Last visit was: It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 7:59 am


All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 46 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Assessing and hopefully fixing the Martial Archetype
PostPosted: Mon Mar 31, 2014 5:53 pm 

Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2013 8:36 am
Posts: 1554
so other than some creative invectives when i read this thread i havent been following it too much, but really Dave, i think youve kind ran off the field with some of your ideas.

spells are not equivalent to talents not in any shape, its a flase comparison that your building your logic on.

here are a couple of concepts that seem to have been forgotten about Arcanis:

Everything is not equal, no a martial character is not going to be as good at casting as an arcane character, he is going to be goot at other things, if he isnt, then whats the point of differentiating them?

Choices matter, actions have consequences etc etc etc there are a lot of ways to phrase that, but seriously all of this seems to be hemming and hawing about how something else seems to be more powerful than what you are playing. How many of the posters in this thread can boil down their statement to " I play a martial character and he is so underpowered because X"?

Really if you think its underpowered, why are you playing one?

_________________
--Josh Elliott
Oswald val'Inares V, The Seeker of the Val'Inares
Harvester Lord of the Eastern Fields of Iowa


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Assessing and hopefully fixing the Martial Archetype
PostPosted: Mon Mar 31, 2014 11:03 pm 

Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:46 pm
Posts: 1353
SamhainIA wrote:
spells are not equivalent to talents not in any shape, its a flase comparison that your building your logic on.


Please substantiate that argument. I accept it's not an exact comparison given that weapon tricks are provided with sufficient ranks, but the difference there given the number of weapons that a physical combatant will use vs. a caster isn't all that much different. Prestidigitation in full grants 5 spells while the 1st tier of a casting talent if gained at the same time grants 6. As noted previously more than half of those scale. A non-primary caster who goes that route already loses at least 2 of those spells that would require 2 talents to replace. The combat equivalent of spells are Martial techniques. With the advancement it's 2 rather than 4 or 5 and they don't scale. I've covered more of this in previous detailed posts.

SamhainIA wrote:
<snip>
here are a couple of concepts that seem to have been forgotten about Arcanis:

Everything is not equal, no a martial character is not going to be as good at casting as an arcane character, he is going to be goot at other things, if he isnt, then whats the point of differentiating them?


Josh, as the original poster for this thread, I have never suggested that martial characters should be as good at casting as casters. I have pointed out that non-casters should be able to hold their own and contribute strongly to a mod from Tier 1 through Tier 5. The Archetype should be balanced against the others. Each archetype should be able to shine and be the "go to characters" depending on the situation. Players want to feel like their characters are useful. It is certainly true that Martial's should be better at physical combat in general, but that is not the same thing as saying they are better in combat than a caster. If you need an example, I included one in my first post on page 1.

SamhainIA wrote:
Choices matter, actions have consequences etc etc etc there are a lot of ways to phrase that, but seriously all of this seems to be hemming and hawing about how something else seems to be more powerful than what you are playing. How many of the posters in this thread can boil down their statement to " I play a martial character and he is so underpowered because X"?

Really if you think its underpowered, why are you playing one?


You may wish to consider rephrasing the above as it is very easy to read as insulting. I'd like to believe that wasn't your intent.

Why should people have to play casters? People play character concepts because they're interesting and they enjoy them. Some play them to be powerful, some for the RP opportunities and for a variety of other reasons. From a game design perspective though characters at the same tier should be able to all make a difference. Magic ruled in the D&D system. By middling levels in most settings you might help out in the combat, but the casters ruled them. GMs could make it so that non-casters shined or that casters needed to conserve their resources more, but I rarely saw that as the case. A good GM can make any system either shine or be irrelevant to the experiences of the players.

My personal feeling is that a non-casting Martial or Expert should feel like they contributed and shined in their area of sticking to the core of their Archetype in most mods. The specifics of the mod and the individual builds will certainly have an impact. It's possible to make a sub-optimal character in any archetype or specifically play away from the archetype's strengths.

