Caster-Martial Disparity in 2e


Prerelease Discussion

1 to 50 of 307 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

Jason Buhlman suggested that this topic would best be addressed in a thread outside the fighter one, so here is a thread.

As I understand it, the situation roughly is:

1) The designers seem to have acknowledged this as a design goal.
2) Skills, and by extension martial, will be allowed to be more epic than before, although we don't have a lot of details.
3) We know very little about when any given spell comes online, or indeed much else about how magic operates, although it's probably fair to assume full casters gain a new spell level every other character level.
4) Fighters do not appear to get any non-combat abilities for being fighters aside from fast-tracked perception, although they do benefit from the same skill consolidation and empowerment that everyone else does (and presumably benefit more, in the same way that a poor person benefits more from a UBI and generous public services than a rich person does, even though they get the same check in the mail, the same bus to ride on, and so on.)

Obligatory link.


We didn't see everything about the fighter or even the level 1 fighter. We don't know their starting skill and Proficiency allotment, even. I'm guessing they get something at level 1 other than just Perception and AoO. :p


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

The C/MD is real, and it's unavoidable. Every RPG since 1974 has had to face the C/MD, and at last in PF2.0 some portion of that is being addressed.

How?

By beefing up the options the fighter (and other martials) has on its plate and by nerfing the spellcasters, through limited magic (spells not scaling to level, like before) and through the action economy (most spells taking two actions).

We have very limited information on just how spells will be handled, so it's impossible to really get a handle on how far spellcasters have been nerfed.

Personally, I would like to see most mid to high-level spells taking more and more actions to cast to effect. But only time will tell how Paizo has actually chosen to deal with spellcasting at those levels.

In a sense, though, the C/MD is a false dichotomy. A party works together, and the cool tricks that magic can do will augment the things a martial character can do. Fly? Sure, the caster can make himself fly, but he can also make his pal the fighter fly. Teamwork is the factor that makes the C/MD irrelevant. An all-caster party will suffer more than a blended party with caster, martial and other support characters worked into the mix.

I suspect that a final measure of the impact of the C/MD will have to wait until the playtest books come out this August. Until then, it's just naysayers predicting doom & gloom. I prefer to remain optimistic.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Wheldrake wrote:
In a sense, though, the C/MD is a false dichotomy. A party works together, and the cool tricks that magic can do will augment the things a martial character can do. Fly? Sure, the caster can make himself fly, but he can also make his pal the fighter fly. Teamwork is the factor that makes the C/MD irrelevant. An all-caster party will suffer more than a blended party with caster, martial and other support characters worked into the mix.

I agree with this. Pathfinder 1e APs have a lot of combat, and it's the martials' job to win those combats. Can you make an all-caster party and survive? Sure. But I've never seen a player in my games upset at their choice of playing a rogue or fighter, even at levels in the 15-20 range, because those characters do their mundane things very well at that point. I've seen a 17th level rogue shave two rounds of the end fight of Serpent's Skull with a well timed skill check. I've seen a mixed party using clever tactics take on APL+4 encounters with minimal danger. Sometimes you don't want to break the laws of physics, you just want to push them to their limits.

It's refreshing to sometimes just play a character who hits things very well. Martials having the options for more narrative power is great and exciting - but if you make every fighter into a "Sword wizard," you're removing the option to simply be the "best of the best" in a Hercules or Beowulf sense. Some players want that simplicity.

Teamwork is such a force multiplier in Pathfinder that sometimes I think the caster players are jealous of the martials' combat prowess, at least in my games. I do know that sometimes the GM gets frustrated that their big monster gets maybe one round to do their thing before a blendy whirlwind of destruction appears next to them and drops them from full to dead in a single full attack.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wheldrake wrote:
An all-caster party will suffer more than a blended party with caster, martial and other support characters worked into the mix.

This is only somewhat true up to level 5, and even before that semi-martial casters like the druid or Cleric or Inquisitor or Warpriest or Magus do just about as well.


Pathfinder PF Special Edition Subscriber
Wheldrake wrote:

The C/MD is real, and it's unavoidable. Every RPG since 1974 has had to face the C/MD, and at last in PF2.0 some portion of that is being addressed.

How?

By beefing up the options the fighter (and other martials) has on its plate and by nerfing the spellcasters, through limited magic (spells not scaling to level, like before) and through the action economy (most spells taking two actions).

We have very limited information on just how spells will be handled, so it's impossible to really get a handle on how far spellcasters have been nerfed.

Personally, I would like to see most mid to high-level spells taking more and more actions to cast to effect. But only time will tell how Paizo has actually chosen to deal with spellcasting at those levels.

In a sense, though, the C/MD is a false dichotomy. A party works together, and the cool tricks that magic can do will augment the things a martial character can do. Fly? Sure, the caster can make himself fly, but he can also make his pal the fighter fly. Teamwork is the factor that makes the C/MD irrelevant. An all-caster party will suffer more than a blended party with caster, martial and other support characters worked into the mix.

I suspect that a final measure of the impact of the C/MD will have to wait until the playtest books come out this August. Until then, it's just naysayers predicting doom & gloom. I prefer to remain optimistic.

I agree with all of this, especially the teamwork aspect and the need to wait until August. Gloom and doom makes non sense, imho. We should expect the best, not the worst from the Paizo team (if I expected the worst then I wouldn't bother commenting).

There's one thing that remains an issue to this day, however, and isn't easily solvable through teamwork expectations: Non-combat situations where the caster makes the non-casters irrelevant. Combat isn't a huge deal since it's got to be solved through teamwork. If the caster kills all the enemies singlehandedly every time, then it means the DM isn't putting the right kind and/or number of enemies in front of the group.

