|
And I STRONGLY disagree that the disparity is "Completely and utterly Situational". Not when the situation in question is "nearly every damned situation and then some"
Maybe in every damned situation *you* run. It's one way to play the game to allow certain classes to dominate. As JJ pointed out, it's a valid way to play. But so, too, is a more balanced one where each class shines equally or almost equally.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
What could have happened from the beginning:
Bob: The caster/martial disparity really makes it hard for me to enjoy this game.
Mary: Really? I never noticed it in my own games; sorry, wish I could help!
Fred: I see what you mean, but I actually prefer it that way. To each his own, I guess.
Betty: Oh, Bob, I had the same issues, but I've found that using X workaround alleviates it a bit. Hope that helps!
What's historically happened instead:
Bob: The caster/martial disparity really makes it hard for me to enjoy this game.
Mary: Really? I never noticed it in my own games; it's probably just dirty theorycraft. Do you even actually PLAY this game? Does anyone actually have any real-life stories of this coming out in actual gameplay?
Fred: That's how the game was MEANT to be played. Maybe if you weren't an MMO-generation powergamer obsessed with trying to 'win' a cooperative game, then you could just focus on having fun instead.
Betty: Well Bob, I've implemented X houserules that alleviate that disparity, therefore I'm pretty sure the disparity never existed, and you're creating it yourself through your GM's ineptitude.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Now, some people seem to think that the only reason anyone would ever mention an issue they have with the game more than once is to try to use repetition as a means of lobbying for the game to be changed to match their vision. Maybe some people are doing that. But for myself, I keep getting in these discussions in the hopes of guiding one more player back toward the first type of discussion in place of the second. (Also I'm interested in game design and seeing people articulate and re-articulate their ideas on the topic is helpful for me, but the above is still true.)
If I was going to go try to destroy a reinforced bunker with hordes of troops guarding it, I would much rather bring a fully loaded combat helicopter capable of long range bombardment, radar and IR sensors... with backup high rate-of-fire machine guns, instead of bringing a dude armed with a rifle and some grenades.
Guess which one the fighter is?
Tell me how he is just as useful as the flying, death-dealing, sensory laden death machine.
THAT is how the disparity would be shown in a modern setting.
Simply substitute the helicopters abilities with spells (Fly, Fireball, Scry etc), and the soldiers gun and grenades with a sword and a bow.
Both classes get magic items/gear, so that isn't relevant.
I mean seriously... in what universe is the single soldier with those guns better than a helicopter?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What could have happened from the beginning:
Bob: The caster/martial disparity really makes it hard for me to enjoy this game.
Mary: Really? I never noticed it in my own games; sorry, wish I could help!
Fred: I see what you mean, but I actually prefer it that way. To each his own, I guess.
Betty: Oh, Bob, I had the same issues, but I've found that using X workaround alleviates it a bit. Hope that helps!What's historically happened instead:
Bob: The caster/martial disparity really makes it hard for me to enjoy this game.
Mary: Really? I never noticed it in my own games; it's probably just dirty theorycraft. Do you even actually PLAY this game? Does anyone actually have any real-life stories of this coming out in actual gameplay?
Fred: That's how the game was MEANT to be played. Maybe if you weren't an MMO-generation powergamer obsessed with trying to 'win' a cooperative game, then you could just focus on having fun instead.
Betty: Well Bob, I've implemented X houserules that alleviate that disparity, therefore I'm pretty sure the disparity never existed, and you're creating it yourself through your GM's ineptitude.---------------------------------------------------------------
Now, some people seem to think that the only reason anyone would ever mention an issue they have with the game more than once is to try to use repetition as a means of lobbying for the game to be changed to match their vision. Maybe some people are doing that. But for myself, I keep getting in these discussions in the hopes of guiding one more player back toward the first type of discussion in place of the second. (Also I'm interested in game design and seeing people articulate and re-articulate their ideas on the topic is helpful for me, but the above is still true.)
