| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I still believe that teamwork eliminates any "bad feelings" that come from the disparity, which addresses a good portion of the complaints.It's very important that people realize that this discussion is not a discussion of , at which your games are played. It is a discussion of the system only, and within the system, "teamwork" does not exist as a measurable outcome, nor does a "friendly table agreement." Regardless of what might be happening at 99.999% of the tables actually playing the game, C/MD does exist because
As long as a 10th level NPC fighter is supposedly an equal threat to the party as a 10th level NPC wizard, and isn't, the game doesn't actually function correctly on some level.
this is a real part of the game.
Stop and think about that statement for a moment. Any one that has actually played the game at level 10 knows that a level 10 NPC wizard is much more of a challenge than a level 10 NPC fighter. It just is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Stop and think about that statement for a moment. Any one that has actually played the game at level 10 knows that a level 10 NPC wizard is much more of a challenge than a level 10 NPC fighter. It just is.
Exactly so. And yet the game makes the explicit claim that they represent the exact same challenge, and even assigns a numerical value to that. The disparity is therefore not only real, but something that by extension causes system failure in other parts of the game mechanics.
See my previous point about the CR system in general. A GM has to compare equal-CR monsters just like NPCs with classes.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
See my previous point about the CR system in general. A GM has to compare equal-CR monsters just like NPCs with classes.
It's an issue because the Pathfinder CR system is based strictly on mundane combat numbers, whereas the power and versatility of magic is underrated or even ignored. This applies to monsters as well as characters, and it all stems from (a) there being a disparity, and (b) the game designers selectively ignoring that disparity.
A shadow is supposedly a reasonable challenge for a pair of 1st level fighters. Based on its AC and damage, that's true. Its magical abilities, most particularly incorporeality, make that a sick joke. But a pair of 1st level clerics can probably deal with it -- by use of magical abilities.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My biggest issue with the discussion is that it appears most notably at levels that I never play at. Why do I care about Wish, Create Demiplane, Simulacrum, etc., when I never see characters at that level?In my experience -- and I believe the experience of many others on the forum, the issue becomes noticeable at 6-8 level. (There's a reason P6 is so popular and so often recommended as an alternative framework.)
Basically, third-level spells are where casters start to be able to do things not merely better than martials, but that the martials can't do at all.
With the advent of the Weapon Master's Handbook, these are things that martials actually can do now.
A few examples:
fireball -- martials have no way of doing substantial amounts of hit point damage to multiple targets as a standard action (or, more tersely, martials lack AoE attacks).
Startoss Style. Multiple feats, but it's a legitimate martial AoE as a standard action. Lower damage than fireball, but it's repeatable.
fly -- martials lack the ability to free-fly
Flight Mastery feat allows martials to cast this buy using an existing magic item
dispel magic -- martials lack the ability to negate enemy spells that have been cast.
Dispel Mastery
free hand -- martials lack the ability to manipulate objects at 15 feet or more range.
A simple example of a barrier that can only be bypassed magically is a button (with a molly-guard) placed thirty feet behind an adamantine portcullis. Press the button and the portcullis lifts. This could easily be bypassed by a free hand spell, or possibly even prestidigitation, but would be an unstoppable barrier to a 5th level fighter.
Finesse Shot ranged mastery feat. You can use a ranged weapon to open/close or use buttons/levers.
There are steps being taken to overcome M/CD by Paizo. It's really too bad that they are in a player's companion book that most will ignore.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
On topic, I think Myth #7 is your weakest point, Jiggy, since it's based mostly on assumption and fails to account for the fact that anecdotal evidence can be presented and dismissed to support either conclusion. The only way to really know would be a detailed study that isn't likely to happen.Are you under the impression that my discussion of #7 was attempting to draw conclusions about the presence or absence of C/MD in Pathfinder?
Only about its presence in actual play, as you stated in the header. Your OP seems to state that anecdotes stating that the disparity exists are ignored, but doesn't mention that anecdotes stating that it is minimal or can be managed can also be ignored. It seems one-sided in that sense.
