Though this isn't so much about the alleged disparity as much as it is about the need for classes to be 1:1 balanced.
Now, I wish to present my viewpoint on this.
Tabletop RPGs don't have to be, and rarely are, balanced 1:1. This can be a conscious design choice (The Palladium games outright say the games aren't balanced and they openly say in the main Rifts book if you don't like it then don't play it) for the purposes of setting. This can be a situation based on the kinds of challenges and play styles of the game, in oWoD, for example a Mage could outright wreck anything else if the player knew what they were doing, and a Werewolf was far more terrifying than the common vampire 9 times out of 10. In D&D and AD&D there was no semblance of balance where the game rubber banded from Casters being fodder to Casters being virtual gods.
So, let us look at Pathfinder...
Pathfinder exists in a world where, without magical aid, one is bound by the laws of commonly understood cause and effect.
A Wizard may be able to fly, but without some kind of magical help, you can't become so good in training that you simply can too. (If you want a setting where that is possible I urge you to check out M&M.)
That is the REALITY of Pathfinder.
There are, obviously, disadvantages to this. There are people who feel playing anything other than a caster is a mistake as it doesn't provide as many options for narrative influence and they resent this as they do not wish to play casters, for example. There are situations where one can feel that game play becomes impossible without a caster but rarely so without a martial.
There are, however, advantages to this as well. Some players prefer the challenge of succeeding with a character they consider weaker. Some players gain a sense of accomplishment defeating magical foes without having magic of their own.
I call this the Jedi Hunter effect.
In Star Wars games there once was meaning to taking out a Jedi with a Bounty Hunter (in the WEG days) as the Jedi was a mechanically superior character that could not be matched 1:1 with a Dounty Hunter. The Bounty Hunter was always at a mechanical disadvantage and if they chose to take on the Jedi had to manipulate the environment and plan a proper attack AND they had to get lucky at the same time to win. This created a sense of accomplishment when a character brought back a Lightsaber for a bounty.
When WotC took over and turned it into a D20 variant, and even moreso in the Saga Edition, the Jedi and Bounty Hunter were more or less on equal footing. One could make a melee based Bounty Hunter and easily match a Jedi having nearly the same bonuses, same defense, and technology that could match it pound for pound. I never felt any kind of accomplishment like I did in WEG for taking one down because we were more or less balanced so there was nothing more difficult from taking anything else out at the end of the day.
So if we assume that Pathfinder isn't going to go for 1:1 balance, and if the alleged disparity is a disparity that is intended, then what does that mean?
What do we gain from 1:1 balance? What do we lose? Do the gains outweigh the losses?
My opinion?
Since you can play what you want, it shouldn't matter if there is never 1:1 balance. If all one cares about is power and wants to be the most powerful then they shouldn't care if they are doing it with class A or class B. It does, however, mean that certain concepts aren't viable, one will never make a martial as versatile as a caster, they simply can't and that is just part of the world.
If however 1:1 balance is ever gained then you do, indeed, lose something. You lose that extra challenge. You lose that extra accomplishment. You do lose some of the flavor and the world starts feeling a little more bland.
It's a interesting topic to be sure. Unfortunately I haven't had much exposure to other games outside of pathfinder. However, I believe this is more of a matter of player preference. A 1:1 game/class in my opinion represents a more dungeon crawl game type. While a high risk, high reward game/class is more suited for epic story telling. It all comes down to what the players themselves would enjoy the most.
I've always been more of a high risk player myself, but I can't say I haven't indulged in just a dungeon crawl from time to time. There is something to be found in both I believe.
No, classes should not be 1:1 balanced. That's what computer games are for - if you want that, go play League of Legends (those classes are not really balanced either, but they're closer than Pathfinder). Or go play 4th ed. D&D because that is essentially what they did, 1:1 balance.
It's not about the challenge or the accomplishment. It's just about teamwork. A team of Navy Seals works like a team, even though only one of them is usually a Demolitions expert and usually only one of them is a trained medic, etc. They combine their skills to be super effective as a team.
Pathfinder is like that.
That said, it doesn't mean that some characters should be able to bend reality and solve every problem in the game with a few magic words and a a spell component or two while some other characters are really only good at bonking things in combat. Yes, a good team effort can still make the disparity playable and fun, especially if the GM is setting up lots of challenges that work best by bonking things in combat. Still, closing that gap a little bit (or a lot) would make the game more balanced and probably more fun for everybody.
I believe the term is Schroedinger's wizard. If you compare a fighter to a well rested, fully prepared same level wizard at optimum conditions for the wizard, and the wizard has his entire spellbook available each round, then yes, the fighter is almost always outmatched.
That is not the relevant comparison. A fighter never runs out of sword. Not every adventuring day is fifteen minutes. A wizard with a less than optimal spell selection is dead meat against a fighter. And so on. Even without these things, a fighter who manages to grapple the wizard has probably already won.
Expressing balance as 1:1 is the error, in a nutshell. Like the fighter, the wizard has weaknesses, ones that would be known in a fantasy world. Further, some of this can be compensated by a fighter by investing in magic items that give other options.
1:1? No, not really. 1:3 would be a nice target number... the current 1:72 shouldn't be a thing though...
As it should always be said when these come up, it's not a matter of players out performing players, it's more that the party will, and should, fight a large number of classed foes in their career and a party of 6 martials shouldn't have the walls painted with their insides because a cleric and a wizard teamed up to oppose them...
I believe the term is Schroedinger's wizard. If you compare a fighter to a well rested, fully prepared same level wizard at optimum conditions for the wizard, and the wizard has his entire spellbook available each round, then yes, the fighter is almost always outmatched.
It actually turns out under testing that the wizard is better than the fighter basically all the time, because wizards can handle any problem but fighters can't really solve any problems
Three half-competent martials against an equal level cleric or wizard should manage quite well, thank you. Hitting him with your weapon is not all you can do. One who readies to disrupt casting, one who grapples, and one who deals damage or just assists. Not fun for a wizard or a cleric. I don't see 1:72 or anything like it.
Why shouldn't they be? If two players are putting similar amount of efforts into playing the game, why should one get to have a character who is useful in more situations than the other and is more effective in those situations? Unless the answer is that in the setting in question any amount of magic power at all means the character with it is more useful in an adventure than any character lacking it, no matter that the magic character is a total novice and the other is the kingdom's greatest thief/warrior, then there's an overlap in usefulness and it's merely a matter of finding where that is. If it's found that 10th level fighter, 8th level rogue, 6th level wizard and 5th level cleric are equally valuable to a party then you adjust the rate at which they gain abilities so that when characters have comparable experience then their usefulness is comparable - either by using the experience tables where the 5th level cleric and the 10th level fighter have the same XP requirements, or by delaying the wizard's acquisition of the abilities they'd gained by 5th level to 7th and accelerating the rogue's acquisition so they've got the 8th level by 7th level.
This is after all the game Gygax wrote where he didn't want classes to overshadow each other or for it to turn into a magic-fest.
@Sissyl: the problem with the 'solution' is that the problems can be solved equally well and probably better by bringing more casters than by bringing non-casters instead.
