Paizo sets Benchmark for most horrible feat ever

[Psyren]

At 10th level, a Wizard with 24 INT (starting 18, +2 from levels, +4 item) has 28 spells per day memorised, on top of any scrolls or wands they have handy. If you're using the 4-ish encounters per day, that's about 7 spells per battle.

10th-level is, I feel, a reasonable point at which casters can take the fore. Perhaps even as early as 7. That doesn't mean that mundanes aren't still contributing, of course, it just means that the casters will have no real reason to rely on crossbows/reserve feats/school powers etc. past that point.

As the party climbs though, I would expect not just harder encounters, but less opportunities to recover - more time-sensitive missions, more ambushes on the camp during the night, more trips into hostile territory etc. So "spells/day" becomes less of a given and having 28 would not necessarily mean being able to frivolously expend them on every encounter.

Above to Firechanter as well.

[Big Fau]

10th-level is, I feel, a reasonable point at which casters can take the fore. Perhaps even as early as 7. That doesn't mean that mundanes aren't still contributing, of course, it just means that the casters will have no real reason to rely on crossbows/reserve feats/school powers etc. past that point.

As the party climbs though, I would expect not just harder encounters, but less opportunities to recover - more time-sensitive missions, more ambushes on the camp during the night, more trips into hostile territory etc. So "spells/day" becomes less of a given and having 28 would not necessarily mean being able to frivolously expend them on every encounter.

Above to Firechanter as well.

Except your scenarios about casters not being able to rest are not realistic. MMM exists, and even a simple Rope Trick can provide a night+morning's worth of safety. Time-sensitive missions are about the only thing you can do, and casters can trivialize them via Teleportation. Hell, they can outpace plots via that Mass Mount spell (which nearly doubles daily overland movement) or Phantom Steed castings (which does far more).

[The Fury]

And I thought Shield Wall was a ridiculous feat, (one that in theory provides a small benefit, in practice it does nothing.)

With all that said, Pathfinder actually has decent feats and seems like a perfectly playable system to me. As others have already mentioned, Dodge works a bit better than it did in 3.0/3.5, providing a flat AC bonus where in 3e the bonus needed to be assigned against one opponent in particular.

[Psyren]

Time-sensitive missions are about the only thing you can do, and casters can trivialize them via Teleportation.

Teleportation is itself trivial to shut out, never mind the problems of trying to get somewhere you've never seen before prior to 13 or so.


Hell, they can outpace plots via that Mass Mount spell (which nearly doubles daily overland movement) or Phantom Steed castings (which does far more).

Neither of those are much help in a dungeon though. Nothing says the timer has to start while you're in town after all.

And honestly, if the players are capable of such super-speed overland travel, build that into the timer. Make them need tools like that. You're the architect of the world and the plot after all.

[Big Fau]

Teleportation is itself trivial to shut out, never mind the problems of trying to get somewhere you've never seen before prior to 13 or so.

Neither of those are much help in a dungeon though. Nothing says the timer has to start while you're in town after all.

And honestly, if the players are capable of such super-speed overland travel, build that into the timer. Make them need tools like that. You're the architect of the world and the plot after all.

And here's where the slope begins. Slowly, over the course of the campaign, the game becomes about "How does this story deal with spellcasters" instead of "How does this story play out". This is the problem with casters, and it's one that Pathfinder did not fix: Casters over-centralize the plot in a negative manner, even when properly checked by the DM.

This game is also about interactive fiction, not just mechanics, yet spellcasters can remove the "interactive" part from the noncasters' perspectives.

[Psyren]

In any high-magic world, "how do we deal with the casters" is always an issue. Wheel of Time had to do it. Harry Potter had to do it. Earthsea had to do it. Midkemia had to do it. Why is it so weird that D&D worlds have to do it too?

If I get to become a powerful spellcaster, I expect the plot to take my abilities into account - for the simple reason that most high-level threats are powerful spellcasters too. I just fail to see the issue at all. If I wanted to play in a world where magic barely matters I'd be in Middle-Earth or Westeros.

[ArqArturo]

And here's where the slope begins. Slowly, over the course of the campaign, the game becomes about "How does this story deal with spellcasters" instead of "How does this story play out". This is the problem with casters, and it's one that Pathfinder did not fix: Casters over-centralize the plot in a negative manner, even when properly checked by the DM.

This game is also about interactive fiction, not just mechanics, yet spellcasters can remove the "interactive" part from the noncasters' perspectives.

In Deadlands: Hell on Earth, a syker can learn a trick that removes the ribcage. This can be picked on character creation.

Every game that deals with spellcasters/psionics has power creep, in one way or another. Even Call of Cthulhu -the one game that you will die, no matter what- has power creep with spells.

[Drelua]

I've always hated the argument that casters are supposed to be more powerful. Since this is a game we're talking about, the most important concern is what's the most fun for the most people, and I would say that is a reasonably well-balanced system, because it's no fun when you're clever rogue is completely useless, and you're powerful wizard won't be less fun to play if other people contribute equally. This is equally true at level 1 and level 20.

I agree that magic should be powerful, but it also shouldn't be easy. Being a fighter or a rogue is mostly about controlling your own body, while being a caster is either about manipulating cosmic forces by wiggling your fingers and saying a few magic words or channeling the raw divine power of your god through sheer willpower. Tell me, which of these sounds easier to you? :smallamused:

So why would I spend years mastering arcane powers when I could just 'bum around in a bad neighborhood' to reach the same level of power in a fraction of the time? Because the sort of bumming around that gives you levels in rogue has a pretty good chance of killing you. Sure, magic is powerful, but it's also complex and abstract, making it a damn sight harder to master than sticking a knife in a guy.

I mean, in a typical fight with a typical party where everything goes according to plan, the wizard stands back and wiggles his fingers while the rogue and the fighter get right up in the enemies face and probably take a couple hits. I'd say the wizard won't be learning as much from that as the guys who stared death in the face. So while the wizard is wielding forces much more powerful than a sword or a dagger, they're also far more difficult to control. Basically, my view of it is that a level of wizard represents much less skill than a level of rogue because magic is so much harder to learn than stabbing, and is generally used in a way that doesn't teach you nearly as much. Or at least, that would be the case in a balanced system.

I'm not trying to change anyone's mind here, that tends to be a very difficult thing to do, I'm just explaining how I see things in the hope of demonstrating that no one opinion is the only right one, especially since it is never stated to be the intent of 3.5 or Pathfinder that casters ever be more powerful. There will always be other, equally valid opinions that make just as much sense. You may not agree with my opinion, but I challenge anyone to come up with a reason why it doesn't make just as much sense as any other.

[Boci]

In any high-magic world, "how do we deal with the casters" is always an issue. Wheel of Time had to do it. Harry Potter had to do it. Earthsea had to do it. Midkemia had to do it. Why is it so weird that D&D worlds have to do it too?

I'm not too sure those are appropriate examples. Can't comment on wheel of time, but Harry Potter didn't really have to deal with it, because everyone was a spellcaster. Earthsea relied on the fact that being useless next to a mage is an interesting thing to explore, and experimented with taking away a mage's power, neither of which translate too well into a heroic fantasy RPG, or at least the one like D&D, and Midkemia either gave the martial character a 1 off incredibly magical boost to their abilities, or put up a wall between the mages and not mages.

[Big Fau]

Why is it so weird that D&D worlds have to do it too?


Of all classes, fighters have the best all-around
fighting capabilities (hence the name).


That's why. We all know that this one line isn't even remotely true. This game tries to make noncasters and spellcasters coexist, but ignores the fact that casters overshadow everyone who isn't in that category. Polymorph, Divine Power, Wild Shape, and so on are all just one way casters establish that the above statement is false. With Harry Potter it is abundantly clear that muggles are useless very early on. D&D 3.P doesn't put that out there in any way, and actually expects a Fighter to be a credible threat to a Great Wyrm.

And then Pathfinder went and nerfed noncasters. Yes, casters took a hit, but it was nowhere near the same level as what happened to noncasters. Entire combat styles have been crippled, or at least reduced in efficacy until the mid-levels when spellcasters actually take over.

This game is about casters, but the developers want us to believe that the noncasters have a reason to exist past 7th level.

[Boci]

That's why.

But that's from 3.5, not PF. Or has this conversation moved on to "the relationship of martial and magical classes in 3.P"?

[Big Fau]

But that's from 3.5, not PF. Or has this conversation moved on to "the relationship of martial and magical classes in 3.P"?

It has been for a while, albeit unintentionally.

I don't own any actual PF books, so I can't check to see if Paizo uses similar descriptions in their fluff (the PSRD doesn't include it), can anyone do a quick check for these kind of things in Ultimate Combat or PFCore?

[Ravens_cry]

Except your scenarios about casters not being able to rest are not realistic. MMM exists, and even a simple Rope Trick can provide a night+morning's worth of safety. Time-sensitive missions are about the only thing you can do, and casters can trivialize them via Teleportation. Hell, they can outpace plots via that Mass Mount spell (which nearly doubles daily overland movement) or Phantom Steed castings (which does far more).
Rope Trick doesn't provide complete sanctuary in Pathfinder. as you can't pull up the rope. Roving monsters and observant NPC's are going to notice a rope hanging in the middle of a corridor. Magnificent Mansion is a seventh level spell. That's not going to even come into play until fairly late in the game, and is still a quite significant resource expenditure even then. As for magical mounts and teleportation, NPC baddies can use the same thing, and probably before the player too.

[Boci]

Well this is the fluff provided in the psrd:

"Some take up arms for glory, wealth, or revenge. Others do battle to prove themselves, to protect others, or because they know nothing else. Still others learn the ways of weaponcraft to hone their bodies in battle and prove their mettle in the forge of war. Lords of the battlefield, fighters are a disparate lot, training with many weapons or just one, perfecting the uses of armor, learning the fighting techniques of exotic masters, and studying the art of combat, all to shape themselves into living weapons. Far more than mere thugs, these skilled warriors reveal the true deadliness of their weapons, turning hunks of metal into arms capable of taming kingdoms, slaughtering monsters, and rousing the hearts of armies. Soldiers, knights, hunters, and artists of war, fighters are unparalleled champions, and woe to those who dare stand against them."

So yeah, they still have something similar, but you can't really hate Paizo for having it if WotC had the exact same. But the conversation has moved beyond that so its a moot point.

[Coidzor]

*chug*

What? You're changing your stance now? :smallconfused: Or else I've been taking crazy pills, because I'd have sworn you've acknowledged that PF isn't perfect and has shortcomings.

Either that, or I'm just not grokking you here. I'm probably not grokking you here. :smallconfused:

[Boci]

What? You're changing your stance now? :smallconfused: Or else I've been taking crazy pills, because I'd have sworn you've acknowledged that PF isn't perfect and has shortcomings.

Either that, or I'm just not grokking you here. I'm probably not grokking you here. :smallconfused:

Earlier on in this thread I said PF never took risks preferring the "solid, save and fun" model for classes, and Psyren agreed. Where did you get the idea he thought pathfinder was flawless? All he asked is that people acknowledge some of the positive changes of PF if they are going to criticize the whole system.

[Big Fau]

Rope Trick doesn't provide complete sanctuary in Pathfinder. as you can't pull up the rope. Roving monsters and observant NPC's are going to notice a rope hanging in the middle of a corridor. Magnificent Mansion is a seventh level spell. That's not going to even come into play until fairly late in the game, and is still a quite significant resource expenditure even then. As for magical mounts and teleportation, NPC baddies can use the same thing, and probably before the player too.

MMM I'll give you, but there are very trivial solutions for Rope Trick's nerf (tie bells to the rope, cut the rope after everyone has climbed in, put the rope in an inconspicuous place, block LoS to the rope before you climb up).

Not exactly hard to do.

[eggynack]

Teleportation is itself trivial to shut out, never mind the problems of trying to get somewhere you've never seen before prior to 13 or so.
Is it that? Most anti-teleportation devices are pretty limited in scope, or expensive to maintain. On a more druidish note, is there any way to shut down master earth (SpC, 139)? That spell is really weird. Stormwalk (Storm, 122) is also a really weird teleportation spell, though that one is at least teleportation. I am, as always, on an endless search for the best druidic teleportation options. Such is my nature.


But that's from 3.5, not PF. Or has this conversation moved on to "the relationship of martial and magical classes in 3.P"?
The discussion shifted a bit when Psyren put forth that blog post as an argument. The post is about 3.5, rather than PF, so it is feasible to discredit that blog post by using things that are relevant only to 3.5.

[Psyren]

@ Drelua:

I find it rather inane that any system or setting would have to spell out that magic is more powerful/useful to have than "not-magic." It should be obvious, just by the definition of what magic is, that it is meant to be special and in fact superior.


I'm not too sure those are appropriate examples. Can't comment on wheel of time, but Harry Potter didn't really have to deal with it, because everyone was a spellcaster.

This is untrue. Both Hogwarts and the Ministry had "you can't apparate here" and "technology doesn't work" zones set up so that plot could happen without the wizards just teleporting in with a bunch of C4 and porting back out.


What? You're changing your stance now? :smallconfused: Or else I've been taking crazy pills, because I'd have sworn you've acknowledged that PF isn't perfect and has shortcomings.

Either that, or I'm just not grokking you here. I'm probably not grokking you here. :smallconfused:

You probably missed my earlier post, where I said I would chug a drink every time someone repeated the whole unsupported "Paizo promised to fix 3.5 with PF!" meme.


Is it that? Most anti-teleportation devices are pretty limited in scope, or expensive to maintain. On a more druidish note, is there any way to shut down master earth (SpC, 139)? That spell is really weird. Stormwalk (Storm, 122) is also a really weird teleportation spell, though that one is at least teleportation. I am, as always, on an endless search for the best druidic teleportation options. Such is my nature.

Master Earth is easy, just put your sanctum in midair, suspended in the ocean or even on another plane if necessary. Basically anywhere that doesn't touch earth. Stormwalk of course being teleportation, the standard defenses will work.

[Boci]

This is untrue. Both Hogwarts and the Ministry had "you can't apparate here" and "technology doesn't work" zones set up so that plot could happen without the wizards just teleporting in with a bunch of C4 and porting back out.

And how was that done? By magic. Which works in a setting where all the characters could cast magic, but doesn't work in D&D where a significant portion of the character cannot. If magic could not take out martial it would at least be balance, but they can take out martial, so it becomes a problem.

[Psyren]

And how was that done? By magic.

How it was done is irrelevant, what matters is that it needed to be done so the plot would work. Because of that, we need plot-centric measures like Portkeys and Floo-Powder to fast-travel to and from those locations. And D&D does have similar safeguards for all but the highest levels of play.

[eggynack]

I find it rather inane that any system or setting would have to spell out that magic is more powerful/useful to have than "not-magic." It should be obvious, just by the definition of what magic is, that it is meant to be special and in fact superior.

I find it similarly inane that a system would have one option be consistently either equal or better than another option at all levels. Magic can rewrite reality, but they don't have to let you do that all at once. Maybe the absolute maximum of magic is at flight. Maybe even the tiniest magical baby is stronger than the greatest knight. These things absolutely have to be spelled out, because magic doesn't have some sort of official definition. That is what defines magic: how impossible to define it is. Unless you can point me to a source that defines magic as always better than not-magic no matter what, I've gotta assume that you're just making stuff up.

[Boci]

How it was done is irrelevant, what matters is that it needed to be done so the plot would work. Because of that, we need plot-centric measures like Portkeys and Floo-Powder to fast-travel to and from those locations. And D&D does have similar safeguards for all but the highest levels of play.

It has similar magical safe guards. How do you solve a martial threat? Magic or better martial. How do you solve a high level magic threat? Magic. That's the problem.

By contrast advanced casters and ToB (and the various other tier 3 classes) make martial and magic comparable.

[Psyren]

It has similar magical safe guards. How do you solve a martial threat? Magic or better martial. How do you solve a high level magic threat? Magic. That's the problem.

That "problem" is no problem at all. I don't expect Dudley to be able to handle Voldemort or Merry and Pippin to be able to take out Gandalf. I just don't.


I find it similarly inane that a system would have one option be consistently either equal or better than another option at all levels. Magic can rewrite reality, but they don't have to let you do that all at once. Maybe the absolute maximum of magic is at flight. Maybe even the tiniest magical baby is stronger than the greatest knight. These things absolutely have to be spelled out, because magic doesn't have some sort of official definition. That is what defines magic: how impossible to define it is. Unless you can point me to a source that defines magic as always better than not-magic no matter what, I've gotta assume that you're just making stuff up.

I never said anything about "always better" and indeed I've mentioned several times that the magic user is in fact more vulnerable (or at least less capable in a fight) at lower levels.

As for quotes, the blog post had several from across D&D's history (which is why I linked it, so thanks for justifying that), so you can be sure it's not made up. It was always an expectation of the game.

[Boci]

That "problem" is no problem at all. I don't expect Dudley to be able to handle Voldemort or Merry and Pippin to be able to take out Gandalf. I just don't.

And is the fighter clearly labeled as "Dudley" or "Merry and Pippin"? No, they are labled as "lords of the battle field" and the guys with the "best all round fighting capabilities".

[Psyren]

And is the fighter clearly labeled as "Dudley" or "Merry and Pippin"? No, they are labled as "lords of the battle field" and the guys with the "best all round fighting capabilities".

Fine then, Boromir and Gimli. Still not Gandalf's equal.

[Big Fau]

That "problem" is no problem at all. I don't expect Dudley to be able to handle Voldemort or Merry and Pippin to be able to take out Gandalf. I just don't.

And I don't think Voldemort should be as good at swordfighting as Aragorn after casting two spells.

[Ravens_cry]

MMM I'll give you, but there are very trivial solutions for Rope Trick's nerf (tie bells to the rope, cut the rope after everyone has climbed in, put the rope in an inconspicuous place, block LoS to the rope before you climb up).

Not exactly hard to do.
It says (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/r/rope-trick)the rope can not be "removed or hidden". I would say cutting the rope counts "removing", yes? Bells don't stop the problem that you are much less guaranteed the full rest needed for many spellcasters to gain their spells back.
That was my point.

[Boci]

Fine then, Boromir and Gimli. Still not Gandalf's equal.

And how often did Gangalf had to be removed from the action to allow the fighter to shine? The mines, Helms Deep, the route to Minath Tirth...

[Psyren]

And I don't think Voldemort should be as good at swordfighting as Aragorn after casting two spells.

If two spells (in PF anyway) make you the fighter's equal then he is a very poorly built fighter or you have fighter stats already.


And how often did Gangalf had to be removed from the action to allow the fighter to shine? The mines, Helms Deep, the route to Minath Tirth...

Now I'm confused. It sounds like you're agreeing with me that the plot has to take the powerful casters into account, whether by removing them from play or negating specific tricks/tactics.

[Boci]

Now I'm confused. It sounds like you're agreeing with me that the plot has to take the powerful casters into account, whether by removing them from play or negating specific tricks/tactics.

And how does that translate into an RPG? "Okay wizard, if you could step aside now and do your laundry so that the martial characters could get some excitement that would be great?"

[Seerow]

That "problem" is no problem at all. I don't expect Dudley to be able to handle Voldemort or Merry and Pippin to be able to take out Gandalf. I just don't.

Dudley doesn't go on adventures with Harry, he stays at home with the muggles. Merry and Pippin travel with Gandalf some, but rarely do they contribute meaningfully (actually LotR in general makes for a really awful tabletop campaign. See: DM of the Rings). In Midkemia Feist goes out of his way to have the big players out of the way so the mundanes can do useful things. You never see Jimmy or Arutha team up with Pug or Thomas. You don't see Erik hunting down Leso Varen. The closest you get is Nakor running around with normals, and even then that only works because he's more than a little crazy, and rarely uses his magic overtly.

