Its still pretty bad. You put a wizard and a fighter next to eachother and that wizard is still looking high and mighty. Cleric looks a little more mellow, and druid's wildshape isn't nearly as powerful.
Monks/Rogues/Fighters have dozens of threads about whats wrong and how to fix it. Paladins aren't so close to the bottom as they were in 3.5, but you still see threads about how easy it is to make them fall and about how hard it is to be one so they didn't luck out entirely.
Barbarians with ghost rager and superstition are great at keeping up with DCs I think, but the fact is there isn't exactly a warblade equivalent for martials so they still lack the chance to get a huge list of powers or even int synergy. Most classes aren't going to get the defences a superstitious barbarian is going to.
Its still pretty bad. They have nice abilities to fill in dead levels, and that did make classes more fun and interesting as whole I think, but martials still can't defend themselves very well and casters still have a spell for everything almost.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It depends on the level we're talking about and the campaign you're playing in. I would say Martials manage to outperform casters during the first 5 levels of play manage to stay fairly even throughout the next 5, and then begin to taper off dramatically as you go past level 10. This depends a lot on the build and which classes you are comparing of course. At the end of the day though "Stopping Time and creating my own world" still trumps "Shooting arrows really fast while riding a pegasus/dinosaur/camel/wolf".
The biggest differences com in to the options the casters have for problem resolution versus martials though. Martial characters can still consistently deal out equivalent or superior damage to most casters fairly easily. It's the whole flying/teleporting/creating pits and or walls/healing/dominating/save-or-die/save-or-suck thing that makes the real difference. Casters just have more ways to resolve a situation. For pure DPS or the ability to just hammer an enemy into the ground via direct damage, martials (or buff and swing gish hybrids) are probably actually better in most circumstances at all levels of play.
In the first 5 levels I have Color Spray and Create Pit. Druids have a lvl 2 buddy starting from level one. Even from the start martials aren't capable of doing such things.
|
|
In the first 5 levels I have Color Spray and Create Pit. Druids have a lvl 2 buddy starting from level one. Even from the start martials aren't capable of doing such things.
No they don't have Color Spray, but a Fighter or Barbarian with cleave can easily drop two APL equivalent foes in a single round at first level, and pets don't scale equivalently. Plus Pathfinder has multiple archetypes now that give martials pets of their own. The Cavalier gets a mount which can be a potent ally as much as a druid pet, Barbarians have the Mounted Fury and Mad Dog archetypes, Rangers of course have multiple ways to get pets, Paladins get a mount, Rogues and bards can both gain familiars, etc.
As I said, the advantage casters have is the number of options for resolution they get, and the battlefield control and ability to bypass some threats. For pure damage or static defenses, martials meet or exceed through most levels.
Depends on what your disparity is? Utility? Damage?
Utility? The casters are still out in front.
Damage? Well I have an archer in my game that is nigh unstoppable...and usually cranks out about 160 points of damage a round...mind you he does little else, and gods help the party if I can ever get him dominated. On the only slightly more modest side I also have a Roc riding Cavalier lancer who dive bombs targets and destroys things that don't run for cover. Granted those are two corner cases and they need situations for their combat monsterness to really shine. Ie...the cavalier is not as strong indoors or without his mount.
160 points of damage aside, all the hit points in the world won't save you if you fail your save vs, Phantasmal Killer, and if you don't have enough HP, a failed save VS Disintigrate or Slay Living could still ruin your day. So from my experience the disparity is still slightly there but is way better then the old 3.5 days, but then again I also played a lot of 4e (there is actually some stuff to like there) and one of my big take aways was that all the classes eventually felt too similar. The differences in classes and power levels is one of the things that attracted me back to Pathfinder.
