|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
In this thread, I am hoping to gather statistical evidence of the martial-caster disparity, or of the lack thereof. Since it is a very hot-button issue on these forums, I want to ask everyone to please be chill and not like flame or whatever. The idea is just to see if we can add new evidence (beyond play experience, which is still likely the most valid) to the discussion.
Also, I should state some caveats: I am a pretty strong believer in the disparity, and I really only know enough statistics to be dangerous (some college classes). I couldn't find a test appropriate to this data, but did a Z test for difference between proportions to at least show off some of the data I collected. As I have not seen any similar efforts on the boards here, I figure questionable results are better than none, and will hopefully spur brighter minds to make their own comparisons.
Methods:
The analyses I conducted checked to see if any given class or race was significantly more prone to death. Since I have only fully read through the Rise of the Runelords and Serpent's Skull APs, I chose those subforums and collected data from 1) obituary threads and 2) threads where players and GMs posted their starting parties' compositions. The second set of data established a baseline - if, say, 1 out of 10 characters created in Serpent's Skull is a ranger, then if deaths were unbiased we would expect 1 out of 10 deaths to be of a ranger - but as you might expect, the first set of data was often quite different from this baseline! A statistical approach was necessary to determine if deaths were "biased" or not.
I calculated Z scores for each* class and race to test whether or not two proportions were different. The two proportions were 1) the number of character deaths of class/race** A divided by the total number of character deaths and 2) the number of characters of class/race A recorded as being created divided by the total number of characters created. Basically, I was testing to see if the proportion of deaths was similar to the proportion of characters of class/race A created - if they were similar, it meant that race or class was having its "fair share" of deaths. A Z test calculates a "Z score," and you can either use this to calculate the probability that the proportions are truly different (inconvenient; requires referencing a table for each class and race), or you can choose a probability cutoff beyond which you say the differences in proportion are not solely the result of random noise. I chose the second option and set the probability cutoff at 0.05. Since I wanted to check whether a class/race was significantly more death-prone AND whether it was significantly less death-prone, I wanted a two-tailed test, which set my Z score cutoffs at -1.96 and +1.96.
*Classes and races which did not have at least one death entry AND one character created entry were ignored. Technically, I should have ignored every one that didn't have at least 10 entries, but then the results would have been very trivial.
**For the Serpent's Skull thread I assumed that anyone not listed as a specific race was human, but when I applied this method to the Rise of the Runelords thread I didn't realize there was no race suggestion in the obituary template. So, "human" deaths are likely over-reported in RotR.
Results:
The links below are graphs! Note that each individual class and race in each AP had its own individual two-tailed Z test for difference of proportions. A positive value means my data have that class/race dying more often than one would expect, and a negative value means my data have this class/race dying less often than one would expect - but this does NOT NECESSARILY mean the differences in these data are statistically significant. The difference is only significant if a bar tops 1.96 (spoilers: none of them do).
Z scores for Rise of the Runelords classes; n1=52 and n2=125
Graph for RotR races omitted due to aforementioned issue with data potentially over-reporting human deaths.
Z scores for Serpent's Skull classes; n1=47 and n2=170
Z scores for Serpent's Skull races; n1=41 and n2=173
"Bad" here only means that there are significantly more deaths reported than there should be if death occurred equally often to all classes and species.
Interpretation:
There is no significant difference.
With the major assumption that this Z test is a valid approach (and it's not), there was no significant difference between the proportion of characters (of class/race A) reported as dead and the proportion of characters (of class/race A) reported as being created. This means that I found no significant evidence that fighters are dying more than anyone else, although from some of the graphs it certainly looks that way. It also means I found no significant evidence that rogues die less than other classes, or that wizards die more.
While writing this up, I thought of a better test: divide up classes into caster and non-caster, which will increase sample sizes drastically. I'll try that tomorrow, perhaps after collecting another few pages of data. Also on my to-do list is to check if non-core classes and races are more or less likely to die than core.
I also want to note that character deaths are probably not the best measure of fun. That ranger who keeps dying keeps getting brought back, because he puts himself on the front line and has fun shielding his allies. Surveys and any of the other, more robust statistical methods out there would be valuable to the discussion, I think.
Data sources:
Rise of the Runelords parties (page 9 only) - recorded number of PCs of each class and race
Rise of the Runelords Obituaries (page 22 only) - recorded number of deaths of each class and race
Serpent's Skull parties (page 2 only) - recorded number of PCs of each class and race
Serpent's Skull Obituaries (pages 4 and 5) - recorded number of deaths of each class and race
Raw data is here
Assumptions:
Sampling the most recent pages of some threads is sufficiently random.
Unchanging populations (i.e. even though I was grabbing SS party composition posts from 2011 AND from 2016, the average party composition has not significantly changed). A big assumption, given that people are using new books and new classes and new races!
Sample sizes are large enough - MAJOR ASSUMPTION. Populations are likely much larger than the samples, but numbers of "successes" (deaths, or characters being created) were only above 10 for humans and below 10 for everything else.