None of these is a good parallel to a D&D campaign. Because in D&D you have the Mundane characters and the Mages running side by side, and both are expected to play and have fun. In each of the works you have cited, either the Mage overshadows everyone else (LotR), or everyone is a Mage (Harry Potter), or both (ie Midkemia having a mix of mundanes and magic users, but rarely any overlap).

If you want to make it work as a D&D game where each player has something to do, and you have both Magic Guy and Fighting Guy, then if Magic Guy is Pug, Fighting Guy needs to be Thomas, not Arutha. And that's the problem you run into with 3e/Pathfinder: The Wizard is Pug (arguably better), while the Fighter is Arutha (except likely worse because Arutha had pretty decent knowledge/tactics/diplomatic skill, while a Fighter really isn't going to have that).

But when people complain about this, and say they want their Fighters to be more like Thomas, or their Wizards to be more like Kulgan (or some other minor caster in the series), you say "No that's not how the stories work!". What makes for a good story can make for an awful game, or put major restrictions on the players' available options.

[Elderand]

I have a houserule that in my experience goes a very long way toward....hum....I believe managing spellcasters would be an appropriate way to put it.

To prepare a spell (or ready a spellslot for later use in case of spontaneous) a spellcaster need to spend 5 mins per level of the spell in study/meditation/prayer/whatever.

When it takes the better part of an hour to prepare one level 9 spell, spellcasters are much more likely to ration their spells at mid level (access to fast time plane screw with it, but then again access to fast time planes screws with everything).

[Squirrel_Dude]

It has been for a while, albeit unintentionally.

I don't own any actual PF books, so I can't check to see if Paizo uses similar descriptions in their fluff (the PSRD doesn't include it), can anyone do a quick check for these kind of things in Ultimate Combat or PFCore?Sure. I'll go ahead and give descriptions of the other martials/mundanes. I've cut out the descriptions of what the classes are (they use rage, come from all walks of life, etc.)

PF: Fighter

Role: Fighters excel at combat—defeating their enemies, controlling the flow of battle, and surviving such sorties themselves. While their specific weapons and methods grant them a wide variety of tactics, few can match fighters for sheer battle prowess.
PF: Barbarian

Role: Barbarians excel in combat, possessing the martial prowess and fortitude to take on foes seemingly far superior to themselves. With rage granting them boldness and daring beyond that of most other warriors, barbarians charge furiously into battle and ruin all who would stand in their way.

PF: Monk

Role: Monks excel at overcoming even the most daunting perils, striking where it's least expected, and taking advantage of enemy vulnerabilities. Fleet of foot and skilled in combat, monks can navigate any battlefield with ease, aiding allies wherever they are needed mos

PF: Paladin

Role: Paladins serve as beacons for their allies within the chaos of battle. While deadly opponents of evil, they can also empower goodly souls to aid in their crusades. Their magic and martial skills also make them well suited to defending others and blessing the fallen with the strength to continue fighting.

PF: Ranger

Role:Rangers are deft skirmishers, either in melee or at range, capable of skillfully dancing in and out of battle. Their abilities allow them to deal significant harm to specific types of foes, but their skills are valuable against all manner of enemies.

PF: Rogue

Role:Rogues excel at moving about unseen and catching foes unaware, and tend to avoid head-to-head combat. Their varied skills and abilities allow them to be highly versatile, with great variations in expertise existing between different rogues. Most, however, excel in overcoming hindrances of all types, from unlocking doors and disarming traps to outwitting magical hazards and conning dull-witted opponents.

I ignored the fluff text that came before the classes because in almost every case it's hyperbole, though that is less often the case with the casters.

[Psyren]

@ Seerow:

First off, I already amended to Boromir + Gimli above, and second, there are examples of mundanes adventuring with the casters in a high-magic setting and contributing. Dragonlance is a great example of this, and so is Wheel of Time.

EDIT: Also:



But when people complain about this, and say they want their Fighters to be more like Thomas, or their Wizards to be more like Kulgan (or some other minor caster in the series), you say "No that's not how the stories work!". What makes for a good story can make for an awful game, or put major restrictions on the players' available options.

It can, but what can make for a good story can also make for a good game. Context and circumstance are everything.


And how does that translate into an RPG? "Okay wizard, if you could step aside now and do your laundry so that the martial characters could get some excitement that would be great?"

If your casters can't control themselves from stealing the spotlight from everyone else at the table the fault lies with their players. Granted, there are several tools at your disposal to give the melee more opportunities to shine like Mythic Power, or packing in counterspellers with the enemy.

[OracleofWuffing]

:smallconfused: Getting back to the feat at hand... I didn't know it was a standard action to speak in Pathfinder.

[Boci]

If your casters can't control themselves from stealing the spotlight from everyone else at the table the fault lies with their players.

So ideal good game design is making casters far more powerful than martial, and then expecting them to ensure martial doesn't feel over shadowed? Wouldn't it be simpler to design the system so martial cannot be so easily overshadowed?


Granted, there are several tools at your disposal to give the melee more opportunities to shine like Mythic Power, or packing in counterspellers with the enemy.

Mythic Power maybe (I don't know how well it works) but counter spelling doesn't work. Solving the problem that magic is OP with magic does little to make martial feel better.

[Seerow]

@ Seerow:

First off, I already amended to Boromir + Gimli above, and second, there are examples of mundanes adventuring with the casters in a high-magic setting and contributing. Dragonlance is a great example of this, and so is Wheel of Time.

Dragonlance I haven't read much of, the one book from it I did read had the caster at what seemed to be very low level.

Wheel of Time though, very rarely do mundanes actually contribute a ton. Even more rarely while in the presence of a caster.

You have Perrin/Mat as main characters, but they're hardly mundane. They're both Ta'veren and the universe bends itself backwards to keep them alive and on the path it wants them on. Besides that they both have their own supernatural abilities (though much lower key than channeling). Despite this both are clearly much lower key than Rand, or even the supergirls by the end. They have important roles to play, but they are sent far away from everyone and everything else important to be able to fill their roles.

Other Fighter-types include Warders (magically enhanced through the bond), those weird Shadow-Assassins using Ter'Angreal... yeah the best examples of completely mundane ass-kickers I can think of are Gawyn (killed said shadow assassins, nearly dying himself in the process), Thom (takes on a Myrddral, mostly serves just to distract it, but his survival is impressive nonetheless)... and yeah that's pretty much it.

The mundane people serve useful functions (extra sets of eyes, knowledge, information gathering), but when put side by side with the Channeler, if you were given the choice between one or the other, you'd go with the Channeler every time because the Channeler was a mundane person PLUS more stuff.


If your casters can't control themselves from stealing the spotlight from everyone else at the table the fault lies with their players. Granted, there are several tools at your disposal to give the melee more opportunities to shine like Mythic Power, or packing in counterspellers with the enemy.

If the game gives one set of characters massively more tools than another, then it's not an issue of table politics. It's just going to invariably push all players towards using the more interesting set of characters at high level. You stop seeing Fighters, you start seeing Psiwarriors, Arcane Gishes, Wildshape Rangers, and so on. It completely invalidates the completely mundane group of classes because they simply lack the tools to keep up at high levels without the DM forcing casters to lose their toys via plot.

[Psyren]

So ideal good game design is making casters far more powerful than martial, and then expecting them to ensure martial doesn't feel over shadowed? Wouldn't it be simpler to design the system so martial cannot be so easily overshadowed?

And how would you do that, without ending up with 4e?

I think it's preferable to have the vibrance and texture of powerful and varied magic and rely on individual tables to balance it, than bake that rigid balance into the system and amputate various avenues of storytelling through crunch.


Mythic Power maybe (I don't know how well it works) but counter spelling doesn't work. Solving the problem that magic is OP with magic does little to make martial feel better.

Martial's "feelings" aren't really my concern to be honest. If the player wanted to do more than roll for damage/skills and maybe throw in a maneuver or two, they would have played a caster.



Wheel of Time though, very rarely do mundanes actually contribute a ton. Even more rarely while in the presence of a caster.

This is a gross oversimplification. Aes Sedai, even Black Ajah, have Warders - and their "magical enhancements" amount to little more than an initiative and Con bonus; the Seanchan have armies and blademasters even with their unshackled channelers, and even in situations where AS can cut loose (such as when fighting Shadowspawn) they get tired extremely quickly. And worse still is when two channelers face off - mundanes very often make the difference in fights like that.

The channelers are absolutely more capable - logistics, healing, artillery, even reconnaissance - but that doesn't mean the mundanes stay at home and knit either.



If the game gives one set of characters massively more tools than another, then it's not an issue of table politics. It's just going to invariably push all players towards using the more interesting set of characters at high level. You stop seeing Fighters, you start seeing Psiwarriors, Arcane Gishes, Wildshape Rangers, and so on.

1) I would argue that moving from Fighters/Rogues to Psywars and Factotums is what you're supposed to see happen as a gaming group gains mastery.

2) Number of tools means nothing if the player doesn't have the mastery to put them to use. Many players who pick fighter just want to sit down, roll d20, ignore whole chapters of the rulebook and play with their friends. When they get more comfortable with it, there are classes for them to graduate to.

[Boci]

And how would you do that, without ending up with 4e?

Tier 3.


I think it's preferable to have the vibrance and texture of powerful and varied magic and rely on individual tables to balance it, than bake that rigid balance into the system and amputate various avenues of storytelling through crunch.

Again, Tier 3.

[Psyren]

Tier 3.

Again, Tier 3.

That's the thing - T3 classes are casters. Every last one of them.

And what's more, they tend to get certain abilities the game expects you to have pretty late. By level 9, the PCs should be able to raise the dead, but few T3s can actually pull that off by then unless you throw them a bone of some kind.

[Boci]

That's the thing - T3 classes are casters. Every last one of them.

Check the tier system. Its tiers 1 and 2 that are casters only. Tier 3 is: Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, Crusader, Bard, Swordsage, Binder (without access to the summon monster vestige), Wildshape Varient Ranger, Duskblade, Factotum, Warblade, Psionic Warrior.

Also probably incarnum and possibly lockdown fighters.


And what's more, they tend to get certain abilities the game expects you to have pretty late. By level 9, the PCs should be able to raise the dead, but few T3s can actually pull that off by then unless you throw them a bone of some kind.

So the DM can throw them a bone (or they can get a scroll and UMD). Its requires some effort, but it is more than doable. Besides, not being able to raise dead will be a bug to some and a feature to others.

[Psyren]

Check the tier system. Its tiers 1 and 2 that are casters only. Tier 3 is: Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, Crusader, Bard, Swordsage, Binder (without access to the summon monster vestige), Wildshape Varient Ranger, Duskblade, Factotum, Warblade, Psionic Warrior.

So... were you going to try to counter my point or something? :smallconfused:

All of those are casters, even the ToB classes. Yeah a lot of their stuff is Ex, but it's still magic by another name (and in fact, the maneuvers chapter is called "Blade Magic" in the ToB.) Factotums too.

EDIT: "Get a scroll and UMD" requires DM help, since none of those classes can make a rez scroll on their own.

That's just one example anyway. Flesh to Stone, ability drain, negative levels, insanity - again, the game expects you to be able to deal with these kinds of things at various levels. Some T3s can deal with some of them, but always more slowly than their T1 and T2 counterparts.

[Boci]

So... were you going to try to counter my point or something? :smallconfused:

All of those are casters, even the ToB classes. Yeah a lot of their stuff is Ex, but it's still magic by another name (and in fact, the maneuvers chapter is called "Blade Magic" in the ToB.) Factotums too.

Which means precisely nothing. Its just a name. Its none magic, they are martial classes, and anyone who has done martial art will say that ToB recreates fight scenes far better than the core fighter.

There's also a difference between having spells and being a full caster.


EDIT: "Get a scroll and UMD" requires DM help, since none of those classes can make a rez scroll on their own.

I was unaware spending WBL on magical items counted as DM help.


That's just one example anyway. Flesh to Stone, ability drain, negative levels, insanity - again, the game expects you to be able to deal with these kinds of things at various levels. Some T3s can deal with some of them, but always more slowly than their T1 and T2 counterparts.

So it needs work. Its still doable.

[Psyren]

There's also a difference between having spells and being a full caster.

I didn't say "full" - you did.

ToB is still a form of casting in my book. You're free to disagree. But the point of that book was to make martial casters.


I was unaware spending WBL on magical items counted as DM help.

I was unaware you could shop for items without there being, you know, a shop.

[Elderand]

Check the tier system. Its tiers 1 and 2 that are casters only. Tier 3 is: Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, Crusader, Bard, Swordsage, Binder (without access to the summon monster vestige), Wildshape Varient Ranger, Duskblade, Factotum, Warblade, Psionic Warrior.



So the DM can throw them a bone (or they can get a scroll and UMD). Its requires some effort, but it is more than doable. Besides, not being able to raise dead will be a bug to some and a feature to others.

Let's check shall we

Beguiler: caster
Dread necro: caster
Bard: caster
Binder: weird caster but caster still
Wildshape variant ranger: even more casterish than standar ranger
Duskblade: caster
Factotum: caster, limited but the few spells it gets are a semi frequent argument as for why it's so good.
Psionic warrior: caster

As for the 3 tob classes, there have been tons of heated debates as to wheter or not they are "magic" with a seemingly even split between those that say yes and those that say no.

That's a 77% percentage caster in that tier. (counting tob for half)

[Spuddles]

I'm fine with a system that has magic stronger than not-magic. But why all this pretend "balance" talk? The behind the curtain sections in 3.5 were ****ing retarded and only emphasized that the designers were just bad at balance. SKR's infamous blog post where he rates TWF as the best feat in the PHB and makes natural spell less valuable than weapon focus really emphasizes the inability of 3x/PF to balance.

I just dont get why they make a big spectacle of "design" and "balance" when their design and balance is bad, and according to you Psyren, not a goal for them.

[Boci]

I didn't say "full" - you did.

I know. But how many non-full casters have been mentioned so far in this thread? Only martial by my count. The only casters mentioned were the full casters. And a caster casts spells. Su abilities do not necessarily qualify (so binder is out.)


ToB is still a form of casting in my book. You're free to disagree. But the point of that book was to make martial casters.

I fail to see how hitting someone with a sword is magic. Its how people actually thought, which specific moves for certain situation, drilled into their subconscious by practice. I'd say you are free to disagree, but I honestly cannot see how a warblade can come off as a caster. He hits people with his sword (there are some that should be magical, but not many). That's martial, not magic.


I was unaware you could shop for items without there being, you know, a shop.

Why are you assuming there isn't a show? The party knows none of them will be able to raise dead, so they buy a scroll when they have a chance. Do they never have a chance?


As for the 3 tob classes, there have been tons of heated debates as to wheter or not they are "magic" with a seemingly even split between those that say yes and those that say no.

No it is not. The forum is not evenly split between those who think a guy who whacks people with a sword is martial and those who think he is magical. It is a small minority who think he is magical. Not everyone likes ToB, but even amongst the people who dislike it, "they are mages" isn't that common an argument.

Is Hercules a caster? No, then neither is a warblade.

[Divayth Fyr]

But the point of that book was to make martial casters.
Care to post a designer quote for that?


I was unaware you could shop for items without there being, you know, a shop.
By this logic, a Wizard having his spellbook (or a Fighter a weapon and armor) is also DM help...

[Just to Browse]

No, the board is split on that, because powers in tome of battle include conjuring fire elementals and teleporting.

[IronFist]

Also, the product's image is a major part of its identity, and Pathfinder's image ("3.5 as it should have been!") is a big fat lie.
Maybe that's why it was never marketed like that.

[Elderand]

And here I went out of my way to preempt the tob debate by saying opinions are divided (which they are) but no, lord have mercy, someone has an opinion on ToB that isn't the one true way to look at tome of battle classes.

Also, Hercules ? Really ? Couldn't you pick an exemple that was even farther from what ToB classes can do ? Hercules is a barbarian with great endurance and demi god template that grant him ungodly amount of strength.

[Psyren]

Boci, you seem to have trouble distinguishing between magic and spells. They're not the same thing; supernatural abiltiies are definitely magic.

I'm not arguing the ToB-casting stuff - If years of arguing could not get consensus on that issue then it won't get solved in this thread either. WotC considers it magic (ToB 37) so take it up with them. (Maybe they'll get around to errata'ing it, heh.)


Why are you assuming there isn't a show? The party knows none of them will be able to raise dead, so they buy a scroll when they have a chance. Do they never have a chance?

Again, buy from who? You literally cannot shop without the DM's assistance. They put magic items in the DMG for a reason, and wealth is in the GM section too.

[Boci]

No, the board is split on that, because powers in tome of battle include conjuring fire elementals and teleporting.

Which are supernatural and belong to the swordsage, who replace the monk, who already had supernatural teleportation (and the ability to make fire with splat).

[Zanos]

I was unaware you could shop for items without there being, you know, a shop.

I won't comment on the other portions of this debate, but I know that you're aware of the fact that the game assumes the party has access to printed magic items, and can spend money on them.

Not having a "magic mart" is a houserule.

[Phelix-Mu]

The main thing that makes ToB like magic, in my mind is this:

Most mundanes can do their schtick at will. Rogues never need to keep track of how many traps they've disabled, or how many goblins they gibbed in the back with a dagger this encounter. The fighter can cleave/Cleave until his arms fall off. Their resources are not limited, aside from any passing concern the DM may have for how long one could actually keep swinging a greatsword, or the arguments that everyone is limited by action economy (one turn per round puts a practical limit on swinging the sword).

Now, ToB classes have to be a little more judicious. Their schtick is still cool, and pretty spammable, and they can fall back on normal combat stuff when they've burnt through the normal maneuvers (or refresh as per their class feature). But it's still a limited resource that heavily influences behavior in combat (which can give nova-like combat behavior very reminiscent of blaster-brand of casting).

I still like it. It's not the ideal fix for mundanes, in my mind, but it raises the options for mundane-ish from terrible to about average (with tier 3 viewed as "average" or at least something to aim for). Plus, the book gave mundane builds a huge boost in variety and optimization tricks, as feats are generally just not enough.

[Boci]

Boci, you seem to have trouble distinguishing between magic and spells. They're not the same thing; supernatural abiltiies are definitely magic.

I'm not, simply saying there is a difference between a binder and a wizard, even if they are both magic users. And the binder is not a caster, as someone else claimed.


I'm not arguing the ToB-casting stuff - If years of arguing could not get consensus on that issue then it won't get solved in this thread either.

Following that logic you shouldn't debate, well anything. Most things on this forum have been argued over for years without any consensus reached.


WotC considers it magic (ToB 37)

So they can be dispelled? Are suppressed in an antimagic field?



Again, buy from who? You literally cannot shop without the DM's assistance. They put magic items in the DMG for a reason, and wealth is in the GM section too.

Except the DMG says to give your players their WBL.


Also, Hercules ? Really ? Couldn't you pick an exemple that was even farther from what ToB classes can do ? Hercules is a barbarian with great endurance and demi god template that grant him ungodly amount of strength.

Herculies bent mountains across the see to form a bridge. If that is not magic, what from ToB is?

[Psyren]

Care to post a designer quote for that?


By this logic, a Wizard having his spellbook (or a Fighter a weapon and armor) is also DM help...

Nah, the wizard starts with a spellbook (PHB 57.) Getting ANOTHER book would be DM assistance.



