| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thread lightly down this path. Discussions similar to this one produce D&D 4e...
I play warriors because its fun. I love fighter, barbarians, gunslingers, and the like because I love having my character smash things. Yes, I can smash things with a wizard, sorcerer, and a other spell casters. But I don't have as much fun doing so.
Arachnofiend, narrative powers for martails is very hard to accomplish. I made a psychic warrior/aegis (from the Ultimate Psionics by Dreamscarred Press) and had a very minor ability to repair items 1 hit point a round, all day long. This became cool when we found a ship that was "too torn up to be worth sailing". Less than a day later, between me and the mage casting Mend, we had a brand new ship. And that was the last time my warrior had narrative powers.
When that character died (stupid dinosaurs), I made a druid. I was the party's transporter, help reinforce a town in ways the GM didn't expect (stone shape spikes under water, etc.), could heal, gain allies, and did wonders in combat. So, yeah. I feel your pain.
Big tough barbarian chopping your party in half with his greatsword? Disarm him, now he's down to punching people for 1d3.
One of the party's warriors got hit by a fear spell, dropped that sheet of metal he called a sword, and ran away. Upon recovering, he moved back to the party when a handful of ghouls were summoned between him and the party. On his action, he drew a craftsmen hammer out of his bag, and kill all of them with a single cleave action.
Back in 3.5, I played a Feral Frenzied Berserker with the typical two handed sword. With a feat and magic set of gloves, I was just as dangerous unarmed (claws) as I was armed.
I'm not disagreeing with you. I just saw a moment to spout off a pair of awesome stories I saw when some one was disarmed.
So, to the OP, there are a few games where everyone is playing a caster, but invariably, there is going to be someone (usually me) who say "I like to hit things with my stick!" at character generation. That's why people play martial character in a game where casters are more powerful.
Maybe it's a Maneuver Master, maybe it's a Cad, maybe it's just a vanilla fighter or some such that took alot of the maneuver feats. But being good at a wide range of combat maneuvers makes you able to cripple your enemies in a way that might not be magical, but is extremely helpful to your party.
But you have to take a couple feat for each manoeuvers, not accounting for some of them when you need to take useless feats like Improved unarmed strike (for grapple) or Combat expertise. Even a fighter would have trouble having 2 or 3 manoeuvers, i won't even mention other characters.
Did I mention manoeuvers are less and less likely to work the stronger you and your ennemies get ?
Big tough barbarian chopping your party in half with his greatsword? Disarm him, now he's down to punching people for 1d3.
First, you have to have the right feat or he gets an attack of opportunity (and if he hit, you will have a great malus to your CMB roll and will have taken a hit for free).
Second, you have to actually beat the CMD of the barbarian (which is one of the highest). And the higher the level, the higher CMD gets compared to your CMB.
Third, the barbarian can still beat the crap out of you with his fist, a secondary weapon or a manoeuver of its own (and he gets a rage power that give a huge bonus to them). Yeah, a 10th level barbarian that deals 2d6+25 with its greatsword still does 1d3+15 with his fists or 1d6+22 with a standard club.
Party having trouble landing hits on the nimble rogue-type? Trip them (even as an AoO!), gives a +4 on your party's attacks and makes it much easier to maneuver into flanking positions.
Well, rogues are one of the easiest targets to hit...
Party's caster having trouble getting those spells to stick? Two little Dirty Tricks and they can be shaken and sickened, giving a -2 each to saving throws.
For one round each. And the target is free to do whatever it wants, because your two combattants wasted their entire turn giving low maluses for 1 round (not even sure it would actually grant those maluses, thanks to attack of opportunity and the way CMD works).
Enemy spellcaster? Grapple them into helplessness. Blind them for your rogue. Drop their pants so they can't run. Bull rush them into a wall. The possibilities are basically only limited by your creativity.
Manoeuvers are as likely to be stopped by magic protections as standard attacks. Mirror image, displacement, illusions, blur, ... all of them works against manoeuvers.
And you still have to get behind enemy lines to attempt a manoeuver against a caster.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Every time I've played a caster, I've been dependent on the more martial types to clear the small obstacles (to conserve resources) and when we get to the big battle to protect me so that I can cast my spells. Cleric needs a bit less protection, but still it is easier to cast spells before going into melee.
The martial types are what allow the casters time and space to pull off their stunts.
As others have noted already, some of the casters are just providing party buff so that the martial types can kick more butt. Area denial also sets up the martial types to do their stuff by restricting where the enemy can attack.
As for why play the martial types, you are a part of every battle and get to kick butt. There is strategy in avoiding AoO, choosing which opponent to take out first, concentration of fire, and any number of other things.
Also, most of those martial types should have some useful skills as well. Swimming, climbing, intimidate, etc. The skills aren't exclusive to them, but they frequently take them more often than the casters.
