Magic vs. Martial


Gamer Life General Discussion

101 to 150 of 215 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

First of all, a good GM mixes up the scenarios to be more than fighting golems in an empty arena every battle. I've played urban adventures in cities where overt magic use is strictly prohibited. I've also played in the Tomb of Horrors (original), where magic use is greatly restricted (and will get you killed faster than anything else where it's not).

As for narrative power, I've never noticed that class abilities reign in any way. In fact, the most narrative power in any game I've played is invariably generated by the person making mistakes and getting into trouble. This is also true in most fantasy literature and film, and incidentally provides an incredible amount of pure fun.


Matthew Downie wrote:


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.

How many days does a wand of cure light wounds last if you use it to heal up between those 10 encounters?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So your saying that normal people will actively hinder a god wizard? I would do whatever the hell a guy asked if he could summon a devil in 6 seconds... might just be me.


Matthew Downie wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:
"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.

These are features, not bugs. "Has to role-play"? That's kind of the point of the game. : /

Or, from another perspective, if the GM wants to bully a player,

... then it's time to find a new GM. No rules, mechanics, or class choices will save you from that. Even a wizard can't beat the GM.


Zalman wrote:

First of all, a good GM mixes up the scenarios to be more than fighting golems in an empty arena every battle. I've played urban adventures in cities where overt magic use is strictly prohibited. I've also played in the Tomb of Horrors (original), where magic use is greatly restricted (and will get you killed faster than anything else where it's not).

As for narrative power, I've never noticed that class abilities reign in any way. In fact, the most narrative power in any game I've played is invariably generated by the person making mistakes and getting into trouble. This is also true in most fantasy literature and film, and incidentally provides an incredible amount of pure fun.

This. So much this!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The martial/magical disparity is a feature of the system, not a flaw. That is, it was intended to be that way from the beginning, going all the way back to Basic D&D. The classes were "balanced" by making Fighters more powerful for about half the expected length of a campaign and Magic Users (as they called them back then) more powerful for the other half. All the editions of AD&D maintained this design philosophy, which PF then inherited. Some other game systems do a pretty good job of keeping different types of characters balanced all the way through - frequently by not using classes at all. But D&D (and its descendents) doesn't even try to do that.

The easiest way, therefore, for a GM to handle the power disparity is to watch for the point in the campaign where the spellcasters and martials are about equally powerful/useful, and figure that the campaign is about half over at that point.

Ultimately, however, the only "balance" that really matters is that all each character can accomplish enough for the player to have fun. As long as the martial classes remain popular choices for players, I don't think they can be called too weak.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Zalman wrote:

As for narrative power, I've never noticed that class abilities reign in any way. In fact, the most narrative power in any game I've played is invariably generated by the person making mistakes and getting into trouble. This is also true in most fantasy literature and film, and incidentally provides an incredible amount of pure fun.

An awful lot of the narrative power in games I've played seems to come from something that damned thief did!


JoeJ wrote:

The martial/magical disparity is a feature of the system, not a flaw.

It is a feature, that do not means it is not a flaw though.


My2Copper wrote:
How many days does a wand of cure light wounds last if you use it to heal up between those 10 encounters?

Not long, but how much money do you normally get from beating 10 encounters? A single enemy with a +1 weapon will pay for that wand and more.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This argument seems funny:

1: "Martials aren't as good as casters because casters can use magic!"

2: "Well, I can do some similar things with mundane means."

1: "That's not magic is it?"

2: "Right, well I could use a magic item. Then I can do the same thing as a caster."

1: "Oh ho! Well you need a caster to make that item, and then you're no better than a caster because you used magic. Actually, if you use a spell or magic at all - then you're hardly even a martial!"

2: "Umm... okay. So if I do something mundane it's not magic, and if I use magic then I'm not a martial character?"

1: *rolls eyes* "Now your just being a jerk."

2: "Wait, what?"

1: "Casters are better."

2: "... I guess if you frame the argument in a way that doesn't allow for another result, then you are correct. Well.... what if we are in an anti-magic sphere?"

1: "No one uses those, shut up."

