| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've seen campaigns and scenarios die because parties can't handle the non-combat 'bits'. MMV.
I've enjoyed and continued to enjoy other systems, but sometimes I'm in the mood for simulationist dungeons-and-taverns fantasy with tons of free support and player familiarity. And I've also had plenty of great roleplaying experiences within that, just as much as other games.
(D&D definitely has been more combat-focused than other games, and it would be silly to expect PF2 to not be a part of that tradition, but I don't know that it makes sense to blame the war gaming legacy. Barring the 4e => 5e transition, the secular trend has been for the game to get more focused on combat over time. OD&D is a game about stealing treasure, where combat is high risk, low reward, and tactically shallow - the strategic challennge is in avoiding it. From then on you having a progressive erosion of all these qualities as you get CR guidelines, XP for combat rather than treasure, and more and more combat options. The result is that both OD&D and 4e are very tight, focused games with a very coherent vision of what they're about, while other editions are a bit more "coherent" in Forge terms - which doesn't mean worse, since they're also more flexible IMO.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Note that while I said non-combat challenges we're where I saw the biggest C/MD, I did not say it was non-existent in combat challenges.
It absolutely was.
I've seen wizards, druids, clerics, witches, and more completely invalidate fighters and monks. Not only can they do the majority of what a fighter can do, but they have all their spells on top of it. Or they can replace an entire fighter with a single spell each combat.
When I can accomplish every goal and overcome every challenge with four wizards that four fighters can do, and then go on to accomplish even more that the four fighters can't, that's a problem for me.
Just because out of combat is where the largest problems lie, doesn't mean that the problems don't also exist in combat. It's just that they're not as big of a problem. Things like the barbarian - a well designed class - help the martials overcome their issues in the combat arena.
Magic is powerful and characters without access to it will be at a disadvantage without it. I think this is pretty clear to everyone. However most of the martial classes have magical abilities and spells baked in like the Paladin, Ranger and Bloodrager. Even classes like the Fighter have full access to UMD, Item Mastery feats and consumable and permanent items that grant spell-like powers (Flight, Atmospheric protection, Energy Protection etc.).
It is largely the problem that players who choose to play Fighter-type characters lack system mastery. This is not always (but often) the case as I have played and have played with very competent martials who can easily keep up with the casters at all levels of play.
Martial-type characters also have advantages over casters including better hit points, saving throws (as they are able to more freely multiclass than casters) and most importantly consistent DPR. They are also much easier to play and maintain than caster classes.
I am not claiming that casters do not have an advantage over martials at high levels but this is somewhat balanced as low-level casters (especially Wizards and Sorcerers) do suffer in comparison to martials.
Telling a new player they have to multiclass to make their character resilient enough to magic does not strike me as a good idea.
This is not necessary. A Ranger is an amazing martial with skills, spell access and great martial prowess. It is also easy enough for a beginner to learn to play.
Also an experienced player should be much better at building and playing than a new player. There should be a considerable learning curve in order to optimise your character. If not you might as well be playing tic-tac-toe.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also an experienced player should be much better at building and playing than a new player. There should be a considerable learning curve in order to optimise your character. If not you might as well be playing tic-tac-toe.
Eh sort of. There should be interesting and powerful options accessible to new players, as well as deeper treasures to find for those who look.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Note that while I said non-combat challenges we're where I saw the biggest C/MD, I did not say it was non-existent in combat challenges.
It absolutely was.
I've seen wizards, druids, clerics, witches, and more completely invalidate fighters and monks. Not only can they do the majority of what a fighter can do, but they have all their spells on top of it. Or they can replace an entire fighter with a single spell each combat.
When I can accomplish every goal and overcome every challenge with four wizards that four fighters can do, and then go on to accomplish even more that the four fighters can't, that's a problem for me.
Just because out of combat is where the largest problems lie, doesn't mean that the problems don't also exist in combat. It's just that they're not as big of a problem. Things like the barbarian - a well designed class - help the martials overcome their issues in the combat arena.
At what level is a wizard actually casting a single spell which can replace a fighter?
Summons, other than the Summoner's Eidelon which is not a spell, are just not that powerful. Not even close.
