Caster-Martial Disparity Battleground - No Crying.


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

301 to 350 of 1,383 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>

Hrothnar: Ask a Barbarian! wrote:

Becoming a wizard is for cowards who would prefer to cower behind cover playing with owlbear feces, making silly hand gestures, and chanting nonsense while a battle is raging. They can occasionaly be useful in non-combat situations, but they're often so frail and cowardly that they complain that they need to sleep after the group has killed only a few hundred orcs. They also insist on having someone who CAN be useful in battle hang back to protect them, should any enemies manage to sneak up behind the group. In doing so, they rob a warrior of his potential glory.

Wizards...pah! *spits*

And a glorious death the warrior would receive. Especially against a hundred orcs. Assuming of course that the warrior wasn't clad in sparkly gear and sporting buffs. A hundred orcs? Even counting only 20s rolled, statistically that's about 20 hits with slingshots at 1d3+2 if they're throwing ROCKs at you. Or about 70 damage. With actual sling bullets, that would be 110.

Now if they had some alchemist fire, that's about 7 fire damage per alchemist fire, not counting any splash damage. If only 50% of the orcs were to hit the warrior with these ranged touch attacks, that would be 350 fire damage. Now of course, magic would stop this completely with a simple resist energy spell, but the barbarian should be out there killing orcs and getting doused in fire and shrugging off hundreds of points of damage without those pesky mages stealing their glory.

========================

Deigo Rossi wrote:

He don't want to depend on spellcasters. Fine.

He don't want to use magic marts. Fine.
He say most masters don't allow characters to take leadership to get a spellcaster working for the warrior. Fine.
He don't want to pay a feat tax to be capable to craft the magic items he need himself. Fine.

So he refuse all options but he don't want to depend from spellcasters for what they (the spellcasters) do and want to keep all the perks of warrior types.

How would you define that?

It sounds to me like he's saying he'd rather have an option that's not a trap. Something that doesn't cost 2 feats for less than 1 feat's worth of benefit.

Quote:

"That's right. Master Artisan can be taken all of once,"

Care to show the ruling saying that? The feat apply to only 1 craft, but at a minimum you can take it twice, once to get craft magic arm and armor linked to 1 craft, and once to get Craft wondrous items linked to another craft.
Master Craftsman wrote:

Master Craftsman

Your superior crafting skills allow you to create simple magic items.

Prerequisites: 5 ranks in any Craft or Profession skill.

Benefit: Choose one Craft or Profession skill in which you possess at least 5 ranks. You receive a +2 bonus on your chosen Craft or Profession skill. Ranks in your chosen skill count as your caster level for the purposes of qualifying for the Craft Magic Arms and Armor and Craft Wondrous Item feats. You can create magic items using these feats, substituting your ranks in the chosen skill for your total caster level. You must use the chosen skill for the check to create the item. The DC to create the item still increases for any necessary spell requirements (see the magic item creation rules in Magic Items). You cannot use this feat to create any spell-trigger or spell-activation item.

Normal: Only spellcasters can qualify for the Craft Magic Arms and Armor and Craft Wondrous Item feats.

You cannot take the feat multiple times. Just like you cannot take Iron Will or Toughness multiple times. Instead you merely qualify as a spellcaster using your ranks in "this skill right here" and you have to use "this skill right here" to craft the magic items, which rules out being able to craft weapons, armor, ranged weapons, or wondrous items. This is after you have to wait 'till 7th level at the earliest to begin crafting anything at all.

Quote:
It would not be efficient, but possible.

It's possible for a Fighter with an 8 strength to melee but it's not efficient, not practical, and not desired by anyone who actually cares about their survival.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Hrothnar: Ask a Barbarian! wrote:

Becoming a wizard is for cowards who would prefer to cower behind cover playing with owlbear feces, making silly hand gestures, and chanting nonsense while a battle is raging. They can occasionaly be useful in non-combat situations, but they're often so frail and cowardly that they complain that they need to sleep after the group has killed only a few hundred orcs. They also insist on having someone who CAN be useful in battle hang back to protect them, should any enemies manage to sneak up behind the group. In doing so, they rob a warrior of his potential glory.

Wizards...pah! *spits*

YOU AM UNDERSTAND PERFECTLY. BARBARIAN AM FINDING NEW FRIEND. LET US RIDE ON BATTY BAT UNTO NEW ERA OF SMASHING FACES.

BARBARIAN AM CRY MANLY TEARS OF JOY.


Quote:

So he refuse all options but he don't want to depend from spellcasters for what they (the spellcasters) do and want to keep all the perks of warrior types.

