| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my opinion Martials don't have casting.
That means paladins, rangers etc aren't martials.
I submit, then, the second half of my TL;DR post. I could dredge up a more appropriate example, but I enjoy monks. They are consistently viewed to be the dregs of the martial classes, and... Unfairly so.
I submit, then, the second half of my TL;DR post. I could dredge up a more appropriate example, but I enjoy monks. They are consistently viewed to be the dregs of the martial classes, and... Unfairly so.In my opinion Martials don't have casting.
That means paladins, rangers etc aren't martials.
I've played a few monks, they aren't fantastic, but neither do they suck.
^^^
Wind wall...
In my opinion Martials don't have casting.
That means paladins, rangers etc aren't martials.
I typically allow Paladins Rangers and now the new Bloodrager the "martial" tag as their spells come late, are slow to become effective and thus suffer all the same setbacks of a regular martial for a majority of their career.
Though I do think martial vs magic should be amended with all the new "half casters" such as Magus, Warpriest and Hunter. Martial vs Halfies vs Magic I guess xD
Step 1. Get a pet giant eagle or Griffin or large flying animal.
Step 2. Have it pick up and move your martial into full attack range during its turn.
Now you are OP and doing way to much damage or no damage because the AC is too high. Martials are garbage not as a concept but because of the full attack mechanic.
Step 3. Be denied Full Attack for the same reason you can't full attack after your mount moves.
Step 4. Throw a hissy-fit over the GM "house-rule nerfing your legit RAW plan".
Step 5. Get asked to point to the rules for picking up and moving allied characters.
In my opinion Martials don't have casting.
That means paladins, rangers etc aren't martials.
But this forum, The Gaming Den, GitP all use "martial" to mean "full BAB, no more than 4 levels casting". And language is a tool to facilitate shared understanding.
As the game evolves, grouping "martials" and "casters" becomes a bit less appropriate. Among the casters there is a pretty big difference between a sorcerer and a psychic; one can be shut down by any martial character making a skillcheck.
Yes, damn that Tatooed Sorcerer giving up Eschew Components and falling prey to Sleight of Hand. Or did you mean psychic casters and Intimidate? There's a rod or feat for that, just like there is for Silence/deafness and being tied up.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I find it sad that the MAGUS is the most cinematically appropriate martial...
I mean, its has spells that let it do things that, quite honestly, MARTIALS SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO... lets just look at it:
LVL 1
Bed of Iron- Really? Should this not just be a thing for any martial beyond like... level 3?
Blurred Movement- So... the magus can do the cool, move so fast you make it hard to hit you thing.... but the Monk Cant?... Or the Rogue?? Should this not be a thing for rogues???
Line in the Sand- Because... drawing a line is magical?... and it nets you so many AoO you will lose track of it...
Lock Gaze- Really?
LvL 2
Bladed Dash- um really? This is a rediculously Iconic ability of super skilled martials... but the BARD and the MAGUS are able to do it? And NOT the guys who dedicate their lives to fighting? Figure that out...
Brow Gasher now THIS is funny. Apparently you need magic to CUT A GUY ON THE FOREHEAD... I mean... really? You IMBUE YOUR WEAPON WITH THE ABILITY TO LEAVE A NASTY HEAD WOUND???... Really???
Tactical Acumen - Should this not have been an ability that Cavaliers and fighters (you know... the guys who are fluffed as masters of war) should have by default???
LVL 3
Bloody Arrows- cuz you know... giving this to weapons normally would make "no sense" .. after all.. only magic can do nice things...
Burst of Speed- Because you need mid level Transmutation magic to sprint and not become a pincusion...
LVL 4
Forceful Strike I feel like this should have been a Combat Feat... maybe right after power attack?...
LEVEL 5
Greater Bladed Dash Is this not one of the most iconic abilities of the Fast, skillful warrior? Charging right through enemy ranks, taking out everyone in the way, then lay waste to your target?... This should have been a combat feat... not some stupid spell..
