Class Imbalance

Comparing the attack bonuses and damage outputs of the different melee classes, I've come to the conclusion that the Fighter is king. Indeed, I find it increasingly difficult for other classes to compete as each session progresses in any game in which I take part.

Barbarians, Paladins and Rangers can do at-around-and-occasionally-more damage than the Fighter in certain circumstances, but are otherwise lesser Fighters.

And then there's the Rogue, which I feel is so utterly underwhelming it is barely worth mentioning, especially when their main source of damage is precision-based and therefor not multiplied in critical hits like the rest of the melee classes.

Further, spellcasters in my experience have never been able to do anywhere near the damage melee can. Most of the players I have known have played blaster-types, and spells of that sort aren't capable of doing the damage they intend upon. It seems unfair that a limited resource should be so weak in comparison. Hell, enemies get three lines of defense against such spells: spell resistance, saves/caster must hit with a ranged/melee touch attack (which isn't exactly an easy for a character lacking any notable bonuses in this category), and energy resistances. Unlike melee characters who can very easily bypass damage reduction with magic items, the spellcaster cannot bypass energy resistances without the use of metamagic. And once again, most spells cannot crit.

Essentially, I feel the game is very heavily biased in favor of the Strength-based melee types, foremost amongst them the Fighter. I know many people may disagree, but this has been my group's experience with 3.x and Pathfinder.

I have long enjoyed roleplaying, but the system in place restricts characters to building what is optimal, not what is fun. The numbers should be an extension of the characters, furthering their capabilities and enhancing role play, but when they begin to govern what character concepts work and which do not, this is when the game ceases to be fun.

My intention in posting is not to to argue the rules. I would like to know if other groups have encountered this apparent imbalance and if so, how it has been handled.

We generally handle it by not trying to out do the fighter at what he is best at with non-martial characters.

Most of our spell casters rely on the big 3 of spells: Battle field control, buffing and Save or Die.

Our rogues (and other medium BAB classes) generally bring decent damage to the table, but are generally focused on other abilities, such as skills, mobility, alternate combat options, and such.

The martial characters do what martial characters do: Lots of damage with specialists doing their thing against the correct enemies. Typically the non-fighter martialist bring things other than simple damage to the table as well (rangers bring skills and odd abilities, paladin's help with healing and making saves, barbarians... well, they are usually simply dipping or heading for odd defensive/offensive combinations).

Long story short: DPR is for fighters, magic has better uses.

Comparing the attack bonuses and damage outputs of the different melee classes, I've come to the conclusion that the Fighter is king. Indeed, I find it increasingly difficult for other classes to compete as each session progresses in any game in which I take part.

Barbarians, Paladins and Rangers can do at-around-and-occasionally-more damage than the Fighter in certain circumstances, but are otherwise lesser Fighters.

And then there's the Rogue, which I feel is so utterly underwhelming it is barely worth mentioning, especially when their main source of damage is precision-based and therefor not multiplied in critical hits like the rest of the melee classes.

Further, spellcasters in my experience have never been able to do anywhere near the damage melee can. Most of the players I have known have played blaster-types, and spells of that sort aren't capable of doing the damage they intend upon. It seems unfair that a limited resource should be so weak in comparison. Hell, enemies get three lines of defense against such spells: spell resistance, saves/caster must hit with a ranged/melee touch attack (which isn't exactly an easy for a character lacking any notable bonuses in this category), and energy resistances. Unlike melee characters who can very easily bypass damage reduction with magic items, the spellcaster cannot bypass energy resistances without the use of metamagic. And once again, most spells cannot crit.

Essentially, I feel the game is very heavily biased in favor of the Strength-based melee types, foremost amongst them the Fighter. I know many people may disagree, but this has been my group's experience with 3.x and Pathfinder.

I have long enjoyed roleplaying, but the system in place restricts characters to building what is optimal, not what is fun. The numbers should be an extension of the characters, furthering their capabilities and enhancing role play, but when they begin to govern what character concepts work and which do not, this is when the game ceases to be fun.

My intention...

The fighter is ok at lower levels, but as the party levels up his importance is reduced. Some where between levels 11 and 15, depending on the group, I have noticed he is missed so much if he is replaced with another class.

The problem is that the Fighter is supposed to be king in combat. The class is named "Fighter." The character class literally gives up every other ability and function to become an engine of destruction. The only other character class that even begins to approach the Fighter's single-minded obsession with combat is the Barbarian. The Paladin can heal, cast spells, buff the party, and even use social skills sometimes. The Ranger is supposed to be well-rounded, with decent combat ability, spellcasting, and 6 skill points a level. The Rogue's combat abilities only supplement the class's focus on breaking, entering, sneaking, ambushing, bluffing, spying, etc. and spellcasters have utility functions that the Fighter cannot even begin to hope to one day possess.

My experience is the opposite. The weakest kind of character is the one who can do nothing but fight. In my experience, Rogues and spellcasters of all colors have the upper hand in every situation, and use Str-based melee types as their clueless minions in their own schemes. A caster can easily fly out of range of a Str-melee character, and a smart Rogue or Ranger will conduct the battle on their terms - in rough terrain, from rooftops, always striking first, sniping - etc.

Yes, Fighters have the edge in combat, but it's usually the only part of the game they can even participate in. I'd give them a break.

Comparing the attack bonuses and damage outputs of the different melee classes, I've come to the conclusion that the Fighter is king. Indeed, I find it increasingly difficult for other classes to compete as each session progresses in any game in which I take part.

Yeah... the fighter is the best at fighting... If your sole metric for classes is average damage in combat then the fighter is your goto-guy.

In the bulk of the games I'm playing there is a lot more going on that just fighting though and fighters aren't much good beyond their roundhouse.

I've never understood why doing damage and being skillful are mutually exclusive, or why magic should be reserved for certain tasks. Obviously the game is designed as such, but it has never been very satisfying for anyone at my table.

