Magic vs Martial


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 98 of 98 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
GM 1990 wrote:
Insain Dragoon wrote:


I think you would really get a kick out of a 3PP book called Ultimate Battlelord. It's one of the very few martial character books from a 3PP that both creates a character with narrative power and remains relatively simple to play. I highly recommend it and it's only 3$....

Been in Army boots one form or another since 1988, that looks right up my alley, those Auras and Drills are exactly the kind of thing I was trying to work out in my head.

spent the $3, I can't afford to run all that down myself for $3; its more fun playing. Done. :-)

Thanks for the reference.

Yay :) Yeah after talking with you for a while I thought it would be a class you would appreciate. It was written by a combat veteran too.


In the end , people just cant be satisfied and thus they want the game itself to change to fit their views is all i see here really.

Yes , wizard/sorcs can do "more" than a fighter , so what?

That is the way the system was made to work , fighter will ever be able to do as much as a wizard outside combat? I dont ever see them teleporting to the other side of the continent using the muscles , so im guessing in pathfinder they wont and that is that.

Could you limit wizards into doing only one thing? Probably actually , they would lose tons of utility and thus honestly what would suffer the most if the party itself , since hell , i dont see heal bots anymore and im quite sure i wont be seeing many buffer bots either , because im guessing the number of player that want to have their main spell be haste and pretty much just die when alone wont be that high.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nox Aeterna wrote:

In the end , people just cant be satisfied and thus they want the game itself to change to fit their views is all i see here really.

Yes , wizard/sorcs can do "more" than a fighter , so what?

That is the way the system was made to work , fighter will ever be able to do as much as a wizard outside combat? I dont ever see them teleporting to the other side of the continent using the muscles , so im guessing in pathfinder they wont and that is that.

Could you limit wizards into doing only one thing? Probably actually , they would lose tons of utility and thus honestly what would suffer the most if the party itself , since hell , i dont see heal bots anymore and im quite sure i wont be seeing many buffer bots either , because im guessing the number of player that want to have their main spell be haste and pretty much just die when alone wont be that high.

Nothing about this thread has to do with fighters teleporting though. Or even anything out of combat in the first place.

It's just a question of design paradigm: Why one class is assumed competent at all related features and can specialize while the other is assumed incompetent with all related features and must specialize for competency.


swoosh wrote:
Nox Aeterna wrote:

In the end , people just cant be satisfied and thus they want the game itself to change to fit their views is all i see here really.

Yes , wizard/sorcs can do "more" than a fighter , so what?

That is the way the system was made to work , fighter will ever be able to do as much as a wizard outside combat? I dont ever see them teleporting to the other side of the continent using the muscles , so im guessing in pathfinder they wont and that is that.

Could you limit wizards into doing only one thing? Probably actually , they would lose tons of utility and thus honestly what would suffer the most if the party itself , since hell , i dont see heal bots anymore and im quite sure i wont be seeing many buffer bots either , because im guessing the number of player that want to have their main spell be haste and pretty much just die when alone wont be that high.

Nothing about this thread has to do with fighters teleporting though. Or even anything out of combat in the first place.

It's just a question of design paradigm: Why one class is assumed competent at all related features and can specialize while the other is assumed incompetent with all related features and must specialize for competency.

Yes i understand the point , but that isnt the real issue with caster/martial disparity , even casters cant be the best at everything they can do.

They too need to select a path , they too wont have every feat for every school and every spell... nope.

The issues lies directly on the fact spells are "cheap" compared to what martials get and eventually they simple can do a hell lot more , like in the teleport example.

But that is the way the game was made to work , one can change that so that casters need to be more selective on their choices? Ofc you can , but that means cutting the entire party utility down , since the wizard that wanted to summon things for sure wont give up on what he wanted to do to become a buffer/heal... bot for martials.

They will also lose the option to bypass tons of diferent kinds of issues since hey , now it isnt just about casting fly and going over the wall , nope now the caster (actually the whole party ) needs to invest points in climb.

The idea of changing casters so they become to closer to how martials do incombat affect them directly outside combat , if they need to select a path the whole game changes , the solutions to issues changes...


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The Fighter shouldn't teleport... but he should have reflexes fast enough to grab onto an unfriendly caster trying to blink away and follow her through the teleportation spell.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The thought about changing casters wasn't really a meaningful suggestion. More just pointing out how trying to apply martial rules to spellcaster abilities sounds absurd. The idea of a wizard needing three feats before being able to cast summon monster without it being suicidal is just dumb.

I'd just like martials to get a similar thought process applied to them. I don't want martials to do everything casters can. I don't want martials to be wizards under a different name.

