Hi, everyone...
Just thinking about Pathfinder and 3.X in general and about the linear warrior versus quadratic spellcaster issue...
I think I may have read about this houserule in some strange past aeon...
Casters advance must earn two levels to advance one level. Thus non-casters advance twice as fast.
Has anyone had any experience with this? Would it be a good or a bad change for a new campaign (perhaps set in a world somewhat like Conan's, or Primeval Thule, or the Hyperborea of Astonishing Swordsmen and Sorcerors)?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
... This isn't fixing the C/M D. It's reversing it. Why, you ask? Because if martials (which you'd have to define better, by the way. Is a Paladin a martial? A Bloodrager? A Magus? If your definition is "anyone who doesn't cast spells" how do archetypes that add or remove spellcasting work? More on this later) advance twice as fast, then they'll be consistently making their saves, laughing at spells that target HP, and one-shotting every single caster, who now have only half the HP they would otherwise.
And it still wouldn't solve the C/MD in the first place. The complaint about martials has never been that they can't hold their own in combat. Rather, it's that they don't have anything else to do. And even if wizards can't fly until level 10, martials are still grounded the whole time. Even if your sorcerer can't teleport until level 20, your rogue could UMD a scroll way earlier.
And the 4/9 casters get the worst end of this deal. Now, your Paladin (who now can't cast spells until level 8, has worse HP (an effective d5 for health) and BAB equal to the wizard, with a Smite that only is half as effective as before.
Tl;DR?
Making anyone who casts spells earn half the levels doesn't fix the "martials are useless outside of combat" so much as straddling casters with the same problem, just ensures a caster is made of tissue paper and have no effective way to attack martials, and cripples former martial powerhouses like the Paladin.
Hi, Daedalus.
Yes, I was thinking of any caster, such as the paladin, or any archetype that grants spellcasting. Archetypes that totally remove spellcasting would probably cause such a class to be a martial class for purposes of this hypothetical houserule.
That said, you make some very good points.
I wouldn't fix the casters, I'd fix the martials. That means both the players (who should be encouraged to spend some character options on versatility) and the characters (who should get items improving versatility).
Assuming the issue is relevant for the campaign anyway - meaning the level is high enough, the casters actually care about optimization and the martials are very focused on combat.
If you insist in weakening casters, cut where they are strongest: At spell level 7 to 9. A few GMs seem to outright ban 9th level casters, an alternative would be: Spell level 7 to 9 can only be used for metamagic.
Such a "fix" to the paladin would only make it bad at two different things. A 10th/5th level paladin would have two first level spells and the BAB of a wizard.
I agree that purely mundane character classes become limited in their capabilities at high level compared to their high magic counterparts, but this in not the fix and I don't know that there truly is one without changing some of the core aspects of the game. I find that a better "fix" is for the players to work at functioning as a team instead of trying to be a group of self-sufficient individuals. You can certainly play that way, but it emphasizes the disparity problem.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hi, Sheepish Eidolon,
In looking at the 1st edition of the Astonishing Swordsmen and Sorcerors of Hyperborea, your solution of banning 7th to 9th level spells seems similar to its solution... 6th level spells are the highest (though it did have a hard level cap of 12th).
Your idea of only using the 7th to 9th level spell slots for metamagic is very interesting.
Thank you.
Hi, Ciaran,
The teamwork aspect is paramount, for sure.
Thank you.
Hi, Sheepish Eidolon,
In looking at the 1st edition of the Astonishing Swordsmen and Sorcerors of Hyperborea, your solution of banning 7th to 9th level spells seems similar to its solution... 6th level spells are the highest (though it did have a hard level cap of 12th).
Your idea of only using the 7th to 9th level spell slots for metamagic is very interesting.
Thank you.
I wouldn't outright "ban" the 7th-9th level spells, I'd make the problem children spells more associated with special rituals that require specific components or activities to perform (since a lot of the 7th-9th level spells are out-of-combat and break the game anyway, such as Wish, Simulacrum, Demiplane, Gate, and so on). The other 7th-9th level spells can probably stay, since spells like Delayed Blast Fireball and Banshee's Wail aren't really that gamebreaking compared to an optimized Martial full-attacking (or Whirlwind Attacking) baddies.
Of course, cutting down the 7th-9th level spell lists considerably is certainly something that can help swing the pendulum's balance, but it won't solve the underlying issue with Magic being so ingratiated into the system that it's basically a requirement or your character becomes obsoleted (i.e. killed, early retiring, etc).
It won't fix anything.
This argument has always made little sense to me. Make the adventure day longer. Problem solved.
