| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What would you say if you, as a wizard, cast Plane Shift and the GM said it failed? Would you gripe at the GM for taking your powers away because he's a bad GM? Would you start exploring the world to find out why your spell failed? What if the GM had a reason, built into his campaign from the start, for powers not working the way you expected? Would you feel that the GM is just exercising GM fiat to not let your wizard work the way it's supposed to?
Player: "I cast sleep."
DM: "Sorry, magic doesn't work!"Player: "Wut."
DM: "It's built into the campaign world from the start, so you have no cause for complaint. Just because I didn't tell you doesn't mean it wasn't a thing."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And at the end of the day, both can fly, both can travel the planes, both can heal, both can kill things.WBL does entirely different things for martials and casters. Martials gain abilities they otherwise would not have. Casters extend the use of abilities already possessed, allowing for a longer adventuring day.Martials can't do much except hit things with a stick, so, yes, anything else adds abilities. Casters have spells to do pretty much everything, so yeah, it's hard to add to that.
Except the caster can:
A- Not buy those items and get stuff that allows him to do even more powerful stuff and expand his already absurdly large array of options
or
B- Buy those items and use the spell slots he'd use to do that stuff to make him even more powerful, keeping the distance gap casters and martials just the same.
Oh, and keep in mind that magic items usually give you a much more limited version of what a spell does. e.g.: Most items that allow you to fly only do so for a few minutes and/or a few times per day. Meanwhile, Overland Flight lasts hours... Even Air Walk lasts 10min per caster level.
Additionally, save for a few exceptions, save DCs tend to scale faster than saves and stuff like Dazing Spell pretty much garantees the caster can always target a weak save.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
EDIT: Here's a proposal for the future of this thread. If all you want to say is "yes, there is a problem with high level casters" simply type "YES THERE IS". If all you want to say is "I've never seen a problem with high level casters" simply type "NO THERE ISN'T". That might make things a bit easier to follow.
But it's not that simple. Even I, who have repeatedly taken the viewpoint that caster/martial disparity is not a huge significant problem in Pathfinder- cheerfully admit that it certainly can be at the highest levels, since I have seen it occur at 17th level+ in 3.5. Doubtless similar issues occur in PF, I agree.
So, I will say "NO THERE ISN'T"-- at the levels where the vast majority of games are played.
What would you say if you, as a wizard, cast Plane Shift and the GM said it failed? Would you gripe at the GM for taking your powers away because he's a bad GM? Would you start exploring the world to find out why your spell failed? What if the GM had a reason, built into his campaign from the start, for powers not working the way you expected? Would you feel that the GM is just exercising GM fiat to not let your wizard work the way it's supposed to?Player: "I cast sleep."
DM: "Sorry, magic doesn't work!"
Player: "Wut."
DM: "It's built into the campaign world from the start, so you have no cause for complaint. Just because I didn't tell you doesn't mean it wasn't a thing."
Please stop misrepresenting my questions. I said Plane Shift because I meant Plane Shift. A GM who pulls a "magic doesn't work because I said" is being a jerk.
That's my point. People who complain that casters only suck by GM fiat need to understand that casters only exist by GM fiat. You have no place for a wizard unless you have a GM to run a world that has wizards in it. At that point you should realize that the story is more important than your shenanigans. There is a reason you don't see a lot of the nonsense that people bring up here during actual play. Only a real dick goes out of his way to break the story.Ask yourself these questions: if 20th level full casters are capable of dealing with any situation, why are there still problems in the world (the world being whatever game universe you're using)? Why is there not just a dozen 20th level casters stopping every problem before it even becomes a problem? Why do adventurers even need to exist in your world?
When you answer those questions to your own satisfaction, you will see why high level casters don't just automatically win everything.
For the same reason that the entire planet isn't populated by nothing but Shadows and Wraiths, who hit small towns and created armies of themselves to descend on other villages and towns until there were just too many for even higher level threats to deal with.
Because there wouldn't be a plot otherwise.
Yes. Some of this stuff isn't seen because there is a gentleman's agreement not to abuse them.
However, that does not change the fact that since they EXIST, they are a potential problem, and that is bad design.
And a well made caster is hard pressed NOT to cast a shadow over the whole game. Going back to my usual examples, a Wizard is not a prick for preparing Spider Climb. However, it is still a problem from a design perspective since that one spell is worth SEVERAL LEVELS of skill investment.
Please stop misrepresenting my questions. I said Plane Shift because I meant Plane Shift. A GM who pulls a "magic doesn't work because I said" is being a jerk.What would you say if you, as a wizard, cast Plane Shift and the GM said it failed? Would you gripe at the GM for taking your powers away because he's a bad GM? Would you start exploring the world to find out why your spell failed? What if the GM had a reason, built into his campaign from the start, for powers not working the way you expected? Would you feel that the GM is just exercising GM fiat to not let your wizard work the way it's supposed to?Player: "I cast sleep."
