Caster-Martial Disparity Battleground - No Crying.


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

201 to 250 of 1,383 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Right or wrong, Trinam does win the thread.


BigNorseWolf wrote:


Quote:
Not disputing any of that, but compared to a full fledged caster druid, I have a hard time calling a wildshap druid a "full" caster.

A druid can wildshape without being specced for it, besides natural spell. (and every druid takes that anyway)

A properly chosen, specced and geared (it amazes me that people forget to pimp theirs out) druid's animal companion is a decent melee character in its own right.

One assumes you spend most of your time as a dire-tiger, which has two claws at 2d4 and a bite at 2d6. Assuming a large form gives you a +4 to strength. So if you start with a 14 strength (you said you weren't specced for it) and it wearing a +4 strength belt, you are doing 2 claws at +16 tohit for 2d4+6 and a bite at 2d6+6. That's not so impressive. Power attack will hurt your poor to-hit chance more then it will help your damage.

You cat is better, but not by much.


Ganny wrote:
Trinam wrote:

BARBARIAN AM GETTING BETTER NATURAL ARMOR FROM BEING MAD TO HAS POUNCE.

BARBARIAN AM GIVE UP AMULET SLOT LONG TIME AGO FOR PROTECTY-SCARAB BECAUSE BARBARIAN NO LIKE ENERGY DRAINY THINGS. BARBARIAN AM NOT INTIMIDATE BY PUNY CASTY DRAIN. SPELL NO HAS SAVE, BUT IS NEGATIVE LEVELS.

...ONLY 12 MAYBE THO. BARBARIAN CAN HIT CASTER AT -12 PENALTY STILL AND MURDER. JUST MAY MISS 4TH ATTACK. BARBARIAN AM WITCH HUNTER.

And that amulet's protection applies to the mount?

The mount has more then 12 Hit dice.


Ganny wrote:
Andy Ferguson wrote:
...Arguing that being invisible makes it harder to hear you makes as much sense as Dying allowing you to stand back up.

I will take you up on that offer. Unless you make some obvious noise while doing some sneaking, how hard are people going to be listening actively? Everyone but the blind rely far too much on being able to see what they are looking for.

To me it makes perfect sense, and it is why there is a penalty to stealth while moving at full speed.

So a blind person would suffer that same penalty to hear anyone then?


True, the mount has more than 12 hit die. But I have to wonder how the mount will do with anywhere from a -3 to a -12 on his will save, against a Phantasmal Killer.


Ganny wrote:
Trinam wrote:

BARBARIAN AM GETTING BETTER NATURAL ARMOR FROM BEING MAD TO HAS POUNCE.

BARBARIAN AM GIVE UP AMULET SLOT LONG TIME AGO FOR PROTECTY-SCARAB BECAUSE BARBARIAN NO LIKE ENERGY DRAINY THINGS. BARBARIAN AM NOT INTIMIDATE BY PUNY CASTY DRAIN. SPELL NO HAS SAVE, BUT IS NEGATIVE LEVELS.

...ONLY 12 MAYBE THO. BARBARIAN CAN HIT CASTER AT -12 PENALTY STILL AND MURDER. JUST MAY MISS 4TH ATTACK. BARBARIAN AM WITCH HUNTER.

And that amulet's protection applies to the mount?

BARBARIAN AM THOUGHT YOU SAY THIS. BARBARIAN HAS HIGH WIS YOU SEE. IS WHOLE 12. (MEANS +1)

BARBARIAN AM HAVING VERYFINE RIDE CHECK. UNLESS WIZARD AM HITTING AVERAGE AC 36-37 BARBARIAN AM DOUBTING VERY MUCH MOUNT AM HAVING ANY MAJOR ISSUE WITH RAY SPELL. THEY AM NOT VERY GOOD AT HITTING MOUNT-IN COMBAT.

Liberty's Edge

Mok wrote:
You're probably right. I can't find anything in the RAW that really fleshes out "class feature" as being something that you actually have to possess at a specific level, or that it simply has to exist as part of the class. That's a level of RAW arguing that I'll leave to others if there is no clear meaning.

Uh. . . what? Would you argue that mystic theurge is available to a wiz 1 / cleric 1?


Andy Ferguson wrote:
Ganny wrote:
Andy Ferguson wrote:
...Arguing that being invisible makes it harder to hear you makes as much sense as Dying allowing you to stand back up.

I will take you up on that offer. Unless you make some obvious noise while doing some sneaking, how hard are people going to be listening actively? Everyone but the blind rely far too much on being able to see what they are looking for.

To me it makes perfect sense, and it is why there is a penalty to stealth while moving at full speed.

So a blind person would suffer that same penalty to hear anyone then?

You missed the exception in the post.

Because they only can hear, they have adapted to looking more with there ears. So I would say the bonus to sneaking from invisibility wouldn't apply to a blind person. Heck, I could even see a feat open to anyone that you could take to negate invisibility's benefits.


Trinam wrote:


BARBARIAN AM THOUGHT YOU SAY THIS. BARBARIAN HAS HIGH WIS YOU SEE. IS WHOLE 12. (MEANS +1)

BARBARIAN AM HAVING VERYFINE RIDE CHECK. UNLESS WIZARD AM HITTING AVERAGE AC 36-37 BARBARIAN AM DOUBTING VERY MUCH MOUNT AM HAVING ANY MAJOR ISSUE WITH RAY SPELL. THEY AM NOT VERY GOOD AT HITTING MOUNT-IN COMBAT.