I mean that in a respectful manner. Please correct me if I've made a mistake somewhere.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
See my previous point about the CR system in general. A GM has to compare equal-CR monsters just like NPCs with classes.
... and for the same reason, the caster/martial disparity. Except in this case "caster" generalizes slightly to (usually magical) special abilities.
The game system has a very good way to handle assigning challenge ratings to brutes. A CR 12 brute will have roughly 160 hp, an AC of roughly 27, a roughly +21 attack bonus, and do an average of roughly 55 hit points if all attacks hit. It doesn't matter much whether you skin this as a giant turtle, a slate giant, or a juvenile sarlacc.
The casters (and pseudo-casters), as usual, are what mess up the CR calculations, because it's not clear how to value special abilities (and the guidelines cited above provide little or no help).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Basically, third-level spells are where casters start to be able to do things not merely better than martials, but that the martials can't do at all.
With the advent of the Weapon Master's Handbook, these are things that martials actually can do now.
Except for the most part, they can't. Saying that "martials can do this by using a magic item" is the same as saying that martials can't do this. And the molly-guard prevents an archer from pressing a button.
A simple example of a barrier that can only be bypassed magically is a button (with a molly-guard) placed thirty feet behind an adamantine portcullis. Press the button and the portcullis lifts. This could easily be bypassed by a free hand spell, or possibly even prestidigitation, but would be an unstoppable barrier to a 5th level fighter.
Finesse Shot ranged mastery feat. You can use a ranged weapon to open/close or use buttons/levers.
A good GM should allow that shot without a feat. There are other ways around/through, though they would take a lot more work and equipment, I admit.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are steps being taken to overcome M/CD by Paizo.
Unfortunately, it's far too little, far too late. They spent too many years claiming it didn't exist (as my first post in this thread will attest), and now their hands have been tied by their own work.
Within the framework of the current game, these things can only be done by Feats, Archetypes, and "Fiddly Bits" (like Rogue Talents). So martials still have to juggle what they need to do their job well, vs what they need to get new options...while casters get all of the above out of the box. It closes the gap in one direction, but opens it in another, like trying to squeeze a water balloon.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
On topic, I think Myth #7 is your weakest point, Jiggy, since it's based mostly on assumption and fails to account for the fact that anecdotal evidence can be presented and dismissed to support either conclusion. The only way to really know would be a detailed study that isn't likely to happen.Are you under the impression that my discussion of #7 was attempting to draw conclusions about the presence or absence of C/MD in Pathfinder?Only about its presence in actual play, as you stated in the header. Your OP seems to state that anecdotes stating that the disparity exists are ignored, but doesn't mention that anecdotes stating that it is minimal or can be managed can also be ignored. It seems one-sided in that sense.
I mean that in a respectful manner. Please correct me if I've made a mistake somewhere.
Could be my wordiness got me in trouble there; I got into speculating as to the origin/resilience of Myth #7, but the only actual point I meant to make was "the idea that C/MD is theory-only is a myth".
The topic of how anecdotes in either direction factor into the larger discussion of C/MD is tangential to that point, and it was perhaps a bit sloppy of me to even touch on it. D'oh.
So, this thread is a thinly veiled, "The disparity is real!!!!!!" Thread. Gotcha.
Often ignored fact #1
Many, if not most, games do not have an issue or do not encounter the alleged C/MD.Most proponents of the C/MD dismiss those who claim they don't encounter it by saying, "Well you must have a gentleman's agreement to..." Or "Your GM made a houserule to..." Or "I run a sandbox and it..."
The fact is there are always issues. Not everyone thinks there is a C/MD and from almost every invocation seems to have specific caveats applied, such as:
"Well we all know if only appears after level X."
"Well my caster ended it in the surprise round..."
And we ALL have stories like that.
Heck my Paladin killed a Dragon in 1 combat round. Chances are most Wizards can't do that. Being able to do something doesn't equate to a disparity.
it seems it's covered by Myth #7
@Jiggy
Fair point, perhaps I focused too much on the anecdotes.
