Wizards who have 10-12 con in APS are being built poorly. Pointing out that characters in APS are built poorly doesn't really show anything. It's generally well known that ap bad guys are pretty weak.
And 'false life' going away is what it is DESIGNED to do. It's 'healing in advance'! (one of the best spells for a sorc to take, btw).
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Absolutely. Though all but he most extreme diseases can be healed with the heal skill and 4 ability points for a full day of rest and a heal check isn't bad. Most low level healers can't cast more than two or three lesser restorations a day, max.
Thank you for illustrating the point.
A full day of rest plus a skill check with possibility of failure.
vs.
1 maybe 2 castings of a spell. This can also be gotten from a scroll or a wand.
Affecting the narrative isn't limited to doing something no one else can. It's about writing the story.
In the above the afflicted individual would be rendered into bed care for a day or two. Adventuring would cease, the enemy might have a chance to regroup, refortify, whatever. That is one way the narrative can go. Depending on the severity they may never re cover and the character may choose retirement from the field over endangering their own life or the lives of others.
Another way is that someone happens to have the appropriate potion or item to fix the situation. That's not out of question, prepared adventurers do things like that. Adventuring continues.
Another way is the group has a person capable of removing the condition magically. Adventure continues.
The final way is that adventuring must cease but the appropriate spell is retrieved the very next morning. Time is lost, but a lesson is learned and the party goes on adventuring.
Of the four potential outcomes only the caster (specifically the healer) has access to all 4. A group consisting of all martials has access to 2. A group consisting entirely of casters may not ever have to worry about option 1 or 2.
To give a real table example this came up in a planescapeish game I've been running.
PC's have traveled to a material plane not there own. They need to get to a city they know nothing about except as a dot on the map and a name. It was roughly 800 miles away.
The pc's go through a number of magical solutions, divination and teleportation, etc. and settle on wind walking there way there. 2 castings would do it.
You can easily call this the result of high level play. But, you must also consider the group's paladin who could do little more than settle arguments from his limited magical perspective.
If the group relied on the paladin, rather than he on them, they would have had to either barter the services of a sympathetic caster or walk.
That changes the narrative.
Suddenly a quick romp over the sword coast becomes an epic journey. Rather than stop for lunch and a piss they have to stop because of bandits, weather, random adventuring opportunities etc.
That's what affecting the narrative means.
If the expectations of the story suddenly change due to your capability that should be taken as a hint.
Let's go back to the question of the cliff.
At 1st level a barbarian, a bard, a cleric, and a sorcerer are presented with a cliff. They can go to a carved stair case several miles down the path to retain resources but lose time.
The barbarian offers to climb the cliff and lower a rope.
They do so. The barbarians immense strength makes the task trivial. With some effort the rest of the group climbs the rope.
At 4th level the group comes upon the same cliff. It's winter now and the icy sheet over the cliff makes the climb much more challenging. The barbarian offers to climb the cliff again= confident that his greater strength and skill will still carry him up there.
The bard offers to enhance the skills of those climbing the cliff to ensure success and bypass the need of the rope.
The cleric offers to summon a mighty air elemental to carry a rope to the top and attach it to spare the barbarian potential damage.
The sorcere offers to do the same but also offers to levitate personally up their since he will have the hardest time climbing.
At 7th level the cliff has been transmuted entirely into a smooth glossy sheet by eldritch forces. It is now unclimbable in this state.
The barbarian decides that the stair case is their best bet as the time lost would be no different than him painstakingly hammering pitons into it so he could climb it.
The bard offers to summon an air elemental as before to drop a rope, but can also float up their in a gaseous form to do so as well.
The cleric offers to alter a portion of the cliff into an easily climbable form for all. Additionally he can also do as the bard does or even walk upon the air. He could even summon a host of air elementals to carry all their things up or even work together to carry them all individually up the cliff. If the group is willing he may even summon forth a much larger elemental to get them up the cliff and even fight with them for a number of days at significant cost.
The sorcerer could do all of the above. He can also teleport himself and two others up the cliff allowing the last, possibly the cleric to use their own method. He could also potentially transform into a shape that could alter the cliff. He could even grant the barbarian the ability to fly himself allow him to use his immense strength to carry each party member.
At 10th level the cliff is now lava fall.
The barbarian throws his mighty arms up as even now the staircase is lava.
The other's shrug and offer a number of solutions.
By 16th level the cliff is now a soul sucking block of terrible ice that burns with an all consuming unfire.
The barbarian mutters something about wizardry.
The bard considers a few moments what to do and proposes some sensible solutions based on his limited spell list.
The cleric offers to call forth a horde of angels to carry the group bodily over the obstacle.
The sorcerer thinks they're being silly and teleports them out of their before the barbarian starts "sacred scarring" himself again. Otherwise he see no point in wasting anymore time.
Of course the scenario changes a bit depending on the barbarian. He could conceivably get a flying mount after all.
Point being is where the options remain relatively static over the levels the actual face of the challenges scale to meet with the casters, not the other way around. Even bringing magic items into the equation has little weight as they are generally inferior to a spell yet often have greater real value in terms of limited loot. Making them great as a last resort but hardly worth using a a daily adventuring tool.
When the chief dev writes that the various miss chances don't stack because they all do the same thing, and that is clear in the rules then that is good enough for me. You can try and argue that the flavour justifies different reasons for the miss chances but they are all miss chances and you take the best one. That has been stated explicitly.
Saying a Devs explanations don't count because on one occasion he contradicted himself doesn't wash. Of course if you are also a dev writing on Pathfinder system Aelryinth then I'm happy to take your opinion under advisement.
