Are the older melee classes getting less attractive / obsolete?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

151 to 200 of 347 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I am aware Deth, which is why I quoted blahpers and not you. If a guy really just wants to do combat and nothing else during the game, that's fine... I can't really understand why someone would do that to themselves, but whatever floats their boat.

What isn't okay is if a player brings a terrible build to the table and then blames the GM for not specifically catering to the highly limited skill set his character has.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:

I am aware Deth, which is why I quoted blahpers and not you. ...

What isn't okay is if a player brings a terrible build to the table and then blames the GM for not specifically catering to the highly limited skill set his character has.

Truth!


Arachnofiend wrote:

I am aware Deth, which is why I quoted blahpers and not you. If a guy really just wants to do combat and nothing else during the game, that's fine... I can't really understand why someone would do that to themselves, but whatever floats their boat.

What isn't okay is if a player brings a terrible build to the table and then blames the GM for not specifically catering to the highly limited skill set his character has.

I'll elaborate since everyone seems to have misunderstood:

I have never felt that I was "sitting out" of the game when playing a fighter, in combat or out of combat. If you do feel that way, then by definition the GM has failed.

The GM's primary job is to enable players to have fun. A GM can and should disallow character concepts/builds that would negatively impact that goal, but if the GM allows the character then it's up to the GM to provide an experience that engages the entire party. If the GM believes that entire core rulebook classes are right out, then that GM should expect players to be surprised, as the baseline game is perfectly enjoyable with those classes.

Every PC should have his or her chance to shine, and no player should ever feel sidelined. That isn't to say that every PC will be able to have a phenomenal mechanical advantage in every situation or that every PC should be equally competent in every situation--rather, each player should know their character's strengths and weaknesses and be able to contribute at all times, whether because of the strengths or despite their weaknesses. Sometimes the contribution is strong, such as getting to use class abilities to quickly and dramatically alter the situation. Sometimes it's supportive, such as setting up a flank for another character or aiding another on a skill check. Sometimes it isn't mechanical at all. The players' roles are to forge their own destinies, but the GM is still responsible for providing opportunities to do so. A GM that does not do this is a mere referee, not a Game Master.

The rise of sandbox gaming--and, to some extent, PFS--has changed this role for some tables, and the above is why I despise pure-sandbox games. They make the GMs job harder while at the same time absolving GMs of their share of the responsibility for the game's success. As always, your mileage may vary--a lot of people enjoy those kind of games. More power to them. But it isn't the traditional role of the GM to ignore their players' needs and set them up for a miserable experience.


blahpers wrote:
I have never felt that I was "sitting out" of the game when playing a fighter, in combat or out of combat. If you do feel that way, then by definition the GM has failed.

That's not a definition of anything. Not everything is the GM's fault.

If a player makes a character who can't do anything significant in a given situation, then he's the one to blame for feeling left out when that situation comes up.

If that situation is something as common as "being in combat" or "not being in combat", then the player who made a poor decision.


Quote:
who can't do anything significant in a given situation

The GM creates the potential situations. Of course the GM has responsibility. Nobody ever said everything was the GM's fault, but the GM is certainly accountable for what situations are potentially available to the party.

Are you confusing "able to contribute" to "able to roll dice and get your way if they're moderately high"? When in out-of-combat situations, do you spend the majority of your time casting spells or making skill checks? What sort of situations do you get in that involve neither?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
blahpers wrote:
Nobody ever said everything was the GM's fault
blahpers wrote:
I have never felt that I was "sitting out" of the game when playing a fighter, in combat or out of combat. If you do feel that way, then by definition the GM has failed.

0_0


So what? This is a game where literally anything can happen! Everything the GM can imagine is possible.

If you make a Fighter with no social skills and no resources devoted to out-of-combat utility, than it'll be your fault if you can't do anything useful when there is no one for you to stab with your sword.

As a GM I'll not simply wave away non-combat challenges just because your character is only good at hitting stuff with a pointy stick. I'll do it the the whole group wants a game of hack-n'-slash and nothing more, but not to indulge the whims of an incompetent character.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

If you failed your will save at needing to write "Rogue" or "Fighter" on your sheet that is not the GM's fault.
They aren't there to cater to your every deficiency. They are there to have fun, they don't need to put in extra work to make your busted character fun to play. YOU should have made a competent character.


Marroar Gellantara wrote:
blahpers wrote:
Nobody ever said everything was the GM's fault
blahpers wrote:
I have never felt that I was "sitting out" of the game when playing a fighter, in combat or out of combat. If you do feel that way, then by definition the GM has failed.

0_0

Yes, I said _that_ is the GM's fault.


Lemmy wrote:

So what? This is a game where literally anything can happen! Everything the GM can imagine is possible.

If you make a Fighter with no social skills and no resources devoted to out-of-combat utility, than it'll be your fault if you can't do anything useful when there is no one for you to stab with your sword.

