To keep the enemy focused on him he must be doing damage and lots of it. To make himself a threat, he must be doing damage and lots of it. To make the enemy stop moving, he must be doing damage and lots of it. Full attack full attack full attack.
This is an example of how not to play a melee character. Without tactics or forethought.
So....no, not really. A full attack is a great way to deal damage, but it is neither the only way, nor even the best way. Maneuvers have their place.
This is how to play a melee character. With tactics and forethought.
Pathfinder is certainly not the "Caster Edition." The role of non-casters is limited only by the players and campaign style.
|
Like an animal companion + wild shaped druid? Two for the price of one.I know I'm happy as a wizard when there's a huge sword swinger out there doing the hurt and giving me time to do what I do.The problem with that viewpoint Elyas, is that it's not equal.
Everybody in the party needs the wizard, and everybody in the party occasionally needs the divine caster, but nobody needs a dedicated martial type, or a dedicated skills type.
Why bother? Druids aren't fighters, doesn't matter if they get a serviceable fighter as a class feature. And it doesn't matter that more than a few of their spells stomp on the Rogue's toes hard. You're never going to convince the other side that they don't need mundane characters. Nor that the four character party that works best is wiz/wiz/cler/dru. And that the party above covers just about every nook of the wiz/cle/ftr/rog niche.
Shrug.
Like an animal companion + wild shaped druid? Two for the price of one.I know I'm happy as a wizard when there's a huge sword swinger out there doing the hurt and giving me time to do what I do.The problem with that viewpoint Elyas, is that it's not equal.
Everybody in the party needs the wizard, and everybody in the party occasionally needs the divine caster, but nobody needs a dedicated martial type, or a dedicated skills type.
That was the concept I had in mind for my current character. Heavy on the wild-shaping, bring a big cat or an ape, and just go to town. Ended up playing a paladin instead, as I love the flavor despite them being far less powerful, and we're playing an adventure path (which goes easy on players by default compared to homemade stuff made to deal with a caster-heavy party). The constant defensive abilities comes in handy when 90% of the encounters are auto-surprise, even if we have both an elf ranger in favored terrain and a rogue with maxed perception, and +5 goggles. But no matter, I have GMed and played long enough to see that most skills are mostly not gonna work against anything except those you do not NEED them against.
A druid's companion and the druid himself has trouble dealing with DR of various sorts at low/mid levels if you don't have item-crafters and/or get the time to buff. Still, if I made a druid, I would be dealing much more damage, and have that be a PART of my repertoire, instead of my only trick.
In my Kingmaker game, most combats usually go "Wizard and cleric turns the party and cohorts into gods of war, and makes the enemy stand still and take the beating." and they still harp on about how the fighter is so impressive with his damage output.
It's kinda like politics. You have the scheming powers hidden behind the throne doing all the work, and the puppet goes out and puts on a show to distract the simple folks.
Like an animal companion + wild shaped druid? Two for the price of one.I know I'm happy as a wizard when there's a huge sword swinger out there doing the hurt and giving me time to do what I do.The problem with that viewpoint Elyas, is that it's not equal.
Everybody in the party needs the wizard, and everybody in the party occasionally needs the divine caster, but nobody needs a dedicated martial type, or a dedicated skills type.
Why bother? Druids aren't fighters, doesn't matter if they get a serviceable fighter as a class feature. And it doesn't matter that more than a few of their spells stomp on the Rogue's toes hard. You're never going to convince the other side that they don't need mundane characters. Nor that the four character party that works best is wiz/wiz/cler/dru. And that the party above covers just about every nook of the wiz/cle/ftr/rog niche.
Shrug.
I think in my experience it is a matter of endurance and frequency. A druid and animal companion is (in my experience) playing rocket tag untill mid levels with any enemy. It can do plenty of damage, but it will take plenty too and it doesnt have the HP and AC to absorb it like a dedicated melee class normally does. A rogue can also be overwritten by spells, but not with the frequency that I have seen in alot of games. If you face a handfull of locked doors, traps, social situations every day instead of just a few, then spells wont cut it because eventually you run out (again untill mid to high levels).
In my group often the reverse is true. The most expendable member of the party has been the arcane caster, where as when we lack a fighter or a rogue there are serious difficulties.
As my big-ass response to Professor Cirno got removed, I can sum it up in one phrase: you either haven't read most of the books you are mentioning or forgot way too much about them, including basic facts of who was whom in the plot or how the magic worked. On that note, I'm bowing out of this thread.
