I just don't understand how casters are better...


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

101 to 150 of 760 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Marthkus wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
You've admitted in previous threads that you've never seen an optimized caster in play, or one even remotely close to being good at his job.
When did I ever say that? My buddies love breaking things. It was easier for them to break alchemist, magus, and paladin than it was fullcaster. Fullcasters are terribly balanced in pathfinder compared to 3.5.

Thanks for repeating the quote I was going to pull from the other thread.

It is quite doubtful that it was easier for them to "break" an Alchemist, Magus, or Paladin as compared to a full caster. They likely have never tried, don't like the classes, or just decided not to be douchebags.

The "Fullcasters are terribly balanced" sentence is quite true. Just in the opposite direction than you intended.

Marthkus wrote:

With the way you read the rules, I can see how "as intended" could be a problem. Most of us would consider that munchkin-ing or rules lawyer-ing.

I think most of us would consider it "Pointing out that the words on the page literally say something which means it works that way".

But I really don't feel like getting into another discussion with you where I pull relevant quotes from the text to prove my point and you continually dismiss said quotes out of hand while offering no proof to support your own position.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Past about level 9 or so it becomes increasingly obvious that the casters are the adventurers actually solving problems and getting things done, while everyone else in the party are essentially just an entourage of equal level followers.

Shimesen, you seem to be willfully missing the point that no matter how great your fighter is at fighting, a proper caster can completely upstage him by making the one thing he is good at moot. Even your hamfisted GM fiat ways to keep casters in check all revolve around applying more magic to the problem or giving noncasters a few wands so they can be halfassed casters when nobody is looking. All of this is blatant admission that nothing trumps magic, nothing.


Shimesen wrote:
Lumiere Dawnbringer wrote:
Rynjin wrote:

No, a Fighter cannot DO more. He USES nothing, but even with "unlimited resources" (though that's a misnomer) he DOES less than a caster does.

They simply have more versatility, utility, and story changing power that the Fighter can NEVER match.

They DO more, a limited number of times per day than a Fighter can do going non-stop for 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

Actually; a fighter does have resource limitations, the same Resource that everyone shares, Regardless of Class.

Hit Points

a fighter's hit points are limited by the following factors. some of these factors are beneficial in abundance, and some of them hinder you in abundance.


  • the remaining spells of your caster buddies
  • the remaining charges on your party's wands and staves
  • the remaining potions and scrolls in your party's inventory
  • your max HP total
  • your defenses
  • the damage output of your enemies
  • your own damage output
  • your tactics
  • your group's tactics
  • your coordination level
  • the defenses of your enemies
  • the defenses of your allies
  • the damage output of your allies
  • the max HP totals of your allies
  • the max HP totals of your enemies
  • any spells your enemy possesses
  • any consumables your enemy possesses
  • the amount of allies you posses
  • the number of enemies you face
  • the percentage of allied casters in your group
  • the percentage of enemy casters in the opposing group
if you put the word caster in place of the word fighter at the beging of your post, you have the exact came result. this is not a limitation exclusive to the martial classes. if anything it is a clear advantage that they have because their HP is drastically higher then those of a caster, and with all the above factors in play, any way in which the caster can increase his HP, the fighter would most likely get the same as well simply by asking nicely. the smaller amount of HP that a caster has ends up being a weakness compared to a martial character because it requires him to 1) rest more often, or 2) expend those ohh so valuable spells per day

the difference between a D6 and a D8 is 1 hit point per level

the difference between a D8 and D10 is 1 hit point per level

the Difference Between a D6 and a D10 is 2 hit points per level

an oracle only needs spells for tougher encounters, and they have enough to get the appropriate buffs for the majority of CR appropriate encounters in one day. but even then, you don't need too many buffs unless you are facing a truly dangerous encounter. the key is threat assessment and buff management

the difference for the oracle and druid can be made up by either favored class bonus or the toughness feat, and those 2 classes depend less on feats than the fighter, meaning, they can more readily afford toughness

a wizard can make that up with both toughness and favored class bonus, alongside a decent constitution

because fighters gain so much fewer skill points per level, and have poor base will saves, a fighter has to invest in wisdom and/or intelligence, and likely divert favored class or an additional feat to gain the skill points. a fighter and oracle are bound to have similar strength scores and the difference is so minor it is irrelevant

a wizard can invest in a variety of roguish skills, and with a cheap pair of magic boots, replace a rogue well enough to suffice. oh. they can craft those boots too. that can be done merely by their ludicrously high amount of skill points.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nem-Z wrote:

Past about level 9 or so it becomes increasingly obvious that the casters are the adventurers actually solving problems and getting things done, while everyone else in the party are essentially just an entourage of equal level followers.

Shimesen, you seem to be willfully missing the point that no matter how great your fighter is at fighting, a proper caster can completely upstage him by making the one thing he is good at moot. Even your hamfisted GM fiat ways to keep casters in check all revolve around applying more magic to the problem or giving noncasters a few wands so they can be halfassed casters when nobody is looking. All of this is blatant admission that nothing trumps magic, nothing.

i never say anything trumps magic. i know full well that to acomplish a task, there is ALWAYS a magical solution, but the simple fact that there is not a single class in the game that can use any/all magic however and whenever they damned well feel like it because their class has limitations is exactly why they are balanced. yes, i you really want to, you can do anything any other class can do...for a little while...at a cost...then you have to stop and wait...where as the class you are attempting to mimic can keep on doing what they were meant to do without end....

