|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Well Sissyl... According to your argument no one is tier 1, since there's always the possibility of picking the wrong spell. That's a sign you either misundertand the tier system or, more likely, is being intentionally obtuse for some reason... Maybe you don't like seeing a class you like being called overpowered? That's my guess, anyway...
Saying he won't always have "the perfect spell" is also disingenuous. Rarely, if ever, a caster needs the perfect spell... Often times all you need is a good enough spell, and that's far easier to have prepared...
You don't have Air Walk prepared... But you can summon a monster to carry you where you want. You don't have Purge Invisibility, but you have Dispel Magic. You didn't prepare Freedom of Movement, but have Liberating Command... Maybe you don't need to go to another plane today... But you can still use Plane Shift as a SoD effect... And so on.
Not to mention there are spells that are incredibly versatile and/or so useful that they'll rarely go unspent. Summon Monster alone add grest versatility to a character (No. You don't need a whole build to make SM good). Stone Shape, Dispel Magic and Wall of Stone are other spell that can be prepared every day with little risk of not being useful. Freedom of Movement and Air Walk last a long time and not only are amazingly useful in combat, but also give the character the ability to deal with countless out-of-combat obstacles. Animate Dead has permanent effects...
And PCs usually have at least an idea of what they'll be fighting that day... They aren't just randomly teported to completely unknown scenarios with completely unknown enemies and challenges.
The only "specialization" a Cleric needs is a little Str or Dex and taking a few combat feats like any other character if they want to be warriors... But even without that, they can use Guided weapons, summons and/or undead minions to effectively fulfill the front-liner role... Even if they aren't the ones swinging the sword.
When that prey is people, as it almost always is, they're racists.
Replace the word "prey" with "enemy", then, if you want to be pendantic... Doesn't matter. There's nothing inherently racist about Rangers. They are simply particularly good at fighting a certain type of enemy. You don't have to hate or disdain the enemy... You're just good at fighting them. You can pick your own race as a FE! And unlike 3.5 you don't even have to be evil anymore... And even if you did, being evil doesn't necessarily mean you're racist either.
You're taking a very specific roleplaying choice and and pretending it's an inherent part of the class.
And there's a difference between a guy with a sword that is like thousands of other swords, who can even pick up another completely different sword and still be okay and a guy whose entire concept revolves around being from Alkenstar and having an ultra-rare and special gadget that other people can't fathom.
Guns aren't that rare... And Gunslingers also have full martial weapon proficiency. Fighter aren't that much better, considering how much they have to specialize in a single weapon.
Gark the Goblin wrote:
I love clerics, but I do think they're pretty Tier 1. If you're only looking at levels 1-10 then you could easily say Tier 2 - they're excellent party buffers and damage dealers, or debuffers if you prefer, but it's hard to be good at all their niches at once because of the action economy. Once planar allies and high-level outsider summons (and eventually, s&$* like miracle) come into play, they get such versatility and power that they're easily Tier 1.
The only difference between Tier 1 and Tier 2 is the ability to "respec" what you're good at, allowing you to be good at everything (just not at the same time). Both tiers have the same raw power.
That said, I'm completely in favor of giving Clerics a few more class features... Nothing too powerful, as they are already really freaking powerful... Just something useful and interesting, so they are more fun to build.
There are two changes that have zero mechanical effects but would make the game considerably better by changing how players and designers view fighters and feats:
1- Instead of feats and Fighter-only feats, give Fighters "Figther Talents" or whatever every couple levels. Include an option of "Bonus Combat Feat" that can be taken multiple times.
There! Now there's no need for long feat chains! Fighters having access to multiple feats will actually be seen as bonus, rather than a limitation to everyone else!
2- Change the Fighter's name to "Champion", "Paragon", "Warlord" or some such... Fighter is as bad as name as "Magic-user". Changing its name to something more epic will inspire players and designers to see the class as the paragon of physical combat it's supposed to be, instead of the "Warrior+" so many still view him as.
No changes to the actual rules, but the game would very likely be much better designed from that point on.
Would you say that a 5th level Fighter is stronger than a Cleric with 20 HD worth of zombies? Because that small undead squad can be made by 5th level... And costs a whooping 500 gp. That's less than half of what the Fighter paid for his full plate.
...And requires zero feats.