In the first 5 levels I have Color Spray and Create Pit. Druids have a lvl 2 buddy starting from level one. Even from the start martials aren't capable of doing such things.No they don't have Color Spray, but a Fighter or Barbarian with cleave can easily drop two APL equivalent foes in a single round at first level, and pets don't scale equivalently. Plus Pathfinder has multiple archetypes now that give martials pets of their own. The Cavalier gets a mount which can be a potent ally as much as a druid pet, Barbarians have the Mounted Fury and Mad Dog archetypes, Rangers of course have multiple ways to get pets, Paladins get a mount, Rogues and bards can both gain familiars, etc.
As I said, the advantage casters have is the number of options for resolution they get, and the battlefield control and ability to bypass some threats. For pure damage or static defenses, martials meet or exceed through most levels.
Mad dog trades in for the animal companion more than its worth, mounted fury/ranger gets a mount at -4, and cavalier doesn't have nearly the selection. Druids still get a full companion with fullcasting, which includes buffing, and the option to wildshape.
I won't disagree with you about the second part. I was just trying to add in how they have battlefield control and Crowd Control of sorts right from the start.
|
|
Boon companion man, Boon Companion. The feat that equalizes critters. Cavaliers get that new Huntsman Archetype as well which can give him two level 3 Animal companions (avian or canine) at level 3.
Overall though yes, if there is a martial build that does something, there is probably a caster build that does that + magical awesomeness. Even the Barbarian can find his battlefield supremacy put to the test by an Orc Bloodline Sorcerer.
But they're much better balanced than in previous editions.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Perhaps the original poster could search on and pull up one of the dozens of multi-hundred comment threads on the issue instead of kicking off a new thread that will exhume the fine-grained dust that was once the dead horse of this debate and proceed to beat that fine-grained dust into finer-grained powder...
I favor buffing martials and making the game fun for everyone rather than nerfing. Nerfing creates a negative stigma with the people you just smacked with the bat.
I have never had to deal with the one encounter adventure day thing. Its usually 3 to 4, if its one I certainly don't expect that. I get ambushed and don't get many chances to buff before combat. People experience different things I guess.
I'm not sure if UMD and consumables are the same as having spellcasting yourself, and Smart builds doing well is very different than the over all difference between two builds of equivalent optimization.
If GM is smart he can fix unbalancin rules. Classes are too way different to be perfectly balanced. In my games casters are not the strongest. More versatile, but not the strongest. Actually none in my team made a damage focused caster btw. The main fix i did is on gear. There are not situation when caster can have insane spells' DC, and my players knows game enough to avoid excessive specialization. Not all 20 int first level character but without defense or skills to avoid a simple knife while they are not ready. Glass cannon can't live so much :) Also i don't give any spell of the manuals without checking its balance in game.
Perfectly balanced games usually are poor games. The problem with caster is only that they can have access to too much spells. The GM should first decide is a spell is available in his campaign. Also, since this is a RPG and not 4th edition, settings and story > RAW, so every GM is encouraged (in manuals too) to adapt the rules to his game. Same for feats, classes, etc. Casters usually become very powerful since they have access to all spells, can create magic items and other classes not, and sometimes this happens in campaign when people doesn't know much about magic. So casters got options like in Eberron but non caster knows about magic like in Dragonlance, if they are lucky :)
Depends on how you define balance. I think balance can be fun and flavorful, with every class close but having a different way to do things. That is not pathfinder however.
Nerfing things can really alienate players though. I much prefer the idea bringing martials up and just limiting things that are open to abuse. I might be crazy though.
Thought this thread was about how martials and casters are different raw?
There are spells that can easy deny a monster. Or players. If players can use that, and probably use as a signature spell, npc will do the same. No, better fix it. Spells, feats, are not core rules, but are all "exception" to normal rules. If are not balanced for your game you have to fix. You can even deny magic at all in a non magic campaign.
As I wrote over here:
Generally speaking, the "caster vs. martial" differential is not that wide until you start hitting around 8th- or 9th-level. At that point, the casters start to have so many resources (spell slots, etc.) and options that they can (with sufficient preparation) consistently overshadow the martial characters. At earlier levels, the casters are much more limited; they can occasionally overshadow the martial characters, but not all the time.