How would you define that?

- As recognizing that the game DOESN"T have crafting parity while thinking that it SHOULD. Is the concept of not reading what i want to be in the rules into the rules so gone from the internet that this needs to be spelled out again?

Benefit: What the feat enables the character (“you” in the feat description) to do. If a character has the same feat more than once, its benefits do not stack unless indicated otherwise in the description.


I never much saw the caster vs. melee disparity. I always knew that if you had a fighter and wizard against each other with preparation time, the wizard would win. Which is a "duh". Would happen in most books too if the fighter was dumb enough to let the wizard know he was there and show up alone.

But as far as in practical play, wizards are very fragile. Alot of high level creatures can absolutely destroy them if they show up alone. Weak fort and reflex saves and low hit points open them up to many instant death attacks and the like.

Then send a highly skilled rogue after a wizard and they could very well die. If you're talking people on their ideal battlefield, that could very much create problems for a wizard.

Alot of this is about build and matchups, locations, and the like. You certainly can't say caster always beats physical damage dealer. That certainly isn't the case.

I've never seen a module where the caster can beat the module alone. Haven't come across that one yet.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:

[

- As recognizing that the game DOESN"T have crafting parity while thinking that it SHOULD. Is the concept of not reading what i want to be in the rules into the rules so gone from the internet that this needs to be spelled out again?

Benefit: What the feat enables the character (“you” in the feat description) to do. If a character has the same feat more than once, its benefits do not stack unless indicated otherwise in the description.

I think you are right as he hasn't this kind of specification:

"Special: You can gain this feat multiple times. Its effects do not stack. Each time you take the feat, it applies to a new skill."

It is a bit absurd not to allow that as you would have to take master craftsman 2 times to get 2 different item creation feats, but it follow the other feats format, so almost certainly that was the developer intention.


Sorry, guys, but this thread isn't about the problems with Craft rules.

Can we get back to discussing C-M D?

Liberty's Edge

Mok wrote:
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.

I loved Star Wars Saga Edition, and I remember looking forward to 4e, thinking that WOTC was going to offer something very close to D&D Saga Edition.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Vendis wrote:

Sorry, guys, but this thread isn't about the problems with Craft rules.

Can we get back to discussing C-M D?

AM NO CASTER MARTIAL DESTRUCITY.

AN ONLY BARBARIAN NOT-BARBARIAN DESTRUCITY.

BATTY BAT AM AGREE WITH BARBARIAN, AM MUST BE TRUE.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

Heymitch wrote:
I loved Star Wars Saga Edition, and I remember looking forward to 4e, thinking that WOTC was going to offer something very close to D&D Saga Edition.

In hindsight, it wasn't very likely, since WOTC laid off most of the people responsible for SW Saga right before 4e development started.

Liberty's Edge

Heymitch wrote:
I loved Star Wars Saga Edition, and I remember looking forward to 4e, thinking that WOTC was going to offer something very close to D&D Saga Edition.
A Man In Black wrote:
In hindsight, it wasn't very likely, since WOTC laid off most of the people responsible for SW Saga right before 4e development started.

I never knew that. That would make it unlikely.


AM BARBARIAN wrote:
DESTRUCITY

LOL


Evil Lincoln wrote:
AM BARBARIAN wrote:
DESTRUCITY
LOL

BARBARIAN AM THANK EVIL LINCOLN. EVEN IF CASTY, BARBARIAN NOT SMASH.

AM INSPIRE BARBARIAN TO MAKE GUIDE FOR ASPIRING BARBARIAN.

AM FURTHER DESTRUCITY BETWEEN BARBARIAN AND NOT-BARBARIAN.

ALSO THREAD AM CAUSE ALIAS. YOU AM LIVE LONG, SMASH MUCH.


Well caster's are better than experts at crafting weapons which is another part of the caster martial disparity.

I also think master craftsman should be allowed to be taken multiple times each time applies to a new skill.


Maddigan wrote:
I never much saw the caster vs. melee disparity. I always knew that if you had a fighter and wizard against each other with preparation time, the wizard would win. Which is a "duh". Would happen in most books too if the fighter was dumb enough to let the wizard know he was there and show up alone.

One of the chief inspirations for DnD is Conan - who routinely smashed magic-user faces.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
LilithsThrall wrote:
One of the chief inspirations for DnD is Conan - who routinely smashed magic-user faces.

But is that reflected in actual gameplay?

In my games, it is, I admit.


Hmm, it appears that Barbarians may indeed get out of a prismatic sphere. Spell Sunder, Sunder vs 15 + caster level to suppress, 25 + caster to dispel.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:
One of the chief inspirations for DnD is Conan - who routinely smashed magic-user faces.

