Hmm.
Yes they can do things almost as well, but then they aren't casting like a wizard which is the way this debate is always phrased. How many of the classes you just mentioned can cast teleport.
You can't have your cake and eat it Chess Pwn. There will always be hybrids but they are generally not the same as either specialist in that area - that is the trade off
That said I'm happy to debate the disparity between Martials and Rangers with you or Martials and Paladins or Alchemists.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm just going to re-post this so that people will have an idea of what the C/MD is, regarless of how they feel it affects the game:
Or The Angel summoner and the BMX Bandit.
The caster/martial disparity is a tendency for higher level magic using characters to outshine their non-magic using counterparts in many aspects of adventuring.
Before we go further, let's get specific about what we are talking about here:
Casters: For purposes of this topic, casters are the classes that have a caster level equal to class level, and generally have access to 9th level magic. Wizards are the most classic example of "caster", while druids, clerics, sorcerers, generally present similar issues. Classes that only have access to 6th level spells are generally considered "casters", although many people have far more problems with summoners then bards. Each class fits into the disparity is slightly different ways, although the end result is usually similar.
Martials: Martials are classes that never have a caster level, and whose class features are usually extraordinary special abilities, not supernatural or spell-like abilities. Fighters are the most representative martial class, with rogues, barbarians, and monks presenting fairly similar issues.
Others: Classes that have access to 4th level spells such as rangers and paladins are generally not considered to be representative of balance problems, and are used more as a reference point for appropriate class power rather then an exception to it. Some people put bards into this category, although summoners are almost always considered representative of casters.
Now that we have defined the caster/martial part, let's move on to "disparity". While many words such as imbalance and inequity get used to describe the issue, it is important to realize this is NOT about identical performance, perfect balance or sameness! No one is asking for the classes to perform the same, or have perfect mathematical equality. Generally, people find the core problem to be a lack of options for out of combat effectiveness for martial characters. Beyond use of skills, martial characters generally have no class features that allow them to influence the narrative. Monks and rogues have adequate and great skills respectively, however both classes infamously struggle to stay relevant in combat. As both classes were recently rewritten in Pathfinder Unchained, I'm not going to bother discussing their previous issues, except to mention that they both required full round actions to contribute well, and almost completely lacked a decent ranged attack option.
At the lowest levels of play, martial characters are often considered to be better off then casters. A strong fighter or skilled rogue can effectively solve most problems that low level adventures face, and magic is usually fairly limited. This is not to say that casters are weak, they are fully effective at facing CR appropriate encounters, and if built for it, can disrupt encounters from level 1.
Most effects of the disparity begin around level 6, although they frequently don't affect gameplay much until level 11 or so. These effects can be broken into several categories.
- Point Buy Economy. Casters generally need only one really good stat, and have numerous class features (magic!), and supernatural and spell-like abilities that benefit from that stat. They also have class features to boost that stat, or compensate for a lack of other stats. Wizards often have more skill ranks then rogues later in the game, and the spellcraft skill is what item crafting is based off of. Bards and sorcerers are well set up to dominate social encounters. Druids and clerics can have great perception and whopping will save modifiers.
- Action Economy. Generally, martial characters need a full attack action to be fully effective, while casters can generally do almost everything as standard actions. Casters are also given numerous class features that allow their player additional actions. From an animal companion or familiar, to summoned creatures, to dominated or bound minions, casters frequently act for several creatures, while martials are often forced to spend actions moving, switching weapons, etc.
- Economy Economy. Casters are far more adept at creating their own magic items. This can have a drastic effect on individual power as magic items make up a substantial chunk of a characters power, especially as they get to the mid to high levels. Wizards easily have whopping spellcraft, bonus crafting feats, and the ability to access or bypass many crafting requirements. While a caster can craft for other party members, those items are treated as purchased when calculating WBL, while items the caster makes for themselves count as cost to craft. This results in casters often having 125% to 175% of WBL. Since casters often don't need weapons (some of the most expensive items) and get amazing use out of stat boosting items, they are much better served by the game economy.
- Skills vs. Spells - Some martials have can 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.
- Versatility. Martial characters generally have three basic options for dealing with a combat situation: Melee attack vs. AC, Ranged attack vs. AC, or Attack vs. CMD. In social or adventuring encounters, they can use a skill. Casters on the other hand, can target AC, touch AC, 3 saves, etc. they can use deal damage from 5 different elements, force, positive/negative energy, etc. The can alter the environment, add allies, move friends or foes, buff/debuff, etc. Outside of combat, they can do... well... anything they wish. Prepared casters also have the option of selecting spells based on what they expect to face on a given day. Martials generally have no class options to customize their PC for specific situations.
