Why do Martials need better things?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

501 to 550 of 1,265 << first < prev | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | next > last >>

4 people marked this as a favorite.
alexd1976 wrote:


My naked fighter build would just be catching the arrows and firing them back with enough force to blow the level 1 sucker into a cloud of feathers.

Assuming it was in range. And not using rapid shot.

Yes, your fighter can do that. You proved that it is possible for a fighter to be build in a way that allows him to deal with such a situation. A situation that nearly any sorcerer could deal with on the fly unless specifically build to not be able to do it.

Martials: Most can't do this, some with special builds can
Casters: Most can do this, some with special builds can't
totally the same.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Snowblind wrote:
Just a Guess wrote:
Snowblind wrote:


And no, it doesn't matter what level the wielder is. The rules make no allowances for the qualities of the wielder. It's all about the weapon, and the weapon only (barring specific abilities that state otherwise). It's stupid, but it's also the rules.
Yes, because if the wielder of the weapon had some impact on it that would be unrealistic and martials are not allowed to be that.

Exactly.

Of course, if they wanted to boost martial capabilities they could always make a feat that lets someone treat any weapon as appropriate for the purposes of damaging materials. Possibly with a damage reduction, or only with a single weapon and with weapon focus as a prereq, because letting them break a rope with a hammer as easily as with a sword shouldn't be something a martial can do without extensive training with a single weapon. Maybe a feat chain, where the second feat lets them do it with any weapon with no penalty, with a little bit of hardness reduction thrown in(although that could be it's own feat too).

I might be involking Poe's Law a little here

There is no need to modify rules to allow for this, the rules as written allow for the GM (the person who decides whether or not the tool is appropriate) to say yes or no to someone inflicting 81 points of damage being able to damage a hardness 8 item.

They don't give specific rules on this FOR A REASON. A pick, forged as a weapon, isn't "designed" to damage walls, it's "designed" to damage people/monsters. Thus, by some interpretations, would inflict zero damage to the wall.

Looks to me like they could, clearly other people feel differently.

Hell, what if we approach it this way... the characters parents decided they wanted to have a child explictly for the purpose of training him to damage stone with his fists. They read all the books they could on the topic, they both changed their diet... They 'designed' him to do this. As soon as he was born, his training began, he could punch before he could walk! In his teens, his strength grew, he killed a man in a single blow during a bar fight, by the gods!

His adventuring career begins, he faces many opponents over his lifetime, never having an opportunity to practice his one primary skill: Rock smashing.

Decades pass, he gains enough power to punch someone so hard their eyes and ears explode, killing many creatures instantly.

He fights a dragon, it grabs him and carries him into the air, clawing and biting at him furiously (with downtime training rules, you can have maximum hitpoints, even my fast, basic Naked Fighter build would have something like 300 hitpoints).

The Dragon releases him over a volcano, hundreds of feet in the air. He plummets to the earth, smashing into molten hot magma, taking hundreds of points of damage...

And lives.

Unconscious, he is taken away, stripped of his possessions (um...) and allowed to heal. He is forced into an arena with a column in the center, only a Kobold is there to face him, with a crossbow.

He contemplates his situation, knowing that now is the time to use his skill, the very REASON he was brought into this world... he is going to gouge chunks of stone out of the wall and use them to kill the Kobold!

He winds up his fist which has killed giants... he pulls back his arm with has blinded dragons... he drives forward his killing knuckles that have smashed apart iron golems...

What happens next? His hand bounces off the wall? No-one sees a disconnect here?

Of course, a first level wizard could just... well you get the idea.


So the latter part of this thread has proven 'something' about a solo fighter who isn't part of an adventuring party in a ridiculously contrived situation.

.... Ok.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Just a Guess wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:


My naked fighter build would just be catching the arrows and firing them back with enough force to blow the level 1 sucker into a cloud of feathers.

Assuming it was in range. And not using rapid shot.

Yes, your fighter can do that. You proved that it is possible for a fighter to be build in a way that allows him to deal with such a situation. A situation that nearly any sorcerer could deal with on the fly unless specifically build to not be able to do it.

Martials: Most can't do this, some with special builds can
Casters: Most can do this, some with special builds can't
totally the same.

I have realized something about this thread (like many others)-it isn't about the issue (Martial disparity)-it's about people just trying to prove they are right about something.

The point isn't even relevant anymore.

I was simply trying to show that martials CAN be powerful in some situations, and people jumped onto the "You're wrong and here's why" bandwagon...

