The Hate of magic?!?

[Nicos]

Trogdar wrote:

I think Nicos was pointing towards the fact that caster contributions in combat are more potent for longer(number of levels) IN ADDITION to being the better class out of combat.

There is a range of levels where martial and casters contribution in and outside combat are comparable (assuming no extreme cheese on any part). But then there is a point where full caster just win in both.

[FatR]

ThePowerOfWar wrote:

I was wondering why there seems to be a lot of hate towards magic(casters and items) on this forum?

As you can notice from this very thread, most of the complaining is due to people being unable to accept that their vanilla action heroes are inherently obsolete at the certain point that DnD/PF hit somewhere between levels 5 and 10. And most of modern fantasy fiction starts beyond. As you can notice, people who complain about casters generally aren't complaining that their Fighters don't get to move at supersonic speeds, and their rogues don't get to shadow teleport, and their Acrobatics check don't allow them to run on clouds. They are complaining that absolutely mundane tricks and tactics are obsoleted by magic. Well, duh. That goes without saying. Xaltotun beats Conan, easily, and the latter needs to quest for a McGuffin to stand any chance, such was the state of things even in Swords & Sorcery. The system unfortunately encourages this sort of thinking by pretending that fighters and rogues are conceptually valid to level 20.

[Matthew Downie]

FatR wrote:

vanilla action heroes are inherently obsolete at the certain point that DnD/PF hit somewhere between levels 5 and 10.

According to my poll results so far, that's a minority opinion.

[Jeff Merola]

Your poll has a small sample size and includes options that aren't actually about whether there's disparity.

[Nocte ex Mortis]

FatR wrote:

ThePowerOfWar wrote:

I was wondering why there seems to be a lot of hate towards magic(casters and items) on this forum?

As you can notice from this very thread, most of the complaining is due to people being unable to accept that their vanilla action heroes are inherently obsolete at the certain point that DnD/PF hit somewhere between levels 5 and 10. And most of modern fantasy fiction starts beyond. As you can notice, people who complain about casters generally aren't complaining that their Fighters don't get to move at supersonic speeds, and their rogues don't get to shadow teleport, and their Acrobatics check don't allow them to run on clouds. They are complaining that absolutely mundane tricks and tactics are obsoleted by magic. Well, duh. That goes without saying. Xaltotun beats Conan, easily, and the latter needs to quest for a McGuffin to stand any chance, such was the state of things even in Swords & Sorcery. The system unfortunately encourages this sort of thinking by pretending that fighters and rogues are conceptually valid to level 20.

If this was intended to be the default case, then why in the HELL aren't you required to rebuild your character beyond level 9 as a full-fledged caster?

Most likely because when 3.0 came about, they didn't realize what taking all the limitations off of the spellcasters, and limiting the more 'mundane' (Seriously though, there's NOTHING mundane about a 9th level fighter. You're talking about someone who could have methodically killed every single person in the Battle of Normandy, on both sides.) characters to 'realism' would end up really doing. They learned really quick, but refused to admit their screw-up. Paizo inherited the issue, and hasn't really tried to fix it, due to wanting to be backwards compatible.

I think they've realized that it's functionally impossible at this point to keep the model the same, unless they're willing to simply remove the purely martial characters entirely, and that wouldn't fly with anyone.

[FatR]

Nocte ex Mortis wrote:

If this was intended to be the default case, then why in the HELL aren't you required to rebuild your character beyond level 9 as a full-fledged caster?

That's the question we should ask more often. Or at least "Why they don't get explicit supernatural power source?"

Nocte ex Mortis wrote:

Most likely because when 3.0 came about, they didn't realize what taking all the limitations off of the spellcasters, and limiting the more 'mundane' (Seriously though, there's NOTHING mundane about a 9th level fighter. You're talking about someone who could have methodically killed every single person in the Battle of Normandy, on both sides.) characters to 'realism' would end up really doing.

That happened when AD&D 1E came about, not 3.0. Compare AD&D 1 or 2E with Rules Cyclopedia. You'll notice:

(1)Removal of high-level options for martials because of muh realism.
(2)Casters' arsenals greatly expanding and many spells getting more powerful.
(3)Monsters getting a lot beefier.

And supplements added the ability of casters, namely priests, to steal every good part of being a fighter while still casting what they needed.

Nocte ex Mortis wrote:

They learned really quick, but refused to admit their screw-up.

Incorrect. It took about 5-6 years of incessant flame wars to convince the majority of Internet-frequenting playerbase that caster-martial disbalance exists. There were still very significant holdouts of people saying that it, in fact, doesn't at the time of Pathfinder's public beta. No, "holdouts" is a wrong word. On Paizo's board this opinion dominated. This is the most likely reason why Paizo saw fit not only not to rework martial classes in any significant fashion, but to consciously nerf the few effective things they did in 3.5, from high-damage melee combos to trip.