Null hypothesis: p1=p2. Significance level: 0.05.
Let me know if you spot any errors! It's been over a year since I took these classes and I'm working off some pretty fuzzy memories.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's really easy to not die being a martial. It's not easy to always be able to contribute. So if I'm a fighter, and the mage and cleric are using half their spells to make me useful and not die, then your data says that fighters don't die and aren't a drain. When if fact they are using half the spells. So the being a drain and not being able to contribute are what M/CD is about and not so much dying in combats.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
Counting deaths tells us f&+%-all. "turns able to meaningfully contribute" and "non-combat situations able to meaningfully contribute" are the metrics of the situation.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Counting deaths tells us f&&#-all. "turns able to meaningfully contribute" and "non-combat situations able to meaningfully contribute" are the metrics of the situation.
Not to mention that the times in which the martial is the greatest liability will often involve someone else dying (IE, the martial gets mind controlled and kills an adjacent ally).
Design Manager
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why I think this experiment can't possibly provide meaningful data-
Since you're gauging character deaths reported in APs, what you're really looking at is going to be influenced much more heavily by player skill than class choice.
I actually postulated to Mark Seifter, and he agreed with the assessment, that probably 80% (or very likely quite a bit more) of the people who play this game play closer to the bottom of the skill curve than the top, but C/MD is most relevant when comparing ceilings. Fighters and Wizards both have dismally low optimization floors, but the Wizard has a much higher ceiling. A well-prepared Wizard can have highly effective tools for almost any situation, the Fighter gets one effective tool, etc. When you look at player death analysis in the context of the idea that most of these people aren't playing anywhere near the optimization ceilings for their classes, and that the severity of C/MD increases the closer you get to the ceiling and decreases the farther away from it you move, you realize that the data collected regarding character deaths in APs is incapable of reflecting any higher truths about CM/D even from a raw class power standpoint, let alone the deeper and more relevant metrics tied to their ability to contribute meaningfully in and out of combat.
Incidentally, I think this is also why the Kineticist has such mixed reviews. It's a high floor, low ceiling class. So your basic proficiency as a character is basically going to include all the tools you need to have to be a good adventurer, but it's harder to climb up and leverage your class abilities to reach the performance peaks other classes can achieve.
Counting deaths tells us f&&#-all. "turns able to meaningfully contribute" and "non-combat situations able to meaningfully contribute" are the metrics of the situation.Not to mention that the times in which the martial is the greatest liability will often involve someone else dying (IE, the martial gets mind controlled and kills an adjacent ally).
Number one reason my players stopped using certain martial classes. We had a campaign where the party Barbarian/Fighter (worse, no Superstition) was responsible for more party deaths than every enemy in the campaign combined. Poor bastard couldn't make a Will save for the life of him, and it never led to his character dying.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thank you, statistical proof that the M/CD is all in the mind. Weehee!
On a less flippant note. Modelling character usefulness will be extremely difficult without assigning value to each character ability which will change depending on the other abilities that character has plus a host of other variables - makeup of the party, challenges face, preparedness, item availability etc etc.
I wouldn't bother with it to be honest. It won't change anyone's mind.
Ssalarn
If C/MD is a ceiling problem affecting 20% of gamers then why is it such a massive topic on the boards and why do people insist it needs to be fixed?
Also not sure I agree with your use of the word 'skill' to describe the circumstances that lead to a c/md. People can choose not to use particular builds, spells or abilities I'm certain ways (oft discussed on the Internet). That isn't a lack of skill it is the ability to show restraint and balance.
There is an irony where an argument against Martials being powerful enough is that they are too good at killing everything, while the caster won't do much damage.
Why didn't the ever prepared caster have a dispel magic or break enchantment (hold person ready if the guy can never make a will save?). Seems to me enchantment magic, if used judiciously, is the perfect antidote to a suped-up martial that is slamming his way through every fight.
Incidentally it was the GM who killed the party in that situation not the player, other orders or spells could have been given of a less fatal nature.
|
Design Manager
|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
If C/MD is a ceiling problem affecting 20% of gamers then why is it such a massive topic on the boards and why do people insist it needs to be fixed?
The closer you get to the ceiling, the greater the problem is. The forums, particularly the Rules forums here on Paizo, also represent a disproportionate number of the people playing or discussing that upper area. Go to any C/MD thread, you'll see that there are tons of people who don't have an issue with C/MD. Those people are divided between "it exists, but that's a feature not a bug", ""it doesn't exist" and "it exists, but only because you young scrubs aren't adhering to the gentleman's agreements my generation crafted". So, you've got a higher percentage of people on the forums playing or theorycrafting near the ceiling than in the wider population, and even many of the people on the "C/MD isn't a problem" side of the issue aren't dening it exists, just that they don't consider it a problem.
It also only takes one player in a group playing nearer the ceiling than the floor to create an issue. If 80% of players are playing nearer the floor, that still means that 1 in 5 players, or enough that you could have up to one guy at every table, is probably playing near the ceiling. At some of those tables, the people have different expectations of the game, so some of them may be experiencing C/MD but not considering it an issue.
