THE CASTER/MARTIAL DISPARITY ISN'T ABOUT COMBAT. It's myth #1, guys! You keep bringing up examples of "well, the group needs more encounters" or "My character owns combat, and he isn't a caster", but that's not what it's about, lol!
Just read Jiggy's post. ^
And yes, as he said, this isn't about one group of players have more fun than the others. It has to do with the narrative/problem-solving power of spellcasters relative to mundane martial characters.
I assume the more encounters is to burn out all the spell slots.
|
I assume the more encounters is to burn out all the spell slots.THE CASTER/MARTIAL DISPARITY ISN'T ABOUT COMBAT. It's myth #1, guys! You keep bringing up examples of "well, the group needs more encounters" or "My character owns combat, and he isn't a caster", but that's not what it's about, lol!
Just read Jiggy's post. ^
And yes, as he said, this isn't about one group of players have more fun than the others. It has to do with the narrative/problem-solving power of spellcasters relative to mundane martial characters.
Right, but that doesn't change the fact that the wizard can fly, and the cleric can plane shift, etc. It just requires them to do more of it, and when they run out, they need a backup plan.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
THE CASTER/MARTIAL DISPARITY ISN'T ABOUT COMBAT. It's myth #1, guys! You keep bringing up examples of "well, the group needs more encounters" or "My character owns combat, and he isn't a caster", but that's not what it's about, lol!
Just read Jiggy's post. ^
And yes, as he said, this isn't about one group of players have more fun than the others. It has to do with the narrative/problem-solving power of spellcasters relative to mundane martial characters.
... and by extension, increasing the number of encounters per day addresses, at best, a relatively small part of the problem. One of the main powers casters have is the ability to decide how many encounters they are going to have today.
"Well, in order to destroy the evil Scepter of McGuffin, you will first need to pass the Gates of Puzzling Riddles, then pass through the Hall of Infinite Orcs, and then climb the Wall of Buttered Glass, while facing the Harpies That Look Suspiciously Like My Ex-Girlfriend. Then, you.... "
"Screw that. Where did I put that scroll? We'll do it in one encounter by teleporting into the Chamber of Eff that Bull---. Operation Scry and Fry will commence in five, four, three, two,...."
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The disparity exists objectively. The fact that casters can fly, turn invisible, travel the planes, cure HP damage, foretell the future and summon fantastical minions is not subjective; it's objective fact, written right there on the page in black and white. The fact that martials can't do those things is similarly objective, not subjective. The disparity exists.That's like saying it's objectively true that a low level/high level disparity exists. It's an objective truth, but by itself it isn't a useful one.
The key difference, though, is that the game doesn't present high and low levels as being equivalent PC choices, and it doesn't tell GMs to award the same amount of experience for defeating high or low level NPCs. The game does those things for casters and martials.
|
|
The disparity exists objectively. The fact that casters can fly, turn invisible, travel the planes, cure HP damage, foretell the future and summon fantastical minions is not subjective; it's objective fact, written right there on the page in black and white. The fact that martials can't do those things is similarly objective, not subjective. The disparity exists.That's like saying it's objectively true that a low level/high level disparity exists. It's an objective truth, but by itself it isn't a useful one.
It is true that the more spells you have available to you, the more options you have, and that range of options is generally greater and more effective than the range of options provided by non-spell options (class abilities/feats).
The latter is, as I see it, the source of these discussions. Casters get to have more fun. It's also the source of the counters (like the funny story I posted), because sometimes you can go loooong stretches where the roles are reversed and someone else gets to have more fun.
Ideally, the asymmetric balance between classes, roles, abilities, spells would be tailored so that the level of fun you have isn't generally tied to the number of spells you get to cast per day or per encounter, and we're not there AT ALL, but in the end I still see this as a very subjective subject because you won't ever be able to escape that every discussion, at its core, is going to come back to fun.
IMO, of course. :)
So, a lot of people don't know this yet, but 5th edition D&D actually did a relatively simple thing to work on the caster/martial disparity. it's a feat tax, but it's still there: the Ritual Caster feat. You get a ritual book, in which you can record spells with the Ritual descriptor. Once per day, you can cast a ritual spell in the book, regardless of your level, so long as you have the actual spell in your book.
