Should there be balance between classes?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

101 to 150 of 254 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

Nicos wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:

Yes, classes should be balanced.

No, that doesn't necessarily mean martials should be able to do everything spellcasters do, or vice versa.

I will add that spellcaster should not be able to do several of the things they can easily do at the * Blood money* moment

Ya, I'm in favor of breaking up the caster up into specialized casters like the Beguiler and Dread Necromancer. In addition to Psionics of course for the better balance.


Justin Sane wrote:
Khrysaor wrote:
Justin Sane wrote:
Khrysaor wrote:
A rogue can sneak attack better than a bard can.
Oddly enough, the Alchemist is a better sneak-attacker than the Rogue. And is at least as-good with skills.
So does the alchemist do everything the rogue does better now? Post a build and prove it.

That's... Not what I said. At all. Please don't put words in my mouth.

PS: This is my personal opinion, no offense intended, but... You're sounding overly defensive, which makes it seem you're starting to get frustrated with this discussion. The Rogue has been around for a long time now, long enough to have it's faults dissected in detail. None of us are personally attacking you when we mention those faults (well, with some deplorable exceptions, unfortunately, but that's the nature of the Internet), nor should you feel held responsible for the Rogue's shortcomings.

I never said that's what you said. It was a real question not rhetoric.

I'm glad you've been hearing inflection in my text statements though about how frustrated I am. How about creating two appropriately built characters and running the merits and downsides to both to see if each has distinct advantages instead of deflecting.

The rogue has been around a long time. So have other classes. I fail to see any actual proper evaluation be performed as well. Just a constant reminder of the opinion on these boards that rogues and fighters are inferior because I can make a class that does what I want with some other class with spells.

I've never said anyone has been attacking me or taken offense to anything anyone says. I couldn't care less about opinions on the internet. There's always some individual looking to cause problems.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Actually on topic, I think classes should be balanced in the concept of which tier they fall into. Although ideally, there wouldn't be 5 tiers, there'd be 4, or in a dream world, three.

T3- Martials and partial casters: Still able to provide support, but more limited to terrestrial limits. Strong enough to work with a party and provide a very defined goal in what they are to accomplish. At this point, the spells of things like the Paladin and Ranger wouldn't be overpowering compared to the Rogue Talents and Feats that Rogues and Fighters get.

T2- Half casters: Things like Bards and such which should be more able to affect that narrative, more likely with skills and more situational spells. The kind of power that's easy enough to reign in, but still has quite the capability to be used in fun and creative ways.

T1- Full casters: At this point, you're telling reality who's boss, these should be the most powerful characters, although not to the extent that they are now. It's crazy how many challenges a full caster can overcome, especially with a day's warning.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

the point is, with the whole moving post thing, that when you make a character, you generally want it to do a specific thing, whether it be smashing something, casting spells, or sneaking around, rogue and fighter will never end up being the best choice. We move the goal post, because there is only ever one at any given instance, so if you want teh best skill monkey, it is not rogue, if you want the best caster, it is not rogue, and if you want the best sneak attacker, it still, is not rogue. THIS is the rogues issue, it is never considered the shiniest tool in the shed, ever. You can still do it, but it's like buying a bagel when you really want a donut, and a donut is right there for the same price.


Khrysaor wrote:
But this is still caster martial disparity. An alchemist gains spell effects through extracts. A rogue could take those talents to get vanish as a spell like ability and do something similar.

First, yes martial vs caster disparity, not sure what is the problem in talking about it in a thread about class balance. On the other hand, the rogue will need two rogue talents to be behind in what the alchemist can do. Alchemist discoveries actually make him good.


Khrysaor wrote:
A rogue can sneak attack better than a bard can.

Sneak attack is not something per se. Doing damage is something, bards can be better at it too.


Bandw2 wrote:
the point is, with the whole moving post thing, that when you make a character, you generally want it to do a specific thing, whether it be smashing something, casting spells, or sneaking around, rogue and fighter will never end up being the best choice. We move the goal post, because there is only ever one at any given instance, so if you want teh best skill monkey, it is not rogue, if you want the best caster, it is not rogue, and if you want the best sneak attacker, it still, is not rogue. THIS is the rogues issue, it is never considered the shiniest tool in the shed, ever. You can still do it, but it's like buying a bagel when you really want a donut, and a donut is right there for the same price.

