Pathfinder: the Lowdown

[Kaelik]

When I said Fighters Fight I don't believe I said other fighting characters couldn't fight. I didn't know it was a requirement of my statement to specify the way every fighty type character fights (possibly because that wasn't the point of the statement)

You asked why Fighters can't be better at fighting than other classes like Samurai and Monk and Knight and Wizard. The Reason is because all those other classes are fighting classes too. You can't be better than someone at their thing, it makes the game suck. I pointed out the problem with Tome Fighters is they outgrapple Fiendish Brutes, out damage Samurais and Out status effect Monks. Your response was "Each class has something special that they can do better than anyone else. I have no qualms with that. I just want the fighter to do what it does best when in a group. Fight things better than anyone."

1) Anyone means anyone.
2) This doesn't solve the problem of Fighters being better at fighting than classes that aren't about fighting.

No everyone's specialty isn't to fight especially not casters. Non martial characters can have builds that almost entirely has got nothing at all to do with fighting. While every martial character's abilities are ALL aimed at fighting. (Why do I think that I'm actually going to have to give examples to support this point?)

You are a joke. Everyone's specialty is to fight. Everyone fights 4 encounters a day. If your character is standing on the side watching, your character is a waste of damn space who needs to be put down so that they can stop stealing XP and Loot from real characters. You can't even make a caster build that doesn't fight, because by definition all level 3 Wizards could cast Glitterdust, or Web, or Scorching Ray, or Kelgore's Grave Mist. That's four schools, you can't even make a character that bans all four, and you aren't even going to make one that bans Glitterdust.

Everyone fights. Being a level 10 character means you have to contribute 25% to all fights against CR 10 monsters.

I could spend time going through every wizard trick to show you why they win 100% of the time. However I'm going to just say Scry and Die and hope that the other tricks catch up to you at some point.

Shut up Mguy. I know more about Wizard tricks than you could ever hope to know. I am the original inventor of the Locate City Bomb, and I can build a Wizard that is undetectable by any means in the game of D&D and fires off 6 Orbs that do 200 untyped damage each and bypass SR and AMFs, and do this at a +39 attack bonus against flat footed touch AC. I know every trick you could possibly have ever thought of, I also know what Monsters are capable of, and how an actual same game test with a level 5 and 10 and 15 Wizard goes, because I fucking ran them.

Scry and Die is not all powerful. It fucks up a lot of the game, and it is the reason any character that can't mindblank can't actually have a Wizard who wants to kill him anywhere, but it has no bearing whatsoever on the fact that a level 10 Wizard who wants to invade a crypt loses to about 40% of the CR 10 challenges that he encounters.

[MGuy]

1) Considering the fact that a fighter doesn't have side abilities that deal with cutting magic, growing wings, and punching their way into another dimension It seems to me that umm yeah... Fighters are MORE specialized at fighting and should get the benefits of being so.

2) Guess what. People have the freedom to do whatever they want. You can actually make a cleric that does nothing but keep people from dying ever. And you know what the party will appreciate it. You thinking that everyone should be built for combat is a matter of your own tastes.The fact that they CAN fight doesn't mean that fighting is the classes specialty.

3) *claps* I knew if I mentioned one the others would come flooding back to you! congrats! Now that you remember that a wizard can port himself anywhere and absolutely destroy anything you keep that in mind while saying a wizard doesn't win 100% of the time.

[Kaelik]

1) Considering the fact that a fighter doesn't have side abilities that deal with cutting magic, growing wings, and punching their way into another dimension It seems to me that umm yeah... Fighters are MORE specialized at fighting and should get the benefits of being so.

2) Guess what. People have the freedom to do whatever they want. You can actually make a cleric that does nothing but keep people from dying ever. And you know what the party will appreciate it. You thinking that everyone should be built for combat is a matter of your own tastes.The fact that they CAN fight doesn't mean that fighting is the classes specialty.

3) *claps* I knew if I mentioned one the others would come flooding back to you! congrats! Now that you remember that a wizard can port himself anywhere and absolutely destroy anything you keep that in mind while saying a wizard doesn't win 100% of the time.

You are retarded in so many ways I give up. You don't understand that Fighters doing more burst damage than samurai's is a problem, you don't understand that D&D is a combat game in which you definitionally face combats, and you don't understand that Wizards can't win against 100% of CR encounters because you are too stupid to know anything about them. Good bye you completely hopeless idiot.

