|
At a table level, the fix can be made by preventing casters from selecting spells that replace class features of other players present.
It's only a local solution, but you won't be getting a disparity visible any more
This is the gentleman so agreement everyone discusses, but it does work to cut down on disparity issues.
It just comes down to everyone working out what their niche is for that game and not stepping on each other's toes.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Spheres of Power! Spheres of Power! Spheres of Power!
*has read the book now that Malwing gifted me; pauses for breath*
Spheres of Power! Spheres of Power! Spheres of Power!
I don't see how my idea is a punishment. I think you are just using unnecessarily emotive language.I'm really not, as demonstrated most ably by Milo, Aratrok and Avh. Probably better than I could have done so myself. The most irksome thing being that it is possible to nerf casters without making playing them an exercise in frustration. I even mentioned two systems to do so, SoP and Psionics. Both very fun, very elegant and a definite decrease in caster power, albeit in different ways.
It seems like what we think is fun is different. I don't like having predictable magic, that sounds like technology to me. My favourite magic system is from Mage The Ascension, but it requires responsible GM fiat to work well. If you have a poor GM it doesn't work, although in saying that I don't think any rule system protects players from bad GMs.
I agree that the spheres of power is a good option. I don't know much about psionics, so can't comment on that one.
@ Milo v3
Regarding the fickleness of magic, there is no explanation for how it works and that is the point. If there was a rational explanation for how it worked then it could quantified like a science, which is exactly what I don't want. Obviously you disagree and prefer magic to be well defined, which is fine, just not my preference.
Regarding your points about the player sitting around doing nothing, I don't think you understand how the mechanism works (or I have misunderstood your objection). The caster can still cast spells everyday like normal, the change is that there is a random number of days before they can replenish their spells. It is unlikely that casters will blow all their spells in the first day and sit around doing nothing the following days. What is more likely is that they will be more prudent with spell use and rely more on equipment and other abilities than they do currently. But when the BBEG does show up they will unload everything, but that is typically at the end anyway.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Man, "being prudent for 10 rounds" sounds a whole lot more diplomatic than "playing Candy Crush on your phone for an hour".
Rogues's problem is that in 1E and 2E they were the stealth class.No, the rogue's problem is that it's a stupid class. In OD&D *everyone* could engage all the challenges the thief monopolized after Greyhawk. The thief has made the game worse as a whole just by existing ever since. All of its problems stem from the idiotic idea that it was okay for one class to be useless in combat while having its own little set of exclusive challenges all other classes were useless at.
Now, now.
Remember, combat was much different in 1/2e. The thief was actually as effective as a cleric, and that backstab ability was actually pretty nice if you used the right weapon. His high Dex meant he could dual wield without penalty, too. Movement being liberal meant he didn't have to stay in contact with a foe to unleash a full attack, either.
In addition, the thief at higher levels was actually useful at scouting ...unlike in PF/d20. He COULD actually infiltrate a castle with equal level foes, and get in and out without being seen. And traps were far, far more lethal in 1e then they are now, so he was actually useful for neutralizing them, instead of tripping them and dealing with the consequences, which can easily be done now.
The specialist in trap removal and entry is a time-honored trope. Just hasn't been set up right in this game.
==Aelrynth
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
One mechanism could be to have the GM roll in secret to see how many days elapse before the magic returns and they can memorise spells again. To make it very difficult for players to predict when their spells will return (and therefore prevent players from gaming the system) I would use an unusual kind of dice rolling mechanism that does not give a linear spread.
...
Under this system casters would be need to be more careful than normal to preserve spells for a special occasion. They certainly would not be casting invisibility on a whim to upstage the rogue of the party. This would fit well will the standard wizard in a fantasy novel trope, where wizards tend to conserve their magic (other than cantrips) until some significant part of the story forces them to use the full extent of their powers.
It seems like what we think is fun is different. I don't like having predictable magic, that sounds like technology to me. My favourite magic system is from Mage The Ascension, but it requires responsible GM fiat to work well. If you have a poor GM it doesn't work, although in saying that I don't think any rule system protects players from bad GMs.I don't see how my idea is a punishment. I think you are just using unnecessarily emotive language.I'm really not, as demonstrated most ably by Milo, Aratrok and Avh. Probably better than I could have done so myself. The most irksome thing being that it is possible to nerf casters without making playing them an exercise in frustration. I even mentioned two systems to do so, SoP and Psionics. Both very fun, very elegant and a definite decrease in caster power, albeit in different ways.
