TOZ |
Casters are supposed to be more powerful than martials in a fantasy game. It is a trope of fantasy. Probably 80 to 90% of fantasy books are built on the caster-martial disparity with a caster BBEG....
All you need to do is take some of the greatest fantasy books of all time and ask yourself who is the villain? Most of the time it is some powerful caster that a group of martials with their own powerful caster have to deal with.
The martials get to be the underdog heroes in general, while the casters get to be their sidekicks or their villains. The martials usually get the girl too. They should be happy with that.
It's a trade off.
No, there is no reason to have such a trade off. There is no reason to have inequality between characters.
The BBEG is not more powerful because he's a caster. He's more powerful because he's higher level.
In fact, that's not even always the case. Plenty of stories have villains who are weaker than the heroes, but can't be beaten by main force. Superman is far more powerful than Lex Luthor, but social restraints prevent him from just going over and beating the snot out of him. How often have we had stories where the villian couldn't be touched due to political clout?
The reason the martials usually get the girl is that's the way the story is written. It's not a suitable reward for being the bell hop. And it's insulting that you think heroes like Cu Chulainn, Beowulf, and King Arthur should be less powerful just because they don't practice magic. That they should be happy about it.
Remco Sommeling |
Maddigan wrote:
Casters are supposed to be more powerful than martials in a fantasy game. It is a trope of fantasy. Probably 80 to 90% of fantasy books are built on the caster-martial disparity with a caster BBEG....
All you need to do is take some of the greatest fantasy books of all time and ask yourself who is the villain? Most of the time it is some powerful caster that a group of martials with their own powerful caster have to deal with.
The martials get to be the underdog heroes in general, while the casters get to be their sidekicks or their villains. The martials usually get the girl too. They should be happy with that.
It's a trade off.
No, there is no reason to have such a trade off. There is no reason to have inequality between characters.
The BBEG is not more powerful because he's a caster. He's more powerful because he's higher level.
In fact, that's not even always the case. Plenty of stories have villains who are weaker than the heroes, but can't be beaten by main force. Superman is far more powerful than Lex Luthor, but social restraints prevent him from just going over and beating the snot out of him. How often have we had stories where the villian couldn't be touched due to political clout?
The reason the martials usually get the girl is that's the way the story is written. It's not a suitable reward for being the bell hop. And it's insulting that you think heroes like Cu Chulainn, Beowulf, and King Arthur should be less powerful just because they don't practice magic. That they should be happy about it.
King Arthur ruled the entirety of a fictional England, with his make believe sword pulled from a make believe stone or granted to him by a watery tart.. I am confused on that matter.. anyways as far as stories go King Arthur is the man, merlin is cool n all but he is still a sidekick
The_Big_Dog |
Right, and Arthur has his wife cheat on him with his right-hand man, an evil magician rapes him to get pregnant and uses his son by that pregnancy to kill him.
Yeah, Arthur sure had it great.
Merlin, meanwhile, is still alive for as far as all the stories say.
Yup. Once again, the wizards can't do anything themselves, but have to beg and plead to the fighters to actually get something done.
SmiloDan RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 |
Spell Compendium has a 2nd level ranger spell called Swift Haste. It lets a ranger cast haste on herself for 1d4 rounds as a swift action. I keep telling our party ranger to use it early and use it often, but she usually only prepares it once a day. Meh.
Haste is fun, but easily nerfed. Just spread out the opponents...or the PCs. We only have 3 PCs in my main group, we're rarely within the range of a 30 foot radius of each other, let alone a 30 foot diameter. And we have a sorcerer with it AND my dragon shaman has a wand he uses UMD to haste.
But other than my dragon shaman, the rest of the party makes tons of attacks anyways: The feral kobold battle sorcerer does claw/claw/bite/tail, sometimes rake/rake, and now that he can use Form of the Dragon, add a wing/wing to that. The archer ranger has rapid shot and many shot and all that jazz.
So the value of haste depends on the party. The larger the party, the bigger the benefit, especially if they are weapon users as opposed to spell users. Heck it would be really effective with 22 level 1 fighter archers with Rapid Shot. At least 3 will supposedly get a crit threat every round.
Maddigan |
Maddigan wrote:
Casters are supposed to be more powerful than martials in a fantasy game. It is a trope of fantasy. Probably 80 to 90% of fantasy books are built on the caster-martial disparity with a caster BBEG....
All you need to do is take some of the greatest fantasy books of all time and ask yourself who is the villain? Most of the time it is some powerful caster that a group of martials with their own powerful caster have to deal with.
The martials get to be the underdog heroes in general, while the casters get to be their sidekicks or their villains. The martials usually get the girl too. They should be happy with that.
It's a trade off.
No, there is no reason to have such a trade off. There is no reason to have inequality between characters.
The BBEG is not more powerful because he's a caster. He's more powerful because he's higher level.
In fact, that's not even always the case. Plenty of stories have villains who are weaker than the heroes, but can't be beaten by main force. Superman is far more powerful than Lex Luthor, but social restraints prevent him from just going over and beating the snot out of him. How often have we had stories where the villian couldn't be touched due to political clout?
The reason the martials usually get the girl is that's the way the story is written. It's not a suitable reward for being the bell hop. And it's insulting that you think heroes like Cu Chulainn, Beowulf, and King Arthur should be less powerful just because they don't practice magic. That they should be happy about it.
