Sell me: full BAB martials are better martials than martial based casters

[wraithstrike]

Renegadeshepherd wrote:

Since folks want a comparison ill give one.

L5 human cleric crusader of someone who gives negative energy and destruction domain.

LV1 toughness
LV1B channel smite
LV1C heavy armor prof
LV3 power attack
LV5 quick channel
LV5C whatever crusade bonus feat u need

Tactics: quick channel for 2D6 (will save for half), channel smite as swift for same possible damage, the destruction attack at +2 damage plus power attacks effect.

This could be considered subpar since ur channel uses are limited but even so. The ability to add potentially 2D6+2+power attack+strength+weapon damage. Plz make a stronger case from a martial.

Ps: at level 6 the full BAB martial gets another attack but the cleric for example gets a D6 increase to his channels and a +1 from destruction.

What is the criteria for being "better"?

Is it only DPR and AC or would a less combat build still be better if he can do things outside of combat?
I did skip post so forgive me if this has been answered. I just want to stop any moving goalpost before they start.

[137ben]

MattR1986 wrote:

I'm tired of people complaining about martials when they're only looking at very high level (usually 20th) level as you did in your first post and ignoring the importance of martials for half of campaigns.

No he didn't, you were the first person to bring 20th level play into this thread. You are now complaining about yourself.

[MattR1986]

Reread the posts ben assuming it wasn't edited. Either way I'm sure the context would still be there.

[andreww]

MattR1986 wrote:

The page from my book was

1) I'm tired of people complaining about martials when they're only looking at very high level (usually 20th) level as you did in your first post and ignoring the importance of martials for half of campaigns. I only used 1st level to illustrate this point.

And this is where you entire post falls apart completely. If you had spent any time at all either posting or reading here you would realise that the vast majority of class comparison threads or discussions revolve around about level 10. By that point in time any character should really have got into their stride and be able to demonstrate a high degree of competence in their chosen area(s) of expertise. Higher level comparisons are actually much rarer simply because most people realise that few games reach level 15+.

[A highly regarded expert]

andreww wrote:

...few games reach level 15+.

That's definitely true, and I wish it weren't so. My personal experience with 15+ has always been quite positive. It takes a long time to get through a round, but that gets truer and truer the higher you go.

20th is as fun as any other level, and I do recall fighters getting shut down, sometimes, but when they weren't, they were murder.

Dimension Door with Mr. Melee and put him right next to BBEG. Hilarity will ensue. :D

[MattR1986]

Andreww, I call shennannegans to no end as most of these theorycraft b.s.athons use high or 20th level builds as part of the discussion.

Even the ones that do talk about 10-12 so what? You just said most games don't go to 15+ so first you are admitting that in most games 1-8 are actually more than half the campaign.

Even if I go with your statement that most around 10th how does my point not stand that people ignore talking about 1-8 which you just admitted was most of the game? If anything you are strengthening my point without realizing it. Thank you.

[wraithstrike]

MattR1986 wrote:

Andreww, I call shennannegans to no end as most of these theorycraft b.s.athons use high or 20th level builds as part of the discussion.

Even the ones that do talk about 10-12 so what? You just said most games don't go to 15+ so first you are admitting that in most games 1-8 are actually more than half the campaign.

Even if I go with your statement that most around 10th how does my point not stand that people ignore talking about 1-8 which you just admitted was most of the game? If anything you are strengthening my point without realizing it. Thank you.

When this comes up most GM's say the like to stop running games between 12 and 15 because at that point the games becomes really difficult to run. This came up before mythic rules came out and some were pushing for a 1 to 20 level AP and epic rules from Pathfinder. Once I saw that I understood why Paizo was reluctant to make an AP that actually goes to 20.

Personally I think a 10th to 12th level build is a good trade off since it is between 15 and 8.

[MattR1986]

There's nothing wrong necessarily with going to 15th or even 20th but people recognize that the game begins breaking down the more you go along. What is there left to do when you become a god? Keep increasing the numbers so BaB is +100 and HD is 1000?

It's like this (hopefully this isn't lost on the average gamer):

If you have one good player who for the first 8 games of the NFL season is instrumental in winning the games, and then as the season goes on and teams improve he gets eclipsed by other players who get better and help finish it off to get to the playoffs, who cares? He still was why you got to the playoffs even if it wasn't him that did it in the last game.

