{QUOTE]
I just don't see it. I have never seen SA make any sort of a worthwhile contribution, and never will. Rogues are worthless.Well. Technically, everything you said about a Grapple Check, a Hand over the Mouth, and a Coup De Grace...is technically not possible in Pathfinder. Not without making a lot of noise the party would hear. Grappling gets pretty loud, and there would need to be multiple attacks spent grappling the target into a pin, after which he wouldn't count as helpless yet. You'd need to bind him with Rope. THEN you could Coup De Grace the guy. There's no way to do all of that quietly as you say.
Uh... no. Grappling isn't that loud when you come from behind and put a hand over their mouth. They'd have to outgrapple the foe, which Rogues suck at, to make any noise. As for the rope, why is it needed? All you need for a coup de grace is a pin in the grapple check so you can snap their neck.
IN fact, the only way to kill someone instantly without anyone knowing is in fact...with Rogue Sneak Attack. Which the Rogue is immune to unless his opponent is a rogue with 4 more rogue levels than him.
Rogues aren't immune to sneak attack.
Furthermore, in the first round of combat, until you take your first turn you are flatfooted. Which means the rogue gets an easy sneak attack off most of the time. It's one of the main reasons a lot of rogue players take Improved Initiative.
That's only if there was a surprise round, and a surprise round means the party is flat footed, not the monsters.
Flanking is easy. Especially with Acrobatics and a willingness to work with the rest of your party.
Except the party hates having to work with the Rogue. I'm not going out of my way and giving up having fun with my fighting style to help another character that for some stupid reason isn't allowed to use her class features without me holding her hand, and if I were the Rogue I wouldn't want to toady up to Swordy McStupidhead to make her please let me use my class features.
Rogues are very useful. You just aren't giving them a fair shake.
I have, they suck.
Except the surprise round means that YOU HAVE JUST BEEN AMBUSHED. You aren't going to stealth when YOU HAVE JUST BEEN AMBUSHED.
Oh you mean being surprised. Well duh of course you're not delivering SA when only the enemy is acting. Then you have to achieve flank, remove Dex by some other means (feint), or appear to leave combat and hide and come back to SA someone. Hence, I refer to 3 rounds of setup to safely deliver the next SA, and one of my primary gripes with the tactical necessities of playing a Rogue.
That aside, a Rogue has ranks in abundance to keep Bluff, Perception, Sense Motive and Stealth all maxed, so the probability of being surprised is much lower than the chance of being the one doing the surprising. Isn't that what Rogues are meant to do? (rhetorical; it is what they're supposed to do)No, a grapple, a hand over the mouth, and a coup de grace.I don't see any terrain modifiers or Know-Geography provisions forSo 3 round of combat (grapple, pin, CDG) while somehow keeping hidden, within 60' of the party?Not that difficult in familiar territory.
Familiar territory as in "I know where to wait so that the Rogue won't see me, and I know where to drag her after I grab her and snap her neck".
Now, lets say for the moment I'm completely wrong in this debate. Wouldn't be the first time. I am a bit of a retard. Well, even if the Rogue's abilities are all useful, the Rogue is still worthless. Why? Everything they have is available to a better class. Do you want sneak attack? Ninja's have it, and they have ki abilities and can learn Rogue talents. Trapfinding? Bards can get that feature, plus all sorts of magic and buffs. Rogue talents? Ninja. Skill points? Bards, Ninjas, and Rangers.
Everything a Rogue can do, someone else can do with better features. What's the point?
...WOW. I heated this debate up pretty hot. Maybe the Swordy McStupidhead comments took things too far. I apologize for my overly belligerent attitude.
All familiar territory would do is allow one to use the battle mat better (somehow) and maybe get a +2 competence bonus on the stealth and/or perception check.
Allow me to be the first to say that it kind of sucks that there are no mechanics for the classic hollywood "sneak up behind and take em out" maneuver which is a staple of adventure and action media everywhere. If it were there, the Rogue would interestingly enough be the first to use it.
Yea, battlemat use is how I was thinking of it. I guess my issue is that I don't like Rogues as stealth dependent and I don't work as a team member in RPGs, so it's kind of like a warrior and a scout arguing battle tactics with each other. To top it off, when I can get anything a Rogue has by taking a class with better features, why would I ever bother playing a Rogue?
If only Rogue's had some class feature that helped with that ...
The plural of "rogue" is "rogues" -- not "Rogue's."
As I'm unable to get past that, it's hard for me to evaluate the rest of your corrections.