On the subject of needing fast travel otherwise you fight 2nd level bandits?? I'm not sure why this is necessary. The DM says 'you travel to xxxx' it takes four days. Of course there are bandits on the road but none give your more than pause for thought. Teleport is very rare in fiction - normally people walk, ride or perhaps fly (rarely).
On a final note if you cast phantom steed before teleporting doesn't that count as teleporting a further large creature? How many people can you fit in a bag of holding? The largest is just over 6ft X 6ft X 6ft that's little more than a 5ft square?
Design Manager
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Are people really asking paizo to create 4e? that's total parity between classes.
Wizards suck it up at low levels, and get rewarded for their sacrifice at higher levels.
GMs should tailor encounters to their group so everyone has an important role to play, and avoid having the spotlight on only one PC. It's not easy to do this *all* the time. Sometimes a specific character is the star of the session, sometimes that happens just for one encounter, and that's fine as long as it moves around from character to character.
Have you actually been reading this thread or the thread that spawned it? You are espousing the 4E fallacy, the idea that balance equals homogenization, and this simply isn't true. There have been many examples of ways to mitigate martial/caster disparity, both by bringing down casters and by bringing up martials (or a happy middle ground between the two) that leave all the classes still very distinct and different. The fact that WotC once made a game that was balanced and homogenized does NOT mean that all balanced games must or will be homogenized. Believing that to be the case just shows a lack of imagination and that you haven't taken the time to actually see what people are saying, suggesting, or what they've pointed to as examples of balanced options from other companies.
Also, "Wizards suck it up at low levels, and get rewarded for their sacrifice at higher levels" is a false statement, at least of you know how to play a wizard with even a fair degree of system mastery. I've been in many games where (for example), the elf Wizard was nearly as good an archer as the party Fighter, but still had plenty of versatile options. By the time the Fighter could distinctly outperform the Wizard as an archer on a regular basis, the Wizard had moved on to higher level spells and archery was now by far the least useful thing he could have been doing. The difference between a Wizard's chance to hit and a Fighter's chance to hit during levels 1 and 2 is often 5% or less. I've seen games where the player followed the advice given on these forums and showed up with a well-balanced Fighter who spent points on Wisdom and Intelligence, only to discover that at 1st level he actually had a lower chance to hit than the Wizard, who still had more skills, better saves, and all the versatility that comes with being an arcane spellcaster.
|
Design Manager
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
When the chief dev writes that the various miss chances don't stack because they all do the same thing, and that is clear in the rules then that is good enough for me.
James Jacobs is not the chief dev, that's Jason Buhlman. James is the creative director, meaning his primary function has little to do with rules design and more to do with maintaining the thematic consistency and growth of Golarion. More than that, he's said on multiple occasions that he is not "a rules guy" and his input is simply how he would run it in his home game, which his own statements have shown on multiple occasions is run in a way that "feels right" to him, regardless of whether or not that conforms to RAW.
That being said, I have the utmost respect for James and typically adopt his suggestions for how something should be run.
Tarkxt. What you are mentioning is that the DM knows in advance whether the party contacting a mage with the fly spell in his adventure. If he puts a glass sheet of ice with no way of climbing in front of the party then they walk around. Adventuring doesn't stop the DM says "you walk five mile south and come up the other side" it takes 3 hours. Why do you describe every stop and footfall?
If the party stops for a day to recover then the adventure doesn't stop the DM says you rest for a day and then carry on. In most case I've seen the party would stop anyway if a character had to blow all their spells for the day on healing.
I think you are manufacturing situations that realistically don't need to come up in order to prove a point. If a DM gives you an icy cliff to climb similarly to climbing the wall in ASOIAF then that is a challenge. Not sure why you need a wizard to overcome that challenge. Yes it's harder but then the DM is setting the difficulties anyway...? I don't understand your difficulty.
That may be the case but I will take the opinion of a 'senior dev' over the opinion on a thread any time. Particularly when as explicit as in this case.
Rather than a couple examples, could we come up with a short list of typical out-of-combat challenges that are typically present in Pathfinder?
It might serve to generate some ideas of things that could be added to Martials to improve their out-of-combat usefulness, as that seems to be one of the main complaints.
Are people really asking paizo to create 4e? that's total parity between classes.
Wizards suck it up at low levels, and get rewarded for their sacrifice at higher levels.
GMs should tailor encounters to their group so everyone has an important role to play, and avoid having the spotlight on only one PC. It's not easy to do this *all* the time. Sometimes a specific character is the star of the session, sometimes that happens just for one encounter, and that's fine as long as it moves around from character to character.
Have you actually been reading this thread or the thread that spawned it? You are espousing the 4E fallacy, the idea that balance equals homogenization, and this simply isn't true. There have been many examples of ways to mitigate martial/caster disparity, both by bringing down casters and by bringing up martials (or a happy middle ground between the two) that leave all the classes still very distinct and different. The fact that WotC once made a game that was balanced and homogenized does NOT mean that all balanced games must or will be homogenized. Believing that to be the case just shows a lack of imagination and that you haven't taken the time to actually see what people are saying, suggesting, or what they've pointed to as examples of balanced options from other companies.
Also, "Wizards suck it up at low levels, and get rewarded for their sacrifice at higher levels" is a false statement, at least of you know how to play a wizard with even a fair degree of system mastery. I've been in many games where (for example), the elf Wizard was nearly as good an archer as the party Fighter, but still had plenty of versatile options. By the time the Fighter could distinctly outperform the Wizard as an archer on a regular basis, the Wizard had moved on to higher level spells and archery was now by far the least useful thing he could have been doing. The difference between a Wizard's chance to hit and a Fighter's chance to hit during levels 1 and 2...
