What's with the lack of respect for martials?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

201 to 250 of 575 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

A Fighter can't do anything outside of combat:

Pick up a trait for diplomacy, be a human and grab skill focus diplomacy. That is what the fighter in our group did and now is the talker and information gatherer because this is a ROLE playing game and not just a ROLL playing game. It works really well since the other three people are a half-orc alchemist that likes to blow things up, a witch and a weird gnome summoner. Who do you think the people would rather talk to? One of them or the noble looking Taldoran Fighter who talks pretty? Gathering information by talking to people is just as effective or even more effective if you have a bad guy that uses anti scrying.

You can also pick up a craft and make stuff (weapons, armors, etc) and have the caster enchant them therefore WORKING TOGETHER to make money or just keeping the group well equipped. Or the fighter could just sell the stuff as is.

Pick up a trait for a knowledge or even spellcraft and look at the caster and say "yeah i knew that". Pick up a perform and entertain the party or the tavern on nights off (and make some petty cash on the side as well).

They just hit things:
A. It is called a FIGHTER for a reason. But they almost always hit it and rarely miss (looking at you touch ranged attack). With dazzling display or several other of the performance combat feats you can do all sorts of "interesting things". Pick up a style feat and do random cool things. Pick up a combat maneuver tree and debuff just as effectively ( Tied up with grapple, blind with dirty trick, prone with trip, etc.)

Flying things:
I have a FULL BAB and a masterwork (or even +x at later lvls) composite longbow. Might not be my best but I can still do my MAIN job of hurting and pissing off the enemy. If in a hvy flying campaign (like in the mountains or something wierd like that) probably pick up some sort of armor or wondrous item that lets me fly.

Invisible things:
A. Wow so the caster gets to do something cool now! B. Blindfight and once it hits me I can hit back. I have the hp and AC to take it.

Difficult terrain:
Hinders the fighter as much as everyone else. If facing a bunch of casters or archers either a. fight smart and don't just rush in through the obvious disadvantageous combat (and hey as the Fighter by ROLE play should have one of the best grasps of strategy and tactics). b. use my ranged weapon. c. let the caster do something cool (cause the Fighter shouldn't hog all the glory). d. let the ninja sneak over and stab them and distract them so I can get my but over. etc.

On pre-buffing:

My group plays pretty smart but unless either tracked a enemy or are outside the OBVIOUS end fight door there is not much chance for pre-buff. You can do the hr/lvl or 10/lvl pretty effectively but the really cool rd/lvl are rarely prebuffed. If your GM is allowing you to do it a lot I feel that he/she is being way to kind to you.

mplindustries:
Honestly at lvl 12 I have no idea how to challenge the party. The damage output will be extraordinary and so will be battle control. The rogue/inquisitor can just shut down entire combat by herself vs anything besides undead or constructs. The gunslinger is taking the snap shot tree so will be taking shots at anyone that moves around him. The barbarian will have pounce and hamatula's grasp and will do 5-8 attacks. The ninja will have pounce at lvl 13 and quick dirty trick. The monk will be doing all sorts of sheniagians with elemental fist style's (the GM let him combine MoMS and Monk of the Four winds for a feat) and can have 3 standard actions a round. So the GM will have to throw the CR out the window since we will tear anything within our CR to pieces.


InB4 people say that's nothing that the fighter class gives a person for out-of-combat fun. InB4 someone says the fighters bonus feats allows them to spend feats on skills. InB4 someone says rage powers are better than feats. InB4 rage-lance-pounce.

Also is rogue/inquisitor multiclass shutting down fights or is a rogue or inquisitor shutting down fights? Because if you have an effective combat rogue build. I am all ears. A build like that is more elusive than Waldo.


Marthkus: Its a rogue(thug)/inquisitor build. As for rogues not being effective usually people tend to think that the rogue never gets to sneak attack which makes no sense to me. In Pathfinder almost EVERYTHING can be sneak attacked unlike 3.5. Just buddy up with the monk or fighter and flank.


[

slade867 wrote:

My group/s: Listen through a door? Ha! We kick that b#@%& open! (sometimes literally)

My group/s: That's WAY more trouble than it's worth. We just walk our path. If we walk into a clearing and there's an enemy camp there, we see each other at the same time...and then we kick their ass.

My group/s: WASTE a spell LOOKING at something when you could spend that spell blasting or Hasting???? LOL!

So, uh, doesn't this prove my point? Your groups unusual playstyle helps close the gap a little, but your playstyle is not the norm, not by a long shot.

slade867 wrote:
Our groups play VERY differently. My group would see your style as tedious and a little cowardly. You would probably see mine as foolhardy.

It's not foolhardy, it's just not typical. In games that I've PCed in, that behavior would lead to a lot of TPKs.

Example:
Recently, our 3rd level group cleared a castle of Trolls led by a coven of Hags. We carefully scouted ahead of us and made sure every fight was an ambush, and we still barely survived, especially when we cleared a room of three trolls only to have 3 more come in from behind. We had our only casualty that fight, actually.

slade867 wrote:
I agree that with a chance to buff often, that helps casters who want to pretend to be martials. Still, why not just buff the martial? You know what's better than casting Barkskin so your AC is closer to the Fighters? Giving the Fighter 2 more AC. YMMV I guess.

In my case, it's because my Druid was a better front line warrior than the fighter was (because he TWFed and I was stronger).

Shimesen wrote:
Simply put, it never happens that way. A martial is better prepared for any eventuality rather than one perfect encounter what realistically never happens.

Just because it hasn't happened to you doesn't mean it never happens. Trust me, it has happened a lot to many people. I've seen in personally, and I'm sure many others have.

Shimesen wrote:
And the whole argument about battlefield control being a casters means of making the martial job "janitor work" is strupid because martial can do that too. Its called using combat maneuvers. Grapple>pin>tie up>move on. If you build a fighter right, he can acomplish all that in 1 round, same as a sleep spell, except now what determines success is the fighters stats, not the dice roll for a save....better if you ask me.

I've seen what CMDs look like mid-level and up. I'd rather target a monster's best save than try and hit their CMD.

Shimesen wrote:
Any class can excel at something if you build it to do that.

False. A Fighter cannot not excel at non-combat utility or AoE battlefield control.

Shimesen wrote:
No class can excel at Everything.

Not at the same time, no. But spellcasters can excel at anything, while martials can only excel at certain things.

Shimesen wrote:
I tried to make a caster that could fill the role of any other party member at any given time...I found that although the are spells that allow me to accomplish this, I can't have access to all of them and still be a spontaneous caster.

Correct, you have to pick a focus. However, you can pick any focus and be great at it. A prepared caster, though, could change their focus from day to day.

Shimesen wrote:
So there you have it. A caster can be anything he wants, but not everything. Materials can too, they just build differently.

Martials can't be everything--they are literally incapable of a wide variety of tasks.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

mplindustries:

What exactly is out of combat utility?
What can martials supposedly NOT excel at?

And we agree that most characters, martial and caster, can not be good at everything and need to pick a focus. The wizard would have to spend a large amount of money to be able to be prepared for anything (putting spells into the spellbook is EXPENSIVE plus the cost of scrolls) and even then could not guarantee he would be prepared for the specific encounters that day...specially if the GM mixed them up. A martial usually brings the same plan to the combat table and shoves it down the enemy's throat. Not always the most finesse of options but when all you got is a hammer...

EDIT: And why were you fighting an entire castle of things 2 CR above you? Your only option was to be careful if not you would have run our of resources and/or been killed quickly.


Actually a Wizard *can* be good at everything and be prepared for *almost* anything. Now I don't mean the Wizard is going to win a "Beat Enemy with a Stick Contest" against a Martial, but he doesn't have to! He can just summon 1d3/1d4+1 Monsters to beat things with sticks for him. And the best part is, those summons can be used to access a whole plethora of monster only abilities that Martial Class just don't get on top access to a ton of spell-like abilities (your spells can get you spells). The thing is, getting "good" at summoning is 3-4 feats and 1 spell known per level. The thing is getting good at other things is generally just a spell away. Need to open some doors? Knock. Want to make masterwork armor/weapons faster than any crafter? Fabricate! Need to get to the other side of the world? Teleport. Don't want to die when you are killed? Clone. The gold cost to learn new spells is pretty minor and even if you use just your spells per level you get a lot of versatility. Martial can do nothing other than play whack stuff with stick and a few skills (that there are spells that make most of those skills obsolete). Casters? They can create planes of existence and steal bodies just cause.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Spells aren't really that expensive compared to other magical items. They're especially cheap if you're using things like Blessed Books and using spell rental prices. Even if you aren't, a Wizard learns 2 spells/level a day, which gives you unfettered access to your most important spells even if the GM is stingy with scrolls. Wizards also get Scribe Scroll for free, so that can save a lot of money for scroll costs. Spontaneous casters have access to gobs of spells, although they have to spend a feat to scribe scrolls.

Compared to the price of magic weapons/armor, spells are a bargain.


Out of combat utility refers to providing a useful role outside of combat, that is not obsoleted by another class in the party (overlap is okay, but if a Fighter tries to do a Bard's job and has no OTHER strengths he's likely not going to be providing much besides Aid Another on some checks).

When speaking of class specific balance, it should only refer to things specific to each class.

Things like Traits, Racial Abilities, and many Feats do not fit that criteria (if your Human Fighter with Focused Study and/or Skill Focus: Diplomacy and a Diplomacy trait is good at Diplomacy...well duh. But that is almost entirely reliant on things ANY class of that race can do just as easily and shouldn't be considered as a factor in class balance).

As well, a common misconception seems to be that a caster needs to prepare for each specific encounter. While it is true that there are some very focused spells that allow for a complete shutdown of Enemy Type X, these are not ones people generally speak of when saying casters are powerful.

