I really wish you wouldn't spread misinformation like this. A Caster can put out damage far greater than that of a Martial if they build for it. So two Sorcerers would in fact be greater than Sorcerer Fighter since the Fighter requires that extra time to close distances whereas the Sorc points and things explode.
BUT the TEAM of Sorc and Fighter (to simplify it down to the “two body” problem) is more powerful and more versatile than two sorcs. Yes, I can do Direct damage, however only about half of what he can do, unless I Nova, but it’s almost impossible for the sorc to absorb the attacks.
I have seen one of your builds. It's fine unless they are immune to fire. But it also requires options and things from many, many odd and outre sources and builds into a one trick pony. Even so, a martial can out Damage it. Remember, a spell has ER & SR also. Not to mention, Burning hands (which is one of the spells you use for the comparo) is such short range it might as well be next to the target. So, I wish *YOU* wouldn't spread misinformation.
And of course, when we talk about "martial" this includes all martial classes, not just the Fighter.
I'ma have to agree with Deth on this one.
The one thing martial classes do well is ass-whoopin'. No caster build is going to beat a dedicated martial in single target death and destruction.
They have higher technical damage with AoE and all, which is awesome, but unless you start adding numbers together like that they're going to be dealing ~250 damage single target using a Fireball? Which is really a waste if there's only one target, since a good Barbarian, Ranger, Paladin, or even Fighter can be doing that on a full round at an equivalent level.
When the DM just declares stuff, and ignores the rules, that's fiat, and I'll call it that.
Worldbuilding is not fiat. Deciding the fighter can cast teleport this once is fiat. Finding a portal under the castle is not. See the difference?
You're talking Magical Story Hour again, and you're right, as far as that goes. But the actual game rules are strictly defined, and they provide the tools to accomplish any goal they wish to some classes, and withold those tools from other classes.
No, I'm talking about the role playing aspect of the game from the player side and the GM side. You don't need the rules to say a fighter becomes a lord, attracts followers, or scares away weaker fighters. These are events within the roleplaying aspect of the roleplaying game that can happen or not depending on the desires of the players and GMs.
I'll go a step further in fact and say that I would prefer these things not be burdened by cumbersome rules governing them. I don't want X check against Y DC to determine if the party fighter cutting down three watchmen causes the others to flee. I want them to flee when appropriate.
Trying to trivialize that by calling it 'magical story hour' is frankly unfair.
This argument again?! Look, it's not a "team" if one person does all the real work, and the others are standing around riding on his coat-tails. When Tiger Woods wins a golf tournament, we don't say "The awesome team comprised of a golf cart, a caddie, and a golfer won the torunament together!" Because that's not what happened. Tiger Woods won the tournament, and the caddie carried his clubs for him, and all the golf cart did was spare him having to walk around a little bit. Without the cart and the caddie, he could STILL win the tournament. That's not much of a "team."
Right, because casting the spell to teleport the party is doing all the work. Doing the actual killing is just being dead weight.
EDIT: Please read This list before we go any further; you're repeating myths 4 and 5.
Your list is, frankly, bad. I find Kirthfinder to be full of broken classes and overly complicated rules that frankly shows a flagrant disregard for understanding how the system is balanced. Martial classes seem to be written in a sort of furious rage inspired by the idea that they are inferior.
Further, that each class has capabilities others do not does not many any class inferior (except maybe the rogue), and having a talented GM does not make the game "storytime".
Sorry you are having such a bad time with the game. Maybe you should swap to playing Kirthfinder full time?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Trying to trivialize that by calling it 'magical story hour' is frankly unfair.
How is that "unfair," given that it's true? If you are playing without rules, you are making up a story as you go along. Just because you prefer it that way doesn't make it less true.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Trying to trivialize that by calling it 'magical story hour' is frankly unfair.How is that "unfair," given that it's true? If you are playing without rules, you are making up a story as you go along. Just because you prefer it that way doesn't make it less true.
Because the 'storytime' you are dismissing as 'magical story time' is an inherent part of the roleplaying game. The entire system is built within the context of people (players and a GM) interacting. The rules cover what is necessary (mostly combat), and leave the rest to those people as they tell a collective story. The only reason many non-combat spells are even fleshed out in my mind (e.g. teleport, fabricate, ect) is because the spell system is more codified (and more so than I'd like - I vastly prefer the true sorcery system).
The admixture wizard changes its elemental damage type to suit the opposition and the most obscure thing it uses is Orcs of Golarion. Pretty much everything is else is core or one of the big fat splats so try again.I have seen one of your builds. It's fine unless they are immune to fire. But it also requires options and things from many, many odd and outre sources and builds into a one trick pony. Even so, a martial can out Damage it. Remember, a spell has ER & SR also. Not to mention, Burning hands (which is one of the spells you use for the comparo) is such short range it might as well be next to the target. So, I wish *YOU* wouldn't spread misinformation.
And of course, when we talk about "martial" this includes all martial classes, not just the Fighter.
Taking Scavions last build on this.
Besides Orc of Golarion (which is outdated and 3.5) we have
The Inner Sea World Guide (This is a "big fat splat", I admit)
Pathfinder Chronicles: City of Strangers
Pathfinder Player Companion: Dragon Empires Primer
Thus we have a orc, who lives in the Inner Sea but also in Kaer Maga, and from Tian Xia which rests on the opposite side of the world from the Inner Sea region. Suuuuure.
James Jacobs has said repeatedly and recently that you're not supposed to just mix & match anything and everything. While I am not a big fan of folks saying "well the DM can fix that by houseruling it", this sort of build goes explicitly against RAI. No "houserules" needed.