Both probably sad that the barbarian (or fighter or pretty much anyone with a 2 handed great sword and a high STR) is doing 2/3 times their damage or more.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Another common solution is to turn every martial into a wuxia superhero who farts fireballs and barfs acid, who flattens armies with the stamp of a boot and shrugs off every natural disaster like Superman shrugs off bullets. While that might be fine and dandy for an actual superhero game, or for a supernatural game where all the heroes are Greek gods or other immortals running around a mundane world, it's very much out of place in this game system as published. Wuxia martials is simply not Pathfinder.
...
Those parameters are: this is NOT a superhero game, it's not a demigod game, it's not a vampires game, it's not an immortal game. It IS a game where normal people learn how to do cool stuff but magical people learn how to do cooler stuff than non-magical people. It is a game where a guy can walk off of his farm, grab a weapon of some kind, explore dungeons and kill monsters, gain power, become a figure of song and story and legend, regardless of whether his weapon of choice is a spellbook or a sword - but obviously it's easier to rock the world with the spellbook.
The problem is it is a superhero game and it is a demigod game and it is a vampires game and it is an immortal game. That's the thing.
Over the course of the game, you deal with progressively larger scale and progressively supernatural stuff. At 1st-6th level or so, you're dealing with mostly mundane things like animals, goblins, minor undead, etc.
However, as the game progresses you are literally acting alongside things that are godlike by virtually every rational definition of the word that doesn't involve omnipotence. Half of the "traditional" party will rise to meet this change in the game, the other half of the party will remain leashed to goblin-land.
You cannot say that this is not a game of superheroes when your average D&D character could beat up and steal Batman's lunchmoney. You cannot say that it is not a game of demigods when you're expected to engage things like balors, pit fiends, titans, solars, etc. You cannot say it is not a game of immortals when it's actually pretty common to achieve some sort of immortality (most casters have some sort of path to immortality, some even do as a minor talent of some sort). You cannot say it isn't a game of vampires when you're dealing with stuff like vampires.
The game is literally everything you say that it isn't. The only difference is that some of the classes do not get to participate in those parts of the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As an aside: letting wizards retrain feats as they get more powerful is a big mistake in this regard in my opinion. I also think you are being pessimistic saying you can only deal with vampires, demons, and angels if you are wizard.
I echo the call for out of combat challenges that can only be overcome by spells. I'll start with a few examples already cited.
1. Curing permanent or lethal Magical curses/diseases - mummy rot, stone to flesh, feeblemind etc.
2. Binding invulnerable enemies such as the tarrasque into sleep or imprisonment.
3. Teleporting to other planes of existence.
4. Reaching places otherwise unreachable except by magic - cysts underground etc.
Any others. To be clear, this is a list of challenges that can only be overcome with spells rather than things that are just easier that way.
Both probably sad that the barbarian (or fighter or pretty much anyone with a 2 handed great sword and a high STR) is doing 2/3 times their damage or more.
But not if they're archers. Melee combat is traditionally a high-risk, high-reward combat style because it puts you in position for most things to be able to kill you more easily. At low levels, sure your barbarian is dealing 2d6+6 damage easily enough in melee, but the ogre he's fighting is dealing similar damage.
Apples to oranges.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As an aside: letting wizards retrain feats as they get more powerful is a big mistake in this regard in my opinion. I also think you are being pessimistic saying you can only deal with vampires, demons, and angels if you are wizard.
I echo the call for out of combat challenges that can only be overcome by spells. I'll start with a few examples already cited.
1. Curing permanent or lethal Magical curses/diseases - mummy rot, stone to flesh, feeblemind etc.
2. Binding invulnerable enemies such as the tarrasque into sleep or imprisonment.
3. Teleporting to other planes of existence.
4. Reaching places otherwise unreachable except by magic - cysts underground etc.
Any others. To be clear, this is a list of challenges that can only be overcome with spells rather than things that are just easier that way.
Pretty much. Magic is 100% required in this game. You cannot succeed in a traditional D&D campaign without it. You can succeed with magic-lite but you must have magical support to deal with common problems throughout the game. I'm not even talking about magic items either (lots of useful things like see invisibility can't even be made into stuff like potions btw).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lol at fighter and rogues being a nightmare for wizards. If all I had to fight are fighters and rogues that would be the easiest campaign ever.
The funny thing is, I'd have a much harder time running for this party because I'd have to cut a huge swath of the core bestiary out and ignore a larger swath of challenges because they would just have no hope of dealing with them.
Ashiel: you give absolutely no examples to support your assertion that magic is 100% needed. A fighter archer is also doing 2-3 X more damage than an elf wizard due to feats and strength.
BlackWaltzOmega: Some great scenarios there, though I do find myself thinking that everyone of them sounds more interesting/engaging/fun if attempted without magic. Lol.
From your examples I would add number 5 to the list of things only accomplished with spells.
1. Curing permanent or lethal Magical curses/diseases - mummy rot, stone to flesh, feeblemind etc.
2. Binding invulnerable enemies such as the tarrasque into sleep or imprisonment.
3. Teleporting to other planes of existence. (technically could be accomplished with a portal)
4. Reaching places otherwise unreachable except by magic - cysts underground
5. Communicating with the dead
|
Design Manager
|
Both probably sad that the barbarian (or fighter or pretty much anyone with a 2 handed great sword and a high STR) is doing 2/3 times their damage or more.
That's actually something I don't see as much at low levels. Yes, when they hit they hit for a lot, but (and in this instance it may very well be a result of the adventures we've played in), in my experience they still tend to get about 1/2 as many attacks in as the archers unless they've got a lot of Cleave bait. Archers also tend to stay standing and dealing their damage longer since they don't need to close with their enemy, so they (again, in my experience), usually are getting the first and last attack in, typically matching (or even exceeding) the melee brutes for actual damage dealt in a given encounter.
