|
Okay, I know this thread might eventually turn into a mass of opinionated essays, but before then, I'd like to make the effort to understand something. Please, insert fact-based posts and/or information that is productive to the intention of this post.
For the past while, I've had experience with martial classes, and full casters. I personally like the bard for its balance, but I'm confused about something. A lot of the spells in the game make fighting rather pointless when you could cast hold person, or put a crowd to sleep. Sure, you can be a synthesist, have seven natural attacks, all of which bypass all DR, but faced with an anti-magic field, he's kinda screwed. Why is it that people focus on pure damage when you could simply daze someone into submission, or color spray them into walls, or an even better spell, make them run away in fear? I'm having a hard time justifying my using a fighter class versus creating a transmutationist, or some other class with...well...spells.
Basically, why use a class that relies on weapons when you could use a class that relies on something that doesn't cost anything, comes readily each morning, and can even take you places (the plane of water, hell, heaven, bacon world, etc.) that no other class ever could?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You just played the "GOD" wizard to 15+ and want a break for the mass paperwork and planning. A good Barb is kind of fun to role play and is easy street for combat. Others want a concept that has no spells. YMMV
That's basically asking why someone would ever like something other than what you like. People like different things. Sometimes they even like different things at different times. Lately I've been on a rogue kick, but maybe I'll play a wizard or cleric next time. Some other folks like one thing and play it all the time. Fortunately, Pathfinder and its kin have something for pretty much everyone.
Too much book keeping, and it doesn't fit with the flavor of what kind of hero I want to play. The fantasy characters I grew up idolizing were people like Chrono Trigger's Ayla or Fire Emblem's Hector. I've just never found magical means for solving problems to be terribly appealing.
That being said, I would certainly appreciate martials that reach the epic levels of narrative power that full casters can achieve. But I just really wanna punch things, so I accept that they aren't as good mechanically and have fun optimizing them to the best of my ability.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry for my post coming off a bit arrogant and conceited. My friends and I have very different ways of playing the game, and I'm simply trying to understand why they play the classes they play. The dude who's been there for me through thick and thin plays a fighter. Another guy religiously plays a fighter (pretty much the only thing he plays, though, he once made an evil wizard and now he's a pirate lord). The most chaotic dude in the group has been banned from playing the barbarian and alchemist because he tends to take their chaoticness a bit (hilariously) out of line. That leaves the last guy to to his ventures in roguery because he likes dark/light comparisons, and other more gruesome tidings.
I play casters because they allow me to be what my party needs me to be at the moment. If someone needs invisibility, I cast the spell on them. If someone needs a troll to be not so trolly, I cast spells to reduce the amount of troll the troll trolls. So on and so forth, I just like feeling useful, and playing any of the other classes kind of diminishes that.
Actual, this thread is kind of a rant for me.
What I really want to do is find a martial class that allows me to be useful without having to rely on spells all the time. Paladins have their shiny horses and pointy swords, but they're alignment bound, and, though I'm not a lawful douche, I do cause problems for the group, which I'm taking efforts to fix.
I just want to be useful, and it's rather frustrating. Got any tips?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
People don't just choose classes for power. If so every caster would likely always be the most powerful build they could find.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd argue that everything other than the Fighter, Rogue, and Core Monk can be deemed "useful". You don't have to be a Cleric or a Wizard to not be a drain on the party; Rangers bring a number of useful skills to the table in addition to high damage, Barbarians can bring their defenses up to ludicrous levels so they require fewer buffs, the Sensei Monk can contribute with Inspire Courage, etc. etc.
That being said, it sounds like you don't really mean useful, you mean being the swiss army knife of the group... Which the Wizard is uniquely suited for. You've just got a different method of playing and a different expectation out of your characters, which is fine.
|
Ranger....Look also towards the Advanced Playtest...some new classes are coming that are awesome. Hunter comes to mind.
But let me lay it out for you. Martial are the backbone of a group. For the first 12 levels they take the beating and give it. But when the God classes come online they seem dwarfed. Its the price of Patience I guess. But not much you can do but choose which you want to be doing in the group. I personally get bored of fighters and Barbarians (martial types with no casting)..but so far my PFS ranger has been an absolute blast to play. I've also found the Magus is quiet fun.
Useful in what way?
A good archer build off Fighter can cause spell-casters a lot of problems. Excellent damage and can hit most anyone he can see.
Next time you are playing your caster, pay attention to what the other people are doing to protect you. They are hopefully keeping the monsters from being able to get into melee with you.
