Fact: Pathfinder has solved the Caster/Non-Caster Disparity of 3.5

[ShurikVch]

But while they're battering away on a force cube, they're not hitting your team. That's one standard action from you to take away at least one full-attack from them, and very likely more. Don't you consider that to be useful? Do you understand how action economy works?

This quote is a little too much of "white room" situation.
For clarification it may be good to know: which party, of what level, caged who, at what kind of environment, and what exactly are they trying to do
One of possible corner cases: enemy plugging important pass; if you Forcecaged him, you still wouldn't be able to pass - it's now plugged with Forcecage
Another corner case: enemy is somewhat capable ranged attacker; Barred Cage wouldn't stop him from harming your party; windowless - protect him from you as much as you - from him
Third corner case: high DR or/and Fast Healing - enemy laughing over your attempts to harm him through the cage

[ryu]

I sort of agree, in that it makes sense that the guy who uses mystical energies to manipulate space and time should generally be more successful than the guy who tries to kill dragons with his fists. I don't think you should rate all the classes, but I think there should be more magical or anti-magic options for martials in high-magic (read: default) settings. Things like Spell Sunder and Automatic Bonus Progression, for example. Making the default somewhat lower-magic would do wonders as well, and it would be nice if there were some caster options for lower magic campaigns, where their magic is less powerful but they get other abilities to compensate.

Another thing I think is a problem is that casters aren't specific enough. Beguiler, Warmage, Warlock, Healer, Dread Necromancer, etc. are much easier to balance against than Wizards. Extra forbidden schools and such would go a long way.

I don't think I've fully got my point forward. Literally the only change I'd make to 3.5's completed state is to label the power and complexity of the various options. There's options for pretty much any power level you'd care to mention, and mundanes were patched to tier 3 with tome of battle making them playable in anything that isn't high powered on equal terms, and at least somewhat relevant in a tier 2 game. Once that's completed you can play anything from a dirt farming peasant to a god, and the only issue is a group agreeing what power level of game is happening. Now instead of one game full of wildly different power levels you've several games where any given party you can pick will have a game together. I'll stick to wizard hyperchess, the people who hate the concept of magic can play D&D without most of interesting and complex bits, and everyone else can decide what exact amount of cream (magic) to add to their coffee (game).

[Ssalarn]

Another thing I think is a problem is that casters aren't specific enough. Beguiler, Warmage, Warlock, Healer, Dread Necromancer, etc. are much easier to balance against than Wizards. Extra forbidden schools and such would go a long way.

Yeah, I mentioned earlier in the thread how problematic it is that caster's are currently defined by what they can't do rather than what they can, especially when there's almost always a way around. If you can't use Evocation, there's almost nothing there you can't simulate with a little Conjuration, maybe some Abjuration or whatever (in fact, Conjuration is arguably better at doing the evocation thing than Evocation). Add to that the fact that in Pathfinder, a specialist wizard can memorize a spell from an opposition school and the only penalty is that they end up with exactly as many spell slots as a wizard who didn't specialize to begin with, and there's really nothing a wizard can't do, so none of his supposed balancing factors really matter. More narrow and thematic spell lists would be a great improvement. It's why I switched from vancian casting to Spheres of Power.

[javcs]

I don't think I've fully got my point forward. Literally the only change I'd make to 3.5's completed state is to label the power and complexity of the various options. There's options for pretty much any power level you'd care to mention, and mundanes were patched to tier 3 with tome of battle making them playable in anything that isn't high powered on equal terms, and at least somewhat relevant in a tier 2 game. Once that's completed you can play anything from a dirt farming peasant to a god, and the only issue is a group agreeing what power level of game is happening. Now instead of one game full of wildly different power levels you've several games where any given party you can pick will have a game together. I'll stick to wizard hyperchess, the people who hate the concept of magic can play D&D without most of interesting and complex bits, and everyone else can decide what exact amount of cream (magic) to add to their coffee (game).

Here's the problem - WotC designed 3.x (and Paizo carried into Pathfinder) the baseline assumption that martials would be full-attacking every turn, or almost every turn, clerics were combat healbots, and arcanists were laying down direct blasting. And that there would be relatively little in the way of optimization.
Any "official", that is, from the designers/publishers, ranking of base class power and complexity would have employed the above assumptions in making those evaluations and rankings, throwing them off by a massive amount.

