The purpose of this thread is two fold. One, to see just how many people think that PF favors casters by a significant margin and why. And two, to continue a conversation I was having in another thread that really didn't belong there (sorry for being too off topic, guys).
I've heard many people make claims as to whether or not Pathfinder closed the gap in power between the classes who get full casting progression and the classes which get no casting progression in D&D 3.5. I'm wondering not only whether people believe the disparity still exists, but whether they believe the reason behind it is mathematically based, playstyle based, or a combination thereof, and also what, if anything, can be done to appropriately and effectively close or at least lessen that gap. This tread is meant to facilitate that in open, CIVIL discussion, as well as continue my conversation with CoDzilla without threadjacking anyone.
From what I can see there are only a few, albeit compelling arguments, which favor that casters are stronger than their martial brethren:
1. Their full potency often stems from a single standard action every round, double that with quicken spell. They are able to move about if neccessary, and still recieve the full power in combat that the game rules allow them. If a martial type with a base attack bonus of 6 or greater needs to move then his combat potential has dropped significantly for the round, especially if he is a two weapon fighter.
2. Martial characters are more heavily gear dependent. They must not only worry about stastic boosting items like their caster allies, but weapons and armor as well. Again this even more heavily disfavors a two weapon fighter as he has twice the offensive investment to make out of his wealth, not to mention martial types that wish to be en equal threat in melee or at range. Also, with pathfinder rolling all physical attribute boosting items into belts, and all mental attribute boosting items into headbands, this favors the SAD classes (generally casters) over the MAD classes (generally martials), as a Fighter can no longer pick up an amulet to boost his Con, gloves to boost his Dex, and a belt to boost his Str, all to the varying degrees that he would like best - instead he is stuck paying the price of them rolled into a single item, where as a SAD caster only needs a single statistic boosting headband.
3. Martial characters have a narrower scope of capabilities, and once they choose their abilities they cannot be changed. A Fighter is stuck with the feats that he has chosen whether or not they are the best option at the time. A Wizard can research, purchase, or learn a key spell to deal with a situation if he knows of it in advance, and can swap out his daily allotment of spells with 8 hours rest, making him far more versitile. A caster can often find and exploit an enemies weakness where a fighter has to rely on his standard tactics for victory (usually HP damage by attacking AC).
The rest of this post is directed at furthering a conversation that I had over the last few days in the Quantity vs Quality thread with CoDzilla (but anyone else can chime in if they feel like it, of course):
I'd like to start off by saying that I haven't heard anyone else use the term "Caster Edition", not to say that I don't believe it isn't used in some circles, but just that I haven't heard it anywhere else.
I feel PF closed this gap somewhat (a great deal actually) but improvements could always be made. Late in 3.5 my powergamers decided to tone it back a little bit, and draw a line as to how much they will optimize, once they realized the DM could always do it better. But we've pretty much thrown out 3.5 with the exception of core rules, some houserules, and some of our favorite UA stuff.
Are you kidding me? Caster Edition nerfed the ever loving hell out of martial characters. And then buffed casters, giving it its name.
*bolding mine
Codzilla, you've made the claim that you think in 3.5 supplemental rulebooks helped the martial types far more than the caster types and helped to close the gap. I respectfully disagree. I saw great additions to both types repertoire, which in turn I feel aided casters more for the simple reason that not only did they gain more options but they could swap them out on a daily basis. When you say that Pathfinder "nerfed" (I hate using that word as a verb...) martial types, what specifically do you mean over the 3.5 material? Are you refering to 3.5 along with all of its supplements being stronger than Pathfinder core? If so I agree. But there is a long list of supplements and options for 3.5, and Pathfinder is fairly new, so it wouldn't be fair to compare that to Pathfinder. Or are you refering to core 3.5 to core Pathfinder?
Some have argued that Power Attack is mechanically stronger in Pathfinder and some have argued that it is mechanically weaker. I would be more than willing to say that without leap attack, shock trooper, and the numerous ways to get pounce in 3.5 it is definately weaker mechanically in Pathfinder, but I'm a bit weary to say that 3.5 power attack by itself is far superior to Pathfinder power attack. Thoughts?
But overall I'd have to say that both martial types and caster types got a definate boost in power in the core Pathfinder material over the core 3.5 material, so I'm not seeing how Pathfinder "nerfed" martial types. Their AC is better, they get more feats and abilities, many of the feats themselves are better.
The buffs to casters I feel were less meaningful (excluding sorcerer, which improved in so many ways). Outside of a few specialized school abilities and cleric domains specialists and priests haven't gotten a whole lot better. Channel energy effectively lessens the need for cure wands which benefits the whole of the group more than themselves, and many SoL spells were weakened. Wild Shape got mechanically weaker, but much more managable.
Outside of retaining their SAD lifestyle and the other points from above, I don't see how PF rewarded casters over martials, outside of not weakening them much past removing Concentration as a skill and removing XP to craft. Even their big abilities like Arcane Bond with an item over an animal have some significant drawbacks.
Back to 3.5 we were discussing AC as a viable defense in core vs supplemental material. Even changing monsters in the MM (which I think we both agreed was pretty much a given to challenge any experienced party) with the limited options in core material there aren't many significant ways to boost their offensive power past the bounds of a players ability to defend against. NPC's with class levels are an entirely different story however. That is if we are ignoring gear; though I think you and I would have a discussion at great lengths as to what amount and type of combat gear is appropriate to allow "monsters" with an intelligence score to use, without altering their "CR" (which was a bad joke in 3.5, and not terribly better in PF, in my opinion). Shall we?
Overall I find we agree on many things as far as 3.5 is concerned, but less so in Pathfinder, which is odd since they aren't incredibly different games at their base.
I might of missed a few topics from our last conversation starting this thread and porting some of it over here, so if there is anything that we were talking about that you would like to continue, feel free to bring it back up. I also wanted to ask you a few things:
Do you like PF? I see you being very vocal with the flaws that you see in the system, but over all do you enjoy playing it? If so more than or less than 3.5? Feel free to add explanations of why and what houserules you think would improve either or both systems. I'm all ears, or rather, eyes.