What the caster martial disparity does NOT say (Or Myths about the caster martial disparity):
- "Casters are better at fighting then martials" - Most people consider fighters and barbarians to excel at combat, however that is generally all they excel at. Due to limited skills and ability scores, and no class skills related to most social encounters, these classes are generally only able to contribute to combat, and even then frequently suffer if situations don't allow effective full attacking. While druids and clerics can be very effective in combat, it generally requires a few rounds, and the caster must sacrifice some casting power in exchange for martial prowess. The problem is that while the caster can play martial, martials can never play casters.
- "Casters can finish any encounter with a single spell." - While this is occasionally true, the reality is that a spell is often enough to decide the encounter, while the martial characters often are just needed for coup de grace, or other shooting fish in a barrel uses.
- "Casters are squishy" - Many people think that sorcerers and wizards are fragile and vulnerable on the battlefield. This has never been less true. Casters generally have good HP and thanks to spells like mirror image, invisibility, displacement and fly, they are often the safest PCs on the battlefield. All casters have good will saves, some have good fortitude saves, and they have numerous options for boosting saves, AC, HP, and other defenses. Casters also have ways to make themselves basically immune to everything from fire, to grappling, to mental effects. 3/4 BAB casters are generally not considered vulnerable on the battlefield.
- "spells are a limited resource" - This was largely the balancing factor back in the AD&D era, however, running out of useful spells can easily be avoided once you get past the lower levels of the game. Most casters start with a few infinite-use 0 level spells, and frequently class abilities that can be used a half dozen times per day. Once you add in scrolls, wands, and other items, casters can frequently participate effectively in encounters without using any of their memorized spells or spell slots. Once you get past 10th level or so, most casters will have several dozen different daily options for effective magic use.
Why the Caster Martial Disparity might not appear in your games.
After leading a sheltered existence surrounded by luxury and game balance in his younger years, Prince Siddhārtha ventured out of his palace for the first time at the age of 29, accompanied by his charioteer Channa.
Prince Siddhārtha - "Why is that Fighter limping and covered in blood?"
Channa responded, "That Fighter has been injured in combat, and has no spells to heal with. Even the Heal skill is not a class skill for him."
As Pathfinder is a highly complex game, and varies widely from table to table, there are almost in infinite number of reasons it might appear or not. Here are some of the most common reasons it might not affect your games:
- Most of your play happens under 10th level.
- Players don't choose to play pure martial, or pure caster characters.
- Caster players don't optimize, and/or martial players optimize heavily.
- There is a spoken or unspoken agreement not to use some options and spells.
- The GM is highly skilled in pacing, presenting a campaign setting, presenting challenges, and giving rewards that even out or minimize the disparity.
- The GM alters dice rolls, and/or encounters so that everyone has fairly equal amounts of success.
- The group views combat and/or other rules heavy parts of the game as something to get resolved as quickly as possible, in order to move on to more roleplay and storytelling elements.
- House rules.
How to Fix the Disparity
"...I don't think its as big a deal as the internet makes it out to be. In my games, casters and non-casters tend to be equally valuable to the party, and equally dangerous in various situations as enemies. ...
...responsibility to keep things fair and fun for all involved lands on the GM's shoulders. ....
It's a balancing act."
-James Jacobs
- 1) When making characters, no starting ability scores above 16, or below 10 after racial adjustment.
That fixes many of the problems of class power imbalance, without altering any rule.
- 2) Remove hold person and dominate person from the game. (If you want to keep hold/dominate monster, at least they are higher level spells.)
- 3) 7th, 8th, and 9th level spells take at least a full round action to cast. Optionally, all save or suck/die spells take 1 round to cast. Removing the highest level spells from the game, and using the slots for metamagiced lower level spells (heighten spell feat free?) is a more extreme option.
- 4) Spells with a duration of days/level get changed to hours/level. Some permanent spells might have their duration reduced.
- 5) Remove quicken spell from the game, or make it apply only to spells with a range of personal.
- 6) Remove or rewrite known problems like dazing spell meta-magic, witches slumber hex, and other obviously broken stuff.
- 7)Consider crafted items the same as purchased when determining Wealth By Level. I would also make master craftsman into a more useful feat. To take it a step further, you could make crafted items cost market price to craft.
- 8)It should be noted that many aspects of casters are intended to be limited by the GM. Access to new spells, planar binding/ally, divination magic, etc. are not blank checks or guaranteed success.
