Pathfinder Fact: Pathfinder has solved the Caster/Non-Caster Disparity of 3.5 [Archive]

Ssalarn

2016-12-03, 04:51 AM

Exactly as the title states. Between the various caster downgrades (nerfing/altering the more abusable spells, limiting metamagic reduction cheese, getting rid of Persistent Spell as it existed in 3.5, etc), and the various non-caster upgrades (archetype mixing, skill consolidation, the expansion of what skills could accomplish via Unchained, most non-casters having some class feature involving actual choices as opposed to just things they're given whether they want them or not, etc), non-caster characters are no longer universally outshone by full casters in terms of sheer power or versatility. With this new system, the tier system is effectively debunked.

Am I right, or am I right? :smallcool:

Part of me feels like this is click bait and I shouldn't feed the thread, but I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt and assume the best intentions. Let me start my response by addressing a few of your points-

1) "Between the various caster downgrades (nerfing/altering the more abusable spells, limiting metamagic reduction cheese, getting rid of Persistent Spell as it existed in 3.5, etc)"

Many of the most egregious spells weren't meaningfully impacted at all. The majority of spells that were nerfed were those that turned casters (particularly clerics) into martial++, and pretending to be a martial was never the best use of a spell slot anyway. Persistent Spell is part of this same wheelhouse- it stretched out many buffs, but generally wasn't used for the top tier spells that actually defeated encounters. It's also important to note that casters received numerous upgrades; wizards got arcane schools to stretch out their daily resources and enhance their capabilities, arcane bonds to increase their casting effectiveness and versatility, cantrips and orisons are unlimited use, and prohibited schools are no longer meaningfully prohibited. Casters may be slightly less effective at pretending to be martials now, but they're actually better at being casters in several ways.

2) "the various non-caster upgrades (archetype mixing, skill consolidation, the expansion of what skills could accomplish via Unchained, most non-casters having some class feature involving actual choices as opposed to just things they're given whether they want them or not, etc)"

Archetype mixing isn't limited to non-casters, casters can do it too, and there are some very powerful caster archetypes out there. Even without archetype blending, there's no combination of martial archetypes that will give the power and flexibility of, for example, an exploiter wizard.
Skill consolidation was nice, but again, it benefits casters just as much (if not more) as martials. Wizards will have nearly as many skill points as the average rogue thanks to their Int SADness, and since Pathfinder removed the penalties and increased cost of cross-class skills, they can effectively invest in any skill they choose.
Unchained doesn't do much either. Skill unlocks aren't anywhere near as effective as spells, and once again, casters are just as well positioned to benefit from them as martial classes, with the exception of the unchained rogue who gets a couple freebies.
While many non-casters got some flexible class features to boost their effectiveness, few if any of those class features are as potent as spells, and once again, casters got new goodies too, like arcane schools, bloodlines, channel energy, expanded domain benefits, etc. No ground was gained on this front.

3) " non-caster characters are no longer universally outshone by full casters in terms of sheer power or versatility. With this new system, the tier system is effectively debunked."

Your statement isn't backed by any conclusive evidence. It is still pretty universally true in Pathfinder that magic > no magic. Wizards are still much more versatile and powerful than fighters and rogues, or even half casters like rangers. As I noted, many of the changes you mentioned benefit casters just as much as martials, and casters got quite a few new toys that more than compensate for the small number of nerfs they received; moreover, many of those nerfs didn't affect many caster builds at all, since not all powerful caster builds relied on those gimmicks. The tier system, though somewhat one dimensional and frequently misused or misunderstood, is still as accurate a gauge of class disparity as it ever was, and by and large the general spread of classes within the tier system hasn't changed much. Rangers and Paladins have arguably gone up a notch, the Unchained rogue and monk are also arguably tier 4, and even fighters can hit tier 4 if you throw enough splatbooks at them, but they're still not reaching the higher tiers that remain the exclusive domain of spellcasters, and none of the spellcasting classes took so big a hit that they dropped in the tier ratings at all.

What Pathfinder did was give martials (except the rogue who took a beating and actually dropped a tier until the unchained rogue came out due to changes in the skill and combat maneuver systems' functionality and the massive increases in other classes' effectiveness with skills) better niche protection. The cleric is still a distinctly better adventurer than the fighter, but it's not quite as good at being a better fighter than the fighter as it used to be.

4) "Am I right, or am I right?"

I'm afraid you're neither. It might even be more accurate to say you're wrong. Pathfinder gave casters the ability to excel in skills without diverting any resources away from their casting, made combat maneuvers more costly on the feat front, opposed several skill uses, like Acrobatics to tumble and avoid an AoO, with CMD which scales very quickly and is more difficult to overcome than the previous static checks, swapped the various maneuver systems with CMB/CMD which is weighted in favor of monsters over humanoids, removed almost all the restrictions on prohibited schools for wizards, gave clerics the more versatile and less situational channel energy instead of turn undead, and made many other small changes that benefited casters as much as or more than martials. Ultimately, Pathfinder may have universally bumped the floor for most classes, but it did little to change martial/caster disparity or meaningfully impact, let alone debunk, the tier system.

AvatarVecna

2016-12-03, 05:27 AM

Part of me feels like this is click bait and I shouldn't feed the thread, but I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt and assume the best intentions. Let me start my response by addressing a few of your points-

I appreciate you taking my thread seriously. I will admit that the thread is partially clickbait, in that I'm looking to get people to actually look at and respond to the thread, but the OP is also at least partially sarcastic despite the absence of blue text. I'm looking to gather the opinions of people more experienced with Pathfinder than myself, to see if the game has solved/mitigated/avoided as many problems as I've seen some proponents insist it does. Of course, I'm not exactly doing it with good intentions, either, but I'll leave that for a later post once I've gathered more opinions.

1) "Between the various caster downgrades (nerfing/altering the more abusable spells, limiting metamagic reduction cheese, getting rid of Persistent Spell as it existed in 3.5, etc)"

Many of the most egregious spells weren't meaningfully impacted at all. The majority of spells that were nerfed were those that turned casters (particularly clerics) into martial++, and pretending to be a martial was never the best use of a spell slot anyway. Persistent Spell is part of this same wheelhouse- it stretched out many buffs, but generally wasn't used for the top tier spells that actually defeated encounters. It's also important to note that casters received numerous upgrades; wizards got arcane schools to stretch out their daily resources and enhance their capabilities, arcane bonds to increase their casting effectiveness and versatility, and their prohibited schools are no longer meaningfully prohibited. Casters may be slightly less effective martials now, but they're actually better casters.

I feel that while yes, most of the nerfed spells were the ones that allowed a caster to completely replace a non-caster, there were a number of spells that were originally magic-centered spells that have been significantly nerfed to the point of being potentially balanced; the big two that come to mind are Polymorph (an extremely versatile spell that has been both nerfed and split into multiple spell lines instead of keeping it as a single spell) and Forcecage (which now gives a save and has a significantly reduced duration compared to 3.5). Your post seems to indicate that powerful spells like BFC, SoDs, SoLs, and the like are still mostly as powerful and versatile as they were in 3.5, perhaps even better what with being combined with actual class features. I feel that while there's a ton of nerfed spells like Polymorph (martial+ spells that were nerfed to make casters not inherently superior to martials in their own specialty), there's still a lot of nerfed spells like Forcecage (spells that focus on letting the mage be a mage, but doesn't let them be as powerful as they were). Do you propose that spell nerfs like that of Forcecage are less common than I'm thinking they are, or that they are frequent but most are not as significant a nerf as the one to Forcecage, such that they are still supremely effective?

2) "the various non-caster upgrades (archetype mixing, skill consolidation, the expansion of what skills could accomplish via Unchained, most non-casters having some class feature involving actual choices as opposed to just things they're given whether they want them or not, etc)"

Archetype mixing isn't limited to non-casters, casters can do it too, and there are some very powerful caster archetypes out there. Even without archetype blending, there's no combination of martial archetypes that will give the power and flexibility of, for example, an exploiter wizard.
Skill consolidation was nice, but again, it benefits casters just as much as martials. Wizards will have nearly as many skill points as the average rogue thanks to their Int SADness, and since Pathfinder removed the penalties and increased cost of cross-class skills, they can effectively invest in any skill they choose.
Unchained doesn't do much either. Skill unlocks aren't anywhere near as effective as spells, and once again, casters are just as well positioned to benefit from them as martial classes, with the exception of the unchained rogue who gets a couple freebies.
While many non-casters got some flexible class features to boost their effectiveness, few if any of those class features are as potent as spells, and once again, casters got new goodies too, like arcane schools, bloodlines, channel energy, expanded domain benefits, etc. No ground was gained on this front.

While casters do get archetype mixing, my understanding was that martials have far more archetypes on average than casters do, and they can generally mix and match archetypes more than casters can too. In regards to the skill consolidation, I'll give you the point on wizards, but wizards are hardly the only caster; where Barbarians, Bards, Monks, Paladins, Rangers, Rogues, and Wizards greatly benefit from being able to stretch their skill points, Clerics, Druids, and Sorcerers aren't going to benefit nearly as much since they don't get many skill points and aren't Int-SAD like the wizard. In regards to skill unlocks, casters generally have better things to do with their resources than get them, meaning that martials (particularly rogue, but really any martial that gets more than a couple bonus feats) will be able to take better advantage of that sub-system. Also, I feel that while casters did get some class features, those class features aren't as much of an upgrade for casters as non-caster features are for the non-casters; Barbarian Rage powers are more useful to the Barbarian than Domain Powers are to a Cleric, at least in my admittedly not-too-broad experience.

Taking these counterpoints into account, do you still propose that these system upgrades benefit non-casters more than they do casters, and that they do a great deal to close the power/versatility gap?

EDIT: Once again, I'd like to thank you for taking the thread seriously and responding with the kind of in-depth, more-patient-than-I-probably-deserve response. :smallsmile:

Manyasone

2016-12-03, 05:35 AM

Question: did someone Tierify PF already? Taking for instance DSP into consideration. And what is the most up to date Tier info concerning 3.5? I may need to point some friends towards it

icefractal

2016-12-03, 05:46 AM

Tuvarkz

2016-12-03, 05:51 AM

Question: did someone Tierify PF already? Taking for instance DSP into consideration. And what is the most up to date Tier info concerning 3.5? I may need to point some friends towards it

Long ago, in fact.
Tier 1:
Wizard, Druid, Cleric, Witch, Sorcerer (Razmiran Priest/False Priest/Psychic Bloodline), Oracle (Paragon Surge/Lunar/Ancient Lorekeeper etc.), Arcanist, Shaman, Psychic
Tier 2:
Oracle, Sorcerer, Summoner, Magus (Hexcrafter), Bard (Magician), Skald (UMD/Expanded Spell Kenning), Unchained Summoner, Inquisitor (Monster Tactician), Alchemist (Preservationist/Promethean Alchemist + Planar Preservationist)
Tier 3:
Alchemist, Bard, Inquisitor, Magus, Investigator, Warpriest, Paladin (Sacred Servant), Hunter, Skald, Mesmerist, Occultist, Spiritualist, Bloodrager (Monstrous Physique UMD/Urban Bloodrager), Medium (Spirit Dancer), Vigilante (Warlock/Zealot)
Tier 4:
Barbarian, Paladin, Ranger, Adept, Brawler, Slayer, Fighter, Bloodrager, Medium, Unchained Monk, Unchained Barbarian, Monk (Properly Archetyped - namely Qinggong Monk), Vigilante (Stalker/Avenger), Unchained Rogue, Fighter
Tier 5:
Cavalier, Samurai, Gunslinger, Rogue, Ninja, Swashbuckler, Monk, Kineticist
Tier 6:
Aristocrat, Warrior, Commoner, Expert

Most DSP classes are very high Tier 4/Tier 3; with the psion making it to Tier 2. The psychic reformation power (when augmented) makes both psion and wilder tier 1 if taken.

Flesh_Engine

2016-12-03, 05:59 AM

Part of me feels like this is click bait and I shouldn't feed the thread, but I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt and assume the best intentions. Let me start my response by addressing a few of your points-

1) "Between the various caster downgrades (nerfing/altering the more abusable spells, limiting metamagic reduction cheese, getting rid of Persistent Spell as it existed in 3.5, etc)"

Many of the most egregious spells weren't meaningfully impacted at all. The majority of spells that were nerfed were those that turned casters (particularly clerics) into martial++, and pretending to be a martial was never the best use of a spell slot anyway. Persistent Spell is part of this same wheelhouse- it stretched out many buffs, but generally wasn't used for the top tier spells that actually defeated encounters. It's also important to note that casters received numerous upgrades; wizards got arcane schools to stretch out their daily resources and enhance their capabilities, arcane bonds to increase their casting effectiveness and versatility, cantrips and orisons are unlimited use, and prohibited schools are no longer meaningfully prohibited. Casters may be slightly less effective at pretending to be martials now, but they're actually better at being casters in several ways.

2) "the various non-caster upgrades (archetype mixing, skill consolidation, the expansion of what skills could accomplish via Unchained, most non-casters having some class feature involving actual choices as opposed to just things they're given whether they want them or not, etc)"

Archetype mixing isn't limited to non-casters, casters can do it too, and there are some very powerful caster archetypes out there. Even without archetype blending, there's no combination of martial archetypes that will give the power and flexibility of, for example, an exploiter wizard.
Skill consolidation was nice, but again, it benefits casters just as much (if not more) as martials. Wizards will have nearly as many skill points as the average rogue thanks to their Int SADness, and since Pathfinder removed the penalties and increased cost of cross-class skills, they can effectively invest in any skill they choose.
Unchained doesn't do much either. Skill unlocks aren't anywhere near as effective as spells, and once again, casters are just as well positioned to benefit from them as martial classes, with the exception of the unchained rogue who gets a couple freebies.
While many non-casters got some flexible class features to boost their effectiveness, few if any of those class features are as potent as spells, and once again, casters got new goodies too, like arcane schools, bloodlines, channel energy, expanded domain benefits, etc. No ground was gained on this front.

3) " non-caster characters are no longer universally outshone by full casters in terms of sheer power or versatility. With this new system, the tier system is effectively debunked."

Your statement isn't backed by any conclusive evidence. It is still pretty universally true in Pathfinder that magic > no magic. Wizards are still much more versatile and powerful than fighters and rogues, or even half casters like rangers. As I noted, many of the changes you mentioned benefit casters just as much as martials, and casters got quite a few new toys that more than compensate for the small number of nerfs they received; moreover, many of those nerfs didn't affect many caster builds at all, since not all powerful caster builds relied on those gimmicks. The tier system, though somewhat one dimensional and frequently misused or misunderstood, is still as accurate a gauge of class disparity as it ever was, and by and large the general spread of classes within the tier system hasn't changed much. Rangers and Paladins have arguably gone up a notch, the Unchained rogue and monk are also arguably tier 4, and even fighters can hit tier 4 if you throw enough splatbooks at them, but they're still not reaching the higher tiers that remain the exclusive domain of spellcasters, and none of the spellcasting classes took so big a hit that they dropped in the tier ratings at all.

What Pathfinder did was give martials (except the rogue who took a beating and actually dropped a tier until the unchained rogue came out due to changes in the skill and combat maneuver systems' functionality and the massive increases in other classes' effectiveness with skills) better niche protection. The cleric is still a distinctly better adventurer than the fighter, but it's not quite as good at being a better fighter than the fighter as it used to be.

4) "Am I right, or am I right?"

I'm afraid you're neither. It might even be more accurate to say you're wrong. Pathfinder gave casters the ability to excel in skills without diverting any resources away from their casting, made combat maneuvers more costly on the feat front, opposed several skill uses, like Acrobatics to tumble and avoid an AoO, with CMD which scales very quickly and is more difficult to overcome than the previous static checks, swapped the various maneuver systems with CMB/CMD which is weighted in favor of monsters over humanoids, removed almost all the restrictions on prohibited schools for wizards, gave clerics the more versatile and less situational channel energy instead of turn undead, and made many other small changes that benefited casters as much as or more than martials. Ultimately, Pathfinder may have universally bumped the floor for most classes, but it did little to change martial/caster disparity or meaningfully impact, let alone debunk, the tier system.

Quoted for truth.

AvatarVecna

2016-12-03, 06:12 AM

IMO - no, the disparity remains. The top end of power is lowered significantly from 3.5 to PF, but it doesn't matter much because very few people played at that extreme anyway. The high end of PF caster power is still pretty damn high, and the high end of non-caster power just doesn't match up.

Now will this disparity happen in a particular campaign? Impossible to say. Player > Build > Class, after all, and this remains completely true in Pathfinder. So a given Fighter could be more powerful than a given Wizard, depending on the players involved. But on average, casters come out on top.

A non-caster with a caster cohort might measure up reasonably well though. A part of the reason the caster peak is higher, especially in the upper levels, is that casters have a bunch of extra ways to get power beyond level alone. Like building up minions, creating permanent spells, making items, setting up a demiplane, etc. A cohort caster can do many of these, if allowed to be optimized.

True enough, the player and build are more relevant to in-game comparisons than theorycrafting. But shall I assume that, at equal levels of optimization, you would consider casters generally more poweful/versatile than non-casters? Perhaps much more?

I'm not sure if the ability to take a caster cohort can be considered a point of balance in favor of the non-caster, since their way of competing with a caster is "hire a worse caster", especially since the caster you're competing with can also hire a worse caster. Demiplane creation comes on very late-game, so counting that is probably not entirely fair given how little that level of play might actually come up (although it still counts for something, to be clear). That said, minionmancy is available to non-casters via the Leadership feat (in a manner of speaking), and Master Craftsman opens up magic item creation to non-casters as well, so the divide on these mechanics that allow a character to improve beyond gaining levels is definitely thinner at least.

Question: did someone Tierify PF already? Taking for instance DSP into consideration. And what is the most up to date Tier info concerning 3.5? I may need to point some friends towards it

Many times, I imagine. With the exception of Gunslinger (which I think is a solid T4, due to "great DPR, some minor scouting skill, and not much else"), the list below looks pretty solid to me. The difficulty with putting together a Tier List for Pathfinder is that it a class can fluctuate between tier levels based on archetype choice - not a huge obstacle, but still one that makes it a bit more difficult to Tier than 3.5 was...and of course, people will always argue about it.

Long ago, in fact.
Tier 1:
Wizard, Druid, Cleric, Witch, Sorcerer (Razmiran Priest/False Priest/Psychic Bloodline), Oracle (Paragon Surge/Lunar/Ancient Lorekeeper etc.), Arcanist, Shaman, Psychic
Tier 2:
Oracle, Sorcerer, Summoner, Magus (Hexcrafter), Bard (Magician), Skald (UMD/Expanded Spell Kenning), Unchained Summoner, Inquisitor (Monster Tactician), Alchemist (Preservationist/Promethean Alchemist + Planar Preservationist)
Tier 3:
Alchemist, Bard, Inquisitor, Magus, Investigator, Warpriest, Paladin (Sacred Servant), Hunter, Skald, Mesmerist, Occultist, Spiritualist, Bloodrager (Monstrous Physique UMD/Urban Bloodrager), Medium (Spirit Dancer), Vigilante (Warlock/Zealot)
Tier 4:
Barbarian, Paladin, Ranger, Adept, Brawler, Slayer, Fighter, Bloodrager, Medium, Unchained Monk, Unchained Barbarian, Monk (Properly Archetyped - namely Qinggong Monk), Vigilante (Stalker/Avenger), Unchained Rogue, Fighter
Tier 5:
Cavalier, Samurai, Gunslinger, Rogue, Ninja, Swashbuckler, Monk, Kineticist
Tier 6:
Aristocrat, Warrior, Commoner, Expert

Most DSP classes are very high Tier 4/Tier 3; with the psion making it to Tier 2. The psychic reformation power (when augmented) makes both psion and wilder tier 1 if taken.

Sayt

2016-12-03, 07:24 AM

Pathfinder got rid of a number of the top rungs of caster power: Craft contingent spell, ice assassin, celerity, etc.

However caster's still get invisiblity, summoning, binding, flight, and Wizards and Clerics are incredibly versatile, able to adapt their payload day to day.

Gnaeus

2016-12-03, 08:33 AM

Long ago, in fact.
Tier 1:
Wizard, Druid, Cleric, Witch, Sorcerer (Razmiran Priest/False Priest/Psychic Bloodline), Oracle (Paragon Surge/Lunar/Ancient Lorekeeper etc.), Arcanist, Shaman, Psychic
Tier 2:
Oracle, Sorcerer, Summoner, Magus (Hexcrafter), Bard (Magician), Skald (UMD/Expanded Spell Kenning), Unchained Summoner, Inquisitor (Monster Tactician), Alchemist (Preservationist/Promethean Alchemist + Planar Preservationist)
Tier 3:
Alchemist, Bard, Inquisitor, Magus, Investigator, Warpriest, Paladin (Sacred Servant), Hunter, Skald, Mesmerist, Occultist, Spiritualist, Bloodrager (Monstrous Physique UMD/Urban Bloodrager), Medium (Spirit Dancer), Vigilante (Warlock/Zealot)
Tier 4:
Barbarian, Paladin, Ranger, Adept, Brawler, Slayer, Fighter, Bloodrager, Medium, Unchained Monk, Unchained Barbarian, Monk (Properly Archetyped - namely Qinggong Monk), Vigilante (Stalker/Avenger), Unchained Rogue, Fighter
Tier 5:
Cavalier, Samurai, Gunslinger, Rogue, Ninja, Swashbuckler, Monk, Kineticist
Tier 6:
Aristocrat, Warrior, Commoner, Expert

Most DSP classes are very high Tier 4/Tier 3; with the psion making it to Tier 2. The psychic reformation power (when augmented) makes both psion and wilder tier 1 if taken.

I don't remember that discussion, but I'd really dispute quite a lot of those rankings. That said, I've tried to stop arguing single tier differences because arguing things like equal optimization gives everyone a headache, and I see little that I would shift more than one rank.

My biggest dislike would be rogue, where PF lowered the optimization ceiling but raised the floor. We kinda assume rogues at a high level of 3.5 cheese full attack sneaking with acid flasks, but I think at most tables the PF rogue is actually stronger than the 3.5 rogue, due to extra HP, rogue talents which are basically bonus feats, and especially a much shorter list of sneak attack restrictions.

AvatarVecna

2016-12-03, 08:43 AM

I don't remember that discussion, but I'd really dispute quite a lot of those rankings. That said, I've tried to stop arguing single tier differences because arguing things like equal optimization gives everyone a headache, and I see little that I would shift more than one rank.

My biggest dislike would be rogue, where PF lowered the optimization ceiling but raised the floor. We kinda assume rogues at a high level of 3.5 cheese full attack sneaking with acid flasks, but I think at most tables the PF rogue is actually stronger than the 3.5 rogue, due to extra HP, rogue talents which are basically bonus feats, and especially a much shorter list of sneak attack restrictions.

Nobody is arguing that Pathfinder Rogue is weaker than 3.5 Rogue; comparing the two side by side, the PF Rogue has objectively more goodies. But that's not the problem, the problem is that everybody in PF got goodies, and when you compare the PF Rogue to things it's going to be competing with (Ranger, Slayer, Investigator, etc), it doesn't compare as well as the 3.5 Rogue did to the other 3.5 equivalents. The 3.5 was a highly skilled trapfinding DPR machine, whereas PF has made skillmonkeying easier in general, trapfinding just a thing anybody can do well enough, and DPR much easier to pull off for other classes. The PF Rogue doesn't really have the niche protection it had in 3.5, and its tier ranking suffers for that.

Mind you, I have no idea what it's doing in T5 on that list; it should be in T4, and Unchained Rogue should probably be either high T4 or low T3, depending on how you slice it.

Serafina

2016-12-03, 09:33 AM

First, kudos for referring to Non-Casters properly, instead of calling them "martials". This was just never accurate, given that there were plenty of martial casters, and arguably some non-martial non-casters.

A bit part of the Caster/Non-Caster disparity was always that Casters quickly have a large amount of tools that just are not available otherwise, with many of these tools fundamentally altering what the party can do.
This is an issue both in and out of combat. I'd even argue that it's less of a problem in combat, where non-casters can often contribute quite meaningfully.

Consider flight, teleportation and other movement-related spells for the bypassing of physical obstacles.
Consider summoned spies, scrying, divination spells in general, communication spells and other such spells for the purpose of gathering and exchanging information.
Consider the utility of illusions outside if combat.
Consider alignment-detecting spells, enchantments, mark of justice or similar spells as tools of social manipulation.
Consider summoning, binding, undead-creation and area-based buffs for the purpose of leading an army.
This list can go on for a long time. In many cases, Casters have tools that sidestep a problem, solve it quicker, easier or with less risk, or just need much less investment than a non-spell solution.
All of this is still the case in Pathfinder - those spells were not really nerfed, at most you lose some options from 3.5 but in many cases other options are introduced.
Then remember that most of the toolbox of non-casters consists of skills - and that a Bard effectively has as many skillpoints (if not more, thanks to Versatile Performance) than a Rogue, that Wizards are intelligence-based, and how far you can stretch the 6 skill points of a human cleric with int 12 with the consolidated skills.

In many ways, Pathfinder has made the Caster/Non-Caster disparity worse.
Not necessarily because overpowered spells were buffed, or left intact (though there is certainly that). But consider how many new 6/9, medium BAB classes were introduced by Pathfinder.
We have the Alchemist, the Bard, the Hunter, the Inquisitor, the Investigator, the Magus, the Mesmerist, the Skald, the Spiritualist, the Summoner, the Vigilante (via archetypes) and the Warpriest.

This is not necessarily a bad thing - all of those are excellent classes, and most of them can be played as martials and can easily fill many roles and backgrounds occupied by non-casters.
But it exemplifies how casters are just plain better - given that all those classes are pretty competent at their role with just a few spells to supplement them, but also get the toolbox-effect opened up by magic. Built right, there's even cases where they can out-do non-casters with just their class features, not even using spells (though those are edge-cases of course).

Even when you want to play a brutish melee brawler, or a sneaky archer, or some other "martial"-type character, you are usually best off playing a class with access to spells. The class features will be just as potent, you might not even lose out of feats or need less of them, and after a few levels the addition of spells will leave you with just so many more things you can do.

That's not to say that playing a non-caster can not be enjoyable. Certainly they have gotten more versatile and less boring as well, due to all the changes mentioned in this thread. And in combat, they can certainly be quite potent - though their potency mostly boils down to "does a lot of damage". It is possible to actually be highly mobile, control enemy movement and impede them in other ways than killing them - but combat maneuvers are actually more feat-intensive than they were in 3.5, and there are still many issues with immunities there.

I'd argue that you just can not have D&D-style spells without having a much larger toolbox for Casters. Every edition of D&D (with the exception of 4E, which had a vastly different type of magic) had this trait. It's not a bad thing, given that it's perfectly possible to enjoy having such tools. In a party, it's fully possible to have just a few members provide these tools, and have members who do not have them.

stanprollyright

2016-12-03, 01:40 PM

Power's Tier List for PF (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=11990.0)

I disagree with some of the placements on the list, but this is generally accurate. I do think "Tier mobility" is rather higher, and the gaps between tiers are much lower, so it's definitely a step in the right direction. Paizo likes Tier 3-4, so that's part of what bridges that gap (since any given party will be at least half Tier 3's). The "gain a new toy every level" approach does help balance the game, because it gives magical options to a bunch of classes that had none before, while most (not all) of the new options for casters are traps and fluff. As OP said, many of the most broken spells have been nerfed, but for every spell they reworked there 10 they didn't. The skill system my favorite improvement. Any character can be a pseudo-skillmonkey, and every character can spare a few ranks in Perception.

GrayDeath

2016-12-03, 01:44 PM

I mostly agree with what people said above.

Pathfinder mostly "fixed" the Casters easily breaking the Game.
The Floor got a bit higher, the Ceiling moderately lower. So if you only look at the casters they mostly did good.

But did they make the Caster/Noncaster Disparity less?

The made the Summoner Class, for Craigs sake! :smallmad:

The "You get a better fighter that you can customize AND a very Good Caster on top" Class.

So nope, the way they are they actually made even remotely martially oriented Noncasters close to useless.
And Flexibility/Face was always even worse outside very specific campaings/Settings.

Ssalarn

2016-12-03, 04:45 PM

I appreciate you taking my thread seriously. I will admit that the thread is partially clickbait, in that I'm looking to get people to actually look at and respond to the thread, but the OP is also at least partially sarcastic despite the absence of blue text. I'm looking to gather the opinions of people more experienced with Pathfinder than myself, to see if the game has solved/mitigated/avoided as many problems as I've seen some proponents insist it does. Of course, I'm not exactly doing it with good intentions, either, but I'll leave that for a later post once I've gathered more opinions.

I know clickbait when I see it, but I also enjoy a good conversation. Thank you for a civil reply and not perpetuating/exacerbating any trolling that was happening.

I feel that while yes, most of the nerfed spells were the ones that allowed a caster to completely replace a non-caster, there were a number of spells that were originally magic-centered spells that have been significantly nerfed to the point of being potentially balanced; the big two that come to mind are Polymorph (an extremely versatile spell that has been both nerfed and split into multiple spell lines instead of keeping it as a single spell) and Forcecage (which now gives a save and has a significantly reduced duration compared to 3.5). Your post seems to indicate that powerful spells like BFC, SoDs, SoLs, and the like are still mostly as powerful and versatile as they were in 3.5, perhaps even better what with being combined with actual class features. I feel that while there's a ton of nerfed spells like Polymorph (martial+ spells that were nerfed to make casters not inherently superior to martials in their own specialty), there's still a lot of nerfed spells like Forcecage (spells that focus on letting the mage be a mage, but doesn't let them be as powerful as they were). Do you propose that spell nerfs like that of Forcecage are less common than I'm thinking they are, or that they are frequent but most are not as significant a nerf as the one to Forcecage, such that they are still supremely effective?

So, here's the thing: there are a lot of spells in Pathfinder. I haven't done the math but I suspect at this point there are at least as many spells in PF as there were in 3.5, if not more. A wizard or cleric only needs one effective encounter ending spell, and those still exist in relative abundance. There are also archetypes and options now that let you snag your silver bullets in pretty short order, so it's not terribly difficult for casters to continue dominating combat and absolutely ruling the game from a narrative perspective. While the absolute ceiling for casters may have decreased, their core competencies were actually strengthened and reinforced, and casters never needed to operate anywhere near their ceiling to out-perform non-casters in the first place. Magic > no magic. Ninja is better than rogue because it gets magic, like invisibility baked into its core chassis, and someone with invisibility is simply vastly better at being stealthy than someone without. Magus is a better rogue than the rogue because it can function with as many, or nearly as many, skill points, can access all the same skills with nearly as great efficiency, and has a toolbox full of magic on top. Essentially, because of the nature of the game, anything a non-caster can do a caster can do within an acceptable range of effectiveness, but that only goes one way. A caster can hit things or use skills, but a non-caster can't duplicate magic without actually dipping into magic. Even feats like Master Craftsman aren't the same as actually crafting as a caster, because it's locked to a single Craft skill and the items that can be created thereby. The flow of capabilities only goes one way, and there simply aren't the kind of tools that would allow non-casters to effectively swim "upstream".

While casters do get archetype mixing, my understanding was that martials have far more archetypes on average than casters do, and they can generally mix and match archetypes more than casters can too.

This is true, but unless the archetype in question actually gives abilities that are equivalent to magical capabilities, it doesn't matter how many you stack on. Casters have fewer archetypes, but they have a billion (hyperbole) spells to draw from when customizing their capabilities, meaning that they're still infinitely more flexible and customizable than non-casters even before casting archetypes are taken into account. Essentially, every spell slot is a class feature, and every spell is a mini archetype that modifies that one class feature and can be freely exchanged for other archetypes on a daily basis.

In regards to the skill consolidation, I'll give you the point on wizards, but wizards are hardly the only caster; where Barbarians, Bards, Monks, Paladins, Rangers, Rogues, and Wizards greatly benefit from being able to stretch their skill points, Clerics, Druids, and Sorcerers aren't going to benefit nearly as much since they don't get many skill points and aren't Int-SAD like the wizard.

In the same way that not all casters are wizards, not all non-casters are rogues. Sorcerers benefit from skill consolidation as much as paladins or fighters, druids actually have 4+Int skill points and can manipulate their form to select body types that amplify their skill proficiency or mitigate their needs for certain skills at all, etc. Skill consolidation was not a paradigm shift. It is equally beneficial across the board, with the notable exception that the removal of cross-class penalties also removed the niche protection of skill-centric non-casters, resulting in the changes ultimately being a net benefit for casters over non-casters.

In regards to skill unlocks, casters generally have better things to do with their resources than get them, meaning that martials (particularly rogue, but really any martial that gets more than a couple bonus feats) will be able to take better advantage of that sub-system.

I disagree. Non-casters have feats and skills they need, options without which they simply cannot do what they're supposed to do. Casters have things they want, things that make them better at things they're already perfectly capable of doing. Where a Fighter or Rogue might need, for example, Weapon Finesse, a Wizard or Cleric can shop that feat slot for whatever they kind of want to do. Because spells can inherently do nearly anything and everything, casters can pick up whatever feats or skills strike their fancy. Since many spells are actually overkill for quite a few tasks that they're commonly employed for (like using fly to surmount a cliff climb), casters can use skill unlocks to bridge those minor obstacles and save their spells for more serious business, meaning that once again, they ultimately benefit more from a boost intended for non-casters.

Also, I feel that while casters did get some class features, those class features aren't as much of an upgrade for casters as non-caster features are for the non-casters; Barbarian Rage powers are more useful to the Barbarian than Domain Powers are to a Cleric, at least in my admittedly not-too-broad experience.

