Why do Martials need better things?

[Michael Sayre]

Petty Alchemy wrote:

If you're saying martials need to be magical in Pathfinder, I agree. If you're saying magical martials are mundane martials, well, that's just not true.

I think the idea is that "Extraordinary" is currently almost indistinguishable from "Mundane", when that doesn't need to be the case. "Mundane" shouldn't even be a word that comes up when you're talking about a fantasy adventure roleplaying game. There should be Extraordinary abilities readily available for non-spellcasting characters that have some of that wow factor spells get, abilities that may not be in keeping with the laws of physics as we understand them in the real world, but which allow for a world where a guy with a sword can have as big an impact on the narrative as the guy with the spells. Even American folklore, far more recent then the Greek, Roman, Asian, Celtic, and other influences that inform the game, includes stories of men whose skill and strength was beyond what is realistically possible, and who challenged machines with all the power and skill of modern industry behind them and won.

[Caster-Martial Disparity God]

In a universe of infinite possibilities that which is fueled by petulant rage is forever eternal. Never resting, always waiting for its moment to gurgle forth from its ichor encrusted hole and fill mens hearts with disgust for their fellow man.

[TarkXT]

But in all seriousness.

I want martials to have nice things because I shouldn't have to adjust encounters to extremes just to accomodate a group that doesn't want to play full casters.

[KestrelZ]

I will attempt to answer the question posed by the thread title.

Martials do not need better things, though it is nice to have a character stay relevant out of combat, or past 12th level or so. With full casters, they can change the narrative by teleporting, divining, or creating all sorts of unusual effects that could throw a monkey wrench in the plot or create new plots altogether. Martials can contribute nothing more than what they have contributed since first level. They just improve the way they contribute it.

Giving martials new ways to change the narrative might not be the way to go, though. Some people choose martials because they like simplicity. Nerfing casters is bad since creative people like the outlet. The best ways to alter the paradigm would be either switching games, or creating a pathfinder setting that makes martials more super powered at 12+ level, or limits casters from the more reality changing, narrative control abilities.

It should not affect the game as a whole, since some people see this as a problem and some do not.

[wraithstrike]

Zombieneighbours wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

Most PC's do not get to choose the point of combat since they are likely invading enemy territory.

But the GM does get to choose that, and probably aught to be providing varied ways to interact with the encounter.

wraithstrike wrote:

Also a caster could potentially put out the fire, and attack an enemy. Most martials can't do that.

By using a limited resource and the action that they are supposedly using to be god? Oh, and you know, the fact that they cannot possible memories all possible spells.

A martial certainly can put out fires. They have ability scores and skills, they have environmental features, they have equipment. It just takes a modicum of inventiveness to realised that breaking open the cistern full of water, or beating the flames with a wet blanket is a valid action in a combat.

wraithstrike wrote:

At the end of the day the answer basically boils down to "different people have different requirements in order to be satisfied".

And?

In my ideal world, every combat in a pathfinder game would have the risk of serious long term injuries, and would feel a little like the corridor fight form old boy. I am not out there campaigning for the game to be changed to be that. One day, I'll figure a way to house rule it to get that feel, but in the mean time, knowing how to use the game as it is written to get close to the feel I want is a useful skill.

You want martials to matter, there are ways to play the game that makes them matter, and there are ways to make them not matter. Your choice, but I am fairly certain the a change to play style is a more practical way of getting what you want than sitting around complaining about how broken the game is. (A situtation where, if you are successful, you potentially upset all the people who are perfectly happy with the system as it is.)

You have not made one valid point here.

What the GM aught to provide is subjective and does nothing to change "how things are" mechanically speaking.

I never said they could memorize all spells so that statement is pointless and as I have said countless times before casters do not need "the perfect spell" to solve a problem, and even before level 10 they are unlikely to run out of spells in a day. <---Other issues related to this have been broken down several times on this forum.