A fighter with a pole arm or other reach weapon can plug the gap so others don't get past them. Disarm or trip can help that a lot, but even without that it can be tough to get past one, unless you've a Monk or Rogue that has a lot of skill in tumbling.
|
|
What I mean by useful is this:
If I play a fighter, the only real option is to go with an archer build, and pew-pew away. The problem with this is that you have to pray that the enemy doesn't come after you first.
If you play a barbarian, you're essentially a meat shield with a giant stick. Your AC is crud, so the only thing you can really do is hope you kill the thing before it kills you.
Rogues are skill-monkeys, which is pretty awesome, but they bring nothing to battle.
Cavaliers are good at charging and not much else (unless you really dive into the archetypes, which at that point brings archery to the forefront, again.)
I honestly don't care if I have to use one strategy that works, but I'd prefer it work the entire time, or else my DM will build something to counter by one strategy, and then I'm screwed for the rest of the game.
|
|
Hmm...I'm mostly making this suggestion because from what you've said, you have the same kind of playstyle as me. (I love casters and tactical characters and find straight-up damage to be boring)
Combat maneuvers.
Maybe it's a Maneuver Master, maybe it's a Cad, maybe it's just a vanilla fighter or some such that took alot of the maneuver feats. But being good at a wide range of combat maneuvers makes you able to cripple your enemies in a way that might not be magical, but is extremely helpful to your party.
Big tough barbarian chopping your party in half with his greatsword? Disarm him, now he's down to punching people for 1d3. Party having trouble landing hits on the nimble rogue-type? Trip them (even as an AoO!), gives a +4 on your party's attacks and makes it much easier to maneuver into flanking positions. Party's caster having trouble getting those spells to stick? Two little Dirty Tricks and they can be shaken and sickened, giving a -2 each to saving throws. Enemy spellcaster? Grapple them into helplessness. Blind them for your rogue. Drop their pants so they can't run. Bull rush them into a wall. The possibilities are basically only limited by your creativity.
My favorite for this was my Freebooter (ranger)/Cad (fighter), who dual-wielded and had Quick Greater Dirty Trick, Greater Trip, Improved Disarm. In one round, step into flanking position, blind them with a dirty trick, trip them--which provokes an AoO to Disarm them. Still have two attacks left--trip or disarm adjacent enemies or slash away. All achievable at level 7.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It does not matter what your tactic is, the DM can always counter it.
Yup
If your a 1 trick pony be prepared to have that trick shut down from time to time.
Sure your paladin has been owning these evil bastards a while...But now your facing a Neutral Golem with DR 15/Adamantine that you can't smite and you have been so riding smite that you forgot to get a adamantine weapon. It happens. But wait your Fighter has a adamantine greatsword...looks like this is his fight...
Sometimes its time to let the rest of your team work and accept the things you can not do.
repeat after me:
“Lord grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.”
|
Rogue or Bard skill monkeys: bring intimidate/performance feats/flat footed foes/and sneak attacks (which can be stacked with sniper goggles and greater invisibility to ensure death to the opponents). Bards are particularly good at making every knowledge roll with a take 10 and no effort per se. Rogues are better if specialized in a subclass, granted, or crossed over slightly into a spell casting class.
In fact, most classes are best with a dip here or there. That's the nature of the game, I guess. It's not a "mundane" world, after all.
|
|
repeat after me:
“Lord grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.”
I'm of the mind that anything can be changed if you try hard enough, that there are times when you simply haven't tried hard enough, and that some things you don't touch, even with a ten foot pole. Lastly, sometimes, it's just not worth it, but in games, you try anyways.
I also prefer to be the support, whatever that means when it pertains to a group. A few years ago, I got tired of being the healbot, and my group has functioned just fine since. In the place of wanting to heal everyone came the want to buff everyone. Eventually, I got tired of that. Then, I moved on towards battle control such as no-save spells and reach builds.
Now is when I get bored of the above, and work for another alternative.
Big tough barbarian chopping your party in half with his greatsword? Disarm him, now he's down to punching people for 1d3. Party having trouble landing hits on the nimble rogue-type? Trip them (even as an AoO!), gives a +4 on your party's attacks and makes it much easier to maneuver into flanking positions. Party's caster having trouble getting those spells to stick? Two little Dirty Tricks and they can be shaken and sickened, giving a -2 each to saving throws. Enemy spellcaster? Grapple them into helplessness. Blind them for your rogue. Drop their pants so they can't run. Bull rush them into a wall. The possibilities are basically only limited by your creativity.
I guess it'll be combat maneuvers. To be honest, I've skipped over them for a while, thinking them actually useless, but hey, why not give them a try?