in this lies balance. no matter how you look at it, a caster has to stop at some point at least once a day. martial characters dont have to unless they need to replenish hit points. every class can just plow through lvl 1 goblins without taking a hit...but a caster will run out of spells just like a ranger will run out of arrows...a martial character can keep going until he literally drops dead from exhaustion, which can take a few days. this is balance. this is my whole point. casters are balanced because they HAVE TO STOP. yes, the party will most likely stop whenever the caster needs to because that's common player etiquette. but do they have to? no. thats a choice made for the enjoyment of everyone.

you also have to take into account that a player who chooses to play a (we'll say fighter for the sake of simplicity) chooses to do so because they dont WANT to be the guy who picks the locks, or finds a way around a story obstacle. they want to be the one who sprints into a fight and screams "HULK SMASH". the player who chooses to play a rogue knowing wants to be the guy who picks the locks and hides and picks his targets. but the player who chooses to play a sorcerer because he wants to do EVERYTHING that can possibly be done is going to find that a)they dont have the spells available to accomplish this, or b)they manage to hog the spotlight and everyone at the table ends up hating them. either way, they arn't going to be happy.

maybe i'm the only one who sees balance as being more then 4+2+1=7 is the same as 1+4+2=7....balance has alot more to do with the players interaction with themselves than it does with the characters potential to interact with the rules.

a group with a fighter, rogue, and sorcerer in it comes to a door: options include fighter kicking it down, sorcerer blowing it up, or rogue picking the lock. without even discussing the issue everyone knows that this is the rogues time to shine. if in this situation the sorcerer uses a spell instead of letting the rogue do it, you have 1)created tension in the group dynamic, and 2)made the rogues player feel that he has played the wrong class to do what he wants to do (which he hasn't).

in addition, in a group such as this, no caster in their right mind would have spells ready for situations that the other party members can deal with. there isn't space enough to be prepared for anything and everything. so instead you prepare for what ISN'T in the party. just because there is a spell for everything, doesn't mean you USE spells for everything. you use magic when there isn't a way to deal with something WITHOUT it....this is the balance that is build into casters. their strength is in their versatility, but their versatility is also their weakness, because they dont prepare to pick the lock, but then the rogue gets taken out in an encounter and the locked door wasn't picked and the caster doesn't have the spell ready to solve this problem because he used it to stabilize the rogue so he didnt die. now they all have to wait and sleep until the next day, at which point the rogue will be able to pick the lock again and so the caster doesnt prepare the spell again. these are things discussed out of game (metagaming) that make co-existence possible


ok, well i have my answer to the question. now i understand, so i can roll my eyes effectively whenever i see this argument come up elsewhere. thank you all for your input.

if a moderator could please close this thread...

Dark Archive

There have been more good points brought up in this thread than most on the subject, which is a bit of a plus. That being said, I think we're all cognizant that this has been done to death already- probably the most basic definition of Player Character power is the extent to which the character can influence the world around him, and magic is much better at changing the world than Attacks, Feats, or Skills.

Just looking at a few concepts:

A fighter will destroy anything he finds himself adjacent to (or within bow range of, in many cases). A 10th Level Wizard knows a dozen or more Spells that can Hit things 800ft away.

Fighters get 100% more Feats than anybody else. Fully 50% of those Feats are Fighter Bonus Feats, and can only be used to make them better in combat. Wizards get a handful of Magic Item Crafting Feats which are useful in and out of combat, and are right up there with Leadership for most game unbalancing Feats. Remember that Character WBL IS supposed to be a form of game balance.

A Fighter can act like a Wizard by spending all his money on Wands, Taking one or more UMD related Feats, and burning half or more of his Skill Points on just UMD. A Wizard can craft Wands at half cost and never really needs UMD. So in a situation where the Fighter spends 100% of his WBL on Wands, the Wizard gets the same Wands, and still has 50% of his WBL.

A Wizard can't really act like a Fighter, but he can reach down into Hell and grab a handful of temporary Fighter stand-ins to do the same job.

People say a Wizard is balanced because Spells/day are finite. Wands. Scrolls. The ability to magically bail on almost any situation in which he might run out of spells.

People say a Wizard is balanced because he can't prepare for anything. Wands. Scrolls. Scrying. The previously mentioned option to bail.

Basically, at the same level a Fighter learns how to swing one sword three times in six seconds, the Wizard gets Transformation.


The fact that you acknowledge the fact that a Sorcerer can "hog the spotlight" and do everyone's job, and yet you fail to see that this is unbalanced really illuminates how little you know about game balance.


actually, there is a build that can spontaneously use any spell from both the cleric and wizard/sorcerer lists

you take an oracle with the following resources

Paragon Surge
Eldritch Heritage (Arcane)
Human Favored Class bonus

by using paragon surge you do the following

Gain any divine spell you wish as a temporary spell known (Expanded Arcana, Oracle) the spell merely needs to be either on the Cleric/Oracle list, a Cleric Domain list, or an Oracle Mystery list

Gain any Arcane spell you wish as a temporary spell known (Improved Eldritch Heritage-Arcane), the spell must be on the Wizard/Sorcerer list or a Sorcerer Bloodline List

meaning

by wasting a 3rd level slot as a standard action or a 7th level slot as a swift action, you can cast any spell you please on the next round.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.

A Group of Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, Rogue doesn't stop for the day when the Wizard runs out of Spells because of player etiquette. They do it because the Cleric has already run out of Spells and the martial characters would not survive another fight.

Past 8th Level or so it is completely reasonable to say that a Wizard has more staying power in a fight than a Fighter, because the former can defeat enemies more quickly and with substantially less risk to himself.