Nobody wants to be the one sitting out, be it during a combat scene or a social one. That being said, each players wants to contribute both in and out of battle, engaging in the story whenever possible. They want well rounded characters, not combat-machines, skill-monkies or utility, which is how the classes seem to be designed. As a DM, I am inclined to agree with them, and often bend rules in their favor just to keep the game moving.

I don't mean to sound antagonistic if that is how I comes across. If your group enjoys the game, that's awesome. It's really been a challenge appeasing mine though, haha.

Thanks for the reply.

Wow, that's a lot of replies. I had just replied to Abraham and now there's a ton more to read.

Thanks in advance.

I agree with part of what you said. I've said numerous times on these boards and other places that fighters are the heaviest hitters in the game and severely underestimated by most gamers. In the hands of a min-maxing player, the fighter's potential damage far outshines all the other core classes.

However, fighters are supposed to be the "king", as you say. It's all they do. They can't fly or teleport like a wizard, they can't wild shape like a druid, they can't heal like a cleric, and they don't get cool animals like rangers and paladins. They are masters of weapons and armor. That's it. If their damage output was anything like the other classes, it wouldn't be balanced, and wouldn't be all that fun to play because you would lack the (somewhat) "unique" ability that all the other classes have.

As for the other "martial" classes (those with the high attack progression), Barbarians get faster movement and rage powers, Cavalirs get orders and mounts, Paladins get spells and a divine bond, and Rangers get spells and a hunter's bond.

As for the "hybrid" (medium attack progression) and "non-martial" classes, they were never designed to compete with the fighter in melee (or missle) combat. Also, I think you will find that while spellcasters don't have the potentially high damage that fighters have (you can't crit on a fireball), the average damage is somewhat comparable, and they get all kinds of other tricks that they can do as well.

EDIT:

Wraithstrike,
I've compared a 20th level figheter with other 20th level classes, and the fighter is still king. They can even out-monk the monk in unarmed combat (if they chose close, monk, or natrual with weapon training 1, and chose the right feats). However, they still fall into the one-trick pony category.

Detect Magic,
if your players don't want to be one-trick ponies, they can always multi-class, or choose one of the other "martial" classes, like barbarian, cavalir, paladin, or ranger. Then there are also prestige classes as well. Just tell them to choose fighter as their favored class. Also, nothing is preventing them from choosing intelligence as their highest stat, if they want more skill points.

Also, a question: If they wanted to fill different roles, why did they choose fighter, instead of something else? I don't see this as the fault of the class for doing what it was designed to do.

Remember that contributing to combat doesn't have to mean dealing all the damage.

After all look at the bard -- lets go with level 7. In his first round of combat he can give everyone in his party +4 to hit +4 to damage, and +2 to all their save throws. That is a huge contribution increasing the fighter's output by about 33% and anyone else's by about 50%. On the next round he can attack. By himself he has accounted for around 88% of the damage dealt simply by casting a buff (good hope) and using his inspire courage (as a move action giving +2 to hit and damage).

The wizard that casts stinking cloud has granted his party cover from the enemy, has caused the enemy to possibly lose their attacks (due to nausea) and considerably improved everyone's (on his team) likelihood to live through the fight.

The rogue does good damage (for what he is, check out the DPR olympic thread which is "balanced" DPR -- not just the highest you can hit) and helps save his buddies out of combat.

Fighters can be well rounded and still out damage most everyone in the game. A fighter that uses a 20 point buy to have a 14 str 10 dex 14 con 14 int 14 wis and 10 cha is absolutely fine. If he also is human and puts his favored class bonus to skill points he'll have 6 skill points a level with a 16 strength (after racial bonus) -- that is nothing to scoff at.

Wraithstrike: I agree wholeheartedly. There's a lot of hand waiving at the low Charisma/Social skills of certain classes/character-concepts when it comes to role play in any of our games. Afterall, the Fighter who liberates a town from an oppressive tyrant, rids the countryside of bandits or slays an ancient evil is definitely going to get the royal treatment regardless of his 8 Charisma!

Face_P0lluti0n: Yea, I know the Fighter can't do much else, and that's one of the biggest problems we've encountered! For this reason I enforce very little limitations on players outside of combat, rewarding them for participation and creativity and how well they play their characters than simply the numbers they roll on skill checks. Indeed, social skills are often disregarded in many circumstances, others like Athletics automatically succeeding without need for any roll. Let me explain, were a player to make a Rogue who has lived his entire life in a city setting, hopping from rooftop to rooftop, he's going to probably put a lot of his skill points into Athletics and given his familiarity with the city I wouldn't call for such a roll for such a task unless the situation was dire (the building foundation is compromised as a dragon breathes flames on it and smashes into it clawing at the Rogue's coat tails). I have played with some DMs who call for rolls for everything and I mean everything! I once played a ninja in one such games which attempted to sneak up on someone and put his blade to their neck without them realizing it. I succeeded my Stealth check, but he made me roll to see whether or not I accidently slit their throat. I did. Was so disappointing. Also very funny in hindsight.

Ogre: Not at all. My point is that nobody wants to feel left out and the Fighter outshines everybody in combat, even the Evocation Wizard who sacrifices so much to be the "glass cannon!" Yet, he's not, because the brute with the sword will always out damage him. While I realize not every scene features combat, it is inevitable in a game like this. Indeed, the very experience system and therefor the progression of your character is dependent upon engaging in combat.

Abraham: Heh, I guess this might seem absurd, but we play with 30-pt. buy. I know, I know - it's insane, right? Haha. And yea, Bards are wicked. My favorite character I played was a Bard. Still, no one ever wants to play one... Supportive classes in general see very little play 'round these parts. I guess it's because everyone wants to be the God-of-War-style badasses. Even in games I played in, I've shown interest in playing Clerics and the like that I might heal and buff and such, but I am always told I should play something else.

I will bring this up with them next time we gather in our gaming rituals.