But it would be nice, at least as a start, for my martial character to decide to perform a dirty trick and have it be a reasonable option even without significant specialization. Not as strong or dangerous or effective as a dirty trick specialist, but something you can reasonably choose to do when the situation calls for it, in the same way a blaster wizard can reasonably choose to cast defensive or utility spells when the situation calls for it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
swoosh wrote:

I have a sorcerer who picked an evocation themed bloodline and feats/class features to enhance her evocations.

She casts haste on a party member and Summon Monster to throw more enemies into the fight and while a Transmutation or Conjuration specialist might do a better job there, both spells end up being very effective in contributing to the successful conclusion of the fight.

I have a fighter who fights with two sawtooth sabers and has all her feats dedicated toward improving that combat style.

She tries a trip combat maneuver in that same fight, takes an Attack of Opportunity and gets knocked prone and then gets ruthlessly murdered by monsters on the next turn.

One of these characters has baseline competency as an expected function of the class and can choose to spend feats and other resources to specialize, while the other is assumed to be incompetent and requires specialization simply to function.

It really seems like the classes were designed by wholly different groups with wholly different goals.

It just seems strange because the direction the two classes take is so radically different. Not just in terms of specialization, but in terms of abilities too:

The sorcerer gains efficacy (her blasts hit harder and kill faster) but also gains expanded functionality (blasts that are also debuffs, nonblsating ancillary spells) whereas the martial only improves in efficacy.

Again, feels like they two characters were designed by different people and maybe even for different games. It's odd.

It's a class based system, wizards are upper class and fighters are lower class.


Lots of characters built to be good at one thing would fail to trip.

You are trying to highly specialise a character to do X, and then complaining when they can't do Y.


Skyrim is a game where the Warrior is stronger than the mage.

Raw numbers vs options, in a video game raw numbers win.

In a TTRPG, making martials even close to on par means giving them comparative options, obscene bonuses, or a mixture of both.

DSP psionic martials rock. DSP psionic caster classes are more balanced. If you want to see class balance done better within Pathfinder look at that material. Soulknife and Aegis are what other martials wish they were.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Sword wrote:

Lots of characters built to be good at one thing would fail to trip.

You are trying to highly specialise a character to do X, and then complaining when they can't do Y.

You seem to like this way of designing classes. How about we apply it to casters as well.

Alright lets say a caster gets two schools of magic which they will specialize in. These spells will be cast as they normally are now.The spells under schools of magic the caster didn't specialize in, will be cast with only half of their caster level taken into account, not only that, they will also be unable to access all of the spell levels of schools they didn't specialize in. It would look something like this:

-Full casters can cast spells of schools they didn't specialize in only up to third level spells

-Sixth level casters can cast spells of schools they didn't specialize in only up to second level spells

-Finally fourth level casters will only have access to first level spells of the schools they didn't specialize in

Oh and here is the kicker, if you try to cast a spell of a school you didn't specialize in the casting time is doubled, and if in combat there is a possibility for you to be interrupted even when no enemy is adjacent to you. Let's say if there is an enemy about 30 feet from you they'll be able to make an intimidate check as an attack of opportunity(Bending the rules here but it's a hypothetical situation) to psych you out of focusing on the spell. If the enemy succeeds in intimidating you, the spell will blow up in your face and you will have to take damage based on the level of the spell.

I hear you saying "well what if I don't want to go through that?", well we can have the spell focus feat serve as a double purpose feat that in addition to what it originally does it also lets you cast spells of unspecialized schools without risking them blowing up in your face, the spell specialization feat can let you cast them at full caster level and finally we'll add a feat called Quick Study Spell or something that lets you cast it at its original time.

Sounds fun doesn't it?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nox Aeterna wrote:

Yes i understand the point , but that isnt the real issue with caster/martial disparity , even casters cant be the best at everything they can do.

It's not about being the Best though, it's about being competent. A Wizard who picks mostly Evocation-based spells and feats to augment that can still cast spells that aren't evocation and be good with them too. They still have a good chance of succeeding or doing their intended job/effect.

A Fighter, OTOH, wants to do a combat maneuver but has a significant chance at failure unless they specialize. They can use a weapon to slightly make it better but then you'll have fighters carrying around a giant golf-bag of weapons over their shoulder OR until they find a bag of holding. Either way they can't just perform a maneuver and expect a decent level of competency.

Maybe PF 2.0 should make spellcasters require equipment for specific school of magic to use well? That would be interesting! For summoning you'd need a body part or bone of the animal you want to summon as a focus. You'd need a wand for evocation spells and a mirror for scrying spells. But of course the magic will be pretty strong and sooner or later the focus will become destroyed so you'll have to keep a nice hefty stock in case that happens.