What your ideal world is does not matter because not everyone plays the game like you do, and if you don't get the relevance of "At the end of the day the answer basically boils down to "different people have different requirements in order to be satisfied" in response to "why do martials need nice things", then you are likely beyond any help that anyone could give you.

[Just a Guess]

wraithstrike wrote:

I never said they could memorize all spells so that statement is pointless and as I have said countless times before casters do not need "the perfect spell" to solve a problem, and even before level 10 they are unlikely to run out of spells in a day. <---Other issues related to this have been broken down several times on this forum.

This

And what people who claim that casters DO run out of spells ignore, even when it is brought up in discussions, is the fact, that many wizard schools, sorc bloodlines, cleric domains or witch hexes have additional options to do relevant stuff in combat besides using spells.
In the third round of combat using a force missile, a fire ray, an evil eye or whatever is often enough. And those abilities are usually at least 7/day for the 1st level powers. At 8th level you usually get additional "ammo" to use during the day to to have in reserve in case the spells really wear thin.

[Wrath]

I'm beginning to think most of these threads should just go in the homebrew section.

People who want Martials to do more just create house rules for them in these threads and want the debs to embrace those house rules.

People who think its good as is usually suggest in game reasons why casters are limited and Martials do ok.

And all the time things trundle on as normal, without change outside of optional material from Paizo.

Homebrew is a much better place than general discussion I reckon.

[Wrath]

KestrelZ, what a great response.

[necromental]

KestrelZ wrote:

Giving martials new ways to change the narrative might not be the way to go, though. Some people choose martials because they like simplicity. Nerfing casters is bad since creative people like the outlet. The best ways to alter the paradigm would be either switching games, or creating a pathfinder setting that makes martials more super powered at 12+ level, or limits casters from the more reality changing, narrative control abilities.

Or could be made as a variant like unchained (especially for fighters), and supplemented with extraordinary feats/talents that address the issue. Something many of us expected from Ultimate Combat but gained a book full of spells and monk styles, and variant rules that don't address the issue.

[Bandw2]

I think most classes need new content for above level 11, not much new happens after level 11, usually just improvements to old things, and i think this is why martials end up behind, casters gain 6th-9th level spells, martials just gain bigger numbers.

[shroudb]

adding options to give martials narrative power can ONLY be good.

if someone chose to play a fighter for his simplicity, then he just need to not select that power.

but on the same vein, when every single caster unlocks more and more tools as he levels up, and the only thing the fighter gets is a +1 to attack, or a +1 to attack and damage, and etc things, then there is simply no reason why to level him up.

casters scale up both in quantity (the spells they already have become stronger due to increased cl) and in quality (they get access to new spells, new effects, etc)

fighters only scale up in quantity (they get more of the same bonuses they were already getting at lvl1)

the whole disparity is because people use the word "martials"

there are "martials" who work ok. like the barbarian, who gets his set of rage powers. the ranger, getting a bit of spells, new terrains, new fav enemies. the Urogue (somewhat) getting new powers.

and then there is the fighter. the class that does NOTHING good except being a lvl 1-2 dip for feats for other classes.

[Bandw2]

fighter's only scale in quality, they're choices get better not more numerous.

[Malwing]

Whenever the martials and nice things discussion comes up one thing that eventually comes to mind is 'So what are people doing about it?'. Since they're here I assume they just aren't quitting the game because martials suck so I think someone is doing something about it. I know martial caster disparity is irrelevant for me because I use third party material, so it just doesn't come up any more. I know not everyone can do third party or homebrew so they want changes in the game itself but then I see propositions to do something radical that would call for a whole new edition when really we have the tools to request something bold that doesn't just change the entire system.

For months I've touted a specific product as a kind of normal martial's answer to Path of War and it's not a product I helped make or something I got for free, its just something I genuinely enjoy and I think it has as much impact as Spheres of Power. But past that a similar mechanic came out in unchained in the form of stamina leading me to think "This is the thing. This is the answer to all these threads. This is the design space to do the things we're asking for." So why not ask for that?