You previously made a couple comments that seem relevant here:

SamhainIA wrote:
i will not build a character that is not a caster of some sort, its too integral to the system


SamhainIA wrote:
because magic the gods and the harvesters and the story of the blessed lands is where the story is and what it continues to revolve around, I play this game to involve myself in the story as much as possible.
I feel that purely martial characters are really missing out on a good portion of the game.


The first quote I included is one of your comments regarding the mechanics of the system. A strength of the system is it's flexibility in providing multiple ways to gain casting if desired.

The second quote I included because it puzzles me. I do not see how involving a character in the story is at all dependent upon being a caster or those mechanics. Fighting infernals in the Crusade, exploring the mysteries of the First City and the Blessed Lands don't inherently require casting. Nor arguably does whatever story comes next when this arc ends soon. An Emerald Society Archaelogist, a noble knight, a former soldier, sage, or shady character can easily have as much emersion in the story as any of the others.

Deciding if something is mechanically balanced is a separate exercise to the question of story. Mechanical imbalanced are more easily or readily fixed in home settings. If the concensus is that Martials that focus on being Martials should readily and easily shine in combat, then they should have the clear edge over the casters in those circumstances. Looking at things especially as characters tier up, this doesn't appear to be the case.

I have certainly heard good arguments for martial characters in low tiers having significant impact. If someone can show that my logic is faulty as the tiers climb, I'm happy to consider the matter closed.

I've laid out detailed analysis though through a variety of posts including showing how a casting Archetype who wants to do much of what a Martial character can do as their backup while they're waiting for the strain to go down makes me question how much Martials will be seen as contributing as the tiers climb. I invite you or anyone else to go through, review and provide a supported point of view. If I've got flaws in my analysis, take them apart. I'd rather learn from them.

Telling players though to basically "pick up casting or accept being a lot less useful" would be a lousy message for the system to send. If the answer comes back and says that's simply reality in this and virtually all other fantasy settings, then it would seem reasonable to give the Martials some other area in which to shine and contribute regularly in the games.

With a sweep of his hat,

Paul


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Assessing and hopefully fixing the Martial Archetype
PostPosted: Mon Mar 31, 2014 11:38 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2014 9:55 pm
Posts: 32
Location: Chicago Suburbs
SamhainIA wrote:
spells are not equivalent to talents not in any shape, its a false comparison that your building your logic on.


There are a lot of responses to that statement, but I'm going to go with the most concrete.

Arcanis Core Rulebook, Page 200 wrote:
Learn Spell [Arcanum, Devout]
Requirement: The ability to cast spells
Benefit: Choose a spell, which must be of a Tier equal to
yours or below, from a Tradition you already know.
Special: You may take this Talent multiple times; each time
you learn an additional spell.


I'm not trying to attack anyone (and if I did, I apologize). I am trying to use some creative prose (and thank you for noticing) to draw attention to the fact that the reason why many people feel that there is an inequality is quite likely because of how the magic and martial abilities were set up. And honestly, cudos to Paradigm for setting it up. They set up a whole new system, and didn't have a lot of time to do it in. It is a system that I truly enjoy playing in, and if I weren't passionate about, I wouldn't be investing the time making suggestions commenting on ways to improve it. But that does not mean that everything was perfect on the first go.

I have not forgotten that in Arcanis (or really anything else), everything is not equal. The nuanced truth is that talents are not equal to talents. I haven't seen lot's of people racing to get disciplined, church education or seductive; but I bet you the percent of characters that have taken two weapon fighting or Learn Martial Technique (Sweeping strike) is in the double digits. They all cost the same, but they are not equal. But here's the truth behind the use of the equality. Each talent or spell grants the player that chooses them an additional option, a capability that they would not have otherwise without selecting it. And that certain players have decided that, and the game acknowledges that for some character concepts, access to a spell is as important as access to a different talent.

