Caster-Martial Disparity Battleground - No Crying.


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

351 to 400 of 1,383 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>
Sovereign Court

TriOmegaZero wrote:
No, the counter to magic is manly spirit.

Now this is a proper manly way to answer the foppish use of magic. Just grit your teeth and power your way through to vengeance and glory.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

BARBARIAN AM HAVING THOUGHT. IT AM HURT.
CASTY TYPES SAYING CASTY TYPES HAVING SAFE SLEEPY TIME PLACE WITH ROPE OR MANSION.

THEY AM HAVE DURATION, AND AM HAVE CONNECTION TO PLANE BARBARIAN AM ON.

WHAT AM HAPPEN WHEN BARBARIAN PUNCH HIDEY SPELL OUT OF EXISTENCE? AM SLEEPY MAGES STUCK? AM THEY FALLING IN AREA, START SURPRISE ROUND?

BARBARIAN HAVE ANOTHER GOOD IDEA JUST NOW.


Well casters are better than non-casters simply beacuse they are more versatile.Point is that they can do so many things on so many different ways make them stronger.But combatwise,i will go any time,day or night for fighters.They are not really usefull out of combat,not even close to wizards,true,except some very very few skills than can be maximized by so many feats in repertoir(skill focuses for example).But in combat,they rule.Yea its true they need magic items,ofcourse,but they earn money to buy them,so...With rings of spell turning,ioun stones,goggles of true seeing and so many other stuff they are ultimate,undestructible combat maschines,no doubt about that at all.Dont even mention if they get some buffs from casters additionally..

Pitty that out of combat they are very bad but its the way it is.And that make them in global second best to casters,versatilitywise.But this game is played by more than one guy in group.So who wants to rule in combat take this,who wanna be skill monkey take that,who wanna be most versatile take this,etc and everyone will be happy buy his role.Its the case for my group at least, for over 15 years now.

P.S.And i have to say,wizards should never ever be better at making weapons and armors than fighters.It suits them much much more:)Wizards are just to gentle for that kind of job:)But thats just my opinion on that point of argue thou.

All best,
Leon,of the Dwarfus clan


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

I find physical damage dealers mind numbingly monotonous - largely due to few combat manuevers, little to gain from acrobatics, and adherence to a relatively static combat grid.


LilithsThrall wrote:
Maddigan wrote:
I think most people find physical damage dealers more fun than casters, which is why physical damage dealers are more common than casters.
I find physical damage dealers mind numbingly monotonous - largely due to few combat manuevers, little to gain from acrobatics, and adherence to a relatively static combat grid.

I like both casters and martial classes. There's something fun about optimizing a melee and doing a 200 plus point crit every now and then or hacking someone apart or taking a serious beating or fighting with two swords or being an archer that can turn someone into a pin cushion.

If I only have one class to play, I generally like casters. They're more versatile and I like chess. Playing a caster is like playing a chess match against the DM.

Melees are like checkers. It can be a fun game. But it's pretty simple and the strategy never changes.

But for some reason, a lot of players don't like pouring over spell descriptions. Don't know how to feat map a caster. Don't know how to create synergy with metamagic feats. And don't like limited resources. They want to do something every battle and running out of spells while the melee guys are still swinging away makes them sad.

Personally, I love being the badass wizard. I sit on my spells like I'm too damn good to waste them on lowly trash battles. Let the melees handle the trash, my power is to be pitted against the Big Bad. Then I unleash the magical might and show the others why I'm there. That's fun for me.

I also like keeping the martial characters alive. They can take a beating, but then again they're easy to beat on not having much to evade getting hit. While I'm easy to squish, but harder to hit. It's a trade off.

Though with the new eldritch heritage feat line, my caster is also hard to squish. I take that Eldritch Heritage (Infernal-Pit-touched) for the Con boost with Tough as Hell. And I can get my little arcane caster to around 200 plus hit points easy.

Grand Lodge

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


Now this is a proper manly way to answer the foppish use of magic. Just grit your teeth and power your way through to vengeance and glory.

I have no idea what that clip is from, but it made me think Hold Person needs rewriting to require constant effort from the caster to keep it in place.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

TriOmegaZero wrote:
I have no idea what that clip is from

Fire & Ice. Ralph Bakshi rotoscopes a bunch of Frank Frazetta designs and makes a shameless Conan ripoff/homage. It definitely goes on any list of D&D inspirational material.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Thanks!

