Why the resistance to limiting spellcasters?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

451 to 500 of 1,237 << first < prev | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | next > last >>

knightnday wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:

Self quoting a post that got no action earlier since the conversation has circled back in this direction.

kyrt-ryder wrote:

this is my Juggernaught Hero at high levels. [starting at level 13ish and escalating towards level 20.

Immense physicality, able to withstand damn near anything [including the vacuum of space, though there is a limit to how long they can hold their breath...], immense battlefield mobility and foot travel speed, able to punch-out extinction-level [possibly earth shattering] meteors and planet-busting beams.

Complemented by very high resistance to mind/body-altering magic.

Mmm, I'm not interested in God Martials anymore than I am interested in God Wizards. My own take on this is to ramp down the casters and bring the martials up slightly, but to remove/alter some of the more over the top antics. No surviving falling from orbit, swimming in lava and that sort of thing. Yes, I know I'm in the minority. On the plus side, we have cookies!

We certainly do have cookies.

On the plus side, you and I can both have what we want by virtue of the level system. Your limits are at low level and those limits are broken with sufficient levels.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:
On the plus side, you and I can both have what we want by virtue of the level system. Your limits are at low level and those limits are broken with sufficient levels.

Only for spellcasters, is the problem...

Some guy named Frank Trollman (who's written a lot of homebrew stuff for D&D 3.5 on just this topic) said this:

Quote:

It's phrased in all kinds of different ways. Fighters shouldn't be too "anime". Or maybe Fighters should be more Conanesque. Or whatever. But it's actually really common that people think of a "Fighter" and they think of some fictional character who is like 4th level. Mad Martigan from Willow, Conan from Conan, Gimli from LotR, or whatever. That's their concept of a Fighter, and they don't want their character to do anything that character does not do.

Where this gets problematic is when it bumps right next to their next demand, that the party is hitting 5th level and they still want to be limited to a benchmark that is essentially 4th level. And while at that point you can in fact keep things kind of hobbling along with the same character with bigger numbers, after a few levels of that it becomes untenable. When the player is asking for their character to be archetypically identical to a 4th level concept and asking to be mechanically balanced with 9th level casters, you're up **** Creek.

That was the horrible revelation that was caused by the Tome Fighter. The harsh reality is that Mad Martigan is a 4th level character and the people who hold up Mad Martigan as the example are seriously not saying that they want higher level abilities that happen to be skinned as guts and luck, they are literally saying that they want to be quintessentially 4th level characters while being balanced with 9th level characters. It's an actually and actively contradictory thought pattern and there is no solution.

Contrariwise, the Tome Monk get accepted with hardly a blip. Some people quibble about it being overpowered. Some people even helpfully informed us that it was more powerful than a Core Monk. But people didn't tell us that any of it was out of theme. Because the Monk theme is one which can in fact continue growing until it's Goku. Similarly, "Wizard" is a character concept that just keeps growing forever. Your summoner summons electric rat, and then he summons a storm crow, and then he's summoning a thunder dragon. No one bats an eye at this poo poo.

But Fighter players seriously do get annoyed and even offended when their character can beat up an elephant with their bare hands. Also they get annoyed and offended when they notice that the other characters are more powerful than they are. It really is cognitive dissonance, and the solution is to force people to abandon the Fighter concept after a few levels. Mandatory PrCs is the only way to get people to accept their own character having level appropriate abilities at high level.

-Frank

I can't say he's wrong.


Arbane, Please watch the link in the quoted portion of my post, that's the level my high level martials reach. They are a bit less flexible than full casters but they play the same game in their own way.


It's not unreasonable to want to play Mad Mardigan through a campaign, or Lancelot or Aragorn, or Indiana jones. I know far more heroic martial concepts than I do spell casters. Good spell casters more often than not seem to arise from D&d fiction not the other way around (with notable exceptions) Pathfinder shouldn't be changed to add super hero powers from level 5 on the grounds that you can play up to level 4 if you don't want them.