In your idea, magic is as predictable as ever. The recharge rate of magic, not the invocation of magic, becomes unpredictable. Wizards will hoard their spells and use them predictably to upstage the martials at the most critical moments instead of the everyday moments.
The only difference between an unpredictable rate of restoring spell slots and simply giving wizards fewer spells per day is that the wizard will have a reserve of spells that can save the party in emergencies. The infamous 15-minute workday for wizards will become a 15-minute workday with vacation days in between.
Or if the party is on a deadline, they will drag the wizard along in case his spells recharge quickly. The player for the wizard will have to show up for game sessions, the GM will tell him or her, "Sorry, no recharge yet," and the player will have to sit around bored. Worse, imagine that the party creates a risky mundane workaround for the lack of magic that takes two full days. And the morning of the second day, the wizard says, "Skip this dangerous plan that already has us battered and bruised. I have my spells back. We should have taken yesterday off."
What is more likely is that they will be more prudent with spell use and rely more on equipment and other abilities than they do currently. But when the BBEG does show up they will unload everything, but that is typically at the end anyway.
Your idea does not reward that behavior. Imagine the wizard conserving half of his spells for the next day, and each day, all his spell slots are restored. Or sometimes, unpredictably, he uses up half his spells, and they don't recharge the next day. So he uses up half his remaining spells and they don't recharge. And he carefully conserves the last few spells, because those are the ones for dire emergencies. No emergencies come up, so he saves the spells and his spells recharge the next day. Or an emergency comes up, he uses the spells, and they don't recharge. As Prince Yyrkoon said, it is an exercise in frustration.
If you want unpredictability without the repeated uselessness, how about each morning he randomly rolls what school he can prepare? "Well, today I will have to do everything with evocation spells."
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
@ Milo v3
Regarding the fickleness of magic, there is no explanation for how it works and that is the point. If there was a rational explanation for how it worked then it could quantified like a science, which is exactly what I don't want. Obviously you disagree and prefer magic to be well defined, which is fine, just not my preference.
1. Magic is not really fickle with your rule, as stated by others it is only regaining magic that is fickle.
2. Magic does work as science to a degree in Pathfinder, that is the whole point of the wizard class. That's how the game works.3. For the purpose of this discussion, the intended fixes to be discussed are supposed to keep the game Pathfinder. Magic in pathfinder is predictable, that's one of the draws to playing a spellcaster in D&D and Pathfinder, that spellcasting actually works rather than something like call of cthulhu or mage the awakening where there is risk in casting a spell and where magic is fickle.
4. Fickle magic is hard to design well, since depending on how it is made can end up simply punishing players rather than enriching it (for example I would say Mage's rules of paradox enrich the experience, while your rule punishes players).
5. My preference of magic being defined or not is irrelevant to this discussion.
6. It still doesn't explain the simple flavour issues "Lol random" is not a good enough excuse to explain why a level 15 cleric's god forgets he exists. It is not a good enough excuse to explain that an alchemist forgets how to mix chemicals. It is not a good enough excuse to explain why nature suddenly doesn't care if their champions actually can do anything to help it. A psychic who gets power from their friggin Faith and their own soul, no external factors at all, suddenly lose their magic. For no reason.
Regarding your points about the player sitting around doing nothing, I don't think you understand how the mechanism works (or I have misunderstood your objection). The caster can still cast spells everyday like normal, the change is that there is a random number of days before they can replenish their spells. It is unlikely that casters will blow all their spells in the first day and sit around doing nothing the following days. What is more likely is that they will be more prudent with spell use and rely more on equipment and other abilities than they do currently. But when the BBEG does show up they will unload everything, but that is typically at the end anyway.