Not having a "magic mart" is a houserule.

Note true (DMG 137.) All communities have wealth limits - you can't just buy anything you want wherever you happen to be, by RAW.

[Boci]

Note true (DMG 137.) All communities have wealth limits - you can't just buy anything you want wherever you happen to be, by RAW.

And how big does a community have to be to buy a scroll of raise dead?

[Psyren]

I'm not, simply saying there is a difference between a binder and a wizard, even if they are both magic users. And the binder is not a caster, as someone else claimed.

They are casters, they're just not spellcasters.


Following that logic you shouldn't debate, well anything. Most things on this forum have been argued over for years without any consensus reached.

Nice try, but like I said, not taking the bait.



Except the DMG says to give your players their WBL.

WBL is an overall guideline - players can deviate from it (in either direction for whole sessions at a time. Plus, having wealth doesn't mean having a place to spend it (DMG 137.)


And how big does a community have to be to buy a scroll of raise dead?

You would need at least a city, and even then it would be hard to find outside a Large City or Metropolis.

[Zanos]

Note true (DMG 137.) All communities have wealth limits - you can't just buy anything you want wherever you happen to be, by RAW.
And you can purchase what you want within those limits.

You could arbitrarily restrict your party from ever visiting a city(A small city has a gp limit of 15k.)This also means that your party will never have access to any magic items of their choosing worth more than 3k(the limit of a large town).

A scroll of raise dead is only 6,125gp, and well within the limits of a small city.

[IronFist]

I won't comment on the other portions of this debate, but I know that you're aware of the fact that the game assumes the party has access to printed magic items, and can spend money on them.

Not having a "magic mart" is a houserule.

Actually, you can grant all wealth to the players from treasure found. No need for "magic marts".
Several Forgotten Realms books have gone out of their way to explain that there are no magical marts and that when you buy a magical item in a city, you're actually taking a lot of time to find out if someone has it and if they want to sell it. That seems to be setting specific, though - I'm pretty sure there are magic marts (of a sort) in Eberron.

[Boci]

They are casters, they're just not spellcasters.

Call them what you want, a binder is still different to a full caster.


Nice try, but like I said, not taking the bait.

Which I find oddly convenient. The only reason you've given is that no consensus is ever reached, but you're happy to debate martial vs. caster and PF controversy, which also have no history of a consensus ever reached.


You would need at least a city, and even then it would be hard to find outside a Large City or Metropolis.

Small city (5k+ inhabitance) has items worth up to 15k. How much is a scroll of animate dead

[Elderand]

Herculies bent mountains across the see to form a bridge. If that is not magic, what from ToB is?

Two things

First I never heard of that, given that I am not an expert in all of greek mythology it's possible I simply didn't come accross this. Care to point a reference ?

Second: If you are trying to say that ToB isn't magic you really should proofread because what you wrote is that

Hercules bent mountain across the sea to form a bridge. If that is not magic (therefore implying that it is indeed magic.), what from ToB is ? (IE that bending mountain is something from ToB and that this specific thing must be magic because nothing else in ToB compare to it.)

Given that you have said that ToB is not magic I very much doubt that's what you meant to say.

[Psyren]

And you can purchase what you want within those limits.

You could arbitrarily restrict your party from ever visiting a city(A small city has a gp limit of 15k.)This also means that your party will never have access to any magic items of their choosing worth more than 3k(the limit of a large town).

A scroll of raise dead is only 6,125gp, and well within the limits of a small city.

A small city is still a city so you haven't actually disproven my point. Furthermore, that is still nearly 50% of their wealth in one item, it's not going to be easy to get. It will likely be one of the most prized items in the church and you'll have to do a quest of some kind to get it. It won't be in the display case at Scrollmart.

And heaven forbid you need two of them.

[Boci]

Two things

First I never heard of that, given that I am not an expert in all of greek mythology it's possible I simply didn't come accross this. Care to point a reference ?

http://www.saudiaramcoworld.com/issue/199203/pillars.of.hercules.sea.of.darkness.htm

"In the Arabic - speaking world, popular legend transfer*red a number of the heroic deeds of Hercules to Alex*ander - including the building of a land-bridge across the Pillars of Hercules."


Second: If you are trying to say that ToB isn't magic you really should proofread because what you wrote is that.

No, I'm saying if bending two mountains across a sea isn't magic, what can you possibly find in ToB that qualifies as magic, given the rather high ceiling you've assigned to martial capabilities.

Is Herculies building a landbridge is not magic, then neither is anything the warblades gets from ToB (except maybe lightning throw, but you'd be pushing it).


A small city is still a city so you haven't actually disproven my point. Furthermore, that is still nearly 50% of their wealth in one item, it's not going to be easy to get. It will likely be one of the most prized items in the church and you'll have to do a quest of some kind to get it. It won't be in the display case at Scrollmart.

And heaven forbid you need two of them.

GP limit is not how much money the community has, its the price of the most expensive item on sale there. Or not, its wierd. But it does say "anything having a price under that limit is most likely available". So no, no contrived side quest. Bad DM.

[Elderand]

http://www.saudiaramcoworld.com/issue/199203/pillars.of.hercules.sea.of.darkness.htm

"In the Arabic - speaking world, popular legend transfer*red a number of the heroic deeds of Hercules to Alex*ander - including the building of a land-bridge across the Pillars of Hercules."

No, I'm saying if bending two mountains across a sea isn't magic, what can you possibly find in ToB that qualifies as magic, given the rather high ceiling you've assigned to martial capabilities.

Is Herculies building a landbridge is not magic, then neither is anything the warblades gets from ToB (except maybe lightning throw, but you'd be pushing it).

Yeah, I don't trust the source you've cited one bit. I can find no mention whatesoever elsewhere of any land bridge built by hercules accross the straight of gibraltar. But I can find plenty of mention of Alexander building a land bridge to the island of tyre of the coast of Lebanon. And it's not a legend, it actually happened. With engineering.

What Hercules is known for is actually spliting a mountain two. Which he didn't do by training and hitting the mountain just right the way a warblade would do but by having godly strength. The dude just hit THAT hard.

[Boci]

Yeah, I don't trust the source you've cited one bit. I can find no mention whatesoever elsewhere of any land bridge built by hercules accross the straight of gibraltar. But I can find plenty of mention of Alexander building a land bridge to the island of tyre of the coast of Lebanon. And it's not a legend, it actually happened. With engineering.

I actually heard it on a tap when I was young. It stuck with me. But fair enough. Is held up the sky a lesser achievement?

I see. The landbridge may have refered to this: "He piled stones into the river to make the water shallower. When he finally reached the court of Eurystheus, the cattle were sacrificed to Hera."

From wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labours_of_Hercules


What Hercules is known for is actually spliting a mountain two. Which he didn't do by training and hitting the mountain just right the way a warblade would do but by having godly strength. The dude just hit THAT hard.

Which is nicely balanced out by the fact that warblades cannot split a mountain in two. But they can some awesome stuff, which they have to learn by training, because they don't have a god as a father.

[Elderand]

Which is nicely balanced out by the fact that warblades cannot split a mountain in two. But they can some awesome stuff, which they have to learn by training, because they don't have a god as a father.

Which just confirm my point that using Hercules as an exemple for ToB doesn't work.

Notice also that I didn't take a side about ToB being magic or not. All I said was that opinions were split. That cannot be denied.

[Augmental]

Master Earth is easy, just put your sanctum in midair, suspended in the ocean or even on another plane if necessary. Basically anywhere that doesn't touch earth. Stormwalk of course being teleportation, the standard defenses will work.

And how are the mundanes supposed to reach this underwater/interplanar fortress? At least the wizard could still cast Water Breathing/Polymorph into an aquatic creature/Plane Shift to whatever plane the intergalactic lair is on, if not into the lair itself.

[Boci]

Which just confirm my point that using Hercules as an exemple for ToB doesn't work.

Maybe, but it still shows that fantastical things can be accomplished by sheer strength, even if it is boosted. So divine blood gives you +40 strength. Give that to a warblade.

Also edited in what I think was the land bridge.


Notice also that I didn't take a side about ToB being magic or not. All I said was that opinions were split. That cannot be denied.

Opinion is split on practically everything. That doesn't mean we cannot take a guess at which is right. And in this case, I'm going to assume that the people who claim the guy whose class features allow him to wield a weapon more efficiently being martial are correct, not the ones who claim he is a caster.

[eggynack]

Notice also that I didn't take a side about ToB being magic or not. All I said was that opinions were split. That cannot be denied.
Indeed. However, it is worth note that you can define practically anything in the game as magic if you define the term broadly enough. I mean, at some level, what fighters do is clearly superhuman, to the point where it could be considered magical in some fashion. It could be pointed out that nothing the fighter does is explicitly magical, but then the same is true of warblades. Thus, an argument relying on some power split between magic and mundane is completely illogical, because there is nothing on the mundane side of the split. In other words, there is no excuse for fighters being weaker than wizards, because they are both magic.

[Snowbluff]

Mad hugs to Tuggyne, Raven's_Cry, and Eggynack. <3

Sorry they are a day late.

[Elderand]

Maybe, but it still shows that fantastical things can be accomplished by sheer strength, even if it is boosted. So divine blood gives you +40 strength. Give that to a warblade.

But here is the thing tough, I have never ever seen anyone claim that warhulk or hulking hurler are magic or casters. Just insane strength.

The mere fact that ToB is hotly disputed in the is it magic or not category when other source of abilities (as in able to do something, not in reference to ability scores) offered to mundanes are not so disputed should indicate that ToB does have a large extent of the trappings of magic if nothing else.

If they meant for it to not be seen as magic they did a piss poor job at it. Blatantly calling it blade magic doesn't help.

The fact remains that the vast majority of tier 3 classes are magical (wheter they obey vancian rules or not doesn't matter). And the possible exceptions are hotly debated anyway.

Is it impossible to make non magical tier 3 or higher classes ? I don't think it is. I think Teramach and the improviser from the homebrew forum did it.

[Divayth Fyr]

WotC considers it magic (ToB 37) so take it up with them. (Maybe they'll get around to errata'ing it, heh.)
Do you mean the title of the chapter, or the words "Many of the maneuvers of the various martial disciplines aren’t magic at all"? I'm curious how both work with page 8's "A warblade is an exemplar of pure martial skill". Pure martial skill giving us magic? An interesting concept ;) Now, the Swordsage is explicitely stated to use magic, true. But one out of three base classes making the whole thing "magic"? Doesn't make sense...


supernatural abiltiies are definitely magic.
So, should we start treating monk as a caster?

[eggynack]

Mad hugs to Tuggyne, Raven's_Cry, and Eggynack. <3

Sorry they are a day late.
All hugs are equal in the eyes of the almighty hug-nexus! *Hug*

[Boci]

But here is the thing tough, I have never ever seen anyone claim that warhulk or hulking hurler are magic or casters. Just insane strength.

The mere fact that ToB is hotly disputed in the is it magic or not category when other source of abilities (as in able to do something, not in reference to ability scores) offered to mundanes are not so disputed should indicate that ToB does have a large extent of the trappings of magic if nothing else.

If they meant for it to not be seen as magic they did a piss poor job at it. Blatantly calling it blade magic doesn't help.

The fact remains that the vast majority of tier 3 classes are magical (wheter they obey vancian rules or not doesn't matter). And the possible exceptions are hotly debated anyway.

Is it impossible to make non magical tier 3 or higher classes ? I don't think it is. I think Teramach and the improviser from the homebrew forum did it.

Read the post below you. "A warblade is an exemplar of pure martial skill". They are called "martial adepts". "Many of the maneuvers of the various martial disciplines aren’t magic at all" People who ignore that and say "oh but its called blade magic" are grasping at straws. It may be hotly debated (and its still a rather small minority who does so. And I still maintain that the fact that Psyren isn't willing to debate the point speaks volumes on the matter) , but a debate where one side is fueled largely by denial is not one that need be considered that highly.

[eggynack]

I actually like my line of reasoning more. Sure, warblades are magic. In that case, so are fighters, and rangers, and paladins, and monks. By that standard of magic, what justification is there for the latter four classes being so weak? The fact that the non-fighter options out of the set have actual magic actually makes my point better. If magic should be some sort of absolute dividing line of power, then most classes, including many really crappy ones, should be on the magic side of that line. I hate to make random threads into monk threads, but how about we shift the comparison from fighter/wizard to monk/wizard? Why does the former deserve all consuming magical power, when the latter gets to be a monk? This is still pretty true in PF, though a bit less so.

[Big Fau]

I fail to see how hitting someone with a sword is magic. Its how people actually thought, which specific moves for certain situation, drilled into their subconscious by practice. I'd say you are free to disagree, but I honestly cannot see how a warblade can come off as a caster. He hits people with his sword (there are some that should be magical, but not many). That's martial, not magic.

Because maneuver levels, saving throws, maneuvers known, initiation action, initiator level, and the fact that they have to "prepare" their maneuvers. That's seriously why most people call maneuvers Blade Magic (although that is the actual in-universe term for it). People can't look past that to the actual effects maneuvers have, a majority of which (as you said) are mundane at best and Shonen Hero BS at worst.

And normals can't have nice things.

[Elderand]

Indeed. However, it is worth note that you can define practically anything in the game as magic if you define the term broadly enough. I mean, at some level, what fighters do is clearly superhuman, to the point where it could be considered magical in some fashion. It could be pointed out that nothing the fighter does is explicitly magical, but then the same is true of warblades. Thus, an argument relying on some power split between magic and mundane is completely illogical, because there is nothing on the mundane side of the split. In other words, there is no excuse for fighters being weaker than wizards, because they are both magic.

One can certainly argue such given the sheer amount of punishment a fighter can take/dish out. But that's not the point of contention with ToB is it ? Let's be honest here, some consider ToB to be magic not because it does waht is possible turned to 11. Which is all a fighter does. No, it is debated because it does things that were, until then, the sole province of magic.

Teleporting, producing fire out of nowhere, summoning fire elementals, manipulating shadows, healing without a healing check. All those things were thematicly the province of magic. Flagrant magic if you will. Not subtle maybe magic/maybe mundane that the fighter get going on by surviving atmospheric reentry.

Everything maybe magic if you define it broadly enough : true.
Do you need to stretch your definition extremely far to make ToB fit ? : Thematicly, not at all.
I shall not discuss rules here such as having the Su tag or not since it is irrelevant. Perception (not truth) of what is magic or not isn't based on a game tag or strict definition from a book.
And in my experience, proponents of the ToB is magic do so from a thematic perspective, not a rule one. Rules discussion of ToB are more about wheter or not it's broken. Which, since it is strictly a matter of mathematical result and rule interaction can be demonstrated not to be. Asside from poorly worded things like Iron heart surge that is.

If I may use an analogy (which will be flawed, as all analogies are because the only thing that correspond perfectly to the thing is the thing itself) I will use the following.

ToB is like a chalk drawing on the ground. Or a magnificient tag on a wall.
Asking wheter ToB is magic or not is like asking wheter the chalk drawing or the tag is art. Some will say yes because it look a lot like art. Others will say no because it can't be sold in an art gallery or exposed in a museum.

Asking wheter a fighter doing is thing is magic is like asking wheter or not that random stain I made yesterday by spilling my milk all over the carpet is art. Some will say no because it was an accident, a quirk of the system if you will. Other will say yes because the carpet can be cut up and exposed in an art gallery.

In the end ? Doesn't matter. like it ? Use it or buy it. Don't like it ? Don't use it or buy it.
In both cases you are allowed to laugh at the other side for not getting it and being pretentious twit but it won't solve anything and will just make people think badly of you.

And again: do note that I make no judgment call one way or another, nor am I saying that ToB is bad or that normal can't have nice things.

[Snowbluff]

Isn't Monk more magical than swordsage?:smallconfused:

All hugs are equal in the eyes of the almighty hug-nexus! *Hug*

Hehehe! Yes! More hugs!

[Boci]

Teleporting, producing fire out of nowhere, summoning fire elementals, manipulating shadows, healing without a healing check. All those things were thematicly the province of magic. Flagrant magic if you will. Not subtle maybe magic/maybe mundane that the fighter get going on by surviving atmospheric reentry.

And how many maneuvres are supernatural, so already magic?


In the end ? Doesn't matter. like it ? Use it or buy it. Don't like it ? Don't use it or buy it.

The problem is, Psyren's opinion that magic must be superior to martial hinges on the fact that martial adepts are not martial, because then magic and martial could be relatively equal. Unfortunately he isn't willing to discuss that opinion, despite this being an internet forum where we discuss opinions and this being a thread which has become the discussion ground for two rather controversial opinions. If he has bowed out of the discussion entirely than fair enough, its if he continues controversial topic A and B but won't discuss controversial topic C (which is a keystone for B) that I find it convenient.

[Just to Browse]

Which are supernatural and belong to the swordsage, who replace the monk, who already had supernatural teleportation (and the ability to make fire with splat).

Thank you for agreeing with me? I don't even know what to say to this.

[Boci]

Thank you for agreeing with me? I don't even know what to say to this.

Warblade = fighter. Warblade does not have supernatural maneuvres. Fighter does not have supernatural abilities.

Swordsage = monk. Swordsage has supernatural maneuvres. Monk has supernatural abilities.

What is so hard to understand about that? The swordsage maneuvers are irrelevant when discussing whether or not warblade is martial, and if the monk can be martial, so can the swordsage.

[eggynack]

Stuff.
Well, in my personal opinion, warblades are completely mundane, swordsages are pretty magical, about on the scale of monks, and crusaders are right in the middle. However, this isn't about the traditional reasons for ToB being declared magic. This is about ToB being literally declared magic, as a flavor concept. Psyren's contention is that ToB is basically magic, which is what gives them a free pass to tier three. My counter-claim is that paladins and monks are also basically magic, so they should be tier three as well. The argument is that magic is power, from a flavor standpoint, and it is a very flawed argument. It really only holds if we're directly talking about fighters and wizards, and starts to fall apart if I start talking about monks and clerics.

[Elderand]

And how many maneuvres are supernatural, so already magic?

That is a rule thing which I said I would not discuss in relation to my previous point. I may however expand on it in relation to another point. Later once I have had time to properly put it into words.


The problem is, Psyren's opinion that magic must be superior to martial hinges on the fact that martial adepts are not martial, because then magic and martial could be relatively equal.

You're being generous with relatively. Wheter or not martial adepts are magical the fact is that they are still leagues away from the power displayed by spellcasters. That is to say the best martial maneuver is still far less powerful than the best spell. But at that point we get into game breaking territory. Outside of it I can agree that martial adepts can stand with spellcaster on a somewhat equal footing.

[Boci]

You're being generous with relatively. Wheter or not martial adepts are magical the fact is that they are still leagues away from the power displayed by spellcasters.

Not the tier 3 casters. Which apparently includes everyone else, not just the two advanced casters.

[Elderand]

Not the tier 3 casters. Which apparently includes everyone else, not just the two advanced casters.

There are lot more tier 1 and 2 casters than just one or two. But I'm nitpicking. I agree tough, martial adepts belongs in tier 3 (where exactly in tier 3 is a matter of debates) and they compare well to tier 3 casters.


The argument is that magic is power, from a flavor standpoint, and it is a very flawed argument. It really only holds if we're directly talking about fighters and wizards, and starts to fall apart if I start talking about monks and clerics.

I wouldn't say the argument is very flawed actually. If I may I'd reformulate it as such. While magic may not automaticly mean power it is however easier to achieve power than whitout.

Another way to put it is this. The majority of tier 3 and above classes I have seen, wheter official or homebrew or third party (or whatever designation you care to make for things not published by wotc) are magical or have access to magical abilities.