2: "Fair enough, I concede that martial characters aren't the same as casters. You win."

1: "Victory!"


Ubercroz wrote:
2: "... I guess if you frame the argument in a way that doesn't allow for another result, then you are correct. Well.... what if we are in an anti-magic sphere?"

Anti magic sphere is... a spell, cast by spellcasters (wizards and clerics), and are a bigger problem for the caster than for her ennemies (even if they are casters themselves, especially when antimagic sphere becomes available for casting).

So yeah, not a good point for martial characters.


Ubercroz wrote:

This argument seems funny:

1: "Martials aren't as good as casters because casters can use magic!"

2: "Well, I can do some similar things with mundane means."

1: "That's not magic is it?"

2: "Right, well I could use a magic item. Then I can do the same thing as a caster."

1: "Oh ho! Well you need a caster to make that item, and then you're no better than a caster because you used magic. Actually, if you use a spell or magic at all - then you're hardly even a martial!"

2: "Umm... okay. So if I do something mundane it's not magic, and if I use magic then I'm not a martial character?"

1: *rolls eyes* "Now your just being a jerk."

2: "Wait, what?"

1: "Casters are better."

2: "... I guess if you frame the argument in a way that doesn't allow for another result, then you are correct. Well.... what if we are in an anti-magic sphere?"

1: "No one uses those, shut up."

2: "Fair enough, I concede that martial characters aren't the same as casters. You win."

1: "Victory!"

Casters can cast a spell to become immune to antimagic fields, so... casters are still better in an AMF, *A LOT* better in an AMF in fact now that the Fighter has 0 buffs, while the caster has all of theirs. Also, using UMD isn't a good argument for any class. Druids can already outfight Fighters easily *and* use UMD to cure themselves up. Your strawman is made of straw.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Anzyr wrote:


Casters can cast a spell to become immune to antimagic fields, so... casters are still better in an AMF, *A LOT* better in an AMF in fact now that the Fighter has 0 buffs, while the caster has all of theirs. Also, using UMD isn't a good argument for any class. Druids can already outfight Fighters easily *and* use UMD to cure themselves up. Your strawman is made of straw.

Not really making a strawman argument here - I was more or less summarizing the argument as I see it.

My point, my only real point, was that if you frame an argument in a certain fashion, then you have already pre-determined the end result.

By defining the argument as it has been, any point put forth to the contrary will be defeated by the construct of the argument itself.

The argument I have seen, is framed thusly:

1 - Casters are better than martials
Conditions of the argument
- Using magic items doesn't count for the martials
- The narrative power a character has can only be derived from class abilities
- Anything that a caster does is beneficial to the caster argument.
- A Caster has access to his full bag of tricks, and martials may not be in a situation where their feats work.

Once you have established that these are the conditions, the result has already been determined.

Simply saying "A druid can be a better fighter, and cure himself and...." Is vague and misleading. At what level, under what conditions, at... blah blah blah, that's not my point.

However, thank you very much for making my point. You have shown that, once you have the result, you simply have to back peddle your answer to fit. I'm not in the business of setting up scenarios where in I need to be right - though I could probably establish certain conditions where a bard is a better combatant than a fighter, or a fighter is more knowledgeable than a bard or a wizard. Arguing the vagaries of what classes can do is pretty silly, especially in regards to narrative.

The narrative argument is as follows:

Casters are better at changing narrative.

Conditions of the argument.
- only spells can be used to change narrative.

Therefore, casters win.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Ubercroz wrote:
2: "Well, I can do some similar things with mundane means."

Teleport hundreds of miles in a instant

Mage: "Teleport."
Martial: "I can storm a boat, an intimidate them to sail me where I need to go, and then get a wagon train and intimidate them!"

Fly without equipment or animal
Mage: "Fly"
Martial: "There is a catapult right over there!"

Fly using animals or monsters
Mage: "Summon monster, charm monster and/or dominate monster."
Martial: "I can go to the local Animals-R-Us store and pick up a flying mount!"

