There Is No Imbalance Between Martials and Casters.


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

101 to 150 of 235 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

Nicos wrote:
HWalsh wrote:


No, those who say Martials are underpowered are also saying that 4e was wonderful.

I miss the reunion when everyone that believe that there exist martial/caster disparity in PF agreed to say 4e was wonderful.

There wasn't one. While I'm sure some attended such a meeting, one would run out of fingers [and likely toes] trying to count the number of non-4E-fans on these boards who see the Martial/Caster Disparity and attempt to fix it somehow.

Some take very very modest houserules, some go rather far [ala Kirthfinder] and at least one goes far enough to change the game nearly to unrecognizable [but still compatible with the bestiaries] and that one is me.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:

This just has to be said.

I've been reading threads like, "Martials can't have nice things." and "How can martials have nice things?" and "Martials are getting their roles stolen by casters!"

I needed to make a separate thread to address this...

And note, I am not trying to be rude here, but this is one of those topics that makes my blood start to boil.

"The problem is in your mind."

Since D&D (original D&D) Casters and Martials have always had an interesting relationship. Casters are always squishy and easily killed for the first 3-4 levels then, around level 4-5 they come on par with the Martials. Then around level 9-10 they pull ahead of the Martials in raw power level.

This could be mitigated by the Martials going out and seeking out magical swords, mystical do-dads, and weapon artifacts that the Casters couldn't really use. It was something they had to do to keep up whereas the Spellcasters really didn't.

It was that way in 2nd edition, it was that way in all editions, though a lot of the disparities went away and have slowly eroded since 3rd, 3.5, and Pathfinder.

Unfortunately one thing has poisoned the current generation...

World of Warcraft.

Oh how I hate Blizzard Entertainment.

WoW had a design philosophy that all classes needed to be balanced 1:1 at maximum level because it was all about the PVP and they wanted to turn it into some kind of strange competitive e-sport. Somehow this bled into the true RPGs.

Thus we have, basically, a new field where people feel that all classes need to be equal.

Do they need to be equal though?

The answer is...

Well no.

Non-competitive games don't need to be 1:1 balanced. Role-playing games especially. They are simply role-playing games. You play what you want, you shouldn't be all that concerned with power level to be honest. More specifically you shouldn't be concerned that the class you chose to play is 1:1 balanced with another class.

I always look at it using what I call, "The Jedi-Killer fallacy."...

Recycled bad argument flame baiting ULTRA COMBOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Seriously why is this thread still going? It's like he did a search, found every terrible argument and fallacy he could find, tossed in a pinch of "MMOs are ruining D&D =(" and a dash of "4e sucked balance = suck because 4e" and then threw it on a low flame to simmer in the hopes all of you guys would touch it and get burnt.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

This actually makes me curious. How many Beads of Karma can a wizard reasonably buy (after scrolls, copying spells, and such) with all the money he saves from not having to upgrade weapons or melee stuff?

Assuming, at least, that the wizard still buys armor and is using an (Adamantine) Haramaki with an Armored Kilt.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:

Recycled bad argument flame baiting ULTRA COMBOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Seriously why is this thread still going? It's like he did a search, found every terrible argument and fallacy he could find, tossed in a pinch of "MMOs are ruining D&D =(" and a dash of "4e sucked balance = suck because 4e"and then threw it on a low flame to simmer in the hopes all of you guys would touch it and get burnt.

Have to agree, obvious troll is obvious. Pity the mods never clamp down on flame-bait trolls if said trolls are part of the Paizo Defense Force arguing for Holy Pathfinder's divine perfection, as handed down by the unerring God-Devs.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It really does boil down to the DM.... Ive been on some great adventures with some common sense DMing and the casters (esp the arcanes) got hammered by martials and sneakies:

1) Sneak attacks from the rear

2) Plentiful use of archers

3) Appropriately buffed enemy fighters

4) BBEG's that recced the party and so knew what they were up against before they met

5) Encounters that werent just... bad guys at one end of room and good guys at the other... 1,2,3... GO!

6) Interrupted rest sessions

If the DM just lets the casters stand at the back and cast(as happens 80% of the time) then yes there is a huge imbalance....


kyrt-ryder wrote:

Thank you for making your own thread about this topic.

Now can you please stay out of the threads that are about it from the other end of the spectrum?

EDIT for clarity: it's not that I have anything against you HWalsh, it just gets old hearing how the problems some of us are dealing with don't exist if you squeeze the game 'just right' when that's not how we want to run our campaigns and compel our players.

Now you have a thread to express your thoughts on how everything is fine and how 'WoW ruined the newer generation of gamers' [I feel I should note that I've never played an MMO despite being part of this younger generation you appear to look down on- at 26.]

Though to be fair, this thread doesn't help of from having to see the repeated discussion that is best fixed by giving martials more mobility , more skills, better saves, and more flexibility. Nothing needs to be destroyed about the flexibility of casters; but fighters could use some nicer toys.

But in the end I do think we're all tired of thread after thread on the same topics.


HWalsh wrote:
Seranov wrote:

When Spheres of Power gets on the PFSRD (sans the art!) it will be a beautiful day.

Anyway, what's this cluster**** about? Right, grognardism and "if it didn't happen to me it didn't happen" fallacy. Wizard can do everything, Fighter can only hit things. Wizard is a PC class, Fighter is a NPC class that isn't properly noted as such.

Also, if the Wizard gets his flying for free, so should the Fighter. Because they both have the same pool of funds to use, and the Fighter is required to spend all his on not being a useless waste of space, while the Wizard can spend his on whatever he wants.

Wizard doesn't get squat for free.

They pay for it with lack of armor, arcane spell failure, poor BAB, and by extension poor CMB/CMD, lower HP, and a baked in expensive resource system.

Bracers of Armor

Armored kilt
Mithril
Rings of Protection
Amulet of Natural Armor
Spells
High dex (since they are much more SAD)

Yeah... not much a issue. BAB isnt a "vost" eince they are not walking up and hitting things anyway. Sure they got lower HP but they have baked in ways to cheat death (clones anyone?)


Silver Surfer wrote:


If the DM just lets the casters stand at the back and cast(as happens 80% of the time) then yes there is a huge imbalance....

That is more or less my main argument regarding these things.

If the casters are always allowed to rest.
... And never run into people who can shut them down.
... And always leave long before they are nearly depleted.
... And control the pace of the adventure by blowing spells in every fight.