[MGuy]

*ahem* DnD is a role playing game good sir. By definition it is a game you Role Play in.

[FatR]

In other news, clerics in Pathfinder no longer have heavy armor proficiency. I don't see this as doing anything to nerf them, so just another change for changes sake.

Did anyone wear non-mithral heavy armor before?

[Koumei]

Depends how early in the game you are. For a few levels you can't even do amusing tricks for infinite wealth so you seriously don't get your mithral full plate for a few levels.

[Draco_Argentum]

Draco: I'm not going to give anyone credit in the now for things they've done in the past good or bad. Barring posters like Ubernoob and Parthenon no one else has come up with a good reason to argue against what I've laid out here. Most that do blatantly ignore part or sometimes most of what I put (IE Frank and Kaelik).

You missed the point by a lot. I'm not saying that Frank/Kaelik is right because of stuff he said in the past. I'm saying that you're arguing against ten years of Frank thinking about this, I was there and saw it. This isn't some fight we're new to where you can easily sway us. This is something that we've thought about a lot, you'll have to come up with an absolute gem of an argument. Given that noone has done that so far you're going to have trouble.

[MGuy]

No I didn't miss the point. I always come into any debate with the assumption that the people I debate with have done their homework. I am pitting my experiences with others and I don't expect any different from everybody else. I don't want people to fold over and start telling me I'm right without giving a reason but just the same I don't want people to say I'm wrong without giving a reason. I want people to challenge my ideas and force me to defend myself, then counter my defense, rinse, and repeat. Sometimes, like with Panthenon, it boils down to a difference in opinion/method. The biggest issue that is here is whether or not using magic items to shore up a physical character's weaknesses is acceptable. The reigning opinion is no. I disagree with this notion. That seems to be the bottom line. In either case I actually enjoy the experience. I just hate posts that lack reasoning or that blatantly ignore large portions of text I took the time to type.

[TavishArtair]

Depends how early in the game you are. For a few levels you can't even do amusing tricks for infinite wealth so you seriously don't get your mithral full plate for a few levels.

At those levels you also are wearing a chain shirt, dastana, and chahar-aina, and seriously look like a Persian footsoldier, but you don't care because you're still in light/medium armor and heavy armor you can acquire for more doesn't significantly impress you with its AC bonus to make you want to fork over all the gold to upgrade to heavy.

[MGuy]

Ahh I got it! without heavy armor you can't get the highest arcane spell fail percentages and the low max dex limits!

[TavishArtair]

No I didn't miss the point. I always come into any debate with the assumption that the people I debate with have done their homework. I am pitting my experiences with others and I don't expect any different from everybody else. I don't want people to fold over and start telling me I'm right without giving a reason but just the same I don't want people to say I'm wrong without giving a reason. I want people to challenge my ideas and force me to defend myself, then counter my defense, rinse, and repeat. Sometimes, like with Panthenon, it boils down to a difference in opinion/method. The biggest issue that is here is whether or not using magic items to shore up a physical character's weaknesses is acceptable. The reigning opinion is no. I disagree with this notion. That seems to be the bottom line. In either case I actually enjoy the experience. I just hate posts that lack reasoning or that blatantly ignore large portions of text I took the time to type.

Your personal experiences are anecdotal and therefore largely irrelevant to a debate, so when creating your argument you must draw more on pure reason. If a premise you present is not accepted as a universal truth by those you are talking with, you cannot come to an agreement with them ever. Indeed it suggests that one or both of the parties is wrong if they cannot accept a particular premise. If that premise is not agreed on as true or false, then your conclusion and indeed any other premises you may present are likely to be ignored.

So as far as I can tell you're complaining about premises being rejected out of hand. You need to backtrack and find the root of those premises, the premise for the premise, as it were, and reexamine the evidence you have for that observation/hypothesis/premise.

I understand that you feel beset on all sides and that you must be brief if you wish to address all arguments presented against you. However, if you aren't capable of arguing with very clear definitions, and a razor focus, it will also hinder your argument. People will get distracted. Instead of arguing simultaneously about the fighter class and magic items and the wizard class, with no particular thrust between any of these, perhaps you should put things down and create a new argument which you can present that focuses on a single point. That way you can give it your full attention and we can actually address it without having the conversation wander around in circles (hopefully) and never reach an understanding.