You're building a strawman wizard who has a ton of save or lose, has invested enough so that things regularly fail all the saves, also has better than exist summons, AND has room to keep every possible utility spell memorized.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Note that while I said non-combat challenges we're where I saw the biggest C/MD, I did not say it was non-existent in combat challenges.
It absolutely was.
I've seen wizards, druids, clerics, witches, and more completely invalidate fighters and monks. Not only can they do the majority of what a fighter can do, but they have all their spells on top of it. Or they can replace an entire fighter with a single spell each combat.
When I can accomplish every goal and overcome every challenge with four wizards that four fighters can do, and then go on to accomplish even more that the four fighters can't, that's a problem for me.
Just because out of combat is where the largest problems lie, doesn't mean that the problems don't also exist in combat. It's just that they're not as big of a problem. Things like the barbarian - a well designed class - help the martials overcome their issues in the combat arena.
At what level is a wizard actually casting a single spell which can replace a fighter?
Summons, other than the Summoner's Eidelon which is not a spell, are just not that powerful. Not even close.
You're building a strawman wizard who has a ton of save or lose, has invested enough so that things regularly fail all the saves, also has better than exist summons, AND has room to keep every possible utility spell memorized.
Back when I played PF, I was able to start invalidating fighters around level 3.
Back when I played PF, I was able to start invalidating fighters around level 3.Note that while I said non-combat challenges we're where I saw the biggest C/MD, I did not say it was non-existent in combat challenges.
It absolutely was.
I've seen wizards, druids, clerics, witches, and more completely invalidate fighters and monks. Not only can they do the majority of what a fighter can do, but they have all their spells on top of it. Or they can replace an entire fighter with a single spell each combat.
When I can accomplish every goal and overcome every challenge with four wizards that four fighters can do, and then go on to accomplish even more that the four fighters can't, that's a problem for me.
Just because out of combat is where the largest problems lie, doesn't mean that the problems don't also exist in combat. It's just that they're not as big of a problem. Things like the barbarian - a well designed class - help the martials overcome their issues in the combat arena.
At what level is a wizard actually casting a single spell which can replace a fighter?
Summons, other than the Summoner's Eidelon which is not a spell, are just not that powerful. Not even close.
You're building a strawman wizard who has a ton of save or lose, has invested enough so that things regularly fail all the saves, also has better than exist summons, AND has room to keep every possible utility spell memorized.
Ok, sure. . . With what?
You're either lying, or you were playing with people who went out of their way to be the least possible they could be.
A level 3 wizard has 3 2nd level spells,and 4 1st level spells.
The 2nd level summons spell would bring something like a wolf or a small elemental for THREE rounds.
Come on, you aren't serious with this?
Back when I played PF, I was able to start invalidating fighters around level 3.Note that while I said non-combat challenges we're where I saw the biggest C/MD, I did not say it was non-existent in combat challenges.
It absolutely was.
I've seen wizards, druids, clerics, witches, and more completely invalidate fighters and monks. Not only can they do the majority of what a fighter can do, but they have all their spells on top of it. Or they can replace an entire fighter with a single spell each combat.
When I can accomplish every goal and overcome every challenge with four wizards that four fighters can do, and then go on to accomplish even more that the four fighters can't, that's a problem for me.
Just because out of combat is where the largest problems lie, doesn't mean that the problems don't also exist in combat. It's just that they're not as big of a problem. Things like the barbarian - a well designed class - help the martials overcome their issues in the combat arena.
At what level is a wizard actually casting a single spell which can replace a fighter?
Summons, other than the Summoner's Eidelon which is not a spell, are just not that powerful. Not even close.
You're building a strawman wizard who has a ton of save or lose, has invested enough so that things regularly fail all the saves, also has better than exist summons, AND has room to keep every possible utility spell memorized.
Ok, sure. . . With what?
You're either lying, or you were playing with people who went out of their way to be the least possible they could be.
A level 3 wizard has 3 2nd level spells,and 4 1st level spells.
The 2nd level summons spell would bring something like a wolf or a small elemental for THREE rounds.
Come on, you aren't serious with this?
Oh, my wizards have a lot more spells than that at third level. Scribe scroll starts at level 1, and they're cheap and quick to make.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is the typical forum MVP-
We got scrolls, we got color Spray, what next, pit spells that end combat?
None of this stuff works out in actual game play, it turns out.
It was my four wizard challenge of RotRL which proved to me that it does work out in actual gameplay.
