There Is No Imbalance Between Martials and Casters.

[Cheapy]

Well said.

This is a messageboards problem and one seen predominantly in the games of people who are on the messageboards. Regardless of which messageboard it is. A tempest in a teacup.

There can be issues, but only when things are pushed to their limits, and in many many MANY games, martials are by far the most powerful characters.

This is especially true at the levels that most people play at (lower levels), and in the average game.

[Fergie]

The problem with this thread is the inherent flaw of complaining about the caster/martial imbalance. The problem is not that casters and martials are not perfectly balanced. Really no one expects that.

People refer to the caster/martial disparity, because the two character types do not even have parity. They are not in the same league.

As the OP said, this has been a problem since AD&D and has improved with every edition of the game. As Pathfinder was 3.5 compatible, there was only so much they could improve it. Why would you not expect people to keep wanting the game to improve?

[Orville Redenbacher]

OP, do you have a newsletter?

[The Dead horse]

I heard imbalance

[Darksol the Painbringer]

Serum wrote:

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

This PC is 12th level, making him CR 11.

/pedantic

Technically CR 12, NPC wealth is CR-1.

Isn't a PC's CR equal to their character level - 1?

[RDM42]

First why presume you can't have the buffs - in a party the martials will have them you're not playing individual classes you are playing individual classes within a party structure which aid each other. Second, why is it always presumed the caster has all of their buffs up and summons present instead of having to spend combat rounds getting there?

[Anzyr]

Cheapy wrote:

Well said.

This is a messageboards problem and one seen predominantly in the games of people who are on the messageboards. Regardless of which messageboard it is. A tempest in a teacup.

There can be issues, but only when things are pushed to their limits, and in many many MANY games, martials are by far the most powerful characters.

This is especially true at the levels that most people play at (lower levels), and in the average game.

Nonsense. I've seen many a new player sit down to play Druid and end up obsoleting martials. For them it was just a matter of sitting and reading to see what abilities each form gave. Then what spells would increase their power. The key here I believe is that those players actually read the book. Like I did when I first started, and like I suspect not everyone does.

[Anzyr]

RDM42 wrote:

First why presume you can't have the buffs - in a party the martials will have them you're not playing individual classes you are playing individual classes within a party structure which aid each other. Second, why is it always presumed the caster has all of their buffs up and summons present instead of having to spend combat rounds getting there?

Because saying "I got X benefit from Y class that lets me contribute" says a lot about Y classes power, but nothing positive about your own. If you need Y classes buff to contribute, then Y class seems strong since it gives you the power to contribute, while your class seems weak since it needs help to contribute.

I only presume long term caster buffs. That is day/level, hour/level and 10 min/level. Fortunately most of those buffs are completely amazing. Summons are awesome, but they are in fight battlefield control (unless you are a Summoner or Occultist Arcanist). The more helpful minions are those created by Animate Dead/Object and called by Planar Binding spells.

[kyrt-ryder]

RDM42 wrote:

First why presume you can't have the buffs - in a party the martials will have them you're not playing individual classes you are playing individual classes within a party structure which aid each other. Second, why is it always presumed the caster has all of their buffs up and summons present instead of having to spend combat rounds getting there?

It's because Pathfinder makes no claim about needing a 'balanced party.'

A group of four wizards or clerics or witches or druids crushes adventures [Sorcerers and Oracles as well.] A group of 4 Fighters is lucky to scrape through at all [and a group of 4 Barbarians does a bit better- assuming one of them went archery of course- but still struggles]

[Aranna]

TOZ wrote:

This will only end in tears.

~hands TOZ a box of tissues~

Balance between classes? Do we really want this? Part of the fun of games like Pathfinder, d20, and 3.x was building your personal hero using a big toolbox of options. When you homogenize the classes like 4e you loose that sense of building something uniquely yours. Of course there IS a drawback to the big toolbox of options; people with a greater mastery of the system can make stronger characters than people without this skill and if there are clearly superior options soon all the build masters will be using only those options making it just as cookie cutter as the homogenized system.

[kyrt-ryder]

Balance does not equal homogenization [homogenization is only one of several paths towards balance.] This comes up over and over and over again in threads but somehow people keep making the claim.

[TriOmegaZero]

Aranna wrote:

TOZ wrote:

This will only end in tears.

~hands TOZ a box of tissues~

Balance between classes? Do we really want this?

Absolutely.