Gather creatures allies (not using the Leadership feat)
Mage: "Summon monster, Planar ally, Gate, charm/dominate monster."
Martial: "(whistles) Here, beholderbeholderbeholder! Here boy!"

Ignite a platoon in an explosion of fire, ice, or electricity
Mage: "Fireball, cone of cold, lighting bolt."
Martial: "Hang on, loading this catapult with a flaming pitch shot..."

Breath water and swim like a fish
Mage: "Water Breathing, Touch of the Sea, ploymorph spells."
Martial: "I gotta take my armor off for this one..."

Do lots of damage at at range or melee
Martial: "Ha ha! I got this one!"
Mage: "Summon monster, Gate, Planar ally. Ray spells, touch spells...
Martial: "...shut-up."

Mage: "Seriously, we both can do all the same mundane things. We both can use magical items, we both can use our skills (admittedly, since my primary attributes for spell casting affect a greater number of out-of-combat skills than you), and we both use role-played scenes to our advantages. Comparing these seems rather...pointless.

You do martial things well. Very well. I do martial things poorly (unless I am a 3/4 base attack class, or cast the right spells). I do spellcasting very well. You do spellcasting...wait, do fighters, barbarians, and cavaliers get spells now?"


Ubercroz wrote:
Anzyr wrote:


Casters can cast a spell to become immune to antimagic fields, so... casters are still better in an AMF, *A LOT* better in an AMF in fact now that the Fighter has 0 buffs, while the caster has all of theirs. Also, using UMD isn't a good argument for any class. Druids can already outfight Fighters easily *and* use UMD to cure themselves up. Your strawman is made of straw.

Not really making a strawman argument here - I was more or less summarizing the argument as I see it.

My point, my only real point, was that if you frame an argument in a certain fashion, then you have already pre-determined the end result.

By defining the argument as it has been, any point put forth to the contrary will be defeated by the construct of the argument itself.

The argument I have seen, is framed thusly:

1 - Casters are better than martials
Conditions of the argument
- Using magic items doesn't count for the martials
- The narrative power a character has can only be derived from class abilities
- Anything that a caster does is beneficial to the caster argument.
- A Caster has access to his full bag of tricks, and martials may not be in a situation where their feats work.

Once you have established that these are the conditions, the result has already been determined.

Simply saying "A druid can be a better fighter, and cure himself and...." Is vague and misleading. At what level, under what conditions, at... blah blah blah, that's not my point.

However, thank you very much for making my point. You have shown that, once you have the result, you simply have to back peddle your answer to fit. I'm not in the business of setting up scenarios where in I need to be right - though I could probably establish certain conditions where a bard is a better combatant than a fighter, or a fighter is more knowledgeable than a bard or a wizard. Arguing the vagaries of what classes can do is pretty silly, especially in regards to narrative.

The narrative argument is as follows:...

Your narrative is blatantly wrong. The issue is casters can do all the mundane narrative changing things the martials can do (as humorously demonstrated by Gator the Unread above +1) *AND* can cast spells that dramatically alter the narrative. This is much simpler then you are making it out to be. If both classes can do mundane things to change the narrative equally well, and one class *also* has the ability to twist the narrative into knots with magic, which class would *you* pick for having better narrative power?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Missed a condition that every else appears to be using:

-Casters are just as capable of do mundane, non-spell related tasks as martial characters are.

Here, try this: what narrative powers do martial characters have access to that casters don't?

I can't think of any. The options open only to martial characters I can think of are:

  • feats requiring a high BaB combat related.
  • class features that are are combat related.


  • Nicos wrote:
    JoeJ wrote:

    The martial/magical disparity is a feature of the system, not a flaw.

    It is a feature, that do not means it is not a flaw though.

    If "flaw" simply means something you don't like. My point was that casters being wimps at low levels and nearly gods at high levels is the way the game is intended to work.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    JoeJ wrote:
    Nicos wrote:
    JoeJ wrote:

    The martial/magical disparity is a feature of the system, not a flaw.

    It is a feature, that do not means it is not a flaw though.

    If "flaw" simply means something you don't like. My point was that casters being wimps at low levels and nearly gods at high levels is the way the game is intended to work.