Lumiere Dawnbringer wrote:
by wasting a 3rd level slot as a standard action or a 7th level slot as a swift action, you can cast any spell you please on the next round.

That one is kind'of a big.

I'll stick to my human fav class bonus + PoSK and be just fine.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ninten wrote:

A Group of Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, Rogue doesn't stop for the day when the Wizard runs out of Spells because of player etiquette. They do it because the Cleric has already run out of Spells and the martial characters would not survive another fight.

Past 8th Level or so it is completely reasonable to say that a Wizard has more staying power in a fight than a Fighter, because the former can defeat enemies more quickly and with substantially less risk to himself.

I think you are missing the point of unlimited uses. The caster plays conservatively, only contributing when no one else can handle the situation. Martials and skill monkeys are the backbone. The more situations they can handle, the longer the adventuring day, the more money and exp for spell casters. Casters want to save spells. Players want to have more than a 5 minute work day.

You can't function as a party with just casters without having really short adventuring days. A balanced party handles adventures better than a lopsided all-caster one.

Not to mention out-of-combat use. The Fighter and rogue do 90% of the work, while the caster occasionally roles a social skill or cast a single spell. It's flashy when they do it. And it can seem like that are OP, but casters in actuality end up doing less than their mundane counterparts. They don't feel bad or UP, because they know they could be doing those things that they let the mortals do, but they choose not to.

The caster gets to feel powerful, while the martials and skill monkey get to do stuff.

Now a party of hybrids is probably the best of everything. Like a Druid, Pally, Bard, Summoner group would function better than a Rogue, Fighter, Cleric, Wizard group, but both would be better than a Wizard, Sorcerer, Witch, Cleric group.


Marthkus wrote:
Not to mention out-of-combat use. The Fighter and rogue do 90% of the work, while the caster occasionally roles a social skill or cast a single spell. It's flashy when they do it.

Between the 2+int skillof the wizard, the 4+in skill of the druid plus the animal companion the rogue job can be covered without a rogue. Specially if there is a bard in there.


Yeah bard...

Wizard doesn't have the same skills as a rogue, and the druid CAN scout, but can't do most rogue things.

Skillmonkeys do things like open chest and disarm traps and open doors quietly. Not the best role, but my current group lacks a skillmonkey and we are feeling it.

Dark Archive

Not to nitpick, but what out of combat use does the Fighter have? One of my major problems with the caster-martial discrepancy is that not only are Fighters/Barbarians one-dimensional in combat, out of combat a Fighter can contribute... Intimidate? To quote a post I made a long time ago:

Ninten wrote:

I think that the following provides for a pretty good explanation of how the stuff written on your character sheet informs role-play, as well as why not all classes are ‘balanced’ in this regard.

In this example of play, a Fighter, Rogue and Wizard have all discovered something fishy going on within the local castle, but they’ve been stonewalled in all their investigations and nobody seems to want to talk to them. The Wizard gets the bright idea of maybe talking to the princess, who seems nicer and more open than anybody else.

The group decides to quietly converse with the princess. But in order to do so, somebody is going to have to scale the castle walls, sneak through the tower, pick the lock on the princess’ door, and succeed in assuaging her fears that they are not there to kill her long enough to gain some useful information.

To recap, the ‘fun’ goal is to role-play an interaction with the princess, because everybody else gets to sit on the castle lawn and pick their nose. Not a great scenario by the DM, sure, but I think we’ve all seen this happen.

The Fighter is boned, here. He might be able to Climb the walls, provided that is one of his ~3 Skills. He also has to take off his heavy armor first, meaning that even the princess could stab his AC 11. He also might be able to Sneak though the tower, but quietly opening a lock provides an all but impossible challenge, let alone waking/talking to the princess before she takes one look at his 8 CHA and yells “stranger danger!”

The Rogue is in much better shape. Climb the walls? Probably! Sneak around? Heck yes! Disable Device? Done! Charm the pants off the princess? Sure, and he’ll probably strike up a forbidden romance and score some loot while he’s at it. In comparison to the Fighter, the Rogue has 100% more fun, because the situation favors his Class build.

The Wizard, having spent the day preparing for this secret meeting, needs not make a single roll. Fly, he says, and so Climbs the wall. Invisibility doesn’t make him silent, but a bit of caution surely does. Knock handles the door. Charm Person handles the princess, and the Wizard has enough Knowledge Skills to use that information. Compared to the Fighter, the Wizard has 100% more fun, and has the added benefit of overcoming challenges the Rogue also could not, so long as he knows about them ahead of time.


Marthkus wrote:

Yeah bard...

Wizard doesn't have the same skills as a rogue, and the druid CAN scout, but can't do most rogue things.

Skillmonkeys do things like open chest and disarm traps and open doors quietly. Not the best role, but my current group lacks a skillmonkey and we are feeling it.

all a wizard loses for investing their massive amount of skill points into roguish skills is the +3 class skill bonus, Trapfinding can be bought on a cheap pair of boots, or crafted.

a Rogue Gets 8+int skills but lets say they have a 14 int for 10 Skills

a Wizard with 20 int Starts with 7 Skills, gains an 8th per level with a 22 int, and with a headband can get an additional 1-3 skills maxed. by 12th-16th level, a wizard is 1 skill point per level behind the 14 int rogue, maybe equal, depending on whether or not they buy tomes. more if they buy an int headband, which they can more reliably afford because they lack the need for a magic weapon, and don't need a strength bonus on their physical perfection belt to be viable. but due to the physical investment on the rogue's part, i doubt they can afford that 14 int short of a 25 or higher point buy without sacrificing elsewhere.


