Dispelling Myths: The Caster-Martial Disparity


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

701 to 750 of 810 << first < prev | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | next > last >>
Dark Archive

14 people marked this as a favorite.
Lemmy wrote:

"The GM can change the rules, so this ability is useless."

I really should make a bingo card about the most commonly used non-arguments in C/MD threads...

Funny, that exact concept just cropped up in a Pathfinder thread on a different website and someone already took a crack at it. Link here. It even has pictures! The "Team Game" seems especially relevant in this thread.

Silver Crusade Contributor

Rosc wrote:
Lemmy wrote:

"The GM can change the rules, so this ability is useless."

I really should make a bingo card about the most commonly used non-arguments in C/MD threads...

Funny, that exact concept just cropped up in a Pathfinder thread on a different website and someone already took a crack at it. Link here. It even has pictures! The "Team Game" seems especially relevant in this thread.

That's kind of amazing. ^_^


Rosc wrote:
Lemmy wrote:

"The GM can change the rules, so this ability is useless."

I really should make a bingo card about the most commonly used non-arguments in C/MD threads...

Funny, that exact concept just cropped up in a Pathfinder thread on a different website and someone already took a crack at it. Link here. It even has pictures! The "Team Game" seems especially relevant in this thread.

Heh... This is pretty much what I had in mind.


Rosc wrote:
Lemmy wrote:

"The GM can change the rules, so this ability is useless."

I really should make a bingo card about the most commonly used non-arguments in C/MD threads...

Funny, that exact concept just cropped up in a Pathfinder thread on a different website and someone already took a crack at it. Link here. It even has pictures! The "Team Game" seems especially relevant in this thread.

And bookmarked

Dark Archive

Opuk0 wrote:
Rosc wrote:
Lemmy wrote:

"The GM can change the rules, so this ability is useless."

I really should make a bingo card about the most commonly used non-arguments in C/MD threads...

Funny, that exact concept just cropped up in a Pathfinder thread on a different website and someone already took a crack at it. Link here. It even has pictures! The "Team Game" seems especially relevant in this thread.
And bookmarked

We could even make rearranged copies of the image. Play actual rounds of bingo the next time a good thread is consumed by C/MD arguements.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Welcome to The Caster-Martial Disparity Bingo where every Wizard is Schrodinger and the Fighters don't matter.

The Exchange

Though there's still something I'm wondering about: After all these years of 3.0/3.5/PF, I dunno how many discussions about C/MD and as many tries to make fun of those people who don't buy the arguments, there's still noone out there trying to solve this assumed problem and having any form of relevant success with it. I'm guessing that's because of one sentence in this bingo stylesheet actually being true:

Fine, it exists, but it doesn't matter. At least not enough, that so many customers leave the system for that reason that Paizo would be forced to do something about it.


There are plenty of people trying to solve the problem with varying levels of success. Spheres of Power for example, is a popular alternate magic system because it helps reduce the disparity while still making casters fun to play. Path of War does it a different way by making martial characters have a similar level of narrative power through the use of maneuvers. And to be clear, it's not that people don't like Pathfinder as a system, it's that this one very glaring issue is problematic for a lot of people. This won't stop people from buying Pathfinder products but it does reduce the level of enjoyment some people get out of it. Many of these people would like to see this issue fixed and will voice it in hopes it does get fixed. Whether or not Paizo decides to act on it is up to them.

Scarab Sages

WormysQueue wrote:

Though there's still something I'm wondering about: After all these years of 3.0/3.5/PF, I dunno how many discussions about C/MD and as many tries to make fun of those people who don't buy the arguments, there's still noone out there trying to solve this assumed problem and having any form of relevant success with it. I'm guessing that's because of one sentence in this bingo stylesheet actually being true:

Fine, it exists, but it doesn't matter. At least not enough, that so many customers leave the system for that reason that Paizo would be forced to do something about it.

I hear 5e is doing pretty well with their greatly-diminished caster/martial disparity.

But, basically, I don't really care about it either. As long as people are having fun at my table, that's fine. I don't care if I DM for a party consisting entirely of martial characters, or if I played in one.

People can have fun despite the C/MD. We all admitted this a while ago.


Yeah, an all cleric game where the four classic roles (fighter, Mage, priest, rogue) are filled is incredibly fun and while the spells are the same there is a lot of variety in ability.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
WormysQueue wrote:
Though there's still something I'm wondering about: After all these years of 3.0/3.5/PF, I dunno how many discussions about C/MD and as many tries to make fun of those people who don't buy the arguments, there's still noone out there trying to solve this assumed problem and having any form of relevant success with it.

Have you heard the good word of Kirthfinder?