Sovereign Court

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Mok wrote:


Now this is a proper manly way to answer the foppish use of magic. Just grit your teeth and power your way through to vengeance and glory.
I have no idea what that clip is from, but it made me think Hold Person needs rewriting to require constant effort from the caster to keep it in place.

Definitely! One of the ways that 4e got things right was in shifting to an every round type of saving throw so you could have this battle of wills.

Yeah, Fire and Ice is a must see!


Leongorance wrote:


Well casters are better than non-casters simply beacuse they are more versatile.Point is that they can do so many things on so many different ways make them stronger.But combatwise,i will go any time,day or night for fighters.They are not really usefull out of combat,not even close to wizards,true,except some very very few skills than can be maximized by so many feats in repertoir(skill focuses for example).But in combat,they rule.Yea its true they need magic items,ofcourse,but they earn money to buy them,so...With rings of spell turning,ioun stones,goggles of true seeing and so many other stuff they are ultimate,undestructible combat maschines,no doubt about that at all.Dont even mention if they get some buffs from casters additionally..

Pitty that out of combat they are very bad but its the way it is.And that make them in global second best to casters,versatilitywise.But this game is played by more than one guy in group.So who wants to rule in combat take this,who wanna be skill monkey take that,who wanna be most versatile take this,etc and everyone will be happy buy his role.Its the case for my group at least, for over 15 years now.

P.S.And i have to say,wizards should never ever be better at making weapons and armors than fighters.It suits them much much more:)Wizards are just to gentle for that kind of job:)But thats just my opinion on that point of argue thou.

All best,
Leon,of the Dwarfus clan

I recently made a elf dex based rogue that dips into fighter for 2 levels with finesse rogue, dodge, mobility, power attack, cleave, spring attack, Agile maneuvers, & vital strike in the build. it wields a 2handed finessabe elven curved blade & runs around in leather armor with high skills, evasion, and extreme combat mobility it plays kind of like a fighter (good ac) with rogue style options frequently leaving it with pretty good options both in & out of combat. I only wish that there were more curve blade style 2handed finessable weapons that didn't require elf+martial weapons or an EWP. A fighter archtype that gave it rogue style class skills & points in exchange for just light/medium armor prof would give up some rogue talents and sneak attack damage, but potentially gain even greater flexibility that my rogue/fighter through the extra feats & be pretty cool I think. Giving up heavy armor for rogue skills/skillpoints sounds like getting a lot for nothing at first, but they don't gain rogue talents or sneak attack either letting rogues not feel pigeon holed into being the skillmonkey and letting fighters have more options beyond "I like swords"


Hopefully when the next edition of Pathfinder comes around Paizo will finally take care of balancing casters and non-casters.

They definitely were not adventurous enough when they tried to "fix" 3.5e.

It's a shame because they could have provided a fresh alternative for those who weren't satisfied with either 3.5e or 4e.


Yea tetra,that can be usefull build,thou i dont like to multiclass.I like straight classes.

Black Knight,i personally think its kinda well balanced,as there is something for everyone.Some classes are more versatile,true.But on the other hand,there are aspects of game where some are better and some are worse,which is fine.

Leon,of the Dwarfus clan


Leongorance wrote:


Yea tetra,that can be usefull build,thou i dont like to multiclass.I like straight classes.

Black Knight,i personally think its kinda well balanced,as there is something for everyone.Some classes are more versatile,true.But on the other hand,there are aspects of game where some are better and some are worse,which is fine.

Leon,of the Dwarfus clan

Yea, it would be pretty tough to accomplish without the fighter dip . If there was a fighter archtype that got rogue skills/skillpoints but not heavy armor (or sneak attack/rogue talents) I think it would be a well balanced archtype that could accomplish a couple goals at once:

1: fighters could build themselves with options outside hitting things hard and saying " I like swords!" when hitting things isn't an option
2: rogues could build without having to be capable of sneak/disable device type stuff sometimes unless there was another rogue in the party


Paladin's are the best class because of their ability to convince you to ally themselves with you. If don't want to fight you, well sir then you have already won.


Black_Lantern wrote:
Paladin's are the best class because of their ability to convince you to ally themselves with you. If don't want to fight you, well sir then you have already won.

