Ultimate Caster-Martial Disparity Poll


Pathfinder RPG General Discussion

51 to 93 of 93 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Malwing wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Malwing wrote:
(Personally I always put my materials in bottleneck positions to keep monsters away from them mates.
Of course this only works in adventuring environments that provide bottlenecks.
True but I always try to be a wall regardless of environment. This is one reason that I argue in favor of self healing and aggro drawing effects for martials despite the latter being unpopular. It makes tanking a real thing and is pretty useful. Of course with third party its a thing in my games so I'm biased.

Yeah if the game actually provides a means for it to work [both to draw the attacks and to endure them] it's a really nice role.

Hell Kirthfinder's achieved a greater degree of martial/caster parity than Pathfinder by requiring it. [I myself would prefer it an option a beatstick could choose to pursue and excel at, rather than make it a role the game requires but that's just me.]


Malwing wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Malwing wrote:
(Personally I always put my materials in bottleneck positions to keep monsters away from them mates.
Of course this only works in adventuring environments that provide bottlenecks.
True but I always try to be a wall regardless of environment. This is one reason that I argue in favor of self healing and aggro drawing effects for martials despite the latter being unpopular. It makes tanking a real thing and is pretty useful. Of course with third party its a thing in my games so I'm biased.

That SHOULD be an option in the poll: I use 3pp to fill the gap.


Bite me, here is how this is done.


Pathfinder Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
necromental wrote:
Malwing wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Malwing wrote:
(Personally I always put my materials in bottleneck positions to keep monsters away from them mates.
Of course this only works in adventuring environments that provide bottlenecks.
True but I always try to be a wall regardless of environment. This is one reason that I argue in favor of self healing and aggro drawing effects for martials despite the latter being unpopular. It makes tanking a real thing and is pretty useful. Of course with third party its a thing in my games so I'm biased.
That SHOULD be an option in the poll: I use 3pp to fill the gap.

Definitely. Each time I see a thread about martial/caster stuff I think at least one post is usually about third party and how I haven't had martial v caster problems for a long while. I even put up a thread called 'Third Party Master Race' to express that.

Scarab Sages

I find that casters dominate encounters where their spells are well suited to the situation. A blasty wizard will have an easy time taking down a big, flammable beastie or a horde of mooks, an enchanter dominates social encounters. I have a blaster type in my party right now and she struggles whenever the party fights a lot of mooks in tight quarters where her AOE spells are hard to use effectively.

Using a wide variety of encounter types both in and out of combat really helps ease any disparity, I find. If the game is an endless series of tactically or thematically similar encounters, then casters will be able to home in on a very efficient spell selection for that part of the campaign and are more likely to always have just the right spell.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

My groups are 2,7,9, and 10. We work as a group, and nobody is trying to break things or make anyone else look useless - I can be competent and you can be competent and we can all be greater than the sum of our parts.


(2) I find actual gameplay to be well balanced between martials and casters.


You're supposed to click the + button to vote on the ones you agree with; it's a lot easier to keep track that way.


(14) In my games, disparity is prevented by use of 3PP options that empower martials.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

(15) SILLY CASTY, POLL AM UNIMPORTANT. ONLY DESTRUCITY THAT AM MATTERING AM BARBARIAN/NOT BARBARIAN DESTRUCITY.

SINCE BARBARIAN AM ALWAYS WINNER, DESTRUCITY POLL AM ALSO NOT NECESSARY.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

AM BARD WILL SPREAD THE WORD OF AM BARBARIAN'S CONTINUED GREATNESS.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Power builds break games, martials or casters.
Far more people choose martials. Wizards, for example were what 3%?
Fewer people playing wizards, prepared casters exacerbates the M/C disparity as posters are predominantly martial types.

Cooperative play means setting up your team members to contribute rather than glory hogging. Call it keeping something in reserve so you don't have 15 minutes work days or what have you.

Martials dominate levels below 9. Casters dominate above 9. Means that for about 80% of PFS life, martials dominate.


Matthew Downie wrote:
(4) In my game, casters dominate play, except at very low levels.

Invisible Flying Summoners are when it gets a little annoying.

Matthew Downie wrote:
(10) In my games, disparity is prevented by players voluntarily refusing to take the overpowered options.

Noone in his right mind would use spells like Simulacrum regularily.


