Martial / Caster disparity- In Real table top gaming

[DrDeth]

ElyasRavenwood's interesting thread go me thinking. Many people here talk about the Martial/Caster disparity as if it is a obvious thing, and ask 'why can't martial have nice things?"

But I have played in three PF campaigns now, going to 7th, 11th and 15th level. No sign of the Martial/Caster disparity- except at the very lowest levels where martials win out. Hmm. Also playing in a number of PFS games. Not there either (but all rather low level, 7th is highest).

True, I did play in a 3.5 campaign where once we hit the point where the two casters could toss around 9th level spells (Shapechange!) my martial did feel rather useless. So, I saw it myself, but at a very high level.

Reading what the devs say, they also say that in their games there is little or no Martial/Caster disparity.

Hmm.

But clearly some others have experienced it, commonly.

So, I'd like to know that at your actual IRL gaming table, in a real Pathfinder campaign- did you actually experience Martial/Caster disparity, and if so (or if NOT) why? Not theorycrafting, please. Nothing wrong with theorycrafting but let us stick to actual played games for this, please.

Now, we didn't experience it, and once reason might be is that we always had at least one PC that was a Buffer. At a certain level, Bardsong and/or Haste was a given. Both boost martials more. Could that be the reason? Teamwork?

We did have two dedicated optimizers, but one ALWAYS played spellcasters, the other ALWAYS martials (for this I am counting a Magus as a martial, but yes, they can cast spells, but other big killer PC was a straight fighter).

So, if you have or have not experienced Martial/Caster disparity at your table, let us hear why (or why not).

Real Life. Not Theory. Please.

[Tormsskull]

I haven't noticed it in actual play, only heard about it on forums.

[PIXIE DUST]

My friends Beastbond witch pretty much conpletely over ride another rogue in the party...and she wasnt trying to be a.rgue... its just that bats make good scouts.... and beast bonded...

[kyrt-ryder]

First, you are right that teamwork can definitely bridge the gap to an extent. One must ask the question though, if Bardsong and Haste is boosting the Fighter, wouldn't it be that much greater boosting the Druid and his Animal Companion?

As for the disparity itself, I'd like to make one initial statement before I go into stories about when the disparity fully rears its head.

Well played casters perform on par with martials from level one.

The claim that casters 'flounder at low levels and flourish at high ones' has repeatedly proven itself untrue in every game I've ever participated in, from 3.5 through Pathfinder. It likely is true of casters who like to blast, but without serious optimization blasting isn't a caster's ideal option.

In the games I see and run, casters repeatedly prove themselves the equal to the martials at levels 1 and 2, and open a gap as levels go up from there.

Note: this is most true in games where the caster has at least an 18 in his casting stat, which is totally doable in any point buy people actually use and trivially easy in the higher point buys that MAD martials need most.

[137ben]

DrDeth wrote:

Real Life. Not Theory. Please.

Real life? Okay. You're sitting around a table, or in front of a computer, theorizing about imaginary characters doing impossible things in a make-believe fantasy world.

Seriously, at least make an effort not to contradict yourself in both the thread's topic and in the final, bold line of the OP. 'Actual play'. 'Real tabletop Game'. 'Real Pathfinder'. I can't even imagine the mental gymnastics you have to jump through to use such an oxymoron without even a hint of intentional irony.
Apparently such phrases are to be distinguished from "fake" Pathfinder, with the implication being that you consider your game of "real" pathfinder to be superior to others' games of "fake" Pathfinder.

Calling someone else' fantasy game 'fake' or 'theoretical' does not in any way make YOUR fantasy game 'real'. It just makes you a hypocrite.

EDIT: The point is, you aren't going to find an answer to the question you posed, since the scenario you are asking for is inherently contradictory.

[Petty Alchemy]

In my opinion, the damage a martial does with his Hasted attack belongs to the caster.

Below are a few of my experiences:
A reach barbarian got outmartialed session after session by a Feral Mutagen Alchemist with a dip in barbarian (this was at low levels, I think lvl3), thanks to his ability to Enlarge Person himself and three attacks to the Barbarian's one.

A fighter is unable to effectively combat Aboleths that are underwater, the casters can.
A similar situation occurred in a bog, at which point the range at which the casters were effective was far greater than his ability to close the distance against the monster through the difficult (and sometimes impassable) terrain. He had to move at half speed and swim, the casters could just fly. He plinked away with a few arrows, doing low damage since he was a swordsman, not an archer. The fight was over before he could've closed to melee had he attempted to.

A character got Mummy Rot. The Fighter and Ranger begin to plan how to rush him to the nearest town for treatment, since their ranks in Heal cannot undo curses. "No worries" says the Cleric, "I'll just prepare Remove Curse tomorrow".
---
Generally when I play lvl 12+, our group does gestalt games so everyone is a caster.

[kyrt-ryder]

Ben, lets be fair. When he explicitly said real, he wasn't calling games played a certain way false.

He's trying to emphasize he wants stories from games that really happened, rather than armchair theories.

There's nothing wrong with requesting tales from the trenches instead of a recap of the strategy meeting.