You left out the part where Bob was just as bad as Fred, Betty and Mary. Let's not pretend for even a moment that many of the Bob's aren't slinging insults as much as the others. And yes, there are some Bob, Mary, Betty and Freds that are relatively polite or middle of the road.
And yes, the first version would be great. One thread of it every X months would be great too. A zillion threads in a week, requiring KC to make an index, is a bit much unless the problem is like The Ring and people are dying from not solving it. Actual players, not characters. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And I STRONGLY disagree that the disparity is "Completely and utterly Situational". Not when the situation in question is "nearly every damned situation and then some"Maybe in every damned situation *you* run. It's one way to play the game to allow certain classes to dominate. As JJ pointed out, it's a valid way to play. But so, too, is a more balanced one where each class shines equally or almost equally.
No, there is no one true way to play the game and different approaches work differently for different groups. That is something pretty much everyone can agree on. I think that's neither here nor there really.
As for "allowing" certain classes to dominate: That's the choice between running the official rules of Pathfinder or being savvy enough to know how to houserule the issues away or which gentleman's agreements should be put in place. Yes, one of the positive aspects of tabletop gaming is that you can change the rules if necessary. That doesn't mean it should be required of you though, especially for balance concerns. Yet it is required and I think that's the crux of the issue. If the system was more balanced to begin with then it would mean less time worrying about some classes "breaking the game" and more time just having fun playing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Tell me how he is just as useful as the flying, death-dealing, sensory laden death machine.It's the ninth bunker that day, and the helicopter's ammo is long exhausted. Meanwhile, Rambo just charges into the bunker and bayonets or necksnaps everyone to death.
Don't be silly.
The footsoldier died in the first rush, and the helicopter simply returns to base for refueling and rearming.
It would be STUPID for the helicopter to go in without its weapons.
e.g. fighters needs magic to heal quickly, and wizards don't keep going if they are out of spells.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Tell me how he is just as useful as the flying, death-dealing, sensory laden death machine.It's the ninth bunker that day, and the helicopter's ammo is long exhausted. Meanwhile, Rambo just charges into the bunker and bayonets or necksnaps everyone to death.
Unfortunately, since in Pathfinder Rambo doesn't have plot armor, he runs out of HP when struck too many times in succession and dies a sad, pointless death.
Tell me how he is just as useful as the flying, death-dealing, sensory laden death machine.It's the ninth bunker that day, and the helicopter's ammo is long exhausted. Meanwhile, Rambo just charges into the bunker and bayonets or necksnaps everyone to death.
I've seen these movie, even Rambo would rather have the helicopter. But the CoD ac130 mission would not make for a very good movie.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
wizards don't keep going if they are out of spells.
That's your problem right there. If your playstyle is so that wizards can unload their most powerful spells each fight, then of *course* they're going to dominate.
If you're letting the helicopter rearm and the wizard re-prepare after every single bunker, no wonder you're seeing issues.
This is a great example of what James Jacobs said about everyone playing the game differently.
We don't agree on much, so I'll just say this.
We both seem to agree that in terms of narrative power a certain subset of classes is dominant assuming equally skilled players.
I think this is a bad thing since I believe the game was advertized as an equal opportunity hero/villain simulator.
You don't think this is a bad thing since it meshes with your views that casters should have more power than non-casters.
Is this mostly correct?
Yeah, pretty much (except I also agree with you that if there is a martial-caster disparity, it shouldn't be advertised as a game where all classes are equally powerful - I just havent noticed that sort of advertising).
wizards don't keep going if they are out of spells.That's your problem right there. If your playstyle is so that wizards can unload their most powerful spells each fight, then of *course* they're going to dominate.
If you're letting the helicopter rearm and the wizard re-prepare after every single bunker, no wonder you're seeing issues.
