So much this. I really feel that's what all these threads break down into. No matter how obviously inferior the Fighter is to the Barbarian or Ranger, or the Rogue is the Alchemist/Bard/INT-based Caster/Investigator (coming soon) they won't stop moving goalposts until I'm convinced the playing field is Hallucinatory Terrain.
I really feel that's what all these threads break down into. No matter how obviously equal the Fighter is to the Barbarian or Ranger, or the Rogue is the Alchemist/Bard/INT-based Caster/Investigator (coming soon) they won't stop moving goalposts or coming up with Schrodingers examples.
Fighter have a +5 vs fear ALWAYS, Then add in Iron will, since the fighter has ELEVEN extra feats. Shoot, make that Improved Iron will. Those extra feats are Class features, just like Raging.You mean Iron Will, that feat that can't be taken using Fighter bonus feats? Right... And Bravery is a joke.
Fighters and Rogues could be identical to Warriors and Experts and you would still argue that they are balanced, just because the book pretends they are.
Fighters get 11 bonus feats, which will allow them to use their regular feats for Iron Will- but you knew that.
I will still argue that they are balanced, just because the that's the way they play IRL as opposed to PvP theorycraft.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not really though. I mean their play experiences might differ, but "Fighters suffer from a crippling lack of skill points and are only really good at fighting and even then not significantly more so then a Barbarian or Ranger who can beat the Fighter at fighting provided they have their daily resources and can contribute out of combat better." is an objectively true statement. It's the same as saying water is wet.
They're not moving the goalposts. They're just playing cricket while you're playing football. The two are never going to agree, and no matter how much one side believes it is objectively correct ... neither is. Or more correctly, both are.So much this. I really feel that's what all these threads break down into. No matter how obviously inferior the Fighter is to the Barbarian or Ranger, or the Rogue is the Alchemist/Bard/INT-based Caster/Investigator (coming soon) they won't stop moving goalposts until I'm convinced the playing field is Hallucinatory Terrain.Fighter have a +5 vs fear ALWAYS, Then add in Iron will, since the fighter has ELEVEN extra feats. Shoot, make that Improved Iron will. Those extra feats are Class features, just like Raging.You mean Iron Will, that feat that can't be taken using Fighter bonus feats? Right... And Bravery is a joke.
But there is no point in discussing this with you. Fighters and Rogues could be identical to Warriors and Experts and you would still argue that they are balanced, just because the book pretends they are.
If you're going to play cricket in the middle of a football field, you shouldn't complain when you get tackled.
Design Manager
|
But Fighter and Rogue are resource sinks while Sorcerers bring resources to the party. Two Sorcerers is way better then a Sorcerer and a Fighter.I'm calling this out. This statement is flat-out untrue and indefensible.
I'll give you an out: Define resource.
Damage is not a resource. Every class can deal damage, and most of them can do so as well as the Fighter or so close that it makes literally not difference at all in game.
A Sorcerer or Wizard helps mitigate the need for spending cash on thigns like flight and other forms of transportation, can increase total party effectiveness and prolong the length of time that the party can go without healing by improving defenses with buffs, and bypass or end some encounters altogether, once more expanding the total amount of time that the party can adventure and their effectiveness while doing so.
A Paladin does something very similar to the Fighter, but has the added benefit of providing his own healing, and gaining access to either his own intelligent mount, or an auto-enchanting weapon. He's bringing healing and transportation to the party, while doing the same things the Fighter does (dealing and absorbing damage) nearly as well, close enough that there is literally no impactful difference in game. He has the added benefit of having vastly superior saves and a swath of immunities, meaning he's eating up fewer resources on status removal and participating for a larger portion of combat (not getting taken out by charm, domination, pit spells, etc. and not taking as much damage overall from damaging spells).
An Inquisitor brings in higher damage per hit and equivalent to-hit values with the Fighter, better than the Rogue in the damage dealing department, while also providing healing, buffing, and very good skills.
So on and so forth. Every class can swing a sword and absorb a certain amount of damage. Classes that do that plus other stuff are the ones bringing resources to the table. Every class in the game can do what the Fighter does to one degree or another, most with equal effectiveness. Most of those classes are also bringing along a bag full of other goodies that they get to contribute in addition.
Not really though. I mean their play experiences might differ, but "Fighters suffer from a crippling lack of skill points and are only really good at fighting and even then not significantly more so then a Barbarian or Ranger who can beat the Fighter at fighting provided they have their daily resources and can contribute out of combat better." is an objectively true statement. It's the same as saying water is wet.
Even assuming the absolute and objective truth of your statement, it's not a reason to avoid playing Fighter.
A Fighter, if played competently, can contribute positively to most campaigns. That's all that matters to a large number of gamers.
You don't always have to play at the optimum. It doesn't matter if another class is better at doing your job than you are.
Let's take the example of a Wizard. Let's say I build a Wizard as an Evocation specialist, but don't pick up a level of cross-blooded Draconic / Orc sorcerer. I don't pick up the Admixture school. I don't use Dazing Spell, or carry an assortment of metamagic rods. I don't read up on God Wizard and Blockbuster Wizard guides to know how to eek every ounce of effectiveness out of my character.
Now I'm a Wizard, so I'm pretty much going to be useful even without all of that.