"Crossblooded Draconic/Orc Sorcerer 1/Admixture Wizard 5.
Spell Specialization, Intensify Spell, Mage's Tattoo
, Bloatmage Initiate(Evocation)Spell Focus Evocation, Trait: Magical Knack, Trait: Wayang Spell Hunter (
Intensified Burning Hands amplified with Goblin Fire Drum
(mind you, this takes a move action, so how the heck is the sorc moving up to within burning hands range and casting and playing the drum?)
So, yes, in order to prove Spellcasters can out do martials, he has to bring in three contradictory background products. And, fudge like heck by moving up, playing a drum and casting all in one round.
Not to mention, this build has been beaten by martial DPR builds using nothing but core as Rynjin shows.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
When the DM just declares stuff, and ignores the rules, that's fiat, and I'll call it that.Worldbuilding is not fiat. Deciding the fighter can cast teleport this once is fiat. Finding a portal under the castle is not. See the difference?
Let's turn this around and look at it from the perspective of GMing. Consider two imaginary groups of PCs. The first, Party 1, consists of a druid, cleric, wizard, and witch. The second, Party 5, consists of a cavalier, a fighter, a monk, and a rogue. Let's say in my campaign, the party wants to travel to a far away place. With Party 1, this is easy. Teleport, wind walk, plane shift, and the like will let them easily get there. With party 5, as a DM I have to put a portal under the castle or have an NPC caster willing and able to cast the necessary spells.
Let's consider another scenario: someone in the party dies. For Party 1, this is trivial. The cleric can cast raise dead. If the cleric is the one who died, then limited wish will work. Or using planar binding or wish to get an ouutsider who can do it. For Party 5, I have to introduce an NPC who can raise the dead character.
It's clear Party 1 has more narrative power than Party 5. Party 5 requires me as GM to introduce elements in the world to make up for their lack of narrative influence.
Right, because casting the spell to teleport the party is doing all the work. Doing the actual killing is just being dead weight.
Your list is, frankly, bad. I find Kirthfinder to be full of broken classes and overly complicated rules that frankly shows a flagrant disregard for understanding how the system is balanced. Martial classes seem to be written in a sort of furious rage inspired by the idea that they are inferior.Further, that each class has capabilities others do not does not many any class inferior (except maybe the rogue), and having a talented GM does not make the game "storytime".
Sorry you are having such a bad time with the game. Maybe you should swap to playing Kirthfinder full time?
True.
Kirth do you play Pathfinder or just your game?
And, peter, I disagree- it's not a "flagrant disregard for understanding how the system is balanced" it's simply a lack of knowledge and experience in how the system is balanced. It's amazing how folks who have never published anything can blithely think their ideas are sooo much better than the designers of the best selling RPG in the world.
And as a perfect example of a team being stronger than each part, we have the bard, who is in Pathfinder generally agreed upon to be one of the most useful and flexible classes- and whose primary ability is to make everyone else do their job better.
Let's turn this around and look at it from the perspective of GMing. Consider two imaginary groups of PCs. The first, Party 1, consists of a druid, cleric, wizard, and witch. The second, Party 5, consists of a cavalier, a fighter, a monk, and a rogue. Let's say in my campaign, the party wants to travel to a far away place. With Party 1, this is easy. Teleport, wind walk, plane shift, and the like will let them easily get there. With party 5, as a DM I have to put a portal under the castle or have an NPC caster willing and able to cast the necessary spells.
Let's consider another scenario: someone in the party dies. For Party 1, this is trivial. The cleric can cast raise dead. If the cleric is the one who died, then limited wish will work. Or using planar binding or wish to get an ouutsider who can do it. For Party 5, I have to introduce an NPC who can raise the dead character.
It's clear Party 1 has more narrative power than Party 5. Party 5 requires me as GM to introduce elements in the world to make up for their lack of narrative influence.
Party 5 "Hey guys, let's fly there on the magic carpet" "Well, it's be faster for me to read this scroll of Tport" "But, with these magic horseshoes and our mounts,the trip will be fun and..." "Naw, my Cohort will cast a spell of...".
Raise dead? Scrolls or staff with UMD. A Cohort. Ring of Wishes.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The tier system is fine. It's meant as a starting point - not "here's what you should play and nothing else or else you are bad and should feel bad." Rather it is "this class over here can handle almost any challenge regardless of campaign without DM assistance, and that class over there will likely need help in the form of specific items or party assistance in order to have the same effectiveness." That's really all its for.
Having said all that, I do understand why Paizo might be reluctant to release a full BAB class that is more powerful/capable than the Paladin and Ranger. Neither side is wrong on this, so long as the choice is conscious.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Trying to trivialize that by calling it 'magical story hour' is frankly unfair.How is that "unfair," given that it's true? If you are playing without rules, you are making up a story as you go along. Just because you prefer it that way doesn't make it less true.
Probably because it reeks of condescension and to a lesser extent BadWrongfun?
Different tables have different play styles, and I doubt the play style Peter Stewart advocates is rare or uncommon. If anything it is considered the default for Pathfinder and 3.5, and obviously has been a successful model for both WoTC and Paizo.
You make a point. But a lot of us got posts deleted in that thread. So, I withdraw the comment but still ask the very relevant question.
I ask the same of other folks who have admitted that they don't actually play Pathfinder. Is it not a reasonable question to ask?
It's quite pointless, actually. I seriously doubt anyone plays the game 100% RAW. I don't see how someone using house rules has any relevance on a discussion about RAW.
