For what its worth, I don't really get a choice in what other players choose when I'm playing the game since its really up to them. No major rules to change casters or martials in the games I've been in a player in lately.
Last group was: Paladin, Ninja, Gunslinger, Monk, Inquisitor.
and before that: Charlatan Rogue, Mounted Fighter, Flowing Monk, Control Wizard, and a Pacifist Cleric.
Oddly enough monk is super popular, despite being one of the weakest options in game. Rogue and Monk are usually played by newer players though, so maybe its just how flashy they look. System mastery is almost always low for the group. The charlatan rogue and ninja both rerolled at some point after I left, the monk in the current group might reroll because reasons.
The OP wonders if people house rule those classes or play nice and asks that we translate our experience. Since we find casters OP, obviously translating our experience involves discussing why.For the purposes of this thread, I'd like people to just assume (or accept for the sake of the argument) that casters are "better" than martials rather than debating that point.
I wondered how that translates at the table for those groups who feel this way? Do you find that nobody plays rogues or fighters?
I ask because in the posts where people list their parties, there often seem to be martial classes around. I wondered whether people are houseruling those classes, whether the players of casters just "play nice" and dont tread on the toes of the martial players or what other solutions people have found.
Not really. The last part isn't even a question.
Seems like the OP was looking for examples not theories.
Examples have been provided.
Examples have been provided.
Does that mean they should stop?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The answer would be "Most of actually want to play martials, so we do. Those of us who realize casters are overpowered also tend not to play them so we have a fun time gaming. Someone who is good with casters will totally overshine every one else in the party...even if those people don't realize it.
"If you work with a competent caster, you only need one involved gaming session without him to realize the difference his prescence makes."
===Aelryinth
|
While I am firmly in the camp of casters are dominant, I also enjoy my martials. My current PFS characters is fairly spread out in variety and includes:
Monk [Qinggong] 19
Void Elementalist 6/Magaambyan Arcanist 10/Loremaster 3
Magus [Bladebound, Fiend Flayer, Kensai] 16
Ranger [Spirit Ranger] 8/Fighter [Weapon Master] 4
Alchemist [Mindchemist] 4
I don't see any pure martials there. They are all capable of casting spells. IN the Qinggong's case, he cherry picks, and the Ranger's main advantage is cure wands w/o UMD, but they are all still casters.
But I tend to be strict on my definition of martials.
==Aelryinth
It is all based on the group if you have glory hogs or a group who are working to make it a fun story for everyone. I wizard is only as powerful as you play him and only takes away the glory if they work at it. I have seen fighters wade through a group because a. they got init and b. they built a solid character. A friend of mine recently built a rouge as a fighter and the man is devastating out shines my witch all the time, and my witch is no push over. built as a spell sniper.
For the purposes of this thread, I'd like people to just assume (or accept for the sake of the argument) that casters are "better" than martials rather than debating that point.
I wondered how that translates at the table for those groups who feel this way? Do you find that nobody plays rogues or fighters?
I ask because in the posts where people list their parties, there often seem to be martial classes around. I wondered whether people are houseruling those classes, whether the players of casters just "play nice" and dont tread on the toes of the martial players or what other solutions people have found.
Yes, martials are popular, even though casters are considered "better."
The biggest differential between casters and martials occurs at high-level play. At "low" levels (1st-5th) or even "medium" levels (5th-10th), martials can be consistently very effective; casters can be more effective, but not as consistently (toward the end of the "medium" levels, casters start to become frequently more effective). Depending on the relative skill of the players and the specific characters involved, the point where casters become "better" varies. Considering that most tables don't play above 10th-12th level, the caster vs. martial divide is less prevalent in practice than some make it out to be.
What I see are a lot of martials (especially fighters and rogues) who cross-class into a caster after a limited number of levels; this can either be a straight switch (such as dwarf barbarian 2/Travel domain cleric, fighter 3/arcane duelist bard, monk 2/druid) or to qualify for one or more prestige classes (such as arcane archer, arcane trickster, dragon disciple, eldritch knight, and/or rage prophet). This has the dual purpose of 1) playing martials when they are strongest relative to casters and 2) extending the "sweet spot" before casters start to shred encounters on a regular basis without needing martials.
Also, as others have stated, playing a caster to their full potential is a lot more "work" than a martial. Sometimes, straightforward characters can be at least as fun as more powerful, but more complex characters.
|
|
I don't see any pure martials there. They are all capable of casting spells. IN the Qinggong's case, he cherry picks, and the Ranger's main advantage is cure wands w/o UMD, but they are all still casters.
But I tend to be strict on my definition of martials.