You can make the argument, though, that I should never, ever, build a Wizard that way, because building a Admixture blaster with bonus damage and Dazing Spell craziness will always contribute more to a campaign. In one way of thinking, this is correct. In another, who cares? Your character contributes positively to the campaign. You'll have weaknesses, but your party members will shore you up, and you'll try to help them when you can.
It's just a completely different way of looking at the situation. Not more correct than a way that says "You should always optimize your character 100% as much as possible, so you can contribute as much as possible to the group." Just different.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I will still argue that they are balanced, just because the that's the way they play IRL as opposed to PvP theorycraft.
Remember how we talked about different playstyles? Remember how these classes are balanced for some specific playstyles (including yours), but not others (e.g., Anzyr's)? Remember Paizo repeatedly explaining that everyone's style is supposed to be valid, not just yours?
Dismissing others' actual play observations as "schoedinger theorycraft" is akin to dismissing their playstyle not only as badwrongfun, but actually as being fictional -- which is not only demonstrably not true, but also is basically you telling them that they're lying.
Not cool.
You can say "these classes are balanced, given the way my group plays." You don't get to say "anyone who finds them not balanced isn't really playing."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Even assuming the absolute and objective truth of your statement, it's not a reason to avoid playing Fighter.It is, however a reason to try to make the fighter more elegant and better at his role.
Never really understood this whole "I Can kinda contribute if I want to so you're a horrible person for wanting a class to be as good as its counterparts" mentality.
I want buffs to Fighter. 4 sp/lvl, reworking of Bravery, and a reliable way to get a Pounce would be a good start.
"I want buffs to Fighter" != "I won't play Fighter because they're so bad they're completely unworkable and just a leech on a party."
You remove weapon specialization of the equation and fighter remains basically the same. You remove suprestition and barbarian basically falls.
The majority of barbarians are at the fighter power level. Only a really small set of option put hte barbarian on top.See, if almost everyone takes a particular option, you don't get to say that the majority of them are less good because it's only one option. That's like saying Fighters should be looked at ignoring Weapon Specialization because 'most of them don't have it'. It's simply not true.
Fighter weapon damage is grossly unimpressive if you don't burn lots of feats into specialization. They get a measly +4 to hit and damage at 17th level.
Let's break this down.
1st-4th = nothing
5th-8th = +1 to hit and damage
9th-12th = +2 to hit and damage
13th-16th = +3 to hit and damage
17th+ = +4 to hit and damage
That's...pathetic. Especially given the fact it's so limited (only to a specific weapon group). If you're a melee-emphasized warrior, it takes you 9 levels to get the same bonus a 1st level barbarian gets (only a little weaker if you're talking 2 handed weapons) at 1st level.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A freaking basketweaver is not going to go out and slay a dragon...
And moisture farmers aren't going to become galaxy-liberating mystic warriors, barmaids aren't going to become heroes, blacksmith's sons aren't going to become king, Civil War vets turned prospectors aren't going to become planetary warlords...
|
How about we stop being glib and...As a one word answer: Alchemist.Fair Enough. I tend to think power imbalance is only relevant if it's strong enough to interfere with someones ability to have a good time. In our game, with these classes, that was never the case.That's great. I've been the Rogue when it was the case. Not so fun. And not due to optimized characters either.
If you'd like to see rogues or fighters buffed, great, I fully support you, but I disagree deeply with others who claim that there is "literally no reason to play a rogue".But see, that's not a condemnation or a statement you can't play one. It's a statement that
"Whatever you want to do with a Rogue, there's another class that can do it better."
That's it. And it does indeed mean there's basically no reason to play one beyond wanting to write 'Rogue' on your character sheet or desiring to play 'hard mode'.
Back again...work lull. Maybe I'm missing something...and I undoubtedly am as I haven't spent countless hours crawling through archetypes and feats etc. But if your character concept that you want to play as a sneak with sick counter attacking precision damage, trap circumvention, elite scouting skills, enhancing your abilities with low level enhancement spells like true strike, not to mention the utility of hampering foes with dispels and stat drains all on top of being the Face character of the group with skill points to spare....how the heck do you do all that with another class and make it even better? BTW...I generally do not like class dipping...I find it doesn't make a lot of sense from a character background standpoint unless an RP element happened in the adventure.
I'm not trying to argue here...I REALLY don't know. Maybe that's one of the problems here...people not knowing the incredible in-depth knowledge that one would need to accomplish these things.
How about this as a response:A Vivisectionist archetyped alchemist with the Trap-Finder and Student of Philosophy traits can be the character you described. He has divinations like True Strike and enhancements like Enlarge Person, stealthy capabilities, including invisibility, can be a bit of a party face, can circumvent traps, has a precision damage counter-attack, can scout, and can stat drain with Crippling Strike. Now, dispels he has problems with, I'll give you that, but still he fits most of the criteria presented. Doesn't need too much "incredible in-depth knowledge], just knowledge of 1 archetype and 2 traits, along with basic alchemist extracts.
A freaking basketweaver is not going to go out and slay a dragon...And moisture farmers aren't going to become galaxy-liberating mystic warriors, barmaids aren't going to become heroes, blacksmith's sons aren't going to become king, Civil War vets turned prospectors aren't going to become planetary warlords...
