then pick himself up and then immediately wrestle a nearby rhino to the ground and pin it, and/or literally beat the rhino to death with his bare hands.

This in the natural result of trying to make the Fighter anything even resembling a threat to the kind of foes you see at CR20. Aragorn couldn't go toe-to-toe with a Balrog. He wasn't even remotely in the Balrog's league. If you're a level of being that has attained enough martial might to fight a Balrog on anything resembling even footing then the character you're playing doesn't much resemble Aragorn anymore.

That's the point of the article. That's the fundamental cognitive dissonance. We want level 20 Fighters that can fight Balrogs, but simultaneously can't do anything that completely transcends what Aragorn could do. The problem is that fighting a Balrog itself completely transcends what Aragorn could do.

I'm not saying "we should change the one 'Mad Martigan 'till 20' class to not be that anymore". I'm saying "we should admit that the Fighter isn't even a 'Mad Martigan 'till 20' class in the first place and stop trying to pretend it is."

Again, just to re-emphasize, I fully agree that we should keep the Fighter's abilities as not inherently supernatural. But at the same time, we should also admit that the (natural!) abilities of a high level fighter include a level of martial prowess that is extremely superhuman (by the standards of our world) and not try to shy away from that.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
Why should they have to switch? The concept of a mundane hero is an awesome one. It's 3.P's execution that is lacking, not the premise.

It's as awesome as playing a character in a modern-day military game who can't use guns.


Arbane the Terrible wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Why should they have to switch? The concept of a mundane hero is an awesome one. It's 3.P's execution that is lacking, not the premise.

It's as awesome as playing a character in a modern-day military game who can't use guns.

I call this pretty awesome.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
Arbane the Terrible wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Why should they have to switch? The concept of a mundane hero is an awesome one. It's 3.P's execution that is lacking, not the premise.

It's as awesome as playing a character in a modern-day military game who can't use guns.

I call this pretty awesome.

Very nice compilation. But seriously Saitama is very high into Epic Levels.


edduardco wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Arbane the Terrible wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Why should they have to switch? The concept of a mundane hero is an awesome one. It's 3.P's execution that is lacking, not the premise.

It's as awesome as playing a character in a modern-day military game who can't use guns.

I call this pretty awesome.
Very nice compilation. But seriously Saitama is very high into Epic Levels.

Nope. Compare Saitama to the ridiculousness of 9th level spellcasting.

Saitama caps around level 20. MAYBE Level 20 Mythic 1 at most.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

if fighters could do the same things wizards can do why would wizards ever bother training to be a wizard.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Even I don't want Fighters doing the same things as Wizards.

BUT, right now Wizards do the Fighter's job better than the Fighter [starting at a certain level, certainly by 9 in my opinion.]

So shouldn't you be asking that question in reverse, The Sword?

Since Wizards can do the same things Fighters can do why do Fighters even bother training to be Fighters? [If your answer is that most people never get high enough level to have that kind of power as wizards, that's a fair answer but does nothing for Player Characters.]


Wizards don't do the same things fighters can do. To even get close they need long periods of time and simple dispelling magic can instantly reverse everything.

Wizards are not as good at fighting as fighters that has pretty much been agreed. The beefs people have with wizards is that they can do other things, teleport etc. Why this is a problem mystifies me but there you are.


kyrt-ryder wrote:

Even I don't want Fighters doing the same things as Wizards.

BUT, right now Wizards do the Fighter's job better than the Fighter [starting at a certain level, certainly by 9 in my opinion.]

So shouldn't you be asking that question in reverse, The Sword?

Since Wizards can do the same things Fighters can do why do Fighters even bother training to be Fighters? [If your answer is that most people never get high enough level to have that kind of power as wizards, that's a fair answer but does nothing for Player Characters.]

What exactly are your expectations then? and lets maybe break them down by level, because everyone is going back and forth about 20th level play which is the most idiosyncratic area of this game given how highly DM and player dependent it can be.

I don't think there's any serious debate that Fighters can do very well in the low level 1-6 games and remain competitive in the 7-12 area where 90 percent of campaigns terminate. Lets try keeping discussion to these two areas and see if we can come to a consenus about 11th level and below.


Everyone cannot have their fantasies in a single system.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:

Even I don't want Fighters doing the same things as Wizards.

BUT, right now Wizards do the Fighter's job better than the Fighter [starting at a certain level, certainly by 9 in my opinion.]