What is a session of your games usually like? A brief summary, if you'd indulge me, I'm obviously not going to ask for a line by line recap, but I'm curious to see how much emphasis is placed on social encounters, problem solving, and combat, and how those situations usually resolve. I'd reply in kind, if you'd like.
And do you usally play or DM? Which do you prefer? Why?
Inherently I think casters have a big advantage, but how big depends on the the group and how they play the game. Until it becomes an issue I would not worry about it.
Example: Last week I had the boss guy reverse gravity and maze the party tank. He was not happy about it since he got no save.
edit:Lately I have been DM'ing a lot. I don't get the prefer question so I will answer it in two ways. I prefer to switch between DM'ing and playing. If you mean martial vs caster I like both.
I like PF. It is a more elegant system mostly because things really get playtested IMHO.
The emphasis on social encounters vs combat varies from session to session. It just depends on what needs to be done, and how the players want to do it. My houserules are always changing, and they are normally on things that are very specific like the Gate spell. I do make people confirm fumbles since I used the fumble deck.
|
Me personally I think the gap is smaller now between casters and melee types than it was in 3.5. The reason I think it still exists is because of backwards compatible aspect of Pathfinder. Change it more than they did and there would be no way it would work with older stuff. I think the gap still needs to be narrowed but hopefully that will happen in future books and with pathfinder 2.0 in 8 more years. :)
short answer, in my opinion NO.
I usually play DM but I play rogues, rangers, fighters, and witches.
I dabble in a lot of classes, I also really like the inquisitor.
the balance comes down to the style of play of each game, nothing more nothing less. It just seems to be a common theme to let the casters run wild with magic, or thats the impression I get from some people on these threads.
|
I fear this thread is doomed, but i'll put my word in anyway.
But 3.5 splatbooks did just as much for casters as they did for martial characters (Celerity anyone?). The prestige classes they brought with them helped both types of characters, but adding extra feats for fighters simply doesn't equate on the same level as adding extra spells for casters.
Feats are limited. And while spells aren't limitless, adding extra ones to the mix increases the power of the casters significantly (especially clerics & druids- my pet bugbear, they instantly get access to a bunch of new spells with a splatbook with absolutely 0 cost)
I'm still seeing threads where people post non-caster builds that can defeat a Balor or Tarrasque in one round. I'm NOT seeing polymorph and wildshape abuse where a caster can render his physical stats irrelevant.
I think there is a small power gap, but it is easy to compensate for. A large part of the problem is that building a mechanically effective warrior is a lot tougher than building a caster- put your casting stat up as high as possible and your constitution, get a good initiative score and pick the right spells- profit.
I've DMed and played since 3rd Edition came out, with and without a whole bunch of splatbooks.
|
|
It's hard to see at first, but I think pure PF is probably more slanted to casters than end of 3.5 was.
It's basically 2 - 4 books trying to do what the entirety of 3.5.
It does seem like PF at first nerfs casters, but after looking at the nerfed spells, it's just not enough. Fights still are suppose to end very quickly, so even those spells nerfed to give a new save every round doesn't hurt as much as it should.
Lack of Concentrate at first hurts, but it still doesn't matter much later.
Items and spells not using XP helps casters.
Arcane Bond helps wizards a lot.
Even if their combat spells were nerfed a little, most of the non-combat spells are still really good.
I hope Paizo buffs non-casters so they can do better, and nerf casters here and there to reduce their advantages.
|
short answer, in my opinion NO.
Medium answer, it can be at higher levels or if certain spells are adjudicated very broadly. But until level 15 or so it's fairly well balanced, and even after level 15 everyone can shine in a teamwork oriented group.
Pathfinder fixed Casters being weak at low levels and nerfed most of the SoD high level spells to somewhat flatten the curve of power at higher levels. So far it's been working well in my games. YMMV.
short answer, in my opinion NO.Medium answer, it can be at higher levels or if certain spells are adjudicated very broadly. But until level 15 or so it's fairly well balanced, and even after level 15 everyone can shine in a teamwork oriented group.
Pathfinder fixed Casters being weak at low levels and nerfed most of the SoD high level spells to somewhat flatten the curve of power at higher levels. So far it's been working well in my games. YMMV.
I will add that I normally stop around 15th level. Anything after that point I cannot speak for, which as Ciretose pointed out should be listed (level often makes a significant impact on whether or not you are the "best")
I think in general that Martial types are far strongr in PF than they were in 3.x.
But i also think the type of group you play with can affect how one sees the Divide alot. It also depends on what level the party is at as well.
in our recent group of a barbarian a fighter/duelist a Rogue a Summoner (with a correctly built eidolon using Hero labs) and a Wizard. at level 8 In most fights my Barbarian was the biggest threat to the Enemy. It probly would have changed at higher levels but i didnt see that happening until at least 6th level spells.
But most of my group doesnt optimize or only does a partial optimization.
in a group with an uber optimized wizard (especially if th rest of his group doesnt optimize) the gap may seem wider.
But i havent played a game higher than level 8 in PF yet.
Every version of D&D is "caster edition" if you're talking about high level characters. Except 4E, I suppose.
The gap is noticeably smaller between the two thanks to many of the Pathfinder changes, but it's still there to be sure.
Simply put, spellcasters have a level of versatility that non-caster's can't ever hope to match. Magic also goes a long ways towards protecting oneself from unusual afflictions (ability drain, energy drain, any number of curses and spell effects) that a strong arm simply won't help against.
What's a fighter going to do with mummy rot? DIE. He might take longer to waste away than a spellcaster, but there is a good chance the spellcaster can outright cure the affliction.
It doesn't help that non-casters rely so heavily on magic items, which only casters can effectively create (there's Master Craftsman, but that only goes half way since it only allows for armor, weapons, and wondrous items).