I've seen multiple groups that were heavy, or all casters. They never missed them. In a few cases, the reason why they didn't have any is because the player felt their character was useless, and either they died because of that reason, or just asked the DM if they could come in with a new character as they weren't happy with the performance of the previous one. It tends to only come up in restrictive games though, where it is not possible to make martial characters viable, or with the low tier martials, when it doesn't occur to them to play a real class.
I played an all caster party once in 3.5. Wizard, Bard, beguiler, cleric. After the second party wipe at level 1 and 2, the bard switched to a paladin. Unless you start at level 6 the all caster party has to be extraodinarily cautious for a long time.
I've seen multiple groups that were heavy, or all casters. They never missed them. In a few cases, the reason why they didn't have any is because the player felt their character was useless, and either they died because of that reason, or just asked the DM if they could come in with a new character as they weren't happy with the performance of the previous one. It tends to only come up in restrictive games though, where it is not possible to make martial characters viable, or with the low tier martials, when it doesn't occur to them to play a real class.I played an all caster party once in 3.5. Wizard, Bard, beguiler, cleric. After the second party wipe at level 1 and 2, the bard switched to a paladin. Unless you start at level 6 the all caster party has to be extraodinarily cautious for a long time.
One started at level 1. They were better from the beginning. By the end of the campaign encounter levels were being raised by 4, and optimized just to make the party blink.
One started at level 3. Same deal. Somewhat less extreme, only because we weren't trying as hard.
One started at level 12. Same deal again, except this time it actually isn't a surprise.
Heh, this reminds me of one time I was invited to play in a gestalt game. The existing players were a fighter/rogue vampire, a half-fiend barbarian/ranger, and some manner of fey-like bard/swashbuckler. I made a very non-spectacular wizard/cleric, the others laughed at my complete lack of combat prowess. Ended encounters in the blink of an eye as I pretty much had any given spell I ever needed to deal with any given situation. Apparently, said DM had not even heard of Holy Word, nor what it could do against demons, and proceeded putting nerf after nerf on spells so I would not make the entire circus troupe of misfits completely obsolete.
Heh, this reminds me of one time I was invited to play in a gestalt game. The existing players were a fighter/rogue vampire, a half-fiend barbarian/ranger, and some manner of fey-like bard/swashbuckler. I made a very non-spectacular wizard/cleric, the others laughed at my complete lack of combat prowess. Ended encounters in the blink of an eye as I pretty much had any given spell I ever needed to deal with any given situation. Apparently, said DM had not even heard of Holy Word, nor what it could do against demons, and proceeded putting nerf after nerf on spells so I would not make the entire circus troupe of misfits completely obsolete.
Yeah, I've got a character in a game I'm running who is a gestalt sorc/oracle. It should be interesting :P
How do all caster parties deal with a small stone animated object. It is CR 2. How do they kill it? I really want to know. I would not want to play against the animated object it makes it not much fun. What spell should you use?
As my big-ass response to Professor Cirno got removed, I can sum it up in one phrase: you either haven't read most of the books you are mentioning or forgot way too much about them, including basic facts of who was whom in the plot or how the magic worked. On that note, I'm bowing out of this thread.
You are free to believe what you want.
How do all caster parties deal with a small stone animated object. It is CR 2. How do they kill it? I really want to know. I would not want to play against the animated object it makes it not much fun. What spell should you use?
Clerics attack it, druids have wildshape and animal companions, wizards/sorcs can summon meatshields will.
Like an animal companion + wild shaped druid? Two for the price of one.I know I'm happy as a wizard when there's a huge sword swinger out there doing the hurt and giving me time to do what I do.The problem with that viewpoint Elyas, is that it's not equal.
Everybody in the party needs the wizard, and everybody in the party occasionally needs the divine caster, but nobody needs a dedicated martial type, or a dedicated skills type.
Why bother? Druids aren't fighters, doesn't matter if they get a serviceable fighter as a class feature. And it doesn't matter that more than a few of their spells stomp on the Rogue's toes hard. You're never going to convince the other side that they don't need mundane characters. Nor that the four character party that works best is wiz/wiz/cler/dru. And that the party above covers just about every nook of the wiz/cle/ftr/rog niche.
Shrug.
There's not really "sides" to this argument though. The fighter, or barbarian, or cavalier, can do more than the druid's animal companion. The animal companion can do quite a bit but it isn't always going to be the best choice for the tank.
The druid does not really step on the rogue's toes either. Yes, the druid has some spells that can mimic some of the rogue's abilities but the rogue can do far more than just be sneaky. Also, it can be argued that the rogue can mimic the spells of the druid (or other caster) with his UMD skill if he goes that route.