Then maybe you can explain why the most successful fantasy game in history has always had inequality between martials and casters. And people seem to like it that way.Or why the fantasy genre has inequality between melee and casters, but people seem to like it that way.
I know why I think it all works. It mainly has to do with the fact that in most stories the caster and the martial on the same side aren't usually fighting each other. So no one much cares if Gandalf can kill Aragorn in a straight up fight as long as both Aragorn and Gandalf both have relevant and highly important parts in the success of the story.
No one cares if Merlin could kill Arthur and Lancelot in a fight for the same reason.
No one cares if Rand could kill his martial friends for the same reason.
No one cares if Alanon could kill all the martial guys traveling with him for the same reason.
The people that complain about the caster-martial disparity are usually two types:
1. Players that can't stand to have one class more powerful than another.
2. Players that play with bad DMs that build encounters casters decimate either because they didn't put any work into the encounter or they don't understand the magic system.
As a DM if your martials always feel useless, then you're not doing a good job running the game. It's that simple to me. It's very true that a DM that runs exactly by the book with a power gamer caster will have that caster vastly overshadow everyone else a great deal of the time. But a DM that designs encounters well will make everyone shine and will also ensure even the caster feels overmatched at times and needs to rely on his martials to win the day.
This is a cooperative gamed based on the fantasy genre. Certain things are expected like magic being extremely powerful. That also means that DMs are supposed to tell stories where everyone has a useful part. Modules are frameworks for adventures and should be tailored to an individual party. It is lazy or inexperienced DMs that cause the caster-martial disparity to rear its ugly head, not the game itself.
The_Big_Dog |
TOZ wrote:Maddigan wrote:
Casters are supposed to be more powerful than martials in a fantasy game. It is a trope of fantasy. Probably 80 to 90% of fantasy books are built on the caster-martial disparity with a caster BBEG....
All you need to do is take some of the greatest fantasy books of all time and ask yourself who is the villain? Most of the time it is some powerful caster that a group of martials with their own powerful caster have to deal with.
The martials get to be the underdog heroes in general, while the casters get to be their sidekicks or their villains. The martials usually get the girl too. They should be happy with that.
It's a trade off.
No, there is no reason to have such a trade off. There is no reason to have inequality between characters.
The BBEG is not more powerful because he's a caster. He's more powerful because he's higher level.
In fact, that's not even always the case. Plenty of stories have villains who are weaker than the heroes, but can't be beaten by main force. Superman is far more powerful than Lex Luthor, but social restraints prevent him from just going over and beating the snot out of him. How often have we had stories where the villian couldn't be touched due to political clout?
The reason the martials usually get the girl is that's the way the story is written. It's not a suitable reward for being the bell hop. And it's insulting that you think heroes like Cu Chulainn, Beowulf, and King Arthur should be less powerful just because they don't practice magic. That they should be happy about it.
Then maybe you can explain why the most successful fantasy game in history has always had inequality between martials and casters. And people seem to like it that way.Or why the fantasy genre has inequality between melee and casters, but people seem to like it that way.
I know why I think it all works. It mainly has to do with the fact that in most stories the caster and the martial on the same side aren't...
I think the reason comes from the average D&D player. I do not believe the average D&D wizard picks the spells that optimization boards say are the best. At least not for that reason. I believe you will find in standard play many more blaster wizards, and enchanter wizards. In my experience as well, casters tend to die as often if not more often than the martial characters.
Most of the people I have played with don't carry scrolls around for every situation, just a few they picked up for one reason or another, or found somewhere. Usually they just grab a scroll because they want it in their spellbook to use later. Some even have hoarding issues, where they refuse to ever use an expendable item unless the need is truly dire.
Not to mention the levels where casters are dominating the game don't see as much play as the lower levels. Many druids/clerics do use half their spell slots on healing powers. Tends to happen a lot, from what I have seen.
It is all good and well to say that casters are overpowered at higher levels, but they can still drop to a single failed save as well as the martial characters.
Plot speed is another reason casters don't excel nearly as well in regular play as they do on paper. Sometimes the plot doesn't allow 8 hours of rest for the casters to get their heavy hitting spells back. Sure, the party might have the wand of cure light wounds they need to keep the party hp up for the next fight, but casters still have to conserve their good spells if they want to make it through a long day.
Maddigan |
Maddigan wrote:To you. Some of us believe martials can be just as fantastic as casters.If we weren't having a C-MD argument, this wouldn't be a fantasy game.
I'm not the one saying martials can't be as fantastic as casters. Some of the feats they can pull off are absolutely amazing.
I'm just saying at high level casters are more powerful. And they are. Not just because they can win in a fight, which is exaggerated. A martial can kill a caster in a round and vice versa. So what.
Casters are more powerful because they can port around the world, scry on enemies, protect themselves from scrying, create other planes to live on, alter reality with a wish, and do all sorts of things with magic martials can't touch. It is the nature of magic. It is an accepted part of fantasy.
I fail to see why some players continue to make such an issue of it given what happens when they try to change it. You get the game I will not mention. Which takes all the fantasy flavor out of magic and turns it into martial abilities with different names and visuals. I for one am playing Pathfinder because I don't want watered down magic in my fantasy game.
I'm happy Pathfinder uses books as inspiration for their system rather than games. You can tell the majority of Paizo people are well read and it heavily influences their creative and design decisions. I hope I see the caster-martial disparity for as long as I live. That is the fantasy genre I grew up on.
