Another look at the root "cause" of Caster Supremacy

[Segev]

It may not be a revelation to anybody else, but it just occurred to me: Mundane classes, by and large, focus on doing something well. They're good with weapons, they're good at breaking and entering, they're good at grappling, they're good at riding a mount into combat, they're good at infiltration/stealth, they're good at persuasion/diplomacy. Caster classes, by and large, focus on using a tool (i.e. their magic) well. They're good at casting spells, at metamagic, at magic item creation, and minion-construction, at manipulating their spells to do new and unusual things, at using a particular class of spells.

And I think therein lies the problem.

When you design a better axe-thrower, you built a special-purpose class. When you design a better master of the axe, you create not just combat techniques, but ways he can use it to solve problems more esoterically. It becomes a climbing piton, a ranged grappling hook, etc.

Even that's not the best example; the caster isn't using just an axe - that would be one spell or spell line. The caster is using a specialized tool set, a subsystem all his own.

Rogues and other skill-masters need not just more skill points, nor more class skills; they need more ways to USE their skills, and ways to manipulate the skill system in a meta-way. Rogues in particular should have more than can do with "Rogue Tricks" as they gain them. Heck, "Rogue Tricks" need to be more than just class-specific feats.

Fighters need better, broader feats and better, more versatile ways to use them and even to manipulate the feat system.


Anyway, just thought I'd share this (possibly new-only-to-me) insight: Casters are supreme because their focus is on improving their tools, rather than on improving specific uses to which to put them. Mundanes do the latter. Mundanes pick a thing and are good at it; Casters pick a means of doing lots of things and are good at that.

[SwordChucks]

Part of the problem is that mundanes aren't good at what they're supposed to do relative to monsters of similar level. Blindsense/mindsight/tremorsense all prevent a sneaky class from performing as such, larger than large size creatures prevent grappling in most cases, and high hp/ac or even incorpreal creatures prevent a fighting-man from participating meaningfully.

I suggest the problem isn't (just) that casters are better than the mundanes, it's that they need to be.

[Psyren]

Rogues and other skill-masters need not just more skill points, nor more class skills; they need more ways to USE their skills, and ways to manipulate the skill system in a meta-way. Rogues in particular should have more than can do with "Rogue Tricks" as they gain them. Heck, "Rogue Tricks" need to be more than just class-specific feats.

Fighters need better, broader feats and better, more versatile ways to use them and even to manipulate the feat system.

You just created the Unchained Rogue and Fighter (Rogue's Edge and Combat Stamina respectively.)


Part of the problem is that mundanes aren't good at what they're supposed to do relative to monsters of similar level. Blindsense/mindsight/tremorsense all prevent a sneaky class from performing as such, larger than large size creatures prevent grappling in most cases, and high hp/ac or even incorpreal creatures prevent a fighting-man from participating meaningfully.

I suggest the problem isn't (just) that casters are better than the mundanes, it's that they need to be.

Those problems are easily patched though, e.g. Darkstalker/Dampen Presence for the former.

[SwordChucks]

Agreed Psyren, but those are sloppy patches that become necessary as levels go on. Baked in fixes that don't require a player to spend a limited resource* would have been better.

*I know spells could be considered a limited resource, but they are much easier to change and refresh without relying on DCFS.

[Psyren]

Eh, feats are meant to be spent. I don't consider losing one or two of them to be that steep an investment.

You could argue that Darkstalker is just something high-level rogues should be able to do, but I like the idea of getting it much earlier, even if I have to pay for it.

[Segev]

I don't have access that I know of to these "Unchained" things. I know they're a PF product; are they on the srd?

Can you give a brief overview of what they are?

[SwordChucks]

Eh, feats are meant to be spent. I don't consider losing one or two of them to be that steep an investment.

You could argue that Darkstalker is just something high-level rogues should be able to do, but I like the idea of getting it much earlier, even if I have to pay for it.

It's my opinion that feats should expand options as opposed to be required to preform your supposed role (YMMV of course). It still leads to imbalance because casters can avoid all of the problems I mentioned previously via spells.

Another obvious fix for mundanes to compete is WBL but casters get the same wealth and so are even better/more prepared to perform in an encounter.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Segev
I don't have access that I know of to these "Unchained" things. I know they're a PF product; are they on the srd?

Can you give a brief overview of what they are?

Pathfinder Unchained (http://www.amazon.com/Pathfinder-Roleplaying-Game-Unchained/dp/1601257155) just came out a month or so ago, and at least some of it is available piecemeal on the PFSRD site, including the unchained classes (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/unchained-classes).

My DM loves and promotes the Unchained classes, and the unchained rogue in particular looks very cool. Many of the other subsystems seem a little complicated for casual use (Stamina system) or flat-out terrible (variable multiclassing), so proceed with caution.

.

[Psyren]

I don't have access that I know of to these "Unchained" things. I know they're a PF product; are they on the srd?

Can you give a brief overview of what they are?

Combat Stamina (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/other-rules/stamina-and-combat-tricks-optional-rules) is a variant system that gives martial characters a per encounter pool of points (based on their BAB and Constitution) that they can spend to unlock additional functionality from their combat feats. You also get some benefits passively simply by having stamina, such as removing the Int 13 requirement from various combat feats that previously had it. By default, this system is only available to fighters, but other variants include granting access to other martial classes if they spend a feat on it, or granting access to any character who spends a feat on it. (Obviously, if your goal is for fighters to be special, you'd probably go with the first one, and if your goal is to help all martials out, you'd probably lean towards the second, but not the third.) If the existing benefits are not quite strong enough for you, you can feel free to use it as a jumping-off point to add more or tweak the existing ones.

Rogue's Edge refers to the Skill Unlock variant system; it allows characters with access to the system to get additional functionality from a favored skill as they gain ranks in it. Like the Stamina system, most characters must buy in with a feat (Signature Skill (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/signature-skill-general), but rogues have the abllity to gain these benefits for multiple skills via their Rogue's Edge class feature.) This one's a bit harder to link to because the benefits are scattered among all the other various skills (e.g. Escape Artist (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/skills/escape-artist).) Again, this can be used as-is, or as a jumping-off point for your own tweaks and additions.



My DM loves and promotes the Unchained classes, and the unchained rogue in particular looks very cool. Many of the other subsystems seem a little complicated for casual use (Stamina system) or flat-out terrible (variable multiclassing), so proceed with caution.


VMC actually has a lot of potential if you know what you're doing. You can double your ki on a ki-using class, gain revelations/domain powers/school powers/rage powers, gain a scaling eidolon etc.

It simply takes a lot of skill because you have to find a combination that is worth spending 5 feats on. That is not an easy task for a non-optimizer to do without nerfing themselves, but it's definitely possible.

[nedz]

You could look at this the other way around and force casters to be more specialised — far more specialised. If you have to build a fighter to be good at one trick, then perhaps the same should be true of casters ?

Power = Options after all.

[Segev]

Hm. The very little that the Rogue Unchained mentions about "skill unlocks" sounds similar to a "Skill Mastery" system I positted a while back. I don't know that I ever shared it with anybody as I was working on getting enough ideas to make it interesting, but the jist is that Masteries are things that you can decide your character knows. Each has a certain Rank. You cant have more Ranks of Masteries for a given skill than you have ranks in that skill.

But if you had Stealth at 5 ranks, and you wanted Lightfoot (rank 2, lets you hide from Tremorsense) and Disguise Scent (rank 2, lets you hide from Scent), you could still pick up one more Mastery that was only rank 1 (say Distraction, which might let you force a given observer to re-roll a Perception check to spot you, but only once per day per observer). Or you could have Hide In Plain Sight as a Rank 5 Mastery all on its own, with no others because you used up all your Stealth ranks on that.

I hadn't yet gotten around to how one might choose to "retrain" them, picking a different load-out. Maybe would be a Rogue class feature, letting them play almost wizard-like with their Masteries. Not sure how I'd fluff it to make sense (how do you forget how to Hide In Plain Sight just because today you know how to disguise your scent and move without triggering Tremorsense?), but mechanically it might be sound.

[PsyBomb]

The problem with Combat Stamina and Rogue's Edge is that they're too little, too late. If all of the benefits of Stamina were on par with Pummeling Charge or Combat Expertise, it would have been worthwhile. If the Skill Unlocks had been more than slightly novel ways to use your ranks, same deal (in the beginning, it sounded like they were going to be straight-up Supernatural unique bonuses, rather than getting less penalties to perception while sleeping or being able to use diplomacy faster... but still only out of combat).

Long story short on the implementation of these is that you have to look long and hard for good options worth using Stamina or Edge, and in many cases these are not going to be even remotely similar to feats or skills worth taking on their own merits. In all cases, you also get both FEWER of them, and they are both less VERSATILE and less POWERFUL than spells. This is the root of the problem.

By the way, I am talking about comparing "good" feats or skills to "good" spells.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Psyren
VMC actually has a lot of potential if you know what you're doing. You can double your ki on a ki-using class, gain revelations/domain powers/school powers/rage powers, gain a scaling eidolon etc.

It simply takes a lot of skill because you have to find a combination that is worth spending 5 feats on. That is not an easy task for a non-optimizer to do without nerfing themselves, but it's definitely possible.