As a GM I'll not simply wave away non-combat challenges just because your character is only good at hitting stuff with a pointy stick. I'll do it the the whole group wants a game of hack-n'-slash and nothing more, but not to indulge the whims of an incompetent character.

That's your prerogative as GM. It is not the traditional role of a GM to do this, and I'll never play at your table--to the relief of both parties, I'm sure. I'll stick with GMs who actively enable their players to have fun playing Pathfinder.


Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:

If you failed your will save at needing to write "Rogue" or "Fighter" on your sheet that is not the GM's fault.

They aren't there to cater to your every deficiency. They are there to have fun, they don't need to put in extra work to make your busted character fun to play. YOU should have made a competent character.

Playing a fighter or rogue is not--

--this conversation is going nowhere, and the thread is devolving into a "screw the MRI" dogpile. Enjoy your Two Minutes Hate.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Don't let an anti-Paladin kick you on the way out :)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Insain Dragoon wrote:
Don't let an anti-Paladin kick you on the way out :)

reference


blahpers wrote:
That's your prerogative as GM. It is not the traditional role of a GM to do this,

Really? Why do you think your way of playing/GMing is any more "traditional" than anyone's else? I mean, if we want to be traditional, we should go back to Gygaxian traps that kill you outright with no save or anything else.

Forgot to poke that square with a 10ft-pole? Too bad, you're dead!

And "traditional" doesn't necessarily mean "good" or even "better".

blahpers wrote:
I'll stick with GMs who actively enable their players to have fun playing Pathfinder.

Unlike me, of course. Obviously, I GM to make everyone miserable. My objective is to always make a player run crying from my table. If they don't have PTSD from my games, it's not good enough.

/sarcasm

Get off of your high horse, will ya? If you want GMs to coddle incompetent characters so they don't feel bad, that's okay, but don't act as if your play style were better, more fun or even closer to "the traditional role of the GM" than that of anyone's else.

It's the player's choice to make his character effective in whatever it is that he wants to be effective. If he chooses to dump Int and Cha because he wants to squeeze a few more points of damage, I don't mind it, but I won't remove non-combat challenges because of that. Making a character like that was his choice, so he can live with it.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

DrDeth wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:


A Fighter at 20th is....

A Fighter at 20th is...playing in very few games. ;-)

We should compare levels 1-10.

I'm not sure where you're going with this since I was responding to a post about a 20th level Rogue.

The Fighter progresses linearly anyways. Other than damage multiplication from Weapon Mastery he is basically swinging at the same comparative performance level at all levels of play. As you've pointed out so many times before, that's why people like him.


Marroar Gellantara wrote:
Insain Dragoon wrote:
Don't let an anti-Paladin kick you on the way out :)
reference

Okay, that was funny. : D


DrDeth wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:
... your horrid, combobulated character who has no place in an adventuring party,...
......

Hey... if you made the fighter with a 8 con and low

Str and skill focus (shop owner) t
To represent the old guy who used top p be a solder and owns a store I would say you are out of place and have no place in an adventuring party... your character would make no sense as an adventurer..


K177Y C47 wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:
... your horrid, combobulated character who has no place in an adventuring party,...
......

Hey... if you made the fighter with a 8 con and low

Str and skill focus (shop owner) t
To represent the old guy who used top p be a solder and owns a store I would say you are out of place and have no place in an adventuring party... your character would make no sense as an adventurer..

Challenge accepted. This is my next character. : D


blahpers wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:
... your horrid, combobulated character who has no place in an adventuring party,...
......

Hey... if you made the fighter with a 8 con and low

Str and skill focus (shop owner) t
To represent the old guy who used top p be a solder and owns a store I would say you are out of place and have no place in an adventuring party... your character would make no sense as an adventurer..
Challenge accepted. This is my next character. : D

Eh, how about a halfling with risky striker and power attack facing a horde of giants (lets say that you are in a walled city, and they give you grappling hook style equipment attatched to your hips that let you zip around the air so you can attack the one spot that stops their regeneration.... ok, yeah, I am describing attack on titan)

Admittedly, skill focus would be kind of wasted there. Never said it was perfect, but it could work, depending on the rest of the build.


blahpers wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:
... your horrid, combobulated character who has no place in an adventuring party,...
......

Hey... if you made the fighter with a 8 con and low

Str and skill focus (shop owner) t
To represent the old guy who used top p be a solder and owns a store I would say you are out of place and have no place in an adventuring party... your character would make no sense as an adventurer..
Challenge accepted. This is my next character. : D

Lol if u can pull it off hats off to you lol.

Honestly I have found that many(not all mind you) of the people who make characters like that are the self identified "roleplayers"...


K177Y C47 wrote:
blahpers wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:
... your horrid, combobulated character who has no place in an adventuring party,...
......

Hey... if you made the fighter with a 8 con and low

Str and skill focus (shop owner) t
To represent the old guy who used top p be a solder and owns a store I would say you are out of place and have no place in an adventuring party... your character would make no sense as an adventurer..
Challenge accepted. This is my next character. : D

Lol if u can pull it off hats off to you lol.

