I made a huge post about this, and many posters seemed to agree with me. Jason was kind enough to reply to it, but at the end of the day, it seems our concerns once again fell on deaf ears. :(
Folks, if this is going to devolve into a martial vs caster debate this thread will be locked in the very near future. This errata was for Ultimate Combat... which is mostly about martial characters. Thats all there is to it. Anyone looking for some sort of grand conspiracy can look elsewhere.
(removed a few posts on this matter)
Jason Bulmahn
Lead DesignerThis is not about caster vs martial disparity, Jason, but said disparity is real and it's a big problem. And this errata makes it even bigger. But that's not my main concern.
My main concern is about options and variety.
Sadly, there are relatively very few feats that are actually useful, and most of them are some sort of boring numerical bonus. I'm pretty sure I'm not alone when I say that martial classes lack (viable) options. How many feats give Fighters the ability to do something cool, interesting or unique? How many of them are not locked behind a wall of unreasonable prerequisites?
I'd love to play more martial characters, but as long as my only decent options are saying "I full attack", it won't be a fun experience. Which is a shame. Repeating the same sentence and actions over and over is boring!
I usually play on a public area, where many people play all sorts of RPG, and I always allow new people to join the table and play with my group. Sadly, more than once I've seen new players give up on the game because they found out PF martial classes are very limited on what they can do. I've seen many people want to do cool stuff with their legendary warrior character just to be incredibly disappointed that all they could do with any chance of success was stand still and attack. I've seen player literally stand up and leave the table when they realize how harmful simply moving 10ft is to their effectiveness.
Crane Wing was one of the very few feats that allowed martial characters to do something different and cool. Now it's nerfed so hard I honestly can't see any player ever using it again.
It's bad enough that martial characters are almost forced into 2-handed or archery builds if they want to be effective (maneuvers scale really badly and took a serious and unnecessary nerf from 3.5, TWF needs high attributes, lots of gold and lots of feat just to stay relevant, crossbows are a joke, thrown weapons are pathetic, dueling is awful and just became even worse). Losing one of the very few interesting martial options in the game, (apparently because PFS GMs can't adapt, no less) is a big slap in the face of fans of martial classes everywhere. Especially considering how easy it's to get around CW (ranged attacks, spells, maneuvers, area effects, catching enemies flat-footed, multiple attacks, etc).
I love this game, as it can be seen by the fact that I spent hundreds of dollars and hundreds of hours on it. I have pretty almost every hard cover book, many player companions, quite a few APs, all PFS novels, lots of HeroLab packs, official campaign dice sets (RotRL is my favorite). Every time I talk to someone moderately interested in RPG, I try to convince them to play with my group at least once and try the system. I always welcome new player in my table unless I already have 8+ players there.
Now, thanks to this errata, for the first time since I started playing Pathfinder, I'm sad to say I considered the idea of stop playing the game. And not because of CW, specifically. I don't think it's that good... I've never even used a character with CW (but already GMed for 3 of them).
That's how disappointed I'm.
And I'm disappointed not because martials got nerfed while casters still have all their overpowered toys to play with... No, I'm disappointed because I see this happening time and time again with no indication of changing any time soon.
I'm disappointed because Paizo seems to be more concerned with removing, nerfing or banning options for martial characters, (despite how underpowered they are, like during the 2-handed/armor spike ruling) than with increasing character variety.
I'm disappointed because Paizo seems to favor nerfing everything else instead of buffing weak options.
I'm disappointed because all of that reduces character variety, which in turn, reduces player fun.
And most of all, I'm disappointed because the design team doesn't seem to care about any of these issues. No matter how often players point them out.
|
Sometimes I stop by crane wing's grave and leave flowers.
I just hate the assumption that doing something kinda okay all day is worth not being able to actually do something spectacular.
The thing of the Rogue and Fighter are is that they're "all day" classes, but Pathfinder isn't an all day game. It's a game of high spikes in demand for powers and low moments that can last for months. Having 75% all day isn't as good as having 110% when it counts, because in those combats you have, it's almost always life or death, and being able to do nothing special during them makes most players bored.
Consistency is fun, I know that. I won't argue that being consistent can have its joys, but basing a class around it and making the line where its consistency sits much lower than other class's good potential makes it a weak class, and one that can't contribute in enough situations to shine.