Regardless, the original point was that Wizards don't "suck it up" at low levels, and are often in my experience one of the more effective classes right out of the gate, due in no small part to the fact that they simply need less to get rolling than a lot of martial classes and builds. While they're certainly more vulnerable to things like sneak attacks, I think they're also often less likely to actually be subject to them (again, there may be a certain amount of playstyle bias here; while the bonded item is generally considered to be a superior option, we often have wizards with familiars at our table, and owls and hawks feature pretty prominently, serving as both flying scouts and providing Perception bonuses to their master).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You've all forgotten the thing that makes Martials so much better then caster! Simple thing called sleep. if you can't rest, you can't get spells back.
No one forgot that. It's just that everyone except you is aware of spells like rope trick, magnificent mansion, and plane shift.
Ashiel: you give absolutely no examples to support your assertion that magic is 100% needed.
I'll give you lots of them when I get back from work. Heading out now.
A fighter archer is also doing 2-3 X more damage than an elf wizard due to feats and strength.
Not at low levels he isn't. At this level the only thing that matters is buffs and ability scores.
Just to be clear: the example for fighters not being able to affect things out of combat is a half troll barbarian with Int, Wis and Cha 8 or less and 4 skill points? I think that might be your starting problem.
What exactly is the problem with offering an example, when you asked about 'fighters being useless out of combat'?
How much more effective is a typical fighter than my min-maxed barbarian? The basic fighter will have perhaps twice the skill points, possibly even 3 pts per level. He/she might have one or even two mental stats that do not result in a penalty to his/her skills.
What can he/she do out of combat?
My point was and remains, that rogues can be effective out of combat, whilst most martial types are not.
Casters have the resources to change how the narrative unfolds via their spells; skill-monkeys have the skills to help make decisions about what actions should be followed; face characters have the social skills to do some of these.
Fighters have nothing except combat.
And, to return to the actual topic, this is possibly why some people don't see the discrepancy - if all the players make the decisions collectively, it doesn't matter to them if it's the casters who carry out the actions. If the non-casters don't get to join in with those decisions, then the discrepancy is far more apparent.
Gilarius: A human expertise fighter with Int 13 has 4+ skill points per level - a trait or two to gain a class skill and they can have a good go at filling in for any number of skills - particularly if you don't have a rogue or ranger. Why does a class have to have 6+Int skills to be able to contribute?
It seemed that the half troll barbarian was specifically designed to concentrate on fighting then was given up as an example of a character that can only fight. You even said you deliberately didn't contribute because you were roleplaying. I respect playing in character it improves the game for everyone, but you can hardly hold that character up as evidence that Martials can't contribute to the narrative (still haven't heard a good explanation of what that means)
Bribing a guard, keeping watch, scouting ahead, setting up defences, planning an attack, swimming through a flooded tunnel, rescuing someone drowning, building a shelter, following tracks, carrying a fallen comrade, party treasurer, party cartographer, searching for clues, first aided, dig a grave, set a trap, knock down a wall, batter down a door, take the brunt of a traps damage etc etc. All things Martials can do without spells that can benefit the party.
Ashiel: A 2nd level human ranger probably has a +3 str bow, point blank shot, rapid shot and precise shot. Dealing 2 x 1d8+4 damage compared to the wizards 1d8+1 (if they are going for precise shot for rays and therefore take the point blank shot tax). Easily 2-3 x the damage.
Does anyone have any other examples of stuff that can only be accomplished with spells - I'm really interested to expand the list as a resource for DMing party's without magic to be careful of (or the reverse for parties in high magic campaigns)
|
Design Manager
|
| 21 people marked this as a favorite. |
I find the constant disparity calls to be incredibly bad for the community to be honest Wheezy. It annoys people, instead of you saying, "Disparity, disparity, disparity" all the time it might be better to focus on the positives or simply accept that all iterations of this game system have these kinds of problems.
To hear people constantly complain about this, over and over again, is well... Pointless... This has been complained about for decades Wheezy. DECADES. X class is better than Y class. X class levels faster than Y class. There has never, and will never, be a fix that makes everything 1:1 paired.
So how about this... I'm just bowing out. You can complain about this until the end of time, because it's not going to change, because any change to it would just make people more angry.
Actually, this and the thread that spawned it were fairly constructive until people showed up going (and I paraphrase) "Blah, blah, blah, you're all stupid and there is no martial/caster disparity stop trying to fix it and just play the game like I tell you to". This is not only not helpful, it is actively harmful and breeds negativity. If you don't have issues with martial/caster disparity, then stay out of the threads addressing it. The vast majority of the martial/caster disparity threads started by those who see it as an issue are generally very amicable and constructive, at least until someone comes along with their "You're doing it wrong" rant and derail the thread, turning constructive and helpful conversation into a flame war.
You want to part of the reason so many of these threads exist? Because people like you, often specifically you come in with a holier and wiser than thou attitude and ruin it, so people wait a while, then sneak back in with a new thread to try and restart helpful conversation whilr quietly crossing their fingers and praying that you or someone like you doesn't show up and ruin things again, sadly a futile hope if history is any example.
The other reason, of course, is that people genuinely experience m/cd as a problem, may be unaware that a thread exists with possible solutions or inadvertently jump to a page in the thread full of your demeaning and self-righteous BS and think it doesn't contain anything worthwhile, and decide to a start a new, more civil thread. KoboldCleaver's handy index even shows that statistically, it is not the the people who believe martial/caster disparity is an issue who start or propogate negativity in threads, it is the people who start or propogate threads to tell those others that they're wrong.