But is that reflected in actual gameplay?

In my games, it is, I admit.

The problem is that I can fairly easily create some new spell - particularly if I don't care about balance. There's little verisimilitude I need to worry about as magic is magic.

But to create some new combat manuever and have it feel like reality is far difficult.
That's why we have splat books with countless spells in them and very few (if any) additional combat manuevers/combat feats. The problem is laziness.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Casters are "stronger" because the archtype of the caster is an immortal being, whereas the archtype of the non-caster is a mortal man. To put it another way, casters are "stronger" because they are given narrative power, whereas non-casters are not given narrative power.

When you understand that "magic" and "plot armor" serve the same narrative function, you will understand what the divide is, and why having this divide ultimately drives me out of the game more then anything. Or, if you want, "breaks my verisimilitude."


1 person marked this as a favorite.

What about the caster vs. physical damage dealer fun ratio?

All my players say it is more fun to play a melee. For many levels, that is the case. Melees always have something to do because you never have limited uses on skills and physical attacking.

One of the biggest complaints with casters from my players and I imagine most is the limited amount of resources. Where the melee is hammering all day, wiping stuff out. The caster has to pick his spots.

Melees often get to engage in glorious battles of up and down combat going toe to toe with some huge monster. From an imagination perspective, that is pretty fun. Imaging your greatsword wielding barbarian or holy paladin trading shots with demons and giants is a whole lot more fun than imagining your wizard casting one spell that freezes a monster in place or does some other negative condition.

It seems to me that in these caster vs. physical damage dealer debates the fun ratio is often ignored in favor or pure power. A wizard doesn't become this omnipotent force for many levels. During the rise to power, the physical damage dealers are having a blast hacking stuff apart, stealthing, and sticking things full of arrows.

While the wizard or sorcerer is carefully planning his maximized spell strategy, the physical damage dealers are looking at the cleric saying "Will you heal me?" followed by "Who cares what spells you memorize. Let's kill it. I'm not waiting". Then they go and kill what you're facing while the wizard was "I could have done this and this and this if only we had waited". And the physical damage dealer says "I put my sword through its neck, that did the trick. Let's move on."

I just don't see why this is such an issue when both groups seem to be having fun. As near as I can tell this is more of a problem in groups where a caster player is asserting control over a party and making it all about him rather than most parties where the group keeps on trucking ahead whether or not the caster is able to make optimal use of his spells. They don't wait for the caster to always have his full compliment of spells ready.

I know my group doesn't wait for this. They like to kill stuff. They know they can do it with or without Mr. Wizard. So they don't wait for him unless they have no choice. They cut down entire dungeons without waiting for the wizard to have the perfect set up and have a blast doing it.

If martial players weren't having a great deal of fun with the caster disparity, doubtful D&D would even still exist. That's simple truth for those that think it is a problem. D&D succeeded with this caster disparity for practically all the years of existence. It didn't need to change that part of the game to be successful. I would even argue that changing that part of the game hurt D&D's success rather than helped it.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
LilithsThrall wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:
One of the chief inspirations for DnD is Conan - who routinely smashed magic-user faces.

But is that reflected in actual gameplay?

In my games, it is, I admit.

The problem is that I can fairly easily create some new spell - particularly if I don't care about balance. There's little verisimilitude I need to worry about as magic is magic.

But to create some new combat manuever and have it feel like reality is far difficult.
That's why we have splat books with countless spells in them and very few (if any) additional combat manuevers/combat feats. The problem is laziness.

?

If you don't care about play balance when creating a new spell, why you should care when creating a new feat?

Take the final move from most videogame and you will have your new feat.

James Jacobs wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:


2) Master Craftsman. As it hasn't the special: you can take this skill more than once row it seem that his feat can be taken only once.
I don't see why it can't be taken multiple times with different skills.
Can you enlighten me on the reason behind that choice?
2) Probably just an oversight; there's no reason why you shouldn't be able to take the feat more than once. That said... you could certainly say that being able to craft magic stuff without being a spellcaster requires incredible focus on your chosen craft, and thus multiple crafts would just distract you.

Not that allowing to take it multiple times will change anything.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've been mulling over the apparent weakness of the Master Craftsman feat and decided to take a stab at it to make it more worthwhile. Tell me what you guys think.

Spoiler:
Master Craftsman

Your superior crafting skills allow you to create simple magic items.

Prerequisites: 5 ranks in any Craft or Profession skill.