The hilarious part is, I'm currently playing a commoner basket weaver and the GM just emailed me to let me know the next mission is to slay a dragon.
So, we get to see if Cannonfodder Trapfinder can actually die for once.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
A Fighter, if played competently, can contribute positively to most campaigns. That's all that matters to a large number of gamers.
You don't always have to play at the optimum. It doesn't matter if another class is better at doing your job than you are.
Agreed on both counts.
But here's where I differ with many in the thread -- I accept that some people enjoy playing at the optimum. Sometimes I do (not all the time, but it can be really fun on occasion). And certain classes allow you to do that, and others (in actual practice) cannot sustain it.
If those classes were brought up to par, the game would function for everyone -- not just a "large number," but everyone in the thread. I notice that you've listed a number of possible improvements for fighters, so we're on much the same page, I think. For the benfit of the nay-sayers, I see boosting fighters, rogues, and monks as a win-win, not the start of a zombiepocalypse.
I'd like to be able to play equally awesome fighters and rogues in ALL my games, not just my non-optimized games.
|
Design Manager
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fighters get 11 bonus feats, which will allow them to use their regular feats for Iron Will- but you knew that.I will still argue that they are balanced, just because the that's the way they play IRL as opposed to PvP theorycraft.
If you're spending your resources to get bonuses that are equal to or less than the bonuses everyone else is getting for free, you don't really have a lead.
Compare to the Ranger who has only 5 fewer feats than the Fighter, but has vastly better skills and saves, as well as spellcasting and a pet who can also bring damage, combat coordination, and additional skills to the table.
If you start comparing class features and what each class gets, you'll find the Fighter runs out of things long before the Ranger.
It gets worse when you look at a class like the Wizard, who gets a minimum of 36 spells by the end of things (likely quite a few more), and often a single spell will take the place of an entire Fighter class feature. And I don't mean Bravery either, I mean that there are spells that provide equal or greater benefit than Weapon Training, Armor Training, or any combination of 3 feats the Fighter can put together.
IRL, the Fighter has a hard time past the first 6 or so levels of play. If my 12th level party consists of an Inquisitor, a Paladin, a Ranger, and a Magus, I can still have a pretty damn good time with a very solid group. If I replace one of those components with a Fighter, the whole group begins to suffer for the loss. I shouldn't have to force the other players to be sure that someone is playing a 9 spell-level arcane caster and a 9 spell-level divine caster because I want to play a Fighter and I need the support.
When I think of a team of adventurers, I picture a group of competent individuals who are each showing up ready to play. Teamwork to me, is a Cavalier using Coordinated Charge to boost group action economy, maybe double up with the Barbarian so they can Spirited Charge/Pounce an enemy brute to death off the cavalier's charge action. I think of a Ranger dashing ahead with Barkskin on and making a target of himself so that the enemies all crowd around him, and then using Evasion to avoid the fireball his sorcerer compatriot lobs at the massed group.
I don't think of teamwork as being everyone burning actions so they can get the Fighter to the enemy so he can do what they could have done by themselves, or shortening their adventuring day by having to burn extra healing on a guy who gets hit by every fireball, falls down every pit, and gets mind-screwed into attacking the guys who are trying to help him every 4th encounter. That is MY IRL experience with the Fighter, and it isn't teamwork, it's everyone else being worse at their jobs so they can allow the Fighter to his. That's life support, not teamwork.
Honestly there is absoluetely no reason to play rogues onces ACG comes out...
Want to play a skills guy? The investigator does it MUCH better...
Want to play an Assassin? Slayer does wonders...or the strictly better ninja...
Want to play a trap guy? Ranger with Trapper archetype...
Want to play a tomb raider? Alchemist with Crypt Breaker archetype or Archeologist Bard...
Honestly there is literally NO reason to play rogues...
Which is a feature, not a bug. The idea that any one class has a monopoly on any one niche or role is no dead, thank goodness. Best thing Paizo ever did.
Wizard can fill nearly any Sorc role, and often better. Does that mean that there's absolutely no reason to play a Sorc?
Oracle can fill nearly any cleric role, and often better. Is the cleric obsolete?
Except cleric/sorc/whatever has their own advantages. The cleric has the advantage of knowing ALL HER SPELLS. She is capable of doing just about anything, even if specced for a certain build. The sorcerer can play certain roles better than the wizard also. The rogue is just flat out worse than many other classes. Heck in one thread, people were showing how the bard coudl do pretty much everything the rogue did, but better, AND could contribute more to the party at the same time...
A freaking basketweaver is not going to go out and slay a dragon...What if that Freaking Basketweaver is a Twentieth level ranger who's first FE was Dragon and happens to have Twenty ranks in Craft[baskets] or Profession[Basketweaver]?
Well a Pageant of the Peacock using Bard can bluff being a basketweaver well enough to be a master basketweaver...
How about this as a response:A Vivisectionist archetyped alchemist with the Trap-Finder and Student of Philosophy traits can be the character you described. He has divinations like True Strike and enhancements like Enlarge Person, stealthy capabilities, including invisibility, can be a bit of a party face, can circumvent traps, has a precision damage counter-attack, can scout, and can stat drain with Crippling Strike. Now, dispels he has problems with, I'll give you that, but still he fits most of the criteria presented. Doesn't need too much "incredible in-depth knowledge], just knowledge of 1 archetype and 2 traits, along with basic alchemist extracts. .