Rogues work just fine. If they aren't then 'joo are doin it rong'.
Most classess* seem to work out just fine if you play them appropriately, unfortunately the classes only come with descriptions and statistics, and not a users manual on how to play them.
Your preferred play-style is obviously not suited to the Rogue class, thats not a weakness in the class.
*I haven't played them all, so can't claim absolute knowledge.
If only Rogue's had some class feature that helped with that ...The plural of "rogue" is "rogues" -- not "Rogue's."
As I'm unable to get past that, it's hard for me to evaluate the rest of your corrections.
But the rogue owns the class feature.
I have never seen SA make any sort of a worthwhile contribution, and never will.
Ummm... this happened the session before last, after we took out some giant spiders and navigated through their nest, avoiding webs. As a tumble-monkey, I got through quicker.
DM: As you tumble past the webs and into the hallway, you stumble right in front of two acolytes who look surprised to see you. Roll Initiative (rolls a 17).Rogue6: I rolled an 11, +4feat, +4dex, +2trait(terrain), so 21.
DM: Wow, okay, you're first.
Rogue6: I attack one, rolling a 13, +4bab +2enhance +4dex +1haste(thanks,mage) so 24. If that's a hit, since they're flat footed, I do ... (4d6+4) 22 points of damage.
DM: You're showered in her blood; a substantial piece of her throat is on the wall. The other one raises the alar-
Rogue6: I also have my haste attack, so I make a 5' step and roll a 9, +4bab +2enhance +4dex +1haste(thanks,mage) so 20. If that's a hit, since they're still flat footed, I do ... 19 points of damage.
DM: She lives! Okay she runs for it, raising the alarm. The rest of you catch up.
Rogue6: I activate my Hat of Disguise to look like her and pay special attention to the sound of her voice. She takes 3 points of bleeding damage.
DM: Okay, she drops. But you hear sounds of activity from the guardhouse down the hall. Too bad she yelled.
Rogue6: Ranger, drag the body back. Mage, use Pretidigi-watever to clean up the blood. I'll handle this. My disguise check to look like her is... 33 with the hat of disguise, but since that's only vision, that's a 23 to imitate her voice. I head to intercept the guards, looking like I was just frightened by something. I'll tell them it was just a really big rat that freaked me out and apologize, sending them back. Bluff check, I'll take 10 so ... 30.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
--
Double hyphen?
I just can't get past that.
You can't sneak attack an enemy that can see you unless she's flanked or flat footed, and they were neither. The Rogue was as surprised as they were, so no surprise round.
When you're both surprised and you win initiative on the first round, the enemy is flatfooted.
Look at Flat-Footed under initiative
You can't sneak attack an enemy that can see you unless she's flanked or flat footed, and they were neither. The Rogue was as surprised as they were, so no surprise round.
Wut?
Ninja'd by Malignor.
They are flat footed until they act. No need for a surprise round it was a standard round otherwise they couldn't have taken a full attack action.
Really? S#!@. I've always worked under "Surprise round for ambushes only". That's how I was taught the game.
Still, the point that anything a Rogue can do someone else can do better stands.
Flat-FootedA character who has not yet acted during a combat is flat-footed, unable to react normally to the situation. A flat-footed character loses his Dexterity bonus to AC and Combat Maneuver Defense (CMD) (if any) and cannot make attacks of opportunity, unless he has the Combat Reflexes feat or Uncanny Dodge class ability.
Characters with Uncanny Dodge retain their Dexterity bonus to their AC and can make attacks of opportunity before they have acted in the first round of combat.
No need for 'surprise'.
That's how I was taught the game.
...and maybe some of this teaching has resulted in Rogues not working out well for you?
Just thinking that you obviously have a particular play style preference, and a particular view of the rules, so perhaps this might explain the disconnect.
Rogues are fine.
Martial/Caster disparity is similarly an overblown issue.
Anything most classes can do, other classes can do too.
Still, the point that anything a Rogue can do someone else can do better stands.
I agree what that, Kelsey.
I was kind of annoyed when I found out that the Alchemist was significantly better than me at Disable Device.Then it ended up becoming fun - I have the perception, she has the DD... So I find the trap, then assist her and it's collaborative:
Rogue6: "I think you should loosen that bolt..."
Alchemist6: "but what about the wire? Changing the tension will.."
Rogue6: "Oh, right. Okay, first put a counterweight on that, then the bolt"
Ranger6: <glances at the carpet of spiders consuming the room toward the group> Uh, guys? Can you hurry up?