The four character party of wiz/wiz/cle/dru is strong and can be very effective. That's not really what's in dispute. What's in dispute is the assumption that the wiz/cle/ftr/rog can't be an effective party. It can be and quite often is very effective. It does have options that the all spell casting party doesn't have. The all spell casting party has options that the classic set up doesn't have. Neither is actually better. It just seems that way because that's how some people play.
You're a martial character in PF. You don't have tactics, and all the forethought in the world doesn't matter if you can't act on it.To keep the enemy focused on him he must be doing damage and lots of it. To make himself a threat, he must be doing damage and lots of it. To make the enemy stop moving, he must be doing damage and lots of it. Full attack full attack full attack.This is an example of how not to play a melee character. Without tactics or forethought.
YOU don't have tactics in Pathfinder. I do. Why? Because I know what I'm doing. You can harp on all day about this but honestly, all it shows is that you don't know how to play non-casters. That's cool with me but you are 100% wrong when you assume that I can't.
How do all caster parties deal with a small stone animated object. It is CR 2. How do they kill it? I really want to know. I would not want to play against the animated object it makes it not much fun. What spell should you use?
Depends quite a bit on the scenario (terrian, level, ect). Also if it isn't causing any actual damage or problem the caster party can ignore it.
But some potential solutions, if not to defeat it then for all of them to make it no longer a problem, at least for long enough to wander away casually.
Create Pit, Entangle, Summon Monster, Animal Companions, 3/4 Bab casters walking over and hitting it with a stick (buffing if they feel like it), Grease, Obscuring Mist, Acid Splashes or other minor class abilities usable numerous times, ect.
Clerics attack it, druids have wildshape and animal companions, wizards/sorcs can summon meatshields will.How do all caster parties deal with a small stone animated object. It is CR 2. How do they kill it? I really want to know. I would not want to play against the animated object it makes it not much fun. What spell should you use?
Well, wildshape and probably summoning are off the table at the levels you'd fight something CR 2.
Still, there's lots of options -- I remember having to deal with what amounted to a large adamantine animated object in a steel cage match in one Living Greyhawk mod with an all-caster party at APL 2, and that was in 3.5 when you couldn't crit the things. No casualties. Hardness is kind of a b*$++ but the terrible saves and lack of intelligence/versatility of an animated object is a pretty big hurdle, too.
(Granted, my actual all-caster parties have included things like clerics built to be melee or archer clerics rather than pure caster clerics. They don't look a lot different from the real fighty characters at very low levels.)
Hell, you could just about toss a tanglefoot bag at the thing and poke it with longspears or arrows until it died.
Druids aren't fighters, doesn't matter if they get a serviceable fighter as a class feature.
You cannot convince me because of things like this, houstonderek.
Respectfully, can animal companions cover a corner or an assault with a tower shield? Or use a bow to attack a distant enemy?
This is like the "melee can full attack only" thing. Just.. no.
What a lot of people are describing here is very, very badly played mele characters - and what is worse, they blame the system for it. :(
Druids aren't fighters, doesn't matter if they get a serviceable fighter as a class feature.You cannot convince me because of things like this, houstonderek.
Respectfully, can animal companions cover a corner or an assault with a tower shield? Or use a bow to attack a distant enemy?
This is like the "melee can full attack only" thing. Just.. no.
What a lot of people are describing here is very, very badly played mele characters - and what is worse, they blame the system for it. :(
So very true. That's not to say that there are some things that casters do far better, but non-casters are fine additions to a party.
I know that an all caster party can do fine. I wouldn't want to see 2 wizards, a cleric, and a druid simply because the wizards would probably see too many duplicate spells. I think it would work better with wizard, cleric, druid, and either another cleric or a spontaneous caster.
I wonder what an effective non-/partial caster party would look like? How much would they want/need to rely on Use Magic Device (it would be the same concept as relying on summoned/called creatures to replicate non-casters)? Of course it's going to be very campaign dependent.
Druids aren't fighters, doesn't matter if they get a serviceable fighter as a class feature.You cannot convince me because of things like this, houstonderek.
Respectfully, can animal companions cover a corner or an assault with a tower shield? Or use a bow to attack a distant enemy?
This is like the "melee can full attack only" thing. Just.. no.
What a lot of people are describing here is very, very badly played mele characters - and what is worse, they blame the system for it. :(
So very true. That's not to say that there are some things that casters do far better, but non-casters are fine additions to a party.
