Seems you are of the opinion that Spells > anything not spells.
In 3rd edition D&D, yes, that is exactly how I feel and I've used that exact quote quite often. Note that I wish it were not the case, but experience (and reading comprehension) has taught me otherwise.
Many players and myself do not find that true, playing 1-20 or even in mythic tiers.
And I do not think you guys are playing the game the way it is written. Now, understand, I think that is probably a good thing--as I've said, I also don't run it that way--but in the base rules, spells just trump everything so hard, it's nearly impossible to see how anything else could matter.
Imagine the game without social contract--imagine if the spellcasters didn't follow the "hey, don't be a douche" rule. Then re-evaluate your position. If the spellcasters don't hold back, is it still even? Really?
If that is truly how you view the game, then neither the fighter nor the monk have any relevance to you as they lack spells. The only reason you like archers is because they can attack from range like spells.
Pretty much, yes. Though, the range thing is not about mimicking spells, it's about action economy. Range allows you to full attack every round, thus increasing DPR (Pounce also does this). When all you can do is DPR, not getting a full attack is basically the final nail in your useless coffin.
I don't see this as a valid view and the examples you have provided do nothing to sway me from that notion.
I'm certainly not the only one that feels that way. I would actually suggest that a majority of posters on the board (though not a majority of players in general) feel that way. I don't think most players do because most people, when faced with the reality of high level play, will unknowingly change things to be actually fun and more fair, because high level play is so rare in general, and because most people do not really understand the full extent of the rules (which is perfectly fine, not insulting anyone here).
General statement like "fighter better in party" mean little coming from you, since we value team contribution on obviously alien scales.
I guess not. I have honestly not seen anything either can contribute other than DPR, but I'd love to be wrong. I really don't like spellcasting--I'm constantly frustrated that it's better.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Imagine the game without social contract--imagine if the spellcasters didn't follow the "hey, don't be a douche" rule. Then re-evaluate your position. If the spellcasters don't hold back, is it still even? Really?
Yes, I have played with two players who ignore the unwritten "do not embrace cheese rules". Thankfully one of them is GMing most of the time. I can compare their performance in D&D 3.5 as compared to PF and nothing in PF comes even close. In all fairness the Paladin, the alchemist, and Witch hexes have been far more broken than any sort of fullcasting combo.
PF has a lot of strong options in it that have nothing to do with spells.
And I do not think you guys are playing the game the way it is written. Now, understand, I think that is probably a good thing--as I've said, I also don't run it that way--but in the base rules, spells just trump everything so hard, it's nearly impossible to see how anything else could matter.
Maybe you're the one that doesn't play as written? Has that possibility ever entered your mind as you lamented everything that wasn't magic?
I'd actually like to post in defense of the monk two things that get overlooked a lot:
1) By my understanding of recent FAQs, Qinggong ki powers meet the "caster" prerequisite for item crafting. Getting Craft Wondrous Item keyed off of Profession: Scribe let's you inscribe amulets, bracers, cloaks, etc and for a big boost in WBL.
2) Monks get pounce. It's called Blood Crow Strike and they get it at level 14. Late, but better late than never.
Really all I'd like to see at this point is full BAB (or some other accuracy boost) and some help dealing with DR/good when it starts to show up around level 10.
Neither of those are legitimate.
Craft: Scribe is not a relevant profession for anything but crafting scrolls and if you stretch it magic cards, though the latter really require something beyond mere scribing and should therefore require craft: calligraphy, which is one of those pesky int based skills. There is no general purpose magic crafting skill other than spellcraft itself.
Blood Crow Strike is [evil] and therefore out of reach to most PCs. RAW alignment descriptors may not have any effect except on some divine casters, but most tables don't play that way.
Although tangential neither of your points are rules accurate.
I don't really have a counter point, since neither or your statements have any bases in the rules.
As I said, Blood Crow Strike is much better than not having any ranged attacks, but it's not as good as Pounce or a longbow.
The problem comes because of Resistance. You can overcome DR with enhancement bonuses, and for a longbow, you can even overcome DR X/- with Clustered Shots. There is no way that I'm aware of to avoid Resistance.
The Balor, for example, is immune to fire, and in high level play, just about any enemy that can cast spells is going to have Fire Resist 30 if they are even remotely smart. That essentially halves the damage of the Monk's attacks. Not awesome.
But yes, it does make monk's much better. Just not Ranged Weapon level or Pounce better.
Yes well I'm sure an NPC commoner with lots of staffs, wands, and UMD is a better party member in your eyes than a monk.
Yes well I'm sure an NPC commoner with lots of staffs, wands, and UMD is a better party member in your eyes than a monk.