Fact is, in my own group...
- The Ranger has better perception, stealth, and sense motive versus Elves (Drow intrigue campaign, so that's VERY relevant).
- The Alchy has better disable device and Local Knowledge.
- We have an Alchy, Sorc, Ranger and Cleric in the group, so my UMD is pretty redundant (except now we can deliver 2 fireballs in a round, and 3 of us can use the CLW wand).
But y'know what? I can both find AND disable. They can't.
Disguise ... monopoly in my group.
Bluff ... huge monopoly in my group.
Could a Bard be better than me? At alot of this, yes.
How much does it matter? Not at all; yes I could have used a Porsche (Bard) to drive across town, but a Civic (Rogue) gets me there just the same.
I disagree, Shifty. There is too much accusation of disparity for it to be false.
You have a point about Rogues not fitting the way my group plays. We REALLY need to change our play style, but it won't happen. That said, Rogues are NOT fine. Everyone else gets their class features, and gets cooler stuff to go with them. Why play a Rogue when I can play a Ninja?
I dunno, I have been at this hobby for almost thirty years, and can honestly say it's always swings and roundabouts.
There's a complaint about the disparity, just as there are complaints between martial classes themselves, and then the arcane vs divine debate between the casters too.
Simply put, rather than get bogged down into what ends up a 'GM V Ford' debate, I have to take the macro view of "But what happens at the table?" - by taking the debate off a whiteboard and into practice, we end up with a less appreciable difference between the classess, and that difference is usually warped by the playstyle preference of the participants, the storyline narrated by the GM, and the style of game itself rather than by the classes.
Most of these debates rely on heavily contrived situations to make their argument 'work' and mitigate the counter argument which is pretty disingenious as both sides can play that game, and the point is that they are probably both 'right'.
Thats because there is more than one way to play, and a myriad of solutions available to the players.
Why not play a Ninja? Well for one they might not be an allowable choice? and second, you might not actually want to play a Ninja as you just aren't having any interest in a WuXia day. You might not also be interested in being beholden to a Clan?
You might just like the Rogue Archetypes or whatever differently?
Why do gentlemen prefer blondes?
What flavour cheese is the Moon?
Rogues are NOT FINE for you (and probably many others) yet I haven't had any problems, nor seen too many problems. As I came over to PF from 2nd ed there was a real re-learning curve, but once through that I was back on my game.
Eh. Maybe I shouldn't be bringing up my own experiences, then. I play "F++# You Guys, I Hate You All: The RPG" more so than teamwork based Pathfinder. It's not really representative of the game as a whole. I just see all the cool stuff casters get and read all the accusations, and it makes sense to me.
As for Rogues, I've never seen one that wasn't underpowered. Maybe you have, but I haven't, and it's because I rarely ever see a successful sneak attack.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As I say, clearly what happens at your table means the Rogue will have a bad day; from personal preferences, to GM biases, to interpretation of the rules (case in point, flat footed above).
Enough of these elements skewed off could make any given class have problems, in your case it happens to be the Rogue.
Well, also keep in mind: Sneak Attack IS supposed to be the traditional "Sneak up behind someone and kill them quietly" from the movies.
Also: You cannot coup de grace someone who's pinned. That was what I was saying. They must be bound or helpless. Which means you need to grapple someone, pin them, and then make the Combat Maneuver check to hog tie them. It all makes a lot of noise, as was previously noted. And all this is assuming the ambusher actually sees the rogue.
...and I'm surprised Kelsey, I've played in a group that was very much "F??#@# You Guys, I Hate You All: The RPG" ...and the guys who did the most F#@$ You All and got away with it were our Rogue Players. We had a regular Rogue Squadron. Nothing is more terrifying for a DM when there are multiple Rogues in the party, because your NPCs can't see them. They sneak attack everything. They work FANTASTICALLY as a team. It's just scary.
But it sounds to me like your group just needs to get a better appreciation for how Sneak Attack is SUPPOSED to work. And how Coup De Grace is supposed to work. And how Rogues with Stealth and Awareness work. (Seriously. And incidentally rogues ARE immune to sneak attack unless they are fighting a rogue or ninja of 4 levels higher)
Also: reread the rules. It's possible to stay in stealth after EVERY attack, just at a -20 penalty to the check to do so. Any time you have concealment, you are allowed to stealth again (unless they changed that) EVEN in combat. Rogues are one of the most versatile classes in the game, and one of my favorites. I just desperately want to see you and your group really make use of them. They're so much fun when they work right, and I just desperately want you to know that particular brand of joy and mayhem. ;D
How would I fix the disparity?