[ryu]

Here's the problem - WotC designed 3.x (and Paizo carried into Pathfinder) the baseline assumption that martials would be full-attacking every turn, or almost every turn, clerics were combat healbots, and arcanists were laying down direct blasting. And that there would be relatively little in the way of optimization.
Any "official", that is, from the designers/publishers, ranking of base class power and complexity would have employed the above assumptions in making those evaluations and rankings, throwing them off by a massive amount.

A flaw I'm well aware of. What I was just describing was the fantasy land idea of someone competent designing the actually pretty robust system, rather than accidentally making a masterpiece then making a sequel that proceeded to ''fix'' all the fun parts of the previous one and completely screw the lore.

[Segev]

I apologize for any offense. I don't see "this idea about game design is stupid" as fundamentally different from "this idea about game design is bad design", and use them interchangeably. If people are reading "this is stupid" as an insult to them personally, rather than a statement about the idea in question, I've got no real attachment to one over the other. It's certainly was not intended as an insult to anyone.

Apology accepted. As a bit of advice, the difference between "This is bad design" and "This is a stupid idea" is that there is a strong implication that stupid ideas are the result of, well, stupidity. And while it is possible - nay, likely - that even the smartest people will have moments of stupidity, CALLING somebody's idea stupid carries the implication that they, too, are stupid for having come up with it.

Also, "that's stupid" implies that there's no way a reasoned, intelligent thought process could arrive there.

Not that I'm not guilty of similar faux pas, but since you didn't intend offense, I figured I'd lay out why it came across as offensive for your future reference.

Nothing stops you from giving a class 2d8 or 3d6 or whatever as a hit die now. You get finer grained progression, but only for some classes, and that's not clearly a good thing (how many people use skills as finely as is theoretically possible). Also, challenges still rise in discrete chunks, which mitigates the value of intermediate progression. Finally, you could just give people skill bonuses, or a higher skill cap.

While all of this is true, you're further eliminating the whole point of levels when you do this. Increasing the coarseness of the granularity is undesirable in a number of ways. In the name of avoiding having different XP values for different classes' levels, you're geometrically increasing the complexity of class/level design.

Also, I dispute that challenges escalate in the discrete levels you suggest. The CR system is hardly perfect. Even leaving aside the grossly mis-CR'd creatures and those which are inherently difficult to gauge due to their "silver bullet" binary difficulty, there are creatures of the same CR which vary significantly in threat and challenge. They're within bounds for the intended level band...if you take into account disparities between characters of the same level based on build. But if you refined them to finer bands of XP-marker, it wouldn't hurt.

You don't have to, either. You could, but you don't have to. I probably wouldn't bother.

I sort of agree, in that it makes sense that the guy who uses mystical energies to manipulate space and time should generally be more successful than the guy who tries to kill dragons with his fists.

That's not necessarily true.

Spoiler

Show

There's no reason why we can't have mythically strong physical, non-magical things in a game.

[khadgar567]

Apology accepted. As a bit of advice, the difference between "This is bad design" and "This is a stupid idea" is that there is a strong implication that stupid ideas are the result of, well, stupidity. And while it is possible - nay, likely - that even the smartest people will have moments of stupidity, CALLING somebody's idea stupid carries the implication that they, too, are stupid for having come up with it.

Also, "that's stupid" implies that there's no way a reasoned, intelligent thought process could arrive there.

Not that I'm not guilty of similar faux pas, but since you didn't intend offense, I figured I'd lay out why it came across as offensive for your future reference.

While all of this is true, you're further eliminating the whole point of levels when you do this. Increasing the coarseness of the granularity is undesirable in a number of ways. In the name of avoiding having different XP values for different classes' levels, you're geometrically increasing the complexity of class/level design.

Also, I dispute that challenges escalate in the discrete levels you suggest. The CR system is hardly perfect. Even leaving aside the grossly mis-CR'd creatures and those which are inherently difficult to gauge due to their "silver bullet" binary difficulty, there are creatures of the same CR which vary significantly in threat and challenge. They're within bounds for the intended level band...if you take into account disparities between characters of the same level based on build. But if you refined them to finer bands of XP-marker, it wouldn't hurt.

You don't have to, either. You could, but you don't have to. I probably wouldn't bother.


That's not necessarily true.