I really don't see the problem with what Pathfinder has done, which is release a book that gives these super natural powers as options. That I can then ignore.

I personally find Saitama ridiculous and would never want that style of play in my game even at epic levels. To me it isn't epic, it's just daft. But then that goes back to my point about the roots of your interest with the game. It's no judgement on other people's tastes, I don't like he Avengers either but I reckognise there is a desire for the shield champion (Incidentally the aversion doesn't come from anime. I have no issue with children running with wolves or girls on gliders charming giant insects)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:

Dr. D basically believes it doesn't kick in until 8th level spells at the earliest.

Meanwhile some of us see it rearing its ugly head as early as 2nd level spells.

It depends on the table, but yes. Of course, you get a player with high system mastery playing the spellcaster, and the DM has allowed everything Paizo ever put its name on, and things change.

But even at the end of RotRL, our Fighter was by far the most dangerous in the party. True, us spellcasters boosted him.

YMMV, and it depends. But you can have fun playing a martial until quite high.


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

It's not unreasonable to want to play Mad Mardigan through a campaign, or Lancelot or Aragorn, or Indiana jones. I know far more heroic martial concepts than I do spell casters. Pathfinder shouldn't be changed to add super hero powers from level 5 on the grounds that you can play up to level 4 if you don't want them.

I really don't see the problem with what Pathfinder has done, which is release a book that gives these super natural powers as options. That I can then ignore.

It is unreasonable though, unless you 1) want the campaign to end at relatively low power levels or 2) are content being much weaker than the god-mode caster you're hanging out with.

The argument is that those kinds of heroic martial concepts are inherently (relatively) low level concepts.


Milo v3 wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Heck it's what many of the posters here want; Total caster martial balance, almost no Vancian Magic, and so forth. "Be careful what you wish for.... you may get it." But it did teach Paizo and WotC that a small group of very vocal posters is not really the market that br4ings in sales. ;_)
So you're saying 4e was a genie wish where they listened to some of the desires and then ignored the intent behind those desires?

Hilarious!

Or they listened to one set of very vocal people- who may not have been the actual people who would end up playing the game.

Also their ad campaign, which said we are all dumb for playing 3.5 and how much greater 4thEd was and anyone who didn't switch was a loser, really ticked many consumers off.


They may be low magic concepts, but are not low level concepts. Fighters under Pathfinder rules can't do a lot of things they might want to do until higher levels because of the nature of the game restricting what you can do.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
The Sword wrote:
I personally find Saitama ridiculous

No more ridiculous than 9th level spells, which is the point.

Saitama is an excellent example because he's simple and mundane. I could pull plenty of examples from comics of multiple origins [or the myths that inspire them] but most have some spiritual aspect that leaves room for debate.


How aboutCu Chulainn? There is a mythic martial.

Lancelot, who could not be beat in fair combat.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
The Sword wrote:
I personally find Saitama ridiculous

No more ridiculous than 9th level spells, which is the point.

Saitama is an excellent example because he's simple and mundane. I could pull plenty of examples from comics of multiple origins [or the myths that inspire them] but most have some spiritual aspect that leaves room for debate.

That's down to different perspectives. I find time stop, gate, storm of vengeance and wish perfectly plausible. It's a world with magic spells in it. It is internaly consistent in that regard.

That said I appreciate that's my choice not to allow Saitama style characters in my games or play in those that do. While you are free to do the same for 9th level spells.


Cu Chulainn is Mystic [of divine origins] but he is not Mythic. Somewhere in the level 13-20 range.


I'm not sure that we have the same definition of "simple and mundane".

Wiki wrote:
Saitama is by far the most powerful hero in the universe, armed with limitless strength, speed, stamina, reflexes to match his speed, power negation, indomitable willpower, telekinetic resistance and flawless indestructibility.

He may believe training was what gave him his powers -- I have no doubt Superman would believe that without the magic rocks and daddy's voice from Krypton as well.

