At what level would you say the martial / caster 'flip' happens?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

101 to 150 of 459 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Everything comes down to dice rolls.


Kyoni wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
Which one of us should have to sacrifice the build we want to play so the other can have fun? Should I stop using Summons (which was the whole thing I found neat about a guy who summons angels) or should BMX Bandit redesign his character to be more effective? (The correct answer is options should be balanced so this doesn't occur.)
How about sitting together at the table when making the characters? It's up to the DM to say: "ok, only 1 pet per character" or: "minion-time, go get leadership". Because it's his campaign that has to adjust for it.

I've used that solution myself. When I start a campaign, I ask the players if they're interested in taking Leadership or not. If most of them are interested, I give them all the Leadership feat for free at an appropriate time in the story. (It might be a level or two later than they would normally qualify, but nobody's ever minded waiting a level.) Some groups want it, some don't, and if there's just one person who's not interested I can usually come up with an equivalent for them. (A Figurine of Wondrous Power fits nicely.)


Kyoni wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
There are only two characters in the party. Which of us least fits it?

There is a third person: the DM... what kind of game does he want to run? Something in Cheliax...? good luck with your Angels.

Anzyr wrote:
Also this notion of balanced has to be taking away options is just plain false.

Then you must be a genius... all the devs of computer games out there, failed until now. You should write your own rulebooks...

But you might find something more to your taste if you go look at different roleplaying systems? Especially those without class-based systems?

Assume that GM is running a campaign where both submitted designs are appropriate and in line with the kind of game he wants to run.

Recognizing that one can add options to balance out underpowered options does not require one be genius, nor does recognizing that more balanced is better than less balanced, even if more balanced isn't "perfectly balanced" which no one is asking for.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Evil Lincoln wrote:
And yes, I know about all that "Rule 0" fallacy business. It doesn't matter. If you're a GM and you chose to play Pathfinder, log off the internet and balance the campaign yourself because that's what you signed on for. No amount of internet theory is going to make your game fun.

Have to totally diagree based on experience. After developing "Kirthfinder," I found that my job as GM was 10x more enjoyable than it had been under straight 3.5/PF, because I could spend my effort on running the game and exploring the story with the players, instead of spending a lot of my effort working against the game system and half the players. I don't think I'd agree to DM a straight PF game at this point.

Edit: Yes, I know you specified "play Pathfinder," but Kirthfinder is nothing more than the former with some rebalancing done and options made more obvious.


Summoners do not have spellbooks, and I should know better than to use wizards in generalization, since I hate it when other people do that.

Summoners have an equivalent to the stolen spellbook, and that is called dismissal, or any one of the other effects that target the niceties of summoned creatures. Like the stolen spellbook, the GM should do this every once in a while, but not every time. That was my point. All character have a similar Achilles' heel. I apologize for being cryptic and using the wizard as shorthand.

Kirth, I think we've danced before on this. If I argue with you too long, you usually start defining different player types and define me as a player type for whom Pathfinder "works." And that argument is invincible to me, because yes, I make Pathfinder work for me.

The truth is, if you're patient and you make concessions and calculated adjustments, any game can be enjoyable. The only difference between you and I is that you change the rules to get the game you want, and I use rules selectively (I like to think inclusively) to get the game that I want.

Both valid approaches, IMO.

*I also house rule, as you know, but mine are like 8 pages tops.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

There is no way that this winter is *ever* going to end as long as this groundhog keeps seeing his shadow. I don't see any other way out. He's got to be stopped. And I have to stop him.


Lamontius wrote:
There is no way that this winter is *ever* going to end as long as this groundhog keeps seeing his shadow. I don't see any other way out. He's got to be stopped. And I have to stop him.

Don't drive angry!


OP: generally 7th level is where i find casters start getting the crazy stuff (4th level spells), but a lot of melee builds i see dont come fully on-line until 13--its generally between these two that you have the zaniest things happening without casters blowing past to become the omnipotent masters of everything.


Raith Shadar wrote:
Magus cannot use metamagic rods and spell combat at the same time. They must have one hand free with their weapon to cast. I have not seen any rule that allows a Magus to bypass this requirement.

A rod is a weapon. They can't cast touch attack spells, because swapping weapons doens't work, but they can cast other spells (like Force hook, shield, mirror image, etc) with a rod, a sword, and gloves of storing.

Free action, rod from gloves to left hand. Free action, sword from right hand to glove. Cast force hook quickened with spell combat (couse i have a weapon, the rod). Free action, sword to right hand. Free action, rod to gloves. Standard action, maximized empowered intensified shocking grasp with spellstrike.


gustavo iglesias wrote:
Raith Shadar wrote:
Magus cannot use metamagic rods and spell combat at the same time. They must have one hand free with their weapon to cast. I have not seen any rule that allows a Magus to bypass this requirement.