Spoiler

Show

There's no reason why we can't have mythically strong physical, non-magical things in a game.

okay your evilness but marry sue ex machina are not this treats consern for asmodeus sake even aizen has legit reasons then that bald moron

[Psyren]

This quote is a little too much of "white room" situation.
For clarification it may be good to know: which party, of what level, caged who, at what kind of environment, and what exactly are they trying to do
One of possible corner cases: enemy plugging important pass; if you Forcecaged him, you still wouldn't be able to pass - it's now plugged with Forcecage
Another corner case: enemy is somewhat capable ranged attacker; Barred Cage wouldn't stop him from harming your party; windowless - protect him from you as much as you - from him
Third corner case: high DR or/and Fast Healing - enemy laughing over your attempts to harm him through the cage

Those corner cases are just that - corner cases. But since you ask:

1) Enemy is blocking a means of egress - then obviously, creating more obstacles blocking the path would run counter to common sense. Assuming you can't simply defeat them, you should either reposition the enemy such that you have room to go around them and then trap them, or use some other tool from your toolkit.

2) Enemy is ranged - Assuming again that you need to defeat them and not simply bypass them, then yes, windowless box is the wrong answer. Barred cage however, it depends on the specific enemy. For example, a Cyclops throwing high-damage boulders or a siege weapon attacking the town you're defending, could both be described as a "capable ranged attacker", but a barred forcecage will take both out of the fight entirely for several rounds, while leaving them vulnerable to any attack you can get through the bars.

3) High DR and Fast Healing/Regen - both are easily countered in PF.

[Segev]

okay your evilness but marry sue ex machina are not this treats consern for asmodeus sake even aizen has legit reasons then that bald moron

The point is more that there's nothing wrong with allowing somebody to punch dragons to death with their fists, and be just as good at it as a wizard is at turning the same dragon into a lawn ornament. The idea that a game where magical powers can let you fly to the moon can't have physical powers that let you jump to the moon is just that: an idea. You can throw that idea out and allow non-magical characters to be just as extraordinary as magical ones are supernatural.

Put another way: there's no reason you can't have (Ex) abilities that do things comparable to (Su) and (Sp) ones.

[khadgar567]

The point is more that there's nothing wrong with allowing somebody to punch dragons to death with their fists, and be just as good at it as a wizard is at turning the same dragon into a lawn ornament. The idea that a game where magical powers can let you fly to the moon can't have physical powers that let you jump to the moon is just that: an idea. You can throw that idea out and allow non-magical characters to be just as extraordinary as magical ones are supernatural.

Put another way: there's no reason you can't have (Ex) abilities that do things comparable to (Su) and (Sp) ones.

i thing subconscious casting of finger of dead with out material or balant somatic components or heck even emotion and thought components clearly out of ex skills. bald bastard casts meta magicked 8th level spell as f ing cantrip talk about broken .

[Segev]

i thing subconscious casting of finger of dead with out material or balant somatic components or hech enen emotion and thought components clearly out of ex skills. bald bastard casts meta magicked 8th level spell as f ing cantrip talk about broken .

Nonsense. He's just doing arbitrary hp damage.

Or maybe he's actually reduced his unarmed damage to 1d2, and has the Crusader stance that lets you reroll 1s on damage combined with the boost that makes your damage dice explode, doing literally infinite damage.

Either way, he's doing massive amounts of hp damage, not casting a death effect.

[khadgar567]

Nonsense. He's just doing arbitrary hp damage.

Or maybe he's actually reduced his unarmed damage to 1d2, and has the Crusader stance that lets you reroll 1s on damage combined with the boost that makes your damage dice explode, doing literally infinite damage.

Either way, he's doing massive amounts of hp damage, not casting a death effect.

thanks to paizos broken magic system you may be right but he casts non bloke able insta dead spell as cantrip with out thinking since the only thing he does is punch aka he is not initiating any martial stuff he just casts harui suzumiya style with out even understanding he is bending reality around the world while searching one bastard with similar powers so he can learn he is realty bending evil overlord not your average hero .

[Segev]

thanks to paizos broken magic system you may be right but he casts non bloke able insta dead spell as cantrip with out thinking since the only thing he does is punch aka he is not initiating any martial stuff he just casts harui suzumiya style with out even understanding he is bending reality around the world while searching one bastard with similar powers so he can learn he is realty bending evil overlord not your average hero .

Or he's an ubercharger doing an order of magnitude more damage than the target has hp. Or they're using massive damage rules.

And how do you know he's not using a martial maneuver? Or a bunch of them?

Regardless, he's just an example. Don't get hung up on one example; there are numerous others I could link, from Goku to Guts to Ranma to Roanoa Zoro to Sanji to the Incredible Hulk, amongst many others, where the sheer prowess and power of their non-magical abilities is comparable to any magical power in their setting.

[Psyren]

Put another way: there's no reason you can't have (Ex) abilities that do things comparable to (Su) and (Sp) ones.

