Power level and tiers, a perspective from a new player.

[Kuu Lightwing]

Now, I'm the kind of person who reads a lot of stuff about DnD, but haven't played that many games, so I still consider myself a new player. But I'm fully aware about this (and other) board's perspective on class tiers and caster/martial disparity, and I do understand what's the difference in versatility between a fighter and a wizard.

However, I've seen (and participated) a couple of high-OP games and some low-OP ones, and it always strikes me as if a well-built martial class brings the most "power". Currently, we are playing at level 9, and the party composition is the following: Ultimate Magus, Dweomerkeeper (both casters are played by players who can optimize really well), a fairly straightforward charger, a Spellthief with some homebrew tweaks, and my character - a homebrewed class, which is basically a psionic Duskblade/Swiftblade specialized in close combat.

The thing is, it seems like the most problem the DM has is with the fact that the charger can one or two-shot the most enemies. Our high-OP players are actually playing in a party-friendly way: Ultimate Magus mostly provides utility (Ethereal Mount, Rope Trick) and battlefield control, buffs and debuffs (Enlarge Person, Unluck, Solid Fog) and Dweomerkeeper persists two buffs (Righteous Wrath of the Faithful and Recitation) and AFAIK he can 1/day cast Revivify without material components, but most of the time he waits until something happens.

Now, I'll admit, that's pretty damn strong, and boosts the combat effectiveness of the charger (and my character) a lot, but the sheer amount of damage that comes from Shock Trooper, Leap Attack and Whirling Frenzy alone is much more noticeable - even if he didn't have those buffs, he would do less damage, but still we're talking about 150+ damage per round.

So, it's pretty hard to say that that class is underpowered in some way. Sure, he doesn't have a versatility, and can't for example charge flying enemies, but in that case the best solution for our party is to cast Fly on him. Basically if we want something dead - the best way to do it, is to make sure that the charger can charge it.

And it does create a relatively nice party dynamic - casters provide buffs, BFC and utility, the charger provides damage, and the Spellthief provides scouting, rogue-ish things and debuffs to a degree. Now, my character is a bit of a black sheep in there, because the original concept can be summed as a "small smart fighter" - while not as good at dealing damage as the charger, she is very mobile and has good defenses as well as some additional tricks up her sleeve. So, due to her high AC, miss chance and Elan Resilience, she can actually play some sort of a "tank" role - as long as DM doesn't ignore her and murderizes the charger instead (which he thankfully doesn't do).

So, what am I missing? Is a character that's extremely competent in one field is still considered underpowered if he can't contribute in other fields, provided that the field he is competent in is a significant part of the game? Can a fighter be a problem if he's optimized to deal absurd amounts of damage? (Disclaimer: I do not suggest that the fighter in our party does or does not do absurd amounts of damage)

[Zanos]

You aren't missing anything. Wizards are more mechanically capable than chargers, but when people spend too much time on the forums without actually sitting down and playing, they forgot that, for the vast majority of DMs, their encounters can be solved by killing every enemy in one hit.

Doing a whole bunch of damage is only bad when you forget that enemies without any health can't act.

[Harlekin]

There are to points to consider:

1. In combat, the Charger does contribute significantly to the party, maybe even more then the two casters. But I guess the casters could also one-shot many enemies, even turning them into allies (animate dead, dominate etc.) if they weren't deliberatly holding back.

2. Out of combat the two casters are still contributing to the party, and the charger does next to nothing.

So IF your game is combat focused and the casters focus on buffing the fighters, it might seem like the fighters are contributing more. But the fighters always depend on the casters (enlarge, fly, haste, etc.) while the casters could become buffed fighters themself (polymorph) or call their extraplanar friends (planar binding, summon, etc.) to replace the fighters.

[Kelb_Panthera]

The so called "uselessness" of melee types is -grossly- exaggerated on a lot of these forums. Somebody actually has to do the HP damage to keep enemies down in a combat scenario.

There are those that would argue "summons/ called creatures/ etc" do it well enough but they simply -don't- do it nearly as well as an actual martial character and burn more resources to replace him than they would otherwise have to for completing the same fight.

You could hit them with SoD's or set them up for a coup-de-grace and do it youself but that pidgeon-holes you into -only- doing that and different SoD's are needed when immunities start popping up.

Mailman is a solid substitute but that eats a pretty good chunk of your character and -all- you have outside of that is your basic spell-casting.

When the party works together, as your seems to, it's just plain more efficient for the designated damage dealer to be the one doing the damage. That's why he's there, so the others don't -have- to do a lot of damage.

Outside of combat, he doesn't actually do much, I'd wager. I'm sure he gives his input on group plans and talk-encounters (since you don't have a face character) but the casters have spells to solve non-combat problems, the spellthief has his skills, but the charger; all he's got is the option to turn the encounter into a fight by turning somebody into hamburger.

[tensai_oni]

This sounds like people are holding back: the casters are holding back by not going full Batman Wizard, and utilizing their spells in teamwork-friendly ways. Remember, if buffs make the melee fighter more powerful or crowd control allows them to kill enemies one by one because most of them are immobilized, then it's still thanks to the spellcaster even though technically the spellcaster didn't kill anyone or deal any damage.

On the other hand, the DM is also holding back by not introducing en masse enemies who are invisible, flying, immaterial or otherwise annoying to deal with for melee fighters.

I make it sound like people are taking this lightly but I actually don't mean it as a bad thing. It's actually really good and by keeping themselves in check, both parties ensure the game stays fun for everyone. If you don't hold back, the game turns into wars of pure cheese with people who lack the cheese sitting in the middle, bored and feeling unnecessary.

[Pleh]

It sounds like your dm has a good balance going on in the challenges. That is excellent.

When the dm does their job right, disparity and balance become infinitesimally minute as if they didn't exist.

Most tables probably don't struggle with it all that often. But, to be fair, I've heard disparity and balance don't really start to become a problem until level 8 and 9 in general.

It may just be that your game hasn't gone long enough for the disparity to bleed through.

[Fizban]

Like the others said, you're not missing anything and this is pretty much the expected result from any group that's working together instead of against each other.

[Thaneus]

*Thumps up for team-play*
The BSF does, what the BSF has to do and the Wizards contribute:
Make BSF strong, weaken the enemy. Let them think they did their share of the job, the wizards have INT to employ Teamplay, not to work their ass of to do all alone.

[Eldariel]

It's trivial to build a caster that's also the charger. I did a quick level 11 Cleric Charger here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?314454-3-5-Cleric-Charger) for instance. They even have an easier time setting up themselves to charge and to get the bonuses. It's not that warriors are better at it than casters, it's just that warriors can only do it while casters can do anything, so casters usually leave it up to warriors in name of keeping everyone useful and the party somewhat relevant. But you can easily build a party of only casters that won't miss anything a non-caster would contribute. That's not saying you should, but this is not a balancing factor. And yes, higher optimization levels require more work from the DM too, to keep enemies from being trivial. You have to design creatures and the world on the same optimization level as the party.

[Mrs Kat]

I think this kind of thing also depends on the scope of the campaign- if it simply consists of a series of rooms in which you kill monsters, then yes, your assessment is pretty accurate. A big part of a caster's power is actually problem solving - Mr Wizarrd can construct a handy wall to repair the dam, or teleport you out of Mordor, or scry the exact location of the Mcguffin, all feats that would be difficult to achieve with Power Attack alone. These tasks can be just as big a part of your story as defeating monsters.

