PDA

View Full Version : [PF] What's this about Pathfinder being biased toward casters?



Endarire
2010-10-12, 11:25 PM
At its core, I know that Pathfinder hasn't changed since 3.5. I find it strange that a system that was seemingly meant to fix many of 3.5's problems has a reputation of being skewed in the opposite direction.

Mind you, this is hearsay. What's -really- happening here?

Elfin
2010-10-12, 11:41 PM
Saph's excellent handbook (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=136890&highlight=pathfinder) is a great place to start.

Aran Banks
2010-10-13, 12:58 AM
This generally ends up in flame[ war]s, but I'll give my opinion anyway.

PF took D&D, promised to make it better, and then punched it in the face. Casters are stronger in PF because they get extra goodies (a quick skim of the class abilities shows this). The reasoning was that "it encourages people to take casters all the way to 20!", but that didn't work because all the extra stuff comes in at level 1. So there's STILL no extra incentive to take a casting class to twenty (as opposed to PrCing out, not like taking a levels in fighter or something..).

I could complain a lot about pathfinder if you'd like, but that just answers your casters question. Rogues got nerfed, and the combat mechanics are weak... I could throw around some more.

Bosh
2010-10-13, 01:10 AM
At its core, I know that Pathfinder hasn't changed since 3.5. I find it strange that a system that was seemingly meant to fix many of 3.5's problems has a reputation of being skewed in the opposite direction.

Um, you answered your own question. Pathfinder is badly skewed in favor of casters butcause that it's core Pathfinder hasn't changed 3.5.

Morithias
2010-10-13, 01:13 AM
I'd have to guess due to the open game license. If you actually read the thing, certain classes are in it, and they are very detailed in how they work. I'd almost say they went

"Ok we have to nerf casters"
"Uh..sir if we do what we planned, WOTC is going to sue our butts off, because we're selling it."
".....Pelor Dammit"

Nero24200
2010-10-13, 02:18 AM
"Ok we have to nerf casters"
"Uh..sir if we do what we planned, WOTC is going to sue our butts off, because we're selling it."
".....Pelor Dammit"

Actually...it's not really like that. On the contrary, since the base D20 mechanics are open content they could re-create the classes from scratch without any issue. Otherwise there wouldn't be any new classes in the Advanced Player's guide.

If Pathfinder wanted to they could have completely re-worked casters to the point that they resembled 3.5 casters in name only (and even remove the name if they felt as well). The reason why they're kept so similer is because Paizo wanted to appeal to the 3.5 fans, and felt that they couldn't rock the boat too much if they wanted to do so.

GoodbyeSoberDay
2010-10-13, 02:49 AM
After reading through pathfinder several times I tend to agree with Saph. Sure, wizards and sorcerers got more class features, but the wizard features are more for flavor, and giving sorcerers extra spells known (clearly their biggest boost) wasn't going to ruin anything. Casting defensively was nerfed, and so were some of the good sor/wiz spells. On top of that Druid got nerfed and most of the melee classes got nice things for once, save for the Fighter and the whole insta-dead barbarian bug.

I'd say compared to 3.5, melee caught up a little bit to casters, but the amount they caught up becomes trivial as character level, optimization, and player skill increase.

Sir Enigma
2010-10-13, 03:46 AM
But wizards got one major bonus - the change to school specialization. Now, specialists can prepare spells from banned schools (albeit at 2 slots per spell), craft items that require banned spells at -4 on skill checks, and unless I'm reading it wrong, this should mean they can also use wands/staves/scrolls of banned spells with no problem.

Altair_the_Vexed
2010-10-13, 03:55 AM
Actually...it's not really like that. On the contrary, since the base D20 mechanics are open content they could re-create the classes from scratch without any issue. Otherwise there wouldn't be any new classes in the Advanced Player's guide.

If Pathfinder wanted to they could have completely re-worked casters to the point that they resembled 3.5 casters in name only (and even remove the name if they felt as well)...

Exactly - there are a few fantasy d20 systems out there that totally throw out the D&D classes and make up new ones, plus there's the OGL stuff from Unearthed Arcana.

Me, I like Pathfinder's changed mechanics for being more streamlined and simpler to play.
Classes are just fluff, really: I tend to strip them down and re-build them anyway. In my game, "wizard" is a job description, not a class.

Drolyt
2010-10-13, 04:06 AM
Pathfinder did add some nice things, it simplified skills somewhat, simplified combat actions like bull rush and grapple, and removed dead levels. It did very little to balance casters and non-casters however, which is one of the things they promised it would do. I'm not convinced the improvements are worth the cash.