[Lemmy]

Ah, the good old "If I don't see the problem, it doesn't exist". I have never gone hungry or homeless, therefore, everyone in the world is well-fed and has a nice home.

And of course, another instance of the great 4th Edition Fallacy... "4e achieved balance through homogenization, therefore all attempts at balance lead to homogenization". Because, obviously the game design used in 4e is the only possible way of balancing an RPG game. There are zero alternatives. ZERO!

[HWalsh]

Okay I see a lot of straw men posts here.

It seems that writing Double Shot instead of Rapid Shot at 7am is an issue, oh and the fact that, even though, it's totally possible to get a bow that casts Gravity Bow on the user of the bow that makes the whole thing a homebrew...

Also since I said, I don't know, only 3 times, that I wasn't even TRYING to maximize damage that by not maximizing damage I wasn't making a valid point. The point is that Martials *can* kill Casters. Pretty easily...

And they can, especially if, as some posters here claim they could do 250 in a single attack (which, sure can be done) but that means Martials are so badly underpowered...

That last was a bit of sarcasm.

It also goes to show how off their rockers the people complaining about these non-issues are.

The same people who decry the percieved disparity are the same ones who scoff at a bare bones, not fully outlined, basic layout, hypothetical Archer only doing 105 damage.

It's literally like looking at a modern mmo forum where people talk about optimized builds.

Let's be honest here... If you are min-maxing, and fully rested, and have access to all of your spells... Sure... You're going to be uber powerful and break the game.

The problem is, when you are super min-maxed you also can't complain about being powerful.

I'm pretty happy to live in a world where up to 105 damage per round would be seen as, "Not bad." Where 250 damage a round is seen as a bit of overkill. Considering nothing of equal level should be able to survive a hit like that.

[glass]

HWalsh wrote:

We've seen 1:1 balance. It was 4th, and it was terrible. Why would anyone be clamoring for that. It was a flop, it drove people from the game, it wasn't any fun. It turned combat into an MMO. It was just... Ugh...

Other people have tackled the OP so I won't bother reiterating. But much like the thesis of the OP, not a single one of these things is true.

1. 4e's balance is a lot better than better than Pathfinder's (or any other edition of D&D with the possble exception of OD&D), but it was damn far from perfect. Just compare a Binder Warlock with any actual controller class. EDIT: Or with the vanilla Warlock, who is generally considered to have more control than its supposedly-controller subclass, in addition to being a full-on striker.

2. It was not "terrible". It did what it set out to do, and did it damn well (although as noted, not perfectly). It may not have been to your taste, but that is a far cry from being "terrible".

3. It was a "flop" that made literally millions of dollars and was played it and enjoyed by literally millions of people (some, like me, still do). The only measure by which it was anything other than a fantastic success was, unfortunately, Hasbro's.

4. It sure seemed like I was having fun on Thursday night. Good job I've got you to tell me it was actually something else, eh?

5. What the hell does "turned combat into an MMO" even mean? Certainly my game each week has six people sitting around a meatspace table with dice & paper character sheets. It was therefore neither "massively-multilayer" nor "online".

_
glass.

[mplindustries]

Oceanshieldwolf wrote:

And yes, 4e made martial and casters balanced, and verily, it wath boring.

I really liked 4e combat and martial/caster balance. I liked every class except Strikers--they were the boring ones, since all they did was damage.

HWalsh wrote:

Never have I seen this phenomena where people who are supposed to be on the same team are sniping at one another. It makes absolutely no sense.

Yes, it does make sense. If you and I both want to roleplay a game about being a hero, and I solve every problem and save the day every time while you do almost nothing or have negligible effects on the outcome, do you still feel like a hero because you just happened to be on my team? Why would you ever want to be Xander if you could be Buffy? There were even several episodes when he lamented the same thing! Being the sidekick sucks--being forced into being the sidekick because your chosen flavor of roleplaying (i.e., not being magic) is inherently weaker double sucks.

HWalsh wrote:

We've seen 1:1 balance. It was 4th, and it was terrible. Why would anyone be clamoring for that. It was a flop, it drove people from the game, it wasn't any fun. It turned combat into an MMO. It was just... Ugh...

I really liked 4e's combat and class balance and would play it in a second. Now, I wouldn't GM it in a million years because I despise monster design, skill challenges, the lack of actual progression despite number inflation...there were plenty of problems that weren't class balance.