Of course you are going to have problems.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
HWalsh wrote:
Of course you are going to have problems.

The disconnect is that Pathfinder makes it harder and harder to avoid such things as you level up. I've never seen a 6th+ level caster run out of spells, even in extra hard fights.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
HWalsh wrote:
If the casters are always allowed to rest.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/r/rope-trick

HWalsh wrote:
... And ever run into people who can shut them down.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/wizard/arcane-schools/pai zo---arcane-schools/classic-arcane-schools/conjuration/teleportation

HWalsh wrote:
... And always leave long before they are nearly depleted.

Around level 7 or so, you tend to need more combat than the rest of the party can handle before you deplete the wizard. The fighter runs out of hit points too, after all.

HWalsh wrote:
... And control the pace of the adventure by blowing spells in every fight.

You need approximately two spells to control the pace of a single battle.

You also need approximately the same number of spells to bypass fights entirely, unless if you pull a fiat.


I find the argument of:

"The problem is the game. If it doesn't work the way I run it, because I have a style that I like, then the game is broken."

To be very... Illogical.

How you run a game has vast differences on balance and nothing, at all, in the rules, can change that.

If you run a game where a PC can go to, "Ye Olde Magic Shoppe" and get any magical item in the book made to order then that is going to skew the balance.

If you run a game where enemies are never proactive against the players and are, instead, always reactive against them then that is going to skew the balance.

If you run a game session that entails maybe 1 encounter a day, then, again, that is going to skew the balance.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
Of course you are going to have problems.
The disconnect is that Pathfinder makes it harder and harder to avoid such things as you level up. I've never seen a 6th+ level caster run out of spells, even in extra hard fights.

How about after 7 hard fights, spaced about 30 minutes apart each, over the course of 1 day on dungeon trek. Because I've seen it. Many times at this point.


HWalsh wrote:
Silver Surfer wrote:


If the DM just lets the casters stand at the back and cast(as happens 80% of the time) then yes there is a huge imbalance....

That is more or less my main argument regarding these things.

If the casters are always allowed to rest.
... And never run into people who can shut them down.
... And always leave long before they are nearly depleted.
... And control the pace of the adventure by blowing spells in every fight.

Of course you are going to have problems.

Rope trick

Mages Private Sanctum
Mages Magnificent Mansion
And Double time planes really make that hard.

Also people pick up quick if your intentionally raroading them With times. For instance. Lets say you have a few weeks to prepare amd have to do some quests that requires a few ddays traveling here and there, and they just made the time with teleports, they will know u railroaded them. After all, if telwports didnt give them DAYS of a lead, yhen parties with no teleports cant do it at all.


It would be interesting if Wizards had linear spellcasting scaling. Instead of getting more and more spell slots and higher levels, what if Wizards simply got more spell levels? So at 1st level, you probably have 2 spell levels (max spell level 1), at 2nd you have 4 spell levels (max spell level 1), at 3rd you have 6 spell levels (max spell level 2), etc. etc. At 18th level, you could cast 2 9th level spells a day (18 spell levels), or an assortment of lower-level spells- up to 18 1st level spells or something.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
I'm pretty happy to live in a world where up to 105 damage per round would be seen as, "Not bad." Where 250 damage a round is seen as a bit of overkill. Considering nothing of equal level should be able to survive a hit like that.
And you completely missed the point... Those who say martials are underpowered are not complaining about martial classes' damage output.

No, those who say Martials are underpowered are also saying that 4e was wonderful. 4e was so bad and universally panned that it nearly killed D&D.

I've seen the posts. The idea is that these same players think "Martials" shouldn't have to spend gold on magic items and instead should have high end magic items be baked into the class features.

They complain that a wizard could fly up a wall, and they cry foul if someone points out that magic boots would allow a martial the same ability.

A major part of this is that everyone gets magic items, from an equal-sized pool of wealth. Magic boots can let martials fly, yes! A caster could fly by casting a spell that costs him absolutely nothing, and he can do that about as many times per day as the martial is going to fly.

Then you get into crafting, and oh boy here is where I have the major problem. You see, the magical haves and the magical have-nots have the same amount of money to spend on gear.

A caster can take a crafting feat and decrease the price of THEIR magical items by half. So now not only is the non-caster buying magical items to make up for abilities casters get innately through their spells, they are spending TWICE AS MUCH GOLD TO DO SO ON MANY OF THEM.

Add in that 1.) Many casters don't spend nearly as much on armor as martials must to stay good at their job, and 2.) Very few casters need expensive magic weapons to be good at their job while a martial that is not spending a ton of money on his weapon, and his backup weapon, and his special contingency weapon is going to hate life, and WBL is very strongly stacked against the guys who need to blow several feats to still be worse at making magic weapons than magical people.

The fighter lives and dies by how good his weapons are, but Weapon Training is nothing but flat numbers that still decrease in effectiveness against Damage Reduction and other non-AC forms of defense. You know who gets an almighty legendary sword for free that enchants itself and can be further bolstered by its wielder's innate power? The frigging Magus, that's who. (And the Arcanist, because the Arcanist gets everything.) Not the guy who is built around being an amazing sword fighter, the guy who is built around using swords and spells.

The Barbarian is supposed to be the best at doing damage, but he needs the Beast Totem to claim that title effectively if his target isn't standing right next to him, when he can finally pounce at level 10. The Druid, meanwhile, can turn into a monster with pounce at level frigging six, and will often have more attacks, without the iterative attack penalties, and with combat maneuver riders on top of it as well as abilities like Rake to deal still more damage. It's not hard for a Druid to gain innate melee abilities that melee warriors have to jump through hoops and buy a number of special magic items to imitate.

As I've pointed out in other threads, "cast a spell to turn into something that makes the claims about my poor AC, BAB, and melee abilities seem like a joke" is an entire family of spells. Polymorphing into something that will do a fighter's job or summoning something to handle the hitting-things segment is two entire sub schools of magic with a LOT of efficient spells many casters have easy access to.

Feats that let the party move in unconventional ways, travel very long distances quickly, detect invisible adversaries, and so on? Yeah, those don't exist. So a party of casters can handle not having melee tanks around, because if they have something like a Saurian Shaman druid, I get the feeling they're never going to run into a fistfight a battalion of dinosaurs won't win handily. A party full of nonmagical characters is SOL if they need to teleport or plane shift, or their attackers all have greater invisibility up and are using hit and run tactics, or they get tagged with one of the higher level conditions that never wears off unless you cast Heal or a related spell on it.

