PDA

View Full Version : Knights & Sellswords (Discussing what warriors will do in the future)



Anderlith
2012-01-31, 07:47 PM
I know that there are a few 5e topics already, but this isn't necessarily about 5e it's also about Pathfinder & other games. This thread also has a much narrower focus. Warriors. Swordsmen. Large-man-standing-over-there-with-an-ax-&-a-scowl. They go by many names. but let's use "warrior" because it isn't a class & it can best describe marital characters without so much typing.

As the problem stands it is Linear Warrior Quadratic Mage. Warriors only do one thing (killin' stuff) while wizards can do so much more. They are just as capable (usually more than capable) as a warrior in a fight, but then they have an added layer of versatility that a warrior just cannot match.

Well let's try to fix that.

4e tried, they failed. Every class felt the same when you have x at-Wills x Encounters & x Dailies. Not to mention it seemed like you were playing a game & cut immersion with a red hot knife. They also allowed warriors to do some pretty wuxia type things were it was clear that this was non "verisimilitude" & made it seem like the warriors were mages but they just channeled it into killin' stuff.

The way I would change it is to actually add a layer of tactics to the game. As it stands it is hard to disarm someone & it is hard to trip someone unless you are playing an specialized character & even then using these "tactics" are usually passed up because hitting them is so much more rewarding (both mechanically & by satisfying player's bloodlust)

Make it so that you can fight in different stances that give you stat bonuses to certain actions & maybe giving you a slight drawback that can be exploited by your opponent. A stance like Zornhau would be good for controlling your opponents actions & dealing damage but would be lousy against more than one or two enemies. (So make flanking bonuses double or something) Next make it so that characters gain benefits for moving around & standing still (a different set for each) Allow them to make disarm attacks without so much penalty (They can literally cut a bear in half but they can't knock a dagger out of someone's hand?)

Take away any feat that gives you a tactical option & just plug it in as a tactical option. Those that want to be strategist will be strategist & those that just want to be killin' stuff can ignore the stuff they don't care about & just not use it. Warcrys that debuff enemies & speeches to increase morale. Warriors that band together side-by-side should be able to share AC & trigger attacks of opportunity against the enemy (One player attacks to open up the enemies defenses for his teammates attack)

Give the warrior options in a fight other than killin' stuff & you will see a dramatic increase of versatility in the martial area. A swiss army knife of a warrior is a warrior that can stand on par with a wizard (as long as the wizard isn't flying)

Discuss below, but please refrain from saying "Nerf wizards" because this is a thread about empowering the warrior not deflating the mages


TL;DR How do we make warriors fun again?

Loki_42
2012-01-31, 08:25 PM
More tactics can certainly help, but I think that high level warriors almost *have* to be unrealistic. Not necessarily "Wuxia", but Warriors have to be action heroes. And those guys all do pretty unrealistic moves. Make it subtle, make it fluffy, make it clearly stylistically distinct from magic, and definitely improve tactical options along with it, but let the mundanes go beyond the mundanes. They're high level, they deserve it.

Talakeal
2012-01-31, 09:17 PM
Simple fighter fixes:

Give them more skill points and a wider list of skills.
A lot more feats, at least one per level. By mid level the fighter class should provide most all of the weapon and armor focus / specializations lines, most of the PHB combat feats, and the mage slayer line.
Give fighters a few ways to escape magical shenanigans. Iron heart surge and some sort of maneuver that can cut through walls, force cages, and solid fog would be a good start.

It keeps them as a simple fighter, without many complex mechanics or a significant increase in raw power, but allows them to meaningfully contribute in most situations.

Manateee
2012-01-31, 09:28 PM
I don't mind non-magical Warriors surpassing human abilities, but I'd rather see it less combat-focused. (Or at least not strictly combat-focused)

I'd be way psyched to see epic-leveled Fighting Men that could crack mountains in half, drink oceans, or cut spells apart with their swords.

I definitely agree that D&D's "No, unless you have the NWP/Feat/Power" mentality is its most limiting and least fun aspect though.

kieza
2012-02-01, 01:25 AM
Well, I agree that giving Fighters (and Rangers/Rogues/Warlords) daily powers is a bad idea and that some of their powers are way over the top for a supposed mundane. But, I think that encounter powers are a reasonable representation of exhaustion, so I'd like to keep that in the game.

What I'd suggest to differentiate wizards and warriors is this: wizards should get nastier powers: wider areas, more crippling effects, more battlefield control, but not significantly higher damage, and the power discrepancy should be smaller. And of course, I'd like to see casters keep their daily powers (although maybe just one or two, not 4+).

To compensate, warriors would get a loosened action economy: not more standard actions, but more minor actions. In other words, the wizard can do one really nasty big thing with his standard action, and then he gets to move, do a small thing (minor), a few inconsequential things (free), and if the conditions are right, use an interrupt.

The warrior, on the other hand, can make his weapon attack and move, and can then self-heal a little as a minor action, raise his guard as another minor action, throw an axe as a third minor action, do some inconsequential stuff, and between turns he can step in front of an enemy charge, parry an attack against himself, and trip someone as they move away using his multiple interrupts.

Magic-wielding warriors would, of course, fall somewhere in the middle. It might be simplest to have different minor and interrupt action types for magic and mundane actions. So, a wizard would have a single arcane minor and a single arcane interrupt, a warrior might have three each of martial minor and interrupts. A swordmage or paladin would be somewhere in the middle: maybe one each of arcane minor, arcane interrupt, martial minor, martial interrupt? This is where my idea breaks down.

tl;dr: The wizard should get singular powerful actions (and dailies), the fighter should get myriad quick but weaker actions.

Spoilered stuff that gets more technical:

Rogues and Rangers
So, like frontline fighters, rogues and rangers would get more minor/interrupt actions, but where the fighter uses these actions to protect other characters and mitigate damage, I see the rogue using them more for control (knockdowns, daze/stuns, feints, etc.). The ranger could use them for aiming ranged weapons (attack bonus/precision damage), maneuvering around the enemy (for melee rangers), or to order a beast to attack (if animal companions make a comeback). And if the warlord makes a comeback, as I hope it does, he could use his for tactical manipulation: tell an ally to move one space, let them make a weak attack, tell them to duck an incoming attack, etc.

Power sources
Above, I talk about arcane vs. martial actions; you can of course extend this to divine, primal, psionic, etc., and it would serve the cause of further distinguishing the power sources, which is one of the big things some people have asked for.

I'm really just brainstorming here, but you could have divine get few minor actions but lots of interrupts, representing their deity looking out for them without their conscious thought.

Primal is hard to pin down, but one of the things that seemed to be a theme with 4e primal classes was their game-changing pseudo-stances: barbarian rage, warden forms, etc., and that could play into their variation of the action economy.

And I think I've got a good one for psionic: since they've involved some form of power points since at least 3e, you can give them few (or no) minor/interrupt actions by default, but let them spend their power points to use free action powers a certain number of times per round. They could do more per round than even martial characters for a short time, but then they'd be completely exhausted.

Multiclassing

This is the other place where my idea would have to get complex. I don't want a return to 3.5 multiclassing, where a multiclass character winds up with the low-level features of multiple classes, or becomes absolutely unstoppable by stacking together several classes' worth of features. I prefer 4e's approach, which is to allow characters to trade a little of their primary class' power for a sample of another's powers. In the setup I'm talking about here, though, that means that multiclassing will involve changing the character's action economy.