I keep seeing 3.0/3.5/PF come up, and that reminds me that the C/MD wasn't as bad in the really old days (AD&D 1.0/2.0).

The arcane caster got a 1d4 per level for HP, and had a Constitution bonus of +2 maximum. They also had a chance of failing to learn a spell that they were selecting upon level-up (granted that at high intelligence, that was only a 5% chance of failure or less). They also had a maximum number of spells per level (though an 18 limit of spells at an 18 Intelligence wouldn't be a real limit)

This meant that they were certainly more dependent on the martial to be a meat shield, and yes, they would be more inclined to make sure the martial had the gear to last through the fights.

I also see that the big change for me is that we're willing to say after only 2 fights that the party gets a night's sleep, and everyone gets all their spells back.

Other fixes I would like:
Martials gets Skills of 4 to 6 + Intelligence or better.
Everyone gets Perception as a class skill.
Everyone gets 2 good saves; Monk gets 3.
Everyone starts with 3 Feats, but prerequisites must be met to make leveling up mean something (e.g. BAB or skill ranks or prior feats).
Full Casters get 1 Feat at any level they don't get a new spell level (basically 10).
Everyone else gets 1 Feat per level.

Summary:
Full Casters (at least Wizard/Sorcerers) get fewer HP.
Full Casters get some limits on spells known/casted per day.
Everyone gets a good amount of skills for out-of-combat use.
Martials can actually take two lines of feats so they can effectively do two things (TWF and bows; Power Attack and Criticals; Endurance/Toughness and unarmed; sneaking and hitting; etc.).


One can acknowledge that a gaming system is imperfect while still enjoying it. Personally, I've had plenty of fun with 3.5 and Pathfinder despite being fully aware of the disparity. In fact, I'd say it probably makes the game more fun for me, because I know what to expect when I pick my character. It means I don't expect my Cavalier, Monk, or Barbarian to have as many options as the wizard; I knew that would be the case when I made the character, and I've accepted that.

All that said, I've certainly also enjoyed playing other systems where the game balance works out differently, including ones with no/reduced disparity. I also quite liked playing with 3pp stuff in Pathfinder that similarly cut down on the disparity.


Are we sure this thread is not really about...

magic breaks (bends) the "rules"...

Sure it is a one time thing, but each time magic breaks the rule by allowing one to do something impossible!!!

Martials are mundane, highly trained and skilled, but mundane...


RDM42 wrote:

I'd say you could make a god argument that having a knowledge of a creature is not the same as being familiar with them. You can read all the books in the world on dogs and 'know' them inside and out but still not be 'familiar' with them in the same way a dog breeder, for example, is.

I would tend to go with the less generous standard that is somewhat like the teleport location standards: Has personally interacted with them on a reasonably frequent basis.

Most of the most useful forms are available on the summon natures ally list at around the time you might be using them anyway so if that is your requirement it is hardly difficult to meet.


KenderKin wrote:

Are we sure this thread is not really about...

magic breaks (bends) the "rules"...

Sure it is a one time thing, but each time magic breaks the rule by allowing one to do something impossible!!!

Martials are mundane, highly trained and skilled, but mundane...

Yep, I'm quite sure. Magic "breaking the rules" doesn't actually bother me. The fact that Martials can't do the same bothers me. If you're going to allow Magic users to do world shattering feats then I would atleast allow Martials to do the same. Things like high level fighters smashing mountains, Barbarians hulk jumping and smashing boulders being tossed at them (this one is actually possible now) are all things that I would like martials be able to do if casters get to keep the power they have now.

That doesn't suit everyone though. Others would prefer the casters get their narrative power reduced to be more in line with the martials or both casters and martials meeting somewhere in the middle.

Another group even acknowledges that casters have it better but actually prefer it that way because they want casters to have the cool toys and martials to simply be mundane, the underdog if you will.

For me, I don't care if a caster can do the impossible but I would like martials to be able to achieve things in the same ballpark.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
KenderKin wrote:
Martials are mundane, highly trained and skilled, but mundane...

And therefore, they SHOULD NOT BE IN THE GAME past level 6 or so, because after that, you've left 'mundane' bleeding in the dirt and every opponent worth mentioning has magic powers of one sort or another.

Jack of Dust wrote:


For me, I don't care if a caster can do the impossible but I would like martials to be able to achieve things in the same ballpark.

But that's ANIME!!1!@! You know, like the Ramayana or the Táin bó Cúailnge!

Shadow Lodge

7 people marked this as a favorite.
KenderKin wrote:

Are we sure this thread is not really about...

magic breaks (bends) the "rules"...