And this is where the disparity comes in for me. "I like you, but don't need you, while you're dead in the water without me." Magic must defeat magic, but magic works just fine for defeating non magic too, while the game is very heavily biased against nonmagical characters having a fighting chance against strong mages unless the mages are either stupid or caught completely unprepared, which is not usually what you're going to be expecting when you face off with the centuries-old lich king or the cabal of illuminati-wizards running the kingdom from behind the scenes.

Then there's simply what classes are expected to be capable of at various levels that enforces a disparity in what the classes do; warriors fight, magic solves problems (and combat is a problem spells solve, again meaning the caster can do the warrior's job but not the other way around).

"At last, level 10! I can full attack after a charge!" The Barbarian says.

"At last, level 10! Now I can solve any of the group's travel needs with my Teleport spell!" The Wizard comments!

"At last, level 10! Now I can ask ten relevant questions of the gods themselves to get information about our quest!" The Cleric chimes in!

"At last, level 10! Now I can turn into something INCREDIBLY terrifying four times a day for ten hours each and have no reasonable worries I will ever run out of wild shape ever again no matter how many encounters we have! I can also resurrect my animal companion easily now, and control local wind and weather!" The druid crows!

Do you see where I'm seeing a disconnect, here?

They're doing different things is no excuse for the double standard in place. Because it's still really easy for a party of high-magic characters to kill things and still have enough resources to make it through long days, but it's exceedingly difficult for an extremely low-magic party to solve the same problems.

A collapsing dungeon after the boss fight can very easily be a TPK for a nonmagical party. A high-magic party just teleports out.

The boss's lair being a thousand miles away is an almost insurmountable problem for a bunch of fighters, rogues, and gunslingers. It's barely even an inconvenience for a high-magic party.

A murder-mystery, and an enemy you know nothing about! This will truly take all of the rogue's cunning and information networks to even get a sniff of the culpri–or you could just cast Speak With Dead and get some clues that way, that works, too, I guess.

I find a huge disparity in the game every time I play, does that mean my experience invalidates yours? Plots have to be magic-proofed, but it usually doesn't matter nearly as much what the guys who don't have spells can do. A character that's good at a number of skills is a joy to GM for, because you can give them all kinds of skill challenges. A character that's really good at damage just requires you to think about how you make encounters so things still feel scary.

With magic, you have to take into consideration how you're not letting spells bypass the plot you have in mind THIS time, how to force enough encounters that the treadmill eventually runs resources down without turning the game into a miserable slog the players stop having fun with, and so on. There is a HUGE double-standard between what you're dealing with when magic comes up and when you're dealing with nonmagical abilities, and how those things scale.

I don't want martials and magic characters to play the same. I DO want martials and magic-users to have a similar amount of utility in different spheres, which includes not having spells allowing characters with magic to elbow their mundane colleagues out of the way and do things they're supposed to be doing.

The game should not have one class that handily outclasses another for the low, low price of being able to effectively manage resources, particularly when this can encourage people to stack up on such classes so they have an absolutely massive pool of resources to work with. Again, how much do you REALLY need a fighter to go all day when the Druid turns into an allosaurus for ten hours a pop and shreds everything to pieces without even DIPPING INTO his spells?


Druid can full attack on a charge, too. Barbarians get Pounce, Druid can get Pounce. Without spending feats or rage powers, no less.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:

I find the argument of:

"The problem is the game. If it doesn't work the way I run it, because I have a style that I like, then the game is broken."

To be very... Illogical.

How you run a game has vast differences on balance and nothing, at all, in the rules, can change that.

If you run a game where a PC can go to, "Ye Olde Magic Shoppe" and get any magical item in the book made to order then that is going to skew the balance.

If you run a game where enemies are never proactive against the players and are, instead, always reactive against them then that is going to skew the balance.

If you run a game session that entails maybe 1 encounter a day, then, again, that is going to skew the balance.

Guess who gets hit worse with no magic shops....

Martials are HORRIDLY gear dependent because without their gear they will have a hard time hitting anything and will be torn to shreds with poor AC. Oh and was not your argument earlier that martials have no Problem becaus they can get thingas like boots of flying or stuff...

You really don't know what you are talking about and now contradicting yourself...


My Self wrote:
It would be interesting if Wizards had linear spellcasting scaling. Instead of getting more and more spell slots and higher levels, what if Wizards simply got more spell levels? So at 1st level, you probably have 2 spell levels (max spell level 1), at 2nd you have 4 spell levels (max spell level 1), at 3rd you have 6 spell levels (max spell level 2), etc. etc. At 18th level, you could cast 2 9th level spells a day (18 spell levels), or an assortment of lower-level spells- up to 18 1st level spells or something.

The closest to linear progression is Psionics. In order for their "fireball" to do more damage, they need to burn more points, unlike mages who auto scale


PIXIE DUST wrote:
My Self wrote:
It would be interesting if Wizards had linear spellcasting scaling. Instead of getting more and more spell slots and higher levels, what if Wizards simply got more spell levels? So at 1st level, you probably have 2 spell levels (max spell level 1), at 2nd you have 4 spell levels (max spell level 1), at 3rd you have 6 spell levels (max spell level 2), etc. etc. At 18th level, you could cast 2 9th level spells a day (18 spell levels), or an assortment of lower-level spells- up to 18 1st level spells or something.
The closest to linear progression is Psionics. In order for their "fireball" to do more damage, they need to burn more points, unlike mages who auto scale

Sounds cool- I'll look into it. I kinda want there to be wizards who have to choose between pointing and going "BANG!" and ending combat in a round, and wizards who want to remain consistently useful all adventuring day long.


Felyndiira wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
If the casters are always allowed to rest.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/r/rope-trick

http://www.d20pfs rd.com/magic/all-spells/d/dispel-magic

HWalsh wrote:
... And ever run into people who can shut them down.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/wizard/arcane-schools/pai zo---arcane-schools/classic-arcane-schools/conjuration/teleportation

http:// www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/t/teleport-trap

HWalsh wrote:
... And always leave long before they are nearly depleted.
Around level 7 or so, you tend to need more combat than the rest of the party can handle before you deplete the wizard. The fighter runs out of hit points too, after all.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/rings/ring-of-regeneration

HWalsh wrote:
... And control the pace of the adventure by blowing spells in every fight.
You need approximately two spells to control the pace of a single battle.

