The two main benefits of leveling as a caster are more spells per day, and superior utility spells. As I've mentioned, the caster has encounter ending spells from the start.
As the caster levels up he just gets higher level versions of encounter ending spells, but also the ability to fly, scry, make AC and a bunch of skills irrelevant, teleport, so on and so forth. Utility that he can't access at first level, nor afford due to spells per day being a real limitation at low levels.
That's when the caster becomes head and shoulders above the martial rather than more or less even. Let's say lvl6, definitely by lvl8.
There isn't really a flip. There is just point when the casters stops being weak. I find that point around level 5-7 depending on the class. The martial class, including the limited casting ones, are pretty steady. The only real difference is at high level they are doing the same thing they did at a low level. With caster they have options and can do different thing depending on the spells they have, caster are versatile as their spell list grow.
The only class I find that gets weaker at higher levels is the rogue and ninja to lesser degree.
I find as GM you need to aware of caster as they can throw you for loop if you aren't prepared for them. If you are you can balance the encounters with out this apparent flip in power.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Petty, you keep selling that wizards have "encounter ending spells from the start" but many, probably most, of us aren't buying what you're selling.
I've played a LOT of 3.5 and PF games with level 1 spellcasters.
Unless the GM politely fills out and lines up your dance card so that your color spray, sleep or grease spell can take down every opponent and nobody makes a save, then those spells don't actually end the encounter.
Every now and then, very rarely in my experience, an encounter lines up in such a way that a first level spell can "end" an encounter. But that's the exception, not the rule.
The two main benefits of leveling as a caster are more spells per day, and superior utility spells. As I've mentioned, the caster has encounter ending spells from the start.
As the caster levels up he just gets higher level versions of encounter ending spells, but also the ability to fly, scry, make AC and a bunch of skills irrelevant, teleport, so on and so forth. Utility that he can't access at first level, nor afford due to spells per day being a real limitation at low levels.
That's when the caster becomes head and shoulders above the martial rather than more or less even. Let's say lvl6, definitely by lvl8.
Martial classes have encounter ending ability. I've seen martial classes dish out so much damage in 1 round that encounter was ended in that one full attack. Just takes a little luck.
Caster have the same. With a little luck the save fails and the encounter ends. Typically I find save fail about 35% of the time. That means 2/3s of the time the caster attempt to end the encounter fails. My players don't play caster like that as it's unreliable. They buff the melee guys and control the battle field. Flinging a offense spell at the end if required. Seems to work more reliably and every has fun.
If those spells take out even half of the opponents I'd say the encounter is so much easier it's essentially over.
65% success rate against spells? I'd say that's lucky rolling.
Let's say the caster starts with 18 casting stat (rather than 20 as many will) and has no spell focus or such. That's a DC 15 on his level 1 spells. Pick a standard level 1 foe of your choice, I picked an Orc which has -1 Will and +0 Reflex. Turns out to be a pretty favorable comparison but pick something with tougher saves too and see how it comes out.
I never said martials don't have encounter ending ability, given how low HP is at level 1 and weapon damage dice are particularly relevant. Every time they connect with a 2handed swing they have a pretty good chance of dropping the opponent to 0.
The one-hit kill becomes far less likely as characters put on levels, HP scales harder than damage does and iterative attacks must make up for it, which a melee martial might or might not be able to get. The caster's spells remain standard actions, and then he can quicken spells as well.
There's a reason that PFS gaming ends at level 12- level 7 is when the truly game breaking spells show up. But I'm pretty sure I'll be able to break the game at level 11 when I get my wish factory going and start getting simulacrums of Solars.
Of course a GM can simply say it doesn't happen, but then again a GM can say that a fighter automatically hits and kills his opponent, no need to roll. Allfter a certain point, It makes no sense to continually house rule things, it's just best to play a different game. I hear AD&D is nice...
Been gaming for over 20+ years and most campaigns that I have seen run from levels 1 - 13ish in levels. With the experienced GM and a well defined world, the 'flip' can be put off for the entire thing, never happening.
With a campaign that has little restrictions (gold, access to all spells, magic emporiums, etc), I find the 'flip' can happen at anytime from 1st level on. That really is the whole issue with the martial/caster 'flip' really.
Based on my experience running mostly high level campaigns. Campaigns I run average 12th to 20th level when they're finished, usually the average is around 16th.
The caster-martial disparity starts to show its ugly head once the casters obtain a spell that gives them a large advantage over the martials such as fly or greater invisibility. Once a caster can create an environment where the martial can't hurt him, the disparity exists.