Frosty
2010-10-13, 05:46 AM
Ba;ance issues aside, Pathfinder gave a whole ton of options to non-caster classes. Between all the alternative class features, alternative favored class bonii, and the new base classes and feats from the Advanced Player's Guide, even a Fighter can run out of interesting feats to take!

I'm going to have so much fun with my Cavalier...it'slike playing a mounted Crusader with no healing in terms of the feel, but without maneuvers.

Drolyt
2010-10-13, 05:51 AM
Ba;ance issues aside, Pathfinder gave a whole ton of options to non-caster classes. Between all the alternative class features, alternative favored class bonii, and the new base classes and feats from the Advanced Player's Guide, even a Fighter can run out of interesting feats to take!

I'm going to have so much fun with my Cavalier...it'slike playing a mounted Crusader with no healing in terms of the feel, but without maneuvers.
True. Pathfinder core has far more options than 3.5 core. Returning to the OP's question, Pathfinder isn't any more biased towards casters than 3.5. Probably less so, some spells got nerfed and defensive casting was nerfed. All the spellcasting classes except the Druid gained some nice abilities, but in light of the other changes I'd say they ended up about where they started (except the Druid, which was actually nerfed) while the noncasters grew stronger, but only slightly and not enough to fill the gap.

Snake-Aes
2010-10-13, 06:00 AM
True. Pathfinder core has far more options than 3.5 core. Returning to the OP's question, Pathfinder isn't any more biased towards casters than 3.5. Probably less so, some spells got nerfed and defensive casting was nerfed. All the spellcasting classes except the Druid gained some nice abilities, but in light of the other changes I'd say they ended up about where they started (except the Druid, which was actually nerfed) while the noncasters grew stronger, but only slightly and not enough to fill the gap.

This is the fairest assessment I can come up with too. Casters got nice stuff? they did. But except for the sorcerer, their "new and improved" class features are nothing to write home about, even though they beat their 3.5 counterparts. The spells themselves were nerfed (don't recall any actually being better other than Disjunction. And that one is better because it's worse).
Another big contender for the "zomgwtfyoubrokedagam" is the power attack nerf. In the 1,5~ year I've been playing with PF content, that hasn't shown to be a problem, but my groups don't do the whole ubercharging thing.


tl;dr: Power balance did not change. Doing so would detach the system completely from D&D3.5, which is what they promised to stay close to. People who complain that "pf utterly biased the game toward casters" are drama queens.

Duke of URL
2010-10-13, 06:18 AM
I'd have to guess due to the open game license. If you actually read the thing, certain classes are in it, and they are very detailed in how they work. I'd almost say they went

"Ok we have to nerf casters"
"Uh..sir if we do what we planned, WOTC is going to sue our butts off, because we're selling it."
".....Pelor Dammit"

Actually, that's not true at all. The OGL doesn't restrict how you use or modify the material, as long as you a) credit the original source and b) make the derived work available under the OGL.

The d20 license was a little more restrictive as to what could be changed, but that only defined basic terms, not class design.

Paizo didn't "nerf" casters for Pathfinder because they chose not to, not because they weren't allowed to.

Greenish
2010-10-13, 06:21 AM
I'm going to have so much fun with my Cavalier...it'slike playing a mounted Crusader with no healing in terms of the feel, but without maneuvers.I'm not sure I quite follow. "Crusader without maneuvers" doesn't sound like much fun.

Frosty
2010-10-13, 06:33 AM
Well, my Cavalier can do stuff like:

Charge a target (and everyone else within 30 ft who uses an immediate action may also charge) and everyone gets a +2 bonus on the attack on top of the normal charge bonus.

Spend a standard action to grant one of a number of bonuses to all allies within 30 feet (including himself ). The allies must be able to see or hear the cavalier to receive this bonus. The cavalier can grant a +2 dodge bonus to AC for 1 round, a +2 morale bonus on all attack rolls for 1 round, or the ability to move up to their speed as an immediate action once.

When next to his allies, spend an AoO to give an ally an AC bonus via the Aid Another option. Note that this does not spend an action. It merely expends an AoO attempt, and the attacker doesn't even have to provoke or anything! Just spend an AoO and grant AC.

When next to his allies, may spend an immediate action to take one attack (anything with an attack roll) for one ally.

And I haven't even gotten to what he can do offensively. Now, played out in a game, doesn't this sound a LOT like some White Raven and Devoted Spirit abilities?

Greenish
2010-10-13, 06:37 AM
Now, played out in a game, doesn't this sound a LOT like some White Raven and Devoted Spirit abilities?It does. It sounds a lot like a crusader with maneuvers. :smallconfused:

Frosty
2010-10-13, 06:38 AM
It does. It sounds a lot like a crusader with maneuvers. :smallconfused:
I meant the mechanics of the Cavalier class has no maneuvers, but some of the abilities duplicate the effects of certain maneuvers.