    Wince when casters are wimps at low level?


    Gator the Unread wrote:
    Here, try this: what narrative powers do martial characters have access to that casters don't?

    Struggle, which is an essential component of engaging narrative.

    Suppose you're in a besieged city. A player decides to sneak into the evil duke's bedroom, murder him, dispose of his body and use a disguise to pose as him and order the city to surrender to the surrounding army.
    If a high level caster can do all those things without effort due to having the right spells, the narrative is boring.

    If Gandalf could teleport to Mount Doom and back, that would mean he had the power to destroy the narrative, but at the cost of being able to participate in it.


    Matthew Downie wrote:
    Gator the Unread wrote:
    Here, try this: what narrative powers do martial characters have access to that casters don't?

    Struggle, which is an essential component of engaging narrative.

    Suppose you're in a besieged city. A player decides to sneak into the evil duke's bedroom, murder him, dispose of his body and use a disguise to pose as him and order the city to surrender to the surrounding army.
    If a high level caster can do all those things without effort due to having the right spells, the narrative is boring.

    If Gandalf could teleport to Mount Doom and back, that would mean he had the power to destroy the narrative, but at the cost of being able to participate in it.

    Only if the enemies don't have similar access to magic. Then the narrative is interesting again. But there is definitely not any Liches or Dragons who definitely don't have access to spells and they definitely don't appear in a game about those things.


    Nicos wrote:
    (S)ince when casters are wimps at low level?

    I'm playing a sorcerer. At level 1, I knew two level 1 spells. I took Mage Armor, because I didn't want to die, and Grease, which is super-flexible. Practically all my enemies turned out to have good reflex saves, so it was almost completely ineffective. At level 2, I still knew only two level 1 spells. I'm now level 3. This allows me to choose one more level 1 spell - I took Color Spray. Since then I haven't met any opponent who can be affected by mind-affecting spells, but I'm sure there are some out there, and they might even have few enough hit dice and poor enough will saves to be affected.

    But at least I have narrative power...


    Gator the Unread wrote:

    Missed a condition that every else appears to be using:

    -Casters are just as capable of do mundane, non-spell related tasks as martial characters are.

    Here, try this: what narrative powers do martial characters have access to that casters don't?

    I can't think of any. The options open only to martial characters I can think of are:

  • feats requiring a high BaB combat related.
  • class features that are are combat related.
  • - Carrying a 50 lb sack

    - grappling someone at level 1
    - setting a trap (rogue, trapfinder ranger)
    - picking a lock below 5th level
    - winning an arm wrestling contest
    - climbing a rope/scaling a wall
    - Dropping something heavy on someone's head (they could be important)
    - winning an accuracy competition with a bow
    - outdrinking someone in a bar
    - winning a footrace
    - swallowing a bunch of nasty gross bugs (requires a fort save)
    - Finding traps in a dungeon ALL DUNGEON LONG
    - Not having to get 8 hours of sleep to prepare spells
    - Picking someone's pocket
    - Disguising yourself as someone for more than a handful of minutes.
    - Taking 13 points of damage at level 2.
    - not being hit by an AC 20 swing at level 5.

    These are all things I have seen that needed to happen in games, or occur on a regular basis. Things that casters couldn't do unless SPECIFICALLY prepared to do so.

    Narrative impact? Yeah there was.

    Ignoring that there are non-combat situations that occur below 15th level is kind of the crux of the "casters are better" argument. Ignoring that casters aren't always 100% prepared to deal with situations is another tent-pole of the argument.

    - The rebbutal is of course "I could have a spell to do all those things."
    - My rebbutal to that is 1) would you have it prepared and 2) would it be worth casting, if the martial can do it for free?

    Can a caster do these things... maybe, but a fighter could use a wand too.

    Now - lets think of scenarios in which a caster has a distinct disadvantage to a martial. He can cast spells, but we need to be reasonable. Turn the argument into how are martials better, not how are casters better, and you can come up with some interesting stuff.


    Ubercroz wrote:
    - Finding traps in a dungeon ALL DUNGEON LONG

    Everyone can max perception.


