See now I specifically and utterly don't want a fighter who can slash his sword through reality to teleport somewhere. To me that just sounds like a magic user with a sword. I don't mind them doing cool impressive feats but that is into true anime territory. Its fine for an optional book designed for people that want a game like that but I don't want that in my standard DnD PF fantasy. Now if we are talking artifact sword then sure.Gallant Armor
The fact of the matter is that the way your group plays negates the disparity, or at least lessen's its effects.
You have made it clear that your party would rather fight your way through the horde of enemies than find an alternate path that avoids the combat.
This basically means that your players do not care overly much for narrative agency. They want to fight stuff and kill it.Other people however value narrative agency over combat ability, but would still like to play a non magical character.
They want to be able to do things that give them the same options that a caster has.If I am not an arcane caster and my foe teleports away, I am screwed. There is no way for me to chase them.
I want my fighter who can swing a sword better than any man alive to sunder the fabric of reality and tear a whole through which I can follow my foe.I'm guessing you're not a fan of the magus cause if you think about it they are basically anime as all hell. Spell combat+Dimensional Agility is basically what you're talking about.
And since we're talking about anime, Can i just point out that paizo literally added a magical girl archetype into the game not too long ago?
your missing my point for the anime forest. I like the Magus magus is suppose to be a caster. Fighter is not suppose to be a caster. Cutting through reality is a magical affect. The fighter should be taking a non-magical means to do what hes doing or a magic item is fine.. Also the magical girl archetype is terrible.
Let me make this real clear before you misinterpret something else to fit in your convenient little pre-packaged argument. Its not the fact I dislike anime I like anime. Its the fact that it is not in theme with what a mundane warrior class is themed to do. If they had a character class called I don't know magic fighter or anime fighter or w/e and his theme was to do stuff like that fine no problem with it it fits. With pathfinder were talking about medieval fantasy. In medieval fantasy the role of a mundane hero defeating a magical enemy is cannon. The option to play the mundane hero should be their.
And one more time the magical girl archetype is trash.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
See now I specifically and utterly don't want a fighter who can slash his sword through reality to teleport somewhere. To me that just sounds like a magic user with a sword. I don't mind them doing cool impressive feats but that is into true anime territory. Its fine for an optional book designed for people that want a game like that but I don't want that in my standard DnD PF fantasy. Now if we are talking artifact sword then sure.Gallant Armor
The fact of the matter is that the way your group plays negates the disparity, or at least lessen's its effects.
You have made it clear that your party would rather fight your way through the horde of enemies than find an alternate path that avoids the combat.
This basically means that your players do not care overly much for narrative agency. They want to fight stuff and kill it.Other people however value narrative agency over combat ability, but would still like to play a non magical character.
They want to be able to do things that give them the same options that a caster has.If I am not an arcane caster and my foe teleports away, I am screwed. There is no way for me to chase them.
I want my fighter who can swing a sword better than any man alive to sunder the fabric of reality and tear a whole through which I can follow my foe.
It was the quickest example for me to type out and I understand that it is beyond what most people consider for their fantasy games.
But that raises the question, why is it anime when a fighter does it but we are perfectly happy with the wizard doing it?
I am curious as to what some of the cool none anime things you would be happy with martials doing are? I am interested in where the line lies for you.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
your missing my point for the anime forest. I like the Magus magus is suppose to be a caster. Fighter is not suppose to be a caster. Cutting through reality is a magical affect. The fighter should be taking a non-magical means to do what hes doing or a magic item is fine.. Also the magical girl...See now I specifically and utterly don't want a fighter who can slash his sword through reality to teleport somewhere. To me that just sounds like a magic user with a sword. I don't mind them doing cool impressive feats but that is into true anime territory. Its fine for an optional book designed for people that want a game like that but I don't want that in my standard DnD PF fantasy. Now if we are talking artifact sword then sure.Gallant Armor
The fact of the matter is that the way your group plays negates the disparity, or at least lessen's its effects.
