My stories tend to have variable outcomes based on dice rolls.
Yeah, ours too. That's why I prefer RPGs with clear rules as opposed to just sitting around making stuff up.
My point here is nothing to do with the rules, it's with making claims explicit. I think "Casters are more flexible" is clearer wording than "casters are better" and doesnt carry an implicit judgement as to the way one should play.
I dont consider this a thread about how the rules of PF should be changed, but rather a thread about how to understand the claim "casters are best".
But there are objective standards by which you judge. Killing a monster quicker is "better" at killing that monster.
I think that's my objection. I heard Neil DeGrasse Tyson speak once and he said he doesn't make moral or political statements he just makes if/then statements. Like IF you want to have an educated workforce capable of competing in a technology driven global economy THEN you need to spend more money investing in STEM education.
IF you want to sneak by a bunch of enemies THEN a simple invisibility spell is a better choice than the stealth skill until very high levels.
IF you want to bypass a locked, trapped door THEN Blink is more useful than thieves tools since it doesn't require a check or possible failure.
Things like that. Past level 6ish, any such statement you can make that addresses a specific type of obstacle or challenge that is presented in a typical game of pathfinder will find a spell to be superior to other methods of overcoming said obstacle or challenge.
But IF you just want to have fun with your friends THEN you should play what is most fun to you.
Well the, still prove your point and made explicit how many rounds of buffind do he need and how many ties he can do it per day and at what level can he start to doint it.
What levels are you talking about? Because Time Stop is basically "here, have several rounds of prep".
As to the surprised thing, Diviner Wizard. Always get to act on surprise round. Just sayin'.
I think this particular line of argumentation is devolving into Shroedinger's Wizard a bit.
What's weird is that his dragon form buffed wizard still sucks when compared to fighter damage.
Your to hit alone is abysmal. Assuming starting at 10 strength.
for the first five to six levels--casters are actually worse. about level 6 parity happens. then about level 9 casters get more powerful. So if you are playing PFS it is balanced---martial lead half the time and casters half the time
Quadratic based power is NOT balanced-
Sure, is may seem a such, but at the beginning, the casters are only a little below par.Not much longer, they are equal.
Then they overtake the Martials, and make them nothing more then the cleanup crew for the army they just stunned.
Then they overtake the Martials, and make them nothing more then the cleanup crew for the army they just stunned.
False.
Sometimes.
My point here is nothing to do with the rules, it's with making claims explicit. I think "Casters are more flexible" is clearer wording than "casters are better" and doesnt carry an implicit judgement as to the way one should play.
I dont consider this a thread about how the rules of PF should be changed, but rather a thread about how to understand the claim "casters are best".
But there are objective standards by which you judge. Killing a monster quicker is "better" at killing that monster.
I think that's my objection. I heard Neil DeGrasse Tyson speak once and he said he doesn't make moral or political statements he just makes if/then statements. Like IF you want to have an educated workforce capable of competing in a technology driven global economy THEN you need to spend more money investing in STEM education.
IF you want to sneak by a bunch of enemies THEN a simple invisibility spell is a better choice than the stealth skill until very high levels.
IF you want to bypass a locked, trapped door THEN Blink is more useful than thieves tools since it doesn't require a check or possible failure.
Things like that. Past level 6ish, any such statement you can make that addresses a specific type of obstacle or challenge that is presented in a typical game of pathfinder will find a spell to be superior to other methods of overcoming said obstacle or challenge.
But IF you just want to have fun with your friends THEN you should play what is most fun to you.
I do understand your position (and for what it's worth, I can't imagine anyone not understanding this latest post unless they were trying to).
Even though it's not the way I think about RPGs, I do get quite a lot out of reading the various rules debates and meta-debates on game design. My professional life includes a lot of optimising and drilling down into legislation. My maxim at the gaming table is that having a way forward is far more important to me than discovering the best solution to the situation. I nonetheless find it interesting to see how other people play the game and am not unfamiliar with the broad thrust of the arguments.
My initial approach in this thread was not, in fact, to argue with any of the points being put forth by the 'casters>martials' side, but rather to suggest to the OP and others who dont find a martial-caster disparity to be real, to make sure they are evaluating your claims based on what you mean by 'better' - you make that very explicit in this post, so they'd have to be quite obtuse to miss it. I was suggesting that, even though it seems an odd claim to me, that's because I dont value solving in-game problems efficiently. If I acknowledge first the intent behind your phrasing rather than what it would mean if I said it, things are less contentious, I think. (Plus the actual dispute - ie what sort of things should we value, are easier to draw out if they're made explicit).