A rod is a weapon. They can't cast touch attack spells, because swapping weapons doens't work, but they can cast other spells (like Force hook, shield, mirror image, etc) with a rod, a sword, and gloves of storing.

Free action, rod from gloves to left hand. Free action, sword from right hand to glove. Cast force hook quickened with spell combat (couse i have a weapon, the rod). Free action, sword to right hand. Free action, rod to gloves. Standard action, maximized empowered intensified shocking grasp with spellstrike.

spell immunity shocking grasp on the huge dragon you're fighting. He unloads every single one of his attacks with Power Attack with his true seeing active to penetrate your mirror image and displacement. He casts a quickened chill touch to make his attacks more potent. He's a real bastard dragon with two levels of Magus so he has Spellstrike as well.


Raith Shadar wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Raith Shadar wrote:
Magus cannot use metamagic rods and spell combat at the same time. They must have one hand free with their weapon to cast. I have not seen any rule that allows a Magus to bypass this requirement.

A rod is a weapon. They can't cast touch attack spells, because swapping weapons doens't work, but they can cast other spells (like Force hook, shield, mirror image, etc) with a rod, a sword, and gloves of storing.

Free action, rod from gloves to left hand. Free action, sword from right hand to glove. Cast force hook quickened with spell combat (couse i have a weapon, the rod). Free action, sword to right hand. Free action, rod to gloves. Standard action, maximized empowered intensified shocking grasp with spellstrike.

spell immunity shocking grasp on the huge dragon you're fighting. He unloads every single one of his attacks with Power Attack with his true seeing active to penetrate your mirror image and displacement. He casts a quickened chill touch to make his attacks more potent. He's a real bastard dragon with two levels of Magus so he has Spellstrike as well.

I'm not really seeing what you're trying to get at here... pretty much anyone would be screwed in that situation.


Anzyr wrote:
Kyoni wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
Also this notion of balanced has to be taking away options is just plain false.

Then you must be a genius... all the devs of computer games out there, failed until now. You should write your own rulebooks...

But you might find something more to your taste if you go look at different roleplaying systems? Especially those without class-based systems?

Recognizing that one can add options to balance out underpowered options does not require one be genius, nor does recognizing that more balanced is better than less balanced, even if more balanced isn't "perfectly balanced" which no one is asking for.

Then computer gaming companies must have stupid devs? Because they have failed at it for more then 10 years...

Adding more options creates the same problem: one class will pull ahead and everybody will complain how this is unfair and they want more stuff.
Also the more powerful all characters become, the harder it will be for DMs to challenge their players. This craving for more awesome is a headache, if your players like to optimize their characters.

I already suggested for those DMs who want (and can handle the added power-up of the group) to add (linky):
- Skill Tricks from 3.5's Complete Scoundrel
- Tactical Feats from 3.5's Complete Warrior
- Maneuvers/Stances/Stuff from 3.5's Tome of Battle

Those are existing books and I fail to see why DMs can't just add existing stuff... why does Paizo have to print out a revised copy of those rules just to make them "official"?

Also the power-up would require a rewrite and reassessment of CR and Monster abilities... changing a lot in many books (including all AP)


chaoseffect wrote:
Raith Shadar wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Raith Shadar wrote:
Magus cannot use metamagic rods and spell combat at the same time. They must have one hand free with their weapon to cast. I have not seen any rule that allows a Magus to bypass this requirement.

A rod is a weapon. They can't cast touch attack spells, because swapping weapons doens't work, but they can cast other spells (like Force hook, shield, mirror image, etc) with a rod, a sword, and gloves of storing.

Free action, rod from gloves to left hand. Free action, sword from right hand to glove. Cast force hook quickened with spell combat (couse i have a weapon, the rod). Free action, sword to right hand. Free action, rod to gloves. Standard action, maximized empowered intensified shocking grasp with spellstrike.

spell immunity shocking grasp on the huge dragon you're fighting. He unloads every single one of his attacks with Power Attack with his true seeing active to penetrate your mirror image and displacement. He casts a quickened chill touch to make his attacks more potent. He's a real bastard dragon with two levels of Magus so he has Spellstrike as well.
I'm not really seeing what you're trying to get at here... pretty much anyone would be screwed in that situation.

Not really. That particular situation screws the Magus. My point is the Magus is a pony with a few tricks. Take away the pony's tricks, he's just as likely to be screwed as anyone else. There are lots of ways to screw the Magus.

Having run alot of different classes, the Invulnerable Rager Barbarian is more powerful than the Magus in a party. So is the Paladin. The archer is really nasty as well. Inquisitor as well. Two-hander fighter can dish as much or more damage than the Magus.