No, because the player doesn't know when they will be able to get their spells back, they have no idea on how to ration them. They don't know whether to pick spells that will help today, they don't know whether they should cast a spell ever because they might need it latter. And inevitably, the player will have either 2 or 1 or 0 spells remaining at the end of many adventuring days and then find out "Lol, nope. You don't get any spells for the next day". So you're useless, because you can only cast 1 low-level spell in an entire adventuring day. You become a hazard to the entire group. You become living deadweight. You are making it so that every couple of days, the character becomes useless, and in doing so punishing the whole group for having a party member who casts spells.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see how my idea is a punishment. I think you are just using unnecessarily emotive language.I'm really not, as demonstrated most ably by Milo, Aratrok and Avh. Probably better than I could have done so myself. The most irksome thing being that it is possible to nerf casters without making playing them an exercise in frustration. I even mentioned two systems to do so, SoP and Psionics. Both very fun, very elegant and a definite decrease in caster power, albeit in different ways.It seems like what we think is fun is different. I don't like having predictable magic, that sounds like technology to me. My favourite magic system is from Mage The Ascension, but it requires responsible GM fiat to work well. If you have a poor GM it doesn't work, although in saying that I don't think any rule system protects players from bad GMs.
I agree that the spheres of power is a good option. I don't know much about psionics, so can't comment on that one.
Fair enough. Thematic preferences vary from person to person. Though, as has been pointed out, your suggestion isn't really unpredictable.
Magic isn't a science. If it was every mage no matter their INT score would do exactly the same damage with their spells, and they'd all be maximized/empowered/enlarged all the time, and there'd only be one correct way to do it.
The randomness tied to caster ability scores, the dice to determine effect and variety in DCs all say magic isn't a science.
Remember, combat was much different in 1/2e. The thief was actually as effective as a cleric, and that backstab ability was actually pretty nice if you used the right weapon. His high Dex meant he could dual wield without penalty, too. Movement being liberal meant he didn't have to stay in contact with a foe to unleash a full attack, either.None of these things is really true about the 1e thief.
The thief attack bonus table lags behind the clerics and his saving throws are terrible. He also has fewer HP and cannot wear much better than leather armour nor use a shield.
Backstab is something you get to use once per fight pretty much and only if your target is unaware of your presence. You can only do it with a club, dagger or sword, the thief cannot get bastard or two handed sword proficiency unless you are multi or dual classing. A level 6 thief with an 18 dex (highly unusual) has a 57% chance to move silently and a 47% chance to hide in shadows not accounting for race or armour worn (if using Unearthed Arcana rules).
You are not guaranteed a high dex. Frankly in 1e you are not guaranteed any sort of decent stats as you are rolling. Method 1 has you rolling 4d6 drop the lowest in order. You can in any event never dual wield without penalty. Even with an 18 dex you are taking a penalty to hit. You can only dual wield in 1e with a dagger or hand axe meaning a fairly measly amount of extra damage.
Movement in 1e is abstract however once you are engaged leaving melee exposes you to a full attack routine from the enemy with a +4 bonus ignoring your dex mod to AC. Given the thiefs terrible armour and low hp (d6 and con doesnt give a bonus below 14 and you are rolling) that is not a great idea.
As far as being the trap spotter/remover guy, he was terrible at this as well. Most 1e traps are literal death traps. Most poisons are save or die, even the humble 1hd large spider. Even our previous level 6 thief with an 18 dex only has a 50% chance to find/remove...
Now, now, note that I said at 'higher level'.
Also, you're forgetting racial bonuses! And maybe magic items. Cloak and boots of elvenkind really helped the scouting bit.
Too, monsters were MUCH easier to hit and kill in 1E, so the combat progression amounted to a +1 or +2 difference to hit from the cleric at level 10. And while he might be limited to leather armor, he could get bracers (much cheaper back then) and his high Dex meant he did always had the AC bonus. Plus, he leveled faster then anyone but a druid. Dual Wielding also helped with the offense.
I remember nothing about a full attack, -4 to AC and no dex when withdrawing from combat...
1E also means UA with type 6 rolling. Playing a thief without 17-18 Dex didn't happen much once Unearthed came out.
The backstab might only be once a fight, but because monsters never had con bonuses, it might be enough for an instant kill. That IS useful. You could also get decent weapons at a lot lower level...