- 9)Many intelligent foes will ready actions to disrupt spell casting. While it should be done rarely and only by appropriate foes, things like targeting a casters component pouch, wands, familiar and even spell books are not out of the question.
- 10) Communicate with the players and explain that you don't want a lot of action denial techniques used in the game. RPG-Tag is not a fun way to play. This applies on both sides of the screen. I don't want to consistently take a player out of action with save-or-suck and for similar reasons, I don't want players using those tactics on my named NPC/monsters.
Casters can attempt them but won't be as good as a martial if they don't have the BAB, strength or skills to do these things and the DM uses those very reasonable stats as the base for adjudicating those actions.But if my caster wants full BAB, I can cast transformation, or righteous might, and I have it. I can get a whopping strength score from buff spells and polymorphing or wildshaping or divine power or whatever. My bard or wizard is going to have far more skill ranks then anyone but the rogue, and maybe even him. If I want my caster to be physical guy - it is usually a spell or two away. If I want my physical guy to be a caster... UMD is as close as I can get.
In the last campaign I played in, my wimpy elf cleric was the best at combat maneuvers, despite his weak strength and 3/4 BAB. Why? Because all he had to do to get a +20 bonus was cast a 1st level domain spell - true strike.
Many people would consider having to take two rounds to achieve an end an unpalatable cost but I just see that as fair balance.
That said if your caster is using their magic to make themselves like a fighter but at a cost in time (a very precious commodity) and spells then good for them.
Edit: Good summary by the way Fergie, I like it.
Design Manager
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've never really seen BAB used as a metric for anything other than prereqs, do people really say "Give me a d20 plus your BAB" to determine a check? Genuinely curious. I thought that those on the fly actions were why CMB/CMD were invented.
Related, it's not terribly hard to simulate martial benefits with spells, SLAs, and Su abilities. A druid can snag an animal form that will make her better at almost any combat maneuver check than a Fighter, often even if the Fighter has invested feats into it. If I want to be a grappler using Paizo resources, I'love play a druid or a tetori monk over a fighter, and they both have 3/4 BAB. The druid maked up the difference (and then some) with animal abilities and Strength and Size bonuses, the monk does it with class features.
I honestly have yet to see a Rogue who's a better skill-monkey than Bards, Alchemists, etc., and that's before counting in spells and potions. 4-6+Int skills plus good class features and/or a class chassis that rewards investing in Intelligence is usually as good as or even better than 8+Int skills. Then, when you take a class that's already as strong with skills as the Rogue and let it pile magic on top... Invisibility + Stealth will always be better than Stealth. Glibness + Bluff will always be better than Bluff. So on and so forth.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The magus, the occultist, the spiritualist, skalds, wizards, sorcerers and clerics with the travel domain can.
And you said based off of strength (which knocks off the wizards, sorcerers), all of these classes can easily have equal or greater str than a fighter. So equal chance as the fighter.
You said based off of skills, which again, these classes will have the same or greater bonuses to those skills.
BAB is the only thing that these teleporters can't match all the time, but I already addressed why BAB would be a BAB choice.
And it's not just the teleporting that is the issue. It's, why take a fighter instead of any of the casting classes? Sure some of the replacements don't have all the answers themselves. But they are adding far more to the party than a non-caster is or at least not needing the casters to help them accomplish their job.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are no pathfinder rules for diving into water - the pfsrd has some helpful suggestions - really not sure what the problem is. I could have let the rogue take the 60 odd points of damage he would have survived but why.
People seem to be forgetting the the role of the DM. To referee the game and adjudicate situations like this. If you think hitting water is the same as hitting rock and rule it that way then fine but you have no more justification for that then I have for allowing the dive.
For the record: the rules are a guide for setting difficulty and adjudicating outcomes not an exhaustive list of every possible action and its outcome.
Anyone can make adjustments so that X is no longer a problem, but that only means it is not a problem for your game. That does not mean it is no longer a problem for THE game. Since we all have different playing styles at least to some extent the only way to have impartially is to use the rules that exist in the standard game.
If the ______ can do well in the standard game then it is ok, but if not then it has problems. The ____ should do it's own heavy lifting.
Example: There was another thread I was in a few years ago. Someone put a halfing rogue in a condition with low light and other things that benefited the rogue against a fighter in a very contrived situation. However we pointed out that the halfling and the conditions did the heavy lifting since the same results could have been had with an inquisitor or bard.
Since the situation was due to a human at a large disadvantage(not being able to see well) and a situation where you can insert almost any other class as long as that class could see in lowlight and get similar results there was no reason to give the rogue credit. A similar thing is happening here.
TLDR: Make ___ useful without any houserules or other bias if you want to be taken more seriously. <---just some advice.
|
Design Manager
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm.