TOZ |
Then maybe you can explain why the most successful fantasy game in history has always had inequality between martials and casters. And people seem to like it that way.Or why the fantasy genre has inequality between melee and casters, but people seem to like it that way.
I know why I think it all works. It mainly has to do with the fact that in most stories the caster and the martial on the same side aren't usually fighting each other. So no one much cares if Gandalf can kill Aragorn in a straight up fight as long as both Aragorn and Gandalf both have relevant and highly important parts in the success of the story.
No one cares if Merlin could kill Arthur and Lancelot in a fight for the same reason.
No one cares if Rand could kill his martial friends for the same reason.
No one cares if Alanon could kill all the martial guys traveling with him for the same reason.
The people that complain about the caster-martial disparity are usually two types:
1. Players that can't stand to have one class more powerful than another.
2. Players that play with bad DMs that build encounters casters decimate either because they didn't put any work into the encounter or they don't understand the magic system.
As a DM if your martials always feel useless, then you're not doing a good job running the game. It's that simple to me. It's very true that a DM that runs exactly by the book with a power gamer caster will have that caster vastly overshadow everyone else a great deal of the time. But a DM that designs encounters well will make everyone shine and will also ensure even the caster feels overmatched at times and needs to rely on his martials to win the day.
This is a cooperative gamed based on the fantasy genre. Certain things are expected like magic being extremely powerful. That also means that DMs are supposed to tell stories where everyone has a useful part. Modules are frameworks for adventures and should be tailored to an individual party. It is lazy or inexperienced DMs that cause the caster-martial disparity to rear its ugly head, not the game itself.
First, legacy design from earlier editions. Most rules were copied over directly after all.
Second, you keep saying people like it that way, without proof. Since I say I don't like it, and I am a singular individual like yourself, can I thus say that people seem to not like it?
Okay, so the caster and the martial are usually on the same side. Except when they're not, like Sauron and Saruman(sp?), all of the Forsaken, and Morgan le Fay. So your proof about why it works falls flat.
A DM that has a power gamer anything will have that character vastly overshadow everyone else a great deal of the time. (Regardless of the RAGELANCEPOUNCE, RAGELANCESPIRITEDCHARGE is still a powerful option, right?)
Okay, now your last statement has me a little confused. Are you no longer saying that it is right and proper that casters are more powerful than martials?
TOZ |
I fail to see why some players continue to make such an issue of it given what happens when they try to change it. You get the game I will not mention. Which takes all the fantasy flavor out of magic and turns it into martial abilities with different names and visuals. I for one am playing Pathfinder because I don't want watered down magic in my fantasy game.
I'm happy Pathfinder uses books as inspiration for their system rather than games. You can tell the majority of Paizo people are well read and it heavily influences their creative and design decisions. I hope I see the caster-martial disparity for as long as I live. That is the fantasy genre I grew up on.
Maybe that's my disconnect. I didn't grow up reading many of the same books the Paizo guys did. Never read Tolkien. Or Lovecraft. Or Howard.
You suggest that the only options are 'casters rule over martials' or 'casters are martials with different flavor'. That's a false dichotomy. Just because 3E/4E are examples of those two possible outcomes in your eyes, does not make them the only possible outcomes.
karkon |
Maybe that's my disconnect. I didn't grow up reading many of the same books the Paizo guys did. Never read Tolkien. Or Lovecraft. Or Howard.You suggest that the only options are 'casters rule over martials' or 'casters are martials with different flavor'. That's a false dichotomy. Just because 3E/4E are examples of those two possible outcomes in your eyes, does not make them the only possible outcomes.
If you read those books and author's series you will see that magic actually plays a small role.
Gandalf is the most magical human in Tolkien and most of his power comes from knowledge. He has a lot of implied power but rarely shows it. A lot of it happens off stage (battle with the Necromancer, battle with the Balrog). The elves are interesting but never show power on the scale of a 10th level wizard (or even 7th). Even Sauron (essentially a living god) has limited power. He has a lot of power connected to the ring but it is never shown in the Hobbit or Lord of the Rings. Maybe in the Simarrilion but I kept tuning out (zzzzzzzzz). But the Simarrilion was about the gods and the early days of the elves, a much more magical age.
The Conan books (and Solomon Kane) are great reads. Conan is very martial. Magic is weak. Howard is a racist...if you read that keep it in mind. Product of his times but a racist by today's standards. The books are good but it will jump out at you once in a while.
Lovecraft is more about madness than magic. But his florid prose turned me off.
karkon |
I wonder, if you brought back the aging penalty to haste, could casters use it to gain age penalties/bonuses?
Just to reiterate my ideas (notice #2):
I disagree with the need to change haste. But if you feel you need to change it so it is not used so much then here are my suggestions (use one or more):
1) Have haste give the fatigued condition for a number of minutes equal to the rounds hasted. For each additional time per day you are hasted then you get an additional condition: fatigued, sickened, nauseated, staggered etc. Then if you are hasted and it gets dispelled you get a condition. It makes haste much less desireable similar to 1st and 2nd edition.
2) You age 20% of your current age- caster level % every time you are subject to this spell. Same effect as 1. If you change age categories then only physical stats are affected.
3) After every haste make a will and fort save DC 12. If you fail the fort you lose one point of con. If you fail the will you lose one point of wisdom.
4) You can use only one effect of haste per round. This is chosen as a free action at the beginning of your turn. You can choose the extra speed, the AC and save bonuses, or the extra attack. This gives it some versatility.