DM: "Sorry, magic doesn't work!"
Player: "Wut."
DM: "It's built into the campaign world from the start, so you have no cause for complaint. Just because I didn't tell you doesn't mean it wasn't a thing."
Yes. Because when I play a game, I expect everything to be clear, up front, on how it's going to work. If you change Plane Shift without telling me, who knows what else you're going to secretly houserule? And how do I even know that you did it ahead of time instead of going "Oh, s&*#, I don't want him to cast that. Yeah buddy, sorry, it doesn't work".
Putting on my devil's advocate hat here...First, thank you for actually trying to understand the situation and keeping the spirit of the OP.
There's just one point I want to address:One side has come down saying 'casters are supreme' and making their argument based on certain theoretical scenarios and on suppositions arising from reading of the rules.You see, it's not theoretical scenarios we're talking about. It's about what actually happens at our tables. Plus, when we actually state exactly what our issues are, they are dismissed as "theorycraft" and "Schroedinger Wizards". That's why I consider such comments condescension, because we've made our points, repeatedly, ad nauseum, in this very thread, and they keep getting dismissed as "your problem, not mine".Ok, let me ask this again. Who, as a DM actually has a HUGE "problem" with the caster/martial disparity in their real game? By "problem"- I mean exactly that- no one wants to play a martial as they are completely overshadowed by spellcasters. Paladins, Rangers, Monks, etc are just not a option. No one has fun playing them. Does this occur?
This doesnt happen in my group, people like playing martial characters and have fun playing them. But generally the issue crops up when we have a lack of casters for some reason (sometimes people miss games in my group due to scheduling). The purely martial characters cant get things done as well without the casters around. The same problem was a non-factor when the fighter didnt show up and the sorceror, druid, cleric and inquisitor had to make due without him.
Or is the problem that spellcasters are making it harder for you, as the DM to design scenarios?
I understand and agree that there are scenarios where the spellcaster can pull a "I win" button out. But is that a common, actual "problem"? What happens at your tables that makes spellcasters a "problem"?
I'd say in my group 2-5 times a session casters will dramatically turn the tide of an encounter or totally arse up a planned encounter with their magical abilities.
It definately changes the kind of story we can tell as we level. One gm in my group has permanently moved to an E6 game specifically because he couldnt deal with higher level magical abilities in his stories without constant contrivance or getting into an adversarial competition to shut down caster options. If one of the gms in my group wants to ignore 2/3 of the game (and the E6/E8 movement is quite popular actually) I'd say theres a problem.
I don't remember seeing 3/day use magic items for fighters to suddenly gain the Spring Attack feat chain for free.There are items that permanently grant feats. Not Spring Attack, but other feats.
The beauty of purchasing more than the "big 6" items is, the flexibility martials are asking for is already mostly available. You just have to spend WBL to get it.
Not many and, unless I'm misremembering some things, they're not something you can take out of your pocket, flick a switch, and it works. Rather, they're things you have to wear constantly to get the effect. Imagine if you couldn't use any potions because you had a Staff of Power in your hand. Or what if you had to take off your Otherwordly Kimono to use a metamagic rod? Not much fun, right?
Look, I'm not saying cheap magic items should exist that allow a fighter to heal himself to full, teleport 1000', and then auto-crit a target for max damage 10/day. I'm not saying give him any part of that as new class features. I'm not saying casters should have their power slashed in half or anything. I'm simply saying that the system develops a gap in PC versatility that only gets wider at high levels, even when you take magic items into account.
I would say gear is more effective in the hands of a martial than in the hands of caster when it comes to measuring overall party power increase.. At least until the caster is making simulacrum, undead hordes, golems and bribing outsiders for favors. You would probably also be better off trading out that pure martial for someone with more options.
Now a GM could just drop lots of martial gear and the party will be unlikely to sell it just so the caster can spend half the value making contructs, undead, sno-cones, and bribing demons.
GMs can do lots of subtle things to mask the martial vs caster issue without shouting down every creative use of a spell, being open to creativity is what also gives the martials a chance to shine, because they really can't do much without creative applications of their abilities.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What would you say if you, as a wizard, cast Plane Shift and the GM said it failed? Would you gripe at the GM for taking your powers away because he's a bad GM? Would you start exploring the world to find out why your spell failed? What if the GM had a reason, built into his campaign from the start, for powers not working the way you expected? Would you feel that the GM is just exercising GM fiat to not let your wizard work the way it's supposed to?One of the two gets these things as part of their character class. The other gets all but one of them if the dm allows it to be so. Again, martial characters have to rely on either the gm giving them stuff or the casters doing it for them. Casters can do it for themselves.And at the end of the day, both can fly, both can travel the planes, both can heal, both can kill things.WBL does entirely different things for martials and casters. Martials gain abilities they otherwise would not have. Casters extend the use of abilities already possessed, allowing for a longer adventuring day.Martials can't do much except hit things with a stick, so, yes, anything else adds abilities. Casters have spells to do pretty much everything, so yeah, it's hard to add to that.
