...
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.
Since i have played longer than you and i Think martials do get the short end of the stick. I declare your arguments invalid based on my superiour experiance with all sorts of games.
Sorry had to do it;)
And it is even true i started in 84 and i Think you are wrong on all accounts.
|
As to anime everyone who likes D&D should give Overlord a watch. Want to watch a person from our world who accidentally became a Lich completely wing being an Overlord? Well there ya go.
Rozen Maiden is an older one at least 8 or so years old. But it does have Flower Topped Hamburgers. And DESU!
Overlord is great so far. I think the Lich-as-a-protagonist angle is pretty neat.
Also, there was a new Rozen Maiden that aired in 2013.
Well "anime characters" is derogatory because Pathfinder is not anime, just like it is not science fiction or western. Pathfinder supports those genres but it is a terrible idea to model the core mechanics on them, as I said. As to "3PP" they are almost universally regarded as unbalanced compared to pathfinder products, although some are real gems.If you want "fighters" to cut mountains in half, jump for miles, or to be an anime character play a different game.
I like how "anime character" is a derogatory term in a game where building a robot ninja maid is entirely a viable concept.
Also amusing when perfectly boring normal western heroes accomplish similar feats in myhtology and fiction.
Last I checked Path of War was pretty damn popular for a 3pp. It's not perfect, but I can tell you given the bias against 3pp it makes zero difference.
The Mana Wastes are straight out of a western movie
We had an entire AP about sci-fi adventures in Numeria
Pathfinder has no qualms with reaching out to every genre possible.
Minus the thousand some odd players who bought Ultimate Psionics, the hundreds of players who bought other Dreamscarred products, the hundreds of people who bought the Advanced Bestiary from Green Ronin Press, or the several hundred who bought the Cerulean Seas Campaign Setting from Alluria Press....
If those numbers are anywhere close to accurate, that saddens me. ;__;
I mean, I know RPG's are niche but c'mon… I should really get back to writing more reviews. >_<
ON-TOPIC: Whether or not there is an imbalance between martials and casters depends on how the challenges are set up. The GM can tilt the game any which-way they want but the "default" leans heavily towards magic-users and playing that way requires much less effort and preparation on the GM's part. Whether that's a problem or not depends on the individual group, and I don't see any way for this thread to reach a common ground because there isn't actually a single "correct" answer.
I do think it would be nice if the boards could take a week off from this whole topic though, as it has been going for quite a while now and appears to be fraying people's nerves.
As to anime everyone who likes D&D should give Overlord a watch. Want to watch a person from our world who accidentally became a Lich completely wing being an Overlord? Well there ya go.
Rozen Maiden is an older one at least 8 or so years old. But it does have Flower Topped Hamburgers. And DESU!
Overlord is great so far. I think the Lich-as-a-protagonist angle is pretty neat.
Also, there was a new Rozen Maiden that aired in 2013.
I was worried the anime might rush like the manga, but I'm glad to see it's giving full access to Momonga's thoughts.
New Rozen Maiden. Huh. *goes to check that out*
As to "3PP" they are almost universally regarded as unbalanced compared to pathfinder productsThe pathfinder core rulebook has both the core wizard and the core monk.
There is no such thing as being unbalanced compared to pathfinder products.
True. I have never heard the claim that "3pp is far more unbalanced than Paizo products" from anyone who actually knew anything about great 3pp publishers, such as Dreamscarred press. It's suaully GMs/Players who ban 3pp on principle who spill that b#@!#++&.
Pathfinder CRb is the most unbalanced book in all of Pathfinder. We have Wizards, Clerics and Druids right there, next to Core Rogues, Fighters and Monks.
I'm pretty sure the adept should be on a higher tier than the core monk.
And Fighters and Rogues as well.
|
|
I'm pretty sure the adept should be on a higher tier than the core monk.
You'd be right! Pathfinder Tier List.
What?! Don't you know, Larkspire?