Arbane
2012-02-01, 04:37 AM
I definitely agree that D&D's "No, unless you have the NWP/Feat/Power" mentality is its most limiting and least fun aspect though.

This part, _definitely_.

One random idea I had: Toss out most of the feats like Improved Disarm/Trip/Whatever, and the feats like Power Attack, Manyshot, Whirlwind attack and Pounce, etc etc. Instead, doing those moves either has a hefty penalty (to to-hit, AC, or whatever), OR you have to spend 'fighting points' to offset the penalties (because I can't think of a good name). Pure fighting classes like Fighter and Barbarian get a lot of these, in-between classes like Rogue get a few, casters get next-to-none. You get back one (or a small number) a round, and you have to spend them to do nifty combat tricks. So a mage can do maybe one martial trick per fight, but the fighter can use one or two a round for the entire battle.

I think this could make Fighters more interesting in combat without forcing them to specialize in one or two schticks, but they're STILL going to be rendered trivial by the guys who can break physics by waggling their fingers. I'm not sure what can be done about that without either beating the casters into the ground with the nerfbat or turning the non-casters into wuxia heroes or Solar Exalted.

Vitruviansquid
2012-02-01, 05:34 AM
I don't see how you could both declare 4e's changes to be failures AND ask for a solution that's not nerfing wizards.

The way I see it, if you wanted to make the game fun for warriors, you need to balance the classes. If you balance the classes, you need to either give the endgame warrior the same omnipotence as 3.5 and earlier's wizards (which would break immersion for you) have or you need to make the wizards have the same specialization as the warriors (which would mean nerfing the wizards).

You can't just tweak the numbers here and there or make the warrior able to know more skills, stances, or feats. If you want to balance the warrior to the wizard, you need to make the warrior have the same cosmic power because the wizard's power never came from his numbers, it came from his ability to handwave away problems presented by the DM or alter the world in so many ways that DMs can't prepare for them all.

As long as you continue to think of warriors as Joes restricted by laws of "realism," I don't see how they could ever be as powerful as wizards.

Arbane
2012-02-01, 06:32 AM
Actually, I'd argue it's possible to make the game fun for non-magic players _without_ having to make mundanes just as powerful as casters - the Buffy the Vampire Slayer game apparently did a pretty good job of giving the inherently weaker characters just as important and having as much Cool Stuff to do as the supernatural characters.

But how to do it in D&D?

Mastikator
2012-02-01, 06:36 AM
To be honest? Just grant warriors more magical abilities. I know rangers, paladins and monks already have them. Give them more. Give some magic to barbarians and fighters ok? OK?
Maybe bonus feats where they can choose stuff like "supernatural rage, grants force damage to attacks", or just something!

Wiwaxia
2012-02-01, 07:02 AM
I don't see how you could both declare 4e's changes to be failures AND ask for a solution that's not nerfing wizards.


They're not saying that beefing up the non-casters is a bad idea, they're saying 4e did it badly, by making everything too standardized. It's a valid complaint, though it's less of an issue in later 4e books.
I don't buy the "breaking immersion" complaint, though. I like my melee classes doing ridiculous and unrealistic things, and having it limited to 1 a day is no more ridiculous than Vancian magic. If you look at the old myths, Herakles didn't just hit things with a sword, he whipped rivers around with his bare hands and held up the sky itself, for a time. In a low fantasy game, yeah, that's not gonna fly, but wizards shouldn't be dong much more than fireball, either.

Eldan
2012-02-01, 07:23 AM
I'd say giving warriors more ways to influence combat will not even remotely help them approach a mage's versatility. In combat, they can at least hold their own up to a certain level. It is out of combat that they are lacking.

Mastikator
2012-02-01, 07:36 AM
Well don't they?
Rangers can survive in the wilderness (something other classes shouldn't be able to), and they can track things.
Paladins have magical abilities that let them sense who is evil, potentially making them super-cops. They are also potentially diplomancers. But too few skills honestly.
Fighters, and the TOB classes got nothing, for sure.
Barbarians got a little wilderness habits too.

Wizards got nothing, unless they prepare a spell specifically for it. And if you want to limit the wizard's number of spells (or make them cost what they're actually worth), which would force them to choose between what they want to be good at, instead of just letting them handle any situation, then people cry foul.

Yora
2012-02-01, 07:49 AM
I'd say giving warriors more ways to influence combat will not even remotely help them approach a mage's versatility. In combat, they can at least hold their own up to a certain level. It is out of combat that they are lacking.
The problem is that in D&D, a wizard can do everything. There is no limitation what a wizard can't do, so any other character automatically is less versatile than them.

Anderlith
2012-02-01, 08:20 AM
I don't see how you could both declare 4e's changes to be failures AND ask for a solution that's not nerfing wizards.

The way I see it, if you wanted to make the game fun for warriors, you need to balance the classes. If you balance the classes, you need to either give the endgame warrior the same omnipotence as 3.5 and earlier's wizards (which would break immersion for you) have or you need to make the wizards have the same specialization as the warriors (which would mean nerfing the wizards).

You can't just tweak the numbers here and there or make the warrior able to know more skills, stances, or feats. If you want to balance the warrior to the wizard, you need to make the warrior have the same cosmic power because the wizard's power never came from his numbers, it came from his ability to handwave away problems presented by the DM or alter the world in so many ways that DMs can't prepare for them all.

As long as you continue to think of warriors as Joes restricted by laws of "realism," I don't see how they could ever be as powerful as wizards.

It's not that I don't agree that wizards need nerfed. I do want mages to be nerfed. I just don't want people discussing it within this thread.

Tengu_temp
2012-02-01, 04:52 PM
4e tried, they failed. Every class felt the same when you have x at-Wills x Encounters & x Dailies. Not to mention it seemed like you were playing a game & cut immersion with a red hot knife. They also allowed warriors to do some pretty wuxia type things were it was clear that this was non "verisimilitude" & made it seem like the warriors were mages but they just channeled it into killin' stuff.

Actually, where 4e failed is that the combat system is sluggish and unexciting, so no class is very fun to play. Balancing wizards and fighters, and other classes? They actually did a pretty good job with that. I've never heard someone who played 4e more than a tiny bit complain that every class feels the same. A wizard plays very different from a fighter, who plays very different from a rogue. They just all use similar power mechanics, which is a good thing - it's called streamlining the system.

What I'd like to see is a ToB-like system of encounter powers that can be recharged in different ways, depending on your class - and every class would use something like that, but with different maneuvers/spells and different mechanisms of obtaining and recovering them.

Morty
2012-02-01, 05:04 PM
Well, the problem with not discussing nerfing wizards in such a thread is that if wizards - and other spellcasters - have as much power as they do in 3rd edition, nothing they do to non-spellcasters is going to be enough.
Discussing the specifics of how to make warriors cool and useful is a bit hard, given that, well, we know precisely nothing about how 5th edition is going to actually look like. We shouldn't assume that it's going to remotely resemble 3rd edition any more than 4e does.
Still, I think that more than feats, class features or whatever the warriors need a combat system that's fun and versatile. They ought to be able to perform inventive manuevers, cool tricks and outrageous stunts without having to have a feat, power, manuever or feature that allows them to do so. Within reason, of course, and appropriate to their level - on 1st level, tripping an enemy so that he kills his ally by accident is a cool manuever, whereas on 20th level, it's going to be something like bringing down a building down with a well-aimed powerful blow. Either way, special features should be an icing on the cake. I suppose it would be going back to the days of AD&D - 3rd edition suffers from the "You can't do it without an appropriate feat" problem and from what I know, so does 4th edition, only in 4e it's powers and not feats.
Finally, I think what warriors need is an AC and HP system - or whatever form those things take in 5e - that works properly. If the combatants have to focus on not getting hit and it's not possible to shrug off multiple crossbow bolts in a short amount of time, combat becomes much more exciting.

shardplot
2012-02-01, 06:09 PM
A few ways of actually making warriors touger is go back to old school logic. The only class that got multiple attacks was warriors/paladins/rangers.