Then, for the time being, I concede. Unless spells from Spell Compendium are allowed. XP


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Ganny wrote:
Trinam wrote:


BARBARIAN AM THOUGHT YOU SAY THIS. BARBARIAN HAS HIGH WIS YOU SEE. IS WHOLE 12. (MEANS +1)

BARBARIAN AM HAVING VERYFINE RIDE CHECK. UNLESS WIZARD AM HITTING AVERAGE AC 36-37 BARBARIAN AM DOUBTING VERY MUCH MOUNT AM HAVING ANY MAJOR ISSUE WITH RAY SPELL. THEY AM NOT VERY GOOD AT HITTING MOUNT-IN COMBAT.

Then, for the time being, I concede. Unless spells from Spell Compendium are allowed. XP

BARBARIAN AM ALWAYS THE WINNER!!! :D :D NOW BARBARIAN GO GET MUCH DRUNK, PLAY MANY PS2S. BARBARIAN ARE SHOUTING 'PERSONAAAAAAA' REALLY LOUD AND SHOOT SELF IN FACE. IT ARE GREAT IDEA.


Ganny wrote:
Andy Ferguson wrote:
Ganny wrote:
Andy Ferguson wrote:
...Arguing that being invisible makes it harder to hear you makes as much sense as Dying allowing you to stand back up.

I will take you up on that offer. Unless you make some obvious noise while doing some sneaking, how hard are people going to be listening actively? Everyone but the blind rely far too much on being able to see what they are looking for.

To me it makes perfect sense, and it is why there is a penalty to stealth while moving at full speed.

So a blind person would suffer that same penalty to hear anyone then?

You missed the exception in the post.

Because they only can hear, they have adapted to looking more with there ears. So I would say the bonus to sneaking from invisibility wouldn't apply to a blind person. Heck, I could even see a feat open to anyone that you could take to negate invisibility's benefits.

If someone suddenly blinds you, you only have a -4 to hear them. And being blind, they are totally invisible to you.


Now your grasping at straws. Sure, your blinded and have a -4 to perception checks. But that -4 represents your attempts at perceiving with your ears alone, something you aren't used to doing.

I admit, the +20 is a little much, but an invisible opponent should get bonuses to being stealthy that represent you not knowing where to look.


I have the urge to play a barbarian proficient with goalposts now. :D


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Soullos wrote:
I have the urge to play a barbarian proficient with goalposts now. :D

BARBARIAN AM THE BEST CLASS. AM GETTING ALL THE WOMENS AND BEATING ALL THE CASTERS. SOMETIMES WITH GOALPOSTS, USUALLY WITH LANCES. AM AWESOME.

EXCEPT SEONI FOR BOTH. MIGHTYFINE CASTER LADY AM HAVE ULTIMATE SPELL. IT CALLED 'RESTRAINING ORDER.' BARBARIAN AM NO LONGER ALLOWED WITHIN 12 MILES OF MIGHTYFINE CASTER LADY. NO SAVE THROW.

IT AM FRUSTRATING BARBARIAN.

Sovereign Court

ShadowcatX wrote:
Mok wrote:
You're probably right. I can't find anything in the RAW that really fleshes out "class feature" as being something that you actually have to possess at a specific level, or that it simply has to exist as part of the class. That's a level of RAW arguing that I'll leave to others if there is no clear meaning.
Uh. . . what? Would you argue that mystic theurge is available to a wiz 1 / cleric 1?

Oh, I wouldn't argue anything. But it would be entertaining to see two other people spend several hundred posts arguing the issue!


Evil Lincoln wrote:

For some reason, I want to stare this medusa in the face.

The other caster-martial disparity thread was very formal and well organized.

I want this thread to be a total clusterfunk.

So bring it.

You think casters rule the roost? Defend your case. (should be easy, you're right).

You think martials bring the pain, and casters will die without them? I'd like to see your evidence.

In my experiences playing 3E and its derivatives since its inception, casters are ultimately the strongest because of options. They aren't the best at dealing damage (but can be fair at it using certain strategies), but they do have the most to bring to the table overall.

While I am a very, very firm believer in mixed parties and believe classes like Fighter have a very important role, I must say that options tend to help in a game where obstacles and situations pose many challenges. Furthermore, warrior types do not have more longevity than spellcasters, because warriors cannot keep up their activities forever unless they are specifically burning through lots of consumables they cannot create themselves, or because they have spellcasters charging their batteries.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have learned much from reading this thread. Mostly that balance is somewhat important, even if I pretty much throw it out the window when I DM.

Also that Trinam is better than casters.

So that puts me here:

Trinam > Full Casters > Everything Else

Thank you for the education, Paizo forums. :D <3


Soullos wrote:
I have the urge to play a barbarian proficient with goalposts now. :D

Catch off guard does let you take attacks with improvised weapons which could be goalposts and deal damage. If you were a rouge or vivisectionist you could sneak attack unarmed opponents with the goalposts with catch off guard.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Lab_Rat wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:

To repeat it again:

-Gate don't work within a Prismatic sphere. No spell can leave the area.