Martials always do more damage than casters unless they are built very poorly. But they don't have as many ways to mitigate damage on them, heal themselves, or effectively defeat an enemy without doing any damage without magic items. Casters can usually counter magic items very easily with dispels or the like.
It's even worse for classes with a low, exploitable save given casters can usually attack every save to further exploit an enemy. While martials mainly do damage or a temporary effect that requires they be in range.
I would say the disparity starts to show its ugly head around lvl 5, maybe later for clerics.
In a game I'm running right now, I'm finding the Magus to be a class that outshines the other classes in the majority of situations. His ability to use magical defenses while unleashing fighter level melee damage is damn hard to deal with.
What level are you playing? The magus peaks at level 10 or so im my experience.
What level are you playing? The magus peaks at level 10 or so im my experience.
We are at lvl 9. I'm starting to see the peaking you are talking about. This is the first Magus I've run to this level. I'll run him all the way up.
The Magus is a shocking grasp built. The damage scaling is starting to peak as his Intensified Shocking Grasp is topped out. The ninja is starting to deal more damage per round against enemies that are easier to hit.
We usually play favorably rolled stats. We decided to try point buy. In point buy rogues and ninjas are extremely powerful damage dealers because every martial doesn't have maxed out melee stats. It's refreshing.
It's not just the damage the magus deals though. It's the ability to easily bypass DR by boosting his weapon to +5. He's a Bladebound Magus. At 9th lvl his sword is +3. He can use his arcane pool to make it a +5 weapon which bypasses DR and increases to hit and damage above what everyone else can do at lvl 9. He can also cast mirror image and displacement to lower the chance to hit him against most creatures. I imagine that will lessen once he starts fighting creatures with blindsight and true seeing. Pretty tough class to deal with. It is amusing that the two best msgus spells are 1st level spells: shocking grasp and frostbite.
It goes without saying that at 1st level a tyical Martial is infinitely more powerful than a typical Caster.
Really?
I disagree.But I guess it depends on optimization level, and what you mean by "typical caster". If we are talking blasty-blasty casters, then it is partly true, but they are pretty much the weakest of the bunch.
Yes, spells are a limited resource, but so are hit points.
I'd say the "tipping point" is between 1st and 5th level, depending on optimization.
What level are you playing? The magus peaks at level 10 or so im my experience.We are at lvl 9. I'm starting to see the peaking you are talking about. This is the first Magus I've run to this level. I'll run him all the way up.
The Magus is a shocking grasp built. The damage scaling is starting to peak as his Intensified Shocking Grasp is topped out. The ninja is starting to deal more damage per round against enemies that are easier to hit.
Well, he'll start to cast Empowered Intensified Shocking Grasps soon. Then he'll cast Empowered Maximized Intensified Shocking grasps too, and finally will cast, Dazing, quickened etc spells.
Well, he'll start to cast Empowered Intensified Shocking Grasps soon. Then he'll cast Empowered Maximized Intensified Shocking grasps too, and finally will cast, Dazing, quickened etc spells.What level are you playing? The magus peaks at level 10 or so im my experience.We are at lvl 9. I'm starting to see the peaking you are talking about. This is the first Magus I've run to this level. I'll run him all the way up.
The Magus is a shocking grasp built. The damage scaling is starting to peak as his Intensified Shocking Grasp is topped out. The ninja is starting to deal more damage per round against enemies that are easier to hit.
The entire attack can be countered with a minor globe of invulnerability, SR, or spell immunity on top of resistance to electricity. The more metamagic feats he stacks, the higher level the spell becomes and the less slots he has.
Not to mention Empower and Maximize only work on the 5d6 portion of the spell. They don't work on the Intensified part. He's already casting Intensified shocking grasps. The rules for metamagic clearly indicated that only the base spell is affected by the metamagic feat while the added damage from other metamagic feats affects only the base spell.
So an Empowered Maximized Intensified shocking grasp with magical lineage is a 6th level spell that does 30 damage plus (5d6x1.5-(the original number from the 5d6)) plus 5d6 for an average of 55 points of electrical damage a hit (110 on a crit) at level 16 or 17. All of this damage subject to SR and completely wasted within a minor globe or against spell immunity.
I'm not too worried about a 6th level slot being used for such an attack. The rogue can do far worse at that level with every attack. The smiting paladin will easily match that. As will the six to eight attack a round monk.
So, my rationale: Suppose my group consisted of a fighter, rogue, cleric, and wizard. Further we are walking along when suddenly we are transported into a giant arena where we are staring down four identical dopplegangers of ourselves that we immediately know we must defeat. No surprise round.