It's okay, we'll wait for you. We have time.

[Absentminded_Wizard]

*ahem* DnD is a role playing game good sir. By definition it is a game you Role Play in.

And the default assumption is that you're roleplaying a mercenary who makes a living by killing monsters and taking their things. Your character's life centers on combat, and for that very reason, there's a detailed mini-game, complete with positioning rules, all about combat. If your character doesn't contribute to combat, you have to ask why the other characters bring them along and give them a share of the treasure.

[MGuy]

Well thus far, no one has asked for any evidence of anything. Mostly people have done as you've said and killed any ideas I presented right out at the gate. Luckily some people attached letters of reasoning to the bullets and some people have actually given some of my wandering thoughts a nod.

I have actually presented everything I am thinking about a few times. I've read and re read my own argument quite a few times just to quote myself for people who have misquoted/ignored part of what I said. So I can give you a clear cut version of where I am at right now.

1) Purely physical classes should have ever improving physical abilities. While casters and supernatural classes should have ever improving magical or supernatural abilities. Physical abilities in game terms = Extraordinary abilities. Magical abilities= spells/spell-like abilities. Supernatural abilities=Su.

2)It is acceptable to allow physical characters to use magic items to cover their weaknesses.

3) The gap in power between physical classes, supernatural classes, and casters should be small. I believe this can be done without administering abilities from one category to the other (IE giving physical character's supernatural powers) and by shaving back the power of spells while boosting the abilities of the physical and supernatural classes.

This is the shortest and clearest version of my arguments. I can even outline the major contentions that I'm facing right now.

1) Physical abilities are inherently inferior to magical/supernatural abilities.

2) Reliance on magic items gives the advantage to non physical classes.

3) You can't nerf casters in a way that would make them equal to non casters.

4) There is no differences between Ex, Su, And Sp abilities. They are just tags that don't mean anything.

-After edit for ninja post: Not all games are centered around the combat function however. You can have entire games where actual combat occurs very little in the game. You can also have instances where certain characters specialize in supportive roles like keeping people alive and unhampered (IE healing) or have abilities that just help the party do better (buffs) or enable them to bypass challenges (skill monkeys). Only the bruising classes actually have no alternative features that help them do anything but fighting. While a caster or rogue get abilities that help them do these other things.

[Murtak]

1) Purely physical classes should have ever improving physical abilities. While casters and supernatural classes should have ever improving magical or supernatural abilities. Physical abilities in game terms = Extraordinary abilities. Magical abilities= spells/spell-like abilities. Supernatural abilities=Su.

That is a nonsensical definition. Ability type tags do not conform to anything. There is non-magical flight and magical running. What is important is what your character is able to do, not whether he can still do it in an antimagic field.

2)It is acceptable to allow physical characters to use magic items to cover their weaknesses.

This is bad. It's close to saying "it is ok if nonmagical characters have glaring weaknesses, after all they can use a limited resource to partially make up for it, while magical characters can use that resource for other things". Noncasters should not have more weaknesses than casters in the first place, then this entire point becomes moot.

3) The gap in power between physical classes, supernatural classes, and casters should be small. I believe this can be done without administering abilities from one category to the other (IE giving physical character's supernatural powers) and by shaving back the power of spells while boosting the abilities of the physical and supernatural classes.

Again, this is bad. There should not be a gap, period. I realize there is no such thign as perfect balance, but you are telling us you are deliberately making casters stronger than noncasters, and that is bullshit.

Ok, let's pretend you said "no gap" and try again. Sure, you can balance noncasters up to caster level in power, you can balance casters down to noncasters or you can go for a point in between. But you also have to worries about the challenges you will face. Thankfully 3E actually has sane criteria for encoutner difficulty. And by those criteria casters are doing fine and noncasters just stink.

Now personally I think Frank and K overdid and went for a power level slightly above that of standard challenges. But I quite agree in that casters are much much closer to the challenges in power than noncasters are. And thus you should balance upward, not downwards.


So of your three points we have one filled with nonsense, one misguided one and one actively bad one. And since we have beaten this particular topic to death a dozen times already people don't want to do it again.

[hogarth]

In other news, clerics in Pathfinder no longer have heavy armor proficiency. I don't see this as doing anything to nerf them, so just another change for changes sake.

Did anyone wear non-mithral heavy armor before?