Once again, martials getting crapped on to the point of people arguing against even the existing power they DO have.

Funny.

This thread has made me want to actually make a serious naked fighter build, just to see what I can do in an actual playing environment...

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If nothing else, he'd probably draw a crowd :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wrath wrote:
If nothing else, he'd probably draw a crowd :)

That's why I made the first iteration with a starting CHA of 11 (16 after the tome)-I didn't even min/max the damn thing.

:D


Would you guys say that adamantine is harder than a stone pillar?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
shroudb wrote:

No, the problem is, by rae, fighters CANT do that.

(I doubt though that there is a DM which would say no, raw be damned)

I might say no to a fighter. But I'd say yes to someone whose trained in improved unarmed strike (which could include a fighter). Also rules as written, some weapons can break a stack of stones and some weapons can't. GM's call.

Just a Guess wrote:
Yes, your fighter can do that. You proved that it is possible for a fighter to be build in a way that allows him to deal with such a situation.

To be fair, it is a fairly contrived situation. When you deviate significantly from expected forms of play you'll get quite unexpected results. The game isn't balanced around the corner cases. It's "balanced" against certain expectations (for certain values of balanced). A level 20 fighter being naked isn't one of those expectations.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Anarchy_Kanya wrote:
Would you guys say that adamantine is harder than a stone pillar?

20 is harder than 8, but unless used to fashion a non-weapon pick or non-weapon hammer, unable to damage it?

Answer the question?

:D


1 person marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
shroudb wrote:

No, the problem is, by rae, fighters CANT do that.

(I doubt though that there is a DM which would say no, raw be damned)

I might say no to a fighter. But I'd say yes to someone whose trained in improved unarmed strike (which could include a fighter). Also rules as written, some weapons can break a stack of stones and some weapons can't. GM's call.

Just a Guess wrote:
Yes, your fighter can do that. You proved that it is possible for a fighter to be build in a way that allows him to deal with such a situation.
To be fair, it is a fairly contrived situation. When you deviate significantly from expected forms of play you'll get quite unexpected results. The game isn't balanced around the corner cases. It's "balanced" against certain expectations (for certain values of balanced). A level 20 fighter being naked isn't one of those expectations.

Are you saying the rarity of a build should affect rules such as the ability to damage materials?

I'm confused.

This whole Naked Fighter thing started because someone was drawing attention to the disparity between casters and fighters...

literally all it takes to kill a level 20 fighter (if he doesn't have a ranged weapon) is someone out of reach (100 feet away, with a bow, flying) and rapid shot.

That is attainable at level 1, which sucks.

My build alleviates that somewhat, but basically requires level 5 just to be able to deflect a single shot. They don't (as far as I can tell) have any combination of feats that would allow even a level 20 fighter to survive a level one person with rapid shot flying at 100ft away.

Meanwhile, a first level wizard/sorcerer could just magic missile the thing and be done with it.

The fact that there are people still convinced that no disparity exists makes me sad for mankind.

It isn't a contrived situation, it is something that can exist at FIRST LEVEL. Any variation from this is simply introducing a more powerful creature to kill the fighter with.

I mean, I personally can huck rocks farther than 50 feet, can't you?

Why can't my fighter?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

this whole contrived situation was to show the fighter was gear dependant, but people complaining that it's contrived and all his toys was taken away was the point in the first place.


alexd1976 wrote:
Anarchy_Kanya wrote:
Would you guys say that adamantine is harder than a stone pillar?
20 is harder than 8

There you go.

Quote:

but unless used to fashion a non-weapon pick or non-weapon hammer, unable to damage it?

Answer the question?

Sorry, but I'm not sure what you're asking.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

My favorite class is Game Master :P


10 people marked this as a favorite.

In the hope that we can let the pillar fighter rest and get back to the main topic... Insain Dragoon posted a link to an interview with Sean K Reynolds (former design team member for Paizo) the other day, and I just finished watching it. The whole interview is well worth listening to, but here's a few of the snippets I found particularly interesting.

SKR's take on the Martial/Caster disparity. He has an interesting perspective. :)

A little bit later he talks about vancian casting/limited casting v "always-on" classes like the fighter - also worth listening to.

Finally, he talks about some of Paizo's experiences with high high-level games. This was eyeopening for me.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
RDM42 wrote:

So the latter part of this thread has proven 'something' about a solo fighter who isn't part of an adventuring party in a ridiculously contrived situation.