Possibly. I am quite certain a band of six mid-adventuring-day fighters can wreck face with a similarly depleted wizard and cleric they meet at close range. A good archer can probably kill the wizard at range alone. A monk against a wizard is cringe worthy. And yes, possibly the job could be better done with a wizard, but it is never the whole story.
This has already been answered in Jiggy's summary of the general myths about the idea of the C/M disparity: No.
1:1 classes are not the ideal game, that's not what people want and not what people advocate. The problem is that they're not even 1:2 or 1:5 right now, as the casters have access to a whole other world of metrics (abilities) to perform.
They don't need to be balanced directly in raw power, no.
They should however be balanced in terms of story power and options. This isn't a game about the boss and the sidekicks, it's a game about supposed equals. Currently it becomes a game about some people who bend reality to their whim, and other people who can just hit things kind of hard.
Because I've seen how this goes, I know a first answer will be "the DM can fix it". This is admitting that a problem exists. Otherwise, what would the DM be fixing? Wouldn't it be better to have a system that works more effectively as-is rather than to have to constantly bail out a sinking boat?
Possibly. I am quite certain a band of six mid-adventuring-day fighters can wreck face with a similarly depleted wizard and cleric they meet at close range. A good archer can probably kill the wizard at range alone. A monk against a wizard is cringe worthy. And yes, possibly the job could be better done with a wizard, but it is never the whole story.
I would take this challenge as well at level 13 15 17 20, pretty sure wizard and cleric win 100% of the time
I think, when all is said and done, 1:1 power would be dreadfully dull. I think imbalance is fine and can make a game more fun, so long as one or two classes/playstyles don't totally outmatch everything else. At higher levels, full casters can cross the line and invalidate other classes, which sucks. However, full casters aren't born with no other choice to be class-role vampires - if a full caster is spoiling the game for others, changing their spells to something less overshadowing/more complementary to the group can work to alleviate this.
In a game like Pathfinder, everyone should always be able to feel as if their character is contributing; even if their role could be taken up, doesn't mean they have to be.
What do you mean by 1:1 balance? Just the obvious "Classes should be equally powerful"? Or something more subtle?
I don't think classes should be the same, but I do think balance is a good design goal. It's never going to be perfectly achieved, especially since play style will effect it in many cases.
If it's going to be deliberately ignored as a design goal, that should be made clear, not hidden from the players. As you say, some RPGs do this - openly making some classes more powerful than others. D&D does not. (Some other RPGs also don't have classes at all, making the whole discussion trickier.)
AD&D appears to have aimed for balance across the length of a campaign - with wizards starting out very weak but becoming much more powerful at higher levels. That's not a kind of balance I prefer, but it's still better than wizards always being the best, IMO. Even at higher levels there were still limits on casters in AD&D that have been weakened in 3.x - easier to interrupt, easier to save against as the target went up levels, longer to prepare spells, etc.
Balance is not a goal. It is a tool for the true goal: Fun/Compelling games.
Some campaigns, gms, and groups may not require balance or may even require unbalanced classes. For example, you may have one player who is desperate to play the Jar Jar Binks of the group who is just there to accidentally F things up with their good intentions. The rest of the group may desperately desire this comic relief character as a party member. For that group balance is antithetical to the real goal.
I think more people are annoyed at systemic problems against heroic archetypes that manifest themselves as C/M. Personally, I find Paizo casters too cheesy to feel any-sort of accomplishment with them. Likewise, I find Paizo martials too simple or incompetent to feel either accomplishment (my numbers were bigger) or like failure was my responsibility (I rolled low doing the only thing I could have done with anysort of reliability).
The balance level I find compelling is within DSP psionic classes. Turns out, I don't personally need a pure mundane. I can take my Aegis or Soulknife and have a ball from 1-20. Meanwhile my PF fighter will feel like a chore to play roughly after level 9. So whatever ratio you would give Ultimate Psionics, is what I find compelling in the 3.P system.
Balance is not a goal. It is a tool for the true goal: Fun/Compelling games.
Some campaigns, gms, and groups may not require balance or may even require unbalanced classes. For example, you may have one player who is desperate to play the Jar Jar Binks of the group who is just there to accidentally F things up with their good intentions. The rest of the group may desperately desire this comic relief character as a party member. For that group balance is antithetical to the real goal.
But then the classes shouldn't be presented as balanced.
If you want to play the comic relief sidekick, that's great. You shouldn't wind up playing the sidekick because you picked a class you though looked cool. Nor should the guy who wanted to play the sidekick wind up the powerhouse because he grabbed a class that didn't fit his role.
Balance is not a goal. It is a tool for the true goal: Fun/Compelling games.
Some campaigns, gms, and groups may not require balance or may even require unbalanced classes. For example, you may have one player who is desperate to play the Jar Jar Binks of the group who is just there to accidentally F things up with their good intentions. The rest of the group may desperately desire this comic relief character as a party member. For that group balance is antithetical to the real goal.
I think more people are annoyed at systemic problems against heroic archetypes that manifest themselves as C/M. Personally, I find Paizo casters too cheesy to feel any-sort of accomplishment with them. Likewise, I find Paizo martials too simple or incompetent to feel either accomplishment (my numbers were bigger) or like failure was my responsibility (I rolled low doing the only thing I could have done with anysort of reliability).
The balance level I find compelling is within DSP psionic classes. Turns out, I don't personally need a pure mundane. I can take my Aegis or Soulknife and have a ball from 1-20. Meanwhile my PF fighter will feel like a chore to play roughly after level 9. So whatever ratio you would give Ultimate Psionics, is what I find compelling in the 3.P system.
But then the classes shouldn't be presented as balanced.
If you want to play the comic relief sidekick, that's great. You shouldn't wind up playing the sidekick because you picked a class you though looked cool. Nor should the guy who wanted to play the sidekick wind up the powerhouse because he grabbed a class that didn't fit his role.
Shouldn't is a strong word. It's merely hard to imagine a situation where this level of dishonesty or willful ignorance is useful to the overall goal of fun/compelling games.
Perhaps there are groups out there that just LOVE when their initial assumptions are subverted. GM's of those groups should then pick games that are dishonest.
Balance is not a goal. It is a tool for the true goal: Fun/Compelling games.
Some campaigns, gms, and groups may not require balance or may even require unbalanced classes. For example, you may have one player who is desperate to play the Jar Jar Binks of the group who is just there to accidentally F things up with their good intentions. The rest of the group may desperately desire this comic relief character as a party member. For that group balance is antithetical to the real goal.
I think more people are annoyed at systemic problems against heroic archetypes that manifest themselves as C/M. Personally, I find Paizo casters too cheesy to feel any-sort of accomplishment with them. Likewise, I find Paizo martials too simple or incompetent to feel either accomplishment (my numbers were bigger) or like failure was my responsibility (I rolled low doing the only thing I could have done with anysort of reliability).
The balance level I find compelling is within DSP psionic classes. Turns out, I don't personally need a pure mundane. I can take my Aegis or Soulknife and have a ball from 1-20. Meanwhile my PF fighter will feel like a chore to play roughly after level 9. So whatever ratio you would give Ultimate Psionics, is what I find compelling in the 3.P system.
But then the classes shouldn't be presented as balanced.