Non-combat is a harder issue, because it doesn't always boil down to team action. Spells like knock, find traps, detect secret doors, clairvoyance, passwall and the like have a way to make mundane skills irrelevant. I'm looking forward to PF2's answer to that problem.


Pathfinder PF Special Edition Subscriber
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Wheldrake wrote:
An all-caster party will suffer more than a blended party with caster, martial and other support characters worked into the mix.
This is only somewhat true up to level 5, and even before that semi-martial casters like the druid or Cleric or Inquisitor or Warpriest or Magus do just about as well.

That may be, but not to the point that any player needs to replace his/her martial PC with one of those classes in order to have a fun game.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Wheldrake wrote:
In a sense, though, the C/MD is a false dichotomy. A party works together, and the cool tricks that magic can do will augment the things a martial character can do. Fly? Sure, the caster can make himself fly, but he can also make his pal the fighter fly. Teamwork is the factor that makes the C/MD irrelevant. An all-caster party will suffer more than a blended party with caster, martial and other support characters worked into the mix.

This just makes the fighter a liability and a drain on resources. Yes it's a party game. And sure the wizard CAN cast fly on the fighter, but the wizard may have other things he wants to do with his spells. It's only Resource draining martials that "demand" others fix their problems.

All-caster parties work REALLY WELL. A party of 4 wizards will have an easier time doing a mission than a party of 4 fighters would.

If martial types get FREE access to at least solutions to combat problems It'd be a nice upgrade to actually let them do their job. Being able to high jump to hit flying people can maybe be enough.


Pathfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

With the enhanced role of skill use suggested in PF2.0, I predict that the narrative role of non-casters will increase many-fold.

The trouble with skills in PF1.0 is that characters with low INT and low skill points per level are simply screwed. We don't yet have the full story in PF2.0, but it appears that all characters will have reasonable and interesting skill progression, which by all rights ought to improve the narrative power of non-casters by a notch or two.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I think some martial caster disparity is unavoidable because there are some things that magic can do that you can't just do without magic. However I think it could be greatly reduced if casters had to follow some of the design rules of martials

1. In general martials don't get to rearrange all their class abilities every day so neither should casters.

2. Many high level martial and skill effects require feat trees therefore so should spells effects. This forces casters to be either broad and shallow or narrow and deep just like very other character.

This is a big part of what spheres of power did and I think it works great. Since the devs have said that they wont be getting rid of vancian I propose the following as an idea:

1. A hard limit on spells known per caster.
For example a wizards spellbook only gains spells via level up or via feat. And Clerics/Druids etc. have some sort of similar mechanic, prayer book or something. Spontaneous casters already have that restriction and are generally considered less powerful than prepared casters though still some of the most powerful classes.

2. A prerequisite of spells known/in spellbook for learning higher level spells.
Probably simplest to do this by school. Perhaps something like in order to learn a new spell you need to know a number of spells in that school equal to the new spells level minus one. That way in order to gain a 10th level evocation spell you need to know nine other evocation spells.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
ryric wrote:
Martials having the options for more narrative power is great and exciting - but if you make every fighter into a "Sword wizard," you're removing the option to simply be the "best of the best" in a Hercules or Beowulf sense.

Aye, the simple things.

Like swimming in Icy Water for 7 days straight in metal armor, then fighting sea monsters underwater for a whole night at depths of over 1,000 feet (the bottom of 'the sea' which was either the Baltic Sea with a max depth of 1500 feet or the North Sea with a max depth of over 2000)

Or holding up the sky

Or Breaking a mountain in twain or rapidly mounding and compressing two brand new Mountains.

Or rerouting two full size rivers in a single day

Or chasing a deer at speeds faster than an arrow for a year straight

Etc.


14 people marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:
ryric wrote:
Martials having the options for more narrative power is great and exciting - but if you make every fighter into a "Sword wizard," you're removing the option to simply be the "best of the best" in a Hercules or Beowulf sense.

Aye, the simple things.

Like swimming in Icy Water for 7 days straight in metal armor, then fighting sea monsters underwater for a whole night at depths of over 1,000 feet (the bottom of 'the sea' which was either the Baltic Sea with a max depth of 1500 feet or the North Sea with a max depth of over 2000)

Or holding up the sky

Or Breaking a mountain in twain or rapidly mounding and compressing two brand new Mountain.

Or rerouting two full size rivers in a single day

Or chasing a deer at speeds faster than an arrow for a year straight

Etc.

Yep, that's the kind of stuff I want to do at high levels. Nay, deserve to be able to do, after suffering for so many years with irrelevant martial characters.

It's real simple: include such "sword wizardry" in the base game. People who want it can use it. People who don't can limit it; cut off high-level skill abilities, limit Fighters and such to lower levels, or whatever. I don't have to play in those games so it won't bother me what they do, but then the base game allows me to play a Fighter or Monk or something that actually is just as awesome as a Wizard at high levels.

Wheldrake wrote:
In a sense, though, the C/MD is a false dichotomy. A party works together, and the cool tricks that magic can do will augment the things a martial character can do. Fly? Sure, the caster can make himself fly, but he can also make his pal the fighter fly. Teamwork is the factor that makes the C/MD irrelevant. An all-caster party will suffer more than a blended party with caster, martial and other support characters worked into the mix.

I agree with everything you said except this. It's really not a false dichotomy. In this case, one half of the party has all the narrative and combat power. They get to decide if the Fighter's relevant by casting flight on her, for instance. Or maybe the Cleric is just going to buff himself and render the Fighter obsolete. The Druid could do it, too.

Even if the casters can use their precious spells to boost their allies, the fact is you're completely dependent on that to make you relevant if you want to be a Fighter. You can't be Link, Hero of the Ages, unless your Zelda player uses her magic to gift you some kind of relevance. That's not really fair. At high levels, the ability to simply hit things hard does not matter anymore. Flying enemies, incorporeal enemies, status-inducing enemies, etc., all ruin the poor-save Fighter's day, especially when she has low skills and no ability to do cool stuff outside what the magic-users deign to give her.