[Orfamay Quest]

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Orfamay Quest wrote:

ThePowerOfWar wrote:

So i do think that the wolf is a bit toned down as compared to its previous incarnations but how would a LV 1 fight do against 3 CR 1/3 orcs. its the same CR as the wolf but there would be No way the fighter could win even if he were to go first.

You might want to simulate this out before you start making statements like that.

A common orc has a single attack at +1, 5 hit points, and an armor class of 13. A not-particularly-optimized first-level fighter has two attacks at +3/+2, 16 hit points, and an armor class of 17. And better initiative if it comes to that.

Each orc has a 25% chance of hitting per round, which equates to roughly 58% of getting hit at all for Valeros. Barring criticals, it will take two hits to kill Valeros. In the other direction, Valeros will average 1.05 hits per round and can easily kill an orc in a single hit.

Are you accounting for Ferocity? At first level, before iterative attacks, Ferocity is pretty damn nasty.

I didn't notice Ferocity, no. Although this simply shows (as much) that orcs are overpowerer for CR 1/3 as it does that Valeros is underpowered. (Re-run the simulation with goblins instead, and you get a similar result.)

[Rynjin]

Orcs are a CR 1 encounter in disguise.

Goblin are kind of annoying at 1st level too. Valeros ther eneeds a 13 and a 14 to hit them, and they have a higher attack bonus than an Orc, if much lower damage.

Valeros would likely still win, but the fight would be much, much longer.

[Scavion]

Rynjin wrote:

Orcs are a CR 1 encounter in disguise.

Goblin are kind of annoying at 1st level too. Valeros ther eneeds a 13 and a 14 to hit them, and they have a higher attack bonus than an Orc, if much lower damage.

Valeros would likely still win, but the fight would be much, much longer.

And Valeros needs to not be in Lemmy's campaign of cursed dice.

[Kthulhu]

Nocte ex Mortis wrote:

Paizo inherited the issue, and hasn't really tried to fix it, due to wanting to be backwards compatible.

I wish that were the full extent of Paizo's culpability, but they seem intent on exasperating the issue.

[UnArcaneElection]

Rynjin wrote:

I think he forgot to take into account Ferocity essentially tripling their HP. That's why Orcs are so nasty (and the Falchions don't hurt either...).

Matthew Downie wrote:

They hurt quite a lot.

Off-topic, but I wonder just which kind of falchion Orcs use? The last example in the video looks almost like a candidate for being a forerunner of the Elven Curve Blade . . . It's also the only two-hander, whereas Falchion is an obligate two-hander in PF (doesn't even have an Exotic Weapon Proficiency option to one-hand it like the Bastard Sword -- maybe the D&D 3.5/PF weapon names are just scrambled relative to European history?

[ThePowerOfWar]

So I am guessing that no one can read or do math with the point buy system that is in print or in the PDR for stats. 15 points is a standard fantasy, High fantasy is 20, and epic fantasy is a 25 point build. So if you look at the chart that fighter is a 25 point build. But if you need a page quote its on page 16 in the core book. So if your going to try and mock some one at least try and have your information correct.

[Kobold Catgirl]

Kthulhu wrote:

Nocte ex Mortis wrote:

Paizo inherited the issue, and hasn't really tried to fix it, due to wanting to be backwards compatible.

I wish that were the full extent of Paizo's culpability, but they seem intent on exasperating the issue.

[grammar hobgoblin]*exacerbating[/grammar hobgoblin]

ThePowerOfWar wrote:

So I am guessing that no one can read or do math with the point buy system that is in print or in the PDR for stats. 15 points is a standard fantasy, High fantasy is 20, and epic fantasy is a 25 point build. So if you look at the chart that fighter is a 25 point build. But if you need a page quote its on page 16 in the core book. So if your going to try and mock some one at least try and have your information correct.

Uh, actually, it's 20 Point Buy. Humans get a +2, remember? So no, it's not "epic". Like everyone said, it's PFS legal—so, High Fantasy. You miiiight wanna double-check your math before going and insulting people. :P

Also, it's the PRD. This is the second time you've made that mistake, and it's kinda confusing.

[ThePowerOfWar]

Kobold I did for get about the +2 to 1 stat I will give you that but depending on the stat chosen it could change that but at least you try an actual retort rather than blatantly not contributing to the conversation by only making mocking comments. but I didn't say that he was not legal. back to the topic kind of, the fighter was said to be a standard fighter and not a high power fighter so that character still is stronger than this example was originally brought up.

[Matthew Downie]

Jeff Merola wrote:

Your poll has a small sample size and includes options that aren't actually about whether there's disparity.

I linked to it to attract the attention of all the people here who haven't voted yet in order to increase the sample size. (The bigger problem with the poll is that it's biased towards forum-frequenting voters with high system mastery.)

Every single option is about whether a disparity problem exists in practice in the game as it is actually played.

My personal campaign experiences are:

Poorly optimized Fighter dominates most combats at level 13. Wizard casts summoning spells.

Druid outshines two-weapon fighter and crossbow-focused ranger.