    Nicos wrote:
    Ubercroz wrote:
    - Finding traps in a dungeon ALL DUNGEON LONG

    Everyone can max perception.

    Magic traps -_-

    And if you only have 2 skill points, what are you doing maxing out perception? Especially if you are a caster - YOU NEED KNOWLEDGE!

    The fighter only has 2 skill points as well, but he shouldn't be finding traps either.


    Ubercroz wrote:
    Nicos wrote:
    Ubercroz wrote:
    - Finding traps in a dungeon ALL DUNGEON LONG

    Everyone can max perception.

    Magic traps -_-

    Everyone can find them too without any special abilities.


    Nicos wrote:
    Ubercroz wrote:
    Nicos wrote:
    Ubercroz wrote:
    - Finding traps in a dungeon ALL DUNGEON LONG

    Everyone can max perception.

    Magic traps -_-
    Everyone can find them too without any special abilities.

    okay so 1) thanks, king of semantics, for pointing out something everyone can do.

    2) You probably knew that I meant finding and dealing with traps.
    3) It doesn't really change my point
    4) Why do you feel the need to try and pick apart an argument by finding a single inconsistency, rather than the body of the argument itself?


    Ubercroz wrote:
    Nicos wrote:
    Ubercroz wrote:
    Nicos wrote:
    Ubercroz wrote:
    - Finding traps in a dungeon ALL DUNGEON LONG

    Everyone can max perception.

    Magic traps -_-
    Everyone can find them too without any special abilities.

    okay so 1) thanks, king of semantics, for pointing out something everyone can do.

    2) You probably knew that I meant finding and dealing with traps.
    3) It doesn't really change my point
    4) Why do you feel the need to try and pick apart an argument by finding a single inconsistency, rather than the body of the argument itself?

    The body itself is nonsense. Anyone can find Magical traps. And it is not needed to be able to disable them all day long. Casters are actually even better at finding magical traps since they have detect magic.

    There are ways of dealing with traps besides disabling them and anyone can take those options. At worst you soak the damage and cure it with a wand of CLW. At best, you just cast Aram Zey's Focus and laugh at Rogues. And Aram Zey's Focus has quite the duration.


    Ubercroz wrote:


    2) You probably knew that I meant finding and dealing with traps.

    Everyoen can do that too. It cost a trait, the same trait the fighter will spend in order to improve his UMD.

    Ubercroz wrote:


    4) Why do you feel the need to try and pick apart an argument by finding a single inconsistency, rather than the body of the argument itself?

    There are alot of those in your post, I was just too lazy to deal with all of them.

    Everyone can max disguise, everyone can pick pockets, everyone can roll fort saves (only 10% of difference at 1st level, druids and clerics are equally good though), and others are similar.


    Anzyr wrote:


    The body itself is nonsense. Anyone can find Magical traps. And it is not needed to be able to disable them all day long. Casters are actually even better at finding magical traps since they have detect magic.

    Your still only commenting on the one thing.

    I was asked to come up with things that martials could do that casters couldn't.

    I put together a list with some caveats.

    I am told that there is one thing on that list that everyone "could do" (if they have perception... you know with all those skillpoints).

    I point out there are other things on there.

    I am then being dismissed as saying it's nonsense.

    Thanks for the discussion fella's.

    Yup, casters win.


    Not needing to recover spells is the only thing in your list than caster can not do.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Wizards, Sage Sorcerers and Witchs will end up having more Skill points then any other class. Druids and Oracles have good base skill points. Your argument is evidently that "not everyone can do everything at once". That's a bad argument. The Rogue and Cleric who both work on perception will find that the Cleric is better at spotting traps (that half level bonus takes a while to catch up to a +5 stat and may never catch up at all.)

    The problem is you are taking one comparison like pickpocketing, and then comparing it to the guy who has perception. You need to compare them one by one and in every case they are something anyone can do. Anyone who puts in point can pickpocket. Anyone who puts points into Perception can find traps. Your argument is weak because you aren't actually saying anything meaningful. All you do is make an invalid comparison and then declare you've "won" when it's shown to be invalid.