In any case, we want the same thing -- to have people on a similar playing field. We just go about it different ways.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:

How aboutCu Chulainn? There is a mythic martial.

Lancelot, who could not be beat in fair combat.

Cu Chulainn does not strike me as mythic, merely high level. Much like Saitama doesn't strike me as mythic, merely high level. Saitame especially strike me as only high level, since most of his combat "techniques" are him doing completely bland ordinary things really *really* well. Look at his animation for moving backwards to dodge. It's literally just him walking backwards. Even his techniques aren't anything special, aside from the fact that person executing them is high level. His "Normal Punches" and "Side Hops" are just that, ordinary and mundane things done by a high level person. And in the hands of a high level person, consecutive normal punches can kill godlike beings.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Sword wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
The Sword wrote:
I personally find Saitama ridiculous

No more ridiculous than 9th level spells, which is the point.

Saitama is an excellent example because he's simple and mundane. I could pull plenty of examples from comics of multiple origins [or the myths that inspire them] but most have some spiritual aspect that leaves room for debate.

That's down to different perspectives. I find time stop, gate, storm of vengeance and wish perfectly plausible. It's a world with magic spells in it. It is internaly consistent in that regard.

That said I appreciate that's my choice not to allow Saitama style characters in my games or play in those that do. While you are free to do the same for 9th level spells.

I would not have one without the other my friend. Balance/fairness/setting cohesion [that is to say- all paths reach the same heights on different peaks] is incredibly important to me as a GM and as a player.

But yeah, naturally the choice is in the hands of the GM.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
Cu Chulainn is Mystic [of divine origins] but he is not Mythic. Somewhere in the level 13-20 range.

Defeating gods? He beat The Morrigan- three times.


Arbane the Terrible wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
On the plus side, you and I can both have what we want by virtue of the level system. Your limits are at low level and those limits are broken with sufficient levels.

Only for spellcasters, is the problem...

Some guy named Frank Trollman (who's written a lot of homebrew stuff for D&D 3.5 on just this topic) said this:

Quote:

It's phrased in all kinds of different ways. Fighters shouldn't be too "anime". Or maybe Fighters should be more Conanesque. Or whatever. But it's actually really common that people think of a "Fighter" and they think of some fictional character who is like 4th level. Mad Martigan from Willow, Conan from Conan, Gimli from LotR, or whatever. That's their concept of a Fighter, and they don't want their character to do anything that character does not do.

Where this gets problematic is when it bumps right next to their next demand, that the party is hitting 5th level and they still want to be limited to a benchmark that is essentially 4th level. And while at that point you can in fact keep things kind of hobbling along with the same character with bigger numbers, after a few levels of that it becomes untenable. When the player is asking for their character to be archetypically identical to a 4th level concept and asking to be mechanically balanced with 9th level casters, you're up **** Creek.

That was the horrible revelation that was caused by the Tome Fighter. The harsh reality is that Mad Martigan is a 4th level character and the people who hold up Mad Martigan as the example are seriously not saying that they want higher level abilities that happen to be skinned as guts and luck, they are literally saying that they want to be quintessentially 4th level characters while being balanced with 9th level characters. It's an actually and actively contradictory thought pattern and there is no solution.

Contrariwise, the Tome Monk get accepted with hardly a blip. Some people quibble about it being overpowered. Some people even helpfully

...

I agree with that quote, also I think along those lines is why the Tier System was proposed (which I think is a sign of the Ivory Tower principle), so when you design a campaign you can take into consideration the appropriated tier for it. For example, if what you want is a low fantasy campaign, perhaps it would be best to limit class selection to the lower tiers.


DrDeth wrote:

How aboutCu Chulainn? There is a mythic martial.

Lancelot, who could not be beat in fair combat.

I suspect Lancelot hadn't been beaten, which isn't the same as he couldn't be beaten lol. I'd imagine that would be a very useful reputation to have as a fighter. I suspect Lancelot would have a level of bard.

Cu Chulainn was seen as the incarnation of a god, like Thor or Loki. I like the stories but I don't much fancy having him in an adventuring party.