Though I don't necessarily agree with it, I've seen a lot of people say ill of the class balance on account that, even though non-caster got better, so did casters.
Having extra feats and deeper feat trees are a HUGE advantage of the fighter of its predecessors, but when compared to the new sorcerer, who gains all the new general feats the fighter gets, AND 3 bonus class feats in addition (as well as a lot of cool class abilities). Suddenly the fighter feat gain no longer seems all that great.
I don't know if there is a good way to fix this problem without turning it into some homogeneous mess like 4E. Really, though, I don't think it really needs fixing.
Wow, that is a lot more volume in replies than I was expecting already.
@ Midnightoker:
"It just seems to be a common theme to let the casters run wild with magic, or thats the impression I get from some people on these threads."
I agree this seems to be a problem with many games I hear about. I try not to put unfair limits on spells that a wizard gains through levels, but other than that, I try to be selective on what scrolls are available through shops, what spells are in my villians spellbooks, ect. It becomes more difficult to limit past the level where Teleportation is common, however, where players can simply try to go somewhere over and over again that might have what they are looking for. There is only so much you can practically do without obviously looking as if you are placing arbitrary limits on spellcasters.
@ Alexander:
"I fear this thread is doomed, but i'll put my word in anyway."
Well, mostly I wanted to continue my conversation with CoDzilla without running amok in someone else's thread, but I added a public conversation piece because of something I had heard CoD say a few times and I don't quite see in PF.
@ BYC:
I hate to think of a mid-edition game "nerfing" anything, then there is a lot of backwards stuff to adjucate. Buffing something subpar I think is a better choice during an edition, and much easier to effectively accomplish. Also starting to buff one thing without adjusting others can lead to a classes arms race that could almost guarentee a 1 round combat everytime, which isn't incredibly exciting.
@ ciretose:
I've been running a low level PF game weekly and am trying my hand at PbP DM'ing (RotRL's, updated for PF). So far there is little difference in power between the casters and martials. Though it should be noted that the player who is playing a wizard in one of the games is, for lack of a better word, an idiot (I don't like to go around my players, but this guy...sigh).
See, your main problem is that you read CODzilla's posts. There's a handy ignore script somewhere on these boards that can help brighten the atmosphere.come on man dont start that this early.
...COD literally has done nothing on here yet and there is no reason to attack him.
This is true. In fact over the last few days of discussing variances in the 3.5 and PF rules sets we've disagreed multiple times, but he has had many valid points, and some that I agree with, though many I do not. During the entire time he's remained civil and unprovacative. There is no need to resort to comments like that.
@ Mojorat:
I do think that optimization is a big part of the disparity. Especially at high levels it is possible to see a caster pulling away from the group. It happened in early editions, but I believe that to be by design. While they two have slowly converged in power level as the game has progressed there is still the potential hold-over that can result in a disparity. To truly change this PF would need to break from its D&D roots, which I think would be a mistake.
Pathfinder actually addressed many of the issues and did reduce the gap between casters and non-casters. Where I end up seeing the problems is mostly on the boards with people who are more focused on numbers instead of characters. I know, and agree, that people can do both. Many do not yet believe that they do.
By getting more feats some of the classes, like the fighter, are able to shore up some of their potential weaknesses. I say potential because the weaknesses may not be as much of an issue in some campaigns. Some classes have their own "feats" like the barbarian's rage powers and the rogue's talents. These make those classes more customizable, give them a bit of a boost, and make them more fun to play.
Even when we all use the same rules, the DM still needs to decide what the adventure is going to be and what will be encountered. Contrary to popular belief, this is not coddling. Coddling is when you don't have the opponents do what they should. Not every creature should be played the same way. The DM should put things in the adventure that every player can enjoy. If the rogue has disable device, there better be some things the rogue can disable. If the wizard has elemental spell (fire) there should be some cold-based creatures every now and then. Not every ability should be useful all the time but the DM should make sure that the players are having fun.
Many spells have seen a reduction in power while some feats and skills have seen a boost. Some magic items have also been adjusted.
I have also noticed that one of the biggest reasons people think that DnD and Pathfinder favor casters is because they have a bias toward casters and understand how to play them better. There is nothing wrong with this, it's just something that people should acknowledge. I can't play a successful cleric because I can't stand playing clerics. It doesn't mean that Pathfinder has a problem with the class. I can play a very effective non-caster.
I also notice that more problems occur when people add in house rules and don't realize that the problem is the house rule. The game assumes many things, like 15 point buy and wealth by level. If you change how those work (25 point buy and allowing crafting to double your wealth) you will see changes that are not really beneficial to what you may have been trying to address. Instead of adding house rules, I think more games would benefit from RAI (rules as intended) or just simple common sense. That's not to say that there may not be problems with how a rule works in someone's game. That same rule may work just fine in someone else's game.
There are also a lot of people who get their information from theoretical builds and ideas on the boards but don't realize that the game doesn't actually play that way. Sure, wizards can change their spell allotments daily but they still have to live long enough to do that.
I have also seen that some DMs don't use the rules at all and then claim there is a problem. There is someone who's DM doesn't give the players any useful information from Knowledge skills. That's unfortunate. His game could probably be enhanced by not ignoring that rule. Extra skill points in his game aren't as useful and each party member doesn't end up with the niche they may want. You can't even build a proper sage-like wizard in that game.
The final big problem I see from some people is that they are under the assumption that their way is the only way the game is played. They believe that any other way is wrong. When those people start with their arguments, they start from a false premise which invalidates nearly everything they have to say. It's unfortunate because they probably have a lot to add to the discussion.
I agree this seems to be a problem with many games I hear about. I try not to put unfair limits on spells that a wizard gains through levels, but other than that, I try to be selective on what scrolls are available through shops, what spells are in my villians spellbooks, ect. It becomes more difficult to limit past the level where Teleportation is common, however, where players can simply try to go somewhere over and over again that might have what they are looking for. There is only so much you can practically do without obviously looking as if you are placing arbitrary limits on spellcasters.