Moving goal posts is never a good thing. You make sound comparisons on static properties. Not just comparing a single facet of a class to another class. While one class may make a better skill monkey than the rogue who is still competent at being a skill monkey the rogue may have something more to offer that the other class doesn't. The rogue can disarm magic traps where the bard has to take an archetype giving up something about his base class. Now you need to run a comparison on how all the mechanics work.

This is how you balance mechanics. Comparing a single attribute means absolutely nothing in the grand scheme.

EDIT: I just find it funny that this stemmed from a comment about how fighters have 1 strong point and rogues have none. Fighters aren't the best melee combatants, but they are good at it. Much as rogues are good at things too.

So what's the definition of what's good and balanced because it seems like being the best is the only thing being accepted so far. And being the best, oddly enough, isn't balanced.


Khrysaor wrote:
I'm glad you've been hearing inflection in my text statements though about how frustrated I am.
Sorry :) Written text is, obviously, the best way to convey tone.
Quote:
How about creating two appropriately built characters and running the merits and downsides to both to see if each has distinct advantages instead of deflecting.

This has been done time and time again. It was how we figured out the Rogue's flaws in the first place.

But sure, I'll take it on. Want to agree on level, gold and point-buy first? Any restrictions?


Rightbackatya wrote:
While one class may make a better skill monkey than the rogue who is still competent at being a skill monkey the rogue may have something more to offer that the other class doesn't.

That sounds great!, but is just not true.

Rightbackatya wrote:


The rogue can disarm magic traps where the rogue has to take an archetype giving up something about his base class.

Trapfinding trait.

Rightbackatya wrote:


This is how you balance mechanics. Comparing a single attribute means absolutely nothing in the grand scheme.

Exactly, this is why rogue sucks. Other classes can be better in The rogue single atrributes and still be better at other thigns.


anlashok wrote:

A lich can be terrifying and magic can be awe inspiring without the fighter being useless though.

The two aren't even remotely mutually exclusive. Power is not a zero-sum concept.

And I'm scratching my head at this idea that it "doesn't make sense" for one level 20 character to not be dramatically weaker than another level 20 character for no real reason.

The reason is immersion. As an example I think one of the ToB abilities allows you to cause the ground to shake. Another can remove status affects, but since it is not "magic" it should not be possible according to some people.

Many will hide behind the rules as an excuse, but when their misconceptions are proved to be wrong they go back to "well I don't like it", which just means---> It does not fit their view of what should be possible.


There's a spell called Aram Zey's Focus that gives trapfinding as well as bunch of bonuses if you should already have it it like a bonus to disable device and the ability to roll again if you would trigger the device just to *really* drive home how awesome casters are.


LazarX wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
This is why a straight Fighter 20 isn't the end of campaign BBEG
If you're going to be honest, you'll admit that that's equally true of a straight Wizard 20. He's simply too squishy against a party of end game level.

There are no Wizard 20 BBEGs? Karzoug will be very sad to learn he wasn't the big bad of the very first Pathfinder AP.


Rightbackatya wrote:

Fighters aren't the best melee combatants, but they are good at it. Much as rogues are good at things too.

So what's the definition of what's good and balanced because it seems like being the best is the only thing being accepted so far. And being the best, oddly enough, isn't balanced.

Being the best is balanced when the character is designed with that in mind.

The fighter can deal damage. That's his only real mechanic. Every class feature he has aids him in his ability to fight on the front lines and he has really nothing else. Because of this design paradigm, the fighter not being the best at fighting is an imbalance, because the fighter has nothing in his kit that works toward any other goal, while the classes that beat him tend to have at least something else going for them too.

It applies to the rogue in a similar (but not as extreme because the rogue isn't quite as one dimensional) fashion. Theoretically, the rogue is worse in a straight fight in exchange for being able to be an amazing skillmonkey and deal devastating alpha strikes. The imbalance occurs when other classes can beat the rogue at his own game (skills) without necessarily taking that big hit to their other abilities.

wraithstrike wrote:


The reason is immersion. As an example I think one of the ToB abilities allows you to cause the ground to shake. Another can remove status affects, but since it is not "magic" it should not be possible according to some people.