Nah, because a Monk could do the same thing. The Commoner is only better if the Monk is not also doing that. ;)
And again, this is only at high levels. In the beginning of the game, it's still somewhat balanced. I think Monks are quite good in E6, for example.
Yes well I'm sure an NPC commoner with lots of staffs, wands, and UMD is a better party member in your eyes than a monk.Nah, because a Monk could do the same thing. The Commoner is only better if the Monk is not also doing that. ;)
And again, this is only at high levels. In the beginning of the game, it's still somewhat balanced. I think Monks are quite good in E6, for example.
Except high levels are not like that at all...
I hate to say it, but if spells are the only viable option for you in PF at high levels then youaredoingitwrong.
Something I've not investigated too closely, but am curious about. There are some nice Critical Hit feats. Because a monk gets more attacks more round than a fighter, the monk is more likely to roll a natural 20. I believe the monk is, therefore, more likely to crit.
As much as I like the monk, I will have to disagree.
Assuming both have improved crit, a fighter with a greatsword is 7.85% more likely to threaten a crit than a monk. (.8^4) - (.9^7)
Not a huge advantage until level 20 where the fighter auto-confirms critical threats. A vorpal sword in the hands of fighter is truly a thing to fear. 5% chance per attack to instant kill anything with a head. Any other class has to confirm the crit, but since 20s auto hit anyways, a fighter with a vorpal sword could easily kill even Lormyr's 80+ AC builds.
Blood Crow Strike is [evil] and therefore out of reach to most PCs. RAW alignment descriptors may not have any effect except on some divine casters, but most tables don't play that way.
Blood Crow Strike isn't evil anymore.
...its also terribly written.Anyways, I've GMed for non optimizing players in high level campaigns, with the best player playing a wizard and a barbarian. I've had more trouble with the barbarian than the wizard.
Though I'll agree that a fully optimized party with extreme system mastery would benefit more with full casters.
I see everyone who claims to engage in high level play saying pretty much the same things as mpl, except that some of them like barbarians more than he does or that the 6 level 4 level gap is smaller. And then I see you. I'm going to believe the people who have been around longer and are more numerous.
Well that's a very democratic way to make up your opinion. Once again, I don't really have a counter point since none of your statements were based on anything to do with the actual game.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For clarification, I consider melee to generally be irrelevant at high levels
I absolutely agree that compared to a high level caster, melee (and most ranged for that matter) appear incredibly lackluster in comparison.
However, we also do not fight enemy spellcasters in every single encounter either. We do not hold back with them in our home games, so it would get overbearing quickly if they were overused.
I don't think distances are realistically closeable using a total defense unless high level enemies allow it.
For the fighter, probably not. For the monk, most enemies would have to double move to stay out of his 90' speed for long.
I wish that were true. If I had my personal taste fulfilled, I'd play totally non-magical (maybe even non-supernatural) characters focused on defense that fought smart and won with superior tactics. The rules of Pathfinder don't really allow that, though. If I want to be non-magical, the only thing I can really provide at high levels is DPR, which I find boring. So, I pretty much have to cast spells if I want to PC Pathfinder (at least 4e had the Warlord).
If you feel so inclined, present to me a few examples of high level encounters you have faced that lead you to feel this way.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Really all I'd like to see at this point is full BAB (or some other accuracy boost) and some help dealing with DR/good when it starts to show up around level 10.
I cannot help you with your first wish.
Second wish? Granted
|
|
Any other class has to confirm the crit, but since 20s auto hit anyways, a fighter with a vorpal sword could easily kill even Lormyr's 80+ AC builds.
With crane wing you would need two natural 20's in a single round, but yes, that is definitely one way to do it. Using the jingasa to negate a critical hit may also work to negate the vorpal. I would have to look into the wording of those effects to verify that thought, though.
Either way, standing toe to toe at that point becomes slightly intimidating for the monk. If it were me, I'd alternate buzzing off 300 ft. and using blood crow strike from round to round.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, markthus, pray tell how do the martial classes begin to compare to the full casters at high levels? Paizo has this weird thing about making it so that the martials are still boudn by reality while allowing all the full casters to effectively tell reality to go screw itself?
How is a monk able to stand up to the Sno-Cone Wish Factory Wizard? How does a martial stand up to a guy who can spit out a creature casting Cure Serious Wounds Mass every turn for 16 rounds straight?
|
Another thing to consider is that Quivering Palm, when it works, can function a lot like Charm Person. NPCs want to be your friend, out of fear, if you can just think them dead.
Doesn't that depend on the victim knowing they've been the target of a Quivering Palm, and how that ability works?