And are you really trying to tell me that 12.5 GP and two hours of work is not something that can happen at low level play for creating first level scrolls? Every evening of downtime and 50 gp gives me four scrolls. Gold is easy to come by in APs, especially when you gather up and resell all enemy equipment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It was my four wizard challenge of RotRL which proved to me that it does work out in actual gameplay.
I guarantee you a four martial party could get through RotRL just fine, possibly easier. . .
Seriously, Adventure Paths are not tuned to be super difficult challenges.
Sure- but you don't get all of then gold? You get a share of it?
And even if you're correct, this speaks to the magic item creation rules and costs and the magic item mart concept being the problem, not the actual abilities of the wizard.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is the typical forum MVP-
We got scrolls, we got color Spray, what next, pit spells that end combat?
None of this stuff works out in actual game play, it turns out.
How do you justify this sort of statement?
I can't speak for the others but I am talking from practical at-the-table experience that pushed me to drastic houserules
So am i- house rules to nerf martial (I'm looking at you, rogue!)
In thirty years I have seen color Spray deployed to incapacitate more than a single opponent exactly once, and the Wizard had to also drop a part member to do it.
Are your experiences more valid than mine?
The things PFS has to ban and errata and nerf are invariably martial options- why is that?
It was my four wizard challenge of RotRL which proved to me that it does work out in actual gameplay.
And are you really trying to tell me that 12.5 GP and two hours of work is not something that can happen at low level play for creating first level scrolls? Every evening of downtime and 50 gp gives me four scrolls. Gold is easy to come by in APs, especially when you gather up and resell all enemy equipment.
Uh, no?
"Regardless of the time needed for construction, a caster can create no more than one magic item per day."
Every evening gives you one scroll, not four. So I hope you've got all the days to burn on crafting those scrolls.
not the actual abilities of the wizard.
Scribe Scroll is *literally* a level 1 wizard ability.
not the actual abilities of the wizard.Scribe Scroll is *literally* a level 1 wizard ability.
Sure, on a technicality.
For Wizard only, no other casters.
And see above- you can't scribe infinite scrolls per day, even with infinite money.
Also, crafting items is powerful because it effectively doubles your party gold, and short circuits all the limits on what you can find or buy,
Fortunately, this is very easy to fix by not allowing crafting, as PFS has always done.
It was my four wizard challenge of RotRL which proved to me that it does work out in actual gameplay.
And are you really trying to tell me that 12.5 GP and two hours of work is not something that can happen at low level play for creating first level scrolls? Every evening of downtime and 50 gp gives me four scrolls. Gold is easy to come by in APs, especially when you gather up and resell all enemy equipment.
Uh, no?
"Regardless of the time needed for construction, a caster can create no more than one magic item per day."
Every evening gives you one scroll, not four. So I hope you've got all the days to burn on crafting those scrolls.
That's fine. It's been years since I've played, so I'm bound to get some details wrong. That's ok. One scroll per day adds up still. Especially if there's a lot of travel time, like in Skulls & Shackles where you have months of downtime.
I likely got my four per day during my four wizards challenge, so each of them was making one per day.
And I've seen a level 17 CRB rogue put an equal level wizard to shame. Aren't anecdotes fun?Back when I played PF, I was able to start invalidating fighters around level 3.
Well the problem with the wizard is that its a class with a really horrible learning curve that eventually can decimate encounters if you know what you are doing. If you start comparing martial to classes with a lower learning curve they really quickly start flailing about.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Nathanael Love
I'm surprised you even care. Haven't you been saying vehemently for years that you'd refuse to play any hypothetical PF 2e?
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've seen campaigns and scenarios die because parties can't handle the non-combat 'bits'. MMV.
I was running the first book of Jade Regent once and almost had a TPK when the party tried to cross a river and a combination of ACP and poor rolls left the group with exactly 1 member not actively drowning. Also had a near TPK in Rise of the Runelords when a rickety bridge collapsed and only the sorcerer randomly having feather fall and surviving the fall unscathed allowed them to survive. Over the course of my time playing Pathfinder and its predecessors, I've actually seen more PCs die to exploration-based hazards like falling, lava/acid pits, traps, and improperly prepared for environmental dangers than actual monsters or NPCs, and at least two of the PC deaths I can recall that are technically attributable to monsters/NPCs involved the enemy utilizing environmental hazards in a clever way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Nathanael Love
I'm surprised you even care. Haven't you been saying vehemently for years that you'd refuse to play any hypothetical PF 2e?