I mean.... all of these spells have no reason to be spells... or if nothing else, to be spells with no feat counter part... I mean... what the heck?
As the game evolves, grouping "martials" and "casters" becomes a bit less appropriate. Among the casters there is a pretty big difference between a sorcerer and a psychic; one can be shut down by any martial character making a skillcheck.Yes, damn that Tatooed Sorcerer giving up Eschew Components and falling prey to Sleight of Hand. Or did you mean psychic casters and Intimidate? There's a rod or feat for that, just like there is for Silence/deafness and being tied up.
But if you have to use a rod or a feat to make up for your weaknesses, you're just as bad as a filthy fighter who has to rely on a magic item for things.
A) What people THINK fighters are supposed to be doing and
B) What spell casters can do to invalidate and more importantly
C) Why do martials require a place in game if they're not really allowed to be important
D) What can a martial do that no other class type can do. Clearly anyone does damage, what else?
A) Fighters should fight, know tactics and lead men
B) Most cantrips and orizons invalidate skills and by that out of combat stuff martials could provide for the party.C) If they are not allowed to be important they require no place.
D) Nothing. Normally martials deal more damage but that's just because caster can do better thing than just damage. They lose less by multiclassing than casters and it is possible to build interesting PCs by doing so. But that's frowned upon.
Didn't people say similar things about 3e and 3.5 and the solution was 4e?
One reason to have martials if you like the 3e type way of doing things is because if you try to even out the martials by how some people on the board see them...
You end up with 4e. (I actually liked 4e, but one reason PF has done so well I think is because of how many people did NOT like 4e...and probably many of those don't see a problem with martials...at least from low to mid levels in regards to power related to spellcasters).
Let's not a minority decide for the majority how the game should be...lest the future be full of 4e.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's an experiment you should try: Delete everything you've ever heard online about "martials suck" from your brain, forget you ever heard it, then play a few games with a well-mixed party and observe the proceedings with fresh eyes. I think you'll find that there's nothing at all wrong with "martials." They do exactly what they're supposed to do, damned well, and without the limitations and drawbacks that mages pay for their power with. The idea that they're no good is really just the result of a hivemind effect that prejudices people to see what they've been told to see.
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
Strange that I felt the disparity in real games before reading it in online discussions. I really had the problem that martials were all but useless out of combat and nothing but mop up goons in combat. All of that in real games. No theory-craft, no speculations.
There are players who don't participate in the game outside of combat and just want to kill stuff in combat. For them the current PF martials are ok. But not all players are like this and some of those not like that still want to play martial PCs.
Because it's fun! Barbarians are a ton of fun to play!
I love busting down a door with my axe or two-handed greatsword and charging into the fray!
RAGE, baby - RAGE!!
Unless you don't consider a Barbarian a martial?
Fighter, now - that's trickier.
So, how do we fix the martial, without turning it into some spell slinging character? Or is it that we need to fix spell casters with some nerfs?
Has been proposed several times already but mostly it was just discarded with flames and insults:
Give the fighter (just one example) something like the feral hunter's permanent animal focus but call it Soldier's focus or the like.
Example abilities:
- Scout focus: +4 to Stealth and perception
- pioneer focus: +4 to climb and swim
- messenger focus: +5ft base speed
etc.
This would help the fighter with his few skill points, make him more versatile without greatly increasing his overall power.
You could let him just select one focus/2 levels so his versatility increases over time instead of just giving him everything at first level. As is few martials would not benefit from an early dip into hunter just for the permanent animal focus or vermin focus.
A dwarven skyseeker (sunseeker) build by mixing ranger1 and druid 4 or cleric 4 only loses 1 point of BAB and gets more than 6th level casting. He can wear armor with no problem* and has all martial proficiency. With a well build PC you can cast spells and still fight good. He is versatile because he can kill with his weapon or his spells depending on the foes. Or he can combine spells and weapon by self buffing, often prebuffing out of combat.