It would be nice if the made warrior types even better at being warriors. Make them be able to choose offensive, balanced, defensive styles. Where offensive allows them huge bonuses to hit. Defensive huge bonuses to AR and balanced a mixture of both.

Allow them to but multiple profs in the same weapon like the D&D cyclopedia did so a high level fighter can do up to 4d8 with a longsword instead of a normal picking it up and doing 1d8.

Lots of solutions for this problem have been used in the past. Mix and match some of those to make the warrior what he should be. A god on the field of battle.

TheThan
2012-02-01, 09:29 PM
See the problem is not damage or power level, the problem is dynamics. The DnD magic system(s) give the player a tremendous amount of options, so much so that almost on a whim, a dnd spell caster can set his character up to do any given task. If he wants to blast away with aoe and other damage spells, he can, if he wants to control the battlefield with aoe control and direct target control spells, he can. If he wants to sit back and play a pure support role, buffing allies and summoning monsters, he can. If he wants to do all of the above to some degree, he can. He can do all this and more by simply deciding what spells he wants to use today. His class is very open and dynamic. A warrior is not dynamic. You can squeeze as much damage you want out of power attack (and believe me, warriors can do TONS of damage) but you’ll still will not be dynamic.

What I mean is that warriors need to have options; they need to be able to do different things in combat. When you two weapon fight all day, it’s boring. When you do power attacks all day, it’s still boring. When you do trip attacks all day, it’s boring. When you do disarm attacks all day, it’s also boring. Regardless of how much damage you put out, warriors are not dynamic, they’re static. They sit there and do one thing, and only one thing.

Warriors need to be able to do different things during a single combat. 4E was a good start, what with powers and all. But the problem is that the at will/encounter/ daily system doesn’t make sense as a warrior. “Why can I only use this only ability once per day?”It is also very easy to fall into a routine. “ I use “X” at will power until the monster is almost dead, then I use “Y” encounter power to finish him, then when we fight the big boss at the end of the day, I use “Z” daily. Routines are boring."

Now, what I want is an open, dynamic system. I want to be able to do a charge into a group of bad guys, body checking the first one, and knocking him back away from the others with my initial attack, then sweep my weapon through an enemy’s legs, dumping him on his back, THEN whirl around in a blaze of deadly steel, slaughtering the rest of them. That is much more fun and entertaining than simply doing the same thing day in and day out.

So give me a system where I have options, where I can do awesome things and “be a badass”. That’s what being a warrior is all about. Kicking tail and chewing bubblegum.

Manateee
2012-02-01, 10:26 PM
I remember someone throwing around the idea of giving the players of nonmagical characters extra narrative options, like the metagame ability to introduce NPCs, weaknesses in a villain's spell or machine or other minor plot points.

I'm not the biggest fan of that (there are plenty of games that do a better and more coherent job of it than D&D would), but it might be an idea worth kicking around.

Dervag
2012-02-01, 11:52 PM
Actually, I'd argue it's possible to make the game fun for non-magic players _without_ having to make mundanes just as powerful as casters - the Buffy the Vampire Slayer game apparently did a pretty good job of giving the inherently weaker characters just as important and having as much Cool Stuff to do as the supernatural characters.

But how to do it in D&D?Yes- in D&D, the expectation is that all characters will participate in the same events, not just have one guy off doing something while someone else does another thing. Also, Buffy had the weaker characters often accomplishing things through character development and personality, which is good but can't be built into the system in advance.


I'd say giving warriors more ways to influence combat will not even remotely help them approach a mage's versatility. In combat, they can at least hold their own up to a certain level. It is out of combat that they are lacking.Honestly, having them perform adequately in combat up to high levels would fix the worst of it. "Great in a fight, lost outside one" is a valid character niche in D&D. Other classes can emphasize magic, crafting, negotiations, and so on.

To quote and adapt the words of, well, me...

There's a strong implication in some of the class names that the members of that class are good at something in particular. Rangers range, thieves thieve. Sorcerors use sorcery, dwarven defenders defend, duelists duel, and initiates of the Sevenfold Veil are initiated in some kind of veil that probably has about seven folds.

And they should be better at those jobs than anyone else- no one can steal quite like a dedicated thief, no one can use sorcery quite like a sorcerer. No one not initiated into the mysteries of the Sevenfold Veil should even know what the hell that class does. :smallbiggrin:

But fighters... aren't the best at fighting. Not in 3rd Edition. Hence the complaint. It's okay if they're not good at things which have nothing to do with fighting, just as we accept that the sorceror (who's great at sorcery) might not be so good at needlepoint or something. But a sorceror who can't use sorcery is useless.

paddyfool
2012-02-02, 09:19 AM
I feel like I want to say this on a lot of threads: please have a look at Fantasy Craft. It fixes this, making melee types and skillmonkeys roughly balanced with casters (to a large degree, anyway... something of 3.5's linear vs quadratic still lingers on, but it kicks in rather later), while leaving spellcasters as a fun and very distinct option.

lesser_minion
2012-02-03, 07:49 AM
I don't think it actually makes sense to try to play a non-magical character in a game about a magical world. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't be able to play warriors, it means that, on some level, no matter what you write on your character sheet, your character will have been touched by magic in some way.

If you're willing to accept that, then one way to handle things might be to just give actual spells to the warriors. If we're willing to accept that anyone can pick up a sword and swing it (with varying degrees of success), we should be willing to accept that anyone can open a book and follow the recipe it contains (again, with varying degrees of success).

If magical beings have unusual defences against weapons, then the first thing any sensible D&D martial arts school would teach its students is how to overcome them. Likewise, if they have exotic attacks that can't be parried or that armour cannot defend against, the second thing any sensible D&D martial arts school would teach its students is how to protect against those. In other words, every 'realistic' fighter should know and be able to cast a spell like magic weapon and a spell that gives normal armour the [force] descriptor.

In both cases, there is nothing inherently objectionable about those being 'spells', even though you're not a dedicated caster.

People -- even professional designers -- have spent years coming up with all sorts of ill-conceived, clunky, inconsistent, and mutually-incompatible workarounds for D&D's lack of a sensible set of hedge magic rules. How is this an improvement on simply writing a sensible set of hedge magic rules, exactly?

Jerthanis
2012-02-03, 08:23 PM
What I would personally like to see is a lot of the non-magic user classes rolled up into one class with tons of options.

So there wouldn't be Ranger, Rogue, Barbarian, Fighter, Swashbuckler, Knight; there'd be a single class that could pick and choose the abilities most appropriate and attractive to his purposes from among many available options at each level.

As far as balancing the Linear Warrior, Quadratic Wizard problem, I think 4e actually did it just about right. Separate "In-combat" magic from "Out-of-Combat" magic and measure the effectiveness of "In-combat" magic against the possible in-combat actions of the fighter type, then make Out of Combat magic more time consuming, less reliable or more expensive than mundane solutions to problems. Just don't make it all three. Also, don't ship the game with an anemic list of rituals and barely add any rituals over the life of the game.

ngilop
2012-02-03, 10:55 PM
For me the simple way to boost warriors is to nerf full casters.