I know that an all caster party can do fine. I wouldn't want to see 2 wizards, a cleric, and a druid simply because the wizards would probably see too many duplicate spells. I think it would work better with wizard, cleric, druid, and either another cleric or a spontaneous caster.
I wonder what an effective non-/partial caster party would look like? How much would they want/need to rely on Use Magic Device (it would be the same concept as relying on summoned/called creatures to replicate non-casters)? Of course it's going to be very campaign dependent.
Paladin, Ranger, Bard, Rogue. That gives you 3 skills users, 2 fighters, 2 healers, 2 buffers, 1 arcane caster, 1 disarmer, 1 battlefield controller.
Druids aren't fighters, doesn't matter if they get a serviceable fighter as a class feature.You cannot convince me because of things like this, houstonderek.
Respectfully, can animal companions cover a corner or an assault with a tower shield? Or use a bow to attack a distant enemy?
This is like the "melee can full attack only" thing. Just.. no.
What a lot of people are describing here is very, very badly played mele characters - and what is worse, they blame the system for it. :(
I think the blaming of the system bit is only natural, as a martial character is doomed to be a one-trick pony in order to achieve the effectiveness required to face down with monsters later down the road, and even then, beyond AC they have next to no defenses against the plethora of threats that monsters may generate.
A caster can do almost anything equally well. A combatant most often need to focus on one aspect of combat, be it maneuvers (which even an optimized fighter cannot make reliable against CR-equivalent monsters) defending, ranged combat or melee. You can at best combine two of these, making a Sword&Board Offensive Defender, or a Switch-hitter. Rarely will you be able to combine all.
At the same time, the wizard can wield defensive spells, offensive spells, utility spells and so on equally well with only one attribute in focus. On top of that, he is relevant when the plot calls for knowledge checks and so forth.
I endeavored to make a switch-hitter paladin, giving up the ability to do maneuvers, as I do not have 2-3 feats to spare, nor will my AC be impressive enough to matter against equal or greater CR unless I smite AND fight defensively past level 8 or 9. I am nowhere near as powerful in melee offense as a focused paladin. And the ranger shoots circles around me. I am competent enough to be reliable, sure, and when the plot allows me to smite something nasty, I am pretty awesome, bridging the gap between me and the ranger.
For this build, I needed 4 stats; Cha, for the obvious reason, Str for melee and damage with bow, Dex for ranged combat and Con since dropping con is... well... dumb. Which leaves me with a rather under-optimized character. I am doing fine for now, but I doubt higher levels will be so kind.
And before the "tactics" people start asking, yes, I use "tactics" as well as I can. We flank, we buff, we position, and we ready/delay so we can make pain happen as well as we are able. As I have said, maneuvers are too weak to be reliable, and are a foolish investment when a wizard can duplicate trip and disarm with a lv1 spell that also protects people from grapple.
Personally, I think the martial characters are "weak" more in the sense that they cannot contribute outside their field of specialization. I think they are boring and predictable, and far too reliant on the spellcasters and magical items to... well... BE anything. After 6 levels of basically just cutting and shooting people, I am getting kinda fed up with the same old, and begin missing my old casters, thinking of all the tricks I could have pulled in various situations. And I am a paladin, which means I have various things I can do if I can't hit or shoot in a given round. I can't even imagine how a fighter must feel.
|
I keep noticing that people say "Caster", but in practically every example mean "Wizard".
Not all casters work the same way, and many of the suppossed advantages that you automatically attribute to casters, but automatically assume noncasters can not have does not work for all casters. Clerics need the most high attributes in the game, so to say that casters need 1 stat is wrong. Moreso than in 3E, Bards and Clerics (casters) really only have one role and are not great outside of it, without cheating, tricking, and going outside of the classes intended funtion.
On the other hand, Paladin, a mostly martial character needs only 2 stats to really work, (while 3 or 4 are just cake), and is probably the strongest class in the game.
I think the blaming of the system bit is only natural, as a martial character is doomed to be a one-trick pony in order to achieve the effectiveness required to face down with monsters later down the road,
We disagree exactly here.
I can perform a dirty trick without the "improved DT" feat, in conditions allow it.
I do agree that meleers could take twice the feats and talents and powers they get now per level being simply more fun, but I do not see one-trick ponies (but again, I restate it: the thing can be really improved). I only see situations when a maneuver or the choice to PA/no PA, lunge, move and do X is optimal or not.
The paladin above.. channeling, LoH, bound, and 2 decent techiniques.
If you want to do all 3, just use the bow while smiting.
Equal or greater CR is not the only enemy you face - I hope. And if party makes buffs stack up, things go up easily if needed.