I havent read a lot of his posts, but it seems to me that the OP's conception of the spectrum of class-power weights 'ability to keep on keeping on' much more heavily than you do. (Whether he's right or not is a point I'm not qualified to comment on - I've heard James Jacobs advance a similar argument, so that's enough for me to consider it at least arguable).
As such - when he sees you say "casters are better" I think he is implicitly assuming you are using the same scale and thus it degenerates (not so badly in this thread but it often happens) into 'no...yes...no...yes...' rather than addressing the real question - namely does being able to do your 'big thing' a hundred times a day count for much?
But there are objective standards by which you judge. Killing a monster quicker is "better" at killing that monster.
I think that's my objection. I heard Neil DeGrasse Tyson speak once and he said he doesn't make moral or political statements he just makes if/then statements. Like IF you want to have an educated workforce capable of competing in a technology driven global economy THEN you need to spend more money investing in STEM education.
IF you want to sneak by a bunch of enemies THEN a simple invisibility spell is a better choice than the stealth skill until very high levels.
IF you want to bypass a locked, trapped door THEN Blink is more useful than thieves tools since it doesn't require a check or possible failure.
Things like that. Past level 6ish, any such statement you can make that addresses a specific type of obstacle or challenge that is presented in a typical game of pathfinder will find a spell to be superior to other methods of overcoming said obstacle or challenge.
If I were to step into the shoes of the opposing view and try and debate you. I think the argument would go that you are not taking into account the number of times you can do it. (I dont mean to imply that this defeats your argument, merely that you havent addressed it here).
.Blink may be better than thieves tools, but if you only get one blink spell a day, the calculus changes. Similarly with invisibility vs stealth (especially if there are other spells/resources you'll have to give up in order to be able to go invisible).
Ultimately, everyone will have a slightly different view on that, but I think it's worth acknowledging that "better" is not solely based on efficiency/reliability/flexibility. Martial characters do have the advantage that their things can be done more often - whether that's enough to overcome the unreliability/inferiority in any specific instance is a matter for finer minds than mine.
My maxim at the gaming table is that having a way forward is far more important to me than discovering the best solution to the situation.
I find little to disagree with the rest of your posts, but I did want to nitpick a bit here.
At higher levels, which I don't know if you've played to, it's not a matter of best solution. It's often a matter of ANY solution. It's a matter of life or death.
When you're trying to sneak into an enemy camp (to return to my previous examples) stealth isn't just inefficient, it's plain old broken. So the fact that a rogue can, presumably, do it all day vs. the X number of Invisibility spells the Wizard can memorize isn't the argument. It's that no matter how much the rogue does it, he fails at it, pathetically.
Despite the fact that the Fighter and the Wizard are the same CR and, ostensibly, an even challenge, when fighting enemies one has a much higher likelihood of being squished: the Fighter. Fighting a golem? Good luck beating its DR before it beats you into paste. You can cast 2nd level spells? Summon a pit and laugh at it.
You failed to disarm the (previously mentioned) door trap? Poison darts, you take Con damage, and oh you alerted the guards.
My maxim at the gaming table is that having a way forward is far more important to me than discovering the best solution to the situation.I find little to disagree with the rest of your posts, but I did want to nitpick a bit here.
At higher levels, which I don't know if you've played to, it's not a matter of best solution. It's often a matter of ANY solution. It's a matter of life or death.
When you're trying to sneak into an enemy camp (to return to my previous examples) stealth isn't just inefficient, it's plain old broken. So the fact that a rogue can, presumably, do it all day vs. the X number of Invisibility spells the Wizard can memorize isn't the argument. It's that no matter how much the rogue does it, he fails at it, pathetically.
Despite the fact that the Fighter and the Wizard are the same CR and, ostensibly, an even challenge, when fighting enemies one has a much higher likelihood of being squished: the Fighter. Fighting a golem? Good luck beating its DR before it beats you into paste. You can cast 2nd level spells? Summon a pit and laugh at it.
You failed to disarm the (previously mentioned) door trap? Poison darts, you take Con damage, and oh you alerted the guards.