    Nicos wrote:
    Not needing to recover spells is the only thing in your list than caster can not do.

    Then martials can do everything a caster can as well, except they never have to recover spells.

    Just get a scroll. Done and done.


    Ok, except casters can do that to... and thus not need to recover spells. And they can do it without cutting into their WBL (since they can you know... make them), so the casters will end up with more wealth then martials.


    Ubercroz wrote:
    Nicos wrote:
    Not needing to recover spells is the only thing in your list than caster can not do.

    Then martials can do everything a caster can as well, except they never have to recover spells.

    Just get a scroll. Done and done.

    I did not say caster needed to spend a spell to acomplish the thins you listed.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Ubercroz wrote:
    Nicos wrote:
    Not needing to recover spells is the only thing in your list than caster can not do.

    Then martials can do everything a caster can as well, except they never have to recover spells.

    Just get a scroll. Done and done.

    My apologies, but if the way to make my martial character perform awesome feats equitable to what casters can do at the same level is "use spells", then I am not satisfied with the way this character was designed.


    Nicos wrote:
    JoeJ wrote:
    Nicos wrote:
    JoeJ wrote:

    The martial/magical disparity is a feature of the system, not a flaw.

    It is a feature, that do not means it is not a flaw though.

    If "flaw" simply means something you don't like. My point was that casters being wimps at low levels and nearly gods at high levels is the way the game is intended to work.

    Wince when casters are wimps at low level?

    When a wizard has only 6 hit points (plus CON bonus), can't wear armor without the risk of spell failure, and can cast a whopping 2 1st level spells per day, chosen from the 4 he or she knows (assuming INT 15). A sorcerer with a 15 CHA can cast 4 spells/day, but only knows 2.

    Meanwhile, the barbarian has 12 hp (plus CON bonus), a better BAB, a much better selection of weapons, almost certainly has a better AC, and can rage for at least as many rounds as the sorcerer can cast spells (probably more, because he isn't likely to have a CON bonus of 0).

    The fighter has 10 hp (plus CON bonus) along with the same BAB and weapon choices as the barbarian, plus in most cases an even better AC. And an extra feat.


    Anzyr wrote:

    Wizards, Sage Sorcerers and Witchs will end up having more Skill points then any other class. Druids and Oracles have good base skill points. Your argument is evidently that "not everyone can do everything at once". That's a bad argument. The Rogue and Cleric who both work on perception will find that the Cleric is better at spotting traps (that half level bonus takes a while to catch up to a +5 stat and may never catch up at all.)

    The problem is you are taking one comparison like pickpocketing, and then comparing it to the guy who has perception. You need to compare them one by one and in every case they are something anyone can do. Anyone who puts in point can pickpocket. Anyone who puts points into Perception can find traps. Your argument is weak because you aren't actually saying anything meaningful. All you do is make an invalid comparison and then declare you've "won" when it's shown to be invalid.

    Whoa!

    Yeah, that is my point.

    I am saying exactly that not everyone can do everything at once.

    You can't have a wizard that can be ultimately prepared for all situations in and out of combat at the same time.

    You can't have a cleric that has knowledge and can climb and has perception

    INT based casters get lots of skills, but are not likely putting them in perception because they have better things to do (things that match their skills).

    My point is exactly that not everyone can do everything. All of the characters have a way to impact the narrative of the story. Some of them are flashy. But a rogue scaling a wall and dropping some untraceable poison into the kings cup while wearing a disguise is a pretty powerful narrative tool.

    If the cleric has a 20 WIS (why does he have a 20 WIS?) then he won't be good at other things (like not dying).

    You can call my argument "bad," but I think its valid. Arguing that casters are this infinite box of tricks because there are lots of spells they could use is silly. I could have a rogue with a 14 wis, well now that cleric isn't quite so much better.

    I could have a fighter with an 18 CHA, I could have, I could have, I could have....

    Just because a thing COULD happen does not mean it will or is likely to happen.