Once we get to 2E, then we have the ability to CHOOSE where you put your skills. It was pretty easy to get 90% in 3-4 skills by level 4.
And yeah, thieves did have the worst saves in the end of the 4 sets, I agree with that. But note how different 1/2 E saves are from d20. As you get higher level, you are more likely to save against everything, because saves are fixed, and more likely to have skills succeed. This is absolutely better for thieves then eternal contested rolls against monsters with higher stat mods then you. So the success rate at higher level was basically always better then d20.
Thieves got over a lot of things by leveling faster then other classes, too, so 'lagging behind' on saves and TH wasn't as much an issue.
:) ANother grognard, moaning about the past.
==Aelryinth
Magic isn't a science. If it was every mage no matter their INT score would do exactly the same damage with their spells, and they'd all be maximized/empowered/enlarged all the time, and there'd only be one correct way to do it.
The randomness tied to caster ability scores, the dice to determine effect and variety in DCs all say magic isn't a science.
I've been considering how to reply to that, but I'll stick with :
I guess Computer Science isn't a science, then. Neither are many applied sciences.
Even if we consider a "science" to be exact, absolute and immutable, there would be far too much variables to jungle with to be able to manage all of them in the limited time given.
Thus, a wizards has to use shorthands and approximations to be able to construct a fireball. Two wizards simply won't be using the same shorthands and with the same proficiency, and thus will have slightly different results.Magic, in pathfinder, is similar to modern meteorology in that it is incomplete (like, in fact, any other science. I'm picking meteorology because we can clearly see the issues with it). Our knowledge allow us to be moderately successful with it; even then, not every agency agree on the weather the next day.
The same way, two wizard may have distinct results from the same original rules.Oh, and "only one correct way to do it" ? This is so far of the reality of sciences that it's laughable.
Glad I made you laugh then, I guess.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In addition, the thief at higher levels was actually useful at scouting ...unlike in PF/d20. He COULD actually infiltrate a castle with equal level foes, and get in and out without being seen. And traps were far, far more lethal in 1e then they are now, so he was actually useful for neutralizing them, instead of tripping them and dealing with the consequences, which can easily be done now.I don't know why you think these are not horrible things.
The thief can scout. And everyone else? Late in 2e they can play Magic the Gathering in the next room. Before that I'm not sure. Whatever it is it's not the game they came to play. Before the thief the GM would call for a dex roll and they could all sneak, or if someone had poor dex maybe they wouldn't. Either way they're all still playing D&D.
Traps were common because they needed to justify rogues. Before the rogue they were just another kind of puzzle. Time honored trope does not mean suitable to gaming. The chick that keeps getting kidnapped and the obnoxious kid stuck in to appeal to the pre-teen demographic and the token black dude are also time "honored" tropes. None of these have any place in an RPG.
It sounds horrible by comparison to current games, but the reality was that 1e was a huge amount of fun at the time. Sometimes our group used to laugh at how unrealistic and full of holes the rules were and devise staggering arrays of house rules to make up for perceived deficits. Every once in a while we would meet someone from a different gaming table (an unfortunately rare occurrence where I lived) and compare house rules, which was fun as well.
What I find disappointing about the hobby these days is the overwhelming negativity expressed by the supposed fans even though the hobby is better now than it has ever been (although perhaps that is just an Internet phenomenon). I have seen countless great suggestions on these and other boards shot down in flames just because they don't suit a particular gaming table.
Getting back to the opening post, there are plenty of great ideas in this thread already. I will even go so far as to say that every idea put forward will help someone improve their gaming table and are therefore good ideas. With that I am exiting this thread because the martial / caster disparity problem is well and truly solved.
It may have been 'bad design', but it was realistic.
In reality, you DO send someone ahead to scout, and the rest wait and prepare.
Traps ARE lethal.
Specialists really DO have niche protection, and people put up with it. You sit and wait for the toolman to overcome the surveillance system. You let the muscle deal with the guards. The hacker does his thing while you wait.
Sometimes, you meet threats you can't overcome and you run away. (which is why scouts were great).
You wait for them to do their thing before you do yours.
'Everything as a team, all the time,' isn't real and didn't fly.