Though personally, I still have trouble seeing how C/MD gets to be a big problem in actual play, based on my previous points on the last page, and especially considering the much bigger potential problems of differing optimization levels and player attitudes.
But maybe I've just been lucky.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On topic, I think Myth #7 is your weakest point, Jiggy, since it's based mostly on assumption and fails to account for the fact that anecdotal evidence can be presented and dismissed to support either conclusion. The only way to really know would be a detailed study that isn't likely to happen.Are you under the impression that my discussion of #7 was attempting to draw conclusions about the presence or absence of C/MD in Pathfinder?Only about its presence in actual play, as you stated in the header. Your OP seems to state that anecdotes stating that the disparity exists are ignored, but doesn't mention that anecdotes stating that it is minimal or can be managed can also be ignored. It seems one-sided in that sense.
I mean that in a respectful manner. Please correct me if I've made a mistake somewhere.
Could be my wordiness got me in trouble there; I got into speculating as to the origin/resilience of Myth #7, but the only actual point I meant to make was "the idea that C/MD is theory-only is a myth".
The topic of how anecdotes in either direction factor into the larger discussion of C/MD is tangential to that point, and it was perhaps a bit sloppy of me to even touch on it. D'oh.
No, it's valid.
The burden of proof that it exists at all is on those in favor of its existence.
Presenting an argument that it does not exist in your game because it does not happen is a non-argument versus its existence.
You can say it does not exist in your games but that's irrelevant in all but a discussion upon which it exists in a percentage of games in which all anecdotal evidence would be taken into account.
If I were to say, "The C/MD exists in all games." than HWalsh's statements that it does not have to be taken into account.
However since the argument is that, "The C/MD exists." then those statements are irrelevant since it only needs to be proven that it exists anywhere.
Therefore, anecdotes that it exists have more relevance to the OP than the opposite since it merely stated that it exists, not that it existed at every table.
A statement that it is minimal or that it can be managed also only bear real weight wherein it is fully acknowledged that it exists by both parties in which then the nature of the argument changes.
A statement that it is minimal or that it can be managed also only bear real weight wherein it is fully acknowledged that it exists by both parties in which then the nature of the argument changes.
That's what I've been most interested in. Maybe not relevant here though.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Though personally, I still have trouble seeing how C/MD gets to be a big problem in actual play, based on my previous points on the last page, and especially considering the much bigger potential problems of differing optimization levels and player attitudes.
Remember that there's an element of personal taste involved. That is, some people WANT to play a bodyguard fighter who doesn't engage the narrative, with the player having plenty of fun just watching what happens and then stabbing things when it's his turn. The C/MD still exists (and in fact, that's WHY that player chose a fighter!), it's just not causing a problem for that specific player.
Get a handful of people who are completely happy with the C/MD (even if they don't have a name for it, or are even unaware of it), and you can have a long-running campaign where the C/MD most definitely exists, but hasn't caused a problem.
However, not everybody chooses to play a fighter specifically because they want to do nothing but stab things. Some people pick a fighter because they're in the mood for swords over spells, but they want to have lots of agency in the narrative regardless of class. The same C/MD that existed harmlessly at the first table is going to cause problems at this one.
But then the secondary problem (more pertinent to this thread) is when that second fighter-player comments on how frustrating it is that he can only pick certain classes if he wants to do X, and then someone from the first table says "Well we've all been having fun, so your problem must be from something you're doing wrong."
Since the C/MD is essentially a difference in the varieties and degrees of agency the different classes have, it is completely natural that how much of a "problem" it is will depend heavily on how much agency any given player actually wants. The reason this leads to internet arguments is because a lot of people aren't very good at examining or articulating their own desires or feelings. Someone who's comfortable with "fighter hits things, wizard is the answer man" may not realize that this paradigm is based on his own personal tastes, and instead thinks it's a universally-assumed foundation of the game. Therefore, he struggles to grasp that someone else might not see the fighter class as "what you play when hitting things is all you really want to do". With such a deep and under-analyzed assumption, it can be difficult to understand a different view on even a theoretical level, let alone a truly empathetic level.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are very few threads out there that get favorited by me (this so happens to be one of them).
|
However since the argument is that, "The C/MD exists." then those statements are irrelevant since it only needs to be proven that it exists anywhere.
