Wizards should be better than fighters.

[Boci]

That post was MY thoughts. As in, for ME, the mental overhead is often not worth it.

Again, not gonna knock anyone for how they enjoy their magic elf games. But something that rarely seems to be acknowledged by a lot of the ardent 3.P supporters is that it's a freaking COMPLICATED system. And a lot of that complexity isn't going towards depth.

That might be because ardent supporters of 3.P have been playing it for so long its no longer complicated. Everything is complicated until you learn it, then it often isn't anymore.

[upho]

@upho - I'll have to get back to your post later, there's an awful lot there.

No worries, take your time. And sorry 'bout the wall...

I personally feel that the martial/caster divide just stops being helpful past a certain point, where you just have superheroes/demigods of different stripes and different power sources. Or you should, at least, as opposed to the current magical superhero/sidekick split. Even when it is more helpful (on levels where mostly mundane characters can keep up on equal terms) it's still annoyingly binary and excludes or ignores various characters.

Indeed. However, as can be seen in 4e, PF1 and 5e, this has definitely started to change also in RPGs, AFAICT along with people's general opinions and views on how fantastic and diversified the powers of non-caster types of fantasy characters and classes are allowed to - or should - be. And while I would've preferred if people had dumped the old garbage assumptions, replaced them with more meaningful categories not associated with different inherent power limitations and moved on years ago, I'm just gonna have to accept that getting rid of garbage as old and pervasive as the C/M divide is in the hobby is a slow process.

The "fighter, thief, mage" categories were never helpful at any point and they're an albatross around the collective neck of fantasy gaming.

While I wouldn't go as far as to say they were never helpful, I definitely agree they've only served as a proverbial KFC nerd necklace for more than two decades by now.

Honestly, the only bit I'd disagree with you on is that the Armiger is actually keeping up enough with other options in the game. It's a good start, but I WOULD compare it to Path of War, for example.

Nuh-uh! You're not allowed to PoW-PoW, it's against the rules! (The assumption in this hypothetical little scenario was actually "suppose you didn't know anything about PF". So no, you wouldn't compare the Armiger to PoW.)

But if we do compare the PF fighter to the clearly overall stronger PoW full-bab initiators (warder, warlord, zealot), the fighter does actually have a few noteworthy potential advantages which might come as a bit of a surprise, like:

1. Four Additional Maxed Skills Versatile Training AWT effectively increases two skill bonuses by up to +23. Also allows for some very nice on-the-fly versatility when gained via the AWT feat in the form of training from the fantastic Warrior Spirit AWT.

2. Baseline Combat Numbers Tons of feat slots making VMC less costly, AWT and some great archetypes means the fighter can enable vastly greater "effective" baseline combat bonuses (no/free activation) than the PoW classes offer. Examples of bonuses granted by class features, 2 feats and 2 items (less than 20k) to a half-orc Fighter (VMC barb) 20 (the "defense" and "offense" bonus values include the "stats" bonuses plus penalties from rage and mutagen):

• Stats: +15 initiative; +20 Str, +6 Dex, +18 Con (alchemical and morale bonuses)
• Defense: +7 AC; +180 hp; +9 Fort, +11 Ref, +10 Will; +7 morale vs spells (Sp), (Su); +6 vs fear; +12 Intimidate DC
• Offense: +18 attack, +24 damage (plus +7 "free" weapon enhancement)

3. Feat Access Quite a few great feats with more unique benefits - other than the AWT feat - are more accessible to a fighter with WT. Such as Smash From the Air for effective defensive AoO dispelling, which is far more costly for the PoW classes to gain and can't be replicated by maneuvers (at least not more than 3 times/round). Or things like Combat Style Master and Weapon Style Mastery for carefree simultaneous use of two style feat chains.

4. Feat Combos Again, tons of feat slots can be great, especially along with carefree feat retraining and Spirit Warrior AWT for ad-hoc training feat complements, making it possible to combine 3 or more complementing combos for additional versatility, and/or making combos otherwise too large and unwieldy manageable. Such as say the "auto-mass-panic performance"-combo including 10-13 feats, which of course is very rarely practically feasible for the PoW classes.

5. Dex to Gun Damage Trench Fighter 3 isn't an uncommon dip for damage focused gunslingin' PoW-pow-pow-pow (sorry) builds, since none of the classes give Dex to gun damage.

6. Access to Rage Powers Many of these rock, and some of them do highly unique stuff without good PoW substitutes, like spell sunder or come and get me.

The fighter can also find quite a few necessities and conveniences in-house, such as pretty early flight (Ex), UMD, SLAs like invisibility, see invisibility, restoration and dimension door (each up to 11/day) via "Iron Caster" combos, and has easier access to magic item creation feats than PoW classes. It's also worth noting the Myrmidon archetype which grants 6/9 initiation, and the fact that the fighter of course also benefits from a game which includes the wealth of great DSP options.

In summary, I'd say the fighter has a much lower floor than the PoW classes, and though it has plenty of room for serious optimization, it can of course never become quite as powerful or versatile as the PoW classes in a large majority of combats and games. But it could be slightly more competent outside of combat and I believe it's a bit easier to bring up to insane enough numbers to face the most dangerous monsters published (notably when it comes to accuracy) and perhaps to make effective against casters due to spell sunder.

Still, I don't really disagree with you: my whole point is...well, here:

The design goals might be different (though I disagree with that), but the answer 5e came up with to this problem is the same as what you're touting late PF1 did for the Fighter: they gave them actual class features that let them do interesting things.

For sure. I should perhaps clarify that what I meant by "5e's overall design approach and goals are simply a bit too different" was that 5e is very deliberately and carefully designed to ensure character creation is straightforward enough for new players and that the mechanics are simple and intuitive enough they soon don't require much attention in play. Which is decidedly different from the complex, varied and virtually infinite PC building possibilities in 3.5/PF along with the multifaceted detailed gameplay mechanics. And this is also reflected in the comparatively very sparse amount of additional player options WotC has published for 5e.

So, no, I don't disagree with you that the late-PF1 fighter was head and shoulders better than the 3.5 and early-PF1 fighter. It has honest to goodness class features!

That's actually a bit of a relief, as when I now read my first reply again I believe I came off sounding far more dogmatic and lecturing than I had intended, even though it appears the matter has become one of my pet peeves...

I will say that a lot of them are just numbers-substitutiosn, though, which, while better than just bigger numbers, are still not quite as good as the cooler talents, discoveries, blade skills, or maneuvers that other late-PF1 classes got.

While I certainly also would've preferred a greater shift away from numbers and towards actually new and interesting mechanics, I also think it's easy to underestimate the potential of these deceivingly simple later fighter features. Because while many of them are basically just "add your same old boring fighter bonus X to this as well" or even more feat "slots", the actually interesting stuff is found in the later feats which fit into those slots and how the new features allow for these feats to be combined in so many different ways with the appropriate numbers support.

Late PF1 really had a good handle on balanced, interesting design. While I don't like the nerf implicit to casters in the choices made in the Psychic, that, too, was not bad design, and a nice effort to reign in a perceived problem.

Yep. Which IMO also makes the awful implementation of PF2's many promising design concepts even more confusing...

[Morty]

Indeed. However, as can be seen in 4e, PF1 and 5e, this has definitely started to change also in RPGs, AFAICT along with people's general opinions and views on how fantastic and diversified the powers of non-caster types of fantasy characters and classes are allowed to - or should - be. And while I would've preferred if people had dumped the old garbage assumptions, replaced them with more meaningful categories not associated with different inherent power limitations and moved on years ago, I'm just gonna have to accept that getting rid of garbage as old and pervasive as the C/M divide is in the hobby is a slow process.