... A level 3 wizard can defeat an iron golem with some preparation purely through...LOL - well, if that's your argument, then yes, a Wizard can defeat anything with 'some preparation'... that may just be the crux of the thread...
You've just entirely missed the point. The level 3 wizard is purely to illustrate how poor iron golems really are. A level appropriate wizard needs no such preparation as he is almost certain to have a whole swathe of SR:no spells available to him.
As an aside, some preparation means having acid splash and levitate. Not difficult....
Has anyone notice how Video/Computer RPGS treat this concept? Most RPGs that I have played over the years make it easy to play the fighter and damn near impossible to play a Wizard. I'm thinking games like Skyrim Dragon Age etc...
It's like the game punish you for playing smart by making sure you die in one hit..
Why does that being a caster mean you are squishy? Since we are talking concepts here. I think Harry Dresden is pretty non-squishy.
Yeah you can say game balance and that might be okay BUT I am talking about the concept of why wizard=squishy? Because they read or they don't swing a sword all day? Because martial=badass all the time? I'm thinking Elric here, he is VERY squishy but is still a marital.
Casters are not squishy in D&D (at least past early levels). Hit points from class are quickly outweighed by hit points from CON bonus. Furthermore casters can prepare a number of defenses from miss chances, to mirror images, to temporary hp, to instant walls of force, etc. At high levels, a caster is far far "tankier" then a martial. I know I enjoy my wall of undispelable buffs on my high level casters.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Munches quietly in the fertile field
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Munches quietly in the fertile field
"Slowly digesting the souls of the restless the indeterminable squiggly one regards the zombie horse. Which promptly exploded into ichorous madness."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm confused by this notion that martials don't have narrative power. I mean, they don't have as much as full casters, certainly, but they still have the same narrative power that every character has to: they can decide to kill major NPCs when they shouldn't, they elect to solve problems in ways that the GM didn't anticipate, they can forge allegiances with whoever they choose (even the folks you intended to be the bad guys), they can elect to travel to an entirely different part of the world than the one you intended them to, etc.
I mean, sure, you can't open a portal to the Elemental Plane of Spam if you're Sven the Fighter, but IMO the game is more interesting in the context of people and cities and kingdoms than it is in the context of abstracted ham elementals.
|
Why is it that people focus on pure damage when you could simply daze someone into submission, or color spray them into walls, or an even better spell, make them run away in fear? I'm having a hard time justifying my using a fighter class versus creating a transmutationist, or some other class with...well...spells.
There is nothing stopping a fighter from locking down opponents while dealing more damage than a barbarian.
A TWF fighter with Stunning Critical effectively ends the fight with a roll of 15+ on any one of his 7+ attacks per round.
Even without using critical feats, the Dead condition is still effective at ending fights.
I'm confused by this notion that martials don't have narrative power. I mean, they don't have as much as full casters, certainly, but they still have the same narrative power that every character has to: they can decide to kill major NPCs when they shouldn't, they elect to solve problems in ways that the GM didn't anticipate, they can forge allegiances with whoever they choose (even the folks you intended to be the bad guys), they can elect to travel to an entirely different part of the world than the one you intended them to, etc.
I mean, sure, you can't open a portal to the Elemental Plane of Spam if you're Sven the Fighter, but IMO the game is more interesting in the context of people and cities and kingdoms than it is in the context of abstracted ham elementals.
They can't force a change in the story. As an example, if I am a GM plan to have you walk across a mountain ridge and have several encounters possibly meeting NPC X along the way, and I forget to account for teleport, then the caster has changed the story.
If the only logical way to make a part of the story difficult is to get NPC Y to help, but he hates the party, and no diplomacy check will work for whatever reason, and he gets charmed or dominated then once again the caster has changed the story.
So no, they don't have the same narrative power.
In both cases, I as the GM would have to modify things, assuming I did not make up something new to railroad the party, such as preventing the teleport or giving that NPC immunity to mind control.
They can't force a change in the story.
Sure they can. If the players are supposed to be working with an NPC, and they just up and kill that guy, the story has changed.
As an example, if I am a GM plan to have you walk across a mountain ridge and have several encounters possibly meeting NPC X along the way, and I forget to account for teleport, then the caster has changed the story.
You're presupposing the players have decided they want to go to whatever is on the other side of the mountain range. They can always elect to do something else, and thereby change the story. Certainly if they have already decided to go to whatever's on the other side there, magic classes do likely give you more options than martial classes would be.
But I would observe "we walked along the mountain ridge, and fought some monsters, and then we got there" isn't really *the story* so much as "filler." Martials don't get to skip filler in the same way that magic classes do.