Benefit: Choose either Craft Magic Arms and Armor or Craft Wondrous Item feat when you select this feat. You can create magic items as if you possess the chosen magic item creation feat, substituting your ranks in any Craft or Profession skill for your total caster level. You must use the applicable skill with at least 5 ranks for the item you wish to create (Craft (Armor) for magic armors, Craft (Bows) for bows and arrows etc.). The DC to create the item still increases for any necessary spell requirements (see the magic item creation rules in Magic Items). You cannot use this feat to create any spell-trigger or spell-activation item.

Normal: Only spellcasters can qualify for the Craft Magic Arms and Armor and Craft Wondrous Item feats.

Special: You can gain Master Craftsman multiple times. Each time you take the feat, it applies to the other magic item creation feat listed above.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

Diego Rossi wrote:

If you don't care about play balance when creating a new spell, why you should care when creating a new feat?

Take the final move from most videogame and you will have your new feat.

Because the final move likely isn't realistic. If it's something magical, than it'll likely be a spell, or, at best a high-level ability.

Take Stealth. Hiding in plain sight (with a sizeable skill bonus, enough for anyone to bypass most foes) is a third-level ability for a spellcaster, while it's a 11th-plus ability for a non-spellcaster.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
A Man In Black wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:

If you don't care about play balance when creating a new spell, why you should care when creating a new feat?

Take the final move from most videogame and you will have your new feat.

Because the final move likely isn't realistic. If it's something magical, than it'll likely be a spell, or, at best a high-level ability.

Take Stealth. Hiding in plain sight (with a sizeable skill bonus, enough for anyone to bypass most foes) is a third-level ability for a spellcaster, while it's a 11th-plus ability for a non-spellcaster.

Nightingale floor.

Try sneaking on that when you have no skills in stealth.
I don't know why people never try the mundane solutions.

Even simple gravel will help detecting invisible opponents walking on it.

I agree that Paizo has given a huge boost to invisibility when they have unified listen and spot in one skill, but it is not hard to use circumstantial modifiers.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

Diego Rossi wrote:

Nightingale floor.

Try sneaking on that when you have no skills in stealth.
I don't know why people never try the mundane solutions.

Even simple gravel will help detecting invisible opponents walking on it.

Try sneaking on those when you have skills in stealth but no invisibility. Plus, the spellcaster might be able to fly to deal with that, while the rogue is either dipping into his magic item allotment or simply hoping his stealth mod is enough to cover the penalty. Another situation where magic is allowed to overcome the problem "unrealistically", while there's little or no "realistic" solution.

Being invisible isn't a strict on-off switch where something that could give away your position automatically does; instead, it's total concealment and a +20 to Stealth. Everything that stops someone from sneaking invisibly save for See Invisibility also works on mundane stealth, plus some extra things (bright light, no cover) that only mundane stealthers have to deal with.

This isn't a wizard versus rogue thing, just discussing what magic is allowed to do and what non-magical effects are allowed to do.

Personally, I'd rather that skills weren't limited in this way, mind. I don't have a problem with rogues just up and ninja vanishing with Stealth, or walking on any surface with Acrobatics, or doing anything outrageously "unrealistic" but in-genre. I'm not designing Pathfinder, though.

Quote:
I agree that Paizo has given a huge boost to invisibility when they have unified listen and spot in one skill, but it is not hard to use circumstantial modifiers.

Yes and no. It boosted Invisibility, but it nerfed the old undetectable combo of Invisibility + Fly. I don't think it's a change for the worse, especially with all the subtle rogue nerfs in PF. That's a tangent for another thread, though.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
A Man In Black wrote:


Try sneaking on those when you have skills in stealth but no invisibility. Same problem.

Not completely true. The simplification Paizo has done has boosted invisibility, but it still need to be relevant for the increase stealth to matter.

If the invisible guy is walking on a nightingale floor he has to make stealth rolls to avoid making noises. There is no need of line of sight to detect him.

in 3.X you would have used listen skills, with no modifier for invisibility. In Pathfinder you should make perception rolls without the modifier for invisibility to hear him. Spotting/locating him will have the invisibility modifier.
Noticing someone moving on the floor shouldn't have it.

It is this kind of "free" gifts that make magic so powerful.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

Diego Rossi wrote:
It is this kind of "free" gifts that make magic so powerful.

Fair enough. I don't think we really disagree, then, you're just commenting on how PF changed things.

It still bugs me that Jack has to wait until level 11 to steal a chicken.

Maddigan wrote:
What about the caster vs. physical damage dealer fun ratio?

I emphatically agree. Personally, I want martial classes to be on par with (or at least less worse than) casters because I don't find overpowered characters very entertaining, either as a player or as a GM.