If you want more parity between classes, just keep the campaign at lower levels. Use the slow progression charts (or even slow progression with all experience and treasure halved) and "retire" characters when they reach whatever level you feel moves past the "sweet spot." In Pathfinder Society, for example, 12th level is the maximum progression (there are other restrictions in place as well).
Also, the "4 encounters per day" meme is a crock. Read Revisiting Encounter Design.
Basically, if you allow the "15 minute adventuring day," classes that can "go nova" will outperform classes that are consistently good, but not great. So, set the campaign up so that the "15 minute adventuring day" is less effective: more fights with weaker enemies, reactive encounters, enemies that change tactics (or even just leave) if given time, etc. Not only will martials be able to contribute more, but "sub-optimal" casters (like blaster wizards) also become more viable.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The caster-marital disparity in PF is worse than in 3E, I'm afraid. Nearly every change that was made widened the gulf a bit more. From guaranteed +2 to the casting stat w/ racial choice; to significantly stronger caster class features (flight, at will save or go to sleep, pounce at level 1, Su teleportation as a swift, etc...) vs. really mediocre/poor martial class features (+1 attack and damage, +2 on combat maneuvers, pounce at level 10+, etc...); to wizards hardly being penalized at all for the opposed schools; to the way more feats were given but the martial ones were weakened, split up, and given higher requirements while the caster ones remained the same; to the addition of MORE save or lose spells than 3E ever had (thanks almost solely to the Dazing Spell feat, which turns any damage spell into a save or lose and lets you pick the save to target); to severely nerfing the combat maneuvers, leaving martials with little to do other than dish out damage...
It's noticeably worse.
Nearly every change that was made widened the gulf a bit more. From guaranteed +2 to the casting stat w/ racial choice; to significantly stronger caster class features (flight, at will save or go to sleep, pounce at level 1, Su teleportation as a swift, etc...) vs. really mediocre/poor martial class features (+1 attack and damage, +2 on combat maneuvers, pounce at level 10+, etc...); to wizards hardly being penalized at all for the opposed schools; to the way more feats were given but the martial ones were weakened, split up, and given higher requirements while the caster ones remained the same; to the addition of MORE save or lose spells than 3E ever had (thanks almost solely to the Dazing Spell feat, which turns any damage spell into a save or lose and lets you pick the save to target); to severely nerfing the combat maneuvers, leaving martials with little to do other than dish out damage...
I agree with basically all of what you identify here mechanically. However... I think it's fair to say that Pathfinder has given broad and significant buffs to some (not all) caster types, and to some (not all) martial types. I have found that the disparity between the magical classes PF has buffed most significantly (such as the wizard) and the nonmagical classes it has buffed least significantly (look to fighter or rogue for the poster boys here) has widened, but that this is not necessarily true for every comparison of a martial and a caster class. Some martial classes - those with non-mundane abilities, really, such as a superstitious barbarian or a paladin - have benefited handsomely from Pathfinder even in comparison to casters.
For a more mundane martial character? Yeah, the gap is noticeably wider at all levels, and more wider (no, not a typo) at higher levels.
wizards now have more save or lose spells thanks to dazing spell, and now even have an AoE save or lose in the form of a dazing fireball.
fighters and rogues have no save or lose power at all. nor do they have self heals, utility, or numbers that aren't significantly outshined by a barbarian.
everything the fighter gets from gloves of dueling, the barbarian can get from a furious weapon.
and the fighter's AC advantage isn't much unless the fighter is secretly pushing dexterity like some kind of speed freak. which clearly means it is an agile weapon build that sucked for 10 levels.
Stand Still in D&D 3.5 would certainly be great for locking down an area. In PF, it is not. If you are Fighter 11, though, Pin Down feat performs much of the function 3.5 Stand Still did. If you're Fighter 12, Dazing Assault will be the key way to control everything within your reach w/ AoOs.