Barbarian rage powers are a huge benefit because many of them are magic. Barbarian is a bit of an exception though in that he is really the only core class to get these paradigm shifting options, and even then they're limited and lock out other options. A barbarian who wants to fly can't pounce, for example. Fighters get minor numerical boosts that do nothing to change the pre-existing dynamics, and rogues don't have any talents as powerful as spells, except those that allow them to dip a limited selection of actual low level spells.

Taking these counterpoints into account, do you still propose that these system upgrades benefit non-casters more than they do casters, and that they do a great deal to close the power/versatility gap?

Nope. Casters benefited just as much from skill unlocks as non-casters, benefited as much or often more from skill consolidation and the removal of cross-class penalties and limitations, and were largely unaffected by CMB/CMD related changes (including the breaking up of the various maneuver feats into multiple parts) which are actually nerfs to non-casters in many instances.
Everybody gained something in the conversion from 3.5 to PF, but casters ultimately gained much more, and the nerfs they did receive were narrowly targeted at specific exploits that, while allowing some pretty extreme abuse, were never critical to the existing dynamic of magical superiority.

JoshuaZ

2016-12-03, 05:11 PM

There have been a lot of good points already made. I would like to suggest that not having solved the basic disparity still makes it a more playable game in some ways. In particular, while the basic Tier differences still exist, and are still large, having clerics and others less capable of engaging in outright front-line combat means that in practice, they aren't outshining as much the specific classes that were designed to specifically do front-line combat. But they didn't do that perfectly, and some combat feats got substantially weakened in PF, while also many of the new combat oriented feats that aren't weak have very high prerequisites.

It seems that Pathfinder with a fair bit of Path of War, and also allowing the 3.5 Tome of Battle does an even better job.

Doctor Awkward

2016-12-03, 05:17 PM

I'll try my best to go point by point, using my personal beliefs and views on the system in answer to your claims:

nerfing/altering the more abusable spells
Yes, changes were made.

But the problem is this: nerfing "a spell" doesn't really do anything to affect a spellcasters overall level of power if there exists another spell that also lets him win at that same level. It does make spellcasters less interesting to optimizers, since there are fewer options to choose from. But at the end of the day a spellcaster isn't any less powerful if they win a fight using a different spell instead of an old staple that got altered one. What is also a fact is that, in Pathfinder, there are spells that remove multiple enemies from combat at every level of play. Jason and the other fine folks at Paizo even added some.

limiting metamagic reduction cheese, getting rid of Persistent Spell as it existed in 3.5
I think what's most important to note regarding this point is that, while a large number of combat maneuver feats got split up (I.E.: Improved Trip), none of the caster ones were. In addition, spellcasters got a whole bunch of new metamagic feats to play with, like Dazing Spell, Bouncing Spell, Spell Perfection, and so on.

I'll also state, with confidence, that none of the cheese that exists in 3.5 comes close to approaching the simplicity and accessibility that is Sacred Geometry. That feat is basically free metamagic.

various non-caster upgrades (archetype mixing, skill consolidation, the expansion of what skills could accomplish via Unchained

A quick note on skills:
True they streamlined and simplified a lot of things about the skill system. In my experience, some of this goes too far and some of it doesn't go far enough. Gather Information is now a function of Diplomacy, but Knowledge: arcana and Spellcraft are two different skills. ...Why, exactly? I guess it's neat that paladins come with their own spy networks now, but I think what's lacking is common sense and consistency. Perception being what it is has it's own advantages and pitfalls (EVERYONE is the scout, which obviates the need for characters whose primary function is being a lookout and scout). Even so, the PF skill system is probably the only thing I will admit is a net gain over 3.5 skills out of the box.

Overall, I have always found Pathfinder to be a very neutral change when compared to 3.5. For every thing they did right and improved (everything that is Pathfinder Paladin, full stop), there's at least one more thing they did wrong (the fact that you roll tumble checks against the targets CMD, but not defensive spellcasting).

For new players, I'd suggest going with either system. PF is more accessible and straightforward, and the overall ceiling is lower, but there are a few niche roles that you have to jump through a lot more hoops to accomplish thanks to all of the little niggling rules changes. 3.5 is a system that demands much more time, study, and dedication from it's players, but the rewards in the end are much more satisfying.

For veterans who have played 3.5 for years, I find it very hard to recommend switching. All the tiny changes to core mechanics just add up to being different instead of better. If gameplay is your only concern, and the new system is not inherently better, there's not much incentive to switch.

Calthropstu

2016-12-03, 05:44 PM

In some ways, yes. One thing pathfinder did was eliminate *most* of the "save or dead" spells with *save or take a bunch of damage.*A solid 14th level fighter can easily be made to deal the same 140 damage that finger of death can now deal, and there's no saving throw against it. The only core save or die spell that remained was phantasmal killer, which requires both a will and a fort save.

Other things they did was remove the gaining of supernatural abilities from shapechange, add stipulations to time stop so that it can't be extended, and numerous other tweaks. And, while the casters have many more options, many of those options are best used to buff the fighter... for example, yes you can polymorph yourself into a ferocious hydra. But polymorphing the fighter would be far more effective.

However, as has already been pointed out, there are still several glaring issues. Teleporting and flight doesn't even begin to scratch the surface. From astral projection to gate to planar binding, the highest tiers of power continues to have such a colossal disparity. And, as we all know, the playground is only concerned with the highest tiers. The fact that most adventurers don't survive to level 5 doesn't matter here.

Troacctid

2016-12-03, 06:40 PM

My take is that Pathfinder did a good job stripping away the yuck factor that a lot of 3.5 classes. For example, you look at the 3.5 sorcerer next to the 3.5 wizard and it's just blatantly worse in almost every way, yuck! PF added class features to the sorcerer to make it more distinct so that it no longer feels like a strict downgrade. Great change. And there are similar changes to other classes that make them, individually, a lot more appealing than they used to be in 3.5.

However, a lot of the core balance issues in the system, particularly at high levels, are still there, too entrenched to fully repair.

NightDweller

2016-12-03, 07:25 PM

Just so you know this person is coming here to try to mock my points we had in an argument.

It is a logical fallacy called strawmaning.

AvatarVecna

2016-12-03, 07:32 PM

Just so you know this person is coming here to try to mock my points we had in an argument.

It is a logical fallacy called strawmaning.

My original post is a bit tongue-in-cheek, but my responses in this thread have been a genuine attempt to point out the many things Pathfinder has improved upon, and seeing if people change their answers based on taking those changes into account, or if they stick with their answers despite those improvements.

Also, it's hard to say my argument is strawmanning yours when the only thing our arguments share is the conclusion (and the supposed strawman actually brings up points to support their argument, as opposed to just spouting their viewpoint).

AvatarVecna

2016-12-03, 07:34 PM

Just so you know this person is coming here to try to mock my points we had in an argument.

It is a logical fallacy called strawmaning.

Since you've decided to pop in, though, perhaps you can respond to these people who have no stake in the original argument? They seem to be saying that Pathfinder still has a rather significant disparity between casters and non-casters. If you think I've misrepresented your arguments, perhaps you could put them here and see if these people see your point better than I did?

stanprollyright

2016-12-03, 08:27 PM

Overall, I have always found Pathfinder to be a very neutral change when compared to 3.5. For every thing they did right and improved (everything that is Pathfinder Paladin, full stop), there's at least one more thing they did wrong (the fact that you roll tumble checks against the targets CMD, but not defensive spellcasting).

For new players, I'd suggest going with either system. PF is more accessible and straightforward, and the overall ceiling is lower, but there are a few niche roles that you have to jump through a lot more hoops to accomplish thanks to all of the little niggling rules changes. 3.5 is a system that demands much more time, study, and dedication from it's players, but the rewards in the end are much more satisfying.

For veterans who have played 3.5 for years, I find it very hard to recommend switching. All the tiny changes to core mechanics just add up to being different instead of better. If gameplay is your only concern, and the new system is not inherently better, there's not much incentive to switch.

I see PF as a patch. Same game; fixed the well-known bugs, missed a few others, created a few more in the process. At the end of the day, it's still an upgrade. Backwards compatibility means that you can still get all your favorites from 3.5 if your DM is OK with it, whereas I'd foresee having much more trouble convincing a 3.5 DM to let you use the PF version of the Paladin. I mean, compared side-by-side to their D&D versions, every single class in Pathfinder (except Druid) is better and more versatile. And it's not even that the Druid class itself is worse, just polymorph effects, which happens to affect Druids a lot. Rogues have gone down a tier but not because Rogues are worse, but because in this game other people can do what Rogues do. So no more Rogue 1 dip at the beginning of every build. You can actually make most of your character concepts within a single class. And skill checks are at least half the d20 rolls in the game, so the skill system being straight up better is no small improvement on the system as a whole.

Same game, just shinier.

darkdragoon

2016-12-03, 08:40 PM

Spells are basically a wash as there's so many of them and it's arguable that specific examples like Polymorph are more detrimental to monsters than PCs.
The new Persistent Spell is actually stronger BTW.

There are severe "lists of lists" issues. and frankly, there's still vast disparity in those lists (longer summons and a teleport vs. +1 attack with a group you don't want to use as you already picked swords already)

The tier list is terribly limited (although to be fair, a lot of the more haughty alternatives end up with basically the same grouping.)

And of course the monsters are different. So yes, you may feel better because this group has considerably less HP. And that Balor is at least theoretically easier because they can run out of Blasphemy uses now. But others are tougher and/or have new abilities.

Doctor Awkward

2016-12-03, 08:56 PM

I see PF as a patch. Same game; fixed the well-known bugs, missed a few others, created a few more in the process. At the end of the day, it's still an upgrade. Backwards compatibility means that you can still get all your favorites from 3.5 if your DM is OK with it, whereas I'd foresee having much more trouble convincing a 3.5 DM to let you use the PF version of the Paladin. I mean, compared side-by-side to their D&D versions, every single class in Pathfinder (except Druid) is better and more versatile. And it's not even that the Druid class itself is worse, just polymorph effects, which happens to affect Druids a lot. Rogues have gone down a tier but not because Rogues are worse, but because in this game other people can do what Rogues do. So no more Rogue 1 dip at the beginning of every build. You can actually make most of your character concepts within a single class. And skill checks are at least half the d20 rolls in the game, so the skill system being straight up better is no small improvement on the system as a whole.

Same game, just shinier.

The thing is Pathfinder makes so many minor rules modifications that most 3.5 material isn't usable as-is. Between the changes to all those spells, the basic monster combat routines, and the differences in how defenses and HP were calculated, there were things my group had to stop and look up almost every round of combat.

I'd argue that in its current state Pathfinder is actually less compatible with the 3.5 rules than 3.0 edition sourcebooks are-- possibly even less compatible than d20 Modern.

Compare this to taking the PF Paladin as written, giving it the 3.5 skill list, and simply dropping it into a 3.5 game. That's a huge improvement over what you would normally have in 3.5 and it's far easier a process.

As to why you wouldn't do that with all the classes? Well, most of the rest of them don't need the help. :smallwink:

Talore

2016-12-03, 09:13 PM

Just so you know this person is coming here to try to mock my points we had in an argument.

It is a logical fallacy called strawmaning.Would you care to substantiate your original assertion, that "Paizo likes balance?" You seemed to imply that Pathfinder was a balanced game. Rather rudely I might add, derailing that recruitment thread with uncalled-for arguments which led to this thread being made to end the derailment of the recruitment thread.

Just do remember that there is more to roleplaying games than rolling for damage. :)

Der_DWSage

2016-12-03, 09:20 PM

Sure, I'll add a few copper to the ongoing discussion.

Like many others, I feel that Pathfinder did a solid patch on many things-Polymorph rules are probably the single biggest 'patch' they did to convince me to move over to it. (Now I can play a Druid without feeling like a complete scumbag!)

There were a lot of spell categories that got nerfed-Save or Die became a lot more rare before very high levels, and instead became 'Save or take a lot of damage.' (Save or lose is another matter, and I'll touch on that shortly.) Buffs could no longer be extended to ridiculous amounts, as was pointed out earlier, nerfing the CoDzilla issue quite nicely. And while Arcane casters didn't get nerfed, per se, there was the fact that suddenly everyone had a decent portion of extra HP from going up a hit die, bonus stats being cheaper in various ways, and everyone was now doing more damage thanks to various class features and a change in how power attack worked. (And a moment of silence for the Rogue, who felt all these changes and was unable to catch up until he was made Unchained.)

So yes-Pathfinder closed the play ceiling and the play floor significantly more than 3.5 did. They did some work going forward.

The problem is, they then went on to ignore a lot of these nice changes they'd made in favor of martials (And non-CoDzillas) and fun for...fluff? Silliness? (I still don't understand why most Teamwork feats require you be within arm's reach of each other.) Feats became a cluster**** of uselessness, with a few shining gems that were generally locked behind two or three pre-requisites. Spells, however, you could still pick and choose freely, and get several of them per level. More than that, they became more worried about 'modeling reality' than in game balance, as can be seen in the infamous SKR 'Water Balloon Fighter' (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2pvkj&page=3?False-Options-in-Pathfinder#103)post. As such, feats for martials became more restricted, while mages still got to do whatever they wanted.

And it still shows. Martials have to take five feats just to attack everyone around them, once (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/whirlwind-attack-combat---final). They have to take two feats and invest in a less-than-great skill just to be able to scare a crowd, rather than an individual person (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/dazzling-display-combat). They have to spend resources to be decent at skills that are a requirement for adventure, such as Disable Device. Meanwhile, the Wizard gets to start 3 Stooges skits at level 1 with Grease, ignore most skills with the staple spells of Invisibility, Knock, and Fly, and can generally remove at least one opponent from combat every round with Save-Or-Lose spells, again, starting at level 1. (Sleep, Color Spray.)

Unless you're a caster, you don't get to affect more than one opponent per round. And while admittedly, you can easily outdamage a caster doing anything less than Empowered Disintegrate on singular targets, you still don't have their range for things outside of combat.

In summary, martials still need a feat and 6 skill points/level just to scratch their arse, while casters get to pick from a selection of DOOOOM spells. It's not as bad as the 3.5 days, but it could still stand to be a lot better.

Cosi

2016-12-03, 10:30 PM

planar binding is still a spell you are allowed to cast in Pathfinder. Next?

But no, Pathfinder did not solve the balance problems of 3e.

Most notably, backwards compatibility means that a nerf-based approach to balance is doomed to failure. Yes, glitterdust is bad now. So what? cloud of bewilderment isn't bad now. Paizo can't nerf shivering touch. Not "they don't know how to" or "it is intrinsically broken", they legally cannot because it is not OGL content. So if you believe in backwards compatibility (which, I remind you, was a major selling point of the game), Wizards got some free stuff and still get to keep their save-or-dies. Giving Wizards class features is definitely a thing you should do, but I wouldn't call it a nerf.

But even if you don't believe in backwards compatibility, PF still has the issue that Wizards get abilities like "make enemies into allies", "travel across the world in an instant", and "raise armies of the dead" while Fighters get abilities like "+2 to hit with your secondary weapon". That's not just mechanically unbalanced. It's conceptually unbalanced before you even start saying what the numbers are on the Wizards undead armies or teleportation. Wizards get abilities that alter the setting, Fighters don't.

The principal gains that PF made were the invalidation of various cheese builds like The Wish or Pun-Pun. But no one uses those builds, most of them aren't OGL (e.g. Paizo can't do anything to Manipulate Form), and some are still legal (e.g. Shadows still reproduce exponentially). They also nerfed a bunch of specific Wizard powers, but no one cares because there are still broken powers for Wizards to pick.

Ultimately, PF didn't solve anything important (planar binding is still better than Weapon Focus even if you can't get More Wishes), but it did make a bunch of pointless and fiddly changes (the grapple rules are different in some way for some reason) and started using errata to make double secret changes to the rules (did you know that scrying always already didn't allow teleport?). The only reason to use PF is extra content, but unless you only want to use PF content you're better off converting back to 3.5 because those rules are less stupid.

TL;DR: PF made marginal improvements to game balance in areas that don't matter, but it made the game more complex and failed to address fundamental balance issues.

javcs

2016-12-03, 10:37 PM

The only thing that is a reliable counter to a high level caster is another high level caster. A "mundane" - that is, someone who's primary focus and skillset is not spellcasting - is near utterly dependent upon a friendly caster of their own, a massive investment in defensive/utility items, and/or a highly specialized build and niche circumstances.

There's no good way around the massive disparity in capabilities, unless you're going to introduce some sort of massive change, either in the way the primary casters work or in the way the mundanes work.

Pathfinder's changes to 3.5, while they do usually help the mundanes, at least some, don't help the mundanes enough to actually change the balance of power. A Pathfinder Tier 1 is still a Tier 1 if played it by Pathfinder rules in an otherwise 3.5e game. The same applies for basically every other Tier - oh, sure, Pathfinder might've boosted some of the lowest Tier classes from 3.5 up a Tier, but a Pathfinder T4 is still going to be a T4 if back-ported to 3.5. Oh, maybe some of Pathfinder T5s would be a T4 if backported to 3.5, but that's not a particularly meaningful differentiation.
If you brought 3.5 classes forwards unchanged into a Pathfinder game, the T1s and T2s would still be T1s and T2s - a little lower in their respective tiers, but the tier itself wouldn't change. The T3s would probably all still be T3s, but the T4s and T5s would probably loose a Tier or two.

In 3.5, Tome of Battle was a good step, but it was too late in the edition and didn't go far enough. The only other non-primary caster 3.5e T3 classes are the Wildshape Ranger and Factotum. The Binder, while not a conventional spellcaster, uses a unique mechanic and was designed to fill the role of a primary-caster - it's the best base class from Tome of Magic. Wildshape Ranger gets to T3 from T4 on the back of Wildshape. The Factotum ... is another unique mechanic class, and can get up to 7th level spells as SLAs.

redfeline

2016-12-03, 10:39 PM

Before I post let me just say I've only read the first post and wish to share my perspective. I have not read any other posts here yet.

I've always felt the flaw with the tier system is that the tiers are based on class a level 1 wizard is tier 1 and a level 20 fighter is still not. I feel the classes in 3.5 were subjective in power based on level. At level 1 a wizard is very vulnerable to the 10 minute adventuring day, a fighter mean while will last many more encounters, (depending on luck of coarse.)

However the tiers are based on versatility and not power so let's assume level 20 for a moment. A wizard can fly, can the fighter? I find most can. A cleric can cast buff the party can a rogue. If he wants to he can. The simple fact is any character with 23 ranks in use magic device can in fact cast any spell, most tier one classes can only cast half of those spells.

Aside from that can a wizard climb a rope or track? I am sure the answer your thinking is yes via divination spells and spider climb. I find many people have an inequality in there mind where the correct divination spell is greater than tracking and spider climb doesn't require checks to not fall. So are these better?

In a since they are but they are a limited resource. Going back to the point about use magic device, I would assume several of you objected on grounds that a rogue will run out of wealth if he has to cast every spell while the tier one casters have many free spells a day. If an argument is to be made on resources being limited skill rolls never run out.

In short I find the tier system to be one of common player preference rather than a ranking of true versatility.

Now going back to Avatar's question, did pathfinder reduce the gap? Very much so. As I said before any character with high use magic device has access to all the flashy but time saving spells like knock. Pathfinder opened up all classes to taking use magic device, while 3.5 only had a small number of classes with that skill. However it is more than that, all classes can take all skills to 12+ ranks. In effect a tier 1 caster can do many new skills with proficiency and the lower tier classes can all cast every spell if needed.

RoboEmperor

2016-12-03, 10:54 PM

A titan in the playground made this post? o_O WTF!

Almost all the gameover spells that existed in CORE 3.5 exists in PF in all its glory, except NO XP COSTS. So...

Browsing over the sorcerer/wizard spell lists in PF, I'm gonna say level 5 spells make sorcerer/wizards excruciatingly powerful, so... level 9+ casters slaughter non-casters.

If you are talking levels 1-8 I guess I can see that, considering how mundanes can craft magic items in PF, but then you have the witch slaughtering everything early level so...

I hate PF. There is no versatility in that game. You all go a straight 20 in a class and that's it. No synergy planning in prestige classes which results in no whacky fun builds but instead boring standard builds exclusively.

Anyways, no, I disagree with you. PF buffed mundanes a lot. I think allowing them to craft magic items was one of their biggest boosts, but these tiny buffs don't come anywhere near the sheer power of the gamebreaking spells casters have access to.

The obvious one (and my specialty) is planar binding. Once you get that spell you can create your own party and replace every single one of your noncasters with expendable and more powerful noncasters turning them utterly obsolete.

AvatarVecna

2016-12-03, 11:24 PM

A titan in the playground made this post? o_O WTF!

As has been revealed since then, it was me presenting an argument from another thread as best as I could managed despite the fact that I don't really agree with the argument myself. Being not super-familiar with Pathfinder, I realized I'd mostly been assuming that PF was about as flawed as 3.5 on basically every point, and had just made everybody more powerful/versatile while closing off some major abuses, but doing nothing to change the overall balance of the various classes, and I wanted to make sure that my assumptions weren't a product of my inexperience. As it turns out, they aren't, they're grounded in reality.

I appreciate the responses of everybody in the thread, including the person with whom the argument originated, even if I wish they would post their own argument points so that people could discuss them and take them into account. While I hardly think I've been strawmanning their argument, I will admit that the points I came up with to defend PF's balance in this thread were not points they brought up when we argued it elsewhere, so in a sense I wasn't really representing their argument, but rather their conclusion with my evidence, so getting their evidence instead of mine would better represent their argument, if they decided to share it with us.

Troacctid

2016-12-04, 12:01 AM

Pathfinder did improve the balance a bit. It just didn't solve it.

Pex

2016-12-04, 12:17 AM

What is more accurate to say is Pathfinder narrowed the power disparity between the warrior and spellcaster types. It did that by creating warrior classes that use magic themselves to help them fight for self-buffing on offense, defense, and utility. There are single class gishes like Inquisitor, Magus, and Warpriest. Paladin is all about self-buffing with a little buffing of others. Pure non-magic classes like Fighter and Barbarian never had a problem dealing out damage in 3E, but people complained about lack of diversity and defense. Both are increased in Pathfinder. Not enough to satisfy the whiners who always shout Gate and Teleport, but for those who don't resent spellcasters casting spells they get to do the fighting they like with stuff to do out of combat competently as well helped by the improved skill system.

Rynjin

2016-12-04, 12:30 AM

No. Lolno.

There is a very simple metric you can use to show the disparity: How many problems can your class solve?

What arenas of the game can your Fighter meaningfully participate in? Your Wizard? Your Magus? For example, even ignoring relative levels of efficiency in that arena (save or die/suck multi-target **** yous vs "I beat that one guy with a stick"), both a Fighter and a Wizard can meaningfully contribute in a combat setting.

But the Wizard can, on his own power, participate on an inter-planar scale. The Fighter cannot. Inter-planar adventures are entirely beyond the Fighter's ability to even BEGIN. And that sort of gap exists in all sorts of things. Transport in general. Niche problem solving like Resurrection (your non-caster cannot fix death...or any other status conditions, for that matter). They cannot overcome big terrain issues (any gap larger than the Fighter can jump across and of indeterminate depth may as well be impassable). They have no long distance information gathering capability. No non-skill way to sway social situations. And many, many other scenarios that a caster class can branch off into, even if they aren't the best at it.

The usual response to this is "But magic items though". Are those class features? No? Then shut up.

Starbuck_II

2016-12-04, 12:34 AM

Nobody is arguing that Pathfinder Rogue is weaker than 3.5 Rogue; comparing the two side by side, the PF Rogue has objectively more goodies. But that's not the problem, the problem is that everybody in PF got goodies, and when you compare the PF Rogue to things it's going to be competing with (Ranger, Slayer, Investigator, etc), it doesn't compare as well as the 3.5 Rogue did to the other 3.5 equivalents. The 3.5 was a highly skilled trapfinding DPR machine, whereas PF has made skillmonkeying easier in general, trapfinding just a thing anybody can do well enough, and DPR much easier to pull off for other classes. The PF Rogue doesn't really have the niche protection it had in 3.5, and its tier ranking suffers for that.

Mind you, I have no idea what it's doing in T5 on that list; it should be in T4, and Unchained Rogue should probably be either high T4 or low T3, depending on how you slice it.

I am argueing this point.
The 3.5 Rogue is better outside of the PHB (due to the many avenues and archetype [nicknamed alternate class features], magic items, etc. that allow easy sneak attack).

All PF did was lower the prohibited roads, there are fewer avenues to sneak attack town.

So PF rogues have neat abilities, but they are weaker at sneak attacking.

stanprollyright

2016-12-04, 05:31 AM

The thing is Pathfinder makes so many minor rules modifications that most 3.5 material isn't usable as-is. Between the changes to all those spells, the basic monster combat routines, and the differences in how defenses and HP were calculated, there were things my group had to stop and look up almost every round of combat.

This is counter to my experience, where it's: "can I use this feat/PrC/item/spell from 3.5?" "...yeah, that looks fine." Monster conversions would probably be a pain.

I'd argue that in its current state Pathfinder is actually less compatible with the 3.5 rules than 3.0 edition sourcebooks are-- possibly even less compatible than d20 Modern.

I don't see your point; 3.0, 3.5, and d20 modern all use the same rule set. They're supposed to be compatible.

There is a very simple metric you can use to show the disparity: How many problems can your class solve?

What arenas of the game can your Fighter meaningfully participate in? Your Wizard? Your Magus? For example, even ignoring relative levels of efficiency in that arena (save or die/suck multi-target **** yous vs "I beat that one guy with a stick"), both a Fighter and a Wizard can meaningfully contribute in a combat setting.

But the Wizard can, on his own power, participate on an inter-planar scale. The Fighter cannot. Inter-planar adventures are entirely beyond the Fighter's ability to even BEGIN. And that sort of gap exists in all sorts of things. Transport in general. Niche problem solving like Resurrection (your non-caster cannot fix death...or any other status conditions, for that matter). They cannot overcome big terrain issues (any gap larger than the Fighter can jump across and of indeterminate depth may as well be impassable). They have no long distance information gathering capability. No non-skill way to sway social situations. And many, many other scenarios that a caster class can branch off into, even if they aren't the best at it.

The usual response to this is "But magic items though". Are those class features? No? Then shut up.

A Fighter in 3.5 has 2 skill points/level. A Fighter in Pathfinder has 2 skill points/level. The 3.5 Fighter has 2 skills. The Pathfinder Fighter has an extra skill point/level from his favored class bonus, doesn't have to worry about cross-class ranks, can get any skill as a class skill with traits, and can take skills that are the equivalent 2 or 3 skills in 3.5. Plus, he can put 1 rank in any class skill for the +3 with minimal investment at any level. A Fighter using the PF skill system could easily be a better skillmonkey than a Ranger using the 3.5 system.

That's not even considering archetypes, which give all sorts of varied abilities (it's not like you're giving up anything as a Fighter, so you might as well stack as many archetypes as you can). Or feat chains like Eldritch Heritage that give you magical abilities. Or maybe you're a Drow (no LA!) that takes the Drow Nobility feat chain for SLAs. Or you've taken "But magic items though" to heart, so you take Master Craftsman and crafting feats. Yeah, those aren't combat feats, but you're able to take them because you already have the combat feats you need.

And Fighter is a terrible example. Other OG martial classes like Rogue and Barbarian can get all sorts of magical abilities with their class features.

None of the above "solves" the disparity, but it is a noticeable difference. The typical response to this is "all that stuff basically affects everyone equally," but tell that to the Rogue. Tier 1 classes can already solve all the problems, so their benefit from all these superficial options is basically nil. Skills, bloodlines, and domain powers influence your spell selection. A little bit. Casters actually have one fewer thing they can do, which is "pretend to be a Fighter." They have smaller HD, so they are much more likely to select HP for their favored class bonus instead of the extra skill point. And there aren't a bunch of "+1 spellcaster level" PrCs. Combined with Paizo's love of d8 partial spellcasters, inter-party balance becomes less of a problem.

Serafina

2016-12-04, 10:00 AM

Actually, you can barely stack Fighter Archetypes: Essentially, they can only trade out Bravery, Weapon Training and Armor Training, and many archetypes trade out two or more of those. At most, you'll get two archetypes.
And you're actually giving up a lot - if you trade away Weapon or Armor Training, you'll lose access to Advanced Weapon or Armor Training. Which is actually very good, and finally gives the Fighter something other classes can't. Archetypes tend to do that too, but also tend to lock you into one specific combat style.

More notably, almost no archetypes of the Fighter actually make you better at non-combat tasks.

And they're still stuck at 2+Int skill ranks per level. That's less than basically any class that doesn't rely heavily on Intelligence, other than Clerics, Paladins, Summoners and Warpriests (all of whom get at least some degree of spellcasting).
Now there are a few archetypes that give them 4+Int skill ranks, there's a feat that grants you +1 skill rank per level, and you can use your favored class bonus for that too. Of course, the latter two options are also open to all other classes - and the archetypes are not without cost.
You can also use AAT and AWT to get good at some skills. Specifically, you can trade an AAT to use your BAB for one of Acrobatics, Climb, Craft (armor), Disguise, Escape Artist, Intimidate, Knowledge (Engineering), Profession (Soldier), Ride or Swim; and you can trade an AWT to use your BAB for two skills depending on your chosen weapon group.

So sure, a Fighter who has, say, 12 Int, invests into a +4 Int Item, puts his FCB into extra skill ranks, trades a feat for extra skill ranks and trades, say, one AAT and two AWT for skills will have effectively 11 skills ranks per level.
Of course, any Wizard of such level worth their name should have at least 9 ranks per level, without sacrificing a single class feature or feat, and has spells too.

And it's still mundane skills. They can do what skills can do, even with skill unlocks it hardly gets supernatural. They can be very good, but there are a lot of problems that can't be solved with any skill.
You can't climb a perfectly smooth surface, or get to a floating castle with skills (unless it's really low, in which case you might be able to jump).
You can't travel much faster with skills. Sure, Acrobatics, Climb, Survival and Swim help you with getting around - but most obstacles bypassed by such are outdone by a single overland flight spell.
You can't get all secret information with skills. Knowledge checks don't allow you to learn about hidden things, it's much harder and sometimes not possible to steal secret documents, and Gather Information has sharp limits. A divination spell can just get an answer for you and magic can read minds.
You can't easily feed a starving village with skills. Sure, you can try to hunt or farm - but that takes time, and only works if there's food available. There's half a dozen spells that can solve the problem instantly anywhere.
And finally - anytime a skill is actually the best choice to solve a problem, there's a lot of spells and class features of caster classes that just make you much better at that skill, or any skill even.

D&D is inherently a magical setting, so there's inherently magical solutions to lots of problems. Casters get these and more, Non-Casters do not get these. That's not balanced.
Of course, that doesn't mean that every class has to be a Caster, with spells prepared or known. There's lots of alternative ways to do it.

And there's literary no reason why a Fighter could not have 4+ or even 6+ skill ranks per level - and also Fighter Talents every few levels, some of which allow them to use their expertise in weapons and armor to coax magic effects out of them. We already have that in the form of Item Mastery feats, but there's little reason a Fighter shouldn't have more of those. And there's little reason why their extensive training should not enable them to deal with magic in unique ways - bat aside a spell (also available via feat, but to anyone and costing a feat), cut through a magical wall, use their stamina to sustain a magical spell longer on themselves, stuff like that.
Likewise, there's no reason why a Rogue should not have unique magical talents. Stealing the magic out of items, firing off spells from a wand without anyone noticing, catch and juggle a spell and so on. Instead, they mostly get pretty lame talents.

Manyasone

2016-12-04, 10:46 AM

Cosi

2016-12-04, 11:54 AM

Not enough to satisfy the whiners who always shout Gate and Teleport, but for those who don't resent spellcasters casting spells they get to do the fighting they like with stuff to do out of combat competently as well helped by the improved skill system.

This is a needlessly aggressive way of making your point. There's nothing wrong with wanting to contribute in combat with a sword and still contribute out of combat, and acting like the people who want to do that are having badwrongfun is why Fighters suck.

I am argueing this point.
The 3.5 Rogue is better outside of the PHB (due to the many avenues and archetype [nicknamed alternate class features], magic items, etc. that allow easy sneak attack).

I never understand people praising the PF Rogue. They nerfed splash weapons to no longer deal sneak attack damage, which destroyed one of the best Rogue builds in the game. Yeah, the Rogue got a bunch of minor bonuses, but who cares?

A Fighter in 3.5 has 2 skill points/level. A Fighter in Pathfinder has 2 skill points/level. The 3.5 Fighter has 2 skills. The Pathfinder Fighter has an extra skill point/level from his favored class bonus, doesn't have to worry about cross-class ranks, can get any skill as a class skill with traits, and can take skills that are the equivalent 2 or 3 skills in 3.5. Plus, he can put 1 rank in any class skill for the +3 with minimal investment at any level. A Fighter using the PF skill system could easily be a better skillmonkey than a Ranger using the 3.5 system.

Why do I care how many skills the Fighter can have? Did PF make Jump checks let you fly? Skills are almost exclusively stuff that competes with 3rd level or lower spells, and spell levels still go up to 9 in PF.

inter-party balance becomes less of a problem.

Of course, this comes at the cost of the party falling behind CR = Level monsters.

Isn't this the reason, at least it seems thus, that more and more people start using alternate magic systems developed by 3rd party publishers? At this point in the 'game' I'm actually planning to to get rid of Vancian casting altogether. There are plenty of other decent ways to play a 'fighter' that have the utility some crave without resorting to 'magic pur sang' in these systems. You don't have to cripple yourself in this way... Unless of course your DM thinks only 1pp is balanced, in which case you're boned

I should probably read the in depth on Spheres of Power at some point, but every time some one brings it up they mention that it puts powers like raise dead and teleport on a list of "only if the DM says so" powers, and that is exactly the wrong way to implement those powers. Spheres of Power may be more balanced, but that balance comes at the cost of player agency (as far as I can tell).