.... Ok.

"Captured with all your stuff taken from you" is a pretty common trope in roleplaying games.

And oubliettes are real things.


Anarchy_Kanya wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:
Anarchy_Kanya wrote:
Would you guys say that adamantine is harder than a stone pillar?
20 is harder than 8

There you go.

Quote:

but unless used to fashion a non-weapon pick or non-weapon hammer, unable to damage it?

Answer the question?

Sorry, but I'm not sure what you're asking.

Sorry, I was being sarcastic.

People are referring to the line of text stating that unless a tool is specifically designed to damage something, that it can't do it, thus my sarcasm...

I was implying that a pick made of adamantine couldn't hurt a stone wall.

I don't FEEL this way, was just trying to draw attention to how some people are interpreting a rule that actually isn't as clear as they think.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
bookrat wrote:
RDM42 wrote:

So the latter part of this thread has proven 'something' about a solo fighter who isn't part of an adventuring party in a ridiculously contrived situation.

.... Ok.

"Captured with all your stuff taken from you" is a pretty common trope in roleplaying games.

And oubliettes are real things.

Ugh... yes... I hate when my characters are placed in these situations... so much so that I often make characters similar to Naked Fighter...

Monks get to shine a little more when this happens, casters with Eschew Materials are basically unaffected.

Fighters, unless built like Naked Fighter, are rendered fairly impotent.

If getting captured and stripped is common in your games, I feel bad for you... unless the one doing the capturing is a succubus, in which case...

Level drain never tasted so sweet. :D


alexd1976 wrote:

Are you saying the rarity of a build should affect rules such as the ability to damage materials?

I'm confused.

No. I'm saying the further you deviate from baseline Pathfinder the more extreme the results are going to be. I'd already commented on the validity of a fighter being able to deal damage to stone.

alexd1976 wrote:
This whole Naked Fighter thing started because someone was drawing attention to the disparity between casters and fighters...

There are good ways to demonstrate the disparity. Creating contrived situations are not a good way.

alexd1976 wrote:
literally all it takes to kill a level 20 fighter (if he doesn't have a ranged weapon) is someone out of reach (100 feet away, with a bow, flying) and rapid shot.

A properly built fighter will have a ranged weapon. Getting weapon proficency with all martial weapons is an important part of the fighter's class features.

alexd1976 wrote:
That is attainable at level 1, which sucks.

Remove a wizard's spellbook from them before they've prepared their daily spells and they'll be more useless than a naked fighter. Both classes are SOL though.

alexd1976 wrote:
The fact that there are people still convinced that no disparity exists makes me sad for mankind.

Then you should read the thread more closely. I have admitted there is disparity. Someone else said they saw the same results you do, and do not have a problem with how the game plays. They play Pathfinder because the game DOES play that way and they would stop playing Pathfinder if it changed.

You want the disparity to be closed. That's great. Not everyone who plays Pathfinder wants that though. They're not necessarily denying the disparity exists. They're denying that a problem exists. You see the two as synonymous. They do not.

alexd1976 wrote:
It isn't a contrived situation

The game expects that fighters will have full use of their starting gold and WBL. Deviate from those expectations at your peril.

alexd1976 wrote:
it is something that can exist at FIRST LEVEL.

So can a wizard who used all their spell slots yesterday and don't have a spellbook. Now I see some clever uses of "wizards get their spellbook as a class feature. Fighters don't get weapons or armor as class features!" It's a clever argument and I commend you for thinking it up. But I again refer you back to my statements about the game breaking down when you deviate too far from standard expectations. A standard expectation is full use of WBL and starting gold.

By the by, these threads on fighter disparity have been extremely inspiring for me. I've been cooking up all sorts of optional rules/archetypes/homebrew to specfically address some of the concerns that have been raised.

Spoiler:
These aren't in response to the recent spate of threads, but they are a result of my dislike for the martial/caster disparity. They aren't intended to remove the gap between martials and casters but they are intended to help close it.

Stolen shamelessly from 5th edition, I give all characters a number of healing dice equal to their level and of a size equal to their classe's hit dice. These can be spent after an hour's rest to regain hit points. I've also banned cure light wounds wands from my game to make spells a more precious commodity.

I've also got my own take on inherent bonuses here which help remove the martial's dependence on magic items while offering significantly less benefit to casters.

I'll post links to the other work I've been doing on helping offering a boost to martials, some of which has been inspired by these threads, as I get the chance.