- Gate will work badly during Time stop. You will not gate anything until your time stop end.
But when your time stop end your turn end too, so you are adjacent to a Balor and a barbarian and your turn just ended. Good luck surviving that.

Ok. I see what you are saying. As for the Prismatic sphere part...just cast that last.

I cast Gate- Balor shows up and does nothing because of time stop. I cast another Gate- Balor shows up and does nothing because of time stop. I cast Prismatic spher during my last round and then take a move action to step outside the sphere. I am outside of the sphere and Time stop ends.

As for Gate - Why wouldn't it work with time stop. Heck Time stop even says that spellcasters use it to summon allies. If I am missing something just explain it.

Anyway. It does not matter I really just threw it out there to slay some overconfident barbarian with too many hitpoints. I don't really want it to take away from the greater discussion of why there is this disparity.

I pointed it out earlier but:

Time Stop:
While the time stop is in effect, other creatures are invulnerable to your attacks and spells; you cannot target such creatures with any attack or spell.

Gate:
Calling Creatures: By naming a particular being or kind of being as you cast the spell, you cause the gate to open in the immediate vicinity of the desired creature and pull the subject through, willing or unwilling.

As long as the Time stop last Gate can't pull the targeted subject through the gate, he can't be affected by your spell.
You can maintain concentration on Gate to pull through a creature when the Time stop end, but then it appear at the end of your turn when Time stop end.

So:
- you can't cast prismatic sphere
- you are in no condition to move away from the summoned Balor.

A summon monster/nature ally should work, again it will summon the creature at the end of the time stop, but at least you don't have to concentrate to maintain the spell and the summonerd creature automatically help you.
- you can't cast prismatic sphere


As a GM, when I play I have to comb through my copy of the casters' character sheets and see if there's anything that really screws up anything. Martials? I have a copy just to double check the numbers every once in a while. For another anecdote, when I was designing the BBEG for my campaign, I tried, I really really tried, to make him martial. I just couldn't get him to have the appropriate scope of influence through his own means. I ultimately had to settle on the alchemist, which has a martial feel, to accomplish things in a non-completely convoluted way.

The C-M D can be summed up nicely: is there anything in game that a martial can do that a caster cannot? This is the central idea of the tiering. For every thing that martials can do, casters have some kind of response, while there are numerous things that casters can do that martials do not have an answer to. BBEG on private demi-plane? Hope you're caster... or can find one. Up against an archer? Prot arrows. Not an archer? Fly. Thanks to the likes of teleport and scry, the caster can dictate the terms of engagement. With information gathering as powerful as the likes of COP, it is difficult to catch them off-guard. In short, what martials lack is the ability to protect themselves and the ability to dictate terms of engagement. What can a martial do to make sure that they can get a good night's sleep in safety? What can a martial do to ensure unimpeded movement? What can a martial do to force an engagement with an opponent? What can a martial do to make the battlefield advantageous? In all these cases, if the martial is against active caster opposition, there is nothing they can do. This is a problem.


SlamEvil wrote:
In that people who want to play casters care that their characters are "better" than the martial characters in the party?

Both, in my case. For me, in 1.0/2.0, I always felt like I was contributing. But in 3.0/3.5, I was always frustrated at higher levels -- because if I played a fighter, I felt like a useless caddy whose job was to be carried around by the others, and if I played a cleric or wizard, I felt like the options at my disposal made the rest of the party (and most adventures, for that matter) sort of pointless. As DM, I felt like I had to resort to more and more outrageous gimmicks to keep the fighters and rogues useful, to the point where it would get a bit absurd (all dungeons are barred from all other planes and lined with lead, etc. -- that kind of stuff gets really old, really fast).

Running through the Age of Worms and Savage Tide APs, we finally quit the latter, by mutual agreement, at 15th or 16th level, because what was happening was too obvious -- a party of barbarian, rogue, druid, and wizard, eventually by stages morphed into a druid and a wizard who had a couple of sidekicks who had no use of their own except to run minor errands and carry stuff. And the better we got at 3.5, the earlier this happened. That can be frustrating for everyone involved; the "best" solution, for a while, was to handicap the hell out of the casters by "gentleman's agreement" -- no casting divination spells allowed, no overland flight allowed, no wind walk allowed, no shelter spells allowed, etc.

SlamEvil wrote:
I just think that discussions and comparisons like this put the game at risk. This was one of the biggest complaints in 3.5, and in trying to fix it Wizards gave us the monstrosity known as 4th Edition.

Does all science lead inexorably to nuclear war? I don't think that understanding the game's limitations, and trying to come up with ways to overcome them, automatically results in a 4e clone -- any more than I think wind power as an alternative to coal automatically leads to Chernobyl. And with 4e as a clear indication of where we don't want to go with 3.X, that still leaves a lot of room for improvement, and a lot of directions to go to in.

Shadow Lodge

There are now more posts from Trinam in my Favorties than any other posters on these boards.


This thread made me laugh and think. Thanks!

On topic, can the source of the perceived discrepancy be summarized as a finite list of spells?