If the only logical way to make a part of the story difficult is to get NPC Y to help, but he hates the party, and no diplomacy check will work for whatever reason, and he gets charmed or dominated then once again the caster has changed the story.
There is no situation in which the only one to advance the narrative is to cooperate with a specific NPC. If this ever happens, your GM is railroading you and you shouldn't stand for it. If the GM is already railroading you in this manner, I've found that these NPCs tend to be mysteriously resistant to charm/dominate spells.
But you can always find another way than "work with that guy who hates you." Players find solutions by doing illogical things all the time. It's a big ol' world.
So no, they don't have the same narrative power.
I never said that they had the same. I said that they had some. People in this thread are acting as though martial classes have no narrative power, but by virtue of being a free-willed actor in the game everybody, martial or magic, has a good bit of narrative power.
All classes have the power to cooperate (or not) with the GM, to innovate solutions to problems that you may not have anticipated, and to choose whichever narrative trajectories they like ("don't want to investigate the rumors of the necromancer in the hills, you want to go sailing instead? Okay, we'll do that then."). Personally, I think that ought to be enough narrative power for anybody.
So yes magic classes have more narrative power, but everybody has enough.
They can't force a change in the story.Sure they can. If the players are supposed to be working with an NPC, and they just up and kill that guy, the story has changed.
That is not what I was talking about. The post I was replying to already had an example of that. I was referring to the examples I specifically listed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
[
You're presupposing the players have decided they want to go to whatever is on the other side of the mountain range. They can always elect to do something else, and thereby change the story. Certainly if they have already decided to go to whatever's on the other side there, magic classes do likely give you more options than martial classes would be.But I would observe "we walked along the mountain ridge, and fought some monsters, and then we got there" isn't really *the story* so much as "filler." Martials don't get to skip filler in the same way that magic classes do.
I never said what anyone wanted to do. My point is that casters can do these things and martials can't.
There is no situation in which the only one to advance the narrative is to cooperate with a specific NPC. If this ever happens, your GM is railroading you and you shouldn't stand for it. If the GM is already railroading you in this manner, I've found that these NPCs tend to be mysteriously resistant to charm/dominate spells.
But you can always find another way than "work with that guy who hates you." Players find solutions by doing illogical things all the time. It's a big ol' world.
That does not change the FACT that martials cant do this and casters can meaning they have more narrative power.
I never said that they had the same. I said that they had some
You said:
.... but they still have the same narrative power that every character has to
My focus was on "same narrative power".
So I thought you meant equal since it is synonymous with "equal" in many of its uses, and if casters can affect the story in more ways then they have more narrative power.
They can't force a change in the story.Sure they can. If the players are supposed to be working with an NPC, and they just up and kill that guy, the story has changed.
As an example, if I am a GM plan to have you walk across a mountain ridge and have several encounters possibly meeting NPC X along the way, and I forget to account for teleport, then the caster has changed the story.You're presupposing the players have decided they want to go to whatever is on the other side of the mountain range. They can always elect to do something else, and thereby change the story. Certainly if they have already decided to go to whatever's on the other side there, magic classes do likely give you more options than martial classes would be.
But I would observe "we walked along the mountain ridge, and fought some monsters, and then we got there" isn't really *the story* so much as "filler." Martials don't get to skip filler in the same way that magic classes do.
If the only logical way to make a part of the story difficult is to get NPC Y to help, but he hates the party, and no diplomacy check will work for whatever reason, and he gets charmed or dominated then once again the caster has changed the story.There is no situation in which the only one to advance the narrative is to cooperate with a specific NPC. If this ever happens, your GM is railroading you and you shouldn't stand for it. If the GM is already railroading you in this manner, I've found that these NPCs tend to be mysteriously resistant to charm/dominate spells.
But you can always find another way than "work with that guy who hates you." Players find solutions by doing illogical things all the time. It's a big ol' world.
So no, they don't have the same narrative power.I never said that they had the same. I said that they had some. People in this thread are acting as though martial classes have no...
See there is the problem: You are confusing what the player can do, the players narrative power, with what the class can do, with the narrative power of the class. The player can decide to be an insufferable git and murderhobo the important NPCs or ignore the quests. But the casting classes have an ability to affect the story that the martial ones just don't have. The sorcerer is better at making the party arrive somewhere, but the fighter is not in any way better at killing a NPC they should work with. In fact if the player wants to kill a NPC the caster is probably better, because the martial can only hit it with weapons or maybe poison him, while the caster can teleport him to a volcano, call lighting on his head, turn him into a statue shatter the statue and use the pieces as a work of modern art, dominate him into picking a fight with a martial, make him drown on land, or a dozen other things. The martial can only kill someone, the caster can do it in ways people won't even know what happened to him for years.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My focus was on "same narrative power".
So I thought you meant equal since it is synonymous with "equal" in many of its uses, and if casters can affect the story in more ways then they have more narrative power.