Of course, you're making the poor Ice King sad.


A Man In Black wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
It is this kind of "free" gifts that make magic so powerful.

Fair enough. I don't think we really disagree, then, you're just commenting on how PF changed things.

It still bugs me that Jack has to wait until level 11 to steal a chicken.

Maddigan wrote:
What about the caster vs. physical damage dealer fun ratio?

I emphatically agree. Personally, I want martial classes to be on par with (or at least less worse than) casters because I don't find overpowered characters very entertaining, either as a player or as a GM.

Of course, you're making the poor Ice King sad.

I think most people find physical damage dealers more fun than casters, which is why physical damage dealers are more common than casters.

Those that can really make an optimized caster and play it well are not common. And physical damage dealers are in general easier to play and do well with.

Whereas casters require a great deal of spell synergy to maximize and they are awful squishy if focused on. If a monster focuses on a caster, chances are that caster will die pretty quick.

I think up to a certain point casters and physical damage dealers are on par. I would say the point where casters become real monsters is when they get 8th and 9th level spells.

I wasn't having much trouble dealing with the casters when they were csating 7th level or lower spells. But some of those 8th and 9th level spells require very specific defenses that you can't always include without getting really cheesy as a DM.


Casters need Melee types at low levels. A melee type doesn't mean a non caster though. There are Clerics, Oracles, and a bunch of partial casters that can fill that role. At higher levels melee becomes less relevant. Such as summoning and battle field control.


erik542 wrote:
Hmm, it appears that Barbarians may indeed get out of a prismatic sphere. Spell Sunder, Sunder vs 15 + caster level to suppress, 25 + caster to dispel.

Yep. Spell Sunder is, in my opinion, the greatest advancement Pathfinder has made to bridge the gap between melee and casters. Barbarians do not need a bunch of different spells on scrolls or even a staff specifically designed to break down a prismatic wall/sphere. They just need a weapon. A high level Barbarian can sunder any spell automatically through the use of rage cycling (Spell Sunder + Str Surge). In addition, if sundering something like improved invisibility they get to ignore the freaking miss chance.


Although I think the crafting tangent is a little off course it does bring up a great point. Melee characters can counter spell casters, it just requires the right choice of items and a lot of money. In an earlier post, Trinam's BATY BAT was attacked because that was one of his characters weaknesses (A 6HD Dire Bat). Take out the bat and watch the barbarian fall. Well Trinam knew that and so his freaking bat had a ring of spell turning. Expensive, Heck Yes. Worth it, absolutely. It was a brilliant idea.


Lab_Rat wrote:
Although I think the crafting tangent is a little off course it does bring up a great point. Melee characters can counter spell casters, it just requires the right choice of items and a lot of money. In an earlier post, Trinam's BATY BAT was attacked because that was one of his characters weaknesses (A 6HD Dire Bat). Take out the bat and watch the barbarian fall. Well Trinam knew that and so his freaking bat had a ring of spell turning. Expensive, Heck Yes. Worth it, absolutely. It was a brilliant idea.

And only serves to emphasize that the counter to magic is magic.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Dragonsong wrote:
Lab_Rat wrote:
Although I think the crafting tangent is a little off course it does bring up a great point. Melee characters can counter spell casters, it just requires the right choice of items and a lot of money. In an earlier post, Trinam's BATY BAT was attacked because that was one of his characters weaknesses (A 6HD Dire Bat). Take out the bat and watch the barbarian fall. Well Trinam knew that and so his freaking bat had a ring of spell turning. Expensive, Heck Yes. Worth it, absolutely. It was a brilliant idea.
And only serves to emphasize that the counter to magic is magic.

BARBARIAN HAVE UNCLE AM ALWAYS SAY THIS. BARBARIAN AM ALWAYS FIGURE COUNTER TO MAGIC ONE PART STABBY IMPLEMENT, ONE PART DIRE BAT, ONE PART CRAZY.

RING AM CRAZY LIKE FOX. WHAT ELSE AM BARBARIAN SUPPOSED TO DO WITH LEVEL TWENTY WEALTH? SPEND ON EIGHTY BILLION ALCHEMIST FIRE?

...BARBARIAN AM JUST HAVING GREATEST IDEA GUYS!