The method I use is to strongly push the advantage that martial characters have in regards to resources.
I like to keep pressure on the group, If they 'need' to sleep I find a way to wake them up. The encounters get really interesting when the casters are trying to decide at what point they should burn their last 3rd level spell. Plus this allows for some lower challenge rating encounters to be troublesome for a group that would normally have no issues with the encounter. It is important for the casters to have to make decisions on when to cast their spells.
I disagree, Shifty. There is too much accusation of disparity for it to be false.
While I agree there is a disparity, this logic doesn't work. Observe:
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
LOL@religiousReference; in before shutdown.
Yea, we took this debate way too far. My fault for being both stupid and overly aggressive, and spouting off about things I have no place talking about, then insulting people over it.
Eh. Maybe I shouldn't be bringing up my own experiences, then. I play "F$#& You Guys, I Hate You All: The RPG" more so than teamwork based Pathfinder. It's not really representative of the game as a whole. I just see all the cool stuff casters get and read all the accusations, and it makes sense to me.
I tried to explain this a page ago. It's all self-report, and we're all right.
If I had to take a stab at the truth, I'd say there is a disparity but it takes a certain kind of player to make it really obvious, and a competent GM can easily compensate for it, unless he has that player in his group.
If you belong to a group of those players, of course you're going to think it is a ubiquitous problem.
The argument about whether or not the GM should have to balance the design is irrelevant to me, I am a GM not a designer (well, GM foremost). If I can make it work, I do. If Ashiel were at my table, making it work might be a lot harder (not necessarily a fault).
The place we run into trouble is with statements that everyone has (or ought to have) the same problem here. The recent Penny Arcade seems germane. What happens at your table doesn't tell you much about other people's games. There are a lot of valid complaints to be had if you start with certain assumptions about the system (which may be your interpretation of the RAW) — but there are a lot of groups who start with different assumptions and the same rules.
As for Rogues, I've never seen one that wasn't underpowered. Maybe you have, but I haven't, and it's because I rarely ever see a successful sneak attack.
This is a great example of how seemingly objective rules interpretation can actually be subjective. I GMed for a mid-level rogue in MapTool, with vision and lighting rules dialed all the way up. You'd be amazed at how easy it is to hide (and deny dex bonus) with darkvision in a dungeon and a computer managing all of the lighting. No mortal GM could really keep that all in their head without slowing the game to a crawl, but with the right management tool suddenly the rogue is making ALL sneak attacks and the lighting mods are seriously benefiting their attack rolls as well.
Every campaign has these kinds of confounds. Some people have low-magic or high-magic settings. They're not playing the game wrong, or even house ruling, it just happens to be the starting conditions of their game within the scope of the rules.
None of this is a comment on how things ought to work, or whether there are actual flaws in the design. It does say a lot about how careful we must be when analyzing the game as a whole with a sample-size of one. Or a dozen people who game together. Or even a whole messageboard that shares a single culture for describing perceived problems. It's all good data, but the conclusions are spurious.
Yea, we took this debate way too far. My fault for being both stupid and overly aggressive, and spouting off about things I have no place talking about, then insulting people over it.
I actually agree with your intentions KM. You're talking about fixing things based on your *playstyle choice*, which is very gameist. Its completely fine in a Homebrew forum to request help in tweaking the game to better fit your table's homebrew choices.
As much as I respect the Evil Lincolns in this PF community, I really do, this thread isn't meant for players who are already fine with the 'assumed' playstyle built into the published material. PF assumes a Narrativist > Gameist > Simulationist play-style, where the substance (who, what, where, when, why) is more fun for the players than the mechanics (how). *This is not true for all tables* which is why people, like Kelsey and many others, emphasize mechanical changes rather than offering up content.
NOTICE HOW MANY OTHER PEOPLE AGREED WITH YOU AND POSTED IDEAS AS YOU REQUESTED IN YOUR ORIGINAL POST :)
Although you seem defeated by the constant posts telling you to basically 'hush up and "role" play', I'd say you should continue to ask this community for mechanical tweaks based on how you run your games/have the most fun. This is *your* thread, and its about *your* preferences.