What I meant to imply is that every person who shows up at the table has a tremendous amount of narrative agency, regardless of what class they choose to play. Indeed, even the most singularly-focused martial class has enough narrative agency to wreck any plot the GM has concocted.
This should be enough for anybody, but yes magical classes have options that martial classes do not. The bulk of their narrative power, however, is in the hands of the individual making choices for them.
I mean, sure you can teleport across the mountain ridge if you have that spell, but you could also construct a hot air balloon (make those ranks in knowledge: engineering come in handy) or walk around the base and climb up the other side with ropes. The important issue is that "any class has an option to get to the other side of the mountain ridge without walking across it. Plus, let's be honest, "teleporting" is probably the least entertaining solution to that problem.
So magical classes have more options, sure, but all classes always have a bunch of options anyway. It just seems greedy to say "I don't want to play a martial class since I want all the narrative agency I can possibly get."
My focus was on "same narrative power".
So I thought you meant equal since it is synonymous with "equal" in many of its uses, and if casters can affect the story in more ways then they have more narrative power.
What I meant to imply is that every person who shows up at the table has a tremendous amount of narrative agency, regardless of what class they choose to play. Indeed, even the most singularly-focused martial class has enough narrative agency to wreck any plot the GM has concocted.
This should be enough for anybody, but yes magical classes have options that martial classes do not. The bulk of their narrative power, however, is in the hands of the individual making choices for them.
I mean, sure you can teleport across the mountain ridge if you have that spell, but you could also construct a hot air balloon (make those ranks in knowledge: engineering come in handy) or walk around the base and climb up the other side with ropes. The important issue is that "any class has an option to get to the other side of the mountain ridge without walking across it. Plus, let's be honest, "teleporting" is probably the least entertaining solution to that problem.
So magical classes have more options, sure, but all classes always have a bunch of options anyway. It just seems greedy to say "I don't want to play a martial class since I want all the narrative agency I can possibly get."
Don't get hung up on teleport. It was just one example of many, and one of the more obvious ones since it takes about 6 seconds to cast, and could save you days of travel in game time.
Most(everyone one I have GM'd for or played in so far) groups I know would choose the teleport option, since it makes sense from a mechanical and RP aspect to not put yourself into harm's way if you can avoid it.
Sorry for my post coming off a bit arrogant and conceited. My friends and I have very different ways of playing the game, and I'm simply trying to understand why they play the classes they play. The dude who's been there for me through thick and thin plays a fighter. Another guy religiously plays a fighter (pretty much the only thing he plays, though, he once made an evil wizard and now he's a pirate lord). The most chaotic dude in the group has been banned from playing the barbarian and alchemist because he tends to take their chaoticness a bit (hilariously) out of line. That leaves the last guy to to his ventures in roguery because he likes dark/light comparisons, and other more gruesome tidings.
I play casters because they allow me to be what my party needs me to be at the moment. If someone needs invisibility, I cast the spell on them. If someone needs a troll to be not so trolly, I cast spells to reduce the amount of troll the troll trolls. So on and so forth, I just like feeling useful, and playing any of the other classes kind of diminishes that.
Actual, this thread is kind of a rant for me.
What I really want to do is find a martial class that allows me to be useful without having to rely on spells all the time. Paladins have their shiny horses and pointy swords, but they're alignment bound, and, though I'm not a lawful douche, I do cause problems for the group, which I'm taking efforts to fix.
I just want to be useful, and it's rather frustrating. Got any tips?
Sorry if I sounded too acidic earlier. It sounds like you genuinely want to understand other perspectives about how people choose their characters.
As someone mentioned above, it sounds like you want a character that can single-handedly counter any situation the GM could possibly set against you. This is pretty much impossible, but the closest you can get is a full caster, usually a wizard. More concerning is your worry that a GM will purposely exploit your weaknesses. There's a certain amount of that from time to time, just to keep the players on their toes, but a GM's primary job is to create an environment in which the players can have a good time. Most of the time, the GM should seek to enable your effectiveness rather than seek to counter it. The problems the GM creates should be solvable by the party encountering them. If the party makes a group of nothing but wizards, the GM shouldn't set the entire campaign in a permanent antimagic zone. A single adventure as a change of pace? Sure, if the players are onboard for a "think-outside-the-box" challenge.
That aside, I, like you, appreciate versatile characters. However, not all classes have the same level of versatility. Right now I'm progressing a gunslinger so that it can also be quite effective in melee combat through the use of maneuvers and such. He's no wizard, but he's more fun to play than a one-trick-pistolero. I don't worry about whether he's "effective" compared to the build-that-could-have-been because I trust my GM to avoid putting us in impossible situations. If I felt my character wasn't "useful", I'd ask my GM for a rebuild or retire the character in favor of something more appropriate. But I generally try to make my characters useful in nonmechanical ways before worrying too much about the mechanics. A character that adds depth to the roleplaying experience is far more welcome in any party than one who happens to be good at slicing things up or controlling the battlefield but doesn't really do anything for immersion.