And honestly, in my experience, there were two kinds of people that complained about 4e class balance/homogenization:

1) People that want their spellcasters to run roughshot over the game and were mad that they didn't automatically win all the narrative power by just choosing the right class (in other words, I don't want to cater to jerks like that)

2) People that didn't realize all of the classic, noncombat utility magic still existed in ritual form, because they read the classes, got mad, and stopped going further. The main difference? Literally anyone, fighters included, could do ritual magic and teleport, plane shift, etc. It was a great idea. Maybe, arguably, poor execution, but nobody ever talks about it, they just ignore it.

HWalsh wrote:

I mean, for example, an 84 HP Wizard who suffers a full round sneak attack from a Rogue...

Stop there--a wizard who suffers a full attack from any pure martial without spellcaster back up is a terrible wizard who deserves to die. There are so many absurd utilities available that the very notion of being attacked in melee or affected by arrows (windwall, or Fickle Winds, for example) is absurd. You need a caster to beat a caster, even if the martial is the one actually dealing the damage.

[Aranna]

Lemmy wrote:

Ah, the good old "If I don't see the problem, it doesn't exist". I have never gone hungry or homeless, therefore, everyone in the world is well-fed and has a nice home.

And of course, another instance of the great 4th Edition Fallacy... "4e achieved balance through homogenization, therefore all attempts at balance lead to homogenization". Because, obviously the game design used in 4e is the only possible way of balancing an RPG game. There are zero alternatives. ZERO!

And yet you fail to present a counter example.

If it's so easy to balance without homogenizing then where is the example?

[Lemmy]

HWalsh wrote:

I'm pretty happy to live in a world where up to 105 damage per round would be seen as, "Not bad." Where 250 damage a round is seen as a bit of overkill. Considering nothing of equal level should be able to survive a hit like that.

And you completely missed the point... Those who say martials are underpowered are not complaining about martial classes' damage output.

[Aranna]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Aranna wrote:

TOZ wrote:

This will only end in tears.

~hands TOZ a box of tissues~

Balance between classes? Do we really want this?

Absolutely.

Well I can't fault you on your conviction.

:)

[mplindustries]

Aranna wrote:

Lemmy wrote:

Ah, the good old "If I don't see the problem, it doesn't exist". I have never gone hungry or homeless, therefore, everyone in the world is well-fed and has a nice home.

And of course, another instance of the great 4th Edition Fallacy... "4e achieved balance through homogenization, therefore all attempts at balance lead to homogenization". Because, obviously the game design used in 4e is the only possible way of balancing an RPG game. There are zero alternatives. ZERO!

And yet you fail to present a counter example.

If it's so easy to balance without homogenizing then where is the example?

Kirthfinder

SKR's still-in-production Five Moons
Dozens of non-d20 rpgs that don't seem to have a problem with the idea

[Anzyr]

Aranna wrote:

Lemmy wrote:

Ah, the good old "If I don't see the problem, it doesn't exist". I have never gone hungry or homeless, therefore, everyone in the world is well-fed and has a nice home.

And of course, another instance of the great 4th Edition Fallacy... "4e achieved balance through homogenization, therefore all attempts at balance lead to homogenization". Because, obviously the game design used in 4e is the only possible way of balancing an RPG game. There are zero alternatives. ZERO!

And yet you fail to present a counter example.

If it's so easy to balance without homogenizing then where is the example?

Ask and ye shall receive.

Legend

[Bandw2]

BigDTBone wrote:

BWA HA HA HA HA HA!!!

That was the sound of the point flying straight over your head with a pinch of ridicule from Kudaku. 100 DPR is absurdly low for a 15th level fighter. Average DPR for a 15th level fighter is closer to 250.

But this illustrates the point beautifully! Your complete and total lack of system mastery is on full display. You have no idea what you are yapping your flapping gums about. You are in fact SO OVLIVIOUS to the pathfinder system that you didn't instantly recognize absurdly wrong numbers for your 15th level fighter (neither when you said them nor when they were tossed back at you.) You have no idea about what makes a good caster in pathfinder. You have no concept of what is actually allowed by the rules when players actually read the full spell descriptions.

it's been kinda fun dealing with him in the other threads. we post mechanical evidence, he posts anecdotal evidence. *shrug*

on the actual topic, kinda anyway, i looked into people's suggestions on sphere of power, omg it was so beautiful i could cry, they nerfed casters while making it more interesting and easier to deal with all at he same time.

edit: looked at some of Hwalsh's latest posts, i keep bringing this up. WHY DOES EVERY PERSON WHO SAYS THEY'RE NOT UNDER POWERED KEEP BRINGING UP HOW MUCH DAMAGE THEY DO, NO ONE WORTH THEIR SALT WITH PATHFINDER THINKS FIGHTERS DO LOW DAMAGE. WE THINK THAT THEY ARE ARBITRARILY TIED DOWN BY THE FEAT SYSTEM AND FORCED INTO NARROW STRATEGIES TO DEAL WITH PLOT, NAMELY THEY ONLY REALLY CAN JUST KILL THE BADGUY BY SLUGGING THROUGH HIS FORT OF DOOM.