Yes, you got a rule wrong, so what :) The best rules-lawyer still plays with half-read assumptions. And to be honest, even playing the flat-footed rule and the concealment rule RAW, the Rogue still sucks at combat. I agree with you there. Oh, and the Fighter *is* boring, you are also correct.
BUT, this thread wasn't about the rogue, it was about the disparity between the Martial classes and Spell casters. Which is real, especially as the mid to later levels. This is a fact of the game, whether or not it bothers a particular GM and his group is irrelevant to the fact that it bothers *you*.
Instead of arguing fine points with these folks--which is a waste of your time because they're ignoring your premise--ask them politely to please go derail/troll someone else's thread.
--PC
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Having a debate on an aspect of the topic is not trolling, when a series of posts lead to that, it becomes a conversation. If the OP specified to shush and go away, it would be. As she joined in, that wasn't trolling. Not any more than your last post, which answers neither op nor the debate, having less to do with the thread than any posts above.
Now, I don't aim to offend you, but suggesting a small debate like that is trolling isn't nice to some of us either.
|
Yea, we took this debate way too far. My fault for being both stupid and overly aggressive, and spouting off about things I have no place talking about, then insulting people over it.
Forgiven. It happens, and just means you care about the game enough to complain. I have mostly the same arguements about Clerics all the time. Maybe it will see some improvments to the game later on, or spearks some ideas that help others learn something they didn't before.
If the issue is "moving and still doing your thing" then what about auto-granting martial classes, or providing an additional feat, that let's them still move their full speed and do a portion of their full-attacks depending on level.
At level 10, you'd get a quarter of your full-attack attacks. At level 15, you get half. At 20, you get 75%. How's that sound?
As much as I respect the Evil Lincolns in this PF community, I really do, this thread isn't meant for players who are already fine with the 'assumed' playstyle built into the published material. PF assumes a Narrativist > Gameist > Simulationist play-style, where the substance (who, what, where, when, why) is more fun for the players than the mechanics (how). *This is not true for all tables* which is why people, like Kelsey and many others, emphasize mechanical changes rather than offering up content.
NOTICE HOW MANY OTHER PEOPLE AGREED WITH YOU AND POSTED IDEAS AS YOU REQUESTED IN YOUR ORIGINAL POST :)
First, thanks for the kind words. Second, I commented on the subjective nature of the problem itself because I think it's crucial to forming a solution if you are experiencing the problem.
I believe in discussing C-M D so much that I started a very similar thread a year ago. One thing that thread taught me is that pretending that there is only one game experience is a good way to start forum arguments, but it doesn't actually help you balance your game. Even if you argue from the point of disparity and fixing it with house rules, you should bear this in mind. It will help you create a better solution and discuss it in a public forum without bickering over minutiae.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is a common theme here, Kelsey -- when starting any kind of mechanical tinkering thread in the Suggestions/House Rules/Homebrew section, you get mobbed with Rule 0 invocations and a litany of "everything is fine in my game so therefore nothing needs to be fixed the rules are perfect how dare you want to change anything." It's less bad now than it was a short time ago when, out of sheer frustration, I started a thread entitled something like "Thread Only For People Who Think Everything Isn't Fine -- Rule Zero Keep Out!"
The Malicious Former President raises an important caveat, though: if your players are in the "the worst rules in the world are Prefectly Fine because it's the DM's job to fix all the problems during play" camp, then by agreeing to DM for them, you're agreeing to assume that responsibility without any visible tinkering with the rules.
If your group shares your viewpoint, however, then house rule away!
A lot of the discussion is dancing one of the larger problems with all martial classes. The way feats and combat manuvers interact.
Want to be able to Strike Back at a creature with reach? Get a feat.
Want to be able to Step up to a caster taking a five foot away to cast? Get a feat.
Want to be able to be Disruptive to casters just by being near them? Get a feat.
Want to be able to Finesse weapons using dexterity to hit instead of strength? Get a feat.
There are a lot of situational actions that require a feat to be able to use(like Strike Back), or to use the action effectively(tripping without improved trip is generally a bad idea).
There are a lot of feats that allow you to do things that you should be able to do anyway. A fighter can do ok, because they have a ton of feats, but it greatly limits the feat based options of non-fighters.
There are a lot of houserules that give away a large number of feats for free without really impacting game balance. I think if you took a bunch of the more situational combat feats and make them into talents that are automatically granted at a certain level, it would help the martial characters out a lot and give them a lot more options in combat.
For example...
Improved trip/disarm/bullruse/etc go away.
Any class with a +5 BAB can perform these manuvers without provoking an AoO.