I would say I want to know the rules of the game BEFORE i make my character choices. And if I get to make that descision from an informed position I would gladly then explore this magically clunky world.
In the end, I am a strong believer of player agency. If the player doesnt know what the rules are he literally has no agency. He is merely acting on the whim of the gm. Even if the gm is completely benevolent in his position, there is still no agency without informed choice.
Yes. Because when I play a game, I expect everything to be clear, up front, on how it's going to work. If you change Plane Shift without telling me, who knows what else you're going to secretly houserule? And how do I even know that you did it ahead of time instead of going "Oh, s#+!, I don't want him to cast that. Yeah buddy, sorry, it doesn't work".
Even if it means the GM giving up a plot point that you're not meant to discover until you reach a higher level?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes. Because when I play a game, I expect everything to be clear, up front, on how it's going to work. If you change Plane Shift without telling me, who knows what else you're going to secretly houserule? And how do I even know that you did it ahead of time instead of going "Oh, s#+!, I don't want him to cast that. Yeah buddy, sorry, it doesn't work".Even if it means the GM giving up a plot point that you're not meant to discover until you reach a higher level?
If the only way the gm can keep his plot a secret is by not telling me the rules of the game, its a bad plot. You should be able to tell me how planeshift works, at least generally without telling me the in game reason why it doesnt work the way the game says it does. If you cant or wont do that, I'd would call that bad gming.
Yes. Because when I play a game, I expect everything to be clear, up front, on how it's going to work. If you change Plane Shift without telling me, who knows what else you're going to secretly houserule? And how do I even know that you did it ahead of time instead of going "Oh, s#+!, I don't want him to cast that. Yeah buddy, sorry, it doesn't work".Even if it means the GM giving up a plot point that you're not meant to discover until you reach a higher level?
If your only idea for a plot is "Random s+!% that should work doesn't work now" you need to think of a better plot.
Good plots have foreshadowing, and people can figure out the events before they happen, or at least have a rough idea.
"So, you cast Plane Shift, and it doesn't work" is not that. It may be a fun concept in your head, but it's poorly executed. Go back to the drawing board and do better.
I assume by martials you mean Fighter? Because all the rest of them have plenty of things other than "hit things with a stick". Paladin has curing, buffing, condition removal, is a fantastic Face and even spells. Ranger, Monk archetypes, Cavalier, etc can all do more than "hit things with a stick".Paladins are half-casters with a bunch of other magic, so there you go. Monk archetypes require me to dumpster-dive more than I really care to do right now; but if it's the one that basically gives them spells, well, there's an answer. Rangers would be fully-realized if they could eventually confer planar survival on their allies, follow teleporting quarry, and find the path and discern location, but that's just me dreaming.
Cavaliers can "charge with a stick" instead of "hit with a stick," but they don't get anything like the team buffing and battlefield lockdown abilities some of the knight- and marshall-like classes in 3.5 could acquire.
But they are STILL MARTIALS. Yes, they can cast a few spells, but if you are saying then "martial= someone who cant cast spells" you limit it to Fighter, more or less. Qinggong monks, skirmisher rangers, etc dont cast spells per se, but they have powerful abilities that duplicate some spells. But that's exactly what you have been asking for, no?
So then are you talking "every other class/fighter discrepancy"?
Cavaliers & team buffing:
Shield of Blades (Ex): At 15th level, the cavalier gains an expert sense of impending violence around him. When taking the total defense action, the cavalier can extend his protection to those around him, granting a +2 circumstance bonus to AC to all adjacent allies. In addition, while taking the total defense action, as an immediate action, the cavalier can attempt to deflect an attack by making an attack roll opposed by the attacker's original attack roll. If successful, the attack is deflected and deals no damage.
Powerful Knowledge (Ex): At 8th level, the cavalier gains the ability to read scrolls and cast arcane or divine spells from a scroll as if he had a caster level of his cavalier level –4. He can decipher all scrolls, using his Linguistics skill in place of Spellcraft, and does not need to cast read magic in order to decipher a scroll.
Defensive Knowledge (Ex): At 15th level, an order of the tome cavalier can grant nearby allies some of the boons of his cavalier challenge. While allies are adjacent to the cavalier, they gain a +2 bonus on all saving throws against spells or spell-like abilities cast by the subject of the cavalier's challenge. In addition, as an immediate action, a number of times per day equal to the cavalier's Intelligence modifier (minimum 1) or Wisdom modifier (minimum 1), the cavalier can allow an ally adjacent to him to reroll a single failed saving throw against a spell or spell-like ability from the target of his challenge.