The Wizard wouldn't even have gotten to be the 12th level dominator if it wasn't Barbarian helping pull most of the weight for those first levels. Just because he didn't do that last push in the final game doesn't mean he didn't rack up wins the first half of the season.

[Anzyr]

Untrue. A party of wizards (though preferably there's a Druid, Summoner, Bard, Inquisitor, Cleric, or Oracle along and not just 4 Wizards) can manage pretty well through 1-5. Hell a party of Druids at level 1 is going to make the Barbarians extremely sad pandas. And this is before they can turn into Pandas themselves to rub it in. The difference between characters at level 1 are fairly shallow and mostly attribute dependent. Furthermore, more casters means more ways to instantly end an encounter, which works out quite well it turns out. (Plus CR 1 enemies saves tend to be trash, while their AC can be reasonable.)

[137ben]

Anzyr wrote:

Untrue. A party of wizards (though preferably there's a Druid, Summoner, Bard, Inquisitor, Cleric, or Oracle along and not just 4 Wizards) can manage pretty well through 1-5. Hell a party of Druids at level 1 is going to make the Barbarians extremely sad pandas. And this is before they can turn into Pandas themselves to rub it in. The difference between characters at level 1 are fairly shallow and mostly attribute dependent. Furthermore, more casters means more ways to instantly end an encounter, which works out quite well it turns out. (Plus CR 1 enemies saves tend to be trash, while their AC can be reasonable.)

Ya know, I think you could really balance out combat in levels 1-5 just by giving fighters and fighter-variants fast healing. See, at level 1-5, casters' supposed weakness is their lack of endurance...

except that EVERYONE at levels 1-5 lacks endurance due to hit-point loss. Especially the front-line fighter who needs to be in a dangerous position just to do anything meaningful in combat at all.
But yea, as it is now casters don't suck at low levels. I'm not sure where that myth comes from, as it doesn't really have any basis in the reality of the game. My understanding from people who know earlier editions better is that in 1e, magic-users are really weak at level 1 but really powerful at high levels. Maybe the people who think that about pathfinder are just misapplying knowledge from a different game system?

[Anzyr]

Ya, that's always been my assumption is that people are remembering 1E/2E and not realizing how much stronger casters have gotten in 3.0 and how little class matters at level 1 (unless you start with a pet of some kind, then your level 1 REALLY matters). I mean I suppose some of them would argue "But the Wizard group will run out of spells after 4 encounters." but realistically at level 1, 4 encounters that would require spell use would be pretty big hp sinks and thus would require resting *anyway*. So really, casters start strong, get stronger, and eventually just start rewriting reality over trivial matters like "Where should I sleep tonight?" or "I don't feel like walking to the next city."

And again lets not mention Druids/Summoners/Lunar Oracles. Because that makes all the martials sad at level 1.

[Kobold Catgirl]

Renegadeshepherd wrote:

I'm goin to take a page from ur book...

Why this level one crap? U do realize that only a one adventure is played at level 1 right? U do realize that this is where characters are in their infancy right? I'm Matt and I didn't bring my best evidence on my build and I got called out on it. I could've done better :p.
enough on this crap!!!

See this is how u talked in the first post.

Oh, YEAH? Well, this is you!

HEY IM RENEGADESHEPHERD AN I SMELL LIKE A GNOME BLAHBLAHBLAH

Yeah! That's you just now!

Aw man, is is getting hot in here? No, that's just the burning of my incredible insult.

[Kobold Catgirl]

...wait, does anybody else smell smoke?

[Kobold Catgirl]

This might be the thread with the highest concentration of childish passive aggressiveness and condescension since I stopped posting on the OTD.

[andreww]

Anzyr wrote:

Untrue. A party of wizards (though preferably there's a Druid, Summoner, Bard, Inquisitor, Cleric, or Oracle along and not just 4 Wizards) can manage pretty well through 1-5. Hell a party of Druids at level 1 is going to make the Barbarians extremely sad pandas. And this is before they can turn into Pandas themselves to rub it in. The difference between characters at level 1 are fairly shallow and mostly attribute dependent. Furthermore, more casters means more ways to instantly end an encounter, which works out quite well it turns out. (Plus CR 1 enemies saves tend to be trash, while their AC can be reasonable.)

Pretty much this. I would take a group consisting of Wizard, Druid, Battle Oracle, Inquisitor any day of the week and at any level over one carrying a class like Monk, Rogue or Fighter.