I know the rules of PF pretty well... I played as close to RAW as I could for a long time. I added houserules because I wasn't completely satisfied with the system. So what?
I know what my house rules are and what impact they have on the game. I never assume they are in play when I'm discussing mechanics with anyone who is not in my gaming group...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And as a perfect example of a team being stronger than each part, we have the bard, who is in Pathfinder generally agreed upon to be one of the most useful and flexible classes- and whose primary ability is to make everyone else do their job better.
Which is why Bards are usually, if I'm not mistaken, classified as a very strong Tier 3, like the Inquisitor (also widely considered one of the best designed classes in the game).
Was this a purposeful design decision? And if so, is it one that's worth upholding, so as to "protect" the viability of existing full BAB classes. ("Why should anyone play Class X when Class Y has full BAB and is superior?")
Or should writers just openly say, sorry, but the Fighter has a low amount of resources compared to other classes, and I'm not going to peg my new class to the Fighter just because they both have full BAB.
Thanks in advance for your feedback.
Personally, I would prefer the latter, as I don't personally see the fighter's niche as one that needs protecting. Though, to be honest, I'm not exactly sure what that niche is, but I think it's more than just having full BAB, otherwise Ranger, Paladin, Barbarian, and all the other Full BAB classes would already be trampling all over it. It's more than just being good at a style of combat, as the Ranger's always been great at TWF and Archery and now has options beyond that, the Barbarian does THF/Pounce Charging, and now there are classes specifically designed for firearms, mounted combat, and soon swashbuckling.
I guess if there is any identifiable niche to the fighter, it's that it purposefully has almost zero built-in flavor. Anything the character brings to the table has been brought by the player, and it has the flexibility to (fail to fully) bring to life many different types of characters. However, if you're designing a class to have more class abilities, it will probably have more flavor than the fighter, so that niche won't be in trouble.
So, don't worry about the fighter, but perhaps more care should be tendered towards the other classes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let's turn this around and look at it from the perspective of GMing. Consider two imaginary groups of PCs. The first, Party 1, consists of a druid, cleric, wizard, and witch. The second, Party 5, consists of a cavalier, a fighter, a monk, and a rogue. Let's say in my campaign, the party wants to travel to a far away place. With Party 1, this is easy. Teleport, wind walk, plane shift, and the like will let them easily get there. With party 5, as a DM I have to put a portal under the castle or have an NPC caster willing and able to cast the necessary spells.
Let's consider another scenario: someone in the party dies. For Party 1, this is trivial. The cleric can cast raise dead. If the cleric is the one who died, then limited wish will work. Or using planar binding or wish to get an ouutsider who can do it. For Party 5, I have to introduce an NPC who can raise the dead character.
It's clear Party 1 has more narrative power than Party 5. Party 5 requires me as GM to introduce elements in the world to make up for their lack of narrative influence.
Party 5 "Hey guys, let's fly there on the magic carpet" "Well, it's be faster for me to read this scroll of Tport" "But, with these magic horseshoes and our mounts,the trip will be fun and..." "Naw, my Cohort will cast a spell of...".
Raise dead? Scrolls or staff with UMD. A Cohort. Ring of Wishes.
So to compensate for lack of spellcasters, the GM gives you items that do the same job, but with restrictions.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Question to a lot of you who are posting in here: WHY? This is a thread about tiers and their mechanical impact on design. This isn't a thread asking if tiers are reasonable or your thing, it's a thread based solely on finding out the value of a full BAB for tiers.
You're going to a thread that's talking about something you hate just to complain you don't think it exist. It's in the realm of going to a thread talking about how to deal with global warming, claiming "I don't believe in this!" and then sitting there with a smile while people talk around you. We get it, you don't like or believe that tiers are a thing, that's super swell and perfect!
But some of us do, and some of us want to talk about the given topic without someone randomly interjecting "nuh uh!" I get that you think we're playing the game 'the wrong way', that's fine, go play the game your way. We here want to talk about the mechanical balance of full BAB vs. the Narrative power given to a class.
You want to start a 'are tiers real/necessary?' thread? Go do that somewhere else, and leave this one to the topic at hand.
And P. Man, filling out your survey as we speak.
You thought GitP was hostile? I'd hate to see you go to the Gaming Den, or /tg/.
I find /tg/ a lot less hostile than GiantitP.
So to compensate for lack of spellcasters, the GM gives you items that do the same job, but with restrictions.
Party 5 "Hey guys, let's fly there on the magic carpet" "Well, it's be faster for me to read this scroll of Tport" "But, with these magic horseshoes and our mounts,the trip will be fun and..." "Naw, my Cohort will cast a spell of...".
Raise dead? Scrolls or staff with UMD. A Cohort. Ring of Wishes.
The game is balanced around WBL and some flexibility in spending it.
Which is why Bards are usually, if I'm not mistaken, classified as a very strong Tier 3, like the Inquisitor (also widely considered one of the best designed classes in the game).
And as a perfect example of a team being stronger than each part, we have the bard, who is in Pathfinder generally agreed upon to be one of the most useful and flexible classes- and whose primary ability is to make everyone else do their job better.
I think a Inquisitor could be a great solo. But Bard- well, without archetypes- is a support PC. A well balanced, well rounded support PC, sure.
But yes, both are well rounded classes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The game is balanced around WBL and some flexibility in spending it.
Unfortunately, everyone gets the same WBL... And to add insult to the injury, casters usually need a lot less money than martials. And they can craft stuff fir half the price.