    The narrative power of a character is determined by his character level and the circumstances. Just because a wizard can create a demi-plane doesn't really mean anything. A fighter could sunder an artifact with his adamantine greatsword and have a huge narrative impact. The bard could charm the fair maiden, the rogue could slip in information into someones pack, whatever.

    The argument that I COULD have a caster do all these things does not mean you will. Anymore than me saying that I COULD have a fighter with an 18 CHA mean I will.

    That is my argument. You can't do everything at once.


    Okay so your first problem is that you're apparently playing 9th level casters with a 15 in their casting stat

    I have never known a player to start with less than 18 post-racials when playing a wizard. This includes my very casual friends that get visibly uneasy when I start going off on optimizing.


    Arachnofiend wrote:
    Ubercroz wrote:
    Nicos wrote:
    Not needing to recover spells is the only thing in your list than caster can not do.

    Then martials can do everything a caster can as well, except they never have to recover spells.

    Just get a scroll. Done and done.

    My apologies, but if the way to make my martial character perform awesome feats equitable to what casters can do at the same level is "use spells", then I am not satisfied with the way this character was designed.

    It's the response to "I could have a caster who can do all those things too" argument.


    Ubercroz wrote:
    Anzyr wrote:

    Wizards, Sage Sorcerers and Witchs will end up having more Skill points then any other class. Druids and Oracles have good base skill points. Your argument is evidently that "not everyone can do everything at once". That's a bad argument. The Rogue and Cleric who both work on perception will find that the Cleric is better at spotting traps (that half level bonus takes a while to catch up to a +5 stat and may never catch up at all.)

    The problem is you are taking one comparison like pickpocketing, and then comparing it to the guy who has perception. You need to compare them one by one and in every case they are something anyone can do. Anyone who puts in point can pickpocket. Anyone who puts points into Perception can find traps. Your argument is weak because you aren't actually saying anything meaningful. All you do is make an invalid comparison and then declare you've "won" when it's shown to be invalid.

    Whoa!

    Yeah, that is my point.

    I am saying exactly that not everyone can do everything at once.

    You can't have a wizard that can be ultimately prepared for all situations in and out of combat at the same time.

    You can't have a cleric that has knowledge and can climb and has perception

    INT based casters get lots of skills, but are not likely putting them in perception because they have better things to do (things that match their skills).

    My point is exactly that not everyone can do everything. All of the characters have a way to impact the narrative of the story. Some of them are flashy. But a rogue scaling a wall and dropping some untraceable poison into the kings cup while wearing a disguise is a pretty powerful narrative tool.

    If the cleric has a 20 WIS (why does he have a 20 WIS?) then he won't be good at other things (like not dying).

    You can call my argument "bad," but I think its valid. Arguing that casters are this infinite box of tricks because there are lots of spells they could use is silly. I could have a rogue with a 14 wis, well now...

    We're talking about narrative power here though, and even then at high level casters will be able to do pretty much everything.


    Matthew Downie wrote:
    Aelryinth wrote:
    "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'.

    Pretty much. This is it.


    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Ubercroz wrote:

    - grappling someone at level 1

    - setting a trap (rogue, trapfinder ranger)
    - picking a lock below 5th level
    - winning an arm wrestling contest
    - climbing a rope/scaling a wall
    - Dropping something heavy on someone's head (they could be important)
    - winning an accuracy competition with a bow
    - outdrinking someone in a bar
    - winning a footrace
    - swallowing a bunch of nasty gross bugs (requires a fort save)
    - Finding traps in a dungeon ALL DUNGEON LONG
    - Not having to get 8 hours of sleep to prepare spells
    - Picking someone's pocket
    - Disguising yourself as someone for more than a handful of minutes.
    - Taking 13 points of damage at level 2.
    - not being hit by an AC 20 swing at level 5.

    A commoner can do all those things. Which, incidentally, means every other class can do it too, including full casters. Do you really think that commoners are just as useful to a party as every other class? <--Warning: that link is satirical.


    Zalman wrote:

    First of all, a good GM mixes up the scenarios to be more than fighting golems in an empty arena every battle. I've played urban adventures in cities where overt magic use is strictly prohibited. I've also played in the Tomb of Horrors (original), where magic use is greatly restricted (and will get you killed faster than anything else where it's not).