EDIT: on that note, Doc, I will be including stories from Online Tabletop Chat campaigns as I have more of that than I do live tabletop. It's fundamentally the same [moreso than PbP I'd say.]

[Seranov]

Running the first combat of Rise of the Runelords for my buddies. One Fighter, one Rogue, one Cleric, one Sorcerer and one Witch.

Fighter, Rogue and Cleric spend EIGHT rounds whiffing madly at the goblins' AC. Sorcerer knocks at least 3 goblins unconscious with Color Spray and then murders them with Ray of Frost while they're out. Witch spams Evil Eye on the Goblins to make them pretty much incapable of not being wrecked by Color Spray and to try and help the beatsticks do their job. The Witch's familiar also goes around Coup de Gracing all the unconscious enemies. The Cleric doesn't use any of his spells or channeling because nobody took meaningful damage, and he didn't want to risk healing the goblins back up to full health. The fight was the inspiration for this edit of one of Oglaf's comics. Adrana and Koru (SFW). Note the dwarf fighter missing wildly in the background.

This is a real thing that happened. The spellcasters solved the fight, while the people who couldn't cast spells were effectively useless. This was their first exposure to PF, and of that group, only one person still plays PF because their introduction to it was so painful.

Martial/Caster Disparity isn't a thing? Yeah, nah.

[Create Mr. Pitt]

Just to be clear this is cobbled from the experience of having played and seeing other people play casters of multiple levels just to satisfy your weird please give me your terrible anecdotal small sample size evidence caveat; even though I expect I am philosophically on your side.

It depends on how casters are used. In the hands of some players, a level 3 caster can be dominant, and a level 7 plus caster can be the entire party if the player isn't careful to do his best to be facilitator, protector, and enabler of the party.

I have level 11 wizard who will summon multiple creatures before combat even starts, haste the party, and lockdown one of the bigger enemies all within the buffing phase/first round; but will only do it if such tactics are necessary for combat and will help protect the party without wasting everybody's time.

Is this a disparity; sure, from one perspective. From another perspective everybody just got flanking buddies, hasted, and a dangerous enemy is in a hungry pit or icy prison.

I have also seen less than efficient people play casters, where in martials or partial casters, such as bards, are far more impactful at each level.

So it depends on the player and their commitment to allowing everyone to play a real part in combat. It depends on the GM and their ability to balance encounters. But, yes, in the hands of the wrong person and the wrong combat there can be a martial-caster disparity in that the power is there to wreck encounters. But it only really exists if the player is an ass and the GM doesn't think through combat design.

[Anzyr]

Repost but a good point maker because it is an instance where the martial player was completely unaware despite the disparity being very present and the reasons why this disparity occurred:

Time for a high level campaign story (this isn't the Monk one although that is relevant). This involves a high level Samurai. Sure when he could get a full attack in he usually splattered an enemy. The problem was that enemies rarely gave him this opportunity (because I play my enemies with their given INT. In particular a Huge Half-Fiend Elder Fire Elemental (The Hellpyre) was able to grapple him easily to give him a lavabath that tore chunks off his hitpoints (the Cleric was able to use Heal to prevent death). The other characters were not in melee range and thus did not have to contend with AoOs and while I use Half-Fiend elementals thanks to their high SR (for their CR), they could rely on conjurations to reduce the HellPyre's effectiveness without ever putting themselves at much risk.

Unlike the Monk from my other example, the Samurai never realized that his contribution was solely his ability to splatter an enemy and that only really kicked in when he could get in a full attack which was very rare. Meanwhile, the Cleric, Wizard and Ranger (Archer based) had no such problems. The Archer didn't deal as much damage as the Samurai did when full attacking, but he did it more frequently and the damage output was still high, while the casters mostly focused on SoS/Buffs. I should note his CHA was low and he didn't do much outside of combat, though the player did not seem very interested in that. The Cleric meanwhile helped to promote a minor goddess and the Wizard started his own sellsword organization. The Ranger was mostly gathering information about the West (where he was originally from) as it has been being significantly restructured after a demonic incursion 20 years prior to the campaign, with Hextor (I use 3.5 Gods) gaining a significant foothold there.

Let me see if I can dig up the monk story even though it's 3.5 the same points apply for the most part.

Sort of it:

I've seen it happen myself with a Monk in a party of Wizard/Sorcerer/Druid. Mind you it took him until level 13, but eventually he did realize how overshadowed he was by the other party members. I mean yes good teamwork can help to disguise the issue as it did in my case until level 13. But eventually the Monk player realized "Wow, I can only contribute at all to this fight because of the casters buffs and even then their contributing significantly more to the fight with two spells every round that make the enemies even weaker, while also supplying even more allies to hit them with (mostly the Druid in this case).

Now in fairness him watching the Casters sling around 7th Level Spells was a contributing factor. Also while his AC was the best amongst the party at the start of the campaign and he was often difficult for enemies to hit by this point most enemies were capable of hitting him with reasonable reliability (Dex/Wis focused). On the flip side, even with permanent +4 Magic Fang (thanks to the casters), he was having trouble hitting the enemies reliably and since he was using Magic Fang, Greater for +hit/dmg, DR made those attacks that did land underwhelming. Also while he would often serve as the party's walking "trap detector" relying on his high saves to keep him safe, when high level spells/abilities got tossed around the 1's he rolled subjected him to much nastier effects then they had at lower levels. Intelligent high leveled enemies would frequently ignore him after his attacks missed/did low damage. The only thing he really had over the other players at this point was that his saves were higher than theirs, which didn't give him much to enjoy.

