The Martial's Edition ?


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

101 to 119 of 119 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Deadmanwalking wrote:
as well as, IMO, in lack of non-combat features (not that most people have too many).

That's the point though. Lack of non-combat features is no longer really a compelling issue, because for the most part classes are on the same level (except rogues). It's not like Barbarians have double the number of skills that Fighters do anymore, but a well built fighter still clowns on a Giant barbarian even despite that and their relative -3 to AC.

Quote:
Eh. Everyone can do Skill stuff pretty well, and as others note there aren't a lot of weird Feat chains to make Rogues artificially valuable.

Not feats, no, but the entire skill system is built along those lines. Skill increases are a rare and valuable commodity that are by design very difficult to gain and skill proficiency is now a gating mechanic for certain features (and feats) tied to skills. It's not like PF1 where +1 to your int modifier essentially gives you full access to a skill, trained only doesn't cut it anymore. There's no longer a gradient either, you either have normal skill progression or you're a rogue. That all plays into the rogue's niche of 'owning' the skill system.

It's also problematic because it's asymmetrical. The rogue isn't noticeably worse at anything in exchange for being twice as good as anyone else at skills.

Liberty's Edge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
That's the point though. Lack of non-combat features is no longer really a compelling issue, because for the most part classes are on the same level (except rogues). It's not like Barbarians have double the number of skills that Fighters do anymore, but a well built fighter still clowns on a Giant barbarian even despite that and their relative -3 to AC.

I made several points, of which this is by far the most subjective and least important. I honestly almost left it out entirely. Even in pure combat terms, Fighter is far from overpowering compared to other martials.

Squiggit wrote:
Not feats, no, but the entire skill system is built along those lines. Skill increases are a rare and valuable commodity that are by design very difficult to gain and skill proficiency is now a gating mechanic for certain features (and feats) tied to skills. It's not like PF1 where +1 to your int modifier essentially gives you full access to a skill, trained only doesn't cut it anymore.

Sure, and having extra Skill ranks is a great perk for Rogues, but you can hit absolute mastery in three Skills without being a Rogue, too. That's honestly enough for most characters needs, especially with Perception (and thus Sense Motive) no longer a Skill.

Squiggit wrote:
There's no longer a gradient either, you either have normal skill progression or you're a rogue. That all plays into the rogue's niche of 'owning' the skill system.

You can easily create Classes that have Skill progression between 'normal' and Rogue. I expect Investigator to have that, for example. One of several reasons I think we need to wait for Investigator to see whether Rogue has this problem.

Squiggit wrote:
It's also problematic because it's asymmetrical. The rogue isn't noticeably worse at anything in exchange for being twice as good as anyone else at skills.

This is not true. Rogues are notably more fragile than any other martial, and unlike other martials their offense is conditional. It's debatable that the gain in skills is better than the price they pay, but they certainly pay a price for it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The rogue has something more like early access to the skill system. They can get things like the glad-hand/group impression/diplomacy assurance thing running early and having dex doing double duty they have more stat flexibility. Rather than comparing class to class as an internal thing, it's better to look at the chassis provided compared to what you grab from dedication archetypes. Martials have pretty solid chassis and little to gain through dedication feats, while casters have pretty flimsy chassis with lots to gain by taking their respective dedication archetypes.

Doing the old PF1 comparison looking at what you get from a class, rather than focusing on when, won't really do you much good. With sorcerer and wizard dedication you're delaying spells, and losing access to feats that aren't all that useful. With cleric you're losing a bunch of free max level spells, with druid you're delaying some useful feats, and potentially max level spells, but with martials you're losing most of their kit. This means when I sit down to make a caster, I find myself looking at which martial class to start as with the intent of making up for lost casting with the already more flexible scroll use. Going rogue>wizard or fighter>wizard gives me something more reliable than going the other way around. Going straight wizard means you're leaving something on the table.

I honestly don't have a problem with this, I prefer to play hybrid types anyway, but I do feel like the complain that casters are tacked-on has merit.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

It's the casters are finally bought in line edition.

Dark Archive

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Martialmasters wrote:
It's the casters are finally bought in line edition.

I'll amend that slightly. It's the "casters were once too easy to make extremely powerful, and so we've created a system wherein they're now sub-par, and we absolutely love that, because after the entirety of first edition we're okay with seeing them weak, and anybody who isn't okay with it is merely upset that they're not as strong as they were in first edition" edition.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:

Nobody here is arguing casters are the best class ever. Their Proficiencies in weapons, armor, Perception, and saves lag in general behind martials, as does their single target and at-will damage. Martials are sincerely better at some things than casters are this edition and should be.