It's the multi-purpose spells that really shine for a caster. Low level examples being Color Spray (works on everything not immune to mind affecting effects), Glitterdust (works on everything with eyes as far as I know), Create/Spiked/Acid/Hungry Pit (works on everything below Huge, though Large creatures can climb OUT easily enough mitigating the effect somewhat), and the Summon Monster line (utility and some combat use in one package).

Monsters won't ALWAYS fail their save, no, but neither will martial characters always hit enemy AC either. Just like martials can mitigate their weakness with Feats and items, so too can casters. The net result comes out to a moot point, nothing is 100% effective 100% of the time, but if something is 100% effective (or even 75%) 80% of the time it's still quite good enough.


Lord Phrofet wrote:
What exactly is out of combat utility?

Teleport, divination, the X Shape spells, Charm/Dominate, illusions, simulacrum, countless other spells...

Basically stuff that alters the environment, makes travel easy, or otherwise bypasses obstacles without rolling anything.

Lord Phrofet wrote:
What can martials supposedly NOT excel at?

Pretty much anything except dealing damage and maybe being kind of tough. They can be good at combat maneuvers, but combat maneuvers are pretty pointless (except dirty trick and grapple) by mid levels.

Lord Phrofet wrote:
(putting spells into the spellbook is EXPENSIVE plus the cost of scrolls)

I disagree--the cost of adding a spell to your spellbook is comparatively negligible, and wizards make their own scrolls, so that's cheap, too. Plus, they need a lot fewer magical items in general to be useful (no need for a magic weapon, for example).

Lord Phrofet wrote:
EDIT: And why were you fighting an entire castle of things 2 CR above you? Your only option was to be careful if not you would have run our of resources and/or been killed quickly.

/shrug It's what we were doing, so we did it. And while they were individually 2 CR above us, we never faced lone ones--it was always in 2s or 3s. We had to be careful because as you said, we'd have gotten plastered in fair fights. We did win--killed more than two dozen trolls and three Hags in the process. Now we have a castle.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Keep in mind, also, that out-of-combat utility is not just the domain of casters, and nobody's saying it is. Paladins, for example, get awesome social skills that aren't easily replicated by other classes because they're going to be pumping CHA. If my Wizard wanted to match the party's paladin in social skills, I'll have a tough time because Charisma isn't incredibly important for wizards and I don't have Diplomacy as a class skill. Rangers get a ton of skills and have a nice skill list. Rogues have terrific out-of-combat utility with all of their skill points (indeed, the problem with Rogues is that it's their IN-combat utility that's lacking).

Spells can do a lot of this stuff in a pinch, of course. But I'm not going to prioritize having Charm Person prepared if my party Paladin has a +26 in Diplomacy. So he's certainly not useless, but he'll have trouble sneaking past a guard or opening a lock. Wizards can do both of those things pretty handily... and heck, can still cast Charm Person if it ever comes up.


Oh, also, on learning from scrolls being expensive and therefore Wizards being very limited in spells known (sorta), I have a quote from Aelyrinth (that I've been posting a lot lately, since these threads have blossomed) that spells a lot of this out.

Long Ass Post, You've Been Warned:
Aelyrinth wrote:

Cost and Methods of Learning Wizard Spells in Pathfinder RPG

The changes in Pathfinder RPG vs. 3.5 are subtle, but sometimes, they are quite important and can dramatically affect the game.

One of the most important additions to Pathfinder is the new ability granted to all Wizards, the Arcane Bonded Item. This ability is in chosen in substitution to choosing to have a familiar. Instead of a familiar, the Wizard gets the ability to empower any item he chooses as his bonded item. This arcane bond grants to the wizard the ability to spontaneously cast any spell he or she knows, once per day, without preparing the spell. The arcane bond therefore confers on the Wizard the flexibility of the Sorceror’s spontaneous spell casting ability once per day, while retaining the Wizard class’ intrinsic ability to learn an unlimited number of spells.

In order to get this ability, the Wizard foregoes the option to take a familiar. The cost and time to replace either a bonded item or a familiar is the same (200 gp per level of the Wizard, after 1 week has passed since its loss). However, unlike a familiar, a bonded item is very difficult to destroy during combat. Moreover, if a GM is the sort to attempt a theft of a bonded item, the GM is equally likely to steal or destroy the Wizard’s spellbook – an act to which all Wizards are vulnerable. In the end, the familiar is far more likely to be slain during the course of normal play than a bonded item is likely to be destroyed during combat. One is alive, can be attacked and must save vs. area affect spells, while the bonded item never is attacked and rarely ever has to save vs any attack. When it does have to make a save, the roll required for the item to survive is very low.

The arcane bond cannot be used to cast a spell spontaneously if it is from an opposed school of magic. Accordingly, specialist Wizards sacrifice some of their spontaneous spellcasting ability for the bonuses they otherwise get from specializing. A Universalist Wizard, however, has the ability to cast every Wizard spell in the game spontaneously as long as he or she knows the spell.

There are also some subtle changes in the cost of learning spells from ver 3.5 of the game as well. In 3.5 of the game, the underlying mechanic of copying spells from a spellbook was that another wizard would charge 50 gp per spell level as the cost to copy a spell from one book into another. This resulted in the unintended mathematical consequence that a Wizard had to pay 50 gp to copy a first level spell from another book, but could instead pay only 25 gp to copy the spell from (and destroy) a scroll!

In ver. 3.5, the material cost of inscribing a spell into a spellbook was 100 gp x the level of the spell no matter how the spell was learned. This was a particularly burdensome cost for low level spellcasters.

Pathfinder RPG changed the underlying math by adding a new table to the game on page 219 of the Pathfinder Core Rulebook for the material cost of copying a spell. The math underlying this table is simple to remember: material cost = spell level squared x 10.

While there are comparative reductions in the cost of learning spells at every level of the game as between 3.5 and PFRPG, the reductions in the cost of learning new spells is especially pronounced in the early part of the game. In 3.5, it cost 150 gold pieces to copy an existing 1st level spell from one spellbook into your own, or 125 gp if you used (and destroyed) a scroll to learn and copy the spell, whereas, in Pathfinder RPG, it costs only 15 gold to do this (30 if you use a scroll).

The comparative costs of learning and copying spells into a Spellbook are noted below.
Code:
Method and Cost of Learning Spells – 3.5 vs. PFRPG

Sp. Cost (3.5/PF) Access to (3.5/PF) Material (3.5/PF)
Lvl. of Scroll Copy Spell Cost

1 25 50/5 100/10
2 150 100/20 200/40
3 375 150/45 300/90
4 700 200/80 400/160
5 1125 250/125 500/250
6 1650 300/180 600/360
7 2275 350/245 700/490
8 3000 400/320 800/640
9 3825 450/405 900/810
As is evident, attempting to learn a spell from a scroll is always a poor allocation of resources in either Pathfinder or ver 3.5 of the game past 1st level, and the sub-optimal nature of that choice is underscored in Pathfinder RPG where it is always a poor choice to make at any time.

Unfortunately, the lesson that arcane casters learned early on in ver 3.5 was that spells were learned best by finding a scroll and copying it into their spellbook. While learning a spell via scroll was only cheaper at 1st level, it was a bad habit to learn in terms of the underlying mechanics of the game and -- worse – reinforced the rules used in 1E/2E which had, in fact, been changed in ver 3.xx. A lot of players and DMs continued to use learning spells via scroll as the presumptive mechanic throughout the game at all levels, making the cost of learning new spells especially burdensome for Wizards in 3.5 in many gaming groups. This was never the intent in ver 3.5, but as that was the method for learning spells in earlier incarnations of the game, many players and DMs kept using it. Anecdotal evidence from forums and message boards indicates that it is STILL being used in Pathfinder RPG, more than a decade after the rules for spell acquisition were changed in ver 3.xx. Old habits die hard.

In Pathfinder RPG, because of the introduction of the arcane bond, there is an exceptionally strong incentive for all Wizards to learn as many spells as possible. In contrast, in version 3.5, all that learning a great number of spells did was to expand the possible choices a Wizard had to prepare in a given day (and it allowed the Wizard to make a scroll of that spell, too). However, in Pathfinder RPG, because of the Arcane Bond, any spell may be cast once a day even if not prepared as long as it is known. This new ability provides the Wizard with the ability to use rare and highly situational utility spells without having to prepare or pay the cost of creating a scroll to do so. That makes the bonded item an exceptionally powerful class ability – among the most powerful of all class abilities present in the entire game.

Can you Learn Every Wizard Spell in the GAME?

So, given that the benefit to learning a huge number of spells is now present within Pathfinder RPG in a way that wasn’t present in ver 3.5, is it possible for a Universalist Wizard to learn all of the spells in the game?

Well, if your GM refuses to use the default rules in Pathfinder and clings to the presumptions of 1E/2E by insisting that Wizards learn spells by copying the spell from a scroll (thereby destroying the scroll in the process) the answer is: it’s not really economically feasible.

Learning Spells From Scrolls is a BAD Idea

The below chart indicates what the cost of learning all of the spells in the game are, based upon the books that are in use at your table. These tables show the cost of learning all of the Wizard spells in the game for the Core, Core + APG, Core + APG +Ultimate Magic, and finally, Core + APG + Ultimate Magic + Ultimate Combat. As a yardstick to measure how reasonable a strategy it is to learn all available spells, the suggested wealth by level is indicated in the final two columns.