The problem with that is that magic doesn't break the rules because it's magic. It breaks the rules because it's fantastic.

And we should really let every character be fantastic in a fantasy game. Not just the ones with magic.


KenderKin wrote:

Are we sure this thread is not really about...

magic breaks (bends) the "rules"...

Sure it is a one time thing, but each time magic breaks the rule by allowing one to do something impossible!!!

Martials are mundane, highly trained and skilled, but mundane...

Yeah, no.

A mundane human cannot survive a hundred foot drop. Or a bite from a tyrannosaurus. Or physically touching lava. Or being engulfed in flames that are explicitly hot enough to liquefy rock. Or being shot six times in as many seconds.

A high level martial can survive all of those things, often quite easily. Hell, decently high-level CASTERS can survive those things.

Realism does not exist in pathfinder once you leave rusty dagger shanktown in the first couple of levels. Having high hit dice means commonly understood rules of cause and effect from OUR world are suggestions at best and funny jokes at worst.

There is no frame of reference in the real world for how good a 6th-level fighter is at fighting, because the greatest human combatants who have ever lived were level 5 or so Warriors in real life. High level fighters should NOT be "skilled soldiers," they're epic heroes. And epic heroes break the rules and do the impossible just as much as magic does.

The Exchange

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Have you heard the good word of Kirthfinder?

I haven't mentioned any particular products as I didn't want to come across as disrespectful against anyone, especially not Kirth. I'm not in the knowing about any numbers (especially as Kirthfinder is basically free), but to be honest, I don't think that it would take a big share from Pathfinder sales either, if sold.

And not to be misunderstood: That doesn't say anything about the quality of Kirthfinder. It's like with the Spheres of Power which I like very much; but that doesn't make their sales numbers suddenly explode. Unlike PFRPG, which basically went through the roof when first published.

But that had also to do with the fact, that they didn't tackle problems like C/MD for sake of backwards compatibility. They tried a lot of innovative things during the playtest, but a lot of those didn't make it into the final version because reception by the playtesters didn't seem romising enpugh.

As far as 5E is concerned, that doesn't count for my argument as it is something else then Pathfinder without CM/D. Same goes for 4E, which also balanced things alot better than 3E or Pathfinder do. Problem for both is that they mainly solve problems I never had while adding things I like much less then the actual state of C/MD.

edit: does Kirthfinder alleviates CM/D by upping martial classes or by nerfing the casters? I guess the first, but maybe I'm wrong?


WormysQueue wrote:


edit: does Kirthfinder alleviates CM/D by upping martial classes or by nerfing the casters? I guess the first, but maybe I'm wrong?

It does both and so so much more than that.

The underlying system beneath it quits favoring casters at every bloody turn and is useful to everyone all the time. Feats were revamped, feat chains obliterated, gish options abound for those that like that, weapon proficiency actually means something besides "I can swing this thing" and I'm honestly probably not even doing it much justice describing it to you.

I have a download link in my profile with PDF versions of the Kirthfinder rules if you want to give it a flip through. It's free so if you have time to kill it is at the very least an interesting read.

I will say that it takes a little while for everything to *click* in your head. I was a bit confused at first but then I was all like "Wait if this works like that and this works like this then WOW that is pretty clever."

The Exchange

Thanks but TOZ already gave me a link to it :)

And you actually made me curious, so it stands on my to-read-list as of now.


Thanks for the positive review, Scavion!

In answer to WQ, we tried to skew the rules so that the casters are actually better off buffing the martials, and being guarded by them -- in other words, make team interdependence a function of the rules, rather than something they don't really support unless you force them to.

Re: power-up vs. nerfing, the answer is "both." The martials get MUCH cooler things at upper levels, and, the casters got nerfed as well. For example, find the path and discern location are no longer spells -- they're ranger class features, so that the guy who's really good at tracking at low levels stays the best at it at high levels, too.

There's also a discussion in the intro what "character level" actually means as a baseline expectation, so that groups who want to play grim 'n' gritty realistic games know what levels to expect that in, and groups that want mythic demigod stuff know when that comes on line.


WormysQueue wrote:

Thanks but TOZ already gave me a link to it :)

And you actually made me curious, so it stands on my to-read-list as of now.

Scavion's link is a more recent version I think. TOZ's link is to the discussion/design thread for Kirthfinder.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I endorse Kirthfinder and all those wonderful twists and turns....


Alot of folks on this thread have been bringing up the "this is supposed to be a team game" argument and while that is true, "team" unfortunately doesn't mean everyone makes a meaningful contribution. The New England Patriots have Tom Brady and they have Jim Bob on the practice squad, are they both making meaningful contributions? My issue with the game is the full casters feel like Tom Brady, while the martials feel more like the dude on the practice squad.