If you want to play the comic relief sidekick, that's great. You shouldn't wind up playing the sidekick because you picked a class you though looked cool. Nor should the guy who wanted to play the sidekick wind up the powerhouse because he grabbed a class that didn't fit his role.
Shouldn't is a strong word. It's merely hard to imagine a situation where this level of dishonesty or willful ignorance is useful to the overall goal of fun/compelling games.
Perhaps there are groups out there that just LOVE when their initial assumptions are subverted. GM's of those groups should then pick games that are dishonest.
But they'd have to be honest about being dishonest, so the GMs would know :)
But they'd have to be honest about being dishonest, so the GMs would know :)
Ah but what if the GM's goal in life is to roll successful sense motive checks against dishonest games? Perhaps that is all he, she, or it needs for the game to be compelling for them.
Different classes are enjoyable for different reasons. I don't see how classes can ever be 1:1 balanced when you are comparing oranges and apples. Whether a fighter can beat a wizard in combat is not an accurate test of how these things play out across the whole game. Inter party combat is a very niche sport in this game. Similarly whether a wizard can teleport is no measure of there importance to a storyline that is a fictional creation.
How do you comparitively measure the benefit of ranged v melee, or uses per day vs at will, or effects against certain enemies like the favoured enemy. How do you measure the balance between prepared and spontaneous. In reality you can't. Instead it comes down to personal presence and choice. You can't measure fun, you just have to depend on anecdotes.
A good DM provides challenges for all the individuals in the party and gives them all chance to shine. Good players don't demand to be in the limelight all the time.
This game was designed at heart for a relatively balanced party with a range of abilities. Now that there are a whole range of character options to build these classes with, just have fun with it. Nobody is forcing anyone to play anything.
Didn't classes are enjoyable for different reasons. I don't see how classes can ever be 1:1 balanced when you are comparing oranges and apples. Whether a fighter can beat a wizard in combat is not an accurate test of how these things play out across the whole game. Inter party combat is a very niche sport in this game. Similarly whether a wizard can teleport is no measure of there importance to a storyline that is a fictional creation.
How do you comparitively measure the benefit of ranged v melee, or uses per day vs at will, or effects against certain enemies like the favoured enemy. How do you measure the balance between prepared and spontaneous. In reality you can't. Instead it comes down to personal presence and choice. You can't measure fun, you just have to depend on anecdotes.
A good DM provides challenges for all the individuals in the party and gives them all chance to shine. Good players don't demand to be in the limelight all the time.
This game was designed at heart for a relatively balanced party with a range of abilities. Now that there are a whole range of character options to build these classes with, just have fun with it. Nobody is forcing anyone to play anything.
Which is why I asked what 1:1 balanced meant.
If it's just "Can beat each other in a 1:1 fight", then it's a pretty useless measure.
If a no answer means you shouldn't even try to have classes roughly balanced across a wide spectrum of activities, then I do think it should be a goal. Unless you're explicitly aiming for something else (Jedi are just better at everything!).
Three half-competent martials against an equal level cleric or wizard should manage quite well, thank you. Hitting him with your weapon is not all you can do. One who readies to disrupt casting, one who grapples, and one who deals damage or just assists. Not fun for a wizard or a cleric. I don't see 1:72 or anything like it.
And you're not even accounting for the possible magic items those martials have access to.
You have a camp says its broke for combat, another that says its broke out of combat, so even those who firmly believe casters are just flat better than non-casters don't agree on when or in what situations.
What makes it difficult to discuss this topic is very rarely does anyone actually provide a scenario from their table. But you read things like 1:72 or 1:godlike, or a 20Wiz will defeat x martials every time, and are supposed to take it on face value that its just what will happen and that it happens so frequently the system is broken. I'd love to read when this happened in a game and what the conditions were. At least everyone on the thread could understand how it happened, and any GMs could think about what they'd do if it happened in their game.
There was a comment on another thread that a 5th level wizard with fly, invisibility and a crossbow could solo kill a 20Fighter. (probably not dissimilar to a 1:72 or 1:godlike disparity). Once we started talking "specifics", the rules of engagement had to be clearly defined to no magic for the fighter or he'd need assistance etc, and apparently no armor, because a BAB +2 and (+1 for high-ground) would only be able to even hit a typical level 20 AC with a Crit.
Non-casters have access to magic as well and can use things that allow them to fly, teleport, turn invisible, resist spell effects, wish, cast buff and attack spells on themselves, etc. They also have access to magic weapons (melee and ranged), armor, and higher mechanics advantages on things like CMB/CMD/BAB and # of attack actions.
Its not just fighters either. If the premise is wizards can just cast silence, invisibility, and fly, and therefor rogues aren't needed, I would ask why the rogue's not allowed to use the magic items available to them as well, gain the same game mechanic bonus as the wizard, add their higher skill bonus (making an assumption, but logic one) and do the scouting?
Some have said casters are better because they can just cast a spell and bypass things like climbing, locked doors, overland travel, and they can survive in harsh environments. So can any martial with a potion, scroll, or magic item, and once they do it and the game goes kinetic, they have more staying power when it comes down to raw mechanics.
If the premise is there is M/CD because casters can cast the things that martials have to use a device for - ok. If you think casters are better because they can self-buff or use spells to overcome non-combat obstacles that a non-caster could only do with a skill check or by consuming a potion/using a magic device - ok. But those angles are all that non-casters have to use a potion/scroll/device to balance with a caster after they've cast a spell - which ignores the fact that a caster has to cast a spell to make themselves a better scout or climber in the first place.
If you think magic by itself can imbalance things - ok. (I've wrecked a campaign by giving out too much, it happens.) If your premise is a wizard "wins" if they escape by teleporting, therefore can defeat martials every time - ok.
Even if someone's premise is "min/max" a 20th build wizard will defeat a 20th Martial every time. What context of weather, terrain, space boundary like rooms, and what constraints on the martial's access to magic items? Those are part of the game, not some GM "trick" to balance out the disparity claim. I'm certain others could build a martial with access to the things a 20th level martial would have that at would win some of the time in generic locations and would win every time in specific locations that constrained some of the caster's abilities. And those types of locations are also not a GM trick, they're part of the game - maybe not the game you're playing in with a party consisting of nothing but casters - but if that's the case you'd probably have a TPK if the GM sent the party to a non-magic area so be thankful.
For those like me, who are trying to understand what people mean when they say, there is a game breaking disparity between casters and martials (or 1:72, however you like to describe it), specific examples in the context of the game, or specific theoretical examples in an game context would be a lot more helpful than things like we typically read which contain very little or no specific context from the actual game.
Short answer to the OP question: no they don't BUT they at least need to have some sort of comparable ballance and they need to be able to do something very well, something else fairly well and then not to be able to do a few things other classes can. Said otherwise, classes need to fill certain party roles and limitations are a good thing.
In PF we have certain classes that due to how spells were ported from previous edition and work under D&D 3.+ rules are able to do everything and fill basically every role marginalizing other classes with no access to spells.
My solution?
Take a long hard look at spells and spellcasters and change things (no more spells not allowing saves, longer casting times for very powerful spells, hard changes to some metamagic feats and so on).