Playing a completely different game with completely different rules 30 years ago automatically and indisputably makes you an authority in Pathfinder rules and system mastery... As well as in every other RPG published from 1970 to the end of times!
Makes total sense...
:P
Didn't someone link to TC saying he's only been playing since 1988? Poser hasn't even been playing for 30 years so all his opinions are invalid.
|
Note, NPC enemies exist. Would you be fine as a group of PC's 15th level martials against a group of NPC 14th level full casters? No, probably not, not unless the GM is going easy on you.
Balance between classes isn't required because of videogames. It's required because classes don't exist in a vacuum.
Really? How many assumptions are you making?
Like:- the caster know in advance, because ... Ah caster always know the enemy and always prepare for him
- the casters had time to buff because ... Ah caster always have time to butt, after all they know in advance about their opponents
- casters know/have selected the right spells ... Well, some are obvious, so that is credible
- caster hare somewhat invulnerable ... No really, what caster can survive a a full attack from several enemies unless he has prepared in advance? And unless the 15th level martials have chosen their equipment badly they will have a way to move and make a full attack at least once or get a full attack with the bow
- martials always fail their saves ...Why? And what is the effect? Most failed reflex Saves man a few hit point of damage. Failed fortitude and will saves can mean death, but for the will save the martial is 4 points below someone with a good will save at level 15. Iron will halve that. Improved iron will give you a reroll.
Unless you have dumped will to 7 you have a decent chance to save.
Fortitude is your better save if you are a martial, so no problem there.
There are a few ways to avoid several of the worst will saves.
Protection from XX or even better magic circle against XX work wonders against that and can be made in potion form. You risk having the wrong protection, but it help most of the time. Magic circle against Xx will protect several characters at the cost of the action of only one.
At level 15 UMD is fairly reliable if you have maximized it and that will allow access to even more defensive effects.
At that level things like disruptive, making ranged AoO with bows, the combat patrol feat exist, so the life of a caster isn't so simple, unless yous tack the deck in advance to their favor.
Largely depends on the items that both sides are equipped with and the set up. It is very possible for the Martials, in that situation, to tear the casters apart. Feats, initiative, equipment, distance... Lots of factors...
I mean, for example, an 84 HP Wizard who suffers a full round sneak attack from a Rogue, which just means that the rogue went first, if 2 of the 3 attacks hit, can eat two 1d4+8d6 damage (using Rogue Unchained and daggers, or more if he's a bow user) hits that result in a combined total of 18-104 damage and die outright.
A dedicated Fighter who is an archer with a composite bow, a +2 strength, that grants him/her the effects of Gravity bow (easily doable for a level 15) while having weapon specialization can do up to 10d6+42 damage in a single full attack... 52-102 damage can end a Caster in a single action.
And those are without even tricking out the combatants that much or assuming an abundance of magical items. So a 2 on 2 battle can end with all the Casters dead before they even get a chance to cast a single spell. (I said *can* not *will*) so it really depends on a whole load of variables.
It does depend on variables, but it's severely stacked against the martials. Army of outsider minions, simulacrums, and charmed monsters and battlefield control spells, vs. the martial's damage.
That isn't hyperbole, that is what my players would expect from me from a group of mage villians. Since I have done truename discovery, simulacrums, planar bindings, item crafting, etc. as a player.
Q.E.D. you stack the deck and then say "but the side with the advantage will win".
Why you assume that the caster are prepared and the martials aren't?Why you assume the casters had unlimited time and resources to prepare and the martials hadn't them?
At that level things like disruptive, making ranged AoO with bows, the combat patrol feat exist, so the life of a caster isn't so simple, unless yous tack the deck in advance to their favor.
One of the arguments I've always seen people make is to reduce the entire game into a common combat scenario with the party on one side and enemies on the other.