Well, martials can cast stuff too, of course, but it costs them 2 feats to get the benefit of less than 1. And the DC for the Spellcraft checks is higher since they don't actually know the spells necessary for crafting each item.
The admixture wizard changes its elemental damage type to suit the opposition and the most obscure thing it uses is Orcs of Golarion. Pretty much everything is else is core or one of the big fat splats so try again.I have seen one of your builds. It's fine unless they are immune to fire. But it also requires options and things from many, many odd and outre sources and builds into a one trick pony. Even so, a martial can out Damage it. Remember, a spell has ER & SR also. Not to mention, Burning hands (which is one of the spells you use for the comparo) is such short range it might as well be next to the target. So, I wish *YOU* wouldn't spread misinformation.
And of course, when we talk about "martial" this includes all martial classes, not just the Fighter.
Taking Scavions last build on this.
Besides Orc of Golarion (which is outdated and 3.5) we have
The Inner Sea World Guide (This is a "big fat splat", I admit)
Pathfinder Chronicles: City of Strangers
Pathfinder Player Companion: Dragon Empires PrimerThus we have a orc, who lives in the Inner Sea but also in Kaer Maga, and from Tian Xia which rests on the opposite side of the world from the Inner Sea region. Suuuuure.
I think it's interesting you don't believe different cultures may have equivalent abilities. Blood Magic is hardly a novel idea. And Wayang Spell Hunter only delays the build slightly, it's power is still above equivalent martials without it.
I'ma have to agree with Deth on this one.
The one thing martial classes do well is ass-whoopin'. No caster build is going to beat a dedicated martial in single target death and destruction.
They have higher technical damage with AoE and all, which is awesome, but unless you start adding numbers together like that they're going to be dealing ~250 damage single target using a Fireball?
Yes actually. A Blaster optimized for a higher level spell than Fireball(Which admittedly would not happen unless you began at a higher level since Fireball is so compatible with metamagic, the Blockbuster guide breaks it down nicely on how metamagic'd fireballs beat out just about everything) puts out about 300 damage a round with the added bonus of killing everything around the target.
And unless you play 12 and up encounters a day then all the Caster needs to do is rely on his less powerful blasts for the weaker enemies. And the Caster has a positioning advantage due to not needing to melee.(Archer builds are a valid discussion point)
I really wish the people who keep pushing for this kind of suped up martial would just WRITE THE CLASS THEY WANT.
They complain all the time about how Wizard is too good and Martials can't get anything nice, but then offer no actual solution, denigrate any possible solution you offer and are generally unconstructive.
You want the martial based on Celtic Myth? Then write it.
(Raises hand) Houstonderek, TOZ, and I (et al.) have done that.
Fark Trollman and K also did it in the Tomes stuff for 3.5.
And Szatany's Ultimate Classes scaled back the casters instead.One thing all threee of those efforts have in common is that they're free -- we're interested in fixing problems, not in churning out stuff for profit.
If there are not one, not two, but THREE solutions to this problems, why do some people continue to say that there are none over and over again?
I haven't looked at this stuff, I'll check it out when I get a chance, but I didn't particularly feel the need for this stuff either.
That's the thing that aggravates me, the constant screaming about how Paizo needs to do this right now to cater to the people who are asking for this, and that I need to stop playing wizards and not allow players in my games to play wizards and that for enjoying the Wizard class and not wanting to play the style of game where I remove all the abilities that make him a Wizard I am playing the game incorrectly.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As one of the posters noted, the critieria for tiers are never posted.
What they are, is biased towards classes that have time to prepare. Thus, Wizards, clerics and Druids, who can all completely shift their spell loadouts, and have potential access to their entire spell lists, default to Tier 1.
Why? Because with unlimited spell access, you can literally do anything, with time to prepare.
Tier 2 is there for those who cannot prepare as well. Oh, they can do some of the stuff, but without unlimited spells access, they can't do as much. But they still are able to do preparation partly well, and their spells are generally enough to have marvelous loads of options.
This is why Sorcs dominate Tier 2. Sorcs who have incredible spell access actually promote themselves to Tier 1.
Tier 3 is basically casters with less powerful lists, and more melee capability...or strong melees with extra spell capability. PF Paladins are probably Tier 3. Inquisitors, Bards, maguses are Tier3. Rangers would be, if they had more spell like or defensive abilities instead of terrain and favored enemy stuff...they essentially live on the other side of the Tier 3/4 dividing mirror from paladins.
Tier 4 is basically centered on those classes whose expertise is melee. In short, if melee is all you are good at, you go here...even if melee is a primary part of the game.
Tier 5 is classes that aren't good at melee, and with nothing unique about them. Monk and Rogues go here...because Monks have nothing unique about them in their melee capabilities, which they don't do well, and Rogues don't melee well, and having all those skill points doesn't mean anything if every other class can get good at skills.
If you want to delineate things, you'd have to do things like this:
1) Disregarding most WBL, as UMD is flat across all classes
2) Considering primarily class features and only class features, independent of race
3) Across all levels
How good is your client at:
OUt of Combat:
1) Creating or multiplying wealth? Casters generally get the nod for ease of making magic items, or casting spells for $.
2) Changing the campaign world: This can be Stone Shaping up walls or making a dam, or making a flying island. Sky is the limit, but only class features.
3) Amplifying social interaction power.
4) Finding out information
5) Movement capability on the macro scale? I.e. do you walk, fly, or teleport?
6) How good are you at changing your capabilities day to day to meet upcoming demand? (not just preparation). Can you totally change your focus, or just a couple areas?
7) what's your mass leadership capability?