==Aelryinth
Nothing wrong with your definition. Mine differs. For me:
Caster = a character who employs spells or extensive supernatural abilities to resolve non-combat issues, and relies upon use of spells or extensive supernatural abilities to defeat enemies.
Martial = a character who relies upon a weapon of some kind to defeat enemies, and possesses little to no ability to to augment that combat ability with spells.
Even Barbarians rely on some supernatural abilities to fight. Spell Sunder, for example.
I prefer things to be a bit more concrete, so I consider the distinction as:
Martial = 3/4 or Full BAB, may have stunted 4th level casting
Caster = 3/4 or 1/2 BAB, has 9th level spells
Hybrid Caster = 3/4 BAB, has 6th level spells
It does tend to confuse the conversation at times though, but as long as we can all agree having 9th level spells makes you a "caster," then the general statement of "casters rule" remains true.
|
Martial/caster issues are a thought experiment ive never seen in actual play. any real power issues are usually a clash of playstyles or an extreme difference in system mastery.
in my home game the party is dwarf rogue, half orc paladin, human wizard human cavalier.
when i play PFS about 50% of the other PC's are martials.
What this guy said. To build on it a little bit I think the biggest problem with casters at tables is often that large disparity in skill master and/or playstyle and an unease amongst GM's to disallow classes from their table until they feel comfortable with the rules. Seriously the biggest fights I've ever seen in the games are usually involving casters and one person either knowing or think they know more of the rules than their GM/wizard PC who does.
What this guy said. To build on it a little bit I think the biggest problem with casters at tables is often that large disparity in skill master and/or playstyle and an unease amongst GM's to disallow classes from their table until they feel comfortable with the rules. Seriously the biggest fights I've ever seen in the games are usually involving casters and one person either knowing or think they know more of the rules than their GM/wizard PC who does.
Martial/caster issues are a thought experiment ive never seen in actual play. any real power issues are usually a clash of playstyles or an extreme difference in system mastery.
in my home game the party is dwarf rogue, half orc paladin, human wizard human cavalier.
when i play PFS about 50% of the other PC's are martials.
Can't know more rules than the GM. They are the rules.
From my personal experience, I haven't really seen many cases where casters completely overshadow the martials. For the most part, our party has about equal amounts of gaming experience (about 2 years) with the only exceptions being my brother and I, who have been playing ttrpgs for about a decade.
The gap in experience doesn't tend to be much of an issue because my brother almost strictly plays martials (with ranger being about as magical as it gets, and even then, he usually takes the archetype that removes the spellcasting), where I tend to either play 3/4 casters who tend to be multi-functional support characters who either focuses on distributing buffs (like a bard), or sets the enemies up for their allies (rime spell frostbite enforcer/bludgeoner combat reflexes hair hex magus) as well as having enough skills to participate in a lot of skill challenges, although I tend to get past a lot of them without rolling (Giving a nice favor and helping someone out in character makes someone friendly just as much as a high roll on a diplomacy check). At this point, even though I'm playing magical characters, overshadowing doesn't happen because my magic is used almost exclusively to make everyone else better.
Among the newer players, there's a wide array of interests, but there's almost always at least one person playing a martial, and one playing a wizard, and it's very seldom that the martial pales in comparison to the wizard. There's times when the martial shines, and there times where the wizard shines, but never once have I seen the wizard players outright replace the fighters. Our wizard players even have a tendency to consult with experienced players and forums to find tricks they can do and optimal spell selections. Even when I brought a summoner to the table in a PvP session, my eidolon was hardly replacing the role of the fighter. Sure, its damage potential was higher, but the extra hp and armor the fighter had really mattered. The majority of my summons were actually used for utility more than anything else, because, quite frankly, there's no reason for a summoner to waste resources trying to steal their teammate's thunder when they can find another neat way to shine (My favorite was using a lantern archon's light ray to ignite some of our alchemist's plastic explosives from a safe distance, taking advantage of the archon's nice movement abilities). While I did have a self imposed gentleman's agreement not to make the most OP summoner ever, I didn't pull any punches; the only thing I refrained from doing was cheap tactics like hounding the other player group relentlessly with archons or birds while safely hiding somewhere.
All in all, while casters do have a much higher ceiling in of power over martials in theoretical experiments, I haven't played an actual game in which the casters were able to break the game or where the fighters ended up falling woefully behind. Then again... maybe it's because I don't play dnd as a competitive sport.
Can't know more rules than the GM. They are the rules.
"RAW until told otherwise" is the base way the game is played in my experience. With that in mind, yes, you can know more about the rules than the DM unless he choices to use houserules on the matter.
