Understood! Some clarity would be rather helpful, because I'm fairly certain everyone on Team "There is a Disparity" is talking about the actual versatility and power of the classes and thus how they perform in areas like combat, skills, and utility.
So to clarify, could those on Team "No Disparity" please agree/disagree that if we are talking about combat ability, skills, and utility that Casters overshadow martials.
|
Deafened?
Yeah, that does hurt them more. That's good. I would argue it's a lot easier to fatigue / exhaust someone than it is to deafen them, but at least something exists.
I also think fatigue and exhaustion should hurt casters as much as it hurts mundanes / martials.
I don't think feeblemind is a status. Level drain only hurts casters more than martials in that a caster gets exponentially more powerful as they increase in level, so lower levels hurt them exponentially more. :)
Grappled? Casters!? I mean ya I guess prior to level 7-9 that might be the case.
At 10/min per CL.... not 24/7, but certainly the whole time their out and about. Especially if they have a Extend Rod, or eventually a Ring of Continuation, then your looking at 140 mins - 180 mins (7-9 + extend) or just 24 hours. Also there's a Ring that just gives the effect.
Edit: TriOmegaZero - Everything can be countered the point was that casters have a means of negating the issue entirely. (Also outside of spell sunder, your looking to a caster for the counter.)
|
Edit: TriOmegaZero - Everything can be countered the point was that casters have a means of negating the issue entirely. (Also outside of spell sunder, your looking to a caster for the counter.)
Which doesn't counter the point that grappled is a very debilitating condition for a caster to suffer.
Also, Tetori.
The whole part of the day where the party is exploring the Keep on the Borderlands, yes my caster are only there for 10 minutes per level. (Less usually, I have yet to see a scenario that doesn't have rest periods (which negate the issue) that take more than 200 rounds. Seriously, count the rounds in your next adventure location, 200 rounds is a long long time.)
Edit: TriOmegaZero - The point is not that grappled is a negative condition, it is. The point is that caster have spells that let them ignore it. Like they have spells that let them ignore ranged attacks and spells that let them ignore melee attacks from non-flyer, and so and so forth.
|
|
Your casters only possess 1 level 4 spell slot?At 10/min per CL.... not 24/7, but certainly the whole time their out and about.Your casters only go out for 10 minutes per level a day?
How many slots did he say he was devoting to it?
In any event, this is getting far afield of the aforementioned point.
|
|
Edit: TriOmegaZero - The point is not that grappled is a negative condition, it is. The point is that caster have spells that let them ignore it.
No, the question was 'what status conditions debilitate casters more than martials the way fatigued and exhausted debilitate martials more than casters'. Grappled is one that does, which answers the question regardless of how easy or hard it is to apply said condition.
Edit: For reference, the actual question.
Is there a status that hurts casters with the same disparity versus its effects on martials?
That was the question correct. The point I was making is that casters have ways to prevent those conditions, while martials do not. It does not address the question, bu rather the disparity itself.
One of these things is not like the other.
Immune to Condition / Good at avoiding condition.
Rangers are half-casters and you are using a spell... so thanks for agreeing my point that spells are the way to prevent these conditions?
No Casters under Freedom of Movement ARE immune. The fact that it can be dispelled does not make them less immune. Situational? Not really, its one 4th level slot to avoid a host of effects. Lets look:
This spell enables you or a creature you touch to move and attack normally for the duration of the spell, even under the influence of magic that usually impedes movement, such as paralysis, solid fog, slow, and web. All combat maneuver checks made to grapple the target automatically fail. The subject automatically succeeds on any combat maneuver checks and Escape Artist checks made to escape a grapple or a pin.
Automatic Success! Sounds pretty immune to me.
Here's a real quick tip: Rangers cast spells (thus a half-caster). Saying someone who can cast spells has the immunity proves my point, because you are accomplishing the immunity with the casting part of the half-caster.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Saying someone who can cast spells has the immunity proves my point, because you are accomplishing the immunity with the casting part of the half-caster.