Just my two cents.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

One of the last sessions I played before I went back behind the DM screen was when I played a Wizard in a party with a Cleric, Fighter, Ranger and a Slayer. The Ranger and Slayer had to go home early, so they left.
After that the Cleric and I contemplated a while which one of us was going to cast a spell, it ended up being the Cleric because she had it prepared already. So we brought our Fighter friend along for a trip into the mountains, took us about 40 minutes to scour the entire mountain range and we where able to find the dragons hole.
When at the entrance of the dragon's lair, we made him invisible, we silenced him, removed his scent, gave him darkvision and some other buffs, the regular.

So into the dragon's lair our little Fighter walked, with his magical bow, that I had made him just a few days ago, and killed the sleeping dragon in one shot.
The next session we had to fly back and get our other martials, because they sure as hell couldn't find us.

We geared him up for it, we found it for him, we took him to it, we staged the scene for him, gave him a big pat on the back and then we brought him home again... C/MD disproved! Fighters can kill dragons in one shot! Truly this is a testament to all martials!


Does Psionics "count" as a way of addressing the Caster/Martial Disparity? I would have thought that was just another form of casting.


Steve Geddes wrote:
Does Psionics "count" as a way of addressing the Caster/Martial Disparity? I would have thought that was just another form of casting.

I'd say so (even if I wasn't 100% comfortable putting in it the list). Since it's basically the same as normal magic, except more balanced (and reflects fantasy magic more accurately than vancian but that is not the current topic) and I've heard it as a common way to weaken magic on 3.5e boards. Just change word "Psion" to "Mage".


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Aegis is one of the best full BAB classes I've seen.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Milo v3 wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
Does Psionics "count" as a way of addressing the Caster/Martial Disparity? I would have thought that was just another form of casting.
I'd say so (even if I wasn't 100% comfortable putting in it the list). Since it's basically the same as normal magic, except more balanced (and reflects fantasy magic more accurately than vancian but that is not the current topic) and I've heard it as a common way to weaken magic on 3.5e boards. Just change word "Psion" to "Mage".

The full BAB classes have more narrative power than most pathfinder Martials too.

Though if we are to talk about narrative power I think the Daevic from Akashic Mysteries is a good choice too.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Insain Dragoon wrote:
Though if we are to talk about narrative power I think the Daevic from Akashic Mysteries is a good choice too.

Daevic is currently my favourite martial. I would've put akashic mysteries on the list but it hasn't "got traction in the mainstream audience" yet.


Milo v3 wrote:
Insain Dragoon wrote:
Though if we are to talk about narrative power I think the Daevic from Akashic Mysteries is a good choice too.
Daevic is currently my favourite martial. I would've put akashic mysteries on the list but it hasn't "got traction in the mainstream audience" yet.

I'm curious as to why though since Endzeitgeist is singing nothing but praise for the series. I wouldn't be surprised if the final compiled book ends up in his top 10 list for 2016.

Everyone who does allow Akasha in their games seems to find it very balanced and fun.


Insain Dragoon wrote:

I'm curious as to why though since Endzeitgeist is singing nothing but praise for the series. I wouldn't be surprised if the final compiled book ends up in his top 10 list for 2016.

Everyone who does allow Akasha in their games seems to find it very balanced and fun.

I did say Yet for a reason :P

People who know of it generally sing praise for it, but "so far" it hasn't hit mainstream spread yet as far as I can tell. Though I'd imagine awareness will increase considerably once the full book is out considering it's high quality and DSP's presence in the third-party community.


Nothing called a "Daevic" is ever going to hit the mainstream, at least not for an English-speaking public. WTF is that word from? Google is no help.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mudfoot wrote:
Nothing called a "Daevic" is ever going to hit the mainstream, at least not for an English-speaking public. WTF is that word from? Google is no help.

Daevic is a martial class from Akashic Mysteries that has formed a bond with a Daeva.... And daeva is from the same culture as the word magus is from. I.. actually feel abit deflated if people are actually that close minded that simply because a word isn't from europe it's not worthy of becoming mainstream.


Milo v3 wrote:
Mudfoot wrote:
Nothing called a "Daevic" is ever going to hit the mainstream, at least not for an English-speaking public. WTF is that word from? Google is no help.
Daevic is a class from Akashic Mysteries that has formed a bond with a Daeva.... And daeva is from the same culture as the word magus is from.

English?

Or are you suggesting that because English speakers are familiar with the one word "samurai," they should all be fluent Japanese speakers?

The Exchange

Milo v3 wrote:
Thus my point that the largest issue standing in the way of paizo fixing it is the community.

