Will saves are the most threatening type of save, because they can turn you against the party if you fail. My point was the casters have a good progression and are likely to beat most classes at those. Monks will probably have a lower save once spells factored in, Barbarians will have a lower save outside of Superstition, and good saves is kind of the Paladins thing. Though the Paladin will still ultimately lose the CHA caster who has Bestow Grace of the Champion.Not really... Heroism alone is 10 min/level. And I wouldn't be surprised if the Wizard had a Reflex save then the Fighter as well. And Cleric/Druid will even win the Fortitude Save. Really Fighter saves are just bad. Like miserable.WHy you choose the fighter?. Even with heroism the wizard will have lower saves than the monk, the barbarian and the paladin.
But even with heroism what would be the saves of the wizard +13 will afther a +3 cloack of prection? that certainly is not foolproof.
**I did say that cleric and druids have good saves.
I maintain that monks, barbarians and paladins have better saves than wizards and non wis sorcerers, and bestow grace of the champion last for 1/round level and is not an arcane spells (and is out of hte game for the first 12 levels).
If you assume that the monk, the barbarian and the paladin fails their saves then is safe to assume that the wizard/sorcerer was long dead/nauseated/dominated/paralized before that.
EDIT: I would like to see the 10th level wizard who saves are at least comparable to a paladins or barbarians and that still manage to be a god wizard.
Remember we are talking about Will Saves. If you want to see a Wizard that will beat a Monk/Barbarian at those while still being a God Wizard that's easy.
Monks will lose to Wizards once spells are factored in, Barbarians will lose (unless they are Superstitious) and Paladins will beat Wizards. But again, other Casters beat Paladin hands down and Casters will literally win every save at the highest levels of system mastery. So I think its safe to say Casters will generally crush martials at Will saves.
Also, I have a way to make Bestow Grace of the Champion an all day thing. Even if Dispelled. So the round/level isn't an issue for me at least.
If we narrow the scope of the argument to as narrow a build as possible, discarding anything and everything that runs counter to our argument, we can claim we are right.Primarily because the Monk, Barbarian, and Paladin aren't really "martial" classes.Not really... Heroism alone is 10 min/level. And I wouldn't be surprised if the Wizard had a Reflex save then the Fighter as well. And Cleric/Druid will even win the Fortitude Save. Really Fighter saves are just bad. Like miserable.WHy you choose the fighter?. Even with heroism the wizard will have lower saves than the monk, the barbarian and the paladin.
Let's compare the Monk, Barbarian and Paladin to a caster then. Namely a Lunar Oracle under the effects of Bestow Grace of the Champion. I think its safe to say casters win this handily don't you. And that's without the +infinity saves a Nature Oracle has.
So Casters 1, martials (including Barbarian, Monks, and Paladins) 0.
With the lousy initiative you'll have dumping dex into charisma, you will never get an action.
The Zen archer/Sohei archer will hit you for 400+ damage at initiative step 40, the barbarian will pounce on you for 500+ damage. You won't attack the paladin, not without violating the Lawful Good alignment your buff indicates you must have.
You can get CHA to Initiative thanks to Noble Scion (War) My Lunar Oracle has a +43 to it. It's not great, but it works most of the time.
|
On the saves issue you don't need to wait for Bestow Grace of the Champion. W wand of bestow grace runs around 5k and 50 uses should see you through most of your career.
As far as saves more generally go casters don't necessarily need huge saves as again they can patch their defences with spells. These range from making you hard to target (Mirror Image, Greater Invisibility), to affect (Mind Blank, Protection from Spells), layering defences (Resist Energy, Protection from X, Spell Turning) or just making you virtually invulnerable to almost anything (Emergency Force Sphere).
Martial characters generally don't have those options and while some can make use of UMD to gain some of them that ends up being expensive and very time limited.
And the immediate action spells like feather fall and emergency force shield are pretty much useless as wands (true of any spell that is usually intended to be used reactively or in conjunction with another ability, so most swift/immediate action spells), so UMD isn't really a response in those cases.