So shouldn't you be asking that question in reverse, The Sword?

Since Wizards can do the same things Fighters can do why do Fighters even bother training to be Fighters? [If your answer is that most people never get high enough level to have that kind of power as wizards, that's a fair answer but does nothing for Player Characters.]

What exactly are your expectations then? and lets maybe break them down by level, because everyone is going back and forth about 20th level play which is the most idiosyncratic area of this game given how highly DM and player dependent it can be.

I don't think there's any serious debate that Fighters can do very well in the low level 1-6 games and remain competitive in the 7-12 area where 90 percent of campaigns terminate. Lets try keeping discussion to these two areas and see if we can come to a consenus about 11th level and below.

Well past level 6 martial classes need abilities that give them versatility. That includes combat versatility. Tome of Battle has a number of useful maneuvers that allow martials to have versatility on combat whether through moving through shadows, shrugging off damage, gaining blindsense, ignoring DR and hardness, restoring allies hp, running up walls, granting morale bonuses to checks, replacing saves, just plain not dying, using tactics to buff your allies and debuff enemies, etc. This is the kind of range of things a level 7+ marital should be getting access to.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
edduardco wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Arbane the Terrible wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Why should they have to switch? The concept of a mundane hero is an awesome one. It's 3.P's execution that is lacking, not the premise.

It's as awesome as playing a character in a modern-day military game who can't use guns.

I call this pretty awesome.
Very nice compilation. But seriously Saitama is very high into Epic Levels.

Nope. Compare Saitama to the ridiculousness of 9th level spellcasting.

Saitama caps around level 20. MAYBE Level 20 Mythic 1 at most.

Level 20 1d2 Crusader. It's pretty obvious he has an Aura of Chaos really if you think about it.


Anzyr wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
edduardco wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Arbane the Terrible wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Why should they have to switch? The concept of a mundane hero is an awesome one. It's 3.P's execution that is lacking, not the premise.

It's as awesome as playing a character in a modern-day military game who can't use guns.

I call this pretty awesome.
Very nice compilation. But seriously Saitama is very high into Epic Levels.

Nope. Compare Saitama to the ridiculousness of 9th level spellcasting.

Saitama caps around level 20. MAYBE Level 20 Mythic 1 at most.

Level 20 1d2 Crusader. The real cheat is that he figured out how to stop rolling.

Please don't bring 3.5 hacks into a conversation about where PF could/should go Anzyr. That trick- while effective- is NOT what I'm talking about when I say Saitama or Hayato.

Hayato is a technician similar to ToB/PoW, but could easily be represented VERY differently and certainly wouldn't be using a Hack to damage. Saitama's a Juggernaut, super simple gameplay without any fancy tricks. Just ridiculous mobility, strength, durability and resilience [mental resilience included.]

EDIT: regarding that aura of Chaos, it's not Saitama it's the entire setting he lives in.


For everybody who insists that level 20 is a legendary thing, I just wanted to point out that it exists. If a game I'm running doesn't reach at least 20, I feel like I haven't done something right.


They could be using the ISWG classification of levels 16+.


Anzyr wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:

Even I don't want Fighters doing the same things as Wizards.

BUT, right now Wizards do the Fighter's job better than the Fighter [starting at a certain level, certainly by 9 in my opinion.]

So shouldn't you be asking that question in reverse, The Sword?

Since Wizards can do the same things Fighters can do why do Fighters even bother training to be Fighters? [If your answer is that most people never get high enough level to have that kind of power as wizards, that's a fair answer but does nothing for Player Characters.]

What exactly are your expectations then? and lets maybe break them down by level, because everyone is going back and forth about 20th level play which is the most idiosyncratic area of this game given how highly DM and player dependent it can be.

I don't think there's any serious debate that Fighters can do very well in the low level 1-6 games and remain competitive in the 7-12 area where 90 percent of campaigns terminate. Lets try keeping discussion to these two areas and see if we can come to a consenus about 11th level and below.

Well past level 6 martial classes need abilities that give them versatility. That includes combat versatility. Tome of Battle has a number of useful maneuvers that allow martials to have versatility on combat whether through moving through shadows, shrugging off damage, gaining blindsense, ignoring DR and hardness, restoring allies hp, running up walls, granting morale bonuses to checks, replacing saves, just plain not dying, using tactics to buff your allies and debuff enemies, etc. This is the kind of range of things a level 7+ marital should be getting access to.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Anzyr wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:

Even I don't want Fighters doing the same things as Wizards.