Teleport Tactician would also help a lot, but it just has too many worthless pre-req feats, sadly...
All depends on the group and how your DM runs his games.
You will not find a definitive answer on these boards, just straight opinion so careful what you believe.
The answer seemed pretty clear to me... How does how the game is run matter? Seems like a RAW question to me. Unless we're talking about some wierd game where like, druids and clerics are banned and wizards aren't allowed spells past 3rd level, and all fighters get 2nd level spells as part of their progression, but thats not exactly pathfinder. Its pretty far from pathfinder really.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have to say that these threads always make me smile at the variety of opinions. The way I see it, there are several sides to the caster/martial disparity question:
1) Role: Does you character have a clear role he can excel at in the party? For example, the fighter is really good at dishing out damage across the board. Sure he doesn't have have huge skills, but that's not his job - he's there to hit things, and he's good at it. Every party needs somebody to hit things at some point.
2) Circumstance: Do you allow the 15-minute adventuring day? I have played and run various modules where there were time constraints, so retreating and resting were not options. A caster paces his spells or risks running out, and that lets the non-casters shine.
3) Style: Is the game about a team working together, or about a bunch of guys trying to out-do one another? If there isn't a point to being the 'strongest' in the party, then does it matter that the wizard can do three times what the fighter or rogue do (although he can only do that once a day)? For efficiency, casters should be doing only the stuff that casters can do, and letting everyone else do what they do to save those spells for when they are really needed. If the game is about one-upmanship, then sure, casters can rule it.
|
The answer seemed pretty clear to me... How does how the game is run matter? Seems like a RAW question to me. Unless we're talking about some wierd game where like, druids and clerics are banned and wizards aren't allowed spells past 3rd level, and all fighters get 2nd level spells as part of their progression, but thats not exactly pathfinder. Its pretty far from pathfinder really.All depends on the group and how your DM runs his games.
You will not find a definitive answer on these boards, just straight opinion so careful what you believe.
Actually it's not a RAW question.
It's exactly how I described it, it matters how the game is run.
If you run games where the party stops every five minutes and everything else is in freeze frame in the next room while you rest and take 10 rounds to buff up then yeah the disparity tends to show up.
In actual everyday game, don't really see much of a disparity and I am involved in several homebrew and PFS games.
Actually it's not a RAW question.
It's exactly how I described it, it matters how the game is run.
If you run games where the party stops every five minutes and everything else is in freeze frame in the next room while you rest and take 10 rounds to buff up then yeah the disparity tends to show up.
In actual everyday game, don't really see much of a disparity and I am involved in several homebrew and PFS games.
OH! If thats the case Martials are on top in my game becuase all wizards are blind, have broken fingers, and mute. I wanted to make sure everyone got a fair chance before the wizard broke everything.
Kidding aside, in my experience there is definitely a difference. In PFS my wizard was capable of removing encounters with the snap of a finger if they were badly placed and didn't make their saving throws. I felt like the monks were almost a joke, and hard to build. Fighters had to work, my wizard just waved his hand and made life so much easier. Color Spray, create pit, all kinds of fun.
Note to self: Melee-Reach Create Pit sounds like an amusing Rage Power. Hit the ground so hard it creates a pit and forces a reflex save to opponents in range.
Yell so loud that a dimension door opens up in front of you?
Clap you hands so hard that a burst of positive energy erupts from them healing allies or harming undead?
|
I think a worthwhile question to ask is this: is any class dispensible?
While a wizard may on the face of it seem better than a fighter, if you have a party with three wizards, they probably want a fighter instead of a fourth wizard. (They actually want a cleric or paladin to heal them, but they'll settle for a meat shield/buff target guinea pig.)
A party featuring all the "food groups" will probably have an easier time than a single-class party. There's a couple of classes that do well solo, but wizards and witches really do like having martials in the party.