We haven't successfully played at high levels very much. :p
I don't think it's an unrelated fact that our group (generally) dies at around 6th to 8th level when we play prewritten pathfinder modules and that this is the same level range people think that casters begin to clearly outstrip martial characters.It no doubt seems bizarre to prefer playing the way we do. Nonetheless, we just roll up another fighter, wizard, thief and cleric and start a new 1st level campaign - we're using the rules to achieve something quite different from what you (most?) are aiming for. Consequently, evaluating claims of better/superior/desirable/etcetera will result in quite different answers.
To be clear, I don't think the OP or Marthkus are playing like we do either - but I think the principle of differing underlying purpose/assumptions is probably still worth acknowledging (and making explicit).
Even though it's not the way I think about RPGs, I do get quite a lot out of reading the various rules debates and meta-debates on game design. My professional life includes a lot of optimising and drilling down into legislation. My maxim at the gaming table is that having a way forward is far more important to me than discovering the best...And Casters give you more ways to move forward, however you reasonably define it.
Sure. I don't think having lots of ways is better either. To me simpler trumps most things.
Provided the plot is moving and I'm learning some secrets, I'm happy.
Given the interest of this topic, I don't know why there aren't groups of PS trying to prove their point. It would be amusing to see "only martials allowed" and "only full casters (and summoners?) allowed" in these games.
Also, trying to prove that an all martials table is possible is a challenge that will attract even people that thinks otherwise.
My two cents.
Like I said, I'm sorry I can't explain it any better.
Like I said, I'm sorry I can't explain it any better.You have explained it. You PERSONALLY don't like more complicated classes. That does not mean they are not better at accomplishing your in-game goals, merely that you don't LIKE using them to do so.
Nah, I haven't. (I regret introducing my own preferences as an illustration, it didn't end up helping). You still think I'm saying something about pathfinder.
It's no big deal.
I dislike really cheesy and overpowered combos, so while they might accomplish my in-game goals, I avoid using them. That does not prevent them from being better.
Right?
I really enjoyed getting the chance to smash a god with my 21st level wizard... Time stop, maw of chaos, maw of chaos, maw of chaos, each maximized via a greater metamagic rod, forcecage, and a quickened scorching ray. Pathfinder took out maw of chaos, but other options have compensated.
I am not sure what you mean by this.I dislike really cheesy and overpowered combos, so while they might accomplish my in-game goals, I avoid using them. That does not prevent them from being better.Right?
I meant that you would describe "cheesy, overpowered combos" as better than other, less cheesy options.
Lastly, this is a pathfinder forum, a pathfinder thread, and about how pathfinder classes compare. So aren't you really off-topic if you aren't talking about pathfinder?
I tried to be clear about that. I think this is a thread about understanding what "the other side" is talking about.
Having said that, I do wander off topic reasonably regularly (message boards are conversations to me - not considered missives).
Alot of people in these threads often fail to mention you can make martial characters that completely overshadow everyone as well. I know the last campaign I ran the Invulnerable Rager Barbarian with Superstition and Come and Get Me made the other martials in the group look like his shadows. He would rip everything up. No melee creature could stand toe to toe with this combination. Casters rarely landed anything on him. He took a cleric henchmen to make sure he had personal healing and debuffing. Nightmare to deal with.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's my 2penth without reading all the posts.
My group has 3 players, I have a storm druid, a wizard and a swashie rogue. They are all 6th level.
The rogue is starting to notice just how limited he is and is starting to get a tad dispondent, so much so that he wants to multi-class next level to Cleric.
The reasons for this as far as we can see are that the wizard and the druid far outwieigh the rogue in versatilty and damage output. Without spells the rogue is feeling like a spare part.
He uses his abilites as best he can, sneak, bluff, high acrobatics etc but is nearly always trumped by the other 2 players. The Druid is a bit of a powergamer and is using a sythe so the damage is really high. The rogue uses his +1 cutlass but his str is not his fortay and has a higher dex score instead.
When it comes to tactics and improvisation to a given situation the spell users have much more flexability and are able to adapt to situations a lot better than the rogue (create pit, animate rope for insatance).
No matter what way you look at it Pathfinder is a very magic centered game especally if like me you are running one of the AP's. if you don't have some kind of magic abilites you will suffer a bit.