I don't doubt this is all true, but as someone who's still new to Pathfinder, it's not really worth the time going through and finding that perfect combination.

Same goes for the Stamina system--page after page of extra benefits for feats I'm not familiar with. Going through all that just becomes a chore, and a protracted one at that.

[Segev]

The problem with Combat Stamina and Rogue's Edge is that they're too little, too late. If all of the benefits of Stamina were on par with Pummeling Charge or Combat Expertise, it would have been worthwhile. If the Skill Unlocks had been more than slightly novel ways to use your ranks, same deal (in the beginning, it sounded like they were going to be straight-up Supernatural unique bonuses, rather than getting less penalties to perception while sleeping or being able to use diplomacy faster... but still only out of combat).

Long story short on the implementation of these is that you have to look long and hard for good options worth using Stamina or Edge, and in many cases these are not going to be even remotely similar to feats or skills worth taking on their own merits. In all cases, you also get both FEWER of them, and they are both less VERSATILE and less POWERFUL than spells. This is the root of the problem.

By the way, I am talking about comparing "good" feats or skills to "good" spells.

Hm. Sounds like there might still be use for my Masteries idea, then, as an alternative. (I won't promise it would work with Rogue's Edge without modification; I designed it separately.) I'll see if I can find the skeletal document of ideas I was working on.

[Segev]

These are "first drafts" and in many cases brainstorming ideas. The "rating" in a skill is both a minimum, and a contributor to the limiting effect of how many masteries for that skill you can know. The sum of all ratings in masteries cannot exceed your total skill ranks.

I'd forgotten, but some call for multiple skills, and one or two have options and alternatives. They also can have prerequisites. I may start a new thread for this later, but for now, this is the kind of thing I was working at for Skill Masteries:

Skill Masteries

Fast-Count
Rating: Appraise 1
Prerequisites: None
You can get an accurate count of objects in a collection, whether coins in a sack or campfires in a warcamp or number of individuals in a crowd, as a full-round action. When you attempt this, make an Appraise roll. If the number of items exceeds your roll, you know there are at least that many in the container. If your roll is equal to or greater than the number of items you're attempting to count, you know how many there are.

Swift-Count
Rating: Appraise 2
Prerequisites: Fast-Count
As Fast-Count, except that it only takes a Swift action.

Evaluate Panopoly
Rating: Appraise 1
Prerequisites: Ascertain Mystic Function
With a standard action spent sizing up a creature, you can tell whether its equipment is masterwork or not, and determine whether it provides enhancement bonuses to any of his Abilities, the equivalent enhancement bonus of any visible weapons and armor, and whether any prominent items are generally offensive or protective or utility in nature.

Ascertain Mystic Function
Rating: Appraise 4 and [[Spellcraft 4 or Psicraft 4] or Knowledge:[Arcana, Nature, Psionics, or Religion] 4]]
Prerequisites: None
You can cast Identify as an (Ex) ability, otherwise following all the required procedures. If your rating is in Spellcraft, you still must provide the pearl. If it is in a Knowledge, you can only identify magic (or psionic) items appropriate to the Knowledge skill in question, but there is no need for the pearl. In any event, you must activate the magic item at least once as part of the identification, which expends charges and may trigger curses. An Appraise check against the CL of the item can identify it as cursed, or ascertain the muber of charges it has, before you use it, but no further identification is possible without activation at least once. Activation (of non-cursed items, at least) is safe, as the process takes adequate precautions to ensure targeting appropriately.

Alchemical Potion-Meister
Rating: Craft(Alchemy) [varies]
Prerequisites: Brew Potion
You can brew a potion with a spell in it that you do not know. To do so requires that you have this Mastery at a Rating equal to twice the level of the spell, minus 1. So a 1st level spell would require this Mastery at a rating of Craft(Alchemy) 1, a 3rd level spell would require a rating of 5. Having this mastery at a high enough rating can enable a character to brew potions with spell levels higher than 3.

Defensive Footwork
Rating: Balance 1
Prerequisites: None
When using the total defense action, you may add half your ranks in Balance to your AC as a dodge bonus.

Fancy Footwork
Rating: Balance 2
Prerequisites: Defensive Footwork, Combat Expertise
When using Combat Expertise, you may increase the maximum bonus to your AC and penalty to hit by your ranks in Balance.

Aplomb
Rating: Balance 8
Prerequisites: BAB +5 or Tumble 8
You may choose to treat threatened squares as difficult terrain in order to exit them without provoking attacks of opportunity. If the squares are already difficult terrain, treat them as containing an obstacle, as well. If both conditions are already true, you cannot use this Mastery.

Double Entendre
Rating: Bluff 5 or more
Prerequisites: None
When delivering a secret message, you may increase the DC by 5 to get an addtional message across to the same or different targets. For every additional +1 Rating you invest in this Mastery, you can get across yet another secret message, with an additional +5 to the DC of the Bluff check. Rank the messages in order of importance; partial success (measured by meeting the DC for fewer messages) will get the higher-priority messages across while garbling the remainder.

Misoverheard
Rating: Bluff 1
Prerequisites: Double Entendre
You can make a Bluff check and add it to the DC of any Listen check made by creatures attempting to listen in. If they make the normal listen DC but fail the increased one, they instead think they hear you saying some other "cover" message of your choice. When using this Mastery, choose a Listen DC below which it does not apply; this ensure that the people to whom you mean to be talking do not mishear the "cover" message.

Forgive and Forget
Rating: Bluff 13
Prerequisites: None
Choose one thing the target creature believes of you or that you have done. Make a Bluff check penalty equal to -5 for every Attitude rating below Friendly the creature has towards you. It is opposed by his Sense Motive. For every 1 by which you beat his roll, he forgives or forgets that thing for one round, which can adjust his attitude accordingly. This takes a standard action.

If you can take a minute on performing this action (generally requires the target be willing to talk to you for at least that long without violence), the duration extends to minutes rather than rounds.

If you can beat his roll by enough to extend the duration to an hour, the effect is permanent unless his attitude is shifted to Hostile by some other effect.

Cliff Work
Rating: Climb 6
Prerequisits: None
Through a clever use of bracing and alternate use of limbs, you can act normally while on a surface that would require a climb check to move on. Make a climb check as if attempting to move at an accelerated rate on the surface; if you succeed, you may take any action you could take standing on firm ground at no additional penalty.

Monkey Scramble
Rating: Climb 8
Prerequisites: None
You have a Climb speed equal to half your land speed.

Piton Fist
Rating: Climb 2
Prerequisites: Strength 15
You can pound a piton into place as a standard action with your bare hands. This does not give you the ability to drive pitons into a surface into which you could not without this Mastery; it only removes the need for tools and makes it faster.

Scale the Colossus
Rating: Climb 1
Prerequisites: None
You may substitute a Climb check for a Grapple check against a creature at least two size categories larger than you. You cannot pin with this Mastery, but you can ensure that your foe cannot pin you, and you can inflict automatic damage if you control the grapple.

Iaijutsu Focus
Rating: Concentration 4
Prerequisites: Quick Draw
When you ready an action to attack a specific creature, you may roll Concentration when it triggers the readied action. The weapon you are using must be melee, and start sheathed or otherwise unreadied. The base DC is 0; for every 5 by which you exceed it, you get a +1 insight bonus to hit and +1d6 damage on the attack.
Special: If the target is also taking a readied action when it triggers yours, it may roll Concentration to set the DC of your check. If both you and your target are using this Mastery on each other, and neither triggers before your (or his) next turn comes, at that time you both roll your Concentration check; the higher result strikes first. If the second is still able to make an attack after damage is dealt, he makes his attack immediately thereafter. Both receive the listed bonuses to hit and damage based on a base DC of 0.

Duel Focus
Rating: Concentration 4
Prerequisites: BAB +1
As a standard action, you select a creature and make a Concentration check. So long as you take no action other than to attack him individually, you add the result of this check as a dodge bonus to your AC and a Resistance bonus to all your saves against any attack or effect originating from any source other than your chosen target. If you use a non-targetted effect (such as a Fireball) or target anybody else with an effect or attack, this effect ends immediately. Some characters use this on their allies in order to better focus on supporting a chosen one of them and keeping them alive.

Intense Focus
Rating: Concentration 5 and [Any other skill] 1
Prerequisites: None
Whenever you are making a skill check which takes at least 1 minute with the skill(s) contributing to this Mastery's rating, you may treat Concentration as granting a +2 Synnergy bonus to it.

Jury-Rig
Rating: Craft 5, 10, or 15
Prerequisites: None
You can perform Craft checks in intervals of an hour or a minute as if they were a week or a day, respectively, but the items created are obviously lashed together and will fall apart after 1 hour. If your Rating in this Mastery is 10, you can use substitute components that most would claim should not work in place of more appropriate pieces. If your Rating in this Mastery is 15, you can throw together (or temporarily repair) anything your Craft skill can build out of whatever you happen to have at hand.

Crack the Code
Rating: Decipher Script 7
Prerequisites: None
You can treat deliberately encoded messages as if they were an unfamiliar language.