This is not what makes casters more powerful than melee. If the battlefield control spells and blasts are the sum of everything that a wizard can do, then they would not be Tier 1 classes at all. Instead, wizards are powerful because their abilities can affect the narrative. Think about it this way: why did the party enter combat against that encounter #90210 in the first place? Was it because they had an objective that they had to accomplish, but the encounter #90210 is in their way? If so, is there something they can do to bypass #90210 entirely and still reach their objective?
That is what makes wizards so powerful. Did you have a tower full of enemies with the BBEG guarding the macguffin on the very top? Wizards just bypass the entire tower and initiate a direct attack on the BBEG, or alternatively bypass the BBEG entirely. In order to prevent this, you have to mount all sorts of defenses against the various abilities that the wizard might use to initiate this full dungeon bypass. Did the wizard want to disguise the party and bluff their way up? Nope, doesn't work. Did the wizard fly right up and stone shape a door into the wall? Nope, doesn't work. Teleport? Warded. Divination? Fails. Burrowing? Adamantium walls. Illusions? Everything has true seeing. Trying to drain the BBEG's budget? Remove his support lines? Dispel his magic defenses? NO, THEY HAVE +45 TRILLION AGAINST DISPEL. Trying to just take the object with magic? No, artifact stuff. You basically have to make more and more elaborate defenses specifically against everything that the wizard could potentially do against what you have designed that reduces all of your designed encounters into footnotes, just to get the party to stay on the rails and storm the tower like you intended for them to do.
A wizard can solve problems by not ever allowing it to devolve into a completely fair party vs. some random encounter in the first place, barring GM fiat to prevent them from doing so. Thinking about the wizard's powers only in straight, no-frills combat is itself a mistake, since it means you are forgetting to consider the potential of at least 1/2 of the wizard's spell list and what they can do with a little out-of-the-box thinking from the wizard's player.
And that is why the wizard is considered to be above the martials, even above stuff like Path of War Bushis that can completely shut down casters in a fair, open battlefield.
|
|
I mean, for example, an 84 HP Wizard who suffers a full round sneak attack from a Rogue, which just means that the rogue went first, if 2 of the 3 attacks hit, can eat two 1d4+8d6 damage (using Rogue Unchained and daggers, or more if he's a bow user) hits that result in a combined total of 18-104 damage and die outright.18-104 does an average of 61 damage. It's not enough to kill a 84 hp wizard (you only have maybe 10-15% chance of killing him, if those attacks actually hit her).
A dedicated Fighter who is an archer with a composite bow, a +2 strength, that grants him/her the effects of Gravity bow (easily doable for a level 15) while having weapon specialization can do up to 10d6+42 damage in a single full attack... 52-102 damage can end a Caster in a single action.IF all those attacks hit.
And in average, you do 77 damage, so still not a good chance of killing that wizard (less than 30% chance IMO), even if all those attacks hit.
And believe me, a 15th level wizard may have way more than 84 hp (especially if it is a PC).
And a 15th level archer will do about 50 points of damage with each hit and get more than 4 arrow in the air in a round.
Rapid shot, manyshot, boots of speed, +3 or better bow, 18 strength, all things he will have at level 15.
My goodness. This thread certainly is gaining posts quickly. Did not see that coming.
I'm this close to just mashing the "Duplicate thread" flag on every new "GUYS I JUST THOUGHT OF A NEW IDEA: MAYBE THERE IS/IS NOT A DISPARITY BETWEEN MARTIAL AND CASTER!!!" thread that pops up from now on.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh thank god, here come the spamthreads to water this mess down a bit.
BABAJI
AIM FOR THE MARTIAL/CASTER THREADS
|
|
At that level things like disruptive, making ranged AoO with bows, the combat patrol feat exist, so the life of a caster isn't so simple, unless yous tack the deck in advance to their favor.One of the arguments I've always seen people make is to reduce the entire game into a common combat scenario with the party on one side and enemies on the other.