Pace of the adventure, not of an individual battle... Even then... http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic#TOC-Counterspells

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:

I find the argument of:

"The problem is the game. If it doesn't work the way I run it, because I have a style that I like, then the game is broken."

To be very... Illogical.

Then why do you posit that the game is not broken based on your own style of running it?

Dark Archive

PIXIE DUST wrote:
My Self wrote:
It would be interesting if Wizards had linear spellcasting scaling. Instead of getting more and more spell slots and higher levels, what if Wizards simply got more spell levels? So at 1st level, you probably have 2 spell levels (max spell level 1), at 2nd you have 4 spell levels (max spell level 1), at 3rd you have 6 spell levels (max spell level 2), etc. etc. At 18th level, you could cast 2 9th level spells a day (18 spell levels), or an assortment of lower-level spells- up to 18 1st level spells or something.
The closest to linear progression is Psionics. In order for their "fireball" to do more damage, they need to burn more points, unlike mages who auto scale

SoP is sort of like that, but their spells do scale with level. The Spheres Caster needs to burn spell points to make his spells on-par with stuff a Wizard could do (but he's vastly more limited in the scope of his abilities). His innate scaling on at-will abilities is hardly impressive though (Destruction's Destructive Blast does a whopping 3d6 bludgeoning damage at level 5 without further investment. Terrifying!).


TOZ wrote:
HWalsh wrote:

I find the argument of:

"The problem is the game. If it doesn't work the way I run it, because I have a style that I like, then the game is broken."

To be very... Illogical.

Then why do you posit that the game is not broken based on your own style of running it?

Because the way I run it creates scenarios that mimic the way adventures are presented in the source material.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
TOZ wrote:
HWalsh wrote:

I find the argument of:

"The problem is the game. If it doesn't work the way I run it, because I have a style that I like, then the game is broken."

To be very... Illogical.

Then why do you posit that the game is not broken based on your own style of running it?
Because the way I run it creates scenarios that mimic the way adventures are presented in the source material.

It's not broken because you can fix it then?


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
HWalsh wrote:
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/d/dispel-magic

You've now proven that you need spellcasting in order to mitigate just one thing that a wizard can do. What does that tell you about the parity between spellcasters and martials?

HWalsh wrote:
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/t/teleport-trap

And a seventh-level spell (min level 13) to shut down a class ability that becomes useful as early as level 5.

HWalsh wrote:
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/rings/ring-of-regeneration

...you just linked a 90k item. Surely you mean a pair of Boots of Earth, since a fighter is not affording that until some really high levels, unless if you are specifically pampering them.

HWalsh wrote:
Pace of the adventure, not of an individual battle... Even then... http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic#TOC-Counterspells

Why would you link Counterspells as a counter against Wizard bypassing battles? The entire point of bypassing battles is to not encounter the enemy in the first place.

Counterspell is a really poor counter for any wizard. Aside from the fact that you have to optimize to get it to work, you've now spend an entire spellcaster's action just on maybe disabling the party wizard's spell. In that span of time your spellcaster could have solid fog's the fighter or something more useful.

Again, all you've shown is that you need spellcasting to counter what wizards do. What does that tell you about this debate you've started about casters vs. martials?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Is "magic is ok the way it is because magic can stop magic" a serious argument? Is your heart even in this one anymore?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
Felyndiira wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
If the casters are always allowed to rest.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/r/rope-trick
http://www.d20pfs rd.com/magic/all-spells/d/dispel-magic

"Creatures in the extra-dimensional space are hidden, beyond the reach of spells (including divinations), unless those spells work across planes."

And "caster beats caster".

HWalsh wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
... And ever run into people who can shut them down.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/wizard/arcane-schools/pai zo---arcane-schools/classic-arcane-schools/conjuration/teleportation
http:// www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/t/teleport-trap

Awful high level spell to be putting in every location on the entire planet.

And "caster beats caster".

HWalsh wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
... And always leave long before they are nearly depleted.
Around level 7 or so, you tend to need more combat than the rest of the party can handle before you deplete the wizard. The fighter runs out of hit points too, after all.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/rings/ring-of-regeneration

Neat, at level 14 you can keep going ahead alone, unbuffed.

Fun fact, it doesn't give you actual regeneration. The enemies will kill you just as dead.

HWalsh wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
... And control the pace of the adventure by blowing spells in every fight.
You need approximately two spells to control the pace of a single battle.
Pace of the adventure, not of an individual battle... Even then... http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic#TOC-Counterspells

So your enemy casters are wasting actions to counterspell instead of doing something significant? Sweet! That means this encounter is that much easier.

All my caster has to do is use one of his Su or SLA abilities for the purpose of this fight and sit back and watch everyone else roll over the encounter.

And, again "caster beats caster". You realize you are literally trying to prove the point "Casters aren't powerful" with evidence that Casters are powerful, right? They require you to specifically use abilities ONLY OTHER CASTERS HAVE to even attempt to HINDER them (not shut them down).

You should really try to understand anything beyond the basics of this game before trying to claim everyone else is doing it wrong.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Bahahahahahahaha!!!!

Oh wait, OP is serious.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA*wheeze*hahahahaha*coughcough*hahahahaohgodIca't breathehahahahahehehe....

Oh man, that was awesome. I can't wait for the next one.


Oh but he has been playomg sonce AD&D!!! He obviously knowns what he is talking about more than some poor 3.5 kid.
/Sarcasm


PIXIE DUST wrote:

Oh but he has been playomg sonce AD&D!!! He obviously knowns what he is talking about more than some poor WOW kid.

/Sarcasm

Sorry but I had to correct you.


PIXIE DUST wrote:

Oh but he has been playomg sonce AD&D!!! He obviously knowns what he is talking about more than some poor 3.5 kid.

/Sarcasm

The funny part is, he KNOWS that doesn't mean s~~%.

HWalsh wrote:

Thank you for that.

Pathfinder is actually my newest game...

I resisted a long time. Started playing when I was 8, with D&D back in 1988, so I really resisted Pathfinder out of completely pointless disliking to change. Thus I am getting into it now and learning how it functions.

He fully admitted 11 days ago he doesn't know how the game functions.


mplindustries wrote:
oh, right,magic is fair because magic can beat magic...is this a serious argument?