Both of those abilities are supernatural though. And supernatural is magic.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MagusJanus wrote:
Rightbackatya wrote:
Justin Sane wrote:
I've seen campaigns with commoners. Your point?
lol. That's exactly the point.

I'm currently playing a commoner. A goblin commoner. His skills are Linguistics and Craft (basket weaving). I started playing him due to rolling an entire set of stats that were complete crap (not a single roll above 10) and a houserule that you keep the stats you roll, no matter what they are. Long story behind that rule, and it was reversed immediately after my character was made. His only weapon is a lit torch.

The character was level 1 when I started. He's now level 9 and, thanks to some phenomenal rolls, has managed more kills than the party's rogue and walks out of most battles unscathed. Despite the fact he typically is naked when he goes into battle and spends all of his time actively annoying the enemies as much as goblinly possible.

This annoying has resulted in more than one enemy mage having to stop casting spells at the party due to a bad case of being on fire. Then there was the time my goblin accidentally lit up that gunslinger... Poor gun user never stood a chance of survival.

By the argument you used earlier, a commoner should be considered a viable character class. After all, look at the deadly results I'm getting from mine! But just because I'm getting lucky with what is a crap build by any stretch of the imagination doesn't mean it is that balanced. It just means the dice gods love my character (or my suffering, which is more likely). The same is true of the fighter and rogue... just because you get a GM willing to make a party comprised only of them work doesn't mean they are balanced with other classes.

I never mentioned rolls into anything. I said I've played campaigns successfully using classes that you guys are claiming are bad classes. The rogue isn't good because the bard does it better. The fighter isn't good because the barbarian does it better. But really, everyone sucks because god wizard is best.

All I meant is that if a class is capable of surviving when its deemed bad compared to others just means the AP's aren't that hard and there's not a problem with the class. The developers created classes to be effective in the APs that they make.

ex. If your water filter cleans water to potable levels, but distilling it will clean it further that doesn't invalidate the first method. The first method still works fine.

I get what you're saying that there's balance issues, but the balance issues shouldn't be an in game issue which then makes them moot. You can play an effective fighter and rogue in a campaign and have fun. If there's a bard in the party showing up the rogue on skills then maybe someone should have thought about why you needed two skill monkeys. Likewise with all classes. Even when I played my all wizard campaign we made sure to attempt different focuses to not have excessive overlap.

The GM didn't modify things in our campaigns either. Things were overcome by tactics, planning, and taking our time. Many items were used. Two of us had UMD and dealt with some wands and scrolls. Spells were bought in towns using the RAW payment method for casters. We had several funny diplomatic encounters.


Rightbackatya wrote:

I never mentioned rolls into anything. I said I've played campaigns successfully using classes that you guys are claiming are bad classes. The rogue isn't good because the bard does it better. The fighter isn't good because the barbarian does it better. But really, everyone sucks because god wizard is best.

All I meant is that if a class is capable of surviving when its deemed bad compared to others just means the AP's aren't that hard and there's not a problem with the class. The developers created classes to be effective in the APs that they make.

ex. If your water filter cleans water to potable levels, but distilling it will clean it further that doesn't invalidate the first method. The first method still works fine.

I get what you're saying that there's balance issues, but the balance issues shouldn't be an in game issue which then makes them moot. You can play an effective fighter and rogue in a campaign and have fun. If there's a bard in the party showing up the rogue on skills then maybe someone should have thought about why you needed two skill monkeys. Likewise with all classes. Even when I played my all wizard campaign we made sure to attempt different focuses to not have excessive overlap.

The GM didn't modify things in our campaigns either. Things were overcome by tactics, planning, and taking our time. Many items were used. Two of us had UMD and dealt with some wands and scrolls. Spells were bought in towns using the RAW payment method for casters. We had several funny diplomatic encounters.

I'm telling you I'm successfully playing a campaign as a commoner mixed with other, more powerful classes... and I'm still outperforming the rogue in combat. And unless you do a campaign entirely as diceless RP, rolls factor into it.

I get what you're saying... so I'm going to say this: Play every AP as just fighters or just rogues. Play them unmodified. Tell me how many you get through.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
swoosh wrote:
Rightbackatya wrote:

Fighters aren't the best melee combatants, but they are good at it. Much as rogues are good at things too.