Which indicates that the victim has some high Knowledge skill, or the monk has had time to inform them how they are now at his mercy.Which takes time that doesn't exist in a normal battle, or could be emulated by a bard/sorcerer with a 'glowy hand' and high Bluff skill.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, markthus, pray tell how do the martial classes begin to compare to the full casters at high levels? Paizo has this weird thing about making it so that the martials are still boudn by reality while allowing all the full casters to effectively tell reality to go screw itself?
How is a monk able to stand up to the Sno-Cone Wish Factory Wizard? How does a martial stand up to a guy who can spit out a creature casting Cure Serious Wounds Mass every turn for 16 rounds straight?
These are silly situations. As a GM I can kill the party whenever I want without trying to find cover behind broken spells, rules or abilities.
I think people are forgetting that this is not a competitive game of players vs. the GM. The only requirement for the game to function is that it allow a GM to create challenging (i.e. a chance of failure) encounters for the PCs. The assumption is that the characters will win, or at the very least have a reasonable chance to escape to fight another day. It does NOT have to make it impossible for a GM to create an unwinnable scenario. That is an unattainable bar for any RPG.
Edit: Supposed to be unwinnnable senario. Ooops.
So, markthus, pray tell how do the martial classes begin to compare to the full casters at high levels? Paizo has this weird thing about making it so that the martials are still boudn by reality while allowing all the full casters to effectively tell reality to go screw itself?
How is a monk able to stand up to the Sno-Cone Wish Factory Wizard? How does a martial stand up to a guy who can spit out a creature casting Cure Serious Wounds Mass every turn for 16 rounds straight?
I'm guessing your casters there are a simulacrum genie wizard (which doesn't work) and a Master Summoner spamming trumpet archons (decent combat healing).
But to avoid conjecture, what did you actually mean?
|
|
These are silly situations. As a GM I can kill the party whenever I want without trying to find cover behind broken spells, rules or abilities.
I think people are forgetting that this is not a competitive game of players vs. the GM. The only requirement for the game to function is that it allow a GM to create challenging (i.e. a chance of failure) encounters for the PCs. The assumption is that the characters will win, or at the very least have a reasonable chance to escape to fight another day. It does NOT have to make it impossible for a GM to create an winnable scenario. That is an unattainable bar for any RPG.
Truer words were never spoken. If a GM wants to GNC you (generate new character), there is little than can be done about. Why a GM would choose to do that rather than simply talk to their player is beyond me, but I hear stories, so I believe it does happen.
High level spellcasters, with max casting stat, focus feats, and metamagics are awful, awful opponents - especially when they are not the only enemy in the encounter. If you are playing in a game in which you routinely fight them, I pity you. A good balls to the wall tactical fight is awesome fun once in a while - not every single encounter.
Pitting a PC build vs. a PC build is an exercise I find enjoyable. Pitting a PC build vs. a GM's arsenol when said GM aims to win is not even sporting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I see everyone who claims to engage in high level play saying pretty much the same things as mpl, except that some of them like barbarians more than he does or that the 6 level 4 level gap is smaller. And then I see you. I'm going to believe the people who have been around longer and are more numerous.Well that's a very democratic way to make up your opinion. Once again, I don't really have a counter point since none of your statements were based on anything to do with the actual game.
Can't stand the monk, so I can't comment on their viability. However, in playing for 30+ years, I will add my voice and vote to the magic > all else camp for high level play. It's been that way since the beginning in every game I have either played in or DM'd. The only difference is the fighter never cared how long the work day was. 4th ed actually changed this greatly, and in that particular system magic roughly == everything else.
Obviously it's not the same for everyone, because not everyone plays their game the same way. But I've been through many rulesets and numerous playstyles/DM styles. In all of them, magic trumped pretty much everything else except in some rare circumstances, or due to great player creativity (which really should always trump anything no matter what).
Forget the Balor. How about this for an encounter for 20th level characters...
Something has been destroying entire villages during the night. Party ventures down into deep caverns and run into 4 of these in a large, rough (difficult terrain) cavern.
That should be a pretty fun encounter for just about any group, and I think a Monk could be quite handy to have.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Monks taste better. If only all food had Purity of Body!
Ever try wash high-level Fighter before eating? Scrub for hours and still taste like armor.
However, in playing for 30+ years,..It's been that way since the beginning in every game I have either played in or DM'd.
1st edition wizard fighting with one spell (sleep), a dagger, and maybe four hit points dominated only when the enemy was kind enough to rush the party all at once* so the party had time to rest every 15 minutes (in other words, only when the GM ran the monsters like they rode the short bus).
*and lost initiative significantly enough that casting time was not a concern
A comment about first level play isn't really relevant when the post your responding to specified high level play. Also, quote mining to score internet points doesn't work.
However, in playing for 30+ years,..It's been that way since the beginning in every game I have either played in or DM'd.