Fighter character takes one level wizard dip to give himself access to wands. Fire specialist sorcerer is constantly stymied by fire resistant foes, but makes himself useful to group by being able to cast Teleport.

Everyone plays martial-focused quasi-casters, backed up by a cleric who follows them about buffing and curing them of bad statuses to make sure they're able to use their huge melee damage output to massacre all enemies.

Sorcerer with minmaxed Charisma and dazing rod is able to crush most encounters with ease if he wants - then dies as a result of a poor Fortitude save. Not resurrected.

Core-only campaign. Fighter and barbarian do most of the heroic stuff. Cleric tends to heal or inflict small amounts of damage. Intentionally not-too-optimized sorcerer (initial Charisma 17) provides support with Grease, Glitterdust and Haste.

[Jeff Merola]

"There isn't a problem because the GM/players can fix it" is known as the Oberoni Fallacy. Just because a problem is mitigated because it is known about and the people involved take deliberate steps to avoid it doesn't mean there's no problem. Quite the opposite, in fact.

So yes, your poll has options that aren't actually about whether or not there's disparity.

ThePowerOfWar wrote:

Kobold I did for get about the +2 to 1 stat I will give you that but depending on the stat chosen it could change that but at least you try an actual retort rather than blatantly not contributing to the conversation by only making mocking comments. but I didn't say that he was not legal. back to the topic kind of, the fighter was said to be a standard fighter and not a high power fighter so that character still is stronger than this example was originally brought up.

The last time I played in a non-20 PB game (that didn't use dice for chargen) was a long time ago (I'm in a game that's technically 15 PB, but we all have the Mutant Creature template, which means our stats are higher than they would be even in a 20 PB). 20 PB is what PFS, Paizo's own campaign, uses. 20 PB was stated by a dev to be used in the most recent playtest, because 15 PB is based on a math error from 3rd edition, with 20 PB being more reflective of the stats that the default rolling method gives you.

So a 20 PB is very much a "standard" fighter, especially on these forums. And that's not even including the fact that Valeros is Paizo's standard fighter.

[Avh]

ThePowerOfWar wrote:

Kobold I did for get about the +2 to 1 stat I will give you that but depending on the stat chosen it could change that but at least you try an actual retort rather than blatantly not contributing to the conversation by only making mocking comments. but I didn't say that he was not legal. back to the topic kind of, the fighter was said to be a standard fighter and not a high power fighter so that character still is stronger than this example was originally brought up.

That character is a low powered fighter.

An optimized 1st level fighter is looking at +5 for 2d6+9 damage (accounting for 16 str + 2 race, weapon focus and power attack).

[ThePowerOfWar]

So even though the rule book it self says 15 points is standard fantasy and 20 is high fantasy, your saying just because people prefer a 20 build so that makes it standard ....... so if I get a group together and want to start changing how things are written is ok so I can win a discussion is what you are saying.

[Rynjin]

ThePowerOfWar wrote:

So even though the rule book it self says 15 points is standard fantasy and 20 is high fantasy, your saying just because people prefer a 20 build so that makes it standard ....... so if I get a group together and want to start changing how things are written is ok so I can win a discussion is what you are saying.

Okay so for real you're either trolling, or an idiot. Please explain which so we can continue this conversation appropriately.

[Kobold Catgirl]

Nobody actually said it was "standard fantasy". They said he "isn't particularly optimized". They later said it was "standard", but not in the terminology of Point Buy types—just in the fact that it is standard for the vast majority of Pathfinder players, as well as in the standards Paizo itself sets.

[wraithstrike]

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Nobody actually said it was "standard fantasy". They said he "isn't particularly optimized". They later said it was "standard", but not in the terminology of Point Buy types—just in the fact that it is standard for the vast majority of Pathfinder players, as well as in the standards Paizo itself sets.

+1

Now I wonder if he will admit he was wrong about what he was reading or just find something else to argue about.

[Trogdar]

Knowing how these threads normally work I would think good counter arguments will be ignored in favour of constructing straw men.

[Arbane the Terrible]

Matthew Downie wrote:

Game balance at the levels when Wish comes into play is a pretty nebulous concept in the first place.

Not really. There's the ones who can cast Wish and Miracle, and then there's the useless ones.</hyperbole>

[bookrat]

ThePowerOfWar wrote:

Kobold I did for get about the +2 to 1 stat I will give you that but depending on the stat chosen it could change that

Ok. Let's test it.

Valeros' stats are 16, 15, 14, 12, 10, 11

+2 to strength: 20 pt buy
+2 to dex: 21 pt buy
+2 to con: 22 pt buy
+2 to int: 23 pt buy
+2 to wis: 23 pt buy
+2 to cha: 23 pt buy

Forgetting about the +2: 25 pt buy

When you are choosing between a 20 pt buy or a 25 pt buy, strength is the only one that makes sense.

Additionally, you could go to this link and check out what Paizo has to say for themselves about their iconic characters.