Now, say that one guy is playing a spellcaster, you've got a decent chance of C/MD issues popping up. See, say you've got Joe and Sam playing together. Joe is really good at building characters, Sam knows how to fill out a character sheet but doesn't really spend any time researching or fine tuning his character mechanics. If Joe plays a caster and Sam plays a martial, Joe has a much higher chance of breaking the game over his knee and being better at things Sam thought he'd be taking care of.
I had a similar situation crop up in a game where we had one player whose character was a "ninja" he built using the Magus class, and another playing a Rogue. Rogue guy knew that the other guy was playing a Magus and assumed he'd be some kind of DPR machine, but the player was actually making an expert infiltrator and skill-monkey who was also good in combat. With judicious use of vanish and other spells, the Magus consistently did "rogue-y" things better than the Rogue, eventually leading to some severe C/MD issues. The Rogue just couldn't emulate the things the Magus was doing, despite those things falling in his wheel-house.
That also leads to another point- player skill is often a bigger issue than class power. If you've got newbies playing with a skilled character designer who's using a monk, the monk is going to seem like a really good class, when the reality is that it's a really good player creating the impact.
CM/D tends to be a serious issue in two scenarios-
1) It's one half of an equation where a more skilled player has chosen a powerful class. The combination of skill and superior options create such a wide gulf that thr game stops being fun for someone.
2) A table of skilled character builders are trying to play in a game where they've upped the challenges significantly. It's not uncommon for one of my groups to regularly tackle CR+5 challenges, and C/MD becomes a big issue here, because most everyone at the table is playing as close to their class ceiling as they can get. When one classes ceiling is significantly lower than the rest, it creates issues facing such potent challenges. You'll end up with someone who just can't keep up with the rest of the table, and that's potentially frustrating for everyone, particularly if failures on the part of the low ceiling class lead to the death of another party member.
Also not sure I agree with your use of the word 'skill' to describe the circumstances that lead to a c/md. People can choose not to use particular builds, spells or abilities I'm certain ways (oft discussed on the Internet). That isn't a lack of skill it is the ability to show restraint and balance.
There are all kinds of broken builds I don't use, but I'm still better at creating effective characters than most people I've played with. Character building is a skill, however you might feel about it. More than that, you don't know what your group's skill level is before you start playing. I've played with lots of professed "power gamers" who found out they really didn't know that much when I showed up and out-performed each and every one of them in each and every encounter. I switched to a different character after that, but the point is that you can't make judgements about what "restraint and balance" are when both those concepts vary from table to table.
There is an irony where an argument against Martials being powerful enough is that they are too good at killing everything, while the caster won't do much damage.
Not sure where you're getting at here. C/MD has virtually nothing to do with damage dealing, it has to do with options and effectiveness. I've played in a campaign where a clever Druid and Wizard managed to completely circumvent 90% of the encounters. They weren't dealing any damage, but they were completing objectives far more efficiently, quickly, and effectively than a martial character could ever hope to, and damage was a non-factor.
Why didn't the ever prepared caster have a dispel magic or break enchantment (hold person ready if the guy can never make a will save?). Seems to me enchantment magic, if used judiciously, is the perfect antidote to a suped-up martial that is slamming his way through every fight.
Still not sure what you're getting at here. Do you think that Caster / Martial Disparity is an issue where the martials are to strong?
Incidentally it was the GM who killed the party in that situation not the player, other orders or spells could have been given of a less fatal nature.
Still not quite tracking on where you're going with this, but I think we may have two very different ideas of the topic at hand.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Student t-test and then ANOVA to determine significant differences across groups. You can't use the z tables since standard deviation isn't known but calculated from data.
I prefer minitab for my ANOVA analysis since doing the calculations by hand is mind numbingly tedious.
People questioning the validity of the measurements (death v class) are just experiencing a general problem with statistics. You should keep it clear what you are doing (not bad v class, but death v class). I had a rogue in RotRLs and he only died once but was the worse character I've ever had the displeasure of playing. You should consider uncompleted campaigns and switching classes/characters a death.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
lots of interesting stuff...
I don't disagree with a lot of what you say, particularly around the differing views on the C/MD. I am firmly in the "it's a feature camp", though I see it as a player issue not a game issue and the unavoidable side effect of giving choices to people.
In any game if a skilled person is playing with a less skilled person then one of two things have to happen (or both) the skilled player holds back and/or helps the unskilled player. Some players will want to overcome 90% of encounters themselves, some will recognise that isn't much fun for everyone else and not play that way. That's the same in Pathfinder as it is in tennis, Monopoly or chess.
Lots of players - I don't have facts to back this so I won't say "most" - play with (semi) regular groups so do know exactly what they are getting into and can agree in advance what they would play and how. It seems that the magus-ninja / rogue situation you describe is an example of players in a campaign not discussing what they intend to play.