Giving martial classes their own agency here is paramount. It's the one and only dealbreaker for me, since everything else I've seen sounds great. And I really hope they do nerf magic pretty hard, because even magic at half the power it used to be still puts mages far beyond the power level of almost all fictional mages and many gods and so on. That would certainly ease the burden here.

Especially I like the "you can be a specialist and have great power in that area but not as much generalist ability, or go shallow but have versatility" idea. That's the other problem that has plagued 3.x/PF. Few Wizards in fiction can do things with the depth of power that 3.x/PF Wizards can, and fewer still can do that and with the insane versatility that they can.

Right now, Wizards have to give up nothing. They get immense raw power but also better versatility than anyone else in the game and in most mythology and fiction. That situation simply has to change for C/MD to be diminished.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lady Firebird wrote:
include such "sword wizardry" in the base game.

It always makes me sick to my stomach when people call feats of extreme martial prowess wizardry or 'spells without being spells' or whatnot. (I understand you're just speaking to that group but this is something I would like to get off my chest)

Spells are manipulation of reality, martial growth is surpassing reality within oneself.


11 people marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Lady Firebird wrote:
include such "sword wizardry" in the base game.

It always makes me sick to my stomach when people call feats of extreme martial prowess wizardry or 'spells without being spells' or whatnot. (I understand you're just speaking to that group but this is something I would like to get off my chest)

Spells are manipulation of reality, martial growth is surpassing reality within oneself.

Yeah, I get you. It especially annoys me because it only ever seems to apply when martial characters do something worthy of epic feats, and then it's just too "unrealistic," it's too "cartoonish," or whatever. The same players have no problem when their caster character does all the same stuff and more besides, of course, but no, the idea of the world's baddest knight leaping across a chasm to reach the burning castle is somehow where suspension of disbelief breaks.

Well, I'm fine if it's magical, as long as it comes from within. The Fighter at level 20 is now a demigod and frankly has created her own magic through mythic resonance. She has become a living legend, and the normal rules don't apply to her. COOL. I'm fine with that. Maybe she can withstand a gravity-increasing spell that would crush a giant to the ground. Or slice the air with such force that her attacks travel into the air to strike flying enemies. Maybe her legend is such that any item she picks up, even a wooden buckler, is imbued with its power, becoming capable of turning aside blows from archdemons and dragons.

At this point, I just want the martial classes to be relevant of their own agency. And "relevance" at high level hopefully means both that magic is nerfed and that the martial characters get easier access to these mythic feats.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
Lady Firebird wrote:
include such "sword wizardry" in the base game.

It always makes me sick to my stomach when people call feats of extreme martial prowess wizardry or 'spells without being spells' or whatnot. (I understand you're just speaking to that group but this is something I would like to get off my chest)

Spells are manipulation of reality, martial growth is surpassing reality within oneself.

I suppose we could use more things like the Monk's Feather Fall power.

But on the note of the M/CD problem: it's going to remain. Until Martials get everything Casters do.

Okay cool, your Fighter can run faster than an arrow or even a bullet. But our Wizard can just teleport us to the next town. Neat, your monk can pull two rivers together. The Mage can do that, while giving the area water Now if it needs it.

Faster, easier option with a bigger effect will win out. Heck, giving Martial myth/legend powers might very well flip it if only for the fact they could do it seemingly for free were as Magic might need some supplies to rip reality.


MerlinCross wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Lady Firebird wrote:
include such "sword wizardry" in the base game.

It always makes me sick to my stomach when people call feats of extreme martial prowess wizardry or 'spells without being spells' or whatnot. (I understand you're just speaking to that group but this is something I would like to get off my chest)

Spells are manipulation of reality, martial growth is surpassing reality within oneself.

I suppose we could use more things like the Monk's Feather Fall power.

But on the note of the M/CD problem: it's going to remain. Until Martials get everything Casters do.

Okay cool, your Fighter can run faster than an arrow or even a bullet. But our Wizard can just teleport us to the next town. Neat, your monk can pull two rivers together. The Mage can do that, while giving the area water Now if it needs it.

Faster, easier option with a bigger effect will win out. Heck, giving Martial myth/legend powers might very well flip it if only for the fact they could do it seemingly for free were as Magic might need some supplies to rip reality.

The point is relevance, not necessarily best option.

One of the main things I think to test C/MD is could a party of all fighters succeed at this task. So sure, teleporting is best option, but if all the fighters can run so fast that they can still get to town across the map fast enough to save the day there then they still can succeed. Right now they'd need magic or weeks. If fighters can fix the water problem of the village by moving rivers then they can succeed without the wizard.

So sure, they might still be a bit behind them, but at least they can still play the game. That's where most 6th level casters are, not as great as full casters, but still able to play the game.


Honestly, when i pick PATHFINDER 2.0 i expect magic to just as amazing as it was in 1.0. I expect mages to create demi planes, to freeze time, to teleport across planets and planes, to control minds...

This is what i expect when playing PATHFINDER.

There are systems without magic or where magic is weak and so on, i would play those if i wanted to limit to the powers of casters.

Personally, i would prefer if they didnt turn fighters into anime characters, i like them mundane, but if they need to do so, so be it.

I dont see why people have such weird issue like all classes need to be equal of similar feats for some reason.

If i want to play the mundane guy, i pick fighter..., if i want the guy who warps reality i pick the wizard... I have played both, i had fun with both. I dont bind myself to one class and expect it must be able to deliver the same experience the class by its side does.

But in the end, as long as casters remains amazing, guess i can play other systems for the mundane.