The way I see it, casters get nice things for two reasons. They have to spend a resource and the limitation of that fact is drastically overestimated. Stamina gives some wiggle room by giving a BAB based resource that can be spent to do incredible things while still being consistent. The other reason is that since basic modes of combat are feat chains getting a new awesome feat means almost nothing because you have to dedicate feats to a fighting style before you can consider other feats, meanwhile its very easy to add spells. You just design an effect and add it to an appropriate spell level and class and you're good to go. But now that there's a resource why not add effects to that resource? I've been doing it for months. Use stamina to bypass some feats. Use stamina for skill unlock-like things. Use it for any kind of effect that you can explain as muscling or finessing your way through things. Lets ask for those things. We've seen a bit of support of unchained, lets demand something reasonable and let stamina be a conduit of cool physical prowess effects. Want to jump in the air stab a dragon in the face? its possible with stamina, just give stamina some prowess skill unlocks so you can make Hulk-jumps. How about getting your BAB as a bonus to diplomacy and intimidate when you use stamina to succeed a strength-based challenge?

My point is that we have a window for solutions, lets try to demand that we use it instead of reiterating the same points?

[Bandw2]

none of the stamina thing really works for outside of combat stuff since stamina recovers so quickly. maybe if they could get access to greater bigger things that permanently burn stamina for the rest of the day?

[necromental]

Combining stamina with your badass tiers would work (liked the general idea, as it's very modular, but haven't had the chance to read them in detail and comment).

[Bandw2]

necromental wrote:

Combining stamina with your badass tiers would work (liked the general idea, as it's very modular, but haven't had the chance to read them in detail and comment).

I might be able to get away with it by having each badass talent have a stamina option... hmmm

[Malwing]

Bandw2 wrote:

none of the stamina thing really works for outside of combat stuff since stamina recovers so quickly. maybe if they could get access to greater bigger things that permanently burn stamina for the rest of the day?

I'm due to start a homebrew thread with non combat stina stuff. I have thought about stamina 'burn' where you lose max stamina to do even greater things.

[kyrt-ryder]

Wrath wrote:

I'm beginning to think most of these threads should just go in the homebrew section.

People who want Martials to do more just create house rules for them in these threads and want the debs to embrace those house rules.

The thing is... these people want to continue to support Paizo, they want Paizo to continue to thrive, and they want to see Paizo become greater than it has been before.

This means learning from the mistakes of the past and evolving the game into something more coherent, something more harmonious and something that breaks far less easily when someone uses the rules as written.

These people are lobbying for this not out of selfishness [or at least, not all of them. I suppose some might find it more entertaining to push for Paizo to change than to write their own rules, I am not one of them] but out of respect and appreciation for the company that breathed life into a game they loved that was being abandoned by its former company.

[Malwing]

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Wrath wrote:

I'm beginning to think most of these threads should just go in the homebrew section.

People who want Martials to do more just create house rules for them in these threads and want the debs to embrace those house rules.

The thing is... these people want to continue to support Paizo, they want Paizo to continue to thrive, and they want to see Paizo become greater than it has been before.

This means learning from the mistakes of the past and evolving the game into something more coherent, something more harmonious and something that breaks far less easily when someone uses the rules as written.

These people are lobbying for this not out of selfishness [or at least, not all of them. I suppose some might find it more entertaining to push for Paizo to change than to write their own rules, I am not one of them] but out of respect and appreciation for the company that breathed life into a game they loved that was being abandoned by its former company.

One of the points I was trying to make above is that I don't think Paizo or Pathfinder really needs to change, I think that they presented a tool in a hardcover book that could be exploited to solve a few problems but can be easily kept out of the game if we think there is no problem. It can be exploited by us as homebrew content, Paizo themselves, or third party. (A realm which I think is the lifeblood of the game really. Pathfinder itself is practially a third party material itself and honestly it has improved my enjoyment of the game by allowing even paizo employees to stretch their creative legs outside the confides of keeping Pathfinder healthy within it's macrocosm and keeping it compatible with it's original iteration.