Such a PC can do most of what a fighter can do and can do much the fighter can't that's the disparity and the problem. The casters can grab the martial's role but not the other way 'round.
*the druid certainly has a problem with metal armor.
Has been proposed several times already but mostly it was just discarded with flames and insults:Give the fighter (just one example) something like the feral hunter's permanent animal focus but call it Soldier's focus or the like.
Example abilities:
- Scout focus: +4 to Stealth and perception
- pioneer focus: +4 to climb and swim
- messenger focus: +5ft base speed
etc.This would help the fighter with his few skill points, make him more versatile without greatly increasing his overall power.
You could let him just select one focus/2 levels so his versatility increases over time instead of just giving him everything at first level. As is few martials would not benefit from an early dip into hunter just for the permanent animal focus or vermin focus.
That's a very nice example of the kind of petty b&$@!&+* +1 to Basketweaving that Martials get.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The real reason?.. Because min-maxxed mages are booooooooooooring.
The kind of power levels, builds, and experience that is talked about regarding these uber-powered mages basically turns the game into a schlong-measuring competition of who can clear an encounter first, with practically no risk. If your goal is to get from point A to B, congrats, you drew the shortest line. But if you're there to have fun in a way that doesn't involve hogging the lime-light... the game itself isn't about never failing, it's about the story. And stories get more interesting when you have to fight back from failure (Consider how the show Avatar: the last Airbender would have been if Aang just went Avatar state on Ozai two episodes in.) The better the GM, the more fun you can squeeze out of failure.
IMO an average build mage or two backing up martials/skillmonkies is where the game gets fun. Instead of just auto-winning every encounter, there are challenges that you have to think around instead of just spamming X, Y, or Z spell at until it goes away. Everybody gets to contribute. I'm not saying purposely kneecap your builds, but you also don't need to squeeze every statistical advantage out. It's just not necessary unless you want to flop your magical bits down on the table and basically give the finger to the rest of the party.
I'd encourage mages to choose fun spell options instead of optimized ones. So X isn't as good as Y, but it's a lot more amusing/can be used in wider situations. Do some buffing/debuffing. Don't hyperfocus. Let the rest of the party shine too.
Also, because SR neuters most mages who don't build to penetrate it, and the kinda stuff with SR tends to make ground meat out of soft mages. But for those who do build for that, see aforementioned comment about drawing the shortest, most boring line. You turn into Presto the magician, stamped from shiny plastic like the last 500.
tl;dr - I like playing martial classes with complexity.
The real reason?.. Because min-maxxed mages are booooooooooooring.
The kind of power levels, builds, and experience that is talked about regarding these uber-powered mages basically turns the game into a schlong-measuring competition of who can clear an encounter first, with practically no risk. If your goal is to get from point A to B, congrats, you drew the shortest line. But if you're there to have fun in a way that doesn't involve hogging the lime-light... the game itself isn't about never failing, it's about the story. And stories get more interesting when you have to fight back from failure (Consider how the show Avatar: the last Airbender would have been if Aang just went Avatar state on Ozai two episodes in.) The better the GM, the more fun you can squeeze out of failure.
IMO an average build mage or two backing up martials/skillmonkies is where the game gets fun. Instead of just auto-winning every encounter, there are challenges that you have to think around instead of just spamming X, Y, or Z spell at until it goes away. Everybody gets to contribute. I'm not saying purposely kneecap your builds, but you also don't need to squeeze every statistical advantage out. It's just not necessary unless you want to flop your magical bits down on the table and basically give the finger to the rest of the party.
I'd encourage mages to choose fun spell options instead of optimized ones. So X isn't as good as Y, but it's a lot more amusing/can be used in wider situations. Do some buffing/debuffing. Don't hyperfocus. Let the rest of the party shine too.
Also, because SR neuters most mages who don't build to penetrate it, and the kinda stuff with SR tends to make ground meat out of soft mages. But for those who do build for that, see aforementioned comment about drawing the shortest, most boring line. You turn into Presto the magician, stamped from shiny plastic like the last 500.
tl;dr - I like playing martial classes with complexity.