Still the end of the campaign was happy(?) for him as with help from the party Sorcerer, they succeeded in betraying the party and retrieving a divine artifact for their new employer, despite the BBEG and the rest of the party (temporarily) joining forces to prevent their escape.

[7thGate]

Well, speaking from related experience I had it happen once, in a 3.0 game. We had an all martial party, and were playing out a campaign against an army of orcs and giants at around 13th level. The barbarian died and was replaced by a druid, and the game was basically done, as he could shapeshift into forms the enemies couldn't find and wreak mass destruction with aoe spells. The game disbanded shortly thereafter.

I think that was partially due to facing a challenge that could be solved easily by magic but was challenging to do by martials, coupled with the caster being dropped into the game. The challenge needed to be something different if there was a caster in the group, something that could adequately challenge everyone.

As for pathfinder specifically, I just reached level 6 in my first pathfinder game as a core fighter, which isn't high enough to run into this problem yet. If anything, the fighter feels overly strong at this point, although being relatively weak at outside of combat scenarios gives other people a chance to shine too.

[kyrt-ryder]

7thGate wrote:

As for pathfinder specifically, I just reached level 6 in my first pathfinder game as a core fighter, which isn't high enough to run into this problem yet. If anything, the fighter feels overly strong at this point, although being relatively weak at outside of combat scenarios gives other people a chance to shine too.

Consider yourself fortunate my friend. Depending on how they're played casters CAN start sidelining the martials around this level, though it usually doesn't show up until level 9ish.

[Kobold Catgirl]

Congratulations, DrDeth! Your thread, having just exceeded 10 posts, has qualified for inclusion on the highly prestigious Caster-Martial Disparity Index, officialized by the power of kobold friendship!

Your thread has been added to the document.

[Create Mr. Pitt]

kyrt-ryder wrote:

7thGate wrote:

As for pathfinder specifically, I just reached level 6 in my first pathfinder game as a core fighter, which isn't high enough to run into this problem yet. If anything, the fighter feels overly strong at this point, although being relatively weak at outside of combat scenarios gives other people a chance to shine too.

Consider yourself fortunate my friend. Depending on how they're played casters CAN start sidelining the martials around this level, though it usually doesn't show up until level 9ish.

Can and does are different things. Martials aren't fighting a whole lot of flying creatures at 9 without a wizard; casters don't necessarily sideline martials, often they actualize and facilitate them.

[Anzyr]

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Congratulations, DrDeth! Your thread, having just exceeded 10 posts, has qualified for inclusion on the highly prestigious Caster-Martial Disparity Index, officialized by the power of kobold friendship!

Your thread has been added to the document.

Note to self: Make Caster-Martial Disparity Thread. Why? No reason. Certainly not to make more work for Kobold Cleaver. Definitely not.

Create Mr. Pitt wrote:

kyrt-ryder wrote:

7thGate wrote:

As for pathfinder specifically, I just reached level 6 in my first pathfinder game as a core fighter, which isn't high enough to run into this problem yet. If anything, the fighter feels overly strong at this point, although being relatively weak at outside of combat scenarios gives other people a chance to shine too.

Consider yourself fortunate my friend. Depending on how they're played casters CAN start sidelining the martials around this level, though it usually doesn't show up until level 9ish.

Can and does are different things. Martials aren't fighting a whole lot of flying creatures at 9 without a wizard; casters don't necessarily sideline martials, often they actualize and facilitate them.

Ya, my Monk story is about this exact thing being realized by our party Monk.

[kyrt-ryder]

Create Mr. Pitt wrote:

kyrt-ryder wrote:

7thGate wrote:

As for pathfinder specifically, I just reached level 6 in my first pathfinder game as a core fighter, which isn't high enough to run into this problem yet. If anything, the fighter feels overly strong at this point, although being relatively weak at outside of combat scenarios gives other people a chance to shine too.

Consider yourself fortunate my friend. Depending on how they're played casters CAN start sidelining the martials around this level, though it usually doesn't show up until level 9ish.

Can and does are different things. Martials aren't fighting a whole lot of flying creatures at 9 without a wizard; casters don't necessarily sideline martials, often they actualize and facilitate them.

Here is a question for you Mr. Pitt.

If the martial needs the caster to actualize them, then what exactly is the martial himself bringing to the table? Is it really worth the opportunity cost of the caster for the spell slot and combat actions to do so?

Compare having another caster in the party who provided his own resources.

Now consider what happens when the casters do not actualize the martial [sometimes tactically a good decision, sometimes a poor one. The martial is a tool the caster can amplify up as needed, but he certainly doesn't fit into every combat.] How does the martial feel when he's not significantly contributing, like in the example story above of a combat in a swamp.

[Cavall]

I don't usually see a lot of complaints. My players don't hate on each other to feel cool. Magic is lazy, a quick solution that also requires quick resting after words and a lot of people working to keep the bad guys away from the caster to let them do it.