Also, what is "pur sang"? I assume you mean "per se", but you might not.

Mato

2016-12-04, 12:17 PM

limiting metamagic reduction cheese, getting rid of Persistent Spell as it existed in 3.5, etc)Who needs to persist a spell when you can infinity (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/metamagic-feats/echoing-spell-metamagic) recast (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/c/channel-the-gift) it (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/spell-perfection)?

Manyasone

2016-12-04, 12:59 PM

)Also, what is "pur sang"? I assume you mean "per se", but you might not.

In this case specifically it means magic elitist. Like God Wizards for instance or the scry&die tactics some people think is valid. Or ice assassin... That one really ticks me off

Calthropstu

2016-12-04, 01:02 PM

Nifft

2016-12-04, 01:04 PM

Also, what is "pur sang"? I assume you mean "per se", but you might not.

Pur sang is its own thing: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pur%20sang

Totally different etymology from per se.

RoboEmperor

2016-12-04, 01:07 PM

I think my sarcasm may have been lost...

I have honestly played far more low level characters than high. The levels where the non casters are completely outmatched, lvl 15 and beyond, are actually quite rare to play. Most games tend to start at 1st to 5th level and go from there. And then take years to advance. Many gaming groups break up, others end the game at or before lvl 14. Those few games that DO go beyond lvl 14, tend to have some heavy anti caster material.

There are the occasional games where people start at obscene levels, but those seem to be rare. So I will agree with the op... for MOST games, he is correct. Middle tier is exceptionally more balanced in pathfinder, whereas lower tiers are more favored toward non casters and upper tiers are more favored toward casters.

There are spells at level 5 that can turn noncasters obsolete (lesser planar binding for one). The reason you experience the disparity at level 15 and not level 9 is because the casters are intentionally not playing to their fullest potential, for fun.

I haven't really optimized pathfinder so there might be ways that I'm unaware of that makes noncasters obsolete sooner.

Troacctid

2016-12-04, 03:09 PM

I should probably read the in depth on Spheres of Power at some point, but every time some one brings it up they mention that it puts powers like raise dead and teleport on a list of "only if the DM says so" powers, and that is exactly the wrong way to implement those powers. Spheres of Power may be more balanced, but that balance comes at the cost of player agency (as far as I can tell).
You don't have to play "DM May I" for each Advanced Talent—the Advanced Talent system is either allowed or it's not. If it's allowed, you have access to all the Advanced Talents. The reason it's presented as an optional rule is to enable low-magic worlds "where powerful wizards must still rely on horses and quick wits no matter their level"—basically to make the system more customizable.

Ssalarn

2016-12-04, 03:26 PM

Isn't this the reason, at least it seems thus, that more and more people start using alternate magic systems developed by 3rd party publishers? At this point in the 'game' I'm actually planning to to get rid of Vancian casting altogether. There are plenty of other decent ways to play a 'fighter' that have the utility some crave without resorting to 'magic pur sang' in these systems. You don't have to cripple yourself in this way... Unless of course your DM thinks only 1pp is balanced, in which case you're boned

Yes, there are a lot of flaws with Vancian casting, and they in no small share a healthy chunk of the responsibility for caster / non-caster disparity.

Traditional D&D vancian casting mechanics have two major characteristics beyond being slot based that define their functionality-

1) They are defined by what you can't do, rather than what you can. Wizards can't heal or wear armor, they have prohibited schools, clerics have a spell list that can't adapt to as many situations as arcane casters, none of them can cast more than a certain number of spells per day, etc. The major issue in a system based around what you can't do though, is that in a system as large as PF vancian magic, there's always a way around those limitations. Illusion can pretend to be Evocation and Conjuration, Conjuration can pretend to be Evocation and Necromancy, so on and so forth, and that's before looking at the fact that there's really no such thing as "prohibited schools" in Pathfinder anymore or the fact that there are arcane spells that heal (and not just for bards), and ways to graft arcane abilities onto divine spell lists. So, you have a system that assumes that things you can't do will provide a layer of balance, and yet there's really no solid boundary preventing you from doing anything and everything possible within the broad confines of your character level and available spell level.

2) Vancian casting, both as presented in D&D and as conceived in the original works of Jack Vance, is intended to be very limited. You have a few "I win" buttons, but you need to hoard them for the right moment... Except you don't. There's this anticipated waveform pattern of performance amongst casters that's supposed to balance them against non-casters. As a rough example, a wizard who isn't casting a spell is expected to be operating at around 25% potential capacity for a character of his level, spiking up to 100% briefly when he casts a spell. A fighter is expected to operate at around 50% capacity for a character of her level 100% of the time. System mastery, of course, can tweak these numbers. Now, some games actually follow that pattern, especially amongst less experienced groups or groups that simply choose not to flex their system mastery muscles much, but even a little application of system mastery can shatter that mold, and the higher your level the less that pattern holds true regardless of system mastery.
A caster who takes advantage of their crafting superiority can stretch their spells out across an entire day by supplementing them with scrolls, wands, and similar magical activation items, preventing them from ever dropping into their theoretical lower threshold. Given how simple, quick, and cheap to craft scrolls are, this is true right from level 1. So a caster created with even a fair degree of system mastery can always still spike to 100%, but never actually drops below the baseline representing non-caster performance.
A related issue is that non-casters still live in a magical world, and will face challenges that require magic to overcome. How often do you see a group where the wizard and the cleric have exhausted their spells but the fighter says "Don't worry guys, you've got 24 hour performance here, I'll just carry us through!"? I, personally, don't see that terribly often, because that guy usually dies about 2 rounds later when there are no buffs, no BFC, and no healing to keep him running. With every level past one, his reliance on magical support increases, rather than decreasing as his core competencies rise as one would expect. In PF/D&D, the game changes about every 3-5 levels; enemies gain new forms of movement and defenses, terrain becomes increasingly dangerous in its own right, the sheer quantity of types of challenges you might face grows exponentially. Casters grow alongside this dynamic, able to readily meet the ever-expanding catalogue of threats; non-casters generally keep the exact same spread of functionality, simply adding more numbers to the same tasks they were already capable of performing. The only thing a non-caster can really do to try and keep up is borrow magic from actual casters, whether that be buffing from an allied caster, UMD to use a magic item a caster created, etc.

This is why alternative 3pp magic systems, like Spheres of Power, are so popular and successful. In Spheres of Power, magic is defined by what you can do rather than what you can't. You learn the Destruction sphere and now you can shoot blasts of magical energy. You learn the Life sphere and now you can heal. Magic is organized into logical chains that follow similar progressions to feats, and you have at-will magic that operates a little bit below the baseline of effectiveness a well-made non-caster operates at, but you can spend a spell point to push your effectiveness above non-caster performance by a similar degree. By narrowing the gap and defining magical capabilities in essentially the same way non-caster abities are defined, by what you can do, you bring inter-party disparity much more into check without sacrificing the ability to deal with the challenges of a magical world.

***
I should probably read the in depth on Spheres of Power at some point, but every time some one brings it up they mention that it puts powers like raise dead and teleport on a list of "only if the DM says so" powers, and that is exactly the wrong way to implement those powers. Spheres of Power may be more balanced, but that balance comes at the cost of player agency (as far as I can tell).

Actually, raise dead and teleport are necessary tools for adventuring in a world like that assumed by Pathfinder, and are part of the core magical options in Spheres of Power. The abilities that SoP gates to the GM are the big, world-changing options, like creating tsunamis, wish, multi-mile radius fields of darkness, etc. Basically the things that never should have been spells in the first place, but were implemented by lazy designers who didn't like the idea of having to include separate rules for ritual magic and thought they could just shove world-altering power in alongside fireballs.

stanprollyright

2016-12-04, 03:51 PM

Why do I care how many skills the Fighter can have? Did PF make Jump checks let you fly? Skills are almost exclusively stuff that competes with 3rd level or lower spells, and spell levels still go up to 9 in PF.

So the first 10 levels that most games never get beyond is irrelevant? So Paladin and Ranger spells are irrelevant because they only go up to 4th and not 9th? The Rogue isn't an entire tier higher than the Fighter in 3.5 because of his skills? Skills can be used all day every day without taking any resources away from combat abilities, unlike spells. It's not "balanced," but it's not nothing either.

Jack_Simth

2016-12-04, 04:44 PM

Who needs to persist a spell when you can infinity (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/metamagic-feats/echoing-spell-metamagic) recast (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/c/channel-the-gift) it (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/spell-perfection)?
"No effect that allows you to reprepare or recast a spell can affect the echoed spell."

I'm curious how this is supposed to work...

Arbane

2016-12-04, 05:27 PM

At level 1 a wizard is very vulnerable to the 10 minute adventuring day, a fighter mean while will last many more encounters, (depending on luck of coarse.)

http://i.imgur.com/jNT6Ce6.png

Pathfinder did improve the balance a bit. It just didn't solve it.

I don't think it CAN be balanced without a serious paradigm shift in the player-base. As the reaction to Tome of Battle demonstrated, some players HATE the idea of giving fighty-types any inherently superhuman/supernatural abilities, and as 4th edition D&D demonstrated, some players HATE the spellcasters not having Ultimate Cosmic Power.

And the only way to 'balance' the classes is either to weaken magic to the point where it's NOT always the best solution to all problems (limited only by spell-slots), or to strengthen the non-magic classes' abilities to the point where they too can casually break physics and plot. Neither seems to be acceptable to some elements of the player-base.

More notably, almost no archetypes of the Fighter actually make you better at non-combat tasks.

And they're still stuck at 2+Int skill ranks per level.

This is a problem - I'm guessing fighters got shafted on skill-points because letting them actually be good at anything BESIDES Fightering would intrude on the Rogues' turf.

(ISTR reading that in one old-school revival game, every class got 4 'backgrounds' - except Fighters originally only got three until the playtesters complained. "DURR, FIGHTARS R DUMM" is kind of ground-in to the gamer collective unconsciousnesss at this point, I fear.)

And it's still mundane skills. They can do what skills can do, even with skill unlocks it hardly gets supernatural. They can be very good, but there are a lot of problems that can't be solved with any skill.

Very much a problem. A while back, I saw a good list of plotlines that that are difficult-to-impossible without magic, but trivialized with the right D&D spell. It was a long list.

D&D is inherently a magical setting, so there's inherently magical solutions to lots of problems. Casters get these and more, Non-Casters do not get these. That's not balanced.
Of course, that doesn't mean that every class has to be a Caster, with spells prepared or known. There's lots of alternative ways to do it.

Quite right. Consider the HeroQuest/Exalted approach of letting 'normal' skills do supernatural things if you're Just That Good/are inherently magical.

Yes, there are a lot of flaws with Vancian casting, and they in no small share a healthy chunk of the responsibility for caster / non-caster disparity. (SNIP essay on Win Buttons)

I have no comment on your post, except that I regret the absence of a +1 button on these forums. Well put.

Serafina

2016-12-04, 06:02 PM

Rynjin

2016-12-04, 06:05 PM

None of the above "solves" the disparity

Why did you waste so many words just to point out the obvious and then use this statement to agree with me?

exelsisxax

2016-12-04, 06:23 PM

javcs

2016-12-04, 06:40 PM

Vancian spellcasting has nothing to do with the disparity between primary casters and everyone else, at least inherently.
Vancian spellcasting does, however, strongly contribute to the "10 minute adventuring day" phenomenon. And that's the basis for the balance issue - spellcasters tend to be designed around being balanced because they have limited uses of their abilities in a 24 hour adventuring day, whereas noncasters (in theory) have full, or near full, use of their abilities during that 24 hour adventuring day, but in actual play, there normally aren't 24 hour adventuring days - the group stops for the day when the casters are almost out of spells, because encounter design is normally balanced around having functional casters.

There's no good way to balance casters with noncasters without changing something fairly significant in the way either or both of them work.

Serafina

2016-12-04, 06:44 PM

Yes, I did.
Channel the Gift (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/c/channel-the-gift) is itself a third-level spell, for all classes who can cast it.
Spell Perfection (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/spell-perfection) allows you to cast a spell without "affecting it's level". Meaning that adding Echoing to it won't turn it into a 6th-level spell for any purpose - it'll still be a third-level spell.
And it should work with Sacred Geometry (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/sacred-geometry) as well, just not with Quickening until later on.

Mind you, I kinda wish that it doesn't work like this, because it just leads to more caster-supremacy. It somewhat favors 6/9 casters because they're more reliant on lower-level spells, but it's also limited to certain classes only so that's not really good either.

Cosi

2016-12-04, 06:45 PM

In this case specifically it means magic elitist. Like God Wizards for instance or the scry&die tactics some people think is valid. Or ice assassin... That one really ticks me off

ice assassin is stupid, and makes the game go insane.

But the Teleport Ambush is only really a problem because there aren't enough abilities that let you fortify your base so it's a bad idea for people to try to attack you there.

Pur sang is its own thing: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pur%20sang

Totally different etymology from per se.

TIL. Also, your link is "broken" - it wants me to use the unabridged version of Websters, which apparently costs money. That said, google informs me that "pur sang" means something like "pure".

1) They are defined by what you can't do, rather than what you can.

That's only partially true. Specialist Wizards, Beguilers, Warmages, and Dread Necromancers are all focused to one degree or another, and they're all defined by what they can do. If you add PrCs like Mindbender or Elemental Savant, the focus gets even tighter. In any case, that doesn't seem like an inherent limitation to me. I could very easily imagine a game where people have daily spell slots, but those slots must be used on spell lists that are tightly themed.

Basically the things that never should have been spells in the first place, but were implemented by lazy designers who didn't like the idea of having to include separate rules for ritual magic and thought they could just shove world-altering power in alongside fireballs.

First, it appears I've misunderstood people's claims when they talked about the limited abilities in Spheres of Power.

Second, that said, I still don't think that the DM should be allowed to veto PC powers, because that encourages bad storytelling. I also kind of disagree about the need for ritual magic rules. fabricate or whatever can just be a spell, as long as it's daily limited. The benefit of ritual magic is less to do with balance, and more to do with modularity. But in a setup like Spheres of Power that puts everyone on the spell resource management system anyway, that's basically nonexistent.

So the first 10 levels that most games never get beyond is irrelevant? So Paladin and Ranger spells are irrelevant because they only go up to 4th and not 9th? The Rogue isn't an entire tier higher than the Fighter in 3.5 because of his skills? Skills can be used all day every day without taking any resources away from combat abilities, unlike spells. It's not "balanced," but it's not nothing either.

The first ten levels were balanced in 3.5, more or less. Paladin and Ranger are irrelevant in high level play. The tiers are stupid, Rogues are good because of Sneak Attack and Trapfinding which they could handle with half the skill points. Skills aren't good enough for being at-will to matter, and in any case the Wizard has as many base skill points as the Fighter with a higher Intelligence score.

NightDweller

2016-12-04, 06:50 PM

Would you care to substantiate your original assertion, that "Paizo likes balance?" You seemed to imply that Pathfinder was a balanced game. Rather rudely I might add, derailing that recruitment thread with uncalled-for arguments which led to this thread being made to end the derailment of the recruitment thread.

Just do remember that there is more to roleplaying games than rolling for damage. :)

Incorrect.

I said that in response to someone who said that paizo hated fun.

I am saying that pathfinder IMO is much more balanced that people think.

Arbane

2016-12-04, 07:21 PM

ice assassin is stupid, and makes the game go insane.

The problem with Ice Assassin is that WotC forgot what a bunch of powergamers they were writing for. If the spell just said 'This creates an exact duplicate of someone, who has an overwhelming compulsion to kill the original', I'm pretty sure it would've been OK. It's the 'caster has total control over it' part that let some creative soul turn it into Simulacrum+++.

Ssalarn

2016-12-04, 07:35 PM

That's only partially true. Specialist Wizards, Beguilers, Warmages, and Dread Necromancers are all focused to one degree or another, and they're all defined by what they can do. If you add PrCs like Mindbender or Elemental Savant, the focus gets even tighter. In any case, that doesn't seem like an inherent limitation to me. I could very easily imagine a game where people have daily spell slots, but those slots must be used on spell lists that are tightly themed.

This thread is focused on whether Pathfinder did or did not fix caster / non-caster disparity. Pathfinder does not include beguilers, warmages, or dread necromancers, and specialist mages are no longer locked out of their prohibited schools; in fact, a specialist wizard in PF can prepare a spell from an opposition school in one of their spell slots and the only penalty is that they now have exactly as many prepared spells as a universalist. This is part of why I noted that PF didn't actually do much to change the basic dynamics of disparity.

First, it appears I've misunderstood people's claims when they talked about the limited abilities in Spheres of Power.

It would seem so. All of the basic capabilities are divided into "spheres". So if you want to throw fireballs, you first have to learn Destruction, then learn how to incorporate fire, then learn how to shape it into a sphere shaped blast. If you want to return the dead to life, you first have to learn how to grant temp hp and cure wounds. All the basic capabilities still exist, they're just organized in such a way that gaining the higher level version of an ability requires you to learn its constituent parts. You can't throw meteor swarms without first learning how to control flames and shape your destructive power into that swarm shape.

Second, that said, I still don't think that the DM should be allowed to veto PC powers, because that encourages bad storytelling.

The GM isn't vetoing anything. There's a section of the book that says "Hey, here are all the massive narrative changing powers. If it's appropriate for players to have these in your world, you have all the rules to use them. If they're not, flip to the next chapter".

I also kind of disagree about the need for ritual magic rules. fabricate or whatever can just be a spell, as long as it's daily limited. The benefit of ritual magic is less to do with balance, and more to do with modularity. But in a setup like Spheres of Power that puts everyone on the spell resource management system anyway, that's basically nonexistent.

I believe that many powers simply aren't appropriate as spells that click right into a spell slot. Wish and wail of the banshee simply aren't even in the same wheelhouse. Spells that drastically alter large areas of the world shouldn't be something a character just stitches together whole cloth when they level up, they should be gated narrative components that exist separately from slot-based daily use magic.

The first ten levels were balanced in 3.5, more or less. Paladin and Ranger are irrelevant in high level play. The tiers are stupid, Rogues are good because of Sneak Attack and Trapfinding which they could handle with half the skill points. Skills aren't good enough for being at-will to matter, and in any case the Wizard has as many base skill points as the Fighter with a higher Intelligence score.

Ummm, I agree mostly? (This may be directed at a quote from someone else that I can't see anymore now that I'm responding, so if so, my apologies for responding to something not directed at me.) The disparity still exists at low levels, but it's not as pronounced until about 7th level. Also, paladin and ranger are much, much improved in Pathfinder and are drastically better than fighters and rogues. Also, sneak attack isn't much of a factor in making rogues good. It's a pacing mechanic whose average damage falls below what most full BAB characters are dealing with their static modifiers before you factor in the rogue's lower chance to hit. Similarly, trapfinding is available as a trait in Pathfinder, sooo.... Rogues just don't have much going for them, though Unchained helps quite a bit.

Pex

2016-12-04, 08:17 PM

This is a needlessly aggressive way of making your point. There's nothing wrong with wanting to contribute in combat with a sword and still contribute out of combat, and acting like the people who want to do that are having badwrongfun is why Fighters suck.

Those who worship the Tier System as a means to condemn 3E cannot accept Pathfinder because it doesn't change the 3E paradigm. The changes they want require a complete overhaul of the system. That has now been done, twice. Many are happy playing 4E. Many other are happy playing 5E.

There are 3E fans who never liked Pathfinder because 3E was never a problem for them and don't care for the changes Pathfinder made, especially in feats. Those who like Pathfinder who came from 3E never hated 3E to see it go bye-bye when 4E came around. They see in Pathfinder an improvement of what 3E provided. Increasing the diversity and utility of the warrior-type is one of those things, and they don't give a Hoover they don't have something akin to Gate or Teleport. They didn't give a Hoover when it was just 3E.

Talore

2016-12-04, 08:27 PM

Incorrect.

I said that in response to someone who said that paizo hated fun.

I am saying that pathfinder IMO is much more balanced that people think.Yeah that person was me. You sure could've fooled me with your subsequent arguments, though.

Those who worship the Tier System as a means to condemn 3E cannot accept Pathfinder because it doesn't change the 3E paradigm. The changes they want require a complete overhaul of the system. That has now been done, twice. Many are happy playing 4E. Many other are happy playing 5E.

There are 3E fans who never liked Pathfinder because 3E was never a problem for them and don't care for the changes Pathfinder made, especially in feats. Those who like Pathfinder who came from 3E never hated 3E to see it go bye-bye when 4E came around. They see in Pathfinder an improvement of what 3E provided. Increasing the diversity and utility of the warrior-type is one of those things, and they don't give a Hoover they don't have something akin to Gate or Teleport. They didn't give a Hoover when it was just 3E.Those are quite the assumptions, there. What on Earth do you mean by "worship" of the tier system?

I accept that the tier system has merit and is a good way to analyze the design of 3.X without hating 3.5 or PF. I came from 3.5 (fairly recently) because I recognized that PF was an improvement over 3.5, but that does not mean that I don't have problems with the system or that I'm blind to its flaws. I do care about the imbalances but because PF does some things that other games don't and that there are lots of games/players for PF, I still play it along with many other systems.

I'll also note that the wealth of quality 3pp material from publishers like Dreamscarred Press and Drop Dead Studios plays a large factor into the enjoyment of PF for many people, especially due to the changes they provide for some of Pathfinder's fundamental flaws.

Jack_Simth

2016-12-04, 08:36 PM

Like this:
You have Spell Perfection for Channel the Gift, and ideally a metamagic reducer for it too.
You cast Quickened Echoing Channel the Gift. This gives you a free casting of Channel the Gift, to be used whenever you want during the day.
Then, during your next round, you can cast Quickened Echoing Channel the Gift again. Due to the spell effect, this does not expend a spell slot - however, this is only possible on account of Spell Perfection, since it allows you to apply metamagic without raising the level, and it's only possible to quicken due to the metamagic reducer. This is not "reprepare or recast" a spell, it's just casting a spell without expending it. This also gives you another echo of Channel the Gift, to be used any time during the day.
Then during your next round, you can cast another Quickened Echoing Channel the Gift, getting another echo of it to be used any time during the day.
Then, during the next round....you can do this ad infinitum, only taking six seconds per casting, so you can do it 600 times in an hour.

As a result, you have a huge supply of Quickened Echoing Channel the Gifts - which you can swift-action cast, then follow it up with any third-level spell you want during the same or next round.

Given that this NEEDS spell perfection to work (otherwise you can't chain like this due to level restrictions on Channel the Gift), it's a high-level tactic.
But I don't really see anything that breaks it. FAQ (http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9r9w) states that you always treat metamagiced spells as the least favorable level for you, but with Spell Perfection you don't increase the level at all. And while Echoing spells prohibits recasting the spell, that's not what you're doing - you're casting a spell without expending it, which is different. Of course, that point can be argued a lot.

Still, this is a potentially potent high-level tactic for prepared casters - certainly for casters who use a lot of low-level spells (Bards, Rangers, Magus all have access to it).
So let's see if I have this straight...
1) You prepare two copies of Channel the Gift.
2) You cast the first Channel the Gift on yourself, and add Echoing via Spell Perfection, so you can recast it later.
3) You cast the second Channel the Gift on yourself, burning the first so it never gets expended, and add Echoing via Spell Perfection so that you can cast it later again.
4) Repeat 3 until bored.
5) Later on, when you use an echo'd copy of Channel the Gift, you use Spell Perfection on the Echo to Quicken it.

- OK, that maybe works (depends on interpretation, though - another is that Echo Spell simply means the original isn't expended the first time... and as you were feeding via Channel the Gift, it simply wouldn't have been expended in the first place - the two benefits overlap, and there's no net effect), and you never actually 'use up' the second Channel the Gift, so if you run low on echos you can restart it. Still, you're 15th level (requirements for Spell Perfection), and it only helps with your 3rd level and lower spells, and it eats your swift action that round. So it's not useful in combat unless you're facing lots of mooks; good for non-combat utility (Unlimited Cure Serious Wounds for the party, Fly everyone across the chasm, Silent Invisibility, that sort of thing) and low-level buffs (keep Shield up all day), but it'll be rare that you'll actually use it when action costs matter (battle).

stanprollyright

2016-12-04, 09:41 PM

I could very easily imagine a game where people have daily spell slots, but those slots must be used on spell lists that are tightly themed.

That would be nice.

The first ten levels were balanced in 3.5, more or less.

Eh. Level 1 is all about Druids and Barbarians, and by level 10 the tiers are pretty much in effect.

Paladin and Ranger are irrelevant in high level play.

Compared to a Cleric and a Druid, sure. Not compared to a Fighter.

Rogues are good because of Sneak Attack and Trapfinding which they could handle with half the skill points. Skills aren't good enough for being at-will to matter

Sneak Attack is an awful ability that is never as cool in-game as it is in your head, and trapfinding is just arbitrary niche-protection. Rogue has the most skill points of any class; that's why it's called a skill monkey. Technically its most powerful feature is that it has UMD as a class skill and the ranks to use it. A Rogue's combat abilities leave something to be desired, but at low levels you're the God of Noncombat Scenarios until a Bard shows up. Even into mid levels the Wizard doesn't have enough slots to cast Knock every time you come across a locked door, and you can just as easily bypass encounters with Stealth or Diplomacy as you could with a spell, at any level.

and in any case the Wizard has as many base skill points as the Fighter with a higher Intelligence score.

True. But like I said before, it doesn't much matter to the Wizard whether he has ranks in Stealth or not when he casts Invisibility. The Fighter? That's a whole extra thing he can do.

Calthropstu

2016-12-04, 10:03 PM

There are spells at level 5 that can turn noncasters obsolete (lesser planar binding for one). The reason you experience the disparity at level 15 and not level 9 is because the casters are intentionally not playing to their fullest potential, for fun.

I haven't really optimized pathfinder so there might be ways that I'm unaware of that makes noncasters obsolete sooner.

Lesser binding doesn't really do it. The long term costs become prohibitively expensive, and if your gm plays it smart, you run into "you are messing with the cosmos, prepare to be pimpslapped by a planetar" or some such (generally more than enough to handle a 9th level wizard.) Planar binding is not an infinitely abusable spell, there are consequences.

Those trying to infinitely abuse greater planar binding will genarally be facing a Solar at some point. So planar binding and gate is not a game breaker unless the gm allows it to be. Even the spell itself states this.

Other supposed game breakers are generally gm blunders as well. I have seen a lot of severely questionable interpretations from this site that no gm I have ever played with would accept. Yes, there are many spells that greatly alter the dynamic of the game, but it is not until very high levels (eg, 8th level spells) that a spell caster can really solo just about anything. And even then, the martials are not irrelevant with even a reasonable build.

Even the supposedly gam breaking pathfinder summoner builds have glaring weaknesses. I played in a Mythic game with a summoner oracle, and there were many times where my oracle was completely useless at high levels because the ac's were just out of my summons' league, and the sr was too high. Meanwhile, our fighter/dervish and our magus simply outshone my character against such creatures. However, when we faced hordes of monsters, my character was in a class all his own.

Sure, in a 1v1, the character ran a 90%+ chance of mopping the floor with the other characters in the party (mythic initiative, auto 20 on init roll, speedy summons, improved summons) except one who had a higher init and had a 20% of going first and outright slaughtering me before I went (the fighter dervish) but those situations where I was useless made the whole party schematic we had going WORK. No one was overpowered, no one was underpowered. We even had 2 wizards in our party and not once did anyone feel irrelevant or did anyone outshine the rest.

So the people complaining either 1: just really don't know how to role play, 2: have terrible gm's who make bad calls or 3: don't know how to make characters stay relevant or 4: play with severe rules lawyers who TRY to break the game.

In all cases, I have to say it's a pretty bad call to say pathfinder is the cause. Pathfinder, in my experience, tends to work quickly to faq out any horrendous exploits people find.

Talore

2016-12-04, 10:10 PM

Lesser binding doesn't really do it. The long term costs become prohibitively expensive, and if your gm plays it smart, you run into "you are messing with the cosmos, prepare to be pimpslapped by a planetar" or some such (generally more than enough to handle a 9th level wizard.) Planar binding is not an infinitely abusable spell, there are consequences.

Those trying to infinitely abuse greater planar binding will genarally be facing a Solar at some point. So planar binding and gate is not a game breaker unless the gm allows it to be. Even the spell itself states this.

Other supposed game breakers are generally gm blunders as well. I have seen a lot of severely questionable interpretations from this site that no gm I have ever played with would accept. Yes, there are many spells that greatly alter the dynamic of the game, but it is not until very high levels (eg, 8th level spells) that a spell caster can really solo just about anything. And even then, the martials are not irrelevant with even a reasonable build.

Even the supposedly gam breaking pathfinder summoner builds have glaring weaknesses. I played in a Mythic game with a summoner oracle, and there were many times where my oracle was completely useless at high levels because the ac's were just out of my summons' league, and the sr was too high. Meanwhile, our fighter/dervish and our magus simply outshone my character against such creatures. However, when we faced hordes of monsters, my character was in a class all his own.

Sure, in a 1v1, the character ran a 90%+ chance of mopping the floor with the other characters in the party (mythic initiative, auto 20 on init roll, speedy summons, improved summons) except one who had a higher init and had a 20% of going first and outright slaughtering me before I went (the fighter dervish) but those situations where I was useless made the whole party schematic we had going WORK. No one was overpowered, no one was underpowered. We even had 2 wizards in our party and not once did anyone feel irrelevant or did anyone outshine the rest.

So the people complaining either 1: just really don't know how to role play, 2: have terrible gm's who make bad calls or 3: don't know how to make characters stay relevant or 4: play with severe rules lawyers who TRY to break the game.

In all cases, I have to say it's a pretty bad call to say pathfinder is the cause. Pathfinder, in my experience, tends to work quickly to faq out any horrendous exploits people find.So, tick "Rule 0", "It's never been a problem at our table", and Stormwind Fallacy off of the bingo card. You were doing okay until you drew those ridiculously simplistic conclusions. You can't blame everything on the GM and players when other games don't have these problems.

Calthropstu

2016-12-04, 10:22 PM

So, tick "Rule 0", "It hasn't happened in my games", and Stormwind Fallacy off of the bingo card. You were doing okay until you drew those ridiculously simplistic conclusions. You can't blame everything on the GM and players when other games don't have these problems.

Every system I have ever played had problems. In fact, the more realistic any system tries to be, the less fun it seems to become. Shadowrun has problems, 5e has problems, 4e has problems, exalted has problems, gurps has problems...

But this is a 3.x/pathfinder (by extension) forum. And most times I have seen people complain about stuff here generally only exist because of what I stated at least pathfinder wise. Pathfinder did a really good job at limiting pure cheese. There aren't any raw infinite combo exploits I have seen, and anything that DOES go off, generally get's a Paizo "no."

Pathfinder is a fairly solid system, probably one of the best I've played. And much of the exploits from 3.5 have been completely nullified.

Talore

2016-12-04, 10:29 PM

Every system I have ever played had problems. In fact, the more realistic any system tries to be, the less fun it seems to become. Shadowrun has problems, 5e has problems, 4e has problems, exalted has problems, gurps has problems...

But this is a 3.x/pathfinder (by extension) forum. And most times I have seen people complain about stuff here generally only exist because of what I stated at least pathfinder wise. Pathfinder did a really good job at limiting pure cheese. There aren't any raw infinite combo exploits I have seen, and anything that DOES go off, generally get's a Paizo "no."

Pathfinder is a fairly solid system, probably one of the best I've played. And much of the exploits from 3.5 have been completely nullified.Yes every system has its own problems, but 3.X seems to be the only group with these specific caster/non-caster disparity issues - the topic of the thread. It really doesn't matter that loopholes were closed when the main problems are systematic. The fact still remains that spellcasters have disproportionate influence over the game. Players and GMs can of course work to mitigate those issues, but that also does not mean that those fundamental flaws stop existing.

Cosi

2016-12-04, 10:32 PM

The problem with Ice Assassin is that WotC forgot what a bunch of powergamers they were writing for. If the spell just said 'This creates an exact duplicate of someone, who has an overwhelming compulsion to kill the original', I'm pretty sure it would've been OK. It's the 'caster has total control over it' part that let some creative soul turn it into Simulacrum+++.

I don't think making a clone of a CR 17+ monster that is (kind of) on your side is terribly balanced either.

This thread is focused on whether Pathfinder did or did not fix caster / non-caster disparity. Pathfinder does not include beguilers, warmages, or dread necromancers,

It does actually, because it's (supposed to be) backwards compatible with all those things.

The GM isn't vetoing anything. There's a section of the book that says "Hey, here are all the massive narrative changing powers. If it's appropriate for players to have these in your world, you have all the rules to use them. If they're not, flip to the next chapter".

I don't understand how that's anything other than a veto in your mind.

I believe that many powers simply aren't appropriate as spells that click right into a spell slot. Wish and wail of the banshee simply aren't even in the same wheelhouse. Spells that drastically alter large areas of the world shouldn't be something a character just stitches together whole cloth when they level up, they should be gated narrative components that exist separately from slot-based daily use magic.

Why not? If "control plate tectonics" is a level appropriate ability for a 15th level character, why should a 15th level character go through any additional hoops to get it?

Those who worship the Tier System as a means to condemn 3E cannot accept Pathfinder because it doesn't change the 3E paradigm. The changes they want require a complete overhaul of the system. That has now been done, twice. Many are happy playing 4E. Many other are happy playing 5E.