So people who play casters should make weak choices on purpose so the other guys at the table get a turn/have fun. That is by far one of the weakest arguments I've ever heard on the issue.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh why not? I am just answering the OP's inquiry and have not read other replies, and like the OP, am not here to engage with them.
And I'll give a quick answer to the OP first: if you are not sure, try it. Run an all-caster campaign and see what happens.
DISCLAIMER: I can only speak from my personal experience, with my particular gaming groups that I've played with or PBPed with. I will not speak from theory (where often ideal circumstances or high levels are presumed, when ideal circumstances and high levels seldom occur in gameplay); I will speak from practical experience with parties that most typically start at 1st level and go up to about 7-9th before the campaign ends, playing in adventures that are either Pathfinder modules and APs or built in similar ways. I have also run a high level party and can speak to that.
Things to bear in mind: I've played in a variety of groups, but most groups I've played with do not presume 15 minute adventure day and feature fairly well-rounded parties. Most people I play with are not uber-optimizers but tend to create effective-to-powerful builds.
I have also actually played in an all-arcane caster party and will also speak to that. Likewise I have also played in martial-heavy parties and that experience also informs me.
First, my general observation: The main difference between a caster and a non-caster (whether martial, skill monkey, or something else) lies in resource management. The challenge of playing a caster is that your resources are somewhat finite; while you always have at least endless 0-level spells as a last resort, but if you're playing in what I'd consider a typical Pathfinder adventure (akin to what might be presented in a module, AP, or by a creative GM), you're not going to be able to stop and rest every two minutes. Prepared casters struggle to make sure the "right" spells are prepared---a wizard can technically know every spell, but if he prepared unseen servant and charm person that day and it turns out he would have been better off with magic missile and shield, then it doesn't matter what's actually in his spellbook (and likewise, if he's in an urban-intrigue campaign where the PCs are infiltrating and gathering information, and he prepared magic missile, he'll be kicking himself he didn't prepare charm person instead). Spont casters likewise have to be very careful with choosing known spells. You have to constantly figure out when and where is best to cast a given spell, and hope you have something that speaks to a certain situation. An enchanter will dominate in a fight with humanoids, but without a versatile enough spell list, will have nothing to contribute in a fight against undead. Clerics who prepared spells to defeat evil fiends may regret it when they are attacked by an inevitable. And so on. A clever caster player knows how to manage resources carefully. One who doesn't may find they have little to practically contribute; yeah, it's awesome you can create that demiplane, but if you can't do anything to affect the golem that's crushing us to death right now, what are you good for?
This is not to say that a good game forces casters to death-march for days without resting, but a typical, well-run adventure day where people are not stopping to rest after every fight (because if they do that, the dragon is going to have time to eat the princess), a caster has to manage their limited resources carefully.
What martials do are much simpler---they don't have the potential field of options a caster has---but they don't run out of the core of what they do---although pool-based characters like gunslingers, swashbucklers, barbarians, and monks do have some limitations in that regard. With few exceptions, they don't have to worry about how they set themselves up that morning to be effective that day. Still, the strategy in working with a combat focused character is more in initial build than in, say, choosing daily abilities and hoping they picked right. Their positional builds are different.
Players are human beings, and human beings come in a wide variety of preferences, skills, and talents. Therefore some players work better with strategies focused on casters and others work better with strategies focused on martials, and a good party will accommodate both (and other) play styles.
In short, one answer to "why would I want a martial in my party," is "if one of your players can manage martial strategy more efficiently than caster strategy, they should play a martial."
This is not the only answer of course, and we shall continue.
Here are your questions:
A) What people THINK fighters are supposed to be doing
I'm going to use the general "martial" rather than "fighter" specifically since there is more than one kind of combat-focused character, but of course much of this applies to fighters.