Nox Aeterna wrote:


They too need to select a path , they too wont have every feat for every school and every spell... nope.

But the feats they do choose don't limit or hinder spells chosen from a different school. A Wizard who specializes in Enchantments (and doesn't prohibit evocation) still gets DC 10 + spell level + ability modifier to evocation spells and still does the same amount of die of damage to the same amount of radius as any other non-evocation specialized wizard.

A Fighter, who takes Power Attack and Weapon Focus and Furious Focus will do a significantly worse job at tripping an opponent only because they didn't specialize in Tripping. Do you see the difference here?

Nox Aeterna wrote:


The issues lies directly on the fact spells are "cheap" compared to what martials get and eventually they simple can do a hell lot more , like in the teleport example.

Well there's FAR more issues than that, unfortunately. Spells are also often open ended to allow a good deal of versatility outside their intended scope. For example, using Unseen Servant to drag a 20-lb rock down a hallway to spring any traps or using scorching ray to melt ice and other frozen items or catch stuff on fire.

Nox Aeterna wrote:
But that is the way the game was made to work, one can change that so that casters need to be more selective on their choices? Ofc you can , but that means cutting the entire party utility down , since the wizard that wanted to summon things for sure wont give up on what he wanted to do to become a buffer/heal... bot for martials.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Nox Aeterna wrote:
They will also lose the option to bypass tons of different kinds of issues since hey , now it isn't just about casting fly and going over the wall , nope now the caster (actually the whole party ) needs to invest points in climb.

Again, why is that wrong or a bad thing? Maybe the fighter can utilize his strength and climb parts of the wall to help up the other people? Maybe the rogue can find a way through the labyrinth of tunnels that run through the ice wall if there is any. Maybe physical obstacles can be more of a deterrent to the adventure, forcing a different line of thinking other than: "Lets fix the problem with magic."

Nox Aeterna wrote:
The idea of changing casters so they become to closer to how martials do in-combat affect them directly outside combat, if they need to select a path the whole game changes , the solutions to issues changes...

That's actually a pretty good deal IMO. If you choose to be a super-awesome warmage with powerful offensive capabilities then maybe you shouldn't be able to buff the party, fly over mountains, cast invisibility to scout ahead (better than the Rogue who's invested 10 ranks in Stealth), or cast X, Y, or Z spells outside the purview of Awesome Warmage.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wolfgang Rolf wrote:
The Sword wrote:

Lots of characters built to be good at one thing would fail to trip.

You are trying to highly specialise a character to do X, and then complaining when they can't do Y.

You seem to like this way of designing classes. How about we apply it to casters as well.

Alright lets say a caster gets two schools of magic which they will specialize in. These spells will be cast as they normally are now.The spells under schools of magic the caster didn't specialize in, will be cast with only half of their caster level taken into account, not only that, they will also be unable to access all of the spell levels of schools they didn't specialize in. It would look something like this:

-Full casters can cast spells of schools they didn't specialize in only up to third level spells

-Sixth level casters can cast spells of schools they didn't specialize in only up to second level spells

-Finally fourth level casters will only have access to first level spells of the schools they didn't specialize in

Oh and here is the kicker, if you try to cast a spell of a school you didn't specialize in the casting time is doubled, and if in combat there is a possibility for you to be interrupted even when no enemy is adjacent to you. Let's say if there is an enemy about 30 feet from you they'll be able to make an intimidate check as an attack of opportunity(Bending the rules here but it's a hypothetical situation) to psych you out of focusing on the spell. If the enemy succeeds in intimidating you, the spell will blow up in your face and you will have to take damage based on the level of the spell ...

Sounds fun, doesn't it?

With a few tweaks (and removing the Intimidate silliness -- we'll add that back in as part of an Intimidate feat chain), it does sound like a fun system for 6th and 9th level Arcane casters at the least -- maybe make it so that you can cast non-specialized spells at half of your max spell level, so eventually you can cast 2 schools at 9th level, and the rest of them at 4th level. I personally like the idea of increased casting times for non-specialized spells (it's not like it keeps people from casting Summon Monster N). It would also make your specialized schools something to really consider closely.

I'd definitely play a homebrew game with this as a house rule, and happily roll up a Wizard.


A point of contention on the example: you are comparing the most feat intensive martial build (two-weapon fighting with an exotic weapon) to the least feat intensive caster build (buffing and summoning).

Consider instead two sorcerers. One is built for blasting, with all her feats in spell specialization, Varisian tattoo and the like. The second caster instead spent his feats on the augment summoning chain. They are both level 5. If the summoner casts a fireball, he will deal a piddly 17 damage. The blaster will bring out on the order of 45. More than that, the blaster probably has a higher charisma, as the summoner did not need to invest in it for his build. Along with spell focus (evocation) the blaster's spell will have a save DC 2-3 points higher.