This alone is a huge boon, because at the end of the day, it doesn't matter how many spells the spellcasters get. They could get 1 spell per spell level, and they'd be ANNOYING to play, but the ability to teleport is still the ability to teleport, the ability to fly is still flying, and the ability to go to heaven and have a party is still something a martial character can never HOPE to achieve, no matter how many spell slots the caster has.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The disparity exists objectively. The fact that casters can fly, turn invisible, travel the planes, cure HP damage, foretell the future and summon fantastical minions is not subjective; it's objective fact, written right there on the page in black and white. The fact that martials can't do those things is similarly objective, not subjective. The disparity exists.That's like saying it's objectively true that a low level/high level disparity exists. It's an objective truth, but by itself it isn't a useful one.
It is true that the more spells you have available to you, the more options you have, and that range of options is generally greater and more effective than the range of options provided by non-spell options (class abilities/feats).
The difference, though, is that greater capacity is implicit in the idea of high-level vs. low-level play. It makes sense that I would get better as I learn more, regardless of whether I'm learning spellcasting, kung fu, or the violin.
It's not at all clear that spellcasting should provide greater and more effective options than non-spell options. A standard trope in a lot of fiction, for example, is that spellcasting is actually an inferior way to accomplish mundane tasks, because spellcasting is time-consuming, risky, and/or expensive. Ged (from The A Wizard of Earthsea trilogy) and the other wizards spend quite a bit of time discussing how magic is extremely dangerous if overused; for this reason, Ged's master Ogion doesn't bother to cast spells to keep himself dry in a rainstorm, and Ged himself is as careful as any mundane sailor to pack food and fresh water on his boat because to create a meat pie for himself risks destroying the world.
If every spell in Pathfinder had its casting time increased by one level (so a spell that is now a standard action takes a full round, and a spell with a one round casting time takes a minute), casters would still have overwhelming narrative power (I can still chant for twenty minutes and then teleport Frodo to Mount Doom by myself) but they'd almost completely lose their combat effectiveness. (This is roughly how it was in AD&D; casting a spell took an entire round, so you had to make sure you weren't going to be overrun by orcs if you tried a combat spell.) If every spell cast required some sort of physical penalty (like a kineticist's burn) you'd see Multiple Attribute Dependent wizards that had to build physical capacity as well (GURPS does this). And if spells built on each other the way feat chains did (so you need to spend resources on feather fall before you can get levitate, and levitate before fly) you'd see a lot less Bat-wizard with every utility spell in his book. (This is how it works in Ars Magica, where you build individual skill with the various aspects, so you learn how to light candles before throwing fireballs.) Finally, if spellcasting burned treasure, you'd see a lot fewer instances of "oh, I'll just spend 2000 gp to open this chest in case there's something valuable in it." (This is also how Ars Magica worked; many spells required magical quintessence to power them, and this quintessence was far more valuable even than mere money. It's also why you didn't see nearly as much item crafting in 3.0, where crafting cost XP and would keep you from levelling up.)
As I see it, at its heart, CM/D is about one group of players getting to have more fun than the others.Eh, not exactly. There's an important distinction you're failing to make.
The existence of the disparity is entirely independent of who is (or isn't) having fun.
The disparity exists objectively. The fact that casters can fly, turn invisible, travel the planes, cure HP damage, foretell the future and summon fantastical minions is not subjective; it's objective fact, written right there on the page in black and white. The fact that martials can't do those things is similarly objective, not subjective. The disparity exists.
How the disparity affects (or doesn't affect) people's fun at the table? That is the part that's subjective. Some people are bothered by it, some don't care, some actually like it and would be upset if it were gone. The fun varies; the fun is subjective.
The disparity exists. It just doesn't negatively impact the fun for everybody.
Now, I realize this isn't quite pertinent to your post, but I felt it was worth bringing up in general, and in fact I wish I could go back and edit the OP to include it. Very often, when someone tries to discuss the C/MD, others will use an argument that's along the lines of "My games have been fun, therefore there isn't a disparity." From there it escalates to the accusations of non-teamwork or only-in-theory or whatever else, because some folks just can't accept that a game they're having fun with could simultaneously have a major design flaw. :/
I've actually seen casters who were having less fun because of the disparity; I know a guy who complains all the time that he can't just chuck fireballs as a wizard because the wizard is required to do so many other things that nobody else in the party can do. This is a specifically combat example, obviously, but it's where the sentiment seems to pop up the most.
Fun is definitely very subjective.
As a martial, I might have to tumble down a cliff face making multiple acrobatics checks to not get killed, while the druid simply floats down as an Air Elemental - but maybe the danger is my idea of fun.
As a spontaneous caster I've had to use up all my spell slots to cast multiple Resist Energy spells on the entire group to face an unexpected danger - useful, but not exactly fun.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've actually seen casters who were having less fun because of the disparity; I know a guy who complains all the time that he can't just chuck fireballs as a wizard because the wizard is required to do so many other things that nobody else in the party can do. This is a specifically combat example, obviously, but it's where the sentiment seems to pop up the most.