Limiting spells is not where its at always, its a method but it isnt an always sort of thing.
The biggest problem with casters getting out of control is having the enemy not prepare for casters.
They always seem to have something to stop fighter types (pets, forcefields, etc), and rogue types (guards, resistance to poisons, blindsight) but nothing to stop the caster? There are plenty of monsters both good at stopping casters, preventing casters from being OP and traps to counter them as well.
But it either seems the wizard or caster always has the right spell prepared. If the caster always has the right spell prepared, or a way to over come every obstacle you throw easily is that the mechanics fault? is that the wizards players fault?
to me it sounds like the DMs fault, I say that because I normally DM. Casters are no more difficult to keep under control (and let them have a blast) than other players. It all comes down to your DM.
It seems to me that most DM's make it either that "well the caster is casting magic and magic is defying reality so therefor is a god" or that "you are purposefully calling out my caster! if he didnt take precautionary measures to defend himself like he does for everyone else I would be totally owning him!"
This is all obviously my opinion, but it is totally the DMs responsibility to make sure no one gets out of control. If the rogue always gets sneak attack or death stabs he becomes over powered, but no DM lets that happen. If the fighter fought alot of low AC monsters or monsters that sucks at CMD then the fighter can dominate, no DM allows this to happen. Yet if the caster can always get off his SoD spells and have them against creatures with either NO SR or limited defenses against spells that is koshure?
I just dont get on board with the whole casters being the best because they aren't the best, they are just apparently the most allowed to break the setting by a DM.
|
In every game I have played so far, including low level structured games like PFS, to high level (15+) home brew campaigns, in every single scenario/setting/encounter, the person doing the highest damage and killing the foes/enemies the fastest has been the party "tank".
Whether that tank be the monk, the ranger, the fighter, the pally, the inquisitor or the barbarian, straight out the "tanks" are the guys doing the killing.
EVERYONE else is just aiding them for the most part.
Except in player vs player, then its the straight up caster.
Example: 15th lvl campaign, 2 weapon mobility fighter taking on bad guys with the aid of a 15th lvl flame oracle. Flame oracle blasting away, dropping bombs on bad guys, but its the cuisinart-esque figher that drops EVERYTHING she runs into, usually in one or two rounds.
When we were all charmed and had to attack each other (DM caveat, no flames plzkthx) it was the 15d6 bladewall/firestorm/blasting that blew most of us to kingdom come.
IMHO, anyone that thinks that fighters are stupid and can't kill things, that the only way to "win" Pathfinder is to be a caster don't quite grasp the game at all really, or are only playing in solo campaigns.
Few things could have been done better (concentration is still too easy at high levels, more feats should scale and more option-per-levels should be given to non casters) but overall the game is fine IME.
And.. again with "Power Attack Nerfed, ONOEZ"? *headdesk*
I don't think Pathfinder is "caster edition" any more than 3.0 or 3.5 were.
(Generally I feel that the straight casters are the best/strongest/most versatile classes in the game, in the hands of a good to excellent player. That doesn't mean they always beat everything ever; it just means that, overall they're going to steal the spotlight more than other classes unless probably both the GM and the players work for it to be otherwise.)
3.5 fixed some things that made casters broke-ass good but created some new ones; PF mostly did the same.
IMHO, nerfing most of the really great spells of core 3.5 was a great idea, but a more complete pass at that was necessary.
On the flipside wizards and sorcerers really did not need more HP, wizards really did not need Bonded Object, and wizards really did not need the much more generous version of specialization/generalist. Wizards especially also really didn't need the PF version of crafting.
I think PF's version of Power Attack is a good idea in its way, but I think it takes just about everything else martial classes gained in PF to balance out losing the 3.5 version.
I remember when 3.5 came out marveling that someone at WotC had clearly thought that druid was one of the weakest classes of 3.0 and decided to make it better, when it was already one of the strongest. I have almost that feeling again about wizards in Pathfinder.
I think if you throw a bunch of 3.X crap into core Pathfinder, then yeah, you probably have Caster Edition -- but the game out of the box isn't it more than it's ever been.
I think the biggest benefit casters have over other classes is the ability to switch their character's strengths and weaknesses if given enough time.
A wizard or cleric who has the wrong spells prepared is a day away from fixing his problem. A fighter who has the wrong feats taken, or a ranger with a poor favored enemy choice is multiple levels away from adjusting his character. Even if a DM works with him by allowing retraining, it isn't likely to take a day in his life, but a decent amount of time. And retraining gets old very quickly if overused. Spellcasters are assumed to be able to switch their spells every day. No one gets upset if a cleric wants to prepare a different spell set every day of the week, but even the most tolerant DMs aren't likely to allow a ranger to switch his favored enemy more than once a week, if not even longer.
As DnD/PF offers a massive amount of possible situations, being well rounded, both as a team and as an individual is often rewarded. The ability to switch a large amount of your class's power and focus on a short notice goes a long way towards ensuring that you aren't ever 'stuck' for long with suboptimal choices for the situation. You may suffer immediate setbacks (a burning house isn't going to wait a day for you to prepare quench), but in the long run, you make out fairly well. The fact that there is also divination (included in your class benefits) that aids you somewhat in selecting your daily power ices the cake.
So yeah, that's a huge benefit. In a long running campaign that can produce a wide variety of challenges, this benefit shines. It isn't necessarily better than a favored enemy. But it has a broader potential to end up being used. Favored Enemy - humanoid (orc)+10 has less potential to end up being used to the same extent. It doesn't mean it wouldn't be, but odds are against it.
However, just as the classes come with a large benefit, they come with drawbacks and weak points as well. I feel the DM's job is to ensure that her players are challenged regardless of their choices, and I don't know that it is any harder to challenge spellcasters than it is a melee character. Most of the challenges in my game tend to reward teamwork over individual effort.
Spells are the strongest feature of casters, if their best spells get nerfed. How can be caster edition?