I think that's sort of an elephant in the room, really. As long as one spell >> an entire skill, the game is pretty much giving the finger to skilled characters right out of the box. And, honestly, I don't care if it's a 1/day spell vs. "all day long" skill, because how many games do you play in where you have to climb walls "all day long"?
If there were a cap on what spells could do equal to what a same-level skilled person could do, the disparity would be less. Or if spells could only augment what you could already do, rather than providing "ur skillz R obsolete!" effects to an unskilled lunk -- that would be nice.
But that's boring, so I'm more in favor of going the opposite direction. Maybe Escape Artist works as written if you have 1-6 ranks in it. At 7 ranks, it functions like freedom of movement does now. At 13 ranks, you can break free from paralysis with it. At 19 ranks, you can escape from an imprisonment or binding spell with it. This latter approach has a "rule of cool" factor going for it.
|
|
::sigh::
Oh well, thank you, TOZ. I had forgotten deafened. I think fatigued and exhausted should affect mental stats, though. I know they affect mine, anyway.
You're welcome Jess. If we decide to hit one of the Houston conventions down the road we'll be sure to let you know when we'll be in town. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think fatigued and exhausted should affect mental stats, though.
(Raises hand) They do in my game!
Saying someone who can cast spells has the immunity proves my point, because you are accomplishing the immunity with the casting part of the half-caster.I think that's sort of an elephant in the room, really. As long as one spell >> an entire skill, the game is pretty much giving the finger to skilled characters right out of the box. And, honestly, I don't care if it's a 1/day spell vs. "all day long" skill, because how many games do you play in where you have to climb walls "all day long"?
If there were a cap on what spells could do equal to what a same-level skilled person could do, the disparity would be less. Or if spells could only augment what you could already do, rather than providing "ur skillz R obsolete!" effects to an unskilled lunk -- that would be nice.
Instead of levitate, we'd have "+5 enhancement bonus to climb."
Instead of invisibility, we'd have "+5 enhancement bonus to Stealth."
Instead of knock, we'd have "+5 enhancement bonus to Disable Device."
Instead of freedom of movement, we'd have "+5 enhancement bonus to Escape Artist." But that's boring, so I'm more in favor of going the opposite direction. Maybe Escape Artist works as written if you have 1-6 ranks in it. At 7 ranks, it functions like freedom of movement does now. At 13 ranks, you can break free from paralysis with it. At 19 ranks, you can escape from an imprisonment or binding spell with it. This latter approach has a "rule of cool" factor going for it.
Ya, as I was saying in the "Ways to make martials less terrible" thread, high level skill uses should incorporate effects similar to what the Epic Level Handbook from 3.5 had. A Bluff DC of say 30 should let you project any alignment for example. Escape Artist DC of say 40 should let you slip through walls of force or other limitations. Make the Skill feats add actually effects for putting in ranks would help to.
Ya, as I was saying in the "Ways to make martials less terrible" thread, high level skill uses should incorporate effects similar to what the Epic Level Handbook from 3.5 had.
Sadly, we then get mobbed by people who insist that E6 get stretched across 20 levels, and we're back where we started. I think the bulk of the fan base actively wants the game to be as unbalanced as possible, so that "the DM can fix it" (AKA, "so that everyone has to play Story Hour like we do!").
I am not agisnt skill acompplishing great thngs, but seven rank and it give Freedom of movement? too much too early, no to mention that it kill almost all grapple builds.
This, right here, tells me that freedom of movement, even as a 5th level spell, is probably horribly under-leveled, then.
If a given effect appropriate for casters at level X, it should be appropriate for specialists in the relevant skill at level X-2. If it's not, then increase the spell level.
The problem with attaching it to skill ranks is that then high level wizards with crazy intelligence wind up getting it. Ditto bards. Neither wizards or bards need love, even unintentional love.
Instead, if you want to attach goodies to the rogue in the skill area (heavily), and fighters and barbarians (lightly), make it a class ability. Each time you gain it, you can pick N skills that you can use super cinematically if and only if you have Y skill ranks in them. N should be higher for rogues obviously.
That's a good way of doing it.
Another way would be to tie abilities to class skills only.Another would be to go back to 1/2 ranks for cross-class skills.