But only some things. Casters are much better at buffs, debuffs, utility effects, dealing with large numbers of opponents, and nova-ing with their limited resources. And likewise, this is as it should be.

I strongly (and respectfully) disagree, sir. If you insist on cleaving to a martial/spellcaster line, then I'll phrase my argument in those terms:

There should be means for creating any combination of focus(?) and role. That is, there should be martial single-target damage dealers, martial AoE damage dealers, martial (de)buffers, martial controllers, etc, spellcaster single-target damage dealers, spellcaster AoE damage dealers, spellcaster (de)buffers, spellcaster controllers, etc.

True parity would allow for all of those things -- and that's what we're after, right? Parity?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm with perception check, at least on their second point. Saying that damage dealing spellcasters or buffing support martials are things that 'shouldn't' exist as a matter of course seems limiting for no real reason.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Sure, and having extra Skill ranks is a great perk for Rogues, but you can hit absolute mastery in three Skills without being a Rogue, too. That's honestly enough for most characters needs, especially with Perception (and thus Sense Motive) no longer a Skill.

Just to quickly look back at this. Enough is a really subjective measurement. It's fine if you're good with it, but I think it's really problematic when the system is so inflexible that players no longer have the ability to adjust one way or other if they want more.

Instead of you having 'enough' for your build and me being able to spend resources to get 'enough' for my build, we're stuck with one option that everyone has to deal with. PF1, for all its problems, at least gave you ways to try to fix the skill issue if you wanted.

There are also classes who have features that expect specific skills and so they end up feeling like they have even less flexibility and choice in their builds.

Quote:
You can easily create Classes that have Skill progression between 'normal' and Rogue. I expect Investigator to have that, for example. One of several reasons I think we need to wait for Investigator to see whether Rogue has this problem.

Which is fine... if you want to play that particular new class.

But making Investigators as good at skills as Rogues doesn't make Alchemists or Rangers feel any less like they're floudering (especially contrasted with PF1 where both classes were excellent skill monkeys).


5 people marked this as a favorite.
perception check wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:

Nobody here is arguing casters are the best class ever. Their Proficiencies in weapons, armor, Perception, and saves lag in general behind martials, as does their single target and at-will damage. Martials are sincerely better at some things than casters are this edition and should be.

But only some things. Casters are much better at buffs, debuffs, utility effects, dealing with large numbers of opponents, and nova-ing with their limited resources. And likewise, this is as it should be.

I strongly (and respectfully) disagree, sir. If you insist on cleaving to a martial/spellcaster line, then I'll phrase my argument in those terms:

There should be means for creating any combination of focus(?) and role. That is, there should be martial single-target damage dealers, martial AoE damage dealers, martial (de)buffers, martial controllers, etc, spellcaster single-target damage dealers, spellcaster AoE damage dealers, spellcaster (de)buffers, spellcaster controllers, etc.

True parity would allow for all of those things -- and that's what we're after, right? Parity?

Your list covered roles in combat, but there's more to the game.

Some casters can, for example, teleport. With a single spell, or perhaps 2 or 3 to cover scrying, such a caster can fill a role of travel expert (master? Legend?). A martial devoting their entire build to transporting themselves, their party and other cargo from A to B will probably fall far short of a caster devoting a fraction of theirs in speed, in safety, in capacity and almost any other metric.

Yes, rarity exists, I am aware.

Martials tend to struggle to match such versatility with the options printed, even if all rarities are allowed. There is actually nothing stopping e.g. a skill feat being printed that lets a martial gather up all their friends and a barn's worth of items on their shoulders before Superman leaping to the next nation or island or planet in seconds. It could be written and given the same level as the spell it counterparts; it could be given finite uses a day much like P1E's stunning fist, as a limitation. There are tabletop RPG games where this kind of content is created. Thus far, P2E has some traces of it, but nothing near parity. A martial desiring such a role must often look to one or more magic items to enable them, ones a caster could use as well as them, if not better.

This is not some impassable barrier. Paizo's developers don't fail to publish such content because it is as far beyond their reach as a cure for cancer or time travel. They judge the flavour of such content not to suit their audience, at least not enough to have published it yet, time will tell. Are they right? Hard to say. Marketing is a form of gambling.

As things stand in the present, magic is allowed to do anything. That's the thematic identity of magic, the incredible happening despite all rationality. That doesn't mean that magic users should be able to do anything, no more than a fire user should be able to create a new sun at full scale because "The sun is made of fire".

The scale of magic use is limited, but the scope of it?