In that case, an alternative could perhaps be, for some GM, to remove those spells from the game world, or change their costs and repercussions? I know this is not new, but neither is this conversation.

Sovereign Court

Kirth Gersen wrote:
Does all science lead inexorably to nuclear war? I don't think that understanding the game's limitations, and trying to come up with ways to overcome them, automatically results in a 4e clone -- any more than I think wind power as an alternative to coal automatically leads to Chernobyl. And with 4e as a clear indication of where we don't want to go with 3.X, that still leaves a lot of room for improvement, and a lot of directions to go to in.

I agree. There is nothing inevitable about the 4e design. I've always looked at their decision to make everyone functionally a spellcaster as being more of a economic decision than one of "elegant game design." With this approach they could streamline the core structure of the system and thus allow them to have very clear linear math, and thus be able to crank out a book once a month.

If you step back to Star Wars Saga, which was much more of a true 3.75 than Pathfinder in terms of evolution, the game fixes all sorts of issues with 3.5, but still has a lot of interesting asymmetric qualities to it, along with out of combat support. If WotC released a 4e that was updated and translated version of Saga into D&D, AND they didn't monkey around with the awful GSL, then I suspect Pathfinder would still be an adventure brand, and we'd all be playing 4e right now.

Sovereign Court

Dreaming Warforged wrote:

This thread made me laugh and think. Thanks!

On topic, can the source of the perceived discrepancy be summarized as a finite list of spells?

In that case, an alternative could perhaps be, for some GM, to remove those spells from the game world, or change their costs and repercussions? I know this is not new, but neither is this conversation.

That's definitely an approach. However you have to follow it up with a tedious editing of the Bestiaries also.

The Bestiaries are "the beast" that you really have to tackle when trying to do major surgery to the system. It's easy enough to make changes on the rules when it comes to PC abilities, but if the challenges that are meant to be faced aren't adjusted then you can crash into all sorts of unanticipated conflicts.

It's not necessarily hard work, but rather you need to thoroughly grind through the system if your intent is to avoid surprises in how the math ends up playing out.


Diego Rossi wrote:
Stuff that gently informs me that I am retarded

Diego, Thank you!I missed that earlier post. That explains a lot.

The use of timestop and gate is still a powerful opening move for the wizard though. Even if you can not thunder dome someone, you can still use time stop to lay down a few buffs and then Gate to call in a CR20 Balor under your control and tell him to kill the barbarian and then go home. It's not the be all end all combo I originally confused it with.

As far as Trinam's barbarian goes he still has a weak spot. He did not go first and so his will save is horrible (I am assuming he has superstition at least and maybe he is human with the superstition bonus too. That's how my barb rolls.). You could probably get away with a save or suck the first round but if he makes the save your toast. To be safe, I would save or suck his mount and then watch him fall to the ground. Those are his 2 weak spots in the character.

Trinam - How did you get a Dire Bat mount with more than 12 HD? The Dire bat itself only has 4HD. I think you went mounted fury but they can only get a camel or a horse as a mount.


SlamEvil wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
SlamEvil wrote:

WHO FREAKIN CARES IF CASTERS ARE BETTER THAN MARTIAL CHARACTERS?

NOT EVERYONE WANTS TO PLAY CASTERS!!!
Your second sentence answers the first.

In that people who want to play casters care that their characters are "better" than the martial characters in the party?

I just think that discussions and comparisons like this put the game at risk. This was one of the biggest complaints in 3.5, and in trying to fix it Wizards gave us the monstrosity known as 4th Edition.

Why is 4th Edition a monstrosity? I think it's pretty awesome.

Just because you don't like it doesn't mean that it's bad.


HeHateMe wrote:

This is basically a moot point, as casters have every advantage with the exception of AC, which belongs to Fighters, and DPR, which goes to either Fighter or Barbarian. Rogues: sorry, you got nothin'.

However, casters could never compare with non-casters in the getting laid competition. Who is the hot, rich, horny young princess that the PC group just rescued from the dragon gonna grapple between the sheets with: The stringbean Wizard with braces, bifocals and acne?

Or, would she rather get naked with the bronzed martial god with sculpted abs and 24-inch biceps? Even Rogues score better than Wizards here cause they got the rebellious "bad boy" factor going for them!

Casters have power but non-casters get the girls!

The one exception here is Bards, they are casters and beat everyone hands-down in the poon competition. Nobody can compete with their boy-band appeal, after all.

That's why they invented Charm Person.


Lab_Rat wrote:


As far as Trinam's barbarian goes he still has a weak spot. He did not go first and so his will save is horrible (I am assuming he has superstition at least and maybe he is human with the superstition bonus too. That's how my barb rolls.). You could probably get away with a save or suck the first round but if he makes the save your toast. To be safe, I would save or suck his mount and then watch him fall to the ground. Those are his 2 weak spots in the character.

Or go with Ravingdorks lv 16 casters DC 37-38 Bouncing Flesh to Stone if the barb makes his save it move to the bat.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lab_Rat wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
Stuff that gently informs me that I am retarded

Diego, Thank you!I missed that earlier post. That explains a lot.

The use of timestop and gate is still a powerful opening move for the wizard though. Even if you can not thunder dome someone, you can still use time stop to lay down a few buffs and then Gate to call in a CR20 Balor under your control and tell him to kill the barbarian and then go home. It's not the be all end all combo I originally confused it with.