As I've said, I clearly agree that there is a disparity between fighters and casters and I recognise it is a problem FOR ME (and others who feel the same way). It doesn't mean nonsensical scenarios are a valid way to demonstrate this disparity though.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Remove a wizard's spellbook from them before they've prepared their daily spells and they'll be more useless than a naked fighter. Both classes are SOL though.

actually unless they used all their spells from yesterday i'm pretty sure they keep them.

could be wrong though.

also we deviated from the core expectations specifically to show that they were gear dependent.


Bandw2 wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Remove a wizard's spellbook from them before they've prepared their daily spells and they'll be more useless than a naked fighter. Both classes are SOL though.

actually unless they used all their spells from yesterday i'm pretty sure they keep them.

could be wrong though.

I was trying to imply they had no spells prepared from the previous day.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Remove a wizard's spellbook from them before they've prepared their daily spells and they'll be more useless than a naked fighter. Both classes are SOL though.

actually unless they used all their spells from yesterday i'm pretty sure they keep them.

could be wrong though.

I later stipuated "a wizard that used all their spell slots"

Spell mastery + eschew materials means you're probably still pretty damn awesome.

EDIT: You can always prepare read magic and Spell Mastery allows you to choose Int mod x Spells to no longer need your spellbook for, and the feat can be retrained periodically when your Int modifier is raised again.


Bandw2 wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Remove a wizard's spellbook from them before they've prepared their daily spells and they'll be more useless than a naked fighter. Both classes are SOL though.

actually unless they used all their spells from yesterday i'm pretty sure they keep them.

could be wrong though.

also we deviated from the core expectations specifically to show that they were gear dependent.

Regardless, the spell slots and ability to memorize spells is the class feature, not the filled slots. You want to presume an equipmentless fighter, you get to presume a wizard or sorcerer with empty spell slots.


Ashiel wrote:
Spell mastery + eschew materials means you're probably still pretty damn awesome.

So can a naked fighter with the right feats.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Remove a wizard's spellbook from them before they've prepared their daily spells and they'll be more useless than a naked fighter. Both classes are SOL though.

actually unless they used all their spells from yesterday i'm pretty sure they keep them.

could be wrong though.

I was trying to imply they had no spells prepared from the previous day.

...they would still have their school special abilities that they can use 3+INT bonus times per day...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

funny thing is a wizard is technically more likely to have ranks in diplomacy. :P

talk that kobold down.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
RDM42 wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Remove a wizard's spellbook from them before they've prepared their daily spells and they'll be more useless than a naked fighter. Both classes are SOL though.

actually unless they used all their spells from yesterday i'm pretty sure they keep them.

could be wrong though.

also we deviated from the core expectations specifically to show that they were gear dependent.

Regardless, the spell slots and ability to memorize spells is the class feature, not the filled slots. You want to presume an equipmentless fighter, you get to presume a wizard or sorcerer with empty spell slots.

Sorcerers don't have empty spell slots.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Another fun fact is when you have wizards who just prepare more low-level spells and are still effective. Anyone ever have wizards, such as NPCs, who don't have great Intelligence scores? I have. You can't cast spells of X level of higher where X is your Int-10, but you can still fill all those spell slots with more low level spells.


Ashiel wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Remove a wizard's spellbook from them before they've prepared their daily spells and they'll be more useless than a naked fighter. Both classes are SOL though.

actually unless they used all their spells from yesterday i'm pretty sure they keep them.

could be wrong though.

also we deviated from the core expectations specifically to show that they were gear dependent.

Regardless, the spell slots and ability to memorize spells is the class feature, not the filled slots. You want to presume an equipmentless fighter, you get to presume a wizard or sorcerer with empty spell slots.

Sorcerers don't have empty spell slots.

Yes they do. If a sorcerer has cast his number of spells per day, what does he have left?


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
RDM42 wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Remove a wizard's spellbook from them before they've prepared their daily spells and they'll be more useless than a naked fighter. Both classes are SOL though.

actually unless they used all their spells from yesterday i'm pretty sure they keep them.

could be wrong though.

also we deviated from the core expectations specifically to show that they were gear dependent.

Regardless, the spell slots and ability to memorize spells is the class feature, not the filled slots. You want to presume an equipmentless fighter, you get to presume a wizard or sorcerer with empty spell slots.

but they carry over every day and can't be removed...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
RDM42 wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Remove a wizard's spellbook from them before they've prepared their daily spells and they'll be more useless than a naked fighter. Both classes are SOL though.

actually unless they used all their spells from yesterday i'm pretty sure they keep them.

could be wrong though.

also we deviated from the core expectations specifically to show that they were gear dependent.