It can be really tough to hit the CMB once you get into the later levels. If you want to do maneuvers I suggest focusing on just one - maybe a Lore Warden with Dirty Tricks, or an Underfoot Adept with Tripping.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here we go again...
I don't enjoy playing the martial classes. (to me) they are so boring that I don't enjoy playing. With the magic classes I have to plan ahead and think about what I am doing. Also get I think that magic classes get to do more over all in the game itself.
My 2nd choice are usually the skill monkey for the same reason. You can't just sit there and hit, you have to plan a little.
And yet your name is Fencer...
|
|
re archer builds: Fickle Winds says hi.
So you wish to talk about linear fighters and quadratic wizards? Lets for the moment, ignore the thematic disaster that is the fighter. Of the martial classes, DPS and Martial Maneuvers are your thing, with the class abilities defining how about you go about doing it. The problem is the expectations placed inside the classes, high level wizards should destroy mountains with a thought while being minor dablers in the arcane arts early, while the martials are supposedly still the same old "common fighting man" they were at level 1. The core to solving the imbalance is fixing that perception imbalance; because the dablers are quite powerful and only get more so, the common fighting man need to no longer STAY a common fighting man. Fix the thematics first, and the mechanics will follow.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The common fighting man also gets dramatically more powerful along with the caster. The common fighting man increases his number of attacks per round by 300%, his damage increases even more dramatically oftentimes several thousand percent greater without crazy optimization builds, the methods of how you employ combat skills evolve to be able to do it even better. Just as wizards go from casting color spray to prismatic spray.
The problem is that a martial swings a weapon and then swings the weapon in a new method and people visualize both as 'just swinging a weapon'. Then they turn to casters and say a caster once could cast a spell that did a minimal amount of damage and now they can disintegrate creatures without acknowledging the same comparison of the caster is still 'just casting a spell'.
I'm not saying there is no disparity, it's just that not many people make fair comparisons coupled with the appropriate analysis. Every class gets tools and then gets better with those tools.
What, do you only play blaster sorcerers? The fighter goes from "swing the sword" to "swing the sword hard" to "swing the sword REALLY hard". Meanwhile the wizard goes from "shoot energy beams" to "teleport" to "create new planes of reality".
Combat potential isn't even the primary issue here. The real problem is that casters have a massive potential to affect the narrative and create a story all her own, while the fighter... just hits stuff.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I honestly find I have an easier time come up for character concepts that I enjoy for non-casters (or at least not level 9 casters) so I tend to play those sorts of characters. Big time casters always strike me as overly defined by "I wield awesome cosmic power" in terms of what kinds of people they were, are, and can be. Probably just a failure of imagination on my part.
I don't think I've played a Wizard since 1995. Clerics are easier for some reason.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
People don't just choose classes for power. If so every caster would likely always be the most powerful build they could find.
+1
Some people pick a class for its flavor, some pick a class because they like the simplicity of it or it’s mechanics.Or you may want to pick a class because you want to try it out or maybe you just prefer a character that hits thinks with a stick rather than casting spells or shooting it with Arrows.
I personally never play archers. Not because archers are bad or complicated, I just find the game more exciting when my character is up front and smacking the monsters with my stick.
My favorite class is the bard than ca do a bit of everything. The Bard is not a “powerful” class, but it makes everyone else more powerful. When I’m not playing a melee character, that also has some spells (Bard, Paladin or whatever) I like playing the Sorcerer.
I have played many clerics, but even though they are probably one of the most powerful classes in the game I’ve come to realize that they are too generic for me. Also I like skills and they only get 2 per level.
I also have played many rogues (mainly for flavor reasons), but finally come to the conclusion that they simply doesn’t cut it.
In our gaming group people usually don’t play full casters, at least not full arcane casters. I have no problem with that. Also, I have a hard time seeing how an adventuring team could survive without someone actually finishing off the monsters and being up front and blocking the access to the casters and archers.
So there are number of reasons why you don’t play a full caster or why people prefer playing a fighter or some other melee character.
Like i said. Some people only visualize a fighter swinging their weapon regardless of feats, skills, tactics, real game play and then compare it to the wizard who casts spells in a variety of ways, but is still only casting a spell.
Next will be the ways in which a caster shuts down a martial or does everything better. Same story different thread.
Can you explain to me where a Fighter achieves more than "swing the sword"? Because personally I'm a huge sucker for martials and would love to have a sudden revelation that yes, I can have the same amount of narrative power that a 9th level caster gets.
