|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Jeff Merola wrote:
Wow, that sucks. This really nerfs the class.
Oh, well the Thief is easy.
We had a OD&D campaign. We started with a 2nd level PC with a henchman. In order to pen doors, etc, you needed a decent str or your chances were small (in fact str wasnt good for much of anything else). He was frustrated his str 8 cleric and str 7 hench couldnt get doors open, and since his hench had a Dex of 15 or 16, he said he was going to try picking the lock with a dagger. I let him have a roll, it worked.
I then did up the Thief class. Mostly based on Bilbo, but also the Grey Mouser, Jack of Shadows and Cugel the Clever.
Mea culpa. I thought we could actually have a friendly discussion on a issue, but apparently not. The same posters, the same arguments, the same antagonism and anger, leading to the inevitable thread lock down.
The issue of martial caster disparity is now clear to me, and it has little to do with the game system, and everything to do with the players.
Feel free to carry on.
I could list off more stories of real, actual gameplay, but what's the point? Everyone who says that a caster/martial disparity exists has played and/or GM'd Pathfinder. We're not talking about a group of people who read the CRB but haven't played, and declared that they know what's up better than the actual players. Those who acknowledge the disparity ARE actual players, whether others can accept it or not.
And those who have NOT seen the disparity in their games are also actual players.
Let us not attack the other side, nor even take sides. What we are seeing here is that some players see a disparity and others don't. I am trying to see why. Both sides have a lot of experience.
This is why I'd like to keep this to actual game play, instead of theorycrafting. We have quite a few threads about that already, we don't need to continue the same debate here.
One reason I have seen is that those who dont think there's much of a disparity look upon PF/D&D as a TEAM game, and if the martial is super at dealing DPR- and the player playing that PC is happy doing that- then there's no disparity. The TEAM is strong, all the players are happy.
In other cases, the disparity doesnt happen much as the players are friends, and try to get along and "play happy".
Many seem to say the disparity only shows up at higher levels, levels beyond most AP;s and beyond where most games are played. This seems to be my experience as well.
Car we keep the discussion on a friendly level, please, less antagonistic posts? More helpful discussion. Please.
Thank you and yes, that's fair, didnt think about those, but please mention what sort they are.
Yes, please stay on topic. Not that there's anything wrong with theorycrafting, but there are now a dozen ? threads (How many Kolbold Cleaver?) on this which deal with theory.
So, let us here just talk about what actually happened in your games. And WHY the disparity happened or didnt.
Well, in our RotRL game, our super-deadly fighter was so much a killing machine that it was faster and better for my Sorc to cast Fly on him and then let him do the killing and take the risks, rather than the other way around. One of our players was an accountant, he actually crunched the numbers. Mind you, that was our game, your game may well differ.
I will also say our DM in that game often had monsters pick the target based on how much damage they were doing to the monster(s). Not always but often enuf so it paid to boost and stay low key rather than get whupped on.
ElyasRavenwood's interesting thread go me thinking. Many people here talk about the Martial/Caster disparity as if it is a obvious thing, and ask 'why can't martial have nice things?"
But I have played in three PF campaigns now, going to 7th, 11th and 15th level. No sign of the Martial/Caster disparity- except at the very lowest levels where martials win out. Hmm. Also playing in a number of PFS games. Not there either (but all rather low level, 7th is highest).
True, I did play in a 3.5 campaign where once we hit the point where the two casters could toss around 9th level spells (Shapechange!) my martial did feel rather useless. So, I saw it myself, but at a very high level.
Reading what the devs say, they also say that in their games there is little or no Martial/Caster disparity.
But clearly some others have experienced it, commonly.
So, I'd like to know that at your actual IRL gaming table, in a real Pathfinder campaign- did you actually experience Martial/Caster disparity, and if so (or if NOT) why? Not theorycrafting, please. Nothing wrong with theorycrafting but let us stick to actual played games for this, please.
Now, we didn't experience it, and once reason might be is that we always had at least one PC that was a Buffer. At a certain level, Bardsong and/or Haste was a given. Both boost martials more. Could that be the reason? Teamwork?
We did have two dedicated optimizers, but one ALWAYS played spellcasters, the other ALWAYS martials (for this I am counting a Magus as a martial, but yes, they can cast spells, but other big killer PC was a straight fighter).
So, if you have or have not experienced Martial/Caster disparity at your table, let us hear why (or why not).
Real Life. Not Theory. Please.
Gives Secret Grognard handshake.
You make some good points.