It wasn't bad and horrible, it was actually a lot like a movie or reading a book. The whole 'I want my character to be involved in everything' mentality wasn't there.
So, I pose that it wasn't bad design, it was different design, with different goals.
==Aelryinth
You can take college classes in game design. That didn't exist 30 years ago.
games are big things.
===================================
PF has niche protection in the form of spell lists. Sure, splatbooks have expanded this somewhat, but basically 9 level full casting List X, Y or Z is a niche all its own.
Bardsong is a protected niche.
Scaling UA dmg is a niche, as is non-Dex to AC.
martials at least get the Full BAB niche....which really isn't a niche, because high Stats and multiple Nat Attacks give the same benefit. But it 'looks' like one.
But Rogues? Rogues don't have a niche at all. Everything they do you can do with someone else, and then do other stuff better.
==Aelryinth
The simplest thing in game terms to keep the balance of the game is to keep them busy; i mean they should have 4 to 5 encounters that would exhaust their resources in the very same day.
Someone did that to us back in the AD&D days and it was nice, we the casters had a hard time not wasting the best spells just because a bunch of monsters appeared. We had to ask the GM to allow us to re-study our books at any point of the day just to be able to "regain" used spells, and we had to spend too much time on it, more than what we do for the normal daily study. Combat and stealth classes can use their abilities "at will", something the casters can't, and this is the part where you can balance the game.
The other way to balance the game is some adventures are so complex, we had no time, light, conditions to study, we were captured, lost or robbed. The casters could only count with the spells they didn't used the previous day. There were no sorcerers or monks, right, but that only translates to them being able only to use the unused spell slots or ki points.
The sad part of it is... it is hard work for the GM, hard hard work.
But this is the way, with the actual rules, to balance the disparity, you have characters that can use their abilities the whole day round after round and characters that consume them. Use that to balance the game.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
This thread was inspired by Jiggy's post, Dispelling Myths: The Caster/Martial Disparity, where various myths about the disparity were debunked. These myths are common simplifications of why casters seem better than martials. And myth #1 was, "The Caster-Martial Disparity is primarily a combat issue."
cablop, your advice is sound. Yet even when that advice is followed, the caster is more useful. Even if the GM designs the encounters so that the PCs have equal contributions in them, the caster is very often the PC who mattered most. The wizard's divination spell beat the charismatic rogue's careful gathering of information to find the boss's hideout; his Invisible scouting of the fortress was faster than the rogue waiting for darkness of night; his Phantom Mount spell beat walking a few days to reach the ancient ruins; and his Dimension Door spell saved their lives when they had to make a hasty retreat after too many bad dice rolls. When the fighter and the cleric are both bruised and weary after battle, and the fighter says, "We had best quit for the day, for one more blow could fell either of us," the cleric may reply, "I used few spells in that battle, only enough to match you in combat prowess, so I can heal us both. Let us continue."
Glad I made you laugh then, I guess.Please excuse the tone of my previous post, it was needlessly aggressive. Over the years on the internet, I sadly took a tendency to be overly... forceful and defensive on subjects that interests me.
That said, I stand with the essence of my post : the scientific method is by nature a process of constant observation, hypothesis and experimentation. And while the theories that has shown there effectiveness are wholly accepted by the scientific community, there is even now plenty room for debate and disagreement, as well as the next guy to have a crazy idea like things smaller than an atom, time not being well time, or the world being made of one-dimensional things.
In the same way, in the classics D&D/PF settings, wizards tend to show a pseudo-scientific approach to magic and, spellcasting being only a basic application of it.
However (for reason unknown to us), wizards apparently need to redesign their spells each day, following a general formula, rather than being able to make use of a more refined solution. This may be due to a missing part of their theory of magic that limit their ability to effectively apply their knowledge.In order to ensure consistency of results (and allow access to magic to non-erudite), wizard are able to apply their theoretical knowledge in the field of magic item creation, which allows a wizard to control more variables than spellcasting, like the amount of power used for a spell (aka, CL of the item).
As a note concerning the perfect solution through science, if we were able to do that (and make it accepted by all), we wouldn't have multiple types of batteries, plugs, and multiple competing standards for so many things.