In this case, it is basically a waste of an action for the summoner to try blasting.

Martial builds can be the same way. A two-handed fighter has way more feats to diversify his build compared to a fighter focused on finesse or archery.

So the conclusion is really that in Pathfinder some builds need much more specialization than others.


Knight Magenta wrote:

A point of contention on the example: you are comparing the most feat intensive martial build (two-weapon fighting with an exotic weapon) to the least feat intensive caster build (buffing and summoning).

Consider instead two sorcerers. One is built for blasting, with all her feats in spell specialization, Varisian tattoo and the like. The second caster instead spent his feats on the augment summoning chain. They are both level 5. If the summoner casts a fireball, he will deal a piddly 17 damage. The blaster will bring out on the order of 45. More than that, the blaster probably has a higher charisma, as the summoner did not need to invest in it for his build. Along with spell focus (evocation) the blaster's spell will have a save DC 2-3 points higher.

In this case, it is basically a waste of an action for the summoner to try blasting.

Martial builds can be the same way. A two-handed fighter has way more feats to diversify his build compared to a fighter focused on finesse or archery.

So the conclusion is really that in Pathfinder some builds need much more specialization than others.

But will that Evocation user still have access to invisibility? Summoning?

Paizo Employee Design Manager

1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Sword wrote:
Arbane the Terrible wrote:
Quote:
Not sure why you would try and trip someone up when you both have weapons in hands. It seems to me that tripping should be difficult else people would be doing it all the time.
Yes, the nerve of that trained, experienced warrior, trying to do anything more interesting in a fight than roll hit then damage.

Well a trained experienced fighter can trip a appropriate CR enemy with a good chance of success. As good a chance as dealing damage if not a bit better depending on enemy stats.

This is actually one of those... what do you call 'em... "broad statements lacking in truth or credible evidence". More accurate would be "A Fighter has a decent chance of tripping a CR appropriate enemy, as long as it can't fly, has exactly two legs, is no more than 1 size category larger than the Fighter, and isn't immune to trip for any of a variety of other common reasons". Combat maneuvers really only have any chance at being effective against non-magical medium humanoids, and becomes increasingly less effective with each step the opponent moves away from that description.

Quote:


On the other hand the specific example in the OP was of an untrained fighter provoking attacks and dying (what is his AC and why is his hp so low?). Two feats and the right mundane equipment make tripping easy against a lot of creatures.

See above. "A lot" is only a lot if your campaign features lots of player race NPCs with martial class levels, though to be fair, many campaigns do.

Quote:


Incidentally casting spells like summons and buffs do risk failure as the do provoke aoo and a full round casting sorcerer summoning can be disrupted. When you can use your fun skills a dozen times a day you tend to get a protective over them.

The risk of failure inherent in these is manageable by things as simple as positioning and timing; IME there's actually a relatively small number of buffs that actually get cast in combat, particularly past level 5 or so, which is when C/MD "kicks in" in a meaningful way. Summons are often best executed behind the safety of invisibility or something similar, but if the caster wins initiative (typically pretty easy since they have fewer demands on their ability points, feats, and other resources) they are going to have an opportunity to own the battle field in a way non-casters simply can't.

GM 1990 wrote:
Insain Dragoon wrote:


I think you would really get a kick out of a 3PP book called Ultimate Battlelord. It's one of the very few martial character books from a 3PP that both creates a character with narrative power and remains relatively simple to play. I highly recommend it and it's only 3$....

Been in Army boots one form or another since 1988, that looks right up my alley, those Auras and Drills are exactly the kind of thing I was trying to work out in my head.

spent the $3, I can't afford to run all that down myself for $3; its more fun playing. Done. :-)

Thanks for the reference.

As the author of the Battle Lord, I just wanted to say thank you for your purchase! (Also, reviews and comments in the product thread are always welcome!)


Ssalarn wrote:
As the author of the Battle Lord, I just wanted to say thank you for your purchase! (Also, reviews and comments in the product thread are always welcome!)

I didn't get a chance to look it over last night, but will this weekend and provide a review, even if its just echoing the ones on there now - which were pretty good and enticed me to pull the trigger. The combat medic flavor sounded -really cool-, as well as the aura's and drills. Just fits my mentality.

My 10 and 8 year old both play fighters in my campaign and due to the style (a little more RP heavy) don't have issues staying involved and pertinent in every session. However, I'm always in favor of more fun, and sometimes w/o the mechanic listed on the sheet, the player won't even consider the possibilities of free will.