Yes they can do things almost as well, but then they aren't casting like a wizard which is the way this debate is always phrased. How many of the classes you just mentioned can cast teleport.
You can't have your cake and eat it Chess Pwn. There will always be hybrids but they are generally not the same as either specialist in that area - that is the trade off
That said I'm happy to debate the disparity between Martials and Rangers with you or Martials and Paladins or Alchemists.
I actually think the "hybrid" or "gish" characters are some of the best in the game. I'd rather have a group consisting of a Paladin, Bard, Alchemist, and Hunter than one made up of a Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, and Cleric. You'll have less disparity in performance, more players able to effectively participate in a wider selection of encounters, and less likelihood of things falling apart if one member of the team goes down. You also avoid the issues of a front-liner who's as dangerous to the group as he is to the enemy, or a controller who just bypasses half the encounters.
Typically when you're talking C/MD, the problems can be traced to "magic > no magic, always". Even a little bit of magic, like the Paladin gets, goes a long, long way, so the partial casters are often viewed as the best balanced classed. Bards can get better bonuses to "rogue-y" things like Stealth by stacking spells on, but don't have the raw power that a Wizard gets. Paladins are tougher and have better saves than Fighters, but don't have the raw buffing power of the Cleric spell list.
There are no pathfinder rules for diving into water - the pfsrd has some helpful suggestions - really not sure what the problem is. I could have let the rogue take the 60 odd points of damage he would have survived but why.
People seem to be forgetting the the role of the DM. To referee the game and adjudicate situations like this. If you think hitting water is the same as hitting rock and rule it that way then fine but you have no more justification for that then I have for allowing the dive.
For the record: the rules are a guide for setting difficulty and adjudicating outcomes not an exhaustive list of every possible action and its outcome.
Anyone can make adjustments so that X is no longer a problem, but that only means it is not a problem for your game. That does not mean it is no longer a problem for THE game. Since we all have different playing styles at least to some extent the only way to have impartially is to use the rules that exist in the standard game.
If the ______ can do well in the standard game then it is ok, but if not then it has problems. The ____ should do it's own heavy lifting.
Example: There was another thread I was in a few years ago. Someone put a halfing rogue in a condition with low light and other things that benefited the rogue against a fighter in a very contrived situation. However we pointed out that the halfling and the conditions did the heavy lifting since the same results could have been had with an inquisitor or bard.
Since the situation was due to a human at a large disadvantage(not being able to see well) and a situation where you can insert almost any other class as long as that class could see in lowlight and get similar results there was no reason to give the rogue credit. A similar thing is happening here.
TLDR: Make ___ useful without any houserules or other bias if you want to be taken more seriously. <---just some advice.
Fair points, but as pointed out earlier the rules for diving into water are on the prd.
Yeah I think the caster/fighter disparity is far more compelling than the caster/martial disparity. Though I tend to see fighter as something to dip into to gain armour or weapon profs without extra restrictions or complications, or to improve monsters quite easily.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am in an AP now and the GM wanted us to try to get through it without any casters above 4 level casters like rangers. While we could do hit point damage without much trouble not hit point based problems such as reach, and terrain kicked our butts.
The game became not so fun for me. I went to full caster mode and I started to solved a lot of problem that I could not solve before. Not all of them, but over 90%, and I cast spells that shut down opposing casters, which help the party survive, and buffed people. Life is a lot easier.
As an example, two bad guys though it would be a good idea to spam use with AoE's. I simply cast glitterdust on them so they could not target us anymore, and the party spread apart so they couldn't blast all of us at once.
Another time(AP) some melee brute monster was beating down the frontliners. I simply cast deafness/blindness and that problem was solved.
I have also used summons to soak up hit points.
I have seen clerics use spells such as spiritual ally to cover the party's escape.
I've seen spells such as dimension door and teleport help the party escape a battle that was being lost.
The party has found large amounts of loot, so they used greater teleport to get to a metropolis and load up on gear. The druid had to use transport via plants, but find a grass in two different areas is not hard to do.
Being able to get to the city/dungeon/etc and back so quickly means the bad guys might not notice a few companions are missing and up their state of defense. It also allows the party to skip unnecessary random encounters. Sometimes the dice gods are rooting for team evil, and party members can die in APL+1 encounters <---Why being able to travel quickly matters.
These are things that fighters and rogues do not get to do by virtue of their class.
If A can do B's job at least 75% as well as B, and then do things B can't do, that looks like disparity to me.