Magic doesn't have to make sense. Why do the abilities I develop to hurl lightning from my hands allow me to slip smoothly into raising the dead from the earth, then creating an illusion of sound, then enthralling an autonomous sentient mind, then peering into the futures probable, then calling an Angel from Heaven, then sealing a complex mechanical lock, then turning myself into a bear? It's like spending years training up to pilot a commercial passenger aircraft, taking a summer to be a defence attorney at the same level, and then settling into heart surgery.

Martials are expected to make sense. A caster can squeeze every spell on their list out of the same mental ability, but a martial that has swung axes mightily all along wants to use a bow? Um, excuse me, that requires Dexterity. You can't just flex the arrows to the target, now please take your turn properly so that the pyromancer can Charisma someone invisible with the spell they learned last week.

We end up with this dynamic, casters having a greater variety of things they can do because magic. It is not inevitable mind you, but so long as feats have feat chains, while the requirement to learn and cast Meteor Swarm is "Be a high enough Arcane or Primal caster", instead of that plus know Fireball and some other spells that build up to Meteor Swarm... This is where we find ourselves.

By theme and by system design, casters dominate in range of options. The given solution, rather than abolish this difference, parity is sought by granting martials, in exchange, greater ability in the things they can do. That is why, primarily, the strength of martials comes from better numbers. More hit points, higher proficiency bonuses, more attacks by efficient action economy. In P2E a fighter's level 19 capstone is still some extra +2s. A wizard's is currently a choice of Cataclysm, Gate, Remake, Time Stop or Wish, and some extra +2s.

Despite this, people feel fighter is kinda OP and wizard kinda weak.

I won't call that view mistaken. What I will say instead is, for a game still publishing content, that's a good place to be.

It's much easier to predict the impact of simple maths boosters like proficiency than irregular processes like spells. It's also much easier to bolster a class that relies on underperforming options by publishing new options than it is to unpublish overperforming options that make a class too powerful. Classes based on numbers having better balance out of the gate, while classes based on options are on the weak side, is a predicable launch state, and has a fairly easy road to addressing the latter. 5 years from now, fighters will likely hit barely if any harder than they do today, because how much more are they going to be able to eke out on top of Legendary with most weapons? Casters on the other hand will have vastly more options, and will effectively be stronger simply because it will be possible to cut more fat and get closer to what you want with the greater selection. There will likely be an option, I hope a few, to specialise casters in single target damage, once Paizo find a way to balance "And I can teleport as well". Else it's no parity at all.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
perception check wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:

Nobody here is arguing casters are the best class ever. Their Proficiencies in weapons, armor, Perception, and saves lag in general behind martials, as does their single target and at-will damage. Martials are sincerely better at some things than casters are this edition and should be.

But only some things. Casters are much better at buffs, debuffs, utility effects, dealing with large numbers of opponents, and nova-ing with their limited resources. And likewise, this is as it should be.

I strongly (and respectfully) disagree, sir. If you insist on cleaving to a martial/spellcaster line, then I'll phrase my argument in those terms:

There should be means for creating any combination of focus(?) and role. That is, there should be martial single-target damage dealers, martial AoE damage dealers, martial (de)buffers, martial controllers, etc, spellcaster single-target damage dealers, spellcaster AoE damage dealers, spellcaster (de)buffers, spellcaster controllers, etc.

True parity would allow for all of those things -- and that's what we're after, right? Parity?

In addition to what Artificial 20 says about out-of-combat ability, are we also assuming the martial character can spend money and then the next day change from being awesome at battlefield control to being awesome at single-target damage? Because the wizard can fill their spellbook out like that, and clerics or druids don't even need to do that (sorcerors, of course, are pretty much screwed).

Though I do admit to being very interested in what you propose the martials should be doing that's as useful as Wall of Stone, to give one example.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gaterie wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
That's a 95% chance of Slowed without the Incapacitate tag at level 3, and Common. If you fail the Save, it's Slowed for a full minute. That's so much better than Fighter debuffs it's not even funny. As a 6th level spell, it can effect up to 10 targets. That's just silly good.

That's wrong and you know it. That's pure theorycrafting.

You would be right if fights were usually 10-rounds-long - but it's not the case and you know it.

In a non-infinite-duration fight, assuming the creature fails the save, after one round it's worse than useless (you lose 2 actions, the creature loses 1), after two round it's useless (you and the creature lose 2 actions), it become slightly useful at round 3 (depending on how much you value "pay 2 actions right now - and a slot etc - so that the enemy will pay more action in the course of 3 rounds).

Now, you have to factor the chance the creature succeed its save.