MerlinCross wrote:
Faster, easier option with a bigger effect will win out. Heck, giving Martial myth/legend powers might very well flip it if only for the fact they could do it seemingly for free were as Magic might need some supplies to rip reality.

Giving martials myth/legend powers, combined with stronger enforcement of theme among casters (e.g. Wizards/Sorcerers/Clerics having a much more limited ability to cast spells outside their School/Bloodline/Domains) would do it.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Just to clarify, I chose Beowulf and Hercules as examples specifically because I think high level martials should be able to do that stuff. When I say "Sword wizard" I mean a character who can literally do all the things a caster does, just somehow by swinging a weapon around. I want my fighter and my rogue to be different than the wizard, not just the same thing with a different skin. It's a blurry line and a lot of it falls in "I know it when I see it" territory. I'm fine with a fighter duplicating passwall by hitting a wall super hard; I'm less fine with him duplicating gaseous form because I can't really see a nonmagical way to even make that plausible.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
ryric wrote:
Just to clarify, I chose Beowulf and Hercules as examples specifically because I think high level martials should be able to do that stuff. When I say "Sword wizard" I mean a character who can literally do all the things a caster does, just somehow by swinging a weapon around. I want my fighter and my rogue to be different than the wizard, not just the same thing with a different skin. It's a blurry line and a lot of it falls in "I know it when I see it" territory. I'm fine with a fighter duplicating passwall by hitting a wall super hard; I'm less fine with him duplicating gaseous form because I can't really see a nonmagical way to even make that plausible.

Okay, that I agree with. It also gives magic a good niche for it: the ability to do some of the really oddball stuff that can't be accomplished by mundane things. Even Heracles wasn't turning to mist. He might break down the door, but the Wizard can turn into a gaseous form and coalesce on the other side. That's cool.

Even cooler if the Wizard gets on the other side, the Rogue is already there, and when the Wizard asks her how she got through so fast with the door still locked, the Rogue just smiles and winks....


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Nox Aeterna wrote:

Honestly, when i pick PATHFINDER 2.0 i expect magic to just as amazing as it was in 1.0. I expect mages to create demi planes, to freeze time, to teleport across planets and planes, to control minds...

This is what i expect when playing PATHFINDER.

I think all of those should be possible but not necessarily by the same caster. So teleport without error and create demiplane OR freeze time and control minds but not all of the above on the same caster.


Chess Pwn wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Lady Firebird wrote:
include such "sword wizardry" in the base game.

It always makes me sick to my stomach when people call feats of extreme martial prowess wizardry or 'spells without being spells' or whatnot. (I understand you're just speaking to that group but this is something I would like to get off my chest)

Spells are manipulation of reality, martial growth is surpassing reality within oneself.

I suppose we could use more things like the Monk's Feather Fall power.

But on the note of the M/CD problem: it's going to remain. Until Martials get everything Casters do.

Okay cool, your Fighter can run faster than an arrow or even a bullet. But our Wizard can just teleport us to the next town. Neat, your monk can pull two rivers together. The Mage can do that, while giving the area water Now if it needs it.

Faster, easier option with a bigger effect will win out. Heck, giving Martial myth/legend powers might very well flip it if only for the fact they could do it seemingly for free were as Magic might need some supplies to rip reality.

The point is relevance, not necessarily best option.

One of the main things I think to test C/MD is could a party of all fighters succeed at this task. So sure, teleporting is best option, but if all the fighters can run so fast that they can still get to town across the map fast enough to save the day there then they still can succeed. Right now they'd need magic or weeks. If fighters can fix the water problem of the village by moving rivers then they can succeed without the wizard.

So sure, they might still be a bit behind them, but at least they can still play the game. That's where most 6th level casters are, not as great as full casters, but still able to play the game.

If you run a group of all fighters, while yes they'd need magic under the current system or help. Magic item, ask an NPC for help, see about get ting a flying ride; I can see options for fighters now. Heck, if the Mage doesn't know teleport, you're still out of luck.

Personally I like it when my mundanes come up with ideas to solve problems without magic. Or even the Wizards(Hey put all that book smart skill set to use).

I also dislike the idea that Martials just can not play past X level. Are there problems? Yeah sure, we wouldn't have arguements otherwise. But does this mean I should ask the 3 Martials I have to reroll when we get to this X level?


MerlinCross wrote:
I also dislike the idea that Martials just can not play past X level. Are there problems? Yeah sure, we wouldn't have arguements otherwise. But does this mean I should ask the 3 Martials I have to reroll when we get to this X level?

No, but in the case of their players, they may or may not continue to have fun. I know I would stop playing a 3.x/PF game (and have, in fact) if I was playing a martial character at the levels I become irrelevant. For me, it's simply not fun to rely on gifts of relevance from my caster allies, or for the GM to be fighting against the system to give us even 10% of what the casters with godlike depth of power and versatility get to enjoy.


ryric wrote:
Just to clarify, I chose Beowulf and Hercules as examples specifically because I think high level martials should be able to do that stuff. When I say "Sword wizard" I mean a character who can literally do all the things a caster does, just somehow by swinging a weapon around. I want my fighter and my rogue to be different than the wizard, not just the same thing with a different skin. It's a blurry line and a lot of it falls in "I know it when I see it" territory. I'm fine with a fighter duplicating passwall by hitting a wall super hard; I'm less fine with him duplicating gaseous form because I can't really see a nonmagical way to even make that plausible.

It would be really weird for most or all martials to duplicate gaseous form.

I am fine with it as a given martial's special thing though. Several comic characters have something like that as a special ability that they blend with a roguish combat style.

Very appropriate for an assassin or similar.


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

Honestly, when i pick PATHFINDER 2.0 i expect magic to just as amazing as it was in 1.0. I expect mages to create demi planes, to freeze time, to teleport across planets and planes, to control minds...

This is what i expect when playing PATHFINDER.