[OldTrees1]

Now, I'm the kind of person who reads a lot of stuff about DnD, but haven't played that many games, so I still consider myself a new player. But I'm fully aware about this (and other) board's perspective on class tiers and caster/martial disparity, and I do understand what's the difference in versatility between a fighter and a wizard.

So, what am I missing? Is a character that's extremely competent in one field is still considered underpowered if he can't contribute in other fields, provided that the field he is competent in is a significant part of the game? Can a fighter be a problem if he's optimized to deal absurd amounts of damage? (Disclaimer: I do not suggest that the fighter in our party does or does not do absurd amounts of damage)

The design question between a "usually extremely competent but occasionally useless Fighter" and a "usually competent but occasionally merely useful Fighter" is not one about power/underpowered/overpowered. It is about what mixtures of characters the game/game designer expects it can handle as a party.

I am under the game design philosophy that includes both
"Sitting and being unable to contribute detracts from my gaming experience"
"A party comprised of characters that are useless in that kind of encounter, is useless in that kind of encounter."
Thus I have a design preference for characters to only run into true uselessness a vanishingly small fraction of the time.

[Troacctid]

If your only experience with martials is on an ubercharger build, I'm not surprised they seem overpowered to you. Uberchargers are dumb.

Most martials are not uberchargers.

[Cosi]

The people talking about how this is "good teamwork" and proves that martials are valuable if you don't try to overshadow them are missing the point. Yes, the party of Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Ubercharger is better than the party of Wizard, Cleric, Druid. But it's worse than the party of Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Dread Necromancer, and because rational people think on the margin, the Ubercharger is making the party weaker.


The so called "uselessness" of melee types is -grossly- exaggerated on a lot of these forums. Somebody actually has to do the HP damage to keep enemies down in a combat scenario.

Yeah, like a Druid in Wild Shape or a Cleric with divine power.


There are those that would argue "summons/ called creatures/ etc" do it well enough but they simply -don't- do it nearly as well as an actual martial character and burn more resources to replace him than they would otherwise have to for completing the same fight.

planar binding doesn't burn resources today. It burns them a week ago when they don't have anything else to do. Listen to yourself. You're arguing that planar binding is less valuable to the party than a Fighter.


You could hit them with SoD's or set them up for a coup-de-grace and do it youself but that pidgeon-holes you into -only- doing that and different SoD's are needed when immunities start popping up.

And this is worse than losing to enemies that fly because?


Mailman is a solid substitute but that eats a pretty good chunk of your character and -all- you have outside of that is your basic spell-casting.

Oh my god! All I have is more damage than the Ubercharger and more non-combat abilities than the Ubercharger! Whatever will I do with myself?

[Flickerdart]

If the DM only presents encounters that the ubercharger can solve, the ubercharger will appear to be powerful.

As soon as the DM presents different encounters, the ubercharger will no longer be powerful, because he has no way to adapt. The other classes will go on being just as good as usual.

[Kelb_Panthera]

If your only experience with martials is on an ubercharger build, I'm not surprised they seem overpowered to you. Uberchargers are dumb.

Most martials are not uberchargers.

I wouldn't say "dumb" but they are very one-way. When nothing you've got is as spiffy as your hammer, everything starts to look like some kind of nail. With a couple of casters helping, though, it's one hell of a spiffy hammer.

You're right that most martials aren't chargers though.

[ComaVision]

I had an ubercharger in my last campaign and it caused a little more work on my end but didn't bother me.

Some challenges I used:
-Flying enemies. Even with Fly he was usually slower.
-Spring Attack
-Elusive Target
-Abusing Delay Death to be immune to death from hp damage
-Using several weaker but spread out enemies
-High damage. He'd reconsider using Shock Trooper if he just lost half his hp in one hit.
-Enemies target his support.
-Invisibility or other concealment
-Immediate action teleports
-Celerity

To be clear, this was over a 10 month campaign. I very often let the ubercharger just do his thing and be a hero. In his words, "I like that the game is challenging but we also feel powerful." (Best compliment I've received as DM.)

[Troacctid]

The people talking about how this is "good teamwork" and proves that martials are valuable if you don't try to overshadow them are missing the point. Yes, the party of Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Ubercharger is better than the party of Wizard, Cleric, Druid. But it's worse than the party of Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Dread Necromancer, and because rational people think on the margin, the Ubercharger is making the party weaker.
I actually disagree. The ubercharger is very powerful. The problem with it is that a straight barbarian ubercharger is pretty much always worse than an ubercharger who dips barbarian and then goes into a class whose class features don't basically stop after 2 levels—such as, for example, a casting class.

[Cosi]

I actually disagree. The ubercharger is very powerful. The problem with it is that a straight barbarian ubercharger is pretty much always worse than an ubercharger who dips barbarian and then goes into a class whose class features don't basically stop after 2 levels—such as, for example, a casting class.

If all you want is pounce, play a full caster and use form changing shenanigans to get it somewhere. Then layer on a bunch of buffs and hit things really hard while also being a demigod, and not losing any caster levels. It doesn't come together until mid levels, but neither do the Ubercharger's damage multipliers.

[Twurps]

In a good group (by which I mean: Casters don't go TO and help the martials out with buffs, bfc, etc. DM is able to to present chalenges that engage the entire party and make them feal usefull) an ubercharger (or any well built martial) can function just fine at lvl9 and below.

I had a group much like this, and it functioned fine up to about lvl 15-16, maybe a little before that. After that, there's just nothing the martial can do that the wizard can't do better/faster etc.

Need intel: wizard can cry
need to go places: wizard can teleport
need a message delivered? wizard has a spell
need something dead? wizard makes it so.

Exept for the 'getting something killed part, not much a martial can contribute, and even there he's not really needed.

[Kelb_Panthera]

The people talking about how this is "good teamwork" and proves that martials are valuable if you don't try to overshadow them are missing the point. Yes, the party of Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Ubercharger is better than the party of Wizard, Cleric, Druid. But it's worse than the party of Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Dread Necromancer, and because rational people think on the margin, the Ubercharger is making the party weaker.

Fun fact: you don't get to pick what somebody else at the table is playing. If the other guy doesn't want to play a caster, you're getting either a martial or a skill monkey. Deal.

That said, nobody does what a martial does -better- than he does it. Casters can use spells to ape it but unless they make themselves wholly into martial-caster hybrids (talking build options here), they're just not as good at it.


Yeah, like a Druid in Wild Shape or a Cleric with divine power.

Both of which do far less damage than any charger.


planar binding doesn't burn resources today. It burns them a week ago when they don't have anything else to do. Listen to yourself. You're arguing that planar binding is less valuable to the party than a Fighter.

Because it's true. What're going to bind that's as skilled in combat as a well built fighter with full WBL? Nothing, that's what. Nevermind that any bound minion is likely actively hostile toward you if it's been given the kind of raw treatment people bring up for "proper" binding.


And this is worse than losing to enemies that fly because?

Chargers don't lose to flying enemies. They acquire a means of flight ASAP, same as every other character without a friendly buff-caster. If you've got the wrong SoD for the enemy at hand, it's still almost certainly vulnerable to Hp damage, innit? That's the point; almost nothing is immune to HP damage and a charger delivers it in amounts that are no save, just die


Oh my god! All I have is more damage than the Ubercharger and more non-combat abilities than the Ubercharger! Whatever will I do with myself?