[Bandw2]

Anzyr wrote:

Aranna wrote:

Lemmy wrote:

Ah, the good old "If I don't see the problem, it doesn't exist". I have never gone hungry or homeless, therefore, everyone in the world is well-fed and has a nice home.

And of course, another instance of the great 4th Edition Fallacy... "4e achieved balance through homogenization, therefore all attempts at balance lead to homogenization". Because, obviously the game design used in 4e is the only possible way of balancing an RPG game. There are zero alternatives. ZERO!

And yet you fail to present a counter example.

If it's so easy to balance without homogenizing then where is the example?

Ask and ye shall receive.

Legend

my badass martial thread kinda fixes a lot of stuff, particularly overland travel for martials is an option that i quite liked.

[glass]

Aranna wrote:

If it's so easy to balance without homogenizing then where is the example?

4e is the example.

The "homogenisation" is edition-warrior misinformation, not a feature of the actual game.

_
glass.

[Lemmy]

Aranna wrote:

And yet you fail to present a counter example.

If it's so easy to balance without homogenizing then where is the example?

Never said it was easy... But are you claiming that the only way of balancing the game is through homogenization? Because even in Pathfinder we have pretty balanced classes that are pretty different from one another... Even if they are not perfectly balanced. And not balanced with other classes.

Inquisitor, Paladin, Bard, Barbarian, Alchemist and Magus are pretty well balanced with one another. They are not perfectly balanced, but they are balanced enough as not to be an issue except in the most optimized and ruthless games or campaigns who focus too much on one class' strengths/weakness (e.g.: Paladins are not very good at stealth/intrigue games, but that doesn't mean they are underpowered).

[HWalsh]

Lemmy wrote:

HWalsh wrote:

I'm pretty happy to live in a world where up to 105 damage per round would be seen as, "Not bad." Where 250 damage a round is seen as a bit of overkill. Considering nothing of equal level should be able to survive a hit like that.

And you completely missed the point... Those who say martials are underpowered are not complaining about martial classes' damage output.

No, those who say Martials are underpowered are also saying that 4e was wonderful. 4e was so bad and universally panned that it nearly killed D&D.

I've seen the posts. The idea is that these same players think "Martials" shouldn't have to spend gold on magic items and instead should have high end magic items be baked into the class features.

They complain that a wizard could fly up a wall, and they cry foul if someone points out that magic boots would allow a martial the same ability.

[TriOmegaZero]

Aranna wrote:

Well I can't fault you on your conviction.

:)

Nor I yours! ;)

[Seranov]

When Spheres of Power gets on the PFSRD (sans the art!) it will be a beautiful day.

Anyway, what's this cluster**** about? Right, grognardism and "if it didn't happen to me it didn't happen" fallacy. Wizard can do everything, Fighter can only hit things. Wizard is a PC class, Fighter is a NPC class that isn't properly noted as such.

Also, if the Wizard gets his flying for free, so should the Fighter. Because they both have the same pool of funds to use, and the Fighter is required to spend all his on not being a useless waste of space, while the Wizard can spend his on whatever he wants.

[Bandw2]

HWalsh wrote:

Lemmy wrote:

HWalsh wrote:

I'm pretty happy to live in a world where up to 105 damage per round would be seen as, "Not bad." Where 250 damage a round is seen as a bit of overkill. Considering nothing of equal level should be able to survive a hit like that.

And you completely missed the point... Those who say martials are underpowered are not complaining about martial classes' damage output.

No, those who say Martials are underpowered are also saying that 4e was wonderful.

Citation needed.

[Anzyr]

glass wrote:

Aranna wrote:

If it's so easy to balance without homogenizing then where is the example?

4e is the example.

The "homogenisation" is edition-warrior misinformation, not a feature of the actual game.

_
glass.