What do you think the odds are we could come up with an "A-Team" of casters/partial casters, that while not optimized to the hilt make generally optimized choices and then convince the developers to run those in their weekly game? Now... I don't think they should make their APs based on something like that, I realize that what's optimized to a forum goer and the casual player are not the same. But still, I think it would offer some insight into the balance disparity that can be seen.
|
Wow. That got ugly quick.
I agree that Fighters and Rogues pretty much suck. I agree that the Crane Wing Errata was a bad call. I also agree that there's a pretty serious caster/martial disparity.
However, no game is perfect, and I actually think the ACG looks like it's going to be making that last one a bit better (so much Slayer goodness, and some Swashbuckler goodness as well), and generally think things are more likely to improve than not.
Pessimism isn't a particularly useful attitude and the kind of concentrated bitterness that seems to be effecting a lot of people here is an actively negative one. Seriously, folks, chill out and hope for good things, rather than dwelling on the possibility of bad ones. What have you got to lose?
What have you got to lose?
Money?
(...) and I actually think the ACG looks like it's going to be making that last one a bit better (so much Slayer goodness, and some Swashbuckler goodness as well) (...)
Then again... Arcanist.
I agree with the rest of the post, though. (Even if I did lose any hope of ever seeing caster/martial disparity being properly addressed in PF).
What have you got to lose?Money?
Which is why I'm still unsure if I'll buy the ACG, even though I have pretty much every hardcover book (except for Mythic rules).
Mythic rules are great!
If you are having too much trouble with caster vs martial just give the martials a mythic progression (1 tier per 4 levels or 1 tier per 2 levels).
Most of my campaigns are mythic now. No mythic progression (as in tiers are given out the normal way), but my GMs like mythic rules. The whole party gets them, but it seems to me that mythics help out weaker classes more than the stronger classes.
Case in point, the rogue; by tier 3 we have dex to damage and greater invisibility for 6 rounds as a swift action and 1 mythic point. You get 9 mythic points a day. Have a ring of sustenance and when the casters are mythic resting for spells back and then prepare them you sleep for two hours and get your mythic power back.
Is it mythic vital strike? No, but all that really helps
*Disclaimer, haven't made it to tier 3 yet.
I'm waiting for the ACG for a two reasons.
One, all those new classes and archetypes will enable a ridiculous amount of builds.And two, can't wait for the "build your own class" guidlines. I don't actually expect them to be good (coughracebuildercough), but I'd love to see into their heads, and possibly see how they justify the existing classes.
Here is how I think the fighter is justified.
Specializing cost more than generalizing. Those bonus feats that he has more than everyone else (at least 5) cost exponentially more than the first 5 feats.
That and his whole kit is in (combat) which probably has it's own additional scaling factors for all being in the same sphere.
Feat chains seem to follow this premise too. The deeper you get into a feat chain, the less it seems to yield.
Look at dragon stance. First feat has an effect that probably covers most of your attacks at that level. Second feats just lets you use that effect for all your attack when you are probably getting more. The last feat is considered worthless by most people. The first two were really just the same feat.
And that was an example of what most consider a good feat chain.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What have you got to lose?Money?
I'm not saying you need to buy all books ever. I'm saying having a positive outlook until the book comes out and you know things for sure is probably the way to go.
Then again... Arcanist.
I dunno. Arcanist may be problematic, but it seems more so to other casters than to Martials, at least to me. We'll have to see the final version to be really sure, of course.
I agree with the rest of the post, though. (Even if I did lose any hope of ever seeing caster/martial disparity being properly addressed in PF).
Honestly? To be really fixed you'd almost certainly need an entirely new edition and significant reworking of the core system assumptions. That seems pretty unlikely in the short term to me as well. But that doesn't mean the problem can't get significantly less severe, just that it'll never be truly fixed.
I didn't even mean "truly fixed". I mean I lost any hope of ever seeing Paizo taking any steps to make the problem even slightly less severe. That's how disappointed I'm with Paizo's design philosophy for PF.
There is an obvious double standard when it comes to designing stuff for casters and martials, and that double standard is, IMHO, incredibly harmful to the game.
Want to move and stay effective? Too bad! You're a Fighter. Meanwhile, a Clerics teleport as a move action and then cast two different spells without any problem.