This is not what makes casters more powerful than melee. If the battlefield control spells and blasts are the sum of everything that a wizard can do, then they would not be Tier 1 classes at all. Instead, wizards are powerful because their abilities can affect the narrative. Think about it this way: why did the party enter combat against that encounter #90210 in the first place? Was it because they had an objective that they had to accomplish, but the encounter #90210 is in their way? If so, is there something they can do to bypass #90210 entirely and still reach their objective?
That is what makes wizards so powerful. Did you have a tower full of enemies with the BBEG guarding the macguffin on the very top? Wizards just bypass the entire tower and initiate a direct attack on the BBEG, or alternatively bypass the BBEG entirely. In order to prevent this, you have to mount all sorts of defenses against the various abilities that the wizard might use to initiate this full dungeon bypass. Did the wizard want to disguise the party and bluff their way up? Nope, doesn't work. Did the wizard fly right up and stone shape a door into the wall? Nope, doesn't work. Teleport? Warded. Divination? Fails. Burrowing? Adamantium walls. Illusions? Everything has true seeing. Trying to drain the BBEG's budget? Remove his support lines? Dispel his magic defenses? NO, THEY HAVE +45 TRILLION AGAINST DISPEL. Trying to just take the object with magic? No, artifact stuff. You basically have to make more and more elaborate defenses specifically against everything that the wizard could potentially do against what you...
Exactly the kind of assumption I was pointing out. You assume the caster know in advance everything and is prepared against everything while the enemy shouldn't do the same.
You guys play with the Schroedinger caster, the one that change to be the most powerful in every situation.
Exactly the kind of assumption I was pointing out. You assume the caster know in advance everything and is prepared against everything while the enemy shouldn't do the same.
You guys play with the Schroedinger caster, the one that change to be the most powerful in every situation.
I don't see the Schroedinger's caster here. You have a tower in front of you. Are you saying the wizard is somehow cheating if he tried to find out where the BBEG is and stone shape right to him using his spells?
Also, Wizards can get the exact spell they need with one minute of studying. Both leaving slots blank and fast study are a part of pathfinder, after all.
EDIT: Maybe I should use a better example.
Let's say that I'm a high level wizard. On a particular day, I wake up and decide that I feel like making a race track in the middle of town and starting a carriage race between a cheetah and an demon. I can just get up and do exactly that with a few spells and maybe a minute of my time.
Let's say that I'm a high level fighter. On a particular day, I wake up and decide that I feel like making a race track in the middle of town and starting a carriage race between a cheetah and an demon. I have to go and ask the GM to point me out to NPCs that might help me with the construction, then get an animal tamer that can help with the cheetah. Then, I have to find a way to get the demon. In short, I might have some skills for it, but I can't do this without the GM fiating the NPCs that I need to start such a thing.
To be clear if you say "I am playing Pathfinder" that means something completely different that "I am playing Pathfinder. Except for not this or that thing, and this book, and magic is different and everyone is also a anthropomorphic badger with barbarian levels for free". No true Scotsman would be if I said no true D&D/Pathfinder would want to change the magic system for their home game, which I did not.to be clear what you describe is known as the no true scottsman fallacy.You have to use 3 different sources that significantly change the core game to make it close to what you want, than why are you even playing Pathfinder? Well I guess you are not actually...Yeah, tossing out Paizo classes and spells in favor of PoW/Psionics/SoP has significantly improved my Pathfinder experience. The spellcasters aren't wildly more powerful than their mundane counterparts, everyone has their niches, and everybody is happy.
But nope, too anime. Because that's a valid argument. One type of nerds getting hissy at another type of nerds isn't a hilariously hypocritical thing at all. Nope! Can I stop sarcasming now? My eyes are going to roll right out of my head.
I am, actually. I just don't consider it fair or reasonable that one guy can play the world-altering magic fountain while the other gets stuck swinging a stick his whole career. So EVERYONE in the games I play is effective, fun and has lots of narrative power.