Matthew Downie wrote:
You're supposed to click the + button to vote on the ones you agree with; it's a lot easier to keep track that way.

Meh. You should also have options for

15. Meh. Another pointless C/M disparity thread.
16. Really guys. Suck it up. Its not as if you can't play any class you want. The world needs wizards to set up immersion. Otherwise you're playing paper's and paychecks.
17. Martials dominate most of low level pfs. Its ok if casters win a few too.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Perfect Tommy wrote:
16. Really guys. Suck it up. Its not as if you can't play any class you want. The world needs wizards to set up immersion. Otherwise you're playing paper's and paychecks.

That the setting requires someone who fills the in-world role of the "wizard" does not mean the setting requires the set of mechanical abilities that has the metagame label of "Wizard" attributed to it. You can excise the Wizard class from the game utterly and still have any number of classes that can fulfill the rule. Even with all of the 9th-level casters removed, the narrative role of the wizard can be filled by the alchemist, magus, mesmerist, bard, medium, summoner (if they're not booted with the 9th-level casters), skald, kineticist, spiritualist, or occultist, depending on the nature of the "wizard" in question.

It doesn't have to be the unlimited 9th-level prepared spellcaster.


Omnius wrote:
It doesn't have to be the unlimited 9th-level prepared spellcaster.

Even if it did, that role doesn't have to be filled by a PLAYER.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

(16) Meh. Another pointless C/M disparity thread.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

(17) Suck it up. It's not as if you can't play any class you want. The world needs wizards. Otherwise you're playing papers and paychecks.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

(18) Martials dominate most low level PFS games. It's OK if casters win a few too.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

What suprises me about this thread is just how many people think that casters and martial are balanced. That is a substantial proportion of votes. Particularly considering house rules and long encounter days weren’t very popular.

Clearly it isn’t as big a problem across the board as some would believe.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

But it's clearly a bigger problem than the people who say things like "disparity is a myth perpetuated by wizard-haters" believe.


The Sword wrote:

What suprises me about this thread is just how many people think that casters and martial are balanced. That is a substantial proportion of votes. Particularly considering house rules and long encounter days weren’t very popular.

Clearly it isn’t as big a problem across the board as some would believe.

I'm one of the people who put a plus against #2. "I find actual gameplay to be well balanced between martials and casters."

This doesn't mean that I don't acknowledge the existence of caster/martial disparity. I experienced it in AD&D and to some extent in 3rd ed. I just haven't experienced it in PF. While the rules are better balanced than in previous editions of the game, I'm sure much of it has to do with the way my group plays.

I think play-style has a real impact of this issue, which is why there are so many different views on the subject.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Downie wrote:
But it's clearly a bigger problem than the people who say things like "disparity is a myth perpetuated by wizard-haters" believe.

Fallacy of self selection bias; small sample size; and about half a dozen other problems.

The fact that a disparity exists doesn't mean there's a problem.
If you play the monster that ate sheboygan - there's a huge disparity between the monster and the human players.

If you play axis and allies - the allies almost always win. In neither case is it a problem.

Just because a dozen people (out of hundreds of thousands) make a comment - doesn't mean.. A THING. You can get thousands of people to agree the world is flat.

What does it mean? Not a damn thing.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Perfect Tommy wrote:

Fallacy of self selection bias; small sample size; and about half a dozen other problems.

The fact that a disparity exists doesn't mean there's a problem.
If you play the monster that ate sheboygan - there's a huge disparity between the monster and the human players.

If you play axis and allies - the allies almost always win. In neither case is it a problem.

Just because a dozen people (out of hundreds of thousands) make a comment - doesn't mean.. A THING. You can get thousands of people to agree the world is flat.

What does it mean? Not a damn thing.

1) Are you comparing people who put forward that the caster/martial disparity is a problem to flat earthers?

2) If the stated goal is historical recreation, Allies beating Axis most of the time is not a problem. However, if Axis and Allies are both put forward as equally viable factions and Allies consistently wins, that is, objectively, a problem with the game's design. And in Pathfinder, Fighter and Wizard are presented as equally viable adventurers.


There are some similarities.

It just depends on how far along the spectrum you get. The ones that say fighters are completly useless even in combat and wizards always solo all encounters on the first turn I could put them with the flat-earthers.