Jason: One of my players is a shameless stat-whore/min-maxer. He plays a max-Str, heavy-hittin', greatsword-wielding Fighter. I'm sure he sees it as playing his character to its maximum potential, but still - it hurts the party so badly. I have to scale everything with his character in mind, which has the party facing CR encounters well beyond their means. In fact, his character concept supports his build and his play style. There's no need for him to multiclass, and he's happy with his character. The problem is everyone else loses interest when he outshines them in combat. He also enjoys roleplaying (And who doesn't? It's the point we game!). He is assertive and tends to involve himself heavily whenever they encounter NPCs. So, he ends up stepping on their feat even outside of combat. The rest of the group tends to become discouraged by his brutal efficiency.

I've never understood why doing damage and being skillful are mutually exclusive, or why magic should be reserved for certain tasks. Obviously the game is designed as such, but it has never been very satisfying for anyone at my table.

Nobody wants to be the one sitting out, be it during a combat scene or a social one. That being said, each players wants to contribute both in and out of battle, engaging in the story whenever possible. They want well rounded characters, not combat-machines, skill-monkies or utility, which is how the classes seem to be designed. As a DM, I am inclined to agree with them, and often bend rules in their favor just to keep the game moving.

My personal take is that it may be slightly less fun, but it's more believable, if people must choose to be good at one thing and bad at another. I may be very good at fixing computers, but I can't do a thing in a fight. I will be sitting out. More likely, hiding. If I'm fighting a fantasy monster - probably wetting myself, too. While my friend with the gun collection pulls out a shotgun and wastes the thing in six seconds flat.

On the other hand, my friend with the gun collection isn't nearly as good of a tech as I am. While I and the other tech of my social group are troubleshooting a PC, all my gun-lovin' friend can do is go to the gas station and fetch Red Bulls for the rest of the party, or ask us for the layman's version of the PC magic we just did.

I don't want to start an edition war, but 4th Ed. did technically take the other side of this argument - that everyone should be useful as often as possible, which is why all classes in that game have a prescribed combat and noncombat role - to protect all players from uselessness.

But it's my own personal priority - when faced with the choice, I choose to roleplay in a world that's slightly less fun, but more believable. I understand that it's not everyone's priority, but I am playing this game because it meet my priorities better than the alternatives - 4th Ed. and 0th/1st Ed clones.

He plays a max-Str heavy-hittin' greatsword-wielding Fighter. I'm sure he sees it as playing his character to its maximum potential, but still - it hurts the party so badly. I have to scale everything with his character in mind, which has the party facing CR encounters well beyond their means.

There are ways in game to handle that. Design more tactical encounters, ones that damage can't solve. Flying enemies and enemies that make ranged attacks from rooftop, rough terrain, or high ledges, making Fly spells and Climb checks more important than damage, or target his weak saves. Any character who has something "maxed" has to have something that is "Min". After finding himself rendered useless by something a well-rounded character like a Rogue or Ranger could easily beat, I would hope the days of damage being king will be over.

Good luck in solving the issues with the group.

A thing that people tend to understimate about fighters is saves. Look at his saves.

Now compare them to a Superstition + Moment of Clarity Barbarian, to a Ranger, or to a Paladin.

Dish out a great amount of damage means nothing if you are in the middleof the battlefield mouth open saying "D-Hurrrr".

yeah your group may be less inclined to go all damage if you gave them more things they can't solve by hitting it, or by dominating the fighter....

Anyway if you want well-rounded tell everyone to play a ranger, good damage, high skills, casts spells, etc.

Face_P0lluti0n: I am of a similar mindset, but I also feel that the rules as they are encourage only a select few archtypes ("clones" if you will), which personally bore the hell out of me. I encourage my players to create wildly fantastic character concepts and to utilize whatever methods they want, so long as it stays true to the integrity of the world setting.

Regarding the Fighter in my game, he has an abysmal Will save. I could easily target him for this, but I fear the consequences. I feel that the many spells at my disposal which could play to this weakness, Dominate Person being foremost amongst them, would just take away from the players' enjoyment of the game. No one wants to lose control of their character and in the case, it would probably result in a TPK. Then again, other spells, illusions in particular, could serve me well in confusing his character and possibly altering his decision making in combat. Would be fun and a definite alternative to the dreaded enchantment-types.

Perhaps a broader array of encounters could also serve to limit his actions and potentially strengthen the other party members.

Thanks.

...dominating the fighter.

That would not end well, haha.

Face_P0lluti0n: I am of a similar mindset, but I also feel that the rules as they are encourage only a select few archtypes ("clones" if you will), which personally bore the hell out of me. I encourage my players to create wildly fantastic character concepts and to utilize whatever methods they want, so long as it stays true to the integrity of the world setting.

Regarding the Fighter in my game, he has an abysmal Will save. I could easily target him for this, but I fear the consequences. I feel that the many spells at my disposal which could play to this weakness, Dominate Person being foremost amongst them, would just take away from the players' enjoyment of the game. No one wants to lose control of their character and in the case, it would probably result in a TPK. Then again, other spells, illusions in particular, could serve me well in confusing his character and possibly altering his decision making in combat. Would be fun and a definite alternative to the dreaded enchantment-types.

Perhaps a broader array of encounters could serve to limit his actions and potentially strengthen the other party members.

Thanks.

So you play to a characters strengths and ignore any weakness and then call imbalance? what?

Shadow_of_death: I'm not saying that I don't target them for their weaknesses, I just refrain from using potentially lethal spells like Dominate Person. I just don't think it would be fun if I took control of his character and went on a killing spree mowing down the rest of the party. I'd have a table full of angry friends and siblings looking up at me like, "What? Seriously? Ffff this game!" Meanwhilst, I'd be hiding behind my DM screen spouting, "Look! Look it's here in the Player's Rulebook! It's a spell... it's legal... hey, guys?! Where are you going? Come back... please? Please?!" Haha.

Really, the game's about having fun. As a DM, I am there to provide a world and a story, not to kill the party. Dead party equals no game.

Jason: One of my players is a shameless stat-whore/min-maxer. He plays a max-Str, heavy-hittin', greatsword-wielding Fighter.

What does the other people play, and are they decently optimized? I can see this becoming a problem if they don't play optimized (or at least decent) characters, that tries to do what he does (damage) without being good at it.