So you feel like you're playing a Crusader, but you don'tneed to feff around with maneuvers.

Greenish
2010-10-13, 06:39 AM
I meant the mechanics of the Cavalier class has no maneuvers, but some of the abilities duplicate the effects of certain maneuvers.

So you feel like you're playing a Crusader, but you don'tneed to feff around with maneuvers.Ah, I misunderstood.

Frosty
2010-10-13, 06:45 AM
But you see how the Cavalier might be fun? And this is just ONE of the myriad of options the Cavalier can take.

Greenish
2010-10-13, 06:53 AM
But you see how the Cavalier might be fun?I never claimed it wouldn't be, I just pointed out that a crusader without maneuvers wouldn't be.

Anyhow, looking it over now, way too many X/day abilities for my taste. I'd rather feff around with maneuvers. :smalltongue:

Drolyt
2010-10-13, 07:02 AM
Anyhow, looking it over now, way too many X/day abilities for my taste. I'd rather feff around with maneuvers. :smalltongue:
X/day makes more sense if you are trying to balance with casters though. Obviously Pathfinder didn't succeed at that anyways, but I think mixing a x/day casting system with a x/encounter (with recovery method!) melee system is a bad idea. One thing 4e did sorta kinda right was giving everyone the same at-will, encounter, and daily powers, but it screwed up by creating encounter and daily powers that make no sense as encounter and daily powers. Then again, one thing about 3.5 that is pretty interesting is how different classes have different mechanics, like prepared casting vs spontaneous casting vs psionics vs invocations. I guess I just feel that every class should run out of steam as the day goes on.

Frosty
2010-10-13, 11:07 AM
I never claimed it wouldn't be, I just pointed out that a crusader without maneuvers wouldn't be.

Anyhow, looking it over now, way too many X/day abilities for my taste. I'd rather feff around with maneuvers. :smalltongue:
The Order of the Dragon stuff is more 1/encounter, and you really shouldn't need them more than once anyways.

But yeah you have to be smart and ration some of your abilities.

mucat
2010-10-13, 12:01 PM
I'd have to guess due to the open game license. If you actually read the thing, certain classes are in it, and they are very detailed in how they work. I'd almost say they went

"Ok we have to nerf casters"
"Uh..sir if we do what we planned, WOTC is going to sue our butts off, because we're selling it."
".....Pelor Dammit"
No; what you're evidently reading is the SRD, not the Open Gaming License.

Everything in the SRD is Open Content as defined in the OGL, so other developers are allowed to use it...but they don't have to.

Ravens_cry
2010-10-13, 12:14 PM
There is no further proof of that then Mutants and Masterminds DC Adventures role playing game. A point buy based game with condition tracking, it basically stripped d20 to the core and built it back up again, even more so then previous Mutants and Masterminds editions.

BeholderSlayer
2010-10-13, 12:28 PM
Basically because they made everybody worse, but most spellcasters got "less worse" and therefore the system is biased toward them. What they did to most spellcasters changed their game very little. They still have at least 1 "I win" spell at every level, and that's all they need.

Scow2
2010-10-13, 12:33 PM
Paladins, Fighters, Rogues, and Rangers got better, though.

Most classes did. Only the Druid, Cleric, and Bard(Poor bard, it didn't deserve it) were made worse. And the Druid totally deserved it.

mucat
2010-10-13, 12:40 PM
Basically because they made everybody worse, but most spellcasters got "less worse" and therefore the system is biased toward them.

I'm having trouble seeing how you reached that conclusion. I would say they made almost everyone better, but the casters got less of a boost (and the druid was among the few classes who actually ended up weaker.)

This closed the gap between casters and noncasters...but in the same sense that when I find a $20 bill, it closes the gap between me and Bill Gates. Casters started out with a huge advantage -- in high-optimization games, at least -- and the PF changes didn't go nearly far enough to close the gap.

My solution, both in 3.5e and in Pathfinder, is to avoid highly optimized games, but that's another issue (which has been beaten to death elsewhere.)

Frosty
2010-10-13, 01:03 PM
Besides Bardic music going to rounds per day, how did they get nerfed? I like a lot of the new abilities.

Drolyt
2010-10-13, 02:27 PM
Besides Bardic music going to rounds per day, how did they get nerfed? I like a lot of the new abilities.
Bardic music is powerful. Besides that, there's a feel that they gained less than most other classes.