All in all, while casters do have a much higher ceiling in of power over martials in theoretical experiments
I didn't know the ability to cast fly or invisibility was just a theory. Then again, they told me gravity was and I just proved it wrong.
Can't know more rules than the GM. They are the rules."RAW until told otherwise" is the base way the game is played in my experience. With that in mind, yes, you can know more about the rules than the DM unless he choices to use houserules on the matter.
Unless your game is RAW only, then its what the GM thinks is raw!
Unless your game is RAW only, then its what the GM thinks is raw!Can't know more rules than the GM. They are the rules."RAW until told otherwise" is the base way the game is played in my experience. With that in mind, yes, you can know more about the rules than the DM unless he choices to use houserules on the matter.
And then you can show them why they are wrong, leaving them the choice of going RAW or houseruling it. Either is fine, but it is a distinction that needs to be made. It irritates me when people insist their houserules are "official."
Can't know more rules than the GM. They are the rules."RAW until told otherwise" is the base way the game is played in my experience. With that in mind, yes, you can know more about the rules than the DM unless he choices to use houserules on the matter.
"RAW" can only be assumed if the GM tells you to assume "RAW". This was done when he or she told you to write up characters with the PF rules.
You still can't correct the GM on the rules. They are rules. He may incorrectly understand what the books say, but the GM cannot break the rules nor can the players know more actual rules than the GM.
General PF rules? Sure a player can know more. But no one plays general PF, they play their GMs game which only resembles General PF because they want it too.
This is even true for things such as PFS. There just happen to be quasi-over-GMs that create some rules for GMs to play by. But that doesn't eliminate table-variation, try using illusions at several PFS tables if you don't believe me. Even in the most structured, the players are still playing in the GMs world.
Are casters overpowered? Yes. But not in the typical way. Flexibility is the ultimate power. Casters are, and always will be, more flexible then martial characters once an arbitrary level line (generally, I place it at 3rd level spells). Their spells allow them to "break the rules". Not the rules of the game, but the rules of the world - things like gravity, time, and space.
Where I've personally observed the rift starting to become a problem is right around the 10-12 level space. Where the offensive and encounter-ending spells start getting shifted into the higher level spots, which frees up a huge chunk of those low level slots for utility and buffs. I've seen arguments for as low as 7th, once Black Tentacles comes into play.
But, the biggest thing though that causes the rift is pretty simple, and I can sum it up in two words: System Mastery. The players who know more about the rules are generally called on to make the casters because the people playing martial classes are often times new to the game, and thus still learning; that or they are the players who are simply unwilling or unable to put in the time to read through hundreds of spells.
All and all though, I think you see less of disparity today because after 15 years of playing d20 based games, players have learned that the fastest and easiest path to victory is not "just let the wizard/cleric handle everything". People have instead learned that voltron-mode on the fighter allows them to just wreck face. Martial classes have also gotten better - more options that they didn't have previously to break the rules, even if not to the same level as the casters. But Fighter+crazy buffs who is constantly getting Dim-Doored around to make full attacks on whatever target people want dead is king of our tables.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
General PF rules? Sure a player can know more. But no one plays general PF, they play their GMs game which only resembles General PF because they want it too.
This is even true for things such as PFS. There just happen to be quasi-over-GMs that create some rules for GMs to play by. But that doesn't eliminate table-variation, try using illusions at several PFS tables if you don't believe me. Even in the most structured, the players are still playing in the GMs world.
I am going to fundamentally disagree with you on this one. I believe that most players AND GMs both strive to adhere to the RAW as printed. Mistakes are made, and often corrected, But saying "a player can't know more rules then the GM" because one GM might arbitrarily decide that falling is 1d6 per 20 feet instead of per 10 feet does not mean the GM "knows more rules" then the player. It means they created a variance to the rules of which the player may be unaware. It means they have arbitrarily decided to change a rule of the game.
Bluntly, if these changes are not communicated to the players in advance, therefore maintaining the status quo of "it is possible for a player to know more rules then the GM", that GM is, simply put, a bad GM. House rules or rule changes should be known, by everyone at the table, well in advance of that situation coming into play. Any situation in which the GM does not like the outcome should be run RAW and a discussion should be had after the fact, not a sudden "this is how it works". Anything else is unfair to the players.
Table variation does not excuse poor adherence to the RAW, and one of my understandings about the current state of PFS is that things like table variation and GMs not staying up to date with corrections and errata is viewed as an "elephant in the room" that needs to be addressed more harshly. It is also one of the few reasons I don't play PFS - The venture captains I've met have been unwilling to have the stones to step in and overrule a blown GM call and put things back how they're supposed to be, as opposed to other living campaign systems I've played in.