Graphology
Rating: Decipher Script 1
Prerequisites: None
You may use Decipher Script or Sense Motive to make any test of a piece of written work you could have made with Sense Motive if you had used it when the writer wrote it and the writer were speaking.

First Impressions
Rating: Diplomacy 4
Prerequisites: None
When encountering a new character for the first time, you may treat him as neutral for your first Diplomacy check (regardless of their actual Attitude), so long as neither you nor your apparent allies have taken hostile action.

Diplomatic Immunity
Rating: Diplomacy 12
Prerequisite: None

So long as you, personally, have taken no hostile action, you may "take 10" on a Diplomacy check and substitute it for your AC or Spell Resistance. Those who fail to overcome this simply do not take the action which would have otherwise harmed you, and may choose another action that does not target nor include you in its area of effect. If any of your apparent allies take hostile action, and you do not distance yourself from them within one round of hostilities starting, however, you lose this protection against any spell or attack whose area of effect would include said hostile allies.

[Psyren]

I don't doubt this is all true, but as someone who's still new to Pathfinder, it's not really worth the time going through and finding that perfect combination.

Same goes for the Stamina system--page after page of extra benefits for feats I'm not familiar with. Going through all that just becomes a chore, and a protracted one at that.

So, "I haven't taken the time to read it, but I'm pretty sure it's terrible?" :smalltongue:

It just seems like an odd approach is all.


The problem with Combat Stamina and Rogue's Edge is that they're too little, too late. If all of the benefits of Stamina were on par with Pummeling Charge or Combat Expertise, it would have been worthwhile. If the Skill Unlocks had been more than slightly novel ways to use your ranks, same deal (in the beginning, it sounded like they were going to be straight-up Supernatural unique bonuses, rather than getting less penalties to perception while sleeping or being able to use diplomacy faster... but still only out of combat).

Long story short on the implementation of these is that you have to look long and hard for good options worth using Stamina or Edge, and in many cases these are not going to be even remotely similar to feats or skills worth taking on their own merits. In all cases, you also get both FEWER of them, and they are both less VERSATILE and less POWERFUL than spells. This is the root of the problem.

By the way, I am talking about comparing "good" feats or skills to "good" spells.

For starters, Sturgeon's law applies just as much to spells as it does to feats. Whether it's Hold Portal or River Whip or Phantom Driver or Curse of Disgust, casters have as much dross to sort through as non-casters do.

Second, as I mentioned, if you find Stamina or the Skill Unlocks to be weak, simply buff them. It's still easier than developing something from whole cloth. Personally though I think they're quite useful as-is, and stamina of course is useful even if you're not using it with any of your feats at all.

[Segev]

Can I ask for a quick run-down on what Stamina does and how you use it?

[Psyren]

Can I ask for a quick run-down on what Stamina does and how you use it?

It gives you a pool of points that refreshes every encounter. Every combat feat in the main product line (e.g. Core, Ultimate X and Advanced X) was then given additional functionality, either along the lines of "if you spend X while you use this feat, you get to do {extra thing}" or "if you have at least one stamina point remaining, you have {extra benefit from this feat}/{you can ignore X prerequisite and still take/use this feat.}"

For more detail than that, follow the link I posted above which explains the system in detail.

[Segev]

Ah! Sorry; I'd missed that post somehow.

[Brova]

You could look at this the other way around and force casters to be more specialised — far more specialised. If you have to build a fighter to be good at one trick, then perhaps the same should be true of casters?

This is vital to balance casters. Any effort to balance D&D needs to start by ditching the idea of a Wizard that does every kind of magic. It's not in the source material and it's massively harder to balance. Wizard could easily be split into Necromancer (undead minions, necromancy, stinking cloud line), Beguiler (charmed minions, enchantment), Summoner (summoned minions, teleportation, wall of fire line), Illusionist (illusionary minions, illusion), Warmage (area of effect damage, single target damage, buffs), Warden (abjuration, divination), Shapeshifter (alter self line), Occulist (demon minions, ranged single target damage, ranged single target debuffs) and Wizard (various iconic D&D Wizard spells like fireball and magic missile). That's more classes than 4e had on launch, and it doesn't have a Fire Mage, a Gish, a dedicated battlefield controller or any of the other casting classes (for example, Sorcerer could easily be split into Warlock, Dragon Shaman, something for elementals, something for celestials, and something for aberrations).

Of course, the real problem for Fighters isn't that Wizards have more options. Picking powers from a bigger list just means there are more powers you didn't pick. The problem is twofold. First, Wizards have bigger and better powers. This can be solved by just giving Fighters numbers which are level appropriate and counters to enemy tactics. The second and harder problem is that Wizards get out of combat powers while Fighters don't. You can't really solve this just by tuning up the Fighter class, as Fighters don't really get non-combat powers at all. The system basically needs to split spells like planar binding and scrying into rituals which anyone can use. Like what 4e did, only without gimping them or making them too expensive.

[Segev]

What is the basis for the assumption that utility powers can only be spells? What prevents non-casters from having out-of-combat powers without giving them spells-as-rituals?

[noob]

The problem is that once you made that categorization of spell-casters every team will at least need 5 of them and so every team will be full caster because of all the adventure spells who often make more effect than a hero able to deal 4367346876615777 centilion damage per hit and can hit all the beings in the multiverse.

[Psyren]

What is the basis for the assumption that utility powers can only be spells? What prevents non-casters from having out-of-combat powers without giving them spells-as-rituals?

If things like Overland Flight/Phantom Steed, Teleport, Plane Shift, Commune, Scrying, Legend Lore, Speak With Dead, Invisibility Sphere, Raise Dead, Detect Thoughts, Rope Trick, Alarm, Shrink Item or Animal Messenger aren't spells, what are they?

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Psyren
So, "I haven't taken the time to read it, but I'm pretty sure it's terrible?"

You know that's not quite fair, and this isn't at all what I've said.

I have looked through the VMC rules, and as you said yourself, anyone who's not deeply familiar with the Pathfinder system will be hard-pressed to put VMC to best use.

And the Stamina system is simply overwhelming. As a new Pathfinder player, I'm still learning the main system; I don't have time or incentive to plow through yet another dense stack of optional rules.

[nedz]

The problem is that once you made that categorization of spell-casters every team will at least need 5 of them and so every team will be full caster because of all the adventure spells who often make more effect than a hero able to deal 4367346876615777 centilion damage per hit and can hit all the beings in the multiverse.

Not necessarily. Changing the nature of the magic system also changes the nature of the game since the challenges the DM can throw at the party also change. Consider a game, under the standard rules, where no one plays a caster ?

Also players will choose the more flexible casting options: Illusions, Summoning, Conjurations mainly.

[Segev]

If things like Overland Flight/Phantom Steed, Teleport, Plane Shift, Commune, Scrying, Legend Lore, Speak With Dead, Invisibility Sphere, Raise Dead, Detect Thoughts, Rope Trick, Alarm, Shrink Item or Animal Messenger aren't spells, what are they?

Overland Flight/Phantom Steed can be matched with flying mounts, if the rules for those allowed for suitably durable and mechanically viable ones.

Teleport and plane shift are spells, certainly. Though the latter has "mundane" ways to achieve it anyway, thanks to Planescape and portals. One could argue that's "ritual" in and of itself, just having the "ritual action" be "take appropriate key to appropriate portal." Combat-scale teleport can be reworked as a sort of "flash step" or "shadow jump" effect; it still might be (Su), but it need not be a "spell," and certainly not a ritual.

Commune is appropriate as a spell. I could see it as an (Sp) ability of a few classes, but it's pretty clearly playing in the "look at my pray to my god for guidance" angle, and should stay there. It's one of the few that I think may actually be suitable as a "ritual" open to "everybody," if it were truly the faithful praying to their gods.

Scrying remains a spell, too, granted. Though an investigation line of feats or skill powers could do very similar things, especially if you include clairvoyance as "scrying." Think Sherlock Holmes or Shawn Spencer, and apply a broken-apart version of metaconcert to it.

Legend Lore can be performed through knowledge, gather information, and similar applications of skill. In fact, should be. It's one of the "shortcut" spells, like knock.

Speak with dead, as a literal talking to the dead, is magic. Maybe fitting as a ritual, but not something every class should really replicate. That said, its utility effects are again something that an investigator should be able to achieve mundanely through various information gathering and assimilating skills and powers.

Invisibility sphere is another one that should be pretty straight-forwardly done as a "share your skill" type ability of the stealth master. One of the potential ways to solve the Rogues' Dilemma is to make the rogue able to share his stealth capabilities and thus keep the party with him. Fluff-wise, it's a matter of instruction, short-distance scouting, and careful leadership in use of terrain.

Raise dead is an interesting one. The spell should honestly remain the easiest and best way, but myth provides us the "mundane" answer, and it borrows the "mundane" answer to plane shift as well: the journey into the underworld to rescue the deceased and bring them back to the land of the living. Could be represented by ritual, or could be a quest in its own right.

Detect thoughts is something that could be easily wrapped up in Sense Motive.

Rope trick is another "shortcut" one, but is so good at so specialized a thing that the mundane stealth/survival combination needed to replicate it costs too much to be reliable. Building a hidden shelter that can't be found and must be found to enter is something wilderness types and certain urban street rat types should be quite good at.