This is a pretty common trick of you and your ilk: you'll claim anyone who isn't playing the same way as you isn't playing the same game. And to that, I shall remind you that you do not get to decide how anyone else should be playing the game.
But I'm talking to a wall, really. You wouldn't be so intent to disparage how I play PF if you actually intended to have a civil conversation on the subject.
you're claiming we're not playing pathfinder, sure it doesn't hold all of YOUR beliefs on what pathfinder is, but we are still playing pathfinder. (I mean what books are and aren't pathfinder, you can easily assume that 3pp made for pathfinder is still pathfinder, how many alternate rule systems published by paizo do you have to use to not be pathfinder anymore?
your whole point was we weren't playing pathfinder when pathfinder is defined pretty damn loosely)
My goodness. This thread certainly is gaining posts quickly. Did not see that coming.
I'm this close to just mashing the "Duplicate thread" flag on every new "GUYS I JUST THOUGHT OF A NEW IDEA: MAYBE THERE IS/IS NOT A DISPARITY BETWEEN MARTIAL AND CASTER!!!" thread that pops up from now on.
/me Consumes.
|
|
Exactly the kind of assumption I was pointing out. You assume the caster know in advance everything and is prepared against everything while the enemy shouldn't do the same.
You guys play with the Schroedinger caster, the one that change to be the most powerful in every situation.I don't see the Schroedinger's caster here. You have a tower in front of you. Are you saying the wizard is somehow cheating if he tried to find out where the BBEG is and stone shape right to him using his spells?
Also, Wizards can get the exact spell they need with one minute of studying. Both leaving slots blank and fast study are a part of pathfinder, after all.
So:
- he is traveling with all his spellbooks. Risky but doable.- he can stop near the enemy base to study his spells. Hmm. Why the enemy has no security?
- he is never spotted in advance.
- why the enemy should build a tower in a world where tower are not a good defense? If he really want a tower, why one without outer defenses? Why a damned medieval tower? Most magical attacks are very similar to the effects of artillery, mines and sapping. By the end of the 15 century we had very efficient defenses against those. With a world with thousand of years of history about using magic in warfare most fortifications will be more similar to the fifteen century fortifications (with added protection against aerial attacks) than those of the twelfth century.
- unless the caster is really high level most spells have a shorter range than a composite longbow. Shooting the caster is a great way to limit his options.
Sure, a high level caster can fly invisible to the top of the tower and disintegrate an opening in it. Most of the time the owner will not live at the last floor of the tower.
You know that he probably live at the fist floor and disintegrate an opening there? Oops, most fortification walls are ticker than 10' and can maintain structural integrity even with a 10'x10'x10' hole in them.
And making that hole make your presence obvious.
Stone shape on a building ... "You can form an existing piece of stone into any shape that suits your purpose." Not a structure, as single piece of stone. Even not considering that at least half of the building will be made by bricks (easier to made and very efficient at thwarting a lot of spells) your spell work on 1 stone at a time. never seen a medieval castle? The stones aren't large, they were moved by men. On the average they are a bit bigger than a PC cabinet, but not by much.
The more rich castles than had large slabs of stone dressing the exterior to make them more beautiful, but the structural part were stones weighting less than 50 kg, bricks and mortar. Some corner stone was larger, and disintegrating the right one would cause a partial collapse if you chose well, but only if we hypotize a medieval castle, i.e. the kind of structure that is most wulnerable to this kind of attack.
Really? How many assumptions are you making?
Like:
- the caster know in advance, because ... Ah caster always know the enemy and always prepare for him
Divination spells.
- the casters had time to buff because ... Ah caster always have time to butt, after all they know in advance about their opponents
They don't need time to buff, I didn't even mention buffing. But I suppose since they would know when an enemy is coming they could pre-buff.
- casters know/have selected the right spells ... Well, some are obvious, so that is credible
You don't need them all to be the right spells, just pick some staples. For example it's often good to have a few planar allies/bindings that have spellcasting as well, that way you can cover all the bases when it comes to spells. Admittedly, it would be easier if it was 15th level casters, cause then the wizards can get 18HD Angels as minions, but whatever.