[Bandw2]

this tool does a horrible job on it;s own, you need a lot of experience to know when you need to change stuff as a GM, and many people shun 3pp just because it's 3pp. Paizo is the one with the greatest leverage power to make the fix so that the more narrow classes can become useful in more situations.

[kyrt-ryder]

Bandw2 wrote:

this tool does a horrible job on it;s own, you need a lot of experience to know when you need to change stuff as a GM, and many people shun 3pp just because it's 3pp. Paizo is the one with the greatest leverage power to make the fix so that the more narrow classes can become useful in more situations.

It's funny because Paizo fundamentally is 3PP [for a game that is no longer in print.]

It's even more amusing when people diss on Dragon/Dungeon Magazine material but play Pathfinder.

[Malwing]

Bandw2 wrote:

this tool does a horrible job on it;s own, you need a lot of experience to know when you need to change stuff as a GM, and many people shun 3pp just because it's 3pp. Paizo is the one with the greatest leverage power to make the fix so that the more narrow classes can become useful in more situations.

To me stamina, along with many aspects of Pathfinder Unchained isn't about the content but possibilities. It itself isn't even a set of real rules but a toolbox for a 'build your own 2nd edition'. I'm not saying that stamina is the end all be all of martial support but that it can be. Its a road that leads somewhere and we can complain about it not doing what we want it to do and not steer that direction or we can ask for more support of it or better yet more creative support of it, and then take the highway to somewhere amazing.

And I'm going to have to agree with Kyrt-ryder. Also people that shun third party are missing out and that's their own fault. Meanwhile the third party master race can enjoy the capability of playing a psionic unicorn flying through space in a steam powered surfboard in space on her way to fight an ancient robot mummy. And for those that think that's insane look at the premise of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe... Okay i have a new campaign to plan, that sounds amazing. And I have the material to run it.

[RDM42]

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Wrath wrote:

I'm beginning to think most of these threads should just go in the homebrew section.

People who want Martials to do more just create house rules for them in these threads and want the debs to embrace those house rules.

The thing is... these people want to continue to support Paizo, they want Paizo to continue to thrive, and they want to see Paizo become greater than it has been before.

This means learning from the mistakes of the past and evolving the game into something more coherent, something more harmonious and something that breaks far less easily when someone uses the rules as written.

These people are lobbying for this not out of selfishness [or at least, not all of them. I suppose some might find it more entertaining to push for Paizo to change than to write their own rules, I am not one of them] but out of respect and appreciation for the company that breathed life into a game they loved that was being abandoned by its former company.

Of course, there are a good many people who would like the system allot less if you removed the last non magical classes. I mean, it's not possible you could just play something else's? Does the existence of a nonmagical class or two alongside all of the magical ones bother you that much?

[kyrt-ryder]

RDM42 wrote:

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Wrath wrote:

I'm beginning to think most of these threads should just go in the homebrew section.

People who want Martials to do more just create house rules for them in these threads and want the debs to embrace those house rules.

The thing is... these people want to continue to support Paizo, they want Paizo to continue to thrive, and they want to see Paizo become greater than it has been before.

This means learning from the mistakes of the past and evolving the game into something more coherent, something more harmonious and something that breaks far less easily when someone uses the rules as written.

These people are lobbying for this not out of selfishness [or at least, not all of them. I suppose some might find it more entertaining to push for Paizo to change than to write their own rules, I am not one of them] but out of respect and appreciation for the company that breathed life into a game they loved that was being abandoned by its former company.

Of course, there are a good many people who would like the system allot less if you removed the last non magical classes. I mean, it's not possible you could just play something else's? Does the existence of a nonmagical class or two alongside all of the magical ones bother you that much?