[Blackwaltzomega]

It's not so much hate for magic as feeling it is subject to unfair favoritism by the developers, in my view. In particular, the party line for Paizo seems to be overestimating the viability of lower-utility powers that are "always available" and underestimating how potent strong but limited resources are in the hands of anyone with the wits to manage them.

I believe Lemmy was the one who pointed out that for the most part a fighter's progression is mostly getting greater numbers while the wizard's progression is primarily getting greater options. You can see this in a number of classes, but those two display the gap most clearly.

Fighty McGee is good at hitting stuff. It's his defining characteristic, as a matter of fact. As he levels up, the minuses for wearing armor start to fall off and he picks up a lot of plusses on weapons he uses a lot. He gets more feats, so he can make his damage numbers still higher. However, what Fighty McGee does NOT get a lot of are options. Generally speaking, you are still smashing something with your mighty two-handed power attacks or perforating them with arrows whether you're at level 1 or level 20, with simple question of how different the numbers are to distinguish them. Yes, your two-handed fighter might be wielding a sword so magical it makes Excalibur blush, but in the end, the fighter's endgame is that he's still hitting stuff, but now he's doing it REALLY REALLY HARD.

Now let's look at Fighty McGee's good friend Mr. Wizard. Mr. Wizard is a humble fellow at level 1, who really loves having his good pal Fighty McGee around. They are the best of chums! Mr. Wizard tosses out some Color Sprays and some area of effect spells for getting rid of those nasty swarms that ignore Fighty McGee's weapon damage, while Fighty McGee takes down the big stuff and finishes off everything the spells have taken out. However, Mr. Wizard is a more ambitious sort than Fighty McGee, and rather than getting better at the parlor tricks he learned starting out the way his friend gets better at hitting things, he learns new ones instead. And my, do these new tricks lead Mr. Wizard into a new and exciting world. With second level spells, invisibility grants mastery of going undetected for extended periods of time even for Mr. Wizard, who has never put a single skill rank in stealth! Why, his mighty +20 bonus to going undetected actually makes him considerably sneakier than his good friend the rogue, although the rogue consoles herself that her skills don't wear off and she can be the sneakiest so long as there is not a bard, inquisitor, investigator, slayer, or what have you about. Ms. Rogue does not have great job security, but she tries not to think about it too much because it makes Ms. Rogue very sad.

But Mr. Wizard is not done yet! No sir! Onward and upward he moves. Soon ignoring the siren song of gravity, a feat worthy of some very expensive magical items to Fighty McGee and Ms. Rogue, is merely one of many tricks in Mr. Wizard's steadily-growing bag. And Mr. Wizard's eye gradually turns towards more powers still as he grows, like finding people and objects with great ease with his handy divination spells, traveling great distances immediately with teleportation spells, changing the battlefield to better suit the team's desires, and bringing his own bodyguards to battle with necromancy and summoning! And at some point during all this, it is likely Mr. Wizard has realized that while Fighty McGee lives in a world where a creature with half its HP remaining is still exactly as dangerous to him as it was before he first hit it, Mr. Wizard does not live in such a world, because something that fails its save against Mr. Wizard's spell is not going to enjoy the next few minutes very much.

To be simpler, the Sorcerer/Wizard spell list contains enough spells to solve every problem a GM can reasonably present to the players, the other spell lists, while not AS good, are often not that far behind, and a sufficiently crafty player can have access to an absolutely staggering amount of problem-solving power with a spell list that provides defense, mobility, battlefield control, and buffs and debuffs that make it simple indeed to rise to the occasion while a character with no spell list is going to have to do what they can with their skills, equipment, and gumption, which are all things magic-users have along with spells.

Casters are also a necessary consideration for the GM to make anything in the campaign hold up properly where one strong fighting man is often as good as another in the big picture. A monster that makes a mockery of one player's trip or disarm build is a very common occurrence, and a man or beast with the HP, AC, and strength to go toe-to-toe with a powerful warrior is not so difficult to find or build. However, a BBEG that does not take efforts to have countermeasures for the entire divination school of magic and most of the conjuration school will often find the PCs bedeviling them with such ease they no longer seem like much of a mastermind. Time limits and rationing of downtime and rest to recover must be strictly enforced to balance out caster power, but no such measures are needed on the other side of the fence besides playing your encounters smart enough they don't just get death-blendered. I don't think I need to draw you a map when I say a strongly built fighter, ranger, barbarian, slayer, swashbuckler, and so on requiring a BBEG to have a plan for how to defend themselves against their attacks, such as having high AC and some wind going, but a magic user who knows what they're doing generally requires a BBEG to a.) Live somewhere that cannot be scried on, b.) operate somewhere that is impossible or fiendishly difficult to teleport into, c.) has enough encounters in it that the party cannot avoid them or blow through them without overtiring their casters' slots, d.) has nowhere to safely rest and recover so the BBEG can face a tired enemy fresh and avoid getting mowed down by four novas in one round, e.) cannot be teleported OUT OF easily (and should generally complicate summoning if at all possible), and so on.