I'm sure the court wizard would appreciate you using mind control on the princess. That is if by some chance all the royalty isn't warded from mind effecting enchantments.

This situation calls for a rogue or bard or other skillmonkey.

The fighter and wizard should go talk to two different people. The Wizard can mind rape someone of lesser status while the fighter either befriends a fellow warrior (like most important people in the castle), duels a worthy opponent, or beats information out of someone.

Having more than one person in the castle risk detection, also time is a factor. Each party member should be talking to different people.


Lumiere Dawnbringer wrote:
Marthkus wrote:

Yeah bard...

Wizard doesn't have the same skills as a rogue, and the druid CAN scout, but can't do most rogue things.

Skillmonkeys do things like open chest and disarm traps and open doors quietly. Not the best role, but my current group lacks a skillmonkey and we are feeling it.

all a wizard loses for investing their massive amount of skill points into roguish skills is the +3 class skill bonus, Trapfinding can be bought on a cheap pair of boots, or crafted.

a Rogue Gets 8+int skills but lets say they have a 14 int for 10 Skills

a Wizard with 20 int Starts with 7 Skills, gains an 8th per level with a 22 int, and with a headband can get an additional 1-3 skills maxed. by 12th-16th level, a wizard is 1 skill point per level behind the 14 int rogue, maybe equal, depending on whether or not they buy tomes. more if they buy an int headband, which they can more reliably afford because they lack the need for a magic weapon, and don't need a strength bonus on their physical perfection belt to be viable. but due to the physical investment on the rogue's part, i doubt they can afford that 14 int short of a 25 or higher point buy without sacrificing elsewhere.

All the important rogue skills scale with either dex or charisma. Meaning you need a real skill monkey to make those checks without burning spells.

Yeah wizard handles the int skill. Go figure. The party needs some knowledge checks anyways.

The Exchange

Our party of 6 casters sure was wishing one of us was a melee in Siege of the Diamond City. Granted this was not the usual scenario setup, but about 10 minutes in to the 4 hour slot I wished I had brought my 12th level fighter instead of my 5th level cleric... half way through the slot I was literally throwing rocks at enemies in an attempt to be effective.


Marthkus wrote:
Can a caster spend lots of spells stealing the spotlight? Yes, but then they are worse at their own role and the party suffers for it.

No--this is the problem.

You're saying that a caster can do what the Fighter does or what the Rogue does, but it's not a good idea because then he wouldn't be doing what the caster is supposed to do and the party would suffer.

However, what if you had four casters, and each did a different job? Then one caster could focus on doing the Fighter stuff, another on the Rogue stuff, and you'd still have others that could do the caster stuff.

This is the problem. A party with non-casters in it will never be as good as a party with casters.

And the idea that non-casters can't do what a Fighter does is silly. Literally every Inquisitor, Druid, or Cleric that I've seen in play (and fully 1/2 the Oracles) had Strength of 16+ to start and Power Attack as their 3rd level feat. They were generally 1 point of accuracy behind the Fighter when they were unbuffed but did the same damage. With buffs, they surpassed him. Then, they also had spells for other things.

I currently play a Druid who holds the front line with a dual-wielding Fighter and a Rogue. Before Wild Shape, I was the best warrior in the party and my companion was the 2nd. Now that I can shapeshift, it's not even close. Then, on top of that, I can do other things, too, including heal, summon, or prepare just the right utility spell for what we need.

It's silly to think a non-caster could be that useful to the party.

Shimesen wrote:

so this is the answer i've come up with so far for me question:

casters are WAY better then martial characters because - they have the potential to do anything/everything in a campaign setting and more...BUT (<--emphasis on how big that 'but' is) they dont/cant because of limitations build into their class such as spells per day

False--a caster can be built to do everything the non-casters do. A Cleric, for example, has only 1 HP per level less than the fighter, and is barely behind the Fighter in melee potential unbuffed. Then, they get spells on top of that, including long duration buffs that easily eclipse the Fighter, never mind all the utility and other stuff they get along with it.

Fighters bring nothing to the table.

Marthkus wrote:
But an oracle is limited by spells. They can't be a martial at all times. They make poor replacements.

No, they make perfectly fine replacements while unbuffed, but can then pull out the spells when needed.

What's the difference between a level 3 Fighter and a level 3 Oracle built to fight with two-handed weapons? The Fighter has 2 more feats, 3 more HP, and +1 to hit. The Oracle has +6 Skill points, two revelations (invariably better than feats), and spells.

There is nothing the Fighter can do that the Oracle can't (and he only fights slightly better when the Oracle is caught unbuffed), but the Oracle can do dozens of other things the Fighter can't even attempt.

Shimesen wrote:
i never say anything trumps magic. i know full well that to acomplish a task, there is ALWAYS a magical solution, but the simple fact that there is not a single class in the game that can use any/all magic however and whenever they damned well feel like it because their class has limitations is exactly why they are balanced.

No, because a fully diverse party can be made out of a Wizard, Cleric, Oracle, and Druid that will be infinitely more effective than a party containing non-casters.

Shimesen wrote:
yes, i you really want to, you can do anything any other class can do...for a little while...at a cost...then you have to stop and wait...where as the class you are attempting to mimic can keep on doing what they were meant to do without end....

And so can you, if you built yourself the same way. My Druid can still swing his scythe as hard as any Fighter with only a slight decrease in accuracy from having a 3/4 BAB, even if I had no other special abilities whatsoever.


Marthkus wrote:
I'm sure the court wizard would appreciate you using mind control on the princess. That is if by some chance all the royalty isn't warded from mind effecting enchantments.