To be fair, this is pretty much a D&D-specific problem. While imbalance of all stripes may well be a problem elsewhere, cookie-cutter "fighters" and "rogues" at least aren't. And if a player wants to create a dumb door-opener who can only ever fight, at least they will really be incredibly effective at just that.

While I wouldn't go as far as to say they were never helpful, I definitely agree they've only served as a proverbial KFC nerd necklace for more than two decades by now.

I'm aware I'm harsh, but it irks me to see people shoehorn all fantasy archetypes into those tired old boxes. D&D's never going to get rid of the fighter class, though, at the very least. It's too baked in and people have elevated its weakness to being a virtue. Even 4E, for all that people go on about its "not being D&D", breaking tradition and whatever else, largely sticks to the class list - to its detriment.

[Psyren]

So? And, yes, you can do that within the rules. But not as a player. If you want to play Steve Rogers, as he actually appears in the source material, you cannot do that unless your DM explicitly lets you. That's not true for Dr. Strange or Scarlet Witch or Captain Marvel. All of them can just get the powers they have by being a class. Do you not see how that might be a legitimate problem for people?

Oh, I can definitely see how it's a problem for some people. I don't see how it's a problem for the game designers, however.

I'm not sure how this fits with "Magic > Martial is the paradigm that I know works, that resonates with the most people and has seen the greatest acceptance and commercial success" but okay.

It fits because PF1 and 5e may have reduced the gap, but they kept the overall paradigm (i.e. casters in both still have more capability, because magic.)

And again, just because a GM can design encounters that work with a very imbalanced party doesn't mean it's not preferable if the GM doesn't have to.

Not having to do work is indeed preferable to working, but that's not the world we live in.

Why? I feel like you keep assuming that balanced classes would be exactly the same as each other which isn't the case. I agree that would be boring and it's more fun if each class have its own thing. Which is actually part of why I dislike that some classes can do so many different things compared to other classes.

I don't think your "separate but equal" balance point is impossible, but I've yet to see it pulled off in a satisfying way. Only way I can think of is to start with PF1 and ban everything outside of T3/T4, and even then the purely martial classes like ToB/PoW would be lacking some capabilities that the T3 casters have.

Anyway, I thought of a better comparison. Would you enjoy a game where the casters had only blasting magic while the non-casters had a wide range of skills? Because that's the sort of imbalance that bothers me more than any other kind, that some classes are lucky to be good at one or two things while others can be good in almost any situation (frequently including the one or two situations where the first class actually can contribute).

I wouldn't because "casters" in such a game would just be glorified archers; I'd rather play a game where magic can do more things than that, and those games exist.

Or to go back to the Avengers comparison since it seems we keep ending up there, I would be fine with playing Black Widow while someone else played the Hulk. Because even if he's more powerful, there is a lot of things Widow can do better and situations where she can contribute more than him (and the other way around, of course). But if they were a party where she was a rogue, and he was a wizard (yes, for the purposes of this simile the Hulk is a wizard), that wouldn't really be the case.

Okay.

Spoiler: huge reply to upho that still couldn't include everything, let's try to shorten this tangent if we can

Show

I'm going to try to combine some of these to shorten the "wall."

You do realize the game actually would be completely imbalanced in the other direction if the F classes had powers like Superman (Silver Age isn't really necessary), Captain Marvel or the more powerful xianxia characters? In general not because their versatility would be greater than that of the M classes in PF of course, although that can certainly also be the case for some of these characters (as you noted), but because nothing else in the game with stats has capabilities even remotely close and would in most cases not even be able to touch these characters. Or to quote Marvel Studios president Kevin Feige in a 2016 interview:

“With Captain Marvel, she is as powerful a character as we’ve ever put in a movie. Her powers are off the charts, and when she’s introduced, she will be by far the strongest character we’ve ever had.”

(Note that this is in comparison to all MCU characters in any movie up to and including Avengers Infinity War, which for example includes Dr. Strange, "Stormbringer" Thor and Thanos w/o complete gauntlet.)
...
Sure, if you believe people associate "high level fighter" with capabilities such as say continuous fly 200'+, immunities similar to those of undead, high DR/- and energy resistances, regeneration 20+, superhuman senses (120'+ blindsight, 10+ insight bonus to Perception, Sense Motive and initiative), free max ranks in at least 2 craft and 2 knowledge skills, etc. These are of course only the most baseline types of additional higher level class features the F classes need to enable at least somewhat believable modest D&D reflections of mentioned fantasy archetypes/characters.

By "limited" I didn't mean their ability to punch things to death. But if Carol Danvers needed to, say, locate a missing person, or revive a fallen comrade, or pull a secret out of someone's mind, or get to another plane of existence, chances are she'd need help - whereas someone like Strange wouldn't (assuming no plot barrier.) Whereas if the problems you want to solve involve hitting things, taking hits well or getting up high, she is well-suited. And that's completely fine, I'm well on-board with D&D martials doing that stuff too.

It appears you assume the power differences between the PCs are never as great as to render the abilities of one or more of the practically irrelevant or worse, completely ignoring the fact that such power differences aren't just possible but even likely in a higher level party including both non-casters and full casters. (Unless of course the players are already fully aware of the class imbalances and have the rather considerable system mastery required to be able to mitigate them sufficiently by nerfing/optimizing their PC builds accordingly.)

No - what I'm saying is that the differences aren't great enough that a non-lazy GM can't deal with them through a modicum of encounter design. Obviously if you don't do your job, then the problems become more pronounced. (General "you", not you specifically.)

I frankly don't believe you, because this is the equivalent of saying:

"Whether a Fighter 10 can beat a Fire Giant as easily as a Fighter 15 can isn't relevant to me, so long as he can win."

You don't suspect you'd quickly become bored if you were to play the fighter 15 in a game where the challenges are balanced for a PCs five levels lower than yours?

Fire Giant's are CR 10 (I suspect that's why you picked that) so as long as both a Fighter 10 and a Fighter 15 can beat it, it is irrelevant to me, yes. Now, if the Fighter 15 doesn't do it any more easily than the 10, it means that his build/gear/tactics are much less optimized, not that the system itself is broken. But note that even if the Fighter 15 gimps themselves and makes the fight harder, their rewards for beating the CR 10 are still minimal.

Moreover, while I suspect one of the reasons for why so many people on this forum disagrees with you on this is the fact that the PF classes are more balanced than the 3.5 ones and most people here primarily play and discuss 3.5, this is far from enough to explain why your views are so different, nor why my own experiences as a PF player and GM also disagrees. So, could it be that you've rarely played or run games past say 15th level? What are your ideas/guesses/thoughts on why your views are so different?

"Hey Psyren, more of the people posting in a thread titled 'Wizards should be better than Fighters' seem to disagree with the thread title than agree with it. Clearly this has nothing to do with the fact that the majority of people posting in a declarative thread like this wouldn't be posting in it in the first place if they didn't think they had a counterpoint to argue or an axe to grind. What do you think this shocking development has to say about you, personally??"

So you're saying that if you have power disparities between classes it's more readily understandable if the casters are the strongest rather than the non-casters? If so, I don't really have an opinion, I only care about minimizing class and build power disparity while maximizing class and build variety.

Yeah, and I gave the reasons why I believe that - fictional precedent, training/reinforcement within the system itself, etc.