Honestly I have found that many(not all mind you) of the people who make characters like that are the self identified "roleplayers"...

Guilty as charged.


blahpers wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:
blahpers wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:
... your horrid, combobulated character who has no place in an adventuring party,...
......

Hey... if you made the fighter with a 8 con and low

Str and skill focus (shop owner) t
To represent the old guy who used top p be a solder and owns a store I would say you are out of place and have no place in an adventuring party... your character would make no sense as an adventurer..
Challenge accepted. This is my next character. : D

Lol if u can pull it off hats off to you lol.

Honestly I have found that many(not all mind you) of the people who make characters like that are the self identified "roleplayers"...

Guilty as charged.

See all I am getting is that you don't care enough about the game to invest time and effort into your character builds, or that your roleplaying skills are so limited that you need un-optimized characters to make yourself feel interesting.

To my experience, the more optimized the character the more into the game and story the player is.

NOTE: Making chars inspired from forum debates always ends poorly. Using your personal time with friends to prove people on the interwebs wrong is a good way to waste life-force.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
blahpers wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:
... your horrid, combobulated character who has no place in an adventuring party,...
......

Hey... if you made the fighter with a 8 con and low

Str and skill focus (shop owner) t
To represent the old guy who used top p be a solder and owns a store I would say you are out of place and have no place in an adventuring party... your character would make no sense as an adventurer..
Challenge accepted. This is my next character. : D

I had a PC in early 3rd ed: Frederick, Viscount Stanley.

Decent CHA, but the rest of the stats were boring, with a lowish wis. Took levels in Aristocrat- only. Based in Greyhawk. His Dad was a filthy rich merchant-Squire who bought his son the Title.

Hella of a fun PC. Now mind you, this was mostly social and puzzle solving but we did visit the Cairn Hills, etc. Since Stanley was filthy rich he could buy the best weapons & armor and help his new friends. His title and connections helped with the Guards, got us into places etc.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

10 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd just like to say that I hate it when people hold to this rollplay vs. roleplay philosophy.

The fact that a player cares to take the time to ensure that there is actually a viable mechanical framework behind his character does not mean that he can't also delve into his character's persona and provide an in-depth and meaningful portrayal, and vice versa.

I also don't believe it's the GM's job to coddle people who make poor characters; if anything he should help them learn from their mistakes and understand how to better build their characters to support the concepts they want to portray. Building a character who's not properly equipped for the tasks he's going to be faced with, whether combat, social interaction, exploration, or whatever, and then expecting to be able to use your natural personality to compensate for your character's deficiencies is the exact opposite of roleplaying, and as a GM I personally won't enable it.

If I have a quiet and withdrawn player with a bard built to crush social situations and a boisterous charismatic player with a barbarian who dumped int and cha, I'm not going to facilitate him using his innate gifts to try and shmooze through a situation his character isn't equipped for. If he tries to smooth-talk his way past the guard I'll let him do it and ask for a roll, and if/when he fails I'll say "Sorry Mark, while Gurther thought he was being smooth what actually came out was something along the lines of 'Me think pretty face for eat long time hurr hurr!'. The guard seems even more set on barring your entrance than before. Sarah, would Jakobi Silvertongue like to take a crack at this?"

If someone knows that their adventure will involve a lot of shipboard travel and they don't invest in Swim and run around in heavy armor, I'm not going to place magical dolphins into the encounter just to protect them from their own foolishness. Drowning is the natural consequence of that choice and a mature player will realize his mistake and come back with a character who can swim and isn't walking around wearing an anchor for protection.


DrDeth wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:
blahpers wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
I really don't know what to say to people who elect to sit out of large chunks of the game. Especially when the Slayer, Barbarian, Paladin, etc. can fulfill the "I wanna kill something" need while still contributing in ways other than straight DPR.
I have never felt the need to do so. In fact, if a player feels the need to do so, I'd say the GM is failing at the job.
If you made a gimped character that is your fault. The GM has no obligation to tailor eveyrthing just for your fighter with no skills and no abilities that do not revolve around "hit with a stick"
True. But if the rest of the party are happy taking over when it's time for social skills, etc and you are OK waiting for combat- and so you are HAVING FUN, what is wrong with that?

Bad Will saves, to start.


DrDeth wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:
blahpers wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
I really don't know what to say to people who elect to sit out of large chunks of the game. Especially when the Slayer, Barbarian, Paladin, etc. can fulfill the "I wanna kill something" need while still contributing in ways other than straight DPR.
I have never felt the need to do so. In fact, if a player feels the need to do so, I'd say the GM is failing at the job.
If you made a gimped character that is your fault. The GM has no obligation to tailor eveyrthing just for your fighter with no skills and no abilities that do not revolve around "hit with a stick"
True. But if the rest of the party are happy taking over when it's time for social skills, etc and you are OK waiting for combat- and so you are HAVING FUN, what is wrong with that?