This argument has always made little sense to me. Make the adventure day longer. Problem solved.
Hit points run out too.
I feel the martial caster disparity problem is largely due to the fact that magic gives casters so many more options in and out of combat.
If you really wanted to limit caster power I suggest limiting spell selection. Maybe arcane casters caster must choose one school of magic and that is all they get. Clerics can only cast cure spells and domain spells or something like that.
I feel the martial caster disparity problem is largely due to the fact that magic gives casters so many more options in and out of combat.
If you really wanted to limit caster power I suggest limiting spell selection. Maybe arcane casters caster must choose one school of magic and that is all they get. Clerics can only cast cure spells and domain spells or something like that.
Only cure and domain seems pretty harsh. Doesn't that basically mean they only get 2 spells known ever a level? other than the cure spells?
I could get behind the school restriction, though there is the issue that the schools are not evenly balanced with options so it would lead to some schools being the clear best choice.
My thought in general the spontaneous casters aren't so bad if you get rid of scrolls as an item type. then they have to choose between utility and combat anyways.
For prepared casters an option I was just thinking of that's not fully formed is perhaps limit the max amount of spells per level they can have in their spellsbooks so they have more versitility than a sorcerer but not unlimited, combined with getting rid of scrolls (give wizards a different feat to compensate)
I was thinking they could prepare all the domain spells for their god so on average 5 per level but it needs to be pretty restrictive to really address the issue.
I have not had as many problems once I switched to Spheres of Power but that doesn't eliminate the issue it just mitigates it. I think the problem is inherent in that martials are based if loosely on real world combat whereas mages are not.
If you want true balance you would need to homogenize all the classes as 4e did but I don't think that is fun either.
I just mitigate where I can and take care in playing with good people such that if one player ends up being more powerful than the other players they aren't a dick about it.
Or, martials could stop being whinny little punks.
* Aragorn doesn't bemoan the fact that he isn't an almighty wizard like Gandalf. And as far as “nothing to do out of combat” goes, he reforges the kingdoms of Gondor and Arnor.
* You don't hear Arthur saying, “Yeah, Excalibur is nice and all, but it ain't no patch on what Merlin can do.” And as far as “nothing to do out of combat” goes, he builds Camelot.
* Conan defeated his arch-nemesis, Thoth-Amon, at the edge of the world, not the other way around. And as far as “nothing to do outside of combat” goes, he rules Aquilonia, the most civilized kingdom in the Hyborian age.
* Hermione lays out Draco with an unarmed attack (not even improved) she isn't trained in, not a spell.
Besides, the DM should have plenty for everyone to do outside of combat, it IS THE DM'S JOB! Also, in 30+ years, I have never, not once, encountered a single martial player who said, outside of combat or in downtime, “I can't do anything because I can't cast spells.”
This whole C/MD is a crock of steer manure.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or, martials could stop being whinny little punks.
* Aragorn doesn't bemoan the fact that he isn't an almighty wizard like Gandalf. And as far as “nothing to do out of combat” goes, he reforges the kingdoms of Gondor and Arnor.
* You don't hear Arthur saying, “Yeah, Excalibur is nice and all, but it ain't no patch on what Merlin can do.” And as far as “nothing to do out of combat” goes, he builds Camelot.
* Conan defeated his arch-nemesis, Thoth-Amon, at the edge of the world, not the other way around. And as far as “nothing to do outside of combat” goes, he rules Aquilonia, the most civilized kingdom in the Hyborian age.
* Hermione lays out Draco with an unarmed attack (not even improved) she isn't trained in, not a spell.Besides, the DM should have plenty for everyone to do outside of combat, it IS THE DM'S JOB! Also, in 30+ years, I have never, not once, encountered a single martial player who said, outside of combat or in downtime, “I can't do anything because I can't cast spells.”
This whole C/MD is a crock of steer manure.
One question with all of your examples: Do they follow the Pathfinder rules set? No? Then those are horrible examples that do not hold up to the issues that plague this rules set, and here's why:
If Gandalf existed in Pathfinder's universe, he'd just take the ring, teleport to the fires of Mt. Doom, throw the ring into the lava, and teleport back to whence he originally came, trivializing the entire storyline of that series, and not involving any other characters in the Lord of the Rings series. Characters like Aragorn and Gimli in the Pathfinder universe don't have that kind of power without the assistance of magic items, and Gandalf could have just as easily reforged the two kingdoms. (Actually, easier and much faster, with the assistance of Pathfinder magic.)
If Arthur existed in the Pathfinder universe, all he'd have is a fancy magic sword. He'd still be some mundane martial beatstick who's only famous for creating something that a Spellcaster can do overnight, and for leading something that, once again, a Spellcaster can do easier and faster.