So what's the definition of what's good and balanced because it seems like being the best is the only thing being accepted so far. And being the best, oddly enough, isn't balanced.

Being the best is balanced when the character is designed with that in mind.

So now you wanna talk about balanced character builds and not just this class is better than that class at some ability.

Swoosh wrote:

The fighter can deal damage. That's his only real mechanic. Every class feature he has aids him in his ability to fight on the front lines and he has really nothing else. Because of this design paradigm, the fighter not being the best at fighting is an imbalance, because the fighter has nothing in his kit that works toward any other goal, while the classes that beat him tend to have at least something else going for them too.

The fighter has 10 feats he can use towards anything his heart desires while still having 11 feats to put into his combat skills. That's 11 more feats than most other classes. 10 of which he can spend on anything to make himself more applicable to whatever you want him to do.

A fighter could feel free to take an eldritch heritage and grab a familiar to spam wands for him if he wanted to, invest into being a face or good with any other skill, choose to just take 10 fleets for the fun of having an 80 foot move wearing full plate granting him a +20 to jumping allowing him to jump 7 feet in the air to click his heels. Find a balance and make it work. The class is not about squeezing every point out of damage.

Swoosh wrote:


It applies to the rogue in a similar (but not as extreme because the rogue isn't quite as one dimensional) fashion. Theoretically, the rogue is worse in a straight fight in exchange for being able to be an amazing skillmonkey and deal devastating alpha strikes. The imbalance occurs when other classes can beat the rogue at his own game (skills) without necessarily taking that big hit to their other abilities.

The rogue is intended to be a support combatant. This is given by their main damage system being provided mainly during flanking. There's a few other methods to get it reliably, but flanking is simple enough. A rogue gets to evade spells that require a reflex save fairly easily and avoid all negatives on a save for half. This scales with a talent to being half damage regardless of saving. Fireballs and the like seem to come up often enough on enemy spell lists. Rogues get an ability to not be flanked in combat and not be caught flat footed which means the rogue can always make attacks of opportunity and should be trying to increase AC to get into positions that may end with you flanked. Doesn't lose dex vs invisible creatures. Gets 10 rogue talents including a few feats to free up your real feats for other diversity.

The rogue doesn't just come with a pile of skills. They can also get the ability to take 10 in several skills regardless of threats.


MagusJanus wrote:


I'm telling you I'm successfully playing a campaign as a commoner mixed with other, more powerful classes... and I'm still outperforming the rogue in combat. And unless you do a campaign entirely as diceless RP, rolls factor into it.

I didn't address this before because I thought it was the point you were making. You said it was based on phenomenal rolls which when applied to the fighter or rogue will make both of them shine more than others as well mitigating this balance issue as they now appear better. Didn't seem worth mentioning.

MagusJanus wrote:

I get what you're saying... so I'm going to say this: Play every AP as just fighters or just rogues. Play them unmodified. Tell me how many you get through.

For this to have any validity you'd have to play every AP as a set of each class to make a comparison. I'm sure 4 fighters will struggle more in some campaigns than others including it being near impossible in some. The same can be said of almost any class. 4 wizards is a challenge in the early levels. You have to be strategic with spell casting and abilities. Whereas the melee classes have it easier in the beginning and have more of a grind in the upper levels.


4 Wizards is a cakewalk at that early levels for most APs, since they have a significant amount of downtime between encounters, allowing the Wizards to be able to "nova" for most fights. Still, I'd say the Wizards have a significantly higher chance of actually clearing an AP, especially taking into account that they get 8 spells each level merely by sharing spells with each other. And lord help the AP if the 4 classes are Clerics/Druids/Oracles/Summoners.


Rightbackatya wrote:
I didn't address this before because I thought it was the point you were making. You said it was based on phenomenal rolls which when applied to the fighter or rogue will make both of them shine more than others as well mitigating this balance issue as they now appear better. Didn't seem worth mentioning.

I also said that just because that mitigating factor exists does not mean that the inherent badness of the class is overruled. I then went on to say that a GM being willing to work to mitigate some of the issue does not negate the issue. My point being that you can have results which appear to show the classes as better than they are while those results remain outside of the normal curve.