They are still powerful. It is like your pay going from 50 dollars an hour to 49.25.
It's still caster edition but IMHO the problems that made 3.x play basically totally unfun in regards to casters have been toned down.
I still think Pathfinder isn't really close to balance between martial classes and casters and casters still have a good deal of power and agency that noncasters lack but it's getting better.
There are still basic problems with the mechanics (save dcs scale at a faster rate that saves, casters can move and shoot while martials are stuck with 5' moves, and several spells still are game breakingly powerful) but I've been happy with some of the changes that have been made.
Honestly I wish they had been more aggressive with the nerfbat in regards to core spells but oh well. I think with an aggressive DM and alterations in basic encounter design much of the abuse can be corrected but for a lot of people it's hit or miss.
Personally I don't want to see the everything dialed up to 11 solution proposed by some members (and former members) of this board. I'd rather see revisions to the core rules that enable and empower the martials without also boosting the casters.
Melee seem to hold their own early on, allowing casters to find their feet. Casters seem to take over after that, and if you aren't a caster or a hybrid you start to suffer.
In a magic item rich campaign it might be less obvious, especially with the number of posts I've seen of "get UMD and use wands/rods" to balance things out, but in a low magic setting the differences get even more pronounced. In my 15 years of gaming (tabletop and computer), I'm now building my first character in 14 years where magic is a primay aspect (vs classes like rangers where it is minor utility, or pure melee characters).
It doesn't help that non-casters rely so heavily on magic items, which only casters can effectively create (there's Master Craftsman, but that only goes half way since it only allows for armor, weapons, and wondrous items).
I am just curious, what else do you want master craftsman to be able to make? Armor, weapons, and wonderous items cover everything a non-spellcaster could want unless your hoping to abuse the UMD skill o make a ton of potions. Those three types really cover the real needs of the non-casting classes about as well as you could hope.
IMHO, one-on-one, casters are better than melee characters just like they have always been in D&D. But in a mixed group of adventurers it's the melee characters that do most of the work and get most of the glory. It's more effective for a wizard to haste the party and dimension door the fighters then it is to spam save or suck spells and hope one sticks.
The differences people are talking about are the gains and losses in versatility. The "tiers system".
Casters were tier 1, because they had the option to handle virtually every situation (whether they had the right option at the right time is an entirely different matter).
Non-casters were in a significantly lower tier (especially those who had no access to casting whatsosever), simply because their options were less.
With the casters losing some versatility in spells (polymorph, et al, being locked down was a huge factor), and the skill system revamp (1:1 adding as well as the feat boosts) alone giving greater options to non-casters brings that gap closer.
See, if the casters were already "able to solve any situation", then "getting more" isn't going to make them any better in Tier. Contrary to schoolyard banter, there isn't an "infinity plus one".
However, if game mechanics change to give non-casters more versatility, then non-casters are suddenly able to handle a wider amount of situations, while casters still handle any situation.
That is what is meant by the gap being smaller. It's not about who got what for "power". It's about what a character is now able to accomplish. Non-caster can simply have the option to do more than they could before...
my 2c:
I think rather than think of it in terms of
'are casters better than non in the abstract'
A better way to think of it in terms of standard groups.
Yes casters have distinct advantages when it comes to thing like getting rid of afflictions/being versatile in their options/etc
But in a well-balanced group you will usually have casters as well as non, and most of those advantages can be GIVEN to others...
In other words: A lot of the things that make caster classes more powerful can be SHARED with non-casters, making them just as powerful in terms of the group as a whole.
Look at the bigger picture, IMO
With the assistance of casters, non-casters can achieve things that casters alone could not necessarily do.
My experience with the game has been as follows:
Curse of the Crimson Throne: Played sorcerer, even an under-optimized one. Stuff was easy enough, and I was probably the most powerful in the party.
Kingmaker: I GM, five players, covering all the four bases plus a cavalier. A few tight spots, but until I said "CORE! NOW!", it was mostly easy mode. Casters made most encounters pretty much a cakewalk, and only character deaths have been either results of blatant stupidity (charging alone ahead of party into the reach of 4 cyclops warriors) or a combination of stupidity and flukes (succumbing to poison because people didn't prepare, rolled poorly and I rolled high on Con damage on top of that). Had a few challenging moments, but mostly because they were not prepared to deal with such things.
Serpent Skull: I play a paladin, we have a severely under-optimized cleric, and no arcane caster. S~~# is hard. Cleric has died twice.
IS PATHFINDER "CASTER EDITION"?
No, and anyone that thinks so is asleep at the wheel.
|
|
IMHO, one-on-one, casters are better than melee characters just like they have always been in D&D. But in a mixed group of adventurers it's the melee characters that do most of the work and get most of the glory. It's more effective for a wizard to haste the party and dimension door the fighters then it is to spam save or suck spells and hope one sticks.
I see the game as being designed for roles. It is assumed you are going to have both a divine and arcane caster, a skill monkey/face, and a damage dealer.
All four roles are needed for an effective party, where the filling of those roles comes from varies. Some classes do two things moderately well (Bard/Paladin, most of the APG classes) and some builds can fill multiple roles moderately well, but if you are missing one of the above you are generally going to have big problems at some point in the game unless your DM is designing the game for your group and not including some elements of the game at your table.
|
The whole basis of CoD's original argument that Pathfinder was the "Caster Edition" was based on highly misleading google results, which I (and many other people) refuted. In fact, I went so far as to prove that Pathfinder is the "warrior edition". Link here.
I think the biggest benefit casters have over other classes is the ability to switch their character's strengths and weaknesses if given enough time.
The last three words above are crucial. Kill the 15-Minute Adventuring Day, and watch the alleged disparity between casters and noncasters dwindle away.
Most fantasy games will be a "caster edition", because magic is what makes it different, just like science fiction is the "technology edition"; where star wars is a blend of the two. So having access to magic as a melee will shore up the differences. In a low magic campaign, as stated above, you will start to notice the gaps.