I suppose to alternative would be people that say wizards are useless and fighters can solo everything (maybe in some games). Those people would also fit.

*Generally the answer isn't an extreme but lies somewhere in the middle.

*Except for the flat-earth thing. that is just dumb.


I mean, most of the games I'm in have parties consisting of:
- one 9-level caster
- one meaty person, likely full BAB, potentially non-magical.
- a potentially unlimited number of 3/4 BAB, 6-level casters.

When your parties are like "Inquisitor, Occultist, Barbarian, and Oracle", or "Vigilante, Druid, Mesmerist, Magus", or "Bloodrager, Alchemist, Shaman, Investigator" or "Paladin, Spiritualist, Witch, and Bard" (all actual parties I've been in) it's hard for disparity to actually show up.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

(19) The fact that a disparity exists doesn't mean there's a problem.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

(20) Disparity is a problem that negatively impacts my games.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Omnius wrote:
Perfect Tommy wrote:

Fallacy of self selection bias; small sample size; and about half a dozen other problems.

The fact that a disparity exists doesn't mean there's a problem.
If you play the monster that ate sheboygan - there's a huge disparity between the monster and the human players.

If you play axis and allies - the allies almost always win. In neither case is it a problem.

Just because a dozen people (out of hundreds of thousands) make a comment - doesn't mean.. A THING. You can get thousands of people to agree the world is flat.

What does it mean? Not a damn thing.

1) Are you comparing people who put forward that the caster/martial disparity is a problem to flat earthers?

2) If the stated goal is historical recreation, Allies beating Axis most of the time is not a problem. However, if Axis and Allies are both put forward as equally viable factions and Allies consistently wins, that is, objectively, a problem with the game's design. And in Pathfinder, Fighter and Wizard are presented as equally viable adventurers.

Where?

Where exactly are Fighters and Wizards promoted as equally viable adventurers. Because I've searched the literature and I don't see it.
Here is a quote from the forward:

Spoiler:

Adventure Awaits!
Welcome to a world where noble warriors battle mighty
dragons and powerful wizards explore long-forgotten
tombs. This is a world of fantasy, populated by mysterious
elves and savage orcs, wise dwarves and wily gnomes. In
this game, your character can become a master swordsman
who has never lost a duel, or a skilled thief capable of
stealing the crown from atop the king’s head. You can play
a pious cleric wielding the power of the gods, or unravel
the mysteries of magic as an enigmatic sorcerer. The world
is here for you to explore, and your actions will have a
profound inf luence in shaping its history. Who will rescue
the king from the clutches of a powerful vampire? Who
will thwart the vengeful giants who have come from the
mountains to enslave the common folk? These stories wait
for your character to take center stage. With this rulebook,
a few friends, and a handful of dice, you can begin your
epic quest.

My! Not a word about equally viable, or balanced, or fair.
Now mind you, I happen to think they *are* equally viable. They all provide you an equally viable mechanism *to have fun*.

I thought my basis for making a flat earth comment was fairly clear.
You can get thousands of people to post positions that the earth is flat.
The fact that they will do so means simply that there are a lot of people that hold an opinion; that is at variance with the facts; and are willing to so post.

And the fact that they are willing to post means absolutely nothing.

The style of argument is called reducing to the absurd. Mathew claimed that the fact that a dozen and a half people posted pointed to the severity of the problem; I reduced this to the absurd by making an analogy. Thousands of people claim the earth is flat. That doesn't mean it is.

So yes, on the one hand I am comparing this comment to flat earthers. And, no, I am not commenting on posters (or even their position),at all. And I dislike your insinuation.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

For character levels to mean anything they have to imply that characters of equal level are roughly equal in power. Otherwise there's no point to having them, and characters might as well just buy advances with XP directly.

And "I had fun therefore the thing is fine" is exactly what went wrong with PF's playtesting in the first place.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Perfect Tommy wrote:
Where?

The CR system says that they are. a 20th level wizard has the same CR as a 20th level fighter. Both give the same amount of experience.


Perfect Tommy wrote:

Where?

Where exactly are Fighters and Wizards promoted as equally viable adventurers. Because I've searched the literature and I don't see it.
Here is a quote from the forward:

** spoiler omitted **

My! Not a word about equally viable, or balanced, or fair.
Now mind you, I happen to think they *are* equally viable. They all provide you an equally viable mechanism *to have fun*.