Regardless, the spell slots and ability to memorize spells is the class feature, not the filled slots. You want to presume an equipmentless fighter, you get to presume a wizard or sorcerer with empty spell slots.

Sorcerers don't have empty spell slots.
Yes they do. If a sorcerer has cast his number of spells per day, what does he have left?

Cantrips, bloodline powers, etc. And the sorcerer can simply rest for a few hours and regain all of his effectiveness.

A warrior cannot rest-off the suck.

Not that gearlessness matters since that's a crazy-different game than the one being discussed. It's also apples and oranges since once class' features are all but useless without gear while another classes' are augmented by gear.


But why do you get to presume he has spells left to cast?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
RDM42 wrote:
But why do you get to presume he has spells left to cast?

Because if he has already cast them then he's already done. The naked warrior hasn't even started yet.


Ashiel wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Remove a wizard's spellbook from them before they've prepared their daily spells and they'll be more useless than a naked fighter. Both classes are SOL though.

actually unless they used all their spells from yesterday i'm pretty sure they keep them.

could be wrong though.

also we deviated from the core expectations specifically to show that they were gear dependent.

Regardless, the spell slots and ability to memorize spells is the class feature, not the filled slots. You want to presume an equipmentless fighter, you get to presume a wizard or sorcerer with empty spell slots.

Sorcerers don't have empty spell slots.
Yes they do. If a sorcerer has cast his number of spells per day, what does he have left?

Cantrips, bloodline powers, etc. And the sorcerer can simply rest for a few hours and regain all of his effectiveness.

A warrior cannot rest-off the suck.

Not that gearlessness matters since that's a crazy-different game than the one being discussed. It's also apples and oranges since once class' features are all but useless without gear while another classes' are augmented by gear.

For a few hours? No ring of sustenance. Rest for eight hours. With the Kobold taking arrow shots at them.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
RDM42 wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Remove a wizard's spellbook from them before they've prepared their daily spells and they'll be more useless than a naked fighter. Both classes are SOL though.

actually unless they used all their spells from yesterday i'm pretty sure they keep them.

could be wrong though.

also we deviated from the core expectations specifically to show that they were gear dependent.

Regardless, the spell slots and ability to memorize spells is the class feature, not the filled slots. You want to presume an equipmentless fighter, you get to presume a wizard or sorcerer with empty spell slots.

Sorcerers don't have empty spell slots.
Yes they do. If a sorcerer has cast his number of spells per day, what does he have left?

Cantrips, bloodline powers, etc. And the sorcerer can simply rest for a few hours and regain all of his effectiveness.

A warrior cannot rest-off the suck.

Not that gearlessness matters since that's a crazy-different game than the one being discussed. It's also apples and oranges since once class' features are all but useless without gear while another classes' are augmented by gear.

For a few hours? No ring of sustenance. Rest for eight hours. With the Kobold taking arrow shots at them.

acid splash... ray of frost...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
RDM42 wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Remove a wizard's spellbook from them before they've prepared their daily spells and they'll be more useless than a naked fighter. Both classes are SOL though.

actually unless they used all their spells from yesterday i'm pretty sure they keep them.

could be wrong though.

also we deviated from the core expectations specifically to show that they were gear dependent.

Regardless, the spell slots and ability to memorize spells is the class feature, not the filled slots. You want to presume an equipmentless fighter, you get to presume a wizard or sorcerer with empty spell slots.

Sorcerers don't have empty spell slots.
Yes they do. If a sorcerer has cast his number of spells per day, what does he have left?

Cantrips, bloodline powers, etc. And the sorcerer can simply rest for a few hours and regain all of his effectiveness.

A warrior cannot rest-off the suck.

Not that gearlessness matters since that's a crazy-different game than the one being discussed. It's also apples and oranges since once class' features are all but useless without gear while another classes' are augmented by gear.

For a few hours? No ring of sustenance. Rest for eight hours. With the Kobold taking arrow shots at them.

Again, cantrips are at-will and do not run out. Several of them will also have usable school powers. Or the wizard can just jump the kobold in melee since there's not much strength difference between your garden variety kobold and a wizard, the kobold has a size penalty, the wizard (probably) has more hit points. Afterwords, the wizard rests and regains the ability to function.


alexd1976 wrote:
...they would still have their school special abilities that they can use 3+INT bonus times per day...