Bad Will saves that prevent you from reaching targets and the fact that other classes are as good or better than the Fighter at its job without compromising utility.


Secret Wizard wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:
blahpers wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
I really don't know what to say to people who elect to sit out of large chunks of the game. Especially when the Slayer, Barbarian, Paladin, etc. can fulfill the "I wanna kill something" need while still contributing in ways other than straight DPR.
I have never felt the need to do so. In fact, if a player feels the need to do so, I'd say the GM is failing at the job.
If you made a gimped character that is your fault. The GM has no obligation to tailor eveyrthing just for your fighter with no skills and no abilities that do not revolve around "hit with a stick"
True. But if the rest of the party are happy taking over when it's time for social skills, etc and you are OK waiting for combat- and so you are HAVING FUN, what is wrong with that?
Bad Will saves, to start.

Recently played with a level 11 rogue who had a will save of +4.

He spent more time attacking the party than anything else. Encounters were easier when he wasn't conscious.

(eventually he decided to just attack the party anyways, will save be damned. Hey he was having FUN right? That's all that matters right?)

Paizo Employee Design Manager

2 people marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:


I had a PC in early 3rd ed: Frederick, Viscount Stanley.

Decent CHA, but the rest of the stats were boring, with a lowish wis. Took levels in Aristocrat- only. Based in Greyhawk. His Dad was a filthy rich merchant-Squire who bought his son the Title.

Hella of a fun PC. Now mind you, this was mostly social and puzzle solving but we did visit the Cairn Hills, etc. Since Stanley was filthy rich he could buy the best weapons & armor and help his new friends. His title and connections helped with the Guards, got us into places etc.

In Star Wars SE we almost never had a party that didn't include a Noble of some kind with the traits that gave them tons of cash when they leveled up and connections across half the galaxy. Sure, they couldn't shoot for s&!@, but no one expected them to. They were there to bankroll the adventure and smooth out any unfortunate misunderstandings that arose between us and the local authorities while we were busy being heroes.

That's why this roll v. role nonsense is so stupid. A good player should know how to blend the two together seamlessly, choosing mechanics that complement his intended role and accepting whatever weaknesses come along with it.

Edit: To elaborate on that last part a bit, being part of a party means both having a role to play and being able to do so competently. When I say "accepting ... weaknesses" I'm not saying you should build a s&**ty character and expect to be accomodated because you built a s!~+ty character, I'm saying that you should build a character that is good at its intended role and not expect the GM to throw you softballs when it's time for the stuff you're not good at.


Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:
blahpers wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
I really don't know what to say to people who elect to sit out of large chunks of the game. Especially when the Slayer, Barbarian, Paladin, etc. can fulfill the "I wanna kill something" need while still contributing in ways other than straight DPR.
I have never felt the need to do so. In fact, if a player feels the need to do so, I'd say the GM is failing at the job.
If you made a gimped character that is your fault. The GM has no obligation to tailor eveyrthing just for your fighter with no skills and no abilities that do not revolve around "hit with a stick"
True. But if the rest of the party are happy taking over when it's time for social skills, etc and you are OK waiting for combat- and so you are HAVING FUN, what is wrong with that?
Bad Will saves, to start.

Recently played with a level 11 rogue who had a will save of +4.

He spent more time attacking the party than anything else. Encounters were easier when he wasn't conscious.

(eventually he decided to just attack the party anyways, will save be damned. Hey he was having FUN right? That's all that matters right?)

Eh... that sounds a little wrong for htat player. If that player is taking away everyone elses fun by not being a team player, then he needs to be talked to..


Secret Wizard wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:
blahpers wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
I really don't know what to say to people who elect to sit out of large chunks of the game. Especially when the Slayer, Barbarian, Paladin, etc. can fulfill the "I wanna kill something" need while still contributing in ways other than straight DPR.
I have never felt the need to do so. In fact, if a player feels the need to do so, I'd say the GM is failing at the job.
If you made a gimped character that is your fault. The GM has no obligation to tailor eveyrthing just for your fighter with no skills and no abilities that do not revolve around "hit with a stick"
True. But if the rest of the party are happy taking over when it's time for social skills, etc and you are OK waiting for combat- and so you are HAVING FUN, what is wrong with that?
Bad Will saves, to start.

Why would I Have Bad will saves? Wis of 12, Iron Will, Indomitable Faith, ( and some magic items as usual) ...until you hit very high levels just that small investment gives you the same Will as a class with Good Will saves. One feat, big deal.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:

Recently played with a level 11 rogue who had a will save of +4.

He spent more time attacking the party than anything else. Encounters were easier when he wasn't conscious.

(eventually he decided to just attack the party anyways, will save be damned. Hey he was having FUN right? That's all that matters right?)

I had a player whose low WIS, no Superstition Barbarian was responsible for more party deaths than any enemy they faced.