I think this scenario is a distraction from the real issue. PC parties don't fight PC parties regularly, they fight a normal spread of encounters, most of which don't include any spellcasters. PvP scenarios play out completely different than normal adventuring.
Well, he'll start to cast Empowered Intensified Shocking Grasps soon. Then he'll cast Empowered Maximized Intensified Shocking grasps too, and finally will cast, Dazing, quickened etc spells.What level are you playing? The magus peaks at level 10 or so im my experience.We are at lvl 9. I'm starting to see the peaking you are talking about. This is the first Magus I've run to this level. I'll run him all the way up.
The Magus is a shocking grasp built. The damage scaling is starting to peak as his Intensified Shocking Grasp is topped out. The ninja is starting to deal more damage per round against enemies that are easier to hit.
This brings to mind an interesting question - how much does it lessen the power discrepency if one were to do away with metamagic feats (and rods) altogether?
At levels 1-2 I see martials being more powerful than casters, but not enough to cause a problem. Mainly, the martials can just "do their thing" to be effective, while a pure caster has to play strategically to be effective.
At levels 3-8 I see martials and casters sharing the limelight. Some encounters will favor one type, while other encounters favor another, depending on time of day, terrain, spell selection, character build, type and number of enemy, etc. I'd call this the sweet spot.
At levels 9-12 I see casters take the forefront, but not enough to case a problem. Yes, they have enough high level spell slots that with good system mastery they can dominate a couple encounters in a row without help, but teamwork is still critical to success and Haste is still a good spell.
I've only played a little at level 13+ but in my experience this is when casters have to put forth an effort to let others share the spotlight.
13+ is also the range where the sheer complexity of enemies can cause GMs to play them weaker than they're written. Countless times I've seen a GM forget an immunity, feat, special defense, or power of a monster, playing a complex enemy as a simple brute. This tends to favor casters, since martials are still dealing with AC/HP or Hit/Damage, which are easy to track.
Also, with such complex enemies, caster metagaming can become a major factor. The player may know which dragons and outsiders are immune to which elements, but the character has to make a knowledge roll and be given a limited number of facts by the GM.
In a proper game it doesnt happen - there are loads of ways to screw over casters.
Ive been in encounters with creatures with SR and multiple attacks... Wizards, Sorcerers and Witches end up in pieces very quickly. Yes SR CAN be overcome but that doesnt mean it WILL.
This brings to mind an interesting question - how much does it lessen the power discrepency if one were to do away with metamagic feats (and rods) altogether?Well, he'll start to cast Empowered Intensified Shocking Grasps soon. Then he'll cast Empowered Maximized Intensified Shocking grasps too, and finally will cast, Dazing, quickened etc spells.What level are you playing? The magus peaks at level 10 or so im my experience.We are at lvl 9. I'm starting to see the peaking you are talking about. This is the first Magus I've run to this level. I'll run him all the way up.
The Magus is a shocking grasp built. The damage scaling is starting to peak as his Intensified Shocking Grasp is topped out. The ninja is starting to deal more damage per round against enemies that are easier to hit.
Magus cannot use metamagic rods and spell combat at the same time. They must have one hand free with their weapon to cast. I have not seen any rule that allows a Magus to bypass this requirement.
I was kind and allowed a Magus to attach an alternate metamagic item to his sword that he could activate. I do not allow a Magus to use Metamagic Rods while using Spell Combat or Spellstrike. They must have at least one hand free to cast. Same with an arcane caster. A metamagic rod does not require an additional action to use. But as far as I know the same requirements for spellcasting apply. Any caster using one must have a hand free to cast a spell with a somatic component and the rod in the other hand.
I don't see a big problem with metamagic rods as long as you as the DM enforce the normal rules for spellcasting.
It goes without saying that at 1st level a tyical Martial is infinitely more powerful than a typical Caster... and at 20th level a typical Caster is infinitely more powerful than a typical Martial
Neither of those statements are particularly true.
It goes without saying that at 1st level a tyical Martial is infinitely more powerful than a typical Caster...
Depends on the situation.
In some even a 2nd level caster is stronger than a 2nd level martial. Like in CC where you have to fight incorporeals without access to magic weapons.So in my experience the starting power is situational while at high levels the casters are always stronger. There is not flip and the PCs are best in sync at levels 1-3. At level 5 full casters are stronger, at level 6 the full bab guys make a comeback but all in all it goes downwards for the martials from then on.