No issues. Give and take.

[Kobold Catgirl]

Congratulations, Anzyr! You've been added to my highly prestigious Enemies List!

[Kobold Catgirl]

Anyways, on-topic: My games don't make it to high-level often, and the caster really needs some decent system mastery to get as nuts as people fear (haste might be a no-brainer when you know the game well, but plenty of yokels still take tiny hut). That's not to say the disparity isn't there—I just don't play as often as I'd like.

That said, warpriests are pretty nuts. Fervor alone has made my campaign's Sacred Fist nearly unkillable.

[Create Mr. Pitt]

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Create Mr. Pitt wrote:

kyrt-ryder wrote:

7thGate wrote:

As for pathfinder specifically, I just reached level 6 in my first pathfinder game as a core fighter, which isn't high enough to run into this problem yet. If anything, the fighter feels overly strong at this point, although being relatively weak at outside of combat scenarios gives other people a chance to shine too.

Consider yourself fortunate my friend. Depending on how they're played casters CAN start sidelining the martials around this level, though it usually doesn't show up until level 9ish.

Can and does are different things. Martials aren't fighting a whole lot of flying creatures at 9 without a wizard; casters don't necessarily sideline martials, often they actualize and facilitate them.

Here is a question for you Mr. Pitt.

If the martial needs the caster to actualize them, then what exactly is the martial himself bringing to the table? Is it really worth the opportunity cost of the caster for the spell slot and combat actions to do so?

Compare having another caster in the party who provided his own resources.

Now consider what happens when the casters do not actualize the martial [sometimes tactically a good decision, sometimes a poor one. The martial is a tool the caster can amplify up as needed, but he certainly doesn't fit into every combat.] How does the martial feel when he's not significantly contributing, like in the example story above of a combat in a swamp.

Often it's very necessary. High level enemies often have strong SR and resistances to energy damage. Sure there's summoning and conjuration; but it is often effective to get the martials mobile as they do a significant amount more damage than anything a caster can do. Also, even if this weren't true, it's a team game so it is worth it as well. I think parties of any iteration can be successful. If you're an arcane caster helping prebuff your party for the environment is often part of your job. Real great strategists can play a caster without regard for martials; but it works a lot better with them.

[kyrt-ryder]

Create Mr. Pitt wrote:

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Create Mr. Pitt wrote:

kyrt-ryder wrote:

7thGate wrote:

As for pathfinder specifically, I just reached level 6 in my first pathfinder game as a core fighter, which isn't high enough to run into this problem yet. If anything, the fighter feels overly strong at this point, although being relatively weak at outside of combat scenarios gives other people a chance to shine too.

Consider yourself fortunate my friend. Depending on how they're played casters CAN start sidelining the martials around this level, though it usually doesn't show up until level 9ish.

Can and does are different things. Martials aren't fighting a whole lot of flying creatures at 9 without a wizard; casters don't necessarily sideline martials, often they actualize and facilitate them.

Here is a question for you Mr. Pitt.

If the martial needs the caster to actualize them, then what exactly is the martial himself bringing to the table? Is it really worth the opportunity cost of the caster for the spell slot and combat actions to do so?

Compare having another caster in the party who provided his own resources.

Now consider what happens when the casters do not actualize the martial [sometimes tactically a good decision, sometimes a poor one. The martial is a tool the caster can amplify up as needed, but he certainly doesn't fit into every combat.] How does the martial feel when he's not significantly contributing, like in the example story above of a combat in a swamp.

Often it's very necessary. High level enemies often have strong SR and resistances to energy damage. Sure there's summoning and conjuration; but it is often effective to get the martials mobile as they do a significant amount more damage than anything a caster can do.

There's also Animal Companions and Combatant Casters [both Full Caster Combatants such as Clerics, Oracles, Druids and Arcane casters specced out for combat, as well as Partial Caster Combatants, which contains all of them except the Summoner and even he gets in on the fun with the right Archetype.

Quote:

Also, even if this weren't true, it's a team game so it is worth it as well. I think parties of any iteration can be successful. If you're an arcane caster helping prebuff your party for the environment is often part of your job. Real great strategists can play a caster without regard for martials; but it works a lot better with them.

The point I'm making isn't that a caster can't make a martial function in a party, it's that the martial needs the caster to function, where another caster could do just as well without burdening his caster companion.

Heck, take a look at Bardsong. If you've got a Bard pumping out the Inspiration gyration, who do you want? One Fighter, or your choice of One Druid and one Animal Companion [and One Summon if needed], or One Summoner and One Eidolon [and One Summon if needed]?

Hell, who would you rather have? One Fighter who consumes an equal share of the loot, or the number of Warrior hirelings the Fighter's share could pay for?

[Create Mr. Pitt]

One fighter, if that's what someone else at the table wants to play. Also if I am facing something with a ton of SR and DR and immunities the wizard needs the fighter almost as much as the fighter needs the wizard.

There's never good to be a perfect power parity between classes; but a fully-leveled martial is sometimes the only thing that can actually take down an enemy, even if you hire warriors or summon a ton of creatures.