5) Make the extra attack as if you had gained an extra iterative attack. So instead of being your highest bonus it is your lowest bonus.
6) Instead of an extra attack you get an untyped bonus of +2 for all your attacks.
That should be enough. You can combine some of these if you want but I think any one of these will fix your issues.
spalding |
Gandalf is the most magical human in Tolkien and most of his power comes from knowledge.
Gandalf isn't a human. The elves do a lot more magic in the trilogy, and in the Simarrilion there is more too... there's a lot more going on in the background that isn't really recognized by people. Remember that in Middle Earth the entirety of reality is just a song and magic is changes in that song. The bad guy is trying to sing something else and all the rest of the gods are trying to force him back into the regular song with them. That's hard enough on its own without everyone else throwing a bunch of other songs (i.e. magic) around while they are doing it.
karkon |
I can't discuss the Simarrilion because I found it to be a snoozefest.
Yes, Gandalf isn't exactly human. But he & Saruman and the rest of the wizards are the magic using equivalent of human. Magic by Gandalf: burning pinecones, creating light, breaking a bridge, helping the king of Rohan...nothing too extraordinary by Pathfinder measures. Saruman created a new race from orcs (maybe it was elves I think that is unclear). Elves..Calling up the river to drown the riders (could just be a command word for a set defense). They are implied to be very magical and show their power here and there but again nothing too fantastic by Pathfinder standards.
Magic items: Sauron's ring, the other rings, various weapons, mirror of Gladriel, the gifts from the elves (cloaks, dirt & seed, phial, rope, something else).
Sauron's magical powers were by far the strongest but now tied up mostly in his ring.
The stuff in the background. Gandalf's battle with the balrog. Radagast sending the giant eagle to check on Gandalf.
i basically hit the highlights but this stuff is the exception in a set of books that is far more focused on martial exploits. Bard killing the dragon. Charge of Rohan. The running battle through the mines of Moria. Cleansing of the Shire. etc.
wraithstrike |
Fozbek wrote:Buddah668 wrote:Melee too good? Melee is by far the weakest combat role in the game. By far.The failure with the current Haste is simple, it makes melee way too good.
A good change, full attack, first attack at the players best bonus, the additional attacks at +2, with a final additional attack at +2 from haste, with strength , and other attacks mods tacked on at the end. Even then I question the 3rd level spell slot.
At what level? At low level melees are rather powerful. They don't really fall behind casters until very high level, which most people don't play to.
You wouldn't know melees are weak with my group. It's all the majority of them play. They can't stand waiting to be powerful and melees are consistently strong against all enemies up to level 15 or so when casters start to get enough spells and their feat chains start to kick in.
Melees also have something to do almost every round, whereas casters have to preserve their spell resources. They can't stand not doing something for a round.
Casters are powerful at low levels. They don't need to wait.
A cleric, druid, wiz or sorc, and you can give that 4th spot to whoever you want.
The_Big_Dog |
Maddigan wrote:Fozbek wrote:Buddah668 wrote:Melee too good? Melee is by far the weakest combat role in the game. By far.The failure with the current Haste is simple, it makes melee way too good.
A good change, full attack, first attack at the players best bonus, the additional attacks at +2, with a final additional attack at +2 from haste, with strength , and other attacks mods tacked on at the end. Even then I question the 3rd level spell slot.
At what level? At low level melees are rather powerful. They don't really fall behind casters until very high level, which most people don't play to.
You wouldn't know melees are weak with my group. It's all the majority of them play. They can't stand waiting to be powerful and melees are consistently strong against all enemies up to level 15 or so when casters start to get enough spells and their feat chains start to kick in.
Melees also have something to do almost every round, whereas casters have to preserve their spell resources. They can't stand not doing something for a round.
Casters are powerful at low levels. They don't need to wait.
A cleric, druid, wiz or sorc, and you can give that 4th spot to whoever you want.
Character with UMD and a good charisma. You can give the other 3 spots to whomever you like.
Fozbek |
At low levels you can't afford UMD for offensive purposes. Scrolls are basically impossible to pull off early (DC 21 at the lowest, with a possible additional DC 26+ if you don't have a high enough spellcasting stat), and wands are expensive even for first level spells (and even then it's still a DC 20 check).
The most you can possibly have in UMD at level 1 is (as far as I know) +14 (1 rank, 3 class skill, 5 charisma, 3 skill focus, 2 magical aptitude). That still leaves you with a 25% chance to fail any wand activation and a 30% or higher chance to fail any scroll activation. Also, that's a hyper-specialized build. Realistically, you're looking at +10 or so at the high end, which is a 45% wand failure rate or a 50%+ scroll failure rate.
High failure rates are OK for happy sticks because you're not using them in combat, so failures don't usually have negative consequences. When you're pulling out that sleep scroll in combat, though, there are very heavy consequences for failing the check.
The_Big_Dog |
It was more of a joke than anything. At any point in the game, any set up of classes can beat a balanced encounter. It isn't about power. You just need someone with some healing capability to do it with any speed. Hence the UMD.
Four wizards should have enough spells to get through 4 CR 1 encounters. Probably have a few days of downtime each time one of them takes a hit.
Four fighters should be able to handle it with pure combat, they will just have several days of downtime between.
Four rogues can handle it too, using sneak attack and tactics they should be fine.
The UMD just helps to keep the party going day to day with healing spells.
Trikk |
At any point in the game, any set up of classes can beat a balanced encounter. It isn't about power.