To a large degree though, it's about encounter design. Make some encounters where the enemy starts at great range, with some difficult terrain (this isn't hard to make natural; most ambushes should start that way) so he can't get to them in the first turn unless switching to a ranged weapon. Put enemies in places where you need skills (acrobatics, climb) to reach them.

Wraithstrike,
I've compared a 20th level figheter with other 20th level classes, and the fighter is still king. They can even out-monk the monk in unarmed combat (if they chose close, monk, or natrual with weapon training 1, and chose the right feats). However, they still fall into the one-trick pony category.

I agree with you are far as damage, but you don't need fighter level damage to do "good enough" damage. I found out about the fighter about punching the monk about a year ago. I want to build a fighter based on CMB checks and unarmed strikes the next time I get to play instead of DM. I am sure I will get some strange looks when things start off.

Earlier you said the game is biased in favor of the fighters, but then later say you bend rules to help them out. Maybe it is your playstyle that is helping the fighters. I am not saying that is bad, just an observation.
+1 to whoever said damage is not the only way to contribute in a fight.

Edit: I did not even see what the poster below me responded to. Of course if you take it easy on a class they will shine. It is very possible for a fighter to get high will saves especially with a point buy of 30. If he has sucky saves with that point buy, assuming you are handing out decent treasure, he deserves what he gets. I only had to fear my player for 12 rounds once, and the next game he had a high will save, and he was a noob. Actually he still is in many ways.

Shadow_of_death: I'm not saying that I don't target them for their weaknesses, I just refrain from using potentially lethal spells like Dominate Person. I just don't think it would be fun if I took control of his character and went on a killing spree mowing down the rest of the party. I'd have a table full of angry friends and siblings looking up at me like, "What? Seriously? Ffff this game!" Meanwhilst, I'd be hiding behind my DM screen spouting, "Look! Look it's here in the Player's Rulebook! It's a spell... it's legal... hey, guys?! Where are you going? Come back... please? Please?!" Haha.

Really, the game's about having fun. As a DM, I am there to provide a world and a story, not to kill the party. Dead party equals no game.

then why do you care about imbalance? sure any spellcaster could drop him like a rock, but you wont use that.

On the other hand all the spell casters get hounded by big bad melee types, so yeah that's why they all want to be melee.

Im still pushing ranger for your group, its probably pretty easy to guess what monsters are coming up so the favored enemy will be golden

It is a mistake to prey on the weaknesses of characters but also to only play to their strengths. The first is discouraging for the players and the second can lead to the DM feeling they are just a screen monkey serving up xps and loot on demand. As in all things, balance is required. A player who optimises their character for a certain role will overshadow anyone else in that role and if the focus of your game is combat then the optimised fighter will rule. On the other hand if the focus is on role-playing then the players with the most confidence or biggest personalities will dominate regardless of their character skill set. Trouble can arise when the optimised fighter is played by the person with the most confidence. The GM must referee play to ensure everyone enjoys themselves and sometimes that means reining in one or more of the players to a greater or lesser extent.This can be problematic but should work if you explain everyone wants to have fun playing and that means taking turns in the spotliight.

There are lots of effects that abuse an abysmal WILL save: Fear; Hold Person; Slow just to name a few...

If your Fighter wants to Mr Billy Bad-Ass, he can be curbed. If he doesn't like clutching his pearls and running like a girl, he may have to invest some of his wealth in Save adjusting items and Will Save improving feats. He should not be 'invulnerable' because his feelings may be hurt.

For what it's worth, Dominate Person can be pretty amazing, but as you point out, the end ruesult is an irritated player and that leads to dysfunctional groups. :(

GNOME

stringburka: The others have been playing a Paladin and a Wizard (Evoker). I started them off at level 4 so that the Wizard would have a decent enough stockpile of scrolls and a reasonable number of spells per day to start, and so everyone could receive the ability enhancement for 4th level. I believe the Wizard took the Spellcasting Prodigy feat from Forgotten Realms as well as Spell Focus and the like, so he was pretty well optimized. The Paladin was an Undead Scourge, with Power Attack and the like. He had amazing saves and I even buffed his healing from Lay on Hands up to d8s since he was the only party member with any healing ability. There were only three of them, so I also gave them max hit points and set them loose. So, from the get-go they were all pretty powerful characters, though the Fighter still stole the show as each session progressed.

wraithstrike: Most often the rules I bend are bent to allow the other characters to compete with the Str-based ones. To name a few: I have given Weapon Finesse to everyone for free. A sort of nod in the direction of the Rogues and the like. I've allowed Rogues to sneak attack with ranged weapons so long as he can draw a line through his enemies square from his own and reach that of an ally. I've removed the penalty for firing into melee with a spell since a caster is already limited enough. I try and limit the Fighter-types as best I can, but as the rules are presented the game just seems to favor them.

Shadow_of_death: I rarely use spells against my players. I don't really build the enemies they face with class mechanics in mind. Often I just give them an appropriate number of hit dice and abilities that I think fit. I could create spellcasters who lurk around every corner casting Deep Slumber and the like, but really I don't think that would solve any problems. Probably just end up making things worse.

fantasyphil: The Fighter is easily the player with the most confidence, or rather the largest personality. He immediately jumps the gun during role playing scenarios, and with his position as self-declared "leader" often pushes the group in the direction he feels most appropriate. I often ask questions during such encounters, and ask what each player thinks his character's response would be, "What is your character thinking?" Though, if this doesn't prompt them, I'm not sure what else I can do.

Gnome: I am definitely in favor of using interesting effects in combat, like Slow. And I even have some love in my heart for Dominate, given the circumstances. I have long wanted to use a vampire as an enemy and allow it to use its Dominate on a party member, taking them aside and explaining the situation, allowing them to control their character but with the knowledge that their disposition has been severely swayed. Sounds like RP gold!

stringburka: The others have been playing a Paladin and a Wizard (Evoker). I started them off at level 4 so that the Wizard would have a decent enough stockpile of scrolls and a reasonable number of spells per day to start,

This is part of the problem. Evocation is one of the absolutely worst schools to focus in. There's a few good evocation spells (darkness and gust of wind at your level, but more at higher levels), but it's not a school to focus in. Especially not since it's focus is about dealing damage, and wizards are bad at dealing damage.