Well point is paladins dont often try to do that...99% encounters he have to fight or want to fight so...:)

Tetra,i agree.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Leongorance wrote:


Yea tetra,that can be usefull build,thou i dont like to multiclass.I like straight classes.

Black Knight,i personally think its kinda well balanced,as there is something for everyone.Some classes are more versatile,true.But on the other hand,there are aspects of game where some are better and some are worse,which is fine.

Leon,of the Dwarfus clan

The game is well balanced roughly between levels 5-11 or so. After that balance goes right out the window and casters become uber-gods.

It was the same way in 3.5e. Sure, some abusive spells have been toned down a bit, but overall there hasn't been a huge shift in the balance.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Vendis wrote:

I think something hasn't been said yet and should be.

Stats are the basis for abilities. Wizards need only a single stat: Intelligence. Even on a 15 point buy, an 18 is manageable (obviously with a dump stat or two). Any given martial class will make much more use out of all of the physical stats, even if they focus on one or maybe two.

Maybe if you're playing the brainiac cripple. On my Wizards I've always invested a bit in Dex and Con and usually don't dump more than a single stat below 10.


LazarX wrote:
Vendis wrote:

I think something hasn't been said yet and should be.

Stats are the basis for abilities. Wizards need only a single stat: Intelligence. Even on a 15 point buy, an 18 is manageable (obviously with a dump stat or two). Any given martial class will make much more use out of all of the physical stats, even if they focus on one or maybe two.

Maybe if you're playing the brainiac cripple. On my Wizards I've always invested a bit in Dex and Con and usually don't dump more than a single stat below 10.

I tend to go for the corpulent brainiac klutz with no social skills. High int high con low str wis charisma dex


Black Knight wrote:
Leongorance wrote:


Yea tetra,that can be usefull build,thou i dont like to multiclass.I like straight classes.

Black Knight,i personally think its kinda well balanced,as there is something for everyone.Some classes are more versatile,true.But on the other hand,there are aspects of game where some are better and some are worse,which is fine.

Leon,of the Dwarfus clan

The game is well balanced roughly between levels 5-11 or so. After that balance goes right out the window and casters become uber-gods.

It was the same way in 3.5e. Sure, some abusive spells have been toned down a bit, but overall there hasn't been a huge shift in the balance.

Nah,not really.They become much more versatile,than fighter ofc,but mostly after 15th lvl.Combatwise they never get actually.But versatility wise,yea,pretty much.


LazarX wrote:
Maybe if you're playing the brainiac cripple. On my Wizards I've always invested a bit in Dex and Con and usually don't dump more than a single stat below 10.

I'm not sure if you read my entire post.

My point was that wizards do not require anything but Int to be powerful, that stat being the sole basis for all of their spells; survivability comes second with Dex and Con and is not necessary in terms of pure power (plenty of casters will tell you that if you're taking hitpoint damage, you're doing it wrong). Martial classes, however, make use of all of the physical stats every time they walk up to hit a big ugly.

Now, you can flavor your character as you choose, that's fine and all. I'm all for fluff. But the fact of the matter is that this Caster-Martial Disparity exists because of people who enjoy min/maxing or simply optimizing, who ultimately come to the decision that one is better than the other.

I just didn't see anyone pointing this out, so I figured I'd bring it up.

Liberty's Edge

I realize that this may not be a solution specific to Pathfinder, 3.x, or any edition, but a gentleman's agreement is all that is required to make the game fun. I've never run into a C-M D problem because I'm very careful picking players who will self-govern. Caster classes may be the star player on the team who can drop a 3-pointer from under the opposite basket, but I pick the players who will pass the ball anyways.


I think most people agree that while it isn't necessary to have all the classes equal to make a fun game, they would still like it to be as close as possible. Discussions like this move the target a bit closer. I enjoy the game as it is mostly, but I personally think threads like these will ultimately lead to a better game for everyone.

Sczarni

I still say the biggest argument against what a non-caster can do is how realistic it is for a person to do something without mgic.

"it's not realistic" is what i hear when i want to be able to do amazing earth shattering things with my non-caster but none evermakes this argument for casters because the use magic, "yeah he just droped a fire ball on the enemy army, he's a caster".

I am not arguing that there is necissarily a power problem as much as a realism problem, "if your not a caster you cant do it because you dont use magic" I cant stand this mindset. let me do things that no mear mortal can do because I am stronger than any other man.