Insain Dragoon wrote:
Knight Magenta wrote:

A point of contention on the example: you are comparing the most feat intensive martial build (two-weapon fighting with an exotic weapon) to the least feat intensive caster build (buffing and summoning).

Consider instead two sorcerers. One is built for blasting, with all her feats in spell specialization, Varisian tattoo and the like. The second caster instead spent his feats on the augment summoning chain. They are both level 5. If the summoner casts a fireball, he will deal a piddly 17 damage. The blaster will bring out on the order of 45. More than that, the blaster probably has a higher charisma, as the summoner did not need to invest in it for his build. Along with spell focus (evocation) the blaster's spell will have a save DC 2-3 points higher.

In this case, it is basically a waste of an action for the summoner to try blasting.

Martial builds can be the same way. A two-handed fighter has way more feats to diversify his build compared to a fighter focused on finesse or archery.

So the conclusion is really that in Pathfinder some builds need much more specialization than others.

But will that Evocation user still have access to invisibility? Summoning?

Well sure. I never said that both melee and casters were punished to the same degree for trying something outside their specialty. Though since buffing and summoning is the two-handed fighting of casters, that's like saying "well the trip fighter can always attack with a greatsword" :p

That being said, a sorcerer has a reasonably limited spell selection. It is quite possible that a given sorcerer will not have a summoning spell at every level.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would rather martial classes be punished in the same way as casters. You're just less likely to suceed/get less spectacular results.

Normal summon: 1 summon or d3 summoned creatures

Specialized summoning: boosted summon or d3+1 boosted summons

Normal trip: causes prone position. No AoOs for attempting, no weapon drop. Cant work on stuff 2 sizes larger.

Specialized prone: more likely success, gives me an AoO. Can work on stuff more than 2 sizes larger.


That's a pretty good idea. Something to try.


I think the fundamental flaw in maneuvers is that they target not just a target of AC, but an even loftier target in common encounters. Hell, it even scales opposite of AC so bigger creatures get sky high CMD with low ACs. AC is supposed to be an abstraction that CMD covers anyways.

Maneuvers should rely on a saving throw - the attacker calculates a DC, the defender uses the reflex for a trip or fortitude for a dirty trick. Ideally there would even be a fourth save, a combat save, that was for grappling or bull rushes or whatever and was STR based.


Or you could just make a good old STR check.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

STR checks are the worst thing ever included in the game. A naked level 20 str based character can dismantle a door with a full attack 100% of the time, but has a significant chance of failure if they ever attempt to kick down that door.

That makes no sense.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Athaleon wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
swoosh wrote:


Oh sure, house rules, third party and gentlemen's agreements are all well and good.

The better question is to ask WHY there's such a radical difference in design philosophy and expectations It's not just a matter of class design (which is obviously going to be unique for different types of characters) but a fundamental difference in expectations and character archetypes.

To provide differing playstyles and differing flavor to the world setting.

In my opinion, at least, it makes magic feel magical. It justifies the supernatural mechanically. Magic allows those who use it to go beyond what is normally thought to be possible.

It's simply how these games work.

It's okay to like the Caster/Martial disparity (which is what you're describing in this post). Totally fine to like it.

That doesn't mean it doesn't exist, and it also doesn't mean other people aren't allowed to dislike it.

It exists, and it's okay for you to like it and for others to dislike it.

We might as well just link this image in every C/MD thread and call it a day. Thanks, /tg/!

Wonderful link.

==Aelryinth


Envall wrote:
Or you could just make a good old STR check.

The reason why you wouldn't is that swapping CMB/CMD with a saves based system impacts things like hydraulic push where the spell targets CMD but a reflex or fortitude save doesn't fit well.

There are already spells with poorly fitting physical saves like clenched fist (Fort for a crushing hand of force). Strength checks are much swingy-er and there is little distinction by class except for what stats that class should have.


I think hydraulic push fits replacing CMD with saves perfectly. hydraulic push normally has a hard time scaling as you can't improve it's CMB with feats. Instead you could have a maneuver save, you would roll it against hydraulic push and fall prone on a failure. combat maneuvers are done by having the defender roll against 10 + 1/2 BaB + Strength Modifier.


I only advocate a 4th save as a grounds-up design effort, not for house rules.

I use 10+1/2 BAB+STR is my house rule for the combat-maneuver-requiring-save system, and if the opponent is larger than you the DC is 2 lower for each difference in category and the opposite is true for size the other way around. So a human tripping a huge giant would be 6+1/2 BAB+STR while tripping a halfling is 12+1/2 BAB+STR. Combat maneuver feats impact this like normal.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Insain Dragoon wrote:
The Sword wrote:

See my point re: a 1 level dip in brawler. It's really not a big cost as you lose nothing except a capstone ability and gain a lot. 90% of manoeuvre options are then on the table safely.