Age of Worms (3.5): Started with cleric, fighter/rogue, paladin, and sorcerer. Fighter/rogue killed in one of the TPKs and replaced with a psychic warrior, as the whole "trap guy" thing was obsolete by then. Paladin was rebuilt as a UA-style Prestige Paladin in order to get meaningful spellcasting. Replaced sorcerer with another sorcerer.
Savage Tide (3.5): Bard, wizard, cleric, barbarian. Bard's skills and especially "face" role remained useful throughout. Wizard and cleric got better and better. Cleric went into Sentinel of Bharrai PrC and handily outfought the barbarian. Barbarian took levels in Ghostfaced Killer to try and remain relevant, finally gave up around 13th level.
Assorted GameMastery modules (PF): Monk, fighter/rogue, wizard, ranger. Wizard player was inexperienced, and pretty much every adventure ended in a TPK.
Underwater campaign (PF): Cavalier, fighter, cleric, some other martial or other. Cavalier 1-shotted the BBEG on a daily charge thingy while the cleric completed the rest of the adventure. Other two martials complained at how things worked that way.
(etc.)
Eventually rewrote game to keep martials relevant; most parties now have a good mix.
You won't attack the paladin, not without violating the Lawful Good alignment your buff indicates you must have.There is absolutely no reason that two Lawful Good characters cannot come into conflict, and indeed it's the subject of some of the best fiction I've read.
Also, as I always try to point out, PVP is a crappy gauge of comparative power in-game.
One of the 'good' party's most memorable opponents in our last campaign was a paladin lord who definitely stayed true to alignment, though perhaps a bit more lawful than purely good.
If you need to use Emergency Force Shield more times then you prepared it, you made a mistake to continue on. Since that's a panic button. If you need to hit the panic button that often, you made mistakes.
|
|
One of the 'good' party's most memorable opponents in our last campaign was a paladin lord who definitely stayed true to alignment, though perhaps a bit more lawful than purely good.You won't attack the paladin, not without violating the Lawful Good alignment your buff indicates you must have.There is absolutely no reason that two Lawful Good characters cannot come into conflict, and indeed it's the subject of some of the best fiction I've read.
Also, as I always try to point out, PVP is a crappy gauge of comparative power in-game.
Kind of off-topic, but I think that those prickly Lawful Good types are probably more likely to come into conflict with each other than almost any other alignment.
In the Forgotten Realms they actually had two Lawful Good (one of them may have been Lawful Neutral..?) deities who were staunch friends and allies, Helm and Tyr if I recall correctly, who were manipulated into a position where their honor demanded that they fight each other to the death, ultimately leading to both deities' deaths.
Similarly, both history and fantasy with ties to feudal Japan are full of examples of people who would both be considered Lawful Good finding that political events have put them at odds and created a situation where they cannot remain true to their principals without coming into conflict with equally honorable individuals whom they might have great respect for, or whom they might have considered allies under different circumstances. /derail
One of the 'good' party's most memorable opponents in our last campaign was a paladin lord who definitely stayed true to alignment, though perhaps a bit more lawful than purely good.You won't attack the paladin, not without violating the Lawful Good alignment your buff indicates you must have.There is absolutely no reason that two Lawful Good characters cannot come into conflict, and indeed it's the subject of some of the best fiction I've read.
Also, as I always try to point out, PVP is a crappy gauge of comparative power in-game.
Kind of off-topic, but I think that those prickly Lawful Good types are probably more likely to come into conflict with each other than almost any other alignment.
In the Forgotten Realms they actually had two Lawful Good (one of them may have been Lawful Neutral..?) deities who were staunch friends and allies, Helm and Tyr if I recall correctly, who were manipulated into a position where their honor demanded that they fight each other to the death, ultimately leading to both deities' deaths.