Fair points, but as pointed out earlier the rules...There are no pathfinder rules for diving into water - the pfsrd has some helpful suggestions - really not sure what the problem is. I could have let the rogue take the 60 odd points of damage he would have survived but why.
People seem to be forgetting the the role of the DM. To referee the game and adjudicate situations like this. If you think hitting water is the same as hitting rock and rule it that way then fine but you have no more justification for that then I have for allowing the dive.
For the record: the rules are a guide for setting difficulty and adjudicating outcomes not an exhaustive list of every possible action and its outcome.
Anyone can make adjustments so that X is no longer a problem, but that only means it is not a problem for your game. That does not mean it is no longer a problem for THE game. Since we all have different playing styles at least to some extent the only way to have impartially is to use the rules that exist in the standard game.
If the ______ can do well in the standard game then it is ok, but if not then it has problems. The ____ should do it's own heavy lifting.
Example: There was another thread I was in a few years ago. Someone put a halfing rogue in a condition with low light and other things that benefited the rogue against a fighter in a very contrived situation. However we pointed out that the halfling and the conditions did the heavy lifting since the same results could have been had with an inquisitor or bard.
Since the situation was due to a human at a large disadvantage(not being able to see well) and a situation where you can insert almost any other class as long as that class could see in lowlight and get similar results there was no reason to give the rogue credit. A similar thing is happening here.
TLDR: Make ___ useful without any houserules or other bias if you want to be taken more seriously. <---just some advice.
PRD or d20pfsrd?
As in all things, it depends on the circumstances.
Are swashbucklers, Gunslingers and brawlers not just better variants of fighters?
(Regarding diving into water, it was on the prd, a guy earlier posted the link)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Trust me, it's all in your head. Now relax...
It's amazing -- every time I hear this in real life, it means the person talking is about to create a huge godawful mess and I'm going to have to be the one who cleans up after them.
|
Design Manager
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are swashbucklers, Gunslingers and brawlers not just variant Fighters?
To an extent, and all those classes are ones that tend to run into C/MD issues, but the Fighter is definitely the poster boy for the issue. Unlike those classes, the Fighter isn't backed by an array of dynamic class features, and doesn't have a limited (and thus generally more powerful) resource to draw on.
Swashbucklers have an issue that you normally only see with Bards, where they have a glut of swift action abilities all competing for use.
Gunslingers... that's a topic all its own, but suffice that they can generally do whatever a Fighter's doing, plus a little bit extra. Their iconic weapon is also their biggest hurdle though.
Brawlers are, IMHO, one of the better martial classes. They still suffer from magic being a superior option to most of their abilities, but they're versatile and have some control effects.
Fair points, but as pointed out earlier the rules...There are no pathfinder rules for diving into water - the pfsrd has some helpful suggestions - really not sure what the problem is. I could have let the rogue take the 60 odd points of damage he would have survived but why.
People seem to be forgetting the the role of the DM. To referee the game and adjudicate situations like this. If you think hitting water is the same as hitting rock and rule it that way then fine but you have no more justification for that then I have for allowing the dive.
For the record: the rules are a guide for setting difficulty and adjudicating outcomes not an exhaustive list of every possible action and its outcome.
Anyone can make adjustments so that X is no longer a problem, but that only means it is not a problem for your game. That does not mean it is no longer a problem for THE game. Since we all have different playing styles at least to some extent the only way to have impartially is to use the rules that exist in the standard game.
If the ______ can do well in the standard game then it is ok, but if not then it has problems. The ____ should do it's own heavy lifting.
Example: There was another thread I was in a few years ago. Someone put a halfing rogue in a condition with low light and other things that benefited the rogue against a fighter in a very contrived situation. However we pointed out that the halfling and the conditions did the heavy lifting since the same results could have been had with an inquisitor or bard.
Since the situation was due to a human at a large disadvantage(not being able to see well) and a situation where you can insert almost any other class as long as that class could see in lowlight and get similar results there was no reason to give the rogue credit. A similar thing is happening here.
TLDR: Make ___ useful without any houserules or other bias if you want to be taken more seriously. <---just some advice.
ok, I found it, and I thought the rogue fell, not jumped. If he dove into the water the consequences are less severe.
Are swashbucklers, Gunslingers and brawlers not just better variants of fighters?
(Regarding diving into water, it was on the prd, a guy earlier posted the link)
I would put them into the nonmagical martial category, and they suffer from the disparity also, even if they are not as limited as fighters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Trust me, it's all in your head. Now relax...It's amazing -- every time I hear this in real life, it means the person talking is about to create a huge godawful mess and I'm going to have to be the one who cleans up after them.