Conan defeating another martial beatstick isn't much of an accomplishment. AM BARBARIAN makes a much better Conan than Conan does, so saying that he can rule a civilized kingdom despite being a savage is silly, since AM BARBARIAN can do the same thing, and instead turn it into a kingdom of his own design.
Hermione rolled a 20 critical confirmation on that unarmed strike. It also should've provoked an attack from Draco if we're playing by the Pathfinder rules, and then the cycle would've continued until they ran out of AoOs. Not really a special accomplishment there.
So many examples of things that, when brought to the Pathfinder rules set, don't add up in the grand scheme of things.
Thoth-Amon is a spellcaster, fyi, not a 'beatstick'.
Hermione got initiative on Draco, not a critical hit. No AoO without Combat Reflexes. If she'd critted there's a decent chance she'd have knocked him out.
Gandalf smacks more of paladin with unsanctioned knowledge, a fairly expensive race and random stat rolls barely meeting class requirements with Int as his highest score than anything resembling a Pathfinder wizard. Also, the One Ring (a) doesn't do (teleportation), (b) has an Ego that Gandalf knows he can't easily beat, and (c) is geared towards the races of dwarves, elves and men. Hobbits get a massive bonus because they didn't exist when the One Ring was forged.
A spellcaster may be able to create a kingdom overnight - but who wants to live in some crazy kook's demiplane? Nah, I like my planet upon which to roam, tyvm. ;)
Merlin isn't exactly well known for his social graces what with interfering in Royal Affairs so much. He's lucky that he has a decent reputation or they'd lop his arrogant head off.
Merlin makes a better Gandalf in many ways than Gandalf does, since Merlin actually does wizard-y things instead of Gandalf's setting pine cones on fire and sending a variant animal messenger to fetch his Giant Eagle buddies.
Arthur would have - depending on the tale - a lot more than just Excaibur. Paladin 2/Cavaliers are nothing to mess with, even for Wizards that don't know Evocation spells.
Darksol the Painbringer, you avoided (or missed) the crux of my post, which is the only part you didn't address:
Besides, the DM should have plenty for everyone to do outside of combat, it IS THE DM'S JOB! Also, in 30+ years, I have never, not once, encountered a single martial player who said, outside of combat or in downtime, “I can't do anything because I can't cast spells.”
This whole C/MD is a crock of steer manure.
Darksol the Painbringer, you avoided (or missed) the crux of my post, which is the only part you didn't address:
Besides, the DM should have plenty for everyone to do outside of combat, it IS THE DM'S JOB! Also, in 30+ years, I have never, not once, encountered a single martial player who said, outside of combat or in downtime, “I can't do anything because I can't cast spells.”
This whole C/MD is a crock of steer manure.
I didn't need to address it because I didn't need to; that's not the GM's job.
The GM's job is to breathe life into a fantasy world for the players to explore and adventure in. That's it. Anything beyond that is above the GM's assumed expectation(s), which is good, but also both unnecessary and, in some tables, unlikely to happen.
When the adventure path or campaign requires spellcasting to accomplish (most high level adventures do, and even some lower level adventures), and when spellcasting is so baked into the game (see Automatic Bonus Progression from Unchained) that it becomes a requirement and not a luxury, you're running the risk of certain players unable to even complete adventures due to their lack of spells or magical effects, which is ridiculous, especially when you create classes that have little to no magical effects (or valuable means of countering them). The fact of the matter is that spells should be more luxurious, and not so required by the game.
@ The Mad Comrade: He's a pretty bad spellcaster if he's getting beat by something that isn't as anti-caster as AM BARBARIAN (Superstition, Spell Sunder, etc). Of course, the other part of him getting beat is because he doesn't adhere to Pathfinder rules. If he did, he could have easily prepared the proper spells to just outright wreck Conan's day.
In hindsight, I find the whole Unarmed Strike thing with Harry Potter to be irrelevant, so much so that it borderlines being a strawman, since that's an in-combat subject, and not an out-of-combat subject (which is the contention being made), and all of the other arguments were about out-of-combat, and not in-combat.
My point with Gandalf (actually, Aragorn was the main subject there, but back to Gandalf, it) was that it's a horrible example because by Pathfinder's standards, Gandalf is hardly a wizard (and your description of him being a Paladin with Unsanctioned Knowledge is proof of this), and as such, him being classified as a wizard is a major misnomer. Because a Pathfinder Wizard would've trivialized that entire storyline with just a few spellcasts of teleporting, conjuration, etc. (This also further demonstrates the differences between Pathfinder spellcasting compared to other universes' spellcasting, as well as how powerful Pathfinder spellcasting is in contrast to the other sources.)