I am not advocating for my character. I run the gambit, with three characters, a "Gish" martial template caster, a no magic martial, and an Arcane Template Caster. This is not me complaining about "Woe is me and my poor characters." This is, "I have invested some time and effort into looking at the system from different perspectives and what I've found is...." Why do I play what I play? Story, I like the system, I like understanding logic based systems (my pesky statistics background) I like a challenge.

The whole reason I point all of this out, is to challenge base assumptions, and get people to take a fresh look at them. Josh, and anyone else out there reading this, I value your considered opinion. I know this may be very out of style currently, but give this a try. Imagine that you are a debater, and in the debate about archetype balance in Arcanis, you have been given the position to defend, "A spell is equivalent to a talent." Could you defend that position? How? Why would anyone take that position? I understand, I may well be wrong in this, but I do think there is some value to considering this point, and I am hoping you will give looking at this perspective a try.

Choice do matter, quite a bit. And differences should be celebrated. But the contributions of all approaches should also be recognized, and imposing what may possibly be a significant penalty to a particular approach to problem solving (in the case, a martial perspective,) does a disservice to the game in general and the players who try to recreate this approach in spicific. I don't even claim at this point that I have proved the penalty, I just proposed it for consideration because people have not been talking about what to me seems a fairly significant aspect.

For your consideration,

_________________
Yours in Gaming
David Bauder
Good buddy of Cauter Val Virdan


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Assessing and hopefully fixing the Martial Archetype
PostPosted: Tue Apr 01, 2014 2:37 am 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2013 1:06 am
Posts: 2109
Location: Portland OR
In this thread I feel like I'm trying to respond to a moving target. Sometimes the discussion seems to be about the allegation that the Martial Archetype is underpowered versus spell casters. Another line of arguments seems to say that the Martial Archetype is less flexible than other archetypes and finally there is the Spells vs Martial techniques issue.

I feel like I've addressed the power issue. I have no idea what things will look like at Tier 5 but I do know right now that my Martial character (Eisener, HC of Nier) would take apart my spell casting character (Tukufu, Awakened Scion & Sword Sage) in a cage match. Eisener has AR 4 and no bulk due to an heirloom and Advanced Armor, Tukufu has AR: 2 and 1 bulk. Eisener has Mighty Swing, 2 Smite Infidels and Murderous precision. Tukufu has Force Push, Chains of Mental Might, Delusions of Grandeur and a side sword. Tukufu currently has an edge in battlefield control, but in Tier 3 (through the Grandmaster path) Eisener will poach the Weapon Trick Juggernaut's Hammer at which point his ability to rearrange the battlefield will be on par with or outstrip many spell casters. There are enough MT's that do more damage, combine attacks with movement, and other sexy things that I am not concerned that at Tier 5 Eisener is somehow going to be a party's 5th wheel in combat. The powers that allow casters to dominate in other systems are usually save and die effects ... which are entirely absent in Arcanis. Mobility options with spells are also greatly reduced. Not much spell casting from a flying displaced stoneskined opponent in A:RPG. In short I don't believe the Martial Archetype is underpowered.

Is the martial archetype less flexible? I've addressed this too. Its true that they (martial characters) can only put three ranks per tier into combat and physical skills which are not as sexy/flexible as social skills or lore skills. On the other hand, I believe that someone who has a rank or two at creation and raises it 1-2 ranks per tier has a skill that is invested enough to be useful in modules. We'll have to see. If it becomes normal in a Tier 5 module to make a DC:35 persuasion check just to get "some guy called Bob" to buy you an ice cream cone then I'll be proven wrong. But mod writers are reading the forum and I think we can hope that 15-25 will continue to be the norm in most circumstances. If this is true then Martial characters should be sufficiently flexible in skills that things will work out. On the talent side I think the Martial Archetype is the MOST flexible archetype. In addition to the gain 2 combat talents (equivalent to learn 2 arcane, devout, skill talents of other archetypes) they also get chose any 2 martial techniques. That means most martial characters can freely choose *anything* else they want or need with their Any 2 Talents advancements. That's a luxury Tukufu would like to have. As an expert NONE of his spell casting or combat talents can be found under 2 skill talents. ALL have to come from Any 2 Talents. Tukufu is comparatively talent starved.