That's how I think about character creation. As I mentioned before, different people have different reasons to choose the characters they do. I don't really understand why some players attempt to make the most min-maxed characters they can, but I do understand that they have a different approach to character creation than I do, and that's enough for me to respect it.
My focus was on "same narrative power".
So I thought you meant equal since it is synonymous with "equal" in many of its uses, and if casters can affect the story in more ways then they have more narrative power.
What I meant to imply is that every person who shows up at the table has a tremendous amount of narrative agency, regardless of what class they choose to play. Indeed, even the most singularly-focused martial class has enough narrative agency to wreck any plot the GM has concocted.
This should be enough for anybody, but yes magical classes have options that martial classes do not. The bulk of their narrative power, however, is in the hands of the individual making choices for them.
I mean, sure you can teleport across the mountain ridge if you have that spell, but you could also construct a hot air balloon (make those ranks in knowledge: engineering come in handy) or walk around the base and climb up the other side with ropes. The important issue is that "any class has an option to get to the other side of the mountain ridge without walking across it. Plus, let's be honest, "teleporting" is probably the least entertaining solution to that problem.
So magical classes have more options, sure, but all classes always have a bunch of options anyway. It just seems greedy to say "I don't want to play a martial class since I want all the narrative agency I can possibly get."
I would argue against the bulk of their narrative power being in the hands of the individual making choices for them. I will never come close to the same level of narrative power as my wizard buddy when I'm playing a fighter because I can't just decide to make a separate plane of existence, I can't charm/dominate/geas (and no diplomacy/intimidation aren't substitutes for those), I can't turn metal to wood, I can't turn mud to rock, I can't f*%~ing fly (I am very sour about this). Oh and the a$!$!!% can make it storm so loud we get deafened, pour down acid from the sky, summon lightning bolts down to strike his foes, AND THEN BURY THEM IN HAIL when he gets a bit stronger all with one spell (We're almost at 9th level spells). I can't do anything nearly as fantastic or narratively powerful as these things. It's a failing of the class imho. I could challenge any warrior and most likely best them in solo combat, but the wizard could just mass charm their entire platoon.
I would argue against the bulk of their narrative power being in the hands of the individual making choices for them. I will never come close to the same level of narrative power as my wizard buddy when I'm playing a fighter because I can't just decide to make a separate plane of existence, I can't charm/dominate/geas (and no diplomacy/intimidation aren't substitutes for those), I can't turn metal to wood, I can't turn mud to rock, I can't f&%%ing fly (I am very sour about this). Oh and the a!%#%$# can make it storm so loud we get deafened, pour...
I think you're confusing the ability to do something with the means to do it. Sure, you can't charm/dominate/etc. someone, but you can use other means to do what you want (and honestly, calling in favors, blackmail,pulling rank or just good ol' threats of grievous bodily harm are a lot more interesting than a charm spell.) Sure, you can't turn metal to wood, but you can still sunder the door. Sure you can't fly, but you can still choose to go wherever you want to go, and then go there.
There's a difference between "not having the tools to do certain things" and "not having the narrative agency to shape the story in the ways you want." I mean, by the time a wizard can cast a single 9th level spell he will be 17th level. In the previous 17 levels, you probably have accomplished something in terms of political alliances, important figures who owe you favors, achieving wealth and social rank, joining secret societies, etc. The primary power of a character up in the upper reaches of these levels (17-20 or so) should be in "what they have already accomplished" not "what the mechanics allow them to do now."
I mean, by the time Robilar was a 13th level fighter he had 8 gods who owed him for their freedom...
I think you're confusing the ability to do something with the means to do it. Sure, you can't charm/dominate/etc. someone, but you can use other means to do what you want (and honestly, calling in favors, blackmail,pulling rank or just good ol' threats of grievous bodily harm are a lot more interesting than a charm spell.) [\Quote]
If the caster can do something within the rules alone he has more power. All of your idea are relying on GM fiat and what is interesting is subjective. What the rules allow is generally objective
Sure, you can't turn metal to wood, but you can still sunder the door. Sure you can't fly, but you can still choose to go wherever you want to go, and then go there.
More bad examples. Turning one material to another is not even close to sundering a door. Being able to turn one material to another bypasses the door and has many other uses while sundering a door only sunders a door.