BUT, right now Wizards do the Fighter's job better than the Fighter [starting at a certain level, certainly by 9 in my opinion.]

So shouldn't you be asking that question in reverse, The Sword?

Since Wizards can do the same things Fighters can do why do Fighters even bother training to be Fighters? [If your answer is that most people never get high enough level to have that kind of power as wizards, that's a fair answer but does nothing for Player Characters.]

What exactly are your expectations then? and lets maybe break them down by level, because everyone is going back and forth about 20th level play which is the most idiosyncratic area of this game given how highly DM and player dependent it can be.

I don't think there's any serious debate that Fighters can do very well in the low level 1-6 games and remain competitive in the 7-12 area where 90 percent of campaigns terminate. Lets try keeping discussion to these two areas and see if we can come to a consenus about 11th level and below.

Well past level 6 martial classes need abilities that give them versatility. That includes combat versatility. Tome of Battle has a number of useful maneuvers that allow martials to have versatility on combat whether through moving through shadows, shrugging off damage, gaining blindsense, ignoring DR and hardness, restoring allies hp, running up walls, granting morale bonuses to checks, replacing saves, just plain not dying, using tactics to buff your allies and debuff enemies, etc. This is the kind of range of things a level 7+ marital should be getting access to.

In other words, you are looking for magical powers. There are composite martial classes that do at least some of what you're looking for. whether it's magi, rangers, monks, etc. Fighters get the option of combat versatility due to their sheer number of combat feats. Fighters are the non-magical warrior heroes and many of us like them as they are. If you want a martial with magical powers, there are plenty of options to do so. Why do you insist that the Fighter incorporate these?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
In other words, you are looking for magical powers.

Only a single thing on that list was magical (moving through shadows).


Anzyr may be looking for magical powers, I am not. However out of that list he provided the only actual magical power I see is 'moving through shadows.'

Scythia wrote:
For everybody who insists that level 20 is a legendary thing, I just wanted to point out that it exists. If a game I'm running doesn't reach at least 20, I feel like I haven't done something right.

I have a few level 20's in my version of Golarion. Well, two at least.

Pharasma and Rovagug.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
Anzyr may be looking for magical powers, I am not. However out of that list he provided the only actual magical power I see is 'moving through shadows.'

I would qualify "not dying" "running up walls" like Spiderman, as well as ignoring DR and hardness as magical powers, among others, given that it takes magical powers for any other class to do these. They may or may not be spells, but they're pretty much on the same level of out of the ordinary.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Anzyr may be looking for magical powers, I am not. However out of that list he provided the only actual magical power I see is 'moving through shadows.'
I would qualify "not dying"

How do your martials even complete one adventure if 'not dying' is magic?

Quote:
"running up walls" like Spiderman

Running up walls is only a function of friction and forces applied. No magic here.

Quote:
ignoring DR and hardness

I'm not confident this one is necessary, but it's not magical it's nothing more than becoming better at bypassing defenses.

Quote:
given that it takes magical powers for any other class to do these.

This circular logic is the whole problem. 'Martials can't have badass martial things because the rules currently only allow magical powers to do them.'

See Greater Bladed Dash


3 people marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:


Quote:
ignoring DR and hardness

I'm not confident this one is necessary, but it's not magical it's nothing more than becoming better at bypassing defenses.

Quote:
given that it takes magical powers for any other class to do these.

That's right Kyrt, penetrating strike is not magical. Or perhaps the feat is just "too anime" and paizo have to allow it only to non-fighter because realism.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:


I would qualify "not dying" ...as magical powers...

True Resolve (Ex)

At 17th level, a samurai can spend uses of his resolve to avoid death. If he has at least two uses of his resolve remaining, he can spend all of the daily uses of his resolve that he has available to him to avoid death. Regardless of the source of the attack that would have killed him, he is left alive, at –1 hit points (or lower if he was already below –1), unconscious, and stable.

It seems samurais were some kind of wizards all this time.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:

Even I don't want Fighters doing the same things as Wizards.

BUT, right now Wizards do the Fighter's job better than the Fighter [starting at a certain level, certainly by 9 in my opinion.]

So shouldn't you be asking that question in reverse, The Sword?