You have made it clear that your party would rather fight your way through the horde of enemies than find an alternate path that avoids the combat.
This basically means that your players do not care overly much for narrative agency. They want to fight stuff and kill it.Other people however value narrative agency over combat ability, but would still like to play a non magical character.
They want to be able to do things that give them the same options that a caster has.If I am not an arcane caster and my foe teleports away, I am screwed. There is no way for me to chase them.
I want my fighter who can swing a sword better than any man alive to sunder the fabric of reality and tear a whole through which I can follow my foe.I'm guessing you're not a fan of the magus cause if you think about it they are basically anime as all hell. Spell combat+Dimensional Agility is basically what you're talking about.
And since we're talking about anime, Can i just point out that paizo literally added a magical girl archetype into the game not too long ago?
You almost make it sound like the big burly dude being anything but some random mook that hits things really hard would be a crime against the cosmos or something.
Of course mention them do another edition where they fix those supposed problems and everyone loses their mind.Because spells are fun and interesting. Would rather see other classes elevated with fun and interesting abilities than chopping down the casters. 4E had its own quirks but did what it set out to do well, i.e. be a pen and paper MMO, but in 5E everything is just so bland and tedious.
There, I've read through some 4E books. It hacked up alignment and the planes trying to make chaos evil and law good. If there was a group, I would play Pathfinder, 5E, or Spacefinder. But 4E, no way.
Vid
Why is sundering reality to create a hole in the fabric of space an inherently magical phenomenon?
I just want to understand you.
I don't view it as magical in the slightest. I view it as a big ass burly man with innate mastery of his form having such precision and force in his strikes that he can slice the actual fabric of reality to create a hole.
I will try and think of some more examples later.
See now I specifically and utterly don't want a fighter who can slash his sword through reality to teleport somewhere. To me that just sounds like a magic user with a sword. I don't mind them doing cool impressive feats but that is into true anime territory. Its fine for an optional book designed for people that want a game like that but I don't want that in my standard DnD PF fantasy. Now if we are talking artifact sword then sure.Gallant Armor
The fact of the matter is that the way your group plays negates the disparity, or at least lessen's its effects.
You have made it clear that your party would rather fight your way through the horde of enemies than find an alternate path that avoids the combat.
This basically means that your players do not care overly much for narrative agency. They want to fight stuff and kill it.Other people however value narrative agency over combat ability, but would still like to play a non magical character.
They want to be able to do things that give them the same options that a caster has.If I am not an arcane caster and my foe teleports away, I am screwed. There is no way for me to chase them.
I want my fighter who can swing a sword better than any man alive to sunder the fabric of reality and tear a whole through which I can follow my foe.It was the quickest example for me to type out and I understand that it is beyond what most people consider for their fantasy games.
But that raises the question, why is it anime when a fighter does it but we are perfectly happy with the wizard doing it?
I am curious as to what some of the cool none anime things you would be happy with martials doing are? I am interested in where the line lies for you.
Magic for your first question.
So a hero jumping a large distance to land on the back of a dragon and maybe even do something cool like drive it to the ground or something like that. (like half the iconic monks art where hes jumping up to punch a t-rex in the face (yeah I love the iconic monk)) Impressive stuff that can be done with an extreme area of physicality but without breaking physics entirely. Captain america type things. I'm a o k with.
...your missing my point for the anime forest. I like the Magus magus is suppose to be a caster. Fighter is not suppose to be a caster. Cutting through reality is a magical affect. The fighter should be taking a non-magical means to do what hes doing or a magic item isSee now I specifically and utterly don't want a fighter who can slash his sword through reality to teleport somewhere. To me that just sounds like a magic user with a sword. I don't mind them doing cool impressive feats but that is into true anime territory. Its fine for an optional book designed for people that want a game like that but I don't want that in my standard DnD PF fantasy. Now if we are talking artifact sword then sure.Gallant Armor
The fact of the matter is that the way your group plays negates the disparity, or at least lessen's its effects.