You mean a tailored encounter.
Any set up of classes against a balanced encounter = TPK
The game isn't even designed to be played with *any* set up of classes.
Now since Paizo took over development, class is not even that strong of an indicator of what a character can do, what with the archetypes and all that.
The_Big_Dog |
I didn't say any specific build of specific classes. I said any group of classes. And yes, classes can be built differently enough and broadly enough that this is true.
I'm certain you could TPK a party of 4 poorly built characters who are only optimized for one form of attack, but the classes are not that limited in and of themselves.
Talonhawke |
Maddigan wrote:I fail to see why some players continue to make such an issue of it given what happens when they try to change it. You get the game I will not mention. Which takes all the fantasy flavor out of magic and turns it into martial abilities with different names and visuals. I for one am playing Pathfinder because I don't want watered down magic in my fantasy game.
I'm happy Pathfinder uses books as inspiration for their system rather than games. You can tell the majority of Paizo people are well read and it heavily influences their creative and design decisions. I hope I see the caster-martial disparity for as long as I live. That is the fantasy genre I grew up on.
Maybe that's my disconnect. I didn't grow up reading many of the same books the Paizo guys did. Never read Tolkien. Or Lovecraft. Or Howard.
You suggest that the only options are 'casters rule over martials' or 'casters are martials with different flavor'. That's a false dichotomy. Just because 3E/4E are examples of those two possible outcomes in your eyes, does not make them the only possible outcomes.
TOZ that can't be your issue cuz i read them and still have your disconnect. Though i read lots of different fantasy growing up from those listed to others such as Dragonlance, The Sword of Truth books, the various Pern books and such.
Maddigan |
First, legacy design from earlier editions. Most rules were copied over directly after all.
And I say once again that people seem to like it that way. Thus why the has been successful enough to have so many iterations of the rules.
Second, you keep saying people like it that way, without proof. Since I say I don't like it, and I am a singular individual like yourself, can I thus say that people seem to not like it?
What more proof do I need than the success of the D&D game and the success of Pathfinder based on the D&D game with the caster-martial disparity?
What proof do you have that people don't like it other than you and a small, vocal minority claiming it is somehow negatively affecting the game? I have my proof. If you choose to ignore it, that's your option.
Okay, so the caster and the martial are usually on the same side. Except when they're not, like Sauron and Saruman(sp?), all of the Forsaken, and Morgan le Fay. So your proof about why it works falls flat.
I did not say that. I said that no one complains about the disparity of power between the caster and martial in the same group because they don't fight each other. They usually work together against the enemies you mentioned.
So your attempt to disprove that I wrote falls flat. We're talking cooperative groups against an enemy.
A DM that has a power gamer anything will have that character vastly overshadow everyone else a great deal of the time. (Regardless of the RAGELANCEPOUNCE, RAGELANCESPIRITEDCHARGE is still a powerful option, right?)
Yes. It is still a powerful option. Exactly why I say the caster-martial disparity when it comes to killing one another is over-rated. The power of the caster is in his versatility. You will never be able to remove the versatility from casters and make them equal to martials while making martials seem appropriately martial.
Okay, now your last statement has me a little confused. Are you no longer saying that it is right and proper that casters are more powerful than martials?
No. I am saying it is a cooperative game. Martials should have their role, which they do.
The only problem is players like yourself seem to want what is called "equality" that means "If the caster can do it, the martial can do it".
It's not good enough for a martial to say have a niche like doing far more damage or being a far better fighter than a caster. You want to be able to create walls of force, teleport, and the like with martial abilities.
There is no real pleasing a player like you. You obviously need to be playing a different game if that is bothering you. Because it doesn't bother me in the slightest. I wouldn't play a game where martials cutting open holes in dimensions to teleport from place to place or have exactly similar abilities with different names to wizards.
I want a game with the following:
1. Martials that fit what martials are supposed to do be it the armoed knight, the raging barbarian, the skilled swordsman, etc,etc.
2. I want a game where wizards and priest do what they're supposed to do as in cast powerful, earth shattering magic or call upon the power of divine beings to do incredible feats.
3. I want magic that is powerful and epic and different from what martials do even if it is vastly more powerful.
That's what I look for in a fantasy game because that is what I've read in the fantasy genre. It is a trope of the fantasy genre in fact. It has been a part of the fantasy genre since back in the days of myth. Even Circe was far more powerful than Perseus or Hercules, and they were half-gods.
If you don't like that type of genre or don't read those kind of books, then what are you doing playing a game that caters to the tastes of those that do? If you want some game based on equality, then why don't you find one to play and leave this game to those that enjoy the type of fantasy game that fits what they enjoy about fantasy.
That's the thing I don't understand about people like you. You want to take something that wasn't made for someone like you and try to make the game become what you like it to be. I've played this game since its inception and I have always liked powerful arcane casters and priests. Fits every book I've read. I have no idea what fantasy you're reading, if any, to make you think that martials and casters should be equal in power. I know of no fantasy like that and I've read a huge amount of classical and modern fantasy.
Love to hear what books you're reading to get this idea that martials and casters are equal. Never seen it. Seen plenty of books where martials kill casters, that part I'm ok with. Never seen books where martials do what casters do whether its decimating entire armies with a spell, mind controlling enemies, breaking entire bridges with a spell to cast a demon into the abyss, sending rat swarms to assassinate someone, and so on and so on. Don't confuse a martial character with a caster because he holds a sword.