8) Is there anything you can do which really no other class can do that is extremely helpful to yourself? To others?
In combat:
1) Whats your DPR? What's the range of it? How flexible is it against various types of enemies?
2) How's your battlefield control? At range or close up?
3) How's your physical defenses? (AC, concealment, hit points). Constant or burst?
4) how's your magical defenses? (saves, spell res, immunities)
5) How's your movement ability? What modes?
6) How's your ability to cancel an opponent's abilities?
7) How well can you change your capabilities to deal with an encounter?
8) How stat dependent are you?
9) How vulnerable are you if not specifically prepared?
10) How expensive is it to put you into desired gear?
11) How dependent ARE you on your gear?
12) What kind of staying power do you have for long combats? Go all day or 15 minutes?
13) Are you strong enough to deal with most encounters with just your basic abilities?
14) How long does it take you to prepare for a specific foe, if you can? Multiple foes?
15) How is your recuperative ability, re: hit points?
16) how is your inflicted status recovery ability?
17) can you swap non-combat ability for combat ability, and vice versa?
18) Are you provided 'free' and useful allies by your class?
19) is there anything your class can do that is extremely useful that no other class can do? For yourself? For everyone?
20) How susceptible are you to removal of magic? Does it affect your class features at all?
21) Do you have a spell list? How strong and versatile is it? Do you have access to all of it?
Answer these questions, and you can start seeing classes falling into tiers fairly easily.
Tiers ignore role-playing. They ignore wealth. They ignore DM favoritism. They simply look at what a class is capable of, not what they actually do.
Combat ability is more valued in the Tier system then skills.
Abilities that cannot be done by skills or feats, because such are available to everyone, are more valued then skills and feats, because the latter can be replaced by multiple methods.
BAB is less valued then caster level, because everyone has BAB and there are multiple methods to improved damage, attacks and To-hit, but not everyone has caster levels, nor access to a great list.
The ability to swap abilities to address particular problems superbly is valued more highly then constant general all-around ability.
Burst power is valued more highly then steady power.
battlefield control is valued more highly then DPR.
Ability to attack at range is valued more highly then in combat.
Abilities that are 'free' are more valued then abilities that carry a GP cost.
Ability to move distance on the macro scale is valued more highly then ability to move on the micro scale.
The ability to make magic items and/or permanent spells is extremely valued.
There's your criteria. Take your favorite class and go to town.
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Then I suggest you dont play one, and pick another class to play, rather than trying to change the class into something the people who love to play it don't want.The problem with the Fighter is that he's not really vanilla. Vanilla is a flavor choice, and it tastes quite good.
Fighter is any flavor you want him to be. Except he's that cheap brand that always tastes freezer burnt no matter what you do with it.
This a thousand times. There are players who love Fighters just the way they are, want to have tons of feats to spend as they choose and enjoy playing those characters. Why should we remove something that is clearly in the game for them.
Indeed, quite outdated Cheapy.
The only reason one class is better then another in a game are because people decide to order them after all. Then to complain that one is on top and the other on the bottom. Obviously somethings are going to be on the bottom if you decide to place them in an order.
It's a relatively meaningless activity but far be it from me to stop others from having their fun. It has been getting a bit out of hand lately though. People play a character after all, not just a class.
You are right, some will be better than others. Some are supposed to be better early, and weaker later, or vice versa. Some stay a middle road about the whole scale of level 1-20.
Which means that, (I'll use the tier system since that is what was brought up) at basically levels 9-12 everything should be just about equal in narrative, combat and utility.
That is not the case.
And that is the problem. At level 1 there should be some disparity, using a 6 'Tier' system, nothing should be lower than tier 5 maybe, and the lower it starts at level 20, it should be a tier 2 or 3. If it starts at tier 2 then it should end at tier 3 or 4. And at levels 9-12 they should all be tier 3 or 4. Those that start at tier 3 or 4 should remain at 3 or 4 the entire journey. There should be no tier 1 or tier 6 classes at any point on the scale.
It is a game...and just like any game, needs some balancing that it does not have. It would be like saying the Race Car in Monopoly can roll three dice each turn cause it is a car. And the Top Hat should start with more money and get more every payday. Game isn't much fun to play the Thimble who only gets to roll one die a turn...cause thimbles are small and slow.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Then I suggest you dont play one, and pick another class to play, rather than trying to change the class into something the people who love to play it don't want.This a thousand times. There are players who love Fighters just the way they are, want to have tons of feats to spend as they choose and enjoy playing those characters. Why should we remove something that is clearly in the game for them.
Why do you assume that making fighters better would preclude a significant decrease in the number of feats or a removal of whatever else we like about the fighter?
To pose a more on topic question, would giving the Magus or the upcoming Warpriest Full BAB significantly weaken the appeal of the fighter class?
It would be like saying the Race Car in Monopoly can roll three dice each turn cause it is a car. And the Top Hat should start with more money and get more every payday. Game isn't much fun to play the Thimble who only gets to roll one die a turn...cause thimbles are small and slow.
To be fair, it might allow the game to do a better job to teach the evils of rampant capitalism.
Why do you assume that making fighters better would preclude a significant decrease in the number of feats or a removal of whatever else we like about the fighter?Then I suggest you dont play one, and pick another class to play, rather than trying to change the class into something the people who love to play it don't want.This a thousand times. There are players who love Fighters just the way they are, want to have tons of feats to spend as they choose and enjoy playing those characters. Why should we remove something that is clearly in the game for them.
Why do you assume that adding things to the fighter would increase people's enjoyment of them?