Maybe I'm not picking up on what you mean but the narrative power of the character has, I think, absolutely nothing to do with his class per se. It's about what you (as the player with the GM) choose to go after as a character. While how a wizard or bard goes about gaining a kingdom and castle, for example, is vastly different from how a martial character might go about it the character's goal is essentially the same and both will create a narrative in the process. Or do you mean something else by narrative power?Can you explain to me where a Fighter achieves more than "swing the sword"? Because personally I'm a huge sucker for martials and would love to have a sudden revelation that yes, I can have the same amount of narrative power that a 9th level caster gets.Like i said. Some people only visualize a fighter swinging their weapon regardless of feats, skills, tactics, real game play and then compare it to the wizard who casts spells in a variety of ways, but is still only casting a spell.
Next will be the ways in which a caster shuts down a martial or does everything better. Same story different thread.
I mean what's already defined in the game rules, not what the GM allows you to do because he's feeling nice today. A wizard can create alternate planes of reality, there are mechanics for him to do so.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe I'm not picking up on what you mean but the narrative power of the character has, I think, absolutely nothing to do with his class per se. It's about what you (as the player with the GM) choose to go after as a character. While how a wizard or bard goes about gaining a kingdom and castle, for example, is vastly different from how a martial character might go about it the character's goal is essentially the same and both will create a narrative in the process. Or do you mean something else by narrative power?Can you explain to me where a Fighter achieves more than "swing the sword"? Because personally I'm a huge sucker for martials and would love to have a sudden revelation that yes, I can have the same amount of narrative power that a 9th level caster gets.Like i said. Some people only visualize a fighter swinging their weapon regardless of feats, skills, tactics, real game play and then compare it to the wizard who casts spells in a variety of ways, but is still only casting a spell.
Next will be the ways in which a caster shuts down a martial or does everything better. Same story different thread.
I've been in this boat many a ocassion and I'd have to support Arachnofiend's position. I've been gaming with the same group for a very long time now (20 some years) with 3 rotating GMs of which I'm one. I love my friends dearly, but their preference for martials often puts me in a rut where I have to make sure there is lots of weapon clashing when I run, because when I throw a caster in the mix its nothing but groans and curses. I'm the only one out of us that plays casters regularly, though I mix it up by hitting 3/4 caster classes. I've proven time and again how caster types can add exponential benefits to a group, and they will repeatedly stick with melee beat sticks or archers. Most of the time I don't optimize, because I already get complaints about dominating a game.
The other night we got into a good natured argument about melees vs casters, and while I didn't say it, what struck me about it is their position was largely machismo wish fulfillment. They like being juggernauts that tear through hordes like in a video game. The problem largely stems from the fact that the game is designed from the ground up towards being a tactical wargame, with very narrow niches and development paths for martial characters.
Casters on the other hand, while also requiring the same wargame approach to specialization, have the inherit flexibility of certain spells. There's a reason why blasting for a caster is typically a sub-optimal choice, they can do more with within the limits of a spell. I still vividly remember the night one of the gms set up a campaign for us to stop a strong king from demolishing a noble who was more popular. I sat quietly while the other guys debated how to ruin supply lines, poison wells, assassinate key generals, etc. When i was accused of not helping, I suggest i could always geas the king and duke into accepting any reasonable compromise that would benefit both them. The look on my GM's face was as if I had kicked his puppy. That's a example of altering the narrative.
I enjoy PF for what it is, a tactical wargame, most of its roleplaying elements is summed up in how someone beats a critter to death, but barely any effort at doing anything else. The rules barely touch on social conflict, there's zero tactical social combat, its all summed up with catch all rolls hitting a DC, which frequently from the 100s of games I've witnessed have less than a passing effect on play. The vast majority of GMs consider a Diplomacy roll to be good for a couple of minutes and way less effective than a Suggestion spell, let alone a Geas. Until the rules treat something besides tactical weapon flicking (or tactical level spell slinging) martials are extremely limited in what they do, beating stuff up in different ways.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dex based lore warden with 1 level of maneuver master using dervish dance + dirty tricks. Great AC, great saves, sky high CMB, okay damage, you can even add trip to your list and easily control the battlefield. Also you get a lot of skillpoints for a fighter.
Could also be pulled of with strenght - less defense, more damage.
Another thing could be Pala 2, Sorc 3, Dragon Disciple 8 wielding a greatsword. good defense, amazing offense, spells. More interessting than EK builds.
What about Magus? Just combine those two worlds, cast useful spells, hit it with your sword.
Or - one of my favorites - play an Oracle of battle, dip 2 levels of Paladin and become a melee beast while still having those spells.