Weakest/specialised/bad/great are all subjective terms and a matter of personal optioning.

It is my opinion that tripping a trained stronger enemy when you have no training in tripping safely, will not make sense in reasonable circumstances to reasonable people.

The Sorcerer has to buy his abilities too. It's called choosing spells.

By that logic each spell level should also cost a feat and Sorcerers shouldn't get to retrain spells every 2 levels.

Also spells like Battering blast shouldn't exist since they do damage and CC at the same time.

Also each spell should have pre-reqs, like the create pit line.

Each strong spell should have several bad spells as prerequisites. And/or a strength score of 13.


swoosh wrote:


She tries a trip combat maneuver in that same fight, takes an Attack of Opportunity and gets knocked prone and then gets ruthlessly murdered by monsters on the next turn.

You made a very poor tactical decision by attempting an untrained maneuver. The results of that poor tactical decision resulted in character death.

This is not a caster vs. martial problem, it is a player competency problem. The first step towards correcting the problem is acknowledging it exists. Don't worry, we've all made stupid mistakes in the past. The trick is learning from them.


Insain Dragoon wrote:
dragonhunterq wrote:

Caster with solid spell choices vs fighter who makes bad in-combat decisions.

If the caster had less relevant spells or the fighter with trip chain (or fighting in a way that supported the feats chosen) would we be having this discussion?

not sure this is a solid argument imo.

Why is a Fighter who wants to trip a target a bad combat decision? It's actually a pretty great decision.

The problem is the ability gap.

A fighter is specialized to do damage, but wants to CC. He doesn't have any ability to effectively do so.

A sorcerer is specialized to do damage, but wants to CC. He casts Create pit/Ice Spears/Battering Blast.

In general the weakest classes in the game have to buy the ability to do something. The strongest classes in the game are assumed to have the ability to do stuff and can buy increased power in their choice of specialization without weakening the other options.

Snowlilly isn't the first to say this....


It was definitely worth bringing back a thread that had settled out just to say, "No, u r dum!"


Chengar Qordath wrote:
It was definitely worth bringing back a thread that had settled out just to say, "No, u r dum!"

This is simply one of those topics that people feel strongly against.

Its got all of the elements that make for a passionate topic.

You have multiple factions. Old players like things as they are, new players want it to be different. Some players are more casual and don't care, some players are hardcore optimizers who believe that their way is the only way and anyone who differs isn't doing it "wrong" but simply aren't doing it right.

I look at it like this:

This is basically like 2 political parties. Nothing will ever make the arguments end because it comes down to core ideologies.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Even people who don't believe in the M/CD or don't find it in their games find classes that bypass the disparity to be cool and fun.

I think most of the people opposed to "change" don't actually know what it would look like considering how misguided most of their arguments are.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

4 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
Some players are more casual and don't care, some players are hardcore optimizers who believe that their way is the only way and anyone who differs isn't doing it "wrong" but simply aren't doing it right.

And just like with politics, certain sources have become downright famous for their consistently "fair and balanced" portrayals of the parties and their differences.


Insain Dragoon wrote:

Even people who don't believe in the M/CD or don't find it in their games find classes that bypass the disparity to be cool and fun.

I think most of the people opposed to "change" don't actually know what it would look like considering how misguided most of their arguments are.

Yeah that is probably because there is no crystal ball to say how it would be at all.

Even among those that even care about said "issue" enough to want change you will find multiple diferent solutions that people think are one better than the other.

In the end , how "misguided" a argument is or isnt cant even be said , since most of said "issues" are a matter of opinion.

Also , finding a class the "bypass the disparity" doesnt mean people dont think classes directly in the middle of it like the wizard are also fun and thus shouldnt be touched at all.

In the end , only "good" solution might yet come from another alternative system like unchained , since those that want change might use it , those that dont can completely ignore it like it doesnt exist.


Nox Aeterna wrote:
Insain Dragoon wrote:

Even people who don't believe in the M/CD or don't find it in their games find classes that bypass the disparity to be cool and fun.

I think most of the people opposed to "change" don't actually know what it would look like considering how misguided most of their arguments are.

Yeah that is probably because there is no crystal ball to say how it would be at all.

Even among those that even care about said "issue" enough to want change you will find multiple diferent solutions that people think are one better than the other.

In the end , how "misguided" a argument is or isnt cant even be said , since most of said "issues" are a matter of opinion.