By that logic... I've seen games where casters are considered inferior to martial classes. Should we therefore say, 'the inverse C/MD exists'?
Seems to me that it all comes down to the GM. Some GM's can handle the diversity of abilities casters possess and keep the game balanced / interesting for all classes. Others can't / don't. Maybe it should be called 'GM diversity' instead.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Myth 8: Caster/Martial Disparity affects all groups equally
A lot of discussions seem to lose track of the fact that different groups are playing VERY different games that just happen to call themselves Pathfinder and use the same underlying rule set.
Some play styles minimize C/MD sufficiently that is not a problem at all, other play styles maximize it to the point that Martials might as well not play, others fall between those extremes.
I WILL take a stand here. It very clearly DOES exist to a huge extent in some games, it very clearly does NOT exist in any significant form in other games.
I'd say that one FUNDAMENTAL caveat is that we're not accounting houserules
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Seems to me that it all comes down to the GM. Some GM's can handle the diversity of abilities casters possess and keep the game balanced / interesting for all classes. Others can't / don't. Maybe it should be called 'GM diversity' instead.
The fact that a GM can customize the game enough to account for C/MD proves that it does exist, not that it doesn't.
I can arrange a campaign such that it stays "balanced and interesting" for a mixed party of fighters and commoners. That doesn't mean that there's no gap/disparity between commoners and fighters, or that "it all comes down to the GM".
The ability to compensate for a thing does not prove the thing's nonexistence.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My biggest issue with the discussion is that it appears most notably at levels that I never play at. Why do I care about Wish, Create Demiplane, Simulacrum, etc., when I never see characters at that level?
One of my annoyances about the boards is that it seems that so many people appear to only play level 20 / mythic rank 10 characters when most of my game play is at the lower levels.
I'd say it starts being apparent around levels 5 or 6, and kicks into full gear at levels 7 or 8, depending on caster progression.
Haste, Fly, Scry, Dominate Person and Dimension door completely change the game.
I'd say that one FUNAMENTAL caveat is that we're not accounting houserules
One should build their house on rock not sand.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Myth 8: Caster/Martial Disparity affects all groups equally
Ah yes, I do see this myth espoused by lots of listeners when someone says that C/MD exists. I should have included it. Unfortunately, I can't edit the OP now. :/
A lot of discussions seem to lose track of the fact that different groups are playing VERY different games that just happen to call themselves Pathfinder and use the same underlying rule set.
I see this fact pointed out a lot, and completely agree. Interestingly, I see it cited almost exclusively as an explanation why the fact that someone hasn't seen it in their game doesn't mean it's a fabrication. Somehow, it always seems to get received as an attack.
I WILL take a stand here. It very clearly DOES exist to a huge extent in some games, it very clearly does NOT exist in any significant form in other games.
Might it be more precise to say that it exists, but the idea of it being undesirable is what actually varies the most from game to game?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
By that logic... I've seen games where casters are considered inferior to martial classes. Should we therefore say, 'the inverse C/MD exists'?
An inverse disparity is still a disparity. But the question is 'why are they considered inferior in that game?' It may be that your use of 'inferior' has a different assumption than Jiggy's. If you are referring to 'casters can't do as much damage as fighters and are therefore inferior' then you are CLEARLY operating under different assumptions than the C/MD does.
I could see how lack of system mastery could lead to a disparity in character abilities and exacerbate any class disparity.
Seems like system mastery and agreement on character power levels would go a long way towards minimizing class disparity issues, though.
I could see how lack of system mastery could lead to a disparity in character abilities and exacerbate any class disparity.