Oh what a surprise... the only defense against a caster is another caster.

Sure, balance. LOL


mplindustries wrote:
False--a caster can be built to do everything the non-casters do. A Cleric, for example, has only 1 HP per level less than the fighter, and is barely behind the Fighter in melee potential unbuffed. Then, they get spells on top of that, including long duration buffs that easily eclipse the Fighter, never mind all the utility and other stuff they get along with it.

Unbuffed? how is that?


Marthkus wrote:
Lumiere Dawnbringer wrote:
Marthkus wrote:

Yeah bard...

Wizard doesn't have the same skills as a rogue, and the druid CAN scout, but can't do most rogue things.

Skillmonkeys do things like open chest and disarm traps and open doors quietly. Not the best role, but my current group lacks a skillmonkey and we are feeling it.

all a wizard loses for investing their massive amount of skill points into roguish skills is the +3 class skill bonus, Trapfinding can be bought on a cheap pair of boots, or crafted.

a Rogue Gets 8+int skills but lets say they have a 14 int for 10 Skills

a Wizard with 20 int Starts with 7 Skills, gains an 8th per level with a 22 int, and with a headband can get an additional 1-3 skills maxed. by 12th-16th level, a wizard is 1 skill point per level behind the 14 int rogue, maybe equal, depending on whether or not they buy tomes. more if they buy an int headband, which they can more reliably afford because they lack the need for a magic weapon, and don't need a strength bonus on their physical perfection belt to be viable. but due to the physical investment on the rogue's part, i doubt they can afford that 14 int short of a 25 or higher point buy without sacrificing elsewhere.

All the important rogue skills scale with either dex or charisma. Meaning you need a real skill monkey to make those checks without burning spells.

Yeah wizard handles the int skill. Go figure. The party needs some knowledge checks anyways.

Important Rogue Skills

Perception (Wis Based), (Familiar grants a retry at a potential bonus)

Disable Device (Dex Based) (Familiar can aid another)

Diplomacy (Cha Based) (Familiar can aid or provide a retry)

UMD (Cha based) (irrelevant except to steal other classes spells or to minmax improved familiar)

Stealth; (Dex Based) (the ranks, are there for your flying pint sized familiar to scout for you. smaller familiars have size bonuses that compensate for your lack of dexterity bonus)

Sense Motive (Wis Based, familiar can provide a retry)

Survival (Wis based, Ranger Skill, familiar can aid or provide a retry)

Other Nice Skills

Fly (Dex based) (you can invest ranks for you and your familiar, rogue can't do this due to lack of a fly speed)

Spellcraft (int based) (used to craft cheap gear, to bypass requirements, and to milk the benefits of gear intended to provide bonuses to the essential skills)

Escape Artist (Dex based) (useful for helping your pint sized familiar escape, hardly an issue.)

At 10th level, with a crafting feat you can have

8 of these skills maxed, and 2 more maxed on a +4 headband for 8,000 GP. 300 GP less than one of the rogue's +2 weapons or 10,300 cheaper than her +3 weapon you didn't have to buy.

and the skill ranks at that level will quite easily compensate for reduced attributes, especially with crafted items tacked onto the relevant skills. (perception goggles, trapfinding boots)

with improved familiar, your improved familiar can be a pseudorogue.

it's not like the rogue is going to have that much charisma, or a dex mod more than maybe 2 points above your own unless she makes extreme sacrifices elsewere.


Hahahahaha. Oracles can replace fighter unbuffed? I'm sure their 3/4 BAB and less strength and AC really helps them. They are not even close in martial prowess. Buffs allow them to catch up for brief periods of time.

Level 3 is not when you really feel the difference, but by that level the oracle has so few spells anyways.

An all caster party just can't last as a long as a balanced party. They burn through spells too fast to barely do the jobs that the martials and skill monkeys did without spells.

SANS druid though. Wildshape alone lets them fill the martial role. Clerics and oracles really can't compete with the staying power wildshape and the animal companion provides. Druid has to deal with tons of unfun paperwork though.


Nicos wrote:
Unbuffed? how is that?

3/4 BAB means plus Fighter Weapon Training means they are slightly behind accuracy and damage, but their AC is pretty much going to be the same in the end, they can have the same Strength score and Power Attack is the only feat you really need to be dangerous in melee. So, they're only a little behind.

A level 3 Fighter with a Greatsword, 18 Strength, and Power Attack has:

+6 to hit 2d6+9 damage

A level 3 Cleric with a Greatsword, 18 Strength, and Power Attack has:

+5 to hit 2d6+9 damage (unbuffed)


Marthkus wrote:
Hahahahaha. Oracles can replace fighter unbuffed? I'm sure their 3/4 BAB and less strength and AC really helps them. They are not even close in martial prowess. Buffs allow them to catch up for brief periods of time.

(Emphasis mine)

Whoah, whoah, whoah! Are we back in the 80s when Fighters really did have more benefit from Strength than other classes (and were actually balanced)? Why does an Oracle necessarily have less Strength than a Fighter? An Oracle filling the Fighter role is going to max his Strength, just like a Fighter will.

Marthkus wrote:
Level 3 is not when you really feel the difference, but by that level the oracle has so few spells anyways.

When the differences start widening, the Oracle has more and more spells of greater and greater power.

Marthkus wrote:
An all caster party just can't last as a long as a balanced party. They burn through spells too fast to barely do the jobs that the martials and skill monkeys did without spells.

Again, no. The Martials have no advantage when it comes to using skills or fighting beyond slightly more skill points or slightly more feats. That's it--the sum total of their advantage.


mplindustries wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Unbuffed? how is that?