No. I'm pointing out that there are ways to deal with all of those problems and if the GM uses them, where appropriate, then the behavior of spellcasters change.

I guest-GM'ed a session once where I pulled out Teleport Trap.

The PC's were down to about 1/3 of their spells and the Wizard went, "I teleport!"

I called for Will saves.

The Wizard suddenly found himself trapped in a very small, airless, stone box next to a corpse. He would have died, right then and there, were it not for the Fighter and the Paladin (who both made their saves) who heard him banging on a wall from the inside.

The Wizard really didn't know what to do. He wasn't used to having to camp inside a dungeon. The next day his spell list was considerably different and he was casting spells with less dramatic effects, but with far longer duration. Usually buffing up the Pally and Fighter.


Rynjin wrote:
PIXIE DUST wrote:

Oh but he has been playomg sonce AD&D!!! He obviously knowns what he is talking about more than some poor 3.5 kid.

/Sarcasm

The funny part is, he KNOWS that doesn't mean s@%~.

HWalsh wrote:

Thank you for that.

Pathfinder is actually my newest game...

I resisted a long time. Started playing when I was 8, with D&D back in 1988, so I really resisted Pathfinder out of completely pointless disliking to change. Thus I am getting into it now and learning how it functions.

He fully admitted 11 days ago he doesn't know how the game functions.

Being my least familiar game doesn't mean I don't know how it functions. Rynjin. Pathfinder is similar enough in concept to 3/3.5 that the core ideas are more or less the exact same. The same things that worked in those to reign in problems work in Pathfinder.

The fact is, you can CLAIM that AD&D experience doesn't mean jack... But it still means that I have been playing and running these games longer than some players have been alive. It means that I am *really* good at spotting flaws in systems. I am *really* good at locating areas of imbalance. I am *really* good at plugging holes.


Well my comment is more a snide snipe at all fo those people who are always like "well ive been playing for 30 years, all the way back to AD&D" like it means something. Hell, more often than not i.found those people are WORSE at how the system operates because 3.5/PF are NOTHING like AD&D.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
mplindustries wrote:
oh, right,magic is fair because magic can beat magic...is this a serious argument?

No. I'm pointing out that there are ways to deal with all of those problems and if the GM uses them, where appropriate, then the behavior of spellcasters change.

I guest-GM'ed a session once where I pulled out Teleport Trap.

The PC's were down to about 1/3 of their spells and the Wizard went, "I teleport!"

I called for Will saves.

The Wizard suddenly found himself trapped in a very small, airless, stone box next to a corpse. He would have died, right then and there, were it not for the Fighter and the Paladin (who both made their saves) who heard him banging on a wall from the inside.

The Wizard really didn't know what to do. He wasn't used to having to camp inside a dungeon. The next day his spell list was considerably different and he was casting spells with less dramatic effects, but with far longer duration. Usually buffing up the Pally and Fighter.

So he couldn't Disintegrate the box, Summon a monster to pop him out of the box, cast Air Bubble to buy him some time, or...?

Not to mention that he had a better chance of saving than the Fighter in the first place.

HWalsh wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
PIXIE DUST wrote:

Oh but he has been playomg sonce AD&D!!! He obviously knowns what he is talking about more than some poor 3.5 kid.

/Sarcasm

The funny part is, he KNOWS that doesn't mean s@%~.

HWalsh wrote:

Thank you for that.

Pathfinder is actually my newest game...

I resisted a long time. Started playing when I was 8, with D&D back in 1988, so I really resisted Pathfinder out of completely pointless disliking to change. Thus I am getting into it now and learning how it functions.

He fully admitted 11 days ago he doesn't know how the game functions.
Being my least familiar game doesn't mean I don't know how it functions. Rynjin. Pathfinder is similar enough in concept to 3/3.5 that the core ideas are more or less the exact same. The same things that worked in those to reign in problems work in Pathfinder.

You are correct. It being your newest doesn't mean you don't know how the game functions (besides the fact that you just said, right there, you're just now learning how it functions...).

It's simply that you not knowing how the game functions means you don't know how it functions.


HWalsh wrote:
mplindustries wrote:
oh, right,magic is fair because magic can beat magic...is this a serious argument?

No. I'm pointing out that there are ways to deal with all of those problems and if the GM uses them, where appropriate, then the behavior of spellcasters change.

I guest-GM'ed a session once where I pulled out Teleport Trap.

The PC's were down to about 1/3 of their spells and the Wizard went, "I teleport!"

I called for Will saves.

The Wizard suddenly found himself trapped in a very small, airless, stone box next to a corpse. He would have died, right then and there, were it not for the Fighter and the Paladin (who both made their saves) who heard him banging on a wall from the inside.

The Wizard really didn't know what to do. He wasn't used to having to camp inside a dungeon. The next day his spell list was considerably different and he was casting spells with less dramatic effects, but with far longer duration. Usually buffing up the Pally and Fighter.

So the fighter rolled a 20 and the wizard a 1?


HWalsh wrote:
mplindustries wrote:
oh, right,magic is fair because magic can beat magic...is this a serious argument?

No. I'm pointing out that there are ways to deal with all of those problems and if the GM uses them, where appropriate, then the behavior of spellcasters change.

I guest-GM'ed a session once where I pulled out Teleport Trap.

The PC's were down to about 1/3 of their spells and the Wizard went, "I teleport!"

I called for Will saves.

The Wizard suddenly found himself trapped in a very small, airless, stone box next to a corpse. He would have died, right then and there, were it not for the Fighter and the Paladin (who both made their saves) who heard him banging on a wall from the inside.

The Wizard really didn't know what to do. He wasn't used to having to camp inside a dungeon. The next day his spell list was considerably different and he was casting spells with less dramatic effects, but with far longer duration. Usually buffing up the Pally and Fighter.

All of this doesn't matter if the party isn't fighting a lot of powerful spell casters.

Teleport trap being a thing doesn't help at all if you were planning to have a BBEG who ISN'T a high-level wizard, for example.

Which again leads back to the "magic must defeat magic" thing; there are counters to the casters' shenanigans, but a problem is entirely too many of them are only available to other casters.


Rynjin wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
mplindustries wrote:
oh, right,magic is fair because magic can beat magic...is this a serious argument?

No. I'm pointing out that there are ways to deal with all of those problems and if the GM uses them, where appropriate, then the behavior of spellcasters change.

I guest-GM'ed a session once where I pulled out Teleport Trap.