Givign full casters abilities/spell that allow themt o fight as good, or much better as is usually the case that a class that is build solely around walking up to the guy and smacking him in the face, if in my opinion inherently an atrocious idea. If a cleric gets a spell or abiliyt, or whatever than allows him to fight as good as a Fighter, that spell shoudl come waaay later that what a fighter could do . i.e i fel that Divine power should be a 2nd level spell instead of 1st and Righteous might.. well.. yeah,, Wizards spells that do thats hould be pushed back even Further!

there are 2 great Fighter fixes on the homebrewed forums Here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=194834)
and here pt 1 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12509867&postcount=7) pt 2 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12509927&postcount=8)

paddyfool
2012-02-04, 08:21 AM
For me the simple way to boost warriors is to nerf full casters.


That's kind of how FC does it. When you compare the casting power level to 3.5... well, there's really no comparison, even if you were to turn on all of the campaign qualities which boost casting. But on the other hand, casters get to be good at other things besides casting, and are definitely fun to play.

Seerow
2012-02-04, 09:57 AM
Honestly the first and foremost issue should be addressing out of combat utility. Balancing in combat usefulness is actually relatively easy. While the Wizard is stronger there, it isn't something that's impossible to fix.

However, most mundanes have one or two niche areas where they can contribute out of combat. Wizards on the other hand can contribute to literally every aspect of non combat, and almost always in a way better than what the mundane can do. That is the real issue.


I think a good start would be coming up with discrete areas of non-combat capability (ie groupings like Travel, Info Gathering, Social, Traps/Locks/other devices, etc), and depending on how many different categories you end up coming up with, I'd say you want 1 thing that any given class really excels at, 1-3 things that the class is capable of doing, and the rest are just not possible with that class.

This means that casting classes need restricted spell lists. The reason Beguilers/Dread Necros end up at tier 3 isn't because they're not still combat monsters as full casters, it's because their out of combat utility, while still there, is nowhere near as high as a normal wizard.

This also means that mundane ways of doing things need to get much better. If your Ranger's primary out of combat niche is Travel, because that's what Rangers do, he shouldn't be getting shown up by a caster half his level at what he does best. If your Rogue's primary focus is devices, then a Druid shouldn't be able to obviate him with a couple of spells. And so on.


Basically you come up with a list of appropriate out of combat lists. Figure out what sort of effects are level appropriate for most levels for that niche as a primary and a secondary. Then start assigning abilities based on that.



A possibility is to let these niches be chosen by the character, regardless of class, but then that takes you back to people complaining about default spells not having enough utility. Merely to avoid that complaint you have to have the effects built into the spell system for casters, even if effectively it ends up at the same thing.

OverdrivePrime
2012-02-04, 10:48 AM
Killin' stuff with sticks is easy. Killin' stuff with magic is hard.
If you want to represent the time and dedication it takes for a mage to learn her craft and advance in power, you could always just triple the experience points it takes for someone to gain a level in a full-caster class.

That way we might actually see some real greybeard wizards, instead of a bunch of 22-year-old archmages and useless sidekick friends.

Seerow
2012-02-04, 11:04 AM
Killin' stuff with sticks is easy. Killin' stuff with magic is hard.
If you want to represent the time and dedication it takes for a mage to learn her craft and advance in power, you could always just triple the experience points it takes for someone to gain a level in a full-caster class.

That way we might actually see some real greybeard wizards, instead of a bunch of 22-year-old archmages and useless sidekick friends.


First, this is a terrible way of balance that doesn't actually solve anything. It's a poor band-aid at best.

Second, even if you do balance that way, you'll have a 12th level Wizard vs a 20th level Fighter. I'm pretty sure that comparison is still weighted favorably towards the Wizard in combat, and out of combat, the wizard still dominates everything.

ngilop
2012-02-04, 04:29 PM
I have to disagree somewhat with what Seerow had said. Out of combat disparity of power between Wizards, Druids, and Clerics at leats in my experiences, are are drasticlly above and beyond say a Fighter's or a Rogue's. It may be becuase the groups I play in tend to roleplay more than rule play when not in combat. so the distance between those classes are more easily closed as all the players and DMs I have gamed with are genrally around the same level of immersion.


though I do concur that rule wise. The weight of both in combat and out of combat power and versatility anything with spells beats anything without. Though as long as the majority of people belive and feel that
mundane can't have nice things and
there should be a spell that does/is for that The gap will only widen and never adjoin.

Libertad
2012-02-04, 05:40 PM
For flavor, place more emphasis on the idea of a fighter being intelligent and "skilled." Famous warriors of history were great diplomats, scholars, poets, and cerebral thinkers. A more diverse skill list and out-of-combat utility would definitely help warrior types.

Level and CR consistency. In theory, a 15th level Wizard should be just as much of a challenge as a 15th level Fighter or Rogue. All these classes should have a big grab bag of tricks and tactics to do stuff.

Gimmick abilities shouldn't require significant feat/power sinks. Spending two feats to disarm opponents with provoking Attacks of Opportunity just doesn't feel epic. This is bad when in 3rd Edition most characters have only 7 feats. Abilities for fighters, be they feats or class features, need to be useful and versatile enough to be effective against a variety of opponents, particularly if their selection is ~10 abilities instead of a massive spell list.

A willingness to incorporate things that spells do: Nobody bats and eye when spellcasters get area effect attacks, Save or Lose spells, and conveniently easy ways to inflict status effects on opponents. Tome of Battle was a step in the right direction, but didn't bridge the caster-noncaster gap fully. Additionally, fighters need effective and easy ways to fight flying, invisible, and incorporeal opponents without magical assistance. Sometimes things do bad in the dungeon, and the wizard gets killed by a lucky critical and the Cleric's dropped unconscious from a potent poison. If the party can sort of function with spellcasters but fall apart without them, you need to make the noncasters less dependent. I'm not saying to disregard teamwork so much as that the party needs to be able to fight if a PC drops.

And finally, don't use "limits of a realistic human being" as a benchmark. I don't care if it breaks verisimilitude for physics nerds, warriors will never be as good an option as casters if their archetype is limited to "realism." There shouldn't be anything wrong with a dwarven warrior applying a shield bonus to AC against a Storm Giant, or Jumping 30 feet over a pit. Wizards can erect Walls of Stone in battle and Fly for hours at a time with Overland Flight.

navar100
2012-02-04, 06:40 PM
If 5E keeps the concept of "you can't do that without a feat", then the solution is to improve the feats by making them scale with level. You only need one feat for a particular combat style. As you gain levels, that one feat allows for more abilities. For example, Cleave, Great Cleave, Whirlwind Attack could be combined as one. You can probably still allow for doing such things without the feat but have the feat make you better at it.

While the warrior should have nice things, it does not offend me some things he can't do without magic support. A warrior is not going to fly without some magical aid. No class feature will allow him to do it on his own. (Flying mount class feature accepted.) Deal with it. However, it would be nice if archery was a significant combat option such that an opposing flying creature wouldn't be impossible for the warrior to face. Not just in damage but perhaps an arrow shot can hurt the opponent such that he can't fly as well as normal or causes pain represented by penalties to make attacking the creature easier for the rest of the combat. At some level archery allows for forcing the flying creature to land.