- caster hare somewhat invulnerable ... No really, what caster can survive a a full attack from several enemies unless he has prepared in advance? And unless the 15th level martials have chosen their equipment badly they will have a way to move and make a full attack at least once or get a full attack with the bow
Simply stay out of reach, either in a planar manner, or simply stay in a room that cannot be reached without magic. Note: a high space isn't enough since obviously the martial party would have flight through items at that stage... a magnificent mansion or rooms that can only be reached by passing through walls would be the minimum.
- martials always fail their saves ...Why? And what is the effect? Most failed reflex Saves man a few hit point of damage. Failed fortitude and will saves can mean death, but for the will save the martial is 4 points below someone with a good will save at level 15. Iron will halve that. Improved iron will give you a reroll.
I didn't mention saves. Summoning, divination, battlefield manipulation don't really need the enemy to fail saves.
Q.E.D. you stack the deck and then say "but the side with the advantage will win".
Why you assume that the caster are prepared and the martials aren't?
Why you assume the casters had unlimited time and resources to prepare and the martials hadn't them?
It's not really stacking the deck, this is the standard for my game. Players in the scenario are expected to play to their standard as well.
So:
- he is traveling with all his spellbooks. Risky but doable.
- he can stop near the enemy base to study his spells. Hmm. Why the enemy has no security?
- he is never spotted in advance.
- why the enemy should build a tower in a world where tower are not a good defense? If he really want a tower, why one without outer defenses? Why a damned medieval tower? Most magical attacks are very similar to the effects of artillery, mines and sapping. By the end of the 15 century we had very efficient defenses against those. With a world with thousand of years of history about using magic in warfare most fortifications will be more similar to the fifteen century fortifications (with added protection against aerial attacks) than those of the twelfth century.
- unless the caster is really high level most spells have a shorter range than a composite longbow. Shooting the caster is a great way to limit his options.Sure, a high level caster can fly invisible to the top of the tower and disintegrate an opening in it. Most of the time the owner will not live at the last floor of the tower.
You know that he probably live at the fist floor and disintegrate an opening there? Oops, most fortification walls are ticker than 10' and can maintain structural integrity even with a 10'x10'x10' hole in them.
And...
You know what? Since you don't like the tower scenario anyway, let's do this: I'll ask you to come up with a few scenarios that isn't just "stuff appears before you, roll initiative". To make it easier, let's make each scenario just a single goalpost, like "find the bad guy" or "learn the secrets of the royal family."
Then, for each scenario, I (and/or the other people that are arguing in this thread) will list the number of ways that a wizard might use his spells to approach each scenario. After we're done, we'll tally them up, then compare it to the number of ways that a standard martial can do the same.
Then, if the number of ways that a wizard can handle each scenario is even close to what the martial can do, I'll call it a win for martials. Is that acceptable?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Balance in tabletop RPGs should not be about killing power, it should be about having fun and being able to contribute. The fact of the matter is, even if you made fighters do 100x their current damage, they'd still be bored during the diplomacy talks.
Nope. How about we decide on which of those works. If the caster has 10, and the Fighter has 3, but at the end of the day the Fighter still wins... But... Sure. I'll play your game.
You still haven't responded to the previous posts that we've given you.
"What works" is heavily dependent on GM. I can easily say "no, you can't scry this lair because the bad guy obviously has abjurations against that" in the same way that I can tell the fighter "sorry, your way is blockaded by walls of force. Good luck."
A fighter has exactly three ways of approaching any broad problem. He can fight his way through it (which the GM has to make possible for him with encounters he could actually handle), use diplomacy (which the DM needs to grant him!), or use stealth - assuming that he even has enough ranks in the latter two skills. Diplomacy is his only chance of basically doing something that the GM doesn't intend and make a different approach for himself; a wizard can do that in multiple different ways just as a matter of course, built right into the massive, versatile spell list that they have access to.