When I GM I try to create encounters which necessitate cooperation amongst the party. I am under no impression that I am going to convince people who've already made up their mind on the issue, but with a good group and good GM there's a starring role for everyone in and out of combat (though I do admittedly make sure that low skill point classes are bumped up a bit in my home games).

[kyrt-ryder]

There we go Mr. Pitt, through GM juggling of the session you provide everyone with an opportunity to shine.

I don't believe in juggling as a GM, I have my hands full roleplaying the world. Your opponents and the circumstances you find them in are your problem, not mine.

EDIT: I am curious about these enemies that can 'only be taken down by a high level martial' of which you speak though. Could you please provide a few for me?

Thanks.

[Nicos]

Create Mr. Pitt wrote:

One fighter, if that's what someone else at the table wants to play. Also if I am facing something with a ton of SR and DR and immunities the wizard needs the fighter ...

Or a pouncing druid.

[Beating A Dead Horse]

This is truly the gift that keeps on giving

[TarkXT]

Nicos wrote:

Create Mr. Pitt wrote:

One fighter, if that's what someone else at the table wants to play. Also if I am facing something with a ton of SR and DR and immunities the wizard needs the fighter ...

Or a pouncing druid.

Or a summoner.

Or a magus.

I have stories but I've not the time to type them atm. It's been a mixed bag but ultimately it came down to the skill of the player's involved.

[Create Mr. Pitt]

kyrt-ryder wrote:

There we go Mr. Pitt, through GM juggling of the session you provide everyone with an opportunity to shine.

I don't believe in juggling as a GM, I have my hands full roleplaying the world. Your opponents and the circumstances you find them in are your problem, not mine.

EDIT: I am curious about these enemies that can 'only be taken down by a high level martial' of which you speak though. Could you please provide a few for me?

Thanks.

Actually I think you completely misunderstand world-building. In a world with a mixture of different talents and abilities, any smart organizations or array of enemies will protect against different things; particularly casters. PF is both a game and a story. I like to provide a great version of both for my players. Being completely blind to that is the kind of thing that manufactures this very disparity.

The are a number of demons and other outsiders with high spell resistance and decent damage resistance that are more easily defeated with the right kind of martials. Maybe I'll go through the bestiary later and pull out a few, but everything is contextual so I am not sure how useful this exercise is as I feel as if you a completely inconvincible.

[kyrt-ryder]

Nicos wrote:

Create Mr. Pitt wrote:

One fighter, if that's what someone else at the table wants to play. Also if I am facing something with a ton of SR and DR and immunities the wizard needs the fighter ...

Or a pouncing druid.

Or a pouncing druid's pet tiger that's equipped with comparable equipment to a two-weapon-fighter for less overall cost.

Even less with Greater Magic Fang.

[Lemmy]

Well... It haven't happened to me, specifically in Pathfinder, because I know about the poor balance and can work around it. Also, I almost exclusively GM these days... But, hey, here are a few things that happened in games I played...

- - -

This happened when the APG had just come out. Archetypes existed, but weren't used very often by my group.

Two new players decided to play in the same game... One of them chose a Fighter, because he wanted to be a badass normal. I didn't feel like shattering his dream in his first campaign, so didn't say anything about the class, only made a few suggestions about feats to take (luckily, he wanted to be a 2-handed warrior, so he at least fit into one of the few combat styles that are allowed to be effective). Another new player wanted to play a Druid, because he wanted to turn into animals.

All went exactly as expected... Druid reads a bit. Finds cool Wildshape form ("Tigers are awesome"). Finds Barkskin. Gets great AC. Finds Pounce at 6th level, gets great mobility. Can do all sorts of cool stuff and occasionally turn into a sparrow that shoots lightning.

Fighter is basically limited to standing still and full attacking. A couple sessions go by and the player gets bored. He complains his character can't do anything cool and sucked at all non-combat scenes. He had with Intimidate, Perception, Kn(Dungeons) and Acrobatics maxed out, but there was literally nothing he could do that no one could do much better. It got to the point where the player would literally leave the table whenever we weren't in combat... And even when we were, he'd barely pay attention, often just repeating "I full attack" and rolling his dice.

He decided to try a couple maneuvers, but once he saw the feat/attributes prerequisites and noticed it'd take him at least 3 levels to be good at it, he gave up.

- - -

This was a bit later... UM and UC were already out, IIRC.

Player 1 decides to pick the Rogue. It's his favorite class and it got a bunch of new stuff in Pathfinder, so he figures Rogues are awesome in Pathfinder! Another player, new to RPGs, makes a Bard, because he wanted to be a healer/support type. A 3rd player makes that Int-based Sorcerer, because he likes Wizards but hates prepared spell-casting.

The Rogue lasted 2 session before he gave up on his character. Once again because there was nothing he could do that another player couldn't do much, much better. His Sneak Attack damage didn't come up nearly as often as he hoped, as most smart not completely stupid enemies would do their best to avoid being flanked.

And Darkness... By gods, did that Rogue hate Darkness...

- - -

Note that in both cases the guys playing the martial class had the most optimized characters, and the guys playing the caster class at no point tried to intentionally overshadow the other player, they simply took options that looked good... Most of them were pretty obvious (e.g.: Barkskin + Magic fang + Wildshape).