It's also a problem, especially in earlier editions, with healbot clerics. Most people didn't like playing the cleric, because everyone needed them as a walking first aid kit, which no one else could do. That's a classic C/MD trope right there; we need a cleric because there's no other way to restore hit points and remove status conditions.
Fortunately, the Pathfinder designers (and, for that matter, the 3.0 designers) recognized that this is an issue and fixed it so that clerics no longer need to be healbots. Unfortunately, they fixed it primarily by allowing clerics to be other things AND healbots, and by allowing other caster-types to be healbots. Fighter McSteelPants is still reliant on the casters to let him keep going.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fighter McSteelPants is still reliant on the casters to let him keep going.
Which makes the oft-cited "but fighters can go all day!" thing absolutely hilarious. He can go all day... as long as a caster (either in his party or in the item shop) keeps healing him.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fun is definitely very subjective.
As a martial, I might have to tumble down a cliff face making multiple acrobatics checks to not get killed, while the druid simply floats down as an Air Elemental - but maybe the danger is my idea of fun.
But if that's the case, nothing keeps your druid from tumbling down the cliff face. C/MD is about options. The druid can tumble or fly, as she sees fit -- the ranger has no choice in the matter.
It's not at all clear that spellcasting should provide greater and more effective options than non-spell options.Actually, I think it is clear. There are problems in implementation but it is always the case that limited use abilities should be more effective than always-on abilities.
I don't think it's "always the case." More accurately, there is, in practical terms, no such thing as an "always on" ability. Even a fighter's ability to swing a sword is limited by how many fights per day he can handle due to his other constraints -- when he runs out of hit points (or fails a saving throw), he loses the ability to swing his sword.
Everything that you do in Pathfinder costs resources, and you will eventually exhaust any resource, whether this is "so many times per day" or "so much gold for this equipment that gives you a bonus" or "so many hit points of non-lethal damage."
But if that's the case, nothing keeps your druid from tumbling down the cliff face. C/MD is about options. The druid can tumble or fly, as she sees fit -- the ranger has no choice in the matter.
The player of the druid can't (in this scenario) have fun narrowly surviving the fall, because in order to do that he'd have to inflict the danger on himself intentionally, which would require him to role-play doing something stupid for no reason. Disparity is about options; options that make things too easy aren't always fun.
|
|
But if that's the case, nothing keeps your druid from tumbling down the cliff face. C/MD is about options. The druid can tumble or fly, as she sees fit -- the ranger has no choice in the matter.The player of the druid can't (in this scenario) have fun narrowly surviving the fall, because in order to do that he'd have to inflict the danger on himself intentionally, which would require him to role-play doing something stupid for no reason. Disparity is about options; options that make things too easy aren't always fun.
My cleric totally saves his abilities and does dramatic, cool "martial" things because I like being dramatic. Also, he's a cleric of Khepri, and believes that doing hard work without magic is part of his faith, so if he can get by without it, he does so. It makes the game pretty darn fun. :P
I mean, if I REALLY had to I'd just do it the magical way, so I'm not disagreeing with the premise, just the execution.
Even a fighter's ability to swing a sword is limited by how many fights per day he can handle due to his other constraints -- when he runs out of hit points (or fails a saving throw), he loses the ability to swing his sword.
Thought experiment:
A party of three fighters, plus one ranger with fifty wands of Cure Light Wounds, is made to fight dozens of easy-ish battles in one day by their sadistic GM.
Would they do better than a party of casters (let's say Summoner, Druid, Cleric and Wizard) with the same wands and opposition?
In theory the Fighters could keep on going as long as the wands held out, if they didn't die to unlucky rolls, while the caster group would run out of resources after the first dozen battles and then have to rely on their inferior melee skills.
In practice, Pathfinder encounters being what they are, there'd probably be threats the Fighters couldn't entirely handle; status effects, attribute drain, mind control, etc.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Isn't the whole "disparity" myth simply a matter of comparing apples to oranges.
It's more like eggs and oranges. The eggs can make a valuable contribution in a much wider variety of recipes. That doesn't mean an orange soufflé doesn't work, or there aren't cases where oranges are fine on their own, but if you want to run a kitchen that can meet the demands of your customers, you'd better make sure you don't run out of eggs.
The Summoner and Druid both have companions that can fight under the same definition of "all day" that the Fighter does (hell, so can the Cleric and Wizard if they so choose), so yes I'm pretty sure the caster party does better in that scenario.