Martials are supposed to-
- Have high base armor class. Especially at low levels, where casters often struggle to raise their AC save for temporary buff spells that aren't always available.
- Take lots of damage, both via higher hit die and usually an ability to raise Con. At low levels, for example, a fighter can easily survive a hit that would kill your typical wizard. In the arcane-caster-only game we played in, we struggled with having low HP overall, even though we were allowed to multiclass and some folks had good Con.
- Have good Fortitude and/or Reflex saving throws and generally other good innate physical defenses. This also not just from base saves but from physical stats that are more likely prioritized. A rogue at higher level can shrug off a fireball or better AOE spell like it's nothing; a wizard at the same level could be killed by the same attack (unless the wizard thought to be protected from fire, but that could be said for any character regardless of party role). Yes, some casters have good Fort or Ref too, and of course yes, all casters generally have good Will which is less common amongst non-casters---but that's the tradeoff, of course. A good party will have a variety of characters each with different strengths so they can shore up each other's weaknesses. The barbarian who can shrug off poison and the wizard who can shrug off charm can protect each other.
- Deal CONSISTENT and LARGE amounts of weapon damage. Yes, anyone can do damage. But a caster cannot deal lots of weapon damage, and there are a lot of monsters that can shrug off the brunt of most magical/elemental attacks but succumb to a single blow from a well-designed fighter. An optimized martial will deal in one blow typically more damage than a spell that a caster of the same level can cast. There are very few creatures that are immune to weapon damage (the only thing I can think of are swarms) and DR is very easy to bypass -- even without the special material, you optimize a martial's damage output enough, they do enough that DR doesn't make a notable difference (DR IMO is one of the most useless features in the game, but that's another conversation).
Your first fight with a golem--which are pretty common RPG enemies--will demonstrate exactly how important having a strong martial member of the party is.
I ran a HIGH (15th-19th) level Pathfinder game that was , probably not unsurprisingly, caster heavy. The casters did a LOT, do not get me wrong. And they did a lot that relied upon caster-ness. The party would probably not have succeeded without having casters in it. BUT... the character that usually killed bad guys in one or two blows was the fighter/rogue/shadowdancer, with well-placed sneak attacks (he was VERY good at getting in flanking position). The rogue also still handled traps and other typical "dungeon obstacles" in a way others couldn't (the cleric was not going to waste her time preparing find traps and the wizard was not going to waste his time preparing knock when both of them had way more crucial spells they needed to rely on at that level).
In another game I am in right now (a PBP here, DM Papa DRB's Moru Country, if you want to look at it) we're at 8th level, and we have a scary-optimized ranger who typically one-shots the bad guys before the casters can do a damn thing. If there's one outshining "star" of the campaign, it's him. The character I play is a bard-archeologist, and she generally has been more invaluable for her skillset than her spellcasting.
- Again, be able to do what they always do without running out of resources easily, and usually not have to rest to recuperate their strengths.
B) What spell casters can do to invalidate and more importantly
I really don't know what this means. If you mean "spellcasters can invalidate what martials usually do," this is a bit of a falsehood spread by theorycrafters who I'm fairly certain never actually sit down and play the game. Yes, a cleric could prepare find traps but why would you when there's way better spells to prep and someone else can do that? Again, casters have limited resources. If they waste those resources trying to fill other party member roles, then they probably are doing it at the expense of the thing that class is actually most valuable for (healing, buffing, blasting, or battlefield control).
In the all-arcane game I played in, we struggled in dealing with foes quickly (no focused damage dealer) and the only reason we could cover all bases was largely because 3/4 of us ended up dipping into non-caster classes. We also were all glass cannons and went down easily if the dice were not on our side. (Mind, this was due to being all ARCANE; maybe all-caster there would have been more diversity.)
C) Why do martials require a place in game if they're not really allowed to be important
Given every game I've played in over the course of decades, not just in Pathfinder but its D&D predecessors, martials have been important (let alone "allowed" to be) and have shone as brightly as the casters in the group, so this question is untruthful and irrelevant.