- - -

So yeah, it does happen "IRL games". And anyone who says otherwise is just being a condescending jerk. ("I don't see the problem, so you're obviously making it up").

[Anzyr]

Create Mr. Pitt wrote:

One fighter, if that's what someone else at the table wants to play. Also if I am facing something with a ton of SR and DR and immunities the wizard needs the fighter almost as much as the fighter needs the wizard.

There's never good to be a perfect power parity between classes; but a fully-leveled martial is sometimes the only thing that can actually take down an enemy, even if you hire warriors or summon a ton of creatures.

When I GM I try to create encounters which necessitate cooperation amongst the party. I am under no impression that I am going to convince people who've already made up their mind on the issue, but with a good group and good GM there's a starring role for everyone in and out of combat (though I do admittedly make sure that low skill point classes are bumped up a bit in my home games).

SR/DR/and Immunities don't require a Fighter once casters have an average amount of system mastery. Conjuration being the strongest school is something most Wizards figure out quickly. And while I'm not arguing for perfect parity I am arguing for *better* parity. Never let perfect be the enemy of good and all.

A Fully Leveled martial is *never* the only thing that can actually take down an enemy outside of some mighty convoluted exceptions. If there were genuinely enemies that a fully leveled Fighter was significantly more effective on then say a Druid, this might be a different story. But that is not the story of Pathfinder.

When I GM I also try to create encounters which necessitate cooperation. This is where Fighter becomes the biggest problem though. The only thing they excel at is the one thing everyone else can do namely fight enemies. It would a require again an extremely convoluted scenario to create a situation where a Fighter PC will be able to even definitely have their "starring scene". Fight in an Antimagic Field itself isn't even good enough, you'd need something more convoluted then that.

Which is as always the main issue myself and others have with Martials.

[TarkXT]

Create Mr. Pitt wrote:

The are a number of demons and other outsiders with high spell resistance and decent damage resistance that are more easily defeated with the right kind of martials. Maybe I'll go through the bestiary later and pull out a few, but everything is contextual so I am not sure how useful this exercise is as I feel as if you a completely inconvincible.

This doesn't really speak for the necessity of martials as the lack of skill on the casters part.

In any case I'd like his to remain on topic as I'm a firm believer that real game examples far outweigh theorycraft and as a game designer tells me more about player actions and incentives than detailed out of game analysis.

[voideternal]

In book 6 of Kingmaker, my Core-Rulebook Fighter got hit by Disjunction -> Maze. He (along with Briar) came out of the Maze 10 minutes later. Does that count?

[kyrt-ryder]

Create Mr. Pitt wrote:

kyrt-ryder wrote:

There we go Mr. Pitt, through GM juggling of the session you provide everyone with an opportunity to shine.

I don't believe in juggling as a GM, I have my hands full roleplaying the world. Your opponents and the circumstances you find them in are your problem, not mine.

EDIT: I am curious about these enemies that can 'only be taken down by a high level martial' of which you speak though. Could you please provide a few for me?

Thanks.

Actually I think you completely misunderstand world-building. In a world with a mixture of different talents and abilities, any smart organizations or array of enemies will protect against different things; particularly casters. PF is both a game and a story. I like to provide a great version of both for my players. Being completely blind to that is the kind of thing that manufactures this very disparity.

Could you elaborate on these protections you mention? I don't appreciate being told I misunderstand world-building but if there's something I'm genuinely missing then it's something I need to hear.

Quote:

The are a number of demons and other outsiders with high spell resistance and decent damage resistance that are more easily defeated with the right kind of martials. Maybe I'll go through the bestiary later and pull out a few, but everything is contextual so I am not sure how useful this exercise is as I feel as if you a completely inconvincible.

I've never once seen a group of casters struggle against outsiders. Ever. Could you elaborate on how these demons and other outsiders invalidate a group of casters and necessitate a full-bab martial class?

Because usually those classes struggle MORE against these outsiders. They're casters with SLA's and many of them have teleport at will.

[Create Mr. Pitt]

I agree with that completely. A conjuration wizard is a conjuration wizard. They can do almost anything. Still useful to have a martial around since it'll be quicker and less risky. I am not trying to argue there's no disparity, but at high levels, with the exception of wizards built to just make everyone feel totally irrelevant and played by a jackass, it's still very useful to have martials.

[kyrt-ryder]

Create Mr. Pitt wrote:

I agree with that completely. A conjuration wizard is a conjuration wizard. They can do almost anything. Still useful to have a martial around since it'll be quicker and less risky. I am not trying to argue there's no disparity, but at high levels, with the exception of wizards built to just make everyone feel totally irrelevant and played by a jackass, it's still very useful to have martials.

Except 'martials' can just as easily be Casters in this case. You're arguing that physical attacks are necessary, and I would totally agree with that.

Non-casters on the other hand, are so unnecessary it hurts. There's almost no benefit to the party in having a Fighter as opposed to a Druid or Battle Cleric/Oracle or Warpriest or Inquisitor or Bard.

Barbarians, Paladins and Rangers fare a little better, but not as much as I'd like.