As you will quickly see, to pursue a Universalist Wizard build which attempts to learn all spells in the game (depending on the books in use at your table) is highly impractical – if not impossible - if your GM insists upon Wizards learning spells via scroll. Under the Core Rules, the total cost to copy all of the available spells in the game into standard spell books when using scrolls as your copy source exceeds the suggested wealth by level of the Wizard after 8th level – and does so far earlier when additional hardcover rulebooks are in use.
Code:
Cost of Learning all Spells (Core, 371 spells)
via Scroll Copied into Std Spell Books (18 vols.)

Sp # of Scroll+ Tot. # Cost Cum. Lvl Wealth
Lvl Spls Copy $ Pages Cost by Level

1 40 15 40 600 600 2 3000
2 51 160 142 8160 8760 4 10500
3 43 415 271 17845 26605 6 33000
4 42 790 439 33180 59785 8 62000
5 47 1285 674 60395 120180 10 82000
6 47 1800 956 84600 204780 12 108000
7 40 2635 1236 105400 310180 14 185000
8 37 3490 1532 129130 439310 16 315000
9 24 4635 1748 111240 550550 18 888000

Cost of Learning all Spells (Core/APG, 463 spells)
via Scroll Copied into Std Spell Books (22 vols.)

Sp # of Scroll+ Tot. # Cost Cum. Lvl Wealth
Lvl Spls Copy $ Pages Cost by Level

1 57 15 57 855 855 2 3000
2 64 160 185 10240 11095 4 10500
3 58 415 359 24070 35165 6 33000
4 54 790 575 42660 77825 8 62000
5 56 1285 855 71960 149785 10 82000
6 54 1800 1179 97200 246985 12 108000
7 48 2635 1515 126480 373465 14 185000
8 41 3490 1843 143090 516555 16 315000
9 31 4635 2122 143685 660240 18 888000

Cost of Learning all Spells (Core/APG/UM, 622 spells)
via Scroll Copied into Std Spell Books (28 vols.)

Sp # of Scroll+ Tot. # Cost Cum. Lvl Wealth
Lvl Spls Copy $ Pages Cost by Level

1 76 30 76 1140 1140 2 3000
2 91 160 258 14560 15700 4 10500
3 82 415 504 34030 49730 6 33000
4 77 790 812 60830 110560 8 62000
5 76 1285 1192 97660 208220 10 82000
6 69 1800 1606 124200 332420 12 108000
7 64 2635 2054 168640 501060 14 185000
8 46 3490 2422 160540 661600 16 315000
9 41 4635 2791 190035 851635 18 888000

Cost of Learning all Spells, all books (717 spells)
via Scroll Copied into Std Spell Books (31 vols.)

Sp # of Scroll+ Tot. # Cost Cum. Lvl Wealth
Lvl Spls Copy $ Pages Cost by Level

1 95 30 95 2850 2850 2 3000
2 123 160 341 19680 22530 4 10500
3 99 415 638 41085 63615 6 33000
4 88 790 990 69520 133135 8 62000
5 83 1285 1405 106655 239790 10 82000
6 72 1800 1837 129600 369390 12 108000
7 67 2635 2306 176545 545935 14 185000
8 47 3490 2682 164030 709965 16 315000
9 43 4635 3069 199305 909270 18 888000

Note: All of the tables in this article exclude: 1) the beneficial effect of spells that all Wizards get at the start of the game; and 2) also excludes the beneficial effect of learning 2 free new spells upon a Wizard attaining a new level.

Now, in fairness, it is highly irregular to include one of the fundamental assumptions of the game (wealth by level) for comparative purposes and to then ignore another fundamental assumption of the game (Wizards primarily learn spells by copying a spell from another spellbook, not by copying from and destroying a scroll). If a GM makes a change to the default assumption present in Pathfinder RPG by requiring new spells be learned from a scroll, that GM has made a fundamental change to Pathfinder RPG that cripples the intended power level of the Wizard Class.

Indeed, when viewed from the PC’s perspective, preferring to learn Wizard spells by scroll instead of copying them from an existing spell book can only be described as so sub-optimal a choice as to be insane.

How so you may ask? Well, take a look at the comparative cost of learning an arcane spell by paying for access to copy a spell from a spellbook to another Wizard (or more likely, an organization like the Arcanamirium) – and then paying the material cost to copy the spell into your spellbook:
Code:
Cost of Learning all Spells (Core, 371 spells)
via Spellbook Copied into Std Spell Books (18 vols.)

Sp # of Access Tot. # Cost Cum. Lvl Wealth
Lvl Spls +Copy$ Pages Cost by Level

1 40 15 40 600 600 2 3000
2 51 60 142 3050 3650 4 10500
3 43 135 271 5805 9455 6 33000
4 42 240 439 10080 19535 8 62000
5 47 375 674 17625 37160 10 82000
6 47 540 956 25380 62540 12 108000
7 40 735 1236 29400 91940 14 185000
8 37 960 1532 35520 127460 16 315000
9 24 1215 1748 29160 156620 18 888000

Cost of Learning all Spells (Core/APG, 463 spells)
via Spellbook Copied into Std Spell Books (22 vols.)

Sp # of Access Tot. # Cost Cum. Lvl Wealth
Lvl Spls +Copy$ Pages Cost by Level

1 57 15 57 855 855 2 3000
2 64 60 185 3840 4695 4 10500
3 58 135 359 7830 12525 6 33000
4 54 240 575 12960 25485 8 62000
5 56 375 855 21000 46485 10 82000
6 54 540 1179 29160 75645 12 108000
7 48 735 1515 35280 110925 14 185000
8 41 960 1843 39360 150285 16 315000
9 31 1215 2122 37665 194285 18 888000

Cost of Learning all Spells (Core/APG/UM, 622 sp)
via Spellbook Copied into Std Spell Books (28 vols.)

Sp # of Access Tot. # Cost Cum. Lvl Wealth
Lvl Spls +Copy$ Pages Cost by Level

1 76 15 76 1140 1140 2 3000
2 91 60 258 5460 6600 4 10500
3 82 135 504 11070 17670 6 33000
4 77 240 812 18480 38015 8 62000
5 76 375 1192 28500 66515 10 82000
6 69 540 1606 37260 103775 12 108000
7 64 735 2054 47040 150815 14 185000
8 46 960 2422 44160 194975 16 315000
9 41 1215 2791 49815 244790 18 888000

Cost of Learning all Spells, all books (717 spells)
via Spellbook Copied into Std Spell Books (31 vols.)

Sp # of Access Tot. # Cost Cum. Lvl Wealth
Lvl Spls +Copy$ Pages Cost by Level

1 95 15 95 1425 1425 2 3000
2 123 60 341 7380 8805 4 10500
3 99 135 638 13365 22170 6 33000
4 88 240 990 21120 43290 8 62000
5 83 375 1405 31125 74415 10 82000
6 72 540 1837 38880 113295 12 108000
7 67 735 2306 49245 162540 14 185000
8 47 960 2682 45120 207660 16 315000
9 43 1215 3069 52245 259905 18 888000

As you will note, once the default assumption for Arcane spell acquisition by a Wizard is applied, there is no point in time where the Wizard’s investment into learning spells exceeds the suggested Wealth by Level in the game. In most instances the Wizard has a comfortable margin left to spend on crafting magical gear if the Wizard pursues a “learn all spells” build.

Where can a Wizard go to learn all of these spells from existing spellbooks? In the world of Golarion, while there are many sources for spells across the world, one known source of spellbooks to copy are the Arcane Scriptoriums found within the Wise Quarter of Absalom. Between the tomes contained in the Arcanamirium and, to a lesser extent, the Forae Logos, access to all of the known arcane spells for copying may be had upon paying the above-noted fees. (This is exactly how it is presumed to work within the RAW which governs Pathfinder Society Organized Play. See, Pathfinder Chronicles: Guide to Absalom for more on the Arcanamirium and the Forae Logos).

Still, it’s admittedly quite expensive to do this. Isn’t there a better way?

The Blessed Book Will Lead The Way...

Yes, there is. The below chart reflects the impact of what as this analysis demonstrates, is the second most important spell in the game – namely, Secret Page. Why is Secret Page so important? Because this spell is the pre-requisite for creating the Wondrous item, Blessed Book.

Blessed Books are fundamentally important to any Wizard amassing a collection of spells. The description of this standard Wondrous Item, (known as Boccob’s Blessed Book in ver 3.5) quickly indicates why:

Blessed Book

Aura moderate transmutation; CL 7th
Slot —; Price 12,500 gp; Weight 1 lb.
Description

This well-made tome is always of small size, typically no more than 12 inches tall, 8 inches wide, and 1 inch thick. All such books are durable, waterproof, bound with iron overlaid with silver, and locked.

A wizard can fill the 1,000 pages of a blessed book with spells without paying the material cost. This book is never found as randomly generated treasure with spells already inscribed in it.
Construction
Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, secret page; Cost 6,250 gp

The beneficial effect of a Blessed Book demonstrates that any PC Wizard who wants to learn a lot of spells should ensure the he or she can craft one. In order to do so, the Wizard should have an Int of 15 or higher, take Spellcraft every level until at least level 7 and should take Craft Wondrous Item as a feat by 7-8th level. Should a Wizard meet these pre-requisites (and almost all PC Wizards already have the Int stat and Spellcraft skill ranks by default, and most PC wizards will take Craft Wondrous Item at some point), there is no possibility of failure when constructing a Blessed Book over the course of a week while “taking ten”.

It is quickly evident that employing a Blessed Book as the default spellbook for all of one’s spells is vital to efficiently amassing any appreciable collection of spells in Pathfinder RPG. Not only does the material cost for copying a new spell get rolled into the blanket cost of creating a Blessed Book for the mere cost of 6,250 GP, but the number of pages in a Blessed Book (1,000 pages in a 1” thick volume) means that the Wizard’s spellbook library may be practically condensed into a 2, 3 or at most, a 4 volume collection that may be easily transported. (Note: employing Secret Chest to store one’s spellbooks -- and making a 2nd copy of each Blessed Book is still prudent and takes only half the time to copy it).