Seems like system mastery and agreement on character power levels would go a long way towards minimizing class disparity issues, though.
That is the Wizard should intentionally play worse?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Seems like system mastery and agreement on character power levels would go a long way towards minimizing class disparity issues, though.
Yes, they do. There are a lot of things you can do to minimize the effects; the mere fact that you can do them is what means the disparity exists in the first place.
That is the Wizard should intentionally play worse?
That's one option. Or the DM can stealth-nerf the wizard through fiat. Or the DM can throw all softball challenges that even commoners could overcome, and everyone doesn't really care about fulfilling difficult goals. Or you use a pile of house rules. Etc.
But that's all getting pretty far off-topic; there are other threads about how to address the disparity.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Seems that many people equate "disparity" with "problem" - which is why they argue (sometimes vehemently) that it does or doesn't exist.
Some groups manage it better than others. Some GM's compensate for it better than others. But there are excellent examples given above and in other threads about how it is real. Whether it is a problem is another issue.
IME, it is inherent in the system and not a shortcoming on the part of the players &/or the GM.
That is the Wizard should intentionally play worse?I could see how lack of system mastery could lead to a disparity in character abilities and exacerbate any class disparity.
Seems like system mastery and agreement on character power levels would go a long way towards minimizing class disparity issues, though.
A min-maxed barbarian can be just as disruptive as a min-maxed wizard - I've seen it.
Groups that coordinate expectations will usually have enjoyable games. The things I suggested before don't just serve to minimize disparity, they're good gaming habits in general.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Groups that coordinate expectations will usually have enjoyable games. The things I suggested before don't just serve to minimize disparity, they're good gaming habits in general.
Absolutely so. I've often said that there's a reason the Yankees don't assign a 10-year-old little league player from down the street as their starting pitcher in the World Series. Likewise, at the peak of his career Michael Jordan was leading the Chicago Bulls, not trying to horn in on some kids' pickup games of hoops at the YMCA. The team capabilities need to be appropriate to the challenges being faced, and the individual team members shouldn't be too far off in terms of capabilities to contribute.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I still believe that teamwork eliminates any "bad feelings" that come from the disparity, which addresses a good portion of the complaints.
Anecdote time!
I'm currently in a play-by-e-mail 3.5 game. Our 15th-level party recently came across a room containing nine nagas (it was a big room). My character, a psychic warrior/elocater with a touch of barbarian, is very fast, and rushed into the room towards one of the nagas, struck it with is giant sword, and wounded it! Next up, the wildshape ranger/master of many forms used a blade barrier SLA, and the druid cast arc of lightning. Six of the nagas died.
I was seriously considering having my character mope in the corner after that one.
This anecdote certainly isn't the be-all and end-all of the experience, but hopefully it illustrates that "bad feelings" aren't necessarily eliminated by teamwork.
Oh, and there's this, too: my nephew (who is playing the master of many forms), when we saw the set-up in the room, asked, "So, you're going to run by them and whack them all with your sword, right?" Something that's consistent with the power level of a 15th-level character, completely in character for my PC, perfectly sensible to my nephew as a player, and not allowed by the rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
my nephew (who is playing the master of many forms), when we saw the set-up in the room, asked, "So, you're going to run by them and whack them all with your sword, right?" Something that's consistent with the power level of a 15th-level character, completely in character for my PC, perfectly sensible to my nephew as a player, and not allowed by the rules.
Of course it's allowed by the rules, you silly.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
my nephew (who is playing the master of many forms), when we saw the set-up in the room, asked, "So, you're going to run by them and whack them all with your sword, right?" Something that's consistent with the power level of a 15th-level character, completely in character for my PC, perfectly sensible to my nephew as a player, and not allowed by the rules.Of course it's allowed by the rules, you silly.
Or a high level Mobile Fighter, Dervish Dancer, or other archetype that gains the ability to pseudo full attack and move.