As someone who doesn't have any strong feelings one way or another on 4E, when people say 4E was homogenizing they are talking about the first PHB, which was very homogenizing. Yes, many of the newer publications moved away from that, but within the context of the 4E original PHB claims of homogenization are not mistaken.

Compare the similarities between the original PHB 4E classes to the similarities between classes in the CRB of PAthfinder. Clearly, the 4E classes are more homogenized. Again, I have no strong feelings on 4E I'm simply clarifying.

[Lemmy]

HWalsh wrote:

Lemmy wrote:

HWalsh wrote:

I'm pretty happy to live in a world where up to 105 damage per round would be seen as, "Not bad." Where 250 damage a round is seen as a bit of overkill. Considering nothing of equal level should be able to survive a hit like that.

And you completely missed the point... Those who say martials are underpowered are not complaining about martial classes' damage output.

No, those who say Martials are underpowered are also saying that 4e was wonderful.

Are they? You must be reading the posts from a different forum than I.

[kyrt-ryder]

HWalsh wrote:

Lemmy wrote:

HWalsh wrote:

I'm pretty happy to live in a world where up to 105 damage per round would be seen as, "Not bad." Where 250 damage a round is seen as a bit of overkill. Considering nothing of equal level should be able to survive a hit like that.

And you completely missed the point... Those who say martials are underpowered are not complaining about martial classes' damage output.

No, those who say Martials are underpowered are also saying that 4e was wonderful. 4e was so bad and universally panned that it nearly killed D&D.

Excuse me?

I'm a very prominent Martials-are-underpowered poster on these boards and I hated 4E.

If I liked 4E I would have played it more rather than tried it a few times and abandoned it forever.

Quote:

I've seen the posts. The idea is that these same players think "Martials" shouldn't have to spend gold on magic items and instead should have high end magic items be baked into the class features.

The problem isn't spending gold. The problem is that the martials are given a gold budget and the game is designed for them to spend 90-95% of that keeping up with the Joneses aka Monsters.

Quote:

They complain that a wizard could fly up a wall, and they cry foul if someone points out that magic boots would allow a martial the same ability.

There are two problems with this point.

Problem 1: this shit costs WAY more than its worth relative to the martial's need to invest in his baseline combat effectiveness.

Problem 2: This is the gear adventuring on its organic host rather than an Adventurer doing awesome shit.

[Aranna]

Well thanks for the attempts at examples... but I am unfamiliar with the Kirthfinder house rules (they were house rules right?), Five Moons (is it even out yet?), or Legend (Legend seems to be an actual system and seems to be available now)

But since I don't wish to learn a new game just for an argument perhaps people familiar with these 3 examples can tell me how they balance classes?

[HWalsh]

Seranov wrote:

When Spheres of Power gets on the PFSRD (sans the art!) it will be a beautiful day.

Anyway, what's this cluster**** about? Right, grognardism and "if it didn't happen to me it didn't happen" fallacy. Wizard can do everything, Fighter can only hit things. Wizard is a PC class, Fighter is a NPC class that isn't properly noted as such.

Also, if the Wizard gets his flying for free, so should the Fighter. Because they both have the same pool of funds to use, and the Fighter is required to spend all his on not being a useless waste of space, while the Wizard can spend his on whatever he wants.

Wizard doesn't get squat for free.

They pay for it with lack of armor, arcane spell failure, poor BAB, and by extension poor CMB/CMD, lower HP, and a baked in expensive resource system.

[kyrt-ryder]

I've skimmed legend but don't understand it enough to explain.

In Kirthfinder, martials receive cool stuff that increases narrative power and combat flexibility. Things like Rangers tracking someone through the planes [including bringing the party across the planar boundary and protecting them from planar environments] or Fighters being masters of the battlefield [for real, with actual mobility and reactions rather than being a stationary piece of meat] and lords of armies.

Meanwhile Spellcasters are brought down a peg. The worst offences of spellcasting are dealt with [Simulacrum, Planar Binding, Etc] and Spellcasting is a Full Round Action. Spellcasting can also be very easily interrupted by enemies reacting to the casting of the spell, thus they need martials to protect them.

[kyrt-ryder]

HWalsh wrote:

Seranov wrote:

When Spheres of Power gets on the PFSRD (sans the art!) it will be a beautiful day.

Anyway, what's this cluster**** about? Right, grognardism and "if it didn't happen to me it didn't happen" fallacy. Wizard can do everything, Fighter can only hit things. Wizard is a PC class, Fighter is a NPC class that isn't properly noted as such.