Yah, I don't want another edition.
And there's no chance I'm subscribing to 5 product lines and buying 100 dollars of books every month for another edition.
But that doesn't mean I should let the ridiculous whinging of the "nerf all casters" crew to stand unchallenged as they create the straw man mega wizard who simultaneously has every spell memorized and summons creatures that outdo fighters in DPS, AND never have a creature make a save, AND consistently get their foes to squeeze into less squares so that they can get 6+ foes in a 10 ft radius or 15 ft cone every time.
because I want to play a fighter, not 'the guy who drains all the parties resources to be slightly better than a summoned creature.'Honestly, when i pick PATHFINDER 2.0 i expect magic to just as amazing as it was in 1.0. I expect mages to create demi planes, to freeze time, to teleport across planets and planes, to control minds...
This is what i expect when playing PATHFINDER.
There are systems without magic or where magic is weak and so on, i would play those if i wanted to limit to the powers of casters.
Personally, i would prefer if they didnt turn fighters into anime characters, i like them mundane, but if they need to do so, so be it.
I dont see why people have such weird issue like all classes need to be equal of similar feats for some reason.
If i want to play the mundane guy, i pick fighter..., if i want the guy who warps reality i pick the wizard... I have played both, i had fun with both. I dont bind myself to one class and expect it must be able to deliver the same experience the class by its side does.
But in the end, as long as casters remains amazing, guess i can play other systems for the mundane.
A base fighter with NO magic items is on average 3 times more powerful than the best summons.
That's just bare bones- stuff all fighters get, str, power attack, no frills.
Level 7- fighter 26.2 DPR, Hound archon (summon monster iv) 10.4
3d level- basic fighter 12.96 dpr
Summon monster 2-
Wolf 1.98
Small earth elemental 5.36
This isn't BARELY better, it's MUCH better.
And that's without ANY resources and without any optimization on the Fighter build.
Summons are underpowered, except the Eidelon.
You are vastly overeating the relevance of some low level spell like abilities on a creature that lasts for 7 actions.
Also, they don't hit things- that's the problem. They just miss all the time.
You're just simply wrong on the DPR math for both summons and polymorphs.
This isn't an opinion- show me the build and I will show you how wrong you are.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
because I want to play a fighter, not 'the guy who drains all the parties resources to be slightly better than a summoned creature.'
Sorry to say this, but if you are making fighters that are "slightly better than a summoned creature" then you are not, at all, even a little bit, optimizing your PC. The more lvls, the more you should be FAR, FAR superior. Note, im not saying you are playing wrong, play whatever way you have fun, but that is an unfair comparison.
I have seen fighters destroy, literally destroy, enemies left and right of a CR that per rule book, they should need the entire team to do. Not saying i havent watched others do the same, but it certanly wasnt with summon monster.
There is, no way, in current PF 1.0 that a well optimized fighter is "slightly better than a summoned creature" on an equal level party. Even more one at mid/higher lvls.
well gee non-casters should be grateful for having to be buffed to be relevan....?
And again, that isnt on the casters end. I have seen cavaliers charge and explode whatever was at the other end of that lance... it was literally obscene the amount of damage.
Martials dont need the casters to be relevant in combat, if you do, then again, the tools are there, you simply arent using them.
Now ofc, with buffs? Those same martials become much, much better and it is beneficial to the whole team since the wizard has an easier time too. Same goes for healing and so many other things. Different people contribute in different ways, that is way i have always played.
Again, i dont know why playing a "team" game requires all members to be equal, i never had much problem with this martial/caster issue because i never had a caster play a one man show, it was always a team that made plans and how to execute them.
Im guessing that like some have said, the problem with this disparity comes more from sitting with people you dont know all the time which focus each on themselves, which ofc, would make out of combat martials do seem quite restricted.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
For kicks and giggles, here's some... Summons vs. Fighters.
Fighter @3 with +1 greatsword, weapon focus, furious focus, power attack
+1greatsword +9 (2d6+10)
Against a CR3 foe with AC15.