[Bandw2]

I mostly DM, and well i remember this one time i had a necromancer facing the party, there was nothing higher than a half caster, it was all pretty low. I remember i cast some stink cloud or something that obscured sight and nausated people, well they were in a small room and got ambushed(they were fighting, non-violently, with a custodian), so most of them were caught in it, then i sent in a few zombies the guy had. he managed to CC every single PC out of the fight effectively. with one spell, as the zombies could enter it without caring they just marched on through making attacks against nauseated characters.

ANYWAY, 90% of all problems that the party faces is either solved with A. a rope (mundane so okay) B. magic or C. a rope and magic.

several times when the party tried to deal with stuff and didn't use a rope or magic, they died. like one time a bloodrager (think 3rd level or so) tried to attack the BBEG for the area who was shooting arrows from behind a portcullis trap which attacked anyone who stood in front of it. they died, though that was mostly just bad planning.

in another campaign someone was playing a mounted cavalier, and managed to get completely surrounded by enemies (charging isn't always the best option) with more coming, the wizard cast sleet storm, and removed a good half of their force from the fight ultimately saving the cavalier(i'm actually pretty sure that they would have all died, they were weak mooks but the wizard nor the cavalier knew this).

[Nicos]

Create Mr. Pitt wrote:

I agree with that completely. A conjuration wizard is a conjuration wizard. They can do almost anything. Still useful to have a martial around since it'll be quicker and less risky. I am not trying to argue there's no disparity, but at high levels, with the exception of wizards built to just make everyone feel totally irrelevant and played by a jackass, it's still very useful to have martials.

As pointed out by Kirt you are not arguing in favor of martial but in favor of physical hp damage, and some caster are exceptionally good at this too.

[MMCJawa]

Four campaigns, 3 of which were 3.5, and one of which was Pathfinder.

None of the campaigns topped 10 levels, and I don't think a fighter appeared in any of them (Barbarian, Paladin, and Ranger were the usual beat sticks). No monks either, although I recall the Rogue being pretty effective in our most memorable campaign. Caster wise we have had Druids, Wizards, Clerics, and Witches.

In the most memorable 3.5 campaign, The wizard I played was...not really all that fun, and I ended up taking levels of ranger just so he was more effective when his spells ran out. The Barbarian was by far the most powerful character in this campaign, and regulary converted enemies to redmist.

In the backup game, I made a pretty effective Psion/Ninja. I remember a Bard, Paladin, and Ranger from that game, although I can barely remember any details on the relative power level of all the characters, and I think we were roughly equal? The other 3.5 game only lasted for a few sessions before TPK city.

In the Pathfinder Game I GMed, we had a Druid beatstick (who rarely if ever cast any spells), a sleep focused witch, a kobold paladin, and a ninja.The kobold paladin was the only weak link in there...but...Kobolds are not that great a paladin option, and so I can't really lay blame there on paladins. The witch and ninja were probably the most consistently well performing characters, but I also recall the Druid and his velociraptor having a lot of really really unlucky rolls

So my experience has been that, without going to the forums and reading, I didn't really encounter caster martial disparity. BUT there are a ton of caveats...we never reached high level, we never had monks or fighters (who seem to get the most complaints), and half our PCs at any give time were run by casual players who probably wouldn't have even noticed the disparity.

[My Self]

Rogue failed a bunch of will saves, the rest of the party (Paladin, Bard, Bard, Sorcerer, Cleric) didn't.

One of the bards failed a will save against a vampire's Dominate Person, but then he failed against the Cleric's Hold Person, and the result was one player sitting out for the rest of the encounter. Non-specialized non-casters can't simply decide to stop a person in their tracks like that.

Everybody had fun, though the save-or-get-owned parts weren't fun for the majority of the party (Everybody except the Paladin and Cleric, because boosted saves). There was this one mega mass encounter where the Sorcerer and Cleric steamrolled a bunch of really low-level mooks (channel energy and blasty spells), and the archer bards got swarmed and the paladin got tackled.

[Create Mr. Pitt]

TarkXT wrote:

Create Mr. Pitt wrote:

The are a number of demons and other outsiders with high spell resistance and decent damage resistance that are more easily defeated with the right kind of martials. Maybe I'll go through the bestiary later and pull out a few, but everything is contextual so I am not sure how useful this exercise is as I feel as if you a completely inconvincible.

This doesn't really speak for the necessity of martials as the lack of skill on the casters part.

In any case I'd like his to remain on topic as I'm a firm believer that real game examples far outweigh theorycraft and as a game designer tells me more about player actions and incentives than detailed out of game analysis.

As I said above, all of my analysis is based on experience. And you firmly believe random stories people tell on forums to try and convince people that they are right is the strongest evidence of all? I would think that several experiences from a single observer and analysis based on that is better than cherry-picked stories to prove a point.

A druid built like a martial and barbarians are probably the best martial. And I agree that wizards are way more powerful than other classes. But having played and GMed several high level games with people of varied optimization levels, I have seen certain angels and demons along with several minions go down a lot quicker because of martials. If a monster has a lot of companions often casters will be stuck dealing with that. I am not trying to argue anything but that casters can help facilitate games where everyone is useful necessary part of a party. You can play almost anything you want at any level and contribute if you do it right. Who cares where the ability to do it comes from, as long as everyone can still contribute (even if they would not have been able to without casters; after all it's a game about magic, if they didn't have wizards they'd have items).