It's also ok for a spellcaster to have some things that make life for a warrior difficult. Warriors should have some things that make life for a spellcaster difficult as well.

jindra34
2012-02-04, 07:54 PM
Honestly if fixing the fighter I would start with the hp and damage scaling, 1d8+a small amount can matter early on but at latter levels it takes plus a whole lot to even be significant. Meanwhile casters get things that do ever increasing damage. I would cut casters down to a relatively damage per spell with range, targets and/or area being dependent on level and cut down on the HP per level severely (as in 1-3 per level tops past first). Add in some kind of defensive options for the warriors and I think you might get better balance.

Anderlith
2012-02-04, 10:41 PM
Alright, if I can't get everyone to not talk about nerfing the wizards I might as well put my two cents in.

There should be fewer spells in general, you don't need 24 different spells that deal fire damage to your enemy. Make one fire spell for each way you deal damage. Bolt/ Burst/ Beam/ Bomb/ Blast. damage will scale to level. Remove spells that give you skill bonuses, it just shouldn't have been their in the first place. Give them interesting ways to fail spells & interesting things that happen when they fail.


Warriors on the other hand need more scaling bonuses, as I said before they need to have stances & such that allow them to do things effectively on every level. I'd like to see magical swords do xd8 not 1d8+x it would stress the difference between a magical sword & a magical dagger, & be a lot better & dealing hurt.

navar100
2012-02-04, 11:18 PM
Bad guys making the saving throw is enough of a spell fails scenario. No need to punish the spellcaster further. That is analogous to the warrior missing on his attack roll. Nothing happens to the warrior when he misses. Nothing should happen to the spellcaster when the spell "misses".

Anderlith
2012-02-04, 11:23 PM
Bad guys making the saving throw is enough of a spell fails scenario. No need to punish the spellcaster further. That is analogous to the warrior missing on his attack roll. Nothing happens to the warrior when he misses. Nothing should happen to the spellcaster when the spell "misses".

I never said something should happen if the caster misses. But I do think there should be consequences for tapping into the primal energies of the cosmos to light your campfire. Make them roll a skill check (Spellcraft maybe) & if they fail they roll on a chart of minor to major nasty magical side-effects. Like in Warhammer fantasy.

Starbuck_II
2012-02-05, 12:27 AM
There should be fewer spells in general, you don't need 24 different spells that deal fire damage to your enemy. Make one fire spell for each way you deal damage. Bolt/ Burst/ Beam/ Bomb/ Blast. damage will scale to level. Remove spells that give you skill bonuses, it just shouldn't have been their in the first place. Give them interesting ways to fail spells & interesting things that happen when they fail.

What about other stuff like catching them on fire, pyrotechnic ways, and you forget wall spells.

They should do skyrim way ay least:
Fire

1: Fire Cone (burning hands type with expanding range as your level) that catches enemy on fire
2: Fire ray (beam?): that catches enemy on fire
3: Fireball (bomb?) that catches enemy on fire
4: Fire blast: over time burns area with fireball effect (Firestorm closest D&D analog)
5: Fire burst: Flame Cloak only one I can think of but that is Fireshield (fire)effect in D&D.
6: Fire trap (traps that are on nearby squares and explode if enemy walk on it).
7: Fire walls: walls of fire of course.

This gives Fire a niche as best damage (since it also catches people on fire though that is only 1d6 a rd till stop, drop, and roll or something)

Ice

1: Ice Cone (snowball swarm in spell compendruim) that slows enemy (numbs them)
2: Ray of Frost (beam?): that slows enemy (numbs them)
3: Iceblast (bomb?) that slows enemy (numbs them)
4: Ice storm : over time damages and slows enemy (numbs them)
5: Ice burst: Ice Cloak only one I can think of but that is Fireshield (cold)effect in D&D.
6: Ice trap (traps that are on nearby squares and explode if enemy walk on it).
7: Ice walls: walls of Cold of course.

Ice: can numb (slow) giving it tactical abilities. It isn't as damaging right out, but slow enemies are weasier to beat.

Lightning doesn't do anything special in skyrim but few are resistant to it for balance.

The side effecrds would happen on a failed save.
So Fireball would be 5d6, DC X, 1/2, Dex save (since they are going to saves of all stats). Fail: on fire 1 rd/level.
Thus, at lower levels the side effect is awesome, less at higher levels but not unnoticable (casting is not easy when on fire).



Warriors need to be able to do different things during a single combat. 4E was a good start, what with powers and all. But the problem is that the at will/encounter/ daily system doesn’t make sense as a warrior. “Why can I only use this only ability once per day?”It is also very easy to fall into a routine. “ I use “X” at will power until the monster is almost dead, then I use “Y” encounter power to finish him, then when we fight the big boss at the end of the day, I use “Z” daily. Routines are boring."

If using 4E as example:
Then the solution is non-magical warriors ) barbarians get rage so not non-magical) get more encounters no dailies? Rangers are spellcasters but we can count them as warriors I guess.
Instead they may use a Daily as a encounter (with a penalty like slowed 1 rd or penalty to AC to balance it). These are reasons why he doesn't do it all the time as it lowers his ability to defend (bad stance in essence). Real sword fighting is all about stance.

So level 1 Ranger gets
At wills: twin strike, nimble strike
encounter: two fanged strike, Extra: Hunters bear trap (but using imposes -2 AC for 1 rd)

Level 1 Fighter:
at wills: Cleave, Sure strike
Encounter: Steel Serpant strike, Extra:
Brutal Strike (slowed 1 rd as the strike feedback weakens you knees or something)
or
Villain's Menance (-2 AC vs other targets as you are focused on that one intently)

So Wizards still have dailies, but Fighters get more encounters (used to be dailies).

Seerow
2012-02-05, 12:58 AM
Alright, if I can't get everyone to not talk about nerfing the wizards I might as well put my two cents in.

There should be fewer spells in general, you don't need 24 different spells that deal fire damage to your enemy. Make one fire spell for each way you deal damage. Bolt/ Burst/ Beam/ Bomb/ Blast. damage will scale to level. Remove spells that give you skill bonuses, it just shouldn't have been their in the first place. Give them interesting ways to fail spells & interesting things that happen when they fail.


If we're going this way, I'd handle it by using more metamagics.


Casters get an at will blast similar to a Warlock's Eldritch Blast, that deals 1d6/2 levels, as an at will ability.

You then have a bunch of metamagic shaping effects that can be applied to that spontaneously, taking up spell slots.

So you have a +1 spell level that increases damage to 1d6/level. A +1 spell level that lets you hit twice. (so a 1st level spell with a CL6 could either be 6d6 damage, or 3d6 twice. Or a 2nd level spell could be 6d6 twice, a la scorching ray). A line might be only a +1 spell level, while ball or cone is +2 spell levels. Wall might be +4 spell levels. Basically balance loosely around where DD spells are, but if in doubt, go in favor of the cheaper version, because direct damage generally sucks. Especially with the second part, which would be banning all metamagic cost reducers.

TheThan
2012-02-05, 03:41 AM
If using 4E as example:
Then the solution is non-magical warriors ) barbarians get rage so not non-magical) get more encounters no dailies? Rangers are spellcasters but we can count them as warriors I guess.
Instead they may use a Daily as a encounter (with a penalty like slowed 1 rd or penalty to AC to balance it). These are reasons why he doesn't do it all the time as it lowers his ability to defend (bad stance in essence). Real sword fighting is all about stance.