Starbuck_II
2010-10-13, 02:57 PM
I'm having trouble seeing how you reached that conclusion. I would say they made almost everyone better, but the casters got less of a boost (and the druid was among the few classes who actually ended up weaker.)


Sneak attack was made harder to achieve...how is that better for the Rogue? (undead losaing immunity has nothing to achieving it: it is less methods but less immunity).

Scow2
2010-10-13, 03:04 PM
Bardic music was good for long-term buffing. The new system makes it impossible to play a song for any decent amount of time until really high levels, and even then only one song a day of real "Song" length.

I blend PF and 3.5 rules when I play.

oxybe
2010-10-13, 03:12 PM
as others have said: PF still uses 3.5 as it's core and that's where the "bias" comes in.

yes they changed some stuff up, but making the fighter fight better(depends who you ask, but still) doesn't solve the actual problem with the fighter: his lack of options other then "i hit it" or "i hit it harder".

the changes to the skill system help alleviate this a little bit, but it still suffers from not enough points & too many skills. 8 of the 11 classes have less then 6 skill points per level. 5 of these are 2 point classes. of those 8 classes only the wizard really uses intelligence to power class features. there are 35 individual skills (i am counting each knowledge[whatever] as it's own skill as the book seems to make that distinction too).

this means it's still very hard to have a skilled character who isn't a rogue, a bard or one of those high Int wizards.

which effectively forces non-casters to rely on player skill or metagame knowledge to solve problems that cannot be killed via blunt trauma rather then the actual abilities the character has. there are corner cases, but these are exactly that: corner cases. your average dwarf fighter isn't some super intelligent entity. he has 10 int and probably needs to choose which between climb, swim & jump he can't do.

sure the fighter's player can come up with an interesting use of marbles, grease, a pulley and some rope, but that's entirely independent from being a fighter. the player could be a wizard, a cleric, a rogue, a fishminer, a ranger or whatnot and still come up with the idea.

i'm not against a player being creative, and truthfully if he is and the theory is sound a success is very much possible. the issue i have is that the fighter-type classes (i include most barbarians, monks, rangers & paladins in this) bring little to the table when it comes to giving abilities to help out in various situations and rely far more on how creative the player is and how generous the GM is with interpretations and allowances.

characters have more options in PF, but generally speaking these options are more combat related then actual gameplay modifying options.

yes you nerfed a few spells pathfinder by rewriting them or removing them entirely, and to that i give you a tip of my hat. but i wag my finger in your direction since the casters still have a much wider berth of options when it comes to a problem that isn't simply killable.

Susano-wo
2010-10-13, 03:19 PM
Wait, how is it harder to achieve sneak attack? Denied dex or flanking, same as before. Heck, its marginal, but off the top of my head, there is a rogue talent that makes foes denied dex mod during a surprise round even if they have acted. So that 's an increase:smalltongue:
And please don't say its because there is less acess to spells, etc. PF is explicitly backwards compatible.

EDIT: @Oxybe: I'm not sure what you would have had them do? I was really happy with the way they did most things. All the classes get pumped up, there are more options for every class (aside from maybe fighters, but I was happy that they gave them unique abilities) The bardic music duration nerf may be silly and unecessary, but that's the only thing off the top of my head that they really did wrong.
I mean your upset because casters have more options at their disposal...isn't that the whole point of a caster? Power in bursts and different spells for different situations

Mongoose87
2010-10-13, 03:40 PM
Wait, how is it harder to achieve sneak attack? Denied dex or flanking, same as before. Heck, its marginal, but off the top of my head, there is a rogue talent that makes foes denied dex mod during a surprise round even if they have acted. So that 's an increase:smalltongue:


They made it harder to tumble, which is how rogues flank.

HunterOfJello
2010-10-13, 03:43 PM
Not nerfing casters was just a smart sales move. If all the casters had been obviously nerfed, then all of the 3.5e spellcasting fans would have decided that Pathfinder sucks and they wouldn't play it.

I can just imagine the number of anti-Pathfinder threads that would exist if the spellcasting classes had been badly nerfed. It might even be worse than ToB complaints. (Note: Please don't use my mention of ToB to encite an anti- or pro-ToB tangent)

Frosty
2010-10-13, 03:49 PM
They made it harder to tumble, which is how rogues flank.
Making Tumbling harder is GOOD. The near-static DC in 3.5 mean that a wizard investing in it cross-class and maybe a masterwork item to help can easily make the DC by the mid levels.

In PF, Skill Focus (Acrobatics) is a consideration, since it gives you +6 once you hit 10 HD.

Mongoose87
2010-10-13, 03:53 PM
Making Tumbling harder is GOOD. The near-static DC in 3.5 mean that a wizard investing in it cross-class and maybe a masterwork item to help can easily make the DC by the mid levels.