The PC's were down to about 1/3 of their spells and the Wizard went, "I teleport!"

I called for Will saves.

The Wizard suddenly found himself trapped in a very small, airless, stone box next to a corpse. He would have died, right then and there, were it not for the Fighter and the Paladin (who both made their saves) who heard him banging on a wall from the inside.

The Wizard really didn't know what to do. He wasn't used to having to camp inside a dungeon. The next day his spell list was considerably different and he was casting spells with less dramatic effects, but with far longer duration. Usually buffing up the Pally and Fighter.

So he couldn't Disintegrate the box, Summon a monster to pop him out of the box, cast Air Bubble to buy him some time, or...?

He didn't have disintegrate memorized, and he really didn't want to cast his Fireball.

Summon a monster? Might have worked. He didn't try it. Very little room, and the monster would have been suffocating instantly too, and the monster would have guess which direction to attempt to break through. Either 1 foot into the dungeon or 10 feet through the outer stone wall.

Didn't have Air Bubble memorized. At least I saw no such spell on his sheet.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

One of the huge issues with martials is that they lack any intrinsic tools to overcome non-numeric obstacles. It's easy to get big numbers and break through high AC and HP, but what do you do when you're fighting an invisible foe? All the big numbers in the world won't help you; you need a countermeasure, and since your class features offer you nothing in that regard you'll either need to rely on a party member or an expensive magic item. Then there's flight, fog, walls, wind, teleportation, and incorporeal enemies. Those are just the common ones, and as your level goes higher more stuff shows up that you need to be ready to counter-act if you want to remain relevant.

Classes like Fighters simply can't cover all their bases, and the higher your level the more bases there are. They need to spend copious sums of money on "big numbers" items so their attack, damage, saves, and AC stay competitive. Then they need on top of that magic items to allow them to circumvent common countermeasures to their fighting style. There simply isn't enough money to cover everything, so they need to pick their blind spots. The magic items aren't equalizing the playing field, either, since for every GP the Fighter spends just to stay relevant the Wizard is spending his equal share to become even deadlier.

All of this might still be reasonable - it is a party-based game, after all, and martials do bring an important niche to the party that casters can supplement. There are two problems, however. First is that in addition to having all the counter-measures, the Wizards also have the ability to present those very kinds of "hard to counter" threats and can use them to trivialize encounters on their own. If given the opportunity to scope out an encounter, a Wizard with the right tools can often solo or bypass it effortlessly. With time to use scrying and other information gathering they can have the tools to not only control combat, but the underlying narrative! These are abilities that are utterly beyond the scope of martials. The ability to contribute to combat is just the tip of the iceberg.

The other side of the story is that this is a roleplaying game; class abilities don't start and end with initiative. Martials tend to get few, if any, class features that are relevant outside of combat, but casters get a plethora of such abilities. Skills and roleplaying can make up some of the difference, especially at low levels, but many skills go obsolete at higher levels (wow, ninjas get to double their jumping distance at 10th level! Oh, and by the way the wizard got all-day flight at the 9th level) and can't compare to the sheer reality-warping abilities offered by spells.

TL;DR As you level up martials get bigger and bigger numbers, while casters get more and more abilities to make big numbers stop mattering.


PIXIE DUST wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
mplindustries wrote:
oh, right,magic is fair because magic can beat magic...is this a serious argument?

No. I'm pointing out that there are ways to deal with all of those problems and if the GM uses them, where appropriate, then the behavior of spellcasters change.

I guest-GM'ed a session once where I pulled out Teleport Trap.

The PC's were down to about 1/3 of their spells and the Wizard went, "I teleport!"

I called for Will saves.

The Wizard suddenly found himself trapped in a very small, airless, stone box next to a corpse. He would have died, right then and there, were it not for the Fighter and the Paladin (who both made their saves) who heard him banging on a wall from the inside.

The Wizard really didn't know what to do. He wasn't used to having to camp inside a dungeon. The next day his spell list was considerably different and he was casting spells with less dramatic effects, but with far longer duration. Usually buffing up the Pally and Fighter.

So the fighter rolled a 20 and the wizard a 1?

Wizard rolled an 8, Fighter rolled a 19, Paladin rolled a 17


Blackwaltzomega wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
mplindustries wrote:
oh, right,magic is fair because magic can beat magic...is this a serious argument?

No. I'm pointing out that there are ways to deal with all of those problems and if the GM uses them, where appropriate, then the behavior of spellcasters change.

I guest-GM'ed a session once where I pulled out Teleport Trap.

The PC's were down to about 1/3 of their spells and the Wizard went, "I teleport!"

I called for Will saves.

The Wizard suddenly found himself trapped in a very small, airless, stone box next to a corpse. He would have died, right then and there, were it not for the Fighter and the Paladin (who both made their saves) who heard him banging on a wall from the inside.

The Wizard really didn't know what to do. He wasn't used to having to camp inside a dungeon. The next day his spell list was considerably different and he was casting spells with less dramatic effects, but with far longer duration. Usually buffing up the Pally and Fighter.

All of this doesn't matter if the party isn't fighting a lot of powerful spell casters.

Teleport trap being a thing doesn't help at all if you were planning to have a BBEG who ISN'T a high-level wizard, for example.

Which again leads back to the "magic must defeat magic" thing; there are counters to the casters' shenanigans, but a problem is entirely too many of them are only available to other casters.

Or you know... The BBEG could just hire a Wizard or Sorcerer to put the spells in place for him...


HWalsh wrote:
Summon a monster? Might have worked. He didn't try it. Very little room, and the monster would have been suffocating instantly too, and the monster would have guess which direction to attempt to break through. Either 1 foot into the dungeon or 10 feet through the outer stone wall.

Earth elementals are summonable. They can earthglide and burrow. Would absolutely have worked with no problem. So would having an adamantine arrow or something.

This story basically was:

"This one time, a spell caster was going to perfectly ignore the problems at hand with a common spell, but exactly the right counter spell was waiting, and he rolled badly on a save he's best at while the fighter and another caster rolled really well. This original caster was ill prepared and didn't think about his options at all, so the lucky guys saved him. Thus, casters are fair!"


HWalsh wrote:
Blackwaltzomega wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
mplindustries wrote:
oh, right,magic is fair because magic can beat magic...is this a serious argument?

No. I'm pointing out that there are ways to deal with all of those problems and if the GM uses them, where appropriate, then the behavior of spellcasters change.