1st edition wizard fighting with one spell (sleep), a dagger, and maybe four hit points dominated only when the enemy was kind enough to rush the party all at once* so the party had time to rest every 15 minutes (in other words, only when the GM ran the monsters like they rode the short bus).
*and lost initiative significantly enough that casting time was not a concern
I don't think he meant "the beginning" as in "level 1" but rather as in "1st edition."
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In all honesty, why does it matter which class is better? I know tons of people who choose a class because it either fits their concept or they just want to play that class, not to try and beat the game numerically. People continue to play monks and fighters so why not discuss them working together.
In all honesty, why does it matter which class is better? I know tons of people who choose a class because it either fits their concept or they just want to play that class, not to try and beat the game numerically. People continue to play monks and fighters so why not discuss them working together.
Probably the title of the thread that leads to these kinds of discussions.
I asserted monks were better than fighters at high levels.
I recanted to that they are about equal. The fighters DPR advantage is not something to be ignored. Where myself and others disagree is whether or not monk DPR is enough.
When looking at that I pushed us into a tangential conversation about whether or not Spells > anything else. Because if you believe that, then there is nothing that I non-caster can do in the game to contribute at high levels besides DPR.
This would put the monk at a severe disadvantaged.
I then posited that Spells !> anything not spells.
If you do believe that spells > anything not spells, then classes with more spells casting are just flat out better than anything with less spellcasting.
Of course, most of us will agree that at least the Barbarian proves this sentiment wrong.
So far my Hungry Ghost Monk has done more damage the paladin more often than the paladin. He can't compete with the Magus, then not many can. I don't fall as often as the Magus. Sometimes pure AC and CMD is much better than spells as protection. The ninja does more damage when he can do what he does best. That's to be expected. My Hungry Ghost abilities give me nearly endless ki and health. He's very low maintenance. So far I'm finding him to be more powerful and entertaining than a fighter or paladin.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I recanted to that they are about equal. The fighters DPR advantage is not something to be ignored. Where myself and others disagree is whether or not monk DPR is enough.
It's enough to manage to kill most monsters before they kill you. But is it enough to kill a monster before it kills someone else in the group ?
That's why a fighter is better : not because he can resist to thousands of attacks, but because by doing large enough damage, he succeeds at prevent other party members from dying.
When a balor have 1 round to act, he can do less damage to the party than when he have 3 to 5 rounds.
Seems you are of the opinion that Spells > anything not spells.In 3rd edition D&D, yes, that is exactly how I feel and I've used that exact quote quite often. Note that I wish it were not the case, but experience (and reading comprehension) has taught me otherwise.MPL, I am curious ... why do you say this is specific to 3rd edition? I kind of think that wizards have dominated D&D from the very beginning (e.g. Mordenkainen). Actually, from before the beginning, since D&D is basically like an amalgamation of the dying earth and the black company, and wizards dominate both of those things too.
Is it just that the saving throws sort of scale backwards in 3E? Or is there more to it than that? i.e., basically I am asking: could you just make some small change to how save DCs are calculated (or something) and be happy with 3E?
The other big change to hosw casters have worked in 3E onwards compared to earlier iterations of D&D has been making interrupting a spell far more difficult. In the old days, spells had longer casting times (making it much easier to hit a wizard mid-casting) and could be disrupted by a single hp worth of damage.
With third edition, we get mostly standard action spells, five foot steps out of Attack of Opportunity range, defensive casting, and concentration checks against damage instead of spells auto-failing. Plus, the changes to the HP system and how ability bonuses work made it a lot easier to make a wizard who could survive a couple hits.
MPL, I am curious ... why do you say this is specific to 3rd edition? I kind of think that wizards have dominated D&D from the very beginning (e.g. Mordenkainen). Actually, from before the beginning, since D&D is basically like an amalgamation of the dying earth and the black company, and wizards dominate both of those things too.
Is it just that the saving throws sort of scale backwards in 3E? Or is there more to it than that? i.e., basically I am asking: could you just make some small change to how save DCs are calculated (or something) and be happy with 3E?
As another poster already said, saves are not the only thing that matter in this, especially since in 3rd edition, they added a lot of no save and/or no SR effects.
There are a few major changes I see that contributed so heavily to caster dominance in 3rd edition that just wasn't there before in 2nd:
1) The saves, for sure. Fighters had the best saves in 2e, not the worst. Nobody withstood special effects better.
2) Spell interruption--in 2e, interrupting a caster was fairly common and easy. In 3rd, I've literally never seen it happen.