Finally there is the comparison of spells to MTs. This might be the most complex argument and I haven't addressed this yet. The short answer is that, like Josh, i think these are apples and oranges.

I am freely ready to concede that like Dave I believe ASC (and DSC) are the most powerful talents in the game. Hands down. Like Josh though I don't agree that ASC is the same as 5 talents or that a spell is worth a talent (despite the Talent: Learn Spell). On the one hand consider Eisener. I wouldn't trade Smite Heretic, None Shall Stand Who Oppose the Gods, and Murderous Precision for combat grade ASC. I wouldn't trade two of them. So in Eisener's case ASC isn't even worth 2 or 3 of his (admittedly more powerful) talents... And on the other hand I feel pretty confident that there would be ZERO true spell casters in the campaign if you had to buy each spell with a separate talent. IMO Learn Spell is ONLY a good deal when there is a hole in your spell casting repertoire and you go back to fill it. I would scrap Tukufu as a spell caster if I had to buy each spell with one talent and I would invest instead in bloodline abilities. So I come down believing that ASC is the most powerful talent in the game, but I'm not convinced its game breaking or needs errata.

Another dimension of this argument is that non combat grade spells are still incredibly useful. I can sign off on that too. Eisener has low grade Divine Spellcasting so he can "be a paladin of Nier" and cure disease and remove blindness and a little healing if absolutely necessary. I hate doing any off these things in combat but they occasionally come up. Still Eisener exists to destroy things in melee combat and this talent does nothing significant to further this mission. I could run him as a straight martial character but for RP and concept reasons. Other "limited" spell casters might have more combat-centric options. I don't worry about that too much. Gnerally you can't go around "shields up" all the time. If someone can cast inertial shield they are still trading time to buff up ... since the martial character is already "in armor" (and shield) I'm essentially okay with that.

Finally is the issue that Spell casters get 5 spells a level but Martial characters only get 1 martial technique per talent. I admit in this case that the advantage goes to the spell casters. But other parts of spell casting sucks when compared with clock management...so again I think its apples and oranges. The martial character in combat who uses a maneuver gets to keep fighting on his next action even while under recovery. The spell caster has no comparable option with a "basic attack spell" that can be used in spell casting, that causes no strain, and allows other strain to go away.

In fact IME every spell caster comes up with some kind of (elaborate) plan to deal with aspect of "the Art". The options are spend feats for better clock management (Adaptation: Delay Strain is almost a talent tax for a dedicated caster) ... OR ... the caster flushes Strain repeatedly with Fate points (kinda sucks, can't use Fate for other things) ... OR ... the caster eats ever increasing damage (really sucks) ... OR ... the caster works out a (complicated) build to be able to fight/contribute some other way (cost of opportunity, whatever you put into this isn't making you a better spell caster) ... OR the caster sits on his hands. With Tukufu I end up doing ALL of the above sometimes...except the last, so I don't waste actions on my clock.

Then there is the fact you can combine two different martial techniques relatively effortlessly. Arcane spell casting is harder (and getting harder still in the errata). Want a good multi target control effect that can dominate the battlefield in Tier 1? Combine Shield Slam with Sweeping Strike. Though each combat is unique I bet there is no T1 advanced spell that is widely applicable and decidedly better. Edge of the Shield (to me) is even sexier in Tier II. Jugernaut's Hammer is even sexier in Tier 3. And Sweeping Strikes is party friendly. Powerwise I think MT is doing fine.