So level 1 Ranger gets
At wills: twin strike, nimble strike
encounter: two fanged strike, Extra: Hunters bear trap (but using imposes -2 AC for 1 rd)

Level 1 Fighter:
at wills: Cleave, Sure strike
Encounter: Steel Serpant strike, Extra:
Brutal Strike (slowed 1 rd as the strike feedback weakens you knees or something)
or
Villain's Menance (-2 AC vs other targets as you are focused on that one intently)

So Wizards still have dailies, but Fighters get more encounters (used to be dailies).

I want to dump the “per day/encounter/at will” set up entirely. What I was thinking actually is something more like 3.5’s psionics power point system.

Each of your powers cost points (call them "fatigue points" or something). So you have no restrictions on what ability you can use when. Instead you have to manage your resources throughout the day. The plus side is that you can do all that cool stuff all in a single combat, but if you keep doing it every combat, you’ll run out of points to use your abilities and need to rest to regenerate your pool of points (recover from fatigue). Inversely if you “save” your “fatigue points” too much then you are hindering yourself in combat and not doing what warrior types are supposed to do.

Granted this would have to be balanced between how many encounters the Dm throws at the party per day, and how many "fatigue points" the warrior types gets to begin with. I imagine fighters and barbarians having the most, while paladins and rangers having fewer, and rogues and monks having the least. Thematically I never really liked the ranger as a "caster" so I’m throwing him in as a warrior. Paladins', I'm OK with as they are supposedly "fueled" by their god/cause. The half casting of paladins and rangers (in 3.x) is lousy anyway. If they were set up like the bard, then I’d be ok with it, but they're not.

[edit]

Using your example:
Ranger:
Ranger “fatigue point” pool: 25/25
Ranger Combat powers:
Twin strike: 4 points to activate
Nimble strike: 5 points to activate
Two fanged strike: 6 points to activate
Hunters bear trap: 7 points to activate

Fighter:
Fighter “fatigue point” pool: 56
Cleave: 8 to activate
Sure strike: 9 to activate
Steel Serpant strike: 10 to activate
Brutal Strike: 11 to activate
Villain's Menance: 12 to activate

Granted I pulled these numbers out of my tail end. But you should get the idea. Both characters can blow all their points in one combat, using all of their abilities once, they may have some left over, but it’s not enough to keep doing the cool abilities (I imagine basic attacks are free). If they spread out their usage of their points, then they can keep using their abilities over a much longer period of time.

paddyfool
2012-02-05, 07:03 AM
If 5E keeps the concept of "you can't do that without a feat", then the solution is to improve the feats by making them scale with level. You only need one feat for a particular combat style. As you gain levels, that one feat allows for more abilities. For example, Cleave, Great Cleave, Whirlwind Attack could be combined as one. You can probably still allow for doing such things without the feat but have the feat make you better at it.

While the warrior should have nice things, it does not offend me some things he can't do without magic support. A warrior is not going to fly without some magical aid. No class feature will allow him to do it on his own. (Flying mount class feature accepted.) Deal with it. However, it would be nice if archery was a significant combat option such that an opposing flying creature wouldn't be impossible for the warrior to face. Not just in damage but perhaps an arrow shot can hurt the opponent such that he can't fly as well as normal or causes pain represented by penalties to make attacking the creature easier for the rest of the combat. At some level archery allows for forcing the flying creature to land.

It's also ok for a spellcaster to have some things that make life for a warrior difficult. Warriors should have some things that make life for a spellcaster difficult as well.

Yeah, this really isn't a problem in Fantasy Craft. Weapons with the trip quality, like Bolas, can cause smaller and less-manoeverable flyers to just drop out of the sky. Ranged combat in general is more dangerous; and whether you're using thrown weapons, bows, black powder weapons or siege weaponry, you can make a good impression with them pretty easily.

Plus, if you want to ride a dragon into combat at level 1, or even be a dragon, the rules allow for it very easily indeed.

navar100
2012-02-05, 02:39 PM
I never said something should happen if the caster misses. But I do think there should be consequences for tapping into the primal energies of the cosmos to light your campfire. Make them roll a skill check (Spellcraft maybe) & if they fail they roll on a chart of minor to major nasty magical side-effects. Like in Warhammer fantasy.

That's punishing the spellcaster for the audacity of trying to cast a spell, the whole point of being a spellcaster. A warrior doesn't lose hit points for missing his opponent. He doesn't take a penalty to hit or AC for missing his opponent. He doesn't hit an ally for missing his opponent. He doesn't give an ally a penalty for missing his opponent. A spellcaster should not suffer such things or cause such things to happen to make PCs' life miserable because he misses with a spell. Missing with the spell is "punishing" enough, just like a warrior missing to hit his opponent.

ngilop
2012-02-05, 02:52 PM
One question.. how does a spell caster 'miss' with a spell.. the vast majority of spells are save for half.. does a fighter deal half dmg even when he misses?

Siegel
2012-02-05, 03:59 PM
One question.. how does a spell caster 'miss' with a spell.. the vast majority of spells are save for half.. does a fighter deal half dmg even when he misses?

Why can i channel the raw powers of creations through my body without risking bodily harm and pain for my soul?

Magic in DnD is really really powerfull because it doesn't cost anything, there is no risk. When casting Wish or Creation is as safe as firing an arrow than magic needs to be scaled down.

If casting a 9th level spell is throughly dangerous than casters can and should be more powerful.

A lof of other systems have cost for magic, DnD doesn't.

And don't come to me with limited spellslots, that is not a drawback

Anderlith
2012-02-05, 04:01 PM
That's punishing the spellcaster for the audacity of trying to cast a spell, the whole point of being a spellcaster. A warrior doesn't lose hit points for missing his opponent. He doesn't take a penalty to hit or AC for missing his opponent. He doesn't hit an ally for missing his opponent. He doesn't give an ally a penalty for missing his opponent. A spellcaster should not suffer such things or cause such things to happen to make PCs' life miserable because he misses with a spell. Missing with the spell is "punishing" enough, just like a warrior missing to hit his opponent.

Dude, calm down. AS I SAID BEFORE. He would not "suffer" for missing. He "suffers" for casting. Cause why shouldn't someone "suffer" to channel magic? All magic comes with a price

ngilop
2012-02-05, 04:08 PM
also a fighter does indeed suffer for missing. he DOES lose HP for missing. unlike a caster who can literally never be in hamrs way a fighter, rogue, and even a paladin have to get into the thick of things and risk.

there is no risk with magic you just cast a spell and even if there is a successful save against your spell. a caster's spell tend to do at least something. while a mundane has this choice. either kill teh guy in 1 hit or get hurt.

Siegel
2012-02-05, 04:19 PM
apples and oranges

Starbuck_II
2012-02-05, 04:22 PM
Magic in DnD is really really powerfull because it doesn't cost anything, there is no risk. When casting Wish or Creation is as safe as firing an arrow than magic needs to be scaled down.

If casting a 9th level spell is throughly dangerous than casters can and should be more powerful.

A lof of other systems have cost for magic, DnD doesn't.

And don't come to me with limited spellslots, that is not a drawback

Wait, Wish isn't safe, it has risks if you go out of certain limitations. And even when safe it costs XP.

Limited spell slots are a limitation.

If you remove limited spell slots but add drawbacks: I could see balance.

ngilop
2012-02-05, 04:41 PM
I think that siegel is under the impression that even though I am saying the same thing he is, we are on opposing sides.. that or he keeps misquoting the wrong person.