At +10 BAB, you get a +1 to performing these manuvers.
At +15 BAB, you get a +2 to performing these manuvers.
That's why my ideas for fixes are often gratuitous handouts of feats-by-level. For mundanes (barbarians, fighters and rogues), these are often combat feats and skill focus feats.
The other thing my fixes tend to give out is stat bonuses. High level non-casters should, instead of being able to wield vast power, be superhuman themselves in both skill and raw ability. It meshes with the notion that they are facing off against powers beyond what mortals should - giants, dragons, demons, gods, powerful wizards, high-priests ...
Thing is, is that casters need to level as well in order to gain their abilities. Granted, a wizard can learn new spells via scrolls, but, to access new tiers of spells takes 2 levels. That's the same amount of time for a new feat, which, similarly, allows you to do something differently and/or better. Now, the only thing I see that is potentially "unfair" is that the Wizard can gain new spells to cast without leveling, although they're the same level of spells they already had access to. So, would a system where non-casters can gain certain combat tricks (not as powerful as a full feat (aka it might not grant a +1 to attack but may let you reroll an attack 1/day maybe???) but it gives something extra) without leveling be helpful?
Did you just equate a combat feat to a spell level?
What combat feat can compare with Teleport? Or Divine Power? Or Glibness? Even the ability to use any of these 1/day?
Those are individual spells. Wizards learn 2 every level. Spontaneous casters learn more spells-known every level. Every casting class get more than 1 extra spell slot per character level once they're in the mid to low levels; their magic gets exponential growth.
The difference between spell progression and feat/skill progression is certainly not worth 0.5 BAB or 2 hitpoints.
What non-casters should get it a growth that is as exponential as the casters, and it needs to be a 2-dimensional growth; breadth of utility as well as magnitude. That's what casters get, and it lets them always have something to do, some way to make a strong contribution in the mid-levels and beyond. When you're a non-caster, you're obviously not going to be contributing the same way as a caster (which is good; we like disparity), but skills, feats and carefully designed (non-supernatural) class abilities are a good start.
If the issue is "moving and still doing your thing" then what about auto-granting martial classes, or providing an additional feat, that let's them still move their full speed and do a portion of their full-attacks depending on level.
Full attack is still a full-round action, but you can move up to your full normal movement rate before taking your attacks at a -2 penalty for every five feet you move after the first five foot step. So you can move and take a single shot at your full BAB, or move and take all your attacks at a penalty, or stand still and take all of your attacks at no penalty.
I still think the concept of iterative attacks is borked.
If the issue is "moving and still doing your thing" then what about auto-granting martial classes, or providing an additional feat, that let's them still move their full speed and do a portion of their full-attacks depending on level.
At level 10, you'd get a quarter of your full-attack attacks. At level 15, you get half. At 20, you get 75%. How's that sound?
I went with free Vital Strike feat chain for everybody with the requisite BAB.
Want to be able to Strike Back at a creature with reach? Get a feat.
Want to be able to Step up to a caster taking a five foot away to cast? Get a feat.
Want to be able to be Disruptive to casters just by being near them? Get a feat.
Want to be able to Finesse weapons using dexterity to hit instead of strength? Get a feat.
Agreed, but one could say the same thing of meta magic feats. Want to increase duration? Get a feat, then increase the spell slot level. Same thing for more power, more range, more area, ect.
Agreed, but one could say the same thing of meta magic feats. Want to increase duration? Get a feat, then increase the spell slot level. Same thing for more power, more range, more area, ect.Agreed, but one could say the same thing of meta magic feats. Want to increase duration? Get a feat, then increase the spell slot level. Same thing for more power, more range, more area, ect.Want to be able to Strike Back at a creature with reach? Get a feat.
Want to be able to Step up to a caster taking a five foot away to cast? Get a feat.
Want to be able to be Disruptive to casters just by being near them? Get a feat.
Want to be able to Finesse weapons using dexterity to hit instead of strength? Get a feat.
Not really, casters get exponential power growth.
Want to increase duration? Gain a level.Want to do more damage? Gain a level.
Want more range? Gain a level.
I think you get the point.
Quicken metamagic really has no martial equivalent.
This is why I find a lot of metamagic feats to be a waste. Extend metamagic is good when I am level 3 and I want a spell to last 6 rounds, but when I am level 10, makin a spell last 20 rounds is usually a waste because most combats are decided by the 5th round.
|
|
How would YOU fix the supposed Caster / Martial disparity?