How much of a savings does the use of Blessed Books to record a spell library have on the Wizard class? It turns out, it has an enormous impact:
Code:

Core using 2 Blessed Books (371 spells) = Savings of 85,610 gp vs Std Spell Book

Sp # of Access Tot. # Cost Cum. Lvl Wealth
Lvl Spls +Copy$ Pages Cost by Level

1 40 15 40 600 600 2 3000
2 51 60 142 3050 3650 4 10500
3 43 135 271 5805 9455 6 33000
4 42 80 439 9610* 19065 8 62000
5 47 125 674 5875 24940 10 82000
6 47 180 956 8460 33400 12 108000
7 40 245 1236 16050* 49450 14 185000
8 37 320 1532 11840 61290 16 315000
9 24 405 1748 9720 71010 18 888000

* includes the cost of 6,250 gp to create a new Blessed Book

Core + APG using 3 Blessed Books (463 spells)
= Savings of 104,505 gp vs Std Spell Book

Sp # of Access Tot. # Cost Cum. Lvl Wealth
Lvl Spls +Copy$ Pages Cost by Level

1 57 15 57 855 855 2 3000
2 64 60 185 3840 4695 4 10500
3 58 135 359 7830 12525 6 33000
4 54 80 575 10570* 23095 8 62000
5 56 125 855 7000 30095 10 82000
6 54 180 1179 15970* 46065 12 108000
7 48 245 1515 11760 57855 14 185000
8 41 320 1843 13120 70975 16 315000
9 31 405 2122 18805* 89780 18 888000

* includes the cost of 6,250 gp to create a new Blessed Book

Core + APG + UM using 3 Blessed Books (622 spells)
= Savings of 133,285 gp vs Std Spell Book

Sp # of Access Tot. # Cost Cum. Lvl Wealth
Lvl Spls +Copy$ Pages Cost by Level

1 76 15 76 1140 1140 2 3000
2 91 60 258 5460 6600 4 10500
3 82 135 504 11070 17670 6 33000
4 77 80 812 12410* 30080 8 62000
5 76 125 1192 15750* 45830 10 82000
6 69 180 1606 12420 58250 12 108000
7 64 245 2054 21930* 80180 14 185000
8 46 320 2422 14720 94900 16 315000
9 41 405 2791 16605 111505 18 888000

* includes the cost of 6,250 gp to create a new Blessed Book

Core + APG + UM + UC using 4 Blessed Books (717 spells)
= Savings of 133,490 gp vs Std Spell Book

Sp # of Access Tot. # Cost Cum. Lvl Wealth
Lvl Spls +Copy$ Pages Cost by Level

1 95 15 95 1425 1425 2 3000
2 123 60 341 7380 8805 4 10500
3 99 135 638 13365 22170 6 33000
4 88 80 990 13290* 35460 8 62000
5 83 125 1405 16625* 52085 10 82000
6 72 180 1837 12960 65045 12 108000
7 67 245 2306 22665* 87710 14 185000
8 47 320 2682 15040 102750 16 315000
9 43 405 3069 23665* 126415 18 888000

* includes the cost of 6,250 gp to create a new Blessed Book

(Note: in the cost calculations in the above Blessed Book tables, the cost of learning new spells of any level was calculated at the cost of Access + Material cost until the first Blessed Book was constructed, as denoted by an asterisk, thereafter, only the cost of access + the cost of creating a Blessed Book is accounted for.)

From the costs taken to learn all spells via spell acquisition by scroll (909,270 gp) the cost of doing so by copying spells from spellbooks into a blessed book is reduced to 126,415 gp – a difference of more than a factor of 7!

One of the conclusions which flows from the above is that when it comes to learning Arcane spells, a Wizard is always better off selling the scroll for half its value and using that gold to purchase access + material costs of copying a spell. It is never wise for a Wizard to use the scroll itself to actually learn the spell unless absolutely necessary under the circumstances. The comparative economic benefit, assuming a sale at one-half retail value, breaks down as follows:
Code:

Sp. ½ Value Cost of Access Cost of Access Only
Lvl. of Scroll + Material Cost (Blessed Book)

1 12.5 15 5
2 75 60 20
3 187.5 135 45
4 350 240 80
5 562.5 375 125
6 825 540 180
7 1137.5 735 245
8 1500 960 320
9 1912.5 1215 405

Time... Ain't On Your Side (No it isn't)

So what’s the downside of all of this? The one factor which is not reflected above is time. It takes one hour to attempt to learn a new spell and one hour per spell level to copy a new spell into a spell book. In this case, the number of pages required to record all spells is also the number of hours required to copy all spells. If all four hardcover volumes of Pathfinder RPG spells are in use at your table, it will take an Archmage about three months to learn every spell from all four books. It will then take a little more than a year (3,069 /8 =383 days, broken into 8 hour blocks of time), flat out, to record all of the spells in all four hardcover books, if he or she does nothing else for eight hours a day and is always successful in learning a spell on the first roll. Admittedly, if duplicating an entire spell book without any changes at all, the material cost is half (if there is any) and the time is also halved.

For those who are running Adventure Paths with significant downtime built into the AP (as is present in the Kingmaker AP), learning and copying spells into the Wizard’s spellbooks is a very good use of that Wizard’s “downtime”. It also reduces the free time for a Wizard to create magic items for him or herself as well as the rest of the party.

TL;DR: Learning from scrolls is expensive. It's also a bad idea because of that. Learning from scrolls is no longer the expected method for a Wizard to learn new spells, as it was in some previous versions of the game. Instead, they are learned from spellbooks, and these are accessible from a few arcane libraries across Golarion (this is the expected method for learning new spells in PFS, or was at the time, I don't play PFS myself so I dunno if it's changed since this post was written).

The expense of copying spells from these spellbooks stays within a Wizard's WBL for each given spell level if he wants to learn EVERY SPELL IN THE GAME. It registers as little more than a blip on said WBL if he wants only a select number (even if it is a pretty large number).

The only detracting factor here is TIME, a constraint that may ruin a Wizard's chances of learning a whole butt-ton of spells in some campaigns, but for the most part downtime is long enough to at least allow for a Wizard to flesh out his specialty and a few other utility and useful spells in the average campaign. While this factor is not insignificant, it is not a HUGE factor in a Wizard being able to learn the spells he needs.

If you think this TL;DR is a bit too long to be a TL;DR, I suggest you open the spoiler. ;)


Rynjin: But a caster needs to take non combat spells in order to use them out of combat. My point being that says that traits, racial abilities and feats (which the fighter (and the monk and gunslinger get a couple extra too) has an abundance of) don't count is wrong to me. A character is the WHOLE package. So if I dedicate some of my character resources to out of combat utility (some skills, a trait or two, a feat or two) and the rest to combat (a combat maneuver tree for debuffing, some defensive feats (combat expertise, dodge, save boosters) and some offensive feats (weapon focus/spec, power attack) I have created a well balanced and effective character.

And what exactly is overlap vs obsoleted? Usually you have redundancy in a party for a reason...just in case PC a screws up PC b can do it be it smashing someone's face in or a knowledge check.

Most of the debuffs can be somewhat duplicated (sometimes better sometimes worse) by combat maneuvers. And for those that say at high lvls the CMD is to big of a gap there are a quite a few threads here that have ridiculous amount of CMB while only dedicating 40-60% of their resources to at high lvls (which would be the same or less then the resources a caster dedicates to having the spells and making sure that the DC are high enough)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
mplindustries wrote:
Lord Phrofet wrote:
What exactly is out of combat utility?

Teleport, divination, the X Shape spells, Charm/Dominate, illusions, simulacrum, countless other spells...

Basically stuff that alters the environment, makes travel easy, or otherwise bypasses obstacles without rolling anything.

So there is no possible way to contribute out of combat aside from spells?

Well it's a good thing my fighter has UMD and can use those cheap scrolls Rynjin is talking about to teleport the party around and cast divination spells.

Ofcourse that is what the caster is suppose to be doing, but since there is no other way to possibly contribute, I'm sure she'll share the spotlight for a second.


Lord Phrofet wrote:
Rynjin: But a caster needs to take non combat spells in order to use them out of combat. My point being that says that traits, racial abilities and feats (which the fighter (and the monk and gunslinger get a couple extra too) has an abundance of) don't count is wrong to me. A character is the WHOLE package. So if I dedicate some of my character resources to out of combat utility (some skills, a trait or two, a feat or two) and the rest to combat (a combat maneuver tree for debuffing, some defensive feats (combat expertise, dodge, save boosters) and some offensive feats (weapon focus/spec, power attack) I have created a well balanced and effective character.

The problem with it is that when comparing inter-class balance, you can easily assume that another class can do the SAME THING.

So if you have a Human Barbarian with Focused Study and/or Skill Focus: Diplomacy, he'll be as good at Diplomacy as the Fighter who invested the same...but still have 3 skills per level over him, giving him more potential out of combat utility that the Fighter cannot match (even with further investment, assuming the same stats), while a Ranger with a similar set-up will trounce both of them.

In essence, you've gone full circle and had those things cancel each other out, leaving you at square 1 (where you would have been if you'd not taken those into account in the first place).

Lord Phrofet wrote:
And what exactly is overlap vs obsoleted? Usually you have redundancy in a party for a reason...just in case PC a screws up PC b can do it be it smashing someone's face in or a knowledge check.

Overlap vs Obsolete requires an example because I don't trust myself to explain it properly otherwise.

Say you have 3 characters, a Bard, a Ranger, and a Fighter.