Even in 4E, the caster types have more versatility. But the classes use the same base mechanics, so the differences will not be as pronounced versus other editions.
Oh, I'll bite.
My opinion, based on my experience playing both low levels (Crypt of the Everflame) and running a high level (currently 18th) game:
1. Casters have infinitely more versatility, but have to choose and spend their ultimately limited resources carefully. In every game I've actually played, a Caster only has so much time to buff and do other things they need to do. They are harder to play (but rewarding to play when played well).
2. Weapon warriors are more limited in what they can do in a given moment, but seldom "run out" of what they are capable of, and a well built weapon warrior will have more than one effective trick up their sleeve. They are simpler to play (but there is a level of mastery when it comes to building them effectively, which is sometimes campaign dependent).
Balance between the two is in the eye of the beholder (I mean seriously, that dispel cone just screws everyone up... erm, what was I talking about?). Narratively, I would say that casters have more "power" but I've also seen meleers/range-warriors save casters' butts often enough (and of course vice versa) that in a versatile, well-played game, it all comes out relatively evenly in the end.
SO MANY aspects of the issue are also so very circumstantial---who is going to be the most useful and in what situation is dependent on what you're fighting and where. Fighting golems in a low ceiling ice cave is an entirely different kettle of fish than fighting on the road versus wyverns. And these many circumstances are seldom taken into consideration during these arguments.
I've noticed that arguments that favor casters sometimes seem to assume a caster spends a half hour unmolested buffing before any given combat, that all fights take place in a wide open field outdoors with no difficult terrain or things flying through the air other than casters, and that no one will ever be trying to harm or harry the caster (or assume somehow that the caster will always make saves or not be hit). Whereas arguments against fighters will be sure to put them naked, knee deep in lava in a 5x5 room.
For a long time, in these "casters get to win" threads, I asked the defenders of casters to provide me multiple in-game examples of times that weapon users felt useless on a regular basis throughout a campaign, or where wizards were never harmed or touched. To this day, I have been answered with silence. The few times I have been answered were for 3.5 and the player mentioned use of splats that tended to give Casters far more power than they have in core (e.g., Complete Divine). Now, all this means is of course is folks ignored my question and that could just be they didn't read my post or aren't interested in what I have to say, but it does give me pause for thought at times.
Some of the specific questions:
1. Their full potency often stems from a single standard action every round, double that with quicken spell. They are able to move about if neccessary, and still recieve the full power in combat that the game rules allow them. If a martial type with a base attack bonus of 6 or greater needs to move then his combat potential has dropped significantly for the round, especially if he is a two weapon fighter.
While martial types certainly benefit from getting off a full attack, they are not useless if they move and make a standard action. They in fact have many choices, for example:
1. They can do a combat maneuver. The effectiveness of this depends on your enemy of course--you can't trip an octopus--but it is a single melee action, and one often quite effective. Starting a grapple, disarming someone, rendering someone prone, pushing them off a cliff, etc. are all useful things to do and very effective especially when applied in the right circumstances.
2. They can demoralize. They are the only classes with Intimidate as a class skill, and this is a useful thing to do especially when fighting groups of less powerful monsters. The Dazzling Display tree can shine.
3. They can move to help set up a flank for someone else, e.g., the rogue.
4. A number of things can be done to maximize the effectiveness of the single standard attack they have such as:
--- Using Vital Strike (I have recently developed great respect for this tree). Admittedly, the downside is you don't get Vital Strike till 6th, and then 11th and 16th BAB but that's also when you're getting multiple attacks and not before then. Vital Strike is almost like hitting someone twice (yeah, I know Strength doesn't get doubled) but in one hit.
--- Using a critical build. Keen falchion or similar weapon and Critical Focus and other fun things likely results in a good chance of nasty happening much of the time even if you only hit once
--- You can charge, boosting your damage
--- You can charge combining your attack with Vital Strike and Power attack.
--- Sneak attack, if they have it, and other ways of doing precision and similar damage.
This is not to diminish what casters are capable of with their standard action, which is a lot; I am just noting that a martial character isn't, or shouldn't be, sitting around with their thumb up their ass if they have to move before attacking.
Martial characters can also take measures to keep people moving away from them so they don't have to move, such as with Stand Still and Step Up.
2. Martial characters are more heavily gear dependent. They must not only worry about stastic boosting items like their caster allies, but weapons and armor as well.
Last I checked, casters also needed things like hit points, armor class, and decent saves. A caster who eschews all those things for just an awesome casting stat is likely to get smacked down by a smart GM, and no, that isn't a GM being unfair and nerfing someone, any more than is a GM targeting a fighter's Will save.
There are two things a martial character needs from gear at higher levels, that a caster may not (and even casters like to have these things):
1. A weapon that does magical damage and/or inflicts status effects (and some martial classes have means of still generating their own ways of adding enhancements or bypassing DR)
2. Mobility such as having a way to fly or teleport.
While the need is there, I don't find it especially grueling or unfair.
I'll also note that items useful for spellcasters often (though of course not always) tend to be more expensive, e.g., items of spell storing, rings of wizardry, etc.
3. Martial characters have a narrower scope of capabilities, and once they choose their abilities they cannot be changed. A Fighter is stuck with the feats that he has chosen whether or not they are the best option at the time.
Actually, Fighters are allowed to retrain their feats when they level; read the class description.
Feats are also far more broadly useful in more circumstances than spells. If you come to a locked door that stymies the rogue, and you prepared scorching ray instead of knock that day... well, it's a good thing the Fighter is probably able to break the door down with his adamantine axe.
Again, the caster's power is in their versatility, but that versatility is limited by the fact that their resources are ultimately limited, and they can only cast so many spells at once.
A Wizard can research, purchase, or learn a key spell to deal with a situation if he knows of it in advance, and can swap out his daily allotment of spells with 8 hours rest, making him far more versitile.
If the red dragon is about to eat the damsel, the party is not going to let the wizard take 8 hours to prepare protection from energy because he didn't think of it that morning. I mean, her leg's in his mouth, there's no time for Wizbang to take a nap.