You have made it clear that your party would rather fight your way through the horde of enemies than find an alternate path that avoids the combat.
This basically means that your players do not care overly much for narrative agency. They want to fight stuff and kill it.Other people however value narrative agency over combat ability, but would still like to play a non magical character.
They want to be able to do things that give them the same options that a caster has.If I am not an arcane caster and my foe teleports away, I am screwed. There is no way for me to chase them.
I want my fighter who can swing a sword better than any man alive to sunder the fabric of reality and tear a whole through which I can follow my foe.I'm guessing you're not a fan of the magus cause if you think about it they are basically anime as all hell. Spell combat+Dimensional Agility is basically what you're talking about.
And since we're talking about anime, Can i just point out that paizo literally added a magical girl archetype into the game not too long ago?
Just continuing with the pre-rehearsed arguments that ignore what i'm saying I see. So i'm not going to respond to anymore of your comments like that from here out. plus putting words in someone else mouth is very rude.
Vid
Why is sundering reality to create a hole in the fabric of space an inherently magical phenomenon?
I just want to understand you.I don't view it as magical in the slightest. I view it as a big ass burly man with innate mastery of his form having such precision and force in his strikes that he can slice the actual fabric of reality to create a hole.
I will try and think of some more examples later.
For sundering reality the amount of force it would take would be staggering and honesty i'm pretty sure it is not even calculable or possible to calculate because it may not even be possible in reality no matter what but that is going into theoretical physics.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You see, jumping onto the back of a dragon breaks physics pretty reliably. It just breaks it in a way you can accept. That is okay. It gives me an idea of where your line is and why it is where it is.
I just don't feel comfortable with anyone claiming that Captain America has as much narrative agency as Doctor Strange or Vision.
You see, jumping onto the back of a dragon breaks physics pretty reliably. It just breaks it in a way you can accept. That is okay. It gives me an idea of where your line is and why it is where it is.
I just don't feel comfortable with anyone claiming that Captain America has as much narrative agency as Doctor Strange or Vision.
Not on the outside sure. but he can reliably call in outside aid forge greater tactics then his allies that can help them succeed when they otherwise wouldn't He can take actions that a normal person can do to succeed and that can achieve the same results. He doens't have to have a power that says Cpt does X to suceed he can use his brain and what he does have to get the job done. You don't have to give the characters an I win button for them to win.
Sometimes character that have very few powers and have to improvise or otherwise figure things out make for better stories then all powerful ones that have the perfect ability to win because he has spell X prepared.
Not on the outside sure. but he can reliably call in outside aid forge greater tactics then his allies that can help them succeed when they otherwise wouldn't He can take actions that a normal person can do to succeed and that can achieve the same results. He doens't have to have a power that says Cpt does X to suceed he can use his brain and what he does have to get the job done. You don't have to give the characters an I win button for them to win.You see, jumping onto the back of a dragon breaks physics pretty reliably. It just breaks it in a way you can accept. That is okay. It gives me an idea of where your line is and why it is where it is.
I just don't feel comfortable with anyone claiming that Captain America has as much narrative agency as Doctor Strange or Vision.
I agree with you completely. He is a central element to the story and the glue that gets a lot of stuff done.
However let's say that Vision was suddenly incredibly charismatic and had a good tactical mind. He could then do exactly the same stuff that Cap does and a bunch more. That is the thing. Most of Cap's use as an avenger comes from what would be reflected by roll play in pathfinder.
At least to my mind.
If we ignore his shield fighting style I think he would be best classified as a cavalier without a mount, giving people teamwork feats and inspiring them, dishing out challenges and the like.
I don't want an "I win button". I want more options than "I ask my friend that can do magic to help" or "I hit it with my shield".
I also agree with you on the force required to part reality and it most likely being impossible.
So I posit an alternative. We agree the teleporting wizard is breaking reality. They teleport and space becomes weakened around them. Weakened enough for the fighter to follow them.