If your wizard goes for dealing damage, he will no doubt feel outshined by the fighter. There IS a time for blasting, but those times are so rare in most campaigns they might be non-existant.

Which schools are his opposed schools? I'd suggest either allowing him to swap his specialization, or if he does not want that, to suggest to him to only prepare good evocation spells and only prepare them in his bonus slots, keeping his other slots for other spells. 1st level, magic missile is the least bad (and has it's uses sometimes). 2nd level darkness or gust of wind is good. 3rd level Wind Wall.

Try to get him to prepare spells that deal with crowd control and buffing instead. I can understand that he won't like buffing the fighter who's already taking most of the scene, but glitterdust and web are excellent 2nd level spells to use as crowd control, making it far easier for the fighter and paladin to mop them up.

The paladin is very specified in being an undead scourge, but let them encounter undead a little more often. When smiting undead, the undead scourge is GOD. You can also suggest for the paladin to use a bow instead of a melee weapon - it allows him to get of a lot of smite attacks in a short time, without needing that high strength. Or, go two-weapon fighting with a sword and shield; he certainly has the point buy for it.

The high point buy will give your fighter and paladin a boost versus the wizard, as the wizard's top offensive power is 20 int and doesn't really matter past that. 25 or 30 point buy does little for them. For the MAD (multiple ability dependent) fighter and paladin though, those five points make a difference.

Shadow_of_death: I rarely use spells against my players.

WOAH! This is why the paladin doesn't feel he gets any love. Seriously, not using spells against the party is equal to them skipping defense and just going for damage output - a class who has high saves as one of it's strengths will of course feel underpowered then!

You don't need to Dominate people, but use spells such as grease, slow, hold person, glitterdust, blindness/deafness and the like. It doesn't matter which save it targets really, the paladin will be best in all saves.

EDIT: This is NOT an issue of class imbalance (not to say all classes are balanced) but an issue of bad encounter design. You create the encounters in a way so that the fighter shines above all else. It's kind of like making a regular adventuring day have 30 traps and then claiming rogues are over-powered, or constantly capturing and disarming the players and then claiming monks are over-powered.

wraithstrike: Most often the rules I bend are bent to allow the other characters to compete with the Str-based ones. To name a few: I have given Weapon Finesse to everyone for free. A sort of nod in the direction of the Rogues and the like. I've allowed Rogues to sneak attack with ranged weapons so long as he can draw a line through his enemies square from his own and reach that of an ally. I've removed the penalty for firing into melee with a spell since a caster is already limited enough. I try and limit the Fighter-types as best I can, but as the rules are presented the game just seems to favor them.

Shadow_of_death: I rarely use spells against my players. I don't really build the enemies they face with class mechanics in mind. Often I just give them an appropriate number of hit dice and abilities that I think fit. I could create spellcasters who lurk around every corner casting Deep Slumber and the like, but really I don't think that would solve any problems. Probably just end up making things worse.

fantasyphil: The Fighter is easily the player with the most confidence, or rather the largest personality. He immediately jumps the gun during role playing scenarios, and with his position as self-declared "leader" often pushes the group in the direction he feels most appropriate. I often ask questions during such encounters, and ask what each player thinks his character's response would be, "What is your character thinking?" Though, if this doesn't prompt them, I'm not sure what else I can do.

Gnome: I am definitely in favor of using interesting effects in combat, like Slow. And I even have some love in my heart for Dominate, given the circumstances. I have long wanted to use a vampire as an enemy and allow it to use its Dominate on a party member, taking them aside and explaining the situation, allowing them to control their character but with the knowledge that their disposition has been severely swayed. Sounds like RP gold!

I guess your players view damage as a high priority. If so then it will, but when I play a support character I get just as much enjoyment knowing I just did a debuff or buff spell as I do when I lay down a lot of damage in melee. In any group the class that tends to do what the class seems to value will have the edge. In a very RP-centric group the rogue or bard would be in the same position as the fighter in your group. I see this as a group issue, not a game issue.

Shadow_of_death: I rarely use spells against my players. I don't really build the enemies they face with class mechanics in mind. Often I just give them an appropriate number of hit dice and abilities that I think fit. I could create spellcasters who lurk around every corner casting Deep Slumber and the like, but really I don't think that would solve any problems. Probably just end up making things worse.

Sounds to me like in your game you have engineered the situation so it boils down to which side of the battle can out damage the other. You have created the situation where fighter is the best class.

It's not the game system that has done this but your encounter design decisions.

If you want to change this you should seriously consider some radical changes in your encounter design or switch to using published adventures. As long as you are throwing battle after battle which boils down to brute killing power your fighter is going to continue to dominate the game.

Get some published adventures or an adventure path, play them as they are written, you will see a difference.

stringburka: There's the rub. He wants to be a damage dealing Wizard, and I don't see why he shouldn't be able to play that character... though, the rules as given discourage it. Utility spells are golden (I hear the same ones come up time and time again on the boards) and that's the Wizard's job. Well, that fits if that's what you want to do... but, why must you be married to that kind of play (and those spells) if you go the spellcaster route?

I guess this game just might not be the game for us. We like exploring character concepts, and this game limits concepts. Each class is gimic-based. Everyone has their highly specialized role to fill and you better pick the class that fits... Eh, it's just depressing.

I use spell-like abilities more often than actual spells. Things that mimic spells but aren't. When I use spells and spell-like abilities I am often met with apprehension. Players begin to question the legality of my actions and it really bothers me. So what if this enemy is casting a spell that might not fit if he were a straight cleric! Damn it, he's a crazy-cultist with some badass powers. Live with it XD

wraithstrike: Yes, they do. Though I include equal part role play and combat. I often let the characters' words speak louder than their rolls. If their character rolls badly on a Diplomacy skill check but role plays well and sounds convincing given the circumstances, I will ignore the roll and treat it as if it had succeeded. Maybe not everyone would agree with this style of play, but it's how I prefer to handle things.