To be fair, a lot of people believe in religions (both real-world and fantasy religions alike) that had Planet Earth created "overnight" by either singular or multiple deities. If a Wizard can create planes of existence just like a Deity can, then really, the only difference between a deity and a wizard is by both scale (since Wizards cannot create actual planes, only Demiplanes), and creator aesthetics (a Wizard creating it versus a deity creating it).
As far as I know, Merlin was an adviser in the original tales, and at best a 1st or 2nd level spellcaster based on Pathfinder rules, which aren't the levels that spellcasters are known to overshadow martials. (It's actually the opposite at those levels.)
Arthur has both the Excalibur Sword, and the Scabbard (which by the original tales, was a lot more powerful than the sword since it made the bearer immortal in battle), which meant in any battle he faced, he would never die (unless his Scabbard was removed from his possession). Otherwise? He's probably equally as strong (or even perhaps weaker, due to his dependancy on the scabbard's power for victory) as any other Knights in his service. I also doubt that any knights in his service would have Paladin levels, and would probably just be straight Cavaliers.
Darksol the Painbringer, you avoided (or missed) the crux of my post, which is the only part you didn't address:
Besides, the DM should have plenty for everyone to do outside of combat, it IS THE DM'S JOB! Also, in 30+ years, I have never, not once, encountered a single martial player who said, outside of combat or in downtime, “I can't do anything because I can't cast spells.”
This whole C/MD is a crock of steer manure.
I didn't need to address it because I didn't need to; that's not the GM's job.
The GM's job is to breathe life into a fantasy world for the players to explore and adventure in. That's it. Anything beyond that is above the GM's assumed expectation(s), which is good, but also both unnecessary and, in some tables, unlikely to happen.
When the adventure path or campaign requires spellcasting to accomplish (most high level adventures do, and even some lower level adventures), and when spellcasting is so baked into the game (see Automatic Bonus Progression from Unchained) that it becomes a requirement and not a luxury, you're running the risk of certain players unable to even complete adventures due to their lack of spells or magical effects, which is ridiculous, especially when you create classes that have little to no magical effects (or valuable means of countering them). The fact of the matter is that spells should be more luxurious, and not so required by the game.
@ The Mad Comrade: He's a pretty bad spellcaster if he's getting beat by something that isn't as anti-caster as AM BARBARIAN (Superstition, Spell Sunder, etc). Of course, the other part of him getting beat is because he doesn't adhere to Pathfinder rules. If he did, he could have easily prepared the proper spells to just outright wreck Conan's day.
In hindsight, I find the whole Unarmed Strike thing with Harry Potter to be irrelevant, so much so that it borderlines being a strawman, since that's an in-combat subject, and not an out-of-combat subject (which is the contention being...
Paladins only fall because of Lancelot.
He's THE paladin.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This argument has always made little sense to me. Make the adventure day longer. Problem solved.Hit points run out too.
Extending the adventuring day is an okay solution, a better one is to extend how long it takes to replenish spells and leave everything else the same.
If you cap adventures around maybe 10th level you should be good. After that that is when complaints start to happen and martials become less relevant.
If you cap adventures around maybe 10th level you should be good. After that that is when complaints start to happen and martials become less relevant.
True.
However, people like to play powerful spellcasters. The difficulty is facilitating that without the wizard overshadowing the fighter.
What you did hear is players of martial characters saying 'why bother?', when a spellcaster used invisibility to outdo hide in shadows, or fly to get out of melee, way back to the first edition of AD&D. In an extended campaign we ran where several characters died eventually every character was either a magic user or a multiclassed magic user. It's not a new concept even if Myrkul somehow avoided it.
There is a deep dark place in the abyss for people that start these threads.
Besides, the DM should have plenty for everyone to do outside of combat, it IS THE DM'S JOB! Also, in 30+ years, I have never, not once, encountered a single martial player who said, outside of combat or in downtime, “I can't do anything because I can't cast spells.”
This whole C/MD is a crock of steer manure.
I used to think very similarly.
Jiggy made an excellent post explaining what it actually is and what it isn't a couple of years back.
It's worth a look, imo. Especially if (like me) it isn't an issue at your table. It helps to understand where people are coming from.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
HOLD UP, THIS AM STILL THING?
BARBARIAN THOUGHT AM ALREADY ESTABLISHING LIKE ELEVENTY BILLION YEARS AGO AM NO SUCH THING AS CASTER MARTIAL DESTRUCITY. AM ONLY BARBARIAN NOT-BARBARIAN DESTRUCITY.