Wait, we're not talking about Power Turtles? More seriously, while I of course agree that having homogeneous PC mechanics would run counter to arguably the greatest selling point of 3.5/PF, it's a straw man argument against having more balanced classes, because there's absolutely nothing preventing classes from being both sufficiently balanced and also offering distinctly different interesting abilities with different primary focus areas.
...
While this may be true, it doesn't in any way make the poor class balance less of a flaw, nor should it be used as some kind of excuse for not having sufficiently balanced classes.
...
Excluding many/most classes from default access to certain options isn't the same as excluding many/most classes from meaningfully interacting with a major part of the gameplay. Again, if spells are a common key factor in - and/or are required to efficiently overcome - a significant part of the challenges a party faces, sufficient ability to interact with spells must be given to all PCs per default. Note that this doesn't in any way mean that all classes therefore must gain as unrestricted access to the options in the spells chapter as casters have, nor that all PC's must be as anywhere near as capable of engaging in the "caster minigame" as casters.
...
(Might also be worth noting that none of the PF classes with less than 6/9 progression grant sufficient ability per default, and only a rare few have options which grant sufficient ability. And no, the possibility to invest in UMD is far from enough.)
...
Nor is D&D unique in having the related class balance issues. Neither fact make the C/MD less of an issue in D&D.
...
See above.

Look, I won't rule out that they come up with some balance point that's brings casters and martials closer that I will still find enjoyable. 5e managed it. Of course, 5e is still "extreme disparity" to some folks in here, so it may be a lost cause.

As for "sufficient/meaningful interaction," how do you define that? For me PF1 has plenty, especially if DSP is added.

If a less restricting label is required in order for people to stop putting arbitrary limits on the power fighter types are allowed to gain, I think gaining such a label should require about as much as it does for casters to gain their equivalent power, meaning reaching higher levels. I don't know whether you call that "something that happens to every single fighter in the world just by swinging a sword enough times", but at least the 1PP guidelines, adventures and Golarion material describes it as a far greater achievement exceedingly few makes.

Then it depends on what those abilities are. You brought up Path of War, and I'm fine with pretty much everything there. Other things though, like Leadership, I don't think should come automatically just from gaining levels.

So have I. DSP's general balance point is explicitly T3, which is also pretty much smack in the middle of the 1PP classes, and at least the material in their major books/series (psionics, Akashic and PoW) adheres to that with no classes above T2 or below T4.[/quote]

As you yourself mentioned, even DSP has T2 classes, and they are exclusively casters/manifesters. And I would argue that some, like the Erudite Psion, are actually T1.

Even if we knew the answer, it doesn't tell us jack about their power. Which we however can find a bit of info on. And yes, Thor's and (especially) Scarlet Witch's powers are so far beyond those of Steve Rogers the comparison is frankly silly.

I know that - and? They both still needed Steve Rogers and Natasha Romanov to save the day.

[Batcathat]

Not having to do work is indeed preferable to working, but that's not the world we live in.

Yes, yes, you've made it clear that you think GMs who would prefer not having to plan around huge power differences are lazy. Personally, I'd rather see more of an effort from the game designers to either balance their classes better or at least be honest and explain the power difference in the rules.

I don't think your "separate but equal" balance point is impossible, but I've yet to see it pulled off in a satisfying way. Only way I can think of is to start with PF1 and ban everything outside of T3/T4, and even then the purely martial classes like ToB/PoW would be lacking some capabilities that the T3 casters have.

Yes, like good GMing, good game design does indeed take some work.

I wouldn't because "casters" in such a game would just be glorified archers; I'd rather play a game where magic can do more things than that, and those games exist.

That's understandable. You don't think it's fair to allow people playing non-casters something similar too?

[dude123nice]

I really don't understand why this is still a debate considering that various supplements to 3.5 and PF have almost managed to fix this disparity, only requiring a few sanity changes, I honestly think that the most elegant solution, both fluff and mechanic wise, is what stuff like ToB, PoV and Spheres have done, namely design a separate subsystem for martials that functions somewhat similar to the casters subsystem but is different enough to feel like it's own thing. The Spheres system is obviously well balanced if you use it to replace both caster and martial classes entirely with classes and archetypes designed within that system, but for some people it might feel like it makes casters and martials feel to similar to each other.

So how do we design a somewhat balanced system that still retains it's fantasy specific fluff using ToB or PoV? Easy. Eliminate T1 classes, and if a particular fantasy idea is missing, like cleric, druid, or wizzard, replace them with refluffed versions of weaker classes that can fit those ideas, like wildshape ranger, oracles(PF) or favoured souls, or that PF sorcerer archetype that replaces CHA with INT and gets appropriate abilities. Make the broken highest level spells (like wish or time stop) into the actual epic spells of the setting/system. Move broken spells of lower levels up a few levels (make limited wish into an 9th level spell). Rework whole broken subsystems/types of spells (use PF polymorph spells, use Giant's diplomacy system). Get rid of or fix particularly broken edge cases (make grease or entangle into NOT an auto-win at lower levels). All this changes not only work mechanically, but also fit the setting. Something as powerful as Wish, really should be, story-wise, epic magic. On martials side just eliminate any discipline/style that feels to wuxia/magical (desert wind or sleeping goddess). Maybe include them in supplements specifically designed around those themes. This also works both mechanically and fluff-wise (anyone who thinks that named techniques are silly has obviously never done martial arts, modern or medieval, or even something like sports or gymnastics, just listen to commentators describing a tennis match for example).

A bit ranty, but I feel like it gets the point across. Over the years both 3.5 and PF 1st ed could have reached a sweet spot between balance and having classes feet into their fantasy archetypes. If only they'd been willing to make a few radical but healthy changes to their systems. Maybe that is what should have been their big moves, instead of moving in to new, and different, editions*. If anyone disagrees with me, I'd like to know why.


*Of course we all know that the real reason they moved on to new editions is to sell more books.

[Psyren]

Yes, yes, you've made it clear that you think GMs who would prefer not having to plan around huge power differences are lazy.

Great, we understand each other

Personally, I'd rather see more of an effort from the game designers to either balance their classes better or at least be honest and explain the power difference in the rules.

Ah, the siren song of gaming forums everywhere
The best advice I can give then is to find a gaming system/design team that hits the balance point you want, and vote with your wallet.

That's understandable. You don't think it's fair to allow people playing non-casters something similar too?

You mean doing more things than dealing damage? Of course I'm fine with that, and PF / 5e do that.

I really don't understand why this is still a debate considering that various supplements to 3.5 and PF have almost managed to fix this disparity, only requiring a few sanity changes, I honestly think that the most elegant solution, both fluff and mechanic wise, is what stuff like ToB, PoV and Spheres have done, namely design a separate subsystem for martials that functions somewhat similar to the casters subsystem but is different enough to feel like it's own thing. The Spheres system is obviously well balanced if you use it to replace both caster and martial classes entirely with classes and archetypes designed within that system, but for some people it might feel like it makes casters and martials feel to similar to each other.

So how do we design a somewhat balanced system that still retains it's fantasy specific fluff using ToB or PoV? Easy. Eliminate T1 classes, and if a particular fantasy idea is missing, like cleric, druid, or wizzard, replace them with refluffed versions of weaker classes that can fit those ideas, like wildshape ranger, oracles(PF) or favoured souls, or that PF sorcerer archetype that replaces CHA with INT and gets appropriate abilities. Make the broken highest level spells (like wish or time stop) into the actual epic spells of the setting/system. Move broken spells of lower levels up a few levels (make limited wish into an 9th level spell). Rework whole broken subsystems/types of spells (use PF polymorph spells, use Giant's diplomacy system). Get rid of or fix particularly broken edge cases (make grease or entangle into NOT an auto-win at lower levels). All this changes not only work mechanically, but also fit the setting. Something as powerful as Wish, really should be, story-wise, epic magic. On martials side just eliminate any discipline/style that feels to wuxia/magical (desert wind or sleeping goddess). Maybe include them in supplements specifically designed around those themes. This also works both mechanically and fluff-wise (anyone who thinks that named techniques are silly has obviously never done martial arts, modern or medieval, or even something like sports or gymnastics, just listen to commentators describing a tennis match for example).