I don't understand how you think anyone whose complaint was "Fighters don't get things like gate" would be happy with 4e or 5e. In fact, your whole post seems to be "people are happy playing games", which is true, but not really an argument.

Compared to a Cleric and a Druid, sure. Not compared to a Fighter.

And compared to a Commoner, Fighter is a great choice.

Sneak Attack is an awful ability that is never as cool in-game as it is in your head, and trapfinding is just arbitrary niche-protection.

Sneak Attack is a very potent DPS ability, and the items needed to bypass its limits (wands, Ring of Blinking) are pretty simple to acquire. Trapfinding may be arbitrary niche protection, but that doesn't make having it not important.

True. But like I said before, it doesn't much matter to the Wizard whether he has ranks in Stealth or not when he casts Invisibility. The Fighter? That's a whole extra thing he can do.

If A > B, A + X > B + X for any X.

Other supposed game breakers are generally gm blunders as well.

If the game breaks, it is the fault of the designers. End of story. The idea that the DM should arbitrarily nerf problem powers is one of the reason why people keep making bad games.

In all cases, I have to say it's a pretty bad call to say pathfinder is the cause. Pathfinder, in my experience, tends to work quickly to faq out any horrendous exploits people find.

Paizo's practice of pretending the FAQ is errata is terrible, and you should not use it to defend their game.

Calthropstu

2016-12-04, 11:24 PM

Yes every system has its own problems, but 3.X seems to be the only group with these specific caster/non-caster disparity issues - the topic of the thread.
Not true. Every D&D edition has had this disparity except for 4th... which had the issue of "every character class was exactly the same." And that edition was WIDELY rejected by the vast majority of core rpg fans. The fact that Pathfinder, even now, STILL outsells D&D 5e in many areas and blew 4e out of the water is very telling. Previous to 3rd edition, 2nd edition was even more abusable in terms of magic and 1st edition didn't even have a cap on how many times enlarge person could be cast on someone... a first level spell could, RAW, wipe out an entire planet with repeat castings.
Apart from D&D, I have found Shadowrun casters to be overly potent as well with the ability to send hordes of elementals/spirits into a fray. I had one caster in a game attempt to summon the spirit of an entire city... which would dwarf anything any other class could possibly even attempt to access.
I have also seen classes in other games which most gm's flat out bar from their games because it was overpowered. I forget the one in the MIB rpg that was banned, and pretty much everyone wants to play the Jedi in star wars because of the overwhelming powers it obtains.
So this is NOT merely a PF/3.x issue.

It really doesn't matter that loopholes were closed when the main problems are systematic. The fact still remains that spellcasters have disproportionate influence over the game. Players and GMs can of course work to mitigate those issues, but that also does not mean that those fundamental flaws stop existing.
I will disagree here and think this may be an opinion matter. The party is built to rely on each other. And there are more than enough situations where a mage is simply not the best answer. Sure, the mage can cast charm person to get someone to do what they want right now. But when the spell wears off guess what... the person is pissed off and begins to take actions against the character in question... whether it is reporting them to the police, trying to get revenge on the character, or warning others to watch out for your character. It will eventually bite you in the ass if improperly used. Meanwhile, everyone loves the bard naturally and can be talked into assistance. And that never wears off.

Sure, you can nova that Dragon to death as a psion. And have nothing for that next encounter which happens shortly after... but it's best to conserve and let the fighter do his job of beating it into submission because a fighter never runs out of sword. Meanwhile, you can eke out some power points to greater effect by assisting the fighter and be sure to stay relevant in future fights should they occur.

The biggest bonus to the noncasters is their abilities never run out. Wizards are finite in their abilities, so no matter how powerful they become there exists a means to eventually exhaust their resources. Meanwhile, a fighter has infinite uses of "swing sword." In a sea of infinite goblins, the wizard eventually loses to the fighter.

Mato

2016-12-04, 11:37 PM

Still, you're 15th level (requirements for Spell Perfection), and it only helps with your 3rd level and lower spells, and it eats your swift action that round.I expected someone to claim a higher level caster considers third level spells worthless as some sort of debate tactic to ignore this.

Did you expect what comes after that? That would be my comment that if the primary rebuttal is a caster can do something better instead of something like the unchained classes can do something better, then PF probably hasn't solved caster supremacy.

What you're probably really debating is how low in level does the wizard have to be in order for someone else to finally out perform him. Is it 9th? 4th? the first level? Who knows, but what is known is the debate is already based on the notion that as the level gets higher then caster supremacy become more and more apparent. So the simple answer is no, PF did not get rid of it.

javcs

2016-12-04, 11:40 PM

Not true. Every D&D edition has had this disparity except for 4th... which had the issue of "every character class was exactly the same." And that edition was WIDELY rejected by the vast majority of core rpg fans. The fact that Pathfinder, even now, STILL outsells D&D 5e in many areas and blew 4e out of the water is very telling. Previous to 3rd edition, 2nd edition was even more abusable in terms of magic and 1st edition didn't even have a cap on how many times enlarge person could be cast on someone... a first level spell could, RAW, wipe out an entire planet with repeat castings.
Apart from D&D, I have found Shadowrun casters to be overly potent as well with the ability to send hordes of elementals/spirits into a fray. I had one caster in a game attempt to summon the spirit of an entire city... which would dwarf anything any other class could possibly even attempt to access.
I have also seen classes in other games which most gm's flat out bar from their games because it was overpowered. I forget the one in the MIB rpg that was banned, and pretty much everyone wants to play the Jedi in star wars because of the overwhelming powers it obtains.
So this is NOT merely a PF/3.x issue.

I will disagree here and think this may be an opinion matter. The party is built to rely on each other. And there are more than enough situations where a mage is simply not the best answer. Sure, the mage can cast charm person to get someone to do what they want right now. But when the spell wears off guess what... the person is pissed off and begins to take actions against the character in question... whether it is reporting them to the police, trying to get revenge on the character, or warning others to watch out for your character. It will eventually bite you in the ass if improperly used. Meanwhile, everyone loves the bard naturally and can be talked into assistance. And that never wears off.

Sure, you can nova that Dragon to death as a psion. And have nothing for that next encounter which happens shortly after... but it's best to conserve and let the fighter do his job of beating it into submission because a fighter never runs out of sword. Meanwhile, you can eke out some power points to greater effect by assisting the fighter and be sure to stay relevant in future fights should they occur.

The biggest bonus to the noncasters is their abilities never run out. Wizards are finite in their abilities, so no matter how powerful they become there exists a means to eventually exhaust their resources. Meanwhile, a fighter has infinite uses of "swing sword." In a sea of infinite goblins, the wizard eventually loses to the fighter.

While it is true that a caster can run out of spells/power points/etc, before he does, in actual play the party will stop for the day before he does. And, once a caster gains a few levels, he's going to have ways to ensure his safety while resting to restore spells.

The caster(s) running out of spells is really only a concern at low levels, or in certain specific circumstances (usually some sort of imposed time pressure) - and even for most of those circumstances, a higher level caster can get around those limits with the right spells.

Talore

2016-12-05, 12:11 AM

http://i.imgur.com/6tyiX95.png
Not true. Every D&D edition has had this disparity except for 4th... which had the issue of "every character class was exactly the same." And that edition was WIDELY rejected by the vast majority of core rpg fans. The fact that Pathfinder, even now, STILL outsells D&D 5e in many areas and blew 4e out of the water is very telling. Previous to 3rd edition, 2nd edition was even more abusable in terms of magic and 1st edition didn't even have a cap on how many times enlarge person could be cast on someone... a first level spell could, RAW, wipe out an entire planet with repeat castings.
The fighter is king in 2e, and 5e's disparity is not nearly on the same level of 3.X. Never played 1e or OD&D.

I will disagree here and think this may be an opinion matter. The party is built to rely on each other. And there are more than enough situations where a mage is simply not the best answer. Sure, the mage can cast charm person to get someone to do what they want right now. But when the spell wears off guess what... the person is pissed off and begins to take actions against the character in question... whether it is reporting them to the police, trying to get revenge on the character, or warning others to watch out for your character. It will eventually bite you in the ass if improperly used. Meanwhile, everyone loves the bard naturally and can be talked into assistance. And that never wears off.

Sure, you can nova that Dragon to death as a psion. And have nothing for that next encounter which happens shortly after... but it's best to conserve and let the fighter do his job of beating it into submission because a fighter never runs out of sword. Meanwhile, you can eke out some power points to greater effect by assisting the fighter and be sure to stay relevant in future fights should they occur.

The biggest bonus to the noncasters is their abilities never run out. Wizards are finite in their abilities, so no matter how powerful they become there exists a means to eventually exhaust their resources. Meanwhile, a fighter has infinite uses of "swing sword." In a sea of infinite goblins, the wizard eventually loses to the fighter.Five-minute adventuring day was already pointed out, but then there's this common idea that it is okay for casters to have so much more versatility because it's a team game. That fighter still gets to do next to nothing outside of combat. The bard is tier 3 but is still mediocre in combat at best, but hooray for it not being completely obsoleted by a 1st-level spell. These circles you're running around the issue don't make the issues go away.

Nifft

2016-12-05, 12:41 AM

http://i.imgur.com/6tyiX95.png
The fighter is king in 2e, and 5e's disparity is not nearly on the same level of 3.X. Never played 1e or OD&D.

Fighter was pretty cool in 1e and OD&D. They had great saving throws -- the best in the game, I think -- and that meant they were more likely to survive trouble.

The "Thief ability problem" hadn't become enshrined, so many tables allowed all characters to do whatever they wanted (including climbing walls and hiding), and traps were more about puzzles & deception than rolling to find the trip-wire. A Thief could do all that stuff in otherwise impossible situations -- like hiding where there's no real cover, just using nearby shadows -- but under normal circumstances, a Fighter could participate in larceny.

Some magic items were only usable by Fighters, including a lot of the better buff potions.

Different weapons had different attack modifiers depending on the target's base AC type, so having access to a lot of different weapon types was frequently useful... if you remembered to ask what kind of armor the enemy was wearing.

Rangers, which were a Fighter subclass, had cool powers like "you are almost never surprised" and "your party surprises the other guys most of the time".

Also, if you rolled for ability scores, you might only be able to pick Fighter or Thief as your class. Not all classes were balanced against each other -- some were "balanced" by being difficult to roll high enough to enter.

khadgar567

2016-12-05, 01:49 AM

5ColouredWalker

2016-12-05, 01:52 AM

http://i.imgur.com/6tyiX95.png

You're missing 'Use UMD', 'Martials can use skills', 'Martials are Tougher' (I think, by saying they don't have the 5 minute adventuring day.), Stick to the CRB, and 'Run a low magic campaign' by saying play low level.

Arbane

2016-12-05, 02:09 AM

Every system I have ever played had problems. In fact, the more realistic any system tries to be, the less fun it seems to become. Shadowrun has problems, 5e has problems, 4e has problems, exalted has problems, gurps has problems...

I'd argue 'realism' is a large part of the problem.
Specifically, the Guy At The Gym Fallacy (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?303089-The-Guy-at-the-Gym-Fallacy), since it's the reason Fighters HAVE to suck. Meanwhile, since magic doesn't exist, it's OK for magicians to be able to do ANYTHING.

Coretron03

2016-12-05, 02:15 AM

Incorrect.

I said that in response to someone who said that paizo hated fun.

I am saying that pathfinder IMO is much more balanced that people think.

Pathfinder is not really that balanced (personally I think the desingers are stupid but I can still have fun with it). Casters beating non-casters is a design flaw and fixing it would require a redesign of the games base mechanics. As for a fighter, take my battle oracle. Benefits of each at level 4
Fighter: 2 more feats, bravery +1, armour training and 4hp more (average) and full bab
Oracle: more skills, better skill list, some curse benfits and Spellcasting
There is not a very big difference when you compare the two of them in melee combat, with oracle focusing on Str, Cha and Con with fighter focusing on Str, Con and maybe dex if you want to benifit from armour training.

MeeposFire

2016-12-05, 02:19 AM

A lot of people are talking about what they did to casters but what people are ignoring is what they did NOT do for people using weapons.

THe full attack action still exists people and despite having YEARS of lay testing before they even considered making PF they missed out on fixing a core problem in the 3e ruleset which is that

weapon users get shafted more and more as they level up due to action cost while casters almost never have that problem. If you move 10 feet in a round and then want to attack a weapon user is apparently too uncoordinated to make his full attacks. A spell caster that has to use tiny magical components and complicated gestures has no problem what so ever. Remember in a basic sense a level 6 fighter loses 50% of his attacks if he moves 10 feet. A level 20 loses 75% of his attacks. That is nuts. And yes I know if you know your optimization you can somewhat get around this but honestly that is not something you should have to do. A weapon user should be able to move 10 feet and make their normal attacks (or something of similar value). Casters can why not the weapon user who frankly should be better at that concept.

Also if you look they are constantly making material based off of the full attack action.

People will tell you that ToB was so great because of its abilities and this is true but the most unsung hero part of it was that it allowed you to be effective as a melee combatant when you need to only use a standard action which is not something you can do as almost any other weapon using class.

For the most part the core writers for PF have managed to miss out on this core issue with weapon users and it is really unfortunate.

Also vital strike does not count as it is fairly weak and you need to use at least 3 feats to keep up. How is that 3 feats? At worst it should be one that scales. Once again a case where the people in PF really have not learned from the early mistakes of 3e and vital strike is not the only feat that has that issue either.

Honestly PF should have figured out an alternative for the full attack action. It isn't like the ability to move and make effective weapon attacks is unbalanced or unusual. Rulescyclopedia, 2e, 4e, and 5e at the very least allowed you to move a significant distance and allowed you to make your full attacks per round in melee. 3e is the black sheep in this regard and it is one of the unfortunate things they kept in PF.

Coretron03

2016-12-05, 02:39 AM

MeeposFire

2016-12-05, 02:45 AM

Which is funny, due to my oracle a few times a day able to move as a immediate action whcih can negate that issue somewhat while a fighter has to rely on magic items like the quickrunners shirt. This is part of the reason why archers are likely the best martials, due to 1) full attacks almost everywhere 2) feats that improve archers even further over 3.5(manyshot, deadly shot) 3) in a lower OP enviroment be anti casters via readied actions to try to disrupt casting (along with some feats like Overwatch style that let you deal with quickened spells and/or multiple casters). Of course, this goes out the window if the caster gets time to pre buff with stuff like invisibility or displacement

Separately casters can craft magic items very easily and something like craft wonderous item can give a huge increase in WBL or divination wizards autowinning initive with a score of +13available from level 1 (assumes 14 dex, divination wizard, improved init and reactionary and a +4 init famliar.

Oddly archery is one of the things where PF opted to eliminate one of the few core decent standard attack options in many shot. They changed it to a bonus to full attacks. Archers really did not need a boost to that so much as they already had things like rapid shot. Many shot gave them a decent option if they ver need to use a standard action instead of a full action. Niche but I found it more useful than just another penalty to accuracy for an additional attack which while potent is not something I really needed to bring to the table.

However the gist of what you say is true your fighter needs a shirt for something so simple as moving as a swift action. If weapon users need to use full attack actions then they should be able to use their skills to ensure they can get them but that is one area where often times they cannot.

I will admit though that in a number of groups in my area they do not have this problem because they just allow full attacks all the time essentially. They just do not realize that they are breaking the rules. I don't even want to tell them because they are having so much more fun that way. Enemies are potentially nastier but so are the PCs and it is a lot less frustrating.

Coretron03

2016-12-05, 03:13 AM

On a different forumn I there is a interesting thread about bad things about pathfinder (taken to extremes) that between the swearing and name calling it has some interesting insights about pathfinders issues, right before they go off topic and discuss the price of medieval land :smallbiggrin:. I do not wish to cause any flame wars so please don't and I cannot vouch for the appropriate-ness of it.
http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=51845&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

Ssalarn

2016-12-05, 03:29 AM

It does actually, because it's (supposed to be) backwards compatible with all those things.

That literally has nothing to do with anything when talking about whether or not Pathfinder fixed 3.5. Those are 3.5 classes with no PF reintroduction, and some of them, like the warmage, were intentionally replaced with options like the magus.

I don't understand how that's anything other than a veto in your mind.

The player never had the options to begin with. They're in an optional part of the book that the GM can open up to them for campaigns where it's appropriate.

Why not? If "control plate tectonics" is a level appropriate ability for a 15th level character, why should a 15th level character go through any additional hoops to get it?

Because it's not, or shouldn't be, an appropriate ability for a 15th level character. Literally breaking the game world in half should be gated to GM control, both from a meta and in-world perspective. There shouldn't be a cohesive world existing in the first place if that power is readily available without even digging into the full spread of your daily resources for characters at that level, someone would have gone Frieza long ago and nuked the planet. And there's no trope of some random wizard waking up one day and deciding to wish the sun away, there's always a build-up and multi-tier process towards accomplishing something that massive. For the game to work both as a roleplay story-telling mechanism and a coherent game, abilities like that should be gated.

Sneak Attack is a very potent DPS ability

It's "meh". You're talking 35 points of very mitigatable damage that doesn't multiply on a crit, by level 19. A Power Attacking warrior with a greatsword is getting 18 with a better chance to hit before any other bonuses are calculated in (like better damage die from improved proficiencies, DPS spreads accounting for longevity due to higher AC and HP, etc.)

, and the items needed to bypass its limits (wands, Ring of Blinking) are pretty simple to acquire.

Exactly.

Trapfinding may be arbitrary niche protection, but that doesn't make having it not important.

You only need it to disarm magical traps, and there are other ways to do that, like minionmancy, dispelling, or saying "Oh yeah, any trap that trapfinding would work on is something the barbarian can walk through without dying. After you Cronk!"

Paizo's practice of pretending the FAQ is errata is terrible, and you should not use it to defend their game.

If a company's going to take the time to address problem issues in a formalized and maintained area, it's relevant. It actually shows that they're attempting to take the time to maintain their game and respond to community feedback promptly, not just waiting for new print runs to issue corrections and address problems that slipped through editing. It's actually very cool of them, because they're doing it solely for the benefit of their fans and customers with absolutely no profit or even provable value to them as a company. The fact that I may not like or agree with an unfortunately large amount of their FAQs doesn't mean there isn't value and relevance in what they're doing. It just means that the largest fanbase they're catering to unfortunately doesn't play the game quite like I do.

Arbane

2016-12-05, 03:41 AM

Which is funny, due to my oracle a few times a day able to move as a immediate action whcih can negate that issue somewhat while a fighter has to rely on magic items like the quickrunners shirt.

Guess what got nerfed! (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/wondrous-items/wondrous-items/r-z/shirt-quick-runners) We can't have a FIGHTER actually doing their job almost as well as an Oracle can, now can we? :smallfurious:

Coretron03

2016-12-05, 03:42 AM

Also Paizio does not do niche protection, as they made a traits that gives disable device as a class skill, a +1 bonus and able to disable magic traps meaning the rogues niche was stolen by a trait, so a gunslinger could disable traps better then him (at least for a few levels and even then the bonus is tiny).

Coretron03

2016-12-05, 03:50 AM

Guess what got nerfed! (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/wondrous-items/wondrous-items/r-z/shirt-quick-runners) We can't have a FIGHTER actually doing their job almost as well as an Oracle can, now can we? :smallfurious:

Agreed, some person with no veiw of balance complained about on the paizio boards as it, quote "let martials full attack too often". Their board is weird sometimes. There was a quote somewhere about a paizio develepor saying the c-md is a myth from people with agendas. Obviously a coup to nerf the poor underpowered wizards.

On a side note has anyone heard of AM BARBARIAN?

stanprollyright

2016-12-05, 04:16 AM

And compared to a Commoner, Fighter is a great choice.

The disparity between Commoner and Fighter is roughly the same, but the disparity between Fighter and Wizard is a bit lower. All I'm asserting is that it's a relative improvement, albeit small but noticeable.

Sneak Attack is a very potent DPS ability, and the items needed to bypass its limits (wands, Ring of Blinking) are pretty simple to acquire. Trapfinding may be arbitrary niche protection, but that doesn't make having it not important.

Sneak Attack is so overrated. The damage is lower than what other classes can do every round, and by the time it's reliable, martials are irrelevant.

If A > B, A + X > B + X for any X.

It's not so simple. There's a system of redundancies and probabilities and opportunity costs. The Fighter having more skill power makes him more versatile because it increases the number of challenges to which he can meaningfully contribute. The Wizard can contribute to virtually every encounter already. That, and not all class skill lists are created equal. Knowledge skills are inefficient at best, useless at worst, depending on your DM. At the very least, there will be few times that a single knowledge check is sufficient to solve an encounter on its own. Cross-class skills aren't terrible, and Wizards do gain from the change since they have a crappy class list and high Int, but it ends up being more for flavor than anything.

Coretron03

2016-12-05, 04:44 AM

AvatarVecna

2016-12-05, 06:33 AM

Does anyone know a no save way prevent a mounted charging character that surprises you and can spell sunder buffs/walls/ other (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/barbarian/rage-powers/paizo---rage-powers/spell-sunder-su to not kill you? Being level 20, full caster and would liely have to be a diviner wizard with buffs having to last at least 6 hours to be up

Well, Overland Flight comes online at lvl 9, and allows you to be flying basically all day. This doesn't necessarily cause the charger problems, if their mount can fly, although flying mounts aren't as common as unflying mounts. Still, let's assume the charger either has a flying mount, a mage making their mount fly temporarily, or paid an NPC mage to make their mount fly, or paid an NPC mage to make a magic item that would let their mount fly indefinitely. A vaguely reasonable buff for a lvl 20 mage to have up would be Shapechange (since it lasts a couple hours), but that's awfully late-game for a "get out of imminent death free" card; far earlier and potentially better is Contingency (if surprised: Dimension Door); Contingency becomes available at lvl 11, and can be used with Dimension Door at lvl 12. If you really want to bring this online at lvl 11, there's probably a short-range 3rd lvl teleportation spell of some kind in Pathfinder. This won't end the fight, necessarily, but it keeps you from getting charged in the surprise round, since you're no longer in the vicinity of the charger, and that gives you time. Alternatively, prior to the errata, a Selective Antimagic Field could do the trick, letting you keep your buffs while the barbarian was unable to sunder your buffs since that's an Su ability (they'd have to sunder the antimagic field from outside it first, and then sunder your buffs, and then ubercharge you, all in the surprise round)...but that's not possible anymore due to errata requiring Selective Spell to be applied to an instantaneous spell. There's probably still a way to do it, it'll just be rarer.

But yeah, that Contingency should do fine, and is a pretty reasonable one to have.

Serafina

2016-12-05, 07:03 AM

It's much simpler than that: Emergency Force Sphere (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/e/emergency-force-sphere).
Sure, Spell Sunder can get through it - but that combat maneuver actually takes an action, so you've already prevented their full attack (if not all of their attacks because Spell Sunder IIRC defaults to a standard action).
A Wall of Stone (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/w/wall-of-stone) also won't be affected by Spell Sunder at all, on account of not being an ongoing spell effect. You can shape it quite freely, so it's easy to make it quite thick and prevent them from going around it - while leaving a window open to fire spells through. Sure, it can be smashed - but again, that takes time, and you can't tell me that a high-level caster can't defeat someone with a weak will save in a few rounds (or at the very least get away).

Of course, the ability to kill each other doesn't equal balance either.
Even if a 20th-level Fighter (or other non-caster class) could poke anything with irresistible insta-death while moving, we'd still have a Caster/Non-Caster disparity in favor of Casters.
Because the Non-Caster can then do this one combat-specific, hyper-specialized thing. They still can't do anything worthwhile outside of combat. Combat is a huge part of D&D, but it's hardly the only thing.

Mordaedil

2016-12-05, 07:30 AM

I mean, if I wanted to play a perfectly balanced game, I would probably play 4th edition instead.

AD&D, AD&D 2nd, D&D 3e/3.5/Pathfinder and D&D 5th were all not designed as balanced experiences at all and I kinda find that a part of the charm. Not the "casters have spells that completely invalidate other classes" bit, that can go and die in a fire.

The reason I still stick with 3.5 and Pathfinder is because it allows so many options to create a unique character and I am not really talking optimization-wise, I mean pure flavor, such as the Blood mage, whom can toss himself through monsters to re-emerge from inside someone else and that is just bloody cool.

I don't feel like they are perfect systems, if they were, then prestige classes like eldritch knight, mystic theurge, arcane trickster and ultimate magus would just be inherent in the multiclass rules instead of a poor man's patch. If they still allowed multiclass such as it was in AD&D 2.0 as well as regular multiclassing, that would have fixed it in a better way, I think.

And honestly, that was my hope they were going to take it with 4th edition, but instead we got... An overly balanced, flavorless cardboard cut-out of a boardgame. I realize this kinda started with third edition with the reliance on minis, but it just seemed like they had no interest in a system that offered complexities anymore.

5th edition tries to take it back, but doesn't go far enough. Pathfinder does it well, but still doesn't fix the problem I had with multiclassing. Oh well.

As for the question, posted by the thread title, it doesn't fix it, because it doesn't need to really be fixed; it's a false problem, instigated by people wanting the game to be "fair and balanced".

I dunno though, I'd just settle for something that wasn't boring.

Psyren

2016-12-05, 10:00 AM

As for the question, posted by the thread title, it doesn't fix it, because it doesn't need to really be fixed; it's a false problem, instigated by people wanting the game to be "fair and balanced".

This.

But Pathfinder does improve upon 3.5's balance in several key ways. For example, mundanes don't have to attend Hogwarts to be able to make a magic sword, Arcane Lock is no longer auto-win against the world's most skilled rogue if he can't use magic, Forcecage is no longer auto-win against a Barbarian even if he could've literally ripped up the mountain underneath him and flipped the whole thing over. Polymorph and Wild Shape now require you to be at least somewhat physically fit yourself. And so on.

Jormengand

2016-12-05, 11:27 AM

Forcecage is no longer auto-win against a Barbarian even if he could've literally ripped up the mountain underneath him and flipped the whole thing over.

Hey, in 3.5 he could get through it with Legendary Dreadnought levels! He even gets a second chance per day to roll to see if he can get through an automatically-activated spell when he reaches character level 29! THE VALUE!

Cosi

2016-12-05, 12:03 PM

I think in order to fix the system we need to fix good old wizard it self my interpretation on wizard goes to ditch the spells higher then 4th level. this at least kills scry & die, batman wizard and god wizard arch types and for how broken pathfiner we have spells that destroy kingdoms and conjure perfect cappuccino on the same freaking list for asmodeus sake. I mean destroy kingdom basicly a whole plot and cappuccino is damn skill roll WTF they snorting when they try to fix the game

I think this wins some kind of award for "terrible posts about how Wizards are broken".

There shouldn't be a cohesive world existing in the first place if that power is readily available without even digging into the full spread of your daily resources for characters at that level, someone would have gone Frieza long ago and nuked the planet.

The actual world has had people with nukes for 70 years, and remains (mostly) not destroyed. D&D has even more reasons for the world to not look destroyed, not least of which is the fact that high level abilities also let you fix the world after it's been destroyed. Also, there are already Shadows and such that should destroy the world anyway, so it feels a little weird to refuse PCs abilities on the ground that they break that setting.

And there's no trope of some random wizard waking up one day and deciding to wish the sun away, there's always a build-up and multi-tier process towards accomplishing something that massive. For the game to work both as a roleplay story-telling mechanism and a coherent game, abilities like that should be gated.

A 15th level Wizard is not, by any stretch of the imagination, "some random wizard". It's someone who is (perhaps literally) an Archmage, who can summon demons from the depths of hell, travel across the world in an instant, and learn the future. Also, whatever power level you put "turn out the sun with a massive ritual" at, there's some higher power level where "turn out the sun with a single word" is appropriate.

It's "meh". You're talking 35 points of very mitigatable damage that doesn't multiply on a crit, by level 19. A Power Attacking warrior with a greatsword is getting 18 with a better chance to hit before any other bonuses are calculated in (like better damage die from improved proficiencies, DPS spreads accounting for longevity due to higher AC and HP, etc.)

It's 35 points per attack. The trick of the Flask Rogue (and similar builds like the Swift Hunter or Bardblade) is to stack effect that give extra attacks and turn that 35 damage into 350.

If a company's going to take the time to address problem issues in a formalized and maintained area, it's relevant. It actually shows that they're attempting to take the time to maintain their game and respond to community feedback promptly, not just waiting for new print runs to issue corrections and address problems that slipped through editing. It's actually very cool of them, because they're doing it solely for the benefit of their fans and customers with absolutely no profit or even provable value to them as a company. The fact that I may not like or agree with an unfortunately large amount of their FAQs doesn't mean there is value and relevance in what they're doing. It just means that the largest fanbase they're catering to unfortunately doesn't play the game quite like I do.

There's nothing wrong with an FAQ in principle. Sometimes the rule are unclear. The problem is using the FAQ as back-door errata.

I mean, if I wanted to play a perfectly balanced game, I would probably play 4th edition instead.

This idea is wrong. 4e is not perfectly balanced, and claiming it is gives people who make stupid "balance makes it boring" arguments ammunition.

As for the question, posted by the thread title, it doesn't fix it, because it doesn't need to really be fixed; it's a false problem, instigated by people wanting the game to be "fair and balanced".

The horror! People want their characters to be able to contribute and game designers to do their jobs! How unreasonable!

a Barbarian even if he could've literally ripped up the mountain underneath him and flipped the whole thing over.

Wow, that seems like a really cool ability for Barbarians to have. Did PF give them something like that?

Jormengand

2016-12-05, 12:28 PM

Wow, that seems like a really cool ability for Barbarians to have. Did PF give them something like that?

Well, a mountain must have some break DC, right? :smalltongue:

Psyren

2016-12-05, 12:46 PM

Hey, in 3.5 he could get through it with Legendary Dreadnought levels! He even gets a second chance per day to roll to see if he can get through an automatically-activated spell when he reaches character level 29! THE VALUE!

Far too OP, nerf plx WotC

Ssalarn

2016-12-05, 01:24 PM

Th actual world has had people with nukes for 70 years, and remains (mostly) not destroyed.

No, it doesn't. The world has nations with nukes that took literal thousands of people to build and develop and which are opposed by safeguards that higher level spells simply don't face.

D&D has even more reasons for the world to not look destroyed, not least of which is the fact that high level abilities also let you fix the world after it's been destroyed.

1) It's a framework for a game, and "I broke the world, who's the GM going to get to fix it so we can pretend I'm not an idiot" is a **** game.

2) There have to be appropriate conditions for someone to actually be able to cast the spells to fix it.

Also, there are already Shadows and such that should destroy the world anyway, so it feels a little weird to refuse PCs abilities on the ground that they break that setting.

Shadows are like a plague, and while they could arguably depopulate the world if left unopposed, they exist in the framework of a world where churches and adventurers have ample time to hear about their spread and react, and they have fairly glaring weaknesses.

A 15th level Wizard is not, by any stretch of the imagination, "some random wizard".

Yeah, it is. One of the more powerful ones, but nowhere near the top of the food chain.

It's someone who is (perhaps literally) an Archmage,

Whoopdee freaking doo. Even archmages lack the ability to wake up and end the world in essentially every source of fantasy trope and media outside of 3.x chicanery.

who can summon demons from the depths of hell,

Nope. Wizards in D&D / PF cannot summon demons from hell. I'll let you ponder why.

travel across the world in an instant,

And?

and learn the future.

With hilariously limited efficacy.

Also, whatever power level you put "turn out the sun with a massive ritual" at, there's some higher power level where "turn out the sun with a single word" is appropriate.

Yeah , full deityhood, which is not available to PCs in Pathfinder.

It's 35 points per attack. The trick of the Flask Rogue (and similar builds like the Swift Hunter or Bardblade) is to stack effect that give extra attacks and turn that 35 damage into 350.

This is a thread about PF. No one cares about old 3.5 builds that aren't possible in PF. PF doesn't allow you to Quickdraw alchemical items, nor deal SA with splash damage. Also, 350 is below what Fighters, Paladins, Rangers, Inquisitors, Cavaliers, and probaby many other classes can deal at the same level, and they don't have any counters or restrictions on dealing that damage.

There's nothing wrong with an FAQ in principle. Sometimes the rule are unclear. The problem is using the FAQ as back-door errata.

This is one of those peevy entitled player claims. Businesses can use their FAQs and issue errata however they want. Paizo uses their FAQ to announce and/or implement errata so they can be responsive to their customer base since actual errata can only be issued alongside new print runs, which may not happen until long after a problem has been identified. It also means that occasionally their more wrong-headed decisions get addressed and revoked before they get printed in a book. Honestly, I wish all of Paizo's errata had to spend at least three months in FAQ before being implemented so there were fewer surprise unnecessary nerfs and people had more time to weigh in.

This idea is wrong. 4e is not perfectly balanced, and claiming it is gives people who make stupid "balance makes it boring" arguments ammunition.

4E was much closer to perfectly balanced than 3.x/PF, though that had nothing to do with why it failed. 4E's failure had nothing to do with its design, and everything to do with major marketing and business gaffs by Hasbro and WotC leadership. Hasbro overestimated the size, profitability, and scalability of the tabletop market and set extremely unrealistic sales goals, which forced WotC to make more and more foolish decisions with their product line and support services. It was a problem that many, many people predicted during the latter days of 3.5, and it's why 5E now has the least aggressive release schedule of any edition of D&D ever and the staff has been so severely reduced. Hasbro realized the tabletop market simply couldn't support the returns they anticipated for their investment, so now 5E runs as a much reduced service who's primary purpose is protecting IPs and providing inspiration for the more profitable digital market.

The horror! People want their characters to be able to contribute and game designers to do their jobs! How unreasonable!