Alarm is also a shortcut, though perhaps is too good at its level of perfection at its job, since the mundane equivalent is longer to put up and less reliable. Still, mundane utility would be replicated by "good enough" Perception or ability to lay out a detection system swiftly and accurately.

Shrink item is a spell. Some of its utility is replicated by having "enough" strength, or having a wagon. There's no need for this one to be a ritual; it doesn't do something that "should" be broadly applicable to all classes. And again, all save some very niche uses (e.g. the Tinfoil Hat Trick) are achievable by non-magical means.

Animal messenger should be replicable by sufficient Handle Animal. Yet another "shortcut" spell.




So a lot of this could be covered by having the ability to expand skill use into these areas. Making sure certain of them were exclusive to or a least so painfully better done through skills would go a long way. (e.g. knock is a perfect shortcut that overwhelms Open Locks, except in PF knock is very loud and draws attention, and in all systems it can fail if faced with multiple locks to bypass in sufficiently quick succession.)

[Brova]

What is the basis for the assumption that utility powers can only be spells? What prevents non-casters from having out-of-combat powers without giving them spells-as-rituals?

Well, on a basic level you don't have to call them spells. Something like Tome of Prowess where scrying is considered to be an advanced application of Perception would totally work. The issue is that people aren't (or don't seem to be) as willing to accept powers like that as "not magic".


The problem is that once you made that categorization of spell-casters every team will at least need 5 of them and so every team will be full caster because of all the adventure spells who often make more effect than a hero able to deal 4367346876615777 centilion damage per hit and can hit all the beings in the multiverse.

Not necessarily. In so far as characters are of equal power and utility, you can simply make a party of whatever classes you want. You only have to have a Necromancer in your party of one of the spells he gets is of broad and irreplaceable utility. On the other hand, if the Necromancer has powers which are distinct from but equivalent to those of a Beguiler or a Rogue or a Warblade, you can have any of those classes.

To use an example from 3e, you can't replace the Rogue with a Sorcerer because the Rogue has the ability to find traps, but the Sorcerer doesn't. You can totally replace the Rogue with the Beguiler because the Beguiler can also find traps. At that point, you're just swapping around combat effectiveness, which may or may not be a good idea depending on what your party's combat strategy is.

Or how the Cleric is a vital role not just because he is a very effective combatant, but also because he has all kinds of niche but necessary spells like raise dead, restoration, and regenerate.

[Psyren]

You know that's not quite fair, and this isn't at all what I've said.

I have looked through the VMC rules, and as you said yourself, anyone who's not deeply familiar with the Pathfinder system will be hard-pressed to put VMC to best use.

That doesn't make it "terrible" though. "Tricky to optimize," maybe, but you could say that about Incarnum or Binding too, and those are widely considered to be very effective subsystems despite their steeper learning curve.


And the Stamina system is simply overwhelming. As a new Pathfinder player, I'm still learning the main system; I don't have time or incentive to plow through yet another dense stack of optional rules.

The nice thing about Stamina though is that it's all upside. All those combat feats you'd take on your fighter normally still work the same way they always do - you can completely ignore the Stamina boosts and just play your fighter like you always did.

But maybe you're about to use Cleave for the hundredth time, and you notice that the Stamina entry for Cleave says something. You take a closer look to see if it might be applicable. After reading it, you say "well, couldn't hurt" and you use that every time you cleave. Then you look at Power Attack and Lunge and notice that they have a stamina benefit too. And before long you have a couple of favorite feats with some added bennies that you have no problem switching on organically while you play.



So a lot of this could be covered by having the ability to expand skill use into these areas.

Sure, but a lot of it can't, as you yourself noted above. (Also, some of your skill solutions assume a very high level of skill on the part of the mundane practitioner - I have no problem with Sense Motive being able to glean surface thoughts, but I wouldn't really see that as being a level 1 or 5 or even 7 ability.) So utility spells would have to stick around in some form or fashion.


Making sure certain of them were exclusive to or a least so painfully better done through skills would go a long way. (e.g. knock is a perfect shortcut that overwhelms Open Locks, except in PF knock is very loud and draws attention, and in all systems it can fail if faced with multiple locks to bypass in sufficiently quick succession.)

You're thinking 5e Knock - PF Knock doesn't say anything about being loud. Rather, PF Knock requires a CL check instead of being automatic, so a well-made lock might require multiple castings (particularly from a wand) whereas the rogue could simply and quietly take 20.

[noob]

And water breathing?
And teleportation to where you want when you want?
And creating the ultimate house?
And immunizing all your team from poison?(absolutely necessary without it my team would die after three seconds because of all the poisons dealing 55d6 constitution damage)
And weather control/all those spells making life nice for everyone in a village?
And healing diseases without waiting and loosing 444444444444d6 constitution per round.

[Segev]

Well, on a basic level you don't have to call them spells. Something like Tome of Prowess where scrying is considered to be an advanced application of Perception would totally work. The issue is that people aren't (or don't seem to be) as willing to accept powers like that as "not magic".

Ah, fair enough. I've long been a proponent of making extreme and powerful abilities for "mundane" characters, whether you need to attach the (Su) tag or not. Because let's face it, the epic heroic fighter-type is engaging in feats that are "not spells" but which challenge spellcasters to replicate. He's cutting through space and time with his blade to rip open that hole through which your hidden "safe" mage tried to blast him. Or he's punching your astral body so hard it leaves the same bruises on your real physical one. He's keeping his gryphon alive through the same skill and prowess with which he keeps himself alive, and he's goading it to keep up with your phantom steed. He's grabbing you so hard your freedom of movement is crushed before it can slip you free, and he's chasing you through your dimension door while the ranger is tracking you through your teleport and finding the telltale path into and through the Astral Plane your spell left...following you.

The rogue is picking your ethereal pocket and figuring out how to reverse-engineer the secret chest spell to retrieve it via the replica miniature he lifted from you. He's severing the controling magics that bind your undead minions and your dominated servants to your will. He's sneaking in to your hidden demi-plane with his burglary skills, and bypassing your magnificent mansion's inviolable threshold by picking its metaphysical locks. He's sensing where your assassin will appear for that scry-and-die moments before it does, and he's already eviscerating it when it materializes. He's recognizing your perfect replica as a simulacrum, and he's put so convincing a disguise on it that it's become convinced it's him and serves his ends.

[Brova]

You're thinking 5e Knock - PF Knock doesn't say anything about being loud. Rather, PF Knock requires a CL check instead of being automatic, so a well-made lock might require multiple castings (particularly from a wand) whereas the rogue could simply and quietly take 20.

Is there a reason that knock couldn't just be a thing you got for having 10 ranks in Open Lock? It seems to me that doing it that way avoids people's problems with role protection (because the Wizard doesn't get knock) and lets you do "higher level" locks without RNG breaking shenanigans.

[Segev]

And water breathing?Hold breath like dolphin/whale. Useful for non-aquatic suffocating environments, too.

And teleportation to where you want when you want?Fast enough travel. Yes, the spell might remain generally superior, but not to an extent that is narratively relevant in the face of determined "mundane" heroic opposition.

And creating the ultimate house?Superlative craftsmanship and finding the right place. Using Limbo if needs be.

And immunizing all your team from poison?(absolutely necessary without it my team would die after three seconds because of all the poisons dealing 55d6 constitution damage)May not work for "your whole team," but each character should have access to means, which amounts to something similar. There's always the "tough it out" version of simply being that tanky; the rogue/assassin type might have a class feature or Alchemy Mastery due to having a regemine of regular exposure to trace amounts of poisons, giving effective immunity.

And weather control/all those spells making life nice for everyone in a village?This would likely be a ritual, or setting-dependent. (In Exalted, anybody can go out and try to find the local weather spirits and use social skills to persuade them to be nice, for instance.)

And healing diseases without waiting and loosing 444444444444d6 constitution per round.Same answer as for poisons, roughly. Though here "sufficient knowledge of Healing" should be enough. Heal, as a skill, is a huge victim of the "can't be as good as magic" philosophy, and that should change.

[Grod_The_Giant]

This is vital to balance casters. Any effort to balance D&D needs to start by ditching the idea of a Wizard that does every kind of magic.
Agreed. I spent some time working on such an idea (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?317861-Fixed-List-Caster-Project-%283-5%29&p=16545265#post16545265), and it's an improvement on many levels. Fixed-list classes make character creation easy for new players, let you tailor the list to include only balanced spells, and leave room for interesting and flavorful class features.

But that's not really helping mundanes. Limited combat options are an issue, but not an insurmountable one-- look at ToB, PoW, innumerable (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?276280-GitP-Fighter-Fix-18343-3-Ziegander-Grod-Tag-Team-Action!) homebrews (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?328113-Barbarian-now-with-150-more-beef-%283-5-PEACH%29)-- heck, most of the pathfinder classes do a pretty decent job (at least by this point). And as has been said many times, you can build a combat-relevant mundane without too much difficulty.