Thank you so much for actually replying. Yes I can see how that would work to some degree...in some places quite well. In others however, it definitely seems lacking. It's hard to be a face in my opinion with so few skills points and no diplomacy or bluff as in class skills. He would definitely be able to fulfill all combat criteria very well...though in my opinion falls off considerably in social scenarios. Also more limited on the disabling device with using a trait on a +1 in lieu of +1/2 level. I cannot ignore the added benefit they would have in the utility though with the obviously largely expanded spell/discovery capabilities. This would definitely be a fun counter to attempt to try, but I would consider it be on par rather than what everyone talks about for being exceedingly better and outclassing the rogue. Perhaps that just because of the added emphasis my group places on skills and social interactions.
Thank you very much though. I'm making a note of this as something to try in a future campaign. I greatly appreciate it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well a Pageant of the Peacock using Bard can bluff being a basketweaver well enough to be a master basketweaver...A freaking basketweaver is not going to go out and slay a dragon...What if that Freaking Basketweaver is a Twentieth level ranger who's first FE was Dragon and happens to have Twenty ranks in Craft[baskets] or Profession[Basketweaver]?
And now I'm imagining them bluffing being a basket weaver, weaving a basket, and then bludgeoning the dragon to death with it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I will still argue that they are balanced, just because the that's the way they play IRL as opposed to PvP theorycraft.Remember how we talked about different playstyles? Remember how these classes are balanced for some specific playstyles (including yours), but not others (e.g., Anzyr's)? Remember Paizo repeatedly explaining that everyone's style is supposed to be valid, not just yours?
Dismissing others' actual play observations as "schoedinger theorycraft" is akin to dismissing their playstyle not only as badwrongfun, but actually as being fictional -- which is not only demonstrably not true, but also is basically you telling them that they're lying.
Not cool.
You can say "these classes are balanced, given the way my group plays." You don't get to say "anyone who finds them not balanced isn't really playing."
Except that when the devs play their own games, the classes are still balanced.
I am not dismissing others "actual play observations" but I do dismiss their "schoedinger theorycraft". Almost all the "actual play observations" posted here support the fact that Fights and Rogues are fun classes that contribute. So, by and large for "actual play observations" the classes come out fairly balanced (with some variations for table differences, of course.).
In all of my games the classes are more or less balanced. In the Devs own games they are balanced.
Only for a very vocal minority, few of which ever talk about actual IRL game issues- are the classes not balanced. You see the same posters making "teh rouge is suxxor" claims over and over and over- and many of them admit openly they don't even play Pathfinder.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Almost all the "actual play observations" posted here support the fact that Fights and Rogues are fun classes that contribute.
Confirmation bias is one hell of a drug.
It was just a few weeks ago that our party fighter found himself complaining about not having anything to do due to a lack of things to fight. We had one combat in that session and he spent most of it in a net due to some very unfortunate reflex/escape artist rolls. Meanwhile my Slayer was effectively the star of the show all day because I could bluff the guy looking for the map our party had taken earlier, I could initiate a stealth war with the guy who was tracking us, and I could still put out chunks of damage when we did get a combat in.
It's fortunate that our GM didn't build the campaign with a party face in mind and has been letting us do diplo scenes without rolls; he's become a bit of a party face due to being the most rational of the group. He wouldn't be able to do that if our GM was enforcing the diplomacy rules, though.
|
Design Manager
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Except that when the devs play their own games, the classes are still balanced.
Considering how SKR did an almost immediate 180 on his stance regarding martial balance in game the moment he stopped working for Paizo and started talking about how Rogues should be able to do extraordinary teleports and fighters should be able to to leaping pounces 60 feet in the air, I strongly suspect that at least one of the following is true:
a) The devs don't generally play a lot outside the first 10 levels
b) They've been playing long enough that they've developed an instinctive set of houserules and gentleman's agreements that now balance the game for them
or
c) The "we play it and it's balanced" line is a company stance that they pretty much have to back regardless of their actual feelings.
The most likely answer is that it's probably actually some combination of the 3.
2) Um... just HOW is the fighter tougher than the Barb? Barbs tend to have higher con (rage), DR x/-, pretty much all good saves (superstition), d12 HD vs the fighter's d10, and they can't be caught flat-footed... so how is the fighter stronger....the issue here is the word "tend". Is totally (and sadly) true that barbarian can be just tougher than fighters but it is not like all barbarian are that way. and the options are pretty limited too, no superstitiosn welcome mediocre saves. No beast totem and/or that heavy armored archetype by good AC.Um... again.. what?
The barb will ALWAYS have:
More HD (d12 vs d10)
Better saves (2 good saves is always better than just 1, even without superstition to make it 3 good)
More resistance to damage (just about every Barb has DR X/-)
Higher Con (Rage is specced off Con and Rage gives a HUGE bonus to con that stacks with items).Literally, the fighter is worse than the Barb in EVERY WAY SHAPE AND FORM at surviving short of having a better AC (if you do not take beast totem)...
This is not all true. Barb dosent have 2 good saves.