Also , finding a class the "bypass the disparity" doesnt mean people dont think classes directly in the middle of it like the wizard are also fun and thus shouldnt be touched at all.

In the end , only "good" solution might yet come from another alternative system like unchained , since those that want change might use it , those that dont can completely ignore it like it doesnt exist.

It's almost like there isn't an entire third party market for Pathfinder where many authors publish highly imaginitive works using a variety of solutions as varied as all the different types of Pathfinder players.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:

I look at it like this:

This is basically like 2 political parties. Nothing will ever make the arguments end because it comes down to core ideologies.

Personally I like using climate change denial as a parable to those who don't believe in the martial/caster disparity. They even use a lot of the same arguments! :)


Snowlilly wrote:
swoosh wrote:


She tries a trip combat maneuver in that same fight, takes an Attack of Opportunity and gets knocked prone and then gets ruthlessly murdered by monsters on the next turn.

You made a very poor tactical decision by attempting an untrained maneuver. The results of that poor tactical decision resulted in character death.

This is not a caster vs. martial problem, it is a player competency problem. The first step towards correcting the problem is acknowledging it exists. Don't worry, we've all made stupid mistakes in the past. The trick is learning from them.

Yeah, but you're overfocussing. The 'poor tactical decision' was playing a martial, because they didn't understand how hard the rules punish that choice.

(Also, your post made my Condescensionometer started beeping. Can't imagine why...whoops, there goes the sarcasm detector!)


Kudaku wrote:
HWalsh wrote:

I look at it like this:

This is basically like 2 political parties. Nothing will ever make the arguments end because it comes down to core ideologies.

Personally I like using climate change denial as a parable to those who don't believe in the martial/caster disparity. They even use a lot of the same arguments! :)

I wouldn't use that one.

The climate change vs denial argument comes down to both groups accepting the impact of change, but arguing on if it is human driven or not.

That is not the case with the alleged C/MD.

In this case you have many more facets.

Some people accept it exists but don't see it as an issue.
Some people don't accept is exists and think it is an agenda driven claim.
Some people accept it exists and see it as a major issue.
Some people accept it exists and are pushing, tirelessly and aggressively, to address it.

The main difference in the end comes into this:

The core argument between the two factions tends to be if attempts to correct the C/MD (if it is real or a fabrication) would cause damage to the game environment.

Which is the exact opposite of climate change.

It is more like...

If both sides agreed on climate change but the "deniers" had the argument of, "And if we try to get rid of it, it could blow up the Earth." Which the other side can't really prove it would, or wouldn't, because in this case "the Earth" is each individual player's personal enjoyment of the game.

You see, my opinion on it is this:

There is no Caster/Martial Disparity. There is an absolute difference in playing a Caster and playing a Martial. There are absolute advantages, in many situations, that one has over the other. This is not a bad thing, as the word "Disparity" would assign. This is actually a "good" thing as it creates flavor within the world. This may not be a "fair" thing but, to be honest, these games simulate a world and in that world, like our world, not everything is fair.

I play casters, I play martials, both are fun for different reasons and in different ways.

Messing with the core abilities of casters and martials to bring them closer in line to each other waters both casters and martials down in my opinion which ultimately does way more harm than it does good.

Here is why:

If you are the type of player that dislikes the style and capabilities of some classes... You have other classes to play. If you like to play those classes then play those classes.

That is the state now. Nobody is forced to play a Caster or a Martial if they don't want to.

If you change it, then it changes one, or the other, and could impact people who do enjoy one of those classes. Either something could be added to one that damages its flavor or vice versa.

Meanwhile if you make Martials, for example, have the same range of impact as Casters then you could also upset Caster players as they may feel Martials are encroaching onto their shtick.

The argument, of course, from the pro-disparity side is that such is fine because Casters have encroached onto the turf of the Martials for some time. The difference is... And this is important... When you got into this, that is the way it was. Changing that impacts people who are already here now, and have existed in the world as it is.

So... We have an impasse in design philosophy.

We can change the physics of the game world at the core to fix a problem that is really only actually negatively impacting a small percentage of players.

(Yes. I am blatantly saying the differences between casters and martials are not negatively impacting a majority of players. Most players either don't care, or have already simply adapted, and due to the popularity of Pathfinder we have to assume the format is fine as it is.)

In doing so we risk negatively impacting a much larger percentage of players.

I see no wisdom in messing with something when it is clearly working.


HWalsh wrote:
Messing with the core abilities of casters and martials to bring them closer in line to each other waters both casters and martials down in my opinion which ultimately does way more harm than it does good.

See? This is what I mean by

Insain Dragoon wrote:

Even people who don't believe in the M/CD or don't find it in their games find classes that bypass the disparity to be cool and fun.