In PF, Skill Focus (Acrobatics) is a consideration, since it gives you +6 once you hit 10 HD.

It's still a stealth nerf to rogues, even if it's keeping wizards from abusing low DCs.

Doug Lampert
2010-10-13, 03:56 PM
They made it harder to tumble, which is how rogues flank.

The list of wizard spells that were nerfed also includes several spells (and the related items) that USED to give the rogue sneak attack quite reliably no longer being useful for that.

Let's look at Saph's list of changed spells:
•Grease - Slightly nerfed. Doesn’t flat-foot enemies who don’t move, and moving through it is easier (Balance is a part of Acrobatics now, and loads of things have Acrobatics). Still a great spell.
•Ray of Enfeeblement - Nerfed, now allows a save for half.
•Glitterdust - Nerfed, now allows repeated saves to un-blind.
•Alter Self - Heavily nerfed, lasts a tenth as long and can only give a very limited set of abilities.
•Flaming Sphere - Buffed, now does 3d6 damage instead of 2d6. Actually not a bad choice now.
•Mirror Image - Targeting rules have changed.
•Rope Trick - Rope can no longer be removed or hidden.

Grease: Now useless for rogues.
Glitterdust: Now much less useful for rogues.

Out of 5 spells listed as nerfed two of them ACTUALLY nerf the rogue's limited ability to contribute. IIRC Blink was also nerfed SPECIFICALLY to stop Rogues from using rings of blinking to get flank.

Basically, a rather substantial fraction of the nerfed spells are actually nerfs to the rogue more than the wizard. Wizard direct damage got buffed!

Susano-wo
2010-10-13, 04:05 PM
that's how they flank? oh, I had always thought it was by moving into a square opposite another ally:smallwink:

I can see where that might be considered a nerf, though more to the rogues HP than to SA. you may have to eat an AoO to get around .

Thouh you may not, depending on the battlefield. also, moving to the side and attacking, then 5ft stepping still gets you SA the round after.

Not enough of a nerf to ZOMG about, I think:smallbiggrin: and the cool stuffthey added for rogues still outweighs it, personally.

Gametime
2010-10-13, 04:10 PM
Considering that Grease and Glitterdust are two of the most commonly cited spells for examples of how wizards can dominate encounters even at low levels, and that rogues being able to sneak attack targets is always cited as a secondary consideration, I think it's misleading at best to characterize those nerfs as being to rogues and not wizards.

It isn't as though rogues need wizards to disable targets in order to function. A rogue eviscerating a blinded target isn't really contributing to the fight in any meaningful way; the fight was over when the monster failed his save. The wizard beat the encounter and the rogue cleaned it up. Now the wizard can't do that quite as easily, but the rogue's contributions are more meaningful, not less, as a result.

Admittedly, there are still a dozen other spells that allow wizards to rock encounters.

Mongoose87
2010-10-13, 04:12 PM
that's how they flank? oh, I had always thought it was by moving into a square opposite another ally:smallwink:

I can see where that might be considered a nerf, though more to the rogues HP than to SA. you may have to eat an AoO to get around .

Thouh you may not, depending on the battlefield. also, moving to the side and attacking, then 5ft stepping still gets you SA the round after.

Not enough of a nerf to ZOMG about, I think:smallbiggrin: and the cool stuffthey added for rogues still outweighs it, personally.

Considering Sneak Attack was never great in the first place, having to either take a sword to the face or waste rounds inching around an enemy, hitting them with feeble rapier strikes to use your primary class feature isn't something I'm particularly keen on.

Unless they're doing it against my Crusader, who has Thicket of Blades. Then, they deserve what they get.

Susano-wo
2010-10-13, 04:22 PM
For one round attack. We're not even talking Full Attack here, or TWF, or anything. just one attack. If you can't get a high enough tumble score, or get behind him with your normal movement. which is by no means all the time.

And I don't know what you mean. I love a sneak attack, though we don't exacly optimize a whoile lot, so that may have something to do with it...

Starbuck_II
2010-10-13, 04:44 PM
For one round attack. We're not even talking Full Attack here, or TWF, or anything. just one attack. If you can't get a high enough tumble score, or get behind him with your normal movement. which is by no means all the time.

And I don't know what you mean. I love a sneak attack, though we don't exacly optimize a whoile lot, so that may have something to do with it...

Either way you can see how this removal of sneak attack opportunities is a nerf to gaining sneak attack.