[Bandw2]

to be clear, any and all discussion of martial caster disparity should be on the outside of combat stuff. no one is arguing martials are weak when they're hitting things.

edit: except maybe anzyr apparently

yes i am aware even i made this mistake, it's just so easy to make.

[kyrt-ryder]

Bandw2 wrote:

to be clear, any and all discussion of martial caster disparity should be on the outside of combat stuff. no one is arguing martials are weak when they're hitting things.

That are no more than 5 feet away from them.

That don't have miss chance on top of better AC than the Fighter can probably get without blowing his WBL and ruining either his offense or what little flexibility he could buy himself.

[Bandw2]

right well, this isn;t going to be a useful discussion if we keep discussing the ways a fighter can be derped for only targeting AC.

the issue is, most problems are fixed with magic, had a bridge collapse once, so the wizard flew across and tied a rope on the other end then everyone climbed across(hooked legs and shimmying).

[DrDeth]

kyrt-ryder wrote:

[

If the martial needs the caster to actualize them, then what exactly is the martial himself bringing to the table?

Well, in our RotRL game, our super-deadly fighter was so much a killing machine that it was faster and better for my Sorc to cast Fly on him and then let him do the killing and take the risks, rather than the other way around. One of our players was an accountant, he actually crunched the numbers. Mind you, that was our game, your game may well differ.

I will also say our DM in that game often had monsters pick the target based on how much damage they were doing to the monster(s). Not always but often enuf so it paid to boost and stay low key rather than get whupped on.

[Anzyr]

Bandw2 wrote:

to be clear, any and all discussion of martial caster disparity should be on the outside of combat stuff. no one is arguing martials are weak when they're hitting things.

edit: except maybe anzyr apparently

yes i am aware even i made this mistake, it's just so easy to make.

Hrm, let me clarify, since that's not my aim.

The stories are just that stories of what happened. The Samurai *could* paste anything provided he could full attack it. But often the Ranger would deal more damage since they didn't have to move to full attack. The Monk didn't deal significant amount of damage to enemies with DR (though this is 3.5, but the situation with magic fang doesn't change in PF) and often relied on caster buffs to be able to accomplish much of anything. His saves *were* the highest with even his "low" Fort being very impressive. But natural 1's are a thing and came up more often then you'd expect.

As to the other stuff, yes Martials deal great damage with a bunch of caveats to that. It might be best to say Martials deal great damage if they are in position to consistently be full attacking. And have some means of actually hitting an enemy. And have some means of negating or at least suffering less from miss chances. And have some buffs provided by friendly casters. But assuming all of that sure Martials are great at hitting things.

[DrDeth]

TarkXT wrote:

In any case I'd like his to remain on topic as I'm a firm believer that real game examples far outweigh theorycraft and as a game designer tells me more about player actions and incentives than detailed out of game analysis.

Yes, please stay on topic. Not that there's anything wrong with theorycrafting, but there are now a dozen ? threads (How many Kolbold Cleaver?) on this which deal with theory.

So, let us here just talk about what actually happened in your games. And WHY the disparity happened or didnt.

[DrDeth]

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Ben, lets be fair. When he explicitly said real, he wasn't calling games played a certain way false.

He's trying to emphasize he wants stories from games that really happened, rather than armchair theories.

There's nothing wrong with requesting tales from the trenches instead of a recap of the strategy meeting.

EDIT: on that note, Doc, I will be including stories from Online Tabletop Chat campaigns as I have more of that than I do live tabletop. It's fundamentally the same [moreso than PbP I'd say.]

Thank you and yes, that's fair, didnt think about those, but please mention what sort they are.

[Kobold Catgirl]

DrDeth wrote:

How many Kolbold Cleaver?

The vast majority of "CMD" arguments are connected to "theorycrafting", assuming we define theorycrafting as "Examples from rules, such as exploits or hypothetical builds, which have not necessarily been used in campaigns".

The premise of "Has this happened in your games?" has been used for threads before, don't get me wrong, but threads based on vague notions are vastly more common on both sides. Examples are threads bringing up benefits martials have that may not often come up ("fighters can go on all day!") and threads discussing scenarios that only certain classes could survive ("fighter is caught naked and alone at the bottom of a fifty-foot pit!").

That said, due to its virtually infinite nature, theorycrafting tends to just have more to talk about, so it's not too surprising that threads about it are more plentiful.

[TarkXT]

Create Mr. Pitt wrote:

As I said above, all of my analysis is based on experience. And you firmly believe random stories people tell on forums to try and convince people that they are right is the strongest evidence of all? I would think that several experiences from a single observer and analysis based on that is better than cherry-picked stories to prove a point.

Seems to work for game designers, politicians and scientists the world over.

I could go over the science of statistics here but that would be fruitless.

[Bandw2]

i like how KC has become the go to guy for caster vs martial disparity threads, so much he reduced it to CMD. combat maneuver defence, CAN'T UNSEE