I didn't know the ability to cast fly or invisibility was just a theory. Then again, they told me gravity was and I just proved it wrong.
There's not really any connection between the quote and your statement, unless you're implying that casting fly and invisibility are inherently game breaking. In which case, ninjas are actually better users of invisibility in combat with vanishing trick, and out of combat, a high stealth character can sneak well enough to where they won't need to be invisible. Having big numbers from invisibility is really fun, but it's like people who think invisibility is a perfect replacement for stealth forget that alternate detection senses (true seeing, detect magic, alarms, powdered floors, see invisibility to name a few) are in fact a thing, but can be bypassed by actually using skill ranks. As far as flying, there are items that allow for flight on any class, races that happen to have a fly speed, or even these crazy things called bows that can be used to attack at range. A clever enough rogue can even have all these nice powers in potion form for the grand price of free if they can break into a potion or scroll shop.
I didn't know the ability to cast fly or invisibility was just a theory. Then again, they told me gravity was and I just proved it wrong.There's not really any connection between the quote and your statement, unless you're implying that casting fly and invisibility are inherently game breaking.
I think I was inferring fly and invisibility are things casters can do that martials usually can't, since they're core spells, then making a joke about how you can gravity is just a theory because you can break it with magic, because its well... magic. Nothing to do with gamebreaking, unless you can find me using the words.
What this guy said. To build on it a little bit I think the biggest problem with casters at tables is often that large disparity in skill master and/or playstyle and an unease amongst GM's to disallow classes from their table until they feel comfortable with the rules. Seriously the biggest fights I've ever seen in the games are usually involving casters and one person either knowing or think they know more of the rules than their GM/wizard PC who does.
Martial/caster issues are a thought experiment ive never seen in actual play. any real power issues are usually a clash of playstyles or an extreme difference in system mastery.
in my home game the party is dwarf rogue, half orc paladin, human wizard human cavalier.
when i play PFS about 50% of the other PC's are martials.
Have to agree with this. While Pathfinder's class balance is far from perfect, in my experience the power gap between players is usually a lot bigger than the power gap between classes. A well made and played fighter, monk, or rogue can tear apart a poorly optimized and poorly run wizard.
As to the OP, I've run and seen both casters and martial and just about every table I've ever played at. I've seen a lot of players who just don't like playing casters, regardless of mechanical power. The Paladin and Ranger archetypes that trade away spellcasting for things that are, objectively speaking, far weaker than spells still tend to be fairly popular in my table experience.
I think I was inferring fly and invisibility are things casters can do that martials usually can't, since they're core spells, then making a joke about how you can gravity is just a theory because you can break it with magic, because its well... magic.I didn't know the ability to cast fly or invisibility was just a theory. Then again, they told me gravity was and I just proved it wrong.There's not really any connection between the quote and your statement, unless you're implying that casting fly and invisibility are inherently game breaking.
Oh, I totally misread that then! I just got back from another thread in which someone was arguing that those two spells are game breaking, so I must have just carried over the sentiments over here
from another thread in which someone was arguing that those two spells are game breaking, so I must have just carried over the sentiments over here
Oh wow. They're definitely not game-breaking, but they are paradigm-shifting. Combat moving into 3D space and players being effectively able to completely bypass chunks of the adventure really change the "normal", but in no way do they break the game o.o
Support casters are generally more effective too. Buffs rarely fail unless you are playing with a barbar.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know what's more powerful than a group of caster? What is more powerful than a group of martials? The answer is a group of casters and martials working synergetically together.
While I agree that player disparity can make a huge difference in overall power for a character and can easily bridge the gap, the fact remains that if both were optimized and played to the max a caster has more options and is more effective than a fighter.
Have to agree with this. While Pathfinder's class balance is far from perfect, in my experience the power gap between players is usually a lot bigger than the power gap between classes. A well made and played fighter, monk, or rogue can tear apart a poorly optimized and poorly run wizard.
No argument there; power gaps between the classes exist. I just find that when I'm playing with a group, the player skill gaps are usually the bigger issue.
Can't know more rules than the GM. They are the rules.That seems like a pretty piss poor way to run a game.
Not if you are a rules lawyer like me. It stops me from talking about the general PF rules too much during a session because those rules are not the actual rules. The actual rules are whatever the GM wants them to be.
It also helps if you have a GM who wants to run everything by the book, but you don't want to spend 2 hours every session waiting for him to read FAQs and dev posts.
Rules discussions are about the worse thing that can occur in a session.