There's a difference between "not having the tools to do certain things" and "not having the narrative agency to shape the story in the ways you want." I mean, by the time a wizard can cast a single 9th level spell he will be 17th level. In the previous 17 levels, you probably have accomplished something in terms of political alliances, important figures who owe you favors, achieving wealth and social rank, joining secret societies, etc. The primary power of a character up in the upper reaches of these levels (17-20 or so) should be in "what they have already accomplished" not "what the mechanics allow them to do now."That is a playstyle but not many people play like that so within you can't use it in a general discussion.
What we do have in common during a general discussion are the rules.
I mean, by the time Robilar was a 13th level fighter he had 8 gods who owed him for their freedom...You use media as a comparison because many things don't crossover well and that includes Pathfinder/D&D novels. So far all of your arguments are relying on playstyle and what YOU find interesting. I am not saying your group plays the game wrong. I am saying that it won't have much merit in a discussion like this.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My point is that if you are concerned that the way you are playing a game denies narrative agency to non-casters, then play the game in a way that gives more narrative agency to non-casters.
That narrative agency is denied to non-casters is a function of how you're playing the game, not the mechanics of the game itself, and if you are are bothered by this, then change how you play the game. If you're fine with it, then just keep on keeping on.
But to answer the OP, if the question is "why do some people choose to play martials when casters have much more narrative agency?" the answer is "because at some tables, martials have just as much narrative agency as casters (just fewer tools.)" Rather than lamenting how little impact martial classes can have on the story, why not consider instead how the story can be told in a way that allows everybody to have more say in how it goes?
|
My point is that if you are concerned that the way you are playing a game denies narrative agency to non-casters, then play the game in a way that gives more narrative agency to non-casters.
That narrative agency is denied to non-casters is a function of how you're playing the game, not the mechanics of the game itself, and if you are are bothered by this, then change how you play the game. If you're fine with it, then just keep on keeping on.
But to answer the OP, if the question is "why do some people choose to play martials when casters have much more narrative agency?" the answer is "because at some tables, martials have just as much narrative agency as casters (just fewer tools.)" Rather than lamenting how little impact martial classes can have on the story, why not consider instead how the story can be told in a way that allows everybody to have more say in how it goes?
Because a DM, or player, shouldn't have to warp his game around a single character. Oh sure, I can probably craft scenario where the fighter has as much impact outside combat as in it, BUT that will almost always be a scenario that breaks down to combat very, very quickly because that is where the fighters main tools are. Unless I do away with things like diplomacy rolls, no the fighter just doesn't have much to add to something that isn't solved with steel entering flesh.
... A level 3 wizard can defeat an iron golem with some preparation purely through...Most classes can, with preparation.
Iron golems don't have ranged attacks.
Bring me a level 3 monk, rogue or fighter who can defeat an iron golem solo.
Two scenes:
1)empty arena, 100ft square, no roof or walls.
and
2)30ft by 30ft empty room, stone walls, 20ft high ceiling.
Maybe doable mode: using UMD
Actually proving your point mode: without UMD
Ultrahard mode: no more than 25% of WBL resources can be spent 'preparing' for the iron golem - rest must be standard adventuring gear.
It's possible using acid flasks and a UMD levitate in arena and on easy mode, and maybe some cheese could get through the room (i'd like to see it, would be an interesting build at least!), but I highly doubt you can build something to survive the other modes. Ultrahard mode arena 2 isn't a sure thing for the wizard, but he does manage it with a decent success rate via create pit.
Of course, I'm willing to be proved wrong!
Iron golems? They're mindless constructs. Any character of any class can exploit that. A passably clever child could defeat one in any reasonable situation (which an "empty arena" generally isn't).
Oh how I love the creaky sound of goalpost moving :-)
My point is that if you are concerned that the way you are playing a game denies narrative agency to non-casters, then play the game in a way that gives more narrative agency to non-casters.
That narrative agency is denied to non-casters is a function of how you're playing the game, not the mechanics of the game itself, and if you are are bothered by this, then change how you play the game. If you're fine with it, then just keep on keeping on.
But to answer the OP, if the question is "why do some people choose to play martials when casters have much more narrative agency?" the answer is "because at some tables, martials have just as much narrative agency as casters (just fewer tools.)" Rather than lamenting how little impact martial classes can have on the story, why not consider instead how the story can be told in a way that allows everybody to have more say in how it goes?
Me as a GM being able to alter things does change the inherent ability of a class to not be able to do something which is the point everyone else is making.
Oh how I love the creaky sound of goalpost moving :-)
Tu quoque! : )
AD+D addressed this disparity by making arcane casters useless and unlikely to survive at low levels, and limiting the power of divine spells. 3E decreased this disparity, and PF virtually has done away with it. The DC system mitigated the disparity, somewhat, but because historically world-shattering spells were kept, it continued. This is on top of the sheer number of castings and sheer number of options high level casters get.