None of the things you might otherwise have chosen to do with your build. That's part of my point; if there's no warrior (and let's be absolutely clear that the choice is warrior or nothing since the other guy would've built a caster if he wanted to play one) then you have to expend resources on covering that gap and it's -not- a trivial thing to cover if you want to do better than half-ass it.

[Mato]

So, what am I missing?Perception vs reality.

Like Zanos is partially correct, it seems most people posting on the forums here play very little D&D and unlike won't admit they are new or don't know something. You also have loads of confirmation bias and mishandling fallacies like "if it beats that monster, then it's the powerful!". But basically tiers are like power levels which are a lot like the points on Whose Line Is It Anyway? The most well known set is wrong & misleading but designed to be argumentative enough that anyone can argue for or against something and hate germs spread faster than anything else (see the 2016 election). And one of things it can't agree on is one half to the biggest element in the game, the player's ability. And the other half is the DM, which it doesn't even think deserves a mention.

If something is working on your table top you'd doing something right no matter how much it disagrees with what someone says on here. And if something isn't working, then pick and choose what advice you listen to carefully.

[Cosi]

Fun fact: you don't get to pick what somebody else at the table is playing. If the other guy doesn't want to play a caster, you're getting either a martial or a skill monkey. Deal.

That doesn't mean non-casters are bring the power. It just means you have to deal with them sucking.


Both of which do far less damage than any charger.

Not true, but it doesn't really matter because both do enough to kill anything you're likely to go up against in one hit.


Because it's true. What're going to bind that's as skilled in combat as a well built fighter with full WBL? Nothing, that's what. Nevermind that any bound minion is likely actively hostile toward you if it's been given the kind of raw treatment people bring up for "proper" binding.

Oh, I see what the problem is. You're using the singular. It's not "thing" it's "things". Maybe one Bebilith isn't beating the Fighter, but eight?


None of the things you might otherwise have chosen to do with your build. That's part of my point; if there's no warrior (and let's be absolutely clear that the choice is warrior or nothing since the other guy would've built a caster if he wanted to play one) then you have to expend resources on covering that gap and it's -not- a trivial thing to cover if you want to do better than half-ass it.

Sure, maybe it costs more than just being a BFCer would. But it still costs less than not being a caster at all would.

[Hecuba]

So, what am I missing?

3.5 is an incredibly vast system and supports a wide variety of modes of play.

The mode of play you are describing appears to be mostly tactical. This is the classical mode of play for Dungeons & Dragons. You take the encounters as presented and attempt to overcome them. In strictly tactical play, the tier discrepancy is less pronounced than some of the more hyperbolic posts might indicate. (It still exists in many cases, but in my experience it usually only becomes pronounced when highlighted by differences in system mastery, which is a more fundamental issue that the DM needs to address - likely by asking the higher system mastery players to tone down some visable charop by taking team-centric builds, which your DM appears to be doing).

3.5 also supports a strategic landscape fairly well, and this represents an area where tier 5-4 characters have some difficulty keeping up with tier 3+ characters. Casters can reasonably level an enemy keep rather than storm it, or send ice assassins to kill the evil wizard instead of fighting him directly.

Martial characters perform fine in combat encounters: at high char-op, casters can solve problems that are typically the end-goals of campaigns without directly being involved in combats encounters.

[martixy]

If your only experience with martials is on an ubercharger build, I'm not surprised they seem overpowered to you. Uberchargers are dumb.

Most martials are not uberchargers.

Also: boring, cliched, overexposed.

They way I see the problem with martials isn't that they're underpowered.
It's that the selection of martials that can measure up in contribution to casters is severely limited.

The amount of associated concepts you can bring to life with a caster overshadows what you can do with a martial.
By "associated concept" here I mean a character where the mechanics uphold the fluff.

[Kelb_Panthera]

That doesn't mean non-casters are bring the power. It just means you have to deal with them sucking.

Your bias is showing, hard. As the OP has noted, dealing with their "sucking" is not only trivial but, since it lets the other players contribute minimally to that particular area and focus on what they want to do, it actually makes the game more fun for everyone involved.

The simple fact is that the role of "killer of the things" has to be filled somehow and somebody filling it with their whole character unambiguously -is- contributing to the party. Not as much as -you- apparently think is minimally acceptable but that makes you an elitist, it doesn't make them "suck."


Not true, but it doesn't really matter because both do enough to kill anything you're likely to go up against in one hit.

LOL, no. Not unless they make -themselves- into chargers. Which is part of what I said.


Oh, I see what the problem is. You're using the singular. It's not "thing" it's "things". Maybe one Bebilith isn't beating the Fighter, but eight?

Right, because trying to keep a lid on that cauldron couldn't possibly go wrong. Also, kinda telling that you need multiple minions to equal one well built warrior. Finally, rather inconvenient that your party's meat-shields can be banished and/or warded out of an area entirely.

Love how advocates of this path conveniently forget that called creatures are NPC's and that binding usually makes them actively hostile.


Sure, maybe it costs more than just being a BFCer would. But it still costs less than not being a caster at all would.

It costs you the opportunity to be any other kind of caster than a mediocre one. The resources you spend on damage dealing in this way preclude you from spending them on being a better caster because you're filling a role a guy with a pointy stick can. If you wanted to play a non-caster at all, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

The question isn't one of choosing whether -you're- going to play a caster, that decision was clearly made long ago, never to be revisited. It's a question of whether you're going to work -with- the non-caster or waste resources stepping on his toes and alienate another player in the group.

Some of us -like- playing warriors for any of a variety of reasons. Stop telling us we're doing it wrong by making that choice.

[Lans]

Uber charging does a ton of damage, but its shutdown worse than archery by magic.

Blockade, grease, being on higher ground, having a 1 hd skeleton between you and the charger, being behind a tree.

Remember you can't charge up with most sources of flying.

[Kuu Lightwing]

Thanks for the answers, guys!

I want to make a few comments, though:

Troacctid, the ubercharger is not the only martial type I know about, I merely used that as an example. I just think that when DM thinks "my monsters all are dying in one shot, I kinda want to maximize their HP" it does not happen because of casters. I'm not even saying that they are overpowered, but I want to say that they seem to be far from irrelvant and completely overshadowed. I'm also having a sneaking suspicion that the fighter in our game is also going for tripping in addition to charging, so that's not the only thing he would be able to do in combat.

Kelb_Panthera, currently our party is exploring an old temple in the middle of a desert, so the only social encounter we had so far was with the inhabitants of a Fey Oasis, which has been solved by our Spellthief. But yes, he's not that good at dealing with non-combat encounters, although he has the highest Survival bonus, so he's also our guide in the desert.

And like I said, I know that casters provide more versatility outside of combat, however I'm questioning the notion that this makes non-casters inherently underpowered, which is why an ubercharger comes into play - a character that's overly competent at one thing still could be a "problem" even if he can't contribute in other situations. If anything, it creates even more problems - because by "nerfing" him through unfavorable circumstances

I see the argument that a caster could be built into a martial, though, and I guess that might be a bit of a problem. But so far from what I've seen, it requires some non-obvious optimization to make it work better than a dedicated non-caster martial.

[Cosi]

The simple fact is that the role of "killer of the things" has to be filled somehow and somebody filling it with their whole character unambiguously -is- contributing to the party. Not as much as -you- apparently think is minimally acceptable but that makes you an elitist, it doesn't make them "suck."

So what is the line, exactly? A Commoner contributes to the party by virtue of carrying loot and making Aid Another checks. Is calling him terrible "elitist"?