Or to put it yet another way, it seems easier to justify such power with magic than whitout.

As I said before, it's not impossible. While ToB classes may be disputted I believe that the homebrewed "The improviser" (whitout a doubt) and Teramach (maybe debatable but if so far less than ToB) are nonmagical and yet reach tier 3 at least.

There may be others, I am by no means the ultimate repository of all things pertaining to classes in dnd.

Now, to go back to ToB since I said to Bocci I would discuss his Su tag comment later.

I believe there is two axis of magic one can discuss. And I think a lot of the debate from ToB comes from people discussing different axis whitout realising it.

The first axis I would like to call the RL magic axis.
This axis is concerned over whether or not something is magical when compared to real life. Based on this axis ToB is indisputadly magic. but then so is a fighter surviving atmospheric reentry whitout breaking anything.
According to that axis, almost everything in dnd is magic because everything break the rules of RL (there maybe a non magical spoon somewhere but I wouldn't count on it.)

The second axis is the IG magic axis. This one is concerned with wheter or not something is considered magic whithin the universe of the game. And for the vast majority of ToB, from this axis point of view it's not magic. With the exception of maneuvers with the Su tag that is.

Now we can't really get the point of view of the in game universe. We make it up certainly but we are always outsiders (no relation to outsiders creatures) looking in the game. We do not actually live in the game. Therefore our only mean of meaningful discussion of this axis is from the rules point of view.

In summary:
RL axis ToB is magic, but then again so is everything else, it's just easier to see with ToB because it does impossible thing clearly. As opposed to a fighter surviving reentry whitout breaking anything which is not readily apparent whitout actually making a fighter survive reentry.

IG axis ToB is mostly not magic.

I believe proponent of ToB is magic tend to argue from a RL axis point of view while those that say it isn't argue from a IG axis point of view.

Or maybe I'm just talking out of my ass and being a pompous jerk who think he has all of it figured out. If it is how I appear to you I apologise for not being able to convey my opinion in a less pompous way.

[Scow2]

World-building/verisimilitude does that. What incentive is there to painstakingly learn magic if it has no payoff? Or as the Giant put it: "What possible incentive is there to spend decades mastering the subtle and complex art of magic, when the same level of power can be achieved by bumming around a bad neighborhood?"I can answer this! That is elven arrogance speaking, derisively and casually dismissing the equal-if-not-greater challenges involved in 'bumming around a bad neighborhood'. Why should someone who spends years reading books and dabbling around with assorted piles of trash acquire more power than someone who was born into a dark, backstabbing world where every moment of their life was in danger, learning how to survive and even thrive in an environment openly hostile to their life?

It's risk vs. reward. The fallacy there was :vaarsuvius: disregarding that experience is experience. Someone who has reached 20 levels in Rogue has put just as much effort in mastering the subtle arts as a level 20 Fighter has put into mastering the martial arts as a level 20 Wizard has put into mastering the arcane arts. Why should someone be rewarded disproportionately for playing safe with magic, instead of honing their ability through seeking out and overcoming genuine challenges? It's an overdeveloped sense of entitlement.

[Boci]

There are lot more tier 1 and 2 casters than just one or two. But I'm nitpicking. I agree tough, martial adepts belongs in tier 3 (where exactly in tier 3 is a matter of debates) and they compare well to tier 3 casters.

The original point though was that you cannot have balanced martial and magical classes, which I countered with advanced casters and martial adepts (hence why whether or not ToB is magic is relevant to the thread). There are plenty of tier 1 and 2 casters, but if you want balance and are willing to take a heavy handed approach, you can ban tier 1 and 2. I did in one game, and it worked out pretty well.

[olentu]

Pretty much this. to me, the reasons you are listing are reasons to dislike a system, which I still find odd, but still falls with in the bounds of "meh, there no accounting for taste". Its when hate (and refusal to use the system) is claimed that I do I double take.

Well I suppose that it's really just a difference in terms then. The question then becomes which meaning the people saying they hate pathfinder are using.

Though, I will note that despite not hating pathfinder I do currently refuse to use the system (beyond possibly porting something I might find interesting but given that it has not yet come up it is still only possibility). Hating a system and refusing to use said system are not necessarily connected.

[Elderand]

It's risk vs. reward. The fallacy there was :vaarsuvius: disregarding that experience is experience. Someone who has reached 20 levels in Rogue has put just as much effort in mastering the subtle arts as a level 20 Fighter has put into mastering the martial arts as a level 20 Wizard has put into mastering the arcane arts. Why should someone be rewarded disproportionately for playing safe with magic, instead of honing their ability through seeking out and overcoming genuine challenges? It's an overdeveloped sense of entitlement.

AHA ! But that is actually a transition from edition problem. They kept the wizard overwhelming power whitout keeping the fact that wizard would have to gain a tons more XP to get to max level than a fighter ever did.

[Boci]

Well I suppose that it's really just a difference in terms then. The question then becomes which meaning the people saying they hate pathfinder are using.

Though, I will note that despite not hating pathfinder I do currently refuse to use the system (beyond possibly porting something I might find interesting but given that it has not yet come up it is still only possibility). Hating a system and refusing to use said system are not necessarily connected.

So if you there was a game concept you really liked, you would let PF be a deal breaker? Interesting.

[Psyren]

And how are the mundanes supposed to reach this underwater/interplanar fortress? At least the wizard could still cast Water Breathing/Polymorph into an aquatic creature/Plane Shift to whatever plane the intergalactic lair is on, if not into the lair itself.

That's just it, past a certain level you do need magic - either another party member, an item of some kind, or an NPC. That is a basic assumption of the game, and it's right there in the WBL table. So the mundane gets there via magic taxi.

But the question was how does the caster not invalidate the plot - well, Plane Shift drops you several hundred miles short of your destination, so you're walking. As does teleport if you've never been there before. By the time the Greater versions roll around, your big bad can have all kinds of other defenses up.

[Elderand]

The original point though was that you cannot have balanced martial and magical classes, which I countered with advanced casters and martial adepts (hence why whether or not ToB is magic is relevant to the thread). There are plenty of tier 1 and 2 casters, but if you want balance and are willing to take a heavy handed approach, you can ban tier 1 and 2. I did in one game, and it worked out pretty well.

Given how debated ToB is, if I were to make a point about being able to balance magic and mundane I'd also use tier 3 but I'd use the improviser homebrewed class as an exemple of entirely mundane tier 3 class. Altough I'm sure the fact that it is homebrewed will invalidate it in the eyes of some.

In short I agree with you, I'm simply a proponent of using less contentious exemples.

[eggynack]

I wouldn't say the argument is very flawed actually. If I may I'd reformulate it as such. While magic may not automaticly mean power it is however easier to achieve power than whitout.
That wasn't his argument, however. His argument is that having magic means that you lay an automatic claim to greater power, and that that's how it should be.



I believe there is two axis of magic one can discuss. And I think a lot of the debate from ToB comes from people discussing different axis whitout realising it.

The first axis I would like to call the RL magic axis.
This axis is concerned over whether or not something is magical when compared to real life. Based on this axis ToB is indisputadly magic. but then so is a fighter surviving atmospheric reentry whitout breaking anything.
According to that axis, almost everything in dnd is magic because everything break the rules of RL (there maybe a non magical spoon somewhere but I wouldn't count on it.)

The second axis is the IG magic axis. This one is concerned with wheter or not something is considered magic whithin the universe of the game. And for the vast majority of ToB, from this axis point of view it's not magic. With the exception of maneuvers with the Su tag that is.
That's fair. However, it doesn't really seem to fit with Psyren's argument. If we're talking about real life magic, then as you noted, everything has claim to magic. If we're talking about in game magic, then just most things have magic. It makes little sense, within Psyren's argument, for monks to have less power than warblades. The former is just more magical. If we're talking about magic in game, then some stuff on the tier three list is not magic.


Or maybe I'm just talking out of my ass and being a pompous jerk who think he has all of it figured out. If it is how I appear to you I apologise for not being able to convey my opinion in a less pompous way.
Your points are reasonably reasonable. They just don't fit in all that well with the line of argument that Psyren has taken. There's no view of the definition of magic that will couple magic to power in a perfect way, or even in a reasonable way. Sure, it's all magic in the top tier, but if we start extending that to the middle tier, then we also have to extend it to the bottom tier, and that doesn't fit.

Edit: To make my intent here perfectly clear, my plan is that when the definitions of "magic", and "caster" start being expanded, I'm going to expand them to the point where the terms become meaningless. When they start to shrink back down, the goal is to shrink them down to the point where they are pretty meaningless, though possibly less so. At the very least, the terms will likely become meaningless for the point being claimed.

[Boci]

In short I agree with you, I'm simply a proponent of using less contentious exemples.

As someone who has taken part in almost every ToB discussion on this thread, I don't think the book is as contentious as it use to be. Still probably the single most contentious book by sheer mention, but core leads to far more heated discussion if you take the time to stir the embers. The last thread I was on didn't have that many people speaking out against it, in contrast to earlier threads. Although that could have simply been because people who dislike the book now avoid threads about it.

In short, ToB is contentious, but then so is the whole topic of optimization. And balancing magic and martial already opens the larger can of worms, so why skimp on the wriggly buggers?

But also don't shy away from homebrew, since it will be required to balance martial and magic.

[Elderand]

Your points are reasonably reasonable. They just don't fit in all that well with the line of argument that Psyren has taken. There's no view of the definition of magic that will couple magic to power in a perfect way, or even in a reasonable way. Sure, it's all magic in the top tier, but if we start extending that to the middle tier, then we also have to extend it to the bottom tier, and that doesn't fit.

That maybe because I'm not actually defending psyren point so much as I went on my own tangents when I pointed an issue I had with Bocci's exemples.

[Scow2]

AHA ! But that is actually a transition from edition problem. They kept the wizard overwhelming power whitout keeping the fact that wizard would have to gain a tons more XP to get to max level than a fighter ever did.Pretty much. When they equalized the experience growth curve, they should have also equalized the character power curve.

Even in 4e, wizards are the most powerful class - but it does take great understanding of the class to get it there, and it's not completely overshadowing every other character in the process.

[eggynack]

That maybe because I'm not actually defending psyren point so much as I went on my own tangents when I pointed an issue I had with Bocci's exemples.
Fair enough. This thread is getting crazy confusing.

[Elderand]

In short, ToB is contentious, but then so is the whole topic of optimization. And balancing magic and martial already opens the larger can of worms, so why skimp on the wriggly buggers?

I'll give you my reason why, you may agree or not.

I believe you can convince more peoples if you have a solid foundation for your point than if you have doubts about it.

Basicly, I would do things in this order:

1 Establish that mundane can be balanced with magic by using strong exemple

2 Discuss wheter or not ToB is an exemple of such or not.

If you start with a questionable exemple the whole argument will be questionned in turn.

As for shying away from homebrew, I don't. In the game I just started we don't have a single character who isn't using homebrew material.

[Big Fau]

That's just it, past a certain level you do need magic - either another party member, an item of some kind, or an NPC. That is a basic assumption of the game, and it's right there in the WBL table. So the mundane gets there via magic taxi.

But the question was how does the caster not invalidate the plot - well, Plane Shift drops you several hundred miles short of your destination, so you're walking. As does teleport if you've never been there before. By the time the Greater versions roll around, your big bad can have all kinds of other defenses up.

If Teleport is online, Scry is as well. This means you should be at least qualify for the "Studied Carefully" category, in which an off-target teleport is a 5% chance at most. Being off-target is also proportionate to the distance traveled:


You appear safely a random distance away from the destination in a random direction. Distance off target is 1d10×1d10% of the distance that was to be traveled. The direction off target is determined randomly.

So you have a high chance of being off by 50% if the distance traveled. If this distance is greater than 30 miles, you are better off teleporting again. If it is less than 30 miles, a simple Mount spell or similar effect can ensure you get to your desired location within X hours (depending on speed).

Teleportation makes distance limitations shorter than 900 miles irrelevant thanks to the synergy it has with Scrying. Time is the bigger constraint, but as long as the timer is longer than 1 hour a caster doesn't care all that much.

[Elderand]

Fair enough. This thread is getting crazy confusing.

All the good threads do :P


Pretty much. When they equalized the experience growth curve, they should have also equalized the character power curve.

Even in 4e, wizards are the most powerful class - but it does take great understanding of the class to get it there, and it's not completely overshadowing every other character in the process.

Which is fine, while I do not personaly enjoy 4th edition I can get behind the idea of "same growth time same relative power" and "system mastery get a bit more power"

[Boci]

I'll give you my reason why, you may agree or not.

I believe you can convince more peoples if you have a solid foundation for your point than if you have doubts about it.

Basicly, I would do things in this order:

1 Establish that mundane can be balanced with magic by using strong exemple

2 Discuss wheter or not ToB is an exemple of such or not.

If you start with a questionable exemple the whole argument will be questionned in turn.

As for shying away from homebrew, I don't. In the game I just started we don't have a single character who isn't using homebrew material.

You do have to balance that with the extra effort and unreliability of homebrew. Making tier 3 melee is difficult enough, without worrying that you must avoid inflaming the anti-ToB crowd. And even if it is just as good, people will still be less trusting of it, because they don't know it as well, and the corporate seal of approval often helps.

[Scow2]

You do have to balance that with the extra effort and unreliability of homebrew. Making tier 3 melee is difficult enough, without worrying that you must avoid inflaming the anti-ToB crowd. And even if it is just as good, people will still be less trusting of it, because they don't know it as well, and the corporate seal of approval often helps.

It's also impossible to reach Tier 3 without having some sort of flexible subsystem to draw on reliably (Incarnum, Spellcasting, Psionics, Martial Maneuvers, etc.)

[Boci]

It's also impossible to reach Tier 3 without having some sort of flexible subsystem to draw on reliably (Incarnum, Spellcasting, Psionics, Martial Maneuvers, etc.)

Lockdown fighters are arguably an exception?

[Lord_Gareth]

Lockdown fighters are arguably an exception?

They're still only ever useful in combat.

[Just to Browse]

Warblade = fighter. Warblade does not have supernatural maneuvres. Fighter does not have supernatural abilities.

Swordsage = monk. Swordsage has supernatural maneuvres. Monk has supernatural abilities.

What is so hard to understand about that? The swordsage maneuvers are irrelevant when discussing whether or not warblade is martial, and if the monk can be martial, so can the swordsage.

So then that's a Tome of Battle class that uses magic, which you said was not true. So you're admitting you're wrong?

[Psyren]

If Teleport is online, Scry is as well.

Scry is pathetically easy to block - all you need is a will save, never mind all the ways to block it specifically. So no, you can still end up quite a ways off, if you can even make the jaunt to begin with.

Hell, he can throw off your efforts by simply not being in the place you need to get to, because you can only scry on creatures.

[Boci]

So then that's a Tome of Battle class that uses magic, which you said was not true. So you're admitting you're wrong?

Yes, the swordsage uses magic in the same way the monk does. And the warblade in the same way the fighter does. I apologize if this was not obvious. That nitpicking aside, do you actually disagree that the martial initiators are martial classes like the fighter, monk and paladin?

[Just to Browse]

Yes, the swordsage uses magic in the same way the monk does. And the warblade in the same way the fighter does. I apologize if this was not obvious. That nitpicking aside, do you actually disagree that the martial initiators are martial classes like the fighter, monk and paladin?

I don't care if the warblade is made to be ranger, a swashbuckler, or a warlock. I'm just adhering to the original point I responded to:

You said there is no controversy over whether Tome of Battle was designed to provide casting to mundanes. I showed you that summoning a fire elemental and teleporting is in Tome of Battle, which is why there is controversy. Now you need contend or concede.

[Boci]

I don't care if the warblade is made to be ranger, a swashbuckler, or a warlock. I'm just adhering to the original point I responded to:

You said there is no controversy over whether Tome of Battle was designed to provide casting to mundanes. I showed you that summoning a fire elemental and teleporting is in Tome of Battle, which is why there is controversy. Now you need contend or concede.

I still maintain that there isn't, because the class that gets those abilities is new version of the monk. So no, there is no controversy over the fact that a a newer version of the monk has supernatural abilities. Any controversy over a newer version of a class with supernatural abilities having supernatural abilities is an artificial one. Yes I misspoke, but I believe the meaning behind my words was clear. And if not, it has now been clarified. Now since you don't seem to be interested in actually debating the point, are we done?

Just in case there was any ambiguity: martial adepts are martial classes. They are not casters. There is no genuine controversy there, unless of course you also believe the monk was a caster class.

[Just to Browse]

So you concede that there is controversy over whether Tome of Battle is designed as a system for providing casting to mundane classes, but you believe casting is designed only for the swordsage?

[Big Fau]

Scry is pathetically easy to block - all you need is a will save, never mind all the ways to block it specifically. So no, you can still end up quite a ways off, if you can even make the jaunt to begin with.

Hell, he can throw off your efforts by simply not being in the place you need to get to, because you can only scry on creatures.

Who is "he", as if it's a BBEG then sure. If it's a mook, significantly easier.

[Boci]

So you concede that there is controversy over whether Tome of Battle is designed as a system for providing casting to mundane classes, but you believe casting is designed only for the swordsage?

No, I don't concede that.

Warblade = pure martial training. No supernatural maneuvres.

Swordsage = newer version of the monk, same basic idea: martial arts with some tricks, that are magic. But I do not consider the monk a caster class, so I do not consider the swordsage one either.

[Scow2]

So you concede that there is controversy over whether Tome of Battle is designed as a system for providing casting to mundane classes, but you believe casting is designed only for the swordsage?It's not casting. There's no caster level, there's spells-per-day. Saying that those are casters is like saying a Monk's Quivering Palm and Abundant Step class features make them casters.

[JaronK]

So then that's a Tome of Battle class that uses magic, which you said was not true. So you're admitting you're wrong?

Interestingly enough, it's possible (and easy!) to build a Swordsage 20 with absolutely no magical abilities. You cannot do this with a Monk.

But Swordsages absolutely do not have spellcasting. They simply have access to a small number of supernatural maneuvers (which they can chose to learn, or not). Monks, of course, always have such maneuvers.

JaronK

[Psyren]

Who is "he", as if it's a BBEG then sure. If it's a mook, significantly easier.

Why would your plot center around a mook? :smalltongue:

[Boci]

Interestingly enough, it's possible (and easy!) to build a Swordsage 20 with absolutely no magical abilities. You cannot do this with a Monk.

But Swordsages absolutely do not have spellcasting. They simply have access to a small number of supernatural maneuvers (which they can chose to learn, or not). Monks, of course, always have such maneuvers.

JaronK

Nitpick: It isn't. You can take only Ex maneuvres, but you still get sense magic as a class feature, which is Su.

[JaronK]

Nitpick: It isn't. You can take only Ex maneuvres, but you still get sense magic as a class feature, which is Su.

Bah, drat. Okay, you get one. Still less than the Monk!

JaronK

[Just to Browse]

No, I don't concede that.

Warblade = pure martial training. No supernatural maneuvres.

Swordsage = newer version of the monk, same basic idea: martial arts with some tricks, that are magic. But I do not consider the monk a caster class, so I do not consider the swordsage one either.

So you define casting as "casts spells, defined by spell entries", and not "uses limited abilities that are magical"? Because then I believe psyren deserves a chance to clarify his position, but I'm pretty much guaranteeing that's what he meant by "casting".