Similarly, both history and fantasy with ties to feudal Japan are full of examples of people who would both be considered Lawful Good finding that political events have put them at odds and created a situation where they cannot remain true to their principals without coming into conflict with equally honorable individuals whom they might have great respect for, or whom they might have considered allies under different circumstances. /derail
Asmodeus 2016: Lawful Evil, the only way to really get things done.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Eventually rewrote game to keep martials relevant; most parties now have a good mix.
Does anyone ever try to correct you on the rules?
|
In all honesty, if it was truly such a problem as some make it out to be then nobody would play martials and nobody would be playing the game. Coming up with all these corner cases proves nothing in the overall scheme of things. People have fun with fighters, rogues, and even monks. You can play what you want to play but you won't discourage others from playing what they want to play. Im glad my group doesn't have the problems that some of you seem to be having.
Eventually rewrote game to keep martials relevant; most parties now have a good mix.Does anyone ever try to correct you on the rules?
"All proposed houserules are subject to discussion and vote by the group, with me abstaining except in the case of a tie."
So, in some cases, the rules proposed by someone else superseded mine. I'm OK with that. I should also mention that all of the players in the Houston KF group were accomplished DMs in their own right, with a correspondingly high degree of system mastery (and many of them in more than one existing rules system).|
|
Edit: really though, you have a lot of options to raise initiative with magic. Build arguments are odd in that they depend on system mastery, can allow for one trick ponies and schrodinger arguments, and they may not exist entirely in execution, though they can most certainly measure potential.
In execution they rarely exist to anywhere near the degree you see in theorycraft threads.
In execution, system mastery/playstyle are far more meaningful than class selection.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In execution, system mastery/playstyle are far more meaningful than class selection.
Which is why tiers are based on the idea that everyone has the same level of system mastery, so that your accurately defining the class, instead of the player.
Edit: really though, you have a lot of options to raise initiative with magic. Build arguments are odd in that they depend on system mastery, can allow for one trick ponies and schrodinger arguments, and they may not exist entirely in execution, though they can most certainly measure potential.In execution they rarely exist to anywhere near the degree you see in theorycraft threads.
In execution, system mastery/playstyle are far more meaningful than class selection.
And people with low levels of system mastery gravitate towards martials, because they are easier to play then casters. And there are more people with low levels of system mastery then high system mastery. And thus lots of people play martials. It's not hard to figure out.
That doesn't mean the classes are balanced. It just means one has a higher skill cap.
And people with low levels of system mastery gravitate towards martials, because they are easier to play then casters. And there are more people with low levels of system mastery then high system mastery. And thus lots of people play martials. It's not hard to figure out.
That doesn't mean the classes are balanced. It just means one has a higher skill cap.
For what its worth, I've seen more people quit vancian casters because they're not fun to play or hard to learn than I have martials because they're ineffective.
For what its worth, I've seen more people quit vancian casters because they're not fun to play or hard to learn than I have martials because they're ineffective.And people with low levels of system mastery gravitate towards martials, because they are easier to play then casters. And there are more people with low levels of system mastery then high system mastery. And thus lots of people play martials. It's not hard to figure out.
That doesn't mean the classes are balanced. It just means one has a higher skill cap.
Ya that sounds about right. High skill cap stuff is hard. Low Skill cap stuff is easy. Martials are the First Order Optimization of 3.5/PF.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In execution, system mastery/playstyle are far more meaningful than class selection.Which is why tiers are based on the idea that everyone has the same level of system mastery, so that your accurately defining the class, instead of the player.
Word. If you assume the same player with a high level of system mastery playing every class, where does that class cap out capability-wise? How many situations can he handle with one build, and how many roles can he fill in the party? How reliant is he on other characters to maintain effectiveness at those roles, and at what levels does this reliance rise or fall?
You start to see this kind of effect where some classes can cover a much broader array of situations and fill more roles with a much larger degree of self reliance, where other classes have a smaller number of options and are only really good at a couple things without needing additional support. Then at the top of this imaginary pyramid, you have a class like the Rogue whose field of effectiveness is very narrow and who relies on the classes closer to the broader base of the pyramid to continue facilitating his ability to fill that role.