I've never seen a PFS game without either a fighter or barbarian, or at least one player with a few levels of fighter or barbarian. I agree that casters are more powerful, but players enjoy playing martials. I consider full BAB characters martials even if they have four levels of spells.
Is it that martials are fun, or that vancian is a pain?
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've never seen a PFS game without either a fighter or barbarian, or at least one player with a few levels of fighter or barbarian. I agree that casters are more powerful, but players enjoy playing martials. I consider full BAB characters martials even if they have four levels of spells.Is it that martials are fun, or that vancian is a pain?
This has got to be one of the saddest statements I have heard in a long time.
You are actually trying to dismiss someone's fun by essentially stating they most likely play martials because they have trouble with the magic.
The more responses I hear, the more I am convinced some of you don't actually play in a group.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've never seen a PFS game without either a fighter or barbarian, or at least one player with a few levels of fighter or barbarian. I agree that casters are more powerful, but players enjoy playing martials. I consider full BAB characters martials even if they have four levels of spells.Is it that martials are fun, or that vancian is a pain?
I think a fair bit of it is also concept. A lot of people just seem to really like the idea of playing a character with no magic or special abilities beyond his sheer badassery.
Though I have to agree that Vancian casting can be a pain. I've seen more than one relatively new player give up on playing a wizard or cleric once they realized how much complexity and bookkeeping was involved.
I think a fair bit of it is also concept. A lot of people just seem to really like the idea of playing a character with no magic or special abilities beyond his sheer badassery.I've never seen a PFS game without either a fighter or barbarian, or at least one player with a few levels of fighter or barbarian. I agree that casters are more powerful, but players enjoy playing martials. I consider full BAB characters martials even if they have four levels of spells.Is it that martials are fun, or that vancian is a pain?
Yarr, I like the concept of a badass martial who doesn't need no magic, but... that's just not pathfinder. That's legend maybe, but not pathfinder. I would like it if that was a concept that worked.
Though I have to agree that Vancian casting can be a pain. I've seen more than one relatively new player give up on playing a wizard or cleric once they realized how much complexity and bookkeeping was involved.
There is a player trying it for the first time in my current group. There's obvious frustration, but there's that glee when you can enlarge person for the first time and watch the barbarian go nuts with it.
I tend to categorize the classes as follows:
Martial: barbarian, cavalier, fighter, gunslinger, monk, ninja, rogue, samurai
Partial Caster: alchemist, bard, inquisitor, magus, paladin, ranger, summoner
Caster: cleric, druid, oracle, sorcerer, witch, wizard
No, sorry. The spells for the paladin & ranger completely pale to the other partial casters.
I'd add summon to 'full caster", since he gets many spells early, but that's just my opinion.
Here's my four groups:
Mythic 13th: Fighter, Rogue, Sorc, Bard (thundercaller), Oracle, cleric (melee).
9th. Bard (diplomancer) , Bard, Paladin, magus, Oracle (archer), Sorc, Bbn. ( and a alchemist cohort for the diplomancer)
8th: Wizard, Paladin (Hospitaler), Oracle (battle), Inquisitor, Summoner, Fighter.
4. Ranger, Fighter, magus, Cleric.
Note that I was just in a 17th level 3.5 game, and there, fer sure, fer sure, spellcasters absolutely dominated. Playing a martial was a exercise in futility, since the spellcasters could out melee him.
You know what's more powerful than a group of caster? What is more powerful than a group of martials? The answer is a group of casters and martials working synergetically together.Unless you have a Druid or Summoner or Magus filling the Martial role.
Beat me to it. The thing more powerful than a group of martials and casters working together is a group of casters working together.
Honestly, if casters were a little more powerful than martials but generally needed martials to complete adventures then this whole argument wouldn't matter.
The real problem is that plenty of casters can get to the point where they can basically solo most published adventures. There are so many ways for casters to get extra power or power beyond their level.
If the group that had both casters and martials had more synergy than other groups that would be good. To bad the greatest synergy is with a bunch of casters.
You know what's more powerful than a group of caster? What is more powerful than a group of martials? The answer is a group of casters and martials working synergetically together.Unless you have a Druid or Summoner or Magus filling the Martial role.Beat me to it. The thing more powerful than a group of martials and casters working together is a group of casters working together.
Honestly, if casters were a little more powerful than martials but generally needed martials to complete adventures then this whole argument wouldn't matter.
The real problem is that plenty of casters can get to the point where they can basically solo most published adventures. There are so many ways for casters to get extra power or power beyond their level.
If the group that had both casters and martials had more synergy than other groups that would be good. To bad the greatest synergy is with a bunch of casters.
That might also have a lot to do with martials being supbar or lacking the ability to be a teamplayer and help his teammates though.