A bit ranty, but I feel like it gets the point across. Over the years both 3.5 and PF 1st ed could have reached a sweet spot between balance and having classes feet into their fantasy archetypes. If only they'd been willing to make a few radical but healthy changes to their systems. Maybe that is what should have been their big moves, instead of moving in to new, and different, editions*. If anyone disagrees with me, I'd like to know why.


*Of course we all know that the real reason they moved on to new editions is to sell more books.

I'm fine with all this, and in fact I don't even think you need to get rid of Desert Wind / Sleeping Goddess - like the DSP designers I think those are both fine for what a skilled martial could be able to do.

[digiman619]

I don't think your "separate but equal" balance point is impossible, but I've yet to see it pulled off in a satisfying way. Only way I can think of is to start with PF1 and ban everything outside of T3/T4, and even then the purely martial classes like ToB/PoW would be lacking some capabilities that the T3 casters have.

Spheres of Might, with its multiple ways to minionmancy and raise the dead, says hi.

[Psyren]

Spheres of Might, with its multiple ways to minionmancy and raise the dead, says hi.

Thanks for the warning, I'll happily skip it.

[digiman619]

Thanks for the warning, I'll happily skip it.

Wait, what? I thought you said that you weren't opposed to martials with some of the utility powers mages had, just that you hadn't found any. How can you justify not even checking it out?

[Psyren]

Wait, what? I thought you said that you weren't opposed to martials with some of the utility powers mages had, just that you hadn't found any. How can you justify not even checking it out?

That doesn't extend to things like resurrection (of others) and minionmancy - I made that clear several times earlier in this thread. I meant more things like self-resurrection, short-range teleportation, lie detection etc.

[dude123nice]

That doesn't extend to things like resurrection (of others) and minionmancy - I made that clear several times earlier in this thread. I meant more things like self-resurrection, short-range teleportation, lie detection etc.

Non raise dead minionmancy can work tho, with cohorts, animal companions and pets etc. Even ToB kinda had it. Basically it's a way of limiting and applying a sanity check to Leadership.

[Morty]

Some time ago, I formulated an argument that instead of balance it might be better to talk about "getting what you paid for". I stand by it. And it really becomes obvious once you stop thinking in terms of D&D classes - which follows up from my earlier point about how D&D fighters are fundamentally, irreparably flawed.

Basically, if I invest my resources into making a combat-focused character, they should actually be very good at combat and take the lead when combat happens. Not be outclassed or evenly matched by characters who also possess a considerable level of out of combat versatility through the exact same level of investment. If this character then takes a backseat when not breaking things - that's my choice. And if I regret it, I can rectify it by investing some resources in non-combat skills. That's if I'm playing a system that allows it. And if the system doesn't want to make any particular character take the lead in combat, it should stop pretending a combat focused character is something it allows for.

The same applies to every other pursuit, of course. It should take as much investment or more to become good at something through magic as it is through "mundane" skill. And just like it's impossible for non-magic skills to accomplish some things, so should magic be simply impractical compared to such skills sometimes. Even if said skills and abilities are on a superhuman or supernatural level at that point.

[Psyren]

Non raise dead minionmancy can work tho, with cohorts, animal companions and pets etc. Even ToB kinda had it. Basically it's a way of limiting and applying a sanity check to Leadership.

The thing about Leadership though is that it doesn't truly give "minions" unless you're a Thrallherd. You get assigned a bunch of NPCs that generally do what you say, yes - but (a) they're still ultimately controlled by the GM and (b) if your goals/attitude take a hard left turn then you can easily lose that control, taking a hit to your score or being abandoned entirely. So it's not quite on par with magical control, which is fine.

So if that's what Spheres of Might does (i.e. not total control like a automatons or undead spawn) then all right - but that's not how I read digiman's original post.

On a related note, I did find the Spheres of Might wiki, but skimming through the spheres' Legendary powers (the ones that are supposedly more on the wuxia end of things) I didn't see either of the abilities he mentioned - but it's very likely that I'm missing it due to just being unfamiliar with the system.

[digiman619]

The thing about Leadership though is that it doesn't truly give "minions" unless you're a Thrallherd. You get assigned a bunch of NPCs that generally do what you say, yes - but (a) they're still ultimately controlled by the GM and (b) if your goals/attitude take a hard left turn then you can easily lose that control, taking a hit to your score or being abandoned entirely. So it's not quite on par with magical control, which is fine.

So if that's what Spheres of Might does (i.e. not total control like a automatons or undead spawn) then all right - but that's not how I read digiman's original post.

On a related note, I did find the Spheres of Might wiki, but skimming through the spheres' Legendary powers (the ones that are supposedly more on the wuxia end of things) I didn't see either of the abilities he mentioned - but it's very likely that I'm missing it due to just being unfamiliar with the system.

To be fair, any sort of minionmancy for a martial is rare. Hell, the only core one with it is the Ranger, and he gets a nerfed version at that. And a lot of the stuff I was talking about is class specific, so while a Rogue can have a familiar like Disney's Aladdin had Abu, if you want to have specialists at your call, you'd need to focus on the Commander class, and if you want to raise the dead, you need to get a Scholar, especially with the Doctor archetype.

Fun fact, in a spheres-only game, the Doctor is actually more skilled at raising the dead than a Life-focused Incanter.

[dude123nice]

The thing about Leadership though is that it doesn't truly give "minions" unless you're a Thrallherd. You get assigned a bunch of NPCs that generally do what you say, yes - but (a) they're still ultimately controlled by the GM and (b) if your goals/attitude take a hard left turn then you can easily lose that control, taking a hit to your score or being abandoned entirely. So it's not quite on par with magical control, which is fine.

So if that's what Spheres of Might does (i.e. not total control like a automatons or undead spawn) then all right - but that's not how I read digiman's original post.

On a related note, I did find the Spheres of Might wiki, but skimming through the spheres' Legendary powers (the ones that are supposedly more on the wuxia end of things) I didn't see either of the abilities he mentioned - but it's very likely that I'm missing it due to just being unfamiliar with the system.

Necrotic poison from Alchemy allows you to create undead (tho it doesn't mention controlling them), Armies Of The Dead from Warleader allows you to use diplomacy on them, and allows them to benefit from morale bonuses, and Master Of The Dead from Leadership allows you to gain undead cohorts. Still, these are at least fluffed as not being actual supernatural abilities or spells, just exceptional usage of mundane abilities. In general, the Spheres system is good about getting fluff and the corresponding mechanics to fit each other. Better than ToB and PoV, at least. Almost all cases of mundanes being able to weasel into caster territory are both Legendary talents, and appropriately explained.The only classes or abilities that allow magical minionmancy are either wholly magical, or gishes.

Also there are ways of ensuring that your character has in-story reasons to always have access to cohorts and the like. They could hold an official position in the military, or in a guard force, for example. The Leadership and Warleader spheres literally exist to codify such things into game mechanics and to allow you to make effective use even of standard NPC chorts. Of course it also depends on your DM and roleplaying, but if you read the rulebooks, you realise that even many instances of magical cohorts are also theoretically able to refuse to cooperate with a cruel master. Only summon monster and controlled undead are extempt from this, I think. Eidolons, familiars, animal companions, and many divine minionmancy spells aren't protected from bad roleplaying.

[NigelWalmsley]

To be fair, this is pretty much a D&D-specific problem. While imbalance of all stripes may well be a problem elsewhere, cookie-cutter "fighters" and "rogues" at least aren't.