3) I know it was done to make the game more fun for spellcasters, but in 3rd edition, the number of spells someone could cast increased significantly. "Oh no, but the wizard gets one spell and then has to shoot a crossbow." Ok, well the Fighter never gets one spell that profoundly changes the battlefield, so, uh, that's the trade off. I'm not saying I like the way spellcasters were designed (i.e. extreme power that is severely limited and scales more slowly, but does so exponentially), but it was at least fair. They had to make serious tactical choices and when to cast and when to (effectively) do nothing. Tenser's Transformation was actually a good spell because it let wizards save spell slots while still contributing! Giving them more spell slots and giving everyone the same XP chart just removed some of the checks and balances.
4) Fighters (and Rangers and Paladins) were the only class with extra attacks, and they were all equally accurate. Fighting well mattered more. In 3rd, a level 20 Fighter has 4 attacks, but the 4th isn't going to hit in any realistic scenario. Meanwhile, the Cleric has 3 attacks, but almost the same attack bonus from buffs, so it's just that 4th swing that won't hit anyway missing.
5) Fighters used to get more out of physical stats than anyone else. Anyone can fight reasonably well in melee in 3rd with just a high strength--in 3rd, Fighters had a serious edge even beyond the extra attacks.
6) HOLY CRAP HIT POINT INFLATION! This actually is a factor on both sides of the coin. First, spellcasters have so much more HP now--this is one of the few things that's actually worse in Pathfinder than base 3rd--but in 2e, if I'm remembering correctly, Elder dragons and Balors and crap had, what, 100 HP? 10d6 was scary. Spellcasters actually had a difficult choice between blasting and battlefield control. Blasting was actually so good that they had to buff the control and utility spells to make them seem more useful. In 3rd edition, they inflated HP and melee damage so significantly, but didn't really change spells much. So, the damage which was awesome before ended up crappy, and the extra powerful control/utility spells that were extra powerful to balance against awesome damage were suddenly just extra awesome without any checks and balances.
7) Super minor, but spells had real drawbacks. Haste in 3rd is a "every fight, every time" sort of spell. In 2e, you only saved it for seriously dangerous situations, because you could literally kill your party casting it.
8) I could do a whole thread about how the 3rd edition skill system ruined a lot of things, so I'll shorten it and just say: Skills!
9) An oft overlooked issue: magic items. First, magic items became an expected part of the game and it's math. Second, spellcasters could make magic items and were expected to. Third, magic item use became arbitrarily limited, mostly to spellcasters. Fourth, wands and staves became ubiquitous, so spellcasters had even less to worry about in regards to conservation. More power for casters. Great.
So, yeah, I think a lot would need to change. And personally, while I think 2e was a LOT more balanced, I would still prefer different core assumptions (specifically, that magic is not better than non-magic, it's just different). The checks and balances in place that made the vastly more powerful magic vastly more limited, dangerous, and requiring of non-magical support worked, but were not ideal.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What I find weird is no one is making the distinction between 3.5 and PF.
Spells were nerfed fairly hard in PF. And by nerfed, I mean they de-broke most of the common abuses from 1-9th.
All the no-save, no-SR spells tend to be effects that allow the martials to better kill things.
Some would say the martial is doing "clean-up work", although it can be equally said that the caster is playing a "support role".
What I find weird is no one is making the distinction between 3.5 and PF.
Spells were nerfed fairly hard in PF. And by nerfed, I mean they de-broke most of the common abuses from 1-9th.
Pathfinder nerfed a few spells, but they actually buffed spellcasters--infinite cantrips, better HP, better gear (silken ceremonial is better than bracers of armor), significantly easier magical item crafting, etc.
Polymorph spells are now fair, sure, and most "save or die" spells became "save or take loads of damage" spells, but they didn't really change "save or lose" spells, nor did they alter the power of no-save utility type spells, which were always the real problem.
For example, Stone Shape is one of the strongest environment altering spells in the game (and carries with it zero save if you want to seal someone in a stone box). And summoning is still crazy strong.
All the no-save, no-SR spells tend to be effects that allow the martials to better kill things.
Some would say the martial is doing "clean-up work", although it can be equally said that the caster is playing a "support role".
You've always been taking part in a different argument than I have. You are claiming everyone is equally necessary, and I'm arguing that not everyone is equally important.
Is some kind of melee necessary? Yes. Is who that melee is important? No. The spellcaster is the star--the buffs and battlefield controls laid on top are more important than the chassis. A Commoner could be a group's DPS if the support was good enough. A Fighter, however, cannot be the group's DPS without proper support.
Think about MMOs--the only way to make the DPS important was to set arbitrary enrage timers for killing the bad guys in raids--otherwise, literally anyone could do it and still win if the support/tanking was good enough.
I could build a damage dealer out of any class in the game, and they would be sufficient to kill any enemy in the game with the proper support. I could not build the proper support out of any class in the game--I'm extremely limited there.