Would they also have their cantrips? I honestly don't know the answer to that. That would be because it's never actually come up. Because the situation is fairly contrived and when you deviate from the expectations of the game it goes screwy.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

@John Lynch 106

1)Agreed that deviating from Pathfinder baseline will cause problems. Limiting fighters even farther than what the rules currently do will definitely exacerbate the issue with disparity

2)Creating contrived situations to illustrate disparity is the PERFECT way to highlight things. the entire game is a contrived situation, what would the alternative be?

3)Showing how 'useless' a naked fighter is was an incomplete example... I was attempting to demonstrate how 'useless' they are COMPARED TO CASTERS, who have class abilities AND get WBL. This is old news.

4)Wizards without spells prepared STILL have options. Their school specializations can do damage.

5)Don't be condescending. I have read this thread pretty closely, and contributed a fair amount.

6)The game can't expect anything. The designers, players and GM can have expectations. The game itself is a set of rules. The rules for the classes clearly show the disparity to exist. in a balanced equation, you can subtract something from both sides and still see a meaningful result. In this thread, WBL was subtracted. Naked Fighters are in no way even vaguely as good as Naked Wizards/Sorcerers/Clerics/Druids etc etc etc...

7)Again with the condescension, and again you are wrong. Wizards still get daily abilities above and beyond their spellcasting. Even stripped of their gear, a 1st level wizard can be easily capable of inflicting damage at a range.

I have been attempting to focus on class and class abilities. You want to derail this for your own reasons and keep bringing up WBL, which is your prerogative.

WBL, as everyone knows, is not a rule.
Never has been.

It's a guideline.

If character A has half the wealth of character B, the GM isn't obligated by the rules to give character A more gold.

So if you compare Fighters to Wizards, you can easily see that there are many situations where Wizards can easily dominate Fighters, but less so of the reverse.

This is the disparity I am attempting to bring attention to. Trying to deflect me from this point isn't going to win some perceived argument you are attempting to fabricate, it is merely going to result in another rant from me trying to bring this thread back on track:

Why do Martials need better things?

Because they have the least.

The Exchange

4 people marked this as a favorite.

@Kudaku,

Mate, thank you very much for linking that chat. It was really good.

I must say, it is very hard to argue from my current stance (no issue in power disparity), when even one of the main designers of the game disagrees.

<sigh> I shall take this opportunity to eat humble pie and leave you to your thread.


Wrath wrote:

@Kudaku,

Mate, thank you very much for linking that chat. It was really good.

I must say, it is very hard to argue from my current stance (no issue in power disparity), when even one of the main designers of the game disagrees.

<sigh> I shall take this opportunity to eat humble pie and leave you to your thread.

What does he disagree with? I don't have the opportunity to watch the link because work reasons.


alexd1976 wrote:
5)Don't be condescending. I have read this thread pretty closely, and contributed a fair amount.

Then you're aware there's people who acknowledge the game acts the way you say it does and yet do not have a problem. Limiting their viewpoint to nothing more than as being "convinced there is no disparity" does them a disservice while declaring it "makes [you] sad for manking" is beyond ridiculous.

alexd1976 wrote:
6)The game can't expect anything. The designers, players and GM can have expectations. The game itself is a set of rules.

Now this is just nitpicking for the sake of nitpicking. "The designers have an expectation as to how people play"

alexd1976 wrote:
in a balanced equation, you can subtract something from both sides and still see a meaningful result. In this thread, WBL was subtracted. Naked Fighters are in no way even vaguely as good as Naked Wizards/Sorcerers/Clerics/Druids etc etc etc...

The game has never functioned like this. The only edition that did function anywhere close to this was D&D 4th edition which Pathfinder deliberately chose not to draw (too many) lessons from.

alexd1976 wrote:
I have been attempting to focus on class and class abilities.

The people who you claim "do not see there is disaprity" have acknowledged the game acts the way you claim it does. Where they disagree is the claim there is a problem.

alexd1976 wrote:
You want to derail this for your own reasons

Please explain for everyone else your insights into my motives.

alexd1976 wrote:
and keep bringing up WBL, which is your prerogative.

Limiting the conversation to your highly specific example is not an environment where I feel that a meaningful conversation can occur.

alexd1976 wrote:

WBL, as everyone knows, is not a rule.

Never has been.