It might look something like this:
Rogue, Monk (Core) -- (Limited options that aren't always as good at fulfilling a task as the options available to others)
Fighter, Gunslinger, Monk (Sohei, Tetori)-- (Pretty good at one thing, may need support from other classes to keep doing it)
Paladin, Barbarian, Ranger, Cavalier, Ninja, Monk (Sensei, Zen Archer)--(Capable of being good at one thing and able to keep doing it with little outside support. May be able to competently cover one or two other roles)
Bard, Inquisitor, Magus, Alchemist-- (Can be good at 2 to 3 different things simultaneously with little to no outside support)
Cleric, Druid, Wizard, Sorcerer, Oracle, Summoner-- (Can fill 2-3+ roles competently with one build with no outside support. Has access to options that are hands down the best solution to almost any situation, like wish, gate, or miracle)
Where the farther up you go the more reliant you are on the people people below you to do what you do.
If only someone had made a system similar to this that codified these relationships and created common terminology that would make it easy to reference these ideas of performance disparity...
|
|
Edit: really though, you have a lot of options to raise initiative with magic. Build arguments are odd in that they depend on system mastery, can allow for one trick ponies and schrodinger arguments, and they may not exist entirely in execution, though they can most certainly measure potential.In execution they rarely exist to anywhere near the degree you see in theorycraft threads.
In execution, system mastery/playstyle are far more meaningful than class selection.
And people with low levels of system mastery gravitate towards martials, because they are easier to play then casters. And there are more people with low levels of system mastery then high system mastery. And thus lots of people play martials. It's not hard to figure out.
That doesn't mean the classes are balanced. It just means one has a higher skill cap.
Funny how many of your arguments tend to gravitate towards people who play martials somehow lack the ability to play casters respectfully. I've been playing Wizards since 1985 and I can keep up with the best of them, I also enjoy playing martials as well as many other classes. Just because one has system mastery doesn't mean they are going to always use it. I find those games extremely boring.
|
And people with low levels of system mastery gravitate towards martials, because they are easier to play then casters. And there are more people with low levels of system mastery then high system mastery. And thus lots of people play martials. It's not hard to figure out.
That doesn't mean the classes are balanced. It just means one has a higher skill cap.
This is pretty close to the opposite of true, IME. I'm one of the better optimizers in my group and generally dislike playing prepared casters and full 9-level casters, not because I don't know how, but because the logistics of doing it properly is simply not much fun.
Of the rest of the group, the low system-mastery players tend towards full casters (admittedly, mostly spontaneous ones) while the other high system mastery people vary widely in what they play.
I'm not arguing that some classes aren't more impressive than others, I'm just saying that system mastery doesn't seem to correlate very strongly with playing the most powerful classes.
And people with low levels of system mastery gravitate towards martials, because they are easier to play then casters. And there are more people with low levels of system mastery then high system mastery. And thus lots of people play martials. It's not hard to figure out.
That doesn't mean the classes are balanced. It just means one has a higher skill cap.
Maybe that's true generally speaking, I cannot really say, but I am a game designer, and a published contributing author to a Paizo AP, yet, as a player, Gandalf doesn't excite me, whereas Aragorn does. I prefer playing martials not due to a lack of system mastery, rather the concepts that interest me most don't involve casting spells... its got nothing to do with rules and everything to do with story concepts.
Maybe that's true generally speaking, I cannot really say, but I am a game designer, and a published contributing author to a Paizo AP, yet, as a player, Gandalf doesn't excite me, whereas Aragorn does. I prefer playing martials not due to a lack of system mastery, rather the concepts that interest me most don't involve casting spells... its got nothing to do with rules and everything to do with story concepts.And people with low levels of system mastery gravitate towards martials, because they are easier to play then casters. And there are more people with low levels of system mastery then high system mastery. And thus lots of people play martials. It's not hard to figure out.
That doesn't mean the classes are balanced. It just means one has a higher skill cap.