DrDeth wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Cu Chulainn is Mystic [of divine origins] but he is not Mythic. Somewhere in the level 13-20 range.
Defeating gods? He beat The Morrigan- three times.

Considering I only stat most gods at level 17-20 without tacking on Mythic...


The Sword wrote:
DrDeth wrote:

How aboutCu Chulainn? There is a mythic martial.

Lancelot, who could not be beat in fair combat.

I suspect Lancelot hadn't been beaten, which isn't the same as he couldn't be beaten lol. I'd imagine that would be a very useful reputation to have as a fighter. I suspect Lancelot would have a level of bard.

Cu Chulainn was seen as the incarnation of a god, like Thor or Loki. I like the stories but I don't much fancy having him in an adventuring party.

I've had Thor [the god with a few elements borrowed from Marvel] as a player. Maxed out at level 18. Fun times.


Anzyr wrote:
DrDeth wrote:

How aboutCu Chulainn? There is a mythic martial.

Lancelot, who could not be beat in fair combat.

Cu Chulainn does not strike me as mythic, merely high level. Much like Saitama doesn't strike me as mythic, merely high level. Saitame especially strike me as only high level, since most of his combat "techniques" are him doing completely bland ordinary things really *really* well. Look at his animation for moving backwards to dodge. It's literally just him walking backwards. Even his techniques aren't anything special, aside from the fact that person executing them is high level. His "Normal Punches" and "Side Hops" are just that, ordinary and mundane things done by a high level person. And in the hands of a high level person, consecutive normal punches can kill godlike beings.

I'm not sure if Saitama is really that high level or only has very high stats modifiers, maybe both.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Cu Chulainn is Mystic [of divine origins] but he is not Mythic. Somewhere in the level 13-20 range.
Defeating gods? He beat The Morrigan- three times.
Considering I only stat most gods at level 17-20 without tacking on Mythic...

This seems about right to me. I clock Zeus as a 13th Level Druid myself.


@Anzyr Knightn day is cool, he wants to dampen casters down to that level, he's not apologizing for the current state.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
@Anzyr Knightn day is cool, he wants to dampen casters down to that level, he's not apologizing for the current state.

Gotcha!


knightnday wrote:

I'm not sure that we have the same definition of "simple and mundane".

Wiki wrote:
Saitama is by far the most powerful hero in the universe, armed with limitless strength, speed, stamina, reflexes to match his speed, power negation, indomitable willpower, telekinetic resistance and flawless indestructibility.

He may believe training was what gave him his powers -- I have no doubt Superman would believe that without the magic rocks and daddy's voice from Krypton as well.

In any case, we want the same thing -- to have people on a similar playing field. We just go about it different ways.

If everyone were on the same level I wouldn't play Pathfinder.

I have M&M for Martials that are "mundane" but can punch holes in the plot.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
knightnday wrote:

I'm not sure that we have the same definition of "simple and mundane".

Wiki wrote:
Saitama is by far the most powerful hero in the universe, armed with limitless strength, speed, stamina, reflexes to match his speed, power negation, indomitable willpower, telekinetic resistance and flawless indestructibility.

He may believe training was what gave him his powers -- I have no doubt Superman would believe that without the magic rocks and daddy's voice from Krypton as well.

In any case, we want the same thing -- to have people on a similar playing field. We just go about it different ways.

If everyone were on the same level I wouldn't play Pathfinder.

I have M&M for Martials that are "mundane" but can punch holes in the plot.

That's the beauty of Pathfinder. It gives a chassis that you can use to play in a wide assortment of ways. No one is the best or the only way, and each table can still have fun.


Since not everyone is on the same level I no longer run Pathfinder, though playtesting my system in their APs has been pretty smooth.


An excellent example of an actual Mythic Martial [of high level] is Sun Wukong.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:

Hilarious!

Or they listened to one set of very vocal people- who may not have been the actual people who would end up playing the game.