I think all of those should be possible but not necessarily by the same caster. So teleport without error and create demiplane OR freeze time and control minds but not all of the above on the same caster.

This. I would love to see school specialization enforced, honestly, and like 2E where you actually lose a few schools instead of barely being inconvenienced. That would actually make building your wizard a fun process with meaningful choices, instead of just "get the best of everything"


My brother and his gaming group recently ran into this. A new GM decides they want to run a higher level game PCs are lv11, but everything is okay cause they had a monk, a fighter, and an unchained summoner that had a construct eidolon and the summoner only used buffs mainly only on eidolon. SO they had a party of basically 3 beatsticks. The plot went along fine following a pretty standard low level story. Then my brother died and decided he wanted to try out a full caster for the first time. Made a Witch. The GM had to ask that he not insta-solve all the issue with magic (since all the plot points could be insta-solved with magic) and so my brother decided that he'd spend all his high level slots making it so that his character was actually miles away and just sending his familiar to travel with the party.


Lady Firebird wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
I also dislike the idea that Martials just can not play past X level. Are there problems? Yeah sure, we wouldn't have arguements otherwise. But does this mean I should ask the 3 Martials I have to reroll when we get to this X level?
No, but in the case of their players, they may or may not continue to have fun. I know I would stop playing a 3.x/PF game (and have, in fact) if I was playing a martial character at the levels I become irrelevant. For me, it's simply not fun to rely on gifts of relevance from my caster allies, or for the GM to be fighting against the system to give us even 10% of what the casters with godlike depth of power and versatility get to enjoy.

Okay. I'll kill them off due to not having fun when they get to level X because this is the expected result.

I'll also see about getting a DM in another game to kick out his Martials. We're level 7 so I don't want to bear seeing them not have fun in a level or two.

Side note, both games only have 1 full caster on the team.


If having magic is as cool as not having magic, then why would anyone bother learning magic?

MMO's had to address this and they did it with roles and niche protection.

But what about TTRPGs? Do they go the MMO route with niches and limited utility magic? Or do they find some other way to keep mundanes relevant. Do we add narrative risk to magic. In Hellfrost every spell has a chance to permanently reduce your magical power, so people don't spam magic, even out of combat. With the way the system is set up, players never really run the risk of losing magic power forever unless they are spamming magic and run out of re-roll tokens.


MerlinCross wrote:
Lady Firebird wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
I also dislike the idea that Martials just can not play past X level. Are there problems? Yeah sure, we wouldn't have arguements otherwise. But does this mean I should ask the 3 Martials I have to reroll when we get to this X level?
No, but in the case of their players, they may or may not continue to have fun. I know I would stop playing a 3.x/PF game (and have, in fact) if I was playing a martial character at the levels I become irrelevant. For me, it's simply not fun to rely on gifts of relevance from my caster allies, or for the GM to be fighting against the system to give us even 10% of what the casters with godlike depth of power and versatility get to enjoy.

Okay. I'll kill them off due to not having fun when they get to level X because this is the expected result.

I'll also see about getting a DM in another game to kick out his Martials. We're level 7 so I don't want to bear seeing them not have fun in a level or two.

Side note, both games only have 1 full caster on the team.

As most people who see M/CD as a thing say. It's not going to happen every game. If the plot is low level and the caster isn't great or wants to only buff then the story and plots are fine as my example of 3 beatsticks. But once you get a caster that knows the spells possible and has gained access to all these spells then they can easily take over a lot of games.

Ex.
Guys we need to invade this castle, get past all the guards to the BBEG and beat him up.
Wizard, okay I'll arcane eye the place to find the BBEG and DD us all right to him, bypassing all the traps, locks, and guards letting us get to beating him up right away. Party sees this as a good tactical plan and do so and then the game night is cut short since that castle was supposed to be more than 1 fight. Wizard took over the game by trying to be a team player. But he made the rogue pretty useless and the fighter more of a show only needing to beat up one unprepared boss. So the rogue will quickly get bored since he's basically out of the job and the fighter may get bored since there's more non-combat action going on now that castle raids are only a small part of a game night rather than a full game night. The wizard accidently by trying to help the team succeed causes 1 or 2 people to have less fun. Sure if he just had only haste and spammed it every fight the fighter and rogue would still have jobs and fun and if that's all the wizard knows and has fun then it's a win for everyone and such low level stories are good and martials still can help. But if the wizard sees these helpful spells and suggests them then suddenly we have issues.


MR. H wrote:
If having magic is as cool as not having magic, then why would anyone bother learning magic?

Cool in different ways. In-universe its justifiable simply as: Some people have the intelligence for arcane magic, but most don't. Some people have the potential to train their bodies to the point of doing superhuman things, but most don't. And no one has ever heard of anyone having the ability (let alone the time, dedication, and understanding) to do both.

One might have a system in which epic martials are capable of having extremely high ability scores, and all their 'powers' follow from those properties (very high CON allows you to fight for a week at the bottom of the ocean in plate armor, and so on). Casters have their current lists of discrete powers with specific effects.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
MR. H wrote:
Do we add narrative risk to magic.

I mean, that's more or less what it used to be prior to 3.0/5/PF and their removal of such drawbacks. Or rather than narrative it was more Mechanical in this specific instance.

Spells like Fireball or Lightning bolt could easily backfire on a Caster if not aimed properly enough.

Shout could defean you if you used it more than once every day.

Summons had a non trivial chance of turning on the caster in some situations.

The use of Haste aged your character by 5 years. Polymorph was a Self induced Save or Die roll due to the incredibly stress induced in the transformation ect...Though this is not to say magic should strictly be as harsh or resemble anything too similar to this.