Almost all the "actual play observations" posted here support the fact that Fights and Rogues are fun classes that contribute.Confirmation bias is one hell of a drug.
It was just a few weeks ago that our party fighter found himself complaining about not having anything to do due to a lack of things to fight. We had one combat in that session and he spent most of it in a net due to some very unfortunate reflex/escape artist rolls. Meanwhile my Slayer was effectively the star of the show all day because I could bluff the guy looking for the map our party had taken earlier, I could initiate a stealth war with the guy who was tracking us, and I could still put out chunks of damage when we did get a combat in.
No one claims the Fighter is the most flexible class, not even close. The class itself is not great in out of combat options. Of course, by not dumping INT, being a human, taking a non-combat trait, etc you can still contribute. If his fighter couldn't contribute, that's his fault, not the classes fault. You can build a Slayer with no real out of combat options too.
OTOH, the Rogue can contribute great out of combat.
However, some players want a class that does nothing but combat. That's their idea of fun. What's wrong with a class for them? Combat is the single mots important part of the game to most, so why NOT a class that specializes in it?
I freely admit I play Paladins or Rangers or Inquisitors, not Fighters. I find the Fighter and Barbarians focus on all combat all the time to be boring.
But our Fighter player gets bored and starts talking like Boomhauer out of combat. For him, the Fighter is a perfect choice.
And that's what makes Pathfinder great. Want a martial with spells? Inquisitor or Magus. Skills? Ranger. Healing? Paladin. Mounted skills? Cavalier. Then there's the barbarian & samurai too. Even the Monk.
Not even counting the upcoming new classes, that's a LOT of choices, just for martials. I like choices.
Leave the fighter alone. It's not underpowered.
This is not all true. Barb dosent have 2 good saves.2) Um... just HOW is the fighter tougher than the Barb? Barbs tend to have higher con (rage), DR x/-, pretty much all good saves (superstition), d12 HD vs the fighter's d10, and they can't be caught flat-footed... so how is the fighter stronger....the issue here is the word "tend". Is totally (and sadly) true that barbarian can be just tougher than fighters but it is not like all barbarian are that way. and the options are pretty limited too, no superstitiosn welcome mediocre saves. No beast totem and/or that heavy armored archetype by good AC.Um... again.. what?
The barb will ALWAYS have:
More HD (d12 vs d10)
Better saves (2 good saves is always better than just 1, even without superstition to make it 3 good)
More resistance to damage (just about every Barb has DR X/-)
Higher Con (Rage is specced off Con and Rage gives a HUGE bonus to con that stacks with items).Literally, the fighter is worse than the Barb in EVERY WAY SHAPE AND FORM at surviving short of having a better AC (if you do not take beast totem)...
I think they're referring to the fact that they get a +2 to Will saves while raging...at best I'd say that would count as 1 and 1/2 good saves...which really should be a little less than that as you're not always raging, especially when will saves are involved as a lot of those happen outside combat or in surprise like tactics.
|
Design Manager
|
This is not all true. Barb dosent have 2 good saves.2) Um... just HOW is the fighter tougher than the Barb? Barbs tend to have higher con (rage), DR x/-, pretty much all good saves (superstition), d12 HD vs the fighter's d10, and they can't be caught flat-footed... so how is the fighter stronger....the issue here is the word "tend". Is totally (and sadly) true that barbarian can be just tougher than fighters but it is not like all barbarian are that way. and the options are pretty limited too, no superstitiosn welcome mediocre saves. No beast totem and/or that heavy armored archetype by good AC.Um... again.. what?
The barb will ALWAYS have:
More HD (d12 vs d10)
Better saves (2 good saves is always better than just 1, even without superstition to make it 3 good)
More resistance to damage (just about every Barb has DR X/-)
Higher Con (Rage is specced off Con and Rage gives a HUGE bonus to con that stacks with items).Literally, the fighter is worse than the Barb in EVERY WAY SHAPE AND FORM at surviving short of having a better AC (if you do not take beast totem)...
He does get a +2 to Will that scales to a +4 while raging, so that's pretty much the next best thing, at least as good as picking up the Iron Will feats is for the Fighter.
Poor sap had to roll his stats, nothing to be done about dumping the mentals. I personally had a rather weird stat line (my highest was 15 and my lowest was 12) but because I'm playing a class that functions not having maxed out dexterity on my archer isn't killing me.
I don't really see how the Fighter is the best choice for someone who just wants to hit things really hard when the Barbarian exists. The Barbarian even has the skill points to max out sense motive and have a bad feeling about things during social events.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I freely admit I play Paladins or Rangers or Inquisitors, not Fighters. I find the Fighter and Barbarians focus on all combat all the time to be boring.
Wait... so you don't even play the fighter because you find them to have a problem?
|
Design Manager
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
No one claims the Fighter is the most flexible class, not even close. The class itself is not great in out of combat options. Of course, by not dumping INT, being a human, taking a non-combat trait, etc you can still contribute. If his fighter couldn't contribute, that's his fault, not the classes fault. You can build a Slayer with no real out of combat options too.
Let me break that down:
"The Fighter isn't bad, he just didn't have the system mastery to know that he needed to find special traits and races to make the class work".
...
If one class requires you to play certain races and take non-class options to function, and all the other classes don't, that's not the players fault for not knowing he had to choose those options, that is, in fact, a problem with the class.
