Pathfinder 1E Pathfinder Sneak Peeks (Old thread)

[AllisterH]

You know, I got a question...

Why did no D&D edition just come out and say "Look, after level X (X being whatever level you think spellcasters start to dominate the game), spellcasters are the stars of the show...if you're playing a fighter, you can retire your character and play a spellcaster of level X-1".

Now, wouldn't that solve many a problem?

 

[Jeff Wilder]

You know, I got a question...

Why did no D&D edition just come out and say "Look, after level X (X being whatever level you think spellcasters start to dominate the game), spellcasters are the stars of the show...if you're playing a fighter, you can retire your character and play a spellcaster of level X-1".

Now, wouldn't that solve many a problem?

I guess, but personally I'd want to just lay a caster from the beginning, in that case. If we're playing to high levels, I don't want to retire the PCs I've played for months or years because he's not a caster.

Basically, it's swapping one unfairness for another.

I am, BTW, basically with the people who haven't really experienced the "casterz r0xx0rs" problems, and I suspect it's because of the way my group plays the game. It doesn't come as a surprise to me that a game as complex as D&D breaks in this way (and others) if people push hard against the boundaries. In our games, we don't do that. D&D has enough problems at high levels without going out of our way to create more.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I guess, but personally I'd want to just lay a caster from the beginning, in that case. If we're playing to high levels, I don't want to retire the PCs I've played for months or years because he's not a caster.

Basically, it's swapping one unfairness for another.

I am, BTW, basically with the people who haven't really experienced the "casterz r0xx0rs" problems, and I suspect it's because of the way my group plays the game. It doesn't come as a surprise to me that a game as complex as D&D breaks in this way (and others) if people push hard against the boundaries. In our games, we don't do that. D&D has enough problems at high levels without going out of our way to create more.

The tier system of 4E gave me the idea that one could have a system that made everyone a "real" spellcaster at some level.

I wouldn't even forbid low level casters in such a system. It's just that these low level casters will rely on weapon tricks and similar stuff at early levels and just occassionally cast a spell. At higher levels, the non-spellcasters learn spells (but they focus on augmenting their martial abilities), and the spellcasters can lay their swords, staffs and crossbows aside and focus entirely on spells.

So you wouldn't have to retire your Fighter at high level - it's just that your Fighter would learn to cast the buff spells and healing spells currently reserved for Clerics and Wizards for himself, and the Clerics and Wizard can focus on their own shticks. (Of course, that would mean some changes for the Cleric, but there is also nothing wrong with that...)

I presume one would avoid daily powers for "martial" characters - they might instead get extra encounter powers or vastly more hit points / healing surges or similar resources - while the spellcasters get strong spells, but still fight mostly with daggers, crossbows, staffs or whatever seems appropriate for them.

 

[Remathilis]

You know, I got a question...

Why did no D&D edition just come out and say "Look, after level X (X being whatever level you think spellcasters start to dominate the game), spellcasters are the stars of the show...if you're playing a fighter, you can retire your character and play a spellcaster of level X-1".

Now, wouldn't that solve many a problem?

Why not just make fighters have more options while limiting the raw power of magic casters?

Why should fighters and thieves (and similar martial pcs) face built-in obsolesces?

 

[Dannager]

I am, BTW, basically with the people who haven't really experienced the "casterz r0xx0rs" problems, and I suspect it's because of the way my group plays the game. It doesn't come as a surprise to me that a game as complex as D&D breaks in this way (and others) if people push hard against the boundaries. In our games, we don't do that. D&D has enough problems at high levels without going out of our way to create more.

There is no boundary-pushing required for casters to dominate mid- to high-level 3.5 gameplay.

In fact, boundary pushing is required for non-spellcasting classes to have the same level of impact on the game itself at these levels. Without boundary-pushing, those classes are left in the dust be even mediocre spellcasters.

 

[Mournblade94]

Sounds about right to me. You get charm person, read thoughts, etc. Fighters get to fight. And nothing else. So they should utterly dominate all combat. They should be the toughest, and deal the most damage, and impose status effects with basic attacks, at will.

4e did this. Fighters In my opinion have always carried the party through the encounters. I, and none of the players I know of, ever had a fighter that felt useless.

I like the mage with Charm Person and the Fireball. I am not willing to play a game system that would take that away. I do not think it necessary to subscribe to the model that all characters should have one job.

Or give them 8 skill points and other abilities, so they do stuff out of combat (not that it's allowed to be as good as spells though). Right now they cant even be fully trained in your typical "fantasy action hero" skills (jump, climb, ride and swim) with their stupid 2 skill points, another crappy design decision.

I agree but maybe expand the class list and give 6 points instead. There are alot of skills that I think fighters should be allowed. There is no reason Sense motive should not be on anyone's list.

This is a fallacy I'm incredibly sick of. The day ends when the casters are out of spells. No one presses on without healing, as fighters cant even stand up to a full attack without constant ass wiping from a cleric. If 1 HD critters dropped out of a tube constantly and allowed the fighter to win initiative, yeah, I guess high level fighters would have vast staying power. But in reality, their staying power is the same as the cleric's.

This is no fallacy. I have never allowed the 15 minute days, so if a party nova'd in the morning, they had to wait for the cleric to pray at the right time, and the mage to have adequate rest in a 24 hour period. Some of my most fun games have been the Rogue and Fighter pulling the party through.

Obviously, they would not due against a full strength dragon, but it happens.

Certainly not a fallacy. I would call it common.

I know the designers generally favor the same "caster supremacy" ideals which have plagued D&D for 30+ years. Unless spells are gutted 9they wont be), the few bones thrown towards non-casters dont really matter.

But now you have 4e to solve this perceived problem (which I think much less than people here actually report).

 

[Mournblade94]

Seeing as the casters are providing the buffs shouldn't they get the tales of legends?
They are doing 1/2 the work (fighter without the buffs couldn't function 1/2 as good).

Seems rather unfair.

Alright agreed.

But generally I found the players with real life leadership ability prefer to play fighters (in my groups).

Just like I found players with real life acting abilities pull off roles out of the ordinary.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

There is no boundary-pushing required for casters to dominate mid- to high-level 3.5 gameplay.

In fact, boundary pushing is required for non-spellcasting classes to have the same level of impact on the game itself at these levels. Without boundary-pushing, those classes are left in the dust be even mediocre spellcasters.

Not in our games. We came back to D&D with 3E in 2000, and this hasn't been a problem.

 

[Krensky]

One thing that would (and has in games I've used it) go a long way to helping fighters (and I suggested it on the play test) is tweaking the massive damage rules. At minimum the scaling DC alternate in UA should be applied, and lowering the threshold helps too. It also opens the space for feats, spells, and abilities to actually use the Fighter's (and company) save or die effect.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Alright agreed.

But generally I found the players with real life leadership ability prefer to play fighters (in my groups).

It definitely always seems as if the Fighter is the leader of a party.

Look at OotS characters - Roy is a Fighter. Ruleswise, he absolutely has no reason to have a high charisma, and a high Int or Wis is also mostly useless by 3.x RAW (and I suspect it was the same in earlier editions. 4E only added Wisdom as important stat). But he comes off as one of the smartest and charismatic PCs - he takes the decisions, he talks to the NPCs.

The guy standing in the front and fighting for his comrades, going toe-to-toe with dragons is just the kind of guy you want to follow. The guy that sings funny songs and wears colorful clothes might be totally hot and nice, but seriously, if you want to enter dungeons, the guy with the big sword and armor just is the guy you want to follow.

The rules just fail to give the Fighter what seems appropriate to him...