One day when he failed a will save he looked at me and said "Mike, why are you doing this?" and I replied "I'm not doing it Steve, you are. Roll to hit."

Since that campaign, Steve knows not to dump WIS and to shore up his will if it's a weak save.


K177Y C47 wrote:

^^^ Pretty much that...

Honestly the rogue has NO justification anymore... There is no trope you can do with the rogue that the Bard/Investigator/Ranger/Slayer/Alchemist/monk does not do better...

Disarm traps, especially the magical ones?


Eric Hinkle wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:

^^^ Pretty much that...

Honestly the rogue has NO justification anymore... There is no trope you can do with the rogue that the Bard/Investigator/Ranger/Slayer/Alchemist/monk does not do better...

Disarm traps, especially the magical ones?

Except many (if not all) of them gain trapfinding from Archetypes...

And not to mention ANYONE can disable conventional traps, even without trapfinding.

Additionally, traps are usually a VERY minor part of the game. Most traps that can be solves with "trapfinding" are the boring "Roll perception... roll disable... ok moving on" types of traps. The cool big traps tend to be more "roleplay" traps that don't require the ability to disable traps...

And finally, there is a trait that grants trapfinding...

So yeah... no justification beyond lack of understanding of the game (i.e. don't realize that classes like the Investigator and the slayer exist... like a CRB only game) or inflexibility in fluff of classes (i.e. "rangers must be woodsy guys who switch hit and have giant panthers" mentality)


Eric Hinkle wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:

^^^ Pretty much that...

Honestly the rogue has NO justification anymore... There is no trope you can do with the rogue that the Bard/Investigator/Ranger/Slayer/Alchemist/monk does not do better...

Disarm traps, especially the magical ones?

Investigators do that now.

---edit: oh, and it is also a slayer talent if you prefer slayer to investigator.


cnetarian wrote:
Eric Hinkle wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:

^^^ Pretty much that...

Honestly the rogue has NO justification anymore... There is no trope you can do with the rogue that the Bard/Investigator/Ranger/Slayer/Alchemist/monk does not do better...

Disarm traps, especially the magical ones?

Investigators do that now.

---edit: oh, and it is also a slayer talent if you prefer slayer to investigator.

Or the Crypt Breaker Alchemist

Or the Archeologist bard

or the Trapper ranger (i believe that is the one)...

Liberty's Edge

Eric Hinkle wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:

^^^ Pretty much that...

Honestly the rogue has NO justification anymore... There is no trope you can do with the rogue that the Bard/Investigator/Ranger/Slayer/Alchemist/monk does not do better...

Disarm traps, especially the magical ones?

As K177Y C47 notes, all those classes can do that with the right Archetype. Slayers and Investigators don't even need an Archetype.

Heck, Investigators don't even need to spend resources of any sort, they just all start with Trapfinding just like Rogues do (I think an archetype or two trades it away...but unlike the Rogue archetypes that do that, they aren't the really good archetypes).


DrDeth wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:
blahpers wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
I really don't know what to say to people who elect to sit out of large chunks of the game. Especially when the Slayer, Barbarian, Paladin, etc. can fulfill the "I wanna kill something" need while still contributing in ways other than straight DPR.
I have never felt the need to do so. In fact, if a player feels the need to do so, I'd say the GM is failing at the job.
If you made a gimped character that is your fault. The GM has no obligation to tailor eveyrthing just for your fighter with no skills and no abilities that do not revolve around "hit with a stick"
True. But if the rest of the party are happy taking over when it's time for social skills, etc and you are OK waiting for combat- and so you are HAVING FUN, what is wrong with that?
Bad Will saves, to start.
Why would I Have Bad will saves? Wis of 12, Iron Will, Indomitable Faith, ( and some magic items as usual) ...until you hit very high levels just that small investment gives you the same Will as a class with Good Will saves. One feat, big deal.

Exactly, it is all about how you build it. It doesn't take too much to a martial character with a will save that can beat a caster cleric early on (a lot of the stuff I use is front loaded, like traits, base stats, and race) and still match up to a wizard that hasn't made similar investments.

I tend to pick half-elves or half-orcs for this stuff, admittedly (+2 to will or a +1 to all? Fantastic). Of course, I am also kind of a sucker for the mythic quality it adds to a character to have them stand between two worlds.

It only gets repetitive if you only use the Tolkien versions of the non-human races. Paizo put out plenty of nonstandard versions spread across the setting, as can be seen in Bastard of Golarion. The deserts particularly seem interesting, since you have the descendants of the wild elves of Mwangi Empire (who have a similar backstory to drow in setting it seems, where they actually stuck around for Earthfall, if that tells you anything) and Half-orcs who were isolated from the prejudice that leads many of their kind to 'angry tough guys with short tempers'.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Sure Archetypes of other classes have Trapfinding. Few have Trap Spotter, which depending on your DM, can be an absolute "must have".