AND YES, BARBARIAN AM ABLE HAVE ESTABLISHED THIS ELEVENTY BILLION YEARS AGO. SUNDER CHECK VS 4TH DIMENSIONAL BOUNDARY OF HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS AM ONLY NEEDING LIKE 60. RAGELANCEPOUNCE AM ALWAYS HAVING BEEN AND ALWAYS WILL HAVING BE, UNLESS BARBARIAN CHANGE MIND AND SUNDER STUFF AGAIN FOR BALANCE PURPOSES.
ANYWAYS, BARBARIAN AM OF OPINION THAT IF BARBARIAN AM ALLOWED GET SPELL SUNDER IN TIME THAT AM TAKING CASTY GET TO MIRROR IMAGE OR INVISIBLENESS (OR NOT, IF AM SPONTANEOUS CASTY LIKE SORCERER OR ORACLE OR WHATEVER), THAT AM DIRTY FIAT IN DIRECTION OF BARBARIAN.
INSOFAR AS BARBARIAN AM CONCERNED, DIRTY FIAT AM STILL DIRTY FIAT EVEN IF MAKING BARBARIAN EVEN MORE AWESOME THAN BARBARIAN ALREADY AM. MAYBE NOT BEST BALANCE IDEA BARBARIAN EVER HEAR.
FINALLY, BARBARIAN NOT REALLY 'RULE' KINGDOM. FLYING AROUND ON BATTY BAT AM NOT LEAVING MUCH TIME FOR RULING, OUTSIDE OF PASSIVELY BEING AWESOME, WHICH AM OTHER FORM OF RULING. BARBARIAN GENERALLY SPECIALIZE IN BREAKING KINGDOM BY SERIES OF PROPERLY PLACED STRIKES TO VULNERABLE POINTS, AM MAKING BUILDINGS FALL IN ON SELF. AS DIRECT RESULT, INSURANCE COMPANIES NOT REALLY INTERESTED IN ANY PROPERTY BARBARIAN AM ANYWHERE WITHIN 500 MILES OF.
BARBARIAN MAKE MAD BANK FROM CASTY KILLING, BUT INSURANCE PREMIUMS AM STILL BEAST EVEN BARBARIAN UNABLE TO SURMOUNT.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is a deep dark place in the abyss for people that start these threads.
Mmmm... Probably...
I have shopped a house rule where full casters can't learn a spell who's level is higher than 1+1/3 the caster class level. They still get the slots but have to fill them with lower level spells and metamagic. The partial casters are instead limited by 1+1/4 caster class level.
But as has been said, caster disparity isn't meaningful at the low levels. And casters are even a little weak in the very early levels. Any nerfs need to recognize this issue.
I have shopped a house rule where full casters can't learn a spell who's level is higher than 1+1/3 the caster class level. They still get the slots but have to fill them with lower level spells and metamagic. The partial casters are instead limited by 1+1/4 caster class level.
But as has been said, caster disparity isn't meaningful at the low levels. And casters are even a little weak in the very early levels. Any nerfs need to recognize this issue.
Have you tried this in a game? If so, what was the result?
The GM's job is to breathe life into a fantasy world for the players to explore and adventure in. That's it. Anything beyond that is above the GM's assumed expectation(s), which is good, but also both unnecessary and, in some tables, unlikely to happen.
EXACTLY! And if the DM can't breathe life into it in such a way that non-casters are not completely irrelevant in non-combat situations, that DM isn't doing his/her job.
Well, there's your problem right there. Everyone else in this thread is talking about PATHFINDER, and how Pathfinder works, because this is a thread about Pathfinder in the Pathfinder forums. Unless you have a time machine, you have not been playing Pathfinder for 30+ years. Period. You've played some utterly unrelated game with completely different rules, and you're expecting everything from some other unrelated game to translate perfectly into Pathfinder.
Magic Missile, Charm Person, Detect Magic, Light, Protection from Evil, Cleric, ability scores (Str, Dex, Con, Int, Wis, Cha), HP, d8 damage battle axe, spellbooks, range, duration, effect, saving throws, d20, d12, d10, d8, d6, d4, initiative, experience points and the Fighter (plus a truckload of other examples) are all in the Basic Rules of the Red Box, the Player's Handbook of AD&D, 2E, 3.0, 3.5 and the Pathfinder Core Rulebook. These common game concepts have been around for over 40 years. They are hardly "completely different rules" or "some other unrelated game." Perhaps if you had a time machine, you could learn the history of Pathfinder.