Anyway... The reason people took Invulnerable Rager isn't because it's super powerful or because ofthe Improved DR Rage Power...
IR isn't particularly powerful... But it gains an useful ability in place of something that's useless 99% of the time. Trap Sense and Uncanny Dodge are such minor abilities that trading them for anything is almost always a good trade.
To put it succintly, the thought behind taking IR isn't "Wow! This is amazing!", it's "Eh... Why not?".
** spoiler omitted **
Sansa didn't "wait until they had exhausted themselves". Littlefinger's knights attacked as soon as they arrived.
And my problem isn't with the knights of the Vale arrivng... But they arriving in the nick of time, when all seems lost. That a bit too convinient for my tastes.
I've gone as high as level 32 back in 3.5... In Pathfinder, the highest I got was 24.
Past level 17 or so, the game goes bonkers. It turns into a very different game... And the GM has to be prepared for anything and everything. There is no more railroading when every PC has multiple ways to completely alter the narrative.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
It's not a trap option. It's just a different option with different priorities.
When players go for Dex-to-Damage, they aren't going for maximum damage output. They just want agile characters with decent damage... Otherwise they'd just go Str-based and two-hand a falchion or something.
Congratulations, HWalsh... You proved the GM is more powerful than casters and can create adversities that not even then can surpass if he's creative and mean enough...
You also proved that the GM has to be far more creative and mean to deter the casters than to deter the martials.
Good going, right there...
On the other hand, I think Inquisitors are among the best balanced classes in the game. They can be built in a great variety of ways, and are able to fill nearly every role... But not all of them at the same time. And they rarely outperform specialists in their respective specializations.
That monster summoning archetype is considerably overpowered, though...
...And therefore cannot contribute just as effectively, unless casters are holding back.
Chess Pwn wrote:
If the army is dealing 1d6+2 then the barb isn't getting hurt, DR 20.
How is he getting DR 20?
Chess Pwn wrote:
That's why you intimidate the guards to back down if they want to stop you from meeting with the king. You're not there to hurt the king, just to talk with him.
Why would they believe you? Intimidate is not Diplomacy or Bluff. "Acting Friendly" isn't "Doing All That is Asked."
Chess Pwn wrote:
yes the swimming and the dragon was weak, but that's his option.
Who says there's a handy dragon around? How do you breathe underwater? How do you see in the dark of the depths of the ocean? The right build could theoretically fly to the fortress, at least... Assuming that option of Flight lasts long enough.
Chess Pwn wrote:
Better explain that better to the barb next time. He got inside the guild and has access to all the files. You never said that the guild still had to exist afterwards ;)
So he failed. And that's assuming he's indeed powerful enough to solo the whole guild.
Anyway, you get my point.
I agree. I don't think simply buffing martials to the level of full casters or nerfing casters to the point of martials is a good solution...
Ideally, they'd all meet somewhere in the middle. There's a reason "Tier 3" is often considered the "best" tier from a game balance perspective.
My point was not that everyone should be as mighty as Wizards can be... Only that the C/MD exists. Like it or not, no matter how much one denies it... It exists.
Chess Pwn wrote:
No, the barb is just so awesome he overcomes difficult challenges solo. When you have DR20 and 200HP you don't care if you need to take down 20+ people. Surprise attack the barb all you want, you're going to lose.
- An army is not just "20+ people". Numerous enough CR 2 Warrior can still still kill the Barbarian, even if they only deal 1d6+2 damage.- The king is likely to have at least a few higher-level guards to protect him. He's the king, after all.
- Rounds of Rage are plentiful, but not infinity... Good luck keeping that grapple on the dragon. And somehow riding it. Also... Who says there is any dragon nearby?
- Swim speeds don't let you see in the dark or breathe underwater.
- Killing everyone in the Thieves' Guild, even if possible, is not the same as "infiltrate".
And Intimidate is not Diplomacy, BTW. "Acting Friendly" isn't the same as "do all you ask from them".
Basically, the Barbarian is limited to "hit things with my pointy stick and hope my GM lets me do stuff the rules don't say I can".
The Sword wrote:
Not the case as demonstrated by the many many people who post that this is not the case. As fergie said in his summary. Many people see CMD as a feature of the game, not a fault.
Sure, anyone can like anything... But there is a difference between saying "I'm okay with this" and "This doesn't exist" or "Everyone should be okay with this".