The Bard has something like +20 Diplomacy, +15 Disguise, +20 Bluff, +15 Stealth, and +20 to 2 Knowledges (we'll say Local and Nature for simplicity, and leave Versatile Performance out for the same).

The Ranger has something like +20 Stealth, +20 Survival, +15 Kn Nature and Local, +20 Perception, and +15 Acrobatics.

The Fighter has +15 Diplomacy, +15 Perception, and +20 Kn. Local.

These 3 classes have some overlap, and some obsolescence.

Stealth: Ranger is the clear winner. Bard is nearly obsoleted in Stealth, but not quite since it's a bit of a nebulous skill (could work, could not depending on enemy rolls vs your own).

Knowledges: All Knowledge skills are overlapping here. If someone fails, another can either Aid Another or pick up the slack by making a better roll since the bonuses are the same.

Perception: More overlap, for the same reasons as above.

Diplomacy: Fighter is obsoleted. His bonus is lower, and Diplomacy is NOT friendly to people with lower bonuses, especially after someone brought their A game and failed the check already. His +15 is only really good for the Aid Another on the Bard's +20.

Does that make sense to anyone but me?

Lord Phrofet wrote:
Most of the debuffs can be somewhat duplicated (sometimes better sometimes worse) by combat maneuvers. And for those that say at high lvls the CMD is to big of a gap there are a quite a few threads here that have ridiculous amount of CMB while only dedicating 40-60% of their resources to at high lvls (which would be the same or less then the resources a caster dedicates to having the spells and making sure that the DC are high enough)

Sorta, but not really. They can get the same effect sometimes, but at a lesser duration or effect.

Grapple vs Entangle (which is an AoE).

Trip vs Create Pit (which can put people down for multiple rounds. Though admittedly doesn't make them provoke AoOs ate higher levels, so this one's a bit more even)

Dirty Trick (Blind) vs Glitterdust (attacks weakest save, and doesn't require GM coopeeration to work).

And so on.

Marthkus wrote:
those cheap scrolls Rynjin is talking about

Lolwut?

The only post I mentioned scrolls in was talking about how ludicrously expensive they are for a Wizard to use to copy spells from.


Rynjin wrote:

Lolwut?

The only post I mentioned scrolls in was talking about how ludicrously expensive they are for a Wizard to use to copy spells from.

*removes foot from mouth*

I'm sorry did you say something?

Well anyways, everyone in the party can stand to have perception. Not really overlap. That's like saying more than one person having a good AC is overlap.


In case it wasn't clear, Overlap in skills is a GOOD thing most of the time. It's when one guy's contribution to a certain skill is obviously better than another guy's (and multiple attempts don't reap any new rewards, or are very likely to fail if the bonus is lower, or whatever) that a skill is Obsoleted(d) by another player's contribution that a problem arises.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lord Phrofet wrote:
Pick up a trait for diplomacy, be a human and grab skill focus diplomacy. That is what the fighter in our group did and now is the talker and information gatherer because this is a ROLE playing game and not just a ROLL playing game.

Your confusing that for a fighter class feature. Fighters get weapon/armor training, bravery, full BAB, and 2 skill points per level. A few other things probably, but that's what they get and is unique to them.

Seriously, none of those things in the quotes are fighter class features. Wizard can do the same thing. A wizard can do it better because he has skill points and spells to be bolster.

It also includes the same speech you hear over and over that people who have legitimate problems with design don't know how to roleplay. I know how to roleplay, my statements have nothing to do with roleplay when I'm talking about mechanics. I can roleplay as a commoner, but it doesn't mean a commoner is balanced, that they play well, or that they're useful. I can be a really useful commoner, but I'd probably be better of being mechanically useful. Fighters are on the low end of that usefulness, full casters on the high end. I'd like to see a change.

Also, CMBs are really options. They don't remove obstacles and are obsolete outside of combat. They don't get you through walls better, nor through social encounters, and many of them want you to take feat chains in order to be viable. They also rarely if ever do something that a spell can do. Dirty trick doesn't blind a group with a big swipe of sand, but glitterdust does and has a rider effect of showing invisible peeps. Throwing dust in the eyes of the guy your talking to or a puzzle may not help so much.


Marthkus wrote:
So there is no possible way to contribute out of combat aside from spells?

At high levels? Yeah, that's actually painfully close to true.

And that's actually one of my biggest problems with the mechanics of martials, or more specifically, my problem with the mechanics of magic.

Marthkus wrote:
Well it's a good thing my fighter has UMD and can use those cheap scrolls Rynjin is talking about to teleport the party around and cast divination spells.

It doesn't bother you that the way to compete with magic is by...well, using magic?

Ok, let me be blunt. I really want to know your motivation on why you're so adamant about defending the mechanical state of martials and denying the caster/martial gap. I am going to list all the possible reasons I could come up with. Please, tell me which one is correct/closest to correct, or add your own. I really need to know, and I promise I'm not trying to be a douche or bait you or anything, I'm just curious and knowing your motivation would help me humanize this debate.

Possible explanations I could come up with:

1) You actually love spellcasters and your secret agenda is insisting that martials are great so that the developers see roughly equal numbers on both sides of the issue and thus never fix the gap and your spellcasters get to stay superior.

2) You love martials and never saw the problem with them compared to spellcasters before, so now, it would be embarassing to admit that the gap exists, because it would mean that you missed something/didn't understand the game/etc.

3) You love martials and never saw the problem with them compared to spellcasters before, so you feel personally insulted/attacked by those who claim they are weak (because you don't realize that those insisting there is a caster/martial gap are the ones who love martials the most and just want them to be equal).

4) You love martials because or despite of the fact that they are weaker than casters, and you want them to remain that way, either because you enjoy the challenge, or because of some issue of verisimilitude.

5) You love martials and your specific playstyle/houserules/experience has proven them to be awesome. Therefore, you feel superior to those claiming there's a caster/martial gap because obviously, you found a way to make them equal (or better) and they can't. For whatever reason, you want to rub that superiority in our faces.

6) You love the developers and can't abide anyone saying they did any wrong, even though we all recognize they were shackled by the 3rd edition rules and thus are not criticizing the developers in any way.

7) You just like being contrary for fun.


I really wish I could come up with other possible explanations. Please, clear this up for me.


slade867 wrote:
MrSin wrote:
Many buffs are all day buffs. False life and Mage armor for example. Are we trying to get into an argument over the wizards ability to tank? I'm not really into that. I was just stating how they might tank.

How might they tank? Temporarily. And subparably (that's right I made up a word)

Casters have cool abilities and if they try hard they can do martials job for a time. But it's for a time. People focus on that brief window of circumstance and say look how powerful casters are.

You don't really need tanking at higher level unless you're facing other casters. You could take 20 lvl 20 fighters and put them against a lvl 20 wizard, the wizard still has a chance. Even if they're archers, one fickle wind renders all their attacks useless. You turn invisible and turn yourself into an air elemental, they can't do anything to you. Then you start taking over their minds and picking them off piecemeal while scrying.

You can generally do the same to any martial enemies you face. The enemy casters are a challenge. At high level the enemy maritials generally are not.

The party martials basically become support for the casters. Many martial players don't enjoy that role.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
mplindustries wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
So there is no possible way to contribute out of combat aside from spells?

At high levels? Yeah, that's actually painfully close to true.

And that's actually one of my biggest problems with the mechanics of martials, or more specifically, my problem with the mechanics of magic.

Marthkus wrote:
Well it's a good thing my fighter has UMD and can use those cheap scrolls Rynjin is talking about to teleport the party around and cast divination spells.

It doesn't bother you that the way to compete with magic is by...well, using magic?

Ok, let me be blunt. I really want to know your motivation on why you're so adamant about defending the mechanical state of martials and denying the caster/martial gap. I am going to list all the possible reasons I could come up with. Please, tell me which one is correct/closest to correct, or add your own. I really need to know, and I promise I'm not trying to be a douche or bait you or anything, I'm just curious and knowing your motivation would help me humanize this debate.

** spoiler omitted **...

Oh man, I hope it's #1. That would be so clever and villainous!

"Aha! It seems that you have seen through my ploy, mplindustries! Very clever! However, this information will do you little good... when you're in a pit full of scorpions!" *Pushes button, opens trap door, sending mplindustries to his doom. Steeples fingers.*


slade867 wrote:
Stome wrote:
You really seem to lack a bit of understanding of the system. How can they buff? Easy. Quicken metamagic/rod. Divination spells mean that most of the time a well played caster knows exactly when he needs to be buffed so getting the mid to long duration buffs up is easy.

I do fail to understand how the caster always has just the right item for the job. Or just the right feat. Or just the right spell. A spell which the player.

A "well played caster" apparently Scrys every room he goes into before entering. This somehow does not decrease his spells/day. He then buff himself before every battle. This somehow does not decrease his spells/day. Thus he can use this strategy and still have a full adventuring day because he's just that awesome.

OR he buffs during battle where the enemies don't walk up and make him pay for it. Is it because the martials are in front of him, blocking (and killing) so that he has that time? Nope, he's so awesome the enemies wait til he's done. I really don't understand that system, you're right.

Stome wrote:
Why do they have money to burn? Because they are casters and thus can function on minimal gear. How many cast of stone skin does the cost of a +2 sword get you? A bunch.

A second ago the caster had a metamagic rod. One of the most expensive ones too. But now he has "minimal gear". It seems that casters simultaneously have "the right item for the right job" and "no items because they're casters and have spells for that".

Stome wrote:

Since when is a full round cast such a massively long time? In that time the melee's are just getting into full attack position if they are lucky.

All this leaves out time stop that flat gives all the time a caster could want.

Full attack position INFRONT of the caster so the enemies don't swarm and kill him. That's a job worth lauding don't you think?