But once we're comparing archetypes, to keep it apples to apples, we have rogues who can use a sap with crazy damage, rogues who get sneak attack every time they charge or even just move, rogues with Ki abilities that duplicate spells- but often as a Su rather than a Sp ability, rogues who can sneak attack from across the room, rogues who can pass through walls, walk on air and so forth. (Ninja is a rogue archetype, btw, but a special sort)

No doubt, a archaeologist Bard is a cool option- some people would prefer spells to sneak attack and performing to sneakyness. Others don't. Both now have a CHOICE.

Just because another class can fill a niche does not mean the original niche holder is now obsolete. The Oracle did not make the Cleric obsolete. The Sorcerer did not take the Wizard out. PF is not a game with "niche protection", it is a game with OPTIONS.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
Sure Archetypes of other classes have Trapfinding. Few have Trap Spotter, which depending on your DM, can be an absolute "must have".

Investigators do, though. As do Slayers. And Archaeologist Bards. That's two base classes and an Archetype.

DrDeth wrote:
But once we're comparing archetypes, to keep it apples to apples, we have rogues who can use a sap with crazy damage, rogues who get sneak attack every time they charge or even just move, rogues with Ki abilities that duplicate spells- but often as a Su rather than a Sp ability, rogues who can sneak attack from across the room, rogues who can pass through walls, walk on air and so forth. (Ninja is a rogue archetype, btw, but a special sort)

This is fair to some degree...but the baseline Investigator has Trapfinding and can grab Trap Spotter, and can do basically all of this stuff you list with Extracts, which are also Su not Sp (well not sneak attack stuff, he's good at combat in a different way).

And baseline Slayer can also have both Trapfinding and Trap Spotter and get a lot of these options with Archetypes or Talents as well...including most of the Sneak Attack ones.

DrDeth wrote:
No doubt, a archaeologist Bard is a cool option- some people would prefer spells to sneak attack and performing to sneakyness. Others don't. Both now have a CHOICE.

Archaeologist Bards don't actually perform, and is supposed to be quite sneaky. :)

But yeah, there's a definite place for a non-spellcasting sneaky guy...a place now firmly held by the Slayer.

DrDeth wrote:
Just because another class can fill a niche does not mean the original niche holder is now obsolete. The Oracle did not make the Cleric obsolete. The Sorcerer did not take the Wizard out. PF is not a game with "niche protection", it is a game with OPTIONS.

That's very true in general...but much less so when the new niche holders are unambiguously better at that niche than the older one. Playing a Rogue when you could be an Investigator, Slayer, Trapbreaker Vivisectionist Alchemist, or Archaeologist Bard, is pretty much unambiguously a poor decision these days. One of those options (or one of a few others) can almost certainly be the exact same character thematically, only better mechanically.


Lemmy wrote:
blahpers wrote:
I have never felt that I was "sitting out" of the game when playing a fighter, in combat or out of combat. If you do feel that way, then by definition the GM has failed.

That's not a definition of anything. Not everything is the GM's fault.

If a player makes a character who can't do anything significant in a given situation, then he's the one to blame for feeling left out when that situation comes up.

If that situation is something as common as "being in combat" or "not being in combat", then the player who made a poor decision.

The decision on if game is going to have lot of combat to a lot out of combat or anywhere in between lies solely with the GM. So it's more of an uninformed decision than a poor decision. When I'm starting a new game I inform my player to the level of combat vs non combat. Then if the players focus on too much when I've informed then that truly is a poor decision if they are unhappy about it. If they are happy with that then all is good.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

Deadmanwalking wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Sure Archetypes of other classes have Trapfinding. Few have Trap Spotter, which depending on your DM, can be an absolute "must have".

Investigators do, though. As do Slayers. And Archaeologist Bards. That's two base classes and an Archetype.

Terra Cotta Monks, I believe, get Trap Spotting built directly in to their version of Trapfinding.

Regardless, I do agree that the Rogue has really been kind of hedged out of having anything left to call his own, but Paizo clearly noted that as well. I'm interested to see what they do with Unchained.

I think the Brawler was a really good example of how a mundane character can have some of the versatility and capability normally reserved for spellcasters, so I'd like to see them bottle some of that magic and apply it to the Rogue.


DrDeth wrote:

Just because another class can fill a niche does not mean the original niche holder is now obsolete. The Oracle did not make the Cleric obsolete. The Sorcerer did not take the Wizard out. PF is not a game with "niche protection", it is a game with OPTIONS.

Because the Cleric and Wizard were already pretty strong classes, with a very strong definition of what they are, what they are about and how they go about it.

In Second edition Rogues had a very strong role in the game. In the start of Third, it was still fairly strong, as no one could match it.. yet. But the rogue's role was starting to get on shakey ground.

As more and more time wears on, that definition wore down. The division of what they could and could not do, and what others could and couldn't do.

For the wizard Sorcerer and now arcanist, there is still some pretty heavy dividing lines between the three. Sorcerers have the most spells per day, Wizards can have the next if the take a school and the Arcanist has the least.