Ogre: Running a published adventure sure would take a lot of the pressure off. I very well may do that. Though, again - it might just be that this game isn't what we're looking for. We've been content with it for quite a well, but it's just starting to fall apart. The game seems to support highly specialized characters which must adhere to class archetypes. There isn't a lot of freedom to build your own character. Take for example the Wizard who wants to deal damage. Can't do it. Doesn't work with the system. I don't see this as a failing on our part, but as a failing within the system. Classes should be diverse but should allow for enough customization that you don't resort to copy-pasting the most effective builds. You're straight-jacketed to certain archetypes whether you like it or not and I don't know about you, but that's not much fun for us.

you could always play 3.5, the casters can do anything, so go nuts with you character concepts.

Most of us moved to pathfinder because we wanted our fighters to fight and our rogues to pick locks. in 3.5 the wizard laughed as he could be built with the spells to do either 1000 times better.

how are you straight-jacketed? give me a concept i'll give you an appropriate class. The guy who wants his bard to punch hard and be a quiet loner isn't called a bard so why use the class?

Detect Magic wrote:

Jason: One of my players is a shameless stat-whore/min-maxer. He plays a max-Str, heavy-hittin', greatsword-wielding Fighter.

What does the other people play, and are they decently optimized? I can see this becoming a problem if they don't play optimized (or at least decent) characters, that tries to do what he does (damage) without being good at it.

To a large degree though, it's about encounter design. Make some encounters where the enemy starts at great range, with some difficult terrain (this isn't hard to make natural; most ambushes should start that way) so he can't get to them in the first turn unless switching to a ranged weapon. Put enemies in places where you need skills (acrobatics, climb) to reach them.

My GM made this very mistake recently, I was playing a Ranger/shadow Hunter (not the party Tank) but the hardest in the party with mulitple attacks two handed fighting you know buzz saw character, and came up against a vampire, normally it is his job to subdue this type of enemy (favoured undead, and let the others (cleric types) fully despatch it. The GM noticed this was how we were dealing with them so targetted me for domination, I was stood behind the party rogue and took out two party members before they could fully react! The look of abject horror as the buzz saw started on the tank hitting three times one a crit on the GM face was saying Fffffff i just killed them all!

Shadow_of_death: You're kinda aggressive aren't you? I've mentioned several times already my position on this. Each class is so highly specialized that you're forced to play them the way they're written with very little variance. Hell, I'll bite. Fine:

1.) The damage dealing Wizard, specifically one who can master the elements (and not simply by adding Elemental Spell to what he's casting, his resources are already limited, no reason to waste higher level spell slots to accomplish this task).

2.) Polearm-wielding battle-field controller. A definitive tank for the party. Uses reach, trip and drag to push enemies around and bulwark them. Maintains mobility and ability to react to his opponents. Presents himself as too dire a threat to be ignored.

3.) A simple sword-and-board type who can actually hit something and thus do his job.

4.) A rogue that isn't a skill-monkey. Can go toe-to-toe with a Fighter, ducking and turning, and avoiding the blows while pecking away at his foe one well placed strike at a time.

5.) A fist-fighting, non-monk brawler type who isn't a weaker Fighter (essentially what it would be since a two-handed Fighter would out damage him any day). Can withstand a beating, like a Barbarian, but minus the rage and all that fluff. Oh, and if he can have a couple levels of bard and be silent and stuff that would be awesome! XD

6.) A weapon master. A Fighter-type who isn't stuck with just one weapon. Carries lots of weapons for different circumstances. A flail, a sword or two, some javelins, etc. (The cost to enchant all of this would just not allow for it and he can't waste the feats for it to be effective...)

Andrew: That's lulzy. How long had your character been dominated? Was it in the moment or had your character been mez'd earlier? That was what I've always wanted to do, have a character dominated for a substantial portion of a gaming chapter acting as a sort of spy for his dark master. Sounds utterly brilliant, but so long as it doesn't conclude in buzz-sawing, haha. Give the party the chance to figure it all out and save their friend from dominance!

stringburka: There's the rub. He wants to be a damage dealing Wizard, and I don't see why he shouldn't be able to play that character...

He can, it's possible to do decent damage-dealing wizards, but you have to devote 100% to blasting then, and it requires quite a few tricks from the APG and the like. There's a thread somewhere around here, but it basically boils down to using metamagic feats and tricks to reduce metamagic.

The thing is, the wizard is king of everything but damage right now. Many people see the wizard as the single strongest class in the game from a certain level onwards (some put this at level 13, some at level 1; regardless, it's a strong class). If he's also the king of damage, that's a pretty huge nerf to everyone else.

I guess this game just might not be the game for us. We like exploring character concepts, and this game limits concepts. Each class is gimic-based. Everyone has their highly specialized role to fill and you better pick the class that fits... Eh, it's just depressing.

Not really. There is usually a way to build a class better than all other ways, but there's no issue with this if all players do the same thing. The're a lot of options in 3.x/PF, which makes optimization more tricky and the difference between an optimized and non-optimized character larger.

If you're just playing for fun, a blaster caster is viable, with the right feats and the like. He'll lose versatility, though, as he should. The issue begins when:
1. One character is more optimized than the others. Unless you all want to optimize, the easiest way to solve this is talk to the player out of game and ask if he can adjust his character a bit, perhaps gaining a second schtick; for example, you seem to have no nature-y guy with you, and survival is a class skill for the fighter. Ask if he can't swap some combat feat for Skill Focus (Survival) and Skill Focus (Swim), it can fit into most background.
2. Your DMing style makes certain characters shine. By going soft on your players, defensive abilities (including crowd control) aren't as important, thus only top damage matters. And there's nothing that can compete with the fighter for top damage overall, he's a FIGHTER!

wraithstrike: Yes, they do. Though I include equal part role play and combat. I often let the characters' words speak louder than their rolls. If their character rolls badly on a Diplomacy skill check but role plays well and sounds convincing given the circumstances, I will ignore the roll and treat it as if it had succeeded. Maybe not everyone would agree with this style of play, but it's how I prefer to handle things.