Magus cannot use metamagic rods and spell combat at the same time. They must have one hand free with their weapon to cast. I have not seen any rule that allows a Magus to bypass this requirement.
I was kind and allowed a Magus to attach an alternate metamagic item to his sword that he could activate. I do not allow a Magus to use Metamagic Rods while using Spell Combat or Spellstrike. They must have at least one hand free to cast. Same with an arcane caster. A metamagic rod does not require an additional action to use. But as far as I know the same requirements for spellcasting apply. Any caster using one must have a hand free to cast a spell with a somatic component and the rod in the other hand.
They can if they are
- Hexcrafter (Archetype) : Prehensile Hair- multiclass with alchemist : Vestigial Arm
- are a race with a prehensile tail : Tiefling Alternate Racial Traits
it's a third "hand" and nothing forbids the magus to hold rods/wand in those hair/arm/tail... that keeps your "right hand" for the weapon and "left" hand for spellcasting.
In a proper game it doesnt happen - there are loads of ways to screw over casters.
To my mind, a "proper game" would have the casters limited by the rules, not by the DM one-sidedly "screwing them over."
Yes SR CAN be overcome but that doesnt mean it WILL.
This almost implies the DM fudges the dice roll and/or results solely to hinder the caster. Which, again, makes me wonder why we don't fix this in the rules themselves and be done with it.
Yes SR CAN be overcome but that doesnt mean it WILL.This almost implies the DM fudges the dice roll and/or results solely to hinder the caster. Which, again, makes me wonder why we don't fix this in the rules themselves and be done with it.
If the enemy has high SR a caster can just use indirect means to engage the enemy. Summoning, buffing, conjuration spells that don't allow SR.
If the enemy has high SR a caster can just use indirect means to engage the enemy. Summoning, buffing, conjuration spells that don't allow SR.
Yes SR CAN be overcome but that doesnt mean it WILL.This almost implies the DM fudges the dice roll and/or results solely to hinder the caster. Which, again, makes me wonder why we don't fix this in the rules themselves and be done with it.
Summoning is often restricted by DMs because armies of summons/pets turn combat rounds into nightmares...
You don't want your party rogue to have the monopoly on skills, because sitting there and watch a 1-on-1 for diplomacy/info-gathering/scouting is boring. You don't want your party spellcaster to have the monopoly on controlled creatures, because sitting there and watch the GM and spellcaster play a strategy board game (~warhammer tabletop?) is not fun.
If those 1-on-1 stay short... sure, but if that turns into 30 minutes of sitting and watching, I'll be leaving.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the enemy has high SR a caster can just use indirect means to engage the enemy. Summoning, buffing, conjuration spells that don't allow SR.
All true.
Imagine, though, if summoning were limited by total numbers and CR, the way the Leadership feat is (but with different values, obviously!). And if all the "SR no" blasting spells in Conjuration got moved to evocation and made "SR yes."
There's a lot of room for tweaking things to make casters less of an automatic "I win" against everything. Alternatively, we could buff the martials so that they can compete at higher levels.
But none of that will ever happen as long as people keep saying, "Well, the DM's job is to nerf the casters and force railroads to make the martials feel useful, so obviously the rules are perfect."
Summoning is often restricted by DMs because armies of summons/pets turn combat rounds into nightmares...
But by fiat and tacit agreement, not by the rules. Which is silly.
If those 1-on-1 stay short... sure, but if that turns into 30 minutes of sitting and watching, I'll be leaving.
And again, these are things that can be more evenly and consistently corrected by rule, rather than by fiat.
So, my rationale: Suppose my group consisted of a fighter, rogue, cleric, and wizard. Further we are walking along when suddenly we are transported into a giant arena where we are staring down four identical dopplegangers of ourselves that we immediately know we must defeat. No surprise round.I think this scenario is a distraction from the real issue. PC parties don't fight PC parties regularly, they fight a normal spread of encounters, most of which don't include any spellcasters. PvP scenarios play out completely different than normal adventuring.
** spoiler omitted **
I understand why you see it that way. But, it is hard for me to come up with a good, equitable scenario in which a caster and a martial are on equal footing - from which to determine relative power.
So, I was trying to do it in reverse. Basically, at what point would I give up any tactical advantage available just to get to the wizard? For me, it's 5th level. The bottom line: Once a wizard gets 3rd level spells, there is almost no tactical advantage greater than killing him before he gets his first spell off. Even if there was an option to remove the fighter from the fight in some way.
Summoning is often restricted by DMs because armies of summons/pets turn combat rounds into nightmares...But by fiat and tacit agreement, not by the rules. Which is silly.