I should have been clearer regarding the domination example you gave, I thought it was ironic that it came up twice in a discussion about CM/D but in both cases the casters were unable to overcome it without deaths in the party.
|
Design Manager
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't disagree with a lot of what you say, particularly around the differing views on the C/MD. I am firmly in the "it's a feature camp", though I see it as a player issue not a game issue and the unavoidable side effect of giving choices to people.
Personally, I think that the game should strive harder to offer equal choices. Given some of the recent materials being released, it seems like the Paizo design team has been leaning in that direction of late as well. You don't nee to rely on player discretion if the options are equally valuable.
In any game if a skilled person is playing with a less skilled person then one of two things have to happen (or both) the skilled player holds back and/or helps the unskilled player.
I don't disagree, and this is one reason I typically play team support and buffing type characters, so that my schtick is making everyone better.
Some players will want to overcome 90% of encounters themselves, some will recognise that isn't much fun for everyone else and not play that way. That's the same in Pathfinder as it is in tennis, Monopoly or chess.
The issue is when one person is literally letting someone else contribute when they could have snapped their fingers and done it themselves. It doesn't feel good for anyone. See Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit on YouTube for a hilarious example.
Lots of players - I don't have facts to back this so I won't say "most" - play with (semi) regular groups so do know exactly what they are getting into and can agree in advance what they would play and how.
I think that's true, and I think most people find a way to work around C/MD in their home games, but that doesn't mean the issue doesn't exist. It just means they've found a way around.
It seems that the magus-ninja / rogue situation you describe is an example of players in a campaign not discussing what they intend to play.
It occurred at an open game table at the game store. Even with fairly regular players, our ability to organize party dynamics is much more limited in that setting.
I should have been clearer regarding the domination example you gave, I thought it was ironic that it came up twice in a discussion about CM/D but in both cases the casters were unable to overcome it without deaths in the party.
One things that martials do well is deal damage. Sometimes, suddenly having a weak-willed living blender go off while you're standing next to it can be an issue that you just don't have time to react to, especially if you're trying to keep that blender alive while it's killing you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All true, and fair points.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Part of it is attitudinal, for example seeing people consider spells cast to enhance the fighter 'wasted' where casting that same spell t enhance the caster himself is not. The fighter is a lever arm to which your buff can be applied yielding a greater amount of return per spell than cast on a different target. Buff spells are just a part of the game, it seems, when cast on anyone else, but a sign of inferiority when cast on a fighter.. Magic items removing or vitiating weaknesses are just a part of the game for anyone else, but ...
Etcetera. There is a sort of double standard at work.
OR you are a magus and can do as much or more damage with 1-2 arcane points plus providing buffs for yourself.
Fighter does not offer much. Data suggest they, not rogue, are party corpse.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Part of it is attitudinal, for example seeing people consider spells cast to enhance the fighter 'wasted' where casting that same spell t enhance the caster himself is not. The fighter is a lever arm to which your buff can be applied yielding a greater amount of return per spell than cast on a different target. Buff spells are just a part of the game, it seems, when cast on anyone else, but a sign of inferiority when cast on a fighter.. Magic items removing or vitiating weaknesses are just a part of the game for anyone else, but ...
Etcetera. There is a sort of double standard at work.
I don't think most people see it as a waste of a spell all the time. It is not that simple.
As an example dropping haste(3rd level spell) on those who do damage is a more efficient in most cases than dropping fireball(3rd level spell).
However on the other side of the spectrum a caster might be better off just virtually ending a fight with a spell or two than buffing. However if you build a caster that can do this the other players don't get to participate.
When those opposing viewpoints come up I think one is arguing from a point of what is best if it was a real life situation and another is arguing from a point of what is best for game or table.
Talking past each other or from a different standpoint is the reason for a lot of disagreements.
PS: I think haste is a great spell in both situations. :)
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't disagree with a lot of what you say, particularly around the differing views on the C/MD. I am firmly in the "it's a feature camp", though I see it as a player issue not a game issue and the unavoidable side effect of giving choices to people.In any game if a skilled person is playing with a less skilled person then one of two things have to happen (or both) the skilled player holds back and/or helps the unskilled player. Some players will want to overcome 90% of encounters themselves, some will recognise that isn't much fun for everyone else and not play that way.
But that's not what C/MD is. C/MD is about giving different affordances for choice to different roles irrespective of player skill.
It's very easy for the wizard's player, for example, to make the fighter a better fighter. Haste and bull's strength are two obvious ways, but of course there are others. One can easily make the fighter attack more often and more successfully, and even grant her better tactical flexibility ("okay, you can fly now, and you have 10 foot reach")
How does the fighter make the wizard a better wizard? Not just protecting the wizard, but making the wizard better at what he does? Cast more spells, cast more powerful spells, cast more varied spells, and so forth?
I don't see a lot of ways a skilled fighter can help the unskilled wizard -- and that's one of the major symptoms of C/MD.
That Is a flawed argument, the fighter isn't expected to make the wizard better, that isn't their function. They do make them safer however though by putting themselves in the way.
The Wizards similarly isn't expected to heal any of the party. People have different roles.