Overall I agree with you. I was not using the standard definition of science, but the definition of "science!" used by another poster, when he or she said they didn't want magic to be "science!". With all of the variety and randomness involved mechanically, it does not and can not meet that rigid definition.
Viewing mages as theoretical scientists applying the method to magic and such is totally cool, and makes sense.| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
On the science note, I'd like to point out that there's nothing unnatural about magic in D&D/Pathfinder because it's demonstrably a natural part of the game's assumed physics. I mean, creatures composed of magical energies just exist and you can walk onto elemental planes and stuff.
At some point, somebody probably started studying the magical bits of their world and discovered "Hey, we can learn to make use of this power that exists and some creatures use instinctively". :)
On another note, yes, rogues are bad and should feel bad for being bad for the game since forever. While I wouldn't want it as a skill system today, the option for everyone to try to do "skills" by making an ability check was way better than "here's a bad class that does these things using X mechanic, now nobody else can try to do these things".
8 + Int Mod skill points, Sneak Attack and Trapfinding are supposedly the Rogue's niche... supposedly.You can take college classes in game design. That didn't exist 30 years ago.
games are big things.
===================================
PF has niche protection in the form of spell lists. Sure, splatbooks have expanded this somewhat, but basically 9 level full casting List X, Y or Z is a niche all its own.Bardsong is a protected niche.
Scaling UA dmg is a niche, as is non-Dex to AC.
martials at least get the Full BAB niche....which really isn't a niche, because high Stats and multiple Nat Attacks give the same benefit. But it 'looks' like one.
But Rogues? Rogues don't have a niche at all. Everything they do you can do with someone else, and then do other stuff better.
==Aelryinth
Lots of skill points MAY be a niche...but the ranger has almost as many, a genius wizard does, too...and bards end up with more.
Experts, an NPC class, have the same amount.And skills, being both consolidated to fewer skills AND less powerful then magic, have lost their exclusivity big time. The rogue's niche used to be both the sheer number of skill points and the sheer breadth of class skills he had access to. Both are no longer really important.
Trapfinding was sort of a niche...until they gave it away with a feat or trait.
Sneak Attack is damage. That's it, nothing else. Just damage. And given it applies in 50% or less of attacks, it's strictly inferior to Power Attack. Situational damage infliction is not a niche, it's a penalty.
Instant kills (like an assassin) are a niche, in contrast. equally situational, but stab-DEAD is much more powerful then stab-+5d6.
==Aelryinth
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can take college classes in game design. That didn't exist 30 years ago.
games are big things.
===================================
PF has niche protection in the form of spell lists. Sure, splatbooks have expanded this somewhat, but basically 9 level full casting List X, Y or Z is a niche all its own.Bardsong is a protected niche.
Scaling UA dmg is a niche, as is non-Dex to AC.
martials at least get the Full BAB niche....which really isn't a niche, because high Stats and multiple Nat Attacks give the same benefit. But it 'looks' like one.
But Rogues? Rogues don't have a niche at all. Everything they do you can do with someone else, and then do other stuff better.
==Aelryinth
The two most powerful spell lists are both given to multiple classes. Wizards and Clerics are valued over Sorcerers and Oracles because of a different approach to using that spell list.
Bardsong isn't protected at all. Evangelist Cleric, Exemplar Brawler, and Sensei Monk all get it. The Sensei is almost as good as the Bard and the Evangelist is just straight up better, with Versatile Performance being the only real reason to pick a Bard instead.
Scaling UA damage is just damage, and I can see you were critical of Sneak Attack for that same reason. It's not even GOOD damage, most Monks would be better off with a weapon anyways. Nature/Lore/Lunar Oracles get non-dex to AC and it's much better for them.
Full BAB isn't a niche if it applies to an entire category of classes, any more than "9th level caster" is a niche.
There isn't a single class that is absolute secure in it's role; every possible role in this game has multiple classes that take a different approach to doing it. The Rogue's problem isn't that it has no niche protection, it is that compared to other classes in its role it's ability as a skill monkey is pretty garbage.
Design Manager
|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
****
But this is the way, with the actual rules, to balance the disparity, you have characters that can use their abilities the whole day round after round and characters that consume them. Use that to balance the game.