So in case there was any ambiguity in what I've said so far, the best thing you could possibly do to limit the number of these threads and prevent the spread of negativity, is to stay out of them. If martial/caster disparity isn't a problem for you, then you have nothing to contribute to a thread about fixing it and no reason to be there. I don't go into "Pathfinder is the Greatest Game Ever Made!" threads and start telling people they're stupid and should only buy third party products or stop enjoying the game, and what you're doing is exactly equivalent to that. Everyone plays this game a little differently and one person's problems may not be anothers, so if you don't have something helpful and respectful to contribute, then don't contribute.
|
As for the rest: Blinking is a Ring. Displacement is a 24/7 cloak. Mirror Image is a low level spell that is quickenable. Improved Invis still falls in the level range of Contingency if he does not want to leave.
So, yeah, a wizard can DEFINITELY have all 4 of those effects going in 1 round or less if he wants to arrange things that way. It's not all that hard once you have a few levels. (Quicken/Contingent Mirror Image and Invis, Activate Ring, Cloak is already active - Done!). If the Ring is Command Word, you can even cast an offensive spell...or escape spell, as you choose.
As for the miss chances:
Invisibility - you miss because you can't see him.
Mirror Image - You miss because he's not the image you're swinging at.
Displacement - You miss because you're swinging right at him, but he's not where you think he is.
Blink - You miss because he blinks away before you can hit him.=Those are all different kinds of miss chances. You can argue that Displacement and Invisibility don't stack, but the rest definitely do, and closing your eyes won't help you with Mirror Images or Blink.
As for sleep - if sleep is a problem for more then one night, that's what Rings of Sustenance to cut the need down to 2 hours, and Rope Tricks for safe other-dimensional hidey-holes are MADE FOR.
First of all for all four of those defenses, at least half are relying on items so that's not really the wizard's thing, that's the item's thing. Also for a cloak of displacement, only the minor version is all day, so that's only a 20% miss chance. I still would LOVE a 20% miss chance, but we're also losing out on a cloak of resistance which everyone loves, so unless you're also wearing an otherworldly kimono, your saves are suffering.
Again, I don't doubt that a wizard will have some defenses up, just assuming all four is rarely the case.
To continue on your statements about sleep, we just as easily have nap stack to help with those issues, a wizard shouldn't be sleeping that long at all, like after 5th level or so this should stop being an issue.
|
Design Manager
|
Ashiel: A 2nd level human ranger probably has a +3 str bow, point blank shot, rapid shot and precise shot. Dealing 2 x 1d8+4 damage compared to the wizards 1d8+1 (if they are going for precise shot for rays and therefore take the point blank shot tax). Easily 2-3 x the damage.
You're not accounting for chance to hit, stat spreads, buffing spells, etc. If he's got a +3 Strength bow, he's got a 16 STR. What are his DEX, CON, and WIS? How does a wizard casting gravity bow before the Ranger has it available change the equation? Magic weapon? How many scenarios is it likely the wizard will get a chance to prebuff in? How often can the Ranger count on getting in his Favored Enemy class feature? How does the presence of the Wizard's Arcane Bond (the Ranger won't get his Hunter's Bond for two more levels), alter the equation?
I know that during the Rise of the Runelords game I was a player in, our Wizard was able to have gravity bow up for the great majority of the first and second level fights, and often was stealthy and perceptive enough to turn the tables on potential ambushed, stealing the initiative in the fight and helping the party take the element of surprise.
Throwing out base damage numbers is meaningless for an accurate comparison without accounting for accuracy and other class features.
More on topic, there were a lot of instances in that campaign where even as a human Fighter with a starting INT of 13 and using my FCB for extra skill points I would have killed for just 2 more skill points in my build, and I was already running with more than twice the points a Fighter typically has. I really think Fighter needs 4+Int skills, particularly since if they want to do any mounted combat they'll need points in both Handle Animal and Ride.
Fair point, I was just trying to illustrate that a 1st to 4th level ranger or fighter would generally be doing more damage than an elf wizard who picks up a bow because of feats, abilities and stats. I certainly wouldn't suggest that you couldn't design a wizard who could use a bow - only that all other things being equal an archer fighter/ranger will be doing substantially more. But you were right it wasn't a serious attempt to math hammer it.
(Edit - and rather off topic)
|
Design Manager
|
Fair point, I was just trying to illustrate that a 1st to 4th level ranger or fighter would generally be doing more damage than an elf wizard who picks up a bow because of feats, abilities and stats. I certainly wouldn't suggest that you couldn't design a wizard who could use a bow - only that all other things being equal an archer fighter/ranger will be doing substantially more. But you were right it wasn't a serious attempt to math hammer it.
Absolutely. I just wanted to note that it was a bit more complex, particularly since I participated in starting the subject with my anecdotal story of our elven wizard outperforming our Fighter at archery during our RotRL campaign. That particular wizard was an elf with Point Blank Shot (rarely a bad investment for a low level wizard in my experience) and gravity bow, so she actually had the same to hit and was often dealing more damage, though not all wizards are going to be built that way.
I was just trying to address what I see as the fallacy that wizards suck at low levels. A well-built wizard can often contribute in the same way as a martial with close to equal performance at low levels, without giving up much, if any, of their "wizardy-ness", and it won't negatively impact them at later levels since PBS still helps their rays and they can just stop memorizing spells like gravity bow in favor of more utilitarian spells when their higher level spells come online.
Fighters have nothing except combat.
While fighters are steered towards combat only, it is fairly easy to have a +20 diplomacy and +19 sense motive at 10th level. It takes 2 traits, and two feats (skill focus diplomacy, and alertness). You still have something like 9 feats to spend on combat, iron will, etc. The "big" sacrifice is a 16 strength instead of a 17 at first level, and that's about it. A similar build can instead get you +20 perception, survival, etc.
It doesn't make you a bard, but it puts you about equal to a rogue, and is probably easier then doing the same thing with a sorcerer, (feats and skill points are generally more scarce for a sorcerer).