Sovereign Court

northbrb wrote:

I still say the biggest argument against what a non-caster can do is how realistic it is for a person to do something without mgic.

"it's not realistic" is what i hear when i want to be able to do amazing earth shattering things with my non-caster but none evermakes this argument for casters because the use magic, "yeah he just droped a fire ball on the enemy army, he's a caster".

I am not arguing that there is necissarily a power problem as much as a realism problem, "if your not a caster you cant do it because you dont use magic" I cant stand this mindset. let me do things that no mear mortal can do because I am stronger than any other man.

I agree. One of the problems with the current system is that there are unspoken transitions that happen in the game as you level up, but unless you pay attention to them you can get the impression that it's all the same from levels 1-20.

[url=http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/d&d-calibrating.htmlThis analysis does a pretty good job of explaining how levels 1-5 are your "human scale" game.[/url] In those first five levels you can do a decent job of simulating what humans are actually capable of performing. After that you're moving into super human qualities in the mid levels, and finally demi-god like powers in the upper levels.

If these kind of super-hero tiers were more explicit in the system then people would have an easier time accepting that martial characters might be allowed to have mythic-human powers at the higher levels.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Mok wrote:

If these kind of super-hero tiers were more explicit in the system then people would have an easier time accepting that martial characters might be allowed to have mythic-human powers at the higher levels.

But they do. What a 20th level Fighter or Ranger can do at their capstone is nothing short of epic compared to that of the common man. All they need to do is get one solid hit on that mage... and he's toast.

'But I can't cast speells.... waaaaah!" You know there are other things in this game besides casting teleport or the whatnot. The 20th level Fighter is building up his own armanent of magic. With the right kit he can do his own mythic-human (what kind of word combination is that anyway?) tricks.

Role-playing is the big equaliser. If you've got nothing to add to the character (player-wise, not mechanic-wise) other than what you can get out of a dice roll, you're just as boring as a mage that you would be as a martial.


northbrb wrote:

I still say the biggest argument against what a non-caster can do is how realistic it is for a person to do something without mgic.

"it's not realistic" is what i hear when i want to be able to do amazing earth shattering things with my non-caster but none evermakes this argument for casters because the use magic, "yeah he just droped a fire ball on the enemy army, he's a caster".

I am not arguing that there is necissarily a power problem as much as a realism problem, "if your not a caster you cant do it because you dont use magic" I cant stand this mindset. let me do things that no mear mortal can do because I am stronger than any other man.

See my earlier post, a 'skilled fighter" type archtype that trades heavy armor prof for rogue style skills/skillpoints would potentially give fighters a chance to jump a tier IMO, no magic involved. Plus pathfinder already seems to be moving towards fixing things a little by making it appealing to have slightly less earthshattering magic on caster classes... look at the summoner/witch/etc, they all trade earthshattering potential for benefits addressing caster weaknesses with witch being the easiest example since it's basically a wizard(int based prepared caster) with a trimmed down spell selection that gets a huge endurance boost and group friendly stuff that won;t make them feel like they are vastly holding back all the time to play on the same "level" as their group in the form of hexes.

Sovereign Court

LazarX wrote:


But they do. What a 20th level Fighter or Ranger can do at their capstone is nothing short of epic compared to that of the common man. All they need to do is get one solid hit on that mage... and he's toast.

Well, with that particular example, it's all the same. A 1st level high strength power attacking fighter is likewise going to drop a spellcaster in one round. That's kind of the problem is that the answer is still the greatsword, whether it is 1st or 20th level.

What I'm thinking of are abilities that fall more in line with mythic heroes, like Hercules and the like. At 20th level you should be able to pull off feats of strength, toss boulders around and the like... just cuz... similar to super heroes who rip up parts of the asphalt and toss them about.

Instead the system has this dual personality, where it expects martials to remain mundane, but spellcasters get a free ride with magic.

I'm just suggesting this up because the system already tossed aside martials having real political and military power at higher levels. AD&D and 2nd edition had baked into the classes the idea that you were definitely going to have a small army backing you up, and that would be your "super power." But since the game tossed that and assumes that you're just going to dungeon crawl through 20 levels, then there needs to be a more robust re-framing of what is happening at those high levels with the martials. They ought to be more in line with superheroes like the Hulk, the Thing, the Flash, etc where they can do phenomenal physical acts that are at least tangentially related to incredible physical stats. Being able to ignore cover at high level is hardly enough to bridge the disparity in power, but if you can reshape the landscape with your bare hands then that definitely shortens the gap.