If those 1-on-1 stay short... sure, but if that turns into 30 minutes of sitting and watching, I'll be leaving.And again, these are things that can be more evenly and consistently corrected by rule, rather than by fiat.
It's not fiat... it's common sense... roleplaying is something you do with friends... something where everybody is supposed to have fun.
This means if you are 3 people (1 DM, 2 players) and all of them like strategy tabletops... what's to stop them from actually doing an DM-army vs 2-player-armies (one player might be a summoner, the other could be a paladin with mount and leadership?) thingy? It could be a nice change and no-one gets the shaft... Pathfinder is about options and alternatives. Play the way you like without asking paizo to fix things that the basic rules of friendship should cover (no favoritism, not even if it's your better half).It's not fiat, it's common sense, being nice to all your friends (not just some) and making sure everybody is having a good time.
Let's say you want to go have a drink with your buddies in a local pub. Some of your friends are on a tight budget, others are not (not saying they are rich, either)... how do you handle this?
- don't invite the "poor"?
- go somewhere that's affordable for everybody?
- go somewhere nice, and the ones with more money pay some rounds for those with less money (one day situations might be reversed...)?
- ...
So, my rationale: Suppose my group consisted of a fighter, rogue, cleric, and wizard. Further we are walking along when suddenly we are transported into a giant arena where we are staring down four identical dopplegangers of ourselves that we immediately know we must defeat. No surprise round.
I'd say:
the melee goes after the cleric to make sure he cannot heal any more (combat maneuver), while the archer readies his standard attack to sniper the wizard as soon as he tries to cast a spell (defensive casting does not help vs readied actions, afaik, good luck making that concentration check).Funny side effect: Vital Strike would be really nice for the archer in this situation. :-D
Summoning is often restricted by DMs because armies of summons/pets turn combat rounds into nightmares...But by fiat and tacit agreement, not by the rules. Which is silly.
If those 1-on-1 stay short... sure, but if that turns into 30 minutes of sitting and watching, I'll be leaving.And again, these are things that can be more evenly and consistently corrected by rule, rather than by fiat.It's not fiat... it's common sense... roleplaying is something you do with friends... something where everybody is supposed to have fun.
This means if you are 3 people (1 DM, 2 players) and all of them like strategy tabletops... what's to stop them from actually doing an DM-army vs 2-player-armies (one player might be a summoner, the other could be a paladin with mount and leadership?) thingy? It could be a nice change and no-one gets the shaft... Pathfinder is about options and alternatives. Play the way you like without asking paizo to fix things that the basic rules of friendship should cover (no favoritism, not even if it's your better half).It's not fiat, it's common sense, being nice to all your friends (not just some) and making sure everybody is having a good time.
Let's say you want to go have a drink with your buddies in a local pub. Some of your friends are on a tight budget, others are not (not saying they are rich, either)... how do you handle this?
- don't invite the "poor"?
- go somewhere that's affordable for everybody?
- go somewhere nice, and the ones with more money pay some rounds for those with less money (one day situations might be reversed...)?
- ...
Oh man, definitely this. I just hit level 9 with my conjurer and took Superior Summoning. I'm pretty pessimistic as to how long it'll last at our table. I think the first time I have to control 4 hound archons + familiar + balance the dozen or so possibilities that a 9th level spell caster has access to will result in me just swapping that feat out for something that won't make my turns take 20 minutes. I can't imagine that it'll be fun for the others PCs to go read a book or make a sandwhich while the wizard wins the fight.
As far as the OP is concerned, I'm not convinced there ever really is a "flip", as in, I'm not sure martials are ever *really* that much better. Of course, it depends on what constitutes a "martial" and what constitutes a "caster". I would argue, for example, that a rogue (martial) is instantly and utterly outclassed by a bard (caster) right out of the gates.
Assuming you mean "full BAB class vs. full cater class", then again it defends on how you define "better" and it also depends on the compared classes. In my experience, our current game started at level 3 and I never felt that I had nothing to contribute. I think a lot of the swingiest combat spells are low level-- grease, create pit, sleep, glitterdust, blindness-- all are pretty low level. You can argue that wizards run out of spell slots, but I think this works better in theory than in practice. You can also argue that wizards are squishy and can drop after a hit or two, but you can honestly say that about most classes. A fighter's not looking too good after an orc crits him with a greatsword either. Now if he was a cleric, he could just heal up and be good to go.