Maybe, but even listening to those vocal people you wouldn't just hear "Total caster martial balance". They'd have heard about how spontaneous 6th casters like beguilers, bards, binders, the psionic classes, and dread necromancers were seen as actually balanced "casters" and see that ToB martials were seen as more balanced martials. Because I didn't see many people just claiming "Total caster/martal balance" on it's own.

Same with "No vancian magic". The most vocal said they don't want vancian magic because it's nothing like how magic is in fantasy... the new system had the exact same issue, meaning they must of only listened to Part of most vocal opinion rather than actually listen to the rest of the sentence.

Just listening to the set of very vocal people saying "Total caster martial balance, almost no Vancian Magic, and so forth" wouldn't have caused the issue. The issues which arose seem like they come from listening only to first part of the following sentence while ignoring the latter: "X is an issue with the game, it should be more like y which doesn't have that issue".


Pst: beguiler is a 9th level casting class.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
Pst: beguiler is a 9th level casting class.

Eh, It's been over five years since I played 3.5e. So much has been forgotten. I'm surprised I still remember spirit shamans and asherati.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
Pst: beguiler is a 9th level casting class.

Shhh, don't let the beguiler that got Milo know we're on to them...


kyrt-ryder wrote:
An excellent example of an actual Mythic Martial [of high level] is Sun Wukong.

Being the Patron Saint of All Munchkins, Wukong also knew magic, for when he needed to be a little more subtle than 'bust into Heaven and beat up all the gods'.


I know he could shapeshift and create clones, I wasn't aware of any 'spellcasting.'

Am I mistaken? Details if you've got them?


kyrt-ryder wrote:

I know he could shapeshift and create clones, I wasn't aware of any 'spellcasting.'

Am I mistaken? Details if you've got them?

In a lot of the legends of the Monkey King he could create illusions. He was supposedly a master of many magics he learned from his Bhuddist master.


edduardco wrote:
Scythia wrote:
I don't like limiting casters because I think it's more fun to boost martials. Simple as that.
Exactly, at the very least [b]you won't piss off people who likes casters[/b[ now, and has the possibility of making people who likes martials happy, seems like a win win situation.

You'll certainly annoy some of them. There's a very strong feeling that magic has to be special, and for a significant number that's achieved by being powerful - more powerful than what can be done without magic. Ergo, raising martials to the point where they can do things that are equal to casters means you have made magic not-special due to not being more powerful than non-magic. See in the 4e context the particular dislike for the Warlord, which could restore hit points comparably to classes that had traditionally done it with magic, and how some found it acceptable to 'shout hands back on' when that was only on a temporary basis.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:


Note, by this classification, Iron Man's a martial. He's just a guy with a suit of "magic" armor.

Synthesist Summoner


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Arbane the Terrible wrote:
Some guy named Frank Trollman (who's written a lot of homebrew stuff for D&D 3.5 on just this topic) said this:

Wow, that's brilliantly put, and encapsulates the inherent cognitive dissonance so well. Particularly so, since the things that the "Mad Martigan 'till 20" crowd want to preserve are... honestly, already lost in the current system when you really look at it. Just... without the actual balance to show for it.

If you play to 20, even in the current system you're no longer playing anything resembling Mad Martigan. Mad Martigan cannot hit a Rhinoceros so hard that it invokes the "chunky-salsa rule" from sheer damage and explodes, after the Rhino spends several rounds futilely trying and utterly failing to do the slightest bit of damage to him as he just stands there. (Much like that first Saitama clip, actually.) kyrt-rider is exactly right. It's a level question, not a class question.

So as long as that's the case, as long as Level 20 means that you're a full-out ludicrous superhuman who is supposed to be able to go toe-to-toe with Balrogs Balors that Aragorn couldn't remotely hold a candle to, then let's at least own that, and lean into the kind of Figher that actually, thematically entails in a way that's consistent across the board, rather than the current approach of "make Aragorn's capabilities our thematic benchmark... eeeeexcept for a handful of raw numbers that blow it out of the water anyway, but without which we couldn't even pretend that it's balanced".