This means the fighter can be the face of the party, and not really lose any effectiveness as in combat.
HOWEVER, all the other aspects of the C/M D remain, and while skills are good for some situations (especially social skills) they generally trail far behind magic in most other aspects of adventuring. Also, the bard still beats you fairly easily, and has numerous benefits you can only dream of.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Tarkxt. What you are mentioning is that the DM knows in advance whether the party contacting a mage with the fly spell in his adventure. If he puts a glass sheet of ice with no way of climbing in front of the party then they walk around. Adventuring doesn't stop the DM says "you walk five mile south and come up the other side" it takes 3 hours. Why do you describe every stop and footfall?
If the party stops for a day to recover then the adventure doesn't stop the DM says you rest for a day and then carry on. In most case I've seen the party would stop anyway if a character had to blow all their spells for the day on healing.
I think you are manufacturing situations that realistically don't need to come up in order to prove a point. If a DM gives you an icy cliff to climb similarly to climbing the wall in ASOIAF then that is a challenge. Not sure why you need a wizard to overcome that challenge. Yes it's harder but then the DM is setting the difficulties anyway...? I don't understand your difficulty.
The more capability and changes you can affect the greater freedom you have over the story. That's narrative control.
It doesn't matter if they're bribing a guard, keeping watch, scouting ahead, setting up defences, planning an attack, swimming through a flooded tunnel, rescuing someone drowning, building a shelter, following tracks, carrying a fallen comrade, party treasurer, party cartographer, searching for clues, first aided, dig a grave, set a trap, knock down a wall, batter down a door, take the brunt of a traps damage etc etc. The caster likely has a far more efficient solution at his beck and call. The caster can do all of that and more sometimes without even having to leave the comfort of his floating disk.
You're saying it doesn't matter because of the GM. I'm saying if you fixed the roots of the problem the GM wouldn't have to.
|
Design Manager
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
You want to part of the reason so many of these threads exist? Because people like you, often specifically you come in with a holier and wider than thou attitude and ruin it, so people wait a while, then sneak back in with a new thread to try and restart helpful conversation whilr quietly crossing their fingers and praying that you or someone like you doesn't show up and ruin things again, sadly a futile hope if history is any example....Patently untrue.
These threads have existed since long before I ever became a member. Back when I just watched. It isn't just me, and it darn sure isn't due to me.
The problem is this:
They come about, people go around and around in circles. Nothing gets accomplished because nobody agrees on it, and everything being said is the exact same things being said in every other thread. Then, people expect Paizo to do something.
Months pass... Nothing gets done... Or, something does get done and people feel it isn't enough.
Weapon Master's Handbook just came out and added a bunch of things to the Fighter or any martial character. They added one thing, for example, that gives 2 skills that you can use your BAB as your skill ranks in it. That gives Fighters 2 max rank skills for free, but then the claim is, "It isn't for free, I have to use one of my class features for it."
They added a whole archetype specifically based around the idea of using existing magical items to get additional magical effects out of them. Something that people seem to have asked for in these threads forever. That, seemingly, isn't good enough.
They added a feat that any fightery type can get that lets them do that too I should add.
Paizo has bent over backward to give Martials more stuff, even when it wasn't needed. Its a matter of the fact that the game already has the tools in place to make up for the disparity and on top of that, of course, is the DM who can also finagle things on his end.
In this case, the OP asked, "What can we do without...
It's not patently untrue, it's provably true. There's no reason these threads need to go round and round, and there's no need for them to devolve into flame wars. All it takes is for someone to say "Huh, this is a nonissue for me. Do I have anything helpful, I can contribute to help solve the problems, or do I not consider it a problem and just part of the game? If it's the latter, I should probably just find something else to talk about since the thread obviously isn't directed towards me".
Jiggy even took the time to lay out all the arguments that often come from the "M/CD is not an issue" camp and why thwy aren't helpful and don't need to be repeated, and rather than read that and say "Ah, I see I'm not needed here", people have chosen to continue to vomit up those same fallacies and claim others are "doing it wrong". Contributions like that are unhelpful and breed negativity, and it would be better for the forums if they just stopped.
Moreover, threads like this, when they don't descend into flamewars, actually can be productive. Paizo released the Unchained Rogue in response to the fact that many people proved the core Rogue wasn't up to snuff, something openly acknowledged by the design team. Unchained also included options that attempted, however unsuccessfully, to rein in casters. Fighter's have struggled for relevance and now there are Combat Tricks and new options in the Weaponmaster's Handbook that Fighter's can spend their Weapon Training on. There are people at Paizo who recognize the issues and are slowly working to address them, showing that whatever your "wisdom of the ages" may say, discussions like this can be worthwhile and productive, if they're allowed to flourish instead of being poisoned by unhelpful and self-righteous commentary.
Of course wizards could fill in for other party members that is a useful function. However they don't NEED to scribe Find Traps into their spell book, or Knock, or any other spell if another character can do the job as well. Why expend precious resources, cash, time, spell slots if another party member can already do it. you don't NEED to upstage other party members, it comes down to how you build your wizard.
Being efficient at everyone is being excellent at nothing. Of course there are easier ways of doing things. Hussein Bolt will rune 500 m easier than I will but that doesn't mean I can't do it, succeed and be happy with my achievement.
Freedom over the story? You are largely describing methodology rather than control. If the whole party decided to travel to Lastwall to sign up for the Shining Crusade, that is the control. How they get there is the difference between the DM describing a teleport spell rather than a boat ride. Without the teleport spell the story keeps moving - if anything the spell takes some of the drama away. If the poisoned courtier is saved by a potion found in party loot (or a ranger's heal check) rather than the party cleric how is that a lack of narrative control? The phrase is being bandied around a lot without a clear explanation. I'm not saying it doesn't exist just that it isn't making much sense based on what has been said so far.