This was not true in 2e. The Fighter was not replaceable. Nobody could do what the Fighter/Paladin/Ranger did in a fight (and nobody could do what the Rogue/Bard/Ranger did with skills, either, since there were no skills otherwise), and spells didn't cross over so much, so you had to have both kinds of magic. Every role was necessary and equally important (if anything, the mage was the one most often left out). Now, that's not the case--the roles are still all necessary, but they're not of the same importance because the classes that can fill them have shifted.
Plus, the more rigid and extensive rules have actually hurt the game further--in 2e, magic was actually more limited than non-magic because magic was more heavily defined. You could do anything you could convince your GM you could do with just whatever roll seemed more appropriate. 3rd edition introduced more rigid rules that protected players from bad GM tyrants, but limited creativity by defining more boundaries.
And of course, you're also ignoring all the non-combat situations, which are arguably more common and more important than the fighting, because, again, every class can fight. Spells are more powerful out of combat because they allow you to totally bypass combat such a huge portion of the time, and allow combat to take place at all the rest of the time (since fights are often in places inaccessible without magic or you'd just be ganked while sleeping without magical protections, etc.).
I think MMO's was a great example.
When the raid needs DPS, did it matter if the DPS was from a warlock or a paladin? No it didn't. DPS was still needed. It didn't matter if the paladin had a tank spec and a heal spec. The raid needed DPS. Who cares if the warlock could only fill the DPS role? He was still fun to play and overall a balanced class.
I also find it funny that you say a commoner can fill the DPR role, but you also say monks super suck compared to fighters. But if commoners can fill the DPR role, then DPR doesn't matter. I don't find your two statements consistent.
I think MMO's was a great example.
When the raid needs DPS, did it matter if the DPS was from a warlock or a paladin? No it didn't. DPS was still needed. It didn't matter if the paladin had a tank spec and a heal spec. The raid needed DPS. Who cares if the warlock could only fill the DPS role? He was still fun to play and overall a balanced class.
Because the Warlock can only do one thing, while, say, the Druid or Paladin could be anything.
You're looking at it backwards from my perspective. You're right, if the raid needs DPS, you can take a Warlock and they'd do fine. What if the raid needed healing? Then the player of the Warlock can't go. What if it needed tanking? Yep, Warlock is sitting on the sidelines. But the player of a Paladin or Druid could raid no matter what is needed (I'm talking about before the newest expansion that took away talent trees and builds and all, of course).
I also find it funny that you say a commoner can fill the DPR role, but you also say monks super suck compared to fighters. But if commoners can fill the DPR role, then DPR doesn't matter. I don't find your two statements consistent.
I never said monks super suck compared to fighters. I said this:
The only meaningful thing Fighters and Monk can contribute to the end game is DPR. The Fighter deals more DPR, therefore the Fighter is better, since they do more of the one thing either class can do.
I never said DPR was important or desirable. I'd rather take literally any class that could cast spells over either a Fighter or a Monk if I had a choice, because DPR is something not just anyone, but rather everyone can contribute. It's not special, and doing slightly more of the thing everyone can do is not as valuable as doing something other people can't do.
I think MMO's was a great example.
When the raid needs DPS, did it matter if the DPS was from a warlock or a paladin? No it didn't. DPS was still needed. It didn't matter if the paladin had a tank spec and a heal spec. The raid needed DPS. Who cares if the warlock could only fill the DPS role? He was still fun to play and overall a balanced class.
Because the Warlock can only do one thing, while, say, the Druid or Paladin could be anything.
You're looking at it backwards from my perspective. You're right, if the raid needs DPS, you can take a Warlock and they'd do fine. What if the raid needed healing? Then the player of the Warlock can't go. What if it needed tanking? Yep, Warlock is sitting on the sidelines. But the player of a Paladin or Druid could raid no matter what is needed (I'm talking about before the newest expansion that took away talent trees and builds and all, of course).
It doesn't matter. Who cares if one class can spec as anything? If a player likes playing a certain role, you find a party that needs that role filled.
Heck WoW players are not 100% paladins and druids, AND that MMO is considered balanced (It's a way we make fun of 4th ed).
So you have a game with nigh perfect balance where a majority of the classes can perform 1-2 roles. Some classes can perform all three roles, but they were not considered OP.
Because you know what actually matters? You can only fill one role at a time anyways. The ability to fill multiple roles doesn't make you better than anyone else.
mplindustries,
You are way off about 2nd edition. Casters were vastly more powerful than fighters in that edition. You are thinking of 1st edition. Even in that edition wizards and multiclassing made them the most powerful of the classes. Multiclassing made casters even more desireable in second edition. You could play a fighter/mage/cleric in 2nd edition and be unbelievably potent.