Frosty
2010-10-13, 05:10 PM
I'm ok with the nerf to be honest. Mobility might be an alright feat now? Anyhow, Wizards definitely got nerfed too. In addition to the already mentioned spells, Solid Fog now looks semi-useless for a 4th level spell.

oxybe
2010-10-13, 07:05 PM
EDIT: @Oxybe: I'm not sure what you would have had them do? I was really happy with the way they did most things. All the classes get pumped up, there are more options for every class (aside from maybe fighters, but I was happy that they gave them unique abilities) The bardic music duration nerf may be silly and unecessary, but that's the only thing off the top of my head that they really did wrong.
I mean your upset because casters have more options at their disposal...isn't that the whole point of a caster? Power in bursts and different spells for different situations

i'll admit that a lot of my frustration when it comes to 3.5/PF is in regards to the versatility of spellcasters. scrolls are cheap to buy & cheap to make and actually cheaper to scribe in your spellbook then it was in 3.5. you need a handful of situational scrolls, a wand or two of useful but not versatile spells & then prep your spell list with your versatile/combat ones.

the main problem with the "bursts" is that those bursts are the sections of the game where stuff happens. even if the wizard only has 4 bursts /day in him and the fighter can go all day, how often does a situation come up where you will need more then 4 bursts?

very rarely in my experience. in most cases it doesn't matter that the fighter can fight all day because you're not going to be fighting all day. you'll have 3, maybe 4 fights. then some terrain to overcome, like a chasm or a rain-slick precipice or something. then maybe a talky-part if you happen to meet up with an interesting NPC.

so you have 6 "bursts". let's say the wizard has 4 bursts prepared, where a burst is 2-3 worthwhile spells. he uses 3 in the first 3/4 fights, then decides to only use 1 debuff in the last fight and keep a few more spells in reserve... just in case.

the fighter can swing his axe all during those 4 encounters. huzza!

but what about the chasm? the wizard might have a flight/teleportation spell prepared, or he might have one scrolled up away in case of chasm. the fighter will need to either jump, climb, go around or rely on a wizard (either directly by casting a spell or indirectly by buying an item made by a wizard that will cast the spell).

when he talks to the NPC who's pretty fussy about the airspace over his chasm, the fighter can really only RP the conversation (little skill points, not trained in diplomacy, charisma is not a required stat). the wizard can do the same but has spells to influence the NPC on top of this.

so what would i have liked to see off the top of my head? a deeper change to the skill system for one. i'm not saying to go with how 4th ed did it, but further consolidation of skills and giving a larger amount of skill points would have helped to give the fighter types more options outside of "i hit it". limiting the strength & access to the "bypass" spells casters have would have been nice, or at the very least causing these spells to give bonuses to the situation rather then a flat "win/lose" or strait up "win".

with detect magic effectively being all day now (it's a cantrip) finding surface magical traps and loot is FAR easier at this point. knock still doesn't require you to actually touch the lock to undo it (it has a range of 100 + 10/level. it's easy to cast outside of the range of most traps). various divination spells make information gathering a breeze.

limiting access to these would greatly help boost the usefulness of the more mundane characters. it's hard to feel like a master lockpick when the guy next to you can literally wave a wand and make the lock open (and since he can do it from over a hundred feet away, he doesn't have to worry about it exploding in his face), or feel like a shifty cat burglar when your buddy is flying 2 feet above you & invisible.

give the non-casters a class-based ability to maneuver/ignore some terrain. bonuses when it comes to breaking stuff. bonuses for finding stuff. anything! non-caster shouldn't even mean totally mundane... if a high level fighter can survive orbital re-entry (which a 12th level 18 con [after items] fighter with toughness can survive if he's gotten average HP rolls), that's truthfully not mundane in any sense of the word. giving them access to a few SU abilities is not a bad thing.

the rogue's talents are a lot closer to how i would have preferred the PF martial types to get their features: quick disable, ledge walker, fast stealth, ect... a larger list of actions that the character can simply do outside of combat to make his life easier.

some of the barbarian's rage powers are also very much along the lines of what i was looking for, but these require you to be raging which can limit their uses at times, depending on how many fights you can assume to go in that day and how low level you are.

i'm not saying to give the fighter the ability to fly invisibly, but simply give them a larger scope of actions they can potentially take.

going back to the casters i would have preferred a bit more forced specialization for the casters. the wizard is still the catch-all for Gandalf, Merlin, Tim the Enchanter, Presto & Dr.Strange. the cleric is still a catch-all pious caster.

i honestly would have hoped for more specialists like the Dread Necromancer & Beguiler rather then the catch-all caster classes they decided to stick with.

limiting the scope of what a caster can do will at least help close the gap and stop the casters from being a one-man party.

all PF did was tie a rock to the fighter's brick and call it a class feature. i know the fighter can hit things hard... i just want to know what else he can do.