If you prepared your armaments well and use them at the right time then sometimes you only need to fire one of your dozen or so rockets to get a bunker to the point where it's just down to sending in a few poorly trained grunts to clean up the survivors.
Yeah, pretty much (except I also agree with you that if there is a martial-caster disparity, it shouldn't be advertised as a game where all classes are equally powerful - I just havent noticed that sort of advertising).This is a great example of what James Jacobs said about everyone playing the game differently.
We don't agree on much, so I'll just say this.
We both seem to agree that in terms of narrative power a certain subset of classes is dominant assuming equally skilled players.
I think this is a bad thing since I believe the game was advertized as an equal opportunity hero/villain simulator.
You don't think this is a bad thing since it meshes with your views that casters should have more power than non-casters.
Is this mostly correct?
In that case I guess our best bet is to agree to disagree then :)
I personally hope Paizo someday puts out a heroic martial handbook with optional rules/classes to alleviate the disparity. Though I think we have to rely on 3PP to do that since such a book would actually be an admission that a disparity exists....
|
|
If you prepared your armaments well and use them at the right time then sometimes you only need to fire one of your dozen or so rockets to get a bunker to the point where it's just down to sending in a few poorly trained grunts to clean up the survivors.
Absolutely, the more optimally you use your spells, the less help you need. But that much should be obvious.
What could have happened from the beginning:
Bob: The caster/martial disparity really makes it hard for me to enjoy this game.
Mary: Really? I never noticed it in my own games; sorry, wish I could help!
Fred: I see what you mean, but I actually prefer it that way. To each his own, I guess.
Betty: Oh, Bob, I had the same issues, but I've found that using X workaround alleviates it a bit. Hope that helps!What's historically happened instead:
Bob: The caster/martial disparity really makes it hard for me to enjoy this game.
Mary: Really? I never noticed it in my own games; it's probably just dirty theorycraft. Do you even actually PLAY this game? Does anyone actually have any real-life stories of this coming out in actual gameplay?
Fred: That's how the game was MEANT to be played. Maybe if you weren't an MMO-generation powergamer obsessed with trying to 'win' a cooperative game, then you could just focus on having fun instead.
Betty: Well Bob, I've implemented X houserules that alleviate that disparity, therefore I'm pretty sure the disparity never existed, and you're creating it yourself through your GM's ineptitude.---------------------------------------------------------------
Now, some people seem to think that the only reason anyone would ever mention an issue they have with the game more than once is to try to use repetition as a means of lobbying for the game to be changed to match their vision. Maybe some people are doing that. But for myself, I keep getting in these discussions in the hopes of guiding one more player back toward the first type of discussion in place of the second. (Also I'm interested in game design and seeing people articulate and re-articulate their ideas on the topic is helpful for me, but the above is still true.)
Jiggy you've had several different variations of house rules suggested to fix your issues.
You've been referred to Unchained rules sets to fix your issues.
You've been referred to Path of War from DSP and several other 3rd party publisher's products which provide the type of content you've described.
You've even been referred to several other game systems which might more closely match the kind of game you are looking to play.
I'm not trying to be reductive here, but this has happened both in this thread and in virtually every thread in Kobold Cleaver's index of these threads.
If all the house rules, unchained rules variations, 3rd party material, and other game systems don't give you what you want what else could you possibly be looking for?
And if the answer is "none of those do the exact specific thing I want" then I'm going to have to refer you to OGL and tell you to write the thing yourself-- because if you have the magic formula that WotC, Paizo, DSP, et al don't have that solves the issue and makes everyone happy you stand to make a lot of money selling it.
But my suspicion is either that such a thing could not be written or it would have already.
Its the kind of goal=post moving, and suggestion dis-regarding which makes those of us who do enjoy this game as it is currently published feel like the people crying "Disparity" are doing so out of a desire to destroy the game and take away the system that we love.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe he already has everything he wants and just has that *gasp* mythical unheard of thing called empathy! Maybe he has the mental fortitude to entertain a concept without believing it to be reality?