Since Wizards can do the same things Fighters can do why do Fighters even bother training to be Fighters? [If your answer is that most people never get high enough level to have that kind of power as wizards, that's a fair answer but does nothing for Player Characters.]

What exactly are your expectations then? and lets maybe break them down by level, because everyone is going back and forth about 20th level play which is the most idiosyncratic area of this game given how highly DM and player dependent it can be.

I don't think there's any serious debate that Fighters can do very well in the low level 1-6 games and remain competitive in the 7-12 area where 90 percent of campaigns terminate. Lets try keeping discussion to these two areas and see if we can come to a consenus about 11th level and below.

I'm going to reference existing Martial characters in various media [trying to put in 2-3 per tier to complete the reference] to frame my expectations.

Tier 1 levels 1-4:

Realistic, these are the levels where people rise up to face their fears

Examples include Mad Martigan from Willow, Conan from Weird Tales, Aragorn from Lord of the Ring, Parn and Ashram from Record of Lodos War, Golden Era Guts from Berserk

Tier 2 levels 5-8:

Heroic, these are the levels wherein people become legends and surpass their limits.

Examples include Lu Bu from Romance of the Nine Kingdoms, Guts The Black Swordsman from Berserk, Daryuun the Black Knight from Heroic Legend of Arslan, Matrim Cauthon from Wheel of Time.

Tier 3 levels 9-12:

Mythical/Wuxia these are the levels when physics break under the strain of awesome.
Samurai Jack, Hero, Beowulf, Spiderman

Tier 4 levels 13-16:

Demigod, These levels are the path to divinity, where people begin to become gods.

Durandel-equipped-Sir Roland, Cu Chulainn, Herakles, Might Guy

Tier 5 levels 17-20:

Divine These levels are the trials of Divinity, where gods alone do tread.

Examples include Thor, Odin, Karna, Saitama, Furinji Hayato? [I hestitate on Furinji. IF he makes it in he's only level 17] and possibly Sun Wukong [hesitant on this one due to recent revelation he has a bit more magic than I was aware of, but let's chalk that up to Mythic ontop of being a 5th Tier character.]

Sorry it's lengthy, but there you have it.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Anzyr may be looking for magical powers, I am not. However out of that list he provided the only actual magical power I see is 'moving through shadows.'
I would qualify "not dying" "running up walls" like Spiderman, as well as ignoring DR and hardness as magical powers, among others, given that it takes magical powers for any other class to do these. They may or may not be spells, but they're pretty much on the same level of out of the ordinary.
Quote:

Smasher (Ex)

Benefit: Once per rage, whenever the barbarian makes an attack against an unattended object or a sunder combat maneuver, she can ignore the object’s hardness. This ability must be used before the attack roll or sunder check is made.

Quote:

Flesh Wound (Ex)

Prerequisite: Barbarian 10

Benefit: Once per rage, the barbarian can try to avoid serious harm from an attack. The barbarian must make a Fortitude save with a DC equal to the damage that would be dealt by the attack. The barbarian’s armor check penalty applies on this saving throw. If the save succeeds, the barbarian takes half damage from the attack and the damage is nonlethal. The barbarian must elect to use this ability after the attack roll is made, but before the damage is rolled.

Even the rogue has one of these in the CRB:

Quote:

Resiliency (Ex)

Benefit: Once per day, a rogue with this ability can gain a number of temporary hit points equal to the rogue's level. Activating this ability is an immediate action that can only be performed when she is brought to below 0 hit points. This ability can be used to prevent her from dying. These temporary hit points last for 1 minute. If the rogue's hit points drop below 0 due to the loss of these temporary hit points, she falls unconscious and is dying as normal.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Also I wish people would stop putting Saitama forward as a viable goal. He's a gag character not meant to be taken seriously even by his creator.

It's like putting forth Bugs Bunny as an example of a Rogue.


HWalsh wrote:
Also I wish people would stop putting Saitama forward as a viable goal.

He's every bit as viable as Jehova which Wizards progress into.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

SAITAMA AM ABLE TO TAKE RAGELANCEPOUNCE FROM BARBARIAN, NOT SMASH IN HALF ROUND. AM ALMOST EVEN ABLE DEAL DEEPS LIKE BARBAIAN AM DEALING.

BARBARIAN OF OPINION SAITAMA AM MIGHTYFINE VIABLE GOAL FOR ASPIRING FIGHTY.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The progressions are oddly different.