I'm done with the conversation. It's obvious to me your one of those people that holds a point of view even when your point of view has no factual basis. Anyone that claims he reads fantasy books that don't have the caster-martial disparity in them in spades is lying to my face. As I said I've read both classic and modern fantasy, I've never seen even a small percentage of books that have martials on equal standing with casters in the books.
My final word on the matter is I hope Pathfinder never, ever caters to your thinking. It would ruin the game. Fantasy has certain tropes and one of those tropes is magic is vastly more powerful than mundane means of fighting, which means the caster-martial disparity should always exist if magic is done right.
There's always MMORPGs for those focused on class balance. Pen and Paper RPGs are more story focused than worried about PvP and DPS balance against the module.
Maddigan |
TOZ wrote:
Maybe that's my disconnect. I didn't grow up reading many of the same books the Paizo guys did. Never read Tolkien. Or Lovecraft. Or Howard.You suggest that the only options are 'casters rule over martials' or 'casters are martials with different flavor'. That's a false dichotomy. Just because 3E/4E are examples of those two possible outcomes in your eyes, does not make them the only possible outcomes.
If you read those books and author's series you will see that magic actually plays a small role.
Gandalf is the most magical human in Tolkien and most of his power comes from knowledge. He has a lot of implied power but rarely shows it. A lot of it happens off stage (battle with the Necromancer, battle with the Balrog). The elves are interesting but never show power on the scale of a 10th level wizard (or even 7th). Even Sauron (essentially a living god) has limited power. He has a lot of power connected to the ring but it is never shown in the Hobbit or Lord of the Rings. Maybe in the Simarrilion but I kept tuning out (zzzzzzzzz). But the Simarrilion was about the gods and the early days of the elves, a much more magical age.
The Conan books (and Solomon Kane) are great reads. Conan is very martial. Magic is weak. Howard is a racist...if you read that keep it in mind. Product of his times but a racist by today's standards. The books are good but it will jump out at you once in a while.
Lovecraft is more about madness than magic. But his florid prose turned me off.
There is a lot of magic in Tolkien. Just not amongst the group.
Sauron is a caster.
Saruman is a caster
Almost all the elves have magic, especially the leaders. Galadriel is such a strong arcane caster she is able to keep out the Dark Lord's influence from Lothlorien. They all have far sight and the ability to speak in their minds.
Even Denethor has a little magic.
Bombadil and his wife are magical.
Shelob has power as well.
But a lot of their magic is tied in their ability to craft extraordinary items like the ring. And their understanding of the world than D&D type of magic, which is more showy and immediate.
Maddigan |
TOZ wrote:TOZ that can't be your issue cuz i read them and still have your disconnect. Though i read lots of different fantasy growing up from those listed to others such as Dragonlance, The Sword of Truth books, the various Pern books and such.Maddigan wrote:I fail to see why some players continue to make such an issue of it given what happens when they try to change it. You get the game I will not mention. Which takes all the fantasy flavor out of magic and turns it into martial abilities with different names and visuals. I for one am playing Pathfinder because I don't want watered down magic in my fantasy game.
I'm happy Pathfinder uses books as inspiration for their system rather than games. You can tell the majority of Paizo people are well read and it heavily influences their creative and design decisions. I hope I see the caster-martial disparity for as long as I live. That is the fantasy genre I grew up on.
Maybe that's my disconnect. I didn't grow up reading many of the same books the Paizo guys did. Never read Tolkien. Or Lovecraft. Or Howard.
You suggest that the only options are 'casters rule over martials' or 'casters are martials with different flavor'. That's a false dichotomy. Just because 3E/4E are examples of those two possible outcomes in your eyes, does not make them the only possible outcomes.
You assume "casters rule over martials" as well? I never played that way.
Martials have always been exciting to play. Probably why my players play them more often. It seems [b]Toz's[/i] groups everyone plays casters. Odd to me.
Martials do way more damage and never run out of their resource. My players seem to enjoy that playstyle better.
DreamAtelier |
How many of those spellcasters in classic stories were PCs? That's right: none of them. They aren't RPGs. They're stories. RPGs don't work by the same rules as stories, nor should they.
Now you're approaching the heart of the issue, which really occurs somewhere along the simulationist/escapist/narrativist desires within both individual players and a group.
Narrativist players and DMs would argue that all RPG campaigns should be a story, and as such do function by the same rules as stories. That the most fulfilling experience comes from doing this. Of course, to really pull off this style of play you have to understand what the rules that make for good stories are.
Simulationists would argue that the rules of the story are unimportant, but that the internal rules of the game and game world must remain consistent and follow logical interactions of cause and effect, to feel realistic. Realistic in this case being understood to actually mean enough internal consistency so that their suspension of disbelief is not challenged.
Escapists would argue that the important thing is being able to pretend to be something you're not, and that anything which interferes with building/playing the desired character (whether it be internal consistency or story considerations) should be discarded.
Here's the thing about this argument: no one side of it is right, and none of the sides of it are wrong. Everyone has different levels of desire for each of the categories, and even for a specific individual this is not a fixed state.
Umbral Reaver |
I would say that those wishing to run a game that works exactly like a fantasy novel are the most provably wrong. The key problem is that a novel is by its nature not interactive. There is only one member of the 'game': The author. You could argue that the reader's imagination plays some part in this but that is beside the point.
The author does not have to make sure the various characters get equal treatment and they don't have players whose feelings might be hurt by unfair treatment.