That said, I don't feel that I'm outclassing the other characters either. The party paladin does ridiculous damage, is really tough to take out, and has a bevy of important social skills. The party bard shines with a ton of great buffs, neat spells, and a ton of skills and utility. The party ninja... well... he... has a good... stealth modifier? And can, like, jump really high. So there's that.
Magus cannot use metamagic rods and spell combat at the same time. They must have one hand free with their weapon to cast. I have not seen any rule that allows a Magus to bypass this requirement.
I was kind and allowed a Magus to attach an alternate metamagic item to his sword that he could activate. I do not allow a Magus to use Metamagic Rods while using Spell Combat or Spellstrike. They must have at least one hand free to cast. Same with an arcane caster. A metamagic rod does not require an additional action to use. But as far as I know the same requirements for spellcasting apply. Any caster using one must have a hand free to cast a spell with a somatic component and the rod in the other hand.
They can if they are
- Hexcrafter (Archetype) : Prehensile Hair
- multiclass with alchemist : Vestigial Arm
- are a race with a prehensile tail : Tiefling Alternate Racial Traits
it's a third "hand" and nothing forbids the magus to hold rods/wand in those hair/arm/tail... that keeps your "right hand" for the weapon and "left" hand for spellcasting.
Not every character will fall into one of these categories. Thanks for pointing out possible combinations that allow for a metamagic rod to be used by a Magus. Still doesn't much matter because a 1st level spell can be countered quite easily by opponents.
Using terrain/line of sight and don't squish your enemies into a small area... that goes a long way to ensure the caster will need more then one spell to win that battle...
Sure an oracle with the right mystery can see through fog, so can a boreal sorcerer at level 9, or somebody with eldritch heritage (need 3 feats) at level 11 (iirc), but you gotta get there first and have the feats to waste.
Bards are easily negated with a good "Silence" or any situation where you'd rather be sneaky (surprise round?).
It's been shown times and again that the healing output of any class cannot keep up with the damage output of monsters (non-modified). It'll only delay the inevitable (but might avoid/postpone TPKs).
The ninja, unlike the rogue, can actually use ki-bombs... that he can even enhance with poisons and other stuff. It's similar to all those fog spells so what's wrong with it, gives the ninja concealment, too? One day I'll build myself a bombinja. :-D
It's not fiat, it's common sense...
I am more cynical than you are; experience has led me to believe that there is no such thing as "common sense," and that verbal agreements are generally better than tacit ones because no one, no matter how "senstive," can actually read anyone else's mind.
Well sure, specific encounters will favor particular abilities. But a lot of the things that "counter" casters will also punish some martials. For example, an encounter with a lot of spread-out foes will make a controller-conjurer less effective, for sure. But he can still do some single-target spells with long ranges (summon spells also have pretty long ranges to them). My party paladin with a 20-ft movement rate, however, will find that encounter waaaaaay more difficult than a caster with access to ranged spells. Plus the paladin won't be able to get good use out of his feats like cleave, etc. I would say that casters are actually more effective in more kinds of encounters, so getting "creative" doesn't hamper them as much unless you're building an encounter specifically to target their weaknesses. But every class will have trouble if the encounter is designed specifically to weaken them. I remember the time our party fought a swarm of crows-- talk about a caster/martial effectiveness divide. Immune to weapon damage, huh.
And yeah, in-combat healing isn't so great. I was just thinking in situations where a low-level monster scores a lucky crit on a high AC character. At low levels there's more of a randomness factor, so having even a few contingencies in place can make a huge difference. Outside of a paladin (with lay on hands), a lot of low-level martial characters don't have as great a toolkit for dealing with improbable outcomes. At least not as great a toolkit as casters do, IMO.
And silencing doesn't even necessarily hamper a bard! (at least as I understand). He can take Perform (Interpretive Dance) and still give the bonus so long as everybody has LOS on him.
It's not fiat, it's common sense...I am more cynical than you are; experience has led me to believe that there is no such thing as "common sense," and that verbal agreements are generally better than tacit ones because no one, no matter how "senstive," can actually read anyone else's mind.
Wow... are you working in some legal/law/lawyer type job? (You don't _have to_ answer ;-) )
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wow... are you working in some legal/law/lawyer type job? (You don't _have to_ answer ;-) )It's not fiat, it's common sense...I am more cynical than you are; experience has led me to believe that there is no such thing as "common sense," and that verbal agreements are generally better than tacit ones because no one, no matter how "senstive," can actually read anyone else's mind.