I don't have a problem with a non-magical class.

I have a problem with a non-functional one.

Lets take the Fighter for example [I know we all love to pick on the Fighter, but it's an easy mark to demonstrate the point.] This class lacks magic, lacks awesome and even lacks mundane skills.

One simple way to mitigate the problem for non-magical characters I've seen done is Gestalting Fighter and Rogue. The character gets two good saves, full BAB, 8 skill points per level, bonus feats and rogue talents and possibly even sneak attack [I've seen varying opinions on whether or not to keep sneak attack in this gestalt. One 'middle-ground' I've seen is prohibiting Sneak Attack during a Full Attack Action but allowing it any other time]

Still far below a Wizard [and even a Bard/Inquisitor/Warpriest], but it can sort of play at the same level as a Barbarian or Paladin.

[RDM42]

And yet person after person plays games with both wizards and fighters in them with no problems whatsoever. How weird Is that, huh?

[kyrt-ryder]

RDM42 wrote:

And yet person after person plays games with both wizards and fighters in them with no problems whatsoever. How weird Is that, huh?

And yet person after person has many many problems. How weird Is that, huh?

[Malwing]

RDM42 wrote:

And yet person after person plays games with both wizards and fighters in them with no problems whatsoever. How weird Is that, huh?

Not that weird. There is sort of a disconnect between how things work on the forums and how things work at tables. The forums have way more knowledge about minute details about how the game works than most of my players put together which makes full casters really the weakest classes in my games. Sure they can do anything and some can completely rewrite their spells known each day but really people tend to stick to a gimmick and run with it rather than stress themselves by reviewing every spell in the game to wiggle out the most optimal strategy. I can't count the times where I've had a party of mostly casters fall victim to really mundane NPCs and other threats because they simply weren't prepared to deal with it. They didn't have that magic bullet spell and don't take damage very well.

I do wonder why I don't see the complaint in 5th edition right now because I'm playing a fighter right now and it is the most boring version of the fighter ever. I just leveled and I got one more use of an ability that really should be at-will and my HP went up. And that's it. Casters got a heavy nerf too but about the only thing I can do is murder (and cook) while casters get to do all kinds of things. I'm to the point where I'm contemplating getting myself killed so I can roll up a Bard or something. Admittedly that's slightly difficult because I made a pretty good fighter and it's been murdering quite a bit.

[alexd1976]

kyrt-ryder wrote:

RDM42 wrote:

And yet person after person plays games with both wizards and fighters in them with no problems whatsoever. How weird Is that, huh?

And yet person after person has many many problems. How weird Is that, huh?

I've seen both.

Mechanically, the Fighter has issues, I think that is what we are talking about.

Just because people can (and do) play them in a balanced and successful game does not mean problems don't exist...

In my current group, we have a single class fighter (archer) who is doing JUST FINE, but this is because we all helped her make her character, and have limited ourselves (only one full caster, who is functioning as a healer).

Of all these threads I have seen about martial/caster disparity, I think the best suggestions I have read are:

1)Gestalt Rogue into the class

2)Introduce new feats that replace existing feats with better versions that scale

3)Introduce new mechanics for Fighters similar to Rogue abilities (they gain new ones every x levels, and get to select from a list).

All in all, after combing through THOUSANDS of posts, I have got a lot of good ideas to boost fighters, if I ever see the need to in my home games.

So thank you, everyone, for your creativity and analysis of this issue.

[Bandw2]

RDM42 wrote:

And yet person after person plays games with both wizards and fighters in them with no problems whatsoever. How weird Is that, huh?

i feel it's because A. most people don't go to high level and B. most people shy away from having all magic in the party and try to buff the martial because that just what you do in these sorts of games.

[Michael Sayre]

RDM42 wrote:

And yet person after person plays games with both wizards and fighters in them with no problems whatsoever. How weird Is that, huh?