Also, if the Wizard gets his flying for free, so should the Fighter. Because they both have the same pool of funds to use, and the Fighter is required to spend all his on not being a useless waste of space, while the Wizard can spend his on whatever he wants.

Wizard doesn't get squat for free.

They pay for it with lack of armor, arcane spell failure, poor BAB, and by extension poor CMB/CMD, lower HP, and a baked in expensive resource system.

All factors which become non-factors by level 9 at the latest. By level 5 for the most part in my experience as a GM and player.

[HWalsh]

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Problem 2: This is the gear adventuring on its organic host rather than an Adventurer doing awesome s@&@.

King Arthur - I didn't realize his stories were about Excalibur and the scabbard.

Persius - I forgot that the story's really named, "This Greek kid with a winged horse, magic shield, and a magic sword.

I didn't realize that Iron Man wasn't about Tony Stark or that Adam Strange was about Rann tech.

A hero with magic items is still responsible for their use and it doesn't take away from the hero to have magical items.

[Lemmy]

HWalsh wrote:

Wizard doesn't get squat for free.

They pay for it with lack of armor, arcane spell failure, poor BAB, and by extension poor CMB/CMD, lower HP, and a baked in expensive resource system.

Ah, right... Let's see...

Wizards can't use armor... So tey get Mage Armor at level 1. And that last hours per level. Also Fly, Invisibility, Mirror Image, Shield and Blur, just to name a few...

They have lower hp... A great amount of... -2 hp per level? Which is all but insignificant. Also, false life. And healing spells.

They have low BAB... Good thing most spells don't require attack rolls, then. And the ones that do... Will target touch AC. And armor won't protect you against those.

And we can always remember how much gold casters save, compared to martials.

[kyrt-ryder]

HWalsh wrote:

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Problem 2: This is the gear adventuring on its organic host rather than an Adventurer doing awesome s@&@.

King Arthur - I didn't realize his stories were about Excalibur and the scabbard.

I didn't know Merlin demonstrated High Level Pathfinder Magic or even adventured alongside Arthur at all.

Quote:

Persius - I forgot that the story's really named, "thus Greek kid with a winged horse, magic shield, and a magic sword.

I didn't know Persius was attempting to keep up with Pathfinder-Tier casters

I also didn't know a horse was gear, or that a sword did anything magical for him aside from being powerful equipment.

Quote:

I didn't realize that Iron Man wasn't about Tony Stark or that Adam Strange was about Rann tech.

Iron Man was Tony Stark's creation/invention, ergo it WAS about him despite this amazingly powerful gear he used. I don't know Adam Strange so I won't comment.

Quote:

A hero with magic items is still responsible for their use and it doesn't take away from the hero to have magical items.

It does when the magic items go to Pathfinder levels, it really does become about the gear rather than the hero.

[Kobold Catgirl]

TOZ wrote:

This will only end in tears.

*a tear shed for those lost*

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Aranna wrote:

Well I can't fault you on your conviction.

:)

Nor I yours! ;)

Nor I mine!

[Prince of Knives]

Aranna wrote:

Well thanks for the attempts at examples... but I am unfamiliar with the Kirthfinder house rules (they were house rules right?), Five Moons (is it even out yet?), or Legend (Legend seems to be an actual system and seems to be available now)

But since I don't wish to learn a new game just for an argument perhaps people familiar with these 3 examples can tell me how they balance classes?

Legend relied on asymmetric balance; that is, options that play differently are still balanced to the same standards. The big feature of Legend is the Tracks system. A character has three Tracks, which advance at different rates for a total of one class feature per level. Each Track plays differently and has different roles and abilities; that is, Tactician Spellcasting plays differently from Acrobatic Adept which is in turn different from Iron Magi.

The idea is that even if you drunkenly picked three Tracks at random you'd end up with an effective character. Play experience suggests that Rule of Cool succeeded in this.

[HWalsh]

Lemmy wrote:

HWalsh wrote:

Wizard doesn't get squat for free.

They pay for it with lack of armor, arcane spell failure, poor BAB, and by extension poor CMB/CMD, lower HP, and a baked in expensive resource system.

Ah, right... Let's see...

Wizards can't use armor... So tey get Mage Armor at level 1. And that last hours per level. Also Fly, Invisibility, Mirror Image, Shield and Blur, just to name a few...

They have lower hp... A great amount of... -2 hp per level? Which is all but insignificant. Also, false life. And healing spells.