I think we call that critical thinking?
Would it be possible to convince you to release your house rules as a word document? It would really help a lot of people understand the intent behind a lot of rules.
Given the way folks dissect and take apart rules that have gone through the official design/development/editing process... and given how rules-lawyers and the type have reacted to my involvement in answering rules questions...
I've zero interest in exposing my undevloped and unedited house rules to a toxic environment like that.
Plus... they're not written down anyway. If I'm gonna be spending my time writing, it's gonna be anything else OTHER than house rules.
So... no. It's not possible.
Best I can do is to post some of them here and there in the threads when the topic comes up and I feel like my input isn't going to cause more problems than it solved... and as for this latest one... jury's still out on whether me posting in this thread was a good idea or a terrible one.
Would you accept a request to PM some of them to those that are curious?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You left out the part where Bob was just as bad as Fred, Betty and Mary. Let's not pretend for even a moment that many of the Bob's aren't slinging insults as much as the others. And yes, there are some Bob, Mary, Betty and Freds that are relatively polite or middle of the road.
As Kobold Cleaver's wonderful index indicates, Jiggy's post was statistically accurate.
If you prepared your armaments well and use them at the right time then sometimes you only need to fire one of your dozen or so rockets to get a bunker to the point where it's just down to sending in a few poorly trained grunts to clean up the survivors.wizards don't keep going if they are out of spells.That's your problem right there. If your playstyle is so that wizards can unload their most powerful spells each fight, then of *course* they're going to dominate.
If you're letting the helicopter rearm and the wizard re-prepare after every single bunker, no wonder you're seeing issues.
nonono
If the gm isn't actively singling out and punishing players for competency then no one can have any fun! Hammer all the nails! Break the board!
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Its the kind of goal=post moving, and suggestion dis-regarding which makes those of us who do enjoy this game as it is currently published feel like the people crying "Disparity" are doing so out of a desire to destroy the game and take away the system that we love.
And that kind of self-appointed victimhood is where a lot of the arguments come from, right there.
You automatically assume someone who wants the game to be different is trying to "destroy the game and take it away" from you.
As if anyone who, golly gee, is dissatisfied with the current way the game is and would like it changed are somehow actually spiteful a$$#%#%s who are just trying to ruin everything for everyone everywhere.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, pretty much (except I also agree with you that if there is a martial-caster disparity, it shouldn't be advertised as a game where all classes are equally powerful - I just havent noticed that sort of advertising).This is a great example of what James Jacobs said about everyone playing the game differently.
We don't agree on much, so I'll just say this.
We both seem to agree that in terms of narrative power a certain subset of classes is dominant assuming equally skilled players.
I think this is a bad thing since I believe the game was advertized as an equal opportunity hero/villain simulator.
You don't think this is a bad thing since it meshes with your views that casters should have more power than non-casters.
Is this mostly correct?
I think the main way it "advertises" that is by claiming that a 12th level Fighter and a 12th level Wizard have the same CR if the party fights them. Nothing as overt as having a bullet point on the back of the book that says "All classes are really well balanced!" :P
wizards don't keep going if they are out of spells.That's your problem right there. If your playstyle is so that wizards can unload their most powerful spells each fight, then of *course* they're going to dominate.
If you're letting the helicopter rearm and the wizard re-prepare after every single bunker, no wonder you're seeing issues.
THAT's the problem? REALLY?
Wow.
Okay, how about just a single mission?
My money will never be on the dude on the ground, unless it involves going into caves, but the analogy stops making sense if the helicopter turns into a tank...
No, wait, it doesn't. Wizards can do that.
Fighters can't just keep going all day long. They may not run out of sword, but they can sure run out of hitpoints.
Wizards can even HEAL themselves now with Infernal Healing, what class ability do Fighters get that lets them heal? Let me see... um... Nothing.