The problem is that the main way mundanes interact with the world-- skills-- isn't great. There are too many, meaning that characters often wind up not being able to cover all the bases they need. They're too number-based, meaning that dabbling really doesn't help you very much. And they just... don't keep up with magic. A 20th level rogue can't really do anything with skills that a 1st level commoner can't with a lucky roll.

The single best way to patch 3.pf mundanes would be to implement something like Unchained's skill unlocks, or 3.5's skill tricks and epic skill uses, or Segev's skill masteries. But it needs to go farther. Skill tricks come the closest, from what I've seen-- stuff like False Theurgy, Corner Perch and Wall Jumper all add interesting new options-- but they're too expensive and too limited to really work properly. What would really help would be auto-unlocking options every few ranks. Not just removing penalties, but removing the need for rolls entirely and expanding skills into flat-out superhuman uses. Let Climb grant you a climb speed and Balance let you run across tightropes as though they were sidewalks. Use Sense Motive to read minds, Heal to remove curses, Disguise to fool opponents in the middle of a fight, Jump to reach that flying dragon and Ride to stay on its back while you stab it to death.

[Brova]

The problem is that the main way mundanes interact with the world-- skills-- isn't great. There are too many, meaning that characters often wind up not being able to cover all the bases they need. They're too number-based, meaning that dabbling really doesn't help you very much. And they just... don't keep up with magic. A 20th level rogue can't really do anything with skills that a 1st level commoner can't with a lucky roll.

Well, some skills do keep up with magic. Diplomacy is (with optimization) rather a lot like having dominate monster at will. That's, if not equal to shapechange stacking or wish abuse, at the very least broken. Abuse magic device varies from being slightly worse than casting (when you use it to activate "level appropriate" scrolls), to better than casting (when you use it to activate higher level scrolls), to broken (Emulate Class Feature + Candle of Invocation or Knowstones). But yes, in general skills don't keep up.


The single best way to patch 3.pf mundanes would be to implement something like Unchained's skill unlocks, or 3.5's skill tricks and epic skill uses, or Segev's skill masteries.

That's helpful. There's some other stuff you should do, like combining skills (i.e. Climb/Swim/Jump -> Athletics, fold Spellcraft into Knowledge (Arcana), make Knowledge less skills) and simplifying ranks (I'm a fan of having automatically scale to "level appropriate" and giving class/trained skills a +5 bonus). You also need to do something about the fact that Profession (where you either are or are not a doctor) and Climb (where people have varying degrees of skill) are very different things.


Skill tricks come the closest, from what I've seen-- stuff like False Theurgy, Corner Perch and Wall Jumper all add interesting new options-- but they're too expensive and too limited to really work properly. What would really help would be auto-unlocking options every few ranks.

Skill tricks are neat, but I don't recall any that seemed particularly impressive. IIRC, most of it fits into what skills could/should/do do at low levels. Also, it doesn't really address either the utility spells that surpass skills (i.e. knock for Open Lock) or the fact that high level utility spells are simply better than skills (i.e. teleport and any skill other than diplomacy and abuse magic device).


Let Climb grant you a climb speed and Balance let you run across tightropes as though they were sidewalks. Use Sense Motive to read minds, Heal to remove curses, Disguise to fool opponents in the middle of a fight, Jump to reach that flying dragon and Ride to stay on its back while you stab it to death.

All of that needs to happen, but it needs to happen by like level 8. Seriously, none of those are more than a 3rd level spell and they aren't really a big deal to get at will. Climb, Jump or Balance could all give you a fly speed. Sense Motive could be rolled into Diplomacy and give you any enchantment effects. Heal could just take all the "Cleric tax" spells. Disguise could let you make simulacra. Ride ... probably doesn't need to be a skill.

[Spore]

I feel on one hand should spells be prohibited more heavily and maybe divided into rituals and combat spells

While Ritual spells can be done by a single PC and are available to anyone having the appropriate class, they require DM permission and are not granted everytime: Spells would include Scrying, Commune, Resurrection, Wish, basically anything with a bigger impact on the game and/or a longer casting time.

Combat spells are spells fit for combat that should be balanced around the capabilities of over PC classes: Flight should be in there but harder (requiring actual ranks in Fly and be no quicker than land speed), as should Invisibility (possibly not stacking with existing ranks in Stealth) and other lowlevel game changing spells. Those spells should aim to an overall utility between T3 and T4. Blast spells could even be like Warlock invocations. They are usable everytime.

As for metamagic: Quicken Spell should vanish and some more common spells should have a casting time of one round. Then casters still have a huge impact but they have to be protected and they have to plan ahead. These are the three changes I would make which are sadly way too much for houserules.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I don't know that "ritual magic" is the right approach. Certainly not if you wind up doing what 4e did, which was to shove all interesting magic effects under the heading and lock them behind substantial material costs. There's absolutely room to write caster-classes that can comfortably exist alongside mundane classes-- look at a party with a bard, a dread necromancer, a swordsage and a crusader.


Well, some skills do keep up with magic. Diplomacy is (with optimization) rather a lot like having dominate monster at will. That's, if not equal to shapechange stacking or wish abuse, at the very least broken. Abuse magic device varies from being slightly worse than casting (when you use it to activate "level appropriate" scrolls), to better than casting (when you use it to activate higher level scrolls), to broken (Emulate Class Feature + Candle of Invocation or Knowstones). But yes, in general skills don't keep up.
Diplomacy isn't competitive, it's broken. As written, it flat-out does not function in a way that has anything to do with what we want it to do. UMD keeps up with magic simply by giving you magic; not really the same thing. But yes.


That's helpful. There's some other stuff you should do, like combining skills (i.e. Climb/Swim/Jump -> Athletics, fold Spellcraft into Knowledge (Arcana), make Knowledge less skills) and simplifying ranks (I'm a fan of having automatically scale to "level appropriate" and giving class/trained skills a +5 bonus). You also need to do something about the fact that Profession (where you either are or are not a doctor) and Climb (where people have varying degrees of skill) are very different things.
Agreed. Or at the very least... I like using "linked skills"-- when you take a rank of (Hide), you also get a rank of (Move Silently), up to the usual maximum ranks. It gives you the "skill points go farther" aspect of combined skills, but doesn't cause compatibility issues with the rest of the system.


Skill tricks are neat, but I don't recall any that seemed particularly impressive. IIRC, most of it fits into what skills could/should/do do at low levels. Also, it doesn't really address either the utility spells that surpass skills (i.e. knock for Open Lock) or the fact that high level utility spells are simply better than skills (i.e. teleport and any skill other than diplomacy and abuse magic device).
Well, sure, but they come the closest to helping.


All of that needs to happen, but it needs to happen by like level 8. Seriously, none of those are more than a 3rd level spell and they aren't really a big deal to get at will. Climb, Jump or Balance could all give you a fly speed. Sense Motive could be rolled into Diplomacy and give you any enchantment effects. Heal could just take all the "Cleric tax" spells. Disguise could let you make simulacra. Ride ... probably doesn't need to be a skill.
You also have to be careful not to go too far in the other direction. Advanced skill uses will be available to everyone, remember, not just fighters and monks. As I see it, advanced uses could scale like:

3 ranks: Trained-only uses (fight normally while climbing, find traps)
6 ranks: Extremely competent use (climb/swim speed, heal actual hit point damage)
9 and 12 ranks: low superhuman uses (wall jumping, the Sherlock Holmes schtick)
12 and 15 ranks: moderate superhuman uses (jump 50ft in the air and attack mid-swing, read minds)
18 and 21 ranks: high superhuman uses (jump for miles, create permanent minions)

(Note: reduce ranks by 3 for PF)

Beyond that, you will need individual class fixes, because, well... this is a class based game, and the classes as written drastically diverge in capability. System-wide fixes will by definition affect all classes equally.

[Brova]

One thing I'd probably change is how skills work. Having the RNG diverge as people level up is a bad idea, so everyone needs to maintain at least basic competency in all skills. At the same time, giving everyone ranks in all skills would give all characters all utility spells. As such, I'd probably set it up so that all your skills automatically scale to your level, but you pick a couple of skills (probably a class list + X free picks) that get a +5 bonus and unlock utility powers.


While Ritual spells can be done by a single PC and are available to anyone having the appropriate class, they require DM permission and are not granted everytime: Spells would include Scrying, Commune, Resurrection, Wish, basically anything with a bigger impact on the game and/or a longer casting time.

I'm with you until the DM permission thing. The reason that spells like teleport, plane shift, and planar binding are good is that they give players an investment in the plot and the ability to control what's going on. Taking that away removes the whole point of noncombat spells.


Combat spells are spells fit for combat that should be balanced around the capabilities of over PC classes: Flight should be in there but harder (requiring actual ranks in Fly and be no quicker than land speed), as should Invisibility (possibly not stacking with existing ranks in Stealth) and other lowlevel game changing spells. Those spells should aim to an overall utility between T3 and T4. Blast spells could even be like Warlock invocations. They are usable everytime.

I disagree with that and feel that instead of powering casters down we should power mundanes up. Particularly because the point that monsters are balanced to is Wizard that are playing well, but not going balls out crazy with planar binding or dominate person or animate dead. From a simple "path of least resistance" perspective the way to balance the game is to figure out a solution to players gaining minions, power down a few spells (shapechange, wish for items, ice assassin), and power up the mundanes.