That's another problem with the combat aspect of the disparity: casters often times come with baked in class features that are reasonably competitive with a martial for soaking damage and hitting stuff.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Like so many before you, you're still just thinking in terms of combat, which is not the lion's share of the issue. The countermeasures you list are completely irrelevant to traveling, infiltrating, investigating, predicting the future, raising the dead, spying, mind control, and so forth.
And even just in the context of combat, most of your assessments are horrifically flawed: thinking that a wizard's AC matters, or that not being able to use "direct attack spells" is somehow a power-down, or that golems actually present a problem for casters, etc.
|
(This is how it works in Ars Magica
I'm not sure that you want to bring in Ars Magica as an example of successfully addressing the Caster/Martial diversity. This is the game that totally embraces the Diversity and has built its entire structure (game and world) on the assumption that Mages have IMMENSE narrative and combat imbalance when compared to non Mages.
Its a great game, mind. It proves that you can have a wonderful game WITH a Martial/caster disparity.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The game is comprised of Combat and Noncombat encounters.
One set of classes has the ability to engage in both of these things in a plethora of ways.
Another set of classes has the ability to engage in both of these in a significantly constrained and limited number of ways. Often these methods of interaction are strictly inferior to the options the first set of classes has access to.
(This is how it works in Ars MagicaI'm not sure that you want to bring in Ars Magica as an example of successfully addressing the Caster/Martial diversity.
I didn't suggest Ars Magica as a way specifically of addressing caster-martial diversity. I suggested Ars Magica as a way to build a magic system that worked that didn't make the underlying assumptions of D&D and its clones.
D&D, for example, is built on the assumption of cheap (and quick) magic; ArM assumes neither, and is arguably a better magic system. Pathfinder extends that assumption to cheap and quick magic items, and it's not clear that that's been a beneficial extension.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have noticed that the discussions really started once orisons became at will, so casters never really run out of spells...
Goodness, no. Linear-fighter/quadratic-wizard was a topic of discussion back in the 1970s. You just didn't see those discussions quite as much on the World Wide Web.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The caster martial diversity.....
It's almost like casters and martials are so different that it is hard to say anything productive about them in relation to each other....Do I want Stephen Hawking on my team or Lou Ferigno? I guess it depends what my team is trying to do!!
The problem is that, in Pathfinder, Hawking can, several times a day, put on a power suit that makes him stronger and tougher than Ferrigno (note spelling). Or summon multiple angels who are individually stronger and tougher. Or transform into a sabre-toothed Ferrigno-saurus that shoots laser beams out of his eyes.
And fly.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...
Do I want Stephen Hawking on my team or Lou Ferigno? I guess it depends what my team is trying to do!!
...
Why would you use Stephan Hawking your choice?
Tony Stark is a much better fit for the caster side. If the caster is a Synthesist then it's almost a perfect fit.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is classic dynamic class roles, different classes with radically different capabilities and strengths and weaknesses. Wizard is great for enabling magic in other non-magic characters.
Why should the wizards be forced to assist non-magic dead weights? Why not have another caster? Then instead of being a drain of spell, you'll be adding spells and options to the party.
And it's that classes can feel useless.
"Hi, I'm the fighter, I hit things, if it can't be hit I can't do anything. Unfortunately the wizard has gated in a huge demon to be his servant, so now he has someone that hits things better than I do. If anyone needs to be hit, often the wizard will lay down black tentacles or dazing fireball or... etc. And I'm stuck waiting for the effect to wear off before I can go hit things. Plus the fact that I'm a good climber doesn't matter cause the wizard will never let me climb cause flying is faster. And I never get to use my maps since we just teleport or overland flight to the places we need to go. Which is nice because I was able to visit my family and the wizard said he'd get me when I was needed. That has been a few months ago, maybe I should check on him and say hi..."
"Hi, I'm the rogue. I can't make friends because the casters make them our ally faster than I can talk to them. Plus they can call down angels to help do something if they can't do it themselves. I'm a bad scout cause I'm visible and I can't see invisible things. I also don't get to disable traps because the wizards just take care of it."
What spell is that? The power suit one.The problem is that, in Pathfinder, Hawking can, several times a day, put on a power suit that makes him stronger and tougher than Ferrigno. Or summon multiple angels who are individually stronger and tougher. Or transform into a sabre-toothed Ferrigno-saurus that shoots laser beams out of his eyes.
And fly.
Transformation, though the problem of Wizards just becoming outright superior to the Fighter was much worse in 3.5 when polymorphs were stronger. Druids still transform into super Fighters, though.