EDIT: D) What can a martial do that no other class type can do. Clearly anyone does damage, what else?
See above. It's not about what you can do uniquely--uniqueness should come from the player--it's about what you can do BEST.
Final Thoughts: The best party is one that works together and builds upon each other's strengths. A party that is set up where players pit their PCs against one another in essentially fighting over who shines the most is doomed to fail in a typical campaign. But in a good party, the martial character blocks the caster from taking damage, while the caster buffs the martial to make her do even more damage to the bad guys. The caster alters the battlefield so the martial gains the high ground, the martial deals reliable, consistent levels of damage that are not resisted by magic immunity, saving throw, or spell resistance. The caster uses area of effect spells to wipe away minions while the martial can safely get close to and focuses upon the BigBad. By themselves, each can be good at something or not, but a good party full of a variety of roles will always make each other better.
At the end of the day, it's the party together that should shine as a whole, and not any one member of it.
I've been very lucky enough that in most of the games I've personally played, that is the case.
And again: You don't want to play in a party with martials? Fine. Don't. If that's how you and your gaming group has fun, and you find you can do it successfully, go for it. Others do have fun with martials in the party, however, and neither they nor the game itself is wrong for including them.
Have fun and happy gaming.
|
|
So people who play casters should make weak choices on purpose so the other guys at the table get a turn/have fun. That is by far one of the weakest arguments I've ever heard on the issue.The real reason?.. Because min-maxxed mages are booooooooooooring.
The kind of power levels, builds, and experience that is talked about regarding these uber-powered mages basically turns the game into a schlong-measuring competition of who can clear an encounter first, with practically no risk. If your goal is to get from point A to B, congrats, you drew the shortest line. But if you're there to have fun in a way that doesn't involve hogging the lime-light... the game itself isn't about never failing, it's about the story. And stories get more interesting when you have to fight back from failure (Consider how the show Avatar: the last Airbender would have been if Aang just went Avatar state on Ozai two episodes in.) The better the GM, the more fun you can squeeze out of failure.
IMO an average build mage or two backing up martials/skillmonkies is where the game gets fun. Instead of just auto-winning every encounter, there are challenges that you have to think around instead of just spamming X, Y, or Z spell at until it goes away. Everybody gets to contribute. I'm not saying purposely kneecap your builds, but you also don't need to squeeze every statistical advantage out. It's just not necessary unless you want to flop your magical bits down on the table and basically give the finger to the rest of the party.
I'd encourage mages to choose fun spell options instead of optimized ones. So X isn't as good as Y, but it's a lot more amusing/can be used in wider situations. Do some buffing/debuffing. Don't hyperfocus. Let the rest of the party shine too.
Also, because SR neuters most mages who don't build to penetrate it, and the kinda stuff with SR tends to make ground meat out of soft mages. But for those who do build for that, see aforementioned comment about drawing the shortest, most boring line. You turn into Presto the magician, stamped from shiny plastic like the last 500.
tl;dr - I like playing martial classes with complexity.
So your counter-argument is that every mage PCs should be a cookie-cutter narcissistic god? Yours isn't exactly compelling, and a mage isn't weak just because it isn't hyper-optimized. As has been argued plenty already, they don't have to hyper-optimize to be effective in a fight. In fact, it's that point that allows for interesting mage PCs more than anything else.
The question was why have melee players. The answer I provided was because they offer diversity and risk, which are what make games fun for everyone. Winning without question or challenge is boring as hell, especially if you're not able to contribute. There is no game, it's just a timer until everyone else is too bored to play anymore or the GM gets bored and "rocks fall, everyone dies" all over your mage.
TL;DR - What Nicos said.
|
So people who play casters should make weak choices on purpose so the other guys at the table get a turn/have fun. That is by far one of the weakest arguments I've ever heard on the issue.
That's what those who use this counter point don't or won't understand. If someone has to make weak choices to make another class shine in a rpg. It's not a selling point. It just highlights the flaws even more imo.