Magus is not bad. They can do some nasty stuff when their tricks work. But they are one of the classes that is easiest to counter. They rely far too much on low level spells with counters.

When an Inquisitor or pure martial hits something, there is no counter other than not being hit. That's not easy to do with any of the classes I mentioned, especially the Inquisitor who can reach bonuses to hit that are so high he need to roll a one against ACs fighters have trouble hitting.


7th/8th. 4th level spells.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wiggz wrote:

It goes without saying that at 1st level a tyical Martial is infinitely more powerful than a typical Caster... and at 20th level a typical Caster is infinitely more powerful than a typical Martial - so where does the flip happen? Where is that 'sweet spot' where the two character's effectiveness are in sync?

It does not go without saying. I disagree there is a power disparity at any Level, nor a flip.


Morain wrote:
Wiggz wrote:

It goes without saying that at 1st level a tyical Martial is infinitely more powerful than a typical Caster... and at 20th level a typical Caster is infinitely more powerful than a typical Martial - so where does the flip happen? Where is that 'sweet spot' where the two character's effectiveness are in sync?

It does not go without saying. I disagree there is a power disparity at any Level, nor a flip.

This man knows whats up.

When your martials start casting spells, or your casters start hitting like martials without buffs, then you can say their is a flip.


With your playstyle, it may not come up. With other peoples', it does, and it sucks. Balancing the game in the rules won't change your game at all, but will allow others to enjoy it as well. Leaving it as-is means that the rules are usable ONLY people who salvishly adhere to your playstyle. When you say "don't fix anything!", you're basically saying "I don't want rules that we all can use! I want rules that only people just like me can use!"

Still not seeing it? That's OK. Here's an experiment: try a few sessions at, say, 15th level, playing the casters' strengths. NOT intentionally casting only team-buff or support spells. Without blindly following the railroad: that means using divinations and preparing for what they tell you, and pouncing on those opportunities. Use a Paizo AP as written so there's no DM shenanigans.

If you try this style of play, and are any good at optimizing the casters for it, the disparity is glaring and unmistakable. If you try this and still find no disparity, post your experiences and we'll all take a look. This way, everyone is looking at things from all angles.

Liberty's Edge

Apples and Oranges. To my view, a 'flip' in power/damage is completely subjective. It's always been a matter of the right time, place, and skill set.

As is that tricky question of 'useful to the party'.

After all, although important, RPG's aren't there solely so everyone can go kill things. It's about getting through an invariably dangerous scenario, together.

Y'know. As a team. Or that's been my experience, at least. And it doesn't matter how powerful your spells are, or how strong or quick your character is. Alone, no character can do half as much as an adventuring party.


"" wrote:
Alone, no character can do half as much as an adventuring party containing spellcasters.

See clarification above. A team of all casters (+ pets and summoned meat shields) will do nearly as well, as well, or better (depending on system mastery and sheer shenanigans) than a mixed team of casters and martials. A team of all martials will fail at everything past a certain level.

"What does each person bring to the team, vs. how much do they take from the other members" matters. If all you look at is "does the team do OK," it's easy to miss it if 3 of the members are carrying all the weight and are babysitting the 4th.


You know what class is really great to have when you are not killing things? A Caster.

You know what makes a great part of a team? A Caster.

Summoner/Cleric/Druid/Oracle/Inquisitor can all fill in the melee role while maintaining access to potent spells. Summoner and Druid also have a pet which gets you superior action economy.

Summoner/Inquisitor/Bard all make great skill monkeys. Inquisitor and Bard also improve the effectiveness of the whole team. Inquisitors are also brutal at Intimidate.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Anzyr wrote:

You know what class is really great to have when you are not killing things? A Caster.

You know what makes a great part of a team? A Caster.

Summoner/Cleric/Druid/Oracle/Inquisitor can all fill in the melee role while maintaining access to potent spells. Summoner and Druid also have a pet which gets you superior action economy.

Summoner/Inquisitor/Bard all make great skill monkeys. Inquisitor and Bard also improve the effectiveness of the whole team. Inquisitors are also brutal at Intimidate.

This. The question isn't "when does a wizard become stronger than a fighter", it's "when do casters become stronger than non-casters". There are casters that aren't wizards, after all. When you take that into account, I don't think there's any point at which martials are "better" in the sense that they can solve more problems more effectively than casters can.

There are points at which martials are "effective" and "fun", of course. I think martials can be effective and fun throughout the entire course of a game. Just because a class can't break the game by gating in CR20 outsiders to serve them tea doesn't mean that they can't be extremely effective and a highly enjoyable experience. Personally, I find martial classes a lot more fun to play than casters, so in that sense there's no "flip" occurring. Casters are too micro-managey for me, and I have to take too much care to walk that line between healthy optimization and ridiculous cheese. Meanwhile I yearn for the days that I can just rage and introduce people to the business end of a greataxe.