To run a game as described is an insult to narrativism. It's railroading to the point of not needing players. You might as well do just that: Write a book by yourself.
This is why I never regard 'The characters in a book are like that' as valid justification for a playstyle.
Laurefindel |
Haste isn't to powerfull. Sure you can take things away from players. But that is a bad adverse reaction.
Haste has several effects on multiple allies:
+30 ft to speed. That effect alone is basically a Mass Expeditious Retreat spell, which according to the guidelines of the game should warrant a 4th level spell. [edit] scratch that : mass expeditious retreat would be a 5th level spell according to the mass spell = base spell level +4.
+1 untyped bonus on attack, damage, reflex save and armor class. That is somewhere halfway between a Bless and Prayer spell. The bonus is untyped, so it stacks with other spells. That alone is arguably a 2nd level spell effect, if not more.
Finally, you gain an extra attack at your full BAB. Not a lot of abilities allows this, without penalties, without conditions. That effect alone is worth a 3rd level spell, at the very least.
So yeah, its a powerful spell. The most powerful 3rd level spell IMO. I'm not saying removing it from the game is the way to go, but I do feel it doesn't belong with the other 3rd level spells.
'findel
Trikk |
Haste has several effects on multiple allies:+30 ft to speed. That effect alone is basically a Mass Expeditious Retreat spell, which according to the guidelines of the game should warrant a 4th level spell. [edit] scratch that : mass expeditious retreat would be a 5th level spell according to the mass spell = base spell level +4.
+1 untyped bonus on attack, damage, reflex save and armor class. That is somewhere halfway between a Bless and Prayer spell. The bonus is untyped, so it stacks with other spells. That alone is arguably a 2nd level spell effect, if not more.
Finally, you gain an extra attack at your full BAB. Not a lot of abilities allows this, without penalties, without conditions. That effect alone is worth a 3rd level spell, at the very least.
So yeah, its a powerful spell. The most powerful 3rd level spell IMO. I'm not saying removing it from the game is the way to go, but I do feel it doesn't belong with the other 3rd level spells.
'findel
The only way you are even close to correct is if you disregard everything above the spell description:
Range close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Targets one creature/level, no two of which can be more than 30 ft. apart
Duration 1 round/level
It's a powerful spell, but I think you are exaggerating the bonuses and ignoring the other effects of those spells you compare it to.
Laurefindel |
The only way you are even close to correct is if you disregard everything above the spell description:
Range close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Targets one creature/level, no two of which can be more than 30 ft. apart
Duration 1 round/levelIt's a powerful spell, but I think you are exaggerating the bonuses and ignoring the other effects of those spells you compare it to.
Mass spells have the same range, target and duration as haste
Bless and Prayer are 50 ft. and 40 ft. burst respectively, so there's a small advantage in range (10 feet for prayer, 20 for bless). 1 creature/level is enough to get the whole typical party of 5 from the moment the caster is allowed the spell. In a few levels, everyone is included, including animal companions, cohorts and familiars.
Trikk |
Mass spells have the same range, target and duration as hasteBless and Prayer are 50 ft. and 40 ft. burst respectively, so there's a small advantage in range (10 feet for prayer, 20 for bless). 1 creature/level is enough to get the whole typical party of 5 from the moment the caster is allowed the spell. In a few levels, everyone is included, including animal companions, cohorts and familiars.
I only checked a couple of spells and they just changed the target parameter, but I'll take your word for it.
Bless counters and dispels bane as well as lasting min/level. Prayer debuffs enemies while buffing everyone in range. It also adds damage unlike Haste.
Benicio Del Espada |
I would say that those wishing to run a game that works exactly like a fantasy novel are the most provably wrong. The key problem is that a novel is by its nature not interactive. There is only one member of the 'game': The author. You could argue that the reader's imagination plays some part in this but that is beside the point.
The author does not have to make sure the various characters get equal treatment and they don't have players whose feelings might be hurt by unfair treatment.
To run a game as described is an insult to narrativism. It's railroading to the point of not needing players. You might as well do just that: Write a book by yourself.
This is why I never regard 'The characters in a book are like that' as valid justification for a playstyle.
This. The game IS making a story, but it has several writers. Some care more about the plot than others.
I remember playing a game when I was a kid, where one kid would write a sentence, then the next kid, etc., and then you'd read it aloud. The story never made much sense, and was mostly about how Johnny farted then got shot, stabbed, blown up and eaten by a dinosaur or something. We thought it was hilarious.
At any rate, haste is overpowered, and should maybe be a 4th or 5th level spell. If every caster who can use it always chooses it first (I do), then it's a little too good.
I always thought it should be a 4th level spell (since 3.0; losing a year made it just for big boss fights in 2nd ed.), and that teleport and greater tele should be one level higher, too. Right now, I just live with it as is, but I'm always tempted to mod it like that and see how it goes.
I just accept that the spell is what it is, and the baddies can use it, too.
Laurefindel |
Bless counters and dispels bane as well as lasting min/level. Prayer debuffs enemies while buffing everyone in range. It also adds damage unlike Haste.
Yes, prayer add to damage AND remove damage from opponents. Its bonus is also valid on all saves and skills. It is significantly better than the numerical effects of haste hence why I've put it halfway between bless and prayer. But I relent, this effect is good but merely candy on top of two other effects that make haste so awesome.
DreamAtelier |
I would say that those wishing to run a game that works exactly like a fantasy novel are the most provably wrong. The key problem is that a novel is by its nature not interactive. There is only one member of the 'game': The author. You could argue that the reader's imagination plays some part in this but that is beside the point.