In the first couple levels, everyone's on the same playing field. Yer warriors can smack a dude and maybe do a combat manuever, and your mages patch up some wounds, make a little light, and throw a little gout of fire or turn things blue. Everything's fairly low-key and about what you'd normally find in a low-but-not-no-magic fantasy novel.

In the last couple levels, however, the mages are often doing tricks that make even final bad guys in other mediums stop and go "wait, what?" Pocket Dimensions, the power to stop time by snapping their fingers, the ability to teleport thousands of miles and call meteors from the heavens or curse all the land in a one-mile radius FOREVER...

And the warriors are still, for the most part, smacking a dude and doing some combat maneuvers. Outside of the Barbarian, whose rage powers do reach a critical mass that feels appropriately epic, it seems like the big difference between what nonmagical characters do at level 20 and level 1 comes down very heavily to the quality of the weapons and armor they can afford.

One guy can turn off gravity by waving his hands and muttering nonsense words, and the other guy can attack multiple times if he's very careful not to move very much when he does it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:

Also I wish people would stop putting Saitama forward as a viable goal. He's a gag character not meant to be taken seriously even by his creator.

It's like putting forth Bugs Bunny as an example of a Rogue.

Note, Saitama's power is literally just high physical ability scores and high base land speed.

While everyone else around him is doing super moves with fancy stuff and names, he just does a full-attack of normal attacks. Saitama is actually a great portrayal of a high level fighter in a world of mid-level initators


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Milo v3 wrote:
HWalsh wrote:

Also I wish people would stop putting Saitama forward as a viable goal. He's a gag character not meant to be taken seriously even by his creator.

It's like putting forth Bugs Bunny as an example of a Rogue.

Note, Saiatama's power is literally just high physical ability scores and high base land speed.

And the ability to apply that high physical ability and mobility such as attacking on the move, wall/water running etc.

Also very high saves all across the board.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
Milo v3 wrote:
HWalsh wrote:

Also I wish people would stop putting Saitama forward as a viable goal. He's a gag character not meant to be taken seriously even by his creator.

It's like putting forth Bugs Bunny as an example of a Rogue.

Note, Saiatama's power is literally just high physical ability scores and high base land speed.

And the ability to apply that high physical ability and mobility such as attacking on the move, wall/water running etc.

Also very high saves all across the board.

Easy in 3.5, you can do that if you make outrageous skill checks.

These rules were introduced in books after Core, epic handbook says they work pre-epic.
http://www.d20srd.org/indexes/epicSkills.htm

If you can make DC 90 Balance checks, you can walk on water.
You can walk up a wall DC 70/Ceiling 100 even if both perfectly smooth.

Jump should have an epic thingy, but it doesn't.


'Outside of standard gameplay' is not easy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Fighters can do a wide range of things that are extraordinary. Using feats and archetypes. They are getting twice as many feats as most other characters. Feats let you do cool things. Blind fight for instance. They don't let you do everything, but then again neither should they.

Anything else is for mixed martial caster classes of which there are plenty to choose.

Regarding the tiers and media characters how did you decide where to put people?

Surely demi-God status is what mythic is for? The ability to not die and/or high star points/templates.


Sorry for sort of throwing that here, but I was considering shaving 1 spell slot per level off the maximum for every caster - so wizards top at 3 spell slots per level (before bonuses), sorcerers at 5, etc. Do you think this would be a meaningful limitation on casters at mid-levels by making them be more conservative with spells without making them too weak, and what do you think about the ideas in Unchained?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Sword wrote:
Surely demi-God status is what mythic is for? The ability to not die and/or high star points/templates.

Why do martials have to be mythic to do demi-god status stuff while caster don't need a single mythic rank to do god status stuff?


Milo v3 wrote:
The Sword wrote:
Surely demi-God status is what mythic is for? The ability to not die and/or high star points/templates.
Why do martials have to be mythic to do demi-god status stuff while caster don't need a single mythic rank to do god status stuff?

Because he takes weaker physical attributes and reduced hp, and protection in order to be able to use magic. It isn't that it's Demi-God equivalent stuff it's that it's magic, which by definition breaks reality. Casters can also use magic to make fighters better. It's called teamwork. Haste, fly, magic weapon, keen edge, enlarge, are all much better cast on the fighter than on the wizard.