AGAIN, the caster's power is in their versatility, but that versatility is limited.... you get the idea. And to be clear---I am not criticizing the caster at all. What casters are capable is awesome. It's just that arguments that favor the caster over the martial characters again, tend to skew the circumstances in the caster's favor, rendering them only so useful in practical application.
A caster can often find and exploit an enemies weakness where a fighter has to rely on his standard tactics for victory (usually HP damage by attacking AC).
Yes. And?
Sometimes it's fun to entangle an enemy in a spell, and sometimes it's fun to beat it to death. Fun for all! :)
Although martial types did grow substantially stronger with the benefit of the various 3.5 splatbooks, I think that many of said splatbooks -- the Spell Compendium, most notably -- aided magical types even more. CoD's examples frequently include a claim that the entirety of his party can make any save on a 2 or 3 at most, but that claim is built on a foundation of spells such as superior resistance, interfaith blessing, and the like -- which, notably, exist nowhere in Pathfinder core.
CoD has in the past countered arguments that, lacking those, his party would inevitably take down opponents even faster (since presumably said opponents would lack the same buffs, and therefore be more vulnerable to the massed SoS's/SoD's his party of casters generates). I would argue, instead, that the lack makes his party much more fragile and likely to lose a PC or two.
Are casters more powerful than non-caster types? Yes, but this difference has existed since 3.0/3.5 and looks unlikely to change -- at least not without serious houseruling.
One potential houserule to consider is to make all higher-level spellcasting (say, 3rd level spells and above) a full-attack action. Sure, your wizard can cast, but he can't move and cast -- just take a five-foot step, like the martial types can once they get a iterative full attack. A caster could be mobile by sticking to lower-level spells, if he needed to, but the ability to tell the universe to sit down and shut up requires more concentration. ; )
@ Bob_Loblaw:
Great input. And I just wanted to say that everytime I've read a post of yours on these boards I've found you to be a logical and reasonable man. I wish more players and DMs in my local area were more like you.
@ Bomanz:
"Except in player vs player, then its the straight up caster."
That is true, but player vs player is just silly. PC's are meant to work as a team to overcome challenges and have fun, not senselessly bludgeon one another in a baseless combat scenario.
@ Dire Mongoose:
"I think PF's version of Power Attack is a good idea in its way, but I think it takes just about everything else martial classes gained in PF to balance out losing the 3.5 version."
Me to. Mechanically I'm in favor of any ability that scales with BAB, since it rewards full BAB classes, while hopefully not being restricted to them (I'm against anything with a BAB prereq. - such as the "critical feats")
@ Kain:
Martial retraining is an iffy area for me. I like the idea of a character being able to take a feat or ability and try it out, and if they decide they don't particularly care for how it functions or if it becomes readily appearent that it was a poor choice for their character both flavor-wise and practically them being able to switch it out. But it is more difficult to do then how the casters swap their spells. There are mechanics in place that state how to swap out spells. A Fighter suddenly losing proficency in a weapon and learning how to wrestle is a bit more complex and should take more time than memorizing something else out of a book or offering a different prayer. Though I like to let my players retrain if they've felt they made a bad choice I would never let them retrain their warrior's skills and feats every adventure to tool it specifically to the dungeon and adversaries they are up against. It would quickly lead to abuse and with a drastically different character every session I might as well be running a series of one-shot games.
@ daemonprince:
Well potions and rings could be handy, but yeah, wonderous, arms, and armor are what a martial cares about most out of magic items. If a warrior is going to be UMDing scrolls and wands on a regular basis he might just be better off multiclassing into a casting class.
@ Mandor:
"IMHO, one-on-one, casters are better than melee characters just like they have always been in D&D. But in a mixed group of adventurers it's the melee characters that do most of the work and get most of the glory. It's more effective for a wizard to haste the party and dimension door the fighters then it is to spam save or suck spells and hope one sticks."
At one point I would agree with you, but I've come around to the fact that it may vary more by campaign. Certainly in the games that I run and play in SoL is much less effective, though still usuable of course, than I've heard claim. But I've also heard tales of others games, where they are an effective primary tactic. However, from experience I try to stray away from too many "all or nothing" spells. I like things that don't allow saves, or still have a lesser effect after a successful saving throw.
@ ciretose:
While I think you CAN break the game down into roles, I'd hesitate to say those would be divine, arcane, martial, and skill. While those four types play differently, there is too much difference the capabilities and playstyles of any two characters of each type (save MAYBE martials) for a group to say, "We need a ______!" And expect whoever comes with that type to be able to fill the exact niche they are looking for. Perhaps a better breakdown of "roles" would be primary damage dealer, "face" skills, "field" skills, utility casting, and... I feel like I'm missing something.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The last three words above are crucial. Kill the 15-Minute Adventuring Day, and watch the alleged disparity between casters and noncasters dwindle away.
Nope. That trope always gets trotted out, and people who have seen casters played well know it's not true.
Mainly, because hit points run out, too, and the things that fix or put off that problem also put off the alleged impotence of casters.
|
Having run several long term campaigns in D&D 3.0 and 3.5 I can speak to the disparity being unimportant in the game. The martial types appreciated the control and blast spells, often at a critical juncture. They doubly appreciated the buff spells just before or right at the start of a fight. My players worked together and made an effective and powerful group.
We rarely had a 15 minute adventuring day as they were often in the middle of an enemy stronghold (my games were battle heavy). More than a few times having burned all their good spells in the day hurt them during a night attack.
Of all the deaths in my campaigns the arcane casters took the brunt of them. When you drop a big boom spell on the bad guy he is gonna make sure you don't do that again. I had a cleric rogue and a full cleric in my games and they never died. The full cleric got real deadly once he was able to make holy items but the first character to get a holy weapon was the fighter and he was the deadliest of them all.
No one ever complained of a power disparity and every one had a good time for years.