I guest-GM'ed a session once where I pulled out Teleport Trap.

The PC's were down to about 1/3 of their spells and the Wizard went, "I teleport!"

I called for Will saves.

The Wizard suddenly found himself trapped in a very small, airless, stone box next to a corpse. He would have died, right then and there, were it not for the Fighter and the Paladin (who both made their saves) who heard him banging on a wall from the inside.

The Wizard really didn't know what to do. He wasn't used to having to camp inside a dungeon. The next day his spell list was considerably different and he was casting spells with less dramatic effects, but with far longer duration. Usually buffing up the Pally and Fighter.

All of this doesn't matter if the party isn't fighting a lot of powerful spell casters.

Teleport trap being a thing doesn't help at all if you were planning to have a BBEG who ISN'T a high-level wizard, for example.

Which again leads back to the "magic must defeat magic" thing; there are counters to the casters' shenanigans, but a problem is entirely too many of them are only available to other casters.

Or you know... The BBEG could just hire a Wizard or Sorcerer to put the spells in place for him...

Ah, so the non-caster BBEG can handle the party's casters because he EMPLOYS stronger casters rather than anything he himself is doing. Gotcha, that makes sense.

This still completely fails to refute "countering magic? Better have MORE MAGIC."


HWalsh wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
mplindustries wrote:
oh, right,magic is fair because magic can beat magic...is this a serious argument?

No. I'm pointing out that there are ways to deal with all of those problems and if the GM uses them, where appropriate, then the behavior of spellcasters change.

I guest-GM'ed a session once where I pulled out Teleport Trap.

The PC's were down to about 1/3 of their spells and the Wizard went, "I teleport!"

I called for Will saves.

The Wizard suddenly found himself trapped in a very small, airless, stone box next to a corpse. He would have died, right then and there, were it not for the Fighter and the Paladin (who both made their saves) who heard him banging on a wall from the inside.

The Wizard really didn't know what to do. He wasn't used to having to camp inside a dungeon. The next day his spell list was considerably different and he was casting spells with less dramatic effects, but with far longer duration. Usually buffing up the Pally and Fighter.

So he couldn't Disintegrate the box, Summon a monster to pop him out of the box, cast Air Bubble to buy him some time, or...?

He didn't have disintegrate memorized, and he really didn't want to cast his Fireball.

Summon a monster? Might have worked. He didn't try it. Very little room, and the monster would have been suffocating instantly too, and the monster would have guess which direction to attempt to break through. Either 1 foot into the dungeon or 10 feet through the outer stone wall.

Didn't have Air Bubble memorized. At least I saw no such spell on his sheet.

No Elemental Body? No Stone Shape? Shatter? None of the dozens of spells that could get him out of this situation? No scrolls of these sorts of things? Or wands, or potions? Air Bubble is a first level spell that makes this whole trap moot. 50 gp for a potion, 750 for a wand. 25 for a scroll.

Not even an Adamantine dagger? A MUNDANE ITEM could have gotten him out of this with anything that bought him some time.

You continually fail to understand that "My Wizard is unprepared" is not the same as "The class isn't powerful". The Wizard in the Skull and Shackles game I'm running could patiently sit there in no danger for as long as it takes.

The Sorcerer from my old Rise of the Runelords game (where I played a B-b-barbarian) could have done so and busted himself out easily as well. Likewise the Oracle in that same game. Possibly the Wizard (all of his spells were based around buffing his crappy Iron Golem, so who knows).

Does that mean I win the anecdotal evidence game?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
HWalsh wrote:
mplindustries wrote:
oh, right,magic is fair because magic can beat magic...is this a serious argument?

No. I'm pointing out that there are ways to deal with all of those problems and if the GM uses them, where appropriate, then the behavior of spellcasters change.

I guest-GM'ed a session once where I pulled out Teleport Trap.

The PC's were down to about 1/3 of their spells and the Wizard went, "I teleport!"

I called for Will saves.

The Wizard suddenly found himself trapped in a very small, airless, stone box next to a corpse. He would have died, right then and there, were it not for the Fighter and the Paladin (who both made their saves) who heard him banging on a wall from the inside.

The Wizard really didn't know what to do. He wasn't used to having to camp inside a dungeon. The next day his spell list was considerably different and he was casting spells with less dramatic effects, but with far longer duration. Usually buffing up the Pally and Fighter.

None of us are arguing that you can't reign in wizards. In fact, many of the oldest PF players came from D&D 3.5, where wizards are far more powerful than they are here, and the DM still could (and had to) build challenging adventures for them. We're talking about much stronger transmutations that lets the wizard be outright better than any fighter. We're talking about immediate actions that gives you a standard. We're talking about feats and classes that can make metamagic cost negative spell levels, among other stuff that makes Sacred Geometry sound like a kid's toy, and as a GM, it's still manageable because you can do anything, regardless of whether it's actually published in a sourcebook or not.

But the thing you're arguing in this thread is that Martials and Casters are not imbalanced, not that GMs can wing things specifically in disfavor of wizards. The reason that many of the long-time, experienced players and GMs on this board state the disparity is because a wizard can flatly affect the narrative in ways that a fighter never can do (or can only do in a specific way after buying an expensive item).

By the way, just for completeness - in that scenario, I would have slots left open at that point. Since I can hold my breath for at least a minute, I would cast light, immediately memorize Ethreal Jaunt or Beast Shape into one of the slots I purposely left open for these kinds of things (because of course I have fast study), and ghosted/dug myself out of there. Can you shut all of this down? Of course - you can just keep making barriers after barriers until the wizard runs out, just by your sheer power as a GM.

However, the fact that you needed a seventh level spell and a contrived situation just to slow down an (inexperienced, judging from his reactions) wizard shows you exactly what we've been talking about - that casters and martials are not balanced against each other. The fact that you can invent situations specifically against the wizard does not change the fact that the wizard can invis and phase through a wall to spy on the lord while the fighter can just stand there looking dumb in the process, and a million other things.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

...Actually, are you even able to cast a spell with a verbal component in an airless box?

EDIT: Actually, scratch that. Air Bubble's somatic and material/divine focus, so no need to try and choke out "Sebrus cass, sebrus bass, Air Bubble come save my ass" in a total vacuum. ^_^x

THIS IS TOTALLY A LEGITIMATE VERBAL COMPONENT ALL RIGHT


There can be pretty wild power differences between characters of the same class, let alone between other classes.