At most tables the martial-caster divide is not usually that bad, but the simple fact of the matter is casting players require a ton more consideration and restriction by the GM to keep them in check, which can be seen as antagonistic GMing. It's not the player who chose to roll up a wizard's fault that they have the option to fly over to an enemy ship, cast Passwall on the hull to let in seawater, and get out of there (or turn into a Water Elemental and swim over there, or so on) as it sinks while the others in the party would have had to sail to and board that ship and fight five encounters worth of enemies to sink or capture it, but the GM is going to have to be aware that a magic user has options the nonmagical PC does not.

A slight tangent from this is also the "martials can't get nice things" problem, where players observe that the Swashbuckler, a class with very weak saves, gets a very limited capacity to add charisma to his saving throws at the cost of immediate actions because it was judged that a passive bonus to saves would be too much. In the very same book, a feat is released that lets Oracles, a class with weak saves, permanently add their Charisma, which is guaranteed to be their very highest stat, to all their saving throws for the rest of the game, no actions required, and its only cost is five ranks in a skill the Oracle was likely to invest in anyway. This creates a bizarre situation where the Swashbuckler dares not adventure all day because his saves will run out and he'll be in grave danger from poison or fear or domination but a feat has given the Oracle excellent saves that never run out. This smacks of favoritism towards magic-users to many, and leads to the feeling that a casting class is often given very pushed mechanics and shiny toys to play with while the developers are more reluctant to give similarly powerful options to their nonmagical counterparts.

[Nicos]

Blackwaltzomega wrote:

I believe Lemmy was the one who pointed out that for the most part a fighter's progression is mostly getting greater numbers while the wizard's progression is primarily getting greater options. You can see this in a number of classes, but those two display the gap most clearly.

I would argue that that is not entirely accurate. Wizard numbers also grow immensely.

[bookrat]

Nicos wrote:

Blackwaltzomega wrote:

I believe Lemmy was the one who pointed out that for the most part a fighter's progression is mostly getting greater numbers while the wizard's progression is primarily getting greater options. You can see this in a number of classes, but those two display the gap most clearly.

I would argue that that is not entirely accurate. Wizard numbers also grow immensely.

Would it be more accurate to say that fighters have their numbers grow while wizards have their numbers grow AND gain more options as they level?

Thinking about this further, it seems to me as if wizards (and casters in general) are more powerful because they can change out their powerful options by the day. In this line, is a sorcerer more in line with a fighter because they can't quickly change out their high powered options? Once their spells are chosen, they're more or less fixed, like a fighters. Is the martial-caster disparity reduced with casters that have their options fixed once chosen?

[Kobold Catgirl]

The other view to the whole "four-encounter adventuring day" argument is this: By forcing the party to slow down so he can recover his spells, the mage is kinda gimping the whole party. In time-sensitive adventures (like breaking in and out of a facility, or making your way through a city overrun with monsters) the martials can occasionally find chances to shine even at higher levels. The mages will likely never run out of spells at those levels, but they'll eventually be forced to rely on weaker magic (early on if they're smart, later if they try to nova too soon) and end up relying on the fighter more. The same goes for situations where pulling all the way out to rest is impractical (see Tucker's Kobolds).

I'm not saying these situations are in the majority, or even common enough to necessarily validate the martials, but a good GM can try and stick at least one such encounter in each adventure. This would be my best idea on handling the disparity fairly at high levels.

[Nicos]

bookrat wrote:

Nicos wrote:

Blackwaltzomega wrote:

I believe Lemmy was the one who pointed out that for the most part a fighter's progression is mostly getting greater numbers while the wizard's progression is primarily getting greater options. You can see this in a number of classes, but those two display the gap most clearly.

I would argue that that is not entirely accurate. Wizard numbers also grow immensely.

Would it be more accurate to say that fighters have their numbers grow while wizards have their numbers grow AND gain more options as they level?

Thinking about this further, it seems to me as if wizards (and casters in general) are more powerful because they can change out their powerful options by the day. In this line, is a sorcerer more in line with a fighter because they can't quickly change out their high powered options? Once their spells are chosen, they're more or less fixed, like a fighters. Is the martial-caster disparity reduced with casters that have their options fixed once chosen?

There is a point where sorcerer have enough spells to cover most of things.

But, I do agree that caster should be way more restricted. Prohibited schools should be a thing. Conjuration should not give so many variate options and etc.

Also, high level skills and non magical options should be awesome, I'm not fan of cutting mountains into half or jumping so high your reach the moon, but high level skills and non magical options are way to mundane as they are.

[Charon's Little Helper]

Nicos wrote:

But, I do agree that caster should be way more restricted. Prohibited schools should be a thing. Conjuration should not give so many variate options and etc.

Yeah - I generally get rid of divination entirely in my home games. It destroys too many potential plots. (No murder mysteries etc.) Though I don't usually play high enough level for it to matter - it also gets rid of 'scry & fry' and opens up many more weaknesses for arcane casters.