The author does not have to make sure the various characters get equal treatment and they don't have players whose feelings might be hurt by unfair treatment.
To run a game as described is an insult to narrativism. It's railroading to the point of not needing players. You might as well do just that: Write a book by yourself.
This is why I never regard 'The characters in a book are like that' as valid justification for a playstyle.
And this represents your opinion. There is nothing provably wrong about a narrativist style of play*, even taken to that extreme, except in the context of a specific game played by a specific set of players, and run by a specific DM.
Alter the specific game, alter the composition of the group, or the DM, and a narrative game, even of the sort you describe, can be played with exceptionally fun results for everyone involved. Yes, it approaches collaborative storytelling at that point, but there is nothing 'wrong' with that approach to telling a story, using the framework of a game system. It allows multiple individuals to contribute to a shared narrative in areas that are their own strengths, while allowing another person to cover an area where they are weak. One member of a collaborative might be strong when it comes to world building, but mediocre at characterization and plotting. Another might be superb at characterization, while having no interest or capacity when it comes to building a world. Each member of a collaborative brings something different to the table, because they are individual people. Even professional authors are known to collaborate on projects (look for the word "and" separating their names).
What is required is the people involved be willing to engage in that style of activity. Clearly you are not, and that is a personal choice which you are both free and correct to make for yourself. But don't make the mistake of assuming that every person who plays games out there is exactly the same as you, and will find the experience to be a bad one, or wrong for them. They are an individual, the same as you, with all the idiosyncrasies that entails.
*A narrative game does not NEED to be any more of an exercise in railroading then running an adventure path (and in point of fact, all the story portion of adventure paths are there for the narrativist players who play it). Adventure paths are, by their very nature, railroad games, and yet continue to remain a popular way of playing RPGs in general. The above comments are made in response to
TOZ |
Martials have always been exciting to play. Probably why my players play them more often. It seems [b]Toz's[/i] groups everyone plays casters. Odd to me.
Current group:
MonkFighter
Ranger
Warlock
Druid
Eladrin
Rogue (inactive)
Rogue (inactive)
Fighter (inactive)
You should not assume so much.
spalding |
Trikk wrote:The only way you are even close to correct is if you disregard everything above the spell description:
Range close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Targets one creature/level, no two of which can be more than 30 ft. apart
Duration 1 round/levelIt's a powerful spell, but I think you are exaggerating the bonuses and ignoring the other effects of those spells you compare it to.
Mass spells have the same range, target and duration as haste
Bless and Prayer are 50 ft. and 40 ft. burst respectively, so there's a small advantage in range (10 feet for prayer, 20 for bless). 1 creature/level is enough to get the whole typical party of 5 from the moment the caster is allowed the spell. In a few levels, everyone is included, including animal companions, cohorts and familiars.
You are massively underselling Prayer.
1. 40 foot radius for everyone around you.
2. +1 to hit, damage, skill checks and all save throws for your allies.
3. -1 to hit, damage, skill checks, and all save throws for your enemies, no save throw.
You also have to have everyone within 30 feet of each other with haste.
The total benefit could be summed up as:
Communal Expeditious Retreat (2nd level spell)
Bless (1st level spell)
Extra attack on a full attack.
karkon |
You are massively underselling Prayer.1. 40 foot radius for everyone around you.
2. +1 to hit, damage, skill checks and all save throws for your allies.
3. -1 to hit, damage, skill checks, and all save throws for your enemies, no save throw.You also have to have everyone within 30 feet of each other with haste.
The total benefit could be summed up as:
Communal Expeditious Retreat (2nd level spell)
Bless (1st level spell)
Extra attack on a full attack.
And yet so many clerics rarely use it (your experience might vary). It is a great spell especially for martially minded groups.
spalding |
Well I'll fully agree that both spells see more use the bigger the group is.
And we don't see it used often... but that's because we very rarely have clerics or oracles in the party. When we have had either in the party it was used regularly.
The thing about prayer (to me) is that it's so useful for everyone. Casters like it for improving their saves and for making the enemy less likely to make their saves. The martials like it because it helps with saves, hitting and damage. Everyone likes it because the enemies are that much less likely to hit.
It's not mind affecting, and allows no save throw (which means it doesn't break invisibility surprisingly enough), which means it's useful in a number of situations and goes down smoothly.
I will agree than when full attacks are going down it is not as strong offensively but as an over all buff/debuff without a save throw it looks really good for what it does to a large number of people.
Actually the more I think about it the better and better it looks for scrolls, wands and potions.
Something else:
Haste is a 15 foot burst -- no two creatures that are affected by the spell may be more than 30 feet apart. With prayer being a 40 foot burst you're actually getting an 80 foot diameter (compared to haste's diameter of 30 feet) -- which is very significant.
Umbral Reaver |
And this represents your opinion. There is nothing provably wrong about a narrativist style of play*, even taken to that extreme, except in the context of a specific game played by a specific set of players, and run by a specific DM.
You misread my post in extreme. One where there is no collaboration is most wrong. Some might even enjoy that, but it can hardly be called a game.
Playing characters like those from a book is not wrong. Playing them and expecting it to work exactly as it does in the book because it's in a book is wrong.
Playing in an RPG is not the same thing as writing a story by yourself and if you try to force it to be, you've missed the point of collaborative storytelling within the context of the game.