Quote:
For this to have any validity you'd have to play every AP as a set of each class to make a comparison. I'm sure 4 fighters will struggle more in some campaigns than others including it being near impossible in some. The same can be said of almost any class. 4 wizards is a challenge in the early levels. You have to be strategic with spell casting and abilities. Whereas the melee classes have it easier in the beginning and have more of a grind in the upper levels.

Well, go try it. Let me know your results.


Anzyr wrote:
4 Wizards is a cakewalk at that early levels for most APs, since they have a significant amount of downtime between encounters, allowing the Wizards to be able to "nova" for most fights. Still, I'd say the Wizards have a significantly higher chance of actually clearing an AP, especially taking into account that they get 8 spells each level merely by sharing spells with each other. And lord help the AP if the 4 classes are Clerics/Druids/Oracles/Summoners.

Did 4 druids for Skulls and Shackles. Those poor, poor enemies...


MagusJanus wrote:
Rightbackatya wrote:
I didn't address this before because I thought it was the point you were making. You said it was based on phenomenal rolls which when applied to the fighter or rogue will make both of them shine more than others as well mitigating this balance issue as they now appear better. Didn't seem worth mentioning.

I also said that just because that mitigating factor exists does not mean that the inherent badness of the class is overruled. I then went on to say that a GM being willing to work to mitigate some of the issue does not negate the issue. My point being that you can have results which appear to show the classes as better than they are while those results remain outside of the normal curve.

Quote:
For this to have any validity you'd have to play every AP as a set of each class to make a comparison. I'm sure 4 fighters will struggle more in some campaigns than others including it being near impossible in some. The same can be said of almost any class. 4 wizards is a challenge in the early levels. You have to be strategic with spell casting and abilities. Whereas the melee classes have it easier in the beginning and have more of a grind in the upper levels.
Well, go try it. Let me know your results.

Sure thing. Right after you finish that detailed analysis of comparing every class and archetype from levels 1 to 20 to validate the claims of rogues and fighters being so inferior.


You hardly need to compare every class and archetype at all levels to know that Rogues and Fighters are bad. A simple look at their class features and basic math should suffice.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think it's not necessary for an RPG to try and balance the classes (I prefer games where magic is strictly better than mundane) but I've come to think it's a desirable trait from the perspective of a publisher. I think those of us who prefer imbalance are in a very small minority. Those who are indifferent can obviously be discounted. That leaves the crowd who desire balance (however they define it) as the ones it would be fruitful to cater to.

I also think its difficult to achieve, hence it is best left to the professionals. I can always introduce imbalance later myself - that seems inherently easier than introducing balance to a system where some classes are superior.

In my perfect world, there'd be optional systems designed to tweak the balance of a game. Pretty minimal market appeal though, I'd think.


Rightbackatya wrote:
MagusJanus wrote:
Rightbackatya wrote:
I didn't address this before because I thought it was the point you were making. You said it was based on phenomenal rolls which when applied to the fighter or rogue will make both of them shine more than others as well mitigating this balance issue as they now appear better. Didn't seem worth mentioning.

I also said that just because that mitigating factor exists does not mean that the inherent badness of the class is overruled. I then went on to say that a GM being willing to work to mitigate some of the issue does not negate the issue. My point being that you can have results which appear to show the classes as better than they are while those results remain outside of the normal curve.

Quote:
For this to have any validity you'd have to play every AP as a set of each class to make a comparison. I'm sure 4 fighters will struggle more in some campaigns than others including it being near impossible in some. The same can be said of almost any class. 4 wizards is a challenge in the early levels. You have to be strategic with spell casting and abilities. Whereas the melee classes have it easier in the beginning and have more of a grind in the upper levels.
Well, go try it. Let me know your results.
Sure thing. Right after you finish that detailed analysis of comparing every class and archetype from levels 1 to 20 to validate the claims of rogues and fighters being so inferior.

Already completed it as part of an argument with someone else.

End of the day, fighters held up pretty well until you hit the levels beyond the standard AP, and then tended to drop flat. But even then, they were showing diminishing returns as levels went on. Wizards, meanwhile, were showing a continual increase in power. At the bottom of the chart were rogues and CRB monks. Standard playtesting at level 20 confirmed it; rogues typically did about on par as an NPC class, while the PC classes tended to score higher. CRB monks were on par with the rogue, but shot upwards when the restriction was removed.