[JaronK]

So you define casting as "casts spells, defined by spell entries", and not "uses limited abilities that are magical"? Because then I believe psyren deserves a chance to clarify his position, but I'm pretty much guaranteeing that's what he meant by "casting".

I doubt Psyren really thinks that Monks count as casters. That would be very silly indeed.

JaronK

[Boci]

So you define casting as "casts spells, defined by spell entries", and not "uses limited abilities that are magical"? Because then I believe psyren deserves a chance to clarify his position, but I'm pretty much guaranteeing that's what he meant by "casting".

He's clarified that but not on whether the monk is a caster or not. But here are the 3 options reguardless:

Monk is not a caster, neither is swordsage. Okay, we agree. No controversy.

Monk is not a caster, but swordsage is. Both are melee classes that use supernatural abilities (the swordsage having more control over how many they get). Calling one a caster when the other is not is contrived and arbitrary. Artificial controversy made to serve some other purpose, can be discarded.

Monk is a caster, so is swordsage. Weird, but no controversy. The two classes fit the broad definition of caster being employed.

[eggynack]

I doubt Psyren really thinks that Monks count as casters. That would be very silly indeed.

Also, fighters. Fighters totally have limited abilities that are magical, at least by the standards of our world. I mean, could you, or anyone else, trip with the capacity of a fighter? If not, fwoom, limited abilities that are magical.

[Beowulf DW]

Why would your plot center around a mook? :smalltongue:

It worked in Naruto. Sort of. Now I want to find a way to make that work! Darn you Psyren! I have enough things to waste time with as is!:smallfurious:

[Just to Browse]

He's clarified that but not on whether the monk is a caster or not. But here are the 3 options reguardless:

The monk does not prepare special abilities that come in bite-sized packages made for mixing and matching, supernatural capabilities aside. Under that definition of a caster (which involves 'casting' his abilities), the swordsage is totally a caster and the monk is not. And that's what the casting Psyren probably meant, because that's the definition of casting that makes sense.

[Boci]

The monk does not prepare special abilities that come in bite-sized packages made for mixing and matching, supernatural capabilities aside. Under that definition of a caster (which involves 'casting' his abilities), the swordsage is totally a caster and the monk is not. And that's what the casting Psyren probably meant, because that's the definition of casting that makes sense.

Except as has been noted, you can take only Ex maneuvers leaving you with less magical abilities than the monk. Plus a monk has abilities per day vs. the swordsages per encounter, so in that sense the monk is more caster like.

I am yet to meet someone who does martial arts and thinks that ToB is not a better portrayal of a fight than the previous system.

And if the swordsage is still a caster under Psyren's definition whilst the monk is not, then I must ask: what exactly does his definition of caster mean then? What does it contribute to the game?

[Psyren]

So you define casting as "casts spells, defined by spell entries", and not "uses limited abilities that are magical"? Because then I believe psyren deserves a chance to clarify his position, but I'm pretty much guaranteeing that's what he meant by "casting".

You are correct. However, I don't extend that to (3.5) monks; I do, however, extend it to Binders. Their powers are not spells, yet I consider them to be casters all the same, because the vast majority of what they do is magic.

ToB classes occupy a gray area, I agree. But maneuvers are functionally martial spells - the Ex tag defines how they interact with other parts of the system, but they occupy that same thematic space of being ranked by level, being grouped by school, quadratic scaling, and accomplishing things that Joe-off-the-street can't do.

[eggynack]

You are correct. However, I don't extend that to (3.5) monks; I do, however, extend it to Binders. Their powers are not spells, yet I consider them to be casters all the same, because the vast majority of what they do is magic.
By what logic does your definition not apply to monks? What's the difference?

[Boci]

You are correct. However, I don't extend that to (3.5) monks; I do, however, extend it to Binders. Their powers are not spells, yet I consider them to be casters all the same, because the vast majority of what they do is magic.

ToB classes occupy a gray area, I agree. But maneuvers are functionally martial spells - the Ex tag defines how they interact with other parts of the system, but they occupy that same thematic space of being ranked by level, being grouped by school, quadratic scaling, and accomplishing things that Joe-off-the-street can't do.

Which has the result of making their mechanics a better portrayal of real life combat and cutting down on the abstracted of two people gently caressing each other until one fall dead (i.e. HP damage does nothing until you hit 0) Plus most school of combat will involve named attacks. Its how you teach them.

What use do you think your definition of a caster has? And aren't martial adept still martial classes, even if they do also fall into your definition of caster?

[Just to Browse]

Except as has been noted, you can take only Ex maneuvers leaving you with less magical abilities than the monk. Plus a monk has abilities per day vs. the swordsages per encounter, so in that sense the monk is more caster like.Right, so these have literally nothing to do with what I wrote, which is what psyren agreed with. Extraordinariness has nothing to do with preparation, and per-day abilities have nothing to do with preparation. So yah.


And if the swordsage is still a caster under Psyren's definition whilst the monk is not, then I must ask: what exactly does his definition of caster mean then? What does it contribute to the game?Allow me to quote myself, in the post you replied to:


special abilities that come in bite-sized packages made for mixing and matching, supernatural capabilities aside

[Boci]

Right, so these have literally nothing to do with what I wrote, which is what psyren agreed with. Extraordinariness has nothing to do with preparation, and per-day abilities have nothing to do with preparation. So yah.

Allow me to quote myself, in the post you replied to:

How does that rule out feats? They are bite size chunks made for mixing and matching?

See my problem, its too vague, its becomes almost meaningless.

[eggynack]

Allow me to quote myself, in the post you replied to:
So, your definition of magic has absolutely nothing to do with how magical something is. That makes a massive amount of sense.

[Augmental]

How does that rule out feats? They are bite size chunks made for mixing and matching?

See my problem, its too vague, its becomes almost meaningless.

Well, there's no way to change your feats around every day without some very cheesy tricks.

[Boci]

Well, there's no way to change your feats around every day without some very cheesy tricks.

Neither can spontaneous casters. So martial adepts are casters, but spontaneous casters aren't casters. Thanks for clearing that up Augmental, for a moment there I was worried it didn't make any sense. :smallbiggrin:

[Just to Browse]

How does that rule out feats? They are bite size chunks made for mixing and matching?

See my problem, its too vague, its becomes almost meaningless.

Sure, it needs to be based around using actions to activate abilities. The only reason the definition breaks down is from semantics, and those affect the "casts spells" definition just as badly which is why sensible people don't bother.

[Boci]

Sure, it needs to be based around a subsystem.

Aren't the fighter and monk bonus feats a subsystem? Some feats require actions to activate. This getting incredibly convoluted. And again, what does this new definition add to the game? Caster meaning class that gets access to spells allows you to draw some conclusions about them when someone says "I'm playing a caster". How will this new definition of caster help us?

[Just to Browse]

Edited the term, as it was a placeholder and I knew you'd want them semantics. Pls try again.

[Boci]

Edited the term, as it was a placeholder and I knew you'd want them semantics. Pls try again.

Some feats require activation as well. Your edit saves nothing. Also:



The only reason the definition breaks down is from semantics,

Semantics are kinda important when you are defining something.


and those affect the "casts spells" definition just as badly which is why sensible people don't bother.

How so?

Also, just checking. Say martial adepts are casters. Are they still martial classes in addition?

[eggynack]

Aren't the fighter and monk bonus feats a subsystem? This getting incredibly convoluted. And again, what does this new definition add to the game? Caster meaning class that gets access to spells allows you to draw some conclusions about them when someone says "I'm playing a caster". How will this new definition of caster help us?
More importantly, what does this tell us right now? A character needs a diverse set of abilities to be powerful in this game. Mundane characters could have a diverse set of abilities. It's not like they couldn't. If you say that a caster is a caster if and only if it has a diverse set of abilities, then of course casters are going to be the only characters with any value in this game. It's all rather circular.

[Just to Browse]

Some feats require activation as well. Your edit saves nothing.

Then not all require it, which means the feat system is not a casting system.

[Boci]

Then not all require it, which means the feat system is not a casting system.

Okay, so we may now have a functioning definition for this new take on "caster".

Why is it worth having?

Also, just checking. Say martial adepts are casters. Are they still martial classes in addition?

[georgie_leech]

If I'm understanding this correctly, the definition of "caster" being discussed is "a character that can use various actions to achieve various effects from a list of predetermined options?"

[Scow2]

Feats are usually passive, or augment something you can already do. Casting allows you to mix and match unique activities - Another facet of casting is flexibility and power. I'm not sure if a warlock's a caster - if their invocations had daily limits each, they would be. However, casting generally involved drawing from a broad pool of resources on a daily basis - Spontaneous casters have a pool of spell slots to fill with whatever spells they know on-demand. Incarnum users can choose their soulmelds and move essentia around (If they could bind all their soulmelds all the time and didn't have the essentia pool, they wouldn't be casters).

Casting is the most fun mechanic in 3.5

I think what Psyren would consider a casting requires:

Interchangable, mutually exclusive resource management - Spell Slots, essentia, chakra binds, power points, maneuvers readied, active stances, common auras, etc. A wizard can know all the spells, but only prepare a few. A sorcerer knows only a few spells, can't cast them at will, but can use any slot for any spell on-demand. Fighters are disqualified because feats are either passive or standalone (I guess Stunning Fist/Ki Blast/Firey Fist line kinda makes that murkier, though)

Standalone Cross-Class Pool of options in the system - Multiple classes need to draw on the same pool of options, even if some of the options are restricted by class. Meaning that despite their Ki pool resource management, Ninjas are not casters.

Ironically, but not unexpectedly, under these definitions, Warblades are Casters, while Warlocks are not - So no noncaster is above Tier 3, and the only Tier 4 and below casters are those with single-purpose spell lists (Warmage and Healer).

[Fates]

Hmm...

Nope, nevermind. I have nothing to say. This feat has 0.00 redeeming traits.

[Boci]

I think JtB is going with:

"A character whose main class features are special abilities that come in bite-sized packages made for mixing and matching, each of which requires an action to activate."

So not quite as bad as your initial impression, but pretty close.

Edit: Nevermind, Scow2 came up with a better definition, but even they note the problems this incurs.

[Just to Browse]

snipThat's would derail this limping train further, soif it's important you should start a thread on it. There is an internally-consistent definition of caster that causes all ToB classes tobe casters, so psyren's position is internally consistent if he supports that definition.

[AstralFire]

If I'm understanding this correctly, the definition of "caster" being discussed is "a character that can use various actions to achieve various effects from a list of predetermined options?"

Funny.

And here I thought subsystems being imitated while also being adapted, fundamentally altered in important ways, and subsequently tailored well for balance was a rare hallmark of consistent design philosophies, which allows someone to quickly pick up a new system while still functioning in a distinctly different manner.

Unlike, say, the Warlock - which is just this awkward graft of a 5(? - been a while) level incantation system atop of a 9th level framework, so that whenever you're interacting with normal spells or many feats, you have to flip back and check to see where your specific incantations land.

[Psyren]

By what logic does your definition not apply to monks? What's the difference?

For the 3.5 monk, magic is a very incidental part of what they do. Very few of their abilities go beyond what you would expect a well-conditioned mundane to be able to accomplish, and the couple that are, are extremely limited in use. Take for example Abundant Step - clearly magical, but only usable 1/day. Or Wholeness of Body - also magical (though self-only healing is more of a border-case really) but at 2hp/lvl/day, is little more than a curiosity. Empty Body is better but comes online way too late - if you get your only true magic at level 19 you can hardly be called a caster. And lastly is Quivering Palm, at 1/week.

Pathfinder improved this considerably with ki, and I would be comfortable calling those monks casters; the Qinggong archetype is the most extreme example obviously, but even the core PF monk can teleport more than once per day, or heal themselves for double the amount of a 3.5 monk when they first learn the ability (and even more as they grow stronger) or make themselves supernaturally faster etc. In other words, the kinds of abilities I could consider to be magical.

So it's a combination of potency and frequency, rather than just the Su or Ex tag, that makes it feel like magic to me I suppose.


And aren't martial adept still martial classes, even if they do also fall into your definition of caster?

I called them martial casters more than once, so the answer is clearly yes.

[Boci]

That's would derail this limping train further, soif it's important you should start a thread on it. There is an internally-consistent definition of caster that causes all ToB classes tobe casters, so psyren's position is internally consistent if he supports that definition.

But the original point was that martial and spell users could not be balance. So regardless of whether or not ToB are "casters" under his definition of the word and whether or not it is internally consistent, it is STIL relevant whether or not martial adepts are martial classes, completely independent of whether or not they fall into this new caster term.


I called them martial casters more than once, so the answer is clearly yes.

So see above. Martial classes and spell user classes can be balanced, you use tier 3. So we are back where we began, and we now have a new word of questionably use.

[eggynack]

Snip
So, your definition of something being magic is that it must be good. If something has to be good to be magic, then obviously everything that's magic is going to be good. It all just feels rather circular.

[Just to Browse]

But the original point was that martial and spell users could not be balance. So regardless of whether or not ToB are "casters" under his definition of the word and whether or not it is internally consistent, it is STIL relevant whether or not martial adepts are martial classes, completely independent of whether or not they fall into this new caster term.Spell users are totally different from casters, because we're using a different definition of caster.

Spells users can do whatever spell users do, and casters can do whatever casters do, but martial adepts are casters.

[eggynack]

I guess the question then, ultimately, is whether this is the definition of caster that the blog post was using. I'm pretty sure that's where this all started. If this definition and that definition aren't the same definition, then this line of argument seems rather pointless.

[Boci]

Spell users are totally different from casters, because we're using a different definition of caster.

Yes, one you should probably have clarified. Say, size 72 red text "By the way, my definition of caster has nothing to do with magic use despite the fact that we are talking about D&D and heroic fantasy in general". My apologize if this definition of caster is wide spread, but this is the first time I've ever heard it, and it was really confusing.


I guess the question then, ultimately, is whether this is the definition of caster that the blog post was using. I'm pretty sure that's where this all started. If this definition and that definition aren't the same definition, then this line of argument seems rather pointless.

The problem if both definitions are one and the same in AD&D unless I'm mistaken. There were no subsystem, spellcasters were the only casters.

[Just to Browse]

Yes, one you should probably have clarified. Say, size 72 red text "By the way, my definition of caster has nothing to do with magic use despite the fact that we are talking about D&D and heroic fantasy in general". My apologize if this definition of caster is wide spread, but this is the first time I've ever heard it, and it was really confusing.Except because you never used big red text to say "My definition of caster only includes people who use vancian spellcasting and have access to spells and a spell list despite the fact that we are talking about D&D and game design in general".

When looking at a statement that causes dissonance with what you previously know, you should attempt to understand that in a way that doesn't cause dissonance before launching an attack.

[Boci]

Except because you never used big red text to say "My definition of caster only includes people who use vancian spellcasting and have access to spells and a spell list despite the fact that we are talking about D&D and game design in general".

When looking at a statement that causes dissonance with what you previously know, you should attempt to understand that in a way that doesn't cause dissonance before launching an attack.

Except I have never seen anyone use caster as anything other than a spell caster. I had no reason to assume it meant something else. You were the ones who needed to clarify, because you were using a more obscure meaning. Unless of course I am mistaken, in which case I apologize, but based on the response from people in this thread, that does not appear to be the case.

I have however heard of people who insist that ToB classes are casters, in the spell caster sense. So big surprise, I went with the meaning I had seen before. It we as humans work.

[eggynack]

The problem if both definitions are one and the same in AD&D unless I'm mistaken. There were no subsystem, spellcasters were the only casters.
Perhaps that is true of the part of the blog that is just about AD&D, but it also expands out to other stuff later. His definition of casters seems to be incredibly specific, to the point where it seems wizard exclusive. Like, wizards, but not clerics. It's pretty crazy.

Edit: As for whether we were incorrect to assume that caster assumes vancian magic of some kind, that seems vaguely ridiculous. "Caster" is short for "spellcaster", which means "one who casts spells". Classes that don't cast spells, like swordsages, binders, or hell, even psions, are not spell casters, because they don't cast spells. That's, y'know, the definition. You need to be pretty explicit if you're using a different one.

[Boci]

Perhaps that is true of the part of the blog that is just about AD&D, but it also expands out to other stuff later. His definition of casters seems to be incredibly specific, to the point where it seems wizard exclusive. Like, wizards, but not clerics. It's pretty crazy.

Well then that answers your questions, not he blog was not using caster the way Psyren and JtB were.

[Psyren]

So see above. Martial classes and spell user classes can be balanced, you use tier 3. So we are back where we began, and we now have a new word of questionably use.

Right, but I covered this already when I pointed out monster abilities that expect a T1-T2 progression of responses/defenses, and your answer was "Some of them have UMD and the DM should give them access to magic mart." Which, aside from not being much of a solution for many of them (ToB and Binders don't have UMD for instance), requires a certain kind of game where loot is totally tailored to the players rather than using, say, loot tables or published modules.


So, your definition of something being magic is that it must be good. If something has to be good to be magic, then obviously everything that's magic is going to be good. It all just feels rather circular.

Strawmen can be like that, yeah.

I think my examples were quite a bit more nuanced than "good."

[Boci]

Right, but I covered this already when I pointed out monster abilities that expect a T1-T2 progression of responses/defenses, and your answer was "Some of them have UMD and the DM should give them access to magic mart." Which, aside from not being much of a solution for many of them (ToB and Binders don't have UMD for instance), requires a certain kind of game where loot is totally tailored to the players rather than using, say, loot tables or published modules.

1. I acknowledged that some homebrewing would be required. Its still more than possible.

2. You pointed out wrong. GP limit is the most expensive item available in the settlement, not the total amount of stuff they have. Lack of magic mart is a houserule, unless the DM contrives a reason to have only really small settlements. Custom loot isn't required, you can buy the scroll with the gold you get as part of loot.

So yeah, tier 3 + a bit of homebrewing and some vetting of monsters (required for most groups anway) and yo have balanced martial and spell user classes.

[eggynack]

Strawmen can be like that, yeah.

I think my examples were quite a bit more nuanced than "good."
They were definitely nuanced. I'm just not sure that they were substantially different from my representation of them, which is required for a strawman. You can create a swordsage who touches magic much less than monks do, and yet the former is mundane, and the latter is magic. The only difference I can see is one of the effectiveness of what they do.

[Boci]

They were definitely nuanced. I'm just not sure that they were substantially different from my representation of them, which is required for a strawman. You can create a swordsage who touches magic much less than monks do, and yet the former is mundane, and the latter is magic. The only difference I can see is one of the effectiveness of what they do.

Except their definition of caster has nothing to do with magic. Which according to JtB, we should have clarified to avoid confusion.

[olentu]

So if you there was a game concept you really liked, you would let PF be a deal breaker? Interesting.

Oh I expect that I have a breaking point like anyone, but as I have not yet reached it then the answer is probably yes.

[TuggyNE]

Fighters are disqualified because feats are either passive or standalone (I guess Stunning Fist/Ki Blast/Firey Fist line kinda makes that murkier, though)

Yeah, combine those with the various Monk ACFs that let them switch out for other magical abilities (Invisible Fist, at least, and maybe others), and things get even wackier.

Gotta admit, I'm having a lot of trouble figuring out how you'd phrase it so that Monks aren't casters (in any of the radically different definitions in use here), but Swordsages and Sorcerers are. If it's the presence of Su abilities, SS can have as few as one; not sure how many Monks can get rid of, but I kinda doubt all seven will disappear. If it's limited per-day abilities, SSes don't really have any, and Monks do (unless you do some serious trading out), while there are no unambiguous casters with per-encounter abilities. If it's swappability per day, Sorcs don't fit, while if it's swappability per build, all of them have the ability to change things around. If it's fire damage, Monks have Firey Fist, or if ranged damage, Ki Blast, or if teleportation, Abundant Step. If it's resource pools, again Firey Fist/Ki Blast/Stunning Fist get in the way.