Our group, the Aero or Aurania group had about a dozen members to start, plus a few that gamed elsewhere. We had one of the original 1000 copies. (They actually published a history of our group= Designers & Dragons: The Platinum Appendix From Evil Hat Productions, LLC)
Of the original group you are right, most of us are in our early 60's or late 50's. So far (knock on wood) only one of us has passed on, Gary Switzer. On occasion, J. Eric Holmes and Dave Hargrave gamed with us, but both have passed.
Many of us still game, and afaik, none have stayed with OD&D. Yes, I still keep my AD&D characters, and would love to play again, but it's hard. Heck, I cant even find a Pathfinder Campaign here in Santa Clarita- just our weekly PFS games. (If anyone knows of one, let me know, OK?)
If you played OD&D when it was the only option, I'd count you as a OG. Even give you the secret Grognard handshake. ;-)
I dont call myself a "Original Gamer", however, I just use the term Grognard.
No they would have gotten irate at the tone, the blame on the devs and the editions war issue, and would have gotten the thread locked~ ;-)
No, Legacy caused the issue. Cut & Paste. ;-)
Here's another reason why someone with Legacy experience is valuable- sometimes.
Take this with a ;-)
Say "A Poster" chimes in with "I hate Pathfinders stupid rules for Rutabaga chopping! They are unrealistic and stupid! I dont know why the stupid devs came up with this stupid rule!"
Grognard: "Well, you see, Rutabaga chopping came from 3rd Ed, and was in it's original form in AD&D- in fact a primitive version existed in OD&D. "
Well "A Poster" now feels shot down, but since "they have always done it this way" isnt really a good reason, gets angry.
So, if "A Poster" had done some research he could of said "Look, I know Pathfinder is a legacy system, but they shouldn't have kept in the stupid rules for Rutabaga chopping. They are unrealistic and stupid!"
Mush better, since now we can concentrate on better rules for Rutabaga chopping, rather than why and how they came to be.
Well, at least I do have evidence for my claims, anyway.
Well, I am (in a way) one of the original gamers, since 1974, and I have said something along these lines before:
You are right and wrong here. I do that a lot, having been around as long as anyone in the business. But having played dozens and dozens of systems with hundreds and hundreds of players, I can tell you that certain things carry over from any system- things that are just universal to RPGs.
So, for example, if I tell you to "Never try to solve a OOC problem IC" - it will work even if I have never heard of that RPG, let along played it.
However, if I tell you that "xxx class is overpowered and needs nerfing" then yes, I needs must have played that class and played WITH that class- in a couple of games. Simply reading it once doesn't really cut it. Watching one guy cream everyone in one session is not proof either.
So, I really dont know more about PF than any of the other experienced posters here. Despite my deep experience, as far as PF game mechanics go, my opinion is worth no more than anyone else's- and less than quite a few. But if you tell me you have a certain problem player- then yes- my 40 years of experience will likely be of value. *
* and if you compare PF to other legacy systems, then I have dropped several ranks in that skill.
My DM let us do this with Limited Wish. Also change a weapon to another, same +s. Falchoin to scimitar, etc.
James Jacobs wrote:
Have we thanked you recently for all your hark work and this thread?
Mark Seifter wrote:
Hope you're having fun! Beware Con-crud, follow my advice. Thanks for all your hard work on these!
Oooh, a blog post- dare I hope Simulacrum at last?
Evil Lincoln wrote:
Yes, a new "Edition" as in 1st to 2nd Ed or even 3.0 tp 3.5. Clean-up, put all the FAQ's and errata in, add some clarifying text where necessary, delete some outdated stuff, etc. Allow them to rewrite Simulacrum, Get rid of the Scry part of Teleport (or clarify it) and so forth.
The idea of a "2nd Ed" like WotC's 3.0 or 4th or 5th is ludicrous and unacceptable. I hope it NEVER happens.
But I hope we could get "revised" Core RB in a year or so.
Cap. Darling wrote:
Well, in a 3.5 game, once we got to the point where the casters could toss 9th level spells around (Like Shapechange) yes, we found that more or less made martials useless.
My martial actually dominated the table until about level 13, when he got lost in a plane shift gate (he got back safely, but couldnt rejoin the party so I had to bring in another).
In our RotRL game, the Fighter dominated until we ended the campaign around lvl 15. If someone tells me that commonly in 20th level games, Martials have a issue due to 9th level spells, I will accept that.
In Combat healing was a must.