I actually agree with some of the sentiment here. Spotlight balancing didn't work well in 3.x, and doesn't work at all in PF, so class design should be more thorough and focused more on thematic elements that create competent and well-rounded adventurers than narrow concept trope modeling. That being said, a game designer's job is "make a product that sells, and keep it selling", which Paizo's team has done. Their growth as a company is positively meteoric, and they've dragged an entire 3pp market and community along with them. Unlike TSR, and WotC until very recently, Paizo has not only supported and promoted their 3pp community from day one, they've publicly encouraged people to look to 3pp companies to fulfill many requests, particularly non-Vancian casting mechanics which they generally avoid so that their Pathfinder Society marketing mechanism doesn't become too cumbersome for volunteer GMs.

Pex

2016-12-05, 02:12 PM

As for the question, posted by the thread title, it doesn't fix it, because it doesn't need to really be fixed; it's a false problem, instigated by people wanting the game to be "fair and balanced".

I dunno though, I'd just settle for something that wasn't boring.

A more polite way to say what I was saying I suppose. :smallsmile:

Coretron03

2016-12-05, 03:51 PM

Sunder is part of an attack as the ability references sunder meaning its part of an attack. Does Pathfinder have a definition for ongoing effects? Running (TP) doesn't really count as beating him and the barbarian has saves in the high 30's and free rerolls per day so you would really have to pump the save dc or use something with no save.

I am not defending that all martials could kill a caster, just this specific one has a chance too (pretty likely on anything thats not a divination wizard)

Arbane

2016-12-05, 04:43 PM

A useful piece of advice I once read: if you feel the need to pick someone's post apart to refute it sentence-by-sentence, it's quite likely that NOBODY will want to read what you're writing.

Nope. Wizards in D&D / PF cannot summon demons from hell. I'll let you ponder why.

Such nitpicking is astoundingly unhelpful.

Psyren

2016-12-05, 05:06 PM

A useful piece of advice I once read: if you feel the need to pick someone's post apart to refute it sentence-by-sentence, it's quite likely that NOBODY will want to read what you're writing.

I've started skipping over those (and avoiding doing so myself) too. I do agree with Ssalarn in general though, and particularly with his points around Paizo FAQ.

Segev

2016-12-05, 05:15 PM

Nope. Wizards in D&D / PF cannot summon demons from hell.

Nonsense. Sure, if they do, they're likely grabbing somebody away from a war camp, the front lines of a battle, a delicate diplomatic mission, or an even more delicate clandestine mission...but they definitely CAN do it.

Calthropstu

2016-12-05, 05:46 PM

This.

But Pathfinder does improve upon 3.5's balance in several key ways. For example, mundanes don't have to attend Hogwarts to be able to make a magic sword, Arcane Lock is no longer auto-win against the world's most skilled rogue if he can't use magic, Forcecage is no longer auto-win against a Barbarian even if he could've literally ripped up the mountain underneath him and flipped the whole thing over. Polymorph and Wild Shape now require you to be at least somewhat physically fit yourself. And so on.

Yeah, Paizo did a VERY good job with balance issues.

And to those complaining: 3.5 and pathfinder are among the most successful RPGs of all time. As I have mentioned before, Pathfinder, despite its age, is STILL outselling D&D 5th edition in many areas, my own included. My local game store has 3 times as much pathfinder stock as D&D.

The problem you are complaining about is really not a problem, and even more so with Pathfinder. People here are demanding a complete overhaul of the game? In comparison, this is like scrapping an entire car and rebuilding it from scratch because the brakes squeak. There are so many fixes, so many ways to have fun, so many ways to role play...

The ones posting that chart, and yelling "fallacy..." don't know what they are talking about. With so many ways to tackle the "problem", and with so many ways to not have it be an issue, to yell at each and every one of them and whine "broken" borders on the absurd. Are we to expect the game designers to have quantum physics degrees? Shall we start having hundreds of certified MENSA members consulted on our role playing game mechanics? But wait, MENSA members tend to argue amongst themselves too. Might as well quit all RPGs and play... chutes and ladders or something.

Oh no, the fighter takes an extra round or two to kill the dragon. BURN THE SYSTEM. This is sillier than a Monty Python marathon.

Echch

2016-12-05, 05:50 PM

Nonsense. Sure, if they do, they're likely grabbing somebody away from a war camp, the front lines of a battle, a delicate diplomatic mission, or an even more delicate clandestine mission...but they definitely CAN do it.

Well, the Abyss is infinite as far as we know, thus having infinite Demons. However, you are right: The Bloodwar has a tendency to spill over into Baators first layer, but the number of Demons there is finite.

So in theory, when you grab a random demon, there are finite Demons in Baator and infinite Demons in the Abyss, meaning you... sorta have a chance at getting a Demon from hell?

Calthropstu

2016-12-05, 05:53 PM

Coretron03

2016-12-05, 06:15 PM

Having 3 times as much pathfinder then dnd is not that spectacular, as 4e and 3.5. don't really sell anymore and pathfinder has tons of bloat in spaltbooks compared to 5e.

I like pathfinder, I really do but that doesn't mean I can't acknowledge problems with it. Problems like a level 5 fighter (archer nonwithstanding) dealing with a level 5 witch with the fly hex.

Problems like full attacking constantly. When I play, I play support casters to keep non-casters able to deal with challenges eaisers, like casting fly on them, invisbility on the rogue or debuffing enemies and denying casters. Pathfinder is a team game but that doesn't excuse poor design and you can't blame someone using a spell as intended on the dm.

Cosi

2016-12-05, 06:15 PM

1) It's a framework for a game, and "I broke the world, who's the GM going to get to fix it so we can pretend I'm not an idiot" is a **** game.

If the players want to tear the world down for fun, why shouldn't that be a thing they can do? If they don't, why does it matter if they can?

Shadows are like a plague, and while they could arguably depopulate the world if left unopposed, they exist in the framework of a world where churches and adventurers have ample time to hear about their spread and react, and they have fairly glaring weaknesses.

Shadows can probably kill off Commoners faster than they can be replaced, which still destroys civilization eventually.

Whoopdee freaking doo. Even archmages lack the ability to wake up and end the world in essentially every source of fantasy trope and media outside of 3.x chicanery.

First, this is false. Creatures of Light and Darkness, The Chronicles of Amber, Malazan, and a number of other different series have casters with abilities that are "bigger" in some senses than 3.5 or PF.

Second, so what? The source material for Beholders is pretty narrow. Does that mean that game shouldn't have Beholders?

This is a thread about PF.

The comment chain in question was about comparing the 3.5 Rogue (which, being a 3.5 build, can do all those things) to the PF Rogue. What you can or can't do in 3.5 is totally relevant to that discussion.

Businesses can use their FAQs and issue errata however they want.

Sure. I'm not at all arguing that Paizo can't use their FAQ to do whatever they want. I just think using it the way they do is stupid. In fact, arguing that they can do it their way is tangential at best to whether they should do it their way.

A useful piece of advice I once read: if you feel the need to pick someone's post apart to refute it sentence-by-sentence, it's quite likely that NOBODY will want to read what you're writing.

On the one hand, I agree, insofar as it weakens the "argument as a rhetorical performance" aspect of the internet slap fight. On the other hand, it is generally useful for the "argument as a discussion with the other person" aspect of the internet slap fight. On the gripping hand, this forum doesn't support nested quotes, which makes following one line arguments difficult. On some fourth hand, I made this argument in no small part for the ability to say "on the gripping hand".

Yeah, Paizo did a VERY good job with balance issues.

Paizo did a good job of addressing balance issues that get a lot of internet attention but have no effect on games (e.g. Pun Pun), but a bad job of addressing balance issues that tend to show up in gameplay (e.g. Wizards > Fighters).

And to those complaining: 3.5 and pathfinder are among the most successful RPGs of all time. As I have mentioned before, Pathfinder, despite its age, is STILL outselling D&D 5th edition in many areas, my own included. My local game store has 3 times as much pathfinder stock as D&D.

The best selling computer of all time is the Commodore 64 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodore_64), a 1982 personal computer that takes its name from the 64 kilobytes of memory it shipped with. Should we have stopped improving computers after the Commodore 64? If not, why should we stop improving popular games?

The ones posting that chart, and yelling "fallacy..." don't know what they are talking about. With so many ways to tackle the "problem", and with so many ways to not have it be an issue, to yell at each and every one of them and whine "broken" borders on the absurd. Are we to expect the game designers to have quantum physics degrees? Shall we start having hundreds of certified MENSA members consulted on our role playing game mechanics? But wait, MENSA members tend to argue amongst themselves too. Might as well quit all RPGs and play... chutes and ladders or something.

Yes, we should stop trying to solve problems because they are hard.

Well, the Abyss is infinite as far as we know, thus having infinite Demons. However, you are right: The Bloodwar has a tendency to spill over into Baators first layer, but the number of Demons there is finite.

So in theory, when you grab a random demon, there are finite Demons in Baator and infinite Demons in the Abyss, meaning you... sorta have a chance at getting a Demon from hell?

Math with infinity is weird. If there are infinite Demons, and each has some chance of going off to invade Baator, then there are infinite Demons in Baator. There are also infinite Demons in the Abyss, and in every other plane they have a chance of visiting.

squiggit

2016-12-05, 06:19 PM

I mean, if I wanted to play a perfectly balanced game, I would probably play 4th edition instead.
4e isn't balanced though. 4e's balance is terrible. In many ways 4e is significantly less balanced than 3.5.

The reason I still stick with 3.5 and Pathfinder is because it allows so many options to create a unique character
Which is not mutually exclusive with a decent degree of balance. So kind of a non-point.

As for the question, posted by the thread title, it doesn't fix it, because it doesn't need to really be fixed; it's a false problem, instigated by people wanting the game to be "fair and balanced".
I think it's a bit absurd to call it a 'false problem'. You don't care about balance and that's fine, but calling it a non-issue just because you don't care about it seems a bit silly.

Troacctid

2016-12-05, 06:29 PM

5e is balanced quite well.

Ssalarn

2016-12-05, 06:30 PM

I've started skipping over those (and avoiding doing so myself) too. I do agree with Ssalarn in general though, and particularly with his points around Paizo FAQ.

It's difficult. If you're going to take the time to reply to someone, you may as well as make it clear you took the time to thoroughly read and address all their points, lest it just lead to "Ah hah! But you didn't have an answer for XYZ!" or "You're cherry-picking what you respond to, stop being rude/a jerk/wrong/stupid/take-your-pick". The nice thing about a discussion in this format is that if someone doesn't want to read what I have to say, they can scroll past. That being said, it seems like most of my posts have been read through, and several people have indicated that I was expressing their sentiments fairly accurately, so I'm more or less okay with what I've said and how I've said it so far.
As you know Psyren, and as most have probably picked up, I don't agree with Paizo on everything and have my own opinions on how things could be done better, but I also think Paizo has done a lot right and their business model, including FAQs, errata, and the whole shebang, has obviously worked well for them. What this means, amongst other things, is that despite the many (often legitimate) complaints about poor balance, the game still sells, and sells well. The reason, I suspect, comes down to two points:

1) Balance isn't necessary or necessarily even wanted for and by a large portion of the player base. As long as the game works the way they play it, at the levels they play it at, no one gives a hoot what some people on an internet forum who don't play the game the same way they do think.

2) Balance is highly subjective. You can objectively say "Class A is not properly equipped to deal with hypothetical situations C-Q" or "Class B Has all the tools available to run the alphabet", but for most people it's about what their group can and can't deal with, how well they do or don't deal with it, and that everyone had a good time when it's done. Most people don't play anywhere near the optimization ceiling of this game, and for them wizards are squishy nerds whose occasional fireball is their only redeeming quality, as long as they remember not to do it indoors. Their fighters are shiny paragons of battle and they wonder why anyone would play anything else. And that's fine.

It's good to strive for perfection. It's important to remember that not everyone has the same view of what perfection is, and even more important to remember that designers, like humans in general, are imperfect and thus incapable of perfection. Right now, Pathfinder is probably the best system out there for a lot of people, and Paizo's support and promotion of their 3pp community means the products are out there to customize that game and make it even better for the people who still aren't satisfied. I don't use vancian spellcasting anymore, I've completely replaced it with things like Spheres of Power and Akashic Mysteries. My fighters, on the exceedingly rare occasions they show up instead of one of the 3pp classes that does what my friends want a fighter to do in a much more satisfactory way, have a plethora of 3pp options to choose from that help them really belong and succeed in a magical world, regardless of level. So, did Pathfinder fix all the balance issues in 3.5? No, not even close. But Paizo created a much better environment for addressing those issues for the groups that are bothered by them than WotC did, and it's still one of, if not the, highest selling tabletop game(s) on the market, with strong enough numbers that it can also support a healthy submarket of 3pp companies and materials.

Have we just uncovered an actual legitimate reason to use infinity in a logical math problem?

And someone felt the need to call my post unhelpful. This may be the most productive and relevant branch this conversation has taken so far.

Calthropstu

2016-12-05, 06:37 PM

4e isn't balanced though. 4e's balance is terrible. In many ways 4e is significantly less balanced than 3.5.

Which is not mutually exclusive with a decent degree of balance. So kind of a non-point.

I think it's a bit absurd to call it a 'false problem'. You don't care about balance and that's fine, but calling it a non-issue just because you don't care about it seems a bit silly.

This whole thread is silly.

But he's not wrong... the problem really ISN'T THERE. I have watched fighters tear through mages in 1 round flat. Unless someone TRIES to break the game, the game doesn't get broken. I have never seen anyone, EVER, complain that their fighter wasn't getting "air time" because "my fighter just isn't good at anything."

The people here complaining are such an obnoxiously small minority that the argument is silly. You want a 100% fully optimized game where casters and non-casters are completely equal?

MAKE IT YOURSELF.

Call it "The D&D that should have been" for all I care.

But you are here, in a forum for a game that has been around probably longer than some of the posters have been alive, which means you must enjoy THIS game, as it is.

5e is balanced quite well.

Then go play it.

Me, I will not be playing it. I have chosen Pathfinder, and will stick with that system over any further D&D branches.

Manyasone

2016-12-05, 06:58 PM

This whole thread is silly.

Then go play it.

Me, I will not be playing it. I have chosen Pathfinder, and will stick with that system over any further D&D branches.

This...

This forum really loves to make an elephant out of a mosquito :smallsmile:

Ssalarn

2016-12-05, 07:01 PM

If the players want to tear the world down for fun, why shouldn't that be a thing they can do? If they don't, why does it matter if they can?

Because it's a group experience, and generally people don't sit down to play Pathfinder with the expectation that what they're really showing up for is one person consistently destroying their sandbox. If 3 people want to play and 1 wants to watch the world burn, it's much more disruptive and harder to work through if guy number 4 actually can light the world on fire. That's why those abilities should be gated outside of standard daily resources.

Shadows can probably kill off Commoners faster than they can be replaced, which still destroys civilization eventually.

That's whiteroom nonsense that presupposes that absolutely none of the fantastic creatures, powerful NPCs, or numerous adventurers are going to interfere with this shadowy proliferation. If you can't see that, there's really nothing further to discuss here.

First, this is false. Creatures of Light and Darkness, The Chronicles of Amber, Malazan, and a number of other different series have casters with abilities that are "bigger" in some senses than 3.5 or PF.

Nope, you're wrong. Malazan casters are like Spheres of Power casters, incredibly focused and limited within what they can and cannot do, though powerful within their domains. A'Karonys still isn't even an Elminster. Chronicles of Amber casters are literal gods, and most of them can't hold more than a single powerful spell in their head, which they usually still take exceedingly long periods of time to prepare. Zelazny in general likes to blur the line between gods and not gods, but that line is distinctly defined in PF/D&D.

Second, so what? The source material for Beholders is pretty narrow. Does that mean that game shouldn't have Beholders?

Beholders are monsters, encounters within a larger world. Magic is an inherent aspect of the world itself. I can play D&D without ever encountering a beholder; I absolutely will play PF without ever encountering one since they're WotC IP. I can't play either game (short of essentially rewriting them) without magic. More than that, players don't get beholders by checking a box on their character sheet, nor should they get potentially world-ending powers by doing so.

The comment chain in question was about comparing the 3.5 Rogue (which, being a 3.5 build, can do all those things) to the PF Rogue. What you can or can't do in 3.5 is totally relevant to that discussion.

Your defense of sneak attack as a good class feature as it works in 3.5 was not relevant to whether or not PF fixed imbalanced. It wasn't great in 3.5, it's not great in PF, and the fact that a single narrow chain existed to make it occasionally worthwhile doesn't influence the conversation meaningfully either way, since PF Rogues and 3.5 Rogues still have similar core performance points. Rogues are worse at tumbling and gaming alchemical items in PF, but they also (particularly Unchained rogues) have more effective core competencies and better narrative influence than they used to. They're both still incapable of outperforming casters at their preferred schticks, so relative performance in a specific niche doesn't influence the greater question either way. More than that, having one narrow build that overcomes a single deficiency is not relevant to a class' design quality.

Sure. I'm not at all arguing that Paizo can't use their FAQ to do whatever they want. I just think using it the way they do is stupid. In fact, arguing that they can do it their way is tangential at best to whether they should do it their way.

I didn't just say they can, I explained why they do. You may feel it's stupid, and in some instances I may even agree, but their FAQ maintenance is part of why they're so beloved by a large and growing portion of their fanbase, and ia arguably superior to WotC's 3.5 era of "Screw it, we'll get it when the rules compendium prints, and if we do it wrong it won't matter because we've got to sell another edition anyways".

Regardless, it's clear to me that there's not going to be any progress made in further discussion with you, and I don't feel like reiterating points I've already made.

Coretron03

2016-12-05, 07:30 PM

Ssalarn

2016-12-05, 07:31 PM

This whole thread is silly.

But he's not wrong... the problem really ISN'T THERE. I have watched fighters tear through mages in 1 round flat. Unless someone TRIES to break the game, the game doesn't get broken. I have never seen anyone, EVER, complain that their fighter wasn't getting "air time" because "my fighter just isn't good at anything."

I have. I've seen players whose first class was a Fighter or Rogue quit the game entirely in frustration. Your anecdotal experience doesn't mean the problem isn't there anymore than my anecdotal experience proves that it is. It's also worth noting that disparity isn't about "X can beat Y in a whiteroom", it's about some classes having drastically more effective toolboxes for adventuring than others. I, personally, have seen the issues in caster/non-caster disparity spring up organically in games played by people who've never laid eyes on an optimization thread, and I think the disparity obviously exists and is easily provable. What I don't think is provable is that disparity is truly a universal problem. It's certainly a problem for some, but others consider it a feature, and yet others simply don't care as long as they get to do their thing each session.

Disparity's existence, as far as I'm concerned, is a provable fact. Disparity being a problem is much more subjective, influenced by table variation, party composition, adventure composition, player disposition, GM talent and system mastery, and other factors. I also think there are a lot of tools out there to mitigate the issues when they crop up. I've written more than a few of them for various 3pp companies in fact, and I'm very appreciative of the environment Paizo has created that allows me to make a living doing so!
Anyways, the point I was working at was that it's not really helpful or cool to make a broad proclamation like "Your problem doesn't exist, get over it"; it's possible for the problem to exist, and even to discuss why/how/where it's a problem, without needing to go play a different game, and you can think that disparity exists, that it's a problem, and still feel like Pathfinder is probably the best TTRPG available. Several of my best-selling products were written informed by the issues I've experienced with disparity and the steps I took to help diminish its impact on my games, so for me, disparity was an opportunity, and Paizo's strong support of 3pp materials created the environment for me to succeed at introducing options that help address those issues for the people who are experiencing them as an issue. Paizo's strong community orientation and Pathfinder's flexible modularity is also why I was able to find cool products like Spheres of Power to further customize my games and mitigate the issues that cropped up.
I love Pathfinder, though the PF I play is probably quite a bit different than that other people play thanks to all the pieces I've removed and/or added to make it work better for my group.

Coretron03

2016-12-05, 07:39 PM

http://i.imgur.com/6tyiX95.png
On the bright side we can tick off playtest of one.

Ssalarn

2016-12-05, 07:52 PM

http://i.imgur.com/6tyiX95.png
On the bright side we can tick off playtest of one.

Ooh! Theorycrafting nets us a bingo!

Calthropstu

2016-12-05, 07:59 PM

I won't deny you of your fighter beating a wizard (althogh without context it doesn't really help, could of been a wizard that only prepares magic missile and took spell mastery for all his feats. Out of intrest is this the same fighter as the one from the linear fighter quadratic wizard thread).
I have a question. What does a melee fighter, level 5 do against a witch that casts fly. A spell used for its intents and purposes. Please dont say he has a potion of fly because they cot around 8% of WBL at that point. PVP is a terrible way to show balance but still.

He pulls out his bow and shoots her with a net arrow, yanks her down and body slams her into the ground.

True, it becomes a bigger issue when, say, dimension door comes into play at 7th level. My martial tactic against wizards, though, has always been tackle and hold, disrupt casting with held actions, putting silence into one of my magic items... I have a huge array of anti caster techniques.

Coretron03

2016-12-05, 08:03 PM

AvatarVecna

2016-12-05, 08:08 PM

Wind Wall.

Coretron03

2016-12-05, 08:12 PM

Wind Wall.

Done but real dms disallow that spell

AvatarVecna

2016-12-05, 08:18 PM

Done but real dms disallow that spell

I'll be sure to let all my DMs know they're terrible at their job and are having badwrongfun by using it. :smallwink:

Coretron03

2016-12-05, 08:21 PM

Again you I could have cast protection from arrows and call it a day (this is based on a witch I have played before, so no theory crafting here)

Also, does anyone know where a net arrow can be found?

AvatarVecna

2016-12-05, 08:31 PM

Again you I could have cast protection from arrows and call it a day (this is based on a witch I have played before, so no theory crafting here)

Protection From Arrows is nice at low levels, particularly for the duration, but as levels climb, damage climbs high and magic items become more prevalent, making it not nearly as effective.

And Wind Wall doesn't lock down all ranged combat: throsn wespons have a good chance of getting through, as do firearms, and seige scale weapons are good too. It's hardly perfect, but it's mostly better than Protection From Arrows, and remains relevant longer, but it's not a perfect solution on its own (unless youcre facing a bow/crossbowman, then he's flubbernucked).

Coretron03

2016-12-05, 08:34 PM

Yeah but at level 3 dr 10/magic is great, since WBL is not high enough to get magic bows yet and even at level 5 not every mook will have +1 bows (if they do then RIP WBL)

Calthropstu

2016-12-05, 08:36 PM

His bow with 1 arrow a round, likey no enchantments and probably none of the feats. Go 1d8 damage a round! Of course the witch is going to be with in the fighters reach, silly me. While the witch can cast evil eye, then slumber twice and wait for you to fail the save.

edit: wait, net arrow. Whats a net arrow? Do you mean trip arrow?

I meant tangleshot... but that only works on wings, not spells.

There is still the grappling hook however. Same effect. Most GMs I have played with have allowed that specific use of a grappling hook.

I generally take some penalties to the grapple check, but... it's a caster. You don't need much. There is, of course, always the standard approach as well... shoot her down. Other ways to take her down is to inflict the dazed or stunned condition... which would wipe her out. Dazed or stunned characters would fall.

Coretron03

2016-12-05, 08:43 PM

Rynjin

2016-12-05, 08:57 PM

A useful piece of advice I once read: if you feel the need to pick someone's post apart to refute it sentence-by-sentence, it's quite likely that NOBODY will want to read what you're writing.

Yeah. If your post is so astoundingly wrong that someone can pick it apart piece by piece like that then it's more efficient to just point and laugh instead.

Troacctid

2016-12-05, 09:04 PM

Wind Wall isn't on the witch's class spell list.

Do casters even take Wind Wall anyway? It seems like a pretty narrow choice to spend a known spell on.

Coretron03

2016-12-05, 09:08 PM

I never said I took wind wall, AV brought it up as a anti archer spell over prot from arrows. Negating all archers forever is a pretty good use of a 3rd level spell and even if you dont want to spend a spell known/scribed a scroll of it only costs 325gp

Calthropstu

2016-12-05, 09:13 PM

So your saying ignore RAW so you can grapple the caster. Right. Well I had a dm that allowed a 5th level caster to cast 9th level spells at-will, so I can do that right? Anecdotal evidence usually does not help in cases like this.

Edit: Less sarcastic version
I had a dm that allowed mythic rules, so I can have mythic ranks right?

Edit 2: The witch had prot from arrows/ other spell that gives dr5/ bludgeoning as my normal buffs which 1d8 is not getting past. How do you plan to inflict the stunned/daze condition? Also, I think being stunned does not cause you too fall as its magicial flight.

Show me, ANYWHERE, that it says that magical flight does not fall from stunned. Flying is a continuous move action. "Flying takes no more action than walking" rules for hovering "if creature does not move at least half its fly speed it must make a fly check to remain in flight..." The fly spell does not negate this requirement.
Since it "requires as much concentration as walking," flying is a move action. Stunned and dazed means no actions... which means you fall.
As for stunned itself, there are a crap ton of ways. Fungal stun vial, feats, low level spells worked into items, and a few other ways besides.
There are many, many ways to deal with flyers.

You would have been better off using my example of dimension door.

Coretron03

2016-12-05, 09:53 PM

Ok, I will give the stun/fall thing to you, Although getting the stun? Fungal vial poision requires a hit (while touch, distance penalties and non prof), what feats let you stun on a bow without any preqs and using magic items to cast spells does not count as archery or melee. Then again, the requires as much concetration as walking refers to spell casting, while hover checks let you stay in the air and I would easily pass the checks to stay flying so no falling.

Sayt

2016-12-05, 09:59 PM

Show me, ANYWHERE, that it says that magical flight does not fall from stunned. Flying is a continuous move action. "Flying takes no more action than walking" rules for hovering "if creature does not move at least half its fly speed it must make a fly check to remain in flight..." The fly spell does not negate this requirement.
Since it "requires as much concentration as walking," flying is a move action. Stunned and dazed means no actions... which means you fall.
As for stunned itself, there are a crap ton of ways. Fungal stun vial, feats, low level spells worked into items, and a few other ways besides.
There are many, many ways to deal with flyers.

You would have been better off using my example of dimension door.

Being fly checks, like five foot steps, are not actions and are not prevented by being stunned.

The fly skill is not a move action: "ActionNone. A Fly check doesn’t require an action; it is made as part of another action or as a reaction to a situation."

This hypothetical witch can't move, so she does risk falling out of the sky, however she can can attempt to hover. This is a DC 15 check, and isn't an action. With 5 ranks, +3 from a class skill, +4 from Fly's Good maneuverability, and +2 from Fly's +1/2CL to fly checks gives you a +14 to trying to hover. Skill checks don't fail on natural 1s, so you literally can't fail to do so under these conditions unless you have a dex or ACP penalty. If the Witch's familiar is a bat, that gives her +3 to fly, so she can tank some ACP/dex penalty.

Coretron03

2016-12-05, 10:21 PM

While I agree with the above post (same thing was edited into my post) means you can 5ft step while stunned it seems :smallconfused:.

Edit: Plus the mention of fmaliar reminded me I have around a +12 init score, meaning I will very likely go first and force a dc 22 will save (while you at best have a +5 if you spend a feat and have 14 wis) or fall asleep so I can coup de grace you for a insta kill. And if you somehow succeed the first one next turn I can try it again. This whole activity is pointless though, since it is usually based on player skill of knowing whats good. I could probably build a powerful fighter if I tried and could kick a lesser player's butt

Coretron03

2016-12-05, 10:45 PM

Also Cal (I am just gonna call you that if its ok with you) pathfinder is a game of exceptions. Flight is a exception to most races can't fly. I Don't need something to say I can fly while stunned, you need something to say I can't fly while stunned as you need a exception to to say I fall when using magicial flight and are stunned.

Sayt

2016-12-05, 11:39 PM

While I agree with the above post (same thing was edited into my post) means you can 5ft step while stunned it seems :smallconfused:. Well, you don't fall over, so you have some limited ability to remain upright and adjust center of balance.

Psyren

2016-12-05, 11:45 PM

Wind Wall.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/magic-weapons/magic-weapon-special-abilities/cyclonic

The PF fighter can even craft these by himself.

(And while we're on the subject, every fighter should go buy one of these (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/rods/rod-of-cancellation) too.)

Pex

2016-12-05, 11:51 PM

http://i.imgur.com/6tyiX95.png
On the bright side we can tick off playtest of one.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I would have liked a square for the Tier System.

Coretron03

2016-12-05, 11:56 PM

Yes, but at level 5 (4 with summoner) that item is way too expensive to get. Plus what does a rod of cancelation do to help a fighter deal with windwall? And fighter crafting takes 2 feats to be able to craft.

Edit: to the post above we can also tick off low level play as cal said caster stuff doesnt matter until high levels, which I think counts

Calthropstu

2016-12-05, 11:56 PM

Being fly checks, like five foot steps, are not actions and are not prevented by being stunned.

The fly skill is not a move action: "ActionNone. A Fly check doesn’t require an action; it is made as part of another action or as a reaction to a situation."

This hypothetical witch can't move, so she does risk falling out of the sky, however she can can attempt to hover. This is a DC 15 check, and isn't an action. With 5 ranks, +3 from a class skill, +4 from Fly's Good maneuverability, and +2 from Fly's +1/2CL to fly checks gives you a +14 to trying to hover. Skill checks don't fail on natural 1s, so you literally can't fail to do so under these conditions unless you have a dex or ACP penalty. If the Witch's familiar is a bat, that gives her +3 to fly, so she can tank some ACP/dex penalty.

Hovering is an action.

Being in the air requires actions of some kind no matter what. If you are barred from taking actions, you fall. It is a flying maneuver, the act of making the check itself is not an action, but the hovering IS.

The ONLY method of being airborne and not requiring an action is levitate.

Coretron03

2016-12-06, 12:00 AM

Hovering is an action.

"Action

None. A Fly check doesn’t require an action; it is made as part of another action or as a reaction to a situation."
Thats pretty clear to me.
And where does it say that it always requires a action?
It matters much less anyway, because my witch can cast leviate too.

Troacctid

2016-12-06, 12:07 AM

Plus what does a rod of cancelation do to help a fighter deal with windwall?
Nothing, it's for force effects.

Coretron03

2016-12-06, 12:09 AM

Oh, so force cage and stuff? Makes sense

Calthropstu

2016-12-06, 12:14 AM

"Action

None. A Fly check doesn’t require an action; it is made as part of another action or as a reaction to a situation."
Thats pretty clear to me.
And where does it say that it always requires a action?
It matters much less anyway, because my witch can cast leviate too.

Please look closer.

Hover is listed as a "FLYING MANEUVER"
The maneuver is the action, the check itself is to succeed at performing the action.
ie: "turn more than 180 degrees while flying" or "fly less than half your fly speed" or.... "hover."

Those are the actions. Not the check itself.

Point. Set. Match.

Oh, and as for levitate, well... levitate is rather slow, and only goes up or down.

Now, I suppose you could in theory cast BOTH and be perfectly safe. Eg: levitate yourself then fly vertically. AND cast windwall/prot arrows... and be pretty much completely defenseless against pretty much anything other than a fighter... as the ranger's hawk tears you to shreds, the druid wildshapes and eats you alive, the wizard/sorcerer/cleric pretty much dominates you all the way... because you used all your 3rd level and half your 2nd level spells protecting yourself from mundane low level tricks. Oh wait... you didn't... as the hasted monk runs up a tree with his spider climb boots and flying tackles your ass.

Coretron03

2016-12-06, 12:19 AM

Right after the bold there is the its says as a reaction to something. Like not moving.

After retallying its Deuce-40 to me

Ok, does anyone agree with me on my point of veiw? I know at least one person does. Does anyone agree with Cal?

JNAProductions

2016-12-06, 12:19 AM

Please look closer.

Hover is listed as a "FLYING MANEUVER"
The maneuver is the action, the check itself is to succeed at performing the action.
ie: "turn more than 180 degrees while flying" or "fly less than half your fly speed" or.... "hover."

Those are the actions. Not the check itself.

Point. Set. Match.

Not really. It's listed as a non-action. I do agree with you that it's not 100% clear, but I don't think you can claim you're right and everyone else is wrong.

More than that, how are you stunning them again?

Coretron03

2016-12-06, 12:22 AM

Not really. It's listed as a non-action. I do agree with you that it's not 100% clear, but I don't think you can claim you're right and everyone else is wrong.

More than that, how are you stunning them again?
I dont know, he just said fungal spore (accuracy problems) feats (One that has no archery related preqs and magic items with low level spells (none specified, UMD too low for wands and would need to last longer then one round to have an effect)

I am still not sure where it says the manuaver takes a action.

Calthropstu

2016-12-06, 12:35 AM

Not really. It's listed as a non-action. I do agree with you that it's not 100% clear, but I don't think you can claim you're right and everyone else is wrong.

More than that, how are you stunning them again?

I listed several ways of doing so already.

And no, it is NOT listed as a nonaction. Show me where it says hover is a nonaction.

I see "Flying is no more difficult than walking."

I see "Flying maneuvers" which are listed as part of "Flying" which is considered "No more difficult than Walking." I see "Making the check in and of itself is not an action, but is part of other actions..." eg the act of FLYING. Which is no more difficult than walking. So please... where is FLYING not an ACTION when it specifically states it is the same as walking? Which is an ACTION. It lists HOVERING as a FLYING MANEUVER. FLYING is the ACTION. HOVERING is an ACTION, that is part of FLYING.

Since you can't take actions, you can't fly.

JNAProductions

2016-12-06, 12:37 AM

A net-arrow (doesn't exist in any official source).

A grappling hook (which isn't allowed to do that from official sources).