I'd argue that there is a reason - Ex abilities are innately more powerful than both Su and Sp. They work in dead magic or antimagic areas, aren't affected by wild or inhibited magic, can't be detected or interfered with, and most of them even default to being nonactions rather than standard.

But all of those are the mechanical objections. The plausibility issue is more nebulous and subjective, but no less strong. To use your own example of Saitama - This is a guy who, through almost comically mundane means, achieved godlike power. There are some GMs who look at that and think "That's so cool, I want that in my game." And then there are others who say "no way in hell does the training regimen he describes yield those results, too implausible." Now, keep in mind that there is precedence for this sort of thing - yet Saitama takes it to an extreme even beyond that, (both how he achieved his power, and what he's capable of) - as might be expected from a shonen parody. In addition, Irori and Zuoken are not PCs. So saying "I don't want Saitama PCs at my table" is a reasonable response, even if it is one you personally disagree with.

[ShurikVch]

Note about the Force constructs having hit points now:
Maybe, some people think it was done to benefit martial classes?
Nu-huh, primary goal there was to prevent building of fusion reactors in Goralion!

Note about Spell Sunder:
It's silly!
Pierce Magical Concealment in 3.5 was already silly, Spell Sunder is just as bad (maybe worse)
Don't get it wrong - I'm OK with ability to break previously invulnerable barriers
But it gets silly when it meet such things as Wall of Fire: Barbarian hits fire (!) with a sword (!) and it just disappears (!!!)
How the heck he even hit something such insubstantial as fire with something as simple as a sword?
"Sunder" isn't some sophisticated maneuver - you just hitting stuff and it breaks; but how can you hit stuff which just can't be hit?

The idea that a game where magical powers can let you fly to the moon can't have physical powers that let you jump to the moon

Because it's just don't works: to jump you need to push your feet to the ground; higher the jump - stronger the push; if you push it really really strong - your feet would just dug in and it dissipate any extra power; considering amount of force necessary to launch human-sized object to the moon - even reinforced concrete will become squashy as morass, and legs would be sunk up to armpits!

Don't get hung up on one example; there are numerous others I could link, from Goku to Guts to Ranma to Roanoa Zoro to Sanji to the Incredible Hulk, amongst many others, where the sheer prowess and power of their non-magical abilities is comparable to any magical power in their setting.

Doesn't you noticed most of those examples are from intentionally goofy series which thrown realism to a trash-bin long long time ago?
But anyway, you says "any magical power in their setting"?
Ranma - can't break his curse
Guts - sensitive to Astral Projection
Roanoa Zoro to Sanji - compared to Blackbeard?
Incredible Hulk is not even it the top 40

[khadgar567]

Or he's an ubercharger doing an order of magnitude more damage than the target has hp. Or they're using massive damage rules.

And how do you know he's not using a martial maneuver? Or a bunch of them?

Regardless, he's just an example. Don't get hung up on one example; there are numerous others I could link, from Goku to Guts to Ranma to Roanoa Zoro to Sanji to the Incredible Hulk, amongst many others, where the sheer prowess and power of their non-magical abilities is comparable to any magical power in their setting.

for all those examples you can build it some how with pathfinder but saitama is unique that the only way to make what the f he does is either magic or mind rape ing reality it self that hijo de puta is not legitimite human even with mad scientist way he warps realty subconsciously like harui only different between her and saitama she has group of restraining bolts trying to keep him entertained so she cant wipe the reality on saitamas case why he cant find simple person to same power level because he warps reality such way that he all ways pulls medaka kurokami on his peers subconsciously getting better than what they do .

[Arbane]

Once again, why the heck there are always should be a way to do without magic what magic do?

Out of a basic sense of fairness. Currently, in PF, I don't think there's ANYTHING that non-magic an do that magic can't, so why not allow the snivelling nonmagical peasants to ape the miracles of their betters once in a while?

If there was actually anything magic COULDN'T do, I'd have a little more sympathy for there being (more) things that ONLY magic could do - as it is, there's a rather long list of them already: planar travel, divination, hostile environment survival....

[khadgar567]

Out of a basic sense of fairness. Currently, in PF, I don't think there's ANYTHING that non-magic an do that magic can't, so why not allow the snivelling nonmagical peasants to ape the miracles of their betters once in a while?