The fighter can't just cut reality anywhere they want, but they can cut reality in the area a wizard broke it, for a short time afterwards.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Edit in response to your second post
Oh I agree that the struggle against magic with no tools can make for an amazing story. It is the story of the plucky underdog against great odds.
But that story requires that the underdogs are all underdogs.
You can't tell that story and make the struggle of Captain America to climb the mile high cliff mean something when Iron Man just flies past him. That makes for a funny moment. Once. After that it becomes tedious.
You can't have a party where some are the underdogs and others can wield this reality bending power, and still have the underdog story matter.
I could see something in the realm of piggy backing of the wizards magic. Kind of a cool concept really. I could see the rogue magic thief archetype (or prestige i forget which) doing something like that. Maybe even a fighter that maybe has some magical knowledge.
As far as the vision thing I think that would be very uh out of character and out of class for vision to suddenly start doing all that. to be fair though if you give anyone every ability of someone else its going to make that person naturally look redundant. If I gave vision all of doctor strange's powers even doctor strange will look weaker and redundant by comparison. Yeah cap definitely could fit in between caviler and shield brawler.
I do agree he has to role play to get things done and their should be character like that in pathfinder. Its already heavy in the genre. If every character had a magical out it would take something away form the game as a whole. Now don't get me wrong i'm ok if at higher levels if mundane are still able to press upon the boundaries of the impossible but shouldn't break those barriers.
Magic is literally suppose to break reality with the only explanation of hey its magic. That is kind of its thing.
Edit for your second part. You can it is just really hard to do. But im not saying I want that exactly mostly I'm saying that mundanes have to use other tools. If you really look into it The real difference between mundane measures and magical measure is the time it takes. Magic is way more convenient. You can summon an army of animals to fight your battle or spend 10 years raising and training them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is that the tools the mundane has, the magical has as well.
That is the true problem.
People often mention that if the fighter wants to find allies he goes to petition the local king. If the wizard wants allies he can summon them, bind them, charm them, OR HE CAN GO AND PETITION THE LOCAL KING.
Every single one of the tools available to the martial are available to the wizard. The wizard also has a whole lot more. That is the issue.
Options are incredibly important to players, and the wizard will always have more options.
Vision and Strange will always have more ways to deal with a problem than Cap.
Does that mean that Cap can't get the job done? No, it just means it's pointless for him to do it because everyone else can do it easier.
In a vacuum without Strange/Vision Cap is a very capable character, but when you compare him his abilities pale in comparison.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Continued Response to " If every character had a magical out it would take something away form the game as a whole."
I wholeheartedly agree.
But it would be great to have some more options for things I can do than "Punch it really hard and hope it stops being a problem."
Something unique to my martial chassis that lets me deal with a unique problem in a cool way.
Which Is why I said I feel a more robust Skill system is what mundane classes need. Let them achieve greater things especially at high levels with skills. That and I have always been on board with the whole give fighters more skill points thing. I'm not opposed at all to them having more things to do more non-combat options. I've also been a fan of systems that make magic have a down side as well. I think the disparity However gets exaggerated. I know you were just giving an example with the rift cutting but that is one thing I don't want a fighter class that seems like its using magic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That is understandable. People want different things in their fantasy and that is good. It means we get to read and tell different types of stories.
I don't think a revamp to the skill system is the way to go. It would be better than it is now as there would be more options. However magicals still have access to that system. You end up with the same problem. Magicals have all the same tools as martials and a bunch more.
You could try something like the rogue skill unlocks and only allow access to it via the martial classes. It would have to be free as well.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In play I find that the disparity often does not come up. This is not because it doesn't exist but because people don't take advantage of it. The few times it has come up I have had players become incredibly dejected and completely loose interest in the game. They stop having fun when there is simply no way for them to do anything similar to what a wizard is doing. Not that they expect to do the same thing, just that they want something to do besides "hit it till it goes away".
That funny to me cause I can say I've never played a fighter and thought man I wish I didn't have to hit that thing with this big ol sword of mine.
I was thinking something like skill unlocks yes. I haven't put THAT much thought into specifics.