I think you are combining two different paragraphs in my quote. One is about my view on CMD one is about my view on skill.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
That Is a flawed argument, the fighter isn't expected to make the wizard better, that isn't their function.
But that's the fundamental problem behind C/MD. The fighter has such a limited function that there's very little he can do.
* Can you buff party members? No, that's not my function.
* Can you deal with transport issues? No, that's not my function.
* Can you deal with social issues? No, that's not my function.
* Can you find a way past this barrier without hurting anyone? No, that's not my function.
* Can you heal or restore party members? No, that's not my function.
The wizard can do any of those (admittedly, the last through summon monster or UMD, but she has both the spells and the skill points for that) -- and she can also do direct hit point damage, either from a summoned monster or blasting.
So I guess the short answer is that it's not a flawed argument at all.
If the wizard's function is "I do everything!" and the fighter's function is "I hit things marginally harder than the wizard's pets do," that's a disparity.
Simply put. These things don't have equal weight with the ability to do damage in combat and absorb damage unless the adventure is structured to require that.
The things you mention do not have equal weight with each other even. Neither is a casters ability necessarily equal to a non-casters. These are not binary solutions in many cases. They also require the right choice of spells and are limited in number.
A Great Dane and a Yorkshire Terrier are both dogs and can both bark, but their bite is dramatically different.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Simply put. These things don't have equal weight with the ability to do damage in combat and absorb damage unless the adventure is structured to require that.
That's right. Those things generally have much greater weight, because they are often capable of changing or mooting an entire adventure section.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay I respectfully disagree.
In the way that most adventures are written these things are not as important as being able to survive in combat. Most do not have obstacles that can only be overcome by magic, or Npcs that need to be controlled or require travel across huge distances.
The core challenge that makes up two thirds of most published adventures is combat. Not travelling large distances.
If your own adventures make those things more important that is fair enough, but as the DM you have created that problem yourself.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A spellcaster who summons now has exceeded the fighter in ability to absorb damage in combat.
A spellcaster doesn't need to play the HP game, but if they decide they want to they can output lots of damage too.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
lots of interesting stuff...I don't disagree with a lot of what you say, particularly around the differing views on the C/MD. I am firmly in the "it's a feature camp", though I see it as a player issue not a game issue and the unavoidable side effect of giving choices to people.
In any game if a skilled person is playing with a less skilled person then one of two things have to happen (or both) the skilled player holds back and/or helps the unskilled player. Some players will want to overcome 90% of encounters themselves, some will recognise that isn't much fun for everyone else and not play that way. That's the same in Pathfinder as it is in tennis, Monopoly or chess.
Lots of players - I don't have facts to back this so I won't say "most" - play with (semi) regular groups so do know exactly what they are getting into and can agree in advance what they would play and how. It seems that the magus-ninja / rogue situation you describe is an example of players in a campaign not discussing what they intend to play.
I should have been clearer regarding the domination example you gave, I thought it was ironic that it came up twice in a discussion about CM/D but in both cases the casters were unable to overcome it without deaths in the party.
If it were just a matter of skill, I'd agree with you. But it's not, really.
The issue is that only a certain sub-set of classes have that strict advantage, which makes it a system issue.
Let's take your Monopoly example. Imagine you're playing monopoly with three friends.
You are a high skilled player.
One friend is of equal skill to you.
One friend is of lesser, but moderate skill.
One friend is absolute trash at the game.
The expected outcome is the trash player trails the full game, the moderate player tries to keep up and stays in the game while, occasionally pulling an advantage, and the true match is between the two equally skilled players.
However, what happens is this:
Your equally skilled friend takes a dominating and commanding lead from the start of the game, and even the moderately skilled player ends up ahead of you! The only person you beat is the trash player.
Why? Because you made the mistake of choosing the Boot token at the start of the game, while your other two friends grabbed the Jet and Car. Your trash friend is the Thimble.
Your actual skill at the game mattered less than a single choice made at the beginning. From the start, due to taking a lesser option, you are at a disadvantage that could not be overcome. Put this in any mechanical terms you want. For example, the Jet gets an extra $1000 at the start of the game, and the Car gets a 20% discount on buying properties. You, on the other hand, get an extra $10 every time you pass Go, and the Thimble gets nothing.
Try as you might to optimize your strategy, it's not going to overcome the innate advantages the other options have.
And THAT is the C/M D in a nutshell. That is why it's a game balance issue, and not a player one. It is almost entirely divorced from the actual skill of the players. Equally skilled players are not going to have the same level of effectiveness if one is a Cleric and the other a Rogue. Even a less experienced player will probably do better than a veteran with his Wizard vs a Fighter.
No amount of "holding back", or ignoring the options on the table is going to change the fact that those options exist, and are available. Ignoring them is a houserule, just as it would be if you removed the innate advantages from those above Monopoly pieces and just played the game on an equal playing field.
While that is good for your table, and makes the game work, that is a function of your table being sane and ignoring really dumb rules. It doesn't change the fact that the game itself is imbalanced.