AM BARBARIAN wrote:
Dragonsong wrote:
Lab_Rat wrote:
Although I think the crafting tangent is a little off course it does bring up a great point. Melee characters can counter spell casters, it just requires the right choice of items and a lot of money. In an earlier post, Trinam's BATY BAT was attacked because that was one of his characters weaknesses (A 6HD Dire Bat). Take out the bat and watch the barbarian fall. Well Trinam knew that and so his freaking bat had a ring of spell turning. Expensive, Heck Yes. Worth it, absolutely. It was a brilliant idea.
And only serves to emphasize that the counter to magic is magic.

BARBARIAN HAVE UNCLE AM ALWAYS SAY THIS. BARBARIAN AM ALWAYS FIGURE COUNTER TO MAGIC ONE PART STABBY IMPLEMENT, ONE PART DIRE BAT, ONE PART CRAZY.

RING AM CRAZY LIKE FOX. WHAT ELSE AM BARBARIAN SUPPOSED TO DO WITH LEVEL TWENTY WEALTH? SPEND ON EIGHTY BILLION ALCHEMIST FIRE?

...BARBARIAN AM JUST HAVING GREATEST IDEA GUYS!

No barbarian spends it on magic and then like Mungo realizes hes is "a pawn in the game of life" a magic item delivery vessel but let's not try and church it up like you are beating magic without magic.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

No, the counter to magic is manly spirit.


Dragonsong wrote:
AM BARBARIAN wrote:
Dragonsong wrote:
Lab_Rat wrote:
Although I think the crafting tangent is a little off course it does bring up a great point. Melee characters can counter spell casters, it just requires the right choice of items and a lot of money. In an earlier post, Trinam's BATY BAT was attacked because that was one of his characters weaknesses (A 6HD Dire Bat). Take out the bat and watch the barbarian fall. Well Trinam knew that and so his freaking bat had a ring of spell turning. Expensive, Heck Yes. Worth it, absolutely. It was a brilliant idea.
And only serves to emphasize that the counter to magic is magic.

BARBARIAN HAVE UNCLE AM ALWAYS SAY THIS. BARBARIAN AM ALWAYS FIGURE COUNTER TO MAGIC ONE PART STABBY IMPLEMENT, ONE PART DIRE BAT, ONE PART CRAZY.

RING AM CRAZY LIKE FOX. WHAT ELSE AM BARBARIAN SUPPOSED TO DO WITH LEVEL TWENTY WEALTH? SPEND ON EIGHTY BILLION ALCHEMIST FIRE?

...BARBARIAN AM JUST HAVING GREATEST IDEA GUYS!

No barbarian spends it on magic and then like Mungo realizes hes is "a pawn in the game of life" a magic item delivery vessel but let's not try and church it up like you are beating magic without magic.

IF MAGIC DELIVERY DEVICE AM MEANING LANCE DRILL PIERCE CASTYMAN SKULL HEAVENS, THEN AM MAGIC DELIVERY DEVICE.

IF AM CASE YOU AM HAVING WIIIIDE STRIKE ZONE FOR WHAT AM MAGIC ITEM DELIVERY SERVICE. BARBARIAN RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE AND PUT LANCE THROUGH SKULL. AM USING SMASHER TO PENETRATE IMMENSE HARDNESS.


Lab_Rat wrote:
erik542 wrote:
Hmm, it appears that Barbarians may indeed get out of a prismatic sphere. Spell Sunder, Sunder vs 15 + caster level to suppress, 25 + caster to dispel.
Yep. Spell Sunder is, in my opinion, the greatest advancement Pathfinder has made to bridge the gap between melee and casters. Barbarians do not need a bunch of different spells on scrolls or even a staff specifically designed to break down a prismatic wall/sphere. They just need a weapon. A high level Barbarian can sunder any spell automatically through the use of rage cycling (Spell Sunder + Str Surge). In addition, if sundering something like improved invisibility they get to ignore the freaking miss chance.

I guess Fighters, Rogues, Monks, Cavaliers, and Rangers can't have nice things.


Dragonsong wrote:
Lab_Rat wrote:
Although I think the crafting tangent is a little off course it does bring up a great point. Melee characters can counter spell casters, it just requires the right choice of items and a lot of money. In an earlier post, Trinam's BATY BAT was attacked because that was one of his characters weaknesses (A 6HD Dire Bat). Take out the bat and watch the barbarian fall. Well Trinam knew that and so his freaking bat had a ring of spell turning. Expensive, Heck Yes. Worth it, absolutely. It was a brilliant idea.
And only serves to emphasize that the counter to magic is magic.

Yes...the whole game is balanced upon magic items. Has been and probably will be. You need magic items to keep almost every stat in the game up to par. What you get if you try to change this is something like 4th Ed where the bonuses are built into the class and the magic items seem weak in comparison to your own might.