Casters should appreciate martials. They do the grunt work until the caster has enough spells to have real power. Martials are a nice distraction when fighting against powerful outsiders and enemies. They are usually the ones giving the caster time to cast.


Lord Phrofet wrote:

Rynjin: But a caster needs to take non combat spells in order to use them out of combat. My point being that says that traits, racial abilities and feats (which the fighter (and the monk and gunslinger get a couple extra too) has an abundance of) don't count is wrong to me. A character is the WHOLE package. So if I dedicate some of my character resources to out of combat utility (some skills, a trait or two, a feat or two) and the rest to combat (a combat maneuver tree for debuffing, some defensive feats (combat expertise, dodge, save boosters) and some offensive feats (weapon focus/spec, power attack) I have created a well balanced and effective character.

And what exactly is overlap vs obsoleted? Usually you have redundancy in a party for a reason...just in case PC a screws up PC b can do it be it smashing someone's face in or a knowledge check.

Most of the debuffs can be somewhat duplicated (sometimes better sometimes worse) by combat maneuvers. And for those that say at high lvls the CMD is to big of a gap there are a quite a few threads here that have ridiculous amount of CMB while only dedicating 40-60% of their resources to at high lvls (which would be the same or less then the resources a caster dedicates to having the spells and making sure that the DC are high enough)

A wizard can take those traits too, has less urgent need of feats to be effective in combat, has more skill points to throw around by virtue of being int based, and can get an extra +3 to many important skills by choosing the right familiar. Oh, and can have a higher charisma. A wizard can prioritize charisma as his fourth stat without losing much of anything or third if he isn't interested in ranged touch attacks. A fighter has to prioritize all his physicals and wisdom. Whether rolling or point buy the wizard is more likely to be able to afford a decent charisma score.

The difference between overlap and obsolete for skills is whether you can do the job if the other player doesn't show up. The fighter is not going to do face work to bard/oracle/sorcerer/paladin DCs without compromising his ability to be a fighter. He's not going to scout without compromising his ability to be a fighter.

And have you actually looked through the bestiary? CMDs typically go up faster than 10 plus double CR and significant opponents are typically between APL+1 and APL+3. Bull Rush, Drag, and Reposition don't impose penalties; trip doesn't work on fliers and is very difficult against quadrupeds and vermin; disarm doesn't work against anything with natural attacks; and grapple requires consecutive successes. So that's every single weapon using maneuver ineffective against wide swaths of the bestiary. Without a weapon enhancement bonus CMB goes up by at most 5+1.5 APL outside a specific fighter archetype and most of the .5 is front loaded.


mplindustries wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
So there is no possible way to contribute out of combat aside from spells?

At high levels? Yeah, that's actually painfully close to true.

And that's actually one of my biggest problems with the mechanics of martials, or more specifically, my problem with the mechanics of magic.

Marthkus wrote:
Well it's a good thing my fighter has UMD and can use those cheap scrolls Rynjin is talking about to teleport the party around and cast divination spells.

It doesn't bother you that the way to compete with magic is by...well, using magic?

Ok, let me be blunt. I really want to know your motivation on why you're so adamant about defending the mechanical state of martials and denying the caster/martial gap. I am going to list all the possible reasons I could come up with. Please, tell me which one is correct/closest to correct, or add your own. I really need to know, and I promise I'm not trying to be a douche or bait you or anything, I'm just curious and knowing your motivation would help me humanize this debate.

** spoiler omitted **...

1, 6, and 7

I would also like to add that I have never seen a problem between casters and martials since switching to pathfinder. If this was 3.5 I would simply have no ground to stand on. Pathfinder is far more balanced with spells as a whole being severely nerfed. 2-5 were dumb. I can't believe you even suggested them. Like I need house rules for martials to rule.

That fact that conversation never comes up in your high level games says a lot. Last time I checked you can't talk with spells.


Magic Butterfly wrote:

Oh man, I hope it's #1. That would be so clever and villainous!

"Aha! It seems that you have seen through my ploy, mplindustries! Very clever! However, this information will do you little good... when you're in a pit full of scorpions!" *Pushes button, opens trap door, sending mplindustries to his doom. Steeples fingers.*

Well considering I was posting about how casters do not need to be nerfed before I started talking about how great martials are... I'll let you come to your own conclusions while I prepare the scorpions.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

"No, Mr. mplindustries... I expect you to die"


I can give multiple examples of why martials aren't as respected from actual games. This isn't all levels and martial players still have fun. But their power pales to caster power at high levels.

1. Example 1: High level Oracle of Life (lvl 18): Fighting a big old dragon with some ghost support. Martials engage the dragon. She activates her bead of karma so she is 4 caster levels higher. Very helpful. Ghost mooks come out. holy word kills them all. They were about 10 or so lvl 10 ghosts. She summoned some creatures to help fight the dragon. Healed everyone with a mass heal to keep them alive. Turned herself into a glowing fiery elemental of life with the elemental subtype which made her immune to stunning and crits. Boosted her Con,Str, and gave herself the abilit to fly with a spell that did all this with one casting. It's an Oracle only spell.

All of this made the dragon a trivial fight. No fighter or martial can do anything close to this. Alone the martials die to the dragon, the Oracle of life may have still lived. She could heal herself very quickly and with ease.

2. Sorcerer Cross-Blooded lvl 16: Group of giants attacks the party. He turns himself invisible with greater invisibility and turns into a dragon with dragon form that boosts his con and gives him flight. Flies amongst the dragons provoking no AoOs because he is invisible, unloads a caustic eruption empowered because it is his Magical Lineage spell with Spell Perfection. He follows that up with a quickened fireball. He lays out so much damage the giants are near dead by the time martials engage them.

The martials are basically reduced to minor clean up work.

I have example after example of this at high level. I've used dominate monster to take control of a powerful, but weak-willed, martial enemy and used him to tank. I've summoned in tons of creatures. I've used hold spells to set up coup de gras. I generally don't allow an enemy to touch me. There are spells that prevent scrying all the time.

Casters have so much more than do at higher level that they start to outshine martials. Martials get to have fun for a lot of their levels. But at high level I have to work as a DM to ensure they continue to have fun or the casters will take everything out.

Martials generally attack one thing: hit points. They may have some feats requiring Fort Saves. Casters can attack every single aspect of an enemy. They can do hit point damage. They can attack every save. They can do things to an enemy that doesn't require saves like negative levels. They can defend against every type of attack whether energy or mind affecting or what not. They can travel from one side of the planet to the other instantly or even travel underground or through the water. They can summon powerful outsiders or enslave powerful creatures to do what martials do. They can scry on enemies. Detroy magic items. And all types of things martials can't and never will be able to do under the current rules. They can even bring back the dead including preventing themselves from ever dying.

If you had this kind of power, would you show much respect for the power of martials?


Marthkus wrote:
1, 6, and 7

!!

Well, I appreciate your candor. Thanks.

Marthkus wrote:
I would also like to add that I have never seen a problem between casters and martials since switching to pathfinder. If this was 3.5 I would simply have no ground to stand on. Pathfinder is far more balanced with spells as a whole being severely nerfed.

I think this is a case of "better doesn't mean good." Getting stabbed in the arm is not as bad as being stabbed in the chest, but I'd still ultimately rather not be stabbed at all.

Marthkus wrote:
2-5 were dumb. I can't believe you even suggested them. Like I need house rules for martials to rule.

And here I thought they were all dumb and was assuming you had another reason I couldn't figure out.

Marthkus wrote:
That fact that conversation never comes up in your high level games says a lot. Last time I checked you can't talk with spells.

In-game conversations are non-mechanical, and thus irrelevant to the discussion. I could play a Commoner and have conversations at any level. We are talking about mechanics and weighing classes against each other. You can't bring stuff that has nothing to do with classes into it.

Seriously, that's like saying, "Fighters are great because my fighter has blue eyes." A character of any class can have blue eyes and there is no mechanical benefit to having blue eyes.


Raith Shadar wrote:

I can give multiple examples of why martials aren't as respected from actual games. This isn't all levels and martial players still have fun. But their power pales to caster power at high levels.

1. Example 1: High level Oracle of Life (lvl 18): Fighting a big old dragon with some ghost support. Martials engage the dragon. She activates her bead of karma so she is 4 caster levels higher. Very helpful. Ghost mooks come out. holy word kills them all. They were about 10 or so lvl 10 ghosts. She summoned some creatures to help fight the dragon. Healed everyone with a mass heal to keep them alive. Turned herself into a glowing fiery elemental of life with the elemental subtype which made her immune to stunning and crits. Boosted her Con,Str, and gave herself the abilit to fly with a spell that did all this with one casting. It's an Oracle only spell.

All of this made the dragon a trivial fight. No fighter or martial can do anything close to this. Alone the martials die to the dragon, the Oracle of life may have still lived. She could heal herself very quickly and with ease.

And all this happens while the dragon and the ghost are napping and not killing the oracle?


mplindustries wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
That fact that conversation never comes up in your high level games says a lot. Last time I checked you can't talk with spells.

In-game conversations are non-mechanical, and thus irrelevant to the discussion. I could play a Commoner and have conversations at any level. We are talking about mechanics and weighing classes against each other. You can't bring stuff that has nothing to do with classes into it.

Seriously, that's like saying, "Fighters are great because my fighter has blue eyes." A character of any class can have blue eyes and there is no mechanical benefit to having blue eyes.

I believe Marthkus has claimed that diplomacy and sense motive and charisma don't actually do anything in social situations that aren't between two NPCs. If I'm remembering correctly he claimed this was RAW and not a house rule and was the reason why it was okay for fighters to have only 2 skill points.