Sorcerers have a bloodline and extra feats and things based on these things, They've got some alternate bloodline that NO ONE ELSE can touch. Wizards have schools, and there own personal collection of feats that NO ONE ELSE can touch. Seriously, no one else can touch those feats.

Arcanists have their own unique way of casting spells, allowing them to have both the short term and long term flexibility of the sorc and wizard, even if the amount of spells is kinda low.

The three arcane classes have very strong lines that they don't cross. And thats why they don't go obsolete.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
blahpers wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:
blahpers wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:
... your horrid, combobulated character who has no place in an adventuring party,...
......

Hey... if you made the fighter with a 8 con and low

Str and skill focus (shop owner) t
To represent the old guy who used top p be a solder and owns a store I would say you are out of place and have no place in an adventuring party... your character would make no sense as an adventurer..
Challenge accepted. This is my next character. : D

Lol if u can pull it off hats off to you lol.

Honestly I have found that many(not all mind you) of the people who make characters like that are the self identified "roleplayers"...

Guilty as charged.

See all I am getting is that you don't care enough about the game to invest time and effort into your character builds, or that your roleplaying skills are so limited that you need un-optimized characters to make yourself feel interesting.

To my experience, the more optimized the character the more into the game and story the player is.

NOTE: Making chars inspired from forum debates always ends poorly. Using your personal time with friends to prove people on the interwebs wrong is a good way to waste life-force.

It's none of those things. I care too much about the game to let "must-have" options restrict my character concepts. I create the concept, then choose the features that make the most thematic sense for that concept. Usually, I pick the features that make the most sense for the character at the time that character increases in level; if we've found ourselves crawling through a lot of dungeons, I'm more likely to take character-appropriate abilities that improve my chances of surviving there. If we're stuck in an elven village, I might take a point of Linguistics to represent picking up the local language. If the concept is more introspective than reactive (such as an Iroran monk seeking personal detachment and perfection), then I might plan out a build ahead of time and avoid deviating from it.

My first step when creating a character is "Who is Theres of Ancyre?" This includes a short blurb, character history, relationship map, hopes & dreams, fears, and so on. By the end of this process, I can get into my character's head and stay there.

Second is "What traits, feats, race, and class best represents Step 1's Theres at the time the character's adventure begins?" I choose accordingly. There's a lot of leeway there, especially with feats. If more than one choice is equally viable, I pick whichever seems more fun.

Third is "How will Theres survive in the world?" This is largely a matter of equipment and varies widely depending on the character's background; a clueless, pampered, recently-disowned prince may have some expensive but impractical junk, while a seasoned traveler would have gear for surviving on the road.

Optimization really only comes up inasmuch as it follows naturally from a character's experiences, accomplishments, and personality. Sometimes the character ends up really mechanically powerful, and sometimes it does not. I trust my GM to craft scenarios in which my characters has the opportunity to do well. So far, this has been more than enough to have a great time.


blahpers wrote:

It's none of those things. I care too much about the game to let "must-have" options restrict my character concepts. I create the concept, then choose the features that make the most thematic sense for that concept. Usually, I pick the features that make the most sense for the character at the time that character increases in level; if we've found ourselves crawling through a lot of dungeons, I'm more likely to take character-appropriate abilities that improve my chances of surviving there. If we're stuck in an elven village, I might take a point of Linguistics to represent picking up the local language. If the concept is more introspective than reactive (such as an Iroran monk seeking personal detachment and perfection), then I might plan out a build ahead of time and avoid deviating from it.

My first step when creating a character is "Who is Theres of Ancyre?" This includes a short blurb, character history, relationship map, hopes & dreams, fears, and so on. By the end of this process, I can get into my character's head and stay there.

Second is "What traits, feats, race, and class best represents Step 1's Theres at the time the character's adventure begins?" I choose accordingly. There's a lot of leeway there, especially with feats. If more than one choice is equally viable, I pick whichever seems more fun.

Third is "How will Theres survive in the world?" This is largely a matter of equipment and varies widely depending on the character's background; a clueless, pampered, recently-disowned prince may have some expensive but impractical junk, while a seasoned traveler would have gear for surviving on the road.

Optimization really only comes up inasmuch as it follows naturally from a character's experiences, accomplishments, and personality. Sometimes the character ends up really mechanically powerful, and sometimes it does not. I trust my GM to craft scenarios in which my characters has the opportunity to do well. So far, this has been more than enough to have a great time.

And if that results in a competent character who's player doesn't get indignant about the GM not catering to his or her every flaw then you are doing fine.

If it doesn't result in that, then most likely your imagination is being too limited to include sound mechanics. That is not the sign of good roleplaying.

Not that I am advocating for the meta, I dislike the meta. For example, I think A fighter with 7 int and 7 cha is weaker than the one with ten in both stat. But I also believe the fighter (pre 11) can/should play every aspect of game and not blame the GM if he or she comes up short for combat or social encounters.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:

And if that results in a competent character who's player doesn't get indignant about the GM not catering to his or her every flaw then you are doing fine.