Of course this example breaks down slightly when you realize that it is really, really difficult to ignore all the supremely powerful options and garbage options alike. That cuts out the majority of options in the game.
So you have to grin and bear it because (hopefully) the game's strengths outweigh its weaknesses. Which, for many it does. It's why we're here.
But it doesn't mean the game wouldn't be better without said weaknesses. Wouldn't it be nice if we could all pick a class, pick any option that sounds fun, and that would be useful? And equally useful to anything else?
I don't think anyone would dispute that would make a more fun game. Which is why statements like "Yeah, the OPPOSITE of that isn't a bug, it's a feature" baffle me greatly.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Part of it is attitudinal, for example seeing people consider spells cast to enhance the fighter 'wasted' where casting that same spell t enhance the caster himself is not. The fighter is a lever arm to which your buff can be applied yielding a greater amount of return per spell than cast on a different target. Buff spells are just a part of the game, it seems, when cast on anyone else, but a sign of inferiority when cast on a fighter.. Magic items removing or vitiating weaknesses are just a part of the game for anyone else, but ...
Etcetera. There is a sort of double standard at work.
wraithstrike hit it kinda. Of course I'm not using buffs on myself, much of these "buffs" don't help a caster do their job.
I'm lv1, I can cast enlarge person on the fighter so they do more damage, or I can Color Spray and take out all 3 enemies from the fight. Hence I don't prep enlarge. Using enlarge is a waste as I spent my entire turn adding 3 damage to the fighter instead of dropping 3 enemies.Next up is fly. The fighter requires me to cast it on them. That means that my round now must be used to help the fighter rather than me being able to actively hamper the enemy. Or if we need to overcome an obstacle I need to have 2 fly's, one for me and one for the fighter.
So a part of this is what are you adding to the party.
Barb? "I can be so angry I can fly, I can protect myself from all magic, and I do lots of damage."
Paladin? "I can cast spells to fly, I am protected from magic and many status effects, I can heal status effects, and I do lots of damage."
Fighter? "I do lots of damage and require at least a third of your spells and actions." but what about as you level, I'm not talking about lv 1-5 you know? "I know, I'm talking from a lv20 point of view" Okay... I'll let you know if we have more questions later.
See, it's that the fighter doesn't add anything to the pot, only takes. A party would be better off having a druid/summoner/hunter/summoning those all add target for the enemy to hit, provide damage, and add to the pot.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The BMX bandit bit never gets old...
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The BMX bandit bit never gets old...
I know, right? There's also Professor X Fires Wolverine.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
HAHAHA
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The BMX bandit bit never gets old...I know, right? There's also Professor X Fires Wolverine.
Haha, Hadn't seen that one before. It's good too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"I got two claws too..."
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I, admittedly, have not played really high levels (typically stopping around 12-14) but I only noticed the "disparity" during out of combat situations.
Calling the Fighter a drain on resources in a cooperative game doesn't mean much. A Fighter fights, it's what he does. I've seen plenty of Fighters bringing down big bad guys without "buffs" from team mates. My problem with them is that outside of the fight, they are just twiddling their thumbs. They have a small skill pool, a small list of class skills, and no spells or features to complement that lacking for outside of the battle.
In fights, your actions should be something that benefits the team. If you feel that giving your Fighter fly would help the party the most, then do it. If you feel you have a another spell that would be better than giving the Fighter fly, then do that. But complaining about the Fighter in your group who constantly places himself between you and the big thing that thinks your tasty is not what a team member should do, consider solo play.
A successful party is measured by the group, not the individual. Play as a team, they will go far. If everyone is looking out for themselves, then I hope they have some good luck.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A spellcaster who summons now has exceeded the fighter in ability to absorb damage in combat.
We can actually show this mathematically.
Let's use level 5 for a benchmark. The 5th level fighter has roughly 50 hit points; the wizard summons an auroch with 28 hit points. So far, advantage fighter.
BUT.... now they both take 25 points of damage. The auroch nearly disappears, while the fighter needs to be healed. Cure serious wounds gives him back 3d8+5, call it 20 points, and cost the party the same third level spell slot that the summoned monster did. The fighter will still carry some residual damage into the next fight, but the next auroch comes back brand-shiny new (even down to that "new auroch smell").
But let's say that this is a really tough fight, and the fighter takes 50 hit points of damage. I guess the wizard needs to summon another auroch, so the aurochs can soak 50 points. Now they're still soaking up as much damage as the fighter and get an extra attack to boot. And we'll still need to find a way to heal the fighter of his 50 hit points, so we're again looking at two third-level slots expended to heal.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
A successful party is measured by the group, not the individual. Play as a team, they will go far. If everyone is looking out for themselves, then I hope they have some good luck.
It's not mutually exclusive.