LOL, no. Not unless they make -themselves- into chargers. Which is part of what I said.

Or just stack a bunch of buffs. Go read about the Cleric Archer. Making a Cleric that is better than the Fighter has been a solved problem since Bush was president.


Right, because trying to keep a lid on that cauldron couldn't possibly go wrong. Also, kinda telling that you need multiple minions to equal one well built warrior. Finally, rather inconvenient that your party's meat-shields can be banished and/or warded out of an area entirely.

The game doesn't care how many tokens you put on the battlemap, it cares how many people are in your actual party. If the Wizard can put down a Fighter's worth of force and also a Wizard, it doesn't matter if that's one buff guy or a bunch of minions.

Of course, save-or-dies do exist, but Fighters can also be hit by save-or-dies.


Love how advocates of this path conveniently forget that called creatures are NPC's and that binding usually makes them actively hostile.

I see nothing to support that, and of course you could just use Diplomacy to make the Helpful if it did work that way.


It costs you the opportunity to be any other kind of caster than a mediocre one.

Which, again, is still more casting than the "none" the Fighter gets. Learn how marginal costs work.


Some of us -like- playing warriors for any of a variety of reasons. Stop telling us we're doing it wrong by making that choice.

Some of us like playing Commoners for any of a variety of reasons. Stop telling us we're doing it wrong by making that choice.

[Gnaeus]

I see the argument that a caster could be built into a martial, though, and I guess that might be a bit of a problem. But so far from what I've seen, it requires some non-obvious optimization to make it work better than a dedicated non-caster martial.

Depends on type. A Fighter actually requires non obvious optimization (like a barbarian dip with an ACF for pounce and figuring out how shock trooper charge builds work) to work better than a bear form Druid + his bear pet. Martials like monk or TWF ranger have to work even harder, and might not beat the pet alone.

[Mrc.]

At early levels where the casters have spells that aren't genuinely game-breaking then it's easily possible for martial characters to outshine them. E6 exists for a reason, and even your campaign at 9th level is fine. Most of the truly broken stuff for casters comes with 8th and 9th level spells (it's no coincidence that all tier 1 and 2 classes are full casters or near as makes no difference) and yeah, if your campaign carries on for another seven or eight levels the charger might find himself overshadowed, but he's just hitting his powerspike so it makes sense that he feels strong.

[Tuvarkz]

It is not only versatility outside of combat (http://suptg.thisisnotatrueending.com/archive/33971823/images/1407528002063.png)-there's enemies that a typical martial (fighter and bunch) outright can't deal with.

It is also a character's ability to affect the story. Sure, some martials can get some face skills and talk their way through things if they invest into it. A wizard can easily supplant people, dominate them, use illusions and glamers to fool entire populations etc etc, while barely weakning their potential in other areas. Or alternatively, long range teleportations, resurrections, and other story-affecting tools that no martial could even come close to replicating.

[Flickerdart]

At early levels where the casters have spells that aren't genuinely game-breaking then it's easily possible for martial characters to outshine them. E6 exists for a reason, and even your campaign at 9th level is fine. Most of the truly broken stuff for casters comes with 8th and 9th level spells (it's no coincidence that all tier 1 and 2 classes are full casters or near as makes no difference) and yeah, if your campaign carries on for another seven or eight levels the charger might find himself overshadowed, but he's just hitting his powerspike so it makes sense that he feels strong.

There's a reason E6 ends at 6. No need to wait until 8s and 9s, there are plenty of 4th level spells that propel casters into a different kind of game entirely.

4th gives us polymorph, dimension door, scrying, lesser geas, animate dead. What does Sir Waves-a-stick get that compares to minionmancy, strategic-scale divination, turning into dragons, and noping straight out of combat?

[Troacctid]

Troacctid, the ubercharger is not the only martial type I know about, I merely used that as an example. I just think that when DM thinks "my monsters all are dying in one shot, I kinda want to maximize their HP" it does not happen because of casters. I'm not even saying that they are overpowered, but I want to say that they seem to be far from irrelvant and completely overshadowed. I'm also having a sneaking suspicion that the fighter in our game is also going for tripping in addition to charging, so that's not the only thing he would be able to do in combat.
Uberchargers are the only ones who can reliably one-shot enemies better than casters. Tripping is not exactly amazing.

[Kelb_Panthera]

So what is the line, exactly? A Commoner contributes to the party by virtue of carrying loot and making Aid Another checks. Is calling him terrible "elitist"?

Calling an NPC class that was designed to be the worst class in the game terrible is more tautological than elitist.

Calling him worthless would be though.


Or just stack a bunch of buffs. Go read about the Cleric Archer. Making a Cleric that is better than the Fighter has been a solved problem since Bush was president.

Go reread it yourself. Then realize that it's a cleric built to be a martial character rather than a caster. Burn a bunch of build options and a chunk of daily options every day to do what a martial does and you get to near parity. Whoop-de-freakin'-do.


The game doesn't care how many tokens you put on the battlemap, it cares how many people are in your actual party. If the Wizard can put down a Fighter's worth of force and also a Wizard, it doesn't matter if that's one buff guy or a bunch of minions.

BS. Gameplay gets dragged out by ever increasing numbers of tokens on the board. Even if you're -really- organized, you can't help but take a bit longer with your turn -and- you're hogging the spotlight. And again, you're missing the point that having a fighter in the party obviates the need to burn those resources, no matter how trivial you may see them as being, and lacks a number of drawbacks associated with minionmancy.


Of course, save-or-dies do exist, but Fighters can also be hit by save-or-dies.

Different minion types come with -extra- SoD's or, worse, save or become an enemy.


I see nothing to support that, and of course you could just use Diplomacy to make the Helpful if it did work that way.

I'll spell it out for you: are the called minions your character? No. Therefore they are NPC's, by definition.

The planar binding spell itself states that a bound creature may seek revenge and that they can subvert the intention of your order when performing an assigned task. The spell openly assumes its subject is hostile to you, as is perfectly reasonable for an NPC you've trappped and are forcing into servitude.

And don't give me diplomancy. No one plays diplomacy as written. It's well known for being the single most easily/inherently broken bit of the rules in the entire game. It's pretty much the only thing we all but literally -all- agree on. Even then, it's an afterthought and probably not a class-skill.


Which, again, is still more casting than the "none" the Fighter gets. Learn how marginal costs work.

Casting isn't the goal. It's your goal. Some players don't want it and they certainly don't need it to contribute to the party. For the record, I actually -do- play casters as well as melee. It's a matter of which I'm in the mood for when it's time for a new character.


Some of us like playing Commoners for any of a variety of reasons. Stop telling us we're doing it wrong by making that choice.

That's your argument, not mine. If somebody wants to play a commoner, I'll help him optimize his commoner. It's obviously going to have to lean heavily on WBL-mancy but it can be made at least functional, if not mind-blowing.


It is not only versatility outside of combat (http://suptg.thisisnotatrueending.com/archive/33971823/images/1407528002063.png)-there's enemies that a typical martial (fighter and bunch) outright can't deal with.

Not on class features alone, no. Playing a martial to full effectiveness requires better WBL leveraging skill than playing a caster. There aren't many foes a properly kitted martial outright -can't- deal with at all, even if some are more troublesome than others.


It is also a character's ability to affect the story. Sure, some martials can get some face skills and talk their way through things if they invest into it. A wizard can easily supplant people, dominate them, use illusions and glamers to fool entire populations etc etc, while barely weakning their potential in other areas. Or alternatively, long range teleportations, resurrections, and other story-affecting tools that no martial could even come close to replicating.