And, more importantly, factor the fact the third action is the least useful action in a round (due to MAP, non-repeatable action, two-actions activities like spell, etc : most creature do the same damages with 2 or 3 actions). Maybe slow is useful if it's coupled with a tripping fighter - costing two action every round to the enemy - , and maybe it is the key to achieve a three-action lock. But all by itself, slow is worthless.

And once again, concerning level 6 spell, I'll think about a reroll when I'll play a campaign reaching level 15, lol.

That's only true if you and the enemy team have the same number of units. If it's four players vs one enemy, then sacrificing 2 of your actions for one of the enemies', is a net advantage to your team.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

"Your damage can't be good because you can also teleport" is a pretty terrible thing to tell someone who wants to play a damage dealing spellcaster though.

There's a balance argument there, sure, but it's pretty awful to be told that you have to suck at something because hypothetically you might be able to do something completely different that's also good.

Especially since teleportation is something the GM has to opt in to letting the party have in the first place.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:

"Your damage can't be good because you can also teleport" is a pretty terrible thing to tell someone who wants to play a damage dealing spellcaster though.

There's a balance argument there, sure, but it's pretty awful to be told that you have to suck at something because hypothetically you might be able to do something completely different that's also good.

Especially since teleportation is something the GM has to opt in to letting the party have in the first place.

Don't latch too heavily to examples. Even in the realm of damage dealing, a magic user has a ton more versatility through the range of spells available,and the martial makes up for it by doing their narrow thing better.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.

In a party, damage dealing isn't everything.

In PF1, my Witch didn't cause a single hit point of direct damage until level 8 (eventually cast a lightning bolt, to be fair the baddies were in single file down a corridor, it would be rude not to). You on this board know that that did not make my Witch useless,you'll rightly suspect that she was vital to the party and shortened most battles by at least a round.

In PF2, I intend to play a Bard, and as a fan of support, i'm not sure I care about direct damage. A Bard can cast twice a round, buff and debuff. I'd be delighted if he never has to draw his rapier. Damage is what the Fighter and Rogue are in melee for. You won't see them complain about a pure support caster in the party. And that support Bard can go all day without proper spells. Focus points can be regained by writing a diary or admiring the nearest tree.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluenose wrote:
perception check wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:

Nobody here is arguing casters are the best class ever. Their Proficiencies in weapons, armor, Perception, and saves lag in general behind martials, as does their single target and at-will damage. Martials are sincerely better at some things than casters are this edition and should be.

But only some things. Casters are much better at buffs, debuffs, utility effects, dealing with large numbers of opponents, and nova-ing with their limited resources. And likewise, this is as it should be.

I strongly (and respectfully) disagree, sir. If you insist on cleaving to a martial/spellcaster line, then I'll phrase my argument in those terms:

There should be means for creating any combination of focus(?) and role. That is, there should be martial single-target damage dealers, martial AoE damage dealers, martial (de)buffers, martial controllers, etc, spellcaster single-target damage dealers, spellcaster AoE damage dealers, spellcaster (de)buffers, spellcaster controllers, etc.

True parity would allow for all of those things -- and that's what we're after, right? Parity?

In addition to what Artificial 20 says about out-of-combat ability, are we also assuming the martial character can spend money and then the next day change from being awesome at battlefield control to being awesome at single-target damage? Because the wizard can fill their spellbook out like that, and clerics or druids don't even need to do that (sorcerors, of course, are pretty much screwed).

While I was speaking in the normative sense (as opposed to the positive), I'm not clear on whether you're addressing current mechanics or if -- like me -- you're describing how things could theoretically be (and, in my case, how things should be). As such, I'll speak to both.

As it stands, martial characters cannot "spend money and then the next day change from being awesome at battlefield control to being awesome at single-target damage". As it stands, nor can spellcasters. If you were implying that spellcasters currently do have that ability, I'll suggest it's far more accurate to say spellcasters can be somewhat effective at battlefield control and then, the next day, change to being somewhat effective at single-target damage -- and for only a few rounds a day, at that.

If, instead, you're responding to the ideal I'd painted, then no, I don't think martials should be able to "spend money and then the next day change from being awesome at battlefield control to being awesome at single-target damage". And no, nor should spellcasters. I'll point to an earlier model for guidance (being careful to not advocate direct imitation); specifically, in first edition a PC had to commit feats and class options to be "awesome" at, say, battlefield control or single-target damage. Spell focus feats had to be taken, for instance, for a spellcaster to be "awesome" at a chosen role. That chosen focus did not change daily. That focus doesn't even exist in 2E.

Having merely prepared "slow" wasn't enough to make a wizard "awesome" at battlefield control in first edition, and it sure as hell isn't enough to make a wizard "awesome" at battlefield control in second edition, despite the rhetoric you encounter on these here forums.