There is probably a good proctologist joke in there somewhere, but I'm too slow witted to make it.
no magic aka martials (fighters, brawlers, slayers, gunslinger, vigilantes, etc.) usually a drain of magic to do their job. Full C/MD issues.
Magic Lite (paladins, bloodragers, rangers, monk, barbarian, etc.) Fills their role and usually doesn't need help to do their job. Has most/some C/MD issues but not needing support makes them attractive for your beatstick.
Casters (6th level casters)
full casters (9th level casters)
casters in C/MD are casters or full casters.
How are monks and barbarians magic lite?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How are monks and barbarians magic lite?
They have a few supernatural abilities... And that's it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How are monks and barbarians magic lite?
Because their magic doesn't solve a lot of problems. They are not any better off than the ranger or paladin. They definitely are not as versatile as a bard or inquisitor.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How are monks and barbarians magic lite?They have a few supernatural abilities... And that's it.
To be fair to the barbarian, they can get a fly speed on their own without much hassle. While it's not pure caster power, it's not something you sneeze at.
|
Design Manager
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How are monks and barbarians magic lite?
They still have access to built-in abilities like healing, flight, teleportation, resistances, dispelling, etc. that require magic to pull off. Barbarian is often pointed to as the standard of what a spelless class should be capable of in a fantasy world.
But these are martial classes right?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How are monks and barbarians magic lite?Because their magic doesn't solve a lot of problems. They are not any better off than the ranger or paladin. They definitely are not as versatile as a bard or inquisitor.
I'd say the Barbarian is competitive with the bard and inquisitor.
"I cast fly."
"I get so angry I literally sprout wings."
"I cast dispel magic."
"I eat magic for breakfast."
The Barbarian's utility is themed around being tough and ferocious, but there's nothing saying you can't use rounds of rage out of combat to fly over a hazard or dispel a magical effect.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But these are martial classes right?
'
Small addendum to the C/M Disparity argument: Barbarians and Paladins are fine. They're pretty well balanced with the 6th level casters, being very strong base line and having interesting utility that makes you consider bringing one instead of a caster. The C/M problem with them is not that Barbs and Paladins are too weak, it's that Wizards and Clerics are too strong.
|
Design Manager
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
no magic aka martials (fighters, brawlers, slayers, gunslinger, vigilantes, etc.) usually a drain of magic to do their job. Full C/MD issues. ***
I don't know for sure about the Vigilante. It's the only martial class I'm aware of that has access to AoEs, debuffs, scry proofing, pounce, narrative tools, and more all baked into its chassis. I think it's technically a no magic martial, but it plays a lot like a magic lite class.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I want to add to the discussion that the MC/D is absolutely measurable if we want to create an extensive data collecting tool and run it a ton of times.
Back in 4th edition, they did this with special challenge dungeons that they released to gaming stores with prizes. The dungeons had carefully designed diverse paths and were played on a strict timer. Team comps, timing and performance could be measured to some success.
An easier example is online gaming. League of Legends has tons of data collection going on across millions of games, characters and abilties. they also have role based play, but strive a lot less for social, random and rp, as well as a lot more for mechanical tiers and balance.
The challenge here is specificity of comparisons to evaluate, density of data to mine and ability to give scenarios to get feedback.
RPG's are both mechanical games with balance issues
AND
Social experiences where balance issues can both help and hinder the experience.
So maybe move Vigilante up to the Magic lite. I have no issues with that.
Barbs and Monks are "martial" in that they don't have spells, but they can play more similar to the 4th level casters. Their SU abilities are very "magical" in that they can get a lot of tools out of them and don't need caster support to perform their job for the majority of the time.
So when talking about the C/MD martial/fighter means the no-magic category and casters are generally the 6th or 9th casters. The magic lite are acknowledged at being a good "martial" for playing with casters.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
stuff
Anyone has equal ability to have an "interesting character" with any class and any build.
But, if your interesting character is a rogue that is supposed to be an infiltrator and information gatherer, and then takes a backseat to the bard that does that as a secondary or tertiary function what do you do? Do you insist that you go, even though you're more likely to be found? Does the GM just let you succeed cause you want to do it?
Do you sit back and let the more likely to succeed infiltrator do the task?
And as mentioned before, if you're playing a rogue and want to tip the table it's not cause you were a rogue, anyone could tip the table if a rogue could tip the table. So having more options just means you have more tools to come up with interesting and crazy ideas.
Well one way to make a convincing case for CMD would be to remove two-thirds of the classes from the martial category - despite them being explicitly martial in every way. Bravo! thus the whole discussion becomes quite pointless.