Want to try any build that is not a DPR-focused 2-hander/archer? Too bad! All alternatives are either ineffective, buried under a pile of unreasonable prerequisites or both. Meanwhile, feats intended for casters have few or no prerequisites other than being a caster (e.g.: Crafting feats, Metamagic feats, Arcane Strikes, Combat Casting, etc).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm waiting for the ACG for a two reasons.
One, all those new classes and archetypes will enable a ridiculous amount of builds.
Mmmm... Tasty options. Sturgeon's law applies, ofc.
And two, can't wait for the "build your own class" guidlines. I don't actually expect them to be good (coughracebuildercough), but I'd love to see into their heads, and possibly see how they justify the existing classes.
Bravery will be worth 5 out of 10 points! [/notserious]
Mythic rules are great!
No, they are not.
Mythic rules are great!No, they are not.
I whole-heartily disagree.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Selected Mythic Rules are great...cherrypick away.
Overall, there's some definite problems.
Which is much like the rest of the game.
==Aelryinth
He comes with a +10 skill bonus to hair stylist.It is a good time to ask for that high skilled vanilla fihter who can out DPR any barbarian, is not behind in HP and whose saving thorws are high enough,. Perhaps 20 PB, level 10, standard WBL, two traits.Optimized barbar?
Not possible.
Although not even a ranger competes in those areas and the paladin would lose out too.
Only below the nose though.
I whole-heartily disagree.Mythic rules are great!No, they are not.I remember when you thought a mythic fighter could defeat a non mythic wizard.
Ha hahaha, oh well.
Anyway mythic seems like it was designed without considering any consequences, which has to be false but it doesn't feel that way
curses to limited wish gueas/quest!
Still had to pull out the cheese to do anything, and assumed the fighter didn't have access to 50g potions or an ion stone
*For anyone else curious, the comparison was between a MT 10 level 20 fighter to a lvl 20 wizard.
Mythic rules are great!
If you are having too much trouble with caster vs martial just give the martials a mythic progression (1 tier per 4 levels or 1 tier per 2 levels).
Incidentally this is actually a pretty good answer because martial mythic stuff, despite being "Mythic" is still constrained by the "B-but that's not realistic!" drivel.
The mythic archmage can cast a spell without using the spell slot and roll twice to overcome spell resistance and make the opponent roll twice for saving throws.... The mythic champion can make a ranged attack that ignores cover or a melee attack that ignores DR.
Feats aren't that bad either. Mythic Power Attack is +1 damage to power attack's base and Mythic Combat reflexes feels like the game might be better off that way to begin with.
+1 on this, from the perspective of someone that enjoys having that dividing line between mundane and mythic. Part of having that dividing line is ensuring NPC martials behave reasonably similar (at least from a Hollywood narrative perspective, real world physics are too much to ask from a game) to how you'd expect them to in the real world, for those of us that like it that way. However, another part of having that dividing line is being able to let PCs (and exceptional NPCs) cross it, as they're destined for something greater :)
Where it will promptly go into the trash pile. Think I'll save myself the time.
+1 on this, from the perspective of someone that enjoys having that dividing line between mundane and mythic. Part of having that dividing line is ensuring NPC martials behave reasonably similar (at least from a Hollywood narrative perspective, real world physics are too much to ask from a game) to how you'd expect them to in the real world, for those of us that like it that way. However, another part of having that dividing line is being able to let PCs (and exceptional NPCs) cross it, as they're destined for something greater :)Mythic rules are great!
If you are having too much trouble with caster vs martial just give the martials a mythic progression (1 tier per 4 levels or 1 tier per 2 levels).
Incidentally this is actually a pretty good answer because martial mythic stuff, despite being "Mythic" is still constrained by the "B-but that's not realistic!" drivel.
The mythic archmage can cast a spell without using the spell slot and roll twice to overcome spell resistance and make the opponent roll twice for saving throws.... The mythic champion can make a ranged attack that ignores cover or a melee attack that ignores DR.
Feats aren't that bad either. Mythic Power Attack is +1 damage to power attack's base and Mythic Combat reflexes feels like the game might be better off that way to begin with.
The problem with it is mainly the baggage that comes with a Mythic tier that makes it unbalanced if one person has it but the other don't and so on. The plethora of "Non-Mythic creatures automatically fail X" or "Non-Mythic creatures cannot impose Y condition on a Mythic target" and such abilities.
Maybe allow access to Mythic Feats and some Path abilities without actually granting the Tiers (which grant things like Immortality and whatnot).