Wizards - necromancer specialist v. conjuration (teleport subschool) specialist v. diviner specialist

Clerics - travel & luck domains v. damn near everything else

Barbarians - beast totem + witch hunter barbarian v. damn near everything else

Fighters - combat manuever specialist v. archer v. two-hander crit fisher (a.k.a., 2nd rate barbarian =P)

And so on.

The game isn't balanced because you actually have options, and lot of them. And it doesn't protect you from making bad choices.

It'd be nice if the power gaps were smaller, but I pretty cheerfully accept them as a side effect of having of a lot of options for character building.

I'll take imbalance and a lot of options over having my options severely curtailed in the name of balance any day =P


I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
World of Warcraft was actually what taught me to DISREGARD the endless whining about class balance; it never ended, there was a pro-crown and a con-crowd for every conceivable permutation, the shifts and changes made in the name of "class balance" from patch to patch were constant and meaningless and changed nothing (at least never for the better), NOBODY was EVER satisfied, and all it accomplished was creating another avenue by which to leech the fun out of the game and replace creative adventure-play with chartered accountancy (and anyone who didn't go along with the hivemind was a Bad Stupid Player and Not A Team Player who was Ruining Everyone's Fun(TM) and Had No Right to Criticize Others' Playstyle(TM) even though the reverse was of course not true and they had to suck it up!).

To be fair, WoW's lack of class balance is mainly because Blizzard considers the idea of a tweak to be completely foreign. Every balance update has to be either a massive buff or a massive nerf, so something that's slightly overtuned will end up being bottom of the barrel the next time Blizz decides to address it.

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

6 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
TOZ wrote:
HWalsh wrote:

I find the argument of:

"The problem is the game. If it doesn't work the way I run it, because I have a style that I like, then the game is broken."

To be very... Illogical.

Then why do you posit that the game is not broken based on your own style of running it?
Because the way I run it creates scenarios that mimic the way adventures are presented in the source material.

I call bull. Paizo APs, the materials the whole Pathfinder game is built around, are some of the places where martial/caster disparity can be seen most clearly. Rise of the Runelords has a death trap Tower with a super powerful boss at the top; played it with a group whose strongest caster was an Archaeologist bard, got our butts handed to us, ran it for a group with a druid and wizard, they skipped to straight to the top of the tower and caught the boss unawares. Kingmaker is full of single big encounters with tons of time to rest and prepare in between, making a mockery of the "martials can go all day" argument. Mummy's Mask is full of obstacles that are cake for casters, death traps for people lacking magic. Pretty much the only Paizo APs I can think of that don't present perfectly crafted scenarios to demonstrate how much better casters are than martials are Skulls and Shackles and Iron Gods. Skulls and Shackles really only hinders wizards, and only at the very beginning of the campaign, and spontaneous casters like Sorcerers and Summoners can still absolutely wreck it. You can run the whole campaign successfully with a single Master Summoner. Iron Gods gives martials a bit of an edge because there's all this technology lying around that lets characters do things that emulate magic, but aren't actually magical. That's probably why it's the only campaign where I haven't had to bend over backwards to try and make sure everyone gets an equal chance to participate and be relevant.

On the "it can't be imbalanced because it's cooperative" note- I won't get into the fact that enemies can have class levels too, because that's been well covered, but I do want to talk about the nature of teamwork. Teamwork in a fantasy setting is when a group of individuals who are each equally skilled in their own way come together and leverage their combined strengths to become greater than the sum of their parts. It's not about Joe the Wizard reining in his potential and using his earth-shattering power to pick up Harry the Fighter and set him down next to the enemy so he can feel relevant; that's charity, a completely different thing. Teamwork is when a Bard uses glitterdust to reveal an invisible golem, a Ranger uses his huge Favored Enemy bonus to successfully knock the monster on its back, and the Barbarian starts hacking the thing to pieces while the Inquisitor focuses on preventing its lich master from obliterating the rest of the party until they're able to finish the golem and team up against the lich. The problem is that you've got this strong middle ground of balanced and unique characters who make great teammates, and then these outliers who are either desperately dependent on having opportunities handed to them so they can participate, like the Fighter, or who are capable of being their own self-contained team, like the Wizard or Summoner. Why does the Wizard need a Rogue? He can match the Rogue's 20 ranks in Stealth with a single casting of invisibility. And it doesn't take the Wizard being a tool to make the Rogue irrelevant, it takes him using a small portion of his total resources to prepare the spells or crafts the wands to successfully do what the Rogue does, only better. Maybe he was going for this Arcane Trickster vibe and didn't even realize how easy it would be to outshine his companion.

On the whole "4E was balanced and terrible, therefore balance was terrible" argument- obviously, this is a false equivalency. What I know most people are asking for when they ask for fixes to the martial classes, is asymetrical balance, where both Fighters and Wizards are equally potent in their own ways. Right now, a 3rd level Fighter can very neatly represent Gimli the dwarf from Lord of the Rings, and a 3rd level Druid can neatly cover Radagast the Brown. They clearly belong in the same world and have their own unique strengths. At 17th level though, Wizards and Druids are straight out of the craziest animes you'll find, throwing massive blasts of energy, flying around all day long, summoning giant beasts, transforming into unstoppable monstrosities, etc. The Fighter, however, still looks like Gimli the dwarf. He no longer has any business pretending to be on the same level as these demigods who used to be his adventuring companions. What most people who ask for "nice things" for their martials want, is for their Fighter to evolve past that Lord of the Rings phase the same way the casters do, and be capable of equal relevance.

In the first and 2nd iterations of D&D, the Fighter had some of the best saves around (outside of special multiclass / dual class kits), achieved new milestones in his abilities more quickly, and was a real asset to the group. If the modern Fighter had all good saves and a few more skills and skill points, and gained some ability to react to magical attacks and effects that don't offer saves at later levels, people would be much more okay with him, and he would actually much more closely resemble that classic Fighter from the game's earlier iterations.
People who actually remember the past instead of staring back with foggy eyes through rose colored glasses, and who understand how the changes to the modern game have impacted martials and casters, want more from their Fighter just as much as the newer generation of players who grew up with WoW, Final Fantasy, and all these other games where characters without magic in a magical world gain their own tools on par with what magic provides.

101 to 150 of 235 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / There Is No Imbalance Between Martials and Casters. All Messageboards