I am trying to compile a list of situations where only a spell will do. I'll be honest the list is pretty small and circumstantial so far. This would be a useful list of examples wher narrative control does fall on the wizards. To be avoided or used as the DM sees fit.
Also coming out of this thread was a set of suggestions to buff Martials and...
A set of methods for restricting casters.
I would say all are fairly useful. By avoiding the debate of whether the disparity exists we can instead debate solutions - which is far morei Interesting, useful and slightly less repetitive.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, Jiggy's thread is a huge step forward. 76 "Likes" and counting...
Kobold Cleaver's index is also very helpful.
I would consider my own suggestions to be very helpful, but I'm a little biased.
We are REALLY trying hard to get past the exist/myth argument cycle you are talking about. Despite a lot of work, we still get the same old responses that were never really helpful. I assure, I would rather be working toward a solution, that answering the same points over and over again. You are 100% correct, going over the same points isn't the way to find a solution, and I encourage EVERYONE to move beyond engaging in debate about the points Jiggy mentioned. Link to his thread and move on.
Paizo has rewritten the rogue, the monk, improved skills, and like you said, release the weapon masters handbook. (Oh yeah, and they also made a huge leap forward over 3.5 core by releasing Pathfinder core in the first place). Things are improving, maybe there is a step backward now and then, but more tools are being added all the time.
Please read Jiggy's thread again. Most of the arguments, such as "the GM has the power to limit casters" are not points against the disparity, but rather evidence it exists.
If you want to check to see if your solution will appeal to those who feel the disparity is real, ask yourself how it would come off if you applied the same solution to another class feature. For example, what about anti-skill zones? Or zones of "wild weapons" where there was a chance your weapon could backfire of suddenly fail. If these seem bizarre, then they are probably not good broad solutions to limiting magic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Please keep it civil folks. Take a break, cool off, and focus on solutions, not internet arguing.
Fighters have nothing except combat.While fighters are steered towards combat only, it is fairly easy to have a +20 diplomacy and +19 sense motive at 10th level. It takes 2 traits, and two feats (skill focus diplomacy, and alertness). You still have something like 9 feats to spend on combat, iron will, etc. The "big" sacrifice is a 16 strength instead of a 17 at first level, and that's about it. A similar build can instead get you +20 perception, survival, etc.
It doesn't make you a bard, but it puts you about equal to a rogue, and is probably easier then doing the same thing with a sorcerer, (feats and skill points are generally more scarce for a sorcerer).
This means the fighter can be the face of the party, and not really lose any effectiveness as in combat.
HOWEVER, all the other aspects of the C/M D remain, and while skills are good for some situations (especially social skills) they generally trail far behind magic in most other aspects of adventuring. Also, the bard still beats you fairly easily, and has numerous benefits you can only dream of.
Now this is a good and fair response to what I see as a major problem with fighters. However, I don't see that 'solves' the issue overall - this example fighter is good at two skills, but is still poor at the others. He is also weaker at actually fighting (possibly not by much, depending on how you wanted the character to fight - I have tried building fighters with more than one combat style/trick/favoured weapon, and they lack enough feats. It'd be yet another digression to go into how I'd change combat feats, so I won't bother here).
The Sword gave an example of another fighter (above), with 4 skill points per level, which has the same compromise - weaken the fighting to become slightly better at skills.
Neither of you has actually addressed my suggested fix - combine fighter and rogue. The specifics are unimportant, but the basic idea solves two major issues with PF: the lack of combat effectiveness of rogues and the lack of non-combat effectiveness of fighters.
Of course wizards could fill in for other party members that is a useful function. However they don't NEED to scribe Find Traps into their spell book, or Knock, or any other spell if another character can do the job as well. Why expend precious resources, cash, time, spell slots if another party member can already do it. you don't NEED to upstage other party members, it comes down to how you build your wizard.
Being efficient at everyone is being excellent at nothing. Of course there are easier ways of doing things. Hussein Bolt will rune 500 m easier than I will but that doesn't mean I can't do it, succeed and be happy with my achievement.
Freedom over the story? You are largely describing methodology rather than control. If the whole party decided to travel to Lastwall to sign up for the Shining Crusade, that is the control. How they get there is the difference between the DM describing a teleport spell rather than a boat ride. Without the teleport spell the story keeps moving - if anything the spell takes some of the drama away. If the poisoned courtier is saved by a potion found in party loot (or a ranger's heal check) rather than the party cleric how is that a lack of narrative control? The phrase is being bandied around a lot without a clear explanation. I'm not saying it doesn't exist just that it isn't making much sense based on what has been said so far.
I am trying to compile a list of situations where only a spell will do. I'll be honest the list is pretty small and circumstantial so far. In these cases I can see narrative control does fall on the wizards.
NEED is relative. If the party decides to sign up for the Crusade to do some good then there's no need for alacrity. If they're doing it to thwart a great evil or to receive protection that the knights may offer versus the forces that pursue them that changes the need.
But if you care less about how one efficiently completes the task rather than if (even though there's a really big difference between between being the Mother of Dragons and being an escaped victim) than we can get into things like the big "D" or Death as some may call him. Getting away from that takes magic.
There's also direct communion with the gods and other entities which outside of magic only come through fiat or plot device.
Neither of you has actually addressed my suggested fix - combine fighter and rogue. The specifics are unimportant, but the basic idea solves two major issues with PF: the lack...
We call that a Slayer sir.
|
Design Manager
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Of course wizards could fill in for other party members that is a useful function. However they don't NEED to scribe Find Traps into their spell book, or Knock, or any other spell if another character can do the job as well. Why expend precious resources, cash, time, spell slots if another party member can already do it. you don't NEED to upstage other party members, it comes down to how you build your wizard.