Even if you reduced a caster's number of spells cast per day to 1/ spell level, most of the problem would remain. I think that's quite telling.
One way I balance such things is that when people realize you can level their town in 6 seconds, they start treating you like a feral dog that they're afraid of. Even being able to swing a sword really well doesn't engender fear like the 'nuclear option' does. Unless you're devoting a lot of effort to controlling this, your casters become less and less useful socially.
Because you will run out or spells after a set number of rounds a fighter can swing his sword all day
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would argue against the bulk of their narrative power being in the hands of the individual making choices for them. I will never come close to the same level of narrative power as my wizard buddy when I'm playing a fighter because I can't just decide to make a separate plane of existence, I can't charm/dominate/geas (and no diplomacy/intimidation aren't substitutes for those), I can't turn metal to wood, I can't turn mud to rock, I can't f&%%ing fly (I am very sour about this). Oh and the a!%#%$# can make it storm so loud we get deafened, pour...I think you're confusing the ability to do something with the means to do it. Sure, you can't charm/dominate/etc. someone, but you can use other means to do what you want (and honestly, calling in favors, blackmail,pulling rank or just good ol' threats of grievous bodily harm are a lot more interesting than a charm spell.) Sure, you can't turn metal to wood, but you can still sunder the door. Sure you can't fly, but you can still choose to go wherever you want to go, and then go there.
There's a difference between "not having the tools to do certain things" and "not having the narrative agency to shape the story in the ways you want." I mean, by the time a wizard can cast a single 9th level spell he will be 17th level. In the previous 17 levels, you probably have accomplished something in terms of political alliances, important figures who owe you favors, achieving wealth and social rank, joining secret societies, etc. The primary power of a character up in the upper reaches of these levels (17-20 or so) should be in "what they have already accomplished" not "what the mechanics allow them to do now."
I mean, by the time Robilar was a 13th level fighter he had 8 gods who owed him for their freedom...
No, you're confusing mechanics for play.
The ability to teleport, dominate, fabricate, create demiplanes...those are all things that shape the game mechanically. The wizard can DO these things.
What you're referring to is narrative play.
Allow me to restate: "When this cool PC hit 13th level, 8 gods owed him for their freedom...."
Freeing 8 Gods is not a class ability nor a mechanic. It's a result of game play. And game play granting perks has nothing to do with mechanics, and ANY class can do that.
"When Mordenkained hit 13th level, 8 gods owed him their freedom," is just as possible as Robilar in the context of a game.
"Robilar teleported himself halfway across the world," "Robilar instantly created himself a suit of adamantine armor", "Robilar fashioned his own little demiplane to relax in" and "Robilar made a simulacarum of Mordenkainen to serve as his butler and have some extra spell power around because he thought it was cool" are things requiring mechanical power the fighter does not have. Alternatives are NOT part of the fighter class...they are gifts of the gm.
That's the difference we're talking about.
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because you will run out or spells after a set number of rounds a fighter can swing his sword all day
All day, as long as he doesnt run out of hp. Which are mostly healed with what? Spells.
And there are casting classes, like the witch, that do not run out of things to do.
My favorite build involves bringing in a little bit of martial class, and then the rest of the way a full caster. Went with Mysterious Stranger + Oracle; and then bulked up on Ranged Combat feats.
I got my cake, and got to eat it to.
Because you will run out or spells after a set number of rounds a fighter can swing his sword all dayAll day, as long as he doesnt run out of hp. Which are mostly healed with what?
Wands of Cure Light Wounds.
Wands of Cure Light Wounds.Because you will run out or spells after a set number of rounds a fighter can swing his sword all dayAll day, as long as he doesnt run out of hp. Which are mostly healed with what?
if we bring in wands the caster will not run out of spells
"Robilar teleported himself halfway across the world," "Robilar instantly created himself a suit of adamantine armor", "Robilar fashioned his own little demiplane to relax in" and "Robilar made a simulacarum of Mordenkainen to serve as his butler and have some extra spell power around because he thought it was cool" are things requiring mechanical power the fighter does not have.
By the sound of it, the difference between martials and casters is that casters have far more ability to annoy the GM. (AKA 'narrative agency'.) If a martial wants to create something, then it's up the GM whether they can have the time / NPC help they need. A caster can just do it with magic.
If the martial wants to force someone to help him, they have to threaten to kill them, and find out whether the GM is going to let it happen. The caster can just dominate them.
If the martial wants minions, he has to role-play finding them / take the Leadership feat and hope the GM says yes. The caster can just conjure them up.
If the martial wants to go somewhere, then the GM can decide whether he should get there easily or have to overcome obstacles. A caster can just be there.
If the martial wants to find something out, he has to ask around and hope the information is available. The caster can just ask a god.