See, main point is that in the field I see interesting choices (weapon bound + feats + smite + battlefield means an ENORMOUS amount fo combination), you see more or less the same thing. This is not inherently right or wrong.. I just see things in another way in this regard.
ADDITIONAL NOTE: is indeed true that meleers are limited in their feats. Is useless designers add new cool moves, if old reliable options make me unable to take them. I hope that ultimate combat comes with new mechanics like the old OAdv martial arts in this regard - new powers not occupying feat slots, GMs decide if allowing or not in the campaign like happens with Word of Power).
I think the blaming of the system bit is only natural, as a martial character is doomed to be a one-trick pony in order to achieve the effectiveness required to face down with monsters later down the road, and even then, beyond AC they have next to no defenses against the plethora of threats that monsters may generate.
A caster can do almost anything equally well. A combatant most often need to focus on one aspect of combat, be it maneuvers (which even an optimized fighter cannot make reliable against CR-equivalent monsters) defending, ranged combat or melee. You can at best combine two of these, making a Sword&Board Offensive Defender, or a Switch-hitter. Rarely will you be able to combine all.
I don't think it's really a problem with the system but a problem with the discussions. What happens is that we forget that the characters evolve with the campaign and are build for that campaign. A lightly armored fighter can do well in a swashbuckling campaign with few demons and devils. A campaign that focuses heavily on NPCs as opponents will see far more maneuvers work than one that focuses more on riding into the Nine Hells. A campaign that is undead heavy will see less use of color spray from the wizards. We tend to look at the non-casters in a vacuum while giving the benefit of the doubt to casters. That's not to say that there isn't a difference in power, there is, but the discussion ignores campaigns which does a disservice to the characters of all classes.
At the same time, the wizard can wield defensive spells, offensive spells, utility spells and so on equally well with only one attribute in focus. On top of that, he is relevant when the plot calls for knowledge checks and so forth.
But even the wizard is limited in how many spells he has prepared. Yes, he can have quite a bit and he can put many in consumables. That doesn't change the fact that he still has limitations on how many spells he can have prepared at any given time. Even the fighter can have some knowledge skills. I have seen fighters that focus more on knowledge than intimidating the enemy. It doesn't really take that much effort either.
And before the "tactics" people start asking, yes, I use "tactics" as well as I can. We flank, we buff, we position, and we ready/delay so we can make pain happen as well as we are able. As I have said, maneuvers are too weak to be reliable, and are a foolish investment when a wizard can duplicate trip and disarm with a lv1 spell that also protects people from grapple.
There are more tactics than trip and disarm though. Your paladin probably doesn't have the feats to invest in them unless you want to completely redo your focus but I don't think it would be a good idea. The way is sounds, you are fighting more monsters than NPCs. Unless you can find a way to reliably be enlarged, maneuvers are probably not going to work well often enough in your game.
Personally, I think the martial characters are "weak" more in the sense that they cannot contribute outside their field of specialization. I think they are boring and predictable, and far too reliant on the spellcasters and magical items to... well... BE anything. After 6 levels of basically just cutting and shooting people, I am getting kinda fed up with the same old, and begin missing my old casters, thinking of all the tricks I could have pulled in various situations. And I am a paladin, which means I have various things I can do if I can't hit or shoot in a given round. I can't even imagine how a fighter must feel.
The non-casters can be very useful and do much outside of combat but the campaign has to allow for that. Fighters can use skills just like everyone else. As I mentioned, I have seen fighters who focus on knowledge skills. I have seen fighters focused on stealth. I have seen fighters focused on social skills. It's hard to be a fighter and focus on a lot of different skills, but getting 4-5 skill points a level isn't all that hard (2 from Class +2 from Int 14). Take Cosmopolitan for two more knowledge skills and you can already have 4 knowledge skills as class skills. So for a feat you gain +3 on two skills. If you are are over 100 years old, you can take Breadth of Knowledge for +2 to all Knowledge skills and be able to use them untrained. So two feats has given you +5 to 2 knowledge skills and +2 to all the rest. Not a bad investment and easily accomplished by a fighter.
I keep noticing that people say "Caster", but in practically every example mean "Wizard".
Not all casters work the same way, and many of the suppossed advantages that you automatically attribute to casters, but automatically assume noncasters can not have does not work for all casters. Clerics need the most high attributes in the game, so to say that casters need 1 stat is wrong. Moreso than in 3E, Bards and Clerics (casters) really only have one role and are not great outside of it, without cheating, tricking, and going outside of the classes intended funtion.