Different classes are enjoyable for different reasons. I don't see how classes can ever be 1:1 balanced when you are comparing oranges and apples. Whether a fighter can beat a wizard in combat is not an accurate test of how these things play out across the whole game. Inter party combat is a very niche sport in this game. Similarly whether a wizard can teleport is no measure of there importance to a storyline that is a fictional creation.
How do you comparitively measure the benefit of ranged v melee, or uses per day vs at will, or effects against certain enemies like the favoured enemy. How do you measure the balance between prepared and spontaneous. In reality you can't. Instead it comes down to personal presence and choice. You can't measure fun, you just have to depend on anecdotes.
A good DM provides challenges for all the individuals in the party and gives them all chance to shine. Good players don't demand to be in the limelight all the time.
This game was designed at heart for a relatively balanced party with a range of abilities. Now that there are a whole range of character options to build these classes with, just have fun with it. Nobody is forcing anyone to play anything.
All great points. The game many of us play or GM consists of a wide array of situations, circumstances, beasts, traps, etc all of which lend themselves to the variety of characters our players are picking and no one class is "best" for every situation.
Wide open plains/desert, under triple-canopy jungle, underground, urban streets (where fireball is strongly frowned upon), "you're in a tavern", on a ship, traveling the well-paved highway, mapping the unexplored frozen wastes, at night, in the rain/snow/fog/hail/tornado/Sharknado (ok I wouldn't actually use that), exploring lost ruins, on an gnomish lighterthanairship, during a full-moon, during an eclipse, in an enhanced magic zone, in a no-magic zone, in a kingdom that forbids magic, in town that mandates peace-bonding all weapons except daggers, in a lawless frontier town where anything goes, in a low-magic game, in a high-magic game, "no elves allowed", etc.
And that's only accounting for game mechanics, not RPing - which to be honest I find more of a problem "keeping balanced". Type A personalities can quickly take over the table and you have to be focused to keep engaging all your players in some sessions.
Though this isn't so much about the alleged disparity as much as it is about the need for classes to be 1:1 balanced.
Now, I wish to present my viewpoint on this.
Tabletop RPGs don't have to be, and rarely are, balanced 1:1. This can be a conscious design choice (The Palladium games outright say the games aren't balanced and they openly say in the main Rifts book if you don't like it then don't play it) for the purposes of setting. This can be a situation based on the kinds of challenges and play styles of the game, in oWoD, for example a Mage could outright wreck anything else if the player knew what they were doing, and a Werewolf was far more terrifying than the common vampire 9 times out of 10. In D&D and AD&D there was no semblance of balance where the game rubber banded from Casters being fodder to Casters being virtual gods.
So, let us look at Pathfinder...
Pathfinder exists in a world where, without magical aid, one is bound by the laws of commonly understood cause and effect.
A Wizard may be able to fly, but without some kind of magical help, you can't become so good in training that you simply can too. (If you want a setting where that is possible I urge you to check out M&M.)
That is the REALITY of Pathfinder.
There are, obviously, disadvantages to this. There are people who feel playing anything other than a caster is a mistake as it doesn't provide as many options for narrative influence and they resent this as they do not wish to play casters, for example. There are situations where one can feel that game play becomes impossible without a caster but rarely so without a martial.
There are, however, advantages to this as well. Some players prefer the challenge of succeeding with a character they consider weaker. Some players gain a sense of accomplishment defeating magical foes without having magic of their own.
I call this the Jedi Hunter effect.
In Star Wars games there once was meaning to taking out a Jedi with a Bounty...
It sounds like what you're describing isn't so much one PC class/ability vs another (PC1:PC1), rather the balance between PCs and the game world around them? I've never played SWRPG, but it sounds like you're describing a group of BH's going after Jedi NPCs?
If so, I agree it isn't any fun when encounters are to easy and your character is never really at risk. That can be a delicate balance, especially for a new GM or when restarting the game. Until you get a few sessions with the group to see how much synergy the specific PC (and Players) have you can easily TPK them with something that on paper should only have been a Hard or Difficult encounter. Its not just the character sheet, its how the group uses what they have. Once you get a feel for that you can more safely add CR either with measurable like actual monsters, or immeasurable like terrain/weather effects that limit options.
One thing different in PFRP vs old school gaming like AD&D is magic is a lot more inherent in the mechanics the higher you go. Old-school gaming had magic, but it wasn't nearly as embedded in the math as you got higher, it was there from the start but didn't necessarily scale the same. For example, w/o a +1 weapon or silver there were just some monsters that you could -not- physically damage. However, as a GM you could also run a no or very low magic campaign and even at high levels just avoid monsters that required magic or silver to hit and the party could overcome (might get a little boring, but mechanically you could do it).
In PF you could go no-magic, and overcome DR, but the higher level you go the farther behind the PCs will be mechanically for things like to-hit and AC. At some point they're probably just not going to be able to overcome AC and DR, or survive the strikes/spells of appropriately level'd monsters w/o modifying their stat-blocks.
1:1? No, not really. 1:3 would be a nice target number... the current 1:72 shouldn't be a thing though...
As it should always be said when these come up, it's not a matter of players out performing players, it's more that the party will, and should, fight a large number of classed foes in their career and a party of 6 martials shouldn't have the walls painted with their insides because a cleric and a wizard teamed up to oppose them...
Not trying to put you personally on the spot, you're echoing what many others say. However:
If anyone's seen the caster build that can single-handed defeat even 10% of the encounters their GM puts in front of the group, please share it. Circumstances of the actual encounters would be helpful as well.
How does this happen in your game even 10% of the time in a world where a fighter (or rogue, etc) has access to magical potions, helms, scrolls, arrows of slaying, vorpal weapons, grappling, disrupting, can turn invisible, teleport, gaseous form, use devices that hold person, cast AoE spells, can stun without magic, can sunder wands/rods/staffs, can use devices, can access wish as a standard action as well via a sword/ring/etc, its a big CRB section no point in covering all the possibilities.
Doesn't your GM allow non-casters access to potions, devices, scrolls, helms, rings, magic armor, magic weapons, etc?
1:1? No, not really. 1:3 would be a nice target number... the current 1:72 shouldn't be a thing though...
As it should always be said when these come up, it's not a matter of players out performing players, it's more that the party will, and should, fight a large number of classed foes in their career and a party of 6 martials shouldn't have the walls painted with their insides because a cleric and a wizard teamed up to oppose them...
Not trying to put you personally on the spot, you're echoing what many others say. However:
If anyone's seen the caster build that can single-handed defeat even 10% of the encounters their GM puts in front of the group, please share it. Circumstances of the actual encounters would be helpful as well.
How does this happen in your game even 10% of the time in a world where a fighter (or rogue, etc) has access to magical potions, helms, scrolls, arrows of slaying, vorpal weapons, grappling, disrupting, can turn invisible, teleport, gaseous form, use devices that hold person, cast AoE spells, can stun without magic, can sunder wands/rods/staffs, can use devices, can access wish as a standard action as well via a sword/ring/etc, its a big CRB section no point in covering all the possibilities.
Doesn't your GM allow non-casters access to potions, devices, scrolls, helms, rings, magic armor, magic weapons, etc?
If anyone's seen the caster build that can single-handed defeat even 10% of the encounters their GM puts in front of the group, please share it. Circumstances of the actual encounters would be helpful as well.