Imagine how much more successful that team would be without a fighter, but another partial or full caster. That's the point.Not that "it's a cooperative game, suck it up". Why would the characters continue to work with someone they don't respect or feel doesn't carry their weight?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Calling the Fighter a drain on resources in a cooperative game doesn't mean much. A Fighter fights, it's what he does. I've seen plenty of Fighters bringing down big bad guys without "buffs" from team mates. My problem with them is that outside of the fight, they are just twiddling their thumbs. They have a small skill pool, a small list of class skills, and no spells or features to complement that lacking for outside of the battle.
Even in-combat, the fighter lack flexibility. I'd much rather have a paladin or barbarian as a front-line combatant, since they have a lot more options than "hit ugly thing with stick." A paladin, for example, can do emergency healing if the cleric goes down; the fighter can't. The paladin has much better saves, and so is less likely to be turned into a dominated meat puppet for the BBEG.
But neither of those are as effective in a cooperative game as a summoner, because the eidolon can stand in the front line as effectively as any fighter, while the summoner is standing safely somewhere casting other spells that help the party as a whole. So instead of simply "hit ugly thing with stick," the summoner can be "well, while Freddy is hitting the ugly thing with a stick, I'm going to haste us all."
In fights, your actions should be something that benefits the team. If you feel that giving your Fighter fly would help the party the most, then do it. If you feel you have a another spell that would be better than giving the Fighter fly, then do that. But complaining about the Fighter in your group who constantly places himself between you and the big thing that thinks your tasty is not what a team member should do, consider solo play.
But what if the fighter wants me to cast fly? That's where problem is. If the fighter asks for fly, but I feel another spell is more useful then the fighter gets upset. Then round 2 comes and the fighter is just standing there asking for fly, yet I still feel I have a better spell. Then we finish the fight and the fighter complains that I never cast fly on them.
[
It's very easy for the wizard's player, for example, to make the fighter a better fighter. Haste and bull's strength are two obvious ways, but of course there are others. One can easily make the fighter attack more often and more successfully, and even grant her better tactical flexibility ("okay, you can fly now, and you have 10 foot reach")
How does the fighter make the wizard a better wizard? Not just protecting the wizard, but making the wizard better at what he does? Cast more spells, cast more powerful spells, cast more varied spells, and so forth?
I don't see a lot of ways a skilled fighter can help the unskilled wizard -- and that's one of the major symptoms of C/MD.
Keeping the wizard alive counts in my book. My empirical analysis shows me that dead wizards are considerably less effective at being a wizard than a live one. The choice of playing a fighter is the deliberate choice of playing a character of steel, not spells, not magic. A fighter who cuts down an enemy that would be threathening the wizard allows that wizard to cast without making a concentration check and risk losing his spell. So the wizard's investment in casting haste (which benefits the ENTIRE party including the wizard, not just the fighter) is an investment that pays back.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Keeping the wizard alive counts in my book.
It's very easy for the wizard's player, for example, to make the fighter a better fighter. Haste and bull's strength are two obvious ways, but of course there are others. One can easily make the fighter attack more often and more successfully, and even grant her better tactical flexibility ("okay, you can fly now, and you have 10 foot reach")
How does the fighter make the wizard a better wizard? Not just protecting the wizard, but making the wizard better at what he does? Cast more spells, cast more powerful spells, cast more varied spells, and so forth?
I don't see a lot of ways a skilled fighter can help the unskilled wizard -- and that's one of the major symptoms of C/MD.
Ah, so your suggestion is to fire the fighter and bring a cleric instead. Got it.
The choice of playing a fighter is the deliberate choice of playing a character of steel, not spells, not magic.
I don't think anyone would dispute that. However, the choice of playing a commoner is exactly the same thing -- and I don't think anyone would suggest that choosing to play a commoner is a good idea from the standpoint of party capacity.
casting spells and creating these uber catch all wizards takes actions in the round - the most expensive commodity of all as far as I can see. Particularly at higher levels.
That Auroch with 25 Hp also probably has a terrible AC, naff saves and only lasts a couple of rounds. This is not to mention the Wizard is doing nothing else and risking losing concentration by doing it. These limitations can be overcome but not without expending further resources in which case they aren't going to support other things.
It's very odd tha commoners get dragged into the discussion - fighters are dramatically better than commoners and commoners have never been intended as player characters. I also think the discussion always gets boiled down to fighter/wizard. What about the host of other non-caster Martials - swashbucklers, rogues, barbarians, brawlers, Rangers, slayers etc etc that have plenty of interesting options.
The vast majority of actions in the book can be performed by any character. These are then supplemented by special class abilities - not the other way round.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is really no statistical analysis, (pseudo or otherwise) that means anything when it comes to classes. The victory condition of Pathfinder is fun. Unlike xp, gp, dpr, etc. fun is virtually impossible to quantify mathematically. Two people can have the exact same experience,- one will hate it, the other will have loads of fun.
Furthermore, there are far too many variables in the game rules to even have a basis for comparison. Does the GM 'fudge' dice rolls? Does he have the skill and the will to play the monsters to the best of their abilities? Does he play the monster right out of the book, or add treasure to the statblock? None of these things are hard-coded into the game, they vary table-to-table.