The multi-class rules help martial types more than full casters. Though full casters can benefit from them as well.
If you take a single of level of Rogue, your Fighter will have access to a lot more skills, thus broadening his usefulness in non-combat situations.
Your fighter also just lost 1 bab, progression in weapon/armor training, and isn't getting any significant class features out of going into rogue. There are dip friendlier things to do, like MoMS for certain styles. Multiclassing seems overall less friendly in pathfinder, or at least I think so.
I don't know why a fullcaster would multiclass. You want spell progression right? Pristeges aren't nearly as nice as they were in 3.5 so they aren't exactly dipping into those for class features while keeping their fullcasting.
In 3.5, class skills, were only class skills, if you were taking a level in that class. In Pathfinder, you keep all the skills of a class, as class skills. That's a huge difference.
As far as full casters go, yeah, it's not really worth it.
Though a Wizard that takes Ranger at level one, will enjoy that stealth and perception boost, well into his career. The +1 BAB isn't going to hurt much either.
A party featuring all the "food groups" will probably have an easier time than a single-class party. There's a couple of classes that do well solo, but wizards and witches really do like having martials in the party.
I've found the opposite in my (albeit limited) playtesting of single-class parties. They are noticeably more powerful than a diversified group. Against any level appropriate challenge the party is capable of defeating at all, it will rock.
Which makes sense if you think about it. It's a lot easier to overload a defense (whether that defense is AC/HP or saves or whatever) if you have four guys targeting the same defense. And if a party is all capable of using a tactic like Stealth, that tactic becomes a lot more valuable.
However, single class parties are also boring, which matters quite a bit more.
A wizard isn't using his BAB much if at all. Ranged touch maybe... He can turn invisible in fly, and has 2 perception checks if he took a familiar, he's already really good at these things and traits can make them in class for him.
Class skills in 3.5 also worked differently. Out of class skill ranks only counted for 1/2, which hurt alot. And they weren't retroactive so if you got a bump up in Intellect at level 4 you didn't get extra skill points to make up for it(and to keep it simple). In pathfinder in class just means you get 3 extra points, but raising skills is easy and casters usually have skillpoints to spare, especially wizards. The value of the +3 may decrease over time as you have more to spread around and use and more money to sink into magic items.
I really like the new skill system though, not sure what it did relative to martial-caster disparity. If anything it just helped you be who you want to be without your class being a straight jacket of sorts.
The change to class skills and strengthened single classing boons all play into a caster's wishes. He did not have access to a lot of the great skills in 3E and multiclassing out for them was as much a no-no as was multiclassing for anything.
A noncaster could multiclass around to cherry pick cool entry level class features (and they were much better in 3E; pounce at barbarian 1, for example) and bounce around between a myriad of prestige classes. The class skill rules made buying cross class ranks harsh, but they were always "class skills" as far as max rank you could invest was, and you could always spread out your rogue (or whatever) levels to go back and dump a bunch of points into a few important skills to catch back up. And there was a feat to remove the cross-class penalty.
I do like PF's skill system, but it greatly helped casters and did really bad things to the rogue's niche protection w/o compensating him at all for it.
You will not find a definitive answer on these boards, just straight opinion so careful what you believe.
If you run games where the party stops every five minutes and everything else is in freeze frame in the next room while you rest and take 10 rounds to buff up then yeah the disparity tends to show up.
In actual everyday game, don't really see much of a disparity and I am involved in several homebrew and PFS games.
Ah. I knew the first statement was too good to be true, and that an implication that people who do notice the disparity weren't playing normally would arise.
Freeze frame games, vs. actual everyday game. Heh. Great.
I've found the opposite in my (albeit limited) playtesting of single-class parties. They are noticeably more powerful than a diversified group. Against any level appropriate challenge the party is capable of defeating at all, it will rock.