Susano-wo
2010-10-13, 08:48 PM
@Starbuck II: I acknoweldge that it is a theoretical nerf, I'm just not sure how often it will come into play. :P

@oxybe: I see. Well, that is pretty comprehensive. Thanks for the reply :smallbiggrin: I can definitely see where you are coming from. And yeah, the rogue talents are very cool, and it wouldn't have hurt to give something like that to fighters (or more skill points, as I've seen many people suggest).

I guess when it comes down to it, I'm just not taht bothered by it. I don't tremendously disgree with your points, though I like having mages around, and having the flexibility inherent in that. I guess I'm just not bothered by it enough to want them to break up mage and cleric into this or that subclass. C'est La vie, I guess :smalltongue:

Drolyt
2010-10-13, 08:58 PM
@oxybe: I see. Well, that is pretty comprehensive. Thanks for the reply :smallbiggrin: I can definitely see where you are coming from. And yeah, the rogue talents are very cool, and it wouldn't have hurt to give something like that to fighters (or more skill points, as I've seen many people suggest).

I guess when it comes down to it, I'm just not taht bothered by it. I don't tremendously disgree with your points, though I like having mages around, and having the flexibility inherent in that. I guess I'm just not bothered by it enough to want them to break up mage and cleric into this or that subclass. C'est La vie, I guess :smalltongue:
To each his own. I agree with Oxybe about the problem, but not so much the solution. Giving Fighter types more abilities is definitely a good idea. The problem is that it is easy to come up with non-combat abilities for the Ranger (wilderness guy), Monk (scholarly acrobatic martial artist), Rogue (Sneaky skillmonkey), Barbarian (different type of wilderness guy), Paladin (Holy diplomatic crusader guy) etc. Fighters... just fight. There is nothing in their description to suggest they should be good at anything else. The best I can come up with is more skill points and maybe some RP abilities.

As for spellcasters, I don't like the idea of splitting the Wizard up. That's what specialists are for, but Wizards themselves are supposed to be the Jack of All Trades. That said, not every spellcaster needs to be a jack of all trades. Clerics in 3.5 are essentially holy Wizards (with armor/turn undead but lest blastiness/overly flashy magic), Druids are nature Wizards (with shapeshifting and an animal companion but slightly less spell versatility/power), Sorcerers are slightly more specialized Wizards, etc. Make non-Wizards more specialized and make Wizards give something up for their versatility. Then allow specialist Wizards for those who don't want the versatility.

Zaq
2010-10-13, 09:16 PM
I'm ok with the nerf to be honest. Mobility might be an alright feat now? Anyhow, Wizards definitely got nerfed too. In addition to the already mentioned spells, Solid Fog now looks semi-useless for a 4th level spell.

Because, you know, the problem with the Rogue was that they simply didn't have enough feat taxes, right?

Gametime
2010-10-13, 09:19 PM
I'm in favor of fighters getting bonuses that would help them be better guards or soldiers. Bonuses to Perception checks, maybe the ability to see through illusions, the ability to buff their allies in mass combat, that sort of thing. Maybe step on the Marshall's toes a bit.

oxybe
2010-10-14, 12:58 AM
@ Susano-wo. no prob. i may be wordy and bit stand-offish at my dislike of the way 3rd ed handled some things, but that's not because i think 3rd is the devil's spawn and most horrible game ever. it's just that after playing different games and looking a bit deeper into it (3.5), i think many things could have been handled so much better. and while 4th isn't perfect, it does handle a large part of my issues better then previous editions did

explaining my background might help. i came into RPGs via D&D as it was, quite literally, the only RPG around growing up.

i got into D&D in the last few years of 2nd ed. not that we really even knew this was the 2nd edition (the book's cover said "Advanced Dungeons & Dragons". the inside read "[book name] for 2nd ed. AD&D" which we never looked at :smalltongue:).

we didn't even do the rules right since we had to hobble together our games from out loose 11-13 year old mind's interpretations of the mess. i learned MUCH later in my gaming career how badly we were using the rules (mostly us not knowing how things properly interact).

when 3.5 came around, stuff was MUCH more clear and streamlined in the books and i liked it (and still do) head and shoulders above the 2nd ed i was weened on, but again: VERY small community & VERY small base of RPers. where all we knew was D&D. i heard of this Vampire Game due to message boards and stuff, but like heck i'll know where to find those games.

heck, getting a PHB & MM was hard enough as is (yes, i never owned a 3.0 DMG. i got the 3.5 one on sale when i "upgraded" after college. i still managed to play the game though with my own skewered XP system when i GMed until i gave up on that and simply said "you level every X sessions/story arc" while using the character builder CDROM that came with the 3.0 PHB when it came to crafting magic items).

only later, upon graduating did i learn about non-D&D RPGs in greater detail since i left home for an actual city with a game store. i actually quit D&D for a year or two to focus on my studies. i still read up on stuff but no play time. and when i came back into the fold... i don't know why but many things started grating on me and i started looking at game systems a bit more... discerningly (i think i'm using the word correctly. i think)?