[boring7]

bookrat wrote:

Nicos wrote:

Blackwaltzomega wrote:

I believe Lemmy was the one who pointed out that for the most part a fighter's progression is mostly getting greater numbers while the wizard's progression is primarily getting greater options. You can see this in a number of classes, but those two display the gap most clearly.

I would argue that that is not entirely accurate. Wizard numbers also grow immensely.

Would it be more accurate to say that fighters have their numbers grow while wizards have their numbers grow AND gain more options as they level?

Thinking about this further, it seems to me as if wizards (and casters in general) are more powerful because they can change out their powerful options by the day. In this line, is a sorcerer more in line with a fighter because they can't quickly change out their high powered options? Once their spells are chosen, they're more or less fixed, like a fighters. Is the martial-caster disparity reduced with casters that have their options fixed once chosen?

Did you ever play 4th edition? There was a game where you eventually realized all classes were balanced because they were all the same. It was fun not having any utility spells, lemme tell ya.

In my completely subjective experience the parties and classes already are balanced. My summons can't keep up with a good martial, said martial will be completely hosed without my casting support. We have (daily) real "gift of the magi" moments where I am jealous of the martial's kill count but he is jealous of my ability to just control the battlefield with conjured walls and buff spells. He's jealous I could cast fly on him, I'm jealous he had the combat ability to make USE of that flight as anything but a more obvious target for the dragon. Or rather we would have those moments if we bothered to talk about what we already know, that we all have our own parts to play.

But most of it is about railroads and spotlight time. And it turns out that has pretty much nothing to do with caster v. martial and everything to do with individual GMs and players.

[Blackwaltzomega]

The main problem I have with that thought is that the game provides ways to defeat encounters beyond simply having a member in the party that's really good at full attacks; summons aren't as good as fighters for meat shielding and damage output but they're also expendable and don't ask for a share of the loot afterwards, and if you really come down to it you can CdG enemies to death if you aren't killing them some other way. There's ways to get around not having a ton of damage output, but the reverse is not true for lacking utility. A party that doesn't have a front liner can still muddle through with good tactics and guile, but a party that doesn't have magical troubleshooting is going to have a really bad time in a lot of games because magic's one of the big ways of dealing with positioning issues. Polymorphing into something horrible or casting Transformation and just mauling the enemy yourself isn't ideal for a wizard, but it's an option, whereas the fighter's gonna be at this adventuring thing for a while before he picks up anything that lets him solve the problem of how to get airborne when the enemy does without a caster backing him up.

Additionally, since basically all healing that is in any way significant is done by magic, a party with no casters at all is going to hate life.

[Anzyr]

boring7 wrote:

bookrat wrote:

Nicos wrote:

Blackwaltzomega wrote:

I believe Lemmy was the one who pointed out that for the most part a fighter's progression is mostly getting greater numbers while the wizard's progression is primarily getting greater options. You can see this in a number of classes, but those two display the gap most clearly.

I would argue that that is not entirely accurate. Wizard numbers also grow immensely.

Would it be more accurate to say that fighters have their numbers grow while wizards have their numbers grow AND gain more options as they level?

Thinking about this further, it seems to me as if wizards (and casters in general) are more powerful because they can change out their powerful options by the day. In this line, is a sorcerer more in line with a fighter because they can't quickly change out their high powered options? Once their spells are chosen, they're more or less fixed, like a fighters. Is the martial-caster disparity reduced with casters that have their options fixed once chosen?

Did you ever play 4th edition? There was a game where you eventually realized all classes were balanced because they were all the same. It was fun not having any utility spells, lemme tell ya.

In my completely subjective experience the parties and classes already are balanced. My summons can't keep up with a good martial, said martial will be completely hosed without my casting support. We have (daily) real "gift of the magi" moments where I am jealous of the martial's kill count but he is jealous of my ability to just control the battlefield with conjured walls and buff spells. He's jealous I could cast fly on him, I'm jealous he had the combat ability to make USE of that flight as anything but a more obvious target for the dragon. Or rather we would have those moments if we bothered to talk about what we already know, that we all have our own parts to play.

But most of it is about railroads and spotlight time. And it turns out that has pretty...

Martials are unnecessary because all they can contribute broadly speaking is damage, which is something any class can do. The casters Summons don't need to deal more damage then a Fighter if instead of a Fighter, they have another caster, who has debuffed the enemy. Furthermore that second caster can contribute all kinds of utility that a martial class cannot. Caster + Caster is a much stronger combination then Caster + Martial. And lets not get started on casters that come with a companion of some sort.

[Charon's Little Helper]

Anzyr wrote:

Caster + Caster is a much stronger combination then Caster + Martial.

At higher levels - yes. Not so at lowish levels. (Where I tend to prefer to game anyway.)

It's not an MMO where balance only matters much at max level.

[graystone]

Charon's Little Helper wrote:

Anzyr wrote:

Caster + Caster is a much stronger combination then Caster + Martial.

At higher levels - yes. Not so at lowish levels. (Where I tend to prefer to game anyway.)