As Mathmuse pointed out, this is a fairly flawed solution for many people experiencing the issue. The flaws include things like the fact that M/CD is more than a combat issue, and the fact that there is no such thing as an "all day" class. Every character has at least one limited resource pool: hit points. Clerics can directly restore hit points; wizards can access temporary hit points, summon monsters to act as hit point sponges or even restore hit points directly, or create effects that prevent or deflect hit point damage; paladins can directly restore hit points without sacrificing combat effectiveness, can gain a mount that adds to the total party hit point pool, and have superior saves meaning they are less like to take damage from magical effects; rangers can directly heal hit point damage, negate damage from reflex based effects, or even prevent damage dealing opponents from coming within effective damage-dealing range; fighters' sole method of mitigating hit point damage is to increase their armor class, and they often struggle to do this as effectively as other classes since their only unique method of doing so involves heavy investment of another limited resource, ability point buy.
One could also look at a character's maximum effectiveness as another type of resource pool, one that is slowly drained by things like fatigue, exhaustion, and various other status effects like blindness, deafness, sickness, curses, etc. Once again, the supposed "all day" classes are the ones least capable of restoring or protecting this limited pool.
So, once you look at the fact that there is no such thing as an "all day" class, and then couple that with the fact that those classes you might have previously considered "all day" classes are the ones least able to protect or renew their most limited resources, you start to get a peek at just a few of the issues many people find themselves confronted with when they complain of martial/caster disparity. Other issues, of course, include things like many challenges in the game, magical and otherwise, only being able to be addressed through magic, the fact that magical solutions are almost universally superior to non-magical options by a very significant degree, and the old "I can do anything you can do" dilemma where one of the many niches available to casters includes dealing combat damage, whereas the martial characters, like the fighter, have no inroads to abilities that are on par with those gained by casters.
Now, this doesn't mean that people who suffer issues due to M/CD necessarily want teleporting fighters and flying samurai, but they do want equivalent options; these can include things like a Fighter being able to increase an ability like Step Up to 11 and follow enemy casters through their own teleport effects, samurai gaining access to griffons and phoenixes as mounts so that they have access to flight and other options that allow them to meet higher level challenges on equal footing, etc. Perhaps some people think a high level martial should be able to emulate a character from American folklore like John Henry, and hammer their way through a mountain in the space of an hour or two; perhaps they want to emulate characters of Celtic mythology and be able to hurl a spear with the range of a longbow that can pierce through half a dozen men. Now, slowly, some of these options have become available to characters in the game, but even in those instances the cost to obtain them reflects a much, much greater investment than their spellcasting counterparts, often forcing them to exclude some or all other options to obtain a single trick that a spellcaster may be able to emulate with a small fraction of their total resources.
You can take college classes in game design. That didn't exist 30 years ago.
games are big things.
===================================
PF has niche protection in the form of spell lists. Sure, splatbooks have expanded this somewhat, but basically 9 level full casting List X, Y or Z is a niche all its own.Bardsong is a protected niche.
Scaling UA dmg is a niche, as is non-Dex to AC.
martials at least get the Full BAB niche....which really isn't a niche, because high Stats and multiple Nat Attacks give the same benefit. But it 'looks' like one.
But Rogues? Rogues don't have a niche at all. Everything they do you can do with someone else, and then do other stuff better.
==Aelryinth
The two most powerful spell lists are both given to multiple classes. Wizards and Clerics are valued over Sorcerers and Oracles because of a different approach to using that spell list.
Bardsong isn't protected at all. Evangelist Cleric, Exemplar Brawler, and Sensei Monk all get it. The Sensei is almost as good as the Bard and the Evangelist is just straight up better, with Versatile Performance being the only real reason to pick a Bard instead.
Scaling UA damage is just damage, and I can see you were critical of Sneak Attack for that same reason. It's not even GOOD damage, most Monks would be better off with a weapon anyways. Nature/Lore/Lunar Oracles get non-dex to AC and it's much better for them.
Full BAB isn't a niche if it applies to an entire category of classes, any more than "9th level caster" is a niche.