... and? The plot* is up to the GM. A caster has abilities that can take a lot of the weight of determining how the plot will progress off the GM's shoulders but he can't remove it entirely. If a martial isn't contributing to the story at all, either he doesn't want to or the GM has erred. He absolutely will have less ability to direct the story than a caster but direction isn't the only way to contribute either.

*using the term "plot" very loosely here. Obviously, I'm not advocating for excessive railroading here unless the players don't -want- to be proactive.

[Troacctid]

And don't give me diplomancy. No one plays diplomacy as written.
*Raises hand* I do.

[ComaVision]

*Raises hand* I do.

I do, too. I haven't seen a "fixed" version that I actually thought was an improvement.

[Kelb_Panthera]

*Raises hand* I do.


I do, too. I haven't seen a "fixed" version that I actually thought was an improvement.

Do you? Or do you just ignore those rules entirely and roleplay everything out with minimal rolls when they're absolutely necessary?

[Cosi]

Calling an NPC class that was designed to be the worst class in the game terrible is more tautological than elitist.

Calling him worthless would be though.

You're splitting hairs. I don't see any real (tonal) difference between saying someone's character is "terrible" and saying it's "worthless".


BS. Gameplay gets dragged out by ever increasing numbers of tokens on the board. Even if you're -really- organized, you can't help but take a bit longer with your turn -and- you're hogging the spotlight.

And don't give me diplomancy. No one plays diplomacy as written. It's well known for being the single most easily/inherently broken bit of the rules in the entire game. It's pretty much the only thing we all but literally -all- agree on. Even then, it's an afterthought and probably not a class-skill.

The fact that a power is annoying to use doesn't make it not exist.


And again, you're missing the point that having a fighter in the party obviates the need to burn those resources, no matter how trivial you may see them as being, and lacks a number of drawbacks associated with minionmancy.

Go reread it yourself. Then realize that it's a cleric built to be a martial character rather than a caster. Burn a bunch of build options and a chunk of daily options every day to do what a martial does and you get to near parity. Whoop-de-freakin'-do.

It also obviates having those resources at all. If you spend anything less than 100% of a caster's resources to replace the Fighter, you are coming out ahead by replacing the Fighter. Seriously, look up the definition of marginal cost.


Different minion types come with -extra- SoD's or, worse, save or become an enemy.

Again, think on the margin. dismissal on a member of your demon horde is not really better than finger of death on your Fighter. In fact, it's probably worse (relatively speaking) because the best case is a 10% drop in effectiveness rather than 100%.


The planar binding spell itself states that a bound creature may seek revenge and that they can subvert the intention of your order when performing an assigned task. The spell openly assumes its subject is hostile to you, as is perfectly reasonable for an NPC you've trappped and are forcing into servitude.

The words "may" and "will" are different. You can tell, because when I say "you may give me $2000" you are under no obligation to do so.

[ComaVision]

Do you? Or do you just ignore those rules entirely and roleplay everything out with minimal rolls when they're absolutely necessary?

I currently have a diplomancer with +60 in my game and I let him talk down basically anything he can communicate with.

[Troacctid]

Do you? Or do you just ignore those rules entirely and roleplay everything out with minimal rolls when they're absolutely necessary?
I mean, I ignore the Epic rules because I only include 3.0 material on a case-by-case basis. So if that's what you're referring to, okay. But other than that, I play it by the book.

As for Planar Binding, it's generally a less powerful effect than "Hey, can my friend Kyle join the campaign?" and I usually allow that one, so, meh, I guess?

[Flickerdart]

As for Planar Binding, it's generally a less powerful effect than "Hey, can my friend Kyle join the campaign?" and I usually allow that one, so, meh, I guess?

Planar binding grants you unlimited Kyles, and the Kyles gain the ability to choose normally unavailable races. The Kyles also don't take a share of treasure, and don't raise the party EL.

[Troacctid]

Planar binding grants you unlimited Kyles, and the Kyles gain the ability to choose normally unavailable races. The Kyles also don't take a share of treasure, and don't raise the party EL.
It still costs time and money, both of which are limited resources with meaningful opportunity costs, so it's not like you can just endlessly spam it.

[Flickerdart]

It still costs time and money, both of which are limited resources with meaningful opportunity costs, so it's not like you can just endlessly spam it.

Money is a joke, and campaigns with literally zero downtime forever are very rare and don't usually make much sense.

[Troacctid]

I use Adventurers League downtime rules. They're very effective.

[Waazraath]

Now, I'm the kind of person who reads a lot of stuff about DnD, but haven't played that many games, so I still consider myself a new player. But I'm fully aware about this (and other) board's perspective on class tiers and caster/martial disparity, and I do understand what's the difference in versatility between a fighter and a wizard.

However, I've seen (and participated) a couple of high-OP games and some low-OP ones, and it always strikes me as if a well-built martial class brings the most "power". Currently, we are playing at level 9, and the party composition is the following: Ultimate Magus, Dweomerkeeper (both casters are played by players who can optimize really well), a fairly straightforward charger, a Spellthief with some homebrew tweaks, and my character - a homebrewed class, which is basically a psionic Duskblade/Swiftblade specialized in close combat.

The thing is, it seems like the most problem the DM has is with the fact that the charger can one or two-shot the most enemies. Our high-OP players are actually playing in a party-friendly way: Ultimate Magus mostly provides utility (Ethereal Mount, Rope Trick) and battlefield control, buffs and debuffs (Enlarge Person, Unluck, Solid Fog) and Dweomerkeeper persists two buffs (Righteous Wrath of the Faithful and Recitation) and AFAIK he can 1/day cast Revivify without material components, but most of the time he waits until something happens.

Now, I'll admit, that's pretty damn strong, and boosts the combat effectiveness of the charger (and my character) a lot, but the sheer amount of damage that comes from Shock Trooper, Leap Attack and Whirling Frenzy alone is much more noticeable - even if he didn't have those buffs, he would do less damage, but still we're talking about 150+ damage per round.

So, it's pretty hard to say that that class is underpowered in some way. Sure, he doesn't have a versatility, and can't for example charge flying enemies, but in that case the best solution for our party is to cast Fly on him. Basically if we want something dead - the best way to do it, is to make sure that the charger can charge it.

And it does create a relatively nice party dynamic - casters provide buffs, BFC and utility, the charger provides damage, and the Spellthief provides scouting, rogue-ish things and debuffs to a degree. Now, my character is a bit of a black sheep in there, because the original concept can be summed as a "small smart fighter" - while not as good at dealing damage as the charger, she is very mobile and has good defenses as well as some additional tricks up her sleeve. So, due to her high AC, miss chance and Elan Resilience, she can actually play some sort of a "tank" role - as long as DM doesn't ignore her and murderizes the charger instead (which he thankfully doesn't do).

So, what am I missing? Is a character that's extremely competent in one field is still considered underpowered if he can't contribute in other fields, provided that the field he is competent in is a significant part of the game? Can a fighter be a problem if he's optimized to deal absurd amounts of damage? (Disclaimer: I do not suggest that the fighter in our party does or does not do absurd amounts of damage)

In my experience: nothing. I think you're playing the game as inteded. Cool.

Of course, 3.x offers the possiblity to play this game in a lot of ways. You can build campaigns, completely RAW, with monsters according to the CR system, where it totally sucks to be a non caster. You can also build one where you can go from level 1-20 without it being any problem. This is one of the reasons these topics often end up in people claiming different stuff, with a lot of emotion. (the other reason being hey, the internet).