As far as Trinam's barbarian goes he still has a weak spot. He did not go first and so his will save is horrible (I am assuming he has superstition at least and maybe he is human with the superstition bonus too. That's how my barb rolls.). You could probably get away with a save or suck the first round but if he makes the save your toast. To be safe, I would save or suck his mount and then watch him fall to the ground. Those are his 2 weak spots in the character.

Trinam - How did you get a Dire Bat mount with more than 12 HD? The Dire bat itself only has 4HD. I think you went mounted fury but they can only get a camel or a horse as a mount.

BARBARIAN NOT SAY AM DIRE BAT WITH 12 HD. SOMEONE ELSE AM SAYING THAT, BARBARIAN AM CONFUSED. BARBARIAN AM JUST WRECKSTUFF, STOP THINGS WITH COMBAT ON MOUNTED NESS. IT ARE AWAKE THO, BARBARIAN THREATEN PUNY DRUID HE AM PARTY WITH IF NOT CAST SPELL ON FRIEND. IT AM ALSO HAS MAGIC SHINEYS, BUT AM NOT REMEMBER THEM ASIDE HASTEYBOOTS. THIS AM MEANING DIRE BAT AM NO LONGER UNSMART. EVEN THEN THO, KILL DIRE BAT, MAKE RIDE CHECK, WIZARD STILL AM BEING IN TROUBLE. BARBARIAN AM USING VERYFINE +1 MOVING GOALPOST AS WEAPON. WIZARD AM DENIED DEX; ALL AM DENIED DEX IF THEY AM NO CARRY WEAPON.

(ALSO BARBARIAN MAKE WILL SAVE TO NOT HIT SELF IN FACE. BARBARIAN AM CONFUSE BUT NOT AM CRAPPY. CRAPPY BARBARIANS AM NOT MAKE SAVES.)

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Mok wrote:
Charender wrote:
Meanwhile a rogue would need a cloak of elven kind(+5), a 22 dexterity(+6), and 6 ranks + class bonus(+9) to match what a wizard with 0 ranks and 0 dex can do with 1 spell. Even then, if the rogue doesn't have cover or concealment, they lose their ability to stealth.
Technically, now with UC a human Rogue could take Extra Rogue Talent twice at first level to get the Ki Talent and the Vanish Ninja Trick. But yes, it's definitely a huge disparity normally.

Invisibility Purge and See Invisibility, still allow for stealth rolls by the rogue, but the arrogant wizard just got himself fried.

Also remember... Invisible does not mean Inaudible.


LazarX wrote:


Also remember... Invisible does not mean Inaudible.

According to perception it does. Stealth is vs Perception to hear or see them.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
erik542 wrote:

As a GM, when I play I have to comb through my copy of the casters' character sheets and see if there's anything that really screws up anything. Martials? I have a copy just to double check the numbers every once in a while. For another anecdote, when I was designing the BBEG for my campaign, I tried, I really really tried, to make him martial. I just couldn't get him to have the appropriate scope of influence through his own means. I ultimately had to settle on the alchemist, which has a martial feel, to accomplish things in a non-completely convoluted way.

The C-M D can be summed up nicely: is there anything in game that a martial can do that a caster cannot? This is the central idea of the tiering. For every thing that martials can do, casters have some kind of response, while there are numerous things that casters can do that martials do not have an answer to. BBEG on private demi-plane? Hope you're caster... or can find one. Up against an archer? Prot arrows. Not an archer? Fly. Thanks to the likes of teleport and scry, the caster can dictate the terms of engagement. With information gathering as powerful as the likes of COP, it is difficult to catch them off-guard. In short, what martials lack is the ability to protect themselves and the ability to dictate terms of engagement. What can a martial do to make sure that they can get a good night's sleep in safety? What can a martial do to ensure unimpeded movement? What can a martial do to force an engagement with an opponent? What can a martial do to make the battlefield advantageous? In all these cases, if the martial is against active caster opposition, there is nothing they can do. This is a problem.

As you seem to assume stupidity and ignorance are part and parcel of being a warrior type, they can do nothing.

If you assume they take a few skills in knowledge Arcana or pay someone that has them:
- they can buy magic items to resolve several problems;
- lead block most divination spells, especially scrying. Lead line the chambers that need to be protected;
- teleport pass through the astral plane. What block access to it? In the old versions of AD&D there were a few substances capable to do that, like gorgon blood. No reason why something similar will not exist in Pathfinder;
- ethereal travel: same thing. In AD&D it wasn't possible to pass ethereally through a living thing. A ivy covered building was a good defence against ethereal intruders. You had only to ward the door and window.

Yes, you have to pay a spellcaster for some of those defences (and with today riles about magic items it is not even mandatory. Glassworking and 2 feats and you can create your own "impenetrable" glass panels).
Maybe even simple lead glass can be enough to stop scrying.


Diego Rossi wrote:

As you seem to assume stupidity and ignorance are part and parcel of being a warrior type, they can do nothing.

If you assume they take a few skills in knowledge Arcana or pay someone that has them:
- they can buy magic items to resolve several problems;
- lead block most divination spells, especially scrying. Lead line...