Please search these boards for witches slumber hex. There are many threads about how this one ability trivializes a vast number of encounters. The funny part is that the witch character is still a 9 levels of magic, Int based caster, on top of slumbering everything! Also, there are lot's of threads on summoners disrupting games.
EDIT:
GM 1990 wrote:
And you're not even accounting for the possible magic items those martials have access to.
The martials have access to what they find, what they buy with their appraise skill, or what they craft with the master craftsman feat. Wizards pick up craft wondrous item as a bonus feat, and craft whatever they dream of at half price. By the rules, wizards and other casters will generally have 125%, 150% or more the WBL of a martial. So yes, by all means, take that into account when comparing the two.
As for the OP, let's compare:
Level 10 Wizard, PC wealth and PC ability scores
CR 9+1+1 = 11
Level 10 Fighter, PC wealth and PC ability scores
CR 9+1+1 = 11
11:11 or 1:1. The game tells me they are the same CR.
The whole "Martial can close the gap with Items/Cash" drives me up the wall.
Big 6 is a thing and is required for most martials.
1.) Cloak of resistance: Yes, possibly a superstitious human or tengu barbarian or a high charisma paladin could delay getting/upgrading a cloak of resistance for a short time but even they need it to not fail saves and flop.
2.) Magic Weapon: Every martial needs this and needs to keep it upgraded. There are special cases such as the black-blade magus or even just a magus using his arcane pool, but increasing the enhancement bonus on your weapon to bypass DR, make yourself more accurate, and make yourself hit harder is so important it is where most martials go first. BTW amulet of mighty fists counts as this, just to head off the objections.
3.) Magic Armor: This is usually your cheapest source of AC, and skimping is usually a big flag of unoptimized play.
4.) Headband/Belt of (X)stat: All characters need 4 stats usually ( [attack/damage stat] or [casting stat], Dexterity [reflex save], Constitution [fortitude save], Wisdom [Will save]) unless they are purely dex based via slashing grace/fencing grace/agile/deadly agility or are a wisdom based caster. Even then with only three stats needed you have overlap between Dex and Con which makes the belts expensive fast.
5.) Ring of Protection: Required to keep AC relevant unless you have some other method of providing an equivalent bonus.
6.) Amulet of natural armor: See Ring of Protection.
Also Wishes/Tomes cost the earth.
Now you can try and scrimp on some of these things but the game's math assumes you will have X (AC/Attack/DC/Save) by Y (level). If you do not you are either going to force others to carry you or your party will die.
This is just the combat portion, and it will eat most of your WBL!
If a non-caster needs to acquire this gear and also get gear to play a psuedo-caster it really pinches his/her WBL.
If your response is "The GM is tailoring encounters to make it ok for the players to not have X number." Then you are not playing with the normal assumptions of pathfinder.
What people want is for at the pathfinder baselines such as assumed combat stat values, WBL, and CR/APL that all equal level characters would have some way to contribute meaningfully in both combat and non-combat situations without seriously hurting themselves, laser focusing, or extreme uses of system mastery.
Then we get into social situations/travel/info gathering/etc... All of which magic has an answer for but martials must pay for, and through the nose, from the same pool their combat gear comes from.
P.S. Before people begin saying "But, But Magic Vestment/Barkskin/Magic weapon!" I will rebut with
a.) Does not bypass DR
b.) Still needs casters and/or items for casters such as rods of extend and pearls of power.
Was not the argument "Martials can use items/cash to equal casters in narrative power."?
Im perfectly fine with the current pathfinder , i dont use the current unchained rules for example (outside the classes) , i dont seek stuff like spheres of power...
To me the players should just pick the class they actually want to play and the issue would solve itself , to others you must be able to pick the fighter and no other class and the fighter must be able to do X , Y and Z.
Which is fine really , this is the game they want to play.
In the ones i play usually those that want to play a monk/fighter... still have fun by being able to do exactly what the classes can currently and the same goes to the casters , i guess it all comes down to expectative.
I believe the term is Schroedinger's wizard. If you compare a fighter to a well rested, fully prepared same level wizard at optimum conditions for the wizard, and the wizard has his entire spellbook available each round, then yes, the fighter is almost always outmatched.
It actually turns out under testing that the wizard is better than the fighter basically all the time, because wizards can handle any problem but fighters can't really solve any problems
If you cannot solve problems as a fighter, the issue is most likely not located on your character sheet.
Any class, including the commoner, can be both fun and versatile in the hand of a creative player.
I believe the term is Schroedinger's wizard. If you compare a fighter to a well rested, fully prepared same level wizard at optimum conditions for the wizard, and the wizard has his entire spellbook available each round, then yes, the fighter is almost always outmatched.
It actually turns out under testing that the wizard is better than the fighter basically all the time, because wizards can handle any problem but fighters can't really solve any problems
If you cannot solve problems as a fighter, the issue is most likely not located on your character sheet.
Any class, including the commoner, can be both fun and versatile in the hand of a creative player.
It's not really reasonable for the game to demand that level of creativity, though. Especially when it's not immediately clear for an unskilled player which classes require intense creativity to enjoy (which they probably won't have) and which have powerful narrative tools just handed to them.
If anyone's seen the caster build that can single-handed defeat even 10% of the encounters their GM puts in front of the group, please share it. Circumstances of the actual encounters would be helpful as well.
Please search these boards for witches slumber hex. There are many threads about how this one ability trivializes a vast number of encounters. The funny part is that the witch character is still a 9 levels of magic, Int based caster, on top of slumbering everything! Also, there are lot's of threads on summoners disrupting games.
EDIT:
GM 1990 wrote:
And you're not even accounting for the possible magic items those martials have access to.
The martials have access to what they find, what they buy with their appraise skill, or what they craft with the master craftsman feat. Wizards pick up craft wondrous item as a bonus feat, and craft whatever they dream of at half price. By the rules, wizards and other casters will generally have 125%, 150% or more the WBL of a martial. So yes, by all means, take that into account when comparing the two.
As for the OP, let's compare:
Level 10 Wizard, PC wealth and PC ability scores
CR 9+1+1 = 11
Level 10 Fighter, PC wealth and PC ability scores
CR 9+1+1 = 11
11:11 or 1:1. The game tells me they are the same CR.
So is your premise that wizards aren't allowed to craft for others in the party, or they won't? If they can make an item for themselves that gives them such a huge advantage at non-class skills (or combat...pick either), why not also make one for the PC who actually also has the skill as a class ability and is putting ranks in who's modifier is going to be higher in the end, or who has the BAB and multiple attacks to go with the buff?
If you play a martial and use all your money on something other than useful equipment open to your class, or potions/scrolls/devices that improve your abilities, and trade away all the loot you get a pick of that could actually come in handy if you need to fly up a cliff, or go underwater, or overcome DR, or what ever else your GM is doing that casters are the only one's equipped to handle because they're the only one using magic - that doesn't sound like a fundamental game system flaw.