I think most of the people opposed to "change" don't actually know what it would look like considering how misguided most of their arguments are.

I have seen multiple classes and books that work to eliminate or significantly close the gap and "bring them closer in line together" and not once did any of the well written ones "water both casters and martials down."

This is a misguided argument based on theorycraft instead of actual playtesting.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
Kudaku wrote:


Personally I like using climate change denial as a parable to those who don't believe in the martial/caster disparity. They even use a lot of the same arguments! :)

I wouldn't use that one.

The climate change vs denial argument comes down to both groups accepting the impact of change, but arguing on if it is human driven or not.

That is not the case with the alleged C/MD.

That's a nice demonstration of the point. On one side, you have a mountain of evidence. On the other, you have:

*It's not a problem, to my knowledge, right now, for me personally, so the problem doesn't exist.
*I don't like the conclusion, so I'm going to deny it, with no arguments at all.
*Some guy with a title and a vested economic interest in telling me it isn't true is telling me that it isn't true.

Those are exactly the same argument you hear from climate change deniers.

(and make no mistake, USians. To the entire rest of the world, your debate on climate change sounds exactly the same as 9/11 Trutherism and Moon Hoaxers).


HWalsh wrote:
Old players like things as they are, new players want it to be different.

I know lots of old players who want it to be different.

Game design is hard though, especially when the game you are working on is old. Old things become more perfect over time, such that any change is viewed as bad.

For example, chess is a pretty bad high level game, due to a 60%+ draw rate between players, but no changes are allowed to address the issue.


I only will say this because I've seen it happen before.

Making allegations about other nations will get posts deleted and sometimes threads locked. Even if it's true or something we all agree with, it's still against the TOS or whatever.

Please edit out that sentence on the chance a mod uses it as an opportunity to lock another C/MD thread.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

hwalsh, at level 15, when does a fighter have advantage over a wizard


HWalsh wrote:
Old players like things as they are, new players want it to be different.

That's on odd generalisation considering that old players includes people who will have grown up on OD&D and AD&D and BD&D, and presumably include people who'd like it to be like that still. And that's certainly different from how they are.


HWalsh wrote:

If you are the type of player that dislikes the style and capabilities of some classes... You have other classes to play. If you like to play those classes then play those classes.

That is the state now. Nobody is forced to play a Caster or a Martial if they don't want to.

HWalsh wrote:
Nobody is forced to play a Caster or a Martial if they don't want to.

Unless you are advocating using Psionics (or other 3pp), which I know you are not, then your long ramblings about the flavor of the game is way off the rails. The closest to making that statement accurate is 4th level casters.... but they have caster in the description of the class...

And the "watered" down argument is incredibly weak in this game because there are like 5 feats that all melee build have to have, and 5 feats that all ranged build have to have, and a few spells that will always be used by casters. Even tactically the complete unbalance in saves (target number for spells) combined with the crippling effects means mathematically the game favors spellcasting in combat. It's much easier to roll poorly on a save than to roll well against AC, and since critical hits require confirmation and HP is so high that it takes many uses of an attack to bring something down, crippling spell effects make more sense.

It's also why combat maneuvers make for the lowest hanging fruit in the debate. CMD is harder to hit than AC, and maneuvers are the other tactical choice besides damage in the game for full BAB classes. It shows a mismatch in the mechanics and what they promise.


This would be like the climate change argument...

If...

...there was God who had created climate change and placed the human race in situations where climate change would affect them in a meaningful way without taking any steps to mitigate it. Also if climate change predominantly affected a proportion of extremely vocal posters on Internet forums who like to live in a particular environment. Also who like to use extreme examples like the Gobi desert and the Artic tundra as evidence that people can't meaningfully live with climate change.

: p


The Sword wrote:

This would be like the climate change argument...

If...

...there was God who had created climate change and placed the human race in situations where climate change would affect them in a meaningful way without taking any steps to mitigate it. Also if climate change predominantly affected a proportion of extremely vocal posters on Internet forums who like to live in a particular environment. Also who like to use extreme examples like the Gobi desert and the Artic tundra as evidence that people can't meaningfully live with climate change.

: p

If you have to take steps to mitigate something (such as moving to a more agreeable climate, in your analogy) then that something is a problem. "Rule Zero" is the free square in MCD Bingo for a reason. And the "proportion of extremely vocal posters" is the majority in every RPG community except (possibly) this one.

Community & Digital Content Director

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Locking. Folks, we do not have the bandwidth to monitor another Martial/Caster thread, likely to result in a flame war, at this time.

51 to 98 of 98 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Magic vs Martial All Messageboards
Recent threads in General Discussion