Quite honestly, I haven't had to.
My players play mostly martial or melee type characters. Those that play casters don't think too hard about their spells. Once in awhile, one works out really well for the party, and the martial players exclaim 'Damn that was awesome!' before getting back to the game.
As a DM, I have it pretty easy.
Did you just equate a combat feat to a spell level?
What combat feat can compare with Teleport? Or Divine Power? Or Glibness? Even the ability to use any of these 1/day?Those are individual spells. Wizards learn 2 every level. Spontaneous casters learn more spells-known every level. Every casting class get more than 1 extra spell slot per character level once they're in the mid to low levels; their magic gets exponential growth.
The difference between spell progression and feat/skill progression is certainly not worth 0.5 BAB or 2 hitpoints.
What non-casters should get it a growth that is as exponential as the casters, and it needs to be a 2-dimensional growth; breadth of utility as well as magnitude. That's what casters get, and it lets them always have something to do, some way to make a strong contribution in the mid-levels and beyond.
Considering a lot of feats are chained and you similarly need access to levels 0 through 8 before you can cast 9th level spells, yes, they are similar. It seems to me the "disparity" only comes to full effect at level 17+, when a caster gets access to level 9 spells like wish.
So what's the deal? All I see are people butthurt that non-casters can't cast spells. Well, that's why they're non-casters. If you want to cast spells, play a caster.
A lot of the high level martial classes gain innate immunities and resistances that takes a caster going through a lot of hoops to do. How is that fair? There's give and take on both sides. Casters are s%&# in anti-magic areas and can't do anything should a fighter break though to melee range or even 30 feet for ranged attacks. They're almost guaranteed to be hit and have a LOT less hit points than martial types.
If you want non-casters to have something by level 20 to be on par with miracle and wish without technically being a spell, then why have casters at all? Pathfinder lives in a very magical world. Like any other environment, if you learn to take advantage of how it works, then you will master that environment. So, I think that, ultimately, the difference is one of a system based on fantasy magic rather than generic fantasy. Until that changes, mechanics will always be tilted in favor of casters and that's how it should be as that's how it was intended to be. It'd be messed up to have casters at the bottom of the pyramid when the underpinnings of the world are magical themselves.
That doesn't mean I don't sympathize with martial characters who can't cast feather fall to stop themselves from dying. But, there should be a bit of "this is why I'm special" to each of the classes. Going over the list though, there is a great many number of them can cast spells. I believe only the stock fighter and barbarian don't cast spells. Even monks get ki which is allows them to do things "above and beyond" and they even become magical at level 20. That said, the barbarian and fighter are characters who are described to be solely focused on combat. Bluntly, they don't care about magic.
I have enjoyed the number of martial characters being introduced such as the ninja and gunslinger. I think this sorta balances the scales a little concerning number of classes.
The only ways I see non-casters being made "equal" without breaking the premise of the Pathfinder universe is to greatly increase a) their ability to deal damage so much so that their standard attack is either equal or just under an equal level evocation spell, b) make them even harder to hit or give them even more hitpoints, even though they can easily have double that of a caster, c) give them abilities that either mitigate or negate certain types of magic in non-magical ways similar to DR, but instead of DR/magic it would be DR/necromancy, for example, and d) allow them to more opportunities to confer certain conditions upon their target as a direct result of their attack (such as increasing the number of ways they can confer the bleeding condition, for example).
Things like that mixed with a good story and good players would make an all-martial character almost equal to a caster in terms of a one on one fight. We need good story because, to be honest, a lot of GMs favor magic almost exclusively and this exacerbates the ability discrepancy in abilities so an environment should be character-agnostic. That said, you need good players to take advantage of that environment. All this requires is a good imagination. Spells, while potent, are precise and limited to the letter of their function. A caster can't simply dream up an effect and say "I want to do this." They require the necessary spell and must meet all it's requirements and are bound to the description of what it does and the limits on the magic system. You can put a survivalist in the middle of a forest, though, and come back in a couple weeks and they can have a pretty comfortable setting because they can mix and match according to their liking. This translates to gameplay by actively dissuading players away from playing big dumb fighters. Play fighters but play fighters that are aware of their environment and actively seek to leverage it to their advantage and GMs should be actively encouraging that as well.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So what's the deal? All I see are people butthurt that non-casters can't cast spells. Well, that's why they're non-casters. If you want to cast spells, play a caster.