Witch Hex: 30' radius, allows a save, creatures sleep 1rd/level, can be aroused by others, or awake immediately if they take damage. What's the build that lets a witch single handedly handle even 10% of the encounters with that?
some of the encountered monsters were outside of 30' and have ranged weapons; some made the save; that type of monster is immune to sleep; woke up when it took damage; you couldn't successfully CDG all the monsters before the effects wore off; you lost initiative and got hold-person cast on you or one-shoted; you lost initiative and got "pick a debilitating spell" effect; you tripped the acid-pit trap and fell 40', now the kobolds are just shooting you full of arrows; the mounted portion of the enemy have ride-by-attack and keep ending up out of range of hex; you didn't even see the one's that were burrowing; the ones flying were out of range Its a large CRB and Bestiary.
If there are examples from play where Hex made it impossible for your GM to make encounters that allow the rest of the players to use their characters even 10% of the time what are they?
We could run down a similar list for summoners.
I can agree that summoners (or companion classes) who can't decide what they want to do, and who have so many actions per turn that they bog-down the play are disruptive. I personally roll my d20s for my druid and wolf plus the damage dice (and the wolf's trip chance) all in one toss (different sets of color matched d20s and damage dice) when ever possible just so my turn doesn't take much longer than anyone elses. But just having an animal companion, or a eidolon would only allow someone to take over the table if 1. they want to be like that and spotlight themselves in the first place and 2. the GM lets them by just repeated tossing of encounters that are easily beaten by that particular.
Again though, if there are actual game examples with context like the location/terrain/weather and other game aspects - would love seeing them to be able to analyze how I would have handled it at my table. I really would - not being sarcastic
Not trying to put you personally on the spot, you're echoing what many others say. However:
If anyone's seen the caster build that can single-handed defeat even 10% of the encounters their GM puts in front of the group, please share it. Circumstances of the actual encounters would be helpful as well
Is that really the baseline? Casters are fine if they can't handle encounters designed for a whole group, including a couplke of casters?
How about comparing what a party of 4 casters can handle to what a party of 4 martials could handle? If there's a real level of balance (1:1 or not), either both groups should still be fine or both should be weaker from lacking options the other has.
So is your premise that wizards aren't allowed to craft for others in the party, or they won't?
What? I never said anything like that. My point was that when a wizard crafts himself a new headband of Intelligence +4, it takes 8K gp. When he crafts the fighter a belt of strength +4, it takes 16K gp. Therefor the wizard ends up with more stuff.
That is how the WBL rules of the game function.
Martials are expected to buy items to allow them more options, but these are almost always a far worse deal then just casting a spell, or reading a scroll the caster scribbled for half price. Just look at what a martial gets out of a potion of waterbreathing, compared to the spell being cast. Oh, and if you actually want to fight normally underwater, you will want a potion of Freedom of Movement, which costs... well you can't make potions out of fourth level spells, so, I don't know what to tell you, except that the caster is enjoying the 30 swim speed he got from alter self, and casting away.
As for witches slumber hex... well you wanted real world experience, mine was GMing a witch through Rise of the Runelords. Just flip through any of those AP issues, and you will find that a great many encounters are goblins, cultists, ogres, giants. Slumber Hex is devastatingly effective in all those encounters. The build is a high Int score, and if the witch has to do it alone, a longspear. Later on, dominate person is also devastatingly effective in many of those encounters. And just a quick note, while high will save enemies might seem like a good solution, the best of them often still have a 25% chance or so of going down like a chump to an ability I can use on every enemy I meet.
GM 1990 wrote:
We could run down a similar list for summoners.
Since I have no clue what the point of your list was, maybe we should skip that?
You asked two different questions:
GM 1990 wrote:
"If anyone's seen the caster build that can single-handed defeat even 10% of the encounters their GM puts in front of the group, please share it. "
"If there are examples from play where Hex made it impossible for your GM to make encounters that allow the rest of the players to use their characters even 10% of the time what are they?"
Can I make encounters that are not disrupted by slumber hex? Easily! If I use nothing but plants, elves, undead and dragons, the Hex will be useless! But I just spent ~$150 on an adventure path full of humanoids, and the players are excited to run it... why should I have to rewrite the whole thing to prevent on PC from streamrolling the whole thing with one class feature?
The whole "Martial can close the gap with Items/Cash" drives me up the wall.
Big 6 is a thing and is required for most martials.
This is actually a Myth, to a point. The "Big 6" are only required ancillary and for optimized characters far less so.
Quote:
1.) Cloak of resistance: Yes, possibly a superstitious human or tengu barbarian or a high charisma paladin could delay getting/upgrading a cloak of resistance for a short time but even they need it to not fail saves and flop.
A high Charisma Pally can have, easily, by level 9 a +5 to all saves. They hardly *need* a cloak of resistance and they certainly can get by with a lower strength one.
The same is true of other classes. This is basically optimizer thinking that wants everything to be impossible to fail.
Quote:
2.) Magic Weapon: Every martial needs this and needs to keep it upgraded. There are special cases such as the black-blade magus or even just a magus using his arcane pool, but increasing the enhancement bonus on your weapon to bypass DR, make yourself more accurate, and make yourself hit harder is so important it is where most martials go first. BTW amulet of mighty fists counts as this, just to head off the objections.
Again, this is true, but them optimizers take it further than needed. I've been told, on these boards, that you must have a +3 weapon (18k GP investment) by level 10. That is not true.
An optimized, even semi-optimized, build can *easily* function with a +1 weapon from 3-8, and a +2 from 8-11, a +3 from 12-16, etc. At that point the +1 they may be missing really won't matter but the price difference between a +2 and a +3 weapon (8k and 18k) allows a character to pick up odds-and-ends magical items.
Quote:
3.) Magic Armor: This is usually your cheapest source of AC, and skimping is usually a big flag of unoptimized play.
True, but optimized play isn't the only, not is it the main, type of play. One can't expect the game to cater to optimizers.
Optimizers also don't really get to cite their rules for optimized players as facts.
Quote:
4.) Headband/Belt of (X)stat: All characters need 4 stats usually ( [attack/damage stat] or [casting stat], Dexterity [reflex save], Constitution [fortitude save], Wisdom [Will save]) unless they are purely dex based via slashing grace/fencing grace/agile/deadly agility or are a wisdom based caster. Even then with only three stats needed you have overlap between Dex and Con which makes the belts expensive fast.
Hardly a need. This also ignores things like Paladins or other classes who can manipulate saves.
Paladins are a giant middle finger to this idea. They generally need either Strength or Dex, but can substitute Charisma for a lot of everything else and Con isn't a need. It's nice to have, but hardly a need.
Quote:
5.) Ring of Protection: Required to keep AC relevant unless you have some other method of providing an equivalent bonus.
Nice to have? Yes. Need? Not really. Depends on the class and build.
Quote:
6.) Amulet of natural armor: See Ring of Protection.
see above.
The issue here isn't that these AREN'T good ideas. The issue is that optimizers take it too far and thus they lack the utility items to function later.
Quote:
Also Wishes/Tomes cost the earth.
Absolutely NOT needed. Nice but not needed. Remember you do NOT need to be optimized.
Quote:
Now you can try and scrimp on some of these things but the game's math assumes you will have X (AC/Attack/DC/Save) by Y (level). If you do not you are either going to force others to carry you or your party will die.
The game DOES assume some of this, yes. The problem is optimizers push themselves so far beyond it. I've actually coded every single monster in the bestiary over toll Roll20 for my games with full macro support.
I sat down and catalogued the actual ranges.