Akwardly, I like Aragorn and other martials in narratives and that's why I'm not happy with martials.
|
|
Except of course, that Paizo Wizards aren't Gandalf.
He exhibits very little magic (based on what I've read/heard he possesses far more than he demonstrates but that's beyond the scope of this discussion) and considerable martial skill. If we were representing him with class levels rather than the more appropriate method of a race, he's a bard.
Very true. Gandalf accomplished more by inspiring the people around him than he did through direct magical intervention. Dude could also two-weapon fight with a sword and staff pretty effectively, and almost always met the foes he personally fought blade to blade (or whip), with basically one exception, a wizard decked out with an array of artifacts (Saruman had several of the rings forged for dwarven kings).
Except of course, that Paizo Wizards aren't Gandalf.
He exhibits very little magic (based on what I've read/heard he possesses far more than he demonstrates but that's beyond the scope of this discussion) and considerable martial skill. If we were representing him with class levels rather than the more appropriate method of a race, he's a bard.
Yes, I was just using other words than caster vs. martial, not saying that Gandalf truly represents the games wizard - he does more resemble some kind of spellcaster, whereas Aragorn does not.
To clarify though, I never play true martials (never fighter or rogue) usually ranger or paladin.
Maybe that's true generally speaking, I cannot really say, but I am a game designer, and a published contributing author to a Paizo AP, yet, as a player, Gandalf doesn't excite me, whereas Aragorn does. I prefer playing martials not due to a lack of system mastery, rather the concepts that interest me most don't involve casting spells... its got nothing to do with rules and everything to do with story concepts.And people with low levels of system mastery gravitate towards martials, because they are easier to play then casters. And there are more people with low levels of system mastery then high system mastery. And thus lots of people play martials. It's not hard to figure out.
That doesn't mean the classes are balanced. It just means one has a higher skill cap.
I was talking primarily about the fact that casters are high skill cap characters. They have a very low optimization "floor", ie. they can be almost completely useless built incorrectly, but they have the highest optimization "ceiling", ie. they can solo APs built properly. If you haven't seen some Andreww's solo runs through APs with a Sorcerer please take a look, I'd be curious to hear what someone who writes them would think. Link for the curious here. (And note the significant handicaps he operates under.)
Martials conversely have a high optimization floor, ie. unless you intentionally sabotage your build you should be able to dish out considerable damage with a single full attack, but a low optimization ceiling, ie. they need the help of casters (or a small fortune of consumables) or they will be ineffective against high CR enemies who possess SLAs.
The greater point I was making that new players who make a martial can be effective even with very low amount of system mastery, while the same is not true for a caster. Perhaps should be better phrased as "Martials played by a player with low system mastery are superior to casters played by a player with low system mastery, while casters played by a player with high system mastery are superior to martials played by a player with high system mastery.
Is that phrasing more consistent with your experience?
|
|
Yes, I was just using other words than caster vs. martial, not saying that Gandalf truly represents the games wizard - he does more resemble some kind of spellcaster, whereas Aragorn does not.
To clarify though, I never play true martials (never fighter or rogue) usually ranger or paladin.
This is kind of a big point that I think has caused this discussion to bounce around a lot. A lot of times in this discussion this really general term "martial" is used to encompass classes that really cover a very wide range. Classes like the Ranger and Paladin, who are closer to the middle of the character food pyramid I discussed earlier, really just don't fit in the same category as the Fighter. They have spellcasting, even if it is more limited, and a variety of other options like healing, specialized abilities, and/or skill points, which the Fighter doesn't. They're "martials" only in the sense that their preferred form of conflict resolution usually involves hitting or poking something with an implement designed to cause pain or death.
|
You can get CHA to Initiative thanks to Noble Scion (War) My Lunar Oracle has a +43 to it. It's not great, but it works most of the time.
While +43 may not be the absolute max for a Lunar Oracle, let's not pretend that it is not an absolutely titanic Initiative bonus.