Very few people intentionally show up intending to ruin others fun. But if I want to play a CG summoner who we'll call... Angel Summoner and my friend Joe wants to play a Big Man X Ex-highway who we'll call BMX Bandit, there is going to be issues. Both of our builds are completely reasonable ways to build a character, but BMX Bandit isn't going to have fun that my solution to most problems... "Well you could sneak in and disarm the guys... or I could summon a horde of Celestial Superbeings.
Which one of us should have to sacrifice the build we want to play so the other can have fun? Should I stop using Summons (which was the whole thing I found neat about a guy who summons angels) or should BMX Bandit redesign his character to be more effective? (The correct answer is options should be balanced so this doesn't occur.)
Relevant Link is Relevant: Angel Summoner!
Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit didn't have a skilled GM. (I do love that sketch, btw)
I'm not saying the GM needs to step in and make the Summoner's life hell. What I am saying is that there is a book full of rules — some of which inconvenience casters, others inconvenience martials. The GM's job is to use everything in the book some of the time.
If you follow that simple rule (use everything some of the time), it goes a long way to fixing the perceived disparity.
This means sometimes spellbooks get lost, stolen, or destroyed. But sometimes they don't and the caster owns the day. This means sometimes enemies plan to specifically counteract the caster. And sometimes they don't.
If I had to put a name on the problem, it's not class imbalance, but rather it's GMs who get stuck in ruts and never change things up. Casters thrive under a predictable, lazy GM.
Knowing when to change it up, and what to change it to, is the GM's job. And if they're doing it correctly, it balances the importance of each player's contribution to the party. That's what they're there to do.
And yes, I know about all that "Rule 0" fallacy business. It doesn't matter. If you're a GM and you chose to play Pathfinder, log off the internet and balance the campaign yourself because that's what you signed on for. No amount of internet theory is going to make your game fun.
Summoner's don't have spellbooks, do you the DM give them one? And what happens when this crops up in play?
"Sorry Anzyr, Joe's not having any fun, from now on all encounters will have enemies focused solely on dispelling your summons."
"Also, Summoner's now have a spellbook. Lots of Rogues will try to steal it even though BMX Bandit always sleeps with the Tavern Whore and carries a Weapon worth triple its price (the weapon will never be stolen). Oh and you are a prepared caster now."
I mean no offense, but GM Rut is not the issue. The issue is that one class is stronger than the other. Can GM continue adding rules like the above until Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit are equally contributing... Yes. Wouldn't it be better if they were just balance from the get go though?
I understand why you see it that way. But, it is hard for me to come up with a good, equitable scenario in which a caster and a martial are on equal footing - from which to determine relative power.So, my rationale: Suppose my group consisted of a fighter, rogue, cleric, and wizard. Further we are walking along when suddenly we are transported into a giant arena where we are staring down four identical dopplegangers of ourselves that we immediately know we must defeat. No surprise round.I think this scenario is a distraction from the real issue. PC parties don't fight PC parties regularly, they fight a normal spread of encounters, most of which don't include any spellcasters. PvP scenarios play out completely different than normal adventuring.
Yep, and I understand why you resort to PvP as a measure. I've seen a hundred discussions of "what character is stronger" turn into "who would win in a fight" and it never really answers the right question.
- "Fighters" always acted first, and frequently with two actions before a mage got one. They could easily shoot one target to death (the mage) before anyone else moves.
- "Mages" always acted last, but could clear an entire room with a fireball.
So, the answer to "who would win in a fight" was always "fighters". The answer to "which character is stronger" never addressed the fact that "mages" could turn invisible, astrally project, summon elementals with immunity to weapons, cast healing spells, fly, read minds, and generally short circuit almost any story that wasn't extremely well planned.
I remember the time our party fought a swarm of crows-- talk about a caster/martial effectiveness divide. Immune to weapon damage, huh.
Nope. Swarms of insects are immune to weapons but for swarms of bigger creatures like crows (correct me if I'm wrong) it's half damage from non-bludgeoning weapons and full damage from bludgeoning.
Which one of us should have to sacrifice the build we want to play so the other can have fun? Should I stop using Summons (which was the whole thing I found neat about a guy who summons angels) or should BMX Bandit redesign his character to be more effective? (The correct answer is options should be balanced so this doesn't occur.)
How about sitting together at the table when making the characters? It's up to the DM to say: "ok, only 1 pet per character" or: "minion-time, go get leadership". Because it's his campaign that has to adjust for it.
As for who'll have to go (Angel Summoner or BMX Bandit): the one that least fits the party. But that does not mean the one that didn't get to be played, might not be a perfect fit in another campaign. If you absolutely cannot have any fun at all playing a different character, you are the problem (childish, selfish, ...).