So warrior types still depend on someone with caster levels for equipment to fight caster types? If you didn't want the warrior's stuff to be dispelled into uselessness, you'd need a caster of comparable strength making the enhancements for him, in which case, why say the fighter's doing anything at all except supervising?

Granted, that's all a BBEG has to be, a supervisor, but the wizard should have a higher Int score than the fighter. Nothing's stopping a fighter from pumping Int, but that's still making a very narrow case. Why would a wizard, with a higher Int, play second fiddle to a fighter in orchestrating an attack/defense on/from another wizard? Doesn't make much sense. At the very least, the fighter should have the good sense to defer to the wizard's knowledge and deductive reasoning.

Basically, what you just said tells me that martial characters still rely on casters to deal with casters.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
erik542 wrote:

As a GM, when I play I have to comb through my copy of the casters' character sheets and see if there's anything that really screws up anything. Martials? I have a copy just to double check the numbers every once in a while. For another anecdote, when I was designing the BBEG for my campaign, I tried, I really really tried, to make him martial. I just couldn't get him to have the appropriate scope of influence through his own means. I ultimately had to settle on the alchemist, which has a martial feel, to accomplish things in a non-completely convoluted way.

The C-M D can be summed up nicely: is there anything in game that a martial can do that a caster cannot? This is the central idea of the tiering. For every thing that martials can do, casters have some kind of response, while there are numerous things that casters can do that martials do not have an answer to. BBEG on private demi-plane? Hope you're caster... or can find one. Up against an archer? Prot arrows. Not an archer? Fly. Thanks to the likes of teleport and scry, the caster can dictate the terms of engagement. With information gathering as powerful as the likes of COP, it is difficult to catch them off-guard. In short, what martials lack is the ability to protect themselves and the ability to dictate terms of engagement. What can a martial do to make sure that they can get a good night's sleep in safety? What can a martial do to ensure unimpeded movement? What can a martial do to force an engagement with an opponent? What can a martial do to make the battlefield advantageous? In all these cases, if the martial is against active caster opposition, there is nothing they can do. This is a problem.

BARBARIAN AM JUST PUNCH THROUGH MAGIC AND BLOW UP EFFECT. BARBARIAN LIKE TO SEE PUNY CASTER TRY THAT WITH GIRLY ARMS.

ALSO BARBARIAN AM KILLING PEOPLE WITH LANCE ON DIRE BAT. AM GOOD FOR BATTLEFIELD ADVANTAGEOUS. IS NO PROBLEM; IS DELICIOUSLY SQUISHY.

BARBARIAN AM USING SEMICOLON AGAIN. BARBARIAN ENGLISH TEACHER AM VERY PROUD.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Lab_Rat wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
Stuff that gently informs me that I am retarded

Diego, Thank you!I missed that earlier post. That explains a lot.

The use of timestop and gate is still a powerful opening move for the wizard though. Even if you can not thunder dome someone, you can still use time stop to lay down a few buffs and then Gate to call in a CR20 Balor under your control and tell him to kill the barbarian and then go home. It's not the be all end all combo I originally confused it with.

As far as Trinam's barbarian goes he still has a weak spot. He did not go first and so his will save is horrible (I am assuming he has superstition at least and maybe he is human with the superstition bonus too. That's how my barb rolls.). You could probably get away with a save or suck the first round but if he makes the save your toast. To be safe, I would save or suck his mount and then watch him fall to the ground. Those are his 2 weak spots in the character.

Trinam - How did you get a Dire Bat mount with more than 12 HD? The Dire bat itself only has 4HD. I think you went mounted fury but they can only get a camel or a horse as a mount.

Sure. A spellcaster, especially a wizard, has a large advantage. But it is not as large as people tend to think.

Spellcasters need a lot of time and resources to become powerful.

They can "purchase" some of that through their spells, but that will force them to interact with the rest of the universe, making them vulnerable.
Only if the GM is willing to waive some of the constrains they become the omnipotent gods some people depict.

"Unlimited wishes" for example.

It is the GM allow the creation of a item allowing the wearer to cast wish at no cost. It is the GM again tat allow the imprisonment of countless efreti for "free" wishes without consequences.

Extorting 3 wishes from a efreti every few years without undue danger if you take reasonable precautions is possible.
Doing that every day isn't.
Sooner the efreti would start to bargain with other summoners "use one of the wishes to help finding the guy that is binding hundred of us and I will do my utmost to guarantee that the other two are fulfilled without any problem and unwanted consequence."

A guy constantly binding genies would have to dedicate most of his resources to protect himself from the same genies. And a spellcaster that use most of his powers to defend against 1 kind of attack almost certainly ahs glaring holes in his defences against different kind of attacks.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Foghammer wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:

As you seem to assume stupidity and ignorance are part and parcel of being a warrior type, they can do nothing.

If you assume they take a few skills in knowledge Arcana or pay someone that has them:
- they can buy magic items to resolve several problems;
- lead block most divination spells, especially scrying. Lead line...

So warrior types still depend on someone with caster levels for equipment to fight caster types? If you didn't want the warrior's stuff to be dispelled into uselessness, you'd need a caster of comparable strength making the enhancements for him, in which case, why say the fighter's doing anything at all except supervising?