Banner of Solace (Ex): At 11th level, a standard bearer's banner becomes an even more potent symbol of protection and inspiration to those around him. Once per day, while his banner is displayed, the standard bearer can wave it through the air as a full-round action, granting all allies within 60 feet temporary hit points equal to 1/2 his cavalier level, and a +2 morale bonus on their next damage rolls. At 15th level, and every four levels thereafter, this bonus increases by +1 (to a maximum of +4 at 19th level). The temporary hit points last for 10 minutes or until depleted, whichever occurs first. This ability replaces mighty charge.
Awesome Pennon (Ex): At 20th level, a standard bearer's banner has become a powerful rallying point to his allies, and a bane to his foes. Whenever his banner is visible, allies of the standard bearer within 60 feet gain a +1 morale bonus on attack rolls, immunity to fear effects, and a +3 morale bonus on saving throws against mind-affecting effects. This ability replaces supreme charge.
Rangers also have similar buffing, see Battle Scout (Archetype).
If the only way the gm can keep his plot a secret is by not telling me the rules of the game, its a bad plot. You should be able to tell me how planeshift works, at least generally without telling me the in game reason why it doesnt work the way the game says it does. If you cant or wont do that, I'd would call that bad gming.Yes. Because when I play a game, I expect everything to be clear, up front, on how it's going to work. If you change Plane Shift without telling me, who knows what else you're going to secretly houserule? And how do I even know that you did it ahead of time instead of going "Oh, s#+!, I don't want him to cast that. Yeah buddy, sorry, it doesn't work".Even if it means the GM giving up a plot point that you're not meant to discover until you reach a higher level?
Huh, fair enough I guess. I'm not used to playing with people that need to know all the secrets up front or you're a bad GM.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes. Because when I play a game, I expect everything to be clear, up front, on how it's going to work. If you change Plane Shift without telling me, who knows what else you're going to secretly houserule? And how do I even know that you did it ahead of time instead of going "Oh, s#+!, I don't want him to cast that. Yeah buddy, sorry, it doesn't work".Even if it means the GM giving up a plot point that you're not meant to discover until you reach a higher level?
If the gm secretly changed the rules of the game so that every time a fighter rolled a prime number on his d20 role his blow actually healed the enemy instead of hurting him, because it was an important part of his campaign's plot but didnt tell the fighter so it could be a surprise, how would you feel? I'd be pissed if I was the fighter.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Huh, fair enough I guess. I'm not used to playing with people that need to know all the secrets up front or you're a bad GM.
We all know that's not what Rynjin said or meant.
There is difference between "knowing all the plot secrets" and "knowing the game rules".
If the gm secretly changed the rules of the game so that every time a fighter rolled a prime number on his d20 role his blow actually healed the enemy instead of hurting him, because it was an important part of his campaign's plot but didnt tell the fighter so it could be a surprise, how would you feel? I'd be pissed if I was the fighter.Yes. Because when I play a game, I expect everything to be clear, up front, on how it's going to work. If you change Plane Shift without telling me, who knows what else you're going to secretly houserule? And how do I even know that you did it ahead of time instead of going "Oh, s#+!, I don't want him to cast that. Yeah buddy, sorry, it doesn't work".Even if it means the GM giving up a plot point that you're not meant to discover until you reach a higher level?
This has gone beyond the bizarre (IMO) at this point. I don't know how you jumped from Plane Shift not working to dice rolls operate differently for fighters. I guess I'm glad I've never been the GM for people who can't handle things they don't know right from the start of the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Huh, fair enough I guess. I'm not used to playing with people that need to know all the secrets up front or you're a bad GM.If the only way the gm can keep his plot a secret is by not telling me the rules of the game, its a bad plot. You should be able to tell me how planeshift works, at least generally without telling me the in game reason why it doesnt work the way the game says it does. If you cant or wont do that, I'd would call that bad gming.Yes. Because when I play a game, I expect everything to be clear, up front, on how it's going to work. If you change Plane Shift without telling me, who knows what else you're going to secretly houserule? And how do I even know that you did it ahead of time instead of going "Oh, s#+!, I don't want him to cast that. Yeah buddy, sorry, it doesn't work".Even if it means the GM giving up a plot point that you're not meant to discover until you reach a higher level?
What I want to know up front:
1. Rules of the game. You dont need to tell me campaign secrets, but I do want to know if for instance power attack actually does con damage every time i use it before I choose the feat.2. General Idea of what the campaign is about. I dont need to know your secrets, but I do like to know what the general idea is so I can make a character that fits in with the story thats intended (assuming it isnt a sandbox game). Because I have more fun when my character cares personally about the quest/task/adventure. I dont want to make the loner who has no interest in power and find out im playing kingmaker, or the paladin and find out we are playing skull and shackles.
I dont think either of those things are 'giving away the secrets' and neither is more then the basic assumption of a pathfinder adventure path, which i think is a descent standard to follow.
Huh, fair enough I guess. I'm not used to playing with people that need to know all the secrets up front or you're a bad GM.We all know that's not what Rynjin said or meant.
There is difference between "knowing all the plot secrets" and "knowing the game rules".