Siegel.. we are on teh same sid eman in case you do not already know.

navar100
2012-02-05, 04:42 PM
Dude, calm down. AS I SAID BEFORE. He would not "suffer" for missing. He "suffers" for casting. Cause why shouldn't someone "suffer" to channel magic? All magic comes with a price

Doesn't matter. He's still "suffering" regardless. Forcing the character to suffer for casting a spell is what's punishing the player for the nerve of playing a character who wants to cast a spell. The whole point of playing a spellcaster is casting spells. He shouldn't suffer any penalties for the act of casting it. This is D&D, not Call of Cthulu.

Anderlith
2012-02-05, 05:29 PM
Doesn't matter. He's still "suffering" regardless. Forcing the character to suffer for casting a spell is what's punishing the player for the nerve of playing a character who wants to cast a spell. The whole point of playing a spellcaster is casting spells. He shouldn't suffer any penalties for the act of casting it. This is D&D, not Call of Cthulu.

A warrior runs the risk of getting harmed when he goes into battle. A wizard runs the risk of harm when he decides to channel primal forces though his body. Or call upon inhuman spirits to do his bidding. Or reshape the world to his whim. Or any other description of casting magic that you care to take. Using a layer of mechanics to factor in Backlash, would allow for items that help minimize the damage. Implement would actually serve their purpose (focusing magic). Magic is powerful like explosives, & everyone knows that explosives are volatile & prone to mishaps... & explosions

Dienekes
2012-02-05, 05:59 PM
Doesn't matter. He's still "suffering" regardless. Forcing the character to suffer for casting a spell is what's punishing the player for the nerve of playing a character who wants to cast a spell. The whole point of playing a spellcaster is casting spells. He shouldn't suffer any penalties for the act of casting it. This is D&D, not Call of Cthulu.

It's been in DnD for awhile that fighter types suffer to do just about anything except autoattack. Mind you that suffering is in the form of attacks of opportunity, and can be negated through feats (at least in 3.5 don't much remember 4e). It is entirely reasonable from a gaming perspective that higher rewards can have higher risks involved with them. The trick is to make this fun and balanced for all participants. Which admittedly can be very hard to do.

But in any case I see nothing wrong with a weakening that occurs when casting powerful spells, most likely non-lethal hp damage, ac penalties, ect. which can be negated or altered through feats or other form of attainable resource.

navar100
2012-02-05, 07:51 PM
No. A warrior loses hit points for getting hit, not when he does the swinging. A warrior doesn't suffer a penalty to hit purely for the reason of attacking. He trades it for extra damage, extra AC, another attack with a second weapon, but not for the act of making an attack on its own. He's making a voluntary trade for some benefit. The game rules do not arbitrarily tell him "If you swing a weapon in combat, make a saving throw or take -2 to hit for the rest of the encounter or until you receive some healing."

A barbarian suffers fatigue for raging. That does bother me, but it's compensated by for 99% of the time the fatigue is suffered when the combat is over, so the barbarian is not really suffering a penalty. It could happen another combat occurs soon after while he's fatigued, but there are extenuating circumstances. 1) It could be an honest second combat; the barbarian must deal with it. 2) The player misjudged the scene; he learns next time it's not always prudent to rage every combat. 3) The DM is being a jerk by doing this all the time. 4) The cleric of the party really does not mind removing the fatigue when necessary so that the barbarian can rage all he wants.

A spellcaster loses his points when someone hits him, just like everyone else. He should not suffer a penalty just because he casts a spell.

Manateee
2012-02-05, 09:20 PM
I think what I would like more than anything is for "Wizards" not to be a class in the same sense that "Swordsman" is.

I'd rather have the classes cover nonmagical specialties - various warrior roles, acrobats, tricksters, thieves, aristocrats, animal trainers, etc. - and have magic be an action rather than a characteristic.

So a barbarian raider could go through tribal rituals, a crusader could retire to prayer or a scribe could consult a library of arcane tomes to access supernatural powers of various forms - as opposed to the traditional RPG paradigm of where there are characters uniquely marked for their ability to do magic as well as acting within the realm of human possibilities.

Though I'd like it to be the mainstream paradigm, this isn't something I honestly expect to ever show up in D&D - even if it's already present to a certain degree in various exiting games.

Anderlith
2012-02-05, 10:25 PM
No. A warrior loses hit points for getting hit, not when he does the swinging. A warrior doesn't suffer a penalty to hit purely for the reason of attacking. He trades it for extra damage, extra AC, another attack with a second weapon, but not for the act of making an attack on its own. He's making a voluntary trade for some benefit. The game rules do not arbitrarily tell him "If you swing a weapon in combat, make a saving throw or take -2 to hit for the rest of the encounter or until you receive some healing."

A barbarian suffers fatigue for raging. That does bother me, but it's compensated by for 99% of the time the fatigue is suffered when the combat is over, so the barbarian is not really suffering a penalty. It could happen another combat occurs soon after while he's fatigued, but there are extenuating circumstances. 1) It could be an honest second combat; the barbarian must deal with it. 2) The player misjudged the scene; he learns next time it's not always prudent to rage every combat. 3) The DM is being a jerk by doing this all the time. 4) The cleric of the party really does not mind removing the fatigue when necessary so that the barbarian can rage all he wants.

A spellcaster loses his points when someone hits him, just like everyone else. He should not suffer a penalty just because he casts a spell.

You are still ignoring what I am saying & you are missing the point...*sigh

I think what I would like more than anything is for "Wizards" not to be a class in the same sense that "Swordsman" is.

I'd rather have the classes cover nonmagical specialties - various warrior roles, acrobats, tricksters, thieves, aristocrats, animal trainers, etc. - and have magic be an action rather than a characteristic.

So a barbarian raider could go through tribal rituals, a crusader could retire to prayer or a scribe could consult a library of arcane tomes to access supernatural powers of various forms - as opposed to the traditional RPG paradigm of where there are characters uniquely marked for their ability to do magic as well as acting within the realm of human possibilities.

Though I'd like it to be the mainstream paradigm, this isn't something I honestly expect to ever show up in D&D - even if it's already present to a certain degree in various exiting games.

I'd rather have a classless system & have a character creation system like Shadowrun 4e. It's pretty great

TheThan
2012-02-06, 06:27 PM
A warrior runs the risk of getting harmed when he goes into battle. A wizard runs the risk of harm when he decides to channel primal forces though his body. Or call upon inhuman spirits to do his bidding. Or reshape the world to his whim. Or any other description of casting magic that you care to take. Using a layer of mechanics to factor in Backlash, would allow for items that help minimize the damage. Implement would actually serve their purpose (focusing magic). Magic is powerful like explosives, & everyone knows that explosives are volatile & prone to mishaps... & explosions

This would work great for a specific setting, and I’d be cool with it. But as a general mechanic for any given type of fantasy game, I don’t think it’d work, and I probably wouldn’t be cool with it.

Slipperychicken
2012-02-09, 02:30 PM
I propose that if a nonmagical character has absolute and immutable limitations, and if that character is to be considered equal to magic-users, magic-users should be similarly limited, or the nonmagical character should be as unlimited in his abilities as the magic-user.


Personally, I believe that a strong enough warrior/fighter should transcend "normal" limits to do "epic" things like knocking down walls and buildings, cutting through mountains or reality itself, hurling objects or enemies miles away for lots of damage, leaping great distances, crushing people with their hands with similar investment to a Sorcerer's spells. Perhaps some kind of "combat tricks" system (but far less costly and restrictive than 3.5 feats), in which a martial character acquires at-will powers like long-distance throwing, crushing, smashing, slicing, etc, which scale like spells do.