The nature of Magic was more powerful but also widly volatile among other things. Closer to Dark Heresy and the nature of the Psyker in 40K as opposed to something just anyone born with the ability can handle. You would still completely outstrip martials by end game, just not as soon as you could in 3.5 systems. AD&D 2e was far from a perfect system and 3.0+ unification changes are absolutely fantastic, but the decision to amp the power of casters while basically removing most their drawbacks will never cease to confuse me.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It would help if the best spells weren't frequently Personal. The cleric might like to put Divine Favour or Righteous Might on the fighter, but he's not allowed to. The wizard might like to give him a potion of Mirror Image, but he can't. And so on.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Matthias W wrote:

Jason Buhlman suggested that this topic would best be addressed in a thread outside the fighter one, so here is a thread.

As I understand it, the situation roughly is:

1) The designers seem to have acknowledged this as a design goal.
2) Skills, and by extension martial, will be allowed to be more epic than before, although we don't have a lot of details.
3) We know very little about when any given spell comes online, or indeed much else about how magic operates, although it's probably fair to assume full casters gain a new spell level every other character level.
4) Fighters do not appear to get any non-combat abilities for being fighters aside from fast-tracked perception, although they do benefit from the same skill consolidation and empowerment that everyone else does (and presumably benefit more, in the same way that a poor person benefits more from a UBI and generous public services than a rich person does, even though they get the same check in the mail, the same bus to ride on, and so on.)

Obligatory link.

Unless you make it so that magic can't to anything that swinging a sword like a mad man can't do also, you will face disparity.

The devs have made it clear that the fighter, rogue, wizard, and cleric are all intended to be specialists. A fighter isn't going to be able to fly, cut dimensions in two, and see invisibility because their sunglasses are just so cool. They also aren't going to be able to skill monkey like a rogue or support like a cleric. If you want to be able to do that, pick a wizard or rogue or cleric. Or play some kind of generalist like a bard or ranger (I personally dislike any overly specialized character). They will probably still be able to kill any other class in a single round, in melee combat.

Don't pick a specialist character then complain that your character isn't good at stuff it isn't specialized in.

And if you think magic-fighters should be the norm, I've got good news for you. It's called a Magus. That's exactly what they are. Have fun.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
MR. H wrote:

If having magic is as cool as not having magic, then why would anyone bother learning magic?

MMO's had to address this and they did it with roles and niche protection.

But what about TTRPGs? Do they go the MMO route with niches and limited utility magic? Or do they find some other way to keep mundanes relevant. Do we add narrative risk to magic. In Hellfrost every spell has a chance to permanently reduce your magical power, so people don't spam magic, even out of combat. With the way the system is set up, players never really run the risk of losing magic power forever unless they are spamming magic and run out of re-roll tokens.

It's really not that hard. And the reverse is also true: if magic is cooler and can do everything, why would anyone bother playing mundane characters?

Like I said, the answer isn't tough. Don't let casters have godlike breadth and depth of power. Enforce some actual limitations, like specialization, or make individual powers weaker, but the trade-off is versatility. The problem right now is that the casters can do everything the martial characters do and a ton of stuff that affects both combat and noncombat scenes, and completely renders their sword-swinging brethren irrelevant. This is because they weren't reined in initially, and allowed to have every conceivable thing, up to and including the power to rewrite reality.

Meanwhile, even trying to get basic mythic feat stuff like jumping across chasms or wrestling big monsters is met with fierce resistance and hypocritical cries of broken verisimilitude.

Casters having power that most gods would envy is not an inherent part of Pathfinder. It's not somehow intrinsic to the game's core identity as high fantasy adventure. Losing some of that, dialing it back, will not suddenly make the game "not Pathfinder," nor does it if high-level martial characters can do what any actual high-level martial characters in the source materials do.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
MR. H wrote:
If having magic is as cool as not having magic, then why would anyone bother learning magic?

If having magic is more cool than not having magic, why should anyone bother cultivating martial prowess?

To answer your question, it's because both are different.

To steal an example from comic books, would a caster player not play Dr. Strange just because a martial player has the option to play Thor or the Hulk?

To use an example from Chinese High Fantasy, why wouldn't someone want to play a Magus just because Qi Warriors also go up to the 9th circle of power?

Quote:
But what about TTRPGs? Do they go the MMO route with niches and limited utility magic? Or do they find some other way to keep mundanes relevant. Do we add narrative risk to magic. In Hellfrost every spell has a chance to permanently reduce your magical power, so people don't spam magic, even out of combat. With the way the system is set up, players never really run the risk of losing magic power forever unless they are spamming magic and run out of re-roll tokens.

Mundanes will never be relevant, because they're mundane. Nobody wants to play a mundane character in an adventure game.

Now, Martial characters can remain relevant all the way through to level 20 if they're allowed to. All it takes is putting them in the same game with the same tools for dealing with the same level of threats as they rise in level.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
WhiteMagus2000 wrote:
Matthias W wrote:

Jason Buhlman suggested that this topic would best be addressed in a thread outside the fighter one, so here is a thread.

As I understand it, the situation roughly is:

1) The designers seem to have acknowledged this as a design goal.
2) Skills, and by extension martial, will be allowed to be more epic than before, although we don't have a lot of details.
3) We know very little about when any given spell comes online, or indeed much else about how magic operates, although it's probably fair to assume full casters gain a new spell level every other character level.
4) Fighters do not appear to get any non-combat abilities for being fighters aside from fast-tracked perception, although they do benefit from the same skill consolidation and empowerment that everyone else does (and presumably benefit more, in the same way that a poor person benefits more from a UBI and generous public services than a rich person does, even though they get the same check in the mail, the same bus to ride on, and so on.)

Obligatory link.

Unless you make it so that magic can't to anything that swinging a sword like a mad man can't do also, you will face disparity.