I thought my basis for making a flat earth comment was fairly clear.
You can get thousands of people to post positions that the earth is flat.
The fact that they will do so means simply that there are a lot of people that hold an opinion; that is at variance with the facts; and are willing to so post.

And the fact that they are willing to post means absolutely nothing.

The style of argument is called reducing to the absurd. Mathew claimed that the fact that a dozen and a half people posted pointed to the severity of the problem; I reduced this to the absurd by making an analogy. Thousands of people claim the earth is flat. That doesn't mean it is.

So yes, on the one hand I am comparing this comment to flat earthers. And, no, I am not commenting on posters (or even their position),at all. And I dislike your insinuation.

Look at that excerpt you quoted! That seems like a portrayal where all of those mentioned are supposed to be equally viable!

The position you're taking is really coming across as one where logic is turning against your position, so you're trying to discredit any foundation for discussion at all.

But if you want a specific and explicit answer, it's fundamentally baked into the level, effective party level, and CR systems.


Just because you deny the gray area, doesn't mean it isn't there. Paladins and rangers start out with no magic spells at all.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Perfect Tommy wrote:

I thought my basis for making a flat earth comment was fairly clear.

You can get thousands of people to post positions that the earth is flat.
The fact that they will do so means simply that there are a lot of people that hold an opinion; that is at variance with the facts; and are willing to so post.

You could also get millions of people to post positions that the earth is not flat. If you're not on a flat-earthers forum, the majority would say the earth is round.

This is not a forum for class-balance deniers or whatever, so it's as representative sample as you can reasonably hope for.

If two-thirds of those who care to venture an opinion on the subject say they have a problem, that's evidence in favor of the problem existing.

If two-thirds of the population say that they, personally, have peeked over the edge of the earth and seen the legs of the great turtle below, that is evidence in favor of the turtle existing. You'd need very strong evidence to plausibly dispute this; extreme selection bias, satellite images, that kind of thing.

You can question whether this is an accurate representation of the scale of the problem. Maybe there's a variance of 10% in either direction due to the small poll size. Maybe the problem is significantly exaggerated, since disparity mainly crops up when the casters have high system mastery, and high system mastery is correlated with people who post on these boards.

But I wouldn't deny that other people have a problem when they say they do. "I have not been a victim of any serious crime lately; therefore serious crime does not exist."


2 people marked this as a favorite.

That's an incredibly highbrow sentiment, considering we're talking about mushing together barbies on the internet based on die rolls and stat blocks.

Unfortunately, this one opt-in poll within a vacuum on a site with an unknown starting bias with regards to respondents who also have an unknown opt-in bias based upon their own personal positions and how strongly they feel about them is highly unlikely to provide any real, relevant, or useful data... particularly given that at this point there are over 20 options, many of which are spread out over two pages and endless diatribe and thus will have an inherently lower response count than the ones with prime spots on the front page.

At best, you've created an anecdote. At worst, some idiot is going to try pointing to this as 'proof' of anything when it's really more of the evidence equivalent of a Picasso painting. Fun to look at, but not really a good picture of anything at all.


Goth Guru wrote:
Just because you deny the gray area, doesn't mean it isn't there. Paladins and rangers start out with no magic spells at all.

Muggles level 3 and under generally aren't considered an issue.


Muggles are generally unaware of magic. There was some other term for those both aware and incapable of magic.

A Squib is a non magical person born to a family of magic users.


For purposes of discussion, 'muggle' will suffice.


Voted for 5 and 7.

The discrepancy only becomes obvious at high levels because we tend to work as a team.


I'm quite impressed by the relative majority of option 19 over option 20.

If that's remotely representative, most forum users experience disparity, but either they work around it or it doesn't bother them in the first place.

Grand Lodge

And here I was thinking this was a poll over a new Paizo book in the Ultimate series ;)


Jurassic Pratt wrote:
And here I was thinking this was a poll over a new Paizo book in the Ultimate series ;)

Don't be silly. That's every Paizo book in the Ultimate series. :P


Good news all, I have decided to start a new poll. I'll call it The Penultimate Essential Never to be Outdone (until the next one) Martial-Caster Disparity Poll/discourse!

51 to 93 of 93 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder RPG / General Discussion / Ultimate Caster-Martial Disparity Poll All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in General Discussion