Kynoi wrote:


I already suggested for those DMs who want (and can handle the added power-up of the group) to add (linky):
- Skill Tricks from 3.5's Complete Scoundrel
- Tactical Feats from 3.5's Complete Warrior
- Maneuvers/Stances/Stuff from 3.5's Tome of Battle

Those are existing books and I fail to see why DMs can't just add existing stuff... why does Paizo have to print out a revised copy of those rules just to make them "official"?

Also the power-up would require a rewrite and reassessment of CR and Monster abilities... changing a lot in many books (including all AP)

This interests me-- if you allowed these 3.5 books but not Complete Arcane/Divine (expect maybe for paladins in Complete Divine), how much would this close the gap? This fits well into my desire to increase class balance by adding goodies for martials instead of nerfing casters. I've heard good things about ToB in particular.


Magic Butterfly wrote:
Kyoni wrote:


I already suggested for those DMs who want (and can handle the added power-up of the group) to add (linky):
- Skill Tricks from 3.5's Complete Scoundrel
- Tactical Feats from 3.5's Complete Warrior
- Maneuvers/Stances/Stuff from 3.5's Tome of Battle

Those are existing books and I fail to see why DMs can't just add existing stuff... why does Paizo have to print out a revised copy of those rules just to make them "official"?

Also the power-up would require a rewrite and reassessment of CR and Monster abilities... changing a lot in many books (including all AP)

This interests me-- if you allowed these 3.5 books but not Complete Arcane/Divine (expect maybe for paladins in Complete Divine), how much would this close the gap? This fits well into my desire to increase class balance by adding goodies for martials instead of nerfing casters. I've heard good things about ToB in particular.

I would not allow the entire books (the have weirdish Prestige Classes and other feats that might be "too much".

But I would allow all feats called "skill tricks" to be available through rogue talents. And I would allow all "tactical feats" to be available to fighters through their bonus feats and rangers through their combat styles. And other 3.5 books might contain even more of these feats, but you should allow _only these_ to be added.

Skill Trick usually require 3-8 ranks in the needed skill and allow you to pull off stunts.
One allows you to acrobat _through_ an opponent's square to make it flat-footed...
Another allows you to heal a character for 1d6 HP when you make a heal check to stabilize him.
Yet another allows you to perch in a corner or chimney with both hands free (allowing you to attack), but for every round you are perched you have to make climb checks to not fall.

Tactical feats require other feats most of the time, also all these feats are basically "cover 3 situations" rolled into 1.
One allows you to negate the damage bonus from power attacks used against you OR allows you to divert an single attack made against you each round to hit an enemy flanking you OR you can trip an enemy for free in he missed you with an AoO.
Another example is where you can force your target that you hit with at least 2 attacks to take a step back and you follow, basically driving him back OR if you stun your opponent he is also confused for x round after he recovers from the stun OR you can make a single attack (max BAB) after teleporting next to an enemy.
There are more such feats for mounted specialists, bull rushers, specialists vs big creatures, ...

As for tome of battle...

I would allow a rogue to give up all his rogue talents in return for the maneuvers+stance progression of the swordsage. And I would allow the fighter to give up all his bonus feat to get the maneuvers+stance progression of the warblade. And Cavaliers could give up his mount(+everything related) and his bonus feats and teamwork stuff to get the progression of crusaders.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
"" wrote:
Alone, no character can do half as much as an adventuring party containing spellcasters.

See clarification above. A team of all casters (+ pets and summoned meat shields) will do nearly as well, as well, or better (depending on system mastery and sheer shenanigans) than a mixed team of casters and martials. A team of all martials will fail at everything past a certain level.

"What does each person bring to the team, vs. how much do they take from the other members" matters. If all you look at is "does the team do OK," it's easy to miss it if 3 of the members are carrying all the weight and are babysitting the 4th.

I don't know if this is true.

Martial PCs are generally superior to animal companions and summons, if they are well-maintained and played. And there's something to be said for a good player in the role of the martial character — wizards running three or four statblocks can bog the game down, and often the players aren't totally rational (in a game theory sense) and may not be able to manage so much.

Granted, that last one is sort of intangible if we're just talking about comparative power, but not less important in my opinion.


Oh I am sure a well built Martial PC will come out ahead of animal companions and summons and would not argue otherwise. However, the summons/eidolon/animal companion also comes with a heap of spells. So the party that is rocking all casters can make "Ok" Martials, while still having access to their other abilities.