Granted, that's all a BBEG has to be, a supervisor, but the wizard should have a higher Int score than the fighter. Nothing's stopping a fighter from pumping Int, but that's still making a very narrow case. Why would a wizard, with a higher Int, play second fiddle to a fighter in orchestrating an attack/defense on/from another wizard? Doesn't make much sense. At the very least, the fighter should have the good sense to defer to the wizard's knowledge and deductive reasoning.

Basically, what you just said tells me that martial characters still rely on casters to deal with casters.

To repeat it again. 2 feats and you can make your own magic items even if you aren't a spellcaster.

And the rules are so lenient that a guy with intelligence 7, masterwork instruments and 1 maximized skill can produce weapons, armors or miscellaneous items for which he lack 2 prerequisites (i.e 2 spells) without any risk of failure. I.e. he can take 10 and succeed at every attempt.

As you can make items 1 step at a time, giving them 1 power for each step you can make almost all of those items if you have the right craft.

Sure , you can't make melee weapons and missile weapon with the same feat, so a non spellcaster is more limited than a spellcaster, but with a judicious choice of skill and feat you can do plenty of items.

If what you want is total independence from any kind of magic ...well you have chosen the wrong game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Caster: I spend one feat, i can make a magic sword, a magic shield, magic armor, AND a magic bow, using a skill i'm going to max out anyway (and for wizards, with their prime stat)

Martial: i spend TWO feats and i can make a magic sword OR a magic bow OR armor and shields using a skill that has very limited uses and has what's likely my dump stat as the associated ability. Oh, and i take a -10 penalty half the time because i don't have all the prereqs.

how is this not showing how spellcasters win again?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

On the issue of invisibility, I recently had to house rule invisibility back to the way it worked in 3.x. In my games it no longer provides a +20 bonus to Stealth. It just makes you invisible. Sight-based perception automatically fails against you, and having total concealment means you can use Stealth regardless of who's looking at you.

I just got tired of the stupidity that is the three men in the dark.

Example: There are 3 men standing in the dark. One is invisible, one is blind.

In all cases none of them can see each other as it's pitch dark, so they all have total concealment. However the guy who is invisible has another +20 to avoid being noticed, even against the blind guy who can't see that he's invisible at all.

So we just removed the +20. It's still amazingly good as a spell as it allows you to ignore sight-based perception, which means you can basically walk right up to someone and punch them in the face if they don't beat your Stealth. Likewise, it doesn't make Fighters less clanky, nor does it allow wizards to completely skimp out on Stealth to avoid being noticed (just facilitates an ideal condition for being Stealthy).


BigNorseWolf wrote:

Caster: I spend one feat, i can make a magic sword, a magic shield, magic armor, AND a magic bow, using a skill i'm going to max out anyway (and for wizards, with their prime stat)

Martial: i spend TWO feats and i can make a magic sword OR a magic bow OR armor and shields using a skill that has very limited uses and has what's likely my dump stat as the associated ability. Oh, and i take a -10 penalty half the time because i don't have all the prereqs.

how is this not showing how spellcasters win again?

Heh, pretty much this. lol

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
ProfessorCirno wrote:
Zark wrote:

UC:

Fighter feat: 1
Paladin spells: 31
Ranger spells: 32
Wizard/ Sorcerer spells: 97
This basically says everything that needed to be said.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
TriOmegaZero wrote:
ProfessorCirno wrote:
Zark wrote:

UC:

Fighter feat: 1
Paladin spells: 31
Ranger spells: 32
Wizard/ Sorcerer spells: 97
This basically says everything that needed to be said.

PALLYS ARE 31 TIMEZ BETTER OMG


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
ProfessorCirno wrote:
Zark wrote:

UC:

Fighter feat: 1
Paladin spells: 31
Ranger spells: 32
Wizard/ Sorcerer spells: 97
This basically says everything that needed to be said.

Wow...that's really sad. o.o

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Gorbacz wrote:


PALLYS ARE 31 TIMEZ BETTER OMG

Aww shucks, I ain't THAT great. But thanks for the compliment!

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:


PALLYS ARE 31 TIMEZ BETTER OMG
Aww shucks, I ain't THAT great. But thanks for the compliment!

Hey, there needs to be some balance for that absurd Book of Weaboo Wuxia Fightan Magic which people use to pollute the pristine, clear, Western fantasy that I cherish so greatly.

Down with the asian comics crap I say!

;-)


Trinam wrote:


BARBARIAN NOT SAY AM DIRE BAT WITH 12 HD. SOMEONE ELSE AM SAYING THAT, BARBARIAN AM CONFUSED. BARBARIAN AM JUST WRECKSTUFF, STOP THINGS WITH COMBAT ON MOUNTED NESS. IT ARE AWAKE THO, BARBARIAN THREATEN PUNY DRUID HE AM PARTY WITH IF NOT CAST SPELL ON FRIEND. IT AM ALSO HAS MAGIC SHINEYS, BUT AM NOT REMEMBER THEM ASIDE HASTEYBOOTS. THIS AM MEANING DIRE BAT AM NO LONGER UNSMART. EVEN THEN THO, KILL DIRE BAT, MAKE RIDE CHECK, WIZARD STILL AM BEING IN TROUBLE. BARBARIAN AM USING VERYFINE +1 MOVING GOALPOST AS WEAPON. WIZARD AM DENIED DEX; ALL AM DENIED DEX IF THEY AM NO CARRY WEAPON.