The Sword wrote:
Regarding the tiers and media characters how did you decide where to put people?

Spell levels. The way the spell levels and opposition change the game with level dictates the tiers into which the game progresses.

Codifying the tiers makes certain all classes get to play the same game.

So you don't wind up with a party like this

Quote:
Surely demi-God status is what mythic is for? The ability to not die and/or high star points/templates.

Not if you take the game past level 12. Do that and the casters are definitely getting Demi-God s+!&, so either give it to martials as well or forbid them from being player characters.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Shaman wrote:
Sorry for sort of throwing that here, but I was considering shaving 1 spell slot per level off the maximum for every caster - so wizards top at 3 spell slots per level (before bonuses), sorcerers at 5, etc. Do you think this would be a meaningful limitation on casters at mid-levels by making them be more conservative with spells without making them too weak, and what do you think about the ideas in Unchained?

Less spells isn't fixing anything so long as spells still do so much. At mid levels it might make them conservative with their highest level spells but that just means more lower level spells or scrolls. As long as the spells still do what they do, nothing is fixed.


The Shaman wrote:
Sorry for sort of throwing that here, but I was considering shaving 1 spell slot per level off the maximum for every caster - so wizards top at 3 spell slots per level (before bonuses), sorcerers at 5, etc. Do you think this would be a meaningful limitation on casters at mid-levels by making them be more conservative with spells without making them too weak, and what do you think about the ideas in Unchained?

I have seen this approach before and its not bad.

I don't mind taking some things away from casters, I just draw the line at buffing Martials beyond what they already have.

I'd recommend looking at the old AD&D spell slot chart and also turn all level 0 spells into 1st level spells. Get rid of 0th level spells entirely.

01 - 1
02 - 2
03 - 2/1
04 - 3/2
05 - 3/2/1
06 - 4/2/2
07 - 4/3/2/1
08 - 4/3/3/2
09 - 4/3/2/1
10 - 4/4/3/2/2
11 - 4/4/4/3/3
12 - 4/4/4/4/4/1
13 - 5/5/5/4/4/2
14 - 5/5/5/4/4/2/1
15 - 5/5/5/5/5/2/1
16 - 5/5/5/5/5/3/2/1
17 - 5/5/5/5/5/3/3/2
18 - 5/5/5/5/5/3/3/2/1
19 - 5/5/5/5/5/3/3/3/1
20 - 5/5/5/5/5/3/3/3/2

Then, since they didn't have sorcerers back then, I'd recommend something similar.

01 - 2
02 - 3
03 - 4
04 - 5/1
05 - 5/2
06 - 5/3
07 - 5/4/1
08 - 5/4/2
09 - 5/4/3
10 - 5/4/3/1
11 - 6/5/4/2
12 - 6/5/4/3
13 - 6/5/4/3/1
14 - 6/5/4/3/2
15 - 7/6/5/4/3
16 - 7/6/5/4/3/1
17 - 7/6/5/4/3/2
18 - 8/7/6/5/4/3
19 - 8/7/6/5/4/3/1
20 - 8/7/6/5/4/3/2

Which would reduce Sorcerer to a 7th level caster class.

If you really want to make Wizards suffer drop them to a d4 Hit Die.

With no 0th level spells, and reduced spell slots, and reduced HP, you'll see Wizards are reduced considerably in power.


Walsh... why would you drop Sorcerer to a 7th level caster class but leave Wizards and Druids and Clerics and Witches at 9th?


kyrt-ryder wrote:
Walsh... why would you drop Sorcerer to a 7th level caster class but leave Wizards and Druids and Clerics and Witches at 9th?

Well, you assume that I would leave Witches but the main reason is that being a spontaneous caster is simply easier. You don't have to plan. There are TONS of situations where I have played a Wizard and picked a spell that, "Oops." Not useful in this situation.

Sorcerers get more spell slots earlier, don't have to prepare, and, under my model would have more HP, AND they get bloodline powers.

That is a pretty good trade off. That and I don't balance anything by 20th level. That isn't the majority of games and shouldn't be the focus of balance.

Balance, if it even is important, is usually between levels 7-14 where 99% of games end.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Oh, are you stripping away School Powers from the Wizard as well? That's an interesting take.

In my own game, Spontaneous Casters are on the same spellcasting track as Prepared.

551 to 600 of 1,237 << first < prev | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Why the resistance to limiting spellcasters? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.