In every edition from Basic through Pathfinder, martials are (generally) superior at low-levels (1 ~ 6), skill monkies are (generally) superior at mid-levels (7 ~ 13), and casters are (generally) superior at high levels ~13+. People who try to "beef martials" or "nerf casters" I think lose sight of this pattern.
It is the Order of Things. It is the way the game that we all play goes.
C/MD arguments seem to come from people who expect all classes to be completely equal at all stages of the game in absolutely every situation. There are times and places for every class to shine (that's what the DM should be doing: shining that spotlight). Don't act surprised when the game plays out in the exact same pattern that it has been playing out for the last 40+ years.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Magic Missile, Charm Person, Detect Magic, Light, Protection from Evil, Cleric, ability scores (Str, Dex, Con, Int, Wis, Cha), HP, d8 damage battle axe, spellbooks, range, duration, effect, saving throws, d20, d12, d10, d8, d6, d4, initiative, experience points and the Fighter (plus a truckload of other examples) are all in the Basic Rules of the Red Box, the Player's Handbook of AD&D, 2E, 3.0, 3.5 and the Pathfinder Core Rulebook. These common game concepts have been around for over 40 years. They are hardly "completely different rules" or "some other unrelated game." Perhaps if you had a time machine, you could learn the history of Pathfinder.
Oh please don't go that way. Fighters and wizards in 1ed and 2ed doesn't compare to fighters and wizards in 3.5 or PF. Trying to make that analogy just make you look bad.
C/MD arguments seem to come from people who expect all classes to be completely equal at all stages of the game in absolutely every situation.
No they don't. Not even close. Read closely.
Don't act surprised when the game plays out in the exact same pattern that it has been playing out for the last 40+ years.
Your group being stuck in the same gamestyle than in early editions say a lot. If that is what you guys like good for you, but newer editions are really different.
perhaps if you don't throw the "I have 30 years experience and you don't" at every turn you may realize than people complains also comes from gameplay experiences.
The GM's job is to breathe life into a fantasy world for the players to explore and adventure in. That's it. Anything beyond that is above the GM's assumed expectation(s), which is good, but also both unnecessary and, in some tables, unlikely to happen.EXACTLY! And if the DM can't breathe life into it in such a way that non-casters are not completely irrelevant in non-combat situations, that DM isn't doing his/her job.
Well, there's your problem right there. Everyone else in this thread is talking about PATHFINDER, and how Pathfinder works, because this is a thread about Pathfinder in the Pathfinder forums. Unless you have a time machine, you have not been playing Pathfinder for 30+ years. Period. You've played some utterly unrelated game with completely different rules, and you're expecting everything from some other unrelated game to translate perfectly into Pathfinder.Magic Missile, Charm Person, Detect Magic, Light, Protection from Evil, Cleric, ability scores (Str, Dex, Con, Int, Wis, Cha), HP, d8 damage battle axe, spellbooks, range, duration, effect, saving throws, d20, d12, d10, d8, d6, d4, initiative, experience points and the Fighter (plus a truckload of other examples) are all in the Basic Rules of the Red Box, the Player's Handbook of AD&D, 2E, 3.0, 3.5 and the Pathfinder Core Rulebook. These common game concepts have been around for over 40 years. They are hardly "completely different rules" or "some other unrelated game." Perhaps if you had a time machine, you could learn the history of Pathfinder.
In every edition from Basic through Pathfinder, martials are (generally) superior at low-levels (1 ~ 6), skill monkies are (generally) superior at mid-levels (7 ~ 13), and casters are (generally) superior at high levels ~13+. People who try to "beef martials" or "nerf casters" I think lose sight of this pattern.
It is the Order of Things. It is the way the game that we all play goes.
C/MD...
Again, not really. A PC who can't effectively contribute, combat or otherwise, due to his severe inoptimization really only points out that players can be put in unwinnable situations simply due to their lack of PC power in a scenario such as this. That has nothing to do with the GM or the system as a whole, a system that actually assumes players have certain gear, character choices, etc. That has everything to do with the player's agenda of making a character who, while they might enjoy playing, is actually horrible and incompetent to be an adventurer. As I stated before, the GM only cares about the fantasy world and the rules that govern it. The factor that the issue is solely with the PC means that the GM isn't responsible for the player's character choices being as intopimal as they are, and that one can't assume a GM will tailor an adventure path or campaign to suit said character choices.
Just because those subjects have been around since the beginning of D&D doesn't mean that they aren't the same from back then as they are right now. This is like saying the new Star Wars movies are exactly like the old Star Wars movies, because all of the "same elements" (Jedi, Lightsabers, Stormtroopers, Luke Skywalker, Darth Vader, etc.) from the old movies are in the new movies. They're not the same, nor should they ever be considered the same.