Atarlost wrote:
Lab_Rat wrote:
erik542 wrote:
Hmm, it appears that Barbarians may indeed get out of a prismatic sphere. Spell Sunder, Sunder vs 15 + caster level to suppress, 25 + caster to dispel.
Yep. Spell Sunder is, in my opinion, the greatest advancement Pathfinder has made to bridge the gap between melee and casters. Barbarians do not need a bunch of different spells on scrolls or even a staff specifically designed to break down a prismatic wall/sphere. They just need a weapon. A high level Barbarian can sunder any spell automatically through the use of rage cycling (Spell Sunder + Str Surge). In addition, if sundering something like improved invisibility they get to ignore the freaking miss chance.
I guess Fighters, Rogues, Monks, Cavaliers, and Rangers can't have nice things.

Nope. You will have to find some other class to pick on. Squishy casters is our domain. Barbarians have been getting some decent bumps since the APG, mainly because the developers understood that they gimped them in the Core rulebook.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lab_Rat wrote:
Barbarians have been getting some decent bumps since the APG, mainly because the developers understood that they gimped them in the Core rulebook.

When I first picked up Pathfinder, I thought everything had been given a pretty good boost. I was (and still am) overall happy with what Pathfinder provides as a roleplaying game. Class balance is only necessary, it seems, to keep new ideas coming into the game. This is perfectly acceptable in my book. Anyone who complains at my table is told that they had the same options of rolling up combinations of X, Y, and/or Z to produce A, B, and/or C results.

I do think that certain martial combat options should be made more viable at lower levels or with fewer resources, but not out of a necessity for balance so much as to keep from having to wait 10 levels to be able to perform whatever cool thing it is you want to do.


Lab_Rat wrote:
Atarlost wrote:
Lab_Rat wrote:
erik542 wrote:
Hmm, it appears that Barbarians may indeed get out of a prismatic sphere. Spell Sunder, Sunder vs 15 + caster level to suppress, 25 + caster to dispel.
Yep. Spell Sunder is, in my opinion, the greatest advancement Pathfinder has made to bridge the gap between melee and casters. Barbarians do not need a bunch of different spells on scrolls or even a staff specifically designed to break down a prismatic wall/sphere. They just need a weapon. A high level Barbarian can sunder any spell automatically through the use of rage cycling (Spell Sunder + Str Surge). In addition, if sundering something like improved invisibility they get to ignore the freaking miss chance.
I guess Fighters, Rogues, Monks, Cavaliers, and Rangers can't have nice things.
Nope. You will have to find some other class to pick on. Squishy casters is our domain. Barbarians have been getting some decent bumps since the APG, mainly because the developers understood that they gimped them in the Core rulebook.

If the caster-martial disparity is real then all of the classes I listed are gimped. Unless Rogue got dispel magic through the ninja talent backdoor all of them are just as powerless against casters as the core barbarian was.


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.

Dance, forums. Dance for my amusement!

EDIT: No personal attacks, nothing below the belt. If someone goes limp, or taps out, the fight is over.

I will not fail will save and jump into this one, but I will get popcorn and soda since I am about to read all 9 pages. :)


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.

Your problem here is that you're claiming that casters have no stamina. Its not true of all casters. You're trying to somehow shoehorn your statement into reality... and its not happening.

Quote:
That is like saying an elven wizard is a martial character because they can use longbows.

You're merging your statements with my opinions in a rather random fashion.

Quote:
A wildshape druid is primarily focused to deal damage in the same manner as a martial character. Their spellcasting is a secondary consideration.

They can balance the two. Meeting the technical requirements of what you were looking for just requires that either 1) you have no spells 2) that the spells don't relate to combat. You're trying to wriggle out of your original statement.

And you are proposing that you can take a second tier caster(caster druids struggle to come close to a wizard or sorcerer in the casting department due to spell selection), split their spells(a melee druid uses quite a few long duration buff spells which eat up spell slots), stats(assuming a standard point buy and standard wealth by level, you can't have a great wisdom and great strength score), and feats(the only feat in common between caster and melee is natural spell) between casting and melee abilities, and they are still a good caster. A full caster is only a full caster if they have the stats, feats, and gear to back it up.


Andy Ferguson wrote:
Charender wrote:

If you a using the stealth skill and you are invisible, you get a +20 to your stealth check, period. Stealth vs perception is an opposed check for someone to know you are there. That is RAW.

If you are invisible and just walking along, then it is a DC10 for anyone to hear you, but the moment you choose to use the stealth skill, boom +20. It is one of many reason why I don't like the current implementation of invisibility.