Atarlost wrote:
mplindustries wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
That fact that conversation never comes up in your high level games says a lot. Last time I checked you can't talk with spells.

In-game conversations are non-mechanical, and thus irrelevant to the discussion. I could play a Commoner and have conversations at any level. We are talking about mechanics and weighing classes against each other. You can't bring stuff that has nothing to do with classes into it.

Seriously, that's like saying, "Fighters are great because my fighter has blue eyes." A character of any class can have blue eyes and there is no mechanical benefit to having blue eyes.

I believe Marthkus has claimed that diplomacy and sense motive and charisma don't actually do anything in social situations that aren't between two NPCs. If I'm remembering correctly he claimed this was RAW and not a house rule and was the reason why it was okay for fighters to have only 2 skill points.

I'm sure that is exactly what I said. You only need a sense motive check to KNOW when someone is lying, not to suspect they are lying.

You may be right about diplomacy. The whole needing a check to ask for the time of day seems silly to me. My groups knows that diplomacy is used to increase someone's attitude towards you, but the request rules were more or less skimmed over unless my GM is just running secret rolls all the time. Because RAW you need to be rolling a diplomancery check after every sentence.


mplindustries wrote:

In-game conversations are non-mechanical, and thus irrelevant to the discussion. I could play a Commoner and have conversations at any level. We are talking about mechanics and weighing classes against each other. You can't bring stuff that has nothing to do with classes into it.

Seriously, that's like saying, "Fighters are great because my fighter has blue eyes." A character of any class can have blue eyes and there is no mechanical benefit to having blue eyes.

Out of combat activity is not very mechanical on a whole. So saying any character can't contribute out of combat is false. You want any character to have out-of combat mechanics which is the minority of all out of combat activity.

Out-of-combat roll is 90% player skill and 10% class features.


you can make a martial character that contributes out of combat to a limited extent, the downside is. it requires special investment and consideration beyond the classes chassis. such as strategic allocation of race, equipment, skill points, attribute points, or traits to over come the drawbacks of the class

3.5, you couldn't have a diplomatic fighter. you could have a fighter whom through cross class expenditure and the able learner feat, could be a mediocre negotiator. but it was no better than a rogue of half their fighter level

3.5, classes had a lot of niche protection, especially rogues, in fact, said niche protection was the only thing making rogues viable because they made focusing on roguish skills impractical for nearly every one else. unless you dipped in rogue and spent a feat on able learner. which required you to be a human or half human with decent intelligence.


Marthkus wrote:

Out of combat activity is not very mechanical on a whole. So saying any character can't contribute out of combat is false. You want any character to have out-of combat mechanics which is the minority of all out of combat activity.

Out-of-combat roll is 90% player skill and 10% class features.

Yes, but the 90% has everyone equal in every way (so class doesn't matter), while the 10% is extremely lopsided and has pretty drastic consequences.

That 10% can mean the difference between bypassing a dangerous obstacle and dying. Or taking a short cut around a dungeon, rather than slogging through it (and potentially dying). That 10% saves you from a ton of danger and saves tons of time and effort. It's a pretty damn big deal.


That 10% is still a small portion of the game, of which the martials dominate at lower levels with the God-like abilities of kicking down doors and carrying loot.

Having casters take over that 10% is fine at high levels. My martials are too busy being knights and lords to worry about such trifles.


Lumiere Dawnbringer wrote:
3.5, classes had a lot of niche protection, especially rogues,

Rogues were different in 3.5. I've seen quiet a few post going into large detail about them, but I'm not willing to hunt them down. Never been a big fan of niche protection, or the 3.5 skill system.

mplindustries wrote:
That 10% can mean the difference between bypassing a dangerous obstacle and dying. Or taking a short cut around a dungeon, rather than slogging through it (and potentially dying). That 10% saves you from a ton of danger and saves tons of time and effort. It's a pretty damn big deal.

I'd say its more than 10% in the games I run and quiet a few I've been in. One game I was in had an average of one combat per day and the remainder was skill challenges or roleplay. Being a lord is great! Not being able to scale a fence as a physical exemplar isn't so cool. Sucks if you actually become a lord or lady and you can't roll a successful diplomacy check to save your life. One time we had a player become a really socially active character, but he ended up asking a lot of other people to talk for him and roll for him... Sort of awkward. He essentially had a publicist!

Edit: Really though, if game balance means everyone sucks just to make you look good something went wrong... but that's probably not this thread.


MrSin wrote:
Lumiere Dawnbringer wrote:
3.5, classes had a lot of niche protection, especially rogues,

Rogues were different in 3.5. I've seen quiet a few post going into large detail about them, but I'm not willing to hunt them down. Never been a big fan of niche protection, or the 3.5 skill system.

rogues sucked and should have been dropped as a class. i hated the 3.5 skill system, but the reason it penalized cross class skills so badly, was to justify the existence of a useless class that should have been dropped

if rogue was dropped, nonmagical classes could be granted extra skills and some commandoesque abilities, and there would be no class to step on the toes of. want a roguish character? that should be skill expenditure, not a class

monk should have been dropped and turned into a feat chain. that is all it was, and if we remove it, we can actually create viable unarmed options without judging the damage dice of the class built around them

MrSin wrote:
mplindustries wrote:
That 10% can mean the difference between bypassing a dangerous obstacle and dying. Or taking a short cut around a dungeon, rather than slogging through it (and potentially dying). That 10% saves you from a ton of danger and saves tons of time and effort. It's a pretty damn big deal.

I'd say its more than 10% in the games I run and quiet a few I've been in. One game I was in had an average of one combat per day and the remainder was skill challenges or roleplay. Being a lord is great! Not being able to scale a fence as a physical exemplar isn't so cool. Sucks if you actually become a lord or lady and you can't roll a successful diplomacy check to save your life. One time we had a player become a really socially active character, but he ended up asking a lot of other people to talk for him and roll for him... Sort of awkward. He essentially had a publicist!

Edit: Really though, if game balance means everyone sucks just to make you look good something went wrong... but that's probably not this thread.

you can build a fighter whom is reasonable at one or 2 extra skills, by building a focused study human who invests a 14 in int and takes the fast learner feat. if psionics expanded is allowed, open minded is also a boon.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Drunken Dragon wrote:
All I know is this thread has given me an idea for a fighter character, built entirely to slay mages. He would travel the world and challenge casters to duels, in order to gain respect for what he calls the "path of the Naked Blade" which eschews reliance on any magic whatsoever. He'll be a fun NPC to toss at players, eh?

You need THIS GUY.

As seen in action HERE.


Snorter wrote:
The Drunken Dragon wrote:
All I know is this thread has given me an idea for a fighter character, built entirely to slay mages. He would travel the world and challenge casters to duels, in order to gain respect for what he calls the "path of the Naked Blade" which eschews reliance on any magic whatsoever. He'll be a fun NPC to toss at players, eh?

You need THIS GUY.

As seen in action HERE.

That concept kinda makes me think of this, with the women being casters 10 levels lower than our hero and the Manthor being a caster of the same level.


Nicos wrote:
Raith Shadar wrote:

I can give multiple examples of why martials aren't as respected from actual games. This isn't all levels and martial players still have fun. But their power pales to caster power at high levels.

1. Example 1: High level Oracle of Life (lvl 18): Fighting a big old dragon with some ghost support. Martials engage the dragon. She activates her bead of karma so she is 4 caster levels higher. Very helpful. Ghost mooks come out. holy word kills them all. They were about 10 or so lvl 10 ghosts. She summoned some creatures to help fight the dragon. Healed everyone with a mass heal to keep them alive. Turned herself into a glowing fiery elemental of life with the elemental subtype which made her immune to stunning and crits. Boosted her Con,Str, and gave herself the abilit to fly with a spell that did all this with one casting. It's an Oracle only spell.

All of this made the dragon a trivial fight. No fighter or martial can do anything close to this. Alone the martials die to the dragon, the Oracle of life may have still lived. She could heal herself very quickly and with ease.

And all this happens while the dragon and the ghost are napping and not killing the oracle?

Why do you think they can kill the oracle? It isn't exactly easy. I built up her con where she had in excess of 220 hit points and a high AC. She can heal herself to max hit points in one round. Heal was her Magical Lineage spell, so she could quicken them with a lvl9 spell slot.

No. The martials engaged in the dragon. The ghosts flowed out of the place they were guarding to attack the party. The Oracle destroyed all the ghosts with one standard action holy word. She buffed for a couple of rounds before entering combat to put herself in super holy healer form as I call it.

Nope. They weren't sleeping. The dragon certainly didn't waste his time trying to kill the Oracle of Life who was practually unkillable. He couldn't do that kind of damage output. He couldn't grapple her because of her ring of freedom of movement.

We're talking in a party environment here right?

When she reached lvl 20, she started to summon a Solar with gate to fight on her behalf. In game she took the roleplaying time to develop a relationship with the solar who served the god she worshipped. I had her spend some cash on gate to call the Solar to her so they could talk to develop the relationship. He knew when she called him, it was serious. Martials just can't do this kind of stuff with their normal abilities.

Miracle for common use is even better that wish. It's very impressive when you can cast miracle at need.

Just to note: She had Tremorsense and Lifesight, the was very difficult to sneak up on, nearly impossible.


Raith Shadar wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Raith Shadar wrote:

I can give multiple examples of why martials aren't as respected from actual games. This isn't all levels and martial players still have fun. But their power pales to caster power at high levels.

1. Example 1: High level Oracle of Life (lvl 18): Fighting a big old dragon with some ghost support. Martials engage the dragon. She activates her bead of karma so she is 4 caster levels higher. Very helpful. Ghost mooks come out. holy word kills them all. They were about 10 or so lvl 10 ghosts. She summoned some creatures to help fight the dragon. Healed everyone with a mass heal to keep them alive. Turned herself into a glowing fiery elemental of life with the elemental subtype which made her immune to stunning and crits. Boosted her Con,Str, and gave herself the abilit to fly with a spell that did all this with one casting. It's an Oracle only spell.