Gunslingers gave much better than expected. I was impressed by their showing. They stayed relevant throughout pretty much all levels.

Now, I have fulfilled your terms. Feel free to fulfill mine.


Khrysaor wrote:
Justin Sane wrote:
Khrysaor wrote:
A rogue can sneak attack better than a bard can.
Oddly enough, the Alchemist is a better sneak-attacker than the Rogue. And is at least as-good with skills.
So does the alchemist do everything the rogue does better now? Post a build and prove it.

Everything but UMD, and that is debatable.

It also has so much room in it's build to retrofit to anyone's desire.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

I haven't read the entire topic.

Things of the same level should be balanced against each other, otherwise, what's the point of having levels? They fail as a measure.

I want balance between classes, but I've come to accept that I won't find it in Pathfinder. This isn't the system for badass normals.

Edit: I also agree with limiting casters to a much more narrow focus, but also allowing them some at-will stuff so they don't have to call the halt and demand nappy times from the party.


swoosh wrote:
Rightbackatya wrote:

Fighters aren't the best melee combatants, but they are good at it. Much as rogues are good at things too.

So what's the definition of what's good and balanced because it seems like being the best is the only thing being accepted so far. And being the best, oddly enough, isn't balanced.

Being the best is balanced when the character is designed with that in mind.

The fighter can deal damage. That's his only real mechanic. Every class feature he has aids him in his ability to fight on the front lines and he has really nothing else. Because of this design paradigm, the fighter not being the best at fighting is an imbalance, because the fighter has nothing in his kit that works toward any other goal, while the classes that beat him tend to have at least something else going for them too.

It applies to the rogue in a similar (but not as extreme because the rogue isn't quite as one dimensional) fashion. Theoretically, the rogue is worse in a straight fight in exchange for being able to be an amazing skillmonkey and deal devastating alpha strikes. The imbalance occurs when other classes can beat the rogue at his own game (skills) without necessarily taking that big hit to their other abilities.

wraithstrike wrote:


The reason is immersion. As an example I think one of the ToB abilities allows you to cause the ground to shake. Another can remove status affects, but since it is not "magic" it should not be possible according to some people.
Both of those abilities are supernatural though. And supernatural is magic.

Iron Heart Surge, the one that removes status affects is not supernatural. The text strictly calls out your fighting spirit and dedication as the reason why it works, and ToB said that even though the maneuvers seems magical unless called out as such they were extraordinary.

I could not remember the name of the other ability so I could not check it.


Rightbackatya wrote:


Well, go try it. Let me know your results.

The problem here is the same problem all of these types of topics have. You are taking the other people's words as "class X is useless". They are only saying the classes could use some help, and the lack of AP's or use of them is a good baseline, but it is not the only standard to use.

And trapfinder(the trait) is not all that great. The trait only lets you find magical traps, which I wish had been open to everyone with disable device anyway since most traps are not that much of a threat to begin with. Yeah it gives you disable device as a class skill, but it is not worth a feat.

It also does not give you the rogue class bonus to finding or disabling them, so it is not equal to the class feature.


Everyone saying that rogues, core monk, and fighters suck actually want them to be buffed btw, probably so they can have more agency.

Nerfing spells would be nice too.


CWheezy wrote:

Everyone saying that rogues, core monk, and fighters suck actually want them to be buffed btw, probably so they can have more agency.

Nerfing spells would be nice too.

Yes. Surprisingly, we are not villains. We might want a plate-wearing dude who is not a Paladin or Cavalier to be awesome. We might not want to use 2 archetypes on a Ranger to build a better rogue.


CWheezy wrote:

Everyone saying that rogues, core monk, and fighters suck actually want them to be buffed btw, probably so they can have more agency.

Nerfing spells would be nice too.

I don't think they suck because they can be useful, but they could be better. I would like to see them be able to play better in my games past level 15 without requiring high system mastery.


wraithstrike wrote:
Rightbackatya wrote:


Well, go try it. Let me know your results.

The problem here is the same problem all of these types of topics have. You are taking the other people's words as "class X is useless". They are only saying the classes could use some help, and the lack of AP's or use of them is a good baseline, but it is not the only standard to use.