One of the key factors about choosing fighter my friend has is that he DOES NOT WANT anything resembling a spell list to matter. Whether spells, or "forms", or any other name you put on these abilities its additional paperwork he DOESN'T WANT.
Honestly, in my opinion, the GM is far more relevant than the tier of the class when it comes to classes.
Since you are not playing against a computer but with other people who will adjust to what you do regardless of what you pick.
A much more serious problem is imbalance within the party than with some arbitrary 'tier system'. The latter can be compensated by adjusting encounters, but the former has (in my experience) been a much greater source of strife.
I'm going to disagree due to the large number of GM's that run printed adventures, adventure paths and PFS games.
These rarely to never allow for things to be as you say, and rarely or ever are changed to allow that.
One of the key factors about choosing fighter my friend has is that he DOES NOT WANT anything resembling a spell list to matter. Whether spells, or "forms", or any other name you put on these abilities its additional paperwork he DOESN'T WANT.
And nobody has said to give the Fighter spells or spell-likes or any such thing.
Just class features beyond "I have Feats lol" and some extra skills.
It's not more extra paperwork on that front than it is to write down his Feats in the first place.
Why do you assume that making fighters better would preclude a significant decrease in the number of feats or a removal of whatever else we like about the fighter?Why do you assume that adding things to the fighter would increase people's enjoyment of them?
Because I'm not sure there is a way to make the fighter better that doesn't involve adding new features or replacing current ones, and I assume that making the class better (by whatever definition of better one may have) would more often make the class more enjoyable to play.
One of the key factors about choosing fighter my friend has is that he DOES NOT WANT anything resembling a spell list to matter. Whether spells, or "forms", or any other name you put on these abilities its additional paperwork he DOESN'T WANT.
I guess I just don't consider ~20 feats and the series of numerical bonuses (like weapon training) the class currently receives to be significantly less paperwork than either a small spell list, a series of selectable class abilities like rogue talents, mercies or rage powers, or a list of selectable maneuvers
Different strokes for different folks.
I will repeat a question in my the previous post as I edited in, and I assume you didn't have the opportunity to read it: Would giving more classes like the Magus and the upcoming Warpriest full BAB, or giving the Ranger and Paladin more/higher level spells make the fighter class less appealing for your friend to play?
Why do you assume that making fighters better would preclude a significant decrease in the number of feats or a removal of whatever else we like about the fighter?Why do you assume that adding things to the fighter would increase people's enjoyment of them?Because I'm not sure there is a way to make the fighter better that doesn't involve adding new features or replacing current ones, and I assume that making the class better (by whatever definition of better one may have) would more often make the class more enjoyable to play.
One of the key factors about choosing fighter my friend has is that he DOES NOT WANT anything resembling a spell list to matter. Whether spells, or "forms", or any other name you put on these abilities its additional paperwork he DOESN'T WANT.I guess I just don't consider ~20 feats and the series of numerical bonuses (like weapon training) the class currently receives to be significantly less paperwork than either a small spell list, a series of selectable class abilities like rogue talents, mercies or rage powers, or a list of selectable maneuvers
Different strokes for different folks.
If I don't allow him to select an option that exchanges ranger spells for feats he won't play a Ranger because it has too much spells for him. . .
If I don't allow him to select an option that exchanges ranger spells for feats he won't play a Ranger because it has too much spells for him. . .
If I may ask, why does he dislike spells so much? Also, is it just the problem of spells, or any class abilities like rogue talents and rage powers that would bother him?
I'll add that when I first played D&D, my first class was a fighter, and I considered spells a waste of time, so I might be able to empathize with him.
If I don't allow him to select an option that exchanges ranger spells for feats he won't play a Ranger because it has too much spells for him. . .
To be clear, he's good with the Skirmisher archetype then?
And to be honest, your friend seems to be in the vast minority. Most people don't find the Ranger's spells to be too complex.
If I don't allow him to select an option that exchanges ranger spells for feats he won't play a Ranger because it has too much spells for him. . .If I may ask, why does he dislike spells so much? Also, is it just the problem of spells, or any class abilities like rogue talents and rage powers that would bother him?
I'll add that when I first played D&D, my first class was a fighter, and I considered spells a waste of time, so I might be able to empathize with him.
He has played D&D for over 20 years. . . its what he likes. He makes characters to deal tons of damage in combat-- that's what he enjoys. He's played Monk, Fighter, Ranger, and once a Paladin (again using the option to not have spells); he bought Tome of Battle and hated it; when we played Monte Cooks Arcana unearthed, he complained that he couldn't play a fighter; when we mentioned playing fourth edition he despised it and we could not get a game running. . .
I don't know why, but that's what he likes.
If I don't allow him to select an option that exchanges ranger spells for feats he won't play a Ranger because it has too much spells for him. . .To be clear, he's good with the Skirmisher archetype then?
And to be honest, your friend seems to be in the vast minority. Most people don't find the Ranger's spells to be too complex.
I'd agree with you personally. . . I find Rangers to have too few spells for what I like, but there's every kind of person and if I put a book on the table that didn't have a class without that kind of features I would never be able to run it and we'd use a previous edition that has normal Fighter in it instead.
He has played D&D for over 20 years. . . its what he likes. He makes characters to deal tons of damage in combat-- that's what he enjoys. He's played Monk, Fighter, Ranger, and once a Paladin (again using the option to not have spells); he bought Tome of Battle and hated it; when we played Monte Cooks Arcana unearthed, he complained that he couldn't play a fighter; when we mentioned playing fourth edition he despised it and we could not get a game running. . .
I don't know why, but that's what he likes.