And a poison, which is very difficult to deliver to a flying target.

Whereas it is very easy for the flying target to murder you.

Coretron03

2016-12-06, 12:42 AM

Oh, and as for levitate, well... levitate is rather slow, and only goes up or down.

Now, I suppose you could in theory cast BOTH and be perfectly safe. Eg: levitate yourself then fly vertically. AND cast windwall/prot arrows... and be pretty much completely defenseless against pretty much anything other than a fighter... as the ranger's hawk tears you to shreds, the druid wildshapes and eats you alive, the wizard/sorcerer/cleric pretty much dominates you all the way... because you used all your 3rd level and half your 2nd level spells protecting yourself from mundane low level tricks. Oh wait... you didn't... as the hasted monk runs up a tree with his spider climb boots and flying tackles your ass.
Sorry for not explaining everything. Fly and levitate are both from my fly hex, meaning I get them without spell slots. I still have my slumber hex, if a ranger animal companion attempts to attack me I can slumber him as they have terrible will saves. Same with druid AC, Ranger and druid, plus anthing else. After that I still have 5 levels of spellcasting to fall back on if hexes fail. Prot from arrows last hours/level , making it likely I will have it up ( not 100% but if I saw a bow user I sure would cast it).

How would the casters dominate me? (especialy in a way that wouldn't affect the fighter) How is a monk getting haste? The speed boost doesn't stack with monk speed anyway and would require a hella jump check to reach me.

Coretron03

2016-12-06, 12:44 AM

Calthropstu

2016-12-06, 01:04 AM

Not really. It's listed as a non-action. I do agree with you that it's not 100% clear, but I don't think you can claim you're right and everyone else is wrong.

More than that, how are you stunning them again?

Fine:

Burst Jar.
Cornugon Stun (there are ranged monk weapons this feat affects)
Fungal Spore
Numerous Poisons
1st level spells (cost a little over 1100 gold to add into an already existing magic item at 3 times per day) so:
Color spray
Shadow Trap (not stun, but it will prevent you from leaving)
Ear Piercing Scream

JNAProductions

2016-12-06, 01:11 AM

Fine:

Burst Jar.
Cornugon Stun (there are ranged monk weapons this feat affects)
Fungal Spore
Numerous Poisons
1st level spells (cost a little over 1100 gold to add into an already existing magic item at 3 times per day) so:
Color spray
Shadow Trap (not stun, but it will prevent you from leaving)
Ear Piercing Scream

Burst Jar is a mere DC 12 save to avoid the stun, and can even be avoided by taking a full round action to wipe it off. Not to mention it has a range increment of 10'.

Cornugon Stun reads as following:

Benefit: You may use Stunning Fist when making melee attacks with special monk weapons as well as when making unarmed attacks.

Melee attacks only.

I can't find Fungal Spore anywhere after some googling, so mind linking it to me?

Poisons require you to hit first, and only work with Injury poisons.

Color Spray has a low save DC on a magic item, and far more importantly, a 15' range.

Shadow Trap sure prevents it from moving... If your target is within 30', fails a low Will save, and it doesn't actually stop them from hurting you.

Ear Piercing Scream doesn't stun-it dazes. It's also Close range, so again, around 30' for a cheap item.

Not to mention, it's kinda hard to make the argument that casters are balanced when the counter is "Use spells!"

Coretron03

2016-12-06, 01:12 AM

Ok, one more time
"None. A Fly check doesn’t require an action; it is made as part of another action or as a reaction to a situation"
The non-bolded area applies to parts of the check with something that takes a action like moving up as a move action
The bolded area is reacting to a situation, like getting hit if you have wings or hovering as the rules don't say there is a action for hovering, just balantly saying it doesn't take a action to make the check, just some trigger off you making a action like flying as a move action
Cal, please.

Edit: Harvested from a rare fungus, these small vials emit a bright blue glow, and are commonly used in intertribal kobold disputes. When broken, a fungal stun vial releases a flash of bright blue light in a 10-foot radius and dim light in a 20-foot radius. All creatures within the flash area must make a Will save (DC 20). Creatures that fail are stunned for 1d2 rounds if they're in the area of bright light, or are confused for 1 round if in the area of dim light. He doesn't have prof and it has a low range increment so even as a touch attack he very likely won't hit.
All level 1 spells have a dc of 11, way too low to consider using.

Calthropstu

2016-12-06, 01:13 AM

As I said earlier, the concetration part is only in regards to being able to cast spells without needing concentration checks, just like walking.
I will give you that I still need to cast fly but I can most of the time win init and I have a swift runners shirt letting me get 60ft away from you in the first round.

Also, you need to show ME where it says hover is a action, as stated before you need a exception to a rule to overule

I already showed you how flying is an action. 3 times now.
Hovering is part of flying... you cannot remain airborne without taking an action. Doesn't matter where the source of flight is: magical, mechanical, or biological. The act of resisting gravity to fly is a move action RAW.

We could move this over to the Paizo forums and see if we can get an official ruling.

Coretron03

2016-12-06, 01:16 AM

JNAProductions

2016-12-06, 01:17 AM

Thanks for the knowledge, Core. How much do they cost?

Coretron03

2016-12-06, 01:18 AM

75gp per vial. Pretty expensive.

ryu

2016-12-06, 01:19 AM

I already showed you how flying is an action. 3 times now.
Hovering is part of flying... you cannot remain airborne without taking an action. Doesn't matter where the source of flight is: magical, mechanical, or biological. The act of resisting gravity to fly is a move action RAW.

We could move this over to the Paizo forums and see if we can get an official ruling.

And everyone else has been pointing out that you're either incapable of reading or willfully ignoring the or after your bolded text which deliberately mentions no action requirement at all. If you'd care to actually try convincing someone perhaps you could speak to that point rather than just pointing out how many times you've made the same argument in a failure of communication.

Calthropstu

2016-12-06, 01:27 AM

Burst Jar is a mere DC 12 save to avoid the stun, and can even be avoided by taking a full round action to wipe it off. Not to mention it has a range increment of 10'.

Cornugon Stun reads as following:

Melee attacks only.

I can't find Fungal Spore anywhere after some googling, so mind linking it to me?

Poisons require you to hit first, and only work with Injury poisons.

Color Spray has a low save DC on a magic item, and far more importantly, a 15' range.

Shadow Trap sure prevents it from moving... If your target is within 30', fails a low Will save, and it doesn't actually stop them from hurting you.

Ear Piercing Scream doesn't stun-it dazes. It's also Close range, so again, around 30' for a cheap item.

Not to mention, it's kinda hard to make the argument that casters are balanced when the counter is "Use spells!"

Daze and stun have the same effect here: no actions means no flight.
And the issue here is stopping your witch from getting away, while the protection from arrows is eliminated. Ideally getting you onto the ground, but if you stay in the air so be it.

The argument here is that "fly completely outclasses anything. they can do"

And my argument is: it doesn't. Already you have expended nearly half your spells available, while my "swing sword, shoot arrow" is completely undepleted. So, you have escaped the doom of a single character. Now next encounter... wait what's that? Your protection from arrows spell wore off? Your windwall was stationary and lasted only a few rounds? Your fly has worn off? Oh... umm... well whatcha got left? That melee character you dispatched... well he had friends. And now there's another one. So ummmm yeah... Tell me how casters outclass melee again?

Good call on the melee though. I read it quickly looking for dazed or stunned in feats. I guess feats are out. Poison is still on the table though since dr 10 is not too hard to overcome with a good composite longbow.

The item you are looking for is Fungal stun vial, most commonly used by kobolds. http://www.d20pfsrd.com/equipment---final/goods-and-services/herbs-oils-other-substances#TOC-Fungal-Stun-Vial

At 75 gp a pop, and dc 20 will save, it's a great low level item.

JNAProductions

2016-12-06, 01:33 AM

How do you eliminate Protection From Arrows, pray tell?

Also, the caster has all the time in the world to see you dead. They can run away with absolutely no consequences, since they can fly. They dictate terms of engagement-not you.

So, tell you what-build a 1st, 3rd, 5th, and 7th level martial character (doesn't even have to be melee-just martial) and I'll (with some assistance from my bros who know D&D better than I) build some mages at those levels. We'll each build them without knowing what the other is building, so there won't be any tailoring, and then we'll see how they do against each other.

20 point buy sound good?

Troacctid

2016-12-06, 01:41 AM

Don't be ridiculous, that never proves anything.

JNAProductions

2016-12-06, 01:42 AM

Don't be ridiculous, that never proves anything.

Yeah, after some thinking, I do realize that wouldn't prove much. It's easy to blow a whole day's worth of spells and beat a martial.

Offer still stands, but as Troac points out, it proves little.

Coretron03

2016-12-06, 01:45 AM

Calthropstu

2016-12-06, 02:00 AM

And everyone else has been pointing out that you're either incapable of reading or willfully ignoring the or after your bolded text which deliberately mentions no action requirement at all. If you'd care to actually try convincing someone perhaps you could speak to that point rather than just pointing out how many times you've made the same argument in a failure of communication.

I think it's time to adjudicate this discussion to the Paizo forums and see if there can be an official ruling. If I am wrong on this, I can accept that... but I honestly don't think I am, and I have argued similar things with multiple people disagreeing with me before only to ultimately be validated in my arguments.

Going further here is obviously a waste of time since you are completely either rejecting or not fully understanding my arguments.

I have created a thread on the paizo forums http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2u22j?Flying-Stunning-RAW-and-other-issues-looking#1 I think having the discussion there might be a bit more productive.

Troacctid

2016-12-06, 02:02 AM

Yeah, after some thinking, I do realize that wouldn't prove much. It's easy to blow a whole day's worth of spells and beat a martial.
I mean, more because 1v1 duels are basically completely irrelevant to the topic of class balance, because that's not even remotely how the game works, but sure, that too. :P

2) fly is once a day, 5 minutes but can be spilt in increments of 1 minute so can't really wear off and effective for 5 endounters
Are we looking at the same spell?

Also, you guys know in PF there are races that have unlimited flight at 1st level as a racial ability, right? There's nothing stopping the fighter from being a strix and laughing at your fly spell.

Coretron03

2016-12-06, 02:06 AM

I mean, more because 1v1 duels are basically completely irrelevant to the topic of class balance, because that's not even remotely how the game works, but sure, that too. :P

Are we looking at the same spell?

Also, you guys know in PF there are races that have unlimited flight at 1st level as a racial ability, right? There's nothing stopping the fighter from being a strix and laughing at your fly spell.

I was referring to my witches flight hex that lets me spiltthe duration so I can do that.

He could be a strix, doesn't prevent him from having a low will save and if I saw someone with wings I could just slumber them Instead of casting fly. That 22 int means something.

Coretron03

2016-12-06, 02:12 AM

OracleofWuffing

2016-12-06, 02:18 AM

That melee character you dispatched... well he had friends. And now there's another one. So ummmm yeah... Tell me how casters outclass melee again?
Sorry, not too familiar with the changes Pathfinder made. Which class has the "Has Friends" ability? In 3.5, you'd normally get friends by either taking a feat that is very frequently banned at tables, or by casting spells.

Calthropstu

2016-12-06, 02:19 AM

Can I join in on the duel, preferably the level one one?

Cal, I dont like saying this but it seems you are ignoring my posts
1) levitate is once a day, no spell slot needed
2) fly is once a day, 5 minutes but can be spilt in increments of 1 minute so can't really wear off and effective for 5 endounters
3) I never cast windwall, not even on my spell list
Total spell slots spent: none
4)Prot from arrows last 5 hours, generally plenty time
5) according to the cr system I should not be going up against 2 same level characters with full wbl in the same day
6) When you say bow an swird are not depleted your HP is. How are you getting it back by yourself? I can even heal my self with my spells
7) I agree a fungal vial is nice items but from the 60ft I will be at from round 1 will give you a -9 (before dex) penalty on your attack roll, not good odds even on a touch attack
I have used 1 spell slot, the rest of my stuff is either at will or don't need spell slots. Please Cal, just please.

Edit: yeah, most duels I have seen are either going to die or the caster casts invisbility/almost anything else and calls it a day

Also, against you I dont need prot from arrows as you deal a measly 1d8 damage per round making it a moot point. Withna rod of extend I had in the party (gifted to me becuase I needed to all day buffing them) and another spell means I could have dr5/bludgeoned for 10 hours a day, negating most of your damage

Oh, that is quite nice.

Even so, that "60 feet" can easily be cut down with a move action before throwing to about 20-30 feet, cutting that modifier down to almost nothing. Just because you move, doesn't mean I can't.

You can't move "60 feet straight up" either, at best you're looking at 30 feet away when I throw, so a -4 penalty... which is actually reducible with feats if you go the throwing route.
And since it's a ranged touch, odds are it's going to not be too high of a roll even with that -4. With a 5 BAB, a decent dex (we'll say 14 for argument's sake) and a likely touch AC of 12(?) and your likely +6ish will save, looks to be about 60 - 65% chance of hitting, and a 60-65% chance of you failing that save. Looks like it works to around a 40% chance of you getting stunned.

If my argument is correct, and the stun causes you to fall and take falling damage, you're looking at a 40% chance of being insta gibbed when that martial charges you while you're down.

Coretron03

2016-12-06, 02:30 AM

Calthropstu

2016-12-06, 02:31 AM

oh, you think it takes a move action to sustain flight? ...
It does not take a move action to stand still, so I don't know were you got that from. Again
(got this from reading paizio thread.)
edit: quotes
"Using a fly spell requires only as much concentration as walking, so the subject can attack or cast spells normally."
That bit is referring to casting spells without concetration checks I am pretty sure.
Edit 2: first response to thread even agrees with me.

None of what you quoted supports your argument, and actually supports mine. The issue is you are FLYING, specifically HOVERING... not standing still. This involves a concentrated effort to move against gravity, winds, and any other forces involved. No where does it say "And hovering involves as much effort as standing still" In fact, standing still is never ONCE mentioned in regards to flying, and every implication is that movement is REQUIRED, and not moving laterally or vertically is decidedly more difficult (and requires more effort) than moving in any direction.
As for edit 2: if 1,000,000 people agree with you, and are all wrong... are you any less wrong for their agreement?

Mordaedil

2016-12-06, 02:31 AM

This idea is wrong. 4e is not perfectly balanced, and claiming it is gives people who make stupid "balance makes it boring" arguments ammunition.

The horror! People want their characters to be able to contribute and game designers to do their jobs! How unreasonable!

First of all, I never said it was perfectly balanced, but it tried to be so balanced that it made all the classes really similar and narrowed down the number of choices a player can make in character creation down to a subset of smaller choices. 4th edition has some good ideas, but classes are a thing it messed up, imo.

Second, have you actually ever played a game where everybody failed to contribute because the wizard did everything? The only thing I really want from my game designers are more options that make for more interesting play. D&D 3.5/Pathfinder aren't perfect games though, not by a longshot. But they do a lot of interesting things that the game designer inside of me finds incredibly interesting.

4e isn't balanced though. 4e's balance is terrible. In many ways 4e is significantly less balanced than 3.5.

Which is not mutually exclusive with a decent degree of balance. So kind of a non-point.

I think it's a bit absurd to call it a 'false problem'. You don't care about balance and that's fine, but calling it a non-issue just because you don't care about it seems a bit silly.

It depends a lot on what way you mean "balanced". I see it mostly used online as an argument for demanding nerfs and buffs for certain classes in MMO's, which strikes me as a really horrendeus way to approach any sort of balance. D&D has always interested me with it's "tiers of balance", albeit it was a lot more visible in AD&D 2nd ed. (before players got spellslots from high ability scores) where you advance through playing more advanced classes as you get better at micromanaging the intricite parts of a character. I've had people who couldn't handle anything deeper than a base fighter at the table and all they could handle were feats that made their numbers go up so they didn't have to think a lot about what they do in combat. Something like the barbarian then becomes their next step ladder, where they can rage. Then maybe they pick some more advanced feats.

There is a balance to the game and it's an incredibly fragile balance because the favorite hobby of people seems to be taking two classes that do two very different things, putting them in a ring together and force them to fight. Well, duh. The game wasn't designed for that in mind. But it does have some dumb decisions like Arcane lock, which as someone else said, Pathfinder fixed.

The most important thing to a good game is a good DM, but that's true of any game. And there's certainly arguments for there being better games for tabletop gaming if you want to achieve just that.

But that's not the game me or my friends want to play.

Coretron03

2016-12-06, 02:33 AM

None of what you quoted supports your argument, and actually supports mine. The issue is you are FLYING, specifically HOVERING... not standing still. This involves a concentrated effort to move against gravity, winds, and any other forces involved. No where does it say "And hovering involves as much effort as standing still" In fact, standing still is never ONCE mentioned in regards to flying, and every implication is that movement is REQUIRED, and not moving laterally or vertically is decidedly more difficult (and requires more effort) than moving in any direction.
As for edit 2: if 1,000,000 people agree with you, and are all wrong... are you any less wrong for their agreement?

I am still asking where you can quote it takes a action to hover. Still waiting.
if 1,000,000 agreed with me I would say I would be right, as thats alot of people to agree with me.

Calthropstu

2016-12-06, 02:38 AM

ok, I am sorry for misreading some rules about flying up. Since fly has a speed of 40ft I can get 40ft above you, giving you a extra -2 to miss
Lets assume you got me stunned and I fell (assuming your argument is correct anyway) there is a 50% chance that the stun only lasts for one round and does nothing. Good job. I, looking mildy annoyed stop flying and use the run feat (elf alt racial trait) to run away from you to where I can still see you. If you follow me I keep running. If you don't I follow you from a safe distance until you go to sleep/ be distracted), then coup de grace your body. Done.
Or I could ignore that whole thing and send a save or die your way that you have a 10% chance to pass, even with 14 wisdom and th iron will feat. What fun.

Ummm, how are you running when you have to stand up? And if the stun only lasts 1 round, that one round you took falling damage, stayed stunned, I have charged you, gotten an attack of opportunity as you stood up, then after you withdrew I charged you again, gotten ANOTHER attack of opportunity as you try to run...

And if the stun lasts 2 rounds, you've eaten a full attack action on top of all that.

If you're not dead after that, then either I rolled some VERY ****ty rolls, or my character sucks.

Coretron03

2016-12-06, 02:45 AM

Calthropstu

2016-12-06, 02:56 AM

sorry again, forgot how stun works. 1 Attack from you have a very low chance of instagibbing me, from which I can use a hex (No AOO for you, per the hex rules) and you have a 10% chance of falling asleep. Anyway, who says I fall within a straight line from you, if I didn't you could not charge. Depending on starting distance its possible you can't move attack me. The distance also assumes I am flying directly above you, putting even more distance between us if I am not.
To your edit: Why would you full attack, do you have a way of getting a extra attack from it? This whole excercise is pointless if I just cast slumber on you instead of flying. The flying was just a example.

If you are flying directly above me, and I stun you and make you fall, my sword is going to be sticking straight up lol. I have seen fighters getting some NASTY damage at 5th level... as much as +2d6+27. Might not instagib you, but that combined with the fall? If you're not down yet, you will be on that aoo when you stand or move away(assuming I make the save for whatever you do).

And if you don't stand or move away? Well time for my next attack.

Coretron03

2016-12-06, 03:01 AM

My guy at level 5 has (assuming 3 on HD rolls) 18 base +15 con +5 favoured class bonus giving him 48 hp. If you fighter has 22 str and a +1 magic sword and power attack and weapon spec he has +14 to hit and deals 2d6+19 damage or 26 average. Pretty good for him but 2 hit will not kill me, dr 5/bludgeoning added in so 3 will. But you won't get a second try unless I get stunned for 2 rounds. My guy has a touch ac of 15, while you have have a net of -1 to hit with your vial of stunning meaning you have 20% chance. Then I have a +7 wil lsave, giving me a 40% chance to pass the save. Then you could roll a nat 1 on the attack roll for another 5% chance to fail. Way to many ifs

Coretron03

2016-12-06, 03:03 AM

WHAT!?! You just assuming you will make a dc 23 will save when you likey have a +6 to will at best? Your kidding me
Anyway I was going for not being directly above you, likely 20ft away at the minimum.

Coretron03

2016-12-06, 03:13 AM

This argument is over, way too many If's or buts to be credible, plus way too many chances for your fighter to fail (first a 5% chance, then a 60% chance, a 95% chance and finaly then a 20% for you to even get your fsecond attack sequence. Also, RAW speaking I can make a dc10 fly check to negate the fall damage, as I neither failed a fly check nor had a collision and it does not take a action.

Edit: Ok, this fight is really over now as I misremembered fly's flight speed, meaning I am 60ft above ground and you cannot even throw the vial at me because I am out of 5 range increments. Done, game over.
Edit 2: I even have feather fall at-will, so no falling damage ever.

upho

2016-12-06, 04:19 AM

That being said, it seems like most of my posts have been read through, and several people have indicated that I was expressing their sentiments fairly accurately, so I'm more or less okay with what I've said and how I've said it so far.And here's another one of those people! Posting mostly to indicate that you're expressing my sentiments fairly (very) accurately, and to thank you for saving me the trouble! :smallsmile:

I don't use vancian spellcasting anymore, I've completely replaced it with things like Spheres of Power and Akashic Mysteries. My fighters, on the exceedingly rare occasions they show up instead of one of the 3pp classes that does what my friends want a fighter to do in a much more satisfactory way, have a plethora of 3pp options to choose from that help them really belong and succeed in a magical world, regardless of level. So, did Pathfinder fix all the balance issues in 3.5? No, not even close.If I had known about SoP when my current long-haul campaign started, I definitely would've tried selling it as a vancian replacer to my players. And I probably would've been successful in doing so.

And yeah, 3PP stuff like AM and PoW (plus lots of home brew) has improved my game immensely. So while Paizo often seem to have a very weird view of game mechanics and balance IMO, they do deserve kudos for supporting quite a few 3PPs that agree with my group and for generally keeping the market alive.

I have. I've seen players whose first class was a Fighter or Rogue quit the game entirely in frustration. Your anecdotal experience doesn't mean the problem isn't there anymore than my anecdotal experience proves that it is. It's also worth noting that disparity isn't about "X can beat Y in a whiteroom", it's about some classes having drastically more effective toolboxes for adventuring than others. I, personally, have seen the issues in caster/non-caster disparity spring up organically in games played by people who've never laid eyes on an optimization thread, and I think the disparity obviously exists and is easily provable. What I don't think is provable is that disparity is truly a universal problem. It's certainly a problem for some, but others consider it a feature, and yet others simply don't care as long as they get to do their thing each session.This.

This argument is over, way too many If's or buts to be credible, plus way too many chances for your fighter to failTo anyone who's ever seen an at least somewhat decently played and built full caster in action, this argument was over before it even began. Not to mention to anyone who's bothered to do a minimum of research, for example by simply reading any of the countless threads on various forums where this has been thoroughly dissected already, pretty much always with the same end result. And these duels still say practically nothing about class balance in a real game, where PCs generally don't try to kill each other. (Funny how this thing keeps popping up in these threads though. One would think most people would know by now.)

As an aside, I've actually seen one PF non-caster build (or rather build idea) which hasn't been quite as thoroughly and easily beaten as most others in these silly duels, and that is the aforementioned AM BARBARIAN! His shtick was doing mounted charges on his synth cohort for silly damage, the cohort naturally having superior sight and stupid speed so a caster cannot even see them when being targeted (original thread can be found on the Paizo forums). Though not surprisingly, outside of rather specific situations, unlikely to ever occur in a game, the chances of AM BARBARIAN! actually being successful in such as duel vs an optimized caster of equal level is very slim, to say the least.

Coretron03

2016-12-06, 04:26 AM

AM BARBARIAN was hilarious when it happened, though I dont see why no body got either the same mount so they can see him charging or got a second divin wizard to murder him.

I was attempting to not play very high op, instead using flight which casues instant gameover via being 60ft above him, out of his reach and then slumber hex him and coup de grace him for a kill.

Coretron03

2016-12-06, 05:00 AM

Sorry, not too familiar with the changes Pathfinder made. Which class has the "Has Friends" ability? In 3.5, you'd normally get friends by either taking a feat that is very frequently banned at tables, or by casting spells.

After looking through some wizard archetypes I found this
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/wizard/archetypes/paizo---wizard-archetypes/instructor-wizard-archetype
I love how his exists. Lose famliar (alertness feat,+2/4init or +3 to skill or something) In exchange for a caster 2 levels behind you. Perfect

Calthropstu

2016-12-06, 05:13 AM

VINDICATION

Flight and Magical Flight: Can a paralyzed or stunned creature keep flying with magical flight? Does a creature with magical flight not apply bonuses or penalties to Fly checks because it doesn’t have a “natural” fly speed? Does flying make a creature immune to being flat-footed?

No, any creature that loses all actions can’t take an action to attempt a Fly check to hover in place and thus automatically falls. That includes a paralyzed, stunned, or dazed creature. Magical flight doesn’t act any differently, even for paralysis, as it isn’t a purely mental action. A creature with 0 Dexterity can’t fly, and paralysis sets a creature’s Dexterity to 0. Despite the fact that the Fly skill mentions that bonuses and penalties from maneuverability apply to creatures with natural fly speeds, they apply for any fly speed. If they didn’t apply to creatures that gained flight artificially or through magic, then those maneuverabilities (like the listed good maneuverability for the fly spell) would have no game effect. Finally, the statement “You are not considered flat-footed while flying” means that flying (unlike balancing using Acrobatics or climbing) doesn’t automatically make you flat-footed or force you to lose your Dexterity bonus to AC; it doesn’t mean that flying makes you immune to being caught flat-footed.

Straight from the Paizo FAQ.

I KNEW I WAS RIGHT.

Coretron03

2016-12-06, 05:17 AM

Did you see my post in the paizio thread? The faq is contradictory to the core rules, as some of the paizio people even agree with that. Anyway we are past that, as I can fly out of stun range with flight, rendering the whole thing moot. Read the PM I sent you BTW.

I find the FAQ odd though, since it doesn't really justify why they can't fly during it (other then common sense) and while it is the same end as your arguement it uses the arguement "because we say so".

Calthropstu

2016-12-06, 05:27 AM

Did you see my post in the paizio thread? The faq is contradictory to the core rules, as some of the paizio people even agree with that. Anyway we are past that, as I can fly out of stun range with flight, rendering the whole thing moot. Read the PM I sent you BTW.

How do you fly "out of stun range" with flight?

You can go: 30 feet up, 30 feet out, 30 feet straight up, 60 feet out, or any combination in between.

I can then move to within 30 feet of you, and throw.

Unless you have your flight pre-activated (in which case I simply wait it out out of your range) you have to activate it then move. Anything greater than a 45 degree angle results in half movement... so the best you can do is 30 feet up, 30 out or 60 feet out. Are you thinking 60 feet up and 60 feet out? That's more than double 60 feet of movement.

You move 30 feet or 60 feet out, I either go right below you or 30 feet behind you.

Coretron03

2016-12-06, 05:31 AM

How do you fly "out of stun range" with flight?

You can go: 30 feet up, 30 feet out, 30 feet straight up, 60 feet out, or any combination in between.

I can then move to within 30 feet of you, and throw.

Unless you have your flight pre-activated (in which case I simply wait it out out of your range) you have to activate it then move. Anything greater than a 45 degree angle results in half movement... so the best you can do is 30 feet up, 30 out or 60 feet out. Are you thinking 60 feet up and 60 feet out? That's more than double 60 feet of movement.

You move 30 feet or 60 feet out, I either go right below you or 30 feet behind you.
Via the quick runners shirt
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/wondrous-items/wondrous-items/r-z/shirt-quick-runners
Its a very cheap, useful and versatile magic item, letting me move again to go 30ft further up to 60ft in total after casting fly from the hex.

Edit: Also, goodnight

Gemini476

2016-12-06, 09:54 AM

AD&D, AD&D 2nd, D&D 3e/3.5/Pathfinder and D&D 5th were all not designed as balanced experiences at all and I kinda find that a part of the charm. Not the "casters have spells that completely invalidate other classes" bit, that can go and die in a fire.

You might want to remove those from your list, I think.

There is a need for a certain degree of uniformity from campaign to campaign in D&D. This is not to say that conformity or sameness is desirable. Nobody wishes to have stale campaigns where dungeons, monsters, traps, tricks, and goals are much the same as those encountered in any one of a score of other campaigns. Uniformity means that classes are relatively the same in abilities and approach to solving the problems with which the campaign confronts them. Uniformity means that treasure and experience are near a reasonable mean. Uniformity means that the campaign is neither a give-away show nor a killer - that rewards are just that, and great risk will produce commensurate rewards, that intelligent play will give characters a fighting chance of survival.

[...]

It is important to keep in mind that, after all is said and done, ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS is a game. Because it is a game, certain thing which seem "unrealistic" or simply unnecessary are integral to the system. Classes have restrictions in order to give a varied and unique approach to each class when they play, as well as to provide play balance. Races are given advantages or limits mainly because the whole character of the game would be drastically altered if it were otherwise. Everything in the ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS system has purpose; most of what is found herein is essential to the campaign, and those sections which are not - such as sub-classes of characters, psionics, and similar material - are clearly labelled as optional for inclusion.

Of course, 1E still has a bunch of balance issues - Meteor Swarm is garbage when compared to Fireball, for instance, the Bard is ludicrously overpowered, the Druid levels way too fast, and a bunch of other small issues. It's especially galling when compared to OD&D (without supplements - just the LBBs, or Little Brown Books), which honestly is probably more balanced than 4E is?

It's all balanced for a significantly different style of play than modern D&D, though - something akin to twenty players at a time, all experienced wargamers, plus assorted henchmen, travelling down into a vast unclearable dungeon in search of treasure.

But there's always been a significant attempt at what Gygax here calls "play balance" - if something is tremendously overpowered, or significantly weak, it's changed for the later editions. Pre-OD&D's fireball is a mass of flaming rocks which Jim abuses, so it gets nerfed into just being a bunch of simultaneous fireballs (Jim!), which AD&D then nerfs further in damage and versatility (they're in a specific formation, rather than being aimed at will), and then that's buffed again later while Fireball gets a heavy nerfbat in regards to maximum damage dice, etc. etc.
Sometimes they swing too hard in one direction: the 2E Cleric was perceived as not being that fun to play as, so the 3E Cleric got as overpowered as it is. Meteor Swarm was, as I said, briefly nerfed into being worse than a third-level spell.
Sometimes it works out well, though, like 3.0 Haste giving a partial action instead becoming 3.5 Haste giving an extra attack.

The problem comes when you try to balance things around something, but your fundamental assumptions are incorrect. Savage Species somewhat famously revealed that the monsters of 3.0 were balanced against the Fighter, for instance, while the major assumption in regards to 3E Clerics and Wizards seems to have been blasters and fighter-buffing healbots.
And, to be honest? I imagine that 3E played with blaster wizards and healbot clerics probably has them work just fine alongside the Rogue and Fighter.
They did try to design a balanced experience.

It's just that, well, when a game is played with different assumptions than those it's designed around it kind of starts to fall apart. If you try to play a heroic campaign in OD&D or 1E, the system will fight you tooth and nail. If you try to stray away from 5E's 6-8 encounters, 2-3 short rests assumptions, classes like the Champion Fighter suffer for it. If you stray too far from 3E's WBL, things break down even worse than they already do.

And, more related to this topic, if you actually push the Wizard to its limit in 3E rather than just tossing around fireballs and magic missiles? Yeah, that's when you transcend the assumed play area and spit in the face of the balance it tried to build. (For a fun example, you could also just consider how things look if a Wizard is only going to get one encounter per day as opposed to the assumed four. Things break.)

Segev

2016-12-06, 10:33 AM

Well, the Abyss is infinite as far as we know, thus having infinite Demons. However, you are right: The Bloodwar has a tendency to spill over into Baators first layer, but the number of Demons there is finite.

So in theory, when you grab a random demon, there are finite Demons in Baator and infinite Demons in the Abyss, meaning you... sorta have a chance at getting a Demon from hell?

Have we just uncovered an actual legitimate reason to use infinity in a logical math problem?

I was originally going off the notion that there exist spells to summon/call specific demons, which means that you could call a specific demon who was in hell at the time. In fact, I'm pretty sure that even planar binding allows you to call for a specified outsider, if you know his name.

That said, if you're calling a random (say) vrock, you're going to be running into probability equations. Infinities are "fun" when probabilities of discrete events are being discussed, since despite the fact that the limit as the denominator goes to infinity of any division problem is zero, you still DO get a vrock out of summoning one. Even if there are an infinite number of them.

So, on the one hand, you definitely get a vrock. On the other, the math suggests that your odds of getting Bob Plainname Joe Johnson IXVIII (as opposed to any other vrock, assuming you didn't specify Bob Plainname Joe Johnson IXVIII by name in your summoning) is zero. But your chances of getting ANY specific vrock are exactly the same. And yet, you get one.

Now, if we replace Bob Plainname Joe Johnson IXVIII with "any vrock that happens to be in hell," we have the same problem. Because any finite number divided by X approaches zero value as X approaches infinity.

It's essentially like saying that you have an infinitely deep ball pit, and you pick any one ball at random out of it. You absolutely can do this, conceptually, despite the fact that the ball pit has an infinite number of balls. If 10 of those balls are red, and the rest are blue, you could theoretically pick either color, but the math suggests it's impossible to pick anything but the blue. And even then, if the blue balls are distinguishable from each other in any way, you have a 0 chance of picking any one of them!

I think we're really hitting the paradox of the axiom of choice, here, though I'm no mathematician and thus may be very wrong.

Psyren

2016-12-06, 10:56 AM

Yes, but at level 5 (4 with summoner) that item is way too expensive to get.