@ DeathQuaker:
"2. Weapon warriors are more limited in what they can do in a given moment, but seldom "run out" of what they are capable of, and a well built weapon warrior will have more than one effective trick up their sleeve. They are simpler to play (but there is a level of mastery when it comes to building them effectively, which is sometimes campaign dependent)."
They rarely run out of offensive capabilities, but there is the matter of HP at any given time. While at low levels and high levels the party healer can take care of the warrior in combat when Cure Light and Heal are relatively useful. But somewhere in the middle damage can start to pile on faster than it is removed and it becomes more important to prevent it than fix it, and while there are numerous tricks warriors can do alone or with the aid of a casting ally to prevent this damage, anything that slips past these defensive buffers and stack on threatening damage can really put a damper on their capabilities. Casters are less vulnerable at these levels, at least at the first few times their defenses are breached, with abilities like D. Door, FoM, and so on.
"I've noticed that arguments that favor casters sometimes seem to assume a caster spends a half hour unmolested buffing before any given combat, that all fights take place in a wide open field outdoors with no difficult terrain or things flying through the air other than casters, and that no one will ever be trying to harm or harry the caster (or assume somehow that the caster will always make saves or not be hit). Whereas arguments against fighters will be sure to put them naked, knee deep in lava in a 5x5 room."
I've noticed that to. Significantly fewer spells than people seem to give credit for are longer than a minute per level and many of those spells are not combat based. The greater majority of the time I attempt to I find very little difficulting including arial terrain at higher levels when flight for members of all classes is common, though it is less neccessary since my games often are indoors in dungeons when combat occurs.
"For a long time, in these "casters get to win" threads, I asked the defenders of casters to provide me multiple in-game examples of times that weapon users felt useless on a regular basis throughout a campaign, or where wizards were never harmed or touched."
I DMed a game that lasted for several months, at the end of which the groups Conjurer kept proclaiming that he was never touched over the course of the campaign which had its fair share of death. He conviently forgot the time he was captured by a sun school monk, fought a losing battle with a cerebremancer, was captured by trap the soul and requied the party bartering with drow for his freedom, and a few other instances of being very unamazing. Overall he is a great player with great characters, but I think often people get very proud of their creations and overlook their flaws or weaknesses.
"1. They can do a combat maneuver. The effectiveness of this depends on your enemy of course--you can't trip an octopus--but it is a single melee action, and one often quite effective. Starting a grapple, disarming someone, rendering someone prone, pushing them off a cliff, etc. are all useful things to do and very effective especially when applied in the right circumstances."
Well, maneuvers can be a bit trickier in PF than in 3.5, but they were too easy in 3.5 to accomplish. However with the addition of dirty trick martials should always be able to find something to do with a standard action, but whether or not that action is as fully effective as a full attack is up for debate. I would like to giggle at that right after giving the example of coming up against an octopus, starting a grapple was the first manuever listed. ;)
"2. They can demoralize. They are the only classes with Intimidate as a class skill, and this is a useful thing to do especially when fighting groups of less powerful monsters. The Dazzling Display tree can shine."
Excellent point, and Intimidating Prowess means they don't even need to have a great Cha to reliably pull this off.
"Actually, Fighters are allowed to retrain their feats when they level; read the class description."
The things from 3.5 my brain is still stuck on. Thank you for pointing that out to me. I haven't played with PF Fighter too much, but I am enjoying its Barbarian quite a bit. Just another improvement they've got along with the bumps to AC and weapon damage.
"sometimes it's fun to beat it to death. Fun for all! :)"
You will get no argument from me there. Anyone who has ever played a Barbarian should agree with you.
@ Kurukami:
"One potential houserule to consider is to make all higher-level spellcasting (say, 3rd level spells and above) a full-attack action. Sure, your wizard can cast, but he can't move and cast -- just take a five-foot step, like the martial types can once they get a iterative full attack. A caster could be mobile by sticking to lower-level spells, if he needed to, but the ability to tell the universe to sit down and shut up requires more concentration. ; )"
I've toyed with the thought of something similiar and have decided that I want to change this. I'm not sure whether I want to give martials the ability to move and full attack both, which would lessen the potency of Vital Strike a great deal and other "standard action" feats, or if I would like to limit mobile casting, which my players are strongly against.
As a 3.0, 3.5, and PFRPG caster player, I gotta say, 3.0 has the greatest gap between casters and melee characters while PFRPG has the smallest gap.
3.x didn't have Vital Strike, the critical feats apart of the core book, ease of use of CMB (encouraging martial characters to use special attacks), Armor/Weapon Training, expanded lay on hands use, favored terrain, expanded rogue talents, options for a barbarian rage, ...
PFRPG has a feat tax for clerics that want to use heavy armor. Druid wild shape is now a bonus and no longer a poorly written text that will allow just about anything, wizard death spells are just damage spells that may or may not kill you.
Sure, wizards and clerics got more hp, but so did rogues and rangers.
And sure clerics and wizards have a few more class options, but it was just something for them to give up if they wanted to take a PrC. 3.x gave casters a power up if they took a PrC. Not anymore.
So, sorry, I disagree that PFRPG is the "caster" edition. If anything, its the martial edition.
|
|
The last three words above are crucial. Kill the 15-Minute Adventuring Day, and watch the alleged disparity between casters and noncasters dwindle away.
Nope. That trope always gets trotted out, and people who have seen casters played well know it's not true.
Mainly, because hit points run out, too, and the things that fix or put off that problem also put off the alleged impotence of casters.
Casters have hit points too.
Scroll use is equivent to potion use. And it is a full round action(get the scroll as a move then cast) that requires resource expediture.
I will agree the caster runs out of spells can be over stated, but they do run out of good spells on long encounter days, particularly if they are carrying utility spells like rope trick or walls.
Actually, Fighters are allowed to retrain their feats when they level; read the class description.
I think I should go back and reread all the classes more. That's something I missed. I didn't think that fighters were unplayable by any means but this opens up more options as they level.