There isn't a single class that is absolute secure in it's role; every possible role in this game has multiple classes that take a different approach to doing it. The Rogue's problem isn't that it has no niche protection, it is that compared to other classes in its role it's ability as a skill monkey is pretty garbage.
ah ah ah! I clarified with 'core'.
The sorc and wiz are the only two classes to share a spell list, and both are top tier. Which class is 'better' is always ongoing...the sorc is considered better for random adventuring, but the wizard rules if he has access to the WHOLE LIST and knows what to prepare. Schroedinger's wizard and all.
All the other stuff you cited is splatbook classes after the fact.
Trapfinding is a feat...and basically just a Perception boost/auto-check, anyways. High Percept basically does the same thing.
Evasion is a magic item. ANd rangers get it, too.
Uncanny dodge barbs have.
Rogue Talents are crappy feats.
bards end up with more skill points (turning 1 skill into 3 skills x 5)
Bards have more class skills if you include all knowledge skills.
SA is just situational damage that is not class-dependent (i.e. I can't 100% choose to invoke it).
Commoners can wear light armor.
Weapon selection is the rapier roolz.
One good save...and its Reflex, lowest rated of the 3.
Rogues have NOTHING going for them, niche or otherwise.
==Aelryinth
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Any discussion that only includes Core Rulebook content is pointless. It's the most unbalanced hardcover Paizo has ever produced, and much of what they have made since then is designed to fix what was wrong then.
Besides, if you are only talking core rules then only Rogues can disable magical traps. So they do have a niche.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since the Core Rulebook is the foundation of the game, you basically just said the game is pointless, since all other expansions reference it ;)
And I'm not arguing that it's balanced. Heck no. THe above is to show just how imbalanced it is, JUST looking at the classes!
==Aelryinth
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wouldn't rate a Civilization game without considering the expansions, either. To arbitrarily limit what released content is allowed to be discussed is to intentionally blind yourself to the full reality of the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
cablop also mentioned the DM/GM's role in it, something that can change the disparity in multiple ways.
As if often pointed out since at least 2002, the fact that the DM can fight the rules to mitigate the disparity does not in any way mean no disparity exists in the rules; on the contrary, if "good DM" is a prerequisite for avoiding it, then the problem itself is entrenched in the rules.
Google Oberoni for more.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As long as it isn't the DM/GM complaining about the disparity...
Even if it is. At some point a DM is probably entitled to say, "this much additional effort isn't worth the time I could be spending on running the game, so I'm recommending we change systems to something more conducive to the type of game we're playing."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are a lot of caster options that I think are fine for NPC's but PC's should not be allowed to have. Simulacrum being a chief example. It's a very interesting and thematic tool for a villain but gets way out of hand when a PC uses it.
Granted, I also think a Ranger (PC or NPC) should immediately know the Simulacrum is a fake in his hunt for his real quarry, but I digress.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are a lot of caster options that I think are fine for NPC's but PC's should not be allowed to have. Simulacrum being a chief example. It's a very interesting and thematic tool for a villain but gets way out of hand when a PC uses it.
Granted, I also think a Ranger (PC or NPC) should immediately know the Simulacrum is a fake in his hunt for his real quarry, but I digress.
As a general rule, I despise things only available to NPCs both as a GM and a player. If Mr. Evil Wizard has a spell, then Mr. PC Wizard should be able to learn that spell. I would politely excuse myself from any game where the opposite was true, because it bothers me on a very base level.
The one possible exception being monster abilities but those aren't NPC resources so much as they are a trait of being a thing. I'm speaking more in the tune of things like "the evil sorcerer gets X spell" or "the sword of not-PC-wielding".
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The one possible exception being monster abilities but those aren't NPC resources so much as they are a trait of being a thing. I'm speaking more in the tune of things like "the evil sorcerer gets X spell" or "the sword of not-PC-wielding".
And even in PF the monster abilities aren't bared from player use considering the fact the PF playing as a monster rules work with any monster.
With more than a thousand posts in this very very young thread i can do nothing but ask... could it mean Pathfinder system is dying?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
With more than a thousand posts in this very very young thread i can do nothing but ask... could it mean Pathfinder system is dying?
No.