As an example, the throwing rules in the game are non-unified and don't have any scaling. When you have a strength of 40 you don't actually get a lot of perks from the system. There are subtle little bonuses here or there, but the system doesn't come close to what you could do in Mutants and Masterminds.


Mok wrote:

I agree. One of the problems with the current system is that there are unspoken transitions that happen in the game as you level up, but unless you pay attention to them you can get the impression that it's all the same from levels 1-20.

This analysis does a pretty good job of explaining how levels 1-5 are your "human scale" game. In those first five levels you can do a decent job of simulating what humans are actually capable of performing. After that you're moving into super human qualities in the mid levels, and finally demi-god like powers in the upper levels.

If these kind of super-hero tiers were more explicit in the system then people would have an easier time accepting that martial characters might be allowed to have mythic-human powers at the higher levels.

Fixed your link.

Agreed. At level 6 you become superhuman. It's difficult to conceive the journey from superhuman to potential god at level 20, but what you ougth to be able to do are things far more awesome than you've ever seen in any movie. Considering almost any movie you've seen features level 5 and lower characters.

Caster power goes up without people blinking an eye, but if martials got anything good people would say "hey that's not realistic." Well guess what, neither is a level 10 fighter. Unless he's Hercules himself. People (devs included it seems) really don't understand the transformation that occurs as you level. When the wizard gets fireball, the rogue should be walking on water and the monk should be levitating.

Shadow Lodge

tetrasodium wrote:
... witch being the easiest example since it's basically a wizard(int based prepared caster) with a trimmed down spell selection that gets a huge endurance boost and group friendly stuff that won;t make them feel like they are vastly holding back all the time to play on the same "level" as their group in the form of hexes.

The witch also addresses the other weakness of prepared spellcasters that "forum wizards" like to pretend doesn't exist...if a witch memorizes spells that turn out to be inappropriate for the day's encounters, then she can fall back on her hexes. Whereas the wizard who memorizes spells that aren't useful is just dead weight in a pointy hat.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Mok wrote:
LazarX wrote:


But they do. What a 20th level Fighter or Ranger can do at their capstone is nothing short of epic compared to that of the common man. All they need to do is get one solid hit on that mage... and he's toast.

Well, with that particular example, it's all the same. A 1st level high strength power attacking fighter is likewise going to drop a spellcaster in one round. That's kind of the problem is that the answer is still the greatsword, whether it is 1st or 20th level.

I don't quite understand what the problem is. If you're playing the Fighter, you're playing the Kirk, Hercules, or Lancelot where the answer IS the sword. That's the kind of character you are. If you want something in between Hercules and Merlin there are a whole bunch of other character types with varying levels of combat, skill, and magic use.


Mok wrote:
If these kind of super-hero tiers were more explicit in the system then people would have an easier time accepting that martial characters might be allowed to have mythic-human powers at the higher levels.

Imagine my surprise, checking back in on this thread and finding a constructive conversation! You're not doing it right! :)

Anyhow, Mok's sentiment is something I wholly agree with. I don't think it should be hard-coded into the game mechanics like it is in 4e, but a little more GM support would be appreciated. My group is transitioning to the last tier now (or what I consider the last for the runelords AP) 12th-17th.

I've read a lot about GMing 12th-17th, but it is still rather daunting.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Evil Lincoln wrote:
Mok wrote:
If these kind of super-hero tiers were more explicit in the system then people would have an easier time accepting that martial characters might be allowed to have mythic-human powers at the higher levels.

Imagine my surprise, checking back in on this thread and finding a constructive conversation! You're not doing it right! :)

Anyhow, Mok's sentiment is something I wholly agree with. I don't think it should be hard-coded into the game mechanics like it is in 4e, but a little more GM support would be appreciated. My group is transitioning to the last tier now (or what I consider the last for the runelords AP) 12th-17th.

I've read a lot about GMing 12th-17th, but it is still rather daunting.

Yes, there is a reason E6/E7/E8 has gained such traction in the community. People are starting to realize that you have to use a system like that to put a cap on the characters if you want them to remain somewhere near reality.

As for dming an upper tier game, dont worry too much, just remember, the players WILL surprise you. If you can roll with the punches (or earthshaking spells) you should do just fine.