Raith Shadar wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Raith Shadar wrote:
Magus cannot use metamagic rods and spell combat at the same time. They must have one hand free with their weapon to cast. I have not seen any rule that allows a Magus to bypass this requirement.

A rod is a weapon. They can't cast touch attack spells, because swapping weapons doens't work, but they can cast other spells (like Force hook, shield, mirror image, etc) with a rod, a sword, and gloves of storing.

Free action, rod from gloves to left hand. Free action, sword from right hand to glove. Cast force hook quickened with spell combat (couse i have a weapon, the rod). Free action, sword to right hand. Free action, rod to gloves. Standard action, maximized empowered intensified shocking grasp with spellstrike.

spell immunity shocking grasp on the huge dragon you're fighting. He unloads every single one of his attacks with Power Attack with his true seeing active to penetrate your mirror image and displacement. He casts a quickened chill touch to make his attacks more potent. He's a real bastard dragon with two levels of Magus so he has Spellstrike as well.

"my daddy is stronger than your daddy" ussually works too.

The Magus can dispel magic, can actually *Steal* the spell immunity, can use other spells besides shocking grasp (frigid touch is great), and can have a huge armor if uses the right spells (including interposing hand, shield, natural armor bonus from polymorphing, etc)


Marthkus wrote:
Morain wrote:
Wiggz wrote:

It goes without saying that at 1st level a tyical Martial is infinitely more powerful than a typical Caster... and at 20th level a typical Caster is infinitely more powerful than a typical Martial - so where does the flip happen? Where is that 'sweet spot' where the two character's effectiveness are in sync?

It does not go without saying. I disagree there is a power disparity at any Level, nor a flip.

This man knows whats up.

When your martials start casting spells, or your casters start hitting like martials without buffs, then you can say their is a flip.

Why without buffs? A dervish bard can't hit hard without his self-inspiration, but he *never* fights without self inspiration, so the point is moot. It's like claiming Barbarians fight weak without rage.


I'm not sold on the needs for rouges, partial caster skill monkeys like the bard or martial skill monkeys like rangers seem to do better. But a full BAB character is essential to combat. More so at high levels.

If your GM keeps throwing encounter that your caster one-shots at you, well that's not the games fault. A GM can easily throw encounters that a fighter can take down in one full-attack. That doesn't make martials OP, just the GM poor.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You really don't understand why it might be better to balance by the rules, rather than by DM fiat (and incidentally adding more work to a guy whose workload is already big enough), do you?


Kirth Gersen wrote:
You really don't understand why it might be better to balance by the rules, rather than by DM fiat (and incidentally adding more work to a guy whose workload is already big enough), do you?

No amount of rule changes will help a DM who throws easy encounters at the party over and over again.

Considering outsider and advance undead tend to rock spell casters, along with many other kinds of monsters, the DM is just being lazy by throwing low will save tanks at the party all day every day.


Full BAB is really less impressive than you think. While I'm not going to claim that an Inquisitor/Eidolon/Cleric/Druid/Oracle is going to out damage a Full BaB class, they are more than capable of dealing enough damage to drop the enemies nearly as quickly and hit only slightly less accurately. When you can get spells in exchange for a very slight step down on those, why wouldn't you?


Consider most non martials end up 7-10 points behind in to hit, I find your suggestion of a little bit behind laughable.

This is falling off a cliff levels of step down.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Er... undead rock casters? Clerics are casters. I mean, I get what you're saying, but it's kind of a false argument. Everybody's weak when the DM specifically exploits their weaknesses. It doesn't really tell us anything about the base power level of each class, however.


Powerful undead laugh at turn attempts.

All undead laugh at 90% of all will-save spells and are immune to most fort-save spells.

If your campaign find fighting outsiders, undead, oozes, constructs, and creatures with SR to be a rare thing, maybe the problem isn't OP casters, but a failing of your DM to throw a variety of monsters at you.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Sure, and again, if you're specifically trying to make a PC seem weak then you'll often succeed. But I would argue that throwing variety at the party makes spellcasters seem stronger, not weaker. Casters have a much bigger toolkit from which to work, and thus have a better chance of finding SOMETHING useful to do. Martial classes (especially at low levels) can often have a harder time. Again, this is not always the case! There are definitely times that martial characters just shine. But on average the casters have more to do.

For example, in the monsters you listed... do they really impede casters effectively? I'm not trying to be Schroedinger's Wizard here, but not all wizard builds are save-or-die based. What part of my low-level Conjurer's Haste/Summon Monster rotation is going to be less effective as a result of any of their abilities? Hell, I can't remember the last time I cast a spell that targeted SR. SR is pretty rare isn't much of a problem at low levels and a lot of battlefield control spells aren't subject to SR. Things like Grease, Create Pit, Summon Monster will all still work and be just as effective. And for things those don't work on (say, an incoporeal undead)-- well, I'll take bets that a wizard or cleric will find a way to deal with that before a fighter will.