If there was actually anything magic COULDN'T do, I'd have a little more sympathy for there being (more) things that ONLY magic could do - as it is, there's a rather long list of them already: planar travel, divination, hostile environment survival....

conjuring cappuccino, or I dont know picking your nose hair to painting your whole tower there is lot of thing you can do with just core pathfinder magic and there is 3rd party content were any thing you can thing has a spell or gonna have spell in near future.

[Arbane]

I sort of agree, in that it makes sense that the guy who uses mystical energies to manipulate space and time should generally be more successful than the guy who tries to kill dragons with his fists.
(SNIP)

Another thing I think is a problem is that casters aren't specific enough. Beguiler, Warmage, Warlock, Healer, Dread Necromancer, etc. are much easier to balance against than Wizards. Extra forbidden schools and such would go a long way.

And that attitude is exactly why Fighters will never be able to have Nice Things. Why should a level 15 musclehead be any less inherently magical than a level 15 bookworm? Both of them left 'realism' bleeding in the dust ten levels ago.

Agreed on the second - most wizards in (pre-d&d) fiction might be able to throw fireballs OR see the future OR fly OR raise an army of undead - not ALL of those, and certainly not any one of those after a good night's sleep.

The point is more that there's nothing wrong with allowing somebody to punch dragons to death with their fists, and be just as good at it as a wizard is at turning the same dragon into a lawn ornament. The idea that a game where magical powers can let you fly to the moon can't have physical powers that let you jump to the moon is just that: an idea. You can throw that idea out and allow non-magical characters to be just as extraordinary as magical ones are supernatural.

Put another way: there's no reason you can't have (Ex) abilities that do things comparable to (Su) and (Sp) ones.

As the snide bastards at grognards.txt like to say: MY VERISIMILITUDE!

Note about Spell Sunder:
It's silly!
Pierce Magical Concealment in 3.5 was already silly, Spell Sunder is just as bad (maybe worse)
Don't get it wrong - I'm OK with ability to break previously invulnerable barriers
But it gets silly when it meet such things as Wall of Fire: Barbarian hits fire (!) with a sword (!) and it just disappears (!!!)
How the heck he even hit something such insubstantial as fire with something as simple as a sword?
"Sunder" isn't some sophisticated maneuver - you just hitting stuff and it breaks; but how can you hit stuff which just can't be hit?

grog turn sword 'sideways', partially project totemic spirit, and rupture hyperdimensional arcane-construct keeping wall of fire going. it not difficult, just take practice.

Because it's just don't works: to jump you need to push your feet to the ground; higher the jump - stronger the push; if you push it really really strong - your feet would just dug in and it dissipate any extra power; considering amount of force necessary to launch human-sized object to the moon - even reinforced concrete will become squashy as morass, and legs would be sunk up to armpits!

Dude, you're arguing real-world physics in a game with flying, fire-breathing dragons and spellcasting elves.

[khadgar567]

Dude, you're arguing real-world physics in a game with flying, fire-breathing dragons and spellcasting elves.

We officaly past the point of train wreck

[Segev]

I'd argue that there is a reason - Ex abilities are innately more powerful than both Su and Sp. They work in dead magic or antimagic areas, aren't affected by wild or inhibited magic, can't be detected or interfered with, and most of them even default to being nonactions rather than standard.

Oh, sure. I think, given our "casters win" paradigm, here, though, we're a long ways off from having to look to that standard to tone back (Ex) powers.

But all of those are the mechanical objections. The plausibility issue is more nebulous and subjective, but no less strong. To use your own example of Saitama - This is a guy who, through almost comically mundane means, achieved godlike power. There are some GMs who look at that and think "That's so cool, I want that in my game." And then there are others who say "no way in hell does the training regimen he describes yield those results, too implausible." Now, keep in mind that there is precedence for this sort of thing - yet Saitama takes it to an extreme even beyond that, (both how he achieved his power, and what he's capable of) - as might be expected from a shonen parody. In addition, Irori and Zuoken are not PCs. So saying "I don't want Saitama PCs at my table" is a reasonable response, even if it is one you personally disagree with.

Absolutely! But neither is that a reason to say, "Magic should always trump non-magic, and be more powerful. Saying otherwise is just silly."

You don't want Gilgamesh, Hercules, Saitama, or Batman in your game; that's fine. You want Rand Al'Thor, Pug, and Elminster to be far more powerful than any physical god with a sword; that's fine. But saying "and that's how it should be in all games" is...well, it's hypocritical, given that you just said it's reasonable not to want Saitama in a game.