Not weird at all. Lots of people don't have the system mastery to make broken casters, or buildo towards an idea ("I wanna be a wizard who's a master of fire magic!") that isn't particularly optimal. It tends to be that the better you know and follow the rules, the more dangerous casters become and the more hampered martials (particularly Fighters) get.

That being said, I've been running organized play events for a while now, and I've discovered that a lot of new players will automatically go to the Internet for character building advice, or have grown up playing Magic the Gathering and are used to running all the complex math in their heads and building "answer for anything" decks, so it's very common for me to see issues when a couple new players show up and one has a gaming background and the other's just a dude off the street, and one of them is packing the ultimate Batman wizard, and the other has a Fighter with a bunch of feats that they thought sounded cool but which don't synergize at all. It tends to be a little awkward trying to explain to someone why their (poorly built) character seems so much less capable.

[Tormsskull]

Malwing wrote:

There is sort of a disconnect between how things work on the forums and how things work at tables. The forums have way more knowledge about minute details about how the game works than most of my players put together which makes full casters really the weakest classes in my games.

Which begs the question, does it really need to be fixed? Seems like it is working for 80%* of the people that play the game casually, but not working for the 20% of hard-core, super-knowledgeable gamers. Those 20%* can house rule it so that it does work for them, but seem to be demanding that it be changed for everyone so that it is "official."

* made up guesstimate percentages.

[shroudb]

Bandw2 wrote:

RDM42 wrote:

And yet person after person plays games with both wizards and fighters in them with no problems whatsoever. How weird Is that, huh?

i feel it's because A. most people don't go to high level and B. most people shy away from having all magic in the party and try to buff the martial because that just what you do in these sorts of games.

current game i play as a player and not a gm i'm the arcane caster of the group.

i specifically build him as a brown fur transmuter and spend my turns buffing our fighter with stuff so that he can feel more awesome.

does it work? sure it does.
but that's just because i chose to play something that wouldn't overshadow him.

can the very same character, with no change apart from the daily memorized spells wreck stuff on his own? ofc he can. i can always quick study into encounter winning stuff in just a round if so needed.

[Bandw2]

Tormsskull wrote:

Malwing wrote:

There is sort of a disconnect between how things work on the forums and how things work at tables. The forums have way more knowledge about minute details about how the game works than most of my players put together which makes full casters really the weakest classes in my games.

Which begs the question, does it really need to be fixed? Seems like it is working for 80%* of the people that play the game casually, but not working for the 20% of hard-core, super-knowledgeable gamers. Those 20%* can house rule it so that it does work for them, but seem to be demanding that it be changed for everyone so that it is "official."

* made up guesstimate percentages.

you have even less numbers than we have we did a poll it was something like 35 votes for it exists and 6 or so for it doesn't.

here it is

still i doubt the numbers are an exact opposite of what happens outside of the forums.

numbers are more 25-40 in favor of does exist.

[RDM42]

I don't. I don't think those who frequent the forums are anything close to a representative sample of those who play.

[Bandw2]

RDM42 wrote:

I don't. I don't think those who frequent the forums are anything close to a representative sample of those who play.

I also don't think you can say that it is in complete opposition to the forums either, but still more people who have been asked think it exists than those who do not.

[Tormsskull]

Bandw2 wrote:

you have even less numbers than we have we did a poll it was something like 35 votes for it exists and 6 or so for it doesn't.

here it is

still i doubt the numbers are an exact opposite of what happens outside of the forums.

numbers are more 25-40 in favor of does exist.

I'm having a difficult time parsing your language.

The forums voting that the disparity exists is one thing, a separate vote would have to be carried out asking the question "Should the disparity be fixed by doing x" in order to get a better understanding of what the change should be.

Even assuming that was done, that only gauges the forums visitors. I'm guessing for every one forum visitor, there's something like 100 players that don't visit the forums.

Why affect the entire player base to placate the forums visitors?