I find that in practice many of the arguments that players have against martials tend to fall apart.
1)Martials multiclass easily with other martial classes while pure casters do not. This is important for saves and class ability dips that are highly profitable.
2)In many situations skills beat out spells. You can always use Diplomacy but casting a charm spell is usually not considered a friendly act. Casters can use skills as well but this counters the argument that all you need are spells to succeed.
3)Martials start out strong right out of the gate. They are arguably weaker than casters at higher levels so there is balance built right into the system.
4)Martials are typically great at DPR. This allows casters to focus on what they are great at (BFC and Utility).
Summoned hyenas are pretty weak. You want summoned Celestial Lions who pounce and smite evil.
Mr.Stunt Double doesnt seem to be grasping the issue. Casters can play multiple roles in a party. A druid is famous for being a far more potent combatant in melee than most martials are AND has an additional damage sponge via his animal companion. His wildeshape grants a ridiculous amount of combat versatility.
The Wizard may not be stepping into the beatstick role but the druid certainly can whilst still getting 9th level casting.
A druid is the more egregious example of the Martial Caster Disparity because if you look under the hood even a little you have a incredibly potent martial combatant with great saves, an animal companion, and a full array of spell slots available for utility.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find that in practice many of the arguments that players have against martials tend to fall apart.
1)Martials multiclass easily with other martial classes while pure casters do not. This is important for saves and class ability dips that are highly profitable.
2)In many situations skills beat out spells. You can always use Diplomacy but casting a charm spell is usually not considered a friendly act. Casters can use skills as well but this counters the argument that all you need are spells to succeed.
3)Martials start out strong right out of the gate. They are arguably weaker than casters at higher levels so there is balance built right into the system.
4)Martials are typically great at DPR. This allows casters to focus on what they are great at (BFC and Utility).
Why is dipping a bonus?
Which situations do skills beat spells? Spells with at stealth, getting a person to help you, reaching places besides walking, finding out information, etc. Plus casting being good at skills shows that casters can do everything martials can AND MORE. they have tons of options, while martials have limited options.
It seems you've not played with the strong lv1 wizards. They can knockout 3+ creatures in 1 round. Fighters can't. Plus lv1 casters can still alter the world to suit them while the martials need to react to the world.
Basically the only thing martials have is DPR. But casters win fights without needing DPR. And what do the martials do when DPR isn't needed? Sit and ask the caster to take care of things.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And while wizard is playing a poor fighter, what about actual spell duties? Who is buffing the rest of the team? Who is ready to dispel magic? Who is zoning the fighting area? Your party needs a wizard to do things like that and can't do them while being a fighter at the same time.The problem is that, in Pathfinder, Hawking can, several times a day, put on a power suit that makes him stronger and tougher than Ferrigno. Or summon multiple angels who are individually stronger and tougher. Or transform into a sabre-toothed Ferrigno-saurus that shoots laser beams out of his eyes.
And fly.
Perhaps not. But if I need a wizard and a fighter at the same time, Lou Ferrigno can't do that, either. If all I need is a wizard or a fighter, Hawking can do double duty.
And if I need the "and," I need two characters. But in that case, I might as well take Hawking-1 and Hawking-2, who can act as a wizard and a fighter, or they can act as a pair of wizards, or they can act as a pair of fighters, depending upon what we need at the moment.
Or even better, get a wizard and a druid, and cover even more bases.
And yeah, Summon monster lags WAAAY behind Fighter of the same level. Summon Monster is really good for running interference, they make a great wall to intercept a group or disrupt a group but damage kings they are not.
Aside from the fact that hyenas aren't the best choice -- what makes you think Hawking can only cast one summon spell?
Summoned hyenas are pretty weak. You want summoned Celestial Lions who pounce and smite evil.
Mr.Stunt Double doesnt seem to be grasping the issue. Casters can play multiple roles in a party. A druid is famous for being a far more potent combatant in melee than most martials are AND has an additional damage sponge via his animal companion. His wildeshape grants a ridiculous amount of combat versatility.
The Wizard may not be stepping into the beatstick role but the druid certainly can whilst still getting 9th level casting.
A druid is the more egregious example of the Martial Caster Disparity because if you look under the hood even a little you have a incredibly potent martial combatant with great saves, an animal companion, and a full array of spell slots available for utility.
To be honest, I think the Druid and Cleric are more inherently problematic than the Wizard; the Wizard chassis makes you have to think about it a little bit, but the Druid and Cleric practically scream at you "PLEASE. INVALIDATE THE FIGHTER. WE ARE GIVING YOU EVERY POSSIBLE TOOL TO DO SO."