On the other hand, Paladin, a mostly martial character needs only 2 stats to really work, (while 3 or 4 are just cake), and is probably the strongest class in the game.
Yeah, I noticed that too. It doesn't help that Pathfinder is coming off of 3.5, where the wizards where monsters, the spells broke everything, and the divine classes just made people cry.
Everybody is used to the stances they have. They can also see enough of what made those stances in Pathfinder to attribute the entire case against it as well. I admit that a total revamp would be awesome. I don't think the casters are unbalanced in Pathfinder. I just like the idea of kicking reason to the curb and going beyond the impossible without any magic, tricks, or what not.
Thankfully, we have quite a few people here, that while I disagree with, they still manage to present their arguments politely and don't cross the line. Kirth, Cirno, Dire Mongoose, and kyrt being great examples.
So thanks guys. Glad to have ya.
@Kamelguru- A thanks to you too. You're polite, even though I think you still say some things without them being backed up. Thanks a ton for it.
|
There is no wizard archtype.
There is the wise old sage, however, and there's deus ex machina. Merlin was a wise old sage. What he does for Arthur is provide information, learning, advice. He doesn't jump around with the knights and throw fireballs. His biggest, most impressive power is to change shape - not to mention one of the only powers he uses. Oh, and he's the antichrist.
What about Gandalf? Again, we don't actually see a lot of magic from the old guy. He makes fireworks and creates choo choo train noises and casts Light a lot. Oh, and he's the archangel Gabriel.
To further run with this point;
The wise old sage is exactly that. Old.
He's usually been round the block for far longer, usually several decades, if not actually some near-immortal.
So even the minor abilities they do display are the result of much longer study.
In game terms, the wise old sage is several levels higher than the fresh-faced warrior. And still doesn't overshadow him.
Merlin and Arthur were never described as being born in the same year, being school buddies, hanging out, catching a few beers and learning about girls together, not in the original tales.
There is a tendency to change that in the recent TV show, for the benefit of yaoi fangirls, so they can yiff over the two actors, and draw fanpics of the two characters snogging, and squee "OMFG! They're soooo kawai-desu!".
|
A caster can do almost anything equally well.....
At the same time, the wizard can wield defensive spells, offensive spells, utility spells and so on equally well with only one attribute in focus. On top of that, he is relevant when the plot calls for knowledge checks and so forth.
He has a limited number of those spells available. That is the biggest deterrent to the CASTERS DO EVERYTHING argument. To get closer to teh casters do everything ability they need to either spend their feats on metamagic feats to create items or they just flat out need to buy them, eating up their WBL gold. Don't forget to consider that a Wiz will need to add spells to his book which also costs money.
Casters have the potential to do everything...but it is not all that easy.
The wise old sage is exactly that. Old.
He's usually been round the block for far longer, usually several decades, if not actually some near-immortal.
Or, to put it in older D&D terms.. they are the same level maybe, but the wizard has far more XPs.
If they started together, the wizard would have been several level behind because take a level of wizard needs far more XPs ;)
I do not want the old rule, but looking at in in hinsight is interesting.. ;)
I think the blaming of the system bit is only natural, as a martial character is doomed to be a one-trick pony in order to achieve the effectiveness required to face down with monsters later down the road,
We disagree exactly here.
I can perform a dirty trick without the "improved DT" feat, in conditions allow it.
Yes, conditions can allow it, even my paladin have on occasion done maneuvers. He has wrestled a man to the floor in a contest. He has grappled a hysterical woman to keep her from hurting innocents. He has done XYZ against various weaker opponents. But against someone who is a real threat, the chance of success is poor, and a failure means a wasted round where he could be attacking.
The separation of maneuver-feats is my greatest beef with maneuvers. I rarely took them when ONE feat allowed me to do the stuff that actually impacted combat enough to consider it. Now that I need TWO to do the same... I find it downright silly and restricting.
A comparable concept is forcing an arcane caster to spend his feats to gain access to the various schools of magic, only giving him universal spells as default.
I can perform a dirty trick without the "improved DT" feat, in conditions allow it.
Yes, conditions can allow it, even my paladin have on occasion done maneuvers. He has wrestled a man to the floor in a contest. He has grappled a hysterical woman to keep her from hurting innocents. He has done XYZ against various weaker opponents. But against someone who is a real threat, the chance of success is poor, and a failure means a wasted round where he could be attacking.
For condition, I didn't mean vs commoners. I meant versus a flat-footed opponent, as an example. Or one you outmatch in melee aven if is dangerous in other ways.
Moreove, there is a middle ground. bash away half of a bunch of brutes can be very relevant for the outcome of the combat too.