You still have to devote your entire build to that one trick, which can be duplicated by second level spell.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I WILL take a stand here. It very clearly DOES exist to a huge extent in some games, it very clearly does NOT exist in any significant form in other games.Might it be more precise to say that it exists, but the idea of it being undesirable is what actually varies the most from game to game?
I think that you are right that the amount to which it is undesirable does vary considerably from game to game. I should have added that to my Myth 8.
But I'll also stick to my claim that it does NOT exist in any significant form in some games.
Note the two massively important weasel phrases : "significant form" and "some games" :-) :-). Both are unquantified for a reason.
But I have been in campaigns (both as GM and Player) where the Caster/Martial disparity was just not all that important. How the player built and played the character was far more important than whether the character was a caster or martial or hybrid.
From the GM's point of view the overall power and capabilities of the group was important, not where it came from. I tailored encounters to the group and used CR as only the loosest of guidelines.
From the players point of view skills and "niches" were emphasized (partly by house rules, mostly by gentlepersons agreement) that it "felt" that all the players got about equal face time and about equally contributed to the success of the group. And I have played both Martials and Casters in those campaigns.
Thinking about it, there is an element of it not just bothering me as long as the disparity was sufficiently small so you're definitely partly right. But I DO care when the disparity between characters is large. Regardless of where that disparity comes from
Edit: I should also add that I've played in campaigns where the Caster/Martial disparity is huge, especially at mid to high levels. I realized that it may come across that I'm a closet Disparity Denier (CDD :-)) which I most definitely am not
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My biggest issue with the discussion is that it appears most notably at levels that I never play at. Why do I care about Wish, Create Demiplane, Simulacrum, etc., when I never see characters at that level?
One of my annoyances about the boards is that it seems that so many people appear to only play level 20 / mythic rank 10 characters when most of my game play is at the lower levels.
Just because it doesn't come up much earlier in any group's given game session, doesn't mean the potential isn't there. Let me give you an example that happened when we played through Jade Regent at a MUCH earlier level and without any mythic elements at all. In the very beginning of book 3, when you're about 7, there's a point where your caravan needs to cross a tumultuous arctic river. No obvious bridges nearby and it'd be incredibly hazardous to try and make the animals and carts cross as is. It's meant to be a challenge for the party to figure out, potentially a dangerous one that results in real loss in order to illustrate the perils of such an expedition into the frozen wastes of a pre-industrial era world.
However, I was playing a cleric and we had an inquisitor, as well as a few people with decent Strength scores. A few castings of both air walk and ant haul on the fighter, inquisitor, and a couple NPCs and we were able to carry everyone and everything, including the animals and the carts they pulled, across this dangerous river without any difficulty. What was meant to be a significant hurdle in the adventure path merely became a matter of "cast a few spells and we're done". Now, I'm sure many groups didn't do it this way, but that doesn't change the fact that magic makes it just this easy anyways.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
However since the argument is that, "The C/MD exists." then those statements are irrelevant since it only needs to be proven that it exists anywhere.By that logic... I've seen games where casters are considered inferior to martial classes. Should we therefore say, 'the inverse C/MD exists'?
Seems to me that it all comes down to the GM. Some GM's can handle the diversity of abilities casters possess and keep the game balanced / interesting for all classes. Others can't / don't. Maybe it should be called 'GM diversity' instead.
Absolutely.
In which case the debate changes to whether or not one or the other is a systemic problem which is more along the core of the disparity.
Generally when I read or debate someone with the "inverse" issue the argument is almost always an issue with the amount of damage they do.
A combat numbers issue.
However from the other side the issue is much more widespread. For example no GM I have spoken with has ever had an entire dungeon bypassed because the paladin smote an evil wall and forced it to topple over. No one's ever complained how their bottomless chasm trap was a laughable waste of time by the Monk's ability to slow fall.
So why is it note more visible at some tables but not others?
A lot of times it's a system mastery issue. If a player is brow beaten into doing little more than heal and buff the "overpowered" damage dealers in the group than the disparity is invisible but still present. After all, how overpowered is the fighter when the haste, fly, enlarge person, blessing of fervor, and variety of healing spells disappear?