3/4 BAB means plus Fighter Weapon Training means they are slightly behind accuracy and damage, but their AC is pretty much going to be the same in the end, they can have the same Strength score and Power Attack is the only feat you really need to be dangerous in melee. So, they're only a little behind.

A level 3 Fighter with a Greatsword, 18 Strength, and Power Attack has:

+6 to hit 2d6+9 damage

A level 3 Cleric with a Greatsword, 18 Strength, and Power Attack has:

+5 to hit 2d6+9 damage (unbuffed)

Some numbers do not show anything. With 18 str I suppose the cleric is dumping hard somthing in order to have wis 16. The cleric woudl probably have less AC and hit points too. And at that level it is not like the spellcasting abilities of the cleric are earth-shatering.

If you provide all the numbers then you could prove your point, if not then your statement are just empty words.


I've seen a lot of fighters spring for a 14 wisdom, particularly at the 20 point buy level. Some oracle and even cleric builds that I've seen barely have more than that.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Nicos wrote:
mplindustries wrote:
False--a caster can be built to do everything the non-casters do. A Cleric, for example, has only 1 HP per level less than the fighter, and is barely behind the Fighter in melee potential unbuffed. Then, they get spells on top of that, including long duration buffs that easily eclipse the Fighter, never mind all the utility and other stuff they get along with it.
Unbuffed? how is that?

The difference between a cleric and a fighter for the first few levels is only -1 to hit. As long as you build for melee you can easily be only slightly behind.


Nicos wrote:
Some numbers do not show anything. With 18 str I suppose the cleric is dumping hard somthing in order to have wis 16. The cleric woudl probably have less AC and hit points too. And at that level it is not like the spellcasting abilities of the cleric are earth-shatering.

So, Clerics can't do what Figthers do...because clerics get more benefit from more attributes than Fighters do? Really? That's the argument?


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Nicos wrote:
mplindustries wrote:
False--a caster can be built to do everything the non-casters do. A Cleric, for example, has only 1 HP per level less than the fighter, and is barely behind the Fighter in melee potential unbuffed. Then, they get spells on top of that, including long duration buffs that easily eclipse the Fighter, never mind all the utility and other stuff they get along with it.
Unbuffed? how is that?
The difference between a cleric and a fighter for the first few levels is only -1 to hit. As long as you build for melee you can easily be only slightly behind.

And in AC and hit points? are the cleric spell destroying plots at this level?


mplindustries wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Some numbers do not show anything. With 18 str I suppose the cleric is dumping hard somthing in order to have wis 16. The cleric woudl probably have less AC and hit points too. And at that level it is not like the spellcasting abilities of the cleric are earth-shatering.
So, Clerics can't do what Figthers do...because clerics get more benefit from more attributes than Fighters do? Really? That's the argument?

The argument is that you only provide a couple of numbers, there were alotof numbers you did not give to us, therefore your arguemnt is not proven.


Nicos wrote:
mplindustries wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Unbuffed? how is that?

3/4 BAB means plus Fighter Weapon Training means they are slightly behind accuracy and damage, but their AC is pretty much going to be the same in the end, they can have the same Strength score and Power Attack is the only feat you really need to be dangerous in melee. So, they're only a little behind.

A level 3 Fighter with a Greatsword, 18 Strength, and Power Attack has:

+6 to hit 2d6+9 damage

A level 3 Cleric with a Greatsword, 18 Strength, and Power Attack has:

+5 to hit 2d6+9 damage (unbuffed)

Some numbers do not show anything. With 18 str I suppose the cleric is dumping hard somthing in order to have wis 16. The cleric woudl probably have less AC and hit points too. And at that level it is not like the spellcasting abilities of the cleric are earth-shatering.

If you provide all the numbers then you could prove your point, if not then your statement are just empty words.

Such a cleric probably neglects channeling, invests in a mediocre Dex or Int, and has a Mediocre Wis

with a 15 wis, you can have 9th level spells at level 17. you can do this with even less if you factor wisdom boosters.

a martially inclined cleric doesn't care too much about DCs.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Nicos wrote:
And in AC and hit points? are the cleric spell destroying plots at this level?

Focus in Con and heavy armor and you're fine. As to the second, what relevance does that have?


mplindustries wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Unbuffed? how is that?

3/4 BAB means plus Fighter Weapon Training means they are slightly behind accuracy and damage, but their AC is pretty much going to be the same in the end, they can have the same Strength score and Power Attack is the only feat you really need to be dangerous in melee. So, they're only a little behind.

A level 3 Fighter with a Greatsword, 18 Strength, and Power Attack has:

+6 to hit 2d6+9 damage

A level 3 Cleric with a Greatsword, 18 Strength, and Power Attack has:

+5 to hit 2d6+9 damage (unbuffed)

Less dex, so no worse AC than fighter.

Cleric will have at most 16 strength. They still need wis, and con. And they can't really dump dex, int, or cha
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

lvl 10 fighter

20+4=24str
+2 magic weapon
+2 feats
+2 weapon training
+10 BAB

7+2+2+2+10 = 23 to hit
damage 2d6+10str+2magic+2feat+2class = ave 22
with power attack ave 31

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

lvl 10 cleric

16+4 str = 20 (lol they put level points into wis)
+2 magic weapon
+7 BAB

5+2+7 = 14 to hit
damage 2d6+7str+2magic = 16ave
with power attack 19ave

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lvl 10 dumb martial cleric stat dump champ

20+4 str
+2 magic weapon
+1 feat
+7 BAB

7+1+2+7 = 17 to hit
damage 2d6+10str+2magic = 19
with power attack = 22 ave

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

SO no not even close. Try looking past level 3.