Fighters and other melees didn't do very much damage either. Crits didn't do much. I'm not sure they even existed. You didn't get much in terms of boosts to damage as a melee. No feats. Fighters had no abilities. They hit stuff. That's it.
Rogues were better in 2nd edition. Rangers and Paladins were still pretty awesome. Fighter was the boring guy very few people wanted to play.
Martials in 3rd edition and later are at least the undisputed kings of damage. That wasn't the case in earlier editions. I know I miss earlier edition multi-classing. My fighter/mage/cleric was unbelievably powerful. I haven't been able to match that character's power in 3rd edition. He could do everything. I played him for years until he was 14th plus in all classes. Not much could stand against him.
You are way off about 2nd edition. Casters were vastly more powerful than fighters in that edition. You are thinking of 1st edition.
Hey, its been more than 10 years, I could have been mixing them up.
You could play a fighter/mage/cleric in 2nd edition and be unbelievably potent.
Eventually, sure. Am I remembering wrong, or didn't you need to split your XP in thirds for that arrangement? So, everyone else is leveling 3 times faster.
Fighters and other melees didn't do very much damage either.
I know that--damage was very limited. But so were Hit points. 1d8+4 was pretty significant back then, and they were the only ones that were accurate and had multiple attacks (well, and Rangers/Paladins who were just different Fighters).
Crits didn't do much. I'm not sure they even existed.
I am pretty sure they did double damage. And in 2e at least, I always used Combat and Tactics and the crit system in there.
You didn't get much in terms of boosts to damage as a melee. No feats. Fighters had no abilities. They hit stuff. That's it.
And I'm suggesting that back then, hitting stuff mattered more. That and the lack of rules telling Fighters what they couldn't do ended up keeping them more relevant and important.
Rogues were better in 2nd edition. Rangers and Paladins were still pretty awesome. Fighter was the boring guy very few people wanted to play.
I'll admit, I always played Rangers, especially with Skills and Powers. But they were basically just Fighter/Rogues.
My fighter/mage/cleric was unbelievably powerful. I haven't been able to match that character's power in 3rd edition. He could do everything. I played him for years until he was 14th plus in all classes. Not much could stand against him.
Getting to 14th level with three classes would have taken forever (unless my memory is even worse than I thought).
The XP cost was so extreme, I don't think I ever knew anyone that multiclassed before 3rd.
Nope. You remember correctly about experience for multiclass characters. There was also that rule 1 gold/1 xp. Experience was different in 2nd edition. So you could catch up with higher level classes due to the sheer amount of experience needed to level up at higher levels. It did take quite a while to get to that level though. It was well worth it. You had a tremendous amount of power being able to use all three class abilities. I was a half-elf back when race decided what classes you could choose to multi-class in.
The game was no more balanced. Casters were still supreme. Save or die spells were extremely common. You could kill a lot of stuff with such spells. Being able to heal yourself when everyone had low hit points was an immense boon.
One thing I miss is the effectiveness of two-weapon fighting. Two-weapon fighting pales in comparison to two-hander fighting now. Too much of a feat investment for too little return. I wish they would make the two fighting styles on par with each other.
The only thing I miss about the old editions is the rules light nature of the games. Pathfinder/3rd edition is so bogged down with rules it's hard to remember them all. I wish they would trim it down at some point.
|
Theory aside. I've been playing D&D in one incarnation or another for 28 years now through all editions, I like pathfinder better than most versions of D&D. There is just more in it (almost too much now since we'll soon be approaching 30+ base classes). After numerous AP's with DM's of varying levels of ability I've found monk and fighter about the same. I can't recall a specific game I played in where I though the fighter shone above and beyond the monk, or vice-versa. This is largely due to the fact that we try to craft parties which include everyone and the DM's uses encounters that allow everyone to shine, as I'd imagine most people do. These theoretical threads are great for "discussion" but in play there are just too many other factors for it to really matter.
As an aside, even up to level 20 the spell casters in the party have never dominated play at our table. I saw more domination of casters in earlier editions, pathfinder seems more balanced. I think, though I've never kept stats on it obviously, casters have suffered far more deaths and failures than our martial buddies in our games. The biggest power shifters in our pathfinder history were a barbarian and a fighter. We always have spell casters in the party for a few reasons:
1) It's D&D and you just need magic for the feel
2) Clerics heal
3) Wizardly sorts have more options for how to act in situations
Curiously the most underrepresented class in our games is the fighter (and the rogue). Most in our group would rather play paladin, ranger, barbarian or Inquisitor over a fighter, they just seem to have more. The rogue is left out because most of our players don't know how to play one effectively.
Curiously the most underrepresented class in our games is the fighter (and the rogue). Most in our group would rather play paladin, ranger, barbarian or Inquisitor over a fighter, they just seem to have more.