But as mentioned, in my experience, you are right. I've never seen the whole martial / caster disparity become problematic at a table during actual play (unlike on internet fora) until level 12-15, neither with the optimizer crowd, nor with the newbs I've played with. Caster rescources are still limited enough to count, at level 9. At the earliest levels (1-4), martials are in my experience flat out better than most casters. At later levels, a good DM should still be able to challenge its players, also casters. Like by giving quests that don't allow a 5 minute adventuring day, using surprise attacks, the occasional day with a lot more encounters than usual to make classes with limited rescourses (like spells) be a bit more careful with spending them, etc.

My 2 cents.

[Kelb_Panthera]

You're splitting hairs. I don't see any real (tonal) difference between saying someone's character is "terrible" and saying it's "worthless".

You're conflating class and character. The class (commoner) is terrible. That doesn't mean steve's commoner is terrible.

I'm not really sure where to go from here if you don't get the difference between terrible, a subjective judgment, and worthless, an objectively measureable assessment. Something with a low worth is not worthless even if it is "terrible."



The fact that a power is annoying to use doesn't make it not exist.

Strawman. You said the game doesn't care, implying that there is -no- difference in how using one vs the other effects the game. This is absurdly untrue. I didn't say it being a pain in the ass made it not exist. I pointed out that there -is- a difference in how much of a pain in the ass it is becaue it's a relevant difference to how the game plays. The game -does- care. It just cares in varying degrees from one group to the next because how -much- of a pain it is and whether that value is acceptable is subjective.



It also obviates having those resources at all. If you spend anything less than 100% of a caster's resources to replace the Fighter, you are coming out ahead by replacing the Fighter. Seriously, look up the definition of marginal cost.

If you have resources you're not using, you may as well not have them at all. If you're an archer cleric or a mailman sorcerer, you're not using those other resources in combat most of the time. You're just using the resources you already spent and peppering enemies with arrows/orb spells.

And again, I'm not arguing the choice between -being- a caster or a martial, that's a choice made on taste and preference. I'm arguing the difference between having a fighter in the party covering that role vs having to cover it in his absence.


Again, think on the margin. dismissal on a member of your demon horde is not really better than finger of death on your Fighter. In fact, it's probably worse (relatively speaking) because the best case is a 10% drop in effectiveness rather than 100%.

Dismissal is only -one- of the problems with minionmancy over a melee party member. The problem it's an element of is the problem of minions being -easier- to shut-down. In the best case, they're vulnerable to few extra SoD's. In the worst case, they can be turned against you more easily than a PC or hedged out of an area entirely.


The words "may" and "will" are different. You can tell, because when I say "you may give me $2000" you are under no obligation to do so.

And? The so called "proper" method for using planar binding that gets passed around is damn-near certain to turn "may" into "will" unless you outright destroy them just before the spell lapses.

Regardless of whether you do treat them reasonably fairly, you still have to deal with their foibles as literal incarnations of ideas and energies with their own goals and motivations. Yeah, the DM -could- play them as utterly mindless mooks that follow your every whim without question or complaint but he doesn't have to and it goes against his presumable goal of making the world believable since that's just -not- how most such creatures behave.

Whether it will bite you in the ass to use minions is a gamble. Whether another PC will turn against you is not; if PVP is allowed, you still have to antagonize a PC while simply acquiring minions is inherently antagonistic unless you're summoning or paying. You're certainly not advocating for paying here and summoning eats actions that you could've spent doing something that -isn't- replacing the fighter you shunned.

[Cosi]

I'm not really sure where to go from here if you don't get the difference between terrible, a subjective judgment, and worthless, an objectively measureable assessment. Something with a low worth is not worthless even if it is "terrible."

I think you're getting hung up on the specific term "worthless" rather than the more general "not powerful enough to justify a slot in the party".


Strawman. You said the game doesn't care, implying that there is -no- difference in how using one vs the other effects the game.

The game doesn't care. There is no mechanical marker for "this effect is annoying to resolve". The people playing the game may care.


If you have resources you're not using, you may as well not have them at all. If you're an archer cleric or a mailman sorcerer, you're not using those other resources in combat most of the time. You're just using the resources you already spent and peppering enemies with arrows/orb spells.

Of course not. You're using those other resources on raising the dead, seeing the future, summoning angels, or otherwise doing things the Fighter has no ability to do.


And? The so called "proper" method for using planar binding that gets passed around is damn-near certain to turn "may" into "will" unless you outright destroy them just before the spell lapses.

So do that? Or just pay them with other things that don't cost permanent resources, like castings of fabricate or true creation or whatever they want. Or use undead or mind controlled minions.

[Lans]

Uberchargers are the only ones who can reliably one-shot enemies better than casters. Tripping is not exactly amazing.

Do they? I just think of all the ways to shut them down and find that a little questionable. Combat reflexes+standstill, harpoons, boomerangs, being on higher ground, enemy being too close, enemy being too far away.

[Troacctid]

Do they? I just think of all the ways to shut them down and find that a little questionable. Combat reflexes+standstill, harpoons, boomerangs, being on higher ground, enemy being too close, enemy being too far away.
The short answer is yes, they do.

[Aimeryan]

The short answer is yes, they do.

I think Lans has an issue with the "reliably" part, which I would too. Preferable sentence would be:

Uberchargers are the only ones who can possibly one-shot enemies better than casters. Tripping is not exactly amazing.