No, both Rynjin and Koloktroni said the same thing. Either you explain everything up front or your a bad GM. Also, Plane Shift not working as a plot device makes you a bad GM because only bad GMs make spells not work as plot devices.
This doesnt happen in my group, people like playing martial characters and have fun playing them. But generally the issue crops up when we have a lack of casters for some reason (sometimes people miss games in my group due to scheduling). The purely martial characters cant get things done as well without the casters around. The same problem was a non-factor when the fighter didnt show up and the sorceror, druid, cleric and inquisitor had to make due without him.
....
One gm in my group has permanently moved to an E6 game specifically because he couldnt deal with higher level magical abilities in his stories without constant contrivance or getting into an adversarial competition to shut down caster options. If one of the gms in my group wants to ignore 2/3 of the game (and the E6/E8 movement is quite popular actually) I'd say theres a problem.
Ok, good answers, thank you. I see that it's a minor issue for you, but not a significant "problem" right?
But as far as your DM friend and E6- I think that his skills are the problem, not the games balance issue. I know that's kinda mean on my part, but it's not easy being the DM. It's a lot of hard work, takes imagination, etc.
But why E6? I mean there's Iron Heroes, etc. Be honest and play a game intrinsically designed for low magic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This has gone beyond the bizarre (IMO) at this point. I don't know how you jumped from Plane Shift not working to dice rolls operate differently for fighters. I guess I'm glad I've never been the GM for people who can't handle things they don't know right from the start of the game.If the gm secretly changed the rules of the game so that every time a fighter rolled a prime number on his d20 role his blow actually healed the enemy instead of hurting him, because it was an important part of his campaign's plot but didnt tell the fighter so it could be a surprise, how would you feel? I'd be pissed if I was the fighter.Yes. Because when I play a game, I expect everything to be clear, up front, on how it's going to work. If you change Plane Shift without telling me, who knows what else you're going to secretly houserule? And how do I even know that you did it ahead of time instead of going "Oh, s#+!, I don't want him to cast that. Yeah buddy, sorry, it doesn't work".Even if it means the GM giving up a plot point that you're not meant to discover until you reach a higher level?
And I am glad I dont play with gms who want to spring houserules on me without any warning in the middle of a game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, both Rynjin and Koloktroni said the same thing. Either you explain everything up front or your a bad GM. Also, Plane Shift not working as a plot device makes you a bad GM because only bad GMs make spells not work as plot devices.Huh, fair enough I guess. I'm not used to playing with people that need to know all the secrets up front or you're a bad GM.We all know that's not what Rynjin said or meant.
There is difference between "knowing all the plot secrets" and "knowing the game rules".
That's not what they meant and you know it.
That's not what they meant and you know it.No, both Rynjin and Koloktroni said the same thing. Either you explain everything up front or your a bad GM. Also, Plane Shift not working as a plot device makes you a bad GM because only bad GMs make spells not work as plot devices.Huh, fair enough I guess. I'm not used to playing with people that need to know all the secrets up front or you're a bad GM.We all know that's not what Rynjin said or meant.
There is difference between "knowing all the plot secrets" and "knowing the game rules".
How do I know that? I read what they both typed and it was pretty clear. If that's not what they meant then they obviously don't understand that there is a difference between a house rule being sprung on them and a plot device meant to drive part of the long-term story.
This doesnt happen in my group, people like playing martial characters and have fun playing them. But generally the issue crops up when we have a lack of casters for some reason (sometimes people miss games in my group due to scheduling). The purely martial characters cant get things done as well without the casters around. The same problem was a non-factor when the fighter didnt show up and the sorceror, druid, cleric and inquisitor had to make due without him.
....
One gm in my group has permanently moved to an E6 game specifically because he couldnt deal with higher level magical abilities in his stories without constant contrivance or getting into an adversarial competition to shut down caster options. If one of the gms in my group wants to ignore 2/3 of the game (and the E6/E8 movement is quite popular actually) I'd say theres a problem.
Ok, good answers, thank you. I see that it's a minor issue for you, but not a significant "problem" right?
But as far as your DM friend and E6- I think that his skills are the problem, not the games balance issue. I know that's kinda mean on my part, but it's not easy being the DM. It's a lot of hard work, takes imagination, etc.
But why E6? I mean there's Iron Heroes, etc. Be honest and play a game intrinsically designed for low magic.
I dont consider it a minor problem. I consider it a major flaw in the design of the game as it currently exists that is intrinsicly biased towards the supernatural and biased against the mundane. I see that as a major problem, and one that leads to disatisfaction in a lot of players, and drives at least some players away from the game.