    As for narrative power, I've never noticed that class abilities reign in any way. In fact, the most narrative power in any game I've played is invariably generated by the person making mistakes and getting into trouble. This is also true in most fantasy literature and film, and incidentally provides an incredible amount of pure fun.

    A player could be nice and let another player have the spotlight if he knows a GM made a scenario for that other player, however just looking at mechanics most full casters dont have to do that, particularly at higher levels. There are my complaints about casters stealing the spotlight online.


    Ubercroz wrote:
    Nicos wrote:
    Ubercroz wrote:
    - Finding traps in a dungeon ALL DUNGEON LONG

    Everyone can max perception.

    Magic traps -_-

    And if you only have 2 skill points, what are you doing maxing out perception? Especially if you are a caster - YOU NEED KNOWLEDGE!

    The fighter only has 2 skill points as well, but he shouldn't be finding traps either.

    I almost always max out perception before any other skill. Getting ambushed or jumped is not fun.

    I have a cleric with around a +30 perception now at level 10.

    Clerics only get 2 skill points per level. I have also played sorcerers with a high perception.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    wraithstrike wrote:
    Ubercroz wrote:
    Nicos wrote:
    Ubercroz wrote:
    - Finding traps in a dungeon ALL DUNGEON LONG

    Everyone can max perception.

    Magic traps -_-

    And if you only have 2 skill points, what are you doing maxing out perception? Especially if you are a caster - YOU NEED KNOWLEDGE!

    The fighter only has 2 skill points as well, but he shouldn't be finding traps either.

    I almost always max out perception before any other skill. Getting ambushed or jumped is not fun.

    I have a cleric with around a +30 perception now at level 10.

    Clerics only get 2 skill points per level. I have also played sorcerers with a high perception.

    On top of that I tend to take trait that give me perception as a class skill and bonuses to initiative.


    Ubercroz wrote:
    Nicos wrote:
    Not needing to recover spells is the only thing in your list than caster can not do.

    Then martials can do everything a caster can as well, except they never have to recover spells.

    Just get a scroll. Done and done.

    UMD'ing scrolls is not easy nor reliable. I know that nobody said "do it reliably", but that is just assumed to be known. A caster can go into melee and get a kill, but he can't do it reliably so nobody will say casters can kill things with their own hand as well as martials can, unless it is a druid or cleric, and even then they are helped by magic in some form.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Just tossing out my 2 cents on the whole debate.


    Ubercroz wrote:


    The argument that I COULD have a caster do all these things does not mean you will. Anymore than me saying that I COULD have a fighter with an 18 CHA mean I will.

    That is my argument. You can't do everything at once..

    That was not the argument being made. The point was that casters can do certain things that martials can't if they choose to do them.

    As an example I have a caster in my game with his own demiplane. He can teleport, fly(on his own), and do many of the other things that came up in this thread.


    wraithstrike wrote:
    Ubercroz wrote:


    The argument that I COULD have a caster do all these things does not mean you will. Anymore than me saying that I COULD have a fighter with an 18 CHA mean I will.

    That is my argument. You can't do everything at once..

    That was not the argument being made. The point was that casters can do certain things that martials can't if they choose to do them.

    As an example I have a caster in my game with his own demiplane. He can teleport, fly(on his own), and do many of the other things that came up in this thread.

    That was not the argument being put forth, as I understood it.

    My response to that is: If it can go on a scroll the martial could do it.

    The question I understood being put forth was: Can martials have the same narrative impact that a caster can?

    In my opinion the answer is yes, Martials are more likely to be able to do certain things (especially at lower to mid levels) that can have an equal impact on the game.

    The response I have seen is: Casters can do all that stuff too, if they wanted to.

    My response to that is: Then why can't I say a martial could have a scroll and do all the things a caster could do too?

    I think the bottom two arguments are both silly.

    101 to 150 of 215 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / Magic vs. Martial All Messageboards

    Want to post a reply? Sign in.