The C/M D is about options. In-combat, AND out-of-combat options. If having options is important to you, you are likely to experience the C/MD. If you are largely happy making attack rolls, (or skill checks in the case of the rogue) and don't feel the need for more options, the C/MD won't affect your enjoyment of the game.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The vast majority of actions in the book can be performed by any character. These are then supplemented by special class abilities - not the other way round.
Not really, or rather, not vastly.
There are a few VERY important sections of the book that are functionally off limits to 'martial' characters- the section on using magic, and the spell lists. You can also add many of the magical items, and basically the section on making magic items. There are also the sections of the book that magic makes a mockery of, such as most skills (I won't even bring up the fly skill).
So what sections are off limits to the caster characters?
What do martials do that makes a mockery of what casters are capable of?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What do martials do that makes a mockery of what casters are capable of?Keep on being relevant when all spell slots have been expended.
Define "relevant" because none of the definitions I can think of apply to a pure martial without spell support.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What do martials do that makes a mockery of what casters are capable of?Survive low levels with no need for meat shields.
Keep on being relevant when all spell slots have been expended.
Granted this kind of situation would not be much fun for those playing casters
I've never had any issues staying alive as a D8 caster in low levels. The difference in survivability between a Fighter and a Magus is fairly minor, and once the Magus is casting Displacement on himself as part of his attack action the Magus has drastically higher survivability.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is a very interesting analysis. Other posters have already pointed some problems with it, so I will stick to original points.
Can you provide the original data you used? That is to say, number of people who chose a specific class and how many times they died.
Also, I believe Kobold Cleaver did a very decent meta-analysis of the caster-martial disparity.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Survive low levels with no need for meat shields.
Full casters do fairly well at low levels. Wizards and sorcerers might struggle a little in the 2-3 levels, but bards, druids, clerics, etc. are GREAT. If you count the partial caster classes they are AMAZING. Again, let's turn it around- How do the martial characters do with no access to magic.
Keep on being relevant when all spell slots have been expended.
Again, this might be somewhat of an issue under 5th level, but in addition to nifty spell like abilities, there are scrolls, wands, staves, and various wondrous items like pearls of power. And the same thing as above applies, the 1/2 BAB class might have to get creative, but the 3/4 BAB casters are still doing great. And how long do the martials go on without healing, debuff removal, movement magic, resist energy, etc.
We can see that the casters can still participate even at their least powerful level range, while martials never do very well without magic.
EDIT:
Basically: Those two arguments are myths 3 and 4 of the CMD:
"Casters are squishy" - Many people think that sorcerers and wizards are fragile and vulnerable on the battlefield. This has never been less true. Casters generally have good HP and thanks to spells like mirror image, invisibility, displacement and fly, they are often the safest PCs on the battlefield. All casters have good will saves, some have good fortitude saves, and they have numerous options for boosting saves, AC, HP, and other defenses. Casters also have ways to make themselves basically immune to everything from fire, to grappling, to mental effects. 3/4 BAB casters are generally not considered vulnerable on the battlefield.
"spells are a limited resource" - This was largely the balancing factor back in the AD&D era, however, running out of useful spells can easily be avoided once you get past the lower levels of the game. Most casters start with a few infinite-use 0 level spells, and frequently class abilities that can be used a half dozen times per day. Once you add in scrolls, wands, and other items, casters can frequently participate effectively in encounters without using any of their memorized spells or spell slots. Once you get past 10th level or so, most casters will have several dozen different daily options for effective magic use.
There are 60 actions listed on the pfsrd with only 7 related to using spells. The list doesn't even include manoeuvres like grappling, tripping, disarming, bull rushing etc.
In our last session the brawler, killed a very respectable proportion of the enemies, battered down a barricade, successfully grappled the oracle when she failed a save against domination and dragged her from the room, he held and barred a door, he was able to absorb a lot of damage from the majority of enemies, as well as several poison attacks, whilst effectively defending the spell casters and having a nice role play moment with the BBEG who had been his nemesis.
In the same session but different encounter the party rogue won initiative by a comfortable margin; leapt onto the Demon BBEG's bed ignoring the difficult terrain pillows and silks in between; sneak attacked her before she acted; cast cure serious wounds with a wand twice - bringing back the unconscious brawler and then the magus; avoided all the fireball damage from the BBEG; ignored the sneak damage from two babu then killed one with full attack two weapon sneak damage from flanking; then when dimension door'ed out of the dungeon to 200ft up in the air by the BBEG, disarmed the demon of her wand of dimension door, swallow dived 200ft into a lagoon and then used the wand to dimension door back to the dungeon room.
There is a lack of imagination being displayed by people who claim Martials can only hit things with sticks.
On the flip side Casters that spend the first few rounds of an encounter casting spells to summon friends or raise their defences are not contributing to combat. When they are finally ready the encounter can be almost finished, then those powers are wasted. The multiple use abilities are generally neglibly effective and are mainly there to stop wizards needing to use crossbows and ruining their wizardly effect. Spell resistance, short ranges, threatening and saving throws can all put reasonable limits on the impact casters have on an encounter.