Sword and Board Ranger - great damage, flexibility, defense, yey.
Some Pathfinder Chronicler stuff with UMD as his ability to have almost any item available when he needs it is so close to swiss knife.
Also, eldritch heritage is always an amazing way to make your melees more interesting - and there really are some great picks!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"The Beast stirs."
Basically, why use a class that relies on weapons when you could use a class that relies on something that doesn't cost anything, comes readily each morning, and can even take you places (the plane of water, hell, heaven, bacon world, etc.) that no other class ever could?
That is a good question that is brought up from time to time. Most of the time about half the posters tell you that martials suck and the other half tells you that asking this question makes you a power gamer.
I like swinging swords and such. But I hate standing around more or less useless and on mop up duty so I try to build PCs who have more tricks than hit it with something sharp/pointy/blunt.
My kobold slayer can make enemies nauseated, effectively taking them out of the fight for some time. My Inquisitor can cast spell as well as fight with his axe. The scarred witch doctor eschewed melee completely to keep up with the summoner. The magus speaks for itself. That's only a part of my recent PF PCs but I think you get the gist.
Elder abominations aside I do want to state I have an honest to god answer for this question that I will answer once I finish the actual post.
There are very good, very legitimate reasons why martials are valuable in a group.
But I do want to address a couple of things.
First, understand that the value of hold person adn color spray is that, while they remove people from a fight they generally don't do it permanently or with any guarantee. And often you will find enemies prepared to counter one particular spell or another through some means or another.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I enjoy PF for what it is, a tactical wargame, most of its roleplaying elements is summed up in how someone beats a critter to death, but barely any effort at doing anything else.
I think it's up to the GM and the players if they want to make it something else, and a lot tables will (mine always seem to find a way.) It's not really the best system for social mechanics, but if you want to have a game about courtly intrigue that also has a dragon, a magic sword, and a lich in it, then you kind of need to run this rule system in a way it probably wasn't meant to be.
But I mean, "taking the rules and putting them to uses for which they were never originally intended" is sort of the heart of tabletop RPGs.
I enjoy PF for what it is, a tactical wargame, most of its roleplaying elements is summed up in how someone beats a critter to death, but barely any effort at doing anything else.I think it's up to the GM and the players if they want to make it something else, and a lot tables will (mine always seem to find a way.) It's not really the best system for social mechanics, but if you want to have a game about courtly intrigue that also has a dragon, a magic sword, and a lich in it, then you kind of need to run this rule system in a way it probably wasn't meant to be.
But I mean, "taking the rules and putting them to uses for which they were never originally intended" is sort of the heart of tabletop RPGs.
I agree to a certain extent, particularly with what you said about GM and players making it more than what it is. Which is why my group likes PF as it is, I tried to get them into Exalted (which admittedly has its share of unique problems) because I felt it was a lot less tactically focused and allowed for a greater array of play styles, even for martially inclined characters. But unfortunately the setting just didn't click with them.
PF does what its designed to do very well, but at the same time the inherit limitations of its design is such that martial characters really only do a limited number of things, often to silly niche level purpose because that's what the rules make them do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Likewise casters have FINITE resources (even God Wizards) in terms of spells and a smart DM will limit their opportunities to run the 15 minute adventuring day (as well as scry and fry). Prepared casters rely on intelligence (as in knowledge) to forward plan but often don't have many of the key spells and spontaneous casters know fewer spells (but can spam) again a smart DM will present challenges where these factors come into play.Full casters are the most powerful characters at high level but a good DM will adopt tactics to challenge and counter them allowing the rest of the party to shine.
Sure spalls are a finite resource. But a cha based full caster can well fill in with intimidate. A witch can fill in with hexes, wizards have their (still limited) school powers in addition to spells, clerics have their domain powers and at least the divine casters can be competent melee or ranged combatants, too.
The myth that wizards without spells are useless might have been true in AD&D, but it is no longer.
Iron Golems...Actually, golems are absurly weak agaisnt magic.... Immunity to Magic (Ex) An iron golem is immune to spells or spell-like abilities that allow spell resistance. Certain spells and effects function differently against it, as noted below...
The funniest thing is, I think you're actually trying to provide a counterargument without realising the text you cited includes exactly why golems are absurdly weak against magic.
There are a LOT of spells that don't allow spell resistance. Golems have REALLY bad reflex saves, no flight and no ranged attacks. A level 3 wizard can defeat an iron golem with some preparation purely through acid splash, levitation and, if necessary, create pit. It's pathetic.