If you really, truly do want to play an actual Mad Martigan or Aragorn through a whole campaign, an E6 campaign is a perfectly viable way to do so. But let's not limit level 20 by trying to have a foot in both worlds, providing a "realism" it--even now--doesn't actually provide.


claymade wrote:
Arbane the Terrible wrote:
Some guy named Frank Trollman (who's written a lot of homebrew stuff for D&D 3.5 on just this topic) said this:

Wow, that's brilliantly put, and encapsulates the inherent cognitive dissonance so well. Particularly so, since the things that the "Mad Martigan 'till 20" crowd want to preserve are... honestly, already lost in the current system when you really look at it. Just... without the actual balance to show for it.

If you play to 20, even in the current system you're no longer playing anything resembling Mad Martigan. Mad Martigan cannot hit a Rhinoceros so hard that it invokes the "chunky-salsa rule" from sheer damage and explodes, after the Rhino spends several rounds futilely trying and utterly failing to do the slightest bit of damage to him as he just stands there. (Much like that first Saitama clip, actually.) kyrt-rider is exactly right. It's a level question, not a class question.

So as long as that's the case, as long as Level 20 means that you're a full-out ludicrous superhuman who is supposed to be able to go toe-to-toe with Balrogs Balors that Aragorn couldn't remotely hold a candle to, then let's at least own that, and lean into the kind of Figher that actually, thematically entails in a way that's consistent across the board, rather than the current approach of "make Aragorn's capabilities our thematic benchmark... eeeeexcept for a handful of raw numbers that blow it out of the water anyway, but without which we couldn't even pretend that it's balanced".

If you really, truly do want to play an actual Mad Martigan or Aragorn through a whole campaign, an E6 campaign is a perfectly viable way to do so. But let's not limit level 20 by trying to have a foot in both worlds, providing a "realism" it--even now--doesn't actually provide.

Uh no.

Level 20 isn't "hit a Rhino so hard he explodes."

It is, "Expertly stab it in a vital location and kill it in a single stroke."

By the way that is still within human capability.

The idea that OMG I must be Saitama!!!

Isn't correct. Martials SHOULD NOT be punching holes in reality. That was stupid when DC comics did it and it isn't any better now.

Leave Martials alone some of us, probably most of us, don't care.

You wanna be a Martial with some magic? Magus. Go nuts. Eldritch Knight. Why mess with something that, by all rights, you obviously hate when you have options that are viable enough.

Magus - Mostly martial with Arcane magic.

Ranger - Martial with Druid Magic.

Paladin - Martial with Divine Magic.

If you want to play a completely non-magical sword user who can swing their sword so hard the ground splits open and swallows a building? Go play M&M. No C/MD to worry about.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluenose wrote:
edduardco wrote:
Scythia wrote:
I don't like limiting casters because I think it's more fun to boost martials. Simple as that.
Exactly, at the very least [b]you won't piss off people who likes casters[/b[ now, and has the possibility of making people who likes martials happy, seems like a win win situation.
You'll certainly annoy some of them. There's a very strong feeling that magic has to be special, and for a significant number that's achieved by being powerful - more powerful than what can be done without magic. Ergo, raising martials to the point where they can do things that are equal to casters means you have made magic not-special due to not being more powerful than non-magic. See in the 4e context the particular dislike for the Warlord, which could restore hit points comparably to classes that had traditionally done it with magic, and how some found it acceptable to 'shout hands back on' when that was only on a temporary basis.

Sorry but I have never encounter such statements in the forums, perhaps it was an isolated issue in 4e? I mean what if the argument wasn't that magic should be more powerful but different, that feel like magic.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:


You wanna be a Martial with some magic? Magus. Go nuts. Eldritch Knight. Why mess with something that, by all rights, you obviously hate when you have options that are viable enough.

Magus - Mostly martial with Arcane magic.

Ranger - Martial with Druid Magic.