I suppose you could try to argue that optional feats don't count for a class's basic categorization, but that feels pretty weak to me, not least because Stunning Fist is explicitly designed to work better for and be more readily available to Monks, and is Core. Or I suppose you could argue that entry formatting is significant, but that's never proven terribly convincing in the past as anything other than "first impressions are important".

Incidentally, guys, please please please do not try to redefine "caster" in either direction, because the difference between "(spell)caster" and … whatever else … is just too great to be readily resolved. Just drop it and pick a different word with explicitly outlined and mutually-agreed-upon connotations.

[Psyren]

1. I acknowledged that some homebrewing would be required. Its still more than possible.

Oberoni Fallacy.


2. You pointed out wrong. GP limit is the most expensive item available in the settlement, not the total amount of stuff they have. Lack of magic mart is a houserule, unless the DM contrives a reason to have only really small settlements.

GP limit of settlements still does not equal magic mart. Menzoberranzan is a metropolis, but nobody is there is going to sell your good-aligned party a raise scroll either. So the DM still does have to bail you out, depending on where the campaign is set. Hell, some campaigns do never go to a city.



The only difference I can see is one of the effectiveness of what they do.

So the monk's abilities are divided by school, and into 9 levels of increasing power? No thematic similarity there to anything else that might be in D&D?

[Boci]

Oberoni Fallacy.

I'm not claiming its not a problem. I'm saying it possible, quite doable even. I've done it myself, but it was a special setting.


GP limit of settlements still does not equal magic mart. Menzoberranzan is a metropolis, but nobody is there is going to sell your good-aligned party a raise scroll either. So the DM still does have to bail you out, depending on where the campaign is set. Hell, some campaigns do never go to a city.

Fair enough. Menzoberranzan is pushing it, but yeah some adventures don't go near a city. So the DM makes sure this ones does. Again, not Oberoni, its a limiting factor, but really as limiting factors go "must have a friendly small city somewhere" isn't that draconic.

[eggynack]

So the monk's abilities are divided by school, and into 9 levels of increasing power? No thematic similarity there to anything else that might be in D&D?
Which definition of caster are we working off of here? If it's still that weird definition with interchangeable abilities that do cool things, then sure, the swordsage is more casterish. However, if we're talking about the actual definition of magic, where magic is magic, then swordsages are fully capable of having fewer magical abilities. Having 9 levels of increasing power doesn't make a class more magic. It just makes it more 9 levels of increasing power. Honestly, I don't even know which definition we're using anymore for every given argument, or how said definitions connect to anything.

[Psyren]

Having 9 levels of increasing power doesn't make a class more magic.

It's a matter of theme. Maneuvers feel like spells specifically because of that classification/arrangement. I'm sure whoever named the chapter "Blade Magic" felt the same way.

[Phelix-Mu]

Incidentally, guys, please please please do not try to redefine "caster" in either direction, because the difference between "(spell)caster" and … whatever else … is just too great to be readily resolved. Just drop it and pick a different word with explicitly outlined and mutually-agreed-upon connotations.

I thought this had already been done by terming ToB and some of the ToM stuff to be "pseudo-casting." Am I wrong? I know pseudo-casting is no more a legitimately defined term than "caster" or "mundane," but have I overlooked something else that pseudo-casting means?

By the by, I think it really doesn't matter where core monk stands, as it is the low-end of either caster or mundane functionality either way (without huge effort to optimize). Personally, I like monk, and feel mundanes can and should be boosted up, but my defense of both these points is hardly germane to this discussion.

Which was originally about taunting and bad feats?? :smalltongue: #confuzzled

[Tvtyrant]

Why does it feel like every discussion of Pathfinder turn into an edition battle? There are going to be badly designed parts of any system. I don't particularly like Pathfinder, but I don't think it does any worse than 3.5, 4E or Legend.

[eggynack]

It's a matter of theme. Maneuvers feel like spells specifically because of that classification/arrangement. I'm sure whoever named the chapter "Blade Magic" felt the same way.
They might feel more like spells, but that doesn't make them more magic. There can be thematic connections out the wazoo, but the argument put forth in that blog post is derived from magic. Not blade magic, but magic that starts weak and gets strong. Magic that comes out of a spell book. If his argument seems kinda ridiculous and pointless as a result of that, well it is. That's the whole point. Ask yourself how many of the points in that post correspond to a swordsage, and you'll find that the answer hovers around zero.

[Scow2]

Why does it feel like every discussion of Pathfinder turn into an edition battle? There are going to be badly designed parts of any system. I don't particularly like Pathfinder, but I don't think it does any worse than 3.5, 4E or Legend.Well, 3.5 and Pathfinder both do worse than 4e.:smalltongue: But it's hard to top perfection.

[Boci]

So Psyren, just to conclude. My questions:

"So ideal good game design is making casters far more powerful than martial, and then expecting them to ensure martial doesn't feel over shadowed? Wouldn't it be simpler to design the system so martial cannot be so easily overshadowed?"

Your answer:

"And how would you do that, without ending up with 4e?

I think it's preferable to have the vibrance and texture of powerful and varied magic and rely on individual tables to balance it, than bake that rigid balance into the system and amputate various avenues of storytelling through crunch."

Would you accept:

2Use tier 3 and 4 classes primarily with no tier 1 and 2s. Vet monsters, make sure at least a small friendly city is available during most of the game and homebrew around any issues that come up.2

As a potential answer?

[Psyren]

They might feel more like spells, but that doesn't make them more magic. There can be thematic connections out the wazoo, but the argument put forth in that blog post is derived from magic. Not blade magic, but magic that starts weak and gets strong. Magic that comes out of a spell book. If his argument seems kinda ridiculous and pointless as a result of that, well it is. That's the whole point. Ask yourself how many of the points in that post correspond to a swordsage, and you'll find that the answer hovers around zero.

I'll give you that one, they aren't casters in the sense that the blog post uses. But given that few threads are started to ***** about swordsages and warblades either (or the fact that "Paizo didn't fix them!") then I would say that he actually still has a point. When people complain about casters, they aren't complaining about the T3-T4 ones generally.

My point, and I suspect his too, was that T1-T2 classes are okay to have in a game. The game expects them to be there. They can be abused, but that is more a player problem than one of the classes themselves. The effort and consequences of removing them aren't really worth the hassle in my eyes.


Would you accept:

2Use tier 3 and 4 classes primarily with no tier 1 and 2s. Vet monsters, make sure at least a small friendly city is available during most of the game and homebrew around any issues that come up.2

As a potential answer?

As a potential answer, absolutely. For me personally, getting there takes too much variety out of the game and removes too much of its "pick up and play aspect" for not much benefit, but if balance is a primary concern then this is certainly one way to address it. Balance just isn't that important to me because in practice, Tippy-like players frequent message boards far more than they frequent tables.

[Boci]

As a potential answer, absolutely. For me personally, getting there takes too much variety out of the game and removes too much of its "pick up and play aspect" for not much benefit, but if balance is a primary concern then this is certainly one way to address it. Balance just isn't that important to me because in practice, Tippy-like players frequent message boards far more than they frequent tables.

I find removing tier 1 and 2 makes the game easier to play. Seriously, those are the most complex classes. Advanced casters are much easier to play.

As for Tippy-like, you often don't need them. Just grabbing shiny spells can result in imbalance, as has been demonstrated by how reliant on magic the BBEG will be to protected himself from scry and teleport. AC limit the spells the caster has, and hence limit what combos they can pull off.

[eggynack]

My point, and I suspect his too, was that T1-T2 classes are okay to have in a game. The game expects them to be there. They can be abused, but that is more a player problem than one of the classes themselves. The effort and consequences of removing them aren't really worth the hassle in my eyes.
But that was the point in its original form. Tier one or two classes weren't like this in the past. It used to be that fighters were significantly more powerful than wizards in the first half of the game, and wizards were significantly more powerful in the second half. Now, there is absolutely no point in the game where fighters are significantly more powerful. There's a point where fighters might be marginally more powerful, if you squint, but that stretch of time is shorter in addition to being less meaningful while it exists.

The blog's argument was that things have always been this way, and they haven't. Your argument is that it's a necessary truth that magic must be better than not-magic, and that's not really true either. Not by any definition of magic that matters, anyway. Warblades are not magical, and they are perfectly capable of doing a wide variety of things. They could be even more capable of doing a wider variety of things, and they still wouldn't necessarily be magic. Most of the tier three classes aren't all that magic, even if they might be a little bit magic. This imbalance is just not a necessary part of the game.

Now, whether it's an alright part of the game is up to opinion, but as this argument started with Pathfinder, it's fine to end it there. Pathfinder, in its construction, did not seek out balance to much of an extent at all. This is a decision which I disagree with, but it's one that others are fine with. However, at many points in time, SKR said things that were incredibly alienating to anyone who seeks balance in their game. It is this anti-balance and anti-optimization stance that I believe has driven many people from distant dislike to actual hatred. And it is in this fashion that I come full circle. Also, that feat is really really stupid. Like, surprisingly stupid, and to an extent that I wouldn't expect. People go from the feat to the PF hate because one is attached to the other. This idea that options shouldn't be balanced, or that some options should be actively harmful to the character, is one that is emblematic of what I believe is the main issue that many find with PF. And that's why we're here, at this point, after hundreds of posts.

[Psyren]

As for Tippy-like, you often don't need them. Just grabbing shiny spells can result in imbalance, as has been demonstrated by how reliant on magic the BBEG will be to protected himself from scry and teleport. AC limit the spells the caster has, and hence limit what combos they can pull off.

I don't see needing to rely on magic to protect yourself from scrying and teleportation as being a problem. I expect that if those spells are in the game at all, that the plot has their existence accounted for.

AC?


But that was the point in its original form. Tier one or two classes weren't like this in the past. It used to be that fighters were significantly more powerful than wizards in the first half of the game,

Stopping you right there - not one of the quotes said "half." As I said earlier, the exact point at which the casters took over was not defined anywhere. So the fact that it can be as early as 5-7 now doesn't invalidate anything he said.

And power is not what defines lower levels anyway - it's survivability. It doesn't matter if you can see the future or enslave minds to your will if an errant goblin spear can end your career; at least, it doesn't matter as much.



...
However, at many points in time, SKR said things that were incredibly alienating to anyone who seeks balance in their game. It is this anti-balance and anti-optimization stance that I believe has driven many people from distant dislike to actual hatred. And it is in this fashion that I come full circle. Also, that feat is really really stupid. Like, surprisingly stupid, and to an extent that I wouldn't expect. People go from the feat to the PF hate because one is attached to the other. This idea that options shouldn't be balanced, or that some options should be actively harmful to the character, is one that is emblematic of what I believe is the main issue that many find with PF. And that's why we're here, at this point, after hundreds of posts.

And I find that unfortunate, because the connection between SKR, this feat, and PF as a whole are all circumstantial. If this feat were mandatory for gnomes or something, and if it took the place of another feat that other races got, then maybe - just maybe - there would be a point to be found here. But it's not, and there isn't.

[Phelix-Mu]

I feel Psyren's point is more of a meta-analysis on how the game chalks up, and less a literal point on "what is technically magical." I haven't paid close attention, but Psyren's general drift rings true, which would be odd if Psyren were basing it off of false assumptions.

The "importance of balance" debate is another one that gets discussed all of the time. The game lacks balance, but around many tables, this does nothing at all to inhibit fun. See Exhibit A: People Still Play.

Now, if a given game lacks balance and the players find this to be reducing the fun quotient, now it's an issue that should be addressed in some fashion. See Exhibit B: People Always Show Up on the Forum Looking for Homebrew or Vetting Houserules. The methods are legion, but I think it goes without saying that magic has a large potential to make very obvious the lack of balance in the game, and, sometimes, that makes the fun go bye-bye.

[Boci]

I don't see needing to rely on magic to protect yourself from scrying and teleportation as being a problem. I expect that if those spells are in the game at all, that the plot has their existence accounted for.

That's reasonable, but the point is its only the magic classes that the DM needs to design safeguard against (as it would be pretty weird if it applied to a martialclass). Advanced casters have fewer spells, so fewer potentially game altering combos that can only be kept in check with magic.


AC?

Advanced caster.

[Tvtyrant]

Well, 3.5 and Pathfinder both do worse than 4e.:smalltongue: But it's hard to top perfection.

Channel Might is an amazing and balanced feat, clearly it holds up to expertise. All games have universally good, situationally good, and universally bad feats. Not only are the games made by multiple people with their own innate power biases, there is going to be unforeseen stuff.

[Lord Vukodlak]

Why does it feel like every discussion of Pathfinder turn into an edition battle? There are going to be badly designed parts of any system. I don't particularly like Pathfinder, but I don't think it does any worse than 3.5, 4E or Legend.

Because some people on this forum have nothing better to do then *&*)&)*$ about pathfinder it gives them pleasure to rage against it. Like in my gaming group they love to rage against 4E, I hate 4e to but I have no desire to rant my hate about it repeatedly and at great length.

[Phelix-Mu]

Because some people on this forum have nothing better to do then *&*)&)*$ about pathfinder it gives them pleasure to rage against it. Like in my gaming group they love to rage against 4E, I hate 4e to but I have no desire to rant my hate about it repeatedly and at great length.

It's a basic fact that ranting often is cathartic. I don't necessarily like it, or like what a particular rant is directed at, but it's the internet, so objecting to ranting is patently against the rules.

[eggynack]

Stopping you right there - not one of the quotes said "half." As I said earlier, the exact point at which the casters took over was not defined anywhere. So the fact that it can be as early as 5-7 now doesn't invalidate anything he said.
What it is is a factor he never considered. The parallel drawn between the two systems is a flawed one, because he missed out on this imperfection with the parallel. It's not even as early as 5-7, if we're measuring when the classes are about equal. It's probably somewhere from 3-5. In other words, crazy early. If his claim is true, it is not true to any degree that is relevant. It used to be more like this, and now it's much much less, and that means that logically, the degree of power that wizards acquire in the late game should similarly be much much less. Proportions and all that. However, instead, wizards are probably even more high powered at high levels. The balancing factor that the author cites was diminished to almost nothing, and the thing it's balancing against was expanded. It means that someone who has no problem with the balance of early editions could conceivably have a rational objection to the balance of 3.5.


And power is not what defines lower levels anyway - it's survivability. It doesn't matter if you can see the future or enslave minds to your will if an errant goblin spear can end your career; at least, it doesn't matter as much.
Wizards just have a different kind of survivability at early levels. Their defenses are complicated and intricate, able to block a good variety of things. By contrast, fighters mostly just block other fighters. AC doesn't do all that much to stop most magical things. Wizards are probably better at defending against other wizards, with their invisibility, and abrupt jaunt, and mirror image, and whatever.


And I find that unfortunate, because the connection between SKR, this feat, and PF as a whole are all circumstantial. If this feat were mandatory for gnomes or something, and if it took the place of another feat that other races got, then maybe - just maybe - there would be a point to be found here. But it's not, and there isn't.
PF and SKR are quite connected, though there may not be an inextricable link. He is the face of the system to some extent. As for the feat, people don't hate the system because of the feat. The feat just represents a broader issue, which I've discussed. Anyway, SKR isn't necessarily a reason to dislike the system. He's just a probable source for the emotional aspect of the response.

[Psyren]

The balancing factor that the author cites was diminished to almost nothing, and the thing it's balancing against was expanded. It means that someone who has no problem with the balance of early editions could conceivably have a rational objection to the balance of 3.5.

I don't think the factor has diminshed at all. Shifted, perhaps, but the fact that it does happen eventually and was meant to happen was never in dispute throughout all those editions.

The specific level it happens at depends sharply on player skill; Complicated defenses, if they cannot be used properly, are not defenses at all. You could have the greatest shield in the world, but without system mastery, it's useless.

For instance, legions of new players pick magic missile at 1st-level. Or the ones that don't, and do pick something more useful like Grease, completely miss the ability to cast it on themselves and so slip out of most grapples. It's really basic things like that. It's overly simplistic and two-dimensional to say "well, you get spell X at Y level, so Y level must be when mundanes are rendered useless."



PF and SKR are quite connected, though there may not be an inextricable link. He is the face of the system to some extent.

You and others are certainly welcome to think that way. I'm willing to bet though that most people who play PF don't even know who he is, just as most D&D players at actual tables don't know Monte Cook or Ari Marmell or Bruce Cordell. Or they may have read the name on their sourcebooks and never once interacted with the person behind them.

[georgie_leech]

I don't think the factor has diminshed at all. Shifted, perhaps, but the fact that it does happen eventually and was meant to happen was never in dispute throughout all those editions.

Sorry, but if you admit the point at which the Wizard becomes stronger is lower*, how does that not weaken the position of "Late game power is balanced by early game weakness?" After all, if the range at which a Wizard is more powerful is greater (and since many games start at higher levels to avoid the swingy-ness of PC survival at level 1), doesn't that mean the balancing factor has less impact over the course of a game?

*If you are arguing it's shifted so that Wizards take even longer to experience high growth rates, I point you to the increased number and versatility of spells.

[eggynack]

The specific level it happens at depends sharply on player skill; Complicated defenses, if they cannot be used properly, are not defenses at all. You could have the greatest shield in the world, but without system mastery, it's useless.

For instance, legions of new players pick magic missile at 1st-level. Or the ones that don't, and do pick something more useful like Grease, completely miss the ability to cast it on themselves and so slip out of most grapples. It's really basic things like that. It's overly simplistic and two-dimensional to say "well, you get spell X at Y level, so Y level must be when mundanes are rendered useless."
The factor of player skill is a static and unchanging one. It's pretty much irrelevant as a result. People could make bad decisions in AD&D, and they can make bad decisions now. They can and do also make bad decisions about fighters. However, a reasonably well played wizard will be better now than he was in past editions, and will be so at an earlier level. We're talking about game balance here, which is a thing based on the options available to any given character. I can only analyse what is in front of me, which is the books, and the classes, and the spells. You can't base such a determination on something as dubious as system mastery.


You and others are certainly welcome to think that way. I'm willing to bet though that most people who play PF don't even know who he is, just as most D&D players at actual tables don't know Monte Cook or Ari Marmell or Bruce Cordell. Or they may have read the name on their sourcebooks and never once interacted with the person behind them.
That's fair. However, the hatedom that you're trying to contest the hate of is a group of people who do see it that way. I doubt that someone who doesn't know who SKR is would hate PF.

[Psyren]

@georgie: Because that shifting is based on potential power, not actual (I refer you to my "system mastery" point above.) In other words, it can get as low as 3, but the more important question is will it. And that's why I believe that, in practice, things haven't changed all that much; casters still need meatshields for quite awhile (at least until they can make their buffs last all day, reliably get a free buffing round, or have the defensive magic items they need), and even after that point is reached, the non-casters will still have something to do.


The factor of player skill is a static and unchanging one. It's pretty much irrelevant as a result. People could make bad decisions in AD&D, and they can make bad decisions now.

I disagree - more options and more complexity only makes system mastery harder to achieve.

[eggynack]

I disagree - more options and more complexity only makes system mastery harder to achieve.
Well, allow me to sidestep that issue for a moment and ask you this: Who is this blog directed at? The author is saying that we are mistaken that the game is less balanced now than it was then, but for anyone who would make such an assessment of imbalance, I've gotta think that they would have the requisite system mastery to outperform the casters of past editions.