Dwarves?

Note that Mr. Bulmahn commented at one point that he changed the rules so that mithral heavy armor requires Heavy Armor Proficiency to use.

[TOZ]

I still haven't heard anything to confirm that is in the final however.

[Parthenon]

Urgh. Looking back, I didn't really argue enough about that, and I lost track of where the argument was going.

the major contentions that I'm facing right now.

1) Physical abilities are inherently inferior to magical/supernatural abilities.

3) You can't nerf casters in a way that would make them equal to non casters.

One of the basic arguments is that physical abilities shouldn't be inherently inferior. If one class is inherently inferior by design to another that is bad.

I assumed your argument was that... You know, I'm not really sure about your argument now. I think it was something like "its okay for one class to be inherently inferior by design to another because magic items can make up the difference".

Sort of like:

MGuy: Fighty guys shouldn't be able to fly or teleport (or whatever) because those are magical abilities and they are physical characters.

Others: But if you have one group of PCs who have one level of power and another group who have a different level of awesome then you have some classes inherently inferior by design which is a shit idea. Physical abilities should be equal to magical abilities. Hell, there isn't really a division.

MGuy: But they can make up the difference with magic items. And some abilities are obviously physical and some are obviously magical and they don't normally overlap.

Others: Relying on magic items doesn't work because they won't reliably have magic items, and using this to balance won't end up with it balanced.

MGuy: Yeah, but the DM can make sure they have the magic items needed or change the encounters so they don't need the magic items. And they can fiddle around to make sure that it is balanced.

And we're arguing about the general case. Publicly was the wrong word to use. If you start arguing about balance in your specific games where you automatically balance things and if you think "its okay for the game to be inherently unbalanced because the DM can fix it" then people will ignore you.

Put simply, if you ask for help in the IMOI subforum stating that its for a particular campaign and specify the ways in which the DM is balancing things then thats one thing, but if you're in the IMHO subforum and have the DM balancing things outside the rules as an unsaid assumption then people will get angry.

[Roy]

In other news, clerics in Pathfinder no longer have heavy armor proficiency. I don't see this as doing anything to nerf them, so just another change for changes sake.

Did anyone wear non-mithral heavy armor before?

Plus Fucking One.

Depends how early in the game you are. For a few levels you can't even do amusing tricks for infinite wealth so you seriously don't get your mithral full plate for a few levels.

Well, you can get it at level 5. The difference until then is what? A few AC? Even if you can't do it, it's just AC, so don't worry too much about it.

[Koumei]

Still, that can sometimes crop up, or so I hear. I wouldn't know, I only hop on the bus at Awesome, after it's left that station.

[MGuy]

-Murtak
1) What you have read there isn't a definition. I equated my words to the words used out of the PHB to relate them to the game. Also, there is non magical flight in the real world as well. I'm not sure what your point in pointing out that magic can emulate other things is.

2) Close to but I'm not saying that. It is also close to saying it is ok for physical characters to use magic to cover their weaknesses. I will not go on to discuss something that I did not say. I think I've done that enough.

3) You say there should be no gap, then go on to say there is no such thing as perfect balance. I said small gap precisely for that reason. The system, like most, will most likely not be perfect so I am hoping whatever gap is left is small.

I'm not sure what exactly your problem with my thoughts are. I know and acknowledge that the system RAW isn't properly balanced. I haven't said anything contrary to that. As for the direction of balance I think that its sane to say that if casters are too high and warriors are too low then the rules should be reset towards some middle ground. I actually spoke on this earlier but I figured it would take to long to repost it all.

-Parthenon:
My arguments are only those 3 points above. The contentions are things other people have brought up that are the biggest disagreements I seem to be having.

Like on the subject of physical abilities being inherently inferior to the others. As soon as someone catches on to what I mean by them (IE that there is no physical way for anyone to plane hop without utilizing magic or supernatural abilities) people have said then that I am limiting too much of what the class should be able to do.

Now I didn't actually bring any of this up looking for help. I got on this whole thing because I was defending a design choice that Pathfinder had made. I'm currently just enjoying the back and forth its created and using it to sharpen my thoughts on what I may implement in the future.

Other than that I'm not defending imbalance in the game. Hopefully after all is said and done all the classes will be roughly equal to each other but because I don't have a clear cut fleshed out copy of this idea I'm probably gonna be stuck with views of my ideas being looked at in window of the system as is. Which is understandable.