At level 10 the game assumes you have a +16 to hit. Assuming that the game assumes success on a 10 or better roll.
For a martial that is only level 10 + 3 base stat bonus + 1 Enhancement bonus to the weapon + 1 from enhanced stat belt + 1 misc. Bonus.
That is what THE GAME actually assumes you have.
Optimizers take it way too far and call it FACT though. Heck even my level 9 Pally I'm playing now is well beyond this.
+9 BAB
+4 natural str
+1 from my belt
+2 weapon
and I'm not even trying to optimize in the slightest. I have a +16, and can push it to +23 with combat tactics I can push it to +25 when I flank with allies, +26 if a Bard is singing.
There isn't a single enemy in the books between CR 7 - CR 11 that has an AC high enough that such is a requirement.
Quote:
This is just the combat portion, and it will eat most of your WBL!
See above. Not really.
Quote:
If a non-caster needs to acquire this gear and also get gear to play a psuedo-caster it really pinches his/her WBL.
If your response is "The GM is tailoring encounters to make it ok for the players to not have X number." Then you are not playing with the normal assumptions of pathfinder.
As stated Optimizers don't play with the normal assumptions of Pathfinder.
Quote:
What people want is for at the pathfinder baselines such as assumed combat stat values, WBL, and CR/APL that all equal level characters would have some way to contribute meaningfully in both combat and non-combat situations without seriously hurting themselves, laser focusing, or extreme uses of system mastery.
Having a +2 sword at level 10 instead of a +3 is hardly "hurting themselves" by any stretch.
To hit the actual game benchmarks at level 10 you need:
+2 weapon (8000 or 4000 if you have a friendly crafter)
+1 cloak (1000 or 500 with a friendly crafter)
+1 Ring of Prot (1000 or 500)
+1 Amulet of Natural Armor (2000 or 1000)
+2 Belt of X (4000 or 2000)
+2 Headband of Y (4000 or 2000)
+3 armor (9000 or 4500)
So of your 62,000 you need to spend around 14,500-29,000 of it to hit the actual benchmarks. A little less than half to a quarter.
Quote:
Then we get into social situations/travel/info gathering/etc... All of which magic has an answer for but martials must pay for, and through the nose, from the same pool their combat gear comes from.
P.S. Before people begin saying "But, But Magic Vestment/Barkskin/Magic weapon!" I will rebut with
a.) Does not bypass DR
b.) Still needs casters and/or items for casters such as rods of extend and pearls of power.
Was not the argument "Martials can use items/cash to equal casters in narrative power."?
Not trying to put you personally on the spot, you're echoing what many others say. However:
If anyone's seen the caster build that can single-handed defeat even 10% of the encounters their GM puts in front of the group, please share it. Circumstances of the actual encounters would be helpful as well
Is that really the baseline? Casters are fine if they can't handle encounters designed for a whole group, including a couplke of casters?
How about comparing what a party of 4 casters can handle to what a party of 4 martials could handle? If there's a real level of balance (1:1 or not), either both groups should still be fine or both should be weaker from lacking options the other has.
I'm positive almost anyone could design a 1:1 system for every class in a vacuum. It would just be a matter of math, and then do a search/replace of the flavor text describing what each class does that allows it to deal damage, or do a skill. Then once removed from that vacuum, and 1 variable changes, including giving those character sheets to 4 new players, the 1:1 perfect system breaks down. Just a reality of mathematics.
What I keep reading is there is a fundamental broken system or words to that affect; some say in combat, then others say that's not it its just -everything- casters are just better at everything or almost all the time. When you ask for specifics to show it even 10% of the time in an actual game - not a lot of objective discussion ensues.
I think casters are fine, and in some situations or vs some type of encounters they have class abilities that are better suited for it, and in other situations they don't. Same thing with martials, some situations they are better with just their in class weapons and feats, and in other situations they aren't.
But that's not the premise I keep reading about Caster vs Martials. Its often "casters are just better in every, or almost every situation". Then there are no examples provided, or the ones provided aren't actual "every" or "most" situations, rather 1 offs or what ifs. Then when you add CRB level equipment to the situation, the argument becomes non-casters shouldn't have to buy that just to be relevant. Its just a big strawman.
If my players decided to all run casters or only martials - I would have 2 choices. 1. disallow it, or 2. run a game where there were challenges that made it fun for that group compo. Because every class is different, I would use different encounters for different party compositions. And I could easily TPK either group on purpose or by accident if I didn't think about the other variables in the game or how certain monsters, traps, or challenges could be overcome by them. That's true of many GM situations. If I'm thinking - this will be a cool challenge that'll stress them and they'll need team-work to survive and toss them a situation that they don't have the game-mechanic means (on their character sheet) to overcome...it could be a TPK.
When I read the CRB and play, and GM what I see is a game where every encounter has different circumstances which different PCs have different abilities to deal with. Not a game where nobody plays non-casters because they don't get to have fun with their fighter/rogue/monk. I just don't see it in practice, and haven't read so many examples to convince me its prevalent or the normal.
When I look in theory it appears a group of martials can get outfitted with enough magic up to and including wish, that anything the caster-only group is capable of they could closely mimic (maybe less HD of damage from a device due to caster level). At the same time, in any encounter where some things are immune, resistant, make their saves, are out of range, come in after the casting of game-altering spell X, or worst case magic just doesn't work a casters BAB would be so low it couldn't physically hit except on a nat-20.
To be honest, I'm surprised there aren't more claims of martials being to deadly and able to use magic -and- melee/range.
How do you comparatively measure the benefit of ranged v melee, or uses per day vs at will, or effects against certain enemies like the favoured enemy. How do you measure the balance between prepared and spontaneous. In reality you can't. Instead it comes down to personal presence and choice. You can't measure fun, you just have to depend on anecdotes.
You decide what your goal is. You test. You adjust to be closer to that goal. Then you test with more people. Then you adjust again. Then you test some more. Then you fiddle about a bit. Then you test again.
You see what happens when a party with a particular composition takes on an adventure. You record those results. You see what happens when you change that composition slightly. Do they achieve more/achieve less/achieve about the same? Are there more dead PCs one way than another? Do some compositions achieve their objectives relatively easily while others struggle? Are some high risk/high reward parties available? What happens when you present different challenges? Most important, does this work the way you intended?
And once you've done that, you can start replacing characters with higher level versions of their own type. Do some classes take a long time to be effective? Does it take a 6th level X to be as useful in achieving party goals as a 4th level Y or Z?