On the other hand, the party Rogue or Ninja looks at that ooze, realizes that it's immune to sneak attack, sighs, kicks a tin can down the alley, then cries softly to themselves.


Woah woah. No one here is trying to say mundane skillmonkeys do not have problems so leave them out of this.

Summoning requires the rest of the party to keep the enemy off of you for that to work at all. Summons are not the silver bullet people want.

Grease and Create Pit do not end encounters. They are delaying tactics (which works well to set up summons I guess)

Now fighters and other martials have a hard time finding a monster that "I hit them with my sword" doesn't work on. Incoporeal undead just have a miss chance.


You know... for the low low price of 30k, you can pick up a Staff of the Master (Necromancy) and just... quicken the Summon spell... you know for when you need Summons + another spell that round. Good times! (Unless your fighting all these Outsiders pre-10th in which case, eh have your Cleric rock Sacred Summons.)


Or just play a master summoner.

The Exchange

Magic Butterfly wrote:

Sure, and again, if you're specifically trying to make a PC seem weak then you'll often succeed. But I would argue that throwing variety at the party makes spellcasters seem stronger, not weaker. Casters have a much bigger toolkit from which to work, and thus have a better chance of finding SOMETHING useful to do. Martial classes (especially at low levels) can often have a harder time. Again, this is not always the case! There are definitely times that martial characters just shine. But on average the casters have more to do.

For example, in the monsters you listed... do they really impede casters effectively? I'm not trying to be Schroedinger's Wizard here, but not all wizard builds are save-or-die based. What part of my low-level Conjurer's Haste/Summon Monster rotation is going to be less effective as a result of any of their abilities? Hell, I can't remember the last time I cast a spell that targeted SR. SR is pretty rare isn't much of a problem at low levels and a lot of battlefield control spells aren't subject to SR. Things like Grease, Create Pit, Summon Monster will all still work and be just as effective. And for things those don't work on (say, an incoporeal undead)-- well, I'll take bets that a wizard or cleric will find a way to deal with that before a fighter will.

On the other hand, the party Rogue or Ninja looks at that ooze, realizes that it's immune to sneak attack, sighs, kicks a tin can down the alley, then cries softly to themselves.

Actually, the average Rogue is too smart to try to beat an ooze, if there is any way to avoid the encounter. He will Sneak, Jump, or Climb his way around the slow, dumb creature. After all, the Rogue's real job is to AVOID things, like traps, AoOs, and sentry monsters. You don't have to kill the enemy to defeat him. Most of the time you just have to get past him (twice).


Jimbo Juggins wrote:
Magic Butterfly wrote:

Sure, and again, if you're specifically trying to make a PC seem weak then you'll often succeed. But I would argue that throwing variety at the party makes spellcasters seem stronger, not weaker. Casters have a much bigger toolkit from which to work, and thus have a better chance of finding SOMETHING useful to do. Martial classes (especially at low levels) can often have a harder time. Again, this is not always the case! There are definitely times that martial characters just shine. But on average the casters have more to do.

For example, in the monsters you listed... do they really impede casters effectively? I'm not trying to be Schroedinger's Wizard here, but not all wizard builds are save-or-die based. What part of my low-level Conjurer's Haste/Summon Monster rotation is going to be less effective as a result of any of their abilities? Hell, I can't remember the last time I cast a spell that targeted SR. SR is pretty rare isn't much of a problem at low levels and a lot of battlefield control spells aren't subject to SR. Things like Grease, Create Pit, Summon Monster will all still work and be just as effective. And for things those don't work on (say, an incoporeal undead)-- well, I'll take bets that a wizard or cleric will find a way to deal with that before a fighter will.

On the other hand, the party Rogue or Ninja looks at that ooze, realizes that it's immune to sneak attack, sighs, kicks a tin can down the alley, then cries softly to themselves.

Actually, the average Rogue is too smart to try to beat an ooze, if there is any way to avoid the encounter. He will Sneak, Jump, or Climb his way around the slow, dumb creature. After all, the Rogue's real job is to AVOID things, like traps, AoOs, and sentry monsters. You don't have to kill the enemy to defeat him. Most of the time you just have to get past him (twice).

but then the ooze will autodetect you with it's blindsense and try to follow you

and it can ambush you in a different part of the dungeon.

and ignoring it, means it is effectively invisible to you.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jimbo Juggins wrote:
Actually, the average Rogue is too smart to try to beat an ooze, if there is any way to avoid the encounter. He will Sneak, Jump, or Climb his way around the slow, dumb creature. After all, the Rogue's real job is to AVOID things, like traps, AoOs, and sentry monsters. You don't have to kill the enemy to defeat him. Most of the time you just have to get past him (twice).