[Spuddles]

I don't think the factor has diminshed at all. Shifted, perhaps, but the fact that it does happen eventually and was meant to happen was never in dispute throughout all those editions.

The specific level it happens at depends sharply on player skill; Complicated defenses, if they cannot be used properly, are not defenses at all. You could have the greatest shield in the world, but without system mastery, it's useless.

For instance, legions of new players pick magic missile at 1st-level. Or the ones that don't, and do pick something more useful like Grease, completely miss the ability to cast it on themselves and so slip out of most grapples. It's really basic things like that. It's overly simplistic and two-dimensional to say "well, you get spell X at Y level, so Y level must be when mundanes are rendered useless."



You and others are certainly welcome to think that way. I'm willing to bet though that most people who play PF don't even know who he is, just as most D&D players at actual tables don't know Monte Cook or Ari Marmell or Bruce Cordell. Or they may have read the name on their sourcebooks and never once interacted with the person behind them.

Monte Cool, Ari Marmell, or Bruce Cordell don't regularly troll the internet and flame people, though.

[georgie_leech]

@georgie: Because that shifting is based on potential power, not actual (I refer you to my "system mastery" point above.) In other words, it can get as low as 3, but the more important question is will it. And that's why I believe that, in practice, things haven't changed all that much; casters still need meatshields for quite awhile (at least until they can make their buffs last all day, reliably get a free buffing round, or have the defensive magic items they need), and even after that point is reached, the non-casters will still have something to do.


Okay, so the potential point of when Magic outstrips Not Magic is potentially lower.

How does that not weaken the position of "Late game power is balanced by early game weakness?" After all, if the range at which a Wizard is more powerful is greater, doesn't that mean the balancing factor has less (potential) impact over the course of a game?

[Coidzor]

You and others are certainly welcome to think that way. I'm willing to bet though that most people who play PF don't even know who he is, just as most D&D players at actual tables don't know Monte Cook or Ari Marmell or Bruce Cordell. Or they may have read the name on their sourcebooks and never once interacted with the person behind them.

On the other hand, can you even use the Paizo forums without running into a post by either SKR or Jason Buhlman eventually? The PFSRD, which seems to be preferred, has(or at least had) a habit of linking to forum posts by both men.

[Ravens_cry]

On the other hand, can you even use the Paizo forums without running into a post by either SKR or Jason Buhlman eventually? The PFSRD, which seems to be preferred, has(or at least had) a habit of linking to forum posts by both men.
Yeah, when it was giving clarifications on tricky potential issues. I have yet to see any that made me go "Why?!" yet though. A few that made me go "Aw, there is another trick gone." but otherwise not some of the reactions seen here.

[Psyren]

Well, allow me to sidestep that issue for a moment and ask you this: Who is this blog directed at? The author is saying that we are mistaken that the game is less balanced now than it was then, but for anyone who would make such an assessment of imbalance, I've gotta think that they would have the requisite system mastery to outperform the casters of past editions.

Honestly I would think so too, but the people who appear to complain loudest about caster imbalance as though it were a new thing seem to me the ones who should have the system mastery to realize it was baked into the system the whole time.



How does that not weaken the position of "Late game power is balanced by early game weakness?" After all, if the range at which a Wizard is more powerful is greater, doesn't that mean the balancing factor has less (potential) impact over the course of a game?

That's just it - for actual tables, the range hasn't changed appreciably. Outside of these forums, I see way more complaints about Gunslingers than Clerics, Wizards and Druids.

[Squirrel_Dude]

That's just it - for actual tables, the range hasn't changed appreciably. Outside of these forums, I see way more complaints about Gunslingers than Clerics, Wizards and Druids.And the Magus, don't forget the Magus. I remember seeing a proposed tier list on the paizo boards where the Magus was put in teir 2 and oracles were in tier 3. Their damage numbers are the most common reason cited.

I actually sometimes think the impact of damage is somewhat underrated, when the vast majority of D&D 3.5/Pathfinder mechanics, and time spent in session is combat. When a player is dominant in that area of the game the impact is much more obvious.

[georgie_leech]

Honestly I would think so too, but the people who appear to complain loudest about caster imbalance as though it were a new thing seem to me the ones who should have the system mastery to realize it was baked into the system the whole time.

Perhaps instead they decry the imbalance because trying to counteract said imbalance is what led them to develop system mastery in the first place?




That's just it - for actual tables, the range hasn't changed appreciably. Outside of these forums, I see way more complaints about Gunslingers than Clerics, Wizards and Druids.

In previous editions a Cleric's power was limited in that they had to memorise their healing spells directly or they couldn't provide any healing at all; Clerics can now spontaneously convert any spell into said healing, increasing their flexibility. Wizards gained increased access to SoS/L's at lower levels, and have more spell slots to cast them from. Druids gained the ability to cast spells in Wildshape, and have access to it earlier.

How does this not increase the starting power/flexibility of the main Magic classes?

[TuggyNE]

I don't think the factor has diminshed at all. Shifted, perhaps, but the fact that it does happen eventually and was meant to happen was never in dispute throughout all those editions.

Really? Despite everyone in 3e getting Con to HP (buffing caster survivability at low levels, and decreasing martial or blaster dominance at nearly all levels), despite far more spells/day at lower level, despite new and unusual defences like Abrupt Jaunt or wings of cover or even alter self + monster manuals, and despite all the spells that come online at low-mid levels like stinking cloud, black tentacles, fly, and teleport? Despite all those factors lessening the weakness of casters at low levels, you don't think it's diminished the balancing?

Or, looking at it another way, despite shapechange + monster manuals, (lesser/greater) planar binding, and gate at high levels, as well as increased capability in numerous ways and greatly reduced XP requirements to get to those levels, you would consider caster power at the high end relative to its intended balancing factor to have remained about the same?


Honestly I would think so too, but the people who appear to complain loudest about caster imbalance as though it were a new thing seem to me the ones who should have the system mastery to realize it was baked into the system the whole time.

Not sure how many people think imbalance was new vs those who think it was newly worse (in a particular direction; 2e and 1e and co. were not really balanced, but their imbalances were less broadly similar across the whole system and more haphazard, from what I know).

Also, this is a non-sequitur, mentioning "people who complain loudest about caster imbalance", but none of those happen to be involved in the discussion at hand, nor are their specific ideas being defended, in contrast to those who consider balance to have remained the same, who notably are, and whose claims are currently in question.

[LordBlades]

My point, and I suspect his too, was that T1-T2 classes are okay to have in a game. The game expects them to be there. They can be abused, but that is more a player problem than one of the classes themselves. The effort and consequences of removing them aren't really worth the hassle in my eyes.



Why? Why should tier 1 and 2 classes exist?

I mean I understand that some spells enable some very common fantasy tropes, like raising hordes of undead (Animate Dead and it's siblings), making deals with 'demons' (planar binding line), save or dies (think Circe turning pp into pigs, or Medusa's perifying gaze), shapeshifting (Polymorph), and the game would be poorer without it, but why not:

-bring them down to earth? PF made a pretty god job of making Polymorph a more 'playable' spell, and for example what fantasy trope does Gate (the calling version) enable that can't be reliably achieved with Planar Binding/Ally (which are still strong, but weaker than Gate)?

-cut the number of tricks available to a single character? A lot. Yes, a wizard should be able to turn people into dust, animate the dead, turn into a dragon and eat your face off, but not all at once, as a standard action and 50 times a day. Take Beguiler or Dread Necromancer, very good embodiments of the respective archetypes, and yet not nearly as gamebreaking as a Wizard.

You can achieve most(maybe even all) magical fantasy tropes without getting stronger than tier 3, and it would certainly make for a better game overall, so why not do it? It's even closer to the fantasy image of wizard, because in most cases, the wizard was defined by a single trick (or a few).If he could turn people into pigs he usually couldn't also raise skeletons, teleport around and then turn into whatever he felt like and eat your face off.


As a potential answer, absolutely. For me personally, getting there takes too much variety out of the game and removes too much of its "pick up and play aspect" for not much benefit, but if balance is a primary concern then this is certainly one way to address it. Balance just isn't that important to me because in practice, Tippy-like players frequent message boards far more than they frequent tables.

If table balance is design intent, why not state it as such? I mean there's 5-600 pages between DMG and DMG2, covering all sort of stuff (hell, even 'what to do if one of your players wants to run a business'). An in-depth explanation of the built-in imbalances, trap options (which they 'totally knew about' according to Monte Cook) and what to do when your group's druid accidentally ends up 3x as good as fighting s the party fighter would have certainly be useful for many groups. Hell, even a simple 'WARNING: This system is not balanced! Don't operate under the assumption that it is!' would have been useful for many groups. It would have certainly made life easier for a couple of guys I know that got kicked out of groups because it was totally their fault that their single class, core only caster was too strong.

[Eldan]

As I said earlier, this is very DM dependent. If they play up the angered prospect, it's actually not a bad form of mundane battlefield control. Making your enemy come to you or target you alone can actually be quite useful. The Power Attack is a way to incentivises that.
However, mechanically, none of this forces the other party to do this.

The thing is: if you have the kind of DM that would play out the anger in an opponent, wouldn't that DM also be sensible enough to just allow you to do the same thing with a bluff and diplomacy check anyway, without having to spend a feat?

[IronFist]

As a potential answer, absolutely. For me personally, getting there takes too much variety out of the game and removes too much of its "pick up and play aspect" for not much benefit, but if balance is a primary concern then this is certainly one way to address it. Balance just isn't that important to me because in practice, Tippy-like players frequent message boards far more than they frequent tables.

*slow clap*
Psyren for president!!
Well said, sir.

[TexAvery]

It's a matter of theme. Maneuvers feel like spells specifically because of that classification/arrangement. I'm sure whoever named the chapter "Blade Magic" felt the same way.

"Magic is anything I feel like is magic".

Thanks for clearing that up.

[Snowbluff]

"Magic is anything I feel like is magic".

Thanks for clearing that up.
Yeah, sounds about right.

[IronFist]

"Magic is anything I feel like is magic".

Thanks for clearing that up.

You do know that the people who wrote ToB outright disagree with you, snark or not, right?

[Boci]

You do know that the people who wrote ToB outright disagree with you, snark or not, right?

Because they called it blade magic, and said £master the secret magic of steel" on the back? That is hardly an argument and is trumped by the actual rules quotes of "most maneuvers use no magic at all".

[Psyren]

Really?
*snip*

Yes. Con to HP is nice but only really comes into its own later; in 3.5 for instance, even 16 con is only getting your wizard 4-7 HP, i.e. well within striking range of an unlucky longbow shot, or a shortbow fired by a goblin rogue in the surprise round. And 16 Con isn't likely for many casters, particularly newer players who actually seek out the "frail wizard" archetype.

Druids/Clerics are a bit sturdier of course, but they're also likely to be on the front lines with less armor/HP than your typical mundane.

At higher levels, mundanes get more toys too, both from wealth and from their class/PrCs/archetypes.



Also, this is a non-sequitur, mentioning "people who complain loudest about caster imbalance", but none of those happen to be involved in the discussion at hand, nor are their specific ideas being defended, in contrast to those who consider balance to have remained the same, who notably are, and whose claims are currently in question.

I got embroiled in this to begin with due to the tired "Paizo promised to fix it" meme. Which I read as a balance complaint, since wanting something fixed implies that it's seen as broken.


"Magic is anything I feel like is magic".

Thanks for clearing that up.

I can tell you're being sarcastic, but this actually isn't far off. Theme is what leads to credulity and credulity is generally what determines whether something gets the Ex or Su tag. It's as much art as science.

When something feels magical, and gets slapped with an Ex tag, it causes disconnect and lots of arguments in the base - with various ToB maneuvers being the prime example.


Because they called it blade magic, and said £master the secret magic of steel" on the back? That is hardly an argument and is trumped by the actual rules quotes of "most maneuvers use no magic at all".

Rules text is irrelevant here - this is not a RAW discussion, but one of theme and sentiment. That they used those descriptions for maneuvers meant they felt the same way that I and many others do about the book. It's not a bad thing, it just is.

[Boci]

I can tell you're being sarcastic, but this actually isn't far off. Theme is what leads to credulity and credulity is generally what determines whether something gets the Ex or Su tag. It's as much art as science.

When something feels magical, and gets slapped with an Ex tag, it causes disconnect and lots of arguments in the base - with various ToB maneuvers being the prime example.

But this is how real life combat is taught. You are going to have a consistent theme in your technique (say a school of German fencing or boxing). There are going to be named moves (it makes for more efficient teaching this way, like the fleche or the right hook). Some moves require more skill and are only taught once you have mastered lesser moves.

How else should learning martial combat be realistically portrayed?


Rules text is irrelevant here - this is not a RAW discussion, but one of theme and sentiment. That they used those descriptions for maneuvers meant they felt the same way that I and many others do about the book. It's not a bad thing, it just is.

Then see above.

[Snowbluff]

But this is how real life combat is taught. You are going to have a consistent theme in your technique (say a school of German fencing). There are going to be named moves (it makes for more efficient teaching this way). Some moves require more skill and are only taught once you have mastered lesser moves.

How else should learning martial combat be realistically portrayed?

*ahem* Let's see if I can say this right. "MORDHAU!" :smallbiggrin:

I actually have a basic primer of medieval fighting styles. It's pretty neat. I'll see if I can dig it up.

[TexAvery]

You do know that the people who wrote ToB outright disagree with you, snark or not, right?

You do know I was commenting on Psyren's position and not one way or the other on the oh-so-reliable people who wrote ToB?

[eggynack]

I can tell you're being sarcastic, but this actually isn't far off. Theme is what leads to credulity and credulity is generally what determines whether something gets the Ex or Su tag. It's as much art as science.

But then it's entirely subjective, with absolutely no standards or measurement. By that non-standard, you have no right to say that the swordsage is magic and the monk is not. At least not for anyone who isn't you. We can't define all of our terms by your assessments of theme and game feel.

[TexAvery]

I can tell you're being sarcastic, but this actually isn't far off. Theme is what leads to credulity and credulity is generally what determines whether something gets the Ex or Su tag. It's as much art as science.

When something feels magical, and gets slapped with an Ex tag, it causes disconnect and lots of arguments in the base - with various ToB maneuvers being the prime example.

Snarky, not sarcastic. I meant exactly what I said: you admitted you're basing your position on a feeling rather than anything that can actually be rationally debated, after a dozen pages of attempting to justify your position with concrete lines.

[Big Fau]

I can tell you're being sarcastic, but this actually isn't far off. Theme is what leads to credulity and credulity is generally what determines whether something gets the Ex or Su tag. It's as much art as science.

When something feels magical, and gets slapped with an Ex tag, it causes disconnect and lots of arguments in the base - with various ToB maneuvers being the prime example.

The only maneuvers that are marked Ex but could potentially be Su are the Healing ones, the Shadow Teleports (why they weren't marked as such is beyond me) and the Earthstomp Quake maneuver. Lightning Throw can go either way (Ex doesn't mundane, it means "beyond normal but nonmagical").

Everything else in the book is marked as it should be, and a majority of it is Ex. A vast majority.

[Psyren]

But this is how real life combat is taught.

"Real-life combat" can't heal wounds, make you incorporeal, teleport or summon fire elementals. Note that only one of those four has the Su tag in ToB.

@ Big Fau: I do agree that the lion's share of maneuvers do make sense as Ex. It's the few that don't that contribute so much to the controversy over the book.


But then it's entirely subjective, with absolutely no standards or measurement. By that non-standard, you have no right to say that the swordsage is magic and the monk is not. At least not for anyone who isn't you. We can't define all of our terms by your assessments of theme and game feel.

I'm not the one who's defining it - WotC/Paizo are, and they're doing it based on what is believable. They could have instead chosen to make the game into Exalted or something but they did want the mundane to remain in the system.


Snarky, not sarcastic. I meant exactly what I said: you admitted you're basing your position on a feeling rather than anything that can actually be rationally debated, after a dozen pages of attempting to justify your position with concrete lines.

Let me ask you this then - how do you think WotC and Paizo determine whether an ability is Ex or Su? Why did WotC bother making some ToB maneuvers supernatural at all? If feeling didn't matter to them, why isn't everything in that book Ex?

[Big Fau]

Let me ask you this then - how do you think WotC and Paizo determine whether an ability is Ex or Su? Why did WotC bother making some ToB maneuvers supernatural at all? If feeling didn't matter to them, why isn't everything in that book Ex?

Because they didn't want Ex Fire damage or Cold damage outside of alchemical items. They felt it was a mechanical necessity to designate those maneuvers as Su, and then gave those maneuvers to the most magically-oriented class in the book (the Swordsage).

A few bad apples doesn't make the entire book magical. It just means the devs didn't think this through.

They may have originally intended the Devoted Spirit maneuvers to grant Temp HP (judging by what the Warlord does in 4E), but realized that it got very complicated compared to just healing damage.


Edit: And spells may or may not be Ex...

[eggynack]

I'm not the one who's defining it - WotC/Paizo are, and they're doing it based on what is believable. They could have instead chosen to make the game into Exalted or something but they did want the mundane to remain in the system.

In that case, you have to prove that the definition of magic that you've claimed fits in with the one used by Wizards and Paizo. Otherwise, it's still just your standard, rather than a standard that's meaningful.

[Boci]

"Real-life combat" can't heal wounds, make you incorporeal, teleport or summon fire elementals. Note that only one of those four has the Su tag in ToB.

I'm not talking about individual maneuvres, I'm talking about the system. What you take as evidence of magic (divided into schools, named abilities, ranked abilities that require more expirience to master by are more powerful) is the structure of almost any RL combat is taught.



@ Big Fau: I do agree that the lion's share of maneuvers do make sense as Ex. It's the few that don't that contribute so much to the controversy over the book.

Wasn't you initial stance in this thread that it is unfair to condemn PF as a whole for a couple of bad feats?

[Snowbluff]

"Real-life combat" can't heal wounds, make you incorporeal, teleport or summon fire elementals. Note that only one of those four has the Su tag in ToB.

From what I understand, HP can represent things other than wounds fluff-wise. Fatigue, boredom, morale, luck, and remaining 'divine intervention' have been suggested... let me dig this up.

[Psyren]

Because they didn't want Ex Fire damage or Cold damage outside of alchemical items. They felt it was a mechanical necessity to designate those maneuvers as Su, and then gave those maneuvers to the most magically-oriented class in the book (the Swordsage).

It's not just the damaging ones. There are maneuvers to fly, wrap shadows around you, and drain energy from your targets - all are supernatural as well. Simple alchemy can't duplicate those - you need actual magic. Note that there isn't a scientific metric there, it's just a feeling.


In that case, you have to prove that the definition of magic that you've claimed fits in with the one used by Wizards and Paizo. Otherwise, it's still just your standard, rather than a standard that's meaningful.

You can easily see that it fits just by looking at the capabilities magic routinely gets that mundane does not. For instance, being able to heal others or teleport - the Devoted Spirit/Shadow Hand maneuvers are perhaps the only Ex way to do those in all of 3.5, and given all the other book's editing mistakes I could just as easily put those in that category too rather than claiming they were intended.

[Snowbluff]

There are feats that heal the user. The combat focus line does this.

Are ninja's magic, too?

[eggynack]

You can easily see that it fits just by looking at the capabilities magic routinely gets that mundane does not. For instance, being able to heal others or teleport - the Devoted Spirit/Shadow Hand maneuvers are perhaps the only Ex way to do those in all of 3.5, and given all the other book's editing mistakes I could just as easily put those in that category too rather than claiming they were intended.
Perhaps routinely, but not necessarily always. Also, a monk can heal themselves, teleport, and go ethereal. Thus, they are magic by your standard.