Special Qualities: Dual-Minded
Permanent Spells: Arcane Sight, Tongues, Darkvision, See Invisibiliy, Read Magic, Telepathic Bond (Tzitzimitlx5)
Telepathic Bond (Solar)
Weapons: +1 Courageous, Dueling Living Steel Large Spiked Gauntlet (22,010 GP)
Staff of the Master (Necromancy) x2
Armor: +1 Deathless, Ghost Touch, Heavy Fortification Living Steel Haramaki (100,506 GP)
Clawhand Shield
Items: Headband of Mental Superiority +6, Belt Of Physical Perfection +6, Otherworldly Kimono, Handy Haversack,
Orange Prism Ioun Stone, Flawed Orange Prism Ioun Stone, Pale Green Prism Ioun Stone, Flawed Pale Green Prism Ioun Stone,
Wayfinder (Clear Spindle Ioun Stone), Iridescent Spindle Ioun Stone, Dusty Rose Prism Ioun Stone,
Cracked Dusty Rose Prism Ioun Stone, Greater Ring of Inner Fortititude, Ring of Freedom of Movement,
Lens of Figment Piercing, Quick Runner's Shirt, Necklace of Adaption, Goz Mask, Eversmoking Bottle,
Minor Cloak of Displacement, Glove of Storing, Bead of Karma x2, Lesser Metamagic Rod of Extend x3, Blessed Book x2
Rod of Absorption (0/50 stored levels), Blood Reservoir of Physical Prowess, Spellguard Bracers, Featherstep Slippers,
Spirit Jars, Amulet of Natural Armor, Stone of Alliance, Lantern of Revealing, Eyes of the Eagle, Bag of Holding I,
Concealing Pocket, Pearl of Power 9th x2
Greensting Scorpion Familiar. In Concealing Pocket.
Spell Component Pouch x 30
10,000 Sheets of Paper
100 Vials of Ink
100 Vials of Glowing Ink
100 GP worth of Sacks (for Rune storage)
Gold: 3,371
Spells Known (Level Up): Starting Spell Book (Up to 6th level) (Also in both Blessed Books)
3rd (1035 GP): Magic Circle Against Chaos/Evil/Good/Law, Nondetection, Protection from Energy, Aqueous Orb,
Mad Monkeys, Phantom Steed, Stinking Cloud, Seek Thoughts, Heroism, Wind Wall, Displacement, Deathwine,
Marionette Possession, Vampiric Touch, Beast Shape I, Blink, Fly, Monstrous Physique I, Shrink Item,
Undead Anatomy
4th (1040 GP): Dimensional Anchor, Stoneskin, Solid Fog, Scrying, Locate Creature, Charm Monster, Terrible Remorse,
Contingent Scroll, Greater Invisibility, Enervation, Symbol of Slowing, Emergency Force Sphere, Ball Lightning
5th (2125 GP): Mage's Private Sanctum, Siphon Magic, Cloudkill, Lesser Planar Binding, Contact Other Plane,
Telepathic Bond, Geyser, Symbol of Sleep, Symbol of Pain, Waves of Fatigue, Angelic Aspect, Fabricate, Fickle Winds,
Overland Flight, Planar Adaption, Absorb Toxicity, Echolocation
6th (1620 GP): Greater Heroism, Symbol of Persuasion, Chain Lightning, Contingency, Symbol of Fear, Flesh to Stone
Battlemind Link, Unwilling Shield, Sonic Form
7th (3610 GP): Spell Turning, Plane Shift, Greater Arcane Sight, Greater Scrying, Vision, Symbol of Stunning,
Waves of Ecstasy, Hungry Darkness, Project Image, Symbol of Weakness, Waves of Exhaustion, Ethereal Jaunt,
Ice Body, Circle of Clarity
8th (2880 GP): Mind Blank, Protection from Spells, Trap the Soul, Discern Location, Moment of Prescience,
Symbol of Insanity, Symbol of Death, Greater Angelic Aspect, Polymorph Any Object
9th (4860 GP): Symbol of Vulnerability, Summoner Monster IX, Teleportation Circle, Foresight, Winds of Vengeance,
Astral Projection, Energy Drain, Soul Bind, Mass Suffocation, Etherealness, Shapechange, Dominate Monster
Components & Focuses x2 (10420):
1,000 GP Diamond - Protection from Spells
1,000 GP Cold Iron SCepter - Aroden' Spellbane
500 GP Forked Metal Rod - Greater Create Demiplane
100 GP Crytal Lens - Circle of Clarity
1,500 GP Ivory Statuette of Self - Contingency
1000 GP Silver Mirror - Scrying
100 GP Platinum Quill - Contingent Scroll
10 GP Minature Shovel - Create Pit
@snowlilly I have a list of challenges somewhere that andreww wrote, it is pretty good to determining how strong a character is because the challenges are common, I have to find it though, oops. If you built a level 10 fighter without seeing them beforehand I think you would almost certainly fail
I believe the term is Schroedinger's wizard. If you compare a fighter to a well rested, fully prepared same level wizard at optimum conditions for the wizard, and the wizard has his entire spellbook available each round, then yes, the fighter is almost always outmatched.
It actually turns out under testing that the wizard is better than the fighter basically all the time, because wizards can handle any problem but fighters can't really solve any problems
If you cannot solve problems as a fighter, the issue is most likely not located on your character sheet.
Any class, including the commoner, can be both fun and versatile in the hand of a creative player.
It's not really reasonable for the game to demand that level of creativity, though. Especially when it's not immediately clear for an unskilled player which classes require intense creativity to enjoy (which they probably won't have) and which have powerful narrative tools just handed to them.
Now you are asking for the game to compensate for differences in player knowledge and ability. Even basic games like Uno or Yahtzee, where all players are nominally equal, don't manage that. and I would not play them if they did.
Not trying to put you personally on the spot, you're echoing what many others say. However:
If anyone's seen the caster build that can single-handed defeat even 10% of the encounters their GM puts in front of the group, please share it. Circumstances of the actual encounters would be helpful as well
Is that really the baseline? Casters are fine if they can't handle encounters designed for a whole group, including a couplke of casters?
How about comparing what a party of 4 casters can handle to what a party of 4 martials could handle? If there's a real level of balance (1:1 or not), either both groups should still be fine or both should be weaker from lacking options the other has.
I'm positive almost anyone could design a 1:1 system for every class in a vacuum. It would just be a matter of math, and then do a search/replace of the flavor text describing what each class does that allows it to deal damage, or do a skill. Then once removed from that vacuum, and 1 variable changes, including giving those character sheets to 4 new players, the 1:1 perfect system breaks down. Just a reality of mathematics.
What I keep reading is there is a fundamental broken system or words to that affect; some say in combat, then others say that's not it its just -everything- casters are just better at everything or almost all the time. When you ask for specifics to show it even 10% of the time in an actual game - not a lot of objective discussion ensues.
I think casters are fine, and in some situations or vs some type of encounters they have class abilities that are better suited for it, and in other situations they don't. Same thing with martials, some situations they are better with just their in class weapons and feats, and in other situations they aren't.
But that's not the premise I keep reading about Caster vs Martials. Its often "casters are just better in every, or almost every situation". Then there are no examples provided, or the ones...
Making all classes the same, but with different flavor text, is the bad way of creating balance. No one wants that.
The trick is can you get balance while still making the classes feel and play differently. The answer is not perfectly, but it's still worth trying. At least as far as I'm concerned - there's probably a niche market for wildly imbalanced systems.
And yes, at least to a point a GM can compensate for different power levels between classes. That's probably easiest with a party of all high-powered characters or all low powered characters. Harder to set up challenges where low powered characters can shine while the high powered ones still have to struggle.
The point of the caster group vs martial group comparison was to see how each group handled the same challenges though. In theory, in a balanced system neither group would be stronger than a mixed party. At best there'd be no difference, since all classes are equal or both groups would be weaker than the mixed one since they'd be missing synergies.