The rogue player wasn't around half the time and half the time didnt update his PC, so i can't really say how well a rogue would do in RotRL. In other games, played only until level 7, the rogue was just fine. I am willing to accept a Core only rogue might lag in higher levels.
I have never seen a PF game that allowed 3.5 stuff willy-nilly, only by special request and DM Ok.
We only had one guy that dumped stats.
We tried a Master Summoner- the issue was spotlight hog, not really that OP. he was running 2-3 monsters plus himself every combat, it got old fast. We banned it. Regular Summoner was fine, but the DM had to check and recheck the math.
No 15 minute days.
In our first discussion you simply said ""People used to carry large supplies of darts or throwing knives or throwing stones to help counter casters since even one point of damage would render you unable to cast a spell for a round." You didnt specify a edition.
And optional rules were used all the time.
You just used scrolls, wands rings staffs, misc magic items, etc.
Well, we were talking AD&D, not just 2nd Ed. "People used to carry large supplies of darts or throwing knives or throwing stones to help counter casters since even one point of damage would render you unable to cast a spell for a round." I mentioned Segments which was 1st Ed. But even 2nd Ed had several versions of init:http://merricb.com/2014/07/01/initiative-in-add-2nd-edition/
No, it stopped the spell from being cast. You didnt lose it.
Weapon speed and spell speed modified the Initiative.
And Combat and Tactics (which is 2nd Ed) changed init again, going back to something like segments.
Yeah but Selective channeling could have been for Negative only.
Yes, good points. Remember, we're talking about whether or not it is a good idea for a PC to heal, so the foe is usually some Monster from the Bestiaries. Nastiest weapon-wielding monster at low CR is oddly the Orc, who does falchion +5 (2d4+4), which is pretty nasty. But a decent warrior will have AC 15 at least so the orc hits him less than 50% of the time. In fact the bog standard NPC Fighter has a AC of 20.
Well, since Wishes cost major resources, they have never been a issue with us. Of course- few games ever get to that point anymore.
There were four systems for Init, three in the DMG and one later in Combat and Tactics . So, it varied.
Yes, in some of them if you hit the Wizard before he cast his spell, but after he declared, then he couldnt cast a spell. In others, if you hit him DURING the casting of the spell, that spell was disrupted and lost. Still, it was pretty hard for a Fighter to hit a wizard who was casting a 1 segment spell. You had to be right next to him and have a fast weapon out or be readied with a fast weapon to throw.
Pretty much, casters simply didnt cast spells that could be disrupted. It hardly ever happened, about as often as it does now.
Yeah. My Ex was a ASL interpreter, and she watched Koko "talking" to her friends, who then interpreted what Koko "said". My Ex than said their interpretations were extremely generous, Koko never seemed to form a sentence, just said several words. Now, while it's true then that Koko knew some words, it's seems doubtful she could actually form sentences. Her 'friends" were forming the sentences for her.
We would need to see outside peer reviewed testing, which afaik, never happened.
Sorry, it's not any fun to have one DM just grant any reasonable wish and another DM that will crock every Wish, no matter how reasonable. In fact that got real old, real quick.
That's not true. You had to hit the caster while he was casting. Which means you have to get a better init, and also he had to cast a spell longer than one segment, since you couldnt disrupt a one segment spell- like Magic Missile.
Yes, sure, there are more offensive Feats etc than healing feats. But there are some class abilities , like Healer's Blessing & Enhanced Cures which are pretty nice.
Yes, opps, figured 5.5 ave, not 4.5. Still, it beats.
OK, sure. But he should only hit about half the time, at most 2/3rd. So, it's 10 or 13 vs 18 pts healing. Healing still wins.
16pts is 8 or 11, 12 healing still wins.
For seven levels no one talked to him, OOC or IC? Then that's their fault. Or if they did talk to him, and he blew them off, then they should have booted him.
I mean, sure, I currently have a PF Soc Investigator- with Perception maxed out and scads of skills. More or less useless in Combat. Of course I tell them that, but he's really useful out of combat. There was one scenario, a Library challenge that was mostly skill challenges, and we whupped that one due to his super skills.
I also have known a couple of builds that were not fully useful for level one or something, but that happens.
I have never seen a PC character that was "an obvious liability". So what if my PC isn't DPR maximized?
And parties all the time get stuck with dudes that steal or lay back or hide or spotlight hog......
Matthew Downie wrote:
And, why not have a dedicated healer/buffer instead?
A cleric is better off buffing, then healing only when the next hit will drop a party member.