Can somebody post that miracolous 3r level cleric?

Silver Crusade

You want numbers Nicos? Here's numbers. Make of them what you will.


16 str (+2), 14 Wisdom 14 Con, 10s in everything else and you have a pretty good melee cleric or oracle (swap wisdom for your oracle's casting stat) build without dumping anything. If you're a reach build, drop strength down to 14 (+2) and spend the 5 extra points on dexterity to buy yourself a 14.
If you're using the 1 character build point (i.e., not one point in an attribute, but a build point like you were a new character) per level optional rule that a fair number of folks are, seriously MAD builds like this one really shine.


Good AC and save but not particulary Impresive numbers, not to mention that he also have 2 levels of fighter and it is not level 3 so it does not prove MPLindustries statement.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

If I wasn't putting him to Holy Vindicator I wouldn't have those Fighter levels. He'd have open feats for Heavy Armor Prof then.

If you can't see what he could be at 3rd level from that, I don't know what to tell you.


Cleric

Onispawn Tiefling or Oread

10th level

Str 18 (15+2+1) (22)

Dex 14

Con 14

Int 10

Wis 18 (15+2+1)

Cha 5 (7-2)

+7 BAB

+6 STR

+2 Magic Weapom

+15 to hit before buffs, Hit CR appropriate AC 60% of time unbuffed

2d6+9+2 18 Unbuffed

w/ Power Attack; +13 to hit, 24 damage Unbuffed

Angelkin, Suli, Nagaji or Demonspawn Tiefling Oracle

Str 18 (15+2+1) (22)

Dex 14

Con 14

Int 12 (or 10 if one of the latter 3)

Wis 7

Cha 17 (14+1+2)

Attack

+7 BAB

+6 Strength

+2 Weapon

+15 to hit/13 w/ PA unbuffed

2d6+9+2 18 damage unbuffed. 24 w/ power attack

can take a revelation for +1 to hit and a doubled crit range


TriOmegaZero wrote:

If I wasn't putting him to Holy Vindicator I wouldn't have those Fighter levels. He'd have open feats for Heavy Armor Prof then.

If you can't see what he could be at 3rd level from that, I don't know what to tell you.

The battle prowess of your build heavily depens on his multiclassing. Heavy armor proficiency, more feats, more BAB (without hte multiclassing your build would not even have the iterative), so yeah it is hard to tell how you character would be if he stay as a cleric.


Lumiere Dawnbringer wrote:

Cleric

Onispawn Tiefling or Oread

10th level

Str 18 (15+2+1) (22)

Dex 14

Con 14

Int 10

Wis 18 (15+2+1)

Cha 5 (7-2)

+7 BAB

+6 STR

+2 Magic Weapom

+15 to hit before buffs, Hit CR appropriate AC 60% of time unbuffed

2d6+9+2 18 Unbuffed

w/ Power Attack; +13 to hit, 24 damage Unbuffed

And how that make him just slighly behin the fighter when the iterative would miss most of times?

Cleric are really strong with all his spellcasting ann the like. And a battle cleric buffed can be a Tank, but an unbuffed cleric is just not a match for any of the martial.


Nicos wrote:
Lumiere Dawnbringer wrote:

Cleric

Onispawn Tiefling or Oread

10th level

Str 18 (15+2+1) (22)

Dex 14

Con 14

Int 10

Wis 18 (15+2+1)

Cha 5 (7-2)

+7 BAB

+6 STR

+2 Magic Weapom

+15 to hit before buffs, Hit CR appropriate AC 60% of time unbuffed

2d6+9+2 18 Unbuffed

w/ Power Attack; +13 to hit, 24 damage Unbuffed

And how that make him just slighly behin the fighter when the iterative would miss most of times?

Cleric are really strong, with all his spellcasting and a battle cleric buffed can be a Tank, but an unbuffed cleric is just not a match for any of the martial.

the fighter's excessive attack and damage bonus are just that, excessive. you don't need to kill a CR appropriate foe in 1 round. if you can do that, it just means the DM has to use monsters 2-3 CRs higher because stuff is dying in 1 round.

the CR system, was balanced around a party of 4 consuming 20% of their resources

but due to excessive levels of optimization, monsters had to be power creeped to keep up with the arms race of individual PCs who due to sheer minmaxing, can drop a CR appropriate foe in 1 round singlehandedly.

the game is much more balanced when you don't deliberate build a level 10 PC that can solo a CR 9-CR 13 encounter in one round.


Actually a decent fighter has plus 23 to hit at that level and with 31 average damage using power attack.

So +20 for ave 31 compares to +13 for ave 24

That is more than just a little behind. We're talking rogue levels of DPR.


Lumiere Dawnbringer wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Lumiere Dawnbringer wrote:

Cleric

Onispawn Tiefling or Oread

10th level

Str 18 (15+2+1) (22)

Dex 14

Con 14

Int 10

Wis 18 (15+2+1)

Cha 5 (7-2)

+7 BAB

+6 STR

+2 Magic Weapom

+15 to hit before buffs, Hit CR appropriate AC 60% of time unbuffed

2d6+9+2 18 Unbuffed

w/ Power Attack; +13 to hit, 24 damage Unbuffed

And how that make him just slighly behin the fighter when the iterative would miss most of times?