If you want to balance "non-magic" classes with magic classes, there's no reason you can't except that you don't want to. You don't have to explain it as "magic" just because it's extraordinary, beyond anything a real person could do in the real world. Shows can have giant robots, and games literal giants, all violating the square-cube law and ignoring caloric requirements of such massive frames. Those same shows and games can support superhumanly powerful, nonmagical humans and demi-humans and humanoids and the like.

Because it's just don't works: to jump you need to push your feet to the ground; higher the jump - stronger the push; if you push it really really strong - your feet would just dug in and it dissipate any extra power; considering amount of force necessary to launch human-sized object to the moon - even reinforced concrete will become squashy as morass, and legs would be sunk up to armpits!

And giants couldn't support their own weight, and merfolk would freeze to death in the ocean, and treants are physically incapable of motion, and griffons can't fly, and centaurs should suffocate.

Just because it's not "magic" according to the setting doesn't mean it can't be "fantastic" compared to the real world.

Doesn't you noticed most of those examples are from intentionally goofy series which thrown realism to a trash-bin long long time ago?

Irrelevant, and not all of them are "goofy." Heck, many ancient myths throw realism into that same trash bin and are meant to be taken totally seriously in their own right.

But anyway, you says "any magical power in their setting"?
Ranma - can't break his curse
Guts - sensitive to Astral Projection
Roanoa Zoro to Sanji - compared to Blackbeard?
Incredible Hulk is not even it the top 40

...you say this like it invalidates my point.
"Oh, my, there are things individual characters can't do, so they're no match for magic!"

Outside of white room design, there are things magic-wielding, Tier 1 casters can't do, too.

Though... Well, Roanoa and Sanji vs. Blackbeard is more saying "Level 10 vs. level 20" than "non-magic vs. magic."

A fairer comparison there would be Mihawk vs. Blackbeard.

And Blackbeard would lose horribly to Shanks, most likely. (Admittedly, Haki starts to make everybody semi-magical at the highest levels, but I would argue that if that's your only fig leaf left, we just give innate magical abilities that "theme" right to the physical types. Like DBZ has whatever it is the Z fighters use to fly and be bullet proof.)

for all those examples you can build it some how with pathfinder but saitama is unique that the only way to make what the f he does is either magic or mind rape ing reality it self that hijo de puta is not legitimite human even with mad scientist way he warps realty subconsciously like harui only different between her and saitama she has group of restraining bolts trying to keep him entertained so she cant wipe the reality on saitamas case why he cant find simple person to same power level because he warps reality such way that he all ways pulls medaka kurokami on his peers subconsciously getting better than what they do .

Or... he just has insanely high stats.

Give a human monk or unarmed fighter, say, one billion ten in each physical stat, and in Wis. That would give him + 1/2 billion to hit and damage, to his AC, to his saves, to the hp on EACH hit die, to a number of skills (perception and athletics most notably)...

About the only thing you'd need class levels and feats for is his movement speed, at that point.


I'm not saying that'd be balanced or fair or whatnot. My sole point here is that Saitama's abilities don't need a lick of "magic" or "technique" or what-have-you; he is pure, unadulterated brute force. And perception.

[Gnaeus]

A flaw I'm well aware of. What I was just describing was the fantasy land idea of someone competent designing the actually pretty robust system, rather than accidentally making a masterpiece then making a sequel that proceeded to ''fix'' all the fun parts of the previous one and completely screw the lore.

I completely agree. The problem isn't the poor balance. The problem is that the game presents itself as a system where monks and fighters are comparable to Druids and Clerics. Give me some high tier muggles and more low tiered mages and the problem would be 90% fixed IMO

[digiman619]

I completely agree. The problem isn't the poor balance. The problem is that the game presents itself as a system where monks and fighters are comparable to Druids and Clerics. Give me some high tier muggles and more low tiered mages and the problem would be 90% fixed IMO

*obligatory Spheres of Power & Path of War statement*

[javcs]

Oh, sure. I think, given our "casters win" paradigm, here, though, we're a long ways off from having to look to that standard to tone back (Ex) powers.

Absolutely! But neither is that a reason to say, "Magic should always trump non-magic, and be more powerful. Saying otherwise is just silly."

You don't want Gilgamesh, Hercules, Saitama, or Batman in your game; that's fine. You want Rand Al'Thor, Pug, and Elminster to be far more powerful than any physical god with a sword; that's fine. But saying "and that's how it should be in all games" is...well, it's hypocritical, given that you just said it's reasonable not to want Saitama in a game.