That takes us back to flexibility. Get enough Martial techniques or spells and I think the point becomes mute because you have the tool you want when you want it. Still I concede the point that spell casters will be more flexible with more options. Still, MTs combine with your weapon tricks which is a great help to Martial Archetype characters and mitigates somewhat. Weapon Tricks do not mix with spells (baring Arcane Strike)...this argument comes closer IMO to being a legitimate issue to take up. But I dislike the idea that spell casting somehow needs to be tweaked or nerfed to bring it in line with martial archetype characters.

_________________
Eric Gorman

AKA Ambassador Tukufu, man of letters, tomb raider and Master Sword Sage
. . . and Sir Szymon val'Holryn, Order of the Phoenix
Formerly Sir Jaeger val'Holryn. Weilder of the Holy Avenger: Thonanos. Gave his soul to help free King Noen


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Assessing and hopefully fixing the Martial Archetype
PostPosted: Tue Apr 01, 2014 10:38 am 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 10:23 am
Posts: 46
Excellent break down of the entire thread Eric! I couldn't have said it better myself!

_________________
~Tony Scalise
Primary: Alessia Val'Mehan, Sorcerer Priestess of Sarish


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Assessing and hopefully fixing the Martial Archetype
PostPosted: Tue Apr 01, 2014 11:46 am 

Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:46 pm
Posts: 1353
val Holryn wrote:
In this thread I feel like I'm trying to respond to a moving target. Sometimes the discussion seems to be about the allegation that the Martial Archetype is underpowered versus spell casters. Another line of arguments seems to say that the Martial Archetype is less flexible than other archetypes and finally there is the Spells vs Martial techniques issue.


Evaluating and if necessary tweaking something as fundamental as an archetype is going to range. If Martials truly stand out against the other archetypes in combat where they are the ones you want to have there over a caster for example, then looking to expand their flexibility outside of their specialty isn't needed. If there is parity with the other archetypes in terms of combat impact then you have to evaluate the non-combat situations and evaluate how the different archetypes function outside of it. If there's not also parity outside of combat then there are 3 potential approaches. 1. Increase the Martial's combat prowess enough to truly make them stand out there above the others. That doesn't mean they'd have to dominate, but they should then be the ones you want to make sure you have at your table. 2. Expand what they can excel at outside of combat - 3 ranks in a skill / tier. Everyone can get 2 at 3 + Passive Logic so that's a wash. 3. Some combination of the two.

val Holryn wrote:
I feel like I've addressed the power issue. I have no idea what things will look like at Tier 5 but I do know right now that my Martial character (Eisener, HC of Nier) would take apart my spell casting character (Tukufu, Awakened Scion & Sword Sage) in a cage match.


Eisner has been a great example of a martial character and has helped with the argument that certainly at the current tiers, Martials excel in combat. Based on that and some other comments the archetype wouldn't need any adjustment. Looking ahead to the higher tiers though is important though. I've done quite a few character write ups. I usually build them out at least through tier 3 if not through tier 4 or 5. I like to have an idea of where I'm going as some choices you make in tier 1 or 2 directly impact what you can pick in tier 5.

I would not say though that using an Expert caster splitting energy between their strength (skills and breadth), melee combat and spellcasting vs. using a casting Archetype is a fair comparison though. At low tiers based on the way the archetypes are laid out, Eisner should win in combat. Tukufu out of combat though should have more opportunity to contribute and shine. There are a wide range of ways to do that suited to the Expert archetype.

val Holryn wrote:
Eisener has AR 4 and no bulk due to an heirloom and Advanced Armor, Tukufu has AR: 2 and 1 bulk. Eisener has Mighty Swing, 2 Smite Infidels and Murderous precision. Tukufu has Force Push, Chains of Mental Might, Delusions of Grandeur and a side sword. Tukufu currently has an edge in battlefield control, but in Tier 3 (through the Grandmaster path) Eisener will poach the Weapon Trick Juggernaut's Hammer at which point his ability to rearrange the battlefield will be on par with or outstrip many spell casters.