If you balance stuff you'll ALWAYS take away possibilities. Computer games are a good example where dev's tried to find something they call "balance" but this always ended in dumbing things down and railroading, because SOMEONE SOMEWHERE will always find some broken combo that will turn out a wee bit better and become FOTM and then nerfed, only for someone ELSE somewhere to find a new broken combo...
Fitting any duo of these in the same party is a bad idea (unless your DM is ready for it):
LG alignment with CE alignment
Paladin with Kender
Minionmaster with Rogue
Wilderness-themed with City-themed
Enchanter in Undead campaign (Threnodic Spell is +2, you'll suffer)
...
There are only two characters in the party. Which of us least fits it?
Also this notion of balanced has to be taking away options is just plain false.
There are only two characters in the party. Which of us least fits it?
There is a third person: the DM... what kind of game does he want to run? Something in Cheliax...? good luck with your Angels.
Also this notion of balanced has to be taking away options is just plain false.
Then you must be a genius... all the devs of computer games out there, failed until now. You should write your own rulebooks...
But you might find something more to your taste if you go look at different roleplaying systems? Especially those without class-based systems?
I understand why you see it that way. But, it is hard for me to come up with a good, equitable scenario in which a caster and a martial are on equal footing - from which to determine relative power.So, my rationale: Suppose my group consisted of a fighter, rogue, cleric, and wizard. Further we are walking along when suddenly we are transported into a giant arena where we are staring down four identical dopplegangers of ourselves that we immediately know we must defeat. No surprise round.I think this scenario is a distraction from the real issue. PC parties don't fight PC parties regularly, they fight a normal spread of encounters, most of which don't include any spellcasters. PvP scenarios play out completely different than normal adventuring.Yep, and I understand why you resort to PvP as a measure. I've seen a hundred discussions of "what character is stronger" turn into "who would win in a fight" and it never really answers the right question.
** spoiler omitted **
Also good to keep in mind that while this situation doesn't come up for players, it comes up for GMs in every encounter. So if you're a GM running an intelligent monster, which PC do you try to take out first and at what level? Probably going to be the caster at all levels, right? Easier to drop + most potential to influence combat.
Magic Butterfly wrote:
I remember the time our party fought a swarm of crows-- talk about a caster/martial effectiveness divide. Immune to weapon damage, huh.
Nope. Swarms of insects are immune to weapons but for swarms of bigger creatures like crows (correct me if I'm wrong) it's half damage from non-bludgeoning weapons and full damage from bludgeoning.
Well I'll be damned. Another entry in my group's "Pathfinder Rules We Did Wrong" forum thread.
And I think what Anzyr is getting at is to ask why "balance" necessarily involves nerfing casters. Why can't martials have nice things too? Can't the developers promote balance by buffing classes that are lagging behind a bit? If I'm designing a game and I'm seeing balance issues, my first instinct would be to try to add to the classes that have problems rather than take existing player toys away.
Wow... are you working in some legal/law/lawyer type job? (You don't _have to_ answer ;-) )It's not fiat, it's common sense...I am more cynical than you are; experience has led me to believe that there is no such thing as "common sense," and that verbal agreements are generally better than tacit ones because no one, no matter how "senstive," can actually read anyone else's mind.Very few people intentionally show up intending to ruin others fun. But if I want to play a CG summoner who we'll call... Angel Summoner and my friend Joe wants to play a Big Man X Ex-highway who we'll call BMX Bandit, there is going to be issues. Both of our builds are completely reasonable ways to build a character, but BMX Bandit isn't going to have fun that my solution to most problems... "Well you could sneak in and disarm the guys... or I could summon a horde of Celestial Superbeings.
Which one of us should have to sacrifice the build we want to play so the other can have fun? Should I stop using Summons (which was the whole thing I found neat about a guy who summons angels) or should BMX Bandit redesign his character to be more effective? (The correct answer is options should be balanced so this doesn't occur.)
Relevant Link is Relevant: Angel Summoner!
That was hilarious.
|
Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit didn't have a skilled GM. (I do love that sketch, btw)
The real problem with those guys was one of teamwork. Sure, Angel Summoner CAN summon angels, but if he were doing it in Pathfinder, he'd have a limit on the number of times he could do it per day. So let BMX Bandit take care stuff until he actually NEEDS assistance, in case something worse happens later in the day. And then the one time that BMX Bandit could have at the very least used some help, Angel Summoner decides to let him have his moment in the spotlight.
Of course, the hypothetical GM would have been kind of a dick to throw the last situation at them right after BMX Bandit said that he would handle the next one alone.