The devs have made it clear that the fighter, rogue, wizard, and cleric are all intended to be specialists. A fighter isn't going to be able to fly, cut dimensions in two, and see invisibility because their sunglasses are just so cool. They also aren't going to be able to skill monkey like a rogue or support like a cleric. If you want to be able to do that, pick a wizard or rogue or cleric. Or play some kind of generalist like a bard or ranger (I personally dislike any overly specialized character). They will probably still be able to kill any other class in a single round, in melee combat.

Don't pick a specialist character then complain that your character isn't good at stuff it isn't specialized in.

This logic only works if you don't have "can just do everything at maximum efficiency" classes like the Cleric or Druid.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
WhiteMagus2000 wrote:
The devs have made it clear that the fighter, rogue, wizard, and cleric are all intended to be specialists.
This logic only works if you don't have "can just do everything at maximum efficiency" classes like the Cleric or Druid.

And don't have classes that can restructure their 'specialization' day by day.


Wizards can't reselect their specialized school or banned schools each day. Wizards and clerics also can't reselect their feats each day, so most that I've ever seen don't racically alter their play style each day. The blasters blast every day, the enchanters enchant every day, etc. I do agree that some kind of limit to spells known would be good. Had a druid player once that photocopied every druid spell in the game. Over a thousand of them. That was pretty annoying.

Just saying, wanting a fighter that can do everything a wizard can, plus what a fighter can, isn't a very realistic expectation.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
WhiteMagus2000 wrote:

Wizards can't reselect their specialized school or banned schools each day. Wizards and clerics also can't reselect their feats each day, so most that I've ever seen don't racically alter their play style each day. The blasters blast every day, the enchanters enchant every day, etc. I do agree that some kind of limit to spells known would be good. Had a druid player once that photocopied every druid spell in the game. Over a thousand of them. That was pretty annoying.

Just saying, wanting a fighter that can do everything a wizard can, plus what a fighter can, isn't a very realistic expectation.

I personally don't want my Fighter to be able to do everything a Wizard can, just everything a high fantasy/mythic hero Fighter can. At high levels, that does mean breaking the laws of reality. Call it "magic," or superlative skill that defies the rules, or whatever you want to call it. She isn't casting spells, she's just that good. Like Beowulf, she can wrestle dragons and horrible monsters and win, or swim at sea for days in full gear while fighting off sea monsters, and leap great distances, and more besides.

Some of their abilities come from magic gear, to be sure. But as long as her one sole trick isn't "hit things harder" during a point in the game where hitting things harder doesn't mean anything, that would be a start. The trade-off to not having the caster's versatility is more focused power, but they need that actual power. A Fighter raising her shield and surging through a hail of fireballs and then leaping clear up the castle wall to the battlements, throwing down the gates, and letting her army invade the evil Wizard's castle? Yeah, that kind of stuff is cool.

Being able to contribute without being gifted relevance by the casters is all I'm asking for. That means more options and more power at the higher levels. Ideally, the Wizard has more options but each option has less individual power, and even then, the casters should need to specialize. That way, without focusing completely on it, the caster in question can't just obviate the need for a Fighter, Rogue, and Ranger all at the same time, trouncing every single problem the party faces with a prepared spell.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't know that any of us want a fighter that can do everything a Wizard can.

A fighter that can potentially do 80%-90% of any thing a Wizard can sure, but there are certainly things that are outside a Fighter's potential reach, and a Fighter by nature would be far more focused on a theme than a Wizard.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Haven't you heard the news? Banned schools are now merely opposition schools, and you will be able to remove even those restrictions with a feat.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:
I don't know that any of us want a fighter that can do everything a Wizard can.

Indeed, mostly what I want is to be able to play a martial that doesn't run into situations where I cannot attack that enemy, reach that place, or contribute meaningfully to a given challenge or in shaping the overall plot because I lack spells.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lady Firebird wrote:
Ideally, the Wizard has more options but each option has less individual power, and even then, the casters should need to specialize

Typically in my own games I manage this balance with casters being as powerful as they are right now [except blasters who are brought up to have far greater setting impact and slightly improved damage for those who want to play what is otherwise a very suboptimal character.]

The martials get power [both narrative and battle] absolutely on par with casters but they have a focused theme. They're just as good, all day long, but they lack the toolbox/utility belt a caster has.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Lady Firebird wrote:
Ideally, the Wizard has more options but each option has less individual power, and even then, the casters should need to specialize

Typically in my own games I manage this balance with casters being as powerful as they are right now [except blasters who are brought up to have far greater setting impact and slightly improved damage for those who want to play what is otherwise a very suboptimal character.]

The martials get power [both narrative and battle] absolutely on par with casters but they have a focused theme. They're just as good, all day long, but they lack the toolbox/utility belt a caster has.

And that would work very well for me. It means different strengths and weaknesses, but everyone gets to be relevant, and feel like they're contributing an awesome tool to the toolbox. I could play a Fighter and feel like a mythic hero striving with gods and monsters, the Wizard could feel like a mystical powerhouse whose lifetime of study has resulted in founts of arcane knowledge, and everyone's happy.

My favorite class, the Monk, would even get a fun and weird mix of both things, so I'd be plenty happy with that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chess Pwn wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
Lady Firebird wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
I also dislike the idea that Martials just can not play past X level. Are there problems? Yeah sure, we wouldn't have arguements otherwise. But does this mean I should ask the 3 Martials I have to reroll when we get to this X level?
No, but in the case of their players, they may or may not continue to have fun. I know I would stop playing a 3.x/PF game (and have, in fact) if I was playing a martial character at the levels I become irrelevant. For me, it's simply not fun to rely on gifts of relevance from my caster allies, or for the GM to be fighting against the system to give us even 10% of what the casters with godlike depth of power and versatility get to enjoy.

Okay. I'll kill them off due to not having fun when they get to level X because this is the expected result.