Another would be to make feats that scale with skill ranks, and offer them in place of the (useless) rogue talents.
ANY of these solutions can work.
The problem is that very few people here seem to want any improvement in the game; they're actively proud of how unplayable it is. ("Your DM must suck!")
I have been playing it just fine
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have been playing it just fine
And if it were fixed, you could still play it just fine.
With less effort and more fun on the part of the DM, though.
The problem with attaching it to skill ranks is that then high level wizards with crazy intelligence wind up getting it. Ditto bards. Neither wizards or bards need love, even unintentional love.
My suggestion to this in the "make martials suck less thread" is to give the appropriate classes a class feature or feat(if you must) that allows them to add their level to some/all checks that involve their highest stat. Then make epic uses of a skill dependent on a DC no character without that ability could reasonably achieve. They may only have one specialty, but in that specialty they are unmatched. Barbarians can crash through iron gates and 10 ft walls and rogues can slip through a wall of force and take no damage from falling. This would not however, provide ALL martial characters constant effect Freedom of Movement at X investment in a skill. It would have to be part of the focus of their character. Constant effect FoM is the capstone ability for acquatic sorcerers, so providing it that easily seems unfair anyway. I like the idea that it requires a DC.
i will admit that much, but the game wasn't built around minmaxed 20-25 point...
with levels fighters have 20 str by level 10. No one has thrown up a starting 20 str fighter
all the effort spent maximizing offense cuts into what you could have spent improving your defense.
a proper 10th level fighter
i think would value the following
+1 HP per level
+1 to fortitude and reflex saves
+1 to AC and Initiative
+1 to many different skills
and +1 to touch AC
over
+1 more to Attack and Damage
which is the advantage of the +2 physical perfection belt over the +4 STR belt.
you don't need a 24 Strength at 10th level when a 20 or 22 is plenty and affords you a possibly slightly better set of defenses.
Actually. I am really liking the fighter in Pathfinder. With their weapon and armor training, weapon specialization and mastery combined with a healthy dose of feats, they have finally taken a stand and become what they should have been all along. The wizard for me is over with. Sure, they are Batman with a broom but it gets boring pulling a spell out of my hat (arse) and insta solving any problem that comes my way.
I'm finding and perhaps starting to prefer classes that give you challenges where you have to think and aren't assured of easy answers. Yeah, wizards are powerful but so is the fighter and when you add up the variuos feats, weapon mastery, and skills in their various combinations a fighter ( or any character) can be versatile to. Maybe they can't fly or teleport but they can charm ( diplomacy) , become invisible(hide), and many other things besides. With the right feats and skills any character becomes Batman. Also a fighter can dish outbas Mich damage as a meteor swarm with the right feats,items, and even a well placed feint or intimidate check could make that invincible wizard standing safely in his prismatic sphere to stumble back out of it's confines and into the blade of the fighter's fury. But as long as they are fun to play when that's what you want at the time, then everything is peachy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's doubtful a Fighter can do "many things" with 2 skills per level and no synergy with Int.
Fighter has good damage and AC, and that's about it.
It's doubtful a Fighter can do "many things" with 2 skills per level and no synergy with Int.
Fighter has good damage and AC, and that's about it.
Well yeah, he isn't going to be like a rogue in that regard but he can have one skill that gives him versatility atleast. With fighters, I have to take some non warrior skill. I don't just want to be a soldier, I want a little something to add flavor like art, diplomacy, or something along those lines.
Understood! Some clarity would be rather helpful, because I'm fairly certain everyone on Team "There is a Disparity" is talking about the actual versatility and power of the classes and thus how they perform in areas like combat, skills, and utility.
So to clarify, could those on Team "No Disparity" please agree/disagree that if we are talking about combat ability, skills, and utility that Casters overshadow martials.
I certainly would. The OP appears to have left the thread, but I think it bears keeping in mind that avoiding value judgements like a blanket "best" keeps the discussion focused on the actual claims being made.