Anderlith
2012-02-09, 03:29 PM
I propose that if a nonmagical character has absolute and immutable limitations, and if that character is to be considered equal to magic-users, magic-users should be similarly limited, or the nonmagical character should be as unlimited in his abilities as the magic-user.


Personally, I believe that a strong enough warrior/fighter should transcend "normal" limits to do "epic" things like knocking down walls and buildings, cutting through mountains or reality itself, hurling objects or enemies miles away for lots of damage, leaping great distances, crushing people with their hands with similar investment to a Sorcerer's spells. Perhaps some kind of "combat tricks" system (but far less costly and restrictive than 3.5 feats), in which a martial character acquires at-will powers like long-distance throwing, crushing, smashing, slicing, etc, which scale like spells do.

I would venture to say that they shouldn't be limited to reality, but perhaps limited to same suspension of disbelief of action movies. (maybe something along the lines of 300? as their peak)

& I think magic should come at a cost & have rules (So that a wizard can't do everything under the sun)

Seerow
2012-02-09, 03:52 PM
I would venture to say that they shouldn't be limited to reality, but perhaps limited to same suspension of disbelief of action movies. (maybe something along the lines of 300? as their peak)

& I think magic should come at a cost & have rules (So that a wizard can't do everything under the sun)

Except Action movie doesn't compete with omnipotent wizards. Even restricted wizards it's going to have trouble competing with. By the time you hit high levels (somewhere around 11 to 13 at the latest) martial characters shouldn't just be flirting with the laws of physics, they should be shattering them. If martial characters are limited more to what is physically possible, then magic needs to be MUCH more limited. Less like 3.5 magic, and more like Sympathy from Rothfuss's books, with strict rules and a basis in reality, even if it works differently from the real world.

Anderlith
2012-02-09, 05:38 PM
Except Action movie doesn't compete with omnipotent wizards. Even restricted wizards it's going to have trouble competing with. By the time you hit high levels (somewhere around 11 to 13 at the latest) martial characters shouldn't just be flirting with the laws of physics, they should be shattering them. If martial characters are limited more to what is physically possible, then magic needs to be MUCH more limited. Less like 3.5 magic, and more like Sympathy from Rothfuss's books, with strict rules and a basis in reality, even if it works differently from the real world.

Well I'd prefer magic limitations like Shadowrun & Warhammer Fantasy

kyoryu
2012-02-09, 06:52 PM
What I mean is that warriors need to have options; they need to be able to do different things in combat. When you two weapon fight all day, it’s boring. When you do power attacks all day, it’s still boring. When you do trip attacks all day, it’s boring. When you do disarm attacks all day, it’s also boring. Regardless of how much damage you put out, warriors are not dynamic, they’re static. They sit there and do one thing, and only one thing.


I agree with this entirely. Wizards get to choose different types of spells, why does a warrior have to be locked into a single fighting style? Give me a warrior that can go with light armor and weapons for clandestine missions, or strap on the heavy armor and shield to protect the party, or get out the big two-hander to do nasty damage and cleave through foes. Let weapon choice and fighting style choice be a decision at the encounter level, rather than at the character build level.


Bad guys making the saving throw is enough of a spell fails scenario. No need to punish the spellcaster further. That is analogous to the warrior missing on his attack roll. Nothing happens to the warrior when he misses. Nothing should happen to the spellcaster when the spell "misses".

There are melee abilities, in 4e at least, that can cause damage to the user, or in some cases *always* cause damage to the user.

Consequences for "failed" spells is also used heavily in many games. It's a fair balance point if spells are, overall, more powerful than non-magic stuff.

A GURPS magic variant allowed for bad things to happen, but only when you pushed yourself beyond your normal limits. That was a pretty cool system. Even many 1/2e spells had some bad consequences that could happen when casting.

You don't like it, that's fair. It could be implemented poorly. But it's one reasonable counter-balance to extremely powerful spells, and a common one, and even one that's pretty much in flavor with many common depictions of magic. Ease of interruption is another, and you (IIRC) don't like that one either.


Yeah, this really isn't a problem in Fantasy Craft. Weapons with the trip quality, like Bolas, can cause smaller and less-manoeverable flyers to just drop out of the sky. Ranged combat in general is more dangerous; and whether you're using thrown weapons, bows, black powder weapons or siege weaponry, you can make a good impression with them pretty easily.

I would love to see a system where abilities were tied to the *weapons* (or even other gear) as much as they were to the *character*. That would be awesome, and provide versatility in martial classes. It's not even particularly unrealistic, I think. Magic weapons could then be defined by cool abilities they gave, rather than by mechanical bonuses, but even then wouldn't be required.

Man, the more I think about this, the more I like it. Imagine a sword that, due to its quality and low weight, could be used to do a whirlwind like ability. You could even limit it to characters with certain qualifications, which would be pretty awesome show that it's the character that's doing it, but the weapon qualities allow it to happen.


I would venture to say that they shouldn't be limited to reality, but perhaps limited to same suspension of disbelief of action movies. (maybe something along the lines of 300? as their peak)


Yeah, 300 is probably a good model, I think. Something where you go "Gee, maybe if someone was really awesome they could pull that off," as opposed to blatantly super-human stuff.

TheThan
2012-02-09, 08:45 PM
I would love to see a system where abilities were tied to the *weapons* (or even other gear) as much as they were to the *character*. That would be awesome, and provide versatility in martial classes. It's not even particularly unrealistic, I think. Magic weapons could then be defined by cool abilities they gave, rather than by mechanical bonuses, but even then wouldn't be required.

Man, the more I think about this, the more I like it. Imagine a sword that, due to its quality and low weight, could be used to do a whirlwind like ability. You could even limit it to characters with certain qualifications, which would be pretty awesome show that it's the character that's doing it, but the weapon qualities allow it to happen.



I was working on something similar. The “powers” I were talking about all allowed the warrior access to the basic advantage of using said power. For instance, a trip power would allow a warrior to trip someone (knocking the guy prone), regardless of what type of weapon he was using. However if he’s using a weapon with the “trip” quality (perk, aspect, etc), then the warrior would get an additional benefit, like being able to use his power on multiple people, or gaining a free basic attack after the power has been resolved (or maybe as part of the power).

This allows a warrior to focus on one fighting style, without sacrificing his ability to use other fighting styles (aka minmax). This is all based on the power/weapon combo he chooses. So a rapier wielding swashbuckler could sunder an enemy’s weapon, just as that barbarian wielding a maul can, but he won’t be as good as the barbarian at doing it. So they can both use that “sunder” power, but one is a bit better at it because of the power/weapon combo he chose.

Anderlith
2012-02-10, 12:54 AM
Warhammer Fantasy does that for the most part, I always liked the way they handled weapons.

Siegel
2012-02-10, 09:54 AM
Isn't this what Guild Wars 2 wants to do more or less?

Morty
2012-02-10, 12:20 PM
I wouldn't use WFRP as an example of a well-made combat system. Or a well-designed system in general, as a point of fact. I do love its atmosphere, but the mechanics are clunky.
Still, I do definetly agree that the warriors ought to have diverse options in combat without having to acquire them via feats, class features or whatever it is that characters will get in 5th edition. Every martial character ought to be able to perform a set of manuverers and special abilities ought to either enchance those basic ones or give entirely new ones that are too elaborate for everyone to know.