[kyrt-ryder]

What's kind of funny about all this is that Paizo has a gigantic playerbase, organized in a format easy to collect data from for playtesting.

It would be trivially easy to insert some 'fantastic martial rules' into a playtest, get feedback from forumites and PFSers and examine the data.

But why upset the status quo, why try to do better when what you're doing is doing well enough.

[RDM42]

Bandw2 wrote:

RDM42 wrote:

I don't. I don't think those who frequent the forums are anything close to a representative sample of those who play.

I also don't think you can say that it is in complete opposition to the forums either, but still more people who have been asked think it exists than those who do not.

As much evidence exists for one as the other..

[Bandw2]

^this is true

edit: i was ninja'd, it's @ kyrt

[ZZTRaider]

Tormsskull wrote:

Why affect the entire player base to placate the forums visitors?

Just to point out, just because those players don't visit the forums doesn't mean they don't see the same issue. Many of them may very well be thrilled to see an official fix. It's effectively impossible to come up with any numbers for that, though.

[alexd1976]

RDM42 wrote:

I don't. I don't think those who frequent the forums are anything close to a representative sample of those who play.

Are you saying that forum posters aren't players?

That seems odd.

[Michael Sayre]

Tormsskull wrote:

Malwing wrote:

There is sort of a disconnect between how things work on the forums and how things work at tables. The forums have way more knowledge about minute details about how the game works than most of my players put together which makes full casters really the weakest classes in my games.

Which begs the question, does it really need to be fixed? Seems like it is working for 80%* of the people that play the game casually, but not working for the 20% of hard-core, super-knowledgeable gamers. Those 20%* can house rule it so that it does work for them, but seem to be demanding that it be changed for everyone so that it is "official."

* made up guesstimate percentages.

I would say those numbers aren't really that accurate (obviously). I run an open table Pathfinder game every week, and I tend to see an even split between players who've grown up with that gamer culture and can make really powerful casters, and people who just thought the books looked cool and figured it out themselves. Mitigating disparity between these characters is pretty much a regular exercise for me.

Even Paizo's own organized play program, Pathfinder Society, uses a bunch of house rules that serve to nerf spellcasters down and limit many of their advantages, while presenting scenarios designed to try and favor martial characters. If the rules were balanced in the first place, they wouldn't need 15 pages of house rules that players need to learn on top of the base rules, or cap their play to lower levels where martial/caster disparity is easier to mitigate.

[RDM42]

alexd1976 wrote:

RDM42 wrote:

I don't. I don't think those who frequent the forums are anything close to a representative sample of those who play.

Are you saying that forum posters aren't players?

That http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/WMG/Alien odd.

No. That they aren't a representative sample of players. I'd very much view it like taking a sample f political activists, polling them, and saying their opinion represents the opinion of people in general.

For those who know American history, it's the sort of polling that can lead to 'Dewey defeats Truman."

[Bandw2]

ZZTRaider wrote:

Tormsskull wrote:

Why affect the entire player base to placate the forums visitors?

Just to point out, just because those players don't visit the forums doesn't mean they don't see the same issue. Many of them may very well be thrilled to see an official fix. It's effectively impossible to come up with any numbers for that, though.

there's this thing they do occasionally, where they do a playtest and unleash it onto PFS. i mean they do it often enough that it must work for them.

[Tormsskull]

kyrt-ryder wrote:

It would be trivially easy to insert some 'fantastic martial rules' into a playtest, get feedback from forumites and PFSers and examine the data.

Anybody who has ever sat down to create a rule set would never describe it as "trivially easy."

ZZTRaider wrote:

Just to point out, just because those players don't visit the forums doesn't mean they don't see the same issue. Many of them may very well be thrilled to see an official fix. It's effectively impossible to come up with any numbers for that, though.

True on both angles. My assumption comes from the fact that this disparity tends to be highlighted in games where the players are very knowledgeable/experienced with the rules. My guess is that many of the people that don't visit the forums aren't as rules-knowledgeable.