Here's the cool thing- If the Fighter had an additional good save, 4 + Int skills, and better narrative options, your goober friend who like to talk like Boomhauer can still play exactly the same character. It's the people who want to actually play a well-rounded character who resembles the classes description in the CRB who benefit and now have the options to do the things the class says it should do but doesn't. Adding options is not the same as taking options away.
|
"Whatever you want to do with a Rogue, there's another class that can do it better."
Whatever you want to do with any class, there's another class that can do it better.
Oracles can out heal clerics.
Sorc can out blast wizards.
Yeah...but Clerics do a fair number of builds flat-out better than Oracle does. Ditto Wizard and Sorcerer. Rogue has no such saving grace vs. it's competitors.
Yeah, and that'd be nice, but the Barbarian doesn't have that. Oh, unless you mean while using a limited use class feature?The barbarian do not have two good saves. And the diference in AC could be huge (except, of course because paizo fixed that for barbarian post core).With a +2 to Will Saves at 1st level that evolves to a +4 eventually, they come awfully close.
Yep. But it's one they'll be using most of the time in combat, when having save bonuses is most useful.
Note that I'm not the one who said they had two Good Saves, they don't...but they do have an advantage on Will Saves. And a better one than Bravery, since Compulsion and Charm effects are both worse and more common than Fear effects.
|
|
Back again...work lull. Maybe I'm missing something...and I undoubtedly am as I haven't spent countless hours crawling through archetypes and feats etc. But if your character concept that you want to play as a sneak with sick counter attacking precision damage, trap circumvention, elite scouting skills, enhancing your abilities with low level enhancement spells like true strike, not to mention the utility of hampering foes with dispels and stat drains all on top of being the Face character of the group with skill points to spare....how the heck do you do all that with another class and make it even better? BTW...I generally do not like class dipping...I find it doesn't make a lot of sense from a character background standpoint unless an RP element happened in the adventure.
I'm not trying to argue here...I REALLY don't know. Maybe that's one of the problems here...people not knowing the incredible in-depth knowledge that one would need to accomplish these things.
The Vivisectionist Trap Breaker mentioned by EvilPaladin is one possibility. And with Int 16-20 due to a Headband, will have 7-9 skill points per level, not as much as a Rogue, but not bad. And can have 9-11 with the Human bonus and Favored Class. And Traits and the Cosmopolitan Feat can get social skills as class.
The Investigator does everything you want almost out of the box. They have to wait until 4th level for Precision Damage (it's not Sneak Attack...but it is precision, and fits under the same umbrella thematically if not mechanically), and also lack Dispel, but other than that they're perfect for what you list. They also have much better skills than the Alchemist version, with 6+ Int mod and even more reason than an Alchemist to keep Int high. They can also get as lot of Rogue Talents if they wish, and add +1d6 to any skill roll they like, several times a day. Student of Philosophy would help on social skills, certainly, but they are already Class Skills.
If willing to forego the Precision damage (but still do equivalent actual damage), you can also go with the Archaeologist Bard, who does literally everything else on your list perfectly. And can get any Rogue Talent he likes, as well as having Uncanny Dodge and Evasion. He also has a mere 6+Int mod skill points, and no more reason to go higher than a Rogue on Int, but Bardic Knowledge and the ability to gain a luck bonus to all skills several rounds a day help that a lot. They can also Dispel Magic earlier and better than a Rogue.
The Slayer also leaps to mind, and by 3rd level can have both Trapfinding, Sneak Attack, and basically everything else you list. They also has only 6+Int skill points...but can add bonuses to many of them vs. anyone they chooses to focus on. They can get many Rogue Talents, but cannot do the dispel magic thing. their skill list doesn't technically include Diplomacy or UMD, but that's what traits are for.
So...in short, you can do this lots of ways. All very valid, and all except the Alchemist better at what skills they do have than a Rogue. The Rogue technically has a couple more skills than most of them...but other mechanics basically force an Investigator to have Int 16+ making that somewhat academic.
Considering how SKR did an almost immediate 180 on his stance regarding martial balance in game the moment he stopped working for Paizo and started talking about how Rogues should be able to do extraordinary teleports and fighters should be able to to leaping pounces 60 feet in the air, I strongly suspect that at least one of the following is true:
a) The devs don't generally play a lot outside the first 10 levels
b) They've been playing long enough that they've developed an instinctive set of houserules and gentleman's agreements that now balance the game for them
or
c) The "we play it and it's balanced" line is a company stance that they pretty much have to back regardless of their actual feelings.
The most likely answer is that it's probably actually some combination of the 3.
Umm, no. He didn't say that. Here's his blog:
http://seankreynolds.wordpress.com/2014/06/04/ex-su-and-martial-characters/SKR just said there doesnt have to be a barrier between EX & Su.
"So if you forget about whether an ability is Ex or Su, and whether a class is nonmagical or magical, it frees you up to design cool stuff that’s thematic for the class."
In other words, if someone wanted to have a Fighter feat or archetype that could do a super-leaping pounce attack, then the fact that "that's not realistic' shouldn't be a barrier, that still leaves class "theme" and play balance.
And, not a lot of people play past 16th level, since that's when most AP's end. The Devs have certainly run thru the APs to the end. Most playing *IS* below 10th level.