Hmm well I don't know if it is that typical for wizards to have all the options I feel like to be a wizard requires a few investment of skill into knowledge's and such. I guess they could still ignore that and the options become more aviable but I feel they suffer as a wizard when they do that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A wizard that prioritises INT (all of them) can easily have 9 ranks a level. Easily. That is almost impossible for a fighter that still wants to hit things well.
I agree that as a fighter I want to hit stuff with my sword. But I can't hit stuff with my sword if it's flying, or if it teleports, or if its invisible. Or a bunch of other things that wizards have ways around, but the fighter relies on the wizard for.
Yeah well teleport is kind of a run away tactic and eventually it will fail the wizard unless the DM is just being a !@#$. If their teleporting away they are leaving something behind maybe a part of their plan or something. or the DM just didn't want them to die that day. I could see a skill unlock to help with invisible perception related. (Their is mundane ways around you GO POCKET CHALK!) Flying is the reason all my fighters carry a bow and can use it acceptably well. Their is ways around.
I've played in games without magic support and it sometimes is rough however I will agree but their is things you can do.
Yeah 9 skill points is a bit But I do concede on that one fighter need more skill points and maybe some skill unlock like class abilities.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That funny to me cause I can say I've never played a fighter and thought man I wish I didn't have to hit that thing with this big ol sword of mine.
It's not so much that people don't want to hit things. They don't want to be limited to "only being able to hit things".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah well teleport is kind of a run away tactic and eventually it will fail the wizard unless the DM is just being a !@#$. If their teleporting away they are leaving something behind maybe a part of their plan or something. or the DM just didn't want them to die that day. I could see a skill unlock to help with invisible perception related. (Their is mundane ways around you GO POCKET CHALK!) Flying is the reason all my fighters carry a bow and can use it acceptably well. Their is ways around.
I've played in games without magic support and it sometimes is rough however I will agree but their is things you can do.
Yeah 9 skill points is a bit But I do concede on that one fighter need more skill points and maybe some skill unlock like class abilities.
He wasn't talking about the wizard as an enemy. He was just saying the class in general can do things, and the fighter basically needs a wizard on his side to counter certain magical effects, while the wizard can solve the same problems without needing the fighter to help.
As an example if some outsider turns invisible the wizard tags it with glitterdust. Then the fighter can hit it. The wizard can also use glitterdust, and other spells to take it down.
Basically the fighter is not independent enough, which goes back to people wanting to do more than just hit things. Just to be clear it doesn't mean they want him to be able to do everything a wizard can do.
I think their is some confusion I was saying that an enemy that teleports away isn't really that much of a threat hes igther leaving his plan behind or just running away to be fought later and the dm intended him to get away. So eventually he'll be in a situatuin where he won't teleport away. the chalk example was something you could do if they turn invisible butas I said that would be a cool skill unlock type thing for the figther to get some way of seeing invisible better with perception.
I keep saying this please read this if nothing else
>>>I am sooooo ok with the fighter getting more toys I want the fighter to have more toys. I just don't want the toys to be magic for all purposes except just name it something different.<<<
And I think some people DO in fact want the fighter to do everything the wizard does which defeats the purpose entirely.
My particular solution was to do a virtual gold and slot system. There are no permanent items. Instead, starting at second level, the characters get virtual gold equal to their wealth by level that they can use to enhance their virtual slots (each slot is restricted to half their virtual gold per slot). A character can disrupt a slot, which after 24 hours gives them the virtual gold back to buy new "items".
The original purpose was to get players off the gold treadmill so that they were much less motivated by money. However it also reduced the disparity between martials and casters, as martials could now fly or teleport if they really desired.
|
|
Alright alright...It's honestly become obvious at this point, that the issue isn't so much Wizards but spells as a whole.
And the more you think about it the more you realize that those who don't have spells are just straight up outshined by those who do. And any of the full martial classes can easily be replicated by higher tiered archetypes
For example.