Another reason is that circumstances and gm'ing style would reduce the visibility..
I hear it quite often said that "if you just GM right than it never crops up."
Which, let's face it, translates to "You're gm'ing wrong."
A statement that understandably gets up a lot of craws.
Particularly when speaking of pre-written adventures, PFS, or simply games where the GM is less interested in formulating difficult challenges and more interested in sticking to a certain theme.From another perspective, such as one of an adventure writer, the argument rings of the absurd since one can only write based on the rules and a few basic assumptions already baked into the adventure rather than how any GM runs their table.
The last reason is simply, as others have put it, apathy towards the idea. Plenty are simply content in taking a backseat understandingly believing that their lack of narrative power is entirely there doing and not simply because they lack options.
Ultimately, I've been far more interested in finding solid solutions that do not require the GM to flip over backwards to work out nor force players into false limitations.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Does anyone seriously believe the CM disparity doesn't exist.
I'm afraid so. Similarly, there are people who seriously believe it only exists if you're playing (or running) the game wrong differently than Gygax the designers intended.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This does not necessarily mean it's an inherent problem. I think a disparity will always exists, unless you want to make casting far less reliable. However, in doing so you make it less fun to be a caster. The onus is on the GM and player to deal with it, because the key is to make the game fun and challenging for everyone, no matter what experience they are trying to achieve. It can be done, but it's not easy.
What's funny is I honestly think the disparity is laughably easy to fix.
Chuck the vancian system right out the window.
So far I've been rather impressed with the spehere's of power system which does a lot to bring the spell system closer to the same systems used in BAB and skill sets.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The easiest way to check if there's a disparity is to run an adventure 3 ways:
Run with a mixed party of martial/caster.
Run with a party of all martials.
Run with a party of all casters.
If done by any group of decently skilled folk, the disparity should become extremely obvious extremely quickly, especially as regards performance of EITHER group 1 or 3 compared to group 2.
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know any of its other mechanics, I'll have to look into at some point. But I've found that most of my skillful players are enablers who only really push where the party's life is really at stake. We also try to switch around roles (though interestingly enough, no matter how we choose roles some players are usually martials and others usual casters, nearly by consensus).
I find this is a good way to play as well, but that's basically reliant on gentlemen's agreements not to rock the boat. ("Well, yes, I _could_ simply teleport us to the final boss, but that would make this a very dull evening, so I won't.")
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
I find this is a good way to play as well, but that's basically reliant on gentlemen's agreements not to rock the boat. ("Well, yes, I _could_ simply teleport us to the final boss, but that would make this a very dull evening, so I won't.")
I don't know any of its other mechanics, I'll have to look into at some point. But I've found that most of my skillful players are enablers who only really push where the party's life is really at stake. We also try to switch around roles (though interestingly enough, no matter how we choose roles some players are usually martials and others usual casters, nearly by consensus).
This becomes a problem for people like me, whose primary motivations for playing RPGs include getting tired of sitting in front of the TV saying "But why wouldn't you just do X?" whenever the characters do something dumb just to artificially inflate the dramatic tension. When my RPGs start asking me to do the same thing, I'm not having fun anymore.
This is another axis on which personal differences can influence how big of an issue C/MD is.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would add that a wizard holding back his real power as part of a "gentleman's agreement" is a VERY fragile situation. When you need to hold back, and to what degree, might appear very different from one side of the screen then the other. I recall a game where my wizard did not use feeblemind because I felt it was overpowered. I was not happy when my character became a victim of the spell himself.
I don't want to horn in too much on Jiggy's excellent thread, but I thought this brief list would avoid a lot of confusion.
As Pathfinder is a highly complex game, and varies widely from table to table, there are almost in infinite number of reasons it might appear or not. Here are some of the most common reasons it might not affect your games:
- Most of your play happens under 10th level.
- Players don't choose to play pure martial, or pure caster characters.
- Caster players don't optimize, and/or martial players optimize heavily.