I'll also see about getting a DM in another game to kick out his Martials. We're level 7 so I don't want to bear seeing them not have fun in a level or two.

Side note, both games only have 1 full caster on the team.

As most people who see M/CD as a thing say. It's not going to happen every game. If the plot is low level and the caster isn't great or wants to only buff then the story and plots are fine as my example of 3 beatsticks. But once you get a caster that knows the spells possible and has gained access to all these spells then they can easily take over a lot of games.

Ex.
Guys we need to invade this castle, get past all the guards to the BBEG and beat him up.
Wizard, okay I'll arcane eye the place to find the BBEG and DD us all right to him, bypassing all the traps, locks, and guards letting us get to beating him up right away. Party sees this as a good tactical plan and do so and then the game night is cut short since that castle was supposed to be more than 1 fight. Wizard took over the game by trying to be a team player. But he made the rogue pretty useless and the fighter more of a show only needing to beat up...

So the solution is to then never have the wizard suggest anything? Cool. Or I'll kill the Cleric I have.

Doesn't matter if the caster wants to buff, they are caster. I must, according to the boards, fix this injustice. I cannot have a caster and 3 martials. I MUST fix something.

Kill 1 or kill 3. And kill the 3 because they won't have the fun.

Also your example is a little off. Even removing magic, most people seemed to be warned AWAY from Rogue. Still, it's on the DM for allowing it. This isn't to say the DM suddenly goes "Oh there's an, anti magic field around the castle". That path leads to darkness.

No depending on the you can go "Oh but what about the hostages they have in the dungeon? Surely the heroes won't forget them". Or"Hey you could do that..., but the rogue's contacts have noted some sweet gear in the armory that might totally help you guys out". Perhaps even "Well that's a good plan, only your eye finds out there's 3 BBEG running around the castle, so can you be sure your scry and fry will work?" Heck, I'd expect at least 1 other spell caster in such a castle that could sense the arcane eye.

There's also the idea of the Wizard suggesting this. Good plan yes but even if the Wizard gets to show off, is this really as fun for them as it is throwing a couple fireballs or huge crowd control spells at mooks? Maybe after the suggestion it's decided that's plan B as surely the BBEG hasn't died to a team that's tried that before, why expect now?

I can see your example ending a lot of ways besides "Oh Magic busted the game, I'll see you all next week"


7 people marked this as a favorite.

To me, the culture of C/MD was exemplified the strongest when a new ability was released that allowed a PC to dash in a straight line attacking everyone along that line.

Sounds pretty cool, huh? Except it wasn't an ability any martial class could do, because it was a spell. :/


Bardarok wrote:
Nox Aeterna wrote:

Honestly, when i pick PATHFINDER 2.0 i expect magic to just as amazing as it was in 1.0. I expect mages to create demi planes, to freeze time, to teleport across planets and planes, to control minds...

This is what i expect when playing PATHFINDER.

I think all of those should be possible but not necessarily by the same caster. So teleport without error and create demiplane OR freeze time and control minds but not all of the above on the same caster.

As long as the magic to allow the casters to do absurd things remain, then i believe it is mostly fine, like i said this is the most important to me. Be me playing the martial/caster, i expect pathfinder to allow magic to be crazy and do awesome things all around.

I honestly think the mentality of "locking" full casters in certain roles will lead to a much larger disparity, since while before the wizard could go, "well guys i will also prepare haste on the side to give you in combat", now will say, "sorry i trashed the school who had the buffs you guys need, i will focus on my thing here, you guys do you", but to each their own.

Why the concept of team game is so obviously dicarted is beyond me, in most games i played, what each person could and would do was discussed and we would reach a plan together. So the wizard thought about teleporting and all that? Ok he brings it forth we discuss the plan. Never felt like it is a one man show, but maybe that is me.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Wheldrake wrote:
In a sense, though, the C/MD is a false dichotomy. A party works together, and the cool tricks that magic can do will augment the things a martial character can do.

These guys are a party too. C/MD still sucks, and definitely isn’t false.

Dark Archive

9 people marked this as a favorite.

The Caster-Martial disparity is mainly an issue because everybody at the table wants to play, wants to matter, and wants to feel valued. Lord of the Rings is a bad example because while it fairly well defined the audience expectation for OD&D, we've come a really long time since then. Nobody wants to play Frodo. Legolas, Gimili, and Aragorn are all pretty valid. Gandalf should probably be NPCd out.

Playing a superheroes game? The Hulk, the Flash, Batman, etc all have value and can work well together. Superman can't. He's a solo sub-in for basically everybody else.

If I ask you to make the greatest comic squad possible, and I give you four spots, I'm pretty sure Hawkeye won't be one of them.

It's narrative control. Giving a Wizard a Spell that summons a psuedo-fighter that can work well enough to replace the fighter in 80% of situations is like giving the fighter a permanent genie buddy to magic away all his problems. It invalidates the other people playing.

You want to include everybody. You want a class to have features that other people can't easily override with a 1/15th of their daily features. You want narrative situations to occur commonly and without ridiculous hand waving contrivance where the Fighter or the Rogue or the Bard has the perfect solution and the Wizard just... doesn't.

Imagine the following: a huge army threatens the kingdom, and the heroes have only a month or so to remove the threat. It would be really nice if instead of casting half his daily spells and teleporting all the enemies into the sun, the 20th level wizard turns to the 20th level fighter and goes "Hey man, I sort of don't have a spell to stop the entire flipping Persian army, any chance we can get you to lead a badass multi-nation army of justice?"


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ninten wrote:
If I ask you to make the greatest comic squad possible, and I give you four spots, I'm pretty sure Hawkeye won't be one of them.

I love Hawkeye. She's one of my favourite heroes.

1 to 50 of 307 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Caster-Martial Disparity in 2e All Messageboards