In the description of dying it specifically states you go unconcious and can not act, and stay in that state until you die or become stable. But in the description of the 'Dead' condition, there is no limit on your actions, so once you leave the dying condition, you die and can get back up and keep fighting, at least according to RAW. Arguing that being invisible makes it harder to hear you makes as much sense as Dying allowing you to stand back up.

Standing up while dead has nothing to do with this. Your example is, at best, a murky and obviously flawed interpretation of the RAW. I have never seen a group actually try to use that interpretation, ever.

Meanwhile, the rules also state that it is DC10 to hear someone walking, but to detect(hear or see) someone sneaking is perception vs stealth. Invisibility give +20 to stealth. The RAW is very clear that invisibility makes it harder for people to see or hear you when sneaking. For the record, I never said it made sense, but this is how it has been played in every group I have played with.


Ashiel wrote:

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).

Yeah, that is pretty close to my house rules.

The other retarded scenario by RAW(similar to yours). I am sneaking on the other side of a 10 foot tall stone wall(total cover gives total concealment). It is stealth vs perception for me to be noticed. If I am invisible, I get +20 to stealth. Total cover/concealment gives no bonus to stealth, but invisibility does, WTF?

I just made it so that you get a +10 to stealth checks it you have total concealment, and purely visual checks automatically fail.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Meh, I'm ambivalent to the power disparity. I fully agree that a wizard ends up overwhelmingly more powerful than a fighter, (especially in my group, where we have relatively few encounters per day) but the nice thing about d&d and pathfinder is that we aren't really pitted against one another. It's a team effort. While the wizard may be able to make do without a fighter with his raw power, you're always glad to have the melee characters around to conserve your spells. Each member contributes in their own way. Often I like to play the dominating wizard, but I also get satisfaction from power attacking and crit on a nat 15 with Improved Critical (Elven Curve Blade) and making my enemies explode. ...furthermore, I think I have more fun constructing a melee character. I'm a shameless optimizer, and I find optimizing a melee build is more of challenging puzzle than optimizing a wizard. (Although running the character is a different story)

Anyway, who cares? The game is fun however you decide to play it.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Andy Ferguson wrote:
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.

You're forgetting Greater magic fang on both, and probably an amulet of mighty fist : shocking and freezing on the critter. The druid alone is meh, the druid AND FRIEND is a force to be reckoned with all day every day.

You are not accounting for opportunity cost.

You are burning spells per day(You also need barkskin and bull's strength on your pet) and wealth(amulet of MF shocking/freezing costs 20k gold) on things that don't help your casting abilities. For 20k gold, you could have picked up a caster staff to supplement you casting abilities. Those spells/day could have been used on cures.

A lot of casting druids take the alternate companion ability for a domain(and thus more caster abilities and spells per day to keep up with wizards), and don't have an animal companion. If you have an animal companion, then you sacrificed having domain spells each level to get it. Also, at level 15, you need to be careful because your best pets choices for damage are stuck on the ground and thus easily neutralized.

Every choice that a druid makes to be better at melee, or to improve their companion's fighting ability lowers their casting ability. I have played a melee druid, and I have had a player play a caster druid and, I can tell you they are worlds apart on casting capabilities.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
JUSTICE FRIENDS, ASSEMBLE!

.... am I late?


Olondir wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
JUSTICE FRIENDS, ASSEMBLE!
.... am I late?

Of course not....384 posts later is a perfectly acceptable wait.


Quote:
You are not accounting for opportunity cost.

I'm not. And I shouldn't be. Your statement was that no full caster can last all day.

Not, what you are trying to argue now, which is no full caster bent on optimization towards tossing a save or die spell spell every single round can be as effective on round one as they can on round 200.

Every druid casts. Your idea of a caster has quickly become a true scottsman argument.

Quote:
You are burning spells per day(You also need barkskin and bull's strength on your pet) and wealth(amulet of MF shocking/freezing costs 20k gold) on things that don't help your casting abilities. For 20k gold, you could have picked up a caster staff to supplement you casting abilities. Those spells/day could have been used on cures.

So?

Quote:
A lot of casting druids take the alternate companion ability for a domain(and thus more caster abilities and spells per day to keep up with wizards), and don't have an animal companion.

Some (i would go so far as to say most) Do. Those druids are viable all day.

Quote:
Also, at level 15, you need to be careful because your best pets choices for damage are stuck on the ground and thus easily neutralized.

As easily neutralized as the fighter.

Shadow Lodge

Chant nonsense, make shadow puppets, and play with owlbear dung. Cos, you know, that's what mages do, arch- or not.

301 to 350 of 1,383 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 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.