If they were losing sight of this pattern, then quite frankly they don't even know what C/MD is, because that's precisely how the C/MD happens. In fact, since you're expressing this idea clearly means you know what C/MD is, how it happens, etc., which makes your claim of "This whole C/MD is a crock of steer manure" concept fall flat on its face, since you've directly acknowledged the pattern of C/MD.
I mean, people are really only complaining about how the C/MD creates the pattern of characters shining at certain level gaps and exposing that it's bad game design when this game is all about sharing an experience. And by your example, this sort of game design creates separation between players due to their character choices. Compared to what I said this game is all about, a mechanic that ends up separating the players' enjoyment of the experience is the exact opposite of what you want to have happen.
Just because you've been playing a certain way for 30 years doesn't mean that something new or better can't come along and revolutionize the way you play to greater heights of enjoyment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh please don't go that way. Fighters and wizards in 1ed and 2ed doesn't compare to fighters and wizards in 3.5 or PF. Trying to make that analogy just make you look bad.
This is in response to Darksol the Painbringer claiming that previous editions of the game are “some utterly unrelated game with completely different rules.” I wasn't actually comparing 1E Fighters to PF Fighters; just making the case that they are, in fact, related games.
Your group being stuck in the same gamestyle than in early editions say a lot. If that is what you guys like good for you, but newer editions are really different.
perhaps if you don't throw the "I have 30 years experience and you don't" at every turn you may realize than people complains also comes from gameplay experiences.
Yeah, we gave up mapping dungeons decades ago, along with a host of other things that have fallen by the wayside as the game has changed. But, please, continue to gaze through your crystal ball at our play style: you are so far off the mark it is like watching a car accident: I know its going to be horrible, but I just can't look away.
Except that I didn't say “and you don't.” Not even close. Read closely. I never made a single claim about anyone else's longevity in rpg's. What I did write, however, was only that I have never had a single martial player complain that they had nothing to do outside of combat. They've been engaged in the game, both in and out of combat. But that's because the DM's have created vibrant worlds that have kept all of the players entertained and engaged.the GM only cares about the fantasy world and the rules that govern it. The factor that the issue is solely with the PC means that the GM isn't responsible for the player's character choices being as intopimal as they are, and that one can't assume a GM will tailor an adventure path or campaign to suit said character choices.
“The DM only cares about the fantasy world and the rules that govern it” is actually a very outdated method of DMing. That attitude goes back to Basic and 1Ed when DM's were merely arbiters of the world and if you chose to go into a cave that was well beyond your CL, well, tough, that's just the way the cookie crumbles.
These days, it is a lot more about DMs and players collaborating about the campaign and the character's they'll play in it.I never said they were the exactly the same! You claimed that they were “some utterly unrelated game with completely different rules.” I countered that Pathfinder grew out of previous editions, therefore, they are related and some of the rules are unchanged.
For example, here's the spell description of Levitate from the SRD:
Levitate allows you to move yourself, another creature, or an object up and down as you wish. A creature must be willing to be levitated, and an object must be unattended or possessed by a willing creature. You can mentally direct the recipient to move up or down as much as 20 feet each round; doing so is a move action. You cannot move the recipient horizontally, but the recipient could clamber along the face of a cliff, for example, or push against a ceiling to move laterally (generally at half its base land speed).
A levitating creature that attacks with a melee or ranged weapon finds itself increasingly unstable; the first attack has a -1 penalty on attack rolls, the second -2, and so on, to a maximum penalty of -5. A full round spent stabilizing allows the creature to begin again at -1.
And here's the Red Box basic description of the same spell:
When this spell is cast, the magic-user may move up or down in the air without any support. This spell does not, however, allow the magic-user to move from side to side. For example, a magic-user could levitate to a ceiling, and then could move sideways by pushing and pulling. Motion up or down is at a rate of 20' per round. The spell cannot be cast on another person or object. The magic-user may carry a normal amount of weight while levitating, possible another man-sized creature if not in metal armor. Any creature smaller than man-size can be carried, unless similarly heavily laden.
As you can read from that example, some things are still the same (20' per round, no horizontal movement) and some things have changed (from self only to a target). Hopefully, you can see and admit that the rules are not, in fact, completely different.
Just because those subjects have been around since the beginning of D&D doesn't mean that they aren't the same from back then as they are right now. This is like saying the new Star Wars movies are exactly like the old Star Wars movies, because all of the "same elements" (Jedi, Lightsabers, Stormtroopers, Luke Skywalker, Darth Vader, etc.) from the old movies are in the new movies. They're not the same, nor should they ever be considered the same.