15 Cha (18 base, 2 racial, 5 inherent, 5 levels, 6 enhancement, 4 profane)
4 circumstance (banner of ancient kings)
3 competence (circlet of persuasion)
4 enhancement (+4 courageous dueling gauntlet - gotta keep that hand free)
2 luck (stone of good luck + fate's favored)
3 morale (cracked pale green ioun stone + aforementioned courageous)
4 racial (Ifrit, cause why not at this point?)
2 trait (reactionary)
8 unnamed (Eldritch Heritage - Arcane w/greensting scorpion familiar, Improved Initiative)
So that's a static +45 to Initiative, and includes just about everything short of class features and spell effects that come to the top of my mind. While I am sure a few articles are escaping my immediate attention, I think you've already optimized it more than you'd ever realistically need. At some point the resource investment is better placed elsewhere, even if the ridiculousness of it is amusing.
|
|
Funny how many of your arguments tend to gravitate towards people who play martials somehow lack the ability to play casters respectfully. I've been playing Wizards since 1985 and I can keep up with the best of them, I also enjoy playing martials as well as many other classes. Just because one has system mastery doesn't mean they are going to always use it. I find those games extremely boring.
The same here. I've played, and continue to play, both casters and martial characters. Choice of class has little to do with how effective I am in a game. I am my own limiting factor. I make deliberate choices, based on what I want to play, that define how powerful I am. Typically, I choose something that is fun over something that simply steamrolls.
|
|
Gandalf accomplished more by inspiring the people around him than he did through direct magical intervention. Dude could also two-weapon fight with a sword and staff pretty effectively, and almost always met the foes he personally fought blade to blade (or whip), with basically one exception, a wizard decked out with an array of artifacts (Saruman had several of the rings forged for dwarven kings).Just as a Tolkien geek aside: I don't believe Saruman had any of the dwarven Rings. They had either been devoured by dragons or reclaimed by Sauron. Those could have been given by Sauron to Saruman, but there's no evidence of it. He was attempting to recover Ring-Lore and forge Rings of Power of his own. I believe what he was shown as wearing were his attempts at the craft.
I could have sworn that he was specifically called out as having several of the corrupted dwarven rings.... Guess I'll have to go back and reread the trilogy :)
They're "martials" only in the sense that their preferred form of conflict resolution usually involves hitting or poking something with an implement designed to cause pain or death.
To be fair, most 'martials', if that's how you define martials, have a very similar playstyle of almost being on autopilot sometimes. You spam full attack. Caster and martial have two extremes imo, with very few classes being Gish. YMMV on definitions I suppose.
|
|
You can get CHA to Initiative thanks to Noble Scion (War) My Lunar Oracle has a +43 to it. It's not great, but it works most of the time.While +43 may not be the absolute max for a Lunar Oracle, let's not pretend that it is not an absolutely titanic Initiative bonus.
15 Cha (18 base, 2 racial, 5 inherent, 5 levels, 6 enhancement, 4 profane)
4 circumstance (banner of ancient kings)
3 competence (circlet of persuasion)
4 enhancement (+4 courageous dueling gauntlet - gotta keep that hand free)
2 luck (stone of good luck + fate's favored)
3 morale (cracked pale green ioun stone + aforementioned courageous)
4 racial (Ifrit, cause why not at this point?)
2 trait (reactionary)
8 unnamed (Eldritch Heritage - Arcane w/greensting scorpion familiar, Improved Initiative)So that's a static +45 to Initiative, and includes just about everything short of class features and spell effects that come to the top of my mind. While I am sure a few articles are escaping my immediate attention, I think you've already optimized it more than you'd ever realistically need. At some point the resource investment is better placed elsewhere, even if the ridiculousness of it is amusing.
With that level of optimization into initiative, the classes I mentioned will be in the 50's (or higher). You're competing against classes that count multiple stats into initiative, are never surprised and don't bother rolling the dice (always 20).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think I've heard anyone say casters are the only classes worth playing, just that martials don't compare, especially at higher levels.