Yes martial focused classes with the right weapon can cause lots of damage in combat but when it comes to tactics and non-combat sitauations the spell casters win all the time and unless you are going toe to toe with the enemy martial pc's tend to be left on the sidelines. Not every situation involves face to face fighting.
For me as a GM and the rogue player we both never relised until now just how much magic dominates the game.
You could suggest he rebuild as a Bard. Arcane Duelist or Dervish of Dawn are good combatants.
If a fighter was in your group, you would feel even more useless.
Rogues are not martials, they are skillmonkeys. There is little love for that role, so you are better off taking a partial casting class with a trap-finding archetype. Or a trapper ranger.
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
Hmmm I am not sur eif there are any fans of Jim Butcher's Dresden File Series but I want to use an example from it. The main character is an extremely powerful wizard in modern day Chicago. At one point the wizard is talking with a mercenary. The mercenary says that if he wanted to kill the wizard he would do it from a mile away with a high powered sniper rifle. The point being that any character class has the ability to murder any other character class with the correct preparation and thought. So if better means one class being able to kill another class I would have to disagree with the premise that casters are better than martials.
If on the other hand better is in relationship to versatility and the like then casters have an advantage because their abilities allow them to not have to improvise as much as others. Spells allow casters to choose an easier way out of a situation. The fighter has other options with the Golem- he just can't cast a spell, he has to think of something else. Of course I hope the wizard MEMORIZED the pit spell you spoke of before.
I think a way to deal with casters may be to not allow them access to all schools of spells. Make all casters specialized and limit what they can and cannot cast. That would eliminate the general versatility that all casters have. All casters should really be specialists without the benefit specialists get. Someone who is good at stealthy kind of magic shouldn't necessarily be just as skilled at evocation or divination.
The other tool a GM can use that I have used in the past is to allow players only 10 seconds to determine their action when it is their initiative. I do not give them extra time to look up the effects of a spell or item nor do I give them extra time to look up an ability. You don't get 30 seconds to make a decision in real life combat "yes I do know personally". So I don't give my players 30 seconds or more. In fact giving them 10 seconds is generous. This helps eliminate some of the versatility. You can only be versatile if you remember what you are capable of doing.
Look... Wizards in Dresden Files are significantly weaker than the D&D Wizard. A level 13 D&D Wizard would find the idea of Kincaid attempting to kill him positively adorable (though if it came to blows Kincaid would go down in literally 6 seconds). Wizards in the Dresdenverse can't make copies of themselves, or have back up clones, they can't teleport, make planes of existence, bring back the dead, Fly all day long, have spells that make them immune to conditions for lengths of time (arguably the Belt in Blood Rites might count for fatigue/exhausted but its a one time thing) and best of all... D&D Wizards don't have to participate in physics. A "significantly prepared" martial is still not going to be much help against a high level Wizard in D&D. (I mean poor Kincaid, Fickle Winds alone would ruin his day.) At low levels sure, some prep and forethought might help the martial knife a caster, but that's only assuming the wizard isn't using the same amount of preparation and forethought. At higher levels even with exhaustive preparation the martial is going to have a hard time killing a even not as prepared Wizard.
The thing about "not having X spell" that everyone forgets is that while sure Create Pit would be the best way to handle the Golem, if that is used the Wizard can use Summons and still beat the tar out of it. (Or any Sr: No spell really not having 1 particular spell is not the end of the world or a Wizard's power).
Finally, your GM tool while harmful to Casters with low amounts of system mastery and pretty crippling to them, Casters with high system mastery are largely unaffected (especially if they you know... pay attention when it's not their turn).
|
Here are three challanges at levels 5, 10, 15, 20 each. Build the SAME character to handle all 3 at each level without magic and then do it with magic.
A better test - build the characters first, then post the challenges. that prevents spell / feat / other choices from being influenced by the challenges.
For prepared casters, the current spellbook and a default spell loadout should be posted. If a certain amount of information is previously known about a challenge, then the lead time such information is available and the nearest magic mart location information should be included, along with the information, to determine what preparation is available to everyone (spells chosen, purchase of consumables, etc.).
For this to be fair, we need item purchase rules, and you must list all items currently held by your character and how much level appropriate gold they have available for purchase of challenge solving issues.
that way we can prevents Schroedinger's wizard arguements too. :)
You could suggest he rebuild as a Bard. Arcane Duelist or Dervish of Dawn are good combatants.
Oh bard could be an idea, thanks :)