EDIT: Weird... paragraph went missing. probably due to my constant previewing and reworking. heh. anywho... i'm mostly talking about games like GURPS or WoD where there are no classes and skills are more accessible across the board helped shape my want for characters who have abilities that let them do more then "whack it with a stick". even if there is a chance of failure, knowing that i have at least a chance of success that isn't entirely up the whim of the GM is nice.

i started thinking it might just be me, but after thinking about my sessions it was the group that made the sessions... fun not the system, which wasn't really helping to make the session enjoyable. it's probably around this time i REALLY started mucking about with casters as opposed to the fighter types i was used to in my high school and junior high days. i'd play casters in 2nd & 3rd pre-university but never "seriously"; i generally played the blaster mage.

but when i started experimenting with non-magic missile/scorching ray/fireball type spells, the options were staggering. it was at this point i just could not play a fighter-type using 3.5. i missed having options built into the class rather then have to use my own skill & knowledge and hope the GM agrees with me.

my average int dwarven fighters did not have the skill points needed to go adventuring. they just didn't. they didn't know about the world around them. they couldn't talk their way out of a paper bag, or even scare said paper bag. they could climb. they could swim. and that's it. dude couldn't even patch up his armor.

when 4th ed came around i was getting pretty sick of this. i WANT to play non-casters, but i generally find their actual options too limiting. i WANT Edward to be the cunning, intelligent, sarcastic, facepunching one-liner spouting badass and sometimes reluctant secondary leader to the group (as opposed to Leader, the role) i would have liked his abilities to be actually shown on the sheet, but when i tried to make him in 3rd i could get some of those but rarely most and never all.

Edward was supposed to have all the cunning and guile of a seasoned adventurer who's been around the dungeon several times, but rarely had the skill points to do so (and when he did, most of it was cross-classed and other PCs were far better suited then him at the job).

in 4th ed it's generally much easier for me to grab training in various skills and have Ed be, well... skilled. Athletics covers the physical training, Thievery, Streetwise & Dungeoneering cover a wide array of skills the seasoned adventurer would use to navigate a catacomb or dungeon.

if you know about 4th & 3rd, think of how many 3.5/PF skills these 4 skills cover alone. mechanically he was a Fighter (Barbarian with a few backgrounds later when PHB 2 came out) and i believe 1 skill training feat. Ed wasn't the best at these things, but he at least had a chance of success against a decent level appropriate non-combat challenge.

sure he didn't have the versatility of the 3.5 or PF wizard/cleric/druid/bard... but he could do far more then swing his Lochaber Axe. Ed, in the game world wasn't a fool, but before 4th ed i had a VERY hard time mechanically showcasing this. this seeped into virtually EVERY character i made that wasn't a caster. i generally had to overload on mundane gear and try to convince GMs to allow me to do stuff, even though technically my character might not have the stats/abilities to think it up.

to the point where i realized a few weeks ago when my 5th level PF wizard died and the rogue, while dragging my corpse outside of horrible monster range, was going over my item list for scrolls/wands/items he might be able to use to save the party looked at me cockeyed and said:

"... a bucket?"

to which i just gave him a blank stare and shrugged.

it's not that i want the entirety of my character's capabilities mapped out in the most minute of detail, but i do want a general idea of what he can do... and "whatever you (the player) can think of" doesn't help when i'm thinking about the character's capabilities.

this came out far wordier then i wanted it to, but i hope it explains a little better my disdain for how 3rd ed handled non-casters. 3.5 is ok at best for me when playing casters. the borked-ness can get irritating on both the player & GM side however, but i just cannot play non-casters at this point using the system.

i simply can't... and it bugs me because i want to.

@ Gametime: our PF gm pretty much banned all non-PF stuff, so i wouldn't mind seeing the PF fighter have a baby with 3.5's MiniHB's marshall and use that class instead.

it would be much rejoicing for me as i actually REALLY liked the ideas that class brought to the table when i discovered it, albeit a bit late in my 3rd ed career. the extra feats PF gives out would actually help give the Marshall the extra fighting capabilities needed to go toe-to-toe in full force with monsters rather then being the second-rate fighter it sometimes played like.