Which is true.If everyone is playing martial characters no one is going to notice that casters out-perform them, in the same way that someone who always plays Mario Bros. is never going to care that an MMO like WoW is a more robust platform capable of more varied and complex dynamics.
The forums are littered with "fix the rogue", "fix the fighter", "why can't (martial) have nice things?" threads.
This, to me, would actually indicate that there must be a lot of people who want to play Rogues and Fighters and are frustrated at being stymied by their mechanical deficiencies, quite the opposite of people thinking they're not
I disagree . The forums are indeed littered with such threads and posts, but they tend to be from the very small VERY vocal minority, some of whom freely admit they don't play earth of those classes or even Pathfinder.
I disagree . The forums are indeed littered with such threads and posts, but they tend to be from the very small VERY vocal minority, some of whom freely admit they don't play earth of those classes or even Pathfinder.This, to me, would actually indicate that there must be a lot of people who want to play Rogues and Fighters and are frustrated at being stymied by their mechanical deficiencies, quite the opposite of people thinking they're notThe forums are littered with "fix the rogue", "fix the fighter", "why can't (martial) have nice things?" threads.
I don't think I've heard anyone say casters are the only classes worth playing, just that martials don't compare, especially at higher levels.
Which is true.If everyone is playing martial characters no one is going to notice that casters out-perform them, in the same way that someone who always plays Mario Bros. is never going to care that an MMO like WoW is a more robust platform capable of more varied and complex dynamics.
Source?
|
|
To be fair, most 'martials', if that's how you define martials, have a very similar playstyle of almost being on autopilot sometimes. You spam full attack. Caster and martial have two extremes imo, with very few classes being Gish. YMMV on definitions I suppose.
I kind of like to look at it in terms of options, not just "What am I most likely to do?" but "What do I have to fall back on when my primary schtick isn't the right tool for the job?"
I think a "pure" martial character like the Fighter basically has one answer to the first question, and no good answer to the second. Classes like the Ranger and Paladin may have the same answer as the Fighter to the first question, but they'll also have at least a couple answers to the second question as well.
As ive said before Martial caster issues are a thought experiment that in my experience rarely applies, or a break down in social dynamics between players.I didn't know a wizards ability to cast color spray was just a thought experiment. Guys! Don't worry, magic doesn't really exist! Its just a theory. Like gravity.Color Spray is a really good spell.
Until you get in the dungeon and realize everything is either undead or a construct.
Good thing you have other spells, eh?
But.... Not so much. See these super color spray builds out all their feats and most of their spells per day into that one spell.
And, since I have to be careful not to hit my buddies, I almost am never able to hit more that one monster. If you do jump out in front, sure, you can get a couple, but then you have the risk of them being immune or simply making a save, whereupon you're dead.
No doubt, at lower levels having a CP for just that right moment is almost a must do. But to think it will win encounter after encounter is ludicrous .
|
|
With that level of optimization into initiative, the classes I mentioned will be in the 50's (or higher). You're competing against classes that count multiple stats into initiative, are never surprised and don't bother rolling the dice (always 20).
You can definitely get comparable with some classes. I do not intend to say otherwise. The real issue with that can simply be resource devotion. For example, having to carry around that banner of the ancient kings in both hands at the onset of battle could be a real pain in the rear for some builds. Likewise, not dumping Cha just to sink 2 feats into eldritch heritage for the familiar could likewise cause issues. I also chose to specifically overlook spell bonuses since anyone can buy a higher caster level scroll or wand and use it, and it would just be a wash in comparisons anyhow.
A ring of revelation could allow the oracle to roll three times as well, but that is certainly inferior to the auto 20 some classes get.
I don't think I've heard anyone say casters are the only classes worth playing, just that martials don't compare, especially at higher levels.
Which is true.If everyone is playing martial characters no one is going to notice that casters out-perform them, in the same way that someone who always plays Mario Bros. is never going to care that an MMO like WoW is a more robust platform capable of more varied and complex dynamics.