If you want to balance "non-magic" classes with magic classes, there's no reason you can't except that you don't want to. You don't have to explain it as "magic" just because it's extraordinary, beyond anything a real person could do in the real world. Shows can have giant robots, and games literal giants, all violating the square-cube law and ignoring caloric requirements of such massive frames. Those same shows and games can support superhumanly powerful, nonmagical humans and demi-humans and humanoids and the like.

And giants couldn't support their own weight, and merfolk would freeze to death in the ocean, and treants are physically incapable of motion, and griffons can't fly, and centaurs should suffocate.

Just because it's not "magic" according to the setting doesn't mean it can't be "fantastic" compared to the real world.

I completely agree. The problem isn't the poor balance. The problem is that the game presents itself as a system where monks and fighters are comparable to Druids and Clerics. Give me some high tier muggles and more low tiered mages and the problem would be 90% fixed IMO

Absolutely.
The higher tier noncasters don't even need to be entirely magic free, as long as their magical abilities are spell-likes or supernaturals that are primarily passive effects that augment themselves or their gear. Instead of directing their innate magical abilities outwards in spells or other effects, they've focused their magical aptitudes towards self-augmentation.


Think superheroes, here - Jessica Jones, Daredevil, Captain America, Superwoman, Thor, Flash, Wolverine, or Quicksilver as opposed to Scarlet Witch, Doctor Strange, Green Lantern, or Jean Grey.

[Psyren]

Note about Spell Sunder:
It's silly!
Pierce Magical Concealment in 3.5 was already silly, Spell Sunder is just as bad (maybe worse)
Don't get it wrong - I'm OK with ability to break previously invulnerable barriers
But it gets silly when it meet such things as Wall of Fire: Barbarian hits fire (!) with a sword (!) and it just disappears (!!!)
How the heck he even hit something such insubstantial as fire with something as simple as a sword?
"Sunder" isn't some sophisticated maneuver - you just hitting stuff and it breaks; but how can you hit stuff which just can't be hit?

This is actually easy to explain. Swing a sword or other hard object, as hard as you can, through some fire in our world. You stand a good chance of putting that flame out. Why? Because even though you can't touch fire, you can disrupt its fuel source (the oxygen in the air that you've displaced) causing it to go out.

It's the exact same principle here - the Barbarian knows a technique that disrupts the fuel supporting the ongoing spell, a technique close enough to Sunder that Sunder bonuses apply to it. Call that fuel Weave, or mana, or whatever else you need to call it, the result is the same - sufficiently unstable air = no fire. And this is why it works even on intangible spell effects like a Dimensional Lock, not just the tangible ones like wall of force - you're not attacking the fire itself, at least not directly.

Oh, sure. I think, given our "casters win" paradigm, here, though, we're a long ways off from having to look to that standard to tone back (Ex) powers.

Are you talking about the current paradigm though? Because I'm totally fine with the Ex abilities currently in the game, and I'm also fine with giving the martial classes more Su abilities than they currently have. What I'm not okay with is outright ExMagic.

Absolutely! But neither is that a reason to say, "Magic should always trump non-magic, and be more powerful. Saying otherwise is just silly."

You don't want Gilgamesh, Hercules, Saitama, or Batman in your game; that's fine. You want Rand Al'Thor, Pug, and Elminster to be far more powerful than any physical god with a sword; that's fine. But saying "and that's how it should be in all games" is...well, it's hypocritical, given that you just said it's reasonable not to want Saitama in a game.

I don't think that's how it should be in all games. But I think you already have the tool you need (specifically, rule zero) to not make it that way in *your* game.

[Arbane]

I don't think that's how it should be in all games. But I think you already have the tool you need (specifically, rule zero) to not make it that way in *your* game.

The problem is to make that Rule Zero change work, you have to rewrite Rules One through Forty-Seven.

[Talakeal]

2e Wizard of 12 level was able to kill Demogorgon - with a single 1st level spell; at which level could 2e Fighter soloing Demogorgon?

I haven't heard this trick before. Would you (or somebody else) mind explaining it to me?


Also, are you sure you mean 2E? Because afaik there are no stats in second edition for deities, they are just "I win," although monstrous mythology does have stats for an avatar of Demogorgon iirc. (Don't mean to bust your chops here, legitimately curious about how the tactic works).

[javcs]

Are you talking about the current paradigm though? Because I'm totally fine with the Ex abilities currently in the game, and I'm also fine with giving the martial classes more Su abilities than they currently have. What I'm not okay with is outright ExMagic.

How are you defining "ExMagic"?