Kolokotroni wrote:
Yes, there is a reason E6/E7/E8 has gained such traction in the community. People are starting to realize that you have to use a system like that to put a cap on the characters if you want them to remain somewhere near reality.

So, what about E7-12? Or E13-20?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I do agree with Mok as well.

C-M D (or some form of it) has existed pretty much since 3e and discussions on it has come up time and again.

Don't take this the wrong way, but 4e actually has done a decent job at rectifying this problem. I do not like 4e pretty much at all (I've given it chances multiple times and just cannot get into it).

If you haven't tried it yet, the system gives every class powers that vary in strength - the weaker the power, the more usable it is, and the stronger it is, the less you can use it. By compartmentalizing the powers, they can compare powers side-by-side and make it more balanced. It's a good design theory, but in practice, it just makes you feel like all the classes are the same. It feels like a video game - press this button, now this one. Despite this, the classes are definitely more in line with one another.

I think Paizo is on a better track than Wizards; you look at what barbarians can do now compared to 3.5e, and you can easily see the difference.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I note that a 10th level Barbarian can lift >20 tons over his head. If that's not supernatural, I don't know what is.


Evil Lincoln wrote:
I've read a lot about GMing 12th-17th, but it is still rather daunting.

Pray tell, what did you read?


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Evil Lincoln wrote:
Kolokotroni wrote:
Yes, there is a reason E6/E7/E8 has gained such traction in the community. People are starting to realize that you have to use a system like that to put a cap on the characters if you want them to remain somewhere near reality.
So, what about E7-12? Or E13-20?

I dont understand the question. I have never seen anything over E8, but I guess it could work, though E20 is just the core rules...

Shadow Lodge

Kolokotroni wrote:
Evil Lincoln wrote:
Kolokotroni wrote:
Yes, there is a reason E6/E7/E8 has gained such traction in the community. People are starting to realize that you have to use a system like that to put a cap on the characters if you want them to remain somewhere near reality.
So, what about E7-12? Or E13-20?
I dont understand the question. I have never seen anything over E8, but I guess it could work, though E20 is just the core rules...

Not really. E20 would be a short trip, however. Just add something like "gain a feat every 500,000 XP past 20th level" and a few special post-20 feats, and you're there. I hope that when Paizo puts out the high-level book they've hinted at (please note, high-level, not mythic level), they present this as an option.


Kolokotroni wrote:
Evil Lincoln wrote:
Kolokotroni wrote:
Yes, there is a reason E6/E7/E8 has gained such traction in the community. People are starting to realize that you have to use a system like that to put a cap on the characters if you want them to remain somewhere near reality.
So, what about E7-12? Or E13-20?
I dont understand the question. I have never seen anything over E8, but I guess it could work, though E20 is just the core rules...

I think he means, since E6-8 only exist to avoid high level play, and by association the C-MD, how does one actually approach high level play?

If you can't avoid it by capping the game, then how do you deal with it?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Hudax wrote:
Kolokotroni wrote:
Evil Lincoln wrote:
Kolokotroni wrote:
Yes, there is a reason E6/E7/E8 has gained such traction in the community. People are starting to realize that you have to use a system like that to put a cap on the characters if you want them to remain somewhere near reality.
So, what about E7-12? Or E13-20?
I dont understand the question. I have never seen anything over E8, but I guess it could work, though E20 is just the core rules...

I think he means, since E6-8 only exist to avoid high level play, and by association the C-MD, how does one actually approach high level play?

If you can't avoid it by capping the game, then how do you deal with it?

You need to let martial characters do earth shaking things whether it's realistic or not. You have to accept that you are way past aragorn, and in the realm of superheroes. Rather then ask does this make sense you should be asking, does this make sense for batman? How about superman or wonderwoman? If yes then go for it.

Allowing stuff like tome of battle is a good start. Also being generous with magic items is a good idea. In the end it boils down to, offer martial characters 'magic like' abilities in whatever form you are most comfortable with.


Kolokotroni wrote:

You need to let martial characters do earth shaking things whether it's realistic or not. You have to accept that you are way past aragorn, and in the realm of superheroes. Rather then ask does this make sense you should be asking, does this make sense for batman? How about superman or wonderwoman? If yes then go for it.