Otherwise, yeah.

~~~

Has someone already brought up the helpful Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFuMpYTyRjw) to showcase the issue?

[Fizban]

Do they? I just think of all the ways to shut them down and find that a little questionable. Combat reflexes+standstill, harpoons, boomerangs, being on higher ground, enemy being too close, enemy being too far away.
Which is why there exist a bevvy of cheap magic items in the MiC for solving those exact problems. Ignore terrain, defend against AoOs and combat maneuvers, and the thrice-damned Anklets of Translocation for basically everything at once. Anyone who demands ubercharger level melee knows enough to have those items, and if they're not using them then they deserve the same "well they're just not playing to full strength so you don't realize it's so strong" retort as casters. For a slightly longer answer.

[Gnaeus]

Which is why there exist a bevvy of cheap magic items in the MiC for solving those exact problems. Ignore terrain, defend against AoOs and combat maneuvers, and the thrice-damned Anklets of Translocation for basically everything at once. Anyone who demands ubercharger level melee knows enough to have those items, and if they're not using them then they deserve the same "well they're just not playing to full strength so you don't realize it's so strong" retort as casters. For a slightly longer answer.

Which of course assumes that the campaign has a readily accessible magic-mart, since any non-CoDzilla charger won't likely have a way to make their gear. Casters are mostly gear independent, muggles need help from the DM.

[Fizban]

Until you decide that there's an item you want your CoDzilla to buy that they can't personally craft, at which point you'll say that magic marts are RAW and it's not your fault buying whatever you want is so strong. Or as I pointed out in the other thread, there's the fact that the DM is under no obligation to give you straight cash. Or the ability to sell magic items to get cash for crafting. Or the ability to buy components for crafting. You're just as reliant on the DM as the muggle is, don't even try to deny it.

[eggynack]

You're just as reliant on the DM as the muggle is, don't even try to deny it.
Of course a cleric or druid isn't as reliant on the DM as a muggle. These casters love items. Get a ton of value out of them. Perhaps, accounted for on an absolute instead of relative basis, more value than a non-caster does. After all, casters get more interesting class features to modify, and they don't have to spend as much time overcoming hurdles like the inability to be effective when faced with difficult terrain or flying enemies. But that's just it. If the DM isn't helping or hindering these classes at all, forcing them to be right out of the box in their nature, they do just fine. Because they still have day to day access to an incredibly powerful and broad spell list, which is true even when books are being restricted. This is less true of wizards, because of the spell book, but they can still manage pretty well, especially if optimized for it. And, of course, if you assume limited mart access instead of no mart access, the caster is much more capable of gaining access to what marts exist through their unique information gathering and speedy transportation abilities.

[Frosty]

I want to say "play Pathfinder and you won't have to worry about the disparity as much" but I'm not so sure how true that statement is honestly.

How would Pathfinder change this? Wild shape got uber nerfed and there is no more Divine Metamagic for clerics to abuse. But, there is also no more shock trooper for yornbarbarian or fighter either.

[Tuvarkz]

I want to say "play Pathfinder and you won't have to worry about the disparity as much" but I'm not so sure how true that statement is honestly.

How would Pathfinder change this? Wild shape got uber nerfed and there is no more Divine Metamagic for clerics to abuse. But, there is also no more shock trooper for yornbarbarian or fighter either.

Pathfinder only cleared a minimum of the more obvious broken aspects of fullcasting. Simulacra, Contingencies, Time Stop, Summon Monster (amongst others), and a variety of abilities both high and low levelled are still there. (To boot, they've added their own broken stuff w/Paragon Surge, Sacred Geometry, etc etc).

And fundamentally, Shock Trooper was purely damage-doing slightly more or less HP damage isn't the issue here. While yes, there's plenty of solid Tier 4 martials with all the PF splatbooks available, and some specific builds allow Paladin, Bloodrager, and URogue to jump into Tier 3, the fundamental divide remains for the grand majority of pure martial or 4th level caster builds.

And PF also nerfs plenty of combat maneuver-based builds, particularly due to CMD scaling so harshly in comparison to CMB when facing most non-humanoid enemies.

[Gnaeus]

Until you decide that there's an item you want your CoDzilla to buy that they can't personally craft, at which point you'll say that magic marts are RAW and it's not your fault buying whatever you want is so strong. Or as I pointed out in the other thread, there's the fact that the DM is under no obligation to give you straight cash. Or the ability to sell magic items to get cash for crafting. Or the ability to buy components for crafting. You're just as reliant on the DM as the muggle is, don't even try to deny it.

Let's test that theory. Level anything over 10 50% of the way to next level. I get a Cleric or Druid or Wizard (you can choose class). You get a fighter. No prc/multiclassing, PHB races only. All splats, no dragon/online content. Full WBL but it gets determined by random magical treasure rolls until we hit the WBL guideline. We use the same treasure rolls to make sure it's fair. 1500 gp for mundane gear. Feats and spell book selected before we roll but specific spells memorized picked after. No Leadership/wild cohort/retainers/NPC spellcasters. Only the PC and pets provided by class features+ what we can bring into play in game. Random number of CR appropriate encounters between 4 and 8, but must include at least one enemy flier, incorporeals, traps, grappler, and invisible opponent, and something that does energy damage. 1 hour before we face the first encounter and 1d10 minutes between each encounter to be used as we wish. I'm willing to wager that I'm WAY less reliant on the DM for treasure than you.

[Gnaeus]

Let's test that theory. Level anything over 10 50% of the way to next level. I get a Cleric or Druid or Wizard (you can choose class). You get a fighter. No prc/multiclassing, PHB races only. All splats, no dragon/online content. Full WBL but it gets determined by random magical treasure rolls until we hit the WBL guideline. We use the same treasure rolls to make sure it's fair. 1500 gp for mundane gear. Feats and spell book selected before we roll but specific spells memorized picked after. No Leadership/wild cohort/retainers/NPC spellcasters. Only the PC and pets provided by class features+ what we can bring into play in game. Random number of CR appropriate encounters between 4 and 8, but must include at least one enemy flier, incorporeals, traps, grappler, and invisible opponent, and something that does energy damage. 1 hour before we face the first encounter and 1d10 minutes between each encounter to be used as we wish. I'm willing to wager that I'm WAY less reliant on the DM for treasure than you.

So crickets? I'm willing to go core only if you prefer since you think core is better balanced.

Truth is, full casters are way less dependent on gear than muggles. Without magic marts, full casters can still do their jobs, which fighters cannot. Full casters can reach the magic marts more easily if they are rare. If items are interchangeable with cash, full casters can close to double their wealth. There isn't a circumstance (other than DM fiats everyone the exact gear they want) where WBL is a comparative advantage for the fighter over the T1.

[emeraldstreak]

Your DM isn't making the ubercharger's life difficult (and that is perfectly fine).

That doesn't change the fact that any well-rounded build is objectively stronger. Say, a lower level PvP-arena champion build will steamroll over a ubercharger as a barely noticeable speedbump. A solo gauntlet champion build will be effective in vastly more diverse encounter setups. A batman wizard of his level: need I say more?

[Fizban]

So crickets?
Hehehehe, I seem to have riled up all sorts of angry people with my dangerous thoughts. Funny how the mob just can't rest until the heretic personally satisfies each of them. Guess that makes me the one with the power.

the DM is under no obligation to give you straight cash. Or the ability to sell magic items to get cash for crafting. Or the ability to buy components for crafting.
That's what I said, and you have no response for it. Maybe you're tracing all the way back to Troacctid's claim and challenging me to defend it, but that doesn't make sense, because if you were really trying to prove anything you'd go after Troacctid for not actually explianing anything. But I had the temerity to give more than a single word answer and point out your unfounded hypocritical claims about crafting and WBL, and that just can't be allowed to stand now can it?

No, I'm not playing your games. Either you're running the game RAW and uberchargers can buy the gear they need to deal with obstacles, or you're not running RAW and you have no leg to stand on claiming that RAW crafting can solve anything. But nice job taunting me into responding.

[Gnaeus]

Hehehehe, I seem to have riled up all sorts of angry people with my dangerous thoughts. Funny how the mob just can't rest until the heretic personally satisfies each of them. Guess that makes me the one with the power.

That's what I said, and you have no response for it. Maybe you're tracing all the way back to Troacctid's claim and challenging me to defend it, but that doesn't make sense, because if you were really trying to prove anything you'd go after Troacctid for not actually explianing anything. But I had the temerity to give more than a single word answer and point out your unfounded hypocritical claims about crafting and WBL, and that just can't be allowed to stand now can it?