In the classic test of the C/M D, the barbarian is probably the best candidate for proving it doesn't exist. I absolutely love the versatility and survivability of the class.
Barbarians sure are great... But they don't come even close to "proving the C/M D doesn't exist".
Assuming... Say... 10th level.
Using his class features...
How does a Barbarian get an audience with the Governor?
He can possibly do one or more of those, but not through his class features alone. Meanwhile, many casters have multiple ways to do all of it using nothing but their class features... And not their most powerful ones.
The Sword wrote:
Brawlers, Swashbucklers, slayers, barbarians, monks and unchained rogues are all martial with flexibility. I have no idea why people fixate on the fighter. Probably because it's an ancient class and easy target. Just play one of its more interesting defendants... I for one would love to see an unchained fighter and it will probably come some day but we waited 8 years for unchained rogue we may need to wait a bit longer for an unchained fighter.
Brawlers are only versatile in combat, though... As soon as "hitting them with a pointy stick" is no longer a viable option, they're barely better than Core Fighters. Same goes for Swashbucklers, except they aren't all that versatile in combat either...
Slayers are better, of course, with lots of skill points and a bonus to certain skills. Still nowhere near anyone with spells, though...
Barbarians can be versatile thanks to Spell Sunder, IMO. Magic is so prevalent in Pathfinder that having an "at will" dispelling effect is always useful. They have access to flight too, which is always nice...
Monks kinda suck, but there might be a few ki powers for Qiggong Monks an UnMonks that let them be occasionally useful too.
The Sword wrote:
I have no issue with some things only being possible with magic. Otherwise magic ceases to be... Well... Magic?
So the invention of dynamite makes Fireballs mundane? Magic should have its advantages and disadvantages... But it shouldn't be the only thing capable of anything of importance.
The Sword wrote:
Except if casters aren't in the front lines then their squishiness or lack of is untested isn't it? I don't see many single class wizards wading into melee unless they have been specifically built for that purpose and have been spelled up.
If they can safely and consistently avoid the front lines, their supposed "squishness" doesn't matter at all.
There's no need to be able to absorb damage when you can completely avoid being damaged in the first place.
Milo v3 wrote:
Exactly. Ignoring the problem doesn't make it magically go away...
I've seen the C/MD show its ugly head in many games where no one even knew about it. Learning 3.X, I saw casters obsolete martials quite often, and my whole group was composed of noobs who firmly believed all classes were very well balanced.
That still happens in Pathtinder... I have a group where everyone except the GM (me) is a newcomer to the game. I've seen a Fighter get bored out of combat because there was barely anything they could do to contribute (there was no WMH at the time, and they wanted me to avoid house rules for their first game). The player was also annoyed seeing the Oracle doing all sorts of cool stuff in exploration, infiltration and social challenges. After a couple sessions, he was also bored with combat... Turns out saying "I full attack" every round over and over again, without making any meaningful decision is quite boring.
It's a bummer seeing how useful you character could be and how useless he turned out... And it's really freaking boring to do basically the same thing every round of every combat.
I played D&D 3.0 and 3.5 through its entirety...No one told me about how unbalanced classes were... I noticed it by playing the game since I was 10 years old. By the time I was 13 I already couldn't ignore C/MD (although I didn't know of its fancy name).
I noticed my Rangers's bonus feats and tracking abilities were completely redundant to the Wizard's summon and divination spells...
I noticed my Druid being as good or better than my friend's Fighter at quite literally everything.
I noticed a lot of other similar scenarios... More and more often. And when I finally decided to search the internet about D&D, I found out I wasn't the only one.
The point is: C/MD can still ruin games, even if you don't know about it. Even if you're a noob in a group of noobs where no one is trying to overshadow anyone.
C/MD is a very real problem... And it grows worse and worse the more you explore the rules.
The Sword wrote:
What exactly is your argument here? Are you seriously comparing healing magic to natural healing?
Personally, I consider anything without actual spell casting to be a martial... Including Barbarians and Monks. 4/9 such as Rangers and Paladins blur the line, but also get bunched together, since their spell casting is quite minor (although still immensely more useful than what non-casters can do).
Slayer Build - He Tumbles, TWF, Flanks, Feints, and Crits! (Pathfinder + 3.X) - I'm back a year later and it is almost time to play him I'm very excited.