They have low BAB... Good thing most spells don't require attack rolls, then. And the ones that do... Will target touch AC. And armor won't protect you against those.

And we can always remember how much gold casters save, compared to martials.

Those things you mentioned all are part of the resource system. They choose between attack/utility/defense.

Low BAB means low CMD. Low CMD means vulnerabilities. In many cases catastrophic ones. A caster that finds themselves tripped to the ground, them blinded by a thumb to the eye (dirty trick) is in serious trouble.

[Seranov]

HWalsh wrote:

Seranov wrote:

When Spheres of Power gets on the PFSRD (sans the art!) it will be a beautiful day.

Anyway, what's this cluster**** about? Right, grognardism and "if it didn't happen to me it didn't happen" fallacy. Wizard can do everything, Fighter can only hit things. Wizard is a PC class, Fighter is a NPC class that isn't properly noted as such.

Also, if the Wizard gets his flying for free, so should the Fighter. Because they both have the same pool of funds to use, and the Fighter is required to spend all his on not being a useless waste of space, while the Wizard can spend his on whatever he wants.

Wizard doesn't get squat for free.

They pay for it with lack of armor, arcane spell failure, poor BAB, and by extension poor CMB/CMD, lower HP, and a baked in expensive resource system.

Haha, that's cute. It's like you think those things are actual roadblocks, considering the Wizard has ways to work around all of them.

No armor? Funny, Mage Armor, Bracers of Armor and the LAUNDRY LIST of defensive spells they get that are actually BETTER than just having high AC seem to disagree.
ASF? They don't wear actual armor, so this is a non-issue.
Poor BAB? Most spells target saves, or TOUCH AC at worst. Another non-issue.
Lower HP? False Life and the aforementioned defensive spells can take care of this.
Baked in expensive resource system? Good thing they don't need to buy anything but a headband and a cloak of resistance, then, and can spend nearly all their funds on buying scrolls/new spells/material components!

And before you bring up the BUT THEY CAN'T DO EVERYTHING ALL DAY that you inevitably will, I shall point out that while the Fighter was spending his money to actually be able to do his thing all day, the Wizard was, too. Buying wands, scrolls, potions and such that let him work well past when his own spells would run out. Assuming he even feels it necessary to use all of them.

[Lemmy]

HWalsh wrote:

Those things you mentioned all are part of the resource system. They choose between attack/utility/defense.

Yup. But the rate exchange is not fair.

HWalsh wrote:

Low BAB means low CMD. Low CMD means vulnerabilities. In many cases catastrophic ones. A caster that finds themselves tripped to the ground, them blinded by a thumb to the eye (dirty trick) is in serious trouble.

True... But good lucky tripping/blinding the flying/invisible/teleporting/whatever guy shooting fireballs and SoD from 300fts away... While hiding behind a bunch of skeletons.

[Aranna]

Prince of Knives wrote:

Aranna wrote:

Well thanks for the attempts at examples... but I am unfamiliar with the Kirthfinder house rules (they were house rules right?), Five Moons (is it even out yet?), or Legend (Legend seems to be an actual system and seems to be available now)

But since I don't wish to learn a new game just for an argument perhaps people familiar with these 3 examples can tell me how they balance classes?

Legend relied on asymmetric balance; that is, options that play differently are still balanced to the same standards. The big feature of Legend is the Tracks system. A character has three Tracks, which advance at different rates for a total of one class feature per level. Each Track plays differently and has different roles and abilities; that is, Tactician Spellcasting plays differently from Acrobatic Adept which is in turn different from Iron Magi.

The idea is that even if you drunkenly picked three Tracks at random you'd end up with an effective character. Play experience suggests that Rule of Cool succeeded in this.

That sounds... absolutely intriguing. Does this system have a free download for a demo of the rules? I may read it after all.

[Squirrel_Dude]

BigDTBone wrote:

HWalsh wrote:

Kudaku wrote:

52-102 damage? In a single full attack!?!

Sure, these are impressive numbers you're throwing around but can a 15th level fighter really put out this much damage every round? I think you need to show your math here.

Easily. I'm not even trying that hard to get that.

Okay so:

15th level Fighter gets 3 attacks:

15/10/5

Double Shot feat adds one extra attack, at full bonus, but all attacks take a -2.

So 13/13/8/3

A compound bow gives a strength bonus to damage, in this case we went with +2, at 5th, 9th, and 13th they get an additional +1 cumulative bonus to a weapon. In this case the bow. Weapon Specialization and Greater Weapon Specialization add more.