It's not an MMO where balance only matters much at max level.

Now make at least 1 of those casters a pet caster class. Caster + Caster + pet seem better even at low levels to Caster + Martial. (or caster + caster + pet + pet [+ summons...])

[LazarX]

Rynjin wrote:

This is true to an extent, but bad example. Flight is one of the staples for casters who don't want to die.

.

Depends on the situation. If the opposing party has ranged options, Flight is a very good way of providing them with a ready target.

[Orville Redenbacher]

I be munching all day long!

[Anzyr]

LazarX wrote:

Rynjin wrote:

This is true to an extent, but bad example. Flight is one of the staples for casters who don't want to die.

.

Depends on the situation. If the opposing party has ranged options, Flight is a very good way of providing them with a ready target.

Different from all the other ready targets how (aside from complete immunity to non-flying melee attacks)?

[Mark Hoover]

I like super heroes. I'm not ashamed of it. I also enjoy the occasional Anime-style piece in a variety of media.

Over the weekend my girls found RWBY on Netflix. We watched the first half of Vol 1 together and I freaking loved it! In the show there's a scene where a bunch of year 1 students are put on their first school challenge: stand on some catapults, get launched into the monster forest, and use what little training you already have to destroy everything you need to in order to find a relic in a temple at the far end.

Remember: the characters are year 1 now.

So they are shot into the forest and each character uses a combo of skills, powers, magic and unique weapons to survive their fall through the canopy. They then fight serious monsters, get their relics, and have an epic fight in order to get back out of the forest.

That's what I want my PF games to be. I want rogues to bounce from tree limb to tree limb; I want martials to be able to wield their weapons in order to slow themselves to a stop through the trees. Maybe this is Mythic but I want the non-caster types to have such amazing skills that they imitate the reality-shattering stuff that spells do.

And deep down I want everyone to do this without magic items. I don't want a PC to have to add a cloak of flying into their build in order to fly just so they can compete with the wizard casting the same spell. By the time the party sorcerer gets Fly I want the party fighter to be able to leap skyward 60' on a Mover and perhaps do a Full Round action to bounce wall to wall with several leaps moving 120'.

Spellcasters become superhuman at high levels. Why not non-casters too?

[Anzyr]

Mark Hoover wrote:

I like super heroes. I'm not ashamed of it. I also enjoy the occasional Anime-style piece in a variety of media.

Over the weekend my girls found RWBY on Netflix. We watched the first half of Vol 1 together and I freaking loved it! In the show there's a scene where a bunch of year 1 students are put on their first school challenge: stand on some catapults, get launched into the monster forest, and use what little training you already have to destroy everything you need to in order to find a relic in a temple at the far end.

Remember: the characters are year 1 now.

So they are shot into the forest and each character uses a combo of skills, powers, magic and unique weapons to survive their fall through the canopy. They then fight serious monsters, get their relics, and have an epic fight in order to get back out of the forest.

That's what I want my PF games to be. I want rogues to bounce from tree limb to tree limb; I want martials to be able to wield their weapons in order to slow themselves to a stop through the trees. Maybe this is Mythic but I want the non-caster types to have such amazing skills that they imitate the reality-shattering stuff that spells do.

And deep down I want everyone to do this without magic items. I don't want a PC to have to add a cloak of flying into their build in order to fly just so they can compete with the wizard casting the same spell. By the time the party sorcerer gets Fly I want the party fighter to be able to leap skyward 60' on a Mover and perhaps do a Full Round action to bounce wall to wall with several leaps moving 120'.

Spellcasters become superhuman at high levels. Why not non-casters too?

Deeply concur. Though in fairness, the RWBY squad have some impressive magic weapons.

[JonGarrett]

I actually really like spellcasters. My main issue is the difference in how martial vs spellcaster seems to be handled by Paizo. At the same time we're told Crane Wing is too strong we're given a feat like Sacred Geometry for spellcasters. Which if I remember right was shown, at higher levels, to be impossible to be unsolvable, essentially giving casters two free metamagic feats that don't add to spell level for one feat.

I could accept that casters were stronger if it felt like Paizo was trying to correct the issue...but they seem intent on making sure martials never have nice things.

[Charon's Little Helper]

graystone wrote:

Charon's Little Helper wrote:

Anzyr wrote:

Caster + Caster is a much stronger combination then Caster + Martial.

At higher levels - yes. Not so at lowish levels. (Where I tend to prefer to game anyway.)

It's not an MMO where balance only matters much at max level.

Now make at least 1 of those casters a pet caster class. Caster + Caster + pet seem better even at low levels to Caster + Martial. (or caster + caster + pet + pet [+ summons...])

At that point then you have to compare the last to a caster with a pet along with a martial with a pet to it. (Cavalier charge anyone?)

Again - I'm in no way arguing that casters aren't more powerful at high levels. They are. But at low levels they aren't, and the most powerful group is a combination thereof.