Nor were the random magic tables. And yet the game (sorry. The designers who created the game) stated that failing to hand out treasure at a rate and percentage akin to those tables would result in problems between balancing martials and casters.

alexd1976 wrote:
This is the disparity I am attempting to bring...

As I've said a few times now, you're not demonstrating anything to anyone in this thread. Everyone is aware the game will behave in the way you're describing under the conditions you're describing.

alexd1976 wrote:

Why do Martials need better things?

Because they have the least.

I think this is an imperfect answer.

I think the better answer to "Why do Martials need better things?" is "because it makes the game more enjoyable for me." After all, people who wouldn't have their enjoyment increased by martials getting better things would disagree with your answer. This isn't them refusing to acknowledge that there is a disaprity. This is them rejecting the idea that the disparity needs to be resolved.

Thankfully optional rules is something RPGs have always been great at offering us optional rules to customise the game to suit our own personal tastes. Unfortunately Paizo haven't done a great job at offering optional rules to address the martial/caster disparity (Pathfinder Unchained may go a long way to bridge the gap FOR ME, but I understand many people here are unsatisfied with the way Pathfinder Unchained addresses the caster/martial disparity). Fortunately 3PPs have been producing plenty of content to address the disparity (not all of it is to my own personal taste, but it might be well suited for people here.)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
alexd1976 wrote:
Wrath wrote:

@Kudaku,

Mate, thank you very much for linking that chat. It was really good.

I must say, it is very hard to argue from my current stance (no issue in power disparity), when even one of the main designers of the game disagrees.

<sigh> I shall take this opportunity to eat humble pie and leave you to your thread.

What does he disagree with? I don't have the opportunity to watch the link because work reasons.

tl;dr - "Duh, casters are way more powerful than non-casters. And we knew it, and it didn't even take long to figure out." (paraphrased)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
alexd1976 wrote:
Wrath wrote:

@Kudaku,

Mate, thank you very much for linking that chat. It was really good.

I must say, it is very hard to argue from my current stance (no issue in power disparity), when even one of the main designers of the game disagrees.

<sigh> I shall take this opportunity to eat humble pie and leave you to your thread.

What does he disagree with? I don't have the opportunity to watch the link because work reasons.

He states that the balance was done assuming that the wizard is strong as long as he has spells and weak after that while the fighter is always at half strength. But that actually no one keeps on adventuring while the wizard is weak so in the end you have always strong wizards and always mediocre fighters. ( recounted in my words)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wrath wrote:

@Kudaku,

Mate, thank you very much for linking that chat. It was really good.

I must say, it is very hard to argue from my current stance (no issue in power disparity), when even one of the main designers of the game disagrees.

<sigh> I shall take this opportunity to eat humble pie and leave you to your thread.

I find it illuminating that he's waited until after leaving Paizo before expressing these ideas (haven't listened to these videos in detail, just going off initial impressions). Especially given his ardent stance on Pathfinder's rules being fine as they were written while employed by Paizo (see his claims regarding water balloons and crossbows). I wonder how long he's had these opinions.


Being the cynical bastard I am I also can't help but think: I wonder what game(s) he'll be working on (or is trying to work on) since leaving Paizo and whether or not they will/do address these concerns he's all of a sudden decided to voice publicly.

But that's me being quite cynical.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Thanks for the summary of the link guys.

Nice paraphrased quote.

As for you John Lynch 106, I'm not that interested in replying to what you wrote, I will apologize if I said something offensive, I do get rather emotionally charged on here sometimes.

I'm gonna try to contribute something useful here:

Lots of threads exist about this, attempts have been made to talk about disparity, people have made houserules...

this thread is entitled "Why do Martials need better things"

They need better things because they are too focused. They can be good (or even very good) in combat, but lack flexibility.

At the very least, more skill points would be a start.

They need better things because virtually every class overshadows them.

They need better things because a new player should be able to pick ANY class with the expectation that the game is balanced enough to allow for that.

They need better things because they don't have enough nice things. They have OPTIONS, but not POWER. A well built Fighter can be OK at knocking people over. I've seen numbers showing their chances DECLINE against level appropriate opponents as they level.

They need better things because there seems to be a culture of people who are actively working against letting them even have the nice things they are entitled to.

It's okay if they go "Wuxia" or whatever term you want to use... It's okay if they suddenly gain ridiculous abilities like the ability to jump for miles... The baseline that any class should compare to is Wizard or Sorcerer.