And you may be right. Though using a weapon with Juggernaut's Hammer is likely to be at least a speed 7 (3) attack. Other battlefield control will depend on the type of caster and the foe.

val Holryn wrote:
There are enough MT's that do more damage, combine attacks with movement, and other sexy things that I am not concerned that at Tier 5 Eisener is somehow going to be a party's 5th wheel in combat. The powers that allow casters to dominate in other systems are usually save and die effects ... which are entirely absent in Arcanis. Mobility options with spells are also greatly reduced. Not much spell casting from a flying displaced stoneskined opponent in A:RPG. In short I don't believe the Martial Archetype is underpowered.


Save and die is certainly one type, area of effect is the other. While the first has been eliminated, the other certainly has not. Mobility has been cut down which helps. You still have control type spells though such as Enemy of my Enemy, etc. as well. I've looked at a number of the MTs that do more damage as well as the mobility MTs such as Lunge, Passing Strike, Trail of Bodies and the various forms of Improved Charge. They do help. I feel more comfortable about the discussions after your example of where Eisner is today. I've laid out detailed evaluations through the tiers of abilities, ranks etc. I can appreciate people's gut checks of "Yeah, this feels about right." If that will hold though, isn't it fair to look at some specific examples and check?

val Holryn wrote:
Is the martial archetype less flexible? I've addressed this too. Its true that they (martial characters) can only put three ranks per tier into combat and physical skills which are not as sexy/flexible as social skills or lore skills. On the other hand, I believe that someone who has a rank or two at creation and raises it 1-2 ranks per tier has a skill that is invested enough to be useful in modules. We'll have to see.

If it becomes normal in a Tier 5 module to make a DC:35 persuasion check just to get "some guy called Bob" to buy you an ice cream cone then I'll be proven wrong. But mod writers are reading the forum and I think we can hope that 15-25 will continue to be the norm in most circumstances. If this is true then Martial characters should be sufficiently flexible in skills that things will work out.


Yes and no on having addressed this. I contained my assessment of the differences to those non-overlapping parts between archetypes and all characters. Everyone can get 2 ranks in skills. If the 5 or 6 skills that you happened to put your points in for your versatility are ones that other characters have 3 ranks in / tier will you still feel as useful? If you've got 6 ranks in say Larceny and another character has 9 or 10 because that's where they focused, arguably you'd let them make the rolls. If no one at the table happens to have the same skill or at a higher level than yours, then yes you're useful.


val Holryn wrote:
On the talent side I think the Martial Archetype is the MOST flexible archetype. In addition to the gain 2 combat talents (equivalent to learn 2 arcane, devout, skill talents of other archetypes) they also get chose any 2 martial techniques. That means most martial characters can freely choose *anything* else they want or need with their Any 2 Talents advancements. That's a luxury Tukufu would like to have. As an expert NONE of his spell casting or combat talents can be found under 2 skill talents. ALL have to come from Any 2 Talents. Tukufu is comparatively talent starved.


The 2 Martial Techniques option is +1 Martial Technique over the "1 Talent" option. I don't believe most characters are going to be taking the "1 Talent" option 3 times, so the difference there is 1 Talent.

I would also point out that for Tukufu you're comparing what he's not supposed to excel at naturally (Casting or Combat) and then saying that you're having to spend your talents there to make them as effective as you'd like. If the Martial Character wants skill talents or casting talents they're having to do the same thing aren't they? Also, the Expert has an advantage over the Martial for casting as I've detailed before. Over 5 tiers the Expert has 1 more talent (didn't have to take Sword and Spell), 2 more skill ranks (T1 and T5) and 5 more spells (losing 2 spells in Tiers 2 and 3 and 1 in Tier 4). Failing to take that talent to try and keep up in ranks puts them 5 ranks behind with a more limited selection of spells they can select or autocast and a lot more limits on adapted spells.

val Holryn wrote:
Finally there is the comparison of spells to MTs. This might be the most complex argument and I haven't addressed this yet. The short answer is that, like Josh, i think these are apples and oranges.