Not to mention there's a couple posters here that claim that from level one spellcasters beat out martials.
B is almost certainly true, that's true of any experienced mature group of players.
I freely admit I play Paladins or Rangers or Inquisitors, not Fighters. I find the Fighter and Barbarians focus on all combat all the time to be boring.Wait... so you don't even play the fighter because you find them to have a problem?
Not a problem, just not for me. I find that it's focus on combat is not for me. For others, it's perfect. I also don't care for the barbarian. Or any oriental classes outside a OA campaign.
I also dont play gunslingers in D&D, since I don't like the flavor.
So?
Back again...work lull. Maybe I'm missing something...and I undoubtedly am as I haven't spent countless hours crawling through archetypes and feats etc. But if your character concept that you want to play as a sneak with sick counter attacking precision damage, trap circumvention, elite scouting skills, enhancing your abilities with low level enhancement spells like true strike, not to mention the utility of hampering foes with dispels and stat drains all on top of being the Face character of the group with skill points to spare....how the heck do you do all that with another class and make it even better? BTW...I generally do not like class dipping...I find it doesn't make a lot of sense from a character background standpoint unless an RP element happened in the adventure.
I'm not trying to argue here...I REALLY don't know. Maybe that's one of the problems here...people not knowing the incredible in-depth knowledge that one would need to accomplish these things.
The Vivisectionist Trap Breaker mentioned by EvilPaladin is one possibility. And with Int 16-20 due to a Headband, will have 7-9 skill points per level, not as much as a Rogue, but not bad. And can have 9-11 with the Human bonus and Favored Class. And Traits and the Cosmopolitan Feat can get social skills as class.
The Investigator does everything you want almost out of the box. They have to wait until 4th level for Precision Damage (it's not Sneak Attack...but it is precision, and fits under the same umbrella thematically if not mechanically), and also lack Dispel, but other than that they're perfect for what you list. They also have much better skills than the Alchemist version, with 6+ Int mod and even more reason than an Alchemist to keep Int high. They can also get as lot of Rogue Talents if they wish, and add +1d6 to any skill roll they like, several times a day. Student of Philosophy would help on social skills, certainly, but they are already Class Skills.
If willing to forego the Precision damage (but...
Can't help but notice that two of those for my part...don't exist yet as I have no idea what they are outside of a 2-3 paragraph marketing campaign since the book isn't out yet. :). I'll be honest...one of the reasons that 3.5 eventually crashed out on us was because with every book they released they broke more and more things with they strive for "more power". It feels like a lot of these new classes from what little I've read are also doing that...probably because of the vocal outcry from people when a new class wouldn't be considered one of the best 4-5 out there.
I can easily see as I stated where the Vivisectionist you both mentioned would be a good and fun addition...but I also do not see how it easily outclasses the rogue...merely seems on par with being better in combat and in my opinion slightly less effective out. Better overall? Perhaps, but it doesn't seem to be to the point where people should forever stop playing a rogue. It seems like if we were ranking things on a scale of 1-10...people are considering solid "6"'s and "7"'s to be sub par because they're striving for the "best". I realize there's a whole lot of people here saying the same thing...that even in unoptimized groups the fighter and rogue clearly drop off...but I'm not seeing it. Drop off? Sure. Clearly to the point that it hinders play? Absolutely not. There's over a hundred years of RPG experience in my group of 5 and we've played in pathfinder games with both of these classes and never noticed enough of a difference for us to outwardly care. I really do think this comes down to a preference type of mentality.
Out of curiosity how do the archaeologist bards equal the rogues damage output? I just don't see it.
I freely admit I play Paladins or Rangers or Inquisitors, not Fighters. I find the Fighter and Barbarians focus on all combat all the time to be boring.Wait... so you don't even play the fighter because you find them to have a problem?Not a problem, just not for me. I find that it's focus on combat is not for me. For others, it's perfect. I also don't care for the barbarian. Or any oriental classes outside a OA campaign.
I also dont play gunslingers in D&D, since I don't like the flavor.
So?
Okay. I was asking because I couldn't believe what I was reading in light of your defense. I see that how I interpreted it was incorrect; thus, my disbelief was valid, but because I was reading it wrong ;)
No one claims the Fighter is the most flexible class, not even close. The class itself is not great in out of combat options. Of course, by not dumping INT, being a human, taking a non-combat trait, etc you can still contribute. If his fighter couldn't contribute, that's his fault, not the classes fault. You can build a Slayer with no real out of combat options too.
Let me break that down:
"The Fighter isn't bad, he just didn't have the system mastery to know that he needed to find special traits and races to make the class work".
Yeah, Humans are a "special race" right? Not dumping int= needs a lot of system mastery for that, eh? Taking just ONE trait out of four that doesnt add back in combat- takes special HIGH level system mastery.
Nope. He choose to make a character that had no out of combat options. You can do that with ANY class. It's a CHOICE.
And you don;t need to have out of combat options to "make a class work".
Heck, no class can be hurt by poor choices more than the Wizard. Pick the wrong spells, feats, traits, stats, and you are pretty darn worthless both in AND out of combat.
Wait, what do we all mean by "narrative"? People keep saying the fighter doesn't have narrative potential, and I honestly don't understand how that's possible.