I's no problem... It helps me kill time.
Vexing Flanker is fully unnecessary... With full BAB + Studied Target, the +2 from flanking is more than enough. Specially considering your enemies will often be denied their Dex bonus to AC.
Telling Blow is okay, I suppose... I wouldn't bother, though. It's not a bad feat by any means, but it wouldn't be high in my list of priorities.
Expert Tactician and Double Hit are pretty cool, though.
- - -
Is Lethal Acrobatics all that good? I understand it lets you make your enemy flat-footed and move in the same turn, but there must be a better way...
I personally would take Quick Dirty Trick and Hurtful... Then you could make your opponents shaken and still hit them. :)
- - -
I kinda despise the way Steadfast Personality is designed. I really don't know why it couldn't simply apply to all Will saves, but I digress... You might want to take it before Iron Will, as your Cha bonus is higher than +2. Oh... And Improved Iron Will is a waste of a feat, IMO.
Precisely. Arcanist have quite a few overpowered abilities for example... And a freaking amazing spell list. And an stupidly good casting system... Have I mentioned Arcanists are broken? Because they are.
Shamans have a good, but not particularly impressive spell list, IIRC... And other than the Arcane spell poaching ability, which really needs a nerf (but knowing Paizo it'll either never come or come in way to ehavy and make the ability a waste of page space), their class features are hardly game breaking...
Shamans are still overpowered because anything with full casting is overpowered in Pathfinder... That's just how the game is designed, sadly. But compared to other full casters? Shaman isn't all that...
Meanwhile the unchained rogue gets new talents and the slayer is basically left with his original choices. They could have at least let the slayer share some of them.
The moment I first saw Slayers had a limited list of specific Rogue Talents they could get instead of simply being allowed to take any one they like, I knew the class would end up getting few if any new talents.
Stupid design choice...
It's easily one of my favorite hobbies (tied with fighting games), but it does have to compete with books, movies, video-games and (other) social gatherings. It probably wins over any single one of those alternatives, but not over all of them together... I occasionally skip less important social events for a good RPG session, but I'll very rarely skip meeting my friends or family for it.
I do however occasionally have a lot of free time in my work... And RPG-related activities often keep me busy during that time (homebrew, forum discussion, PbP, etc)... Although that's mostly because I can't really do anything else at the office (I don't think they'd allow me to play Street Fighter here -.-).
Don't add Vital Strike... It sucks. Full BAB + High Str + Power Attack + Studied Target (possibly + Sneak Attack) is enough to deal with DR. :P
lvl 1 - Power attack
Aaaaand... That's it.
The build is "complete" by 7th level... Everything else is gravy.
Wow, you kids managed to stay quite long on topic before devolving into your usual "civilized discussion on balance" :P
It's almost like class balance would have a place in a discussion about classes... Who could have seen that coming? What's next? A discussion naturally evolving into different topics? BLASPHEMY!
Trench Fighter is okay...
Yeah... I never get it when people say the CRB is balanced... That is the book that places Fighter, (Core) Monks and (Core) Rogues side by side with Clerics, Druids and Wizards, after all... The same book where we have spells like Planar Ally, Wish and Simulacrum... And feats like Leadership and Quicken Spell. :/
I guess we have a different idea of what's "craziness" and where to find it...
(And if you actually read my profile, you'll notice the "immediate action" listed there is a joke. It's based on the fact that I'll often point out useless trivia somewhat related to whatever conversation I'm having with my friends and have no idea how I got that knowledge... while simultaneously having a less-than-great memory for stuff that's actually useful... like names and dates. ¬¬
I think part of the problem is that it's way too similar to the Fighter... It should've been a Gunslinger/Rogue hybrid... But seeing how bad the class turned out and how much feedback was ignored, I don't think even that would make much of a difference.
I suppose it'd vary based on the "quality" of the establishment and uh... "skill" of the professional... A prostitute trying to attract sailors by the docks would charge much less than a prostitute from the city's most exclusive brothel selling their services to the wealthiest men and women in the city .
I was going to point out the major imbalances in the CRB, but Majuba's opinion is so extremely contrary to mine, I'd just be wasting both our times.
I don't even know how to start a discussion about game balance with someone who thinks Core Wizards are balanced but Swashbucklers are OP. :/