I agree there are differences but I don't share the feeling that they're uncomparable. We can agree to disagree on this point, though it may make coming to a concensus on balance more difficult.

val Holryn wrote:
I am freely ready to concede that like Dave I believe ASC (and DSC) are the most powerful talents in the game. Hands down. Like Josh though I don't agree that ASC is the same as 5 talents or that a spell is worth a talent (despite the Talent: Learn Spell). On the one hand consider Eisener. I wouldn't trade Smite Heretic, None Shall Stand Who Oppose the Gods, and Murderous Precision for combat grade ASC. I wouldn't trade two of them.


At Tier 1 and Tier 2 I completely understand that assessment. Is your assessment still the same if we put those items in a box and look at them at Tier 5? Given that tone isn't clear in this media, let me clarify that this isn't intended to be a rhetorical or leading question. If you look at what you can do with 5 Tier 1 spells and an autocast of 34+, is that still your position? Smite Heretic is a spell. This may move the discussion from balance on Martial archetype to casters vs. non-casters.

val Holryn wrote:
So in Eisener's case ASC isn't even worth 2 or 3 of his (admittedly more powerful) talents... And on the other hand I feel pretty confident that there would be ZERO true spell casters in the campaign if you had to buy each spell with a separate talent. IMO Learn Spell is ONLY a good deal when there is a hole in your spell casting repertoire and you go back to fill it.


And to be clear I'd never advocate for each spell to be learned separately. As noted in my first post, I'm not looking to gut casters or make massive overhauls to the system.

val Holryn wrote:
<snip>Another dimension of this argument is that non combat grade spells are still incredibly useful.


Absolutely. This reinforces the question of whether the discussion should be on how viable non-casting characters are. By definition these are limited to Martial and Expert Archetypes.

val Holryn wrote:
<snip>Still Eisener exists to destroy things in melee combat and this talent [Divine Spell Casting] does nothing significant to further this mission.


I wouldn't say this is exactly true given that one of the key combat maneuvers that Eisner uses is Smite Heretic which is a spell.

val Holryn wrote:
<snip>Finally is the issue that Spell casters get 5 spells a level but Martial characters only get 1 martial technique per talent. I admit in this case that the advantage goes to the spell casters. But other parts of spell casting sucks when compared with clock management...so again I think its apples and oranges. The martial character in combat who uses a maneuver gets to keep fighting on his next action even while under recovery. The spell caster has no comparable option with a "basic attack spell" that can be used in spell casting, that causes no strain, and allows other strain to go away.


Except to use a base attack and martial technique to fill in the time in between. Granted that they will not have all the martial techniques that a Martial character has, but they certainly can invest in a couple. While this attack isn't as strong as the Martial's primary it's still arguably better than the Martial's Base attack. The caster's doing this while burning off strain, and the Martial's doing it while waiting out recovery.

val Holryn wrote:
In fact IME every spell caster comes up with some kind of (elaborate) plan to deal with aspect of "the Art". The options are spend feats for better clock management (Adaptation: Delay Strain is almost a talent tax for a dedicated caster) ... OR ... the caster flushes Strain repeatedly with Fate points (kinda sucks, can't use Fate for other things) ... OR ... the caster eats ever increasing damage (really sucks) ... OR ... the caster works out a (complicated) build to be able to fight/contribute some other way (cost of opportunity, whatever you put into this isn't making you a better spell caster) ... OR the caster sits on his hands. With Tukufu I end up doing ALL of the above sometimes...except the last, so I don't waste actions on my clock.