(ALSO BARBARIAN MAKE WILL SAVE TO NOT HIT SELF IN FACE. BARBARIAN AM CONFUSE BUT NOT AM CRAPPY. CRAPPY BARBARIANS AM NOT MAKE SAVES.)

A barbarian with a high bluff.... Inconceivable! Then yes, I definitely save or suck your mount. Hope you are not flying too high, I would hate to see such a great barbarian as yourself die from a measly handful of d6's. You can't mounted combat your way out of that one.

I agree on the scrying thread of this conversation. One major advantage of the spellcaster is the ability to pick and choose his battle. A high level wizard does not go out into the open field and fight an army just to get at the commander. A high level wizard scrys the commander, waits until he is alone and preferably sleeping, teleports to the commander, does his thing, and teleports away. Any high level character should take appropriate measures and make a safe location / prevent scrying. I once GMed a high level campaign where the BBEG was an evil wizard. Players never stood a chance because they never understood these tactics, not because they could do nothing about it.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Gorbacz wrote:


Hey, there needs to be some balance for that absurd Book of Weaboo Wuxia Fightan Magic which people use to pollute the pristine, clear, Western fantasy that I cherish so greatly.

Down with the asian comics crap I say!

;-)

SIEG HEIL! *clicks boots*


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lab_Rat wrote:

A barbarian with a high bluff.... Inconceivable! Then yes, I definitely save or suck your mount. Hope you are not flying too high, I would hate to see such a great barbarian as yourself die from a measly handful of d6's. You can't mounted combat your way out of that one.

I agree on the scrying thread of this conversation. One major advantage of the spellcaster is the ability to pick and choose his battle. A high level wizard does not go out into the open field and fight an army just to get at the commander. A high level wizard scrys the commander, waits until he is alone and preferably sleeping, teleports to the commander, does his thing, and teleports away. Any high level character should take appropriate measures and make a safe location / prevent scrying. I once GMed a high level campaign where the BBEG was an evil wizard. Players never stood a chance because they never understood these tactics, not because they could do nothing about it.

BARBARIAN POINT OUT THAT PATHFINDER HAVE NO 'NEED SLEEP ELSE BE FATIGUED' RULE. AT LEAST BARBARIAN NOT SEEN ONE. IT MAY BE THERE, BARBARIAN NOT READ GOOD. ONLY SEE SPELL REQUIREMENTS FOR SQUISHIES, AND RAGES RECUR ONCE EVERY DAY. AM NOT SEE SLEEP. BARBARIAN AM UNSLEEPING UNFEELING HATEFEST FOR CASTERS. THEY AM HAS TO REST. ME AM HAVE TO SMASH. AM ALSO SEEING THAT WALKING MORE THAN 8 HOURS AM CAUSING 1D6 NONLETHAL DAMAGE IF FAIL CN. ME AM HAVING DR 20/- VERSUS NONLETHAL DAMAGE AND +A BUNCH CON, AM NEVER TAKE DAMAGE; AM NEVER BE FATIGUED. BARBARIAN AM IMMUNE TO REST. BATTY AM NOT AS AWESOME AS BARBARIAN, BUT YOU NOT WANT TO HIT BATTY WHEN SLEEPING. BARBARIAN AM SMASH.

WIZARD AM ALSO HAVE TO GET PAST RING OF SPELL TURNING BATTY BAT HAVE ON CLAW. YES BARBARIAN AM SPENDING THAT MUCH ON BATTY BAT. BATTY BAT AND BARBARIAN AM TIGHT. GO WAY BACK TO BARBARIAN PRESCHOOL. AM ALSO CARRY CARPET OF FLYING FOR JUSTINCASE BATTY BAT SLEEPING AND FLY-Y WIZARD COME IN NIGHT TO FIGHT. IS HAPPEN ONCE. NOT WELL ENDING FOR WIZARD.


Do people think that some of the melee caster disparity is because of the way the boards tend to optimize classes into one specialty? I think that for a wizard it is very easy to optimize stat choice / feat choice because most of that optimization is into the use of spells which are very broad in their applications. So your specializing into a very utilitarian choice of power. For a fighter, you specialize and your options get more narrow (specializing into a single weapon, ditching mental stats to be better at hitting things). I think that this kind of specialization in melee leads to weaknesses that are easy to take advantage of. This is one of the reasons I do not like the fighter. The class is specifically designed to focus on one way of doing things. I would love to see the fighter at level 20 be able to pick up anything and apply all feats/powers to that item be it a rock, a great sword, a goalpost, or a goblin. The fighter should not specialize in one thing. He should be the specialist in all things melee.


Lab_Rat wrote:
The fighter should not specialize in one thing. He should be the specialist in all things melee.

That's sort of the argument against feat chains, in a nutshell. Personally, I prefer feats that scale with BAB; if you set the new "break points" at BAB +6/+11/+16, then only full martial characters can get the highest tier of effects.

201 to 250 of 1,383 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Caster-Martial Disparity Battleground - No Crying. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.