Cleric are really strong, with all his spellcasting and a battle cleric buffed can be a Tank, but an unbuffed cleric is just not a match for any of the martial.

the fighter's excessive attack and damage bonus are just that, excessive. you don't need to kill a CR appropriate foe in 1 round. if you can do that, it just means the DM has to use monsters 2-3 CRs higher because stuff is dying in 1 round.

the CR system, was balanced around a party of 4 consuming 20% of their resources

but due to excessive levels of optimization, monsters had to be power creeped to keep up with the arms race of individual PCs who due to sheer minmaxing, can drop a CR appropriate foe in 1 round singlehandedly.

the game is much more balanced when you don't deliberate build a level 10 PC that can solo a CR 9-CR 13 encounter in one round.

So the iference is so much that it becomes excesive? now hte figter can just too much optimized compared to a cleric they are that problematic?

Killling an enemy fast save resources. You do not need to be healed if hte nemy is dead, you do not be to be healed if hte enemy o not hit you in the first place.

Besides, if the fighter woudl not be builded accordinly then the full caster should not be doing the game breaker things either.

============

To reiterate an unbuffed cleric is just a terrible combatant compared to any of hte martials.


Marthkus wrote:

Actually a decent fighter has plus 23 to hit at that level and with 31 average damage using power attack.

So +20 for ave 31 compares to +15 for ave 24

That is more than just a little behind. We're talking rogue levels of DPR.

true

but when the party is working together (it is a team game after all). you shouldn't need APL+3 encounters to challenge a level appropriate party

Fighter DPR is simply rather Excessive. a party of 4 should be able to take on a CR appropriate foe together.

the game just isn't as fun when a single PC drops one of the few CR appropriate foes in a single round

completely skews the CR system.


Lumiere Dawnbringer wrote:
the fighter's excessive attack and damage bonus are just that, excessive. you don't need to kill a CR appropriate foe in 1 round. if you can do that, it just means the DM has to use monsters 2-3 CRs higher because stuff is dying in 1 round.

Besides, if the DM have to alter the encounters to counter the full caster than show how powerfull the spellcasters are.

But According to your argument it is fine if the Dm alter the eocunter to counter the martial, and that do not show anything.


Nicos wrote:
To reiterate an unbuffed cleric is just a terrible combatant compared to any of hte martials.

By my calculations (without including crit and improved crit that the fighter would have)

Unbuffed Oni-spawn clerics do about half as much damage as a fighter by level 10.

It only gets worse from there.


Lumiere Dawnbringer wrote:
Marthkus wrote:

Actually a decent fighter has plus 23 to hit at that level and with 31 average damage using power attack.

So +20 for ave 31 compares to +15 for ave 24

That is more than just a little behind. We're talking rogue levels of DPR.

true

but when the party is working together (it is a team game after all). you shouldn't need APL+3 encounters to challenge a level appropriate party

Fighter DPR is simply rather Excessive. a party of 4 should be able to take on a CR appropriate foe together.

the game just isn't as fun when a single PC drops one of the few CR appropriate foes in a single round

completely skews the CR system.

So caster can end the encounter in a single spell and a fighter can kill a monster in a single full-attack.

I'm not seeing a problem here. It's only when casters try to be martials is the fighter DPR excessive.


Nicos wrote:
Lumiere Dawnbringer wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Lumiere Dawnbringer wrote:

Cleric

Onispawn Tiefling or Oread

10th level

Str 18 (15+2+1) (22)

Dex 14

Con 14

Int 10

Wis 18 (15+2+1)

Cha 5 (7-2)

+7 BAB

+6 STR

+2 Magic Weapom

+15 to hit before buffs, Hit CR appropriate AC 60% of time unbuffed

2d6+9+2 18 Unbuffed

w/ Power Attack; +13 to hit, 24 damage Unbuffed

And how that make him just slighly behin the fighter when the iterative would miss most of times?

Cleric are really strong, with all his spellcasting and a battle cleric buffed can be a Tank, but an unbuffed cleric is just not a match for any of the martial.

the fighter's excessive attack and damage bonus are just that, excessive. you don't need to kill a CR appropriate foe in 1 round. if you can do that, it just means the DM has to use monsters 2-3 CRs higher because stuff is dying in 1 round.

the CR system, was balanced around a party of 4 consuming 20% of their resources

but due to excessive levels of optimization, monsters had to be power creeped to keep up with the arms race of individual PCs who due to sheer minmaxing, can drop a CR appropriate foe in 1 round singlehandedly.

the game is much more balanced when you don't deliberate build a level 10 PC that can solo a CR 9-CR 13 encounter in one round.

So the iference is so much that it becomes excesive? now hte figter can just too much optimized compared to a cleric they are that problematic?

Killling an enemy fast save resources. You do not need to be healed if hte nemy is dead, you do not be to be healed if hte enemy o not hit you in the first place.

Besides, if the fighter woudl not be builded accordinly then the full caster should not be doing the game breaker things either.

============

To reiterate an unbuffed cleric is just a terrible combatant compared to any of hte martials.

i will admit that much, but the game wasn't built around minmaxed 20-25 point fighters who start with a 20 STR

it was built around 15 point suboptimal PCs who were built with a starting 15 or 17 (after modifiers) in their primary stat, and 1 dump stat of 8 (before modifiers)

Such Minmaxed chaacters require a rewrite of the CR system.

a party of 4 suboptimal PCs, were supposed to tackle on monster of CR=APL

the fighter with the 20 Starting STR and 7 INT/CHA is breaking the built in combat expectations of the game

a wizard using 20 starting INT, gated solars, chained simulacrums, or planar bound Eefreeti wishes is also breaking the game's combat expectations.

101 to 150 of 760 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / I just don't understand how casters are better... All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.