Remember that every bonus to hit applies to maneuvers. Well played, can be awesome.
Point being, that important choices are not in a spell list in the morning here: are part on the longer run in a feat list, and part in a dramatically shorter run depending on the situation and ingenuity of the player. Different classes, different playstile.
Said this, I could see reasonable make feats scale, but you don't need 2 maneuver feats most time. And greater trip is stronger than the old one - in a melee heavy party well played, is almost a save or die :)
A note on the paladin, he is not the strongest.
He can potentially be the most damaging, but I think we can agree the game is more then just combat and doing damage.
A note on the paladin, he is not the strongest.
He can potentially be the most damaging, but I think we can agree the game is more then just combat and doing damage.
Maybe he was referring to endurance (say, saves) combined with healing and smite, but I agree: If I MUST scale classes by power, paladin is not on the top.
|
|
Everybody is used to the stances they have. They can also see enough of what made those stances in Pathfinder to attribute the entire case against it as well. I admit that a total revamp would be awesome. I don't think the casters are unbalanced in Pathfinder. I just like the idea of kicking reason to the curb and going beyond the impossible without any magic, tricks, or what not.
Maybe, but another thing I have always noticed in arguements like this, (well actually no, this exact arguement) is that people auomatically give casters all the favorable circumstances while assume that noncasters have the worse circumstances.
For exaple, appearanty Wizards don't have to devote any money or time into getting all those spells. Money really isn't the big issue, though. Time is. Finding the right scroll/spellbook is. It is not automatic as people would have you believe. And I am not even talking about stepping into the Bad GM realm of "no that is broken so no one in the world has that spell, so you can't either".
Now sure, Clerics and Druids get all their spells automaically. But, at least for Clerics, many of those spells are cast on or for other people. A lot require expensive materials as well, and how often do you see a Fighter stepping up and offering Dimond Dust out of pocket so that the party can come back from this or that encounter?
Heck, when is the last time you saw a Fighter need to burn wealth every time they use a Feat or Class Feature? :)
Or make a Level check to just use their abilities while they happen to be next to an enemy? <failure means that that ability is now gone>
|
|
A note on the paladin, he is not the strongest.
He can potentially be the most damaging, but I think we can agree the game is more then just combat and doing damage.
Not at all damage. He can single handledly cover most situations out of the box, particuarly those that most general groups play (goodish heroes vs evil things with treasure and places to save). Has many great Feat, Item, and spell options, doesn't need many skills, even in skill or social encounters, and is basically born optimized. Not only that, but can completely take the Clerics spot, while both party and self Buffing at the same time.
Maybe, but another thing I have always noticed in arguements like this, (well actually no, this exact arguement) is that people auomatically give casters all the favorable circumstances while assume that noncasters have the worse circumstances.
THen let me state here and now for forever more why wizards are seen this way:
They can give themselves favorable circumstances
For exaple, appearanty Wizards don't have to devote any money or time into getting all those spells. Money really isn't the big issue, though. Time is. Finding the right scroll/spellbook is. It is not automatic as people would have you believe. And I am not even talking about stepping into the Bad GM realm of "no that is broken so no one in the world has that spell, so you can't either".
"Teleport."
Now sure, Clerics and Druids get all their spells automaically. But, at least for Clerics, many of those spells are cast on or for other people. A lot require expensive materials as well, and how often do you see a Fighter stepping up and offering Dimond Dust out of pocket so that the party can come back from this or that encounter?
And yet...
Heck, when is the last time you saw a Fighter need to burn wealth every time they use a Feat or Class Feature? :)
Every time they need a magic weapon, magic armor, a ring of deflection, a necklace of natural armor, or something that lets them fly, or magic secondary weapon, or an item that improves their saving throws, or one that etc, etc, etc.
Martial classes need a lot of magic items. Casters...don't. So wizards - and clerics - end up with a lot more leftover wealth.
"Teleport."
Teleport makes you able to travel faster in unprotected areas. The time you need for a new spell, by research, diplomacy (not the skill, but maybe giving and taking with a Wizard guild or Rogue guild), steal, kill can be helped or can not by teleport.
See, your answer is shows exactly what's the problem with the discussion here.
You think you used a counter-argument. You didn't.
I do agree somewhat on wealth... at the end, we have shown that ANY PC burns wealth :)
|
|
UIuuugh and I said I wouldn't comment on combat.
Ok, here's the problem.
Things in 3.x have a lot of HP. Way more then they did in earlier editions.