So, what you're saying is that you ALSO neglect the other strength of the paladin; social skills? If a player is good at fencing, do you give him attack bonuses even if his character rolls badly?

If they want to role-play the social situations despite having bad checks, allow the fighter to Aid Another to the paladin. The paladin has the charisma, but the fighter thought of something smart that helped the paladin's argument. The DC is only 10 so easily fixed at level 4, if the fighter has put points in diplomacy. That is, if the character's intelligent enough to come up with good arguments; otherwise, it's better for the player to pass on the argument to the wizard's player, so the wizard Aids Another instead, since he's probably smart enough to come up with the solution.

------------------

All in all, it boils down to:
You have house rules that make the paladin feel worthless
Your wizard is non-optimized in a role that is hard to play
Your DM'ing style leads to focusing on the fighters strength while ignoring his weaknesses, and at the same time ignoring the strengths of the other characters.

There's no issue with the classes, except that maybe it should be a little easier to blast. However, if he wants to blast, maybe the easiest way is to play an Alchemist and reflavor the extracts and bombs into magical abilities similar to spells.

I think you have some MMO-ish expectations here. Pathfinder sticks to D&D's roots. Wizards never were about DPSing enemies (due to limited spell slots), they were about playing God. Fighters never were about tanking and control, as there are no mechanics for that.

Shadow_of_death: You're kinda aggressive aren't you? I've mentioned several times already my position on this. Each class is so highly specialized that you're forced to play them the way they're written with very little variance. Hell, I'll bite. Fine:

1.) The damage dealing Wizard, specifically one who can master the elements (and not simply by adding Elemental Spell to what he's casting, his resources are already limited, no reason to waste higher level spell slots to accomplish this task).

2.) Polearm-wielding battle-field controller. A definitive tank for the party. Uses reach, trip and drag to push enemies around and bulwark them. Maintains mobility and ability to react to his opponents. Presents himself as too dire a threat to be ignored.

3.) A simple sword-and-board type who can actually hit something and thus do his job.

4.) A rogue that isn't a skill-monkey. Can go toe-to-toe with a Fighter, ducking and turning, and avoiding the blows while pecking away at his foe one well placed strike at a time.

5.) A fist-fighting, non-monk brawler type who isn't a weaker Fighter (essentially what it would be since a two-handed Fighter would out damage him any day). Can withstand a beating, like a Barbarian, but minus the rage and all that fluff.

1.) Battle built dragon sorceror, buff yourself with whatever elemental buff you want and attack. or if your looking for spell combat there is a spell of every element in every level so I don't know how you haven't already done that.

2.) that's a fighter, take feats like trip, bull rush, step up, and stand still. this is a CMB fighter. Monk can do this to.

3.) simple sword and board doesnt give me much but still sounds like either a fighter or a paladin. Any full BAB class can do just fine hitting things with a sword and sheild (yes if you explain you want a warrior in any way your most likely wanting to play a fighter)

4.) a rogue that isn't a skill monkey is... what they made the fighter for (put tape over the fighters name and write rogue, same diff) get feats like weapon finesse and dodge, mobility, and spring attack. eventually grab duelist if your so inclined. (again asking for a warrior, a dex based one but still a warrior, you seem very fixed on DPR)

5.) so you want a character with the strengths of three classes and the weaknesses of none of them? No class has that (barring any 3.5 mega classes) and I personally hope that hulk of a character is never made. plus my monks would own your TWF, one round and he got no more weapons and gets punched in the face, or i spring attack and you only get one hit anyway (or none cause my one movement beats one movement of yours)

And im sorry the internet makes me sound aggressive, its the short sentence structure I use when I type.

stringburka: The Paladin was still free to use his social skills, and if they succeed then I allow it. But, if a character roleplays a scenario particularly well, I am going to allow them to succeed on the basis that they were convincing. That player never really used this option (and that's what it is, it doesn't replace the roll, it's just an alternative/bonus for role playing), instead relying on his rolls. The wizard did end up re-rolling Alchemist the next time around.

Gorbacz: I never implied that a Fighter must tank. Indeed, there is no proper mechanic for "tanking." Though someone is going to be the primary target for the enemies, either because they are in their faces or because they present themselves as the greatest threat - which is what a "tank" should be doing. And I freely admit that I want Wizards to do damage. It's just hard to imagine them being unable to compete. They have magic, they work miracles and play God. Why can't they hurl some magic that can actually hurt something without resorting to save-or-die spells. It doesn't seem like a good way of balancing magic... making it a limited resource and limiting its damage but also allowing for spells which just instantly kill something. I don't know, just not my kind of Wizard I guess.

Shadow_of_death: I was joking about the bard part of the brawler type. Though, seriously a character like that would be fun. I like the idea of a fist-fighting character, just despise the ki and other fluff they built "Monk" with. Basically, this character would have some of what Monk has (increased unarmed strike damage) and some of what Barbarian has (damage reduction). He wouldn't be the evasive fighter the Monk is, rather he would take the beating and dish out his own style of hurt.

And "your character would own my character" is the very thing I am talking about. This game turns into a contest between builds. The most efficient build wins. Not fun.

And no problem, you did sound antagonistic, sorry I misinterpreted. Internet XD

stringburka: The Paladin was still free to use his social skills, and if they succeed then I allow it. But, if a character roleplays a scenario particularly well, I am going to allow them to succeed on the basis that they were convincing.

Again, if I'm a good climber IRL, would you allow me to succeed even though my character's climb is -4 due to low strength and armor? If I'm a good fencer, would you allow me to hit even though I missed?

If he comes up with a good argument that his character would have thought of (if he's a high int fighter and the question at hand revolves around combat, for example), give him a circumstance bonus.