I don't know that "ritual magic" is the right approach. Certainly not if you wind up doing what 4e did, which was to shove all interesting magic effects under the heading and lock them behind substantial material costs. There's absolutely room to write caster-classes that can comfortably exist alongside mundane classes-- look at a party with a bard, a dread necromancer, a swordsage and a crusader.

Ritual magic needs to exist so that cultists can sacrifice virgins to summon demons. How exactly it works is basically an open question, and it's possible that it shouldn't include regular utility magic. But it has to be there.


Agreed. Or at the very least... I like using "linked skills"-- when you take a rank of (Hide), you also get a rank of (Move Silently), up to the usual maximum ranks. It gives you the "skill points go farther" aspect of combined skills, but doesn't cause compatibility issues with the rest of the system.

I don't know about doing that for some things, but it certainly seems like a solution to the problem systems with a single Stealth skill have (where being invisible and behind a brick wall is harder for people to detect than just behind a brick wall). If you're patching 3e, it's certainly a path of least resistance though, so it seems like a fine enough idea. The one area I dislike that is Knowledge. Basically, it seems good to have a variety of Knowledge skills (probably something for natural stuff, something for planar stuff, something for magic stuff, and something for other stuff). That's less Knowledge skills than currently exist, but it's not only one skill. Basically, I don't think you want people who have a lot of ranks in Knowledge (Nature) to also have a lot of ranks in Knowledge (Arcana), but you also don't want to track peoples ranks in Knowledge (Nobility and Royalty) at all.


You also have to be careful not to go too far in the other direction. Advanced skill uses will be available to everyone, remember, not just fighters and monks.

Remember that in my model this is replacing spells like planar binding and teleport, as well as supplementing an effort to balance casters in combat. The point isn't to fix casters so much as to fix noncombat spells.



3 ranks Level 1: Trained-only uses (fight normally while climbing, find traps)
6 ranks Level 3: Extremely competent use (climb/swim speed, heal actual hit point damage)
9 and 12 ranks Level 6 to Level 9: low superhuman uses (wall jumping, the Sherlock Holmes schtick)
12 and 15 ranks Level 9 to Level 12: moderate superhuman uses (jump 50ft in the air and attack mid-swing, read minds)
18 and 21 ranks Level 15 to Level 18: high superhuman uses (jump for miles, create permanent minions)


Translate those into levels for a second (I've done it in the quote).

The first two look basically okay. You've got 1st level people who are simply "very good", which is about where the game should be. Then 3rd level people (who are competing with spider climb, knock, and levitate) get climb speeds and high level mundane stuff. That seems basically reasonable.

The problem is that wall jumping and the sherlock scan are competing with fly, scrying, and lesser planar binding. And then a 50ft jump is competing with people who could just be riding a dragon (well, not strictly a dragon, I just couldn't think of a ridable demon). And skills are creating permanent minions six levels after spells started summoning demons. That seems problematic.

So my redesign (for diplomacy) might look like this:

Diplomacy (skills covered: Gather Information, Diplomacy, maybe Sense Motive)

Diplomacy is the skill you use to convince people of something you believe to be true through logical argument. It's also the skill you use to convince people that making a deal with you is in their best interests.

Basic uses of diplomacy (the stuff you can do "untrained") include...

... convince someone to make a deal. [explanation follows]
... persuade someone to accept an argument. [explanation follows]
... win a popularity contest or election. [explanation follows]

Advanced uses of diplomacy (the magical stuff) include...

... charm person. (Level 3)
... suggestion. (Level 7)
... lesser planar binding. (Level 11)
... planar binding. (Level 15)
... greater planar binding. (Level 19)

Obviously, some of that could get shuffled around, it's mostly fit to put low level options in a reasonable place (because that has to happen) and match a progression (because consistent progressions are nice). You could conceivably add essentially any enchantment spell and some non-spell advanced uses. It is probably also true that some spells will show up on multiple lists (for example, I imagine Bluff also has suggestion at some point).


Beyond that, you will need individual class fixes, because, well... this is a class based game, and the classes as written drastically diverge in capability. System-wide fixes will by definition affect all classes equally.

Very true. You basically can't get around balancing people in the combat minigame. This is just an effort to balance people outside of that.

[Segev]

One of the things I'm proud of with the Skill Masteries is that it covers two of the areas discussed: They do offer savant-level and even superhuman capability "mundanely," particularly as you approach the ones with really high ratings, and they do not require expending a resource that could be spent on something else; they're "bought" with the ranks you've already got of skills (without reducing those ranks).

Notably, a climb speed is one of the Climb Masteries already written up.


I do agree; combining certain somewhat niche skills is a good idea. PF did well, there, with Athletics (rather than jump/climb/swim), Stealth (rather than hide/move silently), and Perception (rather than spot/search/listen). Also combining Open Locks into Disable Device, and a few other similar reductions, was a good idea. (The Masteries draft are currently written for 3.5, but can be easily redone for PF's combinations.)


While the change to skills in 4e is not something with which I had a problem, I do prefer 3.PF's more customizable approach. Particularly when playing with something like Masteries to expand upon them, the ability to customize your skill selections adds to the game more than the simplicity of blanket bonuses.

Skill Tricks were something I was originally quite excited by, but they're ultimately weaker than they need to be, particularly when they cost skill points with which you could be buying ranks. Masteries are, in my own head, anyway, meant to be more powerful than skill tricks (maybe rating 1 Masteries would do what some skill tricks do), and are meant to do it without making the skill-reliant character pay STILL MORE for it when he's already behind on the power curve.

[Segev]

I disagree with that and feel that instead of powering casters down we should power mundanes up. Particularly because the point that monsters are balanced to is Wizard that are playing well, but not going balls out crazy with planar binding or dominate person or animate dead. From a simple "path of least resistance" perspective the way to balance the game is to figure out a solution to players gaining minions, power down a few spells (shapechange, wish for items, ice assassin), and power up the mundanes.

I am on the same page with you, here. Normally, I don't agree at all with the efforts to power down casters, because they're too often ignoring that the first step is to power up "mundane" classes. Also, they tend to go about it ham-fistedly, throwing out cool, flavorful stuff wholesale.

I will say that at least one nerf that may be appropriate without going too far would be to simply make shapechange share Tenser's Transformation's biggest drawback: you can't cast spells while shapechanged into a form other than your own. Phrase it however necessary to prevent "shapechange stacking" that ends with your form having a lot of (Su) powers piled on.

Also, a lot of the buff effects which can be put on the mage or others are fine...but "others" need to have abilities that make them better targets for those effects. I actually wrote some feats to help with that; amongst them was one that let you use your own physical stats as the basis for new forms you assume (so that 24-strength barbarian is better than your 8-strength wizard for that polymorph). Also to make them last longer when cast on you (so you're a better target than that planar bound Hound Archon).


Minions are always a tricky thing to make satisfying in a game. Played straight, they wind up making the minionmancer frustrating for everybody else because his turns are really multiple turns. But abstracting minions is usually very unsatisfying as they swiftly stop feeling like, well, minions. I don't have a good solution to this problem; it's one I've wrestled with for a while.

[daremetoidareyo]

This is vital to balance casters. Any effort to balance D&D needs to start by ditching the idea of a Wizard that does every kind of magic. It's not in the source material and it's massively harder to balance. Wizard could easily be split into Necromancer (undead minions, necromancy, stinking cloud line), Beguiler (charmed minions, enchantment), Summoner (summoned minions, teleportation, wall of fire line), Illusionist (illusionary minions, illusion), Warmage (area of effect damage, single target damage, buffs), Warden (abjuration, divination), Shapeshifter (alter self line), Occulist (demon minions, ranged single target damage, ranged single target debuffs) and Wizard (various iconic D&D Wizard spells like fireball and magic missile). That's more classes than 4e had on launch, and it doesn't have a Fire Mage, a Gish, a dedicated battlefield controller or any of the other casting classes (for example, Sorcerer could easily be split into Warlock, Dragon Shaman, something for elementals, something for celestials, and something for aberrations).

Of course, the real problem for Fighters isn't that Wizards have more options. Picking powers from a bigger list just means there are more powers you didn't pick. The problem is twofold. First, Wizards have bigger and better powers. This can be solved by just giving Fighters numbers which are level appropriate and counters to enemy tactics. The second and harder problem is that Wizards get out of combat powers while Fighters don't. You can't really solve this just by tuning up the Fighter class, as Fighters don't really get non-combat powers at all. The system basically needs to split spells like planar binding and scrying into rituals which anyone can use. Like what 4e did, only without gimping them or making them too expensive.

There are really convenient fault lines in the magic system for D&D: schools and descriptors. You can always limit an arcane magic user to 2 schools or descriptors and throw in a feat to open up more. It actually gives wizards more personality. An Illusionist/summoner has a far different feel than vs. fire focused/exalted/light mage. And I know that specialization is supposed to grant uniqueness to the class, but it only functions a little bit that way. The problem with balancing arcane this way is figuring out how to balance divine.