Clearly you are one of the deniers, so I won't waste anymore of my time or yours on this.
Sorry for the derail folks, I love the game, I just won't play Fighters anymore (so many better options available! I like options!)
If you prepared your armaments well and use them at the right time then sometimes you only need to fire one of your dozen or so rockets to get a bunker to the point where it's just down to sending in a few poorly trained grunts to clean up the survivors.Absolutely, the more optimally you use your spells, the less help you need. But that much should be obvious.
The point was more that a single spell well placed spell can turn a challenging encounter into the enemy getting slaughtered with minimal effort. With that in mind as long as the caster can resist the urge to cast more mostly unnecessary spells just to speed up the inevitable conclusion, he is still set to bust quite a few more bunkers that day.
Wizards can even HEAL themselves now with Infernal Healing, what class ability do Fighters get that lets them heal? Let me see... um... Nothing.
inb4 "B-b-but WANDS!".
He said CLASS ABILITY folks, just to save you a second.
Wizards can even HEAL themselves now with Infernal Healing, what class ability do Fighters get that lets them heal? Let me see... um... Nothing.inb4 "B-b-but WANDS!".
He said CLASS ABILITY folks, just to save you a second.
Indeed.
Chainsaws and magic items are not class abilities.
Scrolls sorta are, for, you know, wizards.
:P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Over in the 5e forums I ignored two people and see basically zero complaints of caster/martial disparity from anyone else. But they are so vocal some posters assume that it is a heavily discussed issue.
Meanwhile on the Paizo forums I would have to ignore-script 30+ people to get similar results and to be honest, it's the ones arguing against them that bring the toxicity.
As if anyone who, golly gee, is dissatisfied with the current way the game is and would like it changed are somehow actually spiteful a@*&#%!s who are just trying to ruin everything for everyone everywhere.
Personally I die a little inside every time I imagine some people here being happy or content so it truly is my deepest desire to destroy their vision of Pathfinder. I imagine a lot of people who are dissatisfied with the martial-caster status quo feel the same way.
As if anyone who, golly gee, is dissatisfied with the current way the game is and would like it changed are somehow actually spiteful a@*&#%!s who are just trying to ruin everything for everyone everywhere.Personally I die a little inside every time I imagine some people here being happy or content so it truly is my deepest desire to destroy their vision of Pathfinder. I imagine a lot of people who are dissatisfied with the martial-caster status quo feel the same way.
By weight, my body is over 30% malice.
|
|
THAT's the problem? REALLY?
Yes, really. The game is balanced over the assumption that a wizard's effectiveness goes down as they expend spells, and that they will be a lot less effective far into the adventuring day than at the beginning of it, while the fighter is consistently effective. That's a key mechanic that the whole game is built around. If you ignore it and let the wizard be at maximum effectiveness all the time, that basically destroys the game.
|
|
The point was more that a single spell well placed spell can turn a challenging encounter into the enemy getting slaughtered with minimal effort. With that in mind as long as the caster can resist the urge to cast more mostly unnecessary spells just to speed up the inevitable conclusion, he is still set to bust quite a few more bunkers that day.
Sure, a caster that uses her spells conservatively and tactically instead of brute force overkill will last longer. But that too seems pretty obvious.
Yes, really. The game is balanced over the assumption that a wizard's effectiveness goes down as they expend spells, and that they will be a lot less effective far into the adventuring day than at the beginning of it, while the fighter is consistently effective. That's a key mechanic that the whole game is built around. If you ignore it and let the wizard be at maximum effectiveness all the time, that basically destroys the game.
Except the fighter is losing resources throughout the day as well. Every fight will consume health, or at the very least health supplies.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
You left out the part where Bob was just as bad as Fred, Betty and Mary. Let's not pretend for even a moment that many of the Bob's aren't slinging insults as much as the others. And yes, there are some Bob, Mary, Betty and Freds that are relatively polite or middle of the road.As Kobold Cleaver's wonderful index indicates, Jiggy's post was statistically accurate.
