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