No, I'm not playing your games. Either you're running the game RAW and uberchargers can buy the gear they need to deal with obstacles, or you're not running RAW and you have no leg to stand on claiming that RAW crafting can solve anything. But nice job taunting me into responding.

So we're running RAW and the Druid can easily craft all the gear his pet wants with craft wondrous. It doesn't matter which rules you use. Full WBL, partial WBL, random gear, whatevs. The fighter doesn't have a gear advantage over the pet or the caster in any of them.

RAW incedently doesn't allow you to buy what you want unless you are in a sufficiently sized population center. So your claim that the ubercharger can buy the gear he needs isn't RAW, because RAW doesn't state where the game occurs, and the ubercharger has no intrinsic way to get places other than by walking.

Why are we even comparing Ubercharger again? I thought Core was the most balanced?

[Aetis]

While by RAW, casters reign supreme, I do not think it's very difficult for a DM to balance the power of casters and noncasters.

I believe a competent DM will be able to challenge the party while giving equal chance for each character to shine, regardless of their classes but assuming solid level of optimization from the players.

[Frosty]

Pathfinder only cleared a minimum of the more obvious broken aspects of fullcasting. Simulacra, Contingencies, Time Stop, Summon Monster (amongst others), and a variety of abilities both high and low levelled are still there. (To boot, they've added their own broken stuff w/Paragon Surge, Sacred Geometry, etc etc).

And fundamentally, Shock Trooper was purely damage-doing slightly more or less HP damage isn't the issue here. While yes, there's plenty of solid Tier 4 martials with all the PF splatbooks available, and some specific builds allow Paladin, Bloodrager, and URogue to jump into Tier 3, the fundamental divide remains for the grand majority of pure martial or 4th level caster builds.

And PF also nerfs plenty of combat maneuver-based builds, particularly due to CMD scaling so harshly in comparison to CMB when facing most non-humanoid enemies.
Yeah...I've never seen ANYONE praise sacred geometry, much less use it. Not really an eBay day experience for your typical PF player. Paragon surge was problematic. Then came the errata and now it's fine.

At least there isn't any Craft Contingency anymore. But yeah one is bad enough. Time stop is too high level for me to care. Bt summon monster...how much would it help to just ban it completely?

[Cosi]

Yeah...I've never seen ANYONE praise sacred geometry, much less use it. Not really an eBay day experience for your typical PF player. Paragon surge was problematic. Then came the errata and now it's fine.

What did Paragon Surge do before errata?


At least there isn't any Craft Contingency anymore. But yeah one is bad enough. Time stop is too high level for me to care. Bt summon monster...how much would it help to just ban it completely?

summon monster doesn't seem very good to me. You blow an action on something several levels lower than you are. If it's broken, that seems like it's probably a function of the martials being laughably awful

[Gnaeus]

What did Paragon Surge do before errata?


summon monster doesn't seem very good to me. You blow an action on something several levels lower than you are. If it's broken, that seems like it's probably a function of the martials being laughably awful

Errata made it so your choice set the way the spell worked all day. So you can still use it for any feat, or thereby any spell, but not to duplicate all the spells.

I don't think SM is broken, but it is VERY strong. If you know your lists you can use it to duplicate a lot of casting. SM 4, for example, gives access to blur, wind wall, gust of wind, soften earth/stone, heat metal, chill metal, pyrotechnics, lightning bolt, stinking cloud and glitterdust, aid, message, detect evil and magic circle v evil as well as short term flight, swim speed, or a spare blocker. That's a lot of options from 1 level 4 spell, especially from a sorcerer or someone using a wand who may want to duplicate a lot of spells.

Mild optimization makes it even better. Evolved summon monster, for example, let's you (among other things) give a +8 racial bonus to a skill of your choice on your summons. That's very handy at low/mid level.

[Eldariel]

summon monster doesn't seem very good to me. You blow an action on something several levels lower than you are. If it's broken, that seems like it's probably a function of the martials being laughably awful

PF Summon Monsters are of quite substantial power. Nevermind the feats, even the base SLAs you can get from level 6 spells are spells of similar level. And you have dozens of options with a single spell prepared; so you can get whatever is the best for the circumstances. Or multiples. And multiple castings. Of course, Summons are only so good in a single round encounter but in an extended encounters, getting like 3 actions (of Telekinesis, Dominate, Suggestion or such - Succubus, Shadow Demon, etc.) from a single action is pretty darn good.

[Gnaeus]

PF Summon Monsters are of quite substantial power. Nevermind the feats, even the base SLAs you can get from level 6 spells are spells of similar level. And you have dozens of options with a single spell prepared; so you can get whatever is the best for the circumstances. Or multiples. And multiple castings. Of course, Summons are only so good in a single round encounter but in an extended encounters, getting like 3 actions (of Telekinesis, Dominate, Suggestion or such - Succubus, Shadow Demon, etc.) from a single action is pretty darn good.

Oh, it also potentially lets you borrow a bunch of off list spells. Summon Good Monster is a fantastic feat for in combat healing, since you can cast it before you open a door, the angels often heal more than equivalent level cures without taking combat rounds, and you can pick ones with cures for relevant conditions. Vulpinal Agathions, for example, pack dispel evil, a very powerful if situational dispel. Lillends can countersong, another Nope button in the right encounters.

[Tuvarkz]

Yeah...I've never seen ANYONE praise sacred geometry, much less use it. Not really an eBay day experience for your typical PF player. Paragon surge was problematic. Then came the errata and now it's fine.

At least there isn't any Craft Contingency anymore. But yeah one is bad enough. Time stop is too high level for me to care. Bt summon monster...how much would it help to just ban it completely?

Issue is that people who don't know how to use it ignore it, and people that use it are generally so disgusted by its cheesiness that they don't even bother asking the DM (who generally knows about it).
The math has been done and you basically have a 99% chance to get a workable dice pool regardless of the spell level after around levels 5-6, and if you choose quicken+something else, you get to apply the extra metamagic feat for free to all your spells. You can Heighten everything, or Empower it, etc etc etc.
Also, there's also a calculator out there (http://d20toolkit.com/tools/sg/sacredgeo.php) that makes the math not a problem at all.

[Eldariel]

Oh, it also potentially lets you borrow a bunch of off list spells. Summon Good Monster is a fantastic feat for in combat healing, since you can cast it before you open a door, the angels often heal more than equivalent level cures without taking combat rounds, and you can pick ones with cures for relevant conditions. Vulpinal Agathions, for example, pack dispel evil, a very powerful if situational dispel. Lillends can countersong, another Nope button in the right encounters.

Same goes for banned school spells naturally. Various summons (e.g. the aforementioned Succubus) offer access to many of the good Enchantments for instance, making banning that school particularly painless. Though of course, you can't go for any extended Domination gambits with Summoned proxies; for that you need to use Callings.

EDIT: In general, Summon Monster in PF has the same problem e.g. Shapechange has in 3.5: it does too many things too well. It's okay for a spell to do many things; naked Shadow Evocations/Conjurations are useful but hardly busted (though there are certain corner cases). It's also okay for a spell to be really good for one job. But when a spell does a lot of things really well you end up with a single slot/spell known that can be used in practically any situation. Thus, all your spells can do a great job contributing to any given situation. Add to that the action benefits of outsourcing combat casting (you can e.g. cast a Summon-spell each round generating a ton of personal actions) and you're left with a spell that does two rather ridiculous things: Powerful effects targeting any given save or even very complex problemsolving situations, and extra actions for situations where action economy is hard.

The only downside to Summons is the 1 round casting time, but both 3.5 and PF give plenty of ways around that. Acadamae Graduate (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/local-feats/acadamae-graduate-local-1) is particularly egregious since fatigue has no meaningful escalation and it's not even that relevant for a spellcaster (honestly, the downsides barely matter if you're e.g. riding Phantom Steed) - and it gives access to the full goodness of the whole Summon Monster-list, good and evil alike.

PF for whatever reason gave all the good summons to Summon Monster and made Summon Nature's Ally superweak. Unicorns and Pixies are now Summon Monster, not SNA for instance. That also makes the spell options from SM superversatile. And some, such as Succubus, offer really good DCs (on level 11, 27 casting stat is very high - 18 + 2 racial + 2 levels + 4 item is just barely doable).