Many Shot makes the first shot double damage as well.

Gravity Bow gives the bow's 1d8 an upgrade to 2d6.

So 4 shots:
4d6+18
2d6+9
2d6+9
2d6+9

10d6+45 damage

So a 15th level Fighter with a bow enchanted with a level 1 spell permanently (Very within the realm of possibility) can get between 55-105 damage every single turn.

BWA HA HA HA HA HA!!!

That was the sound of the point flying straight over your head with a pinch of ridicule from Kudaku. 100 DPR is absurdly low for a 15th level fighter. Average DPR for a 15th level fighter is closer to 250.

But this illustrates the point beautifully! Your complete and total lack of system mastery is on full display. You have no idea what you are yapping your flapping gums about. You are in fact SO OVLIVIOUS to the pathfinder system that you didn't instantly recognize absurdly wrong numbers for your 15th level fighter (neither when you said them nor when they were tossed back at you.) You have no idea about what makes a good caster in pathfinder. You have no concept of what is actually allowed by the rules when players actually read the full spell descriptions.

Don't be a dick.

[Prince of Knives]

Aranna wrote:

Prince of Knives wrote:

Aranna wrote:

Well thanks for the attempts at examples... but I am unfamiliar with the Kirthfinder house rules (they were house rules right?), Five Moons (is it even out yet?), or Legend (Legend seems to be an actual system and seems to be available now)

But since I don't wish to learn a new game just for an argument perhaps people familiar with these 3 examples can tell me how they balance classes?

Legend relied on asymmetric balance; that is, options that play differently are still balanced to the same standards. The big feature of Legend is the Tracks system. A character has three Tracks, which advance at different rates for a total of one class feature per level. Each Track plays differently and has different roles and abilities; that is, Tactician Spellcasting plays differently from Acrobatic Adept which is in turn different from Iron Magi.

The idea is that even if you drunkenly picked three Tracks at random you'd end up with an effective character. Play experience suggests that Rule of Cool succeeded in this.

That sounds... absolutely intriguing. Does this system have a free download for a demo of the rules? I may read it after all.

The good news: the core rulebook is free from the official site, under the "Get the game!" link.

The bad news: there's no monster manual, which means significant work from the GM to get a campaign going.

The worse news: development has been canceled; no further content will be created. But the forums now contain all the unfinished content, which has been publicized.

[The black raven]

In answer to the Original Post :

1) Martials do not outshine Casters at low levels. They have indeed more resources and act more often with decisive actions against the enemy (ie, attacks), but the caster gets his moment of awesomeness when his well-chosen and well-timed spell turns a loss into a victory (Grease, Sleep, Color Spray).

2) Casters do outshine Martials at high level, especially because they aim for vulnerabilities that are still there at higher levels (ie, saves), while the Martials keep hacking at the one resource that just gets higher and higher (ie, HPs).

3) As you can see in the examples above, it is not a matter of winning the game, but of getting your moment of awesomeness while playing ;-)

[Nicos]

HWalsh wrote:

No, those who say Martials are underpowered are also saying that 4e was wonderful.

I miss the reunion when everyone that believe that there exist martial/caster disparity in PF agreed to say 4e was wonderful.

[Nicos]

HWalsh wrote:

Lemmy wrote:

HWalsh wrote:

Wizard doesn't get squat for free.

They pay for it with lack of armor, arcane spell failure, poor BAB, and by extension poor CMB/CMD, lower HP, and a baked in expensive resource system.

Ah, right... Let's see...

Wizards can't use armor... So tey get Mage Armor at level 1. And that last hours per level. Also Fly, Invisibility, Mirror Image, Shield and Blur, just to name a few...

They have lower hp... A great amount of... -2 hp per level? Which is all but insignificant. Also, false life. And healing spells.

They have low BAB... Good thing most spells don't require attack rolls, then. And the ones that do... Will target touch AC. And armor won't protect you against those.

And we can always remember how much gold casters save, compared to martials.

Those things you mentioned all are part of the resource system. They choose between attack/utility/defense.

Low BAB means low CMD. Low CMD means vulnerabilities. In many cases catastrophic ones. A caster that finds themselves tripped to the ground, them blinded by a thumb to the eye (dirty trick) is in serious trouble.

With all due respect, you really need to inform better of how things work with medium to high level caster in PF. You'll be surprised.