[Orfamay Quest]

Charon's Little Helper wrote:

Now make at least 1 of those casters a pet caster class. Caster + Caster + pet seem better even at low levels to Caster + Martial. (or caster + caster + pet + pet [+ summons...])

At that point then you have to compare the last to a caster with a pet along with a martial with a pet to it.

All right, do so. There's not much that a cavalier's mount seems to add to the encounter that a barbarian can't already do. (Fast movement, plus additional damage. Yup, the barb's got both of those covered.)

The point of caster+caster+pet is that you've got a meatshield (in the form of a pet), plus the tactical flexibility of not just one but two casters. With caster+martial(+pet), you've got a caster and a meatshield, especially since a barbarian is often as good or better a meatshield than a cavalier or ranger and his pet.

[Blackwaltzomega]

LazarX wrote:

Rynjin wrote:

This is true to an extent, but bad example. Flight is one of the staples for casters who don't want to die.

.

Depends on the situation. If the opposing party has ranged options, Flight is a very good way of providing them with a ready target.

To be fair, those ranged options will be equally effective against people who are standing on the ground, so the main consideration is that flight is often slightly to significantly faster than walking for closing the distance.

Flight is also one of the great deal-breakers in the bestiary. Golems, the exclusively ground-based melee attacking dinosaurs...there are some very scary monsters that turn into jokes when you have the power to get airborne, while generally the things that were dangerous when you're in the sky are equally if not more dangerous when you're stuck on the ground.

[Charon's Little Helper]

Blackwaltzomega wrote:

LazarX wrote:

Rynjin wrote:

This is true to an extent, but bad example. Flight is one of the staples for casters who don't want to die.

.

Depends on the situation. If the opposing party has ranged options, Flight is a very good way of providing them with a ready target.

To be fair, those ranged options will be equally effective against people who are standing on the ground, so the main consideration is that flight is often slightly to significantly faster than walking for closing the distance.

Well - except that cover is a bit harder to come by 50ft up in the air. :P

[graystone]

Charon's Little Helper wrote:

graystone wrote:

Charon's Little Helper wrote:

Anzyr wrote:

Caster + Caster is a much stronger combination then Caster + Martial.

At higher levels - yes. Not so at lowish levels. (Where I tend to prefer to game anyway.)

It's not an MMO where balance only matters much at max level.

Now make at least 1 of those casters a pet caster class. Caster + Caster + pet seem better even at low levels to Caster + Martial. (or caster + caster + pet + pet [+ summons...])

At that point then you have to compare the last to a caster with a pet along with a martial with a pet to it. (Cavalier charge anyone?)

Again - I'm in no way arguing that casters aren't more powerful at high levels. They are. But at low levels they aren't, and the most powerful group is a combination thereof.

Even going pet class vs pet class, the gap is smaller at lower levels than the straight comparison of caster+caster vs caster+martial. I've seen plenty of games with all casters of some sort. When was the last time you saw a game of pure martials? Heck I've seen all caster pet classes! Oracle, druid, summoner, hunter with 4 pets and not a martial in sight... ;)

[Blackwaltzomega]

Charon's Little Helper wrote:

Blackwaltzomega wrote:

LazarX wrote:

Rynjin wrote:

This is true to an extent, but bad example. Flight is one of the staples for casters who don't want to die.

.

Depends on the situation. If the opposing party has ranged options, Flight is a very good way of providing them with a ready target.

To be fair, those ranged options will be equally effective against people who are standing on the ground, so the main consideration is that flight is often slightly to significantly faster than walking for closing the distance.

Well - except that cover is a bit harder to come by 50ft up in the air. :P

If you can get 50 feet in the air on your own power, odds are pretty good you're bringing your own cover.

[Charon's Little Helper]

graystone wrote:

Even going pet class vs pet class, the gap is smaller at lower levels than the straight comparison of caster+caster vs caster+martial. I've seen plenty of games with all casters of some sort. When was the last time you saw a game of pure martials? Heck I've seen all caster pet classes! Oracle, druid, summoner, hunter with 4 pets and not a martial in sight... ;)

I'm not saying it's not viable. But the group would be more powerful at low levels with a samurai mixed in instead of one of the casters.

(But frankly - when you bring pet classes into it - you might as well bring up the Leadership/Squire feats.)

[Blackwaltzomega]

To be fair, with Leadership you're talking about a feat most GMs don't allow. Classes with a pet are just using one of their class features unless you blanket-ban the Animal Companion option for Druids, Paladins, and Rangers, outright ban the Sylvan Bloodline, Hunter, Sacred Huntsmaster Inquisitor, and a variety of other archetypes and the Animal domain.

[Charon's Little Helper]

Blackwaltzomega wrote:

To be fair, with Leadership you're talking about a feat most GMs don't allow. Classes with a pet are just using one of their class features unless you blanket-ban the Animal Companion option for Druids, Paladins, and Rangers, outright ban the Sylvan Bloodline, Hunter, Sacred Huntsmaster Inquisitor, and a variety of other archetypes and the Animal domain.

And Leadership/Squire are just feats. *shrug*