Actually, at level 5 crafting a +3 bow costs 50% WBL, which is the guideline for a single item. If you instead want to buy it outright, you merely have to wait until level 8. It's a small price to pay for an archer to ignore wind and water obstacles to their shooting.

Nothing, it's for force effects.

Correct. Note that by RAW, using it on a wall of force doesn't discharge it, so you become basically immune to Forcecage for a mere 11k.

khadgar567

2016-12-06, 11:05 AM

I was originally going off the notion that there exist spells to summon/call specific demons, which means that you could call a specific demon who was in hell at the time. In fact, I'm pretty sure that even planar binding allows you to call for a specified outsider, if you know his name.

That said, if you're calling a random (say) vrock, you're going to be running into probability equations. Infinities are "fun" when probabilities of discrete events are being discussed, since despite the fact that the limit as the denominator goes to infinity of any division problem is zero, you still DO get a vrock out of summoning one. Even if there are an infinite number of them.

So, on the one hand, you definitely get a vrock. On the other, the math suggests that your odds of getting Bob Plainname Joe Johnson IXVIII (as opposed to any other vrock, assuming you didn't specify Bob Plainname Joe Johnson IXVIII by name in your summoning) is zero. But your chances of getting ANY specific vrock are exactly the same. And yet, you get one.

Now, if we replace Bob Plainname Joe Johnson IXVIII with "any vrock that happens to be in hell," we have the same problem. Because any finite number divided by X approaches zero value as X approaches infinity.

It's essentially like saying that you have an infinitely deep ball pit, and you pick any one ball at random out of it. You absolutely can do this, conceptually, despite the fact that the ball pit has an infinite number of balls. If 10 of those balls are red, and the rest are blue, you could theoretically pick either color, but the math suggests it's impossible to pick anything but the blue. And even then, if the blue balls are distinguishable from each other in any way, you have a 0 chance of picking any one of them!

I think we're really hitting the paradox of the axiom of choice, here, though I'm no mathematician and thus may be very wrong.
so unless i use true name as component while casting summon monster there is astronomical chance that ıi summon same mook second time, man summoners are realy luck.

Segev

2016-12-06, 11:43 AM

so unless i use true name as component while casting summon monster there is astronomical chance that ıi summon same mook second time, man summoners are realy luck.

Er, no. There is an infinitesimal chance you'll summon the same mook twice, at random.

khadgar567

2016-12-06, 12:09 PM

Er, no. There is an infinitesimal chance you'll summon the same mook twice, at random.
still there is a large target pool and likely hood of summoning same succubus with out truename is gonna be hard or need good amount of luck.

Segev

2016-12-06, 12:43 PM

still there is a large target pool and likely hood of summoning same succubus with out truename is gonna be hard or need good amount of luck.

Yes.

In fact, it probably won't happen without something dramatically skewing probability. Like you knowing her name and summoning her specifically, or the author/DM removing randomness and picking for you. :smallwink:

khadgar567

2016-12-06, 01:16 PM

Yes.

In fact, it probably won't happen without something dramatically skewing probability. Like you knowing her name and summoning her specifically, or the author/DM removing randomness and picking for you. :smallwink:
just out of curiosity if one of your players tries this how you spin it.

Coretron03

2016-12-06, 01:34 PM

Gemini476

2016-12-06, 01:53 PM

Actually, at level 5 crafting a +3 bow costs 50% WBL, which is the guideline for a single item. If you instead want to buy it outright, you merely have to wait until level 8. It's a small price to pay for an archer to ignore wind and water obstacles to their shooting. While 50% WBL is the suggested limit, the very next sentences are as follows:
For a balanced approach, PCs that are built after 1st level should spend no more than 25% of their wealth on weapons, 25% on armor and protective devices, 25% on other magic items, 15% on disposable items like potions, scrolls, and wands, and 10% on ordinary gear and coins. Different character types might spend their wealth differently than these percentages suggest; for example, arcane casters might spend very little on weapons but a great deal more on other magic items and disposable items. (Assuming the create-a-character-above-1st-level rules are what you're referencing.) Now, if you're a character in an ongoing game it's more lax than that, obviously, since you could just pool up everyone's wealth and have someone craft something worth four times your WBL (give or take a bit).

Sneak Dog

2016-12-06, 02:01 PM

Coretron03

2016-12-06, 02:31 PM

If you want a Good meleer with good utility the magnus is good from the get go by having 6 levels of casting and class features that improve melee further like almost free weapon enchantments or spell combat. Still a caster but not a full one.

Also, after looking at levl 5 WBL they get 10500 GP, while a +3 bow costs 18000 GP in enchantments alone. Even crafted that costs almost you entire WBL and you only could have something like cloak of resistance +1, plus you still need to be armour and the acutual weapon, all to negate a 3rd level wizard spell they can cast twice a day for free. Not sure if I missed something.

Coretron03

2016-12-06, 03:12 PM

So, tell you what-build a 1st, 3rd, 5th, and 7th level martial character (doesn't even have to be melee-just martial) and I'll (with some assistance from my bros who know D&D better than I) build some mages at those levels. We'll each build them without knowing what the other is building, so there won't be any tailoring, and then we'll see how they do against each other.

I think a better idea would be to get a dm to run 2 teams through a dungeon, one team all casters and the other team no spells. This would show that one side could get further then the other/complete it more easily and would inherently be a fair test due to same battles and same amount of people. Does anyone agree?

On a side note I think pathfinder wasintended to be balanced as the developers made numerous comments about CM-D, sayingbit was a myth that didn't exist. In the books there are also parts where it says the classes are carefully balanced with eachother (this might have something to do with the fact they think magic missile is the best 1st level spell and would still be great as 2nd level spell:smallconfused:).

Segev

2016-12-06, 03:15 PM

Before anyones head splits, remember that a limit approaching zero is weird. Just because your chance of getting Joe Johnson XVII is approaching zero, doesn't mean it's impossible.
It just means that if you try, you don't get to roll dice and your DM informs you that you failed and got his twin brother, Jimmy Johnson LXVI.

Yeah, the technical term for "limit of A as X approaches Y = 0" is "infinitesimal."

It means it is infinitely small but extant. Colloquially, it's used to mean "vanishingly small," too, even if the "vanishingly small" thing is actually quantifiable. (e.g. "Your chances of winning the lottery after buying a single ticket are infinitesimal." Technically, not true; you can calculate this incredibly tiny number. But colloquially valid usage.)

The trouble with literally infinitesimal probabilities is that we really don't have a way of working with them in "real" terms. Which is why we start running into the paradoxes surrounding the axiom of choice. (For a lot of fun, look up the Banach–Tarski paradox (http://en.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FBanach%25E2%2580%2593Tar ski_paradox), which says that, if you accept that you can pick specific objects out of infinite sets, you can perform mathematical operations to duplicate objects.)

Psyren

2016-12-06, 03:30 PM

While 50% WBL is the suggested limit, the very next sentences are as follows: (Assuming the create-a-character-above-1st-level rules are what you're referencing.) Now, if you're a character in an ongoing game it's more lax than that, obviously, since you could just pool up everyone's wealth and have someone craft something worth four times your WBL (give or take a bit).

The important part of that, which you even quoted, is:

"Different character types might spend their wealth differently than these percentages suggest"

For a dedicated archer, spending only 25% wealth on their bow is a bit ludicrous; It's the primary reason they're in the party, after all. And being dex-based, their armor is also cheaper - no need for a shield, no need for heavy armor etc. Plus, they can't use wands or scrolls in most cases. So you can quite easily get to the number needed, and do so even before level 5 or 8.

Coretron03

2016-12-06, 03:40 PM

So the archer relies on a wizard spending a feat so he can spend most of his money on a bow. He cant afford a non-crafted one and resistance cloaks are imporatant so if he buys one he will have around 125gp left and thats before he adds buying armour (like 5gp though) and a composite bow. Whoop de doo, better hope no one targets your +2-6 willsave (depending on wisdom and whether or not iron will is taken).

I still dont know how he would get 9375 gp before level 5.

Psyren

2016-12-06, 03:56 PM

So the archer relies on a wizard spending a feat so he can spend most of his money on a bow.

What wizard? (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/master-craftsman---final) :smallconfused:

He cant afford a non-crafted one and resistance cloaks are imporatant so if he buys one he will have around 125gp left and thats before he adds buying armour (like 5gp though) and a composite bow.

You are the one insisting that he absolutely has to beat Wind Wall the moment he hits level 5. Personally I would love it if an enemy caster wastes his most powerful spell slot on stopping a single form of attack. Better than them casting Haste on their meatshields or Flying out of reach of my barbarian.

No, the whole point of that enchantment is so that you have an answer to wind wall even at the levels where that spell is a trivial investment for the caster but still a major impediment to you. By which time, you can easily afford this enchantment, and craft it by yourself to boot.

Bucky

2016-12-06, 04:02 PM

The summoning isn't exactly random, just beyond the control of the caster.

Vrocks can't all be equally likely to show up (because of infinitessimal problems). But that doesn't mean it's impossible to summon one; for all we know, there's an infinite line of them waiting to be summoned and each summoner gets the next one in line. In that case it'd be impossible to 'randomly' summon the same one twice. Or you could randomly grab one that's more likely to be near the front of the line, a bias that means each vrock has a nonzero probability of being summoned.

Figuring out how the spell chooses who to summon is a DM call.

I'm assuming a countably infinite universe of vrocks, because an uncountably infinite universe of vrocks means you can't precisely identify which vrock you summoned.

Segev

2016-12-06, 04:09 PM

Heck, given that adding any finite number (e.g. "1") to "infinity" results in "infinity," you could potentially argue that any summoning spell which calls forth a random vrock literally sponetaneously creates it out of pure Abyssal energy as it pulls it into your summoning circle.

I think "creating a demon" is probably an Evil act, which would certainly explain the [Evil] descriptor the spell takes on!

Ssalarn

2016-12-06, 04:11 PM

My reasoning on the matter:
Out of combat, the fighter has maybe one specific class feature that'll help him. I'll call it about equal to a spell. The rest of his amazing features help him be amazing in combat.

So out of combat faced with a challenge, he has roughly four options: Use gear. Use ability score. Use skill. Use specific class feature.
A caster will have another whole layer on top of that. He'll have spells, often a whole selection of them. On top of that he still have all the options the fighter has.

So why play a non-caster, if a caster has all the options a non-caster has, and more?
Only grand class features that are awfully difficult to balance might solve this problem for that one specific class.

(Now I haven't gotten to combat yet, because it's irrelevant while this argument holds for me. I don't want to play a system where you need to gimp one side of the core experience to be competent at another. Or where you just happen to because you picked this very basic class. That's bad design to me.)

There's an underlying issue of degrees of effectiveness that ties into the whole thing as well.

Say that your proficiency in a given task could be measured on a scale of 0-5, where 1 is "functionally incompetent, but able to make the attempt with a slim chance of success" and 5 is "the best there is at doing this thing". 0, of course, is "cannot attempt the task". The fewer check points you have, the more closely balanced the various classes seem along these points. If the categories you check against are Combat, Healing, Exploration, and Social, for example, a Fighter could theoretically have a spread of 5, 0, 2, 1. A cleric might have a spread more like 3, 5, 3, 3 at average system mastery, so the cleric already has an advantage, but it's one that can be attributed to the fact that his 5 is purely in a support area, so maybe he should have a better grounding overall. There's a few problems with that though.

The first problem is that a single step along that scale isn't super meaningful. A fighter's damage bonuses won't actually end many, if any, encounters earlier than a paladin or ranger, and only maybe 1 in 5 over a melee focused cleric. Since there are so many classes that operate at 3 or 4 in combat (as defined by the ability to take and receive damage), the fighter's marginal bonus simply isn't worth tanking his ability to interact elsewhere when you could have another class, like a ranger, with combat abilities that provide adequately similar pacing alongside a magic-augmented toolbox for dealing with every other facet of the game. There's also the somewhat counter-intuitive fact that combat is the least important facet of the game to excel in. Every class is good at combat in one way or another, to some degree. That means every time you go into a fight, every class there is going to have something to contribute. You don't get into a fight and have the wizard, rogue, and cleric all announce "Oh yeah, fighter-dude, this is your thing. Have at it while we set up for lunch!", and yet, the opposite is essentially what happens whenever a non-combat situation pops up - the fighter gets to go make sandwich while the big boys take care of whatever research, exploration, or social encounter crops up. Sometimes he'll roll a Perception or Survival check just to see if he gets lucky and gets to participate this time. I'm not just talking about poorly built hyper-optimized fighters either, this is something I've had occur with human fighters with 14 Int who poured their FCBs into that extra skill point; they still tend to lack the additional tools that other classes get to boost their modifiers, with the added bonus of now not being better at combat either.

The next major issue, and the largest cause of class disparity, is that the right spell or spells can rocket you to a 5, or maximum possible effectiveness, in any category of the game. The right divination spells make you a pro at research or exploration, the right buffing spells can turn you into a combat demigod, a sprinkle of enchantment with a dash of illusion and now you're so proficient as a social butterfly that you're getting elected king. Combine this with the fact that there is no meaningful benefit whatsoever in being able to do something 24/7, and it really hurts to be the guy who doesn't have an effective pool of limited resources to draw from.

The other big issue is granularity. Sure a fighter "excels in combat" if your definition of excelling in combat is "being able to deal high damage and have a high AC", but as most people who've played this game a few times come to understand, those are only two factors of what comprise "being good at combat". If you break combat down into its constituent parts, you find that you need accuracy, damage, mobility, armor class, non-AC defenses, territory control, hit point sustainability, and probably a few other things that don't fit neatly into one of those categories. Fighters have good accuracy, damage, and armor class, but their mobility, non-AC defenses, territory control, and hit point sustainability range from mediocre to terrible. A fighters two bad saves are the ones most likely to straight up remove him from a fight, or even turn him into a liability, particularly since Pathfinder removed or nerfed so many of the save or die spells (which I actually think was a good thing, but SoDs were like the one thing the fighter had a meaningful defensive advantage against in 3.x). Once the fighter has been dropped down a pit or brain-locked with a compulsion spell, he's no longer contributing to the fight at all, which arguably makes him bad at combat. If the compulsion happens to be something like the 1st level murderous command (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/ultimateMagic/spells/murderousCommand.html#murderous-command) spell, he actually goes from being bad to being a negative modifier as he assists the enemy. The fighter's biggest mobility advantage is "I'm less bogged down by the armor I have to wear to maintain competitive AC", which is nice, but pales in comparison to things like a paladin's mount, a druid's wildshape, or any of the plethora of mobility focused spells.

Let me also reiterate something I said earlier- there is no meaningful benefit whatsoever to being able to do something 24/7. This tends to be one of those defenses that gets brought up for the fighter and other non-caster classes from time to time, and it's just wrong. First, there is no such thing as a "go all day" class. Fighters have a limited pool of hit points just like everyone else, and once those are gone, no one is going anywhere. Second, there are very few adventures that are going to require that you go all day without stopping. The average dungeon can be cleared in two hour less of in-game time (literally faster than it typically takes to actually play through that dungeon in real life), and as I've noted previously, even if there really is an adventure where going for 24 hours straight is an advantage, casters can use their non-spell and crafted resources to pace their resource burn and operate effectively for the whole stretch. Remember, it only takes 2 hours for a wizard, cleric, or druid to scribe scrolls of up to 2nd level, less than a day for 3rd and 4th level spells, and less than a week for a 9th level spell. It's not at all hard to stock those things up.Third, in my experience nothing contributes more to the 15 minute adventuring day than having non-casters in the party. Healing, buffing, and transportation are all going to be necessary at some point, and if you can't do that yourself, you've got to borrow it from someone. If your wizards and clerics are having to set aside a percentage of their resources to ensure that the fighter can do the things he needs to do but can't do on his own, their own effectiveness is being hindered and the fighter now has to be able to meaningfully make up for the resources they don't have because they were diverted to him. The fighter's ability to supply that compensation adequately and consistently is... questionable.

Troacctid

2016-12-06, 04:15 PM

Althoguh crafting that bow at level 5 would require a caster as a martial at that level only just qualifies for master crafter and has no more feats to take It, while a caster could just take it directly and craft it at that level. Fighters have to wait until level 7 to craft magic items at all.
You don't need spells to take item creation feats, just a caster level. I don't know if (Su) abilities still work in PF (they did in 3.5), but spell-like abilities definitely do, which means an Aasimar (for example) will natively qualify for Craft Magic Arms and Armor at 5th level regardless of class.

Coretron03

2016-12-06, 04:22 PM

"So you can quite easily get to the number needed, and do so even before level 5 or 8."

Yeah. I did not suggest it had to be at level 5 (mostly because you can't afford it), you did. I never brought up windwall, never considered casting it. Hell (Abyss) it is not even on my classes spell list. I only brought up the fact it sucks your entire WBL if you got it at level 5

"Prerequisites: 5 ranks in any Craft or Profession skill."
How are you gaining 2 feats at level 5? master craftsman only lets you qualify, meaning you either need the wizard do it for you or have to wait until you reach level 7 to get the feat.

Anlashok

2016-12-06, 04:28 PM

Man that is such a Paizo thing to do. Here's a feat you can take so you can have the ability to take a feat.

Thanks guys, not like martials tend to struggle with feat investment or anything.

Coretron03

2016-12-06, 04:29 PM

You don't need spells to take item creation feats, just a caster level. I don't know if (Su) abilities still work in PF (they did in 3.5), but spell-like abilities definitely do, which means an Aasimar (for example) will natively qualify for Craft Magic Arms and Armor at 5th level regardless of class.

I Think this is sorta the same as the alchemists, as for extracts he a has a caster level = alchemist level but I am pretty sure they don't qualify for any magic item creation feats.

Post above: Agreed, they should have been able to take one for free, along with spending the feat on master craftsman and take the other one as it currently is.

Ssalarn

2016-12-06, 04:50 PM

What wizard? (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/master-craftsman---final) :smallconfused:

Just to play devil's advocate, Master Craftsman can only be taken once and applies to one specific Craft or Profession skill. So if the Fighter takes Master Craftsman: Craft (bow) (maybe Profession: soldier or Profession: trapper could be argued to work as well? Maybe?), the only magic items he'll ever be able to create are magic bows. Master Craftsman isn't the answer to all magic item needs like it's often presented.
Also, and forgive me if I misunderstood here, the conversation seemed to be focused around level 5; the fighter could only qualify for Master Craftsman at level 5 and still needs to take Craft Magic Arms and Armor before he can create a magic bow, so that capability doesn't exist until level 7. Which actually lowers my estimation of Master Craftsman even further, given that when you first take it it's basically just a +2 to one specific Craft or Profession skill and won't have any further benefits until you spend another feat.

You are the one insisting that he absolutely has to beat Wind Wall the moment he hits level 5. Personally I would love it if an enemy caster wastes his most powerful spell slot on stopping a single form of attack. Better than them casting Haste on their meatshields or Flying out of reach of my barbarian.

I don't disagree with this statement. Wind wall is nice and all, but it's one spell, and not nearly as versatile and/or effective as dispel magic, phantom steed, stinking cloud, displacement, fly, or haste. I think it just gets dredged up in conversations like this a lot because it's a hard and fast "No" card for one of the more powerful martial attack forms, and true "No" cards have been trimmed from the game quite a bit. What you really want to do if you're a caster and get any say in where the fight takes place is have water breathing and monkey fish prepped. Hop into a decent sized body of water, swim to the middle, and enjoy watching that archer never be able to hit you again. Before anyone chimes in with "But you can't guarantee you'll have a body of water available" let me note that you can't guarantee this (somewhat asinine) theoretical fight takes place in a wide open plain where the fighter always has a clear line of sight and effect either. It's just as likely to take place in a swamp, forest, near a lake, in a city, during a snowstorm, or on a foggy day. Environment is so rarely taken into account because it's not a constant and predictable variable, and yet it's one of the largest hazards adventurers have to deal with during the first 10 levels of the game, and there are far fewer ways for non-casters to adapt to hindering terrain than casters. Considering that we're talking about an archer here, it's worth noting that aquatic combat shuts down archery almost completely, smoke, fog, and inclement or more severe weather all impose serious penalties that the caster can easily work around, and even in a relatively flat plains or desert environment the maximum distance you can spot an opponent is 6d6 x 40 ft. (6d6 x 20 in the desert), meaning that the wizard could potentially snipe with long range spells or lay magical traps (like explosive runes) about without ever being detected by the fighter at all.

You don't need spells to take item creation feats, just a caster level. I don't know if (Su) abilities still work in PF (they did in 3.5), but spell-like abilities definitely do, which means an Aasimar (for example) will natively qualify for Craft Magic Arms and Armor at 5th level regardless of class.

Item Creation Feats: Does having a caster level from a spell-like ability meet the caster level prerequisite for selecting an item creation feat? (http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9qp0)
Answer: No.

Having a CL from an SLA does not give you the ability to qualify for item creation feats in Pathfinder, so aasimar cannot use their daylight SLA to qualify for Craft Magic Arms and Armor.

Coretron03

2016-12-06, 04:59 PM

While I dislike the FAQ in this case I think its right, sort of like the alchemists being unable to qualify for crafting feats as he omly has a caster level for the purpose of extracts. The sla caster level I think is for the purpose of that SLA only, as it does not give you a caster level in general.

Ssalarn

2016-12-06, 05:01 PM

Coretron03

2016-12-06, 05:11 PM

Ssalarn

2016-12-06, 05:23 PM

I present to you the greatest feat in the game, fully capable of breaking WBL permanently and shatterering game balance.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/black-marketeer
...
...
...
What do you mean its terrible? Its not like there is a trait that increase your wealth by more then 100 GP's, right? http://www.d20pfsrd.com/traits/social-traits/rich-parents
:smallconfused: :smalleek: :smallfurious:

We need a facepalm emoji on this site.

It wouldn't be so bad if there were rules stipulating that that pool was self-renewing, or if there were meaningful items that could actually be purchased for 100gp, or if it scaled by level, or..... Okay, the only defense is that that feat was written 8 years ago, for 3.5, and is from an out-of-print discontinued product. So it's technically the worst feat in 3.5, and can't really be compared to the Rich Parents trait because traits weren't really a thing back then.

Were there rules for "pools" in 3.5? Like, anywhere where a sourcebook says "Pools are self-renewing resource pools that...."? I'm stretching here.

Jormengand

2016-12-06, 05:24 PM

We need a facepalm emoji on this site.

The facepalm emoji on the Nationstates forums had to be hidden from the regular view because it was over-used.

In any case, I assume that the feat is meant to be able to get you black market favours which would otherwise take a while to negotiate. Still not exactly amazing, no.

khadgar567

2016-12-06, 05:26 PM

Coretron03

2016-12-06, 05:34 PM

what do you know, pre pathfinder. Still a bad feat. I recall a feat that gives a +1 non-stacking bonus to bluff/diplomancy/intimidate/
something else (depending on slot used) if you occupy a magic item slot with a non-magical item worth 5% of your WBL. So many restrictions for so little benifit in a game where masterwork tools exist for 50gp and this trait exists (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/traits/equipment-traits/extremely-fashionable) I can't recall the name but god is it bad.

Khadgar: I can't tell whether you are being serious or not.

khadgar567

2016-12-06, 06:00 PM

killem2

2016-12-06, 06:00 PM

I don't think there is much of a difference between 3.5 and pathfinder in the caster / non caster debate. It's been cleaned up, but casters are stills miles ahead of the non. With that said. I've been DMing now since 2011, had numerous difference classes, ranging from a petal psionic beside fighters and archers and wizards and summoners along side plain jane monks.

Everyone loved the sessions, they never complained about being over shadowed. Mostly because, if a wizard could open a door with knock, they generally did not. Because that means they have to take away from the concept of their character to do someone else's job. They didn't refuse knock because they felt they would be over stepping, they just saw that there was no point in being redundant.

Our petal psionic in 3.5 was a diplomacy master. But techincally so was the rogue in our group by nature of the vast amount of skill points. When it came down to it though, the rogue didn't want to talk to people. He wanted to steal stuff and sneak around. He didn't want to con anyone.

Psyren

2016-12-06, 06:05 PM

Man that is such a Paizo thing to do. Here's a feat you can take so you can have the ability to take a feat.

Thanks guys, not like martials tend to struggle with feat investment or anything.

You do realize that in 3.5 they didn't get this ability at all, don't you? If you wanted to craft items before, your options were to be a spellcaster or eat dookie.

Just to play devil's advocate, Master Craftsman can only be taken once and applies to one specific Craft or Profession skill. So if the Fighter takes Master Craftsman: Craft (bow) (maybe Profession: soldier or Profession: trapper could be argued to work as well? Maybe?), the only magic items he'll ever be able to create are magic bows. Master Craftsman isn't the answer to all magic item needs like it's often presented.

"Hunter" or "Trapper" can cover all of an archer's needs easily; it's not hard.

Also, and forgive me if I misunderstood here, the conversation seemed to be focused around level 5; the fighter could only qualify for Master Craftsman at level 5 and still needs to take Craft Magic Arms and Armor before he can create a magic bow, so that capability doesn't exist until level 7. Which actually lowers my estimation of Master Craftsman even further, given that when you first take it it's basically just a +2 to one specific Craft or Profession skill and won't have any further benefits until you spend another feat.

How are you gaining 2 feats at level 5? master craftsman only lets you qualify, meaning you either need the wizard do it for you or have to wait until you reach level 7 to get the feat.

Also not hard: you can do this at 5 by retraining (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/basics-ability-scores/more-character-options/retraining) your lower-level feats (http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1gn#v5748eaic9r9h) (the ones from before you hit 5) into the crafting feat(s) you need.

I agree though, in the normal course of play you would wait until 7, but strictly speaking you are not forced to do so.

What you really want to do if you're a caster and get any say in where the fight takes place is have water breathing and monkey fish prepped. Hop into a decent sized body of water, swim to the middle, and enjoy watching that archer never be able to hit you again.

It's worth pointing out that Cyclonic arrows ignore water too. If your GM rules that the miss chance from shooting on land still applies, merely add Seeking to win - once again, not hard.

I Think this is sorta the same as the alchemists, as for extracts he a has a caster level = alchemist level but I am pretty sure they don't qualify for any magic item creation feats.

I've been saying this a lot, but this too is not hard - Spell Knowledge (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/alchemist/discoveries/paizo---alchemist-discoveries/spell-knowledge) gives your Alchemist a caster level that can be used to craft.

Ssalarn

2016-12-06, 07:13 PM

It's worth pointing out that Cyclonic arrows ignore water too. If your GM rules that the miss chance from shooting on land still applies, merely add Seeking to win - once again, not hard.

Seeing and breathing are still real detriments to non-casters, even if they can remove the penalties (and +3 arrows with a minimum +2 bow are still going to heavily impact WBL) imposed. I think the key take-away is that a non-caster needs to invest permanent resources and build specifically to address the weaknesses; we haven't even touched on how well this theoretical archer is going to be at his job when at least two of his feats are dedicated to allowing him to craft a limited subset of absolutely necessary equipment, nor have we calculated how the cost of retraining impacts his overall WBL and impacts his overall performance, or any of a number of other factors that are ultimately irrelevant. Can a non-caster at lower levels overcome obstacles that would impede his ability to attack a caster? To a certain extent yes. Does this lock him or her out of other options and potentially weaken them greatly as a character overall? I would say that that's probably a yes; they're sacrificing fixed resources to confront a singular problem that a caster could expend daily renewable resources on without inhibiting their ability to adapt to new situations.

And that's ultimately the point- a non-caster can sink a huge amount of their fixed resources into addressing a single type of threat, only to discover that they no longer have anything left to dedicate to a new threat that doesn't rely on the defenses the non-caster picked to overcome. Changing the allocation of those resources, while possible with certain optional rulesets like retraining, is still going to be expensive and time consuming. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, the best way to look at it is that each and every spell slot is a tiny archetype affecting a single class feature, and casters can (with some exceptions, like some spontaneous casters who have their own separate advantages) swap as many of those archetypes out as often as they wish. A non-caster who takes an archetype to deal with situation X or overcome weakness Y is functionally stuck with those swaps forever, even if they know that the encounters they'll be heading out to face tomorrow make all of those swaps really bad choices.

Regardless of whether Schroedinger's Fighter can beat Schroedinger's Wizard in a theoretical pit fight (and we haven't actually even established that yet), Schroedinger's Fighter is never going to be as good an adventurer, because at some point he has to become a real character, and all those resources lock in. Schroedinger's Wizard can actually be a real build; I'm reminded of a conversation on the Paizo forums where someone said something to the effect of "Schroedinger's Wizard is such a stupid argument because no real wizard is going to be able to fly, turn invisible, teleport, summon, debuff, BFC, and direct damage an opponent all on the same build", at which point 5 separate people all promptly posted actual wizard builds that could do just that.

There is a supreme inequity between both what can and cannot be accomplished with magic, as well as how adaptable and flexible a given character is within that framework. A caster can more efficiently address a larger number of situations with a smaller expenditure of their total resources than a martial can. Non-casters need to make long-lasting and highly impactful decisions about whether they spend their resources on offense, defense, or utility; a caster can generally tweak their layout between those three fields with less than a day's notice, can more easily offload general buffing to cheap and quickly crafted consumables, and can even use some of those resources to cover multiple fields. As an example, a cleric's 1st level murderous command smartly used can serve as both offense, defense, and utility- you turn the enemy's strength against them by making them attack each other (offense), protect yourself from harm by redirecting the opponent's action onto themselves (defense), and depending on the situation you may even create a situation where you've shut down charge lanes, broken line of effect, disrupted a spell being cast, etc. (utility/BFC).

Sure, the fighter with Master Craftsman, Craft Magic Arms and Armor, a seeking longbow and cyclonic arrows managed to take out a same level sea-elf wizard (again, maybe, haven't actually established that that'll work out), but what happens 5 minutes later when he's faced with a creature with DR/alignment (and there are plenty of low level outsiders who have it)? How about in encounter 3 where he finally gets a real challenge and discovers that the same CR wizard he killed was the apprentice/lover of the APL+3 summoner who created the dungeon? And we're just talking about a single adventuring day here that conforms to what the game expects a normal adventuring day to look like. This theoretical archer is going to run out of answers long before any full caster, and probably long before even the 2/3 and 1/2 casters, and that's really the root of the disparity. Magic can do anything not-magic can do, frequently better, but non-casters have to bite and scrape and claw to borrow a little bit of magical power for themselves just to compete. Casters can hedge their bets, breaking out of the paradigm of relying on luck to determine their success, non-casters can only change the game by borrowing a bit of magic for themselves, usually utilizing far less effectively and efficiently than an actual caster could.

It's also worth noting that a lot of this conversation has been focused on a single fighter challenging a single wizard; what happens when the challenge is an entire dungeon and group 1 consists of a Fighter, Cavalier, Rogue, and Brawler while group 2 consists of a Paladin, Hunter, Occultist, and Bloodrager? Notice that I didn't even give group 2 a true full caster like a wizard or cleric. Which group finishes the dungeon first, do you think? Would you even try to tackle something like Emerald Spire or Rappan Athuk with group 1, or would you decide that a couple people maybe need to make different characters? I can pick virtually any 4 casting classes out of Paizo's line-up of 38 base classes and end up with an adventuring group that can effectively tackle pretty much every adventure I've ever seen, and I've got shelves full of APs, modules, super-dungeons, dungeons from older (and newer!) editions with conversion notes, and binders full of homebrew adventures. I can count on one hand the number of those that I think group 1 could handle with a 50% or better chance of survival, substantially fewer than the ones that I know group 1 simply wouldn't have the tools to finish without recruiting a caster for help.

I've been saying this a lot, but this too is not hard - Spell Knowledge (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/alchemist/discoveries/paizo---alchemist-discoveries/spell-knowledge) gives your Alchemist a caster level that can be used to craft.

In all fairness, that is both a relatively recent addition to the alchemist's line-up of options, and from a splatbook that a lot of people might not be familiar with because of how much flak it caught for being kind of terrible with no eye towards balance to speak of. You are absolutely correct, for 1 discovery alchemists can qualify for crafting just like a "true" spellcaster, and it's not even that bad a discovery all things considered, I just get why people might not be aware of it, or not think of it when referring to the baseline alchemist, who can't take most crafting feats without first taking this discovery.

Tangential, do people tend to think of alchemists as casters, or non-casters? I lump the extract users in with casters when I think about it since they have their own daily pool of magical resources to draw from, but it occurs to me that someone might think of the investigator and alchemist as being part of the non-caster grouping, which could be relevant to the discussion.

Coretron03

2016-12-06, 07:30 PM

Psyren, I wasnt talking about alchemists never being able to take craft item feats, I was just pointing out the ssame things between it and your CL from SLA. Also, I am pretty sure retraining is a optional rules. Just like mythic rules. How does being a trapper let you craft bows/arrows? Am I missing something on that?
Cyclonic Bow: yes, it can do that but with seeking too that costs over 32k gp, half of level 10 and around a 3rd of 9th level WBL at which point a wizard is on to 5th level spells. What fun. He could craft it but that sinks 2 feats,1/2-1/4 of his skill points while a caster can make wonderous items or scrolls with very little investment. And you still have a terrible will save (at
level 10 my witch would be at a DC 28 with very little more investment then earlier).

Edit: Extracts are pretty much spells, with a different "cast time" mechanism. They can be beasts in melee though, as a beastmorph vivectionist alchemist with a couple discoveries let a alchemists make a rediclous amount of nat attacks, all able to get sneak attack, which they get easier then the rogue due to Invisbility/Improved invisbility as extracts. I still think of them as casters though, like artillery cannons with good self buffing. I could see how someone sees them as martial.