The justice of weald and woe, ranger, and assassin spell lists all have spells that could easily be refluffed as non-magic and distributed like initiator maneuvers to certain mundane classes (fighter, ranged attackers, sneaky rogues/martials)


Clerics get buffs through domain choices and then get one heck of a spell list on top of a chassis that is better at combat than a rogue. It strikes me that the cleric should have its BAB dropped a level.

Druids are off the charts for versatility: shapechanges/fast spell progression/crazy summoning skills. Druid should be split into two classes: master of many forms and nature caster. Both of these would still be more powerful than the 2 school wizards mentioned above. Assuming all the books are available, the shapechanger would need some more limitations (particularly that they can only become what they've witnessed and maybe studied the form of). The nature caster/summoner, assuming we live in a world of greenbound and ashbound summoning feat options, should probably get sorcerer spell progression.

[Brova]

I will say that at least one nerf that may be appropriate without going too far would be to simply make shapechange share Tenser's Transformation's biggest drawback: you can't cast spells while shapechanged into a form other than your own. Phrase it however necessary to prevent "shapechange stacking" that ends with your form having a lot of (Su) powers piled on.

Honestly, that works pretty well. But it does require a rewrite to shapechange to prevent ability stacking (FFS, at the time it was published shapechange allowed you to become immune to bludgeoning damage and non-bludgeoning damage). Even at that point, you're still dealing with players getting abilities that are probably not balanced for them to have (for example, the black pudding splits when dealt slashing damage).

One place to look for ways to balance shapechange is (essentially) the only spell that allows you to grab stuff out of the monster manual and isn't broken: summon monster. What summon monster does is give a specific list of things which are okay, and let you use only that list. You can't summon an efreet, because efreet get wish three times a day and summoning one would be broken. Expansion material can even add options by picking particular creatures which are balanced. So there's your shapechange rework. Pick some creatures that are level appropriate to turn into, turn into only those ones. Has the disadvantages of being a good deal of work and denying people a lot of options.

Another way to balance shapechange (and the one I prefer) is to give up on the idea of using MM entries at all. In this model shapechange is a disguise, buff, and utility spell (note: shapechange is a stand in for the whole polymorph line). This is kind of what PF did, IIRC, but their version looked to complicated. So your spells look like this:

Level 1: disguise self - change form to any creature of same type and size, no new abilities, no stat changes, no templates, no unique creatures (i.e. even if you happen to be a colossal magical beast, you can't assume the for of the Torrasque), perfect disguise as a member of that race, +10 to disguise as a specific individual of that race.

Level 3: alter self - change form to any creature of the same type or humanoid or monstrous humanoid or giant and of the same size, pick from a list of abilities like "climb speed" and "water breathing", minor stat changes (i.e. +2 to two stats or +4 to one, roughly), no templates, no unique creatures, perfect disguise as a member of that race, +10 to disguise as a specific individual of that race.

Level 5: polymorph - change form to a creature of the same type or any creature which is living, intelligent, corporeal, not a swarm, new form must be within one size category, pick from a list of abilities like "fly speed" and "poison", moderate stat changes, no templates, no unique creatures, perfect disguise as a member of that race, +10 to disguise as a specific individual of that race.

Level 7: polymorph any object - change form to any living corporeal creature, pick from a list of abilities like "DR 15/bludgeoning and magic" and "augmented critical", major stat changes, templates allowed, no unique creatures, perfect disguise as a member of that race, +10 to disguise as a specific individual of that race

polymorph any object also allows you to emulate flesh to stone, stone shape and similar spells.

Level 9: shapechange - any creature, pick from a list of abilities like "regeneration" and "breath weapon" (possibly a single [Ex] ability of current form as well), huge stat changes (possibly stat replacement), templates allowed, unique creatures allowed, perfect disguise as a specific individual, change form 1/round.

That has the advantage of not telling people "you can be a legion devil but not a chain devil" and covering a lot of ground with very few spells. It has the disadvantages of potentially having a gnome turn into a weaker bear than an orc and being more complex. I'm also unsure how to do natural weapons and how it fits into "skills grant utility magic".


Also, a lot of the buff effects which can be put on the mage or others are fine...but "others" need to have abilities that make them better targets for those effects. I actually wrote some feats to help with that; amongst them was one that let you use your own physical stats as the basis for new forms you assume (so that 24-strength barbarian is better than your 8-strength wizard for that polymorph). Also to make them last longer when cast on you (so you're a better target than that planar bound Hound Archon).

Honestly, as long as mundanes are competitive with casters using polymorph, you don't need to do anything. Just keeping your own abilities and having good melee abilities is probably enough.


Minions are always a tricky thing to make satisfying in a game. Played straight, they wind up making the minionmancer frustrating for everybody else because his turns are really multiple turns. But abstracting minions is usually very unsatisfying as they swiftly stop feeling like, well, minions. I don't have a good solution to this problem; it's one I've wrestled with for a while.

The solution I'm thinking of is to just declare "you get Leadership at 6, your cohort is an encounter of EL = Character Level - 2, fluff it how you want". It's a little on the nose, but seems like it works pretty well. The question then becomes "what the hell do we do with planar binding?" I've not thought of a good answer to that yet.


There are really convenient fault lines in the magic system for D&D: schools and descriptors. You can always limit an arcane magic user to 2 schools or descriptors and throw in a feat to open up more. It actually gives wizards more personality. An Illusionist/summoner has a far different feel than vs. fire focused/exalted/light mage. And I know that specialization is supposed to grant uniqueness to the class, but it only functions a little bit that way. The problem with balancing arcane this way is figuring out how to balance divine.

Well, in my model you're writing up new classes like Dread Necromancer, Beguiler, and Warmage. So balancing divine casters is actually easy. Cleric gets split to like War Priest, White Mage, Oracle, and maybe Necromancer. Druid gets split to Beastmaster, Shapeshifter, and Nature Priest. Done. Now you just have to write out

[Segev]

I think another thing to consider goes back to the thesis of this thread's original post: to really buff non-casters, once we've settled on their subsystem-tool (the way casters have "spellcasting"), we need to look at designing their class features to make them better at using that tool, rather than designing class features towards a specific end goal.

Take the Fatespinner: it allows the caster to let his allies re-roll, and force his enemies to re-roll. That latter is particularly powerful on a caster, because it makes him better at using his save-or-suffer spells (since saves are rolled by the targets).

Or the mother of all mighty PrCs, the Incantatrix: she has tools to make her better at using the meta-tools that make her spells both powerful and versatile!


So, focusing for a moment on "skill masteries" (or, presumably, skill unlocks), a good class feature might allow selection of temporary ones, or reshuffling one's choices of them, or selecting more than normally allowed by one's ranks.

Similarly, class features which let feats be manipulated would make for stronger mundane classes; look how valued the first level of Chameleon can be!


As I've noted, most mundane classes have an end result: be a better grappler, be a better infiltrator, be better at weaving baskets underwater with the aid of Aboleth mucus. Casting classes instead go for "be a better caster."

Some of the best mundane classes focus on being better at using certain tools, for example: War Hulk makes you stronger, which is a tool usable for a lot of things, not just combat; Frenzied Berserker makes you rage stupidly well, which might be just combat focused, but it is a tool for all sorts of combat. Frenzied Berserker is not as good as a "be better at casting" class, because it's for a tool with a narrower focus, but it's the right idea, which is why it's as powerful as it is. It does improve a tool rather than empower a specific end result directly.

[DMVerdandi]

I think the flaw is in thinking that a mundane base class is necessary or needed.
Keep them in the NPC purview, and make it such that being "mundane" in universe is either stupid or unlucky as all heck.

Instead, have the idea of "mundanes" be taken away altogether and appropriately switched with MARTIALS. Now this wouldn't simply mean them getting martial maneuvers, but also Psionic Powers. The thing is, the powers lists for almost every one would max out at 6 power levels, but their maneuvers would max out at 9. Also almost each martial class would only have access to two martial schools.

Fighter gets psychic warrior powers, Iron Heart, Diamond mind, white raven, or Stone Dragon, and 4 floating feats.


Rogue gets psychic rogue powers, monk speed, shadow hand, Diamond mind, or Iron Heart


Barbarian and wilder mix, wilder power list, Tiger claw, Iron Heart, or stone dragon


Monk and Erudite mix and it becomes the only class to express 9th level powers, and can choose from any school of the sublime way, but can only choose one. Also only gets low BAB.




Now, all the full casters don't get maneuvers or BAB, but they get 9th level spells.
What it would do is make the end game for the "martials", a lot more well rounded. Instead of it being spell casters vs dude who swings sword, it becomes spell casters vs dude who swings sword and focuses his mind to achieve the supernormal without relying on bat guano.

Those would be the quick hacks.
More detailed would be creating whole psionic power lists and maneuver lists for each non-spellcaster. Also, requiring maneuvers to use Power Points would just be the cherry on top. Instead of having to refresh maneuvers, simply have them cost PP.
With that they have options to manifest for buffs, healing, and random utility powers, but can also nova with their maneuvers, using their minds to fuel their physical abilities in say, an anti-magic field.



With that you can integrate both TOB and XPH in 4 classes, and have them work seamlessly alongside casters. no need to rename the classic roles, they just are expressed differently. They solidly become damage dealers, aren't beholden to feat shenanigans or skills necessarily, and best of all have extremely distinct systems that make them feel quite different from spell casters.