As I recall from the recent post by Ssalarn, KC's index indicates who started the threads. There is enough bile and venom from all the parties once things get going. Or sarcasm, if we go by the last page or so of this one.
THAT's the problem? REALLY?Yes, really. The game is balanced over the assumption that a wizard's effectiveness goes down as they expend spells, and that they will be a lot less effective far into the adventuring day than at the beginning of it, while the fighter is consistently effective. That's a key mechanic that the whole game is built around. If you ignore it and let the wizard be at maximum effectiveness all the time, that basically destroys the game.
Paizo far, far, FAR outweighs the value of "at-will" stuff.
Like, to the point that even something that is absolutely HORRENDOUS will be so BECAUSE it is at-will, and making it both at-will and an option people would actually want to take is anathema to the game.
Spells are powerful despite their limitedness, partly because they're really not all that limited. Casters get plenty of spells per day, and from level 1 they do fantastically powerful things.
Yes, sure, from level 1 to level 20 the Fighter can do his thing and be "consistent", but he's CONSISTENTLY WEAK.
The Fighter doesn't get any fantastically powerful abilities which, sure, that's fine. Fantastically powerful abilities at-will are a bit much.
But he also doesn't get any moderately powerful abilities, at-will or otherwise. And neither do most non-casters, the Barbarian being the shining exception (and even then his stuff IS limited in use, just to an arbitrarily large amount of uses).
If all martials were like the Path of War classes or the Barbarian (or Paladin, if we're bringing in 4th level casters), or Aegis who get moderately powerful abilities effectively at-will/per encounter, there would be less complaints.
Casters would still be getting a LOT of bang for their buck, while the martial classes are sitting over here content that while they have less bang, they also have more buck...if that analogy makes a lick of sense.
|
|
Except the fighter is losing resources throughout the day as well. Every fight will consume health, or at the very least health supplies.
Yes, but a fighter at 1% health is exactly as effective as a fighter at 100% health, so their effectiveness remains constant until they go down.
Comparatively, the wizard also loses health, and thus has a point where they go down for the count, but their effectiveness declines rapidly as they advance along the day. The fighter does not experience this 'war weariness' until the moment they finally fall.
THAT's the problem? REALLY?Yes, really. The game is balanced over the assumption that a wizard's effectiveness goes down as they expend spells, and that they will be a lot less effective far into the adventuring day than at the beginning of it, while the fighter is consistently effective. That's a key mechanic that the whole game is built around. If you ignore it and let the wizard be at maximum effectiveness all the time, that basically destroys the game.
A dead fighter isn't very effective.
There are no mechanics to balance the classes as written. There are assumptions.
Anywho... I really need to walk away from this one, it's pretty clear that we see things VERY differently.
*picks up his rifle and grenades and starts slogging the forty miles back to base...*
Wish I had a helicopter... way faster. :D
Yes, sure, from level 1 to level 20 the Fighter can do his thing and be "consistent", but he's CONSISTENTLY WEAK.Compared to the fully loaded wizard, sure. Compared to the running on empty wizard, they are as much above the empty wizard as the fully loaded wizard is above the fighter.
But, frankly, that's a dumb comparison. "Better than something that's worthless" is faint praise indeed.
You don't compare a class when it's weakest to another class at its strongest, especially since with good resource management that comparison is rarely if ever going to come into play.
Being 100% better 1% of the time is not an accomplishment. Especially not compared to a class that is then conversely 100% better 99% of the time. Being 50% better, 50% of the time? Maybe.
And I'm assuming 'Fighter" is a stand-in for martial here, since Fighters are weak compared to most classes regardless, so it's a bad comparison all around.
|
|
Compared to the running on empty wizard, they are as much above the empty wizard as the fully loaded wizard is above the fighter.But, frankly, that's a dumb comparison. "Better than something that's worthless" is faint praise indeed.