What's the problem with the Rogue? That's an archetype that exists elsewhere (the most famous examples being Han Solo or Captain Jack Sparrow), it has the ability to contribute meaningfully both in and out of combat, and it scales well into the high-level/fantastic environment that the Fighter doesn't.

Even 4E, for all that people go on about its "not being D&D", breaking tradition and whatever else, largely sticks to the class list - to its detriment.

I mean, not really. 3e had 11 classes in the PHB. 8e had 8, with only 6 being carried forward. One class didn't even exist in the 3e (the Warlord). I think WotC probably learned the wrong lessons from 4e, but it seems entirely possible that they would dump the Fighter at some point.

Oh, I can definitely see how it's a problem for some people. I don't see how it's a problem for the game designers, however.

Again, by this standard, what could possibly be a "problem for the game designers"? Where's the threshold where enough people disagree with you for you to acknowledge that something you're okay with should be changed?

It fits because PF1 and 5e may have reduced the gap, but they kept the overall paradigm (i.e. casters in both still have more capability, because magic.)

So something moving in the direction is evidence that people don't want to go in that direction? This logic seems suspect.

Only way I can think of is to start with PF1 and ban everything outside of T3/T4, and even then the purely martial classes like ToB/PoW would be lacking some capabilities that the T3 casters have.

I don't know why you'd think people care about that. It's totally okay if one class has capabilities another lacks, as long as the reverse holds. For example, it's fine if the Rogue gets Open Lock (but not Knock) and the Wizard gets Knock (but not Open Lock), because those abilities do different things and work in different ways. In fact, it's desirable for classes to have abilities that allow them to approach their goals in different ways. But that doesn't inherently require class imbalance. There are no two classes in any edition that are literally identical, yet I have no doubt that everyone here could pick a sizable collection of classes whose balance they are satisfied with.

To be fair, any sort of minionmancy for a martial is rare. Hell, the only core one with it is the Ranger, and he gets a nerfed version at that.

The Paladin gets a mount. Blackguard and Shadowdancer offer some, though they are PrCs. If you count SRD stuff, the evil Paladins get Rebuke Undead. It's not super common, but it's not unknown.

That said, while it's rare in the game, it's not particularly rare in the source material. Aragorn raises up a bunch of ghosts who swore oaths to his family as an army, and he's an iconic martial character. Many characters do have armies, and while Leadership (arguably) doesn't promise loyalty, there's no particular reason it couldn't. Arthas is still a firmly martial Death Knight when he first gets armies of the undead. If you wanted to give martials minions, there is definitely support for doing that. In fact, the notion that martial characters shouldn't get to play with the big boys is pretty much entirely an invention of D&D. In most other media it's simply not weird for the guy with a sword to keep up with the guy who can cast spells (in fact, those are often the same guy, because "Wizards don't use swords" is another D&Dism).

[Psyren]

To be fair, any sort of minionmancy for a martial is rare. Hell, the only core one with it is the Ranger, and he gets a nerfed version at that. And a lot of the stuff I was talking about is class specific, so while a Rogue can have a familiar like Disney's Aladdin had Abu, if you want to have specialists at your call, you'd need to focus on the Commander class, and if you want to raise the dead, you need to get a Scholar, especially with the Doctor archetype.

Fun fact, in a spheres-only game, the Doctor is actually more skilled at raising the dead than a Life-focused Incanter.

I still don't know which spheres abilities you're referring to specifically - but 1st-party PF can give martials an animal companion or familiar easily. You can even get an eidolon or phantom. If a single pet is all you meant by "minionmancy" then I'm not opposed, but that's not how I define the term.

Necrotic poison from Alchemy allows you to create undead (tho it doesn't mention controlling them), Armies Of The Dead from Warleader allows you to use diplomacy on them, and allows them to benefit from morale bonuses, and Master Of The Dead from Leadership allows you to gain undead cohorts.

The alchemy thing is fine - you only get zombies and, as you mentioned, they're uncontrolled.

I'd prefer a control cap on Armies of the Dead, but there are enough limitations in PF Diplomacy itself to keep that from getting too crazy.

Master of the Dead explicitly uses "arcane rituals" so I'm not sure how they explain doing that one without magic.

Spoiler: @Nigel

Show

Again, by this standard, what could possibly be a "problem for the game designers"? Where's the threshold where enough people disagree with you for you to acknowledge that something you're okay with should be changed?

When I see something that needs changing?
The "Feat Taxes in Pathfinder" link in my sig is an example if you truly need one.

So something moving in the direction is evidence that people don't want to go in that direction? This logic seems suspect.

Reducing a gap and eliminating it entirely are two different things.

I don't know why you'd think people care about that. It's totally okay if one class has capabilities another lacks, as long as the reverse holds. For example, it's fine if the Rogue gets Open Lock (but not Knock) and the Wizard gets Knock (but not Open Lock), because those abilities do different things and work in different ways. In fact, it's desirable for classes to have abilities that allow them to approach their goals in different ways. But that doesn't inherently require class imbalance. There are no two classes in any edition that are literally identical, yet I have no doubt that everyone here could pick a sizable collection of classes whose balance they are satisfied with.

Actually, both wizards and rogues get Open Lock Disable Device and Knock, but each one has a much easier time using one approach than the other. That's the paradigm I prefer.

Aragorn raises up a bunch of ghosts who swore oaths to his family as an army, and he's an iconic martial character.

That ability didn't come from his class, so I'm not seeing its relevance to a class discussion.

Arthas is still a firmly martial Death Knight when he first gets armies of the undead.

There is no such thing as a "firmly martial death knight." They all use magic.

[Ignimortis]

That doesn't extend to things like resurrection (of others) and minionmancy - I made that clear several times earlier in this thread. I meant more things like self-resurrection, short-range teleportation, lie detection etc.

See, your position over several threads I've read/posted in is basically "I don't mind if martials get cool stuff, but mages have to get cooler/more powerful/more advanced stuff", i.e. if a martial can teleport 60 feet, a mage should have Teleport which can bring you across half the world, if a martial gets lie detection, a mage gets True Sight and Zone of Truth - that's what it sounded like to me.

And perhaps that might be a position that I can agree with, but with one condition - mages have to be as useful in combat as martials are useful out of combat. So basically a support weak role, that can do some combat things by itself, but those things aren't as important and huge as what martials do. That seems at least fair. D&D, both 3.5 and 5e, doesn't do that. A Wizard is both a capable combatant, often as much or more as the Fighter, and then they're also infinity times better out of combat.

Like, a 5e by this "proper" design would have wizards keep their 1d10 Firebolt forever. Just 1d10. There's no upcasting and most BFC/damage spells are substantially weaker, like, DCs are 2 lower. And then either Fighters get Action Surge at-will somewhere around level 9, or they're considered permanently Hasted and get advantage on weapon attack rolls. Non-magic Rogue gets Extra Attack and Double Sneak attack at 6, Barbarian can outright fly with Eagle Totem without needing Rage to be on or limitations of "only on your turn", has Scent and Charge and extra damage, and goes Large with all the bonuses that would entail when raging, Monk basically does what they do but even better, that sort of thing. But hey, Wizard gets to scry and teleport and summon minions (which are still MM monsters so the buffed martials are way better) and detect magic and lies and counterspell enemy casters, very mystical, very wizardy. Of course, that game should be not a dungeon crawler where all magic tricks like these are unimportant, but a proper game for campaigns with things other than combat happening often.

Does this seem fair to you?

[Psyren]

See, your position over several threads I've read/posted in is basically "I don't mind if martials get cool stuff, but mages have to get cooler/more powerful/more advanced stuff", i.e. if a martial can teleport 60 feet, a mage should have Teleport which can bring you across half the world, if a martial gets lie detection, a mage gets True Sight and Zone of Truth - that's what it sounded like to me.