[Murtak]

1) What you have read there isn't a definition. I equated my words to the words used out of the PHB to relate them to the game. Also, there is non magical flight in the real world as well. I'm not sure what your point in pointing out that magic can emulate other things is.

That is not at all what I am pointing out. I am pointing out that pretty much every type of ability already exists in DnD as both a magical and a non-magical ability, making your distinction of "fighter types get nonmagical abilities" useless.

2) Close to but I'm not saying that. It is also close to saying it is ok for physical characters to use magic to cover their weaknesses. I will not go on to discuss something that I did not say. I think I've done that enough.

How come you do not state magical characters in turn have to cover their physical weaknesses? Why is it ok for the fighter types to have to invest in a flight item, a teleport item and a couple combat utility items when the casters don't have to? Doesn't that create a glaring imbalance?

3) You say there should be no gap, then go on to say there is no such thing as perfect balance. I said small gap precisely for that reason. The system, like most, will most likely not be perfect so I am hoping whatever gap is left is small.

Which is why I then pretended you said exactly that.

As for the direction of balance I think that its sane to say that if casters are too high and warriors are too low then the rules should be reset towards some middle ground. I actually spoke on this earlier but it isn't my main point.

Then everybody winds up being underpowered compared to the monsters. Why do you want this?

Like on the subject of physical abilities being inherently inferior to the others. As soon as someone catches on to what I mean by them (IE that there is no physical way for anyone to plane hop without utilizing magic or supernatural abilities) people have said then that I am limiting too much of what the class should be able to do.

And they are correct. A lot of higher level DnD either happens on another plane or features ethereal interlopers or something like that. Why is the cleric allowed to go to the ethereal plane to banish some ghosts but the ancestor-worshipping barbarian is not? Why is the elven wizard allowed to go to the plane of earth, but the dwarven fighter is not? Is there any reason beyond "well, it's magic"? The whole fictional world is magic. Every single character does the impossible on a daily basis. There is no reason to not let everyone equally take part in adventures. And that means everyone has to start doing crazy stuff at about the same time.

You can always write flavor text to justify those abilities later. But what you are proposing is to actually balance by flavor text. And that is bullshit.

[Judging__Eagle]

1) Physical abilities are inherently inferior to magical/supernatural abilities.

2) Reliance on magic items gives the advantage to non physical classes.

3) You can't nerf casters in a way that would make them equal to non casters.

4) There is no differences between Ex, Su, And Sp abilities. They are just tags that don't mean anything.

Uhm.


Roland cut a mountain in half, he stopped an army from chasing Charlemane, and then fought to the death against said army, or ran away over the broken mountain; depending on the story you listen to.

Beowulf ripped an ogre's arm from it's body, then jumped into a drowned castle to kill the Ogre's mom.

Setanta, killed a giant dire wofl with his bare hands, he then had to pretend to be a dire wolf to protect the cattle that the giant doggy protected. He was then called Cu Cullain , he could also turn into a giant, and was so insanely tough that he had wounds so large in his body that "birds flew in an out of them"

David, King of the Jews, killed an Ogre with a sling, and then went choppy-choppy with a sword.

Hercules. Mother-fucking Hercules. I don't even need to bother with this one. You should know it by heart if you want to bother playing D&D.

Samson. He wrestled lions; murdered entire battallions of Phillistines with an improvised weapon (an Ass' Jawbone); and then collapsed a temple killing the entire Phillistine aristocracy and core leadership; he died, but he was already blind when he did this. Oh yeah, he was blind when he killed his biggest kill.

I wrote a whole essay about this a couple years ago; I submitted it to Brilliant Gameologists link. Got a decent mark when I submitted it for a

It looks like Zeke didn't put up the 3rd part. -shrug- when you get through parts 1 and 2, I'll dig the remainder out of my g-mail archive.

Also... upon re-reading it, it's kind of densely written. That's good for getting a high mark in a writing class, but annoying for easy consumption.

[MGuy]

That is not at all what I am pointing out. I am pointing out that pretty much every type of ability already exists in DnD as both a magical and a non-magical ability, making your distinction of "fighter types get nonmagical abilities" useless.

Well I am without a clear and concrete definition. I could explain it at length but it would be like writing a long contract. The best way that I could put it right now is that I want to adhere to a kind of "consistency". That's probably a loaded word but hopefully by throwing it out there I can handle the shots one by one and maybe hammer out a clear cut definition.