Which makes sense if you think about it. It's a lot easier to overload a defense (whether that defense is AC/HP or saves or whatever) if you have four guys targeting the same defense. And if a party is all capable of using a tactic like Stealth, that tactic becomes a lot more valuable.
However, single class parties are also boring, which matters quite a bit more.
Maybe if you pit them against something that class is solid against.
Ever tried 4 fighters against an incorporeal enemy?
You can overload AC if you want, you're vulnerable to spells. You can overload HP if you want, you're vulnerable to save or sucks. You need to be strong in all areas to be truly strong, otherwise someone who knows what they're doing can pick apart your weaknesses.
None of this is unique to a single class party. Someone who knows what they are doing can pick apart any party. It can actually be easier against a diverse party, I've found, unless they've paid good attention to covering each others' weaknesses. A single class party has to pay good attention to its weakness by default because that is a party-wide weakness. If a party is all poor Will saves, you'd better bet everybody carries protection from alignment potions of all types.
(you could probably say that this is as much a case of the mechanics encouraging player care as it is of something inherent to the mechanics themselves, though)
And yes, at level three no less. Oil of magic weapon is cheap (or in one character's case, a wand), and necessary if you're playing such a specialized party. And the shadow got frickin' obliterated on round 2 by four magic weapon attacks which all hit. Half damage doesn't help much when you're halving four times what a typical party puts out.
Although we were playing paladins, not fighter, so it doesn't match exactly to your question. I've tested all martial parties with every martial class (over the course of a looong, drunken weekend :P), but not with every class at every level.
I gave my straight answer right from the start. That was a responce to shallowsoul. My experience and my knowledge of the game tells me casters and martials are visibly different and apart. I've seen some bad wizards in my day(+19 initiative, first move is... 5 foot step and mage armor? at 8th level!?) but the fact is Casters are definitely better than martials. They have options beyond the martials and some spells that make them better at skills than the supposed skillmonkeys(invisibility/flight for instance). When you judge classes its best to judge them from the same optimization imo.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've asked this elsewhere, but I want opinions directly from those that most use the system. How is Pathfinder faring with caster/martial disparity these days? The "Linear Fighter, Quadratic Wizard" issue, or the fact that at higher levels (even at mid levels) casters dominate. Another name is CoDzilla (Cleric or Druid). Basically casters can perform as well as martial classes, but then have a whole toolchest of spells on top of it (teleport, fly, Ddoor, etc). Plus a lot of martial functionality relies on full attacks, but a moving opponent prevents such things (a big blow to Monk in particular), whereas a caster has no such issues.
D&D 3.5 had big problems with it, and PF core rules alleviated the rules a bit. But now with the Advanced Players Guide and other mechanic additions, I just wonder if things are better at all.
I'm curious both hypothetically (from a build perspective) and practically. In your campaigns do optimized casters run roughshod over the martial characters?
I remember in one high level (15ish) campaign of 3.5, 4 of the PCs (Monk, Warlock, Paladin, and Ranger) took out 2 Vrocks while the Cleric took out 4 others by himself. That kind of stuff.
Thanks!
In my humble opinion I think that the game is leaps and bounds over 3.x in terms of game balance. Most of the core martials have been given a very big leg up. Barbarians are currently THE mundane warrior. Paladins and Rangers are both very well balanced and play comfortably alongside spellcasters throughout most levels. Casters have been heavily Stealth-nerfed while having more options built into their classes.
As someone who was very familiar with a lot of the nonsense from 3.x, Pathfinder is a much, much more balanced game with far less troubles overall. I disagree with some of the splat material and Fighters, Rogues, and Monks are still lagging (though monks have gotten a lot of splat-book love which has helped them out from core).
Honestly, I talk with one of my friends (who has only played Pathfinder and is very familiar with its mechanics) about the differences between 3.5 and Pathfinder and we laugh about the idea that the game isn't leaps and bounds more balanced than it was in 3.5.
Is it perfect? No. But it is waaaaaaaaaaaaaay better.