- There is a spoken or unspoken agreement not to use some options and spells.
- The GM is highly skilled in pacing, presenting a campaign setting, presenting challenges, and giving rewards that even out or minimize the disparity.
- The GM alters dice rolls, and/or encounters so that everyone has fairly equal amounts of success.
- The group views combat and/or other rules heavy parts of the game as something to get resolved as quickly as possible, in order to move on to more roleplay and storytelling elements.
- House rules.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Does anyone seriously believe the CM disparity doesn't exist. It's clearly factual; fighters become great a narrow group of things casters can't do innately; but casters can usually accomplish lesser, equivalent, or better outcomes with the right spells. The more optimised a caster, the more the disparity exists, regardless of the level of skill used in building the martial. The disparity in terms of flexibility and power are there.
We'd never noticed it, so it certainly sounded very odd to me when I started hearing about it on the forums - I've been playing for thirty something years with maybe ten or so people all up (and they've all only played with each other).
Our clerics spend a lot of time healing everyone in battle. Our wizards pick whichever spells do the most damage. Our monsters charge forward and obligingly attack the guy in armor. There's usually a smattering of skills stuff for the thief to do in any adventure whilst the rest of us back off and leave him to it.
I'd never heard of all the spells people cite as being 'autowin', hence when I read people's posts on the forums I kind of imagined they were reading a scenario and then combing through the books for some obscure spell that nobody would actually have prepared. I was essentially talking myself into accepting the schrodinger's wizard myth largely due to my poor system mastery (and my obliviousness to it).
I think Jiggy's list is excellent, but I also think it's worth bearing in mind that the people who don't believe in C/MD are not necessarily just being obtuse. It's easy to fall into the trap of thinking that "what we all know" is "what everyone knows".
From my perspective, the disparity is real and a huge problem for anyone that doesn't want to play a caster. There's a reason why everyone in my group is playing a caster: non-casters are just not viable options.
Some people like it, some don't. I'm of the opinion that classes like Fighter, Monk, and Rogue just can't compete at all. Even the 4-lvl caster classes like Paladin and Ranger leave the non-casters in the dust. That to me is a massive design flaw in the game. Non-competitive classes shouldn't even be in the system at all. If a class is presented as an option for players to play, then it should be a VIABLE option.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I will say that as a new-comer to the boards (but long time d&d'er) I was extremely sceptical of the C/MD. having not seen the volume of repeated threads that many of you have. Only now do I realise how many times the same circular arguments are worked over - partly myself at first - though in fairness I was only recognising these issues for the first time so didn't realise how repetitive it all is.
I must say that posters like Jiggy's helped to 'educate me' and I can honestly say they convinced me that there is the opportunity for C/MD buried deep in the game. I don't really see that anyone can argue with the 7 core myths - because even if they may not be true for you they clearly apply at many tables.
If we can all agree that is the case, it would be nice to see less "Why the Caster Martial Disparity IS / ISN'T real" threads and more "Practical ways to deal with the risk of C/MD" threads. The first doesn't really serve any function - the second is quite practical. I think my greatest mistake on these forums was confusing the second with the first and then finding myself trying to justify why there isn't a CMD when what I should have been saying is you're right it exists, this is how I try to deal with it.
Let's be clear Pathfinder is Pathfinder. Not dissimilar to 3.0/3.5 which isn't that dissimilar spell wise to AD&D. Level 9 spell progression and spells like Haste aren't going anywhere. The essential components of the game aren't going to change any time soon.Let's acknowledge that and talk more about how to make it work in our games. Boo yah to the cynics who don't think it can be done.
What's funny is I honestly think the disparity is laughably easy to fix.
Chuck the vancian system right out the window.
So far I've been rather impressed with the spehere's of power system which does a lot to bring the spell system closer to the same systems used in BAB and skill sets.
There is still a disparity between sphere magic and PF martials. I mean, spheres of power doesn't change the fact that martials can only stab stuff, sphere casters simply do less than vancian casters.