The Delay Strain option and other adaptations are arguably spent in that same advancement that the Martial's using for 2 Combat Talent. The caster rarely has to move so swinging a weapon or firing a bow are valid options for them while they're burning off strain. The Quick Hands talent probably feels more like a tax to allow a caster to keep going, but opens up a lot of options as well. Again I refer back to my initial post and how a dedicated caster who also wanted to rock with a bow could certainly do so. All the weapon tricks are there for whoever has the skill so that's a wash.

val Holryn wrote:
Then there is the fact you can combine two different martial techniques relatively effortlessly. Arcane spell casting is harder (and getting harder still in the errata). Want a good multi target control effect that can dominate the battlefield in Tier 1? Combine Shield Slam with Sweeping Strike. Though each combat is unique I bet there is no T1 advanced spell that is widely applicable and decidedly better. Edge of the Shield (to me) is even sexier in Tier II. Jugernaut's Hammer is even sexier in Tier 3. And Sweeping Strikes is party friendly. Powerwise I think MT is doing fine.


Each spell has it's own adaptations plus a growing list of ones that can be added as extra talents through the Arcane or Divine's pick 2 option. These are all easily available. For your Shield Slam, Sweeping Strike combo, ok. To get the same combo as a non-Martial means a 6 might, 1 Tier 1 Martial Technique and Proficiency in Shield. So a caster could have a free hand, a shield for both the Avoidance bonus and the attack available while burning off strain. If you skip the sweeping strike, it's 1 talent and the skill. How is that a barrier to a non-martial using that exact combo as their filler? Juggernaut's Hammer is harder to get, but depending on your starting nation it's not automatically in your available options either.

val Holryn wrote:
That takes us back to flexibility. Get enough Martial techniques or spells and I think the point becomes mute because you have the tool you want when you want it. Still I concede the point that spell casters will be more flexible with more options. Still, MTs combine with your weapon tricks which is a great help to Martial Archetype characters and mitigates somewhat. Weapon Tricks do not mix with spells (baring Arcane Strike)...this argument comes closer IMO to being a legitimate issue to take up. But I dislike the idea that spell casting somehow needs to be tweaked or nerfed to bring it in line with martial archetype characters.


Casters don't spend ticks changing weapons to move from melee to ranged or vice versa. They don't normally spend ticks to need to move much in combat either. In that regard, a bowman is probably a closer approximation to a caster than a melee combatant. As Scott pointed out, of the available MTs very few target anything other than avoidance. I expect that the ones that target discipline or fortitude are also weapon specific. As more material comes out, more changes will come and the balance will shift to who knows what. Here's what I said as the very first line of the first post of this thread:

Hat wrote:
Let me start this thread by stating clearly that I'm looking to fix the Martial Archetypes rather than weakening the cores of what makes the other Archetypes special.


I'm not looking for nerfs, especially not in this thread. I have no problems with secondary casters off of any archetype. They made that a feasible option which opens up a lot of concepts that would otherwise have been a forced fit. My primary character is a Martial/secondary caster. He didn't fit the situation I was concerned with so I haven't used him as an example. I also don't feel that you should have to be a secondary caster in order to contribute. The secondary caster option is open to every Archetype. That's a wash across the board. I'd rather look ahead to see where we're going rather than wait until we get there and decide we don't like it. Once you give people something they're reluctant to have it scaled back or removed almost regardless of the reason for doing so.

Again, I invite people to review the mechanics I've laid out and respond to the individual posts. I value the dialog and the different points of view. It is helpful and illuminating. I still don't feel like a number of the points regarding flexibility or scaling have been addressed as an effective counter position. I have not advocated for sweeping changes even within the Martial archetype. I have offered the possibility of expanding the archetype skills to include Heal, Beast Lore and Intimidate and even that only if there is an agreed upon gap and that skill flexibility is used as part of a solution.

I am trying to keep my tone civil. If there are parts of my posts you feel fail this, please point them out either within the thread or by PM and I will fix them.

Respectfully and with a sweep of his hat,

Paul


Top
Offline Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 46 posts ]  Moderators: james.zwiers, PCI Eric, PCI_StatMonkey Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
Theme created StylerBB.net & kodeki