In broad strokes yes, that's my position - because magic (spellcasting in particular) has limitations of its own; the key is to make those limitations matter.

I forget which playgrounder has this in their sig, so I'm probably butchering the quote, but it said something like: "a wizard can suck far more than a fighter can ever dream of sucking. The fighter might cut himself with his sword if he really messes up, but only the wizard can teleport himself into a Far Realm to be driven insane and tortured for eternity."

Now I'm not saying that particular potential drawback to wizardry should be enforced, but there are much simpler ones to invoke - taxing their limited slots through multiple encounters, putting them in positions where the components needed for casting are disadvantageous, using monsters with spell or energy resistance, using enemy casters that can dispel or counter their favored tactics, magical creatures whose own abilities must be dealt with by the party's casters, clauses like like teleport's "areas of strong physical or magical energy may make this hazardous" or planar binding's "unreasonable commands", etc. I view all of these under the heading of "asymmetrical challenges" because they make the caster's life harder without impacting the martial, and they are all part of the tool belt of the experienced GM.

And perhaps that might be a position that I can agree with, but with one condition - mages have to be as useful in combat as martials are useful out of combat. So basically a support weak role, that can do some combat things by itself, but those things aren't as important and huge as what martials do. That seems at least fair. D&D, both 3.5 and 5e, doesn't do that. A Wizard is both a capable combatant, often as much or more as the Fighter, and then they're also infinity times better out of combat.

And that's where the "encounter design" comes in. If your party's spellcasters are able to devote themselves so thoroughly to combat that they don't need the martials to do any of it, it means you as the GM are not challenging their resources enough. The answer in my view is not "make casters worse at combat" - the answer is "make it so that the opportunity cost of usurping the martials is too high." If the party wizard always has room to turn themselves into mobile artillery, or shapeshift and jump into melee and steal the martials' thunder, or send minions in to do the same - especially if they have room to do all three - then to be blunt, it means the GM is not doing their job correctly. In my view, the GM has done their job properly if the party casters are thinking "I could play this combat role in a pinch if needed, but most of the time it just makes more sense that the martial class does it."

And even if proper encounter design is too much effort for some, there are other solutions less drastic than banning classes or warping the system beyond recognition. You can reduce spell slots for example (PF's Simplified Spellcasting does this, as does 5e which abolished bonus spells.) Or you can ban or restrict individual toolbox spells or toolbox caster abilities so that they are less advantageous - both PF and 5e nerfed Wildshape considerably from how strong it was in 3.5 for example. Such changes would be minor tweaks. If you really want to get drastic, then it comes down to banning T2 and T1 classes, or forcing all casters to use 6/9 progression - but I genuinely don't think such steps are needed unless your casters truly can't control themselves, or your GM doesn't have the time to use the tools made available to them by the game.

[Ignimortis]

In broad strokes yes, that's my position - because magic (spellcasting in particular) has limitations of its own; the key is to make those limitations matter.

And that's where the "encounter design" comes in. If your party's spellcasters are able to devote themselves so thoroughly to combat that they don't need the martials to do any of it, it means you as the GM are not challenging their resources enough. The answer in my view is not "make casters worse at combat" - the answer is "make it so that the opportunity cost of usurping the martials is too high." If the party wizard always has room to turn themselves into mobile artillery, or shapeshift and jump into melee and steal the martials' thunder, or send minions in to do the same - especially if they have room to do all three - then to be blunt, it means the GM is not doing their job correctly. In my view, the GM has done their job properly if the party casters are thinking "I could play this combat role in a pinch if needed, but most of the time it just makes more sense that the martial class does it."

That's pretty much saying "magic is harder to control than martial/mundane exploits, so the GM has to put extra work into containing it". That's casters saying "hey, I could take over and hog the spotlight, but I choose not to, because it will/might impact my performance later", not "hey martial, it's your spotlight, do us proud". And if the GM specifically shuts them down to prevent them from taking over, then it might easily turn into antagonistic gameplay.

This is actually a far more widespread problem than only in D&D - I've had run-ins with it in Shadowrun, for instance, and had a ton of discussions on how to curtail mages. And yes, I've heard a lot about making SR mages feel like they're being hunted to stop them from using magic as often, but that's just antagonistic GMing at this point, because that means that every encounter that needs to be hard has special people who focus fire the mage, and once a session or two I have to make up an event just to remind the mage that they're an illegal criminal who, technically, is carrying around a small nuke - or at least that's what authorities perceive them as. After a while the mage player just gets tired of that and points out that I never do that to mundanes. And then I have to explain that mundane simply cannot disrupt the game on any important scale, because they just do their archetype's job, and even if they do it very well, it's not bad.

The issue is that if you don't play those games by the design guidelines, i.e. "adventuring day" in D&D or severely limited resources (which actually hurts mundanes more, btw) in Shadowrun. Any GM that tries to keep things cinematic with 1-3 harder encounters per day will have an even harder time stopping mages from taking the spotlight, and if your Shadowrun GM awards higher karma and nuyen so that characters actually progress, one of the first things a mage should probably do is get some augmentations of choice because the additional cost isn't high enough. As such, I find it easier to simply shut down the core problem, which is not "GMing wrong" (because "GMing right" creates more problems in the end) but "the mages are too powerful, here's why and here's how we get rid of it".

Also, can a martial play the same role as a caster in a pinch? If not, then why should casters be able to do the reverse?

[Psyren]

That's pretty much saying "magic is harder to control than martial/mundane exploits, so the GM has to put extra work into containing it". That's casters saying "hey, I could take over and hog the spotlight, but I choose not to, because it will/might impact my performance later", not "hey martial, it's your spotlight, do us proud". And if the GM specifically shuts them down to prevent them from taking over, then it might easily turn into antagonistic gameplay.

This is actually a far more widespread problem than only in D&D - I've had run-ins with it in Shadowrun, for instance, and had a ton of discussions on how to curtail mages. And yes, I've heard a lot about making SR mages feel like they're being hunted to stop them from using magic as often, but that's just antagonistic GMing at this point, because that means that every encounter that needs to be hard has special people who focus fire the mage, and once a session or two I have to make up an event just to remind the mage that they're an illegal criminal who, technically, is carrying around a small nuke - or at least that's what authorities perceive them as. After a while the mage player just gets tired of that and points out that I never do that to mundanes. And then I have to explain that mundane simply cannot disrupt the game on any important scale, because they just do their archetype's job, and even if they do it very well, it's not bad.

Eh, I don't think "smart enemies prepare to deal with magic, because it's the single most impactful force in their world and they'd be blithering idiots not to" is that much of a mental burden, nor does it necessarily lead to "antagonistic gameplay." Neither do I think that "all magic is illegal so use it as little as possible" is the only or even a particularly reasonable suggestion. The only D&D setting I can think of that even comes close to that is Dark Sun, and even then it's only a specific kind of magic that gets that treatment. In the more standard ones like Faerun, Greyhawk and Golarion, magic is an expected part of daily life, and any counters people use to keep it from running rampant are little different than basic cybersecurity (like passwords that contain special characters) being a facet of daily life in our world. And keep in mind that most of the serious foes adventurers are likely to tussle with are far above basic countermeasures.

Put another way - nobody smart starts a powerful villain organization (or gets far in an existing one), like an evil cult, without thinking "we're likely to run into some meddling do-gooders with access to spellcasting eventually, I'd better plan for that." Even neutral organizations that gain enough power, like banks or merchant guilds, need to worry about magical reconnaissance and theft before long - whether from individual threat actors, those sponsored by rivals, or even good old-fashioned law enforcement (less theft and more "appropriation/seizure" in the latter case.)