As for the member of my group, I dont think he is lacking in skills, he is quite experienced and in many ways knows the game as well as I or anyone else does. His system mastery is high, he just doesnt like dealing with the narrative influence mid to high level magic has. And there are LOTS of people that go for E6, because though stuff like iron heroes exists, it isnt supported the way pathfinder is. And in the end, if hundreds of dms have a problem with mid level and higher magic to the point where they cut out 2/3 of the game, isnt that demonstrative of a real problem? Thats not an anequdote, go look at how many posts the E6 threads have here and on enworld and whatnot. See how many of them are from different people. Thats not anequdote, thats statistically significant.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How do I know that? I read what they both typed and it was pretty clear. If that's not what they meant then they obviously don't understand that there is a difference between a house rule being sprung on them and a plot device meant to drive part of the long-term story.That's not what they meant and you know it.No, both Rynjin and Koloktroni said the same thing. Either you explain everything up front or your a bad GM. Also, Plane Shift not working as a plot device makes you a bad GM because only bad GMs make spells not work as plot devices.Huh, fair enough I guess. I'm not used to playing with people that need to know all the secrets up front or you're a bad GM.We all know that's not what Rynjin said or meant.
There is difference between "knowing all the plot secrets" and "knowing the game rules".
What I am saying is I want you to explain the house rule, not the plot device. You can tell me that plane shift only works in specific locations without telling me the history, which locations, or why.
You can tell me that conjuration spells carry a risk of angering extra planar beings without telling me why. I just need to be able to make an informed choice about my class options.
A plot device doesnt change the rules of the game. That is a house rule. A plot device is a part of the plot. The rules help us express that plot in the form of a game. They are connected but distinct. I dont believe you cant explain the rule without exposing the plot device, and I honestly think you just want that 'gotcha' moment when the person tries to cast the spell and you get to surprise them that it doesnt work.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, let me ask this again. Who, as a DM actually has a HUGE "problem" with the caster/martial disparity in their real game? By "problem"- I mean exactly that- no one wants to play a martial as they are completely overshadowed by spellcasters. Paladins, Rangers, Monks, etc are just not a option. No one has fun playing them. Does this occur?
As both a player and a GM, I have never* seen a caster/martial disparity problem at a table. (Not saying they don't exist- just answering DrDeth's question.)
In my experience, when a player wants to be disruptive they will create a character that will go for high damage. This could be a caster (lookin at you, shocking grasp Magus...) but could just as easily be a martial. With one exception*, I have yet to see a caster demonstrate power to the point where the martials at the table felt like sidekicks or tag-alongs. If anything, full casters are the refuge of those who wish to rehabilitate their image as 'power gamers.' I've never seen a player complain that such and such character was broken or minmaxed because it could buff the party so well, or buy time for a harried frontliner by laying down some battlefield control.
*The sole exception to the 'disruptive players build for damage' observation was actually me. My second ever character was an oracle of heavens color spray build. After a few negative experiences where I reduced table fun by one-shotting encounters, I stopped using the spell. It was how I learned that save or die builds aren't very fun.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Stepping away from the "is not" "is too" aspect of this conversation, I'll go ahead and toss in my two bits.
I've played (since someone asked) 37ish years or so, and yes, casters can be problematic Taken at just straight book face value, someone who wants to be disruptive to a game can certainly do so with a caster, can overshadow others and turn the whole game into the Caster and his Buddies hour.
That said, you can do some of the same thing with any class if that is what is on your mind, your scale is just a little smaller and you have to work a bit harder to do so.
It would be nice if non-partial casters had some perks that made up for some of the power discrepancy -- nice but not a game breaker for me, in Pathfinder or Shadowrun or any of a dozen games where casters and non-casters share a party.
So lodge me in the "It can be a problem, but not always" camp. We'll be over here making smores while the two big camps continue to do battle. :)
edit: somewhat ninjaed by Mystically Inclined
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How do I know that? I read what they both typed and it was pretty clear. If that's not what they meant then they obviously don't understand that there is a difference between a house rule being sprung on them and a plot device meant to drive part of the long-term story.
I don't think you're stupid, so I'll assume you're just being dense on purpose and twisting their arguments to try and make your point... but I'll humour you.
If Plane Shift doesn't ever work for whatever reason (e.g.: the spell doesn't exist or there are no other planes or whatever), plain and simple. Then the characters should logically be aware of that... Just like I know that Fireball and Summon Monster VI don't work IRL.
If Plane Shift works, but then, at some point, the GM arbitrarily decides it doesn't because otherwise, the Cleric would find out something important, the GM is being a prick. He's no different than a GM that says an enemy lives and teleports away despite the fact that the Fighter dealt twice as much damage as the enemy has HP, just because he doesn't want that NPC to die.
Both GMs are cheating and being dishonest and unfair to their players.
If Plane Shift stops workings because of in game reasons (e.g.: they entered a temple under effect of Dimensional Anchor, or the planets aligned and now magic is going bonkers or whatever) That's acceptable, as long as there is at least some foreshadowing to that.
A rule being changed out of nowhere, without any forewarning to the players or in-game justification, just because the GM felt that rule would ruin his precious rail-roady plot is bad GMing.
And yeah, it is rail-roading. If it weren't, events would be decided by the players' actions, not by the GM's whims.