The big deal is that when a caster gains a level, they gain power and versatility. A caster's current spells do more damage/last longer/go further/etc., and they gain new spells.
A martial gains power, but they gain a whole lot less versatility.
Going from level 9 to level 11, a barbarian gains
- an iterative attack -> more damage
- +2 to hit with all attacks -> more damage
- Pounce -> another way to deal damage
- +1/- to their damage reduction -> allows you to stay in combat longer and deal more damage
- +2 str when raging -> more damage
- +2 con when raging -> allows you to stay in combat longer and deal more damage
- +1 to will saves when raging -> allows you to avoid being taken out of the fight so you can deal more damage
- 1 feat, which is most likely something that lets you deal more damage
Going from level 9 to level 11, a wizard gains
- an iterative attack if you ever decide to actual make attacks
- +1 to hit on all attacks
- 2 level 5 spells, lets go with teleport and polymorph
- 2 level 6 spells, lets go with disintegrate and cloak of dreams
- 1 feats let go with toppling spells so that my spell level 2 magic missles can trip people
- 1 bonus feat, lets go with sickening spell so that all my damage spells can also apple a debuff
As it goes up, it only gets worse. The wizard gains more and more versatility, the barbarian's versatilty increases slightly, but you get tons and tons of damage.
The problem is that dealing tons and tons of damage can only solve so many problems. What if you need to incapicitate someone? To get past a chasm? Even a skill heavy class like a rogue loses to a wizard when it comes to non-combat obstacles at higher levels.
I don't want martials classes to have spells, but being able to do cool and amazing feats of mundane prowess would be nice.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
All I see are people butthurt that non-casters can't do anything except stand in place and swing a stick. Well, that's why they're nothing but caddies. If you want to do anything other than swing a stick, play a caster.
Edited to show how many others see it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Considering a lot of feats are chained and you similarly need access to levels 0 through 8 before you can cast 9th level spells, yes, they are similar.Prerequisites and progression do not make equality. A feat is inferior to a spell in both scale and utility.
It seems to me the "disparity" only comes to full effect at level 17+, when a caster gets access to level 9 spells like wish.
First, a disclaimer: There is no guarantee of magic item availability. Further, gear-based answers can be used to equate a commoner to any class, which is absurd. I say this to remedy any thoughts along this line before they start.
That said, how do non-casters compete with Fly? Teleport? Glibness? Divination? When the group has to chase a fleeing dragon or griffon, which characters can actually do anything about it? Which characters are the ones which let you go find the lost artifact on the astral plane? Which characters allow the group the ability to heal up in hostile territory? The answer to all these are casters.
Which characters can beat a giant to death? Non-casters and casters.
This is the disparity: Casters can be built to do martial's role.
Martials in and of themselves have no chance of doing things which casters can routinely do.
This is disparity.
Should there be disparity? Yes, in that some abilities don't belong on many classes. Most of the ones above qualify as things which don't belong on non-casters.
However, the issue I have with your comparison (feat = spell level) is that individual spells are greater than feats.
Telekinesis is a prime example in that it is better than Improved Disarm, Improved Bull Rush, Improved Grapple and Improved Trip, all at once - no AoO, and at 400'+ range, and always using your best stat with no feat prereqs. One casting can last the entire combat, so a level 12+ sorc or wiz has just replaced 4 combat feats for every combat of any given day, by being able to cast it once per combat. All while safely at long range.
So what's the deal? All I see are people butthurt that non-casters can't cast spells. Well, that's why they're non-casters. If you want to cast spells, play a caster.I sincerely hope you're just trying to bait people here. If not, I'm wasting my time for reasons best left unspoken.
If you want non-casters to have something by level 20 to be on par with miracle and wish without technically being a spell, then why have casters at all?
You're obviously not talking to me or anything I posted. If so, that's a logical leap which could break a record somewhere. But just in case, allow a clarification:
In my opinion, non-casters need two things to be viable in the mid-level and high-level game. Things which casters already get by being casters.1: To have superhuman magnitude, such as great strength or speed, to reflect that they are now beyond the ken of normal people. These are now legendary heroes (at level 11+ this is 100% true, as they qualify as subjects for the Legend Lore spell).
2: To have a breadth of options, such as combat utility, social utility, significant down-time contribution to the team, and combat preparation. Most non-casting classes are severely limited in this.
Casters get limited access to both of these at level 1, by being able to cast spells; the limitations fade to insignificant by the mid-level game. By the high level game, they are primary contributors to every facet of the game.