All of this made the dragon a trivial fight. No fighter or martial can do anything close to this. Alone the martials die to the dragon, the Oracle of life may have still lived. She could heal herself very quickly and with ease.

And all this happens while the dragon and the ghost are napping and not killing the oracle?

Why do you think they can kill the oracle? It isn't exactly easy. I built up her con where she had in excess of 220 hit points and a high AC. She can heal herself to max hit points in one round. Heal was her Magical Lineage spell, so she could quicken them with a lvl9 spell slot.

No. The martials engaged in the dragon. The ghosts flowed out of the place they were guarding to attack the party. The Oracle destroyed all the ghosts with one standard action holy word. She buffed for a couple of rounds before entering combat to put herself in super holy healer form as I call it.

Nope. They weren't sleeping. The dragon certainly didn't waste his time trying to kill the Oracle of Life who was practually unkillable. He couldn't do that kind of damage output. He...

Perhaps the dragon could have used Anti-Magic Shell?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:

Out of combat utility refers to providing a useful role outside of combat, that is not obsoleted by another class in the party (overlap is okay, but if a Fighter tries to do a Bard's job and has no OTHER strengths he's likely not going to be providing much besides Aid Another on some checks).

When speaking of class specific balance, it should only refer to things specific to each class.

Things like Traits, Racial Abilities, and many Feats do not fit that criteria (if your Human Fighter with Focused Study and/or Skill Focus: Diplomacy and a Diplomacy trait is good at Diplomacy...well duh. But that is almost entirely reliant on things ANY class of that race can do just as easily and shouldn't be considered as a factor in class balance).

I'm a HUGE Martial guy (clearly) but just once I'd like to see someone defending the Fighter actually using the Fighter's class features and not abilities any class could get.

Compare:

Fighter's class features
- strong/weak/weak saves
- bonus feats
- heavy armor proficiency
- armor training
- weapon training

Ranger's class features
- strong/strong/weak saves
- bonus feats
- Hunter's Bond
- Evasion/Improved Evasion
- Quarry/Improved Quarry
- Spells (including spell triggers)
- Favored Enemy
- Favored Terrain
- Woodland Stride/Swift Tracker
- Camoflage/Hide in Plain Sight
- 4 skills/level

Barbarian's class features
- strong/weak/weak saves
- Rage/Greater Rage/Mighty Rage/Tireless Rage
- Rage Powers
- Trap Sense
- Damage Reduction
- Fast Movement
- Uncanny Dodge/Improved Uncanny Dodge
- Indomitable Will
- d12 Hit Die
- 4 skills/level

Paladin's class features
- strong/strong/weak saves
- Detect Evil
- Smite Evil
- Divine Grace
- Lay on Hands/Mercies
- Divine Health
- Divine Bond
- Auras of Good/Courage/Resolve/Justice/Faith/Righteousness
- Spells (including spell triggers)
- Heavy Armor proficiency

To me, personally, one of these things is most definitely not like the other. As I've stated before, I've got some great Fighter builds that I really enjoy (WWA by 4th level anyone?), but for the most part Fighters get relegated to a two level dip or get ignored altogether unless the campaign is specifically low level, before Will saves start getting targeted and while AC is still significant.


But you forgot BRAVERY! The most OP class feature.


mplindustries wrote:
I am going to list all the possible reasons I could come up with.

I notice that, in general, the "no class balance!" people fall into two camps. One just doesn't understand the idea that a CR 10 fighter should be equal to a CR 10 wizard. They're used to thinking that Gandalf is more powerful than Boromir, and they gloss over that Gandalf is a high-CR Angel with some wizard levels, and that Boromir is just a guy with some fighter levels. This stance is understandable, given that in a lot of cases they're looking at existing stories that feature higher-level casters serving as advisors to up-and-coming warriors. Stories don't mention "character level," though, so again, the confusion is totally understandable.

.

The other group is far larger, and tends to have several things in common (not always, but surprisingly often). I have a pet hypothesis that fits a lot of anecdotal data -- but not enough to be anything more than that yet:

Spoiler:
Common themes: 1. No wish to balance classes; 2. DM-is-God and Sole Author stance, where the DM's primary job is to keep the "entitled players" from "ruining everyone's fun"; 3. general authoritarian beliefs in other areas besides gaming; 4. rabid anti-4e stance, bringing it up even when irrelevant; 5. limited or no experience with earlier editions.

I think these all tie together. I think reactionary people dislike change (4e, vs. Pathfinder = 3.X, which is the "original" game they're used to). I think authoritarian people need things to be "official" and to have a clear hierarchy -- Pathifinder is "officially supported" vs. 3.5 no longer being supported, so it's the go-to game. And I think that need for authority also manifests in the desire to have an all-powerful DM.

What does that have to do with class balance? Two things: 1. resistance to change (existing rules automatically = better than newer ones, so don't you dare even think about making any changes), and, more importantly, 2. the more unbalanced the game, the more a strong, authoritarian DM is needed to make it work. It's a self-reinforcing feedback loop.

I suspect the craving for strong authority and resistance to change are the real drivers here, not lack of knowledge, experience, or anything else more than peripherally pertaining to the game mechanics themselves.

So every time I hear "You need a better DM who fixes everything for you!" and "Balancing classes is impossible and leads to 4e," I add another data point.


Let me also add that I'm sure that there are people who don't fit into either of the above: maybe people who just don't have the experience or system mastery to see the imbalance, for example. Etc. But I think a lot of very "there is no imbalance" people fit more or less into one of those two areas.


Really.... Bravery???..... So your saying that bravery is more powerful than Wildshape??? or an Oracle's revelation? or the Eidolon? or the Alchemists Mutagen? or Rogue sneak attack? or spellcasting??? or smite? or animal companions??

Ok its official, your arguement is invalid...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Noireve wrote:
So your saying that bravery is more powerful than Wildshape???

1. "You are" = "you're," not "your."

2. I'm pretty sure he was kidding.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Noireve wrote:
So your saying that bravery is more powerful than Wildshape???

1. "You are" = "you're," not "your."

2. I'm pretty sure he was kidding.

I think he was serious. I mean who knows the number of times Bravery would have rocked the encounter if I had even bothered to write it on my Fighter's character sheet.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Kalkin wrote:
mplindustries wrote:
I am going to list all the possible reasons I could come up with.

I notice that, in general, the "no class balance!" people fall into two camps. One just doesn't understand the idea that a CR 10 fighter should be equal to a CR 10 wizard. They're used to thinking that Gandalf is more powerful than Boromir, and they gloss over that Gandalf is a high-CR Angel with some wizard levels, and that Boromir is just a guy with some fighter levels. This stance is understandable, given that in a lot of cases they're looking at existing stories that feature higher-level casters serving as advisors to up-and-coming warriors. Stories don't mention "character level," though, so again, the confusion is totally understandable.

.

The other group is far larger, and tends to have several things in common (not always, but surprisingly often). I have a pet hypothesis that fits a lot of anecdotal data -- but not enough to be anything more than that yet: ** spoiler omitted **...

I've met people who honestly don't value class balance. They aren't saying denying that it's the case, they aren't relying on the DM to straighten things out. I play with a character who would like to roll stats, for example, and not use point buy. When our GM says that he'd like players to start out on an even playing field, this guy shrugs and says "Not everybody in life is equal".

So there's also a large camp that says an imbalanced game just doesn't bother them. They have fun anyway. They would wonder why it's so important that a CR10 wizard and a CR10 warrior are equal. And power to them! The only point of a game is to have fun.

Classes: balanced or imbalanced is a design philosophy, and having "balanced" classes is not necessarily any more "valid" a philosophy than having "imbalanced" classes. It's up to us to talk about which is better, and why.

Which is why we're trying to say things like "casters can literally do everything your martials can do and do it better. If you're having fun being outclassed by an oracle, by all means play a fighter. For the many, many of us who don't have fun watching the casters do things, we'd like a bit more emphasis on class balance please".

Martial, Martial, Martial! wrote:


Awesome martial class summaries
Martial, Martial, Martial! wrote:

This puts the problem into perspective incredibly well. Like I said before, I don't get why The Fighter is the standard to which a lot of "pro-martial" characters flock. Fighters are pretty terrible. Rangers, Paladins, and Barbarians can be a ton of fun and get a lot of nifty things. I think the disparity between casters and these classes is a lot less, and if you focus on these martials than the caster/martial disparity looks like a problem that can actually be solved.


Magic Butterfly wrote:
Classes: balanced or imbalanced is a design philosophy, and having "balanced" classes is not necessarily any more "valid" a philosophy than having "imbalanced" classes. It's up to us to talk about which is better, and why.

Okay, we'll just have two classes then. "Sucks" and "wins". If you just play sucks you can't win the game without DM fiat, if you play wins you can blow the game off the rails. Still a good game?

Anyways, you don't have to sacrifice fun to have class balance. It is a little silly however to have a class that sucks and a class that wins. As it is silly to have a class that does one thing okay and a class that does everything well.

Also, this is a fun thread about balance I remember reading a long time ago. Not totally relevant, but it was a thing. Oh! and here's another. And here's a third.

Sovereign Court

3 people marked this as a favorite.
mplindustries wrote:
Seriously, that's like saying, "Fighters are great because my fighter has blue eyes." A character of any class can have blue eyes and there is no mechanical benefit to having blue eyes.

I have blue eyes! I'm the best!

201 to 250 of 575 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / What's with the lack of respect for martials? All Messageboards