Presumably we can also remove the fighters, swashbucklers etc that have supernatural powers through archetypes from the list as well. What about magic items, take them away as well?
Very silly argument.
The bard - rogue problem is overcome in the same way you would if two players both bring rogues, one specialising in stealth and one in flanking. You discuss party roles when creating characters. It will always be possible for one character to upstage another even if everyone is playing a martial or no-one is.
|
Design Manager
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So maybe move Vigilante up to the Magic lite. I have no issues with that.
Barbs and Monks are "martial" in that they don't have spells, but they can play more similar to the 4th level casters. Their SU abilities are very "magical" in that they can get a lot of tools out of them and don't need caster support to perform their job for the majority of the time.
So when talking about the C/MD martial/fighter means the no-magic category and casters are generally the 6th or 9th casters. The magic lite are acknowledged at being a good "martial" for playing with casters.
Yeah, I think that "Martial vs. Caster" is better summed up as "No Magic vs. Magic". You don't necessarily need spells specifically (though it certainly doesn't hurt), but you do need some excuse for breaking away from "real world physics", which Monks, Barbarians, and arguably Vigilantes get.
I thought your summation of no magic, magic lite, casters, and full casters was pretty good. I think you tend to get the best group dynamics if the party is comprised of adjacent groups.
No Magic fits in play with Magic Lite, but may struggle compared to Casters and Full Casters. Magic Lite plays great with No Magic or Casters, but will eventually struggle to keep up with Full Casters. Etc.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
To be fair, most of the problems we are discussing are linked to specific game mechanic systems, that go beyond individual classes.
For example, the value of magic vs the value of steel.
In theory, all the features of the Fighter class should equal the value of all the features of the Wizard class.
Fighter/ Wizard
Low skills/ Low skills*
Full weapons/ Very limited proficiency
Full armor/ No armor
Full BAB/ 1/2 BAB
d10HD/ d6HD
No spells/ Full arcane caster
Many bonus combat feats/ Bonus metamagic, crafting feats.
Bonuses to attacking, move, AC check/ Spell like abilities, familiar, bonded item, spell book.
Basically the design balance is:
Fully loaded physical attacking and defense = Fully loaded spell casting.
At low levels this equation isn't far off, by the high levels, it is often way off.
Now look at the rogue. He is about half-way between the fighter and wizard in terms of his physical offense and defense. In exchange he got lot's of skills.
So we see:
Half physical offense and defense + skills = No physical stuff + full magic + low skills*.
Are these power balances true in your game?
*Note on Int bonus to skills. In AD&D there was a limit on how much you could benefit from a skill based on class. For example, a fighter with an 18 Con score might get +4 hp level, while a magic user with the same Con could only get +2 no matter what his ability score. Also, back in the day 18 was a hard cap on ability scores. Except for Strength which could go up to an 18/100%, but only if you were a fighter (or maybe ranger or paladin?). This would get you a whopping +3 to hit +6 to damage. I don't think the math of the game really takes into account PCs getting ability scores into the high 20's or beyond late in the game.
|
Design Manager
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well one way to make a convincing case for CMD would be to remove two-thirds of the classes from the martial category - despite them being explicitly martial in every way. Bravo! thus the whole discussion becomes white pointless.
If being a flying, magic-eating rage-monster was "martial", we really wouldn't have these discussions. A Barbarian who doesn't take those options and instead spends his Rage Powers on climbing and swimming, or adding bonuses to combat maneuvers, would find itself back in the "martial" camp.
Same thing with monks. I wouldn't consider the immune to everything, teleporting, self-healing, able to speak to any living thing character who can kill someone he touched 2 weeks ago by thinking about it "martial", except maybe in the same sense that anime ninja are "martial".
It's about magic. Do you have it, do you get to do things that require it, and does having it allow you to deal with new challenges in new ways?
Fighters, Brawlers, Gunslingers, Slayers, Rogues, Swashbucklers, Samurai, and Cavaliers don't have it, and they struggle with issues outside of their narrow starting purview.
Paladins, Rangers, Inquisitors, Bards, Alchemists, etc. do have it, and they constantly gain new tools to resolve issues in multiple aspects of the game.
Wizards, Clerics, Oracles, Shamans, Psychics, etc. have a lot of it, and their problem solving abilities generally evolve much more rapidly and reach much higher levels than other classes.
Martial - "I use feats and abilities arbitrarily constrained by trite notions of "real world" physics. The number of scenarios I can meaningfully contribute to changes little from 1-20."
Caster - "I use magic to do things that are impossible in the real world. I am a fantastic character who can fly, or teleport, or regenerate, or all of the above. Every few levels I get a new way to interface with the game world."