Don't try to nerf casters, the game is supposed to be fun. Let Martials enjoy it too and stop worrying about whether or not their abilities are 'realistic'.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:

Being the cynical bastard I am I also can't help but think: I wonder what game(s) he'll be working on (or is trying to work on) since leaving Paizo and whether or not they will/do address these concerns he's all of a sudden decided to voice publicly.

But that's me being quite cynical.

Five Moons is the name of the RPG he's developing as part of a Kickstarter-funded project.

Grand Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Just a Guess wrote:
He states that the balance was done assuming that the wizard is strong as long as he has spells and weak after that while the fighter is always at half strength. But that actually no one keeps on adventuring while the wizard is weak so in the end you have always strong wizards and always mediocre fighters. ( recounted in my words)

I wish I could have bought him a drink at PaizoCon.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
alexd1976 wrote:

Thanks for the summary of the link guys.

Nice paraphrased quote.

As for you John Lynch 106, I'm not that interested in replying to what you wrote, I will apologize if I said something offensive, I do get rather emotionally charged on here sometimes.

I'm gonna try to contribute something useful here:

Lots of threads exist about this, attempts have been made to talk about disparity, people have made houserules...

this thread is entitled "Why do Martials need better things"

They need better things because they are too focused. They can be good (or even very good) in combat, but lack flexibility.

At the very least, more skill points would be a start.

They need better things because virtually every class overshadows them.

They need better things because a new player should be able to pick ANY class with the expectation that the game is balanced enough to allow for that.

They need better things because they don't have enough nice things. They have OPTIONS, but not POWER. A well built Fighter can be OK at knocking people over. I've seen numbers showing their chances DECLINE against level appropriate opponents as they level.

They need better things because there seems to be a culture of people who are actively working against letting them even have the nice things they are entitled to.

It's okay if they go "Wuxia" or whatever term you want to use... It's okay if they suddenly gain ridiculous abilities like the ability to jump for miles... The baseline that any class should compare to is Wizard or Sorcerer.

Don't try to nerf casters, the game is supposed to be fun. Let Martials enjoy it too and stop worrying about whether or not their abilities are 'realistic'.

Nicely put. And again to those who insist on "no-disparity-no-need", why does it hurt you guys to have a VARIANT like Unchained 2 or Ultimate Combat 2 that deals with these issues.


alexd1976 wrote:
It's okay if they go "Wuxia" or whatever term you want to use... It's okay if they suddenly gain ridiculous abilities like the ability to jump for miles...

At your table. For you to enjoy the game. People have stated they enjoy Pathfinder because it DOES NOT have these things. For them it is very much NOT okay for martials to have these "better things" because it makes the game less enjoyable FOR THEM.

I have not seen any high level character struggle against level appropriate challenges so I can only assume your GM is a far superior GM to the ones I've played with or the people you play with struggle to build good martials. If I were to put myself in a box I would have to be in the "not as good a GM as your GMs" as high level martials never struggle at my table against level appropriate challenges. So for me the baseline being the wizard or sorcerer is not appropriate. Instead I'd rather the baseline be slightly below a fighter. But that's for my table.

But in the effort to be more constructive....

You should seriously look at Pathfinder Unchained. It has a lot (although not everything) that you're asking for.

I'm writing up a Players Guide Unchained for the next campaign I run which includes a lot of my houserules. Besides the ones I mentioned above in my previous post in the spoiler tag I'm using....

Background Skills: +2 extra skill points for everyone has a much more significant impact on the Fighter (and cleric) than it does on any other class.

Unchained Rogues are the rogues that will get used. They get some much needed combat buffs, but also Skill Unlocks which gives them the ability to use skills in extra ways. While anyone can get a Skill Unlock for free, rogues get them for free and get many more of them.

Unchained Monks are the monk we always needed. I was pretty happy with how far I'd optimised my current monk (Core Rulebook + APG + Ultimate Magic + Ultimate Combat). But I created a level 1 monk and compared it to the level 1 version of my other monk and it was much better. It spent a lot less time playing "keep up" which lets the build focus on doing other things as well.

Doesn't cover everything. But it's a work in progress :)

alexd1976 wrote:
Let Martials enjoy it too and stop worrying about whether or not their abilities are 'realistic'.

I would very much recommend Path of War for you then. I haven't read it in detail (it's not to my personal taste) but it seems like it would be right up your alley.

501 to 550 of 1,265 << first < prev | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Why do Martials need better things? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.