[Segev]

While that could work in a setting where every high-level character uses some sort of supernatural power (e.g. Hunter x Hunter's Nen, Naruto's chi, etc.), I think injecting any one extant subsystem (with its fluff, flavor, and place) into the "mundane" classes is a mistake. Fighters shouldn't have to be psychic. (Again, depending on setting; I could see saying all members of the Hunters Guild are psychic or mages, even if they channel it differently.)

However, the "mundane" classes should probably still have supernatural powers, or at least "extraordinary" powers that are blatantly superhuman.

The only mistake in having "mundane" classes is the assumption that this means "unable to be superhuman." There's no reason a fighter shouldn't be able to "flash step" in a manner similar to (or superior to!) a dimension door (whether due to repeatability, ability to act after doing it, or both).

[DMVerdandi]

While that could work in a setting where every high-level character uses some sort of supernatural power (e.g. Hunter x Hunter's Nen, Naruto's chi, etc.), I think injecting any one extant subsystem (with its fluff, flavor, and place) into the "mundane" classes is a mistake. Fighters shouldn't have to be psychic. (Again, depending on setting; I could see saying all members of the Hunters Guild are psychic or mages, even if they channel it differently.)

However, the "mundane" classes should probably still have supernatural powers, or at least "extraordinary" powers that are blatantly superhuman.

The only mistake in having "mundane" classes is the assumption that this means "unable to be superhuman." There's no reason a fighter shouldn't be able to "flash step" in a manner similar to (or superior to!) a dimension door (whether due to repeatability, ability to act after doing it, or both).

The thing is, this could have worked in 5.E and not missed a beat.
The biggest thing to swallow with psionics remains the names and the specific flavor that has been put out. Too many crystals, too many pseudoscientific names.
Switch all of that and it's fine.

The thing is, just for internal consistency, it is best to formalize and standardize one time supernatural effects(I.e Spells,Maneuvers,Manifestations, etc), and another fact of the matter is that they are the difference between power in this game.


You said fighters don't have to be psychic, but in 3.5 what is a fighter but a warrior with 11 extra feats?
What are any of the classes but the mechanics they rest on. Thing is, the mundane classes are broken. They don't function stand alone at all. You put a psychic warrior and a fighter against each other with the only item they have is a wooden club, and I bet on the psychic warrior 10/10 times.

The PHB mundane classes are almost totally dependent on magic items, dm fiat, and so many things that make them what they are not in everything but name only. Why not keep that for warriors, experts, aristocrats, and all the other NPC classes. PC classes already have a certain quality that puts them on a precipice that the NPC's can't reach.
Make that quality access to SOMETHING.

You don't have to call it powers. You can call it techniques, or knacks, or esoterica.
You don't have to call the greater system qi or psionics. You can call it Artes, Vigors , or Pnuema .
Heck, you could make them all Constitution Based, so that it really emphasizes being based on the body rather than the mind.

The truth of the matter is this.
Individual class abilities, and feats do not, and probably will not cut it.
The strength in spell casting is there are rules for everything you (could) want to do.
Not having rules leaves desires up to DM fiat, and in this system that is horrible.

Manuevers are perfect for in the thick fighting and techniques to allow you to do stuff.
However, without having factotum level skill choice, the regular PCs are left behind, and even with it, spells so thoroughly surpass skills that they still couldn't bridge the gap.


Inevitably some metagame thinking must be done. Being fully mundane is a drain on party resources. This game is not that game. You can't do low magic successfully because low magic truly means few spells AND magic items, and most of the mundane classes, ESPECIALLY fighters, can't function or succeed against level appropriate challenges without them.

In Greyhawk, Being mundane is actually special snow flaking, rather than being a caster.

[Segev]

No, I disagree.

Down that path lies 4e's failings.

You absolutely CAN have something that is not a one-time effect (i.e. a spell or power) grant power and versatility.

Feats can be written to be sufficient; they haven't been by WotC, but they can be.

Fighters do need something "just for them," to make them other than "warriors with bonus feats." Some effort towards it can be done in writing feats that benefit them specially, but adding class features would also help considerably.

The big thing, and I can't emphasize this enough, is that they need their own subsystem and they need class features which let them meta-manipulate that subsystem.

Fighters, for instance, need to be better at using feats. Not better at attacking, or better at a particular style of combat; they need to be better at using feats and weapons to do things, regardless of what those things are. Just as mages, particularly in their PrCs, get features that make them better at using magic. Not better at hurling fireballs, but better at evocations or using fire or utilizing damage spells effectively.

We also need to get away from the idea that "a fighter can't do that; that's magic," and we need to have feats (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BWI2n1Xg1okUhHNABnXN0yShhgRmRYp4vaUq2SI1Hp4/edit?usp=sharing) designed to let them participate on the same playing field as the high-powered magics do. ("Essential magic items" was key in helping compose some of those.) (Notably, those feats don't, themselves, do what this thread is discussing: make the fighter better at USING feats. They just make them worth using!)

The point is, "spells" are a subsystem. "Psionic powers" are a subsystem that is similar, but different enough that different meta-mechanical powers can be designed to mainpulate them. "Feats" are a subsystem, as are "skills," but both are universal, so require a lot more effort to make the class(es) that have them as their centerpiece be superior. "Martial maneuvers" are a subsystem. (A couple of the feats linked above stumble into this thread's purview regarding making people who take them better at using martial maneuvers.) "Incarnum" is a subsystem. "Binding" is a subsystem.

It is a great disservice to the game to make all these things use the same subsystem.

[nijineko]

It may not be a revelation to anybody else, but it just occurred to me: Mundane classes, by and large, focus on doing something well. They're good with weapons, they're good at breaking and entering, they're good at grappling, they're good at riding a mount into combat, they're good at infiltration/stealth, they're good at persuasion/diplomacy. Caster classes, by and large, focus on using a tool (i.e. their magic) well. They're good at casting spells, at metamagic, at magic item creation, and minion-construction, at manipulating their spells to do new and unusual things, at using a particular class of spells.

And I think therein lies the problem.

When you design a better axe-thrower, you built a special-purpose class. When you design a better master of the axe, you create not just combat techniques, but ways he can use it to solve problems more esoterically. It becomes a climbing piton, a ranged grappling hook, etc.

Even that's not the best example; the caster isn't using just an axe - that would be one spell or spell line. The caster is using a specialized tool set, a subsystem all his own.

Rogues and other skill-masters need not just more skill points, nor more class skills; they need more ways to USE their skills, and ways to manipulate the skill system in a meta-way. Rogues in particular should have more than can do with "Rogue Tricks" as they gain them. Heck, "Rogue Tricks" need to be more than just class-specific feats.

Fighters need better, broader feats and better, more versatile ways to use them and even to manipulate the feat system.


Anyway, just thought I'd share this (possibly new-only-to-me) insight: Casters are supreme because their focus is on improving their tools, rather than on improving specific uses to which to put them. Mundanes do the latter. Mundanes pick a thing and are good at it; Casters pick a means of doing lots of things and are good at that.

the actual problem started with gygax and arneson. in the view they eventually agreed upon and published back in 1974, they thought that wizards should be really powerful, but rare individuals. this essential viewpoint has been carried forward in every version of D&D since. even the perks (in older versions of D&D) that pcs received as they leveled up supported this assumption - melee types acquired land, titles, and small to large numbers of followers, wizards don't automatically obtain those things (varies slightly from version to version). 3rd ed changed that, stripping these perks from class features and making it feat based instead.

but despite tweaks, the essential viewpoint has never been challenged or even really reviewed.

[noob]

I remember of one team with one priest two magi and one barbarian.
The barbarian had lots and lots of importance and was absolutely needed because he could break all the walls or even just grab the dungeon and let it fall into lava and going through walls is a lot better than using doors the barbarian also helped a lot just by taking hits without dying and in the end I have seen that without the barbarian we would have an useless team.
But what we see is still an aberration there was three times more casters than mudane and I think it should change.(Else I am currently thinking about a skill based magic system non casters with one +20 item would have level 7 spells at level 20 and with some feats and betters items everyone could have lvl 9 spells but lvl20 magicians would get a huge bonus to spell-casting competences and would without spending feats an equivalent caster level of something like 20 (the main problem I am encountering with this system is low level balance(this is totally unrelated to the discussion since it is only making everyone casters)))

[nedz]

the actual problem started with gygax and arneson. in the view they eventually agreed upon and published back in 1974, they thought that wizards should be really powerful, but rare individuals. this essential viewpoint has been carried forward in every version of D&D since. even the perks (in older versions of D&D) that pcs received as they leveled up supported this assumption - melee types acquired land, titles, and small to large numbers of followers, wizards don't automatically obtain those things (varies slightly from version to version). 3rd ed changed that, stripping these perks from class features and making it feat based instead.

but despite tweaks, the essential viewpoint has never been challenged or even really reviewed.

Except that Gygax was adamant that other classes not steal the Fighter's toys. In 3.5 those are just feats which anyone can take. Fighters were a threat to Wizards in AD&D, but only if they got to go toe to toe.