You want a Fighter? Kensai Magus and Warpriest
You want a Monk? Esoteric Magus, Sacred fist Warpriest, I'll even throw the Iroran Paladin in the mix.
Barbarain? Bloodrager though admittedly the difference between these 2 are minimal.
Rogue? Eldritch Scoundrel, Warlock Vigilante and Sandman Bard or Archaeologist if you don't care for the stabbies
I honestly could honestly go on and on, but my point is there are so many ways to get the same thing from the purely martial classes that trying to play a character that can't use magic in any capacity, is like trying to play fire emblem without anyone dying, you're only making things harder on yourself.
Especially in a setting like Golorian where magic of all kinds are pretty much prevalent in all but 3 places and death can just blind side you at any time. So the only reason you wouldn't use any sort of magic, is if you simply had no talent for it. Or you just plain hate it.
Thus the most optimal ways to play a character would be one who can cast spells, or someone specifically trained to kill spell-casters.
And that's pretty much the long and short of it.
Really when you got so many types of characters that can roughly do the same job on top of being able to cast spells, why would you ever play a full martial character....that isn't a barbarian? Other then like vidmaster pointed out being the underdog?
It's fairly clear to me now that for a game to have any real sort of balance I.E where one person doesn't just completely outshine the others, there cant be anything larger then a 2 tier difference between the party.
I.E if you have a Tier 2 character in the party, anything lower then a Tier 4 is gonna be outclassed and feel useless.
Prime example the Carrion Crown game I'm in.
We have
A Life Oracle
An Archaeologist Bard
a Bladebound/Hexcrafter Magus(Me)
and An Undead Scourge Paladin
Not only do we not outshine each other we compliment each other and cover each others weaknesses without it being overbearing.
And it's been working out great for us so far.
IDK maybe it works for me that way while not so much for others.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Cavalier was always meant to be "Fighter who gets to do more stuff", but the class was just sidelined till forever because loss aversion makes mount seem like a burden rather than a situational benefit.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Alright alright...It's honestly become obvious at this point, that the issue isn't so much Wizards but spells as a whole.
Not just spells, but magic in general. Spells, SLA's, and SU's.
The mundane classes just don't do as much.
With that being said more than half of the classes have access to spells. Even the barbarian gets SU's, from rage powers and they help help give it utility.
The Life Oracle in your party could take over things if the player really wanted to focus on running it that way, and has good system mastery.
As for why play a martials it really depends on how the game is run, and what people expect to be able to do. I am running an arcanist, and while I could end fights early I use it more for support and problem solving. It actually saves me spells to buff the party, focus on crowd control and debuff the bad guys. I let the party do the heavy lifting.
I've run clerics that had a similar role. On the flip side I've run rangers(archer) and shredded enemies. I also had a higher level of system mastery than everyone else at the table.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Other people however value narrative agency over combat ability, but would still like to play a non magical character.
They want to be able to do things that give them the same options that a caster has.
I'm gonna cherry-pick this comment because I think it's wishful thinking that feels it's justified, when it actually isn't.
If they want to be non-magical and still have story relevance, then they should either stick to E6 (where magic and non-magic are somewhat comparable though even that is iffy), PFS (the plateau prior to where the Caster/Martial Disparity truly takes off), or find a different game that better supports the ideal that non-magical abilities can be just as effective as magical abilities (though by this point it's a matter of "Why bother to differentiate between the two if they are functionally the same?")
When a game is purposefully and specifically designed around having or using magic and spells, and goes out of its way to make said magic and spells vastly superior to most every other option out there, you shouldn't expect things that the game isn't specifically or purposefully designed around to be comparable, or even useful. And this becomes more and more true in the higher levels of gameplay simply because the game assumes some modicum of both optimization and access to magic, whether it's through the Big 6, possessing a Wizard and/or Cleric of some kind, and so on.
I cannot stress enough that, when a game is designed around magic and spellcasting (heretofore defined as "The Meta"), and you pick a class that doesn't adhere to "The Meta," you're only setting yourself up for failure and disappointment with the capabilities of your non-Meta character, especially later down the road where lack of versatile magic capabilities becomes more and more and more apparent.