And really, you're still missing the point that everyone arguing for the disparity (and I) are trying to tell you. A wizard is stronger than a fighter because a wizard can do anything he wants with sufficient levels. Not everything in Pathfinder has to boil down to a combat scenario, and a wizard can choose how he wants to solve a problem (if he wants to solve a problem at all).
THAT is what narrative power is. It's not just something like "wizard beats fighter in combat" or DPR race or anything like that - it's the sheer number of things that a wizard can do that not a single martial in PF can come down to that creates the disparity. Even if a fighter has +10000 to hit, damage, AC, and saves, and has SR 401289 and 7 hundred million hit points, he still can't mind control the lord of the land or go and visit his dead relatives in Celestia when he so chooses. He's still only Tier 4 when the wizard is Tier 1.
*
Also, if my post sounds hostile, I apologize. I'm not trying to insult your abilities as a player or GM, or anything like that. In fact, I thought that the teleport trap that you used was rather clever, and is a hallmark of a really creative and dedicated GM.
I'm just trying to argue the point on the martial and caster disparity.
|
|
Ok so someone else may have already said it - there are a LOT of posts to sift through - but I find the 4E comparison particularly funny now that even in D&D and its variants, 5E has strongly (but not completely) balanced out casters and martials and is proving to be one of the most popular editions ever introduced.
4E's commercial failure had a lot more to do with WotC making marketing decisions that shut out anyone who still wanted to play older editions and required huge financial investment just to play.
Truthfully, 4E was probably a superior game ruleswise, but Pathfinder gave me a free resource to learn about it and accessible organized play - so Paizo grabbed me immediately.
My goodness. This thread certainly is gaining posts quickly. Did not see that coming.
I'm this close to just mashing the "Duplicate thread" flag on every new "GUYS I JUST THOUGHT OF A NEW IDEA: MAYBE THERE IS/IS NOT A DISPARITY BETWEEN MARTIAL AND CASTER!!!" thread that pops up from now on.
So what you're saying is you really want a dedicated sub-forum to Martial/Magic Disparity threads? ;)
|
|
Ok so someone else may have already said it - there are a LOT of posts to sift through - but I find the 4E comparison particularly funny now that even in D&D and its variants, 5E has strongly (but not completely) balanced out casters and martials and is proving to be one of the most popular editions ever introduced.
I never really know how to take posts like this because I only have one group of friends who are consistently playing 5e, and from the sounds of things the sorcerer is soloing combat with dragons and making everyone else insignificant. I mean the player built him that way after someone told him you can't break the magic system like you can in 3.x/Pathfinder, but the results stand for themselves.
As a side note, apparently the monk kept up for the longest, before admitting he was entirely outclassed by the sorcerer, so it's nice to know monks got better.
|
|
So what you're saying is you really want a dedicated sub-forum to Martial/Magic Disparity threads? ;)My goodness. This thread certainly is gaining posts quickly. Did not see that coming.
I'm this close to just mashing the "Duplicate thread" flag on every new "GUYS I JUST THOUGHT OF A NEW IDEA: MAYBE THERE IS/IS NOT A DISPARITY BETWEEN MARTIAL AND CASTER!!!" thread that pops up from now on.
Yes. So I can hide it and hopefully not have to have my blood pressure increase because so many people are intent on actually arguing that such a thing doesn't exist.
people asking for skills to do more...this doesn't even change a single thing.
Wizards/arcanists get the most skills in the game, since they have to focus on int so much. It will just make them better and make the martials feel bad.
I had an idea that was badly accepted that split the spellcraft into multiple skills for each of the schools and then used overclocking rules.
i'm thinking if instead they had to use skill points in about the same way but instead for caster levels, it;d be cooler. you need minimum caster level to cast a spell from a school for that level, etc. can't use skill or anything buff the skill. hmmm, food for thought.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