I say narrative is the ability to affect a story. In that case, everyone can, regardless of ability. Certainly, it's possible in the real world without magic. Adding abilities doesn't increase someone's capability to affect a story--perhaps how it's affected, but not that it's affected.
Anzyr gave the example of raising someone from the dead, and yes, I can see that if you're going by that definition, then you need magic. He also said that it's impossible to provide narrative in the real world.
How about the rest of you? What does narrative mean to you?
Considering how SKR did an almost immediate 180 on his stance regarding martial balance in game the moment he stopped working for Paizo and started talking about how Rogues should be able to do extraordinary teleports and fighters should be able to to leaping pounces 60 feet in the air, I strongly suspect that at least one of the following is true:
a) The devs don't generally play a lot outside the first 10 levels
b) They've been playing long enough that they've developed an instinctive set of houserules and gentleman's agreements that now balance the game for them
or
c) The "we play it and it's balanced" line is a company stance that they pretty much have to back regardless of their actual feelings.
The most likely answer is that it's probably actually some combination of the 3.
Umm, no. He didn't say that. Here's his blog:
http://seankreynolds.wordpress.com/2014/06/04/ex-su-and-martial-characters/SKR just said there doesnt have to be a barrier between EX & Su.
"So if you forget about whether an ability is Ex or Su, and whether a class is nonmagical or magical, it frees you up to design cool stuff that’s thematic for the class."
In other words, if someone wanted to have a Fighter feat or archetype that could do a super-leaping pounce attack, then the fact that "that's not realistic' shouldn't be a barrier, that still leaves class "theme" and play balance.
And, not a lot of people play past 16th level, since that's when most AP's end. The Devs have certainly run thru the APs to the end. Most playing *IS* below 10th level.
Not to mention there's a couple posters here that claim that from level one spellcasters beat out martials.
B is almost certainly true, that's true of any experienced mature group of players.
He gives Nightcrawler as an example of what a high level Rogue should be like
[
Yep. But it's one they'll be using most of the time in combat, when having save bonuses is most useful.
Which will last for about ONE combat at level 1. Four encounters per day, most of which are combat. Takes a while before a Bbn can be assumed to be raging all the time for every combat.
He gives Nightcrawler as an example of what a high level Rogue should be like
No. "Continuing the comic book analogy, would you say Nightcrawler from the X-Men is best represented as a cleric, fighter, rogue, or wizard? I’d say fighter or rogue, leaning toward rogue (stealth, swashbuckling, personable)… with the ability to teleport. In other words, he’s a martial, a nonmagical character, who can teleport at will (normally considered a magical ability)."
In other word, he is suggesting there's no reason a High level rogue could NOT Teleport, given the right archetype, etc. And in fact the Ninja can do some things which are rather like that. He can walk thru walls, walk on air, etc. SKR sez there's no reason why a high level Rogue could not be able to Tport, and I agree. That's not the same as saying "the rogue sucks because it can't teleport".
I'd have no issues with a Rogue/Ninja getting a power like the "Shift (Su)" of specialist Wizards- why not?
Considering how SKR did an almost immediate 180 on his stance regarding martial balance in game the moment he stopped working for Paizo and started talking about how Rogues should be able to do extraordinary teleports and fighters should be able to to leaping pounces 60 feet in the air, I strongly suspect that at least one of the following is true:
a) The devs don't generally play a lot outside the first 10 levels
b) They've been playing long enough that they've developed an instinctive set of houserules and gentleman's agreements that now balance the game for them
or
c) The "we play it and it's balanced" line is a company stance that they pretty much have to back regardless of their actual feelings.
The most likely answer is that it's probably actually some combination of the 3.
Umm, no. He didn't say that. Here's his blog:
http://seankreynolds.wordpress.com/2014/06/04/ex-su-and-martial-characters/SKR just said there doesnt have to be a barrier between EX & Su.
"So if you forget about whether an ability is Ex or Su, and whether a class is nonmagical or magical, it frees you up to design cool stuff that’s thematic for the class."
In other words, if someone wanted to have a Fighter feat or archetype that could do a super-leaping pounce attack, then the fact that "that's not realistic' shouldn't be a barrier, that still leaves class "theme" and play balance.
And, not a lot of people play past 16th level, since that's when most AP's end. The Devs have certainly run thru the APs to the end. Most playing *IS* below 10th level.
Not to mention there's a couple posters here that claim that from level one spellcasters beat out martials.
B is almost certainly true, that's true of any experienced mature group of players.
Actually, he said the pounce-leaping fighter and teleporting rogue stuff in a forum post, not on the blog post. I'll try looking it up for you.
|
Design Manager
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Umm, no. He didn't say that. ***Considering how SKR did an almost immediate 180 on his stance regarding martial balance in game the moment he stopped working for Paizo and started talking about how Rogues should be able to do extraordinary teleports and fighters should be able to to leaping pounces 60 feet in the air***
Yeah, actually, I think he did.
Was that Sean Reynolds talking about teleporting Rogues and Fighters cutting wedges out of fireballs? I'm pretty positive it was. Was that Sean Reynolds saying 6th level is where our reality tops out and everyone above that is or should be basically a superhero? I'm pretty sure it was.