Followed by martials have no flaws you just have to take the proper build, have to take magic items. Take the right feats, while also making sure that other players with casters have to downplay their characters. To make the player using the fighter feel good. With npcs/enemies either tailored to make sure the fighter shines at all times. While also being run poorly by the DM. Again not selling the class at all imo. If I was new to the hobby and I'm reading that fighters need all the above yeah not interested in playing one.
Yet their nothing wrong martials.
So people who play casters should make weak choices on purpose so the other guys at the table get a turn/have fun. That is by far one of the weakest arguments I've ever heard on the issue.It is not about that they "should", But personally i find non-optimized games to be quite enjoyably, and with more variety.
So your counter-argument is that every mage PCs should be a cookie-cutter narcissistic god? Yours isn't exactly compelling, and a mage isn't weak just because it isn't hyper-optimized. As has been argued plenty already, they don't have to hyper-optimize to be effective in a fight. In fact, it's that point that allows for interesting mage PCs more than anything else.
The question was why have melee players. The answer I provided was because they offer diversity and risk, which are what make games fun for everyone. Winning without question or challenge is boring as hell, especially if you're not able to contribute. There is no game, it's just a timer until everyone else is too bored to play anymore or the GM gets bored and "rocks fall, everyone dies" all over your mage.
TL;DR - What Nicos said.
I am far from being an optimizer or good at building extremely strong or game breaking builds, if I dump a stat it is usually for a reason that relates to the character, but if I see a powerful option(spell, feat, whatever) that fits the personality and theme of the character I am playing I am not going to not pick it because it will make someone feel their character is weak. That is the fault of the game. What I will do instead is help the other player find more powerful options and should that not exist for the class he's playing I'll suggest he approach the GM and retire his character and build another.
But if diversity and risk is what you're after fine, start a campaign with nothing but core rogues, no multiclassing, no archetypes, no 3pp and no min-maxin/optimizing. That should provide you all the challenge you desire. You don't even have to go that far just ban full casters and the game instantly becomes more varied, challenging and martials well get to shine too...well maybe not the core fighter or rogue but hey you take a win where ever you can get one right?
Ideally, you WANT a martial character because they are going to protect those who are weaker (squishier) in the group. They can get in the enemies' faces and keep them occupied long enough for your casters to do their thing.
Sadly, that means primarily: "I need you as a meat-shield!"
Yes - for the occasional "this can't really be overcome with magic" scenario (rare), you want someone around who can brute force their way past the obstacle.
Your first fight with a golem--which are pretty common RPG enemies--will demonstrate exactly how important having a strong martial member of the party is.
You must be kidding. Bypass SR is super easy, you can destroy a golem with ease using a 1st level spell: Snowball.
3.x/PF or 4e are hardly the only options, even restricting this to the D&D sphere. 1e and BECM are equally valid alternatives to the 3e approach, and don't haven't remotely as extreme an imbalance as was designed into 3e and has been placed in a slightly reduced form into 5e.Didn't people say similar things about 3e and 3.5 and the solution was 4e?
One reason to have martials if you like the 3e type way of doing things is because if you try to even out the martials by how some people on the board see them...
You end up with 4e. (I actually liked 4e, but one reason PF has done so well I think is because of how many people did NOT like 4e...and probably many of those don't see a problem with martials...at least from low to mid levels in regards to power related to spellcasters).
Let's not a minority decide for the majority how the game should be...lest the future be full of 4e.
True, and I LOVE AD&D and BECMI, but many people moved onto 3e and it's descendants because they didn't.
In addition, many don't want to play older games, and only play games that are in the here and now.
But, I have to accede, that you are correct in many ways. However, an 18th level wizard in 1e and BECMI was still pretty darn powerful and able to bend reality to it's knees if they so desired.
Of course they could be assassinated with one roll 25% of the time straight up...or be backstabbed with enough damage to probably kill them in that one strike, or have their spell disrupted by a quick strike...most can make their saving throws at those high levels 75% of the time...but they still were pretty darn powerful.