The forums are littered with "fix the rogue", "fix the fighter", "why can't (martial) have nice things?" threads.
This, to me, would actually indicate that there must be a lot of people who want to play Rogues and Fighters and are frustrated at being stymied by their mechanical deficiencies, quite the opposite of people thinking they're not
I disagree . The forums are indeed littered with such threads and posts, but they tend to be from the very small VERY vocal minority, some of whom freely admit they don't play earth of those classes or even Pathfinder.
Lot's of people follow the guides. Even the poor ones.
Tropes like fighters are piss in non-social events come from the guides telling them to dump cha.
Rogue ares basically NPCs or die all the time is helped by the guides telling them that feint is dumb and that you should only flank at all times, and if you can't flank you should just sit there and look stupid. Or they recommend strength rogues which are just crappy fighters that are a little bit better at skills
Here is the same old problem with these various arguments.
Color Spray: Good spell, but it's assuming all the enemies are huddled together, the wizard actually took the spell, the enemies aren't undead, and they all fail their save.
You don't use color spray on undead, and you can't use a spell you haven't learned. That's really a given isn't it?
it.
Maxing out KS Religion is pretty much impossible for most Sorc, and difficult for wizards.
Unless of course you meta game like crazy.
Maxing out KS Religion is pretty much impossible for most Sorc, and difficult for wizards.
Unless of course you meta game like crazy.
What sort of creature is this foul thing! I mean, its only a moving human skeleton with flaming eyes in its sockets. Clearly its some sort of... animal! Perfectly normal animal, yes!
Not sure if its metagaming to know an undead is immune to mind affecting abilities.
|
|
The forums are littered with "fix the rogue", "fix the fighter", "why can't (martial) have nice things?" threads.
This, to me, would actually indicate that there must be a lot of people who want to play Rogues and Fighters and are frustrated at being stymied by their mechanical deficiencies, quite the opposite of people thinking they're not
I disagree . The forums are indeed littered with such threads and posts, but they tend to be from the very small VERY vocal minority, some of whom freely admit they don't play earth of those classes or even Pathfinder.
Well I, personally, am probably fairly well known for being vocal on the subject of the Fighter's deficiencies, and if you can't find at least a dozen posts where I talk about playing Fighters you aren't trying very hard. Similarly, I'm fairly certain that I've heard Rynjin, MrSin, Ashiel, Kirth Jensen, and most of the other "regulars", chime in with their personal experiences playing or GMing the Fighter and how their frustrations arose from 1st hand experience. Many of those who saw that problem have also attempted to fix it in some way, such as Kirthfinder, the Akashic Warrior archetype from my own personal still-in-development project with Dreamscarred Press, and more.
I also have noted that a large chunk of the problem can be attributed to the fact that the "potential" of a Fighter's feats is weighted far too heavily compared to what he's likely to get out of them. A single Fighter bonus feat is valued as heavily in his class spread as abilities like Ranger or Paladin Spellcasting, Hide in Plain Sight, etc.
I know that I have proposed Fighter-only narrative feats that help close this gap and enhance the Fighter's impact on the game world, and his options outside of combat.
In my personal experience, it's this vocal minority that just like to b&*@# about a game they don't play who are the myth, while the majority of posters who've identified these problems are people who've experienced them for themselves and are looking to identify the root causes of the disparities they've identified in their games, match those experiences up with the experiences of others, and crowdsource viable solutions, some of which may hopefully even make it into the core product line.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Tropes like fighters are piss in non-social events come from the guides telling them to dump cha.
To be fair, guides are usually a reflection of a class's innate abilities and expectations.
But.... Not so much. See these super color spray builds out all their feats and most of their spells per day into that one spell.Heavens Oracle literally needs to take one revelation. And learn one spell.
Heavens oracle should be the only color spray build imo.
Best part? Color spray is just one spell he has. Everything else is just gravy. Delicious delicious gravy... Mmm... Gravy.
Well, I'm hungry now...