I gotta disagree here.

1- that kind of smart thinking is player thinking, not a Rogue class feature. The fact is that characters can be only as smart as their players, but even if Int did affect how smart a character acts, Rogues don't get much out of investing in Int.

2- Even if the Rogues somehow pass undetected, how does that benefit the other party members? How do Rogues get the Fighter/Paladin/Whatever past the monster as well? Does the Rogue simply leave them behind? Because that's doesn't sound like a good decision.

The Exchange

A proper rogue is scouting for the party.

He encounter traps, usually alone.

He runs into monsters, usually alone.

He relies on his Perception to avoid danger, and his Dexterity to get out of trouble faster than he got into it.

Odds are, I see the ooze before it 'sees" me.

Oozes' initiative bonuses are typically negative and they aren't any faster than I am, so odds are if it does spot me, I can get ahead and stay ahead of it.

If I need assistance taking it out, I retreat to where the party is searching the aftermath of the last encounter. If the whole party can't take it out, why are we there?

If I don't need much help, and I am fully equipped to do significant damage to a non-critable, non-sneak-attackable creature, I might start the fight and call the party in to help finish it off.

If the game makes monsters that are specifically designed to thwart your best ability, you have to be prepared to meet these creatures, as you most surely will.

As far as ooze ambushes, they are typically "mindless" creatures. If I manage to evade one, it wouldn't even remember to "wait" for me to come back after I reached the dead end it was hanging out in front of. It wouldn't even know it was hanging out in front of a dead end.

Finally, I didn't say anything about ignoring it. I am always looking over my shoulder, even when I don't already know I left something hungry behind me. Usually it's just to tell the Melees and Casters to quit arguing who's best, all that noise makes it hard to be Sneaky.


None of my points were specific to Ooze encounters.

My points are:

1- That kind of smart thinking is player thinking, not a Rogue class feature.

2- Being able to bypass a challenge (not necessarily a combat encounter) is not much of an advantage if the rest of the party can't do the same.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Jimbo Juggins wrote:


If the game makes monsters that are specifically designed to thwart your best ability, you have to be prepared to meet these creatures, as you most surely will.

I agree completely! And of course all PCs do this. As a PC, I usually assume that the DM isn't prepping encounters that leave me without anything to do.

I'm just saying that casters can meet diverse challenges more effectively and much sooner than non-caster classes.

Liberty's Edge

Kirth Gersen wrote:
"" wrote:
Alone, no character can do half as much as an adventuring party containing spellcasters.

See clarification above. A team of all casters (+ pets and summoned meat shields) will do nearly as well, as well, or better (depending on system mastery and sheer shenanigans) than a mixed team of casters and martials. A team of all martials will fail at everything past a certain level.

"What does each person bring to the team, vs. how much do they take from the other members" matters. If all you look at is "does the team do OK," it's easy to miss it if 3 of the members are carrying all the weight and are babysitting the 4th.

No need for clarification. A party is going to contain a number of different classes. But what kind of party goes without some kind of close combat capability? Not that there aren't any spells that can help a character in close combat, but every spell-caster has only so many spells per day. Sure, your character can have access to spells for almost every situation, but you would have to be prepared for every possible situation. At every possible time. Sure, divination helps, but a good DM is always going to have wrinkles that aren't apparent, even to different types of divination.

Sure, you can build a caster who can do everything a martial does and still cast spells, but that's expensive, time-consuming, and more than a little boring. Unless you like playing the villain, since Pathfinder and D&D villains tend to like doing everything all by themselves, off in a corner somewhere. With lackeys and slaves, of course, but without a group of peers. Which is what makes an adventuring party so effective.

A group of peers.

If you play a caster, you enjoy spells, spell-lists, and being able to do things no-one without magic can do. If you play martials, you enjoy having a character that has trained themselves to a high degree with weapons, being up close and in front of the danger. If you like both, you play a class or prestige class that can do both, with slightly less facility in each.

There's all this variety because no one player likes having to do everything, keep track of everything and everyone, all by themselves.

Unless you happen to be a DM. But that goes without saying.

And any character class, played poorly, is going to have to babysat. I think that's somewhat obvious.


Jek Quick-fist wrote:
No need for clarification. A party is going to contain a number of different classes. But what kind of party goes without some kind of close combat capability?

Mine. I would much rather take a group of Battle Oracle, Admixture Wizard, Druid and Control Sorcerer over any group containing any number of fighters.