Allowing stuff like tome of battle is a good start. Also being generous with magic items is a good idea. In the end it boils down to, offer martial characters 'magic like' abilities in whatever form you are most comfortable with.

I will give a big ol +1 to that

A part of of what I was rather poorly trying to get at when discussing Earthdawn way back on the first page. Establishing that every protagonist utilizes the ambient magic in various ways warriors to fuel talents making them more potent fighters beastmasters to heal and augment their animal companions cavalrymen to do similar with their mounts, then everyone is a magic practitioner if not necessarily a caster. It makes the conception of martial's performing superhuman feats not stretch believability as so many seem to struggle with in PF/3.5.


I did not read the entire thready , but let me tell my tale about the subject using my Dawn a New Age adventure ( PF converted) . I must begin saying that my players failed in the kings of the rift( in my view a impossible path), so Dragotha retrieved his pylacthery and then killed Lashona. In the last segment, i was brutal with my player with minions of Kyuss poping all the time in alhaster , there was no time to rest, the barrier prevented escape from alhaster. In the moment that the martial players fell the battle was over , with Dragotha(my had antimagic) Zyzanth , Necrozyte, Brazzemal, broodfiend and other kyuss undead. they took only two rounds to slaughter the spellcasters.

My opinion is this , in a duel the spellcaster is God but in a long-combat with multiple foes the game is balanced.

Sorry for my poor english...

Scarab Sages

PALADIN AM NOT SEEING DIS-THINGY. PALADIN AM SMITE EVIL THAT GET CLOSE, WIZARD AM SMITE EVIL THAT NOT GET CLOSE. WIZARD AM PALADIN TEAMMATE.


we the alchemist, clerics ,druids and such would like to say to the pure marshall and casting classes:

you fail... why do one or the other when doing both is also a choice.

if you can't do every thing, you cant do any thing!!


By the way, in my campaign, greyhawk is now GREYWORM... i moved for Golarion.....


AM PALADIN wrote:
PALADIN AM NOT SEEING DIS-THINGY. PALADIN AM SMITE EVIL THAT GET CLOSE, WIZARD AM SMITE EVIL THAT NOT GET CLOSE. WIZARD AM PALADIN TEAMMATE.

-1 for pretending to be a barbarian. Only barbarians can talk in all caps and murder English syntax at the same time. Find your own voice over...may I suggest something like Judge Dread...hes got a nice paladin like zeal to him.


YOU ARE ALL WRONG MONKS ARE THE BEST !!!!! KIYEAAAAHH

Shadow Lodge

Lab_Rat wrote:
Only barbarians can talk in all caps and murder English syntax at the same time.

Racist.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Vendis wrote:

I think something hasn't been said yet and should be.

Stats are the basis for abilities. Wizards need only a single stat: Intelligence. Even on a 15 point buy, an 18 is manageable (obviously with a dump stat or two). Any given martial class will make much more use out of all of the physical stats, even if they focus on one or maybe two.

Maybe if you're playing the brainiac cripple. On my Wizards I've always invested a bit in Dex and Con and usually don't dump more than a single stat below 10.
I tend to go for the corpulent brainiac klutz with no social skills. High int high con low str wis charisma dex

So discworld wizards then?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Dragonsong wrote:
Kolokotroni wrote:

You need to let martial characters do earth shaking things whether it's realistic or not. You have to accept that you are way past aragorn, and in the realm of superheroes. Rather then ask does this make sense you should be asking, does this make sense for batman? How about superman or wonderwoman? If yes then go for it.

Allowing stuff like tome of battle is a good start. Also being generous with magic items is a good idea. In the end it boils down to, offer martial characters 'magic like' abilities in whatever form you are most comfortable with.

I will give a big ol +1 to that

A part of of what I was rather poorly trying to get at when discussing Earthdawn way back on the first page. Establishing that every protagonist utilizes the ambient magic in various ways warriors to fuel talents making them more potent fighters beastmasters to heal and augment their animal companions cavalrymen to do similar with their mounts, then everyone is a magic practitioner if not necessarily a caster. It makes the conception of martial's performing superhuman feats not stretch believability as so many seem to struggle with in PF/3.5.

But then you have to acknowledge that those talents are Supernatural (the game term) and subject to all the relevant rules.

They don't work in a anti magic area, generally they have a limitation to the number or frequency of their uses and so on.

With that caveat, why not?

351 to 400 of 1,383 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 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.