I will repeat a question in a the previous post ,as I edited it in and I assume you didn't have the opportunity to read it: Would giving more classes like the Magus and the upcoming Warpriest full BAB, or giving the Ranger and Paladin more/higher level spells make the fighter class less appealing for your friend or for others to play?
I will repeat a question in a the previous post ,as I edited it in and I assume you didn't have the opportunity to read it: Would giving more classes like the Magus and the upcoming Warpriest full BAB, or giving the Ranger and Paladin more/higher level spells make the fighter class less appealing for your friend or for others to play?He has played D&D for over 20 years. . . its what he likes. He makes characters to deal tons of damage in combat-- that's what he enjoys. He's played Monk, Fighter, Ranger, and once a Paladin (again using the option to not have spells); he bought Tome of Battle and hated it; when we played Monte Cooks Arcana unearthed, he complained that he couldn't play a fighter; when we mentioned playing fourth edition he despised it and we could not get a game running. . .
I don't know why, but that's what he likes.
Not for him, but for others I'm sure it will.
Again, WHY does this class need to have full BaB on top of everything else you are giving it?
Would you argue if we were to put out an Alternate Wizard that also has full BaB but gets all the same spells?
According to the theory presented in this thread (full BaB is meaningless) then there should be no issue with that either?
Mind you I LOVE the Barbarian, and I consider it my fave T4 class, but I know even an Invulnerable Rager with Spell Sunder, Eater of Magic, and Greater Beast Totem can't stand up to a well prepared spellcaster.AFAIK (e.g. since the last time I looked at it), no one in the AM BARBARIAN thread was capable of making a caster that could beat the barbarian.
I can't believe that, interesting.
For the rest of martials, it's the complete opposite.
I guess there is always an exception.
So to compensate for lack of spellcasters, the GM gives you items that do the same job, but with restrictions.Let's turn this around and look at it from the perspective of GMing. Consider two imaginary groups of PCs. The first, Party 1, consists of a druid, cleric, wizard, and witch. The second, Party 5, consists of a cavalier, a fighter, a monk, and a rogue. Let's say in my campaign, the party wants to travel to a far away place. With Party 1, this is easy. Teleport, wind walk, plane shift, and the like will let them easily get there. With party 5, as a DM I have to put a portal under the castle or have an NPC caster willing and able to cast the necessary spells.
Let's consider another scenario: someone in the party dies. For Party 1, this is trivial. The cleric can cast raise dead. If the cleric is the one who died, then limited wish will work. Or using planar binding or wish to get an ouutsider who can do it. For Party 5, I have to introduce an NPC who can raise the dead character.
It's clear Party 1 has more narrative power than Party 5. Party 5 requires me as GM to introduce elements in the world to make up for their lack of narrative influence.
Party 5 "Hey guys, let's fly there on the magic carpet" "Well, it's be faster for me to read this scroll of Tport" "But, with these magic horseshoes and our mounts,the trip will be fun and..." "Naw, my Cohort will cast a spell of...".
Raise dead? Scrolls or staff with UMD. A Cohort. Ring of Wishes.
Hey, he also allowed for compensating for the lack of spellcasters by having spellcasters in the party (as cohorts). So there's that option too...
Not for him, but for others I'm sure it will.
Again, WHY does this class need to have full BaB on top of everything else you are giving it?
Would you argue if we were to put out an Alternate Wizard that also has full BaB but gets all the same spells?
According to the theory presented in this thread (full BaB is meaningless) then there should be no issue with that either?
I don't believe anyone has argued that full BaB is meaningless.
What it is is not a big enough deal to justify not giving the class much else.
A class with Full BaB that can also hold its own in certain non-combat areas should be possible.
No one's asking for a "Full BaB Wizard". But something with as much versatility as a Bard or Inquisitor, minus the spells, with full BaB?
Yes.
In an ideal world all the classes would fall somewhere in the range of current Tier 3 to low-mid Tier 2. Enough versatility to fill multiple roles without having theoretical capability to do anything.
Mind you I LOVE the Barbarian, and I consider it my fave T4 class, but I know even an Invulnerable Rager with Spell Sunder, Eater of Magic, and Greater Beast Totem can't stand up to a well prepared spellcaster.AFAIK (e.g. since the last time I looked at it), no one in the AM BARBARIAN thread was capable of making a caster that could beat the barbarian.I can't believe that, interesting.
For the rest of martials, it's the complete opposite.
I guess there is always an exception.
Easier to believe when you realize that AM BARBARIAN is based on A.) A contrived scenario with all advantages weighted towards AM BARBARIAN (wide open plain, starts outside of the range of vision of the Wizard, etc.) and B.) Requires a...creative interpretation of certain rule interactions, which have since been proved to be illegal.
I will repeat a question in a the previous post ,as I edited it in and I assume you didn't have the opportunity to read it: Would giving more classes like the Magus and the upcoming Warpriest full BAB, or giving the Ranger and Paladin more/higher level spells make the fighter class less appealing for your friend or for others to play?He has played D&D for over 20 years. . . its what he likes. He makes characters to deal tons of damage in combat-- that's what he enjoys. He's played Monk, Fighter, Ranger, and once a Paladin (again using the option to not have spells); he bought Tome of Battle and hated it; when we played Monte Cooks Arcana unearthed, he complained that he couldn't play a fighter; when we mentioned playing fourth edition he despised it and we could not get a game running. . .
I don't know why, but that's what he likes.
If you repeat something this many times, it's getting a bit like stalking.