I mean, look at the Swiftblade - other than the spellcasting advancement, everything is a (Ex) ability or a bonus feat. Although several of them are keyed off of using the haste spell on yourself.

[Nifft]

Also, are you sure you mean 2E? Because afaik there are no stats in second edition for deities

1: Deities & Demigods pre-dates 2e. Gods having stats was a thing at the time. Your campaign & setting may have varied -- the rules were very inconsistently applied from table to table at that time. (This was NOT a problem, until someone tries to say that the rules were like X everywhere because they were like X at his specific table. Then the inconsistent application at the time becomes a problem for discussion in the present.)

2: Demogorgon should have been a demon-prince, not a deity. Lolth also had stats dating back to Q1.

[ShurikVch]

Out of a basic sense of fairness.

Since when Goralion is a fair world?
If you want fair game, then you should play something else

Currently, in PF, I don't think there's ANYTHING that non-magic an do that magic can't

And it should? Why?

so why not allow the snivelling nonmagical peasants to ape the miracles of their betters once in a while?

It's called "High tech"
Sorry, but if your "snivelling nonmagical peasants" still don't have not just agricultural aircrafts, but even the most primitive tractors, I may presume their technology currently aren't sufficiently advanced to be indistinguishable from magic

grog turn sword 'sideways', partially project totemic spirit, and rupture hyperdimensional arcane-construct keeping wall of fire going. it not difficult, just take practice.

Then how about the Illusory Wall? How can you even hit it - it's just illusion! It doesn't exist! There are nothing to hit! What's the AC of nonexistent target?

Dude, you're arguing real-world physics in a game with flying, fire-breathing dragons and spellcasting elves.

In immortal words of Talakeal:

The "BUT DRAGONS!" fallacy once again rears its ugly head

And giants couldn't support their own weight

Says who?

and merfolk would freeze to death in the ocean

Unless they're poikilotherms...

and treants are physically incapable of motion

How you deduced it?

and griffons can't fly

Proof, please!

and centaurs should suffocate.

It's the first time I hear such thing. Why?

Irrelevant, and not all of them are "goofy."

You mean - except Berserk and Marvel?
Dragon Ball, for example, is chock full of plot holes (and rip off of Superman)

Heck, many ancient myths throw realism into that same trash bin and are meant to be taken totally seriously in their own right.

Firstly, let's don't forget: ancient folk don't knew many things which we are know now - so story about Atlas/Heracles holding the Sky sounded completely plausible to them - they wasn't aware about sky's nature
On the other hand, some of myth are at least physically accurate: Svyatogor attempted to flip the Earth, but instead just sunken into ground. Choke on Newton's Third law, epic power!

...you say this like it invalidates my point.
"Oh, my, there are things individual characters can't do, so they're no match for magic!"

Yes. Exactly!
It was your whole point.
And you failed to deliver it!

Though... Well, Roanoa and Sanji vs. Blackbeard is more saying "Level 10 vs. level 20" than "non-magic vs. magic."

Well, in One Piece magic isn't exactly abundant, and it's even unclear what's, exactly, magical, and what - isn't (are Devil Fruits - magic? Art of Weather?) so I just pointed the closest opponent without doing extra research. Still, Luffy was remarkably useless against Miss Golden Week, so magic wins even there

This is actually easy to explain. Swing a sword or other hard object, as hard as you can, through some fire in our world. You stand a good chance of putting that flame out. Why? Because even though you can't touch fire, you can disrupt its fuel source (the oxygen in the air that you've displaced) causing it to go out.

Try to do it with any nitro- or peroxide-based explosives, rocket fuel, or Thermite - you will swinging until it burns out
Also, how, exactly, our Barbarian will sunder Prismatic Wall? Shouldn't his sword be destroyed by the Violet color?
And shouldn't he roll 50% miss chance to hit invisible Wall of Force?

I haven't heard this trick before. Would you (or somebody else) mind explaining it to me?

Chromatic Orb was a 1st level spell; as you grow in levels, you get access to new orbs with different effects; at 12 level, you finally get access to Ebony Black orb; any target who isn't saved dies immediately; even gods occasionally "roll 1", and how exactly difficult to hit Large-sized target with ranged touch attack?

Also, are you sure you mean 2E? Because afaik there are no stats in second edition for deities, they are just "I win," although monstrous mythology does have stats for an avatar of Demogorgon iirc. (Don't mean to bust your chops here, legitimately curious about how the tactic works).

Demogorgon is one of bosses in Baldur's Gate.
Should I remind you about the Time of Troubles?