And trapfinder(the trait) is not all that great. The trait only lets you find magical traps, which I wish had been open to everyone with disable device anyway since most traps are not that much of a threat to begin with. Yeah it gives you disable device as a class skill, but it is not worth a feat.

It also does not give you the rogue class bonus to finding or disabling them, so it is not equal to the class feature.

It specifically calls out disable magical traps as a rogue. This is a class feature of a class and a few archetypes of others. It also gives a skill as a class skill and provides a +1 bonus. Most traits provide a +1 bonus and class skill with said trait. Some are a +1 to two skills and class skill with one of them. This is more than standard traits offer and gaining a class feature is worth a feat when coupled with an effective +4 to a skill if it's not a class skill. Skill focus is only a +6 after 10 ranks.


Adam B. 135 wrote:
CWheezy wrote:

Everyone saying that rogues, core monk, and fighters suck actually want them to be buffed btw, probably so they can have more agency.

Nerfing spells would be nice too.

Yes. Surprisingly, we are not villains. We might want a plate-wearing dude who is not a Paladin or Cavalier to be awesome. We might not want to use 2 archetypes on a Ranger to build a better rogue.

I didn't see anyone post that anyone was a villain. Only that the general opinion on the boards is that the rogue and the fighter are sub par classes that shouldn't be picked because another class will do it better.

Easily represented by the shear number of threads on the topic.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Going back to the original title, I do think classes should be balanced. But balanced doesn't have to mean equally powerful at every levels. The old paradigm of Fighters>Wizards at low level, and Wizards>Fighters at high level is a solid one. I also like the idea of building weaknesses into classes that other classes can balance out: e.g., make high level Wizards more vulnerable to melee, so that although they're more powerful than fighters per se, they really need a meat shield if they're going to exercise that power.

The problem tends to be in specialisation: it makes sense that a specialised class (e.g. swashbuckler) is slightly better at being a swashbuckler than a generic flexible class (e.g. fighter). But as the number of specialist classes increases, eventually the generic class becomes redundant. Personally, I'd love to see a flexible pool of core classes with feats and multi-classing used to build everything else (ranger is a druid/fighter/rogue; paladin is a cleric/fighter; swashbuckler is a rogue/fighter; bard is a rogue/wizard, etc.). That way the core classes never become redundant, because new classes are just multi-classed archetypes and not actually "new" classes at all.

You also need to define balance. Balance as "equally effective in combat at all levels" seems like a lofty goal, but it leads logically to 4E. 4E is neat, extremely clever, very well made... and lots of people hated it. Balance as "everyone can make an equal contribution to the game" is more abstract, but that's the sort I think we should be looking towards.


CWheezy wrote:

Everyone saying that rogues, core monk, and fighters suck actually want them to be buffed btw, probably so they can have more agency.

Nerfing spells would be nice too.

This is true of me, and I play a spellcaster. I will also admit that I am trying to get him to recognize exactly how ridiculous his demanded level of evidence is. I figured having to actually fulfill one of his own tests would demonstrate it nicely.


Khrysaor wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Rightbackatya wrote:


Well, go try it. Let me know your results.

The problem here is the same problem all of these types of topics have. You are taking the other people's words as "class X is useless". They are only saying the classes could use some help, and the lack of AP's or use of them is a good baseline, but it is not the only standard to use.

And trapfinder(the trait) is not all that great. The trait only lets you find magical traps, which I wish had been open to everyone with disable device anyway since most traps are not that much of a threat to begin with. Yeah it gives you disable device as a class skill, but it is not worth a feat.

It also does not give you the rogue class bonus to finding or disabling them, so it is not equal to the class feature.

It specifically calls out disable magical traps as a rogue. This is a class feature of a class and a few archetypes of others. It also gives a skill as a class skill and provides a +1 bonus. Most traits provide a +1 bonus and class skill with said trait. Some are a +1 to two skills and class skill with one of them. This is more than standard traits offer and gaining a class feature is worth a feat when coupled with an effective +4 to a skill if it's not a class skill. Skill focus is only a +6 after 10 ranks.

Yes you disable magical traps as rogue, but that is different from also getting the bonus to finding traps and disabling them equal to half the rogue's level.

101 to 150 of 254 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Should there be balance between classes? All Messageboards