Being efficient at everyone is being excellent at nothing.
And that's the thing. For a Bard or Rogue, that statement is probably true. For a wizard, summoner, or cleric however, it simply isn't. The fraction of their resources that's required to adequately cover a given role in the party typically leaves plenty of resource available for them to also do whatever else they want.
In older versions of the game, everyone had an undefined but well known role to play in the game. When the game split into Pathfinder and 4E, Pathfinder elected to continue 3.5s trend of many classes moving away from defined roles, with Paladins who can be healers and tanks simultaneously, wizards who can tank, control, and buff all at the same time, clerics who can be skill-monkeys and damage dealers, etc., while 4E chose to more strictly codify and enforce the roles that a class could play.
I think Pathfinder really got the direction right, the problem is the flexibility of certain classes over others, and their capacity to cover multiple roles. Even a Fighter (Dirty Fighter) with Dirty Trick Master is only going to be dipping a tie into the controller role, while other classes can easily step into controller without sacrificing also having a second, third, possibly even 4th role they can play in the party.
Inquisitors generally can have one thing they're really good at, and still maintain competency in at least two other areas because they have a certain amount of delineation in their class features that allows them to excel in certain areas, like being an excellent skill-monkey, without sacrificing their combat resources. Wizard's have the ultimate toolbox, eventually able to simultaneously fulfill all needed party roles at once without giving up on their facility to do classic wizard-y things like blasting and control. Many martial characters suffer from being able to only access a very small number of roles, and often with less efficiency than a spellcaster doing the same thing. A fighter doesn't even have the option to heal (the Heal skill is not very good at any aspect of healing), aid in transportation/exploration past a certain point, etc.
What if all non-spellcasters got access to a mount at a certain level, and a flying mount at another point? What if someone could be so good at the Heal skill they could cure blindness or ability drain, or treat someone's wounds so effectively that it was like getting the benefits of a cure serious wounds spell? Would these really change the game into something unrecognizable? Would it be that hard to come up with a simple formula for skills to ensure that the more magic you have the less skills you have access to, forcing a wizard to knock to open doors instead of disable device, functionally creating parity between magical and non-magical solutions that scales into later levels?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Neither of you has actually addressed my suggested fix - combine fighter and rogue....
If you read my posts, you will find that I don't find skills to be an adequate equal to spells. 17 ranks, +3 class skill bonus, +8 ability modifier, + blah, blah, blah does not equal a wish spell.
Skills vs. Spells
Some martials have substantial access to skills, however, even max ranks and a decent ability modifier in a class skill is often a very poor substitute for what a spell can accomplish. Skills are useful if you need to do a fairly easy task for a long time, but in many cases, magic allows automatic success for more time then you need to accomplish the task. For example, rather then make a bunch of climb and acrobatics checks to climb up a 100' wall and cross a narrow ledge, the caster can just fly right up, much quicker, and with no checks required. While skills do have their place, they are severely limited for classes like the fighter, and many other martial classes lack the ranks or class skills to use them effectively. Casters generally also have ways to increase their use of skills, while martials have none. Several casting classes are better able to use skills, and even the "master of skills" - the rogue, is often outdone by bards and even wizards.
Gallant: This is very difficult to cover with a universal fix, primarily because bards and wizards generally have the most access to skill ranks, while fighters have the least. Giving fighters more ranks and class skills is a good start, but only a small step. Increasing the value of having ranks in physical skills later in the game could help a lot, but requires altering each skill individually in order to reduce the problem, not make it worse.
Goofus: Increase the power of skills across the board, or base increase in skill power on total modifier, rather then ranks. Casters often have more was to increase the modifier, without needing the ranks, (invisibility and glibness for example).
I'm adding 6 and 7 TarkXT and adding diving the future in general.
1. Curing permanent or lethal Magical curses/diseases - mummy rot, stone to flesh, feeblemind etc.
2. Binding invulnerable enemies such as the tarrasque into sleep or imprisonment.
3. Teleporting to other planes of existence.
4. Reaching places otherwise unreachable except by magic - cysts underground
5. Communicating with the dead
6. Raising the dead (most common so far I think)
7. Communicating with your God (rather than God communicating with you)
8. Diving the future.
We call that a Slayer sir.Neither of you has actually addressed my suggested fix - combine fighter and rogue. The specifics are unimportant, but the basic idea solves two major issues with PF: the lack...
Thanks, but that seems to be more of a hybrid of Ranger and Rogue... Which mainly makes it a better choice than playing a rogue, but doesn't 'solve' the fighter. Even if you ignore the fluff, and pretend that all the stuff about tracking, etc, is merely a bonus you don't have to focus on, it doesn't gain the fighter's niche - heavy armour, weapon feats, etc.
I'm not trying to be negative, it's a fair suggestion, and shows how to combine the classes in a way that could be copied. Would you support that as an idea? Or say to a player 'Play a Slayer, not a Fighter, even if you want a knight in armour'?
The main problem imo is that you have to explain to each new person what the problems are.
Thanks to Jiggy's fine work, all you have to do is provide a link:
Dispelling Myths: The Caster-Martial Disparity
Just copy and paste the above link, it is far easier then trying to explain the whole thing yourself each time.
Neither of you has actually addressed my suggested fix - combine fighter and rogue....If you read my posts, you will find that I don't find skills to be an adequate equal to spells. 17 ranks, +3 class skill bonus, +8 ability modifier, + blah, blah, blah does not equal a wish spell.
** spoiler omitted **...
Agreed, but that isn't my point. Although it is the point of this thread, so I'll shut up about it now.