Since the wizard is intended to fluctuate between those two extremes, and the fighter is built to be the "averages out between the extremes" option, it's pretty relevant to see where those extremes are.
I will agree, however, that the Fighter class specifically could use a little buffing. Nothing huge, but something, sure.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, but a fighter at 1% health is exactly as effective as a fighter at 100% health, so their effectiveness remains constant until they go down.
Comparatively, the wizard also loses health, and thus has a point where they go down for the count, but their effectiveness declines rapidly as they advance along the day. The fighter does not experience this 'war weariness' until the moment they finally fall.
I actually haven't seen an AP where the adventures are long enough for casters to actually run out of spells.
As for the wizard's power flucuating, it basically goes 300%, then halfway through the adventure it's on 150%, while at the same time the fighter only has 50% hit points and the wizard is on about 75% hit points which puts them near the same HP (since casters aren't on the front line as much, but the fighters start with more HP).
Also by the time a wizard would run out of spellslots and class features, the fighter would basically have 0 HP anyway.
Not particularly, no it isn't. Because if the Wizard is intended to fluctuate between those extremes...it's not functioning as intended. You have to go a LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG way to drain a caster's resources to the point where they're "empty".
They get plenty of spells per day. Then they get other abilities on top of that. Plus things like Pearls of Power, Wands, and Scrolls.
And even when you drain them of all of those, half (or more) of all casters still have 3/4 BaB, decent armor, and are probably quite able to speak softly and carry a big stick around for just such an occasion, while still having access to plenty of skill ranks and passive abilities (like Monster Lore and Stern Gaze for Inquisitor) that make them still fairly solid classes.
So even if Fighter vs empty Wizard made the Fighter 100% better 1% of the time, and even if that were a significant factor...in the case of most casters that comparison isn't NEARLY as extreme. It's more like 25% better 1% of the time, if that often.
Yes, but a fighter at 1% health is exactly as effective as a fighter at 100% health, so their effectiveness remains constant until they go down.
Comparatively, the wizard also loses health, and thus has a point where they go down for the count, but their effectiveness declines rapidly as they advance along the day. The fighter does not experience this 'war weariness' until the moment they finally fall.
I actually haven't seen an AP where the adventures are long enough for casters to actually run out of spells.
As for the wizard's power flucuating, it basically goes 300%, then halfway through the adventure it's on 150%, while at the same time the fighter only has 50% hit points and the wizard is on about 75% hit points which puts them near the same HP (since casters aren't on the front line as much, but the fighters start with more HP).
Also by the time a wizard would run out of spellslots and class features, the fighter would basically have 0 HP anyway.
Lets not forget that wizards can use spells to simply not get hit at all. Mirror Image and Fly are two easy examples.
Fighters can improve their armor class.
This doesn't help against fireballs, breath weapons etc.
Fighters don't get good saves to anything useful (FORT, seriously? Why not REF?).
Bah.
Bedtime for me. Getting Samy to admit to Fighters needing buffing is my victory for the day.
yay me. yay everyone else for helping.
By Rynjin's own post Path of War provides martials with "nice things" and allows most people who want martials with nice things would be satisfied with similar options to the Path of War classes. Given this already exists in Pathfinder the only conclusion I can draw is people want the CRB to be errata'd or they want a new edition that removes the traditional martial classes and ONLY provides the PoW style classes. If this occurred the current fans who actively enjoy the traditional martials would not be catered to. This is a win/lose situation.
However the game can be played as is with poeple who want PoW style classes getting PoW style classes (by buying PoW) and those who want more traditional martial characters getting more traditional martials (by using those in the CRB). It is a win/win for everyone except the people playing PFS (and unfortunately you can't please everyone. See: Unchained Summoner as an example). And yet people act like all martials in the Pathfinder game are absolutely horrendous and that none of their desires are being catered to. They are. All they have to do is by the supplement that caters to their desires.