If wizards weren't overpowered, my sorcerer might start getting criticized.
I know it can be done, it just requires much much less effort for a wizard.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Gallant Armor
The fact of the matter is that the way your group plays negates the disparity, or at least lessen's its effects.
You have made it clear that your party would rather fight your way through the horde of enemies than find an alternate path that avoids the combat.
This basically means that your players do not care overly much for narrative agency. They want to fight stuff and kill it.Other people however value narrative agency over combat ability, but would still like to play a non magical character.
They want to be able to do things that give them the same options that a caster has.If I am not an arcane caster and my foe teleports away, I am screwed. There is no way for me to chase them.
I want my fighter who can swing a sword better than any man alive to sunder the fabric of reality and tear a whole through which I can follow my foe.My group has used magic to completely negate an encounter (or possibly a series of encounters). We used a series of scrolls, hexes and prepared spells to rescue someone without interacting with the guards at all. All of the players contributed to the plan, put only one character actually did anything in game. It was fun, but if we did that often that would mean sidelining characters a good portion of the time which is something we try not to do.
It sounds like you want to be a 3/4 BAB caster, not a full martial class. All classes exist on a spectrum of reliable to flexible. The more reliable classes can do what they do endlessly, but are more limited in what they can do. The more flexible classes can do more things, but are limited in how often they can do them. This is the balance point.
There are many classes that are very much in the middle; magus, alchemist, inquisitor, summoner, warpriest, shaman to name a few. These classes have per day resources to do many amazing things, and are still viable when not using those resources.
That is a fallacy.
Fighters are as reliant on their resources as a wizard is. The fighter's resource is their HP. They could end up going for a fight without taking a hit but this is very unlikely.They will get hit, and they will get hurt, and they will run out of HP. Now when the cleric runs out of healing the fighter can't just keep going. They will keep losing HP and will run out of their resource.
Fighters are reliant on their own resources and the resources of their party.
Beyond just the fallacy you are literally highlighting the C/MD.
"but if we did that often that would mean sidelining characters a good portion of the time".
If everyone could actually contribute to actually going through with the plan nobody would need to be sidelined. Instead it became a situation where only one person had the tools to complete the task and everyone else watched them do it.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...That is a fallacy.Gallant Armor
The fact of the matter is that the way your group plays negates the disparity, or at least lessen's its effects.
You have made it clear that your party would rather fight your way through the horde of enemies than find an alternate path that avoids the combat.
This basically means that your players do not care overly much for narrative agency. They want to fight stuff and kill it.Other people however value narrative agency over combat ability, but would still like to play a non magical character.
They want to be able to do things that give them the same options that a caster has.If I am not an arcane caster and my foe teleports away, I am screwed. There is no way for me to chase them.
I want my fighter who can swing a sword better than any man alive to sunder the fabric of reality and tear a whole through which I can follow my foe.My group has used magic to completely negate an encounter (or possibly a series of encounters). We used a series of scrolls, hexes and prepared spells to rescue someone without interacting with the guards at all. All of the players contributed to the plan, put only one character actually did anything in game. It was fun, but if we did that often that would mean sidelining characters a good portion of the time which is something we try not to do.
It sounds like you want to be a 3/4 BAB caster, not a full martial class. All classes exist on a spectrum of reliable to flexible. The more reliable classes can do what they do endlessly, but are more limited in what they can do. The more flexible classes can do more things, but are limited in how often they can do them. This is the balance point.
There are many classes that are very much in the middle; magus, alchemist, inquisitor, summoner, warpriest, shaman to name a few. These classes have per day resources to do many amazing things, and are still viable when not using those resources.
I think what he's asking for is a way for a fighter to be relevant without the wizards help.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure I understand your math. A wand of CLW has 50 charges and can heal an average of 5.5 HP per charge. That works out to 275 HP per wand. With your example of 270 HP damage total, that would be a bit less than a wand per day which isn't unreasonable.Gallent Armor
At level 12 it's easy for a group to take 270 damage total. That's with you 8 - 12 combats.