How do I know that? I read what they both typed and it was pretty clear. If that's not what they meant then they obviously don't understand that there is a difference between a house rule being sprung on them and a plot device meant to drive part of the long-term story.That's not what they meant and you know it.No, both Rynjin and Koloktroni said the same thing. Either you explain everything up front or your a bad GM. Also, Plane Shift not working as a plot device makes you a bad GM because only bad GMs make spells not work as plot devices.Huh, fair enough I guess. I'm not used to playing with people that need to know all the secrets up front or you're a bad GM.We all know that's not what Rynjin said or meant.
There is difference between "knowing all the plot secrets" and "knowing the game rules".
What I am saying is I want you to explain the house rule, not the plot device. You can tell me that plane shift only works in specific locations without telling me the history, which locations, or why.
You can tell me that conjuration spells carry a risk of angering extra planar beings without telling me why. I just need to be able to make an informed choice about my class options.
A plot device doesnt change the rules of the game. That is a house rule. A plot device is a part of the plot. The rules help us express that plot in the form of a game. They are connected but distinct. I dont believe you cant explain the rule without exposing the plot device, and I honestly think you just want that 'gotcha' moment when the person tries to cast the spell and you get to surprise them that it doesnt work.
I guess the fundamental difference between us is that I'm fine with there being a little mystery in the game.
As a side note to all of this, over the years myself and a few other GMs worked on various house rules to ramp up or down the power of casters and non-casters. Despite the hard knocks house rules get online sometimes, we did find that it helped non-casters feel a little less put upon if magic were limited in some way, be it taking damage when casting or any of a number of other suggestions.
In other words, instead of making all the non-casters super powerful to keep up with the casters, we made magic a little less omnipresent and a little more, well, magical.
Doing so changes the dynamic of the game and isn't everyone's cup of tea, but it does provide an interesting way of playing and while casters can still be very powerful, they aren't rushing about doing it all the time.
Just a stray thought in the middle of all this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess the fundamental difference between us is that I'm fine with there being a little mystery in the game.
Okay... You're definitely being dense on purpose.
How do I know that? I read what they both typed and it was pretty clear. If that's not what they meant then they obviously don't understand that there is a difference between a house rule being sprung on them and a plot device meant to drive part of the long-term story.I don't think you're stupid, so I'll assume you're just being dense on purpose and twisting their arguments to try and make your point... but I'll humour you.
If Plane Shift doesn't ever work for whatever reason (e.g.: the spell doesn't exist or there are no other planes or whatever), plain and simple. Then the characters should logically be aware of that... Just like I know that Summon Monster VI doesn't work IRL.
If Plane Shift works, but then, at some point, the GM arbitrarily decides it doesn't because otherwise, the Cleric would find out something important, the GM is being a prick... He's no different than a GM that says an enemy lives and teleports away despite the fact that the Fighter dealt twice as much damage as the enemy has HP, just because he doesn't want that NPC to die.
Both GMs are cheting and being dishonest and unfair to their player.
If Plane Shift stops workings because of in game reasons (e.g.: they entered a temple under effect of Dimensional Anchor, or the planets aligned and now magic is going bonkers or whatever) That's acceptable, as long as there is at least some foreshadowing to that.
A rule being changed out of nowhere, without any forewarning to the players or in-game justification, just because the GM felt that rule would ruin his precious rail-roady plot is bad GMing.
And yeah, it's rail-roading, because it it weren't, the events would be decided by the players actions, not by the GM's whims.
So you're in the same group as the other two, either you know everything up front or you have a bad GM. You either need to be told before the game starts or be fed clues during the game. But in either case only a bad GM does things like disable spells, even if only temporarily to send the group down a path because railroading is bad.
I guess the fundamental difference between us is that I'm fine with there being a little mystery in the game.Okay... You're definitely being dense on purpose.
Sorry, nope. I understand the points you're making and I disagree with them. Almost to the point of finding them abhorrent to the way I play the game. I get that you don't like having things "sprung" on you. If your point is different from that, a poor job is being done of explaining it.
So you're in the same group as the other two, either you know everything up front or you have a bad GM. You either need to be told before the game starts or be fed clues during the game. But in either case only a bad GM does...
The GM can keep all the plot secrets he wants.
If the players don't know all the game rules upfront, that's bad GMing.
Changing rules on the fly, without forewarning and consent is bad GMing.
Sorry, nope. I understand the points you're making and I disagree with them. Almost to the point of finding them abhorrent to the way I play the game. I get that you don't like having things "sprung" on you. If your point is different from that, a poor job is being done of explaining it.
I don't like having rules sprung on me. If something prevents the character to us e an spell or ability, that's fine, as long as there is an in game reason, not just a "the GM doesn't want you to do it" reason.
If a GM does that, what's to stop him from changing whatever rules he wants whenever he wants, without telling the players? How could I be sure that he won't steal my character of her abilities just because he feels like it?