Fighters don't get good saves to anything useful (FORT, seriously? Why not REF?).
Hrm?
Fort is one of the good saves. Basiclaly the only thing you could do to Fighter's chassis to make him even worse would be to make him have Ref only.
Reflex saves are by far the least important. Ref saves avoid a bit of damage. 99% of effects that allow a Ref save can just be tanked.
Fort and Will saves, meanwhile, are nearly EXCLUSIVELY Save or Suck, Save or Lose, Save or Die, or Save or be Worse Off the Rest of the Day (ability damage, negative levels, etc.).
By Rynjin's own post Path of War provides martials with "nice things" and allows most people who want martials with nice things would be satisfied with similar options to the Path of War classes. Given this already exists in Pathfinder the only conclusion I can draw is people want the CRB to be errata'd or they want a new edition that removes the traditional martial classes and ONLY provides the PoW style classes. If this occurred the current fans who actively enjoy the traditional martials would not be catered to. This is a win/lose situation.
However the game can be played as is with poeple who want PoW style classes getting PoW style classes (by buying PoW) and those who want more traditional martial characters getting more traditional martials (by using those in the CRB). It is a win/win for everyone except the people playing PFS (and unfortunately you can't please everyone. See: Unchained Summoner as an example). And yet people act like all martials in the Pathfinder game are absolutely horrendous and that none of their desires are being catered to. They are. All they have to do is by the supplement that caters to their desires.
If the game were changed I'm sure some nice 3rd party publishers out there would cater to your want for "traditional martials" as well.
If you don't think that's a palatable option, please explain to me why, in your own words.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I bet the effectiveness curves depend a ***LOT*** on group composition, player style, DM style, adventure design and so on. So I'm not going to detail how my effectiveness curves usually go, but I will abstract it to the degree that *in my personal experience*, it is frequent enough that casters' effectiveness dips below martials'. Casters may get a lot of spells per day at higher levels, but it also needs to be remembered that usually only a fraction of them are useful to any given situation.
To put it short: for me, my tables, my playstyles and so on, martials and casters are pretty well balanced. If that doesn't happen at your tables, then I don't disbelieve you -- I believe that an unbalanced situation happens at your tables -- but I would suggest that maybe you could consider that the unbalanced situation at your tables could result as much from your playstyles as it does from class design inherent things.
|
James is long gone from this thread I fear. However I hope he realises that many folks love his posts. His experience as a story teller and as GM makes most things he says invaluable to me as a gamer.
If I ever get the chance to chat to him about creative ideas face to face, I'd be a very happy man. Unlikely, since I live in Australia. I did get to meet Jason though, and he was an awesome bloke, very willing to talk shop and give GMing tips.
Unfortunately, despite every intention not to, I still get caught up in the discussions about martial caster disparity. It's stupid for me to do so, but apparently harder to stop than a smoking habit. <sigh>
If I've contributed to the unease and displeasure in the boards (more than likely in recent weeks sadly) then I apologise.
James, please never stop posting your ideas and creative advice to those of us who'll listen.
Thank you.
|
|
I play PFS rules. Every PFS module we play has between 2-5 encounters. Some are non-combat. Sometimes they are all combat. After 3-4 levels, wizards, sorcerers, and the like never run out of spells. Ever.
I am playing the game by the rules Paizo endorses and in adventures the Paizo created. And you are telling me that this is a problem with "playstyles"?
I'm not familiar with PFS, but from what you describe, it does seem like those types of adventures may indeed facilitate "burn bright and fast" style play.
See, what you have done is called the either-or fallacy. The choices aren't between one encounter per day and ten encounters per day. In the range of encounters that exist in Paizo's own materials, the wizard does not degrade in power enought to have the fighters endurance equal out. It's that simple.
I dare you to run the first dungeon in Mummy's Mask without the casters running out of spells.