10ish wands pe day
7500 gp per day in 6 days one pc loses all of there wealth by level or everybody is down 1/4 in a group of 4.
Seems harsh on consumables.
It's 270 damage per encounter, not day.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Gallent Armor
At level 12 it's easy for a group to take 270 damage total. That's with you 8 - 12 combats.
10ish wands pe day
7500 gp per day in 6 days one pc loses all of there wealth by level or everybody is down 1/4 in a group of 4.
Seems harsh on consumables.
I'm not sure I understand your math. A wand of CLW has 50 charges and can heal an average of 5.5 HP per charge. That works out to 275 HP per wand. With your example of 270 HP damage total, that would be a bit less than a wand per day which isn't unreasonable.
Also, healing consumables don't have to come out of WBL.
Per encounter as was stated necromental. And if they don't come out of wealth by level now your changing the rules not the play style to adapt the game, which seems to be a different point than you point you were making. I understood it to be, do these things they will handicap wizards and not other classes without having to change the rules.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's 270 damage per encounter, not day.I'm not sure I understand your math. A wand of CLW has 50 charges and can heal an average of 5.5 HP per charge. That works out to 275 HP per wand. With your example of 270 HP damage total, that would be a bit less than a wand per day which isn't unreasonable.Gallent Armor
At level 12 it's easy for a group to take 270 damage total. That's with you 8 - 12 combats.
10ish wands pe day
7500 gp per day in 6 days one pc loses all of there wealth by level or everybody is down 1/4 in a group of 4.
Seems harsh on consumables.
That would be an insane average encounter. For a 4 person party that's 67.5 damage per person. With that average the wizard would be put to single digits or lower with the average encounter.
Given that some encounters should make the party feel challenged and some should make them feel powerful, as least one encounter a day would outright kill at least one party member.
If your party is taking that amount of damage with the average encounter it is time to address tactics and gear to boost AC and saves.
I had around 90 hp with my oracle at 12th lvl (slightly above average), the rest of our party had somewhat above and wizard was similar as mine maybe couple of hp less.
If the enemies cannot deal 60 damage per PC they are of no threat at all. I really don't understand the benchmark of your 8-12 encounters now. Why is the wizard casting all of his spells if enemies cannot legitimately threaten the party? Also i think this is the level that our wiz acquired staff-like wand, and had no chance at all at for running out of spells.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's 270 damage per encounter, not day.I'm not sure I understand your math. A wand of CLW has 50 charges and can heal an average of 5.5 HP per charge. That works out to 275 HP per wand. With your example of 270 HP damage total, that would be a bit less than a wand per day which isn't unreasonable.Gallent Armor
At level 12 it's easy for a group to take 270 damage total. That's with you 8 - 12 combats.
10ish wands pe day
7500 gp per day in 6 days one pc loses all of there wealth by level or everybody is down 1/4 in a group of 4.
Seems harsh on consumables.
That would be an insane average encounter. For a 4 person party that's 67.5 damage per person. With that average the wizard would be put to single digits or lower with the average encounter.
Given that some encounters should make the party feel challenged and some should make them feel powerful, as least one encounter a day would outright kill at least one party member.
If your party is taking that amount of damage with the average encounter it is time to address tactics and gear to boost AC and saves.
Wizards at that level often have nearly 100 hp.
(4+ 2 con + 2 Con from a belt) * 12 = 96 more or other way to get there with fbc, toughness, etc.
A barbarian is around 168 raging before that's 16 con and a +4 con belt. No fcd or toughness.
4 players averageing about 130hp each taking 1/2 hp per combat with some combats causing very little damge others around half, and other yet more damage 3/4 and some with kos.
That gets you to about 65 per pc per combat.
If combats are not challenging how do you get a wizard to spend some good spells they likely have the best knowledges checks at the table?