If the GM is so in love with his plot, and so incompetent that he needs to arbitrarily change rules to make sure we follow his rail-road, why should I bother make any decisions at all? I want my characters to be able to make meaningful decisions and influence the outcome of the story. I'm not there just to roll dice for the GM's characters on the GM's personal novel.
So you're in the same group as the other two, either you know everything up front or you have a bad GM. You either need to be told before the game starts or be fed clues during the game. But in either case only a bad GM does...The GM can keep all the plot secrets he wants.
If the players don't know all the game rules upfront, that's bad GMing.
Changing rules on the fly, without forewarning and consent is bad GMing.
Is it bad for a GM to reskin monsters also?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Despite the fact that my message above falls on the 'no disparity' side of the line, I do see the point of the argument. In The Hobbit, you have a group of 14: 12 dwarf fighters, a halfing thief, and a human(?) wizard. Of those 14, who would you point to as the badass of the group?
My money's on Gandalf every time.
I agree that the ability to affect the narative is an incredibly strong power. Its just not a power I see in my games very often. I attribute this entirely to the fact that my games have typically died before reaching level 8 (with one going to 11) rather than the idea that the disparity isn't there at all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is it bad for a GM to reskin monsters also?So you're in the same group as the other two, either you know everything up front or you have a bad GM. You either need to be told before the game starts or be fed clues during the game. But in either case only a bad GM does...The GM can keep all the plot secrets he wants.
If the players don't know all the game rules upfront, that's bad GMing.
Changing rules on the fly, without forewarning and consent is bad GMing.
That depends. Is the monster in question stated like a balrog when its a goblin dog? and the players are given no heads up then yes that is bad GM'ing if you are simply refluffing them without any stat changes then no that is not bad GM'ing
Shield of Blades (Ex): At 15th level, the cavalier gains an expert sense of impending violence around him. When taking the total defense action, the cavalier can extend his protection to those around him, granting a +2 circumstance bonus to AC to all adjacent allies. In addition, while taking the total defense action, as an immediate action, the cavalier can attempt to deflect an attack by making an attack roll opposed by the attacker's original attack roll. If successful, the attack is deflected and deals no damage.
OK, let's look at what this actually says, because to me it reads like someone is kicking the cavalier in the teeth.
You give up all your actions, every single round, in order to maintain a very weak team buff (+2 to AC), and only to people right next to you, requiring you to bunch up so that AoE spells can get you all. And it gives you one chance per round to parry an attack against you that should be missing anyway, since you're doing nothing but total defense to begin with. And you have to wait until 15th level to do this, which you're better off not doing.
At 15th level, a bard can grant +4 to AC (twice the one you're granting) AND saves within 30 ft. as a swift action, meaning he can still actively fight, or do whatever else he needs to do to actually make a perceptible difference. At 14th level, the marshal could emit an aura granting his allies within 60 ft. a +3 bonus to AC all day, no matter what else he wanted to do, and it didn't cost him his actions, either.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is it bad for a GM to reskin monsters also?
No. Neither is creating new monsters.
But if the GM does it just so he can nullify a player's ability, then it's bad GMing.
e.g.:
GM: "Sorry, this creature that has all the skills, abilities, powers and weaknesses of a Balor is not actually a Balor... Just a different creature that happens to have all the skills, abilities, powers and weaknesses of a Balor. I guess your Ranger doesn't get to use his 13 ranks in Kn(Planes) to identify it and can't apply his FE (Evil Outsider) +6 bonus against it."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What would you say if you, as a wizard, cast Plane Shift and the GM said it failed? Would you gripe at the GM for taking your powers away because he's a bad GM? Would you start exploring the world to find out why your spell failed? What if the GM had a reason, built into his campaign from the start, for powers not working the way you expected? Would you feel that the GM is just exercising GM fiat to not let your wizard work the way it's supposed to?One of the two gets these things as part of their character class. The other gets all but one of them if the dm allows it to be so. Again, martial characters have to rely on either the gm giving them stuff or the casters doing it for them. Casters can do it for themselves.And at the end of the day, both can fly, both can travel the planes, both can heal, both can kill things.WBL does entirely different things for martials and casters. Martials gain abilities they otherwise would not have. Casters extend the use of abilities already possessed, allowing for a longer adventuring day.Martials can't do much except hit things with a stick, so, yes, anything else adds abilities. Casters have spells to do pretty much everything, so yeah, it's hard to add to that.
If part of the campaign world is planar travel not working, why on earth would any wizard ever prepare that spell, or rather, why would that spell have ever come to exist? If it's part of the setting, you discuss that before the game and build your character accordingly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hey Kirth, you have any idea where I can find a set rules that address these problems? Do you know any one who has played with and actually found high level play rewarding for casters and not casters alike?
Above is said in humor.
There's a rule set that completely elimiates high level martial/caster disparity right here.
;p
Fixed that link for you.