Bluenose wrote:
Though I do admit to being very interested in what you propose the martials should be doing that's as useful as Wall of Stone, to give one example.

Once again, are you asking in terms of current material, or are you responding to the description of my ideal? I'll address both.

Ideally, martials would have their own means of effectively controlling the battlefield (they actually had options therefor in first edition). Off the top of my head, I picture a first-edition-esque focus enabling something like Reinhardt's Earthshatter ability a la Overwatch -- tripping enemies in a cone, perhaps, or immobilizing them. To be clear, when I suggest that martials and spellcasters alike should be able to fill the various combat roles, I'm not suggesting there should be a martial analog to, say, every control spell and vice versa. I'm suggesting each should be able to fill those roles in its own way(s).

If, instead, you're addressing current material, then Wall of Stone is situational -- powerful, yes, but ultimately situational. Damage is not situational. Damage is the meta. Martials have something to do that's far more useful than Wall of Stone.

Liberty's Edge

10 people marked this as a favorite.
perception check wrote:
I strongly (and respectfully) disagree, sir. If you insist on cleaving to a martial/spellcaster line, then I'll phrase my argument in those terms:

Sure.

perception check wrote:
There should be means for creating any combination of focus(?) and role. That is, there should be martial single-target damage dealers, martial AoE damage dealers, martial (de)buffers, martial controllers, etc, spellcaster single-target damage dealers, spellcaster AoE damage dealers, spellcaster (de)buffers, spellcaster controllers, etc.

Why? There's a clear and very real preference on the part of a large portion of the player base for spell casters and martials to play differently. That comes with an inherent tendency to be better at some things rather than others, comparatively.

That's not the only way to design the divide between magic and nonmagical characters, but I assure you that if they can both do everything equally well they do, in fact, generally wind up feeling kind of the same. Which is fine, but doesn't seem to be what PF2 is aiming for.

perception check wrote:
True parity would allow for all of those things -- and that's what we're after, right? Parity?

Is it? What we're after is for them to be equally useful, not necessarily absolutely identical in their capabilities in all ways. That's what 4E did, and we saw there what some of the pitfalls of trying that can be.

Squiggit wrote:
I'm with perception check, at least on their second point. Saying that damage dealing spellcasters or buffing support martials are things that 'shouldn't' exist as a matter of course seems limiting for no real reason.

It's not that they shouldn't exist, it's that they need to work exceedingly differently or they wind up feeling the same in play. And, frankly, making things work differently will result in some comparisons

Squiggit wrote:
Just to quickly look back at this. Enough is a really subjective measurement. It's fine if you're good with it, but I think it's really problematic when the system is so inflexible that players no longer have the ability to adjust one way or other if they want more.

But you can, at least a bit. There are a variety of Archetypes increasing Skills and I expect we'll see more before we're done.

Squiggit wrote:
Instead of you having 'enough' for your build and me being able to spend resources to get 'enough' for my build, we're stuck with one option that everyone has to deal with. PF1, for all its problems, at least gave you ways to try to fix the skill issue if you wanted.

In the corebook? Not very effective ones. You eventually got better ones...but we seem to be getting those as time progresses in PF2 as well.

Squiggit wrote:
There are also classes who have features that expect specific skills and so they end up feeling like they have even less flexibility and choice in their builds.

Like what? I mean, I'm not sure any Class really requires this. I mean, even Alchemist doesn't actually require any Proficiency above Trained. Some sort of expect it, and a few have a build that rewards it (Bards and Performance...I'm sure there's at least one more) but I'm not thinking of any Class that actually requires it.

Squiggit wrote:

Which is fine... if you want to play that particular new class.

But making Investigators as good at skills as Rogues doesn't make Alchemists or Rangers feel any less like they're floudering (especially contrasted with PF1 where both classes were excellent skill monkeys).

Alchemists are probably as good as they ever were, honestly. Mutagens are a very good Skill buff. Rangers are less skill focused now, but they're more combat focused so that's a change in one Class, not really how the system works.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
It's not that they shouldn't exist, it's that they need to work exceedingly differently or they wind up feeling the same in play. And, frankly, making things work differently will result in some comparisons

I meant to finish this with 'favoring one over the other in specific areas'. It got left off somehow. My bad.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Alchemists are probably as good as they ever were, honestly.

To be clear here, I mean specifically in regards to Skills. Alchemist has serious issues, just not with Skills.

Paizo Employee Customer Service Representative

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Removed a post an its replay. Please be respectful of other community members and disagree without personally attacking each other.

101 to 119 of 119 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / The Martial's Edition ? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in General Discussion