Your claim of completely different and utterly unrelated in this case would be saying that Luke's blue lightsaber in Force Awakens isn't the same blue lightsaber he lost at the end of Empire Strikes Back!
First you were “utterly unrelated” and “completely different.” Now, you're all “Well, they're not EXACTLY the same.” And I never made the claim that they were exactly the same, only that they are related and not totally different (as, clearly, Luke's lightsaber is not different).
I mean, people are really only complaining about how the C/MD creates the pattern of characters shining at certain level gaps and exposing that it's bad game design when this game is all about sharing an experience. And by your example, this sort of game design creates separation between players due to their character choices. Compared to what I said this game is all about, a mechanic that ends up separating the players' enjoyment of the experience is the exact opposite of what you want to have happen.
If you play, as this paragraph implies, player vs. player where each is trying to “win” at, what, 20th level? A group working together has martials taking the brunt at low levels, shielding skill monkies and casters until they can stand on their own. At middle levels, skill monkies can disarm those truly deadly traps, but could still use some flanking from the martial while the caster helps out with a moderately helpful spell every now and then. And, having been sheltered by her companions for over half the campaign, the caster is finally able to return the favor. But that would be a group of friends working together towards a common goal in a shared experience . . . which is what you wanted, wasn't it?
So, yeah, C/MD exists, but it is part of the game and always has been. Why don't we talk about beefing up caster's martial skills so that they can stand toe-to-toe in fight at low-levels? Do away with % Spell Failure on armor so they're aren't such a pin-cushion. Or how about we make weapon proficiencies skills so that fighters have to take ranks in each individual weapon? No one seems to mind that casters are weak at low-levels compared to other classes; I only hear the complaining at the end of the game: “My fighter isn't as powerful as the wizard!” or “that cleric is too powerful!” Casters accept that they'll be weak at low-levels because they know they'll have a pay-off (if they live) at the end. Martials accept dominating at low-levels because they might not live.
Just because you've been playing a certain way for 30 years doesn't mean that something new or better can't come along and revolutionize the way you play to greater heights of enjoyment.
Have you noticed how I have not said, “AND ALWAYS WILL BE!” I wonder why . . .
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What do you think about casters being able to make infinite minions in pathfinder?
AM NOT REALLY BIG DEAL, MOST MINIONS NOT SURVIVE TOWER COLLAPSE ANYWAYS, AND TIME AM TAKING CREATE AND CALL AND SUMMON MINIONS AM TIME BARBARIAN AM ABLE USE DO COOL STUFF LIKE MURDER OTHER CASTYS AND TAKE THEIR STUFF.
AM NOT LIKE MOOK EVER MADE DIFFERENCE IN REAL FIGHT ANYWAYS. MOOKS AM MOSTLY THERE FOR MAKING BARBARIAN LOOK COOL.
WELL, COOLER. BARBARIAN AM ALREADY LOOKING LIKE FLY TURKEY ANY GIVEN DAY OF WEEK.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What do you think about casters being able to make infinite minions in pathfinder?AM NOT REALLY BIG DEAL, MOST MINIONS NOT SURVIVE TOWER COLLAPSE ANYWAYS, AND TIME AM TAKING CREATE AND CALL AND SUMMON MINIONS AM TIME BARBARIAN AM ABLE USE DO COOL STUFF LIKE MURDER OTHER CASTYS AND TAKE THEIR STUFF.
AM NOT LIKE MOOK EVER MADE DIFFERENCE IN REAL FIGHT ANYWAYS. MOOKS AM MOSTLY THERE FOR MAKING BARBARIAN LOOK COOL.
WELL, COOLER. BARBARIAN AM ALREADY LOOKING LIKE FLY TURKEY ANY GIVEN DAY OF WEEK.
Just so Its clear I'm just coming here for the AM BARBARIAN posts at this point.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just a quick note about what the Caster/Martial disparity actually refers to:
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 (6th level magic for bards). Wizards are the most classic example of "caster", while druids, clerics, sorcerers, generally present similar issues. Each class fits into the disparity in slightly different ways, although the end result is usually similar - a lack of options.
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.
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.
EDIT: Every edition of the game has it's own balance issues. Comparisons of D&D, AD&D, 2nd Edition, 3, 3.5, and Pathfinder are only useful for getting a historical perspective on how Pathfinder ended up where it is, but not much use for analyzing where things stand within Pathfinder.
Just so Its clear I'm just coming here for the AM BARBARIAN posts at this point.
+1