The issue is that if you don't play those games by the design guidelines, i.e. "adventuring day" in D&D or severely limited resources (which actually hurts mundanes more, btw) in Shadowrun. Any GM that tries to keep things cinematic with 1-3 harder encounters per day will have an even harder time stopping mages from taking the spotlight, and if your Shadowrun GM awards higher karma and nuyen so that characters actually progress, one of the first things a mage should probably do is get some augmentations of choice because the additional cost isn't high enough. As such, I find it easier to simply shut down the core problem, which is not "GMing wrong" (because "GMing right" creates more problems in the end) but "the mages are too powerful, here's why and here's how we get rid of it".

No one's saying you shouldn't deviate from design guidelines - just be mindful of the fact that you may have to make adjustments to the game if you do. Several assumptions in D&D are tied to those guidelines, like the wealth and spell slots characters should be getting each day.

Also, can a martial play the same role as a caster in a pinch? If not, then why should casters be able to do the reverse?

In several cases, yes - via items. If you only mean innately - no, not without some form of casting themselves (which again, doesn't have to be spells - it can be a resource like "ki" or some more focused SLAs or Su abilities.)

[Batcathat]

Ah, the siren song of gaming forums everywhere
The best advice I can give then is to find a gaming system/design team that hits the balance point you want, and vote with your wallet.

Well, yeah, obviously. I don't think the designers are going to retroactively balance the classes of 3.5. or any other game, I'm arguing against your point that unbalanced classes are preferable from a design and/or commercial point of view.

You mean doing more things than dealing damage? Of course I'm fine with that, and PF / 5e do that.

Which is nice, but as you've mentioned yourself the classes still aren't balanced, just less unbalanced. If non-casters go from contributing in 2 in 10 situations to 5 in 10 situations it's still not balanced if the casters can contribute in 9 of 10.

[Ignimortis]

Eh, I don't think "smart enemies prepare to deal with magic, because it's the single most impactful force in their world and they'd be blithering idiots not to" is that much of a mental burden, nor does it necessarily lead to "antagonistic gameplay." Neither do I think that "all magic is illegal so use it as little as possible" is the only or even a particularly reasonable suggestion. The only D&D setting I can think of that even comes close to that is Dark Sun, and even then it's only a specific kind of magic that gets that treatment. In the more standard ones like Faerun, Greyhawk and Golarion, magic is an expected part of daily life, and any counters people use to keep it from running rampant are little different than basic cybersecurity (like passwords that contain special characters) being a facet of daily life in our world. And keep in mind that most of the serious foes adventurers are likely to tussle with are far above basic countermeasures.

Put another way - nobody smart starts a powerful villain organization (or gets far in an existing one), like an evil cult, without thinking "we're likely to run into some meddling do-gooders with access to spellcasting eventually, I'd better plan for that." Even neutral organizations that gain enough power, like banks or merchant guilds, need to worry about magical reconnaissance and theft before long - whether from individual threat actors, those sponsored by rivals, or even good old-fashioned law enforcement (less theft and more "appropriation/seizure" in the latter case.)

That is precisely the point. Why is magic (usually spellcasting) the most potent force in the world, again? That's the root of the problem. And it's not every day PCs fight an advanced organization or even somewhat organized enemies like orcs and whatnot. And often it's not about being able to outfight something, as much as getting to that fight, so the wizard gets to contribute a lot during both parts - both the journey and the fight, but what does a fighter do? Fight maybe 10% better, but do almost nothing on the way there? Why play a fighter, again?

Illegal magic is specifically part of Shadowrun, which is relevant, because SR mages are busted - not as much as D&D wizards (nobody is that broken), but they're still all versatility with very little loss of power outside of investment costs. A highly advanced SR mage can be a decker/adept/mage combo who can do anything and everything, if not at the same moment. A well-played SR mage doesn't even need to be good at combat, because spirits are adequate replacements for combat characters and you can have several of them.

In several cases, yes - via items. If you only mean innately - no, not without some form of casting themselves (which again, doesn't have to be spells - it can be a resource like "ki" or some more focused SLAs or Su abilities.)

Precisely. Only casters get to do unusual stuff, because for some reason, "noncasters" are the same as "baseline", so things that they do anyone with the right numbers can do. That's where the problem takes root, and that's why magic is considered to be powerful - because for some reason magic or effects imitating magic (SLAs/SUs) are allowed to have specific effects which either ignore outside rules or break them. Magic items are also made by casters. Again, why play a fighter? 99% of the time you're not getting anything out of the deal besides "adhering to the concept".

[Morty]

What's the problem with the Rogue? That's an archetype that exists elsewhere (the most famous examples being Han Solo or Captain Jack Sparrow), it has the ability to contribute meaningfully both in and out of combat, and it scales well into the high-level/fantastic environment that the Fighter doesn't.

Conceptually, the rogue is as much of a grab-bag as the fighter, if not more. It means every character that's not primarily a magic-user but also not defined by their martial skills and exploits. Which, of course, contributes to the erroneous perception that combat and non-combat skills are somehow fundamentally different. And to the idea that a "fighter" is a brick all that exists to fight. Because if someone has a variety of skills, they're clearly a "rogue". Or at least multiclassed into one.

Mechanically, the baggage of the old-school "thief" hangs over the class. It doesn't always need to be stealthy - it depends on the edition - but it's heavily implied that it should be. Sneak Attack forces a very particular style of fighting. Trapfinding and lock-picking are still a thing for reasons that mystify me (well, not really, the answer is "tradition"). There's nothing wrong with a thief/burglar archetype, the problem is the idea that if you're not a warrior, you're a sneak.

I mean, not really. 3e had 11 classes in the PHB. 8e had 8, with only 6 being carried forward. One class didn't even exist in the 3e (the Warlord). I think WotC probably learned the wrong lessons from 4e, but it seems entirely possible that they would dump the Fighter at some point.

As you yourself say, 6 out of 8 4E PHB classes are classic ones. So we've got two Martial Strikers but only one Controller of any kind - the later had a poor effect on the wizard class and the entire Controller role once more classes appeared there. Fighters are blank slates with poor non-combat skills, while rogues and rangers have their usual baggage of being stealthy and wilderness specialists, respectively. Tough luck if you want to play a mobile and aggressive warrior who's neither. 4E combines the old class list with an attempt to standardize the classes around some kind of consistent metric - but it ends up problematic, because the traditional D&D classes have no rhyme, reason or consistency to them.

[NigelWalmsley]

When I see something that needs changing?

Ah, but that wasn't the question. The question is when would you admit that there are enough people asking for something to be changed that you'd agree it was a good idea to change it even if you personally thought it was okay.

Reducing a gap and eliminating it entirely are two different things.

No, they aren't. Eliminating a gap is reducing it by a larger amount. They're "different" in the sense that me paying you $20 to mow my lawn is different from me paying you $25 to do it, but that's not really a meaningful difference.

That ability didn't come from his class, so I'm not seeing its relevance to a class discussion.

How could you possibly know that? Maybe his class is "Heir to the Throne of Gondor" and it comes with a "Raise Ghost Army" ability at 7th level. That's certainly in line with how Tolkien presents him. The fact that he is destined to become king is a big part of his character identity. Beyond that, if we do find that martial characters are consistently getting non-class abilities in the source material, that's a sign that our martial classes aren't adequately representing the source material. Gandalf doesn't need non-class powers to adequately represent his abilities.

There is no such thing as a "firmly martial death knight." They all use magic.