But as you said, impossible to come up with accurate numbers.

Ssalarn wrote:

I would say those numbers aren't really that accurate (obviously).

Okay, what do you think is more fair? 60% don't have a problem with the disparity? 40%?

[Bandw2]

well i mean the forum keeps getting posts from new people occasionally complaining about the fighter or rogue, not so much the monk anymore with it's archetypes. these aren't people from the forum, because we've houseruled the issue to death and don't like talking about it that much, these are new people who played the game and had a problem with these classes with their poor options.

[RDM42]

Bandw2 wrote:

well i mean the forum keeps getting posts from new people occasionally complaining about the fighter or rogue, not so much the monk anymore with it's archetypes. these aren't people from the forum, because we've houseruled the issue to death and don't like talking about it that much, these are new people who played the game and had a problem with these classes with their poor options.

And people who post in a forum are more likely to be people who have a problem. People who do not have a problem with something, whatever their numbers, are likely less likely to post.

[Bandw2]

RDM42 wrote:

Bandw2 wrote:

well i mean the forum keeps getting posts from new people occasionally complaining about the fighter or rogue, not so much the monk anymore with it's archetypes. these aren't people from the forum, because we've houseruled the issue to death and don't like talking about it that much, these are new people who played the game and had a problem with these classes with their poor options.

And people who post in a forum are more likely to be people who have a problem. People who do not have a problem with something, whatever their numbers, are likely less likely to post.

yes, but because it's a constant affair, it seems evident that the issue is known out there and isn't just about specific people who only frequent the boards.

[RDM42]

Bandw2 wrote:

RDM42 wrote:

Bandw2 wrote:

well i mean the forum keeps getting posts from new people occasionally complaining about the fighter or rogue, not so much the monk anymore with it's archetypes. these aren't people from the forum, because we've houseruled the issue to death and don't like talking about it that much, these are new people who played the game and had a problem with these classes with their poor options.

And people who post in a forum are more likely to be people who have a problem. People who do not have a problem with something, whatever their numbers, are likely less likely to post.

yes, but because it's a constant affair, it seems evident that the issue is known out there and isn't just about specific people who only frequent the boards.

... That really doesn't follow.

It's a given, it seems, that there is a percentage that thinks it is a problem, and that percentage likes to frequent these boards. You can't really draw any further inferences from that to the wider population.

[Michael Sayre]

Tormsskull wrote:

Ssalarn wrote:

I would say those numbers aren't really that accurate (obviously).

Okay, what do you think is more fair? 60% don't have a problem with the disparity? 40%?

Considering in the very next sentence I said " I run an open table Pathfinder game every week, and I tend to see an even split between players who've grown up with that gamer culture and can make really powerful casters, and people who just thought the books looked cool and figured it out themselves", probably 50%.

The ways people deal with that vary of course; some people whack things with the nerf bat until they "feel right", some just don't allow classes that feel problematic, etc.

The problem for me is that people who are currently playing probably have a solution in place, so the people most affected are potential new players. Sure, the hobby is growing (thanks in no small part to a house-rule filled organized play venue), but if my experience is even within a few factors of "normal", it could be growing faster if each class was as valid a choice as another.

Sometimes, when you go through all that effort to make something you think is cool, and you find out it sucks, you feel stupid. People, generally, don't like feeling stupid, and they're either going to educate themselves, or they're going to avoid the thing that made them feel stupid. If classes are more equitably designed and it's harder for class A to do Class B's thing or make class B's thing irrelevant, you lower the chances of losing that group that might just end up leaving.

Basically, the majority of fixes people want will have no impact on the people who think things are fine, but they will improve the game for people who are playing in groups or environments with enough system mastery that the issues inherent in the system are surfacing and creating issues. As more and more players grow up with the internet at their fingertips and forums being commonplace options for advice and research, the number of people who have issues that tend to be gated by system mastery are only going to continue to grow.