Or, from another perspective, if the GM wants to bully a player, it's a lot easier for them to do it if it's a martial. If, on the other hand, the GM wants his players to be happy, then the martial can spend a year building a castle and forging his own blade, then travel half way across the world with a simple 'your journey is uneventful'.
if we bring in wands the caster will not run out of spellsWands of Cure Light Wounds.Because you will run out or spells after a set number of rounds a fighter can swing his sword all dayAll day, as long as he doesnt run out of hp. Which are mostly healed with what?
A caster using wands will not, in my experience, overshadow the martials.
I made a rogue that focuses on unarmed combat, maxed out his wisdom, took Sap adept, Sap master. Dipped 1 level in fighter and 1 level 1 monk.
That guy walking around with no weapons will approach you calmly and look like a very normal and plain commoner, until he flurry you for nonlethal damage. Too bad you only invested 5 ranks in sense motive. With greater feint or simply by sneaking and two weapon fighting I can deal over 3d8 + 18d6 + 24 non lethal damage per round. Yeah sure I am no wizard, I can still use potions and magic devices with ease, magic contrary to what most people think can be used by martial characters with relative ease. Got myself a wand of vanish for a steal and I am having a blast walking around punching people lights out, my adamantine brass knuckles (do not ask why they are called "Brass" Knuckles if they are made out of adamantine) deal with most high DR stuff. If not I use oil of bless weapon on them to KO demons and devils alike.
Yeah sure i could play a cleric or a conjuration focused wizard, but I enjoy walking around naked knowing that with my skills and wits as a player I can survive most situation using my head instead of spells
Your proposed solution to the problem of spells is a magic item, which was created with a spell. While itemized, wands are still spells. Potions are still spells. You can't say that there is a hard answer to spells when the only one you can come up with is also a spellWands of Cure Light Wounds.Because you will run out or spells after a set number of rounds a fighter can swing his sword all dayAll day, as long as he doesnt run out of hp. Which are mostly healed with what?
I don't think anyone was trying to debate that. We were discussing whether fighters can fight effectively all day in a real campaign.
In a normal party doing a 'typical' (in my experience) ten-encounter-a-day adventure, what happens is that the wizard saves his spells for emergencies and uses low grade abilities for most of the day, the martials tear through encounters and the ranger heals up the party with wands of cure light wounds between. In this type of play, there isn't much caster-martial disparity.
Maybe when the caster only has 10 spells there isn't much disparity, but what about when they have around 20 at mid level? What happens when they start using long duration or permanent duration spells like animate dead, shrink item and explosive runes? What happens when those low level buffs start lasting all day? In a real campaign, the only time the disparity can go unnoticed is at low levels. Around mid levels the only way the disparity can go unnoticed is if there is a gap between the system mastery of the martials and casters, and at high levels it is impossible to not notice the disparity unless your casters are still in "cast blasty spells" mentality.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my experience, the characters exist in a social bubble. The awe factor may keep people from dealing with them. Local governments may not want them in their villages or towns. In this world powerful people have powerful enemies and that rivalry could get lots of innocent folks hurt.
Playing a game where similar social restrictions occur do to reputation isn't fun to my group.
Has anyone found similar conclusions?
What happens when they start using long duration or permanent duration spells like animate dead, shrink item and explosive runes?
There's normally a gentleman's agreement not to use spells like animate dead that clog up the battlefield and violate most religions. Never seen shrink items used for anything except unusually specific circumstances (to carry an object that a martial could have carried anyway). Never seen explosive runes used for anything.
Around mid levels the only way the disparity can go unnoticed is if there is a gap between the system mastery of the martials and casters, and at high levels it is impossible to not notice the disparity unless your casters are still in "cast blasty spells" mentality.
I played as a cleric to level 15. I was of the 'hold spells in reserve for emergencies' mentality. Why cast a level 8 spell when you can kill the enemies with swords then use a wand to heal? Three hybrid martials (alchemist / paladin / bard) seemed to manage with me doing only what seemed necessary. I never really had much of a sense that I could have dominated the battlefield... Maybe if I'd maxed out my caster stat instead of playing a balanced character with good Int & Cha I'd have felt able to risk using Save Negates spells more often. Are they the ones that create this disparity?
Next campaign played pretty much the same way. There was a sorcerer for a while who could use dazing fireballs to unbalance things, but he died due to bad fortitude save. (I wouldn't allow 'dazing' again.)
Oh how I love the creaky sound of goalpost moving :-)Tu quoque! : )
Indeed it is! Of course, the central premise I am arguing here, which you have failed to address, is that golems (and specifically the iron golem) are not any more dangerous to wizards than any other class, and so should not be used as an 'anti-wizard' example. You don't have to address my (actually honestly constructed) mechanical challenge if you don't want to, but your fallacy fallacy here hasn't yet contributed meaningfully.