Take for example the Wizard who wants to deal damage. Can't do it. Doesn't work with the system.

It works, it's just tricky. It's not hard to build a damage-dealing wizard that can deal with level-appropriate encounters, but if you're optimizing a fighter, he can deal with encounters above what's level-appropriate.

It's hard to make a damage-dealing caster at level 4, I admit, but not in any way impossible. A half-orc sorcerer with the draconic bloodline can use Burning Hands for 4d4+6 or a Scorching Ray for 4d6+6. At 5th level with the Magical Lineage trait for Scorching ray, you could do a 5d6+7 fireball or a 6d6+10 empowered scorching ray. At 8th level, your Empowered (through rod), Maximized, Scorching Ray deals 42+4d6+18 damage.

These are enough to contribute meaningfully to damage, but they require focus and they won't do as much damage as a focused fighter.

And "your character would own my character" is the very thing I am talking about. This game turns into a contest between builds. The most efficient build wins. Not fun.

So ask the fighter to stop optimizing, since the wizard won't and you've nerfed the paladin's strengths.

The issue begins when:

1. One character is more optimized than the others.

+1

In a group that sees the rules as a framework to tell a story, 'optimization' is a non-issue. (no-one is doing it)

In a group that sees the rules as a guide for devising hte most powerful PCs, 'optimization' is a non-issue. (everyone is doing it)

It's when you mix the styles that the weaknesses inherent in *all* systems become glaring. It's like in wargames, some players are 'beer and pretzels' others are 'cut-throat'. Both styles are perfectly viable/valid, but there is a disconnect when they are at the same table. :)

Also, Blaster Wizards are fine, if that's what you want :) As a DM, put in more low HP mobs so the Wizard gets that "HELL YEAH!" charge when he nukes a roomful :D Also, with a horde of low-hp mobs, the UBER DAMAGE fighter gets caught out-especially if you have some space that he has to cover between the mobs. No Full Attack crimps melees worse than others. Sure, he can waste any one of his enemies with a simple swipe of his sword, but how many swipes will it take? During that time the rest of the party has to cover down on one-another (including the fighter!). I have found that single BIG ENEMIES are fodder. More so than a crew of sub-par bad-guys. If all four PCs can aim at the villain, than he dies, one or two rounds tops. If they have to spread out, and work, then fights are much more interesting and dangerous to PCs.

GNOME

stringburka: I guess the social skills thing boils down to not wanting to limit their roleplaying experience. If the player behind the character can roleplay a social encounter well and does so in-character, I am not going to penalize him by saying, "Nope. Bad luck, man. You rolled a 2."

And I don't think I nerfed the Paladin at all. He still had his Charisma bonus and what not, he was still good at Diplomacy if/when he wanted to use it. And I used tons of undead enemies, so he had his chance to shine in combat, too.

Again, an "Orc Bloodline" Sorcerer can do it marginally well. What if the player wants to be a Human? Completely barred because the only build which supports his character concept is restricted to a certain kind of character and he doesn't apply. When you make a character you shouldn't have to frame your concept around what works best. Apparently Orcs are the best Wizards and Elves are the best Archers and... Not fun.

Detect Magic wrote:

And "your character would own my character" is the very thing I am talking about. This game turns into a contest between builds. The most efficient build wins. Not fun.

So ask the fighter to stop optimizing, since the wizard won't and you've nerfed the paladin's strengths.

In my experience the problem isn't so much one player being optimized as other players not building well and then not being killed off quickly enough by natural selection.

An optimized Fighter is going to be great in some combats, not so great in others, and likely not very useful at all in non-combat settings.

Other martial classes may do less damage, but they have other things (more skill points, access to spells, more hit points and movement, etc...) that mean they are more useful in other ways at other times. They will be 1a. in a slug fest, but will outshine the fighter at other times.

Skill classes are skill classes. Skills are incredibly useful in non-hack and slash games where DM's give XP for solving problems in addition to killing them.

You don't have to "optimize" your character for damage, you have to have a role in your party. If the fighter kills everything but is dumb, ugly, and gets lost going to the bathroom, someone is going to have to be the party face, navigator, tracker, investigator, etc...

Again, unless you have a hack and slash DM, in which case YMMV.

Also, Blaster Wizards are fine, if that's what you want :) As a DM, put in more low HP mobs so the Wizard gets that "HELL YEAH!" charge when he nukes a roomful :D

While I usually suggest this remedy to people that thinks wizards are overpowered, I fully agree in this case. Lots of small mobs usually favors fighters and blasters, but the more creatures, the more it favors the blasters. However, OP, make sure they don't have too good ranged abilities unless you want that wizard to die; use swarms, for example. Four spider swarms should make a good challenge for your party, or 6-7 eagles.

Gnome: That's exactly what I have. The players want powerful PCs and they want to role play and experience a story. Why can't they have both? I agree, the system breaks down.

stringburka: I guess the social skills thing boils down to not wanting to limit their roleplaying experience. If the player behind the character can roleplay a social encounter well and does so in-character, I am not going to penalize him by saying, "Nope. Bad luck, man. You rolled a 2."

And I don't think I nerfed the Paladin at all. He still had his Charisma bonus and what not, he was still good at Diplomacy if/when he wanted to use it. And I used tons of undead enemies, so he had his chance to shine in combat, too.

Again, an "Orc Bloodline" Sorcerer can do it marginally well. What if the player wants to be a Human? Completely barred because the only build which supports his character concept is restricted to a certain kind of character and he doesn't apply. When you make a character you shouldn't have to frame your concept around what works best. Apparently Orcs are the best Wizards and Elves are the best Archers and... Not fun.

You can make a Human Sorcerer with Orc Bloodline. No problem.

I'm not entirely sure where you get the "Elves are the best Archers" idea from.

Also, Blaster Wizards are fine, if that's what you want :) As a DM, put in more low HP mobs so the Wizard gets that "HELL YEAH!" charge when he nukes a roomful :D

I have used this method before: a crypt full of ghouls. They rushed the party and the Alchemist really got to blaze 'em down.