How come you do not state magical characters in turn have to cover their physical weaknesses? Why is it ok for the fighter types to have to invest in a flight item, a teleport item and a couple combat utility items when the casters don't have to? Doesn't that create a glaring imbalance?

You make a very good point. I have spent so much time concentrating on commenting on fighters I hadn't realized that by not stating that caster's need to compensate I was implying that they needn't do it at all. Thank you for pointing that out.

Which is why I then pretended you said exactly that.

Thank you for your consideration (i feel that that might sound sarcastic but I assure you it is not)

Then everybody winds up being underpowered compared to the monsters. Why do you want this?

This is part of my own view. I think that as is casters are overpowered and should be toned down. There are also a number of monster abilities I would like to tone down as well but that's a whole 'nother discussion.

And they are correct. A lot of higher level DnD either happens on another plane or features ethereal interlopers or something like that. Why is the cleric allowed to go to the ethereal plane to banish some ghosts but the ancestor-worshipping barbarian is not? Why is the elven wizard allowed to go to the plane of earth, but the dwarven fighter is not? Is there any reason beyond "well, it's magic"? The whole fictional world is magic. Every single character does the impossible on a daily basis. There is no reason to not let everyone equally take part in adventures. And that means everyone has to start doing crazy stuff at about the same time.

You can always write flavor text to justify those abilities later. But what you are proposing is to actually balance by flavor text. And that is bullshit.

I am not sure how to word my response to this part but I shall try to careful etch out my thoughts. I don't mind people doing amazing stuff. Hell I don't mind that dwarf fight being so damn tough that he wakes up in the morning eating rocks and turpentine just because he can. What I am looking for is a kind of consistency. Why can the Cleric go ethereal and banish a ghost? Cause he spent his whole life bathing in the divine magic of the world to do so. Why can't that same cleric Rage like a barbarian? Because he hasn't spent the time unleashing the beast and making his chest into steel like the barbarian has.

[Emerald]

1) Purely physical classes should have ever improving physical abilities. While casters and supernatural classes should have ever improving magical or supernatural abilities. Physical abilities in game terms = Extraordinary abilities. Magical abilities= spells/spell-like abilities. Supernatural abilities=Su.

I think you might be missing one thing here:

Extraordinary abilities are nonmagical, though they may break the laws of physics. They are not something that just anyone can do or even learn to do without extensive training.

When you say "physical abilities" in relation to (Ex), I think you're equating those to things that are physically possible in this world, even though by definition they tell the laws of physics to sit down and shut up. What might be considered "magical" here is nonmagical in D&D because it isn't done through a spell, simple as that. When you talk about "magical abilities" you need to be more specific on what the parameters are.

Is tearing a hole through spacetime with your awesome sword magical? By our definition, hell yeah; you can't go pick up a sword and cut yourself a hole to China from the UK. Is it an (Ex) ability? Yes. Why? Because it's not a spell and works in an antimagic field. That's all.

[Murtak]

I am not sure how to word my response to this part but I shall try to careful etch out my thoughts. I don't mind people doing amazing stuff. Hell I don't mind that dwarf fight being so damn tough that he wakes up in the morning eating rocks and turpentine just because he can. What I am looking for is a kind of consistency. Why can the Cleric go ethereal and banish a ghost? Cause he spent his whole life bathing in the divine magic of the world to do so. Why can't that same cleric Rage like a barbarian? Because he hasn't spent the time unleashing the beast and making his chest into steel like the barbarian has.

Don't you see the difference? The barbarian gets a minor boost in fighting prowess. The fighter gets a flavor ability. The cleric gets to go a different world and banish stuff the fighter types can't even touch. And he gets to do this because, hey, it's magic. Even if you pull all of the cleric spells which boost his fighting ability, forbid to take any feats, give him a zero BAB and a single hitpoint he still comes out ahead in this comparison - at least he can participate in the barbarians adventure. The barbarian can't participate in the cleric's.

And next to all of these "all or nothing" abilities are spells or available as spells, and not available or damn expensive to fighter types. Flight, invisibility, teleportation, planar travel, reading minds, the list goes on and on. And each of those abilities means the caster gets to have fun and the noncaster doesn't even get to be a cheerleader.