DPR = 14.03
What about Fighter @4 with +1 greatsword, weapon focus, weapon specialization, furious focus, power attack
+1greatsword +10 (2d6+15)
Against a CR3 foe with AC15.
DPR = 19.36
Wizard @3 with Augment Summoning, Superior Summoning. Summoning 1d3+1 augmented celestial eagles (on average 3)
3 eagles, each with the following:
2 talons +3 (1d4+2), bite +3 (1d4+2)
Total of 9 attacks in full attack vs. CR3 foe with AC15.
DPR = 23.40
Also the eagles can fly at 80ft speed. And they last for 3 rounds (so for two rounds the wizard is getting to cast more spells while doing more damage than the fighter).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Oh, but that's only if they can full attack! Unfair comparison!" you say? (Yes, I know you didn't say it yet, but I'm sure someone will think it eventually)
How about:
Fighter @5 with +1 greatsword, STR +2 belt, weapon focus, weapon specialization, furious focus, power attack, weapon training (+1)
+1greatsword +13 (2d6+17)
Against a CR5 foe with AC18
DPR = 21.12
Wizard @5 with Augment Summoning, Superior Summoning. Summoning 1d3+1 augmented small earth elementals (on average 3)
Three small earth elementals each with earth mastery:
slam +8 (1d6+11)
Against a CR5 foe with AC18
DPR = 25.11 (or 28.59 if they use their smite evil)
Plus they have a burrow speed. And darkvision, and tremorsense, and elemental defensive traits...
To be somewhat fair about the whole "Summon vs Martial" Idea that's going around in the topic right now;
I see Summons/Minions banned fairly often for a variety of reasons. I keep looking at groups for a silly idea involving summons but I keep running into: Summoner banned, Summoning banned.
For kicks and giggles, here's some... Summons vs. Fighters.
Fighter @3 with +1 greatsword, weapon focus, furious focus, power attack
+1greatsword +9 (2d6+10)
Against a CR3 foe with AC15.
DPR = 14.03What about Fighter @4 with +1 greatsword, weapon focus, weapon specialization, furious focus, power attack
+1greatsword +10 (2d6+15)
Against a CR3 foe with AC15.
DPR = 19.36Wizard @3 with Augment Summoning, Superior Summoning. Summoning 1d3+1 augmented celestial eagles (on average 3)
3 eagles, each with the following:
2 talons +3 (1d4+2), bite +3 (1d4+2)
Total of 9 attacks in full attack vs. CR3 foe with AC15.
DPR = 23.40Also the eagles can fly at 80ft speed. And they last for 3 rounds (so for two rounds the wizard is getting to cast more spells while doing more damage than the fighter).
You gave all 3 eagles a flanking bonus. Only 2 should get it. DPR for the eagles should be 22 (21.97)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To be somewhat fair about the whole "Summon vs Martial" Idea that's going around in the topic right now;
I see Summons/Minions banned fairly often for a variety of reasons. I keep looking at groups for a silly idea involving summons but I keep running into: Summoner banned, Summoning banned.
Which is a fairly strong indicator that there is something broken there.
You gave all 3 eagles a flanking bonus. Only 2 should get it. DPR for the eagles should be 22 (21.97)
In my example none of them are benefiting from flanking. Check the included link to the augmented celestial eagle stat block.
You gave all 3 eagles a flanking bonus. Only 2 should get it. DPR for the eagles should be 22 (21.97)In my example none of them are benefiting from flanking. Check the included link to the augmented celestial eagle stat block.
You are giving them +5 to attack, why?
Which is a fairly strong indicator that there is something broken there.To be somewhat fair about the whole "Summon vs Martial" Idea that's going around in the topic right now;
I see Summons/Minions banned fairly often for a variety of reasons. I keep looking at groups for a silly idea involving summons but I keep running into: Summoner banned, Summoning banned.
While true, another way to look at it is "I don't want 1 person to have 5 rounds in a row". Even if someone summons nothing but wolves the whole game and nothing higher, that's going to be a LOT of wolves later in the game that don't do much but eat up turns.
I brought up Minions too. Summons, Leadership, Necromancy; All tend to be banned and I'm unsure if all 3 being broken is the key deciding factor in them.
I mean it might be broken but returning to the overall Caster vs Martial; I see more Banned Summon listing than Banned Caster/"I'm banning these spells".