I like reading the rules forums, even though I continue to prefer playing in a nonoptimised, rules-ignorant, flavour-trumps-effectiveness way. I don't jump into every thread where someone labels a character choice "dumb" or worse than another. This thread was all about communication between two schools of thought though, not really about the rules. Hence I didn't consider my point a tangent.
As another (hopefully illustrative) example: The only two weapon fighter I ever built used daggers. I wouldn't object to anyone telling me he did less damage, didn't deal with DR well, was unlikely to find decent magic weapons (or whatever they would have an issue with). Telling me he's worse than some other fighter is essentially telling me I'm playing the game wrong. That runs the risk of me getting defensive or annoyed, even though I may not disagree with the other persons actual position.
Great! Hopefully more people can agree that when it comes to combat/utility/skills casters overshadow martials and than we'll all be on the same page.
(Going to borrow your post as an example Steve Geddes even though I know you are on the same page.)
We're not saying that TWFing Dagger Fighter is worse choice for you personally. That's super subjective and impossible to agree on since "best" for any person is inherently individual. When we say better, we're talking about better at objective things like combat/skills/utility that are consistent regardless who is playing it. All we're saying that a TWFing Dagger Fighter is worse at combat/skills/utility. Does that make your choice worse? In terms of those things absolutely, which is all we're saying. We are not trying to say you can't play a TWFing Dagger Fighter or shouldn't, merely point out that there is a disparity in combat/skills/utility. The reason most of us are pointing out these disparities is in the hopes they will be corrected so that in addition to being the best choice for you, a TWFing Dagger Fighter will be balanced when it comes to combat/skills/utility.
i will admit that much, but the game wasn't built around minmaxed 20-25 point...
with levels fighters have 20 str by level 10. No one has thrown up a starting 20 str fighter
all the effort spent maximizing offense cuts into what you could have spent improving your defense.
a proper 10th level fighter
i think would value the following
+1 HP per level
+1 to fortitude and reflex saves
+1 to AC and Initiative
+1 to many different skills
and +1 to touch AC
over
+1 more to Attack and Damage
which is the advantage of the +2 physical perfection belt over the +4 STR belt.
you don't need a 24 Strength at 10th level when a 20 or 22 is plenty and affords you a possibly slightly better set of defenses.
Or save money by grabbing 3 items.
Are you really arguing that a plus 4 strength item is unreasonable for level 10?
I feel like you are grasping at straws now. Fighters require less than brain-dead amounts of effort to have the highest dpr in the game.
Great! Hopefully more people can agree that when it comes to combat/utility/skills casters overshadow martials and than we'll all be on the same page.
I would agree, but then we would both be wrong.
So to clarify your position, Marthkus you disagree that casters overshadow martials at combat/utility/skills? If so there's plenty of people that can demonstrate casters win hands down on all of those things.
So to clarify your position, Marthkus you disagree that casters overshadow martials at combat/utility/skills? If so there's plenty of people that can demonstrate casters win hands down on all of those things.
In single event actions sure, but in a real game resources are not wasted when the person with infinite uses can do the job. Potential action is not the same thing as actual action.
If your assertion was true an all fullcaster party would play better than a Fighter/Rogue/Wizard/Cleric aka balanced party. This is just simply not true.
Are you really arguing that a plus 4 strength item is unreasonable for level 10?he said that is reasonable but not hte best choise. he said that a +4 belt of str is a worst option than a +2 belt of Str, Con and Dex.
I have more the 16k gold...
It's more efficient for me to buy 3 stat items than 1 stat item. +4 strength is a priority for the same reason casters go after the mental headbands.
I really don't think it's untrue, or at the very least it wouldn't be much worse.
A party with a Druid, Cleric, Wizard, and Sorcerer/Witch/Oracle/Whatever could do very well.
The thing is, both Druids and Clerics make solid front line combatants. Not as a good as a Fighter, no (though once Wild Shape comes online a Druid can be a force to be reckoned with, I'd say it at least RIVALS a Fighter's damage output, plus Reach and Pounce in many cases), but passable.
And on top of that passable melee ability comes the power of full spellcasting for buffs and utility, and a Wizard/Sorcerer really needs no introduction as to what they can do.