Now, I think we can all agree that EVERY class has the following "need" in combat:
"Do something that contributes meaningfully"
That's not a heavy bit to assume.
So, Captain Fighter needs to contribute meaningfully. Let's say he's decided his contribution will be "Damage." Remember, monsters have a lot more HP. That means he needs to do a lot of damage to contribute meaningfully. Which in turn means he needs to full attack. It doesn't need to be a one hit kill! But at the same time, if it's a twenty round kill, just how much are you contributing?
Fighter single attack without even trying hard]
I should make a macro. Compare to the average hit points in the bestiary and the fighter is carrying his weight.
Heck, when is the last time you saw a Fighter need to burn wealth every time they use a Feat or Class Feature? :)Every time they need a magic weapon, magic armor, a ring of deflection, a necklace of natural armor, or something that lets them fly, or magic secondary weapon, or an item that improves their saving throws, or one that etc, etc, etc.
Martial classes need a lot of magic items. Casters...don't. So wizards - and clerics - end up with a lot more leftover wealth.
Actually, casters do need a lot of magic items to be competitive, roughly the same amount as the fighter. The fighter's gear costs more but he doesn't need more. It is incredibly difficult to have a high enough casting stat without magic items. Yes, you can cast the spells but the DCs will be lower. The versatility from casters often comes from their scrolls, wands, staffs, etc. Those are magic items. Even if they can create them, the items are still magical. I have never seen a caster not use magic items beyond the lowest levels. It's fallacious to say that they don't need the items.
Can a caster be built that is effective without magic items? I would like to see one that remains effective at levels 5, 10, 15, and 20. The caster needs to be held to the same standard as the non-caster so he must be able to go up against dragons, devils, and demons at the higher levels. He needs to do so effectively. If someone does build one, remember that the caster should be using his spells so while a druid counts as a casters, he should be using his spells since we are talking about casting ability.
|
|
Like an animal companion + wild shaped druid? Two for the price of one.I know I'm happy as a wizard when there's a huge sword swinger out there doing the hurt and giving me time to do what I do.The problem with that viewpoint Elyas, is that it's not equal.
Everybody in the party needs the wizard, and everybody in the party occasionally needs the divine caster, but nobody needs a dedicated martial type, or a dedicated skills type.
Nowhere in the ballpark for damage.
Nowhere in the ballpark for damage.
It doesn't stack up too badly in something like the DPR Olympics; in my experience it does better still in a real game in which the druid can throw buffs as appropriate.
Not to say that the druid wins that or any contest based on melee damage (in PF, at least -- 3.5 is ridiculously stacked in the druid's favor) but it doesn't do badly, and then you consider that it's only a sideshow of a full caster.
THen let me state here and now for forever more why wizards are seen this way:
They can give themselves favorable circumstances
+1. Somewhat frustratingly in terms of balance, this becomes more true as their player becomes more experienced. (Or learns more of the good/clever tricks one way or another -- organized play tends to be a big multiplier on this kind of thing, in a way that holds up very well across campaigns because it typically doesn't require any non-core material or favorable GM calls.)
Nowhere in the ballpark for damage.
Druid wildshaped into pounce + rake form with a pounce + rake can do a pretty good amount of damage to anything within range.
At the levels most people seem to prefer (6-12) it stacks up pretty well vs the fighter. It's got lower defenses and HPs but considering it's still a full caster that's pretty damned good.
Later on the differences in BAB and feats allow the Fighter to pull ahead in terms of Full Attack damage but pounce is not an ability to be underestimated.
|
|
Nowhere in the ballpark for damage.It doesn't stack up too badly in something like the DPR Olympics; in my experience it does better still in a real game in which the druid can throw buffs as appropriate.
Not to say that the druid wins that or any contest based on melee damage (in PF, at least -- 3.5 is ridiculously stacked in the druid's favor) but it doesn't do badly, and then you consider that it's only a sideshow of a full caster.
If you are using the spell slots to buff, it isn't a sideshow at that point. It is the whole show.
Buffing is nice when you have the time and slots.
I posted a fighter i threw together. How many spells to come close to the damage?
|
|
Nowhere in the ballpark for damage.
Druid wildshaped into pounce + rake form with a pounce + rake can do a pretty good amount of damage to anything within range.
At the levels most people seem to prefer (6-12) it stacks up pretty well vs the fighter. It's got lower defenses and HPs but considering it's still a full caster that's pretty damned good.
Later on the differences in BAB and feats allow the Fighter to pull ahead in terms of Full Attack damage but pounce is not an ability to be underestimated.
Post and compare. The thrown together fighter google doc is up as a mark to match.