If it doesn't result in that, then most likely your imagination is being too limited to include sound mechanics. That is not the sign of good roleplaying.

Not that I am advocating for the meta, I dislike the meta. For example, I think A fighter with 7 int and 7 cha is weaker than the one with ten in both stat. But I also believe the fighter (pre 11) can/should play every aspect of game and not blame the GM if he or she comes up short for combat or social encounters.

I can and do all of those things regardless of my character's level of optimization. In fact, I find mechanics largely irrelevant to my ability to have a good time and contribute to other players' fun. But if a game ends up being nothing but a series of combats and skill challenges, then it tends to be a boring game regardless of whether I can "compete" mechanically or sit on the bench for a scene. Conversely, a game that seamlessly integrates mechanics and roleplaying tends to be fun whether I'm an omnipotent archmage or an incompetent boob.

A question about social encounters: In your experiences, how frequently are social encounters resolved primarily via Diplomacy, Bluff, Intimidate, or some spells/abilities/mechanic duplicating or obviating the need for those skills?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Though in terms of obsolete/less attractive, Just because you can have fun with a level one commoner in a game where everyone is level 20 mythic characters doesn't mean that the classes aren't less attractive/Obsolete.

I've had people go off on my explanation of why the mystic theuge kinda sucks (DnD/Pathfinder being an Arms Race mechanically) with them countering that they can roleplay without levels or mechanics or anything at all. In fact, apparently they roleplayed using Starcraft. And thats why Mystic Theuge is a good class and overpowered.

Its a very strange case where they seperated themselves out of all the mechanics, the Rollplay, aspect of DnD/Pathfinder and use Roleplay with no mechanics as not only means of saying the Rollplay was good, but totally works out.

Don't get me wrong, it doesn't have to be Roleplay vs Rollplay. They can play together and blend in, and ideally they should be able to blend together perfectly. But you can't just completely remove Rollplay from the Roleplay and shout out that is why the rollplay is balanced.


blahpers wrote:
A question about social encounters: In your experiences, how frequently are social encounters resolved primarily via Diplomacy, Bluff, Intimidate, or some spells/abilities/mechanic duplicating or obviating the need for those skills?

Interactions? Rarely.

Encounters? At least one of those every time.

My fighters can always intimidate like champs though and they milk that and their strength to do things. Up until like level 11, where that stuff becomes less and less relevant to utility.

Generally I go for the tywin lannister method of just stating facts at the person that may or may not change their actions. But if I want to schmooze someone over or convince them of a lie that requires a check.

Although I am beginning to find that talking isn't the only out of combat activity that is important.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The question of roleplayability in these scenarios always confused me, because how well you can roleplay a concept is literally entirely separate from whether or not a class is made obsolete by another.

There's literally zero connection between the two.


anlashok wrote:

The question of roleplayability in these scenarios always confused me, because how well you can roleplay a concept is literally entirely separate from whether or not a class is made obsolete by another.

There's literally zero connection between the two.

Nothing is entirely separate, but yeah, we have kind of derailed a bit.

If you're looking from a purely mechanical perspective, I can see how rogue would seem obsolete--its traditional strengths are neatly distributed and improved upon amongst investigator, slayer, and to some extent swashbuckler, with the former two not really having any mechanical disadvantages compared to the rogue unless you like some of the more esoteric rogue talents. For that reason, I'm not a fan of those classes, as I feel they didn't really fill a new niche and instead just crept the power up.

Similarly, built properly, arcanist and exploiter wizard have pretty much trumped other wizards and sorcerer completely. Again, I'm not a fan of these--the arcanist doesn't even pretend to fill a new niche. Don't get me wrong: I actually prefer the arcanist mechanics; I just don't like them in the same system as wizard and sorcerer.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
blahpers wrote:

Nothing is entirely separate, but yeah, we have kind of derailed a bit.

If you're looking from a purely mechanical perspective, I can see how rogue would seem obsolete

The problem is that "From a mechanical perspective" is the only perspective that matters here. Ultimately the 'rogue' in the class section of a character sheet has no meaning from a roleplaying standpoint, and if two classes accomplish the same goal and one does it clearly better, roleplaying has nothing to do with making the worse one better, because roleplaying is ultimately something you invent for yourself.

This isn't "Wizards are better than fighters" so never play a fighter either, because we're talking about classes that cover the same niche.

Quote:
For that reason, I'm not a fan of those classes, as I feel they didn't really fill a new niche and instead just crept the power up.

Not sure that's fair to say given that both cover near ground conceptually and even where they do beat the rogue it was in areas the rogue already naturally struggled with. So even if we do take the premise "creeping up the power" to simply bring things toward baseline doesn't seem like a bad trade.

151 to 200 of 347 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Are the older melee classes getting less attractive / obsolete? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.