[TexAvery]

Let me ask you this then - how do you think WotC and Paizo determine whether an ability is Ex or Su? Why did WotC bother making some ToB maneuvers supernatural at all? If feeling didn't matter to them, why isn't everything in that book Ex?

Honestly? I don't care how they do it. You don't either, since your definition doesn't match theirs, and you count Ex maneuvers as "casting". You're basing your definition of "caster" on your feeling, which again means we can't have a rational debate about it. You have no internally-consistent definition for us to work with.

[Psyren]

Perhaps routinely, but not necessarily always. Also, a monk can heal themselves, teleport, and go ethereal. Thus, they are magic by your standard.

I covered monks already, we're retreading old ground. I see them as magical in both editions, though they are only truly casters in PF.


Are ninja's magic, too?

Of course they are - ki is explicitly supernatural in both systems.


From what I understand, HP can represent things other than wounds fluff-wise. Fatigue, boredom, morale, luck, and remaining 'divine intervention' have been suggested... let me dig this up.

It can, but some attacks represent wounds and nothing but, yet DS can heal those too. For instance, if I cause my target to "violently purge blood or other vital fluids through his skin" or summon "magic fish made of force that tear into the bodies of creatures as though ravenous," a pep talk or some push-ups aren't going to do a whole lot there. Then you have specific damage types like bleed damage that explicitly require physical damage to have been dealt.


Honestly? I don't care how they do it.

That's just it - I do. And for the most part, their classifications make sense to me and fit with my viewpoint on what non-magic should and shouldn't be able to do. There are only a handful of exceptions.

[Boci]

It can, but some attacks represent wounds and nothing but, yet DS can heal those too. For instance, if I cause my target to "violently purge blood or other vital fluids through his skin" or summon "magic fish made of force that tear into the bodies of creatures as though ravenous," a pep talk or some push-ups aren't going to do a whole lot there. Then you have specific damage types like bleed damage that explicitly require physical damage to have been dealt.

Neither interpretation is flawless. HP as actual damage has the problem that it means bed rest is surprisingly good at healing mortal wounds. Seriously, 2nd level martial character, worst case scenario 6 days to recover from being left to bleed out in a pool of his own blood. And also strangely their combat abilities were unaffected by being shanked in the kidney, something that traditional reduces your fighting efficiency.

Also in case you missed it above:


"Real-life combat" can't heal wounds, make you incorporeal, teleport or summon fire elementals. Note that only one of those four has the Su tag in ToB.

I'm not talking about individual maneuvres, I'm talking about the system. What you take as evidence of magic (divided into schools, named abilities, ranked abilities that require more expirience to master by are more powerful) is the structure of almost any RL combat is taught.

[eggynack]

I covered monks already, we're retreading old ground. I see them as magical in both editions, though they are only truly casters in PF.
So swordsages and monks are both magic. Thus, we're just left with your definition of "caster", which is a rather meaningless definition. It basically just means, "has cool abilities that it can use," which doesn't have much attachment to the normal definition, which is, "one who casts spells." I'm not even entirely sure what you seek to prove here anymore.

[Big Fau]

It's not just the damaging ones. There are maneuvers to fly, wrap shadows around you, and drain energy from your targets - all are supernatural as well. Simple alchemy can't duplicate those - you need actual magic. Note that there isn't a scientific metric there, it's just a feeling.

Alchemy on it's own can't, but those abilities can be provided by racial traits as well (flight being the easiest).

The only flight maneuvers (both Stances, BTW) are explicitly SU, but both draw on a different method of flight (and in one case it isn't actual flight, just hovering). One of those methods is outright magical (using heated air to create an updraft strong enough to lift a person, potentially a person the size of Big T), while the other one is merely a use of the Balance skill (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/skills.htm#balance).

No one ever said that maneuvers couldn't be over-the-top, and the devs outright admitted to drawing some inspiration from Shonen anime.

[TexAvery]

That's just it - I do. And for the most part, their classifications make sense to me and fit with my viewpoint on what non-magic should and shouldn't be able to do. There are only a handful of exceptions.

That's a comforting Snuggie(tm) to wrap yourself up in on a cold November day, but no, you don't. Also, your point was about the term "caster". That's different from "magic". Apparently. Since you have warblades "casting" Ex maneuvers.

[Snowbluff]

Of course they are - ki is explicitly supernatural in both systems.
So we have very few things that aren't actually magic. I think we're down to some rogue, the some barbarians, and fighters who spend their time being pathetic.



It can, but some attacks represent wounds and nothing but, yet DS can heal those too. For instance, if I cause my target to "violently purge blood or other vital fluids through his skin" or summon "magic fish made of force that tear into the bodies of creatures as though ravenous," a pep talk or some push-ups aren't going to do a whole lot there. Then you have specific damage types like bleed damage that explicitly require physical damage to have been dealt.

Or you can walk it off! This isn't your mom's house! No one will will give you a bandaid, or cast a cure spell, or kiss your little scraped knees, you MAGGOT!
(http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DrillSergeantNasty)
:smalltongue:

[Psyren]

So swordsages and monks are both magic. Thus, we're just left with your definition of "caster", which is a rather meaningless definition. It basically just means, "has cool abilities that it can use," which doesn't have much attachment to the normal definition, which is, "one who casts spells." I'm not even entirely sure what you seek to prove here anymore.

I understand it's a bit nebulous - again, much like the criteria for determining whether an ability is Ex or Su. Neither are really defined anywhere, it's a matter of feeling. Can we at least agree that far?

Basically, I define "caster" more broadly than "spellcaster." One would have to anyway, since "spellcaster" would throw out Truenamers and Warlocks and Incarnates and Artificers and the like, but I do genuinely feel it goes further than that and that ToB classes are casters of a sort. Again, if they were not, the use of the term "magic" in the book's fluff would have been easy for them to avoid.


Alchemy on it's own can't, but those abilities can be provided by racial traits as well (flight being the easiest).

Those racials are either themselves supernatural or they result from physical constructs like wings. Do you have non-magical examples of all three?


So we have very few things that aren't actually magic. I think we're down to some rogue, the some barbarians, and fighters who spend their time being pathetic.

I don't see why that's bad. If the world itself is magical, it makes sense that even classes that don't learn spells can tap into that... dweomer, weave, source, however you want to term it... on an instinctive/primal level.



Or you can walk it off! This isn't your mom's house! No one will will give you a bandaid, or cast a cure spell, or kiss your little scraped knees, you MAGGOT!
(http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DrillSergeantNasty)
:smalltongue:

Yeah I'm aware of that, but healing via pep talk still feels weird to me - and to the Giant, judging by SSDT.

[Boci]

Those racials are either themselves supernatural or they result from physical constructs like wings. Do you have non-magical examples of all three?

Beholder's flight?

[Snowbluff]

I don't see why that's bad. If the world itself is magical, it makes sense that even classes that don't learn spells can tap into that... dweomer, weave, source, however you want to term it... on an instinctive/primal level.

It's bad because the distinction lacks functionality and therefore value in this system. If have everyone has access to magic, how would you or anyone in game distinguish it from natural law?


Yeah I'm aware of that, but healing via pep talk still feels weird to me - and to the Giant, judging by SSDT.
I don't see why. I can, by RAW, throw myself into a wall of fire, scream at it, and watch it disappear. :smalltongue:

[TexAvery]

Those racials are either themselves supernatural or they result from physical constructs like wings. Do you have non-magical examples of all three?

Those wings wouldn't let those races fly in real life, so they feel magical to me.

[eggynack]

I understand it's a bit nebulous - again, much like the criteria for determining whether an ability is Ex or Su. Neither are really defined anywhere, it's a matter of feeling. Can we at least agree that far?
Which thing am I saying is a matter of feeling here? Is it the magic one, or the caster one? I'm vaguely inclined to think that caster doesn't really mean anything, at least for whatever that blog was talking about. I'm not really sure where the term entered things to begin with. As for what magic is, it might have been feeling based when they were choosing what to make Ex and Su, but now that that stuff is solidified, that seems like a decent dividing line.


Basically, I define "caster" more broadly than "spellcaster." One would have to anyway, since "spellcaster" would throw out Truenamers and Warlocks and Incarnates and Artificers and the like, but I do genuinely feel it goes further than that and that ToB classes are casters of a sort. Again, if they were not, the use of the term "magic" in the book's fluff would have been easy for them to avoid.
But, y'know, at least warlocks have something that fits into the definition of magic. Warblades really don't. I suppose that your definition rests on a two pronged approach. The first prong is whether the things that are being done can be broadly termed as "magic". The second is whether the things being done are made up of various interchangable abilities that fit into a sort of tiered structure. Thus, I suppose that warblades and monks wouldn't be casters, while swordsages might be. I don't know what that definition is being used for, however.

[Psyren]

Beholder's flight?

This really depends on how inherently magical you consider aberrations, outsiders, and other such fantastic beings to be. After all, many Construct abilities are Ex too, but they themselves have indisputably magical - or at least paranormal - origins.

[Boci]

This really depends on how inherently magical you consider aberrations, outsiders, and other such fantastic beings to be. After all, many Construct abilities are Ex too, but they themselves have indisputably magical - or at least paranormal - origins.

I'm beginning to sense a pattern, but I guess we only have ourselves to blame for continuing to discuss a topic that has clearly been placed under the jurisdiction of Psyren's feelings.

[Psyren]

I'm beginning to sense a pattern, but I guess we only have ourselves to blame for continuing to discuss a topic that has clearly been placed under the jurisdiction of Psyren's feelings.

So aberrations are totally mundane creatures to you? And constructs, and outsiders? No inherent magic at all?

Note - I'm asking about your definitions here, not mine.


It's bad because the distinction lacks functionality and therefore value in this system. If have everyone has access to magic, how would you or anyone in game distinguish it from natural law?

Ease of access. Any monk, if he trains hard enough, can unlock that well of power. But certainly not every monk, or even most monks.

Compare to a Wizard - even a 1st-level one has access to magical powers. Ditto a sorcerer or cleric.



I don't see why. I can, by RAW, throw myself into a wall of fire, scream at it, and watch it disappear. :smalltongue:

And now you're getting into why such oversights were not repeated :smalltongue: I believe there is an IHS analogue in Path of War for instance, but I'm willing to bet money it can't do that.


Those wings wouldn't let those races fly in real life, so they feel magical to me.

Definitely agreed.

[Boci]

So aberrations are totally mundane creatures to you? And constructs, and outsiders? No inherent magic at all?

Note - I'm asking about your definitions here, not mine.

To me there is a difference between mundane, and magical. A commoner is mundane, a high level fighter is not (and technically I guess a high level commoner isn't mundane either), despite neither being magical. Aberrations are not mundane, but they are not automatically magical either. I also don't think a dragon's flight makes them inherently magical, I think their magical abilities makes them inherently magical.

[Snowbluff]

Ease of access. Any monk, if he trains hard enough, can unlock that well of power. But certainly not every monk, or even most monks.

Compare to a Wizard - even a 1st-level one has access to magical powers. Ditto a sorcerer or cleric. Yes, but the monk will inevitably gain ki strike at a rather low level. According to you he's probably magic anyway, even if he doesn't have access to (Su) abilities.




And now you're getting into why such oversights were not repeated :smalltongue: I believe there is an IHS analogue in Path of War for instance, but I'm willing to bet money it can't do that.
Actually, this sort of thing is intended. Spell affecting me is the best worded and defined part of ability.

[eggynack]

It's bad because the distinction lacks functionality and therefore value in this system. If have everyone has access to magic, how would you or anyone in game distinguish it from natural law?

I think that the answer is that there is no distinction. What is magic but an extension of natural law? You say the right words, in the right way, while maneuvering your hands correctly, and holding the correct object, and you get a fireball. Maybe you need to imbue the fireball with willpower or spell joo joo or something, but that can also be quantified and measured. "Magic" is testable, and repeatable, and logical. It fits all the requirements of science, in other words. Maybe everyone can access it, or maybe not everyone can, but can everyone access flight propelled by only their body in our world? Not yet they can't, and yet flight still fits in perfectly with our understanding of natural law.

[TexAvery]

Definitely agreed.

Fantastic. So, why did you say "supernatural or physical characteristics like wings"? If those physical characteristics "feel" magical, what was the distinction? And if you're appealing to the authority of the writers, why do you try to argue that Ex characteristics, like winged flight for humanoids, are magical?

[Psyren]

To me there is a difference between mundane, and magical. A commoner is mundane, a high level fighter is not (and technically I guess a high level commoner isn't mundane either), despite neither being magical. Aberrations are not mundane, but they are not automatically magical either. I also don't think a dragon's flight makes them inherently magical, I think their magical abilities makes them inherently magical.

I think some creature types are just inherently magical no matter what they can do. Dragons, Aberrations, Undead, Constructs, Elementals, Oozes and Magical Beasts would fall under that umbrella for me. But it comes down to feeling again so I can understand if that wouldn't be satisfying.


Yes, but the monk will inevitably gain ki strike at a rather low level. According to you he's probably magic anyway, even if he doesn't have access to (Su) abilities.

Indeed, that is magical - but I personally think he needs a little more than just "I can bypass damage reduction" to be classified as a caster.

Note that the PF ki pool gives you some pretty nifty activated abilities right at the outset in addition to ki strike, like bursts of speed, and then ki is used to power some of their more limited abilities so they can be done more frequently as well.



Actually, this sort of thing is intended. Spell affecting me is the best worded and defined part of ability.

I'm fine with being able to not make a spell affect you, but the problem that I (and others) have with it is being able to disable an entire area spell that way even on others. In other words, for your example I could see the Warblade tearing a hole in the Wall of Fire where he is standing, but not on saving his companions from the inferno by doing so. Or for a less tangible example, throwing off a confusion effect but his companions having to fend for themselves.


Fantastic. So, why did you say "supernatural or physical characteristics like wings"? If those physical characteristics "feel" magical, what was the distinction? And if you're appealing to the authority of the writers, why do you try to argue that Ex characteristics, like winged flight for humanoids, are magical?

Add "or both" to that. Dragons have wings, but per Draconomicon, their flight is speculated to not be wholly physical for instance.

[Coidzor]

Add "or both" to that. Dragons have wings, but per Draconomicon, their flight is speculated to not be wholly physical for instance.

Magical Biology! Thaumabiology? Biothaumology? Thaumaphysiology?

[Amechra]

I'm sick and tired of silliness being considered part and parcel of being Fey.

Then again, the image I have in my head of Fey consists primarily of Pan's Labyrinth, the 5th episode of Torchwood, Johnathon Strange and Mr. Norrel, The Moorchild, and countless fairy tales (Tam Lin among them).

That ain't silly, folks.

[TexAvery]

It's bad because the distinction lacks functionality and therefore value in this system. If have everyone has access to magic, how would you or anyone in game distinguish it from natural law?

More importantly, this makes the column he tried to use to justify his position meaningless. If everyone is magic, what does it mean to say that magic-users are supposed to be more powerful? That only makes sense if "magic-user" refers to the T1-2 members, not "people who do something that feels magical, including monks and warblades".

[Coidzor]

I'm sick and tired of silliness being considered part and parcel of being Fey.

Well, they did come up with the Grey Jester for Heroes of Horror, though it's also got a little bit of silliness in there, I suppose.

And I can't remember where it's from, but I'd swear there's also a Fey that goes around, kidnaps brides on their wedding day with monsters, comes into town as a big damn hero, rescues her and mindrapes her into loving him, gets her pregnant, and then abandons her to move on to the next town.

[Psyren]

More importantly, this makes the column he tried to use to justify his position meaningless. If everyone is magic, what does it mean to say that magic-users are supposed to be more powerful? That only makes sense if "magic-user" refers to the T1-2 members, not "people who do something that feels magical, including monks and warblades".

In the column he used "magic-user" where perhaps it would have been more accurate to say "spellcaster." I would have preferred that he used the latter term myself, but it doesn't really affect his underlying point regardless.

I suspect he said "magic-user" since that was literally what they were called in the older editions.

[AstralFire]

In the column he used "magic-user" where perhaps it would have been more accurate to say "spellcaster." I would have preferred that he used the latter term myself, but it doesn't really affect his underlying point regardless.

I suspect he said "magic-user" since that was literally what they were called in the older editions.

Clarification - "spellcaster" does not mean the same thing as simply "caster" or "magic" to you?

[Big Fau]

Clarification - "spellcaster" does not mean the same thing as simply "caster" or "magic" to you?

That does seem to be the case, whereas I do not share his definition.

[TexAvery]

Clarification - "spellcaster" does not mean the same thing as simply "caster" or "magic" to you?


Basically, I define "caster" more broadly than "spellcaster." One would have to anyway, since "spellcaster" would throw out Truenamers and Warlocks and Incarnates and Artificers and the like, but I do genuinely feel it goes further than that and that ToB classes are casters of a sort. Again, if they were not, the use of the term "magic" in the book's fluff would have been easy for them to avoid.

This is part of what makes this whole discussion so much fun.

[AstralFire]

This is part of what makes this whole discussion so much fun.

I thought he said something like that, but we're redefining so many terms that I thought were well understood that I kind of had to be clear.

(I actually can see the logic behind this thinking, mind, I just feel there are so many better terms to be using when you're discussing the divide traditionally known as magic vs. mundane, sword vs. sorcery, or whathaveyou.

One can argue that ToB use a vancian casting mechanic in a very broad mechanical sense, and people frequently use "caster" to mean psion, and "spellcaster" is a specific narrowing. But... I certainly wouldn't do all of this when we're discussing the topic at hand.)

[Ravens_cry]

The thing is: if you have the kind of DM that would play out the anger in an opponent, wouldn't that DM also be sensible enough to just allow you to do the same thing with a bluff and diplomacy check anyway, without having to spend a feat?
Neither really have that as part of what they do, though a Feint check could be played out as much as 'Aha! I have made you so angry you've lowered your defences!' as 'Aha! You thought I go this way but I go that way!'

[Psyren]

Clarification - "spellcaster" does not mean the same thing as simply "caster" or "magic" to you?

I'll answer your question with a question. Are soulmelds spells? Are supernatural abilities spells?

And after you answer that - are they magic?



(I actually can see the logic behind this thinking, mind, I just feel there are so many better terms to be using when you're discussing the divide traditionally known as magic vs. mundane, sword vs. sorcery, or whathaveyou.

Thank you - and that I feel is where the blog post fell short. He said "magic-user" when he really meant to say "spellcaster." Because there are plenty of magic users - like ninja - that don't fit his paradigm if he uses that word.

[Phelix-Mu]

I mentioned it briefly...now several pages ago...but doesn't the unofficial term "pseudo-casting" really cover what Psyren is referring to? Except for the monk part....

In general, I think those involved in the discussion should back up and look at the bigger picture. While terms like "caster" and "mundane" are really colloquial terms with no official definition at all (and thus will fuel this conversation for many posts to come), I think the substance of the matter is focused more on the balance/imbalance issue.

I could be wrong, but the debate seems to be between

A.) Balance is important and official disregard for it is bad

and

B.) Balance was never a goal of the game, since way back, and the game can and does survive despite many attrocities on behalf of the designers of one edition or the other.

NOTE: Apologies to all of those with more nuanced stances that I have omitted due to the already complicated level of discussion. I appreciate nuance, but I wanted to attempt a sum up for newcomers that are having trouble making heads or tails of the current issue (or for those of us that have been here awhile and are still facing the same confusion).