Psyren

2016-12-06, 08:38 PM

+3 arrows with a minimum +2 bow are still going to heavily impact WBL

No they're not - both Cyclonic and Seeking are bestowed upon ammunition, so all you need to do is buy/make the bow itself and you're set for life, mundane arrows will work fine after that.

I think the key take-away is that a non-caster needs to invest permanent resources and build specifically to address the weaknesses; we haven't even touched on how well this theoretical archer is going to be at his job when at least two of his feats are dedicated to allowing him to craft a limited subset of absolutely necessary equipment, nor have we calculated how the cost of retraining impacts his overall WBL and impacts his overall performance, or any of a number of other factors that are ultimately irrelevant.

You're correct about this being irrelevant, but not about the rest. Fighters and Rangers - the two go-to/basic martial classes for archery - get more than enough bonus feats to be able to spare just 2-3 on crafting their gear, especially when doing so saves them considerable wealth in the long run. And if you go with a more gish option like a Magus, you have even more alternatives available.

Can a non-caster at lower levels overcome obstacles that would impede his ability to attack a caster? To a certain extent yes. Does this lock him or her out of other options and potentially weaken them greatly as a character overall? I would say that that's probably a yes; they're sacrificing fixed resources to confront a singular problem that a caster could expend daily renewable resources on without inhibiting their ability to adapt to new situations.

This is Sunk Cost fallacy. Any archer worth their salt should be investing in a way to deal with wind and water anyway - those are, after all, perfectly reasonable things an archer would be expected to come across while adventuring even if they never see a spellcasting enemy. It's not like they're dedicating resources towards a niche obstacle, unless they plan to spend their entire lives adventuring in climate-controlled environments.

I confess I'm rather surprised at your argument - "I'm a guy who shoots arrows for a living and therefore needs a way to deal with wind" is not "Schroedinger's Archer" by any stretch of the imagination. Either he's going to invest in a way to do it himself, or he's going to beg the casters in his own party for succor instead, but ignoring the problem or treating it as some kind of inconceivable niche is not a rational option.

As for DR, there are so many ways to beat that it's not even funny. At most levels DR/alignment is a mere 10, which a Composite Bow and Deadly Aim (again, two things you'll have anyway - sunk costs) will barely register as a speed bump. If your GM decides to somehow make DR/alignment more of an issue for you, pick up one more feat (Clustered Shots) or boost your bow to +5, which is yet again something you'll want to be doing eventually anyway just to keep up with rising AC.

In all fairness, that is both a relatively recent addition to the alchemist's line-up of options, and from a splatbook that a lot of people might not be familiar with because of how much flak it caught for being kind of terrible with no eye towards balance to speak of. You are absolutely correct, for 1 discovery alchemists can qualify for crafting just like a "true" spellcaster, and it's not even that bad a discovery all things considered, I just get why people might not be aware of it, or not think of it when referring to the baseline alchemist, who can't take most crafting feats without first taking this discovery.

And now those people know about it from reading my post. Knowledge is power.

Psyren, I wasnt talking about alchemists never being able to take craft item feats, I was just pointing out the ssame things between it and your CL from SLA. Also, I am pretty sure retraining is a optional rules. Just like mythic rules. How does being a trapper let you craft bows/arrows? Am I missing something on that?

Retraining is not only RAW, it is even legal in PFS. So I'm pretty safe in assuming it.
Even if your GM bans it, you just wait two levels to craft your bow - if I may quote your own post, "woopty do." As I said earlier, if the 5-6 caster is wasting one of their most powerful slots on wind wall, you've still won.

For the Trapper thing - Ssalarn was saying you need to pick a Profession or Craft skill for Master Craftsman. By picking a profession that uses all the gear your Ranger or woodsy Fighter would use (bows, leather armor, knives etc.) you get to craft all your magic gear.

Coretron03

2016-12-06, 08:50 PM

Ssalarn

2016-12-06, 09:43 PM

No they're not - both Cyclonic and Seeking are bestowed upon ammunition, so all you need to do is buy/make the bow itself and you're set for life, mundane arrows will work fine after that.

That's an even larger up-front cost then since you're pouring so much wealth into a non-renewable resource like ammo, and you still need a magic bow to fire those mundane arrows if you want to continue being effective against other challenges.

You're correct about this being irrelevant, but not about the rest. Fighters and Rangers - the two go-to/basic martial classes for archery - get more than enough bonus feats to be able to spare just 2-3 on crafting their gear, especially when doing so saves them considerable wealth in the long run. And if you go with a more gish option like a Magus, you have even more alternatives available.

Rangers don't need Master Craftsman, and they aren't non-casters, so I agree with you as far as they are concerned. As to Fighters.... Sure, fighters have plenty of bonus feats, more than enough that by level 5 they can cover Point-Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot, Deadly Aim, Master Craftsman, Craft Magic Arms and Armor, Iron Will... Once again, you're pointing at something and calling it a solution, and I'm seeing stark evidence of the problem.

This is Sunk Cost fallacy. Any archer worth their salt should be investing in a way to deal with wind and water anyway - those are, after all, perfectly reasonable things an archer would be expected to come across while adventuring even if they never see a spellcasting enemy. It's not like they're dedicating resources towards a niche obstacle, unless they plan to spend their entire lives adventuring in climate-controlled environments.

Remember that thing I just said about how you're pointing to solutions and I'm just seeing more evidence of the problem? The Sunk Cost Fallacy does not apply to this situation because the non-caster archer is the only one paying that cost. Yes, those are all reasonable things for an archer to sink his resources into, but I could play a casting character and not worry about paying those out of permanent resources in the first place. The Sunk Cost Fallacy would only apply if there were not a better, cheaper alternative to paying those costs in the first place, but because casters exist, there is. I'm saying "casters don't need to spend those resources in the first place" you're saying non-casters would pay those costs anyways". Exactly. That's the point.

I confess I'm rather surprised at your argument - "I'm a guy who shoots arrows for a living and therefore needs a way to deal with wind" is not "Schroedinger's Archer" by any stretch of the imagination. Either he's going to invest in a way to do it himself, or he's going to beg the casters in his own party for succor instead, but ignoring the problem or treating it as some kind of inconceivable niche is not a rational option.

This whole conversation presupposes the existence of this archer that can defeat a same level wizard (at one point even in a single round). So, the theoretical archer has continued to grow as this exceedingly dumb argument has continued, gaining seeking and cyclonic ammunition, Master Craftsman, Craft Magic Arms and Armor, etc. Eventually, this archer has to hit critical mass and become real, and when he does so, for the initial claim to be supported he has to beat the wizard within the established framework and rules of the game. That's what I meant by Schroedinger's Archer. At this point, with all the resources this theoretical archer has sunk into just being able to hit the wizard he's going to be missing something. Maybe he now lacks the accuracy/damage to drop the wizard, maybe he doesn't have the Will save to avoid being whammied into a loss by default, maybe his AC has been tanked low enough that simple summoned creatures take him down, whatever, but his resource expenditure to address relatively straightforward issues is so severe that he's going to have a big gaping hole somewhere, or he's going to be stretched so thin that he can't deliver sufficient damage to execute on the premise.

As for DR, there are so many ways to beat that it's not even funny. At most levels DR/alignment is a mere 10, which a Composite Bow and Deadly Aim (again, two things you'll have anyway - sunk costs) will barely register as a speed bump. If your GM decides to somehow make DR/alignment more of an issue for you, pick up one more feat (Clustered Shots) or boost your bow to +5, which is yet again something you'll want to be doing eventually anyway just to keep up with rising AC.

See above. Schroedinger's Archer just got Clustered Shots (something the 5th level archer that this conversation started with can't possibly qualify for), and despite having dumped more wealth than he actually has into all this ammunition, he's able to somehow whip out enough wealth for a +5 bow and grabbing a feat he can't qualify for. I'm talking about this specific archer that was proposed for this 5th level encounter. You appear to be talking about Schroedinger's Archer, who appears to be whatever level he needs to be to afford whatever challenge he's faced with. This was a dumb conversation to begin, it becomes absolutely asinine when the people foolish enough to get involved in it can't even stick to the same set of parameters. The 5th level archer who built with all the tools you've established as necessary to deal with that one wizard cannot possibly have the tools necessary to deal with other threats like outsiders with alignment-based DR, mind-****ery, etc. The fact that he later gets those tools is irrelevant, because he was eaten by a gang of dretches before he ever got there due to spending all his wealth on anti-wizard arrows. Alternatively, wind wall is no longer the wizard's most powerful spell because she's also been leveling up this whole time, and now the archer has a whole new array of complications to deal with since the wizard has access to 4th level spells and 2 additional levels of doubling her effective WBL over the archer's since she didn't need to wait for her crafting feats or take an extra feat just to qualify for a narrow subset of them in the first place.

And now those people know about it from reading my post. Knowledge is power.

I don't disagree.

Retraining is not only RAW, it is even legal in PFS.

Since when? Last I heard you had to get a rare boon or have a character completely destroyed by an FAQ before they'd allow retraining. I don't disbelieve you, but I've played PFS and this is news to me.

So I'm pretty safe in assuming it.

Are you though? It's going to cost 250 gp, take 40 hours of your time stretched over 5 days, and requires you to train with a character who has the feat you want, per RAW. That last bit puts it solidly in the realm of GM fiat, assuming this guy has any money left to actually pay for the training. The bit about it taking 40 hours of your time also takes us back to "You see a solution, I see you pointing at the problem". Once the threat of this vengeful archer is dealt with, the wizard prepares a different spell in his 3rd level slot and goes about his business, or never wasted a slot at all and cast it from a scroll to begin with. Lord knows he's got way more wealth to throw around than this archer who's blown his entire wad on magical ammunition.

Even if your GM bans it, you just wait two levels to craft your bow - if I may quote your own post, "woopty do." As I said earlier, if the 5-6 caster is wasting one of their most powerful slots on wind wall, you've still won.

This presupposes the archer gets to live two more levels and take that feat, unlikely since he's dead at the bottom of a lake with "M/CD" carved into his forehead by a sadistic wizard.

For the Trapper thing - Ssalarn was saying you need to pick a Profession or Craft skill for Master Craftsman. By picking a profession that uses all the gear your Ranger or woodsy Fighter would use (bows, leather armor, knives etc.) you get to craft all your magic gear.

It's worth noting that that is a very generous interpretation. In my opinion, crafting a bow requires you to have Craft (bows), because that's the skill required to craft bows. Profession (trapper) would let you craft trapping related items not specifically detailed elsewhere. This is open to interpretation though, since Master Craftsman is (I assume deliberately) vague on several key points. Also, there is no Profession (hunter).

Psyren

2016-12-06, 09:55 PM

That's an even larger up-front cost then since you're pouring so much wealth into a non-renewable resource like ammo, and you still need a magic bow to fire those mundane arrows if you want to continue being effective against other challenges.

You're investing in the bow, not the ammo. Did you not read what I wrote? Cyclonic can be put on the bow and apply to your ammunition.

Rangers don't need Master Craftsman, and they aren't non-casters, so I agree with you as far as they are concerned. As to Fighters.... Sure, fighters have plenty of bonus feats, more than enough that by level 5 they can cover Point-Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot, Deadly Aim, Master Craftsman, Craft Magic Arms and Armor, Iron Will... Once again, you're pointing at something and calling it a solution, and I'm seeing stark evidence of the problem.

Why do you need all of those at level 5? Fighters who don't have Iron Will by 5 instantly fail D&D? Really? :smallconfused:

I could play a casting character and not worry about paying those out of permanent resources in the first place.

Obviously, but that logic is a non-starter. I could play Pun-Pun, or just an optimized T1 class, and never worry about anything ever. That doesn't make martial classes useless, it just means your floor for acceptable play is too high.

This whole conversation presupposes the existence of this archer that can defeat a same level wizard (at one point even in a single round).

Is that what we're talking about? I was merely talking about a PF archer who doesn't get shut down by a 3rd-level spell, not some kind of one-shot duel.

I have no interest in theory-fighting some kind of duel between two PC classes on a featureless plain, so we should probably baseline this before continuing.

Cosi

2016-12-06, 09:58 PM

You know how you could resolve this?

Psyren makes an Archer.

Ssalarn makes a Caster.

They each pick five EL = Level encounters.

Run each character against all ten encounters and see how their characters do. Psyren right that his suggested gear is reasonable? Is Ssalarn right that Psyren's suggested gear is too expensive? I don't know. But I know how you can find out.

Debating your hypothesis can only take you so far. At some point, you have to test it.

Ssalarn

2016-12-06, 10:15 PM

Ok, If you encountered a Invisible (Patron spell)witch that walked up to you, easily beating your perception check and casts slumber. You wont have a amazing will save (if your a fighter you have 3 base +2 wisdom +2 iron will +3 cloak of resistance for +10 best case scenario)

To one of my earlier points, this fighter won't be working with the best case scenario. Remember? This archer has been blowing their load on +4 (+1 minimum to enchant, +1 seeking, +2 cyclonic) ammunition a bow they can't actually afford and feat retraining, and doesn't have any feats available for Iron Will because they have Master Craftsman and Craft Magic Arms and Armor. This theoretical fighter probably fails their save vs. the wizard's daze cantrip.

Edit: I dont think master crafter has a restriction like that, just says you can craft magic items with the feat, not restricted by taken skill. Although the spellcraft check will be a pain. On further inspection its only dc 22, so 10 spellcraft ranks, 14 int and take ten gets you that.

Master Craftsman
Your superior crafting skills allow you to create simple magic items.

Prerequisites: 5 ranks in any Craft or Profession skill.
Benefit: Choose one Craft or Profession skill in which you possess at least 5 ranks. You receive a +2 bonus on your chosen Craft or Profession skill. Ranks in your chosen skill count as your caster level for the purposes of qualifying for the Craft Magic Arms and Armor and Craft Wondrous Item feats. You can create magic items using these feats, substituting your ranks in the chosen skill for your total caster level. You must use the chosen skill for the check to create the item. The DC to create the item still increases for any necessary spell requirements (see the magic item creation rules in Magic Items). You cannot use this feat to create any spell-trigger or spell-activation item.
Normal: Only spellcasters can qualify for the Craft Magic Arms and Armor and Craft Wondrous Item feats.

Note that it specifically says "You must use the chosen skill for the check to create the item." Can you use Craft (armor) to make bows? Nope, that requires Craft (bows). Since the feat stipulates that you must use the selected skill to craft the item, and nothing states that you can craft items not covered by the skill using it, you must ensure that the skill associated with Master Craftsman covers the uses you want to put it towards. Master Craftsman is much, much more limited and narrow than people like to think it is. You can't use it to create crossbows and bows (since they're two separate skills), let alone bows and armor. Unless you want to continuously retrain it with another Master Craftsman each time you want to make a different item, paying retraining costs and adding the retraining time to the time required to craft the item.

You're investing in the bow, not the ammo. Did you not read what I wrote? Cyclonic can be put on the bow and apply to your ammunition.

That was unclear due to the way you responded. When you said they were "bestowed upon the ammunition", I thought you were trying to save money by buying the ammo. If that's not the case, then your archer can't afford this uber bow in the first place at 5th level and loses by default.

Why do you need all of those at level 5? Fighters who don't have Iron Will by 5 instantly fail D&D? Really? :smallconfused:

Pretty much, yeah. Schroedinger's Archer, as his choices get locked in, can't afford to buy a cloak of resistance, and his theoretical stat spread is looking pretty shaky too since he can't afford any belts and needs to have sufficient Dex for his archery feats and sufficient Str for this composite bow of his. That means bad Will save, which means he loses his saves to any number of 1st or 2nd level spells, which means he loses this theoretical competition (and any number of other encounters where a Will save is necessary.

Obviously, but that logic is a non-starter. I could play Pun-Pun, or just an optimized T1 class, and never worry about anything ever. That doesn't make martial classes useless, it just means your floor for acceptable play is too high.

Psyren, I'm trying really hard not to lose my **** right now because I respect you a lot and appreciate your insight. BUT NO ONE EVER SAID MARTIALS WERE USELESS. We said that there is a distinct disparity that favors casters over non-casters, to which my point is eminently relevant. The archer will never be able to deal with as many situations as the caster. He will hit a threshold in the game at which point none of the resources he has available will be sufficient to deal with certain types of threats. Without a caster lending him support, he'll probably never live to hit that threshold in the first place. We clear? Non-casters aren't useless, they're just not as good at being adventurers as casters, which is the freaking definition of disparity. You're not going to beat a single AP Paizo has put out with a party full of non-casters without a lot of luck and GM handwaving, but you can do it readily and easily with a party full of casters. Disparity. The wizard has way more tools to play with to turn the encounter in his favor than the archer does, and the archer has severe sunk costs to deal with while the wizard can wake up fresh the next morning with a whole new set up and a bag full of gold. The archer is now deeply sunk in his anti-wizard gear, and doesn't have the defensive tools to deal with virtually any other type of encounter that comes up, while the wizard can freely adjust to whatever new adventure he undertakes. Disparity.

Is that what we're talking about? I was merely talking about a PF archer who doesn't get shut down by a 3rd-level spell, not some kind of one-shot duel.

*Inhales* *Exhales* *Inhales* *Exhales*

Yeah, that's what we were talking about. Also, this is part of the reason why PVP scenarios are so stupid. Even if everybody's actually on the same page, they still never prove anything, and I don't even want to count how many words have been wasted on the back and forth of two people who weren't even discussing the same subject.

Coretron03

2016-12-06, 10:31 PM

Ssalarn

2016-12-06, 10:53 PM

I think the master crafter feat refers to using thst instead of spellcraft for crafting the item. Might just be me though. PVP is terrible for stuff like this, Which is why I recommended to Cal having a full party of casters and full party of non casters go against the same encounters, just like cosi suggested excpet a larger scale and what Ssalarn was sort of saying (though he was saying the non-casters would likely get destroyed in the encounters).

I think 5 is the tipping point for non-caster's ability to wrangle their way through a balanced published adventure, with the occasional exception. I've seen a few attempts at running APs (Rise of the Runelords and Jade Regent specifically) with one group of all casters and a separate group comprised of non-casters, and both times it ended very poorly for the non-casting groups while the casters cruised through. Rise of the Runelords actually went south fast when half the non-caster group contracted ghoul fever in a fight the casters ended in one round thanks to the cleric rolling max damage on her channel check. Jade Regent was actually leaning towards the non-casters for a while, starting with the caster group losing their wizard when he slipped on a rock crossing the first river they came across and drowned. The witch, cleric, and druid struggled quite a bit since the wizard was covering a lot of their non-nature related skill-monkeying, but they muddled through and ended up surviving an encounter in Book 2 that wiped the non-casters.

I've also used The Ruby Phoenix Tournament (http://paizo.com/products/btpy8qid?Pathfinder-Module-The-Ruby-Phoenix-Tournament) to make the point in a previous discussion like this. It's a martial arts tournament that actually ensures the non-casters have most of the tools they'll need to address the various challenges, and a few restrictions on how the casters can use their spells and abilities, so it's structured to favor the non-casters but as an 11th level adventure it occurs at a point in the game when disparity is probably at its most pronounced, so it can be an interesting platform for exploring how disparity impacts an adventure, including where and how you see it. Of note, the non-casters also completed the module and won the tournament, but they completely missed several subplots, lost one encounter, and struggled quite a bit more throughout than the casting group.

Coidzor

2016-12-06, 11:29 PM

what do you know, pre pathfinder. Still a bad feat. I recall a feat that gives a +1 non-stacking bonus to bluff/diplomancy/intimidate/
something else (depending on slot used) if you occupy a magic item slot with a non-magical item worth 5% of your WBL. So many restrictions for so little benifit in a game where masterwork tools exist for 50gp and this trait exists (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/traits/equipment-traits/extremely-fashionable) I can't recall the name but god is it bad.

Ostentatious Display is the name of that garbage feat. (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/ostentatious-display)

Coretron03

2016-12-06, 11:43 PM

Psyren

2016-12-07, 12:32 AM

*Inhales* *Exhales* *Inhales* *Exhales*

Yeah, that's what we were talking about. Also, this is part of the reason why PVP scenarios are so stupid. Even if everybody's actually on the same page, they still never prove anything, and I don't even want to count how many words have been wasted on the back and forth of two people who weren't even discussing the same subject.

Yeah, I only just realized you were talking about a specific PvP scenario. Which surprises me even more, because I see them as being every bit as stupid and pointless as you apparently do.

I brought up Cyclonic in the first place as a response to AvatarVecna, whose post simply said "Wind Wall."

Psyren, I'm trying really hard not to lose my **** right now because I respect you a lot and appreciate your insight. BUT NO ONE EVER SAID MARTIALS WERE USELESS. We said that there is a distinct disparity that favors casters over non-casters, to which my point is eminently relevant. The archer will never be able to deal with as many situations as the caster. He will hit a threshold in the game at which point none of the resources he has available will be sufficient to deal with certain types of threats. Without a caster lending him support, he'll probably never live to hit that threshold in the first place. We clear? Non-casters aren't useless, they're just not as good at being adventurers as casters, which is the freaking definition of disparity. You're not going to beat a single AP Paizo has put out with a party full of non-casters without a lot of luck and GM handwaving, but you can do it readily and easily with a party full of casters. Disparity. The wizard has way more tools to play with to turn the encounter in his favor than the archer does, and the archer has severe sunk costs to deal with while the wizard can wake up fresh the next morning with a whole new set up and a bag full of gold. The archer is now deeply sunk in his anti-wizard gear, and doesn't have the defensive tools to deal with virtually any other type of encounter that comes up, while the wizard can freely adjust to whatever new adventure he undertakes. Disparity.

I was honestly getting as frustrated as you are :smallannoyed: "Without a caster lending him support", he still has WBL, and with it, can still take on any CR-appropriate monster in the Bestiary. That is the only relevant standard. As previously stated, PvP is a useless metric in a cooperative game.

Coretron03

2016-12-07, 01:02 AM

khadgar567

2016-12-07, 01:27 AM

I agree with you but the game does say a character with class levels and full wbl have a CR equal to their level. Nitpicking aside some cr 5 monsters are nasty looking through them. One has at will hold monster (only dc 15 though) which is pretty crazy.
cor there is a multi quote button right next to reply with quote text with "+ as its symbol.

Coretron03

2016-12-07, 01:30 AM

So thats what that button does, thankyou.

khadgar567

2016-12-07, 01:45 AM

So thats what that button does, thank you.
no problem

Anlashok

2016-12-07, 01:48 AM

You do realize that in 3.5 they didn't get this ability at all, don't you? If you wanted to craft items before, your options were to be a spellcaster or eat dookie.
Well sure, but just because something is slightly less ****ty doesn't mean it still isn't ****ty.

ryu

2016-12-07, 02:04 AM

Well sure, but just because something is slightly less ****ty doesn't mean it still isn't ****ty.

Indeed. It's like telling a person who lost a leg that you've magically gained the power to effectively grow back limb tissue.... but only halfway and you have to get a prosthetic lower leg to be able to use it effectively... and you have to pay for the leg yourself... and the leg costs several months of your salary.

Ssalarn

2016-12-07, 02:07 AM

I was honestly getting as frustrated as you are :smallannoyed: "Without a caster lending him support", he still has WBL, and with it, can still take on any CR-appropriate monster in the Bestiary. That is the only relevant standard. As previously stated, PvP is a useless metric in a cooperative game.

I doubt that "any CR appropriate monster" is true, particularly if the full set of bestiaries is taken into account. I know it's not true when an actual adventuring day is applied and things like environment and multiple encounters are brought into play.
And I heartily disagree about "can deal with CR appropriate Besitary monsters" being the only relevant standard. I have literal scores, if not hundreds, of published adventures on my shelf, and you know what's true about every single one of them? They feature enemies with class levels. Every. Single. One. Tell me right now that you believe an army of 100 10th level fighters is as powerful as an army of 100 10th level wizards. That a 14th level cleric with 3 planar allies is the exact same challenge as a 14th level fighter by himself. Because the game says they're exactly the same challenge, and I think we all know that they're not.

The ability of one class to kinda-sorta perform okay against CR appropriate foes (and again, there are tons of CR appropriate foes that will annihilate non-casters, starting with swarms and working up from there) is completely, and utterly irrelevant to the topic of class disparity. Seriously. It has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. I'm saying "casters outclass non-casters in virtually every aspect of the game". You're saying "Yeah, but non-casters do okay against most monsters". Both statements are more or less true, and not the least bit contradictory. Non-casters, especially ones built by people with high system mastery like you and I, can handle themselves in most adventures and usually aren't too big a liability in a balanced group. But that balanced group doesn't need a non-caster the way it needs casters, because casters can cover every base a non-caster can and many they cannot. They can tackle many obstacles more effectively and earlier than even UMD pumping Jarlaxle wannabes. Thus, disparity exists.

The game works for you. That's fine. Non-casters can contribute to a group. I don't disagree. Non-casters with wisely spent WBL can deal with most Bestiary challenges at the level they should be encountering them. I actually disagree with you here, but they can deal with a fair number of them, particularly when part of a balanced group. Non-casters can be fun to play. Duh, of course. I've written multiple products focused on non-casting character options. My luchador (http://paizo.com/products/btpy9nv5?The-Luchador) is hands down my favorite class to play right now and not only is it a martial, it's one focused on using CMB and grapples to do almost everything it does, two of the most vocally hated mechanics in PF. I bet my luchador could even take out most casters in a 1v1. Absolutely none of that has anything to do with the fact that casters have more, and more flexible, options, can dip freely into the specialties of non-casters without the inverse being anywhere near as true, have more narrative power, and are pretty much essential for any adventure above 5th level or so. Disparity doesn't care how much fun you're having, whether or not the game works for you, whether you're able to tackle the Bestiary or not, it's a simple function of the relative strength of two item's functions when weighed against each other. If I said a longsword was objectively better than a club, it would be true, but it wouldn't mean that there aren't people who like clubs, or that clubs can't be used to clobber goblins just like the sword. The goblins will probably take longer to clobber with the club, so there's a disparity there, but clubs are still fine for people who want to use them. Wizard has more and better options than Fighter, particularly because his options include the ability to emulate essentially everything a Fighter can do plus a bunch of other stuff. Druid has more and better options than Rogue. Hunter has more and better options than Cavalier. None of that means Fighters, Rogues, and Cavaliers aren't playable, or that you can't have fun with them, or that they can't contribute something to an adventure. It simply means that their options aren't as plentiful and powerful, and thus disparity exists.

Coretron03

2016-12-07, 02:10 AM

Well sure, but just because something is slightly less ****ty doesn't mean it still isn't ****ty.

Like the monk. He gained full bab on flurry and a couple more uses of his abilities per day. plus some other minor stuff (monk archetypes are nice though)

Psyren

2016-12-07, 02:14 AM

I agree with you but the game does say a character with class levels and full wbl have a CR equal to their level. Nitpicking aside some cr 5 monsters are nasty looking through them.

Yes but (N)PC class encounters vary far too much based on the specific options selected. So while that guideline exists, you need a specific NPC to truly judge its CR. A Wizard 20 who is naked and prepared Read Magic in every slot is not actually a CR 20 encounter, whereas a balor is a balor is a balor.

@Ssalarn - I can't speak to every single PF volume as I haven't combed through them, but I'm confident we could build a Fighter X that can handle a given monster X from a Bestiary, following the tactics listed in its entry, where X is its CR.

Well sure, but just because something is slightly less ****ty doesn't mean it still isn't ****ty.

Whining at Paizo when they actually improved the situation seems counterproductive.

ryu

2016-12-07, 02:24 AM

Yes but (N)PC class encounters vary far too much based on the specific options selected. So while that guideline exists, you need a specific NPC to truly judge its CR. A Wizard 20 who is naked and prepared Read Magic in every slot is not actually a CR 20 encounter, whereas a balor is a balor is a balor.

@Ssalarn - I can't speak to every single PF volume as I haven't combed through them, but I'm confident we could build a Fighter X that can handle a given monster X from a Bestiary, following the tactics listed in its entry, where X is its CR.

Whining at Paizo when they actually improved the situation seems counterproductive.

Detailed complaints with direction on how to improve is how you make a situation improve. In response to that issue of crafting things? The answer is to tell them repeatedly, incessantly even, that they didn't go far enough.

Coretron03

2016-12-07, 02:27 AM

Yes but (N)PC class encounters vary far too much based on the specific options selected. So while that guideline exists, you need a specific NPC to truly judge its CR. A Wizard 20 who is naked and prepared Read Magic in every slot is not actually a CR 20 encounter, whereas a balor is a balor is a balor.

@Ssalarn - I can't speak to every single PF volume as I haven't combed through them, but I'm confident we could build a Fighter X that can handle a given monster X from a Bestiary, following the tactics listed in its entry, where X is its CR.

Whining at Paizo when they actually improved the situation seems counterproductive.
A balor that sits prone and does nothing while you kill is not cr 20. Thats the same logic as preping read magic in every slot.

Coidzor

2016-12-07, 02:29 AM

Thank you. Its funny how they wrote "For example, a 6th-level PC gains a +1 bonus on Bluff checks while wearing a gem-studded tiara (which fills the headband slot) worth at least 800 gp" without condisdering a competence item for s +1 bonus cost 50gp with no slot and masterworktools cost 100gp for a +2.

Other way around, actually. +1 Competence is 1*1*100 gp, while a Masterwork Tool is 50 gp, unless it's Artisan Tools which are 55 gp for Masterwork, or an Alchemist Lab, which is 200 gp for the equivalent circumstance bonus.

Whining at Paizo when they actually improved the situation seems counterproductive.

Saying that they didn't do so well isn't whining, especially when others have gone on record in numerous places about alternative lines of reasoning they could or should have gone with instead, broadening discourse.

Unless you mean getting Paizo to change their minds, which honestly is basically impossible to do in a manner that is legal, ethical, and practical. So no forum post or online discourse is productive in the first place, so what does it matter?

Ssalarn

2016-12-07, 02:42 AM

Like the monk. He gained full bab on flurry and a couple more uses of his abilities per day. plus some other minor stuff (monk archetypes are nice though)

Unchained monk is downright decent for a non-caster, though the loss of one of his good saves and the fact that his itty-bitty ki pool has to be stretched over even more abilities than the core monk is a smidge frustrating. Still, if you build them more like E. Honda (STR/WIS/CON in that order, don't worry too much about Dex) they tear it up pretty all right. Of course, UnC monk is kind of like barbarian in that its chassis is basically only technically a non-casting martial thanks to #magicnotmagic giving it a few extra tools to play with. I think if barbarian and UnC monk were kind of the standard for what non-casters should get as part of their toolset, there'd be fewer disparity discussions. Solid at combat, 4+Int skills, no actual spellcasting class feature but just enough magical abilities as your level rises to get by in and out of combat. It wouldn't erase disparity entirely, but it would adjust the gap enough that I think it would narrow inter-party disparity to the point that it would become much less relevant or noticeable.

We've subbed in several different non-casting 3pp classes as issues kept cropping up with the existing ones (particularly Fighter and Rogue), and it's made the games run super smoothly, even the ones run in open play environments where the average maturity level of the players is often much lower than what I experience in my home games with my friends. Even Paizo's newest non-caster, the vigilante, throws out a lot of what used to be true about non-casters and tackles the game in a really great way, with non-magical defenses against magical abilities (like the Dual Identity class feature and the Safehouse talent both protecting against most forms of scrying), great skill functionality, flexible scaling combat features, separate resources for in-combat and out-of-combat abilities, ridiculously archetype friendly modular design, etc. Vigilantes are 100% welcome at all of my tables, and I hope the Paizo design team holds on to everything they learned during the development of that class, because it shows a lot of ideas and design principles that would have made Pathfinder an even better game than it already is if they'd been understood and implemented much earlier.

I guess one of the nicest things about Pathfinder for me is that even though I've seen and experienced the problems, the game exists at a point right now where I can grab a couple 3pp books off the shelf alongside a handful of the Paizo core line books, and quickly offer my players an array of class options that covers nearly every trope imaginable and which can all comfortably coexist alongside each other regardless of play environment, player maturity, or even disparate system mastery to a certain degree. It's one of the more modular crunchy systems out there, which greatly appeals to me.

Coidzor

2016-12-07, 02:55 AM

Going 3rd party does seem to be significantly less taboo, I must admit, as people actually mention it without eliciting (virtual) gasps of shock and horror.

Cosi

2016-12-07, 03:01 AM

Well sure, but just because something is slightly less ****ty doesn't mean it still isn't ****ty.

If PF is going to ask me to give them money for their products, I expect their products to solve the problems they attempt to solve. If they don't do that, why should I give them my money?

I doubt that "any CR appropriate monster" is true, particularly if the full set of bestiaries is taken into account. I know it's not true when an actual adventuring day is applied and things like environment and multiple encounters are brought into play.

Oh, it's obviously and hilariously false. The last time we had this argument Psyren said monsters using their abilities was cheating, blocked Beheld, blocked me, and then wandered off to present the same disproven arguments the next time this debate happened.

If this was a winner for him, he'd run the tests and prove once and for all that Fighters are balanced. The fact that he doesn't after at least two suggestions that he do exactly that is indicative of his lack of faith in his own arguments.

The ability of one class to kinda-sorta perform okay against CR appropriate foes (and again, there are tons of CR appropriate foes that will annihilate non-casters, starting with swarms and working up from there) is completely, and utterly irrelevant to the topic of class disparity.

I think you're doing some (perhaps unintentional) sleight of hand here. Whether or not Fighters can beat up CR = Level monsters is clearly relevant to class balance. But it's a necessary, rather than a sufficient condition. If the Fighter is less able than the Wizard to contribute in combat, that's a source of disparity. If he's equally able, that source of disparity doesn't exist, and he is necessarily closer than he would be otherwise. That doesn't mean he's balanced, but it's wrong to say its "completely, and utterly irrelevant".