I don't think that's curious at all--it seems pretty typical, actually.
Maybe my problem is all my own fault. I want to be a non-magical character (or at least one that doesn't use Vancian magic, ugh). I'd rather have mundane stuff, like superior willpower, human ingenuity, and good old-fashioned moxie win the day over weird supernatural powers. But you can't do that in Pathfinder or 3rd edition D&D. You need magic to beat magic. I hate that. I guess I wish Iron Heroes was the default. Or that more people played other RPGs.
I tried a dozen different ways (Ranger, Swashbuckler, even Warblade)--I was grateful to the GM for letting me remake my character so much--but I was never happy. I had a lot of fun when we weren't rolling dice because I liked my character, but I couldn't really do anything. Everything basically felt like we were waiting for the Cleric to memorize the right spell the next day, or buy a spell for the wizard's book. In combat, all the non-magical characters (and some of the magic users, too), ended up unconscious almost every fight.
This was truly alien to me, because everyone I had been gaming with for the previous 10 years+ hated vancian magic and avoided it like the plague. I was running Iron Heroes for a decade before it was actually written. Generally, my parties were Fighters (and variants) and Rogues (and variants) and that's it. Sometimes, but only rarely, you'd see maybe a Paladin or anti-Paladin. The only casters were Bards, and we were always desperate to trade spellcasting for something else. I hadn't really even read most of the 3rd edition spell lists. So, seeing spellcasting in action like this was a shock (and the focus on magic items, which I pretty much never used ever, especially wands of cure light wounds, was also pretty startling).
Ultimately, I gave up--I made a spellcaster. Now, I didn't really want to deal with the tedium of vancian magic, and I didn't want to control the battlefield and save-or-suck/blast or anything, so I ended up just using spells to buff myself. I was an Abjurant Champion (among other things), cast all my buffs early in the morning, and forgot I was a spellcaster the rest of the day. The only spell I ever cast in combat was Wings of Cover, and once or twice, Wings of Flurry when there were too many bad guys. Otherwise, my spell slots were just for sacrificing for buffs. I would wade in (well, fly, actually), and swing away in melee from then on, playing just like a basic Fighter.
It was amazing how much better I was--a spellcaster was a better fighter than a fighter, or even a Warblade, which was basically designed to be a fighter fix! I was untouchable--I had crazy AC, amazing Saves, and even miss chance, effectively all the time. And if a lucky crit landed, Boom! Wings of Cover. I was a juggernaut.
I offered to scale it back a little, but the GM said no, that he liked how strong I was. He started escalating things to try and hit me--he couldn't. The Fighter died every session--like actually legit -10 died every single session. It was only a special subsystem the GM created called "Fate points" that kept him in the game (spending them could save your character from dying). The Cleric in the group picked up Divine Metamagic: Persist and the two of us just handled things ourselves in fights. Puny battlefield control wizard--we don't need you anymore! We can punch a god in the face and he'll just whiff against me!
I literally never got hit in melee that game. I took a little damage a few times, from saving against death spells and taking the paltry 3d6 damage or whatever it was, but that was just about it (I had Evasion, but not Mettle).
It was stupid--a spellcaster was a better fighter than a Fighter. That was about the time I gave up on 3rd edition--when I actually read what spells were capable of doing in it. Horrible.
After years away from 3rd (and D&D in general, since I like PCing 4e, but hate running it and never found anyone else that didn't get a hate-on for it since they were so attached to 3rd), I found a group that was playing Pathfinder. I had heart it was like a fixed version of 3rd, where everything was fair. No, that was wrong--Druids are certainly more fair, and Clerics had to actually try to be better warriors than the actual warriors, but the martial-caster gap is still there, and obviously so. The only things they seemed to fix were super obvious (Divine Metamagic: Persist + Nightsticks), including stuff that wasn't actually problematic (Save or Die spells are more boring than they are overpowered--save or suck spells are the real issue).
Having played Pathfinder now pretty extensively, I don't think there's any melee I'd rather have in a party than a Druid, and my next choices would be Paladin, Cleric/Oracle, Inquisitor, Alchemist, and probably Bard. Ranger is a consolation prize.
I tried for a while, toying with an anti-caster Barbarian (Spell Sunder is cool), but out of combat, you're still just a guy with a couple of pointless skills waiting for the caster to solve everything. I tried pretending an Alchemist wasn't really a spellcaster, that it was SCIENCE!, but yeah, didn't really feel right.
I have had a lot of fun with total support characters (Oracle of Life, Hospitaler Paladin, Sensei Monk, "caster"/support Bards, etc.), but the game is still ultimately unsatisfying due to the knowledge that spells trump everything else but spells--even when they're not actively doing it, the fact that they could bothers me to no end.