Paladin - Martial with Divine Magic.

If you want to play a completely non-magical sword user who can swing their sword so hard the ground splits open and swallows a building? Go play M&M. No C/MD to worry about.

Do you think a Fighter is approximately as useful in a level 20 party as a Wizard? I'm not asking if they're balanced, I'm saying approximately as useful.

I don't need Fighters that are perfectly balanced to Wizards, what I want is for them to not feel redundant and useless. Right now they feel redundant and useless.

Are you opposed to making them unique and useful?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:
HWalsh wrote:


You wanna be a Martial with some magic? Magus. Go nuts. Eldritch Knight. Why mess with something that, by all rights, you obviously hate when you have options that are viable enough.

Magus - Mostly martial with Arcane magic.

Ranger - Martial with Druid Magic.

Paladin - Martial with Divine Magic.

If you want to play a completely non-magical sword user who can swing their sword so hard the ground splits open and swallows a building? Go play M&M. No C/MD to worry about.

Do you think a Fighter is approximately as useful in a level 20 party as a Wizard? I'm not asking if they're balanced, I'm saying approximately as useful.

I don't need Fighters that are perfectly balanced to Wizards, what I want is for them to not feel redundant and useless. Right now they feel redundant and useless.

Are you opposed to making them unique and useful?

Sometimes it is hard not to see the Fighter and other martials like the Rogue as glorified NPC classes.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:

Level 20 isn't "hit a Rhino so hard he explodes."

It is, "Expertly stab it in a vital location and kill it in a single stroke."

You play this game incredibly differently from some of us Walsh. I've got a bit over one decade into 3.P and every GM I've ever played with has used Meat Point style Hit Points.

That 'strike the vitals' concept has always been reserves for critical hits in games I've participated in.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Is Mad Martigan even playable? I seem to recall a character whose defining characteristics were mobility in combat(and out of it), variety of attacks, high Charisma, and skills, not massive damage and stand-still full attack.


thejeff wrote:
That was me. It all depends on how you look at it. If you look at it as "Does he have powers?" then Hawkeye's a martial and Hulk's "magically empowered" - so maybe a Mythic martial.

I'd say that opening a pickle jar and being able to get free guac at Chickpolte qualify as mythic abilites.


No I think they are very useful, because in balanced parties and encounters we need people who can 'fight' as well. The way the game is structured means in most adventures over half the encounters are combats which martials excell at, so yes martials are both unique and useful.

Magic isn't about doing things that are more powerful. Over half the spells in the Pathfinder deal some form of damage. Something martials exceed at in almost every way. Combat is normally a massive part of the game and arguable the part that had most of the difficulty. Being good in combat is therefore important.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
The Sword wrote:

No I think they are very useful, because in balanced parties and encounters we need people who can 'fight' as well. The way the game is structured means in most adventures over half the encounters are combats which martials excell at, so yes martials are both unique and useful.

And druids, and oracles, and summoners, even good blaster wizard can do tons of damage.

You can make parties with 4 full casters (including old summoners as they were disguised full casters) and be ok from level 1 to level 20.

Making a party of non-magical characters that works from level 1 to 20?, much much harder, perhaps impossible.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bluenose wrote:


You'll certainly annoy some of them. There's a very strong feeling that magic has to be special, and for a significant number that's achieved by being powerful - more powerful than what can be done without magic. Ergo, raising martials to the point where they can do things that are equal to casters means you have made magic not-special due to not being more powerful than non-magic. See in the 4e context the particular dislike for the Warlord, which could restore hit points comparably to classes that had traditionally done it with magic, and how some found it acceptable to 'shout hands back on' when that was only on a temporary basis.

The Warlord was my favorite thing about 4E. The little I played of it at least - original Core rules only,

Inspirational healing and the ability to have others attack for you was so much fun,


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Magic >> not-magic is ok, what bothers me is magical classes >> non-magical classes.

451 to 500 of 1,237 << first < prev | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Why the resistance to limiting spellcasters? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.