So do Rangers and Paladins. A Death Knight is basically a Palading of Tyranny who happens to be a Necropolitan

In broad strokes yes, that's my position - because magic (spellcasting in particular) has limitations of its own; the key is to make those limitations matter.

Then aren't you substantively agreeing with the people asking for things to be balanced? "Magic does different things and has different costs" is exactly "classes work differently and are balanced". The question is if the costs of magic, as currently implemented, and the effects non-magical characters can produce are balanced and well-designed (spoiler alert: they are not).

Illegal magic is specifically part of Shadowrun

There are also illegal guns and illegal technology in Shadowrun. Like, yes, there is magic you can do that will make the megacorps not like you. But it isn't like showing up as a cybered-out Troll who can walk off small arms fire and carries a weapon that is normally vehicle-mounted is going to endear you to them.

Conceptually, the rogue is as much of a grab-bag as the fighter, if not more. It means every character that's not primarily a magic-user but also not defined by their martial skills and exploits.

No it doesn't. A character who was a high-ranking (but non-magic) member of the church, or a successful merchant, or a military general all aren't magic users and aren't defined by (personal) martial skill. But none of those people are Rogues. Admittedly, as-written only the last is particularly likely to be a member of a PC class (Marshal), but you could imagine that the Merchant gets by on bodyguards and UMD or something. Rogue means the Han Solo/Jack Sparrow-esque archetype of the dashing scoundrel, or the protagonists of most heist movies.

Because if someone has a variety of skills, they're clearly a "rogue". Or at least multiclassed into one.

Or they're a Ranger, or a Bard, or a Scout (which I would consider different from a Rogue). There are a variety of skilled characters that aren't Rogues. The reason the Fighter doesn't get skills is because it's a class that is defined as just doing Fighting.

As you yourself say, 6 out of 8 4E PHB classes are classic ones.

That's the wrong way of looking at it. They threw out half the existing PHB classes, and they fabricated an entirely new one. Compare that to 5e, which has every single 3e PHB class. 4e was clearly breaking with tradition in this respect.

while rogues and rangers have their usual baggage of being stealthy and wilderness specialists

That's not "baggage" that's "a character concept".

Tough luck if you want to play a mobile and aggressive warrior who's neither.

Any class system is going to have a finite number of classes and is therefore not going to cover every possible concept.

[Psyren]

Which is nice, but as you've mentioned yourself the classes still aren't balanced, just less unbalanced. If non-casters go from contributing in 2 in 10 situations to 5 in 10 situations it's still not balanced if the casters can contribute in 9 of 10.

...And? I never said it was balanced, I said I'm perfectly okay with a degree of imbalance.

Well, yeah, obviously. I don't think the designers are going to retroactively balance the classes of 3.5. or any other game, I'm arguing against your point that unbalanced classes are preferable from a design and/or commercial point of view.

6e might prove you right one day, we'll have to see. All I can do is go off the data we have.

That is precisely the point. Why is magic (usually spellcasting) the most potent force in the world, again? That's the root of the problem. And it's not every day PCs fight an advanced organization or even somewhat organized enemies like orcs and whatnot. And often it's not about being able to outfight something, as much as getting to that fight, so the wizard gets to contribute a lot during both parts - both the journey and the fight, but what does a fighter do? Fight maybe 10% better, but do almost nothing on the way there? Why play a fighter, again?

Illegal magic is specifically part of Shadowrun, which is relevant, because SR mages are busted - not as much as D&D wizards (nobody is that broken), but they're still all versatility with very little loss of power outside of investment costs. A highly advanced SR mage can be a decker/adept/mage combo who can do anything and everything, if not at the same moment. A well-played SR mage doesn't even need to be good at combat, because spirits are adequate replacements for combat characters and you can have several of them.

I'm... not sure what you hope to gain by pointing out that yet another widely popular TTRPG maintains caster disparity

As for "why play a fighter" - because people want to play a fighter. Challenge, simplicity, aesthetic, there can be a number of reasons besides raw power.

[Batcathat]

...And? I never said it was balanced, I said I'm perfectly okay with a degree of imbalance.

Sure, so the question still is if you'd be okay with the same imbalance the other way around (non-casters being able to contribute in almost all situations and casters in maybe four out of ten, if they're lucky).

6e might prove you right one day, we'll have to see. All I can do is go off the data we have.

True, but I don't think the data proves anything either way, except possibly that people are willing to accept imbalanced classes in a game they otherwise enjoy. I'm not saying the vast majority are screaming for better balance, but the entire reason I got into this debate was that you claimed it was the other way around for certain.

[Psyren]

Sure, so the question still is if you'd be okay with the same imbalance the other way around (non-casters being able to contribute in almost all situations and casters in maybe four out of ten, if they're lucky).

A question I've answered multiple times in this thread, including recently, yet keep getting asked

True, but I don't think the data proves anything either way, except possibly that people are willing to accept imbalanced classes in a game they otherwise enjoy. I'm not saying the vast majority are screaming for better balance, but the entire reason I got into this debate was that you claimed it was the other way around for certain.

Hey, I never said the data was perfect there are surely other factors besides caster disparity that play into the adoption/success of these games. But I consider it better than no data, particularly since, as folks like ignimortis have pointed out, it's a trend that goes far beyond D&D.

Spoiler: @Nigel

Show

Ah, but that wasn't the question. The question is when would you admit that there are enough people asking for something to be changed that you'd agree it was a good idea to change it even if you personally thought it was okay.

I genuinely don't know as I haven't seen it happen yet. Maybe when I see some other game that does do that get a groundswell of support causing it to rival D&D - though even then I would likely just say to you and folks like you "there's now a popular game that seems to do what you want, go play that."

No, they aren't. Eliminating a gap is reducing it by a larger amount. They're "different" in the sense that me paying you $20 to mow my lawn is different from me paying you $25 to do it, but that's not really a meaningful difference.

No. "Firemen should get paid more" is not the same as saying "Firemen should make the same amount as doctors." Reducing a gap and eliminating it are still two different things.

How could you possibly know that? Maybe his class is "Heir to the Throne of Gondor" and it comes with a "Raise Ghost Army" ability at 7th level.

Because "Heir to the Throne of Gondor" is demonstrably not a vocation. There can literally only be one of them, and there's no way to become one (or become better at it) by any kind of training, practice, or study. That's not what a D&D class is; that'd be more accurately represented by, I dunno, a template?

So do Rangers and Paladins.

And? They're not "firmly martials" either, unless you drop their magic via an ACF/archetype of some kind.

Then aren't you substantively agreeing with the people asking for things to be balanced? "Magic does different things and has different costs" is exactly "classes work differently and are balanced". The question is if the costs of magic, as currently implemented, and the effects non-magical characters can produce are balanced and well-designed (spoiler alert: they are not).

I'm fine with reducing that gap so long as it still exists in some form - like 5e and PF did.
I'm fine with firemen getting paid more, so long as they don't get the same amount as doctors.

[Batcathat]

A question I've answered multiple times in this thread, including recently, yet keep getting asked

I wasn't sure how to interpret your replies since a lot of them feel like "Sure, that would be okay, but..." but if you say so, that's good enough for me. I, at least, won't ask again.

Hey, I never said the data was perfect there are surely other factors besides caster disparity that play into the adoption/success of these games. But I consider it better than no data, particularly since, as folks like ignimortis have pointed out, it's a trend that goes far beyond D&D.

That's true. Personally, I suspect that has more to do with magic having no intuitive limits since it doesn't exist in the real world (we all have some idea — correct or not — about what skill and training can do but no consistent idea of what magic can or cannot do. It's one of the reasons I prefer fiction that sets specific rules for its magic and sticks to them) but that's obviously just a theory.