Okay, well if you are discussing a magic-non magic disparity it's probably better to call it that rather than a caster/martial disparity. Otherwise it is being disengenious.
Magic is woven into the game at all levels and all characters (fighters included) have access to it through one form or another.
Incidentally fighters do regenerate - it's called healing and they get it after a nights rest.
They do get buffs, power attack, combat expertise and flanking being a few
They do get debuffs, intimidate, dirty trick, disarm and grapple.
We are talking about degrees in all these things. Excluding martial classes that have powers that give people methods of controlling the game because it doesn't fit your view of the C/MD doesn't really cut the mustard.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think those words mean what you think they mean...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Those diving rules are 3party, from Cerulean Seas, Fire.I disagree They are on the PRD
Ah, you are correct. My mistake.
MM..looks like Cerulean Sea just made a table out of what was just a paragraph, and expanded it out to 240 feet. d20 didn't doublecheck the source to see they were just using existing rules!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Incidentally fighters do regenerate - it's called healing and they get it after a nights rest.
Once per day, at a rate of their HP per level. You have to sit on your ass for several days to go from 0 HP to full HP without magic.
I did, in one of the many threads we've had on this subject, suggest some thought exercise examples that might help demonstrate some of the disparities in problem-solving in a magic "have/have-not" system.
...
Some things off the top of my head that a party might have to deal with, especially at higher levels:1.) You won a very difficult battle, are low on HP, and the dungeon starts to collapse. You are not near the entrance, the boss was not fought near an exit, and the debris will DEFINITELY kill you if you're still in the dungeon when it collapses. How do you solve this problem with magic? How do you solve it without magic?
2.) The dark lord's fortress must be infiltrated, and quickly, to gain access to a magic item he will use the following morning to destroy a large area full of innocent bystanders. It is a dark, windy, and rainy night, and the castle has slippery walls and a moat full of dire crocodiles. You do not know what sort of sentries are posted atop those treacherous walls. How do you get in with magic? How do you get in without magic?
3.) The archfiend the party has been hunting has boasted the time of its masterstroke fast approaches, and uses its Greater Teleport to flee the battle to enact it. Every moment he's left free is a chance for him to recover from his injuries and advance his yet-unknown plans. How do you find and pursue the fiend with magic? How do you do so without magic?
4.) A locked-room murder of someone important to the party has occurred, and there are clear signs the crime scene was tampered with before the body was discovered to obscure potential evidence. How do you solve the mystery with magic? How do you solve it without magic?
5.) An army of orcs the likes of which has never been seen before is on the march. Their advance cannot be checked, only delayed, and their numbers are such even the entire party will be overwhelmed in minutes if they try to fight them. The land's only hope is for the orcs' advance to be slowed down
No doubt if your DM is throwing these challenges at you then I'm sure lack of casters is a severe disadvantage. However when you look at the type and nature of encounters and challenges that pathfinder was designed to portray these do not crop up. The Adventure Paths that Pathfinder was built around and named for do not contain these types of restrictions and if you write them into your games you are artificially constructing a caster martial disparity.
The reverse would apply if I wrote an encounter into the game that required armed combat in a anti magic sphere in order succeed. Failure means the party loses.
Play the game that you want to play, but don't complain about balance when you create unbalanced scenarios that are designed to be overcome with magic.
Incidentally fighters do regenerate - it's called healing and they get it after a nights rest.Once per day, at a rate of their HP per level. You have to sit on your ass for several days to go from 0 HP to full HP without magic.
And clerics will heal faster than Paladins and Paladins faster than Druids. It's all a matter of degrees.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I consider anything without actual spell casting to be a martial... Including Barbarians and Monks. 4/9 such as Rangers and Paladins blur the line, but also get bunched together, since their spell casting is quite minor (although still immensely more useful than what non-casters can do).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And clerics will heal faster than Paladins and Paladins faster than Druids. It's all a matter of degrees.Incidentally fighters do regenerate - it's called healing and they get it after a nights rest.Once per day, at a rate of their HP per level. You have to sit on your ass for several days to go from 0 HP to full HP without magic.
The important thing is healing without stopping your adventure for the day which the fighter cannot do unaided.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And clerics will heal faster than Paladins and Paladins faster than Druids. It's all a matter of degrees.Incidentally fighters do regenerate - it's called healing and they get it after a nights rest.Once per day, at a rate of their HP per level. You have to sit on your ass for several days to go from 0 HP to full HP without magic.
What a wild understatement but Ill entertain it for a moment. How is that not a prime example of the disparity that's being described?