To counter how powerful spellcasters become...the only way was to make everyone equal...and we saw how that turned out with 4e.
I particularly LIKE that spellcasters start off somewhat weak (1st through 3rd level at least), gain around an equal ground with fighters and martials (probably up to 9th or 10th level) and then the roles are reversed where casters start becoming almighty compared to the warriors...and by the time you get to the opposite end of the spectrum, casters are the ones overshadowing the martials instead of the martials overshadowing the casters.
You don't have to have everything balanced to enjoy the game, and you don't have to be the dominate force all the time to have fun (just ask a 1st level wizard...they run out of spells rather quickly and if it weren't for the way Paizo does 0 level spells, basically not contribute that much at all...plus...they are WAAAAY easy to kill at 1st to 3rd level...one nice hit or even worse, a crit...and they are gone!).
5d6 damage would take a while to take a golem down.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's an experiment you should try: Delete everything you've ever heard online about "martials suck" from your brain, forget you ever heard it, then play a few games with a well-mixed party and observe the proceedings with fresh eyes. I think you'll find that there's nothing at all wrong with "martials." They do exactly what they're supposed to do, damned well, and without the limitations and drawbacks that mages pay for their power with. The idea that they're no good is really just the result of a hivemind effect that prejudices people to see what they've been told to see.
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
Add me to the (much longer than you're likely to admit) list of people who discovered the caster-martial disparity firsthand in actual gameplay long before ever reading about it on the internet. Just because an idea you don't like happens to get discussed on the internet doesn't mean it's merely an internet hivemind phenomenon.
Makes that quote you ended with pretty ironic; I might actually steal that and start dropping it into other threads I participate in on this subject. Thanks!
-----------------------------------------
By the way, anyone else noticing the schizophrenic nature of the "no disparity" crowd?
For example, on the one hand, you've got statements like "There's no disparity because roleplay; some of us recognize that the game's not all about absolute-best combat performance." But then you've also got statements like "There's no disparity because you're supposed to have 10+ encounters per day." So for there to be no disparity, we have to focus on roleplay, but only in the kinds of narratives where you murder things 10 times a day or more? It's even more mind-boggling when both of these come from the same poster, which I've seen happen more than once.
How does that even happen?
I rather like interdependence, which I found more in old D&D and AD&D. Fighters were needed pretty much all the way through. Rogues were needed. And spell-casters were needed because magic was rare and powerful.
I'm not looking for balance being: martials are = to casters in all ways, at all levels. But I want my martials to contribute more evenly, both in and out of combat, than the system supports. Largely, imo, the imbalance is due to spells - which exist to overcome or deal with almost anything you will encounter, often better than a martial/non-magical solution would.
Home-rules and 3PP seem to be the way to adjust Pathfinder so that it gives me what I want out of the game: Martials with unique skills and abilities that are needed throughout the campaign; Rogues with unique skills and abilities; and Casters with unique skills and abilities.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As an optimizer, it feels weird to say, but I don't like playing full casters. I did it once, it was too easy, and I stepped down from it. In that way, I like martials, although I have to admit I have a personality to my characters which generally allows me to do more than what's on my character sheet, so I'm biased in trumpeting martial characters.
Mechanically, I'd ideally like a party of T3s, but yeah, martials aren't the best at being martial, and unless you're using TOB/POW, you're not going to have an equal distribution of power. Sad but true. Doesn't stop me from playing a muggle every now and again (love me some barbs and bolt aces), but I recognize I'm taking a step down in power, and if I'm being told it's a 'tough game', I'll step it up with an alchemist or something stronger.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
How does that even happen?Cognitive dissonance?
Not quite; that's the term for the discomfort you feel when you realize that you hold two conflicting beliefs, and tends to the be motivator for change. So, in a sense, it's more that there seems to be a crippling lack of cognitive dissonance.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
This thread will solve it this time I'm sure...