But to answer for him, but in general- let us assume someone really likes playing some class or other- like the feel, the abilities, the fluff, the crunch ect. So then you changed the rules and doubled the power of every class but that one- well, yes, there'd be some issues. I do think that the fighter could use a couple little booths, like 4skp and I suggested the Vital Strike chain for fee, one feat @ lvls 5, 15, 20. Cool houserule and a few people have adopted it.
Honestly tho, that's not gonna happen. Sure, there could be some cool new archetypes and feats, but Paizo is NOT GOING TO MAKE ANY CHANGES THAT WOULD REQUIRE A 2nd EDITION, and almost no-one wants that.
So yeah- if Paizo changed the Magus to full BAB, which would require a 2nd ed and obsolete my many hundred dollar library - no, I would hate that.
So, changes that require a 2nd Ed are not gonna happen and so what people need to suggest is some boosts to the class or fixes that are along the lines of new feats, archetypes and errata. Maybe even a Ranger or paladin only spell or two that's really cool.
But nothing can be so great that it's a MUST DO.
And to be honest the problem is not as big as a small minority here has made it out to be. Like I said- up thru 13th level we have seen no issues. Oh, except for Mythic Power attack. One shot, one kill if you have a good crit range and feats. And Mythic Haste makes martials very powerful- they all get Pounce for free.
Again, why does this class need to have full BaB on top of everything else you are giving it?
I will repeat a question in a the previous post ,as I edited it in and I assume you didn't have the opportunity to read it: Would giving more classes like the Magus and the upcoming Warpriest full BAB, or giving the Ranger and Paladin more/higher level spells make the fighter class less appealing for your friend or for others to play?
To use the example of the warpriest: The class uses their class level instead of base attack bonus when using their preferred weapon (selected at level 1), so it's already getting full BAB except that (A) It makes bookkeeping more tedious, and (B) It makes it harder for the class to qualify for feats. Giving the class full BAB would streamline the class, and make combat feat access easier for the class. A similar case about feat access could be made for the Magus.
Would you argue if we were to put out an Alternate Wizard that also has full BaB but gets all the same spells?
According to the theory presented in this thread (full BaB is meaningless) then there should be no issue with that either?
The wizard hypothetical is flawed. It's proposing an identical class+an extra benefit. A comparable claim would be that any proposed class that has full BAB and additional class features is just fighter+an extra benefit, which we both know isn't true. A fighter is more than just full BAB.
What's being asked is whether it makes sense for classes like the Magus, Warpriest, or Inquisitor to seemingly be limited to medium BAB because they have moderately powerful spell access, and how much spell power or how powerful of class features should paladins and rangers get even though they have full BAB. More concisely: whether the impact of BAB on a character's overall strength has been overrated in the design of previous class's, and whether homebrew designers should take in the perceived design tradition of tying power of class features to base attack bonus.
So to bring everything back to the fighter discussion: If Person_man drew up a new class (like the Warblade) that had class abilities to make it better at combat, would it discourage people from playing the fighter if it had full BAB?
Follow up question: Should Person_Man or other designers protect the fighter in this way?
Remember the OP isn't saying "I want to destroy the Fighter and replace it with the Warblade/Duskblade/whatever!" he's asking why it is that Pathfinder's design philosophy seems to weigh towards anything with full BAB being Tier4 or below (at the same point as the Fighter), and if it's critically important that no Full BAB class ever attain the extra complexity that comes with the higher tiers.
Basically, are you going to be offended by a class that is better than the Fighter by being the same or slightly better in a straight fight, while having more versatility. It's not a question of "Should the simple fighter exist?" it's "Can a better alternative exist without creating an apocalyptic response"
Where do you get "Pathfinder's design philosophy'? This has been a feature of the game since the original 3 volume set, back in 1974.
And note that Paladins and Rangers can cast spells, and many folks argue them (or versions of them ) as Tier 3. Much debated, yes, but even Jaron' original ratings were debated.
The "extra complexity that comes with the higher tiers" you speak of is FULL SPELLCASTING. Every tier one or 2 class is a FULL SPELLCASTER. Every non-debated tier 3 is a 6th level spellcaster. Even with BoNS, the highest any non-full spellcaster class got was a debatable and much argued T3 for the Warblade and maybe the Crusader.
"are you going to be offended by a class that is better than the Fighter by being the same or slightly better in a straight fight, while having more versatility." Heck no, we have them now, they are called Barbarians, Rangers* & Paladins.
Now yes, I would like to see a version of BoNS for PF. Unfortunately, we'll have to make due with a 3PP, as WotC defends that property and it's not open source. Mind you the concepts aren't copyrighted, but Paizo has a fine legal line to tread anyway. So, sure, let's have Ki focused subclasses super- archetypes of each of the four martial classes, like with the Monk. Coolness.
let's push that idea. But Paizon ain't doing a full spellcaster full BAB class as that's crazy, and they ain't doing no 2nd Edition.
* Ok, the ranger isn't better in a straight fight, but he's got a lot of other cool things.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is inherently a team exercise, so practical narrative power (even if the world were a locked in server type reality) only matters as a function of what a party is capable of.
While I respect your opinion here, I think the play experience, from the game we both play in at least, pretty strongly disagrees with this.
We wouldn't be in the process of making a new narratively capable fighter for use in our campaign if the two guys who have been actually playing fighters in it felt like the whole question of martial narrative power was fine to ignore as long as there was someone in the party with spells.
One thing I have to differ from Kirth with though is that while his posts typically focus strongly on out of combat considerations, I've felt the whole lack of options to have strongly bled over into combat as well, at least up here at 15th level.