After a certain level, probably around 10 or so, it wouldn't even be close. An always flying group with access to vast numbers of spells for any situation which also has characters able to hold a front line if needed (Battle Oracle and Druid both qualify) makes mincemeat of almost any APL +1-4 encounter in the Bestiary.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
You really don't understand why it might be better to balance by the rules, rather than by DM fiat (and incidentally adding more work to a guy whose workload is already big enough), do you?

Oh I understand it.

I just only think it's necessary for you, your group, and Kirthfinder type people.

I think the game plays just fine for 80% of people, and 18% of additional people if you have a proactive GM who uses what's already there.

I think your approach is perfect for the 2% of people that have your issues.

Obviously those numbers are all made up.

My message is this: when presented with a balance problem in Pathfinder, "change the rules" is the last good option. It is frequently better to be a proactive GM than to change the rules.

Note that sometimes, you exhaust the other good options and must change the rules. Some groups (yours) push this further than others.


Marthkus wrote:

Consider most non martials end up 7-10 points behind in to hit, I find your suggestion of a little bit behind laughable.

This is falling off a cliff levels of step down.

Our inquisitor is above anyone in our party (including full BAB). You should check the combat 3/4 BAB classes a bit closer, imho.

At level 12, a Inquisitor has BAB 9. So he is 3 points bellow BAB.

He can Judgement as swift action in 4 full combats per day, getting +3 Sacred Bonus. For most parties, that's nearly the whole combat day.

He can cast lvl 1 Divine favor 7 times per day, giving him +3 to hit, making the "full BAB" for 10 straight encounters per day, if the GM decides to make the long-grind-fest-dungeon-crawl quest.

He gets another "+2" from his Solo tactics, thanks to either Outflank, or Enfilading fire.

His Bane Weapon gives him another +2

He gets Divine Power for those fights that are actually a challenge (up to 4 or so per day?)

So, during 4 full tough combats per day, an Inquisitor has a BAB equivalent of his character level + 8 (bane, enfilading/outflank, divine power). While in the other *seven* mop up encounters, he'll have "just" BAB +2 or so.

We can do a similar math for druids in dinosaur form, synthesist, alchemists, etc if you want. The 3/4 BAB classes don't fall behind to Hit, *rogues and monks* do.


Jimbo Juggins wrote:
Actually, the average Rogue is too smart to try to beat an ooze, if there is any way to avoid the encounter. He will Sneak, Jump, or Climb his way around the slow, dumb creature. After all, the Rogue's real job is to AVOID things, like traps, AoOs, and sentry monsters. You don't have to kill the enemy to defeat him. Most of the time you just have to get past him (twice).

the rogue's can't avoid the oozes for several reasons.

First:
Most oozes are immune to stealth. They have blindsense, blindsight, tremorsense, or equivalent.
Second, they *DO* ambush. It's actually a pretty standard thing for them. And not all oozes are mindless. Shoggoth are oozes for example.
Third, even if the rogue manage to go around the 120' blindsense radious some of them have without being detected... that does NOT help him to avoid the combat. The ooze WILL attack their party, and then he'll have to fight it.

Also, oozes aren't very common, but I think I haven't played a campaign yet where I haven't fought elementals, casters with Blurr/displacement/invisibility, or just people in dim light/darkness.


Marthkus wrote:
Incoporeal undead just have a miss chance.

Not really, just half damage


gustavo iglesias wrote:
Marthkus wrote:

Consider most non martials end up 7-10 points behind in to hit, I find your suggestion of a little bit behind laughable.

This is falling off a cliff levels of step down.

Our inquisitor is above anyone in our party (including full BAB). You should check the combat 3/4 BAB classes a bit closer, imho.

At level 12, a Inquisitor has BAB 9. So he is 3 points bellow BAB.

He can Judgement as swift action in 4 full combats per day, getting +3 Sacred Bonus. For most parties, that's nearly the whole combat day.

He can cast lvl 1 Divine favor 7 times per day, giving him +3 to hit, making the "full BAB" for 10 straight encounters per day, if the GM decides to make the long-grind-fest-dungeon-crawl quest.

He gets another "+2" from his Solo tactics, thanks to either Outflank, or Enfilading fire.

His Bane Weapon gives him another +2

He gets Divine Power for those fights that are actually a challenge (up to 4 or so per day?)

So, during 4 full tough combats per day, an Inquisitor has a BAB equivalent of his character level + 8 (bane, enfilading/outflank, divine power). While in the other *seven* mop up encounters, he'll have "just" BAB +2 or so.

We can do a similar math for druids in dinosaur form, synthesist, alchemists, etc if you want. The 3/4 BAB classes don't fall behind to Hit, *rogues and monks* do.

Weapon training, Weapon focus, greater weapon focus, and full BAB.

Needing 2-3 buff spells to get close is sad.

1 to 50 of 459 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / At what level would you say the martial / caster 'flip' happens? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.