Yeah, and I think it won't change too much in the near future. Personally, I think most of those arguments presented in the bingo sheet have come from trying to explain why someone likes the game as is. And it doesn't matter if the logic behind those arguments are flawed because it's just personal opinions. Add to that the fear that any modifications to the status quo could change the game in directions the respective player doesn't like and you have an explanation why rational discourse doesn't seem to be effective.

For example, I happen to think that a lot of those options who step on the shoes of other classes originally were introduced to enable groups to bypass obstacles created with a certain class in mind. To take Kirth's example Find the path and discern location may really come in handy if you have no ranger in the party. On the other handy, and that's my take on this, if you have a ranger in the party, the wizard player probably shouldn't write those spells into his spellbook. I can accept if those spells make the wizard the better ranger, because that there's no ranger probably means that the players aren't too interested in those obstacles anyway. If I would accept an official change of the status quo is questionable

Quote:
If you don't care about class versatility you probably shouldn't be in this discussion, since you don't care about the topic... since it's 90% about class versatility.... You walk into a thread and then go "I don't care about this topic."

This thread is about: Dispelling Myths: The Caster-Martial Disparity. Well, the myth being dispelled, now the question is what to do about it. And about that, I care a lot. Especially if most solutions offered seem to be the exact opposite of how I would want C/MD to be solved.

Quote:
It is merely a fact that some classes are Objectively less versatile.

I never denied that fact. It's just that in my opinion, "more versatile" doesn't necessarily equals "better".

Quote:
because there are options in the book that make tier classes weaker.... There's a whole chapter for it basically.

Still doesn't magically override the stuff in the Core Rules. It's kinda like with the FAQs. A lot of people (I'm one of them) don't even read them, so they could as well be not written at all. Those things will never get the same traction as the stuff written in the Core books and any fixes in splat books will never be as accepted by the community as if it was fixed in the basic rules.


Let's bust this down

Daevic separated is Daev- and -ic

-ic is a suffix that basically means "to be like"

EX: Metallic is metal like, often used to describe paints.

So what's Daev?

Well the book references Daevas quite a lot, so Daev is probably the shortened version of the word Daeva to be applied with a suffix, such as -ic.

Google says a Daeva is "an Avestan language term for a particular sort of supernatural entity with disagreeable characteristics"

So a Daevic is something related to disagreeable supernatural entity.

Yeah, that's not too easy for many people to find out to be sure, but it's a far more clever name than "Brawler" or "Hunter" and tells more about the class than those terms too.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
English?

Magus are Zoroastrian priests....

Quote:
Or are you suggesting that because English speakers are familiar with the one word "samurai," they should all be fluent Japanese speakers?

No. I'm suggesting that just because a word is foreign doesn't mean it cannot become mainstream in regards to classes, when we already have classes named after foreign stuff.


Mudfoot wrote:
Nothing called a "Daevic" is ever going to hit the mainstream, at least not for an English-speaking public. WTF is that word from? Google is no help.

It's from an obscure Indo-Iranian language that died out long before the birth of Christ (or the establishment of the Roman Empire, if you prefer secular epoch markers). Unlike "magus," which is was actually borrowed into English from Latin, which in turn borrowed it from Greek, it has no real history of English usage.


Milo v3 wrote:


Quote:
Or are you suggesting that because English speakers are familiar with the one word "samurai," they should all be fluent Japanese speakers?
No. I'm suggesting that just because a word is foreign doesn't mean it cannot become mainstream in regards to classes, when we already have classes named after foreign stuff.

Except "magus" isn't any more foreign than "bicycle."


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Why are we caring about the mainstream again?


HyperMissingno wrote:
Why are we caring about the mainstream again?

Because I've tried to get several groups to play Ars Magica only to founder on the "eff all this Latin stuff" barrier. There are -- perhaps surprisingly -- people to whom roleplaying is supposed to be a fun hobby and not a vocabulary test.

The Exchange

Milo v3 wrote:
Path of War/Spheres of Power/Tome of Battle/Psionics

With all those things, you just prove my point. There's nothing on this list popular enough to even be considered near to mainstream. Tome of Battle isn't even Pathfinder.


HyperMissingno wrote:
Why are we caring about the mainstream again?

Because it's always important to remember that this hobby requires a range of people to play it in order to make sales. Everyone has a right to play.

Though really, if they don't know what a Daevic is, all it takes is cracking open the book to find out what they are.

Kineticist is no different in terms of abrasiveness to the layman.

701 to 750 of 810 << first < prev | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Dispelling Myths: The Caster-Martial Disparity All Messageboards